Upload
bianca-raduta
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
1/26
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATIONAND MULTI-LEVELGOVERNANCE
Co-ordinating and synthesising research on environmentalpolicy integration and multi-level governance, 2006-2008
A Co-ordinated Action under the European Union's6th Research Framework Programme
CITIZENS-2004-4.2.2 - Governance for SustainableDevelopmentDG Research
EPIGOV Paper No. 7
Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
Klaus Jacob and Julia Hertin(Environmental Policy Research Centre, FU Berlin)
Ecologic Institute for International and European Environmental PolicyBerlin, 2007
January 2007
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
2/26
EPIGOV is a research project on the modes of governance employed at global, EU,
national and regional/local levels to support the integration of environmental concerns
into other policy areas. Relevant policy areas are, for example, transport, agricultural, and
energy policy. Running over three years (2006-2008), EPIGOV brings together nineteen
research institutions from ten European countries.
EPIGOV aims to co-ordinate and synthesise existing research on environmental policy
integration and multi-level governance and to generate new research questions and
initiatives. To obtain feedback and disseminate results, EPIGOV will also involve policy-
makers and non-state stakeholders.
http://www.ecologic.de/projekte/epigov/
Citing this EPIGOV Paper:
Jacob, Klaus and Julia Hertin (2007): Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a
conceptual framework, EPIGOV Paper No. 7, Ecologic Institute for International and
European Environmental Policy: Berlin.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
3/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
3
Abstract
Impact Assessment (IA) has become a standard procedure of policy making in
the European Commission as well as on the national level. It aims to rationalise
the decision making process by systematically collecting information about thelikely impacts of a planned policy, by evaluating these impacts and thereby
providing the basis for choosing the best policy option. IA is seen by many as a
core instrument in the context of the better regulation agenda which aims to
reduce regulatory burden on business. Recently, additional functions have been
assigned to this tool, e.g. increasing the transparency of decision making,
improving interdepartmental cooperation, and - crucially - addressing cross-
cutting issues such as environmental policy integration. With these different
functions, the institutional design of IA systems has diversified. IA systems canbe distinguished regarding a number of features of their institutional framework
and practice, for example their timing in decision making process, the degree of
transparency and openness for participation, the presence of quality control
mechanisms, and the degree to which impacts are quantified. This paper - which
draws on the ongoing research in the EVIA project - aims to set out a framework
for exploring the contribution of IA to policy integration. This is done by firstly
developing a typology of IA systems based on their institutionalisation, orientation
and practice and secondly by developing a framework for the analysis of
integrated IA, including explicit hypotheses about how different factors are
expected to impact on the ability of IA to improve the evidence-base of policy and
to promote (environmental) policy integration.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
4/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
4
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT................................................................................................3
DEFINITION OF INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ...................... 5
CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ................................8
INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................12
APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ................12
QUALITY OF IA .......................................................................................14
IMPACTS OF IA.......................................................................................16
DETERMINANTS OF QUALITY OF INTEGRATED IMPACTASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................16
VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES ..........................................................17
CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................24
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................24
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
5/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
5
1. THE GOVERNANCE OF POLICY MAKING: BETTER REGULATION
AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION
New forms and processes of rulemaking as well as instruments to regulate and to
provide public goods are not limited to the intersection of governments and
enterprises or citizens, but entail the internal procedures of policy making as well.
Governments themselves and their procedure to provide services, goods and to
develop regulations are subject of (self)regulation. These procedures and
regulations are subject of reform, and some elements of new forms of
governance can be observed in this domain as well as in the regulation of private
actors. In many countries as well as in European institutions, rule making is
subject of Better Regulation Programs. The aim is to decrease the burden
imposed by regulation, to increase the knowledge basis and hence the overall
quality of regulation and to increase coherence and transparency of policies.
Better Regulation Programs having several elements that vary across the
countries. They entail programs to review existing laws regarding their
appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency. A recent trend in many countries
are programs to review laws (both existing as well as proposals) regarding the
administrative burden in terms of information requirements based on the
Standard Cost Model (SCM). Some countries adopted quantitative goals toreduce the costs imposed by information requirements. The Netherlands and
Germany set up high level advisory councils that review legislative proposals
before their enactment regarding administrative burden. More comprehensive
Impact Assessments are another central part of Better Regulation Programs.
These systems will be discussed in greater detail in this paper.
From an EPI perspective, it is a question open to investigation, in how far Better
Regulation Programs promote or rather inhibit the consideration of environmental
aspects in policy making. On the one hand, Better Regulation Programs areperceived as instruments of deregulation: Regulatory standards that impose
costs on business run the risk of being lowered if no immediate and obvious
benefits can be proved that outweigh the costs of regulation. For environmental
standards, however, is often difficult to calculate the benefits of preserving
environmental goods and accordingly, environmental policies run the risk of being
watered down.
On the other hand, the requirements of linking the policy proposals with broad
political strategies, e.g. for sustainable development or for competitiveness and
the requirements to take into consideration different kinds of possible impacts,
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
6/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
6
including side effects, trade offs and synergies on the environment, has the
potential of improving EPI in the early phases of policy making.
We therefore analyse procedures of Impact Assessment to explore their potential
for improving EPI. We are interested, what features of IA systems and what other
factors are likely to determine their contribution for an improved EPI.
The paper is organised as follows: in the next section we develop a definition of
Impact Assessment to distinguish such procedures from other means to develop
expectations about the likely impacts of planned policies. In the next step we
elaborate about common features of IA systems as well as properties that vary
among the different jurisdictions. A brief review of studies about the
implementation however reveals that the expectations regarding the
consideration of concerns of Sustainable Development (SD) in the Impact
Assessments are not fulfilled. However, this may be justified by the nature of the
policy proposal and it is not necessarily a result of political bargaining or a lack of
knowledge or resources. We therefore develop a more elaborated concept of
quality in regards of SD-consideration that also takes into account process
variables. Finally, we explore a set of variables beyond the IA system that we
expect to influence the quality of Impact Assessments.
2. DEFINITION OF INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Impact Assessment (IA) has become a standard procedure of policy making in
the European Commission as well as on the national level. It aims to rationalise
the decision making process by systematically collecting information about the
likely impacts of a planned policy, by valuating these impacts and thereby
providing the basis for a decision in which the policy is chosen with the best net
benefit. Impact Assessment has been defined as an information-based analytical
approach to assess probable costs, consequences, and side effects of planned
policy instruments (laws, regulations, etc.) (OECD 2001, p. 10). It is distinct from
assessment procedures of projects, plans and programmes such as
Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Typically, IA is conceived as an assessment of distinct alternatives to achieve a
specified policy objective. The specification of the objectives of a policy is usually
not part of the assessment, and IA is meant to inform, but not determine the final
decision.
In the following, we concentrate on integrated Impact Assessments, i.e. those IA
that assess several different issue areas. In order to identify such Assessmentsand to operationalise them for analytical research, it is necessary to develop a
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
7/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
7
clear definition of IA. This paper will contribute to such a definition and it aims to
define different types of IA.
Whenever decisions on policies are taken, this is done on the basis of certain
explicit or implicit expectations about their likely effects. Such expectations are
not necessarily gathered in Impact Assessment procedures. Instead, they might
be derived from other forms of reasoning among the decision makers.
Bureaucrats might discuss their proposals with colleagues, stakeholders,
academics or politicians. Researchers attempt to forecast impacts of proposed
policies either because they are commissioned to carry out a study or on own
accord. A legislative proposal will be debated in parliament or it might be subject
to judicial review where the court may collect evidence on impacts. Every
decision taken within these arenas is justified by expectations on the future and
certain effects of the concerned proposal.
To develop a concept of IA that is fruitful for empirical research, we have to adopt
a definition which is more specific than the OECD definition cited above which
would cover all activities that aim to create expectations on possible impacts of a
planned policy.
We are particularly interested in recent efforts to encourage integrated Impact
Assessment. Since the 1970s, a wide range of different sectoral IA have been
developed: Proposals should be assessed regarding potential impacts on the
economy, on health and other social aspects, on the environment, on gender, on
small and medium enterprises, etc. In several countries as well as the European
Union these different sectoral procedures were merged into a single procedure,
in order to reduce the burden of having the obligations for many different
assessment procedures and to allow a systematic assessment of interlinkages
between the different issue areas.
Thereby, integrated systems of IA have different historical roots. One precursor is
in Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that focuses on the economic orbusiness impacts of policies and to which other aspects such as environmental or
social aspects were added later. A different root is Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA). In some countries, SEA is developed towards a sustainability
appraisal by an integration of social and economic aspects (A. Chaker, K. El-Fadl
et al. 2006).
Within the different functions and objectives tensions may arise. In addition to the
merging of different procedures, requirements are needed to deal with trade-offs,
interlinkages, synergies but also conflicts between different impacts of a proposalin order to maintain the overall legitimacy of IA. A lack of legitimacy might either
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
8/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
8
degrade an IA into a meaningless exercise or lead to highly contested
assessments that delay the process of rule-making.
3. CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
To distinguish IA from other means to develop expectations on the impacts of
policies, some characteristics can be observed in practice. We suggest to use the
following criteria to provide a narrower definition of IA.
1. IA is formalised: There are written regulations that define the objectives
of IA, the individual steps, responsibilities, provide advice on the selection
procedure of proposals and issues to be assessed. Their bindingness
may, however, vary: The rules may only be formulated as a suggestion or
as binding prescriptions for the rule making departments. Requirements
for IA can be issued by law, presidential or prime ministerial decree,
cabinet directive, cabinet decision, resolution, etc. (OECD 2004)
2. IA has defined purposes: IA is an instrument to achieve governmental
objectives beyond the purposes of the individual proposal. It is related to
generic objectives to which a government is committed: Improving
economic performance, achieving gender equality, avoiding risks to health
or to the environment, etc. IA aims to reveal the contributions of an
individual proposal on these generic objectives and the side effects and
interlinkages between the main purposes of the proposal and these other
objectives.
However, some IA systems do not provide substantive criteria, instead
they only require the assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the
planned regulation. These systems of IA do not challenge the objectives
of the departments.
3. IA is fact-based: IA is a systematic, scientifically grounded process to
identify the likely impacts on a defined list of issue areas: It should be
robust, transparent and politically neutral. If value-based judgements
cannot be avoided, they should be made explicit. Again, this might be
different in practice.
While these three characteristics are common to IA, we can identify a number of
other significant qualities on which there is considerable variation between
countries:
1. Timing in decision making: IA is often described as a separate step of
decision making which takes place after the definition of objectives andbefore the final decision on a policy proposal is taken. IA does not
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
9/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
9
question the objectives of a proposal nor is it supposed to pre-judge the
political decisions. Often, the guidelines stipulate a specific timing for the
IA, i.e. before the interdepartmental consultation, before the parliamentary
decision, etc. However, the distinction of problem definition and setting of
objectives on the one side and assessment of impacts on the other side is
often not very clear cut in reality: Firstly, objectives are most often vaguely
defined, they are changed during the decision making process (and
accordingly during the IA), sometimes even through the IA.
Acknowledging this, in some IA systems, the definition of problems and
objectives is seen as an integral step of the IA. Secondly, it is not
uncommon that IA takes place after the key decisions are taken, it then
largely fulfils formal obligations and contributes to the justification of a
proposal.
2. Degree of transparency and disclosure: Countries vary regarding the
degree of transparency and the disclosure of IA to the public. In some
countries, IA is inevitably open to the general public because it is
perceived as a tool to increase transparency of rulemaking. Examples are
UK, USA, Canada, and the European Union. In other countries, a
dominant purpose of IA is the fostering of interdepartmental negotiations
and transparency of rulemaking is not perceived as a goal in itself. In
these jurisdictions, IA are not published to the general public. In some
countries, IA are attached to the legislative proposal and published by the
parliament.
3. Degree of involvement of external expertise: IA is typically a duty of
the rulemaking department. Frequently, other departments will be
involved in delivering data, contributing to the assessment or reviewing
the results. IA can be commissioned from other agencies, consultants or
academics. Sometimes, IA is commissioned or performed by non stateactors that expect to be particularly affected by the planned policy.
Likewise, other levels of governance, i.e. the national or even the regional
level for European policies or the regional level for national policies may
review the IA or perform own IA with their specific needs. The
commissioning of IA studies took place extensively during the decision
making process on REACH. Up to now, there are no specialised IA
departments established, although this could be thought of, in particular
for sectoral IA such as Strategic Environmental Assessments.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
10/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
10
4. Participation: In few countries as well as in the European Union, IA is a
frame for the participation of non governmental actors in the development
of a proposal. The inclusion of interest groups may have different
functions: Either to discuss or to negotiate the proposal with the groups
affected or to obtain data . However, in other countries as well as in
practice of those countries where participation is foreseen, the inclusion of
societal interests is often separated from IA.
5. Main purpose of the IA: In some systems of IA, the function of reducing
costs of regulation is the prevailing function of IA. The main focus is on
reducing costs of regulation and maximising benefits. Other IA aim to
inform the decision maker on specific issue areas (environment, social,
health, gender aspects, SMEs, etc). A third category that has gained
recently some importance are systems of IA that should contribute to the
implementation of Sustainable Development. Typically, these IA covering
social, economic and environmental issues.
6. Role of quantification: There are different degrees of formalisation and
rigidity regarding the use of quantitative approaches and economic
modelling. In some systems of IA, few generic questions are provided and
there is no indication that specific methods are proposed or favoured. The
questions may be answered qualitatively. Other systems putting great
emphasis on quantification and monetisation wherever this is possible.
7. Scope of IA: Most often, IA is limited to new legislation. Countries vary in
the inclusion of subordinate regulations. Sometimes governmental
strategies (white papers) and international treaties are also subject of
assessment. In few countries, existing regulation is subject of IA.
8. Degree of detail: Reports on IA vary considerably regarding their volume
(from few pages to hundreds of pages) and accordingly the level of detail.
IA procedures may be limited to checkboxing a few generic questions orby an extensive and detailed evaluation for every issue. In some systems
for IA, IA is separated in a preliminary scoping phase and an extended IA.
9. Quality Control: Countries vary regarding the existence and strength of
institutions to control the quality of IA. Three groups may be distinguished:
In some countries, there are no institutions at all, the compliance is left to
the departments responsible for the IA. In other countries, there are
institutions that should provide assistance to the departments, but they
have no rights to sanction an IA. Finally, there are countries withinstitutions that have the power to impose obligations to the departments
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
11/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
12/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
13/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
14/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
14
boundaries of IA can be misused to neglect environmental aspects (or
other unwanted issues) at an early point of time in the design of the IA.
IAs do not always cover appropriately likely modifications at later stages
of the decision making process and implementation in member states.
Typically, the evaluations are based on an analysis of the IA reports according to
a set of criteria or as case studies. A recent study by Ecologic and others studies
also the practice in selected Member States and draws a more optimistic picture:
Environmental aspects are considered in the majority of cases and the results
have been considered in the decision making as well (Ecologic, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam et al. 2007). It is open to investigation whether these results are
generalisable as the number of cases is rather small and the selection may have
favoured policies in which environmental aspects are a direct and obvious issue,
while other studies reveal a sidelining of environmental effects if these are rather
side effects.
Until now, much attention has been paid to the improvement of the IA systems:
Observers recommend the improvement of the IA system, placing more
emphasis on requirements, to include environmental actors at every stage, to
scrutinize the quality of IAs, and to spend more efforts in the development of tools
and methods for assessing costs and benefits for the environment (Volkery and
Jacob 2005, Wilkinson, Monkhouse et al. 2005, Jacob, Hertin et al. 2007). Other
aspects that may explain the consideration of environmental aspects, such are
the type of the policy proposal, the capacities available, etc. have received less
attention. To analyse if the consideration of environmental aspects was taken
seriously, and to understand if a lack of analysis can be attributed to the IA
system, we develop a notion of quality of IAs with a focus of integration of cross
cutting aspects and we develop a set of hypotheses about influencing factors of
the quality.
6. QUALITY OF IA
How can we assess the quality of IA? Many IA evaluations focus on the quality of
assessment reports - for example their scope, level of detail and methodological
rigour - not least because it can be easily analysed on the basis of a document
review. Empirical research has shown, however, that high-quality analysis is not
a guarantee for impact on decision-making as it is not uncommon that IA reports
are prepared at a late stage in the decision process. It is therefore important to
evaluate the process as a whole. We have identified the following criteria toassess the quality and impact of IA (see Meuwese, Radaelli et al. 2006):
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
15/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
16/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
16
In how far are possible negative effects considered and in how far are the
benefits of a proposal considered? To what degree are costs and benefits
quantified?
In how far are potential side effects on other policy areas and objectives
considered?
Openness: Is the IA transparent and open for stakeholder involvement?
Participation. In how far were stakeholders involved in the design and the
conduct of IA. Is an involvement of non-governmental actors foreseen? In
many countries only the results of the IA are made public.
7. IMPACTS OF IA
We assume that a good IA is likely to have impacts on the final policy decision.
However, it is difficult to attribute changes to the policy to an IA, as there are
many different factors, institutions, and actors that influence the final decision.
Therefore, one appropriate way is to use interviews with desk officers to develop
a counterfactual 'no-IA' scenario. Questions may refer to:
Did the IA have a direct impact on the design of the IA? In what way?
Has the IA process increased the knowledge available for the policy
process?
If the IA contributes to a more cooperative decision making is theevidence convincing for other institutions/actors? Did the IA contribute to
a consensus/improved understanding among the actors involved?
Was the IA used or referred to during the political process (in Parliament,
by stakeholder?)
Is the policy formulation more transparent with IA (question addressed to
the stakeholders as well)
Were the requirements of sustainable development (different stocks, long
term focus and external effects) considered in the policy proposal and can
this attributed to the IA?
8. DETERMINANTS OF QUALITY OF INTEGRATED IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS
We expect the quality of IAs and the resulting impact on policy decisions to be a
result of different groups of variables within the institutional framework of decision
making, the design of the IA system, the decision making context, the type of
policy, resources available and the use of analytical methodologies.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
17/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
17
The variables can be divided in three different groups according to their relative
stability and the opportunities to change and influence. Three different levels may
be distinguished: a systemic level which are rarely and slowly changing, a policy
level, i.e. the specific proposal and the context of an individual policy and thirdly
the specific setup of an IA.
Amongst the independent variables, we expect particularly strong links between
the two groups of systems variables: the institutional framework and the design of
the IA system. This relationship will therefore be analysed in more detail (see
section 3 below).
Independent variables Dependent variables
Institutional Framework
Design of IA System
Decision Making Context
Type of Policy
Resources for IA
Quality of IA
Impacts of IA
System
variables
Policy
variables
Methodological ApproachIAv
ariables
Figure 1: Explaining quality of Impact Assessments
9. VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES
In the following, the variables will be explained in further detail to develop a
common understanding and terminology and to describe the underlying
hypotheses. For some variables we have no explicit hypotheses but instead we
have the opportunity to explore the relations between the respective variable and
the quality of IA.
The aim of this paper is to provide a rich overview of potentially relevant variablesand relationships. We should keep in mind, however, that it will not be possible to
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
18/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
18
accurately measure all those variables, especially in a way that is consistent
across jurisdictions and would allow robust comparative analysis. Once data
collection has been completed we should therefore review the analytical
framework with a view to narrowing it down to focusing on the more operational
variables.
Independent variables
System Variables
Institutional Framework
The institutional framework includes the constitutional and basic legal
framework of a jurisdiction, its political system, political and administrative
culture, including the strength and the role of interest groups.
We can expect the following factors to be particular relevant for IA:
Degree of independence of individual departments from a central
coordinating department. If a central department exists that may refuse
individual proposals brought forward by the ministries, this may serve as a
powerful institution for the control of quality. Furthermore, such a central
unit may develop an own stake in IA, as this is a mean to oversee and to
control the activities of the various departments. On the other hand, a
large degree of independence of the ministries e.g. by guaranteeing them
own rights to initiate proposals, by providing them with the power to veto
proposals in the cabinet, etc. may weaken the interest to conduct
integrated IA.
Number of political institutions in the decision making context. The larger
the number of institutions involved in the decision on policies, the less
likely it is that IA plays a role, while other, more formalised mechanisms
for coordination between these actors prevail. Federalism, Bicameralism,
independent institutions such are national reserve bank or a constitutional
court are examples for potential veto players in the political process. Judicial review and the existence of an administrative procedure act is on
the one side an incentive to prepare well founded IAs to minimise the risk
of refusal. On the other hand, the judicial review may be a functional
equivalent to IA, as the officers in charge for the development of the
proposal anticipate the review and consider possible side effects or other
issues in early stages as if informed by an IA.
The role of interests groups. The role of interest groups in the policy
process varies not only for the political system as a whole, but also for the
specific policy proposal. This will be captured in the Decision Making
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
19/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
19
Context (see below). However, the level of corporatism and the access of
interest groups to the decision making is relevant also on the system
level. In this case, IA may become subject of political bargaining. On the
other hand, if there is a stronger inclusion of non-state actors, it is more
likely that participatory approaches are applied.
Design of the IA system
IA is defined as a formalised procedure with a defined purpose beyond the
individual proposal to systematically collect facts on the likely effects of a planned
policy. While these elements are common, there are a number of differences
concerning provisions in relation to timing, transparency, use of external
expertise, transparency, quantification, scope, detail and quality control. It
is important to note that these variables concern the system-level requirements
(as for example expressed in guidance documents) rather than the actual
characteristics of IAs which will be considered under 'Resources for IA',
'Methodological approach' and 'Quality of IA').
Basic orientation of the procedure: There is a considerable variation in the
main function(s) attributed to IA in different jurisdictions. The main
different orientations that can be observed are: improving the quality of
regulation, reducing regulatory burden, enhancing transparency,
promoting sustainable development. We would expect the basic
orientation has an influence on the dominant choice of methodologies and
on a range of quality variables (level of integration, sophistication,
openness etc.)
Foreseen timing in the decision making process. Guidance documents
make different provisions regarding the timing of the assessment. We
expect an IA to be of higher quality if it is required at early stages of
decision making. However, while some countries require the IA only when
a proposal is forwarded to the parliament, others require it for the
interdepartmental consultation (EC) or even before the consultation
(Poland).
Degree of transparency and disclosure. We expect a higher quality if the
IA is subject of public review and the results have to be published.
However, the disclosure of the IA may inhibit an open debate, encourage
the lead ministry to use IA purely defensively, and opens up opportunities
for interest-based lobbying by stakeholders. On the other hand, a highlevel of transparency may make it more difficult to pursue private interests
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
20/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
21/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
21
distinguished: no control at all, supporting units without the power to
sanctioning poor quality IA, and finally institutions that have an however
varying degree of independence and possibilities for interventions. We
expect the quality of IAs to be better if there is a stronger quality control
and if there are more resources available for assistance.
It is, however, important to keep in mind that guidelines and actual
implementation often fall apart. This is partially due to the opportunities and
restrictions to actually apply the generic framework on specific policies as well as
to the resources available for a specific IA. Therefore, both factors will be
elaborated in further detail in the following.
Policy variables
While the institutional framework and the design of the IA systems are rather
static, IA has to be applied on a great variety of policy initiatives that are related
to different problems and interests of actors. Two categories of variables may be
distinguished: firstly we expect the decision making context, i.e. the definition of
the problem, the actors involved, the specifics of the responsible unit and the
expectations in a certain IA are likely to make a difference for the quality of IA, as
well as the type of policy that is subject of the IA.
Decision making contextThe decision-making context covers variables related to the origin of the policy
problem (agenda setting), the relevant network of actors and the function of
IA (i.e. the aims key actors try to achieve).
Definition of the policy problem: The decision making context is firstly
determined by the definition of the problem. Problems may firstly come on
the agenda by scientific studies, by monitoring, scientific agencies, etc.
The initiative comes most often from within the administration. Policies are
hardly discussed in the media. Another mode of defining problems is
driven by interests groups, the heads of departments, or the parliament.
Policies are developed on response of political decisions. Thirdly, policy
problems may be derived from external initiatives, i.e. the national
implementation of international or European law. We expect IA to play a
greater role when the definition of problem is controlled by the
administration compared to political problems or external initiatives. In the
latter cases, there is much less room for manoeuvre to assess different
options.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
22/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
23/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
23
Rationale for intervention: Another dimension of the policy type refers to
the objectives of the intervention. Policies that aim for a re-distribution of
resources, or that are based on values that are not consensus in a society
are more difficult to accomplish than policies that are distributive or that
aim for a coordination of action and that are pareto efficient. The first type
of difficult policies are likely to meet on resistance by affected groups,
thereby, the IA will be subject of a political debate. The second category
of easy policies is less likely to become subject of bargaining, and the
mode of arguing will prevail.
Maturity of policies. Policies might be developed from the green table, in
particular if this refers to a new policy field in which institutions have not
been evolved. In these cases it is easier to develop possible alternatives
and to compare impacts. The maturity of policies may be indicated by the
age and the importance of the political institutions involved and their path
dependency in developing new proposals. The type of proposals is
another indicator, ranging from green paper, white paper, action plan, new
policy to amendment of existing policy. We expect the quality of IA to be
higher the less mature a policy field is as the assessment is likely to be
open to alternative options. On the other hand, well developed institutions,
their experience and their resources may improve the quality of IA as well.
IA variables
Finally we expect the operational design of IA to be of relevant for the quality of
IA. The actual design is not only determined by the guidelines and the type of
policy at stake. Instead, 1) the resources available and 2) the methodologies
used are of importance in his regard.
Resources for IA
A number of constraints can be thought of when setting up an IA project
within a department. IA might be limited by the availability of staff and
their training and expertise, money to commissioning studies, availability
of data and pervious studies. Furthermore, IAs are performed often in
great time pressure. We expect that quality improves with budget, time,
staff and their training.
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
24/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
24
Methodological approach
In our case studies we will explore in how far the actual application of formalised
methodologies will influence the quality of IA. A number of different
methodologies can be categorised:
Modelling tools: three different families of models can be distinguished,
i.e. economic models, biophysical models, social models.
Tools to support stakeholder participation of stakeholders
Comparison tools such as Monetary Assessment Tools and Multicriteria
Analysis methods
We expect particularly more stringent and rigid quantitative tools to favour greater
depth of analysis, but broader and more flexible qualitative (or semi-qualitative)
tools to be more akin to policy integration.
10. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have set out a conceptual framework of and put forward
hypotheses about integrated Impact Assessment. The aim was to develop an
empirical research agenda for studying the contribution integrated IA may make
to improving integration of cross-cutting policy objectives (such as the protection
of the environment). In the next phase of the EVIA project, we will undertake to
apply this framework to the study of IA practice in several EU countries throughthree methodologies: 1) a (largely desk-based) analysis of national-level IA
procedures in all EU Member States, 2) a set of case studies of individual IAs in
five selected jurisdictions and 3) a survey of desk officers and stakeholders in two
countries.
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Chaker, K. El-Fadl, et al. (2006). "A review of strategic environmentalassessment in 12 selected countries." Environmental Impact AssessmentReview 26: 15-56.
Bartolomeo, Matteo, Piero Giugni, et al. (2005). Approaches to ImpactAssessment in six OECD countries and at the European Commission.Findings and recommendations for the European Commission. UnpublishedReport. Milano, Avanzi
Ecologic, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, et al. (2007). Improving Assessment ofthe Environment in Impact Assessment http://www.ecologic-events.de/eu-impact-assessment/en/documents/Env_in_IA_final.pdf.
EEAC Working Group on Governance (2006). Impact Assessment of EuropeanCommission Policies: Acheivements And Prospects. Brusselshttp://www.eeac-
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
25/26
7/27/2019 Impact Assesment
26/26
Jacob/Hertin: Evaluating Integrated Impact Assessments a conceptual framework
Volkery, Axel and Klaus Jacob(2005). The Environmental Dimension of ImpactAssessment. Documentation of a Workshop organised together with theFederal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and NuclearSafety, 17-18 June 2004, Berlin. Berlin, Environmental Policy ResearchCentre http://www.fu-berlin.de/ffu/download/Rep-01-2005.pdf.
Wilkinson, David, Malcolm Fergusson, et al. (2004). Sustainable Development inthe European Commission's Integrated Impact Assessments for 2003.London, IEEPhttp://www.ieep.org.uk/publications/pdfs//2004/sustainabledevelopmentineucommission.pdf.
Wilkinson, David, Claire Monkhouse, et al. (2005). For Better or for Worse? TheEUs Better Regulation Agenda and the Environment. London, Institute forEuropean Environmental Policyhttp://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2005/forbetterorforworse.pdf.