Letter to IAPA editor
How to strengthen the independence of IA reviewers and practitioners?
This article is also published as letter to the editor in the journal Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal- 21-12-2020
A common and long standing criticism
In their invitation to the IAIA19 Annual meeting the conference organizers stated that lack of independence in preparing IA documentation is one of the “common and long standing criticisms of Impact Assessment”. This perception is a serious problem for the profession, in particular if it turns out to be true. People’s trust in the results of an assessment is correlated with their willingness to base their actions and decisions on it. And this trust is likely to be significantly enhanced if the people preparing (‘practitioners’) or reviewing (‘reviewers’) the impact assessments are perceived as ‘independent’ from those that have an interest in what will finally be decided.
So what can we do?
This letter suggests to consider the establishment of a professional IAIA standard for independence of IA reviewers and practitioners. This is not necessarily to be used as a benchmark, but to inspire and support IA reviewers and practitioners to achieve the highest level of independence, feasible within their context. To explore what such a standard could look like, the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment organized a session on independence in IA at IAIA19, followed by an online discussion with interested IAIA members. The following conclusions were drawn:
- 100% independence will be difficult to achieve in practice, however, this should not keep us from trying to achieve a level of independence that leads to a high level of trustworthiness.
- ‘Sufficient independence’ will not be created by one measure or characteristic, but will be the result of a carefully balanced set of measures and characteristics.
Building blocks for independence.
Even though complete independence may not always be feasible, there will always be possibilities to strengthen it. These possibilities can be referred to as ‘building blocks’ for independence. But what are these building blocks?
Tables 1 and 2 describe an initial proposal for building blocks for independence for IA reviewers and IA practitioners. The tables are based on the work of Gilardi & Maggetti (2011), Irion & Ledger (2013) and the input of IAIA members. The building blocks are categorized under five headings: status & power, financial autonomy, organizational autonomy, knowledge & expertise and transparency & accountability. Within each category a distinction is made between ‘formal’ independence – what can be laid down in regulation or administrative arrangements – and ‘de facto’ independence – what can be secured in practice.
The distinction between building blocks for reviewers and practitioners is relevant, because even though there may be a number of overlapping building blocks, we have to accept that certain building blocks will not be a realistic option for practitioners, such as formal financial independence.
The list of building blocks presented here does not claim to be exhaustive, but provides an attempt to focus on the ‘key’ issues of independence, as discussed in the professional literature. Also, no attempt has been made to prioritize building blocks. It is assumed that the more building blocks apply, the more the reviewer or practitioner can be independent or will be perceived as such.
Next steps. The building blocks presented here are an initial proposal for discussion. At IAIA21, a new round of exchange will be organized to address questions such as: Is there a role for IAIA in enhancing independence in IA? If so, would a professional standard be part of that? And if yes, are the suggested building blocks a good starting point for this standard?
Fabrizio Gilardi & Martino Maggetti, 2011. "The Independence of Regulatory Authorities," Chapters, in: David Levi-Faur (ed.),Handbook on the Politics of Regulation, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kristina Irion & Michele Ledger, 2013. “Measuring independence: Approaches, limitations, and a new ranking tool.” Chapters, in: Wolfgang Schulz, Peggy Valcke & Kristina Irion (eds.) The Independence of the Media and its Regulatory Agencies, chapter 6, Bristol UK/Chicago USA: Intellect 2013, p. 15-54.