Study on the Potential of Impact Assessments to Support Environmental Goals in the Context of the European Semester
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Study on the potential of impact assessments to support environmental goals in the context of the European Semester Final Report RPA & EPRD March 2015 REPORT WRITTEN BY RISK & POLICY ANALYSTS LTD (RPA) AND THE OFFICE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD (EPRD) FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General Environment Directorate D Implementation, Governance & Semester Unit ENV.D.2 Enforcement, Cohesion Policy & European Semester, Cluster 2 Contact: Louis Meuleman E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION Study on the potential of impact assessments to support environmental goals in the context of the European Semester Final Report Directorate-General Environment Greening the EU Semester 2015 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 © European Union, 2015 Executive summary The objective of this study is to describe the capacity of national Impact Assessment (IA) systems to support evidence based policy making that can contribute to the avoidance of costs in the Member States for which Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) are adopted. As such, the study presents an overview of key characteristics of national IA systems and provides case studies illustrating the cost-avoidance potential of IA This is an explorative study which does not seek to provide a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of national IA systems across the EU or to rank them in any way. The purpose of this study is to identify key issues/themes, relying on desk research and limited consultation in a short period of time. The assessment framework involves characterising sixteen key criteria/features of Member State IA systems based on three descriptive bands. The criteria adopted include, for example, ‘mandatory use of IA’ and ‘discussion of IA reports by policy makers’. The three descriptive bands are: a) prominent, b) functioning, and c) missing or not so prominent. In the context of this study, an Impact Assessment is a systematic assessment of new policy and programme proposals, examining the impacts associated with different options to allow decision-makers a better evidence base. For four of the sixteen criteria (IA requirement, guidance documents, standardisation of approaches, and discussion of IA reports), less than 25% of MSs (for which information is available) have been characterised in the ‘missing/not-so-prominent’ band. This suggests that these aspects are generally being applied widely and functioning well. For five aspects (appropriate timing, assessment of economic, environmental and social impacts, consideration of long-run effects, consideration of trade-offs, and publication of IA reports), between 25% and one third of MSs (for which information is available) were characterised within the ‘missing/not-so- prominent’ band. For seven aspects (routine/systematic use of IA, sufficient resources, effective consultation, consideration of the baseline and several policy options, monetisation, quality control, and clarity about methodology/assumptions and sensitivity analysis), more than one third of Member States (for which information is available) have been characterised in the ’not-so-prominent or missing’ band. It should be noted, however, that the amount and quality of information collected for each country vary considerably, and that, for some Member States, it was necessary to infer the key characteristics of their IA systems from limited evidence. A key strength is that all countries currently have an IA system in place which can be characterised by at least some degree of methodological standardisation, usually on the basis of a guidance document setting out the role of IA in the legislative process/policy making and the approaches and procedures to be followed. In addition, for most aspects, at least one IA system has been assigned to the ‘prominent’ band showing that good practice approaches are already in place in some Member States, and suggesting that there is potential for EU Member States to improve their national/regional IA systems by learning from others. The main challenge appears to be that in some IA systems, the role of IA in policy making and its potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, has not yet been fully recognised. In this respect, it is of note that the study has identified a number of case studies that clearly illustrate the cost avoidance potential of IA in policy areas relevant to environmental CSRs. This suggests that a wider application of IA good practices, as well as more extensive use of IA, have the potential to avoid costs in the field of environmental policy making. The study therefore suggests that it may be useful to: 1. Make the present report available to all Member States in order to facilitate exchange of good practice on IA systems. 2. Promote transparency and sharing of good practice by encouraging Member States to publish all Impact Assessments on the internet. 3. Build capacity to undertake Impact Assessments by regular exchange of information between Member States and consultation with Member States with particular experience. 4. Develop, apply and keep under review guidelines on how to prepare an Impact Assessment at national level. 5. Consider recommending minimum consultation periods to enable stakeholders to input their views and improve the usefulness of stakeholder consultation processes. 6. Promote the inclusion of Impact Assessment in Member States' core training programmes for officials involved in policy making. It should be noted that the above suggestions have been proposed by the consultants that carried out this study and in no way represent an official position of the European Commission. Résumé analytique L’objectif de cette étude est de décrire la capacité des systèmes d’analyse d’impact de soutenir l’élaboration des politiques sur la base d’éléments concrets qui peuvent aider à éviter des couts dans les pays où les recommandations spécifiques par pays (RSP) sont adoptées. A ce titre, l’étude présent un aperçu des caractéristiques principales des systèmes d’analyse d’impact nationaux et fournit des études de cas qui illustrent les possibilités d’éviter des couts offertes par l’analyse d’impact. C’est une étude exploratoire qui ne vise pas à fournir une évaluation complète de tous les aspects des systèmes d’analyse d’impact nationaux en Europe, ni à les classer. L’objectif de cette étude est d’identifier les questions/thèmes principaux, en se servant d’une recherche documentaire relativement limité et de consultations qui ont été effectuées pendant une courte période. Le cadre d’évaluation appliqué dans cette étude est basé sur trois bandes descriptives pour caractériser seize critères/ aspects clés des systèmes d’analyse d’impact des États membres. Les critères adoptés comprennent, par exemple, l’utilisation obligatoire d’analyse d’impact’ et ‘la discussion de rapports d’analyse d’impact par les décideurs politiques’. Les trois bandes descriptives consistent à: a) éminent, b) fonctionnant, et c) manquant ou pas éminent. Dans le cadre de cette étude, une évaluation d’impact est une évaluation systématique de la nouvelle politique et des propositions de programme, examinant les impacts associés aux options différents pour permettre aux décideurs une meilleure base de preuves. Pour quatre des seize critères (exigence d’analyse d’impact, documents d’orientation, normalisation des approches, et discussion des rapports d’analyse d’impact par les décideurs politiques), moins de 25% d’EM (pour lesquels l’information est disponible) ont été caractérisés par la bande ‘manquant/pas éminent’. Cela semblerait d’indiquer que ces aspects sont largement appliqué et qu’ils fonctionnent bien. Pour cinq aspects (date d’élaboration, évaluation des impacts économiques, environnementaux et sociaux, examen des effets à long terme, examen de compromis, et publication de rapports d’analyse d’impact), entre 25% et un tiers d’EM (pour lesquels l’information est disponible) ont été caractérisé par la bande ‘manquant/pas éminent’. Pour sept aspects (utilisation systématique d’analyse d’impact, ressources suffisantes, consultation efficace, examen d’un scenario de référence et de plusieurs options politiques, monétisation, contrôle de qualité, et clarté sur la méthodologie/les hypothèses et analyse de sensibilité), plus qu’un tiers des États membres (pour lesquels l’information est disponible) ont été caractérisés par la bande ‘manquant/pas éminent’. Cependant, il à noter que la quantité et la qualité des informations recueillies pour chaque pays varient considérablement, et que, pour certains États membres, il a été nécessaire de déduire les caractéristiques clés des systèmes d’analyse d’impact de preuves limitées. L’atout principal des systèmes d’analyse d’impact actuels est que chaque pays a un système d’analyse d’impact en place qui peut être caractérisé par, au moins, un certain degré de normalisation méthodologique, généralement sur la base d’un document d’orientation précisant le rôle d’analyse d’impact dans le processus législatif/ l’élaboration des politiques et dans les approches et procédures à suivre.