Impact Assessment in the EU: a tool for better regulation, less regulation or less bad regulation?

Impact Assessments (IAs) were introduced at the EU level under the rhetorical facade of ‘better regulation’. The actual aim was to improve not only the quality but also the reputation of EU regulation before stakeholders. However, evidence brought forward by a number of evaluations pointed out that IAs are yet to achieve acceptable quality standards. The paper offers an overview of different disciplinary approaches for looking at IAs. It suggests that risk regulation encompasses the theoretical foundations to help understand the role of IAs in the EU decisionmaking process. The analysis of 60 early days preliminary IAs provides empirical evidence regarding policy alternatives, methodology of consultation and use of quantitative techniques. Findings suggest that dawn period IAs were used mainly to provide some empirical evidence for regulatory intervention in front of stakeholders. The paper concludes with assumptions about the future role of IAs at EU level.

The first five years of the EU Impact Assessment system: a risk economics perspective on gaps between rationale and practice

In 2003 the European Commission started using Impact Assessment (IA) as the main empirical basis for its major policy proposals. The aim was to systematically assess ex ante the economic, social and environmental impacts of EU policy proposals. In parallel, research proliferated in search for theoretical grounds for IAs and in an attempt to evaluate empirically the performance of the first sets of IAs produced by the European Commission. This paper combines conceptual and evaluative studies carried out in the first five years of EU IAs. It concludes that the great discrepancy between rationale and practice calls for a different theoretical focus and a higher emphasis on evaluating empirically crucial risk economics aspects of IAs, such as the value of statistical life, price of carbon, the integration of macroeconomic modelling and scenario analysis.

Modelling the bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in agricultural food chains for regulatory exposure assessment

New models for estimating bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in the agricultural food chain were developed using recent improvements to plant uptake and cattle transfer models. One model named AgriSim was based on K OW regressions of bioaccumulation in plants and cattle, while the other was a steady-state mechanistic model, AgriCom. The two developed models and European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES), as a benchmark, were applied to four reported food chain (soil/air-grass-cow-milk) scenarios to evaluate the performance of each model simulation against the observed data. The four scenarios considered were as follows: (1) polluted soil and air, (2) polluted soil, (3) highly polluted soil surface and polluted subsurface and (4) polluted soil and air at different mountain elevations. AgriCom reproduced observed milk bioaccumulation well for all four scenarios, as did AgriSim for scenarios 1 and 2, but EUSES only did this for scenario 1. The main causes of the deviation for EUSES and AgriSim were the lack of the soil-air-plant pathway and the ambient air-plant pathway, respectively. Based on the results, it is recommended that soil-air-plant and ambient air-plant pathway should be calculated separately and the K OW regression of transfer factor to milk used in EUSES be avoided. AgriCom satisfied the recommendations that led to the low residual errors between the simulated and the observed bioaccumulation in agricultural food chain for the four scenarios considered. It is therefore recommended that this model should be incorporated into regulatory exposure assessment tools. The model uncertainty of the three models should be noted since the simulated concentration in milk from 5th to 95th percentile of the uncertainty analysis often varied over two orders of magnitude. Using a measured value of soil organic carbon content was effective to reduce this uncertainty by one order of magnitude.

Energy

The impact of energy policy measures has been assessed with various appraisal and evaluation tools since the 1960s. Decision analysis, environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment are all notable examples of progenitors of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in the assessment of energy policies, programmes and projects. This chapter provides overview of policy tools which have been historically applied to assess the impacts of energy policies, programmes and projects. It focuses on the types of data and models that typically inform RIAs for energy policies; the organisations involved; and issues of data exchange between energy companies and policy-makers. Examples are derived from the European Commission, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands and France. It is concluded that the technical and economic analysis underpinning RIAs on energy policy and regulation varies significantly depending on the type of organisation carrying them out.

Assessment of plant uptake models used in exposure assessment tools for soils contaminated with organic pollutants

The aim of this study was to evaluate and improve the accuracy of plant uptake models for neutral hydrophobic organic pollutants (1 < logKOW < 9, −8 < logKAW < 0) used in regulatory exposure assessment tools, using uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. The models considered were RAIDAR, EUSES, CSOIL, CLEA, and CalTOX. In this research, CSOIL demonstrated the best performance of all five exposure assessment tools for root uptake from polluted soil in comparison with observed data, but no model predicted shoot uptake well. Recalibration of the transpiration and volatilisation parameters improved the performance of CSOIL and CLEA. The dominant pathway for shoot uptake simulated differed according to the properties of the chemical under consideration; those with a higher air–water partition coefficient were transported into shoots via the soil-air-plant pathway, while chemicals with a lower octanol–water partition coefficient and air–water partition coefficient were transported via the root. The soil organic carbon content was a particularly sensitive parameter in each model and using a site specific value improved model performance.

Recovery based on plot experiments is a poor predictor of landscape-level population impacts of agricultural pesticides

Current European Union regulatory risk assessment allows application of pesticides provided that recovery of nontarget arthropods in-crop occurs within a year. Despite the long-established theory of source-sink dynamics, risk assessment ignores depletion of surrounding populations and typical field trials are restricted to plot-scale experiments. In the present study, the authors used agent-based modeling of 2 contrasting invertebrates, a spider and a beetle, to assess how the area of pesticide application and environmental half-life affect the assessment of recovery at the plot scale and impact the population at the landscape scale. Small-scale plot experiments were simulated for pesticides with different application rates and environmental half-lives. The same pesticides were then evaluated at the landscape scale (10 km × 10 km) assuming continuous year-on-year usage. The authors' results show that recovery time estimated from plot experiments is a poor indicator of long-term population impact at the landscape level and that the spatial scale of pesticide application strongly determines population-level impact. This raises serious doubts as to the utility of plot-recovery experiments in pesticide regulatory risk assessment for population-level protection. Predictions from the model are supported by empirical evidence from a series of studies carried out in the decade starting in 1988. The issues raised then can now be addressed using simulation. Prediction of impacts at landscape scales should be more widely used in assessing the risks posed by environmental stressors.

Investigating the impact of defects on key stakeholders in the UK new housing sector

The UK house building sector is facing dual pressures to expand supply, along with delivering against tougher Building Regulations’ requirements, predominantly in the areas of sustainability. A review of current literature has highlighted that the pressures the UK house building industry is currently under may be having a negative impact on build quality, causing an increase in defects. A review and synthesis of the current defect literature with respect to new-build housing and the wider construction sector has found that the prevailing emphasis is limited to the classification, causes, pathology and statistical analysis of defects. There is thus a need to better understand the overall impact of individual defects on key stakeholders within the new-build housing defect detection and remediation process. As part of ongoing research to develop and verify a defect impact assessment rating system, this paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of the impact of individual defects from a key stakeholder perspective by undertaking the literature review and synthesis phase. The literature review identifies the three distinct, but interrelated, dominant impact factors: cost, disruption, and health and safety. By pulling the strands of defect literature together the theoretical lens and key stakeholder sampling strategy is formed as the basis for the subsequent impact weighting development phase.

Towards a meta-analysis and toolkit for port-related socio-economic impacts: a review of socio-economic impact studies conducted for seaports

Port authorities increasingly need to communicate with a variety of external stakeholders in order to maintain and strengthen the societal acceptance of seaport activities. The availability of socio-economic impact studies on port authority and regional development agency websites has often made this information accessible to the public at large. However, the differences in methodologies adopted, in terms of selecting, defining and measuring various types of socio-economic impacts, sometimes lead to misconceptions as well as misleading comparisons across ports within and between regions. In this paper, we suggest guidelines for the design and application of a potential best practice from an interregional perspective (UK, France and Belgium), based on research in the framework of a European Commission co-funded project, ‘IMPACTE’. The paper also aims to develop guidelines for comparing the socio-economic impacts of ports across regional and national borders and discusses the development of a European port economic impact measurement toolkit. We analyse a sample of 33 recent socio-economic impact assessment reports in terms of methodologies adopted and types of impacts measured. The review shows a great diversity among these studies, leading to important differences between the impacts of port activity communicated to stakeholders.