Governance Impact Assessment (IA) is a forward-looking instrument that seeks to proactively advise decision-makers on the potential advantages and disadvantages of a proposed action. IA is an impor- tant tool for improving governance in a regulatory framework, and governance promotes the IA pro- cess. Furthermore, one must consider governance of IA in relation to how decisions are made by public and private organizations. Governance is at the heart of decision-making. It is about how decisions are made and encompasses more than the need to exhibit transparency, eiciency, and public participation in decision-making. Governance determines also if and when there are opportunities for proponents, regulatory authori- ties and the public to interact in a balanced and respectful way. Broadly speaking, governance covers the way problems are tackled and opportunities created: it is about how, not what or why. Governance addresses crosscutting issues like the choice of institutions, instruments and processes, as well as deci- sions about the roles of those who will be afected. There is no pre-set governance approach for any particular problem: every case must be tailored to the statutory framework in which it occurs. Some political-administrative traditions tend towards a legislative approach, while others favor ei- ciency as the key driver; still others believe in a consensual approach. These three approaches repre- sent the three main styles of governance: hierarchical, market-driven, and network-oriented; these usually occur in various combinations. Governance of IA is about managing the IA process, including who has responsibility for what, what are linkages and collaborative approaches; the choice of assessment methods and models (includ- ing their assumptions); and who to involve and in which ways. At the same time, IA is part of the overall governance approach because it is a formalized procedure to make decision-making more knowledge-driven and, often, to encourage a role for public comment and substantive participation in decision-making. Success or failure of IA depends to a large extent on its compatibility with the dominant governance style of the decision-makers. TYPICAL PROBLEMS IN THE RELATION BETWEEN IA AND GOVERNANCE  Destruction of trust. A strong hierarchical bias may cause decision-makers to act—though not always consciously—in ways that destroy the trust of stakeholders and the general public in the decision process. Examples are inadequate publicity, short consultation deadlines, hearings organized as only information meetings, or discrediting evidence from stakeholders as “not authoritative.”  Disregarding complexity. Proponents of hierarchical governance prefer clear rules, formal procedures, and clear problem deinitions. Faced with an IA for a plan or project that has fuzzy, “intangible,” or complex outcomes, they may attempt to invoke urgency (“no time for dialogue”), or fragment a project as a means of neglecting highly-relevant cumulative efects (for example, ecosystem interactions or social subsistence).  Bias for economic eiciency. Decision-making in a market governance context can lead to overestimating the relevance of price and techno-commercial eiciency. Tangible and non- tangible efects may become monetized to the detriment of a more qualitative/narrative approach that would make the IA process much richer, and with more options available.  Never-ending talks. When the governance context is overly network-oriented, the IA process may lose focus (“we should talk to everybody”), becoming a consensus-building process in its own right. Consensus-building may well be justiied, but the irst priority of IA is to enable informed decision-making. FASTIPS No. 4 | March 2013 Impact assessment is an essential part of governance—but its success depends on its compatibility with the style of governance. AUTHOR Louis Meuleman With input from Maria Rosário Partidário Charlotte Bingham Richard Fuggle Sukhad Keshkamat International Association for Impact Assessment