‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Step 12: Assess Accountability and Performance
NGOs should demand more accountability from local councils, government agencies and politicians 
generally. Anti-ecological premises, frameworks, operational assumptions and their biases need to 
be challenged by responsible environmental managers and planners. Instead of managers assessing 
performance through compliance and reporting activities to functional staff (‘downsourcing’), the 
public should begin to assess management itself.
Assessing public agencies [Chapter 9]
We should question what 
all
government departments are doing to make positive contributions to 
sustainability. They should not just be reducing the harm of future activity or reporting on trends in 
the environment. Communities could:
•
Make developers more accountable for the public estate, in proportion to the benefits
developers draw from it. For example, over time, there should be no need for ‘credit’ for
providing energy efficiency, as this benefits the developer anyway through cost savings.
• 
Demand direct action.
Indirect
incentives have uncertain consequences due to the possibility
of many intervening forces or factors (eg price-based environmental mechanisms can be 
avoided by moving where cheaper labour can be found).
•
Emphasize forms of reporting that focus on management accountability, rather than just
measuring changes in the environment. Again, the focus should be on management
performance in responding to change, rather than on nature’s ability to cope with change.
• 
Assess results of government programmes in terms of positive impacts, rather than remedial
and custodial actions. Goals are usually expressed as trends, which cannot easily be traced
directly to causes. More auditing of 
existing
development is needed.
Reporting and post-occupancy evaluation [Chapter 9]
NGOs should ensure that government and industry report on things that are relevant to sustainability.
Wider use of genuine progress indicators could help, but they tend to focus on satisfaction, not 
sustainability. We do not measure and report on the savings that accrue to the public through the 
actions of environmental managers and planners in government or industry. While these are reported 
ad hoc, they are seldom reported in direct ways that would encourage effort towards positive change.
Reporting should emphasize what is being done to restock the shelves, not to record how fast the 
shelves are emptying. For example, reporting has:
•
Not linked public sector ‘performance’ closely to 
savings
of human and natural resources, 
or to 
progress
towards positive sustainability goals. There needs to be more recognition of the
positive and economic value of eliminating externalities.
• 
Focused on general trends in downstream impacts that are affected by intervening factors,
rather than assessing management performance by positive actions or, conversely, measuring 
the costs of inaction.
• 
Not ensured ongoing improvement of built environments through active consideration of
means such as extended producer responsibility schemes, revolving funds, pre-cycling 
insurance and performance contracting.
• 
Not tracked the transfer of resources among classes, sectors, corporations, regions, etc, nor 
charted progress towards dematerialization, detoxification and decarbonization (instead of
predicting how much damage will occur from this point on). 
• 
Not held the whole of government accountable for outcomes of public relations expenses and 

---

273
The SmartMode Process
costs of inaction (as opposed to environmental agencies only). All agencies should be
responsible for achieving sustainability gains.
• 
Not related outcomes to basic life-support systems using indicators or measures that consider 
the ecological base, public estate, range of future options and responsible consumer choices.