The Contested Legacy of Rio + 20

Maria Ivanova

Global Environmental Politics, Volume 13, Number 4, November 2013, pp. 1-11 (Article) Published by The MIT Press

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gep/summary/v013/13.4.ivanova.html

Access provided by University of Auckland (7 Nov 2013 04:28 GMT)

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

Maria Ivanova

Special Forum on Rio20 The Contested Legacy of Rio20

Maria Ivanova*

In June 2012, nearly fty thousand people gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the largest-ever global environmental summitthe UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio20). Long before the conference started, observers were predicting its failure. Designed with a wide range of objectives, the conference seems destined to fail, noted Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France. Without consensus, no action can be taken, and consensus will be impossible, he further remarked.1 Indeed, as soon as Brazils president Dilma Rousseff declared the conference closed, analysts pronounced it a colossal failure of leadership and vision2 and said it showed that governments have given up on the planet.3 Many activists also criticized the fty-page outcome document, entitled The Future We Want, as weak and lacking vision. Greenpeace dubbed it the longest suicide note in history.4 Indeed, high hopes and expectations for bold commitments by governments to a new, ambitious, collective global vision and concrete action remained unfullled. Governments renewed their political pledges to sustainable development but stopped short of concrete and comprehensive targets and timetables. They committed nancial, technological, and institutional resources, but not at the scale necessary to address persistent global problems. Progress seemed more palpable on the sidelines of Rio20 as hundreds of voluntary commitments sprang up and pledges of over $513 billion poured in. Was this global conference another wasteful talk shop or the causal mechanism behind aggregate shifts in international politics? What happened at Rio that represented a real change in the context of global environmental governance?
* The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions, as well as Marija Bingulac, Munyaradzi Chenje, Natalia Escobar-Pemberthy, Stanley Johnson, Brice Lalonde, Tse Yang Lim, and Ambassador John W. McDonald for comments on earlier drafts. 1. Rocard 2012. 2. Leape 2012. 3. George Monbiot. After Rio, We Know. Governments Have Given up on the Planet. The Guardian, June 25, 2012. 4. Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, quoted in Time, June 26, 2012. Leape 2012.
Global Environmental Politics 13:4, November 2013, doi:10.1162/GLEP_e_00194 2013 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

In this article, I offer an assessment of the Rio20 conference grounded in a historical perspective and reect on its results and consequences. I argue that the conferences impacts are subtle, yet signicant. Three main areas stand out: reform of international institutions, sustainable development goals (SDGs), and participation as principle and practice. The global decisions in these domains and the unprecedented local engagement provide critical junctures likely to shape global environmental governance for the next two decades.

The Road to Rio

Rio20 marked the culmination of forty years of global environmental governance. In 1972, under the motto Only One Earth, 113 governments came together for two weeks at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. They agreed on a set of global principles, outlined an action agenda, and formed a new UN body to promote international cooperation in the eld of the environmentthe UN Environment Programme (UNEP).5 Since then, three further mega-conferences have dened the eld, created its institutions, and shaped the global narrative:6 The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit), with 172 governments and 108 heads of state in attendance. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Summit), with 181 governments and 100 heads of state. The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio20), with 188 governments and 105 heads of state. The title and venue of Rio20 led many to expect another Rio Earth Summit. In 1992, just after the end of the Cold War, governments outlined a broad, comprehensive vision for sustainable development through the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; jump-started approval processes for what have come to be known as the Rio Conventions on Climate, Biodiversity, and Desertication, and agreed on Agenda 21, a 350-page voluntary action plan. They also created a new institution, the Commission on Sustainable Development, to monitor and report on Agenda 21s fulllment. In the two decades since Rio 1992, global problems have increased in number and complexity, their interconnectedness requiring collective action at multiple scales. Yet, while global goals have proliferated, they are rarely met, and multiple environmental indicators show decline. Of the ninety most important global environmental goals, only four showed progress in 2012.7 Meanwhile, states have focused on a multitude of domestic and regional problems making global consensus markedly more difcult. In the run-up to Rio20,
5. UNGA 1972. 6. ONeill 2007, Seyfang and Jordan 2002. 7. UNEP 2012a; 2012b.

Maria Ivanova

Europe was engrossed in the euro crisis; the US was wrestling with economic challenges following the nancial crisis and was embroiled in the 2010 presidential elections; the Middle East was in political turmoil, and China and India were experiencing growth and stability concerns. Countries visions for the multilateral system have diverged sharply, and political commitment to a shared vision for an economic, social, and environmental future has become increasingly difcult, or perhaps impossible. Against this backdrop, Rio20 did not seek to repeat the Rio Earth Summits achievements. Instead, its intention was to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges.8 Seeking to integrate and balance environment, economy, and society, sustainable development remains an aspirational concept with multiple meanings for multiple constituencies. It also underscores the reality that there is no single overarching solution to contemporary environmental, economic, or social problemsmuch less so to all of them collectively. The ambiguous nal outcome of Rio20, The Future We Want, has been perceived both as a meaningless potpourri of issues and as a successful outcome of a global gathering many considered doomed to failure.

Rio 20: Rapid Assessment

Over the two years preceding Rio20, governments gathered at three preparatory committee meetings (PrepComs), three intersessional meetings, and four informal consultations.9 Riddled with political tensions, suspicion, and mistrust, negotiations were excruciatingly slow. The draft text ballooned from 20 to 200 pages, with numerous brackets denoting disputed proposals or concepts. Just days before heads of state were to arrive in Rio, only 37 percent of the draft outcome document was agreed. Obstacles persisted throughout the negotiations in Rio, until the host country stepped in and within twenty-four hours produced a revised outcome document. The revisions, mostly decided in closed-door consultations, eliminated many contentious points and introduced compromise language for others. This approach contributed to the rapid conclusion of the negotiations and consensus around the nal outcome document. It also, however, raised concerns about the speed with which it was revised and, hence, the requisite sacrice of transparency and consultation. On June 22, 2012, political leaders from around the world signed on to the outcome document. The Future We Want does not present a grand transformative vision but reafrms past political commitments. It covers every possi8. UNGA 2010. 9. All meetings were held in New York except the third PrepCom, which took place in Rio de Janeiro just before Rio20.

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

ble concern under the broad rubric of sustainable development. The document lists twenty-six thematic areas including biodiversity, climate, water, and energy, environmental and social costs of production and consumption, jobs, social exclusion, and equity, among others. While the document highlights the interconnectedness among issues that cut through the environmental, economic, and social classications, it offers no targets, timelines, or specic objectives. Inclusive of every possible topic within sustainable development, it does not prioritize any areas or express a particular sense of urgency. Its most important achievement, some observers lamented, was simply that it did not regress. Yet The Future We Want did achieve what the authorizing resolution (64/236) called for in securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development. It outlined the reform of environment and sustainable development institutions; authorized new political processes, including a process on articulating SDGs; brought a broad spectrum of issues within the sustainable development mandate; and offered a wide range of actors license to move toward solving them. Despite signicant political constraints and predictions of imminent failure, Rio20 set the agenda of the next two decades for global environmental and sustainability governance. As of June 2013, three UN General Assembly resolutions operationalized the results of Rio20: 67/203 on Rio20 follow-up, 67/213 on UNEP, and 67/L.72 on the high-level political forum on sustainable development. Another resolution, 67/246, provided a budget of about $10 million for follow-up in 2013. Two processes are still in negotiation: on sustainable development goals and on a nancing strategy for sustainable development. The key to understanding Rio20s impact lies in discerning the detail in the broad political statements and the numerous ofcial and unofcial activities that constituted the conference.

Reform of International Institutions

Rio20s most important legacy is the reform of the international institutions for environment and sustainable development; it altered UNEPs institutional form and agreed to abolish the Commission on Sustainable Development. Reform of UNEP had been the subject of government deliberations for over a decade. Beginning with the 1997 Rio5 Summit at the UN headquarters, these discussions continued with the preparatory meetings for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, and subsequently under various auspices in the UN General Assembly and UNEPs Governing Council.10 Despite systematic pressure from the European Union and a number of scholars to transform UNEP from a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly into a specialized agency, governments decided that a dramatic change in UNEPs institutional form was neither necessary nor sufcient for UNEP to fulll its mandate. Rather, they committed to strengthen and upgrade UNEP by expanding its governing
10. Ivanova 2013 (forthcoming).

Maria Ivanova

council from fty-eight countries to universal membership; by increasing its nancial resources through greater contributions from the UN regular budget; and by expanding its role in capacity building and implementation. The outcome document, UNEP Governing Council decision 27/2 on institutional arrangements, and UN General Assembly resolutions 67/213 of December 21, 2012, and 67/251 of March 13, 2013, explicitly afrmed UNEPs leadership role in environmental governance. These documents accord UNEP some key attributes of a specialized agencyuniversality, more stable and predictable nances, and formal authoritywithout the limitation of a lengthy treaty negotiation process. As a result of Rio20, UNEP became the only UN subsidiary organ with universal membership, as its governing council transformed into the UN Environment Assembly. This change is expected to grant UNEP greater legitimacy vis--vis member states and multilateral environmental agreements. Universal membership in the environment assembly will formally involve all UN member states in decision-making, thus according its decisions greater legitimacy. It will also allow UNEP greater ability to engage in the work of the conventions. With conferences of the parties comprising from 116 to 197 members, the conventions have reportedly been reluctant to accept UNEP as an authority. However, even the UN General Assembly holds no formal authority over the conventions, and a specialized agency status would not grant UNEP authority over the conventions without signicant amendments to their existing structures. Ultimately, UNEP has to earn the necessary inuence to coordinate and oversee the work of the conventions and produce a coherent response to environmental challenges. Financially, UNEP also emerged in a stronger position. Afrming the need for secure, stable, adequate and predictable nancial resources for UNEP, Resolution 67/213 committed contributions from the UN regular budget in a manner that adequately reects the organizations administrative and management costs.11 This is an explicit return to Resolution 2997 (XXVII) of December 15, 1972, which created UNEP. The new resolution noted that the costs of servicing the Governing Council and providing the small secretariat . . . shall be borne by the regular budget of the United Nations and that operational programme costs, programme support and administrative costs of the Environment Fund shall be borne by the Fund.12 Importantly, Resolution 67/213 also requests the UN Secretary-General to ensure that the budgetary resources UNEP receives correspond to the scope of its work program, which will increase the share of UN regular budget resources from the current 4 percent of UNEPs total budget (or $6 million per year).13 Contributions from the UN regular budget to UNEPs core operational needs would serve a role similar to that of assessed contribu11. UNGA 2013b. 12. UNGA 1972. 13. Scanlon 2012, p. 3.

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

tions in specialized agencies, a stable and predictable amount providing certainty for a core budget. UNEP could then raise program resources through entrepreneurial means. Indeed, support for UNEP at Rio20 went beyond rhetoric and came from unexpected quarters. Chinas premier and Brazils president announced contributions of $6 million each, putting them among UNEPs top twenty donors.14 Through the renewed political commitment to UNEP, countries formally afrmed the organizations mandate in its entiretyfrom the initial General Assembly resolution to the latest political declaration. They emphasized that it was important for UNEP to enhance its voice and ability to realize its coordination mandate, by increasing its engagement in key coordination bodies and by leading efforts to formulate UN system-wide strategies on the environment. Importantly, governments afrmed a greater role for UNEP in helping nation states to build capacity and implement environmental commitments, a role that would bring the organization closer to on-the-ground activities. In a rare institutional reform move, governments decided to abolish the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)the central institutional outcome of the 1992 Rio Earth Summitand replace it with a high-level intergovernmental political forum. Despite several attempts to revamp its program of work and its format, the CSD had failed to catalyze sufcient political commitment and action. Its futile negotiations (such as in 2007 on energy and climate change) illustrated the fundamental disagreements between states on the nature, scope and ambition of the sustainable development agenda and the role, relevance and value of the CSD itself.15 Unable to address contemporary global challenges and add value to existing processes, the CSD had come to be seen as ineffective and even counterproductive. Moreover, opposition to the CSD came from many UN agencies, which saw its efforts as duplicative, particularly in the environmental eld. The core functions of the new high-level political forum are to provide political leadership for sustainable development, follow up and review progress in implementation of sustainable development commitments, enhance integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a holistic and crosssectoral manner at all levels, and provide an action-oriented agenda, ensuring due consideration of new and emerging challenges.16 The forum will convene at the heads of state level in the General Assembly every four years beginning in 2014, and annually at the ministerial level in the Economic and Social Council. The ambitious mandate carries the power for more effective coordination and integration of sustainable development at all levels. It also poses the peril of vacuous promises if not properly operationalized and executed. Rio20s outcome document and the General Assembly resolution creat14. Ivanova 2011. 15. IISD 2007. 16. UNGA 2013a, para 2.

Maria Ivanova

ing the forum set out a comprehensive vision for a new UN institution, but they do not provide a clear division of labor between the environment and sustainable development institutions. Thus the potential for overlap, duplication, and competition between the new forum, UNEP, other UN institutions, and multilateral environmental agreements remains signicant and threatens to perpetuate the dynamic that led to the institutional reform in the rst place.

Sustainable Development Goals

Many observers agree that one of the most important outcomes of Rio20 was the agreement to set global SDGs.17 Inspired by the millennium development goals (MDGs), which are set to expire in 2015, the SDGs will focus on priority areas for sustainable development and apply to both developed and developing countries. The MDGs have underscored the power of a global vision. They have mobilized political attention, fostered public awareness, harnessed resources, and induced governments and others to collect and produce new data and information. The SDGs, suggested by Colombia and Guatemala and supported by multiple international scientic and political panels, have similarly gained political center stage. Envisioned as comprehensive and universal, the SDGs will seek to frame the nexus between basic human needs, environmental sustainability, social equity, and governance tools. To develop the goals, governments established a new intergovernmental process, overseen by the UN General Assembly and open to all stakeholders. On January 22, 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted a decision (67/555) to establish the open working group on SDGs, which the Rio20 outcome document envisioned as comprising thirty representatives from the ve UN regional groups, nominated by member states. Selecting thirty countries, however, has proven more difcult than expected, as most member states demand to be engaged in the process, which they perceive will shape the new global goals. Once developed, the goals will likely chart the course of sustainable development for the coming decades. They are also likely to inuence ofcial development assistance priorities, much like their predecessors, the MDGs. The nal composition of the group has therefore grown from thirty to seventy countries. Chaired by Hungary and Kenya, the group expects to deliver results in February 2014.

Participation as Principle and Practice

Rio20 called for increased global engagement in environmental governance. The outcome document reected the evolving global norm for participation from the full and effective participation of all countries in decision making
17. Interview with Andr Correa do Lago. Center for Governance and Sustainability at University of Massachusetts Boston, in Nairobi Kenya, February 19, 2013; Evans and Steven 2012; Louise Gray. Rio20 Agree to Sustainable Development Goals Says, Caroline Spelman. The Telegraph, June 20, 2012; Griggs et al. 2013; Iguchi et al. 2012; Melamed and Ladd 2013.

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

processes to enhancing the participation and effective engagement of civil society in multiple governance aspects.18 Paragraphs 42 to 55 of the outcome document afrm the commitment to engage non-state actors in processes that contribute to decision-making, planning and implementation of policies and programmes for sustainable development at all levels. While a broad norm of participation had been in existence, governments began to apply it more forcefully after Rio20. In negotiations during the rst universal UNEP governing council in 2013, some governments insisted, in the face of opposition, that civil society participation in deliberations on environmental matters be explicitly required within the new UN Environment Assembly. This norm has also been adopted in the new high-level political forum on sustainable development, where it extended beyond the traditional nine major groups to explicitly include academic institutions and other stakeholders.19 During the 10 days of the conference, 4,000 side events took place in Rio, 500 of them at the ofcial conference center. Myriad local initiatives have sprung up in cities and on campuses across the planet. Governments, businesses, civil society groups, and universities registered over 600 voluntary commitments in energy, transport, green economy, disaster reduction, desertication, water, forests, agriculture and more, and mobilized over $513 billion to meet them. The peoples summitorganized as a counter-conference across the citybrought together 15,000 people looking for alternatives to the ofcial government processes under the banner, Come re-invent the world. Meanwhile, acknowledging the feebleness of previous commitments from the private sector, two hundred CEOs met in their own parallel eventthe Business Action for Sustainable Development Conferenceto encourage business to implement change at scale. Leaders of thirty-seven banks, investment funds, and insurance companies signed on to the Natural Capital Declaration, committing to help build an understanding of their impacts and dependencies on natural capital; embed natural capital into their products and services; report or disclose on the theme of natural capital; and account for natural capital in accounting frameworks.20 Thirty prominent insurance companies worth over $5 trillion launched the Principles for Sustainable Insurance, aiming to green the sector and provide insurance tools for risk management. Hundreds of judges, chief justices, and prosecutor generals gathered at the World Congress on Justice in Rio to articulate the role of courts in environmental policy. Thousands of students and faculty from across the world engaged in Rio20 as thinkers and doers, articulating education and sustainability goals and initiatives in campuses and communities worldwide. Civil society engagement in articulating a new global vision for sustainable development has continued beyond the conference. UN Secretary-General
18. UNGA 2012, para 76(e), 76(h). 19. UNGA 2013a, para 16. 20. Natural Capital Declaration 2012.

Maria Ivanova

Ban Ki-moon convened a high-level panel to advise on the global development agenda beyond 2015 and prepare a bold yet practical development vision . . . for a global post-2015 agenda with shared responsibilities for all countries and with the ght against poverty and sustainable development at its core.21 Cochaired by the presidents of Indonesia and Liberia and the prime minister of the UK, the panel includes eminent people from government, academia, NGOs, and business and has engaged in a sustained dialogue with civil society around the world.

Rio 20s Legacy

Mega-conferences have been both criticized as wasteful talk shops,22 and lauded as the causal mechanisms behind aggregate shifts in international politics.23 Commentators question the utility of global conferences as political gatherings but acknowledge their power to draw together large numbers of people with the necessary commitment, energy, and enthusiasm to make a change in their communities and around the world. Rio20 looks to have proven both correct. Under the banner of sustainable development, Rio20 could not zero in on a handful of issues; it had to tackle all. The long list of concerns, lack of clear priorities, and reafrmation of past principles created a sense of endless and even meaningless discussion. Though verbose and cautious, The Future We Want afrmed that the problems of today are similar to those the world faced in preceding decades but bigger and more interconnected. Despite its aws, Rio20 brought together political capital in ways that would not have been possible without the focus of the conference. As a result, governments completed the long-standing institutional reform process, offered options for rethinking nancing, recommended the creation of SDGs, and conrmed participation as a core principle and practice. While it may be too soon to assess Rio20s results for global affairs, its impact on Rio de Janeiro offers a glimpse into what is possible when global political gatherings catalyze political action. The conference brought sustainability into the mainstream media and into everyday conversations in the host city; it catalyzed grass-roots political activism and national political leadership. A public opinion survey showed that 74 percent of Rio residents knew about the conference and its goals. An estimated 200,000 people owed through the Humanity 2012 exhibit near Copacabana Fort that showed a possible model of development integrating economic prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental stewardship.24 Rios municipal government issued permits for twenty-three demonstrations, the largest of which brought together thousands of protesters concerned about the lack of progress on sustainability and global justice. At the
21. 22. 23. 24. UN 2012. Fomerand 1996. Haas 2002, 74. The Christian Science Monitor, June 24, 2012.

10

The Contested Legacy of Rio20

same time, Brazilian governors signed the 2012 Rio Declaration, committing to 20-percent reduction in energy consumption in public buildings and emissions from transportation by 2020. Rios City Hall proposed tax incentives for green construction. Banco do Brasil announced a large loan to clean up the lagoons in Barra da Tijuca. And the Brazilian government announced the creation of Rio Centre, the World Centre for Sustainable Development, which will engage in knowledge creation and dissemination locally and globally. In essence, Rio20s lasting legacy will likely be subtle yet signicant through the institutions it reformed, the values it reafrmed, the global goals it launched, and the local initiatives it inspired. Indeed, it might just be the critical juncture catalyzing the formation of a new group of leaders, the adaptive, perceptive leaders of tomorrow attuned to local realities, globally.

References
Evans, Alex, and David Steven. 2012. Sustainable Development GoalsA useful outcome from Rio 20. New York, NY: NYU Center of International Cooperation. Fomerand, Jacques. 1996. UN Conferences: Media Events or Genuine Diplomacy? Global Governance 2 (3): 361375. Griggs, David, Mark Stafford-Smith, Owen Gaffney, Johan Rockstrm, Marcus C. hman, Priya Shyamsundar, Will Steffen, Gisbert Glaser, Norichika Kanie, and Ian Noble. 2013. Policy: Sustainable Development Goals for People and Planet. Nature 495 (7441): 305307. Haas, Peter. 2002. UN Conferences and Constructivist Governance of the Environment. Global Governance 8 (1): 7391. The Hufngton Post. 2012. Rio20 Conference: Hopes and Expectations Before UN Summit June 14. Available at http://www.hufngtonpost.com/2012/06/14/rio-20conference-hopes-expectations_n_1593171.html, accessed January 29, 2013. Iguchi, Masahiko, Simon Hoiberg Olsen, and Ikuho Miyazawa. 2012. Current Outlook on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Brief Analysis of Country Positions. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Tech / IGES / UNU-IAS. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 2007. Summary of the Fifteenth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development: 30 April11 May. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 5 (254). Ivanova, Maria. 2011. Financing International Environmental Governance: Lessons from the United Nations Environment Programme. Governance and Sustainability Issue Brief Series: Brief 1. Center for Governance and Sustainability: University of Massachusetts Boston. Available at http://www.umb.edu/cgs/publications/issue_brief _series, accessed May 2, 2013. . 2013. Reforming the Institutional Framework for Environment and Sustainable Development: Rio20s Subtle but Signicant Impact. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development. 12 (3): forthcoming. Leape, Jim. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2012. Statement to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available at: http://wwf.panda.org/?205343/WWF-Rio20-closing-statement, accessed June 11, 2013.

Maria Ivanova

11

Melamed, Clare and Paul Ladd. 2013. How to Build Sustainable Development Goals: Integrating Human Development and Environmental Sustainability in a New Global Agenda. Research Report. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. Natural Capital Declaration. 2012. 37 Finance CEOs Announce Commitment on Natural Capital at Rio20. Available at http://www.naturalcapitaldeclaration.org/2012/ 06/37-nance-ceos-announce-commitment-on-natural-capital-at-rio20/, accessed January 29, 2013. ONeill, Kate. 2007. From Stockholm to Johannesburg and Beyond: The Evolving MetaRegime for Global Environmental Governance. Unpublished paper presented at the Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Rocard, Michel. 2012. Dont Blame it on Rio. February 22. Available at http://www .project-syndicate.org/commentary/don-t-blame-it-on-rio, accessed January 29, 2013. Scanlon, John E. 2012. Enhancing Environmental Governance for Sustainable Development: Function-Oriented Options. Governance and Sustainability Issue Brief Series: Brief 5. Center for Governance and Sustainability: University of Massachusetts Boston. Available at http://www.umb.edu/cgs/publications/issue_brief_series, accessed May 2, 2013. Seyfang, Gill, and Andrew Jordan. 2002. The Johannesburg Summit and Sustainable Development: How Effective Are Environmental Conferences? In Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2002/2003, edited by Olav Schram Stokke and ystein B. Thommessen, 1939. London: Earthscan Publications. UN (United Nations). 2012. UN Secretary-General Appoints High-Level Panel on Post2015 Development Agenda. Note to Correspondents. July 31. Available at http:// www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid2455, accessed May 2, 2013. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 2012a. Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations. . 2012b. Measuring Progress: Environmental Goals & Gaps. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 1972. Resolution 2997 (XXVIII): Institutional and Financial Arrangements for Environmental Cooperation, December 15. . 2010. Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. A/64/236.31, March 31. . 2012. The Future We Want. A/66/L.56, July 27. . 2013a. Format and Organization aspects of the high-level political forum on sustainable development. A/67/L.72, June 27. . 2013b. Report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on its twelfth special session and the implementation of Section IV.C, entitled Environmental pillar in the context of sustainable development, of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. A/RES/67/213, March 15.