Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
6. CONCLUSIONS (SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND COMPARISON OF
POLICY OPTIONS: IA STEPS 6 AND 7)
The main impacts are now summarised and the relevant policy options are compared
for each problem area. Please note that this section contrasts Option 2 and 3 but it has
been noted by consultees that Option 3 might in some cases have to be implemented
in conjunction with Option 2 as changes to the Directive might require corresponding
changes to the Application Guide. In such cases, it can be assumed that Option 3
would entail the same costs of implementation by public authorities as Option 2 plus
the extra costs of changing the Directive.
6.1 Problem Area A: Definition of Cableway Installations
Based on the approach to modelling the baseline scenario outlined in Section 5 of this
report, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that installations that would be
affected by Options A2 or A3 are currently sold in the EU. Therefore, these Options
are unlikely to bring specific benefits at the present time, although benefits might
arise should novel mixed purpose systems be developed in the future. Also, no
running costs would currently be incurred by businesses, notified bodies, national
authorities or cableway operators.
The main differences between Options A2 and A3 relate to their effectiveness, cost of
transposition and ability to flexibly react to future market developments:
Due to its legally binding nature, Option A3 might be seen as more effective than
Option A2, which may be taken into account by Member States to a varying
degree. However, these differences relate to potential effectiveness should new
systems appear on the market in the future and are therefore of a theoretical
nature.
While depending on whether Option A3 would be implemented in isolation or in
conjunction with other changes to the Directive, it is possible that transposition
costs of this Option might be significant. By contrast, the costs associated with
Option A2 would be significantly lower.
In addition, Option A2 has the added advantage that the Application Guide is a
comparatively more flexible instrument than the Directive and can be more easily
and more cost-effectively changed to reflect peculiarities of novel designs, should
these appear in the future.
Taking the above into account and (in particular) the absence of specific benefits, it
can be concluded that the cost-benefit ratio for Option A2 is superior to Option A3.
Page 122