Report from the Commission on European Governance
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European citizenship, governance, institutional reform, professional association, report, transparency in decision-making

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.12.2002
COM(2002) 705 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

ON EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE

   
REPORT

ON EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT ON EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE ........................................................................... 2

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

3.

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3

LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM REACTIONS TO THE WHITE PAPER.......... 4

The public consultation ................................................................................................ 4

Main lessons of the public consultation ....................................................................... 4

Towards a common understanding of European Governance...................................... 6

IMPLEMENTING THE WHITE PAPER ................................................................... 7

3.1.

Better involvement ....................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1.

3.1.2.

3.1.3.

First line of action: information and communication/making the way the Union
works more open .......................................................................................................... 7

Second line of action: reaching out to citizens through regional and local
democracy .................................................................................................................... 9

Third line of action: involving civil society. More effective and more open
consultation in the shaping of EC policy.................................................................... 10

3.1.4.

Fourth line of action: connecting with networks........................................................ 12

3.2.

Better policies, regulation and delivery...................................................................... 13

3.2.1. Better regulation ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2. Better implementation ................................................................................................ 16

3.3.

3.4.

4.

Contribution of the EU to global governance ............................................................ 18

Refocused policies and institutions ............................................................................ 20

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 23

ANNEX I - THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION........................................................................ 24

ANNEX II - USEFUL WEBSITES ......................................................................................... 34

2

1. 

INTRODUCTION

When presenting the programme of the current Commission to the European Parliament
in  February  2000,  President  Romano  Prodi  identified  the  promotion  of  new  forms  of
governance as one of the four strategic objectives of this Commission’s period of office1.

On  25  July  2001  the  European  Commission  adopted  a  White  Paper  on  European
governance  which  has  been  made  available  to  the  public  on  the  Internet2  and  has  also
been  widely  distributed  as  a  brochure.  It  has  been  the  subject  of  debates,  seminars,
articles and studies.

A public consultation was formally launched, running up until 31 March 2002 allowing
members  of  the  public  to  submit  their  comments.  In  its  White  Paper  the  Commission
announced that, before the end of 2002, it would report on progress achieved with regard
to  governance  initiatives  and  draw  the  lessons  from  the  public  consultation.  The
Commission  considered  that  this  would  establish  the  basis  for  further  co-operation
between  the  institutions  on  reforming  European  governance  under  the  existing  treaties.
However, the Commission also pointed out that it was intending to play an active part in
the work of the Convention on the future of the Union and of the next Intergovernmental
Conference (IGC), both of which had been given the task of devising a new Treaty. With
this aim in mind the Commission will be drawing inspiration from its experience with the
implementation of the White Paper.

Promoting  new  forms  of  governance  is  by  no  means  the  sole  responsibility  of  the
European  institutions,  and  even  less  so  that  of  the  Commission  alone.  It  is  the
responsibility  of  all  levels  of  public  authority,  private  undertakings  and  organised  civil
society because good governance – openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness
and  coherence  –  are  what  the  public  expects  at  the  beginning  of  the  21st  century.  The
White Paper can thus not cover every aspect. Another limitation is the decision taken by
the  Commission  in  2001  to  bring  forward  only  those  proposals  that  could  be  applied
within  the  existing  institutional  framework,  in  other  words  under  the  treaties  as  they
stand. This choice became the only option available  from the moment  when,  following
the decision of the Nice European Council in December 2000, it fell to a new IGC that
was involve to as  many  players  as possible, to  come  up  with  a  new  framework  for  the
institutions in 2004.

However,  the  distinction  between  the  existing  institutional  framework  and  a  future,
revised  institutional  framework  cannot  be  too  rigidly  interpreted  when  it  comes  to  the
public  comments  on  European  governance.  Many  people  who  responded  to  the  White
Paper also set out their ideas on a future Treaty.

The Commission is presenting separate contributions on the reform of the treaties to the
Convention and these contributions also draw on the contents and processes launched by
the  White  Paper.  A  necessary  link  to  the  work  of  the  Convention  and  the  IGC  is  thus
established.

1

2

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Social  and
Economic  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  Strategic  Objectives  2000  –  2005,
February 2000 - COM(2001) 154
http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/ index_en.htm

3

                                                
2. 

LESSONS  TO  BE  DRAWN  FROM  REACTIONS  TO  THE  WHITE
PAPER

2.1. 

The public consultation 

The public consultation on the Governance White Paper ran over an eight-month period,
from  25  July  2001  to  31  March  2002.  Information  on  the  conduct  of  the  public
consultation and the key messages received is reported in the annex.3

The  response  to  the  Commission’s  public  consultation  on  the  White  Paper  has  been
modest  in  numbers  (260  contributions)  but  rich  in  content.  The  reception  of  the  White
Paper  has  been  multi-facetted  and  has  provided  real  added  value  to  the  Commission’s
subsequent  policy  development  work.  It  has  also  challenged  the  Commission  to  take
account  of  the  positions  of  the  various  players  in  the  further  development  of  European
governance,  including  delaying  or  abandoning  actions  which  do  not  generate  sufficient
support.

The public response has largely supported the White Paper’s definition of the principles
underlying European governance of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness
and  coherence,  while  principles  such  as  democratic  legitimacy  and  subsidiarity  have
been proposed as additions.

It is worth noting that some EU institutions and several Member States did not contribute
with responses to the public consultation. Similarly, a geographical imbalance across the
EU was in evidence as regards contributions, reflecting differences in public consultation
culture and tradition. Moreover, the contributions received revealed a significant measure
of  diversity  in  how  European  governance  is  perceived.  In  other  words  the  issues  and
approaches proposed in the White Paper were addressed according to the prism through
which  respondents  understand  the  subject  matter  of  European  governance  –  inter  alia
democratic legitimacy concerns, constitutional or institutional aspects, efficiency criteria,
and even considerations relating to political expediency

2.2.  Main lessons of the public consultation

While endorsement has not been unmitigated, the Commission welcomes the fact that the
public consultation has supported the following key governance approaches:

– 

Improving  bottom-up 
implementation

involvement 

in  EU  policy 

shaping  and

The White Paper proposals on ‘better involvement’ and on consulting civil society drew,
by far, more interest than any other theme. A broad range of respondents commend the
White Paper in addressing the issue of low citizen participation and involvement within
the  EU  and  confirm  a  fundamental  willingness  to  engage  in  consultation  and
participation in shaping EU policy.

3

Full  details  of  the  results  of  the  public  consultation,  including  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the
correlation between respondents and subject matter addressed/orientations proposed, are available
on  the  European  Commission’s  governance  website:  http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/
index_en.htm

4

                                                
The  response  confirms  that  more  openness  and  better  consultation  are  in  both  the
immediate and the long-term interest of the EU, not only for providing better policies but
also  for  more  efficient  implementation.  Efficient  transparency  requires  a  pro-active
approach  and  cannot be limited to access  to  documents.  Involvement  in  policy-shaping
should  include  national  and  sub-national  authorities  as  well  as  a  broad  range  of  non-
governmental  interested  third  parties.  The  public  response  also  confirms  the  need  to
review  the  role  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  Economic  and  Social
Committee  in  terms  of  earlier  involvement  in  Commission  deliberations,  better
representation  of  sub-national  authorities  and  civil  society,  and  a  broader  pro-active
dialogue with constituencies beyond specific consultations.

– 

Widening  the  choice  of  instruments  to  respond  to  new  governance
challenges

The  Commission  is  supported  in  its  belief  that  there  is  a  need  for  a  wider  choice  and
more  flexible  policy  tools  within,  and  in  addition  to,  traditional  legislation.  The
to  better
instruments  available  to  the  Community  should  be  more  conducive 
implementation. A better policy and regulatory framework thus establishes the conditions
under  which  legislative,  as  well  as  alternative  approaches  such  as  co-regulation  or  the
open method of co-ordination can be most appropriately and most effectively used.

The  choice  of  instruments  should  also  build  on  a  stronger  factual  base  with  ex-ante
impact assessments incorporating the evaluation of  economic, environmental and social
consequences,  a  structured  approach  to  the  collection  and  use  of  expertise,  as  well  as
consultation  of  the  public  and  stakeholders,  all  subject  to  transparency  to  allow  public
scrutiny.

– 

More focused European institutions with clearer responsibilities

The  Commission  considers  that  the  public  consultation  supports  the  need  for  a  clearer,
more  transparent  and  more  accountable  division  of  competencies  between  the  EU
institutions, as argued by the Commission in the White Paper and in the Convention. This
calls  for  a  clearer  distinction  between  legislative  and  executive  functions,  and  for
clarification and confirmation of the Commission’s executive functions vis-à-vis Member
States.

The  Commission  is  presenting  proposals  to  this  end  to  the  Convention  with  a  view  to
adapting  the  Treaty.  In  addition,  while  awaiting  possible  future  Treaty  changes,  the
Commission  is  proposing  measures  to  pursue  these  objectives,  exploiting  existing
possibilities  within  the  current  Treaty.  In  particular,  the  Commission  is  proposing
amendments to the general system of committees of Member State representatives, that
assist  the  Commission  in  the  execution  of  its  implementing  powers  (so-called
“comitology”),  and  a  framework  for  establishing  regulatory  agencies  at  Community
level.

Moreover,  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  core  function  of  ensuring  application  and
enforcement  of  Community  legislation,  a  new  and  more  efficient  approach  to  handling
suspected breaches of Community law is envisaged.

5

2.3. 

Towards a common understanding of European Governance

Part of the public response regrets perceived limits to the White Paper’s understanding of
“governance” which focuses predominantly on the effectiveness and efficiency of the EU
decision-making  system,  while  disregarding  issues  of  democratic  legitimacy  and
democratic deficit in European integration that are seen to be more important.

The Commission has stressed that the European governance agenda should not be limited
to  the  White  Paper  or  the  issues  raised  therein.  The  White  Paper  was  intended  to  be  a
contribution to drive forward  the  development  of  European  governance  by  focusing  on
selected issues under certain assumptions. In particular, the White Paper assumed a stable
institutional and Treaty framework with a reinvigorated Community method at its core.
Thus, the governance potential of Treaty changes was generally reserved for the separate
Convention  process  now  underway  in  the  lead-up  to  the  2004  inter-governmental
conference.  Moreover,  when  addressing  the  Commission’s  own  role  in  European
governance,  the  White  Paper  focused  on  improving  the  Commission’s  role  as  policy
initiator  and  executive,  and  less  on  its  role  as  a  European  civil  service  and  public
administration (subject of  the on-going Commission reform programme).  Such  limiting
assumptions  made  in  the  White  Paper  may  have  led  to  un-intended  perceptions  of  a
narrow  governance  agenda,  contrary  to  the  Commission’s  desire  to  retain  a  broad
perspective on European governance.

6

3. 

IMPLEMENTING THE WHITE PAPER

The  White  Paper  on  European  governance  set  out  key  proposals  for  changes  in  four  broad,
action  areas:  “better  involvement”,  “better  policies,  regulation  and  delivery”,  “the  EU’s
contribution to global governance” and “refocused policies and institutions”.

3.1. 

Better involvement

The  White  Paper's  proposals  on  improving  the  involvement  of  non-institutional  players  in
policy-shaping and – to a certain extent – policy implementation, were clearly at the heart of a
governance reform aimed at bringing the European Union closer to its citizens. Reflective of
the Commission’s awareness of being perceived as too “distant” from its citizens, but above
all  reflective  of  a  genuine  commitment  to  enrich  its  policy  deliberation,  the  Commission’s
White Paper envisaged bottom-up involvement through a number of processes and players.

3.1.1.  First  line  of  action:  information  and  communication/making  the  way  the  Union

works more open

1.  The  White  Paper  made  the  case  for  improving  information,  creating  more  openness  and
ensuring more pro-active communication between European public-sector actors (institutions,
Member States etc.) and Europe's citizens. With respect to communication, the Commission
also remains committed to a multi-linguistic environment. The White Paper suggested that the
European institutions should continue to develop EUR-Lex in 2002 as a single on-line point
for  all  languages  where  people  can  follow  policy  proposals  through  the  decision-making
process. The European Parliament and the Council should make information available more
rapidly  about  all  stages  of  the  co-decision  process,  particularly  as  regards  the  final,
"conciliation phase". Lastly, the White Paper called on the Member States to promote public
debate on European affairs.

2. As announced in the White Paper, the Commission Communication on a new framework
for  co-operation  on  the  information  and  communication  policy  of  the  European  Union4
demonstrates  the  institution's  desire  to  provide  the  general  public  more  actively  with
information on European affairs, all the time working jointly  with  other  partner institutions.
The  Council  and  the  Parliament  have  welcomed  this  initiative.  The  Commission  adopted  a
second  communication  relating  to  the  content  of,  and  approach  for  action  entitled  "An
Information and Communication Strategy for the European Union"5, which sets out a new,
two-prong approach:

– 

– 

giving the European Union the capacity to formulate and disseminate messages
geared  to  and  focused  on  its  priority  issues.  This  capacity  will  need  to  be
developed in an overall and coherent way and be based on clear objectives that
the institutions have set themselves;

establishing a voluntary working partnership with the Member States fostering
genuine  synergy  between  their  structures  and  know-how  and  the  activities  of
the European Union.

4

5

COM(2001) 354
COM(2002) 350

7

                                                
3.  The  central  service,  Europe  Direct6,  that  is  accessible  both  by  telephone  and  via  the
Internet,  has  continued  to  reply  to  a  large  number  of  requests  for  information  of  a  general
nature. A signpost service (Citizens Signpost Service)7 which provides information related to
citizens' rights and to problems encountered within the Single Market was relaunched in 2002.
Users  (telephoning  via  a  freephone  number  or  using  the  web)  may  use  any  of  the  eleven
official  languages  of  the  Union  and  experts  responsible  for  dealing  with  the  queries  must
reply within three working days. A network catering specifically for businesses, Solvit8, came
on line in July 2002 based on the Member States' co-ordination centres that since 1997 have
been responsible for dealing with problems encountered by businesses in the Single Market.
Networking this service should boost "peer pressure" and generate synergies to  improve the
quality  of  services  and  provide  information  about  them.  The  sites  “Dialogue  with  Citizens”
and  “Dialogue  with  Business”9  provide  an  access  to  information  with  regard  to  exercising
one’s rights within the Single Market and also offer a problem-solving dimension.

4.  Interactive  communication  that  is  available  to  citizens  has  undergone  significant
development since the adoption of the White Paper in July 2001. The Futurum10 website that
is  managed  by  the  Commission  and  the  official  website  of  the  Convention  offer  an
opportunity  for  anyone  to  voice  an  opinion  and  contribute  suggestions  to  the  debate  on  the
future  of  the  Union.  The  Governance  website  has  offered  scope  for  dialogue  before  and
following adoption of the White Paper. The website known as "Your voice in Europe"11, as
part of the Interactive Policy Making (IPM) initiative, is already offering citizens, consumers
and  businesses  an  opportunity  to  play  an  active  part  in  the  process  of  shaping  Commission
policy. Under "Europa – second generation",12 interactive operations will become common
practice.

5.  The  openness  of  the  institutions'  work  has  undergone  much  improvement.  The
Regulation  of  the  Parliament  and  of  the  Council13  regarding  public  access  to  European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents has entered into force. The Commission has
amended  its  rules  of  procedure14.  The  minutes  of  the  Commission's  meetings  have  been
available on the Internet since January 2002. A public register of Commission documents has
been available on-line since June and a citizen's guide on access to these documents under the
provisions of the new regulation has been made generally available. For the application of the
Regulation  referred  to  above,  the  European  Parliament  has  adopted  a  number  of  internal
measures  (amendment  of  its  rules  of  procedure  and  of  the  Obligations  of  Officials  and
Servants  of  the  European  Parliament)  and  made  available  to  the  general  public  its  official
register  in  June  2002.  The  Council  register,  that  is  available  on-line,  contains  references  to
Council documents produced from 1999 onwards. It shows which documents have been made
available to the public and where such is the case their content can be displayed directly from
the database or obtained by using the Council's "document access" service.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

http://europa.eu.int/europedirect/en/index_en.html
http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/front_end/signpost_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/solvit/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/citizens/ and http://europa/eu.int/business
Site  references  are,  respectively:  http://europa.eu.int/futurum,  http://european-convention.eu.int,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/gouvernance, http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice
http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice
Communication by the President to the Commission – in agreement with Vice-President Kinnock and
Commissioner Liikanen C(2001) 1753/2
(EC) N° 1049/2001
C(2001) 3714

8

                                                
The  openness  of  the  Council's  legislative  work  was  mentioned  at  the  Barcelona  European
Council in March by a reference to a report by the Council's Secretariat-General. In June, the
Seville European Council decided to make the Council's meetings more open to the public at
different  stages  of  the  decision-making  procedure.  The  list  of  the  proposals  concerned  is
drawn  up  by  the  Council  at  the  beginning  of  every  half-year  and  in  the  final  phase  of  the
procedure, the public has access to the vote and to the explanations of vote.

6. The EUR-Lex portal on the Europa server provides access to the Community’s Official
Journal,  giving  citizens  the  possibility  to  consult  Community  law  in  all  domains.  Since
opening in June 2001 the portal has undergone many improvements to ease access and make
it user-friendly. With effect from January 2002 all the official documents  available in EUR-
Lex  have  been  available  for  consultation  free  of  charge,  and  this  applies  in  particular  to
documents published in the Official Journal regardless of their date of adoption or publication
and  in  all  formats.  Access  to  the  professional  database  CELEX  continues  to  be  fee-based
however (by subscription or per session). Since April 2002 the EUR-Lex service has offered a
harmonised presentation of all its pages and is accessible through EUROPA and the European
Parliament's and Council's websites. The Commission’s PRELEX data base supplies in all the
languages information on the progress of the legislative procedure concerning a particular act
with hyperlinks to the related texts as well as to OEIL, the European Parliament's legislative
observatory. Citizens can in this way obtain information on the legislative process, legislative
proposals adopted by the Commission, press releases, as well as the text ultimately adopted.
Work is underway to also integrate the Council common positions, legislative and budgetary
resolutions,  European  Parliament  initiatives  and  initiatives  from  the  Economic  and  Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

3.1.2.  Second  line  of  action:  reaching  out  to  citizens  through  regional  and  local

democracy

1. The Commission confirmed in the White Paper that it was intending to establish at an early
stage  in  the  drafting  of  policies  a  more  systematic  dialogue  with  European  and  national
associations of regional and local government and to set up "tri-partite, target-based contracts"
as  pilot  projects  in  certain  well  defined  areas.  This  as  a  way  of  simplifying  legislative  and
implementation tasks and policies with a strong territorial impact.

The Commission has also called on the Committee of the Regions to play a more pro-active
role  in  examining  policy,  for  example  through  the  preparation  of  exploratory  reports  in
advance of Commission proposals, to organise the exchange of best practice on how local and
regional authorities can be involved in the preparatory phase of European decision-making at
national  level.  The  Commission  has  called  on  the  Member  States  to  examine  how  the
involvement of local and regional actors in EU policy-making can be improved and the use of
contractual arrangements with their regions and localities can be encouraged, in full respect of
Member States’ constitutional systems.

2. In addition to broad consultations of the general public, the Commission, in its White Paper
on  European  governance,  also  recognised  the  need  to  strengthen  relations  with  regional
and  local  authorities  through  their  national  and  European  associations.  In  this  context,
Commission services are preparing a working paper which aims to identify the measures that
would  allow  a  bridge  with  national  and  European  associations  of  regional  and  local
authorities and to determine both scope and conditions of such a dialogue.

The Commission will make its working document accessible on its website and transmit it to
the main interregional and local associations with an aim of consulting all interested parties.

9

The European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the Member States will also be
consulted. Following this consultation phase, the Commission would then, in the first quarter
of  2003,  be  in  a  position  to  adopt  a  communication  of  which  the  implementation  would  be
carried by all Commission departments.

3. The Committee of the Regions showed particular interest in the part of the White Paper
dealing  with  regional  and  local  democracy.  The  White  Paper  was  the  subject  of  an  opinion
from  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  in  March  2002  welcoming  the  White  Paper,  with
particular  reference  to  the  parts  dealing  with  decentralisation  or  co-operation  with  regional
and  local  authorities  and  in  its  opinion  the  Committee  made  reference  to  the  changes  to  its
working  methods  that  would  be  needed  if  it  was  to  play  a  more  pro-active  role  in  the
examination of Community action. The committee asked to be  granted investigative  powers
to ascertain compliance with the subsidiarity principle and to receive a mandate to monitor the
impact  of  directives  and  regulations  on  regional  and  local  authorities.  A  protocol  on  co-
operation,  reflecting  the  principles  of  governance  and  relating  to  the  procedures  for  co-
operation between the Commission and the Committee of the Regions has been signed by the
two  presidents  concerned.  This  protocol  aims  to  improve  the  committee's  discharge  of  its
consultative duties, stepping up its involvement in the political debate and on collaborating on
information and communication policy.

3.1.3.  Third  line  of  action:  involving  civil  society.  More  effective  and  more  open

consultation in the shaping of EC policy

1. The White Paper called for general openness and consultation of civil society actors in the
shaping of EC policies. The envisaged implication and consultation of civil society is distinct
from  institutional  dialogue  (with  the  European  Parliament,  the  Social  and  Economic
Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions)  and  from  social  dialogue  between  management
and labour under Article 137 to 139 EC Treaty.

Because  of  their  representativeness,  trade  unions  and  employers’  organisations  have  a
particular role in the shaping of social policy. At the Community level, the EC Treaty requires
the Commission to consult management and labour in preparing proposals in the social policy
field. Under certain conditions, management and labour can reach binding agreements that are
subsequently turned into Community law. This role of the social partners is well established.

2. As a result of work to improve governance, the Commission‘s relations with civil society
have now also been formalised and made transparent. The Commission has adopted general
principles  and  minimum  standards  for  consulting  non-institutional  interested  parties15
on the major policy initiatives it proposes. The minimum standards will apply as from 2003.
The overall idea is that by applying these standards it will be possible to know exactly who
must  contact  whom  when  a  new  policy  is  being  drawn  up,  the  aim  being  that  all  parties
affected  by  the  proposal  can  become  more  involved,  and  on  a  more  equal  footing,  in  the
process.  The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  information  needed  in  order  to  respond  is
widely distributed via Internet access portals. The minimum standards provide inter alia for a
period of at least eight weeks for responses, issuing confirmation of receipt, and displaying of
the results of public consultation on the Internet.

15

COM(2002) 704

10

                                                
A consultative document was the subject of public consultation up to 31 July 200216 and the
final  set  of  general  principles  and  minimum  standards  not  only  clarifies  the  scope  of  the
general  principles  and  minimum  standards,  they  also  demonstrate  a  clear  link  with  the
Commission’s  impact  assessment  procedures.  The  operational  implications  of  the  general
principles  and  the  use  of  selection  criteria  for  targeted  consultation  have  been  explained  in
more  detail.  By  identifying  a  target  group  the  Commission  should  ensure  that  the  parties
concerned  would  have  an  opportunity  to  express  their  opinions.  The  Commission  has  also
explained its approach not to develop legally binding consultation procedures and to respect a
dividing line between its consultations and formalised decision-making procedures.

3.  The  idea  of  drawing  up  more  extensive  partnership  agreements  with  a  number  of
organised  civil  society  sectors  is  still  under  consideration  by  the  Commission.  Given  the
observations it received during the consultation on the White Paper, the Commission prefers a
pragmatic  approach  to  ensure  the  success  of  implementing  general  standards.  It  should  be
remembered that the aim of this action was two-fold: to allow the Commission to consult the
partner  sectors  more  widely  than  would  have  been  required  by  minimum  standards  and  to
encourage,  on  the  basis  of  these  agreements,  civil  society  organisations  to  rationalise  their
internal  structures,  give  guarantees  of  openness  and  representativeness  and  to  confirm  their
ability  to  relay  information  or  to  conduct  debates  within  the  Member  States.  The  European
Parliament was particularly keen not to  grant civil society organisations a role which, either
wholly or in part, was that of those holding political responsibility and who were elected by
universal  suffrage.  From  certain  quarters  within  civil  society,  concern  was  expressed  that
there would be a "de facto" establishment of a regime of privileged associations.

4. The CONECCS data base (Consultation, European Commission and Civil Society), a base
that  contains  information  on  civil  society  organisations  active  at  European  level  and  the
consultation  frameworks  used  by  the  Commission  to  consult  civil  society,  became  fully
operational in June 2002. The CONECCS Internet site17 offers the general public information
on the civil society's non-profit organisations  established  at  European  level  and  information
on  the  committees  and  other  consultative  bodies  the  Commission  uses  when  consulting
organised  civil  society  in  a  formal  or  structured  manner.  The  index  of  organisations,  which
was compiled on a voluntary basis, is intended to serve only as an information source and not
as  an  instrument  for  securing  consent.  It  is  a  dynamic  tool  undergoing  continuous
improvement  and  has  been  welcomed  as  part  of  the  organised  consultative  process  on  the
minimum standards for consultation provided that it does not become a system for accrediting
certain organisations vis-à-vis the Commission.

5.  In  addition  to  this general tool, there are  on-line  services  that  have  been  set  up  to  target
those sections of civil society that are more concerned by specific issues (international trade,
education and culture etc). These on-line services have been put in place by the Commission's
departments with responsibility for specific policies.

6. The European Economic and Social Committee has warmly welcomed the White Paper.
In its opinion on the White Paper of March 2002 the Committee pointed out the existence of a
strong link between this text and the Convention on the future of the Union. The Committee
noted the need to ensure that horizontal and vertical subsidiarity was respected and to define
criteria  establishing  the  representativeness  of  civil  society  organisations.  The  Committee

16

17

277. 

COM(2002) 
the 
The 
http://europe.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm
http://europe.eu.int/comm/civil_society/coneccs

results 

of 

public 

consultation 

are 

available 

on

11

                                                
considers  that  it  could  play  a  crucial  role  in  defining  and  structuring  civil  dialogue  and
stresses the importance of increasing the amount of information made available to citizens on
the  essential  features  of  the  Union  and  of  making  greater  use  of  instruments  other  than
legislation.  A  protocol  was  signed  by  which  the  Commission  and  the  Committee  put  on
record that in the context of establishing new forms of governance, the Committee was ideally
suited  to  become  a  privileged  intermediary  between  the  Union's  institutions  and  organised
civil society. The Protocol also contains express provision to the effect that the Commission
should invite the Committee to issue "exploratory opinions” and that the Commission would
rely on the Committee to deepen its relations with organised civil society.

3.1.4.  Fourth line of action: connecting with networks

(communities, 

regional  and 

1. The White Paper recorded and analysed, at European and at international level, the growing
social  and  political  importance  of  networks  understood  as  interaction  between  individuals
and/or  organisations 
local  authorities,  undertakings,
administrations,  research  centres  and  so  on)  in  a  non-hierarchical  way  and  where  every
participant is responsible for a part of the resources needed to achieve the common objective,
electronic communication being the most preferred tool. The Commission therefore envisaged
developing a more systematic and proactive approach to working with key networks to enable
them  to  contribute  to  decision-shaping  and  policy  execution,  and  examining  how  the
framework for transnational co-operation of regional or local actors could be better supported
at EU level for the purpose of presenting proposals.

2.  Economic  actors  are  increasingly  organised  in  networks  and  this  has  been  recognised  by
the  Commission.  As  a  general  rule,  horizontal  European  federations  are  consulted  on  all
matters  and  the  professional  organisations  are  consulted  on  sector-specific  matters.  The
channels used by these organisations to link to their national and local bases are increasingly
electronic communication channels that allow increasingly advanced interactive participation.
This  interactive  communication  is  encouraged  by  the  tools  that  the  Commission  itself  has
made available.

The  Commission  has  set  up  Interactive  policy  making  (IPM),18  to  allow  spontaneous
information  feedback  on-line.  The  European  Consumer  Centre  Network  (ECC  Network),
which  participates  to  the  IPM  initiative,  is  an  important  interface  between  the  Commission
and European consumers. Its role is to support the European consumer to make better use of
the internal market  and  to  provide  the  Commission  with  important  on  the  spot  information.
Currently, the ECC network covers 14 European Consumer Centres in 12 Member States and
will be further developed. The Euro-info Centre network that currently comprises 258 relay
structures  catering  for  SMEs  up  to  local  level  (of  which  50  are  in  the  applicant  countries)
operates both in a vertical manner in both directions (Brussels - local level and back up) and
in a horizontal manner between the partners concerned. The  constant supply of information,
in particular on actual case studies compared with the implementation of the legislation will
help to implement or realign policies. Own-initiatives by the networks such as the annual Car-
Free Day and the Netdays in schools have enjoyed increasing success.

3.  The  Commission  has  adopted  a  follow-up  Action  Plan  to  e-Europe  2002,  entitled  E-
Europe  2005, which aims to  stimulate  secure  services,  applications  and  content  based  on  a
widely  available  and  secure  broadband  infrastructure,  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  the
inclusion of all citizens in the information society.

18

http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/index_en.htm

12

                                                
4. In addition to providing financial contributions to Solvit and IPM, the Interchange of Data
between Administrations (or IDA programme) has made available a public service, Portal of
the  EU  Administrations,  which  is  currently  in  a  pilot  phase.  In  order  to  foster  the  offer  of
online  services  with  relevant  cross-border  dimension  among  European  administrations,  the
portal is aimed at becoming a single  access point for all available public online information
and services to assist Europe’s citizens and businesses to carry out cross-border activities.

3.2. 

Better policies, regulation and delivery

Substantive  progress  has  been  made  on  the  White  Paper  commitments  regarding  better
policies,  regulation  and  delivery.  The  Commission  has 
initiatives  aimed  at
improvements throughout the policy-making cycle: policy conception, choice of instruments,
regulatory implementation  and enforcement.  In  taking these  initiatives  the  Commission  was
encouraged and inspired by a substantial amount of preparatory work carried out by Member
States  and  international  organisations,  as  well  as  the  generally  positive  response  by
stakeholders to the basic outline of the White Paper.

taken 

3.2.1.  Better regulation

1. As announced in the White Paper, the Commission proposed in June 2002 a broad Action
Plan on simplifying and improving the regulatory environment19, with the overall goal of
developing  a  new  common  legislative  culture  within  the  EU.  The  Action  Plan  on  better
regulation draws on ideas presented in the White Paper and develops initiatives, inter alia, on
better  policy  preparation  through  improving  the  current  procedures  for  consultation  and
impact  assessment,  enlarging  the  range  of  the  various  policy  tools,  limiting  proposals  to
essential  elements  (providing  greater  scope  for  implementing  measures  to  complete  the
technical details), and launching a programme on simplification of Community legislation.

This  Action  Plan  includes  action  proposed  to  European  Parliament  and  Council  in  their
capacity  of  Community  legislators,  and  action  to  ensure  the  effective  transposition  and
application  of  legislation  by  the  Member  States.  The  Action  Plan  suggests  inter  alia  closer
legislative  collaboration  between  the  institutions,  annual  assessment  of  the  quality  of
legislation and better public access to legislation under preparation or adopted by using EUR-
Lex, a more appropriate use of legislative instruments, simplifying and reducing Community
legislation,  and  ensuring  the  quality  of  legislation  adopted.  Vis-à-vis  Member  States,  the
Action  Plan  envisages  e-transmission  of  national  notifications,  national  consultations  and
impact assessments, and closer co-operation on transposition of Community law into national
law.  The  Commission  therefore  called  on  the  indispensable  co-operation  of  Parliament,
Council  and  the  Member  States.  Subsequently,  inter-institutional  negotiations  have  been
launched with a view to concluding an inter-institutional agreement on better regulation20.

2. For its own part, the Commission has taken substantial steps to improve its own preparation
of initiatives, in particular through the framework for consultation of the public (see above),
guidelines for the use of expert advice and the framework for impact assessment of planned
initiatives. The principles underlying these initiatives should become part and parcel of good
administrative  behaviour,  including  for  other  Community  institutions  and  bodies  as  well  as
for Member States.

19

20

COM(2002) 278
The  European  Council  in  Seville  invited  the  Institutions  to  conclude  an  interinsitutional  agreement
before the end of 2002.

13

                                                
3.  In its Communication  on the  collection and use of expertise21, the Commission sets out
core principles and  internal  guidelines  to  Commission  departments  regarding  collection  and
use  of  expert  advise  at  all  stages  of  Commission  policy  making.  This  initiative  draws  on
existing best practices within and outside the Commission and offers a general framework to
promote such best practice in all relevant areas. The proposed principles and guidelines have a
two-fold objective:

– 

– 

to  ensure  that  Commission  departments  mobilise  and  exploit  the  most
appropriate expertise, with a view to establishing a sound knowledge base for
better policies, and

to  establish  the  Commission’s  core  principles  of  quality,  openness  and
effectiveness in this domain.

The Commission’s guidelines concern the collection and use of expertise and know-how in a
broad  sense,  not  only  scientific  expertise.  The  guidelines  will  also  apply  to  consultations
taking place through Commission-established expert groups, but they  are outside  the formal
decision-making procedures set in the Treaty or in secondary legislation. They will apply as
of 2003 and be subject to on-going monitoring as well as an evaluation 3  years after  taking
effect. As flagged in the White Paper on European Governance, the Commission will examine
the  extent  to  which  its  own  guidelines  could  form  the  basis  for  a  common  approach  for  all
institutions and Member States in this area.

4. In its Communication on impact assessment22, the Commission commits itself – starting in
2003  –  to  gradually  carry  out  impact  assessments  for  all  major  legislative  and  policy
initiatives,  covering  regulatory  impact  assessment  and  sustainable  development  (in  the
economic,  social  and  environmental  fields).  The  impact  assessment  will  make  it  easier  to
decide whether action should be taken at Community level, in the light of the Treaty and the
Protocol  on  the  application  of  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  proportionality,  and  help
improve quality and coherence of Community policies.

The  Commission’s  approach  on  impact  assessment  marks  a  major  effort  towards  a  new
regulatory culture, integrating all existing sectoral assessments concerning direct and indirect
impacts of proposed measures into one single instrument. Detailed guidelines for Commission
departments implementation of impact assessments are under development.

The Commission has proposed that the other institutions also undertake impact assessments of
substantial amendments to Commission proposals. This issue is currently under consideration
in  the  context  of  negotiations  on  an  inter-institutional  agreement  on  better  regulation.
Similarly,  the  Commission  has  invited  Member  States  to  undertake  impact  assessments  in
order  to  improve  the  quality  of  national  transposing  measures  in  particular  for  any
supplementary  provisions  added  to  legislative  acts  and  for  measures  notified  to  the
Commission under Directive 98/34/EC23.

One  specific  initiative  meant  to  deliver  inputs  and  feedback  as  to  the  impact  of  envisaged
legislative  and  policy  initiatives  is  the  European  Business  Test  Panel.  With  the  use  of
interactive  policy  making  (IPM)  instruments  and  the  aid  of  the  Member  States,  the

21

22

23

COM (2002) 713
COM (2002) 276
Directive  98/34/EC  lays  down  a  procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the  field  of  technical
standards and regulations.

14

                                                
Commission  is  currently  in  the  process  of  setting  up  a  European  Business  Test  Panel,
comprising 4000 enterprises of all sizes and from all sectors.

5.  The  Action  Plan  on  better  regulation  also  raised  the  wider  question  of  the  choice  of
appropriate  instruments  for  Community  action,  on  which  the  Commission  reserved  its
right to make additional proposals in the light of the progress of work in the Convention on
the future of the Union24.

The  Commission  pointed  out  that  regulations  and  directives  should  be  used  in  accordance
with the spirit and letter of the EC Treaty: a regulation should only be used for action which
must be applied uniformly across the Member States; a directive should respect the original
definition of the directive as laid down in the Treaty and be an instrument establishing a legal
framework and objectives which must be met.

The Commission intends to ensure, as far as possible, that directives are general in nature and
cover the objectives, periods of validity and essential aspects of legislation. It will be for the
legislator  to  decide  what  form  these  essential  aspects  should  take,  by  making  a  policy
decision,  and  to  ensure  that  technicalities  and  details  are  a  matter  for  executive  measures.
Limiting directives in this way with a view - among other things - to simplifying legislation
should  not  undermine  the  legislative  prerogatives  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the
Council;  on  the  contrary,  it  will  enable  them  to  concentrate  on  the  fundamental  aspects  of
legislation.

6.  In  the  White  Paper,  and  subsequently  in  its  Action  Plan  on  better  regulation,  the
Commission proposes to make greater use of alternatives to traditional legislation without
undermining the provisions of the Treaty or the prerogatives of the legislator. It also recalls
that the EC Treaty already makes provisions for specific forms of co-regulation, referring to
Articles  138  and  139  TEC,  under  which  labour  and  management  can  conclude  binding
agreements at Community level.

There are several tools which, in specific circumstances, can be used to achieve the objectives
of the Treaty while simplifying lawmaking activities and legislation itself (co-regulation, self-
regulation, open co-ordination method).

Within the framework of a legislative act, co-regulation makes it  possible to implement the
objectives  defined  by  the  legislator  through  measures  carried  out  by  active  and  recognised
parties  in  the  field  concerned.  The  Commission  remains  convinced  that  co-regulation  is  an
option for focusing legislative work on essential elements and for simplifying and improving
implementation - circumscribed by criteria laid down in a future inter-institutional agreement
on  better  regulation.  Self-regulation  concerns  a  large  number  of  practices,  common  rules,
codes of conduct and voluntary agreements which economic operators, social players, NGOs
and  organised  groups  establish  on  a  voluntary  basis  in  order  to  regulate  and  organise  their
activities.  Unlike  co-regulation,  self-regulation  does  not  involve  a  legislative  act.  The
Commission has proposed criteria and modalities for the use of these and similar alternative
instruments to pursue the Treaty objectives, and these are currently the subject of negotiations
on  an  inter-institutional  agreement.  Having  proposed  orientations  for  the  role  of  the  open
method of co-ordination in the White Paper, the Commission, in  its  Annual Policy Strategy
for 2003, anticipates carrying out a strategic evaluation of how the method works in the areas
in which it has been initially implemented.

24

COM (2002) 275

15

                                                
7.  The  Commission  has  proposed  that,  with  the  support  of  the  Council  and  European
Parliament,  a  major  effort  be  undertaken  to  simplify  the  body  of  Community  law  and
reduce  its  volume.  The  Commission  proposes  that  the  institutions  jointly  define  a
programme for simplifying Community legislation. The Commission will identify the priority
sectors  in  need  of  simplification  and  inform  the  legislator  accordingly.  The  European
Parliament and the Council, which as the legislator will ultimately have to adopt the proposals
for  simplified  legislative  acts,  should  adapt  working  methods  to  achieve  more  speedy  and
efficient procedures to simplify Community law. The Commission considers it essential that
an interinstitutional agreement on better regulation should cover this aspect, and also integrate
and underpin on-going work on the codification programme launched by the Commission in
November 200125 as well as work on recasting26.

3.2.2.  Better implementation

1.  Drawing  on  the  White  Paper’s  outline  of  better  regulation  and  delivery  and  refocused
policies  and  institutions  as  well  as  the  Commission’s  initiatives  on  better  involvement  and
better  policies,  the  Commission  has  also  adopted  several  key  proposals  to  improve
implementation of Community action.

2. Article 202 of the EC Treaty provides a key basis for the Commission’s executive role. Its
application,  as  governed  by  the  relevant  secondary  legislation  on  the  procedures  for  the
exercise  of  implementing  powers  (so-called  “comitology”27),  is  therefore  of  crucial
importance in efforts to refocus the institutions and achieve the desired improvements in the
legitimacy, efficiency and credibility of the Community.

The  Commission  argues  in  the  White  Paper  that  the  objective  of  refocusing  of  institutions
would  justify  the  re-examination,  if  not  the  elimination  of  the  present  regulatory  and
management procedures. This should be combined with the rebalancing of the responsibilities
of  the  institutions,  confining  to  the  Commission  the  principle  responsibility  of  executing
legislation  and  reinforcing  the  possibility  for  the  two  branches  of  the  Community  legislator
(Parliament and Council) to control the Commission’s exercise of its implementing powers, at
least in areas subject to codecision (Article 251 of the EC Treaty).

In  line  with  these  orientations,  and  while  retaining  access  to  the  indispensable  expertise  of
Member  State  representatives,  the  Commission  proposes  to  amend  Council  Decision
1999/468/EC28.  In  particular,  it  proposes  to  revise  the  existing  regulatory  procedure,  for
implementing  measures  under  co-decision,  by  introducing  two  distinct  phases.  In  the  initial
executive phase, the Commission will submit a draft measure to a committee of Member State
representatives. If, by a deadline set by the Commission, the committee expresses opposition
to  the  draft  measure,  an  additional  period  will  be  allowed  for  the  Commission  to  find  a
solution. The Commission’s draft measure will thereafter be forwarded, in the second control
phase,  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  Either  institution  may,  within  a  set
deadline, express opposition to the Commission’s draft implementing measure, in which case
the  Commission  may  either  submit  a  legislative  proposal  or  proceed  to  adopt  the
implementing measure, possibly amended in the light of the positions of Parliament and the
Council. This  procedure  is  complemented  by  an  urgency  procedure,  allowing  implementing

25

26

27

28

COM (2001) 645
Interinstitutional agreement of 28.11.2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal
acts. Published in Official Journal C 77 of 28.03.2002 (p. 1-3)
Council Decision 1999/468/EC.
COM (2002) 719

16

                                                
measures  to  enter  into  force  before  the  legislator’s  controls  take  place.  This  change  to
“comitology” procedures will be transitional in nature, pending a new system of delegation of
implementing powers based on a revision of the treaties (see point 3.4.).

3. The White Paper held that regulatory agencies in clearly defined areas of competence could
help improve the way rules are applied and enforced across the EC. Seeing a growing role for
regulatory  agencies,  the  White  Paper  proposed  certain  conditions  for  such  agencies  and
announced that the Commission would table a detailed framework for the creation, operation
and supervision of future regulatory agencies.

To  this  end,  the  Commission  has  presented  a  communication  setting  out  a  framework  for
regulatory agencies29 to facilitate creation of such agencies while safeguarding the unity and
integrity of the  executive function at the  EC level.  The  detailed  framework  foresees  criteria
for  the  creation  of  regulatory  agencies  (act  of  establishment,  legal  status,  location),  their
functioning  (scope  of  responsibilities,  governing  bodies,  status  of  director,  recourse
possibilities,  administrative  and  budgetary  procedures),  and  the  Community’s  control
mechanisms  over  such  agencies  (administrative,  political,  financial  and  legal  controls).  The
Commission has invited Parliament and Council to formalise a framework for the creation of
regulatory agencies based on the principles set out in its communication.

4. The White Paper outlined the idea of target-based tripartite contracts as a way of offering
greater  flexibility  with  regard  to  legislative  and  implementation  tasks  and  policies  with  a
strong territorial  impact.  During  the  public  consultation, many territorial entities  (regions  or
municipalities) expressed their interest in participating in the conclusion of contracts as soon
as  their  objectives,  nature  and  scope  were  clarified  by  the  Commission.  This  led  to  the
communication from the Commission on a framework for target-based tripartite contracts
between  the  European  Community,  the  Member  States  and  territorial  authorities30.
Making a distinction between target-based tripartite contracts (concluded in direct application
of  basic  Community  law)  and  target-based  tripartite  agreements  (concluded  outside  the
framework  of  European  law  between  the  European  Community,  represented  by  the
Commission, a Member State and territorial authorities), this communication  describes their
aims  and  scope.  As  to  implementing  procedures,  the  communication  proposes  an  enabling
clause  for  a  tripartite  contract  to  be  included  in  a  proposal  for  a  regulation,  directive  or
decision, together with the essential elements of a model tripartite contract or agreement. The
Commission,  initially,  envisages  launching  -  as  pilots  -  target-based  tripartite  agreements.31
Only after evaluation of these pilot projects would the Commission consider proposing target-
based tripartite contracts.

The  Communication  also  reiterates  that  the  governments  of  the  Member  States  indicate  the
competent regional or local authority and that target-based tripartite contracts or agreements
cannot distort the level playing field of the Single Market.

5.  Complaints  and  infringements:  The  process  of  collecting  input,  started  by  the  White
Paper  on  European  Governance,  on  the  subject  of  the  application  of  Community  law  was
based on the desire to improve the quality of Community legislation and its enforcement.

29

30

31

COM (2002) 718
COM (2002) 568
The  Commission  will  examine  the  possibility  of  financing  such  pilot  target-based  agreements  on  the
basis  of  article  48§2  of  the  new  financial  regulation,  which  incorporates  the  contents  of  the
interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline of May 1999.

17

                                                
The first aspect is covered by the Commission's Action Plan on better regulation. The second
relates to enforcement essentially through infringement proceedings and actions on failure to
fulfil obligations, and raises two principle questions:

– 

– 

To  what  extent  does  action  to  enforce  Community  law  through  infringement
proceedings  respond  to  requirements  in  terms  of  effectiveness  (the  result  of
good governance)?

How  can  this  effectiveness  be  improved?  Must  the  Commission  step  up  its
initiative? Can the exercising of the Commission's discretionary power to start
proceedings be made more effective?

law, 

the  Commission’s  communication32  on 

With  regard  to  the  Commission’s  priority  setting  when  investigating  suspected  breaches  of
Community 
its  handling  of  possible
infringements  establishes  a  new,  more  efficient  approach.  It  clarifies  where  formal
infringement  proceedings  will  be  launched  by  the  Commission,  and  where  alternative
approaches  to  breaches  in  Community  law  will  be  envisaged.  The  communication  also
provides  for  a  considerable  strengthening  of  the  Commission’s  preventive  approach  and
increasing  administrative  co-operation  with  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  a  proposal  to
guarantee access to justice at the Member State level.

Acknowledging  the  vital  role  played  by  the  complainant  in  detecting  infringements  of
Community  law,  the  Commission  adopted  a  communication33  on  relations  with  the
complainant  in  respect  of  infringements  of  Community  law.  In  line  with  observations  from
the  European  Ombudsman,  this  guide  codifies  the  different  administrative  stages  in  the
Commission’s  examination  of  a  complaint  and  makes  provision  for  complainants  to  be
informed of the outcome of the Commission’s examination.

6. In the White Paper on European Governance, the Commission, drawing on the experience
acquired  with  the  applicant  countries,  announced  that  it  would  propose  twinning
arrangements  between  national  authorities  in  order  to  encourage  the  sharing  of  best
practices  in  implementing  measures  in  particular  sectors  and  promote  awareness  of
Community  law  among  national  courts  and  lawyers.  The  Commission  intends  to  propose
twinning  arrangements  in  2003  with  a  view  to  modifying  the  "Twinning"  programme34
currently applied during a transitional period.

3.3. 

Contribution of the EU to global governance

1. The White Paper stressed that successful governance reform at home was needed in order
for the EU to make a credible case for change at global level; change to which it should be no
less committed.

2. The Commission’s action in the international field is guided by compliance with the rights
and  principles  contained  in  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  proclaimed  at  the  Nice
Summit  in  December  2000.  The  Charter  makes  the  overriding  importance  and  relevance  of
fundamental rights more visible to EU citizens and will also promote coherence between the
in  2002,  has  adopted
EU’s 

internal  and  external  approaches.  The  Commission, 

32

33

34

COM (2002) 725
COM (2002) 141
Managed with the support of the PHARE fund.

18

                                                
communications  on  a  global  partnership  for  sustainable  development,35  on  responses  to  the
challenges of globalisation36 and on corporate social responsibility37. At its most visible, the
EU  is  promoting  at  international  level  the  governance  principles  it  adheres  to  at  home.
The  EU  has  worked  towards  a  more  inclusive  globalisation  agenda,  seeking  to  ensure  that
market liberalisation  takes place in  a  broader  regulatory  framework  (WTO  -  Doha  meeting,
November  2001).  It  has  contributed  to  the  World  Conference  against  Racism  (Durban,
August-September  2001),  worked  towards  increasing  official  development  assistance  and
stressed  the  need  to  broaden  and  strengthen  the  participation  of  developing  countries  and
countries with economies in transition in international economic decision-making and norm-
setting  (International  Conference  on  Financing  for  Development,  Monterrey,  March  2002)
and, took  stock of and  reaffirmed  its  commitment to  the  implementation  of  the  internal  and
external dimensions of global sustainable development through a multi-dimensional approach.
In  this  context  eradicating  poverty  and  changing  unsustainable  patters  of  production  and
consumption are overarching  objectives  (UN  World  Summit  on Sustainable  Development  –
Johannesburg, August-September 2002).

The  EU  has  also  acted  to  ensure  that  no  genocide,  war  crimes  or  other  crimes  against
humanity can ever again go unpunished by welcoming the entry into force (July 2002) of the
Rome  Statute38,  providing  for  the  creation  of  the  International  Criminal  Court  (ICC).  The
EU39 confirmed its support for the early establishment and effective functioning of the ICC,
as well as its determination to encourage the widest possible international support for it. The
latter  concern  led  the  EU  to  propose  the  development  of  a  broader  dialogue  between  the
European Union and the United States on the matter. It also led the EU to develop, as one of
its  guiding  principles  for  Member  States  considering  the  necessity  and  scope  of  possible
arrangements with the United States, to address the desirability of the US re-engaging in the
ICC process.

3.  Less  visibly,  the  Commission  is  developing  its  dialogue  with  governmental  and  non-
governmental  actors  of  third  countries  on  the  use  of  new  tools  at  the  global  level  as  a
complement  to  “hard”  international  law,  and  on  promoting  discussion  on  how  the  EU  can
contribute  to  a  comprehensive  reform  of  multilateral  institutions.  In  this  way  it  is
progressively laying the foundations for future advances in mechanisms and co-operation on
global  governance.  The  issue  of  whether  and  under  which  conditions  third-country
governmental  and  non-governmental  actors  should  be  involved  in  the  development  of  EU
policy  proposals  was  addressed  at  an  international  seminar  organised  by  the  Commission.40
Orientations  from  the  discussions  with  third-country  actors  as  to  the  extent  to  which
participation  by  third-country  governments,  industry  and  civil  society  in  EU  deliberative
processes is legitimate or desirable confirmed the view set out in White Paper on Governance.
The overriding argument  in  favour  of engaging  the  views of third-country  actors during the
EU’s  deliberative  process  is  that  this  could  help  produce  better  decisions  and  lend  greater
force and credibility to EU action. At the same time, both EU and third-country actors accept
a  boundary  between  the  deliberative  and  decision-making  processes.  This  balance  has  for
example  recently  been  reflected  in  a  document  finalised  between  Commission  departments
and the United States Trade Representative. The Guidelines for Regulatory Co-operation and

35

36

37

38

39

40

COM(2002) 82
COM(2002) 81
COM(2002) 347
Adopted  17.07.1998  –  UN  Diplomatic  Conference  of  Plenipotentiaries  on  the  establishment  of  an
International Criminal Court (139 signatories).
General Affairs and External Relations Council, 30.09.2002.
“Trade, Governance and Sustainable Development”, Brussels, 24-25 June 2002

19

                                                
Transparency provide political support for voluntary cooperation between regulators on both
sides of the Atlantic41.

4. Against a background of discussions on regulatory  alternatives within EU policy-making,
the Commission42 has  also  examined  the  scope  of  “soft  law”  approaches  at  international
level. Initial results are causing the Commission to assess the global environment and policy
domains as less secure and less transparent than the EU environment, and in greater need of
“hard law” providing the necessary security and transparency. The Commission nevertheless
considers that “soft law” instruments could be examined as an innovative complement to hard
law, not as a substitute. This is notably the case with corporate social responsibility, a concept
which could be further developed as a potential successful business option.

5.  On  the  question  of  how  the  Union  can  contribute  to  a  comprehensive  reform  of
multilateral  institutions  and  improve  co-operation,  the  Commission  is  developing  a  more
comprehensive  and  strategic  approach  for  both  the  Commission  and  the  EU  in  its  relations
with  the  United  Nations  system  and  the  Bretton  Woods  Institutions.  The  Commission  is
seeking  to  consolidate  and  reinforce  systematic  EU  co-ordination  across  the  UN  system.  It
proposes  progressively  reinforcing  EU  representation  in  the  Bretton  Woods  Institutions  and
supporting policy coherence between the UN, the WTO and the Bretton Woods Institutions.
The EU can clearly play a role in promoting co-operation between institutions on the basis of
new  models  geared  to  responding  to  a  rapidly  changing  world.  But  its  role  should  not  be
limited  to  process  building.  The  EU  also  seeks  to  redress  inadequate  participation  of
developing  countries,  which  often  raises  the  question  of  the  legitimacy  of  international
organisations.  On  the  above  issues,  the  Commission  is  examining  the  creation  of  a  non-
bureaucratic policy discussion space in order to encourage a freer exchange of views outside a
formal ‘negotiating mindset’.

6. To exercise the responsibilities of a world power and contribute to global governance, the
EU  will  need  to  speak  more  often  with  a  single  voice.  With  regard  to  reviewing  (under
present  treaties)  the  EU’s  international  representation,  the  Commission  presented  an  initial
stance  to  the  Convention43  which  proposed  closer  co-operation  between  the  High
Representative and the Commission, the building up of the political role of the Commission’s
external delegations, as well as joint participation in some of the work of the Commission and
Council.  The  Commission  has  also  put  forward  co-ordinated  participation  in  European
Parliament debates, or even the presentation of joint initiatives and documents. In its second
submission to the Convention, the Commission44 proposed initial institutional change through
the  creation  of  the  post  of  Secretary  of  the  European  Union,  as  a  Vice  President  of  the
Commission  with a special  status.  The Secretary of  the  Union,  to be appointed  by  common
accord  of  the  European  Council  and  the  President  designate  of  the  Commission,  would
represent the European Union vis-à-vis third parties with regard to foreign policy and would
be responsible for implementing common decisions.

3.4. 

Refocused policies and institutions

1.  In  the  White  Paper,  which  was  based  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  unchanged  Treaty,  the
Commission  proposed  using  its  right  of  initiative  to  concentrate  more  on  the  coherence  of

41

42

43

44

The  Guidelines  on  Regulatory  Co-operation  and  Transparency  were  settled  under  the  Transatlantic
Economic Partnership (TEP), an EU-US trade initiative.
“Trade, Government and Sustainable Development” ibidem
COM (2002) 247
COM(2002) 728

20

                                                
policies  and  the  definition  of  long-term  objectives,  building  on  the  current  mechanisms  for
strategic  planning  and  programming.  The  Commission  also  announced  proposals  for  the
coming Intergovernmental Conference aimed at refocusing the Commission’s executive role
while  streamlining  and  facilitating  control  by  the  legislator  over  the  way  it  exercises  its
implementing powers.

2.  In  its  proposal  for  a  framework  for  the  creation  of  regulatory  agencies  at  Community
level, the Commission has aimed to enhance implementation and enforcement of Community
rules,  while  emphasising  the  safeguarding  of  the  unity  and  integrity  of  the  executive
function at EC level. The Commission’s proposal firmly establishes its own responsibility for
the exercise of the executive function and sets out the modalities for creation, functioning and
control of regulatory agencies in line with their public mission and operational autonomy.

Within  the  scope  of  the  present  Treaty,  the  Commission’s  proposal  to  review  comitology
procedures  by  more  clearly  separating  the  executive  and  control  functions  seeks  to
rebalance  and  strengthen  monitoring  of  the  Commission’s  executive  function  by  both
branches of the Community legislator (Parliament and Council).

Similar  objectives  are  also  underlying  the  Commission’s  second  contribution  to  the
Convention45  which  proposes  Treaty  changes  to  allow  for  a  clearer  distinction  between  the
legislative  and  executive  roles  of  the  Institutions  and  that  confines  to  the  Commission  the
principle responsibility for the execution of laws under the political control of the legislator.

3.  The  Commission  has  adopted  and  implemented  a  new  cycle  of  strategic  planning  and
programming, already envisaged in its White Paper on Reforming the Commission46. At the
beginning of the year the Commission adopts the Annual Policy Strategy (APS) setting out its
policy  priorities  for  the  following  year  and  specifying  the  most  important  initiatives  which
will contribute to achieving them. It is then possible to draw up budgetary guidelines for the
year  in  question.  Intended  for  discussion  with  the  European  Parliament  and  Council,  the
strategy  is  used  to  prepare  the  preliminary  draft  budget  and  the  legislative  and  work
programme of the Commission and other institutions for the year.

With an aim of better structuring and co-ordinating the political priorities and bringing them
to  the  attention  of  the  public,  the  Annual  Policy  Strategy  for  200347  exemplifies  the
implementation  of  this  new  cycle  in  line  with  the  philosophy  of  the  White  Paper  on
Governance.  The  General  Affairs  Council  has  welcomed  the  priorities  laid  down  by  the
Commission and the opportunity provided by  the APS to continue  the dialogue on strategic
planning  and  programming.  While  such  consultations  must  remain  without  prejudice  to  the
Commission’s right of initiative, Council has called on the Commission to take account of the
Member States’ comments, especially in drawing up its legislative and work programme. For
the first time the Commission has produced a mid-term assessment of its APS, in the light of
the  structured  dialogue  successfully  engaged  in  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the
Council48.  The  2003  legislative  and  work  programme  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  in
October 2002.

45

46

47

48

COM(2002) 728
COM (2000) 200
SEC (2002) 217
COM  (2002)  427,  Communication  “Stocktaking  of  the  follow-up  to  the  Annual  Policy  Strategy  for
2003”.

21

                                                
4.  In  the  White  Paper,  the  Commission  called  on  the  Council  to  improve  co-ordination
between  its  different  formations  and  to  strengthen  its  political  steer  and  coherence  between
EU measures and Member States’ measures. It also invited the European Council to focus on
strategic objectives, and the European and national parliaments to play a stimulating role in
the public debate on the future of European and Community policies. The European Council
meeting  in  Seville  adopted  measures  on  the  structure  and  operation  of  the  Council,
reinforcing  the  handling  of  institutional  and  horizontal  matters  and  follow-up  of  European
Councils.  The  number  of  Council  formations  has  been  reduced  and  co-ordination  between
them  is  thus  strengthened,  as  is  the  Council’s  scope  for  political  involvement.  The  Seville
European  Council  also  decided  that  the  European  Council  should  have  more  strategic
agendas.  On  the  basis  of  a  joint  proposal  from  the  Presidencies  concerned,  prepared  in
consultation  with  the  Commission,  and  on  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Affairs
Council, the European Council will adopt a multi-annual strategic programme for the next
three  years.  The  first  strategic  programme  will  be  adopted  in  December  2003.  At  the  same
time,  in  its  second  submission  to  the  Convention,  the  Commission  proposed  that  the  future
constitutional  Treaty  should  create  a  formal  decision-making  body  for  the  Member  States
which  are  part  of  the  euro  zone  which  would  function  as  the  “Economic  and  Financial
eurozone Council”.

22

4. 

CONCLUSION

With the July 2001 White Paper on European Governance, the Commission wanted to launch
a  broad  debate  and  inspire  action  in  pursuit  of  the  fundamental  objectives  and  principles
underlying good governance in Europe.

European governance is about the principles and tools for decision-making within the context
of  the  multiple  layers  of  players  and  decision-makers  in  Europe  –  from  the  European
Community, through the Member States, to regional and local authorities and private parties.
The  coexistence  and 
levels  clearly  constitute
unprecedented challenges.

intertwining  of  several  governance 

The  Commission  is  convinced  of  the  importance  of  improving  European  governance  and
takes the view that the basic objectives and approaches of the White Paper are supported, in
particular the need for:

– 

– 

– 

improving bottom-up involvement in EU policy shaping and implementation,

widening  the  choice  of  regulatory  instruments  to  respond  to  governance
challenges,

more focused European institutions with clearer responsibilities.

This report outlines the progress over the last 16 months. It shows that the Commission has
already  developed  and  launched  the  majority  of  the  actions  proposed  in  the  White  Paper.
Some  key  issues  raised  in  the  public  consultation,  e.g.  democratic  legitimacy  of  EU
institutions, will be addressed further in the Convention.

However, the potential for European governance will not be fully realised until the magnitude
of the challenges is recognised. In particular:

– 

– 

The White Paper stressed that European  governance must  be  a  joint effort  by
all players. The Commission thus refers to its earlier calls for action from the
other institutions and bodies, as well as the Member States and other public and
private  players.  Since  the  White  Paper  was  presented,  the  Commission  has
reiterated this call for more concrete actions, in particular in the context of its
initiatives for “better regulation” where the aim is to reach an interinstitutional
agreement.

The  European  governance  agenda  cannot  be  limited  to  the  Commission’s
White  Paper.  The  White  Paper  was  no  more  than  a  contribution,  and  was
specific to the time and circumstances when it was presented. The Commission
is  convinced  of  the  pertinence  of  the  issues  raised  and  of  the  basic  outline
proposed  in  the  White  Paper.  This  needs  to  be  taken  forward  in  continued
governance  work  and  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing  preparation  of  Treaty
changes.

In 2003 and beyond, the Commission intends to pursue the agenda set out in the White Paper
in  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  public  consultation.  The  Commission  also  intends  to  reach
agreement on initiatives already launched and to provide further governance inputs as part of
the reform of the treaties.

23

ANNEX I - THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The public consultation on the Governance White Paper ran over an eight-month period, from
25  July  2001  to  31  March  2002.  As  a  result  of  the  consultation  process,  260  written
contributions were received.49

The modest number of contributions may to some extent be linked to the fact that the “policy
process” (steering tools and decision-making mechanisms) is only one side of the governance
coin  –  the  other  side  being  EU  policy  itself.  A  number  of  contributors  questioned  in  this
respect  the  abstraction  made  in  the  White  Paper,  having  expected  the  White  Paper  also  to
address such important EC/EU policy domains as external policy, enlargement, or economic
and monetary union (EMU).

The White Paper’s governance concept as such drew reactions in more or less equal measure
from  public/political  authorities  (27%),  organised  civil  society  (22%)  and  socio-economic
players (22%). There was also a substantial response from the academic world (16%), while
contributions  from  individuals  accounted  for  13%.  Charts  1-2  illustrate  the  response  by
source  in  absolute  numbers  and  percentages.  The  response  from  public/political  authorities
consisted almost exclusively of contributions from local and regional authorities. 50

The  geographical  spread  of  the  response  was  more  uneven.  Apart  from  transnational
responses (29%), replies from the UK (23%) were predominant. Replies from other Member
States  account  for  anything  between  0%  and  11%,  while  the  response  from  non-Member
States  accounts  for  8%.  Charts  3-4  illustrate  the  response  by  Member  State  in  absolute
numbers and percentages.

The  institutional  response  was  mixed.  The  governments  of  Denmark,  Finland,  France,
Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  submitted  written  positions,
while  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of
the Regions forwarded opinions. The Council and eight  Member State  governments did  not
submit positions.

The  White  Paper’s  proposals  on  ‘better  involvement’  drew  44%  of  the  comments,  while
proposals on ‘better policies, regulation and delivery’ accounted for 32%. 19% of comments
addressed the issue of ‘refocusing EU policies and institutions’ and 5% were on the issue of
‘the EU’s contribution to global governance’.51 Charts 5-6 illustrate comments with regard to
the different White Paper themes in absolute numbers and percentages.

49

50

51

on 

are 

accessible 

the  European  Commission’s 

Contributions 
governance  website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm.  Further  reactions  and  exchanges  of  views  on
governance-related  issues  were  also  received  via  the  Inter-active  Policy  Making  (IPM)  tool  and  the
“Your Voice” site, as well as the interactive open debate on the future of Europe on the “Futurum” site.
For the purpose of the present report, the civil society category comprises citizens’ associations: NGOs,
consumer organisations, environmental  groups, cultural  groups, voluntary associations, churches,  etc.,
while  the  socio-economic  category  comprises  the  social  partners  ("management’  and  ‘labour’),
professional  organisations,  public  and  private  enterprises,  and  chambers  of  commerce.  The
public/political  category  comprises  public  entities:  predominantly  regions,  municipalities,  and  also
associations  of  regions  and  municipalities  as  well  as  Member  States,  while  the  academic  category
comprises both university contributions as well as individual academic contributions.
Most of the 260 contributions received contained comments on more than one of the proposed actions.
The sum of all comments on all proposed actions has been used to calculate the relative response to the
different White Paper themes.

24

                                                
Observations  concentrated  on  consulting  civil  society  (48%  of  comments  were  on  ‘better
involvement’), on reaching out to regional and local government (26% of comments were on
‘better involvement’), and on better regulation (49% of comments were on ‘better regulation,
policies  and  delivery’).  Some  issues  drew  a  cross-constituency  response,  others  triggered  a
predominantly  constituency  response.  For  example,  the  response  on  consulting  civil  society
brought  a  cross-constituency  response,  while  observations  on  reaching  out  to  regional  and
local  government  came  almost  exclusively  from  public/political  authorities,  i.e.  Member
States and regional and local authorities. Chart 7 gives the breakdown of comments by source.

Key messages from the public consultation

The  main  messages  from  the  public  consultation  have  been  analysed  in  terms  of  ‘content’
rather than ‘source’.52

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The public response largely supports the White Paper’s definition of the principles
underlying  EU  governance, 
i.e.  openness,  participation,  accountability,
effectiveness  and  coherence,  as  constituting  principles  of  good  governance.  A
number  of  contributors  have  proposed  additional  principles,  such  as  democratic
legitimacy and subsidiarity.

Some  contributors  commend  the  White  Paper  on  addressing  the  issue  of  low
citizen participation and involvement within the EU, considering however that the
causes  of  the  difficulties  are  insufficiently  addressed  and  the  solutions  proposed
inadequate.

Concern that the White Paper’s analysis and approach reflect a vision defined by the
Commission’s institutional self-interest and the role of the executive.

Some respondents perceived the scope of the governance agenda proposed in the
White  Paper  as  being  limited,  focusing  predominantly  on  the  effectiveness  and
efficiency of the decision-making system. The White Paper’s perceived ‘short cut’ of
equating  the  governance  debate  with  the  democratic  deficit  debate  sparked  off  a
significant  strand  of  contributions  on  democratic  legitimacy  in  relation  to  the
Institutions and some of the White Paper’s approach.

Support for (re)focusing on core functions and a task-oriented Commission.

Willingness  to  engage  in  consultation  and  participation  in  EU  policy  shaping
accompanied by a clear demand from organised civil society and from regional and
local players for concrete Commission action.

Via openness to wider participation in EU policy shaping

– 

52

Information,  a  prior  requirement:  Many  contributors  have  argued  that  prior  to
better involvement of citizens, there is a need for more and better information on and
from  the  EU  Institutions.  The  access  to  documents  regulation  (EC  2001/1049)  is
generally welcomed, but access to documents does not, in itself, constitute sufficient

Full details of the results of the public consultation, including a more detailed analysis of the correlation
between  respondent  and  subject  matter  addressed  and  the  orientations  proposed,  are  accessible  on
http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/ index_en.htm, the European Commission’s governance website.

25

                                                
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

information on the EU decision-making process. A major effort to inform citizens is
needed and would help to combat alienation and improve participation.

Clarity about the nature of ‘better involvement’: Ensuring more openness, better
involvement and participation  is widely endorsed. It is seen  a  means  of  reinforcing
accountability and therefore  giving strength and  vitality to  the  EU institutions. It is
distinguished from increased democratic legitimacy of the EU and its institutions.

involvement  of  civil 

should  not  undercut
Consultation  and 
representative  systems:  For  large  sections  of  the  respondents,  it  is  clearly
understood  and  to  be  stressed  that  consultation  and  involvement  of  civil  society
should not undercut representative systems.

society 

Civil  society  -  issues  of  representativeness  and  responsibility:  A  cross-
constituency majority is apprehensive as to better involvement being pre-conditioned
and  linked  with  greater  responsibility  and  accountability  for  civil  society  actors.
There is marked opposition  against possible  requirements  on  the  internal  structures
of  civil  society  organisations.  Civil  society  actors  consider  that  representativeness
should be ensured by the Commission by taking into account the full range of views.

Need  to  recognise  the  multi-level  nature  of  European  civil  society:  The
Commission  should  not  concentrate  on  transnational  structures  only.  Contributions
have in this respect stressed the danger of dynamic erosion of domestic legitimating
and participatory structures in favour of new transnational constituencies.

Reaching  out  to  sub-national  public  authorities:  constitutional  constraints
versus a willingness to engage: The proposals for better involvement of the regional
and local levels in both policy shaping (dialogue with regional and local authorities)
and  policy  implementation  (target-based  tripartite  contracts)  have  mainly  drawn
constituency comments which demonstrate interest but generally call for clarification
of  the  Commission’s  ideas.  The  response  shows  a  split  between  the  critical  or
sceptical  reception  by  national  governments  (the  Treaty  only  regulates  the
relationship between national authorities and the European institutions — involving
sub-national  authorities  in  EU  decision-making  is  therefore  seen  as  an  intrusion  in
the internal organisation of Member States) and the European Parliament, on the one
hand, and the positive interest from a majority of regions and localities on the other
hand. A number of contributions call for a direct permanent and structured dialogue
with the EU rather than through European and national associations.

Demand  for  “vertical  subsidiarity”  from  regional  and  local  players:  An
important strand of the response from regional and local authorities has put forward
the  concept  of  “vertical  subsidiarity”.  While  such  vertical  subsidiarity  would
necessarily have to be enshrined in a new Treaty, there is also concern that a “special
treaty status” for constitutional regions would only lead to further inequality between
regions.

An  enhanced  status  for  the  Committee  of  Regions  versus  reform:  Constituency
comments on the possible role of the Committee of the Regions have been divergent.
Some  contributors  have  argued  for  an  enhanced  status  for  the  Committee  of  the
Regions while others have advanced the need for a complete institutional overhaul in
order for the Committee to better represent “regions” and be more pro-active.

26

Towards better EU policy and lawmaking

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Better  policies  and  regulation:  institutional  primacy-efficiency  trade-off:  A
broadening  of  the  range  of  EU  policy  instruments  and  increased  use  of  non-
legislative  instruments  have  been  widely  endorsed  by  the  response.  However,  the
response also shows the need to reconcile two concerns. On the one hand, there is the
view  that  alternative  regulatory  models  and  non-legislative  instruments  have  often
proved  to  be  more  efficient  and  effective  than  traditional  legislation.  On  the  other
hand,  there  is  the  opinion  that  improved  efficiency  cannot  justify  a  transfer  of
decision-making competence to interested parties who would  not be  democratically
accountable.

Better  preparation  of  regulation:  The  commitment  to  publish  guidelines  on  the
Commission’s use of expertise has drawn a welcoming response. Contributors have
argued  the  need  for  sound  scientific  underpinning  of  policy  proposals  and  have
stressed  the  importance  of  independent  and  identifiable  advice.  Contributors  have
also  accepted  that  ex-ante  impact  assessment  will  contribute  to  the  balance  and
quality of decision making.

As regards the choice of policy instrument, opinion is divided. While one strand of
opinion – for reasons of clarity – opts for fixed rules on policy areas and their related
instruments,  others  opt  –  for  reasons  of  flexibility  –  for  the  choice  of  policy
instrument to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative regulatory instruments (co-regulation, self-regulation, open method
of  co-ordination):  A  large  part  of  the  public  response,  in  particular  from  socio-
economic  players,  is  in  favour  of  assessing  all  policy  instruments,  including  new
alternatives,  on  an  equal  footing.  Institutional  players  (the  European  Parliament  in
particular) are more reticent and consider that further examination is required.

Comitology:  questions  as  to  possible  reform:  Academic  and  institutional
respondents  have  voiced  opposition  to  the  Commission’s  suggestion  to  abolish
regulatory  and  management  committees  procedures  and  retain  only  advisory
procedures.  Respondents  consider  that  the  White  Paper  offers  no  alternative  to  the
Council’s control over the Commission’s executive competence. It is thought that a
shift in EU implementing competence will result in reduced democratic legitimacy of
decisions  taken.  Contributors  have  also  argued  that  abolishing  regulatory  and
management  committees  would  amount  to  the  replacement  of  consensus-seeking
procedures  by  unchecked  powers  for  the  Commission.  It  has  also  been  argued  that
comitology  reform  goes  beyond  the  governance  framework,  requiring  a  Treaty
change (Article 202 of the EC Treaty).

Regulatory  agencies:  reservations  on  dispersed  decision-making:  A  majority
strand in the White Paper response has expressed reservations about the creation of
regulatory agencies at EC level. Some contributors have pointed to the fact that the
Treaty  confers  powers  of  administration  on  the  EC  in  only  a  few  areas  in  which
Community administration is seen as the only effective means of implementation. It
is argued that the case for regulatory agencies at EC level remains to be made. Other
contributors  have  raised  the  issues  of  transparency  and  democratic  control.  Some
have  questioned  the  added  value  of  ‘additional’  intervening  layers  and  point  to  the
risk of even less comprehensible decision-taking in the eyes of citizens.

27

– 

The  respect  of  Community  law:  enlargement  the  main  challenge:  The
Commission’s commitment to codifying the complaints procedure is welcomed, but
some  contributors  have  voiced  concern  at  the  anticipated  decentralisation  in  the
handling of infringement procedures. The problems of a lack of awareness of EC law
among  the  legal  profession  in  the  Member  States  and  the  danger  of  conflicting
judgements  undermining  the  uniform  application  of  EC  law  are  stressed.  The
response has indicated that, in the case of transposition and infringement policy, the
major challenge seems to be the forthcoming enlargement.

On democratic, efficient institutions and European policy goals

– 

– 

– 

– 

The Community method: The White Paper’s adherence to the Community method
is broadly supported. The proposed focusing of the legislative role of the European
Parliament and the Council on essential principles, while leaving technical detail and
implementation  to  the  Commission,  has  drawn  a  substantial  response,  but  also
questions. It is suggested that the envisaged enlarged role for the Commission would
cover  many  policy  choices  below  the  level  of  “essential  principles”  which,
nevertheless, may remain highly political.

Warning  against  confrontational  strategies:  Contributors  have  questioned  the
White  Paper’s  idea  that  “the  Council  should  vote  as  soon  as  a  qualified  majority
seems  possible,  rather  than  pursuing  discussions  in  the  search  for  unanimity”.
Likewise,  contributors  have  pointed  to  risks  to  the  Community  method  by  the
Commission’s increased use of its prerogative to withdraw proposals “undermined”
by inter-institutional bargaining.

Refocusing  policies  and  institutions:  goals  and  competencies  to  be  clear:  An
important  strand  of  opinion  considers  that  EU  goals  and  competencies  need  to  be
spelt out in a basic binding text specifying the distribution of responsibilities between
the  decision-making  bodies  of  the  EU  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  the  Member
States and sub-national regions on the other. There is support for the Commission’s
call  for  the  refocusing  of  the  role  of  Community  institutions  and  the  approaches
proposed for the Commission itself to concentrate on core functions as caretaker of
the  common  interest  within  the  Community  method.  In  this  context,  respondents
have also argued that institutional solutions rather than the White Paper’s functional
solutions are needed.

EU  governance:  democratic  legitimacy  of  the  EU  institutions:  There  is  broad
recognition  that  the  principles  of  good  governance  should  not  be  equated  to
democratic government, as better governance cannot be the answer to a democratic
deficit  problem.  Part  of the public  response  argues that  the  key issue  is  democratic
representative
legitimacy,  which  presupposes  decisions  arrived  at 
deliberation.  It  is  generally  recognised  that  the  White  Paper’s  call  for  inclusion  of
more  players  in  the  policy  process,  while  necessary,  does  not  by  itself  lead  to
increase  democratic  legitimacy  of  policies  or  institutions.  In  this  respect,  it  is
accepted  that  governance  mechanisms  seeking  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  and
efficiency  of  the  decision-making  system  and  ensure  better  involvement  of  more
players will make the institutions more open, leading to increased responsiveness and
accountability of institutions.

through 

– 

Global  governance:  As  to  improving  the  effectiveness  and  legitimacy  of  global
governance  and  regulation,  contributors  have  welcomed  the  Commission’s  role  in

28

some  initial  reform  within  the  World  Trade  Organisation,  while  considering  that
much  remains  to  be  done.  Non-EU  contributors  have  notably  argued  for  the
governance principles applied by the Commission within the EU also to be applied
towards non-EU governments and interested parties.

29

CHARTS

Chart 1: Contributions to the White Paper — breakdown by source (total)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n
I

i

35

s
n
o

i
t

u
b
i
r
t

n
o
c

72

41

56

56

c

i
l

b
u
P

/
l

a
c
i
t
i
l

o
P

i

c
m
e
d
a
c
A

i

y
t
e
c
o
s

l
i

i

v
C

i

c
m
o
n
o
c
e
-
o
c
o
S

i

Chart 2: Contributions to the White Paper — breakdown by source (%)

Socio-
economic
22%

Individual
contributions
13%

Civil society
22%

Academic
16%

Political/
Public
27%

30

 
Chart 3: Contributions to the White Paper

Breakdown by country

69

54

26

16

13
13

11

10

EU transnational associations

International associations

2

United Kingdom

Germany

Italy

Spain

France

Sweden

Ireland

United States

Netherlands

Demark

Finland

Belgium

Austria

Romania

Hungary

Poland

Portugual

Russia

Canada

Greece

Norway

Czech Republic

Switzerland

Australia

6
6
5

5

4

3
3
2
2
2

2
1
1
1
1

1
1

Chart 4: Contributions to the White Paper — breakdown by Member State (%)

EU transnational
associations
29%

Spain

5%Denmark

2%

Belgium
2%

Finland
2%

France
5%

Greece
0%

Ireland
4%

Italy
7%

Netherlands

3%
Portugual
1%

United Kingdom
23%

Austria
1%

Germany
11%

Sweden
5%

31

Chart 5: Contributions to the White Paper

Breakdown of comments by theme (total)

310**

224*

133

38

Participation of
actors

Better lawmaking,
application of
Community law

Global
governance

Refocusing of
policies and
institutions

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Chart 6: Contributions to the White Paper — breakdown by theme (%)

Refocusing of
policies and
institutions
19%

Global
governance

5%

Better lawmaking,
application of
Community law
32% *

Participation of
actors
44%**

* half of which refer to the “better regulation” aspect

** half of which refer to the “consultation aspect”

32

Chart 7: Contributions to the White Paper - detailed breakdown by source of comments on 
the subjects addressed in the White Paper (total of 705 comments)

  Total

310 100%

148 48%

80 26%

41

16

25

224 100%

110 49%

20

35

36

8

15

38

38

133

44

71

18

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

i

c
m
e
d
a
c
A

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

i

c
m
o
n
o
c
e

i

-
o
c
o
S

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
c

i

y
t
e
c
o
s

l
i

i

v
C

l

a
c
i
t
i
l

o
P

Better involvement
Consultation

Dialogue (local actors)

Target-based contracts

Netw orks

Partnership agreem ents

Better policies, regulation and delivery
Better regulation

Impact analysis

Expertise

Agencies

Tw inning
Infringement of Com munity 
law /complaints

Global governance
Dialogue (third-country actors)/new  
instrum ents

Refocusing of policies and institutions
Refocusing of policies

Refocusing of institutions

Comitology

13

4

2

0

0

4

0

1

5

0

1

3

4

9

2

38

57

31

7

10

40

5

9

12

5

1

11

11

23

7

21

38

38

6

3

1

3

17

1

4

5

1

2

2

9

17

4

7

4

7

6

30

10

11

9

2

3

14

8

11

2

6

1

1

6

19

4

10

5

0

8

8

12

11

3

33

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II - USEFUL WEBSITES

CONSULTATIONS,  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMISSION  AND  CIVIL  SOCIETY
(CONECCS):
http://europe.eu.int/comm/civil_society/coneccs/index_en.htm

DIALOGUE WITH CITIZENS,CITIZEN SIGNPOST SERVICE:
http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/front_end/signpost_en.htm

DIALOGUE WITH BUSINESS:
http://europa.eu.int/business/

EUROPE DIRECT:
http://europa.eu.int/europedirect/en/index_en.html

INTER-ACTIVE POLICY MAKING (IPM):
http://ipmmarkt.homestead.com/

SG GOVERNANCE:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm

SOLVIT (effective problem solving in the internal market):
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/solvit/index_en.htm

THE FUTURE OF EUROPE - DEBATE:
http://europa.eu.int/futurum,

THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION:
http://european-convention.eu.int

YOUR VOICE IN EUROPE:
http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice

34