Transcript Advocating for public health at EU level Tamsin Rose

Protecting social values
through Better Regulation?
Florence Berteletti-Kemp, Tamsin Rose
European Public Health Alliance
Social Platform Conference, Brussels, 5 December 2006
What is Better Regulation?






BR is a mechanism to explore different ways of governance
and particularly the role of government legislation.
“Regulating only when necessary and doing so in a lighttouch way that is proportionate to risk;
setting exacting targets for reducing the cost of
administering regulations;
rationalising the inspection and enforcement arrangements
for both business and the public sector.
Better regulation promotes efficiency, productivity and value for
money. Proportionate regulation and inspection arrangements
can help drive up standards and deliver better outcomes on the
ground whether that be in the form of improving public
services, a better environment for business, or driving forward
economic reform in Europe “
UK Cabinet Office, Better Regulation Executive
Tests for a proposed regulation





Proportionality: Regulators should intervene only
when necessary. Remedies should be appropriate to
the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised.
Accountability: Regulators should be able to justify
decisions and be subject to public scrutiny.
Consistency: Government rules and standards must
be joined up and implemented fairly.
Transparency: Regulators should be open, and keep
regulations simple and user-friendly.
Targeting: Regulation should be focused on the
problem and minimise side-effects. (UK government)
What arguments were made for BR?



Not all EU laws are implemented equally across the EU.
Not all EU laws are monitored or enforced adequately.
Not all EU laws are clear, workable or meet their objectives.
Therefore a new approach was needed:

Solutions proposed must be realistic, achievable and
technically sound.

Policy must be based on evidence, science and risk.

Deliver appropriate conditions under which citizens and
businesses can maximise their potential.

Tackle failures in implementation and compliance.

Designed for the complex and interpendent policy
environment.
The Lisbon link to BR



2000, Lisbon agenda to make “the EU the world's most
dynamic, competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010”
The Council asked the Commission "to set out a strategy
for further co-ordinated action to simplify the regulatory
environment". It stressed that "the speed of technological
change may require new and more flexible regulatory
approaches in the future”.
2001, Commission Communication on “Simplifying and
Improving the Regulatory Environment." Calls for at least a
25 % reduction in the overall volume of European
regulation (measured via number of printed pages of laws)
and the withdrawal of legislative proposals that had not
made progress in the Parliament/Council for some time.
What is the background for BR?



The Mandelkern report, 11/2001 was closely based on OECD
BR processes. It emphasized the economic significance of
regulatory policy, suggesting that regulatory costs are 2 - 5 % of
the European GDP. It proposes the 3 ‘A’s:
An appropriate regulation
 Check alternatives to regulation
 Permanent search for simplification
An accepted regulation
 An early consultation of stakeholders
 A good access to regulation
An applied regulation
 Assess effects ex ante and ex post
 Monitor implementation closely
An acceleration of BR initiatives

2001 White paper on Governance
2002 Commission action plan on better-lawmaking,minimum
standards on consultation
2003 Inter-Institutional Agreement on better law-making
2004 ‘Doorn’ report (Parliament) on administrative burden
2005 Commission Guidelines on Impact Assessment
2005 Commission Communication on BR
2005 Public Register of EU Expert Groups
2006 Revision and update of Comitology procedures
2006 Commission review of Impact Assessment
2006 Commission Strategic Review of BR

2006 Green paper on European Transparency Initiative









Has the EU got the balance right?


“We should also set out to show to our citizens that the
Single Market is not more important than its people – it
is their servant, and making it work is our shared
investment in the future. This brings me to a second
point. Replies to the public consultation show a general
appreciation for what the Single Market has achieved.
But some say we have been too focused on the market
and not enough on people. There is also a feeling that
the high level achievements haven't always trickled
down to benefit citizens.”
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, 29/11/2006
Basic components of BR









Identification of policy goals and needs
Stakeholder identification and consultation at all
stages
Transparency and access to documents
Impact assessment
Evaluation culture and strategies to enhance it
Use of scientific evidence, risk assessment
Clear incentives for actors
Capacity building (training, systems & resources)
Solution must be proportionate to the problem and
to the administrative cost to implement and
administer
From Impact Assessment to Better
Regulation




IA was a key theme in 1990s. Highly technical,
drawing on economic and environmental modelling,
led by academics. Strong focus on environmental
impacts of large scale infrastructure projects.
BR for 2000s. Precaution to be balanced with
proportion and risk based approach. Less is more.
IA = lifecycle approach, empirical, triple bottom line
BR = Less, cheaper, more efficient, burden on
business. One in, one out principle
CSR fits into the BR process



Two viewpoints on CSR
“Operating a business in a manner that meets or
exceeds the ethical, legal, commercial and public
expectations that society has of business. Social
Responsibility is a guiding principle for every decision
made and in every area of a business." (Business for
Social Responsibility, USA)
“Corporate social responsibility is the continuing
commitment by business to behave ethically and
contribute to economic development while improving
the quality of life of the workforce and their families as
well as of the local community and society at large.”
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Reservations about BR





BR seems to be interpreted as less or no regulation.
There is an increased reliance on self-regulation by
industry to deliver public policy objectives.
BR can contribute to democracy in terms of consultation
and transparency but not sufficient in itself.
Success requires leadership, continuous effort, supportive
infrastructure and good organisation.
Active and engaged civil society is essential to effective
regulation.
BR is heavily focused on business - costs to companies,
impact on their growth and competitiveness.
Does the practice of BR live up to
the theory?






Transparency - what is the process, what is the
timeframe, what is the expected outcome, what
opportunities exist to participate?
Ownership - who sets the agenda, selects the
stakeholders?
Equity and redressing the balance of power
Six Presidency initiative gives business a clearer,
strategic voice in the EU legislative process.
Technology Platforms, Cars 21, G10 all designed to be
multi-stakeholder processes but participation by civil
society is very limited.
Stakeholders required to work together but there is a lack
of policy coherence across the European Commission.
Some key society challenges:





Getting the right balance between individual freedoms,
rights and responsibilities and wider public interest.
The Social Contract - principle of shared risks among
population but equal stake in society and governance.
Political and economic inequalities have grown in most
European countries. Globalisation acts as an amplifier?
Changing perceptions of government (too big, interfering,
self-interested politicians). Disengagement from political
processes, low trust and engagement.
Growth of civil society and blurring of lines between notfor-profit concept and commercial interests.
The role of the NGO sector in BR








Opportunities:
Large consumer and producer of goods and services
Source of expertise and knowledge for impact
assessments
Experience of OMC and other non-legislative
instruments
Representative voice of community groups
Threats:
Danger of instrumentalisation and assisting in regulatory
capture.
Pressure to ‘compromise’ and find consensus with
bodies with different or opposing values and policy aims.
Results of a study on BR and the environment
(IEEP, Nov 2005)


Commission Guidelines on IA are not fully respected by Commission
DGs;
The assessment and quantification of economic impacts has been
emphasized at the expense of environmental, social and international
impacts, limiting the contribution of IA to more coherent EU policies;

costs of legislation are assessed far more than the benefits;

short-term considerations overshadow the long-term.


Most significantly, there have been attempts to re-tool the IA system as
an instrument exclusively to promote competitiveness.
It needs to embrace, for example, more coherent regulation which
integrates the environment into sectoral policies; better implementation
of existing legislation; and, stronger, more balanced stakeholder and
citizen participation.
Results of a study on alternatives to Regulation
(BRC, Dec 2005)




EU classic prescriptive rules and regulations stipulate both the
objectives and how they should be achieved. This approach can stifle
innovation and impose unnecessary burdens and costs.
Alternatives to classic regulation are advantages for policy makers
trying to address fast moving and complex issues. For example,
alternatives are generally quicker to implement, especially where
the organisations and businesses likely to be affected are involved.
EU regulation can be a long and difficult without an effective fast-track
mechanism. As alternatives tend to have less prescriptive detail written
into statute, they are inherently more flexible and can be amended or
simplified more easily in light of changing needs or circumstances.
Classic regulation has no guarantee of compliance outcomes.
Asking the right questions for BR







What is the real issue that needs to be addressed?
What are the public policy objectives for this issue? Whose
evidence is used?
Who leads and therefore manages and defines the process?
Which stakeholders are involved and in whose name do they
speak and who are they accountable to?
Is the process open for input by anyone and is it transparent?
Where will the benefits accrue and will they be shared equally in
an unequal society?
Who pays the greatest price?
European Public Health Alliance
39-41 Rue d’Arlon
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 2 230 30 56
Fax: +32 2 233 38 80
[email protected]
www.epha.org