1.  The First Annual Report is based on a questionnaire sent out to departments. In response to an earlier recommendation we made, DEFRA have made available both the questionnaire and the complete departmental responses. We welcome the provision of this detailed information. It marks a significant step forward in terms of transparency and accountability, and has enabled us to carry out a significantly more extensive analysis than we could otherwise have done. (Paragraph 12)

2.  We recommend that all departments should provide a printed copy of their responses to both the SDU and EAC. These should be signed by the senior officer who is responsible for sustainable development issues in order to ensure accountability at a sufficiently high level within each department. (Paragraph 14)

Staff Resources

3.  The level of staff resources which most departments specifically devote to the sustainable development agenda is very small, reflecting the low priority accorded to it. The grade of staff working on these issues is also relatively low. We would particularly single out DCMS, DfES, DH, IR and ONS as departments within which we would have expected far greater commitment in terms of staff resources in view of the specific challenges which sustainable development poses for those departments. (Paragraph 19)

4.  Seven departments have not set up an SDU or division, and these include DCMS, DfES, HMT, HO and IR. This is surprising and disappointing in view of the potentially important roles these departments should have in relation to sustainable development. (Paragraph 20)

5.  In the case of both DH and DWP, the senior officer responsible for sustainable development is not located in the departments' central offices alongside the dedicated sustainable development staff. Such an arrangement hardly seems to us conducive to effective operational management on a day to day basis, nor indeed to the need to exert leverage on central policy divisions within the department. (Paragraph 22)

6.  It is unclear what level of commitment and representation exists at a Management Board level as there is no information provided on this topic. Our analysis of staff resources does not inspire confidence that senior management is committed to implementing sustainable development. ENV(G) should probe this area in greater depth by including more searching questions in the 2004 questionnaire. (Paragraph 25)

Greening Policy

7.  While we recognise that target setting is not something to be pursued for its own sake, the almost universal failure by departments to set new environmental objectives and targets cannot but reflect insufficient commitment, resources, and priorities in this area. (Paragraph 27)

8.  We are astonished at the terse and unhelpful response provided by the Inland Revenue when asked about the compilation of its Sustainable Development Report. Given the lack of dedicated staff resources within the department, it only serves to reinforce the impression that it is little interested in the sustainable development agenda. (Paragraph 29)

9.  We find it deplorable that both DCMS and ONS should place so little weight on sustainable development and environmental objectives, as both departments in their respective spheres face significant challenges in this area. This contrasts with the far more positive approach adopted by some other departments, such as DTLR and DfES. (Paragraph 32)

10.  Environmental sustainability should constitute an over-arching framework within which policy making is carried out. But departments have made little attempt to incorporate environmental objectives within their high level priorities, and this is reflected in the dearth of environmental targets in the most recent Public Service Agreements. This betrays a lack of commitment to this agenda which complements the lack of resources devoted to it. (Paragraph 34)

11.  If departments are indeed carrying out integrated appraisals, it follows that they must be screening new policies for environmental impacts as part of that process. For the Government's commitment to sustainable development to be taken seriously, ENV(G) must restate and rigorously implement the requirement that departments should maintain and make publicly available a central list of new policies, together with the results of screening them for environmental impacts. (Paragraph 42)

12.  There is a variety of overlapping requirements and guidance relating to appraisal. The Government must rationalise these and develop Integrated Policy Appraisal to become a comprehensive tool. In doing so it must set out how departments should resolve the apparent conflict between monetary and non-monetary approaches to appraising environmental impacts. (Paragraph 45)

13.  it is impossible to ascertain whether most departments have formal awareness raising strategies in place. But it is clear that few departments—with the exception of the FCO—have any structured approach to monitoring the effectiveness of their strategies (Paragraph 46)

Greening Operations

14.  Our overall findings on the progress departments are making towards greening operations demonstrate continuing weaknesses in data availability and huge variations in performance. (Paragraph 50)

15.  Our conclusions and recommendations on some key aspects of operational performance are set out below. (Paragraph 51)

(a) With the exception of those departments which utilise the Whitehall District Heating Scheme, progress on CHP schemes remains poor. Renewable energy, however, presents a more varied picture with some departments well ahead of the 5% March 2003 target. (Paragraph 51.a)

(b) In terms of overall performance across the entire estate, the Government appears to have met in both 2000-01 and 2001-02 the new target set of a 1% per annum reduction in carbon emissions, with overall reductions of 3% and 7% respectively. However, some individual departments have conspicuously failed to meet the target, with carbon emissions increasing in one or both years against the baseline. (Paragraph 51.b)

(c) We have some concerns on the Government's plan to replace the interim 1% per annum carbon reduction target with targets based on benchmarking individual offices. We would urge the Government to ensure that all departments face targets which are at least as challenging as the current one. (Paragraph 51.c)

(d) Given the incentives which the Government has provided to encourage LPG since 1997, it is disappointing that only some 547 vehicles out of a total fleet of over 18,600 are LPG equipped. The performance of DWP is particularly creditable, while that of HO, IR and C&E is far less so. (Paragraph 51.d)

(e) Only 5 out of 19 departments have clearly met the March 2002 water consumption target, while only 6 met the main waste recovery target set in 1999 by Green Ministers. We regard this as an abysmal performance. (Paragraph 51.e)

(f) There are huge variations in departmental performance. The proportion of renewable energy purchased, for example, ranges from 0% to over 75%, while the proportion of paper purchased meeting the 80% post-consumer waste specification ranged from 0% to 100%. The Government should investigate the reasons for these variations as a matter of urgency and make publicly available the findings. (Paragraph 51.f)

Monitoring and reporting

16.   It is disappointing that so few departments produce their own sustainable development or environmental reports. Departments must also not use the production of the Sustainable Development in Government report as an excuse for not reporting themselves (Paragraph 53)

17.  We recommend that the Government places on departments a formal requirement to report separately on their environmental impacts and to include in these reports coverage of not only the department itself and its agencies, but its associate bodies also. (Paragraph 55)

18.  While we would in no way wish to downplay the importance of departmental initiatives, we would not wish to see the Sustainable Development in Government Annual Report become simply a presentational vehicle for highlighting good practice. In our view, it should constitute a rigorous analysis to enable ENV(G) to monitor progress effectively, adjusting priorities and setting targets as required. (Paragraph 58)

19.  We recommend that DEFRA, in drafting the 2004 questionnaire, ensures that the questions it contains are sufficiently specific to elicit reliable and comparable data from departments. Departments should also be required to indicate clearly where they consider questions are not relevant. (Paragraph 59)

20.  We welcome the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate as tangible evidence of progress towards a more systematic and comprehensive approach to cross-departmental target setting and monitoring. (Paragraph 60)

21.  We are concerned about the slow rate of progress in implementing the Framework. Five of its nine constituent parts have still not been published—three months after the date by which it should have been complete. (Paragraph 62)

22.  We recommend that, within 4 months of the announcement of each suite of targets, all departments should submit their delivery strategies to the Environmental Audit Committee or provide an explanation as to why they have not done so. The Sustainable Development in Government web-site should also include full provision for monitoring progress against targets. (Paragraph 63)

23.  We urge the Government to develop a more systematic approach to environmental target setting in a policy context as a complement to the systematic approach it is now adopting for departmental operations and as a way of providing greater accountability to Parliament through the EAC for environmentally related policy targets. (Paragraph 64)

24.  While the quality of environmental reporting by departments remains inadequate, it seems over-ambitious to try to encompass social reporting as well. Indeed, the Sustainable Development in Government report is very far from being comprehensive in this respect. (Paragraph 66)

25.  we strongly feel that the term 'sustainable development' should be defined in such a way as to include only those policies, objectives and targets in which environmental aspects form a major component. (Paragraph 67)

26.  We recommend that the Government should include, as part of its review of the Sustainable Development Strategy, an evaluation of the impact of the strategy on departments and the extent to which it has been successful in mainstreaming environmental objectives. (Paragraph 68)

Audit and accountability

27.  The lack of accountability which now exists in relation to departmental Sustainable Development Reports submitted as part of Spending Review 2002 is unacceptable. We will continue to demand greater transparency in this process and for departments to be required to publish—perhaps on a two-yearly basis as in Canada—their own sustainable development reports (Paragraph 70)

28.   We find it surprising that the Government did not feel that ENV could oversee the sustainable energy strategy. If it has no role here, we question what effective role it can play in any sphere of Government activity, and indeed how its role can be clearly differentiated from that of ENV(G). (Paragraph 73)

29.  Our work has involved considerable analysis which the NAO would be ideally placed to carry out. We would therefore welcome the NAO's assistance in analysing future reports and associated evidence, in the form of a management report and accompanying analyses submitted to this Committee on an annual basis. The publication of the next Sustainable Development in Government annual report, due very shortly, offers an opportunity to begin the process. (Paragraph 75)

30.  Our annual review may well highlight specific areas which require further investigation. For this reason, we would also welcome the assistance of the NAO in carrying out detailed studies on specific aspects of departmental performance. Such assistance would materially help us carry out our audit function in a timely and effective manner. (Paragraph 76)