Summary
Terms of reference: to evaluate the role and performance of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in order to make recommendations on its future development.
First stage: to examine the Commission's purpose in relation to the Government's continuing need for advice on environmental policy in particular, and sustainable development in general; giving consideration to the distinguishing characteristics of the Commission's work in relation to other advisory bodies, and the extent to which the Commission's work is meeting the identifiable needs of Government in this area.
Second stage: to consider and make recommendations on the framework of the relationship between Government and the Commission; the Commission's strategic planning arrangements, including processes for defining objectives, reviewing performance and auditing impact; internal organisation and working methods, financial management, staffing and the role of the Secretariat; and arrangements relating to the membership of the Commission, including appointments.
Conclusions and recommendations: First Stage (showing chapter references to the full report)
Purpose and role (Chapter 2) There was widespread agreement among the Commission, Government and the wider policy community about the Commission's purpose and role. This was seen as:
- to apply a multi-disciplinary approach to multi-disciplinary problems, providing an integrated consideration of the scientific, technical, economic, social and moral implications of environmental issues;
- to provide authoritative, in-depth analysis of complex environmental problems, framing available knowledge in new ways and providing innovative solutions;
- to take a long term perspective of environmental issues;
- to provide independent, fearless, and non-partisan advice.
There appears to have been little change over time in the Commission's perceived main purpose, although its focus seems to have altered. There has been a shift away from looking at narrowly defined single issues towards topics that span the interests of several different government Departments (integrative studies) and those which develop new cognitive infrastructures to define and tackle environmental problems (philosophical studies). This was welcomed as making best use of the Commission's strengths.
There was uncertainty about some aspects of the Commission's purpose, particularly who should form the Commission's audience. Whilst government and the policy community (Parliament, regulatory bodies, the EU) were seen as legitimate primary and secondary recipients, there was less agreement about whether the Commission should also aim to influence the wider public groups (industry, NGOs, academia) and ultimately the general public. The Commission's own view was that the wider public and the general public are legitimate audiences for some reports, and the Review endorses this.
Achievements (Chapter 3) The majority of consultees including those from government, enforcement agencies, industry, environmental groups and the National Academies regarded the Commission's reports as scientifically authoritative, providing a valuable long term contribution to policy development. This was in spite of variable views on individual reports produced since 1992.
In spite of this exemplary quality, levels of awareness of the Commission's work and its messages in recent reports were surprisingly low, even within government. Whilst creation of a web site and implementation of a dissemination strategy for the 1998 Standards Report were positive steps to remedy this, further work is needed to identify target audiences for reports and new approaches required to reach them.
The Commission has no mechanism for producing rigorous evaluations of its reports, linking back to its original definition of objectives and intended impacts. Whilst acknowledging the difficulties of assessing impact, particularly in the short term, the Review concludes that action is needed to develop evaluation procedures to assess outcome against objectives so that lessons learnt from past studies can be fed into future work, and to provide evidence of the Commission's impacts.
There is no systematic approach to defining objectives/intended impacts and evaluating outcomes of the Commission's other activities (responding to consultation documents/producing ad hoc statements, international liaison work, commenting on the adequacy of research) and this needs to be addressed.
Need for the Commission's functions in a changing environment (Chapter 4) The increasing maturity and complexity of today's environmental agenda was seen as heightening the needs of Government and the policy community for high quality advice and joined-up strategic thinking to assist long term policy development, in line with the objectives of the Modernising Government White Paper.
Alternative arrangements for discharging the Commission's functions (Chapter 5) Alternative arrangements for securing the kind of advice currently provided by the Commission were considered. These included transfer of the Commission's functions to another public sector body, including other environmental advisory bodies, or to a private sector organisation. Such changes did not appear to offer any significant improvement on current arrangements, and could have detrimental consequences.
Interrelationship with other environmental bodies (Chapter 6) Consultees expressed serious concern about the lack of clarity outside government as to the respective roles of the various environmental advisory bodies, and how (if at all) these interrelated. There were calls for government to articulate a clear framework for all bodies advising on environmental issues in order to clarify functions, and for mechanisms to be put in place to improve awareness of each others activities.
To avoid risk of duplicating effort, and to assist transparency, DETR should establish and promulgate widely a clear framework within which each environmental advisory body has a distinctive purpose and function. Formal mechanisms to facilitate linkages between bodies and exchange of ideas at member and secretariat levels should be considered for example a regular forum for Secretaries or occasional conferences.
Conclusions and recommendations: second stage
Corporate Planning and Review (Chapter 7) Some elements of a corporate planning system are already in place or are in the process of being developed, but there is scope for rationalising and simplifying current arrangements to address perceived weaknesses, and to sharpen the focus of the Commission's work.
The Review recommends replacement of current documentation by
- a Corporate Plan defining at strategic level future direction for the next five years, including priorities, intended impacts and goals and indicators;
- a Business Plan setting out more detailed priorities and objectives for the coming year in terms of outcomes rather than processes;
- an Annual Report reviewing performance over the past year including evaluations of studies three years after publication.
Framework of relationship between Government and the Commission (Chapter 8) The Royal Commission is constitutionally independent of government Departments, and its functions relate to the whole of the UK. Funding is provided by the Environmental Protection Strategy Directorate of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which, without prejudice to the Commission's independence, requires reassurance that this allocation of resources can be justified and represents value for money. Respective roles and responsibilities have not been clearly articulated in accessible form, and the documentation that does exist has a number of gaps and parts are out of date.
The Review recommends that roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Commission should be clarified by establishing an agreed hierarchy of documents, which would make transparent the framework within which the Commission operates. Key documents would be
No changes are proposed for the Royal Warrant unless amendment is required for legal reasons to reflect the content of the Framework document.
- the Royal Warrant, which sets out the Commission's remit;
- a Framework Document, setting out the functions and responsibilities of the Department in relation to the Commission and the Commission in relation to the Department.
- the Commission's corporate planning documents as described above, to demonstrate that the costs of the Commission can be justified by the outcomes of its work.
Working Methods (Chapter 9) Over the last two years the Commission has been pro-active in rationalising its working procedures and has introduced significant changes through its "Guidelines for Conduct of Commission Studies". The Review welcomes these, which when fully implemented, should improve transparency and openness, as well as enhancing effectiveness.
Further recommendations are made on:
- scoping of studies, including the need to clarify focus, set timetables, manage external expectations, consider intended impact and identify likely audiences;
- improving the usefulness of written evidence by proactive and retrospective means;
- ensuring the purpose of oral evidence sessions are clear to Commissioners and presenters
- using a raft of strategies to identify and articulate differences in expert views;
- preparing summary chapters of reports which can be given wide circulation within target audiences; exploring partnerships with other bodies to improve dissemination of messages to the wider public
- further improving transparency and openness by providing updates on progress of reports, giving consideration to opening up oral evidence sessions to the public using the approach of the Select Committees
- evaluating reports and Commission activities.
Membership of the Commission (Chapter 10) Appointments procedures were in process of being brought into line with the new OCPA1 guidance. A broad range of expertise within the Commission is recommended, particularly to ensure that the Commission has the capacity to cover the social dimension of environmental issues. No changes are proposed to the current basis of remuneration pending a wider Departmental review later in 1999. Further exploration is proposed as to the practicality of planned overlaps between the arrival of new members and the departure of the old, with the timing of departures coinciding with the ending of a main study. It is recommended that the Secretariat ensure Members have sufficient up to date information about the values and standards with which they are expected to comply.
Commission Secretariat (Chapter 11) The Commission Secretariat is more generously staffed than other environmental advisory bodies, but the Review concludes that the current level of provision can be justified, and considers that a decrease in staffing levels could jeopordise the Commission's ability to produce high quality and timely reports.
Although changes proposed by the Review will affect the way the Secretariat works, there is no evidence at present to justify a staffing increase, as most of the recommendations either reflect changes planned by the Commission, or require refocusing of activities already underway. However, staffing requirements to meet a minority of recommendations (on wider dissemination and feedback on evidence) are difficult to predict, as they will vary with different reports. Improved planning of studies should give the Commission a clearer vision at an early stage of the implications of taking on a topic, so that discussions with DETR about resource needs can be based on clear evidence. Other options for delivering the Secretariat's functions are considered; full contracting out is seen as having serious disbenefits, but the current practice of contracting out specific functions where this is cost effective is endorsed.
The Review recommends development of a system for evaluating the Secretariat's collective performance against aims.
Next Steps We suggest that DETR and the Commission Secretariat should work together to produce an Implementation Strategy setting out how and when they will put in place the recommendations contained in this Review.
1"Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 1999- 2002" , Cabinet Office, May 1999.
Published 19 April 2000 / Updated 11 May 2000
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page