Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework Improving Transparency,...
-
Upload
merilyn-mosley -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework Improving Transparency,...
Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework
Improving Transparency, Consultation and Communication of RIAs
16-17 March 2009
Session 3 RIA and Transparency
Improving regulatory transparency
• Transparency is a core element of “Good Governance”• “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” wrote Louis
Brandeis, later a Supreme Court justice, in 1913
• Transparency includes many things to most people• It is a central element of good regulatory policy• Transparency includes different dimensions
• Economic• Social • Political
• Transparency includes institutions, procedures, tools
Dialogue: A two sided coinGovernment
Firms
The 1995 OECD Council’s regulatory checklist
• Specifically asks:– “Have all interested parties had the opportunity to
present their views?”– Public participation and consultation with a wide range
of interests assures that the regulatory policymaker hears
not only from those directly affected (by being helped directly or by paying for the costs of compliance)
but also from those indirectly involved (for example, by being potentially excluded from a market or bearing opportunity costs).
What is Regulatory transparency?
• Information: a one-way relationship in which government provides information to citizens & firms
• Consultation: a two-way relationship in which citizens & firms provide feedback on issues defined by government
• Participation: a partnership in which regulatees actively shape policy options
Typical implications of transparency aspectsLaws Polices Institutions Tools
Information FOI Charging/ free
Information offices
Registers
Brochures
Consultation RIA
Notice & comments
Special Groups
Advisory bodies
Oversight bodies
Public hearings
Consultation document
Focus groups
Active Participation
Popular legislative initiatives
Co-operative agreements
Covenants
Citizens Forums
Tripartite Councils
Referenda
Complexity of building transparency (1)Transparency problem Response
Some form of public consultation is used when developing new regulations, but not systematically and with no minimum standards of access. Participation biased or unclear
Consultation
A systemic tendency to exclude less organized or powerful groups from consultation, such as consumer interests or new market entrants
Consultation
Regulatory reform program and strategy are not transparent to affected groups
Information & Communication
Information on existing regulations not easily accessible (particularly for SMEs and foreign traders and investors)
Information & Communication
Legal text difficult to understand Information & Communication
Complexity in the structure of regulatory regimesNational-subnational interface – more co-ordination and communication needed on interactions
Consultation
Complexity of building transparency (2)
Transparency problem Area
RIA is never or not always used in public consultation ConsultationInadequate use of communications technologies Information &
CommunicationLack of transparency in government procurement AllLack of transparency in ministerial mandates and roles of regulators Information &
CommunicationRegulatory powers delegated to non-governmental bodies such as self-regulatory bodies without transparency requirements
Information & CommunicationParticipation
Too much administrative discretion in applying regulations ParticipationConsultation
Lack of transparency at regional, state, and local levels AllInadequate use of international standards ConsultationLack of clear standards in licensing and concessions decisions, such as in telecommunications
All
Decisions of independent regulators not transparent enough All
Consultation principles and standards
Australia• Targeted• Timeliness • Accessible• Transparent• Consistent and flexible• Evaluated and reviewed
UK (2008)1. When to consult2. Duration of consultation3. Clarity of scope and impact4. Accessibility of consultation5. The burden of consultation 6. Responsiveness of
consultation7. Capacity to consult and share
EU transparency framework
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 11.12.2002 COM(2002) 704 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for
consultation of interested parties by the Commission
A. Clear content of the consultation process
• All communications relating to consultation should be clear and concise, and should include all necessary information to facilitate responses.
• The information in publicity and consultation documents should include: – A summary of the context, scope and objectives of consultation– Details of any hearings, meetings or conferences, where relevant – Contact details and deadlines – Explanation of the Commission’s processes for dealing with contributions,
what feed-back to expect, and details of the next stages involved in the development of the policy
– If not enclosed, reference to related documentation
B. Consultation target groups
• When defining the target group(s) in a consultation process, the Commission should ensure that relevant parties have an opportunity to express their opinions.
• Ensure adequate coverage in a consultation process: – those affected by the policy – those who will be involved in implementation of the policy,
or – bodies that have stated objectives giving them a direct
interest in the policy.
C. Publication
• The Commission should ensure adequate awareness-raising publicity and adapt its communication channels to meet the needs of all target audiences. Without excluding other communication tools, open public consultations should be published on the Internet and announced at the “single access point”.
• The use of ‘a single access point for consultation”
D. Time limits for participation
• The Commission should provide sufficient time for planning and responses to invitations and written contributions.
• The Commission should strive to allow
• at least 8 weeks for reception of responses to written public consultations and
• 20 working days notice for meetings.
E. Acknowledgement and feedback
• Receipt of contributions should be acknowledged. Results of open public consultation should be displayed on websites linked to the single access point on the Internet.
• Depending on the number of comments received and the resources available, acknowledgement can take the form of:
• an individual response (by e-mail or acknowledgement slip), or
• a collective response (by e-mail or on the Commission’s single access point for consultation on the Internet;
RIA needs transparency
RIA steps Objectives Examples
Problem Definition and Risk Profiling
Evaluate baseline
Scope key topics Identify key stakeholders early on
Informal consultation
Experts advice
Surveys
Options Selection and Impact Assessment
Assess alternatives
Collect data
Test panels
Official consultation document
Notice and Comments
Prepare analysis and refine proposal
Minimize burdens Hearings
Monitor outcomes Cost of implementation Focus groups
Implementing RIA Enforcing and ensuring compliance
Internal and external information campaign
Limits problems and challenges with regulatory consultation (1)
• Transparency is not free
• It’s not the quantity of transparency or information that matters but the quality:
• At the right moment, to the right persons
• Information needs to be relevant, standardised and public, in order to foster intelligent decision-making
• Representativity of stakeholders
• Regulatory capture strive on lack of transparency
Limits, problems and challenges with regulatory consultation (2)
• Consultation excesses
• Proliferation of advisory bodies
• Consultation “fatigue”
• Fine-tuning the consultation
• Asking, focusing, questioning, challenging
• Predictability of results
• Opponents of reform abusing consultation
• Consultation and the political debate
Limits, problems and challenges with regulatory consultation (3)
Problems with Responses
• Lack of interest, commitment, trust
• Low response rate
• Lack of understanding
• Responses not relevant
• Low quality of responses
• Lack of detail, lack of evidence, subjective opinions
• Too large or too narrow range of opinions
• Fundamental changes to RIA