Written evidence submitted by Sustainability
East
Sustainability East is an independent sustainable
development champion body established 12 years ago, serving primarily
the East of England (the geographic counties of Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk). It
has provided central government, regional bodies and local authorities
and businesses with informed studies on issues such as climate
change, water resources, renewable energy potential and strategic
coastal initiatives. Its members are independent, but come from
a range of public, private and voluntary sector backgrounds and
variously possess economic, environmental and social expertise.
SUMMARY
(i). If the government is to achieve its declared
ambition to be "the greenest government ever", it will
need expert advice, based on authoritative research, and a transparent
and accountable method of measuring outcomes.
(ii). Sustainable development - a better quality
of life for everybody, now and in the future - is too important
to be left to be achieved (or not) at local level. It requires
strong national leadership at the highest level of government,
informed by expert advice. Many measures needed - legislation
and taxation - can be delivered only by central government and
Parliament. There is also an important international dimension.
(iii). Policy needs to be supported by good evidence,
address inconsistencies and conflicts between objectives, and
be coherent across all sectors and issues. Policy-making cannot
be left to "the Big Society" - it requires political
leadership, coupled with an understanding of the nation's environmental,
social and economic capacity and constraints.
(iv). Withdrawal of funding from the SDC is premature,
and a false economy: alongside the planned closure of Defra's
Sustainable Development Unit, it sends a message that the government
is not serious about sustainable development.
(v) Without a robust, non-partisan mechanism
for scrutinising and reporting on the government's and public
bodies' performance against sustainability targets, future quality
of life for the citizens of this country - and globally - risks
being compromised.
EMBEDDING SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ACROSS
GOVERNMENT
1. We welcome the decision of the Environmental
Audit Committee to hold an inquiry "into how sustainable
development can be further embedded in Government policy decision-making
and operations, in the light of the Government's decision to withdraw
funding for the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)"
in respect of its work in England. We are grateful for the opportunity
to give evidence.
2. The essential background to our concerns is
that major changes are needed in the way we live, and in current
social, economic and environmental policies, if we are to achieve
sustainable development - a better quality of like for people
now, without compromising the quality of life of future generations
- in the UK and globally. Environmental problems - man-made climate
change, loss of bio-diversity and depletion of natural resources
- may be the clearest examples of the unsustainability of our
present economy and way of life; but there are also major challenges
in terms of, for example, access to services, social cohesion,
inter-generational equity and health inequalities. Local action
is important, but some of these issues can be addressed only at
national and inter-governmental (EU and global) levels. So far
as we are aware, the new Government remains committed to the broad
outline of policy set out in "Securing the Future",
the UK-wide strategy for sustainable development published in
2005.
3 We understand and do not oppose the Government's
desire to save public expenditure and reduce the proliferation
of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs, or "quangos")
by abolishing unnecessary bodies and functions and returning other
responsibilities to Ministerial departments. We also recognise
that arguably accountability is enhanced when Ministers have to
answer directly to Parliament for their decisions. However, there
is also a cost if - at a time of increasing public distrust of
politics - advice is not seen to be impartial and independent
of party and electoral pressures.
4 The Government will not be able to demonstrate
"greenest government" credentials without an independent
scrutiny mechanism - for transparency, accountability and credibility
purposes. The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was able
to fulfil this remit, in that it had the freedom to identify gaps
in knowledge and weaknesses in policy, and could speak out publicly
if it thought fit. It gave praise where due, but was unafraid
to challenge government when appropriate. Ceasing to fund its
work in England suggests that the Government is nervous of challenge
and accountability.
5. The Government's focus on economic growth
and the need to cut the public sector deficit is not inconsistent
with good sustainable development practice, in terms of the need
to use resources efficiently. There is great potential to grow
the economy, pursuing a low carbon agenda, in ways that will enhance
wellbeing, achieve social and environmental objectives, and enhance
the UK's international competitiveness. But to do this, sustainable
development has to be understood and embedded in all government
policies and across departments. Short-term spending cuts could
have a profound adverse effect if they do not consider the wider
implications. For example, departments under pressure to cut their
budgets may opt to procure products with higher embedded energy,
or from countries with lower environmental and labour standards.
We fear that Ministers do not yet fully understand this, without
expert advice from a body such as the SDC.
6. The SDC in its July 2010 report "Becoming
the Greenest Government Ever?" acknowledged that significant
resource efficiency improvements have been made, but also that
these are the tip of the iceberg. Thus it is clear that many parts
of government know how to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but measures
so far have mainly focused on their own operations - utilities,
travel etc - savings which should be relatively easy to achieve
and demonstrate.
7. Much harder will be to demonstrate the impact
of policies to be delivered by others - but surely the Government
does not intend to limit its green credentials to its internal
operations? Policy decisions - for example on the location of
new development, energy pricing and investment in retro-fitting
energy-saving measures in existing buildings - have far more effect
on the national aggregate greenhouse gas emissions. If the government
is to create a reputation and legacy as the greenest government
ever - and to convince the public it deserves such an accolade
- there should be a recognised independent body to help it set
ambitions and targets, and monitor and report on achievements.
It would be a false economy to abolish the SDC altogether, without
an independent scrutiny body in its place.
8. Targets, backed by statistical evidence, are
needed as a focus for action and aspiration. These should be drawn
up with the help of independent advice to ensure that they are
not chosen simply by reference to their achievability. Performance
against targets needs to be independently monitored, to ensure
accountability, and to assess what policies are working, or why
targets are not being achieved, or are unachievable, or have undesirable
side-effects.
9. Besides reporting on performance against SD
targets, the SDC has an important role in advising Ministers and
others across government, and promoting good working practice.
It could be seen as arrogant of the Government to assume that
it knows all the answers to potential policy conflicts, and what
works to achieve good sustainability practice, without impartial
external advice.
10. The inquiry remit cites the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as saying "we
will …. put processes in place to join up activity across
Government more effectively". This will not be easily
achieved, and past experience of "joining up government"
is discouraging. At regional level, the Government has in our
view already taken a backward step by abolishing Regional Spatial
Strategies, which took an evidence-based view of the economic,
social and environmental needs of different areas of the country,
and provided clear guidance and targets, underpinned by robust
sustainability appraisals, and subject to independent public scrutiny.
11. We agree that policies across government
must be made more coherent. There are still significant policy
conflicts which work against achieving sustainability and reducing
inequalities. The East of England Integrated Sustainability Framework
"Sustainable Futures" (2009) identified some
crucial regional issues which are also pertinent at a national
level:
- (a) There needs to be a step-change in housing
supply to give people the chance of a decent home and address
constraints on economic growth. There are challenges in ensuring
that new and expanded communities really are sustainable; appropriate
jobs, cultural assets, social infrastructure and green spaces
must also be created;
- (b) There is a disjunction in policy between
the need for major infrastructure improvements to cater for growing
demand for travel as incomes rise, and the commitment to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from transport. At root, the challenge
is to decouple economic growth from increasing demands to travel.
This is particularly difficult in a region that has such a widely
spread population.
- (c) It is vital for the economy that we build
on our substantial knowledge-based assets. Some of these could
be lost if there is no continued funding for regional observatories
or archives. Expensively acquired research must be publicly accessible,
to support local and national decision-making.
- (d) Our skills base and labour supply is
relatively weak and there are shortages particularly in some low
paid sectors, leading to concerns about sustainability, as people
on middle and lower incomes find it harder to live in many parts
of the country.
- (e) Poverty, social exclusion and lack of
access to services remain major issues. This is apparent in areas
with relatively weak economies, but also in some more buoyant
and affluent areas. This suggests major and continuing challenges
in terms of improving everyone's quality of life.
- (f) There are significant disparities in
health and wellbeing, strongly correlated with measures of relative
poverty. Life expectancy varies widely depending on area of residence
and access to social, economic and environmental assets. People's
environment has a profound effect on health and wellbeing, which
in turn has implications for the economy. We need to change the
culture of focusing on the treatment of illness rather than on
preventative measures (see Fair Society, Healthy Lives
(February 2010), the independent review into health inequalities
in England chaired by Professor Sir Michael Marmot.
- (g) The way we use resources is unsustainable.
Energy, water, land, soil quality, biodiversity, and the fragmentation
of habitats are of particular concern. The recent report "Making
Space for Nature - a review of England's wildlife sites and ecological
network", chaired by Professor Sir John Lawton, makes
this point compellingly. There is also a need to respond creatively
to the pressures and opportunities associated with climate change.
12. These are all crucial issues which require
strong policy measures if conflicts are to be resolved; they cannot
satisfactorily be left to be dealt with at a local level, whether
by local authorities or by "civil society". However,
government does not currently employ an integrated approach to
policy-making. An independent body, with a synoptic understanding
of the issues, could advise on the strategic economic, social
and environmental implications of new policies. This would help
government resolve conflicts, and avoid unforeseen consequences
including new disparities and inequalities. It would also lead
to greater efficiency savings in the future, and to measures to
help mitigate climate change - another stated (indeed statutory)
ambition of government.
13. The Government has indicated that it expects
local authorities to become more autonomous and less subject to
scrutiny except by their own citizens. With the abolition of indicators,
how will local citizens know whether their LA is achieving resource
efficiency and enhancing wellbeing? The withdrawal of Regional
Spatial Strategies and local indicators may allow progressive
authorities to develop innovative policies to respond to their
areas' needs; but authorities who are resistant to change, or
unresponsive to the needs of their citizens, could further stagnate,
leading to greater disparity between areas. The Audit Commission
is also to be abolished. Given the low level of participation
in local elections, and the extent to which these are dominated
by national political trends, what recourse will local people
have if their authority is failing their needs? A scrutiny body
with a sustainable development remit could take on an independent
challenge role.
14. The Government says it expects sustainability
to be achieved by "bottom-up" actions from a newly empowered
general public. But the empowerment, and the evidence that it
can work, need to come first, before dismantling centralised mechanisms.
Otherwise this could be seen as abdicating responsibility for
putting - perhaps unpopular - policies in place. The Government
still needs to demonstrate leadership, and to intervene, where
necessary, via fiscal or regulatory measures.
15. Local delivery requires effective participatory
decision-making at local level. If, however, citizens are to be
empowered to make sensible decisions and instigate positive local
actions, education for sustainable development, in which the SDC
currently has an important role, needs to continue and grow. There
is a need for expert advice on how to instigate behavioural change
in order to learn how to live within our social, economic and
environmental limits and ultimately achieve a better quality of
life for all.
16. There is ample evidence that species are
declining; habitats are degenerating; there is competition for
land for housing, industry, food and energy. Policies need to
acknowledge this, and adopt an approach that takes account of
"eco-system services"[29]
- that is, the way that human life and our standard of living
are sustained by natural resources and the natural environment.
Do we know what our environmental limits are? Have they been defined?
What happens when they are breached? Expert advice is needed to
know what approaches to make things better, and what not to do
in order not to make things worse.
17. Sir Nicholas Stern's comprehensive review
"The Economics of Climate Change", published
in 2006, concluded that we should continue to ignore climate change
impacts at our economic peril. Among his recommendations were
many that can only be achieved by government intervention, not
left to local decision making:
- Reduce consumer demand for polluting goods and
services.
- Make global energy supply more efficient.
- Act on non-energy emissions - for example by
preventing further deforestation.
- Promote cleaner energy and transport technology,
with non-fossil fuels accounting for 60% of energy output by 2050.
The then Government's response to the Stern Review
included the intention not only to enshrine carbon reduction targets
in statute - which has happened - but also to create a new independent
body to monitor progress. If the SDC or a similar independent
body was retained, it could take on a formal role to monitor carbon
reduction targets.
18. There might have been scope to make savings
by merging the SDC with another body with an advisory and scrutiny
function. However, the Audit Commission, with its related role
of monitoring local authorities' effectiveness in using resources,
is also scheduled for abolition; and no other national body has
a remit that covers economic, environmental and social policy
areas.
19 If the Government's intention was simply to
reduce costs, it would have been possible to slim down the SDC,
possibly reconstituting it as an expert advisory committee, without
withdrawing funding altogether. No doubt Defra or another department
(see below) could take on its operational work, e.g. in education
for sustainable development; but the wholesale abolition of its
role in England suggests a desire to reduce scrutiny and the risk
of criticism.
20 If, therefore, as seems likely, the decision
to withdraw funding from the SDC is irreversible, new accountability
mechanisms are needed. Your Committee could perform this role
at national level, with appropriate advice; but it will also be
necessary to retain a framework of targets against which to monitor
the Government's performance. At local level what is most important
is to maintain a consistent reporting framework for local authorities,
so their electors can compare their performance with that of neighbouring
authorities.
21. Within government, the Cabinet Office should
have lead responsibility for sustainable development, to facilitate
its embedding into policy across all departments. Placing the
function in a single issue department (as now in Defra) reinforces
the misconception that SD is solely an environmental issue, rather
than, crucially, also an economic and social one.
22. As Sustainability East, we look forward to
continuing to work with local authorities, businesses, NDPBs,
NGOs and other stakeholders across the East of England to promote
sustainable development - which remains Government policy - and
advise on the best ways of achieving it. We hope that similar
champion bodies will survive in other parts of the country. There
is no doubt, however, that the task will be much harder, not only
in a climate of severe public spending restraint, and following
the abolition of the regional organs of government (GOs and RDAs),
but also without access to the expert advice provided by the SDC
at national level.
26 October 2010
29 Sustainability East and partners in the East of
England are undertaking groundbreaking research to test and refine
the Ecosystem Services Approach as a sustainable development decision
making tool at the local level. Back
|
