3RD MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CERT, WORKING PARTIES AND THE IEA SECRETARIAT (‘RfE working group’)
TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION
19NOVEMBER, 18h00 – 20h30
NOTES FROM THE DISCUSSION
Participants:
- CERT cabinet: Alicia Mignone, Chair;Robert Marlay and Lars Guldebrand, Vice-Chairs
- CERT Delegate: Avi Goldstein
- EUWP: Gudrun Maas, Chair
- REWP: Georgina Grenon, Vice-Chair (France)
- IEA Secretariat: Ingrid Barnsley, Rachael Boyd, Rachael Briggs, Jean-François Gagné, Carrie Pottinger, Diana Louis
Unable to attend:
- WPFF: Hubert Hoewener, Vice-Chair (Germany), Keith Burnard (WPFF Secretariat)
- EUWP: Nils-Olof Nylund (comments to Gudrun Maass), Emer Dennehy (EUWP Secretariat)
- REWP: Andreas Indinger (comments provided to Georgina Grenon)
- FPCC: Carrie Pottinger, FPCC Secretary, provided comments on behalf of the FPCC
Welcome and Introduction
Alicia Mignone, CERT Chair, welcomed participants and provided the rationale for the meeting, namely to discuss the proposed working party (WP) two-pagers (short, interim, or ongoing, reports on recent developments and upcoming activities) and the revisions to the proposed RfE questionnaire and Powerpoint template (to be used for the end-of-term evaluation), and the proposed revisions to the CERT review process.[1]
Mechanism for interim, progress reporting: proposed common “two-pager”
Georgina Grenon, in consultation with the REWP cabinet, has prepared a proposed two-pager combining the elements of the previous draft REWP and EUWP two-pagers.
Ms. Grenon outlined the features of the proposed, combined EUWP/REWP two-pager. The joint proposal combines the strategic information from the first draft of the REWP form (new page 1) and the information from the EUWP formthat is designed to monitor the day to day work of IAs(new page 2). The information from both draft forms was maintained but the format was changed. A third page was added for IAs to list annexes. Following is a summary of the discussion.
Participants discussed the goal of the interim reports. A standardised two-pager encourage IAs to provide succinct information, provides an overview for the WPs, and enables comparison across (and between IAs). The propose two-pager would not be intended to replace the annual reports IAs currently prepared for IAs’ constituents or their other means of sharing information.
However, the information requestedin the two-page reports may vary depending on the WP. While adopting the joint proposed two-pager for all WPs would enable comparison across IAs, participants preferred an approach where each WP would choose the two-page format that suited their needs. For example, the EUWP found the information collected through their two-pager to be useful as it provided early warnings of potential issues (ongoing monitoring).
Participants also discussed the relevance of requesting policy-relevant information. For some IAs (and the WPs to which they report) this information is indeed relevant (REWP) while for many IAs reporting to the EUWP, FPCC, or WPFF policy considerations could be beyond their scope or capacity. However, these IAs could be encouraged to do so.
Participants agreed that a two-pagerwould reduce the IA’s administrative burden with annual reports. Through discussions in the REWP at the September 2014 meeting (with seven IAs in attendance) and an earlier version of the EUWP, the two-pager format was well received.Participants agreed that the information collected in annual two-pager reports was an effort to synthesise information that could be made available to wider audiences, including other WPs, the CERT, SLT or other audiences.
Finally the CERT Chair summarised the discussion by stating that each WP will have the flexibility to use the two-pager format and information that is most relevant to their respective IAs. The EUWP and REWP have agreed on their respective formats. [Additional note from the Secretariat: IA reports to WPs – and subsequently the two-pagers - are now posted on the new IA-members only website, the IA Forum].
Remaining issues
The timeline for WP review and approval of the proposed two-pagers was not discussed. The EUWP and REWP expressed interest in implementing their respective two-pagers as soon as possible.
Revisions to the proposed RfE questionnaire and Powerpoint template
The Secretariat highlighted revisions to the proposed RfE questionnaire and the proposed Powerpoint template.
Ms. Barnsley introduced the item by stating that the request to the CERT to further improve IA oversight mechanisms in particular the RfE process stems from a GB request of October 2013, this request was in no way expressed as a position of concern. GB Delegate comments were positive and there was no suggestion of a problem with the existing process. Agree the system is working fairly well. This information should be conveyed to WPs and IAs we present it in a positive light. With this in mind, the goals as stated are to ensure accountability and second to reduce administration burden and to maximise the usefulness of information.
Since the GB request, the CERT’s response was discussed four times in CERT, twice in this group before today as well as in broad terms in some of the WPsfrom June-September 2014. At the 16October ‘working group’ meeting the Secretariat presented a proposal to merge the current ‘Supporting Documents’ (Criteria, End-of-Term Report, and Strategic Plan) into one questionnaire (to be filled in online) in order to improve accountability and transparency and to reduce the administrative burden. Ms. Pottinger then walked participations through the proposed questionnaire, highlighting the revisions made following requests at the 2nd ‘working group’ meeting held 16October. Following is a summary of the discussion.
The WP evaluation and recommendation sheet was found to be useful.
The questionnaire format was found to be practical (easy to compile and compare past and current terms) and reduced the length of the documents.
The CERT Criteria main categories were not changed since the 2010 requirements. The new Criteria sub-category on Outcomes was highlighted. The qualitative questions in each of the sub-categories were significantly revised to elicit descriptive responses to the substantive questions. A new question under each sub-category allowed for IAs to provide additional information not covered in the questions. Two participants found that there were too many qualitative questions and that some of them were redundant, while others could pose a problem for IAs to understand.
Regarding the qualitative questions relative to the future term (strategic plan)some IAs may prefer to also prepare a separate strategic visionwhich has shown to be a useful exercise. There was also some discussion about the link between the strategic plans of the WPs and the CERT.
The quantitative information requested was generally supported. However, participants queried the sensitivity of collecting the detailed information on IA budgets and the ultimate usefulness of such information.
The template for the RfE Powerpoint presentation was not discussed.
Remaining issues
Two front pages will be added to the proposed RfE questionnaire – one that introduces the rationale for the review and another that explains the elements of the questionnaire.The Secretariat will review the qualitative questions.
Proposed revisions to the CERT review process
The Secretariat will present proposed revisions to the CERT review process (page 2 of the current CERT requirements).
Ms. Boyd explained the rationale for the proposed revisions, namely to review the process document in order to reflect accurately the steps. She asked participants for feedback in order to clarify the process. Participants briefly discussed whether the document should also include details on the process in the event a WP rendered an unfavourable recommendation, the possible outcomes, and how to help IAs address any insufficiencies. Due to the lack of time discussion of the review process was not discussed further.
Remaining issues
The proposed revisions to the CERT Review Process will be distributed to WPs together with the RfE questionnaire.
Open discussion
In parallel to the RfE improvements, there was some discussion on how to encourage dialogue with IAs (WPs) and to remain advised of their progress (CERT). The Based on that, how the CERT can better engage, part of this reform process is to make the information more transparent but from my conversations with IAs there is a search for a more bilateral communication with CERT and engagement.
Wrap up and proposed next steps
Participants agreed that the timeline as presented to the CERT 18-19 November remains unchanged. [Note from the Secretariat following the meeting: two revisions to the timeline have been made: a deadline for written comments from WPs on 1 April.]
Timeline for proposed improvements to the IA RfE process2014
Dec 2014 to
Mar 2015 / WPs review the draft Proposal during regular meetings
2015
17-19 Feb / Oral interim report to the CERT
1 March / Further comments from the CERT
1 April / Deadline for written comments from WPs
8-9 June / Final report to the CERT
10-11 June / Oral report to the Governing Board (for information only not for approval)
1 July / CERT Chair to notify all WPs and IAs of revised requirements
1 October / Webinar (explanatory session) for WPs and IAs
2016
1 January / Revised RfE requirements applicable
2017
1 January / Revised RfE requirements required of all IAs
[1] The following supporting documents were made available to participants: the proposed common Working Party two-pager; the proposed RfE questionnaire; the proposed RfE powerpoint template; the proposed revisions to the CERT review process; and the 2010 CERT requirements for RfE.