OECD Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit

Criterion 6. Co-ordination and consolidation

Inspection functions should be co-ordinated and, where needed, consolidated: less duplication and overlaps will ensure better use of public resources, minimise burden on regulated subjects, and maximise effectiveness.

Key questions:

• Is the issue of institutional mandates, co-ordination and consolidation taken into account at the regulatory drafting stage and in the Impact Assessment process?

• Is duplication of functions avoided and are mandates and responsibilities clear (between different institutions, between national and local levels)?

• Do different inspection and enforcement structures share information and records, participate in joint alert systems, co-ordinate “on the ground” – particularly in related regulatory areas?

• Are mechanisms in place or being introduced to increase efficiency through better information sharing, agencies acting as “eyes and ears” for others? Are re-inspections of the same issue avoided, as well as duplicated reporting?

• Are allocation of resources and strategic planning done taking into account all structures working in a given regulatory area?

Sub-criterion 6.1. The issue of institutional mandates, co-ordination and consolidation is taken into account at the regulatory drafting stage and in the Impact Assessment process

Avoiding the proliferation of different inspecting institutions, ensuring clarity and coherence, preventing the emergence of areas of conflicting competence are all essential. To this aim, during the drafting of new regulations (including the Impact Assessment process) there should be particular attention given to which institutions or structures already have inspection and enforcement competences in the fields under consideration, who would be in charge of implementing the new regulations, and ensuring that the result is coherent, clear and avoids overlaps or fragmentation.

• Evidence: RIA guidelines and contents of published RIAs

Sub-criterion 6.2. Duplication of functions is avoided and mandates and responsibilities are clear (between different institutions, between national and local levels)

In order for the inspection system to be clear for regulated actors, efficient (no duplicate cost or burden), and effective (no dispersion of information and efforts, no co-ordination problems), there needs to be as much as possible unicity of functions – one institution responsible for an entire regulatory area (e.g. food safety, product safety etc.), or at least for a regulatory area in a given sector (e.g. primary food production). When several institutions are involved or cover related fields (e.g. public health and hygiene, occupational health, environment), there should be clarity as to who is responsible for particular regulations, establishments etc. Such clarity should also be ensured between different geographic levels (national or federal, regional, local etc.) so that establishments are not subject to repeated (potentially conflicting) inspections, and public resources wasted on uncoordinated and duplicating activities. Because it is rare that an inspections and enforcement system is fully clear and streamlined, given that institutions have typically developed over many years and as a result of separate policy initiatives, it is important for governments (or regional authorities, where they have responsibility for inspections) to undertake initiatives to review existing functions and institutions, and seek to streamline and consolidate them, or at least clarify the roles and responsibilities, where appropriate.

• Evidence: overview document on inspection functions, official initiatives to consolidate or clarify them

Sub-criterion 6.3. Different inspection and enforcement structures share information and records, participate in joint alert systems, co-ordinate “on the ground” – particularly in related regulatory areas

Even assuming an optimal split of responsibilities ensuring maximum clarity, there will remain different structures in charge of regulatory fields that are distinct but related – and in any case evidence shows that (non-)compliance in one area is often a predictor of (non‑)compliance in another, thus sharing of intelligence is essential to improve risk‑based targeting, efficiency and effectiveness. To this aim, good inspections and enforcement practices include joint alert systems,1 systematic (or, as a second best, upon request) sharing of information and records on establishments under supervision, and co‑ordination of inspections (sharing of plans, joint inspections, etc.).

• Evidence: existing systems (joint alert, information sharing etc.), institutional mechanisms, joint plans of inspections

Sub-criterion 6.4. Mechanisms are in place or being introduced to increase efficiency through better information sharing, agencies acting as “eyes and ears” for others – re-inspections of the same issue are avoided, as well as duplicated reporting

Going further than sharing of formal data and records, different inspection structures can collaborate to increase their efficiency and their ability to assess risks by agreeing to act as “eyes and ears” for each other. In some cases, it can be by agreeing on a “lead agency” that will be the one doing regular inspections in a given sector, and call in others if it spots problems in their specific field of competence. In other cases, it can be by giving to all inspectors in several (or all) structures a basic knowledge of other inspection fields so that they can spot potential major risks during their visits, and alert other structures about them.

In addition, further improvements in efficiency and reductions in burden can be achieved by putting in place norms and mechanisms prohibiting the re-inspection of one and the same issue by two different structures, and requiring all state structures to share information (and thus prohibiting duplicate reporting requirements, what has been called in some countries the “tell it once only” rule).

• Evidence: official policies or memoranda of understanding between agencies, documented processes and procedures, contents of staff training curriculum

Sub-criterion 6.5. Allocation of resources and strategic planning are done taking into account all structures working in a given regulatory area

As outlined in Criterion 1, allocation of resources between inspection and enforcement areas should be done based on evidence, and (as per criterion 3) in a way proportional to risk. When doing so, it is essential to consider all the different institutions, structures, levels, etc. that may be involved, not just one given agency. In most cases, a number of different structures will be involved to some extent in implementing regulations in a given area, and when assessing available and required resources it is indispensable to have this broader picture, and not end up doing multiple allocation of resources for what is in essence the same (or closely related) issue(s). This entails, when long-term or mid‑term strategic reviews or planning are undertaken (at whichever level this takes place) at the very least taking into account the staffing, expertise, technical resource and (if possible) budget allocations of all the institutions that are involved in supervising a given regulatory domain. The same holds true when benchmarking exercises are conducted comparing the situation in one jurisdiction with another: meaningful comparisons cannot be done without taking into account an entire regulatory domain, and not just one single institution, if more than one institution is involved.2

• Evidence: guidelines on strategic planning/review, contents of strategic planning/review documents

Notes

← 1. Such as RASFF and RAPEX for the EU in food and product safety.

← 2. E.g. in occupational health and safety or food safety there are frequently more than one institution involved in inspections and enforcement. A proper review or planning exercise will need to at least take into consideration all their resources (even if planning is not joint, at least it should incorporate the existence of the other institutions involved).