Report from the Commission to the Council - Review of the European Environment Agency (EEA)
Date: 2003-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Environment Agency, operation of the Institutions, powers of the institutions (EU), report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 22.12.2003
COM(2003) 800 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

Review of the European Environment Agency (EEA)

EN

  EN

CONTENTS

1.

1.1.

1.2.

2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

4.9.

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

The European Environment Agency............................................................................ 3

Objectives and scope of this review............................................................................. 3

Inputs for this review ................................................................................................... 3

Context for the review.................................................................................................. 4

Community decentralised Agencies............................................................................. 4

Expectations from the EEA.......................................................................................... 5

The Agency’s legal framework.................................................................................... 5

Assessment of tasks and progress in relation to Community Environment Policy...... 6

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6

How was the Agency’s mandate interpreted?.............................................................. 6

Were the Agency’s resources sufficient?..................................................................... 7

Was its work policy relevant? ...................................................................................... 9

What stages of the policy cycle have been served best?............................................ 10

How have relations with other Community and international organisations
developed? ................................................................................................................. 10

Has EEA’s autonomy been instrumental? ................................................................. 11

Did the co-operation with non-EU countries add value? ........................................... 12

Was the ‘internal’ network effective? ........................................................................ 14

4.10.

Did the governance structure function satisfactory? .................................................. 15

4.11.

Have the Agency’s products and services been satisfactory? .................................... 17

4.12. What are the future challenges for EEA?................................................................... 18

4.13.

Is a change in the Regulation appropriate? ................................................................ 19

5.

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 20

2

 
1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

The European Environment Agency

On  6  November,  the  European  Environment  Agency  will  celebrate  its  tenth
anniversary.  Although  its  establishing  Regulation1  was  adopted  in  1990,  a  decision
on the Agency’s seat could not be taken before 1993 and EEA operations could only
start the following year. Since then, EEA grew into a mature organisation that has an
accepted position on the European stage.

EEA’s  stated  mission  is  “to  support  sustainable  development  and  to  help  achieve
significant  and  measurable  improvement  in  Europe’s  environment  by  the  provision
of timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policy-making agents and the
public”.

EEA currently works with an annual budget of approximately € 28 million and had
95 staff in 2002, of which 37 were of the A-category. Key user of its information has
traditionally been the Commission, and to a much lesser extent the other Institutions,
individual Member States and the public. However, the latter three groups’ share has
recently grown steadily.

1.2.

Objectives and scope of this review

This report is called for by Article 20 (2) of the Regulation establishing the EEA:

Not later than 31  December  2003,  on  the  basis  of  a  report  of  the  Commission,  the
Council  shall  review  the  progress  of,  and  the  tasks  undertaken  by,  the  Agency  in
relation to the Community’s overall policy on environment.

The  report  reviews  the  Agency’s  contribution  to  the  Community’s  environment
policy from 1994, when, its seat having been decided, it could start its operations, to
2003. It also formulates recommendations concerning EEA and its main stakeholders
and partners with a view to improve the Agency’ contribution to Community policy
on the environment.

The  report  focuses  on  strategic  and  institutional  issues  rather  than  EEA’s  internal
operations.  The  latter  was  the  scope  of  an  evaluation  study  commissioned  by  EEA
itself as per Article 20 (1) of its Regulation, carried out in 2000 and that looked more
particularly  into  the  performance  and  efficiency  of  the  Agency.  The  Council  is
invited to endorse the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.

2.

INPUTS FOR THIS REVIEW

Several sources were used in writing this report. To begin with, the 2000 evaluation
mentioned  in  the  previous  paragraph.  This  evaluation  mostly  consisted  of  a  very
extensive and detailed review of the Agency’s internal programming, administrative,
financial, ‘marketing’ and management aspects. Inside EEA, this evaluation lead to a
number of changes and indeed a marked improvement in the areas mentioned. Some

1

Regulation 1210/1990/EEC, as amended by Regulation 933/1999/EEC.

3

 
                                                
conclusions and recommendations from this first evaluation remain pertinent for the
present review and have been taken up in the report.

The  main  input  into  this  report  is  a  study  carried  out  by  the  Institute  for  European
Environmental  Policy  and  the  European  Institute  for  Public  Administration
(IEEP/IEPA). The study has been carried out between 1 March and 31 August 2003
under  contract  with  the  Commission.  The  full  study  is  available  through  the
European  Commission’s  website2..  IEEP/EIPA  carried  out  a  large  number  of
interviews with EEA staff users  and  other stakeholders and  experts. The study was
guided by a steering group, made up of representatives of the European Commission,
the  European  Parliament,  EEA,  the  EEA  Topic  Centres  and  National  Focal  Points,
and chaired by Professor Bedrich Moldan, chairman of EEA Scientific Committee.

Further  inputs  to  this  review  were  the  most  recent  review  of  the  European  Topic
Centres (see 4.9) lead by EEA, which came to a conclusion in July 2003, as well as
the  wide-ranging  preparations  for  the  next  EEA  Multi  Annual  Work  Programme
(2004-2008).

The  reflection  on  the  future  of  the  Agency  is  also  to  be  placed  in  the  wider
framework  of  the  on-going  discussion  on  the  Community  decentralised  Agencies,
fuelled notably by the reflection on European Governance3and the expansion up until
now of the number of such Agencies.

Lastly,  the  new  Financial  Regulation  for  the  Community  has  implications  for  the
Agencies, which are relevant in the context of this review.

3.

CONTEXT FOR THE REVIEW

3.1.

Community decentralised Agencies

Under  the  first  pillar  of  the  Treaty,  the  Community  currently  has  15  decentralised
Agencies.  As  the  White  Paper  on  European  Governance  points  out,  existing  and
planned agencies are characterised by an absence of a reference framework to which
each  agency  would  adjust  according  to  its  own  needs.  The  decision  to  create  each
Agency was motivated by the need to respond to the particular circumstances of the
moment and the EEA is no exception to that rule.

Following  the  White  Paper,  the  Commission  has  developed  a  clear  framework  for
executive agencies. It sets out amongst others the criteria for the creation of this type
of  Agencies,  as  well  as  typical  tasks  and  common  organisational  aspects.  For
regulatory agencies a discussion has started4.

Together  with  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addition
(EMCDDA), the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OHSA) and
the  European  Monitoring  Centre  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  (EUMC),  the  EEA
however is neither a Regulatory Agency nor an Executive Agency. It rather belongs

2

3

4

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/eea.htm
European Governance – A White Paper, 25.7.2001, COM (2001) 428 (final)
Council Regulation N° 58/2003 of 19 December 2002, OJ L 11 of 16/1/2003 (executive Agencies) and
Commission Communication COM(2002) 718 final (regulatory Agencies)

4

 
                                                
to what may  be called  ‘information agencies’. With  the exception  of  the  Office  for
Harmonisation  in  the  Internal  Market  (OHIM)  and  the  Community  Plant  Variety
Office  (CPVO),  all  agencies  are  covered  by  the  framework  Regulation  for  Article
185 bodies5, which provides an overall framework although it focuses on budgetary
issues.  For  other  cross-cutting  aspects,  no  overall  framework  exists  as  yet  for  this
type  of  agency,  nor  is  it  clearly  established  whether  the  group  is  sufficiently
homogeneous to justify the creation of a framework. It is therefore more difficult to
present a pre²cise reference as a starting point for this review.

3.2.

Expectations from the EEA

Still,  it  is  possible  to  retrace  what  was  expected  from  the  EEA  when  it  was  first
conceived.  While,  as  said,  the  reasons  for  their  creation  differ  from  Agency  to
Agency,  a  meta-evaluation  of  Community  agencies6  found  the  following  recurring
general justifications for Community Agencies7, that also apply to the EEA:

(cid:1)  Greater independence and visibility. It was felt that a voice independent from any
of  the  Community  Institutions  would  represent  a  more  credible  source  of
environmental information.

(cid:1)  Capacity  to  build  up  a  specialised  workforce  and  resulting  expertise.  The  state
and quality of environmental data in the pre-Agency days was patchy, at best. The
Commission began activities during the 1980s to address this situation but it was
felt that a specialised Agency could improve the situation more rapidly.

(cid:1)  Greater  ease  to  ensure  regular  contact  and  involvement  of  stakeholders.  In  the
case  of  the  EEA,  this  was  interpreted  as  the  need  for  a  closer  co-operation  and
involvement  of  the  ‘environmental  information  society’  in  Europe,  i.e.  the
relevant  organisations  in  the  Member  States,  Acceding  States  and  Candidate
Countries  notably  through  its  Environmental  Information  and  Observation
Network (EIONET). It was also understood as the need to build, with the various
partner  bodies  within  the  Commission  and  in  other  international  organisations
(OECD,  IEAE,  UNEP),  a  more  coherent  infrastructure  for  environmental  data
management throughout the Community.

On  more  operational  grounds,  the  expectations  from  the  EEA  were  captured  in  its
mission  statement  as  “…the  provision  of  timely,  targeted,  relevant  and  reliable
information to policy-making agents and the public”.

The  6th  Environment  Action  Programme  underlines  that  future  environment  policy
must increasingly lean on a sound understanding of the environment and the trends
therein. It also emphasises the importance of both ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of
policies. This makes it all the more important to ensure that EEA can deliver support
to its full potential. It also points at possibly a different, broader role for EEA.

5

6

7

Regulation 2343/2005 of 23 December 2002, OJ L 357, p. 72
Meta-evaluation  on  the  Community  Agency  system,  Budget  Directorate  General  of  the  European
Commission, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/pdf/metal-
evaluation_agencies.pdf
The same meta-evaluation finds that these advantages have to be weighted against a loss (or continued
lack)  of  in-house  expertise  in  the  Commission,  a  potential  risk  of  fraction  between  Commission  and
Agencies and a potential lack of control over the nature and timing of Agency outputs.

September 

2003, 

15 

5

 
                                                
3.3.

The Agency’s legal framework

The  main  legal  framework  is  the  establishing  Regulation,  adopted  in  1990  and
modified by Regulation 933/1999/EC. Main elements modified were the introduction
of  sustainable  development  as  a  context  in  which  the  environmental  work  of  EEA
should be placed, a further specification of tasks, further emphasis on the need to co-
ordinate  activities  with  parallel  organisations  including  those  in  third  countries  and
finally  the  establishment  of  the  Bureau.  The  1999  amendment  also  specifies  in  a
recital  that  future  reviews  of  the  Agency’s  performance  and  tasks  should  coincide
with the cycle of its five-yearly work-programme. The present report could therefore
be seen as the first in line of such reviews. With the 1999 amendment, the obligation
to review the Regulation periodically was dropped.

As part of the introduction of a new Financial Regulation8, further changes have been
introduced in the basic Regulation of the EEA and the other Agencies in 2003. These
changes concern the responsibility of the Commission’s internal auditor vis-à-vis the
budget  of  the  Agencies,  the  accounting  rules  that  apply  to  the  Agencies,  the
responsibility for the discharge of the budget and for the establishment plan. At that
same  time  two  further  changes  were  proposed  that  are  not  strictly  related  to  the
Financial  Regulation:  increased  access  to  documents  and  a  clarification  of  the
procedure  for  the  appointment  of  Agency  Directors9.  The  latter  two  however  were
not taken on board in the latest amendment of the basic Agency Regulation. Instead,
the Commission proposes to incorporate these two aspects in the next amendment to
the Agency Regulation.

4.

ASSESSMENT  OF  TASKS  AND  PROGRESS 
ENVIRONMENT POLICY

IN  RELATION  TO  COMMUNITY

4.1.

Introduction

The  headings  in  this  chapter  represent  the  key  questions  that  the  Commission
requested  to  be  addressed  in  the  independent  study  it  commissioned  in  order  to
review the progress and tasks of the EEA in relation to the overall Community policy
on  the  environment: appropriateness of  the  Agency’s  mandate  and  of  its  resources,
policy  relevance  and  focus  of  its  work,  co-operation  with  partner  organisations,
necessary  degree  of  autonomy,  co-operation  with  non-EU  countries,  network  of
permanent  collaborators,  governance  structure,  products  and  services  and  future
challenges.

4.2.

How was the Agency’s mandate interpreted?

The mission of the EEA, as formulated in Articles 2 (tasks) and 3 (areas of activity)
of its establishing Regulation, is very broad. Practically all environmental topics are
included  as  well  as  users  ranging  from  the  Community  institutions  to  the  public.

8

9

Council Regulation N° 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general
budget  of  the  European  Communities,  OJ  L  24  of  16/09/2002  and  Commission  Regulation  N°
2342/2002  of  23  December  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council
Regulation N° 1605/2002, OJ L 357 of 31/12/2002.
Commission Proposal COM(2002) 406 final

6

 
                                                
Support is foreseen in almost all stages of the policy cycle and concerns every aspect
of the information management process.

On  the  one  hand,  a  broad  mission  was  necessary,  as  it  had  to  cater  for  a  policy
agenda  that  evolved  significantly  over  time.  On  the  other  hand  however,  the  vast
array of  tasks  and  areas  of  activity  created  a  level  of  expectation  that  could  not  be
met in all cases, irrespective of the question whether the resources made available to
the  EEA  were  sufficient.  Therefore  in  practice  EEA’s  legally  defined  mission  has
had  to  be  interpreted  and  prioritised  to  be  translated  into  a  practical  programme  of
priorities and activities.

While in the first years there was from time to time a divergence of views regarding
these  priorities  and  activities,  particularly  between  the  Commission  and  the  EEA,
there  is  now  a  fairly  clear  common  understanding  of  the  respective  tasks,  although
there is still occasional disagreement.

In fulfilling its mission, EEA has so far met most expectations. However, some areas
were not ‘served’  sufficiently  or  even  at all. This is particularly striking  for  two  of
the  areas  specifically  singled  out  in  Article  3  (2)  as  priority  areas:  noise  emissions
and chemical substances.

Given  the  limited  increase  of  resources  available  to  the  Agency,  it  should  be
accepted by EEA and its users that certain areas are simply not addressed. Otherwise
there is a clear risk that resources will be spread so  thinly  that  a minimum  level of
expertise and quality is no longer guaranteed.

The  need  to  clarify  expectations  and  priorities  for  Agency  support  is  found  across
Agencies,  as  is  the  need  to  develop  closer  links  between  Commission  services  and
Agencies and the need to develop a more user or ‘client’-oriented approach.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  In  the  next  revision  of  the  Regulation,  the  description  of  tasks  and  priorities
should  be  clarified  and  focused,  ensuring  that  the  mission  of  the  EEA  remains
flexible  and  relevant  to  Community  environment  policy,  yet  realistically
achievable.

(cid:1)  Pending a modification of the Regulation, the EEA should strive to further join up
its  longer-term  planning  with  that  of  its  key  users,  particularly  with  the
Commission.

4.3.

Were the Agency’s resources sufficient?

From the start of its operations, the EEA has grown to 95 staff (2002) and an annual
budget  of  €  27,6  million.  Apart  from  a  more  steep  increase  during  the  first  years,
growth in the EEA budget has been incremental and comparable to the development
in the budget of other Community agencies. Principally, the EEA is funded through a
Community  subvention  (of  €  19,3  million  in  2002).  Another  important  source  of
income are the membership-contributions of EEA’s non-EU member countries (€ 2,3
million in 2002 and expected to increase € 5,8 million in 2003). After the 1st of May
2004, the membership contributions of the  10 acceding  countries will  be integrated
into the Community subsidy.

7

 
A  substantial  share  of  EEA’s  expertise  is  located  in  its  European  Topic  Centres
(ETCs – see section 4.9). The ETCs and their staff are funded by EEA but the ETCs
also receive funding from their host countries, to an estimated figure of 25% of their
total budget.

Given  the  very  broad  mission  referred  to  in  paragraph  4.2,  it  is  not  surprising  that
budget and staff have not been adequate to meet all the demands for support from the
EEA. The strain on resources has  been  felt  throughout  the  Agency’s  existence,  but
particularly so during the first years, when the gap between the level of ambition and
the products and services that could actually be delivered was bigger than at present.
The strain on resources has brought about a healthy  process of prioritisation within
the EEA, the EEA Management Board and amongst its users. Nonetheless demands
for EEA support remain larger than what can be supplied.

With the exception of the OHIM and the CPVO, that finance their core activity from
fees and not out of the Community budget, the Commission follows for all Agencies
the principle that Agency-activities that fall in the remit of their legal mandate must
be financed from the Community subvention in order not to compromise the power
of the Budgetary Authorities. The only exceptions are more structural activities to do
with  enlargement,  activities  specifically  asked  for  by  the  Commission,  or  other
activities  if  they  have  the  explicit  agreement  of  the  budgetary  authorities.
Conversely, following this principle Commission services are not allowed to contract
out any work that falls in the remit of an Agency10. In practice these guidelines have
shown to be difficult to follow and open to different interpretations, due to the very
open description of the remit of – in this case – the EEA. The limitation on making
extra resources available to EEA has in some cases led to less-than-optimal solutions,
eg. contracting out work to others where EEA actually had the best expertise.

For  a  number  of  EEA  products  and  services  funding  additional  to  the  Community
subsidy was essential. The above-mentioned exceptions have been used for work in
developing EIONET in preparation of enlargement, for the Environment for Europe
process11 and for integration of environment into other sectors. The three reports for
the Environment  for Europe  process are  a prime  example of  this.  The  drawback  of
this approach however is that the build-up of expertise inside EEA is limited, as for
these ‘additional’ products and services: to produce them, the EEA had to rely more
than usual on external expertise and there is no assurance that these outputs will be
continued.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The Budgetary Authority should provide the Agency with the resources necessary
to  perform  its  tasks  and  objectives  under  the  Regulation.  The  addition  of
permanent  tasks  that  are  not  compensated  by  an  equivalent  reduction  of  other
tasks should be matched by an increase in the Community subsidy.

(cid:1)  For  substantial  long  term  tasks  that  fall  outside  the  scope  of  EEA’s  normal
activities,  the  Commission  and  the  EEA  should  seek  funding  arrangements  to

10

11

SEC (95) 465.
The  pan-European  process  for  achieving  environmental  improvement  and  sustainable  development  in
the entire European region, involving EU, the East-European Acceding and Candidate countries and the
countries of the Newly Independent States.

8

 
                                                
ensure  the  desired  stability  in  work  priorities  and  the  building  up  of  expertise
within the EEA.

4.4.

Was its work policy relevant?

In line with its Regulation, the primary focus of the EEA has been on the key policy
making actors in the EU and particularly on the Commission and less on others, such
as the public at large.

Policy relevance has been a key consideration in most of the Agency’s products and
services.  In  planning  its  work,  the  EEA  followed  the  main  priorities  of  the
Community’s  environmental  policy,  as  laid  down  in  the  5th  and  6th  Environmental
Action  Programmes.  However,  the  net  was  cast  very  wide  in  the  first  two  multi-
annual  work  programmes  (94-98  and  99-03)  and  not  all  priorities  were  supported
equally well.

Work with the Commission has been intensive from very beginning and planning is
now  increasingly  synchronised  with  that  of  the  Commission  services  in  order  to
ensure that the EEA’s products and services are relevant to the Commission’s needs.
Relevance has been highest when EEA was closely involved from the very start of a
policy process.

Work with the Council (the ‘Cardiff’ process of integration in particular, where EEA
has  built  up  considerable  expertise)  and  the  Presidencies  gradually  increased  over
time  and  is  now  generally  regarded  as  very  useful.  This  work  has  helped  EEA
develop channels of communication with the Member States and to be more closely
in support of this stage of the decision-making process.

The European Parliament, although its involvement in environmental policy making
has significantly increased through the co-decision process, does not yet make ample
use  of  EEA’s  support.  On  the  one  hand  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  EEA  is  less
equipped  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  European  Parliament.  For  instance,  the  Agency
does not currently have the right expertise or contacts for the work that the European
Parliament would like to see on  the administrative  structures for  implementation in
the Member States. On the other hand Parliament has not yet developed a successful
mechanism  for  formulating  precise  requests  in  good  time  for  the  EEA  to  take  on
board in its planning.

Not all of EEA’s work is directly demand-driven. The Agency has a task of passing
important signals when it feels these must be taken up by the Community Institutions
and the Member States and it is important to safeguard this role of the EEA.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The  EEA  must  continue  to  strive  to  closely  align  its  activities  with  the  main

priority themes of Community environmental policy.

(cid:1)  The EEA should plan its work and resource allocation to guarantee that its support

will be available throughout the policy process.

(cid:1)  The  European  Parliament  and  the  EEA  should  develop  a  more  effective

mechanism for defining appropriate EEA support.

9

 
(cid:1)  The EEA should preserve its alert function and carry on providing early warnings

on emerging issues to the Community Institutions and the Member States.

4.5.

What stages of the policy cycle have been served best?

The Agency’s Regulation implies that the EEA can make a contribution to all stages
of the policy process. While EEA contributed in some way to most stages, work was
particularly  focused  on  the  early  stages  (problem  identification  and  definition)  and
the last stages (monitoring, reporting and evaluation) of the policy cycle. Less work
has  been  done  in  identifying  policy  options,  appraisal  of  policy  options  and  policy
implementation  –  although  EEA  clearly  has  the  potential  to  contribute  to  these
stages.

There  has  been  a  continuous  debate  between  the  Agency  and  its  stakeholders
regarding a role for the EEA in assessing policy options, evaluating the effectiveness
of Community policy, and in drawing policy recommendations on the basis of these
assessments.  While  the  Agency  has  the  potential  to  develop  a  broader  role  in  the
future, the Commission considers that it should first concentrate on fulfilling its core
tasks  including  support  for  the  reporting  obligations  under  Community  law  and  to
improving the overall quality of basic environmental information.

With the European Parliament, the discussion focused rather on a role for the Agency
in providing the European Parliament an insight in the quality of implementation of
legislation by the Member States and on the assessment of policy options. Whilst the
European Parliament and Agency agree in principle that these are areas where EEA
can play a role neither has yet found a way of taking these objectives forward.

The  underlying  issue  is  that  EEA  is  not  the  sole  actor  in  areas  such  as  policy
assessment  and  policy  evaluation  and  consequently  a  stronger  degree  of  co-
ordination must be developed, particularly with the Commission.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The primary role of EEA remains to establish the state and trends in the European
environment  and  to  support  the  Community  and  the  Member  States  in  their
reporting obligations.

(cid:1)  Once  it  has  mastered  its  core  tasks,  the  EEA  could  gradually  extend  its  support
activities along the entire range of stages of the policy cycle in close cooperation
with  the  Commission  services,  which  have  the  primary  responsibility  in  the
definition of policy options.

4.6.

How  have  relations  with  other  Community  and  international  organisations
developed?

Co-operation  with other  Community  and  international  organisations  working  in  the
same  area  has  developed  considerably  over  time.  Through  Article  15  of  its
Regulation,  the  Agency  in  under  obligation  to  co-operate  with  the  Joint  Research
Centre,  the  Commission’s  Statistical  Office  and  with  the  Community’s  R  &  D
programmes. In addition, it must co-operate with other bodies such as the European
Space  Agency,  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development
(OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), etc.

10

 
The  general  objective  is  to  limit  overlap  of  work  and  to  maximise  synergies,  for
instance  through  joint  publications  or  use  of  the  same  basic  data.  Co-operation  is
usually formalised through  Memoranda  of Understanding  or similar  documents. As
the  degree  of  formalisation  is  decided  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  there  is  no  single
format and no coherent policy regarding the agreements with other bodies.

Co-operation  has  generally  been  fruitful.  Overlaps  between  the  activities  of  the
various  bodies  are  limited  and  EEA  is  regarded  to  have  been  of  substantial  added
value for data management in Europe.

However,  further  synergies  are  possible,  notably  by  means  of  more  joint  activities
such  as  publications  or  data  requests.  A  particular  point  of  attention  is  the  co-
operation with the Commission’s statistical office. There is little interaction between
the European Statistical System and the Agency’s network of National Focal Points.
In  addition,  more  co-operation  with  the  Commission  regarding  the  Research
Framework Programme would be helpful to favour the exploitation of the scientific
and economic knowledge.

In  addition,  progress  in  the  build-up  of  a  shared  system  for  environmental  data  –
potentially important in the co-operation with these organisations – is fairly limited,
despite EEA efforts and an expressed interest amongst stakeholders.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The  EEA  should  pay  further  attention  to  co-operation  with  complementary
Community or international bodies, in particular Eurostat and the Joint Research
Centre and the 6th RTD Framework Programme, to ensure that more synergies are
created between the work of EEA in its priority areas and that of its partners. A
coherent  approach  to  the  co-operation  with  Community  and  international  bodies
could  help  to  clarify  overall  priorities  and  division  of  work  between  EEA  and
these  bodies.  EEA  and  the  bodies  concerned  should  co-ordinate  their  annual
planning of activities at the earliest possible stage.

(cid:1)  As a result of the improved collaboration, a specific objective would be to step up
the  development  of  a  shared  and  interoperable  European  information  system  for
the environment, which would go beyond the EEA own data sources and includes
the reporting obligations under Community law and under the various Multilateral
Environmental Agreements.

4.7.

Has EEA’s autonomy been instrumental?

The EEA is not strictly linked to any of the Community Institutions. The Regulation
organises  this  autonomy  in  several  ways,  notably  through  the  open  wording  of  the
mandate of the EEA and the many interests represented in its Management Board. In
addition,  the  Agency  has  over  time  built  up  a  solid  reputation,  which  in  turn  leads
users to trust it and further increases EEA’s room for manoeuvre.

Yet at the same time the EEA has proven to be highly dependent on the Community
and  the  Member  States  in  two  ways.  Firstly  on  resources:  the  Community  subsidy
and  the  Agency  establishment  table  are  decided  by  Council  and  European
Parliament.  The  Commission  negotiates  the  level  of  3rd  country  membership
contributions  within  a  mandate  of  the  Council.  Access  to  Community  support

11

 
programmes  goes  via  the  Commission,  which  is  responsible  for  managing  the
programmes.  Secondly  the  EEA  is  dependent  for  part  of  its  basic  data  on  Member
States, Eurostat or other Commission services, who voluntarily co-operate with EEA.

With  EEA’s  autonomy  came  frictions  (particularly  with  the  Commission  but
occasionally  also  with  others)  for  instance  on  the  control  of  its  output.  Frictions
reduced over time. This was achieved mainly through clarification of the respective
roles of the Commission and the Agency and a better management of the relations.

EEA’s  independence  is  regarded  as  a  prerequisite  for  the  credibility  of  the
information it supplies. The autonomy has proven to be most effective in areas where
EEA  has the primary  responsibility: data  collection, processing of information and,
to  a  lesser  extent,  determining  the  data  needs,  particularly  when  it  comes  to
identification of environmental problems. In other areas, where EEA’s responsibility
is shared or limited (assessment of trends, selection of policy options, effectiveness
evaluation, etc) the added value of the autonomy is less obvious and EEA’s role has
been most effective when closely co-ordinated with the other players involved.

EEA’s  independence  however  does  not  only  derive  from  its  legal  autonomy.  The
quality of its work is the key factor to build up its authority and influence, which in
turn reinforces its independence. This is why the Agency should continuously strive
to further enhance the quality and relevance of its products.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  EEA’s autonomy within the Community context must be safeguarded.

(cid:1)  EEA  should  strive  to  enhance  further  the  quality  and  relevance  of  its  work,
notably through a better timing and targeting of its products and strengthening the
mechanisms to control the scientific quality of its output.

4.8.

Did the co-operation with non-EU countries add value?

EEA  started  with  the  then  12  EU  Member  States  as  its  member  countries.  Shortly
before  the  enlargement  of  the  EU  with  Sweden,  Finland  and  Austria,  also
Liechtenstein,  Iceland  and  Norway  joined  EEA,  bringing  membership12  up  to  18.
The latter three countries had the status of full members without right to vote in the
EEA  Management  Board.  During  the  last  two  years  all  Acceding  States  and  the
Candidate Countries became EEA members. Non-EU countries will be full members
but  without  right  to  vote.  EEA  is  the  first  Agency  to  have  fully  integrated  all
Acceding countries in its activities, for which it is supported financially by the Phare
programme.  In  addition, it works  since  a  few  years  with  the  west-Balkan  countries
(with  CARDS  (Community  Assistance  for  Reconstruction  Democratisation  and
Stabilisation)  support).  EEA  co-operates  with  Switzerland  and  formal  negotiations
between the Commission and Switzerland about full EEA membership have recently
been  finalised  at  technical  level.  Finally,  EEA  contributed  substantially  to  the
Environment  for  Europe  process  (with  TACIS  support).  This  allowed  EEA  to

12

The term ‘membership’ is used in this report as it is the commonly used word. However, the bilateral
agreements between the Community and the 3rd countries regarding EEA  use the  word ‘participation’
rather than membership.

12

 
                                                
establish  a  first  co-operation  with  the  Eastern  European,  Caucasian  and  Central
Asian (EECCA) countries.

The possibility of extending its membership to third countries is foreseen in the EEA
Regulation and the  enlargement  of EEA’s  membership  has  been  carried  out  in  line
with  the  Community’s  overall  external  policy.  The  key  considerations  here  were
firstly  to  use  Agency  membership  as  a  means  of  preparing  the  ground  for  EU
membership  and  secondly  for  aligning  the  environmental  information  systems  in
neighbouring countries to those in the EU.

Another important condition for a further widening of EEA membership is that co-
operation with third countries should add environmental value on both ends.

Beyond the Acceding States, the Candidate Countries and Switzerland, the Agency is
considered  to  be  a  platform  for  further  co-operation  between  EEA  and  third
countries.  This  applies  in  a  first  instance  to  the  west  Balkan  countries,  where
participation  in  the  work  of  Community  Agencies  is  foreseen  in  the  Thessaloniki
Agenda  under  conditions  similar  to  those  established  for  the  Candidate  Countries,
and in a second instance to the countries that fall under the Wider Europe initiative.

The enlargement of EEA membership as well as the co-operation with third countries
that did not (yet) translate into full membership has had very positive effects. It has
allowed  for  a  more  complete,  detailed  and  relevant  coverage  of  the  state  of  the
environment and related trends in the European territory. For the countries involved,
it  has  meant  an  upgrading  and  harmonisation  to  European  standards  of  their  data
management  and  supply  systems.  Politically  the  process  has  been  significant  in
sending the message that progress was being made on the road to EU membership.

As EEA was enlarged rather gradually (co-operation always  started  well  before the
formal  entry)  and  the  extra  work  was  supported  financially,  there  have  been
generally very few problems adapting to an Agency of more than twice the original
size. Still, EEA has some way to go to grow to a fully representative Agency serving
all  its  31  member  countries  Moreover,  by  adding  countries  to  the  EEA,  the
Management Board has grown considerably and a further increase in size may raise
questions about the Boards efficiency and manageability.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The  first  priority  for  the  EEA  in  the  context  of  enlargement  should  be  to  fully
integrate the 13 countries that recently joined in its operations and activities. With
the  exception  of  Switzerland,  a  further  widening  of  EEA  membership  is  not
considered opportune in the immediate future.

(cid:1)  EEA must continue to be one of the first contact points for third countries desiring
to  co-operate  with  the  EU  on  environmental  issues  at  a  technical  level,  for
instance  in  the  context  of  the  Wider  Europe  Initiative13  and  the  Thessaloniki
Agenda.  This  co-operation  must  be  an  integral  part  of  the  policy  of  the

13

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  ‘Wider  Europe  –
Neighbourhood: a New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Partners’, COM (2003)
104 final.

13

 
                                                
Community  towards  a  particular  third  country  and  must  come  with  a  solid
financial foundation in addition to the regular Community subsidy to the EEA.

4.9.

Was the ‘internal’ network effective?

The EEA is the central node in a network of National Focal Points (NFP). The NFPs
are the Agency contact points in each member country. The NFPs have in turn their
own  network  of  national  reference  centres  (NRCs)  and  primary  contact  points
(PCPs).  In  addition,  European  Topic  Centres  (ETCs)  have  been  created:  these  are
consortia  of  institutes  and  consultants  in  the  EEA  member  countries  that  carry  out
part of the Work Programme under contract with the EEA. NFPs, NRCs, PCPs and
ETCs  jointly  constitute  the  European  Information  and  Observation  Network
(EIONET).

The EIONET is a crucial infrastructure in the decentralised set-up of the EEA. Not
only is it the main channel of primary data for the Agency, it also brings in expertise
from across Europe and serves as a forum to discuss Agency activities and priorities.

The ETCs, currently five in number (water, air & climate change, waste and material
flows,  nature  and  biodiversity  and  terrestrial  environment),  are  under  3-year
contracts  with  EEA.  Their  work  and  the  overall  structure  are  regularly  reviewed.
Over half of the EEA’s operational budget is allocated to the ETCs14 and most of the
Agency’s expertise in the aforementioned areas is concentrated in the ETCs.

EEA  plays  an  active  role  in  managing  the  EIONET  by  co-ordinating  activities,
developing overarching tools and improving the quality and consistency of the inputs
delivered by the NFPs and ETCs.

Establishing,  maintaining  and  improving  the  EIONET  is  a  key  achievement  of  the
EEA.  Remaining  weaknesses  in  the  EIONET  are  firstly  the  substantial  variation  in
the  organisation  and  quality  of  the  national  network  behind  it.  Secondly,  the
connection between NFPs and the Management  Board is too limited, making NFPs
sometimes miss vital policy information and vice versa causing the Board to miss out
on important technical information.

Like the NFPs, the ETCs strengthen the link between the EEA member countries and
bring  in  high  level  expertise.  The  ETCs  have  become  highly  valuable  partners  to
many  of  EEA’s  users.  At  the  same  time  the  existing  system  has  a  number  of
important  weaknesses.  By  concentrating  its  ‘topical’  expertise  in  the  ETCs,  the
central  capacities  of  the  Agency  are  weakened.  The  existence  of  ETCs  creates  an
extra  layer  of  bureaucracy  between  EEA  and  its  users,  rendering  communication
unnecessarily complicated. Steering of the ETCs by EEA is not easy with ETC staff
at a distance and relatively little policy-oriented. In addition, only few EEA staff are
available  for  this  task  and  do  not  necessarily  have  the  expertise  to  assess  ETC
outputs. As shown by the recent (2003) evaluation of ETCs, they are less suited for
dealing  with  issues  that  cut  across  topics.  Finally,  with  relatively  short  contracts
(taking into account that a new organisation has to be built up) expertise risks to be
lost to the EEA after three or six years.

14

2002 figures: € 6,5 million out of € 12,2 million. Source: EEA Annual Report 2002.

14

 
                                                
Recommendations:

(cid:1)  EIONET should be strengthened as it represents a key operating infrastructure for

the EEA.

(cid:1)  EEA  should  reinforce  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  National  Focal
Points and the Board to ensure a better mutual understanding between the policy
and technical spheres of the Agency. It could for instance involve the NFPs more
in  the  preparation  of  issues  for  discussion  in  the  Management  Board  and  vice
versa provide feedback to the Board on NFP technical –discussions.

(cid:1)  The  EEA  should  urgently  address  the  signalled  weaknesses  of  the  system
governing ETCs. It should ensure that the expertise in the areas currently covered
through  the ETCs be  more  durably  available  to  the  Agency,  while  still  ensuring
the use of expertise in the Member States.

4.10.

Did the governance structure function satisfactory?

Management Board and Bureau

The Management Board represents the main Community stakeholders of the EEA. It
meets three times a year and supervises the EEA’s strategic choices. In addition, it is
the control body of the Executive Director. Board members are typically high-level
representatives  of  Member  States  administrations  and  Community  bodies.  Since  its
start,  the  Management  Board  increased  substantially  in  size:  from  16  members  (2
Commission, 2 experts designated by the European Parliament, 12 Member States) to
35  (2  Commission,  2  European  Parliament,  15  EU  Member  States  and  16  third
countries as members without voting right). With the growing size of the  EEA, the
Board’s agenda also got fuller. Mainly for this reason a Bureau has been established
and  formalised  through  the  1999  amendment  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  Bureau
the  Commission,  1
currently  consists  of  6  members:  1  representative  of 
representative designated by the European Parliament, the chairman and the 3 vice-
chairmen  of  the  Board.  The  chair  of  the  Scientific  Committee  is  observer  to  both
Board and Bureau.

Over  the  past  few  years,  the  responsibilities  of  the  Bureau  have  been  extended.  It
now takes some executive decisions and prepares Board decisions. The Bureau is felt
to  be  a  very  satisfactory  construction  which  has  the  potential  to  take  up  more
responsibilities, provided that its membership and activities are fully transparent.

Regarding the Board, the key problems are:

(cid:1)  Supervision:  as  indicated  earlier  in  this  report,  the  open  and  flexible  Regulation
leaves  substantial  freedom  to  the  EEA  to  decide  which  activities  to  undertake.
While  it  rightfully  does  not  want  to  lose  itself  in  micro-management,  the  Board
may  have  difficulties  to  exercise  control  on  the  activities  and  priorities  of  the
EEA, but also in areas such as finance and administration, despite the presence of
an internal auditor. This is compounded by the fact that the Agency itself provides
the secretariat to the Board and its Chair.

15

 
(cid:1)  Balance  between  national  and  Community  interests:  due  to  the  enlarging  EEA
membership,  there  is  a  growing  imbalance  between  Member  States’  and
Community representation in the Agency’s management structures.

These  problems  appear  to  be  similar  to  those  in  other,  comparable  Community
Agencies.  The  size  and  composition  of  the  Management  Boards  of  Agencies  has
been  a  particular  point  of  attention  for  the  Commission  when  it  proposed  a
framework  for  the  Regulatory  and  Executive  Agencies.  Also  the  European
Parliament  has  requested  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  a  proposal  for
adapting  the  size  and  composition  of  certain  Agency’s  Management  Boards,  in
particular with a view to maintain their efficiency after the EU enlargement15.

However  the  fact  that  the  EEA  is  a  network  organisation,  heavily  reliant  on  its
member  countries’  and  Community  Institutions’  co-operation,  should  be  borne  in
mind when deciding on the Board’s future composition and role.

Scientific Committee (SC)

The role of the Scientific Committee is to deliver opinions, either upon request of the
Board or the Director or at its own initiative. The SC has maximum 20 members. The
members are designated  by the Board for a period  of 4  years, renewable  once,  and
are 
their  majority  renowned  academics  representing  various  areas  of
environmental expertise. However, the allowance members receive only allows them
to  devote  limited  time  to  their  role  in  addition  to  attending  the  meetings  of  the
Committee.

in 

The  SC  is  regarded  as  an  important  interface  between  EEA  and  the  academia.  As
such,  it  potentially  brings  innovation  and  a  degree  of  scientific  quality  control  to
EEA. While the work of the SC is widely  appreciated, in its current construction it
cannot fully deliver on both aspects. There is no clear framework for quality control
involving  the  Scientific  Committee  in  the  EEA.  Rather,  the  Committee  is  involved
on ad hoc basis in some products  and  services, but absent  in  others.  The  Scientific
Committee’s  overall  role  in  quality  assurance  is  very  limited.  This  is  particularly
problematic as quality of its products is vital to EEA’s credibility as an information
provider and an indispensable element to its users.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The Commission should review the size and composition of the Board, as well as
the division of tasks with the Bureau, in line with similar Community Agencies in
as much as possible. A new structure should enable the Agency to maintain strong
links to the national environmental services. As an intermediate solution, a further
shift of responsibilities from Board to Bureau could be considered.

(cid:1)  The Board should be provided the means to exert more fully its control over the
Agency including its finance and administration. For instance, the Agency  could
explore ways to support the chairman with a secretariat that is independent of the
EEA, and for the Board to work more in specialised sub-Committees.

15

European Parliament Resolution C5-0098/2003 – 2003/2044(DEC), point 17.

16

 
                                                
(cid:1)  The role of the Scientific Committee in quality assurance of Agency product and
services  should  be  strengthened.  Its  mandate,  activities,  budget  and  membership
should be revised to that end.

4.11. Have the Agency’s products and services been satisfactory?

The EEA has over the years developed a range of products and services. In the first
place  its  reports,  one  of  which  (the  5-year  European  state  and  trends  report)  is
mandatory.  Others  cover  specific  topics,  are  written  for  specific  events  (eg.  the
Environment  for  Europe  conferences)  or  cover  a  technical  issue.  In  addition,  EEA
organises  workshops  and  others  events,  delivers  presentations,  ad-hoc  papers  and
expertise in technical meetings or negotiations. Much of the information is available
through  the  EEA  website,  which  is  increasingly  replacing  paper-based  reports  and
provides quick updates of data and information.

A  substantial  part  of  EEA’s  activities  is  in  creating  and  maintaining  databases  of
environmental information, and providing the underpinning  information  technology
infrastructure and services. Much of this back-office work is a pre-requisite for many
of the visible products.

Most products and services target an expert-user audience. Some target (higher-level)
policy-makers. The general public is mainly served through the website and through
the information centre. Generally, EEA’s products and services are considered to be
well targeted and relevant by its users.

Weaker  points  are  the  user-friendliness  of  the  website,  the  limited  availability  of
publications  in  other  languages  than  English.  This  remark  about  language
particularly  applies  to  the  website,  where  translation  of  the  main  pages  in  other
languages than English would be desirable. A further weak point is the response to
ad hoc requests for support, either because of a lack of required expertise in the EEA
or because of the fact that the planning does not foresee much room for this type of
requests.

EEA’s  flagship  products  require  some  further  thought.  One  the  one  hand,  they  are
important reference works and have helped to put EEA very clearly on the map. On
the  other,  they  are  criticised  for  being  too  general  for  the  specialist,  and  too
specialised for the general public. This, and the fact that they consume a substantial
share of EEA’s resources, leads to the question whether these report should continue
to be produced in their current form. This remark equally  applies to the  reports the
EEA has produced for the Environment for Europe process, such as most recently the
report  for  the  Kiev-conference,  even  though  this  report  was  funded  from  separate
sources.

EEA has generally been very timely, although this is dependent on being involved in
a  policy  process  sufficiently  early.  The  European  Parliament  seems  generally
dissatisfied with the support it gets from EEA. Although the dialogue between EEA
and  EP  has  recently  been  intensified,  there  still  seems  to  be  a  mismatch  between
what EEA can  deliver  (at  least  in the short run)  and  what  the  European  Parliament
wants:  more  information  on  the  state  of  implementation  and  ex-ante  impact
assessment of policy proposals.

17

 
As to the reliability of EEA’s products and services, it is clear that the  Agency has
greatly  contributed  to  the  quality  and  availability  of  environmental  data  and
information  in  Europe.  Weaknesses  in  reliability  remain  though,  but  with  primary
data not always under the control of the EEA or collected on a voluntary basis, this
requires strong co-operation with partner organisations.

There  is  no  solid  conclusion  that  can  yet  be  drawn  regarding  the  impact  of  EEA’s
outputs.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  The EEA must continue to strive for reliability of its products and services as it is
a cornerstone of its credibility. Systematic evaluation of quality and impact should
be introduced.

(cid:1)  EEA should consider particularly whether the current ‘flagship’ products (5-year
State  of  the  Environment  report,  ‘Signals’  and  the  Environment  for  Europe
reports) still meet their objectives and are worth the resources put into them.

(cid:1)  EEA should improve communication with the general public, particularly through
the  website.  It  should  also  improve  the  provision  of  information  for  policy
makers. This can be done through short briefings but also by responding in a more
satisfactory way to ad hoc requests for support.

4.12. What are the future challenges for EEA?

Expectations for Agency support increase. In part this is due to the fact that EEA has
successfully established itself as a provider of reliable and high quality products and
services.  Expectations  rise  as  well  because  of  the  changing  nature  of  environment
policy.  The  6th  Environmental  Action  Programme  puts  emphasis  on  basing
environment  policy  on  a solid  knowledge  foundation.  This  applies  to  preparing  the
basis  for  a  policy  but  equally  to  selecting  the  best  option,  monitoring  the
implementation  and  measuring  the  impacts.  Ex-ante  and  ex-post  evaluations  of
policy are  now  becoming  an  important  feature  of  environment  policy  and  the  EEA
can significantly contribute to these. Further developments that will lead to demands
on  EEA  are  the  continuation  of  the  process  of  integration  of  the  environment  into
other  Community  policies  and  the  framing  of  environment  policy  in  the  context  of
sustainable development – within Europe and in the global context. The work in the
context  of  sustainable  development  will  require  greater  emphasis  on  the  economic
and social aspects of environmental issues.

Even if these additional tasks are matched by additional resources, prioritisation will
continue  to  be  necessary.  EEA  should  also  co-ordinate  activities  much  better  with
partner organisations such as JRC, Eurostat and the 6th RTD Framework Programme
with a view to  avoid  overlaps  and  to  create  synergies.  It  should  only  exceptionally
consider entering in a field of activity in which another Community or international
body  organisation  is  already  well  established.  It  should  also  only  undertake
additional  activities  if  appropriate  funding  is  obtained  either  directly  from
Commission  services  from  their  own  budget  or  from  third  parties,  without
endangering its independence.

18

 
Despite the fact that the 6th EAP provides the overall framework  for the  years until
2010,  there  is  a  substantial  degree  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  policy  priorities  for  the
next years. Not only will a new Commission and a new European Parliament be in
place  as  of  mid-2004,  also  the  6th  EAP  will  be  reviewed  in  2006.  Too  often  the
Agency’s resources were fully allocated and support for new priorities could only be
given later, or not at all.

Recommendations:

(cid:1)  In developing proposals that imply substantial work for the EEA, the Commission
may  consider  providing  separate  funding  for  these  activities.  As  in  the  two
examples  set  out  in  this  paragraph,  criteria  could  be  that  these  activities  are  (1)
within the EEA mandate, (2) provide added value to the Agency and its users and
(3) cannot be financed within the current operating subsidy.

(cid:1)  The  Agency  should  set  up  mechanisms  and  transparent  criteria  to  prioritise  its

activities.

(cid:1)  In order to ensure the relevance of its work, the Agency should follow closely the
priorities as set out in the 6th EAP. Substantial support is expected from EEA for
the thematic strategies.

4.13.

Is a change in the Regulation appropriate?

Throughout  this  report  several  issues  have  been  mentioned  that  may  need  a
modification  of  the  Regulation  in  order  to  be  correctly  addressed.  The  main  issues
concern:

(cid:1)  Articles 2 and 3 : objectives, tasks and principle areas of activity the  EEA  to be

better focused and more clearly described;

(cid:1)  Article  4,  position  and  role  of  the  European  Topic  Centres,  depending  on  the

proposals to be developed to address the weaknesses signalled in this report;

(cid:1)  Article 8, governance structure: revision and harmonisation of the main structures
(Management Board and Bureau) across Agencies and responding particularly to
the  problems  of  accountability,  efficiency  and  balance  of  Community  and
Member State’ interests;

(cid:1)  Article 10, Scientific Committee: harmonisation across agencies and involvement

in the exercise of quality control;

(cid:1)  Article  15,  co-operation  with  other  Community  and  international  bodies,  to  be

made more general and linked to actual priorities of the EEA.

(cid:1)  The involvement of the European Parliament in the procedure for the selection of

a candidate for the post of Executive Director.

Many  of  the  above  points  can,  as  described  in  the  report,  satisfactorily,  if  not
optimally,  be  addressed  within  the  current  legislative  framework.  The  current
reflection  on  the  agencies  may  lead  the  Commission  to  propose,  at  a  later  stage,
modifications across all agencies, in order to streamline and harmonise the different

19

 
existing regimes.  It does not therefore seem opportune to propose at this juncture a
modification  of  Regulation  establishing  the  EEA.  Should  the  evoked  broader
modification  of  the  rules  governing  agencies  not  be  introduced  by  then,  a  separate
revision  of  the  EEA  regulation  should  be  envisaged  at  the  end  of  the  next  Multi
Annual Work Programme of the Agency, i.e. in 2008.

The Commission therefore proposes to that the recommendations made in this report
be  introduced  as  soon  as  possible  within  the  current  legal  framework.  Barring  an
earlier  horizontal  initiative  for  several  Community  Agencies  which  would  provide
the opportunity to introduce the suggested changes, it will revisit the question of an
eventual  modification  of  EEA’s  Regulation  towards  the  end  of  the  forthcoming
Corporate Strategy, in 2008.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

The  European  Environment  Agency  is  a  key  resource  for  bodies  responsible  for
environmental policy making in Europe. With the EEA, the availability and quality
of  environmental  information  has  improved  considerably.  In  addition,  through  the
EEA,  the  network  of  ‘environmental  information  professionals’  in  the  EU  and  its
neighbouring countries has grown much closer.

By  and  large  EEA’s  priorities  matched  those  on  the  European  policy  agenda.
Important  contributions  were  made  to  various  important  areas  of  Community
environmental  policy.  However,  some  areas  were  consistently  not  addressed  (e.g.
Chemicals) despite falling clearly in the remit of the Agency’s mandate.

While  the  strain  on  resources  has  helped  to  focus  the  minds,  prioritisation  is  still
hampered by the fact that the costs per product or service are not transparent. EEA is
increasingly  confronted  with  requests  for  support  that  are  beyond  or  on  the
borderline  of  its  mandate.  EEA  should  not  undertake  these  activities  without  the
guarantee that they can be financed from additional income without jeopardizing its
core activities. The Commission and the EEA should seek other sources of funding
besides the regular subsidy to enable EEA to do this type of work.

EEA  develops  gradually  from  a  ‘report  producer’  only  into  a  producer  of  a  wider
range  of  products  and  services.  This  diversification  is  a  positive  development  as  it
will  help  to  serve  users  that  have  until  now  not  been  served  very  well.  It  will  also
help  to  respond  better  to  ad  hoc  requests  for  support.  The  quality  of  its  work
continues  to  require  systematic  attention.  A  particular  concern  are  the  Agency’s
flagship  products,  that  may  not  be  as  crucial  for  EEA  and  its  users  as  they  were
before.

With  the  agreement  of  the  users  of  its  information,  EEA  has  long  focused  on
establishing the state and trends in the environment, on pressures on the environment
and  on  the  driving  forces  behind  them.  In  addition,  EEA  was  much  involved  in
reporting information. In order to more fully exploit its potential, EEA should move
more  into  other  stages  of  the  policy  cycle.  It  should  avoid  though  putting  its
reputation  at  stake  by  becoming  a  player  rather  than  an  independent  source  of
information.

20

 
The Commission has been the main user of EEA’s work. Some other users however
are  underrepresented.  Particularly  work  for  the  European  Parliament  would  require
more attention.

One  of  the  most  significant  achievements  of  the  EEA  is  the  establishment,
maintenance and improvement of the EIONET. One of the key assets is that through
EIONET,  there  is  a  degree  of  harmonisation  and  capacity  building,  a  platform  for
discussion and a means for direct contact with experts throughout the EU. EIONET
has finally also proven to be able to adapt to changing priorities. The European Topic
Centres  require  specific  attention.  While  they  deliver  much  of  the  environmental
expertise  EEA  needs  for  its  activities,  this  report  also  highlights  important
weaknesses. EEA and its users should address these.

It is important to highlight EEA’s early expansion to non-EU countries. With its 31
member countries, EEA is the first pan-European Community agency and as such it
has  been  a  valuable  precursor  for  the  work  on  the  environmental  chapter  for  the
enlargement  in  2004. A pause in  its expansion  would  now  be  suitable  and  the  first
priority is to be a fully responsive Agency for an EU of 25.

The  structures  governing  the  EEA  need  to  be  reviewed  in  order  to  ensure  a
appropriate  balance  of  Community  and  national  interests  and  to  ensure  that  Board
and  Bureau  can  exercise  that  supervisory  function  correctly.  The  Scientific
Committee  should  be  more  closely  involved  in  assuring  quality.  This  may  in  turn
require a change to its mandate and availability.

This  report  highlights  several  issues  that  could  require  a  modification  of  the
Regulation,  which  was  last  modified  in  1999.  The  key  area  for  modification  is  the
role  and  functioning  of  the  Management  Board  and  the  Bureau.  However,  the
Commission has not yet defined a common line vis à vis EEA and similar agencies.
This, and the fact that most of the other issues in this report can be addressed without
a modification of the legislation, leads the Commission to conclude that a revision of
the Regulation should not be initiated now. The question should be revisited towards
the end of EEA’s coming multi-annual work programme, in 2008.

21