• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us

Executive summary of full report

Executive summary of full report

The Ministry for the Environment’s first attempt at moving towards triple bottom line reporting is essentially a stocktake of the environmental, economic and social performance of our offices.

Our reporting is built on the following principles:

• expanding our reporting to cover key environmental, social and cultural impacts
• engagement with stakeholders
• transparency and accountability
• integrating commitments and measurements into our strategic planning cycle.

This report is split between an external focus on the effects of our policy advice, the tools and techniques we promote, and our education and information initiatives, and an internal focus on the environmental impacts of our offices, our dealings with staff, and the direct effects of the dollars we spend. A summary version of this report is also available on our website or by emailing publications@mfe.govt.nz or phoning (04) 439 7546.

Why triple bottom line reporting?

We are producing this report following on from the work the Ministry has undertaken looking at what value this type of reporting has for the public sector. A report on the findings of pilot groups, Triple Bottom Line Reporting in the Public Sector is available from our website, www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/. In particular, the pilot groups perceived that this form of reporting could facilitate cross government agency co-operation in achieving whole-of-government outcomes.

The Ministry hopes that this report can be an example for other government agencies that are interested in their own triple bottom line performance. We also believe this report will help our stakeholders and the Ministry itself to better understand our own performance in identifying and addressing environmental priorities.

The Ministry is already benefiting from lessons learnt during the triple bottom line process. It has helped us to clarify stakeholder relationships, demonstrate that we understand our own environmental impacts, and start assessment of the impact of our outputs on the government’s economic, social and environmental outcomes. This will feed into our Statement of Intent.

People we affect, people who affect us

A key tenet of triple bottom line reporting is that organisations will improve their performance if they engage, in a meaningful way, with the people who affect them or who are affected by what they do. These people or organisations who affect or are affected by the Ministry’s actions can be referred to as our ‘stakeholders’.

The Ministry interacts regularly with a very wide range of stakeholders. For this report we have summarised them under the following groups:

• Government (the Executive): the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Cabinet, other public sector agencies and our own staff
• Parliament (the Legislature): the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, Finance and Expenditure Select Committee, the Office of the Auditor General, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
• other stakeholders, including the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (the two Crown entities for which we have monitoring responsibility), and suppliers and consultants
• the wider community: local government, tangata whenua, industry and business, environmental organisations, professional associations, educational organisations and the general community.

We also recognise future generations of New Zealanders as stakeholders in our work.

We work and consult with our stakeholders in a variety of ways. We have not established new forums for consulting our stakeholders as an explicit part of a triple bottom line process, but have relied in this report on the feedback we received through existing forums and mechanisms.

The main formal mechanism for stakeholder feedback is our biennial Survey of Corporate Reputation and Communications, last carried out in early 2001. Our interactions with our Ministers and other public sector agencies are ongoing and include feedback to the Ministry. We arrange regional hui with iwi, meet regularly with regional council resource managers, and host quarterly liaison meetings with industry, professional organisations and environmental organisations.

The feedback available for the purposes of this report indicates that for stakeholders the four most important environmental issues facing New Zealand are water quality, waste management and minimisation, air quality and loss of biodiversity.

Our 2001 Survey of Corporate Reputation and Communications found that stakeholder perceptions of our overall performance had improved significantly since the 1998 survey. We scored particularly well in terms of the presentation of our publications, the level of consideration people give to our advice, and our ability to involve the right people. On the other hand, we were perceived to be weaker in giving environmental leadership and in addressing the main environmental issues facing New Zealand.

The recommendations were to involve stakeholders in policy development at an earlier stage, focus on outcomes rather than processes, provide regular feedback to stakeholders, focus on leadership and guidance, have a stronger public voice on environmental issues and to acknowledge the contribution of others.

These survey findings were taken into account by our new Chief Executive in the design of the stakeholder meetings held in August/September 2002 and were largely reinforced by the feedback from those meetings. We have made a commitment to reviewing our stakeholder consultation processes, ensuring that the feedback we have received is considered in the current review of the Ministry, and feeding back to stakeholders on the progress of the Ministry’s ‘Transformation Project’ in our next report.

How we impact on the environment, economy, society and culture

Our stakeholders have asked us to focus more on how we can achieve environmental outcomes. The overarching focus for our work is the Government’s goal for the environment, which is to “protect and enhance the environment”. We seek to achieve this through policy advice and partnerships aimed at achieving improved outcomes for the environment, such as improved air or water quality. However, in this initial report we have not attempted to make the connection between the work we do (outputs) and the environmental outcomes we are seeking. These linkages will be explored in our forthcoming Statement of Intent [A new publicly available three-year planning document introduced as part of the public service Managing for Outcomes initiative. The Ministry is required to produce its first Statement of Intent before June 2003. For more details, visit www.ssc.govt.nz/], which is currently being developed.

We know it will be a challenge to make links between the work we do and the outcomes we are working towards. Little of our work has been about environmental management on the ground. We work in partnership with others, especially local government, to achieve results, so it is not easy to distinguish between what we achieve through our influence and what is due to the work of others.

We have begun to think about how some of our outputs have impacts on the economy, society and culture, as well as impacting on the environment. While we recognise that everything we do can have some impact across all the bottom lines, we think it is important to think about our work in terms of its foremost impact as a first step towards developing a more integrated approach.

We also highlight how these outputs have met the Minister for the Environment’s priority environmental issues. For the reporting period these were:

• climate change
• genetic modification
• hazard and waste reduction
• protecting biodiversity, air and water quality.

Highlights timeline 2001/02

Working for the environment

The major environmental activities for the Ministry during the reporting period included the launch in September 2001 of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (produced jointly with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority), the launch in March 2002 of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (in partnership with Local Government New Zealand), and the role our staff played in the successful launch in April 2002 of the climate change consultation process (led by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet). [The Government confirmed a policy package on climate change in October 2002.]

In May 2002 we interacted with a group that included Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Environment Waikato (representing regional councils). The group agreed to work together to achieve clean, healthy water in dairying areas and to finalise an action plan by December 2002.

In August 2001 the Ministry and our partner organisations launched the new Quality Planning website (www.qualityplanning.org.nz), which provides resource management practitioners with best practice information, discussion forums and access to key contacts.

An important milestone was reached just after the end of the reporting period, in the signing of the first agreements with regional councils on a partnership approach to environmental monitoring. Taranaki Regional Council was the first council to sign in August 2002, followed by Environment Canterbury in September 2002. This is a key step towards achieving consistent, reliable and comprehensive information about our environment.

Along with the highlights there are always things that could have gone better. In particular we have been criticised for slow progress with Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments and the related delay in the proposed National Policy Statement on Biodiversity. Slow progress in remedying contaminated sites has also been criticised.

Working for the economy

We have been a key player in the development of the Wood Processing Strategy, a partnership between the forest industry, central government and local government. The strategy will enable the large number of plantation forest trees scheduled for harvest over the next five years to be processed without delay, while minimising impacts on the environment. Our role has been to help deal with possible or perceived impediments in RMA processes.

We commissioned a study to estimate the value of New Zealand’s clean green image to the export trade in dairy and organic products and inbound tourism. The report, Valuing Our Clean Green Image (August 2001), suggested that New Zealand’s environmental image is a substantial driver of the value that New Zealand can derive from goods and services in the international market place. Our clean green image is potentially worth hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars.

During 2001 we reviewed options for using environmental taxes to achieve environmental policy objectives. This was part of our input to the Government’s Tax Review 2001 (published in October 2001). The main options examined were the use of a carbon charge and a waste levy. The partial carbon tax was put forward as part of the Government’s preferred policy package in April 2002.

In March 2002 we launched a Landfill Full Cost Accounting Guide. This provides guidance for landfill managers on calculating a cost for each tonne of waste disposed of at a landfill. We hope it will ensure that the effects of waste disposal are consistently and more accurately costed.

The Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance produced its report to the Government, Finding the Balance: Maximising compliance at minimum cost, in July 2001. One third of the recommendations were related to the RMA, with most falling under the heading “encourage more effective implementation of the RMA”. The Ministry has been allocated $1.05 million for nine projects to reduce the costs associated with the resource consent process under the RMA.

Working for society

In 2001 we initiated the Rio+10 community programme to seek public input on New Zealand’s key environmental problems and priorities for future action. A summary of priorities was fed into New Zealand’s report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Towards Sustainable Development in New Zealand.

We produced updated guidance on air quality management for regional councils and government agencies responsible for managing outdoor air quality under the RMA.

In parallel with the Stockholm Convention, the Government has set a policy goal to reduce New Zealanders’ exposure to dioxin to 10% of present-day levels over the next 20 years. During the year we released a Dioxin Action Plan for consultation.

Working with Māori

Impacts on culture extend to all cultural groups within New Zealand, and artistic cultural life. In this report we have focused on our responsibilities to Māori as a Treaty partner and our Māori cultural impact.

In response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, the Government decided to amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to better reflect the Treaty relationship between Māori and the Crown. We have been involved in identifying potential options, and a discussion document on these has been submitted to a Māori reference group for consideration. It will then go out for public consultation with the other proposed Act amendments.

As part of our programme to identify and report on Māori environmental indicators, we have worked collaboratively with Ngai Tahu to turn their indicators for stream health into a cultural health index in a way that can be incorporated into catchment management decisions.

We are also working closely with Environment Waikato and Ngati Tuwharetoa to achieve an agreed way forward in addressing the water quality issues for Lake Taupo.

Our contribution to government sustainable development initiatives

Our staff contributed to the preparation of three reports for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in August/September 2002. These reports were: Towards Sustainable Development in New Zealand (the New Zealand’s “country report”); The Government’s Approach to Sustainable Development, which outlined the current government’s activities; and Monitoring Progress Towards a Sustainable New Zealand – a whole-of-government report on sustainable development indicators for New Zealand. These reports can be accessed through our website at www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/susdev/

In February 2002 we set up two pilot groups to explore the value of triple bottom line reporting in the public sector. Most of the agencies involved intend to continue progressing triple bottom line reporting within their organisations. A report on the findings of the pilot groups was published during December 2002 and is available from our website at www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/

We also partnered the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development on a triple bottom line reporting project for business (www.nzbcsd.org.nz) and contributed funding to a Redesigning Resources initiative (www.redesigningresources.org).

Our environmental footprint

Compared with other government agencies the Ministry for the Environment is relatively small. Our direct impacts (for example on the environment) are in keeping with our size. However, we recognise that the Government’s main adviser on the environment has a responsibility to ‘walk the talk’. We have, therefore, included a relatively detailed review of our environmental impacts in this report.

It is encouraging to see that in most areas we are performing close to the good practice benchmarks that are available. It is also rewarding to find that our environmental performance indicators for office paper usage, energy and carbon dioxide (where comparative figures are available) have improved, even against a background of increasing staff numbers and space requirements. For energy use the reduction is mainly a reflection of the initiatives started during the energy shortages of winter 2001. For air travel, and hence our carbon footprint, the reductions in this reporting period are largely the result of changes in work programmes that have meant less domestic and international travel.

Although we have increasingly provided information to stakeholders through meetings, websites and by email, we still produced 126 different brochures, booklets, handbooks, information sheets, invitations and other printed material. Preparing this report has helped us to focus more firmly on looking at alternatives to publications as a way of achieving our objectives and ensuring uptake of our ideas and guidance.

There remain some areas where we do not feel able at this stage to commit to continuing reductions. Our air travel and our carbon footprint may necessarily rise in future years as the Ministry continues to grow and seeks to communicate more actively with our stakeholders throughout New Zealand.

Our major environmental commitment is to bring together our informal initiatives under a formal environmental policy. Within the next two years we intend to set up a review team to establish and implement an environmental management system that is appropriate to our size and activities.

Key performance highlights

[To see the same data normalised for the ‘average’ staff member, refer to the ‘Summary staff profile’ on page 80.]

Our social and cultural footprint

The Ministry is a knowledge-based organisation, so the people who work with us – their skills, knowledge, relationships and ability to influence – are central to achieving our objectives. During the period covered by this report, 59% of our staff were policy analysts, 13% were management and the remainder worked in specialist roles.

We aim to:

• have current and potential staff perceive the Ministry as a good place to work
• be a good employer, keeping our staff healthy and safe
• invest in staff training and capability development
• recruit the right people
• develop staff so that they can improve their career prospects and have input and influence.

Since April 2000 we have carried out three rounds of consultation with staff through surveys and focus groups. As a result of this process, senior management gave priority during the current review of structure and ways of operating to five key issues raised by staff. We are committed to undertaking a brief quantitative survey of staff during the next year.

Overall, the surveys and focus groups painted a positive picture of the Ministry as an employer. Most of those surveyed were very positive about the Ministry being a great place to work.

We have a higher proportion of women in management roles (38%) than the public service as a whole (36%). [State Services Commission, Human Resource Capability Survey of Public Service Departments as at 30 June 2002 (workforce profile), November 2002.] We also have a slightly higher proportion of women in all positions (60%) than the whole of the public service (57%). [Ibid.]

We have an occupational safety and health policy and system in place. There were no recorded incidents during the year, and quarterly staff surveys identified any emerging occupational overuse syndrome symptoms and issues.

We work closely with the Public Service Association in the development of our major human resource policies and employment conditions. We are committed to a full Accident Compensation Corporation audit and the wider review of occupational safety and health provisions by June 2003. Significant development programmes we have undertaken include a leadership programme and a policy analyst development programme. Project management will be a training focus for the 2002/03 year.

Recruiting the right staff is crucial to our ability to meet our objectives. On the whole our staff are well qualified and have considerable experience. However, we have a significant proportion of younger staff, who are more likely to be attracted away by overseas travel and career opportunities. Unplanned turnover for 2001/02 was 17.7%, up on 2000/01(14.3%), but down on the 20–26% seen in previous years.

Our Māori group, Maruwhenua (meaning shield or shelter the land), provides leadership in interacting with tangata whenua (the people of the land) and in addressing Treaty and Māori issues. We have many initiatives in relation to Māori cultural activities including our te reo (Māori language) policy and training.

Key performance highlights

Our economic footprint

As well as our environmental and social impacts, we have direct impacts on the economy in terms of our management of government funds and our purchasing power. The Vote: Environment appropriations (which cover our departmental and staff costs as well as the various funds we administer on the Government’s behalf) have grown by 80% since 1998/99 to reach $48.6 million.

In the 2002/03 Budget round the Government agreed to increase our baseline funding by an additional $4.8 million for ongoing environmental work, which gives much greater stability of funding, enabling us to employ more staff and reduce our reliance on external consultants.

Our main new commitment in this area is to engage with our consultants and suppliers as a stakeholder group during the next year.

Key performance highlights

Looking to the future

We have set commitments and targets for the impacts of our internal operational activities, our environmental footprint, our staff and our culture. However, we have chosen not to outline commitments and set targets in this report for our external impacts (eg, for the policies we develop). This is because the review of our strategic direction, priorities and structure is still under way at the time of publication.

The promise we can make in this report is that our next triple bottom line report will begin to set out commitments and targets for our impact on the whole of New Zealand, its environment, economy, society and culture. These commitments and targets will be linked to the strategy laid out in our forthcoming Statement of Intent. We will then begin to measure our progress towards meeting those outcomes over the long term.

Overall we can conclude that although we are doing many things right, to live up to our mission of “making a difference through environmental leadership” we are faced with some major challenges.

• Prioritisation: we are spread too thinly and need to make decisions about our priorities and our structure so that we become more effective. We expect to make decisions on the key directions of our work programme in early 2003.
• Provide national leadership: we need to focus more firmly on providing leadership and guidance and to speak with a more confident voice on environmental issues.
• Focus on outcomes: we need to focus more on outcomes rather than processes. We will start to address this challenge in our forthcoming Statement of Intent.
• State of the environment reporting: we need evidence of how we have performed in contributing to ‘protecting and enhancing the environment’. To do this, we need to have reliable information on the state of the environment and the pressures on it. Through our partnership agreements with regional councils we are initiating the process by which local authorities will collect data in a consistent way, so that ultimately there can be regular national reporting.
• Embedding the triple bottom line process: we need to engage with our staff to ensure that the process started by this report is built upon and improved.

The information in this report has been independently verified to ensure that we are presenting an accurate picture of our activities. We are happy to share with other public sector agencies our experiences in developing this first report, Towards a Triple Bottom Line. Please contact Jonathan King, phone (03) 963 2056 or email jonathan.king@mfe.govt.nz or Penny Nelson, phone (04) 917 7434 or email penny.nelson@mfe.govt.nz if you require more information.