The Commissions Impact Assessment System Making a difference

1
The Commissions Impact Assessment System
Making a difference

• Annika Kroon
• European Commission
• Secretariat General
• Better Regulation and Impact Assessment Unit

2
Overview

• What is an Impact Assessment (IA)
• Within the context of Better Regulation
• The Commission IA system
• What makes it effective
• The role of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB)
• Final remarks

3
Better Regulation applies to the whole circle
of policy life
Simplification
EffectiveImplementation
Reduction of administrative burdens
Effective transposition
Impact assessment
Quality of legal texts
4
What is IA?

• Tool to prepare new proposals
• Ex-ante, forward looking
• Evidence for decision makers
• Process ensuring transparency of policy
  development and stakeholders input
• What it is not?
• Not a bureaucratic exercise
• Not a substitute for political judgment and
  decision making

5
What makes the IA process effective?

• Targets right initiatives
• Provides timely input for policy development
• Incorporates input from stakeholders
• Analyses all relevant impacts
• Quality is controlled
• Process is transparent
• Political decision makers consider IAs

6
Effectiveness of IA System Targeting right
initiatives

• More than 500 IA reports since 2003
• Selection of initiatives for IAs no strict
  ex-ante criteria, case by case screening
• Covers all Commission proposals with significant
  impacts
• Until 2008 focus on CLWP
• Since 2009 - focus on legislative proposals
  (CLWP, catalogue and comitology items)

7
Number of IAs
8
Number of IAs by policy areas
9
Effectiveness of IA System Providing timely
input

• IA work takes 18-24 months to complete, service
  level planning has become more effective
• External stakeholders involved at early stage
• Coherence ensured within the Commission
• Planning coordination at corporate level
• Inter-service steering groups
• IA and policy proposal are drafted by same people
  - an interactive process
• IA accompanies proposal in inter-service
  consultation and College level discussions

10
Effectiveness of IA System Incorporating
stakeholders input

• Consulting stakeholders has always been a
  cornerstone of IA approach
• Reinforced by 2009 IA Guidelines
• Consult on problem definition, subsidiarity
  analysis, options, impacts
• At least 8 weeks more when sensitive
• Involvement of all relevant stakeholders
• Present the different positions in IA

11
Effectiveness of IA System Analysing all
relevant impacts

• Integrated approach - all benefits and costs
  economic, social and environmental impacts
• Principle of proportionate analysis - the depth
  of analysis depends on significance of expected
  impact
• 2009 guidelines added further highlights -
  fundamental rights, SMEs, consumers,
  national/regional aspects
• Quantification desirable, but not at any cost

12
Effectiveness of IA System Quality control

• Quality is assured by
• The IA Guidelines
• Training and awareness rising activities
• Quality is supervised by
• IA support units in services
• Stakeholders scrutiny at different stages
• IA inter-service steering groups
• Director Generals (requirement to sign-off)
• Quality is assessed by
• The Impact Assessment Board

13
Effectiveness of IA System Ensuring
transparency

• Publication of Commissions work programme with
  IA references (as from 2010)
• Publication of roadmaps (as from 2010 for all
  initiatives with IA)
• Established standards and culture of stakeholder
  consultation
• Publication of IA reports
• Publication of IAB opinions

14
Effectiveness of IA System Use of IAs in
political decision making

• IAs have strong political backing, quoted
• during the inter-service consultations
• in discussion at Cabinet and College level
• More and more often used in political discussions
  by legislators Council and European Parliament

15
Commissions IA System Impact Assessment Board
(1)

• An independent body within the Commission,
  launched by President Barroso
• Operational since 2007
• Responsible for quality control and quality
  support to services
• Has assessed the quality of more than 300 IAs

16
Commissions IA System Impact Assessment
Board (2)

• Composition of Board mirrors the three pillars of
  sustainable development
• Alexander Italianer (SG), Chair
• Gert-Jan Koopman (ECFIN)
• Xavier Prats Monne (EMPL)
• John Farnell (ENTR)
• Timo Mäkelä (ENV)

17
Commissions IA System Impact Assessment
Board (3)

• IAB can
• Indicate which proposals require IA (prompt
  letters)
• Give opinion on quality of IA and recommendations
  for improvement
• Require resubmission of draft IA
• Use internal/external expertise on a case by case
  basis
• IAB has no formal right of veto.

18
Final remarks Key Characteristics

• The Commissions IA system
• ensures the integrated approach
• is ambitious compared to many national systems
• has an independent quality control
• is very transparent
• However, there is always room for improvement

19
Final remarks Continuous need for improvement

• for example
• better planning of IA work
• sounder data and evidence base
• more robust qualitative and quantitative methods
• more focus on social impacts
• better inter-institutional cooperation
• linking ex ante and ex post evaluation
• In addition, the Commission is called ...

20
Final remarks External calls

• ... to
• make some impacts more equal than others (SMEs,
  gender equality, administrative burdens)
• fit in additional elements (e.g. implementation
  plans)
• be even more transparent (consult on draft IAs)

21
The very final remark

• We should seek for a reasonablebalance to avoid
  an overload of the system which couldhinder its
  functionality

22
Further information

• IA Website
• http//ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm

23
Evolution of the IA system

• 2002 Better Regulation Action Plan
• 2003 First IA Guidelines, first IA reports
• 2005 Revised IA Guidelines
• 2006 Launch of the IA Board
• 2007 External evaluation of IA system
• 2008 Audit by European Court of Auditors
  (results in 2010)
• 2009 Revised IA guidelines