Communication from the Commission on streamlining the annual economic and employment policy co-ordination cycles
Date: 2002-09-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU institution, EU policy, European Employment Strategy, economic policy, single market

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 3.9.2002
COM(2002) 487 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

ON STREAMLINING THE ANNUAL ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT

POLICY CO-ORDINATION CYCLES

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

ON STREAMLINING THE ANNUAL ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT

POLICY CO-ORDINATION CYCLES

I – Background

1.
and  Göteborg, 
environmental strategy that is articulated around four objectives:

Over the last few years, and in particular in the European Councils of Lisbon
the  European  Union  has  developed  an  economic,  social  and

- realising as strong as possible economic growth, notably through an improvement in
potential growth;

- progress towards full employment;

- advance the European social model so as to preserve social cohesion;

- sustainable development.

To ensure the effective implementation of this strategy and allow for the review of the
results  obtained,  it  is  necessary  that  the  Union  can  rely  upon  effective  co-ordination
mechanisms. To this end, the Community has elaborated and extended the framework,
procedures  and  instruments  for  the  purpose  of  co-ordinating  economic  and  related
policies.  Especially  during  the  second  half  of  the  1990s,  a  number  of  processes  and
procedures  were  added  or  further  developed.  Besides  the  Broad  Economic  Policy
Guidelines (BEPGs), the Treaty now provides for policy co-ordination via the Stability
and Growth Pact and the European Employment Strategy. Policy co-ordination has also
developed in several areas including through , the Cardiff Process of economic reform.
In addition, social partners are involved through the Macroeconomic Dialogue under the
Cologne Process. Moreover, the Lisbon European Council called for the application of a
so-called  open  method  of  co-ordination  which  is  designed  to  help  Member  States  to
progressively  develop  their  own  policies  and  help  in  spreading  best  practice  and
achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals. It has been applied in several
areas,  including  on  social  inclusion  and  pensions.  Finally,  several  benchmarking
processes have also been set up and various scoreboards have been developed.

2.
However, as new elements have often been added on an ad hoc basis without
necessarily  taking  the  wider  picture  fully  into  account,  the  present  framework  has
arguably become complex and more difficult to understand and explain. This situation
is  not  conducive  to  the  formulation  and  effective  communication  of  EU  policy
guidance, which should be coherent both over time and across the various processes. In

2

addition, it contributes to a situation in which the attention given to the formulation of
policy guidance is not matched by that given to its implementation.

In  2000  and  2001,  in  Lisbon  and  Göteborg,  the  European  Union  made  a
3.
decisive shift to a more strategic and medium-term approach to policy making when it
set  the  policy  agenda  for  the  next  decade.  Since  then,  there  has  been  a  growing
awareness of  the need to  streamline  and synchronise  the  relevant  policy  co-ordination
processes  and  orient  them  more  decisively  towards  the  medium-  and  longer-term.  On
several  occasions,  most  recently  on  the  occasion  of  its  Spring  meeting  in  Barcelona
(March  2002),  the  European  Council  called  for  improvements.  At  Barcelona,  it  urged
the  Council  and  the  Commission  to  streamline  the  relevant  policy  co-ordination
processes,  stating  that  the  focus  must  be  on  action  for  implementation,  rather  than  on
the annual elaboration of guidelines.1

In response to this request, the Commission outlines below its main views on
4.
how a better streamlined policy co-ordination cycle can be achieved within the current
Treaty framework, which will contribute to:

(cid:1)  Enhancing  the  efficiency  of  policy  co-ordination,  notably  by  securing  a

better follow-up of implementation;

(cid:1)  Improving  coherence  and  complementarity  between  the  various  processes

and instruments;

(cid:1)  Fostering a wider-shared commitment and "ownership"; including through a
stronger  involvement  of  the  EP,  the  national  Parliaments  and  a  better
consultation of social partners and civil society;

(cid:1)  Increasing  the  transparency  and  intelligibility  of  the  policy  co-ordination

cycle and thereby its visibility and impact.

II – Suggestions for a better streamlined policy co-ordination cycle

5.
Whilst  preserving  the  autonomy  of  the  Treaty-based  co-ordination  processes
but with a view to achieving greater coherence, transparency and effectiveness in policy
co-ordination, it is proposed  to  strengthen the  focus on the medium-term,  give  greater
prominence  to  implementation  and  its  evaluation,  and  streamline  existing  processes
around  a  few  key  points  in  the  year.  This  will  contribute  to  more  stability  and
predictability  in  the  policy  direction  and  a  sharper  political  focus  on  its  delivery.  The
main building  blocks  of a better and  more  clearly  articulated  policy  co-ordination
cycle can briefly be described as follows:

(i)

Preparation of the Spring European Council:

1

See Part I, paragraph 49 of the Presidency Conclusions.

3

                                                
(cid:1)  The  Commission  would,  in  its  Spring  Report,  highlight  the  main  areas
where  further  progress  has  to  be  made  and  the  key  policy  orientations  on
which general guidance is required from the Spring European Council. The
Spring  Report  would  be  complemented  and  presented  together  with  the
Implementation  Package  (including  the  Implementation  Report  on  the
BEPGs  and  the  draft  Joint  Employment  Report  and  the  implementation
report  on  the  Internal  Market  Strategy).  The  Commission's  various  reports
and  scoreboards  (including  inter  alia  the  Cardiff  Report,  the  State  aids,
innovation  and  enterprise  policy  scoreboards)  will 
the
Implementation  Package  and  the  Spring  Report.  This  Commission  input
would assist different Council formations, as well as any other appropriate
actor, in reviewing implementation in their specific policy areas.

feed 

into 

 (ii)

(iii)

The  Spring  European  Council:  The  Spring  European  Council  is  a  defining
moment  in  the  annual  policy  co-ordination  cycle.  It  reviews  implementation
and,  on  that  basis,  gives  general  political  orientations  on  the  main  policy
priorities.

Commission  proposals  for  new  guidelines  and  recommendations:  On  the
basis  of  the  Spring  European  Council  political  orientations,  the  Commission
would  present  its  proposals  for  further  action  in  the  various  policy  areas
together in a Guidelines Package (which would include the Commission drafts
for  general  and  country-specific  policy  recommendations  as  contained  in  the
BEPGs;  the  EGs;  and  the  annual  employment  recommendations  to  Member
States). This Package, the first of which would be issued in April 2003, would,
in  principle,  cover  a  three-year  period,  i.e.  up  to  2006.  The  guidelines  would
continue  to  be  issued  every  year  to  take  account  of  possible  major  new
developments,  but  should  otherwise  remain  stable  until  2006,  unless
circumstances  require  otherwise.  Consistent  with  the  recommendations  of  the
BEPGs  and  the  outcome  and  conclusions  of  the  Cardiff  process,  the  Internal
Market Strategy - which will accompany the Guidelines Package - would deal
with  internal  market  matters  at  Community  level  up  to  2006,  and  would  be
adjusted in the intervening years only if necessary.

(iv)

Adoption  of  new  guidelines  and  recommendations:  After,  where
appropriate, further preparation by the competent Council formations ahead of
the June European Council and following the latter's consideration, the relevant
Council  formations  would  adopt  the  BEPGs,  the  EGs  and  the  Employment
Recommendations  to  Member  States  and/or  endorse  action  plans  (e.g.  the
Internal Market Strategy) in their competence areas.

(v)

Concentration of implementation review in Quarter 4: A better streamlined
review of implementation requires:

(cid:1)  Systematic information provision by Member States on the implementation
of policies agreed at European level. In this context, there may be scope for
rationalising  and  streamlining  current  national  reporting  requirements.

4

Fewer  and  more  comprehensive  reports2,  allowing  also  for  coverage  of
information on newly identified issues  (thus avoiding the need to add new
reports and procedures), might help in clarifying and ensuring the coherence
of  Member  States'  responses  to  policy  recommendations  issued  by  the
Community; these reports should ideally be presented together in October at
the  latest.  The  National  Employment  Plans  would  be  sent  as  a  separate
document around the same time.

(cid:1)  An  implementation  assessment  by  the  Commission.  On  the  basis  of  the
available  information  (through  reports,  through  bilateral  contacts  and
through  the  results  of  various  benchmarking  exercises),  the  Commission
services  would  assess  implementation  in  the  various  relevant  policy  areas.
The  Commission  will  present  the  findings  of  its  review  in  the  form  of  an
new Implementation Package together with the Commission's Spring Report
in mid-January, marking the start of a new cycle.

6.
The  different  steps  outlined  above  are  graphically  illustrated  in  appendix 1.
More generally, there would be an advantage in streamlining other related processes in
order  for  them  to  provide  a  timely  input  into  the  preparation  of  the  Implementation
Package and the Commission's Spring Report. The Commission will also reflect in the
coming  months  on  how  to  streamline  the  open  process  of  co-ordination  in  the  Social
Protection field – currently covering social inclusion and pensions – and how to link it
to the new streamlined approach.

7.
In  keeping  with  this  calendar,  further  improvements  of  the  contents  and
effectiveness of policy co-ordination should be sought by putting more emphasis on the
medium-term  in  framing  policy  orientations  and  by  improving  the  coherence  of  the
Guidelines Package.

Putting  more  emphasis  on  the  medium-term  in  framing  the  basic  economic

8.
and employment policy strategy would help to:

(cid:1)  Provide for stability in the policy guidelines and recommendations, thereby
allowing Member States to frame credible policy strategies geared towards
their  fulfilment  and  so  contribute  to  an  effective  follow-up,  and  enabling
Council  and  Parliament  to  adopt  the  necessary  actions  that,  by  definition,
may require a longer-term horizon;

(cid:1)  Avoid giving the impression that the policy strategy is incomplete and needs

permanent re-definition;

(cid:1)  More  clearly  relate  the  policy  strategy  to  the  achievement  of  the  strategic

2005 and 2010 objectives of the Lisbon Agenda;

2

It might even be considered to provide the information required for multilateral surveillance in a
single national report on economic policies.

5

                                                
(cid:1)  Shift the focus from defining policy strategies to implementing them; and

(cid:1)  Improve the visibility and impact of the strategy.

The  enhanced  focus  on  the  medium-term  should  be  reflected  in  the  various

9.
guidelines and strategies.

The BEPGs would keep their annual character, but would, in principle, be fully
10.
reviewed  only  once  every  3 years.  The  Commission,  however,  using  its  right  of
initiative, could diverge from this calendar and present a Recommendation for important
changes or fully reviewed BEPGs also in intermediate  years if it deems circumstances
so  warrant.  The  BEPGs  would,  while  covering  the  full  range  of  relevant  economic
policies  and  providing  both  general  and  country-specific  policy  recommendations,
become more strategic in character by focussing to a greater extent on key policy issues.
In the intermediate years, the Recommendation on the BEPGs could be more concise by
concentrating  on  major  policy  adjustments  that  would  seem  necessary  in  view  of  the
evolving economic situation and in view of the progress made on implementation, thus
making a  link  to  the  BEPGs  Implementation  Report,  the  Commission's  Spring  Report
and the subsequent Spring European Council conclusions.

11.
Similar benefits would be obtained by strengthening the medium-term character
of  the  Employment  Guidelines.  Thus,  whilst  maintaining  annual  proposals  for
Guidelines  as  requested  under  the  Treaty,  changes  to  the  EGs  would,  if  possible,  be
avoided  in  the  intermediary  years,  while  a  more  substantial  review  would  be
undertaken,  in  principle,  once  every  3  years,  taking  due  account  of  the  need  for
alignment of their timeframe to the deadline of 2010.

12.
The Cardiff process of economic reform of product and capital markets would,
as far as Internal Market Issues are concerned, concentrate on the analysis of a limited
number of  core topics in  greater  depth  each  year.  This  would  contribute  to  enhancing
the  emphasis  on  the  medium-term  and  would  be  more  compatible  with  the  medium-
term  perspective  that  the  Internal  Market  Strategy  (IMS)  has  had  from  when  it  was
launched  in  1999.  While  the  Strategy  adopted  a  five-year  time  frame,  its  proposed
actions are reviewed and updated each year. The next phase of the Strategy is expected,
however, to be linked more closely with the Lisbon Strategy. This could be achieved by
defining an agenda for action to be implemented over the next 3 years, i.e. up to 2006,
so  that  these  measures,  once  implemented,  can  produce  their  full  effect  before  the
Lisbon deadline.

13.
The coherence of the guidelines package can be improved by specifying more
clearly the contents to be covered by the respective instruments, while maintaining the
central role of the BEPGs for economic policy co-ordination. The BEPGs will continue
to  address  macroeconomic  policies  and  put  the  necessary  emphasis  on  structural
policies  and  on  reforms  aimed  at  promoting  economic  growth  potential,  employment
and social cohesion, sustainable development, and the transition towards a knowledge-
based economy. The Cardiff and Luxembourg processes would make it possible to deal
with their respective subject matters in greater detail.

6

14.
In  this  context,  the  EGs  must,  on  the  one  hand,  keep  their  wide  policy  scope
reflecting  the  range  of  policies  contributing  to  the  employment  objectives  and  the
integrated  nature  of  the  EES  and,  on  the  other  hand,  their  role  as  the  main  tool  for
defining the principles and modalities of policy co-ordination in the employment area,
in full consistency with the BEPGs. Therefore, a streamlining between the BEPGs and
the EGs would require that steps be taken to strengthen the complementary character of
the BEPGs and the EGs by better differentiating between the 'broad' recommendations
on  employment  in  the  BEPGs  that  would  establish  the  general  economic  policy
framework, and the more specific guidelines and  recommendations under the scope of
the policies covered by the EES. The proposed synchronisation of the start of the two
processes  by  the  simultaneous  presentation  by  the  Commission  of  its  input  for  both
instruments  and  their  subsequent  discussion  in  relevant  bodies  would  be  likely  to
contribute to such coherence.

Similarly,  a  streamlining  between  the  BEPGs  and  the  IMS  would  require  that
15.
steps be taken to better differentiate between the ‘broad’ recommendations on product
and capital markets in the BEPGs and the specific target actions at Community level in
the  IMS.  The  update  of  the  IMS  would  accompany  that  of  the  BEPGs,  presenting
specific policy targets related to the Internal Market.

16.

The main implications of these changes are set out in Appendix 2.

17.
To  draw  maximum  benefit  of  the  streamlining  of  current  procedures  and  in
order  to  preserve  the  coherence  of  the  current  policy  co-ordination  framework  in  the
future, any  new  processes  to be  established must demonstrate  that:  i) the  issues  raised
cannot  be  dealt  with  in  the  context  of  existing  procedures;  and  ii) the  new  processes
bring real value-added.

III – Timing issues

18.
improvements, the Commission considers that:

As regards the timing for the start of streamlining and related suggestions for

(cid:1)  To give a credible and timely follow up to the Barcelona European Council
conclusions, the streamlining should be implemented already in the  run  up
to the Spring 2003 European Council and in time for the preparation of the
next  BEPGs,  EGs,  and  the  Internal  Market  Strategy.  Following  their
adoption in June 2003 for a period of -  in principle - 3  years,  the  first  full
application of the proposed new arrangements for reviewing implementation
should take place in the Autumn of 2003. It would also allow the Parliament
to adjust to the new cycle before its next election in 2004;

(cid:1)  Specific timing arrangements for the implementation of the streamlined and
synchronised  approach  should  take  into  account  the  requirements  for
appropriate  involvement  of  all  institutions  and  partners  concerned,  notably
the Council, the European Parliament and the Social Partners.

7

19.
However,  as  a  transitional  arrangement,  the  draft  Joint  Employment  Report
will be adopted by the Commission in the Autumn of 2002, instead of January 2003, as
would follow from the general approach retained in this Communication. In January the
Commission will present its Spring report together with the Implementation Report on
the  BEPGs  and  a  Communication  outlining  the  approach  for  the  revision  of  the
European Employment Strategy.

20.
Enlargement makes it all the more necessary to have streamlined procedures in
place (as difficulties encountered at present will only become bigger if nothing is done).

8

Appendix 1: Flow chart of the streamlined policy co-ordination cycle

The policy formation phase

Winter

Spring

Note: While remaining annual, 
guidelines would, in principle, 
only be fully reviewed once 
every 3 years (i.e. year 't', 't+3', 
etc.). In intermediate years, 
guidelines would only take 
account of major changes.

The policy implementation 
review phase

Summer

Autumn

Winter

mid-January
Commission presents 
its Spring Report and 
the Implementation 
Package covering the 
IR on the BEPGs and 
the draft Joint 
Employment Report. In 
addition, it presents its 
progress report on the 
Internal Market 
Strategy.

Jan. to early March. 
various Council 
contributions, including 
the JER

mid March

Spring 
European 
Council (SEC) 
providing 
general 
political 
orientations 

Social 
Partners 
Tripartite 
Social 
Summit for 
Growth and 
Employment

early April
Commission, taking 
account of general 
orientations of SEC, adopts 
Guidelines Package 
covering
- BEPGs
- EGs & Empl. Recs.
--------------------
In addition, it 
reviews/updates the 
Internal Market Strategy

June (2nd half)

European 
Council 
endorses 
Guidelines 
Package

Ecofin Council 
adopts BEPGs

ESPHCA Council 
adopts EGs & 
Empl. Recs.

Competitiveness 
Council endorses 
IM Strategy

early June
Ecofin Council 
formulates 
draft  for 
BEPGs

early June
ESPHCA 
Council 
considers EGs 
& Empl. Recs.

Member 
States to 
report on 
implementati
on and 
envisaged 
policy actions

Q4
Commission 
reviews 
Implementation 
on the basis of 
information 
received and 
collected

Other Councils follow up

May
European Parliament 
opinion on EGs

9

Appendix 2: Main implications of the proposed changes

The  main  implications  of  the  proposed  changes  are  outlined  below.  A
1.
distinction  is  made  between  implications  for  the  different  procedures  and  for  the
different institutions involved.

Implications for the procedures

2.
implications:

As  regards  the  BEPGs,  the  streamlining  would  have  the  following

(cid:1)  Commission  Recommendation:  In  principle,  the  Commission  would  table
recommendations for fully-fledged BEPGs only once every three years (thus
in  year  't',  't+3',  etc.).  In  the  intermediate  years  (year  't+1',  't+2'),  the
Recommendation on the BEPGs could be more concise by focusing only on
major adjustments.3

(cid:1)  The  Implementation  Report:  The  Commission's  Implementation  Report  on
the BEPGs would be advanced by 1-1,5 months so that it could be presented
in  mid-January  as  part  of  the  Implementation  Package  together  with  the
Commission's  Spring  Report.  In  the  years  following  the  adoption  of  fully-
fledged  guidelines,  the  review  of  implementation  would  be  comparatively
light and focus more on the Member States policy intentions in response to
these guidelines, than on actual measures taken.

3.
have the following implications:

As  regards  the  EGs  and  the  Luxembourg  process,  the  streamlining  would

(cid:1)  The  current  Employment  Package  would  be  split  up:  The  draft  Joint
the

Employment  Report 
(JER)  would  be  presented  as  part  of 
Implementation Package together with the Commission's Spring Report.

(cid:1)  Employment  Guidelines  and  Employment  Recommendations:  The
Commission's  proposal  for  the  Employment  Guidelines  and  the  related
recommendations  would  be  submitted  after  the  Spring  European  Council
together with the Recommendation for the BEPGs as part of the Guidelines
Package.

(cid:1)  Review  of  implementation:  Member  States'  National  Action  Plans  (NAPs)
should  be  provided  in  early  October  at  the  latest.  The  Commission's  draft
Joint Employment Report would be presented by mid-January as part of the
Implementation Package together with the Commission's Spring Report.

3

The  Commission  does,  however,  fully  reserve  its  right  of  initiative  and  would  come  forward
with a Recommendation for fully-fledged BEPGs also in intermediary years if circumstances so
warrant.

10

                                                
4.
The  Cardiff  process  for  economic  reform  is  at  this  time  undergoing  an
evaluation and review  which  will  modify  the current  cycle. The joint consideration  of
the streamlining  and the new  arrangements  under discussion would, in principle, have
the following implications:

(cid:1)  Commission Cardiff report: On the basis of the information available at this
point, the implications of these new arrangements for Commission reporting
will be  minor since  the  timetable  of  the  process  has  already  been  changed
and the Commission report should be made public early in December.

(cid:1)  Cardiff  national  reports:  In  the  context  of  a  more  streamlined  reporting
system,  the  “National  reports  on  structural  reform”  by  the  Member  States
could  be  integrated,  whilst  keeping  an  adequate  focus  on  microeconomic
reporting,  into  a  broader  annual  report  on  Member  States’  economic
policies. These reports would have to be delivered at the latest in October in
order  to  allow  sufficient  time  for  the  preparation  of  the  Implementation
Package. The national reports would have to be more extensive in the years
preceding  a  major  revision  of  the  BEPGs  (i.e.  every  three  years  in  't-1',
't+2'). In order to implement the new arrangements for the Cardiff process,
Member  States  may  be  required  to  complement  their  national  reports  with
replies to specific questionnaires addressing the limited number of  Internal
Market topics agreed by the Council each year.

As regards the Internal Market Strategy (IMS) the streamlining would have

5.
the following implications:

(cid:1)  For  the  review  of  progress  on  implementing  the  Internal  market:  The
presentation  of  the  implementation  report  on  the  Internal  Market  Strategy
should  be  adjusted  so  as  to  coincide  with  the  presentation  of  the  Spring
Report and the Implementation Package.

(cid:1)  For  the  formulation  of  and  adjustments  in  Internal  Market  Strategy:  The
Internal  Market  Strategy  would  adopt  a  clearer  medium  term-perspective
(initially covering the period 2003-2006 as the fully-fledged BEPGs) in line
with the Lisbon Strategy. While the Commission would reserve the right to
review  target  actions  in  intermediate  years  to  take  account  of  new
developments  in  conjunction  with  adjustments  made  in  the  BEPGs,  the
purpose  is  to  set  a  multiannual  agenda  for  action  related  to  the  Internal
Market.  The  update  of  the  IMS  agenda  would  accompany  that  of  the
BEPGs,  presenting  specific  annual  policy  targets  related  to  the  Internal
Market.

11

6.
following implications:

As  regards  other  related  procedures,  the  streamlining  would  have  the

(cid:1)  Scoreboards: Where necessary, the timing of the publication of the various
relevant scoreboards (State aid, innovation, enterprise policy, etc.) should be
adapted so as to provide timely input for the implementation review.

(cid:1)  Stability  and  Growth  Pact:  The  stability  and  convergence  programme
updates should be submitted sufficiently early in the autumn so that they can
be taken into account in the implementation review. Similarly, the Council
Opinions  on  the  updates  should  be  adopted  in  the  first  few  months  of  the
year (at the latest) so as to provide timely input for the formulation of a new
set of BEPGs.

(cid:1)  Implications  for  other  processes  which  are  still  at  an  early  stage  of
development,  e.g.  in  the  Social  Protection  area,  will  need  to  be  further
examined with the aim to optimise their contribution to the Lisbon strategy
follow-up.

Implications for the institutions

7.
practical implications:

As  regards  the  Commission,  the  streamlining  would  have  the  following

(cid:1)  The  change  in  timing  of  several  (components  of)  procedures,  notably  the
concentration  of  implementation  review  in  Q4  with  release  of  the  various
Implementation Reports in mid-January together with the Spring Report and
the  presentation  of  all  (medium-term)  policy  orientations  after  the  Spring
the  work
European  Council,  would  require  similar  adjustments 
organisation  of  the  Commission  and  its  services,  particularly  during  years
('t',  t+3)  when  guidelines  or  action  plans  are  subject  to  a  fundamental
review.  The  advancement  of  the  implementation  review  to  Q4  would
provide a solid basis for the preparation of the Commission's Spring Report,
in  which  progress  would  be  summarised  and  main  obstacles  to  further
progress would be highlighted.

in 

(cid:1)  The shift towards a medium-term  focus would  provide for  greater stability
and predictability. Parallel management of important files, particularly every
third year, would imply a considerable workload for the Commission and its
most  directly concerned services,  but  would  also  be  likely  to  contribute  to
improving the coherence of the work done in relation to these files. During
intermediate  years,  resources  would  be  freed  up 
to
implementation.

to  contribute 

(cid:1)  In line with a greater emphasis on implementation, the Commission services
may have to invest more time in fact finding and discussions with Member

12

States prior to the finalisation of the Implementation Reports, especially as
regards economic and structural policies.

8.
implications.

As  regards  the  Council,  the  streamlining  would  have  the  following

(cid:1)  The change in timing of several (components of) procedures would require
similar  adjustments  in  the  work  organisation  of  the  Council  and  its
preparatory Committees. The Council would adopt the draft JER before the
Spring European Council as part of its contribution.

(cid:1)  There would be a need for co-ordination at the level of the Council and the
preparatory committees so as to ensure an effective and streamlined follow-
up to implementation reports and guidelines presented by the Commission.
In this respect, it is important to effect i) an appropriate distribution of work
and  involvement  of  the  various  Council  formations  (and  their  supporting
Committees)  and  ii) an  effective  communication  to  the  public  of  the
different  steps  taken  in  the  policy  co-ordination  cycle,  thereby  enhancing
understanding  of  how  the  different  elements  fit  together  as  part  of  the
overall policy co-ordination cycle.

9.
implications.

As  regards  the  Member  States,  the  streamlining  would  have  the  following

(cid:1)  Member  States  would  mostly  be  affected  through  the  possible  changes  in
the timing, number and character of the reports to the Community level on
their  policies.  An  effective  streamlining  at  Community  level  and  a  more
systematic  and  comprehensive  reporting  system  may  entail  a  need  for
greater co-ordination also within the Member States, but should at the same
time  yield  benefits  by  reducing duplication  of  work,  insofar  as  it  currently
arises from overlaps between the different processes.

– 

– 

Streamlining would on the other hand imply changes in timing; the
different (components of) reports should be ready at about the same
time in October at the latest.4

There might be possibilities for reducing the number and frequency
of reports.  It might even be considered to  provide the  information
required for multilateral surveillance in a single national report on
economic  policies.  The  National  Employment  Plans  would
continue to be sent separately.

4

In some cases (e.g. the National Action Plans for Employment) it would mean that reports can be
submitted  at  a  later  stage  than  is  currently  the  case  and  can  therefore  better  take  account  of
possible new measures decided upon by governments in the context of their budget proposals.

13

                                                
– 

Finally, the character of the reports may change from year to year;
in some years, more concise reports may be sufficient. The precise
nature  of  the  reporting  would  have  to  be  further  discussed.  It  is
conceivable that in the case of the BEPGs, the reporting to be done
by  Member  States  may  change  depending  on  the  year;  following
the  adoption  of  fully-reviewed  BEPGs  or  EGs,  Member  States
reports could concentrate on prospective policy action in  response
to  them,  whereas  in  the  subsequent  years  the  emphasis  would  be
more  on  actual  implementation.  Also,  there  may  not  be  a  need  to
report  extensively  on  each  policy  area  every  year.  The  revision  of
the Cardiff process envisages, for example, that certain policy areas
would  be  selected  only  every  couple  of  years  to  allow  some  time
for  new  measures  to  produce  effects  and  to  reduce  the  overall
workload.

(cid:1)  Member  States  could  invest  more  in  communicating  the  different  steps
taken  in  the  policy  co-ordination  cycle  more  effectively  to  their  national
parliaments and citizens so as to enhance understanding of how the different
elements fit together as part of the overall policy co-ordination cycle and to
contribute  to  greater  involvement.  A  streamlining  and  simplification  of
procedures would facilitate such communication.

10.
following implications.

As  regards  the  European  Parliament,  the  streamlining  would  have  the

(cid:1)  The  European  Parliament  (EP)  would  have  more  time  to  consider  the
effective  implementation  of  guidelines  in  preparation  for  their  possible
contribution to the Spring European Council.

(cid:1)  A different timing of discussions in  the EP might  also  help to  facilitate its
closer  involvement  following  the  presentation  by  the  Commission  of  the
Guidelines Package  and prior  to  the  preparation  by  the  competent  Council
formations  for  the  June  European  Council.  Depending  upon  this,  there
might be greater scope for involving the EP more closely in the elaboration
of  the  BEPGs  through  informal  consultations.  This  could  also  be  the  case
with  the  IMS.  Consultations of  the  EP  on  the  EGs  would  continue  to  take
place as provided for in the Treaty.

-------------

14