EA/GA(10)M25_ REV00
Draft Minutes of the 25th Meeting of the EA General Assembly
20-21 May 2010, Renaissance Zürich Hotel, Zürich, Switzerland
Apologies had been received from EEPCA and LNCSM. The lists of participants in the first and second meeting days are published on the relevant EA intranet page.
1.Opening of the meeting - Welcome from the host - Introduction of members and guests
H.P.Ischi(HPI), as the Director of the Swiss Accreditation Body, SAS, explainedthepractical arrangements for the meeting and dinner. He then introduced Mr.Zimmermann, a representative from the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs in charge of accreditation issues,whomade a welcome speech.
The EA Chair, Graham Talbot, thanked Mr.Zimmermann for his very kind words relating to accreditation and EA. He then warmly welcomed the delegates to the 25th General Assembly of EA, thanking HPI and his team for the hard work in preparing the meetings.
The Chair addressed a special welcome to the delegates from contract of cooperation signatories and to representatives of stakeholders.He extended his special welcome to A.Brewka(AB) from the European Commission(EC), T.N.Thomassen (TNT) from the EFTA, R.Robinson representing APLAC, H.Liauw (HL) from CEN, G.Jacques (GJ), the Chair of the EAAdvisory Board, and I.Martinezfrom IAAC.
The Chair invited the attendance to a roll call.
2.Approval of agenda
The agenda was approved with these two modifications:
-an additional item was inserted, i.e.Item 6.3.3 “Feedback from the SOGS meeting on 17 May 2010”;
-Item 12 “Co-operation with stakeholder organisations” was split into two sessions:the first session would take place after the afternoon break of the first meeting day and the second one in the morning of the second meeting day (CEN, CEOC International and Business Europe).
3.Review and approval of the minutes of the 24th meeting of the General Assembly held in Bruges
The Chair reported that he had been invited to introduce a change intoItem 5.4.2 of the minutes.For clarity reasons, it was agreed to add the following proposed clause under the penultimate paragraph, as it reflects, in any way, the way the EA Executive Committee is operating:
“It was decided that Contracts of Cooperation will not be transferred to Associate Members prior to the clarification of the additional requirements for such a transfer”.
Because no other changes were requested, the minutes were approved with the only amendment presented earlier.
4.Chairman’s communications
The Chair presented his report.He reported that alot is being done and EA is performing very well. He wouldpick up and highlight specific points on major items during the meeting.
The presentation is published on the intranet subsection for the meeting.
5.Operational issues
5.1Ratification of ballots
There were neither objections, nor queries about how the ballots had been conducted. The results were ratified.
5.2Revision of the Articles of Association and Rules of Procedure
The Chair recalled that it had been agreed in Brugesto continue the revision of bothdocuments in two stages: Stage1 consists of revising the new membership criteria and in aligning documents with Regulation (EC) 765/2008; Stage 2 consists in accommodating all comments raised by the Dutch Notary and in clarifying criteria for associate membership.
Stage1 had been completed shortly after the last GA. The Chair thanked J.van der Poel(JvdP) for his help in ensuring that the AoA complied with the applicable Dutch law in due time before 1 January 2010.
For Stage2, an Executive Committee TFG has been set up and is still progressing the work. The question is still to decide how to reference the EAAdvisory Board in the Articles.Legal matters should also be checked with regard to how votes are counted, how blank and abstentions are treated.It was agreed that the Articles should be made fully aligned with the FPA before the final legal check.The final draft should be ready for the November 2010 meeting of the General Assembly.
For M.Stadler (MS), the Vice-Chair of the EA Advisory Board, the positioning of the EAAB is a substantial issue. He asked EA to send a targeted note to the EAAB before the Board’snext meeting in November to clarify current discussions within EA in order to allow proper contribution from the EAAB.The Chair committed himself to provide the EA Advisory Board with the mature draft as soon as available. He confirmed that EA is very happy to refer to the EAAB− though the level of details is still to be settled − and to interact with the EAAB on that issue.
Action GT to the EAAB
5.3Decisions on membership status
The Chair informed that, following the changes in the Articles and the introduction of Regulation765, EA has had confirmation from the EC that the latter received confirmation that 26 out of 27 EU Member States have appointed their NAB. Within the EFTA, information was received that one out of 3 EFTA Member States has not been appointed. The exceptions are PCA for EU and NA for EFTA.
EA was informed that Poland has sent the notification to the EC, but unfortunately DG Enterprise has not received the letter yet. This notificationshould be received in the next two days. If such was not the case,a decision would have to be made by the end of the GA meeting.
The Chair reported that inItaly, ACCREDIA has been appointed as the NAB. SinceCOPA is still a member of EA, he asserted that there is a clear need to consider, first,to adopt a resolution that COPA’s membership should be terminated and, second, to propose and approve a resolution extending membership of PCA and NA until the next General Assembly meeting in November 2010.He added that EA has received a letter from the Ministry in Norwaystating very clearly that NA will be appointed.
TNT explained that Regulation765 has not yet been included into the EEA agreement. Authorities in the EFTA countries should notify to the EFTA the appointment of their NAB when the new Regulation is in the EEA agreement. Concerning Norway, it is because Regulation 765 does not yet directly apply to the EFTA that the decision must go through the Norwegian Parliament.
The Chair thanked TNT for his clarification.
No objection was raised.
5.4Policy for EA meetings
The Chair reported on the background of the issue. Because EA membership is increasing, there aresome real concerns aboutthe organisation of EA meetings. The Executive Committee has drafted a proposal and submitted it to the EAAdvisory Board, which concurred to it.
Basically, the proposal consists in restrictingthe location of EA meetings to EA full members’ economies. The detailed reasons are laid out in the paper distributed. The main objective is to avoid putting pressure on stakeholders to travel outside of Europe. Another objective is to reduce travel time and costs.
After calling for comments, the Chair answered B.Riviera (BR) that the Secretariat has been investigating the possibility to hold meetings in a central unique location. He confirmed that, thoughno policy is yet available, the point is still being looked at.The Executive Committee does not want to prevent an EA AB from hosting an EA meeting, but the unique-location option will have to be further investigated when, occasionally, there is no offer to host a meeting.
Regarding the cost-related issue, the Chair reported that strong concerns have been raised about the level and transparency of meetings’ costs.Within the EAAdvisory Board notably, a concern has been raised by stakeholders about the need that, if they are asked to contribute, it must be in a transparent and equitable way. In the light of this concern, the Executive Committee developed a policy for a registration fee: the proposal, which has been agreed toby the EAAdvisory Board, is that when the host cannot cover the full cost of the meeting, a registration fee process to be managed by the host will be set up. The objective is not to try and put pressure on hosts;it will remain up to each of them to decide on how to manage the fee.If it is agreed, the Executive Committee will develop the proposal further and submit a more detailed policy to the General Assembly for approval in November.
The proposal did not give rise to any comment or objection.
C.Boffa (CB)asked for some guidance for arranging EA meetings, setting out the details of facilities and arrangements needed as well as the recommended level of registration fees. The Chair confirmed that such guidance is part of the work intended to be developed and will be presented as well to the General Assembly in November.
Action Secretariat
6.Strategic and policy issues
6.1EA’s relations with the European Commission and EFTA
6.1.1Framework Partnership Agreement
The Chair reported that, at the moment, EA has not yet signed the FPA orreceived a latest draft of it to be considered by EA. He invited A.Brewka (AB) to give an update.
AB reported that, at the last EAAB meeting, she had announced that a new draft would be soon forwarded to EA for consideration. The major part of the FPA is agreed within the EC. However there is still a key clause regarding the role of EA ABs to be set out and agreed by the EC. She pointed out that since a deadline is fixed for the operating grant to be signed before 1 July 2010, the FPA will have to be signed as well to allow EA to receive at least part of the financing.
The Chair made clear the relationships between EA and the EA ABs. From a strict legal point of view, EA is composed ofits 3 staff members; EA members are not strictly part of EA. Some difficulties in the pastfew months related to how the allocated funds can be passed on to the contributing ABs. Otherwise, the only work that EA is doing on its own is the work by its Secretariat. This proves the most critical issue that the EC has been trying to resolve.
The Chair thanked AB for providing details of the 1stJuly deadline.Depending on the final draft, EA may have to consult with the EA ABs before being able to sign, and that may not be possible before 1 July 2010. Moreover, the Executive Committee has not been given a non limited mandate in that respect. The Chair went on: EA may be unable physically to do all of the work that was planned, and unable to use all of the money, all the more since it appearsnot possible to recover costs in retrospect.
The Chair suggested that, when the new FPA is ready and EA knows when it is to be signed, the Executive Committee will review the budget and forecast for the year in order to clarify how the two interlink. It may happen that a substantial reforecast will have to be done, based on identified eligible costs. A small ad hoc TFG of the Executive Committeewill look at the draft and all EA members will be kept informed as soon as possible. The Chair asked for indication from the General Assembly as to whether the Executive Committee can be authorized to sign the FPA without a full consultation of EA members.
T. Hauge supported to extend thismandate to the Executive Committee, which he judged to be fully competent to evaluate the differences.
V.Andersen (VA) emphasised that the last version of the FPA created obligations from EA on its members. A contract was contemplated and therefore EA members must be consulted.
B.Godec (BG) asked what would happen if the FPA was not signed. AB replied that if the FPA is not signed, not only no money will be given to EA, but a legal problem will also ariseas the FPA will formalize the recognition of EA against Regulation765.She insisted that the FPA is neededfor the Regulation to be fully enforced.
It was suggested that, if the new draft introduces direct requirements on EA ABs, the Executive Committee should list these requirements and provide EA ABs with a recommendation and consequences of requirements whenthe FPA is signed. Indeed the FPA may require that a contract is signed by the EA ABs to allow ABs to be eligible to recover money through the FPA.
The Chair confirmed that gettingthe agreement of the EA ABs is necessary if there are requirements on them. But their agreement should be kept distinct from that of EA overall in order for EA to be able to sign the FPA.
Conclusion
The Chair proposed that the Executive Committee reviews the next draft. It will have to take a judgment on whether EA can progress directly in case it is very similar to the previous draft. If not similar, the Executive Committee will come back to the EA membership with a summary of key areas and impact on relations between EA and EA ABs in order to ask for support.
The General Assembly supported the proposalconfirmed by EA Resolution 2010(25)06.
Action Executive Committee
6.1.2EA Work Programme 2011
The Chair reviewed the proposed process and timeframe for 2011.
He explained that EA is now asked to provide the EC with its annual work programme for the following year by 30 September.He proposed that in its mid-year meeting, the General Assembly discusses a general outline and authorizes the Executive Committee to put together the WP for the EC.
Concretely, the Executive Committeewill consider the draft Work Programme 2011 at its meeting in September and send the final proposal by due date. The WP will be submitted to the General Assembly in November for final endorsement.
Neither objectionsnor commentswere made.
It was stressed that although EA submitted its WP for 2010, EA did not have any detailed discussion with the EC about the proposal. Therefore, the WP 2011 will be developed along the same lines as in 2009 for 2010.
Action Executive Committee
6.2EA Development Plan for the years 2010-2013
6.2.1Development of a vision for EA and the EA Secretariat
The Chair reported that there is a need to adopt a longer view for the Secretariat after EA’s decision to employ its 3 staff members, namely to fit this decision in with a long term vision of EA. At the moment, the Executive Committee has held a strategy session in January with a full day of looking ahead, doing several analyses, discussingwhere EA should be located in the future, positioning EA in Europe and globally. The Executive Committee has still further work to do before a mature document can be distributed for further discussion. A number of working papers are presently available and it is expected to circulate one document in late summer. The objective is to submit a final document to the General Assembly for endorsement in November.
The Chair stated that the issue is still at a stage of progress.
No comment was raised.
The Chair added that, in Bruges, the General Assemblyhad been informed that the Executive Committee recognized that the central Secretariat in Parisis overloaded: the current 3-person team has to support not only all EA Committees, but also the administration of EA as an association and entity operating in Paris.A good system for time recording is now in place.The General Assemblypreviously agreed to reinforce the Secretariat within the budget limits.
The Chair reported that, in the light of the above, the Executive Committee investigated the possibility for additional staff and decided to recruit a person on a limited duration working contract, starting as soon as possible for the second half of the year, and based in Paris. The development of the Secretariat will be tied in with the longer term document that will be presented to the General Assembly in November.
6.2.2Proposal for the recognition of non EU/EFTA ABs meeting the requirements of Regulation 765/2008
The Chair recalled that the issue had been initially discussed as a proposal in Brugeswithoutresulting in a definite outcome, based upon the request from ABs outside of the European area for some form of recognition that they might fulfil requirements of Regulation 765. The Executive Committeehad agreed the terms of reference of the TFG led by I.Pina and an initial report had been circulated to the members.
The objective is now to seek input on the document, initial thoughts, reactions or views so that the TFG can take those views and incorporate them into a further draft to be circulated for comments.
The issue had also been discussed in the Executive Committee which acknowledged that there is some overlap with different activities. In addition to the specific TFG for the recognition of ABs saying they meet the same requirements of Regulation765, the Multilateral Agreement Council is considering criteria for EA members in terms of evaluation, in order to make sure that EA ABs meet Regulation765 requirements. The MAC is also looking at criteria for associate memberswishingto have a bilateral agreement with the EA MLA.
The Chair called for comments.
G.H.Schaub (GHS) said that there is no need for such a recognition with the ILAC and IAFarrangements. For him, there would be a risk to undermine the system by creating “first-” and “second-“class ABs and it would create legal implications. However, should the GA decide to progress the work, it should be clarified: 1)which requirements of Regulation 765/2008 are covered by the “recognition”; and 2)which form the “recognition” will have.
H.E.Holmqvist (HEH) argued that most EA ABs are signatories of the ILAC and IAF arrangementsand, as such, recognise the resultsissued by other signatories. But EA ABs do not grant the results. EA cannot extend its MLA beyondRegulation765; it is up to the EC or the MemberStatesto consider an extended recognition through distinct trade agreements. There is a need to explainthe issue to the authorities in order to help them to take a decision. HEH suggested to set up,together with the EC, a mechanism for handling complaints by non-European ABs about the acceptance or non-acceptance by the EU Member States of the results not issued under relevant EA accreditation.