Regional CapacityBuilding Seminar Some Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments

1
Regional Capacity-Building Seminar - Some
Lessons from Regulatory Impact Assessments

• OECD Seminar, Istanbul, Turkey
• 20 November 2007
• Tom Ferris
  Economist
• Ireland

2
Four Themes of Presentation

• Why have RIA?
• How to Control Use of Plastic Bags? a
  practical case-study
• What has been EUs experiences of RIA?
  consultants report (The Evaluation Partnership
  TEP)
• Which Critical Success Factors?

3
THEME 1 RIAs 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

4
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

5
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)

6
(No Transcript)
7
THEME 2 Curbing the over-use of Plastic
8
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

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15

• 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

16
THEME 3 TEP (The Evaluation Partnership) and
EU Assessment

• Over past 5 years, Impact Assessment has been one
  of the key elements in the EUs Commissions
  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

17
(No Transcript)
18
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

19
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 theyre not adequately told about what
  happens to their input

20
TEP Three Key Objectives for Successful
Assessments

• .

21
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 Commissions
  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 whats 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 !

22
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
  Comms Leg/Work Prog.
• Externalise the entire IA process to an expert
  body?

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
THEME 4 What are RIAs 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

27
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

28

• Questions