Highlights from the independent review of the Government’s Resources & Waste reforms in England

The National Audit Office recently published its assessment of the Government’s resources and waste reforms for England.

You can access the full report here and a summary over here.

The assessment is effectively an independent value-for-money review on whether the Government (Defra) has effective plans to achieve its resources and waste ambitions for England, and whether it is on track to successfully implement its main programme – the collection and packaging reforms (CPR).

Overarching conclusions from the NAO report

• Four and a half years on, Defra is delivering some projects and planning others, but it still does not know what it needs to do to achieve its ambitions over the long term. Its long-term delivery planning is not as well developed as NAO would expect. Defra has not yet identified a clear outline path to achieving all of its resources and waste ambitions: it does not know when decisions about new interventions need to be made by in order to ensure realistic timeframes for design, testing and implementation, nor does it know, in broad terms, what sequencing of interventions is likely to produce most benefit over the long-term
• Defra cannot plan every step in detail over such long time-frames. However, it should know, in outline, what new policy interventions may be needed, their respective contributions, and when the main decision points will be. Without an effective long-term delivery plan it is more difficult for government and businesses to prepare for the investment and regulatory changes that will be required, and for Defra to make well-informed decisions about prioritising its work on resources and waste

NAO formulated 7 recommendations to Defra including:

• develop a clear outline path to achieving all of its resources and waste ambitions in a way that gives it a clear overview of when key decisions need to be made by in order to ensure realistic timeframes for the design, testing and implementation of new policies; and  what sequencing of interventions is likely to produce most benefit;
• determine, with HM Treasury and DESNZ’s support the likely cost implications of different options, in broad terms, for businesses, consumers and the taxpayer; where the main dependencies between policy interventions are likely to be; and how the government will manage common or overarching success factors such as business and public engagement;
• engage external stakeholders fully and promptly in its outline plans for future resources and waste interventions to give them as much clarity as possible about the direction of travel,
• carry out a review of the DRS, including 1) updating its evidence on the likely take-up of the deposit return scheme, and the proposed benefits, including the impact of the scheme and 2) deciding whether, based on that review together with evidence from wider international experience, and an assessment of the impact on timetables and costs, a pilot scheme would be beneficial to protect value for money.

Andrew Opie, Director of Food and Sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, said:

---

What did the NAO say about the CPR reforms?

• Defra did not do enough to put in place essential aspects of programme management when it set up the collection and packaging reforms programme. Additional factors outside Defra’s control have led to delays.
• Defra has taken steps to place the programme on a firmer footing, but some key elements of effective programme management are still not in place. Whilst Defra has taken action to mitigate the risk of unsuccessful delivery, the
  risk of not delivering to the latest timetable is still high.
• Delays and a lack of clarity about Defra’s plans have added to the challenge of achieving the expected benefits from the reforms.
• Defra still does not have a full understanding of the nature and extent of the changes that will be required to realise the benefits it expects from the reforms
• Defra has much more to do to improve businesses’ confidence in the reforms

On DRS specifically, the NAO identified that