Report to the European Council - Feira, 19-20 June 2000 on the year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem experience
Date: 2000-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer system, impact of information technology, software, technological change

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 16.06.2000
COM(2000) 375 final

REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
FEIRA, 19-20 JUNE 2000

ON THE YEAR 2000 (Y2K) COMPUTER PROBLEM EXPERIENCE

(presented by the Commission)

REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
FEIRA, 19-20 JUNE 2000

ON THE YEAR 2000 (Y2K) COMPUTER PROBLEM EXPERIENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3

2. Co-ordination within the EU - The EU Y2K Working Party................................... 3

2.1.

2.2.

2.2.1.

2.2.2.

2.2.3.

2.2.4.

2.2.5.

2.2.6.

2.2.7.

2.2.8.

2.2.9.

Background .................................................................................................. 3

Results.......................................................................................................... 4

Nuclear Safety.......................................................................................... 4

Energy...................................................................................................... 5

Air transport ............................................................................................. 5

Maritime transport.................................................................................... 6

Finance..................................................................................................... 6

Telecommunications................................................................................. 6

Y2K Information Policy ........................................................................... 7

The EU Communication Centre................................................................ 7

Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid ..................................................... 8

3. The Contribution of the Commission to Addressing the Y2K Computing problem . 8

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

Role and Mandate......................................................................................... 8

Organisation ................................................................................................. 9

Reporting ..................................................................................................... 9

International Co-operation.......................................................................... 10

Website ...................................................................................................... 10

Workshops ................................................................................................. 11

4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 12

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

Addressing the Year 2000 Computing (Y2K) Problem was a unique experience with a global
scope. Government involvement occurred at the very highest levels, yet unusually, there was
little competitive or political advantage to be gained. In this arena, the Member States of the
European Union each had their own individual roles to play in preparing for the century date
change. This report highlights the main activities and results which were achieved at EU
level, through the actions of EU Y2K Working Party and the European Commission.

From the outset, it was recognised that the nature and extent of the Y2K problem required
everyone – whether individuals or organisations - to assess their own particular risks and to
act responsibly to ensure that they were adequately prepared. At the same time, it was also
clear that the most critical factor in achieving success on a global basis would be the exchange
of information.

Initially, the focus on sharing information assisted those who were actually addressing the
problem. As problems in certain equipment and software were identified, those who started
later were able to concentrate their efforts on certain areas and avoid unnecessary
investigations. As the emphasis shifted, however, the need to have reliable information on the
preparedness of others - customers, partners, critical services and infrastructures, and
eventually, even entire trading nations, became more apparent. Ultimately, due to our
increasing dependence on information technology (IT) in daily life and the interconnectedness
and interdependence of modern industry on a global scale, in the final few months of 1999,
solving the Y2K problem became primarily an issue of maintaining public confidence.

It is for this reason that governments throughout the world, whilst ensuring that their own IT
systems were ready for 2000, have also paid attention to various other aspects - raising the
awareness of their industry and citizens to the nature of the threat posed by the so-called
“millennium bug”, carrying out audits and publishing comprehensive information on the
preparedness of their key infrastructure sectors, and reviewing the resources and plans of civil
protection authorities.

Within the EU, the main forum for communication and the exchange of information on the
Y2K problem between the Member States was the European Union High Level Working
Party on the Y2K Problem (EUY2KWP).

2.

CO-ORDINATION WITHIN THE EU - THE EU Y2K WORKING PARTY

2.1.

Background

The Year 2000 Computing Problem certainly received a very high level of political attention
in the EU. In June 1998, the Cardiff European Council conclusions highlighted the need to
share information on this issue and to monitor progress. Subsequent European Councils in
Vienna and Cologne continued to follow the evolution of the problem very closely, focusing
particularly on potential cross-border risks. Discussions also took place at ministerial level in
various other Councils,
including Industry, Telecommunications, Transport, Energy, and
Finance. Its diverse nature necessitated the involvement of many different sectors, thus it was
difficult to identify a single existing organisation with the ability to deal with all aspects of the
problem.

3

The Commission had also been active, organising quarterly workshops involving Member
State representatives and participants from European industry associations starting in
September 1997. Despite the usefulness of these workshops,
there were also certain
limitations. The mixture of
industry and administrators occasionally prevented MS
representatives from focusing on their particular information sharing needs. Furthermore, the
experience and background of MS representatives was not consistent,
thus not all
representatives had similar responsibilities and knowledge of the issues. The mandate of
workshop participants was unofficial, and understood to be primarily the gathering and
exchanging of information, and not setting policy or taking decisions.

The need for a specific group to handle Y2K matters at EU level was identified by the
Cologne European Council in June 1999. The Presidency conclusions (§36) requested the
Commission to convene a High Level Group to “…put forward proposals for strategic
decisions which may be required within the European Union to ensure the proper functioning
of essential areas of infrastructures should computer problems arise in connection with the
change of millennium.”

The Commission responded to this request by convening the first meeting of the EUY2KWP
in July 1999. During this initial meeting, it was agreed that the group would focus specifically
on cross-border issues associated with essential areas of infrastructure and related services.
These areas were defined as being those which ensure the normal functioning of society and
the economy, particularly aspects relating to the continued safety and wellbeing of citizens.
The sectors of potential
telecommunications, water,
finance, supply chains, healthcare, welfare, customs, and civil protection. The EFTA
countries were invited to participate as observers, and actively contributed to the group.

included energy,

transport,

interest

2.2.

Results

The group met on a monthly basis during the second half of 1999. In general, the topics for
discussion at each meeting were agreed during the previous meeting, which allowed the
representatives to prepare themselves and obtain information from national experts in specific
sectors in advance. The members also agreed to communicate and take decisions,
if
necessary, by electronic means. To this end, the Commission established a dedicated private
internet forum. Between meetings, electronic communication and consultation were routine.

It was recognised that normal EU decision-making procedures would generally be
inappropriate, as they would not accommodate the quick response times required for Y2K
matters. Instead, it was decided that any agreements reached within the group would by
achieved through consensus, and would then be implemented nationally as required.

During its meetings, the EUY2KWP dealt with a very wide-ranging set of topics, and the
results of their discussions in key areas are summarised under the relevant domains.

2.2.1. Nuclear Safety

An important topic raised at every meeting was the subject of nuclear safety. Within the EU,
the preparedness of nuclear power plants (NPPs) within the EU was closely monitored and
information was readily available. However, uncertainty regarding the situation of CEEC and
NIS plants was created by the overall lack of information coming from these countries and
their close geographical proximity, making this a matter of particular concern in many EU
countries.

4

The group asked the Commission to take action on two fronts. Firstly, they requested the
Commission to provide as much information as possible on the actual situation of the nuclear
sector in these countries. The Commission reacted by collecting information from various
sources, including from the regular meetings held between EU and CEEC/NIS nuclear
regulators as well as the IAEA, which had conducted site visits in these countries.

It was apparent that Y2K was very unlikely to pose a direct threat to the safety of power plant
operations, since no safety critical systems were known to be affected in any nuclear power
plant. Instead, since certain less critical monitoring systems were potentially involved, there
was a need to ensure that plant safety would not be degraded over the longer term by
problems.

The Commission was thus asked to provide funding to assist nuclear operators to address the
problem. In this instance, the Commission already supported the IAEA work, as well as
funding the ISTC, STCU, and WANO to provide on-site assistance to Russian and Ukrainian
the EUY2KWP, a separate budget of some
power plants. Following the urging of
3 million euro was identified to fund remaining needs for assistance during 2000. As of
May 2000, it appears that the majority of the budget allocated to Russia and Ukraine will
indeed be needed to correct problems in nuclear power plants.

2.2.2.

Energy

The subject of energy, and specifically its production and distribution, was also regularly
raised within the group. Much attention was given to electricity, as an energy source which
cannot be stored. The stability of electricity grids in CEEC and NIS countries, as well as the
reliability of electricity in general, and of gas and oil supplies coming from outside the EU,
were considered.

The interest in electricity grids concentrated on the potential for a grid failure to have an
impact on NPP stability, and also the possibility of humanitarian consequences arising from a
widespread lack of heating during January (see section 2.2.9). As with NPPs, concerns were
primarily focused on the CEEC and NIS countries. The Commission held a conference in
July 1999 on electricity grids, with the participation of EU, CEEC, and NIS operators, to raise
awareness of this threat and to exchange information on how it was being addressed.

In terms of other energy sources, various aspects were discussed, including the status of the
NATO oil pipelines, which transport a large proportion of the aviation fuel to most major
airports and bases in Western Europe. The Commission reported that NATO had been
working on its pipeline system remediation for nearly three years, with the system having
been fully tested and contingency measures put in place. The group was also informed of the
oil supply contingency plans developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

the need for a closer co-ordination at
With regard to gas production and distribution,
European level was identified. The EU also relies heavily on foreign gas supplies. The
Norwegians participated in the activities of the EUY2KWP, keeping other countries fully
informed of their activities. Italian sources reported on the status of Algerian suppliers, while
Finnish and German administrators were able to provide reassurance regarding the status of
GAZPROM in Russia.

5

2.2.3.

Air transport

Due to its nature, aviation was generally handled at an international level by the regulators
through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), and by various operators
through the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Within the EU, Eurocontrol was
involved in co-ordinating contingency planning for several EU countries.

Thus the particular aspect which was discussed within the EUY2KWP concerned the potential
need to ban certain non-compliant operators from flying into EU countries, and possibly to
prevent national operators from flying to countries where the readiness of air traffic control
systems was in doubt. The intention of these discussions was to try to avoid the adoption by
Member States of contradictory positions. Possible arrangements were discussed as the
rollover period moved closer and information on particular carriers and countries was shared.
However, as it happened, no country decided to take such action and thus a co-ordinated
action at EU level proved to be unnecessary.

2.2.4. Maritime transport

In the maritime domain, there were two key issues having an impact beyond national borders.
Firstly, there was a need to ensure a consistent policy to deal with ships in EU waters or ports
which had not declared their preparedness for Y2K in conformance with the guidelines issued
by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). In this area, the contingency plans which
each EU Member State had developed to cope with their own situation were compared, and
found to be compatible.

Secondly, the readiness of individual EU ports, and also customs and immigration systems in
general, was of vital importance in ensuring that supply chains would continue to function
normally. Overall, the main EU ports were well aware of the threat posed by the Y2K
problem and were felt
to be prepared. There are also a number of community-wide
information technology systems used to exchange data for the purposes of the Internal
Market. The Commission itself undertook substantial efforts to ensure, in co-operation with
MS, that these systems were remediated.

2.2.5.

Finance

The financial sector was particularly threatened by the Y2K problem, due to its heavy reliance
upon information technology systems and the inherent global and interconnected nature of its
business. In response, the world’s financial community, both the public and private sectors,
undertook an enormous, and ultimately very successful, collaborative effort to address the
problem. The EU financial institutions benefited substantially from the introduction of the
euro, particularly when defining contingency plans for the rollover period.

The quality and scope of the existing international collaboration thus made it unnecessary for
the EUY2KWP to consider specific actions regarding cross-border issues in the financial area.
The impact of Y2K on insurance policies and claims was discussed. EU countries discussed
the legislation on Y2K and legal liability introduced in the US, but took the view that there
was no need for similar legislation in any EU country due to the absence of certain aspects
specific to the US legal system, including the less litigious nature generally prevalent in
the EU.

6

2.2.6.

Telecommunications

Similarly, the telecommunication domain, being an inherently global and interconnected
sector, also required an international response. In this case, it was primarily the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) which took responsibility for informing their members of
the need to take action, providing direct assistance by carrying out workshops in less
developed regions. They also co-ordinated international testing efforts designed to test the
Y2K compliance of the main technologies used throughout the world.

Telecom regulators and operators throughout Europe were strongly involved in ITU activities.
Unique to the telecommunication sector is the “normal” pattern of heavy demand experienced
at the beginning of each New Year. In this instance, the coincidental arrival of 2000 was
expected to further exacerbate this situation. The EUY2KWP members identified a need for
operators to take this into account in their rollover plans, and to ensure that emergency
telecommunication services continued to operate normally.

2.2.7.

Y2K Information Policy

Another issue also discussed was the importance of having a consistent Y2K information
policy. This had various aspects - the exchange of information on the EU situation with other
governments, the publication of information aimed at the EU public and industry, and finally,
reporting on third country preparedness.

The EUY2KWP endorsed the need to have regional representation in the Steering Committee
of
the Washington-based International Y2K Co-operation Centre and requested the
Commission to fulfil this role. The Commission responded to this request by nominating a
representative to the IY2KCC, and it also ensured that the EU was represented in various
other international fora dealing with this subject, such as ICAO, the IMO, the IEA, the IAEA,
and the G8 Expert Group on Y2K, as well. This ensured that the EUY2KWP were regularly
informed of the numerous activities taking place in various sectors at international level, and
also that other participants in these fora were aware of the actions being carried out within
the EU.

In terms of the provision of information to the public, it was evident that each Member State
needed to take into account the particular needs of their citizens and develop an approach
which was best suited to their national situation. However, all MS saw the value of
exchanging detailed information on their ideas and plans with each other, and ensuring that
there was consistency throughout
the EU in the information which was provided on
infrastructures with a cross-border nature.

Regarding the publication of information on third countries, it was proposed that the EU MS
should pool the information which they had obtained on the preparations in countries outside
the Union and have this published jointly through the Commission. Whilst recognising the
importance of having such information made available to the EU public, the greatest concern
was to ensure that such published information should be accurate, reliable and well balanced.
It was considered that this would be impossible to guarantee in such a complex domain where
the actual situation was constantly evolving. Furthermore,
the
Commission itself had a mandate to publish such material concerning individual countries
outside the Union. A decision was therefore taken that in this instance, the Member States
would act if they so chose on an individual basis.

it was not clear

that

7

2.2.8.

The EU Communication Centre

All EU Member States decided to create “early warning” or monitoring platforms at national,
and often regional and local, levels. These platforms varied considerably in terms of their
resourcing and methodology, but were generally intended to reinforce existing mechanisms to
respond in the event of serious disruptions following midnight on the 31 December 1999.
Most closely tracked the date rollover on a global scale, to take advantage of any advance
warning of problems, and provided information aimed at the public regarding the national
situation.

The Commission was requested to provide a mechanism for private communication between
Member States during this period, which was also used to monitor reports coming from
critical sectors and countries in order to rapidly identify any potential problem which could
require a reaction from the Commission itself. In addition to the work undertaken to prepare
its own systems for the Y2K problem, the Commission thus established the European Union
Y2K Monitoring and Communication Centre (EUY2KCC). The Centre was staffed by
Commission officials with knowledge of the Y2K problem and of the vital sectors which
could be affected, and fully equipped with access to various media. It operated on a 24 hour
basis from 31 December 1999 at 10:00 until 3 January 2000 at 20:00 (Brussels time).

2.2.9. Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid

The EU national authorities for civil protection shared their plans for the rollover period on
including during specific Y2K workshops and regular meetings of
various occasions,
Directors-General and committees. In each Member State, the civil protection authorities were
in a higher state of readiness to react at year end than is normal, supported by enhanced and
thoroughly testing contingency plans designed to cope with any potential Y2K-induced
emergency.

The Commission itself operates three permanent alert systems for disasters. They cover
nuclear accidents (ECURIE), maritime accidents, and civil protection. For these systems, the
Y2K transition was regarded as a special situation. Although they were on constant alert as
usual, they were also linked with the Y2K Centre of the Commission, and three Heads of
Units and the Environment Commissioner were all on call and available to respond urgently if
necessary. As it happened, Commission emergency systems instead became very involved in
dealing with the Erika disaster, as well as the violent storms affecting France and a number of
other Member States.

The potential need for humanitarian aid to cope with Y2K-related disasters in developing
countries was primarily discussed by the G8 group and within the appropriate fora of the
United Nations. In the EU, ECHO, the EU Humanitarian Aid Office, confirmed that it was
also prepared to react to any Y2K-related emergency in the same manner as it would to any
other event.

3.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESSING THE Y2K COMPUTING
PROBLEM

3.1.

Role and Mandate

The root of the Y2K problem was a technical problem which could only be solved by each
organisation individually. Nevertheless, the extent of the problem and the need to ensure that
both the public and industry alike were well informed of its implications and the need to take

8

individual action ensured that public administrations became strongly involved. Similarly, the
potential for the problem to have an impact beyond national borders created a requirement to
address certain issues at EU level.

The exchange of information between industries and the public sector throughout the EU was
necessary to share experiences and to understand the preparedness of others. Moreover, many
key infrastructures in the EU, including transport, energy, finance, and telecommunications,
are inherently international in nature and have aspects which cross national boundaries. Thus
there were issues where decisions needed to be taken which would affect regulators and
operators in several countries.

It was for these reasons that the Commission became actively involved in assisting others to
address the problem, at the same time ensuring that its own IT systems were well prepared. It
did so in various ways - through participation in international fora and Y2K-related events
throughout
the world, hosting its own workshops and meetings with MS authorities,
producing status reports on the EU situation, and ultimately, establishing a Y2K
communication centre at EU level which operated throughout the critical period during the
changeover.

3.2.

Organisation

Within the Commission, it was the former Directorate General III for Industry (now DG
Enterprise) which acted as chef de file for this particular issue. This choice was made at an
early stage where the nature of the problem was considered to be essentially technical in
the time, DG III was responsible for certain areas of the 4th Framework
nature. At
Programme, notably the IT programme, where the responsibility for research projects looking
at ways to solve the problem was located. The main expertise for the topic was thus
considered to lie within DG III.

Once the potential impact on major infrastructures became more apparent, it quickly became
necessary to integrate the efforts of many other DGs as well. A vital factor in the success of
the Commission’s efforts to address the problem was the core team of knowledgeable and
dedicated Commission personnel who formed the Y2K Interservice Group (Y2K ISG). The
group actively began to work together at the beginning of 1999, although many had been
addressing aspects of the Y2K problem in their specific sectors for months beforehand. The
complementary expertise of the group members and the degree of collaboration demonstrated
in working together towards common goals was exemplary for the Commission.

3.3.

Reporting

The most problematic aspect of the Commission’s work on the Y2K subject was the delivery
of the status reports which it produced at the request of Council and Parliament. Status reports
were compiled on the basis of information provided in a common format by Member States in
March, June, and September of 1999.

Not surprisingly, Member States were collecting and reporting similar information for
national purposes throughout the year as well, thus all those dealing with the Y2K problem
were extremely busy and the national reporting timetables rarely coincided with those at EU
level. Reports often arrived several weeks late and in various languages. At the same time,
supplementary information was also being collated by the Y2K ISG members for their own
sectors, and the integration of all these sources of information into a coherent whole was also

9

a task which required substantial effort. The national Y2K co-ordinators also had the
opportunity to review draft reports.

If every step is completed without delay to normal timescales, the earliest date of publication
for such a communication which could be envisaged is approximately 3 months.
Nevertheless, the final report for quarter 3, having received top priority in the translation
process, was adopted during the first week of December, and thus only took 10 weeks in total
to be published.

It is clear that the process for adopting official Commission communications is not well suited
to the rapid publication of primarily factual status reports. Should a similar need for factual
reporting to Council and Parliament arise in the future, other options should be considered to
allow a more responsive timetable. Since by far the greatest delay is incurred in the translation
process, a reduction in the number of language versions could be considered. Furthermore,
insofar as a status report is an essentially factual document based upon information obtained
from MS authorities and has no political ramifications, there is no significant additional
benefit achieved by having the approval of the College. In this case, it should be sufficient to
reach agreement within the services concerned.

3.4.

International Co-operation

Various aspects of the Y2K problem needed to be dealt with at EU and international level.
Within the EU itself, meetings organised by the Commission provided the natural forum for
both MS authorities and industry to share information. General discussions at EU level
initially took place within Y2K workshops, and from July 1999, in the meetings of the
EUY2KWP. However, sectors also tended to hold their own meetings in both regional and
international fora. The Commission was represented by sectoral experts from various
Directorates General in many such meetings, acting as an intermediary both to exchange
information on the EU situation to those outside the EU and to provide information on
external activities to the Member States.

Apart from the sectoral organisations,
the Commission actively participated in several
meetings on Y2K hosted by the Informatics Working Group of the United Nations, in the
steering committee of the International Y2K Co-operation Center, and in the Y2K Expert
Group of the G8. In these areas, the Commission acted as an intermediary, facilitating the
flow of information regarding the EU situation to other countries, and reporting on the
progress and activities of various countries and organisations to EU representatives.

3.5.

Website

For a topic such as the Y2K problem, with the core involvement of information technology,
the Internet became an essential source of up-to-date information. Given the constant progress
of each organisation and the rapid evolution of issues and plans, the only media which could
keep up with an ever-changing situation was the Internet. Thousands of Y2K websites were
created worldwide and e-mail lists with global Y2K experts ensured a close collaboration
between technicians addressing the problem. The work of the IYCC and the G8 group was
greatly facilitated by electronic communication. Information on the Internet clarified technical
issues, provided insight into new aspects of the problem, gave specific examples of early
problems in 1999, as well as giving an impression of how the problem was perceived by the
press and the public.

10

For more than 2 years, the Commission itself maintained a website on the Information Society
Project Office server, which linked to many useful sources of information on various aspects
of the Y2K problem. A specific focus was given to information provided by EU Member
States, the majority of whom had national Y2K websites, and international information on
critical sectors provided by industry associations. All Commission documents relating to
Y2K, including the minutes of the various workshops and official communications, were
published on the website. Towards the end of 1999, the website received tens of thousands of
hits each month. It was also the recipient of several awards.

The Y2K Computing Problem was also chosen as to be represented as a key issue on the
Commission’s Europa website during the final 4 months of 1999. This provided an overview
of the problem aimed at EU citizens in all community languages, directing visitors to
numerous other sources of information.

The Internet also acted as a vital information and communication tool during the rollover
period itself at year end. Dedicated websites such as the Global Status Watch (GSW), were
hosted by the IY2KCC and fed by information from national Y2K platforms. The
Commission provided a mirror of the GSW website in order to give Europeans a better
chance to access up-to-date and reliable information on the status of critical infrastructures
throughout the world. At year end, 150 000 visits (hits) were registered in less than 3 days,
about 20% of the total for the GSW system, indicating a considerable level of interest.
Numerous private websites were also operational during the changeover period to exchange
including the YEWS1 website operated by the US-Nuclear Regulatory
information,
Commission (US-NRC) which provided reports from NPP operators throughout the world.

The site and its material has continued to be available for reference during 2000. It is the
intention to shut down the site and archive its material in June 2000.

3.6.

Workshops

From the beginning, the Commission recognised the benefits of information exchange and
thus a key focus of activity was the workshops which were organised at EU level. In the
beginning, these workshops took place on a quarterly basis and involved both industry and
EU authorities. The value of these workshops was such that speakers freely provided their
services and all participants willingly paid their own expenses to attend.

At the request of the Vienna European Council, the Commission organised a meeting in
April 1999 with the providers of EU critical infrastructures in Brussels, with an emphasis on
cross-border and cross-sector Y2K issues. Over 150 participants, including national Y2K co-
ordinators, regulators, and representatives of both international associations and industry,
shared information on their progress and concerns relating to the aviation, maritime,
telecommunications, and nuclear power sectors. This forum provided a
electricity, gas,
valuable opportunity for the various sectors in each EU country to inform others of their
progress and plans. The need to encourage better communication between the different
infrastructure sectors at local, national and international level was identified as a major issue.

The dependency between electricity grids and nuclear power plants and the lack of
information regarding the situation in Central and Eastern European (CEEC) countries, as
well as the Newly Independent States (NIS), led to the organisation of a specific workshop on

1

EWS: Y2K Early Warning System.

11

this topic, which was held in July 1999. Participants from the electricity industry and
from more than
government authorities with responsibility for
25 countries met together to share their experiences and make contacts to provide mutual
assistance.

regulating this sector

A second workshop with European infrastructure providers took place in September 1999,
providing a further opportunity to share information between sectors and countries prior to the
rollover. In this instance, the 200 participants included representatives from 35 EU, EEA,
CEEC, and NIS countries. A focus was placed on contingency plans and strategies for the
rollover period itself,
including communication with the public and the preparations of
national emergency services.

It is important to note that due to the time constraints and without a specific budget for Y2K
activities, all these workshops were organised by the Commission itself, with the invaluable
assistance of Member States and EU industry. The programme was agreed with MS Y2K co-
ordinators, who helped to identify speakers and participants. Within the Commission, each
DG concerned organised the sessions relating to their particular sector, chairing the panel and
providing a reporter to summarise the results.

In this manner, the Commission was able to draw upon both internal and external resources
with a very little financial expenditure in order to attract a large number of knowledgeable
participants and obtain substantial and relevant information. Workshop minutes were able to
be rapidly compiled and published on the Commission’s Y2K website immediately after each
event. Contacts between the various industry sectors and experts in other countries
substantially improved co-ordination and co-operation within the EU.

4.

CONCLUSIONS

Solving the Y2K problem has required a comprehensive, sustained and unprecedented level
of collaboration at international level, involving both the public and private sectors. The
interest provided by international groups, including the G8 and the International Y2K Co-
operation Centre (IYCC), ensured that Y2K was given a high political profile and contributed
to raising awareness, convincing governments and organisations of the seriousness of the
issue and of the need to take action.

Within the EU, the activities of the EUY2KWP and the Commission have thus made a
significant contribution. The EUY2KWP provided an important forum in which the national
co-ordinators of the EU Member States were able to discuss common issues and ensure that
they remained well informed of the situation in various sectors and other countries in a very
open and transparent manner.

The work of the EUY2KWP did not result in major policy decisions. Instead, governments
and officials shared information on their strategies and activities over a period of months with
each other. The EU and EFTA countries adopted a consistent and compatible approach to
handling cross-border issues, even though they may have differed in the way in which they
handled the Y2K problem on a national basis.

Thus it can be considered that the EUY2KWP has contributed substantially to ensuring this
the exchange of information provided an
consistency. There can be little doubt
opportunity to learn from each other, and to develop and refine ideas together. In this sense
alone, the relatively modest expenditure in terms of time and travel to meet together with each

that

12

other has been a wise investment. In particular, the simple but effective communication
the exchange of information between MS
structure which was implemented to permit
authorities, as well as key industry sectors, during the Y2K rollover was a significant
achievement.

At another level, it is also true that there are lessons to be learned for the future from the
manner in which different countries were able to work constructively together to face a
common problem, and the actual results which were achieved. The particular circumstances
surrounding this problem were unique in many ways - a pervasive, although unquantifiable,
threat known in advance to organisations throughout the world, with possible economic and
safety consequences, a fixed deadline, and notably, not involving strong national competitive
interests.

Nevertheless,
the degree of openness and transparency exhibited by governments in
communicating with each other, the facility to circumvent or minimise normally slow and
the
tedious administrative reactions and approvals,
development of common approaches to handle cross-border threats, and particularly the
establishment of contingency plans on an international basis in many infrastructure sectors -
all are achievements which may prove useful in the future.

the modernisation of IT portfolios,

Few managers in industry or government will ever regard their IT systems in quite the same
light again. Whereas once information technology may have been regarded as simply a
valuable tool, it is now clear that it is a core asset on which the organisation depends for its
continued operations. It is critical, however, that the plans and achievements resulting from
Y2K should be recognised and maintained for the future. It would be deeply regrettable if
much of the enormous collaborative effort and resources which went into their development
were wasted due to a lack of foresight and care during the aftermath, as attention naturally
turns to other matters.

For the EU, the preparations for the imminent introduction of the euro as a real currency will
certainly have been facilitated by the work which has gone into addressing the Y2K problem.
Many will have addressed both problems simultaneously, others can take advantage of the
better knowledge of their IT systems to prepare more easily. The financial sector has now had
the experience of two rollovers – the introduction of the virtual euro in 1999 and the century
date change of 2000, to co-ordinate testing and establish contingency plans which can be of
benefit at the end of 2001.

The Y2K problem served as an important reminder of the vital supporting role of information
technology to individual organisations and global trading as a whole. During the first few
months of 2000, topics such as secure electronic commerce, protection against “cyberattacks”,
as well as taxation and personal privacy on the Internet, are all the subject of intensive debate
at national and international levels. These issues share many characteristics with the Y2K
problem, and thus can also potentially benefit
from the global synergy and learning
experiences developed in tackling Y2K.

13