±«Óãtv

If you like puzzles, see if you can complete this sequence:

1972 - Stockholm
1982 - Nairobi
1992 - Rio de Janeiro
2002 - Johannesburg
2012 - ???

As Rolf Harris might ask: can you see what it is yet?

If you live in the land of UN-speak where cities become synonymous with the conferences they have hosted you'll have decoded the sequence - the series of major summits on the human environment, or on environment and development, or on sustainable development, that have marked the last decades.

The question being asked now is:

And I'm not talking about something like the currently going on in Poland, or the in Rome; but something huge, all-encompassing, potentially epoch-making, which and , if not and , arguably were.

It's a proposal backed by the bloc, which has asked the UN General Assembly to commission another of these epics for 2012. The Brazilian government has offered to play host once more.

The reasons why another summit is needed are not hard to see. As the , virtually every indicator of the world's environmental health is pointing downhill.

Even if you're one of those people who believes that the human race's only responsibility is to protect its own interests, this should ring a few alarm bells when you tot up the implications for people who depend on fresh water, forests, fertile soil, clean air, and so on.

Some sustainable development professionals also argue that the failed to encapsulate humanity's need for a healthy environment, and that issues such as climate change and desertification in a way that is not reflected in existing international agreements.

The fragmentation of "the environment" into separate treaties has also brought its problems. Biofuels would always have made less sense in a body considering all environmental issues than they did purely in terms of climate change; and when we have more than 700 international environmental agreements, doesn't it make sense once in a while to join them up?

The main argument against holding a Rio+20 - or a Stockholm+40, or a Johannesburg+10, if you prefer - is also pretty self-evident.

In a nutshell, these past summits have not brought the sea-changes needed to put societies on a sustainable path.

At the global level, are still rising and at an alarming rate; continues unchecked. , the ambitious programme to integrate sustainability into decision-making at local level across the world, has disappeared from the political lexicon.

So, the argument goes, why waste time and resources on another big international jargon-fest that is likely to achieve equally little?

Others would argue that the various summits have brought concrete achievements - at least slowing the pace of environmental decline, if not halting it. They have given the impetus to international agreements such as the , which restricts the international movement of hazardous waste.

At the very least, they have brought environmental issues such as acid rain and deforestation to the forefront of government and public attention.

So will a Rio+20 happen? There is certainly appetite for it within some important governments and the NGO community, although in principle the UN is trying to minimise these big set-piece events, partly to save money.

If it does happen, what should be discussed? At a [pdf link] on the issue, I asked whether the expanding human population should be on the agenda; as , a bigger number of humans means more pressure on the planet's resources.

And what about the relationship between the various environmental treaties and the ? Is a sustainable global society achievable without unpicking that agreement?

So what do you think? Is it worth it? If it is, what should the priorities be?

I can't promise that your thoughts will travel further than this blog; but you never know.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?