1. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Monitoring and reporting: key issues to inform the break out discussions Andrew Farmer 19 November 2015 “Make it Work” Workshop Brussels

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.