House of Commons - Progress on Carbon Budgets - Environmental Audit Committee

Progress on Carbon Budgets - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3 Management of carbon budgets

43. In this Part we explore progress to date against the carbon budgets and how the Government manages the delivery of policies to meet those budgets.

Progress to date

44. In October 2012 the Government published updated energy and emissions projections covering the first four carbon budget periods, which suggest that the UK will meet the first three carbon budgets[148] (Figure 2). David Kennedy told us that the first carbon budget would be "easily met",[149] as would the second carbon budget with "limited effort", because of the recession and "not because we are on the right path in terms of implementing measures to reduce emissions over time".[150] While the Government has not ruled out carrying forward the expected out-performance against the first carbon budget to offset against subsequent budgets, factoring that into future plans was not Government policy.[151] In its most recent progress report, the CCC argued that there was "no rationale" for carrying forward out-performance because it would "risk reducing incentives" to cut emissions. It planned to issue formal advice to the Government on this in early 2014, when final emissions statistics for 2012 are released.[152]Figure 2: Performance against the carbon budgets

	Budget 1 (2008-12)	Budget 2 (2013-17)	Budget 3 (2018-22)	Budget 4 (2023-27)
Carbon Budgets—CC's 'intended' path (MtCO₂e)	3018	2679	2245	1950
Carbon Budgets—as legislated (MtCO₂e)	3018	2782	2544	1950
Projected emissions (MtCO₂e)	2928	2650	2473	2155
Projected out-performance/ or (shortfall) against legislated budgets (MtCO₂e)	90 3.0%	132 4.7%	71 2.8%	(205) (10.5%)

45. The CCC believed that the UK was "not currently on track" to meet the third and fourth carbon budgets and "without a significant increase in the pace of emissions reduction, starting very soon, the costs and risks of moving to a low carbon economy in the 2020s and beyond will be increased". The CCC found that emissions rose by 3.5% in 2012. That was the result of temporary factors,[153]however, and once these are taken into account there was an underlying reduction of 1-1.5%. A reduction rate of 3% was needed to meet future carbon budgets.[154] The CCC had consistently called for a "step-change" in the rate of emissions reductions (Figure 3), and David Kennedy told us that it was now approaching the time when that change should start to manifest itself.[155] The Minister for Climate Change believed that emission projections showed a "changing pattern and a real quickening of the pace" and that "the public can be pretty assured that, despite the challenges the Government faces, we are on track".[156] Figure 3: Analysis of CCC's progress reports

First progress report, October 2009 "A major shift in the pace of UK carbon emissions reduction must be achieved".
Emissions were falling at less than 1% per year, compared to 2% required to meet first carbon budget.[157]

Second progress report, June 2010 "A step change in the pace of emissions reduction is needed".

Emissions fell by 9%, driven by recession and not policies. Government should aim to outperform first budget and not to bank out-performance.[158]

Third progress report, June 2011 "A step change in the pace of emissions reduction is still required".

Emissions rose by 3%, but the level of emissions in 2010 was below the annual average for the first carbon budget, due to ongoing impacts of the recession.[159]

Fourth progress report, June 2012 "When we first highlighted the need for a step change there was a lead-time of several years, this has now elapsed. Therefore the step change is needed urgently if we are to remain on track to meeting future carbon budgets".
Emissions fell by 7% in 2011. Underlying rate of progress was less than 1% - a quarter of that required to meet future carbon budgets.[160]

Fifth progress report, June 2013 "The first carbon budget was met, largely due to the impact of the recession, which would also allow achievement of the second budget with limited effort ... However, we are not currently on track to meet the third and fourth carbon budgets. Without a significant increase in the pace of emissions reduction, starting very soon, the costs and risks of moving to a low carbon economy in the 2020s and beyond will be increased".
The underlying rate of emissions reduction was 1-1.5% against the required rate of 3%.[161]

The need for new policies to meet the carbon budgets

46. David Kennedy told us that, although the Government had put the "foundations" in place, there "is still a lot" to do to make sure that the UK is on track to meet the carbon budgets;[162] it "was necessary for the Government to develop and implement policy measures over the next two years".[163] The CCC's latest progress report found there was "mixed" progress in 2012. "Good progress" had been made on the amount of new wind generation capacity added, insulation of lofts and cavity walls in residential buildings, the emissions of new cars and emissions from waste. Sustaining that progress would "require further development and implementation of policy". But in other areas "very little had been done" because of a lack of policies and appropriate incentives. David Kennedy told us that new approaches were required to urgently accelerate progress.[164]

47. In the commercial and industrial sectors there was "no evidence" that a "big opportunity" to improve energy efficiency was being taken. There was a "multiplicity of policies" in these sectors that needed rationalising and stronger incentives were needed to drive take-up of measures. Although the emissions intensity of new vehicles was "coming down", a framework to reduce emissions from vans and HGVs was needed, as was action to promote behaviour change in transport, such as rationalising car journeys. Introducing renewable heat technologies was "central" to meeting carbon budgets later on, but "very little progress" had been made so far—a 2% market penetration up to 2012 compared to the 12% envisaged by 2020 in the Government's Renewable Energy Action Plan. There were significant barriers to greater uptake, which were not adequately addressed by the small scale grant programme currently in place.[165]

48. The Government acknowledged that new policies are needed to meet the fourth carbon budget (paragraph 28).[166] For the intervening budgets, the Minister told us that he did not see the need for "new policies", but rather a "need to deliver the potential of the policies we have set in place ... [which] we need to put our shoulder behind".[167] Ben Golding from DECC told us that it was important to "make the distinction between the policies that are coming on stream and are not yet at full speed" and the CCC's assessment of what will happen "if we just carry on at current trend rate".[168] We explore below the scope for change in three specific areas: domestic energy efficiency, electricity market reform and fluorinated gases.

DOMESTIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY

49. In the Carbon Plan, published in 2011, the Government stated that "we need to complete the cost-effective 'easy wins' in the buildings sector. This means maximising our energy efficiency efforts over the next decade". The Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO), at that time under development, were "likely to result in all practicable cavity walls and lofts having been insulated by 2020, together with up to 1.5 million solid walls also being insulated".[169] (Housing Standards and the Code for Sustainable Homes, on which we are carrying out a separate inquiry,[170] could also have an important role in improving domestic energy efficiency.[171])

50. The CCC noted in its most recent progress report that loft and cavity wall insulation rates increased in 2012 as "energy companies aimed to meet their targets in the final year of the supplier obligation schemes".[172] However, there was a "significant risk around future delivery" of loft and cavity wall insulation rates given "weaker incentives" under the Green Deal and ECO. ECO has shifted the focus of energy company insulation targets on to more expensive solid wall insulation and hard-to-treat cavity walls, which could lead to large energy bill increases.[173] The CCC was also concerned that the incentives for take-up of both schemes relied on a market-based approach to address essentially non-financial barriers.[174]

51. Since the CCC's progress report, data on the take-up of the Green Deal and ECO have been published.[175] The majority of ECO measures installed have been for loft and cavity wall insulation.[176] While 38,259 Green Deal assessments have been completed, only 41 households confirmed that they wished to proceed with a Green Deal and only 4 have signed a Green Deal.[177] The Minister argued that the Green Deal scheme "was only just getting started" and "it will take time as this brand new market finds it legs". He expected the number to start steadily rising.[178] Some providers had faced technical issues and delays in getting their systems into place. That was "frustrating", but the Minister was encouraged that "the majority" of people who have had assessments "were going to have or were contemplating measures" as a result of the assessments. He estimated one million households would install energy-efficiency measures by March 2015.[179] Since we took evidence during our inquiry, revised uptake data have been published showing that the first Green Deal went 'live'[180] in July, with a further 132 households signed up to the scheme. By the end of July 2013 the number of completed Green Deal assessments was 58,184.[181]

52. David Kennedy believed that the Government should consider fiscal incentives to improve take-up, or link building regulations to the Green Deal.[182] The Minister said that the Government was looking at a "range of incentives" for the Green Deal, funded by "a significant amount of money" to be made available by the Treasury, although this would include the funding for an existing cash-back scheme. The Minister thought that "street-by-street" projects, which blended ECO finance and Green Deal finance were "the way to get this moving", but a range of other alternatives were also being looked at. An announcement on incentives would be made in the Autumn.[183] DECC was looking to reduce its Green Deal team as part of the 8% savings it is required to make in the 2013 Spending Review.[184]

53. The Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation are key policies for meeting the carbon budgets. Although it may be too soon to judge the schemes' success, low take-up rates so far may indicate significant non-financial barriers as well as financial issues for homeowners. The Government should urgently review the barriers holding back take-up of the Green Deal and ECO schemes, including a survey of potential clients, in time to bring forward fiscal incentives in the Autumn Statement 2013 to bolster them before low take-up rates produce a widespread lack of confidence among both clients and the industry. While DECC has to find staffing reductions as a result of the recent Spending Review, the resources needed for the Green Deal and ECO review should be given priority.

ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORM

54. Through the Government's Electricity Market Reform programme, the CCC calculated that investment in low-carbon technologies through the 2020s could result in cost savings of £25-£45 billion, or up to £100 billion if gas and carbon prices were high.[185] In its recent fifth progress report, however, the CCC identified "major challenges relating to design and implementation of the Electricity Market Reform".[186] Investments were being delayed until changes were finalised.[187] The CCC urged the Government to provide longer term certainty by "setting out commercialisation strategies for less mature technologies", to set a "carbon-intensity target for 2030" and to consider "extending funding under the levy control framework out to this date".[188] David Kennedy told us:

189

190

55. The CCC calculated that the cost-effective path to meeting the 2050 emissions target in the Climate Change Act involved a power station carbon intensity of 200 gCO2/kWh in 2020, and 50 gCO2/kWh in 2050.[191] However, emissions from the power sector increased by 8% in 2012 as a result of generators switching from gas to coal, driven by low coal prices and a low carbon price. The CCC believed that this increased use of coal would not be sustained in the "medium to longer term" as European legislation on power station emissions is applied and as the UK's carbon price floor rises. David Kennedy did not expect any coal-fired stations to be operating by the 2020s.[192] With the increased use of coal in 2012, the carbon intensity of the power generated increased to 531 gCO2/kWh but the physically 'achievable' overall intensity of power stations on the grid fell by 6%, to 315 gCO2/kWh.[193]

56. In our separate inquiry on green finance we are exploring the rationale for continuing investment in the extraction of fossil fuels that cannot be burnt without producing dangerous climate change.[194] The Minister believed that there was not "necessarily a direct correlation" between fossil fuels in the ground and what will "end up being burnt commercially". He saw the "big challenge" to be keeping coal in the ground, and believed that the possibility of "abundant cheap gas as an intermediate solution" offered "very great potential" for that scenario.[195] Ambiguity over the future role of gas-powered electricity generation has heightened concern, however, about the pace of power sector decarbonisation. In Autumn Statement 2012 the Chancellor announced a Gas Generation Strategy, which included future gas-powered electricity generating scenarios that envisaged the equivalent of building 30 and 40 new gas power stations. David Kennedy at the time called the latter scenario "completely incompatible" with the CCC's recommended decarbonisation trajectory and carbon budgets, and "not economically sensible".[196] The Government had recently launched an Industrial Strategy for the oil and gas sector which sought to "maximise economic recovery of oil and gas from the UK Continental Shelf".[197]

57. The Energy and Climate Change Committee, the Committee on Climate Change and others supported the introduction of a decarbonisation target for the power sector in the Energy Bill to help deal with that risk.[198] The Bill enables the Secretary of State to set a decarbonisation target in 2016.[199] (An amendment to the Bill to set a decarbonisation target in 2014 was defeated in June 2013.[200]) The Government argued against allowing a target to be set before 2016 because "a decision on whether to set a target can only be made when considering the trajectory of the whole economy towards our 2050 target".[201] The Minister thought that support for a decarbonisation target was based on a perception that this was needed to counter a need for large subsidies, when in fact "once we get through to the 2020s we must be driving towards the goal of zero subsidy, … we should be in a situation by then where we have low-carbon technologies that have reached 'grid parity' and can compete on an open market with other forms of generation ... at which point these targets fall away".[202]

58. The CCC warned that setting a decarbonisation target as late as 2016 would maintain a "high degree of uncertainty" about energy sector development beyond 2020, which would adversely impact on supply chain investment decisions.[203] David Kennedy told us that he could not see any circumstances where we would aim to move to a low-carbon power sector without having such a target.[204]

59. A decarbonisation target for the energy sector is needed to address political risk and provide medium term certainty to investors in renewable energy. We are dissatisfied that the Government is not willing to set such a target before 2016. In light of the evidence we have received in our inquiry, during the passage of the Energy Bill the Government should reconsider setting a decarbonisation target now for 2030, which would deliver the Committee on Climate Change's recommended limit of 50g CO2/kWh by 2050 (paragraph 55).

FLUORINATED GASES

60. Although only 3% of total greenhouse gases, fluorinated gases have a strong global warming potential.[205] Used primarily in refrigeration, air conditioning and foam fire extinguishers, emissions of these gases have risen by 12% since 1990. The European Commission has recently proposed strengthening existing regulations on their use. The CCC noted, however, that some companies already appear to be voluntarily going further than the Commission's proposals. It recommended that the Government support those proposals, but also consider pushing for a more ambitious agreement to phase out their use by 2020.[206]

The Government's management of carbon budgets

61. The Government published its Carbon Plan in December 2011,[207] setting out its decarbonisation policies over the first three carbon budget periods, the expected carbon reductions from those policies and 'milestones' that government departments should meet to deliver the policies. For the fourth budget period, the Carbon Plan set out a number of scenarios for how that budget could be met.[208] The Government lays before Parliament an Annual Statement of Emissions,[209] and Final Statements of emissions for each budgetary period (the final statement for the first budget period must be produced by 31 May 2014.)[210] The Government also publishes Updated Energy and Emissions Projections each October, revising the projected emissions reductions expected from each policy listed in the Carbon Plan.[211] The Committee on Climate Change provides a progress report to Parliament each year in June, to which the Government must respond in October. The Government considers these reporting arrangements as the primary mechanism for holding departments to account for performance against carbon budgets because producing them involves consultation across Whitehall and provides a public annual assessment of progress.[212] In our earlier report we expressed concerns that Parliament was not sufficiently engaged with the urgency surrounding climate change and called for greater engagement by Parliament with the work of the Committee on Climate Change. When the Government provides its response to the CCC's annual progress reports it should facilitate a debate on those responses in the House.

62. The Carbon Plan contains output-based milestones, such as publishing a particular report, implementing a framework or introducing a standard. Of the 125 milestones set, 90% are assigned to five key departments.[213] The NAO told us that the Government has not updated the milestones in the Plan due to staffing constraints, nor aligned them with current departmental business plans. For some time, quarterly progress reports against milestones have not been prepared.[214] DECC, who produce the Carbon Plan, told us that it had "not stopped using the Carbon Plan to track progress as such", and was in the process of updating and aligning it with departmental business plans.[215] Additional milestones would be included in a revised Carbon Plan, which was due "very soon".[216] The Government was also "reviewing its approach to the quarterly monitoring process, and planned to resume publication of a revised form of report in the coming months".[217]

63. Nevertheless, because the Carbon Plan has not been updated since 2011, the impact on emissions reductions of changes in policies is not evident. For revised estimates, reference must be made to the Updated Energy and Emissions Projections. The CCC's progress reports also provide an assessment of whether policies will deliver sufficient emissions reduction, but this does not follow the format of the Carbon Plan nor report systematically against all Carbon Plan policies in an easily identifiable way. Instead the CCC provides an assessment against its own "indicator framework" of policy outcomes.[218] For example, the Carbon Plan does not specify a required take-up rate of energy efficient appliances, nor any explicit policies to drive that, whereas this is an indicator against which the CCC measure progress.[219] Figure 4 illustrates the extent to which progress can be monitored through the various documents, using the Government's Smart Metering policy as a case study.

Figure 4: Documents used to measure progress against the carbon budgets

64. There are also differences between the CCC's indicators and the commitments made in the Carbon Plan, even when they cover similar initiatives. For example, the CCC's indicator of "insulation of all lofts and cavity walls by 2015" is more stringent than the commitment in the Carbon Plan to do this by 2020 (paragraph 49).[220] More fundamentally, there was disagreement between the CCC and the Government's Plan on the number of lofts that require insulation—6 million and 200,000 respectively. The CCC appeared to be counting lofts not yet insulated and those without inadequate insulation, whereas the Government was only counting the former. The Minister believed that the "challenge now is not to pretend that there are lots more easy-to-treat lofts out there ... we have done extremely well and are close to declaring victory". He saw "diminishing returns" after the "first six inches of loft insulation is installed.[221] The CCC has commissioned work to resolve the difference in measurements and this would feed into a Cabinet Office-commissioned review of the Green Deal and ECO, due to report at the end of the year.[222] The Minister did not see "a huge problem" with the CCC and Government measuring progress using different indicators: it was "just a difference of emphasis". He saw the CCC's report as "guidance and a critique" and "not the only way to achieve these objectives". The Government would make its "full response" to the CCC's fifth progress report "after proper analysis" in October.[223]

65. Apart from a disconnection between the various planning and reporting documents, described above, there are also gaps in the governance arrangements for the carbon budgets. In our earlier report we criticised the Government for abandoning the previous Departmental Carbon Budgeting regime. Under that system, most departments were assigned a share of the carbon budgets based on the economic sectors within their sphere of influence to encourage them to come forward with sectoral policies to reduce emissions.[224] In response the Government argued that that approach "lacked credibility across Whitehall" as "departments did not feel able to influence the sector emissions they were held accountable for". Now "departments have the freedom to come forward and agree on future cost-effective abatement measures".[225] David Kennedy told us that one of the problems with holding departments to account was a reluctance "to commit to specific numbers for overall emissions reductions and within that for the key measures". Unless there was a "strategy and governance framework that has clear objectives that are measurable", it would be difficult to measure success or failure, and there would be a "risk of muddling through".[226]

66. The cross-government National Emissions Target (NET) Board is the "principal governance mechanism for coordinating action across Government and ensuring that departments are accountable for their share of emissions reductions".[227] Chaired by the DECC Permanent Secretary, its membership included officials from five key departments[228], together with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.[229] The NAO told us that it met "irregularly and not as frequently as it intended", meeting only seven times in the last three years, and with civil servants below Director General level typically in attendance. Minutes of board meetings "do not show evidence of the Board taking action to hold departments to account" for progress against individual policies in the Carbon Plan.[230] Although the gap in policies to meet the fourth carbon budget (paragraph 28) has been identified for some time, the NET Board was only starting to undertake a programme of reviews to look at new policies.[231] David Kennedy told us that he was unaware of what the NET Board did or how it operated. There was no communication between the NET Board and the CCC.[232]

67. The Minister told us that the work of the Board "revolves around the work to be done". It escalated issues and resolved "disputes" between government departments, and if there were none then "there is no real need to meet". Once the fourth carbon budget had been set "there was less work for them to do in terms of requiring new policy". He expected more meetings of the Board in the run up to the review of the fourth carbon budget in 2014 (paragraph 27) and the setting of the fifth carbon budget in 2016.[233]

68. Arrangements for managing and reporting progress against the carbon budgets have not been working as intended and improvements are needed to enhance transparency. The Carbon Plan is out of date and requires revision to reflect the changes to policies and departmental business plans since 2011. The document appears to be intended to meet a legal requirement of the Climate Change Act rather than designed to play a meaningful role in managing the carbon budgets. The CCC and the Government use different indicators to measure progress, making it difficult to form an independent assessment of the sufficiency of policies to cut emissions. The National Emissions Target Board—the main oversight body—has met infrequently and there is limited evidence that it is holding departments to account for their progress. The recession-driven out-performance of early carbon budgets increases the risk that these deficiencies will continue unchecked. We recommend that:

The Carbon Plan be updated on an annual basis, after the Government reflects on the Committee on Climate Change's annual progress report.
Changes to policies, and the impact on emissions abatement expected, be spelt out in the updated Carbon Plan. Revised estimates of emissions reductions from all policies should be included as an annex.
The Government report progress on a quarterly basis against all milestones in the Carbon Plan. Any delays that might materially affect the UK meeting the carbon budgets should be explained.
The National Emissions Target Board convene regularly. It should actively monitor performance of policies in reducing emissions, and take explicit account of the CCC's progress reports. The Board must take control of identifying the new policies and incentives needed in the next two years to get the UK on track to meet the third and fourth carbon budget.

Role of local authorities

69. In our earlier report on carbon budgets we found that the Government's voluntary approach to securing local emissions reductions was insufficient. We recommended that local authorities be required to set emission reduction targets, with progress against these being reported to Ministers each year.[234] The Government disagreed, but commissioned the CCC to provide advice on how local authorities can be encouraged to show leadership and responsibility in reducing emissions and how their performance could be benchmarked.[235]

70. The CCC reported in May 2012 that local authorities planned only a "low level of action" to reduce emissions, even though there was "significant scope" for them to influence emissions reductions in buildings, transport and waste.[236] The constrained fiscal situation and localism meant that "incentives" to act needed strengthening. The CCC did not think it appropriate for local authorities to be set binding targets because not all drivers of emissions were within their control. Instead, it recommended that a statutory duty be placed on them to draw up low-carbon plans which include a high level of ambition for emissions reductions[237] and increased funding being made available.[238]

71. The Government thought it "unnecessary" to respond formally to the CCC's recommendations as "the ball is in the court of the local authorities". A statutory duty to develop and implement low carbon plans would be "prescriptive". Instead, local authorities would be "empowered" to "take the initiative that is best for their areas". The Government was working with the larger local authorities, particularly cities, to help them voluntarily develop their own low-carbon plans.[239] Conversely, the Government has been prescriptive in its recent planning practice guidance on how local authorities should consider planning applications for onshore oil and gas activities, including 'fracking'. It has set out what local planners should consider, explicitly stating that "demand for, or alternatives to, oil and gas activities" should not be considered.[240]

72. DECC asks local authorities to measure and report their emissions, allowing aggregated data to be published online,[241] but not all authorities comply[242] and the reporting methodology allows for "significant variation" on what emissions are included. This made assessing progress and making comparisons difficult.[243]The Minister told us that the number of authorities reporting was "not proportionate to the overall percentage of emissions that they cover".[244] Such a claim is difficult to verify when not all local authorities report. The CCC planned to look in detail at this area as part of its progress report next year.[245]

73. Local authorities have an important role to play in driving down emissions, particularly those from buildings, transport and waste. However, there is a significant risk of inaction because of authorities' constrained fiscal position and the Government's decision not to implement the Committee on Climate Change's recommendation to place a statutory duty on local authorities to produce low-carbon plans. The Government should reconsider placing a statutory duty on local authorities to produce low-carbon plans for their area and work to ensure that all local authorities are measuring and reporting on their emissions.

148 Projections were last published in October 2011: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65717/6660-updated-emissions-projections-october-2012.pdf Back

149 The Government is required to lay before Parliament a final statement for the first budgetary period by 31 May 2014. Back

150 Q 77 Back

151 Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session 2010-12, Carbon Budgets: Government Response to the Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1720, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/1720/1720.pdf]. Back

152 Committee on Climate Change, Meeting Carbon Budgets - 2013 Progress Report to Parliament, June 2013, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CCC-Prog-Rep-Book_singles_web_1.pdf]. Back

153 "The relatively cold winter months compared with 2011, which led to increased heating demand; and switching from use of gas to coal in power generation, which we can expect to be reversed as tighter environmental regulation to improve air quality takes effect". Back

154 Committee on Climate Change, Meeting Carbon Budgets-2013 Progress Report to Parliament, June 2013, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CCC-Prog-Rep-Book_singles_web_1.pdf]. Back

155 Q 79 Back

156 Qq 152-154, 187 Back

157 Committee on Climate Change, Meeting carbon budgets-the need for a step change, October 2009, [http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/21667%20CCC%20Report%20AW%20WEB.pdf]. Back

158 Committee on Climate Change, Meeting carbon budgets-ensuring a low-carbon recovery, June 2010, [http://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/meeting-carbon-budgets-ensuring-a-low-carbon-recovery-2nd-progress-report/]. Back

159 Committee on Climate Change, Meeting carbon budget-third progress report to Parliament, June 2011, [http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws/Progress%202011/CCC_Progress%20Report%202011%20Single%20Page%20no%20buttons_1.pdf]. Back