Impact Assessment and Evaluation:
Interaction between EU and MS level
Andrew Farmer, Institute for European Environmental Policy
Make it Work Conference
Regulatory Insights, Experiences and Enlightenment
- making regulation work for our Environment
Edinburgh, 10-11 December 2015
Summary
• Some initial thoughts – further
presentations will consider more detail
• Overview of the policy evaluation
processes
• Problems and opportunities
• How to improve the EU/MS level
interaction?
Better Regulation Communication
• Much of the emphasis of the Communication is on good
evaluation
• Better Regulation toolbox:
– Revised procedures for Impact Assessment (IA)
– Set out procedures for ex-post evaluations (REFIT,
Fitness checks, etc.)
– Establishes Regulatory Scrutiny Board (examine
conclusions from both ex-ante and ex-post
evaluations)
Lots of evaluations – lots of actors!
• Evaluation is now embedded in the policy process – good!
• Ex-ante (Impact Assessment), Ex-post (REFIT, Fitness
Checks) – in the policy cycle
• Formalised processes by European Commission
• European Parliament – IA and reviews
• Member States – different ex-ante and ex-post analyses
– Some to inform the EU policy process
– Some to consider best options for implementation
• Lots of people asking similar questions, generating the
same data, consulting with same stakeholders
Overview
Does IA collect sufficient MS information?
• There’s never enough!
• Processes leading to proposals include various
consultations – including requests for information
(stakeholders included)
• Two main areas:
– Problem definition – is the MS information accurately defining the problem?
– Options analysis – is the MS information good not just to compare the options
presented, but to have resulted in these as opposed to alternative options?
• It is the analysis of options for which MS may identify
further evidence
Timing
• Evidence gathering can take time
• Some parts of policy cycle are (or feel) time constrained:
– Between proposal and adoption (for MS, EP IAs)
– Between adoption and transposition (for MS to evaluate
implementation options)
• Is the policy process urgent?
• Is it better to pause in order to check the evidence?
• Ex-post evaluation:
– Ensure questions appropriate to likely state of implementation
Checking conclusions
• Ex-post evaluation presents a chance to:
– Examine costs and benefits of the application of a law
– Examine the costs and benefits predicted in IA
• What costs/benefits are:
–
–
–
–
–
Over/under-estimated?
Why?
By whom?
Driven by EU law or MS choices?
What lessons to learn for the evaluation process?
Sharing
• Information in IA/FC/REFIT is usually referenced
– so can be shared
• Good to share models or make available – e.g.
to model alternative options
• Important if implementation leaves lots of
flexibility (so costs are hard to predict)
Questions
• What are the major challenges for MS in conducting
evaluations?
• Focus on the right questions?
• Have sufficient time?
• Have tools/resources?
• Do EU level institutions get the information they need?
• Should evaluations sometimes be more ‘realistic’ in what
they aim to examine?
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]