You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items

  • Author or Editor: Duncan Russel x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Duncan Russel

This chapter examines the challenges of applying ex ante analysis to agricultural policy. It does so through the lens of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which throws up many relevant problems that may also be common in other political jurisdictions. The chapter highlights the complexities of agricultural policy rooted in a decision-making environment that encompasses the actions of individual farmers through to international organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) each with different interests, and the significant spillovers into other policy areas such as the environment, trade and energy. While there is plenty of analysis on the economic impacts of agricultural policy that can be drawn into impact assessment (IA) analysis, data gaps on social and to a lesser extent environmental impacts do present some challenges. Moreover, agricultural policy-making is highly politicized with many different actors pushing for wholly different, often conflicting directions from liberalization of the sector through to protection of rural economies. The difficulties of navigating these different actor interests can hamper the rigorous use of IA to develop policy. Ultimately, the chapter concludes by arguing that given the complex context of agricultural policy, more systematic use of IA is especially needed to promote learning and dialogue amongst policy-makers and wider stakeholders.
You do not have access to this content

Duncan Russel and Andrew Jordan

You do not have access to this content

Camilla Adelle, Duncan Russel and Marc Pallemaerts

You do not have access to this content

John Turnpenny, Duncan Russel, Andrew Jordan, Alan Bond and William R. Sheate

Environmental problems are often thought of as rather ‘different’ to those encountered in other policy areas. Integrating environmental considerations, particularly environmental knowledge, into all areas of decision-making is often seen as a particularly significant challenge. In principle, appraisal systems offer a means to routinely address this integration challenge, but the politics of appraisal are often a significant complicating factor. This chapter reviews the literature on the ways that three appraisal mechanisms have attempted to embed environmental knowledge into decision-making processes: national policy-level impact assessment (IA), plan and programme-level strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and project-level environmental impact assessment (EIA). It reviews the opportunities for, and associated barriers to, such embedding. These are analysed at micro- (or individual), meso- (or organizational) and macro- (or socio-political context) scales. While appraisal may appear at first sight to offer a way round the vexations of addressing highly politicized environmental issues, this is not necessarily the case. Micro-, meso- and macro-scale barriers and enablers intersect across the three types of appraisal in complex ways. The politicized nature revealed at macro- and meso-scales influences, and is itself influenced by, more micro-scale issues. All three appraisal systems have also experienced significant implementation problems, and there are significant and enduring differences between how they are described in guidance documents and how they function in practice. Practices of appraisal also vary between countries. In short, there may be a small number of appraisal ‘types’, but they appear in many different national and sectoral ‘colours’.
You do not have access to this content

Davide Geneletti, Alan Bond, Duncan Russel, John Turnpenny, William Sheate and Andrew Jordan