Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 23 October 2003