AGENCIES: ORIGIN OF TASKS, LOCAL CONDITIONS AND STAFFING

NOTE Budgetary Support Unit AGENCIES: ORIGIN OF TASKS, LOCAL CONDITIONS AND STAFFING BUDGETARY AFFAIRS JANUARY 17 October 20042007 PE 381.092 EN

This note was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets This paper is published in the following languages: - Original: EN Author: Fabia Jones Administrator ATR 03 L 006 Brussels B-1047 Brussels Tel: +32 (0)2 283 1280 Fax: +32 (0)2 284 4907 E-mail: fabia.jones@europarl.europa.eu Manuscript completed in October 2007 Copies can be obtained through: E-mail: ip-budgetsupport@europarl.europa.eu Site intranet:] http://www.ipolnet.ep.parl.union.eu/ipolnet/cms/op/edit/pid/1942 Brussels, European Parliament, 2007 The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary...4 Summary of replies to the questionnaire...5 1. Origin of tasks and local conditions...5 Table 1: Origin of tasks and local conditions in the agencies...6 2. Staff...9 2.a. Types of staff...9 Table 2: Staff in the agencies: type...10 2.b. Nationalities of staff...11 2.b.i EU27 staff...11 Table 3: Staff in the agencies: nationality, EU27...12 Table 4: Proportion of staff by nationality in the agencies, the Commission and Member States.13 2.b.ii Non-EU staff...14 Table 5: Staff in the agencies: nationality, non-eu...15 3

AGENCIES: ORIGIN OF TASKS, LOCAL CONDITIONS AND STAFFING Executive summary As background to the study requested by the Committee on Budgets comparing the budgets and staffing of the agencies with the relevant DG of the Commission, a questionnaire was sent out to the decentralised agencies. An analysis of the replies received shows that there is considerable variation in the origin of the tasks carried out by the agencies: the majority of agencies carry out new tasks but a significant number have also taken over tasks from the Commission and/or the Member States. There is also considerable variation in the benefits offered by Member States - a few offered no help to the agencies, however most offered at least start-up help and some help on an ongoing basis. Regarding local conditions, international transport connections were described by the majority of agencies as good and most reported the availability of schooling in a variety of languages. However, for some transport connections were difficult, available schooling was limited and other problems connected with the ability to recruit nationals other than from the host state were reported such as a lack of childcare, expensive schooling or accommodation, an insufficient salary correction coefficient and a lack of job opportunities for spouses. One agency reported a good local job market for spouses. A few agencies reported the existence of clusters of experts in particular locations in the EU but the majority did not. Regarding staff employed by the agencies, around two-thirds are temporary agents. The remaining third consists of slightly more contract agents than officials. Agencies also use a number of other staff, such as seconded experts, trainees and interims. While for individual agencies, a significant proportion of staff tend to be of the nationality of the country in which the agency is located, for the agency "sector" as a whole, nationalities are more widely distributed, broadly in line with the distribution of nationalities in the Commission. The proportion of staff in the agencies accounted for by nationals from the new Member States is broadly in line with population shares, except for Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, from where the share of staff is relatively low. 4

Summary of replies to the questionnaire As background to the study requested by the Committee on Budgets comparing the budgets and staffing of the agencies with the relevant DG of the Commission, a questionnaire was sent out to the decentralised agencies. The questionnaire covered the origin of the work carried out by the agency, budgets, staffing and local conditions. The following agencies replied to the questionnaire: EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency CEPOL - European Police College CEDEFOP - European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training FRA - Fundamental Rights Agency OHIM - Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market EEA - European Environment Agency ETF - European Training Foundation EAR - European Agency for Reconstruction EUROFOUND - European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions GNSS - European GNSS Supervisory Authority ECDC - European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control EMCDDA - European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction EU-OSHA - European Agency for Health and Safety at Work CDT - Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union EFSA - European Food Safety Authority EMEA - European Medicines Agency CPVO - Community Plant Variety Office EUROJUST - Eurojust CFCA - Community Fisheries Control Agency EMSA - European Maritime Safety Agency FRONTEX - European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the EU A summary of the replies received with regard to the origin of tasks, local conditions and staffing follows below. The full text of the replies is in a separate document. 1. Origin of tasks and local conditions Table 1 below summarises the replies sent by the agencies concerning the origin of their tasks (whether the tasks were transferred to the agencies from the Commission, the Member States or were new), benefits offered by the host state, local infrastructure, and information regarding the location of other experts in the field. 5

Table 1: Origin of tasks and local conditions in the agencies Agency EASA Cologne CEPOL Bramshill CEDEFOP Thessaloniki FRA Vienna OHIM Alicante EEA Copenhagen ETF Turin EAR Thessaloniki Origin of tasks (Commission, Member States, new) MS, new MS Mainly new MS Commission Commission Commission Benefits provided by the host state Furnished offices provided for free during the first year followed by a monthly rental contribution until April 2007 Until March 2007 Germany contribution of maximum 4,800 per child annually No further benefits since 1.4.2007 Accommodation for officers with family for short period Provision of infrastructure and land Diplomatic status to Director and Deputy Director 50% subsidy for rental costs Diplomatic status to Director and Heads of Unit Land donation and provision of free rental offices for the start up years until the construction of the building are accomplished Some start up help - now none Diplomatic status to senior management Site agreement with Italian government declaring International status of the agency Premises provided by local authorities on symbolic rental cost Contribution of Ministry of Foreign Affaires followed by two multiannual agreements of total of 1,500,000 Diplomatic status to Director Premises provided free rental Security provided Diplomatic status to staff Local infrastructure Close to Dusseldorf and Frankfurt airport High speed international trains Several international schools Proposition to establish European-type school end of 2008 Schooling very expensive 70 km from London No European and no international school Difficult to reach Thessaloniki by plane No childcare facilities, a few international schools but the only one providing schooling in English very expensive and due to close Excellent rail, road and air transport connections Agreements with a number of international schools and childcare institutions School fees paid by agency Situated in proximity to the airport Few employment opportunities for spouses Good road and air transport connections Several international schools, no European school No international connections One international school, one French school, one local school with special emphasis on 3 main European languages Few employment opportunities for spouses Difficult to attract experienced specialists to Turin on short-term contracts available. Difficult to reach Thessaloniki by plane No childcare facilities, a few international schools but the only one providing schooling in English very expensive and due to close Clusters of experts in the EU Toulouse, Marseilles, Genoa and Derby No No In most MS In most MS No No No 6

Agency EUROFOUND Dublin GNSS Brussels ECDC Solna EMCDDA Lisbon EU OSHA Bilbao CDT Luxembourg EFSA Parma EMEA London Origin of tasks (Commission, Member States, new) Commission, new Commission, MS, new Commission, MS, new Commission, MS, new Benefits provided by the host state Lease agreement Symbolic local charges Tax reliefs Provisionally hosted in Brussels - Local infrastructure Good transport connections One international school Close to Stockholm, good transport infrastructure None Several international schools Financial contribution for the start up of 600,000 ECU Good transport connections Furniture, management of reception and conference 3 international schools areas provided Few employment opportunities for non- Contact persons for the new staff at the agency s Portuguese spouses start-up period Diplomatic status to staff Two annual subventions of 60,101 each from Spanish government and Basque Regional government Premises provided Diplomatic status to staff Provision of land and construction of the building Security provided Building for the European school with financial and administrative support Diplomatic status to Director and senior management None Good air and road connections Several international schools Good road, rail and air transport connections Several international schools, European school, nurseries No international transport connections Shuttle organized by the agency to the closest airports European school Good road, rail and air transport connections Good local schools are expensive International schools far away Housing expensive Poor local transport Good job market for spouses Clusters of experts in the EU No Toulouse, Munich, Nordwijk In some MS In most MS Yes, most of them are brought together in two consortia that work under contract to the agency. Does not apply Yes Yes, as well outside the EU 7

Agency CPVO Angers EUROJUST The Hague Origin of tasks (Commission, Member States, new) Benefits provided by the host state Installation subsidy of 10,000,000 FF, now none Diplomatic status to the President and Vice- President Financial contribution to the equipment of the server rooms Local infrastructure Only rail and road transport connections No international schools, no European school Few employment opportunities for nonfrancophone spouses Good road, rail and air transport connections Many international schools Clusters of experts in the EU In most MS Yes, within the European Judicial Network and Liaison Magistrates CFCA Vigo Commission, new Building will be offered with renovation work financed by Spain Joint working group set up to provide solutions concerning schooling and staff integration before agency's relocation to Vigo Yes EMSA Lisbon FRONTEX Warsaw Commission, MS, new Construction of the new headquarters for EMSA and Good air transport connections, however long EMCDDA distance for travelling home for most EU staff Favourable rental price Transport connections will improve once the Furniture to be provided agency is settled in the new Headquarters Diplomatic status to staff until 1 July 2007 (entry into 3 international schools force of a revision of Protocol on diplomatic status) School fees paid by agency Temporary premises, furniture and basic ICT infrastructure provided Plans to grant diplomatic status to Director and Deputy Director Certain school costs covered for the first two years for foreign staff members Security for management board session provided Legal and administrative statute not clear Good air transport connections Correction coefficient for the salary limits the possibility to attract sufficient number of staff High rental property prices No Yes, as well outside the EU 8

In order to help compare the budgets and staffing of the agencies with the relevant DG of the Commission, the agencies were asked to describe the origin of their tasks. Of the 21 agencies that replied to the questionnaire, while 16 described at least some of their tasks as new, 9 reported having taken over tasks from the Commission. 7 agencies also reported having taken tasks over from the Member States. There is significant variation in the benefits offered by the host Member State. The ECDC in Sweden and EMEA in London do not receive any benefits. The rest all received at least some start up help, for example a financial contribution or material help such as fitting out premises or a financial contribution. Several agencies receive on-going support from the host state, for example in the form of an annual grant (Spain), a rental subsidy (Austria, Italy, Portugal), provision of premises (Luxembourg, Greece), provision of security (Italy, Poland), or favourable local tax conditions (Ireland). The staff in around half the agencies are not given diplomatic status by the host state. Where such status is granted, it tends to be restricted to senior management, except for the agencies in Lisbon where all staff benefit. In their responses concerning local infrastructure, most agencies described transport connections as good. However the agencies located in Thessaloniki, Turin, Parma and Angers do not have easy access to international transport connections, and EMEA in London commented on the poor quality of local transport. With the exception of Bramshill and Angers, all the other locations in which agencies are sited offer either European Schools, international schools or European sections in local schools. However, in some cases such schooling was described as very expensive (Cologne, Thessaloniki, London) or not easily accessible (London). Other factors which the agencies considered reduced their ability to recruit nationals other than from the host state included expensive accommodation (London, Warsaw), a lack of childcare facilities (Thessaloniki), an insufficient salary correction coefficient (Warsaw), long distances to travel home (Lisbon) and a lack of job opportunities for spouses (Alicante, Turin, Lisbon, Angers). On the other hand, EMEA underlined the good job market for spouses in London. A few agencies pinpointed the location of specific clusters of experts in their field. None of these clusters coincided with the location of the agency. However the vast majority of agencies did not advise of any specific geographical clusters, reporting rather that experts could be found in the Member States, or that they were not aware of any particular clusters. 2. Staff The agencies were asked to provide information on both the types and nationalities of staff used. The analysis in this section is based on the most up to date figures provided by each of the agencies. 2.a. Types of staff A number of agencies employ officials recruited through a formal transfer agreement with the releasing Institution (CEDEFOP, OHIM, EEA, EMCDDA, CDT, CPVO, EFSA, EMSA). OHIM is the only agency in which the majority of staff are officials. In all other agencies, the majority of staff are temporary agents, with the exception of the Reconstruction Agency which has a substantial number of local staff. Since 31 December 2006 it has not been possible to hire any new auxiliary or local staff, and all such staff still employed at 31 December 2007 will become contract agents. Around two-thirds of staff employed by the agencies are temporary agents; The remaining third consists of slightly more contract agents than officials. 9

Agencies can also use other staff. The majority of such staff are seconded experts (seconded mainly from the Member States or third countries, although there is one secondment from the Commission to CEDEFOP). OHIM and EMEA also use significant numbers of trainees, and EMEA uses a substantial number of interims. Agency Official Table 2: Staff in the agencies: type Temporary agent Contract Agent 1 Contract agents as % of staff covered by Staff Regulations Other 2 a b c a/(a+b+c) d EASA 309 29 9 1 CEPOL 22 15 41 7 CEDEFOP 24 57 35 30 7 FRA 35 3 8 2 OHIM 426 187 24 4 38 3 EEA 4 107 35 24 21 ETF 91 31 25 5 EAR 88 189 68 1 EUROFOUND 88 9 9 1 GNSS 46 8 15 3 ECDC 62 36 37 13 EMCDDA 12 58 20 22 EU-OSHA 35 22 39 4 CDT 42 126 18 10 EFSA 2 236 30 11 9 EMEA 397 40 9 60 4 CPVO 11 29 None 0,25 EUROJUST 110 5 4 10 CFCA 10 7 41 EMSA 4 117 8 6 12 FRONTEX 41 11 21 57 TOTAL 524 2251 575 17 251,25 The rules surrounding the employment of temporary agents and contract agents are set down in Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) 5. 1 Including auxiliary agents and local agents 2 Seconded experts, trainees, interims 3 Including 3 special advisers 4 Including 29 interims and 1 consultant 5 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004. 10

Regarding temporary agents, whereas the Commission hires staff under article 2b on the CEOS for a fixed period, the agencies also hires staff under article 2a of the CEOS for an indefinite period. Pay and allowances, and thus the costs, of both categories of temporary agent are identical. Regarding contract agents, those recruited under article 3a of the CEOS can be employed for an indefinite period after renewal of an initial fixed-term contract. Contract agents recruited under article 3b of the CEOS are used to cover short-term needs such as maternity leave, sick leave etc. Agencies' staff policy plans may specify the exact duration of contracts of the contract agents as well as criteria of employment and renewal conditions; e.g.: CEDEFOP: in its plan for 2008-2010 foresees contracts of 2 years maximum duration with 2 possible renewals according to the needs and priorities of the agency. Article 3a(2) of the CEOS limits the overall number of contract staff in an agency to 75% of all employees in the agency. Within this limit, agencies are free to recruit contract staff as they see fit. Contract agents are not assigned in the establishment plan, and are thus not approved by the Budgetary Authority, even though they are financed from the Community budget whilst employed and are entitled to a pension from the Community budget. Article 3a(2) of the CEOS also requires the Commission to submit an annual report to the Budgetary Authority on the employment of contract staff. This report should include an analysis of whether the 75% limit has been respected. If not, the Commission is required to propose that appropriate corrective measures are taken. Table 2 demonstrates that the proportion of contract staff in the agencies is well within the limits set. 2.b. Nationalities of staff The regulations of some of the agencies allow third countries to participate in the EU agencies. Section 2.b.i. below analyses the nationalities of the EU staff and section 2.b.ii. provides information on non-eu staff. 2.b.i. EU27 staff Table 3 provides a breakdown by nationality of the staff from the Member States in the agencies. It is not surprising to observe that a significant proportion of the staff in the agencies tend to be of the nationality of the host state. With the exception of the Translation Agency in Luxembourg and the Galileo Agency (GNSS) currently based in Brussels, in both of which the largest bloc of staff by nationality is French, the largest group of staff in all the other agencies is of the nationality of the host country. However the strength of this "location effect" varies considerably. Thus, whereas over one-third of the staff at the ETF in Turin (38%), CEDEFOP in Thessaloniki (40%), the CPVO in Angers (43%) and EU-OSHA in Bilbao (44%) are host country nationals, only 14% of the staff at EMEA in London are British and only 1% of the staff of the Translation Centre are from Luxembourg. 11

Table 3: Staff in the agencies: nationality, EU27 Nationality EASA CEPOL CEDEFOP FRA OHIM EEA ETF EAR EURFOUND ECDC EMCDDA EU-OSHA CDT GNSS EFSA EMEA CPVO EUROJUST CFCA EMSA FRONTEX TOTAL Austrian 4 2 3 10 6 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 5 7 3 3 1 4 60 Belgian 18 8 1 52 6 11 6 4 5 11 5 28 10 42 20 4 13 10 254 British 41 9 7 6 51 17 11 16 6 15 8 7 7 2 14 67 1 1 15 2 303 Bulgarian 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 12 Cypriot 1 1 1 1 1 5 Czech 3 2 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 18 4 1 3 50 Danish 2 1 2 13 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 4 8 18 1 3 2 116 Dutch 19 1 1 33 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 6 10 3 23 2 8 4 134 Estonian 1 8 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 26 Finnish 5 3 1 7 3 4 1 3 4 2 3 4 10 7 5 9 71 French 79 4 17 2 101 11 10 10 10 10 6 4 45 12 25 63 17 5 2 10 3 446 German 83 3 10 7 75 17 7 12 11 11 10 3 8 3 16 52 4 10 2 9 7 360 Greek 12 48 6 10 2 1 35 1 4 2 6 1 3 22 1 6 6 3 169 Hungarian 3 2 1 20 1 4 2 1 4 1 7 10 2 5 63 Irish 2 2 10 3 4 7 31 2 6 3 3 6 11 1 3 3 97 Italian 28 2 5 2 46 4 46 10 4 10 1 12 7 92 52 1 10 2 8 10 352 Latvian 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 24 Lithuanian 1 8 1 1 5 2 5 4 27 Luxembourgian 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 14 Maltese 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 14 Polish 4 1 2 25 4 6 2 2 2 4 1 3 21 1 4 9 27 118 Portuguese 5 2 1 1 10 4 1 1 1 1 26 8 2 6 19 3 4 2 24 3 124 Romanian 6 1 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 21 Slovakian 1 13 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 3 12 2 2 1 48 Slovenian 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 21 Spanish 14 5 136 8 3 4 7 6 5 27 13 1 23 52 2 9 3 16 10 343 Swedish 3 1 13 12 3 4 23 1 1 4 5 16 2 6 5 1 100 TOTAL EU27 338 31 121 40 672 160 122 115 98 111 89 61 186 46 275 494 40 125 17 139 107 3372 Host country nationals, % 25 29 40 25 20 31 38 30 32 21 29 44 1 22 33 14 43 18 18 17 25 Highlighted cells indicate for each agency numbers of staff of the nationality of the host state. 12

For the agency "sector" as a whole, table 4 shows that the breakdown of staff by nationality is broadly similar to the distribution of staff by nationality prevailing in the Commission. Table 4: Proportion of staff by nationality in the agencies compared to the Commission and the Member States Nationality Agency staff by nationality, % Commission staff by nationality 1, % Member States population share, % Austrian 2 2 2 Belgian 8 21 2 British 9 5 12 Bulgarian 0,4 1 2 Cypriot 0,2 0,3 0,2 Czech 1 1 2 Danish 3 2 1 Dutch 4 3 3 Estonian 1 1 0,3 Finnish 2 2 1 French 14 12 12 German 11 8 17 Greek 5 4 2 Hungarian 2 2 2 Irish 3 2 0,8 Italian 10 12 12 Latvian 1 1 0,5 Lithuanian 1 1 0,7 Luxembourgian 0,4 1 0,1 Maltese 0,4 0,3 0,1 Polish 3 4 8 Portuguese 4 3 2 Romanian 1 1 4 Slovakian 1 1 1 Slovenian 1 1 0,4 Spanish 10 8 8 Swedish 3 2 2 TOTAL 100 100 100 With regard to the Member States that acceded in 2004, the shares of staff in the Commission and in the agencies are all within 1 percentage point of each country's population share, with the exception of Poland, which accounts for 8% of the population but only 4% of Commission staff and 3% of agency staff. The proportion of staff from Bulgaria and, particularly, Romania, is also lower in both the Commission and the agencies than the respective population shares of these two countries. 1 Does not include trainees 13

2.b.ii. Non-EU staff Non-EU staff account for less than 6% of EU agency staff as a whole. Table 5 shows that non-eu staff come mainly from EEA countries and the Balkans. The Reconstruction Agency stands out as employing a large proportion of non-eu staff, with 162 of its 277 staff (58%) coming from Balkan countries. 14

Table 5: Staff in the agencies: nationality, non-eu Nationality EASA CEPOL CEDEFOP FRA OHIM EEA ETF EAR EURO FOUND EEA 3 3 Norwegian 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 Swiss 2 2 FYROM 1 40 41 Iceland 2 1 3 Albanian 4 4 Croatian 1 2 3 Serbian 103 103 Montenegro 14 14 Kyrgyzstan 1 1 Tunisian 2 2 Turkish 4 1 5 TOTAL non-eu 1 2 3 7 5 162 2 3 2 189 ECDC EMCDDA EU-OSHA CDT GNSS EFSA EMEA CPVO EUROJUST CFCA EMSA FRONTEX TOTAL 15