Impact assessment in the European Commission – a system with multiple objectives

Contexualising the tool development process through a knowledge brokering approach: The case of climate change adaptation and agriculture

“…In addition, the actors must be free to use these resources. At times the policy makers in this case appeared to be reluctant to more actively participate in the tool development process due to political constraints of policy making, which can inhibit the serious and critical exploration of policy options (Bäcklund 2009).…”

Mainstreaming international governance: The environment, gender, and IO performance in the European Union

“…For an excellent review, see Radaelli and De Francesco (2010). Studies of EU impact assessment have also grown dramatically; see, e.g., the excellent analyses by Renda (2006), Cecot et al (2008), Meuwese (2008), andBäcklund (2009). Several studies have focused specifically on the place of environmental considerations in Commission IA; see, e.g., Wilkinson et al (2004), Franz and Kirkpatrick (2007), and Ruddy and Hilty (2008). were intended to replace all previous single-issue assessments and assess the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of significant proposed legislation, regulations, and policy proposals.…”

“…The objectives of the new impact assessment were multiple (Bäcklund 2009), including, inter alia: improving the quality of EU regulation by providing precise analyses of the direct and indirect impacts of proposed policies as well as of alternative policy options; improving inter-departmental coordination within the Commission; and increasing the transparency and legitimacy of EU regulation by incorporating multiple stakeholders and making all impact assessments publicly available on the Commission's impact assessment website. 13 From our perspective in this article, the institutional rules for impact assessment were "harder" than the Commission's earlier EPI mandate, since IAs were mandatory for at least the major proposals included in the Commission's annual work program, and no longer left to the discretion of the various DGs and services.…”

The European Union and Policy Coherence for Development: Reforms, Results, Resistance

“…The push for IAs was shaped both by the 2001 Sustainable Development Strategy and by the Commission's 'Better Regulation' agenda, eventually replaced by the 'Smart Regulation' agenda (Rowe, 2006;Franz and Kirkpatrick, 2007). By outlining potential positive and negative effects of proposed policy actions, including synergies and trade-offs between competing objectives, IAs represent a tool for the exchange of technical information between interested parties (Bäcklund, 2009). At the same time, they may be used by consensus-seeking actors to de-politicise complex issues (Radaelli and Meuwese, 2010) or may represent the position of some stakeholders at the expense of others (Torriti, 2010).…”

“…It was also stated that Commission DGs would be guided by a series of guidelines, published in 2003 and revised in 2005 and 2009. To improve the quality of IAs, a five-member Impact Assessment Board was created in 2006: its main functions are that of examining the quality of all draft assessments and recommending potential improvements (Bäcklund, 2009). Thus, the primary attraction of IAs, which obviously have a strong rationalistic appeal, would be that of making governments and regulatory agencies rely more on evidence-based analysis and of making them more accountable (Radaelli and Meuwese, 2010).…”