The evolution of state of the environment reporting

Speaking of impact, how has the SoE report influenced environmental policy-making through the years?

Rob: The first SoE report had a really substantial impact. All of its suggestions were considered by the government and policy makers, for example the reduction of power plants and the introduction of energy or road pricing. After the report came out, citizens began to express more interest in pro-environmental behaviours and industry actors then mirrored those reactions.Today, we are seeing these reactions again, particularly in relation to climate change.

Nico: In the energy and climate fields, we are actually quite successful and our work in those fields was used to set reduction targets for some sectors. What we notice now is that there is a better interaction between policy makers and researchers, with the latter being part of the discussion and policy-making processes. These participatory processes seem to be an alternative to environmental reporting and they are an effective way to support policy development by coherently identifying and navigating through the synergies and trade-offs of the various discussions.

Was there a shift in the process, content and analysis from the earlier to the later SoE reports?

Rob: The early reports took a coherent approach, when analysing topics and issues. Political changes led to specific topic reports, for example on climate change or food. A downside of such reports is that they do not reveal synergies and trade-offs between areas and thus may have less impact.

Nico: An interesting development is the increasingly prominent consideration of climate change. To some extent, climate policy has replaced environmental policy. Another change is the frequency of SoE reports. In the early years, the reports were produced annually but since 2010, they have been produced every second year. They have also merged with two other previously stand-alone reports: the report on spatial policy and the report on progress with natural policy. Similarly, in the nineties, forward-looking analyses were published every four years but these now focus only on specific sectors and are published sporadically. On a positive note, the Climate and Energy Forecast series is published every year. 

Where do you think environmental reporting and related policy development is headed in the future?

Nico: At national level, PBL is developing a framework for annual reporting on the state of  circular economy. Following the shift from national to regional and local policy development, we are also looking at supporting cities and local governments to assess their state of the environment. We could then work with them to develop the necessary action frameworks and support them with knowledge and analysis in the field of climate action, health, landscape development and/or other social topics. In terms of outreach, we are exploring the interactive and participatory approach to direct engagement with policy makers and I am curious to see where this approach will take us.

Is there anything else that you would like to share?

Rob and Nico: If valuable knowledge is to be effectively translated into policy, government representatives must be willing and must provide the opportunity to drive topics and related policy processes forward. Success depends heavily on these representatives and on coherent organisational infrastructure!