1. EC-IA as EPI instrument ? The Integrated Impact Assessment procedure of the EC as environment integration tool within European actions and decisions?

2. I. T HE E UROPEAN C OMMISSION I MPACT A SSESSMENT (EC-IA)

3. 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 »

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. II. EC-IA and EPI Literature review: phase I W HAT IS THE « PLACE » AND « WEIGHT » OF « ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS » WITHIN THE EC-IA: STATE OF THE ART

8. Meta-evaluations Publications Publication year of studied IA Number of studied IA’s Type of evaluation Wilkinson200320 (all)Quality assessment 8In depth case studies Lee and Kirkpatrick (2006)20036Quality assessment Renda (2006)2003- juin 200570 (all)Scorecard IMV (2006)2004 – sept 200559Scorecard Ecologic et al (2007)2003-20053In depth case studies Franz et Kirkpatrick (2007)200613 (all)Scorecard TEP (2007)2003 – sept 2006155 (all)Scorecard 20Quality assessment 6In depth case studies European Court of Auditors (ECA, 2010)2003 - 2008AllScorecard + interviews Bizer et al (2010)2006-200820Scorecard Table 1 : EC-IA meta-evaluations

9. 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

10. 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

11. (TEP, 2007, p.82)

12. (ECA, 2010, p.37)

13. Quantification/ monetisation (ECA, 2010, p.38)

14. III. LITERATURE REVIEW: PHASE II

15. 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)

16. (Our graphic; based on Torriti, 2010)

21. 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?

22. Thank you for your attention Emilie Mutombo ejempaka@ulb.ac.be Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) IGEAT - Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use Planning CEDD - Centre for Studies on Sustainable Development http://igeat.ulb.ac.be

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.