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.

Health impact assessment in Australia and New Zealand: an exploration of methodological concerns

This paper explores methodological issues raised by recent attempts to promote the use of health impact assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand. The experiences from both countries are used to highlight important aspects of the debate about the relevance of HIA in appraising both policies and projects particularly in the three broad areas: inclusivity, legitimacy, and method. Many countries are attempting to develop HIA for use in policy development without due consideration of either important methodological issues or the workforce development and capacity-building necessary for its successful implementation.

Integrated health impact assessment into the triple bottom line concept

This theoretical study explores the links between the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept and the principles of HIA and considers the potential role of HIA to provide a mechanism for integrating health concerns within a broader agenda of government and business. TBL is a framework linked to the broader sustainability agenda that underpins and reviews environmental, economic and social performance of organizations. In its simplest form, TBL acts as a tool for reporting to stakeholders/shareholders organizational performance and the nature of the impacts on the community. The links to HIA are clear as both seek to determine the impact (potential and actual) on the health and well-being of the population.

The study found that TBL can operate at four levels within organizations ranging from reporting through to full integration with the organization's goals and practices. Health is narrowly defined and there are tensions about how to undertake the social accountability functions. The study shows the potential role for HIA within the broader policy and accountability agenda. As health is one of the main outcomes of an organization's activities it needs to be taken into account at all levels of activity.

Health impact assessment : environmental management vs healthy public policy perspective - exploring the nexus between the two

This paper will explore the links between the traditional role of HIA in an environmental management context and the new and emerging trend internationally to subject government policy to prospective HIA.  The goal of this new iteration of HIA is to develop healthy public policy across all sectors of government creating a more inclusive and evidence-based approach to public policy formation.  The risk-based, health protection approach is more widely understood, as it draws on existing health protection experience and is allied with risk assessment theory.  The new model is based on the health promotion perspective, and emphasizes social determinants of public health.  This latter approach draws on the foundations of the former.  It is vital that the links between the two are therefore considered especially from the perspective of transfer of knowledge between the two.  The paper will explore the similarities, the differences, the tensions and the lessons that can be learned.  It will report on the progress of a national study being conducted by Mary Mahoney and Gillian Durham that is looking at what is happening (or has happened) in other countires including Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom

Equity-focused health impact assessment: a tool to assist policy makers in addressing health inequalities.

In Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) the use of health impact assessment (HIA) as a tool for improved policy development is comparatively new. The public health workforce do not routinely assess the potential health and equity impacts of proposed policies or programs. The Australasian Collaboration for Health Equity Impact Assessment was funded to develop a strategic framework for equity-focused HIA (EFHIA) with the intent of strengthening the ways in which equity is addressed in each step of HIA. The collaboration developed a draft framework for EFHIA that mirrored, but modified the commonly accepted steps of HIA; tested the draft framework in six different health service delivery settings; analysed the feedback about application of the draft EFHIA framework and modified it accordingly. The strategic framework shows promise in providing a systematic process for identifying potential differential health impacts and assessing the extent to which these are avoidable and unfair. This paper presents the EFHIA framework and discusses some of the issues that arose in the case study sites undertaking equity-focused HIA.

Equity-focused health impact assessment framework

Background to the Development of the Equity-Focused HIA Framework
The equity focused health impact assessment (EFHIA) framework arises out of a two year research project funded for the most part by the Australian Government’s Public Health Education Research Program (PHERP) Innovations Grants (Round 2) scheme. This project had as its primary objective the development of a framework for health inequalities impact assessment, subsequently renamed equity focused health impact assessment. A partnership between the University of Newcastle, Deakin University and the University of New South Wales (the Project Management Steering Committee) received the funding and the Australasian Collaboration for Health Equity Impact Assessment (ACHEIA) was formed to undertake appropriate background research and to develop, pilot test, modify and disseminate the framework. The work commenced in September 2002 and concluded in October 2004. Part of the funding included a capacity building workshop in August 2004. ACT Health and the Division of Medicine at the John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, also provided financial support for the project. The August 2004 Workshop was supported by NSW Health. All participants and organisations involved in the project gave extensive in-kind support.
The aims of the workshop were to bring together an international collaboration of multidisciplinary investigators, public health experts, and key senior health managers working in national, state and local settings, to inform the further development of the framework and to provide training in its application. The initial goals of the project were to work collaboratively to develop a strategic framework to assess the health inequalities of public health-related policies, plans, strategies, decisions, programs and services. The EFHIA framework as presented at the August workshop was developed through:
1. an extensive review of the relevant literature
2. formal and informal consultation with members of ACHEIA (the international
reference group), members of the Project Management Steering Committee and
other relevant experts; and
3. testing of the draft EFHIA framework with the 5 case study partners – who applied the draft framework in a range of health settings (see
Acknowledgements).
The result of this work has been the development of an equity focused health impact assessment framework that can be used to determine the unanticipated and systemic health inequities that may exist within the decision making processes or activities of a range of organisations and sectors. The EFHIA framework provides one approach that can be used to assist decision makers to put equity and health on their agenda in a more obvious and systematic way. The framework represents a ‘moment in time’ rather than a definitive statement or ‘toolkit’ on the best way to proceed. Further practice, refinement and adjustment will be needed over many years to consolidate both HIA and EFHIA. As well as this guide to the framework, additional outputs from the project team include:
- A literature review
- A position paper
- A report on the five case studies
- An evaluation report.
With the consent of the Australian Government, a monograph will be made available to workshop participants at the end of October which contains the framework and the appropriate background papers.