identification, assessment and prioritisation of eu ... - Ariacube

BiPRO
However this does not mean that measures with low feasibility could not be taken into
consideration. The selection of final measures is also a matter of political strategy and
prioritisation.
The assessment of proposed measures with respect to effectiveness, costs, socio-economic
impacts and feasibility has been done measure by measure. The detailed results and the
justifications are presented in chapter 8.3
As illustrated/discussed in the chapters above, feasibility is not completely independent from
other criteria used for assessment and ranking. A semi-quantitative evaluation of the relative
weighing of specific assessment criteria in the ranking procedure is presented in Figure 3-7 .
The suggested measures might be relevant for the European Community, Member States or
a combined activity between Member States and Commission. For every measure the best
approach was discussed within the project team and marked in the overview table:
Proposed
Measures
General
measures
for release
reduction
Measure EU / MS Expected
Effect
Quality
requirem
ents for
air
transport
fuel
EU
(already
establish
ed in
some
MS
level)
release
reduction
Compartment
addressed
Table 3-6: Example of the assessment of an additional measure
Air
page 40
Pollutant
addressed Effectiveness
PAH
(mainly)
A short justification for the assessments is given below each table.
Assessment
Costs
Socioeconomic
impacts
Feasibility
1 1 1 1-2
It should be emphasised that the assessments are regarded as a first contribution to a future
discussion with Member States and Stakeholders. They are not yet final and might be
readjusted with further incoming information.
3.5 Methodology for ranking and prioritisation of measures
Basis for the ranking and the prioritisation are the “assessments of measures” and the “need
for action” categories concerning gaps and deficits for single sources.
Effectiveness and feasibility are regarded to be the most important criteria for the ranking of
suggested measures. Consequently they are used as ranking criteria for a basic
categorisation into 5 priority categories:
Category 1: Effectiveness high or medium to high (3 or 2-3)
Feasibility high or medium to high (3 or 2-3)
Category 2: Effectiveness medium (2)
Feasibility high or medium to high (3 or 2-3)