Transcript Regional Capacity-Building Seminar - Some Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments OECD Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey 20 November 2007 Tom Ferris Economist Ireland.

Regional Capacity-Building
Seminar - Some Lessons
from Regulatory Impact
Assessments
OECD Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey
20 November 2007
Tom Ferris
Economist
Ireland
Four Themes of
Presentation
1. Why have RIA?
2. How to “Control Use of Plastic
Bags”? – a practical case-study
3. What has been EU’s experiences of
RIA? – consultants’ report (The
Evaluation Partnership – “TEP”)
4. Which Critical Success Factors?
THEME 1: RIA’s many roles







It clarifyies justification for Regulation
It assesses alternatives (taxes, grants or
fines)
It identifies costs and benefits
It facilitaties consultation
It ensures a full awareness of what
enforcement will be required
It alerts those who will be affected, as to
compliance costs
It helps to ensure that there are “no
surprises”
And RIA Can Help to…

Capture the relevant costs and benefits
of regulations

Identify the scope for ‘no policy change’

Show Alternative forms of regulation

Show Alternatives to regulation


Highlight proposals that merit
examination
But, recognise that proportionality must
be taken into account
“One glove does not fit all”
For example, two-phased approach
used in Ireland:

Screening RIA


Applied to all primary legislation involving changes to
regulatory framework, significant Statutory Instruments
and draft EU Directives and EU Regulations
Full RIA

Only conducted where Screening RIA suggests significant
impacts or significant costs (initial cost of €10 million or
cumulative costs of €50 million over 10 years)
The RIA Process
Informal
Consultation
Regulatory Proposal
Screening RIA
Significant impacts?
Screening RIA to Government
with Memorandum
Yes
Full RIA
Full RIA to Government with
Memorandum
Formal
Consultation
No
THEME 2 : Curbing the
over-use of Plastic
Solutions to the Over-use
of Plastic Bags in Ireland

Solution 1: Take no action

Solution 2: Voluntary reduction in
plastic bag consumption
Solution 3: Set-up a “Plastic-bag Police
Team” to take action, or
Solution 4: Impose a levy on plastic bags


Levy on Plastic Bags




Irish Government introduced levy in
March 2002
Levy at 15 cent per plastic bag
Pre-levy: 328 bags per person p.a.
Post-levy: 21 bags per person p.a.
and a decrease of over
95% in plastic bag litter
Levy into Environment Fund

The provision of civic recycling facilities and
bring centres

Enforcement of the Waste Management Acts
North / south waste initiatives such as the
award winning all-island scheme for the
Management of waste fridges and freezers



Waste awareness campaigns and
"Green Schools" initiative
Reinforcing Impact of Levy

Use of bags increasing – from 21 (2002) to 30
(2006)

Therefore Government decided levy increase
From 15 cent to 22 cent per bag on 1 July 2007



If usage back to 21 bags per person p.a., an
extra €0.5 mn to €0.75 mn levy fund revenue
If usage down to 20 bags per person p.a., a
fall of between €0.5 mn to €0.75 mn levy funds
Local Authority Enforcement






visiting retail outlets and talking to retailers
carrying out initial spot checks
ensuring that exemptions are not being abused
checking tills to confirm that customers are
being charged the 22 cent levy for plastic bags
taking appropriate action where it has been
established that the levy has not been charged
to customers – e.g. issuing letter informing
retailer of obligations under the regulations
and follow up where necessary
following up on any complaints from the public
Revenue Commissioners’
Role (‘Tax-collectors’)






Identification of accountable persons
Processing returns and payments received from
accountable persons
Carrying out verification checks relating to the
accuracy of returns
Pursuing accountable persons who fail to
deliver returns and payments within the
statutory time limits
Making estimates where returns are not
received or where liability is under stated
Dealing with appeals against estimates raised
Alternatives to using
Plastic Bags



Alternatives to disposable plastic
shopping bags, such as reusable
boxes, and reusable bags are now
available in many shops
In the grocery sector, substitution of
reusable “long life” shopping bags for
disposable plastic bags
Plastic shopping bags designed for
re-use are exempt from the levy
provided that the retailer charges at
least 70 cent for the bag
• It is not possible to eliminate most plastic from
daily life
• But it makes sense for our health to reduce use of
plastic
• It also makes sense to to reduce use of plastic so
as to help protect our environment
• Overall reduction in plastic usage, proper
management for disposal and public awareness
can make a real difference
THEME 3 : TEP (“The Evaluation
Partnership”) and EU Assessment

Over past 5 years, Impact Assessment has been
one of the key elements in the EU’s Commission’s
Better Regulation policy to deliver on:
o
Lisbon strategy
o
European Governance
o
Sustainable Development

Introduced 2003; transition period in 2003-2004

2003-2006: 195 Commission impact assessments


IA Guidelines (first version 2003, updated
2005/2006 and continuously being improved
In August 2005, ‘TEP’ engaged to undertake a
comprehensive evaluation of the IA Process
TEP: OVERVIEW
Stakeholder
Interviews
Number
Commission Officials in
Operational Units
IA Quality Assessments
20
IA Case Studies
18
Commission Officials in IA Units
EU Interview Programme I
13
EU Interview Programme II
4
IA Case Studies
4
Commission Senior Managers
and members of Cabinets
EU Interview Programme II
5
External experts / consultants
IA Case Studies
6
European Parliament and Council
Representatives
EU Interview Programme II
8
IA Case Studies
23
External Stakeholders (Civil
Society & MS)
IA Case Studies
18
Total
Interviews
119
Surveys
Commission officials in
Operational Units
EC Officials’ Survey
89
Commission Officials in IA Units
Information Request
21
External stakeholders
Stakeholder Consultation
118
Total
Survey responses
228
“Stakeholder Consultation” :
Responses to ‘TEP’
 …..In many cases, consultation carried out to the satisfaction of
stakeholders, and provided relevant and useful input for EU
 …..In some others, however, consultation organised in a manner and
timeframe that left stakeholders frustrated, and unlikely to have had
much of an effect on the IA
Stakeholder opinions on consultations
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Don't know
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Input w as sought at There w as enough
appropriate points
time and
of time during the IA
opportunities to
process.
provide input.
The input w as
sought through
appropriate
channels.
It w as clear w hat
input w as being
sought.
Contributions w ere
acknow ledged and
a summary
presented in the IA
report.
‘TEP’ Feed-back on
Stakeholders’ Views
‘TEP’ lists most frequently expressed criticisms by stakeholders:
•
More time: Sufficient time should be provided for responses
(eight weeks as an absolute minimum)
•
Earlier consultation: Stakeholders should be consulted as
early as possible in the IA process in order to ensure that
balanced, comprehensive and realistic IAs
•
Limit the use of online consultations and closed
questions: Many stakeholders feel that internet surveys tend to
be oversimplified
•
Balance and representativeness: More attention to the
weighting of responses (e.g. from organisations vs. individuals)
•
Transparency: Exact purpose and scope of the consultation
and the requested data should be made more explicit
•
Feedback and acknowledgment: Stakeholders often feel
they’re not adequately told about what happens to their input
‘TEP’: Three Key Objectives
for Successful Assessments
 .
1. Improve the quality of Commission proposals, in particular by

Facilitating a more systematic, coherent, analytical, open, and evidence-based approach to
policy design;

Providing a thorough, balanced and comprehensive analysis of likely social, economic and
environmental impacts.
2. Provide an effective aid to decision-making, in particular by

Providing policy makers with relevant and comprehensive information on the rationale behind
proposed interventions, and their likely impacts;

Enabling policy makers to assess trade-offs and compare different scenarios when deciding
on a specific course of action.
3. Serve as a valuable communication tool, in particular by

Fostering internal communication and ensuring early and effective co-ordination within the
Commission;

Enhancing external communication by making the policy development process more open
and transparent to external stakeholders.
Ultimately, the achievement of these key objectives should contribute to a better, simpler and
more consistent regulatory environment that helps the EU to meet the objectives of the Lisbon and
Sustainable Development Strategies.
… ‘TEP’ call to add QUALITY
Limit scope of application
significant impacts

to
proposals
with
most
Reduce number of IAs, by limiting the scope of application to
proposals that are likely to have the most significant impacts:
• All legislative initiatives in Commission’s Legislative Work Program
• Non-legislative Commission Annual Legislative and Work Programme
(CWLP) and other non-CLWP proposals (incl. comitology measures)
identified by Impact Assessment Board
Differentiate between different IA types/approaches

Maintain broad scope of application, but differentiate between different
types of IAs, and provide clear guidance on what’s expected of IAs

Operationalise the principle of proportionate analysis by defining broad
categories of IAs, and providing guidance on areas for differentiation
and customisation….”one glove does not fit all !”
…prepare for BETTER ‘IAs’
Harness the potential of Roadmaps; early consultation

DGs to launch IAs sufficiently early, especially on far-reaching proposals.

Develop stricter minimum standards and quality control mechanisms for
Roadmaps .

Ensure early circulation of Roadmaps to other DGs, and explore
possibilities for engaging external stakeholders & other EU institutions
Formalise early IA steps by means of a ‘scoping paper’

Require parts of IAs to be produced from very beginning of policy process.

Introduce an obligation to produce a document (scoping paper / initial IA)
as soon as the policy idea is generated, outlining the rationale, policy
alternatives and their likely impacts
De-couple the IA process from drafting of the proposal

Do not allow proposals to be drafted until the IA has been completed:
•
•
Produce IA before the initiative is included in Comm’s Leg/Work Prog.
Externalise the entire IA process to an expert body?
…encourage better IA work
by COMMISSION at all levels
Encourage DGs to further develop IA capacities

All DGs should assess and, where necessary, enhance their capacity to
provide operational staff with support in developing high-quality IAs

Require and encourage top-level sign-off / buy-in of IAs by Commissioners
Centralise quality control at SG and IA Board

Secretary General takes on the responsibilities of DG IA support functions,
becomes central service providing ongoing quality control before passing
IAs on to Impact AssessmentBoard for final quality check
Externalise (parts of) the quality control of IAs

Expand the IA Board to include external experts with full voting rights

Consult external stakeholders on draft final IA reports

Involve the European Court of Auditors in ex-post IA quality control

Create a new independent agency for quality control
…more Support & Guidance
Provide more / more relevant / more tailored IA training

Enhance practical usefulness of the IA Guidelines

Continue to improve methodologies:
• Lack of appropriate methodologies to assess certain types of
impacts, particularly social impacts
• Integrate/co-ordinate the efforts of all DGs and MSs; develop
guidance papers to assess impacts in particular fields

Address problems with availability of data:
• Comprehensive, reliable and comparable data is often not
easily available. Efforts to collect it are resource-intensive and
do not always produce the desired results
• Develop a more systematic, integrated approach to data
collection, involving DGs, Member States, stakeholder and
expert networks
‘TEP’: Some Key
Findings





IA Guidelines: extensive guidance, within
recognised international context
Some good IAs,but uneven implementation,
both in terms of scope and quality
Process to be helped with External evaluation
and creation of the Impact Assessment Board
Need to cover the entire regulatory cycle,
with Common approach across institutions
Ongoing dialogue a “must”, with
stakeholders, interest groups and scientific
community on system design and application
THEME 4: What are RIA’s Critical
Success Factors?

High level administrative and political support

Development of RIA network for sharing of experience
and best practice

Ongoing liaison with EU colleagues especially
Directorate for Better Regulation

‘Learning by doing’ – RIA very much an iterative
process

Awareness-raising and training very important

Ensure sufficient resources
Feedback and Review are
Critical for Successful RIAs

Give feedback to key players and those
who participate

Publish and acknowledge submissions
made (taking account of data protection
etc.)

Review the assessment processes on a
regular basis
Questions