EU rules ‘should be last resort’

By Anna McLauchlin

Date: 01/12/05

Regulatory alternatives to legislation must be considered as a way of achieving EU policy goals while relieving the burden on industry, according to a report from UK experts to be published on Monday (5 December).

Produced by the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF), an independent body that advises the UK government on improving regulation, the report hopes to persuade European Commission, Parliament and Council officials to "promote the greater use of alternatives in EU lawmaking where they can deliver better outcomes".

Classic regulation still plays a role where no alternative is possible, such as the recent rules on compensation for airline passengers that the Commission was forced to introduce when the industry refused to do so.

But alternatives can often offer a quicker and more flexible solution to a problem, because they are not bound by the lengthy political process surrounding traditional lawmaking.

The EU already has experience of alternative policymaking, the report says. Market-based instruments such as the carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme introduced this year can be a useful incentive to reach a goal, it says.

Voluntary commitments by industry such as those to reduce toxic car emissions by auto manufacturers, or less prescriptive legislation such as efficiency targets for white goods like fridges that allow the industry to reach the targets in their own way, can also achieve the desired outcome as satisfactorily as traditional legislation.

Improving consumer information is another useful non-regulatory route, according to the report. It highlights the European New Car Assessment Programme, which originally had a 3-star rating system for the safety of cars and has now been extended to 4- and 5- star ratings encouraging manufacturers to compete with one another on safety technology.

The possibility of taking no action at all is also a viable option that is not often considered by policymakers, the report says.

It gives the example of the Commission's rush to propose a new regulation on electricity supply following the 2003 power cuts in London, Denmark and Sweden.

According to those consulted for the study, who included Commission officials and stakeholders from a number of member states, this issue would have been better dealt with by the countries concerned.

The report has already received the thumbs- up from Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, who said: "Within the environment field we have consistently aimed to develop innovative ways of achieving our environmental policy objectives - and I am pleased to see that a number of examples are highlighted in this report."

Others are more sceptical. Jean-Philippe Denruyter from WWF said that voluntary agreements and labelling for increased consumer information were often ways for industry to avoid committing themselves to serious targets.

"We would support voluntary agreements if they worked, but experience has shown that they usually result in business as usual," he said.

"Targets are often very low because industry lobbies for the lowest common denominator and the agreements are often not updated for years."

Article anticipates the publication on 5 December 2005 of a report by the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF), an independent body that advises the UK government on improving regulation. In the report the BRTF was to say that regulatory alternatives to legislation had to be considered as a way of achieving EU policy goals while relieving the burden on industry.