LA POBLACIÓN Y LA MUESTRA

Stakeholder input serves two main functions: it provides an important factual input into policy design and implementation; and it provides a venue for affected parties to speak about what are often contentious and even quite emotional issues. Both of these objectives can be achieved more effectively with some advance preparation, along the following guidelines:

•

helpful, even if these contacts are informal. This sends a very important signal that the government officials will make decisions in an informed and unbiased manner.

•

meetings, and such meetings can play an important role in allowing affected parties to air their concerns publicly. However, more frequent, less formal contacts and briefings may be more effective as an information gathering tool, keeping the process moving forward and facilitating iterative policy refinements. Less formal contacts also allow people to provide information more anonymously, which can encourage more forthright sharing of views.

•

stakeholder outreach should be viewed as an informational tool to support an informed decision, not a way to necessarily reach a policy consensus. Consensus building can easily become a tactic for affected parties to delay any action or activity, and making it clear that the governing agency is not focused on this aspect per se can help avoid unnecessary bottlenecks.

•

formal timeline for sharing information and comments.

Transparency. The overall policy assessment process must be done transparently.

This helps stakeholders know that they will be heard fairly, as well as that any efforts to influence the process by dishonest means is likely to become public. Because the environmental authorities often have less power than many of the affected industries or their political partners, built-in transparency also protects them from pressure tactics from companies or other ministries.

– List of participants. While individual conversations can be private, policy makers should always publish a list of all groups and individuals with whom they spoke. This spotlights situations where parties with vested interests have flooded the process with their representatives. The list should also be reviewed for the opposite problem -- who is missing -- to ensure that all important stakeholder interests have been heard.

– Explanation of decisions. As decisions will always go against the wishes of some stakeholders, it is important that policy makers state publicly why particular decisions were reached and why they went against the stated interests of a particular stakeholder group. The process of simply acknowledging the opposing positions can do much to ameliorate resentment by these parties, as they can see that their views were considered.

Structured time line. Information from third parties plays a direct role in how policy

makers view the environmental problem and the options for solving it. Unfortunately, these parties often use their information strategically, releasing only the bits that help their particular case. More often than not, such information is released in dribs and drabs, when additional support or refutation is needed for their case. This dynamic increases the difficulty of developing sound policies from the outset and can greatly delay the policy process. Stipulating deadlines for particular input can solve this problem, and re-establishes the policy maker as the party in control of the situation. – Data provision window. Ministries should require that any data held by stakeholders

and relevant to assessing the magnitude of the problem, the impacts on various parties, and options and impacts of solutions (especially on the choice of instruments) be provided within a certain time range. Data not provided would be ignored.

– Policy comment window. Subsequent to the release of the short-list of policy options, there would be a relatively short window for comments on these items, after which a final policy package would be chosen.

Unless both deadlines are strictly enforced, stakeholders will not take them seriously, and all of the previously existing gaming of the system will quickly return. Note these windows also set timelines for government officials to solicit this input from the less powerful groups most affected by the policies. Applying the same requirements to the government sends a strong signal in terms of equitable treatment for all parties in the process, as well as supporting a more rapid process of policy development.

Rather than full consensus, defining zones of agreement between parties, as well as clarifying the trade-offs among various options, may be sufficient to map out the refined policy framework. This type of information enables policy makers to make realistic assessments of the political barriers to action and the social implications of policy proposals.

Input from stakeholders then feeds back into the information compilation constructed during Phase 1, documenting the refined understanding of the problem. This allows refocusing of

the Phase 2 "short-list" of policy options, narrowing the choices and identifying the appropriate flanking measures to implement with a particular EI to address the social or political barriers. Flanking measures commonly involve exemptions, deferrals, or transitional subsidies to help those groups (often the poor) most adversely affected by a policy change. Issues regarding international competitiveness often come up as well, with domestic industries arguing that they will be harmed by environmental controls not faced by their international competitors. Understanding the dynamics of the problem and the affected parties can expand the range of choices. For example, rather than exempt large domestic industries from important environmental policies as is often done, a solution might be to try to establish parity by ensuring imported products meet similar standards.

3.4

Phase 4: Policy implementation and evaluation

The policy implementation and evaluation phase involves moving from outreach and data gathering to choosing and implementing a final policy package. If the earlier phases have been completed well, a good deal of the rationale for the policy choice, and the outreach to affected parties, will already have been done. Exhibit 3.2 provides a simple template that can be used to compare the final options across key criteria. Again, the use of a matrix ensures that important data and impact categories are compared for each option. Each separate option generates two columns in the table. The first, "Option review" will provide very brief text summaries of the policy alternative. The second, "Ranking", provides comparative rankings that will make policy comparisons easier to do. Ranking methods can be changed to suit needs and preferences (e.g., use of numbers rather than high, medium low; or by weighting some criteria more than others). Similarly, evaluation criteria can be modified as well to better reflect the objectives of policy makers. This type of a comparison can be helpful in trying to decide amongst the final slate of options.

Description

Main policy

Choices re: distribution of initial rights, ability to transfer, duration and caps

Performance

Environmental efficacy

Cost of implementation and operation Complexity

Anticipated side-effects

Social: highly impacted groups (exposure, job loss, increased poverty)

Policy parameter _{Option review* Ranking* (H,M,L)}

Important aspects of the final choice of policy and on policy implementation are discussed below: