elni Review 2008, Issue 1,  pp. 25-38. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2008.006

Is environmental regulation more likely to result in additional “transaction costs” than other policy areas? Are the costs of environmental legislation perceived differently? Why are businesses apparently less prepared to accept administrative costs in the field of environmental legislation, whereas they readily accept relatively high administrative costs in other areas?
This article provides a brief description of the idea and the basic principles of the Standard Cost Model, of the German SCM Measurement Process including the results from Germany and of the ongoing EU SCM Measurement Process. It also looks at the specific role of environmental legislation in the political context of Better Regulation and the possible impact that the recent political focus on SCM and administrative cost (as a part of regulatory cost) may have on new and existing environmental regulation and on the implementation of environmental policies.

Access full article

References

1. Agreement N° ENT14/CIP/07/F/N02S00 Better Regulation in Europe: An OECD Assessment of Regulatory Capacity in 15 Member States.
2. German October 2007 SCM Report.
3. Coalition Treaty, November 2005, “Gemeinsam für Deutschland - Mit Mut und Menschlichkeit”.
4. Bull, Umweltverwaltungen unter Reformdruck: Herausforderungen, Strategien, Perspektiven, DÖV 2007.
5. Hontelez, What Better Regulation should achieve, Better Regulation and outcomes for the environment, Brussels, 19th March 2007, Conference Papers.
6. German SCM Methodology Manual.
7. German National Regulatory Control Council Act of August 14th 2006.
8. German Guidelines for the ex-ante assessment of administrative burdens.
9. Commission Guidelines for Impact Assessment.
10. International SCM Manual.
11. Ordinance on requirements for the exploitation and disposal of waste wood, 2002 (Wood Waste Ordinance/AltholzVO).
12. German SCM Report October 2007.
13. British SCM Report “HM Government Simplification Plans – A Summary” December 2006.
14. German National Regulatory Control Council Act of August 14th 2006.
15. BGBl I 2006, 1866-1868.
16. Dutch Annual Report “Reducing Administrative Burdens – Now full steam ahead”, June 2005.
17. Manssen, Verwaltungsrecht als Standortnachteil, Schriften der Juristischen Studiengesellschaft Regensburg, Heft 30, pp. 12-13
18. German National Regulatory Control Council Act of August 14th 2006.
19. Joint Rules of Procedure of the Federal Ministries, December 2006.
20. Dietze/Färber, Ein Jahr Normenkontrollrat – Tätigkeitsschwerpunkte, Erfahrungen, Perspektiven, Verwaltung und Management 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9856-2007-6-283.
21. Schröder, Der Nationale Normenkontrollrat: Ein neuer Schritt zum Abbau von Bürokratiekosten, DVBl 2007.
22. Röttgen, Normenkontrollrat: Der Koalitionsvertrag als Wegweiser zu besserer Rechtsetzung und weniger Bürokratie, ZRP 7/2006.
23. Commission of the European Communities, 2006, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, COM(2006) 689 final.
24. Commission of the European Communities, 2008, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, Second strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union, COM(2008) 32 final.
25. Commission of the European Communities, 2008, Commission Working Document. Reducing administrative burdens in the European Union. 2007 progress report and 2008 outlook, COM(2008) 35 final.
26. European Commission, 2007, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union, COM(2007) 23 final.
27. Pilot Project on administrative burdens, WIFO-CEPS October/December 2006.
28. Gelauff, G.M.M. and A.M. Lejour (2005), Five Lisbon highlights: The economic impact of reaching these targets. CPB Document 104. CPB, The Hague, see: COM(2007)23, Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union.
29. “EU Project on baseline measurement and reduction of administrative costs” No ENTR/06/061.
30.  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 22.01.08,“Ich werde natürlich Krach schlagen” – Der ehemalige bayerische Ministerpräsident Edmund Stoiber nimmt den Kampf gegen die EU-Bürokratie auf.
31. 2007/623/EC : Commission Decision of 31 August 2007 setting up the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, OJ 2007 L 253/40.
32. European Commission, 2005, Impact Assessment Guidelines, SEC(2005) 791.
33. Administrative Burdens of Regulation - DEFRA Report 2006.
34.  EU pilot study WIFOCEPS of October/December 2006.
35. Commission of the European Communities, 2007, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 2006 Environment Policy Review, COM(2007) 195 final.
36. Fink, Better Regulation – Bessere Rechtsetzung in Europa, Freibrief für den Abbau von Umweltregulation im Namen von Wirtschaftswachstum und Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen oder Basis für eine bessere (Umwelt-) Gesetzgebung, DNR paper, February 2007.
37. Hontelez, Better Regulation and Outcomes for the Environment, Brussels March 2007, Conference Paper.
38. Castle, On Better Environmental Regulations, ELFline, Spring 2007.
39. Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 16/4204, Entschließungsantrag der Fraktion DIE LINKE „Bürokratieabbau in Europa - Kein Freibrief zum Abbau von Arbeits- und Umweltschutz“.
40. Frick/Brinkmann/Ernst, Positionspapier „Moderne Regulierung und Bürokratieabbau“, Gütersloh, Juni 2005.
41. Bohne, Another perspective on the quality of EC environmental legislation, Milieu en Recht 2007.
42. Frick, Vehrkamp (ed.), Auf dem Weg zu moderner Regulierung – Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, 2005.
43. Bull’s analysis of the cases of “instrumentalization” of the Better Regulation discourse in the economic interest, Bürokratieabbau – Richtige Ansätze unter Falscher Flagge, Die Verwaltung 3/2005.
44. Jann, Wirtschaftsdienst 2005.
45. Owens, S, A balanced appraisal? Impact Assessment of European Commission proposals, elni 2007/01. DOI https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2007.001.
46. Hofmann, The New European Regulatory Impact Assessment – In Theory and Practice, elni 2007/01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2007.002.
47. Gebauer, Die neue Praxis der Folgenabschätzung auf EU-Ebene und die Auswirkungen auf das deutsche Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, in: Ziekow (ed.), Aktuellen Fragen des Fachplanungs-, Raumordnungs- und Naturschutzrechts, Berlin 2007, pp. 114-116, 128-129.
48. Meuwese, Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking, Exeter/Leiden 2008.
49. Maurer, Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung als notwendiges Element eines Programms zur Besseren Rechtsetzung, Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 2006, S. 377, 382 f.
50. Krämer, Better Regulation for the EC environment: on the quality of EC environmental legislation, Milieu en Recht 2007.
51. Hontelez, Better Regulation and Outcomes for the Environment, Brussels March 2007, Conference Paper.
52. Position paper of the Network of Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies, November 2005, The Contribution of Good Environmental Regulation to Competitiveness.
53. Commission of the European Communities, 2007, Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying document to the Proposal from the Commission to the European Carliament and Council for a regulation to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars. Impact Assessment, SEC(2007) 1723.