EDITORIAL: ON THE NEED OF POLICY LEVEL IA

Dear readers, Over recent weeks I have stumbled across a range of studies comparing investment into non-renewable and renewable energy sources (e.g. ‘What if Canada had spent $200bn on wind energy instead of oil?’, http://planetrethink.com/rethinking/; see also http:// www.theenergymix.com/). Most independent analysts observe that opportunity costs are frequently higher for non-renewable than for renewable energy sources. Whilst those working on sustainable energy won’t be surprised about these findings, it does run against the ‘conventional wisdom’ frequently expressed in many mainstream media – the reasons for which we can only speculate. In this context, from an IA (impact assessment) point of view, it is disheartening to see many policy processes still being conducted in a fragmented and ill-informed manner. Thus, rather than aiming at transparent and informed decisions on e.g. the preferred energy mix in a country on the basis of comprehensive assessments of economic, social (including health) and environmental impacts, decisions are still made in isolation and at times in a rather ad-hoc manner (which is not dissimilar from other major political and policy decisions with potentially highly significant impacts; see e.g. Fischer, 2016). I remember many years ago discussions on the introduction of policy-SEA (strategic environmental assessment) being dismissed as coming too early in the presence of malfunctioning project EIA (environmental impact assessment) systems and in the absence of suitable methods and techniques to assess policy level impacts. However, in the absence of tiered IA systems that systematically cover all important decision tiers (including policies), by definition EIA can never be fully effective (Fischer 2006). Furthermore, there is no shortage of suitable policy assessment tools and evidence for policy impacts (see e.g. Jakupec and Kelly 2016; Olagunju and Gunn 2016; Sizo et al. 2016; Huang et al. 2017; Mendoza Sammet 2017). Evidence also includes reflections on the role of IA in the current post-factual era (Fischer 2017). It is within this context that I would like to draw your attention to an initiative by Jiří Dusík, now with UNDP (in collaboration with Riki Therivel, Barry Sadler, Ivana Saric and myself) on Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) of Automation. This is set in the context of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is connected in particular with an uptake of digital and highly automated systems that are widely expected to transform global economies over the next 10–20 years. Important elements include 3D printing, advanced industrial robotics, autonomous transport, ‘Internet of Things’, and Artificial Intelligence (see here for a summary of the scoping report: h t tps : / /www. resea rchgate .ne t /pub l i ca t ion/ 326445863_Strategic_Environmental_and_Social_ Assessment_of_Automation_Scoping_Summary). This issue of IAPA consists of six research articles, covering a diverse range of topics. These include social IA, product IA, economic appraisal, human health, SEA and public participation in Environmental and Health Impact Assessment. Authors represent institutions in Chile, Thailand, Canada, Norway, Brazil and Australia. A contribution I would like to draw your particular attention to is a letter to the editor following this editorial by Bill Kennedy, recipient of IAIA’s lifetime achievement award in 2017. This letter is Bill’s highly entertaining acceptance speech held during IAIA2017 in Montreal. I believe that his stories put the value of IA into a new (and rather humorous) light and serve a reminder on how ‘random’ IA at times can be. Bill is the Director for the Office of Accountability of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Government’s development finance institution. He has over four decades of international experience with IA, as well as social and environmental accountability in developing and emerging economies. Enjoy reading!