EU-LDC Network conference 2002
|
Improving Global Governance for Development: Issues
and Instruments - 7-10 December, Chiang Mai
Session 2.1 - Sustainability Impact Assessment
- Summary
The attention for good governance has increased with globalisation.
The issue of sustainable development was highlighted during the
Rio Summit in 1992. To contribute to better governance and sustainable
development, the EU has carried out environmental assessments of
national and EU policies since the mid 1980s. From 1999, the EU
has also tried to assess the impact on sustainable development of
its policies, by analysing the economic, environmental and social
effects of these policies. Although the US and Canada were much
earlier involved in impact assessments, especially in the context
of NAFTA, the EU’s Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) are
much more ambitious because they do not only study the impact in
their own region, but also the impact outside its borders.
The speaker is involved in the SIA of the WTO negotiations. The
purpose of this SIA was, among others, to help avoid the mistakes
in Seattle, to evaluate policy options and identify potential mitigation
and enhancement measures and to contribute to the negotiation process.
The outcome of WTO negotiations will depend on the following factors:
the policy and regulatory frameworks in other countries, a social
framework and environmental regulation to help the adjustment process,
and the link between trade liberalisation and growth rates. The
SIA process aims to understand these effects. The SIA on the WTO
negotiations consisted of methodology development, an overall assessment
of the effects and specific sector studies. The identification of
cost-effective, feasible and effective mitigation and enhancement
measures is also very important, both for national governments and
for international and regional initiatives. These mitigation and
enhancement measures are not a dictation for policy, but include
issues like identification of required technical assistance etc.
The speaker concluded by identifying some ambiguities in the use
of SIA. First, the Commission wants to base its decisions on sound
analysis, but it also states that the analysis is only a complement
to policy, no substitution, and therefore it is unclear what the
exact influence of a SIA is. And secondly, there are consultations
with stakeholders, but it is not clear how their concerns are taken
into account. In addition, not all organisations are able to participate
in the consultation process. Thirdly, the SIA takes place while
negotiations are ongoing, which may influence decision-making more
than the SIA. Fourthly, monitoring and evaluation of actual policy
is essential, and needs to be linked to feedback and corrective
policy formulation and implementation. When the SIA is carried out,
there is still a high degree of uncertainty. Finally it must be
noted that the people that carry out a SIA also need to make decisions
in the process, it is not a purely technical and rational process.
The second speaker was part of the team carrying out the SIA of
the EU-Chile economic partnership agreement. The objectives of this
study were to assess the economic, social and environmental sustainability
impacts of this agreement, to make a comprehensive analysis, to
carry out a causal-chain analysis, to arrive at comparable measures
of impact and to formulate recommendations for policy action. In
a SIA there are a large amount of issues that can be studied, for
example changes in the production system, and social and environmental
effects. The question is how to analyse this, because it is difficult
to classify the impacts exhaustively. In the EU-Chile SIA, the team
first used a CGE model only for assessing the initial impact and
for informing the screening process. After this, sector analyses
and detailed social and environmental analyses were carried out,
consultations were held and areas for further study were identified.
During this process, sustainability impact indicators were identified.
In the analysis the team studied the direction and magnitude of
change regarding these indicators, at the existing economic, social
and environmental pressure in affected areas, at how it affects
different groups of the population, at the potential for irreversibility,
and at the regulatory and institutional capacity to implement ameliorating
measures. In the case of Chile, the outcome in the field of economics
was that there are no sustainability concerns, and that the growth
rate in the EU is more positively affected than in Chile. On the
social side, a lot of existing problems will remain. Locally, there
could be persistent negative social impacts, including poverty.
On the environmental side, the general conclusion was that the introduction
of improved production techniques would be generally insufficient
to outweigh the effects of increased production. The effects differ
by sector.
In
the discussion, many participants were sceptical about SIAs. The main
concerns were the limitations of economic models, and the difficulties
of predicting dynamic effects. Some people were in favour of joint
SIAs, i.e. the European Commission together with the governments of
other countries involved, so as to reduce the chances of a bias in
the SIA outcome. The speakers noted that the consultants work on a
scientific basis, and not a political. From the NGO side it was mentioned
that a lot of NGOs feel that the SIAs and the consultations are window-dressing
and they cannot really influence policy. A number of participants
from developing countries expressed interest in learning more about
this instrument.
Session 2.1 - Speakers
Chair: Samuel Gayi
Speakers: Clive George (University of Manchester),
Neil Dourmashkin (Acacia Consulting)
Back to Conference 2002 index
|
