Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
RESPONSE TO THE EFRA COMMITTEE'S PRELIMINARY
QUESTIONS
FINANCE
1. When available, could the Department provide
actual 2005-06 outturn figures (using the same accounting boundary
as in the Departmental Report's core tables) for:
— total capital budget; and
— total net administration costs.
Total Resource Budget—a provisional outturn
of £2,862 million versus the estimated outturn of £3,059
million in the 2006 Departmental Report and the calculated budget
derived from the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate of £3,061
million[1]—underspends
of £197 million and £199 million respectively.
Total Capital Budget—a provisional outturn
of £852 million versus the estimated outturn of £654
million and the calculated budget derived from the 2005-06 Spring
Supplementary Estimate also of £654 million[2]—an
overspend of £198 million against both totals.
The net underspend compared to the combined
Resource and Capital budgets is just £1 million. The offsetting
under- and over-spends are caused by treating £207 million
DEL Resource expenditure by the Environment Agency on "capital
works expensed in year"[3]
as capital grant rather than current grant.[4]
The budget for this expenditure was provided within Resource as
those were the rules at the time of the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary
Estimate.
Total Net Administration Costs—a provisional
outturn of £330 million versus the estimated outturn of £342
million in the 2006 Departmental Report and the budget of £384
million in the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate. This is
an underspend against the estimated outturn of £12 million
(due to savings on capital charges) and of £54 million against
the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate. As commented in DR2006,
End Year Flexibility was drawn down as Administration but spent
on front line services, which are classified as Programme rather
than Administration spend.
The provisional figures have been prepared on
the same basis as the 2006 Departmental Report Core Tables and
are consistent with our submission to HM Treasury for the Provisional
Expenditure Outturn White Paper (PEOWP).
The figures may be subject to further query
by Treasury before the publication of the PEOWP. As they are derived
from the draft resource accounts of Defra, its agencies and Non-Departmental
Public Bodies which are still being audited by the National Audit
Office, they are subject to possible further amendment as the
respective audits are completed. The most significant area of
possible adjustment is the size of the provision for disallowance
on the Common Agriculture Policy Pillar 1 payments.
The final outturn figures will be prepared once
the Department's resource accounts and those of the sponsored
Non-Departmental Public Bodies have been published. Those figures
should be available for the Core Tables in the 2007 Departmental
Report but in any event will be forwarded as soon as available.
2. If available before the evidence session
on 19 July, could the Department provide copies of:
— the Statement of Parliamentary
Supply (formerly Schedule 1);
— the Analysis of net resource outturn
by section note; and
— the explanation of key variances.
These schedules are not yet complete but will
be forwarded together with explanations of all the key variances
as soon as the audit has been completed. In the meantime, the
provisional Net Total Resource Outturn is £5,728 million
compared to the Estimate of £5,946 million, a saving of £218
million (3.7%).
£207 million of the saving results from
a mismatch of the income and expenditure within the Non-budget
part of the Estimate relating to the Other Paying Agencies involvement
in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Too much of their share
of the CAP EU income was excluded from the Estimate by being treated
as a Consolidated Fund Extra Receipt instead of being treated
as Non-budget income within the Estimate. The actual income has
been correctly included within the Estimate boundary so reducing
the net spend shown by the Statement of Parliamentary Supply.
As part of completing the reclassification of CAP into DEL, the
anomaly does not exist in the Main Estimate for 2006-07 or in
the Treasury database for 2007-08. It was too late to make this
adjustment for the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate.
£64 million relates to a saving on Non-budget
Grant in Aid payments to the Non-Departmental Public Bodies. This
results from planned savings on resource and capital consumption
by those bodies so the contingency reserve held centrally for
such payments not being required.
Balanced against the two savings above, we have
included an additional provision of £50 million for CAP disallowance,
above the £137 million cover provided in the 2005-06 Spring
Supplementary Estimate. Until the audit is complete it is not
possible to say whether this additional provision will be required.
The remaining £3 million variance is a
collection of small items.
3. If the Department is aware of the level
of End Year Flexibility to be carried forward from 2005-06, can
figures be provided to the Committee?
Our submission to HM Treasury for the Provisional
Expenditure Outturn White Paper (PEOWP) shows a total provisional
End Year Flexibility (EYF) stock of £80 million, £79
million brought forward from 2004-05 and £1 million from
2005-06. The figures may be subject to further query by Treasury
before the publication of the PEOWP. Final figures can only be
prepared once all the resource accounts of the Non-Departmental
Public Bodies have been published later this year. We are unlikely
to know how much of this EYF stock Treasury will allow us to draw
down in 2006-07 until the Spring Supplementary Estimate as the
overall fiscal position for the year emerges.
RURAL PAYMENTS
AGENCY
Page 252 of the Departmental Report states:
[The Rural Payments Agency's] running costs are
now expected to fall significantly as its change programme reaches
completion.
4. Can the Department provide figures showing
the expected reduction in the running costs of the Rural Payments
Agency? What is the timetable for the reduction?
The running costs for the Rural Payments Agency
(RPA) are published in Table 2 of the Departmental Report (page
258) and reflects a planned reduction from 2005-06 provisional
out-turn of £225.55 million to £146.42 million in 2006-07
and to £105.77 million in 2007-08. However this reflects
a baseline position before recent difficulties were encountered
with SPS 2005. Since these problems emerged in recent months
an internal allocation process has revised the RPA running costs
budget for 2006-07 and 2007-08 to: £183 million and £158
million.
Reductions will be made once the position on
SPS payments has been stabilised and subject to the review of
operations currently taking place. There is a reduced budget profile
between 2006-07 and 2007-08 but this may be altered as a result
of the review.
The most recent version of the RPA Change Programme
business case in December 2005 anticipated reduced running costs
from 2007-08 onwards. RPA has already made considerable progress
in reducing the number of permanent staff, although currently
has a large number of temporary staff working on the delivery
of the Single Payment Scheme (which are likely to be needed for
the foreseeable future). A focussed Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
Operating Business Plan for 2006-07, required as a result of the
particular challenges of delivering the SPS, is currently being
finalised.
The size and timing of cost reductions are subject
to the recommendations of the Hunter Review, which has been asked
to consider what level of funding is required to support RPA in
delivering the range of functions and activities for which it
is now responsible and the delivering of on-going efficiencies.
RPA's costs will also depend on the nature of any future policy
changes to be delivered.
FISHERIES
5. Table 2 on page 258 shows a dramatic decrease
(65%) in expenditure on fisheries in 2005-06. The decrease is
noted in the commentary on the core tables (page 252) but no explanation
is provided. Can the Department explain the 65% reduction
in fisheries expenditure in 2005-06? Why is future planned expenditure
(while higher than 2005-06) not back to historic levels?
The £33 million reduction from 2004-05
is caused by three factors:
— The Estimated Out-turn for 2005-06
includes the benefit of £9 million of EU Structural Funds
income which in previous years was still classified as Non-budget;
— The Estimated Out-turn for 2005-06
does not include the £8 million of fisheries environmental
protection work by the Environment Agency, which has been included
in the Environmental Protection Strategy line in the table on
page 257. In the previous years this expenditure has been included
in the Fisheries line on page 258; and
— The Estimated Out-turn for 2005-06
does not include the £10 million expected expenditure of
the Sea Fish Industry Authority. As a levy funded body, their
results are only included on an actuals basis. This is because
whilst their expenditure is treated as Annually Managed Expenditure
(AME) it is not within Defra's Estimate. Their levy income is
classified as non-Estimate Non-budget.
The future planned expenditure does not appear
to return to historic levels because the forward years do not
include Item 3 above—the expenditure of the Sea Fish Industry
Authority—unlike the backward years.
PAYING SUPPLIERS
6. Could the Department provide figures for
its performance in paying suppliers on time in 2005-06?
Standard contractual terms of payment require
that valid invoices are paid within 30 days of satisfactory receipt
of goods and services or an agreed invoice, if that is later.
Where determined by supplier contract, the contractual terms will
take precedence. Core-Defra has implemented a "No Purchase
Order No Pay" policy in line with its continuous development
of the Procure 2 Pay process. This policy will enable improvement
of the payment performance. Defra continues to maintain its commitment
to the Better Payment Practice Code (BPPC) and is determined to
honour these commitments. The current payment performance target
for Core-Defra is 100% for all valid payments to be made by the
due date. Defra's performance for the year, excluding the Rural
Payments Agency, was 94.19% (2004-05—92.97%). The total
number of supplier invoices paid during the year was 157,574 (2004-05
152,377), with 148,423 (2004-05 142,040) paid on time. For RPA
82.78% (2004-05 83.35%) of all invoices relating to administration
expenditure were paid within 30 days. No interest was payable
under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998
(2004-05 £Nil).
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
7. The Departmental Report says that the forecast
expenditure on research and development for 2005-06 was approximately
£160 million (p 205). The Report makes reference to research
and development, in the context of climate change (p 46), flood
management (p 68), waste (p 76) aquaculture (p 147), the Central
Science Laboratory (p 163), the Pesticides Safety Directorate
(p 167), and the Government Decontamination Service (p 179). Could
the Department provide a breakdown of its expenditure on research
and development?
Defra's evidence and innovation activities are
funded under two main headings: R&D and non-R&D.
The Defra R&D programme is aimed at supporting
and informing Defra policy making in line with its Strategic Priorities
and Outcomes. In addition to research funded under the Strategic
Outcomes and other related policy areas set out in the table below,
Defra's Chief Scientific Adviser funds around £10 million
per annum of research to meet cross-cutting strategic needs, including
Horizon Scanning, seed-corn funding at Defra Agencies and international
science. Due to the cross-cutting nature of Defra's work, expenditure
listed under individual Strategic Outcomes (notably sustainable
farming and food) also contributes to other areas. Allocations
were reviewed following the 2004 Spending Review but have so far
only been set at the Strategic Outcome level until March 2007.
Defra also funds a wide range of non-R&D
scientific and technical activities in support of policy development
and in line with statutory requirements. These cover surveillance
and monitoring programmes on animal, fish and plant health, the
majority of which are required under statute; testing, data capture
and analysis work; and technical advice and support in policy
implementation and dissemination of good practice (often provided
through delivery bodies such as English Nature, the Environment
Agency and the Carbon Trust). Please note that because of the
wide range of activity covered under this heading, these figures
represent only a current year estimate of Defra expenditure, but
will be further refined as the E&I process is developed and
embedded within Defra.
Table 1
RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS BY STRATEGIC OUTCOME
AND OTHER RELATED POLICY AREAS
|
Strategic Outcome
and other related policy areas
| R&D Spend
2005-06
(£'000s)
| R&D Spend
2006-07
(£'000s)
| Non-R&D
Spend 2005-06
(£'000s)
|
|
| Sustainable development |
| | |
| Local environment quality | 8,372
| 8,372 | —
|
Climate change and energy
| | | |
| Climate change | 15,227
| 17,327 | 46,600
|
| Homes heated | 1,200
| 1,200 | —
|
| Flooding and coastal erosion risk management
| 2,425 | 2,425
| 1,100 |
| Improved air quality | 9,699
| 10,599 | —
|
Sustainable consumption and production
| | | |
| Sustainable consumption and production (decoupling)
| 2,730 | 3,630
| — |
| Waste and resources management | 3,770
| 5,104 | 13,400
|
| Chemicals and nanotechnology[5]
| 3,867 | 3,867
| — |
| Protecting the countryside and natural resource protection
| | |
| Protect and enhance the natural environment
| 6,921 | 7,280
| 1,079 |
| Access to the natural environment | —
| — | —
|
| Water quality and the environment | 2,119
| 3,019 | 4,710
|
| Sustainable marine environment | 10,666
| 10,725 | 18,167
|
| Radioactive substances | 319
| 319 | 1,848
|
Sustainable rural communities
| | | |
| Rural enterprise and social exclusion | 821
| 2,243 | —
|
Sustainable farming and food, including animal health and welfare
| | |
| Sustainable farming and food | 38,464
| 34,019 | 5,476
|
| Animal health and welfare (including fish health)
| 38,889 | 39,231
| 88,836[6]
|
| Pesticides | 5,459
| 5,459 | 2,830
|
| Total | 150,948
| 154,819 | 184,046
|
|
DEFRA'S
EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
Page 203 of the Departmental Report states:
A criterion of delivering these efficiencies is that the level
of service is maintained or improved. This aspect is being monitored
in a number of ways including monitoring of output levels, customer
satisfaction surveys, internal and external audits, achievement
of Public Service Agreement targets, and corporate Balanced Scorecard
measures. It is not clear whether the figures for efficiencies
and headcount reductions made in 2005-06 (reported in the Departmental
Report), or those for 2004-05 (reported in the 2005 Autumn Performance
Report (APR)), have yet been subject to the full audit and monitoring
process.
8. Can the Department clarify what proportion of efficiency
savings reported have been fully audited? Have any corrections
been made to the figures as a result of the audits?
Defra is currently working with the Office of Government
Commerce (OGC) to clarify the guidelines for carrying out audits
of declared efficiencies and as a result no specific audits have
been carried out. Financial efficiencies reported from Executive
Agencies and NDPBs will be subject to external audit and performance
against targets forms part of the annual report produced by these
organisations. The Efficiency Programme team provides support
and challenge to business areas and figures have been revised
through this process. Additionally, we have commissioned an internal
audit of benefits delivery across the department.
9. The Department's Efficiency Technical Note (ETN) states
that £266 million efficiency gains were planned to be made
by the end of 2005-06. £110 million of this amount was delivered
in 2004-05. The Departmental Report says that £140 million
savings were made in the first nine months of 2005-06. What efficiency
gains were achieved in the last three months of the financial
year 2005-06? Did the Department make the additional £30
million savings it predicted in its 2005 Autumn Performance Report
(page 100)?
The total efficiency gain made by the Department to end March
2006 was £263 million.[7]
This exceeded the £229 million delivery target set out in
the 2005 Autumn Performance Report by £34 million.
10. The Departmental Report states that £91 million
of the £140 million savings made in 2005-06 was cashable.
No similar figures were given in the 2005 APR for 2004-05. Can
the Department provide the total level of cashable savings made
to date?
The total cashable savings made by the Department to March
2006 was £156 million.[8]
The Department reduced its total number of posts by 1,016
in the first nine months of 2005-06. This is in excess of
the planned 833 set out in the ETN. However, page 204 of the Departmental
Report states that "the latest forecasts indicate a slight
shortfall against the 2004 Spending Review workforce reduction
target". The summary of the Defra Management Board meeting
on 23 March 2006 notes that for the Spending Review 2004 period,
"Defra had the highest percentage shortfall of any government
department . . . The Management Board agreed that urgent action
must be taken to reach the headcount reduction target."[9]
11. Can the Department explain when and where the "slight
shortfall" against the 2004 workforce reduction target is
expected to occur?
— Can figures be provided to show the size of
the expected shortfall? What measures is the Department taking
to address it?
The forecast workforce reduction at time of publication of
the Departmental Report was 2,154 against a target of 2,400. Planning
currently underway to meet the headcount target has identified
some contingency with a latest forecast of 2,492 reductions. However
there is a risk of delay into 2008-09 of some of RPA's 1,400 post
reductions. Steps continue to be taken to address this.
A dedicated project team has been established within HR,
reporting to the Efficiency Programme, to oversee and support
delivery of these reductions.
GOVERNANCE
Page 200 of the Departmental Report states:
Capability reviews are being introduced to assess departments'
capabilities in three main areas: Leadership, Delivery and Strategy
. . . Defra's preparations for its Capability Review will be developed
over the coming months and will reflect wider developments of
the Capability Reviews as they emerge.
12. What is the Department's timetable for preparing its
Capability Review? What progress has been made so far?
Timetable
The Department's Capability Review will be in the third tranche,
which runs from October 2006 to February-March 2007. The fieldwork
is likely to take place in early January 2007, which would give
a target publication date of end of February. The projected timetable,
given below, is subject to some flexibility; some of the preparatory
work (eg supply of core Review documents; stakeholder survey)
may be undertaken earlier. In addition, the outcomes of the Department
for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) pilot and first tranche (Home
Office and Department for Work and Pensions) are currently being
awaited, which may affect the detailed timings.
|
| Timing | Activity
|
|
| First two weeks October 2006 | Ian Watmore Head of the Prime Ministers Delivery Unit (PMDU) meets the Management Board to agree focus and priorities of the Review.
|
| Mid October | Review Team Members meet Management Board.
|
| Late October | PMDU team receives core Review documents from Defra.
|
| Mid November | Review Team and Defra agree orientation—familiarisation visits for Review Team members.
|
| Mid November-early December | Staff workshops and Focus Groups; stakeholder survey (if not already undertaken by this stage).
|
| Early-mid December | Interim "playback" sessions by Review Team to Permanent Secretary and Management Board.
|
| Late December-early January | Final pre-fieldwork feedback to Board.
|
| Early January (possibly 8-19) | On-site fieldwork.
|
| First week after fieldwork | Feedback to Board.
|
| Late January | Defra produce outline action plan.
|
| Late January-early February | Review Team report drafted and agreed with Department; Defra produce detailed action plan.
|
| Mid February | Report formally signed off by Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretary, and submitted to Prime Minister and Secretary of State.
|
| Late February | Report published.
|
|
Progress so Far
Defra is currently undertaking as much preparatory work as
we are able to, pending publication and feedback from the DCA
pilot and first tranche reviews. We understand from PMDU that
Defra is ahead in its preparations compared to the other participants
in the 3rd tranche.
Activities already completed include:
— active participation in developing the review
model and process—participation by Defra staff in Cabinet
Office workshops held in Autumn 2005; two Defra leaders were members
of the first Review team;
— a small team set up as part of the Chief Operating
Officer's Directorate, to take forward preparations for the review
at a working level;
— ongoing regular meetings between this team and
PMDU at a working level, including a recent meeting with the Review
Team manager, and contact with the PMDU Stakeholder Survey team;
— feedback to PMDU on preferred timing for review
and the type of person who should be on review team;
— Defra's Permanent Secretary Helen Ghosh has met
Ian Watmore; the Secretary of State, David Milliband, has also
had a number of discussions with Ian Watmore and is briefed and
engaged;
— briefings to the Departmental Reform Group (a
sub-committee of the MB which is taking oversight of the Review)
in February, and to the Management Board in April; and
— initial briefing to the Defra family in June,
through the Defra Collaboration Group.
Activities currently underway include:
— internal communications linked with Defra's recent
five-year anniversary;
— preparatory work taking place on providing evidence
to the Review Team to help answer their key questions which test
current capability in the three segments, Strategy, Delivery and
Leadership:
— meetings have taken place with colleagues on Strategy,
Delivery and Leadership, to discuss the sources of evidence to
answer the key questions;
— currently: mapping existing evidence (eg from staff
surveys) to the questions, to identify any gaps, to document the
evidence where it exists, and to set out trends; and
— also, working with the Defra Stakeholder Survey team
to ensure that any stakeholder interviews or surveys are integrated
with Defra's planned survey later this year, to minimise inconvenience
to the stakeholders and optimise the usefulness of the information
collected.
13. Could the Department provide details of the expected
timetable for developing shared services provision (page 214)
and rolling it out to all elements of the Departmental group?
— Will all the Department's Executive Agencies,
NDPBs and other bodies source their services from the new Shared
Services Agency?
Defra currently provides shared services to a number of existing
customers. Based on current expectations, Defra will continue
to serve them and begin to provide services to the first of its
new customers, the soon-to-be Natural England, from 1 October
2006.
Existing customers, who take a mix of services, comprise
core-Defra and the following Defra Family members: Centre for
Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Central
Science laboratory (CSL); Government Decontamination Unit (GDS);
Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD); Rural Payments Agency (RPA);
Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA); State Veterinary Service (SVS);
Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and Veterinary Medicines
Directorate (VMD); as well as Meat Hygiene Service (part of the
Food Standards Agency, Department of Health).
Thereafter, existing Defra Family customers have indicated
possible timings for increasing the range of services that they
take and a number of potential new customers have indicated their
interest in coming on board, from both within the Defra Family
and, notably, beyond, in the form of Department for Education
& Skills (DfES). DfES will be working with us to explore how
they can make best use of our SSO to deliver services to them,
primarily in the area of Finance and HR. An indicative timetable
is in the Sector Plan that went to the cabinet Office & the
Programme is working with potential customers on refining it to
get more precise timings.
Page 223 of the Departmental Report states:
During 2005 the Department has conducted a first skills audit
of the Senior Civil Service (SCS). Plans are now being implemented
to ensure Defra can meet the Government's target that 75% of SCS
members demonstrate competence in all six core skill areas by
September 2007.
14. What were the result of the Department's skills audit
of the Senior Civil Service (SCS)?
— What percentage of the Department's SCS can
demonstrate competence in all six core skill areas? Could the
Department provide a breakdown by core skill area?
From the 157 responses received in the skills audit 37 SCS
members of staff ticked the successfully demonstrated box for
each Professional Skills for Government core skill. The percentage
figure is therefore 24%.
SCS CORE SKILLS DATA COLLECTION: RESULTS FOR PAY BANDS
1 and 2
|
| 1—successfully demonstrated
NoPercentage
| 2—development needs
NoPercentage
|
|
| People Management | 139
| 88.5% | 18
| 11.5% |
| Financial Management | 91
| 58.0% | 66
| 42.0% |
| Project and Programme Management | 101
| 64.3% | 56
| 35.7% |
| Analysis and Use of Evidence | 147
| 93.6% | 10
| 6.4% |
| Communications and Marketing | 96
| 61.1% | 61
| 38.9% |
| Strategic Thinking | 126
| 80.3% | 31
| 19.7% |
|
PUBLIC SERVICE
AGREEMENT (PSA) TARGETS—GENERAL
15. The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review will include
the setting of new Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets. Can
the Department provide the Committee with copies of its draft
Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets once available?
HM Treasury are looking at the whole performance management
framework, including PSAs, as part of the Comprehensive Spending
Review (CSR). The current system came in with the 1998 CSR so
it is right that this CSR looks at it again. We're working with
HM Treasury to inform their thinking—no conclusions available
yet.
16. Has the National Audit Office undertaken a review of
the Department's PSA data systems in the last year?
— If so, can the Department provide the Committee
with a copy of the report? If not, when will a review be carried
out?
The National Audit Office undertook a review of Defra's PSA
data systems during late 2005 and early 2006. A copy of the
report and its recommendations will be published later this year.
PSA 1—SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Page 19 of the Departmental Report states:
Based on the Department's current assessment Defra is on course
for this target . . . A full update of progress will be available
following evaluation of the sustainable development indicators
in June.
17. 68 indicators and 127 measures for this target have
not been fully evaluated and indicators for the international
element of this target are still in development. Can the Department
explain how it has arrived at an assessment of "on course"
for this target?
In June 2005 baseline "traffic light" assessments
of the 127 measures making up the 68 indicators were produced
and evaluated, subject to data availability.
Summaries reporting the number of indicator measures showing
"red" deterioration, "amber" no change or
"green" improvement, were subsequently produced for
the Autumn Performance and Departmental Reports—separately
for the four priority areas of sustainable consumption and production,
climate change and energy, protecting our natural resources and
creating sustainable communities. The summaries also specifically
identified and highlighted those indicator measures showing clear
deterioration.[10]
The table below shows the number and state of the indicator
"traffic light" assessments summarised for each priority
area.
NUMBER OF INDICATOR MEASURE "TRAFFIC LIGHT"
ASSESSMENTS IN PSA1 REPORTING
|
| | | Priority area
|
| Sustainable consumption and production from
1990 from
1999
| Climate change and energy from
1990 from
1999
| Protecting our natural resources from
1990 from
1999
| Creating sustainable communities from
1990 from
1999
| Total (1) from
1990 from
1999
|
|
| Red: Clear deterioration | 6
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 1
| 1 | 7
| 8 | 15
| 17 |
| Amber: little or no change | 1
| 10 | 2
| 2 | 2
| 5 | 5
| 14 | 10
| 27 |
| Green: clear improvement | 20
| 17 | 8
| 7 | 13
| 13 | 18
| 26 | 46
| 51 |
Insufficient data or
measures to be developed
| 3 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 8 | 5
| 22 | 4
| 30 | 6
|
Total measures in PSA1
reporting |
30 | 30
| 14 | 14
| 24 | 24
| 52 | 52
| 101 | 101
|
| Measures not used for PSA1 reporting (2) |
19 | 19
| 8 | 8
| 4 | 4
| 16 | 16
| 26 | 26
|
| Ttal measures in Strategy reporting | 49
| 49 | 22
| 22 | 28
| 28 | 68
| 68 | 127
| 127 |
|
(1) Some indicator measures support reporting for more
than one priority area. The total is the number of distinct measures
excluding this muliple reporting.
(2) Some indicators in the strategy are for contextual
reporitng only. In addition some indicator measures are excluded
from PSA1 reporting in an attempt to avoid "double-covering",
ie where the measure is used directly as a component in more than
one indicator or trends are strongly influenced by or directly
reflect other measures.
It is not appropriate to go beyond the summaries to form
an overall assessment for PSA1 using indicator measures alone,
either for each priority area or overall, as this would require
some form of weighting of indicators, which in the end would be
arbitrary. Nevertheless, whilst recognising that some indicator
measures are more important or challenging than others, on the
basis of the number of "traffic lights" presented in
the table above (in effect using a simple equal weighting of measures)
for each of the priority areas at least half of the supporting
indicator measures show "green" for clear improvement.
Crucially, in addition to the progress shown by the indicators,
our assessment takes into account, albeit qualitatively, that
a number of mechanisms have now been put in place to ensure that
more progress is made and that we can tackle those areas currently
going in the wrong direction, or that are challenging to improve.
Some key recent developments, for example, have been:
— The strengthening of the Sustainable Development
Commission (SDC) as advisor, advocate and "watchdog"
for Government.
— The production by each Government Department of
a Sustainable Development Action Plan—defining and publicising
its specific contribution towards implementing the Sustainable
Development Strategy.
— Government's commitment at the highest levels
to provide leadership on sustainable development through a positive
response to the Sustainable Procurement Task Force and the targets
for sustainable management of Government estates, including the
commitment to make central Government offices carbon neutral by
2012.
— The preparation for the 2007 comprehensive spending
review, lead by HM Treasury, with its focus on five long-term
challenges: demographic and socio-economic change, globalisation,
innovation and technological development; global uncertainty;
and increasing pressure on climate and natural resources.
Internationally, the UK has set up Sustainable Development
Dialogues with China, India and Brazil and is in discussions with
Mexico and South Africa. In recognising that no single nation
can address the challenges of sustainable development alone this
initiative aims to place sustainability as a core principle in
the bilateral relationship and provide a coherent framework for
co-operation using a cross-governmental, multi-level approach.
They also engage external stakeholders at home and in the Dialogue
countries.
18. Will the evaluation of indicators be available prior
to the evidence session on 19 July? If so, could the Department
provide a copy and explain how the large number of measures are
combined to give an overall assessment?
Data for the indicators and assessments are currently being
compiled and prepared for a National Statistics publication. We
are aiming to publish this in July, but statisticians in Defra
are still liasing with statistical colleagues in other government
departments to finalise the data and it is unlikely that the 2006
evaluation, which will be published in "Sustainable development
indicators in your pocket", will be available in time for
the evidence session. However, we do not envisage there having
been many changes to the traffic light assessments compared with
those reported last year.
The National Audit Office and the Statistics Commission have
both given overall endorsements for how the indicator measures
are assessed and used for PSA1 reporting. A full explanation is
given in the Technical Note for PSA1.[11]
19. What progress has been made towards developing indicators
and baselines for the international element of this target?
Preliminary work on making international comparative information
available was undertaken in 2005. The sustainable development
website[12] currently
includes some example indicators and provides links to a wide
range of international websites that provide comparative data
and analysis and global and EU trends.
Further work has been done to produce a greater selection
of international comparative indicators that correspond with indicators
in the national set. These will be published on the website this
year. If practicable they will be published with the 2006 national
indicator assessments, or soon after.
A review of ecological footprinting has reported and further
work updating and extending the review is about to be commissioned.
A final report on research into the biodiversity impacts of UK
consumption has been produced and will be published following
peer review. A final report on research into emissions "embedded"
in traded goods has also just been received.
20. The Departmental Report contains numerous examples
of activities to promote sustainable development. The overall
target will be assessed using a large number of measures. Has
any work been planned to assess the impact of individual projects
and initiatives on progress towards the target, and to assess
which ones should be prioritised when resources are allocated?
There are strong links between the sustainable development
indicators and existing policy frameworks, including other PSA
targets across Government. Therefore, much impact evaluation and
prioritisation of projects and initiatives will be undertaken
during the normal course of policy-making and the evaluation of
delivery in specific areas. For example, delivery of the air quality
indicator is underpinned by a shared public sector agreement for
Defra and DfT:
— Defra PSA 8 and DfT PSA 6: We will improve air
quality by meeting the Air Quality Strategy targets for carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide,
benzene and 1,3 butadiene.
And delivery of the childhood poverty indicator is supported
by a shared public sector agreements for DWP and DfES:
— DfES PSA 2 and DWP PSA 3 : As a contribution to
reducing the proportion of children living in households where
no one is working, by 2008 we will:
— increase the stock of Ofsted-registered childcare
by 10%;
— increase the take-up of formal childcare by low income
working families by 50%; and
— introduce by April 2005, a successful light-touch
childcare approval scheme.
However it would be too simplistic to focus just on making
progress as shown by the indicators. And the impacts of the more
cross-cutting projects and initiatives will be much more difficult
if not impossible to directly and quantitatively evaluate. Therefore,
we will continue to work with HM Treasury and the National Audit
Office to consider how we can evaluate PSA1 beyond what can be
reasonably done using the sustainable development indicators directly.
PSA 2—CLIMATE CHANGE
21. According to a National Statistics news release on
23 May 2006 (Environmental Accounts Spring 2006), although there
was a fall in greenhouse gas emissions of 10.6% between 1990 and
1999, emissions increased by nearly 2% between 1999 and 2004 (with
a 1% increase between 2003 and 2004 alone)—so the UK is
now only 8.7% below 1990 levels, rather than the 10.6% below achieved
in 1999. Can Defra's progress towards the target still be
described as "on course"?
Before talking about the UK's progress towards its greenhouse
gas mitigation targets, it would be useful to explain the differences
between the greenhouse gas releases made by the office of National
Statistics (ONS) and Defra. The ONS and Defra produce annual greenhouse
gas emission statistics according to separate conventions, which
explains the difference in the levels of emissions reported. Defra's
emission estimates are prepared according to internationally agreed
standards for assessing progress under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) published by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The ONS figures are produced as
part of the UK Environmental Accounts according to conventions
agreed internationally for National Accounts.
In general, the IPCC methodology covers emissions taking
place within UK territory, while the ONS National Accounts definition
aims to cover the emissions of UK residents. The main adjustments
ONS make compared with the Defra figures are to add in emissions
from UK residents overseas and to remove emissions from foreigners
in the UK. This results in a net increase in the ONS statistics.
The size of the adjustment has been increasing over time, largely
because international travel, including road freight and personal
travel as well as international aviation, has increased.
ONS figures show an 8.7% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions
between 1990 and 2004, while Defra figures show a 14.6% decrease
by 2004 relative to the Kyoto baseline (which is based on 1990
for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and 1995 for fluorinated
compounds). ONS figures also show a 1.9% increase in greenhouse
gases between 1999 and 2004, while the Defra figures used for
the Kyoto Protocol target show a 0.6% decrease.
Progress Towards Greenhouse Gas Targets
The UK is on course to exceed its Kyoto target of a fall
in greenhouse gases of 12.5% by 2008-12 below 1990 baseline figures.
It is now estimated that, by 2010, the UK will reduce its emissions
of the greenhouse gas emissions from the basket of six gases covered
by the Protocol by between 23% and 25% to below base year levels.
The Government is also committed to the UK domestic goal
to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. It
is currently estimated that we are on track to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by between 14% and 17% below 1990 levels.[13]
It has always been recognised that this goal was ambitious but
it has proved instrumental in ensuring that action is taken and
provide a benchmark against which performance and effectiveness
can be gauged.
We are still committed to the 20% goal and believe that the
gap can be closed. The updated Climate Change Programme is not
the final word on possible climate change policies; we still await
the result of the Energy Review, the review of energy efficiency
in buildings and the Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007.
22. This target has four elements. Whilst progress against
the Kyoto and carbon dioxide goals is recorded in the Departmental
Report, information relating to progress against the energy efficiency
and renewable energy measures is not made clear. What progress
has been made against the energy efficiency and renewable energy
aspects of the target?
Energy Efficiency
The UK's targets for energy efficiency are carbon savings
of 3.5 million tonnes of Carbon (MtC) from households in England
by 2010 (as set out in the Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2004,
in fulfilment of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003); and to improve
household energy efficiency in England by 20% by 2010, from a
2000 baselines (Housing Act 2004).
In 1990, all greenhouse gas emissions from the domestic sector
were 45.8 MtC, they had fallen to 43.7 MtC in 2004 and they are
projected to be 38.7 MtC in 2010 (excluding new policies). Carbon
dioxide emissions in 1990 were 42.4 MtC, and fell by 2.6 MtC over
the decade to reach 39.8 MtC in 2000.
This small net change was the result of the interaction between
several much larger individual contributions over the decade.
Three factors had a major influence on carbon dioxide emissions:
— growth in demand for the underlying energy services
(such as warmer homes, hot water, and home entertainment)—up
nearly 30%, (11.5 MtC);
— background improvement in energy efficiency—over
1% per annum or a 12% reduction (4.5 MtC); and
— reduction in the carbon intensity of grid electricity
resulting from the switch from coal to gas generation—worth
over 20% of household emissions (8 MtC).
Together with other smaller factors (such as fuel switching
by householders and changes in external temperatures), which reduced
emissions by around 1 MtC, these resulted in an overall net reduction
of 6%, or around 2.5 MtC.
Projections to 2010
Over 2000-10, before the effects of policies in the Climate
Change Programme (CCP) are taken into account, carbon emissions
under Business as Usual (BAU) would now be expected to remain
almost constant, increasing by only 0.3 MtC, from 39.8 MtC in
2000 to 40.1 MtC in 2010.
However, policy savings, which are calculated net of BAU
savings, are expected to reduce annual carbon emissions by 4.8
MtC below the BAU emissions figure for 2010, so that emissions
in 2010 are projected to be 35.3 MtC. These policy savings consist
of 3.6 MtC from policies in the 2000 programme and a further 1.2
MtC from the new measures introduced in the CCP 2006. These savings
will keep us on track to meet our 2010 targets for household energy
efficiency.
As with the previous decade, the very small net change in
estimated BAU emissions for 2000-10 is the result of several larger
effects: this time, they more or less cancel out. These are:
— upward pressure from service demand increases
(slightly less than in the 1990s as gas central heating installations
saturate) at nearly 25%, ie around 8.5 MtC;
— decreases from the background level of energy
efficiency improvement (ie before the additional effects of policies
are counted), very similar to that over 1990-2000, at 12%, ie
around 4.5 MtC;
— smaller reduction than in the 1990s from changes
in the generators' fuel mix, probably around 3 MtC; and
— a net reduction from smaller factors, ie around
1 MtC.
The overall Business as Usual effect is projected to be a
small increase of 0.3 MtC over the decade to 2010.
Renewables
The UK has a target to increase the proportion of electricity
provided by renewable sources to 10% of electricity supplied by
2010, subject to the cost the consumer being acceptable. The 2003
Energy White Paper signalled the Government's aspiration to double
the proportion of electricity supplied by renewables by 2020.
Renewables provided 4.2% of electricity generated in Britain
in 2005—up from 3.6% the previous year. This data is released
as part of the latest Energy Trends report from the DTI released
on 29 June 2006. Further details are published in the Annual
Report on the Energy White Paper. The third Annual Report is due
to be published soon, covering the reporting period from February
2005 to February 2006.
Projections to 2010
Although the Government is making progress towards the 10%
target, recent projections indicate that the target level of generation
may not be achieved until some time after 2010. The Government
is continuing with a range of work to address barriers to progress
towards the 10% target. The Government has recently laid a new
Renewables Obligation Order before Parliament, which includes
a number of small modifications that are aimed at improving its
effectiveness over time.
As well as the Renewables Obligation, the Government is providing
support through R&D funding and capital grants worth around
£500 million between 2002 and 2008, including grants for
offshore wind, biomass, solar PV and R&D.
Reporting Obligations under the Climate Change and Sustainable
Energy Act
The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill has recently
gained Royal Assent, and one of the requirements of that Act is
for Defra's Secretary of State to submit to Parliament an annual
report detailing:
(a) the steps taken by UK central government departments
during the previous calendar year to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions; and
(b) the UK's emissions figures for the previous calendar
year.
This report will therefore cover not only the energy efficiency
and renewables elements of the Programme, but all other domestic
policies and measures too.
PSA 4—RURAL PRODUCTIVITY
Page 109 of the Departmental Report states:
For services, in the 2004 Spending Review, Defra identified
five main themes where improvements for rural areas are a priority—health,
education and skills, work and pensions, transport and housing—and
selected indicators of progress for each theme. Steady progress
has been achieved towards establishing the evidence base for which
progress against Public Service Agreement target 4 (Services)
indicators can be assessed, although further work is needed (with
Department for Transport (DfT) and the Department for Work and
Pensions (DWP) in particular).
23. When will the "further work" for assessment
of this target be completed?
Defra is not in a position to give a definitive answer. Our
rate of progress on each indicator is dependent on work within
other Departments—for example on transport, Local Transport
Plans (LTPs), including new local accessibility strategies and
targets, were due to be received by Department for Transport at
the end of March 2006. DfT's assessment of the Plans should
be completed by the end of July after which we will meet officials
responsible for accessibility planning to discuss the way forward
on Defra's PSA4 target in the light of evidence about accessibility
planning from the LTPs.
PSA 5—FOOD AND
FARMING
24. The Gross Value Added per person measure fell in 2003
and 2004 to below 2000 levels. Why is the Department confident
that the decline in Gross Value Added per person will be reversed
and that the steep trajectory needed to achieve the target will
be achieved?
The implementation of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) reforms remains the key enabler for driving forward a European
agricultural sector which is fully competitive, environmentally
sustainable and able to thrive profitably in a liberalised, global
economy. The pressure for further CAP reform remains strong and
2008 is a key milestone with review of decoupling, and review
of the dairy regime including the quota system. We expect export
subsidies to be phased out by 2013 with a substantial part to
be eliminated by around 2010 meaning the momentum for greater
liberalisation of trade, and removal of distortions, will continue
to build including in agriculture.
The new Rural Development Plan for England will be targeted
to make farming and the food chain more competitive and sustainable,
and to enhance business opportunity, including farm diversification,
in rural areas. Also we will continue to provide support to bodies
such as the Food Chain Centre, Food From Britain and the English
Food and Farming partnerships which encourage efficiency and co-operation
within the market.
— Does the Department have any indication of
what the Gross Value Added per person figure will be for 2005?
When will the final figure be available?
Defra is aiming to publish the provisional figure for 2005
on 18 July when the Sustainable Farming & Food Strategy (SFFS)
indicators website is launched. The final figure for 2005 will
be published in the summer of 2007 (at the time of the publication
of the provisional 2006 estimate).
25. Has the Department made any preliminary assessment
for the likely performance against the three new indicators being
developed? To what extent will eventual achievement of the target
depend on these indicators?
The three new indicators for this Public Service Agreement
(PSA) target are part of the set of indicators for monitoring
progress with the SFFS. An assessment of performance of these
indicators (in the context of SFFS delivery) will be provided
when the SFFS website is launched on 18 July.
Discussions will then continue with HM Treasury on their
formal inclusion within PSA 5. The achievement of the PSA
target 5 will require meeting the separate targets for all of
the individual indicators.
One of the indicators for this target is described in the
PSA technical note as follows:
Measure: The sum of EU notifications to the WTO of support
under the Amber and Blue boxes representing EU 15 support.
Baseline: 2000-01 marketing year Notification (Amber Box €43,654
million, Blue Box, €22,223 million). Our current estimates
for 2008-09, when reforms agreed up to May 2004 are fully implemented,
are that the Amber Box will be around €25.2 billion, and
the Blue Box €5.5 billion.
Target: By 2008-09, to be on an agreed track to reaching reductions,
beyond those agreed up to May 2004, of 10% of the total.
It is not clear from the information provided what the actual
target is.
26. Could the Department clarify whether the target will
be achieved if, in 2008-09, the Amber Box is €25.2 billion
and the Blue Box €5.5 billion? Or are the target figures
10% below these figures—that is, €22.68 billion (Amber)
and €4.95 billion (Blue)?
The target is 10% below these figures ie €22.68 billion
(Amber) and €4.95 billion (Blue).
The graph on page 123 shows CAP production-linked support
since 1995 and a future trajectory. However, no commentary or
actual figures accompany the graph.
27. Can the Department provide current figures for CAP
production-linked support to show that this target is on course?
The figures for this indicator are provided from notifications
to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with the latest actual
data being for 2001-02. The trajectory shows the projections for
this series based on the CAP reforms which have been achieved
to date. The effect of the recent reforms will not appear in the
data until the reforms have been implemented and the European
Commission has notified subsidy levels under the reformed policies
to the WTO. However, the projections beyond 2001-02 are expected
to accurately reflect the actual figures when they become available
from the WTO.
The final indicator for this target is reductions in barriers
to access to EU markets based on an average tariff calculated
for a range of important agricultural commodities. The target
is to be on an agreed track to achieving a fall of at least 36%
in the calculated average tariff by 2008. This does not seem
to be mentioned in the Departmental Report.
28. Can the Department provide the latest figures showing
progress against this target?
WTO members are currently working on the latest round of
multi-lateral trade negotiations, the Doha Development Agenda
(DDA). These negotiations will determine the reduction in the
average tariff. The current EU formal offer is a 39% reduction
in tariffs, slightly higher than the 36% cut required to meet
the PSA target, but it is not possible to provide a further update
on this indicator until modalities are finalised at the end of
July. The deadline for agreement of agriculture modalities (the
basic "architecture" of a deal) is now the end of July
2006. This is an extremely pressurised timetable, but the UK remains
committed to achieving an ambitious outcome with substantial reductions
in import tariffs and is working hard to influence others.
29. Given the above questions, how does the Department
justify its assessment that this target is "on course"?
Delays to the payments of the Single Payment Scheme and difficulties
with processing Environmental Stewardship applications have been
significant challenges. The Department's ability to deliver these
schemes in the future remains a significant risk to delivery of
the PSA target. Also Rural Development Regulation funding (CAP
Pillar 2) is a vital part of SFFS - PSA 5 delivery.
Failure to secure sufficient match-funding of voluntary modulation
for 2007-12 would jeopardise some of the key delivery mechanisms
for the PSA target (eg Environmental Stewardship).
However a major enhancement to our IT system went live on
26 June enabling us to make considerable progress with the arrangements
for the first annual Entry Level Stewardship payments due to be
made in August. In addition fixes for several problems were introduced
which are having a positive impact on previous delays to the day-to-day
administration of Environmental Stewardship applications and agreements.
Uptake of the Entry Level Environmental Stewardship scheme
has progressed well with over two million hectares entered into
the scheme since its launch last August. The Department also launched
the on-line version of the Whole Farm Approach earlier this year
which, combined with the publication of "Partners for Success"
a Farm Regulation and Charging Strategy last November, will help
to engage farmers in a new relationship with Government on regulation.
The Food Chain Centre is encouraging greater efficiency in
the UK food chain, and English Farming and Food Partnerships (EFFP)
is helping to drive increased co-operation between farmers and
between farmers and the rest of the food chain. The launch of
the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy in March will help to
provide much needed focus to the food industry on what they need
to do to improve efficiency and sustainability in the food chain.
PSA 7—FUEL POVERTY
Page 55 of the Departmental Report states:
. . . the Government has a legal duty to ensure that, as far
as reasonably practicable, people in England do not live in fuel
poverty after November 2016.
30. The current PSA target relates only to vulnerable households,
of which about two million currently suffer from fuel poverty.
How many additional, non-vulnerable, households are currently
affected by fuel poverty? Does the Department have plans to tackle
these?
The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy Fourth Annual Progress Report,
published on 2 June 2006, provides the most up to date information
on progress in tackling both vulnerable and non-vulnerable households
in fuel poverty. This indicates that of the 1.2 million households
in fuel poverty in 2004, there are 1 million vulnerable and 200,000
other households. Whilst it is correct to state that our primary
focus in tackling fuel poverty is currently and has been those
households termed vulnerable, we are also aware of all those in
fuel poverty. Indeed, a number of policies and programmes in place
now can help both vulnerable and non-vulnerable households at
risk of fuel poverty, such as the Energy Efficiency Commitment,
which must direct at least 50% of its energy savings to low-income
consumers and the Decent Homes programme run by the Department
for Communities and Local Government. We will continue to monitor
the number of households—both vulnerable and non-vulnerable
in fuel poverty towards delivery of both our 2010 and 2016 targets.
PSA 9—ANIMAL WELFARE
31. The first part of this target, relating to scrapie,
is reported as facing slippage in the Appendix. However, page
135 says that it has not yet been assessed. Can the Department
clarify which is the case? If there is evidence to show slippage,
can the Department provide figures for the latest assessment of
the prevalence of scrapie?
The reference to slippage in Appendix 2 relates solely to
the suspension of plans to introduce a compulsory ram genotyping
scheme rather than any assessment of more recent reductions in
scrapie prevalence compared to the baseline figure of 0.33% used
in determining the PSA target in 2004.
By means of explanation, the target to reduce the prevalence
of scrapie by 40% from 0.33% to 0.20% (down from three sheep in
a thousand to two sheep in a thousand) by 2010 was entirely designed
on the basis of the introduction in 2006 of a Compulsory Ram Genotyping
Scheme (CRGS) as required by transitional European legislation
(Commission Decision 2003-100-EC). This was planned to replace
the National Scrapie Plan's existing voluntary Ram Genotyping
Scheme (RGS), which has operated since 2001.
However, an EU Compulsory Ram Genotyping Scheme (CRGS) will
now not be implemented as originally planned because of changes
to the EU requirements for the introduction of compulsory genotype
based breeding programmes. Proposals to provide for a permanent
legal base for compulsory genotype based breeding programmes in
the main EU TSE Council Regulation were recently rejected by the
European Parliament. Instead, and as part of a wider compromise
package, the Agriculture Council and European Parliament have
now agreed in principle to a revised proposal which would make
it optional for Member States to operate genotype based breeding
programmes. We anticipate that the revised proposal will be formally
adopted by the Council of Agriculture Ministers this September.
In the light of these developments, Defra Ministers and those
in the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive (the
NSP is a GB wide initiative) have agreed that the future of the
NSP's existing voluntary Ram Genotyping Scheme (RGS) should be
reviewed.
Without CRGS (and possibly the voluntary RGS too, should
the review conclude that it should cease to operate), it is unlikely
that the PSA would be deliverable within the remaining timescales
ie by 2010. As such, the future and ongoing relevance of the
scrapie element of this PSA target will need to be re-examined
in the context of CSR 07.
In the meantime, reductions in scrapie prevalence will continue
to be monitored through the results of testing fallen stock and
those from the abattoir survey (both requirements of Commission
Regulation 999-2001) and statistical analysis of the trend over
time. However direct comparisons with the estimate of the prevalence
of 0.33%, which was used as the baseline for the PSA 9 target
and which has narrow confidence limits, are not possible because
the sample size of the abattoir survey and the numbers of fallen
stock to be tested has been significantly reduced by the Commission.
Defra funded research is however now in place to look at
ways of providing best estimates of the future annual prevalence
of scrapie infection.
The technical note says of the Bovine TB element of this
PSA that:
We would expect to need at least three years worth of statistics
beyond the year of introduction to be able to determine a significant
departure from the predicted trend line. Thus our first confirmed
judgement of success or failure of the measure cannot be safely
made until the end of 2008 at the earliest.
32. Given this lack of data, how is the Department able
to make an assessment that it is currently "on course"
to meet its target?
The target is based on the following data:
The indicator for the bovine TB part of the PSA9 measure
is based on the number of confirmed new incidents (breakdowns)
in a calendar year in parishes in England (the geographical animal
health unit.) The indicator shows the change in the number of
confirmed new TB incidents in "new" parishes between
a 12-month period and a period exactly five years earlier, divided
by five.
For the year to 31 December 2005 the indicator was 8.6:
— this is one-fifth of the difference between 283
(the number of CNI in "new" parishes in 2005) and 240
(the number for 2000).
For the 12 months to 30 September 2005, the indicator was
17.2:
— this was one-fifth the difference between 306
(1 October 2004 to 30 September 2005) and 220 (1 October 1999
to 30 September 2000).
Because of changes in numbers in opposite directions, the
first of these (283-240)-5 was smaller than second (306-220)-5.The
most likely explanation for the small value of the indicator for
2005 is that the number of herds in "new" parishes increased
no faster in the last three months of 2005 than in the last three
months of 2001—the year of FMD. TB testing was recommencing
after FMD and many breakdowns were found in unexpected areas.
What is difficult to predict is if there has been a significant
departure and we would need three years worth of data to determine
this. We would need more data to be able to evaluate whether the
target was being affected by a range of possible factors—for
example, the current low level of the indicator is influenced
by the fact that TB testing virtually stopped during Foot and
Mouth Disease. If the reduction was due to a decline in the spread
of the disease then we would expect the decrease to remain steady
over three years worth of data, demonstrating that the change
was due to a decrease in number of incidents and not the result
of a comparison with a year where there were significant changes
in TB testing.
Nonetheless, we introduced the key policy measure to reduce
spread of disease to clean areas—pre-movement testing—in
March this year. While it is too soon to evaluate the impact the
policy is having, its introduction, together with the wider statistical
picture, underlies our assessment that progress is on target.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
July 2006
1
DEL of £3,173 million plus voted AME of £2,413 million
plus non-Voted AME of £81 million less EU income (CFER) of
£2,565 million and less £40 million OTMS contribution
from the Department of Health = £3,061 million (rounded). Back
2
DEL and AME Capital of £386 million plus capital grants
of £268 million = £654 million. Back
3
Per the Environment Agency draft resource accounts. Back
4
All capital grant expenditure is now classified as Capital not
Resource in accordance with Treasury's Consolidated Budgeting
Guidance. Back
5
Funding for genetically modified organisms (which falls under
sustainable farming and food) is included within this amount. Back
6
69.7% of non-R&D spend consists of statutory requirements.
The total figure for non-R&D spend does not include State
Veterinary Service (SVS) spend. Back
7
Based on latest forecast of 2005-06 local authority environmental
services efficiencies. Data subject to confirmation in July 2006
annual efficiency statements. Back
8
Ibid. Back
9
http:_/www.defra.gov.uk_corporate_manboard_meetings_2006_060323.htm Back
10
Please see http:_/www.sustainable-development.gov.uk_progress_indicators_psa1-2005.htm
for more details. Back
11
Please see www.defra.gov.uk_corporate_busplan_tnpsa1-2005.pdf
for more details. Back
12
Please see www.sustainable-development.gov.uk_progress_international/index.htm
for more details. Back
13
These are updated projections obtained since the publication
of the Climate Change Programme was published in March 2006. Back
| 
