Aspectos conceptuales

Department

Total waste arisings in 2004/05 (Tonnes)

Total waste arisings in 2006/07 (Tonnes) % change in waste arisings since 2004/05 Performance CLG 3,561 2,773 -22.1% CO 1,441 1,050 -27.1% DCA NK NK NK DCMS 2,035 2,070 1.7% Defra 22,933 23,927 4.3% DfES 2,207 1,918 -13.1% DFID 364 329 -9.6% DH 1,153 574 -50.2% DfT 4,480 3,878 -13.4% DTI 1,757 1,218 -30.7% DWP 30,411 22,365 -26.5% ECGD 58 72 24.1% FC NK NK NK FCO 1,857 1,797 -3.2% FSA 145 133 -8.3% HMRC 70,315 68,275 -2.9% HMT 6,026 3,703 -38.5% HO 10,534 16,985 61.2% LOD NK NK NK MOD NK 157,229 NK ONS 1,071 799 -25.4% Pan-government* 160,348 151,866 -5.3%

Table 4.1 Departmental performance against the SOGE 2010 waste target

* The MOD, which currently produces about 50% of government waste, does not have a 2004/05 baseline and therefore their 2006/07 data has been removed from pan-government performance. If the MOD data was to be included without baseline information it would misrepresent government waste arisings as having increased by 92.8% to 309,095 tonnes. Excellent progress Good progress Some progress No or poor progress/ Not Known Not applicable

• With the MOD data removed, the other

departments together show a 5.3% reduction

in waste arisings. This indicates that

government as a whole has achieved the 5%

reduction target well ahead of 2010. If this really is the case (once the MOD is taken into

account, and given that three departments did not provide data, and others did not cover all of their estate), then this is excellent news

and the SDC both congratulates government and challenges it to raise ambition levels and

consider new, higher aspirations, in particular

for 2020

• The MOD produces 50.9% of the government

estate’s total waste arisings. Therefore, if we include data from the MOD, the tonnage

of waste created by the whole government

estate doubles. However, this does not mean

that since 2004/05 waste arisings from the government estate have actually doubled. As the MOD did not have waste data for the

baseline year (2004/05), it is not possible

to conclusively say whether the overall waste arisings are increasing or decreasing. What it does tell us is that the performance by this one department alone will greatly affect overall pan-government performance

in future. The performance of HMRC, which contributes 22.1% of total waste arisings, is

also important

• Of the 21 departments:

– 11 reported excellent progress, having reduced waste arisings by 5% or more compared to 2004/05 levels. Of these, eight are very close to, or are already exceeding, the 2020 target of reducing

waste arisings by 25% compared to

2004/05 levels

– A further two departments reported good

progress and are on track to meet the target

– Four departments reported poor or no progress, with waste arisings higher than

their 2004/05 levels

– Four departments did not have the

appropriate data in place to be able to see whether they were on track to meet the target or not40

• DH (50.2%) and HMT (38.5%) achieved the greatest reductions in waste arisings • Significant increases in waste arisings were

reported by the HO (61.2%), which may in

part be attributed to the inclusion of the National Probation Service (NPS) in its estate;

and ECGD (24.1%), which was reported

as being partly due to a departmental

restructure, resulting in a ‘spike’ of waste as

those who left disposed of personal papers. Both these departments are expecting to report improved performance in future years • Only four departments felt it was unlikely

that they would meet the 2010 SOGE target:

DCMS; FC; LOD and HMT. It is surprising that HMT consider they will not meet the target, given the significant improvements made in

2006/07 and the implementation of a new Waste Management Programme in 2007. The target was reported to be a challenge as a result of increased staff and visitor

numbers, and the fact that they have a

number of tenants.

4.3.1 Waste arisings – analysis

Comparing raw data from departments can be

misleading, as it does not account for the significant

differences in size. More meaningful comparisons

can be made by looking at ’normalised’ data, using comparable units such as floor area (m2_{) or staff} numbers.

Table 4.2 shows the average waste generated by each person in the department. The overall average government performance is included as a

benchmark to show those departments performing

above and below the average. It should be noted, however, that presenting the data in this way is only

illustrative. It does not account for the variations

between departments, such as the nature of their activities and waste streams. MOD’s waste stream, for example, is very different to those departments whose functions are predominantly administrative, and includes redundant airframes, naval vessels, life

4.3.2 The “Department of Averages” and normalised data

expired ammunition and radioactive equipment.

However, presenting the data in this way can be a

useful means of comparison between departments whose functions are similar.

The figures show that:

• Pan-government performance is slightly above average

• 13 of the 21 departments are performing at or above average

• Five of the 21 departments are performing below average

• There is a significant range in waste arisings

per FTE, from 0.08t/FTE in DTI to 2.49t/FTE in

DCMS. This may be partly due to the varying

quality of data, as well as the different

approaches taken by departments.

Department

Total employees, visitors and contractors (FTE)

Total waste arisings

(tonnes)

Total waste arisings per FTE (tonnes/FTE)

DTI 16,008 1,218 0.08 DH 3,977 574 0.14 ONS 4,983 799 0.16 DWP 120,277 22,365 0.19 CLG 14,660 2,773 0.19 DFID 1,735 329 0.19 DfT 19,636 3,878 0.20 FSA 663 133 0.20 HO 72,360 16,985 0.23 ECGD 294 72 0.24 DfES 6,055 1,918 0.32 CO 2,608 1,050 0.40 Pan-government* 0.45 Dept of Averages** 0.46 FCO 3,919 1,797 0.46 MOD 300,070 157,229 0.52 HMT 6,085 3,703 0.61 HMRC 95,152 68,275 0.72 Defra 25,215 23,927 0.95 DCMS 830 2,070 2.49 LOD 10,024 NK NK FC 1,331 NK NK DCA 37,947 NK NK

Table 4.2 Departmental performance for waste per FTE including the ‘Department of Averages’