The negotiating text for the Summit is long on words and promises, but short on deadlines. There is an agreement in place that lists targets but none beyond the Millennium Declaration goals. For instance, there are unresolved deadlines to increase the proportion of people with access to improved sanitation by 2015, development and implementation of food security strategies by 2005 and to develop cleaner fossil fuel technologies and increase in the share of renewable energy resources by 2010.

Meanwhile, globalisation is currently working against poor countries and not for them. Salim cited the example of Indonesia, which is rich in copper, aluminium and tin. But while they export these in the raw form, the country cannot add value to the processed goods for exports to earn more. This is because the import duties for processed goods are very high in industrialised countries. "Developing countries do not have a level playing field," Salim said.

Once again, world trade remains heavily biased in favour of industrialised countries. For instance, despite promises to reduce farm subsidies in the Doha, Qatar meetings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the US announced massive agricultural subsidies for its farmers in April this year. This was done to please farmers, whose votes will be important for the November mid-term election in the US.

The issue of finance has always been a sticky one between the North and South. At the meeting on Finance for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, in March this year, rich countries refrained from making any concrete "pledges" to increase funding, but made some "announcements" that amount to much less than the 0.7 per cent of the GDP they had agreed to in the past. There was no discussion at Monterrey on the counter-productive conditionalities that come with the aid, and there is likely to be no discussion on this in Johannesburg. There is unwillingness to go beyond the Monterrey Consensus, which includes very soft language and no new commitments. All that it does is it, "urges developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP as ODA to developing countries". Salim says that it is all right for developed countries to refuse aid. But, he said, they should free trade. The producers of the developed world enjoy subsidies worth US $380 billon whereas the level of aid is US $50 billion.

The dispute over the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" is now being questioned at the WSSD negotiations mainly by the JUSCANZ group. Consisting of Japan, United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the JUSCANZ group has been a stumbling bloc in Global Environmental Negotiations by frequently opposing forward-looking agreements that the rest of the world agrees to.

This has struck a particularly sour note with developing countries. The principle implies that while both rich and poor countries have a responsibility to sustainable development, the contribution of the rich countries to the destruction of the environment and the utilisation of natural resources has been greater so far, and so they should take the lead in taking remedial action.

The opponents interpret the principle differently such that it would only apply to environmental degradation and not sustainable development. Unfortunately, the principle as it is formulated allows room for this interpretation. Sustainable development being a wider concept as it is would include issues of social and economic development, such as trade, finance and globalisation issues. This would require the developed world to cough up more financial resources and provide additional technologies to developing countries in order to meet the goals of social and economic development.

As Kamalnath, former environment minister pointed out at the public discussion, the Indian government led the G77 group of developing countries in fighting for this principle at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Several environmental treaties since then have been based on this edifice -- for instance, under the climate change convention, rich countries have to reduce their harmful greenhouse gases first, while poor countries can increase their emissions in the interests of meeting the developmental needs of their people.

Earlier in the day, at the South Asian Journalists' Workshop on Global Environmental Negotiations organised by the Centre for Science and Environment, in New Delhi, PV Jayakrishnan, Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, spelled out India's stand at these negotiations. He stressed that there is no scope renegotiation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles. Calling the issue of finance a "hard core" issue for developing countries, he repeatedly said that unless finance was forthcoming from the developed countries, discussions at the WSSD would only remain "talk". He also stressed the need for transfer of technology; that there should be no repackaging of existing projects in Type 2 initiatives (partnerships); and that the industrialised world should set clear targets to reduce consumption of natural resources over a given period of time.

Deepa Wadhwa, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, also speaking at the workshop, said that the agreement at Rio was based on two premises -- new and additional financial resources (i.e. in addition to the 0.7 per cent ODA) and the transfer of technology. However, both of these have not been forthcoming at all. She highlighted the interpretation of the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" given by one of the leaders of the Nordic countries, during the "Friends of the Chair" meeting held last month in New York City. He gave his interpretation of the term to imply that the "differentiated responsibilities" is that the developing countries "govern themselves well". This has added to the cynicism amongst the developing nations.

Despite Salim's pleas for Indian leadership, it is unlikely that Prime Minister AB Vajpayee will attend WSSD, although the final decision may hinge on whether Chinese premier Zhu Rongji decides to go. According to the joint secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, this decision was taken because "a lot of our expectations were dashed". Salim felt the involvement of Asia in the summit so far has been particularly disappointing. While several European, African and Latin American leaders have committed to attend the summit, there has been a poor response from Asia. The world is also waiting to see whether US President George W. Bush, who has come under considerable global censure for his anti-environment policies, will attend the WSSD.

Reminiscing about his role as head of the Indian delegation to the 1992 summit, Kamalnath noted that the Earth Summit was held at the height of multilateralism. But WSSD will take place at a time when unilateralism -- particularly US-led unilateralism, from one of the richest and most polluting countries of the world -- is at its peak. This does not bode well for a meeting that is touted by many as the "last chance to save the world".