NAO Memorandum prepared for the Environmental
Audit Committee
APPENDIX
Sustainable Development in Government Report 2004
Executive Summary
1. In 2004 the National Audit Office produced a briefing
for the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), examining how the
UK government reports on its own 'green housekeeping', meaning
progress against targets for nine areas of environmental, economic
and social performance under the Framework for Sustainable Development
on the Government Estate (the Framework). These targets are related
to departments' administration but do not extend to the policies
departments administer. This information is collected by the Department
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and published
annually as the Sustainable Development in Government (SDiG) Report.
NAO examined the SDiG Report 2003, for performance in the financial
year 2002-03. Our briefing to EAC informed its own 'Greening Government'
report of July 2004 .
2. This briefing examines the SDiG Report 2004 (for
the financial year 2003-04), which has been extensively revised
since the previous NAO briefing on the SDiG Report 2003. Defra
employed the consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to revise
both the Report and the SDiG questionnaire to government departments
on which the report is based.
3. We examined two aspects of the SDiG Report 2004:
the quality of data and its presentation in the report; and the
performance of government departments as demonstrated by the data.
We found that:
- on
data quality and presentation:
º performance targets for government departments
have now been established across all nine areas covered by the
SDiG report; at the time of our last briefing only five areas
had targets. However, some targets require clarification and/or
further explanation of their basis;
º most departments' data have been checked
to some extent, although not always by independent verifiers;
º the number of 'gaps' in the data has reduced,
but data are still incomplete in several areas;
º data presentation has been much improved,
through the increased use of charts rather than numerical tables;
º the narrative text accompanying the data
has been improved, to provide more detailed explanations.
- on
performance of government departments:
º the data still contain many gaps and inconsistencies
which make it difficult to compare departments' performance or
to see a clear trend over time;
º however, taking the available data at
face value, there is a discernible improvement in departments'
performance in three of the nine areas covered by the report —'overarching
commitments' (mechanisms to improve sustainable development performance,
such as Environmental Management Systems); water services and
waste (understanding of waste issues has improved, although amounts
of waste recovered have declined);
º in the other six areas—travel, energy,
water services, estates management, biodiversity and social impacts—it
is difficult to draw general conclusions about performance either
because of lack of data or because new targets have been introduced,
resulting in a lack of comparability with the previous year's
data;
º the report does not cover some significant
public bodies, as we also noted in our previous briefing on the
SDiG Report 2003 . However, we note that the Framework on which
the report is based is currently being reviewed and that this
review will consider the extent of the Framework's coverage. The
results of the review are expected during 2005.
4. Although the SDiG Report 2004 shows marked improvements
from the 2003 edition, there is still some way to go before a
comprehensive and reliable picture of government departments'
performance is available. Future SDiG reports should:
— contain
data that have been independently validated, and provide details
of the validation process;
— further reduce or eliminate the 'gaps'
in data, ideally so that all departments provide appropriate responses
to all the questions in the survey;
— continue the presentational improvements
(such as greater use of charts) which have been introduced in
the SDiG Report 2004;
— maintain, where possible, consistency
of targets and measurement from year to year, so that clear patterns
in departments' performance can be seen;
— expand the coverage of the Report to
include all departments and other government bodies which are
not currently included.
5. Since the SDiG 2004 report was published, Defra
has decided that subsequent reports should be produced by an independent
body, outside government. The next SDiG report, due to be published
later in 2005 and based on data for the financial year 2004-05,
will therefore be published by the Sustainable Development Commission,
based on data compiled by PWC.
Introduction
Purpose of this briefing
6. This briefing is the result of the National Audit
Office's analysis of the Sustainable Development in Government
Report 2004 (hereafter referred to as the SDiG Report 2004) .
It has been produced in response to a request from the Environmental
Audit Committee of the House of Commons (hereafter referred to
as the Committee). It aims to help the Committee assess the adequacy
of the SDiG Report as a system for monitoring sustainable development
in government's operations, and to review the effect of changes
that have been made to the SDiG Report since the NAO's first briefing
to the Committee on this subject, in 2004.
THE SDIG REPORT AND RELATED TARGETS
7. The Sustainable Development in Government Report
(SDiG Report) is an annual overview of the performance of 20 central
government departments (listed in Annex 2) and their executive
agencies against a range of sustainable development measures.
It is co-ordinated by the Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) of
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),
which issues a questionnaire to the 20 departments and publishes
the SDiG Report amd accompanying data on the Internet. The report
covers nine areas: 'overarching commitments' to sustainable development
(Environmental Management Systems and public reporting); travel;
water services; waste; energy; procurement; estate management
and construction; biodiversity and social impacts.
8. The SDiG Report covers departments' operational
performance only and excludes sustainable development in policy-making.
Operational reporting is based increasingly on the Framework for
Sustainable Development on the Government Estate (the Framework),
which is co-ordinated by Defra's SDU along with the SDiG Report.
The Framework's first targets were published in 2002, but targets
for five of the nine areas - waste, energy, procurement, estates
management and social impacts—were not issued until 2004.
It is not yet possible, therefore, to report on departments' progress
against the Framework targets in these areas. The SDiG Report
has, however, made use of substitute or interim targets in some
areas, such as energy, where interim targets were set for greenhouse
gas emissions, energy from renewable sources and use of Combined
Heat and Power (CHP).
9. 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
| Target Published
|
| Overarching
Commitments
| Incorporating commitments to sustainable development by for example implementing an Environmental Management System (EMS) and reporting publicly on environmental performance.
| July 2002 |
| Travel
| Reducing the environmental impacts of business travel and employees' commuting journeys
| July 2002 |
| Water Services
| Reducing departments' water consumption
| July 2002 |
| Waste
| Reducing departments' waste generation and improving waste management practices such as recycling
| July 2004 |
| Energy
| Reducing carbon emissions by making use of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and to use energy from renewable sources
| March 2004 |
| Procurement
| Incorporating sustainable development considerations into departments' procurement strategy, for example by purchasing recycled paper and timber from sustainable sources
| October 2004 |
| Estates
Management
| Using environmental standards for construction and buildings refurbishment projects
| October 2004 |
| Biodiversity
| Taking measures to avoid damage and enhance biodiversity on departments' estates
| August 2003 |
| Social Impacts
| Enhancing the government's role as an employer and its impact on the local communities in which it operates
| October 2004 |
Source: National Audit Office
The Committee's report and subsequent changes
to the SDiG Report
10. The first NAO briefing analysed the SDiG Report
2003, covering the financial year 2002-03. It informed the Committee's
'Greening Government 2004' report of July 2004 (hereafter referred
to as the Committee's report).
11. Following the Committee's report, Defra's SDU
commissioned the independent consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PWC) to revise the SDiG questionnaire issued to departments,
analyse departmental returns and write the SDiG Report 2004. PWC
made significant changes to the content and presentation of the
SDiG Report 2004.
12. The major findings of the Committee's report,
and the developments which have taken place since, are listed
below:
- targets needed to be more
clearly defined and their rationale explained
- the period since the Committee's report has seen the publication
of several Framework targets, so that Framework targets have now
been set for all of the nine areas covered by the report. However,
although the SDiG Report 2004 clearly describes the targets for
each of the nine areas and often provides more detailed definitions
of the targets than in the previous year, it still lacks, in most
cases, any explanation of the reasons for setting a target at
a particular level. This is surprising, particularly in areas
where targets do not appear to be very demanding (for example,
the target for departments to source 10 per cent of their electricity
from renewable sources);
- departments' performances appeared to vary
widely, but clear conclusions were hard to draw because of data
limitations—departments' performances
still appear to be highly variable (for example, while five departments
report that 100 per cent of their 'desktop' paper is made from
recycled paper, at two major departments only five per cent or
less from recycled materials). The available data have improved
in both quantity and quality since the SDiG Report 2003, but still
have gaps and inconsistencies which often make clear conclusions
difficult to reach;
- taking the data at face value, however, some
departments did appear to have made significant achievements,
in at least some of the areas—overall,
there appears to have been a slight improvement in departments'
performance against targets in 2003-04 compared with 2002-03.
This is noticeable for 'overarching commitments' (delivery plans
and environmental management systems), energy, procurement and
biodiversity. However, for two areas—waste and water services—it
is not always possible to make comparisons with the previous year's
performance because targets have been changed or dropped;
- the report presentation was helpful but could
be further improved—since the SDiG
Report 2003, the report's presentation has been changed to include
charts rather than numerical tables and greater explanation of
both targets and the reasons for departments' performance. The
report is now available for download from the Internet, as the
Committee recommended, although obtaining the full supporting
data requires downloading nine separate documents.
13. This briefing discusses in greater detail the
changes that have been made to the quality of data and its presentation
in the report, plus departments' performance according to the
data available. It identifies where the recommendations made by
the Committee on the basis of the National Audit Office findings
have been acted upon in the SDiG Report 2004, and where improvements
could still be made. It also identifies new issues that have arisen
in the latest report.
Quality of data and presentation
TARGETS
14. During 2004 Defra completed the publication of
targets in all nine areas of the Framework for Sustainable Development
on the Government Estate. These new targets have to some extent
addressed the weaknesses highlighted in the Committee's report,
relating to the then-existing targets for four areas. However,
the new Framework targets for five new areas have significant
limitations, and only very limited action has been taken to address
the Committee's previous comments.
THE NEW TARGETS HAVE LIMITATIONS
15. The new Framework targets published in 2004 cover
five areas: waste, energy, procurement, estates management and
social impacts (see Figure 1). Targets for some areas are much
more detailed and specific than others. For example, the waste
area has five separate targets, ranging from publication of a
waste management strategy, to increasing recycling or composting
by 5 per cent per year; meanwhile, in the social impacts area,
departments are asked to achieve only one objective, to publish
a strategy for social impacts by March 2006.
16. In general, the new targets are clearly defined
and are supported by a great deal of detailed guidance for departments,
which is published on the website of the Framework for Sustainable
Development on the Government Estate. Most of the new targets
are time-limited with clear deadlines for departments to meet.
17. The new targets also take account of government's
role in influencing sustainable development practice outside government.
Four of the five areas—waste, energy, procurement and estates
management—call for departments to incorporate sustainable
development requirements into their contracting with other organisations.
18. However, improvements are still needed to many
of the new targets:
- In the previous NAO briefing,
we noted that there was scope for more 'outcome' targets (for
example, to reduce water consumption to a certain level) to accompany
'process' targets (for example, to implement an Environmental
Management System). This finding bears repetition for the new
targets; three of the five new areas (procurement, estates management
and social impacts) have only 'process' targets, although the
waste and energy areas show a better balance between process and
outcome targets.
- The new targets also do not state the basis for
target-setting, whether industry norms, wider policy objectives
or estimates of what might reasonably be expected based on departments'
current performance. As we noted in our previous briefing, 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.
- Where quantified outcome targets are given, in
some cases they do not appear to be very stretching. We noted
in our previous briefing that the target for departments to obtain
at least 10 per cent of their energy from renewable sources by
2008 was likely to be achieved early, since 17 out of 20 departments
had achieved this target by 2003. This target has not been revised
and the majority of departments are still comfortably exceeding
it . On waste, the targets for departments to 'reverse the upward
trend' in their waste arisings by 1 per cent per year, and to
increase recycling or composting rates by 5 per cent per year,
to a target of 75 per cent, seem less than ambitious.
19. In one area, procurement, many questions which
departments are asked are unhelpfully vague. For example, one
question calls for departments to "indicate a commitment
to undertake environmental risk assessments of contracting activity",
without defining an appropriate approach to environmental risk
assessment. During NAO's research for the Committee on sustainable
procurement in central government , departments indicated that
they did not know what was expected of them.
SOME IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ESTABLISHED TARGETS
20. Following the Committee's report and its comments
on the targets which existed at that time, some improvements have
been made, but there is work still to be done:
- In one area, water services,
a target has expired and has not been renewed. The target for
departments to sign up to the Watermark scheme—one of four
targets in the water services area - had expired by the time the
SDiG Report 2004 was written. The report notes this fact but does
not explain the continuing relevance of the Watermark scheme to
departments or whether the target will be renewed;
- The rationale for the choice of particular targets
is not discussed. The Committee Report recommended that "…the
rationale for setting specific targets in relation to current
performance and industry norms should…be clearly explained
in the Framework." In general, however, this has not been
done. For example, the SDiG Report 2004, in common with the previous
SDiG Report, chose in its procurement section to gather specific
data on the procurement of timber, paper, electrical products
and food. The NAO, in our analysis of the SDiG Report 2003, noted
that these four areas were a limited selection of the goods and
services which could be included in a sustainable procurement
strategy, and that the rationale for their selection was not stated.
The SDiG Report 2004 does not, however, include any such explanation
of the rationale for the selection of these four areas.
- The detailed definitions of targets are sometimes
vague and therefore difficult for departments to monitor. The
Committee Report recommended that "The Government should
ensure that operational targets, and the methodology for monitoring
them, are clear and unambiguous." However, some ambiguities
remain:
- In the overarching commitments
section, target A5 states that departments should ensure they
have arrangements to verify their sustainability performance data.
The NAO briefing to the Committee identified this target as ambiguous,
because it did not specify what 'verify' meant (for example, whether
verification by an external, independent expert was required or
whether departments' own checks would be sufficient.) The target
still contains no clear definition of 'verify', although the questionnaire
now asks departments to state whether their data have been verified.
- Target E6, for energy, reads "departments
to include clauses to ensure opportunities are identified and
measures taken for reducing carbon emissions and collecting energy
data (by fuel type) as far as practical…". The highlighted
terms are vague and allow for a great deal of potential variation
in performance.
- The 'overarching commitments' and water services
areas of the Framework both distinguish between performance on
office-based estates and mixed or non-office-based estates. These
distinctions are reflected in the questionnaire on which the SDiG
Report is based, but departments' responses to these sections
of the questionnaire are inconsistent, showing either that they
do not have the information available or that they have failed
to understand the question.
- Links between the targets and the relevant guidance
are not always clear. Some sections of the Framework clearly match
the data sought to the relevant target, but in others the link
is less clear. For example, in the travel section, targets B1
to B3 are matched with the guidance for collecting the data required
to measure progress towards these targets. The guidance is also
labelled B1 to B3 as appropriate. However, this useful matching
of targets to data collection guidance is not carried throughout
the Report.
21. A specific recommendation made by the Committee
has not been addressed in the new energy target. The Committee
recommended that the Government should "…state how much
of the 12.5% carbon reduction target is to be met through changes
in fuel mix rather than reductions in demand". This is not,
however, clearly stated in the relevant target (E1).
DATA
22. The Committee Report found that the data in the
SDiG Report 2003 "…(have) significant weaknesses, which
limit the conclusions that can be drawn from (them)." For
the SDiG Report 2004, the data available have improved, both in
quantity and quality, but the data in several areas still have
gaps and inconsistencies which make clear conclusions about performance
difficult to reach.
DATA COLLECTION HAS IMPROVED
23. There has been some improvement in the amount
of information collected since the previous year's report, though
gaps remain. For example, in the water services area of the SDiG
Report 2004, only three departments supplied no information when
asked whether they had identified non-office sites with potential
for significant water savings, compared to eight the previous
year. In the waste area, four departments supplied no information
on the percentage of waste they recovered, compared with five
in the previous year. Eight gave no information about their recycling
target, down from ten the previous year.
24. Data on waste, in particular, remain limited.
The SDiG Report 2004 acknowledges "The levels of data are
quite low when compared to other parts of the Framework."
Although departments can usually supply data on the total amounts
of waste that they generate and recover, more detailed information
on waste streams (e.g. paper, plastic, IT equipment) is much more
limited. Many departments do not have systems in place to record
detailed waste data.
25. There are two other specific areas where data
are limited:
- For estates management, data
on new build and refurbishment projects, in particular whether
such projects had been assessed against the Buildings Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM);
- For travel, figures for single-occupancy car
commuting are limited, apparently because such data are not generally
held by departments but must be collated by surveying staff.
26. As part of other NAO research on sustainable
procurement, we have found further explanations for the gaps in
data. There is some evidence that individuals tasked with filling
in the SDiG returns for the 2004 Report did not always have sufficient
knowledge to fill it in accurately, and may not have consulted
with relevant colleagues. Some departments felt that they were
given a relatively short time to complete the questionnaire. Others
reported that that if the person filling in the questionnaire
wrote too much in a text box, the data may be cut off by the character
limit in the questionnaire. Departments are concerned that important
qualitative data may therefore be lost.
IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH BODIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE
REPORT
27. The SDiG Report 2004 is intended to cover central
government departments and their executive agencies. The Committee
recommended that "…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."
However, this information has not been included in the SDiG Report
2004, and other NAO research on sustainable procurement has found
some evidence that only some departments provided information
including the performance of all of their Executive Agencies,
and some did not.
28. It is clear that some Executive Agencies are
doing work on sustainable development which is distinct from that
of their parent departments: for example, the case example of
the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHS
PASA) used in the procurement section of the report. Where there
are clear differences between the progress of departments and
that of their executive agencies, and in particular where the
executive agency is large, it may be appropriate to disaggregate
this data. This would avoid the risks that poor performance by
a large executive agency is masked by good performance by the
department overall; that good practice by an executive Agency
is masked by poor performance at a departmental level; or that
this good practice is skewing the data returns for the whole department.
It would also be useful to provide a full list of all executive
agencies covered by the report.
SOME VERIFICATION OF DEPARTMENTAL RETURNS HAS TAKEN
PLACE
29. The Committee recommended in its report that
"…departments should be required to provide evidence
that all their environmental performance data have been independently
validated" . The SDiG Report 2004 contains details of the
number of departments whose data have been independently verified—all
except two departments have carried out some verification. In
most cases, however —11 of 20—the verification has
been done internally rather than by an external independent verifier.
DATA PRESENTATION IS MUCH IMPROVED
30. The presentation of data is markedly improved
in the SDiG 2004 Report, which includes many charts and graphics
showing the performance of departments compared to each other
and against their performance in the previous year. The charts
are accompanied by text on which departments are performing particularly
well or badly. In the SDiG Report 2003, most data were simply
presented in the form of the completed questionnaire responses,
accompanied by very little comment or explanation.
31. There is no attempt, however, to aggregate departments'
performances to draw conclusions about the performance of government
as a whole, as the Committee recommended in its report . Such
aggregation would be a valuable addition to the Report, but until
a complete and consistent dataset is available this is impossible
to produce.
32. Illustrative case examples are included throughout
the Report, highlighting best practice by individual departments
or other government bodies. These examples provide interesting
details about sustainable development in practice, and are likely
to be a good way of sharing best practice between departments.
Narrative
THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE NARRATIVE SECTIONS HAS
IMPROVED
33. There have been some significant changes in the
narrative sections of the SDiG Report. Generally, the sections
are longer, containing more detail of the targets set and more
discussion of departments' performance.
34. The Report's whole narrative, providing a summary
with illustrative charts and graphics, is available as a single
file for download. This file does not include full details of
all the data, which are available in the form of nine further
files to be downloaded separately.
35. In the NAO analysis of the SDiG Report 2003,
we commented that it was not clear for whom the narrative sections
were written. This lack of clarity remains in the SDiG Report
2004. A paragraph in the foreword to outline the expected audiences
for the Report would assist readers in understanding the relevance
of the elements drawn out in the narrative.
Performance
36. The SDiG Report 2004 paints a mixed picture of
departments' progress since the previous year's report, complicated
by the data limitations which are discussed earlier in this briefing.
There has been a discernible improvement in the performance of
departments in three of the nine areas covered by the report:
overarching commitments;
water services; and
waste (understanding of waste issues, although
waste management practices have not generally improved).
37. In the other six areas covered by SDiG 2004 it
is more difficult to identify positive progress, either because
of the limitations in the data provided or because targets have
only recently been published.
38. Within each of the nine areas, the SDiG Report
2004 continues to show considerable variation in performance between
departments. For example, in the overarching commitments section,
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have 100 per cent of their main
office staff covered by a certified Environmental Management System
(EMS), whereas the Department of Health (DH) only covers 3 per
cent. Similarly, in the energy section, DCMS report that they
purchase 83 per cent of departmental energy from renewable sources,
whereas DfiD purchases only 7 per cent, and the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) only 0.1 per cent.
39. There continues to be a general problem in concluding
whether performance is good, bad or indifferent, because the reasons
for setting particular targets are not stated and there is insufficient
information about the starting positions and characteristics of
organisations. Some anecdotal evidence is provided—for example,
the report notes that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Home
Office (HO) are the two most important influences on biodiversity
on the government estate, since they control more than 90 per
cent of it—but detailed, quantitative and consistent benchmarking
has not been done. There is little evidence of detailed analysis
of the reasons for the large variations in departmental performance,
which the Committee called for in its report.
Overarching commitments
40. The 'overarching commitments' area includes the
publication of delivery plans and Environmental Management Systems
by departments. Good performance in the previous year (14 of 20
departments meeting all the relevant targets to some extent) has
been improved upon slightly, although the targets have still not
been met by all departments across the board. The chart below,
reproduced from PWC's report, shows progress on delivery plans
in detail. Nearly all departments have now published delivery
plans for the first three target areas (over-arching commitments,
travel and water services). This is a significant improvement
on the previous year, when only 12 departments had published plans
for these three areas. However, biodiversity is still a weak area;
only seven departments have published plans while eight have yet
to do so and two have published 'statements' rather than full
delivery plans. Three departments—the Cabinet Office, the
Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and HM Treasury—say
plans for biodiversity are not relevant to them.
Figure 2: Departmental progress against developing
and publishing target delivery plans
| Dept | Target A2: Delivery Plans
|
| Part A -
Overarching Commitments
| Part B - Travel
| Part C - Water Services
| Part H - Biodiversity
|
| Dev'd* | Pub'd*
| Dev'd | Pub'd |
Dev'd | Pub'd | Dev'd
| Pub'd |
| C&E | y |
y | n
| n | y
| y | n
| n |
| CO | y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| n/a | n/a
|
| DCA | y |
n | y
| n | y
| n | y
| n |
| DCMS | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| n |
| Defra | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
| DfES | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
| DfID | y |
y | y
| n | y
| y | n
| n |
| DfT | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | n
| n |
| DH | y | y
| n | statement
| y | y
| n/a | statement
|
| DTI | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | n/a
| statement |
| DWP | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
| ECGD | y |
y | y
| y | n/a
| statement | n/a
| n/a |
| FCO | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
| HMT | y |
n | y
| n | y
| n | n/a
| n/a |
| HO | y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y | y
|
| IR | y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| n | n
|
| LOD | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | n
| n |
| MoD | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
| ODPM | y |
y | y
| y | y
| y | n
| n |
| ONS | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y | y
| y |
Note: Dev'd = Developed; Pub'd = Published
Source: SDiG Report 2004
41. This area of the SDiG report also includes data
on which departments are covered by Environmental Management Systems.
The data on this in the SDiG Report 2004 are more detailed than
that contained in the previous year's report; departments are
now asked to distinguish between EMSs in operation at 'main office-based
sites', 'other office-based sites' and 'mixed or mainly non-office'
sites. In the previous year, departments were merely asked to
supply data on the existence of EMSs without specifying which
parts of their estate were covered. The new, more detailed information
is valuable since it demonstrates that although more than half—eleven
departments—have implemented an EMS at their main office-based
sites and five had such a system in development, there is much
less progress at smaller office sites—no department had
an EMS covering these. Departments with 'mixed or mainly non-office'
estates—nine of the 20—either have an EMS in place,
for at least part of the estate, or are making efforts to implement
one.
42. Departments have also got better at communicating
their sustainable development achievements to the public, according
to the SDiG Report 2004. 19 departments now report on the impacts
of their estate operations, up from 17 in the previous year; the
exception is HM Treasury.
43. Verification of departments' data is also reported
in the 'overarching commitments' section of the SDiG Report 2004,
but is discussed in the previous section of this document, 'Quality
of data and presentation'.
Travel
44. As in the SDiG Report 2003, much of the data
in the travel section are incomplete, particularly the data for
carbon dioxide emissions from road transport and for car-sharing
commuting. Data on commuting has actually worsened since the previous
report—only 10 departments have provided any information,
down from 12 in the previous year. In our previous analysis of
the SDiG Report 2003 we discussed the reasons for data limitations
in the travel area—such as, for example, the need to generate
data on commuting through employee surveys, since this information
is not already collected by departments for other purposes (unlike,
for example, data on water consumption in departmental buildings).
The SDiG Report 2004 promises that improvements to data gathering
and reporting will be made in time for the SDiG Report 2005, based
on data for 2004-05.
45. The travel area also covers the use of 'alternatively-fuelled'
fleet cars by departments; the term includes cars running on liquefied
petroleum gas, bio-fuels, natural gas, hybrid fuels or those that
are electrically powered. The information given here is rather
difficult to interpret; a chart displays the proportion of department
cars running on alternative fuels, but does not make clear that
some departments—such as the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP)—have large vehicle fleets, others operate very few
vehicles. The chart is potentially misleading, since adding only
one or two alternatively-fuelled vehicles to a small fleet makes
a much larger difference to the proportion of such vehicles than
would be the case for a large vehicle fleet. Some information
on the size of vehicle fleets is given in the text, but this is
not comprehensive.
Water services
46. Departments' water consumption per head has generally
improved since the SDiG Report 2003; 11 of 20 departments reported
some reduction while only three said their water consumption had
increased . However, only six departments met the target of 7.7
m3 per person per year by the deadline of 31 March 2004 (the end
of financial year 2003-04, the reporting period for the SDiG Report
2004). Four—Cabinet Office, the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport, the the Department for Work and Pensions and
the Home Office—failed even to reach the 'interim target'
of 11 m3 per person per year, two years after its deadline of
31 March 2002. The text of the SDiG Report 2004 gives departments'
explanations for their failure.
Figure 3: Departments' water consumption on office
sites
Source: SDiG 2004
47. Departments with significant non-office sites
were required to assess such sites for water-saving opportunities
by November 2002; of the 11 departments to which this applies,
four have now done so for all their sites, and four have assessed
at least some sites. Of the remaining three departments, Customs
and Excise is the most significant laggard, with 105 significant
non-office sites, none of which have been assessed for water-saving
opportunities.
48. As well as the targets for average water consumption
and for non-office sites, the SDiG Report has previously reported
on whether departments made use of the Watermark Project. This
three-year programme started in April 2000 and aimed to establish
benchmarks for water consumption in various types of public sector
buildings and organisations. The funding for Watermark has now
finished and targets for departments' participation have therefore
been dropped. Only two departments reported that they were still
members of Watermark during 2003-04; other departments have alternative
arrangements to collect and monitor water data.
Waste
49. Data on waste are particularly weak compared
to other parts of the SDiG Report 2004; the report acknowledges
that "The levels of data collected by departments are quite
low when compared to other parts of the framework." The data
are further weakened by the fact that Framework targets for waste
were published only in July 2004, after the reporting period for
the SDiG Report 2004 (the financial year 2003-04), so it is not
yet possible to report on progress against the new targets . However,
the new targets have prepared the ground for departments to collect
information more comprehensively and consistently, which may result
in better data on waste in future SDiG reports.
50. According to the available data, most departments
improved their understanding of their waste management issues
during 2003-04. The majority were developing waste management
strategies during 2003-04; three departments had completed a strategy
while 13 had one in progress. Most departments—17 of 20—knew
how much waste they were generating and recovering in total, up
from 14 in the SDiG Report 2003. Detailed information on individual
waste streams was still very patchy, as noted in the SDiG Report
2003.
51. However, 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 who recycled 25 per cent or more of their waste remained
the same, at seven out of 20.
Energy
52. The energy area of the SDiG Report 2004 covers
energy efficiency and its effect on carbon emissions, plus departments'
use of electricity from renewable sources and from combined heat
and power. Energy issues were particularly highlighted in the
Committee's report on SDiG 2003. The Committee's criticisms, with
the response to them in the SDiG Report 2004, are listed below:
- "We find it bizarre and
highly unsatisfactory that the Government should have set a target
of sourcing at least 10 per cent 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." As
noted in the 'targets' section of this briefing, the target for
electricity from renewable sources still stands at 10 per cent,
to be achieved by 31 March 2008. Fourteen departments exceeded
this target in 2003-04, a slight decrease on the 17 departments
who achieved the target in 2002-03; possibly due to an overall
increase in energy use which the SDiG Report 2004 notes.
- "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 per cent 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." The
Committee's comments on the timeliness of the energy data were
made because the SDiG Report 2003 was based on preliminary data;
full data collected by the Buildings Research Establishment (BRE)
were not available by the time of publication. A similar delay
in publishing data has occurred for the SDiG Report 2004, which
notes that the BRE information is provisional and "more up-to-date
information regarding energy usage will be published on the Framework
website in due course."
- "It is regrettable that the Government should
claim a likely carbon reduction in government departments of 29
per cent 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." The SDiG Report 2004 reports that
departments' carbon emissions have increased by three per cent
compared to 1999-2000 (the baseline year for the Framework), but
does not make any claims about the likely long-term change in
carbon emissions.
Procurement
53. Framework targets for sustainable procurement
were not published until October 2004, so the data contained in
the SDiG Report 2004 cannot be used to show progress against the
targets. The report covers procurement in four areas: timber,
paper, electrical products and food, as well as 'general procurement'.
54. The SDiG Report 2004 contains more detailed
information on timber procurement than in the previous year, detailing
departments' spending both on construction timber and on manufactured
timber products. Data for manufactured timber products are more
extensive—only eight departments were able to provide information
on construction timber—and shows that only a small proportion
(2.5 per cent) of timber products had no evidence of legal sourcing.
55. For paper, the picture on the use of recycled
desktop paper is similar to that in the SDiG Report 2003. Although
the amount of recycled paper used has increased from less than
25 per cent to 36 per cent, two major departments—the Department
for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence—still
use very little. The SDiG Report 2004 notes that the Ministry
of Defence is negotiating with its supplier to purchase paper
with a minimum 75 per cent post-consumer waste.
56. For electrical goods and food, departments' performance
in 2003-04 was at a similar level to the previous year: most departments
make use of the EU energy labelling scheme to help them procure
electrical products, while nearly all departments have now developed
an action plan for sustainable food procurement.
57. In September 2005 the NAO published our review
of sustainable procurement practices by central government, which
summarised progress towards sustainable procurement and described
the problems faced by departmental procurement officials in making
further progress.
Estates management
58. The estates management area of the SDiG Report
covers issues such as construction and demolition practices, departments'
adaptation to climate change, use of ozone-depleting and global
warming substances, heritage, disposal of property and contaminated
land. Framework targets for this area were not published until
October 2004, so this section of the SDiG Report 2004 reports
on the areas covered in previous reports: construction and refurbishment
and air conditioning systems. The estates management data from
the SDiG Report 2003 are not sufficiently comprehensive to allow
true comparison with the SDiG Report 2004, which is based on more
detailed questions.
59. When building or refurbishing buildings, departments
are expected to assess all projects over £50,000 using the
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) or an equivalent standard. Since March 2003 departments
have been expected to achieve 'excellent' ratings for all new
build projects and 'very good' for all refurbishments. However,
performance against this standard was extremely poor in 2003-04;
only three of 147 new build projects (2 per cent) were rated 'excellent'
and six 'very good'. Almost 200 refurbishments were carried out,
of which only one (0.5 per cent) received a 'very good' BREEAM
rating. It appears that in many cases, BREEAM assessments were
either not carried out or their results were not submitted as
part of the SDiG Report data.
60. By contrast, the majority (35 of 41, or 85 per
cent) of the new air conditioning systems installed in 2003-04
were free of ozone-depleting and global-warming coolants. Systems
refurbished by the Department for Transport and the Inland Revenue
were also free of these substances, although the Department for
Constitutional Affairs reported that its refurbishment involved
component replacements and it would not have been cost-effective
to replace the system with one free of such coolants.
Biodiversity
61. The Framework targets for biodiversity, published
in August 2003, call for departments to take various actions to
support biodiversity on their estates, such as auditing biodiversity
issues and drawing up action plans. No 'outcome' targets have
been set for the expected results of this work, since biodiversity
is a complex area where it is extremely difficult to prove a causal
link between specific environmental improvements and increases
in the number of plant and animal species. The NAO briefing on
the SDiG Report 2003 did not cover biodiversity, since targets
and achievements in this area were at an early stage.
62. The SDiG Report 2004 shows that departments are
making steady progress towards the targets for biodiversity, although
the level of achievement is in some places still low. For example,
departments with estates identified as having a significant impact
on biodiversity are required to have conducted audits of 40 per
cent of their sites identified as significant by October 2004.
At the time of reporting, only two of the seven relevant departments
had met this target. Only 16 per cent of all sites identified
as having a significant impact for biodiversity had been audited.
Social impacts
63. The social impacts section of the Framework and
of the SDiG Report 2004 covers the impact of estate management
on staff and local communities. It is difficult to get a clear
picture of changes in performance on social impacts, as the SDiG
Report 2004 did not collect quantitative data in the same way
as the previous year's report. It is also rather too early to
discuss the results of this work, since the March 2006 deadline
for departments to produce social impacts strategies has not yet
passed. However, the SDiG Report 2004 does give a number of examples
of good practice, drawn from three different departments - the
'good neighbour approach' adopted by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, family-friendly policies at the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and the work done by the Export Credits
Guarantee Department to give local school pupils work experience
in the Department - while the previous year's report only had
an example from one department.
Annex A
Departments included in the SDiG Report 2004
C&E - Customs and Excise, now merged with Inland
Revenue to form HM Revenue and Customs.
CO - Cabinet Office
DCMS - Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Defra - Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs
DfES - Department for Education and Skills
DfID - Department for International Development
DfT - Department for Transport
DH - Department of Health
DTI - Department of Trade and Industry
DWP - Department for Work and Pensions
ECGD - Export Credits Guarantee Department
FCO - Foreign and Commonwealth Office
HMT - HM Treasury
HO - Home Office
IR - Inland Revenue, now merged with Customs and
Excise to form HM Revenue and Customs
LCD - Lord Chancellor's Department (now the Department
for Constitutional Affairs (DCA))
LOD - Law Officer's Departments
MoD - Ministry of Defence
ODPM - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
ONS - Office of National Statistics
| 
