Dr. Klaus JacobEnvironmental Policy Research Centre – Research Group Policy Assessment

Enhancing the use of impact assessment tools in policy making: bridging the gap between science and the policy making community

2Titel, Datum

Impact Assessment: Expectations and Empirical findingsIA Requirements: - Consideration of Economic, Environmental and Social aspects - Quantification of Impacts - Use of Cost Benefit Analysis- Value-free, neutral fact findingBut: - 22 Case studies in EC (8), Poland (2), UK (5), Denmark (3) and Netherlands (4) • 4 out of 22 consider economic, social and environmental aspects substantially (all

EC) • In all cases economic impacts have been considered at least formally, social

impacts in 13 cases, environmental impacts in 11 cases • Substantial consideration: economic impacts 17, social 7, environmental 8• Overall: Assessment of economic impacts and consultation of respective

stakeholder is a well established practice, not the case for social and environmental aspects

4Environmental Policy Research Centre, Klaus Jacob, 22/04/2023

Contribution of economic analysis

4,17%20,00% 23,08%

25,00%

20,00%23,08%12,50%

45,00%15,38%20,83%

5,00%

7,69%

37,50%

10,00%

30,77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DE (24) UK (20) NL (13)

Very important contribution Important contribution Some contribution

Minor contribution Did not take place

Economic Analysis

5Environmental Policy Research Centre, Klaus Jacob, 22/04/2023

Views about quantification

41,67%

63,16%54,55%

37,50%

36,84%45,45%

20,83%

0,00% 0,00%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DE (24) UK (19) NL (11)

I do not believe that quantif ication produces insights that are relevant to policy-making

Quantif ication may bias the results tow ards impacts that can be quantif ied

Quantif ication of impacts is a useful element of impact assessment

Sceptical on Quantification

6Environmental Policy Research Centre, Klaus Jacob, 22/04/2023

Costs of the proposal regarding different aspects

25

4

30

6 9

23

1923

13

42 34

5

27 30

22 2

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Economic andbusiness costs

Social costs Environmental costs

Monetisation Full quantif ication w ithout monetisation

Partial quantif ication Qualitative Assessment

No impacts expected Not evaluated

7

Analysis of IA Reports: EU COM, Ireland, UK

Environmental Policy Research Centre, Klaus Jacob, 22/04/2023

Simple Physical Assessment

Monetary Assessment

Modelling Other None0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

EU COM UKIreland

Source: Turnpenny et al. 2011

8Titel, Datum

Why is there a gap? IA and the Policy Process: Positivist technical-rational view: Speaking (a single) truth to a (single) power But: Political System - Evidence based policy making in tension with existing institutions Policy Regime: - Plurality of Evidence, - Multiple actors and interests - Ambiguity and non-linearity of the political process - Pre-determination and analytical closure Results: - Symbolic or legitimizing use of knowledge - Use of knowledge to frame the discourse:- Translation and re-combination of knowledge

9Titel, Datum

Improving the Practice Supply side: - ‚Mode 2‘, post-normal science: Diversity, Transdisciplinarity, Responsibility and

Quality Standards - Sustainability Science: problem-orientation, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity - Division of Work, Specialisation and Integration - Tools and data - Analysis of the contextDemand side: (1) Adaptation to the institutional context and integration in the policy process

(2) inter-departmental co-operation

(3) co-ordination across policy levels

(4) Participation

(5) Quality Assurance

10Titel, Datum

LIAISE Network of Excellence - LIAISE: 15 partner from FP6/FP7 IA projects

- Community of Researchers: - Publications- Meetings - Training - Research Agenda - www.liaise-noe.eu

- Tools and Toolbox - Contextualising knowledge - Combining knowledge - alpha.liaise-toobox.eu