III Procedures for setting standards
9.5 Environmental issues reach the agenda by diverse routes. The stages of recognising and defining the problem, framing the questions that need to be answered and formulating policy aims are all important. They need to be informed, not only by evaluations of the effectiveness of existing policies, but by the articulation of people's values.
9.6 After a problem has been recognised and defined, and policy aims are formulated, the stages in the policy process are:
rigorous and dispassionate investigation and analysis;
deliberation and synthesis, informed by people's values;
the decision whether to set a standard, and if so what type of standard;
specifying the content of a standard;
and monitoring and evaluating its effectiveness
9.7 Better ways need to be developed for articulating people's values and taking them into account from the earliest stage in what have been hitherto relatively technocratic procedures.
9.8 The analytical stage of the policy process has several complementary and closely inter-related components:
scientific assessment;
analysis of technological options;
assessment of risk and uncertainty;
economic appraisal; and analysis of implementation issues, including the geographical scope of standards.
Conceptually, this approach would apply to any kind of environmental policy or standard but the nature of a particular environmental problem will determine the resources which should be devoted to each type of analysis in practice.
9.9 The presentation to decision makers of the results of the analyses referred to above should clearly state the assumptions and limitations of each analysis. It will usually be necessary to offer several options and their implications, so far as these can be gauged.
26. Setting standards, like many Government decisions, can involve complex choices between alternatives for which information is often imperfect. The proper appraisal of choices, whether for policies, projects or programmes, falls within the overarching framework of HM Treasury's "Green Book" - Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government - and guidance from the Regulatory Impact Unit of the Cabinet Office. A range of guidance also exists on specialised techniques within this broad decision framework, such as risk assessment and environmental appraisal. Such techniques are often complementary, and their relevance and use frequently depend on the context of a specific decision.
27. Values have to play a part not only in the synthesis, but also - as the Commission recognise - in deciding what constitutes a 'problem', and in framing the questions for analysis. The Government agrees that better ways need to be found to articulate people's values. As part of the Modernising Government agenda it has established a People's Panel to give one indication of the way individuals perceive certain issues. As part of the reform of the regulatory system for genetically modified organisms the Government is setting up an Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will consider not only scientific but also ethical and social questions raised by genetically-modified organisms.
28. The Royal Commission report notes that most environmental standards in the UK derive from measures set for the European Union as a whole. The European Commission has sole right of initiative in proposing EU legislation, and most EU environmental legislation is decided by Qualified Majority Voting. This inevitably means that the standards adopted reflect a range of approaches and traditions.
9.10 Any body involved in setting standards should, in all its pronouncements, draw an explicit distinction between scientific statements and recommendations it wishes to make after considering a scientific assessment in conjunction with other facts; and should identify clearly what those other factors are.
9.11 Bodies setting standards ought to take into account the entire range of considerations we have identified as being relevant to such decision and this should be required by their terms of reference.
29. The Government agrees that bodies need to make clear where their recommendations are based on science alone and where they rely on other factors.
30. However, every body involved in standard setting does not need to take account of the entire range of considerations. Sometimes it is appropriate for single bodies to look solely at, for example, scientific questions. For example, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Commission have a variety of advisory committees, which provide advice that takes account of different parts of the scientific advice/policy/risk management spectrum. Their terms of reference make it clear which considerations their advice rests on. An example is the area of air pollution, where the Department's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) advises purely on health effects. The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) makes recommendations on air quality standards to the Government and devolved administrations. EPAQS draws on the work of COMEAP, together with an additional consideration of information on ambient pollution concentrations and personal exposure, to recommend air quality standards that aim to protect human health. EPAQS standards explicitly do not take account of cost or technical feasibility. These aspects are taken into account in the drawing up of national objectives within the National Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
31. What is important in each case is that the process is transparent and the terms of reference clear.
9.12 There should be an audit trail documenting all the considerations taken into account in reaching a decision and how they were taken into account.
9.14 Bodies setting environmental standards must operate in an open and transparent way. By 'transparent' we mean that there must be full publicity for their existence, their terms of reference, the decision they take and the reasons for them. By 'open' we mean that there must be adequate opportunities for those outside an institution, especially those with a particular interest in a given decision to contribute fully to the decision-making procedure.
9.15 All the analyses should also be subject to peer review and scrutiny.
9.16 It is important that global scientific bodies work transparently, and that their scientific assessments are subject to peer review and published, with the affiliations of the scientists involved made explicit.
32. The Government agrees that wherever possible there should be an audit trail of the sort described, though this may be difficult where standards are set within the EU or though international negotiations.
33. The Government fully accepts the need for transparency in environmental matters. We are enthusiastic supporters of the Aarhus Convention which increases citizens' access to environmental information. A transparent process does not mean, however, that all individuals or stakeholders will have equal opportunity to influence an outcome, because outcomes are constrained by factors such as terms of reference, parliamentary statute, international law and obligations and practicability. Bodies should be clear about both the possibilities and the limitations. However, the Government is convinced of the importance of introducing more openness into the regulatory process both by letting the public see how decisions are reached and also by consulting them about their concerns.
34. Peer review is a valuable part of the scientific process. However, it is not clear that formal peer review, involving specific requests to comment on scientific work, would be appropriate or even possible for bodies setting standards where a broad range of expertise has already been brought together to attempt to reach a consensus view. What is important is that different approaches and viewpoints are represented on the body; that its deliberations and recommendations are open, as discussed above; and that the science on which the standards are based has been peer reviewed.
35. It may also be appropriate for bodies to have lay members. All Department of Health advisory committees have one or more lay members, one of whose roles is to question the process and make sure that the basis of decision-making is clear and takes their concerns into account.
9.13 All environmental standards should be reviewed at pre-set intervals or earlier if significant new evidence emerges or there is an unforeseen change in circumstances.
9.17 A body setting standards should be able to relate its decisions to decisions about other environmental risks within the geographic area it covers. A body setting standards should also have sufficient resources and continuity of existence to ensure that periodic review of standards is carried out, and that there is a fast reaction if new evidence emerges either about a new form of hazard or about the risks associated with a known hazard.
36. The Government accepts that, in many cases, there will be a need to review environmental standards. The objectives set in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for example, are kept under review and will be updated at regular intervals. Standards relating to greenhouse gas emissions will be kept under review as our understanding of the science of climate change continues to develop.
37. The Commission suggest that this should be the case for all standards. The Government considers that such an approach would be unnecessarily burdensome and expensive. For example, it sees no merit in reviewing the decisions to phase out CFCs and HCFCs or to ban the use of lead in petrol. In the unlikely event that new scientific evidence emerged which suggested that these decisions had been unnecessary, the Government would of course review them.
38. As already noted, much of the UK's environmental legislation, and the standards it contains, derive from European Union legislation. Many such measures contain review clauses and provisions for amending technical elements by committee rather than going through the full legislative process. The pace of change, however, is largely determined by the combination of the review provisions in the legislation itself, the resources available to the European Commission, and the pace of negotiations within the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
Published 21 November 2000
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page