House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Thirteenth Report

ANNEX

EAC analysis of departmental responses to the Sustainable Development in Government Questionnaire 2002

1. The sections and questions of the DEFRA questionnaire are reproduced in Italics below. The commentary is non-italicised. Note also that the tables represent in almost all cases an analysis or summary of the information presented in DEFRA's web-site database, and therefore involve in some cases a degree of subjective judgement and interpretation. Where there appear to be errors in the data provided, figures have been reproduced without correction. Similarly, where departments have failed to provide any data, cells have been left blank or specifically highlighted. For ease of reference, the same order of departments has been retained in the tables as that given by the questionnaire responses database on the Sustainable Development in Government website.

Section 1: BACKGROUND

1.1 Please provide a description of your estate. This should be the parts of the estate and Executive Agencies on which you are reporting. Part (a) is the central department; Part (b) is all Executive Agencies included in the report: Part (c) is the total for the estate i.e. a + b.

2. The responses to this question are summarised by functional area in the tables below: Also included for reference is data from the 2001 Green Ministers Report.

Dept Land owned (hectares) GMR 2001

Central dept Agencies Total Total

CO n/k

C&E n/a n/a n/k

DCMS n/a 2,000 2,000 n/k

DTLR n/a n/a 196 n/k

DfES 5 5 n/k

DfID 4 n/a 4 n/k

DH 0 n/a 0 n/k

DWP n/k

DTI 106 106 n/k

ECGD 0 n/a 0 n/k

FCO 40 40 40

HMT 0 30 30 2.5

HO n/a n/k n/k

IR 0 0 0 35

LCD 0 0 0 n/k

LOD 0 0 n/k

DEFRA 28,250 188 28,437 32,182

MoD 240,000 240,000

ONS n/a n/a n/a n/k

Total (civil depts) 268,406 2,217 30,818

Total (all depts) 270,623

Dept Number of staff GMR 2001

Central dept Agencies Total Total

CO 2,611 3,433 6,044 2,680

C&E 22,286 22,286 23,174

DCMS 475 227 702 419

DTLR 4,875 14,548 19,500 20,388

DfES 4,282 0 4,282 40,001

DfID 1,385 n/a 1,385 2,259

DH 3,240 858 4,098 4,472

DWP 11,139 118,283 129,909 96,889

DTI 4,427 4,335 8,762 9,800

ECGD 420 n/a 420 420

FCO 3,500 60 3,560 3,365

HMT 1,114 1,682 2,796 1,680

HO 14,400 50,640 65,040 57,150

IR 64,455 4,012 68,467 68,614

LCD 1,100 11,459 12,559 11,000

LOD 8,317 8,317 6,720

DEFRA 8,141 6,111 14,252 12,570

MoD 293,974 304,037

ONS n/a 3,800 3,800 3,500

Total 450,141 219,448 376,179 669,138

Total (+MoD) 670,153

Dept Collective size (m2) GMR 2001

Central dept Agencies Total Total

CO 70,875 74,746 145,621 86,143

C&E 358,616 358,616 388,024

DCMS 13,269 470 13,739 12,248

DTLR 62,732 2,802,757 2,865,488 404,021

DfES 102,913 0 102,913 802,809

DfID 25,843 n/a 25,843 23,647

DH 80,559 15,863 96,422 83,820

DWP 2,600,000 1,559,089

DTI 90,002 106,011 196,013 266,632

ECGD 11,590 n/a 11,590 11,590

FCO 125,000 2,326 127,326 94,406

HMT 33,823 53,416 87,239 45,868

HO 364,991 3,610,378 3,975,369 4,373,955

IR 1,123,592 90,322 1,213,914 1,582,551

LCD 34,594 823,470 858,064 830,000

LOD 146,327 146,327 130,000

DEFRA 195,945 136,814 332,759 480,540

MoD 62,813,483 62,813,483

ONS n/a 80,359 80,359 80,359

Total 65,654,154 7,796,932 13,237,602

Dept Number of buildings occupied GMR 2001

Central dept Agencies Total Total

CO 24 16 40 23

C&E 300 300 283

DCMS 4 8 12 6

DTLR 14 1161 1175 1208

DfES 8 0 8 1208

DfID 3 n/a 3 4

DH 6 8 14 11

DWP 1900 826

DTI 11 47 58 160

ECGD 3 n/a 3 3

FCO 5 1 55 37

HMT 2 36 38 5

HO 183 200 383 350

IR 537 85 642 622 665

LCD 13 427 440 421

LOD 101 101 100

DEFRA 165 73 203 238 219

MoD > 45000 45000

ONS n/a 7 7 7

Total 1379 2069 5382

3. The data does not include the wide range of NDPBs and associate bodies for which departments are responsible. In the case of DH and DfES, for example, it does not include Health Trusts or the schools sector. Moreover, while it should include all Executive Agencies, responses to subsequent questions did not always seem to reflect this. There were a number of anomalies in relation to figures for the previous year, though in some cases this may be caused by departmental reorganisations. There were also some errors in the figures (eg in the case of IR and DEFRA where there were discrepancies in the total number of buildings the department managed).

1.2. Does your estate include any listed buildings, monuments or sites? If so please provide details. Please specify for each building whether it is owned, managed or leased by the department and whether it is open to the public.

4. This data is of some interest, but it is difficult to assess the extent to which departments could do more to increase access to listed buildings which they occupy. In the absence of more detailed information, no analysis has been attempted of this table.

1.3. What is the role/aim of your department (please highlight the sustainable development and aspects), this will form the departmental descriptions that are placed under the photograph of each Minister in the report. (75 words Max.)

5. Departmental responses to this question provide only general information about their role and objectives. This table has therefore not been analysed, though it does raise more general questions on the meaning of the term 'sustainable development' and the extent to which it is included in the objectives of all organisations (see questions 2.1 and 2.3 below).

1.4 What resources in the central department are assigned specifically to support the Sustainable Development agenda? [Please use the universal grade descriptions of AA, AO, EO, HEO, SEO, Grades 6 & 7 and SCS. Please include whole-time equivalent as well as full-time staff. For any other staff outside the normal admin system (such as scientists, lawyers or other professionally qualified staff) please give a description.]

6. The departmental responses are summarised below. In doing so, data has been used to calculate a total whole-time equivalent (WTE) for those staff specifically assigned to support the Sustainable Development agenda. The percentage has also been calculated of total departmental staff (including agency staff) which this represents, and the highest grade of sustainable development staff disclosed together with the percentage of his/her time assigned to this agenda.

Dept Number of staff Highest grade of SD staff

Total Staff
(including agencies)
Central SD staff (WTE) Percentage of total staff Grade of most senior SD staff Percentage of his / her time

CO 6,044 2.0 0.03 HEO/SEO 100

C&E 22,286 2.0 0.01 SEO 100

DCMS 702 0.9 0.13 G7 10

DTLR 19,500 8.6 0.04 SCS 20

DfES 4,282 2.8 0.07 G6 2

DfID 1,385 32.2 2.32 SCS 100

DH 4,098 2.4 0.06 G6 5

DWP 129,909 10.2 0.01 G7 20

DTI 8,762 [no data] G6

ECGD 420 2.0 0.48 G7 100

FCO 3,560 48.2 1.35 SCS 303

HMT 2,796 2.0 0.07 G6 5

HO 65,040 7.2 0.01 G7 33

IR 68,467 1.1 0.00 SCS 5

LCD 12,559 0.9 0.01 SEO 50

LOD 8,317 1.4 0.02 SCS 10

DEFRA 14,252 12.9 0.09 G5 20

MoD

ONS 3,800 0.3 0.01 5 1

Total 376,179 137 0.04

Notes

(1) Traditional Civil Service grades range from G1 (the highest) to G7, SEO and HEO.

(2) The term SCS has been used by some departments to refer to a member of the Senior Civil Service (ie Grade 5 and up). In such cases, the department has not disclosed the specific grade of the staff member.

(3) The highest grade of SD staff refers to the highest graded individual(s) who is included in the Central SD staff (WTE) figure. In the case of the FCO, as there are 3 Grade 5s, each of whom devotes 100% of their time to this agenda, and a fourth Grade 5, who devotes only 3% of his/her time to it, the overall percentage figure is 303%. This is unusual, and for most departments there would only be one highest-graded member of staff who devotes only a part of his/her time to this agenda.

7. Detailed comments on this table are contained in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Committee's report.

1.5. What is the scope of the activities of the team members specifically assigned to support the Sustainable Development Agenda? [Are staff centrally located? Do they form a separate SDU? What issues are they responsible for?]

8. The table below is a summary interpretation of departmental responses. No attempt has been made to summarise departmental comments on the issues these staff are responsible for, as the responses generally referred to both policy and operational advice and it was difficult to assess, on the limited information provided, the degree and nature of involvement—particularly in the policy area. Where these staff are located within the estates management function of a department has however been indicated, as this might limit their involvement in policy development. In some cases, it was also clear that operational and policy issues were managed by separate groups of staff (question 1.4 was also useful in this respect), but in others this was less clear.

Dept Centrally located? Separate SDU? Functional location in department

CO yes yes

C&E yes yes Estates

DCMS yes no

DTLR yes yes

DfES yes, mainly no

DfID yes, mainly division

DH yes ?

DWP yes yes Estates

DTI yes yes

ECGD yes yes

FCO Yes division

HMT Yes no

HO Yes no

IR Yes no

LCD Yes no

LOD Partly no Estates

DEFRA Yes yes

MoD

ONS No no

9. The table shows that almost all staff involved specifically in SD are centrally located (ie in London), the one main exception being the ONS where the key player (0.33 WTE) is located in Newport. In three cases (C&E, DWP, LOD) they are located within the estates management function, rather than alongside central policy departments.

1.6. Please provide details of your senior official with responsibility for sustainable development.

Dept Senior official (grade) Location (if not London)

CO 5

C&E 3

DCMS 3

DTLR 3

DfES 3

DfID 5

DH 5 Bristol (Government Office for the SW)

DWP 5 or above Leeds

DTI 3

ECGD 5 or above

FCO 5 or above

HMT 3

HO 5 or above

IR Deputy Chairman

LCD 3

LOD 6 or above

DEFRA 3

MoD 2

ONS 6 Newport, Gwent

10. This data, if taken together with tables 1-4 and 1-5, provides an interesting indication of the relationship between the staff specifically involved in sustainable development and the senior official responsible. Detailed comments on it are contained in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the Committee's report.

Section 2: INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INTO DECISION MAKING

2.1 (a) Please list the key achievements/initiatives made by your department in supporting the Government's objectives for sustainable development in the last year? (b) Has your department independently set any new objectives or targets that relate to the priorities for Sustainable Development in Government Initiative identified in the last annual report on Greening Government i.e. integrating sustainable development in decision making, improving the performance of the Government Estate, promoting understanding of sustainable development across Government.

11. In response to part (a) of this question, departments commented often at some length on a wide variety of initiatives or processes. These included, for example, the completion of Sustainable Development Reports (required as part of SR 2002), new policy initiatives, seminars, internal schemes and awareness campaigns etc. The information is not readily susceptible to meaningful analysis, but is clearly useful for presentational purposes in the summary report (ie Part 1 of the Sustainable Development in Government report). However, some of this activity does not amount to much, while some of it is either a formal requirement (eg the submission of Sustainable Development Reports as part of SR 2002) or should be a routine part of a department's work (eg the use of Integrated Policy Appraisals). In many cases, it is questionable whether they can be described as "key achievements/initiatives…. in the last year"—the wording of the question. For these reasons, the question itself is of limited usefulness.

12. Part (b) of the question specifically requires departments to list any new objectives or targets they might have set in the last year.

Dept New objectives and targets set - EAC comments Targets

CO no data nil

C&E The response refers to one objective, but it is very vague and non-specific.. ["To complete a programme of projects aimed at improving productivity and competitiveness, combating social exclusion, and promoting sustainable development."] nil

DCMS The response refers to one objective, but it is very vague. ["To promote understanding of sustainable development issues and DCMS's relation to these…"] The response also refers to one new target, which is more specific. ["To produce a sustainable development strategy by the end of 2002."] 1 target

DTLR The response refers to the development of the EMS and its benefits, but no objectives or targets are set. nil

DfES The response refers to a number of initiatives, and also to an existing target (5% renewable energy by March 2003). But no new targets or objectives are cited (though joining the Watermark initiative might involve some.] nil

DfID The response acknowledges that no new targets have been set, but it points out that the department is integrating the Millennium Development Goals into is operation planning. It also states that new [estate] targets will be set following the refurbishment of its 3 UK offices. nil

DH The response sets out an objective for the department, but it is very vague and non-specific It also refers to agency objectives, giving PASA as an example. nil

DWP The department is developing a new SD strategy which will include new objectives and targets. The response also states "Independent DWP targets have been set in addition to those set by central Government." But it is unclear to what this refers. nil

DTI The department will revise its targets and make them 'smarter' as part of the Spending Review process. nil

ECGD The response refers to two very general objectives which may not in any case be new. nil

FCO Two specific objectives, though only one has a target date . ("To ensure that our sustainable development / environment training programme is operating effectively by the end of December 2001." "To assess [through an independent panel of experts] FCO funded environment projects…to ensure that projects recommended for funding fully incorporate sustainable development.") 2 objectives

HMT Reference to HMT's role in SR 2002, and also to OGC Buying Solutions initiatives. nil

HO Response specifically acknowledges that no new targets set independently. nil

IR Response refers reader to part a response (which simply lists ongoing policy initiatives). nil

LCD no response no response

LOD No corporate targets / objectives, and none for CPS and SFO. TSols/LSLO have set one unquantified target ("Tio try to reduce water consumption within the department.") 1 target

DEFRA Response refers only to development of the Integrated Policy Appraisal tool. nil

MoD Response refers to various ongoing work streams which might result in new targets. nil

ONS One target. ("To achieve ISO 14001 at all our main sites by the end of 2004 - ahead of the target set by Green Ministers.") 1 target

13. Many of the departments, in answering this question, have referred to initiatives or processes which would more appropriately have been included in their response to part (a) of the question. Only 5 objectives or targets were not vacuously general, and of them only 3 are in any way smart.

2.2 What tools or processes did your department use to produce your Sustainable Development Report for SR2002?

14. The Sustainable Development Reports (SDRs) which departments produce have not been made publicly available as the Treasury regard them as an inherent part of the Budget process. In its report on the 2002 Pre-Budget, EAC criticised this situation and highlighted the lack of public accountability which it reflected.

15. Departmental responses to this question highlight a variety of approaches, and—given the lack of access to the SDRs themselves—it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. Some departments have adopted a systematic and thorough approach. The DTLR, for example, subjected all individual bids to integrated appraisals which would highlight environmental and other impacts, and aggregated the results. Other departments, including the MoD and DEFRA, only applied integrated appraisals to a subset of its bids. DEFRA appeared to be the only department to match its top priority spending proposals against the department's objectives and draft PSA targets, and the sustainable development indicators.

16. By contrast, other departments give little or no real information, referring only to liaison and coordination, or to Cabinet Office and Treasury guidance. Proper comparative assessment of departmental performance in this area would require a detailed audit of the SDRs themselves and the processes by which they were compiled.

2.3 (a) Has your department identified the contribution it makes to relevant sustainable development indicators? Please provide details. (b) Please provide any examples of how sustainable development has been incorporated into your department's policy objectives i.e. what references are included in your department's PSA targets and SDAs relating to sustainable development impacts? (c) Are there any further developments to incorporate environmental concerns/sustainable development into departmental aims and objectives? Please give details.

17. This question effectively encouraged departments to set out a wide range of policies and initiatives including some which are primarily social or economic in nature. The CO, DfES and DH responses, for example, focus on social and economic policies relating to human health and education. By contrast, other departments, such as the MoD and the DTI, have tried to limit their responses to more environmentally related issues.

18. This raises the difficult but important issue of the meaning of the term 'sustainable development'. The EAC has previously expressed its concern that the wider breadth of the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, introduced in 1999, could be used by departments to justify the claim that they are contributing to sustainable development even when they are citing purely economic or social objectives. The term 'sustainable development' was introduced in the late 1980s as a way of mainstreaming environmental objectives and suggesting that they could be achieved alongside social or economic progress. Achieving environmental objectives is a fundamental component of the term. Environmental sustainability should form the framework within which all policy development and operational management should take place. Indeed, the Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN), sponsored by DEFRA, have adopted a definition which reflects this by defining environmental aims as an essential component of eligible research.

19. Paragraph 32 of the Committee's report contains further discussion of responses.

2.4 Does your department: (a) specify environmental considerations when negotiating PPPs and PFIs? (b) internal audit service's remit encompass environmental issues and processes (both policy and operations)? If so, please provide details

20. Departmental responses to part (a) of this question were short and generalised. Only two departments (HMT, HO) cited specific contracts into which environmental considerations had been written. Apart from these two cases, no other examples were cited in any other responses. The DH categorically stated that such requirements are specified for all DH contracts. Two departments (DTLR, DWP) stated slightly less explicitly that environmental considerations are included in PFI contract terms. Other departments referred more vaguely to environmental considerations being taken into account (CO, DCMS), or else stated that they did not have any PPP or PFI contracts (DfES, DfID). One department referred to the forthcoming guidance which was eventually published by OGC in 2002.

21. The question itself is therefore of limited utility as there is insufficient detailed information to assess the extent to which environmental considerations have been incorporated. It would be more useful if departments were asked to list all PFIs/PPPs which were negotiated in the previous year and include for each a very brief statement on whether environmental considerations were incorporated.

22. The DfES did not acknowledge its influence on the education sector in terms of the extent to which environmental objectives could be built into PFIs for schools and colleges. This contrasted with a recognition by both DCMS and DH of their responsibilities in similar situations.

23. In responding to part (b) almost all departments claimed that the remit of their internal audit section did encompass environmental issues and processes (both policy and operations), as IA could audit any activities which support the delivery of departmental objectives. (Curiously, the ONS considered the question not applicable to it.) But it was not clear from the responses whether environmental issues are explicitly mentioned in the formal remit of IA teams. The Home Office acknowledged that they were not. Other departments failed to make this clear, though the wordings of their responses suggest that, in their cases too, there is no explicit reference. Once again, the utility of the question could be improved by obtaining information explicitly on this point.

24. In any event, it is clear from the responses that the extent to which Internal Audit teams actually examine environmental issues (whether policy or operations) will be very limited because of the systems of risk prioritisation used. Departments were not asked about actual coverage by Internal Audit. It would be useful if they were. The results of the comprehensive audit which the Treasury have been carrying out are expected soon.

2.5 (a) Has your department introduced any new systems or procedures in the reporting year to ensure that environmental screenings and/or appraisals take place for any significant environmental impact caused by new or reviewed policies? (b) Do you maintain a record of the outcome of each environmental screening undertaken, as required? (c) How many free-standing environmental appraisals has your department published in the reporting year? Please give details.

25. This important question aims to probe how effectively departments are considering environmental issues when revising or developing new policies.

Dept (a) New systems or procedures for screening (b) Record of screening (c) Environmental appraisals published

CO No No None

C&E Already exist, but for budgetary process only Yes [but confidential] None

DCMS No [no response] None

DTLR Yes, as part of IPA project No None (part of wider appraisal process)

DfES Already exist [no response] None

DfID No No, but records are kept on individual files None

DH Unclear, pilot exercise only Unclear, pilot exercise only None

DWP Unclear, new department Unclear None

DTI Unclear [no response] Unclear

ECGD Yes, as part of project screening Unclear whether there is a central record Yes, for some projects

FCO Yes, consultation with EPD is mandatory Unclear None

HMT Yes [Already exist] No None

HO Yes [but not mandatory?] No None

IR Already exist Yes Yes, as part of Budget

LCD No [no new systems] Yes None

LOD Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

DEFRA Yes, as part of IPA project Yes Unclear (move to integrated appraisals)

MoD Yes [but not mandatory?] No (is planned) None

ONS Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

26. Part (a) of this question can create some potential ambiguities. It refers specifically to any new systems or procedures introduced during the last year. Where departments have responded negatively, this does not necessarily mean that they do not have procedures in place—as is indeed clear from DfID's response to part (b). A couple of departments made it clear that they did have existing systems. Part (a) also fails to ask departments whether they have mandatory procedures which ensure that all policy proposals are subject to environmental screening. Some departments (eg HO, MoD) respond affirmatively on the basis of the development of guidance, but the latter in itself does nothing to ensure that screening is carried out. It would be more useful if the question specifically asked whether mandatory procedures are in place.

27. Part (b) is based on the requirement, set out in the 2000 Green Ministers Report, for departments to screen all new policies for environmental impacts and maintain a central record of the results (and make it available to the public if they wish). Unfortunately, the question does not explicitly refer to a central list, and for that reason some departments may claim that the results of screening are available on individual policy files.

28. Only four departments (C&E, IR, LCD, DEFRA) claim to be maintaining a record of screening, while with the exception of ECGD none have published any free-standing environmental appraisals. The latter should be seen in the context of the move towards integrated appraisal—which brings together economic, social and environmental impacts in one overall assessment. This development has undermined the commitment made n the 2001 Green Ministers Report to the effect that all environmental appraisals should be published. However, it does nothing to prevent departments from maintaining a list of all screenings for their environmental impact as this would have to be done as part of an integrated appraisal.

29. There is currently a multiplicity of wider requirements on departments relating to appraisal. There is also a certain tension between approaches which attempt to calculate monetary values for environmental impacts, and those which set them alongside other impacts but in non-financial terms.

SECTION 3: IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ESTATE

Part 1: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

3.1.1 All departments were asked to review their data collection systems in September 2001. What findings has this produced and what improvements have been made?

3.1.2 Please provide the following details on your Environmental Management Systems: (a) number of EMSs in place (b) percentage of the department's staff covered by these (c) number of EMSs certified to ISO 14001 (d) percentage of department's staff covered by the ISO 14001 EMSs (e) work in progress / future plans for EMS.

3.1.3 Do your EMSs cover policy issues as well as management of the estate? If so, please provide details.

3.1.4 Do you have any new systems in place designed to deliver environmental improvements (other than EMSs)? If so, please provide details.

30. The 'harder' data which these questions yielded is summarised below.

Dept % of staff covered by certified EMS Does EMS cover policy?

CO 7 No (central dept). EMSs within some agencies may do

C&E 4 Unclear, but probably no.

DCMS n/a No

DTLR 45 No

DfES 1 No, but plan to include.

DfID n/a No, but are other procedures.

DH 8 No (central department). PASA EMS does include policy.

DWP 70 No

DTI 44 No

ECGD 0 Unclear

FCO 47 No

HMT [blank] No

HO 1 No

IR 13 Yes

LCD 0 No

LOD n/a n/a

DEFRA 16 No

MoD 1 Yes [but note non-certified system]

ONS 75 Unclear

31. In 1999, the EAC recommended targets for implementing EMSs. Indeed, the ongoing difficulties of obtaining reliable data in a number of areas still reflect the absence of structured systems for monitoring and managing activities. The table above shows that we are still very far from achieving widespread take-up across all departments. Indeed, in the case of the Cabinet Office percentage coverage appears to have gone down in comparison with data for the previous year. In this context, Part 1 of the Sustainable Development in Government report stated: "The Government has agreed that to deliver challenging environmental targets for the Estate within this Parliament, a significant increase in the uptake of Environmental Management Systems is needed."

32. Apart from the MoD, only IR claims that its EMS covers policy issues—though it is unclear about how reliable this information is given the low level of staff covered by its EMS.

Part 2: ENERGY MANAGEMENT

(Target: all departments to contribute towards the Government estate target of a 1% pa on-going reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings).

Please note that all departmental energy managers have been asked for their energy returns for 2000/01 & 2001/02 by DEFRA's Energy Policy Analysis team. Whilst the Green Ministers Officials Working Group are not necessarily responsible for this information (and we are not asking for the information here), you will want to be aware that we aim to report on these returns in this year's Sustainable Development in Government Annual Report.



© Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 13 November 2003