www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu

Monitoring and reporting: key issues to inform the break out discussions

Andrew Farmer

19 November 2015

“Make it Work” WorkshopBrussels

2

Overview

• Aim is to provide background to aid the break out discussions

• There are break out discussions today and tomorrow on:– Purpose and actors – why, what, who, how to report– Principles for setting out provisions at EU level– Others, e.g. legal setting, testing ideas

3

What output is MiW looking to deliver?

• MiW seeks to develop outputs to guide those writing and adopting EU environmental law for it to better

• One way of doing this is through developing ‘drafting principles’, as done with compliance assurance

• Aim to produce ‘drafting principles’ on reporting• We will discuss principles:– Are these OK– But also how to turn these into practical advice, e.g.

checklist, etc.?

• Note that we are not limiting discussion on reporting to law, but also non-legal provisions at EU level

4

Principles for monitoring and reporting: 1

• Principles have been established in other contexts – better regulation, reporting, etc. – the discussion document draws on such sources

• In no case are the principles not already recognised in some instances and there is good practice, but how to ensure the principles are:– Interpreted correctly for different circumstances– Applied across the acquis

5

Value

• Information must be used for a justified reason and be of a quality for that purpose

• If it is not of clear value, it should not be required to be collected or reported

• Value is linked to other principles, e.g. timeliness• Systems add value, e.g. quality, making data available

for wider use• How do we make sure EU level provisions deliver

information of value?

6

Sufficiency

• M&R provisions should cover all that is needed to answer the question asked

• But also should not require obligatory reporting of additional information

• Enough, but not more than enough, is sufficient• How do those drafting provisions ensure this? Much

easier for some things (has a plan been produced?) than others (pressures on the environment)

7

Proportionality

• The content and form on an action must be in keeping with the aim pursued

• The burden of a reporting provision should be compared to the value/purpose of the information

• Detail, difficulty to obtain data, frequency, etc. affect proportionality

• Sometimes system changes affect the burden, e.g. through electronic systems

• How to make the principle of proportionality operational for those drafting M&R provisions?– How much can be generalised and how much is case by case?

8

Coherence

• Provisions on M&R should be coherent across the acquis (coherence does not mean “the same”)

• Coherence of objectives: why report• Coherence of process: formats, systems, etc., to

deliver the reporting needs• Coherence across institutions: the decisions and

processes for reporting should be harmonized across DG ENV (and DG CLIMA, etc) Eurostat, EEA and others

• There are good examples of efforts on coherence – how to ensure the principle is applied?

9

Timeliness

• For information to be of use (value) it must be timely• Some older M&R requirements provided out of date

information• But asking for data too rapidly can be a burden (and

possibly raise quality problems)• What factors need to be taken into account?• How to use systems well to allow for timely

reporting?

10

Continuity

• Reporting from year to year, etc., adds value – trends show policies/actions are delivering outcomes (or not)

• Require processes for collection and processes to be:– The same– Differences to be understood – calibration across systems

• How to ensure stability of data provision to enhance value, but taking advantage of new techniques and opportunities? What is the balance?

11

Consistency

• Specific details of legislation:– Definitions– Frequency of reporting– Timing of reporting

• Problems, if any, depend on relationship between legislation

• Are there issues?• What would be most important to address?

12

Comparability

• At EU level information is of more value if comparable between MS – not just for Commission/EEA, but also for MS, NGOs, industry

• Requires some uniformity of M&R requirements – measurement, processing, QA, etc.

• But also danger of micro management• What is the balance?• How to increase comparability without drawbacks?

13

Subsidiarity

• A Treaty principle to be applied in deciding on EU law• What is best left to MS to work out and apply?• How to balance this with the principle of

comparability?• Reporting on local permit compliance – is this best

left to MS?• Reporting on pressures on marine regions – is this

where comparability should be ensured?• What is the balance and how to guide this?

14

Providing information to the public

• Transparency• Active dissemination• Different legal contexts promoting this• Several practical developments on making

information available• What is relationship with reporting?– Could public information be mined for reporting data?– Do public and national/EU bodies want same or different

information?

• Are sensitives on extent, nature and approach to active dissemination

15

Approaches to M&R provisions at EU level

• M&R provisions are agreed with MS through a range of different processes

• How do processes for developing and agreeing M&R requirements enable the principles to be applied?

• Is there sufficient consultation/exploration with MS?• Do MS consult with their own experts/regions

sufficiently?• Would testing phases be useful (in some cases)?• Does the legal context affect this

(directive/comitology/non-legal setting)?

16

Dialogue and feed-back between senders and receivers

• Reporting moves data from provider to receiver• Enhanced feedback would enable understanding of

value and further enhance value (e.g. in a MS)• Users and providers could explore quality, processes,

etc.• What issues are most important in dialogue?• How best to do this without instituting a burdensome

process for both parties?

17

The break out discussions

• There are break out sessions for all of the issues presented here

• Some may begin with short interventions from speakers to set some context, e.g. in a MS

• Facilitators will help lead discussions and discussions will be noted (Chatham House rule)

• The aim is for as open and inclusive discussion as possible

• Your ideas are critical in getting a good output from the workshop

18

Discussing the principles

• Break out sessions will focus on two principles each• But do bear in mind the other principles during those

discussions– Value should bear in mind proportionality (and vice versa)– Comparability should consider subsidiarity (and vice versa)– Continuity should bear in mind coherence, etc.