Burdens and Benefits of the EU environmental acquis: some issues David Baldock, IEEP 19 September 2013 High Level Group on Administrative Burdens

2 An independent institute studying policies affecting the environment in Europe, especially at EU level Established in Germany in the 1970s as a European institute by a Dutch Foundation Now based in London and Brussels, presence in Finland and contacts in many Member States Engaged in most areas of EU policy on the environment (including agriculture and energy) A non-profit SME Institute for European Environmental Policy

3 IEEP maintains an overview of EU measures, including a comprehensive Manual of European Environmental policy Undertakes a range of studies on the whole policy cycle, from objectives and design to implementation and enforcement Our studies are both academic and for most leading stakeholders, including the European Commission, the European Parliament and several Member States We have undertaken impact assessments and policy reviews for the Commission Participated in many stakeholder exercises Several of our studies specifically consider administrative burdens of environmental legislation, including for national authorities in the Netherlands Our perspective on EU legislation

4 Has grown in scope, reach, number of measures following continued shift of competencies Primarily comprises Directives, not Regulations, so national implementation key Increasingly supported by (imperfect) impact assessments at EU level Implementation remains variable (almost half infringements are on environment); national institutions have key role The use of exemptions and derogations eg for SMEs and newer Member States does not appear particularly systematic EU environmental legislation

5 Is crucial to maintenance to the EU single market Environmental legislation creates opportunities as well as constraints for business Many new “green” business are SMEs Often the objectives of policies are not well understood Policy interacts with market forces, consumer demand, ISO14001, EMAS, etc EU environmental legislation in context

6 Specific standards and measures are transparent Clear environmental benefits and measureable outcomes Fits most easily with the single market Often preferred by industry Member States often don’t utilise their scope for tailoring national measures within more flexible frameworks, although the potential to do so is there Why use a regulatory model?

7 Advanced environmental standards – e.g. air and water quality, greater attention to the management of waste and chemicals, more efficient use of natural resources, greater focus on climate change and loss of biodiversity Economic benefits – single market, innovation, increases in employment, new investments, green growth Beyond the environment and economics – science, human health and citizen’s right Benefits of EU level environmental regulation

8 Additional layer of political compromises will colour legislation Simplification may be required EU level legislation might not be as tailored and precise as it would be on a national level National “ownership” can be less Challenge of harnessing EU measures to national initiatives Disadvantages of EU level environmental regulation

9 Some trends in potential impacts/burdens Level of Burden Number and breadth of environmental measures Increased relevance to economy / business / SMEs More attention to better regulation, SMES Better information, support, compliance tools for business Shrinkage of many national administrations Less (variable) national legislation

10 Trade-offs are inevitable and need to be analysed as precisely as possible The proportionality principle applies Transparency is important at EU level so reporting has to be maintained while procedures make as efficient as possible In our studies (eg IPPC Directive) administrative burden less of a concern in industry than governments expected Important to assemble and deploy evidence and concrete data Impact assessments could be used more but these need to be resourced adequately Administrative costs vs. environmental benefits

11 Good Governance Principles Good governance principles Achieve long term orientation and predictability Achieve an appropriate balance of policy instruments Promote policy integration and coherence Create robust structures to channel finance to long term priorities Establish effective implementation at different levels Strengthen information, monitoring and accounting

12 Smart regulation means that a regulation is fit for purpose if it maximises the delivery of the outcomes for which the regulation is intended and minimises the burdens for which it is not intended. Smart regulation – a helpful concept

13 There is innovative thinking in some MS, but not in all Better practice is possible across the entire regulatory ‘chain’ Some MS administrations are scraping by with reduced budgets Giving flexibility to MS does not mean they will use it Business can be sceptical of flexibility as this introduces greater uncertainty – prescription has attractions! Some conclusions from studies from other work

14 Historically has had low priority But now much higher attention in EC (REFIT Initiative), but less so in Member States Most recent environmental Directives have review clauses For SMEs and other addresses, issues of detail usually key; codifying of Directives not a priority Stakeholder processes are useful, and important but challenging to conduct on an EU scale Where possible to separate larger political questions from issues of detail, this is helpful; can be achieved through re- casting EU legislative review processes

15 Helpful to review sectoral policies as a group as well as individual measures Evidence base is often not strong; frequently anecdotal in relation to administrative burdens. Scope to improve Administrative burden issues not primary in water fitness check Issues of detail eg reporting, individual standards, often critical Government and SME interests will not necessarily be the same Using Fitness Checks

16 Better regulation requires input from all participants in policy cycle and strong transparency Role of national authorities and agencies not to be under estimated; “simplification” doesn’t necessarily benefit SMEs Greater flexibility for national authorities doesn’t necessarily result in better outcome Greater investment in evidence, eg impact assessment, is vital; anecdotal evidence measurable Disproportionate administrative burdens are not general but tend to be highly specific Could be explained further in Fitness Checks Some ways forward

17 Meeting the requirements of the EU Treaty requires rules to be adopted – the issue is not whether rules are needed, but how to minimise disbenefits of those rules Essential to weigh up the benefits as well as costs of any measure – only then can action be justified and stakeholders be brought on board. This requires further investment Effective fitness checks require time and resources to engage with those affected by regulation on the ground Final reflections

London Office Brussels Office 11 Belgrave Road, Quai au Foin, 55 London, SW1V 1RB Brussles 1000 Tel: +44 (0) Tel: +32 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Fax: +32 (0) Thank you! Contact: