Applying territorial impact assessment in a multilevel policy-making context the case of Slovenia

Transcription

1 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Applying territorial impact assessment in a multilevel policy-making context the case of Slovenia Mojca Golobič, Naja Marot, Špela Kolarič & Thomas B. Fischer To cite this article: Mojca Golobič, Naja Marot, Špela Kolarič & Thomas B. Fischer (2015) Applying territorial impact assessment in a multi-level policy-making context the case of Slovenia, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:1, 43-56, DOI: / To link to this article: Published online: 24 Jul Submit your article to this journal Article views: 265 View Crossmark data Citing articles: 5 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

2 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 2015 Vol. 33, No. 1, 43 56, Applying territorial impact assessment in a multi-level policy-making context the case of Slovenia Mojca Golobič 1 *, Naja Marot 1,Špela Kolarič 1 and Thomas B. Fischer 2 1 Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; 2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UK (Received 10 April 2014; accepted 21 June 2014) Territorial impact assessment (TIA) aims at informing policy-makers on the policy impacts on different geographical areas ( territorial units ). This paper presents a methodology for TIA which was tested on four European Union (EU) directives and their likely impacts on territorial units in Slovenia. This involved clustering Slovenian statistical (NUTS 3) regions according to their policy-relevant characteristics. The evaluation framework was reflecting the specific territorial cohesion objectives at corresponding governance levels (EU, national, local). This exercise indicates that there are some significant differences among Slovenian regions for different impacts, which become somewhat blurred when aggregated. Furthermore, the meaning of impacts differs depending on the governance level from which they are viewed. We conclude that important differences may be lost when impacts are generalized in policy assessments. Keywords: multi-level assessment; territorial impact assessment; EU policy; regional typologies; territorial cohesion Introduction European Union (EU) policies are developed and implemented in a multi-level context. This can result in spatial or as it is referred to in the EU, territorial differences in policy impacts (Niebuhr & Stiller 2003;Porter2003; Pike et al. 2006; ARL 2008; Commission of the European Communities 2009; EUMinisters2011). Acknowledging differential impacts is important, as successful EU development programs must inevitably be a judicious combination of general principle and localized compromise, reflecting the actual geography and history of each individual region (Scott 1998, p. 117). In this context, Blazek and Maceskova (2010) distinguished between implicit regional polices, which make some adjustments to meet specific regional conditions and needs, and other policies. In the same way, the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (Commission of the European Communities 2010) differentiated between three types of policies in relation to their spatial dimension: (1) policies with an explicit spatial dimension, (2) policies with a partial spatial dimension and (3) policies with no spatial dimension. Although territorially differential impacts manifest themselves particularly at local and regional levels, they are rarely treated by the Community Impact Assessment (IA) procedure, currently conducted by the European Commission for their policy proposals (Commission of the European Communities 2007; Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009; ESPON 2010). As a result, national governments often have difficulty in anticipating impacts of EU policy proposals on different geographical areas and thus in establishing national positions on those proposals. As a consequence, impacts may be detected only when it is too late for corrective action, i.e. once a policy, for example a directive, has been transposed (Van Ravesteyn & Evers 2004). Territorial impact assessment (TIA) is a recent development for assessing EU wide sectoral policies. Distinct from other approaches, it aims at measuring the impacts at national and regional/local levels (Prezioso 2008; Fischer et al. 2014). TIA includes the explicit identification of spatial impact distributions, is pro-active and has a participatory dimension, focused at national and regional/ local governance levels. As an example, Figure 1 shows the Slovenian administrative framework for dealing with EU directive proposals and a possible integration of TIA. The idea of TIA of EU wide policies has been on the agenda since the first European document on spatial planning was published in The European Spatial Development Perspective (Commission of the European Communities 1999) recognized TIA as a potentially useful tool for assessing plans and strategies, and especially for improving the coordination between sectors and national or regional spatial development policies. The White Paper on European Governance (Commission of the European Communities 2001b) introduced impact assessment guidelines with the goal of improving coordination, both, in horizontal terms between policies and in vertical terms between actors and stakeholders at different territorial and administrative levels (Finka 2007). This document recognized the subsidiary principle, declaring local and regional authorities and associated policy processes to be an integral part of the European Community structure. TIA is closely connected with the concept of territorial cohesion which was first mentioned in the Second Cohesion Report (Commission of the European Communities 2001a) and further developed in the subsequent reports. Territorial cohesion was defined in the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 (EU Ministers 2011, p. 4) as: *Corresponding author. mojca.golobic@bf.uni-lj.si q 2014 IAIA

3 44 M. Golobič et al. Figure 1. Integration of TIA into the Slovenian administrative framework....a set of principles for harmonious, balanced, efficient, sustainable territorial development. It enables equal opportunities for citizens and enterprises, wherever they are located, to make the most of their territorial potentials and reinforces the principle of solidarity to promote convergence between the economies of better-off territories and those whose development is lagging behind. The concept of territorial cohesion thus responds to unequal living standards and well-being between places, even at equal or comparable income levels throughout the EU. In this context, TIA is seen as an important enabling tool for achieving territorial cohesion and is therefore a type of equalities impact assessment, focusing on equality of territories (usually regions). Over more than a decade, some considerable TIA pilot work has been conducted, mostly within the scope of the ESPON (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) research programme (ESPON 2013). While TIA is currently still lacking a consistent approach, there is agreement that it is an instrument for involving sub-eu levels in the formulation of EU policies. To date, formalizing TIA has not been a policy priority, and there are different approaches in different EU member states. In those countries that perform TIA voluntarily the procedure tends to be integrated with other formalized assessments, such as strategic environmental assessment SEA. In this paper, the results of the ESPON EATIA project (Fischer et al. 2014) are presented, focusing on Slovenia as one of the three pilot countries (the others being Portugal and the UK). Subsequently, first the TIA approach and methodology brought forward by the EATIA project are introduced. Then testing results for four European directives are presented, before finally, some overall conclusions are drawn. TIA approach and methods The TIA methodology developed in the EATIA project is similar to those of many other impact assessment instruments in that it revolves around an assessment procedure which starts by (1) a screening stage, followed by (2) the definition of the scope and framework of assessment, (3) an analysis and finally (4) an overall evaluation (ESPON 2013; Fischer et al. 2014). This is subsequently described in further detail.

4 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 45. In terms of a scope, a wide range of policy consequences needs to be covered, including direct and indirect impacts, impacts on territory (physical structures) and impacts on territorial governance (Tennekes & Hornis 2008; Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009). Territorial impact encompasses economic, social and environmental aspects of territorial development, as well as the governance dimensions of the territorial cohesion concept (Fischer et al. 2012), which refers to the capacity of the local territories to operate as collective territorial actors (Bagnasco & Le Galeás 2000; Governa & Salone 2004).. At the analysis stage, tools such as Regional Exposure and Sensitivity Matrices are used (ESPON 2011). These are based on the assumption that the territorial impact of a policy will largely be conditioned by the intrinsic territorial characteristics (physical, economic social and administrative) of different regions and localities (Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009). These tools require suitable (subnational) territorial units for identifying impacts, for example: (a) a case study based or micro study approach, in which individual observations of a number of affected regions or localities are conducted (e.g. Robert et al. 2001). This approach enables the collection of very detailed insights at a disaggregated level (Nijkamp & Blaas 1995). (b) The second option is to perform the assessment in all territorial units, in each individually. Usually some pre-existing administrative units are chosen on the basis of data availability. In particular, NUTS ( nomenclature of territorial units for statistics by Eurostat a Directorate General of the European Commission) 3 (county/district) level units are suitable for territorial assessment (ESPON 2010, 2011). This macro study approach (Nijkamp & Blaas 1995) is common in ex-post impact studies (e.g. ESPON 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2010, 2011; Blazek & Maceskova 2010). (c) The third option is based on an analysis of clusters of units that share similar characteristic(s) (Prezioso 2008; ESPON 2013). The results are not region specific, but provide complete territorial coverage. Pre-tailored typologies have been developed in some programs (OECD, ESPON), which might be used by different actors (e.g. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), DG Regio, European Economic Area) and for different purposes. The most commonly used is the urban-rural typology, which is recognized by EU policy-makers, arguing that the difference between rural and urban areas are a fundamental feature of territorial disparities in the EU and are of essential significance for the ESDP (Niebuhr & Stiller 2003, p. 156). (d) At the evaluation stage, the identified impacts are confronted with a chosen set of territorial objectives. The chosen frameworks of reference should correspond to the different policy-making levels, which are relevant for the policy-making process. (Lobao 2004; Perrons 2004). If TIA is to support the vertical coordination of policies effectively, such an approach must be complemented by multi-level evaluation. This means applying EU, national and sub-national reference frameworks. The same impact, identified in the assessment phase, can have different meanings when evaluated against different objectives. Estimation of forest overgrowth may, for example, be considered positive at the EU level, while negative at the level of a Slovenian local community, suffering depopulation and struggling to maintain its cultural landscape. Evaluation does not aim at determining significance, but rather to disclose inequalities between territorial units and to identify unwanted negative impacts. The first few ESPON-initiated TIA research projects all focused on ex-post evaluations of the spatial ( territorial ) distribution of policy impacts. Methods were predominantly evidence based and quantitative (e.g. ESPON 2006a, 2006b, 2010, 2011). All projects encountered the problem of incomplete and missing data. Also, policy-makers tended to find the quantitative TIA approaches 1 used difficult to understand (Zonneveld & Waterhout, 2009). While initial applications confirmed the territorial heterogeneity of policy impacts, they failed to adequately meet the main objective of TIA, namely to inform policy-makers on potential policy impacts, taking the role of national and sub-national governance systems into account (Porter 2003; Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009; Blazek & Maceskova 2010). The introduction of the territorial cohesion concept provided a common policy framework for TIA. The TEQUILA approach (Camagni, 2006; ESPON, 2010), which is based on a mathematical model, followed this rationale most closely. It explicitly related selected dimensions of territorial impacts to the territorial cohesion concept. However, it was perceived as being overly simplistic and difficult to use. Subsequently, the TIA focus shifted, taking into account earlier experiences of SEA (Fischer 2003, 2006). This led to the introduction of more qualitative methods, including interviews, questionnaires and (Delphi) expert evaluations. The rationale was to gather more reliable and robust ex ante information and to communicate this to policy-makers in a more transparent fashion (Tennekes & Hornis 2008; ESPON 2010, 2013; Fischer et al. 2011, 2012; Golobič & Marot 2011). Methodology The methodology introduced here came out of the EATIA research project (Fischer et al. 2012, 2014) in which the use of a participatory and qualitative TIA approach was developed (see Table 1). It was tested over four months in 2012 in Slovenia. Existing policies were used because of the

5 46 M. Golobič et al. Table 1. Participation in the project. Phase of the process Participating stakeholders Output of the workshop SCREENING 44 participants: Information regarding territorial impacts and their National level: 18 representatives role in policy delivery Regional level: 8 Overview on participants experience with EU Local level: 8 Academic, research, NGOs: 9 legislation, delivery of directives Selection of potential directives, suitable for assessing performance SCOPING 18 participants: Presentation of the draft TIA approach (feedback) National level: 8 including definition of territorial impact Regional level: 2 Local level: 2 Academic, research, NGOs: 5 Presentation of the model for integration of TIA into policy-making process ASSESSMENT Renewable Energy Directive: 11 participants; Feedback on logical chain, typology Proposal for SEVESO III Directive: 6 Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC: 10 Impact assessment (selection of criteria, qualitative Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, 2010/31/EU: 5 Similar balance of participants in all workshops: representative of the relevant ministries, research and practice, including municipalities and regions description of impacts, quantitative estimations) EVALUATION 16 participants: Presentation of evaluation results and feedback National level: 4 Drafting the TIA guidance Regional level: 2 Local level: 5 Academic, research, NGOs: 5 timing of the project and the difficulty of entering the process of real policy-making in a research project. They included the Habitats Directive 1992/43 (The Council of the European Communities 1992), also presented in Marot et al. (2013), Directive 2010/31 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (The Council of the European Communities 2010), Directive 2009/28 on the Use of Renewable Resources (The Council of the European Communities 2009), and the proposal for the new SEVESO III Directive (European Commission 2010). Subsequently, the methodology is described in terms of the four main assessment stages. Screening During screening, expert views were sought through workshop discussions. Experts formed a so-called project learning network, which consisted of representatives from relevant ministries, regional development agencies, NGOs, academic institutions and local communities. These experts Figure 2. Phases and steps in the TIA procedure.

6 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 47 reflected on the significance of the territorial impacts of the four EU directives, taking a logical chain approach (see Perdicoúlis 2010). The same experts later also participated in other phases of the assessment (see Figure 2 and Table 1). Scoping At the scoping stage, the following questions were addressed:. What elements of the policy are relevant for consideration as a cause of impacts (measures)?. What are the territorial criteria that may be used to describe the impacts?. What are the territorial units where these impacts are likely to be felt? One scoping workshop was devoted to each directive, hosting participants from national, regional and local administrations, from academic institutions and also representatives from NGOs. Workshops started with brainstorming exercises, in which participants listed the potential impacts of the directive, grouping them under four topics (see Figure 2 and Table 4). Policy elements were defined; altogether, six for the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the SEVESO III Directive proposal, five for the Habitats Directive and 12 for the Renewable Resources Directive (see Table 2). Each element was described in more detail by name, target groups and the territorial level of implementation. The next step in scoping was to compile a checklist of territorial criteria, prepared on the basis of the impact assessment literature (ESPON 2010), previous ESPON projects (ESPON 2011), EU and national territorial cohesion policy documents (Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy 2004) and inputs from workshop participants. The checklist consisted of 61 criteria, which were presented through the following four topics: (1) Territory and environment (21 criteria), e.g. sealing of soils, landscape quality, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, urbanization, use of renewables, size of degraded area; (2) Economy (19 criteria), e.g. economic growth, number of innovations, employment in primary/ secondary/tertiary sector, administrative costs of establishing a company, infrastructure quality, use of public transport, daily commuting; (3) Society (14 criteria), e.g. unemployment, social transfers, poverty, cultural heritage protection; and (4) Governance and Administration (7 criteria), e.g. planning process, administrative costs, public participation. These four topics were chosen due to their familiarity to policy-makers as well as to enable better integration with other existing assessment procedures. Another reason is that the focus of the EATIA approach is territorial distribution of impacts, rather than the spatial planning dimensions of territorial development. For each directive, workshop participants selected those criteria that were able to present the impacts of the directive. In the evaluation phase, they were used as indicators of territorial policy objectives (e.g. from the Territorial Agenda; EU Ministers 2011) or national spatial development policies. The last question at the scoping stage revolved around the selection of territorial levels. On the basis of the experiences from a previous Slovenian TIA project (Golobič & Marot, 2011), the NUTS 3 level was considered appropriate. There are 12 such regions in Slovenia. While they do not have any administrative power, they play a role in regional development and represent the territorial units with the best data coverage in the country. In terms of analysis, the case-based approach was not considered appropriate since it was difficult to single out particularly affected individual regions. However, the time and resources available in EU policy-making currently do not allow for comprehensive individual assessments of large numbers of territorial units. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, clustering of units was considered the most viable method, grouping 12 regions into a limited number of clusters. The decision was supported by the possibility to use existing ESPON typologies (ESPON 2009). Typologies were flexible and were created using parameters that fitted the content of a specific directive. Clustering was done, using the Ward s method of hierarchical clustering and the interval square Euclidian distance for the units measure of dispersion. The criteria and the clusters are presented in Table 2, graphically also in Figure 3a d. The resulting typologies were presented to policy-makers and amended on the basis of their feedback. Assessment An impact assessment matrix (IAM) was completed, looking at every policy element on every cluster of regions. Each impact was described in terms of its magnitude (expected size or scale of impact) expressed numerically (0 ¼ negligible impact, 1 ¼ some impact and 2 ¼ major impact) and its orientation (þ for an increase of baseline condition, for a decrease). Furthermore, each score was also described qualitatively. A completed IAM shows impacts as disaggregated units (one measure/one criterion/one cluster of regions), resulting in a large number of pieces of information. According to one of the founding fathers of contemporary impact assessment, Aldo Leopold, an assessment should not attempt to summarize these scores into an aggregate impact indicator, since synthesis is the task of policy-makers (Leopold et al. 1971). Quite a few current impact assessment approaches have been observed to follow this separate assessment approach (European Parliament, Council 2001; Commission of the European Communities 2009b; Tajima & Fischer 2013), leading to policy-makers having some difficulty to comprehend the results. To remedy this, our TIA approach is based on a summary of impacts at least within each of the realms of sustainability, namely environment, society and economy, using average scores for all criteria. Trade-offs within these realms could be considered (potentially) acceptable, but aggregation between the realms should not be attempted (Radej

7 48 M. Golobič et al. Table 2. Overview of the selected directives and relevant TIA elements. Habitat directive Directive on use of renewable resources Directive on energy performance of buildings Proposal of SEVESO III directive Establishment of Natura 2000 sites to protect biodiversity and natural habitats in EU member states Five measures: designation of sites as special areas of conservation, environmental impact assessment, compensation measures and monitoring Provision of 25% share (Slovenia) of the renewables in the final gross energy consumption in 2020 and the use of renewables in the final consumption in transport that equals 10% in measures: incentives for the use of biomass, geothermal, wind energy, transmission and distribution grids, administrative procedures and spatial planning, etc. Directive objectives and measures Improvement of the energy performance of buildings in the EU, decrease in energy consumption and the increase of use of renewables in the construction sector Six measures: energy certification of buildings, increase of (nearly)zero buildings, financial instruments, measures concerning spatial planning Protection of the environment and people s health; coordinated and efficient provisions to safeguard against industrial accidents in the EU Six measures: informing, creation of an information system, mandatory major accident prevention policy, safety reports, guides and measures in land use planning Share of area in the region, protected under Natura 2000 Area of Natura 2000: (a) Overlapping with arable land (b) Overlapping with potential settlement areas Potential for the use of renewables: national classification of municipalities in respect of socio-economic, forestry-economic and demographic criteria (c) Remaining Natura 2000 land annual insulation Number of ski areas in the region wind speed at 50 m altitude hydro potential of Slovenian rivers livestock unit per hectare, area of arable land, quantity of communal waste location of geothermal water sources Typology criteria Number of buildings, built between 1971 and 1980 Number of facilities, bounded to SEVESO directive Length of the heating season in the region The level of risk of these facilities Average number of inhabitants in the local community in which a facility is located

8 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 49 Figure 3. Clusters of regions for the four directives. 2011). All disaggregated scores (impacts of a single measure on a single territorial criterion in a single region) were kept as references. In addition, we aggregated the scores of individual measures into the overall impacts of a directive. Average scores were used, based on the assumption that positive (or negative) impacts accumulate, while the positive impact of one measure can offset the negative impacts of another. The main focus of interest was to identify differences among regions; therefore, results were not aggregated at the national level. Differences larger than 0.2 points (10% of the total possible difference) were considered significant. The share of impacts for each directive was also calculated. Then impacts with the largest differences between clusters of regions and impacts that were negative in one cluster of regions and positive in another were identified. Evaluation The evaluation stage of the TIA determined whether the potential impacts identified in the assessment phase either support or hamper territorial development, and whether a policy is more supportive towards one territory than another. In this context, impacts were interpreted in terms of their compliance with three different levels of territorial policy objectives, using an evaluation table. The Territorial Agenda (EU Ministers 2011) and its priorities provided a reference framework for the EU level, and the Strategy of Territorial Development of Slovenia (Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy 2004) was selected as the national reference point for evaluation. The Land Use Plan for the Municipality of Novo Mesto was chosen as an example for the local level (Obcinski 2009). Each objective was related to a set of criteria used in the IAM (an example is shown in Table 3). An average value was calculated for the scores of the impacts of all criteria for each objective. Comparison between the three levels required some interpretation, since objectives were not directly comparable in terms of content (e.g. different numbers of objectives and wording). Five topics were identified that were addressed at all three levels: (1) Polycentric and balanced territorial development; (2) Cross-border integration and connectivity; (3) Competitiveness of the territories ; (4) Integrated development of the territories ; and (5) Preserving nature, landscape and cultural values. The objectives of each corresponding document were then ascribed to the corresponding topic. In this context, average scores of impacts were translated into qualitative values. Results Results from the TIA application outlined above revealed a variety of potential environmental, societal, economic and administrative territorial impacts. A summary of the qualitative impacts of the Habitats and Energy Efficiency of Buildings directives is presented in Table 4. The presentation of the results focuses on

9 50 M. Golobič et al. Table 3. The distribution of objectives at three governance levels. Levels of governance Topic EU National Local 1. Polycentric and balanced territorial development 2. Cross-border integration and connectivity 1. Promote polycentric and balanced territorial development 3. Territorial integration in cross-border and transnational functional regions 5. Improving territorial connectivity for individuals, communities and enterprises 3. Competitiveness of the territories 4. Ensuring global competitiveness of the regions based on strong local economies 4. Integrated development of the territories 5. Preserving nature, landscape and cultural values 2. Encouraging integrated development in cities and rural and specific regions 6. Managing and connecting ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions 2. Polycentric development of network of cities, towns and other settlements 7. Integration of infrastructure corridors with the EU infrastructure systems 3. Increased competitiveness of Slovenian towns in Europe 4. High-quality development and attractiveness of cities, towns and other settlements 5. Harmonious development of areas with common spatial development characteristics 6. Development of complementary functions of rural and urban areas 9. Spatial development harmonized with spatial limitations 1. Balanced spatial development 3. Improvement of accessibility and transport network in settlements, business zones and tourist areas 7. Joint planning of common spatial development between neighbouring municipalities 2. Improvement of spatial and other conditions for development of new job offer 4. Sufficient energy and utility infrastructure in the settlements, business zones and tourist areas 5. Improvement of the qualities of territory and countryside areas, landscape and built structures, creating new qualities in the land and preservation of the natural qualities 8. Prudent use of natural resources 9. Environment protection objectives 10. Cultural diversity as the foundation of the 11. Preservation of cultural heritage and its national spatial identity integration into the social and economic 11. Nature conservation development of the municipality 12. Environmental protection Sources: EU Ministers (2011); Obcinski (2009); Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (2004).

10 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 51 Table 4. Characteristics of territorial impacts for two selected directives. Habitat directive Energy efficiency of buildings directive Environment and territory Preserving biodiversity, renaturation of habitats Changed use of resources Better climate (preserving forests) Decrease of CO 2 emissions/decrease of GHG Better water preservation, fewer interventions Buildings outlook (new solutions)/change of architectural Less sealing of soils characteristics Sustainable architecture in sync with the surroundings (natural materials) Spatial (re)organization (migration, climate in the city vs. type of the neighbourhood)/change of the settlement pattern Better preservation of cultural landscape More PM10s (biomass heating in the urban areas) Spatial planning: obstacle for comprehensive territorial Landscape picture solutions, limited development of individual areas, Issue of renewal of cultural heritage sector conflicts, land use change because of substitute habitats, reorganization utility lines Greater touristic attractiveness for tourist and visitors, potential for the development of soft tourism/hampered development due to the conflicts of interests, aggravating slow renewal of infrastructure Progress of existing activities: ecology, biology, environmental sciences, technology/greater costs, demanding conditions for activity delivery Possibility of EU co-financing, Life þ Larger burden for investors, lengthy procedures and slower project implementation (additionally required studies) Incentives for the renewables use/hampered allocation of energy supply infrastructure Greater charges of national budget (state monitoring, legislation changes, preparation of expert ground works, contracting of experts) New jobs/changed employment options Better quality of life, more natural environment Improved knowledge and awareness about the nature/greater conflicts because of the public dissatisfaction and participation in procedures Economy Technological advancement/innovation (monitoring, IT) New application of known materials in construction (building frame) Cheaper public administration (energy saving) Lower costs of energy More jobs (construction, craft, certification, technologies) Non-optimized capacities of energy network and production units Price of land, real estate New services/more smaller companies Increase of investments costs (expensive in short term, cheaper running costs) Society Energy stratification of society/energy poverty Rural migration (location of renewable sources) New knowledge (energy analysis of buildings) Higher quality of residences Changes in behaviour, energy management/educated consumers, users Governance and administration Greater charges and additional tasks for municipalities, More measures, provided by the state reorganization of administrative governance New administrative burdens (examinations, certificates) Lengthy procedures of development planning, acquisition Larger role of local energy concepts in the spatial of permissions, preparation of the expert basis for decisionmaking (additional studies, reports on monitoring, EIA Reorganization of jobs transfer of tasks to the private sector planning/new commitments at the local level for protected areas, mapping of habitats and species) Establishment of control (inadequacy of existing control) Longer procedures for gaining building permission determining whether the impacts of the selected directives differ across the assessed NUTS 3 regions. Overall, there is little differentiation in the aggregated results as presented in the Table 5. For two of the directives, there is no difference greater than 0.2 points between clusters of regions. For the other two, a difference of just above this threshold (0.3) is observed for one of the assessed areas. Directives are a compilation of various measures which often have different objectives, targets and levels of implementation. Therefore, mapped by the different Table 5. Overview of criteria differentiating between the regions. Number of criteria Directive All applied Differentiating,. 0.2 Highest absolute difference Scores with ambiguous direction Habitat (68%) 2 (H4/Adm) 2 (H1, H4/Env) Renewables (18%) 1.4 (R4/Econ) SEVESO III (65%) 1.3 (S4/Soc) Energy performance (47%) 1.3 (E1/Soc) 1 (E5/Adm)

11 52 M. Golobič et al. measures, the territorial distribution of impacts is likely to be more diverse. For example, all five observed measures of the Habitats Directive have impacts that differ among the clusters of regions by more than 0.2 points in two or three areas. Interestingly, differences are smallest for the environment. The least territorially sensitive is the Directive on Renewables where only 2 of its 12 measures were found to have impacts that differ by more than 0.2 points. The other two directives are in the middle with regards to territorial differentiation of impacts. Finally, of all 29 considered measures, none differed among the clusters of regions in all four fields of observation. Most often, the magnitude of differences was close to the 0.2 threshold, with few exceptions; 0.9 in the case of the measure Environmental Impact Assessment of acceptability of the effects of the implementation of plans on protected areas [H3], and 1.4 in the case of the Renewables Directive measure for the promotion of the use of energy from biomass [R4]. The measure of minimum energy performance requirements for existing and new buildings [E1] of the Directive on the Energy Performance was supposed to have a positive impact on society in regions with the lowest numbers of building requiring renewal and the longest heating season [R1E] and a negative impact in regions with the highest number of buildings requiring renewal [R3E]. However, both impacts were in the range of a very small or negligible impact which was partially explained by the participants in the exercise. The results for this most detailed level of observation are presented in Figure 4. The share of criteria that differed between the clusters of regions varied. It was highest in the case of the Habitats Directive and the SEVESO III proposal (68% and 65%, respectively), followed by the Energy Performance Directive (47%) and the Renewables Directive (18%). In all cases, certain criteria revealed strong differences. The impacts of compensation measures due to the pre-requisitions for the development that conditionally intersects with the Natura 2000 element of the Habitats Directive [H4] on the efficiency of the planning process were likely to be very strong (22) especially in those regions with the largest share of Natura 2000 areas and there was a moderate area of overlap with the agriculture and settlement clusters [R2H]. They were absent (0) in the regions with the least Natura 2000 areas [R1H]. Also, a high differentiation was found among the impacts of the Energy Performance Directive methodology of calculating the energy performance of buildings measure on unemployment, which is 1.3 in the regions with the most energy wasteful buildings [R3E]. Furthermore, differentiation of impacts of the promotion measure for the use of biomass on the number of new enterprises was 1.4 in regions with biomass potential [R3R]. Finally, impacts of SEVESO guides and measures in the field of land use planning on health costs were 1.3 in regions with a higher number of high risk SEVESO III facilities and exposed inhabitants [R2S]. Differences were highest in those cases where one cluster of regions is considered to be completely unaffected by a policy measure. Figure 4. Examples of territorial differentiation of impacts at the disaggregated level for all four directives.

12 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 53 Table 6. Impact of four directives on achieving the territorial cohesion objectives at three different levels. Territorial cohesion objectives Habitat SEVESO Renewables Energy performance 1. Polycentric and balanced territorial development EU-level objective 1 0 þ þþ þ National-level objective 2 þ 0 0 þ Local-level objective 1 0 þ þ 0 þ þ 2. Cross-border integration and connectivity EU-level objectives 3, 5 0 þ þ þþ þ National-level objective 7 0 þþ 0 Local-level objectives 3, 7 0 þ Competitiveness of the territories EU-level objective þ þ National-level objectives 3, þ þ þ Local-level objective 2, 4 0 þ þþ þ 4. Integrated development of the territories EU-level objective þ 0 2 National-level objectives 5, 6, 9 0 þ 0 þ þ 0 Local-level objective 5 þ þ 0 þ 5. Preserving nature, landscape and cultural values EU-level objective 6 þ þ þþ 0 þ National-level objectives 8, 10, 11, 12 þ þ þ 0 þ Local-level objectives 9, 11 0 þ þþ 0 þ 0 þ Note: Contribution of an impact to an objective: þþ, very positive; þ, positive; 0 þ, minor positive; 0, neutral or zero;, very negative;, negative; 0 2, minor negative. The second part of the results refers to the evaluation of impacts against existing territorial cohesion objectives at three different governance levels: EU, national and local. This part of the TIA approach is different from the assessment phase, enlightening the raw impact scores in terms of territorial cohesion. This required a further step in the process where criteria were aggregated corresponding to the single objective of territorial cohesion, as articulated in the relevant documents for EU, national and local levels. Table 6 shows an overview of the evaluation results. Such results can be directly applied to the policies objectives while the assessment results only tell the situation of a particular region. A plot of the results reveals an overall positive contribution of the directives towards territorial cohesion (see Figure 5). This was most unambiguously true for objective 5 (Preserving nature, landscape, and cultural values), although all four directives had slight to strong positive impacts at all three observed levels of governance. In the other cases, there were several differences. The most negative impacts came from the Habitats Directive. In the case of objective 3 (Competitiveness of the territories), this was evident at all three levels, although in terms of the other three objectives, the impacts differed across levels. The Renewables Directive, on the other hand, mostly had positive impacts on all objectives at the EU level, and registered only two neutral scores at the national and local levels. The SEVESO III Directive proposal and the Energy Performance Directive had similar results: positive impacts at all three levels on the objectives 1 (Polycentric and balanced territorial development), 5 and 3, and mixed for objectives 2 (Cross-border integration and connectivity), positive at the EU level and less so at lower levels, as for the objective 4 (Integrated development of the territories), negative at the EU level and more positive at the lower levels. In terms of direction of the differentials, no single rule was found to apply. Impacts were sometimes evaluated as more positive at higher, and sometimes at lower governance levels. Generally speaking, there was more coherence between national and local than between EU and lower levels of evaluation. Even more differences appeared when policies were regarded measure by measure. This is a very important message for those involved in policy-making procedures. Conclusions Testing the proposed TIA method on four EU directives in Slovenia provided for some useful insights into assessment methodology and practice. Using ad hoc, directive-specific typologies for the estimation of impacts gave mixed results. Consistent with suggestions in other studies (ESPON 2010, 2011), the chosen assessment level (NUTS 3) proved to be useful, especially in a small country like Slovenia. On the other hand, the workload required for data collection and the preparation of the typology was considerable. Also, policy-makers may find the clusters of regions formed difficult to comprehend and those involved in the exercise reported difficulties with grasping territorial units and discomfort with estimating impacts. In this sense, using some existing typology such as urban-rural could be a better choice, at least for some policies. Alternative approaches would be focusing the assessment on either (1) a selection of pilot regions or (2) a selection of most relevant criteria. The results of the TIA introduced in this paper show that impacts vary across regions, which is consistent with expectations. When reporting results, we need to distinguish between (1) assessed impacts, (2) evaluated impacts and (3) associated mitigation measures. However,

13 54 M. Golobič et al. Figure 5. Plotted results of comparison between the three governance levels, considering the contribution of four directives towards territorial cohesion objectives. not all criteria yielded differences between the regions and the number/share of such criteria was different for the different directives. For example, impacts of the Habitats Directive differed for 68% of the criteria, but only for 18% for the Renewables Directive. This difference can be explained by the topic of the directive, which is more or less territorially sensitive. Although both, Habitats Directive, and Renewables Directive have strong territorial relevance, the low territorial impact differentiation of the latter in Slovenia can be explained by the even distribution of the various renewable resources across the territory. However, aggregation of the results into more general topics blurs the differences between the groups of regions. This is the result of offsetting among impacts within one group (environment, economy, society, governance) as well as among different measures of a directive. Therefore, insight at the disaggregated level is needed to reveal the true differences between regions in order to identify winners and losers. Results from the impact evaluation phase further confirm the complexity of policy-level evaluation. Despite the reservations with regards to the vagueness in the interpretation of the objectives, the multi-level evaluation reveals differences in the extent and sometimes also the direction of impacts. However, there is no rule, and some impacts are evaluated more positively at higher (EU/ national) levels, while others are at lower (local/national) levels. The application of a multi-level TIA requires active involvement of representatives from different governance levels (Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009; Fischer et al. 2012). While this is likely to yield diverging results, it would contribute to the main TIA objective, namely to tailor EU policies to national and sub-national needs and recognizing policies as being place-focused (Cars et al. 2002; Cashmore et al. 2009). Finally, there are some open questions which have not yet been addressed. One is the use of flexible territorial units, since the spatial distribution of impacts rarely corresponds to any abstract territorial delineation of units, but rather follows natural ones (De Boe et al. 1999). Another issue is that of territorial integration, which would require shifting the focus of assessment from territorial

14 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 55 units to the type and intensity of their interactions (horizontally and vertically), and how these interactions are affected by policies. In a desire for easily manageable tools that can produce useful results in highly unpredictable political situations where time and resources are restricted (Zonneveld & Waterhout 2009; Fischer et al. 2012), the results of this experiment are useful in providing arguments where simplifications may and where they should not be made. The majority of the existing TIA approaches are very rigorous in terms of data collection and processing, and using simplification in (arithmetic) aggregation of the results and/or single-level evaluation. However, we argue for a slim approach in the data processing and collection phase, focusing on key spatial units and/or key criteria, and using qualitative approaches such as stakeholder workshops, expert views and comparative analyses based on cross-regional experiences (Nijkamp & Blaas, 1995). Also, more resources should be allocated to the synthesis and evaluation of the impacts. The aggregation of results should be used very cautiously, and applying a multi-level evaluation should be used to obtain further valuable information and increase the relevance of TIA for policymaking at different governance levels. Acknowledgements This research was conducted in the framework of the ESPON Programme, Priority Applied Research, within the project ESPON and EATIA. Hereby we thank the Slovenian Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning for supporting the project and reviewing the results. Note 1. Examples include: TEQUILA (Camagni 2006), TEQUILA 2 (ESPON 2010), STeMA (Prezioso 2008), the FLAG Model for the checking the suitability of alternatives (Nijkamp & Vreeker 2000), CGEurope Model or the SASI simulation model (ESPON 2004). References [ARL] Academy for Spatial Research and Planning The territorial cohesion principles. Position paper to the EU Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, position paper from the ARL. No. 78. Hanover: ARL. Bagnasco A, Le Galeás P, editors Cities in contemporary Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blazek J, Maceskova M Regional analysis of public capital expenditure: to which regions is public capital expenditure channeled to rich or to poor ones? Reg Stud. 44(6): Cars G, Healey P, Madanipour A, De Magalhaäes C, editors Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate. Camagni R Territorial impact assessment TIA: a methodological proposal. Italian Journal of Regional Science (Scienze Regionali). 5(2): Cashmore M, Bond A, Sadler B Introduction: the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(2): Commission of the European Communities European spatial development perspective towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the EU Committee on Spatial Development. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities. 2001a. Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory, second report on economic and social cohesion. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities. 2001b. White paper on European governance, COM(2001) 428 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities Better regulation and enhanced impact assessment. Information note from the President to the Commission. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities Impact assessment guidelines (SEC(2009)92). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities Investing in Europe s future. Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. The Council of the European Communities Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Brussels: The Council of the European Communities. The Council of the European Communities Council Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Brussels: The Council of the European Communities. The Council of the European Communities Council Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. Brussels: The Council of the European Communities. De Boe P, Grasland C, Healy A Spatial integration. A paper presented by the co-ordinating workgroup 1.4: Belgium, France, Portugal, United Kingdom. Study programme on European spatial planning Strand 1.4. ESPON ESPON project 2.1.1: territorial impact of EU Transport and TEN policies. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON ESPON project 2.1.3: territorial impact of CAP and Rural Development Policy. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON. 2006a. ESPON Action 2.1.5: territorial impacts of European Fisheries Policy. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON. 2006b. ESPON project 2.2.1: the territorial effects of the structural funds. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON ESPON typology compilation. Scientific Platform and Tools 2013/3/022: interim report. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON ESPON TIPTAP project territorial impact package for transport and agricultural policies. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON ESPON project ARTS Assessment of Regional and Territorial Sensitivity: draft final report. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON Territorial impact assessment of policies and EU directives. Luxembourg: ESPON. European Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of majoraccident hazards involving dangerous substances. COM (2010) 781 final. Brussels: European Commission. EU Ministers Territorial agenda of the European Union Gödöllo: EU Ministers. European Parliament, Council Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of the 27th June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Luxembourg: The European Parliament, Council.