APPENDIX 1
Memorandum from Andrea Ross-Robertson,
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Dundee
MAIN POINTS
— Three pronged approach to sustainable
development should continue as the overall co-ordinating objective
of government.
— Each component (social, economic,
environmental) should have its own strategies, systems, objectives
and champions.
— Sustainable Development in Government
should return to being Greening Government.
— The Green Ministers Annual report
should return to reporting on greening government policy as well
as operational matters.
— A separate Environmental Action Programme
(strategy) should be developed.
— A new Environment/Green Unit should
be introduced to support the environmental agenda within all government
departments.
— Mechanisms like Integrated Policy
Appraisal, Public Service Agreements as well as the work of the
Environmental Audit Committee, the Sustainable Development Commission
and a more centralized and powerful Sustainable Development Unit
should support the sustainable development objective and a system
which relies on more holistic or joined up decision making.
For more information see
Ross A (2004) "The U.K. Approach to delivering
sustainable development in government: a case study in joined
up working" submitted to Journal of Environmental Law.
Ross A, (2003) "Is the environment getting
squeezed out of sustainable development" Public Law (Summer
2003) 249-259.
A: THE DEFINITION
OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Sustainable development ought to be the overarching
objective of Government. The Government's "three pronged"
approach to sustainable development encompassing economic, environmental
and social issues is warranted. Many environmental and economic
problems are linked to many social and political factors. Social
sustainability is important to sustainable development on three
levels. First, from a moral perspective social equity is a key
feature of intergenerational equity. Second, on a more practical
level, rising poverty and unemployment increase the pressure on
environmental resources as many people are forced to rely more
directly upon them. Finally, those people who feel excluded in
society are less likely to actively involve themselves in that
society. It is also consistent with a broad reading of the Bruntland
definition.
This approach to sustainable development should
provide an opportunity for the environmental effects of a policy
or project to be considered early in the decision making process
and not simply bolted on at a later stage. Environmental issues
need to be considered at the same time as the social and economic
effects of a given decision.
The difficulty lies in the implementation and
lately it is questionable whether this is actually happening.
The problem largely relates to the fact that the historical definition
which traded off economic development and environmental protection
lingers on. The result is that social issues are often considered
twice—once as part of sustainable development and once on
their own while environmental issues if considered at all are
considered only in the broader context of sustainable development.
For example, the International Development Act
2002 section 1(2) provides that the Secretary of State may provide
development assistance if it is likely to contribute to a reduction
in poverty. "Development assistance" is defined to be
assistance provided for the purpose of "furthering sustainable
development in one or more countries outside the United Kingdom
or improving the welfare of the population of one or more of such
countries." Surely, improving the welfare of a population
is an essential component of sustainable development?
The Government needs to be much clearer about
its definition of sustainable development and its three pronged
approach to sustainable development. The Government should use
the appropriate terminology and then ensure this is reflected
in legislation, policy and practice.
B. ORGANISATIONAL
STRUCTURES AND
COSTS
Is there a need for a more consistent approach
to incorporating sustainable development as an overarching objective
in all government organisations? Yes, at the moment sustainable
development is simply being treated as one of several objectives
of government. It needs to be treated more like a constitutional
principle rather than one of several objectives.
The key mechanisms for doing so are the Strategy
itself and its annual reports, the Cabinet Committee ENV and the
subcommittee ENV(G), the work of the Environmental Audit Committee,
the work of the Sustainable Development Commission, the public
service agreements, the general application of integrated policy
appraisal and a co-ordinating sustainable development unit.
Most of these are generally effective.[1]
However, both the IPA tool and the Sustainable Development Unit
need to be refocused in order to be more effective as co-ordinating
mechanisms.
The Integrated Policy Appraisal tool (IPA)[2]
is a checklist designed to assist policy makers "screen"
for the potential impacts of their proposal by providing access
to the most up to date guidance. The list of impacts covered is
not comprehensive, but the list does cover most categories of
impact including sustainable development. In the new IPA, sustainable
development, along with many of its component parts, is simply
listed as one of 15 possible impacts. It has no overarching or
balancing role. Under the previous IPA checklist, sustainable
development as defined by the four objectives in the UK Strategy
was covered at the beginning as a seemingly overriding objective
along with modernising government. The result was that each of
these aspects of sustainable development were raised individually
and discussed. Sustainable development appeared to be one of the
processes or tools for bringing all the issues together and ensuring
a balanced and sustainable decision-making process. It is recommended
that the Government return to the former approach which genuinely
appeared to support the idea of sustainable development as a co-ordinating
objective of government.[3]
The historic definitional link between sustainable
development and the environment has also effected the perceived
role of the Sustainable Development Unit which is located in the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Performance
and innovation (an economic matter), women's issues (a social
matter) and social exclusion (another social matter) are all crucial
elements of the Government's approach to sustainable development.
They are expressly addressed in the UK Strategy for Sustainable
Development and its subsequent annual reports.[4]
If this is true, then why do have their own special units and
why, unlike the SDU, are these component units located centrally
and as a result are more influential than the SDU? If the Government
rhetoric is to be believed, it seems that performance and innovation,
women and equality issues and social exclusion are not only dealt
with as part of sustainable development by the SDU but are also
receiving individual attention through their own "champions"
centrally. If the social and economic components of sustainable
development can have their own special units and initiatives then
the environment should also receive specific attention. The Sustainable
Development Unit should be moved to the Cabinet Office. Ideally,
the SDU should not be considered the "Environment champion"
in the Cabinet Office and there should be a separate unit to do
this. Instead, the SDU should take on the role of co-ordinating
the activities of the other units such as the Social Exclusion
Unit and ensure that all the interests are represented and heard.
Finally, the push to have policy aimed at sustainable
development has led to environmental initiatives being subsumed
into sustainable development initiatives. For example the former
Greening Government Initiative is now to be known as Sustainable
Development in Government. The rationale behind the change was
that the term Greening Government no longer adequately covers
the range of policy and operational issues that now fall within
the remit of the Green Ministers Committee.[5]
The Greening Government initiative had a clear objective to "better
the environmental performance of Government". The initiative's
new objectives of integrating sustainable development into decision
making, improving the performance of the Government Estate and
promoting the understanding of sustainable development across
Government no longer champion the environment but instead balance
environmental concerns with social and economic needs. It is likely
that the environmental performance of government departments will
suffer from this change. The environment has lost a champion.
The specific components of sustainable development
need their champions within Government. The environment should
not be the exception. In this regard the Greening Government Initiative
should remain focused on improving the environmental performance
of Government. Furthermore, the Government should return to reporting
on policy matters in the Greening Government (now known as Sustainable
Development in Government) Annual Reports. The decision to only
report on operations was unfortunate and unsuccessful.[6]
Separate economic and social policy programmes
already exist.[7]
The Government should go a step further and separate its environmental
programme from its strategy for sustainable development. The European
Union has taken this approach and now has a strategy for sustainable
development[8]and
a separate Sixth Environmental Action Programme.[9]
It is only through measures such as these that
redress the sustainable development equilibrium and ensure environmental
objectives are put on more equal footing with economic and social
objectives that a truly balanced approach to sustainable development
will be realised. The effect of using this approach is that sustainable
development itself creates a system which relies on more holistic
or joined up decision making.
May 2004
1 Besides some obvious improvements such as publishing
the minutes of Cabinet committee/subcommittee meetings. Back
2
Cabinet Office-Strategy Unit (2002) Impact Assessment and Appraisal
Guidance Checklist for Policy Makers http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/servlet/DocViewer/docnoredirect=1426/ Back
3
A Ross (2003) "Is the environment getting squeezed out of
sustainable development" Public Law (Summer 2003):
249-259 at 258. Back
4
For example the role of the Women's Unit is discussed on at 26
of 1999 report. A range of indicators exist to measure poverty
and social exclusion as set out at 60-62 of 2001 report. The work
of the Performance and Innovation Unit is discussed at 82-83 of
the 2001 report. Back
5
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Achieving a
better quality of life-Government Annual Report 2001 on Sustainable
Development (DEFRA, 2002) at para 2.48. Back
6
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Achieving
a better quality of life-review of progress towards sustainable
development-Government Annual Report 2003 Chapter 2 (16 March
2004). Back
7
For example, Department of Trade and Industry, Productivity
and Enterprise-a world class competition regime Cm 5233, (2001);
DTI, Opportunities for all in a world of change-a white paper
on enterprise , skills and innovation Cm 5052, (2001); Department
of Health The NHS Plan-A plan for investment. A Plan for reform.
Cm 4818-I, (2000). Besides the annual reports on Sustainable Development
neither DFRA nor DETR before it have published an environmental
strategy per se. The closest DEFRA has come is DEFRA Directing
the Flow-priorities for future water policy (5 November 2002). Back
8
ibid. at Preamble (7). Back
9
European Parliament and European Council, the Sixth Community
Environmental Action Programme Decision No. 1600/2002/EC,
OJ L 242/I 10.9.2002. Back
| 
