Lessons in Lobbying #15: Copy what works – the case for a good shadow impact assessment

I think it makes sense to copy what works and ditch what does not. I use this model when working to influence public policy, lobbying and campaigning.

It involves looking at what works, chunking down the steps that made it work, detailing those steps, and replicating them. Some tweaking and constant improvement help as well.

It is something I’ve done for a lot of things: a good position paper, impactful political advertisements, messaging.

It has led me to drop some cherished beliefs, techniques and tactics, and co-opt the tactics and techniques of some I am not naturally aligned with (e.g. Karl Rove).

It is an ecumenical approach to lobbying and campaigning, not dogmatic.

I find it useful for preparing a shadow impact assessment.

Asking around, two good impact assessments got mentioned a few times.

1. Impact Assessment multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution

2. Impact Assessment on fluorinated greenhouse gases

Even good Impact Assessments get some improved when they go to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, see:

1. Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board Accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a Convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes

2. Impact Assessment on fluorinated greenhouse gases

If you read the Impact Assessments,  you’ll see the use of:

If you want to influence what the Commission propose, the best thing is to mirror your submission in the form of a good Impact Assessment – a shadow impact assessment.

If you are sensible, you’ll start work on a shadow Impact Assessment the day you hear the political winds are turning and legislative change is clear. If you act when you see the issue in the President’s Political Guidelines or Work Programme, you’ll be playing catch up.

Of course, you’ll follow the Better Regulation Guidelines to the letter.

Your draft shadow impact assessment will mirror a good Commission Impact Assessment. Clear and consider (45 pages), evidence and data-rich,  and the use of annexes to develop points, and the points above.

You’ll ignore rookie mistakes with selective citation, or the deliberate omission of points you just like. If you do this, you’ll be caught out, and you’ll get to sit on the sidelines for the rest of the legislative cycle on the file.

As you likely don’t have the internal expertise to prepare a good quality shadow impact assessment, hire someone the Commission use in your area.  Basically, give them the time, and access to your inhouse expertise and data, to do better than the Commission can. Today, the Commission Services are pressed for time with an over-eager political leadership unaquanatainted with the hard slog of preparing well thought out legislative proposals.

Ever since my experience of working on air pollution back in 1997, I’ve been a fan of well prepared legislative proposals. In that case, a 2 years + dialogue with stakeholders and world-class experts. The main advantage, from a political perspective, was that many of the sensitive policy and political issues had been well aired and answers documented.  This allowed politicians in the Council and EP to focus their time on genuinely tough public policy decisions. Well  thought out proposals get adopted by Council and EP faster, and with more healthy majorities, than poorly thought out ones. They likely also get implemented better.

Even today,  if a Commission’s draft Impact Assessment gets rejected twice by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, as more are doing, the likelihood for plain legislative sailing is much diminished.

I realise that my liking for real evidence to support public policy change and advocacy is considered old fashioned by many. I don’t apologise.  I know evidence-free advocacy, which amounts to the chanting of positions of faith, is popular. Just looking at many position papers makes this clear.

Yet, in my experience, contributing at the right time, with well thought out, considered, evidence rich, public policy solutions remains the only effective way to get the change you want.  The Commission may well just co-opt your evidence, thinking, and options.

When a good impact assessment gets published, I’ll update this post.