1. Germany
Thomas Nehring
Better regulation unit
Federal Chancellery

2. What have we done so far? Legal/political basis for SCM:
November 2005: Coalition Treaty between SPD and CDU:
political commitment to tackle red tape arising for companies,
citizens and administration (top priority)
April 2006: Cabinet Decision
- Centralized approach (Coordinator + Better Regulation Unit in
the Federal Chancellery / Political Coordination via State
Secretaries’ Committee from all ministries)
- Implementation of SCM (Dutch example / internat. standards)
- Installation of an independent “Regulatory Control Council”
February 2007: Cabinet Decision
National Reduction Target: 25% until 2011 2

3. What have we done so far? The “tools”: in 2006:
publication of the German SCM manual, accompanied by training
courses for staff members in the ministries
development of an ICT-based entry form by the Statistical Office
for “mapping” IO
development of a database by the Statistical Office (collecting
and storing of all data in relation to SCM, e.g. details of IO,
results of measurements, information coming from stakeholders)
in 2007:
publication of an “ex ante” manual (SCM as a new part of RIA) 3

4. What have we done so far? Methodology for citizens:
Starting measurements after the conclusion of measurements of AB for business
The measurement of IO of citizens is governed by the same guidelines as the measurement of IO of business
Ministries were free to include IO for citizens in the mapping process for IO of business (more than IO in database so far)
For citizens, only a time variable is determined, not a tariff. That means: burdens will be expressed in hours, not in Euro. 4

5. What have we done so far? Methodology for citizens:
IO addressed to natural persons and not to business or administration are IO incumbent upon citizens.
If a natural person is an entrepreneur, those IO addressed to the person in her/his capacity as an entrepreneur are IO of business
For “ex ante” assessments the IO for citizens need only to be identified and described as a minimum requirement. The burden associated with these information obligations is only to be quantified if an adequate estimate can be made with reasonable effort. 5

6. ex post ex ante state of play The players Ministries
all drafts
results of measurements
Ministries
acceptance of results
comments
Discussing reduction prop.
Federal Statistical Office
Regulatory Control Council
Better regulation unit
drafts; if necessary with comments
annual report (results, reduction measures/plans, timetable etc.)
Parliament
annual report (method; comment on gov. report)
annual report (method; comment on gov. report) 6

7. Lessons and challenges
Only a few IO cause a lion‘s share of the burdens (Pareto principle)
Mapping: due to preliminary works, all IO for citizens should be identified (completion of the database). Measuring: Shall we tackle all these IO (making the process comparable to the line followed for business) or concentrate on - IO causing the highest costs? - the most burdensome IO for particular target groups? - the most irritating IO? 7

8. Lessons and challenges
Federalism: Implementation of Federal provisions on lower levels cause new IO or accumulate the burdens at the level of addressees
Identify „cause-and-effect-chains“ in regulation: which level is responsible for which admin burdens? Contribution of the „Länder“ and the municipalities is essential to get the „right“ data (e.g. number of citizens) and define target groups. 8

9. Lessons and challenges
Results of Measurements have to be accepted by the ministries and the addressees.
Otherwise they would be useless for discussion about reduction measures.
Organisation of measurements has to
connect know-how from ministries, stakeholders and third parties
ensure the transparency of the results
avoid discussion about „social standards“
take into account public expectations 9

10. Outlook first government annual report on the use of SCM in october
2007. Therein: Cabinet agreed to analyse the IO incumbent on
citizens and to work with all public institutions on the
development of a strategy for reducing the burdens as a further
step.
measurements in progress (IO of business) are still top priority and must not be delayed by preparation for citizens (expectations of companies !)
main decisions to be made for „kick off“ within the next weeks:
which IO incumbent on citizens should be mapped?
which IO should be measured?
with which IO/policy area should we start? 10

11. Expectations of learning group:
Is SCM an appropriate method to tackle admin burdens for citizens (experiences of front-runners)?
Is a full baseline measurement needful?
Should we identify special target groups? How?
Is it helpful to identify “life events” ? Which?
Should we combine quantitative (SCM) and qualitative approaches (irritations)?
How can we identify the most irritating IO?
How can we communicate simplification measures regarding expectations of citizens (measures have to be noticeable)
Please indicate in a 5 or 6 points: What do you expect to learn from the participation in the learning group and what kind of results do you expect? 11