Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
attached National Audit Office (NAO) briefing presents its findings
on the latest available Sustainable Development in Government
(SDiG) report, which was published in November 2004 and covers
the reporting year 2003-04. In terms of operational performance,
the key findings are not substantially different from those of
previous years. In particular, there continue to be significant
variations between departments, and in some respects performance
has actually deteriorated—as demonstrated by the following
examples drawn from the NAO briefing:
- Although departments' approaches to dealing with
waste appear to have improved, the amount of waste recovered has
fallen significantly in several cases. Only six departments recovered
40 per cent or more of their waste in 2003-04, compared to nine
the previous year, and the total amount of waste recovered fell
from 53 per cent to 24 per cent. The number of departments which
recycled 25 per cent or more of their waste remained the same,
at seven out of 20.
- In the case of water use, while there has been
a slight overall improvement, it is still the case that only 6
departments met the March 2004 target of 7.7 cubic metres a person.
Four departments—the Cabinet Office, Department of Culture,
Media and Sport, Department for Work and Pensions, and the Home
Office—failed even to meet the 'interim' target of 11 cubic
metres, two years after its deadline of March 2002.
- In paper procurement, the amount of recycled
paper in use has gone up slightly, from 25% to 36%, but the 2004
data still shows the two departments which dominate paper purchasing—the
Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions—in
a particularly bad light. We hope that the 2005 data will begin
to reflect the efforts which we are aware staff in both departments
have been making to turn this around. (Paragraph 12)
2. We are also seriously
concerned about departmental progress against carbon reduction
targets. The SDiG report states that, if the Ministry of Defence
is excluded, emissions from the remaining civil departments have
risen by 11% since 2000. This is a very poor performance given
that emissions might have been expected to fall by 4%, and one
which mirrors the difficulties now facing the Government in achieving
the challenging UK wide carbon reduction targets it has set itself.
It is particularly worrying that the trajectory is going so dramatically
in the wrong direction. (Paragraph 13)
3. It is disappointing
that there continue to be serious problems relating to the availability
and robustness of data provided by departments as part of the
SDiG process. There also appear to be apparent inconsistencies
between different data sets. It is, for example, difficult to
reconcile the massive increase in the use of renewable energy
with the large increases in carbon emissions reported by departments.
We would welcome the assistance of the NAO in investigating these
issues further. (Paragraph 15)
4. We welcome the
improvements in the 2004 SDiG report in terms of its objectivity
and analytical depth, and we hope that that—with the allocation
of responsibility for this process now transferred from DEFRA
to the SDC—there will be further improvements in the 2005
SDiG, which is to be published imminently. (Paragraph 16)
5. the development
of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government
Estate represents a significant achievement; and it constitutes
a highly effective and transparent approach to setting cross-departmental
targets and monitoring progress. We would regard it as a step
backwards if the current review of the Framework were to result
in any weakening of its fundamental concept and structure—particularly
if there were to be any move toward abandoning the enforcement
of common standards and targets across all departments. (Paragraph
18)
6. One area which
the review could usefully address is the scope of the Framework
in terms of the organisations and sectors covered. Moreover, the
fact that the NHS and the schools sector are at present not covered
by the Framework massively understates the environmental impacts
central government departments have and the scope for significant
improvements—for example, in reducing carbon emissions.
(Paragraph 19)
7. Greening Government
amounts to more than green housekeeping, and if we are indeed
to place the environment at the heart of Government it will be
vital to assess the commitment of departments to sustainable development
at a deeper level. (Paragraph 20)
|
