EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 29.1.2010 
SEC(2009) 1728 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Impact Assessment Board Report for 2009 
 
EN 2   EN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
The Impact Assessment Board is  a central quality control an d support function working under 
the authority of the Commission President. It is independent of the policy making 
departments. The Board examines and issues  opinions on all the Commission's impact 
assessments and hence on the quality of the an alysis underpinning the policy proposals the 
Commission puts forward. It also provides advi ce to Commission services on methodology at 
the early stages of preparation of the impact assessments. 
The main developments in the Board's work in 2009 are as follows: 
• The standards applied by the Board in 2009 were based on new Impact Assessment 
Guidelines which address several concerns  raised by the Board in its 2007 and 2008 
reports.  
• In 2009, the Board examined 79 impact assessme nts, compared to 135 in 2008 and 102 in 
2007. The lower number is explained by the fact that 2009 was a transition year in the 
European Parliament and the Commission. Th e Board expects the numbers to be higher 
again in 2010.  
• In line with the trend perceive d in 2008, the Board noted a furt her shift in the main quality 
issues from the basic structural elements of  the impact assessments, which continue to 
improve, to more substantial analytical issues . The number of impact assessments that the 
Board asked to examine for a second time was 37% compared to 33% in 2008. 
• In terms of embedding the impact assessment culture in the Commission's policy 
development process, the Board welcomes the measures taken by Commission services, 
such as strengthened training and in ternal impact assessment support.  
The Board's main messages for the future are as follows: 
• Transparency is a key strength of the Commission's approach to impact assessment and can 
be further enhanced. The Board welcomes the in tention to publish a list of planned impact 
assessments starting in 2010, and to prepare road maps not only for initiatives included in 
the Commission Legislative and Work Programme (CLWP)1, but for all initiatives with 
significant impacts. The Board has identif ied two additional measures to promote 
transparency:  
                                                 
1 Subject to a decision from the new College on the name of its work programme. 
 
EN 3   EN – The follow-up of Board opinions can be improved further. Commission services 
should ensure that their final impact a ssessment reports include  a more explicit 
indication of how each of the Board's recommendations has been dealt with. 
– The Board would welcome a more standardised format for executive summaries.  
• Better planning is essential to improving the quality of impact assessments. In 2009, the 
need to respond in a timely fashion to the ec onomic and financial crisis and the transition 
to the new Commission both had an impact on planning. While there will always be 
unexpected or urgent issues which cannot be anticipated, the Board would nevertheless 
welcome: 
– Further efforts by Commission services to  improve the overall planning of impact 
assessment and policy development work.  
– Greater awareness from the other EU ins titutions, and in particular of Council 
Presidencies, of the importance of a llowing sufficient time for the underlying 
analysis when suggesting timetab les for Commission initiatives. 
2. CONTEXT , MANDATE , AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD2 
The main features of the Impact Assessment Board are: 
• The Board provides independent support a nd quality control for Commission impact 
assessments. It is supported by a secretaria t provided by the Secret ariat-General of the 
Commission. 
• The five Members of the Board are appointed  by the President of the Commission for a 
two year term3. They act in a personal capacity, not as  representatives of  their services.  
• The results of the quality control are reflect ed in opinions of the Board which accompany 
the corresponding policy proposals throughout th e Commission's decision making process 
and are then made publicly available. 
• The Board discusses its prelim inary findings with the authors of the impact assessment 
before issuing an opinion. 
• For impact assessments which require subs tantial improvements, the Board requests a 
revised version to be submitted on which it issues an additional opinion ("resubmission"). 
                                                 
2 Annex 1 provides a detailed overview of these issues. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governa nce/impact/index_en.htm 
3 The composition of the Board in 2009: John Farnell (DG ENTR), Gert-Jan Koopman (DG ECFIN), 
Timo Mäkelä (DG ENV), Xavier Prats Monne (DG EM PL), and Alexander Italianer (SG) as Chair. 
 
EN 4   EN While there were no changes in the Board's f unctioning or membership in 2009 compared to 
2008, the following facts can be mentioned: 
• New Impact Assessment Guidelines were adopted at the begi nning of 2009. They 
introduce changes which address concerns that the Board expressed in its reports in 2007 
and 2008, including better planning and better stakeholder consultation4. While the Board 
took account of the fact that the impact assessm ents it received in early 2009 were prepared 
on the basis of the previous Guidelines, th e new requirements were quickly applied.  
• The Board reacted flexibly to urgent political  developments. In particular, the need to 
provide a timely response to the financial cr isis imposed a tight schedule for six impact 
assessments carried out by DG MARKT5. These were submitted to the Board with a 
shorter delay than usual, and the revised impact  assessments were available at a later stage 
of the remaining policy-making process th an usual. Nevertheless, revised impact 
assessments were produced for the two cases fo r which the Board aske d for a resubmission 
and second opinions issued before the comp letion of the decision-making process. 
• In 2009, the Members of the Board declared a conflict of interest on five occasions and 
abstained from the discussions on these impact assessments.  
• In 2009 the Board has not used the services of  external experts. However, on one occasion 
it asked for the opinion of the Commission' s Legal Service for a case on access to 
EURODAC for law enforcement authorities. 
3. ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD  
3.1. Quality support 
The Board provides quality support in diffe rent ways and at different levels: 
a) Up-stream quality support at the early stages of preparation for particularly 
challenging assessments. 
Box 1– Example of up-stream quality support . 
In 2009 DG ENV prepared the European Union position for the international agreement to be 
concluded in the United Nations climate ch ange conference in Copenhagen in December 
2009. While an impact assessment was not necessary  given the nature of the initiative, the 
Board provided methodological support for the analysis. 
                                                 
4 A detailed overview of the changes can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm  
5 Abbreviations of Commission di rectorates-general and services  are explained in Annex 2. 
 
EN 5   EN b) Review of roadmaps6, as part of the Board's support at the beginning of the impact 
assessment work. The Board's comments are inte nded to help Commission services to make 
early improvements in the framing of the imp act assessments which would be difficult to 
introduce later in the pr ocess. As in 2008, the Board reviewed  all the roadmaps  for initiatives 
which were included in the CLWP for 2009. The Board welcomes the fact that from 2010 on 
services will prepare roadmaps for all initiativ es which may have significant impacts (not only 
for CLWP items, but also for Catalogue7 and Comitology items8).  
c) Detailed suggestions for improvements in the form of a quality  checklist produced for 
all impact assessments in the run up to a Board meeting9. 
d) Further advice to the author service on how to address the concerns raised by the 
Board after the meeting. 
As part of upstream support, but also to ra ise awareness and take stock of how Commission 
services perceive the Board's work, the Chair of the Board visited the management teams of 
three services in 2009 (DGs RT D, EAC, MARKT), having visi ted four services in 2008. 
These meetings were a useful opportunity to discuss whether and how the Board's operation improves the attention to and qua lity of impact assessments, but also to discuss various 
constraints (e.g. timing, resources, training need s, political commitments, cooperation with 
stakeholders). 
The Chair also attended a num ber of meetings of the High Level Group of Independent 
Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens
10. The participation by the Chair has helped to 
ensure good contacts and methodol ogical consistency in assess ing administrative burdens. 
                                                 
6 Roadmaps are drafted by the Co mmission services which are respon sible for prepar ing the impact 
assessment and policy proposal. They set out the problem, objectives, policy options, an initial assessment of impacts and of subsidiarity, describe the state of preparation and the plans for further 
impact assessment work. Roadmaps increase the internal and extern al transparency of the policy 
preparation process, and allow all actors interest ed in impact assessment work to prepare their 
contributions in a timely manner. 
 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2009_en.htm 
7 The catalogue is the list of all pr oposals planned by the Commission. 
 See also http://ec.europa.eu/atwo rk/strategicplanning/index_en.htm. 
8 Implementing rules enacted through specialized regulatory committees. 
9 Checklist is a 3-5 page summary, which contains a de tailed analysis of the impact assessment on all key 
elements required by the guidelines. Annex 2 to the Impact Assessment Board Report for the year 2007 
contains a model quality checklist. SEC(2008) 120 of 30.01.2008 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=CELEX: 52009SC0055:EN:NOT) 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens/high-level-
group/index_en.htm 
 
EN 6   EN 3.2. Quality control 
3.2.1.  Workload of the Board  
As in 2008, the Board examined all of the im pact assessments produced by the Commission 
services. There were 79 impact assessments in total. The Board issued 106 opinions, 30 of 
which were on resubmitted impact assessment reports.  
 2007 2008 2009 
 
Impact assessments 
Total impact assessments examined11 102 135 79 
  
CLWP items 67 46 23 
Catalogue items 31 80 43 
Comitology items 4 9 13 
 Share of CLWP items 66% 34% 27% 
  
Legislative proposals 57 86 53 
Non-legislative proposals 45 49 26 
 Share of legislative proposals 56% 64% 68% 
 
Opinions  
Number of opinions issued 112 182 106 
  
On the first submissions 102 135 7612 
On the second submissions 10 43 30 
On the third submissions 0 4 0 
  
Number of opinions requesting resubmission 9 44 28 
Resubmission rate13 9% 33% 37% 
 
Procedures applied 
Number of meetings 22 26 21 
Cases in oral procedure 56% 75% 85% 
Cases in written procedure 44% 25% 15% 
The Board discussed 67 (or 85%) of the cases with the author service in the 21 meetings it 
held in the course of the y ear and examined the remaining 12 in written procedure.  
                                                 
11 The numbers include three cases which were not impact assessments but Commission Staff Working 
Documents on which the Board made recommendations (2008 – DG INFSO: Regulatory treatment of 
fixed and mobile termination Rates; 2009 – DG ENV Decision on co-financing of carbon capture and storage and innovative renewable energy demonstration projects and DG MARKT Economic Impact of 
the FISCO proposals (Procedures for Obtaining Withholding Tax Relief on Securities Income). 
12 The number of opinions is lower than the number  of impact assessments ex amined because the Board 
has occasionally issued 'combined' opinions covering more than one impact assessment. 
13 The Board has revised the method for calculating the resubmission rate. This has slightly changed the 
numbers for 2007 and 2008 compared to previous reports. In its 2007 and 2008 reports the Board used a 
rate which compared the number of opinions it issued  on resubmitted impact assessments to the number 
of opinions it issued  on the first submissions, without ta king into account in  which year the 
resubmissions were actually requested. In 2009 report this approach has been changed – now the 
resubmission rate reflects the share of opinions which request  an impact assessment to be resubmitted, 
even if the resubmission in question has not yet arrived. 
 
EN 7   EN The lower number of impact assessments in  2009 compared to 2008 (see the table above) is 
explained by the fact that 2009 was a transiti on year in the European Parliament and the 
Commission. The Board expects the numbers be higher again in 2010. 
The statistics in the table above show how th e scope of impact assessment work has evolved 
since 2007. The share of CLWP items has fallen while the number of impact assessments on 
catalogue and comitology items has increased. Th e share of legislative proposals has also 
increased. These trends reflect the fact that since 2008 there has been a systematic screening 
of Catalogue items and increase d attention to comitology items which has made it possible to 
identify non-CLWP initiatives with  potentially significant impacts. 
3.2.2.  Overall quality of impact assessments 
As was the case in 2008, the Board noted a continued shift in the nature of quality concerns 
from the basic elements of th e impact assessments, which c ontinue to improve, to more 
substantial analytical issues. However, there was still a slight increase in the resubmission rate 
from 33% to 37%14, indicating that improvements in  quality remain a challenge. 
The following graph shows the number of impact assessments and resubmissions by different 
Commission’s services in 2009.  
Chart 1:
Number of impact assessments and required resubmissions
0510152025
TREN
JLS
MARKT
ENV
ENTR
SANCO
MARE
EAC
COMP
AGRI
INFSO
RELEX
REGIO
RTD
Number of IAs Resubmission required
 
                                                 
14 It should be noted that the resubmission rate not only reflects the average quality of impact assessments, 
but also, among other things, the standards being applied. The standards which the Board applied in 
2009 were based on the new 2009 Guidelines. 
 
EN 8   EN The Board asks for resubmission where there are serious concerns with the fundamental 
elements of the impact assessment report, such as the problem definition, baseline scenario or 
objectives. Further statistical an alysis of the Board's recommendations revealed that the cases 
which had to be resubmitted often had a limited set of options or weaknesses in how they were compared, and insufficient subsidiarity/pro portionality analysis. In 89% of cases where 
resubmission was required (compared to 60% of cases where the resubmission was not 
required), the Board made recommendations on op tions and how they were compared; in 43% 
of the cases the Board was concerned about th e quality of subsidia rity and proportionality 
analysis (compared to 24% of cases where the resubmission was not required).  
Structural issues raised in Board opinions  
The standards which the Board applied in 2009 were based on the new 2009 Guidelines, 
which strengthened provisions on stakeholder c onsultations and procedur al aspects, including 
on the content of the executive summary. This explains the marked increase in these two categories in Chart 2 below.  
Chart 2:
Structural issues raised in Board opinions
0%20%40%60%80%100%
 Analysis of
impacts
 Problem
definition,
baseline,
objectives
 Options and
their
comparison
 Procedural
issues, content
of executive
summary
 Stakeholder
consultation
 Subsidiarity and
proportionality
 Transposition
and
implementation
 Monitoring and
evaluation% of opinions
2007 2008 2009
 
The analysis of impacts  is the core part of any impact  assessment and therefore a more 
detailed analysis of the Board's recommenda tion on these aspects is provided in the next 
section. On the other structural elements of the impact assessment reports, the Board 
recommendations to Commission services ha ve often addressed the following issues: 
• Problem definition  – incomplete baseline scenarios, in particular the need to include all 
ongoing activities in Member St ates and relevant EU policie s and to make a realistic 
assessment of how the situation would develo p on this basis. Another concern has been 
that services do not sufficiently distinguish between the general problem and those aspects 
of it which could be addressed by EU action.  
 
EN 9   EN • Executive summary  – need to ensure that these present a full reflection of the impact 
assessment report's main findings in a clear a nd structured way. In addition, the Board has 
recalled the need to present clearly any quantitative result s in the executive summary. 
• Stakeholder consultation  – need to ensure that the concer ns expressed by stakeholders are 
fully addressed in the impact assessment reports. On occasion the Board has raised 
concerns that not all relevant st akeholder groups were consulted.  
• Subsidiarity and proportionality  – need for a more detailed analysis of these issues. The 
Board would welcome more consistent use by se rvices of the structured questions provided 
in the 2009 Guidelines. 
• Transposition and implementation  – in those cases where the impact assessment is 
addressing the revision of existin g legislation, services should  pay more attention to the 
lessons learnt from past implementation an d, where possible, this  should be based on 
evaluation results. 
• Monitoring and evaluation  – need to better define approp riate progress indicators which 
would allow for proper monitori ng and evaluation of the actual impacts of the initiative. 
Issues raised in the analysis of impacts  
In general, many of the Board's recommendati ons concerning the analysis of impacts address 
broad issues such as the evidence base, the r obustness of assumptions made and the methods 
used. Chart 3 shows how these recommendati ons were distributed across the different 
categories of impacts, breaking down the 'analysis of impacts' column in Chart 2. 
Chart 3:
Analytical issues raised in Board opinions
0%20%40%60%80%
 Economic
impacts
 Social impacts
 Impacts on
administrative
costs
 Environmental
impacts
 Impacts on
SMEs
 Impact on
simplification
 Impact on EU
budget% of opinions
2007 2008 2009
 
 
EN 10   EN In 2009 the Board frequently made recommendati ons on the analysis of economic, social and 
environmental impacts, reflecting the importance it attaches to balanced analysis in line with 
the integrated approach to impact assessment. 
• Given that the analysis of economic impacts  is a part of every impact assessment, it is by 
definition the category mentioned most often in Board opinions (in more than 60% of 
cases). The recommendations in this area ar e varied, reflecting the broad spectrum of 
relevant economic impacts. On a number of  occasions the Board has asked services to 
provide a more developed analysis of th e impacts on competition and on the internal 
market.  
• The Board made recommendati ons on the assessment of social impacts  in more than 40% 
of all impact assessments. These recommenda tions often address em ployment impacts and 
distributional impacts be tween social groups.  
• The Board made recommendations on the analysis of environmental impacts  in about 
25% of cases. The Board has observed that in the impact assessments carried out for different sectoral policies insuffi cient attention is given to in direct environmental impacts. 
It has also often pointed to the need to an alyse environmental imp acts other than those 
related to carbon emissions.  
• While the Board is aware of the methodol ogical difficulties of  providing a robust 
quantification  of the most significant costs, and even  more so of key benefits, it has on a 
number of occasions recomme nded that further efforts are made to quantify impacts. 
Assessment of administrative burdens 
The issue of administrative burdens remained  high on the political agenda in 2009, not least 
as a result of the Commission's Action Progr amme to reduce these burdens by 25% for a 
significant part of the Community acquis . To ensure that administrative burdens are kept to 
the minimum necessary in new legislation or  reduced in revised legislation, Commission 
services have to address this issue in thei r impact assessments. These impact assessments 
should provide details of any new information obligations for businesses, citizens or public 
administrations, and in those cases where the change is significant the impact should be quantified using the EU Standard Cost Model.  
While awareness of administra tive burdens has increased, th e Board made recommendations 
both on the general identificati on and quantification of inform ation obligations. It believes 
that further up-stream support to services in dealing with this analysis would be useful, and 
welcomes the Commission President's decision to locate responsibil ity for administrative 
burdens alongside that for impact assessments in the Secretariat General of the Commission so that the two processes become mutually rein forcing. In this context,  the Board underlines 
the importance of assessing administrative burdens as part of an integrated impact assessment that looks at both the benefits  and costs of a piece of legi slation, and ensures that all 
economic, social and environmental impacts are addressed in a balanced  way. An example of 
the importance of this is the electronic invoicin g initiative in the context of the VAT directive 
(see Box 2). 
 
EN 11   EN Box 2– Review of electronic invoicing in the context of the VAT directive  
The Commission services did not prepare an impact  assessment for this initiative but instead 
produced a background analysis focusing on admi nistrative burdens reduction aspects. This 
analysis was carried out with the help of an  external consultancy and the results were 
validated by the High Level Group of Independ ent Stakeholders on Ad ministrative Burdens. 
While the benefits of e-invoicing in terms of reducing administrative bu rden were assessed in 
detail, the analysis did not provide evidence or  data on the potential impacts on the other VAT 
invoicing elements, such as compliance costs and security issues. It se ems likely that a full 
impact assessment would have faci litated discussions in the Council. 
3.2.3.  Impact assessment work in  different policy areas 
In 2009 there were three major areas of impact assessment work: the resp onse to the financial 
crisis, asylum and migrati on, and energy efficiency.  
Six impact assessments carried out in 2009 were linked to the Commission's response to the 
financial crisis  and were prepared under extremely ti ght deadlines. The short preparation 
times made it difficult to respect entirely the Impact Assessment Guidelines and had an 
impact on the quality of the impact assessment reports submitted to the Board. The Board nevertheless welcomes the significant effort s made by DG MARKT, a nd considers that the 
impact assessment work has contributed considerably to the transparency and quality of the 
proposals compared to a situation without this analysis at all. 
The Board examined eight impact assessments on asylum and migration policies . The two 
major issues it raised in its opinions on these impact assessments were the analysis of subsidiarity and the estimation of financial im pacts, particularly implementation costs. The 
latter issue was frequently li nked to the difficulties of obt aining data in this field.  
Work on energy efficiency  included eight implementing (i.e. 'Comitology') measures that, as 
a follow up to the Eco-design dire ctive, set requirements for di fferent product groups. One of 
the main challenges in impact assessments in this domain has been how to present sufficiently clearly the investment needs (costs) and co rresponding energy savings (benefits), and the 
timing of when they occur. Another analytical pr oblem of a horizontal na ture has been that of 
taking full account of national in itiatives, for example on ener gy security, in the baseline 
scenario. 
3.3. Transparency of the Board's work 
The Board's opinions are available within the Commission throughout the decision-making 
process. This creates clear incentives for the au thor service to improve its impact assessment 
in line with the Board's recommendations. The opinions are published on the Board's internal 
website as soon as they are tran smitted to the Director -General of the aut hor service. Once an 
impact assessment has been revised to reflect the Board's recommendations, it is circulated 
together with the opinion(s) on the earlier dr aft impact assessment(s) to other Commission 
services for the inter-service consultation
15 on the policy proposal a nd subsequent decision-
making by the College. 
                                                 
15 The phase in the Commission's in ternal decision making process wh en an author service formally 
consults the other Commission services. 
 
EN 12   EN All Board opinions are made public on the in ternet once the Commi ssion has adopted the 
related policy proposal16.  
3.4. Impact of the Board's opinions 
When the Chair of the Board sends the opinion to  the Director-General of the author service, 
he requests that a paragra ph summarising the changes made in response to the 
recommendations is included in  the revised version of the impact assessment. Moreover, 
according to the 2009 Guidelines Commission serv ices have to explain in the explanatory 
memorandum which accompanies the draft proposal how they have incorporated the Board's recommendations.  
Responsibility for monitoring the follow-up to the Board's recommendations lies with the 
Secretariat-General and the other Commission services which participate in the inter-service consultation. The Board's secretariat has anal ysed how the Board's opinions were followed up 
and found that in all cases the final impact assessment was improved. In 41% of cases the 
follow up of the Board’s recommendations led to substantial changes (see Chart 4
17). In some 
cases, services made a radical review of th eir approach, and changed the preferred policy 
option (see Box 3). In other cases, given the extens ive nature of the changes, it took more than 
a year to resubmit the impact assessment. 
Box 3 – Examples of changes in preferred policy approach.  
Proposal on financing of aviation security – give n that it was not possible to justify the action 
at EU level, DG TREN dropped one element of  the preferred option – an obligatory ‘one-
stop’ security point.  
Proposal on civil aviation accidents – followi ng the discussion with the Board, DG TREN 
reassessed the policy options a nd identified an alternative preferred option – ‘European 
network of safety investigati on authorities’ – that would achieve the policy objectives in a 
more proportionate and efficient manner than th e creation of a European Coordinator, as 
originally proposed. 
                                                 
16 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm. In exceptional cases, and only on the grounds 
provided for in Regula tion 2001/1049 regarding public access to  documents, a Commission service may 
request that Board's opinion should not be published on the external website, in which case the Board 
decides on the matter. In 2008 and 2009  no such requests were received. 
17 In 2009 the Board's secretariat ha s strengthened the analysis of follo w-up of impact assessments of all 
adopted proposals (sample of 50). Therefore the data is not strictly comparable for similar analysis provided in Board's 2007 and 2008 reports (in 2008 the random sample of only 18 impact assessments 
was assessed and the 2007 analysis, while indeed covering about all impact assessments, used less 
stringent criteria for the assessment).  
 
EN 13   EN Chart 4:
Follow-up of Board recommendations 
in final impact assessments
Substantial
41%
Some
49%Minor 
10%
 
In its 2008 report the Board noted that the main reason for incomplete follow-up to its 
recommendations was poor planning. The 2009 Guid elines therefore introduced new planning 
provisions. Commission services  should now allow for eight w eeks (previously four weeks) 
between the submission of the impact assessment to the Board and the launch of the inter-service consultation. This timing was followed in  about 55% of cases a nd it seems to have 
allowed for a somewhat higher proportion of final impact assessmen ts with substantial 
changes.  
However, there are still cases where inadequate planning and th e resulting time pressure seem 
to have an impact on the level of follow-up. Th e Board observed the following issues with 
regard to planning: 
a) Before the Board examination – late  submissions. In 2009 60% of the impact 
assessment reports were submitted late to th e Board (less than four weeks before the 
discussion with the Board) and only 40% were submitted on time (at least four weeks before the discussion).  
b) After the Board examination – inter-service consultations launched before the Board 
had finished its examination and unsatisfact ory follow-up of Board recommendations in the 
final impact assessments. 
While in 2008 the Board's opinion was part of the inter-service consultation process in 80% of 
cases, in 2009 this ratio  increased to around 90 % (see Chart 5 below). There are, however, 
still issues related to timing: in 27% of cases the Board's opinion was added late to the inter-service consultation file, and in some cases it was not added at all.  
 
EN 14   EN The institutional changes that took place in 2009  – a new European Parliament and transition 
to a new Commission – and the economic and fina ncial crisis clearly had an impact on the 
rhythm of the Commission's work and on pla nning. The Board would ne vertheless welcome 
further efforts by Commission se rvices to improve planning, a nd stronger enforcement by the 
Secretariat General of the Commission that inte r-service consultations should not be launched 
before the Board has provided its final opinion. Finally, th e Board would welcome greater 
awareness from the other EU institutions, in particular from Council Presidencies, of the 
importance of allowing sufficient time for the underlying analysis when suggesting timetables 
for planned Commission initiatives. 
Chart 5 :
Do services include the Board opinions
 in the inter-service consultation?
No
13%
Yes, but late
27% Yes, on time
60%
 
While the aim of the Commission's impact a ssessment system is primarily to improve 
decision-making within the institution, the imp act assessments and Board opinions are made 
public and can play a role in the European Parliament's and the Council's discussions on 
policies.  
3.5. Impact assessments as part of the Commission's working culture  
The Board's 2008 report identified the need to improve the quality of impact assessments 
before they are sent to the Board. It recommended a strengthened role for impact assessment support units in the services and for impact a ssessment steering groups. In light of this the 
Board welcomes the following developments.  
 
EN 15   EN a) Impact assessment suppor t in Commission services 
Most services have impact assessment s upport units, and many ha ve developed training 
programs and internal guidance for specific policy areas.  
Box 4 – Examples of initiatives taken to stre ngthen the impact assessment culture in services : 
Many services provide inte rnal training courses (EAC , EMPL, ENV, INFSO, MARE, 
MARKT, SANCO, TREN) and have developed in ternal impact assessment guidance (EMPL, 
ENTR, ENV, JLS, MARE, MARKT, SANCO,  TRADE). DG ENTR organised in 2009 an 
information event for management on the approach to impact assessment. 
In DGs EAC, EMPL, ENV and JLS the impact assessment report must be validated by the 
support unit before it can be signed off by the Director General and submitted to the Board. 
DG RTD has an internal quality control co mmittee. DGs ENTR, MARKT and TREN have 
conducted an internal audit on the application of the im pact assessment approach. 
Some DGs (e.g. EMPL, ENTR, ENV, INFSO, JL S and MARKT) have framework contracts 
for the provision of external services to support impact asse ssment work. In DG EMPL this 
contract can also be used by other services to help them carry out the analysis of social and 
employment impacts. 
b) Impact Assessment Working Group 
The Impact Assessment Working Group is a thema tic network of offici als who contribute to 
the development of the Commission's impact assessment work. Around 30 representatives of 
all relevant services participate in its wor k. In 2009 the Working Group met three times, and 
discussed topics such as the assessment of administrative burdens, so cial impacts and the 
analysis of impacts on SMEs. 
c) Impact assessment steering groups 
Impact assessment steering groups bring together representatives  of all Commission services 
with a potential interest in an initiative to work on developing the im pact assessment. Steering 
groups are the main vehicles fo r inter-service information shar ing, support and transfer of 
know-how on horizontal issues (s uch as SME and consumer impacts or impacts on internal 
market and fundamental rights). When the Boar d started its activities in 2007, only about half 
of all impact assessments were supported by steering groups. They were  made compulsory by 
the 2009 Guidelines and have now become a general practice. According to the 2009 
Guidelines, services now have to include the minutes of the last st eering group meeting that 
discussed the draft impact a ssessment report in the dossier they submit to the Board. 
d) Training 
The Commission offers general introductory impact  assessment training to new officials (in 
2009 around 200 participants), advanced impact  assessment seminars for practitioners 
(110 participants), and specialis t seminars on specific issues su ch as consulta tion, assessing 
administrative costs, economic modelling, moni toring and evaluation and sensitivity analysis 
(95 participants in 2009). In addition some se rvices organise their own internal training 
courses, as indicated in Box 4 above. 
 
EN 16   EN 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2008  REPORT  
In its report for 2008 the Board suggested severa l changes and improvements targeted at the 
Commission services, the Board's own wo rk, and the impact assessment system. 
A stocktaking of these recommendations  leads to the following overview: 
Recommendation Progress 
Strengthen the role of impact 
assessment support units The Commission services have taken several measures in 
this respect and the Board ha s recognised the improvement, 
as described in Section 3.5. 
Return sub-standard or exceedingly long impact assessments without issuing an opinion  In 2009 all impact assessments were of a sufficient standard 
to be considered by the Bo ard. The Board returned one 
excessively long impact assessment.  
Improve planning to avoid time squeezes both in the submission of documents to the Board and in the follow-up to the Board's opinions The 2009 Guidelines changed the deadline for submitting 
impact assessments to the Board: there should be at least eight weeks between the subm ission and the launch of 
inter-service consultation (previ ously four weeks) and four 
weeks between the submission and the planned meeting with the Board. However, in  2009 still only about 40% of 
the impact assessment reports were submitted on time. The Board therefore recommends that services make further efforts to allow sufficient time for the Board examination as well as for the proper follow-up of its recommendations.  
Avoid launching inter-service consultations before the Board has concluded its examination The Secretariat-General of the Commission has checked 
more closely that the impact assessment and the Board's opinions are part of the inte r-service consultation file. 
However, in 27% of cases it still happened that services did not include the Board opinion on time and in 13% of cases it was not included in the inte r-service consultation at all. 
The Board would welcome more robust planning by Commission services and further scrutiny by the Secretariat-General. The Board also encourages all services to use its opinions and impact assessment reports more actively in the inter-service consultation process. 
Ensure that impact assessments and the corresponding opinion(s) are added to the Europa website immediately after adoption The Board secretariat ensures the upload of impact 
assessment documents within a week of the adoption of the corresponding proposal by the Commission. 
Ensure that impact assessments fully cover the issues addressed in the corresponding policy proposal During the inter-service consultation the Secretariat-
General of the Commission ve rifies that the analysis 
provided in the impact assessment report covers all aspects of the respective Commission proposal. The 2009 Guidelines introduced an explicit requirement that if significant changes to the objec tives, options or conclusions 
of the impact assessment are introduced following its examination by the Board, the author service should resubmit it to the Board for another examination. 
 
EN 17   EN 5. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS  
Since the system was launched in 2003, imp act assessment within the Commission has 
evolved considerably in many ways, such as the scope of application an d quality of analysis. 
In its three years of operations  the Board has scrutinised more than 300 impact assessments 
and observed how the impact assessment approach  has gradually become an integral part of 
the Commission's policy development process.  The Board considers that in general a 
significant change has taken place in terms of the evid ence on which policy is based, 
stakeholder involvement and overall transp arency. The Commission impact assessment 
system has all the elements in place to be eff ective. The main challenge is now to apply this 
system consistently across the Commission serv ices to ensure a high quality for individual 
impact assessments across the board. 
Against this background, in 2010 the Board will give particular attention to the following 
issues: 
• Better  planning and follow up of the Board's recommendations 
The Board reiterates the priorities from  its 2008 report: the Commission services 
must plan better to avoid time squeezes, both in the submission of documents to the Board and in the follow-up to the Board's opinions
18. Services should allow sufficient 
time for the Board to examine the impact assessments, and to incorporate the recommendations it makes. In addition, as  from 2010 the Board w ill require services 
to provide a more detailed explanation of how they have dealt with each of its 
recommendations in the final impact assessment report. 
• Assessment of social and employment impacts 
The Board encourages the services to impr ove the assessment of social impacts in 
line with the commitments made by Presiden t Barroso in the pl enary session of the 
European Parliament in September 2009. In this context, the Board welcomes the 
new Guidance for Assessing Social and Employment Impacts provided by DGs 
EMPL and SANCO
19. 
• Assessment of administrative burdens 
Commission services should pay close attention to the need to improve the analysis 
of administrative burdens. The Board welcomes the decision to include the 
administrative burdens responsibility in th e overall framework of better regulation 
under the direct authority of the President and would welcome the further 
development of a help-desk function to assi st in the assessment of administrative 
burdens, including the use of the Standard Cost Model.  
                                                 
18 It should be noted that time squeezes are not always the result of poor planning  by services but are at 
times also dictated by political constraints, such as the need to respond at short notice to requests from 
the Council and the European Parliament. 
19 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=760 &langId=en&preview=cHJldmlld0VtcGxQb3J0YWw 
 
EN 18   EN • Monitoring and ex post evaluation 
In line with the priority which President Ba rroso has given in hi s political guidelines 
to improving the ex post  evaluation of the Commission's policy initiatives, the Board 
(i) will reinforce the verifi cation of whether available ex post  evaluation information 
is used in an appropriate manner to focus and strengthen the analysis in the impact 
assessments and (ii) encourages services  to strengthen the way in which impact 
assessments set out a framework fo r future monitoring and evaluation. 
• Transparency of the impact assessment system 
While the Board welcomes the specific re quirements for the contents of the 
executive summaries laid out in the 2009 Guidelines, it would welcome a reflection 
on how services could further improve the presentation of the executive summaries, 
for instance by using a standardised template. 
• Data availability 
Given that sound data and a robust evid ence base are crucial for a good quality 
impact assessment, the Board encourages the Commission services to explore whether practical ways exist to improve data availability; and more generally, how to encourage Member State authorities to be more active in providing necessary 
information. 
 
EN 19   EN Annex 1: Context, Mandate, and Procedures of the Board  
The President of the Commission creat ed the Board on 14 November 200620. In doing so, he 
delivered on the commitment he made to the Eu ropean Parliament of April 2006 to establish a 
body under his personal authority that would provide independent  quality support and control 
for Commission impact assessments.  
The President appoints the Members of th e Board, in a person al capacity, from the 
Commission services with the most  direct expertise in the three dimensions (economic, social 
and environmental) of integrated impact a ssessment. The Board is chaired by the Deputy 
Secretary-General responsible for Better Regul ation. An alternate is appointed for each 
Member to replace him/her in case of absence. 
The Board complements the Commission's existing impact assessment system which aims at 
ensuring impact assessments of high quality through:  
• a decentralised approach whereby each Commi ssion service is responsible for preparing its 
own impact assessments in line with the impact assessment guidelines, 
• early cooperation and consultation, both within the Commission through an impact 
assessment steering group, and with stak eholders outside the Commission;  
• a balanced approach requiring assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts, 
involving internal and external e xpertise, where appropriate; and  
• an approach integrated in the Commission’ s Strategic Planning and Programming cycle. 
The mandate of the Board does not foresee an y formal role in th e Commission’s decision-
making process beyond the delivery of opini ons on the quality of individual impact 
assessments. The Board is not responsible for th e quality of the final impact assessment, nor 
can it block a proposal from being submitted to political examination because the impact assessment is of insufficient quality. The Commission is, however, fully informed about 
Board opinions. The fact that the Board's opini ons are formally part of Commission decision-
making procedures and are published provides an incentive for Commission services to make 
the improvements to the impact assessments that the Board recommends. 
                                                
 
20 Information note from the President to the Commission: "Enhancing quality support and control for 
Commission Impact Assessments - The Im pact Assessment Board". See also: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm. 
 
EN 20   EN How the Board's quality control works 
The Board examines each impact assessment before the author service launches the inter-
service consultation on the rela ted policy proposal. This examination generally takes place in 
a timeframe of four weeks and follows a numbe r of standardised step s. Approximately two 
weeks after it receives an imp act assessment, the Board sends the author service a "quality 
checklist" of 3-5 pages. This co ntains a detailed analysis of the impact assessment on all key 
elements required by the guidelines. On the basi s of the preliminary fi ndings in the quality 
checklist, the Chair decides whether to continue the examination in oral or in written procedure. In oral procedure th e author service discusses the qua lity checklist with the Board 
during one of its meetings. These meetings are usually held every other week, and 50 minutes 
is typically reserved for each impact assessment.  In written procedure there is no meeting and 
the author service responds to th e quality checklist in writing.  
The Board produces its opinion on the basis of the comments and clarifications which the 
author service provides in res ponse to the quality checklist. Th e opinion usually focuses on 
the three key issues which have been raised in  the quality checklist or during the meeting, and 
lists recommendations for improvements in the order of importance. If  the Board concludes 
that the draft impact assessment needs substa ntial improvements, the author service should 
submit a revised version. The Board issues a second opinion on this revised text. These 
resubmissions are generally dea lt with in written procedure, and the Board examines whether 
the service has incorporated satisfactorily the recommendations in the first opinion. In rare cases the Board may request a further resubmission. 
Independence of the Board 
The President appoints the Members of the Boar d and their alternates in a personal capacity. 
They do not represent the views of their home se rvices and their services cannot give them 
instructions on the posit ion to take. Members must inform the Chair of any interest which 
might affect their independence in  relation to an impact assessment  and if appropriate transfer 
his/her vote to the alternate
21.  
The Board interprets this rule as applying in principle to impact assessments which have been 
carried out or supported by the services under th e direct responsibility of a Board Member. A 
conflict of interest is therefore not automatically presumed to be present if the impact assessment has been prepared by a different di rectorate in the Member’s service. In 2009, 
Board Members declared a conflict  of interest in five cases a nd abstained from the discussions 
on these impact assessments. The Board also in terprets independence in the sense that it does 
not discuss individual impact assessments or its opinions with external stakeholders, with the 
exception of experts who are invited by the Board to provide advice in confidentiality. 
                                                
 
21 Rules of Procedure of the Impact Asse ssment Board, Art. 3(2); available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm 
 
EN 21   EN Resources of the Board 
The Board is supported in its work by a secretar iat provided by the Secr etariat-General of the 
Commission. Members also receiv e support from their alternates  and from staff within their 
own services. In total, the e quivalent of about 15 full-time posts support the Members and 
assure the daily operation of the Board. The Secretariat-General provides the Board with 
financial resources to fund exte rnal experts to contribute to its work and studies to be 
commissioned in its quality support function. 
The Chair can ask any Commission service to provide expertise on specific issues as input to 
the Board's examination of an impact assessment . He may also call on external expertise if 
necessary. However, this is difficult in practice:  the short lead-time between submission of the 
impact assessment and discussion of the impact  assessment in a Board meeting means that 
experts have to be found at short notice, and th ere is always a need to ensure that they are 
independent and not involved in  some way with the issue, for example through advising 
stakeholders. Nonetheless, in 2009, the Boar d asked for the opinion of the Commission's 
Legal Service for a case on access to EURODAC for law enforcem ent authorities. The Board 
referred to the expert's c ontribution in its opinion. 
 
EN 22   EN Annex 2: Commission services: Official titles and abbreviations 
Full name Letter code 
Secretariat-General SG 
Directorate-General for Economic  and Financial Affairs ECFIN 
Directorate-General for Ente rprise and Industry ENTR 
Directorate-General for Competition COMP 
Directorate-General for Employme nt, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities EMPL 
Directorate-General for Agricult ure and Rural Development AGRI 
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport TREN 
Directorate-General for the Environment ENV 
Directorate-General for Research RTD 
Directorate-General for Inform ation Society and Media INFSO 
Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries MARE 
Directorate-General for Internal Market and Services MARKT 
Directorate-General for Taxa tion and Customs Union TAXUD 
Directorate-General for Education and Culture EAC 
Directorate-General for Health and Consumers SANCO 
Directorate-General for Justic e, Freedom and Security JLS 
Directorate-General for Trade TRADE 
Directorate-General for Development DEV 
Joint Research Centre JRC