Auditors assess EU RIA

Experts interested in impact assessment at the European level will read with interest the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors " Impact assessments in the EUinstitutions: do they support decision making?" Here are some extracts praising the performance and suggesting avenues for improvement.

"Since 2002 the Commission has put in place a comprehensive impact assessment system, which, for several of the aspects reviewed by the Court, can be considered as good practice within the EU. The Court also noted improvements in the Commission's impact assessments during the period audited. Particularly in recent years impact assessments have helped to improve the Commission's ability to formulate its proposals. The audit found evidence that the IA procedures have become an integral element of the policy development process and that IA reports are actively used by decision-makers within the Commission. "

"Regulatory quality is the responsibility of all three EU institutions involved in the legislative process. The Commission's IAs are systematically forwarded to the European Parliament and Council and users within both institutions consider them helpful when considering the Commission's legislative proposals. However, IAs are not updated during the legislative procedure as amendments are proposed. Once the initial Commission proposal is amended, neither the Commission, nor the European Parliament or the Council systematically analyse the impact of those amendments. Therefore, the estimated impacts of the final legislative act are not known."

"Transparency lends credibility, and the Commission's approach to impact assessment is strongest where it provides such transparency. Examples are the publication of the CLWP, roadmaps, full version of the final IA report and, since 2007, the IAB opinions. However, this report identifies the following weaknesses with regard to the Commission's procedures for selecting initiatives to undergo IA, for consultation with interested parties and for the quality review of draft IA reports:

• the Commission did not indicate which initiatives are to undergo an IA in advance and also did not motivate why for certain proposals no IA is carried out;
• consultations with stakeholders were not carried out on interim results of the Commission's IA work (i.e. roadmaps or interim draft IA reports). As a result, the potential benefits of public scrutiny before the proposal is finalised (i.e. gathering the views of all parties concerned at an early stage and the increased acceptance of the resulting legislative proposal) have not fully materialised;
• the IAB was found to contribute to the quality of IAs. However, in some cases, quality review took place too late in the process and the final IAB opinion was not always clear as to whether IA reports are considered to be of insufficient quality. In addition, the IAB's mandate is not sufficiently strong when it comes to requesting that DGs undertake IAs."

The report also contains interesting table comparing RIA in several countries, including the US.