1. First years of systematic regulatory impact assessment in Estonia – lessons learnt , Tallinn
Helena Braun
Advisor of Regulatory Impact Assessment
Ministry of Justice

2. Presentation
1. Overview of the Estonian regulatory impact assessment system regarding primary legislation.
2. Achievements and drawbacks identified by the Legislative Quality Division of the Ministry of Justice.

3. Road to systematic RIA in Estonia
Detailed RIA rules since 2012
Why new rules?
Various analysis showed that:
In most cases RIA was missing or done partially;
RIA was made after drafting the law;
RIA was only limited to the areas of competency of the ministry drafting the law.
Negative results because:
No RIA tradition;
No quality control mechanism;
No clear legal framework;
Not enough analytical capacity and competency.
Issues that have mainly been dealt with

5. Road to systematic RIA in Estonia (2)
2007 – Better Regulation Programme with partial funding from the European Social Fund;
2009 – RIA concept paper by a special working group;
2011 – Parliament authorised RIA concept;
2012 – Renewed law drafting Regulation „Rules for good legislative practice and legislative drafting“ comes into force (transitional period until – fully in force as of );
December 2012 – Methodology of RIA adopted by the Government – practical guidance for implementing RIA requirements.

6. Quality control mechanism – RIA organisation
Legislative Quality Division of the Ministry of Justice – RIA quality control of primary legislation
Coordination – guidelines, trainings, seminars, data collection, representation in international fora (OECD, EU Better Regulation formations);
- Quality control – checking and commenting the RIA-s of all the ministries in the official inter-ministerial coordination round.  All other ministries must do the same regarding their field of competence.

7. Legal framework of RIA

8. Categories of impacts
According to the „Rules of good legislative practice and legislative drafting“ six categories of impacts have to be considered:
Environmental impact;
Economic impact;
Impact on regional development;
Impact on state and local government organisation;
Impact on state security and International relations;
Social, including demographic impacts.
 The list is not exhaustive

9. Steps of RIA
EX-ANTE RIA – before and during the development of Regulation
Preliminary RIA of all regulatory changes;
In-depth RIA of regulatory changes with significant impacts
EX-POST RIA – after Regulation has had effect

10. Steps of RIA in legislative process
PREPARATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
PROBLEM  OBJECTIVE
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT -IMPACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
min 4 WEEKS OF CONSULTATION
ALL MINISTRIES MUST CHECK IMPACTS IN THEIR FIELD OF COMPETENCE
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CHECKS THE OVERALL QUALITY OF RIA
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
PREPARATION OF LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
RESULTS OF IN-DEPTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
PLAN OF EX-POST RIA
CONSULTATION
min 4 WEEKS OF CONSULTATION
FEEDBACK TO CONSULTATION

11. Steps of RIA in legislative process
ALL MINISTRIES MUST CHECK IMPACTS IN THEIR FIELD OF COMPETENCE
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CHECKS THE OVERALL QUALITY OF RIA
INTER-MINISTERIAL COORDINATION
GOVERNMENT
ENDORSES
PARLIAMENT RIIGIKOGU
DECIDES
EX-POST RIA
PRESENTED TO THE PARLIAMENT, THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
WHAT NEXT?

12. EX-ANTE RIA - preliminary RIA – legislative intent
The aim is to think of all the impacts that the planned policy changes would have
and identify significant impacts that require further analysis
1. What will change substantially?
2. Which categories does the change impact (6 categories)?
3. Which target groups are influenced by the change?
4. How exactly does the change impact the target group?
5. Is it possible to show causality between the change and the objective?
6. Does the change impact any target group significantly ? – if so, in-depth RIA is required.

13. Exceptions from legislative intent – but not from preliminary RIA
Urgent need to introduce legislation;
Transposition of EU law;
International agreements;
State budget;
Impacts are negligible (technical changes).
NB! In case the legislative intent is not presented, the RIA criteria of the intent have to be respected and reflected in the explanatory letter of the legislative draft.

14. EX-ANTE RIA – in-depth RIA
- Significance of an impact is established using 4 criteria:
Size of target group
Scope of impact to the target group
Frequence of impact to the target group
Risk of unintended impacts
- No very concrete rules for in-depth RIA – has to be inclusive, analytical, evidence-based, show alternative solutions to the problem and their positive and negative impacts to target group(s).

15. EX-POST RIA
Ex-post RIA is mandatory where such assessment was considered necessary during the preparation of the act.
No practical examples yet.
Problematic that since 2012 no ex-post RIAs planned.

16. Main changes introduced to RIA system in 2012
Legislative intent is obligatory (some exceptions);
Stakeholder consultations are obligatory in the phase of legislative intent;
Not doing ex-post RIA must be explained;
Ministry of Justice is officially the coordinating body for RIA with regard to primary law;
In-depth analysis for significant impacts is obligatory and must be reported.
DETAILED LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND
QUALITY CONTROL MECHANISM

17. „In an ideal world, the selection of one regulatory option over others would be based on a comparison of the costs, benefits and potential side effects of various discrete options.
However, impact assessment systems are not situated in an ideal world, and the history of RIA is littered with disappointment concerning the effects of RIAs on actual policy choices and contestation concerning the design and operation of RIA regimes.”
Kai Wegrich,
Handbook on the Politics of Regulation

18. RIA system in practice – achievements and drawbacks

19. Achievements Transparency
Formulation of problems and objectives has improved;
RIA part of explanatory letters makes drafts easier to comprehend;
RIA part of explanatory letters shows how much evidence and analysis backs the proposed policy change.

20. Achievements
Legislative intent has helped to retrench resources and has enabled to solve substantial problems in an early phase of decision-making.

21. Achievements
RIA awareness has increased – mindset of „every link in the chain of policy making process“ is very important
for effective and efficient
functioning of RIA.

22. Drawbacks
RIA is not yet the basis for decision-making – still after, not before the draft.
We need to work hard to go from „here is the conclusion – what facts can we find to support it“ to „here are the facts – what conclusion can we draw from that?“
„We use evidence the same way as a drunken
man uses a lamp post – more for support than
for enlightenment“
Better Regulation community inspired by A. Lang

23. Drawbacks Speedy law making and very few legislative intents:
324 laws out of 398 laws that were in force in 1st September 2013 have already been amended, many of them more than once;
In 2014 only in 19% of the cases a legislative draft was preceded by a legislative intent.
Important changes that seem to have significant impacts are approved in urgent procedure whereas with regard to smaller changes correct procedure is followed – problematic.

25. Drawbacks
All ministries do not have enough analytical capacity to properly follow the renewed RIA rules.

26. Drawbacks Lack of will and habit to research, analyse. Used to
doing what is told.

27. Drawbacks Even if all the information is provided, pros and cons
brought out, the initial idea
seems too dear to let go of it.

28. Way forward

29. Current activities Updates to legal RIA framework;
Seminars, training courses, capacity building;
Establishment of RIA contact points in all ministries;
International best practice collection.

30. Some questions for the future
Quality control:
- is quality control in one of the ministries the best choice?
- is it enough that quality control is done once legislative intent and/or legislative draft are ready or would assistance be needed from the beginning of the process?
Would Estonia need a Better Regulation Unit where RIA, public consultation, administrative burden reduction and other aspects of Better Regulation would be dealt with systematically together?

31. Thank you for your attention!
Helena Braun
Advisor of Regulatory Impact Assessment
Legislative Quality Division, Legislative Policy Department
Estonian Ministry of Justice