APPENDIX 2
Memorandum from David Collins, Research
Engineer, Sustainability Centre for Environmental Strategy, University
of Surrey
WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
"SMART"LY TURNING RHETORIC INTO REALITY
INTRODUCTION
This submission is set out on two main sections.
The first directly answers the questions posed by the Committee
in its call for evidence. The second highlights a vital lesson
to learn from the World Summit that can be applied to all the
United Kingdom's strategies on Sustainable Development—the
requirement for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Timely (SMART) targets. Some recommendations are made in conclusion.
An Annex is attached which provides a complete
analysis of the WSSD Political Commitments using the SMART target
criteria.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
This analysis has been prompted by the experience
that I had during my time at the World Summit. Currently I am
studying for an EngD in Environmental Technology with the Centre
for Environmental Strategy at the University of Surrey. My particular
interest is social processes that can empower people and organisations
to achieve sustainability. I was fortunate enough to be a delegate
at the Summit and my thanks go to the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) for allowing me to be part of
their delegation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UK Government and populace face a number
of tough choices over the next 50 years in achieving sustainable
development (SD). It will take bravery in setting the type of
strategies, policies and targets that will deliver this.
The UK strategy on SD could include policies,
targets, and a level of commitment, beyond those contained in
the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) outcomes. We
could advocate policies in the UK and EU to:
— set urgent targets and measures to
reverse trends in climate change (using less fossil-fuel based
transport and energy sources);
— alter currently unsustainable consumption
patterns (moving from resource efficiency to resource conservation);
— promote renewable technologies;
— eradicate inequalities across the
globe;
— address environmental degradation
whilst developing economies;
— develop a framework on corporate
accountability for firms above SME size; and
— reform the Common Agricultural Policy
[4].
Furthermore, the UK could set targets that are
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely)
in these areas, and also recommend to the EU to do the same. Analysis
shows how it is SMART commitments that are necessary to turn the
Rhetoric into Reality (see section on Smart Commitments). Of the
531 commitments made at WSSD only 17 were SMART.
Furthermore, improvement could be made to the
processes of reaching consensus on sustainable development. There
is room for more involvement of, and influence for, the populace.
This is particularly the case for those who really need or want
commitments on sustainable development—such as the poor
and the children. It requires funding and bravery to design and
endorse such a public process.
In conclusion it is also suggested that one
(government) body managing SD commitments would be an effective
mechanism for achieving our commitment to sustainability.
ENVIRONMENT AUDIT
THEMES
(a) The United Kingdom was well represented
and highly involved in the Summit. However, there is evidence
to suggest that the level of involvement and influence of different
non-governmental stakeholders was not as equal as would be wished
for at such an event.
The involvement and influence of business at
the conference was high. For example one of the main communications
that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development made
at the Summit was that no binding legislation was required for
companies to improve their performance on sustainability—this
was the eventual position adopted in the political declarations
[1,2]
The level of involvement of traditional NGOs
at the event was high although judging by the Summit outcomes
their influence was low (no political commitment on renewable
technology targets, no energy access for all, no end to energy
subsidies, no corporate accountability, etc).
However, the real lack of equality was the degree
of involvement and influence that the people of different nations,
in particular the poor, experienced at the event. Attending the
Civil Society Forum at the Summit cost 150 US dollars, far beyond
the means of most of the poor of the world. The very people that
the WSSD discussions were about, and those most likely to experience
the implications of the outcomes, were those least represented
in the process. It would have been far easier (financially) for
a poor person from the UK to attend the Summit than a poor person
from Somalia—however the problem is shared for both countries.
Access to the Civil Society Forum did not imply
access to the United Nations led plenary meetings and round-table
discussions—access to these events was only available to
representatives of an accredited body (such as an NGO or a business
delegation). Civil Society events were held over an hour drive
from the UN led meetings whereas business-led meetings were generally
located in the same area as the UN. Many people taking part in
the Civil Society events were frustrated at the lack of influence
and involvement they had in the political process.
In this light it is possibly no surprise that
the Summit produced few commitments (see SMART Commitments section)
and has received bad press in the public domain; the people who
really need or want commitments on sustainable development were
not themselves present and contributing during the process.
In comparison one Summit that was created for
the very people it proposed to represent and that achieved its
aim was the Congress of the People, held in Kliptown Square, South
Africa, on 26 June 1955 [3]. In 1953 it was decided by the ANC
and other political bodies that a single people's charter was
required to deal with apartheid and to capture the aspirations
of the people for a free and democratic South Africa. There was
widespread enthusiasm for the project and in less than two years
thousands of people had taken part in meetings throughout the
country—making suggestions and demands. From these the Freedom
Charter was distilled. On 26 June 1955 this was presented to the
Congress of the People. Amongst other things the document declared
that that, "our country will never be prosperous or free
until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights
and opportunities". Commitments were made that the people
of South Africa (black and white together as equals) would strive
together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until democratic
changes such as, "All Shall Be Equal Before the Law",
"There Shall be Peace and Friendship" and "All
Shall Enjoy Equal Rights" were won. There was no timescale
put on their objectives and it was 1994 before a democratic non-racial
government took office in South Africa and the country subscribed
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The power of their Charter did not lie solely
in the commitments that were made but also in the fact that the
people of the country, who wanted and needed the changes, had
contributed to, and thus owned, the objectives.
The circumstances in South Africa during the
1950's were very different to those in the UK today. Nevertheless,
it would be interesting for the UK government to consider to what
extent the deliberations it makes on sustainable development involve
the voters, the poor and the children; the people that most face
the consequences of unsustainable development. In comparison,
to what extent can businesses input into these processes (and
have their opinions considered)?
There are new questions (and funds needed) to
address how to include opinion groups and people equally with
businesses in the deliberations on sustainable development—regardless
of whether they currently have the finances to present their case.
A national charter such as the freedom charter could achieve this.
It would take a brave government to recommend and endorse such
an activity. However, the end result of more involved, motivated,
and personally responsible stakeholders would be very attractive.
(b) The Summit has raised awareness of SD
issues in the UK, although mainly through the negative media coverage
that surrounded the event. However, increased public perception
of the problem drives personal responsibility and so this negative
publicity is positive in a way.
The UK Government has failed to capitalise on
the Summit to raise awareness itself. The Prime Minister, in his
speech on 1 September 2002 in Mozambique, spoke inspiringly about
the challenges of sustainable development. However, this is sort
of speech is heard very little at home. We face tough challenges
over the next 50 years, for example in addressing the 60% reduction
of energy consumption required for sustainable development as
indicated by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP)
5. The WSSD was an opportunity to raise awareness of such forthcoming
challenges with the populace—to prepare people for the tough
choices that will need to be faced.
(c) The Summit should definitely shape the
strategies of the UK. However, it need not limit the policies
or strategies that are developed either. The UK has more SMART
commitments (see section on SMART Commitments) on SD than have
been adopted at a global level. What is important is that we ensure
commitments made at Summits or in the UK are SMART.
Strategies in the UK will be different from
those of developing countries. The UK's biggest challenges are
to develop strategies to:
— reduce current over-consumption of
resources (moving from resource efficiency to resource conservation)—thus
reducing levels of emissions too;
— use less fossil-fuel based transport
and energy sources; and
— to provide aid to others (such as
the people in Bangladesh).
The UK should be looking to re-shape its policies
and strategies in these areas. Again the goals should be consistent
with the 60% energy reductions by 2050 recommended by the RCEP.
[5]
(d) The level of stakeholder dialogue has
dropped off post Summit. In addition, the media have not seemed
to present much about information the implementation of UK SD
commitments. Businesses and NGOs are still engaged in dialogue
but the public could be more engaged. It would be useful for the
public to hear more about UK commitments. For example, that the
EU and UK are committed to re-stocking levels of fish by 2015
and the actions that are being taken to do so are X, Y and Z—even
those that may cost jobs). This realism about the tough choices
the country is facing would prepare people for the culture change
required to achieve sustainability.
A scheme such as proposed in (a) would accomplish
such stakeholder involvement in a continuous way as the stakeholders
would own the process.
(e) There are a number of key changes to
the EU strategy that the UK Government should be advocating:
— compulsory corporate accountability
on firms above the SME size;
— reform for the Common Agricultural
Policy [4];
— we must "bite the bullet"
and set targets on creating more sustainable consumption patterns;
— the end of fossil fuel energy subsidies—and
the redirection of money into renewable technologies; and
— ensuring that the EU sets progressive
targets on renewable energy generation (excluding large scale
hydro-electric) as it promised to at the WSSD. These targets should
be set beyond 2020 to 2050.
The UK Government needs to stress the importance
of achieving SMART commitments in any strategy that is published
in 2003, even on the tougher subjects. It is these sorts of targets
that will deliver SD (see section on SMART Commitments).
SMART COMMITMENTS
In this section the Political Commitments from
the WSSD are summarised. This is done to distinguish something
that must become a vital element in the UK Government's Sustainable
Development Strategy—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic,
and Timely (SMART) targets. A fuller clarification of this analysis
is presented in the Annex.
Were Smart Commitments Made at the World Summit?
The WSSD Plan of Implementation is a 54 page
document written to represent the agreements made between nations.
It contains hundreds of commitments, objectives, promised actions
and targets. [1]
One of the most common and effective techniques
used in setting objectives or targets is the SMART methodology.
To provide an indication on the number and quality of the commitments
that were made by the political delegations at the Summit I applied
the SMART criteria to the commitments contained in the WSSD Plan
of Implementation. The results are presented in the Annex, Table
1, and graphically in Chart 1.[1]
SMART Commitments
The most pressing issues at the Summit were
poverty, the lack of sanitation, water and food experienced by
many, and the need for development for all—these have been
reflected in the commitments made. There are SMART commitments
in the Plan of Implementation in these areas to:
— halve the number of people whose
income is less than $1 dollar per day by 2015;
— halve the number of people without
access to safe drinking water by 2015;
— halve the number of people who do
not have access to basic sanitation by 2015;
— develop integrated water resource
efficiency management and water efficiency plans at national levels
by 2005;
— ensure that all children are able
to complete a full course of primary education by 2015;
— reduce by two thirds the mortality
rates for infants and children under five; and by three quarters
maternal mortality rates by 2015; and
— reduce by 25% the prevalence of HIV/AIDS
among young men and women aged 15-24 by 2010.
However, of these eight SMART commitments only
two are new commitments—the commitment on sanitation and
to develop water management and efficiency plans. The others had
already been made as part of the Millennium Development goals
or at the General Assembly's twenty-sixth special session [2].
Other existing commitments that were repeated in Johannesburg
were on chemicals and pesticides, persistent organic pollutants,
and fisheries.
Only seven of the 532 commitments were new measurable
commitments. The new commitments contained in the Plan of Implementation
were the following:
— a strategic approach to chemicals
will be developed by 2005;
— a report on the state of the marine
environment will be delivered by 2004 (plus a process to continue
reporting);
— an assessment of progress on Forests
and Trees will be presented to the UN in 2005;
— there will be a full and comprehensive
review in 2004 of the implementation of the Barbados Programme
of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States;
— destructive fishing practices will
be eliminated by 2012;
— developing integrated water resource
efficiency management & water efficiency plans at national
levels by 2005; and
— halving the number of people who
do not have access to basic sanitation by 2015.
The remainder of the 54-page Plan of Implementation
is made up of re-commitments and political statements with no
binding implications.
Non-Binding Commitments
There were eight commitments contained in the
document that would have been SMART if it were not for the fact
that they contained "get-out" clauses. For example,
one Summit commitment, that has been highly publicised, is to
maintain or restock fish to levels that can produce the "maximum
sustainable yield" by 2015. However, in the Plan of Implementation
this commitment is followed by the phrase, "where possible"
(1: p 13). Other such phrases include "aiming to achieve",
"where appropriate" and "encourage the application".
These phrases may not have been intended as
"get out clauses". They may well represent incomplete
agreement on issues by government delegations, which may be a
common feature of such political decelerations. They may represent
an intention to do more in the area (eg with fish stocks). However,
despite all the best intentions if one's goal is not binding then
it is less likely to be met, and there is an excuse if not—such
as "we were only aiming to achieve it".
Around 10% (51) of the commitments made were
phrased as things that "should" be done.
Commitments Missing Dates or Measure
The majority (455 or 86%) of commitments did
not contain a date for when they would be accomplished or were
not specific enough in definition to be measurable (given my interpretation
of the subjects in question). Most of these contained neither
a date nor a specific commitment (440 out of 455).
Summarising Political Commitments
It appears that the political will of the WSSD
was not very SMART. There may be actions carried out beyond the
commitments, and the promises that were made may prove to have
been made cautiously. However, this is speculation.
The implications of the Summit will be far reaching
and the lives of millions, even billions, of people will be improved
as a result. However, there were only a handful of new SMART political
commitments made as a result of the WSSD.
SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic
and Timely) commitments are truly useful as objectives in a number
of ways:
— they are easily communicable as objectives
to people;
— they provide motivation and a sense
of urgency;
— they allow you to form a plan of
action for their achievement;
— you know if you have achieved your
objective or not;
— if you fail it allows you to re-commit;
and
— if you succeed you have something
to celebrate.
In achieving a more sustainable society in the
UK we need to think smart and have SMART commitments.
IN CONCLUSION
The United Kingdom is among the best performing
nations on Sustainable Development. However, is it justifiable
for the UK as a nation to say that we are doing okay (better than
most) in our country whilst others in the global community are
not? Sustainable Development is about quality of life for everyone
across the world and we have an obligation as a member of that
global community to ensure that all are striving towards sustainable
ends.
The UK strategy on SD can include actions, and
a level of commitment, beyond those contained in the WSSD outcomes.
We could advocate policies in the UK and EU to:
— address environmental degradation
whilst developing economies;
— set urgent targets and measures to
reverse trends in climate change (using less fossil-fuel based
transport and energy sources);
— alter currently unsustainable consumption
patterns (moving from resource efficiency to resource conservation);
— promote renewable technologies;
— eradicate inequalities across the
globe;
— develop a framework for corporate
accountability on firms above the SME size; and
— reform the Common Agricultural Policy
[4].
Furthermore, the UK could set SMART targets
and advocate that the EU does the same in these areas. It is recommendation
that targets should be set to acknowledge the tough reductions
we must make by 2050 [5]. Measures like these are necessary to
turn the Rhetoric into Reality. At all levels there is lots of
talk about sustainable development, but not much SMART commitment
or action. Without targets and actions it is likely that the next
global Sustainable Development Summit will be called to address
the problems caused to people and planet as a result of decisions
made today.
SMART commitments are one mechanism to do better.
Placing accountability for the achievement of SMART objectives
with a group also aids their accomplishment. For example, a board
of directors is accountable to its shareholders to produce results—they
often resign or are replaced if they fail. This accountability
has them be motivated to succeed. Within the UK if one (government)
organisation was accountable for setting and achieving SD commitments
it would be more effective than the current multi-departmental
arrangement that history has provided us with.
November 2002
END NOTES
1. Political Declaration of Heads of States
(2002), World Summit On Sustainable Development Plan Of Implementation,
Johannesburg, South Africa, September 2002, available at http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/.
2. Political Declaration of Heads of States
(2002), The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development,
Johannesburg, South Africa, September 2002, available at http://
www.johannesburgsummit.org/
3. (1955), The Freedom Charter, adopted
at the Congress of the People, Kliptown, on 26 June 1955. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/charter.html
4. Blair, A. (2002), We can only face
these challenges together, Mozambique, 1 September 2002, available
at http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/wssd/updates/01speech.htm
5. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
(2000), Energy—The Changing Climate: Summary Report,
HMSO, London.
6. Wallström M, (2002), "From
Words to Deeds The Results of the Sustainability Summit in Johannesburg",
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) Corporate Breakfast
after Johannesburg, Brussels, 11 September 2002.
1 See Annex. Back
| 
