UNIT III / VIth SEMESTER / ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

International Law and Environmental Protection: Sustainable Development – International

conventions in the development of Environmental Laws and its Policy: Stockholm – Rio &
Johannesburg Declaration – Trans boundary Pollution hazards & regulation; Common Law as pects of
Environmental Protection – Criminal Law and environment.

Sustainable Development:
Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles And Values
The well recognized principle of sustainable development for the protection and improvement of
environment has been unanimously accepted by the world countries as a strategy that caters to the
needs of the present without depriving the future generations of their right to available natural
resources. It has been rightly said that sustainable development is meant to secure a balance between
developmental activities for the benefits of the people and environmental protection and therefore, “it
is a guarantee to the present and bequeath to the future generations.” The principle of sustainable
development seeks to harmonise the conflict between development which may be industrial,
economic or social, and right to healthy environment. In other words, the balance between
environmental protection and developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly adhering
to the principle of sustainable development.

Environmental studies have shown that the environment related problems of developed countries are
mainly due to industrial and technological development whereas undeveloped countries have
environmental problems because of poverty, over-population and illiteracy. Undoubtedly,
encouragement and boost to developmental activities is in the socio-economic interest of a nation but
this should not be at the cost of environmental degradation, because this will not only affect the
present generation but have its adverse impact on the future generations. Therefore, sustainable
development is the need of time so that development and environmental protection, both proceed
maintaining a balance.

‘Development’ has been recognized as a human right under Rio- Declaration of 1992. But all the
nations (parties) participating in this summit unanimously agreed that economic or industrial
development should be carried out in a manner that it does not adversely affect the environment
because environmental pollution is a potential danger to human life and in that case, what is the use of
such development? It is for this reason that the principle of sustainable development was evolved in
this world summit for maintaining a balance between development and environment, and it was
realised that both should go hand in hand.

What is Sustainable Development

The principle of sustainable development has evolved on the basic assumption of co-existence of two
apparently conflicting notions i.e. development and environment. But from the practical point of view,
ecological, economic and social aspects of sustainability are inseparable. As William Rees has rightly
pointed out that maintenance of ecological integrity has to be accorded primacy over achievement of
socio-economic human needs, thus there should be a convergence between ecological and economic
factors in the developmental process.

The principle of sustainable development emphasises on two basic needs, firstly, need for socio-
economic development and secondly, need of limitation imposed on the environment's capability to
cope with the present and future requirements.

1
Explaining the inter-dependence of conservation and sustainable development, the Brundtland Report
(1997) said:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their, own needs…. Sustainable development requires
meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better
life.”

Basic objectives of Sustainable Development

The principle of sustainable development seeks to achieve the following three basic objectives:
(1) to maintain production of goods and services for development and efficiency;
(2) conversation and management of neutral resources including preservation of bio-diversity and
maintenance of biological integrity;
(3) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of life adopting the principle of equitable distribution
of wealth and material resources.

These objective may respectively be called as economic, environmental and social objectives of the
principle of sustainable development.
From the environmental point of view, the objective of the principle of sustainable development
centres round three issues, namely, (i) to maintain essential ecological processes, (ii) to preserve
genetic diversity; and (iii) to secure sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems.

Scope of Extent of Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development, as pointed out the chairperson Ms. Brundtland in her report
(popularly called the Brundtland report) is aimed at meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability a future generations to meet their own needs. Commenting on sustainable
development, the Former President of the World Bank James D. Yolkenson observed, “it is for us to
think as to what kind of world we want. Do we want to bequeath a world for our future generation a
poorest world wherein innumerable people die of hunger, climate uncertainty, biodiversity at its
lowest ebb and social conditions most unstable? This observation of Volkenson clearly shows that the
central focus of sustainable development is not confined to the present happiness of the people but it
also expends to safeguarding the interests of the coming generations.

Sustainable development involves a multi-faceted approach i.e. (1) economic, (2) human, (3)
environmental, and (4) technological. It is a process which seeks to bring improvement in the quality
of human life alongwith conservation of the ecological system. Thus, development and environment,
both are inter-dependent and therefore, there cannot be development without protection of
environment, nor can there be conservation of environment without development.

The former U.N. General-Secretary Kofi-Annan had identified five areas for the applicability of the
principle of sustainable development. They are (1) water, (2) health, (3) power and energy, (4)
Agriculture and (5) Bio-diversity.

Former Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi had categorically stated in her address at the
Stockholm Conference, 1972 that water, air, land, soil, plants, trees and living organisms must be
preserved because they are valuable natural resources for the benefit of the future generations.

Salient Principles of Sustainable Development

The principle of sustainable development which received international recognition as a result of
Brundtland Commission Report (1987) was overwhelmingly supported by all the nations. Some of the
salient principles which underlie the concept of sustainable development were spelled out in the Rio
Declaration, 1992 and Agenda 21. Therefore, these principles have got to be necessarily followed in

2
order to achieve the objective of sustainable development. These principles are as follows:
(1) Inter-generational equity;
(2) Use and conservation of natural resources;
(3) Environmental protection;
(4) The precautionary principle;
(5) The ‘Polluter Pays’ principle;
(6) Principle of liability to help and co-operate;
(7) Poverty eradication; and
(8) Principle of ‘public trust’.

(1) Inter-Generational Equity.- The principle of inter-generational equity pre-supposes the right of

each generation of human beings to benefit from cultural and natural resources of the past generation
as well as the ‘obligation’ to preserve such heritage for future generations. The principle emphasises
on conservation of biodiversity resources and of the renewable sources like forests, water, soil etc.

The principle of inter-generational equity has its genesis in Principles 1 and 2 of the Stockholm
Declaration, 1972 wherein environment has been taken to be resource basis for the survival of the
present generation and right to be beneficially used by the future generations. Both these principles
are reproduced as follows:

Principle 1.- Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an
environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations.

Principle 2.- The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna, and
especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the
present and future generations through careful planning and management, as appropriate.

In A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu, the Apex Court observed that where the State
Government makes an attempt to balance the need of the environment and need of the economic
development, it would not be proper to prohibit it from doing so. In such a case, it would be safer to
apply the ‘protective principle’ and the ‘principle of polluter pays’, keeping in mind the principle of
sustainable development and the ‘principle of inter-generational equity!

2. Use And Conservation of Natural Resources - This principle requires that earth's natural
resources should be carefully used in such a way that they may be conserved and enhanced for the
future generation. It must be borne in mind that natural resources are already depleting due to poverty,
over- population, urbanisation, industrialisation etc. and there is likely to be acute shortage of these
resources in future. Therefore, there is dire need to develop techniques and technologies which may
need minimal utilization of natural resources.

The principle of use and conservation of resources is founded on the theory that the present generation
should be modest in their exploitation of natural resources for the benefit of the future generations.
This will secure the conditions of survival for future generations. This principle has been accepted by
the international community in the form of Principles 8 and 23 of the Rio Earth Summit Declaration,
1992.
Principle 8 provides that in order to achieve sustainable development and a high quality of life for all
people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable pattern of production and consumption.
Thus, use and conservation of natural resources should be an essential principle of sustainable
development.

3
Similarly, Principle 23 of the Rio-Declaration (1992) specifically states that the environment and
natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation, shall be protected by all
means.
The Supreme Court applying the principle of careful use and conservation of natural resources,
observed in the case of A. Jagannath v. Union of India, that activities of the industries violative of
this principle and of, environmental legislations must be discouraged.

In Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, the indigenous ivory or ivory articles were
prohibited from being exported as it impugned Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and was also against
the moral claims embodied under Article 48-A of the Constitution and principle of conservation of
natural resources.

3. Environmental Protection
Environmental protection is an integral part of sustainable development. Most of the nations have
enacted environmental protection laws to ensure sustainable development within their territories. In
order to reinforce sustainable development, an effective environmental protection mechanism is
needed. It is generally seen that inadequate protection of environment or its degradation affects the
poorest sections of the society most as they draw a large part of their livelihood from unmarked
environmental resources such as forests, water from hand pumps, air polluted and noisy slum
dwellings etc. The problem of environmental protection generally emanates from water resources,
forests, agriculture, industry, energy and power etc., therefore, policy decisions in these sectors should
be environmental oriented and well planned so as to ensure that there is no degradation in the natural
environment.

So far India is concerned, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is the central legislation. Besides,
there are some other pollution control and prevention laws and States have also framed their own anti-
pollution laws according to their local requirements. The ultimate object is to ensure sustainable
development for protection of environment from being degraded or polluted.

4. Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle seeks to ensure that a substance or human activity which may cause a
threat to the environment is prevented from causing harm to environment, even if there is no
conclusive scientific proof of linking that particular substance or human activity to environmental
damage. Thus, precautionary principle pre-supposes that onus of proof is on the industrialist to show
that his action is benign, that is not harmful to environment.

The precautionary principle in the context of environmental protection is essentially about the
management of scientific risk. It is a component of the concept of ecologically sustainable
development and has been defined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, 1992.” According to this
principle, “where there is threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation." In other words, any human activity or behaviour which bears the harmful effect to the
environment, has got to prevented at all costs.
It may be stated that prior to the precautionary principle as incorporated in Principle 15 of the Rio-
Declaration, 1992, Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration, 1972 relating to the Assimilative
Capacity Principle was the governing rule which provided as under :-
“The discharge of toxic substances or of substances and the release of heat, in such quantities or
concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted
in order to ensure that serious irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystem. The just struggle

4
of the peoples of all countries against pollution should be supported.”

Thus, the assimilative capacity principle assumed that science could provide policy-makers the
information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment to
assimilate impacts and it is presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when
environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such
harm.
The precautionary principle has received legal recognition in almost all the international instruments
and has now become an integral part of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The European
Community has adopted the principle in the Bergen Declaration on Sustainable Development, 1990
and reiterated that environment related actions should predict, prevent and ‘suppress environmentally
harmful factors’.

Beginning with Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the

Supreme Court explicitly recognised the precautionary principle as a principle of Indian

environmental law in a number of subsequent cases. Justice Kuldeep Singh of the Supreme Court in
Vellore Citizens case laid down the following rules with regard to precautionary principle :-
(1) The State Governments and local authorities are supposed to anticipate and then prevent the cause
of environmental degradation. They are supposed to check the activity which is damaging for
environment;
(2) Merely because there is a lack of scientific knowledge as to whether a particular activity is causing
degradation, it should not stand in the way of the Government;
(3) The onus of proof is on the actor (i.e. person who does the activity) or the developer/industrialist
to show that the action was environmentally friendly.
In order to achieve the above, the following precautions are supposed to be taken:
(i) The decision should be based on best possible scientific information and analysis of risk;
(ii) Where there is uncertainty but potentially serious list exists, even then precautionary measures are
supposed to be taken;
(iii) Ecological impacts should be given paramount consideration, more so when resources are non-
renewable or where the result is irreversible;
(iv) The indication of the cost should be made known directly to the person who if does not take
precaution, can be called upon to meet the expense – a subject which may fall under the head
“polluter pays Ii principle.”

In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Apex Court explained that “when there is a
state of uncertainty due to lack of data or material about the extent of damage or pollution likely to be
caused, then in order to maintain ecological balance, the burden of proof that the said balance will be
maintained, must necessarily be on the industry or the unit which is likely to cause pollution.”

5. “Polluter Pays” Principle

All the member countries participating in the Organisation For Economic Co-operation and
Development (O.E.C.D.) agreed to incorporate in their environmental policies the principle of
'polluter pays' so as to discourage subsidies that could be detrimental for trade. They deemed this
necessary for the protection of environment and save the country from threats posed by environmental
pollution in modernised industrial societies. “Polluter Pays” principle was considered to be one of the
best method for prevention of environmental pollution. But there were practical difficulties in
working out an exact definition of the principle as there could be dispute as to the limits on payment
for damages caused and exact scope of the applicability of principle.

Despite these difficulties, the European Community in its Action Programme on Environment had

5
accepted the ‘polluter pays’ principle as a part of its strategy on environmental matters. The principle
Was incorporated in Article 130 R (2) of the action programme which reads as follows :-
(i) Preventive action is always preferable to remedial action;
(ii) Environmental damage should be rectified at source;
(iii) The polluter should pay the costs of the measures taken to protect and preserve the environment;
(iv) environmental policies should be a component of the European Community’s other policies.

Finally, the “polluter pays” principle was recognised as an integral part of the sustainable
development by the international community arid was incorporated as Principle 16 of the Rio
Declaration of Earth Summit, 1992. The principle reads as follows :-
“Principle 16 National authorities should endeavour to promote the internationalisation of
environmental costs and the use of economic instruments taking into account the approach that the
polluter should in principle bear the cost of pollution with due regard to the public interest and
without distorting international trade and investment.”

As a matter of fact, this principle was already accepted and included as Principle 4 of the Stockholm
Declaration in 1972 but it was legally and internationally recognised as a substantive principle of
environmental law under Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, 1992.

The Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v, Kamal Nath, observed that ‘polluter pays principle has been
recognised as fundamental objective of Government's environmental policy to prevent and control
pollution. The Court in this case observed that the calculation of environmental damages should not
be on the basis of claim put forward by the party, but it should be on the basis of examination of the
situation by the Court, keeping in view the factors such as deterrent nature of the award.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed the Central
Government to constitute an authority under Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
and confer on this authority all the powers necessary to deal with the situation created by tanneries
and other polluting industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. The authority so constituted shall implement
the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘Polluter Pays Principle.’

6. Principle of Liability to help and Co-operate

This principle has been specifically incorporated in Rio-Declaration (1992) as Principle 9 which
provides that the States should co-operate to strengthen indigenous capacity building for sustainable
development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological
knowledge and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies
including new and innovative technologies.

Principle 10 of the Rio-Declaration further provides that environmental issues are best handled with
the participation of all concerned citizens at the relevant level. Emphasising the need for mutual
cooperation in environmental matters, Principle 12 requires the States to cooperate to promote a
supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and
sustainable development in all countries, in order to address the problem of environmental
degradation in a better way.

Finally, Principle 27 of the Rio Declaration expects people and the States to co-operate in good faith
and in a spirit of partnership in the future development of international law in the field of sustainable
development.

7. Poverty Eradication
Poverty is perhaps the worst contributing factor for polluting the environment and causing its

6
degradation. Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Late former Prime Minister of India, addressing the Stockholm
Conference on Human Environment in 1972 said, “of all pollutants we face, the worst is poverty”.
The Brundtland Report (1987) also attributed poverty as a potential cause of environmental
degradation as it reduces people’s capacity to use resources in a sustainable manner, which eventually
brings more pressure on environment and results into its deterioration. Most of the developing
countries’ are facing the problem of poverty which is adversely affecting the environmental quality.

The Earth Summit, 1992 also projected that elimination of poverty was utmost necessary for
achieving the goal of sustainable development, particularly m the developing countries.

India being a developing country, its more than 30 per cent people are living below the poverty line.
The pitiable condition 'of slum-dwellers, scaricity of food, fuel, kerosene oil etc. are serious threats
for environment. Due to lack of residential, houses crores of poor men, women and children are
compelled to live in slums and even on road-side temporary hutment in most unsanitary conditions
without sufficient food and water. Thus, they have to live in unwholesome environmental conditions.
Therefore, India needs cooperation and assistance from the developed countries to help and support
the poverty alleviation programme and maintenance of wholesome environmental conditions.

Protection of Forests
It must be stated that awareness about the protection of forests is also closely connected with the
principle of public trust applicable for the preservation of natural resources. The State being a trustee
of forest-resource, it is the moral and legal obligation of the Government to protect forests from being
destroyed by indiscriminate felling of trees. If forests are well preserved, it will reduce soil erosion
and increase fertility of land and also cause sufficient rainfall which is necessary for cultivation and
domestic purposes in the form of water. But despite these benefits from forests, the record shows that
almost one-third of the part of the forest in tropical region had been destroyed due to deforestation
until the year 1970. Unfortunately, destruction of forest still continues and nearly 1,70,000 sq. k.m.
forest land has been converted into plain for construction of industries, complexes and other
commercial purposes. Besides, seven lakh hectare land has turned into desert and gallons of polluted
water is being flowed in rivers, lakes and seas causing irreparable damage to environment and
ecosystem.

In view of this destruction of forests, the Government is failing in its duties as trustee of this valuable
natural resource and causing damage to its beneficiaries i.e., the peop1e could not exploit it for their
own use, what to talk of leaving it for use by future generations'! Even now, it is not too late and there
is need on the part of the State to protect and preserve the valuable natural resources as a trustee and
people to cooperate with the administration to protect environment from being degraded.

Conclusion
It is true that in order to improve and protect the environment from pollution sustainability must be
there between environment and development. The concept of sustainable development based on the
notion that natural resources should be exploited for the benefit of both present and future generation.
As we know that increased industrial activity worldwide requires the use of natural resources which
are depleting day by day. It is also true that the need for resource conservation, efficient use of
resources and environment friendly corporate policies and behaviour has now been recognised
worldwide. The country needs an Environmental policy and planning, while being globally sensitive
must be based on local needs. Finally, if sustainable development has to move from mere wishful
thinking and slogan-mongering into a reality, the world (developed and developing) as a whole has to
move towards a new world order in which new economic and technological orders are dovetailed.
Such an order has to be aimed at benefiting the poor because in the chain of sustainable development,
the weakest links are poverty and inequality. Last but not least, if the principles of sustainable

7
development are followed then definitely with the economic growth and industrial development of a
country environment protection can be maintained.

Stockholm Declaration:
Introduction
The right to a clean environment is a fundamental right under Article 21. In the international scenario,
the United Nations conference on the human environment or popularly known as the Stockholm
Convention was the first major UN meeting to deal with environmental issues and to declare that the
right to live in a healthy environment as a basic right. 
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
In 1968-1969, the General Assembly, by Resolutions 2398 and 2581 decided to conduct the
conference. The Stockholm Convention was held in Sweden from June 5-16, 1972.  The object behind
this convention was to “create a basis for comprehensive consideration within the United Nations of
the problems of the human environment,” and to “focus the attention of Governments and public
opinion in various countries on the importance of the problem.”
This convention led UNEP to coordinate global action for the protection and preservation of the
environment in December 1972.
Many issues were resolved before the actual conference by the countries to limit the number of issues
during the convention. This was primarily done by the conference secretariat. The conference
secretariat headed by Mr. Maurice F. Strong planned the conference meticulously. 
The convention adopted the following:
1. A basic declaration containing a set of common principles to aid the people in protecting and
conserving the environment. 
2. A detailed resolution for financial and institutional arrangements for environmental
protection.
3. An action plan containing 109 recommendations. This aims to identify and quantify the
environmental problems, warn about any crisis, and to adopt supporting measures, by
establishing an Earthwatch.
At the end of the convention 26 principles were adopted and declared by the participating states. This
is known as the Magna Carta of the human environment. 
Significance
The declaration is divided into 2 parts. The first part contains seven truths about man and his
connection with the environment. It also contains general observations, such as that men are both
creators and molders of their environment. The protection of the environment is a pressing issue. It is
the desire of the citizens of all the nations and the responsibility of all the governments to protect and
preserve the environment. The second part contains 26 principles which form the basis of the
international policy for the protection and preservation of the environment.

Principles of the Stockholm declaration

8
The 26 principles or the Magna Carta on the human environment are dealt with in great detail. For
better understanding, the principles are grouped on their applicability and enforceability. They are as
follows:

Human-centric (Principles 1 and 15)

Principle 1: Rights and Responsibilities for protecting the environment – Humans have the right
to use and enjoy nature. The right to enjoy nature is not unfettered, it is coextensive with the duty to
protect it. Art. 21 of the constitution also safeguards the fundamental right of a healthy environment.
This principle also explicitly bars discriminatory laws.
Principle 15: Human settlement and Urbanization – Planned settlements and urbanization are
required. They reduce the adverse effects on the environment. The goal is to secure maximum benefits
for all through planning. All discriminatory plans are also barred.   

Sustainable development (Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14)

Principle 2: Duty to protect natural resources – Natural resources are limited. We must use natural
resources carefully. Preservation of resources depends on effective planning and management.   
Principle 3: Duty to preserve renewable resources – Although renewable resources are not
depletable, their preservation is necessary for their quality.    
Principle 4: Wildlife Conservation – A combination of factors is responsible for endangering
wildlife. Humans have a special responsibility for protecting wildlife. The inclusion of conservation
of wildlife in economic planning leads to sustainable development. 
Principle 5: Duty to preserve non-renewable resources – Non-renewable resources are exhaustible.
They are valuable resources. Exercising care and caution is necessary to prevent them from
depletion          
Principle 13: Rational Management of Resources – States should adopt rational methods to
manage the resources and to improve the environment. An integrated and coordinated approach is
preferable.  
Principle 14: Rational Planning – Conflicts between development and conservation are reconciled
with rational planning. Development and conservation must go hand in hand.         
Reflection on customary international law position (Principle 21)
States have the absolute authority to use natural resources according to their policies. However, their
policies shouldn’t violate the principles of international law and cause damage to other states outside
its jurisdiction.

Preventive actions (Principles 6,7,8 and 18)

Principle 6: Management of pollution – Pollution is harmful to the environment. Discharging toxins
and other substances in large quantities are harmful to the ecosystem. Both the citizens and the states
should play an active role in reducing the dumping of harmful substances.
Principle 7: Management of sea pollution – The states should reduce sea pollution by taking
necessary steps to prevent substances hazardous to human health, marine life, and the legitimate uses
of seas.
Principle 8: Social and Economic development – The improvement of social and economic
conditions is necessary for a better living and working environment. Improvements shouldn’t affect
the environment in any way.

9
Principle 18: Application of science – Science and technology are indispensable in today’s life.
They are used in almost every industry. Science and technology are also applicable to the
conservation of the environment. It is useful for identifying and controlling environmental risks. They
are useful for finding solutions for environmental issues.

Compensation to Victims (Principle 22)

The States should join to further the scope of international law for prescribing liability for those
harming the environment. States should also come together to compensate victims of environmental
pollution or damage.
Cooperation (Principles 24 and 25)
Principle 24: Cooperation with nations – Although each state has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate
on internal matters, international cooperation is necessary for the holistic improvement of the
environment. States must recognize that environmental problems affect all the states equally. By
multilateral and bilateral agreements states can control, prevent, and reduce environmental risks.
Principle 25: Coordination with nations – Coordination between states is crucial for alleviating the
existing conditions. The states can jointly coordinate actions and plans for improving existing
environmental conditions.

Other principles
Principle 11: Environmental Policy – The environmental policy of every nation should be
progressive. The policies of every state must enhance and complement each other. The policies
shouldn’t restrict or adversely affect developing countries. National and international organizations
should strive for better living conditions for all without affecting the environment.
Principle 19: Education in environmental matters – Education is one of the tools to spread
awareness about the pathetic state of the environment. The underprivileged, poor, illiterate should
have access to education. Education broadens the mind. Awareness about the existing conditions is
necessary so that people can jointly tackle environmental matters.
Principle 20: Expanding scientific research – Researching and developing methods nationally and
internationally is important to tackle environmental problems. There must exist a system where
information and research can flow easily across nations. Countries must also control their spending on
scientific research without burdening the economy.
Principle 9: Environmental Deficiencies – Natural disasters and underdevelopment lead to
deficiencies. Navigating through such deficiencies is difficult. Requesting technological and financial
assistance to supplement the local efforts leads to a quicker and effective remedy.
Principle 10: Stability of prices and incomes – Stability in the prices of essential commodities and
stability of income is essential for the environmental management of developing countries. Economic
factors are also part of the environmental process.
Principle 12: Education on environmental protection – Environmental protection is the need of the
hour. Every citizen should understand the importance of environmental protection. Adoption of a
suitable medium like social media, print media, etc is crucial to spread awareness about
environmental protection. 
Principle 16: Population Control – In areas where the population is excessive and is likely to affect
the environment, the states can implement policies to control the growth of the population. These
policies shouldn’t violate basic human rights. In today’s world overpopulation is one of the major
reasons for the depletion of natural resources.

10
Principle 17: Setting up of national institutions – States should establish national bodies for the
control and management of environmental resources within the state.
Principle 23: Implementing a national agenda – The states may find that certain procedures and
rules may not align the value system of the country. In that case, the states need not follow such a
procedure. The states are also exempted if such procedures cause unwarranted social costs.
Principle 26: Ban on nuclear weapons – Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons. They
cause more damage to the environment than any other weapon. All the nations should come together
to ban nuclear weapons.
Effects of the convention
The Stockholm convention paved the way for other international conventions on the preservation of
the environment such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora
and Fauna, 1973. In the same line, the Parliament of India passed the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 to give effect to the Stockholm convention.
The Stockholm convention was the first convention to discuss environmental issues on a global scale.
The declaration proclaims truths relating to man and the environment such as man is the creator and
moulder of his surroundings. 
The declaration also reiterates the importance of preservation of the environment. It urges citizens to
come together and protect the environment. The declaration recognizes humans as the greatest threat
to the environment. Humans are responsible for almost all of the environmental destruction. Humans
have altered the human environment also. 
The declaration discusses in detail the role of underdeveloped nations in environmental problems and
urges them to reduce their negative impact on the environment. The industrial countries are not free
from problems, but their problems relate to industrialization and technological development. 
The significance of humans and their contributions to the environment are also discussed in detail.
The declaration recognizes the capability of humans to make strides in social progress and the use of
science to make a better environment. Individuals have the responsibility to exercise care and
precaution. Ignorant and careless actions lead to the destruction and deterioration of the environment.
To take careful action, better awareness, and education about the protection of the environment are
required. 
Governments are directed to control their internal actions by enacting and enforcing environmental
laws and to coordinate with other nations and international agencies to mitigate the damage caused by
pollution.                
Problems and challenges
The declaration contains sound principles and beautiful proclamations, however, the wordings of the
declaration are unclear and ambiguous at certain points. Almost 48 years since adopting the
declaration the condition of the environment has worsened. 
The presence of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) has increased by 26 percent since 1970. This results in greater
global warming which has detrimental effects all around the globe. More than 700,000 sq.km of the
Amazon rainforest were cleared for farming since the ’70s. The condition of other forested areas is
not much better. 

11
Some estimates paint a darker picture, such as the number of fishes in the oceans has almost dropped
by 50 %. The quality of the oceans is also not that great. These numbers and reports reveal the gap
between planning and taking action. The way ahead is also not easy.
Taking action is the only way to tackle environmental depletion. The laws should adopt more
stringent actions. No amount of conventions will help in environmental development unless people
start taking action. We should realize the current situation and act cautiously.
Conclusion
The Stockholm declaration was the first truly global cooperation on environmental issues. The
convention witnessed the participation of 114 countries. The agenda was to create a better
international jurisprudence for environmental law. The declaration focused on setting environmental
goals, reducing pollution, and damages to the environment. The declaration also recognizes the
important role played by humans in changing the environment. The 26 principles in the declaration
serve as a guiding light to the nations.
The declaration is not free from criticism. It has failed to include newer forms of pollution. It has not
received the same kind of response from all the nations. The plan identifies underdeveloped nations as
the key contributor to pollution, 48 years later they continue to pollute the environment without any
significant change.
Despite its problems, the convention has created better awareness about the environment and the need
to protect it. People are now better equipped to tackle problems like global warming and climate
change. 
This UN conference laid the foundation for several other initiatives by the UN and other organizations
around the world for the protection and preservation of the environment.

THE RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (1992)

Preamble
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Having met at Rio de Janeiro
from 3 to 14 June 1992, Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, and seeking to build upon it,

With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new
levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people, Working towards
international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global
environmental and developmental system, Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the
Earth, our home,

Proclaims that:
Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy
and productive life in harmony with nature.

Principle 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international
law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and
developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or

12
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.

Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental
needs of present and future generations.
Principle
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part
of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Principle 5
All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an
indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in
standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Principle 6
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those
most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of
environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and
integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental
degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries
acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development
in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and
financial resources they command.
Principle 8
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce
and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate
demographic policies.
Principle 9
States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by
improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and
by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and
innovative technologies.
Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant
level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning
the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and
activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States
shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely
available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy,
shall be provided.

13
Principle 11
States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management
objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they
apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and
social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

Principle 12
States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would
lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems
of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of
the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global
environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

Principle 13
States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and
other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined
manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects
of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their
jurisdiction.

Principle 14
States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States
of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be
harmful to human health.

Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.

Principle 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the
use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle,
bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international
trade and investment.

Principle 17
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed
activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a
decision of a competent national authority.

Principle 18
States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are

14
likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be
made by the international community to help States so afflicted.

Principle 19
States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected
States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall
consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith.

Principle 20
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is
therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21
The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global
partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22
Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in
environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices.
States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective
participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23
The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall
be protected.

Principle 24
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect
international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in
its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

Principle 26
States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Principle 27
States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfilment of the
principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field
of sustainable development.

15
Johannesburg Declaration:
Earth Summit 2002: Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development
INTRODUCTION
The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development was adopted at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD). It was organized by the United Nations (UN) in Johannesburg in
August 26 to September 6 of 2002. It is also called Earth Summit 2002.
It was held 10 years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro which focused world governments on
environmental issues for the first time.
Earth Summit 2002 produced the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, an
international agreement on the environment and sustainable development. The Johannesburg
Declaration reiterates most of the proposals from the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development and Agenda 21, international agreements from Earth Summit 1992 it had a broader
agenda than the Rio Summit in 1992.
The summit in Johannesburg also included a huge number of delegates representing nations, business
interests and non-profit environmental and development/citizen/social justice groups. It was the
largest UN conference to date, when over 100 heads of state and 40,000 delegated participated and
came forward to set up the goals to halt poverty around the world whilst saving the environment at the
same time. It covered everything from measures to cut poverty, improve sanitation, improve
ecosystems, reduce pollution, and improve energy supply for poor people.
BACKGROUND HISTORY OF EARTH SUMMIT 2002
FOCUS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development means development (i.e., increased or intensified economic activity;
sometimes used as a synonym for industrialization) that meets the cultural and physical needs of the
present generation of persons without damaging the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
In 1987, the UN’s definition stated, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our
Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development [The
Brundtland Report], 1987).
This definition touches on the concept’s most basic component: specifically, we can’t expend the
earth’s limited potential today if we want human life to continue tomorrow.
The main focus of world summit was Sustainable development. The record on moving towards
sustainability so far appears to have been quite poor and the vast majority of humanity still lack access
to basics such as clean water, adequate sanitation, electricity and so on. And this is in the backdrop of
an increasing amount of wealth in fewer hands.
In the summit, various key issues were addressed, including Poverty, Water quality and availability,
Cleaner energy, Health, Good governance, Technology, Production and Consumption, Oceans and
Fisheries, Tourism. Other related issues such as globalization, women’s rights were also discussed.
There were also other voices at the Summit aside from government officials. Stakeholders included
business leaders, scientists, environmentalists, economists, and a variety of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Each stakeholder has a unique take on sustainable development that falls into
one or more of the following approaches:

16
THREE PILLARS: APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY
1.Economic: Encouraging economic development and infrastructure also increases the capacity
for change.
This approach asserts that the economically powerful developed world will invest in environmental
protection, whereas developing countries must devote their energies elsewhere. Simply put, the poor
can’t afford to share the costly interests of a healthy environment; surviving is enough of a task for
many.
Proponents
The Group of 77 (G77) developing countries has often supported this approach arguing that only
when they ‘catch up’ to the developed world will they be able to participate in initiatives such as
environmental protection and pollution reduction.
Business leaders are likely to support this approach arguing that increased trade and commerce is the
most efficient way to achieve development and thereby a capacity for environmental responsibility.
2.Environment: Concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental
degradation.
This approach asserts that traditional development methods have created critical problems for the
survival of humans and the planet.
Proponents
The European Union has sponsored this approach calling for definitive action such as the targets laid
out in the Kyoto Protocol.
Environmentalists largely favour this approach since it targets environmental destruction first and
foremost.
3.Social Justice: Sustainable development is about protecting the environment as well as economic
and social justice.
This approach asserts that economic capacity and ecological stability play into a larger sphere of
interests. Human life requires a combination of these entities but also social stability, security, and
equality.
Proponents
Norway, Canada, and Japan have set their agendas based on some form of this combination.
NGOs representing women’s or human rights groups favour this approach since it addresses a wider
range of issues affecting social development.
The Johannesburg Declaration builds on earlier declarations made at the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972, and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
While committing the nations of the world to sustainable development, it also includes substantial
mention of multilateralism as the path forward.
The international environmental policies established by Earth Summit 2002 were a direct result of
ideas produced by previous international environmental conferences.
JOHANNESBURG SUMMIT 2002
The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development marked a continuation of the earlier
efforts of Agenda 21. Often dubbed Rio-Plus-10, it was meant to reaffirm Agenda 21 as well as

17
broaden the sustainable development debate to encourage partnerships between government, business,
and civil society.
JOHANNESBURG PREPARATIONS
Most of the negotiations took place at the Summit’s preparatory meetings. The tenth session of the
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (known as CSD10) was the global
Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the Johannesburg Summit. Four inter-governmental PrepCom
meetings were held during 2001-2002 to agree on the agenda for the Summit.
The First Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom1) was held at the United Nations Headquarters in
New York from April 31 to May 2, 2001. The Second Summit Preparatory Committee (PrepCom2)
was held from January 28 to February 8, 2002 in New York, followed by the Third Summit
Preparatory Committee (PrepCom3), also in New York, from March 25 to April 5, 2002. The final
PrepCom (PrepCom4) committee convened at the ministerial level, and was held in Bali, Indonesia,
from May 27 to June 7, 2002. Representatives from each of the major groups, including leaders from
the NGO and business communities participated in these meetings.
HIGHLIGHTS OF JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION
The United Nations highlighted several of the Summit’s achievements.
Water and Sanitation
 Commitment to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to sanitation by 2015.
 The United States announced $970 million in investments over the next three years on water
and sanitation projects.
 The European Union announced the “Water for Life” initiative that seeks to engage partners
to meet water and sanitation goals, primarily in Africa and Central Asia. The Asia
Development Bank provided a $5 million grant to UN Habitat and $500 million in fast-track
credit for the Water for Asian Cities Programme.
Energy
 Commitment to increase access to modern energy services, energy efficiency, and the use of
renewable energy.
 To phase out, where appropriate, energy subsidies.
 To support the NEPAD objective of ensuring access to energy for at least 35% of Africa’s
population within 20 years.
 The nine major electricity companies of the E7 signed a range of agreements with the UN to
facilitate technical cooperation for sustainable energy projects in developing countries.
 The European Union announced a $700 million partnership initiative on energy and the
United States announced that it would invest up to $43 million for the initiative in 2003.
 The South African energy utility Eskom announced a partnership to extend modern energy
services to neighboring countries.
 Thirty-two partnership submissions for energy projects with at least $26 million in resources.
Health
 Commitment that by 2020, chemicals should be used and produced in ways that do not harm
human health and the environment.

18
  To enhance cooperation to reduce air pollution.
 To improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone
depleting chemicals by 2010.
 The United States announced their commitment to spend $2.3 billion through 2003 on health,
some of which was earmarked earlier for the Global Fund.
 Sixteen partnership submissions for health projects with $3 million in resources.
Agriculture
 The GEF will consider the Convention to Combat Desertification as a focal area for funding.
 Development of food security strategies for Africa by 2005.
 The United States will invest $90 million in 2003 for sustainable agriculture programs.
 Seventeen partnership submissions with at least $2 million in additional resources.
Bio Diversity and Ecosystem Management
 Commitment to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.
 Reverse the current trend in natural resource degradation.
 Restore fisheries to their maximum sustainable yields by 2015.
 Establish a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012.
 Improve developing countries’ access to environmentally sound alternatives to ozone
depleting chemicals by 2010.
 Undertake initiatives by 2004 to implement the Global Program of Action for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land Based Sources of Pollution.
 Thirty-two partnership initiatives with $100 million in resources.
 The United States has announced $53 million for forests in 2002-2005.
 While these were on the positive side, World Wildlife Fund, one of the world’s leading
conservation organizations felt the Summit didn’t do enough.
Other Issues
 Recognition that opening access to markets is a key to development for many countries.
 Support the phase out of all forms of export subsidies.
 Commitment to establish a 10-year framework of programs on sustainable consumption and
production.
 Commitment to actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability.
 Commitments to develop and strengthen a range of activities to improve preparedness and
response for natural disasters.
 Agreement to the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, with a total of $3 billion
($2.92 billion announced pre-Summit and $80 million added by EU in Johannesburg).
ACTION PLAN

19
The Johannesburg Summit agreed upon a Plan of Implementation that underlines the importance of
developing and disseminating innovative technologies in energy and other key sectors, including the
private sector. Technology transfers to developing countries are highlighted in this plan. Participating
governments negotiated the Plan of Action and a Political Declaration at the Summit.
CRITICISM
It is easy for any nation, or organization, or business to say they support something, but as various
organizations have argued, this summit became an arena for nations and businesses to say they will do
things, while often avoiding actual obligations. In addition, because the sanitation agreement was the
only really concrete agreement, development and citizen groups saw the summit as a failure.
Many participants and NGOs consider this summit, also called Earth Summit 2002, less successful
than Earth Summit 1992, because it did not produce any groundbreaking international environmental
agreements.
Various organizations, some leaders and delegates from developing countries were critical on
numerous aspects of the world system, especially on the agendas and interests of the richer nations.
The World Development Movement, for example, felt the summit was a failure for the world’s
majority, and that “much of the failure can be attributed to the two major world powers – the US for
active obstruction and the EU for pursuing the politics of self-interest.”
The main agreement produced by Earth Summit 2002, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development, merely reiterates many of the goals contained in the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.
The Johannesburg Declaration also does not contain many specific proposals for preserving the
environment or promoting sustainable development. Instead, the Johannesburg Declaration addresses
the environment and sustainable development in more general terms.
There were various controversies over issues of governance, influence, power and politics, and lack of
truly democratic processes at the international level. For example, numerous developing country
leaders commented on the interest and agendas of rich nations and multinationals as having a
detrimental impact on the poor, increasing and causing poverty, and that the legacy of colonialism
was still being felt hard.
As another example, many accused the U.S. of attempting to water down any final agreements. On the
final day of speeches, many protestors (including many Americans) and even delegates from countries
around the world, jeered U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell as he delivered his speech in the
closing part of the Summit (President George Bush was not in attendance). The actions of the U.S.
have been highly controversial during the Summit. Even U.S. protests groups have been vocal and
dismayed at their leaders. AllAfrica.com, detailing some of this criticism on U.S. actions, even reports
that “Following the [NGO] press conference [on the final day of the Summit], members of NGOs
from the United States pinned a large U.S. flag to the wall outside the briefing room, On it they had
written: “Thank you, President Bush, for making the U.S. so hated.””.
No doubt that from these business interests and free-market ideology, there is some valid criticism as
well. Some environmental “extremists” may unwittingly be suggesting policies that might hamper
long-term economic development for poorer nations. Yet, at the same time, points are made for
example that economic growth leads to better environmental qualities. But, this is an ideologically
based oversimplification, because it ignores those very same political factors and influences
surrounding economic growth, development, and the environment that have been pushed by and
turned out to be beneficial for various business interests at the expense of these other issues.
For example, economic growth of the wealthy countries has been at the direct cost to poorer nations
(for centuries controlling, extracting, and using much of their resources), and more recently, by things

20
like exporting pollution to the poorer regions, which makes the wealthier nations’ environment appear
even cleaner while regions in the South get even dirtier. Graphs and charts might show a nice
correlation between economic growth and environmental health, but they don’t necessarily capture
these political decisions. (This, while the U.S. for example is still the world’s largest polluter, as
highlighted in various discussions and global meetings regarding climate change.) Years of
devastating structural adjustment in much of the third world by the rich nation-heavy IMF and World
Bank has meant that the third world nations have been opened up for easier exploitation of labor and
the environment.
CONCLUSION
In terms of the political commitment of parties, the Declaration is a more general statement than the
Rio Declaration. It is an agreement to focus particularly on “the worldwide conditions that pose
severe threats to the sustainable development of our people,
Some understandably criticized the summit as over-ambitious to try and talk about so many issues.
Yet, true or not, it shows that there is at least an apparent growing recognition that sustainable
development (admittedly a somewhat overused word) means a myriad of inter-related issues, not
something solely in the realms of environmentalism, but also deep into economics (which governs
how resources are used), and a variety of socio-political issues.

Trans-boundary Pollution Hazards & Regulation:

WHAT IS TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION?
Transboundary pollution is the pollution that originates in one country but is able to cause damage in
another country’s environment, by crossing borders through pathways like water or air. Pollution can
be transported across hundreds and even thousands of kilometers. The incredible distances that
pollution can spread means that it is not contained within the boundaries of any single nation. This is
why it is called ‘Transboundary Pollution’. One of the problems with transboundary pollution is that
can carry pollution away from a heavy emitter and deposit it onto a nation whose emissions are
relatively low. Another problem with transboundary pollution relates to the quote above. Due to the
fact that ‘All things connect’, the heavy pollution that is evident in the developed world also becomes
evident in remote areas.
HOW DOES TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION TRAVEL?
Wind Transportation of Contaminants:
Wind Currents like those shown below bring pollution from the South to the Arctic.
River Transportation of Contaminants:
The flow of rivers shown below that end up in the Arctic Ocean also shows how contaminants are
carried from places such as Russia, which may still carry large deposits of PCBs and other
contaminants.
Ocean Transportation of Contaminants:
Other contaminants may travel to the Arctic on Ocean currents. As this illustration shows, many of
the major ocean currents flow through the Arctic. These strong winds and currents flowing to the
Arctic transport pollution to the Arctic and the cold temperature of this environment acts as a
"storage" place for these contaminants.
Grasshopper Effect
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are able to travel great distances by attaching to dust particles

21
that are blown north by the wind when there is no precipitation. When precipitation occurs, POPs are
transported to the ground where they will then evaporate and begin travelling north again. Once they
reach the far north, however, the colder temperatures trap them and allow for their presence in the
Arctic to become concentrated. For more information about POPs, see the Persistent Organic
Pollution fact sheet.
Arctic Seabirds
The droppings (guano) of Arctic Seabirds are another way that human made pollutants from the south
arrive and concentrate in the Arctic. The levels of pollutants like mercury and DDT have been found
to be as much as 60 times greater than those found at sites not influenced by seabirds. Since the guano
is also an important source of fertilizer for the Arctic, many other forms of Arctic life centre around
these areas in which contaminants become concentrated. This leads to the pollutants making their way
into all levels of the Arctic food web. The seabirds acquire pollutants through contact with polluted
ocean waters and food sources. These waters and food sources became themselves polluted through
some of the mechanisms of transport mentioned above. In other words, the birds act as a taxi service
for ocean borne pollutants to travel inland.
Did you know that our Operation Water Pollution program teaches students about what water
pollution is, what causes it, how it is cleaned up, and what they can do about the problem? Operation
Water Pollution kits, which accompany the Operation Water Pollution program, consist of a digital
pH meter and a digital TDS meter, both of which are guaranteed to be reusable for at least two years.
Please help us to send more Operation Water Pollution kits to schools! Please chip in $5 or donate
$20 or more and receive an Official Donation Receipt for Income Tax Purposes - or donate $170 to
provide a school with an Operation Water Pollution kit.

Common Law aspects of Environmental Protection:

Introduction
In India, there are a plethora of legal provisions which seek to protect the environment from attacks
from the human race. Along with the various Constitutional provisions, there are several legislative
enactments passed by the Parliament of India in order to achieve the constitutional objective of
ensuring a wholesome environment to the citizens of India. To name a few, they are Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Also, there are several provisions under the Indian Penal Code,
1860, which highlight the penal provisions in case of injury sustained by any individual on account of
environmental damage caused by any other individual. Also, there are ample remedies available under
the common law vis-à-vis environmental protection such as nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict
liability.
Constitutional provisions vis-à-vis Environmental Protection
The directive principles of State Policy and the chapter on fundamental duties explicitly enunciate the
national commitment to protect and improve the environment. "It is now well settled judicial principle
that right to pollution free environment is the fundamental right and human right of a citizen." 1 "The
Supreme Court in its judicial pronouncements held that the "precautionary principle" and "polluter
pay principle" is law of land.2"
Before the 42nd Amendment, the word 'environment' was not mentioned in the Indian Constitution.
By this Amendment, Article 48-A was added in the directive principles of state policy and by Article
51-A, a new provision was inserted in the form of fundamental duty. According to Article 48-A "the

22
State shall Endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wildlife of the country".
As per the sub-clause (g) of Art. 51-A, "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures".
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
protection of environment is not only a duty of the state under Article 48-A, but the citizens of India
are also duty bound to protect the environment under Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution. Originally
fundamental duty incorporated in the Constitution was not directly enforceable. However, with the
passage of time and through judicial activism, necessary stimulus was provided to achieve the
objective behind the incorporation of fundamental duty in the Constitution for the protection of
environment. In L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors4, the court explained the ambit of Article
51-A. It is true that it is the duty of the citizen to protect the environment under Article 51-A (g) of the
Constitution but this Article also creates a right in the favour of the citizen to move to the court for the
enforcement of the Article 51-A(g).
In M.C.Mehta v. State of Orissa5 , court observed that there cannot be any right without the duty. So if
there is insanitation in the environment it will severely affect the life of citizens and hence it is the
violation of fundamental rights of citizens. Hence, it is the duty of the citizen to see that the rights
which are provided to them under the constitution are fulfilled by the state. In AIIMS Students' Union
v. AIIMS and Ors6, Supreme Court observed that even though fundamental duties are not enforceable
by the court of law, it still gives important guidance for the interpretation of constitutional provisions
for the protection of environment. Court also emphasised that fundamental duties should be given its
full meaning as intended by the 42nd constitutional amendment. When the court is approached to give
effect to directive principles of state policy and fundamental rights, it cannot run away from its
responsibility by saying that priorities are a matter of policy.
Part III of the Constitution deals with Fundamental Rights. Herein, Article 21 deals with right to life.
This right would be meaningless if there is no healthy environment for the citizens to live in. In M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India7 the Supreme Court held that the right to live in pollution- free environment
is a part of fundamental right to life under Article-21 of the Constitution. In Subhash Kumar v. State
of Bihar8, Hon'ble Supreme court held that right to life under Article 21 includes the right to
enjoyment of pollution free water and air. In P.A. Jacob v. Superintendent of Police, Kottayam9, the
court held that subjecting an unwilling person to disastrous levels of noise pollution would amount to
infringement of fundamental right of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Remedies available under common law vis-à-vis Environmental Protection

a) Nuisance
Nuisance is related to unlawful interference with one's enjoyment of land or any right arising from it,
thereto. It may be categorized into Public Nuisance or Private Nuisance. As the name suggests, public
nuisance deals with interference with a right pertaining to public. Whereas, private nuisance is
interference with right which is exercised exclusively by a private entity or an individual. There are a
few remedies available vis-à-vis public nuisance in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 91 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes that a suit may be filed to obtain a suitable relief or
injunction for any cause of action affecting or likely to affect public nuisance. Also, in Criminal
Procedure Code, a magistrate is empowered to restrain any person from carrying out an act that may
give effect to public nuisance.10 In Ramlal v. Mustafabad Oil and Oil Ginning Factory11, the Punjab
and Haryana Court observed that once a noise is found to be above the necessary threshold to attract
the liability of public nuisance, it is no valid defense to contend that such noise arose out of any legal

23
activity. Apart from this, public nuisance has been made punishable under the Indian Penal Code,
1860.12
b) Negligence
It is a point to note that in order to bring a successful action vis-à-vis negligence, it is necessary to
establish a direct nexus between negligence and the damage caused. The other ingredient that
constitutes negligence is that the respondent did not take sufficient care to avoid public nuisance that
the person was required to take such care under the law. In Naresh Dutt Tyagi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh13, fumes released from the pesticides leaked to a nearby property through ventilators that
resulted in the death of three children and foetus in a pregnant woman. It was held by the court that it
was a clear-cut case of negligence.
c) Trespass
It is an unlawful interference with another's possession of property. The primary ingredient to
establish a case of trespass is that there should be an intentional invasion of another's physical
possession of property. Thus, two primary ingredients to establish a case of trespass are:
i.) There should be intentional interference
ii.) Such interference should be direct in nature
d) Strict Liability
The concept of strict liability started from the case of Rylands v. Fletcher14, "the person who, for his
own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it
escapes, must keep it in at his own peril and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape" 15. The exceptions to the rule of strict liability
are as follows:
i.) Act of God
ii.) Act committed by a third party
iii.) Any fault committed by plaintiff himself
iv.) An act committed after obtaining expressed or implied consent of the plaintiff
v.) Natural use of land by the defendant
The locus classicus vis-à-vis strict liability in Indian setting is M C Mehta v. Union of India16,
popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak Case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is being carried out in any premises and in case of a release
of such toxic substance any damage is caused, such enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable for all
the damages arising thereto, and any of the exceptions listed out above are not applicable as a defense
in a case of strict liability. In addition to this, the court also held in the Union Carbide Corporation v.
Union of India17 that the compensation has to be directly proportional to magnitude and capacity of
the enterprise because such compensation needs to have a deterrent effect.
Penal Provision vis-à-vis Environmental Protection
There are specific penal provisions in various legislations for the protection of environment. Chapter
XIV of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC), containing section 268 to 294-A, deals
with offences relating to public health, safety etc. The main object of these provisions is to protect the
public health, safety and convenience by rendering those act\s punishable which make the
environment polluted and dangerous to the life of an individual.

24
Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the term public nuisance and section 290 of the
IPC makes public nuisance punishable. Thus, under these provisions if any act or omission causing
injury to any person by polluting the environment takes place, the same can be subjected to
prosecution. Noise pollution is also punishable under Section 268 of IPC. In K Ramkrishnan v. State
of Kerala.18, the court held that smoking in public place comes under the category of public nuisance.
It is punishable under section 290 of Indian Penal Code. Also, in Murli S. Deora v. Union of
India19, the Supreme Court held that under Article 21, smoking in public place is a violation of
fundamental right of those who don't smoke.
Sections 269 to 271 deal with negligent acts which are likely to spread infection of diseases dangerous
to the life of people. These acts are punishable under sections 269 to 271. The punishment provided
u/s 269 and 271 is imprisonment up to six months or fine or both. Section 277 can be used for
preventing the water pollution. Under section 277 punishment of imprisonment is up to three months
or a fine up to 500 Rupees or both. Apart from these, under section 426, 430, 431 and 432 of IPC,
pollution caused by mischief is also punishable.
There are two primary legislations that enlist penal provisions for violation of the law propounded in
those legislations. They are The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. According to Section 47 of The Water Pollution Act, a person is
vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company if such person is in charge of the
functions committed by the company or for conduct of business of the company. This is indispensible
ingredient to constitute a case under S. 47 of the Act. However, the defense available under this
section is that the offence in question must have been committed without knowledge or consent of the
accused in question.
"It also needs to be noted that Section 16 of Environment Act and Section 47 of The Water Act are
parimateria to each other. Herein, it is paramount that the complaint contains specific averments
against the accused. It is not out of place to mention that the provisions of Section 16 of the
Environment (Protection) Act 1986 are parimateria to the Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act as well as Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and Section
278 B of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the cases under
Negotiable Instruments Act in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs Harmeet Singh Pental
and another reported in 2010 (3) S.C.C. 330 has held that it is mandatory for the complainant to make
averments in the complaint petition that the accused is directly in charge and was responsible to the
company for the conduct of the business of the company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that if the
said necessary ingredient is missing in the complaint petition, then in that case, prosecution launched
against the accused cannot be sustained."20
Conclusion
It has been observed that there are more than enough legislations that try to deal with the menace of
environment degradation. The massive amount of legislation has led to a situation of confusion and
difficulty in enforcement. To deal with the same, there is a need for a strong integrated legislation that
can provide a much clearer and integrated approach which can provide the necessary protection to
environment. Also, the pollution boards have been given the powers to launch prosecution before the
court of law to bring the violators to book as far as environmental degradation is concerned. The idea
of giving quasi-judicial powers to these boards can be considered so they can impose penalty upon
those who violate the law and also reduce the burden on the already overburdened courts.

Criminal Law and Environment:

25
Criminal Law Remedies for the Protection of Environment
Table of Contents
 INTRODUCTION 
 CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND 
 CRIMINAL REMEDIES 
o Indian Penal Code 

o Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 

o Environment Protection Act, 1986 

o Other Acts  

 1. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: 

 2. The Air Act, 1981: 
 3. The Water Act, 1974: 
  4. Noise Pollution (regulation and control) Act, 2000:  
 CONCLUSION 
INTRODUCTION 
Environmental Crimes are a simultaneous murder of not just one but many people as well as the
environment. The term ‘environmental crimes’ does not have any universally accepted definition. We
can classify a crime as an environmental crime if the particular act or omission has caused direct or
indirect damage to the environment and such act is prohibited by the law. Environmental crime covers
a wide range of violations that result in harm to the environment. This includes, poaching, illegal
wildlife trade, Littering, Oil Spills, Improper waste disposal, Destruction of wet lands, Smuggling
prohibited chemicals, Release of toxic chemicals, Dumping in ocean beds and many more.  
CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND 
The Constitution of India is a dynamic document. The various provisions on the environment
protection in the constitution are also ramifications of this evolving nature and growth potential of the
fundamental law of the land. Before the 42nd amendment, the term ‘environment’ was not mentioned
in the Constitution. Consequently, two major amendments were made, Article 48 A and Article 51
A.  
Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights that are essential for the
development of every citizen. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall deprived
of his or her personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 21 guarantees
fundamental right to life. The right to healthy environment is an important attribute of right to live
with human dignity.  
The right to live in a healthy environment as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first
recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State also known as the
Dehradun Valley Litigation case. In this landmark judgement the Supreme Court had to balance
environmental and ecological integrity against industrial demands on forest resources.  
CRIMINAL REMEDIES 

26
The Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deal with the remedies and concept of
various nuisance with regards to environmental pollution and crimes.  
 Indian Penal Code 
Background: Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code deals with offences affecting the public safety,
health, convenience, decency and morals.  
Provisions:    
Section 268– This section classifies environment crimes as a public nuisance. If any act or omission
causing injury to any person by polluting the environment takes place, the person can be subjected to
prosecution under this section. Even noise pollution is punishable under section. According to this
section a person can be held liable for the offence of public nuisance under the following
circumstances; 
(I) If he engages or conducts any act which causes common injury. 
(ii) If he engages or conducts any activity that poses danger or annoyance to any property for the
public. 
(iii) If he engages or conducts any activity that poses danger or annoyance to the public. 
Section 269- This section deals with negligent acts that are likely to spread infection of disease that
are dangerous to life. A person liable under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term of up to six months or with a fine or both.  
Section 277– This section deals with provisions for preventing water pollution. According to this
section, any person who voluntarily corrupts or fouls water of any public reservoir and makes it less
fit for consumption shall be held liable. The person may be punished with imprisonment for a term of
up to three months or with a fine extending to Rupees 500 or both.    
Section 278– This section deals with remedies for acts that make atmosphere noxious to health, air
pollution. Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any way that makes it noxious to health of
persons shall be punished with a fine of maximum Rupees 500.  
Section 290– This section provides for the punishment of public nuisance. The maximum penalty
under this section is Rupees 200. This section also makes clear that smoking in public place causes
public nuisance and therefore is punishable under this Act.  
Relevant Judgement:  
1. Ramakrishnan V. State of Kerala (1999)- The Court held that smoking in public cases causes
public nuisance and is therefore punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 
Background: Chapter 10 of Criminal Procedure Code, Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility.
It provides legal provisions for the maintenance of public order and tranquility. It is the duty of every
citizen to maintain public order. Maintenance of public order and tranquility in the society is one of
the primary objectives of any government. It contains remedies for public nuisances cases.  
Provisions: 
Section 133– This section provides for the remedy to environmental pollution in general. It empowers
the District Magistrate and Sub- Divisional Magistrate to stop the nuisance. Any order made under
this provision cannot be questioned in any civil court. Under this section six category of public
nuisances can be resolved.  

27
 1. Unlawful obstruction or nuisance to any public place, river or channel lawfully used by the
public. 
2. Conduct of any trade or occupation or storing goods that are injurious to health or causes
discomfort to the community. 
3. Construction of any project or disposal of any substance that is likely to cause an explosion. 
4. Any building, tent, or structure that is likely to cause damage or injury to a person.   
 Environment Protection Act, 1986 
Background: Due to the growing risks of pollution, the government has passed several legislations
related to specific types of pollution. One of the most vital statues is the Environment Protection Act,
1986. This act is the general legislation for the protection of the environment.  
Provisions:  
Section 15- This section states that any person who does not comply with the rules of this act will be
liable for imprisonment for a term of up to five years or fine which may extend to a sum of Rupees 1
Lakh or both.  
 Other Acts  
A few other legislations are currently enforceable in India. All these acts have different aims and
objectives but their ultimate goal is to preserve the planet and help the world progress in a sustainable
manner.  
1. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: 
Objective– The National Green Tribunal Act aims to provide efficient disposal of matters relating to
environment protection. It has the power to hear all civil cases relating to environmental issues.  
Penalty– As per Section 26 of this act, any person who fails to comply with the decision of the
tribunal will be held liable for imprisonment up to a term of three years or fine which may extend up
to ten crores.  
2. The Air Act, 1981: 
Objective– The Air Act aims to prevent and control air pollution.  
Penalty–  
 Section 37: – As per Section 37 of this Act, any person who fails to comply with the
provisions of this act will be liable for an imprisonment for a term of one year and six
months. 
 Section 38: – This section mentions penalties for certain acts that are laid down. The acts are; 
1. Destroying or removing any pillar, post or notice fixed in the ground under the authority of
the board 
2. Obstruction of any individual who has been authorized by the board from exercising the
respective powers 
3. Causing damage to any property belonging to the board 
4. Failure to inform about the excess release of emissions than the standard level set by the
board 

28
3. The Water Act, 1974: 
Objective– The Water Act, 1974 aims to regulate agencies responsible for checking water pollution
and control and prevent the spread of water pollution.  
Penalty– Any person held liable under this section would be punished with an imprisonment for a
maximum term of three months or fine of up to Rupees 10000 or both. Section 42 mentions penalties
for different kinds of Acts: – 
1. Any person who pulls down notice put by the board 
2. Obstructing any individual appointed by the board from conducting duties and exercising
power 
3. Any person who gives false information to the board  
 4. Noise Pollution (regulation and control) Act, 2000:  
Objective– The Noise Pollution Act, 2000 aims to curb the menace of excessive noise pollution from
various noise pollutants in order to create an ambient atmosphere for healthy lifestyle.  
Penalty– Section 6 of this Act states that any person can be made liable for penalty under this act if,
person is playing music or using sound amplifiers or attracting crowds through exhibits in any silence
zone. 
CONCLUSION 
Environment Protection is part of our cultural values and heritage. The knowledge of constitution
provisions regarding environment protection is the need of the day to bring greater public
participation, environmental awareness and make people conscious about preserving the ecology.
Even though we have well drafted legislations there still remains a huge gap in implementation. It is
high time to being an amendment within the environmental provisions, inclusion of environmental
crimes and separate and specific offences as well as raise the current penalties for various
environmental crimes.  

29