{"id":6858,"date":"2017-01-11T08:24:46","date_gmt":"2017-01-11T08:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=6858"},"modified":"2017-01-11T08:24:46","modified_gmt":"2017-01-11T08:24:46","slug":"the-eac-has-the-treasury-in-its-sights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2017\/01\/11\/the-eac-has-the-treasury-in-its-sights\/","title":{"rendered":"The EAC has the Treasury in its sights"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Thanks to Steve Martin for his post to SHED-SHARE just before Christmas about the EAC's comments on UK efforts at sustainable development. \u00a0Here it is:<\/p>\n<p>\"You might like to read the recent, highly critical report from the Environment Audit Committee, on the role of HM Treasury in Sustainable Development: Its introduction states:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1.Our remit includes a responsibility to audit the Government\u2019s performance against sustainable development and environmental protection targets.1\u00a0Our predecessor Committee carried out this function through a series of \u2018sustainability audits\u2019 of government departments. \u00a0This is something we have continued in this Parliament. This report contains the findings of our audit of HM Treasury.<\/p>\n<p>2.We recognise that the Treasury, and indeed the whole Government, has undergone significant change over the past few months. Since our inquiry started, a new Prime Minister has appointed a new Chancellor and a new ministerial team, and the Government has developed a new focus on industrial strategy. This report aims to learn lessons from the past and provide proposals that we hope will be useful to Treasury in the future. In Chapter two we look at the role and influence of the Treasury. In Chapter three we explore how the Treasury takes account of the environment. In Chapter four we assess the Treasury\u2019s track record to date and focus on a number of specific policy areas. In Chapter five we identify areas where it might improve its performance in the future.<\/p>\n<p>3.To support our work we asked the National Audit Office (NAO) to investigate whether the 2015 Spending Review process led to well-informed decision-making in relation to environmental protection and sustainable development (referred to as \u2018the report\u2019). \u00a0Separately we asked them to look at whether the Government was meeting its recycling and waste diversion targets and the extent to which the cancellation of PFI credits may have impacted its performance in this area.4\u00a0We are very grateful to the NAO for their help and support throughout this inquiry. In addition, we issued two calls for evidence and received 68 written submissions. We held three public evidence sessions with a range of stakeholders including Treasury Ministers and officials. All written and oral evidence can be found on our website. We are grateful to all those who contributed and to Dr Martin Hurst, our Specialist Adviser during the inquiry.<\/p>\n<p>Defining sustainability<br \/>\n4.There are three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. These pillars of sustainability were brought together in the 1987 \u2018Brundtland report\u2019 which set out a definition for \u2018sustainable development\u2019:<\/p>\n<p>Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities.<\/p>\n<p>5.The Treasury most frequently uses the term sustainability in the context of economic growth. Its departmental objectives include placing the public finances on a sustainable footing and ensuring the stability of the macro-economic environment and financial system, enabling strong, sustainable and balanced growth. \u00a0Jane Ellison, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, told us that the Treasury \u201ctakes sustainability very seriously\u201d and that \u201csustainable economic growth is absolutely key\u201d. \u00a0However, it was not clear whether the Treasury\u2019s use of the term sustainability aligns with the concept of sustainable development.<\/p>\n<p>6.The Treasury acknowledged the relationship between the economy and the environment stating in written evidence that, \u2018there is a complex relationship between the natural environment and economic growth. \u00a0Environmental capital plays a valuable role in supporting our economy\u2019. \u00a0This was reflected in the views of a large number of respondents to this inquiry. \u00a0Karen Ellis, Chief Adviser on Economics and Development at WWF, told us for example that the, \u201cenvironment completely underpins the economy and the economy has a huge impact on the environment\u201d. \u00a0 In this report we focus on environmental sustainability.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>There's more from this\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm201617\/cmselect\/cmenvaud\/181\/18102.htm\">here<\/a>, including this conclusion:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Treasury\u2019s technical and political framework for assessing environmental interventions is geared towards favouring short-term priorities at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability, even when it could lead to higher costs to the economy in the future. \u00a0In part, this is because its framework does not take account of long-term benefits adequately. \u00a0Ministers cannot make well-informed decisions unless they have access to all relevant information including long-term costs and benefits. (Paragraph 31)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>The\u00a0Treasury needs to improve the way it captures and takes\u00a0account of long-term environmental costs and benefits. \u00a0It must\u00a0ensure that it has the best available evidence when making\u00a0decisions about specific interventions, for example, by including wider costs\u00a0and benefits and establishing a consistent framework with which departments\u00a0can provide supplementary evidence in addition to NPV calculations. \u00a0It should also make more use of relevant independent advisory bodies\u00a0during spending reviews to scrutinise bids and green-check \u2013 asystematic environmental stress test \u2013 initial high-level assessments prepared for\u00a0Ministers to inform their decision-making. \u00a0The Treasury should, after\u00a0a spending review, make public who it has consulted with\u00a0and how they incorporated any feedback into their decision-making. (Paragraph 32)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>We welcome the Treasury\u2019s work to incorporate\u00a0new evidence on natural capital into its decision-making processes. \u00a0A natural capital approach has the potential to help account\u00a0for the long-term environmental risks. \u00a0However, we want to\u00a0see evidence of how the Treasury will take this work\u00a0forward. \u00a0In its response to this report, the Treasury should\u00a0set out concrete proposals about how, and by when, it\u00a0intends to take forward and incorporate new evidence on natural\u00a0capital into its policy appraisal process. (Paragraph 33)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>....................................<\/p>\n<p>The key phrase for me in all this was:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\"...\u00a0it was not clear whether the Treasury\u2019s use of the term sustainability aligns with the concept of sustainable development.\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>What the EAC means is that it's blindingly obvious that they don't align. \u00a0In other parts of government,\u00a0sustainable development can mean what you want it to; that is, whatever makes your policy likely to be achieved. \u00a0House building is probably the best (ie, worst) example of this. \u00a0It will be the case until\u00a0sustainable development is the beating\u00a0heart of government. \u00a0Or do I mean\u00a0until government is the beating heart of\u00a0sustainable development? \u00a0A question for 2017.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Thanks to Steve Martin for his post to SHED-SHARE just before Christmas about the EAC's comments on UK efforts at sustainable development. \u00a0Here it is: \"You might like to read the recent, highly critical report from the Environment Audit Committee,...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}