Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "PRISM 2001"
Date: 2002-01-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, database, single market

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 80/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘PRISM 2001’

(2002/C 80/01)

On 12 July 2001, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to draw up an opinion on PRISM 2001.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 December 2001. The rapporteur was
Mrs Sirkeinen.

At its 387th plenary session (meeting of 16 January) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 91 votes in favour and one abstention.

1. General remarks

The European Single Market Observatory (SMO) has
1.1.
chosen, as one of its main lines of work, to highlight voluntary
measures and initiatives within the Single Market. In order to
inform and motivate others, the database PRISM (Progress
Report in Initiatives in the Single Market) is drawing up an
inventory of ‘best practices’.

1.2.
Voices calling for the EU to be brought closer to
citizens grow in strength. PRISM has a role to play here. It can
help to deliver the message that the EU is much more than
regulations from Brussels.

1.3.
PRISM is an integrated part of the total work pro-
gramme of the SMO. This work is presently focused on three
planks, the ‘three Es’ of Euro, Enlargement and E-commerce. A
fourth E for Entrepreneurship should be added, as a horizontal
feature.

phase, making it a tangible reality for citizens and enterprises in
the Union. Whilst making price comparisons and commercial
transactions over the Member State borders significantly easier,
it is expected to intensify trade and, in general, enhance the
utilisation of the four freedoms. This, in turn, creates new
requirements for information about the internal market and
related problem solving mechanisms.

1.3.2.
The foreseen enlargement of the Union will change
the situation even more, adding to the internal market not
only tens of millions of people but also widening the
variety of underlying legislative, productive, commercial and
behavioural cultures. Again, more and better information and
problem solving are needed.

On the first of January 2002, 12 national currencies,
1.3.1.
and with them much of the visible borders within Europe, will
cease to exist. This brings the internal market into a new

1.3.3.
The development and proliferation of e-commerce
still owes much to measures in the spheres of regulation,
education and information. With time, sooner rather than
later, e-commerce has an enormous potential of
further
lowering barriers on the internal market.

C 80/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

1.3.4.
Entrepreneurship in its broad sense, as a spirit of
initiative, at all levels, needs to be strengthened in Europe,
aiming at making optimal use of the internal market to benefit
the consumers but also to strengthen our competitiveness in
order to promote prosperity and increase the quality of life of
all citizens, in accordance with the principle of sustainable
development.

linked to it. The Opinion also presents some observations,
deserving attention and relevant action, taken from the PRISM
findings, visits to National Single Market Coordination Centres
as well as hearings arranged by the SMO.

1.4.
In the work of the SMO three trends are prevailing:
Simplification, Security and Synergy. A fourth, overreaching S
stands for Society, as reflected in common European values.

The PRISM database groups Single Market initiatives

2.1.
under the following four headings:

2. The PRISM database

1.4.1.
Following the Simplification trend, an Opinion,
including a Code of Conduct, from October 2000 (1) was
further developed into an Opinion (2) approved by the Com-
mittee in November 2001. A Communication on develop-
ments in the area has been presented by the Commission to
the European Council at Laeken in December 2001.

A)

Information and support;

B)

Problem-solving processes;

C)

Partnership;

1.4.2.
The Synergy aspect means more emphasis on bot-
tom-up approaches, cooperation between different levels and
the involvement of organised civil society. Work on self- or
co-regulation has been proceeding and is gaining more
support, as further presented in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4.

1.4.3.
Concerning Security work has been done in the areas
of fighting fraud and food safety. There is more focus on
control at the EU level in order to avoid re-nationalisation of
certain policy issues. Meanwhile the issue of security has risen
into a new dimension as the question of overall security of our
societies against wilful attacks was put in the centre of attention
and action following the tragic events on 11 September.

1.4.4.
Effective protection of our citizens against attacks is
naturally of foremost importance. Actions aiming at security
should however be in line with central values of our societies
and common principles of the Union. A balance must be
found between measures for security and basic rights of
freedom and privacy as well as free movement of citizens.

1.5.
The purpose of this Opinion is to update information
on the PRISM and present views on further developments

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

D) Agreements and codes of conduct.

2.2.
The initiatives listed by PRISM are voluntary and not
directly profit-making. Initiatives of commercial nature are
excluded as well as those representing sectoral or local
interests, if they provide no specific value added. In addition
to initiatives concerning the Single Market of 15 those
initiatives which involve the three other countries of the
European Economic Area , as well as countries applying for
accession to the EU are included.

Criteria applied to the choice of initiatives are in

2.3.
particular:

— exemplarity (originality, innovation);

— cost benefit effects;

— impact (direct effects for the participants, potential effects

for non-participants); and

— prospects (sustainability, potential synergy effects).

In December 2001 the PRISM database included
2.4.
106 initiatives and 21 were under final preparation. They were
fairly evenly distributed under the four headings with some
concentration, under heading C), Partnership and D), Agree-
ments and codes of conduct. The addition of new initiatives
has slowed down during the last 6 months, partly due to
application of the above mentioned restrictions and criteria.

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 80/3

2.5.
The initiatives can be split into ‘positive’ and ‘negative’
ones. The positive initiatives have a constructive approach in
promoting information, innovation and cooperation. They are
mainly found in categories A), C) and D). Initiatives dealing
with problems and their possible solutions would be the
‘negative’ ones, included in category B), but also to some extent
in D). One feature of interest is also that a clear majority of
initiatives in category A) and a large part of those in C) are
initiated and even more frequently financed by the Com-
mission. Recently initiatives for Codes of Conduct and other
self- or co-regulation have increased fast.

2.6.
At its public launch the PRISM web site attracted great
interest with 3 250 visits in January 2001. Immediately after
the number of visits fell sharply but has since climbed steadily
to approx. 1 000 per month and is still rising.

2.7.
Against the backdrop of these figures PRISM now will
be further developed in order to exploit its full potential.
Efforts will be made to considerably widen the contents of the
database using available channels to various civil society
organisations. Links to other databases and services on the
internal market will be developed. In particular, a connection
to the SOLVIT Network to be launched by the Commission
(see paragraphs 3.7.3 > 3.7.6) is essential. Possibilities of better
marketing and accessibility of the database will be explored,
including simplifying its web address.

2.8.
The Single Market covers all 18 member states of the
EEA, and organisations from Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein
participate in more than 30 % of the initiatives currently in the
PRISM-database. In December 2001 the SMO organised a
hearing in Oslo with the socio-economic organisations of
the EFTA countries as well as representatives of the EFTA
Consultative Committee. On this occasion PRISM was present-
ed and it was noted that it could be of great assistance to the
EFTA in making the Single Market real.

Enlargement is a key challenge of the Union as well as
2.9.
the ESC. The SMO for its part, seeks to assist the candidate
countries in adapting to the internal market as well as possible.
To individuals and organisations in the candidate countries
PRISM could serve as a useful vehicle on their roads towards
full participation in the internal market.
It can transfer
necessary information and ideas. In particular, PRISM can

serve as a gateway to contacts and networks with organisations
in Member States. Candidate country organisations already
participate in some initiatives within PRISM. The database
must be developed and marketed particularly taking the needs
of enlargement into account.

3. Areas for more work and initiative

3.1.
At meetings and hearings of the SMO a few problem
areas in the Single Market have repeatedly been underlined, by
commentators from different backgrounds. These are:

— free movement of people, in particular problems with

mutual recognition of diplomas/qualifications;

— self/co-regulation;

— services, in particular insurance and construction;

— enlargement; problems of market access and the need to
enhance the information and problem solving capacity in
the candidate countries at an early stage;

— general awareness of problem solving bodies and their

activities.

The Committee has touched upon the problem of
3.2.
mutual recognition of diplomas in an Opinion (1). This topic
has become more significant in the light of enlargement, given
the potential movement of professional people from the
candidate countries. The problem of recognition of diplomas
is becoming more pressing. The Commission is also presenting
new work and initiatives in the area. The developments would
require an in-depth own-initiative Opinion by the Committee.

3.3.
Co-regulation has been under discussion in the Union
for some time. Recently signals of political support for co-
regulation as a complement to legislation, or even the alterna-
tive of preference, have been heard in particular in front of the
European Parliament. The role of co-regulation is an important
ingredient of the issue of European Governance.

3.4.
The Committee organised a colloquium on Co-Regu-
lation in the Single Market — Which role for the Socio-
Economic Actors in May 2001. The starting point of the
colloquium was to place this discussion in the wider frame-
‘classic’
work of Governance. The increasing criticism of
regulation leads to a need for simplification and an increasing
need for involving socio-economic actors.

(1) OJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 14.

C 80/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

Referring to the ESC Opinion on Simplification (1)
3.4.1.
elements in the discussion were grouped under five different
headings:

3.5.
The Committee has dealt with services in the Single
Market in several opinions, the most recent and comprehensive
has recently been finalised (2). A new proposal on internal
market issues of services is shortly due from the Commission.

— norms and technical standards;

— the European financial area;

— the agreements of social partners;

— consumers’ protection;

— the environmental sector.

3.4.2.
lead to the following conclusions:

The presentations and discussions at the colloquium

3.4.2.1.
The co-regulation practices emerging in the Single
Market still differ substantially. In some areas (standard setting,
social), they are already well thought out, structured and tested
at European level. In others (consumer affairs, environment,
financial area) they are still in the very early stages, haphazard
and decentralised, despite having considerable development
potential. Strong efforts must be put into developing co-
regulation in these areas.

3.4.2.2.
Generally, they have the advantage of simplifying
rules, taking the strain off the legislative machinery, speeding
up adjustment to change and at the same time fostering co-
responsibility among economic and civil society actors, there-
by consolidating the foundations of the European venture. To
be successful, they require margins for manoeuvre by business
and organised civil society, partnership with the public auth-
orities, representative players, transparent procedures, effective
implementation and stringent monitoring of their impact and
follow-up, including by public authorities.

3.4.2.3.
Co-regulation cannot be a blanket solution for
involving civil society more closely and improving the quality
of regulation, and the legislative process will invariably have
to continue to shoulder the essential prerogatives in its public
interest role. On the other hand, diversified co-regulation
approaches involving the socio-economic groups can make a
valuable contribution in improving the workings of the Single
Market in facing the threefold challenge of adjustment to
widening, deepening and globalisation.

Also as regards enlargement, the Committee has drawn
3.6.
up a number of opinions. Of special interest in relation to
Single Market questions are the Opinion of 25 April 2001 on
‘EU enlargement: the challenge faced by candidate countries of
fulfilling the economic criteria for accession (3)’ and the
somewhat older opinion of 22 September 1999 on ‘The
impact of the enlargement of the European Union on the
single market (4)’. Given considerable developments since
1999, the Committee needs to renew its Opinion on the
impact of enlargement of the EU on the Single Market.

3.7.
A number of different systems for obtaining infor-
mation and solving problems exist as regards Single Market
matters, for the use of companies, citizens and organisations.
On the initiative of the Commission — and often partly or
wholly financed by Community funds — a number of bodies
have been set up, especially the network of 284 Euro-Info-
Centres, as well as the EURES and Euroguichet networks. In
1997, Contact Points for Business and for Citizens, as well as
a Single Market Coordination Centre was set up in each
Member State, with the specific aim of solving Single Market
problems. If problems cannot be solved within one Member
State, bilateral contacts with the relevant authority in another
Member State are established. The Single Market Advisory
Committee acts as a forum for exchange of views between the
national Coordination Centres.

3.7.1.
internal market can be divided into four categories.

The hierarchy of the help given to actors in the

1)

Information

2) Advice

3)

Problem solving in cases of unintentional breach of law

4)

Legal procedures in national courts or the Commission
in cases of serious breaches of law.

3.4.2.4.
The Single Market Observatory has recently fin-
ished a report on progress made in simplifying regulation in
Europe, in which it analyses in greater detail also the develop-
ment and future prospects of co-regulation (2).

It

3.7.2.
is obvious that the roles and services of the
different bodies are not always sufficiently well known. For
instance, SMEs used to turning to a Euro-Info-Centre for
information may find it natural to ask them help resolve

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

(3) OJ C 193, 10.7.2001, p. 60.
(4) OJ C 329, 17.11.1999, p. 39.

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 80/5

problems, too. On the other hand, a unit called Coordination
Centre does not immediately bring to mind an authority whose
role it is to help solve problems encountered in the Single
Market.

thing better describing their function. The name SOLVIT could
fit this purpose well, if it does not create problems having the
same name for the Centres and their supporting database.
Alternatively, the name ‘Action Centres’ could be considered.

3.7.3.
The Commission’s forthcoming Communication and
Recommendation on effective problem solving in the internal
market are clearly needed and therefore welcomed by the
Committee. A study of the present functioning of the problem
solving activities of the coordination centres reveal serious
shortcomings and problems. Most coordination centres have
in 1999 and 2000 dealt with very few problems, although the
larger number of cases in Sweden and the UK clearly indicate
that problems do exist. Even more serious is the fact that 66 %
of cases have not been solved after one year.

In order to facilitate the necessary change the Com-
3.7.4.
mission will
in March start the test phase of the network
SOLVIT. This will interlink the coordination centres and set a
systematic framework for dealing with cases of complaints.
Responsibilities of different parties, timeframes and follow-up
are to be defined.

3.7.5.
Simultaneously a plan for information about the
problem solving system will be presented and implemented.
The need is obvious against survey results showing that only
3 % of citizens have even heard of national contact points or
coordination centres. In order to be user friendly the name of
the coordination centres should also be substituted by some-

Brussels, 16 January 2002.

3.7.6.
The Committee supports the plans of the Com-
mission. In its view the following should be taken into account
in this context:

— It is disappointing that two Member States representing
the biggest markets of the Union, Germany and France,
do not participate in the test phase of SOLVIT.

— The Commission must be strong on non-appliance with

the principles of SOLVIT.

— A one-stop-shop principle is vital for both citizens and
companies. The Commission should monitor that actions
are taken to fulfil this in every Member State.

— Sufficient resources must be allocated to the coordination
centres. This is an investment for a better functioning
internal market.

— A spirit of cooperation, personal contacts,

individual
treatment and considerations as well as innovative part-
nerships should be enhanced under all circumstances
— not even a perfect on-line network and the best rules
and principles can or should replace these.

— Rename the coordination centres to SOLVIT Centres or

Action Centres.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS