DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21) Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles Detailed review of implementation of the Rio Principles December 2011 DRAFT Study prepared by the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future Acknowledgements This study is part of the Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21) project. The project is implemented by the Division for Sustainable Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and funded by the European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment - Thematic Programme for Environment and sustainable management of Natural Resources, including energy (ENRTP). Support from the European Commission is gratefully acknowledged. The study was done by Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future (SF), under the supervision of David Le Blanc (UN-DESA). Within SF, Nicholas Allen, Jack Cornforth, Amy Cutter, Maliha Muzammil, Kirsty Schneeberger, Hannah Stoddart, and Farooq Ullah participated in the editorial team. Outside contributors on individual chapters of the report were Margaret Araujo Dantas, Isabel Bottoms, Robert Clews, Beth Harrison, Ian Fenn, Paul Heigl, Emma Mullins, Emma Norris, Nicola Peart, Andrew Shaw, and Sara Svensson. Claire Fellini (UN-DESA) prepared the manuscript. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the United nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. ii Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Principle 1.................................................................................................... 5 Principle 2.................................................................................................. 16 Principle 3.................................................................................................. 24 Principle 4.................................................................................................. 42 Principle 5.................................................................................................. 49 Principle 6.................................................................................................. 58 Principle 7.................................................................................................. 73 Principle 8.................................................................................................. 79 Principle 9.................................................................................................. 86 Principle 10................................................................................................ 94 Principle 11.............................................................................................. 104 Principle 12.............................................................................................. 109 Principle 13.............................................................................................. 115 Principle 14.............................................................................................. 122 Principle 15.............................................................................................. 129 Principle 16.............................................................................................. 138 Principle 17.............................................................................................. 147 Principle 18.............................................................................................. 157 Principle 19.............................................................................................. 167 Principle 20.............................................................................................. 176 Principle 21.............................................................................................. 185 Principle 22.............................................................................................. 193 Principle 23.............................................................................................. 203 Principle 24.............................................................................................. 210 Principle 25.............................................................................................. 215 Principle 26.............................................................................................. 223 Principle 27.............................................................................................. 229 iii Introduction This report is one of three companion reports produced under the first study of the “Sustainable development in the 21st century” (SD21) project, an undertaking of the Division for Sustainable Development of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The overarching objective of the SD21 project is to construct a coherent vision of sustainable development in the 21st century. The project, funded by the European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment, aims to provide a high quality analytical input to the Rio+20 conference. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), which will gather UN member states and other stakeholders in Brazil in 2012, is a key occasion to take stock of 20 years of action at all levels to promote sustainable development, and to provide a clear vision and way forward for the international community, national governments, partnerships and other stakeholders in implementing the sustainable development agenda in an integrated manner. The SD21 project is built around a series of studies that will inform a synthesis report, “Sustainable development in the 21st century” (SD21). The SD21 body of studies is expected to become an important analytical and political contribution in its own right. Studies under the SD21 project will cover the following topics: assessment of progress since the Earth Summit; emerging issues ; long-term sustainable development scenarios; tools for managing sustainable economies; national and international institutions for sustainable development; and sector assessments. Implementation of Agenda 21 and progress in implementation of the Rio principles Twenty years after the Rio summit, this first study aims to provide an assessment of the progress and gaps made in the implementation of some of the Rio outcomes, specifically, Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles. The study comprises of three outputs: • Detailed review of progress in implementation of the Rio Principles • Detailed review of implementation of Agenda 21 • Synthesis report on implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles. 1 Implementation of the Rio Principles The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by 178 Member States in 1992 at the Earth Summit, was at the time perceived as a progressive statement by all nations that enshrined the recognition of the indivisibility of the fate of mankind from that of the Earth, and established sustainable development in international law. The Declaration, a compact set of 27 principles, promoted principles such as the centrality of human beings to the concerns of sustainable development (Principle 1); the primacy of poverty eradication (Principle 5); the importance of the environment for current and future generations and its equal footing with development (Principles 3 and 4); the special consideration given to developing countries (Principle 6); the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR, Principle 7). It also enshrined the two critical economic principles of polluter pays (Principle 16) and precautionary approach (Principle 15). It introduced principles relating to participation and the importance of specific groups for sustainable development (Principles 10, 20, 21, 22). Lastly, it requested Member states to put in place adequate legislative instruments to address environmental issues. A review of the Rio principles was conducted by the UN Division for Sustainable Development for the 5th session of CSD in 1997 (“Rio+5”). Some of the principles have given rise to considerable amount of literature. While the underlying causes for the success of specific principles may be understood by experts in various fields of international law and sustainable development, a short and simple but all-encompassing summary seems to be missing. Yet, understanding why some of the principles have not succeeded in passing the test of inclusion in international and national law, or at least become the basis for accepted normal practices is critical to furthering sustainable development. This study provides a systematic assessment of the state of implementation of the 27 Rio Principles; based on this individual assessment, it will also provide a general assessment and distil some lessons for further progress. The reader is invited to access the two other reports produced under this study, namely the detailed review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the synthesis report on implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles. Methodology The Division for Sustainable Development commissioned Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future (SF) to undertake this review
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Confronting Remote Ownership Problems with Ecological Law
    CONFRONTING REMOTE OWNERSHIP PROBLEMS WITH ECOLOGICAL LAW Geoffrey Garver* ABSTRACT ThomasBerry’s powerfulappeal foramutually enhancing human- Earthrelationshipfaces many challengesdue to theecological crisis that is co-identifiedwith dominant growth-insistenteconomic,political, andlegal systemsacrossthe world. Thedomains of environmental history, ecological restoration, and eco-culturalrestoration, as well as studies by Elinor Ostrom and othersofsustainableuse of commonpool resources,provide insightsonthe necessary conditions foramutually enhancing human-Earth relationship. Atheme commontothesedomains is theneed forintimate knowledgeofand connectiontoplace that requiresalong-standing commitment of people to theecosystems that sustainthem.Remoteprivate ownership—oftenbylarge and politically powerful multinational corporations financed by investorsseeking thehighest possiblereturns and lacking knowledgeorinterestinthe places and people they harm—is deeplyengrained in theglobal economic system.The historical rootsof remote ownership and controlgoback to territorial extensification associated with thesharpriseofcolonialismand long-distancetradeinthe earlymodernera.Yet remote owners’and investors’ detachment from place poses an enormous challenge in thequest foramutually enhancing human-Earthrelationship. ThisEssaypresents an analysis of how contemporary environmental lawundergirds theremoteownershipproblem and of how limits-insistentecological lawcouldprovide solutions. ABSTRACT..................................................................................................425
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition of the Khojaly Genocide at the ICO
    Administrative Department of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan P R E S I D E N T I A L L I B R A R Y ────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Recognition of the Genocide of Khojaly The member of the US California Assembly recognizes Khojaly Massacre (March 25, 2009) ............................................................................................................................................... 4 The recognition of the Khojaly Genocide at the ICO ............................................................... 5 Massachusetts State of the United States recognizes Khojaly tragedy as a massacre (February 25, 2010) ...................................................................................................................... 7 Recognition of the Khojaly genocide by Pakistan ..................................................................... 8 Recognition of the Khojaly massacre in Mexico ........................................................................ 9 The resolution adopted by the Senate of Mexico (October 27, 2011) .................................... 10 The resolution adopted by the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico (November 30, 2011) ....... 13 Khojaly to be recognized as Genocide in International level: representatives of the Parliaments of 51 States adopts the relevant resolution (January 31, 2012) ........................ 18 Texas House of Representatives passes resolution on Khojaly genocide (February 21, 2012) .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Revival of Bicameralism
    The Strange Revival of Bicameralism Coakley, J. (2014). The Strange Revival of Bicameralism. Journal of Legislative Studies, 20(4), 542-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 Published in: Journal of Legislative Studies Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2014 Taylor & Francis. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:01. Oct. 2021 Published in Journal of Legislative Studies , 20 (4) 2014, pp. 542-572; doi: 10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 THE STRANGE REVIVAL OF BICAMERALISM John Coakley School of Politics and International Relations University College Dublin School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Queen’s University Belfast [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a surprising reversal of the long-observed trend towards the disappearance of second chambers in unitary states, with 25 countries— all but one of them unitary—adopting the bicameral system.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Issue 2 2013
    VOLUME 5 ISSUE 2 2013 ISSN: 2036-5438 VOL. 5, ISSUE 2, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL ISSUE Regional Parliaments in the European Union: A comparison between Italy and Spain Edited by Josep M. Castellà Andreu, Eduardo Gianfrancesco, Nicola Lupo and Anna Mastromarino ESSAYS National and Regional Parliaments in the EU decision-making process, after the The Relationship between State and Treaty of Lisbon and the Euro-crisis Regional Legislatures, Starting from the NICOLA LUPO E- 1-28 Early Warning Mechanism CRISTINA FASONE E-122-155 Spanish Autonomous Communities and EU policies State accountability for violations of EU law AGUSTÍN RUIZ ROBLEDO E- 29-50 by Regions: infringement proceedings and the right of recourse The scrutiny of the principle of subsidiarity CRISTINA BERTOLINO E-156-177 by autonomous regional parliaments with particular reference to the participation of the Parliament of Catalonia in the early warning system ESTHER MARTÍN NÚÑEZ E- 51-73 Early warning and regional parliaments: in search of a new model. Suggestions from the Basque experience JOSU OSÉS ABANDO E- 74-88 The evolving role of the Italian Conference system in representing regional interest in EU decision-making ELENA GRIGLIO E- 89-121 ISSN: 2036-5438 National and Regional Parliaments in the EU decision-making process, after the Treaty of Lisbon and the Euro-crisis by Nicola Lupo Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, issue 2, 2013 Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E - 1 Abstract The Treaty of Lisbon increased the role of National and Regional Parliaments in the EU decision-making process, in order to compensate for some of the weaknesses of the European institutional architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide for the Rights of Nature Proposal Prepared by Rev
    Study Guide for The Rights of Nature Proposal Prepared by Rev. Dr. Bob Shore-Goss [email protected] "We are talking only to ourselves. We are not talking to the rivers, we are not listening to the wind and stars. We have broken the great conversation. By breaking that conversation we have shattered the universe. All the disasters that are happening now are a consequence of that spiritual 'autism.'" ~ Thomas Berry Summary: Pope Francis claims, “A true ‘right of the environment’ does exist.” There has been an international movement for the Rights of Nature in the last several decades. For the proposal before you, this serves as a brief study guide of the background. The proposal attempts to link the UCC with this movement that includes environmentalists, environmental Christian ethicists, indigenous peoples worldwide, international organizations that produced the Earth Charter, the Charter of Compassion, and the Parliament of World Religions. No Christian denomination (no world religion, outside indigenous spiritualities) have adopted a statement of faith and prophetic witness that explicitly claims Rights for Nature. There have lists of such rights by Stillheart Declaration and individual Christian ethicists. That is the last section of this study guide. Individual Christian liberation theologians such as the Brazilian Leonardo Boff, Sallie McFague, Thomas Berry, and others have recognize our human responsibility to notion of distributive justice (a fair share of Earth resources and goods for humanity, the more than human life, and bio-regions, and the Earth herself) to nature, living in a wholesome environment, eating well, enjoying a living space, sharing equitably and co-living with Nature, and ultimately respecting the intimate connection of human and the Earth community of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21St Century
    Serving Scotland Better: Better: Scotland Serving Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century Final Report – June 2009 Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century 21st the in Kingdom United the and Scotland Commission on Scottish Devolution Secretariat 1 Melville Crescent Edinburgh EH3 7HW 2009 June – Report Final Tel: (020) 7270 6759 or (0131) 244 9073 Email: [email protected] This Report is also available online at: www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk © Produced by the Commission on Scottish Devolution 75% Printed on paper consisting of 75% recycled waste Presented to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, June 2009 Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century | Final Report – June 2009 Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century It was a privilege to be asked to chair a Commission to consider how the Scottish Parliament could serve the people of Scotland better. It is a task that has taken just over a year and seen my colleagues and me travelling the length and breadth of Scotland. It has been very hard work – but also very rewarding. Many of the issues are complex, but at the heart of this is our desire to find ways to help improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The reward has been in meeting so many people and discussing the issues with them – at formal evidence sessions, at informal meetings, and at engagement events across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • “Rights for the Earth” Towards New International Standards
    “RIGHTS FOR THE EARTH” TOWARDS NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS From November 30th to December 11th, during the COP21 (UN Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties of 2015) in Paris, the world’s nations will reach new agreements on climate change. The major challenge with these negotiations rounds would be the achievement of sufficiently binding commitment to ensure a sustainable living planet. Addressing the global climate complexity requires a moral and legal responsibility that should go beyond the mere “declaration of intentions”. It is necessary to construct a social pact for coexistence of a global governance regime and an international legal framework whose pillars are safeguarding biodiversity and respecting ecosystems’ dynamics, on which humanity depends for survival and well-being. All over the world, initiatives presenting a systemic solution to climate change and the current state of the planet by adapting public international law and criminal law are growing. Whatever may be the approaches or legal tools (Earth Laws, Rights of Nature, Rights of Future generations, fundamental human right to live in a healthy environment, criminal recognition of environmental crimes, ecocides crimes, Global Commons) they all seem to agree in a new socio-ecosystemic perspective, acknowledging that humans are inalienable parts of Nature and their actions not only have consequences over their environment, but also for their own well-being. This growing convergence of initiatives is an historic expression of public will at supranational level to control the way of how norms are defined in the case of major damage to the environment. The meeting of two international stakeholders: the coalition “The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature” (GARN) and the citizens’ movement “End Ecocide on Earth” (EEE) for the COP21, coming from different fields of law, having both accomplished amazing results on their continents, will be the symbol of this convergence; Seeking to implement a range of actions whose aim is to show the complementarity and necessity of their approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland and the Isle of Man, C.1400-1625 : Noble Power and Royal Presumption in the Northern Irish Sea Province
    University of Huddersfield Repository Thornton, Tim Scotland and the Isle of Man, c.1400-1625 : noble power and royal presumption in the Northern Irish Sea province Original Citation Thornton, Tim (1998) Scotland and the Isle of Man, c.1400-1625 : noble power and royal presumption in the Northern Irish Sea province. Scottish Historical Review, 77 (1). pp. 1-30. ISSN 0036-9241 This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/4136/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ The Scottish Historical Review, Volume LXXVII, 1: No. 203: April 1998, 1-30 TIM THORNTON Scotland and the Isle of Man, c.1400-1625: Noble Power and Royal Presumption in the Northern Irish Sea Province One of the major trends in Western European historiography in the last twenty years has been a fascination with territorial expansion and with the consolidation of the nascent national states of the late medieval and early modern period.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Modern Law and Local Tradition in Forest Heritage
    PhD Thesis Modern Law and Local Tradition in Forest Heritage Conservation in Cameroon: The Case of Korup A thesis approved by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Process Engineering at the Brandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the academic degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Environmental Sciences by Master of Arts Terence Onang Egute from Oshie, Momo Division, Northwest Region, Cameroon Supervisor: Prof. Dr. iur. Eike Albrecht Department of Civil and Public Law with References to the Law of Europe and the Environment, BTU Cottbus, Germany Supervisor: Prof. Dr. hab. Konrad Nowacki Department of Environmental Law and Comparative Administrative Law, University of Wroclaw, Poland Day of the oral examination: 26.11.2012 DOKTORARBEIT Modernes Recht und Lokale Traditionen bei der Erhaltung des Walderbes in Kamerun: Eine Fallstudie über Korup Von der Fakultät für Umweltwissenschaften und Verfahrenstechnik der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität Cottbus genehmigte Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie (Ph.D.) in Umweltwissenschaften vorgelegt von Master of Arts Terence Onang Egute aus Oshie, Momo Division, Northwest Region, Kamerun Gutachter: Prof. Dr. iur. Eike Albrecht Lehrstuhl Zivil- und Öffentliches Recht mit Bezügen zum Umwelt- und Europarecht der BTU Cottbus, Deutschland Gutachter: Prof. Dr. hab. Konrad Nowacki Lehrstuhl Umweltrecht und Vergleichendes Verwaltungsrecht der Universität Wroclaw, Polen Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 26.11.2012 Modern Law and Local Tradition in Forest Heritage Conservation in Cameroon: The Case of Korup Declaration I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my original research carried out at the Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, Germany within the framework of the doctorate programme Environmental and Resource Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Other Parliaments
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Learning from other parliaments Study Program 2006 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure August 2006 © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 ISBN 0 642 78826 X (printed version) ISBN 0 642 78827 8 (HTML version) Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................................vii Participants..............................................................................................................................................viii 1 Overview of visit ..................................................................................................... 1 Background.....................................................................................................................................1 The program....................................................................................................................................2 Major themes...................................................................................................................................3 Overview Conclusion.....................................................................................................................4 2 Themes and issues................................................................................................. 5 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • CPA Learning System for Professional Development
    CPA Learning System for Professional Development Module on Parliamentary Democracy COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION in association with Athabasca University a Course Team Author: David Stewart, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Course Team Managers: ąMalinda S. Smith, Athabasca University and ąDavid McNeil, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Alberta Branch Course Team: David Stewart, Malinda S. Smith, David McNeil, Alvin Finkel, ąMicheline Gravel, Patrick Guiton, Sandra Rein Library and Internet Resources: Sandra Perry, Vivianne Fagnan, ąWolfgang Maul, Heather Close Managing Editor: Erna Dominey Visual Presentation: Athabasca University Typesetting Unit Visual Design: Margaret Anderson Project Coordinator: Raja Gomez ISBN 0Ć919737Ć51ĆX Every effort has been taken to ensure that these materials comply with the requirements of copyright clearances and appropriate credits. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Athabasca University will attempt to incorporate in future printings any corrections which are communicated to it. The inclusion of any material in this publication is strictly in accord with the consents obtained. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Athabasca University do not authorize or license any further reproduction or use without the consent of the copyright holders. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Athabasca University 2001 All rights reserved Expert Group on Professional Development of Parliamentarians Hon. Hector McClean, MP Speaker of the House of Representatives, Trinidad
    [Show full text]
  • LINDA SHEEHAN Executive Director, Earth Law Center P.O
    LINDA SHEEHAN Executive Director, Earth Law Center P.O. Box 610044, Redwood City, CA 94061 [email protected] ▪ 510-219-7730 (cell) EDUCATION Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, J.D. 1991 First Prize, Ellis J. Harmon Environmental Law Writing Competition, “The EEC's Proposed Directive on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Waste: Taking Over When Prevention Fails,” 18 Ecol. Law Q. 405 (1991) Associate Editor, Ecology Law Quarterly; Prosser Prize, Land Use Law Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, M.P.P. 1990 Genevieve McEnerney Fellowship; Berkeley Policy Fellow Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1985 Minor in Economics First Place, 1985 American Institute of Chemical Engineering, Student Chapter, New England Technical Speaking Competition: “Treatment of Heavy Metals in Battery Manufacturing Wastewater” PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Earth Law Center, Redwood City, CA Executive Director, 2011-present Takes action to advance the rights and abilities of Earth’s ecosystems and inhabitants to flourish, thrive and evolve, consistent with ELC’s mission. Responsibilities include all aspects of day-to-day operations and budget oversight, staff management, fundraising, and program initiatives. Develops and implements strategies including education, outreach, research and advocacy to advance Earth Law Center positions. Drafts and presents oral and written reports, testimony, comments and presentations. Oversees the development and implementation of communication strategies to government officials, agencies, organizations, and the general public to advance legal rights for ecosystems. Builds collaborations and partnerships in support of legal rights for ecosystems and Earth-based governance. Vermont Law School, South Royalton, VT Visiting Professor, July 2012, July 2013, July 2014, July 2015 Developed curriculum for and presented two-credit “Earth Law” course as part of Vermont Law School’s Summer Session; course was certified to meet Vermont Law School’s Ethics/Philosophy requirement.
    [Show full text]