The UK approach to delivering sustainable development in government: A case study in joined-up working

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 27-49

  Ross, Andrea ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 26844553714     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/envlaw/eqi002     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. UN General Assembly (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development A/CONF151/26 (Vol I).
2. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (The Bruntland Report) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) at 9.
3. Ibid at 43.
4. A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom (HMSO, 1999) Cm 4345 para 1.1.
5. Ibid, Note in April 2004 a consultation was launched in preparation of a new UK strategy for sustainable development. See http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/taking-it-on/index.htm.
6. Thirteenth Report 2002-03, HC 961 at Annex I.
7. Supra, n 2 at 314.
8. Supra, n 4, para 5.2.
9. Canadian Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in his Annual Report 2000, para 2.
10. HC 517-II (1997-98) Q2:
11. Daintith and Page observe that the UK executive tends to rely on its own resources for the purposes of internal control rather than seeking external parliamentary or judicial support. The reasons for this include the wish to preserve legislative time for other purposes, to reduce the need and risk of amendment, to reduce the risk of a challenge in court and to facilitate internal agreement among public sector actors. The principal objections to proceeding on a non-statutory basis is that it is not open to parliamentary scrutiny and the risk that the reform can more easily be dropped from the political agenda without the protection provided by external controls. T. Daintith and A. Page, The Executive in the Constitution: Structure, Autonomy and Internal Control (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) at 388-9.
12. See V. Jenkins, 'Placing Sustainable Development at the Heart of Government in the UK: The Role of Law in the Evolution of Sustainable Development as the Central Organising Principle of Government', 22(4) Legal Studies (2002) at 578-601
13. W. Upton, 'The Need for Legal Limits to Sustainable Development' in W. Upton (ed), The Changing Role of Environmental Law: Proceeding of the UKELA Conference 31 March-2 April 2000 at 153-68
14. also A. Ross, 'Is the Environment Getting Squeezed out of Sustainable Development', Public Law (Summer 2003) 249-59.
15. More recently see Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, section 1; Energy Act 2004 section 83 and Water Act 2003 section 35.
16. Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons Press Release 03/ 97-8.
17. Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), Wiring It Up. Whitehall's Management of Cross-Cutting Policies and Services (Cabinet Office, 2000).
18. T. Daintith and A. Page (1999), op cit at 381.
19. See generally, T. Ling, 'Delivering Joined-Up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Issues and Problems', 80 (4) Public Administration (2002) 615-42, 618.
20. Modernising Government (HMSO, 1999) Cm 4310, Ch 2, para 3.
21. Ling (2002), op cit at 618.
22. Supra, n 18 at Ch 2, para 5.
23. Ling (2002), op cit at 618.
24. British Government Panel on Sustainable Development 1997, para 14.
25. Supra, n 9, para 9.
26. Ling (2002), op cit at 624.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid at 616.
29. C. Pollitt, 'Joined-up Government: A Survey' (2003) 1 Political Studies Review 34-49 at 35.
30. Supra n 15 at para 4.10.
31. Pollitt (2003), op cit at 37, 38.
32. Supra n 28, para 4.5.
33. Ibid at para 2.8.
34. Supra, n 18, Ch 2, para 5.
35. Ibid, Ch 2, para 8.
36. Ibid, Ch 2, para 12.
37. Ling (2002), op cit at 625.
38. HC Deb 35, col 542, WA (31.7.97).
39. DEFRA (2001) Greening Government: Third Annual Report 2001, at 6.
40. For example, the DEFRA (2001), Greening Government: Third Annual Report 2001
41. DEFRA (2002), Sustainable Development in Government: First Annual Report 2002
42. and DEFRA (2004), Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development - Government Annual Report 2003
43. The Government's Response to the Environmental Audit Committee Reports on Greening Government and on Green Ministers (July 2000) para 2.
44. HC Deb col 166 WH (18.1.01).
45. Supra, n 6, para 73.
46. Supra, nn 37, 45, para 7.7.
47. Ibid at 6 para 1.2.
48. Supra, n 6, para 72.
49. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.UK/sdig/improving/index.htm.
50. For example, while Framework targets of coverage for environmental management systems set for March 2004 are unlikely to be met, 19 departments have published delivery plans on how they will work towards these targets and with respect to timber procurement 66% of all reported timber purchases are now certified, with a total of 99% having some evidence of sustainable sourcing. DEFRA, Sustainable Development in Government: Second Annual Report 2003 (25.11.03)
51. ENDS Reports 294:7.
52. DEFRA, Sustainable Development in Government: First Annual Report 2002 (27.11.02)
53. and supra, n 46.
54. Ibid.
55. DEFRA, Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development - Government Annual Report 2003, Ch 2 (16.3.04).
56. Supra, n 18, para 11.
57. M. Flinders, 'Governance in Whitehall', (2002) Public Administration 80(1): 51-75, 68.
58. Although recently the NAO contributed to the EAC's 2004 Greening Government report by conducting an analysis of departmental data provided in relation to greening operations in the Sustainable Development in Government Report 2003. It is anticipated this input will continue and further collaboration is being explored. Eighth Report 2003-04, HC 881.
59. A. Ross, 'Greening Government: Tales from the New Sustainability Watchdog' (2000) 12(2) JEL 175-96.
60. Ibid, see supra, n 6, paras 75, 76
61. First Report 2001-02, HC 67.
62. Ibid, Eighth Report 2003-04, HC 881.
63. See e.g. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom (1999) Cm 4345, Introduction; Pre-Budget Report 1999, Cm 4479, para 6.112.
64. Ross (2000), op cit.
65. Supra, n 18, Ch 2, para 8.
66. Sixth Report 1998-99, HC 426, para 18.
67. Ibid.
68. HC Deb, col 176 WH, 18.1.01.
69. M. Flinders (2002), op cit at 67.
70. First Report 2001-02, HC 67 at para 30.
71. The definition of sustainable development is one of the issues explored in the consultation paper launched in preparation of a new UK strategy for sustainable development. See http://www.sustainable-development.gov.UK/taking-it-on/index.htm.
72. For example, the role of the Women's Unit is discussed in: A Better Quality of Life, supra, n 4 at para 26). A range of indicators exist to measure poverty and social exclusion as set out at 60-2 of DETR (2001) Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Government Annual Report 2000. The work of the Performance and Innovation Unit is discussed at 82-3 of the same report.
73. Supra, n 60, para 18.
74. Supra, n 18, Ch 2, para 1
75. Ibid, Ch 2, para 12. For this purpose, a plethora of documents have been produced by various central bodies including the PIU, the Centre for Management and Policy Studies, the Strategy Unit, the Cabinet Office itself and the Treasury.
76. See e.g. Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) Better Policy Delivery and Design (2001)
77. Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) Better Policy-Making (2001)
78. HM Treasury, Public Services Productivity Panel The Role of External Review in Improving Performance (2001).
79. Policy-Makers Checklist: Using Impact Assessment and Appraisal - A Toolkit (Cabinet Office, 1999).
80. A. Ross, 'Is the Environment Getting Squeezed Out of Sustainable Development' (Summer 2003) Public Law 249-59 at 258.
81. Impact Assessment and Appraisal Guidance Checklist for Policy Makers (Cabinet Office: Strategy Unit, 2002) http://www.policyhub.gov.uk.
82. See W.R. Sheate, S. Dagg, J. Richardson, R. Ashemann, J. Palerm and U. Steen, 'Integrating the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making: Conceptualizing Policy SEA' (2063) 13 Eur Env 1-18 at 15.
83. Supra, n 6, para 44.
84. Ibid at para 45.
85. Alternatively, a properly designed screening process could include an opportunity to mitigate or avoid harm which could reduce the need for more detailed appraisals. The IPA at present contains no such provisions. (see below).
86. Greening Government: The Second Annual Report of the Green Ministers Committee (DETR, 2000) Ch 4.
87. Supra, n 46 and for 2003 reporting on environmental appraisal appears to have ceased altogether.
88. See below and supra, n 50.
89. Supra, n 48, para 2.1.
90. HC 326 2001-02, paras 32-3.
91. 42 USC section 4332 (c). Section 102 requires all federal agencies to 'include in every recommendation a report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii) alternatives to the proposed action; (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented'.
92. See the Council for Environmental Quality, The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness after Twenty-Five Years (1997). More recently, the Congressional Resources Committee, criticised NEPA severely for shortcomings such as the 'huge proliferation of paperwork', 'sham public participation when decisions have really been made already', 'the unwarranted and unwise level of minutia into which NEPA delves', 'lack of collaboration among Federal agencies', 'Federal confrontations with state, local and tribal governments', and 'endless litigation'.
93. B. Karkkainen, 'Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government's Environmental Performance' (2002) 102 Colum L Rev 903 at 970.
94. Ibid at 971.
95. Ibid at 972.
96. Supra, n 50, para 2.40.
97. Ibid at para 2.41.
98. EC Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ L 197, 21.7.01.
99. SEA's are required for specified plans and programmes in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning and land use 'which set the framework for future development consent' for projects subject to the 1997 Directive on EIA. Also covered are those determined to require assessment under the 1992 Directive on habitats because of their likely effects on wildlife sites. Other plans and programmes which set the framework for development consent of projects must also be subject to SEA - but only if Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects. Among other things, the Directive does not apply to strategies nor plans and programmes solely concerned with national defence or civil emergency; financial or budget plans and programmes. Member States may exempt plans and programmes from SEA which 'determine the use of small areas at local level' or are minor modifications, where they decide that these will not have significant effects. The directive sets out the criteria for 'significant effects'.
100. EC Directive 85/337 OJ L 175 [1985], as amended by EC Directive 97/11 OJ L 73 [1997].
101. Supra, n 88.
102. Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Liberal Party, A Partnership for a Better Scotland 2003
103. Scottish Executive Environment Group, Meeting the Needs: Priorities, Actions and Targets for Sustainable Development in Scotland (April 2002) Paper 2002/14.
104. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 SSI 258/2004 in force 20.7.04.
105. For more information see Scottish Executive, Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Consultation on Proposed Legislative Measures to Introduce Strategic Environmental Assessment in Scotland (December 2003) Paper 2003/31.
106. The SEA Directive has been implemented in England by SI 2004/1633, in force on 20.7.04, and in Wales by SI 2004/1656 (W170) in force on 12.7.04 and in Northern Ireland by Statutory Rule 2004/280 - which came into force on 22.7.04. None of these go beyond the remit of the Directive.
107. W.R. Sheate et al (2003), op cit at 15.
108. The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities (ODPM, October 2003) paras 2.6-2.7.
109. W.R. Sheate et al (2003), op cit at 16.
110. Supra, n 97, para 2.8.
111. D. Kavanagh and D. Richards, 'Departmentalism and Joined-Up Government: Back to the Future?' (2001) 54 Parliamentary Affairs 1-18 at 17.
112. P. Mandleson and R. Liddle, The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? (London: Faber & Faber, 1996) at 245.
113. Daintith and Page (1999), op cit at 385.
114. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/taking-it-on/index.htm.
115. Supra, n 6, paras 66-7.
116. Ross (2003), op cit at 258. The social components are already reported on separately.