Owl meets beehive: how impact assessment and governance relate

Figures & data

Figure 1 Impact assessment and governance: four questions.

Figure 2 Impact assessment, governance and metagovernance: analytical framework (own composition).

Table 1 Simplified heuristic model of SEA problems and their possible solutions by governance style (own composition).

SEA problem	Governance topics	Hierarchical gov. reflex	Network gov. reflex	Market gov. reflex
Insufficient scoping	Dealing with uncertainty	Scoping is the responsibility of government	Include stakeholders in scoping phase	Scoping is the responsibility of the planning agency
No cumulative and synergistic effects	Complexity	Keep it manageable and facts-based	Create consent on difficult topics like cumulation and synergy	Keep it simple, focus on direct impacts
	Dealing with uncertainty
Insufficient consideration of alternatives and scenarios	Reflexivity	Rule of law approach: focus on existing legal provisions	Maximalist approach: open to alternatives, including those proposed by stakeholders	Flexible attitude but ruled by cost of assessing alternatives
	Compliance
	Flexibility
Insufficient quality of the IA report	Reporting	Focus on statistics	Focus on consensus on data	Focus on monetisation
	Review
Insufficient explanation of uncertainties and other difficulties	Complexity	Rule out uncertainty by defining a narrow scope of the plan	Joint fact finding and participative scenario process	Select no regret options
	Dealing with uncertainty
Unclear impact of public participation	Participation	Public will be informed in due time	Public should be informed during the whole process	Public should be informed on a need-to-know basis
Insufficient consideration given to monitoring	Monitoring	Monitor impacts of measures	Monitor change	Monitor costs and benefits
Insufficient capacity of authorities	Capacity building	Establish a quality control authority	Establish a learning community	Establish a competitive training centre