Common use of Methodology for the impact assessment Clause in Contracts

Methodology for the impact assessment. Overview The number of problems for which options are to be considered in impact assessment is large – far larger than is usually the case in an IA study for EU policy and law. For some problems and their options the options proposed focus only on improved management of water bodies. For these options a full economic, social and environmental impact assessment is not undertaken. Rather, analysis is performed of how well the different options are effective at meeting the objectives of the Blueprint, how efficient they are and how coherent they are with other EU law and policy. This level of analysis applies to the following problems:  Global issues  Target setting  Analysis of costs and benefits  Governance  Drought management  Knowledge base For the remaining problems, a full assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts is undertaken. The assessment of impacts follows in detail the issues for economic, social and environmental impact set out in the Commission’s IA guidelines (SEC(2009)92). These guidelines detail a list of specific issues to consider within an IA and each of these is considered in this section. This applies to the following problems:  Water pricing  Water metering  Land use  Water efficiency of appliances and buildings  Leakage in water distribution systems  Standards for water re-use Subsequent Impact Assessment of options The Blueprint is a strategic document setting out future actions by the Commission or other EU level actors. However, with respect to these actions it is not to be accompanied by any legislative proposals. Rather, if new or amended legislation is considered to be the appropriate action to be taken (based on the assessment of options within this IA), then formal proposals for such legislation would be developed at a later date. Examples of options of this type include possible amendments to the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive, amendments to the Ecodesign Directive and possible new law on drought management planning, water efficiency of buildings and standards for re-use of water in agriculture. If any legislative proposal is taken forward, the Commission will have to perform a full IA on that proposal (and other relevant options). Therefore, it is important to note that this IA for the Blueprint presents an IA determining whether development of such legislation is a preferred option. It does not, however, consider the detail of that legislation (e.g. which standards to propose on water re-use). This would require analysis subsequent to publication of the Blueprint. Only then, with the details of legislation known, would full IA be possible. In conclusion, the IA of legislative options in this analysis must be viewed as a first stage IA and that full justification (or not) for formal proposal of new or amendment legislation would require further IAs after publication of the Blueprint. The timing of implementation The options considered in this Impact Assessment analysis cover a range of different types of instruments and interact with other policies in diverse ways. It is important to note that this interaction with other policies is critical in examining when options might be expected to deliver results and, in consequence, when benefits and costs might arise. This is important in particular when comparing options. The most obvious example of this type of interaction concerns alternative options to influence application of the Water Framework Directive, such as whether to take forward methodological support through guidance or through a technical annex amendment to the Directive. It could be considered that amendment of the Directive would only be able to take place following review of the Directive and adoption of an amendment would be unlikely before 2019 or 2020. Guidance could be produced more quickly. However, it is important to consider how the option would be taken up by the Member States. In this example, methodological support would need to influence the analysis and measure development with River Basin Management Plans. Given the need for the 2nd RBMPs to be in place by the end of 2015 and for a minimum of six months consultation before this, much of the analysis and measures development must take place significantly before this deadline. In 2013 Member States are to complete the review of characteristics, human activities and economic analysis contributing to the 2nd RBMP. Therefore, if guidance is produced following the publication of the Blueprint, it would need to be produced very rapidly in order to influence the 2nd RBMPs. Much of the guidance produced under the CIS has not been produced quickly. Any guidance produced after this point might only influence the 3rd RBMP to be adopted in 2021 (unless Member States seek to intervene at an earlier stage). If the option of amending the Directive were to be taken forward and this were to be done following its review, then it will also be a tight timetable to adopt an amendment in order to influence the 3rd RBMP development. Similarly, guidance or other soft measures that seek to influence the implementation of the CAP also have to be timed to aid the development and implementation of Rural Development Plans, for example. Therefore, in considering the absolute impact of options and in comparing options, the likely integration of the options with existing policy timetables is important. Taking account of smart regulation objectives The basis for smart regulation within EU policy development and implementation is set out in the Commission Communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union COM(2010) 543 final). This sets out the overall objective of smart regulation. This is ‘closing the cycle: from better to smart regulation’. This states that while better regulation has delivered important outcomes, the ‘Commission believes that it is now time to step up a gear’. This means that:  ‘Smart regulation is about the whole policy cycle - from the design of a piece of legislation, to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and revision’. ‘This requires a greater awareness by all actors of the fact that implementing existing legislation properly and amending it in the light of experience is as important as the new legislation we put on the table’.  ‘Smart regulation must remain a shared responsibility of the European institutions and of Member States’. ‘Smart regulation is not an end in itself. It must be an integral part of our collective efforts in all policy areas.’  ‘The views of those most affected by regulation have a key role to play in smart regulation.’ This overarching area is examined under three themes. The first is ‘managing the quality of regulation throughout the policy cycle’. This includes:  Improving the stock of EU legislation – reducing administrative burdens, evaluating the benefits and costs of existing legislation, including through fitness checks, greater transparency, etc.  Ensuring that new legislation is the best possible – using Impact Assessment to improve the evidence base, consultation, etc.  ‘Impact assessments should quantify benefits and costs when possible. The Commission will continue efforts to improve in this area with the caveat that there is a limit to what can be quantified at the level of 27 Member States: data is frequently limited, and the impact of EU legislation often depends on how national administrations implement it. This also means that aggregating figures for benefits and costs of EU legislation over time, as some stakeholders have requested, would not be meaningful.’  EU legislation must be implemented properly if it is to achieve its goals. The Commission should pay greater attention to implementation and enforcement in impact assessments when designing new legislation; support to Member States during implementation to anticipate problems and avoid infringement proceedings later on.  Making legislation clearer and more accessible. The second area is ‘a shared responsibility’. This addresses the role of the EU institutions (which is not directly applicable to the IA of options for the Blueprint). It also states that ‘action at EU level alone will not be enough to achieve smart regulation objectives’ and that this requires action at Member State level - ‘Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring that EU legislation is properly implemented’. ‘There is 'no one size fits all' approach to smart regulation, and [..] Member States [should] define priorities on the basis of available human and institutional capacities’. The third area is ‘strengthening the voice of citizens and stakeholders’. This centres around improved public consultation on policy developments. The principles of smart regulation are taken account of in the IA. Furthermore, this project draws heavily on the Fitness Check of water policy, which is a key smart regulation analysis of issues facing water policy and water objectives.

Methodology for the impact assessment. Overview The number of problems for which options are to be considered in impact assessment is large – far larger than is usually the case in an IA study for EU policy and law. For some problems and their options the options proposed focus only on improved management of water bodies. For these options a full economic, social and environmental impact assessment is not undertaken. Rather, analysis is performed of how well the different options are effective at meeting the objectives of the Blueprint, how efficient they are and how coherent they are with other EU law and policy. This level of analysis applies to the following problems:  • Global issues  • Target setting  • Analysis of costs and benefits  • Governance  • Drought management  • Knowledge base For the remaining problems, a full assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts is undertaken. The assessment of impacts follows in detail the issues for economic, social and environmental impact set out in the Commission’s IA guidelines (SEC(2009)92). These guidelines detail a list of specific issues to consider within an IA and each of these is considered in this section. This applies to the following problems:  • Water pricing  • Water metering  • Land use  • Water efficiency of appliances and buildings  • Leakage in water distribution systems  • Standards for water re-use Subsequent Impact Assessment of options The Blueprint is a strategic document setting out future actions by the Commission or other EU level actors. However, with respect to these actions it is not to be accompanied by any legislative proposals. Rather, if new or amended legislation is considered to be the appropriate action to be taken (based on the assessment of options within this IA), then formal proposals for such legislation would be developed at a later date. Examples of options of this type include possible amendments to the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive, amendments to the Ecodesign Directive and possible new law on drought management planning, water efficiency of buildings and standards for re-use of water in agriculture. If any legislative proposal is taken forward, the Commission will have to perform a full IA on that proposal (and other relevant options). Therefore, it is important to note that this IA for the Blueprint presents an IA determining whether development of such legislation is a preferred option. It does not, however, consider the detail of that legislation (e.g. which standards to propose on water re-use). This would require analysis subsequent to publication of the Blueprint. Only then, with the details of legislation known, would full IA be possible. In conclusion, the IA of legislative options in this analysis must be viewed as a first stage IA and that full justification (or not) for formal proposal of new or amendment legislation would require further IAs after publication of the Blueprint. The timing of implementation The options considered in this Impact Assessment analysis cover a range of different types of instruments and interact with other policies in diverse ways. It is important to note that this interaction with other policies is critical in examining when options might be expected to deliver results and, in consequence, when benefits and costs might arise. This is important in particular when comparing options. The most obvious example of this type of interaction concerns alternative options to influence application of the Water Framework Directive, such as whether to take forward methodological support through guidance or through a technical annex amendment to the Directive. It could be considered that amendment of the Directive would only be able to take place following review of the Directive and adoption of an amendment would be unlikely before 2019 or 2020. Guidance could be produced more quickly. However, it is important to consider how the option would be taken up by the Member States. In this example, methodological support would need to influence the analysis and measure development with River Basin Management Plans. Given the need for the 2nd RBMPs to be in place by the end of 2015 and for a minimum of six months consultation before this, much of the analysis and measures development must take place significantly before this deadline. In 2013 Member States are to complete the review of characteristics, human activities and economic analysis contributing to the 2nd RBMP. Therefore, if guidance is produced following the publication of the Blueprint, it would need to be produced very rapidly in order to influence the 2nd RBMPs. Much of the guidance produced under the CIS has not been produced quickly. Any guidance produced after this point might only influence the 3rd RBMP to be adopted in 2021 (unless Member States seek to intervene at an earlier stage). If the option of amending the Directive were to be taken forward and this were to be done following its review, then it will also be a tight timetable to adopt an amendment in order to influence the 3rd RBMP development. Similarly, guidance or other soft measures that seek to influence the implementation of the CAP also have to be timed to aid the development and implementation of Rural Development Plans, for example. Therefore, in considering the absolute impact of options and in comparing options, the likely integration of the options with existing policy timetables is important. Taking account of smart regulation objectives The basis for smart regulation within EU policy development and implementation is set out in the Commission Communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union COM(2010) 543 final). This sets out the overall objective of smart regulation. This is ‘closing the cycle: from better to smart regulation’. This states that while better regulation has delivered important outcomes, the ‘Commission believes that it is now time to step up a gear’. This means that:  • ‘Smart regulation is about the whole policy cycle - from the design of a piece of legislation, to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and revision’. ‘This requires a greater awareness by all actors of the fact that implementing existing legislation properly and amending it in the light of experience is as important as the new legislation we put on the table’.  • ‘Smart regulation must remain a shared responsibility of the European institutions and of Member States’. ‘Smart regulation is not an end in itself. It must be an integral part of our collective efforts in all policy areas.’  • ‘The views of those most affected by regulation have a key role to play in smart regulation.’ This overarching area is examined under three themes. The first is ‘managing the quality of regulation throughout the policy cycle’. This includes:  • Improving the stock of EU legislation – reducing administrative burdens, evaluating the benefits and costs of existing legislation, including through fitness checks, greater transparency, etc.  • Ensuring that new legislation is the best possible – using Impact Assessment to improve the evidence base, consultation, etc.  • ‘Impact assessments should quantify benefits and costs when possible. The Commission will continue efforts to improve in this area with the caveat that there is a limit to what can be quantified at the level of 27 Member States: data is frequently limited, and the impact of EU legislation often depends on how national administrations implement it. This also means that aggregating figures for benefits and costs of EU legislation over time, as some stakeholders have requested, would not be meaningful.’  • EU legislation must be implemented properly if it is to achieve its goals. The Commission should pay greater attention to implementation and enforcement in impact assessments when designing new legislation; support to Member States during implementation to anticipate problems and avoid infringement proceedings later on.  • Making legislation clearer and more accessible. The second area is ‘a shared responsibility’. This addresses the role of the EU institutions (which is not directly applicable to the IA of options for the Blueprint). It also states that ‘action at EU level alone will not be enough to achieve smart regulation objectives’ and that this requires action at Member State level - ‘Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring that EU legislation is properly implemented’. ‘There is 'no one size fits all' approach to smart regulation, and [..] Member States [should] define priorities on the basis of available human and institutional capacities’. The third area is ‘strengthening the voice of citizens and stakeholders’. This centres around improved public consultation on policy developments. The principles of smart regulation are taken account of in the IA. Furthermore, this project draws heavily on the Fitness Check of water policy, which is a key smart regulation analysis of issues facing water policy and water objectives.

Methodology for the impact assessment. ‌ Overview The number of problems for which options are to be considered in impact assessment is large – far larger than is usually the case in an IA study for EU policy and law. For some problems and their options the options proposed focus only on improved management of water bodies. For these options a full economic, social and environmental impact assessment is not undertaken. Rather, analysis is performed of how well the different options are effective at meeting the objectives of the Blueprint, how efficient they are and how coherent they are with other EU law and policy. This level of analysis applies to the following problems:  Global issues  Target setting  Analysis of costs and benefits  Governance  Drought management  Knowledge base For the remaining problems, a full assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts is undertaken. The assessment of impacts follows in detail the issues for economic, social and environmental impact set out in the Commission’s IA guidelines (SEC(2009)92). These guidelines detail a list of specific issues to consider within an IA and each of these is considered in this section. This applies to the following problems:  Water pricing  Water metering  Land use  Water efficiency of appliances and buildings  Leakage in water distribution systems  Standards for water re-use Subsequent Impact Assessment of options The Blueprint is a strategic document setting out future actions by the Commission or other EU level actors. However, with respect to these actions it is not to be accompanied by any legislative proposals. Rather, if new or amended legislation is considered to be the appropriate action to be taken (based on the assessment of options within this IA), then formal proposals for such legislation would be developed at a later date. Examples of options of this type include possible amendments to the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive, amendments to the Ecodesign Directive and possible new law on drought management planning, water efficiency of buildings and standards for re-use of waste water in agriculture. If any legislative proposal is taken forward, the Commission will have to perform a full IA on that proposal (and other relevant options). Therefore, it is important to note that this IA for the Blueprint presents an IA determining whether development of such legislation is a preferred option. It does not, however, consider the detail of that legislation (e.g. which standards to propose on water re-use). This would require analysis subsequent to publication of the Blueprint. Only then, with the details of legislation known, would full IA be possible. In conclusion, the IA of legislative options in this analysis must be viewed as a first stage IA and that full justification (or not) for formal proposal of new or amendment legislation would require further IAs after publication of the Blueprint. The timing of implementation The options considered in this Impact Assessment analysis cover a range of different types of instruments and interact with other policies in diverse ways. It is important to note that this interaction with other policies is critical in examining when options might be expected to deliver results and, in consequence, when benefits and costs might arise. This is important in particular when comparing options. The most obvious example of this type of interaction concerns alternative options to influence application of the Water Framework Directive, such as whether to take forward methodological support through guidance or through a technical annex amendment to the Directive. It could be considered that amendment of the Directive would only be able to take place following review of the Directive and adoption of an amendment would be unlikely before 2019 or 2020. Guidance could be produced more quickly. However, it is important to consider how the option would be taken up by the Member States. In this example, methodological support would need to influence the analysis and measure development with River Basin Management Plans. Given the need for the 2nd RBMPs to be in place by the end of 2015 and for a minimum of six months consultation before this, much of the analysis and measures development must take place significantly before this deadline. In 2013 Member States are to complete the review of characteristics, human activities and economic analysis contributing to the 2nd RBMP. Therefore, if guidance is produced following the publication of the Blueprint, it would need to be produced very rapidly in order to influence the 2nd RBMPs. Much of the guidance produced under the CIS has not been produced quickly. Any guidance produced after this point might only influence the 3rd RBMP to be adopted in 2021 (unless Member States seek to intervene at an earlier stage). If the option of amending the Directive were to be taken forward and this were to be done following its review, then it will also be a tight timetable to adopt an amendment in order to influence the 3rd RBMP development. Similarly, guidance or other soft measures that seek to influence the implementation of the CAP also have to be timed to aid the development and implementation of Rural Development Plans, for example. At this stage, the development of actions subsequent to the publication of the Blueprint is likely to be timed well unless unexpected delays result. Therefore, in considering the absolute impact of options and in comparing options, the likely integration of the options with existing policy timetables is important. Taking account of smart regulation objectives The basis for smart regulation within EU policy development and implementation is set out in the Commission Communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union COM(2010) 543 final). This final).This sets out the overall objective of smart regulation. This is ‘closing the cycle: from better to smart regulation’. This states that while better regulation has delivered important outcomes, the ‘Commission believes that it is now time to step up a gear’. This means that:  ‘Smart regulation is about the whole policy cycle - from the design of a piece of legislation, to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and revision’. ‘This requires a greater awareness by all actors of the fact that implementing existing legislation properly and amending it in the light of experience is as important as the new legislation we put on the table’.  ‘Smart regulation must remain a shared responsibility of the European institutions and of Member States’. ‘Smart regulation is not an end in itself. It must be an integral part of our collective efforts in all policy areas.’  ‘The views of those most affected by regulation have a key role to play in smart regulation.’ This overarching area is examined under three themes. The first is ‘managing the quality of regulation throughout the policy cycle’. This includes:  Improving the stock of EU legislation – reducing administrative burdens, evaluating the benefits and costs of existing legislation, including through fitness checks, greater transparency, etc.  Ensuring that new legislation is the best possible – using Impact Assessment to improve the evidence base, consultation, etc.  ‘Impact assessments should quantify benefits and costs when possible. The Commission will continue efforts to improve in this area with the caveat that there is a limit to what can be quantified at the level of 27 Member States: data is frequently limited, and the impact of EU legislation often depends on how national administrations implement it. This also means that aggregating figures for benefits and costs of EU legislation over time, as some stakeholders have requested, would not be meaningful.’  EU legislation must be implemented properly if it is to achieve its goals. The Commission should pay greater attention to implementation and enforcement in impact assessments when designing new legislation; support to Member States during implementation to anticipate problems and avoid infringement proceedings later on.  Making legislation clearer and more accessible. The second area is ‘a shared responsibility’. This addresses the role of the EU institutions (which is not directly applicable to the IA of options for the Blueprint). It also states that ‘action at EU level alone will not be enough to achieve smart regulation objectives’ and that this requires action at Member State level - ‘Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring that EU legislation is properly implemented’. ‘There is 'no one size fits all' approach to smart regulation, and [..] Member States [should] define priorities on the basis of available human and institutional capacities’. The third area is ‘strengthening the voice of citizens and stakeholders’. This centres around improved public consultation on policy developments. The principles of smart regulation are taken account of in the IA. Furthermore, this project draws heavily on the Fitness Check of water policy, which is a key smart regulation analysis of issues facing water policy and water objectives.

Methodology for the impact assessment. Overview The number of problems for which options are to be considered in impact assessment is large – far larger than is usually the case in an IA study for EU policy and law. For some problems and their options the options proposed focus only on improved management of water bodies. For these options a full economic, social and environmental impact assessment is not undertaken. Rather, analysis is performed of how well the different options are effective at meeting the objectives of the Blueprint, how efficient they are and how coherent they are with other EU law and policy. This level of analysis applies to the following problems:  • Global issues  • Target setting  • Analysis of costs and benefits  • Governance  • Drought management  • Knowledge base For the remaining problems, a full assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts is undertaken. The assessment of impacts follows in detail the issues for economic, social and environmental impact set out in the Commission’s IA guidelines (SEC(2009)92). These guidelines detail a list of specific issues to consider within an IA and each of these is considered in this section. This applies to the following problems:  • Water pricing  • Water metering  • Land use  • Water efficiency of appliances and buildings  • Leakage in water distribution systems  • Standards for water re-use Subsequent Impact Assessment of options The Blueprint is a strategic document setting out future actions by the Commission or other EU level actors. However, with respect to these actions it is not to be accompanied by any legislative proposals. Rather, if new or amended legislation is considered to be the appropriate action to be taken (based on the assessment of options within this IA), then formal proposals for such legislation would be developed at a later date. Examples of options of this type include possible amendments to the Water Framework Directive and Nitrates Directive, amendments to the Ecodesign Directive and possible new law on drought management planning, water efficiency of buildings and standards for re-use of waste water in agriculture. If any legislative proposal is taken forward, the Commission will have to perform a full IA on that proposal (and other relevant options). Therefore, it is important to note that this IA for the Blueprint presents an IA determining whether development of such legislation is a preferred option. It does not, however, consider the detail of that legislation (e.g. which standards to propose on water re-use). This would require analysis subsequent to publication of the Blueprint. Only then, with the details of legislation known, would full IA be possible. In conclusion, the IA of legislative options in this analysis must be viewed as a first stage IA and that full justification (or not) for formal proposal of new or amendment legislation would require further IAs after publication of the Blueprint. The timing of implementation The options considered in this Impact Assessment analysis cover a range of different types of instruments and interact with other policies in diverse ways. It is important to note that this interaction with other policies is critical in examining when options might be expected to deliver results and, in consequence, when benefits and costs might arise. This is important in particular when comparing options. The most obvious example of this type of interaction concerns alternative options to influence application of the Water Framework Directive, such as whether to take forward methodological support through guidance or through a technical annex amendment to the Directive. It could be considered that amendment of the Directive would only be able to take place following review of the Directive and adoption of an amendment would be unlikely before 2019 or 2020. Guidance could be produced more quickly. However, it is important to consider how the option would be taken up by the Member States. In this example, methodological support would need to influence the analysis and measure development with River Basin Management Plans. Given the need for the 2nd RBMPs to be in place by the end of 2015 and for a minimum of six months consultation before this, much of the analysis and measures development must take place significantly before this deadline. In 2013 Member States are to complete the review of characteristics, human activities and economic analysis contributing to the 2nd RBMP. Therefore, if guidance is produced following the publication of the Blueprint, it would need to be produced very rapidly in order to influence the 2nd RBMPs. Much of the guidance produced under the CIS has not been produced quickly. Any guidance produced after this point might only influence the 3rd RBMP to be adopted in 2021 (unless Member States seek to intervene at an earlier stage). If the option of amending the Directive were to be taken forward and this were to be done following its review, then it will also be a tight timetable to adopt an amendment in order to influence the 3rd RBMP development. Similarly, guidance or other soft measures that seek to influence the implementation of the CAP also have to be timed to aid the development and implementation of Rural Development Plans, for example. At this stage, the development of actions subsequent to the publication of the Blueprint is likely to be timed well unless unexpected delays result. Therefore, in considering the absolute impact of options and in comparing options, the likely integration of the options with existing policy timetables is important. Taking account of smart regulation objectives The basis for smart regulation within EU policy development and implementation is set out in the Commission Communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union COM(2010) 543 final). This final).This sets out the overall objective of smart regulation. This is ‘closing the cycle: from better to smart regulation’. This states that while better regulation has delivered important outcomes, the ‘Commission believes that it is now time to step up a gear’. This means that:  • ‘Smart regulation is about the whole policy cycle - from the design of a piece of legislation, to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and revision’. ‘This requires a greater awareness by all actors of the fact that implementing existing legislation properly and amending it in the light of experience is as important as the new legislation we put on the table’.  • ‘Smart regulation must remain a shared responsibility of the European institutions and of Member States’. ‘Smart regulation is not an end in itself. It must be an integral part of our collective efforts in all policy areas.’  • ‘The views of those most affected by regulation have a key role to play in smart regulation.’ This overarching area is examined under three themes. The first is ‘managing the quality of regulation throughout the policy cycle’. This includes:  • Improving the stock of EU legislation – reducing administrative burdens, evaluating the benefits and costs of existing legislation, including through fitness checks, greater transparency, etc.  • Ensuring that new legislation is the best possible – using Impact Assessment to improve the evidence base, consultation, etc.  • ‘Impact assessments should quantify benefits and costs when possible. The Commission will continue efforts to improve in this area with the caveat that there is a limit to what can be quantified at the level of 27 Member States: data is frequently limited, and the impact of EU legislation often depends on how national administrations implement it. This also means that aggregating figures for benefits and costs of EU legislation over time, as some stakeholders have requested, would not be meaningful.’  • EU legislation must be implemented properly if it is to achieve its goals. The Commission should pay greater attention to implementation and enforcement in impact assessments when designing new legislation; support to Member States during implementation to anticipate problems and avoid infringement proceedings later on.  • Making legislation clearer and more accessible. The second area is ‘a shared responsibility’. This addresses the role of the EU institutions (which is not directly applicable to the IA of options for the Blueprint). It also states that ‘action at EU level alone will not be enough to achieve smart regulation objectives’ and that this requires action at Member State level - ‘Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring that EU legislation is properly implemented’. ‘There is 'no one size fits all' approach to smart regulation, and [..] Member States [should] define priorities on the basis of available human and institutional capacities’. The third area is ‘strengthening the voice of citizens and stakeholders’. This centres around improved public consultation on policy developments. The principles of smart regulation are taken account of in the IA. Furthermore, this project draws heavily on the Fitness Check of water policy, which is a key smart regulation analysis of issues facing water policy and water objectives.