EU INITIATIVE OF BETTER REGULATION AND ITS STATUS IN LITHUANIA

This paper focuses on the reduction of administrative burdens in Slovenia and how these actions can influence the competitiveness of business. The aim of the paper is to study and analyse the current situation in the field of Slovenian regulations and the disadvantages of the regulations for businesses, to study the possibilities for reducing administrative burdens in Slovenia and to analyse the influence of cross-border cooperation on the reduction of administrative burdens. The paper first describes the regulations and their impact on the competitiveness of business using the data from different international studies that include business environment and competitiveness and by using the results of the research carried out in Slovenia on defining the most burdensome areas of legislation. The paper continues by discussing the reduction of administrative burdens, where the Programme for the Elimination of Administrative Barriers and the Reduction of Administrative Burdens by 25% by 2012 is introduced. The third part of the paper describes the possible connection between the reduction of administrative burdens and cross-border cooperation by introducing the results of a cross-national empirical survey of the current situation and future potentials of cross-border cooperation in the Alps-Adriatic region. At the end, the paper gives some conclusions on the reduction of administrative burdens and the resulting impact on business competitiveness in Slovenia.

The quest for ‘Better Regulation’ has been a major preoccupation of the European Commission in recent years. The campaign possesses its own website, which helpfully collects relevant documentation and reveals three priorities (which do not concern the Commission alone): promoting simplification, reduction of administrative burdens and impact assessment as tools of better regulation, working more closely with Member States to ensure that principles of better regulation are applied consistently throughout the EU, and reinforcing dialogue between stakeholders and regulators at EU and national level.

The introduction of e-Government thus far has been largely focused on improving service delivery and governmental back office integration. Nevertheless the State of Affairs in e-Government in Europe shows a growing mismatch between supply and demand in e-Services to the public. The current focus on the reduction of the administrative burden however has opened up new perspectives in the development of e-Government. In this paper we present an overview of the political and technological issues that dominate the discussion on the reduction of administrative burden. We will furthermore explain some critical success factors in this process. As an illustration we will refer to the approach followed in the Dutch e-Government Programme.

The Tax Procedure Act (TPA; Slovenian ZDavP) is the key law regulating relations among the participants in tax collection procedures. Therefore, it has been more or less thoroughly changed several times in recent years, also within the government’s programme of reduction of administrative burdens (RAB; Slovenian OAO). Procedures are being attempted to be simplified for both taxpayers and tax authorities. The paper explores a selection of institutes introduced to this end, such as tax assessment through a provisional specification, service by regular mail, advance rulings, etc. The author considers statistical data on how frequently those (new) institutes were used in 2006, 2007 and 2008 to establish whether, or how much, goals of the regulatory change in the tax procedure are actually being achieved in praxis. It is found that notwithstanding some exceptions, the majority of the considered institutes do amount to a realisation of the RAB programme.

This paper presents a new approach to measure the impacts of e-government concepts on the reduction of administrative burdens, in the domain of European fund management.The present European legislation specifies that Member States shall provide online portal services for beneficiaries to reduce the administrative burdens of cohesion policy. This concept is marked with the term “e-Cohesion” in the scientific discourse. Based on former studies, the concept has several attributes that leverage its impact on burden reduction. Nevertheless, the level of their influence has not been underpinned by evidence-based research yet.The present paper has three main aims. First, to present the methodology and findings of an international research on the capabilities and impacts of e-Cohesion portals. Second, to evaluate the relevance of the above attributes based on these findings. Third, to make suggestions for the development of an e-Cohesion specific maturity model to measure the effectiveness of electronic portals.

This paper presents a new approach to measure the effects of e-government concepts on the reduction of administrative burdens, in the domain of European fund management. The topic may receive considerable interest since the present European legislation specifies that Member States shall provide online portal services and offer paperless fund management possibilities for beneficiaries in order to reduce the administrative burdens of cohesion policy. This concept is marked with the term “eCohesion” in the scientific discourse. Based on former studies, the concept has several micro- and macro-level attributes that leverage its effectiveness and impact on burden reduction. Nevertheless the level of their influence has not been underpinned by evidence based research yet. Consequently this paper outlines a research design for the measurability and impact assessment of the above attributes. The development of the research design is based on the Standard Cost Model, the widely-used methodology for the measurement of administrative burdens. The present paper applies the model to the attributes of eCohesion by formulating research hypotheses in order to make them measurable and to assess their relevance. The design created paves the way for a further quantitative research and methodologically supports Member States in developing a deeper understanding of the nature of eCohesion.

Burden reduction is a key issue in modern public administrations' and businesses' agendas. Compliance with mandatory regulations can have a direct impact on a country's economic performance, growth, and development. Research in this area, contributes to a better understanding of the implications and context of administrative burden, and increases the efficiency of the strategies adopted to reduce it. The goal of this study is to undertake a review of the current state of the art on Administrative Burden Reduction (ABR), in order to gain a deeper insight about the subject, identify current gaps, and better plan for future research. A total of 122 papers were identified as relevant, out of a pool of 742 papers retrieved from the current literature. The relevant papers were analyzed across four dimensions: methodology, type and focus, and targeted stakeholders. Three key gaps were identified and discussed in relation to: citizen orientated services and burden reduction; empirical research and post-initiative re-evaluation; and, the role of stakeholders, interest groups and end-users in driving ABR. Lastly a conceptual framework model and next steps are proposed.

The document entitled Study on eGovernment and the Reduction of Administrative Burden indicates three ways to reduce administrative burdens in Europe: implementation of the once-only principle, simplification and personalisation strategies and digital-by-default strategies. The implementation of the once-only principle should be the first step towards reducing administrative burdens, as this principle lays the foundations for the other two strategies. Without the implementation of the once-only principle, it will not be possible to simplify administrative procedures for citizens and businesses, nor will it be possible to digitalize them. Numerous measures are being taken in Europe to put the once-only principle into practice, but they primarily focus on the implementation of this principle at the national level. For the first time, the TOOP project undertook to develop a technical solution that will enable the implementation of the once-only principle at the European (cross-border) level. What is important, this solution will be practically tested by the countries participating in the project. The fact that implementation of the once-only principle is becoming a priority in the EU, as evidenced by the fact that this principle is included in the Proposal for a Regulation on establishing a Single Digital Gateway should be assessed positively. Combining the efforts undertaken at the European Commission level within the framework of proposed legislative initiatives and in the Member States under the projects such as the TOOP project should bring visible benefits for citizens and entrepreneurs in the near future. The scale of these benefits can be very huge, as is shown by estimates indicating that the implementation of the once-only principle in Europe could generate annual savings of €5 billion.

Summary The European Union is facing huge environmental and climate-related challenges. Greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, ammonia emissions and continuing excessive nutrient loads in water bodies demand a much more targeted and consistent agri-environment-climate policy than has hitherto been the case. Agri-environment-climate policy measures to date – including within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – have not sufficiently reduced the environmental pollution caused by agriculture. In its 2018 draft regulations, the European Commission proposes a “new delivery model” for the post-2020 CAP. This model shifts responsibility for policy-making towards member states and strives for greater “results orientation”, offering member states the possibility of implementing the CAP to focus much more on the public good. Under these legislative proposals, the EU will in future only specify the objectives and broad types of interventions, leaving member states to quantify targets and design the specific measures. To that end, each member state will produce a national strategic plan for its entire territory in which measures in Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP are jointly programmed. This plan is to be submitted to the European Commission for approval. Three policy tools are envisaged in the design of the CAP’s “green architecture”: the “conditionality” of direct payments; the new so-called “eco-schemes” in Pillar 1; and environmental and climate-related regulations in Pillar 2 (AECM II). These three policy tools combined offer member states much greater leeway than they have had in the current funding period (2014-2020). In Germany this requires more extensive coordination between the Federal Government and German states. The Advisory Board’s conclusions on the legislative proposals submitted by the European Commission are mixed. Member states are being offered new opportunities to implement targeted agri-environment-climate measures, but the scope they are being given is so broadly defined that it is possible for their agri-environment-climate policies to be relatively unambitious and continuing to focus on income support. The Advisory Board recognises a risk of a race to the bottom in terms of the level of ambition of agri-environment-climate policy if the European Commission, which is the impetus behind it, does not apply more ambitious budgetary provisions or stringent criteria for the approval of national strategic plans. Whether a challenging, targeted and efficient agri-environment-climate policy is developed or member states stick with the status quo of agricultural aid primarily depends on their political will to take action. In the present report, the Advisory Board evaluates the legislative proposals for their potential to produce a targeted agri-environment-climate policy, and offers suggestions for an effective national design of this policy area as part of the CAP’s “new delivery model”. The Advisory Board also gives details of its April 2018 recommendation to gear the post-2020 CAP more towards serving the public good (WBAE 2018). To design an effective agri-environment-climate policy as part of the post-2020 CAP, the Advisory Board makes the following recommendations for the Federal Government and in part for state governments: I) Clearly identify agri-environment-climate policy issues and operationalise objectives. (1) Based on the issues identified, prioritise objectives; (2) state the contribution the CAP should make to achieving national environmental and climate action plans; and (3) support the interpretation of target income according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, thus focusing the CAP on safeguarding agriculture’s social functions. II) Specify and gradually increase the minimum budget shares for agri-environment-climate protection. For national implementation: (1) spend at least 30 % of the sum from direct payments and EAFRD funds on agri-environment-climate action objectives from the start of the new funding period; (2) increase this budget over ten years so that 100 % of Pillar 1 funds are available for ambitious eco-schemes, AECM II or animal welfare measures; (3) communicate this change in premiums in good time; (4) if eco-schemes are oversubscribed, reduce the basic premium (“basic income support for sustainability”); and (5) reallocate more funds from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 as early as 2020. Furthermore, at EU level, support: (6) the complete removal of the basic premium over ten years; (7) the possibility of the basic premium being co-financed nationally; (8) a distribution of funds between member states in line with the challenges faced and added value to Europe; and (9) the stipulation that all member states spend at least 30 % of the sum from direct payments and EAFRD funds on agri-environment-climate objectives. III) Establish specific budgets at EU level for biodiversity and moor preservation across member states. At EU level, lobby for: (1) the establishment of specific EU budget shares for the Natura 2000 network and moor preservation (as a pilot project); and (2) the implementation across the EU in the medium term of a specified minimum percentage of extensively farmed land at regional level for species and biotope protection. IV) Replace blanket cross-compliance of direct payments with “specific conditionality”. (1) Minimise the conditionality requirements for individual farms in the CAP strategic plan and instead programme targeted, ambitious and well-funded eco-schemes and AECM II; (2) enshrine selected funding regulation standards in regulatory law to maintain land in a good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC); and (3) from a certain subsidy amount, place beneficiaries under an obligation to receive advice or undergo individual farm sustainability checks. V) Reinforce constitutional and target conditionality. In EU negotiations, support the introduction of: (1) a sliding scale of constitutional conditionality; and (2) the implementation of binding target conditionality across the EU as part of the CAP strategic plans. VI) Overhaul the CAP’s performance framework. In EU negotiations support: (1) a closer alignment of the reported indicators and objectives; and (2) the simplification of reporting. VII) Clearly state the requirements for approval of the CAP strategic plans, thus increasing transparency and planning predictability. In negotiations at EU level, support: (1) the stipulation of minimum requirements in terms of the ambitiousness of eco-schemes; (2) timely public access to member states’ strategic plans; and (3) maximum inclusion of requirements in the basic legal instruments and not in the form of implementing acts or delegated legislative acts. VIII) Design targeted and efficient eco-schemes. (1) In the national strategic plan, programme measures that are of interest nationwide and have been formulated for the relevant objectives; (2) design and reward measures differently by location; (3) differentiate efficiently between eco-schemes and AECM II, and create targeted combination options; (4) exclude eco-scheme payments from capping or degression. IX) Open up eco-schemes to animal welfare measures and develop animal welfare support. At EU level, support: (1) the ability of member states to compensate for some of the costs incurred by increasing regulatory animal welfare standards considerably above the EU average with state payments within the scope of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) or the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); (2) open up eco-schemes to non-investment animal welfare measures that can be linked much more effectively to the number of animals than to the eligible area. For national implementation: (3) considerably increase the use of funds for animal welfare funding; and (4) make use of opportunities to appropriate funds within the Joint Task for the Improvement of Agricultural Structures and Coastal Protection if funding does not come from eco-schemes. X) Increase the focus of Pillar 2 agri-environment-climate measures on objectives by means of innovative incentive mechanisms. (1) Test incentive tools for improved spatial steering of agri-environment-climate activities in practical applications; (2) develop programmes for results-based reward of environmental and climate performance; (3) do not stand in the way of a shift towards a more targeted agri-environment-climate policy by using the argument of higher administration costs. XI) Improve the institutional prerequisites for collectively organised agri-environment-climate protection. (1) Examine the extent to which elements of the Dutch system of collective nature conservation arrangements could also be applicable in Germany; (2) improve the institutional prerequisites for the implementation of collective models of environmental and climate action; (3) in pilot projects in the current finance period, support the grouping of relevant local actors into “biodiversity-generating communities”. XII) Revise the definition of subsidy beneficiaries and eligible land. At EU level, support: (1) the eligibility of all land managers who perform agricultural activities within the scope of Pillar 1; (2) the expansion of the definition of “agricultural activities” to include paludiculture in the draft CAP strategic plan regulation; and (3) the expansion of the definition of “permanent grassland” in the draft CAP strategic plan regulation so that member states can distinguish “permanent grassland” on a particular qualifying date. For national implementation: (4) make as much use as possible of the freedom to encourage high-quality nature conservation-related management and care of non-forest areas through Pillar 1.

The European Commission has successfully managed to adopt and implement ex ante impact assessment procedures since 2003, and available data show that the IA documented are of increasingly good quality. Even though margins for improving the European Commission IA system persist, other EU institutions and almost all EU member states significantly lag behind in terms of IA implementation. The experience of past research projects, including the European Network for Better Regulation and the recent OECD EU15 project confirmed that at national level IA features a high adoption-implementation gap. This paper draws on EU and international experience to draw some recommendations, which include the need for more sophisticated legal and economic analysis in RIA, to make it a more credible instrument for ex ante policy appraisal; and the need for gradually introduced, carefully designed RIA system which take advantage of the enormous success obtained by other, simpler models, such as the Standard Cost Model for the measurement and reduction of administrative burdens.

This paper focuses on the maturity of e-government services on the domain of European fund management, to explore the measurability of potential efficiency gains. The practical relevance of the topic is that the current European legislation prescribes that Member States shall offer electronic fund management services to beneficiaries to foment the efficient use of European Structural and Investment Funds. The main driver of this concept is the reduction of administrative burdens which can be achieved by the Europe-wide utilization of paperless fund management tools and by harnessing the interoperability of information systems. In the scientific discourse, the above concept is labelled as “e-Cohesion”. However, the legislation sets quite broad requirements for its implementation, so the e-Cohesion landscape and the intended efficiency gains may appreciably differ from country to country. The exploration of this “digital efficiency divide” offers a new relevant research opportunity. Therefore, this article is dealing with the measurability of efficiency of e-tools to methodologically support Member States in the realization and fine-tuning of their national e-Cohesion concepts. It is presented in this paper that the level of potential efficiency gains is connected to e-government readiness, i.e. the maturity of e-Cohesion systems. The paper, therefore, systematically reviews the relevant e-Government literature on the issue of maturity. Based on this, it aims to identify the most important models and methodological elements which address the main attributes of e-Cohesion to pave the way for further empirical research and the creation of an e-Cohesion-specific maturity model.

Economic and social cohesion ensures security among the priorities of the European Union, being among the key objectives of European and national policies. Therefore, the center-periphery development model specific to the European economy emphasized the need for public interventions to favor regional growth and convergence, highlighting the importance and complexity of the European cohesion policy. This article starts from the empirical study of cohesion policies at the European level and has as its main purpose the determination of simplification solutions and their implementation in favor of the member states. Among the main scientific research methods used in order to elaborate the paper, we can mention: the comparison method, which was used especially to highlight the differences between the socio-economic situation of the regions and the member states, which joined the European Union in different waves; the historical method - was used to capture the evolution of the Cohesion Policy, the descriptive method - was used to present the programming periods of the Cohesion Policy within the European Union. It can be observed that, at the level of the European Union, the need to coordinate, standardize and simplify the cohesion policy is an often-discussed topic, with the constant aim of identifying new methods to make this policy more efficient. In this context, the new regulations establish tools to ease the life of the executing authorities and beneficiaries, such as, among others: clearer eligibility conditions, simplification of reporting and audit checks, reduction of administrative burdens, unification of rules.

The ‘better regulation’ agenda developed as a follow-up to the 2000 Lisbon Strategy. Especially after the 2002 ‘Better Law-Making’ Communication, the subsequent initiatives on ‘better’ and ‘smart’ regulation have added to simplification a fairly strong emphasis on reducing administrative burdens. In the context of EU law, environmental legislation is considered one of the sectors that is suitable for simplification and a reduction of administrative burdens. While mainly focusing on the European Environmental acquis, the Better Regulation programme has highlighted on several occasions that the lack of simplification and the presence of burdens may actually derive from national (environmental) law. Led by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany, a group of about 14 member states created the so-called Make it Work (MiW) Project. This project is a form of international cooperation between states, but, at the same time, it aims at influencing the functioning of the European Union. Indeed, this network of states “wants to open an ongoing debate on how the clarity, coherence and structure of EU environmental legislation can be improved, making it simpler for Member States to implement and easier for businesses and others to comply.” The MiW Project works on the basis of topics, which are discussed in meetings presided by civil servants at ministerial level with expertise on the subject matter of the discussion. The main output of these meetings is the drafting principles on making EU environmental legislation smarter, both generally and for specific policies, tools and procedures. Given the limited space available for this article, only a selection of drafting principles is discussed in this article. In order to provide a context to this selection, an overall description of the MiW Guiding Principles of Compliance Assurance is given.

Bureaucratic encounters are often beset with administrative burdens that hinder access to government services, particularly for vulnerable groups. Consequently, efforts have been made to reduce them as part of a broader thrust recognized as administrative burden reduction (ABR). Research indicates that ‘people’ (e.g. bureaucrats, politicians, and even clients themselves) are viable sources of ABR. The current study builds on this research agenda and probes whether non-state actors, such as Non-Profit Organization workers, qualify as viable sources of ABR. A welfare-based experiment is conducted with 663 U.S. residents, manipulating burden intensity and fraud-reducing functions, to assess intentions toward ABR. Findings indicate that Non-Profit workers are among the ‘people’ who contribute to ABR as they are more likely to assist vulnerable clients in unburdening themselves. Non-Profit workers’ inclination to assist is contingent on the burden intensity and the motivation behind the burdens, though the role of efficacy as a factor is less pronounced.

This chapter shows that EU law has shaped – and continues to shape – the development of environmental tax measures at both EU and Member State level. Firstly, at the EU level, the EU’s institutional framework has actually inhibited the harmonisation of environmentally-driven taxes. An analysis of the historical development of EU provisions surrounding energy taxation illustrates this point (sections 2.1. & 2.2). So far, the energy taxation directive remains largely disconnected from the EU’s climate policy, including the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (section 2.3). Secondly, EU substantive law has had an ambiguous impact on Member States’ environmental tax policy (section 3). On the one hand, EU substantive law has been interpreted by the EU Court of Justice in a way that encourages Member States to adopt environmental tax measures that are environmentally-driven and structured accordingly. Indeed, the environmental purpose of Member States’ tax measures seems to play a positive role in the assessment of their compatibility with EU law, including State aid provisions (section 3.1), the fundamental freedoms (section 3.2) and the energy taxation directive (section 3.3). On the other hand, in some instances, EU law strictly limits Member States’ ability to adopt environmentally-driven tax measures. Moreover, EU secondary law disregards the purpose of environmental taxes in order to classify them for statistical purposes (section 3.4). The broad picture that emerges from the analysis of existing legislation, case-law and literature highlights that institutional and substantive EU law has shaped the use of environmental tax measures in a way that does not ensure the alignment of these taxes with the EU’s and Member States’ environmental and climate ambitions. Therefore, the last section of this chapter suggests new areas of research, which could improve the consistency of environmental tax policy at both EU and Member State levels (section 4).