A Framework for Environmental Management

  • O. P. Dwivedi


Since the release of the Brundtland Commission’s report, Our Common Future, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ has captured the world’s attention and emerged as the new political ideology to be addressed. The term was defined by the Brundtland Commission as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.1 The definition contains two key concepts: (1) the concept of need, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and (2) the limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs. But it is not clear who — North or South — will determine the ‘needs’ of present generations, nor how we will ascertain the nature of future needs. The rich, industrialised North is likely to emphasise a global environmental policy that has some conditionality attached for poor nations. On the other hand, the South is more likely to emphasise poverty alleviation and the provision of basic needs with appropriate financial assistance, rather than insisting on quality management of the environment.


Risk Assessment Sustainable Development Audit Report Environmental Audit Risk Assessment Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For further elaboration on this issue, see O. P. Dwivedi, Development Administration: From Underdevelopment to Sustainable Development (London: Macmillan, 1994), pp. 93–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    World Bank, World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    IUCN, International Covenant on Environment and Development (draft) (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, March 1995), p. 42.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    William W. Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risks: Science and the Determination of Safety (California: William Kaufman, 1976), p. 18.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Anne V. Whyte and Ian Burton (eds), Environmental Risk Assessment (Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1980), p. 82.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Aparajita Gogoi, ‘Environmental Audits: A Means to Going Green’, Development Alternatives (Delhi, India), vol. 5, no. 4 (April 1995), p. 7.Google Scholar
  8. 17.
    Ramesh Upadhyaya, ‘Bihar: Big Problems of Chhotanagpur’, The Hindu Survey of the Environment, 1991 (Madras: The Hindu, 1991), p. 61.Google Scholar
  9. 18.
    On the role of religion in environmental protection and conservation, see the following publications by O. P. Dwivedi: Environmental Crisis in Hindu Religion (co-authored with B. N. Tiwari) (New Delhi: Gitanjali Publishing, 1987Google Scholar
  10. 21.
    M. K. Prasad, ‘Non-governmental Organizations: Creating Awareness’, The Hindu Survey of the Environment 1991 (Madras: The Hindu, 1991), p. 43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© O. P. Dwivedi 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. P. Dwivedi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political StudiesUniversity of GuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations