15.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/11

Rapporteur:

Denis MEYNENT

1.1

The Committee notes that the REFIT (1) programme’s primary aim is to improve the quality and effectiveness of EU legislation and to draft simple, understandable and coherent rules, without calling into question the already-established strategic aims of the EU’s policies or becoming detrimental to the protection of citizens, consumers, workers, social dialogue or the environment (2). European legislation is an essential factor in integration. When proportionate it constitutes an important guarantee of protection, promotion of European legislation and legal certainty for all European stakeholders and citizens (3).

1.2

Despite the progress achieved so far, in particular as a result of the work of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB), the Committee would like the European impact assessment ecosystem to continue to evolve, so as to strengthen its quality and encourage the involvement of organised civil society in designing and implementing legislation.

1.3

It is therefore particularly necessary that:

1.4

The Committee advocates a qualitative approach which operates on an equal footing with quantitative analysis, taking into account research into the expected benefits of the legislation.

1.5

The Committee calls on the Commission to remain vigilant so as to ensure that the reduction of administrative and regulatory burdens does not have a negative effect on the effectiveness and overall quality of EU policies, especially in the social, environmental and consumer protection spheres and with regard to SMEs and micro-enterprises.

1.6

Finally, with regard to the impact assessment, the EESC hopes:

2.1

The IA takes the form of an ongoing and critical analysis of the effects, both positive and negative, of planned EU regulation on the economy, society and the environment. Fifteen years after its introduction, the IA has become one of the cornerstones of the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda.

2.2

The IA system comes into play at a very early stage in the political cycle. An IA is carried out ahead of any new initiative that is likely to have economic, environmental and social impacts. An evaluation and fitness check of existing EU legislation and policies are also carried out regularly. The ‘inception impact assessment’ outlines the main thrust of the impact analysis, surveying the different types of option (from status quo to full harmonisation). The impact assessment itself then takes place. The draft assessment is reviewed by the RSB. Once legislation has been implemented, an evaluation assesses its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and European added value. The RSB then reviews the main evaluations of the EU legislation. ‘Better law-making’ is therefore present at every stage of the procedure. It is increasingly open to stakeholders at every stage, via various consultation mechanisms.

2.3

The Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making (IIA) of May 2015 (4) reflects the common position of the three institutions with regard to the IA. In the light of the progress made, the Committee has identified two key lessons:

2.4

Established in May 2015, the RSB has taken almost two years to become fully operational. It has greater authority and wider responsibilities, including examining the quality of draft IAs, health checks and major evaluations of existing EU legislation (5). The professionalisation of the RSB has made it less likely that social and environmental impacts will be overlooked. The RSB reviewed 60 IAs in 2016, 25 of which (42 %) initially received a negative review, requiring their authors to resubmit their IAs to the committee. Currently, the EESC confines its opinions to the impact assessment. In the future, it might usefully consider how the legislative proposal reflects the IA and takes it into account.

3.1.1

The IA is based on an array of criteria and tests, relating in particular to impacts in the following areas:

3.1.2

In principle, the Commission’s impact assessments are integrated in nature, covering the most significant and relevant economic, social and environmental impacts of each case.

3.1.3

Over the years, the Council and occasionally the EP have requested additional criteria:

3.1.4

These various criteria occasionally force the Commission to strike a balance between the various aims or concerns by: listing the criteria in order of priority; deciding that such and such a criterion must take precedence over the others as the key criterion/a; arbitrating policy choices in the face of competing criteria:

3.1.5

The study on the Commission’s IA system, carried out in 2007 by The Evaluation Partnership (TEP) (6), a UK private consultant, had reported a number of shortcomings, in particular regarding social and environmental protection. According to TEP, the poor quality of the IAs was due to errors in timing, the mechanisms used to monitor the quality of assessments, and the lack of monitoring and assistance available for IAs (training, coordination, incomplete or missing data, etc.). In 2010, the Court of Auditors found that ‘in practice, the Commission’s IA work was asymmetric between the three pillars and between costs and benefits’ (7).

3.1.6

With this in mind, the Committee reiterates its request for Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (8) to be used systematically as a basis for evaluation work (9).

3.2.1

A ‘toolbox’ was developed by the commission in its Communication (11) of 19 May 2015 on better law-making. It provides a detailed guide on the IA via 59 instruments (tools, criteria, tests, etc.) intended to help not only the Commission but also the competent authorities of the Member States.

3.2.2

Two of the 59 tools proposed are of particular interest to the EESC. These are tools 7 (requirements for social partner initiatives) and 25 (employment, working conditions, income distribution and inequality).

3.2.3

In reality, these tools seem more like a checklist of questions to be asked concerning initiatives that are likely to have an impact on social or employment issues. The questions are general, neutral and uninspiring. For example, the questions asked in tool 25 include:

3.2.4

These questions often amount to a description of a series of potential positive and negative impacts. They provide little incentive to develop more detailed analyses as regards the quality or the volume of employment in particular.

3.2.5

In addition, it would appear that in certain cases, the social and environmental criteria have not been included in a systematic and in-depth way in the Commission’s IAs for several years (12), even if the Commission, for its part, states that it considers social impacts in 70 % of its IAs and environmental impacts in 45 % of cases.

3.3.1

The Directorates-General (DGs) are responsible for the analytical methods and models on which the Commission’s services are based when establishing their legislative proposals. In most cases, the Directorates-General carry out impact assessments internally on the basis of the IA guidelines (13) and toolbox. In some cases, the DG concerned has recourse to the services of an external consultant, selected on the basis of an open and transparent procedure, in order to investigate further a particular point in the IA.

3.3.2

Of the 59 tools that make up the toolbox, only two or three appear capable of guiding decision-making with regard to the quality of employment, social protection, levels of remuneration, etc. This is clearly an area in which the toolbox needs to be strengthened.

3.4.1.1

The REFIT programme aims to identify unnecessary burdens, inconsistencies and ineffective measures and to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. In 2013, as part of REFIT, the entire EU legislative stock was mapped.

3.4.1.2

The EU Competitiveness Council has called on the Commission to draw up and set out reduction targets in particularly burdensome areas, especially for SMEs (14).

3.4.1.3

The Competitiveness Council of 26 May 2016 also welcomed ‘the Commission’s commitment in the IIA to further quantification of its simplification and administrative burdens reduction efforts, to present an annual burden survey and, where possible, to quantify the regulatory burden reduction or savings potential of individual proposals or legal acts’ (15).

3.4.2

The Committee calls on the Commission to remain vigilant so as to ensure that reductions in the regulatory burden do not affect the effectiveness or the overall quality of EU policies, especially as regards social, environmental, employment or territorial cohesion aspects as well as SMEs and micro-enterprises.

4.1

Despite the progress that has already been made, the European ecosystem as regards IAs needs to develop further. We propose seven areas of improvement in order to strengthen the quality of the RIA and encourage the involvement of organised civil society in designing and implementing legislation.

4.2.1

The Committee requests that the Commission indicate more clearly the methodology used to calculate the impact of its initiative, the scope of the study and its possible limitations (area, target groups, etc.).

4.2.2

If sections or significant subsections of the IA are outsourced, the Committee requests that the winning bidder’s name be published.

4.2.3

It is important that the specifications clearly describe alternative scenarios and demonstrate the consequences of all the possible options, including:

4.2.4

It is important that priority should ultimately be given to a proposal which combines these various dimensions to the best possible effect, bearing in mind the provisions of Article 3(3) TEU (16) and Article 9 TFEU (17).

4.2.5

In order to help the co-legislators draft their amendments, the IAs must provide alternative courses of action which, for example, provide for scenarios that are more favourable to employment, social and environmental protection, territorial cohesion and consumer policy.

4.3.1

Transparency is an essential prerequisite for good governance. A register (18) of the Commission’s documents presents the list of impact assessments and the corresponding opinions of the RSB. However, this register is little-known to the general public and is only available in English.

4.3.2

The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to take steps to raise awareness about this site in collaboration with intermediary organisations, include the views of stakeholders and any relevant studies, particularly IA summaries, and provide translations in the other EU languages.

4.4.1

The EESC calls for the quantitative or monetary approach to operate on an equal footing with a qualitative approach, which focuses on the human dimension of proximity, gender equality and contact with what is happening on the ground. The reasons for investing in a qualitative approach include the following:

4.4.2

IAs should always favour a cost-benefit approach. The reduction in the number of diseases and the levels of noise pollution, toxic emissions and accidents can never be determined solely on the basis of quantitative data. Fairer competition, fair trade and better working conditions cannot be determined on the basis of quantitative analyses. It is crucial that the Commission prioritises qualitative analysis, in the interest of all stakeholders.

4.5.1

Although the IIA concluded that each institution could develop its own methodology, the Committee proposes that the EP, the Council and the Commission should work together to carry out a thorough review of this issue, one that is also open to the Committee.

4.5.2

It is not so much a question of proposing a uniform methodology as agreeing in advance on a convergent methodological matrix, specifically with regard to the basic methodological elements, such as defining the scope of the study, the research strategy, the choice of tools, the options to prioritise, etc.

4.5.3

The long-term aim is to promote dialogue with regard to the Commission’s choices of methodology so as to provide assistance to institutions carrying out amendments.

4.5.4

As a result, the Committee’s proposals in this regard might resonate more favourably with co-legislators.

4.6.1

The EESC has a unit dedicated to the qualitative ex-post evaluation of some targeted European legislation. In the future, this unit could support the efforts of Committee members and also provide analysis of some IAs, review methodological issues and provide an opinion on whether economic, social, environmental or territorial elements should be taken into account. It would also facilitate the development of any advisory opinions by the EESC relating to draft legislation prepared by the same impact assessments.

4.6.2

A regular dialogue between the EESC and the European Commission should be set up with regard to consultations and impact assessments.

4.7.1

Consideration should be given to informal but regular cooperation between the RSB and the Committee.

4.7.2

As well as informal exchanges of views and ad hoc cooperation, it is important to promote dynamic cooperation with the Committee in two areas:

4.7.3

For its part, the Committee will, where appropriate, draw up a summary of its main recommendations on the scope of the impact assessment itself and will provide any other data or information that might be relevant to the IA work of the Commission and the associated review by the ERC.

4.7.4

The Committee will also provide an ex-post evaluation on the implementation and application of the legislation.