Science–Policy Interfaces in Impact Assessment Procedures
Modelling tools used in impact assessment procedures can be regarded as tools for communication between science and policy. In order to create an integrated system for modelling not only the scientific components have to be in place but also the science/policy interfaces in the assessment procedures have to be identified and their social dynamics understood.
To make a system like SEAMLESS Integrated Framework (SEAMLESS-IF) applicable in a European decision-making process interaction with potential users of the system is needed during different stages of development. We are here describing some of the interactive work performed to enable user involvement in the development of the framework and the learning that was triggered by this. The two cases presented are SEAMLESS User Forum with participants from the EU administration and the process of setting up assessments in test situations with regional administrations.
The experience obtained from these interactions form a base for the discussion as to whether the design of SEAMLESS-IF is suited to contribute to an institutionalisation of a deliberative impact assessment process.
KeywordsImpact Assessment Potential User Policy Option Deliberative Process Impact Indicator
- Alkan Olsson, J., Bockstaller, C., Stapleton, L.M., Ewert, F., Knapen, R., Therond, O., Geniaux, G., Bellon, S., Pinto Correira, T., Turpin, N., & Bezlepkina, I. (2009). A goal oriented indicator framework to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-environmental systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 562-572.Google Scholar
- Bäcklund, A.-K. (2009). Impact assessment in the European commission - a system with multiple objectives. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(8), 1077-1087.Google Scholar
- Bardach, E. (2000). A practical guide to policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
- Cash, D., & Buizer, J. (2005). Knowledge-action systems for seasonal to inter-annual climate forecasting: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1998). Democracy and liberty. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 185-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- EC. (2002). Communication on impact assessment, COM 2002(276). Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/key_docs/com_2002_0276_en.pdf
- EC. (2005). Impact assessment guidelines, SEC 2005(791). Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/SEC2005_791_IA%20guidelines_annexes.pf
- EC. (2006). A strategic review of better regulation in the European Union. COM 2006 (689). Retrieved Feb 15, 2008, from http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/docs/en_689.pdf
- EEAC. (2006). Impact assessment of European commission policies: Achievements and prospects. Statement of the EEAC - Working Group on Governance. Retrieved Feb 15, 2007, from http://www.ecologic-events.de/eu-impact assessment/en/documents/EEAC_WG_Gov_IAstatement_background.pdf
- Elster, J. (ed). (1998). Deliberative democracy (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Feynmann, R. (1998). The meaning of it all. Reading, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
- Gabbert, S., Van Ittersum, M., Ewert, F., Kroeze, C., Stalpers, S. & Alkan-Olsson, J., (2009). Uncertainty information in Integrated Assessment: The users’ perspective. Regional Environmental Change, in press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Hilborn, R. (1979). Some failure and successes in applying systems analysis to ecological systems. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 6, 25-31.Google Scholar
- Janssen, S., Andersen, E., Athanasiadis, I.N., & van Ittersum, M.K. (2009). A database for integrated assessment of European agricultural systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 573-587. Google Scholar
- Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Lindblom, Ch E. (1968). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation (2001). Final Report. Retrieved Feb 10, 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_report.pdf
- Mintzberg, H. (1980). Beyond implementation: An analysis of the resistance to policy analysis. INFOR, 18(2), 100-138.Google Scholar
- Smith, G. (2000). Toward deliberative institutions. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 29-39). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Therond, O., Belhouchette, H., Janssen, S., Louhichi, K., Ewert, F., Bergez, J.-E., Wery, J., Heckelei, T., Alkan Olsson, J., Leenhardt, D., & van Ittersum, M. (2009). Methodology to translate policy assessment problems into scenarios: the example of the SEAMLESS Integrated Framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(5), 619-630.Google Scholar
- Van Ittersum, M., Gabbert, S., & Ewert, F. (2008b). Uncertainty analysis in model chains for integrated assessment. SEAMLESS deliverable PD126.96.36.199, SEAMLESS Integrated Project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2, www.SEAMLESS-IP.org, 60p.
- Van-Camp, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A.-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C., & Selvaradjou, S.-K. (2004). Reports of the Technical Working Groups established under the thematic strategy for soil protection. EUR 21319 EN/1, Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/vol1.pdf