Communication from the Commission on the collection and use of expertise by the Commission: principles and guidelines - "Improving the knowledge base for better policies"
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, consultancy, decision-making, operation of the Institutions, scientific report, transparency in decision-making

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.12.2002
COM(2002) 713 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

ON THE COLLECTION AND USE OF EXPERTISE BY THE COMMISSION:
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

“Improving the knowledge base for better policies”

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

ON THE COLLECTION AND USE OF EXPERTISE BY THE COMMISSION:
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

“Improving the knowledge base for better policies”

Summary

This  Communication  seeks  to  encapsulate  and  promote  good  practices  related  to  the
collection  and  use  of  expertise  at  all  stages  of  Commission  policy-making.  It  responds  to  a
commitment  made  in  the  White  paper  on  European  Governance1,  reiterated  in  the  Science
and Society Action Plan.2 The first objective is to help Commission departments mobilise and
exploit the most  appropriate  expertise,  with  a  view  to  establishing  a  sound  knowledge  base
for better policies. The second objective is to uphold the Commission’s determination that the
process of collecting and using expert advice should be credible.

There are three components. The core principles of quality, openness and effectiveness should
underpin all activities of the Commission in this domain. The set of guidelines should be used
to help departments implement the principles. Finally, a series of practical questions should
help  departments  design  methods  for  collecting  and  using  expert  advice  appropriate  to  the
circumstances of specific cases.

The  implementation  of  the  principles  and  guidelines  should  be  seen  as  an  evolutionary
process.  A  system  for  monitoring  and  review  will  therefore  be  needed  to  help  improve
methods on a continuous basis, and to judge how far objectives are being met.

1

2

COM(2001)428
COM(2001)714

2

                                                
1.

INTRODUCTION

Background

Expertise forms an integral part of a dynamic knowledge-based society. Specialist know-how
and  skills  help  create  new  opportunities  that  can  boost  competitiveness  and  enhance  our
quality of life.

It is the task of policy-makers to set up a regulatory environment in which these opportunities
can be exploited in a sustainable manner for the common good. As a condition for success, it
is  crucial  that  policy  choices  are  based  and  updated  on  the  best  available  knowledge.  This
requires access to the right expertise at the right time.

The European Commission, with its pivotal role in proposing and overseeing the execution of
European policies, maintains a  high  level  of in-house  expertise,  but also  frequently  calls  on
external experts.

Sometimes  these  experts  are  asked  to  perform  “classical”  scientific  assessments,3  rooted  in
the  natural  or  social  sciences.  This  is  often  a  rather  straightforward  process  in  which  the
questions to be addressed, the evidence considered and the interpretations made are all largely
uncontroversial.

On  other  occasions,  however,  these  aspects  are  highly  controversial.  Recent  history  -  from
BSE  to  GMOs  -  has  shown  that  difficult  policy  decisions  must  sometimes  be  made  on
contentious issues in the face of significant uncertainty. Scientific expertise is then as much
about  stating  what  is  unknown,  or  uncertain  with  differing  degrees  of  probability,  as  about
setting out commonly agreed and accepted views. The Commission might be confronted by a
panoply  of  conflicting  expert  opinions,  coming  variously  from  within  the  academic  world,
from  those  with  practical  knowledge,  and  from  those  with  direct  stakes  in  the  policy  issue.
These  opinions  may  be  based  on  quite  different  starting  assumptions,  and  quite  different
objectives.  They  may  also  link  to  issues  that  go  beyond  what  is  commonly  regarded  as
‘scientific’.

Furthermore,  no  matter  what  seems  to  be  the  ‘right’  decision  for  those  involved  in  the
advisory process, it is essential that interested parties4 and the public at large are themselves
convinced that decisions are sound.

Increasingly,  then,  the  interplay  between  policy-makers,  experts,  interested  parties  and  the
public at large is a crucial part of policy-making, and attention has to be focused not just on
policy outcome but also on the process followed.

These issues were addressed by the Commission in its White Paper on European Governance,
adopted in July 2001. In this, it was observed that:

3

4

A ‘scientific assessment’ implies recourse to methods and knowledge – no matter how uncertain - based
on rigorous methods for testing hypothetical explanations of natural or social facts and systems.
An ‘interested party’ is an individual or group that is concerned  or  stands  to  be  affected  -  directly  or
indirectly - by the outcome of a policy process; or represents the general interest of groups concerned
by such an outcome, within and outside the EU.

3

                                                
‘It  is  often  unclear  who  is  actually  deciding  -  experts  or  those  with  political
authority.  At  the  same  time,  a  better-informed  public  increasingly  questions  the
content  and  independence  of  the  expert  advice  that  is  given.  These  issues  become
more acute whenever the Union is required to apply the precautionary principle and
play its role in risk assessment and risk management.’

The  European  Community  has,  of  course,  already  done  much  to  address  past  difficulties,
particularly by revamping the system of scientific committees in the areas of food safety and
consumer  protection  in  1997.  More  recently,  the  Community  has  taken  this  further  by
establishing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Nevertheless,  the  Commission  believes  that  it  is  now  time  to  further  consolidate  lessons
learned  from  the  past.  The  White  Paper  accordingly  went  on  to  announce  that  it  would
publish:

‘…guidelines on collection and use of expert advice in the Commission to provide for
the accountability, plurality and integrity of the expertise used. This should include
the publication of the advice given. Over time these guidelines could form the basis
for a common approach for all Institutions and Member States.’

This  commitment  was  reiterated  in  the  Commission’s  Science  and  Society  Action  Plan,
published in December 2001.

This communication responds to that commitment. The first objective is to help Commission
departments5 mobilise and exploit the most appropriate expertise, with a view to establishing
a  sound  knowledge  base  for  better  policies.  The  second  objective  is  to  uphold  the
Commission’s determination that the process of collecting and using expert advice should be
credible.

As  such,  this  communication  will  contribute  to  the  objectives  of  the  Commission’s  Better
Regulation Action Plan.6 In particular, it complements:

– 

– 

5

6

7

8

the general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties,7
which  will  govern  the  way  the  Commission  conducts  public  consultations.  To  the
extent that interested parties and the public at large may need to interact with experts,
and  may  indeed  be  themselves  sources  of  expertise,  there  will  be  a  careful
articulation between those minimum standards and these guidelines;

the plans to systematically assess the impact of policy initiatives – from inception to
completion  -  by  carrying  out  a  thorough  analysis  of  possible  economic,  social  and
environmental impacts, as well as an analysis of various regulatory options. Impact
assessment may entail recourse to expertise8 and help ensure that future policies are
based on the best evidence available.

‘Department’  refers  to  any  administrative  entity  within  the  European  Commission  (e.g.  units,
directorates, specialised services, DGs) that may be responsible for seeking or using expertise.
COM(2002)275 and COM(2002)278
COM(2002) 704
COM (2002)276

4

                                                
At the same time, the Community is taking steps to boost European investment in research,
with  the  aim  of  approaching  3%  of  GDP  by  2010.9  This  will  have  an  important  effect  on
stimulating  and  maintaining  a  high  level  of  scientific  expertise,  particularly  in  frontier
technologies.

9

Conclusions  of  Barcelona  European  Council,  15-16  March  2002,  and  Commission’s  initial  response,
COM(2002)499, 11 September 2002.

5

                                                
Current Practices

The European Union is constantly faced  with  policy  questions that hinge to some  extent on
assessments embracing the natural or social sciences.

Whilst the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community  recognises  the  importance  of  facts
and data in relation to health and safety, environment and consumer protection (Articles 95(3)
and  174(3)  of  the  TEC)  10,  in  reality,  expert  assessments  underpin  an  enormous  range  of
issues.  Examples  include  setting  targets  for  air  quality,  authorising  cosmetic  products,
establishing  automobile  safety  standards,  determining  sustainable  fish  catches,  developing
strategies  to  tackle  unemployment,  and  designing  European  research  programmes.  Issues
increasingly cut across disciplines and responsibilities, requiring the Commission to seek out
and  integrate  knowledge  from  difference  sources.  Similar  needs  may  flow  from  the  EC’s
adherence to international agreements.

Expertise  may  take  many  forms,  including  both  scientific  knowledge  and  that  derived  from
practical  experience.  It  may  also  relate  to  specific  national  or  regional  situations.  Expertise
may be brought to bear at any stage in the policy-making cycle, although different forms of
expertise  may  be  needed  at  different  stages.  Sometimes  experts  and  representatives  of
interested  parties  are  brought  together  in  single  groups.  Sometimes  they  interact  by  way  of
workshops  or  other  deliberative  mechanisms.  In  addition,  complementary  expertise  may  be
gathered during open consultations such as the publication of green and white papers.

Acting  at  the  European  level  introduces  additional  challenges.  European  approaches  must
accommodate  the  diversity  of  national  situations.  Questions  of  comparison,  harmonisation,
validation and interoperability are often key elements in the policy process.

Under the Commission’s approach to the precautionary principle,11 there is also a continuing
need for the provision of expertise so that policies can be updated in the light of scientific and
technical developments permitting a fuller risk assessment.

The  measures  set  out  in  this  communication  must  operate  within  the  diversity  of
circumstances  faced  by  the  Commission.  They  should  not  be  seen  as  imposing  a  ‘one-size-
fits-all’  set  of  rules.  Rather,  they  set  out  principles,  guidelines  and  practical  questions  that
encapsulate and promote good practices, helping to establish a more coherent approach across
the  directorates-general  of  the  Commission  within  the  context  of  existing  legislation.  By
encouraging  a  pooling  of  effort,  and  by  laying  the  groundwork  for  better  policies,  the
application  of  the  guidelines  should  result  in  a  net  saving  of  resources  over  the  medium  to
long term.

10

11

Issues  related  to  ionising  radiation  and  the  disposal  of  radioactive  waste  are  also  covered  by  the
EURATOM treaty (articles 31 and 37).
COM(2000)1

6

                                                
2.

WHEN DO THE CORE PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES APPLY?

The core principles and guidelines apply whenever Commission departments collect and use
advice of experts coming from outside the responsible department.

The  principles  and  guidelines  thus  cover  the  collection  of  advice  though  ad  hoc  and
permanent  expert  groups;  external  consultants  (individuals,  groups  or  companies,  possibly
using study contracts); and instances when these mechanisms are used in conjunction with in-
house expertise (residing in Commission departments and in the Joint Research Centre).

As  far  as  appropriate,  the  delivery  of  advice  from  one  Commission  department  to  another
should be done in a manner  consistent with the  principles  and  guidelines, particularly  when
such advice would  form a  major  input  to  a  sensitive  policy  question.  Advice  received  from
EU agencies (e.g. European Environment Agency, European Food Safety Authority) should,
where appropriate, be used in a manner consistent with the principles and guidelines.

The principles and guidelines are relevant to the involvement of expertise at all stages in the
policy-making  cycle,  embracing  the  initial  identification  of  the  need  for  a  policy  action  or
impact
response  (including  foresight  exercises);  shaping  policy  options  (including 
assessment); policy proposal; policy implementation; and policy monitoring and review.

The principles and guidelines are not legally binding. Nor do they apply to the formal stages
of decision-making as prescribed in the Treaty and in other Community legislation. Therefore,
both formal legislative procedures and the formal exercise of the Commission’s implementing
powers with the assistance of ‘comitology’ committees12 are excluded.

The Commission’s minimum standards on public consultation (mentioned in section 1) apply
in consultations of the public at large, and also when the Commission seeks the views of civil
society groups and other interested parties because of the constituencies they represent, rather
than because of the expertise they possess. Whenever there may be doubts as to whether the
minimum  standards  on  consultation  or  the  guidelines  on  expertise  apply,  the  Commission
departments responsible will provide detailed guidance to the relevant external parties.

At certain stages in the policy process it may be important to provide opportunities for experts
to  interact  with  interested  parties,  for  example  through  conferences.  This  is  shown
diagrammatically in figure 1.

12

Council Decision 1999/468/EC

7

                                                
European Commission

Identifying
the issue

Framing
the
problem

Shaping
options

Policy
proposal
(to Council
& EP)

Implemtn.,
monitoring
& review

Guidelines
on expertise

The impact
assessment  &
policy preparation
process considers
the views of

Minimum
Standards on
consultation

Experts

Interested
parties

Figure 1: The Commission may consult both  experts and interested  parties.  Consultation of
experts  can  take  place  at  any  stage  in  the  policy  cycle.  The  minimum  standards  apply  to
consultation processes through which the Commission wishes to trigger input from interested
parties to its policy-shaping prior to a decision of the College of Commissioners.

The present guidelines will apply from 1 January 2003.

3.

CORE PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED BY COMMISSION DEPARTMENTS

The  White  Paper  on  European  Governance  highlighted  the  principles  of  accountability,
plurality and integrity to be used when collecting and using expert advice. This is set in the
context  of  other  general  principles  for  better  governance:  openness,  participation,
effectiveness,  coherence,  proportionality  and  subsidiarity.  In  the  section  below,  these
principles have been regrouped into three core principles. These should always underpin the
activities of the Commission departments whenever they collect and use expert advice within
the  scope  defined  in  section  2.  Each  core  principle  is  accompanied  by  a  short  explanation,
including related principles and determinants.

8

Quality

The Commission should seek advice of an appropriately high quality.

Three determinants of quality of advice can be distinguished: excellence; the extent to which
experts act in an independent manner; and pluralism.

In  many  cases,  the  quality  of  scientific  expertise  can  be  based  simply  on  the  excellence  of
scientists, as endorsed by the judgement of peers, and taking account of indicators such as the
number  and  impact  of  refereed  publications.  However,  in  ensuring  that  the  breadth  of
assembled expertise is adequate and relevant for the task in hand, it may also be beneficial to
include experts whose reputation stems from other factors. This includes, for example, those
possessing practical knowledge.

It is a truism that no one is entirely ‘independent’: individuals can never entirely set aside all
thoughts of their personal background – family, culture, employer, sponsor, etc. Nevertheless,
as far as possible, experts should be expected to act in an independent manner. Experts can, of
course, still bring to the table knowledge they hold by virtue of their affiliation, or nationality:
indeed, experts may sometimes be selected  for  this  very  reason.  Nevertheless,  the  aim  is  to
minimise the risk of vested interests distorting the advice proffered by establishing practices
that  promote  integrity,  by  making  dependencies  explicit,  and  by  recognising  that  some
dependencies – varying from issue to issue – could impinge on the policy process more than
others.

The  final  determinant  of  quality  is  pluralism.  Wherever  possible,  a  diversity  of  viewpoints
should  be  assembled.  This  diversity  may  result  from  differences  in  scientific  approach,
different types of expertise, different institutional affiliations, or contrasting opinions over the
fundamental assumptions underlying the issue.

Depending on the issue and the stage in the policy cycle, pluralism also entails taking account
of multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral expertise, minority and non-conformist views. Other
factors may also be important, such as geographical, cultural and gender perspectives.

Openness

The Commission should be open in seeking and acting on advice from experts.

Transparency is a key precondition for more accountability for all involved. Transparency is
required, particularly in relation to the way issues are framed, experts are selected, and results
handled.  It  also  implies  a  strategy  for  proactive  communication  -  adapted  according  to  the
issue - in which the Commission should constantly seek ways to better publicise and explain
its use of expertise to interested parties and the public at large. As part of this, both the issues
and the advice received should be made understandable to non-specialists. General principles
for public access to documents have been established.13

Within  the  institutional  framework,  the  Commission  is  politically  responsible  for  its
initiatives; it must not appear to ‘hide behind’ expert advice. Instead, the Commission must be
capable of justifying and explaining the way  expertise has been involved, and the choices it

13

Disclosure  of  information  should  be  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  regarding
public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and  Commission  documents,  and  Regulation  (EC)
1045/2001 regarding data protection.

9

                                                
has  made  based  on  advice.  In  a  similar  way,  accountability  also  extends  to  the  experts
themselves. They  should,  for  example,  be  prepared  to  justify  their  advice  by  explaining  the
evidence and reasoning upon which it is based.

However,  the  pursuit  of  openness  requires  care.  There  are  circumstances  when  too  much
openness could be detrimental to the quality of advice, or may damage the legitimate interests
of  those  concerned  with  the  process.  The  level  of  openness  should  also  be  tailored  in
proportion  to  the  task  in  hand  (see  below).  Nevertheless,  in  all  these  circumstances  it  is
important to be as transparent as possible about the reasons for not being open.

Effectiveness

The Commission should ensure that its methods for collecting and using expert advice are
effective.

In following the measures introduced in this Communication, departments should strive to use
limited resources effectively by weighing short-term costs (e.g. staff time) against anticipated
longer-term gains (e.g. smoother implementation of robust policies).

This  means  that  arrangements  for  collecting  and  using  expertise  should  be  designed  in
proportion to the task in hand, taking account of the sector concerned, the issue in question,
and the stage in the policy cycle.

For  example,  methods  designed  to  flag  issues  for  attention  and  policy  response  at  an  early
stage are unlikely to apply to the monitoring of existing policies. Methods suitable for minor
technical  changes  to  regulations  will  probably  be  inadequate  in  sensitive  cases,  when  the
underlying science may be highly uncertain and when  also  the ‘stakes are  high’ in  terms of
the political, social, economic or environmental consequences of an eventual policy decision.

In  any  case,  a  system  of  routine  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review  will  be  needed  to  help
improve  methods  on  a  continuous  basis.  Such  as  system  should  focus  on  both  process  and
outcome. Depending on the nature of the issue, this needs to be done from the perspective of
the  Commission  departments,  the  experts,  and  interested  parties,  recognising  that  these
different stakeholders may not judge effectiveness by the same criteria.

The core principles

In summary, the Commission should always:

i)

ii)

iii)

seek advice of an appropriately high quality

be open in seeking and acting on advice from experts

ensure that its methods for collecting and using expert advice are effective and
proportionate.

10

4.

GUIDELINES TO BE APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION DEPARTMENTS

The following guidelines implement the above principles. Practical questions for departments
to consider when applying the guidelines are given in the annex.

Planning ahead

1. 

2. 

The  Commission  should  maintain  an  adequate  level  of  in-house  expertise.  This
enables it to act as an ‘intelligent customer’ when organising and acting on external
expertise.  If  departments  lack  the  necessary  expertise,  they  should  seek  to  have
access to it in other departments.

Policy issues that require expert advice should be identified as early as possible. The
use of foresight exercises may be helpful in this respect.

Preparing for the collection of expertise

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The  manner  in  which  experts  are  involved  (in-house,  consultancy,  expert  group,
conference, etc.) should be determined by the urgency, complexity and sensitivity of
the policy issue.14

Other  departments  liable  to  be  interested  in  the  policy  issue  should  be  invited  to
contribute.

Departments  should  first  assess  the  extent  to  which  their  needs  can  be  met  by  any
existing mechanisms conforming to the core principles. This may include permanent
scientific  committees,  and  in-house  expertise,  such  as  that  available  in  the  Joint
Research  Centre  (JRC).  Suitable  mechanisms  may  also  be  found  in  the  Member
States, partner countries or international organisations.

The  scope  and  objective  of  the  experts’  involvement,  and  the  questions  they  will
address, should be set out clearly. Departments may wish to consult interested parties
on the framing of the questions and underlying assumptions, particularly on sensitive
issues15.  These  assumptions  may  need  to  be  revisited  as  the  policy  process  runs  its
course.

A scoping exercise should determine the profile of expertise required. The nature of
the issue in question should determine the optimum mix. Nevertheless, departments
should aim to ensure that the different disciplines and/or sectors concerned are duly
reflected in the advice provided. This may involve, for example, those with practical
knowledge gained from day-to-day involvement in an activity.

Identifying and selecting experts

8. 

14

15

Departments  should  cast  their  nets  as  widely  as  possible  in  seeking  appropriate
expertise. As far as  possible,  fresh  ideas and insight should  be sought by including

Without  prejudice  to  cases  where  the  consultation  of  specific  scientific  committees  is  required  under
existing legislation.
However, this may not be appropriate for study contracts if the interested parties  may  later tender for
the work.

11

                                                
individuals outside the department’s habitual circle of contacts. Departments should
also strive to ensure that groups are composed of at least 40% of each sex.16

9. 

Both mainstream and divergent views should be considered. However, it is important
to  distinguish  proponents  of  theories  that  have  been  comprehensively  discredited
from those whose ideas appear to be supported by plausible evidence.

Managing the involvement of experts

10. 

11. 

12. 

When using expertise, departments should maintain a record of the process including
the  terms  of  reference  and  the  main  contributions  of  different  experts  or  groups  of
experts.

The  Commission  should,  in  consultation  with  the  experts  themselves,  determine
whether  the  assembled  expertise  covers  the  topics  to  be  addressed  and  whether
sufficient  pertinent  background  information  and  data  are  available  and  ensure  that
there is a clear understanding of the tasks assigned.

Experts  should  declare  immediately  any  direct  or  indirect  interest  in  the  issue  at
stake,  as  well  as  any  relevant  change  in  their  circumstances  after  the  work
commences.  The  Commission  must  decide  whether  any  conflict  of  interest  would
jeopardise the quality of the advice.

Ensuring openness

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

The  main  documents  associated  with  the  use  of  expertise  on  a  policy  issue,  and  in
particular  the  advice  itself,  should  be  made  available  to  the  public  as  quickly  as
possible, providing no exception to the right of access applies.17 Departments should
aim to provide translations of documents – at least in summary form - insofar as this
is  practically  possible,  and  in  particular  on  sensitive  issues.  Possible  delays  or
practical  constraints  in  providing  translations  should  not  preclude  documents  being
made available in their source language.

Departments should consider allowing the public to observe certain expert meetings,
particularly on sensitive policy issues.

Departments  should  insist  that  experts  clearly  highlight  the  evidence  (e.g.  sources,
references) upon which they base their advice, as well as any persisting uncertainty
and divergent views.

Departments  should  consider  how  to  promote  an  informed  and  structured  debate
between  policy-makers,  experts  and  interested  parties  (e.g.  workshops,  consensus
conferences), particularly on sensitive issues.

As a general rule, any proposal submitted by departments for Commission decision
should be accompanied by a description of the expert advice considered, and how the
proposal  takes  this  into  account.  This  includes  cases  where  advice  has  not  been

16

17

In line with Commission decision of 19 June 2000 (OJ L 154/34, 27.6.2000) relating to gender balance
within committees and expert groups established by it.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents.

12

                                                
followed. As far as possible, the same information should be made public when the
Commission’s proposal is formally adopted.

5.

IMPLEMENTATION,  MONITORING  AND  REVIEW  OF  THE  PRINCIPLES  AND
GUIDELINES

Implementation of the principles and guidelines should be seen as an evolutionary process. A
system  for  monitoring  and  review  will  therefore  be  needed  to  improve  methods  on  a
continuous basis, and to judge how far objectives are being met. The system will include the
following functions:

– 

– 

– 

– 

Inter-departmental  collaboration  will  pool  experience  and  promote  a  culture  of
mutual  learning, including developing training  actions as needed.  Information tools
will be used to help collect and share relevant information.18

Directorates-General  will  establish  procedures  to  assess  the  experience  gained  in
implementing the guidelines, including lessons learned and problems encountered.

Directorates-General will report on their experience  in implementing  the  guidelines
as  part  of  their  input  to  the  annual  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  the
Commission’s “Better Regulation” Action Plan.

In 2005, the Commission will organise an independent evaluation of the application
of the present guidelines, including benchmarking with respect to good practices in
the  Member  States.  Meanwhile,  it  will  also  be  necessary  to  examine  the  extent  to
which the Commission’s guidelines could form the basis of a common approach of
wider application, as flagged in the White Paper on European Governance.

18

The Science and Society Action Plan includes a number of relevant initiatives in this respect, including
the pilot system ‘Scientific Information for Policy  Support in Europe’ (SINAPSE), and a single  web-
portal (‘one-stop-shop’) providing access to information on advisory procedures Commission-wide.

13

                                                
PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

ANNEX

This section complements the core principles and guidelines by suggesting practical questions
and best practices for departments to consider when collecting and using expertise. These are
indicative and intend to help Commission departments design arrangements appropriate to the
circumstances of specific cases.

The content of this section will be updated as needed in the light experience in implementing
the principles and guidelines.

Planning ahead

Department’s human resources

Is  there  adequate  in-house  expertise  to  meet  the  department's  needs  and  to  allow  the
department to act as an ‘intelligent customer’ of external advice?

What  is  the  long-term  trend  in  the  department’s  human  resources?  Is  the  process  of  staff
mobility likely to  reinforce or  reduce the  available in-house expertise? Can national experts
on  detachment  play  a  role?  In  which  case,  might  this  affect  the  department’s  ‘corporate
memory’ and perceived independence?

Need for external advice in the first place

Has  there  been  a  proper  scanning  of  what  is  already  available  both  within  and  beyond  the
Commission?  What  background  information  or  assistance  could  be  provided  from  other
departments? Has pertinent knowledge accumulated in European research programmes? Are
there  relevant  information  tools19  that  would  help  deliver  information  on,  for  example,  the
state of the art, or earlier advice etc?

Can pertinent expertise be found in other departments, such as the JRC? Would the inclusion
of external expertise enhance the credibility of the process?

Making the process more cost-effective

Should  other  departments  be  invited  to  contribute  (e.g.  when  there  is  a  common  interest  in
tackling cross-cutting issues)? Has information on previous expert input relevant to the issue
in question been exchanged? Is there a need for departments to co-ordinate their approaches
to experts to avoid unnecessary duplication?

Can  resources  be  used  more  economically  by  grouping  issues  to  be  addressed?  Can  this  be
done during the screening of the Annual Policy Strategy (at the same time as policy initiatives
requiring impact assessments are identified)?

Have  arrangements  been  made  to  make  the  department’s  own  knowledge-base  (in-house
expertise, studies, programmes, etc.) readily available in an understandable form?

19

e.g. the pilot open internet-based network ‘SINAPSE’ (see Science and Society Action Plan)

14

                                                
Early warning mechanisms to detect emerging issues

Is  the  department  actively  ‘scanning  the  horizon’  for  emerging  issues?  Is  your  department
informed about Science and Technology Foresight activities?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

European, national and regional Science and Technology Foresight and assessment
activities provide a range of analyses of developments in science and technology and
their socio-economic implications.20

Preparing for the collection of expertise

Framing the questions

Have all the facets of the problem been correctly analysed and formulated in the questions put
to the experts?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

When assessing risks, have all plausible hazards been considered? Do the questions
put to experts reflect this? In practice, the benefits of a broad-based approach may
need to be balanced against resource limitations.

Should different groups (e.g. interested parties, representatives of civil society) be associated
with the formulation of the issue – and how?

Choosing the right method

Can  the  issue  be  adequately  handled  through  contacts  with  individual  or  multiple  experts
(including  questionnaire  methods,  expert  contracts  etc),  or,  alternatively,  would  the  issue
benefit from interactive and collegial discussions within carefully constituted expert panels?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

Informal contacts may provide rapid results, and are often appropriate at very early
stages  in  the  policy  process,  and  for  non-sensitive  questions.  On  the  other  hand,
multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral groups encourage a cross-fertilisation of ideas,
stimulate debate and lead to sharpened opinions. This should result in better quality
advice, as well as adding to the credibility of the process.

Determining the expertise required

Who should be involved in the scoping exercise to determine the range of expertise required?
Would  internal  discussions  be  sufficient?  Would  it  be  beneficial  also  to  involve  interested
parties?

Does the issue  require expertise  from  different  disciplines  or  sectors?  How  should  the  right
mix be established?

20

More  information  on  foresight  exercises  can  be  found  at  http://cordis.lu/rtd2002/foresight/home.html
and http://www.jrc.es/welcome.html

15

                                                
What should be the  criteria  for  selection  (e.g.  level of  academic achievement), and  possible
exclusion  (e.g.  those  working  for  a  company  liable  to  be  affected  by  an  eventual  policy
decision)?

How  should  diverging  views  be  reflected?  To  what  extent  have  any  emerging  views  been
represented?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

One  approach  is  to  ensure  that  adherents  to  different  schools  of  thought  are
represented among the  experts. Another  is to arrange hearings whereby  those with
‘maverick’ views can enter a dialogue with those from the mainstream.

Does  the  policy  issue  require  one  or  more  experts  from  each  Member  State?  This  may  be
necessary when the emphasis is on assessing and comparing national situations.

Is it appropriate to mobilise experts beyond the scientific community? These may include, for
example,  lawyers,  ethicists,  or  those  with  practical  knowledge  gained  from  day-to-day
involvement in an activity.

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

In some cases, it may be appropriate to bring together experts and scientists in the
same  group.  In  others,  two  or  more  groups  may  work  independently,  but  be  given
opportunities to interact at appropriate junctures. The choice may depend upon the
stage in the policycycle.

Would it be relevant to involve experts from beyond Europe?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

When the implications of a policy issue go beyond Europe, it may well be beneficial
to  bring  in  experts  from  appropriate  third  countries.  Such  experts  may  usefully
complement European expertise in other cases too.

Identifying and selecting experts

Should  open  calls  for  candidates  be  published  when  seeking  expertise  for  expert  groups?
Have  any  such  calls  been  publicised  as  widely  as  possible,  including  by  electronic  means?
Open  calls  may  be  particularly  appropriate  when  dealing  with  sensitive  issues  and  when
groups are liable to stand for a reasonable period of time.

Should  the  expertise  be  collected  in  the  form  of  consultancy  work  (studies  following  open
calls for tender according to the relevant rules for public procurement)?21

Can  existing  networks,  such  as  those  created  through  national  and  European  research
programmes, be usefully exploited?

Should a selection committee, possibly including external ‘peers’, be convened to help select
suitable experts?

21

Special rules may apply to EU agencies.

16

                                                
Managing the involvement of experts

How  will  any  modifications  suggested  by  experts  to  their  work  plan  be  dealt  with  (e.g.
because of recent scientific developments or other unanticipated issues)? What if the experts
consider  that  they  can  only  deal  with  part  of  the  proposed  work  in  the  time  available?  If  a
modification to  the work  plan  seems necessary, can  it  be agreed within  any  limits  that  may
apply to the procurement of the expert services? Alternatively, should other arrangements be
made to investigate the questions not covered?

Do  the  experts  need  additional  data  or  information?  Can  the  department  make  reasonable
endeavours to supply whatever is missing? Can other departments help (e.g. by tapping into
research networks of the Framework Programme)?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

Experience has shown that departments may have to go to some effort to provide the
information  and  data  upon  which  the  experts  will  base  their  advice  –  it  cannot
assumed  that  the  experts  will  seek  and  collect  the  information  themselves.  This
should also be considered at the planning stage.

In  what  circumstances  should  additional  experts  be  permanently  or  temporarily  co-opted  to
the group? Can in-house expertise be mobilised to fill the gap in knowledge?

Should further research be financed to tackle significant gaps in knowledge?

Are all the experts suitably engaged in the process? Is the mandate well understood?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

The dynamics of the group are important, and especially the role of the chairperson.
Some individuals may contribute less than expected, or even withdraw completely, if
they feel their contributions are not being sufficiently recognised.

Should experts be required to sign a statement declaring possible conflicts of interest? Has the
department considered what action to take if conflicts emerge?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

A possible general rule would be to exclude an expert declaring a conflict of interest
from  chairing  a  group,  or  acting  as  its  rapporteur.  It  may  also  sometimes  be
necessary  to  replace  such  experts,  or  to  require  them  to  abstain  from  part  of  the
discussion.

Ensuring openness

What documents should be made directly available?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

A checklist of documents to make directly available might include:

– 

an explanatory note on the policy issue and the use of expert advice, including
the timeframe and information on possible opportunities for open consultation;

17

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

terms of reference;

criteria used for selecting the experts;
names of experts;22

declarations of interest;

summary record of meetings;

advice given (including any dissenting views).

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

It may be appropriate, in some circumstances, to withhold the identity of experts, for
example to protect them against undue external pressures or to protect the legitimate
interests of those concerned with the process. Any embargo on the identity of experts
should normally be limited in time, and duly justified.

Has care been taken to ensure that no exception to the right of access is likely to apply? Has
commercially sensitive information been suitably protected?

Have  the  full  consequences  of  disclosing  information  been  considered?  Might  there  be
unintended  negative  effects  (e.g.  triggering  public  panic)?  Would  it  nevertheless  be  more
harmful to withhold information? What information will be provided on the reasons for  any
non-disclosure?  Have  these  questions  been  considered  as  part  of  a  plan  for  risk
communication

Where should information and documents be made directly available? Is it sufficient to post
relevant  documents  on  the  EUROPA  website  of  the  lead  department?  Can  this  be  done
without delay once they have been finalised, or a decision taken to release them in draft form?
Is the  website sufficiently  user-friendly? Can information be  provided through a single web
portal dealing with all occasions when expertise is used in Commission departments (a one-
stop-shop)?23

Is the status of the documents sufficiently clear (e.g. draft or final; revision number; under the
responsibility of the experts or approved by the Commission department).

Is  it  appropriate,  particularly  in  sensitive  cases,  to  initially  publish  the  experts’  advice  in
provisional  form  for  a  specified  consultation  period?  Have  any  such  arrangements  been
clearly  announced  at  the  start  of  the  process?  Are  arrangements  in  place  for  the  experts  to
respond to comments received?

Should the public be allowed to observe at meetings?

22

23

The disclosure of the identity of experts should be consistent with Regulation (EC) 45/2001 regarding
data protection.
Such a portal has been envisaged in the Science and Society Action Plan. It could be implemented in
the  context  of  ‘Science  &  Society’,  complementing  the  ‘Your  Voice  in  Europe’  portal  on  public
consultations.

18

                                                
(cid:1)

Practical tip:

One approach for standing expert groups could be to arrange for public access to at
least  one  meeting  a  year.  Public  access  may  be  restricted  during  any  part  of  the
meetings dealing with confidential information. It may also be necessary to allow a
period for experts to build up a mutual trust outside the limelight.

Is the advice properly substantiated and documented?

Should the advice be submitted to other persons  for comments or validation? Will  this be a
scientific peer review? Is it appropriate to submit the advice to scrutiny and comments from a
wider circle of experts and interested parties (a process sometimes known as ‘extended peer
review’)?  Have  arrangements  been  put  in  place  to  record  and  assess  unsolicited  comments
once advice has been published?

Does the issue require interaction between the experts, interested parties and policy-makers?
This  may  be  particularly  important  in  sensitive  cases.  Participatory  procedures24  have  been
used successfully at national and regional level; some issues may benefit from European-level
debates.

Acting on the advice received

When is the involvement of experts finished?

(cid:1)

Practical tip:

At a certain point, the Commission must make a judgment on the advice and views it
has received. In the face of persisting uncertainty on sensitive issues, options include
a decision to seek  yet further advice, to commission further research, or to make a
provisional proposal in line with the precautionary principle.

How  does  the  Commission’s  policy  proposal  show  how  input  from  experts  has  been  taken
into  account?  Can  this  be  described  in  the  explanatory  memorandum,  or  in  an  annex  to  the
proposal? Have the experts themselves been informed of this, as well as the outcome of the
process to which they have contributed?

Have appropriate arrangements been made to communicate the outcome of the policy process
to  interested  parties  and  to  the  public  at  large?  Has  a  communication  strategy  been
established,  including  relations  with  the  media?  This  is  particularly  important  in  sensitive
cases.

24

The Commission’s Science and Society action plan will promote initiatives of this kind.

19