Greening Operations
6.
Progress on completing the Framework remains slow, and we are
disappointed that procurement remains a crucially important area
where targets have yet to be set. The implications of the huge
growth in the Private Finance Initiative are immense, given the
need to embed far higher environmental standards within such projects,
and this is a subject to which we intend to return in future.
(Paragraph 22)
7. Our overall conclusion
is that the picture of departmental performance emerging from
the NAO analysis of the Sustainable Development in Government
2003 report does not differ substantially from our own analysis
of operational data for the previous year. The data in the report
has significant weaknesses, which limit the conclusions that can
be drawn from it. However, taking it at face value, departments'
performances appear to vary hugely. Some departments have made
good progress in certain areas, while others report only minimal
achievements. (Paragraph 23)
8. Examples of such
variations include: (Paragraph 25)
- the percentage of staff covered
by a certified environmental management system. This ranged
from 0% (CO, DfES, DfID, ECGD, HMT, LCD, LOD) to 70% for DWP,
80% for ONS and 100% for DCMS..
- the number of alternatively powered vehicles
(including LPG). ). Of those departments with significant
car fleets, the Department for Work and Pensions does commendably
well, with 624 vehicles out of a fleet of 2852; whereas Customs
and Excise, the Inland Revenue, and the Home Office, with 5836
vehicles between them, could only manage a total of 183 alternatively
powered vehicles.
- the percentage of waste recovered. Six
departments were unable to produce any data, while the remaining
departments ranged from 0% (Export Credits Guarantee Department)
to 79% (Department of Trade and Industry).
- the percentage of renewable energy purchased.
Six departments purchased 10% or less of their electricity
requirements from renewable sources. By contrast, six other
departments purchased between 50% and 90% from such sources.
- the proportion of desk-top paper purchased which
met the recycling specification. This ranged from 0% (Cabinet
Office, Export Credits Guarantee Department) to 100% (Department
for Culture, Media and Sport). The performance of the Ministry
of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions, which between
them account for over 50% of all desk-top paper bought, remains
very poor (2% and 3% respectively).
9. The
Government should conduct a detailed analysis of the reasons for
the large variations in departmental performance as it is unlikely
that they relate to inherent differences in their estates and
activities. Future Sustainable Development in Government annual
reports should comment in more depth on the reasons for such variations.
(Paragraph 27)
10. The Government
should clarify on what basis bodies are, or are not, to be included
in the Sustainable Development in Government report, and it should
explain how this relates to the exemptions in the Sustainable
Energy Act. It must also ensure that departments do include in
returns all those bodies—in particular, executive agencies
- which should be included. (Paragraph 31)
11. Data reliability
remains a significant problem and may explain anomalies in departmental
performance. In accordance with best practice, departments should
be required to provide evidence that all their environmental performance
data has been independently validated. (Paragraph 32)
12. The Government
should ensure that operational targets, and the methodology for
monitoring them, are clear and unambiguous. The rationale for
setting specific targets in relation to current performance and
industry norms should also be clearly explained in the Framework.
(Paragraph 33)
13. The Sustainable
Development in Government report should include aggregate data
for the performance of the Government estate as a whole, and the
narrative could usefully include more discussion and comparisons
of trends across Government over time. (Paragraph 34)
14. DEFRA should consider
publishing a composite version of the report and the associated
data as a single file for download, as an aid to those who seek
a complete text or single electronic document for research or
analysis. (Paragraph 35)
15. The Government
must ensure that the move to intranet-only publication does not
lead to a downgrading of the priority and importance accorded
to the Sustainable Development in Government Report and the provision
of related data. (Paragraph 36)
16. the poor quality
of current data and the need for independent validation is likely
to lead to more formal departmental systems for reporting environmental
impacts. We are therefore exploring with the NAO how they might
assist us in assessing the adequacy of these systems in relation
to both policy and operations. (Paragraph 38)
17. We find it bizarre
and highly unsatisfactory that the Government should have set
a target of sourcing at least 10% electricity from renewables
by 2008 when analysis of the latest data shows that 17 out of
the 20 ministerial departments already meet—or in many cases
significantly exceed—this target. The Government must explain
why it has not set a more challenging target. We also expect
all individual departments which are currently meeting or exceeding
the target to set their own appropriate and challenging targets.
(Paragraph 41)
18. The extensive
delay in publishing departmental energy performance data is unacceptable
and the Government must ensure that data for 2003-04 is available
far earlier. It should also state how much of the 12.5% carbon
reduction target is likely to be met simply through changes in
the fuel mix by 2010-11 rather than by actual reductions in demand.
(Paragraph 42)
19. It is regrettable
that the Government should claim a likely carbon reduction in
government departments of 29% by 2010 against a 1990 baseline,
when the NAO has concluded that figures for performance from 1990
to 2000 are unreliable and cannot be audited. (Paragraph 44)
Conclusion
20. Our
findings indicate that, although progress continues to be made
in some departments on some aspects of the Greening Government
initiative, there is a perceptible loss of overall momentum—particularly
in embedding sustainable development within policy making. The
review of the Framework provides a timely opportunity for the
Government to demonstrate a new commitment to the Greening Government
initiative and ensure that the Sustainable Development in Government
annual report does indeed live up to its name. (Paragraph
47)
