1. Impact Assessment and Evaluation: Interaction between EU and MS level Andrew Farmer, Institute for European Environmental Policy Make it Work Conference Regulatory Insights, Experiences and Enlightenment - making regulation work for our Environment Edinburgh, 10-11 December 2015

2. Summary Some initial thoughts – further presentations will consider more detail Overview of the policy evaluation processes Problems and opportunities How to improve the EU/MS level interaction?

3. Better Regulation Communication Much of the emphasis of the Communication is on good evaluation Better Regulation toolbox: –Revised procedures for Impact Assessment (IA) –Set out procedures for ex-post evaluations (REFIT, Fitness checks, etc.) –Establishes Regulatory Scrutiny Board (examine conclusions from both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations)

4. Lots of evaluations – lots of actors! Evaluation is now embedded in the policy process – good! Ex-ante (Impact Assessment), Ex-post (REFIT, Fitness Checks) – in the policy cycle Formalised processes by European Commission European Parliament – IA and reviews Member States – different ex-ante and ex-post analyses –Some to inform the EU policy process –Some to consider best options for implementation Lots of people asking similar questions, generating the same data, consulting with same stakeholders

5. Overview

6. Does IA collect sufficient MS information? There’s never enough! Processes leading to proposals include various consultations – including requests for information (stakeholders included) Two main areas: –Problem definition – is the MS information accurately defining the problem? –Options analysis – is the MS information good not just to compare the options presented, but to have resulted in these as opposed to alternative options? It is the analysis of options for which MS may identify further evidence

7. Timing Evidence gathering can take time Some parts of policy cycle are (or feel) time constrained: –Between proposal and adoption (for MS, EP IAs) –Between adoption and transposition (for MS to evaluate implementation options) Is the policy process urgent? Is it better to pause in order to check the evidence? Ex-post evaluation: –Ensure questions appropriate to likely state of implementation

8. Checking conclusions Ex-post evaluation presents a chance to: –Examine costs and benefits of the application of a law –Examine the costs and benefits predicted in IA What costs/benefits are: –Over/under-estimated? –Why? –By whom? –Driven by EU law or MS choices? –What lessons to learn for the evaluation process?

9. Sharing Information in IA/FC/REFIT is usually referenced – so can be shared Good to share models or make available – e.g. to model alternative options Important if implementation leaves lots of flexibility (so costs are hard to predict )

10. Questions What are the major challenges for MS in conducting evaluations? Focus on the right questions? Have sufficient time? Have tools/resources? Do EU level institutions get the information they need? Should evaluations sometimes be more ‘realistic’ in what they aim to examine?

11. Thank you for your attention! afarmer@ieep.eu