Administrative Requirements and Process Management Aspects of Law Approximation

1. Learning to build Europe This presentation is inspired by materials produced by T. Malterud and T. Henökl, EIPA Maastricht, Unit 2 Administrative Requirements and Process Management Aspects of Law Approximation by Peter Goldschmidt Director European Centre for Judges and Lawyers

2. Something you should know about EU Law Approximation: We are working on the border between National Interests, Policies and Administration and International Obligations

3. Starting Points • Approximating national law to that of the EU is, in itself, a project • The successful completion hereof requires • a clearly defined project • clearly defined objectives • a clear plan (who does what ? how ? & by when ?) • appropriate resources and dedicated management • Objectives of Session • To introduce Project Cycle Management methodologies as a law approximation management tool • To provide inspiration for tools and methodologies to be applied in order to improve the law approximation process

4. Defining the Project

5. Defining the Project • A Project is : • a series of actions/activities • aimed at bringing about clearly specified objectives • within a defined time-period, and • within a defined budget • A Project should also have • clearly identified stakeholders (primary target group, beneficiaries/subjects, indirectly affected parties, etc) • clearly defined co-ordination arrangements, manage-ment responsibilities, human and financial resources • a monitoring and evaluation system • an appropriate level of impact assessment, including financial and economical analysis, to ensure the project’s benefits will exceed its costs

6. Defining PCM

7. The Project Cycle Management approach highlights three main principles: • Decision-making criteria and procedures are defined for each phase (incl. key information requirements and quality assessment criteria) • The phases in the cycle are progressive : Each phase must be completed before the next can be dealt with successfully • New programming and project identification draws on the results of monitoring and evaluation as part of a structured process of feedback and institutional learning

8. The four phases of Project Management • Identification (analysis) • Formulation (project design - planning) • Roll-Out (implementation of plan) • Evaluation (assessment)

9. phase 1 identification phase

10. Project Cycle Management IDENTIFICATION PHASE • Identification of task • Stakeholder analysis (profile of the main players, incl. subjects, beneficiaries, interested 3rd parties, administra-tions & enforcement bodies, etc) • Problem analysis (profile of likely problems, incl. cause and effect relationships) • Analysis of objectives (will / can it lead to an improved situation in the future?) • Analysis of strategies (comparing different options to address a given situation)

11. Project Cycle Management IDENTIFICATION PHASE - Exercise • Identification of task, e.g.: (mutual) recognition of nurses educated in EU Member States • Stakeholder analysis (profile of the main players) • Problem analysis (profile of likely problems) • Analysis of objectives (will / can it lead to an improved situation in the future?) • Analysis of strategies (comparing different options)

12. phase 2 formulation phase

13. Project Cycle Management FORMULATION PHASE • The results of Phase 1 (analysis) are transcribed into a practical and operational plan ready to “roll-out” (= to be implemented) • How ? • A logframe matrix is prepared. This will automatically lead to further analysis and refinement of ideas; • Activities and resource requirements are defined and scheduled; and • A budget is prepared

14. Project Cycle Management FORMULATION / PLANNING PHASE • Developing Logical Framework Framework matrix: • defining project structure • testing the project’s logic and risks • formulating measurable indicators of success • Activity scheduling: • determine sequence and dependency of activities • estimate duration of activities • assign responsibility • Resource scheduling: • based on activity schedule, develop input schedules (= what is needed when...and by whom) • develop budget (= allocate necessary financial resources at the right time)

15. Project Cycle Management PHASE 2 : THE LOGFRAME MATRIX

16. Project Cycle Management PHASE 2 : THE LOGFRAME MATRIX– Exercise (recognition of nurses educated in EU MS)

17. Challenges when transposing accurately and on time Project Cycle Management Phase 2 – PLANNING LAW APPROXIMATION Interpret legislation accurately Provide clarity and certainty Prepare for implementation Government through the responsible ministry/ department Avoid over- implementation Coordinate with stakeholders Meet transposition deadlines Pressure from Europe National pressure

18. phase 3 roll - out phase

19. Project Cycle Management ROLL-OUT PHASE • Objectives of Roll-Out phase • Deliver the results, achieve the purpose and contribute effectively to the Overall Objective of the project; • Manage the available resources efficiently; and • Monitor and report on progress • Main Stages of Implementation • Inception Period • Roll-Out Period • Phase Out Period --> a learning process -->

20. Project Cycle Management Roll-Out Phase DECISION OPTIONS • Continue as planned; • Revise plans (budget/resource allocation, activities and possibly even results, etc.) in light of experience gained through project monitoring; or • Discontinue the project (in extreme cases...and not relevant in law approximation projects if EU membership quest is serious)

21. phase 4 evaluation phase

22. Project Cycle Management EVALUATION PHASE Definitions

23. Project Cycle Management PHASE 4 – Evaluation Criteria

24. phase 4 cont’d Specific evaluation criteria for law approximation

25. Project Cycle Management EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATED LAWS • Beware of Over- (or under-) Implementation • “Gold-plating” (extending the scope of national law compared to the EU law being approximated) • “Double-banking” (overlapping btw new approximated law and existing legislation) • “Regulatory creep” (e.g. lack of clarity of and/or differences between objectives of the EU legislation and the approximated national law)

26. Law Approximation recommendations

27. Law Approximation Recommendations • Setting higher national standards than in the approximated EU legislation must be • allowed in the latter (e.g. minimum directives), • objectively justified, and • equally applicable to nationals and EU nationals • Regulate at the lowest possible level (closest to citizens while ensuring legal certainty and equality) • Avoid initiation of national legislation simultaneously with EU law initiatives • Work with national and “international” stakeholders and partners • Create systems for knowledge & experience exchange between experts/negotiators/implementers • Train the implementers • Create a system for continuous post-implementation review !

28. Learning to build Europe www.eipa.eu Peter Goldschmidt (DK) Director Tel. +352 426 230 1Fax +352 426 237email p.goldschmidt@eipa.eu This presentation is inspired by materials produced by T. Malterud and T. Henökl, EIPA Maastricht, Unit 2