Goals Those involved in developing the plan will often wish to express more general or aspirational goals, probably couched in more imprecise terms. The use of such general formulations need not be a problem so long as they are incorporated in a systematic framework. For example (using the methodology followed in some development assistance programming), the broadest objectives of the plan might be described as goals. They might be expressed in terms such as “to promote broad public awareness of human rights” or “to strengthen the capacity of national human rights institutions”. Expressed in this way, they would not lend themselves to detailed analysis but serve the purpose of giving a clear indication of the government’s intentions. Such general goals should be few in number. A lengthy list risks drowning the plan in vague (and often too familiar) rhetorical flourishes. Objectives At the next subordinate level, the plan may outline more specific targets as objectives. These should not simply be a rewording of the goals but should set out conditions providing evidence that the goals are being achieved. For example, pursuing the public awareness theme, an objective might be “to disseminate awareness of the human rights needs of vulnerable groups in society”. This greater level of specificity will serve the important purpose of facilitating more effective monitoring and evaluation. Activities and performance indicators The next subordinate level may comprise a list of the various activities proposed as the substantive content of the plan. These are the specific actions that the government concerned commits itself to undertake. An activity corresponding to the example given above might be “to produce and arrange dissemination of a series of radio and television programmes on the human rights of vulnerable groups in society”. Completion of the various activities would represent achievement of the objectives set out at higher levels in the plan. Looking at the logical character of the plan, these actions may be incorporated as specific performance indicators, which will lend themselves to more effective implementation and monitoring. It is extremely important for the performance indicators to be clear and fully understood by all who need to work with them. It will usually be better if they are simple and precise. It is also important for the coordinating committee and the relevant implementing agency or agencies to agree that the performance indicators represent the standard that will be used to evaluate whether or not the agreed objectives have been achieved. It is probably better not to include an objective in the plan unless there is a genuine willingness to move towards its achievement and some reasonable prospect of success. The inclusion of targets for rhetorical reasons is likely only to undermine the whole planning process and, by diminishing the plan’s credibility, to render less likely the achievement of other more realistic goals. While the preparation of the plan is not intended to become a mechanical exercise, the process may become clearer if, in addition to the narrative text, the plan is prepared in a tabular format that sets out the interrelationship between its various elements. Such 76