Better regulation in the Commission

1. Better regulation in the Commission 11 December 2015 Jonathon Stoodley Head of Unit C.1 Evaluation, Regulatory Fitness and Performance Secretariat General of the European Commission

2. Better regulation tools in policy cycle • Single guideline that covers the entire policy cycle and links the phases better together • Web-based "Tool box" with operational guidance for practitioners

3. A set of logical steps to help Commission services structure preparation of a proposal • Provide a balanced evidence base to support, not replace, political decision-making • Integrated approach: all benefits and costs; economic, social and environmental impacts • Independent centralised quality control: Regulatory Scrutiny Board • Transparency: consultations, publication of IAs and IA Board opinions

4. An IA needs to be carried out whenever the expected economic, environmental or social impacts of EU action are likely to be significant: • Legislative proposals • Delegated acts/implementing acts (where COM has discretion) • Communications, White Papers, Recommendations, etc. • International agreements • Assessment is done on a case-by-case basis and reported on in the Roadmap or Inception IA

5. What does the Commission IA do? • 1. Identify the problem • 2. Assess need for EU-level intervention • 3. Define the objectives • Including the consistency with other existing policy objectives • 4. Develop policy options • 5. Analyse the impacts of the options • Assess if there a single Member State, region or sector which is disproportionately affected (so-called “outlier” impact) • 6. Compare the options • 7. Outline policy monitoring and evaluation

6. How can Member States contribute? Commission Work Programme/Roadmaps/ Inception IAs Possibility for early reaction on Commission's plans  Dedicated Feedback mechanism Stakeholder consultations • Opportunity to provide input to impact assessment work; also in context of other Commission analytical work (e.g. REFIT/retrospective evaluations, cumulative cost studies) Continuously • Continuous exchanges on policy impacts; sharing studies/analysis/methodology etc. with Commission During legislative process • Reactions on Commission's proposal once adopted •  Dedicated Feedback mechanism

7. Inter-institutional agreement: BR Tools • Impact Assessment: • COM will assess its proposals; quality check by RSB • EP and Council to consider COM's IAs and assess impacts of their substantial amendments • COM may assist; Institutions may also call on an independent panel to make assessment

8. Inter-institutional agreement: BR Tools • Ex-post evaluation: • Evaluate first principle • Systematic inclusion of monitoring and evaluation provisions in legislation • Make use of review clauses and, where relevant, sunset clauses • Implementation • Member States to explain and assess gold-plating

9. Useful information sources • Juncker Commission priorities http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/democratic-change/better-regulation/index_en.htm • European Commission Better Regulation Guidelines http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/index_en.htm • Your voice in Europe – access point to consultations and to notifications http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_ro.htm • IA website http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/index_en.htm

10. Evaluation Road Questions?

11. Background

12. IA for delegated and implementing acts • The need for an IA must be assessed for delegated and implementing acts. • In principle, such an assessment is likely to conclude that no IA is needed when: • expected economic, environmental or social impacts • There is little or no choice available for the Commission; or • Impacts cannot be clearly identified ex ante; or • Impacts are small. • Otherwise IA should be carried out taking into account the principle of proportionate analysis.

13. Proportionate analysis • IA for delegated and implementing acts should focus on: • Main outstanding decisions and related options, namely, where the basic act leaves scope for Commission choice, where the Commission may consider deviating from advice given by specialised agencies, and/or where impacts are likely to be significant (and have not been covered in the basic act IA); • Identification of specific objectives relating to the outstanding decisions, linked to the objectives/requirements of the basic legislation; • Thorough assessment of impacts in relation to the options, taking full account of relevance of technical detail and using quantification to the extent possible in particular of compliance costs and administrative burden; • Identification of operational objectives for the preferred option and the corresponding monitoring indicators.

14. Proportionate analysis (cont.) • IA for delegated and implementing acts should avoid: • Repetition of analysis covered by the IA of the basic act (e.g. in relation to the overall problem, subsidiarity principle, objectives, etc.) • Redoing relevant analysis undertaken by specialised agencies, to the extent that the lead DG judges this analysis to be credible and carried out in line with Commission IA principles; such analysis should on the contrary feed into an IA as appropriate.