The table [...] presents an overview of the costs and benefits identified within the scope of this study. The founding Regulation of ELA primarily imposes rules on the ELA itself, delineating tasks and responsibilities for its operations. Predominantly, the costs associated with compliance to the Regulation are borne by ELA, funded through the EU Budget. Citizens and businesses are not expected to bear costs as the Regulation does not directly impose obligations on them. Therefore, the table focuses on direct costs, which are borne by the authority itself. These costs represent the commitments made by ELA in each year and for different activities and are taken from the Annual Accounts and Annual Activity Reports of ELA. Regarding the staff costs per activity, this was not directly provided in the documents, but was calculated by the study team. To do this, average basic salaries and allowances were used for the different types of employees (contract agents, temporary agents and SNEs as well as the division of FTEs over the different activities was used (based on SPDs data) to calculate the staff costs per activity. The potential (indirect) benefits could theoretically extend to all actors, including companies and citizens. However, it is not feasible to identify and quantify how ELA's activities eventually have an impact on downstream markets. The table therefore focusses on direct benefits incurred by the direct users of ELA's outputs, resulting from the stakeholder questionnaire carried out in this evaluation. These are the organisations that made use of the outputs produced by ELA, such as national institutions/agencies, employer organisations, trade unions, research institutions, etc. Next to this, organisations that are working together with ELA in certain tasks such as other European agencies, National Coordination Offices, EU networks, etc. also fall under this category. Given the nature of this evaluation and the constraints imposed by the available data, we have chosen to compile a table that aligns more closely with the methodology employed in the evaluation of the other four decentralized agencies under the remit of DG Employment. For comparative purposes and to ensure comprehensive reporting, we have also included a table that more closely adheres to the format specified in the Better Regulation Guidelines.
