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
Regulatory Proposal

Consultation
Screening RIA

Informal

Significant impacts?

Consultation
Formal
No Yes Full RIA

Screening RIA to Government Full RIA to Government with

with Memorandum Memorandum
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 IA Quality Assessments 20
Operational Units
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 EU Interview Programme II 5
and members of Cabinets
External experts / consultants IA Case Studies 6
European Parliament and Council EU Interview Programme II 8
Representatives
IA Case Studies 23
External Stakeholders (Civil IA Case Studies 18
Society & MS)
Total Interviews 119

Surveys
Commission officials in EC Officials’ Survey 89
Operational Units
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
 ‘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
 … ‘TEP’ call to add QUALITY
Limit 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 & 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