© EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 1 © EIPA – Craig Robertson / IA - slide 1 Impact Assessment...

© EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 1 © EIPA – Craig Robertson / IA - slide 1

Impact Assessmentin the

European Union

Craig RobertsonSenior Lecturer, European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)

Presentation to the 4th International Workshop on Conformity AssessmentRio de Janeiro, Brazil

December 2008

© EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 2

Why the EC does IA

• To help achieve key goals• Lisbon Strategy

– Simplify and improve the regulatory environment– Minimise costs to business of regulation

• Sustainable Development Strategy

– Consider impacts of actions on environment, economy, society

• Good Governance

– Promotes early coordination and efficiency– Opportunities for stakeholder input and enhanced transparency– Can simplify and justify EU intervention


• Better Regulation Action Plan of 2002

– Integrated approach to IA is one key action

• Communication on Impact Assessment of June 2002

– Sets out approach: Integrated and balanced to replace previous sectoral approaches

• Training, Guidelines, Handbook and Annexes introduced in 2003

• First IAs (Extended) produced in 2003 (now more than 250 completed)

• Early 2004: Stock-taking exercise begins

– Internal Working Group established– October 2004: Progress report - SEC(2005)1377

• Revises approach: No more Preliminary IAs. Roadmaps introduced

Development of IA in the European Commission

© EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 4 © EIPA – Craig Robertson / IA - Context & Procedures- slide 4

• March 2005: Communication ‘Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union’ – Announces independent evaluation in early 2006– Networks of Experts

• June 15 2005: Revised Guidelines – SEC(2005)791 - endorsed by College– Integrated and balanced approach remains the same– Clearer guidance on key impacts, notably competitiveness impacts– More user-friendly

• October 2005: Method to measure Administrative Costs– End of test phase for ‘EU Net Cost Model’– Now being progressively applied in Commission IAs– From 15 March 2006 – revised annex to Guidelines

• Autumn 2006: Launch of the Impact Assessment Board– Quality control and support

• Spring 2007: Results of external evaluation

• Autumn 2007: Launch of the Stoiber Group on Administrative Burden reduction

• Early 2008: Second Strategic Review of Better Regulation– IA Guidelines being revised again

Development of IA in the Commission (cont.)


• Set out in the Commission IA Guidelines – SEC(2005)791:

– Problem Definition– Objectives– Policy Options– Analysis of Impacts– Comparison of Impacts– Monitoring & Evaluation

The Analytical Steps - Overview


• What problems/challenges?

– Why is the situation considered problematic?• How does it manifest itself (economic, social, environmental)

– How extensive is (are) the problem(s)? – Is there reliable data?– What causes it?– Who is affected?– Will the situation get worse/better?– What actions have been taken and/or are planned by

EU, Member States, others & will they make it better or not?

– Does the EU have the right to act?• Link to a Treaty article?• ‘Necessity Test’: transnational aspects?; MS action alone

conflicts with Treaty; lack of action equals damage to MS interests

The Analytical Steps:Problem Definition


• What are the objectives?

– What are the desired impacts?

– Are the objectives linked to the actual problem?

– Are the objectives ‘S.M.A.R.T.’ enough to allow monitoring of progress?

– Are they consistent with other EU policies or strategies (Lisbon, Sustainable Development, etc)

– Do they set out an ‘intervention logic’?• Can the immediate operational objectives be seen to

directly relate to more general objectives, and vice versa?

The Analytical Steps:Objective Setting


The Intervention Logic

General objectives The overall goals of a policy• Expressed in terms of its outcome or ultimate impactExample: General objective = Prevent rural depopulation. Indicator = Rate of economic growth in rural areas

Specific objectives The immediate objectives of the policy – the targets that first need to be reached in order for the General Objectives to be achieved• Expressed in terms of the direct and short-term effects of the policyExample: Specific objective = Encourage economic activity in rural areas Indicator = Number of new enterprises setting up in rural areas

Operational objectives The deliverables or goods/services that the intervention should produce. The achievement of which should be under direct control of those managing the intervention• Normally expressed in terms of outputsExample: Operational objective = Provide financial assistance to projects promoting new enterprises in rural areas Indicator = Number of projects receiving financial assistance


The Analytical Steps:Policy Options

• What are the policy options?

– Examine a wide range of possible approaches (regulatory and non-regulatory) to meeting the objectives

– Screen them to see which can best meet the objectives• Measure against

– Effectiveness: best placed to achieve the objectives– Efficiency: cost-effectiveness– Consistency: limiting trade-offs across the economic, social and environmental

domains

– Draw-up a ‘short-list’ of options (3-5) for further analysis– Always include option ‘No EU action’ (unless Treaty

requirement)– Recommended to consider alternatives to ‘classical’ regulation– Look at possibility of doing less – streamlining, simplifying,

pruning existing legislation


The Analytical Steps:Impact Analysis

• What are the likely impacts?

– Examine for all short-listed options– Identify direct/indirect impacts across social,

environmental, economic dimensions (including impacts on Fundamental Rights)

– Identify who is affected (including outside the EU)– Assess impacts in qualitative, quantitative, and

monetary terms where possible– Consider issue of compliance– Where necessary, apply the EU Standard Cost

Model to measure Administrative Costs


The Analytical Steps:Options Comparison

• How do the options compare?

– Weigh the positive and negative impacts of each option

– Compare the options in terms of impacts and the evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, consistency• NB. A Cost-Benefit Analysis is not always necessary or appropriate

– Compatibility with principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

– Rank the options and, if possible, identify a preferred option

– But the final policy choice is a political one:

IA is an aid to political decision-making –

NOT a substitute for it


The Analytical Steps:Monitoring & Evaluation

• Planning for future monitoring and evaluation

– Identify core progress indicators for the key (general) objectives

– Where a preferred option is identified:

• Consider a broad outline for possible future monitoring

• Consider a broad outline for possible future evaluation arrangements


Scope of Application of IA

• As a general rule, all major legislative and policy-defining proposals in the Commission Work Programme (CLWP) i.e. not just legislative proposals – (Green Papers, Social Dialogue measures, and

‘convergence-type’ reports exempted)

• Increasing number of ‘Voluntary’ IAs– Should still follow the Guidelines!

• Screening ‘catalogue’ & Comitology– IAB to issue ‘prompt letters’

• Final decision on scope of application rests with the Commission


‘Principle of Proportionate Analysis’

• Not all Commission IAs will look the same!

• Depth and scope linked to potential for impacts

• More significant = More effort to quantify/monetise


Who is involved?• Commission ‘owns’ the IA

– Possibly prepared with help of consultant

• ‘Inter-Service Steering Groups (ISSGs)

– Required for all ‘cross-cutting’ items– If none planned – lead department has to justify!– Should include all potentially relevant services

• Secretariat General always invited to participate

• Composition decided by lead Commission department

– Aids the process• Provides specialised inputs• Gives wider perspective• Facilitates process of formal agreement later


Roadmaps• Prepared for CLWP items

– IA work may already be underway– Roadmap sets out work undertaken / future work plan / data

needs, etc

• Promotes transparency, coherence and coordination

– Circulated to other DGs to allow• Verification of contents• Planning of contribution to IA

– Published with the CLWP• Facilitates stakeholder input & alerts Member States


Consultation• Minimum Standards apply – COM(2002)704

– Be clear in aims of consultation• Brainstorming? Data collection? Hypothesis testing? Opinions?

– Consult all relevant parties

– Public consultations published on Single Access Point• http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm• Received contributions also published

– Be transparent and consult at appropriate time• Time limits apply – 8 weeks minimum

– Report on the findings• Feedback in the IA / Communication / Explanatory Memorandum• Feedback on the process, results, and how results were taken into account (or not) – i.e.

response to the stakeholders


The IA Report• IA ‘process’ = IA Report

• IA Report summarises IA work

– Should indicate uncertainties / assumptions

– Required in all cases

• Even when proposal is aborted

– Staff Working Document (SEC …)

• Up to 10 pages of Executive Summary is translated

• Prepared to aid internal Commission decision-making at the political level


Impact Assessment Board (IAB)

• Response to calls for external quality control body (or complete IA externalisation)

• Senior officials from key IA policy areas– Appointed in individual capacity– Under direct authority of the President– Independent of DG influence

• Secretariat based in Secretariat General

• Draft IA submitted to IAB for scrutiny– At least one month before launch of ISC– IAB examines and provides opinion and suggestions to

lead DG– Lead DG responds– Possibility of resubmission request– Currently no right of veto


Next Steps

• Inter-service Consultation– IA Report must be finished before ISC launch– Accompanies proposal into ISC– Possibility of suspended or unfavourable opinion

• Possibly discussed by Group of Commissioners• IA Report accompanies draft proposal to the

College of Commissioners

• Published on the Europa website

– May be restricted in rare cases

• Transmitted to other Institutions (Joint Legislature – Council of Ministers and European Parliament


• Decisions in policy-making process need to be made ‘after giving careful consideration to the available evidence’

• Without prejudice to respective roles and responsibilities of the institutions

• Each institution responsible for its own IA work

• All accept that IA needs to be integrated and cross-dimensional– Economic, Social, Environmental

• Not to be used to delay legislative process or to oppose legislation/amendments

Inter-Institutional ‘Common Approach’ to IA - General Principles


• All Commission IA to follow key steps of the Commission IA Guidelines

• Commission’s minimum standards for consultation to apply

• Commission ‘as a general rule’ to carry out IA on major items of draft legislation, notably those in the CLWP

• Explanatory Memorandum to indicate how IA has influenced final proposal

• Commission may decide to complement original IA– Final decision for the Commission

The Commission Role & Responsibilities


European Parliament & Council

• Council and EP to ‘examine’ Commission IA alongside the initiative

• Undertake to carry out IA on ‘substantive amendments’– Definition of ‘substantive’ for each institution to

decide– ‘when appropriate and necessary for the legislative

process’


Conclusions

• Moving Commission towards a more standardised policy-development process

• At least for all major items

• Moving further towards ‘joined-up Government’?

• Lengthier and more complicated policy-making process?

• Less opportunities for regulatory capture?

• Role of IAB

• Underlines growing influence of the SG?

• Privileged role for some DGs?


Craig Robertson, Senior Lecturer

Fields of specialisation: Impact assessment in the EU institutions; principles and main tools used in preparing and pursuing a better regulation strategy

Tel. +31 43 3296 237 or +32 2 649 2460

Fax +31 43 3296 296E-mail: [email protected]

Consult our EIPA web site: http://www.eipa.eu

Contact Address Address

© EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 1 © EIPA – Craig Robertson / IA - slide 1 Impact Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of © EIPA – Craig Robertson - slide 1 © EIPA – Craig Robertson / IA - slide 1 Impact Assessment...