There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon, though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/
What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
> There's pressure from your peers to meet deadlines you have agreed upon
That is my point exactly, most countries have agreed to targets and deadlines that they have not met either through inaction or something else entirely.
So what is the point of the new targets if the old targets have not been met yet?
> What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?
How about meeting the previous targets before setting new ones? Otherwise you just loose credibility.
> though some countries have the excuse that because the party in Government changes every 4 years, they didn't really agree to anything :/
I mean the agreement is between the countries and not ruling regimes/parties. I would find it hard to assume that a diplomat will say we didn't agree on anything, this was previous government to be very appealing argument. Although there are details like in the US getting back on their pledges and who can say something. But that's more of power dynamics and not actual argument. Otherwise these countries engaged in decades long agreements with many parties (even international agreements) without problems.
What would you suggest that they should do instead of setting goals?