Commission staff working document - Annex to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing of European standardisation - Ex-ante evaluation {COM(2005) 377 final}
Date: 2005-08-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cenelec, ETSI, EU financing, European Committee for Standardisation, European standard, impact study, standardisation













EUR-Lex - 52005SC1050 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52005SC1050

Commission staff working document - Annex to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing of European standardisation - Ex-ante evaluation {COM(2005) 377 final}  /* SEC/2005/1050 final */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 19.8.2005SEC(2005) 1050 finalCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTAnnex to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing of European standardisation EX-ANTE EVALUATION {COM(2005) 377 final}1. NEEDS ASSESSMENT1.1. Description of activities carried out until nowThe EC has given financial support to the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) CEN, CENELEC and ETSI for the development of European standards since the 80’s notably to support the “new approach policy” in order to achieve the approximation of legislation for establishing the internal market.The funding of standardisation activities (from DG Entr's budget line) relies on four pillars:1.  Annual Performance Contracts – to support and improve the functioning of the central secretariats of the ESOs.2.  Quality of European standardisation – to fund assessments of draft standards by consultants, and the costs for translations of harmonised standards.3.  Standardisation work – to provide financial support to the production of European standards and other harmonisation documents.4.  External visibility and promotion of European standards outside of the EU.Apart from these four pillars, other activities are performed by other DGs (e.g. technical assistance and co-operation by DG Relex).1.2. What would happen under a “no further intervention scenario”?In the absence of financial support from the EC, it is likely that the production of European standards in support of EU policies and legislation, would be more difficult. Since 1987, more than 20 “new approach” harmonisation directives have been adopted using European standardisation as a main tool to achieve the objective of establishing the internal market i.e. the free circulation of industrial goods with a high level of protection for industrial products like toys, medical devices, machinery, lifts, construction products, personal protective equipment, radio and telecommunication equipment, low voltage equipment, pressure equipment ….Beyond new approach directives, the EU is using more and more European standardisation in support of technical regulations in the field of transport or ICT interoperability or in the area of freedom, security and justice for example.The EC would no longer have any means to ensure that the harmonised standards in support of legislation are produced in time because the priorities of the other stakeholders (industry, national standards organisations) are different. This would mean that the New Approach legislation and technical regulations would not work anymore or partly be substantially less effective.Furthermore, the role of European standards to reduce technical barriers to trade or to support EU policies enhancing the competitiveness of European industry would decrease.2. OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS2.1. Have general, specific and operational objectives been defined in terms of expected results?General objectives are clearly explained in the General Guidelines for the co-operation between CEN, CENELEC and ETSI and the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association, in which the parties have reached an agreement on the important role played by European standardisation in the functioning of the single market and the competitiveness of enterprises; this agreement also provides significant support to several Community policies and thus to the interests of the public, through the following common policy objectives:-  to play a role in the completion of the internal market,-  to help attain the goal of high environmental protection,-  to constitute a tool for the advancement of European competitiveness and to allow for technological innovation,-  to provide a graduated range of types of deliverables that respond to different market needs,-  to provide a flexible and transparent mechanism for consensus building on identified technical issues in Europe,-  to promote Europe’s interests in the global economy and create conditions for access to world markets,-  to provide candidate countries and neighbouring countries with a major tool for the facilitation of adaptation of their economies to the Community market and to promote sustainable development, economic and technological integration or co-operation,-  to provide a mechanism for economic and social partners in Europe and other relevant interest groups,Specific and operational objectives are set in an Annual Work Programme published by Enterprise DG and are specified in more detail in the financing decision of Enterprise DG, including the four pillars as mentioned in point 1.1, and in addition some specific actions (studies, evaluations, etc).As example, for the improvement of the functioning of the ESOs, Annual Performance Contract are set up each year to improve the efficiency, the quality and the visibility of the 3 ESOs through specific actions and performance indicators.3. ALTERNATIVES3.1. Identify and compare other optionsAs the standardisation system is working at different levels (national, European and international), there is no real alternative: the European standardisation system is the only one able to produce standards in support of European policies and regulations. The Commission encourages nevertheless the ESOs to work closely with their counterpart at the international level (ISO, IEC, ITU) in order to avoid barriers to trade across the world and to improve the competitiveness of European industry.Other options than funding given by the EC would include:-  Exclusive funding from industry and other stakeholders, which would likely concentrate only on standards that are market driven in order to improve the competitiveness of European industry on the global market; this may not sufficiently cover standards to be developed in the European public interest where the benefits may only be realized on a longer term.-  Exclusive funding from the Member States to the National Standards Bodies, which are members of the ESOs, with the risk of delaying European activities and then weakening the internal market due to the diversity of approaches and priorities across the EU.3.2. Added-value of Community involvementThe production of European standards forces the national standards organisations to withdraw national standards which are not compatible with the first ones. Beyond this strong added value for the achievement and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid barriers to trade, there is clearly an economy of scale for industry to set up common standards at the European level in a single technical committee where all the interested parties are represented.To achieve these objectives there is a need to drive the standardisation process from a community point of view notably through improvements in the coherence, the efficiency and the visibility of the system and through the requests addressed to the ESOs by the Commission, after consultation of the 98/34 Committee, in order to achieve standardisation work in support of its policies and regulations.4. COST EFFECTIVENESS4.1. What are the different cost implications?It is reasonable to believe that the EU gets a high degree of influence compared to its relatively small contribution (about 20 million € annually), and that the availability of European standards on the market leads to important economic benefits for society.According to a study issued by the Austrian Standards Body ON (“Der Nutzen der Normung für Unternehmen und Volkswirtschaft”) in Austria, the benefit of standardisation was € 1.74 billion whereas the cost was € 43 million. Thus, the benefit was 40 times higher than the cost.A recent study issued by one of the major national standard organisations has asserted that in Europe standardisation adds 1 % to the value of the gross domestic product. It was also pointed out that the added value generated by standardisation is at least as important as the value generated by patents. This confirms why standardisation is so important for European policies. The Commission is well aware of these facts and has, consequently, incorporated the use of standards in various documents related to its policies.According to the Roland Berger and Partner GmbH study (December 2000), the total yearly costs of the CEN standardisation system amount to more than 700 M€, out of which the institutional costs of the National Standardisation Bodies and other organisations amount to 26%, the CEN Management Centre (CMC) 2%, and the experts participating in the committees 72%.Revenue stems from three major sources: the EC/EFTA contributions amount to 2% of the total, the national government fees to 5% and the industry/interested parties to 93%. Only 1/5 of the industry/interested parties contributions comes as cash, the rest reflects costs for expert participation, that are borne by the industry/interested parties. The EC/EFTA contribution is small in the overall system with an average of 25% contribution to the central secretariats of the ESOs and around 50% of the costs of the technical secretariats for the production of European standards necessary for the implementation of European legislation.The most important conclusion in the CEN study is that on both European and national level, standardisation funding is primarily industry driven and the 2% contribution of EC/EFTA to the whole system is good value for money compared to the relatively strong influence that EC/EFTA have in promoting their internal and international policies through this system.4.2. Could the same result be achieved at a lower cost or could more or better results be achieved at the same cost by using different instruments?The cost-efficiency is already high (see 4.1). Another financial instrument, service contracts, is not an easy option for standardisation work because:-  There is a de facto monopoly situation for the three recognised ESOs, which prevents any competition in a call for tender procedure.-  The EC is not supposed to procure and take ownership of voluntary standards, due to the copyright of the author. Service contracts would also mean a 100% funding rate of the production of standards which is contrary to the present situation where different stakeholders all contribute to the production costs.-  The EC cannot draft terms of reference (necessary for a service contract) for the production of voluntary standards that are developed in an open consensus process.-  The introduction of competition in a procurement procedure would mean that the yearly support to the ESOs' central secretariats would have to cease, to put the tenderers on equal terms. This would likely hamper the functioning of the ESOs and be contrary to the EC's standardisation policy.5. LESSONS FROM THE PAST5.1. Any available monitoring or audit reports to describe results or to improve the design of the activities?The report "Efficiency and accountability in European standardisation under the New Approach" [13 May 1998, SEC(98)291] gives recommendations on how to improve the standardisation system and bring about a higher efficiency in the production process.It involves recommendations to conduct e.g. studies on the economic impact of European standards and the effects on the competitiveness. An impact study was actually made in 2001-2002 but the results were not sufficiently solid. A new approach will be tried in 2004-2005 in co-operation with the ESOs with the aim to highlight the impact of standards in various sectors.The report also suggests to reduce the delays in the standardisation process by benchmarking the processes of the European standardisation organisations. An ambitious programme to reduce the delays in CEN standardisation has been launched in November 2002 and has shown positive results already. Another recommendation involves the use of electronic tools to improve the efficiency of the ESOs, which has resulted in a number of initiatives to develop the electronic working tools during the period 2001-2003.One remark concerned the national transposition periods for European standards, where the national standards bodies in some Member States have significant transposition deficits. This continues to be an issue of concern and the Commission has repeated the need to address the practices at national level.The report also pointed out that pre-normative research can be very useful to promote the standardisation process and improve the dissemination. The Commission has given financial support to pre-normative research in a number of cases in 2000-2003.6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION6.1. How are the activities implemented and monitored?Each grant agreement that provides funding to the standardisation system is continuously monitored through annual review meetings and the target dates are reviewed by the EC and the contractor, if need be. The expenditure is monitored through a system for real cost controls.The standardisation unit (C2) reports on its work, achievements and financial expenditure in a financial report transmitted to the Director-General each semester.A programme for comprehensive evaluation of EC standardisation policies and EC financial support is being implemented, with approximately one policy area being examined each year (see 6.2).6.2. What types of evaluations are needed and when should they be carried out?Ex-post evaluations of each of the policy areas are made with the aim of illuminating the outcome and impact of Enterprise DG's activities. An evaluation of the eSAP contracts (in the field of ICT standardisation) was carried out in 2003 and the New Approach consultant system will be analysed in 2005/2006. Other policy areas will follow in the coming years.