Table of annexes annex I: Glossary 4

Methodology adopted for the screening process

Download 1.47 Mb.

Page	14/20
Date	20.10.2016
Size	1.47 Mb.
	#6204

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20

2.2.Selection of policy measures

2.Methodology adopted for the screening process

2.1.Content of the screening process

The screening process consisted in 3 parallel assessments:

Assessing the performance of the options against a number of criteria

A mark between 0 and 1 is given to each of the options to assess numerically how they perform; the criteria and the meaning of the marks are presented in the table below.

Criteria		Assessment of the performance	weight of the criteria	Criteria number
	SO1 Ensure that airlines have an increased choice of groundhandling solutions at EU airports	– Is the option effective to achieve the objective? (High degree of effectiveness=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (high degree of effectiveness) to 0 (not effective).	13%%	1
Effectiveness	SO2 : Harmonise and clarify national administrative conditions on market entry (approvals)	– Is the option effective to achieve the objective? (High degree of effectiveness=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (high degree of effectiveness) to 0 (not effective).	13%%	2
	SO3 : ensure a level playing field at airport level between groundhandling companies operating under different regulatory regime	– Is the option effective to achieve the objective? (High degree of effectiveness=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (high degree of effectiveness) to 0 (not effective).	13%%	3
	SO4 : Increase coordination between groundhandling providers at the airport	– Is the option effective to achieve the objective? (High degree of effectiveness=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (high degree of effectiveness) to 0 (not effective).	13%%	4
	SO5 : Clarify the legal framework in relation to personnel training and transfer	– Is the option effective to achieve the objective? (High degree of effectiveness=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (high degree of effectiveness) to 0 (not effective).	13%%	5
Proportionality and subsidiarity		– Is the option proportionate and consistent with the subsidiarity principle? – Score: from 1 (proportionate) to 0 (disproportionate).	10%	6
Time of implementation		– How long will it take before the option will deliver tangible benefits? (Short period of time =Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (very short period of time) to 0 (very long period of time)	10%	7
Feasibility and compliance costs		– Would the option be legally, operationally and administratively feasible? (High degree of feasibility = Very High performance) – Would the option create additional costs for the groundhandling sector? (No costs=Very High performance) – Score: from 1 (facilitate the procedures) to 0 (create additional burdens)	10%	8
Complementary nature		Is it possible to combine two or more instruments without any negative impact on their individual effectiveness?	5%	9

Assessing the stakeholders' opinion about the option

For each of the options, a summary of the stakeholders' opinions is given (based on the written and bilateral consultations carried out):

"good" opinion : in general, the option is favourably considered by stakeholders,
"mixed" : some stakeholders (strongly) supported this option while others were (strongly) against,
"Poor" opinion: stakeholders were in general not supportive of this option.

Assessing qualitatively the option

Benefits and drawbacks, as well as particularities of the policy measure are qualitatively described. Based on this description, an assessment is given between good, medium and poor.

2.2.Selection of policy measures

Based on the results of the screening process, policy measures have been eliminated or retained. Rules for eliminations are the following:

Were eliminated policy measures that have a low mark (under 0,3) and a poor/medium stakeholder / qualitative assessment.
Where 2 or more policy measures are interchangeable (same intensity), only the best of the 2 is kept.

For policy measures enjoying a significant support among some of the stakeholders, a detailed analysis is additionally provided in 4.

Directory: pub -> ECD
ECD -> Commission staff working document
ECD -> Table of contents I instruments Error: Reference source not found
ECD -> En commission of the european communities brussels, 12. 12. 2008 com(2008) 853 final annex annex II to VIII
ECD -> Report from the commission to the european parliament and the council european community safa programme aggregated information report
ECD -> Report from the commission european community safa programme
ECD -> Commission staff working document
ECD -> Commission of the european communities brussels, 24 2008
ECD -> Commission staff working document
ECD -> Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions
ECD -> Annex I iccat species

Download 1.47 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20