Annex
POLITICAL COMMITMENTS
(COMPLETE ANALYSIS)
In the following section of this document the
quality of the WSSD Political Commitments will be analysed. There
was much rhetoric about sustainable development from international
political delegations but was this rhetoric turned into reality—or
was there a contradiction?
Did we make Smart Commitments?
Media reports in the United Kingdom both pre
and post Johannesburg dubbed the Summit a failure. However, there
were successes associated with the Summit too, such as the ratification
of the Kyoto Protocol and the agreements made between Heads of
States and their countries. 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]
During most project management courses (in the
UK at least) it is common to study objective and target setting.
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. For the sake of
the analysis I define commitments as encompassing objectives,
promised actions and targets. I applied the SMART principles to
each paragraph of the declaration. Paragraphs that contained no
actions I did not count; paragraphs with more than one commitment
were classified by the highest order of (SMART) commitment. The
results are presented in Table 1, and graphically in Chart 1.
Table 1
| Type of Commitment
| Number | %
|
| 1. Commitments that were SMART | 17
| 3.2 |
| 1a Of which 10 were re-commitments to agreements already made
| 10 | 2
|
| 1b Of which seven were new | 7
| 1 |
| 2. SMART commitments containing statements such as "if possible" or "aiming to achieve"
| 8 | 1.5
|
| 3. Commitments that should be carried out (may be SMART or may not):
| 51 | 9.6
|
| 4. Commitments with no measure or timescale
| 440 | 82.9
|
| 5. Other commitments with either no timescale or no measure
| 15 | 2.8
|
| Total | 531
| 100 |
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.
During the Summit Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United
Nations, expressed that two hundred billion US dollars would be
the cost of providing safe drinking water and sanitation not for
half the people without access to it, but for all people. This
figure is approximately 10 times the amount of money that was
proposed during October 2002 to be spent updating the North-East
railway line in the UK.
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 and 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: p13).
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. The meaning of the word should
is concerned with obligation, duty, probability, conditionality,
or it is used to moderate the directness of a statement. It is
not the most useful word when expressing commitments that you
would like to be SMART. All of the 51 commitments that contain
the word should may remain 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.
There are commitments all nations are aligned with, such
as reducing poverty and water shortages, plus others that were
not mentioned in the WSSD Plan of Implementation (eg reducing
the incidence of Malaria). The implications of these commitments
will be far reaching and the lives of millions, even billions,
of people will be improved as a result. However, most of these
commitments communicated through the Summit existed before it
began.
There are only a handful of new SMART political commitments
made as a result of the WSSD. However, many non-binding statements
are being quoted as concrete commitments. For example, Margot
Wallstrm (the Member of the European Commission responsible for
Environment) in her speech at the Centre for European Policy Studies
(CEPS) on 11 September 20025 referenced the statement on sustainable
fish stocks highlighted earlier in this document as a firm commitment—not
something that will be delivered if possible. Whether this means
that the European Union will deliver this commitment in its waters
only, or whether politicians will be able to say that it was "not
possible" if they fail is not clear—only time will
tell. This is not to say that the EU and UK governments are not
taking serious stock of this situation—they are.
However, this point illustrates some of the problems that
exist in interpreting commitments that are not SMART—it
is difficult to tell if they have happened. 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 world we need to think smart
and have SMART commitments. This sort of thinking is common in
business, academia, the scientific community, sports, and in all
walks of life. A company's board of directors would not get away
running a company without specific objectives such as increasing
shareholder return, reducing costs, improving customer and employee
satisfaction, etc. When it comes to running a planet with a population
of six billion people, a finite supply of resources, and a limited
capacity to absorb emissions, the need for attention to detail
is even greater.
| 
