Writing the Recommendation Paper
The recommendation paper is where analysis becomes actionable advice. This lesson provides practical guidance on writing effective carbon pricing recommendations that move decision-makers to action.
Purpose of the Recommendation Paper
A recommendation paper:
- Presents a clear recommendation with supporting rationale
- Enables decision-makers to make informed choices
- Documents the basis for the decision (for accountability and future reference)
- Provides sufficient detail for implementation to begin
- Anticipates and addresses likely concerns
The recommendation paper is not the place to showcase everything you know. It is a decision document. Include what decision-makers need to decide, no more.
Structure of a Recommendation Paper
A typical structure:
1. Purpose What decision is being requested?
2. Background Brief context. Why is this coming forward now?
3. Recommendation State the recommendation clearly and early. Do not bury it.
4. Key considerations The main arguments for and against.
5. Analysis Summary of technical analysis supporting the recommendation.
6. Stakeholder views What do affected parties think?
7. Implementation How would this be implemented?
8. Risks and mitigation What could go wrong? How would we manage it?
9. Next steps What happens after the decision?
The Recommendation Statement
The recommendation should be:
Specific: What exactly are you recommending?
Actionable: What should the decision-maker do?
Clear: No ambiguity about what you are proposing.
Weak recommendation: "It is recommended that the government consider carbon pricing options."
Strong recommendation: "It is recommended that Cabinet approve the implementation of a carbon tax at $25 per ton CO2e, effective January 1, 2027, rising $10 per year to $65 per ton by 2031, with revenue allocated as follows: 50% to household dividends, 30% to income tax reductions, and 20% to a transition fund for affected workers."
The Purpose Section
Keep it brief. One paragraph is usually enough.
Include:
- What decision is being requested
- What authority is needed (Cabinet approval, legislative change, regulatory amendment)
- Any deadline or urgency
Example: "This paper seeks Cabinet approval to introduce carbon pricing legislation in the 2027 session. Decision is needed by [date] to allow time for bill drafting and stakeholder consultation before session begins."
The Background Section
Provide just enough context for the decision:
Include:
- Why carbon pricing is being considered
- Key commitments or targets
- Previous decisions or consultations
- Timeline of how this came to this point
Exclude:
- Lengthy history of climate policy
- Technical details that belong in analysis section
- Advocacy for carbon pricing generally
Key Considerations
This is where you present the main arguments, for and against:
For the recommendation:
- Meets emissions targets
- Cost-effective approach
- Generates revenue for priorities
- Aligns with international peers
- Supported by key stakeholders
Against the recommendation (and responses):
- Concern: Impacts competitiveness
- Response: Addressed through free allocation and border adjustment
- Concern: Regressive impacts
- Response: Revenue recycling makes net impact progressive
Some recommendation papers present multiple options:
When to present options:
- Decision-makers have asked for options
- There are genuinely different legitimate approaches
- Political judgment is needed on key trade-offs
How to present options:
- Present each option objectively
- Show pros and cons of each
- Indicate which you recommend and why
- Make comparison easy
Common approaches:
Option A: Conservative approach (lower price, slower increase) Option B: Moderate approach (recommended) Option C: Ambitious approach (higher price, faster increase)
Each with clear trade-offs between cost and environmental ambition.
Pitfall to avoid: Presenting a "straw man" option that makes your preferred option look good by comparison.
The Analysis Summary
Summarize technical analysis. Detailed analysis belongs in appendices.
Include:
- Key findings relevant to the decision
- Main numbers (emissions impact, revenue, costs)
- Important uncertainties
- Reference to full technical analysis
Format:
- Use bullets and tables for clarity
- Round numbers appropriately
- Contextualize (is this a lot?)
| Metric | Projected impact |
|---|---|
| Emissions reduction by 2030 | 20-25% below baseline |
| Revenue (Year 1) | $3.5-4.0 billion |
| GDP impact | -0.3% to -0.5% |
| Household impact (bottom quintile, before recycling) | +2.1% expenditure |
| Household impact (bottom quintile, after dividends) | -0.5% (net benefit) |
Stakeholder Views
Decision-makers need to know how stakeholders will react:
Include:
- Which stakeholders were consulted
- Summary of supportive views
- Summary of concerns raised
- How concerns are addressed in the recommendation
Be balanced: Fairly represent opposing views. Decision-makers will hear from opponents, so it is better to address concerns proactively.
Implementation Section
Show that the recommendation can actually be implemented:
Include:
- Timeline for implementation
- Legislative or regulatory requirements
- Administrative capacity needs
- Key implementation challenges and solutions
- Phasing approach
Example timeline:
- Q1 2027: Cabinet approval
- Q2-Q3 2027: Legislation drafted
- Q4 2027: Parliamentary passage
- 2028: Implementation preparation
- January 2029: System operational
Risks and Mitigation
Acknowledge what could go wrong:
Risk categories:
- Implementation risks (delays, cost overruns)
- Economic risks (recession, price spikes)
- Political risks (opposition, backlash)
- Technical risks (MRV failures, evasion)
For each risk:
- Likelihood and impact
- Mitigation measures
- Residual risk
Be honest: Do not minimize risks. Decision-makers appreciate candor.
Next Steps
Be specific about what happens after approval:
Immediate actions:
- Draft legislation
- Begin stakeholder engagement
- Establish implementation team
Key milestones:
- Legislation to Parliament by [date]
- Regulations finalized by [date]
- System operational by [date]
Reporting back:
- Implementation update to Cabinet by [date]
Writing Style
Be direct: "It is recommended that..." not "It might be considered that..."
Be concise: Every sentence should add value.
Use active voice: "The carbon tax will reduce emissions" not "Emissions will be reduced by the carbon tax."
Avoid jargon: Define technical terms or use plain language alternatives.
Use parallel structure: Consistent formatting makes documents easier to scan.
A recommendation paper is like a legal brief. It presents your best case clearly and concisely. It anticipates counterarguments and addresses them. It respects the decision-maker's time while providing everything needed to decide.
Common Mistakes
Burying the recommendation: Put it early, not at the end after pages of background.
Too much detail: Decision-makers do not need to know everything. Technical details go in appendices.
Advocacy tone: Present evidence and analysis, not passion and rhetoric.
Ignoring opposition: Address concerns; do not pretend they do not exist.
Vague recommendations: Be specific about what you are proposing.
Missing next steps: Decision-makers need to know what happens after they decide.
Quality Assurance
Before submitting:
Technical review: Has the analysis been checked?
Policy review: Does this align with other government policies?
Legal review: Are there legal issues?
Communications review: How will this be communicated if approved?
Editorial review: Is it clear, well-organized, and error-free?
Looking Ahead
A well-written recommendation paper increases the chances of approval. But getting to that approval also requires managing the political process. The final lesson examines political economy and stakeholder buy-in.