Appendix
THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDIT COMMITTEE ELEVENTH REPORT (2002-03):
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT HEADLINE INDICATORS
2002
Introduction
1. We welcome the Environmental Audit Committee's
continued interest in and support for the Government's Headline
Indicators of Sustainable Development and how progress towards
sustainable development is communicated.
2. The way in which the indicators have been reported
and assessed continues to be an evolving process, building on
what was set out in Quality of life counts - a baseline assessment
in 1999 and on successive Government annual reports. There are
no hard and fast rules or rigorous methodologies for assessing
whether we are becoming more or less sustainable. So the Committee's
recommendations are a helpful input into how we develop our monitoring.
3. In particular, in preparing the 2002 Government
Annual Report, we took account, as far as was practicable, of
the Committee's previous recommendations arising from the 2001
Sustainable Development Headline Indicators (Fourth report (2001-02)).
As result of these and other improvements implemented we consider
that the presentation of the 2002 Headline Indicators had greater
transparency and was a fair and open assessment of progress.
4. As we said in response to the Committee's previous
report on the indicators, we still intend to address issues such
as the coverage, presentation, interpretation, assessment and
relevance of sustainable development indicators as part of a wide
review, running alongside the review of current sustainable development
strategy. The results of the review, a new set of indicators,
should be published in 2005.
RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: "We continue to support
the Government's practice of reporting annually on progress against
the headline indicators. We also support the practice of publishing
the underlying data as it becomes available as this facilitates
ongoing scrutiny. (Paragraph 8)"
5. We are grateful for the Committee's support.
We consider an annual stock-take as an essential part of our current
approach to sustainable development. Through annual reporting
on the headline indicators we hope to reinforce what sustainable
development means, to raise awareness and show that both the Government
and the country as whole should be held to account in making progress.
6. Updating the headline indicators as and when the
underlying data become available is a key principle of the National
Statistics Code of Practice. It is important that the Government
and stakeholders have access to an up to date and reliable picture
of progress. It also helps to ensure that sustainable development
is not seen as just an annual exercise.
Recommendation 2: "We recommend that the
Government seek to strengthen the relationship between regular
assessment of performance against headline and other indicators
and progress-chasing against policies and programmes embodied
in the national and departmental sustainable development strategies.
(Paragraph 9)"
Recommendation 3: "We recommend that the
Government re-examine how climate change indicators could be used
more effectively to act as a strong progress-chaser against short-term
and longer term objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(Paragraph 16)"
7. We agree that having indicators that actively
drive progress is a laudable aim. However, the primary purpose
of the UK indicators is to monitor and report on progress as a
package. It may be expecting too much of them that they should
also drive the progress they monitor in specific areas.
8. By their nature indicators summarise, and the
headline indicators in particular are necessarily broad in scope.
It is therefore difficult for them to be used as the catalysts
that drive progress; rather they are a summary of more detailed
underlying evidence, which helps to so. It is as communication
tools and awareness raisers that indicators are at their most
effective.
9. However, the sharing of experience internationally
suggests that few if any countries or organisations have genuinely
integrated indicators into policy making. Whilst the availability
of information has an important role, research and experience
have shown that indicators and other information alone cannot
be expected to lead to behavioural change.
10. Work is ongoing under Defra's Public Service
Agreement (PSA) on sustainable development to identify the links
between promotion and embedding of sustainable development into
policy making. To this end other owners of PSAs relating to the
headline indicators are being engaged directly across Government.
Our aim is to improve the extent to which promotion activity
influences the embedding of sustainable development considerations
into the management of the issues covered by the headline indicators.
The results of this exercise will inform a revised approach to
the promotion of sustainable development through Defra's PSA,
which will be produced early in 2004.
11. We will be reviewing the role of indicators as
part of the wider review of the strategy and indicators.
Recommendation 4: "The absence of an explicit
statement of the nature of the subjective judgement made for each
assessment remains a serious weakness. We recommend that such
as statement become a requirement in the annual report. The outcome
of the Government's consideration of this issue, promised in the
response to our Report of a year ago, should form part of the
current review of the indicators. (Paragraph 17)"
12. We consider that the presentation of the headline
indicators in the 2002 Government Annual Report provided sufficient
justification for the assessments and to include even more statistical
information would deviate from the indicators being simple and
effective communication tools.
13. In light of the Committee's earlier concerns,
we provided a simpler summary of the assessments at the start
of the indicator chapter and then for further clarification repeated
these assessments beneath each of the indicator charts, and provided
detailed comparisons between the latest data and the baselines.
14. There were only a few headline indicators within
the fifteen in 2002 where there may have been any degree of normative
judgement in the assessments, given the comparisons with baselines.
In such cases the assessment was determined using the judgement
of the Government Statisticians who maintain the headline indicators.
15. That said we have been giving consideration to
how progress may more rigorously and consistently be assessed.
If practicable this will be included in the 2003 report, or otherwise
will be considered further as part of the indicator review as
promised in our previous response.
Recommendation 5: "The unavoidably subjective
nature of the assessments, compounded by the absence of any independent
validation and the absence of any published criteria for judgements
made, continues to give us cause for concern. The assessments
should be independently validated each year, prior to publication,
and a statement of validation included in the annual report (Paragraph
18)"
16. The underlying data and the assessments of progress
are available for scrutiny on the sustainable development website.
All of the data used in the headline indicators are either directly
National Statistics, and thereby produced in accordance with the
National Statistics Code of Practice, or are otherwise overseen
by Government Statisticians. The presentation and assessment of
the indicators is produced by Government Statisticians. So any
subjectivity in assessments is nevertheless based on their professional
judgement.
17. We acknowledge the Committee's desire for the
presentation and assessment of the indicators to be transparent
in order to ensure progress towards sustainable development is
properly and accurately reported. However, we still believe that
subjecting them to a formal audit is wholly unnecessary given
the basis on which the indicators are produced and assessed, given
the opportunity for public scrutiny, and given that the Sustainable
Development Commission, the media and other stakeholders are free
to make their own judgements and comments.
Recommendation 6: "Changes in baseline data
used for assessments 'since the strategy' make comparison between
years difficult and therefore compromise the usefulness of the
indicators. Such changes should only be made when absolutely necessary
and each instance should be clearly highlighted in subsequent
annual reports. (Paragraph 21)"
18. The assessments 'since the Strategy' were introduced
in the 2001 report as a means of assessing recent progress, and
to avoid focusing on short-term changes over the previous year.
In the 2001 report the comparison was made with the latest data
presented in chart form in the strategy document A better quality
of life, published in May 1999 - normally relating to a year
or two prior to the Strategy.
19. However, the first formal baseline assessment
of the headline indicators was made in Quality of life counts,
published in December 1999, for which in some cases an additional
year's worth of data had become available in the intervening six
months, following the Strategy.
20. In attempting to improve the manner in which
the indicators are assessed for the 2002 report, it was concluded
that the "change since Strategy" comparison should be
made with the rigorous baseline assessment presented in Quality
of life counts, rather than with what was presented in chart
form in the strategy document. It should be noted that the changes
in baseline did not cause the assessments of progress to change.
21. We accept the Committee's criticism that changes
in the baseline should have been more clearly highlighted in the
2002 annual report. This will be rectified in the 2003 report.
We also acknowledge that errors made in subsequent updates of
the indicators in terms of labelling of the assessments on the
sustainable development website may have increased the potential
confusion. These have been corrected.
Recommendation 7: "We recommend that the
Government consider how the headline information from the Environment
Agency's survey of industrial and commercial waste might best
be incorporated in the sustainable development headline indicators
report for 2003 prior to the full reporting that is expected in
2004. (Paragraph 23)"
22. We will of course make use of the results from
the survey of industrial and commercial waste as soon as they
become available. Unfortunately, there will be no figures available
in time for inclusion in the 2003 report. The earliest we expect
results from the survey to become available is mid-2004.
Recommendation 8: "We welcome the inclusion
of the new sub-indicator on road traffic intensity which, together
with the existing indicator on road traffic volumes, presents
a clearer, more rounded picture of traffic levels and growth than
has been the case in previous years. (Paragraph 24)"
23. We welcome the Committee's support for the revised
presentation of the transport headline indicator. This support
and the Committee's earlier observations made in respect of the
2001 indicator will be taken into account in the review of the
indicators.
Recommendation 9: "The co-ordinated effort
to give the indicators a higher profile in 2002 represents a significant
improvement on previous years, but further effort is required
to ensure that the profile is sustained throughout the year. (Paragraph
26)"
24. We are pleased that the Committee acknowledges
the improved profile for the 2002 indicators. However, it should
be noted that it is difficult to maintain the profile of the indicators
continually throughout the year. Opportunities to promote the
indicators do arise when new data for a specific indicator become
available. However new data need to be presented within their
principal policy context, which may not be first and foremost
as indicators of sustainable development.
25. For most of the indicators, new data have not
resulted in a change of assessment, merely a continuation of the
existing trend. Continual interest in the progress shown by the
indicators is therefore difficult to maintain.
26. However, we are continuing with our efforts to
promote the indicators and sustainable development. The circulation
of the Quality of life barometer leaflet, which summarises the
headline indicators, has grown considerably for example. This
is included with relevant publications and is used widely for
conferences and other forums. Indicator experts from EU countries
recently applauded it as an effective means of promoting indicators.
CONCLUSION
27. We remain fully committed to the effective and
transparent reporting of progress in sustainable development.
It is in all our interests that through the indicators we provide
messages that are as objective as possible. We need to ensure
that everyone is aware of what challenges we must tackle and where
we particularly need to focus our efforts.
28. We are therefore grateful for the Committee's
supportive and constructive comments. We will consider where we
can improve the indicator presentation for the 2003 report to
meet the Committee's concerns, and where this is not possible
feed these into the wider indicator review.
| 
