On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology

 

Government of Georgia

Ordinance No 35

17 January 2020

Tbilisi

On the Approval of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology

Article 1

On the basis of Article 17¹ (5) of the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, the attached Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology shall be approved and a list of legislative acts shall be determined, the regulatory impact assessment of which shall be mandatory in the case of the introduction of amendments thereto.

 

Article 2

This Ordinance shall not apply to:

a) draft legislative acts the regulatory impact assessment of which has already been performed before the entry into force of this Ordinance;

b) draft legislative acts that have been reviewed and agreed during the session of the Government of Georgia before the entry into force of this Ordinance.

 

Article 3

This Ordinance shall enter into force upon promulgation.

 

Prime Minister                                                                        Giorgi Gakharia

 

 

Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Methodology

 

Chapter I – General Provisions

 

Scope of regulation

1. The Ordinance shall determine the terms and conditions for performing RIA of legislative initiatives in relation to which the performance of RIA shall be mandatory in accordance with the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts and this Ordinance.

2. This Ordinance shall determine general procedures for preparing and performing RIA in relation to draft laws before their submission as legislative initiatives.

 

Article 2 – Definition of terms

For the purposes of this Ordinance, the terms used herein shall have the following meanings:

a) regulatory impact assessment (RIA) – a systemic approach for elaborating an evidence-based policy. A key mechanism for ensuring regulatory quality, which facilitates the determination of policy issues in a structured manner and the assessment of expected positive and negative outcomes of regulatory or non-regulatory actions;

b) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) – one of the criteria when making a decision in the process of RIA, which allows for the prediction of costs and benefits in the implementation of a particular option;

c) cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) – one of the criteria when making a decision in the process of RIA, which is used where the process of attributing monetary value to benefits is complicated, or where it is not possible to reflect all values in a monetary unit. Cost-benefit analysis involves the computation of the cost-to-effect ratio of each option, where costs are monetised, and effects are expressed in various (non-monetised) values;

d) multi-criteria analysis (MCA) – one of the criteria when making a decision in the process of RIA, which sums up the quantitative, qualitative and monetary values of impacts and allows for assessing options based on various criteria;

e) discounting – the process of converting future value into present value;

f) monitoring and assessment – a systemic approach, which evaluates the implementation of the process of intervention and its outcomes;

g) consultation – communication between stakeholders and groups at any stage of drafting an RIA report, including communication to obtain information, opinions and data;

h) stakeholders:

h.a) natural persons, groups or organisations whose activities and interests are or may be impacted by intervention;

h.b) natural and/or legal persons with information, resources and experience required for impact assessment, strategy formulation and strategy implementation;

h.c) natural and/or legal persons who are involved in the process of intervention;

i) intervention – regulatory or non-regulatory action selected as a result of implementing RIA as one of the solutions to a problem;

j) regulatory impact assessment report – a final RIA document drafted by an initiator of intervention.

 

Article 3 – Objectives and essence of RIA

1. The objectives of RIA is to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based, better quality regulatory/non-regulatory action elaborated with the involvement of citizens and stakeholders.

2. RIA addresses the following questions:

a) what is a problem/issue and who claims it is a problem/issue?

b) is it necessary to regulate a problem/issue?

c) which groups (stakeholders/subjects of impact) are or may be affected by a problem in the future?

d) what is the expected outcome as a result of the regulation of a problem/issue?

e) what are the options for the solution of a problem/issue?

f) how does a problem/issue affect certain fields?

g) how will the performance, monitoring and assessment of a selected option be planned?

 

Article 4 – Principles of RIA

The following guidelines should be followed when drafting an RIA report:

a) an initiated intervention should be necessary and/or appropriate to meet public needs;

b) an initiated intervention should be effective – it must have the prospect of achieving the goals and objectives for which it has been elaborated/selected;

c) principle of proportionality – a proposed intervention should be proportionate to the problem/issue to be resolved and objective to be achieved;

d) RIA should be implemented in a transparent manner – with the maximum involvement of the public and stakeholders;

e) the intervention selected as a result of implementing RIA should be enforceable – it should be in compliance with the government programme and other strategic documents, including Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), and in line with supreme legislative acts.

 

Article 5 – Scope of commitment to perform RIA

1. In accordance with Article 17¹ of the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, the commitment to perform RIA shall apply:

a) when preparing a draft law on amendments to a legislative act included in the list of legislative acts specified by Annex 1 to this Ordinance, provided that the initiator of the draft law is the Government of Georgia;

b) in certain cases, by a decision of the Government of Georgia, when a draft law is prepared by an institution of the executive authority of Georgia.

2. Except as provided for by paragraph 1 of this article, RIA may also be performed when preparing any draft normative act (including a subordinate act), upon the decision of the author/initiator, the Government of Georgia, or the state institution of the executive authority of Georgia.

3. In the case provided for by paragraph 2 of this article, the initiator of RIA shall be authorised, with respect to a particular initiative, to elaborate a specific regulatory impact assessment process, which shall be in compliance with this Ordinance.

 

Article 6 – Exceptions to commitment to perform RIA

1. In accordance with Article 17¹ of the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, the commitment to perform RIA shall not apply to a draft law, if it refers to:

a) budgetary issues (including the draft annual budget law);

b) matters relating to state security, defence, penitentiary, non-custodial sentences and probation;

c) amendments that are related to dates (periods) or terminology or any other technical issues of law that are intended to rectify defects in law and do not change general principles and provisions of law;

d) ensuring the compliance of the law with the supreme legislative acts of Georgia, the constitutional agreements of Georgia, the international agreements of Georgia and/or the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Georgia;

e) an accompanying draft law which is a part of a package of legislative acts and does not include issues not covered in the main draft.

2. In specific cases, when the delay in preparing and submitting a draft law is unjustified, in the process of preparing a draft law, or in the process of sending a draft law to government members for approval through the ‘electronic governance’ programme under procedures provided for by the Regulations of the Government of Georgia, an agency initiating a draft law shall submit to the parliamentary secretary a substantiated proposal on the appropriateness of being released from a commitment to perform RIA. The Government of Georgia may, on the basis of a substantiated proposal, release, in whole or in part, the relevant institution of the executive authority of Georgia from the commitment to perform RIA.

 

Article 7 – Types of RIA report

1. The following two types of RIA report shall be provided to ensure the proportionality of required analytical efforts and other necessary for performing RIA:

a) a standard RIA report, which provides in-depth review of the identified problem/issue. It shall be performed in order to decide on the need for regulation. Its drafting shall be mandatory in the cases provided for by Article 5 (1) of this Ordinance.

b) an in-depth RIA report, in which an in-depth qualitative and quantitative analysis shall be performed for the assessment of the detailed impact of various options. The purpose of an in-depth RIA report is not only to quantify the impact, but also to monetise the outcomes. The Government of Georgia, or the state institution of the executive authority of Georgia working on the relevant issue, shall decide on the need for preparing an in-depth RIA report.

2. The RIA procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall cover the analytical stages of RIA referred to in Article 13 of this Ordinance.

3. The minimum requirements for preparing a standard RIA report and an in-depth RIA report are set out in Annex 2 to this Ordinance.

 

Article 8 – Drafting an in-depth RIA report

Except as provided for by Article 7 (1) (b) of this Ordinance, an in-depth RIA report shall be prepared in the following cases:

a) in the process of drafting a standard RIA report where, on the basis thereof, the necessity of in-depth study of the issue has been identified, without which the expected outcomes of regulation are not sufficiently clear from the report;

b) in the process of drafting a standard RIA report where, on the basis thereof, it has been estimated that the cost of implementating a selected option will exceed GEL 10 million over the three consecutive years following the entry into force of the law (the enforcement of regulation of its major part);

c) in the process of drafting a standard RIA report where, on the basis thereof, it has been determined that the selected option will have a significant impact on any sector or sub-sector thereof;

d) the issue/problem has caused substantial disagreement between stakeholders on key issues, or the same is expected.

 

Article 9 – RIA report

1. An RIA report shall be prepared in a standard form consisting of five parts.

2. Part 1 of the RIA report shall provide general information on the initiative and responsible ministries or other responsible agencies.

3. Part 2 of the RIA report shall outline the analytical stages of RIA set out in Article 13 of this Ordinance.

4. Part 3 of the RIA report shall contain information on the results of the completed procedural stages and public consultations.

5. Part 4 of the RIA report shall contain the signature of a competent person of the agency initiating a draft law.

6. The RIA report may have annexes, which shall be contained in Part 5 of the report.

7. The RIA report shall contain clear reference to the evidence gathered and the sources used during its drafting.

8. The template of the RIA report (Annex 3) shall be a recommended form of a report. In the process of preparation for the initiation of a draft law, a relevant body may use another form, which shall be drafted in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance.

 

Article 10 – Determination of the scope and depth of RIA

1. In drafting the RIA report provided for by Article 7 of this Ordinance, the scope and depth of the report shall depend on the significance and magnitude of the problem/issue, as well as the persons and parties affected by the problem/issue.

2. RIA should, as far as possible, collect sufficient evidence and data on the costs, benefits, and risks required to make an informed and substantiated decision on options of the solution to the issue/problem and should reflect them in the report.

3. In order to determine the scope and depth of RIA, the following key questions will need to be answered:

a) what will be the outcome of the intervention (positive, negative or indefinite/neutral) and how probable it is to occur;

b) what is the significance and scale of the expected impact as a result of intervention;

c) how relevant the problem/issue or the proposed intervention is in terms of public interest.

4. When selecting the type of RIA report provided for by Article 7 of this Ordinance, a balance shall be maintained between the analytical effort and the proportionality of the significance of regulation.

 

Chapter II – Bodies Authorised to Perform RIA

 

Article 11 – Performance of RIA by state agencies with the authority to initiate a draft law

1. The state institutions authorised to submit a draft law to the Government of Georgia for review, in coordination with each other, in the areas of their governance, shall ensure that RIA is performed and that the relevant report is drafted in the cases and under procedures provided for by the legislation of Georgia and this Ordinance.

2. In the state institutions (including the state sub-agencies and legal entities under public law within their governance) with the authority to submit a draft law to the Government of Georgia (in order to undertake a legislative initiative before the parliament), one or several structural units authorised to perform RIA may be designated.

3. The granting of the authority to perform RIA and prepare an RIA report may be specified in the regulations of a state institution and/or its structural unit. In the absence of such specification, the authority to perform RIA and draft an RIA report shall be granted to a structural unit, whose functions involve the preparation of draft laws and/or the conduct of analytical activities. In the process of preparing certain draft laws, the head of the institution may delegate the commitment to perform RIA and draft the relevant RIA report to another structural unit/units.

4. A state institution shall be authorised to conclude a contract with other natural and/or legal persons for performing RIA and drafting the relevant RIA report.

 

Article 12 – Authority to perform RIA by the Administration of the Government of Georgia

1. The Administration of the Government of Georgia shall ensure that RIA is performed directly by the Administration, in coordination with other state agencies, in relation to a draft law prepared/initiated by the Administration, in the cases provided for by the legislation of Georgia and this Ordinance.

2. In the case of a legislative initiative by the Government of Georgia, RIA shall be performed by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia.

3. The Administration of the Government of Georgia shall be authorised to conclude a contract with other natural and/or legal persons for performing RIA and drafting the relevant RIA report.

4. In accordance with Article 32 of the Regulations of the Government of Georgia, the Administration of the Government of Georgia (the Parliamentary Secretary) shall, in the process of approving a draft law, ensure that state agencies with the authority to initiate a draft law examine RIA reports prepared in relation to matters within the scope of their governance, which involves the assessment of the compliance of an RIA report with the requirements of the legislation of Georgia, including the requirements of this Ordinance, in accordance with the Table provided for by paragraph 5 of this article.

5. When examining an RIA report, the Administration of the Government of Georgia (the Parliamentary Secretary) shall review the following issues:

 

1	How comprehensive the submitted report is	To what extent the structure of the report (its parts) conforms to the approved format
2	How reliable (evidence-based) the submitted report is	– How accurate, complete and balanced the report is – To what extent the analysis and findings in the report are supported by analytical reasoning and how reliable (evidence-based) the cost analysis and cost-benefit analysis is – How logical the findings and calculations of the report are
3	To what extent consultations were made on the issues reviewed in the report	–To what extent it is specified in the report that effective consultations with stakeholders have taken place –To what extent the report provides a brief analysis of the key considerations in the consultation process and summarises the consequences of their consideration and/or non-consideration
4	How clear the report is	–How clear the content of the report is, as well as the relevant conclusions and reasoning

 

 

Chapter III – Analytical Stages of RIA

 

Article 13 – Analytical stages of RIA

1. The analytical stages of RIA shall be:

a) the identification of problems/issues;

b) the identification of the baseline scenario;

c) setting intervention goals;

d) the elaboration of options (including the option of no intervention);

e) analysing impacts (the prediction of the possible development of circumstances);

f) the comparison and assessment of options;

g) the preparation of monitoring and implementation plans.

2. In accordance with Article 25 of this Ordinance, the RIA process is accompanied by consultations with relevant stakeholders to ensure that an RIA report and the process of preparing an RIA report is maximally transparent, evidence-based and open for all stakeholders.

 

Article 14 – Identification of problems/issues

1. The identification of problems/issues is the initial stage of RIA, during which the need for intervention shall be identified. At this stage, a specific problem shall be identified, described, the significance and scope of the issue under regulation shall be demonstrated, and related issues identified.

2. The significance of the problem/issue is reflected in the public perception of the degree of political commitment involved in the relevant field, and how urgently the problem will be solved, and the issue regulated.

3. The magnitude of the problem/issue determines the nature and extent of its effect on the economy, society and the environment.

4. At the stage of problem identification, the causes and consequences of the identified problem/issue are analysed. The following key questions should be answered at this stage:

a) what is the problem/issue?

b) what are the consequences of the problem. How big/severe/urgent they are;

c) who/what is affected by the problem/issue, in what ways, and to what extent;

d) what is the cause of the problem/issue;

e) the extent to which regulatory intervention is needed to address the problem/issue;

f) who claims that the issue to be regulated is a problem.

5. At the stage of the identification of the problem/issue, a ‘situation analysis’ shall be prepared, which includes the analysis of the effectiveness of and institutional and/or legal framework and the possible drawbacks thereof. The following key questions should be answered for carrying out a situation analysis:

a) which legislative, normative and/or individual acts regulate the area related to the problem/issue;

b) whether the problem/issue is regulated by a normative act;

c) whether there are any challenges related to the introduction and/or implementation of a regulation in respect of the problem/issue;

d) whether there is unequal treatment of different groups in the current situation or a non-homogeneous introduction and/or implementation of legislative or other normative and/or individual acts related to a national problem/issue.

 

Article 15 – Setting a baseline scenario

1. In the process of setting a baseline scenario, the possible development of circumstances are analysed and predicted on the basis that the regulation related to a problem/issue remains unchanged and there are cases of no intervention, taking into account the current context and presuming that the problem will not be addressed.

2. In setting the baseline scenario, the following factors shall be considered:

a) how likely it is that the problem will be resolved in the case of no intervention, the extent to which the problem is expected to worsen or magnify, and the preconditions for such assumptions;

b) how high the probability of the development of circumstances is under the given scenario;

c) whether there is any probability of irreversible negative consequences, making the problem/issue particularly serious or urgent;

d) the factors affecting the evolution of the problem and its effects;

e) what are the risks of no intervention;

f) whether the Government (institution within the system of the Government or other institutions) has attempted to fix this problem/issue before. And if so, the outcome, and what can be learnt therefrom.

 

Article 16 – Setting intervention goals

1. Based on the actual issues identified at the problem identification stage and the baseline scenario, goals/objectives shall be determined to be achieved by the planned intervention.

2. Measurable indicators of the actions to be taken should be defined with respect to the goals/objectives.

3. Intervention goals shall be set as:

a) general objectives – reflecting the end result of the solution to the problem;

b) specific objectives – reflecting a set of specific goals that relate to different problem solving activities which make it possible to achieve the general objectives;

c) operational objectives – a set of steps and outcomes that help achieve specific objectives.

4. The objectives shall be:

a) specific – they must be concrete and focused, describe the result to be achieved, and contribute to the solution of the problem;

b) measurable – they should be expressed numerically and quantitatively in relation to a certain benchmark or time period, whereby it should be possible to track progress objectively and assess effectiveness;

c) action-oriented – they should instigate action, and state what will be improved, increased, strengthened;

d) realistic – they should be realistic in terms of time and available resources;

e) time-bound – the realisation of the objective should be specified in terms of a time period.

5. A summary of objectives shall be provided in the template of the RIA report (Annex 3) in accordance with Table 2 below.

 

Article 17 – Elaboration of options

1. After identifying the problem/issue and setting goals, options for resolving such problem/issue shall be elaborated. When elaborating options, ways and means of solving problems and achieving goals shall be explored. It is possible to combine different options in the elaboration of options.

2. An option represents:

a) a no-action (no intervention) scenario;

b) addressing the problem by raising awareness and providing information through information campaigns;

c) self-regulation – the creation of codes of conduct by a specific sector on a voluntary basis in order to address the problem;

d) co-regulation – the compulsory recognition by the state of codes of conduct created by the private sector;

e) regulation of the legal base – by adopting a new regulation, or by making modifications and/or additions to an existing normative framework;

f) a combination of the above options.

3. When elaborating options, the baseline/no-action scenario shall be used as a basis for comparison with other options.

4. The baseline/no-action scenario is based on the assumption that existing conditions and policy priorities will remain unchanged and the problem will develop as expected without any interference.5. The options should detail major legal and institutional changes required by the scenario, key assumptions related to options, and the possible risks of their implementation.

6. The options should include a description of all options, including those that were analysed at the initial stage and were not considered suitable for implementation.

 

Article 18 – Assessment of the effect of options

1. After identifying options, each option must be assessed to determine its advantages and disadvantages in terms of its possible effectiveness (by assessing the optimality of the achievement of goals, as well as by considering the costs involved). The assessment shall also identify the parties or groups that may be affected by the results of the implementation of a particular option.2. The effect of each elaborated option should be assessed against the baseline/no-action scenario.

3. RIA analysis for each option should include at least the following areas of impact:

a) economic impact – the impact that the option will have, through financial and non-financial means, on markets, competition, economic growth and productivity, and the well-being of individuals and families, as well as the financial and non-financial costs and benefits that the option will have on business and/or the public sector, including the need to develop any new institution, procedure and/or methodology;

b) environmental impact – possible types of environmental impacts are related to air, water, soil, biodiversity, climate, noise, etc. The impact that an option has on the well-being of the society by affecting the environment shall also be assessed;

c) social impact – the impact that an option has on the well-being of society, by affecting the challenges and opportunities faced by members of society or by specific groups within it. Types of impacts in the social area are: equality, including gender equality, social equality and social inclusion, healthcare, work environment, education, culture, crime, terrorism, security, etc.;

d) impact on public finances – impact on revenues and expenditures of the State, an autonomous republic or a municipality, to be assessed separately by cost and income categories;

e) impact on sub-categories of economic, environmental, social and public sectors.

4. Impacts may be:

a) direct – which implies an outcome that is directly caused by the action. A direct impact analysis estimates direct costs, including enforcement costs;

b) indirect – which implies the secondary outcome of the action, caused by the direct effect of the action.

5. Direct and indirect impacts should be identified and characterised for each option, indicating the magnitude of the impact and the expected outcome (positive, negative, or impossible to characterise).

6. Qualitative and/or quantitative measurement indicators should be proposed for all impacts.

7. The impact assessment for each option shall be summarised in accordance with Table 3 provided in the template of the RIA report (Annex 3).

 

Article 19 – Impact quantification, monetisation and discounting

1. The minimum requirement of RIA is to determine the direct compliance costs and the impact on public finances for each option using a quantitative indicator against a baseline/no-action scenario.

2. When preparing an in-depth RIA report as provided for by Article 7 of this Ordinance, both direct and indirect impacts of options shall be quantified against the baseline/no-action scenario.

3. Where appropriate, each identified impact should determine the individuals, legal entities and enterprises affected by the option, as well as an assessment of the impact on those units of measure caused by the specific option.

4. The monetisation/quantification of impacts shall be required to identify the costs and benefits related to the impact resulting from the option.

5. Monetisation shall require multiplying the total impacts estimated by the estimated unit price of the impact, according to existing and functioning markets where it is possible to observe the market price.

6. In the case where it is not possible to observe the market price, or where it is possible to observe certain prices only, the price does not fully reflect the monetary value of the impact. In these cases, the expected monetary value of each impact should be identified using alternative methods.

7. Impact monetisation should be carried out separately for different stakeholders and groups.

8. All monetised impacts shall be discounted at the present value existing in the process of RIA.

9. The discount rate used during the impact monetisation shall be applied using the uniform approach.

10. All quantitative impact assessments shall be carried out for at least the following 3-year period unless this is contrary to the requirements of the law.

 

Article 20 – Methods of comparing options

1. Comparing options involves the assessment of the selected options quantitatively and/or qualitatively and their comparison.

2. The options are compared according to the minimum following three basic criteria:

a) cost-benefit analysis;

b) cost-effectiveness analysis;

c) multi-criteria analysis.

 

Article 21 – Cost-benefit analysis

1. Cost-benefit analysis implies the monetisation of direct and indirect costs and benefits related to options and computation of net present value of each option.

2. During cost-benefit analysis the outcomes of the assessment of the impacts of options shall be compared against the no-intervention scenario.

3. Cost-benefit analysis shall be mandatory when drafting an in-depth RIA report, when it is not possible to monetise benefit.

 

Article 22 – Cost-effectiveness analysis

1. Cost-effectiveness analysis involves the monetisation of direct and indirect costs related to options and establishing the quantity of impacts. During cost-effectiveness analysis the ratio between the quantitative indicators of costs and impacts are calculated as against the no-intervention scenario.

2. Cost-effectiveness analysis should be carried out where the direct and indirect benefits of the option cannot be assessed and/or are inappropriate to assess (for example, calculating the cost of life of a surviving person).

 

Article 23 – Assessment of options on the basis of the multi-criteria analysis

1. Multi-criteria analysis combines the quantitative and qualitative assessment of impacts caused by selected options.

2. During multi-criteria analysis the outcomes of the assessment of impacts caused by selected options shall be compared against the no-intervention scenario.

3. Multi-criteria analysis includes:

a) the results of quantitative analysis, if any, which include:

a.a) the summarised results of cost-benefit analysis as net present value;

a.b) summarised results of cost-effectiveness analysis as cost-effectiveness ratio;

b) the results of qualitative analysis, which include:

b.a) the assessment of each option to achieve the specific goals identified within the framework of RIA;

b.b) the feasibility of each option, including how acceptable the option is in terms of political, social and public life, etc.;

b.c) the expected specific risks associated with each option;

b.d) the specific expected benefits of each option;

b.e) any other criteria for comparing options and providing a better opportunity for the selection of the best option by such comparison.

4. In multi-criteria analysis, each option shall be assigned a score to be compared with qualitative criteria.

5. The scores assigned for the qualitative results of the multi-criteria analysis may range from (-5) to (5). In the range, scores from (-5) to (-1) indicate the deterioration of the situation as against a no-action scenario, where (-5) indicates a significant deterioration and (-1) indicates a slight deterioration of the situation. (0) indicates the leaving of an existing situation unchanged as against the no-action scenario. Scores (1) to (5) indicate the improvement of the situation, where (1) indicates a slight improvement, and 5 indicates a significant improvement.

6. For the purpose of determining priority, the criteria under paragraph 3 (b) of this article may be assigned a weighting ratio to determine their priority. The said ratio may range from 0 to 1 and shall be determined by an authorised person of the agency responsible for the RIA. If the authorised person does not determine the assigned ratio, the assigned ratio shall be 1. Any evaluation shall be substantiated and specified in the description of the RIA Report and multi-criteria analysis.

7. The weighting ratio of each qualitative criterion must be multiplied by the score assigned to each option within the criterion. The result of the said multiplication shall be the evaluation of the option based on the specific criteria.

8. The qualitative outcomes of the multi-criteria analysis may be summarised as the arithmetical total of scores obtained by the policy options provided for all criteria.

9. Multi-criteria analysis should be performed in all cases, regardless of whether the quantitative impact assessment has been performed on the basis of cost-benefit and/or cost-effectiveness analysis.

10. The outcomes of multi-criteria analysis shall be summarised in accordance with Table 5 provided in the template of the RIA report (Annex 3).

11. The author of an RIA may prepare an alternative list of evaluation criteria, in accordance with the objectives. The list of criteria shall be elaborated prior to the preparation of their evaluation.

 

Article 24 – Implementation, monitoring and evaluation

1. In order to implement a selected option, the RIA report shall clearly provide for the time schedule for the implementation steps, phases, responsible agencies and performance indicators. It shall include the following:

a) a description of any expected complications associated with the implementation;

b) risks associated with the implementation of the selected option, namely the evaluation of the likelihood of their occurrence, their expected outcomes and the arrangements to manage them;

c) a list of transitional arrangements necessary for the implementation of the selected option (if necessary) and their description;

d) a description of how the selected option will be evaluated against the set objectives during and after the implementation.

2. If the body responsible for the introduction and implementation of the selected option, is different from the body that has prepared the RIA report, an agreement on granting the authority to implement the selected option shall be reached in advance, which must be clearly specified in the elaborated report.

3. An RIA report shall include information on the monitoring and final evaluation of the selected option.

4. The information provided for in paragraph 2 of this article must be included in the RIA report in a form of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, and it must contain important steps for the enforcement of law and main tables for the evaluation of its fulfilment.

5. The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan shall be summarized in table No 6 included in the RIA report template (Annex No 3).

 

Article 25 – Consultation

1. Public consultation is a mandatory part of the RIA process. Stakeholders and the public are engaged in the consultation process in accordance with this article.

2. In order to ensure the maximum representation and engagement of stakeholders, the Stakeholder Matrix shall be used, according to which the stakeholders are classified based on their influence and interests. The Matrix is provided in table No 7 included in the RIA report template (Annex No 3).

3. The results of public consultations shall be included in the RIA report, and their publication in an electronic form is also advisable in order to provide the public with comprehensive information in a timely manner.

4. An RIA report shall include information on the consultations held, which shall contain information on the obtained opinions and data, and the extent to which they were taken into consideration, etc. The above information shall be included in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which is provided in table No 8 of the RIA report template (Annex No 3).

 

Article 26 – Data collection

1. At each stage of the preparation of an RIA report, available data of an appropriate nature and in appropriate quantities shall be collected. The information may be obtained from the following sources:

a) monitoring and evaluation reports from similar programmes and initiatives;

b) earlier analyses and consultation documents related to the reform;

c) statistical data obtained from the LEPL National Statistics Office of Georgia, Eurostat, the World Bank or other agencies;

d) findings of research studies carried out by state and EU agencies;

e) data collected as a result of consultations with the stakeholders;

f) other sources related to the stakeholders (from previous hearings, conferences, press statements, etc.);

g) information obtained from online academic databases (JTOR, ScienceDirect, EconLit, etc.);

h) examples and experiences of other countries and international organisations. If data on Georgia is missing, the data obtained from other equivalent countries shall be considered and compared. In the case of any difficulty, the author shall seek support from external experts as early as possible.

2. The data shall be collected and processed in accordance with the Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection, this Ordinance and other normative acts.

 

Chapter IV – Process of Preparation of an RIA Report

 

Article 27 – Making a decision on carrying out RIA

1. If the state agencies, authorised to submit a draft law to the Government of Georgia, identify a specific problem/issue when working on matters within their jurisdiction, in order to examine the options for regulating such a problem/issue, they shall make a decision on carrying out a standard RIA, if the legislation of Georgia provides for the preparation of an RIA report for the purpose of submitting such a draft law.

2. In order to examine a problem/issue, an authorised body may hold initial consultations regarding the depth, magnitude and significance of the problem/issue with the groups affected by the problem/issue.

3. In the process of carrying out RIA and preparing an RIA report, individual technical issues are resolved without issuing an individual administrative act.

 

Article 28 – Planning the process of RIA and staffing an RIA team (working group)

1. After making a decision to carry out an RIA, an authorised official shall assign to a respective structural unit (units) the task of carrying out the RIA.

2. In order to properly carry out an RIA, a working group shall be created within the agency initiating the RIA.

3. A working group may consist of the representatives of one of the structural units of the agency or of other employees, as well as the representatives of other ministries, state subordinate agencies and legal entities under public law, if the issue to be regulated requires the engagement of other agencies.

4. For the purpose of creating a working group, an authorised official of the agency initiating the RIA shall officially apply to the appropriate ministries, state subordinate agencies and legal entities under public law requesting the participation of their representatives in the working group. The agencies are obliged to appoint as early as possible an appropriate candidate(s) for the purpose of his/her (their) participation in the working group, and closely cooperate with the initiating agency in order to supply the information and data necessary to prepare an RIA report.

5. Representatives of stakeholders and international organisations, as well as experts, may be invited to participate in the working group.

6. The activities of the working group shall be coordinated by the representative of the agency initiating the RIA.

 

Article 29 – Preparation of a draft RIA Report

1. The working group shall, within its authority, prepare a draft RIA report and submit it to an authorised official of the agency initiating the RIA, with or without a prepared draft law.

2. A draft report shall comply with the format of the report approved by this Ordinance.

 

Article 30 – Making a decision on the basis of a draft RIA report

1. If, on the basis of a draft RIA report, it has been established that the best option to resolve a problem/issue is legislative regulation, an authorised official of the initiating agency shall make a decision on including the issue in the plan for the preparation of draft laws by the agency, determined by Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia, which shall not hinder either the process of drawing up a plan for the preparation of draft laws according to the general rule established by the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia, or the submission to the Administration of the Government of Georgia of a draft law, which is not envisaged by the plan for the preparation of draft laws determined by Article 23(9) of the same Rules of Procedure.

2. The plan for the preparation of draft laws shall, in addition to the list determined by Article 23(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia, also provide for the submission of an RIA report by the ministries.

3. If, on the basis of a draft RIA report, it has been established that the best option to resolve a problem/issue is a non-regulatory option, or it is advisable to regulate the problem/issue with a subordinate normative act or an individual legal act, an authorised official of the agency shall assign to an appropriately authorised structural unit the task of preparing a plan for resolving the problem/issue.

4. If, after acquainting with a draft RIA report, an authorised official of the agency, which is the author of the report, decides that the draft report needs revision, he/she shall instruct the working group accordingly.

 

Article 31 – Procedure for the agreement of draft laws prepared on the basis of RIA

1. According to Article 17(1²) of the Organic Law of Georgia on Normative Acts, if the RIA of a draft law has been carried out, an RIA report shall be attached to the explanatory note instead of the information determined by sub-paragraphs (a.a) and (a.b) of the same article.

2. A draft law prepared by an initiating agency shall be, together with the explanatory note, part of which is an RIA report, submitted for agreement to the ministries and the office(s) of State Minister(s) as provided for in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia.

3. If, under Article 30(2), (3) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia, a government member or a ministry, or a Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of the State Minister has any remarks in relation to an RIA report, the initiating agency shall have the right, in the case of taking into consideration the remarks, to make appropriate amendments to the RIA report and/or the draft law, and to submit the corrected versions of the documents to the Administration of the Government of Georgia.

4. If the remarks are not taken into consideration, an initiating agency shall state its opinions and arguments in the document summarising the consensus over the proposed draft law.

5. If the remarks require revision of an RIA report, an initiating agency shall make a respective decision.

 

Article 32 – Agreement of draft laws and RIA reports with the Administration of the Government of Georgia

1. After the submission of a draft law to the Administration of the Government of Georgia, in accordance with Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia and Article 32(4) of this Ordinance, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia shall examine and check the quality of the draft law and its accompanying RIA reports.

2. Upon the decision of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia, before their inclusion in the agenda of the government session, a draft law and an RIA report may be reviewed with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia according to the procedure established by Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia.

3. The persons involved in the preparation of the report, as well as stakeholders and experts, may be invited to participate in the process of review of a draft law and an RIA report.

4. If, after reviewing the report, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia decides that the RIA report attached to the draft law does not comply with Article 12(5) of this Ordinance, he/she shall remove the draft law from the process of review and return it to the initiating agency.

5. As a result of the examination of an RIA report attached to a draft law, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Government of Georgia shall have the right to require the preparation of an in-depth RIA report by the initiating agency.

6. After the revision of an RIA report or the preparation of an in-depth RIA report by the initiating agency, the draft law and the revised RIA report attached to it may be reinitiated.

 

Article 33 – Procedure for the agreement of a draft law and its accompanying RIA report at a government session/electronic government session

1. If a draft law and its accompanying RIA report are agreed at a government session/electronic government session with remarks, the initiating agency is obliged to correct the RIA report and/or the draft law in coordination with the agency that is the author of the remarks.

2. If the remarks are related to the assessment of impacts on a specific sector and/or the selection of options, the initiating agency shall, in coordination with the representatives of the agency within whose jurisdiction the sector falls, check and revise the report and, as a result, submit the corrected draft law to the administration of the Government of Georgia within the time frame determined by the records of the government session.

3. At the government session/electronic government session, an initiating agency may be assigned the task of preparing an in-depth RIA report.

 

Article 34 – Procedure for submitting a draft law and its accompanying RIA report to the Parliament of Georgia

An agreed draft law and its accompanying RIA report shall be submitted to the Parliament of Georgia under Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government of Georgia.

 

Annex No 1

List of legislative acts for which the preparation of RIA reports is obligatory in the case of the preparation of draft laws on making amendments to them

1. Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs;

2. Law of Georgia on Control of Entrepreneurial Activity;

3. Law of Georgia Tax Code of Georgia;

4. Law of Georgia on Licences and Permits;

5. Law of Georgia on License and Permit Fees;

6. Law of Georgia on Securities Market;

7. Law of Georgia on Environmental Protection;

8. Organic Law of Georgia Labour Code of Georgia;

9. Law of Georgia on Insurance;

10. Law of Georgia on Free Industrial Zones;

11. Law of Georgia on Supporting the Development of Free Tourism Zones;

12. Law of Georgia on State Support for Investments;

13. Law of Georgia on Promotion and Guarantees of Investment Activity;

14. Law of Georgia on Product Safety and Free Movement Code;

15. Law of Georgia on Food/Feed Safety, Veterinary and Plant Protection Code;

16. Law of Georgia on Energy and Water Supply;

17. Law of Georgia on Electronic Communications;

18. Law of Georgia on Competition;

19. Law of Georgia on Regulatory Fees;

20. Law of Georgia on Insolvency Proceedings.

 

 

Annex No 2

Minimum requirements for the preparation of a standard RIA report and an in-depth RIA report

 

Sections/chapters of an RIA Report	Standard RIA report	In-depth RIA report
I. General information on the initiative and the responsible body	Mandatory	Mandatory, with an executive summary of the RIA findings
II. a) Problem definition	The following are mandatory: – mandatory identification of the main problem, its causes and main direct consequences; – mandatory qualitative description of the magnitude of a problem;	The following are mandatory: – mandatory identification of the main problem, its causes and main direct consequences; – qualitative and quantitative description of the magnitude of the problem;
b) No-action option (baseline scenario)	The following are mandatory: – qualitative description of the scenario	The following are mandatory: – description of qualitative and quantitative elements of the scenario
c) Objectives	The following are mandatory: – setting general and specific objectives	The following are mandatory: – setting general and specific objectives
d) Elaboration of options	Mandatory	The following are mandatory: – inclusion of at least one non-regulatory option
e) Impact analysis (for each option)	Mandatory characteristics: – economic, social, environmental, public finance and sector specific subcategories; – direct (and indirect if possible)	Mandatory characteristics: – economic, social, environmental, public finance and sector specific subcategories; – direct and indirect
	– quantitative assessment of public finance costs; (if quantitative assessment is not possible, the decision must be substantiated and, as an alternative, a qualitative assessment should be carried out); – qualitative assessment of direct and indirect consequences for economic, social, environmental and sector specific subcategories	– quantitative assessment of all direct costs and benefits (economic, social, environmental and sector specific subcategories); – quantitative assessment of all indirect costs and benefits (economic, social, environmental and sector specific subcategories); (if quantitative assessment is not possible, the decision must be substantiated and, as an alternative, a qualitative assessment should be carried out);
f) Comparison of options	Mandatory analytical methods: – multi-criteria analysis	Mandatory analytical methods: – results of cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and multi-criteria analysis
g) Implementation, monitoring and evaluation plan (for a preferred option)	Mandatory	Mandatory
III. Process of consultation	The following are mandatory: – description of the process and summary of the input received (brief analysis of the main opinions and summary of how they have and/or have not been taken into account)	The following are mandatory: – description of the process and summary of the input received (brief analysis of the main opinions and summary of how they have and/or have not been taken into account)
IV. Signature of an authorised person of the initiating agency	Mandatory	Mandatory
V. Annexes	Optional	Optional.

 

 

Annex No 3

Template of an RIA Report

Part 1 – General information on the initiative and the responsible ministry (it shall include a summary in the case of an in-depth RIA report)

General information on who has initiated the process and on the responsible agency.

A summary shall be one or two pages long. It shall cover the following topics (one short paragraph on each topic):

• context of the initiative;
• respective parties/groups that are affected by the initiative and the review of the consultation process;
• statement on the problem/issue and on its emergence;
• justification of the need for intervention, and its objectives;
• options that have been taken into account and analysed in detail;
• impact of each option (summarised in the table that is similar to one given below).

 

Table No 1 – Comparison of options

 

Assessment criterion	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
benefits – costs (NPV)	xxx GEL	xxx GEL	xxx GEL
Specific objective 1	(score (s) 1 X (weight) (w) 1)	(s. 2) X (w. 1)	(s. 3) X (w. 1)
Specific objective 2	(s. 4) X (w. 2)	(s. 5) X (w. 2)	(s. 6) X (w. 2)
……	....	....	....
Feasibility/ease to comply with	(s. 7) X (w. 3)	(s. 7) X (w. 3)	(s. 7) X (w. 3)
Risk	(s. 8) X (w. 4)	(s. 9) X (w. 4)	(s. 10) X (w. 4)
Other	(s. 11) X (w. 5)	(s. 11) X (w. 5)	(s. 11) X (w. 5)
Summary	Sum	Sum	Sum

 

When filling in the table, Article 23 of this Ordinance shall be taken into consideration.

• decision on the selected option;
• brief description of the monitoring mechanisms (optional).

Part 2 –

• Problem definition

a. Context of the problem/issue

• general description of the current situation and existing legal framework;
• governmental plans (if any);

b. Problem definition

• essence of the problem/issue;
• causes of the problem/factors causing the problem;
• groups of society that are affected and the size of each group;
• evaluation of the nature and magnitude of impact on each group;
• grounds for the government intervention.

c. Problem data analysis: current trends

• trends of a problem;
• brief review of the influence of trends if all other factors remain unchanged;
• possible changes in other policies and regulations.

Setting a baseline scenario

Setting the scenario indicates the current possible development of the problem, taking into consideration the existing context.

Based on the analysis of collected evidence and past trends, answer the following questions:

• It is expected to resolve the problem in the case of refraining from intervention. How possible is it that the problem will exacerbate or the magnitude of the problem will increase, and what are the preconditions for such an assumption?
• What is the likelihood of the development of that scenario (the most negative and positive cases that are expected)?
• Which factors affect the occurrence of the problem and its consequences?
• What are the risks associated with refraining from intervention?
• What is the likelihood of irreversible negative consequences that will make the existing problem/issue particularly serious or urgent?
• Has the government tried to resolve the problem/issue, what were the outcomes of such an attempt and what conclusions may be drawn from that experience?

Objectives

a. General objectives

• Description of general objectives.

b. Specific and operational objectives

• Description of specific and operational objectives.

 

Table No 2 – Template of the table of intervention objectives

Objective	Indicator	Responsibility	Timing
Specific objective 1 – ….
Operational objective 1.1….
Operational objective 1.2….
Specific objective 2 – ….
Operational objective 2.1….
Operational objective 2.2….

 

 

Elaboration of options

• description of whether any of the options has been rejected at an early stage (cost, effectiveness, efficiency, non-compliance with objectives, feasibility, etc.);
• description of main differences between the options.

Option 1

Regulatory intervention (description of the proposed regulation)

• description of the scenario and basic assumptions;
• potential impact on stakeholders;
• advantages and disadvantages of the scenario, taking into consideration the objectives;
• potential risks.

Option 2

Other option (may be a non-regulatory option)

• description of the scenario and basic assumptions;
• potential impact on stakeholders;
• advantages and disadvantages of the scenario, taking into consideration the objectives;
• potential risks.

Option 3

Other option

• description of the scenario and basic assumptions;
• potential impact on stakeholders;
• advantages and disadvantages of the scenario, taking into consideration the objectives;
• potential risks.

Impact analysis

a. Methodological approach

• describe briefly your methodological approach: qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, mixed analysis;
• in the case of quantitative or mixed analysis, specify the methodological approach that was used for quantification (cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis);
• brief description of the NPV calculation method;
• time horizon (typically, 10 years or more);
• discount rate applied;
• brief description of the data sources and basic assumptions used in the quantitative analysis;
• brief description of the sensitivity analysis (if applied).

b. Identification of likely impacts

The impact analysis shall cover both the likely impacts and the distributional effects (despite the fact that they were not calculated).

• Table No 3 shall be attached to each option individually, and it shall be accompanied by a detailed description of the main reasons for filling in the table.

 

Table No 3 – Summary of the impacts of options (each table shall be filled in for each option)

 

Impacts	Type: 1) direct; 2) indirect	Group(s) affected and/or other relevant indicators affected	Assessment of expected outcomes (positive or negative)	Relevant measurement indicator(s)	Options subject to impact
Economic
•
•
Environmental
•
•
Social
•
•
Public finances
•
•
Sector specific subcategories
•
•

 

 Impact analysis

Option 1 (regulatory)

• analysis of additional costs (in relation to the baseline scenario);
• list of costs;
• impact of costs on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of costs (at least: high/medium/low costs);
• quantitative analysis of costs.

♦Public finance costs (in the case of high costs, it shall include the description of calculation of costs, for example: if an option requires the establishment of a new regulatory body, the annual costs shall be calculated by multiplying an average salary in the public sector (which amounts to xxx, based on the national statistics) by the number of employees (approximately 20 persons), plus the rental costs of the building (which amounts to xxx on average));

♦All other direct costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);

♦All indirect costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);

• benefit analysis (if cost-benefit analysis is carried out);
• list of benefits;
• impact of benefits on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of benefits (at least: high/medium/low benefits);
• quantitative analysis of benefits (in the case of high benefits, it shall include a description of the calculation of benefits, for example: if the benefit of the option is the creation of new workplaces, the annual benefit shall be calculated by multiplying new (potential) workplaces by average unemployment benefit (which amounts to xxx, based on the national statistics)) (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);
• identify the uncertainties and determine how the change in parameters may affect the impact.

Option 2

• analysis of additional costs (in relation to the baseline scenario);
• list of costs;
• impact of costs on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of costs (at least: high/medium/low costs);
• quantitative analysis of costs.

♦Direct compliance costs and public finance costs;

♦All other direct costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);

• all indirect costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);
• benefit analysis (if cost-benefit analysis is carried out);
• list of benefits;
• impact of benefits on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of benefits (at least: high/medium/low benefits);
• quantitative analysis of benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);
• identify the uncertainties and specify how the change in parameters may affect the impact.

Option 3

• analysis of additional costs (in relation to the baseline scenario);
• list of costs;
• impact of costs on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of costs (at least: high/medium/low costs);
• quantitative analysis of costs.

♦Direct compliance costs and public finance costs;

♦All other direct costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);

♦All indirect costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);

• benefit analysis (if cost-benefit analysis is carried out);
• list of benefits;
• impact of benefits on stakeholders;
• qualitative analysis of benefits (at least: high/medium/low benefits);
• quantitative analysis of benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report);
• identify the uncertainties and specify how the change in parameters may affect the impact.

Summary

Two tables below shall include the comparison of additional costs and benefits of all analysed options. In the first case, the comparison shall have the format of a table, and in the second case, the comparison shall have the format of a chart. The tables make it easy for the readers to understand the costs and benefits of each option.

Table No 4 – Summary of additional costs and benefits (in the case of an in-depth RIA report)

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Benefits (NPV)	xxx GEL	xxx GEL	xxx GEL
Costs (NPV)	xxx GEL	xxx GEL	xxx GEL
Benefits – costs (NPV)	xxx GEL	xxx GEL	xxx GEL
Quantitative but not monetised impacts​1	Main text	Main text	Main text
Qualitative impacts (if quantitative is not possible)​2	Main text	Main text	Main text

 

Chart No 1 Comparison of the additional costs and benefits of policy options (NPV, GEL) (in the case of an in-depth RIA report)

 

alternative 1	alternative 2	alternative 3
	♦ Costs         ♦ Benefits

 Comparison of options:

• Describe which other criteria should be used (in addition to costs and benefits) and why;
• Describe how important those criteria are (specifying their weight).

a. Summary of options

 

Table No 5 – Summarising options using multi-criteria analysis

When filling in the table, Article 23 of this Ordinance shall be taken into consideration.

 

Assessment criterion	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Benefits – costs (NPV)	xxx GEL	xxx GEL	xxx GEL
Specific objective 1	(score (s) 1 X (weight) (w) 1)	(s. 2) X (w. 1)	(s. 3) X (w. 1)
Specific objective 2	(s. 4) X (w. 2)	(s. 5) X (w. 2)	(s. 6) X (w. 2)
……	....	....	....
Feasibility/ease to comply with	(s. 7) X (w. 3)	(s. 7) X (w. 3)	(s. 7) X (w. 3)
Risk	(s. 8) X (w. 4)	(s. 9) X (w. 4)	(s. 10) X (w. 4)
Other	(s. 11) X (w. 5)	(s. 11) X (w. 5)	(s. 11) X (w. 5)
Summary	Sum	Sum	Sum

 

b. Preferred option

• ranking options;
• determining a preferred option;
• describing why the option will result in high general benefits and how it will meet the objectives;
• if necessary: describing how the negative impact has been reduced;
• implementation, monitoring and evaluation plan (for a preferred option);
• brief description of the monitoring and evaluation mechanism;
• description of performance indicators measuring compliance with and progress in the achievement of policy objectives;
• description of how and when the information will be summarised, reported and used for improving the regulatory measures (if possible).

 

Table No 6 – Template of the monitoring and evaluation plan summary table

 

Indicator	Time and frequency of evaluation	Responsibility for evaluation
Indicator 1	Early evaluation date (yearly, quarterly, monthly)	Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3
Indicator 2	Early evaluation date (yearly, quarterly, monthly)	Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3
Indicator 3	Early evaluation date (yearly, quarterly, monthly)	Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3

 

 

Part 3 – Process of public consultations

a. Description of the process

• general chronology of carrying out an RIA;
• composition and responsibilities of the working group, and use of external expertise;
• decision-making approach within the working group;
• review of consultation and data collection techniques^​3;
• period;
• consultation and data collection techniques used at the various stages of RIA;
• data sources (as well as data quality, or the methods for improving data quality);
• stakeholder groups, with whom consultations have been held;
• criteria applied in the process of selection and categorisation of stakeholders (capacity to influence – interest matrix).

 

Table No 7 – Interest-influence grid

Grid of identification of stakeholders’ interest and influence

Influence/interest	Low influence	High influence
Low interest	Name of the stakeholder/group of stakeholders
High interest

 b. Summary of the output information and of how the information has been taken into consideration

Table No 8 – Summary of the consultation process

Template of the stakeholder engagement plan

Stakeholder/group of stakeholders	Method of consultation	Summary of the results​4	Comments
Name and size of the stakeholder/group of stakeholders	For example: interviews (and when); review of the consultation documents; inquiry	Brief description of the data/options collected during the consultation process	Whether the answer was taken into consideration/the answer was not taken into consideration; why? etc.

 

• reviewing how the obtained data were taken into consideration.

Part 4 – Signature of an authorised person of the initiating agency

An RIA report, including its content and recommendation(s), shall be certified with a signature.

 

Part 5 – Technical annexes

This part shall contain all appropriate documents and additional information (such as a detailed review of the chosen methodology) which, according to the authors’ opinion, are necessary for the readers of the report to fully understand it.

 

^​1 In the case of the positions, where benefits and costs cannot be monetised but can be quantified, they shall be listed in the physical units (for example: number of the deceased as a result of option X);

^​2 List the positions, which have a significant impact on the decision-making process but cannot be quantified.

^​3 You must demonstrate that the consultation process was balanced and that it was not incorrectly influenced by any specific group. Also, when consultations are held for data collection purposes, it must be clear that the data collection methods are appropriate and the reliability of the results is validated.