Supplementary memorandum from WWF
Response to specific questions from
the Environmental Audit Committee following WWF'S Oral Evidence
Session, 26 May 2004
1. Do you think the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy should simply provide an overarching statement of aims
and principles, or should it drive progress more actively?
If the latter, would you welcome the inclusion
of specific topic areas (eg waste, energy) and associated targets?
What implications would such a focus on specific
areas have for other topic-specific strategies (eg the waste strategy)
and for the strategies of devolved administrations?
Do you have any specific suggestions for ways
to reduce plan proliferation and ensure consistency across different
strategies?
The SD strategy should not simply duplicate
areas of existing policy such as those on climate change, waste
etc. Rather it should be a lens through which all aspects of Government
policy are viewed, applying a series of tests and principles to
them to assess the extent to which they make an overall contribution
to sustainability. References to specific examples drawn from
different policy areas would be useful, but only to illustrate
more general points of principle. This will also avoid the risk
of plan proliferation.
For example, an effective SD Strategy should
apply a framework through which to view many aspects of Health
Policy, moving beyond the treatment of sickness to the root causes
of ill health in environmental and social factors. It should also
view the NHS as a machine whose operation can be transformed so
as to reduce its ecological footprint. (See "Reaping the
Health Dividend" by the King's Fund)
2. Do you think that changing the way sustainable
development is defined in the Strategy (in terms of overall definition,
key objectives, and principles) would make the slightest difference
in practice to the way Government departments implement policies?
The definition DOES matter (see our written
evidence). WWF believes strongly that it must start from the two
realities of environmental limits and the pursuit of quality of
life. It is the ability better to define, measure and move simultaneously
towards these two which should define sustainable development.
It is the inclusion of the third, economic, leg as an end in itself
rather than as one of the means by which the other two can be
achieved which confuses the issue. This is further exacerbated
by the way time and again the pursuit of GDP growth is allowed
to overrule the other two objectives.
3. In your oral evidence (Q32-33), you refer
to a downsizing in the size of the environment team within DFID,
and you agreed to provide the figures.
Two DFID/UK Government White Papers made commitments
to mainstream environment in Development Policy.
The previous Environmental Policy Department
in DFID with a large budget was dissolved eighteen months ago
(in fact following WSSD and the paper produced and promoted at
WSSD, with EC, WB and others, on environmental management and
poverty reduction). Now there are two teams working on environment/sd
in the cross matrix management structure within the policy team
but no real budget. (WWF does not have details of the actual budget
amounts but presumably the EAC have access to that info if required).
A new role of Chief Environmental Advisor was
advertised in the national press a year ago and was lauded by
DFID as showing their commitment to environment within development.
Within six months of appointing the person, the post was downgraded
to Head of Profession—ie no longer a strategic role with
access to Ministers.
Now a strong pressure to reduce numbers of advisors
within country offices and it is likely that environment will
be first to go. From WWF UK observations, this is played out in
the fact that there used to be a full time environmental advisor
for Southern and Central Africa plus various contracts for environmental
advisors for the region. Now there is only a half time post for
Southern and Central Africa and whereas before, for example, there
was environmental advice for Mozambique, this resource no longer
exists.
Clearly, Africa is a continent where the large
majority of the rural poor depend heavily on environmental resources
and where development opportunities depend on sustainable development
of environment from fisheries to forests to agriculture, as well
as impacts on health and livelihoods. Therefore it is not a good
signal in terms of ensuring that environmental sustainability
is enshrined in country programmes.
Furthermore the European Department within DFID
does not have any environmental advisor, even though there is
a legal obligation within the EU Cotonou Agreement to take into
account environment and natural resource management. DFID puts
a large proportion of its funding through the EU and the European
Development Fund.
We would like to refer the Committee to the
enquiry they published in November 2003 on Greening Government
which did not give high points to DFID in terms of environment—they
were not bottom of the class but certainly needed improvement.
4. You refer to a body of evidence relating
to the progression from a three-planet level of consumption down
to a one-planet level (Q28). Could you set out which key reports
and studies you were referring to—particularly in respect
of the step change involved in progressing from a two-planet level
to a one-planet level.
Please see the attached document which shows
WWF's One Planet Living in the Thames Gateway Report, which covers
all the areas[10]
June 2004
10 Not printed here. Please see http://www.wwf-uk.org/filelibrary/pdf/thamesgateway.pdf Back
| 
