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

BiPRO
In a second step measures from these categories have been evaluated concerning pros and
cons of action at European level versus action at Member State level. For this evaluation the
subsidiarity principle has been taken into account.
In a third step a ranking within the above mentioned categories has been performed for
measures assessed to be advantageously addressed at Community level as a function of
“need for action”.. In order to be able to further sort the proposed measures within the
categories a weighing of further parameters has been included in the ranking according to the
following principles:
• Overall measures and general measures are attributed higher priority than specific
measures for single sources
• The specific measures for single sources are rated depending on the “Need for action”
ranking as performed in chapter 8
• Measures assessed as favourable at Community level alone are attributed higher
priority than measures assessed preferably followed by a combined approach between
Member States and European Commission
• Measures for release reduction are attributed higher priority than measures for
information or knowledge gain. Within this category measures with combined effect
(knowledge/information gain and side-effect on releases) are ranked higher than pure
measures for information gain or improved knowledge
• Within single source categories ranking has been performed from high need for action
to low need for action. Within these categories measures addressing all POP have
been weighted higher than those addressing only single POPs.
• Within category 5 measures with high effectiveness but low feasibility have been
attributed higher priority than measures with high feasibility but low effectiveness
In a final categorisation measures for release reduction and measures for improved
knowledge, information or communication have been sorted separately.
This step is important as the two types of measure use completely different approaches and a
direct comparison would act as strong confounding factor (measures for information gain may
have high effectiveness and feasibility with respect to information gain, but this does not mean
that they are necessarily better for the overall purpose of release reduction than a reduction
measure with medium effectiveness or feasibility in relation to release reduction).
The ranking has been performed in the categories:
• Measures for release reduction
• Measures for information/knowledge gain and release reduction
• Measures for information/knowledge gain.
Within each class of measures the ranking parameter mentioned above have been used.
page 42