Commission staff working document - Impact Assessment Board Report for 2009
Date: 2010-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, EU policy, European Commission, administrative formalities, administrative transparency, committee (EU), drafting of EU law, impact study, operation of the Institutions, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.1.2010 
SEC(2009) 1728 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment Board Report for 2009 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

The Impact Assessment Board is a central quality control and 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  analysis  underpinning  the  policy  proposals  the 
Commission puts forward. It also provides advice 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 assessments, 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.  The  Board  expects  the  numbers  to  be  higher 
again in 2010.  

•  In line with the trend perceived in 2008, the Board noted a further 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 internal 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 intention to publish a list of planned impact 
assessments starting in 2010, and to prepare roadmaps not only for initiatives included in 
the  Commission  Legislative  and  Work  Programme  (CLWP)1,  but  for  all  initiatives  with 
significant  impacts.  The  Board  has  identified  two  additional  measures  to  promote 
transparency:  

1 

Subject to a decision from the new College on the name of its work programme. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  The follow-up of Board opinions can be improved further. Commission services 
should  ensure  that  their  final  impact  assessment  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 economic 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  institutions,  and  in  particular  of  Council 
Presidencies,  of  the  importance  of  allowing  sufficient  time  for  the  underlying 
analysis when suggesting timetables for Commission initiatives. 

2. 

CONTEXT, MANDATE, AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD

2 

The main features of the Impact Assessment Board are: 

•  The  Board  provides  independent  support  and  quality  control  for  Commission  impact 
assessments.  It  is  supported  by  a  secretariat  provided  by  the  Secretariat-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 reflected in opinions of the Board which accompany 
the corresponding policy proposals throughout the Commission's decision making process 
and are then made publicly available. 

•  The  Board  discusses  its  preliminary  findings  with  the  authors  of  the  impact  assessment 

before issuing an opinion. 

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

2 

3 

Annex 1 provides a detailed overview of these issues. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm 
The  composition  of  the  Board  in  2009:  John  Farnell  (DG  ENTR),  Gert-Jan  Koopman  (DG  ECFIN), 
Timo Mäkelä (DG ENV), Xavier Prats Monne (DG EMPL), and Alexander Italianer (SG) as Chair. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While there were no changes in the Board's functioning or membership in 2009 compared to 
2008, the following facts can be mentioned: 

•  New  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines  were  adopted  at  the  beginning  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 assessments it received in early 2009 were prepared 
on the basis of the previous Guidelines, the 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  crisis  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  than  usual.  Nevertheless,  revised  impact 
assessments were produced for the two cases for which the Board asked for a resubmission 
and second opinions issued before the completion 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 different ways and at different levels: 

Up-stream  quality  support  at  the  early  stages  of  preparation  for  particularly 

a) 
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  change  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 

5 

A detailed overview of the changes can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm  
Abbreviations of Commission directorates-general and services are explained in Annex 2. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Review  of  roadmaps6,  as  part  of  the  Board's  support  at  the  beginning  of  the  impact 
b) 
assessment work. The Board's comments are intended to help Commission services to make 
early  improvements  in  the  framing  of  the  impact  assessments  which  would  be  difficult  to 
introduce later in the process. 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 initiatives which may have significant impacts (not only 
for CLWP items, but also for Catalogue7 and Comitology items8).  

Detailed suggestions for improvements in the form of a quality checklist produced for 

c) 
all impact assessments in the run up to a Board meeting9. 

Further  advice  to  the  author  service  on  how  to  address  the  concerns  raised  by  the 

d) 
Board after the meeting. 

As part of upstream support, but also to raise 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  RTD,  EAC,  MARKT),  having  visited  four  services  in  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,  training  needs,  political  commitments,  cooperation  with 
stakeholders). 

The  Chair  also  attended  a  number  of  meetings  of  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent 
Stakeholders  on  Administrative  Burdens10.  The  participation  by  the  Chair  has  helped  to 
ensure good contacts and methodological consistency in assessing administrative burdens. 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

Roadmaps  are  drafted  by  the  Commission  services  which  are  responsible  for  preparing  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  external  transparency  of  the  policy 
preparation  process,  and  allow  all  actors  interested  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 
The catalogue is the list of all proposals planned by the Commission. 
See also http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/strategicplanning/index_en.htm. 
Implementing rules enacted through specialized regulatory committees. 
Checklist is a 3-5 page summary, which contains a detailed 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/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009SC0055:EN:NOT) 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens/high-level-
group/index_en.htm 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
3.2. 

Quality control 

3.2.1.  Workload of the Board  

As in 2008, the Board examined all of the impact 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 

CLWP items 
Catalogue items 
Comitology items 

Share of CLWP items 

Legislative proposals 
Non-legislative proposals 

Share of legislative proposals 

Opinions 
Number of opinions issued 

On the first submissions 
On the second submissions 
On the third submissions 

Number of opinions requesting resubmission 

Resubmission rate13 

Procedures applied 
Number of meetings 

Cases in oral procedure 
Cases in written procedure 

102 

67 
31 
4 
66% 

57 
45 
56% 

112 

102 
10 
0 

9 
9% 

22 
56% 
44% 

135 

46 
80 
9 
34% 

86 
49 
64% 

182 

135 
43 
4 

44 
33% 

26 
75% 
25% 

79 

23 
43 
13 
27% 

53 
26 
68% 

106 

7612 
30 
0 

28 
37% 

21 
85% 
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 year and examined the remaining 12 in written procedure.  

11 

12 

13 

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). 
The number of opinions is lower than the number of impact assessments examined because the Board 
has occasionally issued 'combined' opinions covering more than one impact assessment. 
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  taking  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 

6 

   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  transition  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 the 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.  The  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 increased 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  the  impact  assessments,  which  continue  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

25

20

15

10

5

0

S
L
J

N
E
R
T

T
K
R
A
M

V
N
E

R
T
N
E

O
C
N
A
S

E
R
A
M

C
A
E

P
M
O
C

I

R
G
A

O
S
F
N

I

X
E
L
E
R

I

O
G
E
R

D
T
R

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 

7 

   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 analysis 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/proportionality 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 options and how they were compared; in 43% 
of  the  cases  the  Board  was  concerned  about  the  quality  of  subsidiarity  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 consultations and procedural 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

s
n
o
i
n
i
p
o

f
o
%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

f
o
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
A

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

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

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

l
a
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
P

t
n
e
t
n
o
c

,
s
e
u
s
s
i

e
v
i
t
u
c
e
x
e

f
o

y
r
a
m
m
u
s

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

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

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

d
n
a

g
n
i
r
o
t
i
n
o
M

n
o
i
t
a
u
l
a
v
e

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  recommendation  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 have often addressed the following issues: 

•  Problem definition – incomplete baseline  scenarios,  in particular the  need  to  include  all 
ongoing  activities  in  Member  States  and  relevant  EU  policies  and  to  make  a  realistic 
assessment  of  how  the  situation  would  develop  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 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Executive  summary  –  need  to  ensure  that  these  present  a  full  reflection  of  the  impact 
assessment report's main findings in a clear and structured way. In addition, the Board has 
recalled the need to present clearly any quantitative results in the executive summary. 

•  Stakeholder consultation – need to ensure that the concerns expressed by stakeholders are 
fully  addressed  in  the  impact  assessment  reports.  On  occasion  the  Board  has  raised 
concerns that not all relevant stakeholder groups were consulted.  

•  Subsidiarity and proportionality – need for a more detailed analysis of these issues. The 
Board would welcome more consistent use by services of the structured questions provided 
in the 2009 Guidelines. 

•  Transposition  and  implementation  –  in  those  cases  where  the  impact  assessment  is 
addressing  the  revision  of  existing  legislation,  services  should  pay  more  attention  to  the 
lessons  learnt  from  past  implementation  and,  where  possible,  this  should  be  based  on 
evaluation results. 

•  Monitoring and evaluation – need to better define appropriate progress indicators which 
would allow for proper monitoring and evaluation of the actual impacts of the initiative. 

Issues raised in the analysis of impacts 

In general, many of the Board's recommendations concerning the analysis of impacts address 
broad issues such as the evidence base, the robustness of assumptions made and the methods 
used.  Chart  3  shows  how  these  recommendations  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

s
n
o
i
n
i
p
o

f
o
%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

l
a
i
c
o
S

n
o

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
i
m
d
a

s
t
s
o
c

2007

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

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

2008

n
o

s
t
c
a
p
m

I

s
E
M
S

2009

n
o

t
c
a
p
m

I

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

i
s

U
E

n
o

t
c
a
p
m

I

t
e
g
d
u
b

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2009 the Board frequently made recommendations 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  are  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  the  impacts  on  competition  and  on  the  internal 
market.  

•  The Board made recommendations on the assessment of social impacts in more than 40% 
of all impact assessments. These recommendations often address employment impacts and 
distributional impacts between 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 insufficient attention is given to indirect environmental impacts. 
It  has  also  often  pointed  to  the  need  to  analyse  environmental  impacts  other  than  those 
related to carbon emissions.  

•  While  the  Board  is  aware  of  the  methodological  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 recommended 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  Programme  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  their  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 administrative burdens has increased, the Board made recommendations 
both  on  the  general  identification  and  quantification  of  information  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  responsibility  for  administrative 
burdens alongside that for impact assessments in the Secretariat General of the Commission 
so that the two processes become mutually reinforcing. 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  legislation,  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 invoicing initiative in the context of the VAT directive 
(see Box 2). 

EN 

10 

   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  administrative  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 Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens. 
While the benefits of e-invoicing in terms of reducing administrative burden 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  seems  likely  that  a  full 
impact assessment would have facilitated 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 response to the financial 
crisis, asylum and migration, 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  tight  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  efforts  made  by  DG  MARKT,  and  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  impacts,  particularly  implementation  costs.  The 
latter issue was frequently linked to the difficulties of obtaining data in this field.  

Work on energy efficiency included eight implementing (i.e. 'Comitology') measures that, as 
a follow up to the Eco-design directive, set requirements for different 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  corresponding  energy  savings  (benefits),  and  the 
timing of when they occur. Another analytical problem of a horizontal nature has been that of 
taking  full  account  of  national  initiatives,  for  example  on  energy  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 author 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 transmitted to the Director-General of the author 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  draft  impact  assessment(s)  to  other  Commission 
services  for  the  inter-service  consultation15  on  the  policy  proposal  and  subsequent  decision-
making by the College. 

15 

The  phase  in  the  Commission's  internal  decision  making  process  when  an  author  service  formally 
consults the other Commission services. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
All  Board  opinions  are  made  public  on  the  internet  once  the  Commission  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  paragraph  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  services  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 analysed 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 417). In some 
cases,  services  made  a  radical  review  of  their  approach,  and  changed  the  preferred  policy 
option (see Box 3). In other cases, given the extensive 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 – given 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  –  following  the  discussion  with  the  Board,  DG  TREN 
reassessed  the  policy  options  and  identified  an  alternative  preferred  option  –  ‘European 
network  of  safety  investigation  authorities’  –  that  would  achieve  the  policy  objectives  in  a 
more  proportionate  and  efficient  manner  than  the  creation  of  a  European  Coordinator,  as 
originally proposed. 

16 

17 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm.  In  exceptional  cases,  and  only  on  the  grounds 
provided for in Regulation 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. 
In 2009 the Board's secretariat has strengthened the analysis of follow-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 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Chart 4:
Follow-up of Board recommendations 
in final impact assessments

Minor 
10%

Substantial
41%

Some
49%

In  its  2008  report  the  Board  noted  that  the  main  reason  for  incomplete  follow-up  to  its 
recommendations was poor planning. The 2009 Guidelines therefore introduced new planning 
provisions. Commission services should now allow for eight weeks (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  and  it  seems  to  have 
allowed  for  a  somewhat  higher  proportion  of  final  impact  assessments  with  substantial 
changes.  

However, there are still cases where inadequate planning and the resulting time pressure seem 
to  have  an  impact  on  the  level  of  follow-up.  The  Board  observed  the  following  issues  with 
regard to planning: 

Before  the  Board  examination  –  late  submissions.  In  2009  60%  of  the  impact 
a) 
assessment  reports  were  submitted  late  to  the  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  unsatisfactory 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 

13 

   EN 

 
 
The institutional changes that took place in 2009 – a new European Parliament and transition 
to  a  new  Commission  –  and  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  clearly  had  an  impact  on  the 
rhythm of the Commission's work and on planning. The Board would nevertheless welcome 
further efforts by Commission services to improve planning, and stronger enforcement by the 
Secretariat General of the Commission that inter-service consultations should not be launched 
before  the  Board  has  provided  its  final  opinion.  Finally,  the  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, on time
60%

Yes, but late
27%

While  the  aim  of  the  Commission's  impact  assessment  system  is  primarily  to  improve 
decision-making within the institution, the impact 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  assessment  steering  groups.  In  light  of  this  the 
Board welcomes the following developments. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
a) Impact assessment support in Commission services 

Most  services  have  impact  assessment  support  units,  and  many  have  developed  training 
programs and internal guidance for specific policy areas.  

Box 4 – Examples of initiatives taken to strengthen the impact assessment culture in services: 

Many  services  provide  internal  training  courses  (EAC,  EMPL,  ENV,  INFSO,  MARE, 
MARKT, SANCO, TREN) and have developed internal 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  committee.  DGs  ENTR,  MARKT  and  TREN  have 
conducted an internal audit on the application of the impact assessment approach. 

Some DGs (e.g. EMPL, ENTR, ENV, INFSO, JLS and MARKT) have framework contracts 
for the provision of external services to support impact assessment 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 thematic network of officials who contribute to 
the development of the Commission's impact assessment work. Around 30 representatives of 
all relevant services participate in its work. In 2009 the Working Group met three times, and 
discussed  topics  such  as  the  assessment  of  administrative  burdens,  social  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 impact assessment. Steering 
groups  are  the  main  vehicles  for  inter-service  information  sharing,  support  and  transfer  of 
know-how  on  horizontal  issues  (such  as  SME  and  consumer  impacts  or  impacts  on  internal 
market and fundamental rights). When the Board 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 steering group meeting that 
discussed the draft impact assessment 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  specialist  seminars  on  specific  issues  such  as  consultation,  assessing 
administrative costs, economic modelling, monitoring and evaluation and sensitivity analysis 
(95  participants  in  2009).  In  addition  some  services  organise  their  own  internal  training 
courses, as indicated in Box 4 above. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
4. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2008 REPORT 

In its report for 2008 the Board suggested several changes and improvements targeted at the 
Commission  services, 
impact  assessment  system. 
A stocktaking of these recommendations leads to the following overview: 

the  Board's  own  work,  and 

the 

Recommendation 

Progress 

Strengthen the role of impact 
assessment support units 

Return sub-standard or 
exceedingly long impact 
assessments without issuing an 
opinion  

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 

Avoid launching inter-service 
consultations before the Board 
has concluded its examination 

Ensure that impact assessments 
and the corresponding opinion(s) 
are added to the Europa website 
immediately after adoption 

Ensure that impact assessments 
fully cover the issues addressed 
in the corresponding policy 
proposal 

The Commission services have taken several measures in 
this respect and the Board has recognised the improvement, 
as described in Section 3.5. 

In 2009 all impact assessments were of a sufficient standard 
to be considered by the Board. The Board returned one 
excessively long impact assessment.  

The 2009 Guidelines changed the deadline for submitting 
impact assessments to the Board: there should be at least 
eight weeks between the submission and the launch of 
inter-service consultation (previously 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.  

The Secretariat-General of the Commission has checked 
more closely that the impact assessment and the Board's 
opinions are part of the inter-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 inter-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. 

The Board secretariat ensures the upload of impact 
assessment documents within a week of the adoption of the 
corresponding proposal by the Commission. 

During the inter-service consultation the Secretariat-
General of the Commission verifies 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 objectives, 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 

16 

   EN 

 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS  

Since  the  system  was  launched  in  2003,  impact  assessment  within  the  Commission  has 
evolved considerably in many ways, such as the scope of application and 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  evidence  on  which  policy  is  based, 
stakeholder  involvement  and  overall  transparency.  The  Commission  impact  assessment 
system has all the elements in place to be effective. The main challenge is now to apply this 
system  consistently  across  the  Commission  services  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 opinions18. 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 will 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  improve  the  assessment  of  social  impacts  in 
line with the commitments made by President Barroso in the plenary 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 SANCO19. 

•  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  the  overall  framework  of  better  regulation 
under  the  direct  authority  of  the  President  and  would  welcome  the  further 
development  of  a  help-desk  function  to  assist  in  the  assessment  of  administrative 
burdens, including the use of the Standard Cost Model.  

18 

19 

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. 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=760&langId=en&preview=cHJldmlld0VtcGxQb3J0YWw 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Monitoring and ex post evaluation 

In line with the priority which President Barroso has given in his political guidelines 
to improving the ex post evaluation of the Commission's policy initiatives, the Board 
(i) will reinforce the verification 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 for future monitoring and evaluation. 

•  Transparency of the impact assessment system 

While  the  Board  welcomes  the  specific  requirements  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  evidence  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 

18 

   EN 

 
Annex 1: Context, Mandate, and Procedures of the Board  

The President of the Commission created the Board on 14 November 200620. In doing so, he 
delivered on the commitment he made to the European 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  the  Board,  in  a  personal  capacity,  from  the 
Commission services with the most direct expertise in the three dimensions (economic, social 
and  environmental)  of  integrated  impact  assessment.  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 Commission 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 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 Commission services to make 
the improvements to the impact assessments that the Board recommends. 

20 

EN 

Information  note  from  the  President  to  the  Commission:  "Enhancing  quality  support  and  control  for 
Commission 
also: 
Impact  Assessments 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm. 

Impact  Assessment  Board". 

-  The 

See 

19 

   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 related policy proposal. This examination generally takes place in 
a  timeframe  of  four  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. This contains a detailed analysis of the impact assessment on all key 
elements  required  by  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 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 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  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  substantial  improvements,  the  author  service  should 
submit  a  revised  version.  The  Board  issues  a  second  opinion  on  this  revised  text.  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 further 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 and their services cannot give them 
instructions  on  the  position  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 alternate21.  

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  service.  In  2009, 
Board Members declared a conflict of interest in five cases and abstained from the discussions 
on these impact assessments. 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. 

21 

Rules of Procedure of the Impact Assessment Board, Art. 3(2); available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Resources of the Board 

The Board is supported in its work by a secretariat 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  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  external  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  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  2009,  the  Board  asked  for  the  opinion  of  the  Commission's 
Legal Service for a case on access to EURODAC for law enforcement authorities. The Board 
referred to the expert's contribution in its opinion. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Annex 2: 

Commission services: Official titles and abbreviations 

Full name 

Letter code 

Secretariat-General 

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 Information Society and Media 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Directorate-General for 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 

Joint Research Centre 

SG 

ECFIN 

ENTR 

COMP 

EMPL 

AGRI 

TREN 

ENV 

RTD 

INFSO 

MARE 

MARKT 

TAXUD 

EAC 

SANCO 

JLS 

TRADE 

DEV 

JRC 

EN 

22 

   EN