EC-IA as EPI instrument ?

The Integrated Impact Assessment procedure of the EC as environment

integration tool within European actions and decisions?

I. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EC-IA)

The research object: EC-IA

• IA: ex ante evaluation of impact at policy level• Many (+/-) sectorial IA systems: RIA, EIA, SEA,

HIA, Soc. IA, …• Dvlpmt: S(I)A and IIA• 2002: integrated impact assessment system • Very ambitious system interest/« hopes »

The EC objectives• “The objectives of the new impact assessment

process are • to improve the quality of Commission

proposals, • to ensure an analysis of the economic,

environmental and social impacts of a proposal and

• to improve and simplify the regulatory environment.” (EC, 2002, p.6 – Guidelines)

Two/three genealogical lines:

Since 2002: EC-IA (First implementation in 2003, revised in 2005 and 2009)

Better Regulation agenda• (1986: BIA)• 2001: White paper on

European Governance • 2002: Better regulation

act focus on (R)IA

SD agenda• 1997: Envi in the EC

treaty• 1998: Cardiff process• 2001: European SD

strategy dev. of SIA

Lisbon Strategy• 2005: mid-term evaluation focus on growth and jobs

Procedure details• Analysis of what?– Since 2009: CLWP+…– Multiple options

• Scope of the analysis:– Proportionality principle: depth proportional to

potential impacts• Some important aspects:– DG lead in charge of IA– Inter service working group coordination– Impact Assessment Board « external » control

II. EC-IA and EPILiterature review: phase I

WHAT IS THE « PLACE » AND « WEIGHT » OF « ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS » WITHIN THE EC-IA: STATE OF THE ART

Meta-evaluationsPublications Publication year of

studied IA Number of studied IA’s Type of evaluation

Wilkinson 2003 20 (all) Quality assessment

8 In depth case studies

Lee and Kirkpatrick (2006) 2003 6 Quality assessment

Renda (2006) 2003- juin 2005 70 (all) Scorecard

IMV (2006) 2004 – sept 2005 59 Scorecard

Ecologic et al (2007) 2003-2005 3 In depth case studies

Franz et Kirkpatrick (2007) 2006 13 (all) Scorecard

TEP (2007) 2003 – sept 2006 155 (all) Scorecard

20 Quality assessment

6 In depth case studies

European Court of Auditors (ECA, 2010) 2003 - 2008 All Scorecard + interviews

Bizer et al (2010) 2006-2008 20 Scorecard

Table 1 : EC-IA meta-evaluations

2002-2005 : Exploratory studies and first evaluations based on initial guidelines

• Negative meta-evaluations but latent optimism :– Undefined policy objectives– Lack of coherence– Few (real) options studied justification– Problem of information diffusion– « Unbalance » between the 3 pilars

2005-2008 : Meta-evaluations following the first guidelines revision

• Environmental expertise?– Bias towards regular experts of the DG’s– Lack of representativity of the consultations– Bias NGO’s (vs industrial and business lobby’s)– No environmental stakeholders in 2/3 of IA

• Unbalance btw the pilars w/r to impact identification– Getting worse after 2005 guidelines

(TEP, 2007, p.82)

(ECA, 2010, p.37)

Quantification/ monetisation

(ECA, 2010, p.38)

III. LITERATURE REVIEW: PHASE II

• Phase 1 = technical, evidence-based approach– EC-IA as « knowledge tool » (Bäckund, 2009), as

rationalising decision-support tool (Popelier et Verlinden 2009)

• Phase 2 = EC-IA as:– « boundary work » between science and policy (Tuinstra

2007)

– Meta-instrument with political effects (Radaelli et Meuwese 2010:139)

– coordination tool of EU policies (Adelle, Hertin, et Jordan 2006)

– environmental mainstreaming tool (Pollack et Hafner-Burton 2010)

– legitimation tool (Bäcklund 2009)

(Our graphic; based on Torriti, 2010)

• As a political tool, does EC-IA open the policy-making process and empower stakeholders supporting environmental agendas (environmental NGO’s, DG Environment, EEA, …)?

• As conceptual tool, what is the impact of the EC-IA procedure on the definition of the “environment” within European policy-making? E.g. effects of quantification/monetisation?

Thank you for your attention

Emilie Mutomboejempaka@ulb.ac.beUniversité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)IGEAT - Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use PlanningCEDD - Centre for Studies on Sustainable Development

http://igeat.ulb.ac.be

• A missing dimension: Participation– From information to participation

EC-IA as legitimation tool based on– « transparency washing » Or– Effective openness of the decision-making process

• 1c°] European Commission guidelines approach i.e. evidence-based, participative, linear approach– EC-IA as participative knowledge tool

• 0°] the zero/realist (?) approach– EC-IA as evidence-based but merely tick the box

bureaucratic tool turning primarily into a legitimation tool through transparency efforts

• 1a°] Evidence-based approach: – EC-IA as knowledge tool for direct decision

support• 1b°] Science-policy interface approach: – EC-IA as “boundary work” or learning tool

(oriented towards (indirect) decision-support)• 2a°] “instrument” approach– EC-IA as instrument with political (un)intended

effects on power relations

Our research approaches

• 2b°] EC-IA as participative political tool: an approach studying the political effects of a potential redistribution of power-relations within an “open” decision-making process.

• 2c°] EC-IA as conceptual political tool: an approach which looks at the political effect on the way environment is conceptualized within European decisions.