Objectives and targets
26. The incorporation of environmental aims within
departments' objectives and targets represents a key measure of
the extent to which the environment is being mainstreamed. The
Sustainable Development in Government report explores this area
on the basis of a series of questions included in part 2 of the
questionnaire. However, a number of these questions were open-ended
and subject to a variety of interpretation by departments. There
is relatively little 'hard' data, therefore, on which to base
firm conclusions.[7]
27. Hardly any departments had set any new objectives
or targets in the last year. We could only identify five which
were not vacuously general, and of these only three were in any
way 'smart'. Many of the departments, in answering the question,
referred to initiatives or processes which would more appropriately
have been included in responses to other questions. We welcome
by contrast the candour of the Home Office in admitting that it
had set no new objectives. While we recognise that target setting
is not something to be pursued for its own sake, the almost universal
failure by departments to set new environmental objectives and
targets cannot but reflect insufficient commitment, resources,
and priorities in this area.
28. Departments were also asked specifically about
Spending Review 2002—in particular, the processes which
they had used to produce their Sustainable Development Reports
(SDRs). Departmental responses to this question highlight a variety
of approaches, and— given the lack of access to the SDRs
themselves—it is difficult to assess their effectiveness.
Some departments appear to have adopted a systematic and thorough
approach. The DTLR, for example, subjected all individual bids
to integrated appraisals which would highlight environmental and
other impacts, and aggregated the results. Other departments,
including the MoD and DEFRA, only applied integrated appraisals
to a subset of its bids. We also noted that DEFRA appeared to
be the only department to match its top priority spending proposals
against the department's objectives and draft PSA targets, and
the sustainable development indicators.
29. By contrast, other departments give little or
no real information, referring only to liaison and coordination,
or to Cabinet Office and Treasury guidance. The response of the
Inland Revenue is particularly terse: "SD is included
in the Department's report." We find it astonishing
that the department made so little attempt to provide an informative
answer to the question. This is a matter of particular concern
in view of the potential for exploring innovative approaches within
the tax system in order to shift the burden of taxation from 'goods'
to 'bads'. We are astonished at the terse and unhelpful response
provided by the Inland Revenue when asked about the compilation
of its Sustainable Development Report. Given the lack of dedicated
staff resources within the department, it only serves to reinforce
the impression that it is little interested in the sustainable
development agenda.
30. Little meaningful information was provided by
departments on the extent to which sustainable development had
been incorporated within PSA targets. Some departments interpreted
sustainable development to encompass all their activities. The
CO, DfES and DH responses, for example, focus on social and economic
policies relating to human health and education. By contrast
other departments such as the MoD and the DTI tried to limit their
responses to more environmentally related issues.
31. In view of the wide-ranging nature of responses
and their departmental specific focus, we have not attempted to
analyse to them. However, we noted with interest some of the
responses from individual departments on the extent to which sustainable
development was included in their policy objectives:
- The DCMS stated that it was
mainly concerned with indicators on poverty and social exclusion,
and education; and that it had no specific sustainable development
targets. Yet DCMS has a potentially key role in environmental
education and awareness raising so as to bring about fundamental
changes in values and behaviour.
- The DfES acknowledged the need to review how
its aims and objectives related to sustainable development and
to make these connexions much more specific.
- The ONS admitted that sustainable development
was not covered in its Service Delivery Agreement, and that it
has no plans for further developments to incorporate environmental
concerns. As we have pointed out elsewhere in this report, the
development of effective resource productivity indicators is a
major task. Moreover, we would have thought that the ONS would
be centrally involved in the review of the Sustainable Development
Strategy and its indicators.
32. We find it deplorable that both DCMS and ONS
should place so little weight on sustainable development and environmental
objectives, as both departments in their respective spheres face
significant challenges in this area. This contrasts with the
far more positive approach adopted by some other departments,
such as DTLR and DfES.
33. In its last Pre-Budget Report, EAC carried out
its own analysis of the extent to which environmental objectives
and targets had been incorporated within Public Service Agreements
as part of Spending Review 2002.[8]
In view of the lack of 'hard' information on this score in the
Sustainable Development in Government report, we reproduce the
results in the following table and have taken the opportunity
to make a couple of minor corrections. Excluding those targets
which relate to DEFRA, we can only identify four which are primarily
environmental out of some 160 targets in total. This is a dismal
reflection on the extent to which the environment is being mainstreamed.
Spending Review 2002: analysis of objectives
and targets
| Department
| Total number of objectives
| Total number of Targets |
Environmental objectives | Environmental targets
|
| CO | 5
| 6 | 0
| 0 |
| C&E | 2
| 4 | 0
| 0 |
| DCMS | 3
| 4 | 0
| 0 |
| DEFRA | 6
| 10 | 2 (note 1)
| 6 (note 2) |
| DFES | 6
| 10 | 0
| 0 |
| DFID | 5
| 5 | 0 (note 3)
| 0 (note 3) |
| DfT | 1
| 7 | 1 (note 4)
| 1 (note 4) |
| DH | 2
| 12 | 0
| 0 |
| DTI | 5
| 12 | 0
| 1(note 5) |
| DWP | 5
| 10 | 0
| 0 |
| FCO | 6
| 12 | 0 (note 6)
| 1 (note 7) |
| HMT | 10
| 10 | 1(note 8)
| 0 |
| HO | 6
| 10 | 0
| 0 |
| IR | 1
| 5 | 0
| 0 |
| LCD | 3
| 7 | 0
| 0 |
| LOD (CPS) | 1
| 3 | 0
| 0 |
| MoD | 3
| 7 | 0
| 0 |
| NIO | 6
| 4 | 0
| 0 |
| ODPM | 3
| 7 | 1 (note 9)
| 1 (note 10) |
|
| |
| |
| Sure Start etc | 0
| 1 | 0
| 0 |
| Criminal Justice System |
3 | 5
| 0 | 0
|
| Action against illegal drugs
| 4 | 4
| 0 | 0
|
| Local Government | 0
| 15 | 0
| 0 |
|
| |
| |
| TOTAL | 86
| 170 | 5
| 10 |
| TOTAL (non-DEFRA) | 80
| 160 | 3
| 4 (note 11) |
Notes:
1. Objectives I and V. These are overtly
environmental. Not included here are objectives III and IV (which
include the word 'sustainable' but primarily emphasise other objectives
such as competitive markets0; and objective VI (which is primarily
health related, though it has a strong environmental component).
2. Targets 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Targets
2, 3, 6, 8 are overtly environmental. Target 7 can be included
because of the direct impact on energy demand. Target 5 refers
to EU support for environmental conservation and rural
development, though it also emphasises
a customer focused and competitive farming system. Not included
here are target 1 (which relates to promoting sustainable development
as a whole), target 4 (productivity related), target 9 (animal
health and public welfare) and target 10 (VFM).
3. The objectives and targets of DFID
are focused on poverty reduction and health improvements. While
these are important components of progress towards sustainable
development, they are not per se environmental.
4. DfT has only 1 objective—"reliable,
safe and secure transport which respects the environment".
Target 6 is a joint target with DEFRA to improve air quality.
5. Target 4. This refers to improving
the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources,
including through the use of energy saving technologies, and
specifically to the joint DTI/DEFRA carbon reduction and greenhouse
gas targets. Note, however, that the target begins by citing a
simple economic competitiveness target ("to ensure the UK
ranks in the top three most competitive energy markets in the
EU and G7…").
6. Objective III has not been included.
It is to "increased prosperity and a better quality of life
in the UK and worldwide, through effective economic and political
governance."
7. Target 7. This refers to making
globalisation work for sustainable development and also to promoting
environmental governance, but is rather wider in scope as it encompasses
political and economic objectives.
8. Objective X. The objective is to
protect and improve the environment by using instruments that
will deliver efficient and sustainable outcomes through evidence-based
policies.
9. Objective III. The objective is
to help raise the quality of life but the supporting targets
are primarily social.
10. Target 5. The target refers to
protecting the countryside and to the sustainability of existing
towns and cities, though the main emphasis is on achieving a better
balance between housing availability and the demand for housing.
11. Of these 4 targets, 2 are shared
targets with DEFRA (notes 4&5 above), while the extent to
which the remaining two can be classed as environmental is arguable
(see notes 7 and 10).
34. Environmental sustainability should constitute
an over-arching framework within which policy making is carried
out. But departments have made little attempt to incorporate environmental
objectives within their high level priorities, and this is reflected
in the dearth of environmental targets in the most recent Public
Service Agreements. This betrays a lack of commitment to this
agenda which complements the lack of resources devoted to it.
Policy Appraisal
35. Policy appraisal is a crucially important area
on which EAC has frequently commented before. Two different issues
are at stake here—the effectiveness of procedures to ensure
that environmental screening and appraisals are carried out at
all; and the manner in which environmental appraisals are evaluated.
We are also concerned that appraisals should not be seen as a
retrospective activity—to be carried out only when the preferred
policy option is identified, but that they should be fundamentally
incorporated in the initial process of drawing up policy options.
36. It is difficult to obtain objective evidence
in this area and the questionnaire responses reflect this, with
fairly vacuous answers to some of the questions which allow little
scope for meaningful analysis.[9]
However, the 2000 Green Ministers Report introduced a requirement
on all departments to screen all new policies or policy developments
for their environmental effects, and carry out an environmental
appraisal if necessary. Departments were also required to maintain
a list of such screenings, though it was up to them whether to
make these public. [10]
EAC regarded this as a significant achievement.
37. In the questionnaire, departments were specifically
asked whether they were maintaining a record of screenings as
required. In the following table, we have summarized the results,
including the results from some other related questions.
