Appendix D: Evaluation of 2000 WD SDS

Purpose and Scope

To provide senior management with an independent assessment of whether WD met its obligations to Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) 2000.
To examine the development and implementation of SDS 2000 from late 2000 to July of 2003.
To inform the directions to be taken for SDS 2003.

Methodology

A series of evaluation questions to address the relevance, success and effectiveness of SDS 2000 was developed based in consultation with the Evaluation Project Team at WD, and the Terms of Reference for the Evaluation. The following methods were selected to inform our understanding:

Document Review

Documents were chosen in consultation with the WD Evaluation Project Team to reflect expectations of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) for SDS 2000 and 2003 as well as WD’s priorities.

Telephone Interviews

Interview guides were developed in consultation with the WD Evaluation Project Team. Interviews were conducted with:

7 Green Team members (primarily officers responsible for procurement and administrative office operations)
7 Sustainable Development Implementation Team (SDIT) members (primarily project officers)
5 project officers and managers that do not work on either SD team, and;
1 consultant from Innovative Management Solutions, Inc. who was involved in the development of WD’s SDS 2000.

Data Analysis

Interview data was grouped according to the main question areas for the evaluation, such as examples of the successful implementation of SDS 2000. Documents and interviews were analyzed by separate researchers and then synthesized. That is, multiple data sources were brought together to verify that information was accurate and to provide a more balanced picture of SDS 2000.

Findings

Findings are discussed with regard to three main questions: Was SDS 2000 relevant in terms of what it was trying to achieve? Was WD successful in implementing SDS 2000? And, was WD’s approach to implementation effective?

Relevance

Findings on relevance included:

WD’s approach to writing SDS 2000 was systematic and care was taken to address all of the CESD’s expectations.
WD’s mandate is complementary to the goals outlined in SDS 2000.
Components of the Action Plan Details (goals, objectives/outcomes, outputs, activities and their associated performance indicators and targets) were often defined at a level inconsistent with the specifications outlined by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
The Strategy was short-term in focus and did not focus on areas where WD can make the biggest impact (i.e. projects and partners external to WD).
Performance indicators were not aligned with activities and outcomes, and the specified targets were too rigid to allow for an accurate measurement of the progress on the Strategy to date.

Success

Findings on success included:

Although an environmental management system (EMS) has been written, full implementation of it may have been ambitious given the associated learning curve. In addition, the EMS is not based on a full review of the impacts of WD’s operations and policies.
A number of activities contributed to making progress toward goals although WD had difficulty quantifying their success. For example, problems with defining sustainable SD projects have meant that WD cannot fully account for these types of projects.
The WD Executive expressed support for the sustainable development file, but this support was not as visible to employees as it could have been.
There were a number of activities in which WD was already engaging that support WD’s sustainable SD goals (i.e., the current method of funding projects naturally contributes to the integration of SD into programs and services).

Effectiveness

Findings on effectiveness included:

Partnerships have been used well to promote social sustainability (e.g., partnerships built for the Vancouver Agreement) and there are a number of projects and potential partners that are contributing to environmental sustainability (e.g., with Fuel Cells Canada). These partnerships, however, have not been quantified as part of the Strategy.
The Green Team has been effective in implementing best “greening” practices in WD offices. Examples include buying new recycle bins for all offices, encouraging energy efficiency and waste reduction in the office and sending out “green tips” via e-mail to all WD employees. Their challenge now is to maintain best practices and further develop a sustainable development culture.
The Sustainable Development Implementation Team (SDIT) has reported a change in how WD thinks about projects that it funds, now focusing on long-term sustainable outcomes.
At present, the SDIT team may not be structured to allow for effective delivery of the Strategy. Not all employees are given dedicated time to work on the SD file, and some SDIT members feel that the Terms of Reference does not clearly outline their roles.

<< previous | next >>