Regulatory Impact Assessment of Potential Duplication of Governance and Reporting Standards for Charities

On 25 January 2013, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) released a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for consultation on ways to reduce regulatory duplication between the proposed Commonwealth governance and reporting standards and existing state and territory requirements.

Developing a sustainability impact assessment framework for local urban planning

In order to meet the land use and infrastructure needs of the community with the additional challenges posed by climate change and a global recession, it is essential that Queensland local governments test their proposed integrated land use and infrastructure plans to ensure the maximum achievement of triple-bottom line sus-tainability goals. Extensive regulatory impact assessment systems are in place at the Australian and state government levels to substantiate and test policy and legislative proposals, however no such requirement has been extended to the local government level. This paper contends that with the devolution of responsibility to local government and growing impacts of local government planning and development assessment activities, impact assessment of regulatory planning instruments is appropriate and overdue. This is particularly so in the Queensland context where local governments manage metropolitan and regional scale responsibilities and their planning schemes under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 integrate land use and infrastructure planning to direct development rights, the spatial allocation of land, and infrastructure investment. It is critical that urban planners have access to fit-for-purpose impact assessment frameworks which support this challenging task and address the important relationship between local planning and sustainable urban development. This paper uses two examples of sustainability impact assessment and a case study from the Queensland local urban planning context to build an argument and potential starting point for impact assessment in local planning processes.

Visual impact assessment of small dock & piers: Theory and practice

From a manager’s perspective, oftentimes the publicly held concerns related to small docks and piers are not really related to the environment. They may be more related to visual impacts and aesthetic concerns, a sense of over-development of the shore, or simply change. While individuals may hold personal aesthetic values related to small docks in general or an individual structure in particular, techniques have evolved that appear to provide reproducible, predictive assessments of the visual impacts and aesthetic values of an area and how those might change with development, including an increase in numbers of small docks. These assessments may be used to develop regulatory or non-regulatory methods for the management of small docks based on state or community standards. Visual impact assessments are increasingly used in the regulatory review of proposed development—although this process is still in its infancy as regards small docks and piers. Some political jurisdictions have established visual impact or aesthetic standards as relate to docks and others are in the process of investigating how to go about such an effort. (PDF contains 42 pages)

Impact Assessment in the EU: a tool for better regulation, less regulation or less bad regulation?

Impact Assessments (IAs) were introduced at the EU level under the rhetorical facade of ‘better regulation’. The actual aim was to improve not only the quality but also the reputation of EU regulation before stakeholders. However, evidence brought forward by a number of evaluations pointed out that IAs are yet to achieve acceptable quality standards. The paper offers an overview of different disciplinary approaches for looking at IAs. It suggests that risk regulation encompasses the theoretical foundations to help understand the role of IAs in the EU decisionmaking process. The analysis of 60 early days preliminary IAs provides empirical evidence regarding policy alternatives, methodology of consultation and use of quantitative techniques. Findings suggest that dawn period IAs were used mainly to provide some empirical evidence for regulatory intervention in front of stakeholders. The paper concludes with assumptions about the future role of IAs at EU level.

Q method factor analysis of stakeholder social perspectives of the effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment public participation in the Western Cape, South Africa

Public participation is an integral part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and as such, has been incorporated into regulatory norms. Assessment of the effectiveness of public participation has remained elusive however. This is partly due to the difficulty in identifying appropriate effectiveness criteria. This research uses Q methodology to discover and analyze stakeholder's social perspectives of the effectiveness of EIAs in the Western Cape, South Africa. It considers two case studies (Main Road and Saldanha Bay EIAs) for contextual participant perspectives of the effectiveness based on their experience. It further considers the more general opinion of provincial consent regulator staff at the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Planning (DEA&DP). Two main themes of investigation are drawn from the South African National Environmental Management Act imperative for effectiveness: firstly, the participation procedure, and secondly, the stakeholder capabilities necessary for effective participation. Four theoretical frameworks drawn from planning, politics and EIA theory are adapted to public participation and used to triangulate the analysis and discussion of the revealed social perspectives. They consider citizen power in deliberation, Habermas' preconditions for the Ideal Speech Situation (ISS), a Foucauldian perspective of knowledge, power and politics, and a Capabilities Approach to public participation effectiveness. The empirical evidence from this research shows that the capacity and contextual constraints faced by participants demand the legislative imperatives for effective participation set out in the NEMA. The implementation of effective public participation has been shown to be a complex, dynamic and sometimes nebulous practice. The functional level of participant understanding of the process was found to be significantly wide-ranging with consequences of unequal and dissatisfied stakeholder engagements. Furthermore, the considerable variance of stakeholder capabilities in the South African social context, resulted in inequalities in deliberation. The social perspectives revealed significant differences in participant experience in terms of citizen power in deliberation. The ISS preconditions are highly contested in both the Saldanha EIA case study and the DEA&DP social perspectives. Only one Main Road EIA case study social perspective considered Foucault's notion of governmentality as a reality in EIA public participation. The freedom of control of ones environment, based on a Capabilities approach, is a highly contested notion. Although agreed with in principle, all of the social perspectives indicate that contextual and capacity realities constrain its realisation. This research has shown that Q method can be applied to EIA public participation in South Africa and, with the appropriate research or monitoring applications it could serve as a useful feedback tool to inform best practice public participation.

Economic impact assessment of a chlorofluorocarbon production cap : support document, section 6, proposed rule, Toxic Substances Control Act /

"Contract no. 68-01-6236."

Developing a participatory impact assessment approach and action research culture within a communication for social change organisation in Nepal

Developing an effective impact evaluation framework, managing and conducting rigorous impact evaluations, and developing a strong research and evaluation culture within development communication organisations presents many challenges. This is especially so when both the community and organisational context is continually changing and the outcomes of programs are complex and difficult to clearly identify.----- This paper presents a case study from a research project being conducted from 2007-2010 that aims to address these challenges and issues, entitled Assessing Communication for Social Change: A New Agenda in Impact Assessment. Building on previous development communication projects which used ethnographic action research, this project is developing, trailing and rigorously evaluating a participatory impact assessment methodology for assessing the social change impacts of community radio programs in Nepal. This project is a collaboration between Equal Access – Nepal (EAN), Equal Access – International, local stakeholders and listeners, a network of trained community researchers, and a research team from two Australian universities. A key element of the project is the establishment of an organisational culture within EAN that values and supports the impact assessment process being developed, which is based on continuous action learning and improvement. The paper describes the situation related to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and impact assessment before the project began, in which EAN was often reliant on time-bound studies and ‘success stories’ derived from listener letters and feedback. We then outline the various strategies used in an effort to develop stronger and more effective impact assessment and M&E systems, and the gradual changes that have occurred to date. These changes include a greater understanding of the value of adopting a participatory, holistic, evidence-based approach to impact assessment. We also critically review the many challenges experienced in this process, including:----- • Tension between the pressure from donors to ‘prove’ impacts and the adoption of a bottom-up, participatory approach based on ‘improving’ programs in ways that meet community needs and aspirations.----- • Resistance from the content teams to changing their existing M&E practices and to the perceived complexity of the approach.----- • Lack of meaningful connection between the M&E and content teams.----- • Human resource problems and lack of capacity in analysing qualitative data and reporting results.----- • The contextual challenges, including extreme poverty, wide cultural and linguistic diversity, poor transport and communications infrastructure, and political instability.----- • A general lack of acceptance of the importance of evaluation within Nepal due to accepting everything as fate or ‘natural’ rather than requiring investigation into a problem.

Incorporating an economic model in the health impact assessment approach

The current policy decision making in Australia regarding non-health public investments (for example, transport/housing/social welfare programmes) does not quantify health benefits and costs systematically. To address this knowledge gap, this study proposes an economic model for quantifying health impacts of public policies in terms of dollar value. The intention is to enable policy-makers in conducting economic evaluation of health effects of non-health policies and in implementing policies those reduce health inequalities as well as enhance positive health gains of the target population. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides an appropriate framework for this study since HIA assesses the beneficial and adverse effects of a programme/policy on public health and on health inequalities through the distribution of those effects. However, HIA usually tries to influence the decision making process using its scientific findings, mostly epidemiological and toxicological evidence. In reality, this evidence can not establish causal links between policy and health impacts since it can not explain how an individual or a community reacts to changing circumstances. The proposed economic model addresses this health-policy linkage using a consumer choice approach that can explain changes in group and individual behaviour in a given economic set up. The economic model suggested in this paper links epidemiological findings with economic analysis to estimate the health costs and benefits of public investment policies. That is, estimating dollar impacts when health status of the exposed population group changes by public programmes – for example, transport initiatives to reduce congestion by building new roads/ highways/ tunnels etc. or by imposing congestion taxes. For policy evaluation purposes, the model is incorporated in the HIA framework by establishing association among identified factors, which drive changes in the behaviour of target population group and in turn, in the health outcomes. The economic variables identified to estimate the health inequality and health costs are levels of income, unemployment, education, age groups, disadvantaged population groups, mortality/morbidity etc. However, though the model validation using case studies and/or available database from Australian non-health policy (say, transport) arena is in the future tasks agenda, it is beyond the scope of this current paper.