Download Territorial Impact Assessment

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Washington Consensus wikipedia, lookup

Transcript
Territorial Impact Assessment
Moritz Lennert
IGEAT – ULB
Open Days, October 10, 2007
10D32
“Territorial futures for Europe – Scenarios,
policies and co-operation”
Introduction
• Political need for evaluating potential
impacts of policies
• Existing EIA, SEA, IA procedures ignore
space
• EU territory more complex
• Territory growing concern
• Political desire for concrete tools
• Presentation:
– general issues of IA
– important elements for TIA
– a prototype
Caveat lector
• Scientific impact assessment of policies is
impossible
– no control group
– not falsifiable
• Thank you and good bye !
• IA awareness-raising tool, not precise
measurement
• IA should support and enhance participation
and debate
Approximations
• Modelling:
– Ex-post: correlation between cohesion
spending and GDP growth
– Ex-ante: forecasting models
• Qualitative assessments
– Delphi method
– Pool of regional experts
– Participatory stakeholder assessments
• Scenarios for policy packages
Territorial IA
• Territorial cohesion one of the objectives of
the EU
• Supporting a territorially differentiated
approach to policy
• Territories focal points for incoherences of
policies
• TIA = double challenge:
– How to assess impacts ?
– How to differentiate impacts territorially ?
Elements of an “ideal” TIA
procedure
• Feasible
• Clear definition of what to assess
• Clear definition of scale or multiscalar
analysis
• Force debate and consensus on what to
assess against: What is territorial cohesion
?
Elements of an “ideal” TIA
procedure
• Flexibility and transparency in how to
assess
– allow combination of qualitative and
quantitative means
– avoid black box
• Force debate and consensus on what
constitutes regional specificities
• Support understanding of which elements
determine the results
Issues of Territorialisation
• Over 260 NUTS2 regions and almost 1300
NUTS3 regions, but limited data
• Significant differentiation:
M in
Share of NATURA 2 0 0 0 areas
Pop/km ²
% pop w it h t ert iary educat ion
GDP/hab
M ax
0
5 9 ,9
2 2 0 4 9 4 ,3
4 ,7
3 5 ,8
1105 135571
• The same impacts (growth of GDP, demand
for labour force, loss of green space, etc)
can have different meanings in different
contexts
A concrete methodology:
TEQUILA
• Two steps:
– generic impact on each criterion (PIMc)
– territorial differentiation of this generic impact
• Territorial differentiation (TIMc) =
– Regional vulnerability and desirability of
impacts for each criterion (Vr,c, Dr,c)
– Policy intensity and applicability in the region
(PIr, PAr)
• Result = one impact measure per criterion,
or weighted average of all criteria:
TIMr = Σc θc . Vr,c. Dr,c . (PIMc . PIr ). Par
Conclusions
• Policy impact assessment necessary for
“rational” policy making
• Territorial differentiation matters
• TIA should support the debate, not close it
• Nothing can replace local expertise
• Need for integrated, but practical tools that
leave room for qualitative and local
assessments
• TEQUILA is a first prototype
Thank you !
Moritz Lennert
IGEAT – ULB
[email protected]
More info:
http://www.espon.eu/
ESPON Project 3.2
Final Report - Volume 5 - TIA