Skip navigation

Sustainable Development Commission Panel

Method(s) Used


Name of person who posted the project:

Kerry Ryan


Location of project:

United Kingdom


Date when the project started:

2003


Date when the project ended/project ongoing:


Background to project:

The Sustainable Development Commission is the government's independent watchdog on sustainable development, reporting to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. Its aim is to put sustainable development at the core of government policy through advocacy, advice and appraisal.
The work of SDC is divided into 10 policy areas: climate change, consumption, economics, education, energy, engagement, health, housing, regional and local government and transport. Each policy area is led by a steering group of Commissioners and SDC staff.
To inform its work, the SDC established a stakeholder panel in September 2006. It has so far recruited nearly 600 members, and aims to recruit a further 400 by 2008. It is a UK-based stakeholder panel - i.e., people are selected for their interests and expertise, rather than as representative members of the public. All panel activity takes place online.

Purpose of project:

One of the main ways the SDC engages with the panel is through online consultations. The aim of engagement using this method is to:
  • Allow for breadth and depth of participation and dialogue;
  • Provide a transparent means of consultation;
  • Offer a systematic method of consultation.
    Online deliberative panels are accompanied by an ongoing open forum that is used to discuss concerns relating to the consultation themes.
    The consultation being evaluated in this case-study was entitled �Redefining Progress�. Themes covered included:
  • What should progress mean?
  • Economic growth as progress;
  • The concept of wellbeing;
  • Defining and measuring wellbeing;
  • Wellbeing use and implications in policy making;
  • Government�s role in shaping progress.

Project activities:

There were three structured panel sessions (running for three weeks each) and a simultaneous open forum.
The first session was held in September 2006. Panel members were required to answer a number of open-ended questions, which focused broadly on defining progress and wellbeing. Panel members were entitled to give one answer to each question but they were not obliged to do so.
The second session took place between October and November 2006. Before taking part, participants could read a summary of contributions made by panel members during the first session. They were asked to comment on these and then asked a further set of more focused questions on measuring wellbeing. For the second session, a deliberative forum ran alongside the panel. Its purpose was to allow participants to discuss areas that had not been raised in the consultation questions.
The third (final) session occurred in November and December 2006. Participants were asked to review the points raised in the second session. At this stage, they were also asked to evaluate the consultation process.
Registration was required prior to participation and was limited to panel members.
SDC staff facilitated the discussion, but the website design and panel recruitment were undertaken by a third party external provider, Dialogue by Design, who developed the consultation with the SDC. Dialogue by Design also collected feedback on panel members� experience of the consultation, focusing on its clarity and the design of the website. The Digital Dialogues research team appended evaluation questions about political engagement onto the feedback survey.

Project results:

Strengths
  • This engagement activity benefited from clear objectives and detail on how the results of the consultation would be used;
  • A core stakeholder panel was recruited with broad sustainable development knowledge, promoting the conditions for motivated and well-informed debate;
  • There was a sense of community amongst panel members: for example, participants could see how many people agreed with their response;
  • Users were given more than one means of participating in the consultation online.
    Potential for improvement
  • More resources could have been put into encouraging more frequent and in depth participation by panel members;
  • Offline and online engagement with the panel earlier about what was involved (in the consultation process) could have encouraged members to familiarise themselves with their peers and the SDC consultation process in advance of participation;
  • Deliberative elements of panel would have benefited from engagement with government policy makers;
  • Availability of other routes by which panel members could engage in the consultation, including via written submissions, offline workshops and meetings.

Contact details:

www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/sd_panel.html

Source:

eDemocracy Programme,
Hansard Society,
40-43 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1JA
e - edemocracy@hansard.lse.ac.uk
t - 020 7438 1222

Recommended Case Studies
Act on it (Forum Theatre)
GM Nation
Taking it on (Online Consultation)
The Walsall Participatory Appraisal Network
Udecide Newcastle
Your Health Your Care Your Say