Select Committee on Environmental Audit First Report


Conclusions and recommendations



1.  The attached National Audit Office (NAO) briefing presents its findings on the latest available Sustainable Development in Government (SDiG) report, which was published in November 2004 and covers the reporting year 2003-04. In terms of operational performance, the key findings are not substantially different from those of previous years. In particular, there continue to be significant variations between departments, and in some respects performance has actually deteriorated—as demonstrated by the following examples drawn from the NAO briefing:

  • Although departments' approaches to dealing with waste appear to have improved, the amount of waste recovered has fallen significantly in several cases. Only six departments recovered 40 per cent or more of their waste in 2003-04, compared to nine the previous year, and the total amount of waste recovered fell from 53 per cent to 24 per cent. The number of departments which recycled 25 per cent or more of their waste remained the same, at seven out of 20.
  • In the case of water use, while there has been a slight overall improvement, it is still the case that only 6 departments met the March 2004 target of 7.7 cubic metres a person. Four departments—the Cabinet Office, Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Work and Pensions, and the Home Office—failed even to meet the 'interim' target of 11 cubic metres, two years after its deadline of March 2002.
  • In paper procurement, the amount of recycled paper in use has gone up slightly, from 25% to 36%, but the 2004 data still shows the two departments which dominate paper purchasing—the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions—in a particularly bad light. We hope that the 2005 data will begin to reflect the efforts which we are aware staff in both departments have been making to turn this around. (Paragraph 12)

2.  We are also seriously concerned about departmental progress against carbon reduction targets. The SDiG report states that, if the Ministry of Defence is excluded, emissions from the remaining civil departments have risen by 11% since 2000. This is a very poor performance given that emissions might have been expected to fall by 4%, and one which mirrors the difficulties now facing the Government in achieving the challenging UK wide carbon reduction targets it has set itself. It is particularly worrying that the trajectory is going so dramatically in the wrong direction. (Paragraph 13)

3.  It is disappointing that there continue to be serious problems relating to the availability and robustness of data provided by departments as part of the SDiG process. There also appear to be apparent inconsistencies between different data sets. It is, for example, difficult to reconcile the massive increase in the use of renewable energy with the large increases in carbon emissions reported by departments. We would welcome the assistance of the NAO in investigating these issues further. (Paragraph 15)

4.  We welcome the improvements in the 2004 SDiG report in terms of its objectivity and analytical depth, and we hope that that—with the allocation of responsibility for this process now transferred from DEFRA to the SDC—there will be further improvements in the 2005 SDiG, which is to be published imminently. (Paragraph 16)

5.  the development of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate represents a significant achievement; and it constitutes a highly effective and transparent approach to setting cross-departmental targets and monitoring progress. We would regard it as a step backwards if the current review of the Framework were to result in any weakening of its fundamental concept and structure—particularly if there were to be any move toward abandoning the enforcement of common standards and targets across all departments. (Paragraph 18)

6.  One area which the review could usefully address is the scope of the Framework in terms of the organisations and sectors covered. Moreover, the fact that the NHS and the schools sector are at present not covered by the Framework massively understates the environmental impacts central government departments have and the scope for significant improvements—for example, in reducing carbon emissions. (Paragraph 19)

7.  Greening Government amounts to more than green housekeeping, and if we are indeed to place the environment at the heart of Government it will be vital to assess the commitment of departments to sustainable development at a deeper level. (Paragraph 20)


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 24 November 2005