Framework for Assessing, Selecting and Implementing Instruments for Government Action Instrument Cho

1
Framework for Assessing, Selecting and
Implementing Instruments for Government Action
(Instrument Choice)
John Giraldez Regulatory Affairs Sector Treasury
Board of Canada Secretariat, Ottawa Telephone
[phone] Giraldez.John_at_tbs-sct.gc.ca Improv
ing the Regulatory Climate in British Columbia
Making a Difference British Columbia, May 1, 2007

2
What are instruments for government action?

• Broadly defined as means by which policy
  objectives are pursued
• More importantly instruments are modes of
  governance
• Instruments set up relationships between
  governments and citizens
• Can range from coerciveness to voluntary
  acceptance

3
Looking at the full range of instruments

• Why is the full range of instruments not
  considered?
• Regulatory culture
• Varying levels of capacity to do analysis and
  experience with different instruments
• Uncertainty with no-regulatory options
• Emphasis on appropriate instrument or set of
  instruments
• Not always an either/or situation (i.e.,
  regulation or alternatives to regulation)
• Often a question of finding the right balance
• Focus on Results

4
Optimizing the instrument mix
Formal Command Control
Laws
Legal Agreements Contracts
Fiscal Instruments
Letters of Commitment / Intent
MOUs
CodesStandards
Voluntary Initiatives
Informal, Flexible/ Voluntary
Moral Suasion / Persuasion
Promotion / Information
5
Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation
(April 1, 2007)

• 4.2 Identifying and assessing public policy
  issues
• Analyze the policy issue and how it changes over
  time
• Review evidence-based assessments of other
  governments
• Describe the scientific and empirical evidence
  and precaution
• Best Practice Independent review of risk
  assessments
• 4.2 Setting public policy objectives
• Set measurable objectives
• Linkages with enabling legislation and government
  priorities
• Develop and use performance indicators
• 4.4 Select the appropriate mix of government
  instruments
• Identify points for intervention, institutions
  and parties
• Appropriate instruments or mix to address policy
  objectives
• Proportional to the degree and type of risk
• Not unduly affect areas it was not designed to
  address

6
Why an analytical framework for instrument
choice?

• Framework intended to address the following
  issues
• Support the CDSR
• Transparency in decision making
• Provide an explicit rationale for instrument
  choices
• Greater cohesion in decision making
• Provide a disciplined approach in assessing and
  selecting instruments
• Improve Outcomes
• Appropriate mix of instruments can lead to better
  results
• Enhance the Challenge Function
• Provide an explicit set of questions to assist
  and review instrument choices

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Case study road safety

• In-Vehicle Telematics
• Threat to road safety
• Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act
• Instrument Choice

15
Instruments available to Transport Canada

• Voluntary
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Advisory
• Regulations
• Economic instruments
• Education

16
Steps in the process

• Step I ID and Define the Problem
• Step II Set Objectives
• Step III ID Potential Points for Intervention
• Step IV Identify Actors/Institutions Plan
  Consultations
• Step V Consider and Select Instruments
• Step VI Set Performance Indicators
• Step VII Implementation

17
Step I identify and define the problem issues,
risks, causal factors

• Q1. What are the main economic, social and/or
  environmental manifestations of the problem?
  What have been the historical trends? What are
  the future risks?
• Q2. What is the causal chain between these
  issues? Is it possible to identify a root cause
  or factors? What is/are the root factors?
• Q3. Assess the importance of the risks, based on
  probability and consequence
• Q4. What issues are considered most important (in
  terms of stated government policy/ objectives,
  international obligations and in the view of
  various stakeholders)?

18
Step I identify and define the problem issues,
risks, causal factors (Continued)

• Q5. Have any governments already intervened?
  What have been the results?
• Q6. Describe the problem in one sentence (this
  will help confirm the key issue(s) and promote a
  common understanding)
• Q7. Label (or re-label) the problem with 1-4
  words (this will provide an appropriate title for
  the file and will help communicate an appropriate
  perspective on the problem)

19
Step 1 ID and define the problem

• Safety (crashes, deaths, injuries and property
  damage due to driver distraction in vehicles)
• Encouraging Economic Development and Innovation
• Improving Quality of Life for Drivers
• Restricting Choice

20
Step II set objective (s)

• Q1. Does the Government have to intervene? What
  are the consequences of not intervening?
• Q2. What are the ultimate goals and desired
  outcomes? Which ones are likely to be achievable
  at a reasonable cost?

21
Step 2 set objectives

• The evidence that these devices increase the risk
  of crashes. Drivers who use these devices do not
  only endanger themselves, they also put others at
  risk. If the government does not intervene, the
  risks of current devices will remain and further
  risks will be created as new devices are
  introduced.
• Maintain or reduce the number of crashes, deaths,
  injuries and property damage involving driver
  distraction attributable to telematics devices.
• Transport Canada has jurisdiction over devices
  offered as original vehicle equipment through the
  Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The provinces
  have jurisdiction over the after-market
  installations.

22
Step III identify potential points for
intervention

• Q1. What changes in technology or behaviour are
  needed to achieve the goals? Which are likely to
  have the greatest impact? Which are likely to be
  easiest to achieve?
• Q2. What is the sequence of events or series of
  causes and effects that determine the outcomes
  (refer to Step I Q2)?
• Q3. At what point in this sequence are changes
  likely to be most effective?

23
Step 3 ID potential points for intervention

• Improve design of devices (this could be done by
  providing detailed specifications or by
  standardizing safety considerations in the design
  process)
• Improve integration of devices into vehicles
  (e.g. by establishing safety performance criteria
  using standardized test methods)
• Improve Driver behaviour (through awareness and
  education, or deterrence)

24
Step IV identify actors/institutions that can
have an effect on risks or objectives

• Q1. Is the issue one where government can act
  alone?
• Q2. Is the issue one where external actors can
  act alone with some influence from government or
  is the issue one where a mixed governance
  approach is required, that is government and
  external actors need to act together?
• Q3. What external actors operate in the same
  fields? E.g., NGOs, policy networks,
  institutions, business, P/T and local govts.,
  other federal actors, bilateral actors
  (Canada-U.S.), International actors (E.U., U.N.),
  Global Actors (WTO, IMF)?
• Q4. Are the external actors potential
  collaborators? Can they regulate themselves? Can
  their self-regulatory abilities be enhanced by
  means such as capacity and institution building?

25
Step IV identify actors/institutions that can
have an effect on risks or objectives(continued)

• Q5. What is their potential contribution to
  addressing the problem?
• Q6. Can new actors be found?
• Q7. If creating new markets, can new actors be
  encouraged to play a role such as in trading
  permits?

26
Step 4 identify actors/institutions plan
consultations

• Device Manufacturers
• Vehicle Manufacturers
• Road Safety Groups
• Telecommunication Service Providers
• Provincial/Territorial Governments
• Automobile Clubs and Associations
• Vehicle Insurers
• Road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians)

27
Consultation

• Q1. Which actors and institutions can influence
  the problem or are affected by the problem?
• Q2. Will certain actors and institutions benefit
  more than others?
• Q3. What is the level of knowledge, understanding
  and expertise of the actors and institutions what
  is their capacity to engage in the instrument
  choice process and provide information?
• Q4. Are the concerns and risks identified by the
  actors and institutions integrated into the
  assessment and selection criteria for
  instruments?

28
Consultation (Continued)

• Q5. What is the goal of the consultation (e.g.,
  to inform, to receive information, to build
  support, to achieve consensus)?
• Q6. How will diverging points of views be
  addressed and how will the various actors and
  institutions be advised?
• Q7. Will there be difficult choices or trade
  offs?

29
Consultations case study

• Device Manufacturers
• Vehicle Manufacturers
• Road Safety Groups
• Telecommunication Service Providers
• Provincial/Territorial Governments
• Automobile Clubs and Associations
• Vehicle Insurers
• Road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians)

30
Step 5 consider and select instruments

.
31
Step VI set performance indicators

• Ultimate Goals, Desired Outcome Indicator
• Intermediate Goals, Desired Outcome Indicator
• Immediate Changes in Behaviour/Technology,
  Desired Outcome Indicator

32
Step 6 set performance indicators

• Number of deaths, injuries and amount of property
  damage
• Maintain or reduce the number of crashes
  involving driver distraction attributable to
  telematics devices -Number of crashes
• Reduced distraction associated with installed
  devices - Maximum time demand of each device
• Improved behaviour of drivers - of accidents
  where distraction is a factor (may not be
  measurable)

33
Step VII implementation

• Q1. What are the gaps between the current
  approach and selected instruments? What tools
  and capabilities are needed to close the gap?
• Q2. What resources are needed?
• Q3. How will performance indicators be monitored?
  How will data be gathered? How will
  effectiveness be evaluated?
• Q4. What will be the Plan?

34
Step 7 implementation

• Standards and/or guidelines for design process
• Negotiate MOU
• Complete process in two years.
• TC (Road Safety) to lead

35
Final key messages

• Early in the policy development process
• Government cant deal with every situation
• Broad range of instruments
• Mix of instruments
• Regulation only after considering full range of
  instruments
• Capacity, tools and governance systems
• Culture change

36

• Thank You
• www.regulation.gc.ca

John Giraldez Regulatory Affairs Sector Treasury
Board of Canada Secretariat, Ottawa Telephone
[phone] Giraldez.John_at_tbs-sct.gc.ca