Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 74)
WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002
MR ROBERT
LOWSON, MS
HELEN LEGGETT
AND MR
ANDREW RANDALL
60. I would be very interested to put down questions
to the FCO on what they do on renewable technology. I would be
interested to see what the response is because there has been
no indication until now of that being taken up at a high political
level, shall we say. We will have to leave it there I suppose
but I am unconvinced that there is that strategic direction. Where
does it all come back to? Does it all come back to DEFRA? You
are the lead co-ordinating department for negotiations, surely
you are the lead co-ordinating department for implementation as
well?
(Mr Lowson) We are certainly the lead co-ordinating
department for initiating the follow-up action and there are quite
a lot of areas here where we are the lead department for actually
leading the action.
61. Yes.
(Mr Lowson) It is rather like asking who is the lead
department for financial regularity. All departments have to do
financial regularity even though you would say that perhaps the
Treasury is the lead department on that issue and has the job
of suggesting to other departments how they should undertake that
role. The whole philosophy that we are following, as I have said
on a number of occasions, is one that is designed to identify
responsibility and ensure that the departments that are responsible
for delivery in a particular area take that responsibility seriously.
62. Who is there to audit that, to make sure
it happens?
(Mr Lowson) I have already mentioned in answer to
the previous question the existing structure of annual reports
on sustainable development, sustainable development indicators,
etc. I am quite sure that we in DEFRA, prodded I have no doubt
by the Sustainable Development Commission in its role as critical
friend, will be maintaining an overview of the extent to which
the government's commitments on sustainable development as a whole
are being fulfilled. We have to do that because we are responsible
for producing the Sustainable Development Report every year, for
example. There is not an individual minister or an individual
department who has the job of overruling what other individual
ministers or departments might do to say "you are not doing
the sustainable development job properly, you must do this rather
that", it is something which is to be integrated in the activities
of the range of government departments. That is quite in line
with the way that a whole range of government policies operate.
Sue Doughty
63. I am sorry but we are on the attack and
I do apologise, it certainly is not meant to be personal or specific
to DEFRA.
(Mr Lowson) It is ever so friendly.
64. It just so happens that DEFRA tend to be
the people we interview because you have that lead responsibility.
I appreciate that you cannot always deliver for other departments
but nevertheless we have established the situation. These documents
and tables that you have produced are very useful and I do appreciate
those. They are a very handy summary. I appreciate that this continuum
of trying to make progress on sustainability is one large step
but going along the line as you have explained. What I am failing
to see is the commitment from other departments that says "Right,
we have come so far but now we have new requirements. We expected
some. We have failed on others but now we have got an agreed new
set of requirements". Are they going to be built into your
sustainability indicators? Are you going to measure those? What
I would like to see is something that is almost a bench mark that
says that post-Johannesburg we have reviewed the sustainability
indicators, we have published those for all the departments concerned,
so that we as a committee, and this is a very important piece
of work that we did at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, as
time goes by can interview possibly heads of other departments—I
appreciate you are not responsible for what goes on in other departments—and
ask "What progress have you made against those targets?"
so that we can see at that stage— I appreciate there is
a period of time post-Conference when you do have to get together
and say "What does this mean, how does it fit with what we
are doing", it is only sensible to do that, but at some stage
a bench mark that says "These are our new targets in the
light of Johannesburg", so that in the future we can review
progress against those and hold not only DEFRA but, within the
remit we have got, other departments to account on the progress
they have made since the Earth Summit.
(Mr Lowson) There is a lot of food for thought in
what you say. There are quite a lot of elements to that question.
Certainly, as I said before, we intend to review the Sustainable
Development Strategy and hence, therefore, the indicators in the
light of the outcome of Johannesburg. I doubt whether we will
be looking for indicators that, for example, government department
x has done a particular job that is attributed to it in this sort
of grid of activity. What we are interested in, what everybody
is interested in, is whether the sustainability outcomes are being
delivered in terms of environmental improvement, social development,
economic progress. We are certainly very ready to consider your
idea of bench marks without any commitment at all because I do
not know how it would work. It certainly would chime in with our
approach to implementing sustainable development commitments,
particularly post-Johannesburg, if the delivery by individual
departments, which is the only way I think we can do it, is matched
by individual departments measuring the extent to which they are,
in fact, promoting the sustainability agenda. Not all government
departments have got sustainability strategies, for example, but
it is certainly wholly consistent with an approach that says that
it is for the whole government to deliver this agenda for individual
departments to be able to assess the extent to which they are
doing their bits and for that to be auditable. It is certainly
an approach which is well worth thinking about.
Mr Thomas
65. You mentioned at the start of this session
that the civil dialogue had been useful and interesting but had
come too late in the day.
(Mr Lowson) Yes.
66. First of all, what about the stakeholder
dialogue that took place in the UK before Johannesburg? How did
that affect the UK's negotiating position at the Conference?
(Mr Lowson) Most of that happened before I arrived
in my job so in a moment I will turn to Andrew Randall in particular
to see if there are specific examples he can quote of the way
that stakeholder dialogue might have made an impact. We certainly
attached a lot of importance to ensuring that not just stakeholders
knew what was going on but were closely involved in the negotiating
process, and not just in the negotiating process but also in delivering
specific outcomes. That was the significance of the Prime Minister's
involvement in the five UK initiatives, for example, which led
to specific partnerships, some of which are actually working now.
It was not just a matter of conditioning our approach to the negotiation,
it also led to agreement on particular outcomes.
67. I accept that but partnerships could happen
anyway. I was thinking of what was the effect of the wider stakeholder
dialogue?
(Mr Lowson) I will turn to Andrew, who has now had
a few seconds to think about it, to see if he can provide some
more detail on that.
(Mr Randall) To start off, obviously Johannesburg
was a sustainable development conference, it was not just an environmental
one, and our effort was very much focused at getting something
that covered the range of activities and integrated them. In some
ways the dynamics of the negotiation were such as to push us in
the direction of looking at "southern" issues, developmental
issues. In many ways the involvement of stakeholders was useful
because it reminded us, as the environment department, not to
undervalue environmental issues but to keep them on the agenda,
to avoid those being marginalised. That was obviously a useful
reminder for us to have although at the same time as part of trying
to take a balanced approach we were very careful to engage a wide
range of constituencies so, for example, with the NGO community
we involved development NGOs as well as environment ones. I think
if there was one particular topic that came through maybe it would
be the whole issue of corporate social responsibility and accountability
where, of course, Friends of the Earth and others did mount quite
extensive campaigns. While we did not necessarily agree with the
final objective that they were setting out, which was some kind
of mandatory international convention, nonetheless we found it
very useful that they were raising the profile of the issue. That
was useful for dialogue within government in formulating a position
and I think it was instrumental in pushing towards the kind of
result that we did get in the plan of implementation at Johannesburg,
which was a very useful one that has certainly strengthened the
hand of those who want to promote this. I think that is probably
one good example.
68. Were there any disbenefits from stakeholder
involvement?
(Mr Randall) Disbenefits from stakeholder involvement?
Lots of time and energy needed of course.
69. The impression I got looking at it was that
UNED-UK played a significant co-ordinating role in stakeholder
dialogue. How do you rate their performance?
(Mr Lowson) I will turn to Andrew in a moment.
70. Are you reviewing it?
(Mr Lowson) We had a particular concern to have them
deliver a process of stakeholder consultation which ended with
the Conference. We have not had a formal after the event review
but in thinking about how we consult stakeholders in the future
we will certainly take account of what has come out of the process
so far. In general the impression that I drew from this was that
they did an immensely difficult job, which was to ensure that
the whole range of stakeholders that might be interested all got
a reasonable crack of the whip. There is always a danger, and
I suspect our process fell into it too and it was not UNED's fault,
that you consult all the usual suspects rather than trying to
get at groups that are inherently difficult to consult, so you
do tend to consult effective organisations rather than groups
of people who for whatever reason are not effectively represented
but there were, nevertheless, NGOs who would claim to represent
the problems that these harder to reach groups suffer from.
71. What about stakeholder involvement now for
the actual implementation? You have got the partnerships that
stakeholders might be involved in, they have a bilateral relationship
anyway, but you have also got this range of issues: biodiversity,
sustainable consumption patterns, poverty reduction process, fisheries,
clear stakeholder interests there. How will you continue to involve
those groups now? Is UNED-UK still going to be the body? My other
question is, is there going to be a review of how this process
actually works?
(Mr Lowson) We are certainly thinking very hard, and
we have not reached conclusions yet, about how we will involve
stakeholders in, if you like, central DEFRA sustainable activity.
Throughout DEFRA, throughout government, there are a whole kaleidoscope
of ways of involving stakeholders. You rightly point to fisheries
and as a department we have got very close relationships with
interested organisations there and I cannot imagine that what
came out of Johannesburg will change the framework for interaction
with those organisations. As far as carrying forward the big themes
of sustainable development is concerned, we are still thinking
about how best to do it. We are quite committed to doing it. How
far has the process gone of stakeholder involvement just in the
next few months or so?
(Ms Leggett) We are looking to run some kind of stakeholder
engagement event and are looking at people to do that work for
us but we have not agreed on that just yet. On 9 October there
was a meeting with stakeholders to discuss some of the key issues
coming out of Johannesburg at which Margaret Beckett and Michael
Meacher met key stakeholders. We definitely want to build on that
initial work.
(Mr Lowson) That was a good example of the approach
we want to try and pursue. Although Michael Meacher and Margaret
Beckett both participated it was actually chaired by Jonathan
Porritt, and one does not need to be wholly DEFRA-centric here,
we can invite other people to do the job for us and that is a
very good way of involving the stakeholders.
72. It is certainly good news to hear that there
has been follow-up on the stakeholder side at least. What does
slightly concern me, however, is we examined earlier how these
different responsibilities were spread over different departments,
some of which are better known for their stakeholder involvement
than others, some of which are known for their non-stakeholder
involvement. Is there going to be anyone who is going to take
the overall co-ordinating role of ensuring that those who were
important in putting some ideas at Johannesburg and those bodies
that were missed will have an opportunity to be part of the implementation
as well?
(Mr Lowson) I confess that we had not thought that
there was a job to be done in the way of central co-ordination
here. A much better way of doing it is to look for good practice
and to try and spread messages of good practice rather than messages
about rules and trying to impose views on other departments. We
would like to think that we are towards the front of the good
practice pack.
73. Would you reflect that in your annual report,
the stakeholder involvement? Is that going to be reflected?
(Ms Leggett) I cannot say at this stage whether it
would be in there or not.
(Mr Lowson) It is certainly something worth thinking
about because it was a key feature of Johannesburg and the preparation
for it that stakeholders were involved. It would be strange to
forget that in our reporting of what happened.
Joan Walley
74. This is a reflection really. After attending
some of the meetings with the stakeholder groups, the briefing
meetings in Johannesburg, I do not know about my colleagues but
I distinctly got the view that there was a momentum and the joint
discussions that were taking place at Johannesburg were a vehicle,
if you like, for providing an impetus to get the momentum going
and there was this joint working which was going to really invigorate
the process back home. Listening to the part of the proceedings
that I have listened to today I have to say that I feel really
deflated. I want you to comment on whether I am right or wrong.
There was nothing there in the Urban Summit but that opportunity
that there was of really taking up where the Johannesburg Summit
left off immediately we got back, keeping the momentum going,
looking at all the opportunities that there were for joint working,
I do not see it. I would like you to comment on it.
(Mr Lowson) I think I agree that there
was a sense of momentum and involvement and it was easy to have
that in Johannesburg because we met every day and there was something
very concrete going on right next door. The meeting that Helen
Leggett mentioned on 9 October with stakeholders was an attempt
to capitalise on that kind of mood, and I think it was quite successful.
The event was fresh in people's minds and they were beginning
to think through what the implications were when they got back
home. That is what we are going to try and do through the autumn
as well. It is not just for us. It is encouraging that quite a
lot of other organisations have had similar events over the past
few weeks. The whole tone of the discussion has raised what I
would recognise as a real issue, which is that we have come back.
If you like, until we finished the Conference in Johannesburg
it was easy, we made it easy for ourselves, we got a well co-ordinated
negotiating position in which we were able to take some pretty
forward positions, be quite ambitious, and we got what I would
regard as more than five out of ten results as an outcome. Then
the hard work starts, which is coming back to the whole government
machine and saying "This is what we have signed up to, how
are we going to carry the principles of sustainability into our
operations as a government rather than our operations as a negotiating
team?" We have got to recognise that it is a different atmosphere.
The Government departments with all their numerous priorities
are not going to be fired up by a particular strand of activity
that flows from a particular event, it is hard grind, and that
is what lies behind the process we have launched, which is to
embed sustainable principles and what came out of Johannesburg
in the hard grind of regular government life. You are quite right,
the atmosphere is not like it was when we were actually negotiating
in Johannesburg but I do not think I would expect it to be. The
atmosphere now is different, it is one where we have got to proceed
with a lot of rather unflashy continuing effort and that is the
process that we have tried to launch.
Chairman: I appreciate we have pushed you rather
hard, Mr Lowson, on one or two areas where you have not got direct
responsibility but you will understand the concerns of the Committee
to see that this process is carried out at all levels of government.
Thank you very much for your patient answers.
|
