(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

The application concerns the authorisation of manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, to be classified in the additive category ‘nutritional additives’.

(4)

From the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) adopted on 15 September 2009 (2) in combination with the one of 15 April 2008 (3) it results that manganese chelate of hydroxy analogue of methionine does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment for chickens for fattening. According to the opinion of 15 April 2008, the use of that preparation may be considered as a source of available manganese and fulfils the criteria of a nutritional additive for chickens for fattening. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. Article 10 of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).

(2)

Potassium diformate, solid form, was provisionally authorised in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for use on sows by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 of 26 July 2005 concerning the permanent authorisation of certain additives in feedingstuffs and the provisional authorisation of a new use of an additive already authorised in feedingstuffs (3). That additive was subsequently entered into the Community Register of feed additives as an existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(3)

In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 of that Regulation, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of that additive, requesting that additive to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 15 September 2009 (4) that the additive does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer health or the environment and that the use of that additive can improve the performance of the animals. The Authority recommends appropriate measures for user safety. It does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post market monitoring. The Authority also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of that additive shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

As a consequence, the provisions on that preparation in Regulation (EC) No 1200/2005 should be deleted.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs.

(2)

The Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has, on a request from the Commission, adopted on 4 April 2006 an updated scientific opinion relating to ochratoxin A (OTA) in food (3), taking into account new scientific information and derived a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 120 ng/kg b.w.

(3)

It is foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 that the appropriateness of setting a maximum level for OTA in foodstuffs such as dried fruit other than dried vine fruit, cocoa and cocoa products, spices, meat products, green coffee, beer and liquorice, as well as a review of the existing maximum levels, in particular for OTA in dried vine fruit and grape juice, has to be considered in the light of the recent EFSA scientific opinion.

(4)

On the basis of the opinion adopted by EFSA, the existing maximum levels appear appropriate to protect public health and have to be retained. As regards the foodstuffs not yet covered by Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, it was considered necessary and appropriate for the protection of public health to establish maximum levels for ochratoxin A in those foodstuffs that are a significant contributor to the exposure of OTA (for the whole population, or for vulnerable group of the population, or for significant part of the population) or for those foodstuffs that are not necessarily a significant contributor to the exposure of OTA, but there is evidence that there can be found a very high level of OTA in these commodities. A maximum level is appropriate to be set in these cases to avoid that those very highly contaminated commodities could enter the food chain.

(5)

On the basis of the information available, it does not appear necessary for the protection of public health to set a maximum level of OTA in dried fruit other than dried vine fruit, cocoa and cocoa products, meat products, including edible offal and blood products and liqueur wines as they are not a significant contributor to OTA exposure and high levels of OTA have been found only seldom in those commodities. In the case of green coffee and beer, the presence of OTA is already controlled at another more appropriate stage of the production chain (respectively roasted coffee and malt).

(6)

Very high levels of OTA have been observed at several occasions in spices and liquorice. It is therefore appropriate to set a maximum level for spices and liquorice.

(7)

There is recent evidence that in some main producing countries of spices exporting to the Union no prevention measures and official controls are in place to control the presence of ochratoxin A in spices. In order to protect public health, it is appropriate to establish without delay a maximum level for ochratoxin A in spices. To enable the producing countries to put prevention measures in place and not to disrupt trade to an unacceptable extent, a higher maximum level, applicable within short notice, is established for a limited period of time, before the maximum level reflecting the level achievable by applying good practices enters into application. It is appropriate that an assessment of the achievability in the different producing regions in the world of the levels for ochratoxin A by applying good practices takes place before the stricter level applies.

(8)

It is appropriate to continue the monitoring of OTA in foodstuffs for which no maximum level has been set and in the case of regular findings of unusually high levels of OTA, setting of a maximum level for OTA in those foodstuffs might be considered as appropriate.

(9)

Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(10)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

1.

point 2.2.11 is replaced by the following points:

2.

The following footnote is added:

(1)

Commission Decisions 2008/396/EC (2) and 2009/87/EC (3) cleared, for the 2007 financial year, the accounts of all the paying agencies except for the Greek paying agency ‘OPEKEPE’, the Italian paying agency ‘ARBEA’, the Maltese paying agency ‘MRAE’, the Portuguese paying agencies ‘IFADAP’ and ‘IFAP’ and the Finnish paying agency ‘MAVI’.

(2)

Following the transmission of new information and after additional checks, the Commission can now take a decision on the integrality, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Greek paying agency ‘OPEKEPE’ the Maltese paying agency ‘MRAE’, the Portuguese paying agencies ‘IFADAP’ and ‘IFAP’ and the Finnish paying agency ‘MAVI’.

(3)

The first subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (4) lays down that the amounts that are recoverable from, or payable to, each Member State, in accordance with the accounts clearance decision referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the said Regulation, shall be determined by deducting advances paid during the financial year in question, i.e. 2007, from expenditure recognised for that year in accordance with paragraph 1. Such amounts are to be deducted from, or added to, the advances against expenditure from the second month following that in which the accounts clearance decision is taken.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, 50 % of the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50 % by the Community budget if the recovery of those irregularities has not taken place within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding, or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts. Article 32(3) of the said Regulation obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, together with the annual accounts, a summary report on the recovery procedures undertaken in response to irregularities. Detailed rules on the application of the Member States' reporting obligation of the amounts to be recovered are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 885/2006. Annex III to the said Regulation provides the model tables 1 and 2 that have to be provided in 2008 by the Member States. On the basis of the tables completed by the Member States, the Commission should decide on the financial consequences of non-recovery of irregularities older than 4 or 8 years respectively. This Decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 32(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. Such a decision may only be taken if the costs already and likely to be incurred total more than the amount to be recovered or if the recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. If that decision has been taken within 4 years of the primary administrative or judicial finding or within 8 years if the recovery is taken to the national courts, 100 % of the financial consequences of the non-recovery should be borne by the Community budget. In the summary report referred to in Article 32(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 the amounts for which the Member State decided not to pursue recovery and the grounds for the decision are shown. These amounts are not charged to the Member States concerned and are consequently to be borne by the Community budget. This Decision is without prejudice to future conformity decisions pursuant to Article 32(8) of the said Regulation.

(6)

In clearing the accounts of the paying agencies concerned, the Commission must take account of the amounts already withheld from the Member States concerned on the basis of Decisions 2008/396/EC and 2009/87/EC.

(7)

In accordance with Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, this Decision does not prejudice decisions taken subsequently by the Commission excluding from Community financing expenditure not effected in accordance with Community rules,

(1)

The group of high-level national regulatory experts (hereinafter the group) set up by Commission Decision 2006/210/EC (1) is a consultative group of high-level national experts on better regulation.

(2)

The President of the Commission has indicated that better regulation will remain high on the Commission’s political agenda (2).

(3)

A forum for the discussion of better regulation and promotion of cooperation with Member States on better regulation issues has an important role to play in taking forward that agenda.

(4)

The mandate of the group should therefore be extended for three years.

(5)

Decision 2006/210/EC should be extended accordingly.

(6)

In order to enable the group to continue its work, this Decision should take effect as from 1 January 2010,

(1)

In accordance with Article 47(1) and Article 53 of Directive 2006/43/EC, as of 29 June 2008, competent authorities of Member States may allow the transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country only if the authorities have been declared adequate by the Commission and there are reciprocal working arrangements between them and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. It therefore needs to be determined which competent authorities of third countries are adequate for the purpose of transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country.

(2)

A transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of a third country reflects a substantial public interest related to carrying out independent public oversight. Accordingly, any such transfer by the competent authorities of Member States should be made solely for the purpose of the exercise of the competences of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms by the competent authorities of the third country concerned. The persons employed or formerly employed by competent authorities of the third country that receive the information are subject to obligations of professional secrecy.

(3)

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (2) applies to the processing of personal data carried out pursuant to this Directive. Accordingly, where a transfer of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of the third countries below involves the disclosure of personal data, it should always be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC. Member States should ensure, through working arrangements in accordance with Chapter IV of Directive 95/46/EC between their competent authorities and the competent authorities of third countries that the latter would not further disclose personal data comprised in transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms without the prior agreement of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in respect of the present Decision.

(4)

The adequacy of competent authorities of a third country should be assessed in the light of the cooperation requirements pursuant to Article 36 of Directive 2006/43/EC or essentially equivalent functional results. In particular, the adequacy should be assessed in the light of the competences exercised by the competent authorities of the third country concerned, the safeguards against breaching professional secrecy and confidentiality rules implemented by them and their ability under their laws and regulations to cooperate with the competent authorities of Member States.

(5)

As auditors and audit firms of Community companies which have issued securities in Canada, Japan or Switzerland, or which form part of a group issuing statutory consolidated accounts in those countries are regulated under the domestic laws of those countries, it should be decided whether the competent authorities of Member States may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of those countries solely for the purposes of the exercise of their competences of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms.

(6)

Adequacy assessments for the purposes of Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC have been carried out with respect to the competent authorities of Canada, Japan and Switzerland. Adequacy decisions should be taken on the basis of those assessments with respect to those authorities.

(7)

The Canadian Public Accountability Board has competence in the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. It implements adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by its current or former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. It would use the transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms solely for purposes related to the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of Canada, it may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by Canadian auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of any Member State. On this basis, the Canadian Public Accountability Board should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(8)

The Financial Services Agency of Japan and the Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board within the Financial Services Agency of Japan have competence in the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. This Decision should only cover the competences of the Financial Services Agency to investigate auditors and audit firms. The Financial Services Agency of Japan and the Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board of Japan implement adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by their current or former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority and would use the transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms solely for purposes related to the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of Japan, they may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by Japanese auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of any Member State. On this basis, the Financial Services Agency of Japan and the Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board of Japan should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(9)

The Federal Audit Oversight Authority of Switzerland has competence in the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. It implements adequate safeguards banning and sanctioning disclosure by its current or former employees of confidential information to any third person or authority. It would use the transferred audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms solely for purposes related to the public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations of auditors and audit firms. Under the laws and regulations of Switzerland, it may transfer audit working papers or other documents held by Swiss auditors or audit firms to the competent authorities of any Member State. On this basis, the Federal Audit Oversight Authority of Switzerland should be declared adequate for the purpose of Article 47(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(10)

Transfer of audit working papers should include access to or transmission to the authorities declared adequate under this Decision of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms, upon prior agreement of the competent authorities of Member States, and access to or transmission of such papers by the competent authorities of Member States to those authorities. As a consequence, statutory auditors and audit firms should not be allowed to grant access, nor to transmit audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors or audit firms to those authorities under other conditions than the ones set out in this Decision and in Article 47 of Directive 2006/43/EC, for example on the basis of consent of the statutory auditor, the audit firms or the client company.

(11)

This Decision should be without prejudice to the cooperation arrangements referred to in Article 25(4) of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (3).

(12)

As this Decision is taken in the context of the transitional period granted to certain third country auditors and audit firms by Commission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 concerning a transitional period for audit activities of certain third country auditors and audit entities (4), this Decision should not pre-empt any final equivalence decisions that the Commission may adopt pursuant to Article 46 of Directive 2006/43/EC.

(13)

The present Decision aims at facilitating effective cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and those of Canada, Japan and Switzerland to allow the exercise of their functions of public oversight, external quality assurance and investigations and, at the same time, to protect the rights of the parties concerned. Member States should communicate to the Commission the working arrangements concluded with those authorities to allow the Commission to assess if cooperation takes place in accordance with Article 47 of the Directive 2006/43/EC.

(14)

The ultimate objective of cooperation with Canada, Japan and Switzerland in audit oversight is to reach mutual reliance on each other’s oversight systems where transfers of audit working papers would be exceptional. The mutual reliance would be based on the equivalence of Community and those countries’ auditor oversight systems.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 48(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC,

1.

the Canadian Public Accountability Board;

2.

the Financial Services Agency of Japan;

3.

the Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board of Japan;

4.

the Federal Audit Oversight Authority of Switzerland.

(1)

If the amount of manure that a Member State intends to apply per hectare each year is different from the one specified in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 91/676/EEC and in point (a) thereof, that amount has to be fixed so as not to prejudice the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 1 of that Directive and has to be justified on the basis of objective criteria, such as, in the present case, long growing seasons and crops with high nitrogen uptake. On 8 December 2005, the Commission adopted Decision 2005/880/EC (2) allowing the Netherlands the application of 250 kg nitrogen per hectare per year from livestock manure in farms with at least 70 % grassland.

(2)

The derogation thus granted concerned approximately 25 000 farms in the Netherlands and approximately 900 000 hectares and applied to the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2009. The derogation was granted because:

(3)

The Commission considered therefore that the amount of manure requested by the Netherlands would not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC, subject to certain strict conditions being met. These conditions included the establishment of fertiliser plans on a farm by farm basis, the recording of fertiliser practices through fertiliser accounts, periodic soil analysis, green cover in winter after maize, specific provisions on grass ploughing, no manure application before grass ploughing and adjustment of fertilisation to take into account the contribution of leguminous crops. These provisions were aimed at ensuring fertilisation based on crop needs and reduction and prevention of nitrogen losses to water.

(4)

In order to avoid that the application of the 2006-2009 derogation granted by Decision 2005/880/EC would lead to intensification, the competent authorities were compelled to ensure that manure production both in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus would not increase beyond the level of the year 2002 in accordance with the Dutch third national action programme.

(5)

The Netherlands have communicated the maps and reports referred to in Article 8 and Article 10 of Decision 2005/880/EC in time.

(6)

On 14 July 2009 the Netherlands submitted to the Commission a request for an extension of the derogation. The request referred to a detailed justification and to the approval of fourth Nitrates Action Programme (2010-2013) by the Dutch House of Representatives. This fourth action programme indicates the (considerable) progress made in line with the conditions of the 2006-2009 derogation and the challenges ahead. It builds further on the third action programme and contains reinforced measures including stricter nitrogen application standards on sandy soils; stricter phosphorus application standards based on the soil phosphorus status and longer closed periods for land application of fertilisers (3). These legal measures aim at a further reduction of nutrient surplus and further improvement of water quality, if need be by further reinforced action beyond the period 2010-2013.

(7)

Water quality shows a further downward trend in groundwater nitrate concentration and in nutrient concentration (including phosphorus) in surface water with main effects of the third action programme still to be expected in the upcoming years.

(8)

Results of monitoring and controls show that, in the period 2006-2009 approximately 24 000 grassland farms corresponding to approximately 830 000 ha of cultivated land were encompassed by the derogation.

(9)

In order to avoid that the application of the requested derogation leads to intensification, the competent authorities should continue to ensure that manure production both in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus does not increase the level of the year 2002.

(10)

The results achieved so far by the Netherlands are in line with the conditions set out in Decision 2005/880/EC.

(11)

The necessary legal framework for implementing Directive 91/676/EEC and executing the fourth action programme has been adopted and applies equally to the requested derogation.

(12)

Given the measures the Netherlands have committed themselves to in the action programme for the period 2010-2013 the Commission considers that the amount of manure requested by the Netherlands for the period 2010-2013 would not prejudice the achievement of the objectives of Directive 91/676/EEC if the same strict conditions established by Decision 2005/880/EC are met.

(13)

Decision 2005/880/EC expires on 31 December 2009.

(14)

For the purpose of ensuring that the cattle farms concerned may continue to benefit from a derogation, it is appropriate to extend the validity of Decision 2005/880/EC to 31 December 2013 under the same conditions as those set out in articles 4 to 10 of Decision 2005/880/EC.

(15)

The deadline for reporting to the Commission, set by Article 10 of Decision 2005/880/EC, should however be adapted and aligned with the deadline for reporting obligations under article 8 of Decision 2005/880/EC.

(16)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Nitrates Committee set up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 91/676/EEC,

1.

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

2.

Article 10, paragraph 1, second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The report shall be transmitted to the Commission annually in the second quarter of the year following the year of activity.’

3.

Article 11 is replaced by the following:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. It requires each Member State to carry out an annual monitoring programme for TSEs, in accordance with Annex III to that Regulation. Those programmes are to cover as a minimum certain subpopulations of bovine animals belonging to specified age groups.

(2)

That Regulation also provides that Member States which can demonstrate an improvement of the epidemiological situation of their country, according to certain criteria, may have their annual monitoring programmes revised.

(3)

Commission Decision 2009/719/EC (2) authorises the Member States listed in the Annex to that Decision to revise their annual monitoring programmes. It also provides that their programmes are to apply at least to all animals belonging to certain subpopulations of bovine animals above 48 months of age.

(4)

On 2 October 2008, Cyprus submitted an application to the Commission to revise its annual monitoring programme as regards BSE.

(5)

The Food and Veterinary Office carried out an inspection in Cyprus from 29 June 2009 to 3 July 2009 in order to verify compliance with the epidemiological criteria laid down in point 7 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.

(6)

The results of that inspection acknowledged the proper implementation in Cyprus of the rules on protective measures regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathies (BSE) laid down in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. In addition, all the requirements laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 6(1b) and all the epidemiological criteria set out in point 7 of Part I of Chapter A of Annex III to that Regulation were checked and found to be met by Cyprus.

(7)

In view of all available information, the application submitted by Cyprus to revise its annual monitoring programme as regards BSE has been favourably evaluated. It is therefore appropriate to authorise Cyprus to revise its annual monitoring programme so that 48 months is the new age limit for BSE testing in that Member State.

(8)

The Annex to Decision 2009/719/EC should be amended accordingly.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(1)

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) is an Earth observation initiative led by the European Union and carried out in partnership with the Member States. Its objective is to foster better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development in the field of Earth observation and to provide information services.

(2)

In order to achieve the objective of GMES on a sustainable basis, it is necessary to coordinate the activities of the various partners involved in GMES and to develop, establish and operate a service and observation capacity meeting the demands of users. For this purpose, the Commission may need to call upon the expertise of specialists in an advisory body.

(3)

In its Communication entitled ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): we care for a safer planet’ (1), the Commission announced the establishment of a Partners Board to assist the Commission in the overall coordination of GMES.

(4)

It is therefore necessary to set up a group of experts in the field of GMES and Earth observation and to define its tasks and its structure.

(5)

The group should help to ensure the coordination of contributions to GMES by all partners, making best use of existing capacities and identifying gaps to be addressed at Union level. It should assist the Commission in monitoring the coherent implementation of the European Earth Observation Programme (GMES). It should monitor the evolution of policy and enable exchange of good practices in GMES and Earth observation.

(6)

The Partners Board should be composed of representatives of the Member States with competence in the Earth observation, environment and security sectors. Representatives should be nominated by their national authorities responsible for Earth observation in their Member State.

(7)

Rules on disclosure of information by members of the Board should be provided for, without prejudice to the Commission’s rules on security as set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (2).

(8)

Personal data relating to members of the Board should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).

(9)

Provision should be made for the participation of Norway and Switzerland, members of the European Space Agency, in the work of the group. Representatives of organisations involved in Earth observation, in particular former members of the GMES Advisory Council, should be able to attend meetings of the group as observers.

(10)

It is appropriate to fix a period for the application of this Decision. The Commission will in due time consider the advisability of an extension,

1.

to establish cooperation between Member States bodies and the Commission on questions related to GMES, in order to help ensure coordination of contributions by national and European Union’s activities to GMES, make best use of existing capacities and identify gaps to be addressed at European level;

2.

to assist the Commission in monitoring the coherent implementation of the European Earth Observation Programme (GMES), which includes funding from the Research Framework Programme, for which the Commission is assisted by the Committee established pursuant to Article 8 of Council Decision 2006/971/EC (4), and from other EU funding sources, and which builds on the GMES Space Component programme of the European Space Agency (ESA), the execution of which is monitored by the ESA Programme Board for Earth Observation;

3.

to assist the Commission with the preparation of a strategic implementation framework of the European Earth Observation Programme (GMES), including: (i) indicative annual and multi-annual planning of the EU programme activities; (ii) indicative implementation schemes; (iii) GMES activities cost assessment and preliminary budgetary strategy; and (iv) programme specification and participation rules;

4.

to bring about an exchange of experience and good practice in the field of GMES and Earth observation.