eunbil · GT0N1596 · 2006-07-14 00:00:00 — Criterion 1: fulfil the mandate given in the Hague Action Plan (0-5) Criterion 2: propose an effective and comprehensive evaluation system (0-5) Criterion 3: limit the administrative burden (0-5) Criterion 4: be politically realistic (0-5) Total (0-20) Option 1: No mechanism 0 0 5 0 5 Option 2: Provision of an analytical/methodological framework 0 2 4 1 7 Option 3: Focus on implementation/transposition of FSJ acquis 3 1 3 4 11 Option 4: Develop policy evaluation 5 4 3 5 17 Option 5: Develop open method of coordination 3 4 2 0 9 Criterion 1: To fulfil the mandate given in the The Hague Action Plan which provides for the adoption, in 2006, of a general from the Commission on how to develop an evaluation mechanism at EU level. Criterion 2: To propose an effective and comprehensive evaluation system. Focusing on the analytical/methodological framework or the implementation/transposition of FSJ acquis would result in a too partial system. Criterion 3: To limit the administrative burden. The administrative burden mainly comes from the additional (although limited) workload for EU institutions and MS that will result from the mechanism. Systems of monitoring and evaluations because they imply the designation of contact points and a process for information gathering and sharing would generate a reasonable but not negligible additional cost (see estimation under). OMC (option 5) is a bit more resources consuming. Criterion 4: To be politically realistic. Whilst the Commission proposal should be ambitious, it should be acceptable. A solution like an OMC would have chance to be agreed on and is badly graded here. We used the following grid (out of 5): 0: irrelevant proposal for this criterion 1: very bad 3: neutral / average 5: very good Further analysis of the impact of the preferred mechanism This mechanism for policy evaluation will have a positive direct impact on society through enhanced transparency and hence governance. The proposed mechanism will make it possible to transmit more information to all the stakeholders on implementation and the results of the policies. Improved FSJ policies will have an indirect positive impact on society. A climate of instability and insecurity has perverse effects on society as a whole. The autumn survey found that almost nine out of ten citizens polled think that fighting organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking should be priorities for Union and a large majority of them consider that the measures to prevent and fight these threats should be decided and carried out jointly. Specific forms of crime, such as drug addiction and trafficking in human beings, are sources of acute human suffering and can lead to social problems. Today no data suggest any significant fall in drug use and there are an estimated 1.5 million problem users in Union (EU). Second, terrorism wreaks immediate suffering on its direct victims, but also creates a widespread feeling of fear and terror which could destabilise society as a whole. Third, the spread of organised crime undermines the fabric of society and, ultimately, the rule of law, trust in institutions and States. Finally, corruption has a strong negative influence on governance and levels of social cohesion. The phenomenon takes many forms, from infiltration of law enforcement bodies by organised crime to petty corruption by individuals and abuse by individuals holding positions of power for the purpose of personal enrichment. One sign that corruption remains an important policy issue for Member States is that on the 2004 Perceptions Index compiled by the they rank from 1st to 67th out of the 146 countries surveyed. In the fields of immigration and asylum, a well managed and credible migration policy backed up by efficient integration measures is aiming at preventing a potential increase of racism and xenophobia. According to the survey, of the respondents in EU-15 expressed the view that multiculturalism had certain limits, an opinion that has increased since 1997. This mechanism will have no direct environmental impact. Action to create an Area of Freedom, and Security can have positive consequences for the environment which constitutes the third pillar of sustainable development. First, Commission is aiming to protect the environment under criminal law and establishing , criminal and administrative cooperation between Member States to combat serious environmental offences. Second, nuclear, bacteriological and chemical vectors - which pose a threat to the environment - are linked to organised crime. They can constitute a weapon in themselves and be a source of financing. Third, monitoring and exchanges of best practices at European level to protect critical infrastructure against major threats could enable the EU to avoid environmental disasters. Therefore, by ensuring that the Commission action is more efficient and better implemented by the Member States, this mechanism could have a positive indirect impact on the environment. The negative economic impact of this mechanism is the administrative cost to the institutions and the Member States. Provision of information by other stakeholders will be done on a voluntary basis and therefore there will be no additional cost for the involved organisations nor for the citizens. Estimating the administrative cost of the proposed mechanism First the cost of each step of the proposed mechanism must be calculated before adding these costs up. For step 1, the resources necessary to fill in a factsheet (R) can be estimated and then this figure can be multiplied by the number of factsheets (NF) and the number of countries (NC) to give C1 as the cost for step 1. C1 = R x NF x NC, R = Resources needed to fill in one factsheet (= 10 person-days or p-d) NF = 6, NC = 25. C1 = 1500 p-d Training costs of the staff have not been included for two reasons. First, the part of the mechanism which implies knowledge in the field of evaluation will not be dealt with by Member States. The officials in the Member States will be addressed together with the factsheets detailed information on how to fill them in. Second, training on evaluation is currently provided by the Commission (and the Member States). The mechanism will therefore not imply additional cost on this side. For step 2, the cost of preparing the "evaluation report" at Commission level can be estimated as follows: C2 = R1 + R2 (cost for step 2), R1 = Resources needed to write the report (= 20 person-days), R2 = Resources needed to coordinate gathering of the factsheets (= 10 person-days), , C2 = 30 p-d. The cost of step 3 depends on the number of in-depth evaluations carried out. The peer review team in the Council Secretariat-General will be taken as a reference point. Four national experts were needed for two years to complete the first round of evaluation. Another possibility would be to outsource the studies. C3 = 4 X 200 = 800 p-d. The total annual cost envisaged is therefore: C = C1 + C2 + C3 C = 2 330 p-d. Note 1: It is important to assess the net administrative costs (new costs imposed by an act minus costs saved by the same act whether at EU or at level). In the absence of the evaluation mechanism, several reporting and evaluation systems would remain in place and generate costs for the Member States and institutions. By combining different evaluation mechanisms into a single one, the proposed framework will also avoid cost duplication. Assessing these savings are currently difficult since we have information on the systems in place in the Member States. Note 2: This estimate has been made on a yearly basis. The information gathering and evaluation report exercise would take place twice every five years. The resources available for each exercise are therefore 2.5 times those for one year. R1 (writing the report) is expected to take an estimated 50 person-days. Information gathering Evaluation report Specific evaluations Implication at Commission level Additional human resources will be needed to coordinate the factsheets exercise. Additional human resources will be needed to draft the evaluation report. Additional financial resources will be needed to carry out the additional studies. Designation of a contact point to coordinate the factsheets exercise. - - The Commission staff working document "to the Communication on Better Regulation for Growth and in Union: Minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation - Detailed outline of a possible EU Net Administrative Cost Model" [COM(2005) 97] states that: "It is also necessary to recognise the benefits of reporting and information obligations of EU legislation. Without the resulting data streams for public authorities and companies, enforcement and implementation will be severely restricted to the detriment of economic, social and environmental objectives. It is therefore a question of ensuring a proper balance where reporting and information costs are proportionate to the benefits they bring." The evaluation mechanism proposed strikes the right balance between administrative costs and the benefits offered. Following the reasoning set out above, this policy evaluation mechanism will have a positive indirect economic impact. Insecurity entails high costs, not only to those areas directly affected, but also for the whole economy, given for example the effects on the stability of the stock markets, consumer and investor confidence, etc. Data on the macroeconomic effects of the terrorist attacks on corroborate this view. Critical infrastructure is particularly vulnerable, whether production plants, such as power stations, chemical works or pharmaceutical laboratories housing deadly viruses, or transport, energy and telecommunication networks, especially those which cross national borders. Civil protection is a European concern. Another concern is the rise in organised crime. According to Europol, the number of criminal gangs rose to around 4 000 in 2002, from around 3 000 in 2001. Moreover, the financial resources of organised crime are increasing dramatically, with the estimating the profits at between 2 and of Europe"s total gross domestic product. Also, while insecurity threatens economy, the pursuit of security not only protects companies and citizens jobs but also can contribute to enhancing internal and external competitiveness and speeding up economic growth. Moreover, the fight against all forms of crime has a positive impact on economic development. Measures which have a direct economic impact include action to combat financial crime, such as fraud and money laundering, relate directly to creating more opportunities for business to compete on a level playing field and ensure a robust financial system across the EU. This also encompasses efforts to combat terrorist financing. Work on counterfeiting and piracy has an immediate impact on the bottom line of the branches of industry worst hit by such crimes. The fight against corruption has a positive indirect impact on both the public sector (through public procurement, for example) and the private sector. The evaluation mechanism will be set up progressively. Progress could be monitored through the following set of indicators: Quality of the factsheets; Clarity of the factsheets; Quality of the report; Quality of the scoreboard; Clarity of the scoreboard. Number of factsheets gathered; Cost per factsheet (man days); Number of evaluation reports issued; Number of in-depth evaluations. Monitoring and evaluation of the system will be defined when the system is put in place. The system itself will monitor its own indirect impact. A review is envisaged after five years in operation, when the results of the mechanism in terms of the actual impact on FSJ policy-making will be taken into account. Communication on Evaluation - SEC(2000) 1051: OJ C 310, 16.12.2004, p. Article III-260 stipulates that "the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission, adopt European regulations or decisions laying down the arrangements whereby Member States, in collaboration with the Commission, conduct objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of the Union policies referred to in this Chapter by Member States" authorities, in particular in order to facilitate full application of the principle of mutual recognition". An overview is annexed to the Communication. A Communication on the Commission"s evaluation framework is under preparation. 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". Generally, the OMC works in stages. First, agrees on policy goals. then the Member States convert the guidelines into national and regional policies. Next, specific benchmarks and indicators are agreed upon to measure best practice. Finally, results are monitored and evaluated. However, the OMC differs significantly across the policy areas to which it has been applied: reporting periods may be shorter or longer, guidelines may be set at the EU or level and enforcement mechanisms may be or softer. 11223/06 ADD 1 GdK/kve DG H 2 EN System of information gathering and sharing Specific in-depth evaluation report