Position paper of the EU Agencies Network

Transcription

1 18 July 2014 Position paper of the EU Agencies Network Document prepared for annual exchange of views between EU agencies and European Parliament Committee on Budgets, 23 July 2014, Brussels I. Introduction By letter dated 12 June 2014, the Chairman of the European Parliament s Committee on Budgets invited the Troika of the EU Agencies Network to provide a written contribution ahead of the annual meeting between EU decentralised agencies and the Committee on Budgets. This paper aims at providing the Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament with relevant information in relation to the Draft Budget 2015 and the Multiannual Staff Policy Plans (MSPP ). It shortly introduces the legal framework in which the agencies operate and points out on-going initiatives stemming from the agreements reached by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on the functioning of the agencies. It then looks at the resources allocation proposed by the European Commission in the Draft Budget 2015 and MSPP The primary concern of the EU agencies, which will be elaborated in detail in sections three and four, is lack of adequate assessment of the needs of each individual agency on case-by-case basis in relation to the requirements of corresponding policy area. This may significantly impair the agencies capacity to fulfil their legal obligations. Concrete examples of negative impact of current and planned staffing and budget restrictions on the individual agencies are presented in the Annex II. II. Information about the EU agencies 1. The EU decentralised agencies have been established upon Commission s proposal by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to carry out specific legal, technical or scientific tasks within the European Union. The agencies work independently, adding value by helping to implement policy and sharing information and expertise. The agencies are not only essential for the implementation of the EU policies 1 P a g e

2 and programmes, but also enable economies of scale to be made by pooling of expenditure that would otherwise be outlaid by each Member State to achieve exactly the same result Although decentralised agencies are mentioned in the TFEU, the legal framework of the EU law does not provide their definition. The legal basis for each decentralised agency is set by its individual founding regulation and further changes by subsequent legislation, be it regulations directly amending the basic act or other legislation impacting on the tasks of the agencies. All EU institutions, bodies and decentralised agencies, have to implement and apply the Staff Regulations 2. Article 208 of the Financial Regulation requires that the European Commission has to adopt a framework financial regulation for bodies set up under the TFEU [...] which have legal personality and receive contributions charged to the budget 3,4. The latest version of this framework financial regulation entered into force on 1 January 2014, together with the revised Staff Regulations In 2009 an Interinstitutional Working Group was established by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission to decide inter alia on the future functioning of the agencies. Its work resulted in a Joint Statement and a Common Approach concluded in July 2012, which serves as a political blueprint guiding future horizontal initiatives and reforms of individual EU agencies 6. The agencies are well advanced in terms of implementation of the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach foreseen for the period in close cooperation with the Commission s services. The key actions of the Roadmap aiming at improving agencies efficiency and accountability, and introducing greater coherence in the way agencies function have already been implemented or will be finalised by the end of this year bringing further efficiency gains. 4. The environment within which decentralised agencies operate has in recent years changed considerably. The challenges for and the impact on each individual agency cannot be underestimated. But also the way agencies cooperate amongst themselves continues to evolve and will intensify further in the coming years to enable agencies to continue to deliver on their objectives. The agencies are strongly committed to further increase efficiency and, within the framework of the EU Agencies Network, the agencies continue to expand their already well-established cooperation and shared-services (e.g. in the areas of IT, policies, procedures, transfer of knowledge etc.). The agencies have 1 Report on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2015 budget, Section III Commission (2014/2004(BUD) 2 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1023/ Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/ Working Document on agencies, Committee on Budgets, Rapporteur Jutta Haug; PE v01-00, April Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies, December P a g e

3 created an online communication tool that serves as platform for exchange of information, knowledge and best practices among the agencies. This platform includes a database of shared services in various areas, references to new initiatives, etc. The Heads of Agencies have recently adopted a template for the Consolidated Annual Activity Report and the Guidelines for the Single Programming Document. Based on existing best practices, the agencies are further developing and introducing a toolkit for Activity Based Budgeting (ABB) /Activity Based Management (ABM) /Activity Based Costing (ABC). Several agencies have already implemented ABM, or are in the process thereof, which helps them take informed decisions on setting priorities, discontinuing activities as well as on the level of outsourcing based on robust and reliable data. In this context, the allocation of an agency s resources is consistent with the priorities in each of the areas of activity and their objectives. The implementation of ABM allows the agency to systematically assess the costs of each area of activity and compare them to the results achieved. 5. During the Conciliation on the 2014 budget, the three institutions agreed on the creation of a specific Interinstitutional Working Group II (IIWG2) on decentralised agencies resources, with a view to jointly define a clear development path for agencies, based on objective criteria. The IIWG2 will convene for its third meeting in September As it is foreseen in the Terms of Reference of the IIWG2, and with due regards to the agencies expertise in this field, it is important that the agencies are invited by the IIWG2 to provide input as a Network or individually. III. Resources allocation 6. For 2015, the European Commission proposes 834,302 mio as contributions to the decentralised agencies. Hence, the agencies will receive less than 0.6% of the Union s budget posts have been proposed for 32 agencies in in comparison to 24,422 (32,586 including External Personnel) 8 posts for the European Commission. 7. The Budgetary Authority must ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to the institution, body or agency that would allow it to meet the legal obligation imposed by the legislative authority. The financial regulatory framework 9 requires that budgetary and staffing needs are assessed on individual merits. The Budgetary Authority should consider the budgets and staff of agencies together with the budgets and staff of institutions with related tasks (notably partner DGs in the European Commission), looking at the needs of the overall policy area as a starting point for making resource decisions. Looking at each case separately and taking additional, specific circumstances into account may require an extra effort both on behalf of the agencies and the Budgetary Authority but it is the only way to ensure reasoned, sustainable savings. 7 Excluding 122 posts of the newly established Single Resolution Board 8 SEC(2014) 357 June EU Regulation on the general budget of the EU, Articles P a g e

4 8. The case by case approach is de facto already implemented each year when the European Parliament s specialised Committees exchange information with agencies under their remit, examine their work programmes and provide their specialised opinion to the Budget Committee during the budgetary procedure. This Committees case-bycase examination could be reinforced in order for the European Parliament, through its Committee on Budgets, to adopt budgets and establishment plans on accurately evaluated needs. 9. The newly established IIWG2 will look into the resources of each agency on the case-bycase basis. To adequately assess the actual needs of the agency, the following factors should be included in the exercise: assess agencies on a case-by-case analysis rather than on the basis of cruising speed, start-up, etc.; new and additional tasks the definition of new tasks beyond the legal acts should be agreed upon, which would establish to what extent may the European Commission, or one of the institutions, place new demands on the agencies without assessing the actual capacity of the agency to carry out such demands and allocating the commensurate human and financial resources to meet new objectives or additional tasks under same objectives; shared services this would be a longer term project but the sharing of common services and functions by agencies should be further examined and, if favoured, could be implemented in a structured way over a period of time, including benchmarking against best practice in the multinational sector; presenting zero based budgeting proposal to European Parliament, which would then also define negative priorities if budget and/or staff resources are cut; use one envelope for all EU institutions and bodies (including executive agencies) and fund the redeployment pool from there or as another alternative to define envelops per each policy area; self- or partly self-financed agencies and the need for a split budget and establishment plan. 10. The resources needed to implement the decisions of the institutions to decentralise or charge out services to the agencies after the preparation of the MFF should be provided on top of the budget envelope specified in the MFF. This includes for example the Type II European Schools. Recently, it has also been agreed between the European Commission and the Court of Auditors, without prior consultation of the agencies, that the new requirements under Article 208(4) of the Financial Regulation 10 concerning independent external audit services shall be contracted and paid for by agencies themselves despite the clear wording to the contrary of the Common Approach of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission 11. All changes in the legislation or other decisions binding on agencies that have implication 10 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/ In point 54 of the Common Approach attached to the Joint Statement of 19 July 2012 on decentralised agencies it is agreed that [a]ll aspects of such outsourced external audits, including the reported audit findings, remain under the full responsibility of the E[uropean] C[ourt of] A[uditors], which manages all administrative and procurement procedures required and finances these, as well as any other costs associated with outsourced external audits, from its own budget. 4 P a g e

5 on the agencies tasks should be adequately reflected in the annual budgets and the compulsory review and revision of the MFF Implementation of agreed 5% staff reduction 11. The agencies continue to progressively implement the reduction of the staffing levels by 5% target over five years, as laid down in point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement 12, which applies to each independent institution, agency or body. 12. The European Commission s proposal, in most instances, deviates from the agencies proposals for the implementation of the agreed 5% staff reduction and unilaterally imposes its own interpretation. Thus, the current systematic imposition of a 5% acrossthe-board staffing cut fails to address the specific situation and needs of individual agencies. The European Commission proposes a linear application of staff reductions without examining an individual situation of each agency, which roles and responsibilities under the Treaties differ widely. In this respect, the agencies believe that it should be left to each agency, in cooperation with newly established IIWG2, to decide where the cuts should be introduced as to not affect negatively its proper functioning. 13 The method of implementing the agreed 5% should be reconsidered. Also, self- and partly self-financed Agencies should apply the 5% reduction only on the quote part of their establishment plan which is EU financed. Additional staff cuts for the redeployment pool The Multiannual Staff Policy Plan (MSPP) of the agencies proposed by the European Commission 15 is not in line with the agreed 5% staff reduction. The European Commission continues to propose the additional annual 1% levy to the establishment plans of the agencies for the creation of the redeployment pool. It seems that in respect of the institutions a 5% reduction is being applied to each establishment plan separately whereas for the agencies it is to be applied globally by considering all establishment plans together. The figure of 5% staff reduction was deliberately chosen to be compensated by the increase of working hours. The implementation of this target should take as a reference point the establishment plan of 1 January Therefore, 12 Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management. OJ C 373, December As per European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2012 in the interest of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework approval procedure, P7_TA(2012)0360, Point COM (2013)519, July In its report on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2015 budget, Section III Commission (P7_TA(2014)0247) the Committee on Budgets clearly states that the EC Communication COM (2013)519 must not form the basis for the draft budget with regard to the Agencies. 5 P a g e

6 any new task or creation of new agency or body after that date should be accompanied by new posts that do not fall within the 5% target. 16 In this respect, the creation of the redeployment pool to cover the newly emerged needs represents an unequal treatment of the more established agencies that are forced to introduce additional cuts without further compensation (e.g. in form of decrease of the imposed legal obligations to perform certain tasks or increase the budget that would allow outsourcing of noncore tasks). The agencies strongly disagree with the additional staff cuts beyond the agreed 5% for the redeployment pool as proposed by the European Commission. This approach erodes the capabilities of the agencies to fulfil their mandates and meet increasing demands. 14. Regarding the impact of staff reduction, it is clear that the current proposal of the European Commission for staff and budget cuts for 2015, in addition to the cuts already applied in 2014, will have further impact on the level of service that agencies offer their stakeholders. Many agencies will find it difficult to properly fulfil their mandates. If the Budgetary Authority decides to reduce staffing and budgets of the agencies to the extent proposed by the Commission, it must send a clear and unmistakable message to the members of agencies Management / Governing Boards (typically representing Member States and the Commission) that the 2015 work programmes must reflect these cuts and tasks must be reduced accordingly. It cannot be assumed that a 2% cut in staff per year can be fully compensated by efficiency gains. Thus, insufficient resources will require preparedness to sacrifice existing successful initiatives, scale down the level of support in regulatory processes and slow down the uptake of new policy initiatives. Examples are given in Annex II. 15. In some instances, the agencies will be forced to increase the level of outsourcing, which may consequently lead to higher degree of dependency on contractors. Thus, the quality of results will widely depend on the expertise of the contractors and, since the agency will have lost its expertise, performance is more likely to decline. In addition, in the current climate where budgets are reducing in real terms and where the costs of services (e.g. contracting of cost of surveys), is increasing on an annual basis, there is less available budget for carrying out other activities or even for outsourcing of non-core tasks. If the additional 5% cuts are to be applied, negative priorities will have to be considered by agencies in implementing their tasks and work programmes. 16. Furthermore, the overall logic of the redeployment pool is questionable as the proposed figures do not achieve the pool s stated objective (to support start-up phase and new task agencies). When looking at the staff numbers it is obvious that even start-up 17 and new task 18 agencies face a net loss in posts. In this regard, from the 16 Legal opinion of the EP legal service: Legal issues relating to the 5% staff reduction target for decentralised Agencies (SJ-0364/14 RC/cdw D(2014)27029 ) 17 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Biocides activities, European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Prior Informed Consent (PIC) activities, European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu.lisa) and European Asylum Support Office (EASO). 18 European GNSS Agency (GSA), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), European Railway Agency (ERA), European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA), European Banking Authority (EBA), European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority 6 P a g e

7 new tasks agencies, only one agency is increasing staff numbers by six posts (i.e. GSA), whereas five agencies are requested to introduce the staff cuts (i.e. EASA, EMSA, FRONTEX, ERA and EUROPOL). As per the Commission s proposal, none of the start-up agencies will increase the staffing level in 2015 and one will even need to decrease (i.e. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Biocides activities). ECHA is a specific case because this agency is from a budgetary perspective considered by the Commission as three separate agencies, two of these virtual agencies are in the start-up phase, one at cruising speed. The agency is nevertheless overall significantly reducing staff. In principle, it is problematic to use the redeployment pool to source the establishment of start-up agencies as this means that existing agencies have to pay for the establishment/ strengthening of any start-up agency by sacrificing posts from their own establishment plans, which may significantly impair their capacity to fulfil their mandates stemming from legal acts. 17. In addition, the concept of creating the redeployment pool equally refers also to the fee-receiving agencies, including self-financed whose establishment plan is not included in the EU budget (i.e. OHIM, CPVO and newly established Single Resolution Board (SRB)). It is disputable if posts entirely financed by industry should be included in the scope of the global 5% reduction target. These agencies need the ability to adapt to the demand for the services they provide, which in most cases are services that cannot be provided by other entities. It would, therefore, be devoid of any logic to demand that in particular staff providing fee financed services must be subject to an annual reduction of 2% and fixed through a seven-year planning regardless of any fluctuation in the demand for the services they provide. In addition, the move of the posts from the self-financed agencies to the new tasks or start-up will mean these posts would have to be financed from the Union s budget, which will de facto be in contrary to the global objective of introducing austerity measures at the EU level. IV. Conclusion 18. The agencies emphasise a need to assess the allocation of recourses on case-by-case basis within the corresponding policy areas and to consider alternative solutions to the redeployment pool approach, such as to define one single envelope for all EU institutions and bodies or define envelops per policy areas. The position recently expressed by the European Parliament s Legal Service indicates a possible solution, which would consistently allow avoiding the application of the aforementioned approach, while keeping the commitment to the agreed 5% reduction for each EU institution and body over the period, in accordance with the actual content (EIOPA), European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX), European Police Office (EUROPOL) and European Police College (CEPOL), 7 P a g e

8 and ratio of the agreement reached by the EU institutions, as reflected in point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. In particular, this alternative solution 19 : will ensure that agencies are effectively treated as autonomous EU bodies (and not as just one entity, ignoring de facto et de jure the autonomous legal personality and capacity explicitly assigned by the EU legislator to each agency); will avoid that the budget procedure provided for by the EU legislator in each agency s founding regulation simply ignores the required case by case assessment of the actual needs presented by each agency in its provisional draft estimate of revenue and expenditure and in the draft establishment plan; will ensure that any new agency created and/or any new task granted to existing agencies after 01 January 2013, may be accompanied by resources that do not fall within the agreed 5% reduction target; will allow the EU Budget Authority to consider (and agree) that posts which are not financed by the EU budget do not fall under the 5% reduction target. Annexes: I: Network of EU Agencies list of members II: Examples of impact of current and expected reductions in staffing and budget 19 Legal opinion of the EP legal service: Legal issues relating to the 5% staff reduction target for decentralised Agencies SJ-0364/14 RC/cdw D(2014)27029 and namely items nr. 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 8 P a g e

9 Annex I List of members of the EU Agencies Network: 1. ACER Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (Ljubljana, Slovenia) 2. BEREC Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (Riga, Latvia) 3. CdT - Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) 4. CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Thessaloniki, Greece) 5. CEPOL European Policy College (Bramshill, United Kingdom) 6. CLEANSKY JU Single European Sky Aeronautical Research (Brussels, Belgium) 7. CPVO Community Plant Variety Office (Angers, France) 8. EASA European Aviation Safety Agency (Koln, Germany) 9. EASO - European Asylum Support Office (Valletta, Malta) 10. EBA European Banking Authority (London, United Kingdom) 11. ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Stockholm, Sweden) 12. ECHA European Chemicals Agency (Helsinki, Finland) 13. EDA European Defense Agency (Brussels, Belgium) 14. EEA European Environment Agency (Copenhagen, Denmark) 15. EFCA - European Fisheries Control Agency (Vigo, Spain) 16. EFSA European Food Safety Authority (Parma, Italy) 17. EIGE European Institute for Gender Equality (Vilnius, Lithuania) 18. EIOPA European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) 19. EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology (Budapest, Hungary) 20. EMA European Medicines Agency (London, United Kingdom) 21. EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Lisbon, Portugal) 22. EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency (Lisbon, Portugal) 23. ENISA European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (Heraklion, Greece) 24. ERA European Railway Agency (Valenciennes, France) 25. ESMA European Securities and Markets Authority (Paris, France) 9 P a g e

10 26. ETF European Training Foundation (Turin, Italy) 27. EUISS European Union Institute for Security Studies (Paris, France) 28. Eu-LISA - EU Agency for large-scale IT systems (Tallinn, Estonia) 29. EU-OSHA EU Agency for Safety and Health at Work (Bilbao, Spain) 30. EUROFOUND European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin, Ireland) 31. EUROJUST European Union s Judicial Cooperation Unit (The Hague, The Netherlands) 32. EUROPOL European Police Office (The Hague, The Netherlands) 33. EUSC European Union Satellite Centre (Madrid, Spain) 34. FCH JU Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (Brussels, Belgium) 35. FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Wien, Austria) 36. FRONTEX EU Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of Member States of the European Union (Warsaw, Poland) 37. F4E European Union s Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion 4 Energy) (Barcelona, Spain) 38. GSA - European GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) Agency (Brussels, Belgium) 39. IMI - The Innovative Medicines Initiative (Brussels, Belgium) 40. OHIM Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Trade Marks and Design (Alicante, Spain) 41. SESAR JU Single European Sky ATM Research Joint Undertaking (Brussels, Belgium) 10 P a g e

11 Annex II Examples of impact of current and planned staffing and budget restrictions In June 2014 the Coordination of the EU Agencies Network has asked its members for feedback regarding the impact of the founding and staffing proposed by the European Commission in the Draft Budget 2015 and the implementation of the agreed 5% staff reduction target. Several Agencies (below) presented concrete example of cuts impact on the execution of the existing and new activities. CdT - Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union The Translation Centre is financed by the translation services it provides to its clients and does not receive a subsidy from the General Budget of the EU. Since 2011, the Translation Centre has taken a proactive approach to optimising its efficiency by reviewing its structure and business model. An action plan to improve cost efficiency was implemented in Of the 225 staff in the Establishment Plan 2011, only 215 remained in 2012, and a further reduction resulted in only 206 posts in the Establishment Plan In 2013, the Budgetary Authority requested an additional cut of three posts, bringing the Establishment Plan 2014 down to 203 posts. The reduction of 12 posts since 2012 amounts to a cut of 5.58% in posts over the period 2012 to 2014, which is more than the 5% required by the Budgetary Authority (for the period 2011 to 2014, the reduction is even larger at 9.7%). Noting the details in the Communication of the European Council, which decided that the 5% reduction should be applied to all EU institutions, bodies, Agencies and their administrations over the period 2013 to 2017 (cf. also Ms C. Day s letter to the Chair of the EU Agencies Network), the Management Board concluded that the Centre had already implemented this requirement in full, as the Council does not specify how the 5% reduction should be implemented (no imperative to cut 1% on a yearly basis). However, taking into consideration the staff cuts proposed in the Communication of the European Commission COM(2013)519 applicable to the EU Agencies and particularly to the cruising speed Agencies, it must be stressed that the functioning of the Translation Centre would be seriously jeopardised if the Establishment Plan were gradually reduced over the period to a total of 193 members of staff and, as a result, the Centre could not provide the services expected by its clients. Human resources Even before considering the impact on future external revenue, the Translation Centre will not be able to implement the political orientation set by the Commission for cruising speed Agencies. The guidelines provided by the Commission and confirmed by DG HR state: The Commission is proposing to reduce staff in each EU Institution, body and Agency by 5% during the period 2013 to 2017 (by 11 P a g e

12 2018) through the non-replacement of some departing staff (retiring or with expired contracts). This cut will not involve dismissing staff or forcing them to retire. The Translation Centre conducted a simulation on this basis up to the end of The result speaks for itself: only two non-core business staff might retire and as regards the non-core structures, only 11 staff members are subject to a contract extension. If the Centre does not replace or extend all these contracts, this will no doubt have serious consequences for the efficiency of the services which the Centre provides to EU decentralised Agencies and bodies. Core business Although the Centre s Founding Regulation has not changed and its mission has not been extended, several new EU Agencies and bodies have been created since For the Centre, this has resulted in an increase in its client portfolio from 41 clients before 1 January 2009 to 60 clients by January The addition of these 19 new clients, many of which are legally obliged to work with the Translation Centre for their linguistic services, has also resulted in an increase in translation volumes ( pages in pages in 2013). Since the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013 the Centre has had to translate into a new official language (24 instead of 23 official languages). Four translators had to be hired to deal with the additional translations resulting from Croatia s accession. This was achieved by redeployment of resources. In addition, new services have also been requested by clients editing services, terminology work, localisation of web sites, ex-post quality checks for Community trademarks, sub-titling, enhanced support for web translation and this clearly reflects the wish of the Centre s clients to communicate efficiently with citizens in line with the EU s policy on multilingualism that is also highlighted in the Roadmap. However, detailed analysis shows that the Centre may not be in a position to meet these new needs. Despite the fact that the Centre s clients pay for its services, the organisation will not have or will not get the human resources necessary to offer these additional services. It is clear from the above that the Centre will not be able to continue providing all the services required by its clients if the Establishment Plan is cut further. The growing list of new services requested by clients, the increase in client numbers, and the expansion of translation volumes make it abundantly clear that to respond to these challenges and still achieve the quality expected by its clients, the Centre needs appropriate human and financial resources so it can help EU Agencies meet their obligation of bringing the European Union closer to its citizens. Cedefop - European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training Cedefop has been categorised as a cruising speed Agency. As a result, over the past years, the Agency has been subject to automatic budget constraints impacting both its financial and human resources (5% staff cut and 5% staff redistribution). Cedefop had already been subject to a (horizontal) cut of financial resources of about 4% in order to finance other endeavours (Galileo and EIT). The reduced funding and especially the cuts in personnel have reached the point where the Agency s capacity to meet its mandate and reply constructively to the increasing number of new demands is under threat. This is the more regrettable as education and training are high on the 12 P a g e

13 European policy agenda and central issues in the fight against youth unemployment and the challenges of an aging workforce. Despite new tasks and growing tasks foreseen in its 2015 draft work programme Cedefop has been obliged to submit a projected MASP respecting the ceiling set by the General Secretariat of the EC. The Centre believes that it would be impossible to continue cutting two posts per year after 2015 as proposed by the Commission. It should be noted that with the proposed cut of two posts in 2015 Cedefop will have achieved the target of a 5% cut of the posts on its establishment plan as set by the European Parliament and Council. Cedefop believes that it is essential that further discussion take place within the framework of the Inter-institutional Working Group II with regard to: a) the grouping of Agencies into categories (cruising speed; new tasks; new Agencies); b) the 5% staff redistribution and pooling proposed by the Commission; c) the horizontal cut without regard to individual Agency s staffing needs; d) the definition of new tasks. The Parliament and the Council should also agree on a common interpretation of the third paragraph of Point 27 of the Inter- Institutional Agreement (IIA) when they act as the budgetary authority responsible for the adoption of the Agencies establishment plans. This systematic imposition of a 5% across-the-board cut fails to address the specific situation and needs of individual Agencies. Cedefop, due to the changing dynamics between education/training and the labour market is constantly called upon to provide new evidence, analysis and conclusions based on its research, of which a large part is provided by the staff of the agency, for the reform of VET and the development of lifelong learning. CEPOL - European Police College According to Regulation No 543/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Decision 2005/681/JHA establishing the European Police College (CEPOL), CEPOL seat will be changed from Bramshill, United Kingdom to Budapest, Hungary, as from 1 September The relocation has a significant impact on the CEPOL budget. The 2015 draft budget, as presented early in 2014, did not contain any references to the relocation of the Agency, so an amendment is necessary. The amendment includes the impact of the significantly lower correction coefficient, currently 76.1 in Hungary versus in the United Kingdom. This results in savings for Title 1 (Staff expenditure) when compared to the authorised 2015 budget in the Multiannual Financial Framework. The amendment of draft budget 2015 will be presented to the Commission for further processing after approval by CEPOL Governing Board, expected in the first half of July P a g e

14 EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency EASA proposes an establishment plan of 693 posts for 2015, maintaining the 463 posts financed by fees & charges already approved in the 2014 budget and increasing by 8 the subsidy financed posts up to 230, mainly to implement the new TCO (Third Country Operators) activities related to the safety assessment and authorisation of third country airlines flying into the EU. The Commission agrees with the additional subsidy financed posts, in line with the classification of EASA as new task Agency in 2015, but proposes a reduction of 14 posts in the fees & charges area. For the subsidy financed activities, in 2014 the last recruitments are foreseen to reach the necessary staffing level to fulfil the tasks assigned to EASA by regulation and by the Commission. The 8 additional subsidy financed posts proposed by EASA and included in the DB 2015 proposed by the Commission are needed to implement new activities like the aforementioned TCO. EASA proposes to maintain the 463 posts financed by fees & charges already approved under the 2014 budget. The Commission has proposed to reduce 14 posts in this area. The application of cuts to activities financed by fees and charges might have an impact on the work related to Continuing Airworthiness and might cause delays on specific Certification projects. This might negatively impact the European industry. Around 2/3 of EASA s activity is financed through fees and charges paid by the aviation industry for certification of aircraft and related parts. This activity is market driven and the Fees & Charges Regulation in place, together with the demand from the industry, constitutes already the limit to the staff and budget available. The posts requested by EASA in the Fees & Charges area are a recruitment ceiling rather than a target, are based on workload estimations and will be filled-in according to the market demand and if the corresponding revenue is confirmed. Any additional cap reducing fees and charges financed posts can negatively impact the activity and creates the risk of EASA not being able to respond in time to the applications for certification coming from the aviation industry. ECHA - European Chemicals Agency ECHA appears in the Commission draft budget for 2015 as three separate agencies, two considered at start- up phase (Biocidal Product Regulation and Prior Informed Consent Regulation for the import and export of dangerous chemicals), and one at cruising speed (REACH and CLP Regulations). ECHA is committed to supporting the MFF agreement and is implementing a efficiency development programme to allow a reduction in staffing by 5% over five year. In fact, ECHA has in compared to end reduced the establishment plan posts in its REACH and CLP ( cruising speed ) section 20 by 3.3% (456 to 441 posts). For 2015, the Commission foresees in its Communication on resources in Agencies 21 a cut of 2.3% to 431 posts. Thereby ECHA would in REACH and CLP Regulations (EC) No 1907/2006 and No 1272/ Commission Communication on the programming of human and financial resources for decentralised Agencies (COM(2013) 519 of 10 July P a g e

15 have accomplished, even exceeded the 5% target set by the Heads of State in February 2013, despite growing workload in the cruising speed area and an increased demand from industry and Commission for services. Yet, the Commission Communication foresees further staff reductions until 2018 by 27 posts to 404. If these staff cuts above the 5% target would be needed, it would put the 2018 REACH registration deadline in jeopardy when SMEs and other small volume producers need the Agency s help to fulfil their obligations. The Management Board of the Agency adopted an outline of the work programme for 2015 in March 2014 together with a budget request based on the assumption that ECHA will have reduce its staff by only 1% in In order to be prepared for higher cuts, should the Commission proposal be acceptable to the budgetary authority, ECHA is preparing an alternative plan for 2015 and subsequent years. This plan will downsize the objectives currently foreseen in the multi-annual work programme As a matter of emphasis, ECHA are working towards specific legally defined targets scheduled for 2018, and proposes the timing of any reductions to be sensitive to legislative deadlines over the five year period instead of being linear each year. ECHA also proposes that staff reductions are not applied to staff working on fee-financed activities. EEA European Environment Agency The Commission has in its communication COM (2013)519 Programming of human and financial resources for decentralised Agencies ( ) that has been criticised by the Parliament previously with respect to treating Agencies under one and the same envelope announced the intention to make EEA a new task Agency in This is however not accompanied by an increase in the establishment table, but by increasing the number of contract agents. The point that should be raised is that new tasks will be accompanied by an increase in the establishment table as permanent tasks should be carried out by permanent staff. This is as well a breach of the logic the Commission has with the redeployment pool. EFCA - European Fisheries Control Agency EFCA became operational in On 20 November 2009 EFCA s establishing Regulation was amended by the Control Regulation. The number of tasks substantially increased although was not accompanied by additional resources. To meet this increase in the face of resource constraints the Agency endeavoured to optimise its resources by internal reorganisation, prioritising the activities included in its work programme and looking for synergies with other EU bodies. The new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), applicable from 1 January 2014, requires an increase of EFCA s operational undertakings to assist the Member States and the European Commission with the development of practical control and surveillance tools and data management systems, for monitoring the implementation of specific discard plans or multiannual plans, and requests EFCA to support the Union on the international versant of the CFP. To ensure the implementation of the new 15 P a g e

16 CFP model will require an increase of EFCA s control coordination tools and as well as the resources dedicated to it. On 27 November 2013, the Administrative Board of EFCA issued a Statement expressing its concern at the designation of EFCA as a cruising speed Agency, and the detrimental effect this status would have on the work of the Agency and its capacity to deliver on its mandate. In particular, it highlighted the need for adequate capacity to meet the new tasks arising from the reform of the CFP. The Statement of the Board makes clear that the staff reductions required of a cruising speed Agency will have unintended consequences on the functionality of the EFCA because it does not have the critical mass to absorb these staff reductions and continue to fulfil its obligations. EFCA is among the smallest of EU decentralised Agencies. The success of the CFP is essential to ensure the sustainability of fisheries and EFCA strongly contributes to ensure that the objectives of CFP reform are achieved. Appropriate financial means and staff should be ensured to enable EFCA to fulfil the tasks assigned by the legislative authority. EFCA has committed to apply the 5% staff reduction applying to all the institutions. Following the overall cut of 5%, the establishment plan for 2014 reduced 1 post, and the draft establishment plan for 2015 foresees an additional cut of 1 post. The contribution to the redeployment pool would entail a cut of 11% whilst EFCA estimates 8 additional posts are necessary, with a corresponding increase of the budget of approx to face the new commitments of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy. LEGAL BASIS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 2015 NEW REQUIRED POSTS ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES ESTIMATION OPER. 22 ADM. 23 Staff - CFP Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, inter alia Articles, 15, 30, 36 and 37 - Council Regulation (EC)No 1224/ Cooperation with third countries and international organisations, data management, and IUU - Landing obligation; Operational Council Regulation (EC) No 768/ Expert group on compliance CURRENT POSTS MSPP ] TOTAL NEEDS 60 staff COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION COM (2013) 519 final Operational (OPER). 23 Administrative (ADM) post less than in P a g e

17 EMA - European Medicines Agency Our principle concern with regard to the 2015 draft budget, and subsequent budgets, is that we continue to see the workload from fee financed activities growing steadily while the DG Budget instructions require us to reduce the number of posts by 2% every year. If we are obliged to comply with these instructions we expect to be 40 posts short of our anticipated real staffing requirement in 2015, and the deficit will grow to 85 by A deficit of this magnitude will make it extremely difficult to properly fulfil the mandate of the Agency. We remain committed to supporting the MFF agreement to implement efficiency gains to allow a reduction in staffing by 5% over five years, and we are well advanced in implementing an internal reorganisation and activity-based management approach to achieve this without impacting the quality of service that we provide. However, we believe that the staffing needs of each Agency should be considered separately by the Budgetary Authority, and the additional requirement for a 5% reduction to create a general deployment pool does not take into account the very different circumstances of each Agency. Equally, we believe it is fair and logical that the 1% annual reductions should be applied to the EU financed posts but not to the Fee financed posts, which should be adapted to the demand for the services that are provided. We are encouraged to note that our position on both the deployment pool and the posts financed by fees has recently been supported by the legal service of the European Parliament, and we would urge the Commission to reconsider its position. EMCDDA - European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction In 2014 the EMCDDA faced the highest budget cut (4.9%) of all agencies of Heading 3 Security and citizenship and of all cruising speed agencies. This decrease has come after several years with a stable budget during which the EMCDDA was forced to accommodate many rises in prices, increases in salaries, etc. For the past few years however, the workload of the EMCDDA has constantly increased. This resulted from the dynamic evolution of the drug situation in the EU, which required developing new monitoring capacities and responding to an increased number of requests for support from the Member States, the EU institutions, as well as from other EU and international partners. In particular, the implementation of the Early warning system (EWS) on new psychoactive substances (NPS) has been generating a substantial amount of extra work for the EMCDDA, due to the massive increase of the number of new drugs appearing on the market in recent years. The situation has become so dramatic that at this point, no additional workload can be covered by internal resources. As an example, 81 NPS were notified in 2013, i.e. 100% increase compared to For each new drug reported, the EMCDDA has to undertake extensive work in the form of 25 2 post less than in Cost per AD junior Euro annually (+/- 25% depending on exact grade and family circumstances). 17 P a g e

18 evaluating the information reported, checking its current control status and whether it has therapeutic uses, and reviewing the scientific literature in consultation with external experts in order to assess the characteristics of the substance. All the information concerning the NPS monitored so far is stored in the European Database on New Drugs (EDND); this tool, which is a critically important for the entire EWS network, including the Member States, needs urgent and important investments in order to accommodate the massive increase of the number of NPS explained above. Furthermore, the new drugs recently identified are posing significantly higher public health concerns than before: 5 substances are subject to Risk Assessment (RAs) exercises carried out by the EMCDDA Extended Scientific Committee in 2014 alone, as compared to a total number of 3 substances within the entire period The RA of a new drug has important resources implications, especially when the fact that this work must be prepared within the 12-week deadline of the Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances is taken into consideration. Another area which needed to be scaled up is the monitoring of drug supply and supply reduction interventions. The development of key indicators in the field of drug supply and supply reduction represents a priority at EU level (Action 16 of the EU drugs action plan ). The progress in this area, although defined as core priority, is largely dependent on the resources available. It goes without saying that investments in other areas, like key epidemiological indicators, monitoring demand reduction intervention and best practices have also to be maintained to ensure the agency fulfils its legal obligations and safeguards the achievements made since it was established. Supplementary costs are also entailed by the work with a new EU Member State (Croatia), which is entitled to receive a grant from the EMCDDA budget. In addition, the EMCDDA needs to cope with the raise of costs for rent, supplies (electricity, water) and services (security, maintenance, cleaning), due to the automatic indexation mechanism. After having implemented a series of measures aiming at increasing efficiency, which included, among others, a very strict prioritisation of its tasks, internal organisational readjustments and building synergies with other EU agencies, the EMCDDA has already significantly reduced its operational and administrative costs. At this point, the agency has no room for further adjustments, without affecting the quality of its work and ultimately its capacity to fulfil its legal obligations. Acknowledging this alarming situation faced by the EMCDDA, during the budgetary process for 2014, the European Parliament adopted on 23 October 2013 in plenary an amendment for keeping the EMCDDA budget 2014 at the level of the one for However, during the conciliation process this position was part of a larger negotiation package and the EMCDDA budget ended up being cut by 4.9%. Given the situation described above, the EMCDDA critically needs that its subsidy for 2015 remains at least at the level of the one received in P a g e

19 EMSA - European Maritime Safety Agency As concerns 2015, EMSA plans to deliver the activities proposed in the Preliminary Work Programme 2015 with an establishment plan of 207 statutory posts (-3 posts compared to 2014) and a budget of EUR in Commitment Appropriations and EUR in Payment Appropriations. The figures proposed for human and financial resources are in line with the Commission s Communication on programming of human and financial resources for decentralised Agencies (COM (2013) 519) and with the Commission s proposal on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and to marine pollution caused by oil and gas installations. The approach followed for 2015 takes into consideration the very conservative and cautious position taken by the EMSA Administrative Board with respect to envisaged resources for the Agency. As a consequence EMSA has cut its establishment plan beyond the yearly 1% that should be expected by all Institutions, and this has been done with the understanding that the extra effort put forward in 2015 would allow the Agency to reach the 5% target well before This approach was possible through a careful scrutiny of the forecasted use of the resources, and redeployment and reshuffling of human resources. Should the figures proposed by the Commission to the Budgetary Authority be confirmed through the budgetary procedure, the Agency will still in a position to deliver its core tasks as identified in the relevant Work Programme, although with less redundancy and with increasingly marginal compliance only. Unfortunately the subsequent cuts over the past years have now reduced the margins and the flexibility that the Agency showed in the past to respond to additional requests for assistance by the Commission and the Member States as needed in the relevant fields of activity. It has to be reminded that the in the revised EMSA Founding Regulation, entered into force in 2013, there are different open provisions for the Commission and the Member States to request assistance from the Agency subject to the approval by the Administrative Board - to the Agency for substantial tasks that are not currently covered in the Work Programme (assistance to the Commission to perform any task assigned to the Commission in legislative acts regarding the objectives of the Agency; technical assistance to Member States to the building up of the necessary national capacity for the implementation of relevant legal acts of the Union; assistance to the Commission and the member States in the development and implementation of ancillary tasks). Should the figures proposed by the Commission for the next years be confirmed, the Agency could find it difficult in the future to fulfil its mandate meeting the expectations of its stakeholders and to respond positively to requests of assistance from the Commission and the Member States; moreover the level of services to the Commission and the Member States could be affected, either in scope or in quality, and negative priorities may need to be set. 19 P a g e

20 ENISA European Union Agency for Network and Information Security ENISA - Risks and Lost Opportunities if Cut on Resources ENISA NEW Agency (New Regulation) ALL economic growth in the EU is underpinned by the use of ICT and a significant ICT failure will potentially negatively impact growth in all economic areas. ENISA has significantly increased its financial, administrative and operational efficiency since 2009 (start of term of office of the current executive director). There are very limited opportunities left for re-deploying staff from administration roles to operational roles. For 2014 IT Office tools will be outsourced. A first outsourcing discussion with PMO for mission reimbursement failed. The operational work is extremely specialised and requires training of 2 to 4 years. Insufficient growth of resources will sacrifice existing successful initiatives and slow down the uptake of new policy initiatives. Strengths Over the last 3 years ENISA significantly increase the skill-sets of its core operational staff by recruiting computer scientists and related technical skills. We offer technical expertise that is extremely difficult to recruit and maintain such as expertise in secure networks, critical infrastructure, privacy and emergency response to cyber attacks. We offer a unique service at the EU level, providing input to policy initiatives that is based on operational experience and assisting MS in implementing policy in an economically efficient manner. There is no cost effective alternative to many of ENISA s key initiatives (pan-european cyber security exercise, Security Breach data collection, supporting e.g. the European Public private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R) and European Forum for Member States EFMS)). ENISA s experts are appreciated by the stakeholder communities that we serve. We have strong links to the CERT community and have developed effective networks covering both public and private sector. Indeed, by working closely with the Permanent Stakeholder Group we are able to benefit from the experience of key industry players (such as e.g. Microsoft, Symantec, Cassidian, SAP, Nokia, etc.). Risks and lost Opportunities As a neutral third party, which functions as a Centre of Competence, ENISA is uniquely positioned to assist MS in dealing with certain risks. In many cases, there are no economically efficient alternatives to this approach. 20 P a g e

21 An insufficient increase in resources will result in our inability to deliver in key areas: 0. Risks regarding Current Tasks: a. The pan-european cyber security exercise will remain static and is likely to lose MS support. b. There will be no EU-US cyber security exercise. c. ENISA will not be able to assist MS in their national cyber exercises, which will reduce the opportunities to align national policy with EU goals. d. There will be no further development of the ENISA Global Threat report. e. There will be very limited coverage of risks limited to new technology evolution. f. ENISA will be incapable of supporting the implementation of Security Breach Notification in a cross-sector environment (NIS Directive). 1. Risks regarding New Tasks a. ENSIA will not meet the expectation of the European Parliament and Council b. Collaboration with Europol and the EU Cyber Crime centre will be minimal and will not guarantee alignment. This could lead to a duplication of work and will not meet the expectations set by the Cyber security Strategy for the EU. c. The Agency will be unable to take a proactive role in the development of NIS standards and will retain the current approach of passively tracking changes. d. There will be no contribution to efforts to align NIS policy with third countries. 2. Risks regarding Image & Reputation a. Without sufficient resources, there is a real risk that private sector will perceive ENISA as a tiger with no teeth and gradually dis-engage. b. The reputation of ENISA is founded upon the notion of it being a Centre of Expertise. If ENISA does not maintain sufficient skills, its staff base it will not be recognised as such. 3. Risks regarding Evaluation of ENISA in 2018 There is a great risk that when the regulation is reviewed in five years time, ENISA may again face an uphill struggle for survival since it would be perceived to have not delivered according to the expectations of the co-legislators. 21 P a g e

22 ERA European Railway Agency For 2015, ERA has been classified by the Commission as a new tasks agency. This is the logical consequence of the adoption on 16 June 2014 of Council Regulation no. 642/2014 establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking. This new regulation attributes several new tasks to ERA. ERA estimates that these new tasks will require at least 6 FTE from Still, the Commission in its draft budget for 2015 has proposed to reduce the number of posts from 140 to 137. This represents a reduction of over 2%. ESMA - European Securities and Markets Authority 1. ESMA s budget general information ESMA is an independent EU Authority that was created on 1 January 2011 as part of the EU-wide response to the 2008 financial crisis. Approximately 30% of ESMA s budget is EU subsidy. The remainder is from fees charged to supervised entities and contributions National Competent Authorities (NCAs). However the entire budget and Establishment Plan (EP) are subject to the normal budgetary approval process. 2. Key issues of wider impact to EU Agencies The Budgetary Authority granted additional posts (compared to the Commission s proposal) to ESMA in This was to readjust ESMA s resources to the level of its tasks. In its 2015 draft budget the Commission has argued that these posts were advanced from the 2015 budget, despite the fact that no planned tasks for 2015 were brought forward to 2014 and ESMA has new tasks coming from new legislative requirements in The argument of advance of posts by the EU Commission is not acceptable as it goes against the decision of the Budgetary Authority on the 2014 budget. On 10 October 2012 the Budgetary Authority approved ESMA s building extension project. The approved report indicated that the EU s contribution to ESMA s building costs would increase by 530,000 in The additional budget has not been included in the Commission s 2015 proposal despite the approval of the Budgetary Authority on the building extension project. ESMA requested 14 new Temporary Agent (TA) posts for 2015, of which only 5 would have been funded by the EU subsidy. However, the Commission s proposal includes no new TA posts for A decreasing EU subsidy ESMA requested a decrease in the EU subsidy 26 of 400,000 (-4% compared to the EU subsidy in 2014) for The Commission s proposal is a reduction of 2.5m (-15% compared to 2014). The overall impact on ESMA s budget would be an increase of only 1% between 2014 and Fresh credits only to which the 1,583,000 EU share of ESMA s 2013 surplus will be added 22 P a g e

23 4. Impact of 2015 staffing freeze on ESMA s work Not granting the additional 14 TA posts (of which 9 not funded by EU) would require ESMA to: Limit MiFID/R Consumer Protection implementation work in order to prioritise the single rulebook tasks stemming from MiFID/R; Not manage, or delay until a later year, the extensive MiFID/R IT projects (meaning some legally mandated deadlines might not be possible); Not prepare for the Non-bank Recovery and Resolution legislation; Limit participation in CCP colleges, which has been a much more onerous task than originally envisaged; Delay the delivery of CRA3 implementation and less supervision of CRAs; Not participate in the IOSCO review for Benchmarks 27 ; Limit financial stability work, including cancelling currently planned research projects; Renegotiate internal audit actions, particularly in the areas of document management, business continuity and antifraud. EUROFOUND European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions General remarks Eurofound s mission is to provide knowledge to assist the development of social and work-related policies. The Agency strives to provide the highest quality information in its fields of expertise: scientifically sound and unbiased. Eurofound s vision is that this knowledge is taken up for the development of effective policies that lead to the improvement of quality of life and work in a competitive and fair Europe. Founded in 1975, Eurofound is considered by the Commission to be a cruising-speed Agency Budget 2015 and MSPP The freeze of the annual subsidy at the level of 2012 is getting increasingly difficult to manage. Since then we have seen considerable cost increases, especially: 27 Two TA posts for 2015 are already included in the draft legislative financial statement for the forthcoming Benchmarks Legislation but have not been included in the draft budget. 23 P a g e

24 - for procurement of flagship projects, like the European Working Conditions Survey, European Quality of Life Survey and European Company survey. Cost increases of 20-30% had to be absorbed with great difficulty and at the cost of other project proposals from national governments, EU institutions and European social partners European Social partners and national governments which could not have been implemented. - by the accession of Croatia which led to cost increases in many of the EU-wide projects and, not the least, in translations. At the same time, we observe increasing demands through official documents from different stakeholders, including the European Parliament, amongst which: - the Commission has requested Eurofound to cooperate in developing a knowledge bank in the context of the Social Investment Package; - the Commission has requested to Eurofound to develop a best practice guide in the context of the EU strategy towards eradication of human trafficking; - The European Parliament has called on the Commission to establish a European Platform for labour inspectors on undeclared work within Eurofound; - The European Parliament requests translations into more languages in order to make Eurofound s work more visible to EU citizens; - The Court of Auditors together with the Commission request Agencies to procure, contract and pay for future external audits by themselves. In relation to staff reductions Eurofound is fully committed to achieve the 5% cut foreseen for all EU bodies in the Multi-annual Financial Framework By 2014 a reduction of 4% will have been implemented. Up to now retirements have not necessarily been replaced and the capacity could be maintained by increased working hours. In future it is not possible for Eurofound to identify where exactly additional staff cuts will be possible. Most posts in the Eurofound s establishment plan are filled by Temporary Agents, Article 2(f) on contracts of indefinite duration. Eurofound s intention to reduce posts of contract agents instead, in order to achieve the requested staff cuts, was not accepted by the Commission. More flexibility needs to be given to Agencies in this regard instead of forcing them to cut specifically temporary agents or officials. EUROJUST European Union s Judicial Cooperation Unit In order to reinforce the fight against serious crime, Eurojust is the agency responsible for stimulating and improving coordination and cooperation between competent judicial authorities of the Members States. As Eurojust receives cases referred by the Members States, it is an entirely demand-driven organisation, Eurojust and therefore requires the commensurate resources where such demands cannot be met by efficiency gains. 24 P a g e

25 1. Increasing crime figures produce additional work for Eurojust: The Commission recognises increasing levels of serious cross border crime itself in proposals for the new regulations for the European Public Prosecutor s Office (EPPO) and Eurojust. the past decade has seen an explosion of organised crime, such as drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and cybercrime including child pornography. A new criminal landscape is emerging [...]. Member States cannot effectively combat these at national level. So coordination and assistance become paramount. Eurojust is the only EU agency that supports national judicial authorities to appropriately investigate and prosecute these cases 28 It is well studied that there is a correlation in crime levels and financial austerity therefore the aforementioned explosion can be considered set to continue at a time when national resources to deal with this matter will be further stretched. Against this background, it is not surprising that the European Parliament urges Member States not to reduce the Union budget for short-term headline reasons but to provide additional funds to Europol, Eurojust, Frontex and the future EPPO, because their success has a multiplier effect on reducing losses of taxes to Member States 29 Based on historic data, Eurojust expects a growth in its caseload of approximately 6% per annum or 30% in the 5 year period over which the post reductions are currently to be effected. 2. Efficiency Gains Eurojust has demonstrated and committed to efficiency gains in the Annual Work Programmes of 2014 and 2015 with the intention to reinforce the operational support for the College, including the establishment of the support to the Croatian national desk for which new resources were not granted. Whilst the 5% post reduction offsets the capacity generated by the change in working hours, it and (any further levy) negates the efficiency gains possible with a reduced headcount, to reinforce the operational support areas and therefore does not provide for the capacity to respond to increasing demand from the Member States without reducing the range, quality or timeliness of services. 3. Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) A key instrument for simplifying and increasing successful coordination for the investigation and prosecution of serious cross border crimes is the JIT. Eurojust has developed as a Centre of Expertise in JITs, supporting their set-up and more uniquely, providing financial assistance to enable the operational functioning of JITs. In 2013, the Commission s grant provided to Eurojust came to an end; however the demand for financial assistance had grown and remained. As financial assistance 28 COM(213)535 final, page 59, European Parliament Resolution of 11 June 2013 on organised crime, corruption, and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (interim report) (2012/2117(INI)). P7_TA(2013) P a g e

26 is a critical success factor for many Member States to engage in a JIT, Eurojust continued to provide grants from its regular budget to continue this important work as commented by the Council 30 : Notes the commitment of Eurojust to ensure continuity of the JITs funding by its own regular budget after the expiry of the grant under the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme (ISEC) in September 2013 and under which Eurojust supported 95 JITs between 2010 and September Calls on EU institutions and bodies to ensure stable means of funding of JITs in the new financial period, which is crucial for the operation of effective cross-border investigations. Despite earlier calls from the Council to support the funding of JITs, Eurojust was unable to secure additional funds for JITs in 2014 due to the frozen budget envelope stipulated by the MFF and consequently these costs were absorbed by deferring capital investments. The demand for financial assistance far outstrips the funds available, thus meaningful assistance is limited by budget constraints. This places in jeopardy the benefits that such a legal tool can bring in the fight against serious crime unless more resources can be made available. In 2015 and 2016, Eurojust will request increases in the budget for JITs which cannot be absorbed within a frozen budget envelope. The cost benefits of such an investment are considered significant and as the funds solely benefit Member States, Eurojust urges the Budgetary Authorities to warrant an exception to the MFF provisions and allocate additional resources to support JITs 4. Conclusion The need to absorb inflation adjustments and remuneration increases, as decided by the Institutions, already presents a considerable challenge for Eurojust to remain within the budget envelope provided in the MFF The staffing reductions beyond the 5% requested by the Budgetary Authorities further exacerbate Eurojust s ability to meet the increasing demands in terms of caseload from the Member States. In combination, the above situation makes the reinforcement of resources for operational support such as JITs funding unfeasible. Eurojust s situation illustrates the need for careful case by case assessment of the agencies resource needs and allocation to ensure that short term austerity measures are not detrimental to the performance of tasks specifically mandated by the European Council. EUROPOL - European Police Office 5% staff cuts were initially suggested and agreed by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission as a feasible measure given the additional capacity built up by the increase of working time of EU institutions and bodies to 40 hours per week. It must be stressed that Europol staff has been working 40 hours a week since the establishment of the Agency. As a result it is impossible for Europol to compensate a reduction in posts with an increase in working time; the compensation logic of the 5% staff cut proposal can therefore not apply to us. Unlike other institutions or bodies which can resort to increasing working time to match loss of resources, Europol faces real, irreparable cuts if we are to meet the 5% staff reduction target and we request that this be taken 30 Council conclusions on the Eurojust Annual Report P a g e

27 into account by the budgetary authority in its deliberations on 2015 and future budgets and establishment plans. FRA EU Agency for Fundamental Rights The FRA has complied with and introduced the general 5% staff reduction for the period (a total of 4 posts). Three TA posts were already deleted in 2013 and a further post will be deleted in The FRA will implement its annual work programmes and in particular that of 2015 through a corresponding increase in capacity due to the longer working hours. Following the Institutional Agreement of 12th December 2013 between the European Parliament, Council and the Commission and the Joint Statement on the Decentralised Agencies of 3rd April 2014, the Inter-institutional Working Group (IIWG2) will by 2017 examine ways of fulfilling the needs of meeting the overall 5% target for all Agencies, taking into consideration the fact that some Agencies will be entrusted with new tasks, some new Agencies will be created, other Agencies are fee funded while some are at cruising speed. The job screening exercise, an in-depth analysis of Agencies including possible synergies and economies, as well as the definition of new tasks will be undertaken by the IIWG2. The FRA will therefore follow the recommendations of the IIWG2 and will introduce any possible effect on its staffing table, as soon as these recommendations are known. The FRA is not in any case in a position to delete 2 senior AD posts already in The staff members occupying these posts perform vital functions for the Agency and have contracts of indefinite duration. In 2013 FRA in collaboration with the Internal Audit Service (IAS) and on European Parliament s recommendation to the EU Agencies, further developed and conceptualised its Activity Based Management (ABM) as shown in the figure below. The centre of this concept is the activity concerned. FRA s establishment plan derives from the AWP and its needs in human resources where priorities are translated into objectives and actions in an efficient fashion. For this purpose the Agency s budget and AWP is structured in terms of areas of activities as these are defined in its Multiannual Framework. FRA publishes the results of the Activity Based Budgeting (ABB) in its Annual Report. 27 P a g e

28 ABM helps the Agency to take informed decisions on discontinuing activities as well as on the level of outsourcing based on robust and reliable data. In this context, the allocation of the Agency s resources is consistent with the priorities in each of the areas of activity and their objectives. The implementation of ABM allows the Agency to systematically assess the costs of each area of activity and compare them to the results achieved. FRONTEX EU Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders In the programming document for decentralized Agencies , Frontex has been grouped between 2014 and 2018 as a new task Agency in view of the expected task extension linked to EUROSUR. Therefore 8 additional posts may be allocated to the Agency according to the paper; in fact this increase in positions remain virtual as the additional posts granted are offset against the staff cuts of 5% (-7,5 posts) +1% annual levy (-8,5 posts). So overall the Agency is expected to reduce the overall staff by 8 staff members in the period until The Commission Representatives in the Management Board clearly indicated that the Agency had to respect the limits set in the programming document, both for financial and the human resources. For 2015, the Establishment Plan indicates 151 Temporary Agent staff; even though, as informed last year, Frontex reallocated 19 operational and ICT staff members to the EUROSUR task, but vital profiles are missing to implement adequately the mandate. The Agency has exclusively temporary agents (usually five years contract), contract agents (usually three years contract) and SNEs (deployment between two and six years). The contracts expiring between now and 2020 do not 28 P a g e