Sustainable Development Strategies

Main Points

What we examined

We examined the progress made by federal departments and agencies toward meeting the commitments they made in their sustainable development strategies. We looked at 39 commitments published in the strategies of 21 departments.

Why it's important

Sustainable development is based on the efficient and environmentally responsible use of natural, human, and economic resources. This includes sustaining our natural resources, protecting the health of Canadians and ecosystems, and improving our quality of life and well-being.

The sustainable development strategies of its departments and agencies are an important tool by which the federal government can advance sustainable development. The strategies set out goals, objectives, and specific commitments. Effective action to achieve these commitments is fundamental to both the credibility and the impact of the strategies. Our role in independently auditing and reporting on commitments ensures that Parliament and Canadians are kept informed of the government's progress toward sustainable development.

What we found

• Progress has been satisfactory on 27 of the 39 commitments we examined.
• Departments that have made satisfactory progress toward their commitments generally have well-functioning management systems to plan for achieving the commitment, to implement the plan, and to monitor their progress.
• Departments where progress has been unsatisfactory generally lack such systems and have made minimal efforts toward meeting their commitments. This is of particular concern given the number of years that departments and agencies have had to develop the necessary management systems.
• In some cases, the progress achieved by a department or agency represents an important step toward environmental protection and sustainable development. For example, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada made good progress in implementing a management framework to promote and track initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Aboriginal and northern communities.
• During the course of auditing the commitments, we found other encouraging signs that organizations are moving forward to make sustainable development part of their operational planning. For example, the Government of Canada has fostered co-ordination across federal organizations to ensure sustainability principles are fundamental to planning for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has placed the consideration of sustainable development principles as one of the core elements of the Agricultural Policy Framework.

Environment Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat have responded. Environment Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat agree with our recommendation.

Introduction

4.1 The Auditor General Act requires the ministers of designated departments and agencies to table a sustainable development strategy in Parliament every three years. Four other departments voluntarily table strategies. At the heart of these strategies are commitments to actions and targets to achieve sustainable development goals.

4.2 The government has said that these strategies are an important tool for advancing its sustainable development agenda, and that it should be held fully accountable for its progress in sustainable development.

4.3 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development monitors and reports on the federal government's progress toward sustainable development, including the implementation of strategic commitments. In our 2004 Sustainable Development Strategy we committed to an increased focus on departments' performance against their commitments.

Focus of the audit

4.4 In this chapter we report on the progress departments have made in meeting their sustainable development strategy commitments. Specifically, we examined the progress of 21 departments and agencies in implementing 39 commitments from their sustainable development strategies. A number (about 12) of the commitments we examined related to climate change.

4.5 The audit scope is limited to the assessment of progress that each audited entity has made against the selected commitment. The 39 commitments we chose to examine are a small subset of the commitments contained in the full range of departmental sustainability strategies. In some cases, we audited more than one commitment per organization. This was typically where commitments were closely related to a broader strategic objective or were interdependent. We chose commitments based on a number of factors, including the significance of the commitment, the relation to the entity's mandate and risks associated with inadequate achievement, coverage of various themes contained in the strategies, and a completion deadline before or near our audit that allowed us to make a conclusion about progress.

4.6 We rated progress as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Satisfactory progress means that the commitment has been substantially met, or that it will be met or be reasonably close to being met within the designated time frame. A rating of unsatisfactory does not necessarily mean that the department or agency made no progress.

4.7 Our assessment considered the difficulty of the commitment. For example, a department received a satisfactory progress rating if it was behind schedule on a particularly challenging commitment but had made demonstrable progress to meet the commitment. More details on the audit objective, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this chapter.

Observations and Recommendations

4.8 We found that satisfactory progress was made on 27 of the 39 commitments we examined. For the remainder, unsatisfactory progress was made. Our detailed findings are shown in Exhibit 4.1.

4.9 We noted that a number of departments and agencies are still making commitments that are broadly defined. Typically this makes progress difficult to measure or demonstrate. In these cases, departments and agencies could often point to initiatives that address a commitment generally, but had difficulty demonstrating specific results.

4.10 Some departments could demonstrate taking actions to plan, implement, and monitor achievement of the commitments we examined, and showed satisfactory progress toward meeting these commitments. Departmental commitments in this group included Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Finance Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Industry Canada, National Defence, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and Western Economic Diversification Canada. (See photograph)

4.11 A number of other departments and agencies had made varying efforts to plan, implement, and monitor their commitments. Some could clearly demonstrate efforts to plan for achieving their commitment, but some difficulties arose in implementation and/or monitoring, such as the reorganization of departments, the complexity of interdepartmental co-ordination, and federal/provincial jurisdictional issues. In most cases, these departments had achieved satisfactory progress. Commitments in this group included those of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency, Correctional Service Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and Social Development Canada (the latter two are now called Human Resources and Social Development Canada).

4.12 We also found departments and agencies where minimal demonstrable effort had been made to plan, implement, and monitor achievement of the commitment. In these cases, departments and agencies had typically either made limited progress or had difficulty demonstrating progress for their commitment. Commitments in this group included those of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canadian Heritage, the former International Trade Canada (now the international trade program of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), and Transport Canada. In one case (Canadian Heritage), we found that while the Secretariat responsible for the relevant area of operations was consulted at an early stage about a potential commitment, the Department did not communicate the formalized commitment to the Secretariat or ensure its implementation.

4.13 It should be noted that the groupings above relate only to the approach departments and agencies took to meet the commitments we examined. The grouping does not necessarily reflect the approach the organizations may have taken to meet all of their commitments. For example, Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada made satisfactory progress in some, but not all, of their commitments. (See photograph)

4.14 Good management systems lead to good progress. These results show that generally the departments and agencies that had made satisfactory progress had well-functioning management systems in place for the commitments we audited. This confirms our conclusions from previous work. We reported in our 2001 chapter on Sustainable Development Management Systems that organizations with well-functioning management systems were far more likely to deliver on their sustainable development commitments.

4.15 There were a number of examples where the satisfactory progress made by departments on their commitments represented an important step toward environmental protection and sustainable development. For example, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada had made good progress in implementing a management framework to promote and track initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Aboriginal and northern communities.

4.16 During the course of auditing the commitments, we found encouraging signs that organizations are moving forward to make sustainable development part of their operational planning. For example, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, has fostered co-ordination across federal organizations to ensure sustainable development principles are fundamental to planning for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has placed the consideration of sustainable development principles as one of the core elements of the Agricultural Policy Framework.

4.17 In general, the organizations that made unsatisfactory progress had poor systems to plan, implement, and monitor their commitments. This is of particular concern, given the number of years that departments and agencies have had to develop these management systems. It is also of concern, given previous recommendations we made on the need for well-functioning management systems.

4.18 The Treasury Board Secretariat, in response to a recommendation from the Commissioner's 2001 Report, Chapter 2, Sustainable Development Management Systems, made a commitment to "assist departments and agencies by providing advice on establishing or strengthening appropriate management processes to support their activities, including sustainable development."

4.19 In the Auditor General's March 2004 Report, Chapter 7, Managing Government—A Study of the Role of the Treasury Board and its Secretariat, we noted that, as the government's general manager, the Treasury Board establishes policies and standards for management practices in departments and agencies. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat plays the lead role in developing and refining the government's management agenda and overseeing its implementation across departments and agencies.

4.20 Environment Canada also has an important role. In the fall of 2005, the Department was given the responsibility of leading, guiding, and co-ordinating departmental sustainable development strategies. Environment Canada has an opportunity to give greater guidance and support to departments that lack well-functioning management systems. It also has an opportunity to be proactive in helping ensure departments are effectively implementing and monitoring their commitments.

4.21 Recommendation. Environment Canada, in its role of providing leadership and guidance, and co-ordinating the development of departmental sustainable development strategies, should work with departments and agencies to identify ways to improve departmental/agency planning, implementation, and monitoring of commitments. Where appropriate, Environment Canada should seek advice and support from the Treasury Board Secretariat on establishing or strengthening appropriate management processes for departments and agencies to support their commitments.

Environment Canada's response. Environment Canada will work with departments and agencies to review the current status of departmental planning, implementation, and monitoring systems for sustainable development strategy commitments, identifying strengths, gaps, and challenges. Based on this assessment, Environment Canada will work with the Treasury Board Secretariat, where appropriate, to determine how existing tools and mechanisms can be strengthened or better applied within departments to improve management planning and accountability for strategy commitments.

The Treasury Board Secretariat's response. The Treasury Board Secretariat supports Environment Canada in its role as the department responsible for leading, guiding, and co-ordinating departmental sustainable development strategies. The Treasury Board Secretariat will work with Environment Canada, where appropriate, to advise and support the establishment or strengthening of management processes for departments and agencies to support their commitments.

About the Audit

Objectives

Our objective was to assess the actions of 21 departments and agencies in implementing 39 commitments in their sustainable development strategies.

Scope and approach

As part of our annual monitoring of strategy commitments, we audited the following 21 organizations: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, the Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian Heritage, Correctional Service Canada, Environment Canada, Finance Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Social Development Canada (the latter two are now called Human Resources and Social Development Canada), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Industry Canada, International Trade Canada (now the international trade program of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), National Defence, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Transport Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and Western Economic Diversification Canada.

We looked at a total of 39 commitments, which were chosen based on a number of criteria, including significance and timeliness. The results apply only to the 39 commitments and not to each organization's overall performance.

Various audit teams from the Office of the Auditor General conducted the work. For example, the audit team responsible for Transport Canada audited Transport Canada's commitment. We assessed each organization's response to a questionnaire and its key documents and interviewed key officials, if required. The work was conducted to an audit level of assurance.

Criteria

To assess the progress made by the departments and agencies, we expected that they were effectively managing the implementation of their commitments and meeting their commitments—that is, they were doing what they said they would.

Based on our assessment, we assigned one of two ratings: satisfactory progress or unsatisfactory progress. In determining the grade, we considered the following elements:

• the requirements of the commitment,
• the complexity of the commitment,
• the amount of time that had elapsed since the commitment was made,
• whether actions had led to demonstrable results, and
• the significant changes in circumstances that had occurred since the commitment was made.

Our assessment considered the difficulty of the commitment, the time since the commitment was made, and the specific efforts that the department could show had been made to plan, implement, and monitor achievement of the commitment. For example, a department received a satisfactory progress rating if it was behind schedule on a particularly challenging commitment but had made demonstrable progress to meet the commitment. We also took account of changing circumstances such as the reorganization (splitting or merging) of departments that may have occurred since departments had made their commitments.

Audit work completed

Audit work for this chapter was substantially completed on 14 June 2006.

Audit team

Principal: Neil Maxwell
Director: Colin Campbell

Rebecca Aird
Jay Storfer
Sylvie Thompson

Auditors involved in examining progress on implementation of strategy commitments

For information, please contact Communications at 613-995-3708 or
1-888-761-5953 (toll-free).