Outcome evaluation Missing links: Connecting science with environmental

policy

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Pāremata

PO Box 10-241, Wellington Aotearoa New Zealand

www.pce.govt.nz

June 2007

This report and other publications by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) are available on the PCE’s website: www.pce.govt.nz.

Investigation Team Dana Moran

Internal reviewer Helen Beaumont Bruce Taylor

Acknowledgements The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and his investigation team would like to thank all those who assisted with the research and preparation of this report.

Editing Pat Martin

Bibliographic reference Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 2007. Outcome evaluation: Missing links: Connecting science with environmental policy. Wellington: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This document may be copied provided that the source is acknowledged. ISBN: 978-1-877274-15-2

2

3

Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................5

2 Methods ..............................................................................................................5

3 Report on and review of progress ....................................................................6 3.1 Overview of progress ..........................................................................................6 3.2 Recommendation 1: Accepted and partly implemented......................................7 3.3 Recommendation 2: Accepted and partly implemented....................................15 3.4 Recommendation 3: Partly accepted and partly implemented ..........................21 3.5 Recommendation 4: Partly accepted and partly implemented ..........................33

4 Discussion of context and themes...................................................................43 4.1 The raised profile of the environment and sustainability ..................................43 4.2 Uptake and influence of Missing links ..............................................................43 4.3 Addressing science capability and funding .......................................................45 4.4 Resourcing differences between regional councils ...........................................46

5 Looking ahead..................................................................................................47

Appendix A: MFE’s core environmental indicators ..................................................49

Glossary ..........................................................................................................................54

References ......................................................................................................................56

Endnotes .........................................................................................................................58

1 Introduction

Missing Links: Connecting science with environmental policy was tabled in parliament in September 2004. The investigation examined ways of forging better links between scientific knowledge, public concerns, and environmental policy making, particularly on issues that are complex and the environmental outcomes uncertain.

The report made four recommendations, one directed at the Minister for the Environment, one directed at the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, and two directed more generally at environmental policy makers.1

This outcome evaluation reports on and discusses the extent to which the recommendations and broad themes in Missing links have been accepted and implemented by the relevant agencies.

The findings of this outcome evaluation should help to identify the legitimacy of the recommendations in Missing links and the report’s ability to effect change towards better science-policy linkages. The findings could also be used to identify further work the PCE could do in this area.

2 Methods

The following methods were used to conduct the outcome evaluation:

• letters to the Minister for the Environment and Minister of Research, Science and Technology asking about progress towards recommendations one and two

• letters to a range of environmental policy-making agencies in central and regional government to ask about progress towards recommendations 3 and 4

• letters to a number of other agencies involved in the science/policy interface asking how they thought the recommendations had been implemented

• some written responses were followed up with telephone calls and meetings

• web-based and database searches of references to Missing links

• review of relevant publications and reports about science/policy linkages and other relevant topics.

The first two recommendations were targeted at specific ministers and are therefore more straightforward to evaluate. The last two recommendations were more generally targeted at environmental policy makers. Because of this a survey approach was used to obtain a representative response.

5

Extracts of the draft outcome evaluation report were sent to staff at the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for comment.

3 Report on and review of progress

3.1 Overview of progress

Recommendation 1: The Minister for the Environment establishes processes whereby changes in the state of New Zealand’s environment are identified and reported on at regular intervals (at least every five years)

Accepted and partly implemented by Minister for the Environment (see Section 3.2)

Recommendation 2: The Minister of Research, Science and Technology establishes a process to undertake regular and systematic reviews of central government environmental agencies and regional councils to assess the effectiveness of the scientific and technological capacities and capabilities for environmental policy-making. The results of such reviews should be published

Accepted and partly implemented by Minister of Research, Science and Technology (see Section 3.3)

Recommendation 3: Environmental policy makers (such as central and local government elected representatives and their advisors) consider developing strategic, long-term, formal alliances with science providers to encourage scientific input throughout the policy cycle – from problem identification through to monitoring and evaluation of policy outcomes

Partly accepted and partly implemented at differing levels by different central and regional government agencies (see Section 3.4)

Recommendation 4: Environmental policy makers explore options to improving accountability and communication links between scientists, policy makers and the public, including the use of ‘boundary organisations’

Partly accepted and partly implemented at differing levels by different central and regional government agencies (See section 3.5)

Feedback and evaluation suggests the recommendations continue to be relevant and legitimate two-and-a-half years after Missing links was published. However, current

6

institutional arrangements have required some flexibility of interpretation in evaluating uptake, particularly recommendations three and four.

The recommendations themselves do not encompass all of the report’s themes and ideas. They are really partial solutions to much broader issues about science-policy links. The actions taken to address the recommendations can be seen as steps towards strengthening those links.

Responses indicate a varied uptake of the report’s recommendations and broader themes, but overall there are positive signs of change. Landcare Research states:

Many of the changes proposed in the report are not going to happen overnight. They require culture change in both the science provider and policy-making organisations. We believe there are positive signs of the proposed changes beginning to happen.2

Considerably more progress will be needed, however, if Missing links is to be fully implemented.

3.2 Recommendation 1: Accepted and partly implemented

The Minister for the Environment establishes processes whereby changes in the state of New Zealand’s environment are identified and reported on at regular intervals (at least every five years).

Additional extracts from Missing links

Only one state of the environment report has been published in New Zealand. This is insufficient to determine whether and to what extent environmental conditions nationwide are changing over time, and what effect, if any, environmental and other policies are having on environmental quality and sustainability.3

Specific issues to consider include undertaking regular state of the environment reporting at the national level to better understand the pressures on the environment, and policy priorities. Managing the environment, like managing the economy, needs to be based on sound information that enables environmental managers to understand what policies and programmes are needed and whether existing ones are working. Without comprehensive, scientifically rigorous and regular monitoring regimes in place, agencies cannot assess the effectiveness of environmental policies or meet international reporting obligations.4

Response from MFE

Former Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs wrote to the PCE following the report’s release. Her letter dated 21 September 2004 supported its discussion of science’s role in environmental policy making. However, she did not fully support recommendation 1:

7

While I agree that environmental indicators and reporting are vital for the assessment of the health of our environment, I note that the current focus of the Ministry’s work is towards facilitating ongoing assessment. I prefer such on-going assessment (for example reporting through partnerships with regional councils for air quality monitoring) to intermittent assessment such as five-yearly State of the Environment reporting.

The PCE responded that the views of PCE and MFE may not be too dissimilar, in that ongoing assessment can provide some of the information to produce trend reports. The PCE also indicated that the recommendation was not calling for a state of the environment (SOE) report of the size and nature of the Ministry’s 1997 report. The intent was that regular ‘update’ reports would indicate changes and trends over time. These would help determine the success or otherwise of current policies and highlight areas needing attention. It would mean piecing together all the information currently gathered by regional councils and other agencies into a single national picture.

More recently, the current Minister for the Environment, Hon David Benson-Pope responded on 10 May 2007 to the PCE’s letter asking for a progress update since 2004. His letter reflected a considerable change from the earlier response, particularly around publishing SOE reports. The measures and actions outlined support, and partly implement recommendation 1.

The letter stated that the recommendation has been met in four key ways:

1 establishment of the Reporting and Review Group within the Ministry

2 development of a national environmental reporting framework, including:

– an annual update and publication of monitoring data for a core set of environmental indicators

– snapshot environmental reports for key Ministry and government environmental programmes

– occasional national state of the environment reports

– policy reviews that track effectiveness and efficiency of key environmental programmes

3 development of a core set of national environmental indicators

4 reporting the core indicators in the latter half of 2007 in the national state of the environment report, Environment New Zealand 2007.

Once the reporting framework has been applied, MFE intends to develop a reporting schedule, which will include of a number of ‘reporting products’. These products will be produced in a range of forms (hard copy, electronic, multi media) to suit different audiences. They will include:

8

• an annual publication of monitoring data for the core set of national indicators

• snapshot environmental reports for key Ministry and government programmes, e.g. climate change

• occasional national SOE reports that interpret environmental trend information

• policy reviews that track effectiveness and efficiency of key environmental programmes.

Reporting will be based on a core set of national environmental indicators finalised in January 2007 (see Appendix 1 for a list of these indicators). This core set will measure high-level outcomes over the long term. Lower-level outcome indicators will measure policy effectiveness over the shorter term.

MFE states that the process of developing indicators has been robust, and included considerable consultation. The work built on previous programmes (from 1996 to 2002 MFE led the government’s national Environmental Performance Indicators Programme), and linked with other indicator programmes. These include Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) work on a set of indicators which report socio-economic pressures on the state of New Zealand’s environment, and more recently the Linked Indicators Project. The recommended set of core indicators parallels the core sets of other countries and is to be OECD compatible.

MFE states that the reporting and review framework is aligned with MFE’s outcomes in their Statement of Intent 2006-09. These are to serve government’s priorities and policy directions on sustainable development. The Ministry indicates that consistent, sound, timely information and review processes are necessary to measure whether outcomes have been achieved.

Evaluation of MFE’s response and uptake of recommendation 1

Prior to the release of Missing links in 2004 various agencies had made some progress and commitments on SOE monitoring and reporting. It is worthwhile commenting on these here to provide context to MFE’s response and work programmes.

In 1993, SNZ published Measuring up: New Zealanders and the environment. The report was SNZ’s “first attempt to present statistics on New Zealand’s physical environment in a framework”.5 Impetus for the report came from joint investigatory work on state-of-environment reporting systems by SNZ and MFE. It covered atmosphere and climate, energy, fauna, fresh water, human settlement and socio-economic activity, land, and the marine environment. In 1997, MFE published The state of New Zealand’s environment 1997. The report looked at environmental management, production and consumption patterns, place and

9

people, and the state of New Zealand’s atmosphere, air, waters, land, and biodiversity. The then Minister for the Environment Simon Upton stated in the foreword that:

…this report is important to us all, not only in telling us where we have been and where we are now, but in helping to chart where we are going. In making choices about the state of our environment we need good information. Without this, we cannot identify our environmental impacts, set realistic targets, assess progress, detect past errors, or objectively weigh economic and environmental values.6

While it contained a huge amount of valuable information on New Zealand’s environment drawn from a wide range of sources, the report acknowledged that the overall result was far from comprehensive.7 Reasons cited for this included a lack of co-ordination of environmental information and resulting difficulties in aggregating information at a national level.8

The 1997 SOE report was the first of its kind by the Ministry and it was intended that there be future reports.9 In January 1996, MFE released a discussion paper on building a framework for a core set of national environmental indicators as part of a new work programme.10 The overall purpose of the Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI) Programme was to “develop and use indicators to measure and report how well we are looking after our environment”.11 One of the Government’s objectives was to “systematically report on the state of New Zealand’s environmental assets”.12 Between 1997 and 2000 MFE released a series of consultation papers proposing indicators for air, fresh water, land, biodiversity, energy, transport, climate change, waste, hazardous substances, and the marine environment.13

In preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002, the Government released a report entitled The Government’s approach to sustainable development. The report stated that:

While we have good information on some aspects of the environment, we do not yet have sufficient information about the environment in all areas where problems are evident; nor do we have sufficient information about the causes of some adverse effects, or about the effectiveness of particular actions to deal with them. This lack of information is a constraint on the design of effective policies.

To meet these goals the Ministry for the Environment is developing and implementing:

- core environmental performance indicators

- a monitoring framework for the core indicators with local authorities

- a full suite of environmental classification systems

- an information management system for environmental performance indicators and related data

- national natural-resource environmental accounts and national environmental sustainability indicators.

10

Most of the actions to develop and report on environmental performance in New Zealand will occur over the next five years and culminate in a series of reports on the state of New Zealand’s environment (including a comprehensive report) by 2007. The environmental health indicators are a linked set of indicators which focus on environmental issues as they pertain to human health. Responsibility for monitoring and implementing the environmental reporting programme lies with the Ministry for the Environment.14

Despite this commitment, and the work already put in, the EPI programme was discontinued in 2002. Part of the reason for this appears to have been the difficulty of identifying indicators that could also be used for policy and decision making, and the ambitious scale of the project. Discontinuing the EPI programme slowed down the development of a national environmental reporting and monitoring framework.

However, since 2002 MFE has run a number of programmes relating to SOE and indicator work:

• in 2003, MFE published Ecological footprints of New Zealand and its regions.15 This is one of the new core indicators

• MFE introduced a National Environmental Standard for Air Quality in October 2004, with amendments in July 2005. This standard requires monitoring of particular air quality indicators. MFE also presents national airshed information on its website

• national environmental classifications have been developed in partnership with other agencies for different parts of the environment. These include land environments (LENZ), marine, river, and land cover databases. These describe and define environments, allowing them to be compared

• in May 2006, MFE published Gentle footprints which presented selected facts about New Zealand’s environment, including some trend information

• in 2003, MFE published A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways: Indicators for recognising and expressing Māori values. This was followed in 2006 by Using the Cultural Health Index: How to assess the health of streams and waterways, which is a guide for assessing the health of streams and waterways from a Maori cultural health perspective

• data gathering work has been undertaken for particular issues, such as the water programme of action and climate change monitoring. Snapshot reports have been prepared of lake water quality, water allocation, and other topics16

• an SOE monitoring section is included on the Quality Planning website to provide best practice advice to councils and other users.

11

Although work programmes contributed to knowledge and dissemination of environmental information, a national state of the environment reporting framework was not completed, and the programmes were fragmented and piecemeal. The lack of co-ordination up to 2004 prompted the recommendation in Missing links.

In 2005 MFE again gave attention to their environmental reporting function, and began embarking on a framework for indicator development. The Ministry’s Reporting and Review Group was established, and in June 2006 the Ministry reported to Cabinet on its plans to publish regular, accessible environmental reporting. A draft set of core indicators was developed by October 2006, and the final set was confirmed in April 2007 (see Appendix 1). These drew on the EPI programme.

Work on this programme is continuing, with an SOE report due at the end of 2007. MFE indicates that, where possible, Environment New Zealand 2007 will report trends since 1997, and it will report more broadly than the core indicators. This national SOE reporting will complement regional and local state of the environment reporting, and is to be done “occasionally”, according to MFE. Reporting on core indicators is to occur annually.

The Minister also referred to other facets of indicator and reporting work, such as snapshots of particular parts of the environment (i.e. water quality) and policy review. This represents a distinct shift since 2004 and, when fully up and running, will implement recommendation 1 in Missing links.

Input from other stakeholders is also important. MFE’s website states:

The Ministry for the Environment works in partnership with other agencies to locate, use and share environmental information, for example, regional and territorial councils, crown research institutes, cross-government agencies.17

Developing processes for sharing information is critical to the success of environmental monitoring and reporting. A number of processes have been developed. The Ministry and all 16 regional councils have signed the Environmental Information Sharing Protocol whereby the Ministry and councils agree to share environmental data. A number of regions have their own environmental information forums, providing a platform for local government agencies to share information. An Environmental Metadata Framework has been developed to ensure consistency of quality and type of data. LINZ is developing a geospatial metadata standard.18 MFE also states that it works with iwi and hapu to develop tools to support Maori environmental values and promote participation by Maori. The Ministry’s stakeholders have key roles to play, and effective collaboration and communication between all relevant agencies and organisations is clearly critical to the success of the national SOE reporting programme.

12

It is important that MFE also provides guidance to local government on what should be monitored and measured, and how, so that monitoring and measurement has a clear purpose and is consistent and useful.

Indicator and environmental reporting work has been carried out by agencies other than MFE. This is particularly the case with sustainable development reporting.

SNZ has had close involvement with MFE on developing indicators, particularly around sustainable development:

• in August 2002, SNZ released Monitoring progress towards a sustainable New Zealand, a report that included a selection of sustainable development indicators

• SNZ has published Natural Resource Accounts for forests, fisheries, energy, water, and minerals, since budget approval was given in 2000

• as part of the Sustainable Development Programme of Action, SNZ embarked on the development of sustainable development indicators through the Linked Indicators Project. This combines socio-economic and environmental indicators. A linked indicator set has been published on SNZ’s website

• SNZ published New Zealand in the OECD in 2006, which gave an overview of a number of social, environmental, and economic indicators to give a picture of where New Zealand sits in relation to other OECD countries

• SNZ, in collaboration with the Canterbury Regional Community Plans Group (CRCPG), has been developing a core set of measures that will enable local authorities to monitor common community outcomes for long term council community plans (LTCCPs) under the Local Government Act.

The Ministry of Social Development has published The Social Report every year since 2001. This report has two environmental indicators – air quality and drinking water quality.

The Ministry of Health published An Indication of New Zealanders Health in 2002 and 2005.

As part of the Growth and Innovation Framework, the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and Treasury published Economic Development Indicators 2005. This updates and expands on the 2003 Growth and Innovation Framework Benchmark Indicators Report.

The Ministry of Transport is developing indicators for the transport sector in order to measure progress towards the goals in the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2002.

13

Unlike central government where environmental reporting is not a statutory requirement, local authorities are legally required to monitor the environment under section 35 of the RMA. They are not, however, legally required to produce SOE reports. Despite this, many or most local government agencies do produce SOE reports for their regions, districts and cities. The detail and scope of these reports depends on capability and resourcing within councils, and there can be considerable variation in the type of information reported and major gaps in data.

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) heralded a new mandate and set of responsibilities for local government, including responsibilities around SOE monitoring and reporting. The principles of the Act require local government to take a sustainable development approach. In doing this, councils must measure progress toward community outcomes outlined in their long term council community plans at least every three years (section 92 of LGA). This is still in its early days, but now that the Act has been in force for nearly five years, its influence is beginning to appear. However, it remains to be seen how effective the LGA will be in local government SOE reporting. Landcare Research commented on the stronger emphasis that local councils are placing on community engagement, and the growing level of understanding and debate of environmental issues since the LGA’s enactment.

Within local government there have been a number of initiatives to integrate and collaborate on reporting. An example of an integrated indicator project is the Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Cities reports that ‘metro’ local governments participate in. This has grown from six cities in 2001 to 12 cities at present. The report is published every two years and covers social, environmental and economic indicators and trends. A report is due out later this year.

There is clearly considerable work going on in the area of state of the environment and sustainable development reporting. However, large gaps remain, and reporting has been piecemeal and lacking in long term focus. The OECD’s Environmental Performance Review of New Zealand published in April 2007 found that environmental indicators and trend data at the national level are poor.

Consistent environmental indicators and trend data that can be aggregated at national level are scarce, and the sole national state of the environment report was published in 1997.

Recommendations…. Expand availability of quantitative indicators and time series data related to environmental quality, assuring policy relevance and public access.19

There is widespread recognition that more consistent, regular reporting of environmental trends at national and local levels is essential to managing New Zealand’s environment. MFE’s current and planned future work, including the SOE report due out at the end of this year, along with the work of other agencies, is therefore very important.

14

In making choices about the use of natural resources we need good information. Without this, we cannot identify our environmental impacts, set realistic targets, assess progress, detect past errors, or objectively weigh economic and environmental values.

The Ministry for the Environment does not have its own environmental monitoring capability, but it does play an important co-ordinating role so that we can compare information from different parts of the country and aggregate it at the national level.20

SOE reporting has suffered from fluctuations in government commitment since 1997. It is essential that momentum continues from now on and political support is retained for national reporting. Regular rather than intermittent reporting at a national level, linked to policy development and evaluation (i.e. the plan, do, monitor, and review policy cycle), is key to making good decisions about the environment.

Looking forward

Inter-agency collaboration is clearly a critical feature of a robust, integrated monitoring and reporting framework. Further formalising the roles and responsibilities of all agencies to expand on the existing protocols established by MFE may be worthwhile.

It may also be effective to formalise the role of national state of the environment reporting to MFE, or another relevant agency. In Australia, five-yearly national state of the environment reporting is a legislative requirement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This ensures continuous budget support, and guarantees consistent, long term reporting.

There may be an element of risk that the legitimacy and objectivity of state of the environment data could be called into question if it is managed within a government agency. Use of independent review panels or committees and/or a separate independent agency could be considered. One possibility is for SNZ to perform this function.

3.3 Recommendation 2: Accepted and partly implemented

The Minister of Research, Science, and Technology establishes a process to undertake regular and systematic reviews of central government environmental agencies and regional councils to assess the effectiveness of the scientific and technological capacities and capabilities for environmental policy-making. The results of such reviews should be published.

Additional extracts from report

To provide further context for the recommendation to evaluate whether it has been met, Missing links states:

15

Specific issues to consider include… reviewing the scientific skills and capacity needed to carry out the sort of environmental research across the scales of space and time that the complex problems of today and tomorrow require. Where appropriate, further studies on the scale of ecosystems should be undertaken and the information fed back into environmental policy reviews”.

Earlier reports have been critical of the scientific and technical research input to government decision making in New Zealand, and issues have been raised about the decline of in-house science and research within central government agencies. This suggests the need to take a closer look at the scientific capabilities within central and local government environmental agencies, particularly with regard to complex science-policy issues. Among the matters to consider are:

– Identifying the range of core scientific skills and capabilities that enable environmental agencies at central and local government to function effectively

– Reviewing from time to time the scientific skills and capabilities within environmental agencies to determine whether they meet the core attributes necessary to ensure credible, salient and legitimate scientific input to environmental policy-making

– Reviewing the effectiveness of consultation between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders.21

Response from MoRST

MoRST indicated that it investigated the science capability of regional councils and relevant government agencies as part of its evaluation of environmental research in 2004. The results were published on MoRST’s website. An evaluation was also undertaken in 1998/99 and similar evaluations are anticipated in the future as part of regular review.

Evaluation of MoRST’s response and uptake of recommendation 2

MoRST published a report entitled Evaluation of the Environmental Output Class in December 2004. This evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of research carried out under output class 14 (OC14). It focused on direction setting, maintenance of capacity, connections with end-users, benefits from environmental research, science and technology (RS&T) investments, and approaches of other OECD countries towards environmental RS&T. This output class supports public good RS&T that enhances environmental understanding and management. The evaluation also covered all other sources of funding (such as other FRST funding areas, local and central government and industry funding).

This evaluation was supported by several external reports. It included three surveys by Brent Cowie of Environmental Management Services (EMS) on the attitudes of local government, central government, and industry, to environmental science funding. The

16

local government survey covered all regional councils and some city and district councils. The central government survey covered natural resource departments, along with the Ministries of Transport, Tourism and Economic Development.

The survey method was to interview (face to face or by telephone) senior managers at these agencies to find out:

• the amount of research each agency does per year

• understanding and views on the overall RS&T system

• setting research priorities and the extent of influence in these priorities

• the transfer of information from science to environmental management

• suggestions for improvement.

The findings of this evaluation were summarised in chapter 6 of the published Evaluation of the Environmental Output Class report and fed into its recommendations. The more detailed survey results formed background papers to the report. The findings were presented in graph and descriptive form under the categories of local government, central government, and industry. The following gives a brief summary of the findings:

• for local government, three councils are well engaged with the science system, with good capacity (ARC, EW, ECan). The rest are variable, but most are not well engaged, and there is considerable variability in spending on RS&T. Most councils contract out around 40-50% of their research. Variability in engagement relates to budget, in-house capacity, and distance to science providers

• for central government, the pattern of departmental engagement with the science system depends whether they are primarily policy oriented, or operational in nature. The more operational, the better engagement. MFish, MAF, DOC, and MOH are well connected. MOT, Ministry of Tourism and LINZ are the least connected. Most agencies buy their own science for use in policy development, rather than using the FRST system.

Based on these findings, recommendations were made for improvement. For example, recommendation 4 of MoRST’s report states:

That MoRST develops a set of actions that will result in regional councils and natural resource departments engaging more effectively with the science system. Areas for further work include:

• Working with the New Zealand Environment Chief Executive’s Forum to identify ways to increase engagement of departments and councils

• Identifying ways to ensure the appropriate tools are developed and maintained

17

• Identifying ways to gain better input from science to policy.22

MoRST has focused predominantly on regional councils to implement this recommendation. This has included initiating the successful Envirolink programme (see recommendation 3 for further discussion).

MoRST’s response indicates acceptance of the recommendation. MoRST’s survey approach is a good means of accessing information about the capability of environmental policy-making agencies, and their views about the science system. The evaluation provided useful information and recommendations to feed into programmes to address capacity gaps and weaknesses. MoRST has clearly given attention to addressing these weaknesses. The survey partly implements recommendation 2.

The survey does not fully implement the original intent of recommendation 2 for a number of reasons. It:

• was undertaken in 2004 so pre-dates Missing links. However MoRST’s evaluation work was being carried out while Missing links was being written so there was some information transfer between these two projects. In addition, MoRST has indicated that they plan to regularly review capacity

• does not address the point made in Missing links about identifying the range of core skills needed by agencies to best utilise science in policy prior to undertaking the survey. This was undertaken by the UK government in their reviews, including the Office of Science and Innovation (OSI) publishing of guidelines for the application of scientific advice in policy making

• is based on a survey approach of self-reported feedback. While this is a good way of obtaining information and perspectives, it does not comprise a comprehensive, independent review. The UK reviews, detailed below, incorporate a more detailed reivew of capacity of individual agencies

• did not assess capabilities for environmental policy making. It focused on science capacity and connection to the science system. There are limitations with implementing this part of the recommendation in full as MoRST’s role does not stretch to assessing the effectiveness of environmental policy. This does not remove the need to review the ability of agencies to deliver quality policy underpinned by robust science

• does not appear to specifically evaluate the ability to deliver complex, systems science for dealing with environmental and sustainability issues. However, the newly published Environment Research Roadmap proposes actions and objectives around this.

18

Addressing these points would more fully implement the recommendation. Benefits would include providing more up-to-date, comprehensive, and independent information for addressing science and environmental policy-making capacity within government agencies. To address these points may require looking beyond MoRST as the only agency with responsibility for fully implementing the recommendation.

Missing links gave the example of the UK’s science reviews as a benchmark of what the MoRST review could entail.23 The UK science reviews are more comprehensive, and are undertaken per department on a rolling basis. They focus on 10 broad areas to assess how effectively government departments:

1 develop a clear, overall science strategy

2 horizon scan - to identify future science-related issues

3 review and harness existing research with a view to identifying gaps and opportunities for future research

4 commission and manage new research

5 ensure the quality and relevance of department sponsored work

6 use research and scientific advice in formulating policy

7 publish results and debate their findings and implications openly

8 share, transfer and manage knowledge

9 have implemented Guidelines 2000 and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees

10 use, maintain and develop scientific expertise (within the department itself and in the scientific community - capacity and capability building).24

The reviews are carried out by the OSI and external consultants. They take around 10 months to complete. Reviews entail analysis of documentary evidence, and interviews with key staff at the department being reviewed, and other external stakeholders.

A Steering Panel oversees the process, and discusses emerging findings from each review at an early stage to check accuracy and validity. A draft report, agreed by the panel, is forwarded to the department-under-review for comment.

The final report, endorsed by the panel, is published on the OSI website. Departments are expected to detail a plan of action on how the report's recommendations are to be taken forward (or justifying their reasons for not doing so).

19

To date, three departments have been reviewed. Further reviews will continue on a rolling basis.

New Zealand is a smaller country with perhaps fewer resources than the UK for such comprehensive reviews, and a less-top down approach to government decision making. However, the principles of review best practice are worthwhile benchmarks, particularly given the variable skills and capacities in central and local government here. There may be potential in New Zealand for expanding the initial broad-based review of environmental science and policy capacity across departments, to a more specific reivew of each department.

It is also worthwhile mentioning FRST’s response to recommendation 4. It refers to their proposed process for reviews of scientific quality. In early 2006 government decided that ‘technical reviews’ of all research programmes within Vote RS&T should be progressively implemented. These reviews were defined as ‘systematic assessment of academic, scientific and technical quality, fit with national priorities, delivery (actual and potential) or outcomes of national benefit and technology transfer’.25

FRST prepared a discussion document entitled “The strategic framework for review”, and a more recent document entitled “Next steps in implementing reviews” dated February 2007. The reviews have the following objectives:

• improving RS&T system performance

• enabling effective investment in RS&T

• assisting management of research and direction setting in research organisations

• building trust in the RS&T system.

The review process aims to benchmark science capabilities against international standards. FRST proposes to undertake reviews over the majority of its investment with research organisations, from programme level review to strategic, ‘domain’ reviews. For example, in 2007 a review of ‘water research’ is planned.26

The proposed FRST review work does not specifically address organisational capacity for environmental policy making. It focuses more on science quality, and effectiveness of science programmes. However, it potentially complements capacity reviews, in that it looks at the effectiveness of actual research programmes and their uptake within government. FRST and MoRST have in the past undertaken programme reviews. The new FRST programme appears more comprehensive and recognises the importance of evaluation and review to inform future RS&T planning and priorities in New Zealand.

20

Looking ahead

It is important that reviews of government capacity for environmental policy making are undertaken regularly (as indicated by MoRST), and that the findings are followed through to address gaps and weaknesses. The reviews could be extended along the UK lines, to a more comprehensive look at individual environmental policy-making agencies’ capabilities. These reviews would rely on more than interview responses, and focus on core skills required for complex, interdisciplinary, and holistic environmental research. This would build on, and complement the review work now being developed by FRST. This would more fully implement recommendation two.

3.4 Recommendation 3: Partly accepted and partly implemented

Environmental policy makers (such as central and local government elected representatives and their advisors) consider developing strategic, long-term, formal alliances with science providers to encourage scientific input throughout the policy cycle – from problem identification through to monitoring and evaluation of policy outcomes.

3.4.1 Response from agencies

Overall feedback

The idea of formal alliances was not accepted by many agencies as it was not considered to align well, or even to be possible, with the competitive model of science contracting. Most agencies have at least informal alliances with a number of science providers, based on the specific skills and knowledge of the provider, agency work programmes, and a long-term working relationship. A number do have formal alliances.

Policy-making agencies seem to have a general view that encouraging scientific input through the policy process is best done through in-house scientific expertise, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and collaborative programmes on particular issues.

Responses indicate that emphasis has been given to improving researcher-end user connections and communication in the past few years, including shifts towards becoming more strategic and long term.

Within this generalised view, responses varied according to:

• whether the agency accepted the intent of the recommendation

• agency’s ‘connection’ to the science system

• agency’s role, structure, and makeup.

The following describes the responses in more detail.

21

Programmes referred to that contribute to recommendation

A number of government programmes were considered to have improved science-policy links, including links between policy agencies and science providers. In particular:

Envirolink launched by MoRST in December 2005 in pilot form, received very positive responses from nearly all agencies contacted. The programme aims to facilitate greater uptake of science by regional councils, and greater connection and engagement by regional councils with the science system and the RS&T sector. It has a total budget of $1.8 million over two years. Initially it was targeted at less well-resourced councils.27

The programme provided small and medium advice grants to access existing scientific expertise and knowledge, and to apply that knowledge to the regions’ environmental issues. Over 100 grants have been approved. The programme also provided for a priority set of resource management tools to be developed that all regional councils can use. This last aspect of funding has not yet been taken up.

However, it has catalysed work by regional councils to determine their science priorities in a collaborative way. A governance group has been set up to prepare a science strategy to inform future research priorities. This programme is widely reported to have resulted in considerably more interaction and connection between science providers and end users, a much higher level of information sharing, and an overall increase in goodwill within and towards the science system.

Outcome based investments (OBI) process is a funding method aimed at giving greater funding stability to research institutions. They agree with FRST on outcomes, and have up to 12 years to achieve their aims instead of competing for funds on a project-by-project basis.

A pilot began on July 1 2004 for land-based ecosystems research.28 Governance groups have formed contractual obligations and many agencies are involved. Independent evaluation in 2005 found that it required a “higher level of collaboration between researchers and potential end users of the research” because of the outcomes focus of the research.29 Various agencies commented that it improved the integration of science and research in a key environmental area.

However, the evaluation also found there was no greater collaboration between research organisations, and that perceived competition increased through the funding method.30 The evaluation specifically referred to Missing links. The OBI process has now been superseded by the stable funding policy work of FRST, including the negotiated investments process, although the ecosystems work is continuing.

Cross-departmental research pool (CDRP) was established in 1997/98 to increase capacity and relationships within and between departments and to support the government’s strategic policy priorities. Although the scheme predated Missing links,

22

responses mentioned projects since 2004. In particular, a project involving MoRST, DOC, and MAF was about “bridging the gap between environmental knowledge and research, and desired environmental outcomes to achieve sustainable land management.” An evaluation of the CDRP in November 2005 found that it was generally successful in improving relationships.31

Research consortia are long-term research contracts and partnerships between government and private companies. Some of these are environmental related. An example is the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortia to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock. This is intended to improve use and uptake of knowledge and to enhance collaborative user-research organisation networks. MFE and MAF commented on its usefulness.

The Sustainable Management Fund and the Sustainable Farming Fund were funds set up to provide community-based resourcing of research and on-the-ground projects and trials. These have been up and running for quite a few years, and continue to receive positive feedback for their ability to transfer information and share best practice amongst users.

Advisory groups: There are many advisory groups and committees who advise on the science related to particular environmental issues, and these were referred to in responses. At central government level, they include Technical Advisory Groups established during Biosecurity incursion response, the Marine Biosecurity advisory group and the Ministerial Advisory Group on the Water Programme of Action. Advisory groups have also been set up by councils to deal with particular resource management issues (e.g. Technical advisory group for the Rotorua Lakes’ protection programme). There are also external reference and guidance groups to provide input to FRST’s portfolios, including their relevance for policy (e.g. the Sustainable Resource Use advisory group). These groups provide links between scientists and policy development.

Regional Councils, science providers, and science-policy links

Links with CRIs and councils – several councils have formal alliances (ARC with Landcare on their biological control programme, EW with AgResearch and Landcare largely for administrative reasons). Most operate on a contract basis per project. Some councils thought alliances didn’t need to be formal and that informal arrangements worked effectively. A number of agencies noted that a key factor for success is the individual personal relationships between council staff and scientists. The majority (with a few exceptions) have ongoing (perhaps not formal) alliances with particular CRIs who provide specialist research to top up in-house science. Most councils gave examples of different CRIs with whom they have a good working relationship. Some agencies made the point that it is important to retain the competitive bidding process.

23

Particular regional councils considered science input throughout the policy cycle was very good (e.g. Environment Waikato, ARC, Taranaki, Tasman). Some councils felt reasonably well connected to the FRST science system, including having input into the OBI process (e.g. ARC). Some did not have much to do with FRST funding at all, and just contract operational research on an ‘as needed’ basis (e.g. GDC).

Variations between regional councils appeared to relate to financial resources, size, and the council’s geographical location. Gisborne, Otago, and WCRC appear to be the least well connected to the science system, and the most likely to contract on a per-project basis.

A number of councils pointed out the benefit of partnership approaches, including partnerships between policy agencies on some issues, between an agency and a number of science providers, and between an agency, the community, and scientists. Examples included:

• special interest groups made up of regional council representatives are a nationally co-ordinated way of accessing information on particular issues between councils, and CRIs are often involved in these32

• multi-party efforts on environmental issues are well used by a number of agencies (e.g. Lake Rotorua protection work, Canterbury Water Resource Science Partnership).33 These help fund expensive research, improve chances of obtaining funds, and incorporate wide ranging input and expertise.

It appears that most councils increasingly emphasise quality scientific information to inform regional plans and policy statements, particularly now that second generation RPS’s are being developed. Examples of using science to inform policy in plan development include:

• Horizons Regional Council: one plan (second generation RPS) – good use of science in problem identification phase of plan development

• Environment Waikato: council has a strong resource information group that provides input to policy development, SOE reporting, and monitoring plan effectiveness

• Tasman District Council: science input to policy is good on the whole. However, there is still a gap between science input to written policy in the resource management plan, and the more applied end of short-term strategy documents.

• West Coast Regional Council: science input, compliance and monitoring informs plan review

24

• Hawkes Bay Regional Council: SOE monitoring, research strategies, and involvement in special interest groups inform council’s work. Science gaps identified from the RPS are directed through the science section at council

• Marlborough District Council: there are many science-policy links associated with the review of RPS

• Environment Bay of Plenty: Tarawera River Management Plan working party, Rotorua lakes protection and restoration action plan (technical advisory group established)

• Taranaki Regional Council: council is investing strongly in science for the 2nd generation RPS. All SOE programmes are linked to policies and implementation methods in the RPS. Policy and plans are authorised by scientists and policy makers

• Environment Southland: 2nd Generation RPS will have much more science input than first RPS. Variations to water plans and policy are based on a strong science framework.

Central government agencies, science providers, and science-policy links

There is considerable variability between agencies, and not all agencies were contacted so these responses are not fully comprehensive. Relationships range from long term, formal alliances, such as the Ministry of Health (MOH) with ESR, through to long term, informal alliances, such as DoC with Landcare Research and NIWA, and MAF with AgResearch. These alliances tend to relate to the specialist skills of the science provider. It does not appear that these relationships have changed significantly since 2004, although some of the public-good work programmes under FRST and central government strategies have stimulated greater connections and collaboration.

See Table 3.1 for a summary of responses.

Agency Response

MFE Regular connections and meetings with most CRIs. MFE Science Team liaises across Ministry and with stakeholders to provide links between science and policy. Connections exist between science providers and particular parts of the Ministry.

MAF Gave examples of programmes leading to interaction with science providers. e.g. CDRP, Research Consortia, OBIs, Technical Advisory Groups for Biosecurity incursion responses, biosecurity science system proposed in the draft Biosecurity Science, Research and Technology

25

Strategy. These have all involved links with particular science providers and other stakeholders, and/or the development of more formal processes for science-policy links.

DoC Well entrenched relationships with a number of providers. These have expanded to fit the competitive model. DoC participated on all OBI programmes.

MOH Long term relationship with ESR, including shared outcomes work, along with other long term relationships with other providers.

ERMA External experts engaged for advice when needed. Expert science group on GM. International and national links with a wide range of scientific experts.

FRST Referred to OBI process, negotiated funding, Envirolink, more emphasis by FRST on researcher, end-user connections.

MoRST Ecosystems research under the OBI process has improved dialogue.

MFish Significant internal capacity to manage the research provision process (20 staff) and long term, constructive relationships (not alliances) with research providers for operational research. Genuine partnerships with science providers for public good FRST research (through OBIs).

Table 3-1: Summary of central government agency responses

Government policy-making agencies often sit on steering groups, advisory committees, and governance groups to input into FRST-related work. Examples include MFE input into the Global processes bidding, and DOC, MAF, and MFish staff on governance groups for Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity, Better Border Security, Defining Biota, and Coasts and Oceans OBIs.

Examples of the use of science to inform central government strategies and work programmes:

• Biosecurity: A draft Biosecurity Science, Research and Technology Strategy was released in November 2006 to ensure effective science input into the goals of the Biosecurity Strategy 2003. This strategy emphasises the need to connect science with end users. For example, Objective 3.2 states “To ensure effective communication between science providers and end-users throughout the research process.”34

• Climate change: MFE is on FRST’s panel for Global Processes research investment. This ensures MFE directs science for policy needs. MFE’s climate

26

change adaptation workstream is also creating links between science and stakeholder needs, and involving all key stakeholders.

• Water: A number of work programmes under the Sustainable Water Programme of Action have closely examined science and policy for water management. Freshwater for the Future: A support document, includes an outcome “building and enhancing partnerships”. Action 1.6 is to “build partnerships with science agencies and providers” to align science research with end users and to improve information transfer. MFE has been working with councils to identify their science needs.35

• Land use: Catchments Land Use and Environmental Sustainability is a project being sponsored by MAF Policy involving a team of scientists, with input from other agencies. A model is being developed to predict cumulative effects of multiple nutrient and sediment inputs at the catchment scale.

General comments from agencies

• Several councils and central government agencies commented that ideally it is better to have in-house science capacity than to contract science for operational research. Some agencies thought their in-house capacity was high, with good connections to the policy process. In particular, a number of councils said state of the environment monitoring feeds well into the policy process. There appears to have been a move towards developing greater levels of in-house capacity to build better links between science and policy, and only contracting for specialist science or technical skills. Landcare Research sees this trend as a threat to better relationships between government agencies and CRIs as it increases competition.

• Several points were made about the difference between operational research and public good research. Operations research is naturally driven by the competitive model of contracting. However, public good research is beginning to foster stronger and more strategic long term alliances.

• This recommendation does not cover relationships between policy agencies and FRST, which is equally important. Without having influence over the broader research directions taken by government, policy agencies miss out on the benefits of this research.

• Some agencies stressed the importance of retaining the competitive process for science funding to avoid a monopoly situation. Often this is difficult given the small pool of scientists in New Zealand, meaning ownership of science knowledge is in the hands of a few.

27

• For some councils, tender processes for obtaining research differ depending on the scale and type of work. For example, there may be short, fully open tenders for some projects, and some longer term contracts where only a few providers are included in the tender process.

• Science is a business so it is difficult to have proper alliances between different agencies. However, there is a limited pool of scientists, so when used often, relationships are formed with some providers offering the only expert knowledge in the field.

• Feedback from some CRIs and other agencies suggests that, since the release of Missing links, the way science informs the policy-making process has not changed a great deal. However, there have generally been improvements in collaboration on particular environmental issues and the operation of the science system has matured.

3.4.2 Evaluation of response and uptake of recommendation 3

Missing links made the recommendation because it identified that there should be a two-way communication process in the development of research priorities and policy settings, from the definition of the problem through to the evaluation of policy effectiveness. The restructuring of the 1980s and 90s has meant many agencies contract science externally, and there is a danger of agencies receiving snapshots of science rather than a full scientific understanding in issues of developing fields of science. When communication breaks down this can mean science does not get used effectively in the policy process, leading to poor policy recommendations and poor environmental outcomes.

The recommendation still appears to be relevant today. It is possible that formal alliances to create better links between science providers and policy makers is a little rigid, particularly given the constraints of the current competitive model. It is also only one way of improving communication links. The issue to be addressed is much broader, and the solutions more diverse than formal alliances between policy makers and science providers.

The following evaluates uptake by breaking the recommendation into smaller parts based on the concepts referred to.

Strategic: There appears to have been a move towards creating more effective long term planning of research needs by agencies, and some in a collaborative way. This includes the preparation of science strategies, shared outcomes processes, regional council science priorities, governance and advisory groups, OBI process, and negotiated

28

investments. Public good programmes run through FRST have in particular focused effort in this area.

Long term: Most policy-making agencies have long term alliances with some providers, based on specialist skills and knowledge. Some of these alliances are created through personal relationships and trust built up over time. MoRST and FRST attention to developing longer term research programmes has also resulted in greater long term focus. However, high staff turnover in some agencies continues to retrict long term relationships.

Formal: Most agencies do not have formal alliances with providers given the competitive science system. There are exceptions though.

As well as recognising relationships with science providers, responses indicate a greater weight given to strengthening in-house capacity, particularly on core operational work, and particularly by regional councils. Some agencies have set up resource information groups, or science groups within their organisations. This reduces the need for strategic alliances with CRIs except on specialist work, or broader public good programmes. This could be seen as being at odds with the recommendation. There may be the danger with in-house science of losing the professional, independent distance between policy and science. However, it is also potentially improving links between scientific information and its incorporation into policy, and can complement links with science providers in that in-house capacity enables better engagement with providers.

Many agencies commented on the positive outcomes of collaborative approaches such as multi stakeholder groups on particular environmental issues, partnerships between policy agencies, and cross-cutting work programmes. These allow an inclusive, holistic way of approaching a policy problem, and stress the importance of strong relationships across many agency and stakeholder groups.

On the whole, despite some continuing issues, it appears that relationships between policy makers and science providers are becoming more robust, strategic and long term, and the level of collaboration and communication across and between agencies and about environmental issues, is deepening. However, the competitive model, along with capacity and resourcing issues, continues to restrict this.

The next way of assessing the recommendation’s uptake is to break down the components of policy process and their level of science input.

Problem identification: It is difficult to form an overall view of the level of connection of science to problem identification. However, comments from councils indicate greater use of science at the start of plan development. The use of technical advisory groups and partnerships also contributes to this. Issues remain with who sets the research question, and the responses indicate that there is still a disconnect between the problem identification part of the policy process, and the setting of research priorities and pieces

29

of research within the science system. The recently released Environment Research Roadmap will help to address this.

Policy formulation: It appears that where there is greater in-house science capacity, science input to forming policy is probably stronger. There are examples, however, of scientific evidence not being used even when it is clear that a policy response is needed. This is as much to do with political leaning and commitment as poor science/policy links. Greater attention is being paid to policy formulation for broad, strategic environmental issues, including at the national level, and ensuring science input to this. Examples are the recently released draft Biosecurity Research, Science and Technology Strategy, and MoRST’s Environment Research Roadmap.

Monitoring: Greater emphasis is being placed on SOE monitoring to inform plan and policy development, particularly within regional councils. MFE has also development a reporting and review framework (see Rec 1). New Zealand’s record of environmental monitoring still requires much improvement, as OECD’s report highlighted. Resourcing, commitment, and capacity appear to be the major barriers.

Evaluation: Evaluation of policy effectiveness has historically been an area of poor performance. MFE’s recent work programme around policy review using indicators and reporting is a step in the right direction. It appears regional councils are using monitoring information to evaluate effectiveness of RPS policy when developing second generation RPSs. It is likely that effective use of science to evaluate policy effectiveness is far from optimal.

Missing links emphasised the importance of policy-science interactions right through the policy process from problem identification to evaluation. The report called this “sustained interactivity”. A tentative conclusion can be drawn that while science input into some stages of the policy process by some agencies may be improving, it is unlikely that ‘sustained interactivity’ is being achieved. This is particularly the case in the policy formulation and evaluation stages of the cycle, and in agencies with less science capacity.

Some of the programmes initiated by MoRST and FRST since Missing links was published have clearly enabled a greater deal of interaction, collaboration, and teamwork between policy makers and scientists. This is evidence of the growing attention to building these links. MoRST’s 2005/06 Annual Plan includes an outcome area specifically focused on dissemination of research.36 Overall the programmes have delivered positive connections between researchers and end users. The Envirolink programme is arguably the most successful and relevant. It represents a distinct shift in focus since 2004. A number of agencies also favourably referred to the OBI process in its ability to bring stakeholders and experts together to work towards a common, long term objective.

30

The gap between operational science and research and its use in policy making appears to be reducing, as evidenced by improved SOE monitoring to inform plan development at the regional level. A connection between more cutting-edge science and future-based science and policy development appears to still be lacking (i.e. effective horizon scanning). This is evidenced by some regional councils lack of connection with the FRST system. This may be limiting the use of inter-disciplinary research to answer the complex environmental and sustainability questions of today. If regional councils and other agencies ‘stick to their knitting’ and do not engage with new knowledge, there is a danger that decision making will not improve rapidly enough to respond to new pressures. This makes programmes like Envirolink even more important.

Missing links emphasised the benefit and importance of integrative science. This crosses knowledge, academic, information, and spatial boundaries. It is helpful in environmental debates where ‘the facts are typically uncertain, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent’. The responses do not give much attention to this part of the report, although the use of advisory groups, multi-stakeholder parties, and research consortia shows the use of the extended peer community concept. The Ministry of Health mentioned the dioxin issue and the difficulties surrounding public perceptions and communication of scientific findings. They also mentioned work by WHO to build a framework for developing policy in the absence of scientific certainty. These examples reflect an understanding of the complexities and interactions between science, policy, and the public where the risks are not completely clear and the information is not perfect. It is unclear whether the understanding within the policy community about these complexities has improved significantly since 2004.

A number of strategy and policy documents have been reviewed since 2004. These reviews, which are not particularly positive, also give an idea of how effectively science is being used in policy:

• the review of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) found poor links between monitoring and policies37

• the review of the Biodiversity strategy found there to be poor monitoring of biodiversity38

• the recent OECD review of New Zealand’s environmental performance found a lack of indicators to determine trends in environmental quality, and that this should be remedied.39

It is clear that there are still issues relating to the science-policy interface, and to linkages between science providers and policy makers. This is particularly evident for:

• councils that are small, under-resourced, and distant from science providers

• policy-making agencies that do not participate in FRST’s funding rounds

31

• complex, systems issues that cross many environmental areas and agencies

• translating CRI and university research into useful information to inform the policy process.

ESR commented on the continuing barriers to meeting recommendation 3, including:

• the lack of understanding of the policy world by science organisations hinders shared understanding

• financial incentive or disincentive plays a significant role in facilitating, or not, the science-policy relationship. CDRP and Envirolink are positive examples. Competitive contracting to establish science budgets is a negative example

• the role of framing questions for research has largely been left with science organisations. This usually contains the question within a discipline.

ESR suggests a number of improvements:

• policy staff give talks to science staff about working in a policy agency (and vice versa)

• have explicit roles within both organisations to facilitate shared understanding and functional relationships

• increase Envirolink and CDRP funding

• establish new processes and frameworks for interdisciplinary and cross-agency working so that the science-policy interface frames the questions for investigations

• extend the outcomes hierarchy framework to one that recognises and builds on the interconnectedness and cross-government character of environmental issues.

Overall there appears to have been progress in improving the links between policy makers and science providers, and between scientific information and the policy process. However, there still appears to be weaknesses in the translation of scientific information into policy. As is the case in the UK, it may be useful to consider the benefits of agencies having a chief science advisor so that policy agencies can interpret results of research, define and scope research, set overall research priorities, and act as intermediaries between providers and policy analysts and politicians. RSNZ has made comments to this effect.

This recommendation sits within the much wider science-policy environment and its uptake is influenced by many external factors. It is part of the wider picture of how agencies involved in the environmental area communicate, interact, and function to ensure good environmental outcomes. At the high level, the science system, directed by

32

MoRST and implemented by FRST, must ensure relevant and timely science of high quality to meet government’s priorities. It is not only the interactions between science providers and policy makers that should be improved. Better links between all science-policy stakeholders are called for. These include the links between science providers, policy makers, FRST, MoRST, and other public stakeholders. The loss of capacity in the environmental research area means that even if links do improve, there will still be gaps and a lack of scientific information to inform policy if funding is not improved.

Looking ahead

Envirolink has implemented the intent of Missing links and has been a very positive initiative, resulting in greatly improved links between regional councils and science providers. The PCE would like to see this programme continue. It could be expanded to include funds for new research (rather than just using existing science), to develop more tools for regional councils to use, and to set strategy for regions. The focus on the smaller, less well-resourced councils is important and should be continued.

Long term, collaborative work has clearly been positive for improving links between agencies on public good science. FRST’s negotiated investments and the CDRP are programmes that ensure long term, strategic alliances.

It is perhaps time to look at the issue from the policy side rather than the science side, and consider how integrative science and sustained interactivity can be improved through the policy cycle. Missing links included discussion on the ‘principles for good governance’: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence.40 Policy agencies should reflect on the extent to which these principles are being met.

3.5 Recommendation 4: Partly accepted and partly implemented

Environmental policy makers explore options for improving accountability and communication links between scientists, policy makers and the public, including the use of ‘boundary organisations’.

3.5.1 Response

Overall feedback

The feedback indicates a reasonably broad and varied interpretation of what a boundary organisation might be and how it might operate. Most gave one or more examples of potential boundary organisations. Some questioned the relevance of a separate organisation to improve accountability and communication, preferring the approach of boundary functions operating within existing organisations. Several examples were given of programmes that have improved communication, such as Envirolink. Several

33

agencies commented on the importance of independent review to assess quality of science and policy. It also appears that little focus has been placed on improving communication between scientists and the public.

Within this generalised view, a variety of responses were received from the agencies surveyed. This variation relates to:

• whether the agency accepted and understood the intent of the recommendation

• how the meaning of boundary organisation was interpreted.

Examples of government programmes contributing to recommendation 4

See recommendation 3 for further description of these programmes.

• Envirolink: improves communication between scientists and council policy makers through direct provision of advice, and creation of new relationships

• OBI and negotiated investments: improves communication and accountability between policy makers and scientists through shared long term outcomes, and greater levels of collaboration between multiple agencies and providers

• Cross Departmental Research Pool (CDRP): improves communication and clarification of key research priorities across government agencies

• Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium: improves collaboration between government, industry and scientists

• Environment Research Roadmap: seeks to communicate a long term, strategic vision for environmental research useable by all stakeholders

• Climate Adaptation work: this work, led by MFE, has involved stakeholder identification, steering groups, and projects based on forging strong connections between research and end users

• Many regional based programmes: e.g. Rotorua Lakes Water Quality symposia, integrated catchment management programmes, Protecting Lake Taupo work, dialogue about water in Canterbury, Auckland’s START framework.

Improving accountability

Environment Bay of Plenty and Taranaki Regional Council referred to the growing use of peer review for internal reports and scientific findings. Technical and advisory committees in both central and local government are also being used to improve accountability and inform processes for dealing with environmental issues. For example, the Science Advisory Committee, advisory committees on FRST research

34

portfolios (Global processes), the Indigenous Forestry Advisory Group (run by MAF), Marine Biosecurity Research Advisory Group, and the Rotorua Lakes Technical Advisory Group.

Ministry of Fisheries consider their current model provides for significant accountability. The research planning process managed by the Fisheries Science Group is comprehensive and transparent, and invites input from stakeholders and providers. The plenary process also provides accountability for reviewing assessment of results, and for inviting the views of stakeholders, including international expertise.

FRST is currently developing more robust and comprehensive review processes to assess the quality and legitimacy of research and project goals within the public good science system, with the following objectives:

• improving RS&T performance

• enabling effective investment in RS&T

• assisting management of research and direction setting in research organisations: the objectives include improvement in outcome delivery, technology transfer, and rebuilding internal review culture

• building trust in the RS&T system: including focusing on needs and outcomes.

The review process aims to benchmark science capabilities against international standards. FRST proposes to review the majority of its investment with research organisations, from programme-level review to strategic, ‘domain’ reviews. For example, in 2007 a review of ‘water research’ is planned.41

If carried out effectively, these will improve the accountability and ultimately the quality of science funded through FRST. While the review’s purpose may not be to improve links between science and policy, its objectives include the ability of the research to meet end-user needs.

Professor Ian Spellerberg, Professor of Nature Conservation, Director of Isaac Centre for Nature Conservation at Lincoln University, made the comment that professional standards in the policy community, including codes of ethics and certification through professional associations, are important for ensuring high standards of practice and accountability.

Improving communication links

Within the science community and science system some effort has been put into improving communication of science to policy makers and the public. For example, RSNZ offers communication courses for scientists. ARC referred to the Science Communicators Association of New Zealand established in mid 2004, which holds an

35

annual conference. MoRST set up the dialogue fund in 2002, which produced a number of reports, including a final assessment in 2005 on ways to improve dialogue between science and the public.42 This appears to have lost momentum more recently. Quite a number of programmes funded through MoRST and FRST have had a key objective of improving links between scientists and policy makers (e.g. OBI, CDRP, Envirolink). Some CRIs, particularly Landcare Research, emphasise participatory-based research focused on involving the public and end users.

MFE holds meetings with NGOs and other groups to allow for dialogue on environmental issues. MAF runs workshops and seminars on specific science-policy issues such as nitrogen and the environment, and willow and poplar use in erosion control.

A number of forums have been set up to improve communication between regional government agencies and scientists. These help with information sharing. Examples include special interest groups who meet to discuss knowledge about particular environmental issues, and the Regional Councils’ Chief Executive Officers Forum.

Quite a number of agencies referred to the setting up of partnerships between councils, scientists and the public to deal with particular environmental issues or areas. Landcare Research stated that the Local Government Act has placed greater emphasis on dialogue and communication, and this is starting to show in dealing with environmental issues. Most regional councils indicated reasonably good links with the public in resolving environmental issues, including the use of local resource care groups and other environmental advocates, advisory groups incorporating members from the public, and technical groups including scientists.

FRST are developing principles for public access to science findings. This is driven out of concerns over barriers to information from publicly-funded research. A public consultation paper is to be released soon.

Ministry of Health was the only agency which acknowledged they have a way to go in dealing with differences in perception and understanding between scientists, the public and policy makers. They referred to the dioxin issue in Taranaki as an example of where there could be improvements.

RSNZ CEO Steve Thompson believes there is inadequate connection between science, the science system and the public. An agency to host and convene stakeholder dialogues is needed, he believes. ESR thinks communication between scientists and policy makers has improved, but that communication between both policy makers and scientists and the public remains problematic.

36

Boundary organisations

The following agencies (and work programmes) were provided as examples of boundary organisations or organisations that perform boundary functions. A number after indicates more than one agency provided the example.

Government agency or research provider

• Five councils consider themselves as boundary organisations

• Landcare Research, in particular its sustainability and society unit. This unit is working on sustainability futures, integrated catchment management (ICM), collaborative learning, carbon zero, and built environment research (LIUDD). All of these programmes perform boundary functions

• Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ)

• Research consultancies and science providers generally

• DoC internal process: the science and technical communications programme initiated in 2003 internalised the boundary function as it aimed to improve links between science and policy. Unfortunately the programme has been discontinued.

Community advocacy groups

• Community groups: Taupo Lakes Care, lakes and waterways groups, Taupo-nui-a-tia, and other local resource care groups (4)

• Marlborough Regional Development Trust

• SANZ (Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand): a network of practitioners with a goal of driving New Zealand towards long term environmental sustainability43

• Landcare Trust (3).

Forums, groups and programmes

• Regional Councils’ Chief Executives Forum

• Special interest groups under the Resource Managers’ Group

• Biodiversity forums

• ICM programme (Tasman)

• Environment Waikato’s Choosing Regional Futures programme: a FRST-funded project that aims to look at regional community outcomes and using scenarios to guide the development of models for integrated planning and decision-making44

37

• ARC – START (sustaining the Auckland region together): a collaborative project aiming to develop a framework of high-level sustainability principles and goals to help inform regional decision-making.

• Environment Canterbury – water conversations provide governance mechanisms to perform boundary functions

• SLUI (Sustainable Land Use Initiative): a community driven initiative aimed at improving the resilience of land use in the Manawatu region; and SLURI (Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative): a national centre for maintaining and managing New Zealand’s soils

• Beacon Pathway: a research consortium working to find affordable and attractive ways to make New Zealand homes more sustainable45

• Maori National Network: a formal network established to share information and advice on issues relevant to Maori regarding the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

Some agencies are setting up systems for better participation and performance of boundary functions. For example, ERMA have established the Maori National Network to keep interested iwi resource managers informed about ERMA activities. Scientists at Landcare Research are setting up frameworks for social networks/research. WHO are developing a framework for developing health policy in the absence of scientific certainty.

Otago Regional Council did not think any organisations fit the description in the report. Most are advocacy groups. This is a different view from other agencies who gave examples.

Some agencies did not consider boundary organisation a very useful term. Some thought it should relate to function rather than a separate organisation; that it is difficult to know what it means; and that it can be misinterpreted. Landcare Trust thought the idea more acceptable when the actual functions were explained rather than using the term ‘boundary organisation’.

Other comments

• accountability for science is only one aspect of broader community accountability that councils hold through relationships

• the recommendation doesn’t focus on effectiveness, which would be more useful

• cutting-edge science is not the only thing important to policy development

38

• the sort of thinking in Missing links around the idea of ‘boundary organisation’ is still on the fringes, even internationally

• Landcare Trust said they have lost a number of FRST bids for excellent research relating to technology transfer, because of a lack of funding for environmental research. They do not consider there is enough emphasis placed on dissemination of findings, and that only the basics are done: web, newsletters, occasional workshops, and technical reports

• Landcare Trust and Landcare Research have focused on participatory action research which creates greater connections between researchers and end users.

3.5.2 Evaluation of responses and uptake of recommendation 4

PCE made this recommendation for a number of reasons. Environmental policy issues are often complex as they can be multi-dimensional, multi-scale, and multi-disciplinary. The stakes can also be high, resulting in debate, tension, risk and uncertainty.

It is therefore important to incorporate all forms of knowledge, and to engage all parties in a robust and transparent process of dialogue and solution building. This can often involve a learning-by-doing approach of adaptive management. Many parties and interests emerge in most environmental issues. It is therefore important to ensure those running the process do not have vested interests, and that there is adequate mediation, translation of knowledge, and review. A boundary organisation, sitting at the edge between science, policy and the public could perform these functions, including:

• mediation and translation of information between science and policy

• neutral forums for dialogue and decision making

• development of trust

• encouraging adaptive management

• negotiations of the science/policy boundary

The term boundary organisation leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. This is evident from the responses. These tended to either focus on one or two specific functions that a boundary organisation might carry out, and/or give an example of an organisation that might perform some of the functions, but that may also have some roles and responsibilities that don’t fit very well with the term. The most enthusiastic about the idea are science providers. These differing interpretations are not a weakness of the responses. The term does not necessarily need to be interpreted in a ‘pure’ way. The variation in responses perhaps points to the difficulty of using the term ‘boundary organisation’ which is not widely known or understood.

39

It is interesting that staff from five regional councils consider they act as a boundary organisation. Regional councils certainly could, and do, carry out a number of boundary functions. These include translating scientific information to the public and vice versa, and providing forums for information exchange and dialogue. However, regional councils are political entities with a science function. Unless a specific unit or function is set up within council to perform boundary functions, these may not be carried out effectively, comprehensively, or impartially enough. This idea could be explored in more detail, given the place of regional councils between local and central government, and their role in integrated resource management.

Some agencies gave particular work programmes and forums as examples of boundary organisations, such as the OBI process, the Canterbury Water conversations, and Beacon Pathway. This is an interesting application of the idea. These work programmes can perform a number of functions:

• allow for exchange of ideas and information

• co-ordinate stakeholder groups, scientists and policy makers

• provide independent advice

• communicate research needs between policy makers and scientists

• provide a neutral ‘space’ of interagency collaboration.

These sorts of forums may not be new, but sustainability-related forums and programmes are on the increase. In addition, participatory research and collaboration between research agencies and users is increasing. There is evidence of scientists becoming more directly involved in policy development. Multi-stakeholder groups informing decision-making appeared to be more widespread.

The agencies probably the closest to performing as boundary organisations now are essentially those referred to in Missing links: RSNZ and Landcare Trust. Landcare Research is also taking on some of the functions in their work.

Councils tended to emphasise community involvement in decision-making more than central government agencies. This is generally expected given local authorities have more direct ties with their communities. The LGA requirements provide further impetus for councils and communities to become partners in decision making. Despite this, difficulties around engaging with the public continue, and evolving to a more active participation model of governance remains a long way off.

Central government has run a number of programmes to improve science understanding and communication of science to the public.46 MoRST’s Annual Plan 2005/06 included an outcome area of “Greater awareness, understanding and confidence in RS&T within

40

our various stakeholder communities, including the general public”. RSNZ performs some of this function, but indicated that more could be done.

The handling of the dioxin issue in Taranaki points to a continuing disconnect between science and the public. The GM issue also reveals a large gap between scientific understanding and public values and beliefs. It appears that an issue of science/public communication remains at two levels. First is the overall public view of science, and its value to society in answering complex environmental problems in a trustworthy way. Second is the means by which individual scientists and science providers engage with the community on particular issues. There is still room for improvement in both areas. The climate change debate shows the value of getting climate science out of ‘science speak’ and into readily digestible, trusted information for public consumption. The challenge is now translating the broader public consensus on climate science into meaningful policies and actions.

Some responses did indicate the value placed on accountability and transparency in decision making. Programmes and actions since 2004 as outlined above reveal positive progress in this area. In particular, FRST’s review proposals, auditing of policy and scientific findings, and use of independent technical and advisory groups. Despite this, decisions are still made that contradict or ignore robust scientific advice on environmental issues. An example is the lack of action on climate change policy. The difficulty lies in the democratic system where the risks, consequences, and ethical basis of these decisions may not be matters strongly contested by the voting majority.

One boundary organisation function is to incorporate interdisciplinary and integrative science into decision making. There are signs of this occurring. For example, MFE have incorporated Maori knowledge in developing indicators for state-of-the-environment reporting. MoRST have run a Matauranga Maori research programme. Landcare Research have an interdisciplinary team working on different research projects. Their LIUDD (low impact urban design and development) project combines many disciplines, along with action-based research. There are some great examples of research programmes combining many stakeholders and forms of knowledge, such as the Waikato Choosing Regional Futures and the START programme. The CDRP and OBI programmes provide for information and knowledge swapping between agencies with differing responsibilities for the environment. These are positive initiatives.

Evidence is still lacking of linkage and analysis across different policy areas that impact on sustainability, and of a widespread use of integrative science. MoRST’s Environment Research Roadmap holds some promise in this regard. One of its themes is “systems understanding and integration”. This is to ensure more effective integration across multiple disciplines. The Roadmap also refers to adaptive management, increased use of predictive science, and enhancing communication tools, such as visualisation, for improving transfer and uptake of science to environmental managers. Its strategic

41

approach to environmental research is a positive move that will help to communicate research needs, and help stakeholders work towards a common goal.

Professor Tim O’Riordon of the UK Sustainable Development Commission presented a paper at the New Zealand Society for Sustainability Engineering and Science conference in February 2007. He expressed similar ideas and themes as in Missing links, and stated that for sustainability science to work it will need to:

1 Be underpinned by an ecological democracy rather than an electoral democracy so that the rights and needs of future generations are included

2 Define the natural limits of ecosystems and the costs of using these ecosystem services. If that is not possible, use the precautionary principle

3 Tell convincing stories of plausible future options and states, and work with the public to develop the best pathways

4 Help shape new forms of organisation to handle the transition to sustainability, sometimes called ‘boundary organisations’. To act on the margins of familiarity, push people into new alliances, create fresh thinking.47

There is very little literature around the concept of boundary organisation. It is still on the fringes of the sustainability debate.48 A literature and web-based search unearthed very little reference to it other than in pure science circles. However, this paper and some of the responses to this outcome evaluation show that the ideas in Missing links continue to be relevant, and that the boundary organisation concept may yet emerge from the fringes to more mainstream thought.

Overall there has been some positive progress and initiatives towards improving communication and accountability between scientists, policy makers and the public, but progress to date is not enough to form a fully robust or holistic approach. Policy makers within agencies have made an effort to apply some boundary functions, and policy circles accepted the need for these functions.

Looking ahead

Regional councils clearly have a critical role to play in integrated environmental management. The ideas around their role in performing boundary functions could be usefully explored in more depth, including the possibilities of setting up particular sections or roles within councils for that purpose.

Collaborative programmes and multi-stakeholder groups are a positive way of ensuring active participation, and a well-rounded debate on resolving environmental issues. Their ability to perform boundary functions could be explicitly recognised and enhanced.

42

It appears that more could be done to enhance communication between scientists and the public, and include scientists more in the consultative phase of policy development.

Accountability appears to be improving in some areas. However, the policy decision end requires greater transparency and accountability. There would be value in referring back to the principles for good governance in Missing links, and exploring the use of boundary organisations, or further use of advisory groups for looking across decisions that affect sustainability. Tim O’Riordon’s concept of an ecological democracy shaping decisions is key to this.

The Environment Research Roadmap is a positive step. The PCE looks forward to its progress and further development.

4 Discussion of context and themes

4.1 The raised profile of the environment and sustainability

Since 2004 there has been a sea change of public opinion around climate change and sustainability. This is influencing political priorities, evidenced by Helen Clark’s speech to Parliament in February this year where she referred to sustainability 23 times. Internationally, New Zealand is facing increasing pressure to live up to its clean, green image.

While not enough actual concrete action is taking place at this stage to back up this changing sentiment, the future for a greater level of attention to environmental issues is promising.

Realisation is growing of the importance of good information to inform environmental decision making, the large gaps in this information in New Zealand, and the need to address these urgently. The OECD’s assessment of New Zealand’s environmental performance reinforced this. It urged New Zealand to “reinforce the commitment to outcome-oriented environmental policies, ensuring that information and data needed to assess policy effectiveness and efficiency are regularly collected and analysed.”49

This changing tide of sentiment bodes well for effective environmental policy making underpinned by robust science, and accepted by the community.

4.2 Uptake and influence of Missing links

There are signs of Missing links’ influence in many parts of the science and policy system. It has been referred to in a number of reports, including several commissioned by FRST and MoRST, 50 and appears to have influenced the development of some programmes (such as Envirolink). A number of agencies responding to this outcome

43

evaluation praised the report. For example, ERMA stated: “The Missing links report has provided valuable context and impetus for this evolution”. MOH, DOC, and Landcare Research all commented positively on it. Nearly 2000 hard copy reports have been requested since publication. This does not take into account the number of online requests, which is generally greater than the hard copy number. Like many of PCE’s reports, Missing links influence appears to be dispersed, in the background, but continuing.

Landcare Research gave some reasons for why Missing links has not had the uptake it would have hoped:

• the report and its messages were undersold following release. This included a lack of follow up with key stakeholders and CEOs, and not enough argument in the report for boundary organisations

• turnover in government departments has been high, and there has been a fast changing policy environment since the report’s release. Both of these mean less time and capacity for incorporating new thinking around science

• the trend towards building up in-house capacity within government departments is at odds with developing stronger relationships with science providers

• the competitive environment of science funding is hindering the ability for cooperation, communication and innovation.

The ideas in Missing links could be described as stretching. To implement them in full would require significant changes from business as usual, as the following themes illustrate:

• the need for integrative (or post normal) science to deal with complex sustainability problems

• best practice for applying precaution, transparency, trust, and quality assurance to the science-policy process

• the use of boundary organisations to “manage boundaries between knowledge and actions in ways that enhance credibility, salience and legitimacy of the information they produce”.51

There is evidence of shifts towards more strategic, long term research, greater emphasis on strong relationships and inter-connections between agencies, and more focus on good links between science and policy. However, there is a long way to go to stretch to the level suggested in Missing links.

44

The PCE realises the challenges and difficulties agencies face in developing effective policy and making sure the process is robust. In essence, Missing links could be seen as a benchmark for measuring progress. Landcare Research states:

We believe there are positive signs of the proposed changes beginning to happen. These early signs reflect a number of drivers. The Missing links report itself may have played a small role in fuelling these drivers, but its importance has been substantial in articulating the change that needs to occur and as a reference document for those at the leading edge of change.

4.3 Addressing science capability and funding

Missing links and its recommendations sit within wider issues around the functionality and strength of the RS&T system in New Zealand. Two aspects warrant mention here:

1 Looking back: The implications of the 1980s’ and 90s’ changes to New Zealand’s science system towards a more competitive model, and the loss of capacity and funding for environmental research over the last 15 to 20 years.

2 Looking forward: The potential of programmes and commitments for improving the science system in New Zealand, including environmental research.

In essence this means that, looking back, arrangements and decisions have limited the ability to implement the recommendations in Missing links. Looking forward shows more promise.

In 2003, Cabinet commitment was secured to increase public sector investment in RS&T to the OECD average by 2010. In 2005, MoRST announced a new package of initiatives under the title “picking up the pace”. This package included the themes of:

• setting clearer directions for RS&T in New Zealand

• a more stable funding environment

• accelerated commercialisation of research

• long term sustainable RS&T investment

• support for high performers

• New Zealanders engaged with RS&T

• skills for the future.52

Work is underway to implement these themes. For example, in May 2006, the Minister for Research, Science and Technology announced decisions for creating a more stable funding environment for research in New Zealand, including the following components:

45

• negotiated research investments for longer term programmes

• steps to reduce cost and complexity of competitive funding processes

• ways to provide more certainty to the funding of essential “backbone” science infrastructure.

The 2006 Budget increased capability funding for CRIs by $8.5 million to $46.6 million. This is non-targeted funding allocated to CRIs according to their levels of public research funding.

Specific attention has been paid to environment RS&T, with some additional funding provided since 2004. MoRST have recently released an Environment Research Roadmap. This roadmap sets out a long term vision and set of focus areas to provide a clearer, more co-ordinated direction for environmental RS&T.

These initiatives indicate a realisation that the current system is not delivering the best science outcomes, and will hopefully remedy capability and communication gaps.

Despite this, concerns remain about the management of the set of portfolios under FRST. It is difficult to determine the overall direction of this research, particularly in terms of sustainability, which can be spread over a number of different portfolios. Gaps still exist in key areas of environmental research, and considerably more funding and effort will be needed to address these.

Until these wider issues are resolved, the specific recommendations and ideas in Missing links relating to science-policy links, particularly around complex sustainability issues requiring high quality, multi-disciplinary science, will not be implemented to the full.

4.4 Resourcing differences between regional councils

Regional councils are largely responsible for natural resource management in New Zealand. Some councils are coping well with the science requirements of this responsibility. These include Environment Waikato, Auckland Regional Council, and Environment Canterbury. These councils have significant resource to invest in good quality science to inform their policy and plan development.

A number of regional councils not in this position expressed concern and frustration. Some are responsible for managing significant and often nationally important natural resources. However, given their rating bases, funding is not adequate to enable good science for natural resource management.

Envirolink has been a critically important programme for addressing this capability gap, and providing less well-resourced councils with advice they could otherwise not afford.

46

However, it is likely that more thinking about how to remedy these capacity imbalances will be needed at a broader institutional level.

5 Looking ahead

In terms of PCE’s input, there may be value in stimulating further dialogue on Missing links after this outcome evaluation is complete. Landcare Research made the following comment:

If the shortcomings identified are seriously tackled the recommendations could be fulfilled relatively quickly and to the benefit of all stakeholders. I would recommend that the PCE office raise the issues again and bring key players together to find a way forward.

This will need to be determined in the office’s future strategic planning.

To continue implementing the recommendations of Missing links, this outcome evaluation has highlighted several areas for attention:

1 PCE encourages the continued implementation of MFE’s SOE monitoring, reporting and review programme. Consideration should be given to:

– further formalising the roles and responsibilities of all agencies to expand on the existing protocols established by MFE

– formalising SOE in legislation or something similar

– ensuring independence of SOE reporting, possibly through a neutral agency.

2 Regular assessment of agencies’ capacity for environmental policy making, and extending this to a more comprehensive review of capabilities. This to focus on core skills required for complex, interdisciplinary, holistic environmental research. MoRST may need to fulfill this role in conjunction with other agencies.

3 Ensuring policy departments have adequate levels of science capacity to interpret, scope, and evaluate science for policy development, including considering the possibility of a Chief Science Advisor.

4 Continued funding for Envirolink, with its focus on less well-resourced regional councils, and development of priorities for all regional councils.

5 PCE supports the continuation of longer term research programmes such as OBI, negotiated investments, and the CDRP, and their continued refinement to provide strategic, cross cutting, collaborative science. Making sure this work is translated into useable form for policy development is also critical.

47

6 Additional capacity to Environment Research, including funding, and continued development of the Environment Research Roadmap and other MORST programmes to improve the strength of the RS&T sector.

7 Looking at further accountability and transparency mechanisms at the political end of policy, particularly around longer term environmental issues such as climate change and energy.

8 Looking at career development paths and other mechanisms to encourage staff capability within policy agencies, and to reduce high staff turnover.

9 Encouraging further use of interdisciplinary and sustainability focused research such as Waikato’s Choosing Regional Futures, and Landcare Research’s Science in Society work.

10 Information sharing and best practice dissemination to policy agencies.53

48

Appendix A: MFE’s core environmental indicators54

Indicators (what gets reported)

Lead agency** and reporting partner(s)*

Indicator parameters (what gets measured)

Changes in air quality in managed air sheds

Trends in air quality for:

• selected urban area sites

• other selected sites.

Shows where changes in air quality may impact on human health.

Limitations: indicator data only represents monitoring sites and managed air sheds, not all of New Zealand.

MfE**, regional councils*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

Exceedences, maximum concentrations and annual averages of:

• Particulate Matter (PM10)

• carbon monoxide (CO)

• nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

• sulphur dioxide (SO2)

• ground level ozone.

Trends in national water quality.

Shows where changes in water quality may impact on ecological and human health.

Limitations: indicator data only represents monitoring sites or water bodies that are monitored within a representative sample design, e.g. river environment types from the River Environment Classification (REC).

MfE**, regional councils*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

Parameters to be selected from the range presented below :

• River water quality: Ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrate, dissolved reactive phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, clarity, E. coli, macorinvertebrates, temperature

• Lake water quality: trophic status, ecological condition (Lake SPI)

• Groundwater quality: E. coli, nitrate, conductivity

• Recreational water quality: E. coli (freshwater), and enterococci (coastal).

Changes in the proportion of water allocated for areas with allocation limits.

Shows limits in water availability (surface and groundwater) and where and how much of that water is allocated through consents.

Limitations: indicator data does not represent actual water use.

MfE**, regional councils*

• weekly and annual allocation (m3/s).

Trends in emissions and removals of greenhouse gases.

Shows how NZ is meeting its Kyoto

• carbon dioxide (CO2)

• methane (CH4)

49

commitments relating to GHG emissions and removals

Limitations: some GHG emissions and removals data is modelled.

MfE**, MED*, MoT*

Statistics NZ linked indicators

• nitrous oxide (N2O)

• hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)

• perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

• sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

Change in stratospheric ozone levels over New Zealand.

Shows repair of ozone layer over New Zealand.

Limitations: none

MfE**, NIWA*

• stratospheric ozone.

Trends in volume and composition of solid waste to landfill.

Shows waste stream patterns reflecting our consumption and resource use.

Limitations: indicator data only represents monitored landfills.

MfE**, councils*

• volume (by weight) and composition of solid waste to landfill by waste categories (e.g. paper, plastic, glass, metal, organic, concrete, wood).

Of the total number of confirmed contaminated sites, the proportion of sites both confirmed remediated and managed so that they no longer have, or are reasonably likely to have, significant adverse effects on the environment.

Shows the management of confirmed contaminated land.

Limitations: indicator does not report on sites with insufficient information to be confirmed contaminated.

MfE**, regional councils*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

• confirmed contaminated sites

• remediated sites

• managed sites.

Changes/trends in land cover and land use.

Shows changes in land cover (e.g. exotic or indigenous forest, pasture) and land use (e.g. forestry, dairying, sheep, beef).

Limitations: agricultural land use data is currently inferred from the satellite imagery of land cover and from general farm surveys.

MfE**, DoC*, MAF**, regional councils*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

• Land cover classes (LCDB series)

• Land use classes and data from: Land Use and Carbon Analysis System (LUCAS); AgriBase, Agricultural Statistics Survey land use parameters.

Changes/trends in land cover and land use compared to land use capability. • Land cover classes (LCDB series)

50

Shows: change in areas susceptible to hill country erosion and selected areas at risk from unsustainable land use.

Limitations: agricultural land use data is inferred from satellite imagery of land cover or general farm surveys.

MfE**, regional councils*, MAF*

• Land use classes (LUCAS), AgriBase

• Land Use Capability (LUC) classes from the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI)

• New Zealand Soils orders

• Elevation (Digital Elevation Model, Digital Terrain Model).

Ecological Footprint for New Zealand and its regions.

True sustainability indicator that shows the amount of land required to support the lifestyle choices of a given population.

Limitations: some ecological footprint data is modelled.

MfE**, Centre for Ecological Economics (CEE)*

• total amount of productive land (in hectares) required to support a given population (national or regional) derived from various national and regional input/output data (purchases, imports, exports, CO2 emissions/removals).

Change in distribution of selected native plants and animals.

Shows whether selected native species (including threatened and protected species) are present or absent in any given area and the change in distribution over time. Will include terrestrial, freshwater and marine species indicator data at it becomes available.

Limitations: indicator data does not show the abundance of species (how many/the population(s) that are present).

DoC**, MfE*

• kiwi

• yellowhead

• kaka

• kokako

• short/ long tailed bats

• dactylanthus

• long finned eels

• giant kokopu

• wrybill

• frogs

Extent of indigenous vegetation and legally protected areas by Land Environment New Zealand (LENZ) classification.

Shows what proportion of LENZ environments are covered by indigenous vegetation and protected and the proportion of New Zealand’s ecosystems represented in our protected areas network.

Limitations: indicator data does not identify ecosystems at a community or habitat (species composition) level and does not identify the effectiveness of the protection.

DoC**, MfE**, regional councils*, QEII*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

• different indigenous vegetation cover classes from the Land Cover Database (LCDB) and/or LUCAS

• Land Environments New Zealand (LENZ) environments at a specified group level (Level I, II, III or IV)

• digitised legally protected areas data.

51

Extent of marine areas with legal protection by biogeographic region and Marine Environment Classification (MEC)

Shows what proportion of biogeographic regions (Territorial Sea) and marine environments (Exclusive Economic Zone) are protected and the proportion of ecosystems represented in New Zealand’s protected areas network.

Limitations: The indicator data does not identify ecosystems at a community or habitat (species composition) level and does not identify the effectiveness of the protection. Selected digitised protected areas data will be used relevant to Marine Protected Areas (MPA) policy.

MfE**, DoC*, MFish*

• Marine and Coastal Ecosystem and Habitat Classification (biogeographic regions) and the Marine Environment Classification at a specified group level/ number of environments and tuning (e.g. demersal fish)

• Selected digitised protected areas (e.g. marine reserves).

1. Proportion of seabed bottom trawled since 1989 by Demersal Fish Community Classification.

2. Annual bottom trawling effort over time.

Shows what proportion of the demersal fish classes within the EEZ have been affected by bottom trawling since good records begun. Also shows trends in annual bottom trawling effort over time.

Limitations: indicator does not report the effects that bottom trawling is having on the benthic environment or show fishing effort for ecosystems at a community or habitat (species composition) level. It also does not show the type of substrate impacted.

MFish**, MfE*

• Demersal Fish Community Classification at a specified number of classes

• Digitised map of benthic trawl area and effort.

1. Proportion of landings made up of fish stocks that have been quantitatively assessed.

2. Status of assessed fish stocks under the Quota Management System (QMS) relative to agreed target biomass levels.

Shows what proportion of total landings by biomass are from stocks that have been quantitatively assessed.

Shows how many of the total number of commercially managed fish stocks under the Quota Management System (QMS) are: near or above target biomass, probably near or above target biomass, possibly near or above

• selected fish stocks in the New Zealand Quota Management System (QMS)*

• species target biomass.

52

target biomass, below target biomass. Also shows what proportion of landings by biomass are from stocks that have been assessed.

Limitations: Many stocks are assessed quantitatively. Some stocks such as arrow squid cannot be assessed against target biomass due to their biology.

MFish**, MfE*

Trends in total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) by vehicle type and age.

Shows the types and ages of vehicles we drive and the distances we travel.

MoT**, MfE*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

• vehicle types (light private vehicles, light commercial, heavy commercial, motorbikes/mopeds)

• kilometres

• fuel type (petrol, diesel)

• vehicle age (data available since 2000).

Trends in energy demand, use and supply:

• consumer energy demand vs. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

• total consumer energy use

• primary energy supply

• electricity generation.

Shows the type of energy we demand, use and generate (including demand compared to GDP) and the efficiency of different fuel types for electricity generation.

Limitations: some energy data is modelled.

MED**, MfE*

Statistics NZ linked indicator

• fuel type (coal, gas, oil, renewable electricity, thermal electricity, other renewables).

• industry class (agriculture, wood processing, mining, food and beverages, paper, printing and publishing, non-metallic mineral production, basic metals industries, transport and storage, fishing, petrochemicals).

• sector class (agriculture, commercial, domestic transport, industrial, residential).

• energy source (coal, indigenous oil, imported oil and oil products, hydro, gas, geothermal, other renewables).

Trends in real household consumption expenditure.

Shows our consumption patterns (as expressed in money spent) for specific goods and service areas.

Limitations: indicator data is not currently available below the national level (i.e. not available by regional jurisdiction, city or town).

Statistics NZ**, MfE*

Statistics NZ linked indicator and socio-economic indicator for environmental reporting

• food and beverages

• clothing and footwear

• housing

• household goods and services

• transport

• leisure and education

• hotels and restaurants

• other goods and services

• health and medical goods and services.

53

Glossary

ARC Auckland Regional Council

CDRP Cross-departmental research pool

CRI Crown Research Institute

DOC Department of Conservation

EPI Environmental performance indicators

EW Environment Waikato

ECan Environment Canterbury

ERMA Environmental Risk Management Authority

FRST Foundation for Research, Science and Technology

LENZ Land Environments New Zealand

LGA Local Government Act 2002

LTCCP Long term council community plan

MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

MED Ministry of Economic Development

MFE Ministry for the Environment

MFish Ministry of Fisheries

MOH Ministry of Health

MoRST Ministry of Research, Science and Technology

MOT Ministry of Transport

NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

OBI Outcome based investment

OECD Organisation for Economic Development

OSI Office of Science and Innovation (UK)

54

PCE Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

RMA Resource Management Act

RPS Regional Policy Statement

RS&T Research, science and technology

RSNZ Royal Society of New Zealand

SOE State of environment

SNZ Statistics New Zealand

WHO World Health Organisation

55

References

Biosecurity NZ, 2006. A biosecurity science, research and technology strategy for New Zealand, a discussion document. Wellington: Biosecurity NZ. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/strategy/consultation/draft-science-strategy.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2007].

DTI, 2007. Areas of focus for the science review. London: DTI. http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-in-govt/works/science-reviews/Background/review_focus/page24591.html [Accessed 18 June 2007].

FRST, 2007a. Water domain review. Wellington: FRST. http://www.frst.govt.nz/Research/reviews/downloads/2007reviews/Water_domain_review_Scope_and_Terms_of_Reference.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2007] FRST, 2007b. Outcome-based investment independent evaluation report questions and answers. Wellington: FRST. http://www.frst.govt.nz/evaluation/downloads/OBIEvaluation/20060119_Q&A_Sheet_for_OBI_Report.doc [Accessed 11 June 2007].

Green, W., Clarkson, B., 2005. Turning the tide? A review of the first five years of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. The Synthesis report. Wellington: DOC.

MFE, 2007a. Tools and guidelines for monitoring the environment. Wellington: MFE. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/state/monitoring/index.html. Wellington: MFE. [Accessed 21 May 2007].

MFE, 2007b. Working in partnership with others. Wellington: MFE. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/state/partnership/index.html. Wellington: MFE. [Accessed 21 May 2007].

MFE, 2006. Freshwater for the Future: A supporting document. Wellington: MFE. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/freshwater-future-supporting-doc-april06/freshwater-future-supporting-doc-april06.pdf. [Accessed 20 June 2007].

MFE, 2003. Ecological footprints of New Zealand and its regions. Wellington: MFE.

MFE, 2002. The government’s approach to sustainable development. Wellington: MFE. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/hobbs/med-sustainable-development-govt-approach.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2007].

MFE, 1998. Environmental performance indicators: Summary of proposed

56

indicators for the marine environment. Wellington: MFE

MFE, 1997. The state of New Zealand’s environment 1997. Wellington: MFE.

MFE, 1996. National Environmental Indicators: Building a Framework for a Core Set. Wellington: MFE.

MoRST, 2005. Annual Report 2005-2006. Wellington: MoRST. http://www.morst.govt.nz/publications/corporate-reports/annual-report/2005-2006/outcome-4/. [Accessed 15 June 2007].

MoRST, 2004. Evaluation of the environmental output class. Wellington: MoRST. NZIER. 2005. Outcome evaluation of the Cross Departmental Research Pool. http://www.frst.govt.nz/evaluation/downloads/CDRP/Cross_Departmental_Research_Pool_Full_Report.pdf [Accessed 24 May 2007].

OECD, 2007. OECD environmental performance reviews: New Zealand. Paris: OECD.

Office of the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. 2006. A More Effective and Stable Funding Environment for Science. Cabinet – Minute of Decision [CAB Min (06) 14/1]. Wellington: Office of the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. http://www.morst.govt.nz/Documents/work/pace/Pace-Stable-Funding-Cabinet-Paper.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2007]. O’Riordan, T, 2002. Getting past the challenges. NZSSES Talking and walking sustainability conference. Auckland: NZSSES.

PCE, 2004. Missing links: Connecting science with environmental policy. Wellington: PCE.

Rosier, J 2004. An Independent Review of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Report to the Minister of Conservation. May 2004. Palmerston North: Massey University.

SNZ, 1993. Measuring up: New Zealanders and the environment. Wellington: SNZ.

Webber, D. FRST. 2005. The Pilot Outcome-Based Investment In Natural Ecosystems Research: An Independent Evaluation. Wellington: FRST. http://www.frst.govt.nz/evaluation/downloads/OBIEvaluation/20060119_OBI_Evaluation_Report.pdf [Accessed 24 May 2007].

57

Endnotes 1 Environmental policy makers were defined in the report to include elected representatives such as government ministers and councillors, as well as central and local government officials. 2 Landcare Research, letter dated 1 May 2007 3 PCE, 2004: 14. 4 PCE, 2004: 81-82. 5 SNZ, 1993: 3. 6 MFE, 1997: 1. 7 MFE, 1997: 1. 8 MFE, 1997: 1. 9 MFE, 1997: 3. 10 MFE, 1996. 11 MFE, 1998: 5. 12 MFE, 1998: 5. 13 For a list of reports see http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ [Accessed 15 December 2006]. 14 MFE, 2002. 15 MFE, 2003. 16 See http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/snapshot-lake-water-quality-nov06/index.html and http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/snapshot-water-allocation-nov06/index.html. Other snapshots include State and Trends in the National River Water Quality Network (1989-2005) http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/water-quality-network-nov06/index.html, A Snapshot of Council Effort to Address Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land: A Report Back to Councils http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/biodiversity/indigenous-biodiversity-private-land-jun04/index.html, Waste Management in New Zealand – A Decade of Progress http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-management-nz-oct05/index.html, and Snapshot – Recreational water quality in New Zealand http://www.mfe.govt.nz/state/reporting/recreational-water/snapshot.html [Accessed 18 May 2007]. 17 MFE, 2007b. 18 This is a standard that consistently describes geospatial information (GI) across New Zealand government agencies. The standard defines the metadata elements required to support enhanced data discovery and the development of GI access. 19 OECD, 2007: 26. 20 MFE, 2007b. 21 PCE, 2004: 83-84. 22 MoRST, 2004: 49. 23 See http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-in-govt/page8314.html [Accessed 10 June 2007]. 24 DTI, 2007. 25 Office of the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, 2006 26 FRST, 2007a. 27 Including Northland Regional Council, Gisborne District Council, Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Horizons Regional Council, Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council, Tasman District Council, West Coast Regional Council, and Environment Southland. 28 FRST, 2006. 29 Webber, D. FRST. 2005. 30 FRST, 2007b. 31 NZIER. 2005. 32 Special interest groups include: coastal planners, national air quality, consents management, regional groundwater, local authority environmental monitoring group, waste officers, surface water (quality and allocation), compliance monitoring and enforcement, harbourmasters, policy and planning, and emergency management. 33 A partnership between Environment Canterbury, Canterbury Development Corporation, NIWA, ESR, Lincoln Venture Limited and Aqualinc Ltd. 34 Biosecurity NZ, 2006: 31. 35 MFE, 2006: 6. 36 MoRST, 2005. 37 Rosier, 2004: 11. 38 Green, W., Clarkson, B., 2005: 3.

58

39 OECD, 2007: 17 40 PCE, 2004: 26 41 FRST, 2007a. 42 MoRST, 2005. 43 see http://nz.phase2.org/index.cfm [Accesssed 10 May 2007]. 44 see http://www.choosingfutures.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145837126 [Accessed 10 May 2007] 45 see http://www.beaconpathway.co.nz/ [Accessed 10 May 2007] 46 MoRST, 2005. 47 O’Riordan, T. 2002. 48 Bob Frame, Landcare Research, pers. comm. 8 March 2007. 49 OCED, 2007: 17. 50 For example, FRST’s report Investing in our future: progress and achievements report. Summary of stakeholder consultation refers to PCE’s report and the considerable enthusiasm expressed for environmental transfer and uptake. A report commissioned by MoRST by E. Goldberg entitled Bridging science and environmental management. An international comparison, referred to PCE’s report. 51 PCE, 2004: 67 52 see http://www.morst.govt.nz/Documents/work/pace/Pace-Summary-December-2005.pdf [Accessed 10 May 2007]. 53 see http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-in-govt/works/advice-policy-making/good_practice/page27428.html. [Accessed 10 May 2007]. The UK’s DTI website devotes considerable attention to the links between science and policy. The OSI has also focused strongly on these links, including publishing best practice guidelines, holding workshops, and reviewing capacity. 54 Source: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/state/monitoring/epi/core-national-indicators.html

59