EL_04_02_08_070
Draft minutes of the 19th meeting of the EAAB held in Brussels
on October 11 2007
Attendants
H.Egolf (CEOC International), T.Inman (EFAC), N.Kleinjan (EEPCA), M.Kuehne (EURAMET), G.Jacques (EUROLAB), M.Stadler (BUSINESS EUROPE), K.Stochholm (UNICE/ORGALIME), L.Gourtsoyannis (NORMAPME), H.Köhler (CEFIC), P.Coeberg van den Braak (BUSINESS EUROPE), S.Arondel replacing JM Le Parco (NA, France), A.Liukko (NA, Finland), I.Ruthemeier (NA Germany), A.Safarik-Pstrosz (NA Czech Republic), P.Vrtacnik (NA Slovenia) , D.Collinsova (EC), J.McMillan (EC), K.Byrne EFTA), I.Jachwitz (CEN/CENELEC/ETSI), L.Thione (EA Chair), G.Talbot (EA Vice Chair), M.Blum (EA Secretary).
1.Opening of the meeting
Apologies were received from B. Federspiel (ANEC) and JM Le Parco (National Authorities college, France) who was represented by S. Arondel.
The Chair welcomed all of the participants thanking especially J. McMillan and D. Collinsova (European Commission) for their presence.
2.Introduction of members
Following a suggestion from the Chair based on the fact that all the attendants were familiar members of the Board, it was agreed not to have a roll call.
3.Approval of draft agenda
The Chair reviewed the proposed agenda.
L. Thione (LT) suggested to anticipate item 7.2 “Policy for locations of EA GA meetings” in order to make sure that the issue would have been covered while J. McMillan was present.
A. Safarik-Pstrosz, on behalf of the National Authorities college, reiterated a complaint about the late distribution of the papers. He added that some papers were difficult to identify without their usual reference. The statement was supported by I. Jachwitz. The Chair recognised the concern raised with late distribution and encouraged EA to take all efforts to improve the process. He also pointed out that most of the work is based on voluntary resources in EA and reminded EA that cover notes should systematically be produced at least for key papers.
4.Last meeting minutes and matters arising not covered elsewhere
With the correct reference to the revision number (01 instead of 00 as noted on the document) and the change in the name of “UNICE” into “Business Europe” to be made in the list of EAAB members, the minutes were approved.
Action Secretariat
The Chair briefly reviewed the Actions list.
It was reported that S. Ellison, representing EURACHEM, would be the new member of the Conformity Assessment Body college, EURAMET having now a separate seat as agreed at the last meeting and reflected in the revision of the Board rules of procedures.
All other issues were either closed or tabled on the agenda for the meeting.
4.1EA planning for surveys
L. Thione reported. He reminded the meeting that the survey which was conducted initially to assess EA members’ activity in evaluating customer satisfaction had received limited response. As agreed with the EAAB, the survey was then re-launched. LT briefly reviewed the interim results, the analysis of all of the responses remaining to be completed.
The Board was pleased to note the considerable improvement with regard to the number and comprehensiveness of the responses received so far.
The results of the final report, planned to be available at the end of October, will be considered at the Board’s next meeting in April 2008, where a more general discussion of the ways by which such surveys could be improved is foreseen.
Action EA CPC Chair
5.Key topic for discussions
5.1Involvement of EA in the SOGS and development of the cooperation between EA and the EC
5.1.1Involvement in the SOGS and 5.1.2 EA’s participation to the Commission’s Inter Service meeting
The Chair introduced the topic.
Involvement of EA in the SOGS and development of the cooperation with the European Commission constitutes one of the main challenges which EA is facing. The objective is to look at how such a cooperation can be set up and further developed in an effective manner. Relations with the national authorities may also be worth being addressed as a logical extension of the discussions. The Chair informed that a draft proposal on the objectives and content of cooperation (“General Guidelines for the cooperation between EA and the EC and EFTA”) was sent to EA by M. Ayral from DG Enterprise.
L. Thione (LT) expressed to the EC (and particularly to D. Collinsova) the EA’s appreciation for such “Guidelines”, representing a very good starting point for the cooperation.
He then reminded that both topics of EA attending the SOGS meeting and of EA’s participation into an-hoc EC Inter-service meeting were addressed by M. Ayral in his letter.
LT indicated that EA had responded, with thanks, to M. Ayral’s communication, restating its commitment to fulfil the EC expectations. He confirmed that EA would be represented at the next SOGS meeting and would be pleased to take part in the Inter-service meeting as soon as finalized.
On behalf of the EAAB, the Chair expressed his deep appreciation of the progress made on the issue. With regard to EA’s intended role in support of Community legislation and policies, he underlined the crucial importance of efficient cooperation and regular communication to be set up and further developed between EA and the EC and its various services concerned on the one hand, and between EA and its member accreditation bodies and the Member States’ national authorities on the other hand. He then invited comments from J. McMillan (JMcM).
J.McM explained that the overall intent of the current initiatives is to put EA in an environment where it is seen as part of public authority, with the use of the guidelines and the envisaged partnership agreements as tools to reinforce relationships and links between EA and the authorities at national and Community level. The national authorities (NA) are represented in the EAAB but it is not sufficient with regard to the requested, targeted visibility. Closer relations between the ABs and their national authorities shall develop equally in all Member States. Relations between the NA and EA itself should also be developed.
An idea of a charter which would be signed by all interested parties was considered but eventually abandoned.
J.McM added that it would probably be possible to start the discussions on the partnership agreement soon because progress with the Regulation is positive. The point is to start getting EA to be in SOGS when accreditation is tabled on the agenda. It is not the intention that accreditation should be systematically tabled.
However, at least in the near future, there will be numerous opportunities for EA to participate in the discussions related to the development of the infrastructure as foreseen by the draft Regulation.
J.McM insisted that it is important that EA can attend on its own, in addition to the report presented by the EAAB representative in the SOGS, which has proved to be very valuable so far. It is important that EA and the Member States get to discuss together and EA will have to be invited to input all along the process of development of the guidelines.
On a more practical point of view, there is a concern on how to involve the other directorates. This is difficult because they have their own agendas, objectives and priorities. This why it was proposed to set up a special Inter-service meeting.
The Chair opened the floor.
On behalf of the NA college, A. Safarik-Pstrosz (ASP) expressed interest in and reconfirmed the need for improved and more intensive cooperation between EA and the EC. The College appreciated the positive response from the EC and look forward to a first meeting between the college members and the EC to discuss these issues, as previously anticipated.
The college received also with much appreciation the EC document SOGS N 578 EN on Guidelines for cooperation. The role of the National Authorities college should be upgraded. The proposal to have EA participating directly in the SOGS meeting would help the National Authorities representatives to involve all of their colleagues in the SOGS and facilitate more direct contacts between EA and NA representatives. EA’s participation in the Inter-service meeting is also perceived as a valuable opportunity to present and promote EA and accreditation. Overall, the college recognised that all these initiatives should be sufficient to start build up constructive and fruitful cooperation.
In terms of what should be submitted to the SOGS, it was the college’s view that papers produced by the Sub-project Groups of the EA Development Project, such as the “Best Practice Guide for Communication with National Regulators” were good examples of the kind of documents that SOGS would appreciate to be submitted.
J.McM pointed out that the objective in having EA in the SOGS and Inter-service meetings is to use SOGS to disseminate information at national level and use the Directorates for discussions at sectoral levels.
EURAMET expressed support for closer relations between NA and the national ABs to facilitate harmonisation of accreditation practices. For EURAMET, the quality of the services performed by accredited laboratories shall ensure quality at the end user’s level as well.
P. van den Braak on behalf of the Industry college supported all the comments made until then, the draft proposals available representing a very good start to be used in a flexible manner.
I. Jachwitz (IJ) recognised that progress reported constituted a positive step. The line drawn between accreditation and standardisation is well defined in the draft legislative proposals and cooperation between EA and the ESOs will support constructive discussions.
IJ raised a point concerning the role of the EAAB in future. Given the various initiatives that are developing, he suggested to review the issue.
J.McM insisted that everything is meant to put EA into its public authority environment.
As far as SOGS meetings are concerned, the objective is not to have EA reporting on its work program and internal operations at SOGS but to contribute to the discussions from a broader, political point of view. In this context, monitoring of EA’s operations seems to be more in the scope of the EAAB.
The Chair pointed out that the Board had reached similar conclusions at the previous meeting.
For L. Thione, it is very clear that there is no conflict between EA, SOGS and the EAAB. The three bodies are complementary and work in synergy.
As far the role of the Board is concerned, it was EURAMET view that the Board should remain in its advisory role, recognising though that there is a need for a body to take up a supervisory role. M. Kühne suggested that the question may be raised with the national authorities.
For ASP, a mechanism is needed, it is not necessary that a body takes on a supervisory role. There are good tools already available in EA, the approach instead should be to focus on how to manage the system and it should be more on EA to define and use the appropriate tools. From a National Authority point of view, there is also a need to involve more the Member States representatives in SOGS because of the very different situations some of them are faced with at national level. Support and involvement of the EAAB NA college should be improved in this regard.
For the Chair, a supervisory role is implied by the advisory role, EA being accountable to the EAAB while the Board, according to its terms of reference, remains independent of EA.
J.McM commented that Member States wanted the EC to do the supervision with regard to EA delivering in the bigger European picture.
L. Gourtsoyannis pointed out that for SMEs, the critical point is that EA should not only ensure quality of the accredited conformity assessment services but also accessibility and affordability of such services to the largest number of SMEs.
The statement raised a point and it was confirmed that flexibility is needed to meet the SME’s expectations. For G. Jacques, these are criteria to be defined by the accreditation community The Chair recognised that it is EA’s responsibility to ensure that accreditation and accredited conformity assessment services be delivered in an appropriate, proportionate way.
T. Inman also recognised there was an issue and supported to see greater industry involvement in the drafting process of accreditation guidance.
The Chair noted with appreciation the full support of the Board to the draft document on cooperation between EA and EC and EFTA.
He pointed out that there will be a role for SOGS in giving life to the cooperation and identified an issue in the absence of an official status for the SOGS.
J.McM responded that, in case formality was needed, which is not demonstrated as far as SOGS operations are concerned, the Committee established under Article 98/34 could be used. The regulators will be given a responsibility for accreditation in the future legislation. How this will develop in future should be looked at. There was a suggestion by the Commission in this regard to appoint a person in charge of coordination tasks at the National Authority level.
As a conclusion, the Chair underlined the positive steps taken by EA to prepare for its consolidated role, drawing the Members’ attention on the existence of sub-project 3 of the EA Development Project “Communications with the National Regulators” which is focusing on how to develop, maintain and improve relations between national authorities and their national accreditation bodies. He pointed out that, for the EAAB, creating the conditions for a permanent, open and transparent dialogue between EA, the EA members and the regulators at European level and with the national authorities is a fundamental basis for successful cooperation. He paid tribute to the efforts made by EA and EC in this direction.
The Chair finally indicated that the Board would appreciate to be kept informed of progress made in the further development of cooperation and of the implementation of the proposals put forward.
6.Strategic issues
6.1EA Development Plan
6.1.1 Report of the project teams on the implementation of major strategic issues
L. Thione briefly reviewed the progress report he prepared, that was distributed with the papers for the meeting.
The Chair thanked LT for his presentation and invited the Board to consider the state of play on the work underway in the 3 Project Teams set up in Sofia with the task of putting forward proposals for the implementation of the major strategic issues on the basis of the existing draft Development Plan. The Chair added that additional information was still needed for the EAAB to input in a constructive way. Background data and justification information should be provided for the Board to be able to consider the various proposals in an effective way.
He then invited comments from the participants, for each project.
- Project team 1 “Review of the general structure of EA”
For the Industry college, it will have to be outlined in detail in the Articles that the members of the future Board will receive delegated powers from the GA. Besides, the differences between the current Executive Committee and foreseen Board should be made clearer.
LT indicated that at present the Executive is made up of the Chairs of the EA Committees, Chair and Vice Chair of EA and observers. The proposal is a change to have a Board of Directors with demonstrated specific technical and management background. The current technical committees would be replaced by one single horizontal committee, the current MLA Committee and Communications and Publications Committee would remain basically with the same remit. LT underlined that the objective is to increase efficiency in the decision-making and implementation processes.
The National Authority college found it difficult to comments on the proposal by Project Team 1 who is focusing on the internal operations of EA that are not for the EAAB to decide on.
For the college, EA shall organise itself in order to serve the European economical and social system and all the interested parties at best.
For the Conformity Assessment Body college, EA will have to demonstrate that the future technical auditing committee has the resources needed for its peer evaluation activities.
G. Jacques raised also the point of stakeholder involvement in GA meetings according to the proposed changes in format.
- Project team 2 “Strengthening the EA Secretariat and related issues”
The Board appreciated that figures have been provided to justify the proposals by the Team.
An analysis of the future tasks remains to be done and provided to the Board. It is not very clearly outlined in the paper from the Team where and how the new tasks arising from the new role would be carried out. LT commented that reinforcing the Secretariat may be achieved in two ways: either by hiring an external person such as a secretary general or equivalent, or by upgrading the existing team, with additional operational support.
As for the organisational changes, the Board generally considered that it was for the members of EA to decide on what they think is the most efficient way of managing EA as along as EA is able to cope with its new role and the future tasks as foreseen in the future legislation.
- Project team 3 “Needs and ways of financing EA”
G. Jacques indicated that, based on feedback received in IQNet, paying for the evaluators’ services is a good approach.
G. Talbot explained that paying evaluators as proposed by the Team shall be understood as compensating for the ABs providing the evaluators, keeping in mind that EA ABs have an obligation to provide evaluators according to the EA rules. He added that the issue of using professional evaluators continues to be considered.