APPENDIX
NAO Memorandum prepared for the Environmental
Audit Committee
Sustainable Development in Government Report,
2003.
Executive summary
The National Audit Office examined the Sustainable
Development in Government Report 2003 (the SDiG Report 2003),
in response to a request from the Environmental Audit Committee
of the House of Commons. The SDiG Report 2003 provides information
about the performance of 20 central government departments and
their executive agencies in nine areas of sustainable development,
for the financial year 2002-2003. It is co-ordinated by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and published
on the Internet. The report covers nine areas: 'overarching commitments'
to sustainable development (Environmental Management Systems and
public reporting); travel; water; waste; energy; procurement;
estates management; biodiversity and social impacts. We examined
seven of the nine areas; biodiversity and social impacts were
excluded since targets and monitoring are relatively undeveloped.
We found that:
- The sustainable development
targets need to be more clearly defined and their rationale explained—targets
for the nine areas are being published under the Framework for
Sustainable Development on the Government Estate, and to date
cover five of the nine areas (overarching commitments, travel,
water, energy and biodiversity). Even where targets are available,
it is not clear why a particular issue has been selected for monitoring.
The baselines against which departments' performances are measured
is not stated. Some targets do not appear to be very stretching.
Also, targets are sometimes stated in ambiguous terms, which may
lead departments to interpret them in different ways; for example,
in the waste area, a definition of the term 'total office waste'
is not provided. This ambiguity may undermine the value of making
comparisons between departments or drawing overall conclusions
about central government's performance.
- Departments' performances appear to vary widely,
but clear conclusions are hard to draw because of data limitations
in the SDiG Report 2003—on the basis
of the data presented in the SDiG Report 2003, departments' sustainable
development achievements are highly variable, both between areas
(e.g. water monitoring is relatively advanced, while waste management
is generally poor) and between departments. However, data quality
is often poor—there are gaps in data, errors and a general
lack of validation—which means that most conclusions about
departments' performance must be heavily qualified.
- Taking the data at face value, however, some
departments do appear to have made significant achievements, in
at least some of the areas. Most departments
have environmental management systems and mechanisms for reporting
on performance on at least some of their sites. Use of energy
from renewable sources is widespread, while some departments have
well-established strategies for sustainable timber procurement
and use of 'alternative' fuel (electricity or liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG)) in their fleet vehicles Conversely, most departments'
performance against water consumption targets is poor, despite
the fact that most have water monitoring systems in place. Waste
management is a particularly weak area. For some targets, the
overall results across government are skewed by the fact that
a few very large departments are performing poorly. For example,
less than 25 per cent of all paper used meets the standards for
recycled content, since MoD and DWP use very little recycled paper.
- The report presentation is helpful but could
be further improved—the SDiG report
was published only on the Internet, in the form of 'narrative'
(descriptive) pages of text accompanied by data tables. This format
has helped Defra to collect the data more efficiently, and has
also made it more readily available to many potential users. The
'narrative' sections in each area provide interesting insights,
but they suffer from a lack of common purpose, format or content.
- We also note that the SDiG
Report 2003 does not cover some significant public bodies; Defra
is due to review this issue and others, during 2004.
Purpose of this briefing
1. This briefing presents the results of the National
Audit Office's analysis of the Sustainable Development in Government
Report 2003 (hereafter referred to as the SDiG Report 2003) in
response to a request, in November 2003, from the Environmental
Audit Committee of the House of Commons[36].
The SDiG Report 2003 provides information about the performance
of 20 central government departments (listed in Annex A) and their
executive agencies against a range of sustainable development
measures, for the financial year 2002-03. This briefing describes
the work done and our findings for seven of the nine areas of
sustainable development covered in the SDiG Report 2003[37].
The SDiG Report and related targets
2. The government has monitored the sustainable development
performance of its departments for some years, beginning in 1998-1999
with the First Annual Report of the Green Ministers' Committee[38].
During this time the monitoring and reporting format have evolved,
and this process is a continuing one.
3. A recent significant change has been the separation
of reporting on government departments' operational performance
from reporting on how sustainable development is incorporated
into departments' policy processes:
- For the first time, the SDiG
Report 2003 reports only on operational performance.
- Reporting on policy issues for 2003 appears in
the annual report on the UK Sustainable Development Strategy,
'Achieving a Better Quality of Life' published in March 2004.
Thereafter, the Government will determine how best to report on
policy making.
4. Operational reporting is based increasingly on
the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate
(the Framework). Co-ordinated by the Sustainable Development Unit
(SDU) of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra), the Framework's first targets were published in 2002
and to date cover five of the nine areas. In the areas where Framework
targets have not yet been published, other targets may exist,
but these will in time be superseded by the Framework. The nine
areas and associated targets are set out in Figure
1. Figure
1: The nine sustainable development areas and associated targets
| Area | Main aspects covered
| Framework target |
| Overarching Commitments |
Incorporating commitments to sustainable development by for example implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS) and reporting publicly on environmental performance
| Since July 2002 |
| Travel | Reducing the environmental impacts of business travel and employees' commuting journeys
| Since July 2002 |
| Water | Reducing departments' water consumption
| Since July 2002 |
| Waste | Reducing departments' waste generation and improving waste management practices such as recycling
| Expected to be published during 2004;
|
| Energy | Reducing carbon emissions by making use of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and to use energy from renewable sources
| Since February 2004 |
| Procurement | Incorporating sustainable development considerations into departments' procurement strategy, for example by purchasing recycled paper and timber from sustainable sources
| Expected to be published during 2004;
|
| Estates Management | Using environmental standards for construction and buildings refurbishment projects
| Expected to be published during 2004;
|
| Biodiversity | Taking measures to avoid damage and enhance biodiversity on departments' estates
| Since August 2003 |
| Social Impacts | Enhancing the government's role as an employer and its impact on the local communities in which it operates
| Expected to be published during 2004;
|
The Framework targets are being rolled out gradually across
the nine areas.
Source: National Audit Office
5. The SDiG Report 2003 is based on a detailed web-based
questionnaire, consisting of over 200 questions. The questionnaire
was first circulated to departments for comment and subsequently,
in finalised form, in May 2003. Departments then had two months
to complete it, returning their responses to the SDU by the end
of July 2003.
6. The SDiG Report 2003, consisting of the tables
of departments' responses to each question plus an accompanying
narrative written by SDU, was published on the Sustainable Development
in Government website in November 2003.[39]
The report is available only in electronic form; a brief executive
summary was available in hard copy.
Our approach to this analysis
7. We developed a framework of key questions which
drew on previous NAO experience and data validation guidelines
from recognised sources. The questions were designed to investigate
four overall issues:
- Targets:
The quality (e.g. appropriateness, clarity and coverage) of the
sustainable development targets that departments are being asked
to achieve (either Framework targets or any other targets that
pre-exist the Framework);
- Data: The completeness
and quality of the data included in the SDiG Report 2003 (including
comprehensiveness, internal consistency and whether or not it
had been validated);
- Performance: Departments'
achievements, according to the data available;
- Narrative: The quality
of the narrative which accompanies each section of the report
and interprets the data (e.g. whether it draws accurate conclusions
from the data and provides helpful illustrative examples).
8. Our analysis was based primarily on review of
the published data and narrative, combined with detailed discussion
with the Defra SDU team and other contacts where necessary. We
did not directly research departments' processes for completing
the SDiG questionnaire. This primary research will be an important
element of further work the NAO will carry out on specific areas
of sustainable development in government.
General observations
9. Our analysis takes as its starting point the view
that departments are primarily responsible for their own sustainable
development data and performance. The role of Defra and the SDU
is to help set government-wide targets, provide guidance, co-ordinate
data collection and act as rapporteur to provide an overview of
performance.
THERE IS A GROWING BODY OF TARGETS AND DATA
10. The SDiG Report 2003, and the growing volume
of Framework targets and guidance to departments, provides an
ever-increasing source of good practice and performance data on
how government is taking forward the sustainable development agenda.
INTERNET PUBLISHING OFFERS BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES
11. The decision to publish the Report only on the
internet makes the publication more readily available to many
potential users, and it is likely that only a very few potential
users will have been deterred by the lack of a hard copy or unavailability
of internet access. There is a down-side to publication on the
web, however. The user must access all the individual sections
separately, and download or print them individually, which is
no small task and could be a barrier to all but the most determined
users or those with administrative and technically-competent support.
For the future, Defra could consider publishing a composite version
in a single file for download, as an aid to those who seek a complete
text or single electronic document for research or analysis.
12. The availability of much of this information
on the internet is helpful. The use of web-based data collection
has also helped departments provide Defra with the information
it requires in a more efficient manner. Although this might have
been expected to speed up the timetable for reporting, the SDiG
2003 report was still published in November, the same month as
in the previous year when manual methods were used. There may
be some scope to improve the timeliness of reporting in future
years.
THE REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE SOME SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC
BODIES
13. The SDiG Report 2003 covers 20 central government
departments (listed in Annex A)[40]
and their executive agencies; agencies' performance is included
in the reporting by their 'parent' departments and is not shown
separately. The bodies covered range from very large departments
with thousands of staff and several major sites around the UK,
such as the Inland Revenue (IR) and the Department for Work and
Pensions (DWP), to small departments such as the Export Credits
Guarantee Department (ECGD).
14. Some sizeable departments and other government
bodies, which are likely to have significant sustainable development
impacts, are not currently included in SDiG reporting. These include
the Government Communications Headquarters, the Security Service,
the Crown Estate, the regulators (Ofsted, Ofgem, Oftel, etc) and
the Government Offices for the Regions. Reporting also excludes
other associated bodies such as Non-Departmental Public Bodies
(NDPBs), for example the Environment Agency, as well as significant
satellite organisations such as the National Health Service and
the education sector.
15. The rationale for the coverage of the SDiG Report,
and the exclusions from it, is not clear. If there is a rationale,
it might perhaps be expected to include those organisations with
the most significant sustainable development impacts. The executive
summary to the SDiG Report commits the Government to review the
Framework; the review is likely to include the issue of whether
participation should be widened.
THE NARRATIVE SECTIONS COULD BE MORE USEFUL
16. The Report describes the targets and presents
the associated data relating to each department. Each area of
the report also includes a narrative, written by SDU. These narrative
sections provide interesting insights and views, but they suffer
from not having a common purpose, format or content, and it is
not clear for whom they are written. In future reports, the narrative
section could usefully cover:
- The basis for targets, and
any significant changes in targets since the previous year.
- Discussion of whether targets need to be reviewed,
or supplemented to fill gaps in coverage.
- Performance overall, whether government and departments
are likely to meet the targets on the basis of current progress,
and any significant changes in performance since the previous
year.
- Commentary on those departments making good progress,
and discussion of the challenges which may impede progress by
others.
- Examples of interesting and useful initiatives
which departments have undertaken.
- Links to relevant websites providing guidance
to departments.
17. A narrative report along these lines would sit
well with Defra's role as co-ordinator and rapporteur on sustainable
development performance, whilst departments remain responsible
for their own data and performance.
Targets and data
TARGETS
18. On the targets in the SDiG Report 2003, we found
that:
- The coverage of targets
is growing as the Framework
develops. As Figure 1
shows, three areas have had targets since 2002, another since
2003 and targets for the other five areas are expected to appear
in 2004.
- The Framework provides a mix of process targets
(for example, to implement an Environmental Management System)
and outcome targets (for example, to reduce water consumption
to a certain level), but there is scope for more of the latter:
for example on water, where outcome targets only apply to office
sites. There is nothing wrong with process targets - they indicate
how departments are supposed to take forward the sustainable development
agenda - but they should be accompanied by outcome targets wherever
possible. Around a third of current targets are outcome-based.
On the plus side, all areas except that relating to overarching
commitment, which is process-based by its nature, now have at
least one outcome target.
- The basis for target setting is not stated,
and thus it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of the performance
departments are expected to achieve. Some
targets have been based on pre-existing and other relevant targets
(for example, national targets), but in other areas they may reflect
industry norms, wider policy objectives or knowledge of departments'
current achievements and the progress that might reasonably be
attained. This explanation is not provided, however, and this
means it is difficult if not impossible to assess whether government
departments are being expected to do more or less than, for example,
similar organisations in the private sector or elsewhere in the
public sector.
- Some targets do not appear to be very stretching.
The most striking example is the target for departments to obtain
at least 10 per cent of their energy from renewable sources by
2008—17 out of 20 departments had achieved this target by
2003. Where targets seem likely to be achieved early, the targets
could be reviewed; as noted in paragraph 15 above, a review is
planned. In a different way, the targets for 10 per cent of fleet
cars to use alternative fuels, and to reduce single car occupancy
commuting by 5 per cent, do not seem to be overly demanding although
the lack of explanation (see previous point) prevents a definitive
judgement on this point. Defra explain that the Framework targets
are intended to represent a level of achievement that most departments
feel they can realistically achieve. The information gathered
by the SDiG report 2003 indicates the range of departments' actual
achievements, which will help to set more demanding targets in
a second round of the Framework.
- In more than a few instances the targets are
stated in terms which are ambiguous or open to different interpretation,
which may in turn lead departments to plan action and provide
information on different bases. While some flexibility is appropriate
for targets which are applied to departments with a range of sizes
and activities, this level of ambiguity could mean that data on
overall and departmental performance is undermined. For example,
the target for establishing Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
leaves departments to define what constitutes a "main office"
for which an EMS should apply; the target for verifying environmental
performance data does not specify what "verify" means
or how this should be achieved; and the target for departments
to "consider joining" the Watermark scheme seems particularly
vague.
DATA
19. On the data in the SDiG Report 2003, we found
that:
- The Report provides an increasing
volume of data in relation
to a growing number of targets, and there is now plenty of information
available for those persons with an interest in government's and
departments' performance in promoting sustainable development
in their own operations.
- The Report does not always provide, or give
prominence to, performance across the government estate.
Instead, it provides data for individual departments and leaves
the reader to reach their own judgement about overall performance.
In some instances, this is reasonable because the data do not
lend themselves to any sensible aggregation or averaging, but
where this is possible the SDiG report could be improved by providing
a view of overall performance before drilling down to departmental
level. Sometimes, these aggregate views are provided in the narrative,
but not always. Explicit coverage of overall performance would
also allow a comparison of trends across government over time.
- There remain considerable gaps in data in
some areas. Sometimes, this is because
Framework targets have not yet been set and departments have not
routinely collected data (for example, on the volume of different
waste streams). But even where targets have been set, there are
still a considerable number of nil responses from departments,
even where only a yes/no response was sought. For example, in
the water section of the SDiG report, eight of the 20 departments
supplied no information when asked whether they had identified
non-office sites with potential for significant water savings.
- There is very little evidence of independent
validation or review of the data that
departments supply. Although the Framework for overarching commitment
includes a target for verification of performance data, the target
does not specify what standard of verification would be acceptable,
or whether verifiers should be external to the organisation. The
questionnaire used to produce the SDiG report does not ask departments
to provide any evidence that their performance data has been validated.
A very few comments referring to validation are to be found in
the SDiG report, not enough to demonstrate that departments have
comprehensive or high-quality validation processes in place.
- In some areas, the questionnaire did not allow
departments to provide data in the detail needed to demonstrate
achievement against the target. For example,
the questions on estate management do not allow departments to
distinguish between new and refurbished buildings, for which there
are separate targets; the questions on water do not permit a distinction
between new and existing buildings, for which there are different
targets; and the questions for waste ask merely for the percentage
of departments' sites covered by recycling schemes, rather than
for the coverage of sites with more than 50 staff as specified
in the interim waste target.
- The scope for aggregation, comparison and
benchmarking of departmental performance is limited by differing
interpretation of the data to be provided, because of the ambiguity
in the way some targets were drawn up
(see above). For example, under SDiG guidance departments are
supposed to have included their executive agencies in their reporting,
but it is not clear from the SDiG report whether they have in
fact done so; in some cases departments have only reported on
the performance of part of their estate, perhaps a single executive
agency; and departments may calculate requested data, such as
water consumption per employee, in different ways. This variation
in interpretation reinforces the need for greater standardisation
and for some measure of validation for the data being reported.
- Where estimates are provided, the report does
not indicate the precision with which these estimates were calculated.
In many cases, especially in relation to processes, questions
require a yes or no answer and thus precision is not an issue.
Where quantitative answers are required, in some cases these come
from existing systems such as utilities bills, and thus the data
is likely to be relatively precise—omissions are the most
likely source of error. But in other cases, data provided are
based on estimates involving sampling methods—for example,
on staff travel and commuting. In such cases, departments should
be encouraged to state the degree of precision in their estimates
or the basis for their estimate.
- Some likely errors and internal inconsistencies
make it through to the final report even though Defra applies
reasonableness checks to the data provided by departments.
For example, in the waste section of the report: some departments
claim to recover materials such as cans and fluorescent tubes
but only to recycle a proportion of the material recovered, despite
the fact that recycling is the only alternative to disposal; a
few data items are presented in an incorrect format, such as absolute
figures where a percentage has been asked for; one department
claims to recycle 100 per cent of its plastic and paper and to
send waste for incineration, although it is highly unlikely that
other types of waste would be incinerated. Again, the responsibility
for such errors and inconsistencies should rest with departments,
and highlights the need for validation.
Commentary on performance in each area of sustainable
development
20. On the performance revealed in the SDiG Report
2003, we found that:
- Performance is subject to
considerable variation both between areas of sustainable development
and between departments.
We comment below on the performance reported in each of the seven
areas of the SDiG Report 2003 that we have analysed.
- In general, though, it is more difficult than
it should be to say whether performance is good, bad or indifferent:
- for government in general and
areas of sustainable development because the basis for target
setting is not stated (see above); and
- for individual departments because there is insufficient
information about their starting positions or about the characteristics
of their operations to permit a view on the level of performance
that might reasonably be expected. Comparisons are also undermined
in some areas by inconsistencies in data collection methods. Where
there are variations, the SDiG Report provides little or no text
to explain those variations.
21. In the sections that follow, departmental names
have been abbreviated. A full list of abbreviations used in this
briefing is at Annex A.
OVERARCHING COMMITMENT
22. The "overarching commitment" sets out
the government's overall approach to improving government estate
performance and hence contributing to the UK's sustainable development
strategy. The overarching commitment sets out an agenda for departments
in terms of identifying major sustainable development impacts,
planning improvements, and monitoring and reporting performance.
Targets for the overarching commitment were set in July 2002.
23. Departments' achievements against the targets
for the overarching commitment are summarised in Figure 2 below.
Overall, there has been some positive progress against the targets:
- There is no target that all
departments have definitely met, but 14 of the 20 departments
have met all the targets to some extent.
- The two targets that are closest to being achieved
by all departments are the publishing of delivery plans, and the
review of arrangements for public reporting. 19 departments have
achieved these to some extent.
- This table does not, however, illustrate the
detail of some of the targets such as A3 (Implementation of an
Environmental Management System or EMS), which may reveal widely
differing degrees of implementation.
Figure 2: Departments' performance against overarching
commitment targets
| Department | Performance against targets
|
| A1
| A2
| A3
| A4
| A5
|
| Identify significant impacts
| Publish delivery plans
| Implement EMS (see note)
| Review public reporting of performance
| Verification of performance data
|
| C&E |
| |
| |
|
| CO |
| |
| |
|
| DCMS |
| |
| |
|
| Defra |
| |
| |
|
| DfES |
| |
| |
|
| DfID |
| |
| |
|
| DfT |
| |
| |
|
| DoH |
| |
| |
|
| DTI |
| |
| |
|
| DWP |
| |
| |
|
| ECGD |
| |
| |
|
| FCO |
| |
| |
|
| HMT | *
| |
| |
|
| HO |
| |
| |
|
| IR |
| |
| |
|
| LCD |
| |
| |
|
| LOD |
| |
| |
|
| MoD |
| |
| |
|
| ODPM |
| |
| |
|
| ONS |
| |
| |
|
Most departments are making progress on the overarching commitment
targets.
Note: Department has met target (in the case of target
A3, this means that a department has introduced at least one
EMS, based on data for 2002-2003, when the deadlines for target
A3 (31 March 2004 and 31 March 2006) had not yet passed); Department
has missed target (on the basis of data for 2002-03); n/a - not
applicable; *-the Sustainable Development in Government website
states that the HM Treasury assessment "should appear shortly".
Note: EMS - Environmental Management System
Source: SDiG 2003 report, and National Audit Office
analysis
TRAVEL
24. Targets for travel concentrate on the outcomes
of travel policies rather than the existence of travel plans,
which departments have been introducing since the 1998 Transport
White Paper. The Framework targets for travel were published in
July 2002. Measured against a baseline year of 2002-03 and to
be achieved three years later, by 31 March 2006, these are:
- B1 - reduce road transport
vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10 per cent, to be
achieved through any combination of reducing total business vehicle
mileage/improving the average fuel efficiency of vehicles/reducing
total fuel consumed;
- B2 - require at least 10 per cent of all fleet
cars to be alternatively fuelled[41];
- B3 - reduce single occupancy car commuting by
5 per cent.
25. It is not yet possible to monitor departments'
progress against the travel targets, since 2002-03 is the baseline
year for these targets. There still appear to be significant limitations
in departments' systems for collecting travel data, particularly
for employees' commuting journeys, which mean that a useful baseline
cannot be established in many cases.
26. On target B1, data on carbon dioxide emissions
has two major weaknesses: departments are asked to provide a figure
for carbon dioxide emissions but no details are given of how the
figure has been calculated; and several departments report a figure
for carbon dioxide emissions without indicating whether it represents
tonnes or kilograms, introducing a potential error of 1000 per
cent. The nine departments who do provide figures emit a total
of over 87,300 tonnes of carbon dioxide from their vehicles.
27. On target B2, a total of 957 vehicles (9 per
cent of the total fleet) used alternative fuel in 2002-03. This
represents a significant improvement from 4 per cent in the previous
year, and means that departments are well on the way to achieving
their target (Figure 3). This does suggest, however, that the
target could be appropriate for inclusion in the review of SDiG
reporting (paragraph 15 above). Departments' vehicle fleets are
widely variable in size, ranging from one vehicle at ECGD to 2,852
at DWP. Four departments (C&E, DWP, HO and IR) together account
for almost 11,000 vehicles, some 80 per cent of the total vehicle
fleet. Of these, DWP is the only one of these which has already
surpassed the target for 10 per cent of vehicles to be alternatively
fuelled. It does seem that some departments with small vehicle
fleets are making good progress while those with larger fleets
are lagging behind.
28. The data reported against target B3, to achieve
a 10 per cent reduction in single occupancy car commuting, represents
the first year's data and thus provide the baseline against which
performance will be measured (Figure 4). Some 43,300 staff commute
to work by car, for the 12 departments which supplied data in
this area, of which 72 per cent are single occupants of their
cars. Some departments such as DWP, HO and MoD, which have extensive
regional operations and are very likely to have high levels of
car commuting, have not supplied data.
WATER
29. There are four Framework targets for water, published
in July 2002, two for office buildings and two for other types
of buildings:
- C1—All departments which
have not done so to consider joining the Watermark project by
September 2002. Departments which have already joined Watermark
should consider by September 2002 whether they have any further
sites that should be included in the project.
- C2—Where the department is sole occupier
(or is billed for water service charges) to reduce water consumption
in office buildings to an average of 7.7 m3 per person
per year by 31 March 2004, or 7 m3 per person per year
for all new buildings and major refurbishments where design commences
after 2002. There was also an interim target to reduce consumption
to 11m3 per person per year by 31 March 2002.
- C3—All departments, by November 2002, to
identify non-office sites on their estates where there are likely
to be opportunities for significant water savings.
- C4—All departments, by November 2002, to
make arrangements to provide available data on significant non-office
sites to Watermark, or, if data is not currently available, establish
monitoring arrangements with them.
30. Departments'
performance against targets for water (Figure 5) is generally
weak, but has improved on the performance reported in the previous
year:
- Only seven departments had
met the interim target for water consumption (an average of 11m3
per person per year, by 31 March 2002. A year later, in the SDiG
report 2003, 13 departments had done so;
- Defra is the only department to have met all
four targets;
- There is relatively little data available for
the targets referring to non-office sites (C3 and C4), either
because these targets do not apply to certain departments or because
the departments have not monitored this area.Figure
5: Departments' performance against water targets
| Depts | Performance against targets
|
| C1
| C2 (interim)
| C3
| C4
|
| Watermark participation (office sites)
| Water consumption 11m3 per person per year by March 2002
| Identify non-office sites with water reduction opportunities
| Provide non-office sites data to Watermark
|
| C&E |
| |
| n/a |
| CO |
| ? |
n/a | n/a
|
| DCMS |
| ? |
| n/a
|
| Defra |
| |
| |
| DfES |
| |
| n/a |
| DfID |
| ? |
| n/a
|
| DfT |
| |
| n/a |
| DoH |
| | n/a
| n/a |
| DTI | ?
| |
| n/a |
| DWP |
| |
| n/a |
| ECGD | ?
| ? |
n/a | n/a
|
| FCO |
| |
| |
| HMT |
| | n/a
| n/a |
| HO |
| |
| |
| IR |
| ? |
n/a | n/a
|
| LCD | ?
| |
| |
| LOD |
| | n/a
| n/a |
| MoD |
| ? |
|
|
| ODPM |
| | n/a
| n/a |
| ONS |
| |
| n/a |
Departments' performance against water targets is generally
weak, although for office sites monitoring processes are more
extensive than for non-office sites.
Note: - Department has met target; ?- department
has missed target; n/a - not applicable; ? - data not provided
or ambiguous.
Source: SDiG 2003 report/NAO
31. Departments' performance against the C2 targets
for water consumption in office buildings is generally poor (Figure
6), although improvements are being made in some areas:
- 7 departments met the interim
target by the due date, another 7 did not and the other 6 did
not provide data;
- 2 departments—DfID and ONS—already
have met the target to reduce average water consumption to 7.7m3
per person per year, a year ahead of schedule, and another 7 have
consumption at 10m3 or less. But 3 departments have
levels at around 12.5m3. The worst-performing department,
the Law Officer's Department, consumed more than 12.8 m3
per person in the financial year 2002-03; over 16 per cent more
than the interim target and 65 per cent more than the target for
31 March 2004;
- Three departments provided no data, while one
(ECGD) was exempt from the target.
32. The Watermark scheme, a centralised service operated
through the Office of Government Commerce, collects water data
from departments and compares their performance against each other
and other organisations in the public sector. The project is an
interesting example of an innovative, centralised approach to
sustainable development issues, which allows departments to learn
from each other. There may be scope to extend this model into
other areas such as energy management.
33. Most departments (17) report that they are members
of the Watermark scheme, but interpretation of what "membership"
means is variable. Watermark reports, for example, that only two
departments—DfES and DCMS—currently have water services
contracts with Watermark's subcontractor. Other departments may
manage their water reduction measures through their own service
contracts or facilities management companies, but this is unknown
to Watermark.
34. Another example of good practice, at DTI, is
highlighted in the Report narrative and the measures DTI has taken
to reduce water use, such as installing waterless urinals in major
buildings, are described. Given the scale of improvement - 44
per cent - further background information or contact details for
the department would have been helpful here.
WASTE
35. At the time of publication of the SDiG 2003 report,
Framework targets for waste had not yet been published. The report
therefore monitors progress against previous targets which were
set by the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers:
- All departments should recover
a minimum of 40 per cent of total office waste by March 2001,
with at least 25 per cent of that recovery by recycling or composting.
- All departments should have recycling and minimisation
schemes in place, in all offices with over 50 staff, by 31 March
2002[42].
36. Waste is one of the less informative areas of
the SDiG Report 2003, due to the relative complexity of the topic
and the number of different waste streams, departments' failure
to provide full data and some weaknesses in the SDiG Report itself.
37. The Report does not give a clear picture of departments'
waste management achievement. Progress appears to be patchy and
generally departments have a long way to go (Figure 7). On the
positive side, there are indications of several departments moving
in the right direction:
- Most departments have recycling
schemes in place to some extent;
- Nine departments met the 40 per cent recovery
target, and one (ONS, with 38 per cent) was close to meeting it.
Two departments (DTI and HMT) have significantly improved the
amounts of waste that they recover;
- A further three departments that did not record
their waste in the previous period have supplied information this
year.
38. On the other hand there are departments who have
made no progress or have moved in the wrong direction:
- Six departments had no records
of the amounts of waste they recovered. Of these, two —DCMS
and LCD—reported on their waste generation in 2001-02 but
did not do so in 2002-03;
- According to our calculation from the data given
(expressed in terms of waste tonnes rather than percentages),
seven departments met the 25 per cent recycling target in 2002-03,
down from ten in the previous year.
Figure 7: Departments' waste recovery and recycling
performance
| 2001-02
| 2002-03
|
| | % of waste recovered % (40% target)
| Met 25% recycling target?
| % of waste recovered % (40% target)
| Met 25% recycling target?
| Waste recycling schemes in place?
|
| DTI | 41%
| Yes | 79%
| Yes | Partly
|
| HMT | 35%
| Yes | 79%
| Yes | Yes
|
| DoH | 81%
| Yes | 78%
| Yes | Yes
|
| DfID | n/k
| n/k |
75% | n/k
| Yes |
| DWP | 55%
| Yes | 58%
| Yes | Yes
|
| DfT | 51%
| n/k |
53% | n/k
| Yes |
| CO | n/k
| n/k |
51% | No
| Yes |
| Defra | 47%
| Yes | 47%
| No |
Partly |
| ODPM | n/k
| n/k |
46% | n/k
| Yes |
| ONS | 29%
| Yes | 38%
| Yes | Partly
|
| DfES | 34%
| Yes | 32%
| Yes | Yes
|
| FCO | 31%
| Yes | 31%
| No |
Yes |
| HO | n/k
| n/k |
25% | Yes
| Yes |
| LOD | n/k
| n/k |
n/k | n/k
| Yes |
| MoD | n/k
| n/k |
n/k | n/k
| Yes |
| C&E | n/k
| n/k |
n/k | n/k
| Partly |
| DCMS | 98%
| Yes | n/a
| n/k |
Yes |
| LCD | 34%
| Yes | n/k
| n/k |
n/k |
| IR | n/k
| n/k |
n/k | n/k
| n/k |
| ECGD | n/k
| n/k |
0% | n/k
| Yes |
Progress on waste recovery and recycling is patchy.
Note: Shading indicates departments that have not
met the targets.
Note: No details are given in the Report of how departments
have achieved significant improvements (for example, the large
improvements shown by DTI and HM Treasury in the table above).
Source: SDiG reports 2002 and 2003, National Audit
Office, Environmental Audit Committee Thirteenth Report of Session
2002-03
ENERGY
39. Targets for energy under the Framework for Sustainable
Development on the Government Estate had not yet been set when
the SDiG report 2003 was compiled. The Framework targets for energy
were set only in February 2004. The report therefore monitors
progress against interim targets for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, making use of renewable energy sources and using
Combined Heat and Power (CHP).
40. Full data on departments' carbon emissions due
to energy use are being collected by the Building Research Establishment
(BRE). Final data are not yet available for 2002-03, but preliminary
results are commented on in the narrative of the SDiG report,
which notes that emissions per square metre have decreased. Total
emissions, excluding those from MoD, have risen due to growth
in the size of the government estate. MoD, on the other hand,
has reduced emissions by seven per cent.
41. Most departments had already met the new target
to obtain 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by
2008, before it was set in February 2004:
- By March 2003 only three departments
had not yet met the 2008 target of more than 10 per cent of their
electricity from renewable sources.
- Six departments buy more than half of their energy
from renewable sources, and a further four get more than 30 per
cent of their electricity from such sources;
- The only department for which this target appears
to pose a real challenge is MoD, which only gets 3 per cent of
its energy needs from renewable sources.
42. Only four departments (Defra, HMT, LOD and ONS)
report any progress against the interim target on the use of CHP,
and only one of these (HMT) reports any significant progress towards
the target of 15 per cent of energy use from this source by 2010.
PROCUREMENT
43. Framework targets for sustainable procurement
are not yet published. In the absence of these, the SDiG report
2003 monitors departments' procurement practices and/or achievements
for timber, paper, electrical products and food. The four areas
monitored are a limited selection of the goods and services which
could be included in a sustainable procurement strategy. The rationale
for their selection and the exclusion of other areas is not stated.
44. Timber procurement appears to be the area
where sustainable development policies are most highly developed.
Departments' spending on timber products was highly variable in
2002-03, from £16,000 at LOD to £6.46 million at LCD,
although no explanation is provided for these variations and it
is possible that not all timber procurement is being reported.
Most departments report that they buy timber that is either certified
or that has some evidence of sustainable and legal sourcing:
- Five departments have already
achieved 100 per cent purchasing of timber and timber products
from certified sources.
- All other departments who provide data are obtaining
timber mainly from sustainable sources, but their sources are
not necessarily certified; they merely have 'some evidence' of
sustainable sourcing and it is not clear what is meant by this.
- A small percentage of timber procured (less than
1 per cent) has no evidence at all of sustainable and legal sourcing.
- The only departments that purchased 10 per cent
or more of their timber with no evidence of sustainable sourcing
were MoD (17 per cent of spending or £40,180), DoH (12 per
cent or £5,570) and DTI (10 per cent or £353,300).[43]
45. For paper, departments are not achieving
as much success as for timber. This is surprising given that paper
is a product which all departments will need to purchase regularly
and in quantity, and that use of recycled paper is well-established
in the UK:
- Less than 25 per cent of the
8 million reams of desk-top paper purchased during 2002-03 met
the requirements for recycled content. This is mainly due to the
fact that two departments with large paper requirements, MoD and
DWP (together accounting for 52 per cent of all desk-top paper
bought), buy only small amounts of paper which meets the specification.
- The proportion of desk-top paper meeting the
recycling requirements that each department uses is highly variable
(Figure 9), ranging from 0 per cent (CO, ECGD) to 100 per cent
at DCMS.
- However, many departments have made progress
since the previous year and seven have improved significantly
(by 50 percentage points or more).
Generally departments are less able to provide data
about the paper purchased for printed publications, and data show
a less positive picture.
46. Most (15) departments report that they take account
of the EU energy-labelling scheme for electrical products
in procurement decisions, although they do not report on the outcome
of their purchasing decisions. DCMS and ONS do not provide a response
to this question. CO, ECGD and MoD do not use the scheme but do
not say whether they use any alternative guidelines.
47. The majority (15) of departments have action
plans for sustainable food procurement. Such plans may
include, for example, a commitment to increase opportunities for
small and local suppliers to compete for catering contracts. FCO
and ODPM do not provide a response to this question and ECGD,
IR and LOD do not have such action plans.
ESTATES MANAGEMENT
48. Framework targets for estates management are
not yet published. In the absence of these, the SDiG report 2003
monitors departments' environmental assessments of construction
projects, use of polluting substances in air conditioning systems,
and use of so-called 'quick wins' for energy efficient products.
49. For construction projects, departments
are required to apply an environmental assessment such as the
Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) to new build and refurbishment activities. Most departments'
new construction projects have met this target and achieved the
required BREEAM approval rating:
- 11 Departments have used BREEAM
and nine of those have achieved a rating of 'excellent' or 'very
good'. The other two departments are awaiting results.
- The target for this area requires that all new
build projects achieve an 'excellent' rating and all refurbishment
projects achieve 'very good'. Due to the lack of distinction
in the questionnaire between new build and refurbishment projects,
it cannot be confirmed if all nine departments have achieved the
target. However, given the ratings reported, at least five departments
have definitely met the target, and the remaining four may have
also met the target or are very close to doing so.
50. For air conditioning systems, departments
are required to eliminate the use of ozone depleting substances
and substances that contribute to climate change, wherever possible.
There is a moderate level of success in this area:
- Of the 15 departments who installed
new air conditioning systems or refurbished existing systems,
- Eight have confirmed that such
systems were free of HCFCs or HFCs[44].
- The remaining seven have provided varying degrees
of explanation. For example, DfID said that the refurbishment
of its East Kilbride office involved using an HFC product because
"…the only available alternatives carry their own hazards
and were not deemed viable."
51. 'Quick wins' refer to a list drawn up
by the Government of products which meet minimal environmental
standards, such as energy saving personal computers and lightbulbs
and biodegradable detergents. All departments, with the exception
of HMT and HO have made some progress in implementing 'quick wins'.
The progress made varies, from providing contractors with details
of the potential quick wins on the one hand, to incorporating
quick wins directly into departments' procurement processes on
the other.
36 Greening Government 2003. House of Commons Environmental
Audit Committee. Thirteenth Report of session 2002-03 page 9. Back
37
The SDiG report 2003 covers nine areas. Two of these, biodiversity
and social impacts, are excluded from our analysis since targets
and monitoring are relatively undeveloped. Back
38
The Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers is made up of
19 government ministers, from 16 central government departments
plus three ministers from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland
Offices. Originally formed in 1997 as an informal committee, it
was upgraded to Cabinet sub-committee status after the general
election in 2001. Back
39
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/reports/ar2003/index.htm Back
40
16 major departments on the Green Ministers' Committee, plus a
further four departments (Customs and Excise, Exports Credit Guarantee
Department, Inland Revenue and the Office for National Statistics).
The Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices, which are represented
on the Green Ministers' Committee, are excluded from SDiG reporting
since Sustainable development is a 'devolved issue' for which
the devolved administrations are responsible. Back
41
This target does not provide a definition of 'alternative' fuel
and it is possible that departments' interpretations of the term
may vary. Departments' responses vary, supplying data on cars
fuelled by Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), dual-fuel (capable of
running either on LPG or petrol), or electric vehicles. Back
42
stated in the Greening Government Second Annual Report 2000. Back
43
For DoH, special hardwood panels were required by the department's
landlord. DTI explained that its spending on non-certified products
was 'purchased because of operational requirements.' Back
44
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were introduced as a replacement for
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for use in aerosol cans, refrigerators
and air conditioners, since CFCs had been shown to contribute
to the breakdown of the Earth's ozone layer, which protects us
from harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun.Although HFCs have
no impact on the ozone layer, they are relatively potent 'greenhouse
gases' which contribute to climate change.Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) are similar to CFCs but have a lower potential for depleting
ozone and in some cases are being used as transitional replacements. Back
|
