Let me suggest there would be value in our trying to keep a log of post-Rio+20 analyses or assessments, such as the one by CAP, posted to gep-ed earlier today by Michael Maniates.
In England, while Rio+20 was in progress, I noted a very negative press for the conference, uniformly across those British newspapers that bothered to report on Rio+20 at all. And in three very recent online reports or post-mortems I happen to have encountered, one posted to gep-ed by Pam Chasek, yesterday, another contributed to the Migratory Wildlife Network Digest by Margi Prideaux (with more to come), and a press summary from Infosylva, there is essentially no good news. What happened and what, if anything, went wrong? Where might one turn for some understanding of what the Rio+20 outcomes mean? Here's the (incomplete) list I have at this point: Chasek/IISD http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/enb/ Prideaux/MWN http://wildmigration.org/newsletter.php?newsletter_select=29 Infosylva http://www.fao.org/forestry/33165-092ea9bc725a616b7d7d792239690cb3b.pdf James et al./CAP http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/06/rio_text.html I hope others will log additional items to the list as time goes by. Geoffrey. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith Emeritus Professor of Political Science University of California, Davis. Associate Editor, JIWLP.
