It is a stated objective for the Rio+20 Summit to try to assess progress in implementing goals set in 1992 and again in 2002, including the progress achieved by the major conventions. Analysis prepared for Rio+20 suggests that goal-setting in relation to the environment has worked most effectively when clear quantitative targets have been identified. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer defined specific timeframes for the achievement of mandatory targets, and includes reviews of phase-outs supported by scientific updates. It is seen as a model of efficiency for international environmental agreements. Not all agreements are framed with quantitative targets and evidence-based reporting in mind, and the targets may read more like recommendations.

The availability of baseline information for important indicators has been shown to be a practical necessity when attempting to track progress towards agreed targets – such as that adopted by The World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 “to reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2010”. The lack of quantitative, baseline data on biodiversity makes it impossible to demonstrate evidence of progress in real terms.

The United Nations Environment Programme has observed that numeric and time-bound targets have aided in the progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), for example, and should be applied towards our environmental objectives as well. A healthy cynicism can be detected in our well-connected 21st century societies with regard to environmental commitments that are not evidence-based, monitored independently or verified for compliance. The underlying data must be an integral part of the process and of proven quality. Quantitative targets can be assumed to be the socially acceptable standard for new environmental agreements, with realistic plans for the establishment of baseline data and for routine monitoring.

Earth observation data and derived information have proven to be essential to the development of the necessary evidence, and of our improved understanding of the Earth System. Earth observations provide the evidence necessary for informed decision-making – supporting the science that underpins strategies for global environmental decision-making – and for monitoring our progress on all geographical scales as we explore new development paths aimed at sustainable management of the planet.

Earth observations are important for our future decision-making processes at every stage of the coordinated action being pursued through the Rio Summit process:

− evidence: Earth observations support the formulation of authoritative scientific advice. Evidence is vital for governments when deciding whether to fund mitigation measures, how to react to impending crises in resource shortages, or whether to participate in agreements or conventions that require costly changes in national consumption patterns;

− baselines: establishing baseline information against which ongoing changes can be measured, such as greenhouse gas emissions or national forest inventories;

− monitoring and compliance: we can expect to see increasing emphasis on international policy measures and treaties emerge in future. Earth observations will form an essential role in supporting such agreements by verifying countries’ fulfilment of their treaty obligations. The economic implications of such agreements can be enormous for countries, so highly visible and public measures to ensure compliance will be an important part of their success. Satellite data will be fundamental in developing the routine reporting required to monitor progress on all scales: nationally, in support of government reports to the major conventions and globally so that key indicators can be derived and tracked. Earth observation satellite data contribute to the creation of common databases and reporting procedures among different conventions;