Commission staff working document - Impact Assessment - Board Report for 2008 Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Third strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union {COM(2009) 15 final}
Date: 2009-01-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: activity report, administrative formalities, application of EU law, impact study, operation of the Institutions, simplification of formalities

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.1.2009 
SEC(2009) 55 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment Board Report for 2008 

Accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Third strategic review of Better Regulation 
in the European Union  

{COM(2009) 15 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY MESSAGES 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  provides  independent  quality  support  and  control  for  the 
impact  assessments  which  are  prepared  by  Commission  services.  The  opinions  which  it 
produces on these impact assessments allow the College, legislators and stakeholders at large 
to form an impression of the quality of the analysis underpinning policy proposals.  

In  2008,  the  Board  examined  135  draft  impact  assessments,  compared  to  102  in  2007.  The 
number  of  impact  assessments  that  the  Board  asked  to  examine  for  a  second  or  third  time 
increased  even  more:  from  10  (or  10%)  in  2007  to  43  (or  32  %)  in  2008.  As  a  result,  the 
Board  issued  a  total  of  182  opinions  in  the  course  of  the  year.  In  spite  of  the  increase  in 
numbers, the Board examined all impact assessments that were submitted to it. It did not need 
to prioritise the cases to be examined, as it announced might be the case in its report for 2007, 
although the Board's capacity was at times stretched to the maximum. 

When evaluating the quality of impact assessments in 2007, the Board took into account the 
fact that this centralised quality control was a new element for Commission services, and that 
a certain time was necessary to allow them to get used to its procedures and requirements. In 
2008, the Board has become more stringent in evaluating quality. The increase in the number 
of resubmissions cannot therefore be interpreted as a sign that the average quality of impact 
assessments  has  gone  down.  On  the  contrary,  the  Board  observed  improvements  in  the 
internal  coherence  of  the  impact  assessments  and  the  extent  to  which  they  comply  with  the 
structure and approach which is laid out in the Guidelines. The high number of resubmissions 
is nevertheless a clear indication that further improvements in quality are needed.  

The main problems which the Board identified in the impact assessments of 2008 are broadly 
similar to those in 2007. In order of decreasing importance these are: 

•  an unclear explanation or incomplete analysis of the problem to be addressed 

•  an analysis of impacts which is either insufficiently detailed or is unbalanced 

•  an incomplete or artificial set of alternative policy options 

The Board's main conclusion is that two issues in particular need more attention: 

First, greater efforts must be made to improve the quality of impact assessments before they 
are  sent  to  the  Board.  The  Board  received  impact  assessments  on  several  occasions  which 
were  clearly  sub-standard.  Commission  services  should  make  better  use  of  the  expertise  of 
their impact assessment support units, and reinforce the role that they play in quality control. 
The role of impact assessment steering groups should also be strengthened to ensure that all 
relevant expertise within the Commission is exploited in the process of drawing up the impact 
assessment.  

Second,  better  planning  and  respect  of  procedures  is  also  an  essential  aspect  of  improving 
quality.  Sufficient  time  should  be  allowed  not  only  for  the  Board  to  examine  the  impact 
assessments, but in particular for  services to  follow-up on its recommendations. There have 
been too many cases when the procedures laid out in the Guidelines have not been followed, 
and  the  preparation  of  impact  assessments  and  the  examination  by  the  Board  have  been 
'squeezed'.  The  Board  welcomes  the  fact  that  the  new  impact  assessment  guidelines  require 
services to submit their draft impact assessment to the Board earlier, and to take into account 
in  their  planning  the  possibility  that  the  Board  will  request  a  resubmission.  The  impact 
assessment support units can also contribute to improving planning. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

2. 

CONTEXT, MANDATE, AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD  

Annex 1 provides a detailed overview of why the Board was established, how it is part of and 
contributes to the wider objectives of the Commission's  impact  assessment system, how the 
Board's  quality  control  works  in  practice,  and  how  the  resources  of  the  Board  and  its 
independent operation are arranged in practical terms. The main features of the Board are: 

•  The  five  Members  of  the  Board  are  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Commission  for  a 
two  year  term.  They  act  in  a  personal  capacity,  not  as  representatives  of  their  services. 
They provide independent support and quality control for Commission impact assessments, 
supported by a secretariat provided by the Secretariat-General of the Commission. 

•  The results of the quality control are reflected in opinions of the Board, which accompany 
the corresponding policy proposals throughout the Commission's decision making process 
and  are  subsequently  made  publicly  available.  Before  issuing  an  opinion,  the  Board 
discusses its preliminary findings with the authors of the impact assessment. 

•  For impact assessments which require substantial improvements, the Board may request a 
revised version to be submitted on which it issues an additional opinion ("resubmission"). 

Whereas the Board's functioning in 2008 was essentially the same as in 2007, the following 
facts are specific for 2008: 

•  In the course of the year, one Member had to leave the Board and was replaced. The other 

four Members were re-appointed for another two year term. 

•  In  2008,  the  Members  of  the  Board  declared  a  conflict  of  interest  on  6  occasions  and 

abstained from the discussions on these impact assessments.  

•  Whereas in 2007 the Board occasionally recommended a “voluntary resubmission” as an 

alternative to a normal resubmission request, in 2008 this practice was rarely used. 

•  In 2008 the Board on one occasion asked an external expert to contribute to its work, for a 

case on fixed and mobile termination rates. 

3. 

3.1. 

OUTPUT AND RESULTS OF THE BOARD 

Quality support and identification of initiatives in need of an Impact Assessment 

The Board provides quality support in three different ways: a) at the beginning of the impact 
assessment work and at any time before the author service submits the draft final report (this 
was  done  for  an  impact  assessment  by  DG  TAXUD1  on  a  tax  proposal,  for  two  impact 
assessments  from  DG  ENV  on  climate  issues,  and  for  an  impact  assessment  from  DG 
SANCO on organ donation); b) in the run-up to a Board meeting through detailed suggestions 
for improvements in the quality checklists (this was done for almost all impact assessments 
that the Board examined); and c) as a follow-up to the discussion in a Board meeting where it 
offers further advice to the author service on how to address the concerns it has raised (this 
was done inter alia for an impact assessment by DG TREN on the internalisation of external 
costs  of  transport  and  for  an  impact  assessment  from  the  same  DG  on  urban  mobility). 
Furthermore, the Board Secretariat frequently gives advice directly to author services. 

1 

Abbreviations of Commission directorates-general and services are explained in Annex 2. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As part of its support at the beginning of the impact assessment work, the Board has reviewed 
all  the  Roadmaps2  for  initiatives  which  were  included  in  the  Commission's  Legislative  and 
Work Programme (CLWP) for 2009. These comments are intended to help services to correct 
at  an  early  stage  mistakes  in  the  framing  of  the  impact  assessments  which  would  be  more 
difficult to address later in the process when the Board examines the draft impact assessment. 
This advice can cover for instance the identification of policy options that are assessed. 

While impact assessments are generally required for initiatives which are part of the CLWP, 
for all other initiatives this is decided on a case-by-case basis. There are two relevant factors 
in  this  respect:  the  significance  of  the  expected  impacts  and  the  political  sensitivity  of  the 
initiative. The Board was involved in this process by the Secretariat-General which asked for 
its advice on certain cases which seemed to warrant an impact assessment. At any stage, the 
Board  may  also  decide  to  send  'prompt  letters'  to  services,  recommending  that  an  impact 
assessment be carried out on a planned proposal. 

As part of upstream support, but also to take stock of how the Board's work is perceived in the 
Commission  services,  the  Chair  of  the  Board  visited  the  management  teams  of  the  4 
Commission services that produce the largest numbers of impact assessments in early 2008. 
These meetings were a useful opportunity to discuss whether and how the Board's operation 
improves  the  attention  to  and  quality  of  impact  assessments,  but  also  to  discuss  various 
constraints  (e.g.  timing,  resources,  political  commitments,  unquantifiable  impacts)  which 
services face when preparing their impact assessments. 

The  Chair  also  attended  a  number  of  meetings  of  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent 
Stakeholders  on  Administrative  Burdens.  This  Group  examines  draft  measures  aimed  at 
reducing administrative burdens in a number of existing pieces of legislation. Some of these 
measures  are  also  subject  to  an  impact  assessment  which  is  examined  by  the  Impact 
Assessment Board, and the participation by the Chair has helped to ensure good contacts. 

3.2. 

Quality control 

In 2008 the Board examined and issued an opinion on 135 impact assessments. It discussed 
101 (or 75%) of these with the author service in the 26 meetings it held in the course of the 
year.  The  Board  examined  the  remaining  34  impact  assessments  in  written  procedure.  This 
marks an increase both in the overall number of impact assessments the Board examined (up 
from 102 in 2007) and in the use of the oral procedure (up from 56% in 2007). In spite of this 
increase,  the  Board  was  able  to  continue  its  practice  of  examining  all  impact  assessments 
produced by the Commission, rather than examining only a selection of them as it announced 
might  be  necessary  in  its  report  for  2007.  The  Board's  capacity  was,  however,  at  times 
stretched  to  the  maximum.  This  was  not  so  much  due  to  the  total  number  of  impact 
assessments  that  the  Board  had  to  examine,  but  rather  to  the  irregular  'flow'  of  impact 
assessments  which  resulted  in  a  number  of  peaks.  This  flow  is  partly  a  function  of  the 
Commission's  annual  working  rhythm,  but  it  was  exacerbated  by  the  unstable  planning  of 
submission dates by many of the author services, which often lead to unexpected last-minute 
shifts. 

There was also an increase in the number of impact assessments resubmitted to the Board for 
a second or third examination following an earlier critical opinion: whereas the resubmission 
rate was 10% (or 10 out of 102) in 2007, in 2008 this has gone up to 32% (or 43 out of 135; 4 

2 

Roadmaps  are  drafted  by  the  services  which  will  be  responsible  for  preparing  the  impact  assessment 
and  policy  proposal,  and  can  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  "mini  impact  assessment":  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. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
impact  assessment  were  resubmitted  twice).  The  total  number  of  opinions  issued  in  2008  is 
therefore 182. 

Overall quality of impact assessments 

On  average,  the  Board  observed  an  improvement  in  the  internal  coherence  of  the  impact 
assessment and in the extent to which they comply with the structure and approach which is 
laid out in the Guidelines. This took place against a backdrop of Commission services gaining 
more  experience  and  investing  more  in  background  analysis.  As  a  result,  the  discussions 
between the Board and the author services have moved on from these structural issues to more 
advanced issues such as the level of detail that is needed in the assessment of various impacts. 

It  is  not  straightforward,  however,  to  illustrate  this  general  observation  on  the  quality  of 
impact  assessments  with  objective  indicators.  One  indicator  would  be  the  percentage  of 
impact  assessments  which  the  Board  requests  to  examine  again.  However,  the  rate  of 
resubmissions is not only influenced by the average quality of impact assessments, but also by 
the  stringency  with  which  the  Board  applies  the  agreed  quality  standards.  The  Board  has 
become more stringent in applying these standards, after having given Commission services 
the opportunity during of 2007 to get used to its procedures and requirements. For that reason 
it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  from  the  increased  number  of  resubmissions  that  the  average 
quality  of  impact  assessments  has  either  gone  up  or  down.  Nonetheless  the  high  rate  of 
resubmissions  is  a  clear  sign  that  more  needs  to  be  done  to  improve  the  quality  of  impact 
assessments.  The  following  graph  on  resubmissions  shows  that  some  Commission  services 
have in this respect more ground to cover than others. 

Number of impact assessments and
 number of resubmissions

25

20

15

10

5

0

N
E
R
T

T
K
R
A
M

V
N
E

R
T
N
E

S
L
J

O
C
N
A
S

L
P
M
E

E
R
A
M

O
S
F
N

I

C
A
E

D
T
R

I

R
G
A

P
M
O
C

V
E
D

D
U
X
A
T

Number of IAs

Resubmissions

Each opinion of the Board contains various recommendations for improvements. An analysis 
of  these  recommendations,  and  a  comparison  with  the  recommendations  issued  in  2007,  is 
presented in the following graph3: 

3 

The appearance of this graph is different from table 2 in the Board's report for the year 2007 because of 
a refinement in the labels that are used to categorise the opinions and due to the fact that the 2007 report 
did  not  analyse  all  opinions  issued  that  year.  In  order  to  ensure  comparability,  the  opinions  issued  in 
2007 have been re-analysed and are also presented in this table. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Issues raised in the opinions of the Board

n
o
i
n
i
p
o

f
o
%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

m
e
l
b
o
r
P

,
n
o
i
t
i
n
i
f
e
d

,
e
n
i
l
e
s
a
b

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

f
o

s
i
s
y
l
a
n
A

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

d
n
a

s
n
o
i
t
p
O

r
i
e
h
t

n
o
s
i
r
a
p
m
o
c

,
y
t
i
r
a
i
d
i
s
b
u
S

d
n
a
d
e
d
d
a

e
u
l
a
v

y
t
i
l
a
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
p

n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
s
n
a
r
T

d
n
a

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

r
e
d
l
o
h
e
k
a
t
S

n
o
i
t
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
c

d
n
a
g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
M

n
o
i
t
a
u
l
a
v
E

y
t
i
l
a
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

d
n
a

s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a

f
o

l
a
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p

s
e
u
s
s
i

2007

2008

Graphs 2 shows that the pattern of Board recommendations remained broadly unchanged: the 
analysis  of  impacts,  the  definition  and  description  of  problems  and  objectives,  and  the 
identification and description of policy options continue to be the main issues in the opinions. 
There was an increase in the number of recommendations  on the assessment  of  subsidiarity 
and proportionality, and on the assessment of transposition and implementation issues. These 
are  all  fundamental  aspects  of  policy  making  that  should  be  analysed  appropriately  in  any 
impact assessment. 

The following graph shows a breakdown of the column "analysis of impacts". This shows that 
most recommendations relate to economic impacts. This may however (partly) be due to the 
nature of the initiatives that were subject to impact assessments and submitted to the Board. 
The need to quantify impacts was the second most frequently issued recommendation in this 
category, followed by the assessment or measurement of administrative burdens and of social 
impacts. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Breakdown of recommendations on the analysis of impacts

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
n
o
i
n
i
p
o

f
o
%

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
n
a
u
Q

s
t
s
o
c

n
i
m
d
A

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

l
a
i
c
o
S

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

n
o
s
t
c
a
p
m

I

s
E
M
S

U
E

n
o

t
c
a
p
m

I

t
e
g
d
u
b

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
S

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

r
e
h
t
O

Transparency of the Board's work 

A key aspect  of the Board's work  is that its  opinions are available to decision makers. This 
creates clear incentives for the author service to improve its impact assessment in line with the 
Board's recommendations. 

Within the Commission, Board opinions are published on a website on the same day that they 
are  transmitted  to  the  Director-General  of  the  author  service.  Once  the  impact  assessments 
have been revised to reflect the Board's recommendations they are circulated together with the 
Board's opinion(s) on the earlier draft impact assessment(s) to other Commission services for 
the  inter-service  consultation  on  the  corresponding  (possibly  adjusted)  proposal  and 
subsequent decision making by the College. 

Externally, all Board opinions are published after the  Commission adopts the  related policy 
proposal.4 

3.3. 

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  paragraph  summarising  the  changes  made  in  response  to  the 
recommendations is included in the revised version of the impact assessment. 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. 
(When the Board asks to see an impact assessment a second time, it follows-up on its original 
recommendations  itself).  However,  for  the  purpose  of  this  report  a  random5  sample  of  18 
impact assessments has been selected, and an analysis made of how well the Board's opinion 
was followed up. This leads to the following result. 

4 

5 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/practice_en.htm.  In  exceptional  cases  and  only  on  the  grounds 
provided  for  in  Regulation  (EC)  n°  1049/2001  regarding  public  access  to  documents,  a  service  may 
request  that  an  opinion  should  not  be  published  on  the  external  website,  in  which  case  the  Board 
decides on the matter. In 2008 no such requests were received. 
The random sample was made by selecting every 3rd impact assessment examined by the Board when 
listed in chronological order. The analysis for 2007 was based on a sample of 80 impact assessments. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Changes in IAs after Board opinion

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Substantial

Some

2007

M inor

No changes

2008

In  all  cases  the  impact  assessment  was  improved,  which  confirms  that  the  Board's  opinions 
have an impact on the quality of impact assessments. 

Nevertheless, there were still many cases where only some recommendations were followed 
up.  The  Board  believes  that  this  situation  can  and  must  be  improved.  The  Board  always 
provides an opportunity for the author service to indicate whether the concerns it has raised 
are  relevant  and  whether  it  is  possible  with  reasonable  effort  to  make  the  necessary 
improvements.  It  should  therefore  be  possible  to  follow-up  fully  all  the  recommendations 
made. The main reason why this is not always the case appears to be poor planning and time 
constraints: services  sometimes  do  not allow sufficient time  for the Board's examination, or 
do not allow sufficient time to make the changes that the Board recommends. Time squeezes 
occur especially for cases where the Board requests a resubmission, and where too often the 
services have not planned sufficient time to allow them to wait for the second opinion before 
launching the inter-service consultation. 

The impact of the time squeezes can be illustrated in two ways. In 2008 the Board had less 
than 3 weeks in which to complete its analysis and issue its opinion in 16% of cases, whereas 
the  normal  time  foreseen  in  its  procedures  is  4  weeks.  For  opinions  on  resubmitted  impact 
assessments  the  situation  was  even  more  problematic:  in  25%  of  cases  the  Board  had  to 
analyse  the  revised  impact  assessment  and  issue  its  opinion  in  one  week  or  less,  whereas 
normally this takes 2-3 weeks. Although the Board is careful to ensure that the quality of its 
examination  does  not  suffer  from  a  time  squeeze,  the  effectiveness  and  value  added  of  the 
impact  assessment  system  as  a  whole  is  affected  by  this.  This  is  also  visible  from  the 
following graph, which shows that in just over half of all cases the Board's opinion was part 
of the inter-service consultation (ISC) from the beginning; it should be available in all cases. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Availability of Board opinions during the ISC

Uploaded 
during the ISC
24%

Not available
20%

Uploaded on 
time
56%

The potential contribution of impact assessments and of the Board's opinions to the quality of 
EU policies is not limited to the preparation inside the Commission. The impact assessments 
and opinions are made publicly available to the Council and the European Parliament, and can 
play a role in their decisions on policies. The Board has observed that over the past year the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  have  paid  increasing  attention  to  impact  assessments, 
even though more progress could be made in making this a standard and integral part of their 
work. Although this is not necessarily the objective, the opinions of the Board are not as well-
known and are not referred to as frequently as the impact assessments to which they relate.  

Impact assessments as part of the working culture  

It  is  obvious  from  the  majority  of  impact  assessments  examined  by  the  Board  that  a 
significant amount of work was put into them. The author services almost always prepare well 
their discussions with the Board, and from the level of representation it is clear that they take 
this work seriously. The Board believes that a key role in consolidating and further expanding 
this  positive  standing  of  impact  assessment  in  the  Commission  lies  with  the  impact 
assessment coordination units within the services. The Board welcomes the fact that several 
services  (DGs  EMPL,  ENV,  MARKT,  INFSO,  JLS)  have  increased  the  staffing  of  their 
impact assessment coordination units in the course of 2008, while DG EMPL has gone a step 
further  by  making  its  impact  assessment  support  unit  report  directly  to  the  director-general. 
The  Board  encourages  all  other  services  that  produce  a  significant  number  of  impact 
assessments to follow this example. Reinforcing the position of these units will help to ensure 
that the draft impact assessments that are submitted to the Board are already of good quality. 

It should also be noted that impact assessments are a means to an end – the aim is not just to 
improve the quality of impact assessments, but to ensure that these impact assessments help to 
improve the quality of the policy proposals. Assessing the extent to which this is the case is 
not  straightforward.  It  is  worth  recalling,  however,  that  the  external  evaluation  of  the 
Commission's  impact  assessment  system6  in  2007  examined  how  impact  assessments  are 
carried out and used by the Commission services, whether they are of sufficient quality, and 

6 

The  Evaluation  Partnership:  Evaluation  of  the  Commission's  impact  Assessment  System,  April  2007; 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_en.htm. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
what  their  role  is  in  the  policy  or  legislative  process  that  follows  once  the  Commission  has 
adopted  the  related  legislative  proposal.  It  concluded  that  around  two-thirds  of  Impact 
Assessments  improved  the  quality  of  the  proposals  they  accompanied  as  well  playing  an 
important  role  in  increasing  transparency.  On  this  basis  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  the 
increased  attention  paid  to  impact  assessments  throughout  2007  and  2008  is  continuing  to 
improve the quality of proposals. However, as it is not known what the proposal would have 
looked like in the absence of impact assessments and scrutiny by the Board, there is no way to 
prove this hypothesis. 

4. 

4.1. 

LOOKING FORWARD 

Recommendations from the 2007 report 

In  its  report  for  2007  the  Board  suggested  several  changes  and  improvements,  targeted  at 
Commission  services,  at  the  Board's  own  work,  and  at  the  impact  assessment  system.  A 
stocktaking of these recommendations leads to the following overview: 

Recommendation 

Progress 

Strengthen IA units in services 

This has been done in a small number of services, but 
can be taken further. 

Submit IAs to the Board earlier than 
the minimum deadline  

This happened in some cases, but too often the time for 
the Board's examination was squeezed 

Data  availability  and 
should be addressed earlier 

reliability 

New guidelines contain improved guidance on how to 
collect and use data 

Impact Assessment Steering Groups 
should be involved earlier 

New  guidelines  urge  author  services  to  give  these 
groups a bigger role. 

Prioritise 
examining a selection of IAs 

the  Board's  work  by 

Prioritisation was not necessary: the Board was able to 
examine all IAs submitted to it 

Early identification by the Board of 
IAs that could benefit from external 
expertise 

This  continues  to  be  hard  in  practice,  but  has  not 
affected negatively the Board's operation 

Improved guidance to services, incl. 
a study on assessing social impacts 

DG JLS and DG EMPL both launched studies on how 
to improve the assessment of social impacts 

Give  more 
services with poorest quality IAs 

feedback 

to 

those 

The Chair visited the management teams of 4 services 
to  discuss  the  quality  of  their  IAs  and  the  internal 
organisation of their IA work. 

Publish  guidance  and  examples  of 
good practice IAs 

New  guidelines  contain  a  list  of  examples  which  the 
Board considers good practice 

Reinforced  guidance  based  on 
Roadmaps,  explicit 
requirements 
for Roadmaps 

The  Board  gave  guidance  by  issuing  advice  on  the 
Roadmaps  for  2009.  The  template  for  Roadmaps 
however remained unchanged. 

"Intermediate"  discussions  with 
services for key initiatives 

Intermediate discussions were held with services by the 
Board's secretariat 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Remove  blanket obligation to carry 
out  IAs  on  all  Work  Programme 
initiatives 

New  guidelines  put  the  emphasis  more  clearly  on 
impact assessments for legislative proposals. 

Ensure  more  concerted  advice  to 
author  services  on  what  constitutes 
a good IA 

Coordination between Board Secretariat and services in 
the  Secretariat-General  was  improved  to  ensure  that 
there are no parallel channels of communication. 

4.2. 

Priorities for the Board in 2009 

The Board will continue its work in 2009 on the same basis as it has in the past 2 years. Based 
on its experience so far, the Board will give particular attention to the following issues which 
build on the recommendations in the report on 2007: 

On better planning 

•  Impact assessments must be of better quality before they are sent to the Board. The impact 
assessment support units in the services have a key role to play in ensuring this, as do the 
impact assessment steering groups. These should both be involved at an earlier stage and 
more systematically throughout the preparation process. In important cases, as has already 
happened  a  few  times,  there  could  be  an  "orientation  debate"  with  the  Board  before 
submitting formally a draft report. 

•  The  Board  will  step  up  its  existing  practice  of  returning  impact  assessments  without 
issuing an opinion if they are clearly sub-standard and not ready to be examined. This also 
applies  to  impact  assessments  which,  without  justification,  exceed  the  recommended 
maximum  length  of  30  pages  (excl.  annexes).  The  Board  is  ready  to  provide  upstream 
support  in  selected  cases,  but  it  does  not  want  to  and  cannot  take  over  the  role  that  the 
impact assessment support units and the impact assessment steering groups should play. 

•  Author  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.  Author  services 
should  allow  sufficient  time  for  the  Board  to  examine  the  impact  assessments,  and  to 
incorporate  the  recommendations  it  makes.  They  should  always  take  into  account  the 
possibility  that  the  Board  may  request  a  resubmission.  Also  here,  the  impact  assessment 
support units have a key role to play in advising the authors of impact assessments.7 

On publicity and follow-up 

•  Commission services should avoid launching inter-service consultations before the Board 
has  concluded  its  examination  of  the  impact  assessment.  The  Secretariat-General  of  the 
Commission should check more closely that the impact assessment and the Board's opinion 
are part of the inter-service file. 

•  Awareness  and  use  of  Board  opinions  outside  the  Commission  should  be  increased.  The 
Board secretariat will ensure that impact assessments and the corresponding opinion(s) are 
added to the Europa website immediately after adoption. 

7 

It should be noted that time squeezes are not always the result of poor planning by DGs 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. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  There is a need to ensure that impact assessments fully cover the issues addressed in the 
corresponding  policy  proposal.  Proposals  are  sometimes  changed  during  the  adoption 
process  inside  the  Commission.  The  Secretariat-General  should  develop  a  procedure  to 
keep track of these changes and verify whether the analysis in the impact assessment still 
covers the proposal. If this is not  the case  then the impact assessment  should  be updated 
whenever possible.8 

4.3. 

The new impact assessment guidelines 

The new guidelines which will come into force at the beginning of 2009 improve the guidance 
on several issues which were found to be insufficiently clear or difficult to apply, and address 
several of the recommendations that the Board made in its report for 2007 and in the present 
report for 2008. 

The opinions of the Board contributed to identifying which parts of the guidelines needed to 
be strengthened.  This is for instance the case for  the  assessment  of  subsidiarity,  for  making 
the principle of proportionate analysis operational in practice, and for the role of the impact 
assessment  steering  groups  and  of  public  consultations  in  preparing  impact  assessments.  A 
key innovation which is especially welcomed by the Board and which it recommended in its 
report  on  2007  is  to  make  the  guidance  more  operational  by  publishing  a  list  of  concrete 
examples of good impact assessment practice. This list was largely drawn up by analysing the 
section in the opinions of the Board that is dedicated to highlighting positive aspects. 

Another important improvement which is directly relevant for the work of the Board is that 
the  deadline  for  submitting  impact  assessments  to  the  Board  will  be  changed  from  4  weeks 
before the launch of inter-service consultation to 4 weeks before the envisaged meeting with 
the Board. This effectively extends the time available for the Board's examination. It will help 
to avoid situations where the author services plan the launch of inter-service consultation too 
quickly after the meeting with the Board, do not allow themselves enough time to make the 
necessary  changes,  and  do  not  factor  in  the  possibility  that  the  Board  may  request  a 
resubmission. 

8 

A similar situation occurs when legislative proposals are amended in the European Parliament or in the 
Council  in  ways  that  are  not  covered  in  the  impact  assessment.  This  situation  is  however  outside  the 
scope of the Commission (and the IAB) and is the subject of the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better 
Lawmaking (2003) and the Common Approach on Impact Assessments (2005). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
Annex 1: Context, Mandate, and Procedures of the Board 
The President of the Commission created the Board on 14 November 2006.9 In doing so, he 
delivered on the commitment he made to the European Parliament in the plenary session 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  the  Board,  ad  personam,  from  the  Commission  services  with  the  most  direct 
expertise in the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of integrated impact 
assessment10.  The  Board  is  chaired  by  the  Deputy  Secretary-General  responsible  for  Better 
Regulation. 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 Directorate-General 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 stakeholders outside the Commission;  

•  a balanced approach requiring assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts, 

involving internal and external expertise, where appropriate; and  

•  an approach integrated in the Commission’s Strategic Planning and Programming cycle. 

The  mandate  of  the  Board  does  not  foresee  any  formal  role  in  the  Commission’s  decision-
making  process  beyond  the  delivery  of  opinions  on  the  quality  of  individual  impact 
assessments. The Board is not responsible for the 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 opinions are formally part of Commission decision-
making  procedures  and  are  published,  provides  an  incentive  for  services  to  make  the 
improvements to the impact assessments that the Board recommends. 

How the Board's quality control works 

The  Board  examines  each  impact  assessment  before  the  author  service  launches  the  inter-
service consultation on the related policy proposal. This examination generally takes place in 
a  timeframe  of  4  weeks  and  follows  a  number  of  standardised  steps.  Approximately  two 
weeks  after  it  receives  an  impact  assessment,  the  Board  sends  the  author  service  a  "quality 
checklist" of 3-5 pages.11 This contains a detailed analysis of the impact assessment on all key 
elements which are required in the guidelines. On the basis of the preliminary findings in the 
quality checklist, the Chair decides whether to continue the examination in oral or in written 
procedure. In oral procedure the author service discusses the quality checklist with the Board 
during  one  of  its  meetings.  These  meetings  are  held  every  other  week,  and  50  minutes  is 

9 

10 

11 

Cf. Information note from the President to the Commission: "Enhancing quality support and control for 
Commission  Impact  Assessments  -  The  Impact  Assessment  Board"  -  SEC(2006)  1457.  See  also: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab_en.htm. 
The composition of the Board changed on 1 May 2008: Jan Host Schmidt (DG ECFIN) left the Board, 
John Farnell (DG ENTR) joined the Board, and Gert-Jan Koopman, previously the Member from DG 
ENTR, was appointed as the Member of DG ECFIN. In November 2008, Timo Mäkelä (DG ENV) and 
Xavier  Prats  Monne  (DG  EMPL)  were  reappointed  as  Members  for  a  second  term  of  two  years. 
Alexander Italianer (SG) stayed on as statutory Chair. 
Annex 2 to the Impact Assessment Board Report for the year 2007 contains a model quality checklist. 
SEC(2008) 120 of 30.01.2008 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
usually reserved for each impact assessment. In written procedure there is no meeting, and the 
author service responds to the quality checklist in writing.  

The  Board  produces  its  opinion  on  the  basis  of  the  comments  and  clarifications  which  the 
author  service  provides  in  response  to  the  quality  checklist.  The  opinion  focuses  on  the  3-5 
key issues which have been raised in the quality checklist or during the meeting, and lists the 
recommendations for improvements in the order of their importance. In some cases, the Board 
may conclude that the draft impact assessment needs such substantial improvements that the 
author  service  should  submit  a  revised  version.  The  Board  issues  a  second  opinion  on  this 
revised  text.12  These  resubmissions  are  generally  dealt  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 second resubmission. 

Independence of the Board 

The President appoints the Members of the Board and their alternates in a personal capacity. 
They  do  not  represent  the  views  of  their  home  services  on  the  impact  assessments  they 
examine, and their services cannot give them instructions on the position to take. Their role is 
to  provide  expertise  on  the  quality  of  the  impact  assessments  independently  of  the 
Commission service preparing the proposal. 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.13  

The Board interprets this rule as applying in principle to impact assessments which have been 
carried out or supported by the services under the 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 directorate in the Member’s Directorate-General. 
In  2008,  Board  Members  declared  a  conflict  of  interest  in  6  cases  and  abstained  from  the 
discussions on these impact assessments. An analysis of the cases where the Board requested 
a resubmission shows that the Board applies similar standards to impact assessments that are 
produced  by  the  services  of  the  Board  Members  to  those  produced  by  all  Commission 
services:  the  resubmission  rate  is  33%  and  32%  respectively.  The  Board  also  interprets 
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. 

Resources of the Board 

The  Board  is  supported  in  its  work  by  a  secretariat  which  is  provided  by  the  Secretariat-
General  of  the  Commission.  Members  also  receive  support  from  their  alternates  and  from 
staff  within  their  own  services.  In  total,  the  equivalent  of  an  estimated  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  external  experts  to  contribute  to  its 
opinions and studies to be commissioned in its quality support function. 

12 

13 

In 2007 the Board occasionally recommended a “voluntary resubmission”, but in 2008 this practice was 
rarely used in order to avoid ambiguity about whether or not a resubmission was needed. 
Cf.  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Board,  Art.  3(2);  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/ 
governance/ impact/iab_en.htm. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
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 
internal expertise is not readily available, or for any other reason. This is difficult in practice: 
the short lead-time between submission of the impact assessment and discussion of the file in 
a  Board  meeting  means  that  experts  have  to  be  found  at  short  notice;  and  there  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  2008  the  Board  asked  an  external 
expert to contribute to its work on one occasion, when it examined a case on fixed and mobile 
termination rates. The Board referred to the expert's contribution in its opinion. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

1. 

 Annex 2:  Commission  directorates-general  and  services:  official  titles  and 
abbreviations 

Full name 

Letter code 

Secretariat-General 

Directorate-General for Communication 

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs 

Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry 

Directorate-General for Competition 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 

Directorate-General for the Environment 

Directorate-General for Research 

Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services 

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 

Directorate-General for Education and Culture 

Directorate-General for Health and Consumers 

Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security 

Directorate-General for Trade 

Directorate-General for Development 

SG 

COMM 

ECFIN 

ENTR 

COMP 

EMPL 

AGRI 

TREN 

ENV 

RTD 

INFSO 

MARE 

MARKT 

TAXUD 

EAC 

SANCO 

JLS 

TRADE 

DEV 

EN 

16 

   EN