Review Procedures for Water Resources Project Planning (2002) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Alternative Approaches to Review
5 Alternative Approaches to Review
Pages 48-56
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 48... ...
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. National Science Foundation employ review processes for scientific research programs or funding proposals that are typically more specific 48
|
From page 49... ...
The World Bank also established an inspection panel that processes claims filed by people affected by projects, and it also independently reviews the extent to which World Bank policies and guidelines have been followed. Another example is the organization Transparency international, which has established review procedures across a variety of sectors, including public procurement, financial accounting, and voting procedures (http://www.transparency.org; last accessed July 9, 20021.
|
From page 50... ...
Issues related to conflicts of interest and biases may arise in connection with review processes within federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, and care must be taken to minimize these concerns. There is also the challenge of selecting review panels that are viewed as credible and balanced, but that also have adequate knowledge of the Corps' often highly complex planning guidance and analytical methods.
|
From page 51... ...
Reviews should not duplicate other review processes required by law or included within normal executive functions of the government. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes require external review of Corps projects by select parties.
|
From page 52... ...
VARIATIONS ON INDEPENDENCE The Corps has several institutional options for helping ensure independence of the processes for nominating and selecting reviewers. Examples of institutions that could conceivably assume some reviewer selection duties and that are completely external to the Corps include, but are not limited to, the National Academies, the National Academy of Public Administration, professional science and engineering societies, and independent federal oversight groups.
|
From page 53... ...
The National Academy for Public Administration, an independent, nonprofit organization chartered by Congress, responds to specific requests from public agencies. This is a legitimate option in the independent review for the Corps, as the National Academy of Public Administration specializes in administrative and governance issues central to the execution of the Corps' planning guidance, and it has also reviewed policies and administrative arrangements for natural resources management.
|
From page 54... ...
Options Closer to the Corps Several options for selecting reviewers and managing the review process are administratively more closely related to the Corps. These are the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
|
From page 55... ...
A disadvantage of placing the review function in the Assistant Secretary's Office is that the Office of the ASA(CW) may be too closely related to the Corps to provide truly independent review of Corps planning studies.
|
From page 56... ...
Options closer to the Corps may not be sufficiently independent of the Corps to provide needed levels of independence and hence credibility. An option that would best satisfy the multiple evaluation criteria is one administered by a small professional staff with expertise in Corps planning processes and procedures, but using external reviewers when appropriate.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.