through the development of an EIA toolkit that would teach workshop participants about the EIA

process and later on allow them to teach their communities. The workshops will also gather the
initial inputs necessary to revise current EIA policies.

A mis-match between the policy design, the socio-cultural environment and the institutional
structures can lead to problematic institutional performance and implementation outcomes.
Insufficient institutional capacity also places strains on institutional performance and
implementation capacity. Policies and institutions need to build on the strengths of a locality and
be tailored to the prevailing socio-cultural environment for effective policy delivery.
Implementation difficulties can be resolved by allowing policy design to better fit the exigencies
of local areas, while simultaneously reinforcing regulatory solutions where this can improve
implementation capacity.

Sarah C. E. Batterbury (2002) Evaluating Policy Implementation: The European Union's Small
and Medium Sized Enterprise Policies in Galicia and Sardinia, Regional Studies, 36:8, 861-876,
DOI: 10.1080/0034340022000012306

The effectiveness of policy implementation documented for environmental assessments,

explains the concept of an “effectiveness triangle” (Sadler 1996). The term “effectiveness” is
explained by Sadler as whether something works as intended and meets the purpose for which
it is designed. Environmental assessments aim to facilitate sound, integrated decision making
by providing clear, well-organized information on the environmental effects, risks, and
consequences that must be considered to achieve the ultimate goals of environmental
protection and sustainable development. Effectiveness is evaluated by Sadler using three
generic criteria: procedural (to meet accepted principles and provisions), substantive (to
achieve established purposes and objectives), and transactive (to determine the extent to
which the procedural principles deliver the substantive objectives at the least cost and in the
minimum time possible). Ultimately, overall effectiveness is achieved if it supports policy and
institutional reforms to the decision-making process of environmental protection and
sustainable development.

Based on Sadler’s theory of “effectiveness triangle,” Baker and McLelland (2003) proposed an
expanded framework that focuses on policy as a function of the different aspects of efficacy
that surround the policy (Baker and McLelland 2003). Procedural (practice), substantive
(performance), and transactive (proficiency) aspects were defined and a normative (purpose)
aspect was added by Baker and McLelland (2003). The expanded framework represented
“circular effectiveness cycle” linking all four aspects to analyze policy effectiveness. The
framework was used to trace the practice of a given policy by understanding how the policy
was applied and what procedures were followed. Examination of the performance and
proficiency involved in the implementation process allows a clear understanding of how the
policy objectives were met, and how resources were used to achieve the objectives.
Examination of the normative aspect included an analysis to find out whether purposed goals
were realized by the policy. Overall policy effectiveness was reflected through this by the extent
to which a policy works from all four aspects of the circular effectiveness cycle. This framework
was tested in Mount Milligan, Kemess, and Huckleburry cases of mine development in British
Columbia and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of First Nations’ participation in the
environmental assessment process (Baker and McLelland 2003).

DENR AO 2017-15 was issued to improve public participation and engagement within the EIS
system. It
introduced improvements on public participation within the EIS system. It initiated stakeholder
involvement

But, workshop participants reported that there are still considerable gaps that need to be
addressed.

Bartoch’s Eightfold Path to Policy Analysis provide a systematic process to policy analysis:

1. Define the Problem – a well-defined problem evaluates the causal chain from the
situation itself and the “bad” effects it is alleged to cause and which must be mitigated.
2. Assemble the evidence – review available literature, survey best practices, use
analogies, and touch base with critics and potential partners (to determine possible
objections)
3. Construct the alternatives – provide a list of policy options or alternative courses of
action, with the business as usual model as the baseline alternative.
4. Select the criteria – provide the projected outcomes that solves the problem.
5. Project the outcomes - Project all outcomes or impacts that interested parties may be
concerned about.
6. Confront the trade-offs – look at competing outcomes and if they can be monetized or
expressed in quantitative form.
7. Decide -
8. Tell the story – describe the problem that intends to be mitigated or solved, lay out
alternative courses of action, project the outcomes for the courses of action, explain the
trade-offs implicit in each policy choice, and state recommendations.