COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors
Date: 2013-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European cooperation, health care, public awareness campaign, sport













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0312 - EN











|



52013SC0312

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors /* SWD/2013/0312 final */









This impact assessment accompanies the Commission's
proposal for a Council Recommendation on promoting health-enhancing physical
activity across sectors. A summary of the main aspects of the impact assessment
is presented hereafter.
1.           Introduction
The 2011 Communication "Developing the European
dimension in sport" confirms that physical
activity is one of the most important health determinants in modern society and
that sport constitutes a fundamental part of any public policy approach aiming
at improving physical activity. It invites the Commission and Member States
(MS) to “based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines, continue progress
toward the establishment of national guidelines, including a review and
coordination process”. These guidelines, drafted by a group of 22 experts
from around Europe representing various disciplines and broadly representative
of informed scientific opinion, were confirmed by the EU policy level in 2008.
They reiterate WHO Recommendations on the minimum level of physical activity,
emphasise the importance of a cross-sectoral approach and provide 41 concrete
guidelines for action. This Impact Assessment identifies and analyses the
underlying determinants for the planned EU policy initiative in the field of
health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA), building on the EU Physical Activity
Guidelines (EU PA GL). 
2.           Problem definition
Physical
activity, regular sporting practice and exercise is one of the most effective
ways of staying physically and mentally fit, combating overweight and obesity
and preventing related conditions. In addition, participation in sport and
physical activity is correlated with other factors such as social interaction
and inclusion. The many benefits of physical activity are well recorded and
evidenced. Conversely, a number of detriments are
caused by a lack of physical activity, including premature mortality, rising
overweight and obesity levels, breast and colon cancers, diabetes, ischaemic
heart disease. Health problems caused by a lack of physical activity have
significant direct and indirect costs for Europe's economy due to illness and
morbidity, sick leave and pre-mature death, especially also in view of Europe's
rapidly ageing societies.
The concept of
HEPA is a relatively new discipline undergoing rapid scientific development,
combining physical activity, which is closely related to sport and exercise, on
the one hand, and public health on the other. HEPA has been addressed by the
WHO in particular as part of the 2004 Global Strategy on Diet, Physical
Activity and Health. Successful HEPA promotion depends primarily on efforts in
the MS. As awareness of the importance of HEPA has
grown, many public authorities have stepped up their efforts to promote HEPA.
Likewise, the EU has addressed physical activity through policies and actions
in the field of sport (e.g. White Paper on Sport, EU PA GL, Communication on
sport) and health (e.g. White Paper on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight
and Obesity-related Health issues) and by using the relevant EU level
structures for policy coordination, in particular the Expert Group on Sport,
Health and Participation (XG SHP), set up by the Council through the EU Work
Plan for Sport 2011-2014, and the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical
Activity (HLG) set up in the framework of the above 2007 Strategy to help MS
engage in coordinated activities and to share information on policies, policy
ideas and practices.
However,
despite the growing profile given to physical activity
promotion and available tools to promote HEPA, the rates of physical
inactivity in the EU remain unacceptably high (e.g. in 2010, 60% of
Europeans responded that they exercised or played sport seldom or never).
Evidence also demonstrates vast discrepancies between individual MS. Most countries
have not achieved the principal policy objective, namely to increase the
proportion of citizens who reach the physical activity levels recommended by
the WHO, and reiterated in the EU PA GL. The main problem to be addressed by
the initiative therefore is that, in general, the HEPA promotion policies of
EU Member States have not been effective. 
The reasons for
the low effectiveness of MS policy are manifold, but above all consist in
shortcomings in the way HEPA promotion policies are developed and implemented.
Taking account of the criteria for effective HEPA policy laid down in the
reference framework of the EU PA GL and other scientific tools, evidence and
consultation outcomes confirm the existence of shortcomings in at least
three aspects of HEPA policy: a) a sufficiently cross-sectoral approach to
HEPA, including collaboration among different ministries and bodies responsible
for HEPA promotion, is lacking, b) objectives and goals of HEPA policies are
not defined clearly enough and c) provisions for monitoring and evaluation of
HEPA rates and policies are insufficient.
The underlying drivers of these
shortcomings are related to the fact that HEPA is a relatively new topic on the
agenda of governments (if at all) and understanding of the determinants of HEPA, which is essential for
designing interventions to change physical activity levels, is even younger. HEPA has not yet got recognition as a complex policy area that
requires multi-sectoral interventions, as outlined in the EU PA GL, inter alia due
to a lacking advocacy power. HEPA has so far been coupled with other public
health agendas (e.g. "diet"), but not been considered a focused
policy field, despite evidence for many independent
health and other effects. The above situation is also reflected in the EU’s
activities and structures dealing with physical activity. There is considerable
scope in EU policy making to encourage the implementation of the EU PA GL as a
means for effective HEPA promotion and to improve existing forms of policy cooperation
between the MS at EU level to help reverse the trend regarding physical
inactivity. To date, no policy coordination, neither within the EU’s approach
nor between MS at EU level, exists that would sufficiently reflect the
complexity of the HEPA topic as a differentiated (focused) policy area.
The
planned initiative will first and foremost target public authorities in
EU MS responsible for HEPA promotion and, more specifically, the thematic areas
covered by the EU PA GL. The initiative should help
improve capacity to promote HEPA more effectively across sectors and will at
least concern authorities in charge of the following areas: sport, health,
education, transport environment, urban planning, public safety, working
environment and services for senior citizens. It will in particular focus on
those MS that have been less successful in raising HEPA levels of their
citizens (generally these are countries in southern and eastern Europe) and thereby address regional disparities within the EU-28. Ultimately, the proposed initiative aims at reaching out to EU
citizens at large (e.g. children, working population, seniors) by providing
new opportunities to engage in physical activity in accordance with WHO
recommendations. Since the lack of physical activity is particularly pronounced
among specific at-risk-groups of the population (socio-economically
disadvantaged groups, women, children and the elderly), the benefits of the
initiative would accrue to these groups to a greater degree than to Europeans
as a whole.
3.           Analysis of subsidiarity
The EU has the
right to act in the field of HEPA based on two Articles of the TFEU,
both of which assign a supporting competence to the EU. Article 165 stipulates
that the Union shall ‘contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues’
and that action shall be aimed at ‘developing the European dimension in sport’.
Article 168 stipulates that ‘Union action [...] shall be directed towards
improving public health [...] and obviating sources of danger to physical and
mental health’. In both areas, the TFEU states that the Council (on a proposal
from the Commission) may adopt recommendations and authorises the Commission to
promote policy co-ordination among the MS. In the field of public health,
initiatives to promote policy co-ordination should in particular be ‘aimed at
the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of
best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic
monitoring and evaluation’.
As regards the
application of the subsidiarity principle, the main responsibility for
promoting HEPA and for the definition of sport and health policies lies with
the MS. EU action can add significant value over and above what MS would
be able to achieve on their own. In line with the
international framework and actions to promote physical activity, the EU can
provide political momentum to focused action on HEPA in the EU-28 and raise
awareness of the need to act now. Thereby, on a general
level, EU support for more effective HEPA promotion policies can help reduce
the significant social and economic costs of physical inactivity, and thus
strengthen MS' ability to achieve the growth objectives set in the Europe 2020
Strategy.
EU action has the potential to render
national efforts to promote HEPA both more effective and more cost-effective
than would be possible otherwise, which is particularly relevant in the current
economic context. The EU can facilitate and strengthen
policy co-ordination by helping MS to share information and experience, engage
in peer learning, disseminate good practice and work together to develop common
approaches, and thereby contribute to improving capacity to promote HEPA across
sectors and to shape policies that ensure better interventions. Such co-ordination in the area of HEPA seems
particularly useful given the vast differences that currently exist between MS in terms of the amount of
priority afforded to HEPA, the approaches chosen, and the cultural and economic
differences between MS that have an effect on HEPA rates, and can point to
measures that may be most promising. Moreover, exchange
of best practices is significantly strengthened when there is actual evidence
as to the effectiveness of different measures and policies. Robust data is
seldom available, despite its value for formulating and refining policy. The EU
is well situated to enhance provisions for monitoring and evaluation of HEPA
policies and thereby help the MS to track developments over time.
4.           Objectives
Overall the initiative
aims to contribute to a healthier and more productive society through increased levels of health-enhancing physical activity in
the EU.

The initiative seeks to increase the effectiveness of
MS' HEPA policies by enabling them to develop and implement policies based on the
EU PA GL that will help them address the main shortcomings (lack of
cross-sectoral approach, unclear objectives, insufficient monitoring). The
development of policies and their implementation will mainly take place in the
MS. Therefore, the single specific
objective is to ensure Member States develop and implement effective
policies for HEPA by improving the uptake and
implementation of the EU PA GL.
To address this specific objective, two operational objectives
have been formulated that are directly linked to the drivers of the problem and
parameters of the proposed initiative, namely to enhance policy coordination between the Member States and to facilitate the collection of comprehensive data on HEPA and HEPA policies.
5.           Policy options
This IA considers several policy options to support MS in
their endeavours to develop and implement effective HEPA promotion policies,
three of which have been discarded, i.e. a complete cessation of EU policy
coordination on HEPA, a focus solely on a revision of the EU PA GL, and a focus
solely on the adoption of new incentive measures in the area of HEPA. Four
policy options were elaborated to address the identified problems and to meet
the defined objectives: a baseline scenario (option A), one option without a
monitoring framework (option B), one option with a light monitoring framework
(option C) and one with a more comprehensive monitoring mechanism as well as
benchmarks and targets (option D).
   || Option || Brief description 
 A || Baseline scenario (continuation of status quo) || §   Continued policy coordination with the involvement of the Expert Group on Sport, Health and Participation (XG SHP), and the High Level Group (HLG), underpinned by the EU Physical Activity Guidelines (EU PA GL), but no new policy initiative. 
 B || Push for increased policy coordination (Tool: Commission Communication) || §   Policy document (with no mandatory authority) setting out a strategic approach for focused HEPA promotion across sectors; §   Enhanced policy coordination at EU level with the involvement of the XG SHP, and the HLG, facilitated by the COM; §   Actions to encourage MS to commit themselves to the principles embodied in the EU PA GL; §   Call on MS to report on progress in implementing the EU PA GL taking account of existing reporting tools and structures. 
 C || Push for increased policy coordination and monitoring, based on a limited set of indicators on the implementation of the EU PA GL (Tool: Proposal for a Council Recommendation) || §   Policy document with legal effect (establishing non-binding rules) recommending focused HEPA promotion across sectors; §   Enhanced policy coordination at EU level with the involvement of the XG SHP, and the HLG, facilitated by the COM; §   MS (meeting in the Council) reaffirm and commit themselves to the principles embodied in the EU PA GL; §   MS agree to monitor HEPA policy development and implementation using a limited set of high-level and aggregate indicators relating to the EU PA GL and to report back to the EU level; §   COM supports the monitoring framework and assists MS in their implementation efforts. 
 D || Push for increased policy coordination and monitoring, based on a comprehensive set of indicators covering each of the 41 EU PA GL and evaluation against targets/benchmarks. (Tool: Proposal for a Council Recommendation) || §   Policy document with legal effect (establishing non-binding rules) recommending focused HEPA promotion across sectors; §   Enhanced policy coordination at EU level with the involvement of the XG SHP, and the HLG, facilitated by the COM; §   MS (meeting in the Council) reaffirm and commit themselves to the implementation of all 41 EU PA GL; §   MS agree to monitor HEPA policy development and implementation by using a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative indicators relating to the EU PA GL and to report back to the EU level; §   MS agree on benchmarks and targets for the implementation of the GL; §   COM supports the monitoring framework, assists MS in their implementation efforts and evaluates MS' performances against benchmarks and in achieving targets. 
Option A would see a continuation of existing structures and processes to
coordinate policies on HEPA at EU level, as provided for in particular through
the activities in the EU policy fields of sport and health.
Option B
would introduce a renewed strategic vision for the EU for a focused approach on
HEPA promotion across sectors and coordinated policies in the MS in the form of
a policy document with no legal effect (i.e. a Commission Communication).
Building on the already existing policy documents in the field of HEPA, such an
initiative would express a renewed political commitment to HEPA in line with
the EU PA GL, and would outline key actions involving the MS, the Commission
and other relevant actors.
Under options C and D, in addition
to enhanced policy coordination (as already foreseen under option B), a
monitoring framework is proposed as a key element. The intention is that a
reaffirmation of the EU PA GL coupled with a specific mechanism to monitor
their implementation would lead to a more systematic and constructive form of
coordination and peer learning, and as a consequence, a greater focus on
effective HEPA policies at the national and sub-national levels. Principally,
an initiative under these options would invite the MS a) to develop a national
strategy and action plan for promoting HEPA across sectors, in line with the EU
PA GL; b) to monitor the implementation of the EU PA GL at national level,
based on an agreed set of indicators to measure changes in physical activity
and in HEPA policy; and c) to report back at regular intervals on progress
made. To support these activities MS would be asked to set up "national focal
points for physical activity" charged with collecting data for the
monitoring framework and with providing country-specific information on
relevant national policies and action plans. The Commission would facilitate
this process by providing support for the set up and running of the monitoring
mechanism and for capacity building in the MS regarding the development and
implementation of policies consistent with the EU PA GL. The HEPA monitoring
framework would thereby develop further existing forms of monitoring and data
collection in this field in synergy with the WHO. Based on the data,
country-specific overviews on HEPA and analysis about HEPA trends would be
prepared and, together with other relevant information about HEPA policy
development and implementation form the basis for periodic reports for the
relevant EU fora (i.e. XG SHP and HLG). The key difference between options C
and D relates to the policy coordination (option D: benchmarks, targets)
and the comprehensiveness of monitoring.
6.           Assessment of impacts
This section of the IA analyses first the general (social,
economic and environmental) impacts of the initiative. The types of impacts that could be expected from a new EU initiative
in the field of HEPA are similar for all policy options, but are likely to vary
in scale as a function of each option’s effectiveness. The IA addresses the effectiveness
as a second step, before the analysis of impacts per option. The latter
is summarised in a table at the end of that section.
The social
benefits would stem from increased HEPA among Europeans as a result of more
effective HEPA policy in the MS and implementation of the EU PA GL. Engaging in
the recommended amount of physical activity has beneficial effects on many
chronic diseases and health problems. Increased rates of physical activity
among Europeans would result in a commensurate drop in the number of people
suffering from an increased mortality risk. In the EU, physical activity levels
are positively correlated with life expectancy, meaning that those countries
with higher levels of physical activity tend to have a higher life expectancy.
Since the lack of physical activity is particularly pronounced among certain
countries and regions (southern and eastern Europe), in addition to specific
at-risk-groups of the population (socioeconomically disadvantaged groups,
women, children and the aged), the benefits of the initiative would accrue to
these countries, regions and groups to a greater degree than to Europeans as a
whole. The initiative would also comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights
(articles 21, 23-26, 35). Regarding the extent to which effective policy and
decisive action can lead to increased physical activity levels over the medium
and long term, calculations based on a best-case scenario suggest a sustained
increase of about 1% per year over a period of 25 years.
Regarding economic
impacts, enhanced health and well-being can be expected
to lead to significant economic benefits as health care costs go down and the
amount of economic output forgone due to illness and morbidity, sick leave and
pre-mature death decreases – however, this depends on the extent to which MS
implement measures at all relevant levels. In an attempt to monetise the costs
of lacking physical activity, one study identified costs to England of just over €3bn per year, or €63 per inhabitant – a figure which was found to be
similar in calculations for other countries as well. Extrapolated across the EU
at the same cost per inhabitant, the lack of physical activity in the EU can be
calculated as costing over €31bn per year. Based on this simplified scenario,
with regard to these costs of physical inactivity, improved HEPA promotion
policies developed and implemented in line with the planned initiative would be
expected to increase the proportion of EU citizens meeting recommended physical
activity thresholds by up to about 1% per year, gradually chipping away at the
cost of physical inactivity over time. Taking the latest Eurobarometer figures
from 2010 as a starting point, implementing effective HEPA policy could
theoretically see about 65% of Europeans meeting physical activity
recommendations in 25 years, with the cost of inadequate amounts of physical
activity gradually heading downwards. While much depends on the capacity and
willingness of the MS to prioritise and implement effective HEPA policy over
the long term, economic benefits would be huge in terms
of avoiding the costs of physical inactivity, adding up to nearly €7bn after 5
years, €22bn over 10 years and €63bn over 20 years.
Regarding the costs
of each option, MS would ultimately bear the costs
relating to the implementation of HEPA policies following the proposed
initiative. It is difficult to calculate the budget currently allocated to HEPA
because the costs of HEPA promotion are spread around government ministries and
authorities, as well as various NGOs and the private sector. In addition,
spending on HEPA is not recorded comprehensively across the EU. This is
exacerbated by the fact that HEPA is by nature cross-sectoral, that many
policies are tangentially related to HEPA and that policies which promote HEPA
often do not include HEPA promotion as a primary objective. Administrative
costs for the MS would stem from the reporting requirements to the EU level (as foreseen
under Option B, and in particular related to the monitoring mechanism under
Options C and D) and would be relatively low in the first year, with further
reductions once the mechanism is fully operational, as staff become familiar
with the monitoring and because of better data availability over time. The
costs that would fall on the EU budget relate to, the establishment and
functioning of the monitoring mechanism, and the provision of support to MS in
the form of capacity building. It is proposed that these costs would be covered
by the Sport Chapter of the Erasmus+ during the period 2014-2020. Other costs
would relate to the organisation of Expert Group meetings at EU level covered
by the general budget.
Regarding environmental impacts,
policies aimed at implementing the section of the EU PA GL that addresses
transport, environment, urban planning and public safety could result in
significant environmental benefits and thereby contribute to a high level of
environmental protection, enshrined in Article 37 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights. While it is extremely difficult to make accurate
predictions, recent scientific research can provide some insight into what can
be considered the optimum scenario in terms of the environmental benefits of the
initiative. In an effort to demonstrate the scale of potential environmental
benefits of active transport policies, a recent study sought to predict the
extent to which a reorientation towards active transport in London would affect
carbon emissions over 20 years in comparison with an evolution of the baseline.
The study calculated that the per person transport CO2 emissions
would be 62% lower under the sustainable transport scenario, at 0.46 tonnes per
year, than under the continuation of the baseline scenario, at 1.17 tonnes. 
Analysis of impacts per option:
   || Option A (Baseline scenario) || Option B (Push for increased policy coordination) || Option C (Push for increased policy coordination and monitoring, based on a limited set of indicators) || Option D (Push for increased policy coordination and monitoring, based on a comprehensive set of indicators and evaluation against targets) 
 Outputs || §   Continued policy co-ordination and promotion of EU PA GL under existing structures at EU level. §   Continued work on physical activity through EU-supported initiatives and projects. §   Continued provision of fragmented data || §   Minimally enhanced policy co-ordination and promotion of EU PA GL under existing structures at EU level. §   Continued work on physical activity through EU-supported initiatives and projects within a new strategic EU approach to HEPA. §   Continued provision of fragmented data || §   Significantly enhanced policy co-ordination and promotion of EU PA GL under existing structures at EU level. §   Provision of accurate and comparable monitoring data against limited set of physical activity and policy indicators. || §   Potential for strongly enhanced policy-coordination and promotion of EU PA GL under existing structures, but risk of lack of participation. §   Potential for provision of comprehensive monitoring data against a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators + reporting on benchmarks and targets. 
 Outcomes || §   Gradually improving physical activity policies and uptake of (principles of) EU PA GL in a limited number of MS, but un-changing policies in most others. || §   Gradually improving physical activity policies and uptake of (principles of) EU PA GL in a limited but larger number of MS than under option A, but un-changing policies in many others. || §   Significantly improved physical activity policies and uptake of main themes of EU AP GL in the majority of MS. || §   Significantly improved physical activity policies and uptake of EU PA GL in some MS (but risk of many MS not implementing the initiative). 
 Impacts 
 Social || §   Stagnant or falling physical activity levels in most countries and persistence of social detriments of insufficient physical activity. || §   Small improvements in physical activity levels in some MS, but stagnant or falling levels in many others leading to only a slight reduction in social detriments of insufficient physical activity. || §   Physical activity levels increase at up to 1% / year leading to a significant reduction in social detriments of physical inactivity. || §   Physical activity levels increase at up to 1% / year (but risk of MS not implementing the initiative) potentially leading to significant reduction in social detriments of physical inactivity. 
 Economic (Annex V provides a detailed assessment of costs to the EU and administrative costs in the MS) || §   Persistence of costs of insufficient physical activity (estimated at €31bn / year) || §   Slight reduction in economic costs of physical inactivity and some economic benefits but significantly less than €6.7bn over five years that would be foreseen from effective policy. §   Some (difficult to quantify) costs to MS that dedicate resources to improving physical activity. || §   Significant reduction in economic costs of physical inactivity. §   Economic benefits of up to €6.7bn over five years. §   Some (difficult to quantify) costs to MS that dedicate increased resources to improving physical activity. || §   Significant reduction in economic costs of physical inactivity, but only in the MS implementing the initiative §   Significant (but difficult to quantify) economic benefits in the MS implementing the initiative. §   Some (difficult to quantify) costs to MS that dedicate increased resources to improving physical activity. 
 Environmental || §   Some benefits in MS that improve physical activity policy with regard to active transport. || §   Limited but notable benefits in MS that improve physical activity policy with regard to active transport. || §   Potentially significant benefits in MS that improve physical activity policy with regard to active transport. || §   Potentially significant benefits in MS that improve physical activity policy with regard to active transport. 
7.           Comparison of options and
preferred option
The IA compares
the different options based on their likely effectiveness, efficiency,
coherence with overarching EU policy objectives as well as feasibility of
implementation and sustainability.
The effectiveness of the four
options relies on action by the MS, all of which would be voluntary in nature.
However, the options vary in the extent to which the EU calls for specific
actions and / or policies and they are closely linked to the instrument chosen
to implement the initiative. While all of the options could be expected to
achieve some progress towards the two operational objectives and thereby the
specific objective, the degree of success each option could be expected to
attain varies, option A being as ineffective as the current situation, and
option B being less effective than options C and D. 
The options vary considerably in their feasibility
of implementation (extent to which each option would attain buy-in from the
MS, essential for a voluntary initiative) and sustainability (extent to which
momentum attained in the short term would be maintained over a longer period of
time). In particular, the complex monitoring and reporting arrangements
proposed under option D led to a low score for feasibility. 
Regarding the extent to which each option
would be expected to contribute to the objectives for a given level of
resources (cost-effectiveness), the principal costs of all the options
would consist of those associated with developing and implementing policies to
promote physical activity. A number of recent studies examined the costs of
various interventions to promote physical activity in terms of their
effectiveness either in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or savings on health
care costs. While the studies found highly variable levels of cost
effectiveness, all of the interventions examined were proven cost effective
i.e. they justified their costs, especially in light of the vast costs for the
economy of physical inactivity. Evidence on both a micro and macro level
demonstrates that the benefits outweigh the costs for a variety of types of
government investment in physical activity promotion. In addition, the economic
benefits of such policies, in terms of increased productivity and reduced health
care costs are likely to be very large, thus justifying the even substantial
costs. In addition to implementation costs, the cost-effectiveness of each of
the options as related to administrative costs for the MS and costs to the EU
budget shows that options B, C and D can all be considered cost-effective,
option C ranking highest.
Regarding coherence action to
promote HEPA contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy. More specifically,
options B, C and D are all coherent with EU policies in the field of health,
transport, social inclusion and research. 
The analysis of options based on these four
criteria has led to the choice of option C as the preferred option which
poses the most appropriate and proportionate response
to address the problems identified.
·                        
Effectiveness: It
contributes significantly to both operational
objectives while allowing MS to prioritise effectively. A policy document with
legal effect would be expected to add considerable weight to HEPA promotion in
general and the EU PA GL in particular. The key difference with option B is the
inclusion of a monitoring mechanism, which makes it very likely that the
effectiveness of this option would be significantly greater, especially but not
limited to progress towards the second operational objective.
·                        
Feasibility / Sustainability: The 'pragmatic' nature of this option, reflected by the support of
MS, experts and stakeholders for a monitoring mechanism based on a limited set
of high-level and aggregate indicators, is likely to result in few implementation
problems due to its relatively low costs and ability to fit national
circumstances. Moreover, the framework for collecting data and recording
progress engendered by the monitoring mechanism and the reporting to the
Council is likely to ensure the long-term sustainability of the initiative.
·                        
Efficiency: This
option would entail some costs for MS budgets, but the largest benefits, as the
MS collect data to feed into the monitoring mechanism, allocate resources to
new physical activity promotion policies and then benefit from increased HEPA
rates. While the majority of the costs would stem from policy changes, some
expenditure from the EU budget would be required in order to set up, administer
and maintain the data from the monitoring mechanism; the EU would also be
expected to play some role in helping the MS to collect relevant data.
·                        
Coherence: If only because option C is likely to be the most effective, it can
be described as contributing more to EU policy goals than the other options. It
is likely to result in the greatest economic benefits and productivity gains,
in addition to the largest steps towards improving health, tackling health
inequalities, encouraging active commuting and facilitating social inclusions.
In addition, the coherence of options C and D strongly aligns with the policy
tool proposed for their implementation. The choice of a Council Recommendation
appears to be a coherent approach given that a) several "softer" EU
policy documents expressing a commitment to HEPA already exist or are in the
pipeline and that b) the need for action exists primarily at MS level.
8.           Monitoring and evaluation
In the framework of
this Impact Assessment and in preparation of the planned initiative, a
monitoring framework was developed by experts and consulted with MS and
stakeholders. It includes a table with 23 high-level, aggregate indicators
against which the evolution of HEPA rates and HEPA policies and the
implementation of the EU PA GL can be measured. Data on these indicators will
be collected as part of the EU monitoring mechanism foreseen in the preferred
option (option C) and will also provide the lion’s share of information needed
to monitor and evaluate the initiative as a whole. 
Progress in
implementing the Council Recommendation will take the form of regular reports
from the Commission to the Council, i.e. every three years, by involving the
working structures for sport (e.g. XG SHP) and in coordination with other
relevant fora (e.g. HLG, Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and
Health). Such reports would include in particular an assessment/evaluation of
the progress made based on the data collected via the monitoring mechanism on
the one hand, and, on the other, wider information regarding HEPA policy
development and implementation of the EU PA GL in the MS. A full evaluation of
the implementation of the Council Recommendation should be made after 6 years,
involving an external contractor.