RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
of 10 May 2012  
with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the 
implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010  
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  
— having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 
2010,  
— having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Environment 
Agency for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency’s replies (  1 ), 
— having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),  
— having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  
— having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (  2 ), and in particular 
Article 185 thereof,  
— having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the 
European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation 
Network (  3 ), and in particular Article 13 thereof,  
— having regard to Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information 
and Observation Network (  4 ), and in particular Article 13 thereof,  
— having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the 
framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European 
Communities (  5 ), and in particular Article 94 thereof,  
— having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,  
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee 
on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0105/2012),  
A. whereas the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual 
accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and 
regular,  
B. whereas on 10 May 2011 Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Environment 
Agency discharge for implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2009 (  6 ), and in its 
Resolution accompanying the discharge, inter alia:EN L 286/358 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012  
( 1 ) OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 57.  
( 2 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.  
( 3 ) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1.  
( 4 ) OJ L 126, 21.5.2009, p. 13.  
( 5 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.  
( 6 ) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 155.
— encouraged the Agency to continue its efforts to further develop its communication methods in 
order to attract more media coverage for its findings, as such measures may lead to more transparent 
working methods and greater public interest in the Agency’s work,  
— was concerned about the Agency’s practice of making transfers to increase a budget line in order to 
pay rent for the Agency’s premises for the first quarter of 2010 and charge it to the 2009 budget, as 
this practice is at odds with the principle of annuality,  
— called on the Agency to address deficiencies in the recruitment procedures which put at risk the 
transparency of these procedures,  
C. whereas the budget of the Agency for the year 2010 was EUR 50 600 000, which is 26 % higher than 
in 2009; whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the Agency for 2010 was 
EUR 35 258 000, compared with EUR 34 560 000 in 2009 (  1 ), which represents an increase of 2 %,  
1. Postpones the discharge to the Agency and awaits substantial replies and actions on the critical remarks 
and requests made;  
Budget and Financial Management  
2. Notes that the Agency’s levels of budget execution in terms of committed appropriations and of 
payment appropriations were respectively of 100 % and of 90,75 %;  
3. Ascertains from the Agency’s Final Accounts that, for the financial year 2010, the total payments of the 
Agency represented EUR 38 898 533,88;  
4. Notes that, for five months, from 22 May 2010 to October 2010, the Agency covered its building with 
a green façade which cost EUR 294 641 and that the contract was realised by the companies Ramboll, 
as general contractor, and Green Fortune; is surprised that there has been no public tender; demands 
from the Agency’s Director details on how the companies were chosen as contractors; takes note from 
the Agency’s Director, in her letter of 11 April 2012, that these costs were covered by the budget lines 
‘2 1 4 0 — Fitting-out of premises’ (EUR 180 872) and ‘3 3 2 3 — Communications’ (EUR 113 769); 
underlines that the commitment appropriations under budget line 2 1 4 0 increased from EUR 85 000 
to EUR 271 049 against the opinion of the Agency’s Head of Administration; notes that also in May 
2010 the Head of Administration entered into sick leave and since then the position is occupied by an 
interim Head; notes from the Director’s letter of 30 April 2012 that budget line 2 1 4 0 has been 
reinforced by a budget transfer of EUR 180 872 from the budget line ‘2 1 0 0 — Rent’; recalls that in 
December 2009 the Agency paid the rent for Q1 2010, thus avoiding reducing the amount to be 
repaid to the Commission; therefore calls on the Agency to explain the discharge authority why it has 
extracted EUR 180 872 from the budget line ‘Rent’, while rent is a fixed sum by contract, and to 
provide information and written evidence on the procedures with regards to the budgetary transfers; 
expects the Agency to complete all the requested actions by the end of August 2012;  
5. Notes that in December 2011 the Agency awarded a Framework Service Contract for the provision of 
media monitoring for 48 months, for a total value of EUR 250 000, which is much higher than the 
costs of similar services in the previous years; observes that based upon this contract the Agency will 
spend on average EUR 62 500 per year for media monitoring and believes that these costs are excessive 
and contrary to the principle of efficient use of the taxpayers’ money;  
Carryover appropriations  
6. Takes note from the Agency’s Final Accounts that EUR 12 809 551,05 of the 2010 appropriations 
have been carried forward to 2011; acknowledges that out of the overall amount carried over 
EUR 8 941 279 are external assigned revenues which are multiannual and hence are not subject of 
the principle of annuality;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/359  
( 1 ) OJ L 64, 12.3.2010, p. 677.
7. Notes from the Agency’s Final Accounts that cancellation of unused payment appropriations carried 
over from the previous year amounted to EUR 585 282,87; understands from the Agency that this 
amount is lower than the amount cancelled in 2009, i.e. EUR 693 127,02; notes, therefore, that a 
cancellation rate of only 1,5 % represents an improved anticipation of financial needs;  
8. Regrets that the Court of Auditors did not consider the level of the Agency’s appropriations carried 
forward and cancelled to be sufficiently high to warrant a mention in its report on the annual accounts 
of the Agency for the financial year 2010;  
Procurement Procedures  
9. Notes the statement from the Agency that the Court of Auditors has carried out in October 2011 an 
audit on the procurement procedures concerning canteen services, cleaning services, security services 
and furniture; calls on the Agency to provide the discharge authority with the findings of this audit and 
its replies and actions undertaken by the end of September 2012;  
10. Calls on the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to audit the Agency’s contracts in the area of canteen services, 
cleaning services, security services and furniture to establish whether the call preparation, publication, 
evaluation and contract management phases respect the two following principles: maximum 
competition and value-for-money, and to inform the discharge authority in due course of its findings;  
Human Resources  
11. Notes that the Agency has revised its recruitment processes in line with the remarks made by the 
discharge authority and Court of Auditors in order to address the weaknesses in relation to vacancy 
notices, to the documentation of the decision of the selection boards, to the thresholds for being invited 
to interview and to the minutes of the interviews;  
12. Acknowledges also from its Annual Management Plan that the Agency implemented the ‘EEA Personnel 
Policy’ which provides the basis for staff development;  
13. Was informed that 7 internal candidates and 40 external applicants were recruited in 2010; 
acknowledges the split amongst categories of internal candidates of 1 official, 5 temporary agents 
and 1 contract agent and the split amongst externally recruited staff of 1 official, 13 temporary 
agents, 29 contract agents and 4 national experts; takes note that, for the last five years, the Agency 
hosted 12 guest scientists working at its premises; for the sake of transparency, calls on the Agency to 
complete publishing the curriculum vitae — including at least the educational and work background — 
of the guest scientists, in order to increase transparency;  
Agency’s strategy for 2009-2013  
14. Welcomes the fact that the Agency staff and management activities, quality control processes, products 
and services, administrative and building services are brought together under the strategic area in the 
‘EEA Strategy 2009-2013’;  
15. Calls on the Agency to make a more explicit link between measures, resources and results;  
Conflict of interest  
16. Notes that, from June 2010 until April 2011, the Executive Director of the Agency was a trustee and a 
member of the International Advisory Board of Earthwatch — an international environmental charity 
engaging people in scientific field research and education — and was reported to be a member of the 
European Advisory Board of Worldwatch Europe; acknowledges that, in accordance with the Executive 
Director’s statement, she stepped down from her positions in Earthwatch in April 2011 following 
advice from the President of the Court of Auditors in the context of a possible conflict of interests;EN L 286/360 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
17. Is seriously concerned that in 2010, while the Executive Director was directly involved with Earthwatch, 
29 staff members of the Agency, including the Executive Director, went for up to 10 days of research 
on different biodiversity projects in the Caribbean or Mediterranean managed by Earthwatch and that 
the Agency paid a total of EUR 33 791,28, to the NGO as stated by the Agency’s Executive Director;  
18. Recognises the special training of staff as part of the career development and takes note of the total 
amount paid for that training;  
19. Is surprised that Worldwatch Institute Europe founded on 5 November 2010 indicated as its address 
that of the Agency and used its premises as its own without any rent to the Agency, thus using 
premises paid by the EU budget; regrets that the Director’s letter of 30 April 2012 refers only to 
Worldwatch Institute US based and not to the Worldwatch Institute Europe which used the Agency’s 
premises without any rent; takes further note that executive director of Worldwatch Institute Europe 
was an Agency’s guest scientist; calls on the Agency to provide the discharge authority with concrete 
details and documentary evidence on this matter, including the person in the Agency who authorised 
this, the concrete date when Worldwatch Institute Europe ceased to use the Agency’s premises, as well 
as whether the work performed by the respective guest scientist of the Agency was published under the 
Worldwatch Institute Europe name or that of the Agency by the end of August 2012;  
20. Commends the cooperation between the Agency and NGOs working in the environmental area, as it is 
the case with other specialised agencies, but recalls that even the mere appearance of conflict of interest 
is damaging trust in the institutions and raises concerns of taxpayers;  
21. Calls on the Agency, in an effort to promote greater transparency in terms of preventing and 
combating conflict of interests, to adopt immediately an action plan to publish on its website the 
declarations of interest and, when they are not available, the curriculum vitae — including at least the 
educational and work background — for the management staff, the members of the scientific 
committee, the experts and the members of the Management Board by 30 June 2012; is of the 
opinion that such measures would allow the discharge authority and the public to observe their 
qualifications and to prevent potential conflict of interest;  
Performance  
22. Notes the Agency’s initiative to provide, on a regular basis, an independent external evaluation on the 
basis of its founding Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 and the work programmes adopted by the 
Management Board; notes in particular that the next evaluation will be undertaken in 2012 and will 
focus on the efficiency and effectiveness in delivering its corporate strategy;  
23. Notes the Agency’s initiative to measure its performance through the environmental management and 
audit scheme (EMAS) and internal management systems using four inter-related perspectives — 
financial, client, business and learning and growth;  
24. Acknowledges from comments in the Agency’s Annual Management Plan, the Agency’s efforts with 
various international and Union bodies, Eionet and the Scientific Committee to establish a networking 
structure in order to be able to maintain links to the research and scientific community, disseminate 
and utilise the results, particularly information and data, from research activities at European and 
national levels, in a more systematic way;  
25. Notes, in addition, that following the request of the discharge authority for the 2009 discharge, in 
2011, the Agency increased its efforts to reach the wider public and initiated pilot projects by using 
social media as a means of communication directed to the public;EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/361
26. Calls on the Agency to inform in detail the budget authority, in particular the Budget Control Auth ­
ority, of:  
— the sources used by the Agency to construct its reports, papers and other related outputs,  
— the number of reports, and other products, delivered in 2010,  
— the evidence of the possible added value brought by the Agency’s reports compared with other 
bodies’ reports on environmental matters,  
— the process, if any, of verification of the data sent by the Member States, the periodicity of this 
verification and the way in which the data sent by Member States is used by the Agency;  
27. Is pleased that in 2010 the Agency placed extra emphasis on biodiversity, the Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security (GMES), the Eye on Earth platform and the State of the Environment report 
(SOER) 2010;  
28. Would like to encourage the Agency to continue its efforts to further develop its communication 
methods in order to attract more media coverage for its findings and thus feed public debate and 
broaden the scope of the environmental information available to the public on important environ ­
mental issues, such as climate change, biodiversity and the management of natural resources;  
Internal audit  
29. Acknowledges that in 2010 the IAS concluded an audit of the ‘management plan system (MPS)/moni ­
toring of activities’ whose objective was to assess and provide assurance on the adequacy of the 
planning and monitoring of the Agency’s activities; notes, in particular, that the IAS made eight 
recommendations, six of which were rated ‘important’ and two ‘desirable’;  
30. Calls in this respect on the Agency to:  
— promote guidelines for objectives and measurable indicators in project planning and monitoring of 
progress,  
— allocate costs on projects,  
— promote more effective project management and procedures for checking and verifying new data 
entered into the MPS;  
31. Calls, in addition, on the Agency to adopt without further delay measures to address the weaknesses 
found by the IAS in its previous audits on quality management and on grant management in order to:  
— develop and use QA/QC checklist for GHG Inventory Report,  
— plan, describe and document relevant quality checks,  
— assure supervision of quality controls,  
— anticipate business continuity issues,EN L 286/362 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
— realise on-the-spot controls and verification of grants,  
— monitor and follow-up grant implementation;  
32. Draws attention to its recommendations from previous discharge reports, as set out in the Annex to 
this Resolution;  
33. Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a 
horizontal nature, to its Resolution of 10 May 2012 (  1 ) on the performance, financial management and 
control of the agencies.EN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/363  
( 1 ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0164 (see page 388 of this Official Journal).
ANNEX  
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OVER PAST YEARS  
European Environment 
Agency  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Performance  n.a.  n.a.  — Calls on the Agency to set out a diachronic 
analysis of operations carried out in this and 
the previous years 
— Calls on the Agency to continue providing 
every five years an independent external 
evaluation on the basis of its founding 
regulation and the work programmes adopted 
by the Management Board 
— Positive trends: the Agency has built up a well- 
developed activity-based management system, a 
multiannual work programme, a balanced 
scorecard with indicators, and a integrated 
management control system  — Calls on the Agency to set out a comparison of 
the operations that were carried out during the 
year for which the discharge is to be granted and 
during the previous financial year 
— Calls on the Agency to deal with 4 key areas as 
a matter of priority and to do more to advance 
their development 
— Encourages the Agency to continue its efforts to 
further develop its communication methods in 
order to attract more media coverage for its 
findings, such measures may lead to more 
transparent working methods and greater public 
interest in the Agency’s work 
— Requests the Court of Auditors to undertake 
performance audits of the Agency  
Budgetary and Financial 
Management  The budgetary principle of 
annuality was not strictly applied: 
more than 30 % of the 
commitments and 50 % for the 
operational expenditure had to be 
carried forward  — Weaknesses in the tendering 
procedures: direct award of 
services without respecting the 
requirements of the Financial 
Regulation, award of a specific 
contract for services not in line 
with the framework contract 
terms 
— Weaknesses in the management 
of grant agreements (European 
Topic Centre)  n.a. — Encourages the Agency to strengthen the link 
between the budget and the work programme 
— Is concerned about the Agency’s practice of 
making transfers to increase a budget line in 
order to pay the rent for the Agency’s premises 
for the first quarter of 2010 and charge it to the 
2009 budget, as this practice is at odds with the 
principle of annuality 
— Calls on the Agency to improve the accuracy of 
the information provided by the operational 
departments on the estimation of accrued 
operational expenditureEN L 286/364 Official Journal of the European Union 17.10.2012
European Environment 
Agency  2006  2007  2008  2009  
Human Resources  n.a.  Weaknesses in the recruitment 
procedures: candidates not fulfilling 
selection criteria were considered 
for further evaluation and criteria 
for identifying the best candidates 
to be invited for interview were 
not documented  n.a. — Calls on the Agency to remedy deficiencies in 
the recruitment procedures which put at risk the 
transparency of these procedures 
— Court of Auditors noted the following 
weaknesses- vacancy notices did not specify the 
maximum number of candidates to be put on 
the reserve lists, questions used during written 
tests & interviews were not decided on before 
the examination of the applications, the 
decisions of the selection boards were 
insufficiently documented, minutes were not 
completed & thresholds for being invited to 
interview or put on the reserve list were not set 
in advance  
Internal Audit  In breach of the principle of 
segregation of duties, the same 
authorising officer by sub- 
delegation not only performed  ex- 
ante  checks but also managed 
access rights to the IT system for 
budgetary accounting  n.a. Calls on the Agency to fulfil 17 recommendations 
out of 27 made by the Internal Audit Service: i.e. 
establishing financial circuits, promoting on-the- 
spot controls/verifications of grants, and 
monitoring and following up grant 
implementation and the implementation of the 
internal control standards  Acknowledges that 3 recommendations from the 
IAS follow up of past audit recommendations still 
need to be implemented, these mainly concern 
sensitive posts, on-the-spot controls/verifications or 
grants & financial circuits, and are considered very 
importantEN 17.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 286/365