How to strengthen the independence of IA reviewers and practitioners

A common and long-standing criticism

In their invitation to the IAIA19 Annual meeting, the conference organizers stated that lack of independence in preparing impact assessment (IA) documentation is one of the ‘common and long-standing criticisms of IA’. 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 IAs are perceived as ‘independent’ from those who 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 Tables 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 and Maggetti (2011), Irion and Ledger (2013) and the input of IAIA members. The building blocks are categorized under five headings: status and power, financial autonomy, organizational autonomy, knowledge and expertise, and transparency and 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.

Table 1. Possible key building blocks for independence of IA reviewers.¹

	Institutional and legal arrangements (Formal independence)	Operation in practice (de facto independence)
Status and powers The reviewer has independent status and powers	Role in reviewing has a formal basis Independence has a formal basis Adheres to a Code of Ethics Signs a ‘declaration of absence of conflicts’ – no past or present professional conflicts with a project Mandated to deliver unsolicited advice on the quality and scope of assessments	Has no stake or interest in subject (project, plan, etc.) of the assessment Has no conflicted relationship with the authors of the assessment Chooses its own benchmarks and approach Can show evidence of independence in practice (products and actions)
Financial autonomy The reviewer is financially autonomous	Financial sourcing has a legal basis Is not paid by those reviewed Mandated to set its own budget	Secures sufficient budget for the review Is autonomous in internal budget allocation Budget for reviewing is stable over time Finances are provided upfront
Organizational autonomy The reviewer functions autonomously	Mandated to nominate its own staff, board and chairperson Has rules for incompatibility of offices	Successfully withstands political pressure, e.g. on nominations or dismissals of board or staff, or on conclusions of the assessment or review
Knowledge and expertise The reviewer has sufficient knowledge and professional expertise to execute its task	Requirements exist for professional expertise Access to information is formally secured, including right to collect information Mandated to seek external advice where needed	Chairperson, board and staff have adequate professional expertise External advice is used in practice
Accountability and transparency The reviewer is accountable and transparent	Formal obligation to publish and justify reviews Legal mandate to organize consultations Complaint mechanism exists Formal requirement on external financial and quality audits	Review results are published and justified Consultations take place, are of high quality and response is given to those consulted Complaint mechanism is regularly used Financial and quality audits take place

Table 2. Possible key building blocks for independence of IA practitioners

	Institutional and legal arrangements	Operation in practice
	(Formal independence)	(De facto independence)
Status and powers The practitioner has independent status and powers	Independence secured through certification/accreditation schemes Adheres to a Code of Ethics Signs ‘declaration of absence of conflicts’ – no past or present professional conflicts with a project	Has no stake or interest in subject (project, plan, etc.) of the assessment Chooses its own benchmarks and approach Can show evidence of independence in practice (products and actions)
Financial autonomy The practitioner is financially autonomous		Secures sufficient budget for the assessment Is autonomous in internal budget allocation
Organizational autonomy The practitioner functions autonomously	Nominates its own staff, board and chairperson Has rules for incompatibility of offices	Successfully withstands political pressure, e.g. on conclusions of the assessment
Knowledge and expertise The practitioner has sufficient knowledge and professional expertise to execute its task	Requirements exist for professional expertise through certification/accreditation schemes Access to information is legally secured, including right to collect information	Chairperson, board and staff have adequate professional expertise
Accountability and transparency The practitioner is accountable and transparent	Certification/accreditation schemes require regular external financial and quality audits Complaint mechanism exists	Regular financial and quality audits take place Includes high quality consultations in its assessments and response is given to those consulted Complaint mechanism is regularly used

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 the following questions: 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?

Notes

1. Both individuals and reviewing bodies/agencies