APPENDIX 11
Memorandum from Global Action Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Global Action Plan welcomes the opportunity
to contribute to the Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into
the Government's sustainable development strategy. Global Action
Plan is an independent national charity that provides practical
guidance to support sustainable development through a mix of facilitated
behaviour change programmes based on measurable achievements and
the promotion of sustainable lifestyles through web and paper-based
publications.
1.2 We belong to an international family
of Global Action Plan's which follow similar programmes, each
tailored to its specific cultural context. Global Action Plan
began in 1993 and over the last 10 years has developed a wealth
of experience about how best to support changes in everyday behaviour
to achieve reductions in the consumption of natural resources.
1.3 We achieve behaviour change by:
— expressing ideas and information
clearly;
— promoting realistic, positive, simple
actions whose effects can be measured;
— encouraging social interaction through
support and feedback;
— demonstrating that individuals and
small groups can make a real difference;
— evaluating our programmes to improve
their effectiveness.
1.4 Global Action Plan has a number of carefully
structured programmes that promote sustainable consumption to
different client groups:
— Environment Champions enables
organisations to improve their environmental performance by actively
engaging employees.
— We are a lead partner in EnVision,
a programme delivering cost-saving environmental guidance to small
business in the SW of England.
— Action at School works with
secondary schools to improve their environmental performance.
— Ecoteams are small groups
of six to eight households who work together on ways to change
their consumption practices.
— We publish ergo, the UK's
first sustainable lifestyles magazine.
— Small Change addresses healthy
eating and affordable consumption.
— Community Energy engages low-income
households in energy efficiency practice, focusing on simple behaviour
rather than installing expensive new equipment.
2. OVERALL RESPONSE
TO SD STRATEGY
2.1 The Labour government launched its Sustainable
Development strategy, "A Better Quality of Life" (the
Strategy) in 1999 after wide-ranging consultation. Alongside the
Strategy the government introduced a range of "quality of
life" indictors to measure the economic, social and environmental
progress towards sustainability. Production of this strategy is
to be applauded and the UK Government can be rightly seen to be
pioneers in using such Quality of Life indicators. There has been
progress on environmental issues such as air and water quality
and continued economic growth whilst other areas, such as transport
and waste, have got much worse.
2.2 However, the Strategy has not been embedded
in the priorities of government departments, nor has it promoted
greater understanding or sympathy for sustainable development
amongst politicians and officials across Whitehall. The Strategy
has not driven "joined up" progress. Instead, ownership
of the Strategy remains in a small team in DEFRA and still lacks
an obvious Cabinet level political "champion".
2.3 The greatest failing of the Strategy
over the last five years has been in creating a more acceptable
political climate. There is no evidence that the term "sustainable
development" has won any hearts and minds in the general
public; short-medium term concerns over the economy, health and
education have dominated political discussions. We do recognise
that government needs a mandate to promote sustainable development
and is in a difficult position faced by an increasingly cynical
media. Much more will be required from the next sustainable development
strategy if we are to achieve sustainability.
3. INQUIRY ISSUES
3.1 We respond most fully to (D) the role
of sustainable consumption and production in the Strategy. Our
comments on the other issues raised by the inquiry are limited
to our direct experience of dealing with government and our view
of the implementation of the Strategy.
4 A: The Definition of "Sustainable Development"
4.1 The Government has stated that the Brundtland
definition "is excessively narrow and puts undue emphasis
on environmental concerns . . . [It] lies at the environmental
end of the spectrum of views on sustainable development. At the
other end, there are equally sound definitions that favour a fundamentally
economic definition." Does the definition of "sustainable
development" matter?
4.1.1 There are many competing definitions
of sustainable development, with the UK government defining it
as "about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone,
now and for generations to come." Global Action Plan is committed
to sustainable development as the most appropriate conceptual
framework for delivering environmental, social and economic progress.
The debate over the various meanings, interpretations and versions
of "sustainable development" is ongoing—we believe
that the definition will continue to evolve through time.
4.1.2 The term itself, however, still has
little resonance outside a small sustainable development "clique".
There is therefore still a need to raise understanding of sustainable
development amongst policy-makers at local, regional and national
level. Beyond this, however, we do not believe that sustainable
development is a term that resonates with people's lives and welcome
the government's use of terms such as "quality of life"
to promote the idea to the general public. People do not require
any knowledge of the complex and interminable debates surrounding
definitions of sustainable development in order to make changes
to their lifestyles.
4.2 The Sustainable Development Strategy
(the Strategy) requires all four key objectives to be met at the
same time. Is this realistic? Is political support for this concept
based upon its ambiguity? Does it fail to place enough weight
on the need to make trade-offs between different objectives and
the relative importance to be attached to them in that event?
4.2.1 We have serious concerns that the
goal of "high and stable levels of economic growth",
as measured by GDP, remains the overriding priority of government.
The Strategy does not acknowledge that GDP growth may in many
cases be detrimental to the other three goals—GDP growth
is closely linked to increase in waste, for example.
4.2.2 Furthermore, there is increasing evidence
that higher GDP does not actually achieve higher "quality
of life" or life satisfaction. Eurobarometer data shows that
life satisfaction and GDP growth have "decoupled" since
the 1970s—if this is true then GDP should not remain one
of the four core objectives of the Strategy. We would point to
the work done on Measure of Domestic Progress[38]the
Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare as better measures of progress.
5. B: Has the Strategy acted as a driver
or does it occupy a limbo existence which has little impact on
departments' real priorities?
5.1 Responsibility for the Strategy has
remained with a small unit in DEFRA. This has had a positive impact
in integrating sustainable development within the priorities of
that department, but has marginalised the Strategy across government
as a whole. Different departments have made varying degrees of
progress in embedding sustainable development in their priorities.
For example, the DfT's Aviation White Paper showed scant regard
for the principles of sustainable development. Conversely, DfES
produced a very welcome SD Action Plan for Educations & Skills.
5.2 Several departments have produced their
own sustainable development strategies. This is welcome and all
departments should be required to produce such strategies. The
relationship with these strategies and the overall government
Strategy should be clarified. Furthermore, departments must be
required to report their progress against these strategies.
5.3 Much power rests with HM Treasury in
setting departmental priorities. HMT assesses department's 3-year
Spending Reviews for their sustainability contributions—this
is welcome but we would encourage greater transparency and wish
these assessments and their results to be made public. There is
a lack of political commitment from HMT to sustainable development,
in part due to a Chancellor more concerned with the traditional
Labour goals of poverty and reduced financial inequality. HMT
produced a statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation back
in 1997 and made very promising initial progress. Yet there
have been no new substantial environmental taxes in the last two
budgets and a very obvious lack of urgency in the Environmental
Tax Team in HMT. The Environmental Tax Strategy was more a statement
of current knowledge and practice than a forward-looking framework
for action.
5.4 Most concerning is the lack of a public,
Cabinet-level champion for sustainable development.
5.5 How effectively has the Strategy linked
to, or acted as the driver for, lower level strategies—whether
topic specific strategies, such as the Climate Change Strategy
and the Air Quality Strategy, or strategies of devolved administrations,
regional and local government?
5.5.1 The Strategy has not driven lower
level strategies. For example:
— Progress on climate change has been
driven by Kyoto and international commitments and the Energy White
paper by economic, security of supply and evidence of climate
change.
— On waste government action has almost
exclusively been driven (and in many cases lagged behind) EU Directives.
— The Devolved administrations have
taken a lead from the Strategy but have (with the exception of
Northern Ireland) devised their own strategies.
— Regional Development Agencies continue
to have an overwhelming emphasis on economic development. Although
they have a "duty to promote sustainable development"
they do not report against any sustainable development indicators.
— The important Local Government Act
2000 had little link with the Strategy. The Act gave local authorities
the power to promote social and environmental well-being: this
gives considerable potential but was not driven by the Strategy.
5.6 Can a UK Strategy ever amount to more
than a set of principles or aspirations, particularly in the context
of devolved government? Is it needed, given the fact that—where
progress is being made—it seems to be topic-specific and
driven from the bottom? If it is needed, should it focus much
more specifically on a small number of key themes and targets?
5.6.1 The UK Strategy should set the long-term
framework for cultural and institutional change. We need to Strategy
that is unapologetically ambitious and forward-looking, not one
focused on a small number of themes and targets.
6. C: How effectively do the indicators
reflect the UK's "sustainability gap"?
6.1 To what extent do the existing indicators,
in particular the headline indicators, properly reflect the extent
to which the UK is unsustainable? What additional or alternative
indicators could address this gap?
6.1.1 Global Action Plan believes that the
UK's consumption levels are the greatest current sustainability
challenge and that the indicators should reflect this. The government's
Framework Sustainable Consumption & Production (SCP) strategy[39]presented
a set of 12 indicators which filled many of the gaps in the Quality
of Life indicator set. These two sets should be combined. Indicator
12 of the SCP "Decoupling" Indicators focuses on household
consumption—this should become a headline indicator. This
should be supplemented with data collected from other sectors.
Indeed, sectors such as the motor manufacturing or water industries
already collect such data.
6.1.2 We believe there is further scope
for collected detailed environmental data. We commend the Mass
Balance programme funded by Biffa and managed by Forum for the
Future and echo their call for HM Treasury to develop a detailed,
comprehensive set of "national environmental accounts".
At its most comprehensive this would involve measuring resource
flows in and out of the UK, regionally and by sector. Ecological
Footprint analysis also has potential to show which resource use
streams in which sectors have the greatest environmental impact,
thus where interventions can be most cost-effective. However,
both these methodologies are incomplete and would perhaps not
be universally accepted.
7. D: How can the concept of sustainable consumption
be integrated within the Strategy?
7.1 Should sustainable consumption and production
be seen as only one constituent part of sustainable development
(ie a lower level strategy which sits alongside others), or as
another way of looking at sustainable development itself?
7.1.1 The government's Framework for Sustainable
Consumption & Production was one of the few positive outcomes
of the Johannesburg WSSD in 2002, but its relationship with the
Strategy was not made entirely clear. The idea of sustainable
consumption and production (SCP) is useful insofar as it emphasises
the challenge posed by our current levels of consumption. Global
Action Plan see consumption patterns as driving environmental
damage in the UK (and with global implications) so believe the
new Strategy should incorporate SCP. However, we do not think
SCP should be used as another way of looking at sustainable development
itself.
7.1.2 SCP in its current form relies too
much on "decoupling". We have two main concerns with
decoupling environmental damage from GDP as an objective:
— The extent to which the concept of
"decoupling" can gain popular currency. We would not
find such a term easy to communicate to any of the participants
in our programmes. People will not be interested in "decoupling"
but in absolute improvements or failings. For example, it is of
little comfort that GDP goes up if an individual's local air quality
has got worse.
— GDP does not cover the social dimensions
of sustainable consumption and is not based on a principle of
ensuring "fair shares" of access to natural resources.
The applies particularly internationally, where our consumption
may have negative impacts abroad not measured by the UK's GDP.
7.1.3 Finally, SCP treats individuals
and organisations as consumers, rather than as citizens. Sustainable
development offers a radical critique of the dominant economic
paradigm—this edge is not captured by the more market-friendly
term SCP.
7.2 Sustainable consumption has so far been
interpreted mainly in terms of sustainable production. What is
the role of government with regard to encouraging changes in consumption
itself—eg by managing demand or facilitating choice? What
difficulties does it face in doing so?
7.2.1 Global Action Plan believes sustainable
production cannot be treated in isolation. There are several areas
in which increasing volume of consumer purchases has outstripped
gains made through improved efficiency, including washing machines,
dishwashers, cold appliances and vehicles[40]The
last decade has also seen rapid market penetration of new products
and technologies with high environmental impacts. For example,
DVD players hit the high street in 1997 and by 2003 13% of households
owned one. In 1993 25% of households owned a mobile phone. By
2003, 75% of UK adults used a mobile phone and the number of contracts
exceeded 50 million[41]The
trend for rapid uptake of new products looks set to continue and
even accelerate. This may well outstrip any efficiency gains.
Where consumption trends have outstripped efficiency gains,
we believe downstream intervention in consumption practices and
habits is necessary.
7.2.2 Government has a number of tools at
its disposal:
— economic signals to consumers, such
as fuel duty differentials, vehicle excise duty, lower-rate VAT
on energy-efficient appliances and so on. The rationale for intervention
is usually to correct market failures such as uncosted environmental
effects. HM Treasury eco-taxation efforts appear to have stalled
after significant progress in the first term of Labour government.
— eco-labelling. There are a range
of eco-labels such as the EU Energy label or the Soil Association's
organic logo and the market for such ethically badged products
is growing rapidly. Eco-labels provide a useful short-hand for
consumers, but are not sufficient in isolation to change behaviour.
— information provision and awareness
raising.
7.2.3 These tools are necessary for government
to set the right policy framework. No single tool is sufficient
on its own to change people's consumption behaviours. Overall,
we believe that setting the right policy context is necessary
but insufficient in achieving more sustainable consumption behaviours.
7.2.4 Government attempts to change behaviour
have largely been through information provision. The idea being
that people move through the stages of "Attention, Interest,
Desire, Action" in a logical way when presented with product
information. Policy, through reliance on cognitive models of behaviour,
places great emphasis of the role of information as a motivational
factor in achieving more pro-environmental behaviours by individual
consumers.
7.2.5 Public awareness campaigns have included
the Conservative government's "Helping the Earth begins at
Home" (Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency
Office, 1994) and their "Going for Green" programme.
More recently, the Labour government's "Are you doing your
bit?" used multi media adverts to suggest that making "a
few changes in what you do at home, at work, when shopping or
getting about, is all that you need to do" (Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999a). Studies of such
campaigns has repeatedly shown them to be ineffective at creating
behaviour change in the face of complexities and entrenched consumption
patterns[42]What
is needed is more in-depth programmes, with higher levels if individual
engagement than one-off, one size fits all, information campaigns.
There is a large body of evidence to suggest that raising awareness
is not the same as changing behaviour.
7.2.6 Government is perhaps not best placed
to change people's consumption behaviours. It seems likely to
face opposition to any attempts to curtail people's "choice".
The consumer is king, and government faces an uphill struggle.
7.2.7 Global Action Plan works with "early
environmental adopters" in businesses, schools and communities
through its programmes and achieves shifts in consumer behaviour.
Two key lessons we have learned are:
7.2.8 Enabling behaviour change requires
social interaction.
(i) All our programmes work with groups of
people. Strengths of working collectively include: shared commitment;
atmosphere conducive to creativity; providing emotional support;
questioning and challenging. Above all, it provides a setting
for engagement with the issues, and often a process of "negotiation"
occurs, wherein sceptical individuals change their attitude through
social interaction.
(ii) You can find leaders in every group.
Within every group it is always possible to find people who have
the desire to promote environmental change. What they often lack
is the confidence, support, and structure to encourage their friends
and peers to take action.
(iii) Facilitation and training is necessary
for groups engaged in behaviour change. Facilitators provide information
to the group on different strategies for reducing environmental
impacts; motivate team members when morale flags; help the group
pace their efforts.
(iv) Working in small groups overcomes the
sense of futility many people feel when faced by the scale of
environmental problems.
(v) Setting up groups reinforces new, more
sustainable habits by providing a kind of "peer review".
7.2.9 Good quality information is necessary
but not sufficient to encourage sustainable consumption.
(i) People are already bombarded with information.
They are cynical rather than receptive of knowledge claims, and
have more information than they want, rather than less. The results
of 30 years NGO campaigns to raise awareness about many different
kinds of issues and problems, coupled with media tendencies to
represent issues for maximum dramatic effect, has created an audience
which is passive rather than active; apathetic rather than engaged;
confused rather than clear about which should be done; cynical
rather than constructively critical of knowledge claims.
(ii) For several years, Global Action Plan
ran an Action at Home programme, based on monthly information
packs sent to households who participated. The packs were written
in a lively style, with good visuals. They provided factual information
on the topic (waste, water, energy, shopping, transport, etc)
and offered tips on how to change aspects of behaviour to reduce/change
consumption patterns. Over 30,000 households participated in this
programme, our research showed that the packs raised awareness
but also engendered feelings of guilt as people "fell away"
from the programmes. Reading and changing became a burden.
(iii) But there is a continuing need for
publications which promote sustainable lifestyles. We developed
ergo in response to our research which suggested that the messages
supporting sustainable lifestyles needed to be aspirational—that
being "green" could be cool—rather than connoting
beards, beans and sandals. Our initial market research suggests
we are managing to get this new message across to readers.
(iv) More effort needs to be made to "disaggregate"
the sustainability message. We have found it more effective to
break down into specific arenas for action; waste; energy; water,
and so on. It is much easier for people to appreciate linear chains
of connections than think holistically in terms of complex systems
of interactions. Taking action makes more sense if the explanation
follows the form of links in a chain—natural resource; production
processes; consumption practices; implications for the environment—because
individuals are better able to see how what they do can make a
difference.
8. E: Organisational Structures and Costs
8.1 Do the present organisational structures
and policy mechanisms within Government contribute to the effective
implementation of the Strategy? What improvements could be made
in this respect? Is there a case for rationalising the number
of organisations involved in key sectors?
8.1.1 Responsibility for driving the Strategy
forward across government should not remain within Defra. Rather,
a central department with the power to give a consistent lead
across Whitehall should "own" the Strategy.
8.2 Has a lack of sufficient Government
financial support for programmes and policies hindered the implementation
of the Strategy in any way?
8.2.1 Defra's spending priorities were altered
by Foot & Mouth and work on sustainable development has been
correspondingly curtailed. No formal evaluation was done of the
Are You Doing your Bit campaign, for example.
8.2.2 Recently, changes to the Landfill
Tax Credit scheme, made despite an overwhelmingly negative response
to the proposals in consultation, mean that many community-based
waste-related education and behaviour-change programmes have been
cut in favour of a centralised Waste Implementation Programme
in Defra. Expertise in environmental behaviour change is hard
won; it requires the skills of trainers/facilitators to support
people as they attempt to change habits ingrained from early childhood,
in economic and cultural contexts dedicated to driving up levels
of consumption. In relation to national expenditure on advertising,
for example, the grants and contracts won by charities such as
Global Action Plan are minute. The impact of the changes in landfill
tax will be devastating for us (and others in our sector). There
is a very real danger that charities will fold with a massive
loss of knowledge and practical experience.
8.2.3 DfES recently produced an Sustainable
Development Action Plan for Education and Skills. This was a welcome
move by the Department. However, no new resources have been put
in place to implement the action plan, instead DfES believe the
targets can be met with existing resources. The changes in the
LTCS mean that a substantial amount of funding for waste education
and behaviour change has actually been cut. Neither DfES nor Defra
seem aware of the scale or implications of this.
May 2004
38 New Economics Foundation, 2004. Back
39
DTI/DEFRA (2003) Changing Patterns: UK government framework for
sustainable consumption and production. Back
40
DTI (2003) Changing Patterns: a framework for sustainable consumption
and production, p17. Back
41
DTI and Ofgem. Back
42
Eg Burgess, J, Harrison, C and Filius, P (1998) "Environmental
communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship."
Environment and Planning, A. 30, 1445-1460. Back
| 
