Assessing the level of policy coherence
Introduction
Once you have collected all the relevant information and data for the targeted policies, you need to start analyzing the information. The CrossGov Policy Coherence Framework is a methodological framework for assessing and understanding policy coherence.
The framework consists of two parts:
- Part A: Assessing the level of policy coherence(explained on this page)
- Part B: Explanatory factors (understanding what factors cause policy (in)coherence) (Understanding reasons for policy (in)coherence)
This page introduces part A of the framework and provides guidance and recommendations on how to use it. Examples are given to illustrate the different steps of the assessment.
Note that both parts of the framework can be used independently from each other. Our recommendation, however, is to first assess policy coherence (Part A) and then look at reasons that explain why you have coherence or incoherence (Part B)
What are we assessing?
When assessing the level of coherence between policies, we are considering coherence between the objectives and the measures of the policies (figure 3 ).
Policy objectives are defined as the results and outcomes the policy sets out to achieve, as specified in the articles or text of the policy document. Policy objectives may be referred to in policy documents as goals, objectives, targets, commitments, or in other ways. They can be overarching, general, not quantified goals and/or specific quantified targets.
It is important to include both general and specific objectives in the assessments. General objectives are the overall goals of a policy, expressed in terms of ‘policy outcome’ or ‘policy impact’. These objectives are often broad, not quantifiable and without a specific timeline.
Specific objectives are targets to be achieved to meet the general objectives. Specific objectives are expressed in terms of the direct and short-term results of a policy. Specific objectives tend to be measurable, have a deadline or a specified time limit and may have associated indicators to measure results.
Examples of general objectives
- All the world’s ecosystems are restored, resilient and protected – Biodiversity Strategy to 2030.
- Ensure long-term sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, the availability of food supplies and a fair standard of living for fisheries and aquaculture communities – Common Fisheries Policy.
- Achieve good environmental status in the marine environment as well as sustainable use and coherence with other EU law – Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
- Conserve natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in the EU both on land and sea habitats – Habitats Directive
- Reduce and prevent water pollution from nitrates – Nitrates Directive
- To improve maritime safety and enhance protection of the marine environment from pollution by ships – Ship Source Pollution Directive.
Examples of specific objectives
- Reduce net GHG emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030 – Climate Law.
- By 2030, restore at least 20% of the EU's land and sea areas, with all ecosystems in need of restoration targeted by 2050 – Nature Restoration Regulation.
- Expand offshore wind capacity from 12 GW to at least 60 GW by 2030 - Offshore Energy Strategy.
- Achieve at least 32% of the EU's energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030 - Renewable Energy Directive III.
- Reduce by 50% plastic litter at sea and by 30% microplastics released into the environment – Zero Pollution Action Plan.
Note that the distinction between general and specific objectives is not always clear. For example, general objectives can include deadlines, and specific objectives might not always be quantifiable and easily measurable.
In addition to objectives, we also need to consider the measures of the policies. Measures are the specific actions that are put in place by the policy to deliver its objectives.
There are many types of measures. Laws and regulations can grant access to resources through licensing systems or directly prohibit certain actions. Economic measures are intended to incentivize desired behaviors, for example through subsidies, taxes or market-based approaches such as tradable quotas. Other types of measures are information and education campaigns, creation of new types of organizations and requirements to elaborate plans or strategies with a prescribed content.
Besides the intended outcomes, the measures may have unforeseen impacts and may affect other policies and objectives than the ones they are meant to support. This impact on other policies and objectives may be positive or negative, foreseen or unintended. Considering the interplay between the measures and objectives is key for assessing coherence.
Many policies contain multiple measures. Sometimes a combination of measures is used to jointly ensure the achievement of one specific policy objective. For instance, an agricultural policy aiming to reduce run-off from fields may use a combination of regulations on the breadth of green strips along rivers, information campaigns for farmers and subsidies to compensate them for production losses.
In cases where the policy contains many objectives, the policy might include a number of measures to support different objectives. If some objectives have weak support by effective measures while others are supported by many powerful ones, the policy would be unbalanced. This may not be apparent if you only assess the objectives.
Internal and external coherence assessments
Coherence assessments mainly concern the interrelationships between policies. However, it is useful to start the assessment with a close consideration of the individual policies that are to be compared. Understanding internal coherence of the individual policies facilitates understanding external coherence between the policies.
This page therefore provides guidance for both internal and external coherence assessments.
Internal coherence assessment: This step examines individual policies, their internal coherence and relation to overarching objectives (such as from the European Green Deal).
External coherence assessment: This step examines the interactions within a group of policies, assessing whether they are in conflict or create synergies, and identifying where trade-offs may arise.
Recommendation: Depending on the focus of analysis, the assessment of internal and external coherence can be conducted independently from each other. We recommend, however, starting with an internal coherence assessment of individual policies before understanding how policies interact with each other.
Light and in-depth coherence assessments
For both internal and external coherence assessments, we provide two options:
- Light coherence assessment: This can be conducted based on expert or stakeholder opinion and can provide a first mapping of policy coherence. It can also be done based on an analysis of policy
- In-depth coherence assessment: This type of assessment asks more detailed questions to guide the assessment. The recommended methodology includes a desk-based study (analyzing policy documents, legal acts, case law, and secondary literature) combined with expert interviews. The detailed guiding questions help answer the overarching questions from the light coherence assessment in more depth.
Recommendation: The choice between the light and in-depth assessment depends on the context and ambition of the assessment. We recommend beginning with a light coherence assessment and conducting an in-depth assessment when internal coherence issues or policy trade-offs are identified. Choose the light option to get a first mapping of 1) the coherence of objectives and measures within individual policies, and 2) the coherence of individual policies with higher-level policies.