In December 1992, the Sri Lankan government called for proposals to establish a Joint Venture for the manufacture of Phosphate fertilizer using the apatite deposit at Eppawela. The proposal of Freeport MacMoran Resource Partners of USA was accepted.

In October 1999, seven Sri Lankans filed a petition to stop the project on the ground of violaton of their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Court ruling

On the issue of development of natural resources and protection of the environment:

Undoubtedly, the state has the right to exploit its own resources pursuant, however, to its own environmental and development policies. (Cf. Principle 21 of the U.N Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Principle 2 of the U.N. Rio De Janeiro Declaration (1992) Rational Planning Constitutes   an essential tool for recognizing any conflict between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the environment.  (Principle 14, Stockholm Declaration)  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 1, Rio De Janeiro Declaration).  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 4, Rio De Janeiro Declaration).  In my vie, the proposed agreement must be considered in the light of the foregoing principles.  Admittedly, the principles set out in the Stockholm and Rio De Janeiro Declarations are not legally buiding in the way in which and Act of our Parliament would be.  It may be regarded merely as ‘soft law’ Nevertheless, as a Member of the United Nations, they could hardly be ignored by Sri Lanka.  Moreover, they would, in my view, be binding if they have been either expressly enacted or become a part of the domestic law by adoption by the superior courts of record and by the supreme Court in particular, in their decisions.
                                                         xxx                                   xxx                            xxx

International standard setting instruments have clearly recognized the principle of inter-generational equity.  It has been stated that humankind bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.  (Principle 1,  Stockholm Declaration) .  The natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land flora and fauna must be safeguarded  for the benefit of present and future generations. (Principle 2, Stockholm Declaration). The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all humankind  (Principle 5, Stockholm Declaration)  The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.  (Principle 3,  Rio De Janeiro  Declaration).  The inter-generational principle in my view, should be regarded  as axiomatic in the decision making process in relation to matters concerning the natural resources and the environment of Sri Lanka in general, and particularly in the case before us.  It is not something new to us, although memories may need to  be jogged. Judge C.G. Weeramantry, in his separate opinion in the Danube case (Hungary v. Slovakia - [1997]), (supra), referred to the “imperative of balancing the needs of the present generation with those of posterity”.  Judge weramantry referred at length to the irrigation works of ancient Sri Lanka, the Philosophy of not permitting even a drop of water to flow into the sea without benefiting humankind, and  pointed out that sustainable development had been already consciously practiced with much success for several millenia in Sri Lanka.  Judge Weeramantry said; “The notion of not causing harm to others and hence sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas  was a central notion of Buddhism.  It translated well into environmental attitudes.  “Alienum’ in this context would be extended by Buddhism to future generations as well, and to other component elements of the natural order beyond man himself, for the Buddhist concept of duty had an enormously long reach”.

https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sri-Lanka-Bulankulama-v.-Ministry-of-Industrial-Development-eppawala.pdf