Issn 1831-0834
special report no 3
2010
eUropean
coUrt oF aUdItors
Impact assessments In the
eU InstItUtIons: do they
sUpport decIsIon-maKInG?
en
Special Report
No 3
2010
Impact assessments
in the EU institutions:
do they support
DECISION-MAKING?
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
european court of auditors
european court of auditors
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu
Special Report
No 3
2010
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010
ISBN 978-92-9207-729-7
doi:10.2865/14964
© European Union, 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
3
CONTENTS
Paragraph
Glossary of terms and abbreviations
I–VI Executive Summary
1–12 Introduction
13–16 Audit scope and approach
17–81 Observations
17–41Use of impact assessments for decision-making at the Commission,
the European Parliament and the Council
19–27
Impact assessment helps the Commission to formulate its proposals
28–33
T he Commission’s impact assessment reports are considered by most users at the
European Parliament and Council as relevant information in the legislative decisionmaking process
34–41Amendments to the initial Commission proposal are not subject to additional assessments
of potential impacts
42–55
The Commission’s procedures for the preparation of impact assessments
43–46Need for more transparency in the selection procedure and targeting of impact assessment
work
47–50
Consultation is widely used as input for impact assessments, but not on draft reports
51–55R e c e n t i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’ s q ua li t y r e v i e w o f i t s i m pa c t a s s e s s m e n t
reports
56–81
57–60
61–71
72–81
Content and presentation of the Commission’s impact assessment reports
N eed to improve further the presentation of how the intervention proposed is to achieve
best the intended outcomes
There is room for improvement in the analysis of impacts and the presentation thereof
I nformation on implementation aspects, enforcement costs and administrative burden
can be further improved
82–87 Conclusions and Recommendations
ANNEX I – Comparison of specific elements of the Commission’s system with IA systems
elsewhere
ANNEX II – Audit approach and evidence collection methods
Letters from the Presidents of the European Parliament and the Council of the
European Union
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
4
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND
ABBREVIATIONS
Administrative burden: The administrative and information costs that businesses incur in order
to comply with legal obligations.
Annual policy strategy (APS): The Commission’s annual policy strategy lays down, early in year
n – 1, political priorities and key initiatives for year n. At the same time, it allocates the corresponding financial and human resources to these priority initiatives. It serves as a basis for a political exchange of views on the Commission’s programme with the European Parliament and the Council.
Co-decision: Under the co-decision procedure, the Council shares legislative power with the European Parliament. Both institutions can, however, only act on a proposal by the Commission (which
has the sole right of initiative).
Comitology: Committee system which oversees the delegated acts implemented by the European
Commission. The committees are composed of representatives of the Member States and have the
mandate to regulate certain delegated aspects of the secondary legislation adopted by the Council
and, where co-decision applies, the European Parliament. The Commission chairs these meetings
and provides the secretariat.
Commission’s legislative and work programme (CLWP): In this document, published in November
of each year, the Commission presents its planned legislative and other initiatives for the following
year. The CLWP does not contain all initiatives to be brought forward in a given year, but identifies policy initiatives of major importance. It thereby operationalises the political priorities and
initiatives specified in the APS.
Council working party (WP): A working group specialised in a given policy field at the Council of
Ministers consisting of delegations of all Member States. It prepares the legal act to be adopted
by the relevant Council of Ministers.
Directors and Experts for Better Regulation (DEBR): Expert group consisting of officials in charge
of better regulation in the EU Member States and other European countries. DEBR meets twice
per year and is chaired by the delegation of the incoming Council presidency. The mandate of this
group is to exchange ideas and to further develop existing initiatives by the EU and its Member
States to reduce bureaucracy and improve legislation.
High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens (’Stoiber Group’):
This group advises the Commission with regard to the action programme for reducing administrative burden. Dr Edmund Stoiber, former Prime Minister of Bavaria, is chairman of this group. The
other members represent important stakeholder organisations. Its mandate expires in 2010.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
5
IA: Impact assessment
Impact Assessment Board (IAB): A body attached to the Commission’s Secretariat-General that
assesses the quality of each impact assessment report and publishes its opinion thereon. The
Board consists of four directors from different DGs and the deputy Secretary-General of the Commission.
Intervention logic: Intervention logic is the conceptual link between an intervention’s inputs and
the production of its outputs and, subsequently, its impact in terms of results and outcomes.
Mandelkern Group: High level advisory group that consisted of regulatory experts from the Member States and the European Commission. This group was established by the Public Administration Ministers of the Member States in November 2000 and chaired by the Frenchman Dieudonné
Mandel­k ern, a former Member of the Conseil d’état. Among other proposals, the group recommended in 2001 that the Commission should develop a tool for assessing the social, economic and
environmental impacts of proposed legislation.
MEP: Member of European Parliament
Rapporteur: Term used in the European Parliament to describe the MEP(s) who is (are) in charge
of a given proposal or report. MEPs in charge of a proposal belonging to political groups different
from the group of the official European Parliament rapporteur in charge of the same proposal are
called shadow-rapporteurs.
Roadmap: A short document that gives an initial description of a planned Commission initiative,
including an indication of the main areas to be assessed in the IA and the planning of IA work. These
roadmaps have two functions: they provide an estimated timetable for the proposal and set out
how the impact assessment will be taken forward. Roadmaps are published when the Commission
legislative and work programme (CLWP) is adopted.
Standard Cost Model (SCM): Method to assess costs incurred to meet information obligations
created by legislation. Calculates cost on the basis of the average unit cost of the required administrative activity multiplied by the total number of activities performed per year.
Transposition: In European Union law, a process by which the Member States give force to an EU
directive in national law by adopting appropriate implementing legislation.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
6
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I.
I m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t i s o n e o f t h e c o r n e rs t o n e s o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s b e t t e r re g u lation policy for the improvement and
s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f n e w a n d e x i s t i n g l e gi s l at i on . I t s p u r p o se is to co nt r ib u te to th e
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p ro c e s s e s by s y s t e m a t ­
i c a l l y c o l l e c t i n g a n d a n a l y s i n g i n fo r m a tion on planned inter ventions and estimating their likely impact. This should
provide the bodies involved in legislative
decision-mak ing with a basis on which to
decide on the most appropriate way to
a d d re s s t he p ro b l em ident ified.
II.
The audit analysed whether impact
a s s e s s m e n t s s u p p o r te d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
i n t h e E U i n s t i t u t i o n s . I n p a r t i c u l a r, i t
ex a m i n ed t he ex tent to w hich:
— impac t assessments were prepared by
t h e Commission when for mulating its
proposals and the European Parliam e nt and t he Co u ncil co nsu l ted th em
d ur ing t he l egisl at ive p ro cess ;
— t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s p r o c e d u r e s f o r i m pact assessment appropriately suppor ted the Commission’s development
of it s init iat ives; and
— t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s i m pac t assessment repor ts was appropriate and the presentation of findings
was conducive to being taken into ac count fo r decisio n-mak ing.
III .
Th e p e r i o d u n d e r e x a m i n a t i o n w a s 2 0 0 3 –
08 and the audit involved inter alia an
international comparison of impac t assessm e n t s y s t e m s, a n a n a l y s i s o f a s a m p l e o f
Commission impact assessments, interviews and sur veys with people involved
in per forming, reviewing and using the
­C o m m i s s i o n’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s , b o t h
within and outside the Commission. The
findings were examined against the relevant interinstitutional agreements, the
Commission’s guidelines and a set of good
practices obser ved in policy documents
and established by the OECD. Throughout
t h e a u d i t , e x p e r t gro u p s p rov i d e d a d v i ce
and suppor ted the audit wor k .
IV.
B etter regulation is a responsibilit y of all
EU institutions involved in the legislat i v e p r o c e s s. O n b a l a n c e, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
recent years, the audit has shown that
i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t h a s b e e n e f fe c t i ve i n
supporting decision-making within the
EU institutions. I n par ticular, it was found
that the Commission had put in place a
comprehensive impact assessment system since 2002. Impact assessment has
b e co m e a n i nte gra l e l e m e nt o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s p o l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t a n d h a s
b e e n u s e d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n t o d e s i g n
i t s i n i t i a t i v e s b e t t e r. T h e C o m m i s s i o n’s
impact assessments are systematically
t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t
and Council to suppor t legislative decisionmaking and users in both institutions
find them helpful when considering the
C o m m i s s i o n ’s p r o p o s a l s . H o w e v e r, t h e
C o m m i s s i o n’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s w e r e
n o t u p d ate d a s t h e l e gi s l at i ve p ro ce d u re
p ro gre s s e d a n d t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt
and Council rarely per formed impact
assessments on th eir own amen dments.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
7
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
V.
The audit identified areas for improve ment related to the impact assessment
p ro c e d u re s fo l l o we d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n
and the content and presentation of
i m p a c t assessment rep o r t s:
( i ) t h e C o m m i s s i o n d i d n o t p u b l i s h a
comp rehensive over view o f t h e legislative init iat ives o u t side t he Commiss i o n l e g i s l a t i ve a n d wo r k p ro gr a m m e
(CLWP) selec ted to undergo an impac t
a s sessment o r exp l ain w hy cer tain in itiatives rather than others were se lected. Consultation with stakeholders was used widely for initial input
but not carried out on draft I A repor ts.
R e c e n t i m p ro ve m e n t s we re n o t e d re g a r d i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s i n t e r n a l
q u a l i t y c o n t ro l o f i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t
work , but the timeliness of the I mpac t
Assessment Board (IAB) inter vention
coul d b e imp roved; and
VI .
The Court considers that the Commission should give due consideration to
the principles of clarity of objectives,
simplification, realism, transparency
and accountability when designing new
i nte r ve nt i o n s a n d re v i s i n g ex i s t i n g o n e s.
The European Parliament, the Council
and the Commission may wish to cons i d e r t h e f i n d i n g s a n d re co m m e n d at i o n s
s e t o u t i n t h i s re p o r t w h e n re v i s i n g t h e i r
i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a g re e m e n t s o n ‘ b e t t e r
l aw - ­m a k i n g’ a n d a ‘c o m m o n a p p ro a c h t o
impac t assessment ’.
( i i ) t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t
reports generally provided a sound
description of the problem at stake
a n d sp ecified t he o b jec t ives pur sued.
These and other mandatory sections
of impact assessment reports were
found to comply with the Commiss i o n’s g u i d e l i n e s . H o w e v e r, t h e m a i n
results and messages of IA repor ts are
not always easy to gather and comparing the impacts of the various policy
options presented in an IA repor t is
sometimes difficult. Problems with
quantifying and monetising impacts
c a n b e t ra ce d b a c k to t h e ava i l a b i l i t y
o f d a t a . Fi n a l l y, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d
enforcement costs and the potential
administrative burden of proposed
legislation were not always sufficiently
a n al ysed o r qu ant ified.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
8
INTRODUCTION
‘B e t t e r R e g u l a t i o n ’
1. in the
EU
context
Th e Co mmissio n’s ‘ b et ter reg ulation’ polic y aims at design in g
new legislation better and simplifying existing legislation 1 . The
‘ b e t t e r r e g u l a t i o n’ i n i t i a t i v e w a s a r e s p o n s e t o t h e n e e d e x p ressed at the G othenburg and the Laeken European Councils
i n 2001 to :
1
European Commission, ‘White
Paper on European governance’,
COM(2001) 428 final.
— simplify and improve the European Union’s regulator y enviro nment ; and
— consider the effec ts of proposals in their economic, social
and enviro nment al dimen sion s.
2. BOX 1
S i n c e t h e n t h e E u ro p e a n Co m m i s s i o n h a s i n t ro d u c e d s e ve r a l
measures, including impact assessment (IA), to improve the
way it designs inter vent io ns (see B ox 1).
B e t t e r R e g u l at i o n p o l i c y i n s t r u m e n t s
• simplifying existing legislation;
• screening and, where applicable, withdrawing pending proposals;
• monitoring and reducing ‘administrative burdens’;
• consulting interested parties2; and
• impact assessment (IA).
2
Commission communication, General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission,
COM(2002) 704 (hereinafter ‘minimum standards’).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
9
Impact
assessment as a tool for
Coverage
3. of the
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
Better Regulation
impac t assessment system
I As are carried out for legislative proposals and other Commission initiatives. All major legislative, budgetar y and policyd e f i n i n g i n i t i a t i ve s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t m u s t u n d e rg o a n
I A . M a j o r p o l i c y i n i t i at i ve s a re d e f i n e d a s a l l t h o s e p re s e nte d
i n t h e a n n u a l p o l i c y s t r a t e g y ( APS ) o r, l a t e r, i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s l e g i s l a t i ve wo r k p ro g r a m m e ( C LWP ) , w i t h s o m e c l e a r l y
d e f i n e d e xc e p t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t i a t i v e s
c a n b e covered o n a case -by- case basis 3 .
3
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2005) 791, p. 6.
4
See European Commission,
‘Report from the Commission
on the working of Committees
during 2006’, COM(2007) 842, 2007;
European Parliament, Working
Party on Parliamentary Reform,
4. Th e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A s ys te m a l s o a p p l i e s to ex i s t i n g E U l e gi s ­
lation when there is a revision or an update of the acquis
­c o m mu n a u t a i re, fo r ex a m p l e u n d e r t h e ‘ S i m p l i f i c at i o n ro l l i n g
p r o g r a m m e’. Fi n a l l y, i n 2 0 0 9 , t h e s c o p e o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s
I A s y s t e m w a s e x t e n d e d t o i m p l e m e n t i n g r u l e s ( o r ‘c o m i t o l ogy ’ decisions). These implementing measures are a significant
source of EU legislation, as around 250 comitology committees
a d o p t aro u nd 2 600 su ch mea sures ever y year. Approximately
1 000 o f t hem are b ased o n l e gislation adopted un der th e co d e cisio n p ro cedure 4 .
‘Second interim report on legislative
activities and interinstitutional
relations’, 15 May 2008,
PE 406.309/CPG/GT (internal
European Parliament document),
Part B, Chapter 4, p. 41).
5
OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory
management systems’, Regulatory
Policy Committee, 2009 report;
Evaluating integrated IAs (EVIA),
Final report, March 2008.
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
impac t assessment system coverage is wider
than that of comparable national systems
5. Fully operational IA systems are in place in only a few M ember
St ates 5 . M o reover, t he Co mmission’s IA system h as a different
a n d, to so me ex tent, w ider scope th an oth er systems in OECD
count r ies (see A nnex I):
— first l y, o t her IA systems (s uch as in th e USA) address on ly
implementing rules (i.e. regulator y measures which fur ther
specify legislation previously adopted by Congress; in the
EU co ntex t, such measures are comparable to ‘comitology
decisio ns’ ); and
— s e c o n d l y, s o m e E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s ( s u c h a s t h e N e t h e r lands and Germany) focus their analysis of for thcoming
regulation on the assessment of administrative burden.
I n t h e c a s e o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n , t h i s i s o n l y o n e o f s e ve ra l
asp ec t s anal ysed w it hin a n IA.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
10
Content
6. of the
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
impact assessment repor ts
Th e re p o r t s re s u l t i n g f ro m t h e s e I As a re e x p e c te d to i d e nt i f y
a n d a s s e s s t h e p ro b l e m a t s t a k e a n d t h e o b j e c t i ve s p u r s u e d,
d e ve l o p t h e m a i n o p t i o n s fo r a c h i e v i n g t h e p o l i c y o b j e c t i ve,
a n d a n a l y s e t h e i r l i k e l y e c o n o m i c , e nv i r o n m e n t a l a n d s o c i a l
impacts. They should also analyse potential administrative
b u rdens resul t ing fro m t he p roposed option s, assess possible
implementation and enforcement problems and specify app rop r iate mo nito r ing and eva luation ar ran gements for th e in te r vent io n o r p ro gramme p ro posed 6 .
6
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2005) 791.
7
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as
amended on 15.3.2006;
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2009) 92, 15.1.2009.
O r g a n i s a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, p r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s
o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m
and cost
8
Information note from the
President to the Commission,
Enhancing quality support and
7. 8. control for Commission IAs,
Wi t h i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n , e a c h D i re c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l ( D G ) i s re s p o n s i b l e fo r p re p a r i n g i t s I A s i n l i n e w i t h t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s
g u i d e l i n e s. Fo l l ow i n g t h e f i r s t ve r s i o n i n 2 0 0 2 , t h i s g u i d a n ce
m ater ial has b een u p dated o n th ree occasion s, with th e latest
u p d a t e t a k i n g p l a c e i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 7. I A s a r e c a r r i e d o u t b y
the staff responsible for the policy initiative, suppor ted by
dedicated ‘IA suppor t units’. Since 2007, an I mpac t Assessment
Board (IAB) has provided quality suppor t and control for all IAs
wi t hin t he Co mmissio n 8 .
A p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t I A r e p o r t m u s t a c c o m p a n y t h e p r o p o s a l
w h e n g o i n g t h ro u g h i n t e rd e p a r t m e n t a l c o n s u l t a t i o n . A f i n a l
draf t IA repor t will accompany the legislative proposal when it
i s s ent to t he Co l l eg e o f Co mmission er s for its fin al adoption .
The final IA repor t is also sent to the European Par liament and
the Council along with the definite proposal and is made availa b le o n t he Eu ro p a web site 9 .
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
The IA Board, 14 November 2006.
9
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/
impact/ia_carried_out/ia_carried_
out_en.htm
11
Interinstitutional agreements between the European
Parliament, the Council and the Commission
9. I n t h e i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t o n b e t t e r l a w - m a k i n g i n
2 0 0 3 , t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt, t h e Co u n c i l a n d t h e Co m m i s s i o n a g r e e d ‘. . . o n t h e p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f I A s i n i m p r o v i n g the qualit y of Com mu nit y legislation , with par ticular regard
t o t h e s c o p e a n d s u b s t a n c e t h e r e o f ’ 10. I n 2 0 0 5 , a f u r t h e r
interinstitutional agreement was signed between the European
Parliament (EP), the Council and the Commission on a ‘Common
a p p ro ach to IA’ 1 1 .
10
Interinstitutional agreement
on better law-making
(OJ C 321, 31.12.2003), paragraph 28.
11
Interinstitutional agreement on a
common approach to IA (14901/05
JUR, adopted on 29.11.2005).
12
Interinstitutional agreement on a
common approach to IA (14901/05
10. I n 2005 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commis-
s i on had agreed t hat t he inter in stitution al agreement was to
b e re co n s i d e re d by t h e e n d o f 2 0 0 7 1 2 . Th i s re v i e w i s s t i l l o u t s t a nding. As a p rep arato r y step, in 2 0 0 8 , th e European Par liam e nt, t he Co u ncil and t he Co mmission produced ‘stock tak in g
repor ts’ which set out their views on the ‘common approach to
I A’ since 2005 1 3 .
JUR, adopted on 29.11.2005),
point 19.
13
EP: The Conference of Committee
Chairs, IA: The European Parliament’s
experience, A stocktaking report
of the common approach to IA.
Council: Note from the Director of
the General Secretariat DirectorateGeneral, Directorate I, ‘Review of
the interinstitutional common
11. O n
s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t h a s a d o p t e d
resolutions on better regulation and the use of IA, which,
in general, viewed IA as helpful in informing EU decisionm a k ing 1 4 . Simil ar l y, t he Co u ncil committed itself, in its recent
c o n c l u s i o n s o n b e t t e r re g u l a t i o n , t o w a rd s c o n t i n u i n g t o u s e
the Commission’s IA repor ts and the accompanying IAB opinions
throughout the negotiating process 15 . The European Parliament
a n d t h e Co u n c i l h ave co m m u n i c ate d to t h e Co u r t t h e i r v i e ws
o n t o p i c s c o v e r e d i n t h i s r e p o r t ( l e t t e r s f r o m t h e Pr e s i d e n t s
o f t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d t h e C o u n c i l a r e a t t a c h e d t o
t h i s rep o r t ).
approach to IA — State of play of
the handling of IA in the Council,
Brussels, 3.11.2008. Commission:
Review of the interinstitutional
common approach to IA (IA) —
Implementation of the Common
approach by the Commission. A
working document of the Secretariat
General SG.C.2 D(2008) 9524.
14
Resolution of 24 March 2004 on the assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (2003/2079(INI));
Resolution of 10 July 2005 on minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation (2005/2140(INI)); Resolution of 16 May 2006 on the
implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force (2004/2224(INI)); Resolution of 16 May 2006 on better
law-making 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity — 12th annual report (2005/2055(INI)); Resolution of 4 September 2007 on
better law-making 2005: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality — 13th annual report (2006/2279(INI)); Resolution of
4 September 2007 on the single market review (2007/2024(INI)); Resolution of 4 September 2007 on better regulation in the European Union
(2007/2095(INI)); Resolution of 21 October 2008 on better law-making 2006: application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality —
14th annual report (2008/2045(INI)); European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, ‘Report on better regulation in the EU’ (2007/2095(INI));
A6-0273/2007 final, 2.7.2007: see explanatory statement and points 5 to 15, 21, 26, 30, 42 to 43.
15
Council of the European Union, Competitiveness Council conclusions on ‘better regulation’, 17076/09, 4.12.2009, point 6.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
12
12.
fiGure 1
Figure 1 provides an over view of the role of impac t assessment
in developing and deciding on the commission’s initiatives and
le gisl at ive p ro p o sal s.
t h e r o l e o f i m Pac t a s s e s s m e n t i n d e v e lo P i n G a n d d e c i d i n G
o n t h e co m m i s s i o n ’s i n i t i at i v e s a n d l e G i s l at i v e P r o P o s a l s
IA provides support
for decision-making ...
... in the European
Parliament and
Council
Final legislation
Legislative decision-making:
Appreciation of IA reports, discussion of IA reports, impacts of amendments
to Commission proposals are assessed
IA report
Commission legislative
proposal/initiative
... in the
Commission
Development of Commission proposal:
Coverage of most relevant initiatives, IA part of policy development, IA as
support for decision-making
Procedures
for IA in the
Commission
Selection of
initiative to
undergo IA
Consultation of
interested
parties for IA
Quality control
of IA
Description of
policy problem,
objectives and
intervention logic
Comparison of policy
options through
assessment of impacts
Implementation,
enforcement,
monitoring and
evaluation of initiative
Content and
presentation of
the Commission’s
IA reports
special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?
13
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
13. T h e
a u d i t a s s e s s e d w h e t h e r t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A s s u p p o r t e d
d e cisio n-mak ing in t he EU institution s. I n par ticular, it exami n ed t he ex tent to w hich:
16
— I A s w e r e p r e p a r e d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n w h e n fo r m u l a t i n g
its proposals and the European Parliament and the Council
co nsul ted t hem du r ing t h e legislative process;
17
Interinstitutional agreement on
better law-making; Interinstitutional
common approach to IA (IA), 2005.
European Commission,
Communication on impact
assessment, COM(2002) 276
final; European Commission,
— the Commission’s procedures for IA appropriately suppor ted t he Co mmissio n’s deve lopment of its in itiatives; an d
Communication on ‘Towards a
reinforced culture of consultation
and dialogue — General principles
— the content of the Commission’s IA repor ts was appropriate
a n d t h e p re s e nt at i o n o f f i n d i n g s wa s co n d u c i ve to b e i n g
t aken into acco unt fo r decision -mak in g.
and minimum standards for
consultation of interested parties
by the Commission’, COM(2002)
704 final; Information note from
the President to the Commission,
14. The per iod under review was 2003 to 2008. The audit involved
Enhancing quality support and
control for Commission IAs, The
i n ter alia:
IA Board, 14 November 2006,
— a comparison of specific elements of the Commission’s system w it h IA systems el sewh ere;
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
— a n a n a l ys i s o f I A p ro d u c t i o n s t at i s t i c s a n d o f a s a m p l e o f
IA rep o r t s (sco recard analysis related to five DGs an d corresponding to around a quar ter of all IAs produced dur ing
t he p er io d au dited); and
18
European Commission, 2005/2006
SEC(2005) 791.
Mandelkern Group on Better
Regulation, Final report,
13 November 2001.
19
OECD, Regulatory impact analysis
— enquiries and sur veys with people involved in per forming,
reviewing and using the Commission’s IAs both within and
o u t side t he Co mmissio n.
— Best practices in OECD countries,
1997; OECD, APEC–OECD integrated
checklist on regulatory reform:
Final draft, 2005; OECD, Indicators
A n nex II co nt ains a mo re det a iled desc r iption of th e meth od­
olo g y u sed fo r t he au dit.
15. Th e finding s were examined again st th e relevant inter in stitu-
16. The analysis of the qualit y of individual pieces of legislation or
of regulatory management systems,
2009.
tional agreements 16 , the Commission’s guidelines 17 and a set of
good prac tices obser ved in polic y documents 18 and established
by the OECD 19 . Exper t groups composed of prac titioners in the
f i e l d o f I A a n d b e t te r re g u l at i o n we re i nv i te d by t h e Co u r t to
p rovide sup p o r t and advice t h rough out th e audit.
t h e p ro ce s s o f l aw- m a k i n g a s s u c h we re n o t w i t h i n t h e s co p e
of the au dit.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
14
OBSERVATIONS
U s e o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s f o r d e c i s i o n m a k i n g at t h e Co m m i s s i o n , t h e E u r o p e a n
Pa r l i a m e n t a n d t h e Co u n c i l
17. I A s
contribute to the decision-making processes by systema t i c a l l y c o l l e c t i n g a n d a n a l y s i n g i n fo r m a t i o n o n p l a n n e d i n te r ve nt i o n s a n d e s t i m at i n g t h e i r l i k e l y i m p a c t 2 0 . Th e re l e va nt
i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt, t he Co uncil and t he Co m mission defin e th at IAs sh ould
first of all help the Commission to develop its polic y initiatives
and legislative proposals. Subsequently, during the legislative
p r o c e d u re, I As p re s e n t e d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n a n d, w h e re a p propriate, those prepared by the European Par liament and the
Co u n c i l, s h o u l d p ro v i d e t h e i n fo r m a t i o n b a s e d o n w h i c h t h e
legislators can decide on the most appropr iate way to address
t h e p ro b l em ident ified.
18. For t his p u r p o se, t he audit examin ed:
— the ex tent to which the Commission has carried out IAs for
its legislative proposals and other initiatives and whether
IAs were ac tively used in the Commission’s polic y development and it s p rep arat io n of legislative proposals;
— w h e t h e r t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I As we re p e rce i ve d by u s e r s at
t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt a n d t h e Co u n c i l a s co nt r i b u t i n g
to the legislative decision-making process and whether
I A s a f fe c t e d t h e w a y i n w h i c h l e g i s l a t i ve p ro p o s a l s we re
discussed in the relevant committees and work ing par ties;
and
— t he ex tent to w hich t he l egislator s car r ied out IAs of th eir
own substantive amendments or requested the Commission
t o p re s e n t u p d a t e s o f i t s I As i n t h e l i g h t o f s u c h a m e n d ments and whether national bodies provided additional
i n fo r m a t i o n t o i n fo r m l e g i s l a t i ve d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a t t h e
EU l evel.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
20
European Commission,
‘Communication from the
Commission on IA’, COM(2002) 276
final of 2.6.2002, paragraph 1.2.:
IA is ‘... the process of [the] systematic
analysis of the likely impacts of
intervention by public authorities.
15
I m pac t a s s e s s m e n t h e l p s t h e Co m m i s s i o n to
f o r m u l at e i t s p r o p o s a l s
Significant
increase in the number of impact assessments
carried out since
2003
19. During the period audited IAs had strong institutional back ing
a n d w e re i n c re a s i n g l y u s e d t o p ro v i d e i n p u t t o t h e Co m m i s sion’s development of polic y initiatives and legislative propos a l s 2 1 . O ve r a l l , 4 0 4 I A re p o r t s we re p u b l i s h e d b y t h e Co m m i s s i o n dur ing the per iod audited. S ince 2003, the number of I As
c a r r ied o u t annual l y has increased to 1 2 1 repor ts in 2 0 0 8 ( see
Fi g u r e 2).
21
José Manuel Barroso — President
of the European Commission:
Response to UK Presidency
Programme, European Parliament —
Plenary Session, Brussels, 23 June
2005; ‘Uniting in peace: the role of
Law in the European Union’, Jean
Monnet lecture, EUI Florence,
31 March 2006; ‘Qualité de la
législation européenne : le
temps des résultats’, European
Parliament, Strasbourg, 4 April 2006;
Presentation of the European
Commission’s 2007 work
programme, European Parliament,
Strasbourg, 14 November 2006;
‘Alive and kicking: the renewed
Lisbon strategy is starting to pay
off’, Brussels, 5 March 2007; ‘We are
all new Europeans now’, Lithuanian
Parliament (Seimas), Vilnius,
29 March 2007. Günther Verheugen,
‘Better regulation’ Conference of
the Slovenian Presidency, Lubljana,
17 April 2008.
FI G URE 2
N u m b e r o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s p e r f o r m e d e ac h y e a r
140
121
Total of 404 IA reports
120
93
100
80
72
67
2005
2006
60
40
20
21
30
0
2003
2004
2007
2008
S o u rce: European Commission.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
16
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
objec tive of
CLWP
coverage attained…
20. The selec tion of initiatives to undergo an IA is a significant de -
21. Fro m
cision, in terms of political implications and resources needed.
During the period audited the main condition for selec tion was
t h e incl usio n o f t he init iat ive in th e CLWP, wh ich contain s th e
Com missio n’s majo r p o l ic y initiatives as set out in th e An n ual
Polic y St rateg y (APS; see B ox 2) .
2 0 0 3 to 2 0 0 8 , I A s we re c a r r i e d o u t fo r 6 9 % o f a l l C LWP
initiatives. Since 2005, in accordance with the criteria ­s pecified
by the Commission at the time, IAs were under taken for all
relevant items on its CLWP, i.e. those initiatives that were con s i d ered to have significant impac t.
Box 2
S e t o f co n d i t i o n s f o r s e l e c t i n g i n i t i at i v e s t h at a r e to
u n d e r g o IA
In 2003, the first year of the implementation of the IA system, the Commission decided to select a certain
number of proposals that should undergo IA. The Commission based its selection on the importance
of the proposals selected in relation to the political priorities, the feasibility for its departments to perform the assessments in the short term, and the need to maintain a balance between different types of
proposal and the involvement of a broad range of departments. 2004 was the first year in which the IA
procedure was fully integrated into the programming cycle and the use of IAs was extended to cover a set
of proposals listed in the CLWP which were considered to have significant impacts 22. Since 2005, IAs have
been required for all initiatives set out in the CLWP 23 , with some types of initiatives being exempted 24 .
22
See APS 2005; COM(2004) 133 final, 25.2.2004. CLWP 2004, COM(2003) 645 final, Annex 2: these initiatives included major policy-defining,
pre-legislative and legislative proposals.
23
European Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as amended on 15.3.2006, Procedural rules (II.1).
24
‘Green Papers’, proposals for consultation with ‘social partners’, periodic Commission decisions and reports, proposals following international
obligations and COM measures deriving from it’s power to oversee the correct implementation of EC law and executive decisions are
exempted.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
17
...
and increasing trend to also carry out impact
assessments for initiatives outside the
CLWP
22. I n l ine w it h it s rul es and b ase d on a case -by- case assessment,
t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s a l s o p r o d u c e d I A s fo r i n i t i a t i v e s n o t i n cluded in the CLWP 25 . In 2008, such IAs accounted for a majority
of IAs car r ied o ut in t hat year ( see Figure 3).
25
These initiatives (which are to
have potentially significant impacts,
address novel or sensitive issues or
affect stakeholders particularly and
for which an IA should therefore
be carried out) are determined
Conduc ting
on a basis of a screening by the
impac t assessments is becoming standard
prac tice in the
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
Secretariat-General, with the
polic y development
support of the Impact Assessment
Board (IAB).
23. I A
is increasingly becoming par t of the policy development
c u l t u re at t h e Co m m i s s i o n . O ve r t h e p a s t fe w ye a r s t h e Co m mission has provided extensive training in IA methodology. The
way in w hich IAs are to b e p roduced is set out in Commission
IA guidelines issued by the S ecretar iat- G eneral that are applicable in all depar tments and ser vices. Since 2002, this material
h a s b e e n u p d a te d o n t h re e o cc a s i o n s, w i t h t h e l a te s t u p d a te
t a k ing p l ace in Janu ar y 2009 2 6 .
Figure 3
26
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2005) 791, 15.6.2005, as
amended on 15.3.2006; European
Commission, ‘Impact assessment
guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92, 15.1.2009.
B r e a k d o w n o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s b e t w e e n 2005 a n d 2008 —
CLW P v s n o n - CLW P
10
14 %
62
86 %
2005
20
30 %
47
70 %
2006
Commission's legislative and work programme
45
48 %
48
52 %
2007
67
55 %
54
45 %
2008
Non-Commission's legislative and work programme
S o u rce: ECA analysis of Commission data.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
18
24. S i n c e
2007, an Impact Assessment Board (IAB) suppor ted by
t h e Co mmissio n’s S ecret ar iat- G en eral ( SG) reviews th e qualit y
of the IAs car r ied out by the direc torates- general. I n addition,
the IA guidelines have recently specified that direc tors- general
must assume responsibilit y for the methodological soundness
of the IA do cu ment s by signing th e draf t IA repor t submitted
fo r t h e I A B q u a l i t y c h e c k 2 7 . T h e g u i d e l i n e s a l s o p re s c r i b e t h e
use of IA steering groups which aim to ensure consistency
­b e t ween p o l ic y areas in t he IA exercise.
Impact
assessments primarily help to shape
27
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2009) 92.
Commission
proposals
25. T h e
audit found that IAs were not used by the Commission
to d e c i d e w h e t h e r to g o a h e a d w i t h a p ro p o s a l. Th e d e c i s i o n
whether to launch an initiative is generally taken before an
i m pac t assessment rep o r t is f in alised. Th e Commission rath er
uses IA to gather and analyse evidence that, dur ing the polic y
development process, is used to improve its proposed initiative
( s e e B ox 3 fo r an examp l e).
BOX 3
I m pac t a s s e s s m e n t h e l p s to i m p r o v e t h e p r o p o s e d
i n i t i at i v e : ‘ R o a m i n g I ’
In the ‘Roaming I’ case 28 , the decision to legislate by means of a regulation 29 (rather than through a
directive or not to legislate at all) was upheld, but the legislative proposal was adjusted throughout
the IA process. In its second phase consultation, the Commission had proposed a regulatory approach
called the ‘Home Pricing Principle’ as a possible means to address the problems in the roaming market.
In the IA, which followed the public consultation process, the Commission took on board the view of
the majority of respondents, and ultimately proposed an alternative approach (i.e. the European Home
Market approach) which provided a better solution to the problems in the roaming market.
28
COM(2006) 382.
29
Commissioner Reding speech before the European Regulators Group on 8 February 2006.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
19
26. The audit also showed that, in par ticular for recent years, I A is
30
European Commission, 2009
b e c o m i n g b ro a d e r i n t e r m s o f t h e n u m b e r o f a l t e r n a t i ve o p t i o n s a n a l ys e d a n d t h at re s o u rce s a re t a rg e te d to t h e a s s e s s m e nt o f init iat ives acco rding to th eir impor tan ce:
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2009) 92, Chapter 3, pp. 12–16.
— analysis of an increasingly wide range of polic y alternatives:
Commission staff in charge of drafting legislative proposals
a n d t h e re l ate d I As re p o r te d t h at t h e I A p ro ce s s re q u i re d
t hem to co nsider mo re al ter n atives th an previously wh en
p re p a r i n g a p o l i c y i n i t i a t i ve. I t w a s fo u n d t h a t , t h ro u g h out the per iod audited, the number of alter native options
presented in the IA repor ts increased. I n par ticular, for IAs
p ro d u c e d i n 2 0 0 7 a n d 2 0 0 8 , t h e Co u r t ’s a n a l y s i s s h o we d
that the Commission increasingly analysed several feasible
reg u l ato r y al ter nat ives dur in g its IAs; an d
— prioritisation of resources on legislative proposals and CLWP
initiatives: The Commission considers that more resources
sho ul d b e devo ted to t he an alysis of th e most sign ific ant
initiatives than to the less significant initiatives. In the
Co mmissio n g uidel ines t his is c alled th e pr in ciple of pro p o r t io nate anal ysis 3 0 . Base d on estimates provided by th e
Commission, it can be shown that more time is devoted to
t h o s e I A s w h i c h a re u n d e r t a k e n fo r l e g i s l a t i ve p ro p o s a l s
(as co mp ared to no n-l egis lative in itiatives) an d wh ich are
included in the CLWP (as compared to those which are not)
(see Figure 4). This indicates that the Commission focuses
its resources in accordance with the pre -defined priorit ies.
Figure 4
Av e r ag e s ta f f r e s o u r c e s u s e d f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f
i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s
Legislative
Non-legislative
CLWP item
Non-CLWP item
0
2
4
6
8
10
Average staff resources per IA in person-months
No te: 52 IA reports.
S o u rce: ECA analysis of Commission data (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
20
Impact
assessments are ac tively used for decision-making
at the level of the
College
of
Commissioners
27. A t
the Commission, initiatives are designed and impact assessments are prepared within the direc torates- general under
t h e au t ho r it y o f t he Co mmission er in ch arge of a given polic y
field. Subsequently, Commission proposals are adopted by the
College of Commissioners and these decisions are generally
p re p a re d at we e k l y m e e t i n g s o f t h e i r Pr i vate O f f i ce s t a f f. Ac cording to Commission Private O ffice staff who were interviewed, IA repor ts provide a valuable source of information
about proposals put for ward by Commissioners other than their
ow n a n d I As ( a n d t h e re l a te d I A B o p i n i o n s ) a re re g u l a r l y d i s c u s sed at t he week l y p rep arator y meetin gs.
31
Interinstitutional agreement on
better law-making: in particular
points 25 and 29; Interinstitutional
agreement on a common approach
to IA (14901/05 JUR, adopted on
29.11.2005): in particular points 5, 6
and 13.
T h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t
r e p o r t s a r e co n s i d e r e d by m o s t u s e r s at
t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d Co u n c i l a s
r e l e va n t i n f o r m at i o n i n t h e l e g i s l at i v e
decision-making process
Commission impac t assessment repor ts are transmitted to
European Parliament and Council together with the
the
polic y initiative
28. IA repor ts should be made available to the European Parliament
and the Council ‘fully and freely ’ so that the legislators can
o b t a i n a c o m p re h e n s i ve v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e b a s e p ro v i d e d
i n t h e I A r e p o r t 31. D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d a u d i t e d , a l l I A r e p o r t s
a c c o m p a ny i n g l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l s w e r e fo r w a r d e d t o b o t h
i n s tit ut io ns.
BOX 4
’G o o d p r ac t i c e ’ e x a m p l e o f a n i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t b e i n g
p r e s e n t e d a n d d i s c u s s e d i n a E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n ta r y
Co m m i t t e e w o r k i n g g r o u p
At the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee, a working group meeting was dedicated to
the presentation and discussion of the IA on the proposed directive on consumer rights 32 . After a short
presentation of the IA by a representative of the Commission, several MEPs commented on the substance
of the IA report and made suggestions as to what aspects would merit further attention by the Commission. This example demonstrates that IAs can play a role in informing legislators and discussing IA reports
with MEPs can provide relevant feedback to the Commission with regard to the legislative proposal.
32
COM(2008) 614.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
21
T h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s r a r e l y d i s c u s s e d
meetings of European Parliament committees and
Council work ing par ties
at
29. I n
t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d C o u n c i l , i t i s r e c o m m e n d e d
p r a c t i ce to d i s c u s s t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A w h e n e ve r a p ro p o s a l
is submitted 33 . However, current prac tice obser ved in both the
Pa r l iament and Co u ncil fal l s sign ific antly sh or t of th is recomm e nded ap p ro ach:
33
EP Conference of Committee
Chairmen, ‘IA handbook’, 17 July
2008; Council of the European
Union, General Secretariat,
‘Handling IAs in Council — Indicative
guidance for working party chairs’,
— at the European Parliament, the Commission’s IA repor ts are
no t systemat ical l y p resented an d discussed at committee
m e e t i n g s. Th e a u d i t fo u n d t h at t h e Co m m i s s i o n wa s o n l y
i nv i t e d t o p re s e n t i t s I A s i n e xc e p t i o n a l c a s e s ( s e e B ox 4
fo r a ‘g o o d p ra c t i ce’ ex a m p l e ) . An a n a l ys i s o f ove r 1 2 0 0 0
p u b l ic Euro p ean Par l iament Committee documents of th e
2004–09 p ar l iament ar y te r m revealed th at on ly on e doc ument made exp l icit refere n ce to a Commission IA 3 4 ; an d
Luxembourg, 2007.
34
European Parliament, Committee
on Industry, Research and Energy,
ITRE(2008)0123_1; 23 January
2008, Meeting 17:00–18:00; Letter
of Commissioner Piebalgs on the
Commission’s IA, Continuation of the
exchange of views on the Energy
— internal Council guidance suggests discussion of the Comm i s s i o n’s I A s a t Wo r k i n g Pa r t y ( WP ) l e v e l 3 5 . Ac c o r d i n g t o
inter views car r ied o u t w ith Coun cil officials, a for mal discussion of the IA and where appropriate a Commission
presentation is decided on a case -by- case basis (see Box 5
fo r a ‘g o o d p ra c t i ce’ e x a m p l e ) . A n a n a l ys i s o f t h e Co u n c i l
public register for the 2004–2009 period showed that only
fo u r d o c u m e nt s m a d e ex p l i c i t re fe re n ce to a Co m m i s s i o n
IA.
BOX 5
Package Electricity and Gas.
35
Council of the EU, General
Secretariat, ‘Handling IAs in Council
— Indicative guidance for working
party chairs’, 2007.
’G o o d p r ac t i c e ’ e x a m p l e s o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s b e i n g
d i s c u s s e d i n Co u n c i l W o r k i n g Pa r t y
During the period audited, two IAs in the energy policy field were presented in the Council working
party: the legislative package on the internal market for electricity and gas 36 and the package of implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020 37. In both
cases the discussion took place at the Commission’s suggestion. It was not limited to one WP meeting
but informed the debate at the Council throughout the legislative decision-making process.
36
COM(2007) 528, COM(2007) 529, COM(2007) 530, COM(2007) 531 and COM(2007) 532.
37
COM(2008) 16, COM(2008) 17 and COM(2008) 19.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
22
Commission
impact assessments provide relevant and
informative documentation suppor ting the proposal to
the
European Parliament
and
Council
30. Alt h o u g h t he Co mmissio n’s IAs are in almost all c ases n ot for-
m a l l y re fe re n ce d i n Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt a n d Co u n c i l o f f i c i a l
d o c u m e n t s , u s e r s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s I A r e p o r t s a t b o t h i n s t i t u t i o n s s t a t e d t h a t t h e re p o r t s a re p e rc e i ve d a s p ro v i d i n g
relevant additional information in suppor t of the Commission’s
p ro p o sal (see Fig u r e 5).
FI G URE 5
Co u n c i l W o r k i n g Pa r t y S u r v e y: T h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s i m pac t
assessment role in informing decision-making within the
Co u n c i l
Agree
Disagree
Don’t know
53 %
35 %
12 %
Always/Mostly/
Often
Rarely/Never
Don’t know
IA has informed decisions or positions taken by the
delegation
50 %
42 %
8 %
Delegations comment on the substance of the IA during
the WP meetings
38 %
55 %
7 %
Delegations ask the Commission for further details on its
assessment
35 %
57 %
8 %
The Commission’s IA plays an important role in
informing decision-making within the Council
S o u rce: ECA Council working party survey (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
23
Users
believe that impac t assessments had a positive effec t
on the quality of
EU
legislation
31. D u r i n g
t h e a u d i t , u s e r s i n t e r v i e w e d a t t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a ment and the Council generally indicated their suppor t for
I A . A l a rg e m a j o r i t y o f re s p o n d e n t s to t h e Co u n c i l WP s u r ve y
(68 %) felt that the IA repor ts they had reviewed had a positive
effec t on the qualit y of the final legal ac t. This positive view of
the Commission’s IA system was also cor roborated by national
e x p e r t s o n b e t t e r r e g u l a t i o n s u r v e y e d a t t h e DE B R m e e t i n g
in June 2009. More than 8 out of 10 respondents (85 %) saw
I A as a co nt r ib ut io n towards th e EU polic y obj ec tive of better
re g ul at io n (see Fig u r e 6).
FI G URE 6
S u r v e ys : Co n t r i b u t i o n o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t to
‘ B e t t e r R e g u l at i o n ’
Directors and experts for ‘better
regulation’ surveyed:
Is the Commission’s IA system effectively
leading to ‘better regulation’?
Delegates in Council WP surveyed:
For those IA reports I have personally analysed, I consider
that they have positively contributed to the quality of the
final legislative act.
100 %
85 %
75 %
68 %
50 %
25 %
20 %
15 %
12 %
0%
yes/rather yes
no/rather no
strongly agree/agree
strongly
disagree/disagree
don't know
No te: 26 / 90 responses.
S o u rce: ECA Council working party survey/ Directors and Experts for Better Regulation survey (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
24
Interest
groups and civil society organisations take
impac t assessments into account when contributing to
the discussion of legislative proposals
32. Public scrutiny of legislative proposals is of the utmost impor t­
a n c e i n re l a t i o n t o t h e p o l i c y o b j e c t i ve o f b e t t e r re g u l a t i o n .
Th e Co mmissio n’s final IA rep or ts are public documents available online to all interested par ties once the related polic y init i ative has b een p ro p o sed. This is inter n ation al good prac tice
( s e e A nnex I).
38
Business Europe, Eurochambers,
European Consumers’ Organisation,
European Environmental Bureau,
European Federations for Transport
and Environment, European Trade
Union Federation, Social Forum,
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
33. I nte r views w it h st akeho l der organ isation s representin g inter-
est groups and civil society 38 showed that their representatives
systematically took IAs into account. However, some indicated
that they saw the IA repor ts as a policy justification of the
Commission’s proposal rather than an independent assessment
of its possible impacts. This criticism was more pronounced
with regard to IAs under taken in the early years of the system’s
op e rat io n and has since b eco me less of a con cer n .
A m e n d m e n t s to t h e i n i t i a l Co m m i s s i o n
p r o p o s a l a r e n ot s u b j e c t to a d d i t i o n a l
a s s e s s m e n t s o f p ot e n t i a l i m pac t s
The Parliament
and
Council
carried out eight impact
assessments of amendments to the
Commission
34. T h e
proposal
institutional set-up of the European Union means that
l e gisl at ive decisio n-mak ing differ s from th at in most M ember
States. According to the Treat y, while the European Parliament
and the Council act as legislators, the Commission has the
sole right of initiative. Under the Lisbon Treaty co - decision has
b e en ex tended to mo re p o l ic y areas.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
25
35. I n
practice, nearly all Commission proposals are modified
(sometimes to a significant ex tent) by the legislator during the
legislative procedure. Therefore, the European Par liament and
the Council have agreed that, where the co - decision procedure
a p p l i e s , t h e y m a y, ‘… o n t h e b a s i s o f j o i n t l y d e f i n e d c r i t e r i a
a n d procedures, have IAs car r ied out pr ior to the adoption of
a ny s u b s t a n t i ve a m e n d m e n t , e i t h e r a t f i r s t re a d i n g o r a t t h e
c o n c i l i a t i o n s t a g e’ 3 9 . T h i s c o m m i t m e n t w a s re a f f i r m e d i n t h e
2005 I nter-institutional agreement on a ‘Common approach to
I A’ 4 0 .
39
Interinstitutional agreement on
better law-making (2003/C 321/01,
Article 30).
40
Interinstitutional agreement
on a common approach to IA
(14901/05 JUR, adopted on
29.11.2005).
41
See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
RECH_menu.do?ihmlang=en last
viewed on 15 June 2009.
36. H o we ve r,
t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a g re e m e n t h a s
o n l y b e e n p a r t i a l l y i m p l e m e nte d by t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt
and the Council. B et ween 2005 and 2008, the European Par liament adopted 377 ac ts of secondar y legislation and the Counc i l 1 946 4 1 . The audit fo u nd t hat dur in g th is per iod:
42
IA: ‘The European Parliament’s
experience — A stocktaking report
of the common approach to IA’,
The Conference of Committee
Chairs, December 2008 (IAs on
amendments: (1) priority substances
— t h e E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t h a d c a r r i e d o u t I As fo r a m e n d ment s o n seven p ro p o sal s 4 2 , an d
in water (February 2008);
(2) certain aspects of the working
time directive (July 2007);
— t he Co u ncil had car r ied o ut on e IA 4 3 .
(3) The ‘Interoperability of the
Community railway system II’
(April 2007); (4) Proposed air quality
37. Th e Eu ro p ean Par l iament
directive (September 2006);
an d Coun cil 4 5 h ave recently recon firmed their commitment to carrying out IAs on their own
s u b s t a n t i v e a m e n d m e n t s . H o w e v e r, w h e r e a s t h e E u r o p e a n
Pa r l i a m e n t h a s c re a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s fo r p ro d u c i n g i t s o w n
IA studies by putting a framework contrac t for the related proce d ures in p l ace, t his is no t ye t th e c ase at th e Coun c il 4 6 .
44
(5) Nominal Quantities for ­
Pre-packed Products
(November 2005); (6) IA of recycling
targets in the waste framework
directive (May 2008);
(7) Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries
and accumulators and waste
batteries and accumulators and
repealing Directive 91/157/EEC
(November 2005).
43
Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste
batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p. 1).
44
European Parliament, Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur Katalin Lévai, ‘Report on better regulation in the EU’ (2007/2095(INI));
A6-0280/2007 final, 2.7.2007: in particular, see explanatory statement and paragraphs 5–15, 21, 26, 30 and 42–43; European Parliament,
Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, ‘Second interim report on legislative activities and interinstitutional relations’, 21 May 2008,
PE 406.309/CPG/GT (Internal European Parliament document), Part A, paragraph 1.3, pp. 13–14).
45
Council, General Secretariat, Competitiveness Council conclusions on ‘Better regulation’, 9663/09 COMPET 264, 13.5.2009; paragraph 13.
46
Note from the Director of General Secretariat, Directorate-General C, Directorate I, Review of the interinstitutional common approach to IA —
State of play of the handling of IA in the Council, Brussels, 3.11.2008.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
26
Impact
assessments released by the
Commission
are not
updated during the legislative procedure
38. I n
a d d i t i o n t o I A s c a r r i e d o u t b y t h e E u ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t o r
the Council, the interinstitutional agreements provide that the
legislators can invite the Commission to update its initial IA in
light of the amendments adopted by the European Par liament
or the Co uncil 4 7 .
47
Interinstitutional agreement on
a common approach to IA
(14901/05 JUR, adopted on
29.11.2005), point 12.
48
Inter-Institutional agreement on
better law-making (2003/C 321/01):
39. U p d at i n g t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A re p o r t wo u l d b e m o s t re l e va nt
4 0 . However, the audit found that IAs carried out by the Commis-
in particular point 30.
for significant pieces of legislation or in those cases where
significant changes to the initial Commission proposal (for instance with regard to the inter vention logic or instruments
u s ed) had b een p ro p o sed fo r adoption 4 8 .
s i o n h ave n o t b e e n u p d ate d d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d a u d i te d. Th i s
wa s n o t e ve n t h e c a s e fo r t h e ‘ S e r v i ce s D i re c t i ve’, w h i c h wa s
substantially altered during the legislative procedure (see
B ox 6 ) .
BOX 6
E x a m p l e o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s p r o p o s a l s f o r a ‘ D i r e c t i v e o n
services in the internal market’
With its legislative proposal, the Commission aimed at reducing barriers to cross-border trade in services
within the EU. The initial Commission proposal was presented in March 2004 50, and the related IA report in
January 2004 49. On 22 March 2005 the European Council considered that the Commission needed to carry
out a far reaching revision of its initial proposal to better preserve the European social model. On 5 April
2006 the Commission presented a modified proposal to the Council, including most of the modifications
voted by the European Parliament, in accordance to the co-decision procedure in the first reading. On
29 May 2006 the Council approved the amended text 51 . However, no revised IA was presented to reflect
the impacts of the changes made to the initial proposal. The revised proposal was finally adopted on
12 December 2006 by the European Parliament and Council, as Directive 2006/123/EC.
49
European Commission, ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market’,
COM(2004) 2 final/3, 5.3.2004.
50
SEC(2004) 21.
51
Opinion of the European Parliament of 16 February 2006, Council common position of 24 July 2006 (OJ C 270 E, 7.11.2006, p. 1) and Position
of the European Parliament of 15 November 2006. Council decision of 11 December 2006.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
27
Use
‘g o o d
Member States
United Kingdom
of national impact assessments by
during the legislative procedure:
p ra c t i ce’
41. I n
addition, IAs of Commission proposals could also be performed by national administrations to build their government ’s
negotiating position at the Council. The audit found, however,
t h at in p rac t ice o nl y t he United K in gdom seek s systematically
to u se it s nat io nal IA system for th is pur pose ( see B ox 7).
BOX 7
N at i o n a l i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s o n Co m m i s s i o n p r o p o s a l s —
i n t e r n at i o n a l ‘g o o d p r ac t i c e ’
The United Kingdom carries out national IAs on significant Commission initiatives to support the nego­
tiating position of its Permanent Representation 52. It carries out its own IA, generally using data related
to the United Kingdom, and thereby challenges the analysis provided in the Commission’s IA. In Germany,
the Bundestag has introduced a requirement to assess the implications of proposed EU legislation, but
in actual fact this has not yet been implemented 53 . In Poland, the authorities also have the mandate to
prepare a national IA in the event of a significant legislative proposal, but this has not yet resulted in
a formal IA.
52
UK Better Regulation Executive, IA guidance, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44544.pdf.
53
Agreement between the German Bundestag and the federal government on cooperation in matters concerning the EU in implementation of
Section 6 of the Act on cooperation between the federal government and the German Bundestag in matters concerning the EU (Vereinbarung
zwischen dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung über die Zusammenarbeit in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union in Ausführung
des § 6 des Gesetzes über die Zusammenarbeit von Bundesregierung und Deutschem Bundestag in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union);
Paragraph I.5.; Bundesgesetzblatt 2006 Part I No 44 Bonn, 30 September 2006.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
28
T h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e
p r e pa r at i o n o f i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s
42. The Commission’s procedures for IA determine the way in which
I A s p r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s i n t e r n a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . Fo r t h i s p u r p o s e , t h e a u d i t e x a m i n e d w h e t h e r t h e
Com missio n’s ap p ro ach ensu red:
— selec tion of those initiatives to undergo IA which have the
m o s t s i gn i f i c a nt i m p a c t o r a re p o l i t i c a l l y t h e m o s t s e n s i t ive;
— consultation with stakeholders for the most impor tant
stages of the I A process; and
— qu al it y review o f it s IA wor k .
N e e d f o r m o r e t r a n s pa r e n c y i n t h e
s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e a n d ta r g e t i n g o f
i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t w o r k
43. The Commission specifies, in its guidance material, the criteria
a cco rding to w hich it s dep ar tments ( togeth er with th e S ecre tariat-General) should determine the initiatives that require
a n IA . I n par ticular, I As should be targeted at those initiatives
t h at have t he mo st significant impac ts on c itizen s, busin esses
a n d administ rat io ns o r t hat are politic ally sen sitive.
T h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s
selec tion of initiatives for which impac t
assessments are under taken is based on a case -by- case
analysis
44. The decision on whether to car r y out an IA is based on a case -
by-case analysis. The Commission does not use quantifiable
i n d i c ato r s ( s u c h a s e s t i m ate d m o n e t i s e d i m p a c t ) to e s t a b l i s h
thresholds above which IAs need to be carried out. An approach
using such thresholds is followed in some OECD countries (see
A n n ex I ) . Fo r I As re l at i n g to l e gi s l at i ve p ro p o s a l s o u t s i d e t h e
CLWP, the reasons for the selec tion of initiatives to be analysed
a re no t made p ub l ic.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
29
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
monthly repor ting on legislative ac tivity
does not indicate planned impac t assessment work
45. A n
over view of all legislative proposals under development
within the Commission (for ward planning repor t) is ­s ubmitted
e a c h m o n t h t o t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t a n d t h e Co u n c i l a n d
i s made p u b l ic o n t he Eu ro p a website. However, th is month ly
repor t does not indicate the initiatives for which an I A is to be
u n d e r t a k e n . Th i s s i t u a t i o n d i f fe r s f ro m t h e U S s ys te m , w h e re
such initiatives are clearly highlighted in the overall catalogue
o f fo r t h c o m i n g r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t y 5 4 . S i m i l a r l y, i n t h e U n i t e d
Kingdom, government depar tments are required to publish
a list of all planned regulator y proposals for the next three years
wh ich are to b e acco mp anied by an IA ( see ­A nnex I) .
54
Planning and monitoring
regulatory activity in the USA:
Every six months, the Office for
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) at the President’s Office for
Management and Budget (OMB)
prepares a ‘Regulatory agenda and
plan’, compiling information on
forthcoming regulatory activity
from all federal agencies and its
anticipated gross impact in terms
of costs and/or benefits. This plan
identifies for which implementing
rules proposed by agencies IAs are
46. I n
t h e a u d i t e d p e r i o d , t h e r o a d m a p s a t t a c h e d t o t h e C LWP
were the only documents that provided an indication for which
i n i t i at i ve s I As a re to b e c a r r i e d o u t. I As t h at we re n o t re l ate d
to i n i t i at i ve s i n c l u d e d i n t h e C LWP ( i . e. t h e m a j o r i t y o f I As i n
2 0 0 8) were no t visib l e b efo reh an d outside th e Commission .
to be carried out. The plan is made
public.
55
European Commission,
Communication on ‘Towards a
reinforced culture of consultation
and dialogue — General principles
Co n s u ltat i o n i s w i d e ly u s e d a s i n p u t f o r
i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s , b u t n ot o n d r a f t
reports
47. The IA process should be transparent and draw on the exper tise
48. Co n s u l t at i o n s w i t h s t a k e h o l d e r s a re w i d e l y u s e d by t h e Co m -
and minimum standards for
consultation of interested parties
by the Commission’,
COM(2002) 704 final.
a n d views o f o t hers. Pub l ic sc r utiny is as an effec tive ver ific at i o n m e c h a n i s m to e n s u re t h at I As a d d re s s t h e m o s t re l e va nt
i s s u e s, i n c l u d e a l l fe a s i b l e p o l i c y o p t i o n s a n d p ro v i d e a b a l a n c e d v i e w. C o n s u l t a t i o n s e n a b l e t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o g a t h e r
the opinions of interested par ties and to take into account
va r i o u s p o i nt s o f v i e w. Th e s e co n s u l t at i o n s s h o u l d b e c a r r i e d
out in accordance with the Commission’s own standards in this
m at ter 5 5 .
mission, and the contributions submitted are increasingly
m a d e p u b l i c o n t h e Eu ro p a we b s i te. Th e a u d i t fo u n d t h at t h e
m i nimum co nsul t at io n p er io ds were gen erally respec ted.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
30
49.
consulting on draft Ia repor ts is useful in ensuring that the
a n a l ysis is co mp l ete, co nsiste nt an d accurate. I n par ticular, it
provides a basis for identifying and quantifying potential costs
a n d b e n e f i t s, a d m i n i s t r a t i ve b u r d e n s a n d p r o b l e m s w i t h i m p l e mentation and enforcement. however, the cour t ’s analysis
indicated that the commission never consulted on draf t Ia re por ts. whereas consultations were sometimes used to identify
p o s s i b l e p o l i c y o p t i o n s e a r l y i n t h e p ro ce s s ( 2 1 % o f c a s e s o f
Ias reviewed), they vir tually never concerned the commission’s
preliminar y assessment of alternative policy options. In the
s u r vey w it h co u ncil wps, 72 % of respon dents said th at an in te r im draf t rep o r t sho u l d b e made available some time before
t h e co mmissio n p ro p o sal was publish ed ( see Figure 7) .
56
council of australian
Governments: ‘Best practice
regulation — a guide for ministerial
councils and national standards
setting bodies’, october 2007.
57
o´connor close, c.; mancini d. j.:
‘comparison of Us and european
commission guidelines on
regulatory Ia/analysis’, Industrial
Policy and Economic Reforms Papers
no 3, april 2007.
58
United Kingdom cabinet office,
Better regulation executive,
50.
fiGure 7
‘Ia guidance’, London, may 2007.
th e co u r t n o te s t h at i n s o m e o e c d co u nt r i e s l i k e au s t ra l i a 5 6 ,
t h e U s a 5 7 a n d t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m 5 8 d r a f t I a re p o r t s a re s y s t e m a t i c a l l y p u b l i s h e d fo r i n fo r m a t i o n a n d c o m m e n t o r d r a f t
versions of a proposed legal ac t are discussed with stakeholder
organisat io ns (see A nnex I).
co u n c i l w o r k i n G Pa r t y s u r v e y: a n i n t e r i m i m Pac t
a s s e s s m e n t r e P o r t s h o u l d b e m a d e ava i l a b l e s o m e t i m e
before the ProPosal
‘don’t know’
16 %
‘strongly agree’
26 %
‘disagree’ or
‘strongly disagree’
11 %
‘agree’
47 %
No te: 91 responses.
S o u rce: eca council working party survey (2009).
special report no 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the eU institutions: do they support decision-making?
31
R e c e n t i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s
q ua l i t y r e v i e w o f i t s i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t
reports
Impac t Assessment Board reviews quality
assessments within the Commission
of impact
51. Since 2008, the IAB has reviewed practically all draft IA repor ts.
52. Acco rding to t he Co mmissio n staff inter viewed in con n ec tion
I ts qualit y control covers all aspec ts dealt with in an IA and all
stages of the process, star ting with a preliminar y review of the
roadmap. I n cases w here t he IAB con sider s th e IA repor t to be
of insufficient quality, it can request resubmission. In 2008, this
happened in 43 out of 135 cases. Four of these 43 resubmitted
re p o r t s even had to b e revised an d resubmitted a th ird time.
w i t h t h e i n - d e p t h c a s e s t u d i e s, t h e c re a t i o n o f t h e I A B a s a n
internal quality review body has put pressure on the DGs to
present good qualit y draf t repor ts. I t has also added transparenc y to the system since all IAB opinions are published on the
Eu ro p a web site.
Effec tiveness
of quality review subject to timely
availability of
IAB
opinion
53. Con sider ing t hat t he Co mmiss ion in itiative h as to go th rough
interdepar tmental consultation, decision-mak ing by the M emb e r s o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n a n d t r a n s l a t i o n , t h e I A B o p i n i o n c a n
only have a substantive effect on the final version of the underlying initiative if the IAB review takes place early enough in the
p ro c e s s. I A B re c o m m e n d a t i o n s a re i n m a ny c a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l
and, if followed, would imply significant additional IA work and
p otent ial chang es to t he init iative. Th is in 2 0 0 7 an d 2 0 0 8 rep re s ented a chal l eng e, since in on e th ird of th e c ases an alysed
the time between the final I AB opinion and the adoption of the
p ro p o s a l wa s l e s s t h a n 6 we e k s. N e ve r t h e l e s s, a s i n d i c ate d i n
t h e IAB rep o r t s examined, t he B oard ’s recommen dation s were
fol l owed u p at l east to so me ex tent in th e fin al IA repor t.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
32
T h e IAB
does not have a mandate to require that
carried out but advises the
SG
and the
DG s
IA s
are
in selecting
initiatives for impac t assessment
54. Th e IAB do es no t have a mandate to require DGs to in itiate IA
wor k in re s p e c t o f a p a r t i c u l a r p rop o s al ( s e e A nnex I ) . N eve r­
t h el ess, t he IAB advises t he SG an d th e DGs in identify in g in it i a t i v e s t h a t s h o u l d u n d e r g o I A 59. O n t h i s b a s i s , i n 2 0 0 8 , t h e
S G i n i t i a l l y s aw a n e e d fo r 5 5 a d d i t i o n a l I As. Af te r co n s u l t i n g
w i th the D Gs, the SG agreed t hat an I A was necessar y in 21 of
t h e se cases.
55. M o r e o v e r,
the IAB cannot put the IA repor t (and the related
l e gisl at ive p ro p o sal ) o n ho l d: in stead, th e S ecretar iat- G en eral
m ay inter vene at the interdepar tmental consultation stage in
re l at io n to eit her do cu ment. However, n o inter vention spec if­
i c a l l y addressing t he final IA repor t h ad been obser ved in th e
a u dited p er io d.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
59
Information note from the
President to the Commission,
Enhancing quality support and
control for Commission IAs,
The Impact Assessment Board,
14 November 2006.
33
Co n t e n t a n d p r e s e n tat i o n o f t h e
Co m m i s s i o n ’s i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s
56. The results of the IA process are summarised in IA repor ts which
should provide information based on which the legislators can
d e c i d e o n t h e m o s t a p p ro p r i a t e w a y t o a d d re s s t h e p ro b l e m
i d e nt ified. Therefo re, t he Co mmission’s IA repor ts are expec te d t o p ro v i d e a c o m p re h e n s i ve a n d c o m p a r a t i ve a s s e s s m e n t
of the different feasible polic y options. The audit examined
wh et her :
— the IA repor ts provided a description of the issue to be
addressed and explained how the benefits of a planned
inter vent io n wo u l d b e at tain ed;
— t he info r mat io n p rovided in th e IA repor ts was presented
in a user-friendly way and allowed a comparison of the
al ter nat ive o p t io ns anal ysed; an d
— IAs provided the content that is relevant to polic y-makers
( s u c h a s i n fo r m a t i o n o n p o t e n t i a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o b l ems, enfo rcement issues an d admin istrative burden s) .
I n t h i s c o n t e x t t h e Co u r t re c o g n i s e s t h a t a ny a n a l y s i s o f p o tential future impac ts is necessarily uncer tain, incomplete and
s i m p l ified.
N e e d to i m p r o v e f u r t h e r t h e p r e s e n tat i o n o f
h o w t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o p o s e d i s to ac h i e v e
b e s t t h e i n t e n d e d o u tco m e s
57. IA repor ts should provide a description of the problem at stake,
s p e c i f y re l e v a n t p o l i c y o b j e c t i ve s a n d s e t o u t a r a n g e o f a p p ro p r i ate o p t i o n s to a d d re s s t h e p ro b l e m i d e nt i f i e d. Fu r t h e r,
t h ey should illustrate how the intended outcomes and results
c a n b e achieved w it h t he p ro posed deliver y mec h an ism.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
34
Impact
assessment repor ts provide a sound description of
the problem and specify polic y objec tives
58. S i n ce 2 0 0 3 , t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s g u i d e l i n e s h ave re q u i re d I As to
i d e nt ify t he p ro b l em to b e add ressed an d establish polic y objectives corresponding to the problem and its causes. All IA
r e p o r t s r e v i e w e d i n t h e C o u r t ’s a n a l y s i s c o n t a i n e d s e c t i o n s
on p ro b l em ident ificat io n and polic y obj ec tives. As far as th e
i n - dep t h cases are co ncer ned, th ese sec tion s provided an adequate over view of the problem and specified a set of reasona b le p o l ic y o b jec t ives.
60
See also European Court of
Auditors: Special Report No 9/2007,
‘Evaluating the EU research and
technological development (RTD)
framework programmes — could
the Commission’s approach be
improved?’; Special Report
No 7/2008, ‘Intelligent energy
(2003–2006)’, Special Report
No 2/2009, ‘The European Union’s
59. This was corroborated by the enquiries with users of IA repor ts
i n t h e o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s, M e m b e r S t a t e s a n d s t a k e h o l d e r o r ganisations. They repor ted that these sec tions of the IA repor ts
o f t e n e n a b l e d t h e m t o u n d e r s t a n d b e t t e r t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s
re a s o n s fo r i n i t i at i n g a p ro p o s a l. Acco rd i n g to t h e i nte r v i e wees, these sec tions were the most read par ts of the I A repor ts.
Also, 84 % of respondents to the Council WP sur vey ‘agreed ’ or
‘s t ro n g l y a gre e d ’ t h a t t h e p ro b l e m d e s c r i p t i o n e n a b l e d t h e m
to have a better understanding of the reasoning behind the
p ro p o sal.
Inter vention
logic not used to illustrate how expec ted
benefits are to be attained
60. I n
n o n e o f t h e c a s e s re v i e we d i n t h e Co u r t ’s a n a l y s i s d i d t h e
IA provide an explicit illustration of the inter vention logic un derlying the initiative. As a consequence, the IA repor ts do
not provide a standardised presentation of how the objec tives
a n d e x p e c te d o u tco m e s o f t h e p ro p o s e d i n te r ve n t i o n c a n b e
achieved with the intended deliver y mechanisms and, with re g a rd to exp endit ure p ro gramm es, th e estimated budget 6 0 .
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
public health programme (2003–07):
An effective way to improve health?’
35
There is room for improvement in the
a n a lys i s o f i m pac t s a n d t h e p r e s e n tat i o n
thereof
61. IAs must be easily accessible and understandable to non- exper t
61
European Commission,
readers in order to be used in polic y-mak ing. They should help
to i d e nt i f y t h e p o l i c y o p t i o n a n d d e l i ve r y m e c h a n i s m s w h i c h
best address the problem, by providing a comparative analysis
of the options. This can of ten be facilitated by providing inform atio n in qu ant it at ive and mon etar y ter ms. IAs sh ould th ere fore specify the costs and benefits of proposals, how they occur
and who is affec ted. According to the Commission’s guidelines,
all impacts should be quantified and monetised where poss i b l e a n d a p p ro p r i a te, b a s e d o n ro b u s t m e t h o d s a n d re l i a b l e
d at a 6 1 .
Main
2005/2006 ‘Impact assessment
guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791.
results and messages of impact assessment repor ts
not always easy to gather
62. A l t h o u g h
the presentation of IA repor ts follows a common
s t r u c t u re s e t o u t i n t h e I A g u i d e l i n e s, i t i s n o t a l ways e a s y to
gather t heir main resu l t s and messages. Accordin g to th e surve y c a r r i e d o u t a s p a r t o f t h e a u d i t , t h i s i s m a i n l y e x p l a i n e d
by their length and technical nature, the complexity of the
language used (see Figure 8) and by the other weak nesses
d e s cr ib ed b el ow.
FI G URE 8
Co u n c i l W o r k i n g Pa r t y S u r v e y: M a i n o b s tac l e s to a n
e f f e c t i v e u s e o f Co m m i s s i o n i m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s
Lack of summary
33 %
Language availability
35 %
Use of technical language
37 %
Length of the document
48 %
No te: 93 responses.
S o u rce: ECA Council working party survey (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
36
Analysing
all economic, social and environmental impac ts
is a challenge
63. Th e Co m m i s s i o n’s s e l f - i m p o s e d re q u i re m e nt to a s s e s s a l l s i g -
nificant economic, social and environmental impacts (the ‘three
p i ll ars’ ) is amb it io u s. The inte r n ation al compar ison identified
no other system where a similarly comprehensive approach was
foll owed (see A nnex I).
64. The Cour t ’s analysis showed that, in prac tice, the Commission’s
IA work was asymmetric between the three pillars and between
costs and benefits (see Figure 9). This reflec ts the fac t that not
all t ypes of impac ts are equally relevant for any par ticular initiative. According to the sur vey of the Council WPs, a major it y
of respondents thought that there was an appropriate balance
b e t we e n t h e e c o n o m i c, e nv i ro n m e n t a l a n d s o c i a l i m p a c t s o f
t h e different p o l ic y o p t io ns (s ee Figure 10) .
Direct
comparison between alternative options is sometimes
difficult
65. I A
66. Fi r s t l y, imp ac t s are o f ten no t quantified an d mon etised to fa-
should provide a basis for comparison of alternative op tions. The Cour t ’s analysis found that this was the case for t wo
thirds of the IA repor ts examined. In the remaining IA repor ts it
wa s difficult to compare alter native options because of a lack
o f q u a n t i f i e d i m p a c t a n a l y s i s, i n s u f f i c i e n t u s e o f m e t h o d s t o
co m p a re a n d p re s e nt q u a l i t at i ve e v i d e n ce a n d a n a s y m m e t r y
i n the dep t h o f anal ysis b et ween different option s.
c i l i t a t e a c o m p a r i s o n o f o p t i o n s ( s e e Fi g u r e 1 1 ) . T h i s i s a l s o
what respondents to the sur vey repor ted: nearly half (48 %)
‘d i s a g re e d ’ o r ‘s t ro n g l y d i s a g re e d ’ t h a t a n a p p ro p r i a t e q u a n tification and monetisation of the costs and benefits of the
impac ts of the different polic y options had been achieved (see
Figure 12). Some OECD countries have a stricter requirement to
quantify costs and benefits (see A nnex I), although quantificat i on is no t al ways achieved (suc h as for example in th e Un ited
K i n g do m 6 2 ).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
62
National Audit Office, Delivering
high quality impact assessments,
30.1.2009, p. 14.
37
figure 9
W h at i m pac t s w e r e a s s e s s e d — e co n o m i c , e n v i r o n m e n ta l o r
s o c i a l ( s e l e c t e d D G s ; p e r i o d 2003 – 08 ) ?
100 %
86 %
84 %
84 %
80 %
% of IAs
63 %
60 %
62 %
45 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Economic
Environmental
Social
Type of impact
Cost
Benefit
S o u rce: ECA ‘Scorecard analysis’ (2003–2008).
figure 10
Co u n c i l W o r k i n g Pa r t y S u r v e y: I n t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s i m pac t
a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s t h e r e i s a n a pp r o p r i at e b a l a n c e
b e t w e e n e co n o m i c , s o c i a l a n d e n v i r o n m e n ta l i m pac t s
58 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
25 %
17 %
20 %
10 %
0%
0%
strongly agree
0%
agree
disagree
strongly disagree
don’t know
No te: 74 responses.
S o u rce: ECA Council working party survey (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
38
figure 11
W h at i m pac t s w e r e q ua n t i f i e d o r m o n e t i s e d ( s e l e c t e d D G s ;
period 2003–08)?
100 %
% of IAs
80 %
60 %
53 %
41 %
40 %
23 %
22 %
20 %
12 %
12 %
0%
Economic
Environmental
Social
Type of impact
Cost
Benefit
S o u rce: ECA ‘Scorecard analysis’ (2003–08).
figure 12
Co u n c i l W o r k i n g Pa r t y S u r v e y: I n t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’s i m pac t
a s s e s s m e n t r e p o r t s t h e r e i s a n a pp r o p r i at e q ua n t i f i c at i o n
a n d m o n e t i s at i o n o f co s t s a n d b e n e f i t s
60 %
50 %
38 %
40 %
42 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
14 %
6%
0%
strongly agree
agree
disagree
No te: 71 responses.
S o u rce: ECA Council working party survey (2009).
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
strongly disagree
don’t know
39
67. I n
t h o s e c a s e s w h e re q u a n t i f i c a t i o n a n d m o n e t i s a t i o n i s d i f ficult, a robust analysis of qualitative aspec ts can help to comp a re al ter nat ive o p t io ns. A qualitative compar ison of option s
i s d o n e i n a l l i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s . H o w e v e r, i n t e r m s o f t h e
methods used, the Cour t ’s analysis showed that ‘multi- cr iter ia
analysis’ was used in 44 % of IA repor ts, ‘sensitivit y analysis’ in
12 % and ‘risk analysis’ in 11 %. All these three methods feature
i n t he IA g u idel ines as met ho d s for compar in g impac ts 6 3 .
63
Annexes to ‘Impact assessment
guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791,
pp. 58–59.
68. Finally, a consistent depth of analysis facilitates comparison be -
t ween o p t io ns. However, t he Cour t ’s an alysis revealed th at, in
approximately half of the cases reviewed, the depth of analysis
for t he different o p t io ns was not balan ced. Sign ific antly more
i n for mat io n was p resented for a subgroup of th e option s an d
o f t e n o n l y fo r t h e s p e c i f i c o p t i o n t h a t w a s l a t e r re t a i n e d fo r
t h e Co mmissio n p ro p o sal.
Av a i l a b i l i t y
of data for impact assessments remains
a problem
69. M a n y
of the challenges with the analysis of impacts can be
t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e p r o b l e m o f d a t a a v a i l a b i l i t y. A c c o r d i n g
t o i n t e r v i e w s w i t h Co m m i s s i o n s t a f f, t h e t i m e l y co l l e c t i o n o f
standardised and comparable data poses a par ticular problem.
D i f fe re n ce s i n t h e ava i l a b i l i t y a n d re l i a b i l i t y o f d at a b e t we e n
M e m b e r S t a t e s c o m p o u n d t h i s i s s u e, a s i l l u s t r a te d i n t h e e x a m pl e b el ow (see B ox 8).
BOX 8
E x a m p l e o f p r o b l e m s w i t h d ata q ua l i t y a n d ava i l a b i l i t y
In the case of ‘Equal Opportunities’ the IA, report acknowledges a ‘lack of reliable data on discrimination’
and points to the fact that ‘collecting data on certain grounds of discrimination […] is not undertaken
systematically by the Member States’ 64 . In order to mitigate these problems the Commission complemented existing data with opinion surveys on people’s perception and experience of discrimination.
64
European Commission, IA for the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, SEC(2008) 2180, p. 11.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
40
70. During the period audited, increasing use was made of external
studies to gather data and this is further encouraged in the
2 0 0 9 r e v i s i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n g u i d e l i n e s 65. O n t h e o t h e r
h a n d, t h e a u d i t fo u n d t h at i nte r n a l s o u rce s s u c h a s t h e Co m mission’s Joint Research Centre ( JRC ) or Eurostat (the Commission’s statistics depar tment) are not ac tively used to determine
t h e availabilit y of M ember State specific data for IA pur poses
and to provide such data (for example in cooperation with
national statistics offices). The network of bodies like the Committee of Regions, the European Economic and S ocial Committe e o r t he H ig h Level Gro up for B etter R egulation are also n ot
u s ed to that end.
71. I n
its recent conclusions on better regulation, the Competitiveness Council invited the Commission to cooperate with
M e m b e r St ate s at a n e a r l y s t a g e w h e n g at h e r i n g d at a fo r t h e
p rep arat io n o f IAs in o rder to take into account M ember State
s p e cificit ies in it s sub sequ ent preparator y wor k 6 6 .
I n f o r m at i o n o n i m p l e m e n tat i o n a s p e c t s ,
e n f o r c e m e n t co s t s a n d a d m i n i s t r at i v e
burden can be further improved
72. T h e
effectiveness of an inter vention and its costs are influe n ced by t he way in w hich it is implemented an d en forced by
the Commission, and ultimately by the Member States. M issing
information on implementation problems encountered with
existing legislation is problematic since knowledge of such
a s pec t s is rel evant to p revent similar problems af ter a review.
Th i s i s w hy i m p l e m e nt at i o n a s p e c t s s h o u l d b e a n a l ys e d i n a n
I A, and infor mation on the transposition and implementation
of existing regulator y measures needs to be collec ted. This information can be provided inter alia through the ex post evaluat i o n o f exist ing p o l icies and programmes.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
65
European Commission, 2009
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2009) 92, p. 17.
66
Council, General Secretariat,
Competitiveness Council
conclusions on ‘better regulation’,
9663/09 COMPET 264, 13.5.2009;
point 18.
41
Implementation
aspec ts are not always sufficiently
analysed in impac t assessments
73. While implementation aspects are addressed in the Commission
I A s, t h e a u d i t fo u n d t h a t t h e y d o n o t , i n a l l c a s e s, g i ve s u f f i c i e nt e m p h a s i s to i m p l e m e nt at i o n a r ra n g e m e nt s. Th e Co u r t ’s
a n al ysis indicates t hat at l east a referen ce to an implementat i o n plan was provided in no more than approximately half of
all repor ts reviewed. Several cases were found where impor tant
i m pl ement at io n asp ec t s had n ot been adequately an alysed in
t h e I A re p o r t s. O n c e t h e l e g i s l a t i ve p ro p o s a l i s s u b m i t t e d t o
t h e Euro p ean Par l iament and th e Coun cil, a more detailed assessment of these aspec ts is summarised in specific implement a t i o n p l a n s. Fu r t h e r m o re, co r re l a t i o n t a b l e s a re u s e d by t h e
Co m m i s s i o n t o m o n i t o r l e g a l a c t s t h ro u g h w h i c h s p e c i f i c E U
p rovisio ns have b een t ransp osed into n ation al legislation .
67
Algemene Rekenkamer,
‘European legislation:
The implementation of European
directives and the enforcement
of European regulations in the
Netherlands’, 17 June 2008.
74. E n q u i r i e s
with users of IA repor ts outside the Commission
( MEP s , M e m b e r S t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a n d o f f i c i a l s o f t h e
European Parliament and Council) indicated that the implications
o f t ra n s p o s i t i o n a n d i m p l e m e nt at i o n we re o f gre at re l e va n ce
during the legislative decision-making process. This is also
cor ro b o rated by t he wo r k o f n ation al audit bodies in M ember
States 67 . The example in Box 9 illustrates possible consequences
of an inadequate analysis of implementation aspects during the
l e gisl at ive decisio n-mak ing p rocess.
BOX 9
A s s e s s m e n t o f i m p l e m e n tat i o n a s p e c t s : I m pac t a s s e s s m e n t s
o n ‘Co n s u m e r r i g h t s’
The IA on ‘consumer rights’ 68 did not contain a robust analysis of the European harmonisation effect that
would ensue in the different Member States from the proposed directive 69. In particular, the IA lacked an
analysis of the differences between the existing national legislation and the new proposed harmonised
rules on consumer rights legislation. This was also noted by the Consumer Protection Working Group
composed of MEPs from the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market 70 . As a consequence, the initial Commission proposal is expected to be significantly modified during the legislative
procedure to better take the specific situation of Member States into account.
68
European Commission, IA on ‘Consumer rights’, SEC(2008) 2544.
69
European Commission, Proposal for a directive on consumer rights, COM(2008) 614.
70
The presentation of the Commission’s IA and the subsequent discussion during the Consumer Protection Working Group meeting on
4 February 2009 was observed as part of the audit evidence collection procedures.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
42
75. Co m m i s s i o n s t a f f i n c h a rg e o f I As i n d i c ate d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a s s e s s i n g s u c h s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s fo r a E u r o p e a n U n i o n i n w h i c h
legislation is incorporated into 27 legal systems and imple mented and enforced by an even higher number of national and
re gio nal b o dies. They al so p o inted to th e absen ce of n ation al
IAs for EU initiatives, which could provide a valuable source of
information on potential obstacles to effective implementation
resulting from specific national contex ts and reliable estimates
fo r t h e p o t e n t i a l e n fo rc e m e n t c o s t s o f a l e g i s l a t i ve p ro p o s a l
( s e e p aragrap h 41).
71
European Commission,
‘Impact assessment guidelines’,
SEC(2005) 791, p. 45 and European
Commission, ‘Impact assessment
guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92, pp. 48–49.
72
European Commission,
‘Evaluation in the Commission
— Reporting on results: annual
evaluation review 2007 —
Conclusions and findings from
evaluations in the Commission’,
Ex
COM(2008) 300, May 2008;
post evaluations of existing policies and programmes are
Annexes I and II.
not carried out systematically across all legislative areas
73
Breugel, Memos to the new
76. A public inter vention (and its actual impact) should be assessed
through ongoing monitoring and ex post evaluation to improve
f u r t her devel o p ment o f inter vention s. To en able lear n in g an d
feedback for future initiatives, ex post evaluations would need
to collec t relevant infor mation on compliance with legislation
and the effec tiveness of the rules as compared with the envisa g ed resul t s init ial l y set o ut in th e IA 7 1 .
77. A n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h ow e f fe c t i ve l y E U l e gi s l a t i o n h a s b e e n
transposed and implemented is a significant element to be
considered by the Commission whenever putting for ward
p ro p o s a l s fo r re v i s e d l e gi s l at i o n . Th e a u d i t s h owe d t h at, d u ri n g t he p er io d au dited, t he focus of th e Commission’s ex p ost
e va l u at i o n s d i f fe re d s i gn i f i c a nt l y f ro m t h at o f I A . An a n a l ys i s
o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s ove r v i e w o f i t s 2 0 0 7 e va l u at i o n s 7 2 s h ows
t h at o nl y 24 % o f ex p os t eval uation s addressed issues related
to the review of existing (sec toral or cross- cutting) legislation.
Th i s fac t was al so no ted in a recent study 7 3 .
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
Commission — Europe’s economic
priorities 2010–2015, Edited by André
Sapir, 2009, p. 17.
43
Enforcement
costs and administrative burdens not
sufficiently quantified
Enforcement
costs
78. Draf ting enforcement-friendly legislation is the most effec tive
way to prevent excessive enforcement costs . The Commission
quantifies enforcement costs in the IA repor ts in the cases
where they deem them relevant and significant. The Cour t ob s e r ved t hat, in p rac t ice, w hil s t en forcement costs are refer red
to in many IA rep o r t s, quant ified estimates of such costs were
thoroughly analysed in only few cases. For EU expenditure pro grammes, such costs are either incurred at the Commission
itself (in the case of direct management) or jointly with the
Member States (in the case of shared or decentralised manage m e nt ). The in- dep t h review o f th e IAs related to t wo maj or EU
expenditure programmes (i.e. the IAs on cohesion and the
s e v e n t h RTD f r a m e w o r k p r o g r a m m e ( F P 7 ) 7 5 ) s h o w e d t h a t i n
these cases enforcement costs had not been quantified in
­d e t ail.
74
Administrative
74
European Commission, ‘A Europe
of results — Applying Community
law’, COM(2007) 502, p. 6.
75
SEC(2005) 430 and SEC(2004) 924
respectively.
76
European Commission:
Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the EP, the EESC and the CoR:
‘Action programme for reducing
administrative burdens in the
European Union’, COM(2007) 23 final,
24.1.2007.
burden of existing legislation: reduc tion
ac tion programme
79. I n M a rc h 2 0 0 7 , u n d e r t h e E U ‘ b e t te r re g u l at i o n’ i n i t i at i ve, t h e
Co m m i s s i o n a n d t h e H e a d s o f S t a te o r G ove r n m e n t o f a l l t h e
Member States agreed to reduce the administrative burden re sulting from existing EU law by 25 % by 2012. The Commission
s u bsequ ent l y init iated a systematic measurement of in for mat i o n c o s t s fo r b u s i n e s s e s re s u l t i n g f ro m E U l e g i s l a t i o n 7 6 ( s e e
B ox 1 0 ) . I n Au g u s t 2 0 0 7 , a H i g h Le ve l G ro u p o f I n d e p e n d e n t
Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens was set up to provide
a d v ice to t he Co mmissio n in th is area.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
44
SCM
rarely used to quantify potential administrative
burdens of new legislation
80. I n
t h e c o n t e x t o f a n I A fo r n e w l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s
guidelines require that the Standard Cost M odel (SCM) is used
to quantify administrative burden, where this is expec ted to be
s i gn i f i c a n t 7 7 . Th e SCM i s a re l a t i ve l y s i m p l e a n d s t a n d a rd i s e d
m e t ho do l o g y t hat is ap p l ied in many countr ies ( see A nnex I).
The assessment of such costs is less complex than determining
a ll eco no mic, so cial and environ mental impac ts.
77
European Commission,
2005/2006 ‘Impact assessment
guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791, Annex 20.
81. O u t
of the 39 IA repor ts in 2008 examined by the Cour t, the
Commission considered assessing administrative burdens in
35 cases. In 14 of these 35 cases the administrative burden
w a s a l s o q u a n t i f i e d. H owe ve r, t h e SCM w a s u s e d i n o n l y fo u r
of these.
BOX 1 0
Co m m i s s i o n ’s Ac t i o n P r o g r a m m e a i m e d at c u t t i n g r e d ta p e
In October 2009, the Commission finalised its measurement of the administrative burdens 78 that businesses incur in meeting EU legal obligations to provide information on their products or activities, either
to public authorities or to private parties 79. This study estimated the costs imposed by the 72 acts covered
by the action programme and its 13 priority areas at 123,8 billion euro in 2005 80 . The Commission has
identified a total of 486 EU information obligations, and more than 10 000 national obligations which
transpose or implement these EU obligations (of which more than 700 go beyond EU legal requirements).
Based on this analysis, and in addition to measures that are under its own responsibility, the Commission
has initiated a number of legislative proposals to remove or reduce administrative burdens: so far, the
European Parliament and the Council have adopted 33 acts (with an estimated reduction of 5,7 billion
euro) proposed by the Commission. A further 18 measures that could bring an estimated reduction of
30,7 billion euro are still pending.
78
European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Action programme for reducing
administrative burdens in the EU — Sectoral reduction plans and 2009 actions’, COM(2009) 544 final, 22.10.2009.
79
Information costs include labelling, reporting, registration, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the information. In some cases,
the information has to be transferred to public authorities or private parties. In others, it only has to be available for inspection or supply on
request.
80
Agriculture and agricultural subsidies, annual accounts and company law, cohesion policy, environment, financial services, fisheries, food
safety, pharmaceutical legislation, public procurement, statistics, taxation and customs, transport, working environment and employment
relations.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
45
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of impac t assessments for decision-making at the
Commission, the European Parliament and the Council
82. S i n ce 2002, t he Co mmissio n h as put in place a compreh en sive
83. R e gu l ato r y qual it y is t he resp on sibilit y of all th ree EU in stitu-
i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m , w h i c h , fo r s e v e r a l o f t h e a s p e c t s
reviewed by the Cour t, can be considered as good practice
within the EU. The Cour t also noted improvements in the Comm i s s i o n’s i m p a c t a s s e s s m e nt s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d a u d i te d. Pa rt i c u l a r l y i n re c e n t ye a r s, i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s h a ve h e l p e d t o
i m p ro ve t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s a b i l i t y t o fo r m u l a t e i t s p ro p o s a l s.
The audit found evidence that the I A procedures have become
an integral element of the policy development process and
that IA repor ts are ac tively used by decision-makers within the
Commissio n.
tions involved in the legislative process. The Commission’s IAs
a re s ys te m at i c a l l y fo r wa rd e d to t h e Eu ro p e a n Pa r l i a m e nt a n d
Council and users within both institutions consider them help f u l w h e n co n s i d e r i n g t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s l e gi s l at i ve p ro p o s a l s.
However, IAs are not updated dur ing the legislative procedure
as amendments are proposed. Once the initial Commission prop o s a l i s a m e n d e d, n e i t h e r t h e Co m m i s s i o n , n o r t h e Eu ro p e a n
Pa r l i a m e n t o r t h e C o u n c i l s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n a l y s e t h e i m p a c t
of those amendments. Therefore, the estimated impac ts of the
­f inal legislative ac t are not k nown if there have been substant i a l amendment s.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
46
T h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s
procedures for the preparation of impac t
assessments
84. Transparenc y lends credibility, and the Commission’s approach
to impac t assessment is strongest where it provides such transparenc y. Examples are the publication of the CLWP, roadmaps,
full version of the final IA repor t and, since 2007, the IAB opinions. However, this repor t identifies the following weak nesses
wi t h reg ard to t he Co mmission’s procedures for selec tin g in itiatives to undergo IA, for consultation with interested par ties
a n d fo r t he qu al it y review o f d raf t IA repor ts:
— t he Co mmissio n did no t indicate in advan ce all th e in itiat ives w hich were to undergo an IA an d, for IAs relatin g to
legislative proposals outside the CLWP, the reasons for the
selec tion of which initiatives were to be analysed were not
made p u b l ic;
— c o n s u l t a t i o n s w i t h s t a k e h o l d e r s we re n o t c a r r i e d o u t o n
draft IA repor ts. As a result, the potential benefits of public
scrutiny before the proposal is finalised (i.e. gathering the
views of all parties concerned at an early stage and the
increased acceptance of the resulting legislative proposal)
have no t ful l y mater ial ised; an d
— the IAB was found to contribute to the qualit y of IAs. Howe ve r, i n s o m e c a s e s, q u a l i t y re v i e w to o k p l a ce to o l ate i n
t he p ro cess.
R e c o m m e n d at i o n 1
The Commission should enhance the impac t assessment
p ro ce ss by :
— providing an over view of all legislative initiatives (including the review of existing legislation) for which it intends
to under take an IA . A reasoned justif ication should be
p rov i d e d w h e n an IA is n ot p e r f o r m e d;
—p ub lishin g , f o r inf o r mati o n an d co mm e nt , inte r im d o cu m e n t s (s u c h a s r o a d m a p s a n d a d r a f t v e r s i o n o f t h e I A
re p o r t); an d
—e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e I A B ’s q u a l i t y r e v i e w o f I A w o r k t a k e s
p l a ce o n a tim e l y b asis .
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
47
Content
and presentation of the
C o m m i s s i o n ’s
impact
assessment repor ts
85. Th e Co mmissio n has ado p ted an ambitious approac h to IA by
86. O ve ra l l, t h e I A re p o r t s we re fo u n d to h ave co m p l i e d w i t h t h e
aiming to analyse all significant economic, social and environmental impacts in one single assessment. IA repor ts should
contain a description of the problem at stake, analyse all feas­
ible policy options in terms of costs and benefits and provide an assessment of implementation and enforcement issues
a n d a n e s t i m a t e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i ve b u rd e n re s u l t i n g f ro m
p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n . I t a l s o s e t s o u t a f r a m e w o r k fo r f u t u r e
monitoring and evaluation. This comprehensive assessment
com p ares favo u rab l y to o t her IA systems.
re q u i re m e nt s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s g u i d e l i n e s. H owever, the audit identified a number of weak nesses with regard
to co ntent and p resent at io n of IA repor ts:
— the main results and messages of IA repor ts are not always
easy to g at her, incl uding h ow an inter vention is expec ted
to attain its objec tives. Comparing the impac ts of the various polic y options presented in an IA repor t is sometimes
difficul t ;
— difficul t ies in qu ant ifying an d mon etisin g impac ts can be
traced back to the availability of data. This is an area in
which the Commission does not yet fully exploit either
inter nal cap acit ies o r t ho se of M ember States;
— i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a s p e c t s a r e n o t a l w a y s s u f f i c i e n t l y a n a lysed in impac t assessments. Ex post evaluations that could
provide relevant information on existing policies and pro grammes for use in the contex t of an IA are often not availab l e fo r l egisl at ive measures; an d
— potential enforcement costs and administrative burden
re s u l t i n g f ro m E u ro p e a n l e g i s l a t i o n a re n o t a l w ay s s u f f i cient l y quant ified. The SCM is rarely used to q uantify po tent ial administ rat ive b urden s.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
48
R e c o m m e n d at i o n 2
81
See Court’s response to the
Commission’s communication
T he Commission should enhance the presentation of impac t
ass e ssm e nt re p o r t s an d i t s co nte nt by :
‘Reforming the budget, changing
Europe’; ECA opinion No 1/2010
‘Improving the financial
—preparing IA repor ts in a way that facilitates the comparison of alternative options in terms of their es timate d im p a c t s by imp rov in g th e quanti f i c ati o n an d m o n e tis ati o n
o f imp a c t s an d th e p re s e nt ati o n o f quali t ati ve an al y sis;
— d e v e l o p i n g a s t r a t e g y t o i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y o f d a t a
av a i l a b l e f o r I A , t a k i n g i n t o a cco u n t t h e s p e c i f i c s i t u a ti o ns in in di v i du al M e m b e r St ate s;
—p u t ti n g m o r e e m p h asis o n i m p l e m e nt ati o n asp e c t s a n d
making more use of ex post evaluations of implementation of EU legislation as an input for the IA process;
an d
—a n a l y s i n g t h e e n f o r c e m e n t c o s t s o f i t s l e g i s l a t i v e p r o ­
p os als in m o re d e t ail an d w h e re a dminis tr ati ve b ur d e ns
are quantif ied consistently using the Standard Cost
­M o d e l .
Impact
assessment in the
EU
suppor t for decision-making
institutions: an effec tive
87. The Cour t considers that the Commission should give due con-
sideration to the pr inciples of clar it y of objec tives, simplification, realism, transparenc y and accountabilit y when designing
new and revising existing inter ventions 81 . On balance, the audit
has shown that, par ticularly in recent years, IA has been effective in suppor ting decision-mak ing within the EU institutions.
The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission may
wish to consider the findings and recommendations set out in
t h i s re p o r t w h e n re v i s i n g t h e i r i n te r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a gre e m e n t s
on ‘ b et ter reg u l at io n’ and a ‘common approac h to IA’. Th is will
also provide an oppor tunity to take account of the changes
resulting from the Lisbon Treat y that came into force on 1 D e ce m b e r 2 0 0 9 , s u c h a s t h e g e n e ra l i s e d r i g h t o f i n i t i a t i ve fo r a
gro u p o f M e m b e r St ate s a n d t h e ro l e o f n at i o n a l p a r l i a m e nt s
i n EU decisio n-mak ing.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
management of the European Union
budget: risks and challenges’.
49
This repor t was adopted by the Cour t of Auditors in Luxembourg
at its meeting of 19 M ay 2010.
Fo r th e Co u r t o f Au d ito r s
Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
Presi d e nt
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
50
ANNE x I
COM PARISON OF S PECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION ’S SYSTEM WITH
IA SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE
European
Commission
Germany
(federal level)
France
Always
Always
For major regulation
For major regulation
Always
In some cases
Other non-regulatory initiatives
Yes
No
No
Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory
proposals*
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Cost: quantitative assessment*
In some cases
Always
For major regulation
Benefits: quantitative assessment*
In some cases
In some cases
For major regulation
Yes
Yes
Yes
External to the administration
No
Yes (only admin. burden)
No
Can prompt IA work
No
No
No
Can block regulatory proposals*
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Scope of IA system
Legislative proposals*
Implementing measures*
Analysis of impacts
Integrated approach to economic, social and
environmental impacts
Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative
burden*
Quality control body
Publication of IA work
List of forthcoming IAs
Interim IA documents
Final IA reports
Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted
impacts of regulations*
No
In some cases
No
Always
Always
No
No
Yes
No
* Sources: OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory management systems’, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country
analysis.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
51
ANNE x I
COM PARISON OF S PECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION ’S SYSTEM WITH
IA SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States
(federal level)
Legislative proposals*
For major regulation
Always
No
Implementing measures*
For major regulation
Always
For major regulation
Other non-regulatory initiatives
No
Yes
No
Clear threshold for applying IA to new regulatory
proposals*
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Cost: quantitative assessment*
Always
Always
For major regulation
Benefits: quantitative assessment*
Always
Always
For major regulation
Yes
Yes
No
Scope of IA system
Analysis of impacts
Integrated approach to economic, social and
environmental impacts
Use of Standard Cost Model (SCM) for administrative
burden*
Quality control body
External to the administration
Yes (only admin. burden) Yes (only admin. burden)
No
Can prompt IA work
No
No
Yes
Can block regulatory proposals*
No
Yes
Yes
No
Always
Always
Publication of IA work
List of forthcoming IAs
Interim IA documents
Final IA reports
Ex post comparisons of the actual vs predicted
impacts of regulations*
No
Always
Always
In some cases
Always
Always
No
Yes
Yes
* Sources: OECD, ‘Indicators of regulatory management systems’, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 report; additional ECA country
analysis.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
52
ANNE x II
AUDIT A PPROACH AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION METHODS
I d e n t i f y i n g t h e au d i t s u b j e c t a n d p l a n n i n g t h e au d i t f i e l d w o r k
1. The European Cour t of Auditors identified in November 2007, in its annual work programme
for 2008, t he ‘ B et ter reg u l at ion’ programme an d impac t assessments as a relevant a ud i t
subjec t 1 . I n M ay and June 2008 a preliminar y study was conduc ted which deter mined the
s cop e o f t his audit. The au dit fieldwor k was c ar r ied out bet ween O c tober 2 0 0 8 an d J ul y
2009, b ased o n a sp ecific audit plan n in g memoran dum an d eviden ce collec tion pla n.
O v e r v i e w o f e v i d e n c e co l l e c t i o n m e t h o d s u t i l i s e d d u r i n g t h e
au d i t
2. F i r s t , t h e a u d i t t e a m r e v i e w e d r e l e v a n t p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s , a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e s o f t h e
European institutions (Commission, EP, Council), the OECD, the M ember States and countries outside the EU (USA, Australia), previous evaluations of the Commission’s IA system 2 ,
studies and academic literature in the fields of ‘B etter R egulation’ and regulator y impac t
a n al ysis 3 and p ar t icip ated in con feren ces related to th e subj ec t 4 .
3. M oreover, t he au dit wo r k co mpr ised th e followin g five wor k pack ages:
— a co mp ar iso n o f t he Co mmission’s IA system with systems elsewh ere ( WP 1 ) ;
— a quantitative analysis of the extent to which Commission initiatives during the period
a u d i te d h a d b e e n s u b j e c t to I A , a n d h ow t h e s e I As h a d b e e n u s e d by t h e Eu ro p e a n
Par l iament and t he Co u ncil dur in g th e legislative procedure ( WP 2 ) ;
— a ‘s c o r e c a r d ’ a n a l y s i s o f a s a m p l e o f I A r e p o r t s t o v e r i f y w h e t h e r t h e C o m m i s s i o n
had car r ied o u t it s assessments in accordan ce with its own inter n al procedure s a nd
methodological guidance, together with an ‘in- depth’ review of a sample of I A repor ts
( WP 3);
— enquiries with people involved in per for ming, reviewing and using the Commission’s
IAs b o t h w it hin and o u t sid e th e Commission ( WP 4 ) ; an d
— sur veys among members of Council work ing par ties and the Direc tors and Exper ts of
B et ter R eg ul at io n ( WP 5).
4. D e tail ed info r mat io n o n t he content of th e five wor k pack ages is provided h ereaf te r.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
53
ANNE x II
WP 1 — I n t e r n a t i o n a l
comparison
S p e c i f i c a s p e c t s o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A s ys te m we re co m p a re d to a p p ro a c h e s fo l l owe d
e l s e w h e r e o n t h e b a s i s o f p u b l i c l y a v a i l a b l e d o c u m e n t a t i o n ( s u c h a s OECD d o c u m e n t a t i o n 5 , a c a d e m i c l i t e r a t u r e a n d c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d i e s b y b o d i e s r e s p o n s i b l e fo r ‘ b e t t e r
re g u l at io n’ in t he M emb er St ates 6 or cofun ded by th e European Commission 7 .
Corroborative evidence was gained through countr y visits to the USA and seven EU M ember States (B elgium, G er many, France, the Nether lands, Por tugal, Sweden and the United
K i n g do m).
WP 2 — Q u a n t i t a t i v e
analysis
A n a n a l ys i s o f t h e cove ra g e o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A s ys te m a s a w h o l e to ve r i f y to w h a t
ex tent imp ac t assessment s we re applied to Commission in itiatives publish ed dur ing t he
p e r i o d a u d i t e d a n d t h e i t e m s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e C LWPs . Fo r t h i s p u r p o s e , a d a t a b a s e o f
a l mo st 5 000 Co mmissio n initiatives was establish ed an d an alysed.
Th e au dit team al so assessed th e ex tent to wh ich th e EP an d th e Coun cil used th e Com mission’s IAs, on the basis of the publicly available documentation of the t wo institutions
( s u ch as meet ing ag endas, min utes, referen ces in resolution s, etc.) .
M o re o ve r, t h e a u d i t c o m p r i s e d a c o m p a r a t i ve a n a l y s i s o f t h e s c o p e a n d n u m b e r o f I A s
a n d ret ro sp ec t ive eval u at io ns un der tak en in 2 0 0 8 .
WP 3 — ‘S c o r e c a r d ’
a n a l ys i s a n d ‘i n - d e p t h’ rev i ew
Th e ‘s co re ca rd an al ys is’ wa s ca r r ie d ou t for a ll I A re po r ts p rod uced by fi ve d irec to rate s general: Energy and Transpor t (DG TREN) 8 ; Regional Polic y (DG REGIO); Employment, Social
Af f airs and Equ al Op p o r t u nit ies ( DG EMPL ) ; R esearch ( DG RTD) ; I n for mation S ociet y a nd
M e d i a ( D G I N F SO ) . T h i s c o r re s p o n d s t o 1 1 5 ( o u t o f a t o t a l o f 4 0 4 ) I A re p o r t s p u b l i s h e d
b e t ween 2003 and 2008.
Th e scorecard was established on the basis of the Commission’s IA guidelines, and to o k
a cco unt o f t he requ irement s applic able at th e date of public ation of th e IA repor t 9 . The
c h e c k l i s t s u s e d b y t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m NAO i n a s i m i l a r e xe rc i s e re l a t e d t o t h e U n i t e d
K i n g d o m i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s y s t e m 10 a n d t h o s e u s e d b y a p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e
Commission’s I A system 11 were taken into consideration for the preparation of the score card. Fur ther questions such as cer tain aspec ts related to the I mpac t Assessment B oard ’s
q u a l it y co nt ro l were added.
I n a ddit io n, an in- dep t h review was car r ied out to obser ve th e complete life - c yc le f rom
t h e l e gi s l a t i ve p ro p o s a l to t h e m o n i to r i n g a n d e v a l u a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s a n d p ro gra m m e s.
The sample included not only recent cases (in par ticular to assess the IAB ’s role), but also
re p o r t s d at i n g b a c k t wo ye a r s o r m o re. I t i n c l u d e d b o t h re p o r t s fo r p ro p o s a l s w i t h a n d
without budgetar y implications and IAs related to directly applicable legislative pro­p osals
(decisions and regulations) and those requir ing transposition and implementation in the
M e m b er St ates (direc t ives) 1 2 .
Some additional cases from outside the remit of the five DGs in the sample were included
i n t his review to o b t ain a co r roborative view on th e situation ac ross th e Commission a s
a w ho l e.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
54
ANNE x II
WP 4 — I n t e r v i e w s
D ur ing the audit, around 190 people were inter viewed to obtain their views on the Comm i ssio n’s IA system.
Th e s e we re p ro d u ce r s (Co m m i s s i o n s t a f f i n t h e p o l i c y u n i t s re s p o n s i b l e, t h e I A s u p p o r t
u n it s in t he DGs, and t he S ecretar iat G en eral) an d users within the E U I nstitutions ( s u c h
as staff from the Commissioners’ private offices, MEPs, EP and Council staff, and staff from
t h e Per manent R ep resent at io ns) .
They also included representatives from international and national organisations involved
in ‘better regulation’ (such as the OECD and agencies in the Member States), other bodies
a n d gro u p s (such as t he ‘ H ig h Level Group of Nation al R egulator y Exper ts’ an d th e ‘ H i gh
Le vel Exp er t Gro u p o n Administrative Burden s’) .
In addition, inter views were carried out with representatives of stakeholder organisations:
B u s i n e s s Eu ro p e, Eu ro c h a m b e r s, Eu ro p e a n Co n s u m e r s’ O rg a n i s at i o n , Eu ro p e a n E nv i ro n m e n t a l B u r e a u , E u r o p e a n Fe d e r a t i o n s f o r Tr a n s p o r t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t , E u r o p e a n Tr a d e
U n io n Federat io n, S o cial Fo ru m, Wor ld Wide Fun d for Nature ( WWF) .
WP 5 — S u r v e y s
Two s u r ve y s we re p e r fo r m e d d u r i n g t h i s a u d i t : t h e f i r s t , i n M ay / J u n e 2 0 0 9 , a m o n g t h e
m e mb ers o f seven Co uncil wor k in g par ties on social question s, in for mation societ y, e ne rgy, t ransp o r t (mar it ime t ran spor t; lan d tran spor t; tran spor t, inter modal questions a nd
networks), research, struc tural ac tions, and better regulation, concerning their perception
a n d use of the Commission’s impac t assessments; the second, among the delegatio n s o f
25 M ember States and Nor way at the Direc tors and Exper ts of B etter R egulation meeting
of 3 –5 June 2009 in S andhamn ( Sweden ) .
I n t e r n at i o n a l e x p e r t s i n t h e f i e l d o f ‘ B e t t e r R e g u l at i o n ’
p r o v i d e d s u pp o r t t h r o u g h o u t t h e au d i t
Advisor y
5. panel
An adviso r y p anel o f exp er t s in th e field of ‘ better regulation’ an d impac t assessme nt i n
N ove m b e r 2 0 0 8 a n d M a rc h 2 0 0 9 w a s s e t u p to p rov i d e s u p p o r t t h ro u g h o u t t h e a u d i t 1 3 .
Th e exp e r t s’ mai n in p ut was to contr ibute to th e Cour t ’s met h odo logy an d an a lysi s a nd
endorse the overall structure for presenting the audit obser vations, conclusions and
re co mmendat io ns set o ut in th is repor t.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
55
ANNE x II
6. I n par t icul ar, t he exp er t s p rovided th eir in put to th e specific ation of robust audit s t a nd a rd s a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h i s re p o r t a re m a d e. Th e s e s t a n d a rd s we re d e veloped on the basis of a meta-analysis of documents issued by the M andelker n Group 14 ,
the OECD 15 and the Commission 16 and of agreements between the latter and the European
Pa r l i a m e n t a n d t h e C o u n c i l 1 7 t o s p e c i f y a s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s ( o r ‘g o o d p r a c t i c e s’ ) w h i c h
i l l u st rate w hat sho ul d b e exp ec ted from an effec tive impac t assessment system 1 8 .
Fo c u s
7. group
An i m p o r t a nt s te p i n t h i s a u d i t wa s t h e re v i e w o f t h e p re l i m i n a r y a u d i t f i n d i n g s d u r i n g
a s e r i e s o f f a c i l i t ate d fo c u s gro u p s f ro m 8 to 1 0 J u l y 2 0 0 9 i n Lu xe m b o u rg w i t h i nte r n a tional exper ts in the field of ‘ better regulation’ and IA. These focus groups constituted an
i nte gra l p a r t o f t h e a u d i t p ro ce s s a n d we re d e s i gn e d to p rov i d e a fo r u m fo r t h e c r i t i c a l
r e v i e w o f t h e C o u r t ’s p r e l i m i n a r y c o n c l u s i o n s a n d p o s s i b l e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s. E x p e r t s
i n c l u d e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e OECD, t h e Wo r l d B a n k , a g e n c i e s i n c h a r g e o f I A w o r k
( o r q u a l i t y c o n t r o l ) i n t h e U SA a n d s e v e r a l E U M e m b e r S t a t e s , n a t i o n a l a u d i t b o d i e s ,
b u t a l s o a c a d e m i c s, e va l u ato r s o f I A s ys te m s a n d re p re s e nt at i ve s o f t h e ‘ Hi g h Le ve l E xp e r t Gro up o n Administ rat ive Burden s’. R epresentatives of th e Commission par tic ip ate d
a s o b s e r v e r s . M o r e i n fo r m a t i o n o n t h e p u r p o s e o f f o c u s g r o u p s i s p r o v i d e d h e r e a f t e r.
What
is a focus group?
Focus groups bring together a group of individuals with a common interest in the form of
a collec tive inter view or a struc tured discussion in which open- ended, but focused, quest i ons are asked so as to t r ig g er a debate amon gst th e par ticipants. Th ey are par tic ul a r l y
well-suited for obtaining a number of views on the same subjec t. The use of focus groups
is common in marketing and, increasingly, in politics and opinion polling in order to elicit
responses and reveal new perspec tives from a group of people held to be representative
of co nsu mers o r t arg et gro ups. Th e par ticipants n eed to h ave an interest in th e sub j e c t
a n d i d e a l l y t h e re s h o u l d b e a m i x t u re o f b a c k g ro u n d s. D u r i n g a fo c u s g ro u p s e s s i o n i t
c a n b e e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e d i s c u s s i o n w i l l s t i m u l a t e v i e w s t h a t , a t f i r s t , a re d i ve r s e a n d
e ve n d i ve rg e nt. O n e k e y ro l e o f t h e f a c i l i t ato r i s t h e re fo re to m a n a g e t h e d i s c u s s i o n i n
s u c h a w ay t h a t c o m m o n g ro u n d c a n b e fo u n d a n d v i e w s b e g i n t o c o nve rg e, a l t h o u g h
f u ll co nsensu s o f views is no t th e aim of a foc us group discussion .
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
56
ANNE x II
8. The exper ts were asked by ex ternal facilitators to scrutinise the audit work : the standards
t h at were ap p l ied, t he fac t s an d fin din gs repor ted, th e con c lusion s drawn from th is a nd,
finally, whether the recommendations would help to mitigate the challenges obser ved by
the audit. Their review significantly contributed to the quality, relevance and legitimac y of
the overall outcome of the audit process. A repor t summar ising the proceedings and the
outcome of the discussions by the ex ter nal facilitators was submitted to all par ticipants,
a n d t he Co mmissio n, in Au g ust 2 0 0 9 1 9 .
1
ECA, 2008 Annual Work Programme, p. 3; ECA, Annual Activity Report, p. 35.
2
The Evaluation Partnership, Evaluation of the Commission’s impact assessment system,
Contract SG-02/2006 on behalf of the European Commission, April 2007.
3
Radaelli, C., ‘What does regulatory impact assessment mean in Europe?’, AEI-Brookings Joint
Center for Regulatory Studies, USA, January 2005; Rowe, G. C., ‘Tools for the control of political and
administrative agents: impact assessment and administrative governance in the European Union‘
in Hoffman, H. C. H. and Turk, A. H. (eds), EU administrative governance, Edward Elgar Publishing,
p. 452, 2006; Renda, A., Impact assessment in the EU — The state of the art and the art of the state,
CEPS Paperbacks, 2006; Mather, G. and Vibert, F., Evaluating better regulation: building the system, City
Research Series, European Policy Forum, London, 2006; Wiener, J. B., ‘Better regulation in Europe’, in
Current Legal Problems, 2006, Vol. 56; Kirkpatrick, C., Parker, D. et al., ‘Regulatory impact assessment.
Towards better regulation?’, The CRC Series on Competition, Regulation and Development, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc., Massachusetts, USA, 2007; Meuwese, A. C. M., ‘Impact assessment in EU
lawmaking’, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands, 2008; Open Europe, ‘Out of control?
Measuring a decade of EU regulation’, 2009; Hertin, J. et al., ‘The production and use of knowledge
in regulatory impact assessment — An empirical analysis’ in Forest Policy and Economics, 2009;
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS); Policy-making in the EU — Achievements, challenges and
proposals for reform, 2009.
4
International Regulatory Reform Conference, Berlin, November 2008; Zwischenbilanz Nationaler
Normenkontrollrat (NKR), Berlin, May 2009.
5
OECD, Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) inventory, April 2004; OECD, Regulatory impact analysis — Best
practices in EU countries, 1997; OECD, ‘APEC–OECD integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft,
2005; OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems, December 2009.
6
DEBR, Report to the ministers responsible for public administration in the EU Member States on the
progress of the implementation of the Mandelkern Report’s action plan on better regulation, Athens,
2003; EU Directors of Better Regulation Group, A comparative analysis of regulatory impact assessment
in 10 EU countries, May 2004.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
57
ANNE x II
Notes continued ...
7
European Network for Better Regulation (ENBR) (see http://www.enbr.org/home.php); Evaluating
integrated impact assessments (EVIA) (see http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/evia/contact.htm). The EVIA
project was funded by the Commission under FP6. It was coordinated by the Freie Universität Berlin and
the research partners were the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), the Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Avanzi, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), the
Centre for Regulatory Governance at the University of Exeter and the Institute for Environmental Studies
at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
8
This DG was split into the Energy DG (DG ENER) and the Mobility and Transport DG (DG MOVE) on
­17 February 2010.
9
European Commission, Communication on ‘Impact assessment’ — 2002 IA guidelines, COM(2002) 276
final; European Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791 (unless otherwise stated);
European Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92.
10
National Audit Office (NAO), ‘Delivering high quality impact assessments’, 30.1.2009, pp. 22–23.
11
Evaluation Partnership Ltd (TEP), ‘Evaluation of the Commission’s impact assessment system’,
April 2007.
12
Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund,
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (SEC(2004) 924); Decision of the European Parliament
and of the Council concerning the seventh framework programme of the European Community for
research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007–2013) (SEC(2005) 430);
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing
a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (SEC(2005) 1514); Regulation on ‘roaming’
(SEC(2006) 925); Decision on effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to
meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (SEC(2008) 85/3);
Proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective
of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (SEC(2008) 2180 and SEC(2008) 2181/2).
13
The members of the advisory panel were Erwin de Pue (Director-General of Dienst voor de
Administratieve Vereenvoudiging), Gisela Färber (Member of the German ‘Normenkontrollrat’ and
Professor at DHV Speyer), Klaus Jacob (EVIA Project Coordinator at FU Berlin), Claudio Radaelli (University
of Exeter), Alberto Alemanno (Law clerk at the European Court of Justice and Professor at HEC Paris) and
Jeroen Nijland (Director-General of the Regulatory Reform Group).
14
Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation, Final report, 13 November 2001.
15
OECD (1997) Regulatory impact analysis — Best practices in EU countries, Paris; OECD (2005) APEC-OECD
integrated checklist on regulatory reform: final draft, OECD, Paris.
16
European Commission, Communication on ‘Impact assessment’, COM(2002) 276 final; European
Commission, Communication on ‘Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue —
General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’,
COM(2002) 704 final; Information note from the President to the Commission, Enhancing
quality support and control for Commission impact assessments, The Impact Assessment Board,
14 November 2006; European Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2005) 791; European
Commission, ‘Impact assessment guidelines’, SEC(2009) 92.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
58
ANNE x II
Notes continued ...
17
Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01); Interinstitutional common
approach to impact assessment (IA), 2005.
18
These ‘good practices’ were first discussed at the second meeting of the ‘Expert Advisory Panel’
on 27 March 2009 and subsequently reviewed by the participants of the ‘Focus Group’ meeting
from 8 to 10 July 2009.
19
CM International, Meirion Thomas, Report on the focus groups held in support of audit task 08TR2203,
August 2009.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
59
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE EURO P EAN PARLIAMENT
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
60
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EURO P EAN UNION
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
61
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EURO P EAN UNION
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
62
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
Impact assessment (IA) is a key tool for
ensuring better regulation. In recent
ye a r s, t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s a i m h a s b e e n to
e n s u re t h a t i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t b e co m e s
f i r m l y e m b e d d e d i n t h e wo r k i n g c u l t u re
of the institution and is delivering the
e x p e c t e d r e s u l t s . T h e C o u r t ’s f i n d i n g s
encourage the Commission to continue
with its approach and its recommendat i o n s w i l l h e l p to s t re n g t h e n f u r t h e r t h e
effectiveness of the impact assessment
system.
INTRODUCTION
5 . S eco nd ind ent
Th e re a re fe w n a t i o n a l I A s y s t e m s w h i c h
have the same level of ambition and
scope as the system that the Commission
has put in place.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
63
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
OBSERVATIONS
26. First indent
Analysis of an increasingly wide range of
polic y alter natives: The Commission welcomes the finding that the number of
alternative options presented in the IA
repor ts increased and believes that the
p a r t i c u l a r l y p o s i t i ve d e ve l o p m e nt i n t h e
quality of the IAs prepared in 2007 and
2 0 0 8 c a n b e at t r i b u te d to t h e s u cce s s f u l
quality control and suppor t function of
the I mpac t Assessment Board (IAB).
40.
The Commission recalls that in the
common approach to impac t assessment,
the European Parliament and Council
have accepted the responsibilit y to carr y
out impact assessments on substantive
amendments they make. They can also
invite the Commission to do so.
41.
The Commission agrees that national
impact assessments could effectively
c o m p l e m e n t t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s i m p a c t
assessments. They could inform
discussions in Council on proposed
changes to Commission proposals, and
could also help Member States with
transposition and enforcement issues.
44.
The Commission does not use quantifiable indicators for a number of reas o n s . Fi r s t , t h e i n t e g r a t e d a p p r o a c h t o
I A re q u i re s t h a t e ve n w h e n i m p a c t s c a n not be easily quantified, or are limited
in size, they should be analysed if they
have impor tant repercussions for specific
groups, sectors or regions. Second, it
wo u l d b e d i f f i c u l t to d e ve l o p e x a n te c r i ter ia to reflec t the diversit y of initiatives,
b o t h l e g i s l a t i v e a n d n o n - l e g i s l a t i v e , fo r
w h i c h I As a re c a r r i e d o u t. Th i rd, i t wo u l d
b e d i f f i c u l t to m a k e q u a n t i t a t i ve t h re s h o l d s o p e r a t i o n a l, b e c a u s e t h e n e c e s s a r y
d at a o f te n o n l y b e co m e ava i l a b l e d u r i n g
th e process of doin g th e IA.
49.
T h e Co m m i s s i o n i s o f t h e v i e w t h a t c o n sulting on the draft IA repor t is not the
only way of ensuring that the analysis
is complete, consistent and accurate.
Co m m i s s i o n s e r v i ce s co n s u l t a n d i n fo r m
stakeholders at different stages of IA
wo r k u s i n g ro a d m a p s, s p e c i f i c c o n s u l t a t i o n d o c u m e nt s / i n s t r u m e nt s ( e. g. re s u l t s
of external studies) or Green or White
Paper s to en sure th at th is is th e c ase.
50.
I n t h e U K a n d U SA ( fo r t h e l at te r o n l y fo r
i m p l e m e nt i n g m e a s u re s ) d ra f t I A re p o r t s
are published alongside a draf t proposal.
This practice is comparable to the EU
s i t u at i o n w h e re t h e Co m m i s s i o n m a k e s a
proposal (it does not adopt a law), and
the proposal and the IA repor t are publ i s h e d a n d t ra n s m i t te d to t h e l e gi s l ato r s
( C o u n c i l a n d E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t ) . T h e
public is able to engage in the ongoing
d e b ate gi ve n t h at b o t h t h e p ro p o s a l a n d
impac t assessment an alysis are public.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
64
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
53.
The Commission is aware that further
effor ts by the Commission ser vices are
n e ce s s a r y to e n s u re p ro p e r p l a n n i n g a n d
sufficient time for the IAB scrutiny pro ­
ce s s.
55.
The role of the IAB has been further
s t re n g t h e n e d i n t h e Pre s i d e n t ’s c o m m u n i c a t i o n o n t h e wo r k i n g m e t h o d s o f t h e
Commission 2010–2014 (C(2010)1100
o f 1 0 . 2 . 2 0 1 0 ) , w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t ‘i n p r i n ciple, the positive assessment of the
Impact Assessment Board is required
b e fo re a n i n t e r - s e r v i c e c o n s u l t a t i o n c a n
b e la u nched ’.
60.
Impact assessments are a set of logical
steps from problem definition to identification of the most appropriate form
of policy action, and the guidelines
e n c o u r a g e s e r v i c e s t o p re s e n t t h i s l o g i c
a s c l e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e u s i n g, fo r ex a m p l e,
problem trees, tables, maps and other
i l l u s t rat ive techniques.
61.
The Commission considers that it is not
always possible or propor tionate to quant i f y or mo net ise imp ac t s.
62.
The Commission is aware that it can facilitate fur ther the use of impac t assessments
by ensuring that they are clearly presented and accessible. The measures it has
t a k e n a r e d e s c r i b e d i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n’s
reply to recommendation 2, first indent).
63.
The Commission is convinced that an
integrated approach to impact assessment, ensuring that all relevant econ o m i c, s o c i a l a n d e nv i ro n m e nt a l i m p a c t s
in terms of benefits and costs are anal ys e d a n d p re s e nte d to g e t h e r i n o n e s i n gle document, is the most appropriate
way o f a r r i v i n g at a b a l a n ce d a s s e s s m e nt
o f a ny p o te nt i a l l e gi s l at i ve o r n o n - l e gi s lative in itiative.
64.
Th e Co m m i s s i o n s t re s s e s t h at i t d o e s n o t
ex p e c t t h e d e p t h o f a n a l ys i s o f t h e t h re e
pillars always to be the same in an impac t
a s s e s s m e n t . Fo r e x a m p l e, w h e re t h e re i s
n o e nv i ro n m e nt a l i m p a c t, t h e n n o e nv i r­
onmental analysis will be repor ted in the
I A r e p o r t . T h e ‘a s y m m e t r y ’ a s t h e C o u r t
ter ms it, is th erefore n or mal.
68.
The principle of proportionate analysis applies to the entire IA process. The
guidelines make clear that not all options
h a ve t o b e a s s e s s e d w i t h t h e s a m e l e ve l
of detail and that a screening process can
b e a p p l i e d . Fo r e x a m p l e , i n s o m e c a s e s
the scope of realistic/feasible (‘high
level ’) options is limited because of limits
to EU competence, existing legislation,
re s u l t s o f c a s e - l a w, o r l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s.
Such ‘high level’ options can be elimin­
a te d a t a n e a r l y s t a g e o f I A wo r k a s l o n g
as th is is don e tran sparently.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
65
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
70.
G i ve n t h e w i d e s co p e o f Co m m i s s i o n I As
a n d t h e f a c t t h a t i n fo r m a t i o n n e e d s a r e
o f t e n s p e c i f i c a n d o n e - o f f, i t w i l l o f t e n
re m a i n t h e c a s e t h at i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e to
use bodies such as Eurostat for ad hoc
s ol u t i o ns fo r dat a needs.
71.
The Commission would welcome more
a c t i ve p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f M e m b e r S t a te s i n
t h e Co m m i s s i o n’s I A d at a co l l e c t i o n co n sultation processes, and more active IA
wo r k b y M e m b e r S t a t e s t o fe e d i n t o a n d
c o m p l e m e n t t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s o w n I A
re p or ts.
72.
Co m m i s s i o n i m p a c t a s s e s s m e nt s a d d re s s
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d e n fo rc e m e n t i s s u e s
a t a g e n e r a l l e ve l d u r i n g t h e I A p ro c e s s,
ex a m i n i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r w h at h a s wo r k e d
i n t h e p a s t , w h a t f a i l e d o r w h a t re q u i re s
correction. The concrete operational
t ra n s p o s i t i o n a n d e n fo rce m e nt wo r k c a n
only be based on the adopted proposal
i t s e lf, and no t o n t he imp ac t assessment.
The Commission has developed specific
i n s t r u m ent s fo r t his p ur p o se.
73.
The Commission recalls that implementation plans are a separate instrument to
impact assessment and are not part of
the IA system. The IA guidelines do not
require impac t assessments to include an
i m p le m ent at io n p l an.
75.
The Commission believes that national
IAs for EU initiatives could provide a
valuable source of information on how
best to implement legislation in specific national contexts, and of reliable
e s t i m a t e s fo r t h e p o t e n t i a l e n fo rc e m e n t
costs of a legislative proposal. It thus
would welcome if M ember States were to
prepare such impact assessments more
systematic ally.
77.
Th e Co m m i s s i o n’s e x p o s t e va l u at i o n s ys t e m h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y fo c u s e d o n s p e n d ing programmes, and this is different
from the approach to impac t assessment.
This situation has its origins in the fact
that there is a legal obligation to carr y
out ex p ost evaluations only for spending
p ro g r a m m e m e a s u re s ( s e e A r t . 2 7 o f t h e
Fi n a n c i a l R e g u l a t i o n ) . T h e m e a s u r e s t h e
Commission has already taken to focus
its evaluation wor k in creasin gly on existi n g l e gi s l at i o n a re d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Co m mission comments to recommendation 2,
th ird in dent.
78.
The principle of propor tionate analysis
applies to the assessment of enforcement
costs. These need only be assessed if they
a re re l e v a n t , a n d q u a n t i f i e d o n l y i f t h e y
are significant. A Commission analysis
o f t h e 2 0 0 8 I A c a s e s s h ows t h a t t h i s w a s
done. As EU rules are in general imple mented and enforced by Member State
author ities, precise estimates of enforce m e nt co s t s d e p e n d o n e a c h n at i o n a l s ys te m . E n fo rce m e nt co s t s c a n n o t t h e re fo re
a l ways b e a s s e s s e d co m p re h e n s i ve l y i n a
Commission IA.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
66
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
83.
In the common approach to impact
assessment, the Council and European
Parliament accepted that it is their
responsibility to assess the impacts of
t h e s u b s t a nt i ve a m e n d m e nt s t h e y m a k e.
The Commission confirmed in the second and third strategic reviews of better regulation, that it will respond construc tively and on a case -by- case basis to
re q u e s t s f ro m Co u n c i l a n d Pa r l i a m e nt to
e x p a n d o n a s p e c t s o f i t s o r i gi n a l i m p a c t
a s s e s sment s.
The Commission underlines that its
impact assessments, even when not
updated by Council and European Parl i a m e n t , c o ve r e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e
f i n a l l e g a l a c t a n d t h e re fo re re m a i n re l e ­
va nt.
8 4 . Fi rs t inde nt
The Commission indicated in the roadmaps attached to its work programme
which initiatives would have an IA and
explained why for certain work pro gra m m e p ro p o sal s no IA was car r ied out.
8 4 . S econd ind ent
T h e Co m m i s s i o n i s o f t h e v i e w t h a t c o n sulting on the draft IA repor t is not the
only way of ensuring that the analysis
is complete, consistent and accurate.
Co m m i s s i o n s e r v i ce s co n s u l t a n d i n fo r m
stakeholders at different stages of IA
wo r k u s i n g ro a d m a p s, s p e c i f i c c o n s u l t a t i o n d o c u m e nt s / i n s t r u m e nt s ( e. g. re s u l t s
of external studies) or Green or White
Paper s to en sure th at th is is th e c ase.
Recommend at io n 1 , first ind ent
The Commission has already identified
t wo ways o f e n h a n c i n g t h e t ra n s p a re n c y
o f t h e I A p l a n n i n g p ro c e s s fo r t h e o t h e r
institutions, Member States and stake h o l d e r s . Fi r s t , i n t h e 2 0 0 9 I A g u i d e l i n e s
t h e Co m m i s s i o n h a s m a d e a co m m i t m e nt
to prepare roadmaps for all proposals
l i k e l y t o h ave s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t s / p o l i c y
i m p l i c a t i o n s, a n d n o t o n l y fo r t h e i n i t i a tives contained in its annual work pro gra m m e. I f a n i m p a c t a s s e s s m e nt i s co n sidered not to be necessar y, the roadmap
w i l l e x p l a i n w hy. As h a s a l ways b e e n t h e
c a s e, t h e s e ro a d m a p s w i l l b e p u b l i s h e d.
Second, following comments from the
E u r o p e a n Pa r l i a m e n t i n i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n
to the review of the common approach,
the Commission will publish shor tly af ter
the work programme is adopted (normally at the beginning of each year) a
f u l l l i s t o f u p co m i n g i n i t i at i ve s fo r w h i c h
I As a re p l a n n e d fo r t h at ye a r. Th i s w i l l b e
updated regular ly.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
67
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
R eco m m e ndation 1, s e cond ind ent
Th e Co m m i s s i o n’s p u b l i c co n s u l t at i o n o n
t h e d ra f t I A g u i d e l i n e s i n 2 0 0 8 i n d i c ate d
t h at t his is an area where a large number
o f s t a k e h o l d e r s s aw a n e e d fo r i m p rove ment. Consequently in the 2009 IA guide l i n e s t h e g u i d a n c e a n d re q u i re m e n t s fo r
consultations have been strengthened. As
explained above, the Commission will not
produce roadmaps for all proposals likely
to h ave s i gn i f i c a nt i m p a c t s / p o l i c y i m p l i c at i o n s. Th e 2 0 0 9 I A g u i d e l i n e s s t i p u l­ ate
t h at Co mmissio n ser vices sho ul d en courage stakeholders to examine roadmaps
a n d gi ve e a r l y fe e d b a c k o n t h e p l a n s fo r
i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t s. Th e n e w g u i d e l i n e s
also introduced the requirement that
s t a k e h o l d e r s s h o u l d b e a b l e to co m m e nt
on a clear problem definition, subsidiarity analysis, description of the possible options and their impacts. The IAB
w i l l co nt i n u e to c h e c k s ys te m at i c a l l y t h e
q u a l i t y o f t h e re p o r t i n g o f t h e re s u l t s o f
the stakeholder consultation. The proactive use of roadmaps available for all
impor tant Commission initiatives and the
s t re n g t h e n e d re q u i re m e nt s fo r co n s u l t a tion together provide for improved transp a re n c y a n d s t a k e h o l d e r i nvo l ve m e n t . A
co n s u l t a t i o n o n a d r a f t ve r s i o n o f t h e I A
re p or t is t herefo re su p er fl u o u s.
Recommend at io n 1 , t hird ind ent
The Commission is aware that further
effor ts by the Commission ser vices are
n e ce s s a r y to e n s u re p ro p e r p l a n n i n g a n d
sufficient time for the IAB scrutiny pro ­
c e s s. T h e 2 0 0 9 I A g u i d e l i n e s h a v e i n t r o duced new requirements on this. The
guidelines also make clear that sufficient
time needs to be foreseen in case the IAB
asks for fur ther work or for the revised
i m p a c t a s s e s s m e nt to b e re s u b m i t te d. I n
the communication on the wor k ing M etho d s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n fo r 2 0 1 0 – 1 4 i t i s
explicitly highlighted that the planning
of adoptions should take full account of
t h e n e e d to co m p l e te t h e i m p a c t a s s e s s ment process in good time and that in
p r i n c i p l e t h e p o s i t i ve a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e
IAB is required before an inter-ser vice
con sultation can be laun ch ed 1 .
8 6 . First ind ent
Th e Co m m i s s i o n i s o f t h e v i e w t h at co m parisons between options are possible
and that the idea of inter vention logic
is intrinsic to the impact assessment
p ro ce s s. Th e Co m m i s s i o n i s n e ve r t h e l e s s
aware of the need to continue to improve
the presentation of its reasoning, and
the 2009 Guidelines encourage services
to present the logic of the analysis as
clearly as possible using, for example,
problem trees, tables, maps and other
illustrative tec h n iques.
1
C(2010)1100 — Communication from the President — The
working methods of the Commission 2010–2014, page 7.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
68
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
8 6 . S econd inde nt
The Commission agrees that difficulties
in quantifying and monetising impacts
can be traced back to the availability of
data and that this is an issue which is a
c h a l l e n g e fo r a l l a d v a n ce d I A s ys te m s. I t
recalls that the of ten case -specific nature
o f t h e i n fo r m at i o n n e e d e d a n d t h e l i k e l y
administrative burdens limit the scope
for creating more per manent data collec t i on s truc t ures.
R eco m m e ndation 2, f irs t inde nt
The 2009 IA guidelines have further
strengthened the guidance on how to
compare options, in par ticular by pro­
v i d i n g m o re co n c re te g u i d a n ce o n co s t –
b e n e f i t a n d m u l t i - c r i te r i a a n a l ys i s. H owever, quantification is not always feasible
o r p ro por tionate.
R eco m m e ndation 2, s e cond ind ent
Th e Co m m i s s i o n’s ex p e r i e n ce s h ows t h at
the kind of data needed for IAs is often
ve r y s p e c i f i c, a n d i s n o t re a d i l y ava i l a b l e
from statistical offices or government
a u t h o r i t i e s. I t w i l l n e ve r t h e l e s s co n s i d e r
w h e t h e r p r a c t i c a l w a y s e x i s t t o i m p ro ve
d at a ava i l a b i l i t y a n d m o re g e n e ra l l y h ow
to encourage Member State authorities
to b e m o re a c t i ve i n p rov i d i n g n e ce s s a r y
i n for m at io n.
The Commission is already developing cooperation with the Committee of
R e gi o n s to u s e t h e i r n e t wo r k o f co n s u l ti n g l o c a l a n d re g i o n a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n t h e
f ra m e wo r k o f IA wo r k .
Recommend at io n 2 , t hird ind ent
The revised impac t assessment guidelines
of January 2009 put increased emphasis on the need to take implementation
i s s u e s i n to a cco u n t w h e n p re p a r i n g n e w
legislation, while recognising that impac t
assessments can address implementation
a n d e n fo r c e m e n t i s s u e s o n l y a t a r a t h e r
general level.
The Commission identified the need to do
ex post evaluation for legislation in the
communication on ‘Responding to strate gi c n e e d s : re i n fo rc i n g t h e u s e o f e v a l u a tion’ (SEC(2007) 213 of 21 Februar y 2007).
S i n c e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s
impact assessment system and evaluation system have been placed together
in the Better Regulation Directorate of
the Secretariat-General to ensure that
the strategic and operational synergies between the two systems are fully
e x p l o i t e d. Pre s i d e n t B a r ro s o a n n o u n c e d
his intention in the political guidelines
for the new Commission of September
2009 to intensify effor ts on ex p ost evaluation. The aim is to check whether the
Commission’s proposals deliver what they
promise and to enable the Commission
to revise and correct them where they
fail to work as expected. Links between
impac t assessment and ex post evaluation
w i l l b e re i­ n fo rce d. Th e e va l u at i o n s h o u l d
be a realit y check for the previous impac t
assessment.
Over time a full ex post evaluation will
become a requirement for the revision of
impor tant legislative ac ts.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
69
REPLY OF THE
COMMISSION
R eco m m e ndation 2, four th indent
To e n s u r e f u r t h e r i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e
analysis of administrative burdens, the
Commission has placed the administrat i ve b u rd e n ex p e r t s a l o n g s i d e t h e te a m s
dealing with impact assessment and ex
p o s t e va l u at i o n . Th i s w i l l e n s u re t h at t h e
exper tise which has been developed in
implementing the administrative burd e n p ro gra m m e w i l l b e at t h e d i re c t d i s posal of the impact assessment system.
Th e Co m m i s s i o n w i l l p rov i d e a h e l p d e s k
function advising on all questions/issues
re lat i ng to t he assessment o f adm in istrative burdens, including appropriate use
of t h e St andard Co st M o del.
87.
T h e C o m m i s s i o n w e l c o m e s t h e C o u r t ’s
f i n d i n g t hat IA has b een effec t ive in sup porting decision-making within the EU
i n s t i t ut io ns p ar t icul ar l y in recent year s.
The European Parliament and Council have acknowledged in the common
approach to impact assessment that it
i s t h e i r re s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a s s e s s a ny s u b stantive amendments they put for ward.
The Commission launched the review
of the common approach at technical
level in April 2008 to identify concrete
ways in which implementation could be
a p p roved.
Special Report No 3/2010 – Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 3/2010
Impact assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2010 — 69 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9207-729-7
doi:10.2865/14964
How to obtain EU publications
Free publications:
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•
a t the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
•
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports
of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
•
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
qj-aB-10-003-en-c
Impac t assessment Is one oF the cornerstones oF the
e U r o p e a n co m m I s s I o n ’s w o r K I n t h e F I e L d o F B e t t e r
reGULatIon. In thIs report, thIs coUrt eXamInes whether
t h e co m m I s s I o n p r e pa r e d I m pa c t a s s e s s m e n t s w h e n
FormULatInG Its proposaLs, whe ther the commIssIon’s
Impac t assessment procedUres approprIateLy sUpported
t h e d e v e Lo pm e n t o F I t s I n I t I at I v e s , a n d w h e t h e r t h e
content and presentatIon oF the commIssIon’s Impac t
assessment reports was approprIate.
eUropean coUrt oF aUdItors