Regulatory impact assessment developments in Central and Eastern Europe

1. Regulatory impact assessment developments in Central and Eastern Europe Katarína Staroňová staronova@governance.sk

2. Policy Making Framework for RIA • Legal formalism vs. Policy Making • Set by Constitution and laws, mainly legislative procedure of Government and Parliament: focus on technical issues of legislative drafting • No formal rules or guidelines to policy development • Legislation – key policy instrument (not linked to budgeting) : low quality of products • Central coordination capacity limited

3. Main Problems Diagnosed • Starting point of new legislation is not clear • Legislation always comes before policy • Little focus on results • Financially unrealistic policy / legislative planning • The link between policy planning and the State Budget is not well developed • The system of policy ex ante or ex post impact assessment and evaluation practically non-existent As a result – decisions in Government are taken based on poor information

4. Introducing Regulatory Impact Assessment Framework • Strategic Environmental RIA (adherence to international agreements) • Procedural Guidelines (of Government/Parliament) require that RIA is utilized prior to legislation approval: • Explanatory memoranda: • constitutional basis of proposed draft • Conformity with EU legislation • Budgetary implications (state budget) • Specific types of RIA: problems with interpretations • Free Access to Information Law opens consultation process • 1st Phase - Adoption: most of CEE countries within timeframe of 1996 – 2000, • 2nd Phase - Implementation: RIA modernization and adaptation around 2010

5. Institutionalization and implementation • Scope of RIA (targeting RIA) • Timing • Presence of coordinating and oversight/Quality control body (independent review) • Existance of guidelines/trainings • Consultation process • Structural issues (options, data collection methods and analyses, ex-post impact assessment)

6. 1st Phase results: Adoption, no implementation • Analytical information extremely poor (formalistic approach): legitimacy of decisions • Considering RIA for public sector (not private or citizens) • Structural issues: no options, consultation=inter-ministerial review process WHY? • Scope: All legal texts (no administrative capacity) • Formalism: RIA made ex post to fulfill bureaucratic measure and legitimizing decisions • Absence of clear methodology, guidance and training (interpretations, how to conduct, etc.) • Absence of supervision and quality control mechanism • WRONG TIME AND PLACE FOR RIA

7. 2nd phase results: RIA – becoming part of a system? • Anchoring into existing Legislative/Strategic Planning system (adaptation) • Strong actors • Establishing central coordinating (and quality control) unit • Limiting volume of material to which RIA is required: sophistications of methods used • Development of the tool (Preparing manuals and guidelines to assist fulfillment and implementation of the legislation for civil servants) • Development of the capacity (Designating specific posts within civil service to deal with some of the issues more specifically: network of professionals + Establishing regular training)

8. RIA Institutionalization after Reforms • Political support for reforms (why reforms ocurred - learning, how was it politically supported) • Institutional oversight structures (model, coordination, powers, assistance, reporting) • Fit with overall decision-making (one off activity vs. Continued process, timing) • Core requirements: justification of action, options, Consultation process • Output of RIA process (type of formal document) • Transparency • Countries compared: Czech republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia

9. Political support for reform mobilization • Reform Initiation • Domestic Audit (learning involved): Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia • Domestic (no learning, political decision): Hungary • SIGMA report/Better regulation: Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia • Political Leadership and Support • Government/Parliament (collective): Czech republic, Estonia • Minister: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland • Civil servants: Slovakia, Slovenia

10. Institutional Oversight Structures • Independent expert body linked to decision-making: Czech republic • One horizontal oversight body (Government Office/ Prime Ministers Office): Lithuania, Poland • One oversight body in ministry (MoJ, MoPA): Estonia, Hungary, • Several oversight bodies (Four): Slovakia • No oversight body: Slovenia

11. Institutional Oversight – the Czech republic I • November 2011 : RIA Commmittee at the Legislative Council of the Government • non-binding advisory opinion to Legislative Council • 15 independent experts from private sector/academia (not civil servants) • 3 main competencies • Plan of legislative tasks: which legislative intents require RIA • Consultations on methodological issues during RIA development • Quality control on Final RIA statements

12. RIA Committee suggests which legislative intents should have RIAs RIA Committee provides consultation on methodological concerns together with RIA unit RIA Committee checks the quality of RIA (contents): provides statement, if not satisfactory, RIAs are returned for completion

13. Institutional Oversight – the Czech republic II • RIA Committee Statements • RIA fulfills the Standards laid in RIA Methodology and can be approved • RIA does not fulfill the Standards due to drawbacks in the analysis and it has to be returned for redrafting prior to Government session • RIA shows that Law proposal is redundant/brings regulatory burden and it recommends the Government not to approve draft law

14. 2013 RIA Committee Recommendations

15. Oversight structure - Slovakia • Oversight structure with no political support (MoFinance, MoEconomcy, MoSocial Affairs, MoEnviroment) • Oversight structure with other competencies + not perceived as their duty (non-use): Slovakia (MoEnviro) • Oversight structure linked to budgetary decisions: Slovakia (MoFinance) • Internal case following (central registry) • Specialization • Reporting/briefing of Minister (defends at Gvt. Sessions)

16. Oversight structure - Hungary • 2010 Office of Deputy State Secretary for Public Administration Strategy at Ministry of PA and Justice • ECOSTAT (prior to that Statistical office): establish complex basis to support RIA • RIA database • Collection of complex data • Macroeconomic models for simulations

17. Institutional Oversight Tasks – what matters

18. Fit with decision-making process • Two-tier system linked to legislative planning: Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania • Two-tier system with „regulatory test“: Poland, Slovakia (changed to voluntary in 2012) • Failure to start RIA early enough: Hungary, Slovenia RISK: fast-track procedure in all countries

19. Two-phase system in Slovakia

20. Core requirements • Justification of Action • Justification linked with problem and objectives analysis (TM): Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania • Selective analysis of problemORobjective (StM): Poland • General phrase (SymM): Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia • Multiple Options • Consultations • Explicitly part of RIA process • Explicitly part of RIA (selective for groups) • Open inter-ministerial review (transparency laws) Transparency + Output

21. Linking RIA to EU policy making • Community law: EC legislation to be implemented in timely, effective and proportionate manner Co-decision procedure • Use of RIA • To inform EU negotiations and to shape national positions in the EU working groups before a directive is agreed • Basis for discussions with Commission, other Member states and the Parliament • Contribute information from own RIA to Commissions (+ consultations) 2) To increase the quality of transposition and implementation on domestic level (to consider how European proposal will be implemented) • Avoiding over-implementation (gold-plating): Czech republic

22. 2nd phase results: RIA – becoming part of a system? • Reforms anchoring new institutions, how RIA became standardized and open • Prior to reforms: non-use or symbolic use • Countries with the strongest political support and internal learning (Czech republic, Estonia, Lithuania) altered most radically the processes to fit formal legislative process: how oversight and timing structured • Still wrong time and place (symbolic reforms) with little support: Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia • Influence of better regulation (strategic selective use): Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia • Risk: fast-track procedure, exceptions to RIA • Still to do: EU transposition

23. THANK YOU!!!!