There is a ten-year long road that stretches between the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the ongoing summit on sustainable development at Johannesburg. In the decade that went by, has the world turned into a better place for its inhabitants? The answer, unfortunately, ought to be in a strong negative.

If the planet Earth has changed since 1992, the changes have surely not been, for the better. For one, it was comparatively a more secure place, than now. What was achieved at the Rio Earth Summit in terms of agreed targets and policies by the largest ever gathering of world leaders was lost, to a great extent, at implementation level. In the words of UN Secretary General, “Attempts to promote human development and to reverse environmental degradation have not, in general, been effective over the last decade”.

The very fact that rhetoric was not allowed to taint the realistic assessment of last ten years permits one to hope that ongoing Johannesburg summit on sustainable development would come up with some new initiatives for making sustainable development goals attainable. An official of UNDP is reported to have commented ahead of Summit, “We will need concrete actions, concrete timetables and an iron will from all sides”.

But the words ‘sustainable development’ tends to carry different meanings to different set of countries. While in developed Europe emphasis is more on environmental aspect, US is trying to incorporate terrorism—against which the country says it is at war— to be the most pressing problem challenging the development efforts. In developing countries the discussion on sustainable development is more focused over international economic support, debt relief, access to world markets and issue of subsidies mainly on farm products. Broadly sustainable development is defined as growth and development that accomplishes the needs of the present without compromising its prospects in future. Conference that is to be concluded on September 4 is deliberating on a whole array of social, economic and environmental issues. Framework papers have been prepared in before hand on HIV/AIDS, gender, health, food security, habitat II series-city life project under social series. Under economic series foreign direct investment, sustainable finance, global public goods and tourism were dealt. Environment series include freshwater, climate change, the Rio conventions and oceans.

In 1992 the conference felt that agenda of sustainable development could more effectively be pursued if NGO sector is co-opted by the respective governments in its effort to reform and reach out to ignored sections and sectors in those countries. However, the government-NGO nexus did not prove to be as effective as it was expected to be.

This time round, after a lapse of a decade, there is increasing realization amongst business community and other stakeholders that the engagement of private sector and civil society organizations could improve implementation of sustainable development agenda. “Companies have more of a role than ever to play in reducing the poverty and social exclusion that widen the gap between the haves and have-nots”, says James Wolfensohn, World Bank President. There is a need to evolve some framework in which responsible business can act. In all probability some progress will be made towards this end in course of the summit.

There are strong indications that the conference will stress on collaborations between governments, business and civil society that is referred to as ‘Type2’ partnership initiatives, to distinguish them from ‘Type 1’ agreement between governments.

The last Earth Summit at Rio was marked by the immense attention it commanded internationally. That could also have been because cold war had just ended and expectations were high. Pakistan’s participation in the meeting was also more lively. The country’s ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was asked to represent developing countries. And Pakistan’s PM spoke to the gathering on behalf of all the developing countries. This time round, with general elections just five weeks away, the nation is too pre-occupied with its local problems to play an active role in Johannesburg Summit that is bound to affect us as well. Several other leaders might also miss the occasion this time due to pre-occupation with their more pressing current problems.

The mood of weary cynicism that pervaded the preparatory conferences, is therefore, understandable. The Rio Summit was noted to have failed at the implementation stage. It would have to be seen if the Johannesburg summit succeeds in devising more practical and effective implementation plans.