COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 25.7.2001
COM(2001) 428
EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE
A WHITE PAPER.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 3
I. WHY REFORM EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE? ................................................................. 7
II. PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE........................................................................ 10
III. PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE........................................................................................... 11
3.1. Better involvement ..................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Better policies, regulation and delivery...................................................................... 18
3.3. The EU’s contribution to global governance ............................................................. 26
3.4. Refocused policies and institutions ............................................................................ 28
IV. FROM GOVERNANCE TO THE FUTURE OF EUROPE.............................................. 32.3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today, political leaders throughout Europe are facing a real paradox. On the one hand,
Europeans want them to find solutions to the major problems confronting our societies. On
the other hand, people increasingly distrust institutions and politics or are simply not
interested in them.
The problem is acknowledged by national parliaments and governments alike. It is
particularly acute at the level of the European Union. Many people are losing confidence in
a poorly understood and complex system to deliver the policies that they want. The Union is
often seen as remote and at the same time too intrusive.
The Irish "no" highlights the impact of these problems on many people. This was reflected
not only in the final outcome of the referendum, but also in the low turnout and quality of
the debate which preceded it.
Yet people also expect the Union to take the lead in seizing the opportunities of
globalisation for economic and human development, and in responding to environmental
challenges, unemployment, concerns over food safety, crime and regional conflicts. They
expect the Union to act as visibly as national governments.
Democratic institutions and the representatives of the people, at both national and European
levels, can and must try to connect Europe with its citizens. This is the starting condition for
more effective and relevant policies.
The Commission identified the reform of European governance as one of its four strategic
objectives in early 2000. Political developments since then have highlighted that the Union
faces a double challenge: there is not only a need for urgent action to adapt governance
under the existing treaties, but also for a broader debate on the future of Europe in view of
the next Inter-Governmental Conference.
Already within the existing Treaties the Union must start adapting its institutions and
establishing more coherence in its policies so that it is easier to see what it does and what it
stands for. A more coherent Union will be stronger at home and a better leader in the world.
It will be well placed to tackle the challenge of enlargement.
The White Paper on European Governance concerns the way in which the Union uses the
powers given by its citizens. Reform must be started now, so that people see changes well
before further modification of the EU Treaties.
The White Paper proposes opening up the policy-making process to get more people and
organisations involved in shaping and delivering EU policy. It promotes greater openness,
accountability and responsibility for all those involved. This should help people to see how
Member States, by acting together within the Union, are able to tackle their concerns more
effectively.
The Commission cannot make these changes on its own, nor should this White Paper be
seen as a magic cure for everything. Introducing change requires effort from all the other
Institutions, central government, regions, cities, and civil society in the current and future
Member States. The White Paper is primarily addressed to them. It proposes a series of
initial actions. Some of these should help the Commission to concentrate its action on clear.4
priorities within the tasks conferred on it by the Treaty: right of initiative, execution of
policy, guardian of the Treaty and international representation. These will be taken forward
immediately. The paper also launches a consultative process which will run until the end of
March 2002 on the need for action by the other Institutions and Member States.
By the end of 2002, the Commission will report on the progress it has made and draw
lessons from the White Paper consultation. This should establish a basis for taking the
governance agenda forward with the other Institutions.
The Commission will also actively participate in the preparation of the forthcoming
European Council in Laeken, presenting its views on the political objectives which should
be pursued by the European Union and on the institutional framework necessary to achieve
these aims. In doing this, it will draw on the principles of this White Paper.
PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
The Union must renew the Community method by following a less top-down approach and
complementing its policy tools more effectively with non-legislative instruments.
Better involvement and more openness
No matter how EU policy is prepared and adopted, the way this is done must be more open
and easier to follow and understand. The Commission will provide:
· Up-to-date, on-line information on preparation of policy through all stages of decision-making.
There needs to be a stronger interaction with regional and local governments and civil
society. Member States bear the principal responsibility for achieving this. But the
Commission for its part will:
· Establish a more systematic dialogue with representatives of regional and local
governments through national and European associations at an early stage in shaping
policy.
· Bring greater flexibility into how Community legislation can be implemented in a way
which takes account of regional and local conditions.
· Establish and publish minimum standards for consultation on EU policy.
· Establish partnership arrangements going beyond the minimum standards in selected areas
committing the Commission to additional consultation in return for more guarantees of the
openness and representativity of the organisations consulted..5
Better policies, regulation and delivery
To improve the quality of its policies, the Union must first assess whether action is needed
and, if it is, whether it should be at Union level. Where Union action is required, it should
consider the combination of different policy tools.
When legislating, the Union needs to find ways of speeding up the legislative process. It
must find the right mix between imposing a uniform approach when and where it is needed
and allowing greater flexibility in the way that rules are implemented on the ground. It must
boost confidence in the way expert advice influences policy decisions.
The Commission will:
· Promote greater use of different policy tools (regulations, “framework directives”, co-regulatory
mechanisms).
· Simplify further existing EU law and encourage Member States to simplify the national
rules which give effect to EU provisions.
· Publish guidelines on collection and use of expert advice, so that it is clear what advice is
given, where it is coming from, how it is used and what alternative views are available.
More effective enforcement of Community law is necessary not only for the sake of
efficiency of the internal market but also to strengthen the credibility of the Union and its
Institutions.
The Commission will:
· Establish criteria to focus its work in investigating possible breaches of Community law.
· Define the criteria for the creation of new regulatory agencies and the framework within
which they should operate.
Global governance
The White Paper looks beyond Europe and contributes to the debate on global governance.
The Union should seek to apply the principles of good governance to its global
responsibilities. It should aim to boost the effectiveness and enforcement powers of
international institutions.
The Commission will:
· Improve the dialogue with governmental and non-governmental actors of third countries
when developing policy proposals with an international dimension.
· Propose a review of the Union’s international representation in order to allow it to speak
more often with a single voice..6
Refocused Institutions
The EU institutions and Member States must work together to set out an overall policy
strategy. They should refocus the Union’s policies and adapt the way they work.
The Commission will:
· Reinforce attempts to ensure policy coherence and identify long-term objectives.
· Bring forward to the next Inter-Governmental Conference proposals to refocus the
Commission’s executive responsibility.
The Commission calls on the Council to reinforce its capacity to take decisions and cut
through different sectoral interests. The Council should also establish a stronger link
between EU policy and national action. By assuming its political responsibility under the
Community method, the Council would free the European Council to establish and follow
more long-term strategic orientations.
The Council and the European Parliament should focus more on defining the essential
elements of policy and controlling the way in which those policies are executed. The
Parliament should enhance its role in feeding into the political debate the views of its
electors.
HOW TO REACT TO THE WHITE PAPER
Reactions to this White Paper may be sent directly to the Commission before 31 March
2002. The Governance Web Site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/
index_en.htm will provide updated information and link with interactive debates, including
debates on governance initiated by institutional and non-governmental actors, debates on
the Future of Europe and the Commission’s portal on interactive policy-making.
If sent to the Commission, comments should be sent to:
sg-governance@cec.eu.int
Or by post to:
Governance White Paper,
European Commission,
C80 05/66,
rue de la loi 200,
B-1049 Brussels
Copies of the comments received will be posted on the Web Site. If you do not wish your
comments to be available, you should make a specific request for confidentiality..7
I. WHY REFORM EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE?
European integration has delivered fifty years of stability, peace and economic
prosperity. It has helped to raise standards of living, built an internal market and
strengthened the Union’s voice in the world. It has achieved results which would not
have been possible by individual Member States acting on their own. It has attracted
a succession of applications for membership and in a few years time it will expand
on a continental scale. It has also served as a model for regional integration across
the world.
These results have been achieved by democratic means. The Union is built on the
rule of law; it can draw on the Charter of fundamental rights, and it has a double
democratic mandate through a Parliament representing EU citizens and a Council
representing the elected governments of the Member States.
Yet despite its achievements, many Europeans feel alienated from the Union’s work.
This feeling is not confined to the European Institutions. It affects politics and
political institutions around the globe. But for the Union, it reflects particular
tensions and uncertainty about what the Union is and what it aspires to become,
about its geographical boundaries, its political objectives and the way these powers
are shared with the Member States.
The decreasing turnout in the European Parliament elections and the Irish “No” vote
also serve to show the widening gulf between the European Union and the people it
serves:
· There is a perceived inability of the Union to act effectively where a clear case
exists, for instance, unemployment, food safety scares, crime, the conflicts on the
EU’s borders and its role in the world.
· Where the Union does act effectively, it rarely gets proper credit for its actions.
People do not see that improvements in their rights and quality of life actually
come from European rather than national decisions. But at the same time, they
expect the Union to act as effectively and visibly as their national governments.
· By the same token, Member States do not communicate well about what the
Union is doing and what they are doing in the Union. “Brussels” is too easily
blamed by Member States for difficult decisions that they themselves have agreed
or even requested.
· Finally, many people do not know the difference between the Institutions. They
do not understand who takes the decisions that affect them and do not feel the
Institutions act as an effective channel for their views and concerns.
People do not necessarily feel less European. They still expect Europe-wide action in
many domains, but they no longer trust the complex system to deliver what they
want. In other words, people have disappointed expectations, but expectations
nevertheless..8
The debate on the future of Europe and the scope of the White Paper
This disenchantment and with it the fundamental questions concerning the future of
Europe will be the subject of intense debate in the run up to the Inter-Governmental
Conference. However, in preparing for further institutional change, the Union must
start the process of reform now. There is much that can be done to change the way
the Union works under the existing Treaties. This is why the Commission decided to
launch in early 2000 the reform of European governance 1 as a strategic objective –
well in advance of the Nice European Council.
Reforming governance addresses the question of how the EU uses the powers given
by its citizens. It is about how things could and should be done. The goal is to open
up policy-making to make it more inclusive and accountable. A better use of powers
should connect the EU more closely to its citizens and lead to more effective
policies.
In order to achieve this, the Union must better combine different policy tools such as
legislation, social dialogue, structural funding, and action programmes. This would
contribute to strengthening the Community method.
Reforming European governance implies that the Commission must refocus on its
core mission. The proposals in this paper will improve the quality of the way it
initiates policy. They will ensure more clarity and effectiveness in policy execution,
and maximise the impact of the Commission’s actions as guardian of the Treaty.
What is the Community method?
The Community method guarantees both the diversity and effectiveness of the
Union. It ensures the fair treatment of all Member States from the largest to the
smallest. It provides a means to arbitrate between different interests by passing them
through two successive filters: the general interest at the level of the Commission;
and democratic representation, European and national, at the level of the Council and
European Parliament, together the Union’s legislature.
– The European Commission alone makes legislative and policy proposals. Its
independence strengthens its ability to execute policy, act as the guardian of the
Treaty and represent the Community in international negotiations.
– Legislative and budgetary acts are adopted by the Council of Ministers
(representing Member States) and the European Parliament (representing
citizens). The use of qualified majority voting in the Council is an essential
element in ensuring the effectiveness of this method. Execution of policy is
entrusted to the Commission and national authorities.
– The European Court of Justice guarantees respect for the rule of law.
1 “Governance” means rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which powers are exercised
at European level, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and
coherence..9
The Commission alone cannot improve European governance, nor can this Paper
provide a magic cure for everything. Change requires concerted action by all the
European Institutions, present and future Member States, regional and local
authorities, and civil society. This paper is primarily addressed to them. Their
commitment to reforming European governance will be essential in order to regain
confidence before the next round of institutional reform. Elected officeholders at
various levels, in particular at national level, have a crucial role in this context.
The Union’s credibility will eventually be judged by its ability to add value to
national policies and address people’s concerns more effectively at European and
global level. The White Paper identifies the tools that are needed to establish more
coherence in the Union’s policies and help the work of the various Institutions. It
emphasises the need for EU action to be balanced and in proportion to the policy
objectives pursued. This will be even more crucial in an enlarged Union. Finally,
reform of European governance will improve the EU’s ability to influence global
developments.
Taking this White Paper further
The White Paper proposes a set of initial actions, including some which refocus the
Commission on its core tasks. These will be taken forward immediately and should
also inspire change in the other Institutions. The paper also launches a consultative
process on the need for further action, in particular by the other Institutions and
Member States.
The public consultation on this White Paper will run until 31 March 2002. It will
continue to draw on the network of over 2,500 organisations and people who have
already taken part in the governance debate in all parts of Europe, including the
applicant countries 2 . By the end of 2002, the Commission will report on its progress
and draw lessons from the consultation. This should allow to establish the basis for
further co-operation between the Institutions on the reform of European governance
under the existing Treaties.
In the meantime, the debate on the future of Europe leading to institutional changes
in the next Inter-Governmental Conference will intensify. The Commission will
actively participate in the preparation of the forthcoming European Council in
Laeken, presenting its views on the political objectives which should be pursued by
the European Union and on the institutional framework necessary to achieve them. In
doing this, it will also draw on the principles of this White Paper. Moreover, the
White Paper sets down markers for the future of Europe and identifies where new
ways of working will be held back without corresponding changes to the EU
Treaties.
2 Internal Commission groups have contributed this work. Their reports are published in parallel with this
White Paper and can be obtained via the Governance Web Site mentioned above. The contents of these
reports do not reflect the official position of the Commission. In addition, a qualitative opinion survey
in the 15 Member States and in nine candidate countries contributed to the preparations of this Paper..10
II. PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Five principles underpin good governance and the changes proposed in this White
Paper: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. Each
principle is important for establishing more democratic governance. They underpin
democracy and the rule of law in the Member States, but they apply to all levels of
government – global, European, national, regional and local. They are particularly
important for the Union in order to respond to the challenges highlighted in the
preceding chapter.
· Openness. The Institutions should work in a more open manner. Together with
the Member States, they should actively communicate about what the EU does
and the decisions it takes. They should use language that is accessible and
understandable for the general public. This is of particular importance in order to
improve the confidence in complex institutions.
· Participation. The quality, relevance and effectiveness of EU policies depend on
ensuring wide participation throughout the policy chain – from conception to
implementation. Improved participation is likely create more confidence in the
end result and in the Institutions which deliver policies. Participation crucially
depends on central governments following an inclusive approach when
developing and implementing EU policies.
· Accountability. Roles in the legislative and executive processes need to be
clearer. Each of the EU Institutions must explain and take responsibility for what
it does in Europe. But there is also a need for greater clarity and responsibility
from Member States and all those involved in developing and implementing EU
policy at whatever level.
· Effectiveness. Policies must be effective and timely, delivering what is needed on
the basis of clear objectives, an evaluation of future impact and, where available,
of past experience. Effectiveness also depends on implementing EU policies in a
proportionate manner and on taking decisions at the most appropriate level.
· Coherence. Policies and action must be coherent and easily understood. The need
for coherence in the Union is increasing: the range of tasks has grown;
enlargement will increase diversity; challenges such as climate and demographic
change cross the boundaries of the sectoral policies on which the Union has been
built; regional and local authorities are increasingly involved in EU policies.
Coherence requires political leadership and a strong responsibility on the part of
the Institutions to ensure a consistent approach within a complex system.
Each principle is important by itself. But they cannot be achieved through separate
actions. Policies can no longer be effective unless they are prepared, implemented
and enforced in a more inclusive way.
The application of these five principles reinforces those of
· proportionality and subsidiarity. From the conception of policy to its
implementation, the choice of the level at which action is taken (from EU to local).11
and the selection of the instruments used must be in proportion to the objectives
pursued. This means that before launching an initiative, it is essential to check
systematically (a) if public action is really necessary, (b) if the European level is
the most appropriate one, and (c) if the measures chosen are proportionate to those
objectives.
The Union is changing as well. Its agenda extends to foreign policy and defence,
migration and the fight against crime. It is expanding to include new members. It will
no longer be judged solely by its ability to remove barriers to trade or to complete an
internal market; its legitimacy today depends on involvement and participation. This
means that the linear model of dispensing policies from above must be replaced by a
virtuous circle, based on feedback, networks and involvement from policy creation to
implementation at all levels.
III. PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
The proposals for change are divided into four sections. A first section focuses on
improving involvement in shaping and implementing EU policy. A second section
aims at improving the quality and enforcement of EU policies. A third section calls
for a stronger link between European governance and the role of the Union in the
world. Finally, a fourth section examines the role of the Institutions.
3.1. Better involvement
Making the way the Union works more open…
Democracy depends on people being able to take part in public debate. To do this,
they must have access to reliable information on European issues and be able to
scrutinise the policy process in its various stages. Major progress has been made in
2001 with the adoption of new rules giving citizens greater access to Community
documents.
But the Institutions and Member States also need to communicate more actively
with the general public on European issues. The communication policy of the
Commission and the other Institutions 3 will promote efforts to deliver information at
national and local level, where possible making use of networks, grassroots
organisations and national, regional and local authorities. Information should be
presented in a way adapted to local needs and concerns, and be available in all
official languages if the Union is not to exclude a vast proportion of its population –
a challenge which will become more acute in the context of enlargement.
Information and communication technologies have an important role. Accordingly,
the EU’s EUROPA Website 4 , is set to evolve into an inter-active platform for
information, feedback and debate, linking parallel networks across the Union.
Providing more information and more effective communication are a pre-condition
for generating a sense of belonging to Europe. The aim should be to create a trans-
3 See the Commission’s Communication on a new framework for co-operation on the information and
communication policy of the European Union, COM(2001) 354, 27.6.01.
4 www.europa.eu.int.12
national “space” where citizens from different countries can discuss what they
perceive as being the important challenges for the Union. This should help policy
makers to stay in touch with European public opinion, and could guide them in
identifying European projects which mobilise public support.
The European Institutions should jointly continue to develop EUR-LEX 5 , in 2002, as
a single on-line point in all languages, where people can follow policy proposals
through the decision-making process.
Council and the European Parliament should make, from the beginning of 2002,
information available more rapidly about all stages of the co-decision process,
particularly concerning the final, so-called conciliation phase.
The Member States should promote public debate on European affairs.
Reaching out to citizens through regional and local democracy…
The expansion of the Union’s activities over the last fifteen years has brought it
closer to regions, cities and localities, which are now responsible for implementing
EU policies from agriculture and structural funding to environmental standards. The
stronger involvement of regional and local authorities in the Union’s policies also
reflects both their growing responsibilities in some Member States and a stronger
engagement of people and grass root organisations in local democracy 6 .
Yet the way in which the Union currently works does not allow for adequate
interaction in a multi-level partnership; a partnership in which national governments
involve their regions and cities fully in European policy-making. Regions and cities
often feel that, in spite of their increased responsibility for implementing EU
policies, their role as an elected and representative channel interacting with the
public on EU policy is not exploited.
There is also criticism that the legislation adopted by the Council and the European
Parliament is either too detailed, or insufficiently adapted to local conditions and
experience; often in stark contrast to the original proposals tabled by the
Commission.
Criticism is not just focused on the Union. The principal responsibility for involving
the regional and local level in EU policy remains and should remain with national
administrations. But national governments are often perceived as not adequately
involving regional and local actors in preparing their positions on EU policies. Each
Member State should foresee adequate mechanisms for wide consultation when
discussing EU decisions and implementing EU policies with a territorial dimension.
The process of EU policy-making, in particular its timing, should allow Member
States to listen to and learn from regional and local experiences.
A complementary response at EU level is needed in three areas to build a better
partnership across the various levels:
5 The EUR-LEX portal already offers a ‘one stop’ shop to access information about pending and adopted
Community law. (www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html).
6 See opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 14.12.2000 on “New forms of governance: Europe, a
framework for citizens’ initiatives” (CdR 186/2000).
ACTION POINTS.13
· Involvement in policy shaping. At EU level, the Commission should ensure that
regional and local knowledge and conditions are taken into account when
developing policy proposals. For this purpose, it should organise a systematic
dialogue with European and national associations of regional and local
government, while respecting national constitutional and administrative
arrangements. The Commission welcomes on-going efforts to increase co-operation
between those associations and the Committee of the Regions.
Furthermore, exchange of staff and joint training between administrations at
various levels would contribute to a better knowledge of each other’s policy
objectives, working methods and instruments.
· Greater flexibility. Local conditions can make it difficult to establish one set of
rules that covers the whole of the Union, without tying up the legislation in
excessive complexity. There should be more flexibility in the means provided for
implementing legislation and programmes with a strong territorial impact,
provided the level playing field at the heart of the internal market can be
maintained.
The Commission is also in favour of testing whether, while respecting the existing
Treaty provisions, the implementation of certain EU policies could be better
achieved by target-based, tripartite contracts. Such contracts should be between
Member States, regions and localities designated by them for that purpose, and the
Commission. Central government would play a key role in setting up such
contracts and would remain responsible for their implementation. The contract
would provide that the designated sub-national authority in the Member States
undertakes to implement identified actions in order to realise particular objectives
defined in “primary” legislation. The contract should include arrangements for
monitoring. The approach concerns regulations or directives in fields where sub-national
public authorities are responsible for implementation within the national
institutional or administrative system. The area of environmental policy might be
a candidate for this pilot approach. Furthermore, the Commission has already
committed itself to a more decentralised approach in future regional policy 7 .
· Overall policy coherence. The territorial impact of EU policies in areas such as
transport, energy or environment should be addressed. These policies should form
part of a coherent whole as stated in the EU’s second cohesion report; there is a
need to avoid a logic which is too sector-specific. In the same way, decisions
taken at regional and local levels should be coherent with a broader set of
principles that would underpin more sustainable and balanced territorial
development within the Union.
The Commission intends to use the enhanced dialogue with Member States and
their regions and cities to develop indicators to identify where coherence is
needed. It will build upon existing work, such as the European Spatial
Development Perspective adopted in 1999 by Ministers responsible for spatial
planning and territorial development. This work of promoting better coherence
7 Second Cohesion Report, COM (2001) 21 final, 31.01.2001..14
between territorial development actions at different levels should also feed the
review of policies in view of the Sustainable Development Strategy 8 .
The Commission will:
- Establish from 2002 onwards a more systematic dialogue with European and
national associations of regional and local government at an early stage of policy
shaping.
- Launch, from 2002 onwards, pilot “target-based contracts” within one or more
areas, as a more flexible means of ensuring implementation of EU policies.
The Committee of the Regions should:
- Play a more proactive role in examining policy, for example through the
preparation of exploratory reports in advance of Commission proposals.
- Organise the exchange of best practice on how local and regional authorities are
involved in the preparatory phase of European decision-making at national level.
- Review the local and regional impact of certain directives, and to report to the
Commission by the end of 2002 on the possibilities for more flexible means of
application. The Commission will then consider a more systematic approach to
allow such flexibility for some parts of Community law.
The Member States should:
- examine how to improve the involvement of local and regional actors in EU
policy-making.
- promote the use of contractual arrangements with their regions and localities.
Involving civil society…
Civil society plays an important role in giving voice to the concerns of citizens and
delivering services that meet people’s needs
9
. Churches and religious communities
have a particular contribution to make. The organisations which make up civil
society mobilise people and support, for instance, those suffering from exclusion or
discrimination. The Union has encouraged the development of civil society in the
applicant countries, as part of their preparation for membership. Non governmental
organisations play an important role at global level in development policy. They
often act as an early warning system for the direction of political debate.
Trade unions and employers’ organisations have a particular role and influence. The
EC Treaty requires the Commission to consult management and labour in preparing
proposals, in particular in the social policy field. Under certain conditions, they can
8 Communication on a sustainable Europe for a better world, COM(2001) 264 final, 15.5.01
9 Civil society includes the following: trade unions and employers’ organisations (“social partners”); non-governmental
organisations; professional associations; charities; grass-roots organisations;
organisations that involve citizens in local and municipal life with a particular contribution from
churches and religious communities. For a more precise definition of organised civil society, see the
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on “The role and contribution of civil society
organisations in the building of Europe”, OJ C329, 17.11.99 p.30.
ACTION POINTS.15
reach binding agreements that are subsequently turned into Community law (within
the social dialogue). The social partners should be further encouraged to use the
powers given under the Treaty to conclude voluntary agreements.
Civil society increasingly sees Europe as offering a good platform to change policy
orientations and society. This offers a real potential to broaden the debate on
Europe’s role. It is a chance to get citizens more actively involved in achieving the
Union’s objectives and to offer them a structured channel for feedback, criticism and
protest 10 . This already happens in fields such as trade and development, and has
recently been proposed for fisheries 11 .
With better involvement comes greater responsibility. Civil society must itself
follow the principles of good governance, which include accountability and
openness. The Commission intends to establish, before the end of this year, a
comprehensive on-line database with details of civil society organisations active at
European level, which should act as a catalyst to improve their internal organisation.
The Economic and Social Committee must play a role in developing a new
relationship of mutual responsibility between the Institutions and civil society, in line
with the changes to article 257 of the EC Treaty 12 agreed at Nice. In order to do this,
its organisation and role will have to be reconsidered. Member States should take this
new role into account when appointing members to the Committee.
Like the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee should be
more active by developing opinions and exploratory reports in order to help shape
policies at a much earlier stage than at present. The Treaty currently provides for
both committees to give their opinion after, rather than before, proposals have been
transmitted to the legislature, which minimises their impact. Working arrangements
between the Commission and the Economic and Social Committee, similar to those
under discussion with the Committee of the Regions, are currently being finalised to
give effect to a more pro-active role.
More effective and transparent consultation at the heart of EU policy-shaping…
The Commission already consults interested parties through different instruments,
such as Green and White Papers, Communications, advisory committees, business
test panels 13 and ad hoc consultations. Furthermore, the Commission is developing
on-line consultation through the inter-active policy-making initiative 14 .
Such consultation helps the Commission and the other Institutions to arbitrate
between competing claims and priorities and assists in developing a longer term
policy perspective. Participation is not about institutionalising protest. It is about
more effective policy shaping based on early consultation and past experience.
10 This would in particular provide a follow up to the Commission’s discussion document on the
Commission and non-governmental organisations: Building a stronger partnership, COM(2000) 11
final, 18.1.00.
11 Green Paper: The future of the common fisheries policy, COM(2001)135 final, 20.03.2001.
12 “The [Economic and Social] Committee shall consist of representatives of the various economic and
social components of organised civil society, and in particular representatives of producers, farmers,
carriers, workers, dealers, craftsmen, professional occupations, consumers and the general interest”.
13 www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/panel/index.htm
14 www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/citizen/ipm.htm.16
How the Commission consults: The example of the "Telecoms Package 15 ".
The Telecoms Package of 6 measures currently in Council and the European Parliament was
developed on the basis of widespread consultation.
1998-99 A number of studies assessing a range of market and regulatory issues launched.
Workshops presenting and debating the studies.
May/June 1999 Working Paper on regulatory principles for telecoms reform for
consultation.
Nov 1999 Communication launching the 1999 Telecoms Review setting out general
orientations and inviting reaction.
Jan 2000 Two day Public Hearing with 550 participants.
April 2000 Communication on the results of the 1999 Review. More than 200 responses
from national regulators, trade associations, consumer groups, industry and individuals.
May 2000 Draft legislation published in the form of five working documents for rapid
consultation.
July 2000 Adoption of package of six proposals by the Commission, currently under
discussion in Council and European Parliament.
The European Parliament and its committees regularly seek public and expert views
through consultation and public hearings, improving the quality of its policy
deliberation. Some Member States systematically consult at a national level on
proposals tabled in the Council.
In all these areas more should and must be done.
The Institutions and national authorities must reinforce their efforts to consult better
on EU policies. Better consultation complements, and does not replace, decision-making
by the Institutions.
What is needed is a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue; a culture
which is adopted by all European Institutions and which associates particularly the
European Parliament in the consultative process, given its role in representing the
citizen. The European Parliament should play a prominent role, for instance, by
reinforcing its use of public hearings. European political parties are an important
factor in European integration and contribute to European awareness and voicing the
concerns of citizens.
15 The telecoms package consists of 6 measures revising the existing regulatory framework for
telecommunications markets which launched liberalisation from 1 January 1998 and which now need
updating in the light of several years of effective competition. The measures address framework
regulatory conditions and regulatory structures; licensing; interconnection and access; universal service;
data protection and privacy, and the treatment of radio-frequency..17
Furthermore, the involvement of national parliaments and their specialised European
affairs committees, as already practised by the European Parliament, could also be
encouraged.
There is currently a lack of clarity about how consultations are run and to whom the
Institutions listen. The Commission runs nearly 700 ad hoc consultation bodies in a
wide range of policies. The increase in the volume of international negotiations
generates further ad hoc consultation. The Commission believes it needs to
rationalise this unwieldy system not to stifle discussion, but to make it more effective
and accountable both for those consulted and those receiving the advice. As a first
step, the Commission will publish a review of existing sectoral consultative fora.
Creating a culture of consultation cannot be achieved by legal rules which would
create excessive rigidity and risk slowing the adoption of particular policies. It
should rather be underpinned by a code of conduct that sets minimum standards,
focusing on what to consult on, when, whom and how to consult. Those standards
will reduce the risk of the policy-makers just listening to one side of the argument or
of particular groups getting privileged access on the basis of sectoral interests or
nationality, which is a clear weakness with the current method of ad hoc
consultations. These standards should improve the representativity of civil society
organisations and structure their debate with the Institutions.
In some policy sectors, where consultative practices are already well established, the
Commission could develop more extensive partnership arrangements. On the
Commission’s part, this will entail a commitment for additional consultations
compared to the minimum standards. In return, the arrangements will prompt civil
society organisations to tighten up their internal structures, furnish guarantees of
openness and representativity, and prove their capacity to relay information or lead
debates in the Member States.
In the light of practical experience of these partnership arrangements and the code of
conduct, the Commission will invite the other Institutions to contribute to extending
this new approach to their own activities.
The Commission will:
- Adopt before the end of 2001 minimum standards for consultation and publish
them in a code of conduct.
- Develop more extensive partnership arrangements from 2002 onwards in certain
sectors.
The Economic and Social Committee should play a more proactive role in examining
policy, for example through the preparation of exploratory reports.
Member States should examine how to improve their consultative processes in the
context of EU policy
The Council and European Parliament should review their relationship with civil
society and, building on the minimum standards for consultations, contribute to a
general reference framework for consultation by 2004.
ACTION POINTS.18
Connecting with networks…
European integration, new technologies, cultural changes and global interdependence
have led to the creation of a tremendous variety of European and international
networks, focused on specific objectives. Some have been supported by Community
funding. These networks link businesses, communities, research centres, and regional
and local authorities. They provide new foundations for integration within the Union
and for building bridges to the applicant countries and to the world. They also act as
multipliers spreading awareness of the EU and showing policies in action.
Examples of Network-led initiatives
The yearly ‘Car Free Day’ on 22 September now mobilises around 800 cities in 25 European
countries on a voluntary basis
The Netd@ys initiative has increased awareness of schools, pupils and teachers of new
media. Last year there were about 300 Netd@ys projects involving 150,000 organisations
from 85 countries and the European website received over 8 million hits.
Yet, many of these networks, whose roots reach down deep into society, feel
disconnected from the EU policy process. By making them more open and
structuring better their relation with the Institutions, networks could make a more
effective contribution to EU policies. More specifically, regional and city networks
that support trans-national and cross-border co-operation, for example under the
Structural Funds, are held back by the diverging administrative and legal conditions
which apply to each individual participating authority.
The Commission will:
- Develop by the end of 2002 a more systematic and pro-active approach to
working with key networks to enable them to contribute to decision shaping and
policy execution.
- Examine how the framework for trans-national co-operation of regional or local
actors could be better supported at EU level, with a view to presenting proposals
by the end of 2003 .
3.2 Better policies, regulation and delivery
The European Union’s policies and legislation are getting increasingly complex. The
reluctance of Council and European Parliament to leave more room for policy
execution to the Commission means that legislation often includes an unnecessary
level of detail. In national systems this would be addressed through implementing
rules under the control of national parliaments rather than in the laws adopted by
those Parliaments.
The level of detail in EU legislation also means that adapting the rules to technical or
market changes can be complex and time-consuming. Overall the result is a lack of
flexibility, damaging effectiveness. A slow legislative process is compounded by
slow implementation – of the 83 internal market directives which should have been
transposed in 2000, only five of them had been transposed in all Member States.
ACTION POINTS.19
If rules are not supported or inadequately enforced, the Institutions as a whole are
called into question. Apart from a new, more inclusive approach to policy shaping,
the Union needs to boost confidence in the expert advice that informs its policy. It
needs to improve the quality of its legislation, including better implementation and
enforcement.
Confidence in expert advice…
Scientific and other experts play an increasingly significant role in preparing and
monitoring decisions. From human and animal health to social legislation, the
Institutions rely on specialist expertise to anticipate and identify the nature of the
problems and uncertainties that the Union faces, to take decisions and to ensure that
risks can be explained clearly and simply to the public.
The advent of bio-technologies is highlighting the unprecedented moral and ethical
issues thrown up by technology. This underlines the need for a wide range of
disciplines and experience beyond the purely scientific.
Recent food crises have highlighted the importance of informing people and policy
makers about what is known and where uncertainty persists. But they have also
undermined public confidence in expert-based policy-making. Public perceptions are
not helped by the opacity of the Union’s system of expert committees or the lack of
information about how they work. It is often unclear who is actually deciding -
experts or those with political authority. At the same time, a better informed public
increasingly questions the content and independence of the expert advice that is
given.
These issues become more acute whenever the Union is required to apply the
precautionary principle and play its role in risk assessment and risk management.
The Commission over a number of years has been responding to these challenges, for
example, through the revamping of its system of scientific committees in 1997 and
ensuring that scientific advice from those committees is publicly available. The
current proposal for a European Food Authority will enhance the Union’s scientific
capability, transparency and networking in the area of food safety.
In many other areas, networking at European and even global level show clear
benefits. Expertise, however, is usually organised at a national level. It is essential
that resources be put together and work better in the common interest of EU citizens.
Such structured and open networks should form a scientific reference system to
support EU policy-making 16 .
The Commission will publish from June 2002 guidelines on collection and use of
expert advice in the Commission to provide for the accountability, plurality and
integrity of the expertise used. This should include the publication of the advice
given. Over time these guidelines could form the basis for a common approach for
all Institutions and Member States.
16 The creation of such a broader set of scientific reference systems is one of the objectives of the
European Research Area.
ACTION POINTS.20
Better and faster regulation – combining policy instruments for better results …
The European Union will rightly continue to be judged by the impact of its
regulation on the ground. It must pay constant attention to improving the quality,
effectiveness and simplicity of regulatory acts. Effective decision-making also
requires the combination of different policy instruments (various forms of legislation,
programmes, guidelines, use of structural funding, etc.) to meet Treaty objectives. In
making full use of the Treaty, the Commission could also make proposals to take the
Union’s objectives forward through enhanced co-operation.
At the same time, the Union must be able to react more rapidly to changing market
conditions and new problems by reducing the long delays associated with the
adoption and implementation of Community rules. In many cases these may run to
three years or more. A tension between faster decisions and better, but time-consuming
consultation is not necessarily a problem: investment in good
consultation “upstream” may produce better legislation which is adopted more
rapidly and easier to apply and enforce.
Achieving improvements depends on seven factors.
· First, proposals must be prepared on the basis of an effective analysis of whether
it is appropriate to intervene at EU level and whether regulatory intervention is
needed. If so, the analysis must also assess the potential economic, social and
environmental impact, as well as the costs and benefits of that particular
approach. A key element in such an assessment is ensuring that the objectives of
any proposal are clearly identified.
· Second, legislation is often only part of a broader solution combining formal
rules with other non-binding tools such as recommendations, guidelines, or even
self-regulation within a commonly agreed framework. This highlights the need for
close coherence between the use of different policy instruments and for more
thought to be given to their selection.
· Third, the right type of instrument must be used whenever legislation is needed
to achieve the Union’s objectives:
– The use of regulations should be considered in cases with a need for uniform
application and legal certainty across the Union. This can be particularly
important for the completion of the internal market and has the advantage of
avoiding the delays associated with transposition of directives into national
legislation.
– So-called “framework directives” should be used more often. Such texts are
less heavy-handed, offer greater flexibility as to their implementation, and tend
to be agreed more quickly by Council and the European Parliament.
Whichever form of legislative instrument is chosen, more use should be made of
“primary” legislation limited to essential elements (basic rights and obligations,
conditions to implement them), leaving the executive to fill in the technical detail
via implementing “secondary” rules..21
· Fourth, under certain conditions, implementing measures may be prepared within
the framework of co-regulation. Co-regulation combines binding legislative and
regulatory action with actions taken by the actors most concerned, drawing on
their practical expertise. The result is wider ownership of the policies in question
by involving those most affected by implementing rules in their preparation and
enforcement. This often achieves better compliance, even where the detailed rules
are non-binding.
– It has already been used, for example, in areas such as the internal market
(agreeing product standards under the so-called “New Approach” directives)
and the environment sector (reducing car emissions).
– The exact shape of co-regulation, the way in which legal and non-legal
instruments are combined and who launches the initiative – stakeholders or the
Commission - will vary from sector to sector.
Under the following conditions the Commission will consider the use of co-regulation
where it will be an effective way of achieving EU objectives.
Conditions for the use of co-regulation
Co-regulation implies that a framework of overall objectives, basic rights,
enforcement and appeal mechanisms, and conditions for monitoring compliance is set
in the legislation.
It should only be used where it clearly adds value and serves the general interest. It is
only suited to cases where fundamental rights or major political choices are not called
into question. It should not be used in situations where rules need to apply in a
uniform way in every Member State. Equally, the organisations participating must be
representative, accountable and capable of following open procedures in formulating
and applying agreed rules. This will be a key factor in deciding the added value of a
co-regulatory approach in a given case.
Additionally, the resulting co-operation must be compatible with European
competition rules and the rules agreed must be sufficiently visible so that people are
aware of the rules that apply and the rights they enjoy. Where co-regulation fails to
deliver the desired results or where certain private actors do not commit to the agreed
rules, it will always remain possible for public authorities to intervene by establishing
the specific rules needed.
· Fifth, in other areas, Community action may be complemented or reinforced by
the use of the so-called “open method of co-ordination”, which can already
involve the applicant countries in some cases.
– The open method of co-ordination is used on a case by case basis. It is a way of
encouraging co-operation, the exchange of best practice and agreeing common
targets and guidelines for Member States, sometimes backed up by national
action plans as in the case of employment and social exclusion. It relies on
regular monitoring of progress to meet those targets, allowing Member States
to compare their efforts and learn from the experience of others..22
In some areas, such as employment and social policy or immigration policy 17 ,
it sits alongside the programme-based and legislative approach; in others, it
adds value at a European level where there is little scope for legislative
solutions. This is the case, for example, with work at a European level defining
future objectives for national education systems.
– The Commission plays an active co-ordinating role already and is prepared to
do so in the future, but the use of the method must not upset the institutional
balance nor dilute the achievement of common objectives in the Treaty. In
particular, it should not exclude the European Parliament from a European
policy process. The open method of co-ordination should be a complement,
rather than a replacement, for Community action.
Circumstances for the use of the open method of co-ordination
The use of the open method of co-ordination must not dilute the achievement of
common objectives in the Treaty or the political responsibility of the Institutions. It
should not be used when legislative action under the Community method is possible; it
should ensure overall accountability in line with the following requirements:
· It should be used to achieve defined Treaty objectives.
· Regular mechanisms for reporting to the European Parliament should be
established.
· The Commission should be closely involved and play a co-ordinating role.
· The data and information generated should be widely available. It should provide
the basis for determining whether legislative or programme-based action is needed
to overcome particular problems highlighted.
· Sixth, a stronger culture of evaluation and feedback is needed in order to learn
from the successes and mistakes of the past. This will help to ensure that
proposals do not over-regulate and that decisions are taken and implemented at
the appropriate level.
· Seventh, the Commission has committed itself to withdraw proposals where
inter-institutional bargaining undermines the Treaty principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality or the proposal’s objectives. The Council and the European
Parliament must instead stick to the essential elements of legislation as mentioned
above and avoid overloading or over-complicating proposals.
Council and the European Parliament must also make greater efforts to speed up
the legislative process. When legally possible, Council should vote as soon as a
qualified majority seems possible rather than pursuing discussions in the search
for unanimity. In appropriate cases, the Council and the European Parliament
should attempt to agree proposals in one rather than two readings with the
17 See most recently the Communication on an open method of co-ordination for the community
immigration policy, COM(2001)387 final, 11.7.01.23
assistance of the Commission. This may reduce the time needed to adopt
legislation by 6 to 9 months.
Community law should be substantially simplified…
Building on work on single market and agricultural legislation, a comprehensive
programme of simplification of existing rules is called for – regrouping legal texts,
removing redundant or obsolete provisions, and shifting non-essential obligations to
executive measures.
Simplification at EU level must be accompanied by a similar commitment from
Member States. People first and foremost want less red tape at a national level – they
do not care whether its origin is in European or national decisions. One of the biggest
sources of concern is the tendency of Member States when implementing
Community directives to add new costly procedures or to make legislation more
complex. Networks should be established between those responsible for
simplification at EU and at national level.
The Commission will present an Action Plan for Better Regulation to the Laeken
European Council; within that framework it will:
- Promote greater use of different policy tools, (regulations, “framework directives”,
guidelines and recommendations, co-regulatory mechanisms). These may be
complemented where appropriate by the use of the open method of co-ordination.
- Limit its proposals for primary legislation to essential elements, while providing
greater scope for implementing measures to complete the technical details of
those proposals.
- Launch a high-profile programme to review and simplify Community legislation
adopted before 2000, supported by fast track procedures in Council and
European Parliament for this work.
Council and European Parliament should limit primary legislation to essential
elements.
Member States should refrain from a disproportionate level of detail or complex
administrative requirements when implementing Community legislation.
Better application of EU rules through regulatory agencies
A range of national regulatory agencies exists across the Member States in areas with
a need for consistent and independent regulatory decisions. Increasingly these
regulators have an important role in applying Community law.
At EU level, twelve independent agencies have been created. The majority of these
bodies have either an information gathering task, such as the European Environment
Agency in Copenhagen or they assist the Commission by implementing particular
ACTION POINTS.24
EU programmes and policies, such as the European Training Foundation in Turin. In
three cases EU agencies have a regulatory role 18 .
The creation of further autonomous EU regulatory agencies in clearly defined areas
will improve the way rules are applied and enforced across the Union. Such agencies
should be granted the power to take individual decisions in application of regulatory
measures. They should operate with a degree of independence and within a clear
framework established by the legislature. The regulation creating each agency should
set out the limits of their activities and powers, their responsibilities and
requirements for openness.
The advantage of agencies is often their ability to draw on highly technical, sectoral
know-how, the increased visibility they give for the sectors concerned (and
sometimes the public) and the cost-savings that they offer to business. For the
Commission, the creation of agencies is also a useful way of ensuring it focuses
resources on core tasks.
Conditions for the creation of regulatory agencies at EU level
The Treaties allow some responsibilities to be granted directly to agencies. This should be
done in a way that respects the balance of powers between the Institutions and does not
impinge on their respective roles and powers. This implies the following conditions:
· Agencies can be granted the power to take individual decisions in specific areas but
cannot adopt general regulatory measures. In particular, they can be granted decision
making power in areas where a single public interest predominates and the tasks to be
carried out require particular technical expertise (e.g. air safety).
· Agencies cannot be given responsibilities for which the Treaty has conferred a direct
power of decision on the Commission (for example, in the area of competition policy).
· Agencies cannot be granted decision-making power in areas in which they would have to
arbitrate between conflicting public interests, exercise political discretion or carry out
complex economic assessments.
· Agencies must be subject to an effective system of supervision and control.
The Commission will consider the creation of regulatory agencies on a case-by-case
basis. Currently, proposals are before Council and the European Parliament for three
agencies: a European food authority, a maritime safety agency and an air safety
agency with only the latter having a clear power to take individual decisions.
The Commission will:
- Define in 2002 the criteria for the creation of new regulatory agencies in line with
the above conditions and the framework within which they should operate.
- Set out the Community’s supervisory responsibilities over such agencies.
18 The Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Alicante) and the Community Plant Variety Office
(Angers) take individual decisions on the grant of European trademarks and plant variety rights. The
ACTION POINTS.25
Better application at national level
Ultimately the impact of European Union rules depends on the willingness and
capacity of Member State authorities to ensure that they are transposed and enforced
effectively, fully and on time. Late transposition, bad transposition and weak
enforcement all contribute to the public impression of a Union which is not
delivering. The prime responsibility for this lies with national administrations and
courts.
Strengthening their administrative capacity of applicant countries is already a key
theme of the pre-accession strategy and these efforts will need to be sustained after
they join. The existing Member States should ensure that they too improve their
performance and make adequate resources available in this field. The Union can
effectively draw on the experience acquired with the applicant countries, such as the
“twinning arrangements”. Current and future Member States should consider setting
up co-ordination units within central government to improve the enforcement of
Community law.
At the same time, the feeling persists that Community rules are “foreign laws”. EU
law is part of the national legal order and must be enforced as such. Despite long-standing
co-operation with the European Court of Justice, national lawyers and
courts should be made more familiar with Community law, and assume
responsibility in ensuring the consistent protection of rights granted by the Treaty
and by European legislation. The Commission will continue to support judicial co-operation
and the training of lawyers and judges in Community law, but Member
States themselves will have to step up their efforts in this field.
The role and effectiveness of the EU Ombudsman and of the Petitions’ Committee of
the European Parliament should be complemented by creating networks of similar
existing bodies in the Member States capable of dealing with disputes involving
citizens and EU issues. It should improve people’s knowledge of the extent and
limits of their rights under Community law, and help them find which Member State
authorities can resolve problems. In some highly specific sectors, the creation of
European regulatory agencies as proposed above will also contribute to a more
uniform application of rules throughout the Community.
The Union is based on the rule of law. Monitoring closely the application of
Community law is an essential task for the Commission if it is to make the Union a
reality for businesses and citizens. The Commission will therefore pursue
infringements with vigour. In this context, individual complaints about breaches of
Community law are important. The Commission has already adopted measures to
improve and speed up internal procedures for handling such complaints and these
should now be codified and published.
However, as far as individual complaints are concerned, a lengthy legal action
against a Member State is not always the most practical solution. The main aim of an
infringement action is to oblige the offending Member State to remedy its breach of
Community law. Yet even after a ruling by the European Court of Justice further
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicines (London) makes a technical assessment of
applications for the approval of new medicines prior to a Commission decision..26
legal steps by the complainant may be required before national courts in order to
enforce his or her rights. In order to maximise the impact of its work in dealing with
complaints, the Commission will refocus on-going efforts and establish the criteria
that it will use in prioritising cases including the following orientations:
Priority attached to treatment of possible breaches of Community law
The Commission will focus on:
· The effectiveness and quality of transposition of directives as the most effective way of
avoiding individual problems arising at a later stage.
· Situations involving the compatibility of national law with fundamental Community
principles.
· Cases that seriously affect the Community interest (e.g. cases with cross-border
implications) or the interests that the legislation intended to protect.
· Cases where a particular piece of European legislation creates repeated implementation
problems in a Member State.
· Cases that involve Community financing.
Such cases should be handled as a priority in the framework of formal infringement
procedures. In other cases, other forms of intervention could be explored before launching
formal infringement proceedings.
Finally, the Commission will continue to pursue an active dialogue with the Member
States on enforcement. This has the advantage of improving feedback on how rules
are applied in practice. It also can lead to a faster resolution of a potential
infringement than a full court case and therefore offer a quicker solution to the
person at the origin of a complaint.
The Commission will:
- Propose in 2002 twinning arrangements between national administrations to
share best practice in implementing measures within particular sectors, drawing
on the experience with applicant countries, and promote the awareness on
Community law among national courts and lawyers.
- Establish in 2002 criteria that will be used in prioritising the investigation of
possible breaches of Community law.
- Codify the current administrative rules concerning the handling of complaints.
Member States must step up their efforts to improve the quality of transposition and
implementation. They must contribute to improving the knowledge of Community
law, encourage national courts to take a more active role in controlling the
application of Community rules. They should increase the capacity for dispute
settlement through networks of ombudsmen or mediators.
3.3. The EU’s contribution to global governance
The proposals in the White Paper have been drawn up against the background of
enlargement, but they also offer a useful contribution to global governance. The
Union’s first step must be to reform governance successfully at home in order to
enhance the case for change at an international level.
ACTION POINTS.27
The objectives of peace, growth, employment and social justice pursued within the
Union must also be promoted outside for them to be effectively attained at both
European and global level. This responds to citizens’ expectations for a powerful
Union on a world stage. Successful international action reinforces European identity
and the importance of shared values within the Union.
In applying the principles of good governance to the EU’s global responsibility, the
Union should be more accessible to governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders from other parts of the world. This is already part of its strategy for
sustainable development, but it must go hand in hand with a commitment by such
stakeholders as to their representativity and that they will assume their
responsibilities in responding to global challenges. The Union should take the global
dimension into account in assessing the impact of policies, in establishing guidelines
for the use of expertise, and through a more pro-active approach to international
networks.
By acknowledging the global dimension more strongly, the Union will strengthen its
voice in multilateral negotiations. It should aim to improve the effectiveness and
legitimacy of global rule making, working to modernise and reform international and
multi-lateral institutions in the medium to long term. The goal should be to boost the
effectiveness and enforcement powers of multi-lateral institutions. In the short term,
the Union should build partnerships with other countries in order to promote greater
co-operation and coherence between the activities of existing international
organisations and increase their transparency.
International action should be complemented by new tools. Many ideas in this White
Paper could be tested at global level, such as peer review of progress made towards
internationally agreed targets or the development of co-regulatory solutions to deal
with aspects of the new economy. As in the Union, these approaches should
complement successful elements of international public law, most notably the World
Trade Organisation and the International Court of Justice.
To achieve these objectives, the Union needs to speak more with a single voice. It
should strengthen its representation in international and regional fora, including in
relation to economic and financial governance, the environment, development and
competition policy. Often, important improvements can and should be introduced
under the current Treaty, and would considerably improve the visibility of what the
Union is doing at the global level. In some areas, like finance, a change in the Treaty
is required.
The Commission will:
- Improve the dialogue with governmental and non-governmental actors of third
countries when developing policy proposals with an international dimension.
- Promote the use of new tools at global level as a complement to “hard”
international law.
- Promote a discussion in 2002 on how the Union can contribute to a
comprehensive reform of multilateral institutions and improve co-operation and
openness of international organisations.
ACTION POINTS.28
- Propose a review of the Union’s international representation under the existing
Treaties in order to speak more often with a single voice and propose changes at
the next Inter-Governmental Conference.
3.4. Refocused policies and institutions
Connecting the European Union to its citizens means identifying clear policies and
objectives within an overall vision of where the Union is going. People need to
understand better the political project which underpins the Union.
The task is not easy. The step by step integration, which has characterised the
Union’s development, has tended to slice policies into sectoral strands with different
objectives and different tools: over time the capacity to ensure the coherence has
diminished. The current working methods of the Institutions and the relations with
the Member States prevent them from showing the necessary leadership.
As a partial response, the Union has launched cross-cutting policy agendas, such as
those developed in Tampere (1999) for freedom, security and justice issues; in
Lisbon (2000) with an agenda for economic and social renewal extending up to 2010;
or in Göteborg (2001) with the strategy for sustainable development.
But more needs to be done. The Institutions and the Member States must work
together to set out an overall policy strategy. For this purpose, they should already
refocus the Union’s policies and adapt the way the Institutions work under the
existing Treaties.
Refocus EU policies
The introduction of the euro and enlargement will be catalysts for fundamental
changes. The euro will soon become a tangible reality in people’s pockets and will
increase the visibility of the Union at home and in the world. Enlargement will raise
particular problems in terms of the wide gaps between rich and poor countries. It will
bring new challenges for the management of the Union’s external frontiers and the
relationships with our future neighbours.
Refocusing policies means that the Union should identify more clearly its long-term
objectives. These may, with the overall objective of sustainable development,
include improving human capital, knowledge and skills; strengthening both social
cohesion and competitiveness; meeting the environmental challenge; supporting
territorial diversity; and contributing to regional peace and stability. Improved focus
will help to guide the reform of policies in preparation for a successful enlargement
and ensure that expanding the Union does not lead to weakening or dilution of
existing policies.
In setting priorities and ensuring coherence, the Institutions must guard against
decisions on future policies which are inspired by short-term thinking on long-term
challenges. This is a real risk as in the near future institutional reform, important
policy choices, budgetary bargaining and enlargement could all coincide. It is likely
to stretch the Union’s capacity to show leadership through a coherent vision of the
future. The Union must also continue to ensure that it has adequate resources to carry
out the tasks assigned to it..29
Within the Commission, important steps have been taken to strengthen its capacity
for strategic planning and policy setting as one of the three pillars of the on-going
administrative reforms. They are reflected through key events each year that promote
a political debate within the framework of the Commission’s five year strategic
objectives:
· The Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy at the start of each year focuses on
identifying strategic priorities with a 2 to 3 year horizon. It enables a medium
term, more coherent approach, and provides an essential reality check to ensure
that the necessary resources are available.
· The Commission President in his annual State of the Union address in the
European Parliament surveys the progress made against the Commission’s
strategic priorities and indicates new challenges on the horizon. This is
complemented by the annual Synthesis Report to the Spring European Council
which covers the Union’s economic, social and environmental policies.
· In addition to this, from 2002 onwards, the annual report on the implementation of
the Amsterdam Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality will be oriented
towards the main objectives of European Union policies. It will investigate the
extent to which the Union has applied the proportionality and subsidiarity
principles in pursuing its main goals.
However, attempts to structure a better debate on policy coherence need to be built
on a dialogue between the Institutions on future objectives and priorities for the
Union. The Commission’s role in initiating policy and steering the long-term agenda
can be particularly effective in preparing the European Council. These Summits,
which now take place four times a year, bring together the fifteen Heads of State and
Government and the Commission President.
The European Council should have a more important role in shaping the strategic
direction for the Union in partnership with the Commission. It should not deal with
the day to day detail of EU policies. The requirement for consensus in the European
Council often holds policy-making hostage to national interests in areas which
Council could and should decide by a qualified majority of Member States. This is
one example of a failure by the Council to assume its political responsibility for
decision-making within the Community method.
Refocus the Institutions
To deliver better policies, the Union must revitalise the Community method.
Everyone should concentrate on their core tasks: the Commission initiates and
executes policy; the Council and the European Parliament decide on legislation and
budgets - whenever possible in Council using qualified majority voting, the
European Council exerts political guidance and the European Parliament controls the
execution of the budget and of the Union's policies.
This means changes in the way the Institutions work. A lot could be done already in
the short term without amending existing Treaties. A greater effort to ensure the
consistency of what is done in different sectoral Councils is needed. The Council of
Ministers, in particular the General Affairs Council composed of Ministers for
Foreign Affairs, has lost its capacity to give political guidance and arbitrate between.30
sectoral interests, particularly where this involves resolving disputes between
different home departments over the position to be taken on EU proposals. Some
changes in the way it works have already been introduced by Council. The
Presidency Conclusions of the Göteborg European Council called again for an
‘effective co-ordination between different Council formations’. The consensus is that
progress has been slow so far.
It is time to recognise that the Union has moved from a diplomatic to a democratic
process, with policies that reach deep into national societies and daily life. There is a
need for the Council to develop its capacity to co-ordinate all aspects of EU policy
both in the Council and at home. This would free the European Council to refocus its
activity on shaping strategic objectives and monitoring more effectively the Union’s
success in achieving them.
The European Parliament and all national parliaments of the Union and the
applicant countries should become more active in stimulating a public debate on the
future of Europe and its policies 19 . The strong relationship between changes at
national level, EU policies and global developments cannot simply find its response
in Brussels. These changes should be discussed in a national context and in each
national parliament. The Commission would welcome public debates, jointly
organised by the European and national Parliaments, on the Union’s policies.
Moreover, the European Parliament should enhance its control on the execution of
EU policies and the implementation of the budget. This means departing from the
present emphasis on detailed accounting with more policy-oriented control based on
political objectives. The areas in which co-decision should apply must be reviewed in
order to reinforce the role of the European Parliament.
The Commission must focus on its Treaty tasks of policy initiation; execution;
guardian of the Treaty; and international representation of the Community. The
measures proposed in this White Paper, including an enhanced dialogue with
European and national association of regional and local government, better and more
open consultation of civil society, better use of expert advice, and better impact
assessment will help to improve the quality of policy proposals.
The link between European and global governance should lead to the Union speaking
more often with a single voice. The prioritisation for dealing with complaints about
breaches of Community law will maximise the impact of the Commission’s work as
guardian of the Treaty.
The proposals to simplify Community legislation further, better regulation through a
greater diversity of policy tools and their combined use, and tri-partite contractual
arrangements will all improve the quality of policy execution. The increased use of
regulatory agencies will ensure better execution and enforcement of policies in
specific cases. It will also avoid having to assign Commission resources to too
technical tasks.
19 Member States should exchange best practice on the application of the Protocol to the Amsterdam
Treaty on the role of national parliaments in the European Union..31
In the same spirit, the Commission has already proposed a communication and a
regulation laying down the framework for the work of “executive” agencies under
the Commission’s control. This means using external executive agencies rather than
Commission resources to management tasks for spending programmes.
It must also be clearer who is responsible for policy execution. This constitutes the
pre-condition for making the EU system more open and accountable to all European
citizens.
The main responsibility for executing policy and legislation by adopting
implementing regulations or decisions is normally conferred on the Commission. The
conditions under which the Commission adopts those executive measures should be
reviewed.
In the end, this should lead to a situation where
· legislation defines the conditions and limits within which the Commission carries
out its executive role, and
· a simple legal mechanism allows Council and European Parliament as the
legislature to monitor and control the actions of the Commission against the
principles and political guidelines adopted in the legislation.
This change would make decision-making simpler, faster and easier to understand. It
would improve accountability, helping Council and the European Parliament to make
political judgements on how well the executive process is working.
If these orientations are followed the need to maintain existing committees, notably
regulatory and management committees 20 , will be put into question. Therefore a
review of existing committees would have be undertaken and their continued
existence assessed. This assessment should take account of the need for expert advice
for the implementation of EU policies.
This adjustment of the responsibility of the Institutions, giving control of executive
competence to the two legislative bodies and reconsidering the existing regulatory
and management committees touches the delicate question of the balance of power
between the Institutions. It should lead to modifying Treaty article 202 which permits
the Council alone to impose certain requirements on the way the Commission
exercises its executive role. That article has become outdated given the co-decision
procedure which puts Council and the European Parliament on an equal footing with
regard to the adoption of legislation in many areas. Consequently, the Council and
the European Parliament should have an equal role in supervising the way in which
the Commission exercises its executive role. The Commission intends to launch a
reflection on this topic in view of the next Inter-Governmental Conference.
20 Committees composed of Member States administrations assisting the Commission for the exercise of
implementing powers (see decision 1999/468/EC,“comitology” decision)..32
The Commission will:
- Use its right of initiative to focus debates more strongly on policy coherence and
identifying long-term objectives, building upon on-going efforts for strategic
planning and reporting.
- Bring forward at the next Intergovernmental Conference proposals to refocus
executive responsibility on the Commission, while streamlining the control by
Council and the European Parliament over how the Commission uses its
executive powers.
The Council should improve the co-ordination between its various formations as well
as its capacity for political guidance and its ability to link EU and national action.
The European Council should strengthen its focus on strategic objectives.
The European and national Parliaments should play a central role in stimulating
public debate on the future Europe and its policies.
IV. FROM GOVERNANCE TO THE FUTURE OF EUROPE
The challenge for the Union is to renew the European political process. questions
raised by this White Paper and the answers it offers are linked to that renewal. This
paper starts a process responding to the disenchantment of many of the Union’s
citizens. Alienation from politics is not just a European problem, it is global, national
and local. But for the Union it represents a particular challenge. Given the deep level
of integration already achieved, people have similar expectations for the Union as
they have for domestic politics and political institutions. But the Union cannot
develop and deliver policy in the same way as a national government; it must build
partnerships and rely on a wide variety of actors. Expectations must be met in
different ways.
Our overall goal draws on the simple principle that has guided European integration
since the European Community was founded: integrate the people of Europe, while
fully respecting individual national identities. The reforms proposed are possible if
the Union rekindles the original spirit of the EU Treaties and makes full use of the
flexibility they offer.
Five political principles - openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness
and coherence underpin the proposals in this White Paper. They should guide the
Union in organising the way it works and in pushing reforms forward within the
current Treaty, but they also provide markers for the debate on the future of Europe.
Together they allow better use of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.
This is reflected, for example, in the weight attached in this White Paper to using the
right combination of instruments to deliver policies that are matched to the objectives
pursued, to limiting legislation to its essential elements, and to the use of contracts to
take greater account of local conditions.
ACTION POINTS.33
Present and future: a question of political will…
Building on these principles, the proposals in this White Paper will:
· Structure the EU’s relationship with civil society. A code of conduct for
consultation will identify responsibilities and improve accountability of all
partners. It will enhance dialogue, and contribute to the openness of organised
civil society.
· Make greater use of the skills and practical experience of regional and local
actors. In the first place, this is an issue for national authorities according to their
national constitutional and administrative arrangements. At the same time the
Union should make fuller use of the existing potential for flexibility to improve
the ways European policies are applied on the ground.
· Build public confidence in the way policy makers use expert advice. The EU’s
multi-disciplinary expert system will be opened up to greater public scrutiny and
debate. This is needed to manage the challenges, risks and ethical questions
thrown up by science and technology.
· Support the clearer definition of EU policy objectives and improve the
effectiveness of EU policies by combining formal legislation with non-legislative
and self-regulatory solutions to better achieve those objectives.
· Set out the conditions for establishing EU regulatory agencies. These agencies
can reinforce the effectiveness and visibility of EU law in the eyes of both
business and the public by bringing decisions in some of the most complex and
technical areas closer to the sectors affected.
· Refocus the roles and responsibilities of each Institution. This should help
citizens to hold their political leaders and the Institutions to account for the
decisions that the Union takes.
Carrying these actions forward does not necessarily require new Treaties. It is first
and foremost a question of political will. It is part of a wider process. Changing the
way the Union works calls not only for a response from the Commission, but also
from all those interested, particularly the Council, the European Parliament, the
Member States and European citizens.
By adapting governance at home, the Union will be better placed to contribute to
new forms of global governance. Policies and global institutions must respond to
popular concerns.
A new focus for the Union’s Institutions…
But what will really change if these proposals are implemented? At the heart of the
proposed reform of governance is the refocusing of the Institutions – the
Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament. This should lead to:
· A more targeted use by the Commission of its right of initiative. Better
consultation and involvement, a more open use of expert advice and a fresh
approach to medium-term planning will allow it to consider much more critically.34
the demands from the Institutions and from interest groups for new political
initiatives. It will be better placed to act in the general European interest.
· EU legislation which is stripped back to essential principles and a framework
setting out how they should be implemented. The White Paper shows how the
Council and European Parliament can focus more on political direction and
content, leaving implementation to the executive. But at the same time, both
Institutions should be able to streamline their control over the way the
Commission carries out its executive responsibility.
· The more effective involvement of national actors in the shaping, application
and enforcement of Community rules and programmes. This will result from
the proposals on dialogue, decentralisation, stronger co-operation between
administrations, and more effective enforcement of Community law. Moreover,
the greater the participation in European policies of national and regional actors,
the more they will be prepared to inform the public about those policies.
This refocusing of institutional roles is an important step in preparing and managing
a successful enlargement.
A renewed Community method as the model for the future…
Both the proposals in the White Paper and the prospect of further enlargement lead in
one direction: a reinvigoration of the Community method. This means ensuring
that the Commission proposes and executes policy; the Council and the European
Parliament take decisions; and national and regional actors are involved in the EU
policy process.
The Community method has served the Union well for almost half a century. It can
continue to do so, but it must be brought up to date.
In setting out the consequences of better European governance for the Institutions,
the White Paper is drawn into the debate on the future of Europe. Reforming
European governance also sketches a path towards future Treaty changes at the next
Inter-Governmental Conference – it presents the outlines of a model for the Union’s
future political organisation:
· In dividing powers between the legislature and the executive, the model
follows that of national democracies. At European level, separating these two
roles would make it easier to apply the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality. In the context of a gradual extension of the areas where decisions
are taken jointly by the Council and the European Parliament (the so called co-decision
procedure), those two Institutions should enjoy equal roles. That is not
the case under the current Treaty. At the same time, this clarification of roles must
allow the Commission to assume full executive responsibility.
· The Union needs clear principles identifying how competence is shared
between the Union and its Member States. In the first place this is to respond to
the public’s frequent question “who does what in Europe?” A common vision is
needed to answer this question. The White Paper has highlighted a tangible
Europe that is in full development; a Union based on multi-level governance in
which each actor contributes in line with his or her capabilities or knowledge to.35
the success of the overall exercise. In a multi-level system the real challenge is
establishing clear rules for how competence is shared – not separated; only that
non-exclusive vision can secure the best interests of all the Member States and all
the Union's citizens.
This White Paper in starting a process responds to the expectations of the Union’s
citizens. It should enable them to see the Union as an instrument through which they
can bring about change. The reflections on these reforms will now continue; they will
be completed by the wider process of constitutional reform to be initiated at the
European Council in Laeken: a process to which the Commission will actively
contribute.

There is CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 20Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 80Mbs.] which contains the entire web site & hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
+ one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point
.