| Notes |
Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Note on Terminology
Chairman's Foreword
From One Earth to One World
Part I. Common Concerns
1. A Threatened Future
I. Symptoms and Causes
II. New Approaches to Environment and Development
2. Towards Sustainable Development
I. The Concept of Sustainable Development
II. Equity and the Common Interest
III. Strategic Imperatives
IV. Conclusion
3. The Role of the International Economy
The International Economy, the Environment, and
Development
I.
II. Decline in the 1980s
III. Enabling Sustainable Development
IV. A Sustainable World Economy
Part II. Common Challenges
4. Population and Human Resources
I. The Links with Environment and Development
II. The Population Perspective
III. A Policy Framework
5. Food Security: Sustaining the Potential
I. Achievements
II. Signs of Crisis
III. The Challenge
IV. Strategies for Sustainable Food Security
V. Food for the Future
6. Species and Ecosystems: Resources for Development
I. The Problem: Character and Extent
II. Extinction Patterns and Trends
III. Some Causes of Extinction
IV. Economic Values at Stake
V. New Approach: Anticipate and Prevent
VI. International Action for National Species
VII. Scope for National Action
VIII. The Need for Action
7. Energy: Choices for Environment and Development
I. Energy, Economy, and Environment
II. Fossil Fuels: The Continuing Dilemma
III. Nuclear Energy: Unsolved Problems
IV. Wood Fuels: The Vanishing Resource
V. Renewable Energy: The Untapped Potential
VI. Energy Efficiency: Maintaining the Momentum
VII. Energy Conservation Measures
VIII. Conclusion
8. Industry: Producing More With Less
I. Industrial Growth and its Impact
II. Sustainable Industrial Development in a Global Context
III. Strategies for Sustainable Industrial Development
9. The Urban Challenge
I. The Growth of Cities
II. The Urban Challenge in Developing Countries
III. International Cooperation
Part III. Common Endeavours
10. Managing The Commons
I. Oceans: The Balance of Life
II. Space: A Key to Planetary Management
III. Antarctica: Towards Global Cooperation
11. Peace, Security, Development, and the Environment
I. Environmental Stress as a Source of Conflict
II. Conflict as a Cause of Unsustainable Development
III. Towards Security and Sustainable Development
Towards Common Action: Proposals For Institutional and Legal
Change
12.
I. The Challenge for Institutional and Legal Change
II. Proposals for Institutional and Legal Change
III. A Call for Action
Annexes
Annexe 1: Summary of Proposed Legal Principles for
Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Adopted
by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law
Annexe 2: The Commission and its Work
Throughout this report, quotes from some of the many people who spoke at WCED public
hearings appear in boxes to illustrate the range of opinions the Commission was exposed to
during its three years of work. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission.
Our Common Future, Chairman's Foreword
"A global agenda for change" - this was what the World Commission on Environment and
Development was asked to formulate. It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the
United Nations:
to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development
by the year 2000 and beyond;
to recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated into greater
co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of
economical and social development and lead to the achievement of common and
mutually supportive objectives that take account of the interrelationships between
people, resources, environment, and development;
to consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more
effectively with environment concerns; and
to help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and the
appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and
enhancing the environment, a long term agenda for action during the coming decades,
and aspirational goals for the world community.
When I was called upon by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in December 1983 to
establish and chair a special, independent commission to address this major challenge to the
world community, I was acutely aware that this was no small task and obligation, and that my
day-to day responsibilities as Party leader made it seem plainly prohibitive. What the General
Assembly asked for also seemed to be unrealistic and much too ambitious. At the same time, it
was a clear demonstration of the widespread feeling of frustration and inadequacy in the
international community about our own ability to address the vital global issues and deal
effectively with them.
The fact is a compelling reality, and should not easily be dismissed. Since the answers to
fundamental and serious concerns are not at hand, there is no alternative but to keep on trying
to find them.
All this was on my mind when the Secretary-General presented me with an argument to which
there was no convincing rebuttal: No other political leader had become Prime Minister with a
background of several years of political struggle, nationally and internationally, as an
environment minister. This gave some hope that the environment was not destined to remain
a side issue in central, political decision making.
In the final analysis, I decided to accept the challenge. The challenge of facing the future, and
of safeguarding the interests of coming generations. For it was abundantly clear: We needed a
mandate for change.
We live in an era in the history of nations when there is greater need than ever for
co-ordinated political action and responsibility. The United Nations and its Secretary-General
are faced with an enormous task and burden. Responsibly meeting humanity's goals and
aspirations will require the active support of us all.
My reflections and perspective were also based on other important parts of ray own political
experience: the preceding work of the Brandt Commission on North South issues, and the
Palme Commission on security and disarmament issues, on which I served.
I was being asked to help formulate a third and compelling call for political action: After
Brandt's Programme for Survival and Common Crisis, and after Palme's Common Security,
would come Common Future. This was my message when Vice Chairman Mansour Khalid and
I started work on the ambitious task set up by the United Nations. This report, as presented to
the UN General Assembly in 1987, is the result of that process.
Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations of the need to return to
multilateralism. The challenge of reconstruction after the Second World War was the real
motivating power behind the establishment of our post-war international economic system.
The challenge of finding sustainable development paths ought to provide the impetus - indeed
the imperative - for a renewed search for multilateral solutions and a restructured
international economic system of co-operation. These challenges cut across the divides of
national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain, and of separated disciplines of
science.
After a decade and a half of a standstill or even deterioration in global co-operation, I believe
the time has come for higher expectations, for common goals pursued together, for an
increased political will to address our common future.
There was a time of optimism and progress in the 1960s, when there was greater hope for a
braver new world, and for progressive international ideas. Colonies blessed with natural
resources were becoming nations. The locals of co-operation and sharing seemed to be
seriously pursued. Paradoxically, the 1970s slid slowly into moods of reaction and isolation
while at the same time a series of UN conferences offered hope for greater co-operation on
major issues. The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment brought the industrialized
and developing nations together to delineate the "rights" of the human family to a healthy and
productive environment. A string of such meetings followed: on the rights of people to
adequate food, to sound housing, to safe water, to access to means of choosing the size of their
families.
The present decade has been marked by a retreat from social concerns. Scientists bring to our
attention urgent but complex problems bearing on our very survival: a warming globe, threats
to the Earth's ozone layer, deserts consuming agricultural land. We respond by demanding
more details, and by assigning the problems to institutions ill-equipped to cope with them.
Environmental degradation, first seen as mainly a problem of the rich nations and a side effect
of industrial wealth, has become a survival issue for developing nations. It is part of the
downward spiral of linked ecological and economic decline in which many of the poorest
nations are trapped. Despite official hope expressed on all sides, no trends identifiable today,
no programmes or policies, offer any real hope of narrowing the growing gap between rich and
poor nations. And as part of our "development", we have amassed weapons arsenals capable of
diverting the paths that evolution has followed for millions of years and of creating a planet
our ancestors would not recognize.
When the terms of reference of our Commission were originally being discussed in 1982, there
were those who wanted its considerations to be limited to "environmental issues" only. This
would have been a grave mistake. The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from
human actions, ambitions, and needs, and attempts to defend it in isolation from human
concerns have given the very word "environment" a connotation of naivety in some political
circles. The word "development" has also been narrowed by some into a very limited focus,
along the lines of "what poor nations should do to become richer", and thus again is
automatically dismissed by many in the international arena as being a concern of specialists, of
those involved in questions of "development assistance".
But the "environment" is where we all live; and "development" is what we all do in attempting
to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. Further, development issues
must be seen as crucial by the political leaders who feel that their countries have reached a
plateau towards which other nations must strive. Many of the development paths of the
industrialized nations are clearly unsustainable. And the development decisions of these
countries, because of their great economic and political power, will have a profound effect
upon the ability of all peoples to sustain human progress for generations to come.
Many critical survival issues are related to uneven development, poverty, and population
growth. They all place unprecedented pressures on the planet's lands, waters, forests, and
other natural resources, not least in the developing countries. The downward spiral of poverty
and environmental degradation is a waste of opportunities and of resources. In particular, it is
a waste of human resources. These links between poverty, inequality, and environmental
degradation formed a major theme in our analysis and recommendations. What is needed now
is a new era of economic growth - growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and
environmentally sustainable.
Due to the scope of our work, and to the need to have a wide perspective. I was very much
aware of the need to put together a highly qualified and influential political and scientific team,
to constitute a truly independent Commission. This was an essential part of a successful
process. Together, we should span the globe, and pull together to formulate an
interdisciplinary, integrated approach to global concerns and our common future. We needed
broad participation and a clear majority of members from developing countries, to reflect
world realities. We needed people with wide experience, and from all political fields, not only
from environment or development and political disciplines, but from all areas of vital decision
making that influence economic and social progress, nationally and internationally.
We therefore come from widely differing backgrounds: foreign ministers, finance and planning
officials, policymakers in agriculture, science, and technology. Many of the Commissioners are
cabinet ministers and senior economists in their own nations, concerned largely with the
affairs of those countries. As Commissioners, however, we were acting not in our national roles
but as individuals; and as we worked, nationalism and the artificial divides between
"industrialized" and "developing", between East and West, receded. In their place emerged a
common concern for the planet and the interlocked ecological and economic threats with
which its people, institutions, and governments now grapple.
During the time we met as a Commission, tragedies such as the African famines, the leak at the
pesticides factory at Bhopal, India, and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, USSR appeared to
justify the grave predictions about the human future that were becoming commonplace during
the mid-1980s. But at public hearings we held on five continents, we also heard from the
individual victims of more chronic, widespread disasters: the debt crisis, stagnating aid to and
investment in developing countries, falling commodity prices and falling personal incomes. We
became convinced that major changes were needed, both in attitudes and in the way our
societies are organized.
The question of population - of population pressure, of population and human rights - and the
links between these related issues and poverty, environment, and development proved to be
one of the more difficult concerns with which we had to struggle. The differences of
perspective seemed at the outset to be unbridgeable, and they required a lot of thought and
willingness to communicate across the divides of cultures, religions, and regions.
Another such concern was the whole area of international economic relations. In these and in
a number of other important aspects of our analysis and recommendations, we were able to
develop broad agreement.
The fact that we all became wiser, learnt to look across cultural and historical barriers, was
essential. There were moments of deep concern and potential crisis, moments of gratitude and
achievement, moments of success in building a common analysis and perspective. The result is
clearly more global, more realistic, more forward looking than any one of us alone could have
created. We joined the Commission with different views and perspectives, different values and
beliefs, and very different experiences and insights. After these three years of working
together, travelling, listening, and discussing, we present a unanimous report.
I am deeply grateful to all the Commissioners for their dedication, their foresight and personal
commitment to our common endeavour. It has been a truly wonderful team. The spirit of
friendship and open communication, the meeting of minds and the process of learning and
sharing, have provided an experience of optimism, something of great value to all of us, and, I
believe, to the report and its message. We hope to share with others our learning process, and
all that we have experienced together. It is something that many others will have to experience
if global sustainable development is to be achieved.
The Commission has taken guidance from people in all walks of life. It is to these people - to all
the peoples of the world - that the Commission now addresses itself. In so doing we speak to
people directly as well as to the institutions that they have established.
The Commission is addressing governments, directly and through their various agencies and
ministries. The congregation of governments, gathered in the General Assembly of the United
Nations, will be the main recipients of this report.
The Commission is also addressing private enterprise, from the one-person business to the
great multinational company with a total economic turnover greater than that of many nations,
and with possibilities for bringing about far-reaching changes and improvements.
But first and foremost our message is directed towards people, whose well being is the
ultimate goal of all environment and development policies. In particular, the Commission is
addressing the young. The world's teachers will have a crucial role to play in bringing this
report to them.
If we do not succeed in putting our message of urgency through to today's parents and
decision makers, we risk undermining our children's fundamental right to a healthy,
life-enhancing environment. Unless we are able to translate our words into a language that can
reach the minds and hearts of people young and old, we shall not be able to undertake the
extensive social changes needed to correct the course of development.
The Commission has completed its work. We call for a common endeavour and for new norms
of behaviour at all levels and in the interests of all. The changes in attitudes, in social values,
and in aspirations that the report urges will depend on vast campaigns of education, debate
and public participation.
To this end, we appeal to "citizens" groups, to non governmental organizations, to educational
institutions, and to the scientific community. They have all played indispensable roles in the
creation of public awareness and political change in the past. They will play a crucial part in
putting the world onto sustainable development paths, in laying the groundwork for Our
Common Future.
The process that produced this unanimous report proven that it is possible to join forces, to
identify common goals, and to agree on common action. Each one of the Commissioners would
have chosen different words if writing the report alone. Still, we managed to agree on the
analysis, the broad remedies, and the recommendations for a sustainable course of
development.
In the final analysis, this is what it amounts to: furthering the common understanding and
common spirit of responsibility so clearly needed in a divided world.
Thousands of people all over the world have contributed to the work of the Commission, by
intellectual means, by financial means, and by sharing their experiences with us through
articulating their needs and demands. I am sincerely grateful to everyone who has made such
contributions. Many of their names are found in Annexe 2 of the report. My particular
gratitude goes to Vice Chairman Mansour Khalid, to all the other members of the Commission,
and to Secretary-General Jim MacNeill and his staff at our secretariat, who went above and
beyond the call of duty to assist us. Their enthusiasm and dedication knew no limits. I want to
thank the chairmen and members of the Intergovernmental Inter-sessional Preparatory
Committee, who co-operated closely with the Commission and provided inspiration and
support. I thank also the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme,
Dr. Mostafa Tolba, for his valuable, continuous support and interest.
Gro Harlem Brundtland
Oslo, 20 March 1987 |