1. The failure of IA in the Council- case of the climate change package Malgorzata Kaluzynska Office of the Committee for European Integration

2. Content  Achievements  Monitoring?  Case of climate change package  Why we don’t ask for IA in the Council?  Is IA in the Council possible at all?  Conclusions

3. Achievements so far PresidencyTimetableAchievements AustrianI half 2006Indicative Guidance for working party chairs accepted by COREPER FinishII half 200616 working groups discussing 24 iniciatives GermanI half 2007National Guide to IA in the EU Systematic application of Indicative Guidance PortugueseII half 2007? SlovenianI half 2007Indicative Guidance for working party chairs in the Council Conclusions

4. Do we know actual situation?  Work on the Third Review of the Better Regulation Strategy, and with Council and Parliament on the review of the Common Approach  Sec General to put together some examples of how we have used our impact assessments in the inter- institutional process how Council and Parliament have used them, and examples of IAs/ analysis which Council and Parliament have carried out on significant impacts or have asked the Commission to do for them identification and a brief assessment of 2 or 3 examples (positive or negative)

5. Climate change package  Project having the similar importance as introduction of the Single Market Economic and Monetary Union  January 2008 the EC presented the package: reduction of greenhouse gases emissions by 2020 by 20% vs. 1990 20% increase of the share of RES in the total energy consumption by 2020 20% improvement of energy efficiency by 2020 10% increase of the share of biofuels in the total fuel consumption in transport by 2020

6. Commission’s IA  IAB opinion issued on 18th January IA report submitted to IAB after the closure of the ISC IA makes it difficult to judge if some alternatives have a disproportionate impact on 1 or more MS Distributional impacts of auctioning could be made more visible Competitiveness issues need more analysis  Commission adopting package on 24th January

7. Need for IA?  Commission’s IA wasn’t a basis for a discussion  Social-economic impact wasn’t a subject for debate on EU level  IAs conducted outside administration shown that socio-economic impact have not been examined: Electricity prices, the scale of fuel poverty, carbon leakage, windfall profits  Some problems weren’t addressed at all – no solution in the legislation  6 weeks to search for the solution

8. Vicious cycle on IA in the Council ?  Presidencies and MS do not ask for IAs on substantive amendments because: no mechanism in place, in terms of either resources or procedure, to carry out the work  Sec Gen can argue there is no demand for IAs in the Council so there is no need for the Council Sec to take any action

9. Would IA for climate change package be possible?  Under the existing Chairs’ guidance COREPER must give approval for IA  Presidency would have to agree to refer the matter to COREPER  Without substantial political support Presidency won’t feel the need to refer to COPEPER: There is no process in place Negotiations under political pressure Some strong supporters for the package

10. How in practice to ask for an IA?  Absence of the procedure and methodology MS to request that the Commission provides more information (possibility mentioned in the 2nd Strategic Review) Group of MS to get together and prepare an IA and table it in as a non-paper

11. Are we naive?  Better Regulation like minded countries supporting one another in calls for IA? Commit to support as a group any call for IA in the Council based on a „one for all all for one principle”  Not all BR like minded countries would support IA for the climate change package

12. Conclusions  Decision was made first, debate on social-economic cost started in the end of the process  Good IA and debate on the IA in the beginning would increase chances to notice all warning on social-economic unexpected consequences early and find solutions