eunbil · GT0N1596 · 2006-07-14 00:00:00 — JUSTCIV 161 COVER NOTE from: Secretary-General of Commission, signed by , Director date of receipt: 4 2006 to: , Secretary-General/High Representative Subject: Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and will find attached Commission document SEC(2006) 815. : SEC(2006) 815 COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , 28.6.2006 SEC(2006) 815 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and {COM(2006) 332 final} Purpose of the Impact Assessment 2. Stakeholders consultation and expertise 2.1. Stakeholders" consultation and involvement 2.1.2. Forthcoming hearing 2.2. Definition of the issue and the Unions competence to act 3.1. Definition of evaluation 3.2. The need to act 3.3. The subsidiarity test 4. Defining the objectives 4.2. Consistency of the objectives with other EU policies and strategies 5. Policy options 5.1. Option 1: No EU action 5.2. Option 2: Provision of an analytical/methodological framework 5.3. Option 3: Focus on implementation/transposition of FSJ acquis 5.4. Option 4: Develop policy evaluation, on current monitoring experience 5.5. Option 5: Develop an open method of coordination, on current monitoring experience 5.6. Comparing the policy options 6. Further analysis of the impact of the preferred mechanism 6.1. Social impact 6.2. Environmental impact 6.3. Economic impact 7. Monitoring and evaluation Executive Summary Five options for a mechanism for evaluation of FSJ policies are here considered: Option 1: No EU action (No mechanism would be proposed). Option 2: Provision of an analytical/methodological framework for evaluation of FSJ policies. Option 3: Focus on implementation/transposition of FSJ acquis (no evaluation). Option 4: Develop policy evaluation, on current monitoring experience. This would entail setting up a mechanism to monitor implementation of FSJ policies and to evaluate the effects of policies (evaluation). Option 5: Develop an open method of coordination, on current monitoring experience. This impact assessment concludes that option 4 is the only choice which fulfils the mandate given in the Hague Action Plan (excludes option 1 and 2), enhances the current evaluation system (excludes option 3) and is at the same time realistic (excludes option 5). Adding to this, the Commission believes that the administrative burden on Member States will be fairly limited. Purpose of the Impact Assessment The Impact Assessment of the Communication on evaluation of EU policies on Freedom, Security and (FSJ) serves several purposes: First, it demonstrates the Commissions openness to input from a wide range of stakeholders (Chapter 2) and, hence, its commitment to transparency. Second, it will help to explain the reasons for such a system of evaluation and why it should be set up at EU level (Chapters 3 and 4). Third, it sets out, analyses and compares the different policy options available, including the "no action" option (Chapter 5). Fourth, it assesses the possible social, economic and, to a lesser extent, environmental impact of the proposed system (Chapter 6). Finally, it deals with monitoring and evaluation (Chapter 7). Stakeholders consultation and expertise This section focuses on the coming consultation on the proposed mechanism. Prior to the drafting of the present Communication and its impact assessment, no formal consultation has taken place, except for the interservice consultation (DG JLS D/4968) within the Commission. Formulation of an evaluation mechanism for FSJ policies will be based on wide consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The Commission"s Communication is intended as the starting point of such a consultation process, which will provide input for actually setting up the mechanism. In this context, a major hearing with a wide range of stakeholders will be held in October 2006 (see point 2.1.2). Consultations will also continue until the first evaluation exercise takes place. also builds on extensive work carried out by external experts on behalf of the Commission, which included informal consultation of some key stakeholders (see below). Stakeholders" consultation and involvement The first stakeholders in the evaluation system are EU institutions and Member States. On the one hand, they have to provide the inputs for the system and, on the other, they are the primary beneficiaries of the outputs. The Member States and the Council, taking into account their prerogatives and their role in the process, were consulted informally on some aspects of drafting the Communication; in particular, views were exchanged on evaluation with a sample of and Home Affairs Counsellors in Permanent Representations in the context of the expert study mentioned above. Setting up an evaluation mechanism for FSJ policies is a gradual process. , Economic and and various agencies, such as the , () and the , will be consulted on and involved in development of the mechanism. The agencies data collection and statistics work will play an important role in the future evaluation mechanism. The private sector will be involved in this context, notably within the framework of the Action Plan on Public/Private Partnerships to protect public organisations and private companies in particular from organised crime, to be published by the Commission later this year. Besides the abovementioned hearing, the Commission also intends to present this Communication in different venues, to expert opinion on the proposed mechanism. The annual conference of will be one such forum. Feedback from evaluation specialists will enable the Commission to fine-tune the mechanism. Work in this area will have to conform to general policy on evaluation, taking into account in particular the forthcoming general on Evaluation. The hearing is intended to be a valuable addition to the Communication on the "Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and ". It has three main goals: to communicate with and involve civil society in the objective evaluation of FSJ policy; to have a broader discussion and debate on the evaluation mechanism and method; to have a detailed discussion, by policy area, on the individual factsheets that make up the instrument. The Conference is planned for the end of October 2006, and between 100 and 150 participants are expected from: Member States (representatives and experts); international organisations and ; civil society, e.g. NGOs, professional organisations, academia, etc. In preparation for the release of a Communication on Evaluation, the Commission tendered out the drafting of an analytical framework for the evaluation of policies and legislation in 2003, and then application of the framework to two policy areas in 2004. on the results of these studies, further expert support with the design of the evaluation mechanism was enlisted at the end of 2005, focusing specifically on the technicalities of the mechanism (indicators, data collection methods, data sources, etc.). The initial preparatory study concluded that the policy area of freedom, security and is "characterised by complex and ambitious policy goals, varied institutional arrangements at European and level, mixed models of decision-making and compliance which poses particular difficulties for evaluation." The study added that "no single global evaluation will be able to capture the full complexity of this and similar policy areas", therefore requiring a broader approach to evaluation, responding to various questions and criteria in order to create an effective evaluation mechanism. In such a political environment, stakeholders, including institutions and Member States, have numerous and varied expectations and priorities. The study recommends consultation with stakeholders to identify satisfactory evaluation objectives. involvement of the stakeholders is encouraged at all stages of the evaluation, particularly at the reporting stage. Definition of the issue and the Unions competence to act A distinction must be drawn from the outset between the principles of monitoring implementation and of evaluation. Monitoring implementation consists of reviewing progress towards implementing policies. On the other hand, the Communication on Evaluation presented by the Commission in 2000 defines evaluation as a "judgement of interventions (public actions) according to their results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy". The main role of evaluation is to provide policy-makers with input about the effectiveness and impact of activities planned. The Commission interprets the evaluation of implementation of policies referred to in the Hague Action Plan as a mechanism evaluating the concrete results of FSJ policies. Evaluation is wider than monitoring implementation of policies and includes studying the consequences of implementation, as clearly outlined in box 1 in the Communication. The concept of evaluation of implementation therefore encompasses both monitoring implementation itself and evaluating the results of the measures taken. has been built around this basic distinction which, in the Commissions view, should allow better evaluation and a general understanding of the quantity and quality of results achieved on freedom, security and . The Hague programme strikes a balance between the efficiency in the fight against terrorism and organised crime more generally on the one hand, and the respect and the promotion of the fundamental rights on the other hand. Therefore, the annual evaluation by the Commission of the implementation of this programme should also assess whether this balance has been respected. The need to act Four compelling reasons can be given to set up a comprehensive evaluation mechanism on FSJ: First, existing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are fragmented and incomplete. 2 to the Communication gives an overview of the evaluation system in place and illustrates this point. The current system features: numerous peer reviews, discrepancies between the first and the third pillar, and the need to add to the scoreboard exercise. Although the proposed mechanism does not replace the existing mechanisms, it completes them and allow for a comprehensive and synthetic overview of the outcomes of these mechanisms. Second, there is a need to transmit extensive information to all stakeholders on implementation and the results of policies. Transparency is becoming a more and more important part of good governance. The evaluation mechanism could be made more visible. Third, as the "acquis" enters into force, increased emphasis must be put on monitoring implementation of FSJ policies and assessing their effectiveness. This is essential in order to secure the added value of Union action and to provide adequate feed-back to policy-making. Last but not least, the Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme gives the Commission a mandate to set out how to develop an evaluation mechanism at EU level. The Hague Programme states that "evaluation of the implementation as well as of the effects of all measures is, in Council"s opinion, essential to the effectiveness of Union action". Accordingly, the Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme, which sets out a framework for EU activities over the next five years, proposes various measures in this field. In particular, it provides for the adoption, in 2006, of a general from the Commission on how to develop an evaluation mechanism at EU level. The aim of this mechanism would be, inter alia, to reflect the objectives set in Article III-260 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe . The Action Plan also calls for a Communication on the systematic, objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of EU policies in the field of , with a view to reinforcing mutual trust while fully respecting the independence of the judiciary. Such an evaluation mechanism can only be proposed at EU level since it envisages comprehensive consolidation of the information gathered at national level. The EU would play a coordinating role here in the field of FSJ and is the only level where this coordination and consolidation can take place most effectively. Moreover, preparatory studies and initial interviews with Member States representatives have demonstrated that there is experience with EU policy evaluation at national level. The only (limited) experience to date with FSJ is the Councils peer review process, an exercise which has been used to evaluate third pillar policies on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, the role of law enforcement in fighting drug trafficking and exchanges of information and intelligence between Europol and the Member States. This process has examined how the national systems and the exchanges of best practice work. There is also the issue of independence and capacity for objective analysis. The peer review mechanism can be a highly politicised exercise and Member States are reluctant to criticise each other. Being in a more objective position and having the expertise, the Commission is at a vantage position to analyse and consolidate the data gathered at national level. The objectives mirror the issues identified in section 3.2. First, the Communication should enable the Commission to fulfil the mandate given by the Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme. Second, the Communication should put in place a clear and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system. The existing mechanisms are fragmented and incomplete. should, however, take into account various constraints: (a) the institutional and political differences between the first and third pillars; (b) evaluation mechanisms are more advanced in some areas than in others; (c) evaluation of FSJ is complex, multilayered and highly diverse. Third, another objective is greater transparency and wider participation regarding the implementation and results of the policies. Rationale for intervention, according to the Communication on evaluation Consistency of the objectives with other EU policies and strategies The proposed evaluation mechanism will have impact on other EU policies and strategies. It could serve as a test case for similar kinds of evaluation mechanisms in other areas. The mechanism takes into account all evaluation systems and processes on FSJ . It is also consistent with the forthcoming Communication on the evaluation of . As regards other areas of EU policy, informal consultations have been held to ensure that the proposed mechanism is in line with the Commission"s current policy on evaluation and with forthcoming guidance on this matter . For example, the concepts and definitions are in line, the objectives are the same. aims at making evaluation in the field of FJS more useful and used. This is the more general objective of the Commission in the field of evaluation. Five options for a mechanism for evaluation of FSJ policies should be considered: Option 1: No EU action No mechanism would be proposed. This assumes that the current system for evaluation of FSJ policies is satisfactory and that any new mechanism would create an unnecessary burden. This option has been discarded for the reasons given in section 3.2 (need to act). additional cost or administrative burden. Would not fulfil the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan, which calls for the adoption, in 2006, of a general from the Commission setting out how to develop an evaluation mechanism at EU level. The results and findings of previous studies on the fragmentation of current practices (especially "Preparatory study of policies and legislation - Development of an analytical framework") would remain without an adequate response. No improvement of the current system of evaluation of FSJ policies. Option 2: Provision of an analytical/methodological framework This option would take the form of a Communication providing a methodological framework for evaluation of FSJ policies. It would introduce no new mechanism. Its sole aim would be to give guidelines for evaluation of FSJ policies, taking into account their specific features. The question of monitoring implementation would be left aside. Communication about the analytical framework to develop evaluation of FSJ policies would change the current situation and would therefore not be politically challenged. Such a Communication would be ambitious and bring limited improvement to the current system of evaluation of FSJ policies. Such a Communication would use the results and findings of previous studies (especially "Preparatory study of policies and legislation - Development of an analytical framework"). Such a Communication might duplicate the work and recommendations of the planned Communication on evaluation (DG BUDG). Experience in the field of evaluation is still developing. The timing might not be right for such a Communication if the practical experience is lacking. Option 3: Focus on implementation/transposition of FSJ acquis The mechanism would focus on simple monitoring of implementation, as opposed to evaluation (far-reaching and covering mid-term results and impact). It would set up a system for monitoring implementation of EU measures on freedom, security and . Part of the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan would be fulfilled since only the "effects of all measures" would not be evaluated. Moreover, the concept of "evaluation", as currently understood in the Commission, would be left aside. would draw on experience with mutual evaluations and with reports on transposition of Directives and Framework Decisions. It could be linked to the development of capacity for dealing with infringements. Such a Communication would only partly fulfil the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan. This would be monitoring and not really evaluation as generally understood - the judgement of a measure. Therefore, it would be no improvement on the current system of evaluation of FSJ policies. This would not act upon the results and findings of previous studies (especially "Preparatory study of policies and legislation - Development of an analytical framework"). Such a mechanism would be very close to the on-going development of the scoreboard. There would be a risk of work being duplicated. Option 4: Develop policy evaluation, on current monitoring experience This would entail setting up a mechanism to monitor implementation of FSJ policies and to evaluate the effects of policies (evaluation). It follows the mandate given in the Hague Programme for "evaluation of the implementation as well as of the effects of all measures". Moreover, it provides a comprehensive package since evaluating the implementation and the outcomes of policies are complementary. A coherent and comprehensive package built around two pillars would be proposed: the Hague scoreboard: monitoring implementation of FSJ policies in the future; a three-step progressive strategic evaluation mechanism for FSJ: First, it provides for setting up a system for information gathering and sharing, covering the policy objectives and the main instruments for each area. Second, it would include a review mechanism, presenting the results of the analysis and consolidating the information. Third, the mechanism would be completed by targeted evaluations of particular policy areas or instruments, where necessary. Methodological questions on evaluation could be dealt with but only if they are related to the proposed mechanism. a mechanism would bring significant improvements to the current system of evaluation of FSJ policies. It is very ambitious in the timeframe available - risk of non-delivery. It would use and act upon the results and findings of previous studies (especially "Preparatory study of policies and legislation - Development of an analytical framework"). It could create an administrative burden for Member States. It would fulfil the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan, encompassing both evaluation and monitoring of implementation. Option 5: Develop an open method of coordination, on current monitoring experience Open coordination is a process of mutual feedback for planning, examining, comparing and adjusting the policies of EU Member States, all on the basis of common objectives. The effectiveness of the process depends on developing common indicators, benchmarks and targets, accompanied by peer reviews and exchanges of good practices, in order to facilitate mutual learning and monitor progress towards agreed goals. Examples of areas where the open method of coordination (OMC) has been used in the EU include: employment (annual national action plans and guidelines for employment strategy and the broad economic policy guidelines) and social exclusion; education (common objectives, voluntary harmonisation or interoperability of tertiary degree structures, also known as the Process); research and enterprise ("Strategy": research & development/innovation, information society, enterprise policy (annual scorecards)). Whereas in option 5.4 the evaluation mechanism assesses the effectiveness of action (although implemented in and by the Member States), in option 5.5 the Member States policies are targeted. In an OMC Member States would draft national policy plans and submit them to the Commission, which would then review them against a common strategy. Such a mechanism appears politically - in the current situation - very difficult if not impossible to put in place. Policies in the field of FSJ are often linked with national sovereignty. This implies first, that the MS will not agree with a feedback from other MS on their policies in the field. This also means that common objectives or guidelines will be difficult to establish. Last, confidentiality of information could be an additional issue. Also, the OMC is more intergovernmental than the traditional "Community method" of policy-making in the EU. Because it is a decentralised approach implemented largely by the Member States and supervised by the Council of Union, Commission plays a primarily monitoring role and the involvement of Parliament and Court of is very weak indeed. a mechanism would use and act upon the results and findings of previous studies (especially "Preparatory study of policies and legislation - Development of an analytical framework"). OMC mechanisms are very ambitious and difficult to put in place. There are serious doubts about the feasibility of such a system at the moment. It would be very ambitious and, to a certain extent, fulfil the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan. It would bring significant improvements to the current system of evaluation of FSJ policies at level but not at EU level. For this reason, the mandate given by the Hague Action Plan would not be completely fulfilled. Such a Communication is very ambitious in the timeframe available. OMC mechanisms are intergovernmental and different from the Community method. Comparing the policy options In terms of economic, social and environmental impact, there is difference between the options. The main differences between them are the scale of the positive effects, the administrative burden and the political implications. The table set out below analyses these differences. Option 4 is the only choice which fulfils the mandate given in the Hague Action Plan, enhances the current evaluation system and is at the same time realistic. The Commission believes that the administrative burden will be fairly limited. It is the best solution, according to the analysis matrix set out below. Summary of the different options