EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC0672
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SEC/2011/0672 final - COD 2011/0150 */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT /* SEC/2011/0672 final - COD 2011/0150 */
Disclaimer:
This executive summary commits only the Commission's services involved in its
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by
the Commission. 1. Problem Definition This document only concerns the European standardisation
system in which the three independent European standardisation organisations
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI (hereinafter referred to as “ESOs”) play a key role, and
the standards for interoperability in the field of ICT. Standards and standardisation are very
effective policy tools for the EU. The mere existence of standards is
trade-enhancing because of their positive cost-decreasing effect and the
reduction of information asymmetries between the supply and the demand sides,
especially in the case of cross-border transactions. Several econometric
studies have established a clear connection at a macroeconomic level between
standardisation in the economy, productivity growth, trade and overall economic
growth. Studies show that existing standards contribute to GDP at the rate of
about one percentage point per annum. Although standards and standardisation
have much wider benefits for the European economy, they are used as policy
instruments to ensure, inter alia, the functioning of the single market, the interoperability
of networks and systems, in particular in the field of ICT, a high level of
consumer and environmental protection, and more innovation and social
inclusion. However, the public consultations of
stakeholders and a report of the European Parliament on
the future of European standardisation[1] indicated that certain problems need to be addressed. European standards play a very important part
in the functioning of the internal market for industrial products. European
standards replace national and often conflicting standards which, as such, may
create technical impediments to a national market. European standards can, for
the purpose of this impact assessment, be divided into 2 categories: · European standards developed at the request of the Commission, on the basis of a so-called “mandate” in which the ESOs are
requested to draw up technical specifications of a normative nature that meet
the requirements set out in the mandate. These standards can be subdivided into
2 subcategories: –
Harmonised standards which ensure that products
meet the essential requirements set out in EU legislation. Compliance with a
European “harmonised” standard guarantees the required level of safety of
products. However, use of harmonised standards is still voluntary and a manufacturer
may use any other technical solution which demonstrates that his product meets
the essential requirements. The percentage of European standards that are
harmonised standards has increased in the last two decades from 3.55% to 20% in
2009. This shows the increasing importance of standards as an instrument to
accompany EU legislation[2]. –
Other European standards to support European
policies; · The remaining European standards are adopted outside EU
legislation at the initiative of undertakings, NSBs or other stakeholders, or
at the request of the Commission. 1.1. Problem
1: the process for adopting European standards
requested by the Commission is not fast enough In a rapidly changing world and society,
especially in sectors characterized by very short product lives and development
cycles, standards must keep pace with rapid technological development. Some stakeholders argue that the entire process of creating European
standards is too slow, although complaints about slowness of standardisation
may be less relevant for technologies with long lead times for development and
redeployment. At the moment, the development time of CEN and CENELEC
deliverables is between 21.5 and 36 months while the typical time frame for
ETSI is 12 to 24 months. Yet, the entire development process can be much longer
for standards developed at the request of the Commission. For these standards,
there are four main stages, i.e. the preparation of the mandate and the
positive opinion of the committee set up under Directive 98/34/EC, the
acceptance of the mandate by the ESO and the start of work on the standard, the
development of the standard itself and the publication of the reference of the
harmonised standard in the OJ and the objection procedure. 1.2. Problem
2: Under-representation of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European
standardisation process Several studies showed that SMEs encounter a
series of problems with respect to standards and standardisation. One of the
most important problems, according to many
stakeholders, is that SMEs are in general under-represented in
standardisation activities, in particular at European level. Furthermore,
standards often relate to the safety and well-being of citizens, the efficiency
of networks, the environment and other public policy fields. Although standards
play a major role in society, the opinion of relevant societal stakeholders is
not sufficiently integrated in the standardisation process in the EU. In
order to address the problem of insufficient representation of SMEs and societal
stakeholders in standardisation activities, financial contributions are paid to
organisations representing SMEs and societal stakeholders. The criteria for
eligibility for these grants, the conditions for their use and the type of
financial contributions available vary widely. Some organisations receive
grants for actions while others also receive operating grants. 1.3. Problem 3: “Fora and
Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in public procurement of
ICT. In the field of ICT, many standards ensuring
interoperability are not elaborated by the ESOs but by global fora and
consortia. This goes particularly for Internet and World Wide Web related
standards. Mostly due to a lack of highly specialized expertise the traditional
standard-setting organisations do not cover the ICT domain and so currently a
major part of the global ICT standardisation work is done outside the formal
European or International standardisation system. Referencing of standards in public procurement
can be an important means of fostering innovation while providing public
authorities with the tools needed to fulfil their tasks, especially in lead
markets such as e-health. Public procurement has to comply with Directive
2004/18/EC which differentiates between formal standards and other technical
specifications, for which a description of functional requirements is
additionally requested. When public authorities refer to technical standards in
their technical specifications, they should also specify whether they allow tenderers
to prove that their offer fulfils the specifications even if it does not comply
with the technical standard referred to. However, when acquiring ICT services
and products, additional requirements may prevail. Public authorities need to
be able to define their ICT strategies and architectures, including
cross-border interoperability and will procure ICT systems/services and
products or components thereof, that meet their requirements. 2. Objectives 2.1. General
policy objectives This initiative aims at increasing the
contribution of standards and European standardisation to a better functioning
internal market, stimulating growth and innovation and fostering the
competitiveness of EU enterprises, especially SMEs. 2.2. Specific
objectives (1)
Reduce the time taken by the standardisation
process for standards developed at the request of the Commission; (2)
Ensure that SMEs and societal stakeholders are
adequately represented in the standardisation process, especially for standards
developed at the request of the Commission; (3)
Broaden the use of ICT standards and thus
enhance interoperability through a more integrated European public procurement
market for ICT products and services, especially in connection with the
establishment of an “e-Internal Market”; (4)
Remove ambiguities in the existing legal
framework. 3. Assessment of Impacts 3.1. Problem 1: the European standard-setting process is not fast enough 3.1.1. Policy
Option 1.0: Base-line scenario As described above. It serves as a reference
against which the other options are assessed. 3.1.2. Policy
Option 1.A: specify deadlines on the delivery of European standards. The advantage of this option is that European
standards would be available after a fairly short period. The assumption is
that ESOs would accept shorter deadlines and that they could persuade technical
experts willing to spend more time on developing a standard. The positive
economic benefits of the earlier availability of a standard could be estimated
at a growth rate of about one percentage point per annum for the product or
service covered by the standard. Besides the fact that this option would only
apply to the harmonised standards and the European standards requested by the
Commission, a deadline obliging ESOs to increase the speed of the formal standard-setting
processes may have a negative impact on the quality of the standard. Time can
only be gained by reducing consensus and correspondingly curtailing (or
avoiding) one of the intermediate consultation stages. Deadlines for all European standards and the
production of at least the same number of standards in less time could lead to increased
costs (more frequent meetings for example) on an annual basis. There would be
an estimated additional annual cost per standard of around €150,000 to €200,000
if standards were to be finalised in 2 years. The increase in speed would only
be possible if industry and other stakeholders agree to share the additional
cost or if the Commission finances it. Unless specific measures would be taken,
deadlines for all European standards would necessarily have a negative impact
on the involvement of SMEs and societal stakeholders. 3.1.3. Policy
Option 1.B: create a European Agency for Standards that would manage the
standard-setting process. The advantage of this option is that the agency
would be supervised by the European legislator and that it would become more
difficult to decline mandates for European standards. The creation of a new
European standardisation agency would mean that requests for harmonised
standards would be handled as a priority. The level of duplication of
administrative resources and expenses would be lower and all the available
expertise would be pooled. In addition, the participation of SMEs in the
standardisation process could be improved. However, this option has a number of
considerable drawbacks. It requires, above all, close cooperation with the NSBs
to make it viable. An agency on European standardisation could not operate
without their support. Moreover, an agency could not provide the level of
expertise necessary to perform effectively the tasks of a technical committee.
Therefore, consensus between the experts would still be necessary, regardless
whether the work was done under the auspices of an ESO or an agency. This
option would certainly lead to substantial additional costs for the EU-budget.
The Commission currently contributes 21.2 million euro, i.e. around 47% of the
total income of the three ESOs (€44,000,000). The rest of the ESOs income is
mainly financed by members´ fees and contributions. It has to be kept in mind
that the number of standards mandated by the Commission is a fairly small
proportion of the total deliverables issued by ESOs. 3.1.4. Policy
Option 1.C: transparent and simplified procedures for harmonised standards and other
European standards requested by the Commission. A more organised regular annual or multiannual
programming process would increase the workload of the services of the
Commission but would have a general positive impact. It would enable ESOs to
anticipate upcoming requests and shorten the acceptance process so that
harmonised standards would be more rapidly available on the market for use by
businesses. This option would have a positive impact on the internal market and
the competitiveness of businesses (including SMEs) by shortening the period for
issuing mandates by approximately 6 months (by removing the separate
consultation of the committee) while another 6 months could be cut at the end
of the process through efficiency gains when objections are raised. No negative
impacts or supplementary costs can be identified. Although this option has an
overall positive impact without any negative impacts, the main disadvantage is
that it would only apply to harmonised standards and standards developed at the
request of the Commission, so it would have no impact on the speed of other
European standardisation work. 3.2. Problem
2: Involvement of SMEs and societal stakeholders in the European
standardisation process 3.2.1. Policy
Option 2.0: base-line scenario (i.e. the financial contribution to SME and
societal stakeholder representation) As described above. It serves as a reference
against which the other options are assessed. 3.2.2. Policy
Option 2.A: Facilitate direct representation of SMEs and societal stakeholders
within the European standardisation organisations Long term direct participation of technically
aware staff of individual SMEs and societal stakeholders in the meetings and
discussions of a technical committee allows this staff to build a reputation
within the standardisation organisations. In addition, staff can work directly
to influence the process. Participation in the standardisation process requires
a strong technical understanding of proposed standards and their context. In
addition, participants need to be prepared to commit up front to substantial
investments of the time and energy necessary to follow ongoing internal
discussions about the subject of the future standard. The generally accepted
guideline is that meaningful participation in any technical committee or
working group requires a baseline of approximately 20% of a person’s time. 3.2.3. Policy
Option 2.B: Grant voting rights to organisations representing SMEs and societal
stakeholders within the European standardisation organisations Granting voting rights to a very limited number
of representative organisations on technical work within CEN would have a very
positive impact on the involvement of SME and societal stakeholders. Other
delegations with voting rights would have to take into account the views
expressed by delegates of SMEs and societal stakeholders. No negative impacts
could be identified. However, granting voting rights to organisations other
than NSBs needs to be negotiated and agreed with the members of the ESOs, so the
feasibility of this option is uncertain. Furthermore, it may entail the payment
of a higher membership fee which would increase the cost of this option for
organisations representing SMEs and societal stakeholders. 3.2.4. Policy
Option 2.C: Strengthen the position of organisations representing SMEs and
societal stakeholders within the ESOs by providing for the possibility of an
operating grant The positive aspect of this option is that it
provides for the possibility of continuous support to organisations representing
SMEs and societal stakeholders so that they could consolidate their role in the
standardisation process. The other positive aspect is that the possibility of
an operating grant contains a strong impetus for ESOs to continue considering
these organisations as solid partners in the standardisation process so that
the opinions of these organisations are adequately taken into account during
the technical work on European standards. However, this option would require an
exception to the degressivity principle in the basic act underlying the award
of the grants. Furthermore, this option requires that the budgetary amounts
which are currently scattered over several budgetary lines would be at least
maintained by the budgetary authority. No negative aspects could be identified. 3.3. Problem
3: “Fora and Consortia Standards” cannot currently be referenced in public
procurement of ICT. 3.3.1. Policy
option 3.0: base-line scenario As described above. It serves as a reference
against which the other options are assessed. 3.3.2. Policy
Option 3.A: Revive the implementation of the mechanisms of Council Decision
87/95/EEC concerning public procurement and the policy The advantage of this option is that no
legislative change is required and the corresponding administrative costs for
the EU legislator and the Member States could be avoided. However, transforming
Fora and Consortia standards into European standards leads
to supplementary charges, responsibilities and costs for ESOs. A substantial
part of the costs would have to be borne by the Commission. In addition, the
ESOs would be responsible for the regular review and update of the standard. In
addition, the circumstances referred to in Article 5(3) do no longer correspond
to the technological reality on the market. Therefore, this possibility may
require a very broad interpretation of the provisions of Decision 87/95/EEC.
Due to the lack of legal certainty, the impacts on the internal market, SMEs,
public authorities, consumers and innovation would be minimal. However, there
would be no budgetary impacts. 3.3.3. Policy
Option 3.B: Allow for the referencing of “Fora and Consortia Standards” The main advantage of this option is that the
possibility of referencing selected Fora and Consortia Standards for
procurement purposes on a firm legal basis is expected to counter the tendency
towards market fragmentation and to have a positive impact on the internal
market, especially for businesses delivering goods or services complying with
these Fora and Consortia Standards. This option would have positive indirect
impacts on public authorities, SMEs and consumers, considering the
proliferation of high-tech consumer electronic products that exhibit network
effects. These positive impacts, however, could have
corresponding risks. An important risk is that Fora and Consortia Standards could
contain proprietary technologies, whereby a factual monopoly in a technology
would result in a factual monopoly in the market for services and products
based on the technology. This would then favour the single supplier of that
technology. Thus, it would be necessary that the Fora and Consortia Standards
at least observe FRAND IPR policies, as is the case with the ESOs, or operate
on a royalty free basis. This is among the predefined criteria or attributes[3] in the light of which they
should be selected and assessed by the Commission with the assistance from
stakeholders through a consultative “Platform” consisting of a very wide range
of stakeholders and interested parties and without recourse to remunerated
external expertise. 3.3.4. Policy Option 3.C: Grant
Selected Private fora and consortia the Status of Recognized Entities under
Directive 98/34/EC. The impacts of this option depend on a number
of external factors, such as the willingness of the selected fora and consortia
to be recognised and to submit to controls with respect to the WTO-criteria on
standardisation. Fora and consortia might be reluctant to apply for recognition
due to the additional cost of accreditation, its periodical renewal (e.g. cost
for internal audit) and the costs related to compliance with the process
requirements and considerations regarding their “independence”. In case of
recognition, fora and consortia would have to comply with certain procedural
aspects of formal standardisation which may slow down future standard
development. The recognition of private fora and consortia would pose some
notable governance and co-ordination problems. Private fora and consortia
usually have sizeable membership fees, which could discourage SME participation
to the standardization process and represent a discrimination factor. SMEs
would face increased challenges in actively participating in consortia, but
fewer problems in passively observing their activities. Consequently, larger
companies are more likely to gain by their active standardisation engagements.
In any event, this option would require careful scrutiny of the procedural
guarantees offered by the fora and consortia, as part of the selection process.
This option would entail additional costs for
the fora and consortia, especially in demonstrating compliance with
WTO-criteria and in particular for the process requirements and considerations
regarding their “independence”. In case of recognition, the fora and consortia
would have to comply with the procedural aspects of formal standardisation and
would have to fulfil the duties of a recognized body. Neither of these aspects
adds value to the content and quality of the standard. It would also require
additional resources from the EU budget since it would be reasonable for
organisations complying with all criteria to be entitled to benefit from a
financial contribution from the EU. 4. Comparison of Options The policy options for the three problem areas
are compared according to the criteria of effectiveness (i.e. to what extent
they fulfil the specific objectives), efficiency (i.e. at which costs they do
so) and coherence with other EU policies. On this basis, it is suggested that
the following options be retained: · The combination of policy Options 1.A (deadlines on the delivery of
European standards) and 1.C (Transparent and simplified procedures for
harmonised standards and other European standards requested by the Commission); · Policy Option 2.C: Strengthen the position of organisations
representing SMEs and societal stakeholders within the ESOs by providing for
the possibility of an operating grant. · Policy Option 3.B: Allow for the referencing of “Fora and Consortia
Specifications”. [1] A7-0276/2010. [2] Detailed figures can be found in Annex 3 while Annex
4 contains an overview of EU legislation using European standards as a means to
presume conformity with the essential requirements. [3] A list of possible attributes is set out in point 2.1
of the Commission’s White Paper on “Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU –
The Way Forward” - COM(2009) 324, 3.7.2009.