Barriers and Best Practices in SME Test Implementation − Presentation of report to the ITRE committee Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
SANKT ANNÆ PLADS 13, 2. | 1250 KØBENHAVN K | TELEFON: 2333 1810 | FAX: 7027 0741 | WWW.COPENHAGENECONOMICS.COM
Agenda 1. Key messages 2. The use of the test 3. Barriers and challenges 4. The four recommendations 5. Questions and answers
2
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Key messages
Key messages to you The implementation of the SME test can be improved >Only 15 Member States and the EC apply an SME test or similar test > Uneven and ad hoc application of the test in Member States >The EC services apply the test, but also lack consistency
However, one set of guidelines and one way of testing will not fit all >A ”starter group” of Member States needs to get ”basic” policies fixed first >A ”follower group” of Member States must establish procedures and improve consistency >An ”advanced group” of Member States must work on compliance and ”culture”
The study recommends >Better implementation through a differentiated approach, also at national level >Make the test mandatory and adopt guidelines with specific requirements >Support implementation through training, training certain control measures, help desks etc. >Don’t make the SME test a stand alone test
3
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Agenda 1. Key messages 2. The use of the test 3. Barriers and challenges 4. The four recommendations 5. Questions and answers
4
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
The use of the SME test
What is the SME test all about? A four step pre-legislative procedure….
Consultation with SME representatives
Preliminary assessment
Measurement of impacts
… that can help policy makers Consider who will be affected and the alternatives Strike a balance between conflicting goals Improve quality of legislation
5
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Assessment of alternative or mitigating measures
The use of the SME test
21 Member States say they use a test, but fewer actually use it… … but only 15 Member States use it always or often 50%
21 Member States say they use a test….
10 MS
40% 30%
6 Member States do not use a test
5 MS
5 MS
20% 10%
1 MS
0% Always
Often
On an ad hoc basis
Never
In 11 Member States the test is performed 20+ times 60% 21 Member States use a test
11 MS
50% 40% 30%
5 MS
20% 10%
0 MS
4 MS
1 MS
0% 20 or more
6
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
11-19
6-10
1-5
0
The use of the SME test
Most Member States¹ and the EC have a set of guidelines in place - but guidelines allow for variation Fully standardised across all services
Template and guidelines in place,, but not mandatory
EU Guidelines
EC
Finland² Malta Romania Slovakia²
National guidelines
Denmark UK Latvia Luxembourg
Irland France Netherlands Spain Sweden
No guidelines
4 (+1)
9
¹: The Member States that use an SME test or similar test ²: Use both EU and national guidelines
7
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Each service design their own SME test
Other
4 (+1)
Germany Lithuania Slovenia
12
Austria Bulgaria Hungary
Italy Poland
5
3
5
21¹ (+1)
The use of the SME test
As a consequence of ”soft guidelines” the use of measures varies
8
Test measure
Number of Member States that ”always” or ”in most cases”/”often” use the measure
Consultations of SMEs
16 Member States
Quantification of effects
12 Member States
Mitigating measures
16 Member States
Quality check of test
12 Member States
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
The use of the SME test
Overall picture: Great variety in consistency and sophistication
The advanced group The follower group The starter group
9
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Agenda 1. Key messages 2. The use of the test 3. Barriers and challenges 4. The four recommendations 5. Questions and answers
10
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Barriers and challenges
Overview of barriers and challenges in the three groups Barriers
“Starter group”
“Follower group”
Political and administrative barriers
•
No political decision on how to prepare new legislation and use the SME test
•
Organisational and procedural barriers
•
No or weak • institutional structure in place to support the SME test •
Barriers in practical use • of test
11
Division of authority on business regulation between administrative levels
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
“Advanced group”
Lack of political understanding of the value of the SME test Inconsistent application of SME test
•
Lack of compliance with guidelines
•
Lack of data to quantify costs of new regulation
No fixed procedure for how to carry out the SME test
”
Barriers and challenges
What they told us… about lack of policy and organisation
From interviews with Member States in the ”starter group”:
”There is no clear commitment from the competent institutions at national and regional levels to carry out an effective SME test.” Source: Interviews Italy
12
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
“Organisational structure behind the SME test is not yet existing”
Source: Interviews Romania
Barriers and challenges
What they told us… about guidelines
From interviews with Member States in the ”follower ” group”: ”There are guidelines which each ministry has to follow, but in practice this does not always happen.” “It is sometimes a challenge to have civil servants in other ministries than the Ministry of Economy to adopt the SME test. Other ministries don’t understand the contribution of the SME test.” Source: Interviews Latvia
13
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
“The government very often say that a new regulation has no effect on SMEs, and that it is therefore not necessary to carry out an SME test. How they determine that the new regulation has no effect on SMEs is voodoo.” “We need political will on the governmental level – not on the administrative level. A political commitment to the SME test must come first, guidelines will then follow.” Source: Interviews Austria
Barriers and challenges
What they told us… about compliance
From interviews with Member States in the ”advanced ” group”:
“The guidelines for the impact assessment are good, but ministries have a certain autonomy within the guidelines to decide how to carry out the test, which is sometimes reflected in the quality of the tests.”
Source: Interviews Denmark
14
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
“Not every government department takes the SME test seriously. The SME test is something which has to be done, but not something which is done with full enthusiasm ...There is no doubt that those ministries that are closer to business probably take the test more seriously... than smaller government departments which are not as close to business.” Source: Interviews United Kingdom
Barriers and challenges
Barriers in the EC services’ use of the test
Key observations about the EC services’ use of the SME test • The test is used and advanced measures are applied
“The quality of the SME test varies from DG to DG, since different DGs have different sensibilities as regards SMEs. Still, the overall quality has improved over the last years.”
Source: Interview with official DG Enterprises
• New inter-service measures and a quality control system are in place • The exact content and reporting is decided on a case by case basis • Proper information is often lacking
15
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
“The guidelines are a ‘shopping list” Source: Interview with UEAPME
The test is a... “black box” .... Source: Interview with Eurochambres
Barriers and challenges
A closer look at 22 EC IA reports from 2010 revealed variation in use and content of the SME test Number of IA reports investigated
Step 1: Consultations (with SME rep.)
Step 2: Preliminary assessment
Step 3: Measurement of impacts
Step 4: Assessment of mitigating measures
Report containing specific SME sectoon
22¹
22 (6)
20
17
4
12
Note: 2010 IA reports from DG Enterprise, DG Internal Market and Services, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, DG Competition, DG Environment
Consultations involve only in a minority of cases SME representatives Preliminary assessment are mostly conducted; conducted but readers are not informed Great variation in the actual impact assessment; assessment often magnitude is not clear Few examples of analysis of mitigating measures; may point to a problem Insufficient reporting of the SME test in the IA reports
16
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Our conclusions regarding the ECs use of the SME test Current guidelines allow for too much variation in the use of the test Lack of proper presentation of the tests is a problem The availability of data is a real challenge
17
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Agenda 1. Key messages 2. The use of the test 3. Barriers and challenges 4. The four recommendations 5. Questions and answers
18
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
The recommmendations
Best practice steps in moving forward the SME test implementation
Political framework of better regulation • Clear policy stance
Guidelines and procedures
Culture of better regulation
• Mandatory guidelines with specific requirements
• Help desk and expert assistance
• Transparent procedures
• Inter-service cooperation
• Institutional framework • Measurable goals • ”Independent” control mechanisms
Quality of data needed to conduct SME tests
19
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
The recommmendations
The four recommentations Recommendations
20
Implications
1. Improve implementation of the test in government services
• •
Continue to push for progress at EU level Different challenges at Member State level require a national as well as an EU agenda
2. The test should be mandatory, transparent and involve quantification
•
Develop guidelines by specifying requirements for each steps, including quantification
3. A more ambitious ”systemic” approach is needed to succeed
•
Establish e.g. help desk, training activities, a control mechanism, and use road maps and other communication tools
4. The test should not stand alone
•
Integrate the SME test in a wider impact assessment
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Agenda 1. Key messages 2. The use of the test 3. Barriers and challenges 4. The four recommendations 5. Questions and answers
21
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011
Thank you! you
Contact Contact: Claus Frelle-Petersen Petersen Copenhagen Economics
[email protected]
22
Claus Frelle-Petersen | Brussels | 22 November 2011