Environmental Policy Brief

Proof required

Submit a one-paragraph policy problem statement that names the specific environmental issue, identifies the decision-maker who would receive this brief, and explains why action is required now. Include an annotated evidence list of 8–12 sources (peer-reviewed science, regulatory assessments, or established intergovernmental reports) with each annotation stating the source's relevance to the policy problem.

What gets checked

• Policy problem is specific and current — names a specific regulation, programme, or decision point that this brief would inform
• Decision-maker is named — 'policymakers' is too vague; the brief must be directed to a specific role (e.g., 'local authority environmental officers deciding whether to adopt green infrastructure standards in a planning policy update')
• Evidence sources are primary scientific papers or established authoritative reports (IPCC, WHO, EPA, UNEP) — not journalism or opinion pieces

Common mistakes

• Choosing a policy problem with no current decision point — a brief about a settled policy issue or a remote hypothetical has no actionable audience
• Selecting only advocacy sources rather than independent scientific evidence — policy briefs based on advocacy literature lose credibility with policymakers

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to name the specific decision-maker and the specific decision point this brief targets — vague audience identification suggests the brief has no real policy application.
• Ask what the strongest scientific evidence for action is and whether the evidence base adequately supports the policy recommendation they plan to make.
• Ask whether any of their sources have been disputed or updated — evidence credibility is central to policy impact.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your complete draft policy brief (750–1500 words following standard policy brief structure: executive summary/key message, background, evidence summary, recommendations, implementation notes, and uncertainties). Have an environmental scientist or policy professional review the draft and note whether the recommendations follow from the evidence.

What gets checked

• Executive summary or key message is three sentences or fewer and a policymaker with no science background could understand it — no jargon without immediate plain-language definition
• Recommendations are specific and actionable — not 'invest in green infrastructure' but 'amend the Local Plan to require a minimum of 20% green cover in all new residential developments above 10 dwellings'
• Uncertainties section honestly identifies the limits of the evidence — where the science is clear, where it is contested, and what evidence gaps affect the confidence of the recommendations

Common mistakes

• Recommendations that go beyond what the evidence supports — a brief that advocates for more action than the evidence base justifies will be rejected by policymakers who check the sources
• A brief that reads as a research report summary — a policy brief must be structured for a decision-maker's use, not for a scientific audience

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to read their executive summary aloud — if it takes more than 30 seconds, it is too long for a policy brief.
• Ask them to defend the most ambitious recommendation — does the cited evidence actually support that specific action at that scope?
• Ask what they would remove from the brief if they could only make one recommendation — tests whether the core message is clear.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your final policy brief (revised based on M2 review feedback) and a written Q&A record showing the reviewer's specific challenges and your responses. Include a brief change log noting what feedback was incorporated and why. The reviewer must be named and their environmental science or policy background stated.

What gets checked

• Change log demonstrates genuine incorporation of M2 feedback — not 'acknowledged feedback' but specifically describes what was changed and why
• Q&A record shows at least two specific challenges (to scientific evidence, policy logic, or recommendations) and substantive responses
• Final brief is no longer than 1500 words — policy brief effectiveness is inversely related to length beyond this threshold

Common mistakes

• A M2 review that only checked the science without evaluating whether the recommendations follow from the evidence — the policy logic connecting evidence to action is as important as the evidence quality
• A reviewer without experience in science-policy translation — a pure scientist may improve the evidence quality but cannot assess whether the brief is fit for a policymaker audience

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to explain the logic chain from the key scientific finding to the specific policy recommendation — the logical steps should be explicit and each should be defensible.
• Ask what a policymaker opposed to the recommendation might argue and how the brief addresses it — a good policy brief anticipates the political objections to its recommendations.
• Verify the reviewer has policy experience or science-policy translation experience — a researcher without policy experience may not be able to assess whether the brief is fit for purpose as a policy document.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.