AMP Toolbox

Prioritise/assess new measures
Introduction
Several types of assessment methods exist which are useful to assess potential measures. These include impact assessments, cost-effectiveness analysis, coast-benefit analysis, and multi-criteria analysis.
  • Impact assessments (IAs) are used to evaluate the potential economic, social and environmental consequences of a new initiative. Therefore, an IA provides decision makers with evidence about the specific advantages and disadvantages of a potential policy choice. An IA explains why a course of action should or should not be taken. It should also consider a cost-benefit analysis (see below) as well as other criteria such as suitability (e.g. scale of implementation), and the social and institutional context (e.g. fairness). The IA is useful when considering alternative measures and comparing different scenarios against a baseline (see also Step 1). This is because a number of different factors are important when choosing between new measures. This includes:
  • Type of environmental pressure and impact
  • Source of pressure and impact
  • Local conditions (e.g. waste management infrastructure)
  • Capacity to implement and enforce the instrument
  • Costs and benefits of the measure (see below)olitical trade-offs between environmental, social and economic impacts
The European Commission provides guidelines on conducting IAs here.
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is used to identify the most economically efficient way to reach an objective. In this regard it is useful to understand and discuss the efficiency of a project, measure, programme or policy. More specifically, CEA is used to identify the highest level of a physical benefit given the available resources (e.g. delivering the maximum reduction in risk exposure subject to a budget constraint), as well as the least-cost option (including a combination of options) for reaching a prescribed target (e.g. a given quality of marine waters). It is the latter form (i.e. searching for least cost solutions), which CEA customarily takes in health, water and climate economics. Because it ranks options, CEA represents a decision support framework, since among a number of alternative management options (measures, projects, or technologies) it provides the one that achieves a predetermined level of environmental state with the least cost. CEA is a pragmatic methodological choice since it does not require significant time and resources.
A detailed description of CEA, including a checklist, is available from EuropeAid here.
  • Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), sometimes called benefit-cost analysis, is a technique for comparing the total advantages (benefits) of a project or policy intervention with its disadvantages (costs). The output of CBA – be it in terms of net present value, internal rate of return or break-even point – provides an economic consideration for investment decisions (e.g. undertaking an investment if the aggregate benefits exceed the aggregate costs). In the environmental management arena, formal CBA is a controversial technique because it involves the calculation in monetary terms of changes in the provision of non-market goods and ecosystem services accruing to all affected parties. The informational and analytic demands of non-market valuations for CBA are quite considerable. On the other hand, its equity implications are often criticised because they de facto favour the status quo of income distribution in the society. While not intended to be the only basis for decision making, CBA can be a valuable aid to policymakers.
  • Multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Both CBA and CEA are based on a single criterion of choice: economic efficiency. Multi-criteria analysis introduces the possibility of basing economic decisions on multiple criteria such as: economic efficiency, environmental resilience, regional priorities, equity, compatibility with existing infrastructures etc. Instead of using costs and benefits only in monetised form, MCA enables ranking of alternatives on the basis of (subjective) weighting schemes. It thus overcomes the problem of monetising impacts on non-market goods or ecosystem services while widening the scope for non-economic public choice criteria in environmental decisions.
A detailed description of MCA, including a checklist, is available from EuropeAid here.

Key questions
  • Which criteria should be used to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed measures?
  • How can the trade-offs between criteria be translated into a weighting system?
  • Who is responsible for implementing, evaluating, monitoring and controlling each measure?

Key actions
  • Involve stakeholders
  • Select a set of policy measures
  • Establish a list of weighted criteria
  • Establish a list of non-prioritised measures
  • Prioritise/assess measures against weighted criteria
  • Distribute responsibility for implementation, evaluation and compliance control for each of the measures
  • Define mechanisms and triggers for policy adaptation

Tools & methods: