# EUR-Lex - 52012SC0422 - EN

*|*

# 52012SC0422

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Review of the Commission Consultation Policy Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Regulatory Fitness /* SWD/2012/0422 final */**

			*

			*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3

2........... Current public consultation
practices............................................................................... 4

2.1........ Consultation Frameworks............................................................................................... 4

2.1.1..... Specific consultation frameworks.................................................................................... 4

2.1.2..... Open and targeted consultations...................................................................................... 5

2.2........ Consultation Tools.......................................................................................................... 5

2.3........ Consultation principles and
standards.............................................................................. 7

2.4........ Consultation management................................................................................................ 9

3........... Review of the Commission public
consultation policy....................................................... 9

3.1........ Process.......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2........ Issues and findings........................................................................................................ 10

3.2.1..... Public consultation design.............................................................................................. 11

3.2.2..... Openness and reach..................................................................................................... 12

3.2.3..... Use of results................................................................................................................ 15

4........... Review’s conclusion and ways
forward......................................................................... 17

COMMISSION
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Review of the Commission Consultation Policy

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions

EU Regulatory Fitness

1.           Introduction

The European Commission interacts with citizens
in a variety of ways:

· 
Via the institutionalised mechanisms of citizens’
representation through which the exercise of power at the EU
level is organised.

· 
By collecting expertise from specialists
and evidence from stakeholders to provide the scientific and practical knowledge
required at different stages of the policy cycle[1].

· 
Via the dialogue tools through which citizens
and stakeholders voice their opinions on policy being
planned, approved, transposed or evaluated.

The latter activities constitute what is
commonly referred to as ‘public consultations’ and are conducted
in fulfilment of Treaty obligations.

General
Framework for Public Consultations

According to Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, ‘the
European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned
in order to ensure that the Union’s actions are coherent and transparent’.

Protocol no 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality annexed to the Treaties stipulates that ‘before proposing
legislative acts, the Commission shall consult widely’.

Public consultations are a key tool for
evidence-based policy-making throughout all of its stages: from when a policy
is designed to when it is being approved, transposed, implemented, monitored
and evaluated.

Accordingly, enhancing public consultations has
been at the centre of the Commission’s efforts to improve European governance
and ensure better and smarter regulation. In 2002, the Commission set out
principles and minimum standards for consulting external parties[2]. The application of the
standards was examined in the March 2007 follow-up to the European Transparency
Initiative[3].
The Commission announced in its 2010 Communication on Smart Regulation in the
EU[4] its intention to further strengthen
the voice of citizens and stakeholders by extending the minimum consultation
period from 8 to 12 weeks as of 2012 and by carrying out a review of its
consultation policy.

This document outlines the process and findings
of this review after briefly describing current consultation practices. It
concludes by identifying a set of possible measures to further improve the
Commission’s consultation practices. The review focuses on consultation
processes that take place during the phase of policy-design –, as input to Commission
decisions.

2.           Current
public consultation practices

2.1.        Consultation
Frameworks

The interaction between the Commission
and interested parties can take many forms, and the methods for consultation
and dialogue are adapted to different policy fields. In certain fields,
specific consultation frameworks apply and supplement (or replace) less
formalised processes.

2.1.1.     Specific
consultation frameworks

Specific consultation frameworks can stem from
the Treaties, other Community legislation, or be required under international
agreements:

· 
Specific provisions exist for consulting the social
partners[5].
According to Articles 153 – 155 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU
(TFEU), the Commission has the duty to consult European social partners
(management and labour) prior to presenting any legislative proposal in the
social field. The Treaty sets up a two-stage procedure whereby social partners
are first consulted on the general direction of an initiative and later on its
actual scope and content.

· 
Forms of institutionalised dialogue
are most notably represented by the social dialogue committees[6] which are part of the network
of European social partners and are consulted on policies that have a social
impact on a specific sector. In addition, social partners are involved in some advisory
committees specifically created to support the development of policies in
particular areas[7].

· 
The provisions of UNECE Aarhus convention may
apply[8]
to consultations that concern the environment or include an environmental
aspect. According to such provisions, the public should be given the opportunity
to participate during the preparation, modification or review of plans and
programmes relating to the environment at a stage when all options are still
open.

· 
During the legislative process, the Commission
also consults the European Economic and Social Committee
(representing various socio-economic organisations in Member States) and the Committee
of the Regions (made up of representatives of local and regional authorities),
and seeks the opinions of national parliaments and governments.

· 
In the areas where EU legislators have conferred
implementing powers on the Commission, a specific framework applies when consulting
with comitology committees. In such cases, prior to implementation, the
Commission must consult a committee where every EU country is represented on
the detailed implementing measures it proposes. The committee provides an
opinion on the proposed measures which is more or less binding depending on the
particular procedure specified in the underlying legal act.

2.1.2.     Open
and targeted consultations

Consultations can be targeted at a
specific category of stakeholders (consumers, SMEs, regions, social partners,
etc.), or open to all interested parties. Targeted and open
consultations, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive and individual
consultation processes may combine targeted and open phases depending on the
policy-development stage and specific consultation objectives.

In practice, a combination of targeted and open
consultations is most commonly used by the Commission services. The examination
of some 260 impact assessments (IAs) has shown that open public consultations
were used in three quarters of all cases, most often in combination with one or
more rounds of targeted consultations. In the remaining 25 % of IAs examined,
targeted consultation was carried out[9].

2.2.        Consultation
Tools

The Commission uses a range of consulting
instruments which include:

· 
Consultation documents adopted by the Commission
(such as Green Papers[10],
White Papers[11]
and social partners consultation documents);

· 
Other consultation documents;

· 
Questionnaires with open-ended and/or closed
questions[12];

· 
Consultation meetings, workshops, hearings;

· 
Individual interviews;

· 
Surveys (for instance via the Eurobarometer tool[13]);

· 
Specific networks and platforms like the Enterprise
Europe Network[14]
to consult SMEs through the ‘SME panel’ tool[15],[16], the networks of the
Committee of the Regions[17],
various fora representing consumers[18]
and other interest groups[19]
etc. [20];

· 
The Commission also frequently calls on external
expertise to complement its in-house expertise, to ensure that EU policies have
a sound knowledge base. It uses various ways to collect expertise, such as advisory
bodies/expert groups, workshops, conferences, seminars, etc.

Figure 1: Main consultation tools and
methods used by the Commission

2.3.        Consultation
principles and standards

In 2002, the Commission identified a set of
general principles for its relations with external parties and a number of
minimum standards for consulting them during the process of policy design[21]. Principles and standards were
devised to ensure that Commission services would carry out consultation in a
transparent and coherent manner that encouraged the involvement of interested
parties and enhanced the Commission’s accountability.

The general principles identified for governing
relations with stakeholders are participation, openness, and accountability,
effectiveness and coherence. It is in the context of applying these principles
that the Commission encouraged the organisations engaged in interactions with
the European institutions to declare their interest and
be registered in the register of interest representatives[22].

The minimum consultation standards require
that:

· 
Consultation documents are clear, concise, and
include all necessary information (minimum standard A);

· 
All relevant parties have an opportunity to
express their opinion (minimum standard B);

· 
Adequate awareness-raising publicity is ensured
and communication channels are adapted to meet the needs of all target
audiences (minimum standard C);

· 
Participants are given sufficient time for
responses (minimum standard D);

· 
Acknowledgement and adequate feedback is provided
(minimum standard E).

With the exception of the lengthening of the
minimum period for the reception of responses under minimum standard D from 8
to 12 weeks in 2012, standards and general principles have remained unchanged.
They:

· 
Do not apply whenever a specific
consultation framework is provided for by the Treaty, other European
legislation or an international agreement.

· 
Apply mandatorily
to Green papers and to all consultations carried out when preparing a new
Commission proposal which is subject to an impact assessment. In this regard:

· 
The provisions on public consultation in the
context of impact assessments were strengthened as a result of the 2009 review
of the IA guidelines. Services must now ensure that stakeholders can comment on
a clear problem definition, subsidiarity analysis, description of the possible
options and their impacts[23].

· 
The number of proposals subject to impact
assessment has significantly increased over the years. IAs are now carried out
for all initiatives likely to have significant impacts — whether they be Commission
Work Programme items, proposals for legislative or spending activity,
policy-setting initiatives or implementing measures.

· 
Are to be applied where possible in any other type of consultation that the Commission services may
launch.

Figure 2: Scope of minimum standards

2.4.        Consultation
management

The implementation of the Commission’s public-consultation
policy is decentralised to individual services. Commission services choose
consultation tools and methods on the basis of consultation objectives, target
groups and available resources. The responsibility for defining the most
appropriate consultation strategy for specific initiatives lies with the lead
service within the Commission.

This decentralised structure allows the
Commission to properly take into account the specific nature of different
policy areas. It also assigns responsibility for key decisions concerning
consultation strategy to those who prepare the relevant policy initiative and
have the best knowledge of the relevant stakeholders.

Central support to services is provided
through a dedicated public consultation intranet website, offering practical
guidance, common templates etc. Although there is no formal obligation to do so,
the service responsible for the consultation sometimes involves other services
in the preparation and management of public consultations (notably by sharing
draft public consultation documents with the members of the relevant impact
assessment steering group[24]
for comments).

3.           Review
of the Commission public consultation policy

3.1.        Process

The review drew upon the evidence and proposals
collected through:

· 
A review of international standards and best
practice, notably the 2012 OECD ‘Recommendation on
Regulatory Policy and Governance’[25].

· 
An open consultation of external stakeholders[26] — The public consultation on the implementation of smart regulation,
which ran from 27 June to 21 September 2012 in 22 languages, posed 10
sets of questions on public-consultation policy (minimum standards, scope,
timing, outreach, representativeness, feedback and results). 108 replies were
received. A detailed overview of them is provided in the summary consultation
document[27].

· 
Inputs from Commission services — Internal discussions involving relevant Commission services[28] took place to draw upon their practical
experience. The services were asked to provide their views on the minimum
standards and on the usefulness of stakeholders’ input, as well as to suggest how
to exploit the full potential of public consultations undertaken for the impact
assessment process, how to reach the right stakeholders and how to improve
internal support for public-consultation purposes. A number of services
provided additional written comments as a follow-up to the discussions.

· 
An internal examination of current
consultation practices — Two sets of data were
analysed:

· 
All consultations published on the ‘Your Voice
in Europe’ (YViE) portal between January 2010 and August 2012, in order to
collect information on their actual duration, tools used, translation
availability and publication of individual replies and summary reports. A
subset of this data was used to analyse the clarity of the consultation
questions used in the IPM questionnaires.

· 
All impact assessments submitted to the Impact
Assessment Board (IAB)[29]
between January 2010 and August 2012, in order to assess the consultation
methods used. A subset of this data[30]
was used to analyse in more detail which aspects of IA stakeholders are usually
consulted upon, and how useful their input is for the decision-making process.

3.2.        Issues
and findings

The review sought to
assess whether, given the existing set of general principles for relations with
stakeholders, current consultation standards and practices ensure that the
right people are asked the right questions about the right initiatives, so as
to feed into Commission decision-making in an efficient manner.

To address this general question, a
sub-set of issues pertaining to (i) the design of individual public
consultations, (ii) their openness and reach, and (iii) the use of their
results, were identified and analysed. The main findings are discussed below on
an item-by-item basis. Since these issues are often inter-related, improvement
measures are often of a cross-cutting nature. They are discussed in section 4.

3.2.1.     Public
consultation design

Consultation with interested parties increases
the level of transparency and helps improve the quality of proposals if it taps
into expertise and manages to balance opposing views and interests when
identifying policy options and assessing their expected impacts.

To reap these benefits, the Commission consults
widely: some 330 open public consultations took place between January 2010 and
August 2012[31];
all impact assessments scrutinised by the IAB between January 2010 and mid-July
2012 were based on consultations (open (190), targeted or a combination of
both).

Respondents to the public consultation generally
considered that the Commission is consulting on the right type of initiative,
agreeing with its approach to consult on all initiatives with significant
impacts. They also acknowledged that existing minimum consultation standards are
appropriate and generally respected in practice.

Some concerns were nevertheless expressed with
respect to the scope of individual consultations. Several
respondents indicated that, in some cases, consultations appeared to be
unbalanced relative to different aspects of impact assessment. Some
stakeholders asked for the Commission to consult on draft IAs.

The review of internal practices and the input
from services indicate that the main challenge for consulting systematically
and widely on all key aspects of an impact assessment is due to the difficulty
of fitting the timing of consultations into the (political) calendar for
policy-making. Services are also wary of the burden that several consultation
rounds may impose.

In practice, services often tackle these
challenges by using a mix of targeted and open consultations. Table 3
shows that for most initiatives subject to an impact assessment, an open public
consultation was combined with additional targeted consultations. An internal
assessment of a set of IAs confirmed that open public consultations are often
held relatively early in the process, when there is no definitive view on final
policy options and their impacts. Stakeholders are then consulted at later
stages in a more targeted fashion (via stakeholder meetings, public hearings,
workshops, conferences, surveys, advisory committees, expert groups or consultations
of specific groups such as social partners, SMEs, consumers, etc.). Respondents
to the public consultation stressed the importance of supplementing open public
consultations with more targeted ones and of consulting at an early stage, as
well as later in the process.

In cases where no open public consultation was carried
out within the IA process, the nature of the initiatives justify the exclusive
use of targeted consultations in the majority of cases, i.e. ‘narrow’ proposals
with impacts limited to a specific sector, proposals with specific consultation
requirements (such as eco-design consultation[32]
or consultation of social partners) and proposals building on the results of other
recent open consultations.

Figure 3: Type of consultation (open public
consultation and targeted consultations)[33]

Year || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

Consultations on YViE[34] || 97 || 130 || 101

Number of IAs || 65 || 147 || 47

open public consultation[35] || 42 || 117 || 31

other types of consultation[36] || 38 || 96 || 26

no open consultation[37] || 23 || 30 || 16

other types of consultation[38] || 23 || 30 || 16

Overall, these findings suggest that stakeholders
could be better involved at a later stage in policy-making, and that they could
be more consistently consulted on all key aspects of an IA. This could be
achieved by further improving consultation planning, and by establishing
clearer and more complete consultation strategies early in the policy-making
process. These strategies should ideally address the whole policy-making
process, clearly identifying what type of consultation is needed, for what
purpose, at what stage, with whom and by means of which instruments.

3.2.2.     Openness
and reach

For consultations to provide useful and
balanced input for policy design, it is essential to seek the whole spectrum of
relevant stakeholders’ views so as not to be unduly influenced by any specific
interests. The challenges of reaching the right stakeholders and getting the
necessary information from them are well known. First, consultation
documents must be clear, complete and easily understandable by those to whom they
are addressed. Secondly, target groups must be clearly identified and actively
sought out, to ensure they are granted a real possibility of participating in
the consultation.

The review therefore assessed the quality and
accessibility of consultation documents, looked at the ways in which
communication channels are used to raise awareness about consultations, and
assessed the experience with consultations targeted at specific stakeholders.

Concerning the clarity and completeness of
consultation documents, some respondents to the public consultation
indicated that documents were not always comprehensive and sufficiently clear,
especially to the non-expert reader.

One particular need for improvement identified concerned
the clarity of IPM online questionnaires. Several replies pointed out the
limitations of IPM questionnaires and called for a more limited and careful use
of these online tools. Cited limitations included insufficient predefined
character spaces for answers, the use of leading questions and simple yes/no
alternatives which do not allow stakeholders to express their views.

An in-house assessment of a set of
questionnaires confirmed that questions could at times be formulated in clearer
and simpler ways. As for frequency of use, Table 4 indicates that, overall, the
use of consultation documents and the IPM questionnaire is balanced for the
open public consultations (141 IPM questionnaires and 165 consultation
documents, including Green and White papers). There may, however, be a trend
towards greater IPM use.

Another recurring concern with regard to the
accessibility of consultations was their availability in different EU
languages. Stakeholders can provide answers to Commission consultations in
any of the EU official languages but some respondents believe consultation
documents should also be available in all languages.

The data, as indicated in the table below,
shows that many consultations are already available in more than one language.
Most Green Papers are translated into all languages. The Commission cannot undertake
to make all consultation documents available in all EU official languages,
because translation resources are limited and are primarily needed for the
Commission’s legal-translation obligations. Within these overall constraints, lead
services assess which language versions are needed to ensure a particular
consultation reaches the intended stakeholders.

Figure 4: Consultation tools and available
languages[39]

Year || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

Total number of consultations || 97 || 130 || 101

Consultation document || 1 language EN (31) 2-4 languages (10) 22 languages (6) || 1 language EN (37) 2-5 languages (6) 21-22 languages (15) || 1 language EN (16) 3 languages (2) 22 languages (17)

Green Paper || 1 language EN (1) 3 languages (2) 13 languages (1) 22 languages (2) || 22 languages (12) || 3 languages (1) 22 languages (5)

White Paper || 3 languages (1) || n/a || n/a

IPM questionnaire || 2-6 languages (4) 23 languages (1) EN (25) || 3-6 languages (8) 22-23 languages (3) EN (40) || 1 language EN (25) 3-6 languages (8) 22 languages (3) EN (24)

Finally, giving interested parties enough time
to voice their concerns and views is essential if consultations are to provide
useful input for policy making. The introduction of a 12-week consultation
period has been broadly welcomed by the respondents to the public
consultation but some of them called for a stricter enforcement of its application.
However, as shown in Table 5, Commission services generally comply with the
time limits for consultation, the compliance rate being around 90 % for
the three years assessed.

Figure 5: Respect of consultation time
limits[40]

Year || Total number of consultations || Exact start date & end date known || 8 / 12 weeks respected

2010 || 97 || 76 || 87 %

2011 || 130 || 113 || 96 %

2012 (8 weeks) || 20 || 20 || 95 %

2012 (12 weeks) || 81 || 81 || 89 %

As for the tools used to reach stakeholders,
roadmaps[41]
currently give advance warning of forthcoming policy initiatives and related
consultations. This facilitates stakeholder involvement. Most respondents to
the consultation appreciated this system of consultation planning but
many stated they would welcome a dedicated centralised consultation
planning calendar. Some also pointed to overlapping consultations and asked for
roadmaps to be regularly updated.

The Commission also widely publicises the
launch of its consultations through its single access portal ‘Your Voice in
Europe’. Some 330 consultations were posted on this portal between January 2010
and August 2012. Feedback received in the public consultation shows that this portal
and the alert system linked to it are in practice the main tool used to learn
about Commission consultations, although many also become aware of
consultations through the individual websites of Commission
directorates-general, or by alerts through existing stakeholder networks. Respondents
frequently acknowledged the publication of all consultations on a single
website as good practice. However, they also pointed to the need to widen the existing
alert mechanism to include the publication of summary reports and to
extend its availability to all interested parties, not only those registered in
the Transparency Register.

In addition, efforts are also made to reach specific
stakeholder groups. Simplified questionnaires are prepared for consulting SMEs
and are translated and distributed to the target companies via the Enterprise
Europe network partners in the Member States. A similar approach is used to consult
local and regional authorities through the networks of the Committee of the
Regions. Some services also use social media to communicate with interested
parties or publicise new consultations in newsletters, press-releases or press events.

Respondents to the public consultation recognised
the usefulness of such targeted tools but also pointed out their limitations in
terms of the representativeness of replies and the transparency with which
those asked to take part in a consultation are selected.

Some respondents also indicated that the
Commission should advertise the consultations in a more proactive way,
including via more systematic direct contacts with targeted stakeholders. The
use of communication channels in Member States should also be explored.

3.2.3.     Use
of results

The review of sample IAs and the internal consultations
with services confirmed that the input from consultations is generally useful
to the decision-making process. However, this varies from case to case,
depending upon a correct choice of consultation tools and whether efforts to reach
all relevant stakeholders were successful. For instance, targeted consultations
provide more useful input for ‘narrow’, technical proposals with impacts
limited to clearly defined stakeholder groups, while open consultations are more
suitable for cross-cutting topics and topics of general interest that directly
affect citizens, workers and businesses across sectors.

In addition, to make sure results provide a
well-balanced input, it is important to assess the representativeness and
relative importance of different (categories of) respondents.[42]

As regards the respondents to public
consultations, they clearly indicated that consulting when policy choices are
still open is essential if public consultations are to shape policy-making
rather than the opposite.

Many also stated there had been insufficient feedback
and follow-up of their input. Providing timely and better quality feedback,
clearly showing how and to what extent the input to the consultation influences
policy shaping, would improve the transparency of the policy-development
process and solicit better responses to consultations. Resource constraints,
however, limit the extent to which the Commission can respond to individual
concerns.

Nevertheless, as indicated in Figure 6, existing
Commission minimum standards in this area should be better respected. Similarly,
the recommendations of the Impact Assessment Board indicate that there is scope
to improve the way in which stakeholder input is analysed in impact assessment
reports. In 2011, the number of IAB recommendations relating to stakeholder
consultation increased for the third year in a row, reaching 68 % of
opinions in 2011[43].

Figure 6: Availability of individual replies
and summary consultation reports[44]

Year || 2010 || 2011 || 2012

No of consultations || 97 || 130 || 101

Individual contributions || Published (53) Not published (36) n/a (8) || Published (80) Not published (46) n/a (4) || Published (18) Not published (46) n/a (37)

Summary report || Published (42) Not published (47) n/a (8) || Published (74) Not published (53) n/a (3) || Published (15) Not published (49) n/a (37)

4.           Review’s
conclusion and ways forward

Those who are affected by regulation or have to
implement it are best placed to assess its costs and benefits. Hearing the concerns
and proposals of citizens and stakeholders is therefore fundamental for smart
regulation at all stages of the policy cycle.

The Commission review of how it consults during
the policy design phase has confirmed its consultation policy and its tools remain
valid and fulfil international best standards[45].
The review has also confirmed the progress in implementation achieved since the
introduction of the general principles and minimum standards in 2002.

Nevertheless, the analysis of current practices
and the responses from stakeholders highlighted areas where further performance
improvements should be sought.

Consultations do not always ask all the right
questions and those who are affected by a policy do not always provide the
answers needed. This is related to:

· 
The quality of the consultation documents used,
particularly in the case of questionnaire-based consultations. Although efforts
are made to ensure that consultation documents are detailed, comprehensive and
unbiased, at times they lack clarity and/or questions may not allow for the
full expression of stakeholder views.

· 
The trade offs between the early and late timing
of open public consultations relative to the policy-design process. Both
options have pros and cons but two rounds of open 12-weeks consultations would
in most cases lead to consultation fatigue and excessive delay in policy-making.

· 
The cost and difficulty of reaching the relevant
stakeholders. The time limit for consultation has already been extended,
facilitating input from all, but greater efforts could be warranted in terms of
more proactive advertising, more efficient communication strategies, more
representative and transparent tools used for targeted consultation and better
systematic feedback. Also, constrained administrative resources limit the
extent to which key documents can be translated. Within these limits, the
Commission will nevertheless strive to ensure a wider availability of
translated consultation documents.

Addressing these problems would lead to further
improvement in respecting the minimum standards and in the quality of the
Commission’s consultation processes. As a result, public consultation could
even more efficiently support the impact assessment process and feed into the
decision-making process. Given that the weaknesses are largely related to the
implementation of the existing policy, the areas for improvement outlined below
refer mainly to Commission processes. Measures and actions to be taken include:

Adjusting the Minimum standards

· 
While the current minimum standards remain
valid, they will be revised to provide more practical, operational guidance.
For example, they will clarify the exact scope of application of standards (for
instance in case of targeted consultations or consultations in the context of ex-post
evaluations). They will also set out criteria for shorter consultation rounds —
either before or after a full 12-week open consultation — to facilitate
more thorough consultation during the impact assessment process.

Improving Planning

· 
Further facilitate stakeholders’ responses by
publishing a rolling calendar of planned consultations on the 'Your Voice in
Europe' webpage. This could also help avoiding overlapping or repetitive
consultations of the same target groups through different channels.

Using Innovative Consultation Tools

· 
To supplement more standard document or
questionnaire-based consultations, the use of new tools will be explored and
more effective and efficient recourse to structured hearings and multi-staged
consultations will be encouraged.

· 
Seek ways to better mobilize the existing communication
channels through which Member States administration publicize national
consultations so as to enhance the outreach to stakeholders.

Feedback

· 
Feedback to consultations will be improved by
developing alert systems to notify respondents at key stages in the
follow-up policy-making cycle, by better reflecting the results of
consultations in the IA reports, by strengthening the enforcement of the
mandatory publication of a summary of public consultation responses, by
developing a standard template for such summary (to ensure for instance an
appropriate reflection of the contributions by different respondent groups) and
by striving to ensure its more frequent translation in a wider set of languages.

Internal quality support and control

· 
More support will be given to lead services to
help them to design the best consultation strategy, identifying the best mix
and use of consultation tools, and to improve the quality of consultation
documents.

· 
Quality-control mechanisms will be strengthened.

[1]               See the Guidelines on the collection and use of
expertise by the Commission: COM(2002) 713. See also the public register of
Commission expert groups:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=faq.faq&aide=2.

[2]               COM(2002) 704, ‘General principles and minimum
standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’.

[3]               COM(2007) 127, ‘Follow-up to the Green Paper "European Transparency Initiative"’.

[4]               COM(2010) 543, ‘Smart Regulation in the European
Union’.

[5]               See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=329&langId=en
for list of officially recognised representative European social partners
organisations and for details on consultation of the social partners and of the
social dialogue committees. See also Annex 5.2 of Impact Assessment Guidelines:
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm.

[6]               Commission Decision 98/500/EC on the establishment of
Sectoral Dialogue Committees promoting the dialogue between the social partners
at European level.

[7]               For example, a tripartite consultation in the area of
occupational safety and health is provided by the advisory committee on safety
and health at work, which assists the Commission in the preparation, implementation
and evaluation of activities in this field.

[8]               Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European
Parliament and the Council on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus
convention to Community institutions and bodies.

[9]               See Chapter 3 section 3.2.1. for exact figures.

[10]             Green papers are used at early stages of policy
development to stimulate discussion on particular topics.

[11]             White papers set out a policy in a detailed and
reasoned manner in order to prompt a debate and reach a political decision.

[12]             The Commission mainly uses the questionnaires developed
under the IPM (Interactive Policy Making) initiative. It is a web-based
application used to create and conduct surveys and public consultations over
the web. It generates user-friendly questionnaires, making it easier both for
respondents to participate in the consultations and for policy-makers to
analyse the results.

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/index_en.htm.

[13]             http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm.

[14]             http://portal.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu/.

[15]             In November 2011, the European Business Test Panel
(EBTP) merged with the SME panel.

[16]             For example, specific SME consultation was carried out
through the Enterprise Europe Network for the impact assessment on the
alignment of 10 technical harmonisation directives with the new legislative
framework for the marketing of products: SEC(2011) 1376.

[17]             Subsidiarity Monitoring Network and Europe 2020
Monitoring Platform. The consultation arrangements are defined in the updated
Protocol on Cooperation between the Commission and the Committee of the Regions.
The networks are used to consult regional and local authorities
when significant regional and local aspects are at stake. For example, a specific
survey on territorial impacts was coordinated by the Committee of the Regions
for the preparation of the proposal for a programme for the environment and
climate action (LIFE), see the relevant impact assessment: SEC(2011) 1542.

[18]             For example the European Consumer Consultative Group
and the Network of European Consumer Centres.

[19]             The EU Health Policy Forum, the Forum for the better
functioning of the Food Supply Chain and the Advisory Group on the Food Chain
and Animal and Plant Health.

[20]             For example the Network on free movement of workers or the
Network on training and reporting on European Social Security.

[21]             COM(2002) 704, General Principles and minimum standards
for consultation of interested parties by the Commission.

[22]             Transparency Register accessible at: http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm.
Those registered benefit from an automatic alert service for newly published
consultations and roadmaps.

[23]             See IA guidelines:

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm.

[24]             Impact Assessment Steering Groups (IASG) bring together
representatives of all Commission services with an interest in the development
of an initiative. They are fully involved in all phases of impact assessment
work.

[25]             http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatorypolicy/49990817.pdf.

[26]             Consultation accessible at:

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/smart_regulation/consultation_2012/consultation_en.htm.

[27]             Summary consultation document accessible at:

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/smart_regulation/consultation_2012/consultation_docs_en.htm.

[28]             Discussions at the Impact assessment working group
meetings (IAWG is a network of officials who contribute to the Commission’s
impact assessment work and its coordination).

[29]             The IAB provides independent quality control and
quality support for Commission IAs.

[30]             To draw 20 IAs for detailed assessment, stratified
sampling from a population of 216 IAs examined by the IAB between January 2010
and mid-July 2012 (43 IAs for the sectoral spending programmes in the context
of the multiannual financial framework for EU spending (2014-2020) were not
included in the overall sample) was used. IAs were divided into 4 sub-groups
reflecting the four areas of IA (microeconomic, macroeconomic, environmental
and social). Each group was then sampled as an independent sub-population, out
of which individual elements were randomly selected. Proportionate allocation
was used — from each of the four sub-groups, a number of IAs that was
proportional to the share of the sub-group in the total population was drawn.

[31]             Consultations published on Your Voice in Europe.

[32]             The comitology committees are consulted before
preparation of the implementing measures setting ecodesign requirements for
energy-related products. In addition, the Ecodesign Directive established the
ecodesign consultation forum — a group of experts which allows stakeholders to
be informed and provide their contribution on the implementation of the
Ecodesign Directive. A consultation of the ecodesign forum replaces open
public consultations.

[33]             Source: Impact assessments scrutinised by the IAB
between January 2010 and August 2012. ‘Year’ corresponds to the year in which
the IAB examined the impact assessment. ‘Other types of consultation’
include: stakeholder meetings, public hearings, workshops, conferences,
surveys, consultation of specific groups (SMEs, social partners, etc.),
advisory committees, expert groups, etc.

[34]             The year of consultation publication on YViE does not
necessarily coincide with the year in which the IA was scrutinised by the IAB.
Therefore it is not possible to match the figures from the YViE dataset with
those of the IA dataset. However, it gives an indication that Commission
consultations are not restricted to proposals accompanied by an IA.

[35]             Out of total number of IAs.

[36]             Out of number of IAs for which open public consultation
was carried out.

[37]             Out of total number of IAs.

[38]             Out of number of IAs for which open public consultation
was not carried out.

[39]             Source: Consultations published on Your Voice in
Europe. 2012 data is until the end of August. ‘Year’ corresponds to the year of
consultation end date, in line with the classification used in YViE portal. For
2010 and 2011, information on consultation languages was not available for 13
and 9 consultations respectively. For IPM questionnaires, it is not possible to
know which languages other than EN were available unless pdf versions of
questionnaires are still available online (number of such cases is indicated in
the last entry in IPM questionnaire line).

[40]             Source: Consultations published on Your Voice in
Europe. 2012 data is until end of August. ‘Year’ corresponds to the year of
consultation end date, in line with the classification used in YViE portal.
Consultation period is calculated as: [consultation end date — consultation
start date]/7. Compliance with the time limit is considered when consultation
period >=7.5 (11.5) weeks.

[41]             http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/planned_ia_en.htm.

[42]             For instance, for social partner organisations to be consulted under Article 154 TFEU,
the Commission conducts regularly the assessments of their representativeness.

[43]             See 2011 IAB report: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/sec_2012_0101_en.pdf.

[44]             Source: Consultation published on Your Voice in Europe.
2012 data is until end of August. 'Year' corresponds to the year of
consultation end date, in line with the classification used in YViE portal for
some consultations, information is not available as the relevant webpage links
are no longer active, or consultations are still open (for 2012).

[45]             See 2012 OECD ‘Recommendation of the Council on
Regulatory Policy and Governance’.