Forgive the extended blog yesterday – a bit over the top.So I just wanted to reassure Mrs Spelman and Mr Huhne that they now have two weeks respite as I’m away on holiday.Which also means that I’ve kept Test Number 4 just about as simple as possible.On July 27th, in response to a Parliamentary Question from Green MP Caroline Lucas, junior DEFRA Minister Jim Paice made the following commitment: “DEFRA will establish an enhanced departmental capability and presence on sustainable development”.To put that one to the test, all we have to do is compare DEFRA’s “SD capability” on May 5th 2010 with its capability on May 6th 2011.In the interests of proper transparency, it would therefore be very helpful if Mrs Spelman could publish what DEFRA’s total resource looked like when they entered government.I’m sure her officials should be able to help her (and possibly me too!) in unearthing those baseline figures in terms of core staff resources and other financial commitments.Including the Sustainable Development Dialogues and so on. If that sounds just a little bit too easy, don’t forget that we’re starting from a low baseline in terms of ministerial capability.In his answer to that Parliamentary Question, he made the following statement: “While Government has made progress, we need to take more concerted action on the carbon agenda led by DECC, and also on the wider sustainability agenda including waste, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and other areas which DEFRA leads on.Unfortunately, Mr Paice, that’s not the same thing as sustainable development.You seem to have omitted vast chunks of what falls within this territory, as you would probably have spotted had you had a chance as yet to look at ‘Securing the Future’.There’s no reference here to anything to do with health, education, economic policy, international development, social services, governance and so on.Oh dear!In my blog yesterday, I referred to the paper from Andrea Ross, and there’s a very helpful paragraph in there that I think will help you to understand why sustainable development is so much more than the sum of its constituent parts – including straight environmental issues and climate change.“As a ‘whole systems’ concept, sustainable development must not be too closely linked to one particular concern, including environmental protection, human rights or climate change.Consequently, sustainable development cannot be an effective champion for any of its component parts on their own. These concerns need their own champions.Instead, sustainable development is most appropriately viewed as providing the forum or ‘table’ to which important and more concrete objectives and values can be brought. Used in this way, sustainable development can offer a framework for decision-making which ensures that these objectives and values have influence in the decision-making process.”In other words, “whole systems” not disaggregated bits of greenery.