International
examples
85. We have looked across the piece and also at the
United States, Germany, New Zealand, Australia (particularly selected
provinces) and Canada. The Commonwealth connection makes the Australian,
New Zealand and Canadian examples perhaps the most relevant in
terms of parliamentary systems that most closely resemble arrangements
in the UK.
The European Union
86. We have referred to our previous work in assessing
the progress of the European Union's efforts to integrate environmental
policy considerations into other policy areas: EU policy and
the environment: an agenda for the Helsinki Summit.[119]
The main development since that report has been the agreement
between Member States and the Commission to develop a fair panoply
of strategies: continuing to establish as well as develop and
'deepen' the sectoral strategies of the Council of Ministers;
developing a 6th Environmental Action Programme; and establishing
a pan-EU sustainable development strategy. As we concluded last
year, the trick will be not only developing, but also coordinating,
these strategies.
The United States
87. In 1969-70 a number of reforms at a federal level
were put in place to address environmental degradation in the
US. The world's first statutory environmental impact assessment
regime was introduced—the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Under this regime federal agencies are required to
incorporate environmental considerations into their proposals
for legislation and other major actions. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was also created to regulate pollution to air, water
and other environmental media and plays a role in the NEPA process.
The Council on Environmental Quality was established to advise
the President on the progress of the system.
88. In 1992 the President's Council on Sustainable
Development was established to help implement Agenda 21 and develop
and recommend to the President a national sustainable development
action strategy that will foster economic vitality. It consists
of 25 members drawn from industry, government and NGOs. It produced
a major report in May 1999 Towards a Sustainable America which
is now 'with the President for consideration' but no further progress
can realistically be expected until after the November 2000 presidential
election has come to a final conclusion.
89. A significant test of the US's green credentials
has been the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol to the UN Framework Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC
COP6). The implications of the unsuccessful negotiations in The
Hague in late November 2000 were still taking shape as this report
was being finalised. What was clear was that the United States
had not been in the vanguard of the effort to address the emission
of greenhouse gases by reducing domestic consumption of energy.
The President's Council on Sustainable Development, however, has
recognised the increasing emissions likely to be coming from the
developing world but concluded also that "industrialised
nations must show leadership to demonstrate the feasibility and
benefits of a different development path".[120]
90. The Council (and Office) on Environmental Quality
makes recommendations to the President on the environmental impacts
of federal agencies and produces annual assessments of the level
of integration of environmental concerns in economic and sectoral
decisions. The General Accounting Office (national audit body)
also has a relevant, though not specific, remit but states in
its annual report that the environment is "a major theme"
in its work. The Congressional Resources Committee is responsible
for CEQ funding and for instance reported last year on the implementation
of National Environmental Protection Act. The Committee criticised
it severely for shortcomings such as "the huge proliferation
of paperwork", "sham public participation" and
"waste of taxpayers' money".[121]
91. While the US has implemented a wide range of
initiatives and legislation addressing various environmental issues,
the latest OECD environmental performance review (1996) concluded
that the US focus was still on individual issues and remedying
environmental deterioration rather than on addressing the underlying
causes of environmental problems such as urban sprawl, energy
use and consumption patterns.
Germany
92. Germany has no sustainable development strategy
as yet. The coalition Government is however committed to producing
one as of 1998. The Government has agreed on some of the processes
and institutions which need to be introduced (see below).
93. To implement an eventual strategy an independent
Parliamentary Commission recommended there to be an inter-departmental
steering group formed from administrative heads of departments,
chaired by the head of the Federal Chancellery. Germany likens
this body to the UK's "Green Ministers".[122]
However the function of the German body will be focused on the
first job in hand—the development of a national sustainable
development strategy. The Chancellery is likely to coordinate
work on the strategy, possibly mediating between different ministries.
The Environment Ministry will retain a specific role, currently
undefined, but likely to be in an expert capacity.[123]
94. The German Government has also announced plans
for a sustainable development council comprising 10-15 individually
selected 'personalities' selected by the Chancellor. The council
will have a secretariat based in the independent Science Centre
in Berlin (again avoiding a particular ministerial home). The
science centre has experience mediating difficult issues. The
council appears likely to have the same mixed remit as the UK
Sustainable Development Commission—partly checking on progress,
and partly working on solutions and offering advice.
95. The Bundesrechnungshof (the German national audit
body) has a similar remit to that of the UK National Audit Office
(ie allowing performance audit of policy areas including the environment
but with no special reference to, or arrangements for, the environmental
impacts from government activity.)[124]
New Zealand
96. New Zealand was the first country to create a
Parliamentary Environmental Commissioner in 1990. The Commissioner
is an Officer of Parliament who, with the objective of maintaining
and improving the quality of the environment, reviews and provides
advice on the system of agencies and processes established by
the Government to manage the allocation, use and protection of
natural and physical resources. He provides advice on the adequacy
of relevant laws, regulations, and proposed legislation, the performance
of central and local government agencies undertaking delegated
duties and on any preventive measures and remedial action for
protecting the environment.
97. The Parliamentary Commissioner's functions are
to:
— review the system
of agencies and processes established by the government to manage
the allocation, use and preservation of natural and physical resources;
— investigate any matter in respect of which the environment
may be or has been adversely affected;
— investigate the effectiveness of environmental planning
and management undertaken by public authorities;
— respond to requests from the House of Representatives.
98. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor-General
on the recommendation of the House of Representatives and holds
office for five years. The Commissioner is independent of the
executive arm of government and may only be removed or suspended
from office by the Governor-General. He is free to publish reports
when he wants, but also publishes an annual report. He may give
evidence or advice to various parliamentary committees.
Australia
99. In December 1992 the Commonwealth of Australia,
all States and Territories and Local Government endorsed a National
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. This contained
the following principles:
— decision-making
should integrate long and short term economic, environmental,
social and equity considerations;
— the precautionary principle;
— the global dimension of environmental impacts of actions
and policies;
— the need to develop a strong, growing and diverse
economy which can enhance the capacity for environmental protection;
— the need to maintain international competitiveness
in an environmentally sound manner;
— cost effective and flexible policy instruments should
be adopted, such as improved valuation, pricing and incentive
mechanisms; and
— the need to involve the community in decisions which
affect them.
100. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has an
Environmental Commissioner created in 1993. The Commissioner is
a part-time appointee of the Minister for Urban Services but does,
however, have statutory rights of access to departmental files
and papers. His role is to:
— produce State
of the Environment reports for the ACT
— investigate complaints from the community, regarding
the management of the Environment by the ACT Government and/or
its agencies
— conduct investigations directed by the Minister
— initiate investigations into actions of an Agency,
where those actions have a substantial impact on the environment
of the ACT
— make recommendations for consideration by Government
and include in his Annual Report the outcomes of those recommendations
101. The Commissioner produces a trienniel State
of Environment report by 31 March in each pre-election year covering
the three previous years; an annual report; and special reports
either in response to the Minister's request or autonomously.
Limited resources have restricted the number of special reports
he has in fact produced to date.
102. In Victoria, the Public Accounts and Estimates
Committee (PAEC) of the Victoria Parliament looked at environmental
accounting and reporting in 1998 and is currently conducting a
follow-up exercise.[125]
The Committee originally looked at the development of national
environmental accounting including the greening of GDP and the
production of 'satellite' environmental accounts to augment traditional
financial data; reporting on the state of the environment; the
reporting by public and private organisations on activities affecting
the environment; and public sector reporting on efforts and accomplishments
in relation to the environment including environmental performance
indicators.[126]
It is perhaps significant that it was the Public Accounts etc.
Committee that undertook this investigation rather than the Committee
on the Environment and Natural Resources.
103. The PAE Committee reported in 1999. It made
a large number of recommendations across the topics identified
above. With regard to environmental reporting and its audit and
verification, the Committee's interim report included the following
recommendations that the Victoria government should:
— encourage the relevant professionals
and stakeholders to develop a new accounting standard for
public
sector reporting on environmental issues;
— require all departments and agencies
to implement an environment improvement plan;
— develop an integrated environmental and
financial reporting framework for the public sector, which will
convey useful information to decision makers; and present a balanced
perspective of the government's environmental performance;
— pursue the development of standards for
auditors of environmental information in public sector annual
reports and public sector environmental performance reports.
The Committee's current inquiry is looking at proposals
for a Commissioner for Ecologically Sustainable Development, perhaps
situated within the Auditor-General's Office, to be responsible
for: a state of the environment report to Parliament; the audit
of compliance with environmental and nature conservation legislation,
and the provision of an ombudsman role for considering public
complaints.[127]
Canada
104. In Canada, uniquely, there is a Commissioner
within the national audit body with responsibility for auditing
the federal government's progress towards a more sustainable pattern
of development. To this end we visited Ottawa and Toronto in May
2000 to discuss matters with the principals involved.
(i) Federal environmental audit
105. The office of the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development (CESD) was created through amendments
to the Auditor General Act in 1995, and the first CESD took up
office in 1996. It had originally been recommended that the CESD
should be a completely separate and independent institution. However,
though statutorily distinct, the CESD was placed within the Auditor
General's office. We heard that initial unease about this implementation
had ameliorated as the office gained from the regard in which
the OAG was held and the institutional experience in the Office
in dealing with government.
106. The 1995 reforms introduced a balance of new
requirements and new scrutiny. All federal departments were required
to publish individual sustainable development strategies every
three years (beginning in 1997) in similar manner to the requirements
of the US Government Performance and Results Act. One of the CESD's
primary functions was to report on the progress made by departments
against these strategies. The CESD stressed to us that in this
instance his audit relied on the strategies and the data provided
by departments. He did not sample the information provided. The
Commissioner could also carry out other audits on specific issues
(such as the management of toxic substances), contribute to other
work of the OAG and follow up on public petitions on environmental
issues submitted by citizens. The CESD provides a single annual
report to Parliament in the form of the Committee on the Environment
and Sustainable Development.
107. We noted that the remit of the Committee to
whom the CESD reported was specifically focused on the environment
departments and agencies. It was also responsible for scrutinising
draft environmental legislation. This meant that in practice its
capacity to pursue topics and issues raised in the CESD's reports
was limited (nor had other parliamentary committees yet begun
to exploit this potential). At the time of our visit the Canadian
Committee had held hearings with the CESD on publication of his
report but had yet to take his conclusions forward in an inquiry
of their own.
108. We were particularly impressed by the depth
of coverage of the studies undertaken by the CESD and it noted
that the number of environmental studies undertaken had increased
significantly since the creation of his office. This was facilitated
by the resources available to him—some thirty staff within
the Office of the Auditor General. The audit on toxic substances
alone covered the relevant work of six departments, and had required
a team of 4 full-time staff supplemented by addition staff on
a part-time basis. The budget for the CESD annual report was C$5
million.
109. We were also struck by the similarity between
the main findings of the CESD in his work to date and our own
conclusions from our work on greening government within the UK.
Key points made by the Commissioner in his reports to date have
been:
— the extent of
the gap ("the implementation gap") between government
commitments and action taken: in many areas federal government's
performance was described as falling well short of its stated
objectives;
— the lack of coordination between departments
and between jurisdictions, and the fact that emphasis on departmental
strategies can weaken work on cross-cutting issues;
— inadequate review of performance and
provision of information to Parliament. The 1999 report admitted
that as a result "we are unable to conclude whether the strategies
are on track or whether corrective action is required";
— improving and measuring environmental
performance was feasible and large financial a well as environmental
benefits were realisable—but there was currently no basis
for reporting to Parliament in a consistent and comparable form
across departments and no confidence of central leadership to
develop such measures;
— government as a whole and each department
has made firm commitments to integrating environmental considerations
into their policy-making but some departments have not yet come
to terms with this challenge in practice and Parliament again
had no way of judging the actions taken by departments on this
score; and
— strategic environmental assessment of
all policies with significant environmental implications was required
by 'Cabinet directive'—the Commissioner describes departmental
compliance as "slow and inconsistent".
110. The year 2000 will mark a particularly important
stage in the evolution of Canadian federal policy as departments
are obliged to revise their sustainable development strategies
and submit them to Parliament. The CESD has already indicated
what improvements he expects, and he will be reviewing the new
strategies in 2001.
(ii) Provincial environmental audit
111. In Ontario we met the Environmental Commissioner
of Ontario (ECO), Mr Gord Miller, whose primary role was to oversee
the operation of the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).
This legislation established a formal framework for notifying
the public about proposed legislation, policies, regulations and
other legal instruments that would have a significant effect on
the environment and considering the public's input before final
decision. It set up an Environmental Registry where notice
and information on environmentally significant proposals, decisions,
court actions and other information relating to ministerial decisions
are required to be posted.
112. Under the EBR, the public had six main rights:
— they should be
notified of all proposals which would affect the environment,
through access to the online environmental registry;
— the public could comment to the ECO on proposals on
the registry. Comments were monitored by the ECO's own staff and
forwarded to Ministries;
— the public may appeal against decisions after they
are posted to the registry, thus extending to the general public
a right which companies had long enjoyed;
— the public could request a review of decisions posted
to the registry (provided at least two people appealed to the
ECO). However, although Ministers could refuse reviews on the
grounds that the decision was a matter of policy. One of the ECO's
key roles was to ensure that departments did indeed carry out
these reviews and report back to him;
— the public had the right to sue in court if a public
resource was being threatened;
— members of the public had legal rights of protection
for whistle-blowing activities.
113. Any Ontario resident, therefore, could in theory
hold the government accountable for what it did—or did not
do—to protect the environment by appealing to the ECO. His
powers only kick in if there were such appeals. In this respect
he functioned as an ombudsman. We also noted that most (though
not all) government ministries must develop and implement Statements
of Environmental Values (SEVs) to guide their actions. SEVs were
in fact very similar to the federal departments' sustainable development
strategies, addressing both operations and policy. Assessing the
quality and implementation of ministries' SEVs was also a main
task for the Commissioner. He may also investigate general policy
issues and ministerial decisions and indeed analysis of such issues
formed a major part of the 1998 report: ie climate change, urban
sustainability, waste and land stewardship.
114. The ECO reported annually to the Legislature
(by whom the appointment is made for a 5 year term). In published
reports, the (previous) Commissioner had been quite critical of
the government: the capacity of the government to protect the
environment was described as 'declining'; ministries' SEVs were
not backed up by action; a lack of resources and over-reliance
on industry's self-monitoring was identified; government strategies
'languished'; and some EBR processes were 'violated' by ministers.
There were also examples given of positive benefits from the operation
of the new system. We noted in particular criticism that ministries'
statements of environmental values were not reflected in
their Business Plans (which contained their concrete targets and
objectives)—reflecting perhaps a lack of genuine commitment
to implementing the fine words.
115 
