There has been a mixed reaction from around the globe to the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.

While some papers are scathing in their criticism, others hold on to a glimmer of hope.

Frustration

[The poorer countries] do not believe that the resolutions adopted will free them from misery and save the planet from self-destruction

Mexico's La Jornada

Brazil's O Globo says the summit was marked by a "general feeling of frustration", and that the main document it produced - the Implementation Plan - "was seen by environmentalists as a sheaf of UN archive papers without new goals or the force of law".

La Jornada of Mexico agrees that the mood at the end of the summit was one of frustration, especially as far as the poorer countries were concerned.

They "do not believe that the resolutions adopted will free them from misery and save the planet from self-destruction," the paper says.

India's Hindustan Times too reacts despondently.

"The plan that eventually emerged doesn't appear to hold much promise for the poor," it says, as it fails to tackle the mounting world population.

However, The Indian Express says the country could learn from the summit's emphasis on water management.

"If Johannesburg can prompt a rethink in national priorities even in the handling of this one resource, it would have served a purpose," it says.

Call for action

[World leaders] failed to reach a consensus on how serious the problems really are, how to solve them and at whose expense

Pakistan

The newspaper Pakistan calls for action rather than words on the part of world leaders.

There is a "gulf between their words and deeds," the paper says. It calls for "practical steps based on ground realities".

Once again, world leaders "failed to reach a consensus on how serious the problems really are, how to solve them and at whose expense," it says.

South Korea's Korea Herald says the summit resolution "appeared rather long on good resolutions but short on specific targets and timetables".

Hope

The United Arab Emirates' Al-Bayan says there have been so many summits that "lead to nothing". But it clings to the hope that the "honourable voices" among the summit's delegates will make this summit different.

[The summit has] to some extent been a success

London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat

The London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat strikes one of the most upbeat notes. "It is quite hard to believe that the results (of the summit) are contrary to what has been expected," it says.

The meeting has "to some extent been a success," it says.

But Libya's Al-Shams comes down hard on those it regards as responsible for polluting the environment, exploiting the poor, creating ecological disasters, and demanding liberalisation of trade while protecting their own products.

They "should be tried because they are more dangerous than al-Qaeda," it says.

Results "unclear"

France's Le Monde criticises the summit for a lack of "clear and measurable" results and describes it as an "over-ambitious and insufficiently focused UN jamboree".

But the paper does welcome the presence of the multinational companies. Such enterprises, it explains, "often yield more power than actual nation states" and "cannot be ignored".

You can hardly expect anything else from the great UN 'contraptions' than a catalogue of good intentions passed through the mill of inter-state negotiations

France's Liberation

Liberation says it had in any case had low expectations of the summit.

But at least it will have served to emphasise the need for international cooperation - something the US is in danger of neglecting, the paper adds.

In Germany, Sueddeutsche Zeitung doubts whether the summit's action programme is worthy of its name. The paper finds "particularly annoying" the "absence of a concrete target for the use of renewable energy".

It concedes that the agreement on water and sanitation was undoubtedly valuable, but fears that there will be no change in overall trends.

There is no way other than to struggle for better solutions at such summits

Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Italy's La Repubblica agrees that "in its 70 pages the Action Plan has many declarations and good suggestions, but very few deadlines and precise obligations."

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is contemptuous of the results but sees no other way.

"There is no alternative to struggling for better solutions at such summits," it says. "The meagre outcome of Johannesburg does nothing to change this."

Progress "minimal"

Spain's El Pais is scathing in its condemnation. "If we want to leave to the coming generations not even a better planet, but merely an inhabitable planet, we will have to go much further than the paltry results achieved," it says.

The summit, it says, made "minimal" progress, merely highlighting once again the problems that remain to be resolved.

Resolution "short on specifics" - Korea Herald

El Mundo is slightly more optimistic. "It seems easy to make a negative assessment", it says.

While "none of the initial expectations have been met," it says, nevertheless "some limited progress has been made".

"The Johannesburg fiasco has shown that some states want to head in the right direction," it adds.

France's Le Figaro too cautions against an overly-critical attitude to the summit.

"It is easy to be cynical," it says and draws comfort from the emphasis given to environmental issues.

"The main thing is that Europe seems prepared, with France, to champion a new North-South dialogue on the environment," it says.

Kyoto

The money wasted in Johannesburg would be enough for several poverty alleviation programmes

Ukrayina Moloda

Russia's Trud is upbeat about the summit's outcome. The paper welcomes Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov's announcement that Russia would ratify the Kyoto Protocol "in the very near future".

"This means that the document can come into force even without the participation of the USA," it says.

But Ukraine's Ukrayina Moloda is less impressed. It criticises the large number of delegates at the conference, which it says put the cost of the summit at $65m.

"The money wasted in Johannesburg would be enough for several poverty alleviation programmes," the paper says.

Focus on Zimbabwe

In Africa, Kenya's Daily Nation focuses on what it describes as Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's "furious diatribe" against UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during the summit.

"The time is long gone," it says, when African leaders could "wish away their own shortcomings by blaming colonialists. They must be held accountable for the ills they themselves have created."

[Powell's] bid to blame Zimbabwe for the prevailing food crisis yesterday backfired

Zimbabwe's The Herald

South Africa's The Star says it is worrying how "enthusiastically" Mr Mugabe's speech was applauded by some delegates.

And it says the South African government should take this as a warning and speed up the pace of land reform.

Zimbabwe's The Herald turns its attention to US Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech that met with protest from many delegates. His "bid to blame Zimbabwe for the prevailing food crisis yesterday backfired when he was booed and jeered by delegates," the paper says.

And Zimbabwe's independently-owned Financial Gazette says "hired thugs" once again showcased "Zimbabwe's madness" at a world forum. When a country's leaders "become preoccupied with organising such useless protests... you should know that that country is doomed," it says.

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.