Professionalising Policy: Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk ... · based on the Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA) approach. This section also explains how other frameworks,

Professionalising Policy: Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis The COBRA policy guide Version 2 May 2011

Foreword The Ministry for the Environment is at the forefront of some of the most challenging and invigorating issues and challenges facing New Zealand today. The policies that we advise on directly influence the prosperity of New Zealand. They have far-reaching economic, environmental, social and cultural implications and will influence all New Zealanders for many decades to come. Providing good policy advice to the Government of the day requires the Ministry to draw on a wide range of skills and disciplines. Policy analysts must interact with a range of stakeholders, be informed across a wide variety of areas, be adept at managing processes, exercise good judgement, and be able to contextualise issues within international, national, regional and sub-regional contexts. The issues involved can be complex and multifaceted and will often require many different ways of thinking. All of this makes for an exciting and challenging role. In 2010 a policy review of the Ministry for the Environment was undertaken. At the time, it was noted that we need to have the right people in the right roles, as well as the right processes, systems, frameworks and culture to support this. This was a fundamental review of the policy function of the Ministry, and we are in a stronger position as a result. The COBRA guide provides an approach for considering policy analysis. It is a key element of our Strategic Direction in providing support to the Ministry’s policy teams, as well as other teams within the Ministry. It is designed to be accessible and practical to users. We have also introduced clearer and more transparent ways of measuring and assessing the quality of policy advice produced by the Ministry. Although there is no set formula for producing high-quality policy advice, I am absolutely convinced that unless the steps in the policy approach are all considered, such advice will not be forthcoming. I also see that this guide is an essential tool for all policy issues within the Ministry, whether operational, corporate, strategic or directly advising the Minister. It will help us to be better and different. Advice can take on many forms. It can be formal (as in a briefing note to Ministers or a memo to Directors), informal (as in email) or verbal. Part of the excitement of working in a policy Ministry is that one never stops learning, either as an individual or as a team. Providing policy advice is a craft to be learnt, and one that you will continue to learn through working at the Ministry. I would like to extend my personal thanks to those who have been involved in preparing this material. Many individuals have contributed, both from within and outside the Ministry. Without exception, time and effort have been generously granted. I commend the COBRA guide to you all.

Dr Paul Reynolds Chief Executive, Ministry for the Environment

4 Ministry for the Environment May 2011

Contents Executive summary 6

Section 1 – The COBRA guide 6 Section 2 – Applying the policy case 6 Appendices 7

Section 1 – The COBRA approach 9 A Introduction 10

Welcome to COBRA 10 Purpose of the Ministry’s COBRA guide 10 What does good policy advice look like? 11 Ensuring the Ministry produces high-quality policy advice 12 How to use the COBRA guide 12

B How to apply the COBRA approach 13 Method and judgement both have a role to play 13 What does the policy cycle look like? 13 Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA) 14 Other frameworks provide different ways of thinking 15 Economy and environment principles are one way of thinking 16 Evidence and engagement are key inputs 17 Involve stakeholders wisely 18 Telling the story 18 Formal communication tools 19 COBRA and the regulatory impact assessment and statement 20

C Context to policy 21 Ministry for the Environment priorities 21 Political, external and historical drivers 21 Cultural values, working with Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi 21

D Tricks of the trade 23 Giving hard advice 23 Ensuring advice is fit for purpose 23 Dealing with a pre-determined viewpoint or policy solution 23 Handling changes in priorities 24 Dealing with success and failure 24 Dealing with difficult departments 24 Shutting down a process 25 Making judgements when there is no evidence 25 Dealing with orders from on high 25 Working with your manager 26 Giving feedback to peers 26 Dealing with technical information 27 Approaching engagement 27 Coping when it’s all too hard 27

Section 2 – Applying the policy cycle 29 How to apply the COBRA policy guide 30

Policy cogs 30 Key elements 30

Getting started 31 Planning 31 Tools and templates 31 Ensuring shared expectations with your manager 31 Project management 32 Planning stakeholder engagement 33

1 Identify the opportunities and issues 34 Planning 34 Process 34

Professionalising Policy: Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis

WL 13527 5

Analysis and questioning 35 2 Is government consideration warranted? 39

Planning 39 Process 39 Analysis and questioning 39

3 Define outcome, objectives and criteria 41 Planning 42 Process 42 Analysis and questioning 43

4 Construct options 45 Planning 45 Process 45 Analysis and questioning 46

5 Assess options and play out outcomes 48 Planning 48 Process 48 Analysis and questioning 49

6 Confront the critical choices 53 Planning 53 Process 53 Analysis and questioning 54

7 Recommend and tell the story 55 Planning 56 Process 56 Analysis and questioning 56

8 Implement (legislation and/or programme) 58 Planning 58 Process 59 Analysis and questioning 59

9 Monitor and evaluate 60 Planning 60 Process 61 Analysis and questioning 62

Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts 64 Policy concepts 64 Environmental concepts 66 Economic concepts 67 Māori and Treaty of Waitangi concepts 70 Social and ethical concepts 73 Institutional concepts 73 Risk and uncertainty concepts 73

Appendix 2 – Quality of policy advice 74 1 Customer focus 74 2 Context 74 3 Problems and opportunities 74 4 Analysis and argument 74 5 Risks 75 6 Consultation and collaboration 75 7 Options 75 8 Conclusions and recommendations 76 9 Presentation 76

Appendix 3 – Checklist 77 Things to consider 77 Where do I go for help? 77


Executive summary

This guide is an attempt at capturing a policy approach for the Ministry.

Section 1 – The COBRA guide

A Introduction Gives the purpose of the guide, what good policy advice looks like, how the Ministry will measure it, and explains how the guide is set out.

B How to apply the COBRA approach Explains the roles of method and judgement, looks at the nine phases of the policy life cycle and sets out that the Ministry’s organising policy approach is based on the Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA) approach. This section also explains how other frameworks, including the economy and environment principles, provide different ways of thinking to apply to your policy analysis. It also discusses the importance of communicating policy analysis effectively in different situations.

C Context to policy Discusses the environment priorities for the Ministry, the political, external, and historical drivers that provide the context for policy, and talks about working with Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi.

D Quality of policy advice Sets out how the Ministry measures the quality of policy advice produced.

E Tricks of the trade Discusses how to give hard advice, make advice fit for purpose, deal with predetermined viewpoints, deal with changes in priority, and deal with success and failure. It also examines dealing with difficult departments, shutting down a process, making judgements where there is no evidence, dealing with orders from on high, giving feedback to peers, what to do if you’re not a technical expert, how to approach engagement, and what to do if it’s all just too hard!

Section 2 – Applying the policy case

How to apply the COBRA policy guide Explains the approach used.

Getting started Examines the tools, templates and skills required.

1 Identify the opportunities and issues Explains how identifying opportunities and issues gives you a reason for doing the work and a sense of direction and focus for evidence-gathering and later stages of the policy process.

2 Is government consideration warranted? Looks at whether government consideration is really warranted in the circumstances and/or whether others should be involved in addressing the issues.

3 Define outcome, objectives and criteria Talks about setting the parameters and ‘rules’ by which you’ll make the judgement about your preferred approach.


WL 13527 7

4 Construct options Gets you started in identifying and developing alternative courses of action, or alternative strategies of intervention to solve or mitigate the problem or risk or explore the opportunity.

5 Assess options and play out outcomes Discusses the assessment and ranking of available options, based on the ideal outcome embodied in the criteria, while understanding the costs, opportunities, benefits and risks.

6 Confront the critical choices Discusses the need to confront the critical choices that have to be made in making a final recommendation and decision on a preferred alternative.

7 Recommend and tell the story Talks about providing a clear preferred recommendation to the Minister and telling the story as a critical part of good policy analysis.

8 Implement (legislation and/or programme) Looks at the implementation processes related to legislation, developing and implementing national instruments and regulations, and developing and administering delivery programmes.

9 Monitor and evaluate Examines the effectiveness and efficiency of the programmes and policies, discusses learning from that consideration and applying that learning to improve the policies.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts

Appendix 2 – Quality of policy advice Appendix 3 – Checklist

Section 1 – The COBRA approach


A Introduction

Welcome to COBRA Please help us to make it better! This guide is an attempt to capture a policy approach for the Ministry. We’re keen to get your feedback on what’s good about it, what bits you don’t understand or don’t find useful and what else you’d like to see in here. If you have any ideas on what you’d like, please let your manager know, or email us ([email protected]).

Purpose of the Ministry’s COBRA guide

Key approaches and processes at your fingertips The Ministry’s COBRA guide gives you the key concepts, approaches and tools to work through a policy process to deliver high-quality policy advice. The guide supports a policy process that: • is iterative, revisiting assumptions, preliminary conclusions and analysis as

new information comes to light • incorporates the economy and environment principles, as well as other

concepts and approaches relevant to the issue • is underpinned by evidence and engagement throughout • encourages you to work openly and collaboratively.

Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA) at the heart of policy COBRA is the organising approach that you should apply to the policy issues the Ministry advises on. To apply it, you will need to approach each issue through a range of other policy approaches. Using different lenses helps you approach issues in a new way and identify alternative options, opportunities and risks. It also reflects the complexity of the issues the Ministry deals with, which cut across a range of policy agendas and interest groups.

Underpinned by the Strategic Direction behaviours The Ministry’s COBRA guide is underpinned by the behaviours set out in the Strategic Direction: • analyse • engage • learn • collaborate • validate. You will find yourself using all these behaviours in developing policy in the Ministry.


WL 13527 11

What does good policy advice look like?

Grounded in the bigger picture • Forward looking. Defines policy outcomes and takes a long-term view. • Outward looking. Takes account of the strategic context and the national

and international situation. Learns from the experience of other countries but designs policies tailored to the local context.

• Looks at issues beyond institutional boundaries and sees them in their wider context. Does not isolate issues in pre-existing ‘silos’.

Customer focus

• Fit for purpose. • Length and depth of advice is tailored to the circumstances, including the

nature of the Minister’s request and the time available for analysis.

Strong analytical foundation • Continually pushes to test and understand the costs, opportunities,

benefits and risks and questions underlying assumptions. • Approaches the issue with a clear analytical framework, robust reasoning

and logic. • Innovative, flexible. Questions established ways of dealing with things and

encourages new and creative ideas. Does not assume that government intervention is the automatic response to an issue.

• Considers risks, (in)direct effects and impacts, and builds implementation and evaluation considerations into policy advice.

Evidence-based • Advice is based on the best available information and evidence from a

wide range of sources. • Is clear about where the uncertainties lie, how substantial they are and

what the uncertainties mean for the resulting advice, including any risks they create.

Values engagement • Engages with those who have experience of the issues or are affected by

the policy. • Sees engagement and consultation as an opportunity for learning, testing

ideas, design of options and understanding effects and risks. • Engagement is not seen as a compliance exercise.

Monitoring and evaluation • Builds systematic evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness into the policy-

making process.


Introduction, continued

Ensuring the Ministry produces high-quality policy advice

The Ministry is improving the way we measure the quality of the Ministry’s policy advice. Throughout the year, we assess samples of our policy advice against our nine quality assessment criteria. This assesses both the quality of the analysis and the effectiveness of how it is communicated.

These criteria for policy advice are consistent with the Ministry’s COBRA policy guide. Using the COBRA approach will help you produce high-quality policy advice.

Policy advice is expected to: 1 focus on the needs of the audience and the decisions needed 2 provide appropriate context to explain the big picture 3 provide a clear problem definition that indicates the size and scope of the problem, how current policy settings contribute and how changes can lead to better outcomes 4 display a robust approach to analysis, based on evidence and logic 5 identify the risks of the problem, risks of change options, delivery risks and mitigation strategies 6 display evidence of appropriate consultation and collaboration across government and with affected parties 7 identify and evaluate a range of practical options for meeting the policy objectives, and select a preferred option 8 provide action-oriented recommendations with realistic commitments 9 be conveyed in a well-structured briefing, Cabinet paper, or other suitable form, in a correct format and free of errors.

These assessments will help us: • learn – support continuous improvement, by giving us feedback on what

we are doing well and where we need to improve • validate – provide an evidence base we can use to account for our

performance to external stakeholders. For more detail on assessing the quality of policy advice, see Appendix 2, page 74.

How to use the COBRA guide

This guide The guide has two sections: • Section 1: The COBRA approach • Section 2: Applying the policy cycle.

Professionalising Policy Handbook You should use this guide alongside the Professionalising Policy Handbook to understand the behaviours and skills you need to develop and to improve your craft as a policy specialist.


WL 13527 13

B How to apply the COBRA approach

Method and judgement both have a role to play

Policy analysis is a craft, rather than a science. Method is important, but so too are your own judgement, reflection and experience. Don’t be afraid of being creative. As with any craft, when you begin working in policy, you need to learn and apply the basics before moving onto more elaborate and complex projects. This is the same as the way a musician needs to learn and practise their basic chords and harmonies before they can become a headline act.

The policy cycle sets out the phases and processes that will help you approach a policy issue in a coherent way and support you in delivering high-quality advice with a real chance of successful implementation. It isn’t a substitute for you testing your judgement with your manager, but it will help you as a guide.

What does the policy cycle look like?

Nine phases are identified in the policy cycle

Although the phases are set out as a cycle, developing policy is an iterative process, where you will need to look both forward and backward and continuously challenge your earlier assumptions or conclusions as you become aware of new information.


B How to apply the COBRA approach, continued

Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA)

COBRA is the Ministry’s organising policy approach The Ministry has chosen to use COBRA: Cost Opportunity Benefit Risks Analysis as an organising policy approach. This is slightly broader than a conventional narrow cost-benefit analysis and includes the concepts of opportunity and risk as well.

Costs and benefits A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an economic technique designed, in its simplest form, to add up the costs and the benefits of a particular action. There are a range of techniques implicit in CBA, such as discounting techniques for valuing costs and benefits over longer timeframes. It is not always possible to monetise (express in monetary terms) particular costs and benefits, especially where environmental issues exist. For example, although there are techniques to estimate the value of wetlands so that the cost of destruction of a wetland can be balanced against the value of increased agricultural production, these techniques are difficult, time-consuming and controversial. Notwithstanding this, you should identify where costs and benefits fall and how significant they may be, even if it is not possible to quantify all of these costs and benefits fully.

Opportunity Opportunity implies looking at issues positively, rather than considering issues simply through a ‘problem lens’. Building an ‘opportunity lens’ into the Ministry’s overall approach allows us to consider chances to improve matters. Does a chance for advancement or progress exist, or can it be made to exist?

Risk Risk is different from cost. Risk takes into account different probabilities of events occurring and the effects of those events if they occur. Low-probability events can have near-catastrophic or very high-impact consequences (for example, the global financial crisis). This can be very important in an environmental and economic context, as BP and TransOcean have discovered. There is vast literature on risk, there are many forms of risk and there are many ways to quantify risk. Essentially risk refers to a situation where there is potential for difference between the expected outcome and possible outcomes. Risk has both an upside and a downside element, and both are important to be aware of.

This guide provides you with two key tools to help frame your policy approaches: • ‘Section 2 – Applying the policy cycle’ starting on page 29 poses questions

for each stage of the policy cycle to encourage you to approach issues using a range of approaches, including incorporation of the economy and environment principles set out in the next subsection

• ‘Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts’ on page 64 provides you with definitions of key concepts across a spectrum of different policy approaches.


WL 13527 15

Other frameworks provide different ways of thinking

COBRA is the organising approach you should apply in the policy issues the Ministry advises on. To use it, you will need to approach an issue through a range of dimensions and alternative policy approaches.

In policy circles, the term ‘framework’ is often used. As with many words, it has multiple meanings and the definition of framework in a policy sense is, to some extent at least, in the eye of the beholder. To some, the term ‘framework’ means the way in which thoughts and arguments are organised, whereas for others, it means the viewpoint from which issues are considered.

This guide uses the term ‘ways of thinking’ to describe different ways of looking at issues throughout the policy cycle. There are multiple ways of thinking about an issue including: • economic • legal • scientific • environmental • political • Treaty of Waitangi • sociological • philosophical.

Even within the different ways of thinking identified above, many variants or schools of thought exist. There are, for example, significant differences between neo-liberal economics, behavioural economics and environmental economics, even though all are relevant to the Ministry’s work. Similarly, contract law and tort law focus on different aspects of the law, and again, both are relevant to the Ministry’s work. Just to confuse matters even further, law and economics is a discipline or way of thinking in itself.

It is not possible for an analyst to be across all of the arguments and considerations implicit within each of the ways of thinking, but this is an area where you can continue to expand your knowledge through exposing yourself to different ideas. In carrying out your policy analysis, it is important that you are aware that others may not approach an issue from the same viewpoint as you. Further, it is important to keep an open mind as other ways of thinking are valid. The very fact that so many disciplines have emerged verifies that there are many ways of looking at issues.

If you find that someone you’re working with is using big words like ‘if one took a constructivist approach’ or ‘neo-liberal endogenous growth theory would provide you with a different answer’, ask them to explain what they mean. It’s the best way to understand and to learn how to use such big words yourself!

Always remember to be clear about your own assumptions and starting points, and recognise that it is never possible to be completely objective about arguments.



Economy and environment principles are one way of thinking

The Natural Resources Sector Network (NRSN) has developed a set of principles that have been signed off by the chief executives of the participating agencies. These highlight the priority placed by the NRSN on understanding the interface between the economy and the environment within policy advice. The principles are set out below. They provide a way of thinking natural resource policy development to take into account different value sets and the interface between the economy and environment. The principles highlight key ideas, issues or questions to be considered in natural resource policy development. They apply throughout the policy cycle. The policy cycle set out in ‘Section 2 – Applying the policy cycle’ starting on page 29 will help you apply these in your work.

Principle 1: Intertwined A healthy environment, based on healthy functioning ecosystems, is integral to meeting economic needs and aspirations.

Principle 2: Government’s role Government has an essential role to play in creating the framework in which resource scarcity and competing interests are managed and environmental bottom lines are protected.

Principle 3: Clear goals Multiple policy goals create complexity – tensions between the achievements of these goals are inevitable.

Principle 4: Supporting good decision-making Base analysis and decision-making on a strong evidence base alongside broad, transparent, and participative processes that recognise the legitimacy of competing interests.

Principle 5: Adaptive management Natural resource management must be adaptive, reflecting the dynamic nature of both the resources and the knowledge we have about them.

Principle 6: Designing a solution Effective policy will involve a mixture of regulation, economic instruments, and other forms of intervention.


WL 13527 17

Evidence and engagement are key inputs

Evidence informs your policy advice Evidence-informed or evidence-based policy can be defined as high-quality information informing decision-making. A number of types of evidence can be obtained from many different sources. Other contextual elements include the government’s agenda and political risk assessment, and the ‘saleability’ of proposals. It’s important to remember that evidence is only one factor that feeds into decision-making.

Good evidence in ‘evidence-based policy’ is impartial, relevant and persuasive • Evidence is impartial when it is not selectively gathered to support a

particular conclusion. • Evidence is relevant when it concerns the problem directly or describes a

situation similar to the one you are analysing. • Evidence is persuasive when it is targeted at the audience and is

presented so it supports the policy story and its conclusions.

Different types of evidence • Economic and social data and analysis. • Statistical and data analysis. • Comparative international data. • Scientific data, including biophysical and environmental indicators. • Information on policy evaluation processes and tools.

Often some evidence will be contradictory, so it is important to collect from a range of sources and to be ready to use your judgement, especially where the evidence base is incomplete. When you make assumptions due to incomplete evidence, it is important to document the assumptions so others are aware of the limitations of your evidence.

You should also think about reasonable responses to the limitations of your evidence. For example, you may need to gather more information, or use a precautionary or adaptive approach – one that will allow for a policy intervention to be assessed and adapted in the light of new evidence.

Within the Ministry, the Information Directorate is a good place to start when collecting evidence. The Information Directorate has access to a huge range of data and is able to work with you to find the right information and present it in a way that is convincing. They can also help you understand the limitations of the data you use.

Don’t just go looking for a graph or table to add to your briefing. Keep your eyes open for evidence from all sources: • anecdotes • the media • think tanks • international sources such as the OECD Committee Information Service

(OLIS) • empiric information from a range of sources and theoretical arguments.



Engage with the Information Directorate early to ensure you are building an impartial evidence base. Talk to them about what information is out there and how it might be relevant to your work, and challenge them to present the information in a way that is accessible and persuasive to the audience. See the Information Strategy pages on the intranet for more guidance.

Involve stakeholders wisely Involving stakeholders when you are developing policy is vital • It helps you understand the issues of greatest importance. • It improves the quality of your evidence base and the advice you provide. • It improves the likelihood that your policy will be successfully

implemented. Engagement with people who are affected by the Ministry for the Environment’s work is a key focus of our Strategic Direction.

During engagement, you will come across both supporters and detractors. They each have a legitimate and valid role and you need to make sure you speak to both.

Supporters can be useful allies in ‘selling’ a policy idea more widely and in contributing to its successful implementation.

Detractors can be useful critics. If you listen early and respect the views of detractors you may be able to both improve your policy advice and be able to move them into a more supportive position or, at the least, a position of respectful disagreement.

Telling the story Policy is about telling a story, as well as gathering evidence to provide advice. Telling the story often happens towards the end of your policy process and is represented in the Ministry’s policy cycle as a phase (see page 55). It can happen on any major policy issue at all levels, with chief executives, Ministers, Cabinet committees and/or stakeholders.

You should be thinking about the story before you come to this point of the policy process for a number of reasons: • You may not be the one telling the story, so you will also need to prepare

others (including senior managers) to tell the story effectively. • Your story needs to be able to move across domains at rapid speed:

– problem definition – ‘Is this really a problem?’ – option identification – ‘Why don’t we do this?’ – implementation – ‘Can this be done?’ ‘Is it too expensive?’ – historical – ‘We tried this three years ago and failed; what is

different now?’

As with any story, your policy advice will improve with practice and revision, so you need to be scripting your story and trying it out throughout your policy process.


WL 13527 19

Essentially, it means rehearsing arguments – in safe environments at first (even in your head while in the shower) – to describe: • the problem • possible ways forward • alternative options and considerations.

The policy cycle is designed to help you to tell the story well. With a good story, the recommendations should be self-evident, and good analysts should arrive at a similar set of recommendations given the same story.

Watch and observe those around you, including your manager and director, and principal analysts. See how they go about telling the story. If you listen carefully, you’ll notice the story evolving as they try it out with different audiences and changing as the policy process progresses.

Formal communication tools

Policy analysts must familiarise themselves with a range of formal communication tools. The most prominent of these are briefing notes, Cabinet papers and regulatory impact statements. The Ministry also uses a weekly status report to seek decisions from the Minister.

Each of these has a set format and clear protocols for development and sign-off. Mastering these formats and protocols will give you a significant advantage. The Executive Relations team can provide you with more information about formats and processes.



COBRA and the regulatory impact assessment and statement

If you’ve followed the COBRA approach, you’ve basically covered off the requirements of the regulatory impact assessment process. The regulatory impact statement is therefore a tool to help you ‘recommend and tell the story’. The table below sets out how the requirements of the regulatory impact statement draw from the analysis you will have carried out as part of your COBRA approach.

Regulatory Impact Assessment Policy Framework (Treasury RIA Handbook)

Relevant section of COBRA guide

Description of the status quo (explain the current situation)

Context

Explain nature and scale of problem • Nature and size of the problem

(scope and magnitude) • Quantify to the extent possible

the costs and benefits of the problem

• Methodology including any gaps and limitations for qualitative evidence

• Outcomes in the absence of further government intervention?

• Identify who is affected • Identify the root cause of the

problem • If legislation – design or

implementation, or both?

• Identify the opportunities and issues

• Is government consideration warranted?

Set out the policy objectives Define outcomes, objectives and criteria

Identify the range of feasible options Construct options

Analyse the options • Identify the full range of impacts • Quantify and analyse the impacts

(to the extent possible) • Identify on whom the costs and

benefits fall • Assess the risks and opportunities • Assess the Pros and cons • Assess the policy packages and

options against evaluation criteria • Determine preferred policy

package

• Assess options and play out outcomes

• Confront critical choices

• Implementation and monitoring

• Implement (legislation and/or programme)

• Monitor and evaluate


WL 13527 21

C Context to policy Your role as a policy analyst sits within a broader context including external,

political and organisational priorities and drivers. A selection of these is set out in the outermost ring of the Ministry’s policy wheel on page 9. You should be aware of these in developing your policy advice but your analysis of the issues and evidence should be the main driver for your recommendations.

Ministry for the Environment priorities

In most circumstances, the issues you work on are likely to be driven by the priorities set out in the Ministry’s Strategic Direction, Statement of Intent (SOI), Outcomes Framework and/or Output Plan. If you cannot see how they fit, you should discuss this with your manager.

Political, external and historical drivers

Policy development does not occur in isolation from other contextual settings. These settings are likely to play a very important role in decision-making, but your advice should not be primarily driven or constrained by them. These contextual settings might include: • government priorities as set out in a coalition agreement, political

manifestos or political statements • economic and fiscal environments • social context, including cultural concerns • the environmental context • the international economic and geopolitical environment. The history of a policy area is also important to help you understand why it looks the way it does today.

Cultural values, working with Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi

Much of our policy work at the Ministry for the Environment involves Māori. For Māori, natural resources are central to identity and economic development. It is important that you are aware of this relationship and these values in the policy development process. Incorporating cultural values throughout policy thinking not only ensures that we meet our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, but can also provide valuable opportunities to enhance current thinking and initiatives.

Legislation often refers to the ‘principles’ of the Treaty. These are the high-level obligations ‘distilled’ from the text of the Treaty itself.

The Ministry has produced an internal Treaty Checklist for Advisers that lists a version of the principles and explains what they mean in practice for the Ministry, which is available on the COBRA home page on the intranet. This list is based on the Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi (1989). These principles are based partly on the pronouncements of the Court of Appeal in 1987.

http://intranet/how-to/maori/treaty/checklist.html�


C Context to policy, continued

Views on what the principles are vary, and the law is still evolving. There are also differing views on how to implement the principles, and what they mean for the Crown and Māori. This difficulty is furthered by the differences in interpretation between the English and Māori versions of the Treaty.

However, some of the key principles for the Ministry for the Environment are: • kāwanatanga (government)

the Crown’s right to govern • rangatiratanga (self-determination)

the right for iwi to organise as iwi and control the resources they own • reasonable cooperation

the requirement for government and iwi to accord each other reasonable cooperation on issues of shared concern

• redress the responsibility of government for the resolution of grievances and reconciliation


WL 13527 23

D Tricks of the trade Developing policy is an art or a craft, not a science. Being aware of and

following the process is important, but will take you only so far. There are inevitably some tricks to the trade. Listed below are some useful tips.

Giving hard advice Hit me with your best shot There is a tension between giving free and frank advice, and being politically aware. This can be a difficult balance – and in some cases, there are no easy answers. At times, being a policy adviser is a thankless task.

You do have a responsibility to provide the hard advice, and you should.

However, be very careful about the way it is presented. Do not labour the point, Ministers will sometimes make decisions that policy analysts find uncomfortable, so don’t burn your relationship capital unnecessarily.

If an issue has been raised clearly, and Ministers have not accepted the advice, think very carefully before you raise the issue again. Part of your job is also to explain government’s decisions and implement enthusiastically. If you want to be a decision-maker, run for Parliament.

Ensuring advice is fit for purpose

Greased lightning Timeframes are often short – far too short to run a ‘normal’ policy process. Alternatively, you may be asked for advice on a specific part of a broader issue. Use your judgement, and the judgement of others around you. Sometimes time is genuinely short and a quick phone call, email or aide-memoire with just one key message is just what the doctor has ordered. Be responsive. Be aware of the 80/20 rule (aka the law of diminishing returns). Your stock can rise significantly, along with your job satisfaction.

Dealing with a pre-determined viewpoint or policy solution

Sunday, bloody Sunday Heard of a solution desperately in search of a problem? A nice quip, and in some cases, very true. If, however, the Minister has prescribed a particular solution, it is your job to consider it seriously, and to make the best of what may appear to be a pretty poor approach.

Remember a few things.

• First, Ministers are Ministers (that is, they are the boss) and your job is to serve them.

• Secondly, Ministers have different information from you, talk to different people than you, and are subject to different pressures from you. Respect this.

• Thirdly, good policy is policy that works – so what on the surface may appear to be pragmatic and crude can in fact be highly effective.

• Finally, Ministers are human; sometimes you or others may question their judgement. That’s what democracy is about.


D Tricks of the trade, continued

Seek to frame suggested approaches in a broader context, seek to offer alternatives, discuss your concerns with other agencies, try to understand what is driving your Minister, but don’t sweat the small stuff. Ministers make decisions all the time, most of them good, some of them not so good. Not so good ones often get reversed (or stopped through the process). Get over it.

Handling changes in priorities

Blowing in the wind You are heading beautifully along a wonderful policy lane, smelling the spring flowers when suddenly, from behind a rock, comes a big giant ugly policy ogre who turns it into winter again. What to do?

By all means check in with others that the change in direction is real. But,

there may not be much you can do about it. Priorities change. Roll with the punches. A rapid reaction to a change in direction is one of the features of a good analyst.

Sometimes these changes can be quite subtle within a project. These can be

harder to discern but again, recognising small changes in direction (and even being a part of moving the overall direction) is part of the game.

Dealing with success and failure

Hit me, baby, one more time Policy can be exciting. Coming up with an idea, discussing it with Ministers, and seeing it manifest into positive outcomes can be truly exhilarating. It can also be disheartening or frustrating, seeing good policy fail at the last hurdle – or even the first. Remember Kipling’s twin imposters Triumph and Disaster; treat them the same.1

You should not seek (or hope) for your advice to be either accepted or rejected in full. You should aspire to be in a situation where your advice is respected – and to be able to tell high-quality policy stories.

Dealing with difficult departments

You’re so vain You are the policy adviser, and the Ministry is the lead agency. It may be critical to listen and to consult – but consultation does not mean that you stop thinking and consultation does not mean you have to agree to every comment made in relation to the work. Think about what people are telling you and keep an open mind, but back your judgement. Think about why people are saying what they are saying. Discuss issues with mentors, managers, and principal analysts. Be prepared to explain why you are not accepting others’ views. Get some satisfaction.

1 Extract from If by Rudyard Kipling (1895), If: ‘If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters just the same’.


WL 13527 25

Shutting down a process Stop right now Someone has come up with an idea: you have considered it (with an open mind) and concluded that it should get no further than the nearest Silent One folder. What can you do – other than to tell them just to ‘Stop right now!’? Well, ignoring it and hoping it goes away might work but probably isn’t super sustainable. Test your thinking with others. Is the idea in question really such a dog? Can something positive be drawn from the concept? Are there other ways in which the idea can be formulated that have some merit? Is there any underlying problem that could or should be considered, even if the idea in question barks quite a lot, goes to the toilet beside a lamp post, and chases uncomfortably fast-moving cars? Sometimes it may not be possible to close down processes, but you can have a go at it, normally by analysing the issue openly, and then talking it through with those concerned, including your manager, in the first instance.

Making judgements when there is no evidence

I still haven’t found what I’m looking for You have looked for evidence and not found much. Sometimes that is just the way it is. Don’t give up, don’t fret. There are always things that can be said and judgements can always be made. Talk to colleagues and mentors by all means, but look for parallels – here and offshore – and seek to make judgements based on first principles. Think hard about what you know and how to use that information. Acknowledge, if this is the case, that the evidence base is weak and that there may be some uncertainties. Consider taking a precautionary or adaptive approach that will allow for a policy intervention to be assessed and adapted in light of new evidence. Ultimately, your job is about helping others to make the judgements and informing them of those critical choices.

Dealing with orders from on high

Paint it, Black In cruel and difficult times, analysts can be a couple of steps down the chain from the high and mighty level that ideas originate from. Instructions may be sparse, or – if the world is completely cruel – contradictory. What to do?

Well, you can paint it any colour you like – but black may not be best. You need to be clear on what to do – and what the orders are. Find out timeframes, context, urgency, and whether any actions are required. Try to track down people who were at the relevant meeting. Triangulate. Ask others what they might do with that incomplete information.



More generally, there is an art to managing upwards. Think about an organisation as being a series of overlapping layers. Managers and directors are paid to help and typically have useful expertise and experience. They also face pressures you cannot fully understand. Own your problems and issues, but think about how they can help you – and how you can help the organisation.

Working with your manager Beast of burden Well... Mmmmmmm. Critically important. Mmmmmmm... Does the term ‘providing support’ give a sufficient answer?

Managers come in all shapes and sizes, have different backgrounds, and bring different attributes to the table. As always, search for and work with the positives and provide constructive feedback on the things that aren’t working for you. While you will have one manager and you should not seek to undermine him or her, there is a management team and you should not expect one single person to supply you with all the assistance you need. Work with your manager, not against them.

There are some fundamentals, however. An analyst can reasonably expect a manager to be clear on expectations, to assist with problems, to be available to discuss issues with, to be consistent, to be as fair as possible and to back up the team. However, the ultimate responsibility for your performance, and your contribution to the organisation, rests with yourself. Good performers will do well under any management, and the opposite is also true.

In return, your manager can expect you to behave like an adult, use your skills and knowledge wisely, and communicate. Managers aren’t mind readers – use one-to-one sessions to your advantage to provide feedback on what’s working for you and what’s not. Treating your manager well will generally result in you being treated well by them.

Giving feedback to peers With a little help from my friends So you have been asked to comment on a draft paper – but how do you go about giving a little help to your friends?

Probably the first thing to do – if your friend sings out of key – is to understand where they are up to and what part they are playing. Is it the start of the process – with a little bit of ‘blue-sky thinking’ going on – or are they right ‘up against the wire’, with very few degrees of freedom in terms of movement?

This affects how quickly you should provide comment, but also gives a little guidance as to the nature of the comments you should provide. If there is little room to move, provide comments quickly and seek to work within their scope for movement. By all means, point out any broader questions that you consider are worthy of consideration – but don’t harp on about them, especially if previous advice has been provided (and rejected). Make the relevant manager aware if you have significant concerns with implicit directions.


WL 13527 27

Never rewrite someone’s document for them; you are helping the process, not driving it!

Dealing with technical information

Mamma mia You can never be a technical expert in all areas, and will have to work in areas outside your expertise. It’s so easy to get lost – and mystified – by the so-called experts. You are, however, an expert in public policy. Much of the art of dealing with this situation is in asking the right questions and thinking about the COBRA approach and relevant principles. Are there experiences from elsewhere you can draw on? Listen hard and talk to ‘tame’ people who understand the subject matter. While you need to know something of the relevant policy area to be effective, with care and thought you can pick up enough information along the way. Consider it a challenge!

Approaching engagement You took the words right out of my mouth You are happily drifting through the policy process (on a hot summer night) when some nasty gremlin asks you for a copy of your engagement plan. Naturally, you note that it is all well in hand, before retreating into a quiet corner in a mild panic. What to do? Well, the Ministry has significant expertise in running engagement exercises, so consult with those who have ‘been there and done that’. Talk to the Communications Directorate, your manager, and anyone else handy with some experience in the matter.

The key thing to consider is the purpose of the engagement exercise. • Is it primarily to raise awareness of a particular initiative, to solicit

feedback on a set of proposals, or to fulfil a statutory obligation? • Is it open in nature or limited in scope?

As well as thinking about the major relevant stakeholders, think also about how the communication will be received. The person receiving the message is more important than the sender. Think about what risks are implicit, the difficult issues that may arise (and how they can be handled), and the ways of managing more challenging stakeholders. Most of all, enjoy the process and learn from it. Engagement processes are great opportunities. Much can be gained if the processes are run well. Attack it with a positive mind set.

Coping when it’s all too hard

Stuck in the middle with you You have ended up with a real doozy of a policy conundrum, worked your way through the policy process, had a chai latte with your friends, and it is all just too hard. Everywhere you look is a jumbled mass of contradictions, options, factors to consider, missing evidence and mixed objectives.



There are three things to do. • First, have a real coffee – or your preferred equivalent. (This is very

important for the emotional rescue.) • Second, try to categorise your thoughts. Locate the issues in a broader

frame. Seek to narrow and group options rather than widen them. • Third, and most important, ask for assistance from respected, experienced

people. Limit yourself to maybe one or two respected bods, not lots of them – and try to get as much guidance as possible from them. Asking lots of people is likely to confuse you, and asking your peers will probably further confuse the muddle. If necessary, ask your manager to locate you a suitable mentor for the project.

Section 2 – Applying the policy cycle


How to apply the COBRA policy guide

Policy cogs For good policy development, you need to take full advantage of the expertise, processes and tools the Ministry for the Environment and external stakeholders have to offer. These have particular application in a policy context. At each stage of the policy cycle, this guide provides you with prompts and useful contacts to think about the full range of things you need to be considering.

Key elements Planning, process, and analysis and questioning

The policy cogs integrate the key elements of planning, process, and analysis and questioning that together will support you in delivering high-quality policy advice. These processes are more powerful when used together. When used effectively they can improve the quality and timeliness of your policy advice, including helping you to better identify and manage risks through the process.

Planning It is important to plan and manage your work carefully to ensure others know what you’re planning on doing; how you intend to approach the issues; the milestones you’re working to; and to support you in monitoring progress carefully and identifying risks early. For help on how you could go about doing this well, speak to the Project Management Office (PMO).

Process The Ministry has processes designed to ensure that quality and key relationships internally and externally are well managed. These processes also provide checks on quality and consistency across the Ministry. Look at these sections of this guide for ideas of who to engage (including other parts of the Ministry), when to engage, and how to improve your advice.

Analysis and questioning In developing your policy advice, you will need to undertake analysis and questioning. This will include continuing to revisit what you’ve learned as you move from stage to stage to check whether you should challenge any of the assumptions or conclusions you formed earlier in the cycle. You don’t have to answer every question. Use your judgement to work out which questions are most relevant.


WL 13527 31

Getting started

Planning Any piece of policy work could be considered a project, in that it generally has a defined set of objectives and scope, and a defined end date. However, policy projects are by their nature quite dynamic and non-linear. This creates particular challenges when planning your work, as the scope of the work and its timeframes can and often do change significantly due to factors outside of your control (such as a Minister’s decisions).

Tools and templates In a policy context, good use of project management tools can help you: • manage resources including your time and the time of others and help

you work out when you might need external advice so you can get onto it early

• identify and mitigate risks, including helping you work out when you need to get someone else to help you manage a risk

• track and communicate progress, key milestones and risks to the project team, your manager, senior managers, the Ministry and externally, where appropriate

• adapt to changing circumstances such as a change in direction from the Minister or a fast-forwarding of the timetable.

In your project planning, focus on answering the following six questions: • Why are you doing this? • What are you going to do? • How are you going to do it? • Who is going to do it? • When does it need to be done? • What risks exist for the project?

You and any advisors from the Project Management Office (PMO) who you may approach for help will need to consider the best way to plan and manage the project to enable sufficient visibility and control of the project without creating excessive process overheads. You will need to consider your approach to planning and managing the work and how you plan to go about the policy process.

Templates are available at the PMO’s intranet pages. Use these wisely to make sure your use of them is fit for purpose and proportionate to what you’re working on. PMO can help you with ideas of what could work well in your circumstances. Remember that what might be appropriate for a large, complex, high-profile project is likely to be overkill for most policy work.

Ensuring shared expectations with your manager

Before you kick off the policy process or get too stuck into your project management templates, talk with your manager to make sure you both understand each other’s expectations of how you’ll keep them updated on progress, new developments and risks. It’s particularly useful to discuss what each of you think is in or out of scope of the project. This will help avoid nasty surprises down the track.


Getting started, continued

Project management The PMO has designed and implemented the Ministry’s project methodology.

Methodology The methodology provides guidance under four processes. • Approval to start

Decision to proceed with planning the project. • Plan the project

Process to lay down the foundations for the project – scope, schedule (timing), costs, resources, establishing project controls (managing risks, issues, quality, change), and how the project will be monitored and reported.

• Manage the work Doing what you planned to do – completing the work, reviewing the project plan and revising when required, managing risks, issues, quality and changes, monitoring progress and reporting.

• Close the project Formally closing the project and handing over the deliverables to the business.

Templates

The templates you’ll probably find most useful are these. • Policy work package

Use the most relevant sections for planning your work. • Timeline

Focus this on the key milestones and phases of work you’ll be carrying out. Identify any interdependencies – remember to build in sufficient time for engagement and for drafting the final products of your policy advice, especially any Cabinet paper or regulatory impact statement.

• Risk register Keep it short and focused. Be clear about what you can and can’t control. Include how you might mitigate the risks. Identify where you’ll need someone else’s help to mitigate a risk.

Guidance on scoping and policy work is available on the COBRA home page on the intranet. Ask a COBRA expert to help you with applying this guidance to your issue.

The templates are intended to help you, so make them work for you, rather than the other way around. You can use them selectively and adapt them to fit your needs better. Do check with the PMO early if you want to try something different. They’ll have some good ideas.

Help • You can contact the Project Management Office (PMO) if you need any

help. The PMO also offers a coaching service for anyone managing or involved in projects. It’s best to engage with them early.

• COBRA experts can help you scope your policy work as part of the planning process.

http://intranet/node/15376�


WL 13527 33

Planning stakeholder engagement

Who do you need to engage with, what about, why, and when? (EEP Principle 4) Preparing for your policy work should include stakeholder mapping and analysis – both internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. You should consider how Māori and other stakeholders and affected parties view the problem.

Your plans and preparation for stakeholder engagement should be scaled to the size of the issues you are working on and the timeframes you have available.

The analysis should include thoughts on: • why we need to engage with this group or groups • what the Ministry seeks to achieve through that engagement • what the benefits and risks of the engagement are • what the stakeholder would expect or want from the engagement.

This must occur before an engagement plan is written to inform the scope and channels used for engagement, for instance are public meetings, email or one-on-one meetings the most appropriate form of engagement?

The Senior Engagement Advisor in the Communications Directorate should be involved at this stage of the process if the project is a large one. They are also available as a resource to offer guidance to smaller projects.


1 Identify the opportunities and issues Identifying the opportunities and issues gives you a reason for doing the work

and a sense of direction and focus for evidence-gathering and later stages of the policy process. This stage is often known as the ‘problem definition’. Thinking about it as ‘opportunities and issues’ will help you think more widely around the situation. You’ll keep coming back to this phase of your analysis – regularly testing with yourself and others whether you’ve got it right or whether you need to adapt it in light of new information you’ve discovered. Identifying the key opportunities and issues involves three key things: • thinking – by yourself, out loud, and discussing and testing ideas

with others • assembling evidence – this can take many forms from researching and

assessing data, statistics, previous studies, theoretical work, and so on to talking to people who are experienced in the area (the Information Directorate, academics, think tanks, businesses, local government administrators, and so on)

• regularly challenging yourself on whether you’ve identified them well.

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Things to check • How is the work progressing? Refer to your original scoping and planning

tools. Does anything need raising? • Have any new issues or risks been identified? If yes, how are you

managing these?

Process

Internal and government department engagement Are there others in your team or the Policy Group you could discuss this issue with? Are there others in the Ministry who you could discuss this with? • The Information Directorate can help define the problem and identify the

opportunities from many perspectives, including whether it’s a national or localised issue. If they don’t have the information in-house they can help you to source it elsewhere.

• Contact the Statistics and Geospatial, or Science teams for more information.

• Are there Treaty implications? Do you need to speak to the Treaty team?


WL 13527 35

Consider getting a small group together from across the Natural Resources

Sector Network departments to work through some of the analysis questions. Are there existing advisory groups or government-mandated processes that could: • add value to what you are doing? • be undermined or understandably unhappy if you do not engage with

them or inform them of the work? External engagement Were there any stakeholders identified in your stakeholder mapping who could help you with evidence or ideas at this stage? Don’t be shy about approaching them, but let your manager know before you contact them.

• Who are the stakeholders that could shed light on the problem? • Why might the stakeholder group have raised this issue? What vested

interest might they have?

• What information might you need about the communities and groups that are affected by the problem or by your policy proposals? (EEP Principle 4).

Sources of information could include (but are not limited to) Census data, observations and experiences of stakeholders and iwi, or a cultural or social impact assessment. Speak to the Information Directorate.

Research needs Depending on the size of the project you may wish to consider whether some form of research might be needed to define the opportunities and issues of the policy and to understand the perspectives of your stakeholders – either by accessing data already gathered by the Ministry or other agencies or by commissioning statistically robust quantitative or qualitative research. Speak to the Communications Directorate or the Information Directorate if you want help with this.

Analysis and questioning

How could thinking about the issue through a COBRA lens help you identify the opportunities or issues? • What other policy frameworks and ways of thinking could help you in this

situation? The glossary can provide you with some concepts which might apply. See also page 15.

Economy and environment principles What are the key economic values associated with this issue? (EEP Principle 1) How are natural resources used to provide for economic needs and aspirations in this case? Do the economic benefits change over time? Can the resource use in question continue to provide economic benefits indefinitely, or is there a foreseeable endpoint to the economic activity (such as the consumption of non-renewable resources)? How does considering timeframes change your assessment of economic benefits?


1 Identify the opportunities and issues, continued

What are the key environmental values associated with this issue? (EEP Principle 1) • Can you describe the important values associated with this natural

resource or ecosystem (for example, ecological, biodiversity, recreational, aesthetic, intrinsic, cultural, or social value)? You should consider both use and non-use values.

• What ecosystem services are provided by this natural resource?

For your particular natural resource issue, how do economic values affect the environment, both in positive and negative ways? (EEP Principle 1) • What are the effects on the environment arising from economic activities?

Do the effects or risks change over time? • Are there any positive or negative externalities arising from these

economic activities? What are they?

What economic activities rely on a healthy environment and in what ways? (For example, river tourism may rely on a river being clean and safe for contact recreation.)

How does providing for environmental values affect economic activities? (For example, clean air laws may require an industry to invest in an upgrade of their smoke stack. How will this industry, its employees and supporting businesses be affected by this regulation?)

Issues and opportunities for Māori Are there any aspects of the issue or of your proposed options that will be of particular interest to, or impact upon, Māori? (EEP Principle 2) What are the Treaty of Waitangi implications of the problem? Is the issue you are trying to understand one in which Māori have a strong cultural or economic relationship? Is there a resource involved with which Māori have a strong cultural or economic relationship? Don’t just assume not… If the answer is not sure or yes, consider getting Kaahui Taiao to work with you from the problem definition stage, avoiding issues further along. Are there statutory obligations with any iwi surrounding the issue that you need to address/be aware of? Are there opportunities to involve Māori and iwi that will improve Crown/iwi relationships?


WL 13527 37

Evidence What evidence might you need about the economic activities involved? (EEP Principle 4) • This could include (but is not restricted to) economic analysis (cost-benefit,

cost-effectiveness analysis), quantitative and qualitative data from primary and secondary sources, industry statistics, forecasting and modelling, and expert knowledge of individuals, groups and networks. The Information Directorate has economic capability in-house that can help you with this. Contact the Manager of the Statistics and Geospatial team for more information.

What evidence might you need about the environmental and social activities involved? (EEP Principle 4)

What are the limitations, assumptions, and gaps in your evidence base? (EEP Principle 4) • Do you need to signal anywhere where there is a lack of evidence, or

where evidence may be biased or uncertain, or where opinion differs from the evidence?

• How might others respond to the limitations of your evidence? • Do you need to gather more information, or should you use a

precautionary or adaptive approach that will allow for a policy intervention to be assessed and adapted in light of new evidence? Consider mentioning this evidence gap to the Information Directorate. They may be able to fill it.

Theory What does theory tell you about the issue? What are the competing theories of what the problem is and how might we distinguish between them using evidence? How will the symptoms of the problem be separated from its essence? Have you identified the key underpinning problem? Can you consider the status quo as a process? How might this change your approach to the issue?

Problem tree / cause and effect analysis Developing a problem tree can help broaden thinking about possible causes for a problem. It can be used to develop a range of hypothesis for the causes of the situation (some of which will likely be incorrect), but it will help capture ideas.

See the guidance available on the COBRA homepage of the intranet.


1 Identify the opportunities and issues, continued

History lessons What is your or others’ experience with similar problems and how could you draw on that experience? How did the status quo get to look like it does? What future external trends can you see and will the existing approach still be fit for purpose? Has this issue been looked at previously? By the Ministry? Elsewhere? How did the process play out previously? What lessons can be learnt?

International perspective When you are developing a piece of policy advice, picture the Minister asking you ‘what are other countries doing about this issue?’ You need to have the answer.

The Ministry has a range of cooperative relationships with counterpart agencies in other countries. These stem from involvement in multilateral processes, formal environmental cooperation agreements, international bilateral partnerships, and a history of positive cooperation on a range of environmental issues.

Ask your manager about your team’s relationships with international policy counterparts (for example, many teams have exchanged work plans with counterparts in the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to identify shared work areas) or how policy advice can usefully be informed by international experience. Contact the International Climate and Environment team to see if they can help you make connections with overseas policy makers.

There are also useful online communities of policy makers through OLIS (the OECD online information service).

See the intranet for some suggestions.


WL 13527 39

2 Is government consideration warranted? Identifying the issues and opportunities is one step. But you also need to

consider whether government consideration is really warranted in the circumstances and/or whether others should be involved in addressing the issues. Government is not the only actor in the economy or society. Businesses, communities and individuals may be able to more effectively deal with the situation without government assistance. In some circumstances, the situation is too complex to identify how government intervention could make a difference. In a bad case, intervention can also make things worse (‘government failure’).

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Things to check • How is your work progressing against your timeline and original scope? • Does it need updating to reflect what you’ve learnt? • If things have changed, does this have resource implications (people or

time)?

Process

Engagement Do you need to review who your key stakeholders are? If there have been any changes, your key stakeholders may have changed. Is there anyone else who now needs to be involved in the next stage of the process or consulted? On reflection, do you need to reconsider any earlier analysis that you’ve carried out. That is, are you confident that what you’ve learnt supports your original identification of issues and opportunities?


Economy and environment principles Why is government intervention being considered at this time? (EEP Principle 2) • What has changed to bring this issue to the Government’s attention now? Is there a case for government intervention? (EEP Principle 2) • Are there other groups or organisations that hold the responsibility for

addressing the issue, or are better placed to deliver a solution? • What would happen if government didn’t act? • What risks of government failure could there be in this circumstance?

What are the possible ways government could respond to this issue? (EEP Principle 6)

What are the benefits, costs, opportunities and risks of government intervention (including the risk of government failure)? (EEP Principle 2)


2 Is government consideration warranted?, continued

Nature of the problem Is this a national or localised problem or opportunity? How was this situation been dealt with in the past?

Treaty issues Have you identified anything that could lead to a contemporary Treaty breach or claim? Are Article Two rights being affected? For example, taonga, property rights, right to govern, and so on.


WL 13527 41

3 Define outcome, objectives and criteria Developing policy is about analysis but it’s also about judgement. Defining the

outcome, objectives and criteria that you will apply is about setting the parameters and ‘rules’ by which you’ll make the judgement about your preferred approach(es). Part of this judgement is also likely to include issues about practicality and feasibility. Be careful you don’t stray into defining options in your objectives or criteria. Remember that there should be a clear ‘line of sight’ between outcomes, objectives and criteria. Ideal outcome At this stage you should try to define the ideal outcome that would solve the policy problem. In reality, you will probably need to settle for solving it to an acceptable degree. You will use the criteria to assess how close the options you develop are likely to come to achieving your desired outcome.

What is an outcome? An outcome is the ultimate state that you’re working towards. Asking yourself ‘why’ questions will help you identify this. Outcomes typically have a long term focus. The Ministry’s Outcomes Framework (in the Statement of Intent) has some examples of inputs, outputs, impacts, and intermediate or end outcomes of the Ministry’s work programmes.

What is an objective? Objectives sit beneath outcomes. They can be seen as intermediate steps towards achieving an outcome – often they’ll be the initial answer to your ‘why’ question. Objectives are more concrete statements about desired end states. Be careful not to slip into defining options or interventions at this point. Objectives describe at a summary level what the project must do or deliver.

What could criteria look like? • Some criteria will be absolute. They will be high priority and non-

negotiable – for example, the policy must be fiscally neutral. • Other criteria may be relative, meaning they will have different settings

across options and decision-makers will make a judgement about their relative importance – for example, a policy that is easiest to implement might be preferred.

• Criteria may be associated with the inputs into the policy – for example, cost. Or they might be associated with outcomes – for example, effectiveness.

• As a general rule, criteria should be independent of one another. What is the difference between objectives and criteria? Criteria will generally be those features of an initiative that achieve the objective. Criteria can also be thought of as measurable dimensions of objectives. In practice, you will be assessing them both qualitatively and quantitatively.


3 Define outcome, objectives and criteria, continued

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Things to check • How is the work progressing? Refer to your original timetable and policy

work package. Do you need to review any elements of these and communicate these changes to your manager?

• Do you need to provide any progress reports? • Have any new issues or risks been identified? If yes, how are these being

managed?

Process

Who in the Ministry can help you at this point? • There are a number of teams in the Ministry with whom you might want

to test your thoughts or outcomes, objectives and criteria including: – the Regulatory Impact Assessment Panel – the Monitoring Compliance and Review team who can provide advice

on whether or how your outcomes can be monitored, measured or evaluated2

– the Science team who can help you think about what information you might need to assess options against your criteria. If time is on your side, this early engagement may result in key information gaps being filled.

(worth noting is that some outcomes may not be able to be measured).

Engagement

To identify and mediate strongly competing values, you will need to consult and engage with the relevant parties (EEP Principle 3) • It may be helpful to consider stakeholder processes that allow the

different parties to come up with proposals for managing tensions. Do you need to review who your key stakeholders are? If there have been any changes as your work has progressed, your key stakeholders may have changed. Is there anyone else who now needs to be involved in the next stage of the process or consulted? Lessons learnt On reflection, do you need to reconsider any earlier analysis that you’ve carried out. That is, are you confident that what you’ve learnt supports your original identification of issues and opportunities?

2 It is worth noting that not all outcomes and objectives will be able to be measured quantitatively. This does not mean they are ‘wrong’, nor does it mean that evaluation is impossible. Sometimes you have to monitor and evaluate initiatives as best as possible.


WL 13527 43


Drawing on your earlier application of the COBRA approach and other policy frameworks, how can these help you define your outcomes or objectives? • Should you consider this issue from a perspective of maximising

opportunities or minimising risks? Outcomes Drawing on your earlier problem definition, what outcome(s) are you trying to achieve? • What does an ideal outcome look like? • What other possible outcomes are relevant? • Is it appropriate to have an outcome around strengthening the Treaty

relationship? • Is your outcome focused on reducing risk or maximising opportunities? Objectives What are the Government’s policy goals (objectives) for this particular issue? (EEP Principle 3) • Are they relevant for this issue?

What other government policy goals (objectives) are relevant to your issue (that is, social, cultural, economic, environmental)? (EEP Principle 3) • Are there tensions between these goals and yours? What are they? • Are there synergies between your goals and other government policy

goals that could be built upon? What are they?

What are the interests and aspirations of different groups in society (for example, Māori, businesses, recreational users, environmental groups) in relation to the issue? (EEP Principle 3) • What tensions exist between the goals (objectives) and aspirations of

different parties? • How will each party’s pursuit of their goals (objectives) impact on the

other? • Are there synergies between the goals (objectives) of different parties

that could be built upon? What are they? • Are there ‘bottom line’ values or interests that must be met? What are

they?

Are there environmental bottom lines that need to be protected? (EEP Principle 2) • Are there any well-established environmental bottom lines relating to the

key environmental values you have established in your problem definition? These may be in the form of standards or guidelines, or a ‘cap’ on resource use, such as a fishing quota or greenhouse gas reduction target.

• If the limits of resource use or environmental bottom lines are lacking or not well established for key environmental values relating to your policy issue, this gap may need to be addressed.

Are your objectives realistic? (EEP Principle 5)


3 Define outcome, objectives and criteria, continued

Criteria and evidence How will you measure the performance of the options against the objectives and the desired outcome? What are the ‘must haves’? What are the ‘nice to haves’? What are the parameters any solution needs to work within? How would you weight the criteria relative to each other?

Do you need to consider social justice implications (such as equity issues)?

How will we know when we’ve achieved the outcome?

How have you factored ease of implementation into your criteria?

What data will be needed to assess options against criteria?

What information will you need at a later stage to determine how the success of this policy will be monitored or evaluated? Who will collect the data needed to monitor and evaluate the policy?

Intervention logic diagram / clarify cause and effect Consider developing an intervention logic diagram to help articulate clear objectives and outcomes.


WL 13527 45

4 Construct options This is where you start to identify and develop alternative courses of action,

or alternative strategies of intervention to solve or mitigate the problem or risk or explore the opportunity. At this stage, you should lean towards a comprehensive list of options, which you’ll narrow down as you continue your policy process. You should always include the option of ‘do nothing’ or ‘let things continue as they are’; as well as considering regulatory and non-regulatory options. Try to group variant options together. This will help with focusing your assessment at the next phase on the full options. You need to be aware of whether your options are mutually exclusive, or could be combined to tackle the problem.

You also need to have some ‘flesh’ on your options; this might create variants of your option. It’s helpful to have a one-line summary statement that gives the strategic thrust of your option, but you’ll also need to have some idea of how the option will be designed and implemented and so on. There needs to be enough flesh to allow an informed reader to understand the implications of the option, to allow effective analysis of the risks and benefits, and for the option to be able to be differentiated against other options (or variants of the option).

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Things to check • How is the work progressing? Refer to your original timetable and policy

work package and communicate these changes to your manager? • You might want to re-scope your policy at this stage, using the tools

available on the COBRA site. This can be useful for constructing your options to a suitable level of detail.

• Have any new issues or risks been identified? If yes, how are these being managed?

Process

Who in the Ministry might be able to help? The Operations Directorate can help you test the practicality of your options and identify possible implementation risks. The Resource Management Tools team develops and implements national environmental standards and is able to identify pros and cons of a number of different intervention tools. Engagement Do you need to review who your key stakeholders are? If there have been any changes, your key stakeholders may have changed. Is there anyone else who now needs to be involved in the next stage of the process or consulted?


4 Construct outcomes, continued

Lessons learnt On reflection, do you need to reconsider any earlier analysis that you’ve carried out. That is, are you confident that what you’ve learnt supports your original identification of issues and opportunities? And that you’ve identified the appropriate outcomes and objectives?


Application of policy frameworks Drawing on your earlier application of the COBRA approach and other policy frameworks, how can these help you construct options? • What issues and opportunities did you identify that your options should

be targeting? • How can design of your option(s) maximise benefits and opportunities and

reduce costs and risks? • What issues did you consider government should be considering? • Did you identify any market failures that needed to be targeted? How do you want people’s behaviour to change and how will the proposed interventions create this change? (EEP Principle 6)

How can different policy frameworks help construct options to tackle behaviour? Do you need to consider institutional issues; market failure or government failure?

Does the problem involve serious or irreversible impacts on natural resources? Should you consider a precautionary approach; or consider an adaptive management solution? (EEP Principle 5) • What level of risk is acceptable in this situation? Is there agreement about

this across the Natural Resources Sector Network departments? Across stakeholders more widely?

• What could a precautionary approach look like for this policy problem? Could there be different options for this?

• If there are differences of view about the level of acceptable risk, or what a precautionary approach could look like, what is driving these different views?

Have you thought about the status quo as a system? What implications does this have for the options you should consider?

What are the competing theoretical solutions to the problem and how do these translate into practical options? For example, pollution tax as a response to an un-priced negative externality.

What does experience overseas tell us about possible solutions and how do these translate into the New Zealand context? Are there opportunities to involve Māori and iwi that will improve Crown/iwi relationships?

Scope of options Have you included ‘do nothing’ or ‘let things continue as they are’ as an option, and if not, why not?


WL 13527 47

How can these options be categorised or organised in a way that helps make sense of them as a set? For example, increasing cost, or increasing effectiveness.

What are the interdependencies between the options?

What are the interdependencies with other policies?

Is there complementary work being done elsewhere in the Ministry?

Is there complementary work being done elsewhere in the Natural Resources Sector Network?

Quality of evidence What are the limitations, assumptions, and gaps in your evidence base? (EEP Principle 4) • Do you need to signal anywhere where there is a lack of evidence, or

where evidence may be biased or uncertain, or where opinion differs from the evidence?

• How might others respond to the limitations of your evidence? – Do you need to gather more information, or should you use a

precautionary or adaptive approach that will allow for a policy intervention to be assessed and adapted in light of new evidence?

Risks of options Are there any transitional issues or risks that you need to consider? How can you mitigate these risks?


5 Assess options and play out outcomes

Assessing options against criteria To assess an option against a criterion that is associated with policy outcomes, we need to project or predict these outcomes. Once this is done the options need to be assessed against the criteria and the costs and benefits of the proposal. This is effectively trying to deduce a ranking for each option based on the ideal outcome embodied in the criteria, while understanding the costs, opportunities, benefits and risks. Play out outcomes – thought experiments This stage is really a thought experiment to challenge how your options might play out in the future. Imagine your policy option as a pebble that you throw into a pool of water – what outcomes happen as the ripples from the pebble move their way out?

This is your time to be realistic, rather than optimistic about your policy options. It should lead to the identification of a preferred option. Try to identify any unintended consequences down the line.

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Remember to discuss with your manager if anything significant has changed. Things to check • How is the work progressing? Refer to your original timetable and policy

work package. Do you need to review any elements of these and communicate these changes to your manager?

• Do you need to provide any progress reports? • Have any new issues or risks been identified? If yes, how are these being

managed?

Process

How can others in the Ministry help you with this assessment? • How could the Regulatory Impact Assessment Panel be used to refine the

assessment? • Could the Information Directorate help with your assessment? You may

want to approach the Information Directorate about appropriate assessment methods/tools and data to assess options, including economic and social science expertise. Contact the Statistics and Geospatial or the Science teams for more information.

• You may want to get the Operations Directorate involved to help assess options, especially around implementation risk.

• See ‘8 Implement (legislation and/or programme)’ on page 58 for further information on implementation. The Resource Management Tools team develops and implements national environmental standards, and is able to identify pros and cons of a number of differing national intervention tools.

• Are there any statutory requirements that the project needs to go through, for example, Section 32 of the Resource Management Act? Talk to the Legal team if you are unsure.


WL 13527 49

Lessons learnt On reflection, do you need to reconsider any earlier analysis that you’ve carried out. That is, are you confident that what you’ve learnt supports your assessment of the role for government consideration? Do you need to revisit the options you constructed?


Tools and evidence What analytical tools would be appropriate for you to use while considering options for this problem? How will you assess costs, opportunities, benefits and risks in this situation? What information/data do you need to assess the options? What do you have? What is the impact of the gaps in your evidence base? Is a pilot or more empirical work necessary to determine performance against criteria? If a criterion is subjective, who is best placed to make a judgement? Are there any impacts that are difficult to quantify that may need to use non-market valuation? How will you go about this?

Assessment of options How does each option measure up: • to the outcomes and objectives you identified? • against the criteria?

What might be the social and economic impacts of taking an adaptive approach? (EEP Principle 5) • The tension between flexibility and certainty for resource users will be

different for each case.

How do the options address the problem?

What are the costs, opportunities, benefits and risks of the different options? • How could you mitigate or reduce the costs or risks? • What are the costs of the change/transition? Are they one-off or ongoing? • What risks to delivery can you identify? How can you mitigate these? • Who will implement the policy and can they realistically and effectively

achieve it? • See the COBRA page on the intranet for more information on cost benefit

analysis.

Who will be affected by the policy? How will they be affected? Does this raise any equity issues?

How can you demonstrate clearly and logically how the proposed policy will contribute to the desired objectives and outcomes? This is a crucial step towards effective monitoring and evaluation.


5 Assess options and play out outcomes, continued

What do you need to ‘break even’ on this policy? • What minimum level of effectiveness would the policy have to achieve to

justify the costs? • What changes in the status quo process or situation could conceivably

produce this level of effectiveness? • How likely is it that the changes will deliver this level of effectiveness? • What’s your estimate of the probability of failure – would it be tolerable if

it occurred?

What is the institutional environment within which the solutions will operate, and how does this affect them?

What other actors need to play a part and what is their willingness to be involved?

How does each of the options fit with other government programmes? What are the complementarities and synergies that might occur?

Reality check of options What level of change is implied by the options you have identified? Is this realistic?

What assumptions have you made in your assessment? How big a mistake can you afford in each assumption before the analysis is in big trouble?

Māori issues Does it help address an issue that is the topic of Treaty claims?

Does it close off any opportunities for iwi development?

Are there any particular conflicts/clashes with iwi that have ‘settled’ their Treaty claims (that is, what's the impact on statutory acknowledgements)? Are Article Two rights being affected? For example, taonga, property rights, right to govern and so on? What are the potential costs to iwi, and what are the anticipated benefits? Will iwi have the capacity and capability to play the role envisioned?

Monitoring and evaluation What aspects of the preferred option will help evaluation?


WL 13527 51

Play out the options – focus on your preferred option(s) If implemented, what is the projected outcome from each option?

How might the drivers of the problem (including resource use), social context, or knowledge about the problem change over time? (EEP Principle 5) • Try to identify key trends that might impact on the issue in 10 or 20 years’

time. • What might happen if the effects of resource use are greater than

anticipated or if new information comes to light? • Have you built in processes to review your problem definition, objectives,

and policy and adapt them over time?

Could any of the options potentially lead to a contemporary Treaty breach/claim?

What kinds of unintended effects might be created by your proposal(s)? (EEP Principle 6) • How might people respond to the policy in ways that could thwart the

intention? • How might the incentives you are looking to create play out in practice?

Are there any undesirable behaviours or effects that might flow? • What would happen if the policy intervention did not achieve its

objectives? • What would happen if ‘Murphy’s law’ were to apply? • What would the impact be if it did go wrong?

What are the uncertainties that are involved with each option? What is the likelihood of these arising?

How might individuals, firms, decision-makers, and so on respond to the new world created by the option over time? What scenarios might cause the proposal to fail to produce the desired outcomes? Consider the impact of a low-probability event on the success of your option.

What dangers could be posed by the implementation process, including the political process? What impact could they have on the outcomes?

What undesirable side effects might come into play? For example, moral hazard; rent seeking.

If your advice were adopted, what might be the costs of you having been wrong, and who would have to bear those costs?

If you were the affected party / stakeholder / key actor, how might you react?


5 Assess options and play out outcomes, continued

Perverse outcomes and unintended consequences One thing that playing out the outcomes does is help you identify perverse outcomes. A perverse outcome is a type of unintended consequence that works against the intended outcomes of the policy instrument, with an outcome contrary to the intended, making the problem worse.

Example: Waste levies In 2006, the Ministry was considering the introduction of a levy on solid waste disposed of to landfill. In assessing options and playing out the outcomes, the Ministry analysed the potential unintended consequences of a national waste levy. It also published a report, which is available on the Ministry’s website (http://mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-levy-discussion-nov06/). Examples of the possible unintended consequences of a waste disposal levy include an increase in illegal dumping to avoid disposal costs, waste that should go to landfill being disposed of to cleanfills (which are not subject to the levy, or an increased use of on-farm dumps.

Cobra effect The term ‘cobra effect’ stems from an anecdote set at the time of British rule in colonial India. The British government was concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes. The Government therefore offered a reward for every dead snake. Initially, this was a successful strategy, as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually, however, the Indians began to breed cobras for the income. When this was realised, the reward was cancelled, but the cobra breeders set their snakes free, and the wild cobras consequently increased in number.

The planned solution for the problem had actually made the situation worse.

A similar incident occurred in Hanoi, under French colonial rule, where a programme paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to rat farming.

Hit and runs The stiffening of penalties for driving while intoxicated in the United States in the 1980s led, at first, to an increase in hit-and-run accidents, most of which were believed to have been drunken drivers trying to escape the law. Legislators later stiffened penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.

http://mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-levy-discussion-nov06/�


WL 13527 53

6 Confront the critical choices Looking at strengths and weaknesses

Occasionally, you will have one policy option which is expected to produce a clearly better outcome than any of the other alternatives, for every single evaluative criterion. However, it’s more likely that you‘ll be in a situation where each option will have strengths and weaknesses across the criteria. In this situation, you need to confront the critical choices that need to be made in making a final recommendation and decision on a preferred alternative. Some options may be eliminated by not possessing the ‘must haves’.

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Remember to discuss with your manager if anything significant has changed. Things to check • How is the work progressing? Refer to your timetable. Do you need to

review any elements of this and communicate these changes to your manager?

• Have any new issues or risks been identified? If yes, how are these being managed?

Process

How can others in the Ministry help with you this assessment? How can you effectively present the critical choices in your advice to the Minister? The Regulatory Impact Assessment Panel may have some ideas and be able to share some best-practice examples with you. Lessons learnt On reflection, do you need to reconsider any earlier analysis that you’ve carried out? That is, are you confident that what you’ve learnt supports your assessment of the role for government consideration? Do you need to revisit the options you constructed? Are there further conversations you should be having with the Operations Directorate to understand implementation risks?


6 Confront the critical choices, continued


Is there a clear preferred option, against your decision criteria? If not, are there clear choices to be made? For example: • Option A is less costly, but option B is more likely to make a bigger impact. • Social benefits are delivered (for example, improved environmental

outcomes for all) but costs are borne by different identifiable groups (for example, by polluting industries or consumers of particular services).

Are the assumptions behind each of the leading options equally believable, including sensitivities of your analysis? From playing out the option outcomes, is one of the alternatives more credible or likely to deliver?

Are there greater risks (for example, implementation) from any of the proposals?

If your preferred policy alternative is such a great idea, why isn’t it happening already? Have you missed anything in your analysis?


WL 13527 55

7 Recommend and tell the story

Free and frank advice As a policy analyst, your role is to provide free and frank advice to the Minister. Although you’re not the final decision-maker, you should be seeking to provide a clear preferred recommendation to him/her. This recommendation could be ‘do nothing’, if that is the best option. Your recommendation should be driven by the analysis you’ve done throughout this process and should highlight clearly the critical choices that need to be made in reaching a final decision. Clear messages Telling the story is a critical part of good policy analysis. It shows how the policy package hangs together and it is an important part of explaining how ‘technical’ changes are valuable in the real world. It’s also a good test of whether you’ve understood your own policy process well. Identify the key short messages that any communication needs to get across. Think carefully about your audience(s) for different communications products and adapt your messaging accordingly. You should keep the problem definition at the heart of your story. Your Cabinet papers and recommendations are not the end of the story; someone will have to implement your policy. At the minimum, you’ll need to hand over to them.

Rehearsing the story Recommendations don’t just magically appear. They are a key part of the policy picture and are often the result of a great deal of thinking. It is possible that the only part of a paper that a Minister will read is the recommendations. These are the ‘doing’ part of the paper so it is critical they are clear, concise, as unambiguous as possible and action-oriented.

There are a range of ways to develop recommendations. If you have any doubts, talk to experienced practitioners about how they go about developing recommendations. Some people rehearse the story in their head for weeks. Alternatively, some staff members rehearse their recommendations and the story aloud, changing the story slightly every time. This may be that person’s process for testing their ideas and recommendations.

Challenges to your thinking may manifest themselves around the recommendations. While this can seem extremely frustrating, the contesting of ideas and advice is an integral part of the provision of public policy advice. You can also seek advice on ways to manage the views of others if there are difficulties in agreeing a set of recommendations, and the right advice and assistance can be very useful.


7 Recommend and tell the story, continued

Planning

Finding help Contact the Project Management Office if you need help. Things to check • Update your timetable with the latest milestones. Include briefing notes,

status items, and Cabinet paper, and regulatory impact statement drafts, as well as final versions.

Process

Identify key messages and prepare a short (no more than one page) bullet point narrative. Use this as the basis for briefing notes, any Cabinet papers, and any regulatory impact statements. Have someone who has not been involved in the work peer review your narrative. Review your stakeholder engagement plan, in light of the story you’re planning on telling. Do you need to review your key stakeholders? Do you need to reassess their likely reaction to your proposals? What does this mean for your story?

Speak to the Executive Relations team if you’ve got any questions about Cabinet processes. Engage with the Regulatory Impact Analysis Panel early to understand expectations around what the regulatory impact statement needs to include. They can give you best-practice examples of how to communicate your analysis effectively.


Recommend What are the critical choices that the Minister or decision-maker needs to be aware of? What are the assumptions that have driven your conclusions? What are the risks around your preferred option and is there anything that can be done to mitigate them? Who will collect the data needed to monitor and evaluate the policy? Telling the story What are your critical messages?

Who is your audience? What implication does that have for how you tell the policy story?

Are you telling the story, or are you preparing someone else to tell it?

Is this a phased telling of the story, or have you only got one chance to get the message across?

If you got in the lift in the Beehive with the Minister and had seven floors to tell him/her the story and recommendation, what would you say?


WL 13527 57

What challenges are you likely to receive to the analysis and/or recommendations? Are there any defensives you need to provide in your story?

How can you best present any complex data? Do you need to include it? Would a map, chart, table or diagram make it simpler for the reader? The Information Directorate has capability in this area – ask them for help.


8 Implement (legislation and/or programme) If the Minister has made the decision on the policy and you’ve only just

started thinking about implementation, you’ve got a problem. Turn back to the earlier sections of this guide to see how you could address implementation issues earlier. Implementation of ministerial decisions can take a number of forms at different stages including: • legislation • developing and implementing national instruments and regulations • developing and administering delivery programmes. These processes can also be supported by guidance explaining further details of implementation and monitoring Implementation can be thought of as a further iteration of the policy cycle itself. Implementation is critical to the success and effectiveness of your policy intervention. It is about working up a clear approach to how the policy will be delivered and realised and how it will be subsequently monitored and evaluated. Developing your implementation strategy may identify additional policy tools that may need developing to aid the effective implementation of your policy, for example, a national environmental standard to complement your national policy statement.

Environmental policy is implemented by a range of different players, including local and regional councils. The Ministry also plays an implementation role, including through the Environmental Protection Authority. You are fortunate as a policy analyst to be sitting in the same building as people with this implementation experience. They are an invaluable source of expertise for you to tap into throughout the policy process to learn from the effectiveness and efficiency of existing programmes, and to apply their experience to review and improve existing interventions. Staff in the Programmes Group often have long-standing relationships with local government and industry, and may be able to give you hints on who the key players are, and their likely areas of interest. It is crucial for you to engage with the implementation teams ahead of preparing your final advice to get their expertise on the workability of the proposals and options you’re developing. A key part of your implementation is thinking about monitoring and evaluation. Take a look ahead to page 60 for more information.

Planning

Who in the Ministry can help you at this point? The Resource Management Tools team has developed a structured project management approach to implementation that aims to provide a smooth transition from policy to implementation. See the COBRA intranet page for more information. Other members of the Programmes Group may be able to help. Both the Science team and the Monitoring, Compliance and Review team are able to advise on the development of plans under the Resource Management Act.


WL 13527 59

Process

Engagement Now could be the ideal opportunity to revitalise your stakeholder engagement strategy! (Refer to page 27 for more information on stakeholder engagement strategies.) Who are the key people in the Programmes Group and elsewhere outside of the Ministry (such as local government) who will be involved in implementing the policy? What will they need from it? Who are the key stakeholders for implementation? Have they changed since the policy was first developed? What are their needs? Which key stakeholders need to be involved in developing implementation plans?


Programmes teams can help with the following questions: • Who are your key implementers or delivery agents? • How can you access them? • What part do they play in a successful implementation and policy

outcome? • What are the range of options and tools available to implement and

monitor a policy and its outcomes?


9 Monitor and evaluate Develop plans for monitoring and evaluation

Before you reach this step, it is really important that you have clearly described the policy, its intended results and objectives, and the criteria and performance measures by which the policy's success would be assessed. You should already have thought a bit about how the policy will be implemented and monitored. Evaluation enables organisations to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of their programmes and policies, to learn from that consideration, and to apply their learning to improve their work. Good policy development is an evaluation process and requires a clear focus on desired outcomes. It is crucial when developing policy to consider what success would look like (see Define outcomes, objectives and criteria) and how this would be evaluated. It is also important that you have developed monitoring and evaluation plans before implementing the policy (see Implement (legislation and/or programme)) and that monitoring activity is well underway early. A formal Ministry-wide evaluation function sits in the Information Directorate. This evaluation role prioritises areas needing formal evaluation of core projects, develops tools and processes, and works with teams to build up skills and knowledge. Like the Project Management Office, the evaluation role is focused on building evaluative capability within teams, rather than undertaking formal evaluation of these projects/policies.

Planning

It is important that you start thinking about monitoring and evaluation early on, so you can put in place ways to help smooth processes when it comes time to actually monitor and evaluate. Finding help The Information Directorate is able to help with all stages of the evaluation process, from development of plans to undertaking the evaluation. The Monitoring, Compliance and Review team is able to advise on monitoring considerations. The Resource Management Practice and Resource Management Tools teams should also be engaged when the policy under consideration includes Resource Management Act mechanisms.


WL 13527 61

Links to further information on approaches for monitoring and evaluation are available on the intranet. At this stage in the policy development cycle you need to consider whether you are well prepared to monitor and evaluate the policy. What you do now depends on what has come before. Consider these two extreme situations. 1 A monitoring and evaluation plan was approved before the policy was implemented. The plan includes a clear description of how the policy will achieve the intended outcomes. It even includes suitable performance criteria and measures. Key stakeholders were involved in designing the measures. Monitoring information is being collected. Key stakeholders have received regular updates on how the policy is being implemented. The policy and intended outcomes have not changed since the plan was developed. All is well! You just need to follow through with that plan. 2 There are no monitoring and evaluation plans. The policy outcomes or the link between the policy and its intended outcomes are not described. There are no specified performance criteria or performance measures. The people who developed the policy have left the building and you cannot decipher their sketchy documentation. The policy has been implemented for several years with no systematic plan to collect monitoring data. Someone has just noticed that the Ministry needs to report evaluation findings to Cabinet by next month. This situation is pretty dire, but unfortunately not unheard of. You will need to start from scratch.

Process

Engagement Which key stakeholders need to be involved in developing monitoring and/or evaluation plans? Who will be involved in monitoring the policy and who will collect data for the evaluation? What will they get out of it? Is this evaluation sufficiently complex/long term/politically sensitive that it needs an evaluation steering group? Do you need a communication strategy?

Do you need to review your key stakeholders? Have the stakeholders changed since the monitoring and evaluation plans were developed? Is there anyone else who now needs to be involved in the evaluation?


9 Monitor and evaluate, continued


In designing monitoring and evaluation plans, think about the following steps. Monitoring considerations What data will be useful for monitoring and evaluating the policy? Who will collect this information? Have they been involved in designing the measures? Is existing data available or will they need to collect new data and put new systems in place? When will they be able to provide monitoring data? Are you actively tracking the implementation of a policy throughout the process and not just collecting data at the end? Evaluation purpose and scope Why are we doing this evaluation – who needs it? For example, the evaluation results might feed into a major review of legislation or perhaps they will be used to tweak operational policy or to inform the effective use of supporting measures such as guidance. When do we need to evaluate? Do we need early feedback on the implementation of a new policy or do we wish to establish whether a policy has delivered the intended outcomes? What are the timelines for this evaluation? Do you need to provide an evaluation report by a certain date, for example, to report back to Cabinet? What are the resources for this evaluation? What is the budget? Will you be contracting an external provider or undertaking the evaluation in-house? Have you included monitoring and evaluation costs in your regulatory impact statements?

Evaluation questions and performance measures Is there a clear and logical description of the relationship between the proposed policy, the intended results of the policy and how these might advance desired outcomes, goals or objectives?

Is there an intervention logic diagram? If not, consider developing one to help design evaluation questions and performance measures.

Are we able to make use of data being collected for other purposes? Ideally you will design the monitoring information to also be useful for evaluation purposes, reducing the need to go back to people with repetitive information requests. • Have there been any previous evaluations? Can you build on these? • Is there a monitoring and evaluation plan? Or has the policy changed so

much that these need to be revised? You will need to develop or revise the plans. Go back to Implement (legislation and/or programme) for guidance.


WL 13527 63

What type of evaluation methodology will you use to address the evaluation

questions? Many evaluations use a mixed method approach that combines face to face interviews with a few key stakeholders along with broader coverage surveys. What is the best approach given your resources, timelines and information needs? – be realistic!


Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts

Policy concepts Consultation A structured process for seeking and responding to opinions and feedback about a policy issue from specific interest groups or interested individuals, or the community generally.

Contestable advice Advice that may be delivered or challenged by other individuals or organisations; specifically in the public policy arena, advice which may be delivered by various agencies within the public service or by agencies outside of it.

Cost benefit analysis (or CBA) A method of assessing proposals according to the monetary value of their benefits and costs over time.

Cost effectiveness analysis A method of comparing alternative policies in terms of the specific benefits to be delivered.

COBRA (Cost opportunity benefit risk analysis) – a method that builds on a traditional CBA analysis, but includes opportunities and risks.

Criteria The specific measures of value and of impacts used to assess policy options.

Evaluation Evaluation uses monitoring information and other data to help assess whether a policy achieves its intended results, and whether the results contribute to the intended outcomes and objectives. An effective evaluation can improve the quality of decisions by informing current and future policy advice with lessons learned from previous experience.

Evidence-based policy Policy analysis and advice underpinned by empirical evidence.

Hypothesis A suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If you do not have evidence to support it, you should be explicit about this.

Ideology A theory or set of beliefs or principles, as applied to public matters.

Implementation The process or act of putting a policy decision into practice.

Intervention / programme logic An approach to determining the need for and appropriate point of government intervention, on the basis of assumptions about the relationship between outputs and outcomes and associated risks.


WL 13527 65

Lobbying Activities by which interest groups try to persuade policy makers to adopt their position on specific policy issues.

Machinery of government The structure of executive government departments and ministries as decided by the Prime Minister (or Premier), which forms the basis for allocating portfolios to Ministers.

Monitoring

Monitoring is a continuous or periodic process of collecting information on how a policy is working and what its effects are. That may mean collecting performance information directly related to the policy or collating information on economic, environmental and social outcomes in areas where the policy is operating.

Objectives Objectives sit beneath outcomes. They can be seen as intermediate steps towards achieving an outcome – often they’ll be the initial answer to your ‘why’ question.

Outcomes Outcomes are the effects or consequences of policies, programmes and services developed by government. In a policy context, they are often intended (what effect are you aiming for?).

Outputs The particular, discrete services or products produced by an agency.

Policy analysis Analysis of a policy problem (or opportunity) which includes assessment of alternative responses, for decision-makers to choose between.

Policy capability The knowledge, skills and competencies (individual or collective) required to provide sound policy analysis and advice.

Policy capacity The extent to which an organisation or government has the skills and resources to carry out its policy intentions.

Policy design/formulation The activity of developing a position on a policy issue.

Policy implementation The process of converting a policy decision into action.

Stakeholder A person or group with a stake or interest in a given policy; anyone who might be affected by a pending or implemented policy.

Strategic policy Policy that sets out medium- to long-term settings and charts a broad direction. (It is contrasted with operational policy).


Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts, continued

Strategic thinking Thinking which has regard for medium- to long-term effects and consequences and/or is very broad in scope.

Systems approaches to policy Approaches that portray individuals and organisations as part of a larger complex and interconnected system which affects policy inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes.

Environmental concepts

Adaptive management Adaptive management is a structured, iterative process of optimal decision-making in the face of uncertainty with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time by collecting more information. Adaptive management is often characterised as ‘learning by doing’.

Ecosystem services The benefits supplied, directly or indirectly, to humans by natural ecosystems are often referred to as ecosystem services. For example, a river provides human drinking water, aquatic habitat for birds and animals, and a source of nutrients for the coastal marine environment. A forest might provide erosion control and help mitigate flooding.

Environmental bottom line ‘Environmental bottom line’ refers to limits (which may be a standard, guideline, qualitative state or quantitative measure) that denote an acceptable level of impact on ecosystems or environmental values.

Irreversible impacts When thinking about irreversibility, it may be useful to consider not just whether an impact on the environment can be reversed, but the costs and time involved in reversing it. If an impact is irreversible it does not mean that we should therefore avoid that impact, but that the opportunity cost of lost choices must be taken into account.

Precautionary approach The precautionary approach is based on the concept of taking anticipatory action to prevent possible harm under circumstances where there is a level of scientific uncertainty.

Sustainable development (Brundtland definition) Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Triple/quadruple bottom line An approach to measuring performance in terms of the achievement of economic, social and environmental/cultural outcomes.


WL 13527 67

Economic concepts Agent A decision-maker in a model. Typically, every agent makes decisions by solving a well or ill-defined optimization/choice problem. The term agent can also be seen as equivalent to a player in game theory.

Average cost The total cost of production divided by the number of units produced (cf. marginal cost).

Demand The amount of product that is desired by customers (cf. supply). At a lower price for a product, demand would – for most goods – be higher, and vice versa. The point at which demand equals supply will be at the market clearing (or equilibrium) price.

Efficiency Can be divided into allocative efficiency (the concept of assigning resources to their best use), production (or technical) efficiency (the concept of producing outputs of a given quality at least cost), and dynamic (ensuring that resources can move over time to their best use as technologies and markets change).

Elasticity The ratio of the per cent change in one variable to the per cent change in another variable (for example, if petrol prices rose by 10 per cent and demand for petrol dropped by 2 per cent then the elasticity for petrol would be –0.2).

Externalities Consumption or production costs (monetary or otherwise) borne by people other than the producers or consumers because the market price of the good does not capture all of its costs. For example, a factory that pollutes a stream imposes costs (loss of clean water, loss of biodiversity, loss of enjoyment) on other users of the stream.

Government failure (narrow definition) When government intervention allocates goods and resources less efficiently than they would have been allocated otherwise. (See market failure for the private sector version of this problem.) Even if particular markets may not meet the standard conditions of perfect competition required to ensure social optimality, government intervention may make matters worse rather than better.

Government failure (general definition) Failure to find an efficient and equitable government solution for a policy problem.

Information asymmetry When one party to a transaction (such as a buyer or seller) possesses less information about the goods being exchanged than the other, limiting their scope for rational choice.



Marginal cost The increase (or decrease) in cost of producing one more (or one less) unit of production. Many economists will suggest that firms operate at the point where the marginal cost of an extra unit of production equals the marginal revenue received.

Marginal revenue The increase (or decrease) in revenue of producing one more (or one less) unit of production. Many economists will suggest that firms operate at the point where the marginal cost of an extra unit of production equals the marginal revenue received. For example, the average cost per passenger on a plane trip might be $200 per passenger, but the marginal cost $20 per passenger. So long as marginal revenues exceed marginal costs then airlines should continue to accept passengers – even though it may be less than the average cost.

Market failure Failure of the market to efficiently or equitably supply a good or a service. Common examples include public goods, externalities, monopolies, information asymmetries and equity. Market failures are a common rationale for government intervention.

Moral hazard The situation when individuals or firms are cushioned from the consequences of risky behaviour, which may in turn cause them to take more risks. For example, insuring your car may lead you to be less careful about the way you drive.

Opportunity cost The cost of an opportunity forgone (and the loss of the benefits that could be received from that opportunity); the most valuable forgone alternative (for example, the opportunity cost of investing money in a bank may be that the money cannot be invested in the share market).

Public goods Goods that are non-rival in consumption (one person using the good does not reduce another person's access) and non-excludable (it is impossible, impractical, or illegal to stop someone from consuming the good). Competitive markets will not produce such goods because it is difficult to determine the users and charge them for services. An example is public street lighting.

Public value The correlate of shareholder value in the private sector and used to denote the value that arises from collective action.

Rent seeking An individual, organisation or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.


WL 13527 69

Social capital The value that individuals and groups derive from the various relationships and networks connecting them to individuals and families; related to civil society.

Sunk cost Costs that have been spent on a project. Often these cannot be recovered; it is false economics to include sunk costs in a cost-benefit analysis.

Supply The amount of some product which is available to customers. At a lower price for a product, supply would typically be lower (and vice versa).

Transaction costs Costs associated with searching for information, bargaining for goods, and developing, policing and enforcing contracts.

Welfare economics The use of microeconomic techniques to determine allocative efficiency within an economy and the aggregation of individual income distributions (welfare) associated with it. Pareto efficiency defines optimal welfare as the point when no individual can be made better off without making someone else worse off.

Westminster system

A democratic parliamentary system of government modelled after that in the UK, which includes a professional and apolitical public service.

Whole of government / integrated government Working horizontally between agencies and vertically within agencies and between levels of government to improve coordination and alignment.

Wicked issues / problems Intractable issues for which there is little agreement about the problem and/or the solution, and on which the government often lacks the mandate from citizens to take action.



Māori and Treaty of Waitangi concepts

Ahi-kā-roa Rights of occupation or use of resources in an area.

Articles of the Treaty The articles of the Treaty are given here in both te reo Māori and English.

Ko te Tuatahi Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

Article the First The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

Ko te Tuarua Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

Article the Second Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Ko te Tuatoru Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

Article the Third In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.


WL 13527 71

Co-governance (No agreed definition.) Government governing (decision-making) a resource with the involvement of a party(ies).

Co-management

(No agreed definition.) Government managing (sometimes seen as more involvement in the day-to-day management compared to co-governance) a resource with the involvement of a party(ies).

Deed of recognition An acknowledgement of the special association a group has with a particular place and obligation on the Crown to consult with the post-settlement governance entity and have regard to their views regarding the special association they have with a site. They also specify the nature of the input by iwi into management of those areas by the Department of Conservation and/or the Commissioner of Crown Lands.

Environment accord An agreement between the Ministry and an iwi group, currently specifically through the Waikato River Settlement, which sets out relationship expectations and obligations between parties; also other Accords for other government departments. Also known as protocols, relationship agreements.

Hapū Subtribe.

Iwi Tribe.

Iwi management plan (In the Resource Management Act as ‘iwi planning document’) provide Māori aspirations and values for their rohe. Note that there is no set standard for what these should be.

Kaitiaki/kaitiakitanga Guardian/guardianship; intergenerational responsibility inherited through whakapapa and whanaungatanga at birth to care for the environment.

Kaumātua Respected elder with knowledge and/or authority.

Kaupapa Subject, topic, issue, plan scheme or proposal.

Kāwanatanga Government; dominion; rule; authority; right to govern and to make laws.

Mana Authority; control; influence; prestige; power.

Mana whenua

Power associated with possession of lands.


Appendix 1 – Glossary of key concepts, continued Mātauranga Māori

Māori world views which are based on the values, traditions and experience of Māori.

Mauri Life force, or essence of living things.

Papatūānuku Mother Earth.

Ranginui Sky father.

Rangatira Chief; well born, noble; can be either male or female.

Rangatiratanga Political sovereignty; chieftainship; leadership; self-determination; self-management.

Rohe Boundary/tribal boundary.

Rūnanga Assembly or council.

Statutory acknowledgement An acknowledgement of the special association a group has with a particular place and requires that consent authorities provide the post settlement governance entity with summaries of all applications for resource consent under the Resource Management Act that may affect the areas named in the acknowledgements.

Takiwā District; space; interval of time.

Tāngata whenua People of the land.

Taonga

Treasures or property which is highly prized.

Tapu Sacred; subject to restriction.

Tikanga Māori Māori custom, rule or method; the right way of doing something.

Tūrangawaewae Home or place where a person comes from.

Wāhi tapu Sacred place.


WL 13527 73

Wairua

Spirit of a living thing.

Waka Canoe; descendants of a particular canoe.

Whakapapa Genealogy of all things.

Whānau Extended family; birth.

Whenua Land/country.

Social and ethical concepts Equity Fairness, or equality or equivalence; a value that may be defined against various specific criteria, including equality of opportunity, outcome or process.

Intergenerational equity An ethical principle of fairness regarding policy outcomes affecting successive generations.

Institutional concepts

Collaboration Two or more agents or agencies working together purposefully.

Institutions (of policy) Organisations and structures of the state, society and the international system.

Institutionalism A theory that emphasises the influence of the formal and legal structures of government on public policy development.

Separation of powers The doctrine that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should be separate.

Risk and uncertainty concepts

Risk Risk refers to the effect of uncertainty on objectives3

. Uncertainty can have a number of qualities including the extent of knowledge about the likelihood of outcomes and the extent of knowledge about the range of future outcomes.

With thanks for contributions from Claudia Scott (Professor, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington).

3 This is the definition from AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and guidelines.


Appendix 2 – Quality of policy advice

These are the criteria used to assess the quality of policy advice.

1 Customer focus The purpose of the paper is clear. The paper is pitched to the needs of the audience – this will usually be a Cabinet committee or the Minister. It specifies the decisions being sought and when they are required, including the risks around any delays. The paper makes clear where the advice sits in relation to time and process. What has happened up to this point, and what will happen next? The paper presents advice with a premium on succinctness. The paper is free of jargon and unexplained acronyms, and uses simple sentence construction and short paragraphs. Key messages are readily apparent to the reader.

2 Context

The paper appropriately presents the big picture while being focused on the task at hand. This means that it is both forward looking – what happens next? and outward looking – the horizons of the paper are not restricted to a narrowly scoped set of solutions. The Minister and his colleagues can both see the big picture and take an informed decision about how our recommended course will help them move towards a medium-term objective. Done well, the author is not just thinking about the Minister making this decision, but also about the decisions required over the next 6–12 months.

3 Problems and opportunities

The paper has a clear problem definition (that is, it identifies what is problematic with the status quo). The paper indicates the size of the problem, who is affected and how. It explains how current policy settings contribute to the problem and identifies why changes to existing policy settings will create opportunities for better outcomes. The paper draws a distinction between sectoral and national interests. Where there are losers from some approaches, the paper sets out how these losers might be dealt with.

4 Analysis and argument

The paper displays a clear approach to the analysis of options. Sometimes this will mean spelling the options out, but the approach is at least transparent to the reader. The framework is fit for purpose. Where there are novel aspects to a framework, the limitations are made clear. The paper is grounded in the role of the Government in stewardship of the environment and allowing finite resources to be allocated amongst competing interests. The logic of the paper is clear and based on evidence. The analytical frameworks are applied logically and in a way that makes sense to the client. The paper is complete in its analysis – it is not selective and does not skew the data or the analysis to make a particular course of action seem more or less attractive. The paper is accurate in its analysis. It does not contain material errors.


WL 13527 75

5 Risks

The paper identifies the risks (economic and environmental) of the presenting problem. (For example, if we ‘wait and watch’, is there a critical point after which environmental damage becomes acute?) The paper identifies risks of change options. (What is the probability that a solution may not work as intended?) The paper identifies delivery risks. For all of these risks, mitigation strategies will usually be possible, and these are identified. Also, the paper identifies any different views amongst stakeholders about the probability of both adverse and favorable events, and the level of risk that is acceptable.

6 Consultation and collaboration

Internal focus The paper displays evidence of appropriate collaboration within the Ministry. Relevant subject experts have been consulted (for example, the Regulatory Impact Assessment Panel or the Treaty team). External focus The paper displays evidence of appropriate consultation and collaboration with other government agencies and stakeholders. This needs to be fit for purpose and realistic. If timeframes are short the paper might simply set out how subsequent consultation should happen. If imposed timeframes are really short we should tell the Minister about the risks inherent in not consulting an optimum range of stakeholders.

7 Options

The paper includes a range of practical options for meeting the policy objectives. The reasoning behind the selection of options is transparent. Typically different options will reflect different weighting on objectives and other factors like appetite for risk and implementation feasibility. If the range of options presented has been constrained, for example, through an imperative for brevity because of lack of time, this should be made clear. There is usually a way through the competing demands for complete advice and for succinct advice. Options are evaluated against clear criteria. The potential impact of alternative options is made explicit. The paper estimates the relative size of any impacts. Where appropriate, issues of implementation, practicality and timing have been considered. The paper identifies a preferred option – the Ministry’s first, best advice. The selection of a preferred option is transparent. The author is clear about how judgements have been weighted to come to the preferred option.


Appendix 2 – Quality of policy advice, continued

8 Conclusions and recommendations

The paper provides action-orientated recommendations. The recommendations should be short, unambiguous, complete and have realistic commitments. The paper comes to a conclusion and suggests a clear way forward. The advice is at the same time free and frank, and astute.

9 Presentation

The paper is in the correct format and free from errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The paper is well structured, and makes appropriate use of charts and pictures, if these help. The paper avoids jargon and unexplained acronyms. Where relevant, the paper meets Cabinet Office requirements.


WL 13527 77

Appendix 3 – Checklist

Things to consider Analyse • Have all options, objectives and issues been identified? What

are the outcomes you’re seeking?

39, 43

• Has business as usual been considered: Is government intervention necessary?

39

• Is the policy both forward and outward looking – does it consider both the bigger and future picture?

51

• Does it consider a variety of frameworks and theories to support the analysis such as the environment and economy principles, market failure or cost benefit analysis?

15, 49

Engage • Have relevant stakeholders been identified and their views

considered? Have other government departments been consulted?

21, 27,

34

• Are there issues of particular interest to / impact on Māori? Are there Treaty implications from these?

36

• Is the advice customer focused and tailored to meet the needs of its audience?

55

Learn • Have contextual settings such as social and cultural context,

the economic and fiscal environment and political statements and government priorities been identified and considered?

21

• Is the history of a policy area/history of the issue understood and acknowledged?

21

• Are there international examples of the policy such as best practice examples from other countries to draw from? What are other countries doing/thinking in this space

38

Validate • Have all major risks been assessed and mitigation strategies

identified?

49–51

• Does the advice deliver a range of practical options and action oriented recommendations?

54

• Is the advice of a high quality – is it free and frank, robust and well presented? Is it consistent with the Ministry’s Quality of Policy Advice?

55

Collaborate • Has expertise/assistance within the Ministry been utilised –

Science team, Information Directorate, Treaty team and so on?

34

• Have ideas been debated, discussed and refined with peers and team members to ensure the advice is balanced and considers a variety of perspectives?

27

Where do I go for help? Talk to your manager or a COBRA expert.

Documents

Professionalising Policy: Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk ... · based on the Cost Opportunity Benefit Risk Analysis (COBRA) approach. This section also explains how other frameworks,