Regional Capacity-Building Seminar - Some Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments OECD Seminar,...
-
Upload
autumn-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Regional Capacity-Building Seminar - Some Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments OECD Seminar,...
Regional Capacity-Building Seminar - Some Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments
OECD Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey
20 November 2007
Tom Ferris Economist
Ireland
Four Themes of Presentation
1. Why have RIA?
2. How to “Control Use of Plastic Bags”? – a practical case-study
3. What has been EU’s experiences of RIA? – consultants’ report (The Evaluation Partnership – “TEP”)
4. Which Critical Success Factors?
THEME 1: RIA’s many roles
It clarifyies justification for Regulation It assesses alternatives (taxes, grants or
fines) It identifies costs and benefits It facilitaties consultation It ensures a full awareness of what
enforcement will be required It alerts those who will be affected, as to
compliance costs It helps to ensure that there are “no
surprises”
And RIA Can Help to…
Capture the relevant costs and benefits of
regulations
Identify the scope for ‘no policy change’
Show Alternative forms of regulation
Show Alternatives to regulation
Highlight proposals that merit examination
But, recognise that proportionality must be
taken into account
“One glove does not fit all”
For example, two-phased approach used in Ireland:
Screening RIA Applied to all primary legislation involving changes to
regulatory framework, significant Statutory Instruments and draft EU Directives and EU Regulations
Full RIA Only conducted where Screening RIA suggests significant
impacts or significant costs (initial cost of €10 million or cumulative costs of €50 million over 10 years)
Regulatory Proposal
Screening RIA
Info
rmal
Con
sultat
ion
Significant impacts?
No Yes
Full RIA
Form
al Con
sultation
Screening RIA to Government with Memorandum
Full RIA to Government with Memorandum
The RIA Process
THEME 2 : Curbing the over-use of Plastic
Solutions to the Over-use of Plastic Bags in Ireland
Solution 1: Take no action Solution 2: Voluntary reduction in
plastic bag consumption Solution 3: Set-up a “Plastic-bag
Police Team” to take action, or Solution 4: Impose a levy on plastic
bags
Levy on Plastic Bags
Irish Government introduced levy in March 2002
Levy at 15 cent per plastic bag Pre-levy: 328 bags per person p.a. Post-levy: 21 bags per person p.a.
and a decrease of over
95% in plastic bag litter
Levy into Environment Fund
The provision of civic recycling facilities and bring centres
Enforcement of the Waste Management Acts
North / south waste initiatives such as the award winning all-island scheme for the Management of waste fridges and freezers
Waste awareness campaigns and "Green Schools" initiative
Reinforcing Impact of Levy
Use of bags increasing – from 21 (2002) to 30 (2006)
Therefore Government decided levy increase From 15 cent to 22 cent per bag on 1 July 2007 If usage back to 21 bags per person p.a., an
extra €0.5 mn to €0.75 mn levy fund revenue If usage down to 20 bags per person p.a., a fall
of between €0.5 mn to €0.75 mn levy funds
Local Authority Enforcement visiting retail outlets and talking to retailers carrying out initial spot checks ensuring that exemptions are not being abused checking tills to confirm that customers are
being charged the 22 cent levy for plastic bags taking appropriate action where it has been
established that the levy has not been charged to customers – e.g. issuing letter informing retailer of obligations under the regulations and follow up where necessary
following up on any complaints from the public
Revenue Commissioners’ Role (‘Tax-collectors’)
Identification of accountable persons Processing returns and payments received
from accountable persons Carrying out verification checks relating to
the accuracy of returns Pursuing accountable persons who fail to
deliver returns and payments within the statutory time limits
Making estimates where returns are not received or where liability is under stated
Dealing with appeals against estimates raised
Alternatives to using Plastic Bags
Alternatives to disposable plastic shopping bags, such as reusable boxes, and reusable bags are now available in many shops
In the grocery sector, substitution of reusable “long life” shopping bags for disposable plastic bags
Plastic shopping bags designed for re-use are exempt from the levy provided that the retailer charges at least 70 cent for the bag
• It is not possible to eliminate most plastic from daily life
• But it makes sense for our health to reduce use of plastic
• It also makes sense to to reduce use of plastic so as to help protect our environment
• Overall reduction in plastic usage, proper management for disposal and public awareness can make a real difference
THEME 3 : TEP (“The Evaluation Partnership”) and EU Assessment
Over past 5 years, Impact Assessment has been one of the key elements in the EU’s Commission’s Better Regulation policy to deliver on:o Lisbon strategyo European Governanceo Sustainable Development
Introduced 2003; transition period in 2003-2004
2003-2006: 195 Commission impact assessments
IA Guidelines (first version 2003, updated 2005/2006 and continuously being improved
In August 2005, ‘TEP’ engaged to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the IA Process
TEP: OVERVIEW
Stakeholder Interviews Number
Commission Officials in Operational Units
IA Quality Assessments 20
IA Case Studies 18
Commission Officials in IA Units EU Interview Programme I 13
EU Interview Programme II 4
IA Case Studies 4
Commission Senior Managers and members of Cabinets
EU Interview Programme II 5
External experts / consultants IA Case Studies 6
European Parliament and Council Representatives
EU Interview Programme II 8
IA Case Studies 23
External Stakeholders (Civil Society & MS)
IA Case Studies 18
Total Interviews 119
Surveys
Commission officials in Operational Units
EC Officials’ Survey 89
Commission Officials in IA Units Information Request 21
External stakeholders Stakeholder Consultation 118
Total Survey responses 228
“Stakeholder Consultation” : Responses to ‘TEP’
…..In many cases, consultation carried out to the satisfaction of
stakeholders, and provided relevant and useful input for EU
…..In some others, however, consultation organised in a manner and
timeframe that left stakeholders frustrated, and unlikely to have had
much of an effect on the IA
Stakeholder opinions on consultations
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
Input w as sought atappropriate points
of time during the IAprocess.
There w as enoughtime and
opportunities toprovide input.
The input w assought through
appropriatechannels.
It w as clear w hatinput w as being
sought.
Contributions w ereacknow ledged and
a summarypresented in the IA
report.
Don't know
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
‘TEP’ Feed-back on Stakeholders’ Views
‘TEP’ lists most frequently expressed criticisms by stakeholders:
• More time: Sufficient time should be provided for responses (eight weeks as an absolute minimum)
• Earlier consultation: Stakeholders should be consulted as early as possible in the IA process in order to ensure that balanced, comprehensive and realistic IAs
• Limit the use of online consultations and closed questions: Many stakeholders feel that internet surveys tend to be oversimplified
• Balance and representativeness: More attention to the weighting of responses (e.g. from organisations vs. individuals)
• Transparency: Exact purpose and scope of the consultation and the requested data should be made more explicit
• Feedback and acknowledgment: Stakeholders often feel they’re not adequately told about what happens to their input
‘TEP’: Three Key Objectives for Successful Assessments
1. Improve the quality of Commission proposals, in particular by Facilitating a more systematic, coherent, analytical, open, and evidence-based approach to
policy design; Providing a thorough, balanced and comprehensive analysis of likely social, economic and
environmental impacts.
2. Provide an effective aid to decision-making, in particular by Providing policy makers with relevant and comprehensive information on the rationale behind
proposed interventions, and their likely impacts; Enabling policy makers to assess trade-offs and compare different scenarios when deciding
on a specific course of action.
3. Serve as a valuable communication tool, in particular by Fostering internal communication and ensuring early and effective co-ordination within the
Commission; Enhancing external communication by making the policy development process more open
and transparent to external stakeholders.
Ultimately, the achievement of these key objectives should contribute to a better, simpler and more consistent regulatory environment that helps the EU to meet the objectives of the Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies.
.
… ‘TEP’ call to add QUALITYLimit scope of application to proposals with most significant impacts
Reduce number of IAs, by limiting the scope of application to proposals that are likely to have the most significant impacts:
• All legislative initiatives in Commission’s Legislative Work Program
• Non-legislative Commission Annual Legislative and Work Programme (CWLP) and other non-CLWP proposals (incl. comitology measures) identified by Impact Assessment Board
Differentiate between different IA types/approaches
Maintain broad scope of application, but differentiate between different types of IAs, and provide clear guidance on what’s expected of IAs
Operationalise the principle of proportionate analysis by defining broad categories of IAs, and providing guidance on areas for differentiation and customisation….”one glove does not fit all !”
…prepare for BETTER ‘IAs’ Harness the potential of Roadmaps; early consultation
DGs to launch IAs sufficiently early, especially on far-reaching proposals.
Develop stricter minimum standards and quality control mechanisms for Roadmaps .
Ensure early circulation of Roadmaps to other DGs, and explore possibilities for engaging external stakeholders & other EU institutions
Formalise early IA steps by means of a ‘scoping paper’
Require parts of IAs to be produced from very beginning of policy process.
Introduce an obligation to produce a document (scoping paper / initial IA) as soon as the policy idea is generated, outlining the rationale, policy alternatives and their likely impacts
De-couple the IA process from drafting of the proposal
Do not allow proposals to be drafted until the IA has been completed:• Produce IA before the initiative is included in Comm’s Leg/Work Prog.• Externalise the entire IA process to an expert body?
…encourage better IA work by COMMISSION at all levels
Encourage DGs to further develop IA capacities
All DGs should assess and, where necessary, enhance their capacity to provide operational staff with support in developing high-quality IAs
Require and encourage top-level sign-off / buy-in of IAs by Commissioners
Centralise quality control at SG and IA Board
Secretary General takes on the responsibilities of DG IA support functions, becomes central service providing ongoing quality control before passing IAs on to Impact AssessmentBoard for final quality check
Externalise (parts of) the quality control of IAs
Expand the IA Board to include external experts with full voting rights
Consult external stakeholders on draft final IA reports
Involve the European Court of Auditors in ex-post IA quality control
Create a new independent agency for quality control
…more Support & GuidanceProvide more / more relevant / more tailored IA training
Enhance practical usefulness of the IA Guidelines
Continue to improve methodologies:
• Lack of appropriate methodologies to assess certain types of impacts, particularly social impacts
• Integrate/co-ordinate the efforts of all DGs and MSs; develop guidance papers to assess impacts in particular fields
Address problems with availability of data:
• Comprehensive, reliable and comparable data is often not easily available. Efforts to collect it are resource-intensive and do not always produce the desired results
• Develop a more systematic, integrated approach to data collection, involving DGs, Member States, stakeholder and expert networks
‘TEP’: Some Key Findings
IA Guidelines: extensive guidance, within recognised international context
Some good IAs,but uneven implementation, both in terms of scope and quality
Process to be helped with External evaluation and creation of the Impact Assessment Board
Need to cover the entire regulatory cycle, with Common approach across institutions
Ongoing dialogue a “must”, with stakeholders, interest groups and scientific community on system design and application
THEME 4: What are RIA’s Critical Success Factors?
High level administrative and political support
Development of RIA network for sharing of experience
and best practice
Ongoing liaison with EU colleagues especially
Directorate for Better Regulation
‘Learning by doing’ – RIA very much an iterative process
Awareness-raising and training very important
Ensure sufficient resources
Feedback and Review are Critical for Successful RIAs
Give feedback to key players and those
who participate
Publish and acknowledge submissions
made (taking account of data protection
etc.)
Review the assessment processes on a
regular basis
QuestionsQuestions