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

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)

Regulatory Proposal

Screening RIA

Info

rmal

Con

sultat

ion

Significant impacts?

No Yes

Full RIA

Form

al Con

sultation

Screening RIA to Government with Memorandum

Full RIA to Government with Memorandum

The RIA Process

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 strategyo European Governanceo 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

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

Input w as sought atappropriate points

of time during the IAprocess.

There w as enoughtime and

opportunities toprovide input.

The input w assought through

appropriatechannels.

It w as clear w hatinput w as being

sought.

Contributions w ereacknow ledged and

a summarypresented in the IA

report.

Don't know

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

‘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 QUALITYLimit scope of application to proposals with most significant impacts

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 & GuidanceProvide 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

QuestionsQuestions