Here are two recent scrutinies of the Commission's way of conducting impact assessments:
1/ UK House of Lords (European Union Committee) Fourth report "Impact Assessments in the EU: room for improvement?" (ordered for print 2 March)
This report focuses to a large extent on the impact assessment process, in particular how IAs are produced, the role of the Impact Assessment Board in monitoring their quality, and their subsequent use by the European Institutions. It records the views of various stakeholders in EU better regulation and suggestd areas where further examination might be necessary. It makes few firm conclusions but it does note that "the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament may not be making as full use of impact assessments as they might".
2/ Comparison EU/ US: Draft chapter of a book to be published in 2010: "Comparing Regulatory Oversight Bodies Across the Atlantic: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU", by Jonathan B. Wiener and Alberto Alemanno.
The chapter explains why the IAB may appear to be a weaker regulatory gatekeeper than OIRA. The American oversight body can even issue 'prompt' letters to spur beneficial new policies (rather than only checking proposals by the agencies). "By contrast the IAB has an internal, multi-member, institutionally-dependent representative board whose powers are mainly the ability to recommend that an IA should be redone and resubmitted to the IAB, and to communicate its views to the collegial Commission. Indeed, lacking veto power, the IAB cannot block, as could OIRA, a DG draft IA or a policy proposal."
See also, in French, an article by R. Alemano "Quis Custodet Custodes dans le cadre de l'inititiative Mieux Légiférer, une analyse des mécanismes de surveillance de la qualité réglementaire au sein de la Commission Européenne" (available from the author).
1/ UK House of Lords (European Union Committee) Fourth report "Impact Assessments in the EU: room for improvement?" (ordered for print 2 March)
This report focuses to a large extent on the impact assessment process, in particular how IAs are produced, the role of the Impact Assessment Board in monitoring their quality, and their subsequent use by the European Institutions. It records the views of various stakeholders in EU better regulation and suggestd areas where further examination might be necessary. It makes few firm conclusions but it does note that "the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament may not be making as full use of impact assessments as they might".
2/ Comparison EU/ US: Draft chapter of a book to be published in 2010: "Comparing Regulatory Oversight Bodies Across the Atlantic: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the US and the Impact Assessment Board in the EU", by Jonathan B. Wiener and Alberto Alemanno.
The chapter explains why the IAB may appear to be a weaker regulatory gatekeeper than OIRA. The American oversight body can even issue 'prompt' letters to spur beneficial new policies (rather than only checking proposals by the agencies). "By contrast the IAB has an internal, multi-member, institutionally-dependent representative board whose powers are mainly the ability to recommend that an IA should be redone and resubmitted to the IAB, and to communicate its views to the collegial Commission. Indeed, lacking veto power, the IAB cannot block, as could OIRA, a DG draft IA or a policy proposal."
See also, in French, an article by R. Alemano "Quis Custodet Custodes dans le cadre de l'inititiative Mieux Légiférer, une analyse des mécanismes de surveillance de la qualité réglementaire au sein de la Commission Européenne" (available from the author).
No comments:
Post a Comment