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