Report from the Commission to the spring European Council - Delivering Lisbon - Reforms for the enlarged Union
Date: 2004-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, economic policy, employment policy, investment, population ageing, productivity, statistics, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.2.2004 
COM (2004) 29 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM 
Point 2.5., premier paragraphe. 
Concerne uniquement le FR. 

Footnotes 5 et 7 et note en bas de la page 
annexe 1. 
Concerne les 11 versions linguistiques. 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE SPRING EUROPEAN COUNCIL 

DELIVERING LISBON 

REFORMS FOR THE ENLARGED UNION 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SUMMARY 

The European Union has been implementing the Lisbon strategy for four years and these have 
given rise to undeniable progress, instituting the transition needed towards a competitive job-
creating knowledge-based economy characterised by growth, social cohesion and respect for 
our environment. 

This fourth report shows the state of progress made since 2000. It invites the European 
Council to seize the opportunities provided by the economic recovery and by the coming 
enlargement, and to give the necessary impetus to carry the Lisbon strategy forward. 

Progress made 

The  analysis  of  progress  made  by  the  Union  and  by  the  Member  States  is  based  on  the 
implementation  reports  of  the  Broad  Economic  Policy  Guidelines  and  Employment 
Guidelines, and on the structural indicators proposed by the Commission and agreed on by the 
Council. 

The analysis highlights in particular the need for an energetic implementation of reform in the 
different  spheres  through  integrated  strategies.  Insufficient  implementation  of  the  Lisbon 
strategy could produce significant net costs for Europe: in terms of reduced growth, delayed 
improvements  in  employment  levels,  and  a  growing  gap  with  some  of  our  large  industrial 
partners in the fields of education and R&D. 

Studies and simulations, conducted by the Commission, have concluded that the simultaneous 
and integrated pursuit of reforms will produce an increase in the GDP growth potential of the 
Union in the order of 0.5-0.75 percentage points over the next 5 to 10 years.  

Apart  from  the  advances  made  in  certain  domains,  the  report  clearly  highlights  that 
measures taken at the European level are only part of the formula for putting the Lisbon 
strategy  on  the  right  track;  numerous  reforms  and  investments,  which  are  the 
responsibility of the Member States, have yet to be achieved. 

Indeed, in certain domains there are significant problems which hold back the entire strategy 
and which hinder the return of strong growth. What is more, the most important delays have 
been  identified  in  three  strategic  domains  which  are  crucial  for  growth:  knowledge  and 
networks, industrial and service sector competitiveness, and active ageing.  

Priorities for 2004 

With so much implementation still to be done, the Member States must now commit more 
firmly  to  pursuing  the  reforms  defined  since  the  Lisbon  European  Council.  Accordingly, 
the  Commission  proposes  that  the  European  Council  take  the  necessary  decisions,  while 
emphasizing the importance of swift action, in the following three priority areas:  

•  Improving  investments  in  knowledge  and  networks,  by  implementing  the 
‘Growth Initiative’, all the while giving greater priority to the level and quality of 
investments in research, education and training; 

•  Strengthening the competitiveness of European enterprises, by applying better 
regulation  –  particularly  for  the  industrial  sector  –  and  by  adopting  both  the 

2 

 
 
  
 
proposal  for  the  Framework  Directive  on  Services  and  the  proposal  for  the 
Environmental Technologies Action Plan; 

•  Finally, promoting active ageing by encouraging older workers to remain in the 
work  force  and  through  a  modernisation  of  educational  systems  for  lifelong 
learning, of work organisation, and of prevention and health care systems.  

Preparing for the 2005 mid-term review 

The Commission also invites the European Council to define the framework and method for 
preparation of the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy in 2005. Essentially, this review 
should focus on implementation and be based, most notably, on the next post-2006 financial 
perspective. 

3 

 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Seizing the opportunities to move forward.............................................................. 5 

Capitalising on the current economic upturn .............................................................. 5 

Benefiting from the added impetus of enlargement as well ......................................... 5 

Analysis of progress towards the Lisbon objectives................................................ 6 

Ensuring that public finances are viable ..................................................................... 7 

Employment and productivity still insufficient for growth........................................... 7 

2.2.1.  Employment still making only a limited contribution .................................................. 8 

2.2.2.  Productivity still too low .............................................................................................. 9 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Weaknesses in our internal market and competitiveness........................................... 12 

Growth still not sustainable enough .......................................................................... 14 

2.4.1.  Reinforcing social cohesion ....................................................................................... 14 

2.4.2.  Taking greater account of environmental concerns................................................... 15 

2.4.3.  Limited implementation of the sustainable development strategy ............................. 16 

2.5. 

The state of play ......................................................................................................... 17 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

Priorities in 2004: placing emphasis on investment, competitiveness and 
employment............................................................................................................... 18 

Maintaining the momentum of reforms already under way ....................................... 18 

Boosting investment to support growth...................................................................... 19 

Strengthening competitiveness in a sustainable economy ......................................... 22 

Focusing on reforms fostering active ageing............................................................. 25 

Preparing for the 2005 mid-term review ............................................................... 26 

ANNEX 1: PRESENTATION OF STRUCTURAL INDICATORS ...................................... 29 

ANNEX 2: MEMBER STATES SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS AND SHORTCOMINGS IN 
VIEW OF LISBON OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 63 

ANNEX 3: PENDING PROPOSALS IN LISBON AGENDA TOWARDS MARCH 2005.. 72 

4 

 
 
  
 
1. 

SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITIES TO MOVE FORWARD 

The European Union has been implementing the Lisbon strategy for four years and these have 
given rise to undeniable progress, instituting the transition needed towards a competitive job-
creating knowledge-based economy characterised by growth, social cohesion and respect for 
our environment. 

Nevertheless, the overall implementation levels and the progress made in Member States are 
still insufficient, and there are still major problems in some areas which are holding back the 
strategy as a whole and may inhibit the return to strong growth. 

The  European  Commission  therefore  requests  the  Spring  European  Council  to  give  fresh 
impetus  to  the  Lisbon  strategy  and  take  the  required  decisions  in  the  strategic  sectors. 
Everybody  needs  to  be  involved  to  enable  change  to  take  place.  The  year  2004  offers  the 
Union opportunities on this count which it must grasp if it is to make progress. 

1.1. 

Capitalising on the current economic upturn 

Economic  growth  in  the  Union  remained  disappointing  in  2003  for  the  third  year  running 
(0.8%).  Over  the  past  three  years,  the  average annual  growth  rate  has  been  in  the  region  of 
1.25%, compared with 2.7% for the second half of the 90s. 

Nevertheless, as a result of favourable conditions created by macroeconomic policies, steadily 
retreating  inflation,  interest  rates  holding  steady,  some  progress  on  structural  reforms  and 
reduced geopolitical uncertainties, the confidence of economic operators is starting to return, 
the  international  environment  is  improving  and  the  investment  climate  is  becoming  more 
sanguine. 

The  recovery  that  started  in  the  second  half  of  2003  should  therefore  continue  and 
gather  pace  throughout  2004.  The  real  growth  rate  of  gross  domestic  product  may  rise  to 
2% this year and approach 2.5% in 20051. There is a likelihood of revival with more sustained 
growth  in  the  European  economy  in  the  short  term,  thus  generating  fresh  impetus  on  the 
employment front. 

1.2. 

Benefiting from the added impetus of enlargement as well 

The Spring European Council will take place less than forty days before the enlargement of 
the Union on 1 May 2004. From now on, implementation of the Lisbon strategy will take in 
the ten new Member States, which are covered by this report and by the structural indicators 
as are the current Member States. 

Enlargement must be met with confidence. These new Member States’ entry into the Union 
will  help  stimulate  the  European  economy,  thanks  mainly  to  their  potential  for  growth  (4% 
per year on average), productivity and ability to attract investment. Furthermore, the creation 
of an internal market of 450 million inhabitants, 300 million of whom use the same currency, 
will lead to greater intra-Community trade and provide new opportunities for investment and 
industrial organisation which will benefit from the assets of not just the current but also the 
new Member States. 

1 

SEC (2003) 1222 final, Autumn Economic Forecasts 2003-2005. 

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
By way of defined common objectives, the Lisbon strategy should give powerful impetus 
to the convergence and integration elements underpinning enlargement. These objectives 
thus remain perfectly valid and relevant in terms of the Union's overall development.  

A  further  point  to  emphasise  is  that  the  Lisbon  strategy  can  in  some  ways  be  seen  as  an 
extension of the structural reforms already accomplished by those countries over a period of 
ten  years  and  more,  and  as  a  catalyst  for  the  work  still  to  be  done  to  attain  the  current 
standards and performance of the Union. However, the ground these new Member States need 
to  make  up  in  several  areas  should  not  conceal  their  good  individual  performances  in  other 
areas  that  are  sometimes  better  than  those  of  current  Member  States.  What  is  more,  these 
future Member States have greater potential for improvement – and more chance of catching 
up  –  thanks  in  particular  to  stronger  growth  and  higher  investment.  Through  their 
experience of reform and their desire to pursue this process, these countries will make a 
valuable contribution to the Lisbon strategy and its political momentum. 

The  economic  upturn  and  enlargement  therefore  offer  the  Union  a  potentially  favourable 
situation  which  it  must  exploit  to  the  full.  This  means  that  both  the  current  and  new 
Member States must commit themselves more firmly to implementing the Lisbon strategy 
and achieving its aims. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF PROGRESS TOWARDS THE LISBON OBJECTIVES  

Since March 2000 the Lisbon strategy has provided the Union with an effective governance 
tool and an appropriate action framework for achieving its goals. The overall progress already 
made in four years is proof of this. 

OOVVEERRAALLLL  PPRROOGGRREESSSS  MMAADDEE  SSIINNCCEE  22000000  

–  More than six million jobs have been created since 1999, boosting the total employment rate 
from  62.5%  to  64.3%  in  2002.  In  addition,  long-term  unemployment  has  dropped  sharply  in 
Europe, falling from 4% in 1999 to 3% en 2002. Lastly, the labour market reforms now under way 
are starting to bear fruit, with employment holding up relatively well in the face of slower growth.  

–  Several  key  markets  have  been  completely  or  partially  opened  up  to  competition: 
telecommunications,  rail  freight,  postal  services,  electricity  and  gas  markets.  This  process 
makes it possible to modernise and stimulate these markets, to improve service quality and to 
lower  costs,  with  no  negative  impact  on  employment.  Moreover,  a  single  European  air  space 
will become reality from this year onwards, enabling delays and congestion in air transport to be 
reduced. 

–  The knowledge-based economy is becoming a reality, with strong Internet take-up in 93% of 
schools,  as  well  as  in  businesses,  public  administration  and  households,  and  thanks  to  the 
gradual development of the European Research Area.  

–  The sustainable  development approach  is  being  taken  more  fully  into account  in  policy-
making. Several Member States have embarked on reform of their pension systems/schemes to 
cope with the ageing of the population. Similarly, Community action is now paying increasingly 
greater heed to preserving our natural environment. 

–  Finally,  the  work  done  over  the  first  four  years  has  enabled  some  one  hundred  regulations, 
directives and programmes to be adopted – in different fields but all pursuing the Lisbon goals. 

6 

 
 
  
 
However,  despite  these  initial  positive  and  encouraging  results,  there  is  still  much  to  do  to 
achieve  the  aims  the  Union  has  set  itself  for  2010.  An  analysis  of  the  progress  made2 
highlights the relatively positive developments but also the major problems which need to be 
tackled  urgently.  These  are  also  confirmed  by  the  reports  on  implementing  the  Broad 
Economic  Policy  Guidelines  and  the  Employment  Guidelines3  and  also  by  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee opinion delivered last December4. 

The Commission’s analysis identifies four factors: the need for public finances to be viable, 
the unsatisfactory contribution of employment and productivity to growth, the disappointing 
development of the internal market and, finally, the lack of sustainability of growth. 

2.1. 

Ensuring that public finances are viable 

So as not to jeopardise the incipient growth, while providing a suitable economic environment 
for  it  to  develop,  it  is  essential  to  maintain  a  stable  macroeconomic  framework.  In 
particular, fiscal policies in the Union must continue to be guided by the Stability and Growth 
Pact. Such management of budgetary policies can help sustain growth by stabilising inflation, 
reducing public debt and fostering consumer and investor confidence. 

Budgetary and fiscal discipline has not been kept to in the same way by all Member States. 
Thus, due to the weak economy – and also as a result of expansionary budgetary policies in 
some cases – the average EU deficit stood at 2.7% of GDP in 2003. It should also be noted 
that  these  policies  have  led  to  an  increase  in  savings  instead  of  the  desired  aim  of  boosting 
consumption, which has thereby reduced confidence. 

Furthermore,  more  has  to be done  to make national public finances viable in the medium 
and long term to guarantee sustainable  development of our economy  so as  to cope with the 
demographic  trends.  If  immigration  rates  remain  constant,  the  contraction  of  the  working 
population coupled with the costs of ageing is likely to bring economic growth down below 
2%  in  the  long  term.  At  least  half  the  Member  States  are  at  risk  here:  in  2003,  the  average 
level of government debt for the European Union is expected to rise to 64.1% of GDP, with 
six Member States exceeding the reference value of 60% of GDP. 

Against  this  backdrop,  several  States  have  undertaken  reforms  of  pension  schemes  and 
healthcare systems over the past few months to ensure that such systems are socially adequate 
and  financially  efficient  and  viable.  These  efforts,  which  are  heading  in  the  right  direction, 
must be sustained. 

2.2. 

Employment and productivity still insufficient for growth 

Growth in Europe has remained low over the past three years. As a result, the relative level of 
per  capita  gross  domestic  product  for  the  Union  remained  unchanged  in  2003.  The  Union 
cannot catch up on the United States as our per capita GDP is 72% of our American partner’s. 

The reasons for this insufficient growth are known: unlike in the United States, employment 
and productivity are still not contributing enough. 

2 

3 
4 

This  analysis  is  partially  based  on  the  14  structural  indicators  proposed  by  the  Commission 
(COM(2003) 585) adopted by the Council on 8 December. The entire set of structural indicators can be 
consulted at http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/dsis/structind/info/data/index.htm 
COM(2004) 20 final and COM(2004) 24 final. 
See European Economic and Social Committee opinion 1698/2003. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Employment and productivity levels in the EU - 2003

)
0
0
1
=
U
E

(
d
e
y
o
p
m
e

l

n
o
s
r
e
p
r
e
p
y
t
i
v

i
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
r
u
o
b
a
L

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

LU

IE

EU15

DE

IT

BE

FR

ES

GR

US

FI

AT

DK

NL

UK

SE

PT

EU target 2010

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Source: Eurostat

Em ploym ent rate

Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have already exceeded the 2010 
total employment rate target, while having a level of productivity that is close to or just below 
the  European  average.  In  Germany,  Austria  and  Finland  the  employment  rate  is  still  below 
target, but productivity levels are close to the Union average. Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy 
and Luxembourg are countries with relatively high productivity levels, but with employment 
rates that are still well below the 2010 target. In Greece, Spain and Portugal the employment 
rate  is  still  below  the  70%  EU  target  and  labour  productivity  is  below  the  Union  average. 
However, this situation needs to be seen in the light of the strong progress made by Spain and 
Greece5 these past few years. 

2.2.1.  Employment still making only a limited contribution 

At the start of the slowdown, employment held up quite well and the rise in unemployment 
was limited. This outcome is explained partly by the relative stability of employment in the 
services  sector,  combined  with  the  initial  effects  of  the  labour  market  reforms  launched  or 
continued in certain Member States.  

However, the effects of the economic downturn are now being felt on employment. The euro 
area recorded a loss of some 200 000 jobs (in net terms) in 2003, the first decline since 1994. 
Given  the  sluggish  recovery  and  some  persistent  inflexibilities,  very  little  job  creation  is 
foreseen for 2004 and the unemployment rate should continue to rise slightly to 8.2% in 2004 
(9.1% in the euro area), before heading downwards in 20056. 

Against this background, it is vital for employment to make a greater contribution to growth 
in Europe, in keeping with the targets set since 2000. At present, employment rates are still 
too low and a greater effort needs to be made by the Member States. 

–  The  overall  employment  rate  settled  at  64.3%  in  2002,  as  against  62.5%  in  1999. 
Despite  a  1.8  point  advance  in  three  years,  it  will  not  prove  possible  to  achieve  the 

5 
6 

Cf. Graph “Employment and productivity developments-1999-2003”, Annex 1. 
SEC (2003) 1222 final, Autumn Economic Forecasts 2003-2005. 

8 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
intermediate target of 67% in 2005 for the Union as a whole. Nevertheless, the 70% target 
laid down for 2010 is still realistic if the economic upturn feeds through into rates as high 
as those at the end of the 90s. Furthermore, and mainly because they were unable to create 
enough jobs, the new Member States had an average employment rate of just 57% in 2001, 
but  with  the  Czech  Republic,  Cyprus  and  Slovenia  already  bettering  the  current 
Community  average.  This  situation,  which  is  on  the  whole  disappointing,  can  mainly  be 
accounted for by the persistence of structural obstacles in labour markets and by the overly 
low participation rate of older workers. 

–  The  trend  in  the  employment  rate  of  workers  aged  between  55  and  64  is  indeed 
worrying.  Although  it  has  improved  by  three  points  since  1999,  settling  at  40.1%  in 
2002, about another seven million jobs are needed for this age group in order to achieve 
the target of 50% in 2010. Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy have the worst record on this 
score. This needs to be examined in parallel with the increase in the average age at which 
people  leave  the  labour  market,  which  rose  from  60.4  in  2001  to  60.8  in  2002.  This 
situation is all the more worrying given that the average rate for the new Member States is 
as  low  as  30%.  These  two  objectives  are  a  long  way  from  being  achieved  at  the  current 
pace.  The  Union  must  take  action  to  promote  and  ensure  active  ageing  of  the  labour 
force if it is to succeed on this score. 

–  The rate of female employment is growing proportionately more quickly than the average 
employment rate, thereby doing something to close the serious structural gap. The increase 
of 2.7 points in three years, with the rate in 2002 standing at 55.6%, means the objective of 
60%  in  2010  remains  realistic.  The  corresponding  figure  for  the  new  Member  States  in 
2001  was  50.1%  on  average.  Parallel  to  this,  some  headway  has  been  made  on  the 
availability  and  accessibility  of  care  facilities  for  children  under  three  years  of  age. 
However, as stressed by the report on equal opportunities for men and women presented to 
the  Spring  European  Council,  women  continue  to  be  more  vulnerable  to  unemployment 
and  inactivity.  Furthermore,  the  gender  discrimination  situation  on  the  job  market, 
especially in terms of different pay rates, has hardly improved these past few years. 

–  The European Employment Task Force headed by Wim Kok shared this view of things in 

the report it handed to the Commission last November. 

2.2.2.  Productivity still too low 

Productivity, the second factor in growth, is still not making enough of a contribution either. 
The  growth  rate  in  productivity  per  employed  person  in  Europe  has  been  going  down 
since the mid-Nineties and is now fluctuating between 0.5% and 1% (as against 2% in the 
United States). As a result, the European Union's efforts to catch up with the United States are 
at a standstill. Luxembourg, Ireland and Belgium have the best results. 

The hourly productivity rate has remained stable on the whole, still representing almost 90% 
of that in the United States, although it is particularly low in Portugal, Greece, Spain and the 
United Kingdom. What is more, it is interesting to note that although the new Member States’ 
productivity per employee is less than half of the Union’s current average, all these countries 
have strong growth in productivity which is higher than the Community average. 

The  low  growth  in  overall  productivity  in  Europe  is  due  in  particular  to  two  main 
factors:  the  contribution  of  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICTs)  is  too 
low  and  investment  is  inadequate.  The  Union’s  efforts  to  increase  its  productivity  must 

9 

 
 
  
 
focus on these priorities in order for us to remain competitive with the United States and also 
more globally with other partners, particularly China and India. 

Lower contribution from information and communication technologies 

The  contribution  of  information  and  communication  technologies  to  productivity  growth  is 
less  than  half  of  that  found  in  the  United  States.  This  is  largely  due  to  take-up  and  use  of 
these  technologies  still  being  too  slow  in  certain  service  sectors  (financial  sector  and 
wholesale and retail trade) and in certain sectors of industry. This is particularly manifest in 
Belgium, Spain and France whilst Denmark and the United Kingdom are performing better on 
this  score.  The  new  Member  States,  however,  are  benefiting  from  major  investment  in  this 
sector  which  is  enabling  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  to  spread  more 
widely. 

This situation is a result of inadequate investment in these technologies and in accompanying 
measures for training and organisational reform in companies. 

Falling investment overall… 

Investment  right  across  the  spectrum  is  the  key  to  prospects  for  growth  in  the  medium  and 
long term. However, investment by businesses fell from 18.3% of GDP in 2000 to 17.2% in 
2002. Faltering investment is also making itself felt in the new Member States, though foreign 
direct investment is still high and accounts for between 1.5% of GDP in Lithuania and 5% in 
Estonia. 

The same applies to public investment which, in terms of percentage of GDP, was in decline 
in the Union during the 90s and is now far lower than in the United States (3.3% as against 
2.4% in 2003). This overall slowdown is all the more worrying as it works to the detriment 
of the priority areas identified by the Lisbon strategy: projects of European interest, such 
as  transnational  network  infrastructures  and  the  knowledge  sector  (research,  innovation, 
education and training).  

In this respect, the European Growth Initiative and the Quick Start Programme, which 
have been given the green light by the European Council, are a major source of leverage to 
unlock investment in the infrastructure and knowledge sectors. 

TTHHEE  QQUUIICCKK  SSTTAARRTT  PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE  

The Quick Start Programme is at the very heart of the European Initiative for Growth. It sets out to 
mobilise  political  commitments  and  resources  behind  priority  investment  projects  of  European 
interest. This programme, which could develop further if other projects keep to the criteria laid down, 
covers  54  “ready-to-go"  cross-border  investment  projects  chosen  together  with  the  European 
Investment  Bank  after  in-depth  assessment  of  priorities  and  needs  based  on  objective  and  clear 
criteria, and taking account of the potential financing sources at Community and national levels. 

–  31 projects with €38 billion until 2010 for cross-border sections of TEN transport network. No 

new set of priorities but identifies segments ready to go within 3 years. 

–  15 projects with €10 billion until 2010 in key TEN energy projects. 

–  8  projects  with  €14  billion  for  high-speed  and  mobile  communications  networks,  R&D  and 

innovation. 

–  Total of €10 billion per annum (€6 billion from Union and national budget sources, i.e. around 
0.05% of the Union’s GDP). 60/40 split between public and private financing. Private financing 
needs regulatory reforms and innovative financial tools from the EC budget and from the EIB 
Group. There is little margin for a further reallocation within the existing financial perspective. 

10 

 
 
  
 
… especially in research and innovation… 

In  general,  measures  to  increase  the  volume  of,  and  improve  the  environment  for,  research 
investment have been fragmented and sluggish. Latest available figures (2001) show overall 
R&D investment in the Union to be approaching 2% of GDP, but at an average annual growth 
rate  of  4%  (1997-2002)  which  is  wholly  insufficient  to  meet  the  3%  target  by  2010.  While 
most  Member  States  and  acceding  countries  have  adopted  targets  for  increasing  research 
spending, few of them have been able to translate these into budgetary terms, and efforts to 
make spending more efficient are often needed. 

Furthermore, despite steady progress, such as the setting-up of several European technology 
platforms,  the  European  Research  Area  is  not  fully  developed  yet.  In  this  context,  the 
adoption  of  the  Action  Plan  for  “Investing  in  Research”  by  the  Council  in  2003  is  a  first 
important step towards this goal7. Finally, if current trends persist Europe will be faced with 
major shortages in highly qualified research staff. While the number of researchers in the 
Union rose slightly from 5.4 per 1000 workforce in 1999 to 5.7 in 2001, this is well below the 
level in countries that are near or on the EU 3% R&D investment target (USA 8.1/1000; Japan 
9.1/1000)8. 

… and in education and training 

Investment – both public and private – in human capital is still inadequate. Whereas the 
level  of  public  expenditure  on  education  as  a  proportion  of  GDP  in  the  Union  (4.9%)  is 
comparable to that in the United States (4.8%) and even superior to that in Japan (3.6%), the 
level  of  private  investment  is  markedly  inferior9.  The  private  sector  contributes  three  times 
more  in  Japan  and  five  times  more  in  the  United  States  than  in  Europe.  Recent  studies 
demonstrate that one additional year of schooling can increase aggregate productivity by 6.2% 
for a typical European country. This improvement is particularly marked in Southern Europe, 
reaching 9.2% for Portugal10. 

But  simply  raising  the  overall  level  of  investment  in  human  resources  will  not  be  enough: 
there is a clear need to invest more effectively, that is, to identify and invest in those areas of 
education  and  training  which  produce  the  greatest  returns11.  In  this  respect  the  Council 
adopted reference levels last May to organise  the  reform  of  education and training systems. 
The  draft  joint  report,  which  the  Council  and  the  Commission  must  submit  to  the  Spring 
European Council, shows that the Union has much ground to make up. 

7 
8 
9 

10 

11 

COM(2003) 226 final, Investing in research: an action plan for Europe. 
Sources: Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators and Key Figures 2003. 
COM(2003)  685  final,  Education  and  Training  2010  –  The  success  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy  hinges  on 
urgent reforms (draft joint interim report). 
Source: "Human Capital in a global and knowledge-based economy": A. de la Fuente and A. Ciccone. 
Research for DG Employment and Social Affairs 2003. 
See “Investing Efficiently in Education and Training: an Imperative for Europe”, COM(2002) 779 final 
and  “The  EU  Economy:  2003  Review”,  (Chapter  4  on  Education,  Training  and  Growth), 
ECFIN/391/03. 

11 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EEUURROOPPEE  OOFF  KKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEE::  RREEFFEERREENNCCEE  LLEEVVEELLSS  FFOORR  EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN//TTRRAAIINNIINNGG  

–  The proportion of adults aged from 25 to 64 with upper secondary education rose from 55.4% 
in  1995  to  64.6%  in  2002.  As  regards  the  20-24  year-old  category,  the  average  for  the  new 
Member States is much higher than that of the current Union (86% versus 73%). 

–  The  percentage  of  young  people  dropping  out  of  the  school  system  without  any 
qualifications was 18.1% in 2003. However, this is still a long way away from the target of 10% 
by  2010,  and  the  rate  remains  very  high  in  Portugal  (41.1%  in  2003),  which  calls  for  urgent 
action. 

–  Adult participation in life-long learning and training has increased a lot over the past few years, 
reaching 8.5% in 2002. Nevertheless, the aim of raising this rate to 12.5% by 2010 will require 
major efforts, via customised national strategies in particular. 

–  17.2%  of  young  Europeans  aged  15  do  not  have  the  minimum  necessary  skills  (reading, 

writing, arithmetic). 

2.3.  Weaknesses in our internal market and competitiveness 

Inadequate investment in the strategic areas of research and innovation is also undermining 
our competitiveness. At the same time, it is vital for the internal market to function properly 
to create an environment which is conducive to dynamic entrepreneurship and to make our 
economy more competitive. Despite the successes of the past decade, the internal market 
has  still  not  reached  all  its  potential.  There  are  several  warning  signs  which  need  to  be 
dealt with urgently12. 

–  The  Union  is  facing  a  slowdown  in  its  product  market  integration.  Cross-border 
manufacturing trade has stalled, growing only by 2.5% in 2001 and then shrinking by 0.3% 
in 2002. In addition, prices across the Union have stopped converging in the last five to six 
years. Cross-border investment is also low. Furthermore, there are still too many technical 
obstacles preventing goods from circulating freely. Finally, consumer lack of confidence 
in cross-border transactions and electronic commerce is undermining the potential of free 
cross-border competition to increase our competitive edge.  

–  The  internal  market  is  still  highly  fragmented  in  the  services  sector,  especially  in 
distribution  and  retail  sales.  The  services  sector  accounts  for  70%  of  GDP.  But 
companies  and  consumers  continue  to  suffer  from  many  restrictions  on  establishing 
businesses  and  the  provision  of  cross-border  services.  This  seriously  restricts  the 
European economy’s competitiveness. 

–  Market  opening  in  network  industries  is  not  yet  fully  implemented  and  the  benefits 
relating to efficiency, inter-connectivity and security of supply in the Union have not yet 
been realised. The situation appears to vary considerably between Acceding Countries. A 
majority  of  Acceding  Countries  have  deregulated  their  telecom  markets.  Slovenia  and 
Poland have already opened up more than half of their electricity markets for competition. 
However,  in  many  Acceding  Countries,  effective  competition  in  these  sectors  is  still 
lacking.  

–  At the same time, several strategic measures to increase our competitiveness have not 
got off the ground because of a lack of political will. Reforms such as the Community 
patent, recognition of professional qualifications in the Union, enforcement of intellectual 

12 

COM(2004) 22 final; Implementation Report on the Internal Market Strategy (2003-2006). 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
property  rights  and  the  definition  of  a  consolidated  common  base  for  taxing  company 
profits are currently still lacking for internal market development.  

–  Finally, the rate of transposition of directives linked to the internal market has fallen 
appreciably  over  the  past  few  months,  going  from  98.2%  in  May  2002  to  97.3%  in 
November  2003.  Ireland  and  Portugal  have  made  the  most  progress  whilst  Belgium’s 
deficit  has  greatly  increased.  Only  Denmark,  Spain,  Finland,  Ireland  and  the  United 
Kingdom  have  kept  to  the  transposition  target  of  98.5%  set  in  Barcelona.  Belgium, 
France  and  Germany  register  96.5%,  with  over  53  directives  delayed.  Furthermore, 
Denmark,  Finland  and  Portugal  are  the  only  Member  States  without  any  transposition 
delays exceeding two years. The situation is even worse for directives adopted under the 
Lisbon strategy. 

TTRRAANNSSPPOOSSIITTIIOONN  OOFF  ““LLIISSBBOONN””  DDIIRREECCTTIIVVEESS  

The  Union  has  adopted  over  70  directives  under  the  Lisbon  strategy13,  which  should  make 
for  greater  harmonisation  and  a  joint  regulatory  framework  that  helps  reinforce  the  internal 
market, our competitiveness and, in the final analysis, our potential for growth. Forty directives 
should have been transposed by the end of 2003. 

–  Member  States’  average  transposition  rate  for  these  40  directives  is  only  58.3%,  i.e.  a 

very poor showing.  

–  Denmark,  Spain  and  Italy  have  the  best  records  (from  85  to  75%  of  “Lisbon”  directives 
transposed), while France, Germany and Greece are the furthest behind (from 42 to 35%). 

–  Only 7 out of these 40 directives have been transposed by all Member States. 

–  Not transposing these directives means delaying reforms the Union needs desperately: 
e-commerce,  electronic  communications,  postal  services,  first  railway  package,  renewable 
energies in the electricity market, etc. 

–  Over  and  above  transposition,  which  is  the  bare  minimum,  Member  States  also  have  a 
duty  to  actually  implement  these  provisions  to  guarantee  that  the  reforms  take  effect. 
However,  the  number  of  open  infringement  procedures  is  still  over  one  thousand  and 
their number has been decreasing by no more than 3% over the past few years. 

However, we should also look at the developments or advances in the right direction which 
should be sustained and intensified. 

–  The  fragmentation  of  our  financial  markets  remains  one  of  the  key  disadvantages  of  EU 
businesses, particularly when compared to the United States. Good progress has, however, 
been achieved on the Financial Services Action Plan which is now in its home straight. 
A  few  key  measures  still  need  to  be  adopted  shortly  to  meet  the  European  Council's 
commitment of completing the Action Plan by 2005. The key to reaping the full benefits 
lies in timely and correct implementation of the measures and in their effective application. 

–  Elimination  of  fiscal  distortions  remains  a  priority  so  as  to  improve  company 
competitiveness.  Some  progress  has  been  made  on  this.  For  one  thing,  the  tax  package 
aimed at reducing distortions within the internal market has been adopted. For another, the 
tax  scheme  applicable  to  dividends  between  parent  companies  and  subsidiaries  has  been 
changed so as to eliminate any form of double taxation and fiscal obstacles to cross-border 
activities. 

13 

The  list  of  directives  and  the  Member  State  transposition  scoreboard  are  available  at  the  “Lisbon 
Strategy” website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/index_en.html. 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
–  A  favourable  regulatory  environment  is  likewise  essential  if  competitiveness  is  to 
increase. From this point of view, the conclusion in 2003 of the interinstitutional accord on 
"Better  Lawmaking"  should  help  make  the  Community's  regulatory  framework  more 
effective, more flexible and simpler. The Commission’s introduction of an impact analysis 
tool  and  the  formulation  of  alternative  regulatory  instruments  –  such  as  coregulation  and 
self-regulation – constitute important steps forward that ought to be exploited.  

–  Finally,  it  is  vital  to  maintain  a  strong-competition  policy  in  the  internal  market  to 
uphold  and  boost  our  competitiveness.  Progress  is  being  made  in  this  area,  especially  in 
reducing the average level of State aid (which is tending to stabilise at 0.7% of GDP) and 
in  having  it  redirected  towards  horizontal  objectives.  In  addition,  the  Council  has  finally 
managed to reach a political agreement on the legislative package concerning mergers and 
control of mergers which Member States now need to enforce quickly.  

2.4. 

Growth still not sustainable enough 

Strong growth based on higher employment and productivity must also be sustainable. The 
Lisbon  strategy  promotes  a  development  model  which  makes  it  possible  to  improve  in  a 
sustainable  manner  Europeans’  living  standards  and  quality  of  life  by  virtue  of  strong 
economic growth affording a high degree of social cohesion and environmental protection. 
The model is informed by a medium- and long-term perspective and places more emphasis 
on  the  linkage  between  and  mutual  effects  of  the  various  policies:  sustainable  growth 
requires that economic growth contributes to social progress and respects the environment, 
that  social  policy  shore  up  economic  performance  and  that  environmental  policy  makes 
economic sense. 

2.4.1.  Reinforcing social cohesion 

The European Council has set itself the aim of giving decisive impetus to reducing poverty 
by  2010.  However,  there  is  real  risk  of  poverty  increasing  in  several  Member  States, 
mainly  due  to  the  increase  in  unemployment  but  also  to  the  fact  that  the  social  protection 
and  pensions  systems  are  not  sustainable.  Despite  the  progress  made  in  the  Nineties,  the 
number of people facing the risk of poverty was still very high in the Union in 2001 – 55 
million, i.e. 15% of the total population, more than half of whom face this risk permanently. 
This  risk  was  higher  in  the  countries  of  southern  Europe  and  Ireland,  reaching  its  peak  in 
2001 (21%).  

This  phenomenon  is  very  closely  linked  to  unemployment  as  it  affects  38%  of  the 
unemployed. Large families, elderly women living alone, and single-parent (71% of whom 
are women) families. In the latter case, the risk is very high in the United Kingdom (50%) 
and in the Netherlands (45%). 

Under the Lisbon strategy, and on the basis of joint goals, the Member States have devised 
and  implemented  social  inclusion  strategies  since  2001  in  connection  with  the  draft  joint 
Council  and  Commission  report  on  social  inclusion14.  The  new  round  of  National  Action 
Plans (NAPs) shows significant efforts by most Member States to set national targets.  

14 

COM(2003) 773 final. 

14 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2.4.2.  Taking greater account of environmental concerns 

In  the  environmental  sphere,  Member  States’  performance  is  generally  inadequate.  This 
shows  a  lack  of  awareness  of  the  fact  that  growth  may  harm  the  environment  and  prove 
counter-productive in the medium and long term. 

On  the  one  hand,  more  efficient  use  of  natural  resources  contributes  to  the  economy’s 
productivity at the same time as  reducing environmental  degradation; reducing air  pollution 
and noise can avoid significant impacts on health; reducing transport congestion reduces lost 
time and therefore costs for both individuals and business. On the other hand, a more dynamic 
economy  may  lead  to  a  better  environment,  if  the  faster  turnover  of  the  capital  stock 
associated with more rapid growth results in more widespread diffusion of new technologies, 
which often are more energy efficient and thus less polluting than the equipment they replace. 

During the 1990s the European Union’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3.5%, or almost half 
of the Union’s commitment to reduce its emissions for the period 2008-2012 by 8% compared 
with their 1990 level. However, this positive trend has been reversed in 2001. Five countries, 
which represent more than 50% of EU emissions, are currently on course to meet their 
Kyoto  burden  sharing  agreement  targets  (Luxembourg,  Germany,  United  Kingdom, 
France  and  Sweden).  A  number  of  other  countries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Italy  and  the 
Netherlands)  still  have  not  turned  the  corner  and  have  emissions  above  1990  levels.  Most 
worrying  is  the  trend  in  Ireland,  Spain  and  Portugal.  Although  the  Burden  Sharing 
Agreement  allows  these  countries  to  increase  their  emission  by  between  13-27%  over  1990 
levels these allowances have already been exceeded. 

Improvements in the energy efficiency of the Union economy resulted in a decreased energy 
intensity  of  11%  during  the  1990s.  While  much  of  this  performance  can  be  ascribed  to 
exceptional  events,  such  as  German  reunification,  all  Member  States  have  reduced  or 
maintained  their  energy  intensity  over  the  period.  The  association  of  the  economic 
“catching  up”  process  with  an  equivalent  increase  of  energy  needs  does  not  seem  to  be 
inevitable, however, as is shown by the case of Ireland, where the strong economic growth of 
recent years has gone hand-in-hand with sizeable improvements in energy intensity. Despite 
these positive performances, during the 1990s total energy consumption continued to grow by 
an average rate of 1% annually. 

Moreover, the share of renewable energy remains low at around 6%. Latest projections clearly 
indicate  that  unless  additional  policy  measures  are  taken,  the  EU  will  fail  to  meet  its 
indicative target of 12% by 2010. It is also unlikely that the EU will be able to meet its target 
of generating 22% of gross electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010. 

Figures for 2002 still show no signs of a decoupling between GDP growth and rises in the 
volume  of  transport.  Some  countries  do  show  a  relative  slowdown  in  transport  volume 
growth, but it is possible that this is a temporary phenomenon and that the expected recovery 
in economic activity will also see a rebound in the transport sector. Many countries still show 
an increase in the volume of transport higher than GDP growth. 

Other  trends  also  show  reasons  for  concern,  such  as  soil  erosion,  biodiversity  loss,  air  and 
water quality. 

15 

 
 
  
 
2.4.3.  Limited implementation of the sustainable development strategy 

Efforts  towards  implementation  of  the  sustainable  development  policy  approach  have 
continued at European and national level. In line with the Gothenburg European Council, the 
Lisbon  strategy  underlines  the  effective  and  coherent  integration  of  economic,  social  and 
environmental  aspects  in  policy  developments  and  fully  exploits  the  synergies  between  the 
three elements.  

All  Member  States  and  the  majority  of  acceding  countries  have  adopted  sustainable 
development strategies. They should increase their efforts to further develop and implement 
these  strategies.  A  first  overview  of  existing  strategies  shows  that  they  are  highly  diverse, 
reflecting specific national contexts. The environmental dimension is a predominant theme in 
many  strategies.  However,  most  strategies  address  sustainable  development  in  its  three 
dimensions  and  include  explicit  social  and  economic  objectives.  Geographical  focus  also 
varies widely from one strategy to the next, with some focusing primarily or exclusively on 
domestic  priorities,  and  others  considering  global  issues  as  well;  and  with  some  giving 
prominence to the territorial dimension while others do not. Finally, some strategies are based 
upon  a  sectoral  approach  –  e.g.  transport,  agriculture,  fisheries  etc.  –  while  others  are 
organised  around  thematic  priority  issues  –  e.g.  climate  change,  biodiversity  protection, 
resource use, etc. 

At the European level, a review of the Gothenburg sustainable development strategy will be 
undertaken by the end of this year. This review will provide an opportunity to assess progress 
made  so  far,  to  consider  the  linkages  between  the  outcomes  of  the  2002  World  Summit  on 
sustainable development, the Union and the national sustainable development strategies, and 
identify priority actions needed to speed up the pace of reform. 

SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE  DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT  AANNDD  CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY  PPOOLLIICCIIEESS  IINN  22000033  

At  European  level,  great  efforts  have  been  made  to  enhance  the  synergies  between  policies  and 
longer-term sustainability. 

–  Reform  of  the  common  agricultural  policy  redirecting  aid  to  promote  sustainable 
agriculture, introduction of a single farm payment totally or partly unrelated to production activity 
and entailing the obligation to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition. 

–  Adoption of the taxation legislation on energy products. 

–  The  Commission  has  put  in  place  an  Impact  Assessment  tool  that  will  progressively  be 
applied  to  all  major  proposals.  The  tool,  which  combines  economic,  social  and  environmental 
analysis, has already been applied to important legislative proposals during 2003. 

–  The  most  visible  case  is  the  new  proposed  regulatory  framework  for  chemicals.  By  analysing 
potential  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  and  by  establishing  a  transparent  and 
broad  consultation  with  all  interested  parties  during  the  drafting,  a  cost-effective  and  balanced 
system has been proposed. 

–  Finally,  the  Union  has  set  itself  quantified  targets  for  renewable  energies  (22%  for  green 

electricity and 5.75% for biofuel in 2010). 

16 

 
 
  
 
2.5. 

The state of play 

The analysis of the current situation enables a distinction to be made between Member States 
with  relatively  better  overall  achievements  to  date  (Denmark,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and those that — according to the 
latest data available — are performing relatively poorly (Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal)15. 
After four years of the Lisbon strategy it is also important to compare progress of Member 
States since 1999. Belgium,  France  and  Greece  have  made rather good progress, while 
progress in Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal has been rather disappointing16. The 
detailed analysis indicates more clearly that there are still problems in all Member States 
and that all of them need to make a greater effort to achieve results. 

Annex  2  shows  the  performance  of  each  Member  States,  in  terms  of  progress  made  and  in 
terms of the principle areas in which reforms still need to be completed. 

Implementation, albeit partially, of the reforms under the Lisbon strategy seems to be starting 
to bear fruit as regards employment. Although the interim goal for 2005 will not be attained, 
the  employment  target  remains  valid  as  long  as  in  the  seven  years  remaining  until  2010 
employment  picks  up  at  a  similar  pace  to  that  at  the  end  of  the  90s.  Spain,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent Italy, have successfully maintained relatively rapid job creation since 1999. The rate of 
employment  amongst  women  has  made  fairly  good  progress,  partly  because  of  the 
improvement  in  child  care.  This  is  not  true  of  the  rate  of  employment  amongst  elderly 
workers where the objective for 2010 is probably out of reach, even though Finland, France 
and the Netherlands in particular have managed to increase this rate since 1999. Austria and 
Portugal have recorded disappointing trends in employment since 1999. 

As far as productivity is concerned, the trend has been fairly positive in the ICT sector but 
worrying  in  more  traditional  services  and  industries.  The  Commission’s  analyses  show  that 
there  are  four  areas  determining  productivity  trends  which  have  a  major  influence  in  the 
European Union apart from workforce ageing. These are the level of regulation, the structure 
of financial markets, the level of integration of product markets and the degree of investment 
in knowledge. Growth in employment productivity has been particularly rapid in Greece and 
Ireland since 1999 but disappointing in Italy and Luxembourg over the same period. 

An  analysis  of  the  indicators  mentioned  above  shows  that  there  has  been  fairly  steady 
progress in reforming the financial markets, stagnation in integrating product markets and, in 
particular,  an  alarming  trend  as  regards  investment  in  knowledge,  which  has  not  only  not 
increased  at  the  same  pace  as  our  main  competitors  but  has  fallen  over  the  past  few  years 
(although investment in businesses in Italy, Spain and Greece has increased relatively quickly 
since 1999). 

The  analysis  also  shows  the  importance  of  vigorously  implementing  integrated  reform 
strategies in various areas. Insufficient implementation of the Lisbon strategy could produce 
significant  net  costs  for  Europe:  in  terms  of  reduced  growth,  delayed  improvements  in 
employment levels, and a growing gap with some of our large industrial partners in the fields 
of education and R&D. Studies and simulations conducted by the Commission conclude that 
simultaneous  and  integrated  pursuit  of  these  reforms  can  produce  an  increase  in  potential 

15 

16 

See Annex 1, graph 15, which summarises the performances of all the Member States for the fourteen 
structural indicators. 
See Annex 1, graph 16. 

17 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
growth in the Union in the order of 0.5 to 0.75 of a percentage point of GDP within the next 
five to ten years. 

Finally, while some progress, particularly on the legislation front, has been made with regard 
to  sustainable  development  and  taking  better  account  of  the  environment  in  Community 
action,  the  Union  is  still  finding  it  difficult  to  capitalise  on  the  synergy  between  various 
policies,  especially  environment,  research  and  competitiveness.  At  national  level  overall 
performance in preserving the environment has been disappointing, with standards falling in 
certain instances since 1999. Furthermore, although the progress made on social cohesion has 
been fairly good in Spain and France, it has been inadequate in Portugal. 

3. 

PRIORITIES  IN 2004:  PLACING  EMPHASIS  ON  INVESTMENT,  COMPETITIVENESS  AND 
EMPLOYMENT 

The  Union  has  still  not  managed  to  achieve  all  its  objectives,  in  particular  due  to  Member 
States’ inadequate implementation of the reforms. 

The Lisbon strategy’s potential lies in both its integrated and targeted approach as regards 
the policies and reforms to be implemented, with each element reinforcing the others. It is 
only by adopting this integrated, coordinated and synchronised approach to reform that the 
results  can  be  optimised.  In  order  to  move  forward,  the  Union  must  therefore  undertake  a 
consistent action on these various priority fronts. 

The stock-take of progress made should prompt the Union to pinpoint the sectors in which the 
momentum of reform should be maintained, given a fairly encouraging trend there, and 
those requiring urgent action to correct a negative trend. 

3.1.  Maintaining the momentum of reforms already under way 

This assumes in particular that progress will be made in complying with the Stability and 
Growth Pact in 2004 and 2005, especially by the Member States carrying excessive deficits. 

The European Employment Strategy supports Member States in their efforts to implement 
structural  reforms  in  their  labour  markets.  In  this  context  the  Commission  adopted  its  draft 
Joint Employment Report, based on the analysis of Member States' National Action Plans for 
Employment and also drew heavily on the positive contribution of the Employment Task 
Force headed by Wim Kok. In this framework, the emphasis at EU level should now be on 
stronger  monitoring  of  Member  States’  reforms.  To  boost  productivity  and  employment, 
Member States and the social partners should implement the European Employment Strategy 
and give immediate priority to: increasing adaptability of workers and enterprises; attracting 
more  people  to  the  labour  market;  investing  more  and  more  effectively  in  human  capital; 
ensuring effective implementation of reforms through better governance. 

In  order  to  sustain  development  of  Information  and  Communication  Technologies  the 
Member States must define and implement national strategies for broadband networks, as part 
of the e-Europe Action Plan for 2005. 

As  regards  the  internal  market,  it  is  vital  for  the  commitments  made  by  the  European 
Council  on  transposition  to  be  complied  with.  The  same  applies  to  the  large  number  of 
infringement procedures. 

18 

 
 
  
 
Following the recent corporate scandals on both sides of the Atlantic (Parmalat, Enron, etc.), 
priority also needs to be given to the speedy implementation of the Action Plan on Company 
Law  and  Corporate  Governance,  which  aims  at  strengthening  shareholders'  rights, 
reinforcing  protection  for  employees  and  creditors  and  boosting  confidence  on  capital 
markets.  In  this  context,  the  Union  should  adopt  quickly  the  directive  on  statutory  audit  to 
tighten the oversight of auditors. Finally, the Commission will continue to work closely with 
the  American  Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Board  to  develop  an  effective, 
cooperative approach to the international regulation of audit firms. 

The  Member  States  must  also  sustain  their  efforts  to  reduce  and  redirect  State  aid  and 
introduce, by 1 May, the legislative framework allowing full implementation of the European 
anti-trust policy by the authorities and the national courts. 

In the social inclusion policy, the inclusion goals set in the National Action Plans need to be 
borne more in mind by Member States when setting overall expenditure priorities, including 
the  expenditure  of  Structural  Funds.  And  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  that  economic, 
employment and social policies are mutually reinforcing. 

In the environmental sphere, the Council and the European Parliament should adopt without 
delay the directive establishing the system of exchanging greenhouse gas emission quotas in 
the  Community  in  keeping  with  the  draft  Kyoto  Protocol.  What  is  more,  in  line  with  the 
commitments undertaken in Johannesburg, the Union and the Member States must reinforce 
their  endeavours  to  adopt  sustainable  production  and  consumption  models,  especially  by 
doing more in the environmental technology field. 

Finally, in the context of the external dimension of the Lisbon strategy, measures should also 
be  taken  to  enhance  export-led  growth,  in  particular  by  continuing  efforts  to  secure  a 
successful  outcome  to  the  Doha  process  and  broadening  and  strengthening  our  Positive 
Economic Agenda with the United States. 

At the same time, the Union must take urgent action to reverse the negative trend in several 
sectors,  viz.:  investment  in  networks  and  knowledge,  competitiveness  of  industries  and 
services,  and  active  ageing.  The  Commission  therefore  calls  upon  the  Spring  European 
Council 
investment, 
to  concentrate  on 
competitiveness and reform. 

three-pronged  approach: 

following 

the 

3.2. 

Boosting investment to support growth  

Given  the  generally  low  level  of  investment,  the  European  economy  needs  public  and 
private investment to be redistributed, stepped up and used more effectively in various key 
sectors  that  are  vital  for  getting  things  moving  again.  This  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
Stability  and  Growth  Pact  and  the  Broad  Economic  Policy  Guidelines.  In  this  light,  the 
European  Council  should  adopt  a  global  and  consistent  approach  to  raise  investment  level 
and effectiveness. 

The Union has already drawn on some of the potential offered by the financial instruments at 
its disposal to redirect spending towards aims pinpointed by the Lisbon strategy. These efforts 
will be sustained in 2004, especially at the time of the Structural Funds mid-term review, and 
in connection with the post-2006 financial framework. 

19 

 
 
  
 
SSTTRRUUCCTTUURRAALL  FFUUNNDD  CCOONNTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONN  TTOO  LLIISSBBOONN  OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS  

-  Nearly  80  billion  euros  have  been  disbursed  since  2000  to  support  three  of  the  Lisbon 
strategy’s chief aims: investment in human capital (20 billion), innovation and entrepreneurship 
(22  billion) and  linking  up  trans-European  transport,  energy  and  telecommunications  networks 
(37 billion). 

-  As  part  of  the  structural  fund  mid-term  review,  an  extra  8  billion  euros  from  the  performance 
reserve will be allocated to successful programmes before the end of March 2004, in keeping 
with the Lisbon strategy priorities (broadband infrastructures in particular). 

-  Furthermore,  the  structural  funds  will  also  greatly  contribute  to  implementing  the  Growth 

Initiative as it relates to high output networks, especially for schools and hospitals. 

-  Finally,  the  new  Member  States  have  received  guidelines  for  preparing  future  programmes 
that  focus  on  modernisation  of  networks,  the  environment,  employment,  research  and 
innovation.  

Implementing the European Initiative for Growth 

By  stimulating  investment  within  a  stable  macroeconomic  framework  in  two  key  areas 
highlighted  in  Lisbon  –  networks  and  knowledge  –  the  Union  can  send  out  a  powerful 
message to encourage the reforms under way. Last December’s European Council warmly 
welcomed the Quick-Start programme.  

In  the  medium  term,  such  new  investment  will  cut  production  times  and  transport  times, 
enhance  quality,  accelerate  the  pace  of  innovation,  boost  competition  and  generate  a  wider 
choice of where to set up in business. Development of broadband communication networks, 
including high output networks for research (GEANT), will help to promote high value-added 
on-line  services  and  the  dissemination  of  knowledge,  thus  stimulating  economic  growth. 
Furthermore,  this  should  also  benefit  cohesion  within  the  enlarged  Union,  because  the 
countries  and  regions  lacking  adequate  infrastructures  or  with  limited  access  to  knowledge 
and  innovation  will  thereby  be  given  the  chance  to  integrate  into  an  economic  area 
transformed by knowledge. Across the board, this greater investment effort in networks and 
knowledge  could  bring  about  appreciable  benefits  in  terms  of  greater  productivity  and 
enhanced job creation in the Union. 

All the players involved must now set to and implement the Quick Start programme. 

20 

 
 
  
 
IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN  OOFF  TTHHEE  QQUUIICCKK  SSTTAARRTT  PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE  

Member States 

– 

– 

Implement,  as  from  2004,  the  national  plans  in  connection  with  the  European  Initiative  for 
Growth concerning transport projects, research and broadband networks. 

In  this  context,  speed  up  the  preparatory  work  for  the  Quick  Start  initiatives  in  the  fields  of 
research  &  development  and  broadband  networks  by  2004  and,  where  projects  are 
sufficiently  advanced,  before  the  end  of  the  year  draw  up  the  financing  plans  needed  to 
implement them. 

–  Remove  the  technical,  legal  and  administrative  obstacles  to  implementing  public-private 

partnerships. 

European Investment Bank 

–  Deploy adequate financing instruments to provide leverage for private capital and arrange for 

securitisation funds. 

European Parliament and Council 

–  Adopt the second railway package before the Spring European Council. 

–  Adopt the revised guidelines for the trans-European transport networks before May 2004 and 

those for energy before March 2005.  

–  Adopt  the  revised  version  of  the  directive  on  HGV  charging  (“eurovignette”)  before  March 

2005. 

Commission 

–  Study  the  need  to  create  a  specific  Community  guarantee  instrument  and  present  a 

legislative proposal, if necessary. 

–  Designate,  in  consultation  with  Member  States,  European  coordinators  for  certain  cross-

border projects linked to the Growth Initiative. 

–  Present  in  the  first  half  of  2004  a  proposal  for  the  third  railway  package  to  open  up 

international passenger transport services and improve the quality of services. 

–  Present, in the first half of 2004, a green paper on public-private partnership. 

–  Evaluate, together with the EIB, implementation of the Quick Start programme up to 2007 as 

part of the annual report to the Spring Council. 

Boosting investment in knowledge 

The  Initiative  for  Growth  makes  an  active  contribution  to  developing  the  knowledge 
economy.  This  measure  should  be  extended  through  stepped-up  efforts  in  the  fields  of 
research,  education  and  training  which  are  not  contributing  enough  to  growth  and  our 
competitiveness. 

It  is  now  urgent  for  progress  to  be  made  in  implementing  the  action  plan  “Investing  in 
Research”, on which the Commission will report before the end of the year. Member States 
should give high priority to improving framework conditions and public support for research 
investment,  and  ensure  European  consistency  and  synergy  through  the  open  method  of 
coordination. In relation to this, they should ensure swift implementation of actions related to 
the  recruitment  of  researchers,  R&D  careers  and  the  public  recognition  of  researchers,  as 
agreed by the Council in 2003. In this context, the Commission has proposed a Directive and 
will present an Action Plan on the entry and stay of third country researchers to help increase 
the supply of highly trained researchers in Europe. 

21 

 
 
  
 
The  Spring  European  Council  should  give  a  decisive  fillip  to  investment  in  education  and 
training  in  order  to  enhance  development  of  the  knowledge  economy  in  the  medium  term. 
Measures  should  be  targeted  on  a  number  of  key  fields:  increasing  the  private  sector’s 
contribution  by  providing  specific  incentives,  reinforcing  life-long  learning,  and  improving 
the  effectiveness  of  national  education  and  training  systems.  The  available  resources  in  the 
Structural  Funds,  i.e.  the  European  Social  Fund,  and  with  the  European  Investment  Bank 
could  also  be  used.  These  priorities  are  also  highlighted  by  the  report  from  the  European 
Employment Task Force. 

IINNVVEESSTTIINNGG  IINN  KKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEE  

Member States 

– 

Improve  framework  conditions  and  public  support  for  research  investments  ensuring 
European consistency and synergy through the open method of coordination. 

–  Enhance the leverage effect of public support on private investments by a more effective use 
and  combination  of  financing  instruments  (grants,  fiscal  incentives,  guarantee  mechanisms 
and support to risk capital) and strengthen links between public research and industry. 

– 

Increase  the  efforts  to  improve  researchers'  recruitment  and  careers  through  applying  the 
open method of coordination. 

–  Present regular reports on implementation of the goals of education and training systems at 

national level.  

–  Define and implement national life-long learning strategies for 2005. 

European Parliament and Council 

–  Adopt,  before  March  2005,  the  proposal  on  recognition  of  professional  qualifications.  In  this 
context the Competitiveness Council should come to a political agreement before May 2004. 

–  Adopt,  before  the  end  of  2005,  the  proposal  for  the  framework  programme  on  life-long 

learning, to enable it to be implemented on 1 January 2007. 

Commission 

–  Complete the setting-up of the first series of European technology platforms. 

–  Prepare the revision of the Community framework on state aid for R&D. 

–  Present a proposal for a directive on the entry and stay of third-country researchers and the 

associated action plan. 

–  Propose  a  Harmonized  European  Fund  Legal  Structure  for  risk  capital  capable  of  ensuring 

transparency, from the fiscal point of view, all over Europe. 

Social Partners 

–  Promote  national  implementation  of  the  framework  of  actions  for  life-long  development  of 

competences. 

3.3. 

Strengthening competitiveness in a sustainable economy 

Competitiveness  is  a  key  element  of  the  Lisbon  strategy  and  remains  a  major  source  of 
concern for some Member States and businesses. 

The Union already has a strategy for boosting our competitiveness. Its implementation must 
now  be  stepped  up  and  priorities  set.  The  first  of  these  must  be  adoption  of  the  pending 
proposals as soon as possible in order to give a strong boost and positive signal to companies 
and investors. It is essential that this “competitiveness package” make headway, both at first 
and second reading, before the end of the present Parliament next May. 

22 

 
 
  
 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  just  brought  out  a  major  new  proposal  on  services17  to 
facilitate  cross-border  trade  and  simplify  the  regulatory  framework  governing  it.  Services 
constitute  the  sector  with  the  greatest  potential  for  the  internal  market.  Efficient  and 
competitive  services  help  increase  productivity  in  the  other  sectors.  As  stated  by  the  Irish 
Presidency,  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  give  priority  to  this  proposal  and  make  legislative 
headway on it. 

AACCCCEELLEERRAATTIINNGG  TTHHEE  ““CCOOMMPPEETTIITTIIVVEENNEESSSS  LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE  PPAACCKKAAGGEE””  BBEEFFOORREE  MMAAYY  22000044    

–  Adopt  the  regulation  on  the  Community  patent  and  reach  a  political  agreement  on  the 

instruments relating to the jurisdictional aspects. 

–  Reach a political agreement in Council on the recognition of professional qualifications. 

–  Make  headway  with  the  financial  services  action  plan:  adopt  the  proposals  for  directives  on 

investment services and on transparency.  

–  Reach  a  political  agreement  in  Council  on  strengthening  the  enforcement  of  intellectual 

property rights. 

–  Immediately initiate a discussion on the proposal for the framework directive on services. 

Finally,  it  is  essential  that  the  Union  adopt  as  quickly  as  possible  a  common  consolidated 
definition of taxation on company profits covering all company activities. If no progress were 
to be made by the Union as a whole, the possibility of applying the Treaty rules on enhanced 
cooperation would have to be contemplated. 

Reinforcing industrial competitiveness 

Along with services, Europe’s industrial competitiveness is of cardinal  importance for our 
economy. Sterner competition from our competitors across the globe, the transition now under 
way towards the knowledge economy, plus enlargement of the Union through the accession of 
new  countries,  once  again  raise  the  question  as  to  what  place  industry  occupies  in  our 
economy.  In  this  context  the  phenomenon  of  de-industrialisation  –  highlighted  by  the 
European Council last October – might be an increasingly acute problem. 

The  Commission  has  addressed  this  question18  and  will  pursue  its  analysis.  Preliminary 
findings, however, indicate that there is no evidence that the Union economy is showing signs 
of global de-industrialisation. Nevertheless, policy-makers need to remain vigilant. 

In this context we should note the loss of competitiveness —and of jobs — in some of our 
industrial sectors, such as textiles, mining (non-ferrous metals and coal), whilst others, such 
as chemicals, office or electrical equipment and telecommunications, are putting up stronger 
resistance. This shows how our economy is developing in new sectors, but also underlines the 
urgent need for the players in question to actively pursue the Lisbon strategy and to modernise 
the  structures  of  European  industry,  in  the  new  Member  States  too.  It  is  important  to  boost 
European productivity and the adaptability of businesses and workers, particularly in sectors 
in  difficulties,  and  to  make  up  the  ground  Europe  has  lost  in  the  spread  of  Information  and 
Communication Technologies, so as to hone businesses’ competitive edge and boost worker 
productivity by underpinning investment in this area though measures to enhance organisation 

17 

18 

COM(2004) 2 final, proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on services 
in the internal market. 
COM(2003)  704  final;  Some  key  issues  in  Europe's  competitiveness  –  Towards  an  Integrated 
Approach. 

23 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
and  training.  Anticipating  what  is  ahead  and  remaining  adaptable  in  the  face  of  such 
developments are also factors pinpointed by the European Employment Task Force. 

COMPETITIVENESS AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY 

Commission 

–  Enhance the quality of competitiveness analyses, particularly in the industrial sectors. Every 
action  designed  to  boost  industrial  competitiveness  must  be  based  on  prior  analysis  of  the 
existing  situation,  with  a  view  to  highlighting  problems  and  responding  to  clearly  identified 
needs.  This  work  will  involve  close  liaison  with  the  sectors  concerned,  including  the  social 
partners 

–  Develop  its  new  industrial  policy  approach.  In  this  connection,  the  Commission  will  deepen 
the  analysis  stemming  from  the  December  2002  communication  on  "industrial  policy  in  an 
enlarged  Europe"  from  this  spring  and  will  look  at  further  aspects  of  de-industrialisation,  in 
conjunction with the October 2003 European Council conclusions. 

–  Focus,  in  2004,  on  several  key  measures  with  a  bearing  on  industrial  competitiveness,  via 

the entrepreneurship action plan and that for innovation. 

–  Ensure that the guidelines from the mid-term review of the action plan “e-Europe 2005 – An 

information society for everybody” are followed up and action in this area is stepped up. 

Social Partners 

–  Continue their efforts to reach an agreement on industrial restructuring, founded on the joint 

text they submitted in the second half of 2003. 

Reinforcing the synergies between competitiveness and the environment 

Synergies  between  enterprise  and  the  environment  need  to  be  fully  exploited  to  foster 
economic growth that  brings broader  benefits while minimising environmental damage. To 
this  end,  it  is  necessary  to  strengthen  the  policy  and  regulatory  framework  that  gives  clear 
signals  to  all  economic  actors,  and  to  include  innovative  instruments  that  may  reconcile 
certain business sector preoccupations with environmental protection. 

This framework can also further stimulate the development and marketing of innovations that 
contribute to an eco-efficient economy, which in the longer term could provide the European 
economy with a strategic lead and increased productivity. 

This  is  also  the  main  thrust  of  the  Environmental  Technology  Action  Plan,  which  the 
Commission has presented to the European Parliament and the Council in order to establish 
the  adequate  framework  to  boost  clean  technologies.  The  Union  has  become  a  leading 
producer  and  exporter  of  some  key  environmental  technologies  and  services  such  as 
photovoltaic, wind energy and water supply and services. Current market developments in the 
eco-industry  sector,  as  defined  by  the  OECD,  provide  clear  evidence  of  these  trends.  Both 
total  turnover  and  employment  creation  in  a  sector  which  presently  accounts  for  over  2.5 
million jobs have constantly been above average over the last decade. 

24 

 
 
  
 
RREEIINNFFOORRCCIINNGG  SSYYNNEERRGGIIEESS  BBEETTWWEEEENN  CCOOMMPPEETTIITTIIVVEENNEESSSS  AANNDD  TTHHEE  EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT  

European Parliament and Council 

–  Put in place an impact analysis tool for proposals for major amendments, in keeping with the 
“Better  Lawmaking”  interinstitutional  agreement.  This  integrated  tool  should  cover  the 
economic  impact,  especially  on  competitiveness,  and  the  consequences  for  jobs  and  the 
environment.  

–  Adopt the proposal on environmental liability before the end of the present Parliament. 

–  Adopt and implement the environmental technology action plan. 

–  Adopt, before March 2005, the proposals on HGV-charging (eurovignette), chemical products 
(REACH), the framework directive on eco-design of energy-using products, and the directive 
on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. 

3.4. 

Focusing on reforms fostering active ageing 

In the medium term the ageing of the European population places very great pressure on our 
society, the labour market, our productivity and the viability of our public finances. Against 
this backdrop, we must foster active ageing of elderly workers through greater reform of the 
labour  market  and  by  modernising  not  just  retirement  schemes  but  also  prevention  and 
healthcare systems to ensure people live longer in good health. 

Promoting active ageing 

In  order  to  avoid  a  rapid  decline  of  the  labour  supply  which  will  impact  negatively  on 
economic growth and the sustainability of social protection systems, efforts to promote active 
ageing  must  be  pursued  vigorously,  particularly  in  those  Member  States  with  low 
employment rates for older workers and low average exit age. Prolonging working lives calls 
for action on four fronts combined with pension reforms: removing disincentives for workers 
to  work  longer,  discouraging  early  retirement,  stimulating  lifelong  learning  to  avoid  skills 
obsolescence,  as  well  as  improving  working  conditions  and  maintaining  the  overall  health 
status  of  the  mature  population.  In  line  with  this  analysis,  the  Commission  proposed  the 
following actions. 

Member States together with Social Partners 

PPRROOMMOOTTIINNGG  AACCTTIIVVEE  AAGGEEIINNGG 

–  Should  remove  financial  disincentives  for  workers  to  retire  later  and  for  employers  to 
hire  and  keep  older  workers.  This  includes  adjusting  specific  tax-benefits  mechanisms, 
employment  and  pensions  legislation  to  reduce  the  provisions  discouraging  older  workers 
from  staying  longer  in  employment  and  to  discourage  early  exits  from  the  labour  market. 
Efforts to discourage early retirement should be pursued in all Member States. 

–  Should promote access to training for all and developing lifelong learning strategies, in 

particular for older workers, who are under-represented in training. 

–  Should  improve  quality  at  work  to  provide  an  attractive,  safe  and  adaptable  work 
environment throughout working life, including the provision of part-time and career breaks. 

25 

 
 
  
 
The recommendations made by the European Employment Task Force are in line with these 
proposals. 

Modernising healthcare systems 

Despite the diversity of their healthcare systems or schemes, all Member States are facing the 
challenges of demographic ageing and constant pressure on budgets, which has led many of 
them to embark on major reforms. 

In the wake of the Commission communication on streamlining open coordination in the field 
of social protection – whose approach was endorsed by the Council – and in order to support 
such efforts, promote the exchange of good practice and improve the performance of health 
schemes  in  terms  of  quality,  access  and  financial  viability,  the  Union  should  make  use  of 
more structured and formal coordination. Dovetailing with the existing processes in the fields 
of social inclusion and retirement, this will contribute to a broader-based process of reflection 
in  the  health  sphere,  including  public  health,  with  a  view  to  the  Lisbon  strategy  mid-term 
review. 

What is more, the role of information and communication technologies in healthcare system 
reforms and in improving care, plus the potential efficiency gains linked to the development 
of  “e-health”,  should  be  further  explored,  especially  in  connection  with  the  e-Europe  2005 
action plan. 

European Council 

MMOODDEERRNNIISSIINNGG  HHEEAALLTTHHCCAARREE  

–  Extend the open method of coordination in the social protection field to modernisation 

of healthcare schemes. 

Council 

–  Adopt, before the Spring European Council, the pending proposals on coordination of social 
security  systems,  especially  alignment  of  rights,  to  enable  the  European  Health 
Insurance Card to be used as from this coming 1 June. 

Commission 

–  Examine the possibilities for integrating public health into the Lisbon strategy by 2005, as a 

contribution to growth and sustainable development. 

–  Present a communication on patient mobility and development of healthcare in the Union. 

–  Present in 2004 a communication on modernisation of healthcare and care for the elderly. 

4. 

PREPARING FOR THE 2005 MID-TERM REVIEW 

The  Union’s  institutional  framework  will  be  radically  altered  by  the  time  the  2005  Spring 
European  Council  comes  around, especially due to the institutional renewal process  and the 
adoption of a constitution for the Union. 

26 

 
 
  
 
 
KKEEYY  DDAATTEESS  IINN  22000044//22000055  

–  February  2004:  presentation  by  the  Commission  of  the  communication  on  the  post-2006 

financial perspective. First general discussion under the Irish Presidency.  

–  26 March 2004: Spring European Council.  

–  1 May 2004: enlargement of the Union, taking in ten new Member States.  

–  10-13 June 2004: European Parliament elections. 

–  June-July  2004:  adoption  by  the  Commission  of  legislative  proposals  on  the  financial 

perspective. 

–  1 November 2004: the new Commission takes office. 

–  End 2004: review of sustainable development strategy. 

–  March 2005: Spring European Council, marking the mid-term of the Lisbon strategy. 

Therefore, 2005 will constitute the half-way stage in implementing the Lisbon strategy. It will 
also  be  the  first  year  in  which  that  programme  is  applied  to  the  enlarged  Union,  and  a  new 
Commission and a new European Parliament will be in place. This report is, accordingly, the 
final  report  of  the  current  Commission,  which  has  developed  and  maintained  the  Lisbon 
strategy since 2000.  

This mid-term point should be an occasion for reviewing the Lisbon strategy in order to give 
it fresh vigour for its second implementation phase. It should also provide an opportunity to 
discuss the need to match the goals and the tools for attaining them and the players involved 
at  various  levels.  The  next  European  Council  should  already  start  things  rolling  by 
defining  the  framework  and  general  direction  so  as  to  allow  in-depth  preparation  by 
March 2005. 

Whereas the strategy’s first stage constituted a major regulatory phase with a view to erecting 
the  framework  for  these  reforms,  the  second  stage  should  be  devoted  to  their  active  and 
targeted implementation. Bearing in mind the deficit in implementing reforms, the mid-term 
review should be the occasion for defining a consistent method for remedying this situation 
and underpinning implementation. 

As part of its proposal on the next financial perspective after 2006, the Commission intends to 
place implementation of the Lisbon strategy at the very heart of Union action for the coming 
years.  To  back  up  this  proposal  the  Commission  envisages  proposing  a  roadmap  to  guide 
and structure the implementation efforts of the Union and Member States. Following the 
method used for Objective 92, which made it possible to put the internal market in place, the 
roadmap  could  set  out  interim  target  goals,  specific  means  and  effective  tools,  as  well  as  a 
clear implementation timetable. 

27 

 
 
  
 
FRAMEWORK FOR MID-TERM REVIEW (2005) 

2004 Spring European Council 

–  Define  the  policy  and  practical  framework  of  the  operation,  in  particular  its  preparation  by  the 

Commission and the other institutions involved. 

Commission 

–  Take in-depth stock of the progress achieved since 2000, as well as of the approach, tools and 
instruments  deployed  in  this  context,  especially  the  open  method  of  coordination.  The 
Commission  will  draw  in  particular  on  the  opinions  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  relevant 
formations of the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions. 

–  Present,  on  this basis,  in  its  next spring  report  the  main  thrust of  the strategy  for  2005-2010, 

while confirming its basic principles and goals. 

–  Propose a working method to support implementation of the reforms, based on a roadmap. 

European Parliament and Council 

–  Adopt the thirty or so legislative proposals still pending (Annex 3). 

–  Contribute in good time to evaluating the progress made since 2000. 

Social Partners  

–  Flesh  out  their  commitment  to  a  new  European  partnership  for  change  in  Europe  in  order  to 

promote growth and accelerate employment and productivity. 

March 2005 European Council 

–  Inject fresh political impetus for 2005-2010, on the basis of the Spring 2005 Report. 

28 

 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX 1 

PRESENTATION OF STRUCTURAL INDICATORS 

As  required  by  provisions  currently  in  force,  the  datas  relating  to  the  European  Free  Trade 
Association States and the structural indicators are available in French, English and German 
on 
Website: 
Structural 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/structuralindicators 

Indicators 

Eurostat 

the 

29 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GENERAL ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
Indicator 1    GDP per capita in PPS
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS), (EU-15=100)

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Czech Republic
Denmark
Belgium

Germany

Estonia

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Cyprus
Italy

Hungary
Luxembourg
Latvia
Lithuania

Malta
Netherlands
Austria

Poland

Sweden
Slovenia
Portugal
Finland
United Kingdom
Slovak Republic

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
2003: forecast
ACC: Eurostat estimate for 1999                       

1999

2003

30 

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

 
 
  
 
GENERAL ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
Indicator 2    Labour productivity per person employed
GDP in PPS per person employed relative to the EU-15 (EU-15=100)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Luxembourg
Ireland

Belgium

France

United Kingdom
Finland
Italy
Germany
Denmark
Austria

Sweden

Netherlands
Spain

Greece

Malta

Cyprus

Slovenia

Hungary
Czech Republic
Portugal
Lithuania
Poland
Slovak Republic

Estonia

Latvia

Romania

Turkey

Bulgaria

Source: Eurostat 
Notes:                                                               
2003: forecast
ACC: Eurostat estimate for 1999
Japan, Portugal : forecast for 1999

1999

2003

31 

 
 
  
 
Employment and productivity developments in the EU - 
1999-2003

US

n
o
s
r
e
p
r
e
p
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
r
u
o
b
a
L

l
a
e
r

l
a
u
n
n
a
e
g
a
r
e
v
a
-
d
e
y
o
p
m
e

l

%
e
t
a
r
h
t
w
o
r
g

3,60

2,70

1,80

0,90

0,00

-0,90

GR

IE

FI

SE

EU15

FR

NL

LU

IT

DK

DE

UK

AT

BE

PT

ES

-0,70

-0,35

0,00

0,35

0,70

1,05

1,40

Source: Eurostat

Employment rate - average annual percentage point change

32 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 3.1    Total employment rate 
Employed persons aged 15-64 as a share of the total population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

ACC

eurozone 12
EU15

Netherlands
Denmark

Sweden
Austria
United Kingdom

Cyprus

Portugal
Finland
Czech Republic
Germany

Ireland
Luxembourg

Slovenia

France

Estonia

Latvia
Belgium

Spain

Lithuania
Greece
Slovak Republic

Hungary

Italy

Malta

Poland

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

33 

 
 
  
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 3.2    Employment rate – females
Employed women aged 15-64 as a share of the total female population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

EU15
eurozone 12

ACC

Sweden

Netherlands
Denmark

Finland
Austria
United Kingdom

Portugal

Cyprus
Germany

Slovenia

Lithuania
Estonia
Czech Republic

Latvia

France

Ireland
Luxembourg

Hungary
Slovak Republic
Belgium

Poland

Spain

Greece

Italy

Malta

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

34 

 
 
  
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 3.3    Employment rate – males
Employed men aged 15-64 as a share of the total male population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Netherlands

Cyprus
Portugal
Denmark
United Kingdom

Luxembourg
Austria

Malta

Sweden
Ireland
Czech Republic

Spain
Germany

Greece

Finland

France

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

35 

Italy
Belgium

Slovenia

Estonia

Hungary
Latvia
Poland
Lithuania
Slovak Republic

Turkey
Romania

Bulgaria

 
 
  
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 4.1    Total employment rate of older workers
Employed persons aged 55-64 as a share of the total population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Sweden
United Kingdom
Denmark
Estonia

Portugal

Cyprus

Ireland

Netherlands
Finland

Czech Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Greece

Spain
Germany

France

Malta

Austria

Italy

Luxembourg

Belgium

Hungary

Slovenia
Poland
Slovak Republic

Romania

Turkey

Bulgaria

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

36 

 
 
  
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 4.2    Employment rate of older workers – females
Employed women aged 55-64 as a share of the total female population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

EU15
eurozone 12

ACC

Sweden

Denmark

Portugal
Finland
Estonia
United Kingdom

Latvia
Lithuania

Cyprus

Ireland

France
Greece
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Germany

Spain

Austria

Luxembourg
Poland

Hungary

Belgium

Malta

Slovenia
Italy
Slovak Republic

Romania

Turkey

Bulgaria

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

37 

 
 
  
 
EMPLOYMENT
Indicator 4.3    Employment rate of older workers – males
Employed men aged 55-64 as a share of the total male population of the same age group

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Source: Eurostat

Sweden

Cyprus

Ireland
Portugal
Denmark
United Kingdom

Spain

Greece
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Estonia

Lithuania

Latvia

Malta

Finland

Germany

Italy

Luxembourg
France
Austria
Slovak Republic

Hungary

Belgium

Slovenia

Poland

Turkey
Romania

Bulgaria

1999

2002

2000

38 

 
 
  
 
INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
Indicator 5  GERD (Gross domestic expenditure on R&D)
As a percentage of GDP

IT Expenditure
As a percentage of GDP

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

US

Japan

EU15

ACC

Source: EITO

2000

2003

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Sweden

Finland

Germany

Denmark

France

Belgium

Ireland
Slovenia
Netherlands
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Austria

1999

2001

Italy

Hungary
Spain

Portugal

Estonia

Lithuania

Slovak Republic
Poland
Greece

Latvia

Luxembourg
Cyprus

Malta

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat, OECD
Notes:
US: excludes most or all capital expenditure. 
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC (without Malta): OECD estimate
Austria: provisional estimate for 2001, 1999; Belgium, Greece: estimate for 2001, 1999
France: provisional for 2001; Portugal: estimate for 2001
Ireland: estimate for 1999
2002 available for US (OECD estimate): 2.67; EU-15 (OECD estimate): 1.99; Austria (provisional estimate): 1.94; Finland (forecast): 3.49; France (estimate): 2.2;
Germany (estimate): 2.51; UK (forecast): 1.84; Slovak Republic 0.59

2000

39 

 
 
  
 
i

e
g
n
a
h
c
t
n
o
p
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

l

a
u
n
n
a
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

2
0
0
2
-
9
9
9
1

0,38

0,26

0,14

0,02

-0,10

Evolution of R&D spending 1999-2002

SE

PT

GR

ES

IT

IE

BE

DK

DE

AT

EU 15

UK

FR

US

LU

NL

FI

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Level of R&D spending as %  of GDP - 2002

Source: Eurostat structural indicators

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
Indicator 6.1  Youth education attainment level - total 
Percentage of the population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic

Poland

Finland

Ireland

Sweden

Austria

Hungary

Cyprus

Lithuania

Greece

Estonia

Denmark
United Kingdom
France
Belgium

Latvia
Netherlands
Germany

Italy

Luxembourg

Portugal
Spain

Malta

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

1999

2003

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC, United Kingdom: provisional for 1999 and 2003
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Poland: provisional for 2003; Malta: estimates for 2003
Denmark and Hungary: 2003 break in series  
ACC and Poland: Poland data for 1999 refer to quarter 1.
Cyprus: students studying abroad are not covered

41 

 
 
  
 
INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
Indicator 6.2 Youth education attainment level - females
Percentage of the female population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Slovenia
Czech Republic
Poland
Finland
Slovak Republic

Ireland

Cyprus

Sweden

Greece

Hungary

Lithuania

Belgium

Austria

Estonia

Latvia

Netherlands
France
United Kingdom

Denmark

Germany

Italy

Luxembourg
Spain

Portugal

Malta

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

1999

2003

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC, United Kingdom: provisional for 1999 and 2003
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Poland: provisional for 2003; Malta: estimates for 2003
Denmark and Hungary: 2003 break in series  
ACC and Poland: Poland data for 1999 refer to quarter 1.
Cyprus: students studying abroad are not covered

42 

 
 
  
 
INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
Indicator 6.3  Youth education attainment level - males
Percentage of the male population aged 20 to 24 having completed at least upper secondary education

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US

Japan

EU15
eurozone 12

ACC

Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Slovenia

Poland

Austria

Sweden

Hungary

Ireland

Finland

France

United Kingdom
Belgium
Estonia
Lithuania

Greece

Denmark
Luxembourg
Cyprus

Germany
Latvia
Netherlands

Italy

Portugal
Spain

Malta

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC, United Kingdom: provisional for 1999 and 2003
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Poland: provisional for 2003; Malta: estimates for 2003
Denmark and Hungary: 2003 break in series  
ACC and Poland: Poland data for 1999 refer to quarter 1.
Cyprus: students studying abroad are not covered

1999

2003

43 

 
 
  
 
Evolution of youth education attainment level 1999-2003

PT

3
0
0
2
-
9
9
9
1

e
g
n
a
h
c

t
n

i

o
p
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

l
a
u
n
n
a

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

1,60

1,30

1,00

0,70

0,40

0,10

-0,20

-0,50

ES

LU

47

52

57

62

67

UK

EU15

DK

BE

IE

GR

FR

AT

SE

FI

77

82

87

IT

NL

DE

72

Source: Eurostat
Source: Eurostat

Level of youth education attainment level - 2003 

44 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ECONOMIC REFORM
Indicator 7    Comparative price levels
Comparative price levels of final consumption by private households including indirect taxes (EU-15=100)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

US

Japan

EU15
eurozone 12

ACC

Denmark
Czech Republic
Belgium

Germany

Estonia

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Cyprus
Italy

Latvia
Luxembourg
Lithuania

Hungary

Malta
Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Sweden
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat, OECD
Notes:
2002: provisional

1999

2002

2000

45 

 
 
  
 
ECONOMIC REFORM
Indicator 8  Business investment
Gross fixed capital formation by the private sector as a percentage of GDP

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Latvia

Czech Republic
Portugal
Spain
Austria

Greece

Malta
Denmark

Cyprus

Luxembourg
Belgium

Lithuania
Italy

Ireland
Netherlands

Germany

France

Sweden
Slovenia
Finland
Poland
United Kingdom
Slovak Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

Source: Eurostat
Notes: 
ACC: Eurostat estimate  for 1999

1999

2002

2001

46 

 
 
  
 
Evolution of business investment 1999-2002

2
0
0
2
-
9
9
9
1
e
g
n
a
h
c

i

t
n
o
p
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

l
a
u
n
n
a
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

0,50

0,20

-0,10

-0,40

-0,70

-1,00

IT

DK

FR

EU 15

SE

FI

BE

UK

LU

NL

DE

IE

GR

ES

AT

PT

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Level of business investment %  of GDP - 2002

Source: Eurostat structural indicators

47 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 9.1   At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers – total
The share of persons with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60% of the 
national median equivalised disposable income

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Sweden
Czech Republic

Hungary

Denmark

Netherlands
Germany

Finland

Luxembourg
Austria

Belgium

France

Lithuania
Poland
United Kingdom
Estonia

Italy

Spain

Greece

Portugal

Ireland

Slovenia

Malta

Latvia

Cyprus
Slovak Republic

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
The indicator for Sweden may not be fully comparable with those for other EU member states.
 The indicator for the Candidate Countries cannot be considered to be fully comparable with the EU ones, or between Candidate Countries due to the differences of underlying data sources.
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC: Eurostat estimate 
Cyprus: figure for 1997: 16
Slovak Republic: figure for 1996: 11, figure for 2003: 5
Turkey: figure for 1994: 23, figure for 2002: 25

2000

1999

2001

48 

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 9.2   At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers – females
The share of women with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, 
which is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Hungary
Czech Republic

Sweden
Netherlands

Germany

Luxembourg
Denmark

Finland

Austria

Belgium

Poland

Lithuania
United Kingdom
France
Estonia

Italy

Portugal
Spain

Greece

Ireland

Slovenia

Malta

Latvia

Cyprus
Slovak Republic

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
The indicator for Sweden may not be fully comparable with those for other EU member states.
The indicator for the Candidate Countries cannot be considered to be fully comparable with the EU ones, or between Candidate Countries due to the differences of underlying data sources.
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC: Eurostat estimate 
Cyprus: figure for 1997: 18
Slovak Republik: figure for 1996: 16, figure for 2003: 12
Turkey: figure for 1994: 24, figure for 2002: 26

2000

1999

2001

49 

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 9.3   At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers – males
The share of men with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set 
at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Czech Republic
Denmark

Finland

Austria

Sweden

Germany

Hungary
Netherlands

Luxembourg
Belgium

United Kingdom
France
Poland

1999

2001

Estonia

Lithuania

Spain

Greece
Italy

Ireland

Portugal

Slovenia

Malta

Latvia

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Cyprus
Slovak Republic

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
The indicator for Sweden may not be fully comparable with those for other EU member states.
The indicator for the Candidate Countries cannot be considered to be fully comparable with the EU ones, or between Candidate Countries due to the differences of underlying data sources.
EU15, Eurozone12, ACC: Eurostat estimate 
Cyprus: figure for 1997: 15
Slovak Republik figure for 1996: 10, figure for 2003: 3
Turkey: figure for 1994: 23, figure for 2002: 25

2000

50 

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 10.1   Dispersion of regional employment rates - total
Coefficient of variation of employment rates across regions (NUTS 2 level) within countries

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

ACC

eurozone 12
EU15

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Greece

Sweden
Czech Republic

Germany

United Kingdom
France

Poland
Slovak Republic

Finland

Belgium

Spain

Hungary

Italy

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

1999

2002

2000

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
Not relevant for Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia

51 

 
 
  
 
Evolution of the at risk of poverty rate 1999-2001

i

e
g
n
a
h
c
t
n
o
p
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

l

a
u
n
n
a
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

1,00

0,50

0,00

-0,50

1
0
0
2
-
9
9
9
1

SE

NL

DK

EU 15

DE

FI

AT

BE

FR

LU

IE

IT

ES

GR

PT

-1,00

9,0

11,0

13,0

15,0

UK

17,0

19,0

21,0

Level of at risk of poverty rate - 2001

Source: Eurostat structural indicators

52 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 10.2   Dispersion of regional employment rates - females
Coefficient of variation of employment rates of women across regions (NUTS 2 level) within countries

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

ACC

eurozone 12
EU15

Netherlands

Austria

Sweden

Germany

Czech Republic
Portugal

United Kingdom

Greece

Finland
Slovak Republic

France

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
Not relevant for Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia

1999

2002

2000

53 

Poland

Belgium

Hungary

Spain

Italy

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 10.3   Dispersion of regional employment rates - males
Coefficient of variation of employment rates of men across regions (NUTS 2 level) within countries

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

US

Japan

ACC

eurozone 12
EU15

Netherlands

Greece

Portugal

Austria

France

Sweden
Czech Republic

Spain

Slovak Republic

1999

2002

2000

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
Not relevant for Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia

54 

Belgium

Germany

Poland
United Kingdom

Finland

Italy

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 11.1  Total long-term unemployment rate 
Long-term unemployed (12 months and more) as a percentage of the total active population

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Luxembourg
Netherlands

Austria

Sweden
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Denmark

Ireland

Portugal

Finland

Hungary

France

Malta
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Belgium

Spain
Germany

Estonia

Greece

Italy

Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovak Republic

Turkey
Romania

Bulgaria

1999

2002

Source: Eurostat

2000

55 

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 11.2 Long-term unemployment rate - females 
Long-term unemployed women (12 months and more) as a percentage of the female active population

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Source: Eurostat

Ireland

Netherlands
United Kingdom

Sweden

Luxembourg
Denmark

Austria

Cyprus

Finland

Hungary

Portugal

Malta

France

Slovenia

Estonia

Czech Republic
Germany
Belgium

Latvia

Lithuania
Spain

Poland
Greece
Italy
Slovak Republic

Turkey
Romania

Bulgaria

1999

2002

2000

56 

 
 
  
 
SOCIAL COHESION
Indicator 11.3  Long-term unemployment rate - males 
Long-term unemployed men (12 months and more) as a percentage of the male active population

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

US

Japan

eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Cyprus
Luxembourg

Netherlands

Denmark
Austria

Sweden
Portugal
United Kingdom

Ireland

France

Spain

Hungary
Greece
Finland
Czech Republic

Belgium

Slovenia

Malta
Germany

Estonia
Italy

Latvia
Poland
Lithuania
Slovak Republic

Turkey
Romania

Bulgaria

Source: Eurostat

1999

2002

2000

57 

 
 
  
 
ENVIRONMENT
Indicator 12  Total greenhouse gas emissions
Percentage change since base year and targets according to Kyoto Protocol/EU Council Decision for 2008-2012
(in CO2 equivalents). Indexed on actual base year=100

0.6

0.0

0.8

  0.0

-0.7

-0.1

Luxembourg

Sweden
United Kingdom
France
Greece

Germany

Finland

Netherlands
Portugal

Belgium

Italy

Spain

Ireland
Denmark

Austria

1999

2001

Targets

Latvia

Estonia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland
Romania
Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Cyprus

Malta

Turkey

80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

US

Japan

EU15

ACC

Sources: European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change
Notes: 
Countries are sorted according to the distance to their targets.  For Member States targets are established under the EU Burden Sharing Agreement 
(Council Decision 2002/358/EC).
Total GHG emissions comprise the Kyoto basket of 6 greenhouse gases; CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6.
Data exclude emissions and removals due to land use change and forestry (LUCF).

58 

 
 
  
 
ENVIRONMENT
Indicator 13   Energy intensity of the economy
Gross inland consumption of energy divided by GDP (at constant prices, 1995=100) 
– kgoe (kilogram of oil equivalent) per 1000 Euro  

2000

2000

1800

1800

1600

1600

1400

1400

1200

1200

1000

1000

800

800

600

600

400

400

200

200

0

0

Eurozone 12
Eurozone 12
EU15
EU15
Japan
Japan
US
US

ACC
ACC

Denmark
Denmark
Austria
Austria

Hungary
Cyprus
Cyprus
Hungary
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Sweden
Malta
Ireland
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Ireland
Malta
Sweden
Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Latvia
Lithuania
Netherlands
Netherlands
Portugal
Portugal
Poland
United Kingdom
Spain
Greece
France
Finland
Estonia
Finland
United Kingdom
France
Greece
Poland
Spain
Estonia
Germany
Germany
Slovak Republic
Italy
Italy
Slovak Republic
Belgium
Belgium

Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Turkey
Turkey
Romania
Romania

1999 non renewables

2001  non renewables

1999 renewables

2001 renewables

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
EU15, Eurozone 12, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain:  provisional for  2001
ACC : provisional for 1999

59 

 
 
  
 
ENVIRONMENT
Indicator 14    Transport - Volume of freight transport relative to GDP
Index of inland freight transport volume relative to GDP, measured in tonne-km / GDP (in constant 1995 Euro), 1995=100

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

US

Japan

Eurozone 12
EU15

ACC

Sweden
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom
Poland
Denmark

Hungary

Slovenia

Cyprus

Finland

Netherlands
France

Czech Republic
Germany
Belgium

Italy

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Austria

Latvia
Portugal

Greece

Ireland

Spain

Estonia

Malta

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey

Source: Eurostat
Notes:
Includes road, rail and inland waterways.
Greece, Sweden, Cyprus, Slovenia, Bulgaria: estimate for  1999 
Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, UK, Poland  : estimate for 2002

1999

2002

2001

60 

 
 
  
 
 
Graph 15: Relative performance of the 15 Member States according to the structural indicators on the shortlist

Levels

at

be

de

dk

es

fi

fr

gr

ie

it

lu

nl

pt

se

uk

eu15

us

GDP per capita in PPS (EU 15 = 100)

2003

110,9

106,5

99,3

112,6

87,3

101

103,5

73,5

121,9

98,4

186,5

109,4

69,2

104,4

108,7

100

138,5

Labour productivity (EU 15 = 100)

2003

97,9

118,5

95,7

98,3

95,7

100,1

113,6

91,8

120,4

106

129,7

95,6

63,8

96,1

97

100

120

Employment rate (%)

2002

69,3

59,9

65,3

75,9

58,4

68,1

63

56,7

65,3

55,5

63,7

74,4

68,2

73,6

71,7

64,3

71,9

Employment rate of older workers (%)

2002

30

26,6

38,6

57,9

39,7

47,8

34,8

39,7

48,1

28,9

28,3

42,3

50,9

68

53,5

40,1

59,5

Educational attainment (20-24) (%)

2003

85

81,1

73,3

74,4

63,4

86,2

81,1

81,7

85,7

69,9

69,8

73,3

47,2

85,6

78,2

74

: 

Research and development expenditure (% of GDP)

2002

1,9

2,2

2,5

2,4

1,0

3,5

2,2

0,6

1,2

1,1

1,7

1,9

0,8

4,3

1,8

2,0

2,7

Business investment (% GDP)

2002

20,9

18,3

16,9

17,8

21,8

16

16,4

20,1

17,7

17,8

17,9

17,4

21,6

13,5

15

17,2

: 

Comparative price levels (EU 15 =100) 1

2002

102

99

104

131

82

123

100

80

118

95

100

102

74

117

107

100

113

At-risk-of-poverty rate (%)

2001

12,0

13,0

11,0

11,0

19,0

11,0

15,0

20,0

21,0

19,0

12,0

11,0

20,0

10,0

17,0

15,0

: 

Long-term unemployment (%)

2002

0,8

3,5

4

0,9

3,9

2,3

2,8

5,1

1,3

5,3

0,8

0,7

1,8

1

1,1

3

0,3

Dispersion of regional employment rates

2002

2,4

8

5,9

n.r

9,2

7,8

6,2

4,2

n.r

16,6

n.r

2,2

3,9

4,6

6,6

12,6

: 

Greenhouse gases emissions (Index base year=100) 2

2001

110

106

82

100

133

105

100

126

131

107

56

105

136

97

88

98

114

Energy intensity of the economy 

2001

146

228

168

125

227

263

189

261

161

188

191

201

238

229

225

194,2

330,1

 Volume of transport 

2002

120

100

102

85

137

95

96

127

133

103

110

97

126

90

86

102,4

91,3

1. Analysis takes into account relation between GDP per capita and comparative price levels. 2. Analysis based on distance to target indicators for the Kyoto Protocol and burden sharing targets of the EU Member
States. N.r: not relevant.   

61 

 
 
  
 
Graph 16: Relative improvement in the performance of the 15 Member States according to the structural indicators on the shortlist

Evolution

GDP per capita

Average annual real growth rate 
1999-2003 (%)

Labour productivity

Average annual real growth rate 
1999-2003 (%)

Employment rate

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

Employment rate of older workers

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

Educational attainment (20-24)

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2003

Research and development expenditure

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

Business investment

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

Comparative price levels 1

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

At-risk-of-poverty rate

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2001

Long-term unemployment

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

at

be

de

dk

es

fi

fr

gr

ie

it

lu

nl

pt

se

uk

eu15

us

1,4

1,1

0,8

1,2

2,1

2,3

1,3

3,9

4,8

1,2

2,1

0,3

0,6

1,8

2,5

1,4

1,2

1,2

0,6

0,8

1,6

0,6

1,4

0,4

3,9

3,5

-0,1

-0,7

-0,1

0,0

1,0

1,7

0,7

1,8

0,2

0,2

0,0

0,0

1,6

0,6

0,7

0,5

0,7

0,9

0,7

0,9

0,2

0,6

0,2

0,6

-0,7

0,1

0,7

0,3

1,1

1,6

2,9

2,0

0,2

1,5

0,4

0,6

2,0

0,2

1,4

1,3

1,0

0,6

0,1

1,2

-0,3

0,3

-0,4

-0,1

0,3

0,6

0,9

0,9

-0,4

0,3

1,8

-0,2

0,7

0,4

:

0,03

0,11

0,02

0,15

0,04

0,09

0,01

-0,02

-0,02

0,03

0,00

-0,07

0,05

0,31

0,00

0,02

0,01

-0,30

-0,27

-0,90

-0,10

0,33

-0,27

0,07

0,30

-1,00

0,40

-0,50

-0,70

-0,50

-0,20

-0,33

-0,23

:

0,4

-1,8

0,0

2,5

0,4

1,2

-1,7

-1,2

4,9

1,3

0,5

0,4

0,8

-0,9

0,0

0,0

4,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

-0,5

1,0

0,5

-0,5

0,0

-0,5

0,5

-1,0

0,0

:

-0,1

-0,5

-0,1

0,0

-0,7

-0,2

-0,5

-0,4

-0,4

-0,5

0,0

-0,2

0,0

-0,3

-0,2

-0,3

0,0

Dispersion of regional employment rates

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

0,0

0,0

0,1

n.r

-0,5

0,1

-0,3

-0,3

n.r

-0,2

n.r

0,0

0,1

-0,1

-0,2

-0,5

:

Greenhouse gases emissions 2

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2001

Energy intensity of the economy

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2001

 Volume of transport

Average annual percentage point 
change 1999-2002

2,4

-0,1

0,5

-2,6

2,0

2,1

-0,3

4,0

3,5

0,5

0,3

1,0

0,5

-1,2

0,5

0,6

1,3

1,4

-7,8

-0,6

-3,6

0,2

-6,5

-1,3

-0,6

-10,2

-2,9

-0,9

-0,5

-4,7

-4,5

-4,8

-2,0

-4,1

3,0

7,0

-0,6

-2,8

8,6

-0,9

-2,8

-5,0

3,9

0,6

7,1

-2,6

3,2

-0,3

-2,5

0,0

-0,8

1. Analysis takes into account relation between GDP per capita and comparative price levels. 2. Analysis based on distance to target indicators for the Kyoto Protocol and burden sharing targets of the EU Member States. N.r: not
relevant.   

62 

 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX 2 

MEMBER STATES SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS AND 
SHORTCOMINGS IN VIEW OF LISBON OBJECTIVES 

*  The  following  tables  present  a  brief  picture  of  select  Member  State  performances  –  both 
achievements and shortcomings – in view of the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. An entry is 
made for a Member State if it is amongst the three best or three less good performers in the 
EU,  according  to  the  shortlist  of  14  Structural  Indicators  (see  Annexe  1).  Other  entries  are 
based on the country-specific assessments made in the following reports: the Broad Economic 
Policy Guidelines Implementation Report (Com(2004) 20) and the Country Notes (SEC(2004) 
44), the Internal Market Implementation Report and notably the Scoreboard (Com(2004) 22), 
the  Education  and  Training  2010  Report  (COM(2003)  685),  and  the  Environmental  Policy 
Review (COM(2003) 745). 

63 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

(cid:153)  Steadily declining GDP-debt ratio and high (although decreasing) 

(cid:153)  Reform  measures,  including  lowering  tax  on  labour,  to  increase 

surpluses 

labour supply 

(cid:153)  Highest increase of youth educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  Significant  increase  in  R&D  expenditure  in  2001,  and  efforts  to 

reach the 3% target 

(cid:153)  Initiatives 

to  reduce  administrative  burdens  and  encourage 

entrepreneurship 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Highest  total  employment  rate  in  the  EU  at  76%,  highest  female 
employment  rate  in  the  EU  at  over  71%,  and  second  highest 
employment rate of older workers at 58% (2002 figures) 

(cid:153)  Lowest overall transposition deficit, highest transposition rate for 
‘Lisbon’ directives (85%), and no directives overdue by more than 
two years  

(cid:153)  2nd  highest  increase  in  gross  domestic  expenditure  on  R&D  in 

2001 

(cid:190)  Lowest employment rate in the EU of persons aged 55-64 (25%) 

(cid:190)  Highest price level in the EU, with a significant increase between 

(cid:190)  Highest  increase  since  May  2003  in  the  transposition  deficit  for 
Internal  Market  directives  ,  producing  the  largest  transposition 
deficit (54 directives) 

Shortcomings 

2000 and 2002 

(cid:190)  Medium-term strategy for public finances in jeopardy due to size 

of public consumption 

(cid:190)  Low effective competition in the energy market 

(cid:190)  Poor performances for Kyoto targets 

(cid:190)  Low levels of participation in education and training 

(cid:190)  Disappointing levels of youth educational attainment  

64 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
GERMANY 

GREECE 

(cid:153)  Agenda  2010  –  extensive  restructuring  of  social  security  system 

with profound impact on labour and product markets  

(cid:153)  Noticeable  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  2003  labour 
market  recommendations  and  modernisation  of  the  vocational 
training system 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Reforms to improve entrepreneurship 
(cid:153)  3rd highest level in the EU of gross domestic expenditure on R&D 

in 2001 

(cid:153)  Among  the  best  performances  for  Kyoto  target  and  burden 

sharing indicators  

(cid:153)  Highest  growth  rate  in  the  EU  for  labour  productivity  (1999-

2003)  

(cid:153)  Measures aiming at increasing incentives to work and developing 
skills  of  the  unemployed,  and  a  significant  increase  in  youth 
educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  2nd highest in business investment (1999-2002) with initiatives to 
promote ICT use and R&D spending and innovation, and efforts 
to simplify the business environment. 

(cid:190)  Excessive  deficit  for  several  years,  with  repeated  slippages  in 

(cid:190)  High  debt  with  slow  decline,  despite  high  nominal  GDP  growth 

expenditures compared to theplans of the Stability Pact 

in last years 

(cid:190)  Lack of far-reaching reforms of the pension system 

(cid:190)  2nd  lowest  female  employment  rate  in  the  EU,  and  2nd  highest 

Shortcomings 

(cid:190)  High labour market rigidities and high unemployment 

(cid:190)  Disappointing levels of youth educational attainment 
(cid:190)  2nd  highest  transposition  deficit  for  Internal  Market  directives 

(more than double the 1.5% target) 

long term unemployment 

(cid:190)  Delayed follow-up on reforms in the social security and pension 

systems  

(cid:190)  Effective competition in the energy sector not yet secured 

(cid:190)  High transposition deficit for Internal Market directives  

65 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
SPAIN 

FRANCE 

(cid:153)  Highest  growth  in  the  employment  rate  since  1999,  and  highest 
decrease in the long term unemployment rate (1999- 2002), with 
measures taken to increase female employment rates 

(cid:153)  2nd  lowest  transposition  deficit  for  Internal  Market  rules  (well 

below the 1.5% target) 

(cid:153)  Implementation of comprehensive pension reform 

(cid:153)  Significant  increase  in  employment  rate  for  older  persons  (1999-
2002)  although  employment  rate  for  older  workers  remains 
amongst the lowest in the EU 

(cid:153)  Significant  decrease  in  relative  price  levels  between  1999  and 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Adoption  of  ‘España.es  2004-2005’  –  package  of  measures  for 
promotion  and  development  of  information  society,  with  parallel 
promotion of internet access for citizens and SMEs 

(cid:153)  Adoption  of  Limited  Company  Act,  creating  a  simplified  legal 

framework for establishment of small companies/SMEs 

2002  

(cid:153)  Well above EU average for youth educational attainment 

(cid:153)  Good performance on Kyoto targets. 

(cid:190)  Highest  unemployment  rate  in  EU  at  11.3%  in  2002,  female 
employment  rates  more  than  10  percentage  points  below  EU 
average in 2002 , and excessive use of fixed-term contracts which 
hamper mobility  

(cid:190)  No  new  reforms  of  the  pensions  system  scheduled  in  the  near 

Shortcomings 

future  

(cid:190)  Decrease in the level of youth educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:190)  Effective competition in retail distribution still insufficient 

(cid:190)  Among  the  poorest  performers  for  Kyoto  target  and  burden 

sharing indicators 

(cid:190)  Excessive  deficit  for  several  years,  with  repeated  slippages  in 
expenditures compared to the plans of the Stability Pact; long term 
sustainability of public finances not secured 

(cid:190)  Labour market reforms likely to be insufficient at this stage  

(cid:190)  Market openings for gas and electricity remain low 

(cid:190)  Highest 

transposition  deficit  on  Internal  Market  directives 

combined with a high number of infringement cases  

66 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
IRELAND 

ITALY 

(cid:153)  Medium term growth rate at 5% 

(cid:153)  Highest increase in business investment (1999- 2002) 

(cid:153)  High and increasing labour productivity – well above the EU 

(cid:153)  Medium-term pension reform plan announced in Autumn 2003 

average 

(cid:153)  Significant decrease in the long term unemployment rate (1999-

2002) 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Marked increase in youth educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  Measures taken to increase the flexibility of the labour market 

(cid:153)  Reform of the primary and secondary level education system, 
implemented, and increase in the level of youth educational 
attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  Introduction of more competition in telecoms and public transport, 

(cid:153)  Reduction in Internal Market transposition, and among three best 

and new competition rules for electricity and gas market  

for transposition of ‘Lisbon’ directives  

(cid:153)  Highest reduction of outstanding Internal Market directives since 

May 2003 (32 directives) 

(cid:190)  Among poorest performance in EU for Kyoto target and burden 

sharing indicators  

(cid:190)  Lowest total (55.5%) and female (42%) employment rate in the 
EU, with the highest rate of long term unemployment at 5.3%  

(cid:190)  Largest increase in price levels between 1999 and 2002 

(cid:190)  Significant decline in labour productivity between 1999 and 2003  

(cid:190)  Below EU average for gross domestic expenditure on R&D  

(cid:190)  Lasting budgetary consolidation still to be achieved and long term 

Shortcomings 

(cid:190)  Largest decline in business investment (1999-2002) 

sustainability of public finances uncertain 

(cid:190)  Slow liberalisation of the service sector and of the energy markets 

(cid:190)  High number of infringements for misapplication of Internal 

Market rules and high transposition deficit on the Internal Market 
directives  

67 

 
 
  
 
 
 
LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

(cid:153)  Highest – although declining – relative labour productivity in the 

EU  

(cid:153)  Substantial efforts taken to consolidate and make sustainable 
public finances in recent period of acute economic slowdown 

(cid:153)  Very low long term unemployment  

(cid:153)  Very low long term unemployment 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Best performance in EU for Kyoto target and burden sharing 

(cid:153)  Measures to enhance the flexibility of the labour market, 

indicators  

including the creation of and Innovation Council  

(cid:153)  Highest increase in enterprise internet access in 2002 

(cid:153)  Increased power given to Dutch Competition Authority in order to 

(cid:153)  Initiatives taken to encourage entrepreneurship 

achieve increased effective competition 

(cid:153)  On the right track to meet the Kyoto targets 

(cid:190)  3rd poorest performance in the EU for youth educational 

(cid:190)  Weak labour productivity in recent years, due in part to losses in 

attainment, with performance levels in decline (1999-2003) 

(cid:190)  Very low rate of employment for persons aged 55-64, with no 

competitiveness but also to lack of competition in some sectors 
and declining specialisation in high-tech manufacturing 

concrete policy measures introduced 

(cid:190)  Gender pay gap in private and public sector above EU average 

Shortcomings 

(cid:190)  Delays in reforming competition law 

(cid:190)  High transposition deficit on Internal Market directives and 

(cid:190)  Declining gross domestic expenditure on R&D in 2001 
(cid:190)  2nd highest Internal Market directives deficit increase since May 

highest number of transpositions 2 years overdue  

2003  

68 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
AUSTRIA 

PORTUGAL 

(cid:153)  Comprehensive reform of public pension system approved 

(cid:153)  Very low long term unemployment 

(cid:153)  Youth  educational  attainment  well  above  EU  average  at  85% 

(1999-2003) 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Simplification of regulatory framework for SMEs and start-ups 

(cid:153)  Implementation of actions to promote ICT use and R&D spending 

and innovation  

(cid:153)  Significant increase in youth educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  Significant  reduction  of  Internal  Market  directives  transposition 

deficit with no directives overdue by more than two years 

(cid:153)  Quadros  Programme’  provides  financial  compensation  to  small 

(cid:153)  Significant  reduction  of  Internal  Market  directives  transposition 

and micro enterprises  

deficit  

(cid:190)  Below the EU average for gross domestic expenditure on R&D 

(cid:190)  Excessive  deficit,  with  sustainability  of  public 

finances 

(cid:190)  Older persons employment rate significantly below EU average  

(cid:190)  Transposition deficit for Internal Market directives remains high 

(cid:190)  Poor performance on Kyoto target and burden sharing indicators 

questionable on account of projected expenditure on pensions 

(cid:190)  Poor  achievements  in  education  (although  recent  initiatives  have 
been taken to improve education quality) with highest percentage 
of early school-leavers in the EU (twice the EU average) 

(cid:190)  Significant decline in business investment (1999-2002) 

(cid:190)  Effective  competition  in  the  electricity  market  not  yet  secured 

with prices for gas and electricity among highest in EU 

(cid:190)  Poor performance for Kyoto target and burden sharing indicators 

Shortcomings 

69 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

Achievements 

(cid:153)  Maintains  a  leading  position  in  the  transition  to  the  knowledge-

(cid:153)  Highest level and increase for gross domestic expenditure on R+D 

based economy 

in 2001 

(cid:153)  Reform  measures  introduced  to  raise  employment  and  prevent 
social exclusion, and target for employment rate for workers aged 
55-64 is achievable 

(cid:153)  Highest  level  of  youth  educational  attainment  in  the  EU  (1999-

2003) 

(cid:153)  Measures  undertaken  to  retain  older  workers  and  to  promote  the 

participation of the young in the labour force 

(cid:153)  Highest rate of employment in the EU for workers aged 55-64 and 

2nd highest rate of female employment (1999-2002) 

(cid:153)  Maintains  a  leading  position  in  the  transition  to  a  knowledge-

(cid:153)  Below  the  1.5%  transposition  deficit  target  of  Internal  Market 

based economy 

directives and no directives overdue by more than 2 years  

(cid:153)  Relatively good performance on Kyoto targets 

(cid:153)  Good performance for Kyoto target and burden sharing indicators 

(cid:190)  Prices  among  the  highest  in  the  EU,  with  an  increase  in  price 

(cid:190)  Prices  among  the  highest  in  EU,  although  price  levels  have 

levels (1999-2002) 

declined (1999-2002) 

(cid:190)  Limited competition in non-tradable services  

(cid:190)  Lowest  and  declining  level  of  business  investment  in  the  EU 

Shortcomings 

(cid:190)  Continued high structural unemployment 
(cid:190)  3rd poorest and declining business investment (1999-2002) 

(1999-2002) 

(cid:190)  Weak  competition  in  some  sectors,  notably  in  public  sector 

services  

70 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Achievements 

UNITED KINGDOM 

(cid:153)  Low long term unemployment rate with an increase in the level of 

youth educational attainment (1999-2003) 

(cid:153)  Increased  quality  of  public  in  spending  (for  education  and 
transport)  including  reform  initiative  to  boost  training  and  basic 
skills. 

(cid:153)  Good performance for Kyoto target and burden sharing indicators 

(cid:153)  Below  1.5%  transposition  deficit  target  of  Internal  Market 

directives 

(cid:153)  Extension of R&D investment tax credit for large companies and 

identification of priority areas for increasing productivity  

(cid:190)  Disappointing labour productivity levels, despite a recent increase 

(1999-2003) 

(cid:190)  Widening government deficit 

Shortcomings 

(cid:190)  Delay in the opening of the postal markets to competition 

(cid:190)  Disappointing  level  of  gross  domestic  expenditure  on  R&D  in 
2001  with  2nd  poorest  level  of  business  investment  in  the  EU 
(1999-2002) 

71 

 
 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 

PENDING PROPOSALS IN LISBON AGENDA TOWARDS 
MARCH 2005 

72 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LISBON STRATEGY: LEGISLATIVE ROADMAP 

Council 

Before end of present 
Parliament (in April 2004) 

Competitiveness  

(cid:131)  Community patent 

ECOFIN 

(cid:131)  Transparency directive 
(cid:131)  Directive on investment 

services 

Transport, 
Telecommunication,
Energy 

(cid:131)  2nd railway package  
(cid:131)  Maritime security 
(cid:131)  TENs - Transport 

Before mid-term review  

(in March 2005) 

(cid:131)  Recognition of professional 

qualifications* 

(cid:131)  Enforcement of intellectual 

property rights* 

(cid:131)  Consumer protection enforcement 

co-operation* 

(cid:131)  Unfair commercial practices* 
(cid:131)  Community patent (jurisdiction 

proposal and Munich Convention)  

(cid:131)  Patentability of software 
(cid:131)  Framework directive on services 
(cid:131)  REACH 

(cid:131)  Framework Directive on eco-design 

of energy-using products* 
energy supply and efficiency 

(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  3rd railway package 
(cid:131)  Road pricing for heavy goods 

vehicles (Eurovignette) 
e-Content  
Internet Safety Action Plan  

(cid:131) 
(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  TENs - energy 

Employment, Social 
Policy, Health, 
Consumers 

(cid:131)  Regulation 1408/71 
(cid:131)  European Health Insurance 

Card 

(cid:131)  Temporary work 

(cid:131)  Directive Article 13 (not including 

professional circles) 

Education and 
Culture 

Environment 

(cid:131)  Environmental liability 
(cid:131)  Kyoto flexibility mechanism  

(cid:131)  Life-long learning framework 

programme 

(cid:131)  New generation of programmes for 

post-2006 

(cid:131)  Aarhus Convention 

* Common position before June 2004.  

73