4. OECD recommendations for establishing RIA in Mauritius

This section builds on the structure of the OECD RIA Best Practice Principles while providing concrete recommendations tailored to the administrative setting of Mauritius. The reference framework for these recommendations is the same as used in the earlier sections of this report, and includes the OECD RIA Best Practice Principles (OECD, 2020[1]) as well as Principle No. 4 of the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance (OECD, 2012[2]). It draws upon the long-standing expertise of the OECD Regulatory Policy Committee in this area, including the substantial country work carried out through dedicated Regulatory Policy Reviews and through the Regulatory Policy Outlook series. Recommendations relate to four main priorities: ensure political commitment and stakeholder buy-in; establish robust governance for RIA; establish an appropriate RIA process and methodology, and ensure the development of relevant RIA-related capacity over time.

In Section 3, it was established that political commitment and effective stakeholder engagement have been critical to the success of RIA projects internationally and their sustainability over time. There are a number of best practice measures to ensure ongoing political commitment to RIA implementation and to enhance the ongoing engagement with external stakeholders in the rule making process, including ensuring adequate publicity of the RIA process. External stakeholders will play a critical role in creating demand for good RIA as well as holding successive administrations to account if RIA is not fully implemented. The National Assembly has, in this context, an important role to play to help develop evidence-based policy making (see the sub-section “Ensure Parliament’s active involvement in the RIA process”).

The OECD RIA Best Practice Principles state that it is necessary for Governments to create frameworks that will secure RIA in practice and will counter any efforts to avoid or undermine it, including bureaucratic inertia, political pressure, or an appetite to adopt certain politically sensitive proposals without much scrutiny. Political commitment has always been an important factor for the successful take up of RIA as a systematic undertaking by line ministries in the development of laws and regulations. To make sure this political commitment and buy-in are sustained, Mauritius should, among other measures, introduce RIA as part of a comprehensive long-term plan to enhance the quality of laws and regulations. In order to establish a whole-of-government RIA policy, a number of recommended actions are set out below which can mostly be taken forward in the short term.

To foster political commitment, it is recommended to set up an Inter-Ministerial RIA committee comprising high level officials and meeting regularly to champion the uptake of RIA practices and, chaired by the Prime Minister and including, at a minimum, Ministers or Permanent Secretaries from ministries producing the largest amounts of regulation.1 All ministries and regulatory agencies could however be invited to participate.

The committee would be in charge of setting out the strategic orientations for regulatory policy reform and championing its implementation across government, thereby ensuring appropriate co-ordination and providing political support to the work of the new technical body entrusted with the appropriate implementation and oversight of the RIA framework, later on denominated the RIA Office (see the sub-section “Put in place an effective regulatory oversight mechanism that ensures the critical functions of quality control, co-ordination, and guidance, advice and support”). It is recommended for the ministers from the ministries represented on the committee to meet at least twice a year and the respective Permanent Secretaries to meet more frequently (possibly four times a year) especially during early implementation stages.

Several examples exist of institutional arrangements that could constitute relevant references for offsetting up such a committee. One of them, from the government of the UK, is provided in Box 4.1. The examples of the inter-ministerial committee and technical committees set up to drive forward whole-of-government policy reform in a number of areas of business regulation (“Doing Business”) would also be worth considering.

In addition, it will be crucial to develop a formal government-wide policy to promote regulatory quality including a requirement to conduct ex ante RIA as part of a broader toolbox of good regulatory practices. This policy should clearly mandate that ministries must carry out RIA on prospective primary and secondary legislation. It should also stipulate the need to use RIA in a consistent and mutually supporting manner with other regulatory management tools with which it is inextricably linked: stakeholder engagement and ex post evaluation. Doing so is necessary to enhance regulatory quality and demonstrate the benefits from better regulatory design. Mauritius’s policy for regulatory quality should also clearly allocate leadership, responsibilities and operational duties throughout the stages of the policy and regulatory process. In order to have the highest level of political commitment, the Cabinet should endorse the policy to promote active involvement from line ministries and their public entities.

To ensure the continuity of the RIA across different governments as well as consistency in implementation, the requirement on ministries to carry out RIA should be established through a legal mandate, i.e. through an Act of Parliament, hereinafter referred to as the “RIA Act”. This could be further stipulated by placing requirements to conduct RIA into the Procedure Manual for Legislation as well as into the Cabinet Manual (Cabinet Office, 2018[4]).

The RIA Act should also define the institutional arrangements that are necessary for effective RIA implementation, with special attention to regulatory oversight functions (see the sub-section “Put in place an effective regulatory oversight mechanism that ensures the critical functions of quality control, co-ordination, and guidance, advice and support” for further details).

The new RIA framework would be expected to apply to both primary legislation and secondary legislation (regulations). RIA requirements should, as a matter of principle, apply to all ministries and regulatory agencies. In the short term, during the early stages of implementation, whilst resources are limited and the administration builds up its capacity to conduct RIAs, it may however be advisable to focus the requirement upon the key regulatory ministries: Finance & Economic Planning, Health & Wellness, Commerce & Consumer Protection, Environment, Solid Waste Management & Climate Change and Local Government and Disaster Risk Management. In addition, priority could be given to those regulatory proposals that are expected to have significant impacts on business and economic activity.2 Experience acquired by performing RIAs can act as a demonstration effect upon other ministries, and lessons can be shared on best practice.

In the medium to long term, all government ministries would be required to conduct RIA. The policy should also establish that RIA should be proportional to the significance of the regulation (see the sub-section “Define clear processes and criteria to ensure a proportionate approach to RIA”).

The RIA policy should set out the basic elements and steps of the RIA process that ministries have to follow; e.g. problem definition, identification of regulatory alternatives, and selection of the regulatory option providing the greatest net benefit. These steps of the RIA process may be spelled out in the RIA Act itself, although in a way that is compatible with the above-mentioned proportionality approach. The RIA handbook to be delivered by the OECD team will provide information on the practical steps and emphasise that RIA should be started in the early stages of the public policy design (see the sub-section “Establish a RIA process” for more details) so as to effectively contribute to evidence-based decision making.

The RIA policy should spell out what the Mauritian government consider to be “good regulation”. Box 4.2 and Box 4.3 provide further details on the OECD RIA Best Practice Principles and Canada’s regulatory quality principles respectively. Additional relevant examples include Australia’s Principles of best practice regulation (Australian Government, n.d.[5]) and New Zealand’s Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation, Less Regulation (New Zealand Government, 2017[6]). The RIA policy should have clear objectives and frameworks for implementation to ensure that, if regulation is used, the economic, social and environmental benefits justify the costs, the distributional effects are considered and the net benefits are maximised.

The policy should specify that consultation is an essential element of policy making and, ideally, foresee two stages of consultation: the early consultation and the general public consultation once the proposal is available. It should also foresee the systematic and timely publication of RIA-relevant documents. Please refer to the section “Promote enhanced stakeholder engagement as an integral part of the RIA process” for further details.

In addition, the government should run an outreach campaign in the short term to clearly communicate the goals and relevance of RIA. Outreach and communication efforts should then be renewed over time as appropriate. They should be aimed at both internal and external stakeholders, with special attention to critical constituencies such as MPs, line ministries and civil society representatives. Outreach and communication efforts should explain the purpose of the RIA framework and present it as a pivotal tool for enhancing regulatory quality and thus prosperity and well-being. In addition, it would be valuable to organise public relations and training activities (e.g. forums, seminars, interviews, communicational campaigns) explaining the use and importance of RIA and its direct link with better policy making and the Government’s policy priorities (notably the Improving Business and Investment Climate project and Vision 2030).

Securing stakeholder support for RIA is essential to create consensus on a given RIA policy and secure support by key constituencies over time. In most of the countries that have successfully introduced RIA, the centre-of-government (defined as the body or group of bodies that provide direct support and advice to heads of government and the council of ministers, or cabinet) has been instrumental in convincing government officials of the need to draft high quality RIAs also by creating expectations among, and a constant dialogue with, external stakeholders. Governments should view stakeholders as beneficiaries of their policies and an integral part of regulatory policy. Stakeholder engagement, and regulatory policy more generally, should be predicated on the capacity of citizens to articulate problems and offer possible solutions.

Stakeholder engagement and RIA are two tools that must be developed hand in hand and could gradually make a difference to the quality of interventions the government of Mauritius uses to achieve public policy goals. In order to strengthen stakeholder engagement practices and ensure their effective articulation with the RIA framework, the following actions are recommended, as explained below.

In the short term, the government should clarify and systematise the consultation practices on laws and regulations.3 There should be clear expectations in terms of how open and balanced public consultation in the process of developing legislation should be. The new RIA Act should contain a requirement that regulatory proposals must undergo stakeholder consultation. This should include:

  1. 1. early-stage consultation in the form of discussion groups representing all relevant categories of stakeholders (at the inception of the policy making process); and

  2. 2. general public consultation once draft legislative proposals are available accessible to all stakeholders, e.g. through a dedicated government website.

Stakeholder engagement efforts should be proportionate to the significance and potential impact of regulations under consideration. The Government should issue the necessary guidance to establish stakeholder engagement as a flexible and open but necessary process with the following characteristics:

  • The guidance should specifically focus on guiding civil servants through the early stages of the legislation-making process, setting up discussion groups, ensuring representativeness of the process, etc. More systematic training to public officials on stakeholder engagement techniques should be provided following the issuance of the guidance. The new RIA Handbook to be developed by the OECD team will outline further methodological guidance on undertaking stakeholder engagement as part of the RIA process.

  • The draft regulatory proposal and the corresponding RIA should be made available for consultation for a minimum period of time. Typical length ranges from 3 to 6 weeks according to the OECD 2015 Regulatory Policy Outlook (very much in line with WTO’s requirement of 30 days for notification of technical regulations).

  • Ministries should endeavour to provide feedback on the results of the consultation process by summarising the comments received and specifying the extent to which the draft regulatory proposal has evolved following the consultation process. They should then produce an updated RIA document and make it publicly available before the proposal is submitted to Cabinet.

  • The published RIA document should provide stakeholders with detailed and substantive information on the costs and benefits of regulatory proposals considered, including the underlying analysis, sources of information and alternative options considered (for more information on the RIA template see the sub-section “Establish a RIA process based upon best practice”).

In addition, the Inter-Ministerial RIA committee could consider inviting external stakeholders from the private sector, academia and the civil society with a view to benefiting from targeted expertise and a diversity of viewpoints on the matters under consideration.

In the short to medium term, Mauritius should consider developing a consultation website, that:

  • Centralises and includes all regulatory proposals and the corresponding RIA under consultation.

  • Allows regulated parties to send their comments, and that they are made public.

  • Allows ministries and entities issuing regulation to reply to the comments, and that they are made public.

  • Allows ministries and entities issuing regulations to publish the document summarising all the comments received and the actions that will be taken to address the relevant ones.

The Government of Mexico has developed a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process, with various opportunities for both domestic and international stakeholders to input into the development of regulations or standards (see Box 4.4 for more information). In addition, Box 3.1 in Chapter 3 provides a number of examples of good practice from a range of countries internationally.

In Section 3, it was established that an appropriate regulatory oversight mechanism for RIA is a determining factor for its success. The need for robust mechanisms and institutions to actively provide oversight of regulatory policy procedures and goals, support and implement regulatory policy, and thereby foster regulatory quality, is indeed a key tenet of the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance. As previously mentioned, the OECD has defined the key functions of regulatory oversight, of which three are directly related to RIA: quality control, co-ordination, and guidance, advice and support (the definitions of these functions were set out in Section 3 under the sub-section “Establishing regulatory oversight is crucial for effective RIA”).

The co-ordination and guidance functions are especially important during the early stages of RIA development as they help foster uptake and consistent application. These functions are generally held by oversight bodies within government in the vast majority of OECD countries, although there are a variety of institutional arrangements. In light of Mauritius’ institutional set-up and administrative culture, it may be worth considering the establishment of a dedicated RIA office that would be in charge of key oversight functions and whose functioning would be governed by the RIA Act (see the sub-section “Establish a whole-of-government RIA policy”). The RIA office would moreover act as secretariat providing technical and administrative support to the Inter-Ministerial RIA committee. It would report to the Prime Minister’s Office. Giving the RIA office a reporting relationship to the Prime Minister’s Office would represent a strong political symbol of the government’s commitment to RIA.

For accountability purposes, the RIA office could periodically provide update reports on the RIA framework’s implementation progress and results to the Inter-Ministerial RIA committee. It would also inform the National Assembly of its work and undergo parliamentary scrutiny as appropriate. However, it should be able to carry out its regulatory oversight functions autonomously, and should be sufficiently endowed with financial resources and analytical capacity. In order to provide illustrative examples of the level of supporting staff resources available to regulatory oversight bodies internationally, Table 4.1 shows that this varies from 4 FTE staff (the Technical Unit for Legislative Impact Assessment in Portugal), 5 FTE staff (the Regulatory Impact Assessment Board in the Czech Republic), to 15 FTE in the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat in Germany and 27 FTE staff in the UK Regulatory Policy Committee. It should be noted that the bodies presented in the table differ from each other in terms of mandate and tasks performed, so comparisons may not be straightforward. Other comparable bodies include the Mauritius’ Procurement Policy Office and Belgium’s Administrative Simplification Agency.4

For brevity and ease of reference, the remainder of this report assumes the establishment of a RIA office for regulatory oversight.

In the short term, during the early stages of RIA implementation, the oversight functions that should be given priority are: (1) co-ordinating and promoting a whole-of-government, concerted approach to regulatory quality, and (2) providing guidance, advice and support on the RIA process (including capacity building). The co-ordination function here should be understood broadly and also include, to the extent possible, exchanging information and joining efforts with relevant government functions such as those in charge of strategic planning and regulatory delivery. During the initial stages of establishing the RIA Office, the scrutiny and quality control functions should focus on providing constructive feedback on RIA design and execution, then develop progressively (see below).

In medium to long term, as the RIA culture takes root in Mauritius, the “challenge” functions of regulatory oversight should be further developed. These critical functions consist of checking that due process and core steps of the RIA process have been followed, controlling the quality of RIAs (notably the quality of analysis and of the evidence provided), and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the RIA process - including reporting to senior political leaders and Parliament as appropriate; see the sub-section “Ensure Parliament’s active involvement in the RIA process” below for more details.

Regardless of the precise institutional arrangements, it would be advisable for the scrutiny and quality control function to first operate on the basis of “friendly advice to be provided to regulators to instil a climate of trust, build ownership of RIA and continue to develop appropriate capacity, and then move progressively towards the issuance of more formal opinions on the quality of RIA and related processes including by reviewing and providing feedback to ministries on RIAs and their associated draft regulatory proposals. If a negative opinion is issued, ministries should be given the opportunity to resubmit the RIA. These formal opinions would be made publically available to parliamentarians and other external stakeholders and could be published on the new consultation website – see the sub-section “Promote enhanced stakeholder engagement as an integral part of the RIA process”. Once sufficient awareness and analytical capacity have been developed, the oversight body could be issued with more stringent sanctioning powers; e.g. it could be able to prevent a regulatory proposal from moving ahead if the RIA quality is not satisfactory.

The Recommendation of the Council of the OECD on Regulatory Policy and Governance states that “Ensuring the quality of the regulatory structure is a dynamic and permanent role of governments and Parliaments”. Parliaments can exercise oversight and control over the application of good regulatory practices, help develop evidence-based policy making through transparent dialogue on the relative merits of regulatory options and help monitor and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation. There is scope for more active involvement of the National Assembly in regulatory policy in Mauritius; ensuring it plays an appropriate role in RIA can be a first step in this direction (OECD, 2013[9]). At a minimum, MPs should be a critical audience, or “clients” of RIAs developed by the executive. These RIAs substantiate the government’s choice of action and could therefore form an important basis for parliamentary committee discussions.

In the short term, information and awareness raising actions could be carried out to ensure that MPs are both willing and able to use RIA results as part of their work. This would require a shift in mentality and work habits, and needs to be appraised as a long-term undertaking. Efforts to bring about such shifts should however start as early as possible.

In the longer run, a more ambitious role for the Mauritian National Assembly, following the examples of some of the foreign peers, could be envisaged. Beyond using the RIAs produced by the executive, the National Assembly could provide more active oversight of these RIAs and use these documents to “question” the government on its actions. This could be done through setting up a dedicated parliamentary committee or support service relying on dedicated permanent staff to ensure continuity and contribute analytical work and procedural and administrative support on an ongoing basis. This committee would be an important element of Mauritius’ regulatory oversight architecture as well as a strong signal of institutional commitment to evidence-based policy making in Mauritius. It could build upon the experience and working methods of the Public Accounts Committee, which examines the audited accounts of the Republic of Mauritius for each financial year. The committee should focus as a priority on assessing the evidence base underpinning regulatory proposals and request adjustments as appropriate. As capacity and expertise are developed, the committee could take up a role in post-legislative scrutiny, possibly in co-operation with the Law Reform Commission.

For both the short-term and longer-term actions discussed above, capacity building efforts are likely to be required (see the sub-section “Adequate training and guidance needs to be provided to civil servants”). Several examples of parliamentary involvement in regulatory policy are presented in Box 4.5.

Different parts of government need the right incentives to share information and pool expertise and knowledge on a systematic basis. Steps must therefore be taken to facilitate the co-ordination across ministries, thus ensuring effective governance of the RIA process.

  • In the short term, several actions would be warranted. First, draft RIAs and legislative drafts should be systematically shared between ministries within the Mauritian administration. To do so in an efficient and timely manner, it would be advisable to build upon the notification process that will inform the proposed legislative forward planning system (see the sub-section “Improve the predictability of the regulatory process by establishing a forward planning system”). In the same vein, existing consultation and information-sharing mechanisms currently used in the budgetary process should be utilised. The new Inter-Ministerial RIA committee could be instrumental in overseeing this process. Moreover, the importance of cross-government information sharing should be clearly stated in the RIA policy’s strategic documents and associated legislation.

  • Second, the new RIA Office should help develop a “RIA” community of practice through the facilitation of exchanges amongst ministries. This should build upon existing networking opportunities that line ministries and agencies may already have. RIA officers within ministries could also be designated and trained to act as focal points for RIA-related matters within ministries – this training should be mandatory for designated officials in ministries to ensure that RIA capacity is developed. Reputable experts, including from international organisations and from civil services in relevant peer countries, could be invited to work with these RIA officers in order to help develop RIA-relevant analytical capacity. Once sufficient RIA knowledge and expertise has been developed within local research institutions, such as the University of Mauritius, they could also be involved in this process.

  • In the medium to long term, the RIA officers would be expected to work as a government-wide network acting as a platform for dialogue, exchange of promising practices and timely dissemination of relevant information across government (see Box 4.6) with international examples of such networks). Once sufficient capacity is in place, RIA officers could also perform an advisory role (e.g. on the different steps of the RIA process), provide methodological support and act as (informal) first reviewers of draft RIAs.

It would also be highly advisable and productive to gradually implement ICT solutions to facilitate the RIA process as well as interaction among ministries and with the oversight body - and link them to the stakeholder consultation website discussed earlier in this report (see the sub-section “Promote enhanced stakeholder engagement as an integral part of the RIA process”). See boxes 3.3 and 3.4 in Chapter 3 for relevant examples of governmental networks and IT tools from OECD countries.

In Section 2, it was pointed out that rulemaking in Mauritius suffers from lack of planning and anticipation, and relies excessively on amendments introduced by the Executive. To ensure an effective implementation of RIA in the country, it is important to address this shortcoming.

In the short term, predictability and clarity could be enhanced by requesting ministries to periodically submit plans of upcoming primary and secondary legislative proposals to the new RIA Office, as well as to notify any substantial changes to such plans in a timely fashion. On this basis, a preliminary analysis of the scope of the proposed legislation as well as of the magnitude of potential impacts and their distribution could be carried out. Based on this preliminary analysis, a decision could be made on the relative priority in terms of analytical work as well as of the necessary depth and focus of RIA of each proposal – thus also contributing to a well-targeted RIA programme (see the sub-section “Define clear processes and criteria to ensure a proportionate approach to RIA”)

In the medium to long term, this prospective list of regulatory proposals could be collated into a forward plan, published and made available to all stakeholders to alert them about upcoming legislative proposals and related RIAs to be carried out.6 As discussed earlier in this section, it will be important to ensure an appropriate articulation between the annual budgetary process (including the Budget Speech and Finance Act) and the forward planning mechanism, which provides a broader and longer-term perspective. Clear and timely communication will be paramount in that respect. The ICT tool(s) to be developed in support of RIA would enable the gathering and processing and appropriate dissemination of the relevant information. To the extent possible, rolling plans spanning at least a two-year or three-year period would be advisable. Benefits of doing so would include enhanced preparedness and transparency as well as stronger co-ordination and coherence in the rule making process. In addition, this forward planning tool would facilitate broad stakeholder engagement from an early stage. Box 3.5 in Chapter 3 sets out some examples of forward planning from OECD members.

Individual RIAs need to foresee how performance of a given regulation will be assessed and identify the related data. In the same vein, monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes and performance of regulatory tools such as RIA are of the utmost importance. Monitoring and evaluation are moreover necessary to understand whether the RIA process is helping increase the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation over time.

In the short term, to ensure appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the RIA system, the new RIA Office should set up the appropriate internal processes. This involves, as a priority, identifying appropriate metrics including performance indicators and clearly allocating responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation (including reporting requirements and involvement in data gathering, processing and analysis). Consideration should also be given to associated resource needs and how to meet them.

A draft monitoring and evaluation framework should be developed by the RIA Office during the early stages of RIA implementation in Mauritius. Important aspects that should be covered by such a framework and subsequently operationalised by means of suitable indicators (of which illustrative examples are provided in brackets) include the following:

  • Recent regulatory activity (e.g. number of proposals put forward and, number of laws passed…)

  • Number of RIAs produced over a certain period, average time required for RIAs

  • Information on the quality of RIAs; e.g. completeness of the analysis, coverage of all impacts, consideration of alternatives, comprehensiveness of stakeholder engagement (each of these criteria can be rated along a scale; e.g. if all significant impacts are assessed, the RIA would obtain the maximum score)

  • Use of RIA documents, including consideration in the decision making process

  • Impact of RIA on regulatory decisions being made, including evidence of RIA-induced changes, explicit references to RIA findings in regulatory proposals, etc. (e.g. number of explicit references to RIA findings in relevant legal or policy documents, by type of document)

  • Stakeholders’ perception of/experience with RIA (e.g. as measured by means of survey–based indicators on transparency –including regarding the use of stakeholder inputs-, inclusiveness, quality, etc.) These information gathering activities can be part of a broader effort to assess stakeholder engagement practices. For example, in 2019, the European Court of Auditors published a report on the European Commission’s public consultations which notably relied on a satisfaction survey and an expert panel (European Court of Auditors, 2019[13]).

  • Effectiveness and efficiency of the overall RIA framework: Is there evidence of improvements in regulatory quality (e.g. as measured by administrative costs, citizens’ trust in government, etc.)? Are RIA efforts being appropriately targeted?

In the medium to long term, the RIA office could further refine the monitoring and evaluation framework as well as any related processes as appropriate. It should then build upon the data and information gathered within this framework to assess, on a regular basis, the outcomes and performance of RIA in Mauritius and identify options for improvement. It would be advisable for such assessments, which could take the form of annual reports, to be communicated widely and made publicly available.

OECD data shows that internationally around half of the regulatory oversight bodies responsible for the quality control of regulatory management tools use some form of evaluation mechanism for their activities, and the results of evaluation efforts are frequently made public. Half of all bodies responsible for quality control prepare reports on their effectiveness. About two thirds of these evaluation reports (from 16 different countries) contain performance indicators (OECD, 2018[14]). Despite the existence of these mechanisms, there is little evidence on the impacts of regulatory oversight on regulatory improvement and societal outcomes, as monitoring and evaluation efforts often focus primarily on process, activities and outputs, such as the number of reviews or interventions. It will be important for Mauritius to bear in mind the importance of tracking and measuring outcomes and impacts when developing its monitoring and evaluation framework.

There are a number of examples pertaining to monitoring, reporting and evaluation that can be built upon. For instance, in the EU, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board has identified three key performance indicators against which it can be assessed annually: the number of impact assessments and evaluations scrutinised; on-time delivery of opinions; and impact assessments’ quality improvements following interactions with the Board. The Swedish oversight body, Regelrådet, surveys ministries’ and government agencies’ perception of the body’s opinions and their impacts, and makes the information available in its annual reports. It publishes the annual reports on the implementation of RIA on its website7 in accessible language, using graphs and tables and including an easy to read summary up front to display results in a user-friendly manner. Other selected examples of countries where the oversight bodies formally report on their activities and performance include the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat in Germany, the Regulatory Policy Committee in the UK and the Dutch Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden.8

A transparent, systematic and consistent RIA process and methodology is imperative to promote continued regulatory quality. The choice of RIA methodology should be tailored to Mauritius’ needs and specificities if it is to be successfully integrated into the country’s administrative culture. There are however a number of elements that are common to the majority of successful RIA systems in the world and may therefore inform the development of such methodologies. It is particularly important to establish the RIA process in such a way that it can be followed across the administration and incentivises officials to integrate RIA into the early stages of the policy process for new regulatory proposals.

RIA-related analytical efforts need to be well-targeted for impact maximisation and follow a methodological approach that enables comparing the costs and benefits of proposed regulations in a straightforward manner. With these guiding principles in mind, this sub-section sets out recommendations in a number of relevant areas: key RIA steps; methodological choices available; practical application of the proportionality principle; and data collection and the evidence base.

In the short term, the basic RIA process should be established and communicated upon as part of the Government’s RIA policy. The RIA handbook to be delivered by the OECD team in the context of this project, will be based on best practice and take Mauritius’ specificities into account. The RIA Handbook may constitute a useful starting point to structure this process, although it will need to be progressively expanded and updated as appropriate. One of the key messages that will need to be conveyed as a priority is that policy teams in ministries should begin RIA at the early stages of the policy process for the formulation of new regulatory proposals, when there is a genuine interest in identifying the best available solution and there is an opportunity to consider alternatives to regulation.

Table 4.2 below outlines the main RIA steps that will need to be conducted. It should be noted that these steps are part of an iterative process; therefore, some of the steps might be performed repeatedly using inputs from the subsequent ones. It is crucial that, at the beginning of the RIA process, policy teams should set out to systematically identify the problem at hand, its causes and consequences as well as its likely evolution in the absence of further public intervention. It is also important that policy teams strive to identify all plausible options for public intervention in order to achieve these objectives, including “doing nothing”, different implementation/enforcement modalities and non-regulatory options (see Box 4.7).

For more information, the Australian Government’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis provides another useful example of how to structure a RIA process (see Annex D). In the same vein, the Norwegian Government Agency for Financial Management has clearly outlined the minimum requirements regarding the contents of the basis for decision-making, in its Guidance Notes on the Instructions for Official Studies.9

As part of the RIA process, small open economies such as Mauritius need to carefully consider the international environment when developing laws and regulations, in particular in problem definition, consideration of alternative solutions and assessment of benefits and costs. It requires significant expertise and resources to gather the relevant evidence for rule development. The complexity of contemporary challenges makes effective and efficient regulatory regimes based on science and solid evidence crucial. Building on the evidence collected by other countries facing the same challenges and on the collective intelligence gathered by international organisations can help reduce the overall costs of good regulation. Failure to do so is also likely to result in unnecessary regulatory divergences with key partners and cause frictions and undue costs, including to traders. The forthcoming OECD Best Practice Principles on International Regulatory Cooperation highlight four key areas where such considerations can improve the quality of rulemaking (see Box 4.8).

In addition, in the short term, the RIA policy should stipulate that the results of RIA must be well communicated, and avoid obfuscating important information or skewing the analysis to support a particular outcome. Each RIA document should include a short, easy-to-understand summary, e.g. in the form of a table that briefly introduces the assessed options as well as their costs and benefits, and justifying why the preferred option has been selected. To complete the publication, references should be made available in annexes to allow interested users to find the background information used to undertake the RIA and inform about the robustness of the evidence base, assumptions and their limitations, etc. The RIA template developed by the Government of the United Kingdom represents a best practice example of how to communicate the results of RIA (see Annex F).

It is recognised that RIA efforts should be scaled to the specific capacities of a country, especially given the scarce government resources to collect and analyse the required data. This, however, does not mean that RIA efforts are futile in circumstances where resources are scarce, rather the contrary, since RIA is more about the process of asking the right questions to and by the right people (and thus creating a framework for regulatory policymaking) than a process of preparing technically precise estimates of impact.

The Mauritian Government should adopt a RIA methodology that is as simple and flexible as possible, while ensuring certain key features are covered. This is particularly important in the early stages of RIA implementation. The chosen methodological approach should enable policy teams to identify all groups of stakeholders who would be impacted and estimate how, and to what extent, they will be impacted. Policy teams should attempt to identify and, wherever possible, quantify and monetise all potential direct and indirect impacts to enable a meaningful comparison of alternative regulatory options that could in principle address the problem identified. OECD best practice states that RIA should go beyond direct economic impacts and include various types of impacts, such as impacts on environment, social impacts (jobs, public health, gender equality, poverty, inequalities and their reduction, working conditions, etc.), impacts on innovation, cross-border impacts and also second-round effects and unintended consequences (OECD, 2020[1]).

In the short-term, whilst the Mauritian Government builds up analytical skills across ministries, it should select a simple RIA approach such as qualitative multi-criteria analysis (MCA – for more information see Box 3.6 in Chapter 3), and then move gradually towards more quantitative analysis, in which costs and benefits are expressed in numerical, sometimes monetary terms.

As a first step towards greater quantification of regulatory costs and benefits, the Mauritian Government could focus its RIA system on assessing costs to business such as administrative burdens, through an internationally recognised methodology such as the Standard Cost Model. This is viewed as a less intrusive and complex method for assessing a specific set of impacts of legislation. However, the governments RIA policy should set out a clear aspiration that the RIA system will move over time to a wider measurement of economic, social and environmental impacts.

In Portugal, for example, analytical requirements during the early implementation stages of RIA (2017) consisted of a qualitative description of benefits and quantification of the impact of new regulations on businesses (it also included an SME test and a competition impact assessment). Starting 2018, ministries were required to assess legislative impacts on citizens and, as of 2019, also impacts on public administration.

In the long-term, the RIA policy could commit to using Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA – see Box 3.6 in Chapter 3) in its RIA framework, once sufficient analytical expertise has been built-up across the administration. In line with OECD best practice, this methodology should take into account economic, social and environmental impacts including the distributional effects over time, identifying who is likely to benefit and who is likely to bear costs.

With limited resources and whilst civil servants and stakeholders are familiarised with the new process, efforts within the Mauritian administration should concentrate on the most challenging regulatory areas. The costs and time to develop a RIA should be clearly outweighed by the benefits brought terms of improved policy decisions or regulatory quality. Therefore, it is important that the amount of resources involved in carrying out a RIA are proportionate to the magnitude of the policy problem and proposed interventions.

In the short-term, a principle of proportionality10 should be established within the new RIA policy stressing that policy teams should target RIA towards regulatory proposals with the largest expected socioeconomic impact, and ensure that all such proposals be subject to a more detailed RIA. The RIA Handbook to be developed by the OECD team will provide further methodological guidance on proportionality.

A forward planning process should be established as a first step towards a more targeted RIA programme (see the sub-section “Improve the predictability of the regulatory process by establishing a forward planning system”). This would allow the Government to carry out a quick analysis of the scope of upcoming legislation, stakeholders that would be impacted and the magnitude of potential impacts. Based on this preliminary analysis, a decision could be made on the need for RIA as well as its depth.

In the short term, a screening (or “triage”) process could be put in place as part of the new RIA system, using a set of clear criteria to determine which regulatory proposals need to undergo a RIA. These practical criteria can be of a qualitative or a quantitative nature, comprising both of economic and non-economic impacts, and taking into account both positive and negative impacts on the economy and on social welfare. The proposed screening process could be implemented through a list of questions to be answered for all regulatory proposals. This list of questions would assist in determining the potential impact of a draft regulation and targeting analytical efforts and resources, whilst also providing a basic understanding of the rationale and expected impacts of all regulatory proposals (even in the absence of a RIA).

The proposed triage approach (see Figure 4.1) would help ensure a proportionate RIA approach and would be in line with the approaches taken in numerous OECD countries which require lighter analysis (“light”, “preliminary” or “small” RIA) for all regulations and a more thorough analysis for selected draft regulations estimated to have a more significant impact. The ministries’ responses to the triage questionnaire should be shared with the RIA Office, who will evaluate the responses and should be able to request (this decision could be made binding upon ministries) that the ministries undertake a full detailed RIA.

Most countries have adopted explicit triage mechanisms that limit the number of regulations that are subjected to RIA. In some cases, threshold tests are used which vary the extent of the RIA required to be undertaken according to the defined thresholds (see Box 3.7 in Chapter 3 which provides numerous international examples). For example, Mexico operates a quantitative test to decide whether to require a RIA for draft primary and subordinate regulation. Regulators and line ministries must demonstrate zero compliance costs from a new piece of legislation in order to be exempt of RIA. Otherwise, a RIA must be carried out. For ordinary RIAs comes a second test – qualitative and quantitative – what Mexico calls a “calculator for impact differentiation” whereby, based on a 10-question checklist, the regulation can be subject to a high-impact RIA or a moderate-impact RIA, the latter containing fewer details.

In Mauritius, the set of triage criteria could be formulated as a qualitative questionnaire assessment. The list of qualitative questions should address, at a minimum, the elements outlined below. A useful example of such a checklist has previously been developed by the OECD to provide countries with guidance in developing and implementing better regulation (see Box 4.9):

  • Regulatory proposal corresponds to criteria for exemption from RIA

  • Clear rationale and justification for government intervention

  • Consideration of alternative options

  • Potential impacts on businesses (small/medium/large)

  • Potential impacts on key sectors for the economy (e.g. tourism)

  • Potential impacts on competition

  • Potential threats to sustainability

  • Potential impacts on health and well-being

  • Potential distributional or discriminatory effects / impact on vulnerable groups

In the medium to long term, when the ministries and oversight function have developed greater analytical capacity, the government could consider using a number of complementary approaches; e.g. setting a quantitative threshold (e.g. potential impacts over a certain amount, expressed in million MUR), or introducing a more comprehensive set of criteria to determine the depth of analysis required (regarding, for example, potential impacts on innovation, market openness, employment or productivity).

In addition, the Government must also define a list and/or criteria of any regulatory proposals that will be exempted from RIA, because they do not have any impact on regulated parties. Regulatory proposals concerning internal processes of the administration, the reorganisation of existing legal texts or the direct transposition of international treaties into the domestic framework as well as government budgetary proposals are generally considered valid reasons for granting an exemption. In all other cases, however, regulations should only be exempt from completing the RIA process in real emergencies, when a significant delay could objectively put the well-being of citizens at risk.

The new regulatory oversight body, the RIA Office, should assess and evaluate the rationale for deciding to exclude a given regulatory proposal from undergoing a RIA, or deciding not to submit the proposal to a RIA. Policy teams should send their rationale for exempting a proposal from RIA and the qualitative assessment to the oversight body, who should review the arguments presented. Accordingly, the oversight body should be able to make the following decisions (which could be made binding upon ministries):

  • An exemption from RIA may be allowed.

  • An exemption from RIA may be allowed but an ex post assessment of the regulation should be carried out.

  • A RIA may be required due to the relevance of the regulation under consideration.

The availability of data is essential for each step of RIA, i.e. for a meaningful problem definition, for a careful analysis of the alternative solutions available, and for an estimation of the compliance and enforcement costs associated with each of the alternative policy options. Data quality, an essential element of proper analysis, is one of the most challenging aspects of RIA because it can be time- and resource-consuming and requires a systematic and functional approach.

In the short to medium term, the Government should develop and start implementing a comprehensive data strategy, as part of the RIA policy, to make sure that relevant data are available for RIA. This should also involve considering how to integrate the data from Statistics Mauritius as well as the Mauritius Revenue Authority and the Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development (and other secondary sources) into the RIA process.

The data strategy should reference the public sources of data and information that could be used to carry out the corresponding assessment. Complementary data sources must likewise be defined, e.g. surveys or meetings with stakeholder groups. Particular attention should be paid to fully using the potential of stakeholder consultation as a source for data as well as a means to verify its quality. It should be emphasised that in the early consultation stages, there are multiple opportunities for gathering information, which, ultimately, will allow to conduct a correct assessment of public policy proposals. In addition, other countries or jurisdictions as well as international organisations and institutions may offer valuable data and information that are of relevance to the policy problem at hand. For more information on how to obtain the data to conduct RIA, see Box 4.10. The data strategy may also foresee the outsourcing of data collection for high-impact RIAs. Additional guidance on the data strategy for RIA will be provided in the handbook to be delivered at a later stage of this project.

The data strategy must be conceived as a cornerstone of Government efforts to improve public policy. Indeed, the EU’s Better Regulation toolbox (tool 4) defines a robust evidence base is “an essential component of better policymaking” which “is needed both to evaluate existing interventions and to substantiate a need for new ones”. In that sense, it is encouraged that governments identify evidence needs as early as possible in the policy process by mapping out available evidence mapping based on desk research (covering a broad range of sources) and cross-government consultation. This enables the identification of the most important gaps in terms of information and analysis. Based on this gap analysis, “decisions need to be taken on whether and how to obtain the missing information in line with the principle of proportionate analysis which will need to be addressed”. (European Commission, n.d.[20]).

Further information and best practices for such a data strategy can be found in the OECD Digital Government Studies issue The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, Chapter 2 (OECD, 2019[21]), the OECD Digital Government Toolkit, Principle 3, Creation of a Data-Driven Culture in the Public Sector (OECD, 2018[22]) and the OECD Best Practice Principles for RIA (OECD, 2020[1]).

Considering implementation and enforcement of proposed regulations must be an integral part of a good RIA. In the absence of appropriate compliance and enforcement, regulatory delivery will be compromised, as will underlying public policy objectives. Delivery of laws and regulations is complex and involves a variety of actors, all of whom need to be part of the RIA process if it is to be effective in enhancing regulatory quality.

In order to ensure proper delivery of regulation, it is necessary to properly consider the level of inspections and type of conformity assessment processes that will be needed, how they should be organised and resourced, and what methods should be applied to do so. The availability of proper quality infrastructure supporting the implementation of regulation (e.g. the qualification of relevant testing facilities) needs to be assessed and addressed upfront. To identify potential issues connected with implementing the regulations and ensuring compliance, key stakeholders including inspection agencies and inspectors as well as accreditation and conformity assessment bodies should be involved in the process of designing regulations as they have relevant “front-line” experience. (OECD, 2020[24])

In the short term, representatives of inspection agencies having direct experience with implementing and enforcing regulations as well as accreditation and conformity assessment bodies (a non-exhaustive list could include the Mauritius Standards Bureau, the Mauritius Tourism Authority, the Mauritius Fire & Rescue Service, and the Mauritius Revenue Authority) must be consulted in the process of developing regulations and conducting RIA to ensure regulations are designed in a way that they can be enforced and complied with at reasonable cost.

In the medium term, the RIA Handbook should be complemented with guidance on the appropriate tools to be used when implementing regulations to ensure compliance. These tools should be based on evaluation of risk potentially stemming from non-compliance. The Dutch Table of Eleven can be used as an example.11 The RIAs should focus not just on how regulation will be enforced and how potential breaches will be punished through sanctions, but also on promoting compliance through guidance and practical assistance. Guidance should also discuss alternatives to state-led regulatory enforcement, such as market forces, private sector and civil society actions. It will also need to consider whether direct inspections and enforcement would be needed at all, or whether evidence suggests that compliance could be achieved by other means (e.g. high likelihood of voluntary compliance, possibility to rely on insurance mandates, civil litigation where relevant, etc.).

In the long term, steps should be taken to develop a government-wide policy on improving regulatory enforcement and inspections, as part of Mauritius’ broader regulatory policy. This policy should be developed on the basis of a careful analysis of the country’s strengths and weaknesses in this area, and focus on various aspects of regulatory delivery, such as co-ordination and consolidation of inspection agencies, use of risk-based approaches to regulatory enforcement, compliance promotion, etc. The OECD Best Practice Principles on Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections as well as the OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit (OECD, 2018[25]) could serve as a basis for such policy. The OECD Secretariat stands ready to assist the Government of Mauritius in developing such a policy.

Developing appropriate skills for RIA needs to be understood as a strategic priority for the implementation of a RIA framework in Mauritius. Relevant capacity notably refers to technical and methodological skills, crucially including problem appraisal, costing methods and collecting and interpreting relevant data. It also refers, however, to sufficient awareness and understanding of the importance (and limitations) of RIA as a policy-improving tool and mind-set, of the role and responsibilities of each official in that context, and of procedural aspects - including stakeholder engagement and information gathering aspects.

Ensuring the availability of appropriate capacity is key to promoting cultural acceptance of RIA and guaranteeing its sustainability over time. A holistic approach would be preferable in this respect whereby capacity development for RIA is envisioned in connection with other relevant areas, such as stakeholder engagement, regulatory enforcement and delivery. In the same vein, incorporating RIA training into national training programmes for the public administration has proven to be an effective means of developing the relevant skills set. New Zealand, for example, has developed and implemented a common qualifications framework in the public sector aimed at helping regulatory agencies work together by instituting common ways of operating as well as transferable skills and qualifications (see Box 4.6 for more information).

Moreover, a precondition for effective capacity development is that that sufficient financial and human resources are available for the establishment of dedicated RIA capacity within the oversight function and ministries.

In the short term, it would be valuable to organise a series of capacity-building sessions for government officials involved in the rule-making process in Mauritius. The new RIA Office should have responsibility for developing a central repository for RIA-related knowledge and expertise (see the sub-section “Develop and implement a systemic approach to enable and foster appropriate co-ordination and management of the RIA process”). This would involve undergoing appropriate training, gathering and disseminating relevant materials for capacity building, organising awareness raising and capacity building seminars, seeking advice and establishing co-operation agreements with relevant jurisdictions for knowledge sharing. The new RIA office could work with the University of Mauritius and the Civil Service College of Mauritius to develop the training courses for civil servants. It could also be useful to have international RIA experts contribute to capacity building efforts.

As this central repository function matures, training and capacity building efforts should be progressively expanded to encompass all staff responsible for RIA in line ministries. Pilot RIAs could be carried out, to raise awareness of the value of utilising RIA in policy making, such as the pilot prepared in the area of fire safety under the supervision of the OECD team. Moreover, the Government should ensure that ministry officials preparing RIAs have a clear point of contact to approach for advice and training requests throughout the policy process. To facilitate this, the government should ensure that the designated RIA officers within each ministry, to act as focal points for RIA-related matters, should undergo RIA training.

Consideration should likewise be given to addressing the RIA-related skills of stakeholders beyond government officials in charge of RIA. For example, civil society and business organisations may benefit from training in responding to consultation processes and procedures so that they are ready to contribute to the process. In the same vein, parliamentarians can benefit from training in order to analyse the government’s RIA and to challenge them as part of a democratic process on the benefits of proposed regulations (see the sub-section “Ensure Parliament’s active involvement in the RIA process”) (OECD, 2008[23])

The OECD will develop a tailored RIA Handbook as part of the present project. The body in charge of capacity building for RIA (i.e. the new RIA Office as per the recommendation above) will have the responsibility for ensuring that those involved in RIA are acquainted with the framework and make use of it. Further down the line, it would be advisable to update and/or expand as appropriate this handbook (which should be conceived as a “living document”) to reflect state-of-the-art theory and practice of RIA. Box 4.11 below provides best practice examples in the provision of RIA training programmes and guidelines.

In the medium to long term, the proposed network of RIA units should be capitalised upon to foster the creation of informal mechanisms to share experiences and good practices among RIA experts at a technical level (see the sub-section “Develop and implement a systemic approach to enable and foster appropriate co-ordination and management of the RIA process”). To strengthen communication channels, it may be valuable to regularly schedule activities to gather all regulators undertaking RIA.

As a complement to these technical-level mechanisms, senior officials and political leaders should encourage information exchange and provide endorsement and support during the learning process. In addition, it would be valuable for the new RIA Office to develop a software-based tool that can be used to assist ministries in each of the different steps of developing RIAs e.g. to assist with problem definition, estimating regulatory impacts of different policy alternatives, identify relevant research and examples (including beyond national borders) and make available any other relevant resources. Box 4.12 sets out examples of innovative software tools developed in South Korea and Mexico.

Developing relevant capacity will also require the implementation of accountability- and performance-oriented arrangements in accordance with Mauritius’ legal and administrative context. These arrangements may include some version of the following:

  • Making draft RIAs public and subject to public consultation.

  • Specifying the name of the responsible person for every regulatory proposal that is tabled by government and published online.

  • Including the evaluation of RIA work as an element in the evaluation of the performance and the determination of productivity of the civil servant.

  • Specifying that skills in RIA are an element to be considered for career promotion to specific high-responsibility positions in the administration.


[5] Australian Government (n.d.), Principles of best practice regulation, https://www.pmc.gov.au/ria-mooc/coag/principles-best-practice-regulation (accessed on 6 June 2020).

[4] Cabinet Office (2018), The Cabinet: A Guide for Ministries, Government of Mauritius (shared with OECD for information purposes).

[11] EPRS (2019), The role of the European Parliament in Better Law-making. OECD/EPRS Workshop on Regulatory Governance. 21-22 February 2019.

[20] European Commission (n.d.), Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en (accessed on 10 September 2020).

[13] European Court of Auditors (2019), Special report. ‘Have your say!’: Commission’s public consultations engage citizens, but fall short of outreach activities, https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR19_14/SR_Public_participation_EN.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020).

[6] New Zealand Government (2017), Government Statement on Regulation: Better Regulation, Less Regulation, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/economic-policy/regulatory-reform-regulation/information-releases (accessed on 6 June 2020).

[1] OECD (2020), Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.

[24] OECD (2020), Review of implementation of technical regulation in Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4e919492-en.

[12] OECD (2020), Review of International Regulatory Co-operation of the United Kingdom, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/09be52f0-en.

[7] OECD (2019), Regulatory Policy in Croatia: Implementation is Key, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b1c44413-en.

[21] OECD (2019), The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en.

[16] OECD (2019), Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights: The BASIC Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ea76a8f-en.

[29] OECD (2018), Case Studies of RegWatchEurope Regulatory Oversight bodies and the European Union Regulatory Scrutiny Board, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/regulatory-oversight-bodies-2018.htm.

[22] OECD (2018), Digital Government Toolkit, http://www.oecd.org/governance/digital-government/toolkit/principle3/ (accessed on 6 May 2020).

[25] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303959-en.

[14] OECD (2018), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264303072-en.

[8] OECD (2018), Review of International Regulatory Co-operation of Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264305748-en.

[28] OECD (2017), Regulatory Policy in Korea: Towards Better Regulation, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264274600-en.

[27] OECD (2016), Pilot database on stakeholder engagement practices, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/pilot-database-on-stakeholder-engagement-practices.htm.

[9] OECD (2013), Law Evaluation and Better Regulation: The Role for Parliaments. Joint meeting of the OECD and the Scrutiny Committee on Law Implementation of the French Senate, https://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/Concept%20note_role%20for%20parliaments.pdf.

[10] OECD (2012), Evaluating Laws and Regulations: The Case of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264176263-en.

[2] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-en.

[26] OECD (2008), Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers, http://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/40984990.pdf.

[23] OECD (2008), Introductory Handbook for Undertaking Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Version 1.0., https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44789472.pdf.

[15] OECD (2002), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Regulatory Policies in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264177437-en.

[19] OECD (1995), Recommendation of the Council on Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0278.

[18] OECD (Forthcoming), OECD Guidance on International Regulatory Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[17] OECD/WTO (2019), Facilitating Trade through Regulatory Cooperation: The Case of the WTO’s TBT/SPS Agreements and Committees, OECD Publishing, Paris/World Trade Organization, Geneva, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ad3c655f-en.

[3] UK Government (2020), List of Cabinet Committees, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-cabinet-committees-system-and-list-of-cabinet-committees (accessed on 8 October 2020).


← 1. For example, these ministries could include the Ministries of Finance & Economic Planning, Health & Wellness, Commerce & Consumer Protection, Environment, Solid Waste Management & Climate Change and Local Government and Disaster Risk Management.

← 2. In the short term the scope of the RIA policy should include regulation with significant impacts on business and economic activity, coming from the key regulatory ministries. However the scope should be wider than regulations that only impact upon the business sectors, i.e. it should include regulations impacting upon health, the environment etc.

← 3. Further guidance on stakeholder consultations will be provided in the RIA handbook to be delivered as part of the present project. For an overview of recommended principles and relevant examples regarding stakeholder engagement, please refer to the draft OECD Best Practice Principles on Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy (forthcoming), available in the form of draft for public consultation on the following link: http://www.oecd.org/governance/regulatory-policy/public-consultation-best-practice-principles-on-stakeholder-engagement.htm.

← 4. http://www.simplification.be/webfm_send/988.

← 5. More information at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/eprs/eprs-impact-assessment-european-added-value-presentation.pdf.

← 6. For an example of comprehensive overview of planning, preparing and proposing legislation (including assessing potential impacts), please refer to the European Commission’s dedicated online portal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law_en.

← 7. Reports are available in English and Swedish here: https://www.regelradet.se/om-regelradet-granskning/arsrapporter-och-ovriga-rapporter/.

← 8. The report (OECD, 2018[29]) compares the common features and differences of seven regulatory oversight bodies, and draws some lessons from their establishment and their experience.

← 9. https://dfo.no/filer/fagområder/utredningsinstruksen/guidance_notes_on_the_instructions_for_official_studies.pdf, p. 14ff.

← 10. The OECD’s December 2020 report Establishing Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in Mauritius: Module 1 Report contains international best practice examples of how other governments have implemented the proportionality principle.

← 11. http://www.sam.gov.lv/images/modules/items/pdf/item_618_nl_the_table_of_eleven.pdf.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2022

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.