EL_04_02_09_074
Draft minutes of the 21st meeting of the EA Advisory Board
held on 30 October 2008
in Brussels at EFTA offices 12-16 Rue Joseph II
Participants:
H.Egolf (CEOC International), T.Inman (EFAC), N.Kleinjan (EEPCA), L.Pendrill (EURAMET), G.Jacques (EUROLAB), M.Stadler (BUSINESSEUROPE/ORGALIME), K.Stochholm (BUSINESSEUROPE/ORGALIME), S.Toffaletti (NORMAPME), K. Michaelsen (NA, Denmark), JM Le Parco (NA, France), I.Ruthemeier (NA Germany), A.Safarik-Pstrosz (NA Czech Republic), P.Vrtacnik (NA Slovenia), A.Brewka (EC), J.McMillan (EC), T.N.Thomassen (EFTA), I.Jachwitz (CEN/CENELEC/ETSI), L.Thione (EA Chair), G.Talbot (EA Vice Chair), F.Laudinet (EA Secretariat), M.Blum (EA Secretary).
1. Opening of the meeting and 2. Introduction of members and guests
The Chair welcomed the representatives of the EA Executive Committee, the MAC Chair and T. Facklam, the IAF Chair and co-convenor of Sub-project 5 of the EA Development Project. He expressed an additional special welcome to L. Pendrill who represented EURAMET as Chairman elect of EURAMET, M.Kuehne, the out going Chair of EURAMET having apologized for not being able to attend the meeting.
After thanking EFTA for having arranged the meeting, the Chair also welcomed Frédérique Laudinet who, among other tasks and responsibilities, joined the EA Secretariat to reinforce secretariat support to the EAAB.
Then he informed the participants that, at future Board meetings, ANEC (Consumers) would be represented alternatively by Benedicte Federspiel or Stephen Russell.
3. Approval of draft agenda
The Chair reviewed the proposed agenda.
H. Egolf (HE) raised substantial concerns about the very late distribution of papers, which prevented appropriate consultation within CEOC. He pointed out that such an unsatisfactory situation may lead to the wrong impression that opinions expressed at meetings reflect stakeholders’ views. The problem was such that his attendance of the meeting was questioned within CEOC.
Taking note of the concern, G. Talbot (GT) confirmed that EA is aware of the difficulties caused. GT felt the need to be clearer in the future about which items to include in the draft agenda. It might be preferable to indicate only those items for which there would be a document available in time, to be agreed by the Board, and to stop circulating any other documents, or to circulate them for information only or for discussion at a later stage. However, GT asked the Board to bear in mind that things are moving very quickly in EA at the moment: there is a clear necessity to be reactive and to find an appropriate balance between the need to address issues and the need for members to receive documents in due time. Directions are needed and it is for the EAAB to decide.
The Chair agreed with the NA college’s proposal to add an item related to the preparation of the next EAAB meeting under “Any other business”. He stated that it would be a pity if the EAAB turned out to be able to discuss only those issues for which papers could be made available in time. This may well lead stakeholders also to express dissatisfaction with EA and the EAAB…
A compromise would consist in reducing the time period for circulating documents from 5 to 3 weeks; only those documents having been distributed until 3 weeks before a meeting could be tabled for discussion, whereas the others would be circulated for information.
For J.McMillan (J.McM), EAAB agendas are very long and include too many technical issues. It would be better to concentrate on topics for discussion and separate out other items. Furthermore, J.McM supported that the EAAB should be more rigorous in its role. The Board should avoid looking at technical documents and getting involved too closely in the document development process, being asked to give a green light at every stage when there are other effective processes for that.
The EAAB should concentrate on more general issues.
Concerning the drafting of meeting agendas, the Chair considered that the key topics for discussion should be accompanied by supportive documents within the suggested 3 week time period, whereas the issues for information could be documented later until shortly before the meetings.
He insisted that in any case the EAAB should be ready in time for the entry into force of the Regulation. The major part of technical issues has been well addressed within the EAAB as a special challenge for the current period of the EAAB. The latter being now completed, it is time to redirect and re-focus the EAAB role.
The Chair welcomed the suggestion made by the EC to restructure the EAAB agendas and focus on political issues for discussion. The suggestion will be further discussed with EA.
I.Jachwitz (IJ) referred to a paper by a Task Force of the EAAB convened by the former EAAB Chair, M.Hynd, putting forward proposals for the Board to be more efficient. These proposals would help if the EAAB could come back and implement what was approved already in the past.
G.Jacques (GJ) confirmed that the CAB College considered not to attend a meeting unless documents are distributed in due time. He supported the proposal to separate out those issues that do not need an extensive discussion within the EAAB, and insisted that key papers should be made available in time for a constructive discussion to happen. Late distribution is preventing a useful debate and work of the EAAB.
Conclusions and decisions:
The Board reiterated the request to EA to increase its efforts in circulating the documents foreseen for discussion at Board meetings in due time as late delivery of key documents risks undermining the credibility of the consultation process to be carried out by the colleges.
The Board agreed that, as a general rule, papers supporting topics tabled for discussion should be circulated 3 weeks before meetings take place, at the latest. Documents supporting agenda items foreseen for information only may be made available at any time before the meetings.
In view of the need to increase the efficiency of meetings and to underpin the role of the Board as a political advisory body, the Board considered it necessary to restructure the agendas of future meetings, concentrating on the topics foreseen for discussion and separating out those documents that are intended to support discussions by the Board from those that are distributed for information only.
Action Secretariat: to revise ROP
While acknowledging the commitment by EA to strengthen its efforts in managing the EAAB more efficiently and improve the administrative support provided to the Board, the latter pointed to the strategic importance for EA to deal with the issue of stakeholders’ involvement, and drew EA’s attention to the need for avoiding any possible negative reaction on the part of stakeholders in this area.
The EA Chair reiterated that EA is fully aware of the problem and the difficulties it creates. He also insisted that EA is undertaking a number of improvements to consolidate stakeholders’ input into EA’s work, which is likely to be growing and become more and more critical for EA due to the increasing number of issues for which feedback will have to be taken into account.
4. Approval of the minutes of the last meeting and matters arising not covered elsewhere
The minutes of the last meeting were approved, unchanged.
The Chair reviewed the actions list.
5. Key topic for discussion: Involvement of stakeholders within EA (follow-up)
5.1 EA policy for relations with stakeholders
For the Chair, it is necessary for the EAAB at this point of time to agree on how to implement the requirements of the Regulation. Progress are to be made to be able to start more political discussion at the next meeting.
At its April 2008 meeting, the Board concluded and agreed, with regard to the relevant requirements, that EA should develop a consistent policy for its relations with stakeholders which should take into account the various stakeholder categories and ensure their appropriate involvement within EA.
5.1.1 General policy document (revision) EAAB(08)22
The current version submitted to the Board for discussion should be considered a preliminary draft to be used for the EAAB input before a final version is consolidated and sent out for voting in EA based on the comments received.
The EA Chair reviewed the changes made in the draft. He insisted that changes reflect the great majority of comments, except for one suggesting that stakeholders should not get involved in technical activities, which was not retained.
The revised draft was discussed. There were other suggested changes introduced into a new draft circulated to the GA for its meeting in November 2008.
Several concerns were raised by the Board.
For J.McM, the colleges have members representing their respective constituency. The fact that the EAAB members have to represent their constituency does not mean that they are the only ones being able to get involved in EA’s activities. For example, it is not the only 4 Member States represented in the EAAB who can contribute on behalf of the Member States.
For the Chair, the objective of the proposed categorisation is to meet the need for EA to manage the various stakeholders insofar as they wish to participate in technical work. The problem lies with terminology.
In GT’s opinion, the problem arises from the inclusion of the EAAB into the policy. He suggested to delete paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 2. After explaining that the objective was to highlight the special role and capacity of the EAAB members regarding EA’s relations with stakeholders, the EA Chair agreed to delete the mention.
The EA Chair acknowledged the EAAB members’ wish to enjoy a special status in EA without the need to go through the process of a decision taken by the EA Executive. He agreed to take out the 2 above-mentioned paragraphs while adding that the EA Executive recognises that all of the members of the EAAB are EA Stakeholder members of right.
In JM Le Parco’s view, it would be really strange for NAs to have to apply and sign an agreement to become a EA Stakeholder Member or contribute to EA’s work.
For S.Ellison (SE), since representatives attending the EAAB are treated as Stakeholder members, as provided in the final section, they should be given the same rights and access rights to the work and documents.
GT voiced the necessity to differentiate among some stakeholder categories in order to be able to include as many stakeholders as possible, but in a manageable way. This categorization is a practical step forward to organise and manage the processes in an efficient way.
It was also supported that the process for application should be made as simple as possible to support and facilitate stakeholders’ contribution.
As far as the process is concerned, given the many requests from stakeholders, there is a need to have a process that does not take much time in practice. The EA Chair referred to page 4 of the policy which provides that contributions can be made at any time by simply applying to the committees without having necessarily to go through the stakeholder member application process. He added that a stakeholder member is a member of EA with all rights and conditions, whereas an observer is only invited to EA GAs. To contribute to the technical work, one should become a member and apply to the committees.
J.McM would like to avoid to define two level stakeholders making a difference between EA members and others, which would send the wrong message.
A.Safarik-Pstrosz (ASP) advocated to separate EA membership and membership in the EAAB according to the rights and obligations set in the ToR and RoP of the EAAB. This would be solved if those members that sit on the EAAB were treated as stakeholder members.
GT insisted that EA is trying to be as inclusive as possible. EA recognizes that there are many stakeholder organs in Europe, far beyond the ones being represented in the EAAB, all of them being EA stakeholders. Therefore it proves necessary to establish a mechanism through which stakeholders’ representatives can be heard within EA.
At the Board level, this is achieved through the colleges; at the EA level, every effort should be made to include to the extgent possible, and in a manageable way, 27 Member States, 30 ABs and the numerous stakeholders seating in GA meetings. The objective is to give some recognition to those having a particular interest in contributing in EA’s work, while keeping the whole manageable.
The Chair suggested to insert GT’s statement into the introductory section in order to emphasize the “inclusive” objective of the policy.
IJ said that, in the ESOs, there are online, internet based mechanisms to enable anybody to come forward with comments in the commenting process through ESO national members. These mechanisms could be taken as an example since they have been judged to be working satisfactorily.
In SE’s view, EA does need a category of contact and membership status for stakeholders, associated with specific rights and responsibilities. Hence there is a need to see to whom such rights and responsibilities are given, as well as a justification for a decision-making process by the EA Executive. Maybe this classification should not be created in such a policy document.
The Chair summarised the main points from the discussion that far:
The Board acknowledged the need for EA to distinguish between stakeholders having an interest in European accreditation as such and those stakeholders who wish to become more directly involved in EA’s associative life and who have a particular institutional interest in contributing to EA’s technical work and its activities without, however, meeting the criteria for becoming a full EA member.