Rio Declaration On Environment and Development: An Assessment

UNCED thus challenged the international community, especially
the North, to review development policies at the domestic and
international levels in the light of the growing environmental crisis
which faces humanity, and as North-South disparities grew.
Accordingly, the Rio Declaration sought “to build upon” Stockholm,
an approach taken by Southern countries. The G77 and China
argued that the development aspects were a progressive movement
forward from Stockholm. The North was concerned that some of the
environmental principles that they strongly endorsed in Stockholm
would be diluted in the process.
Of particular controversy were the right to development, including
the impact of current inequitable economic conditions at the global
level on the national situations of the South, and the call by the G77
and China for a recognition that industrialised countries should bear
the main burden of protecting the global environment since they are
the main causes of the environmental crisis. The United States, Japan
and a few other industrialised countries initially refused to accept
the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” that was
firmly pushed by the South.
The Southern view prevailed on the right to development and on
differentiated responsibility, and these are embodied in Principles 3,
5 and 7. A much weaker and diluted draft of the consumption issue
is found in Principle 8, where the South also had to concede further
by including the population issue in the same principle.
Underlying the Declaration, Agenda 21 and UNCED as a whole
was the concept of ‘sustainable development’. Used widely and
freely, there is little or no agreement on its meaning. The Northern
governments essentially understood the term to mean continuing the
economic growth and status quo in their own societies, while accepting
16