Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - eEurope 2005 Mid-term Review
Date: 2004-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, action programme, information network, information society, information technology, sample survey

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.2.2004 
COM(2004) 108 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

eEurope 2005 Mid-term Review 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Services for citizens and businesses............................................................................. 4 

e-government................................................................................................................ 4 

e-learning: .................................................................................................................... 5 

e-health:........................................................................................................................ 5 

e-business: .................................................................................................................... 5 

A faster, more secure internet for all............................................................................ 6 

Broadband: ................................................................................................................... 6 

Security: ....................................................................................................................... 8 

e-inclusion:................................................................................................................... 8 

Implementation ............................................................................................................ 9 

Benchmarking: ............................................................................................................. 9 

Exchange of good practice:........................................................................................ 10 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10 

2 

 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

eEurope 2005 Mid-term Review 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  eEurope  Action  Plan  is  part  of  the  strategy  set  out  at  the  Lisbon  European  Council  to 
modernise the European economy and to build a knowledge based economy in Europe. The 
eEurope 2002 Action Plan was adopted in 2000 and by the end of 2002, the majority of its 65 
targets  had  been  met.  Nearly  all  business  and  schools  were  connected  to  the  Internet;  the 
number  of  households  connected  had  nearly  tripled  and  Europe  had  the  fastest  research 
network in the world1 

However,  by  the  end  of  2002,  there  was  little  evidence  to  show  that  the  success  in  getting 
Europe on-line had been translated into new jobs and services. Nor were there the increases in 
productivity  observed  elsewhere,  notably  in  the  USA.  Connectivity  was  there,  but  use  was 
lagging behind.  

Stimulating use and creating new services therefore became the central goal of eEurope 2005, 
which was endorsed by the Seville European Council2. The overall aims are that, by the end 
of  2005,  Europe  should  have  modern  online  public  services  (e-government,  e-learning,  e-
health)  and  a  dynamic  e-business  environment,  based  on  the  a  widespread  availability  of 
broadband access at competitive prices and a secure information infrastructure. 

The  Member  States  gave  their  commitment  to  implement  the  Action  Plan  in  the  eEurope 
Resolution3of February 2003, which also welcomed the intention of the Commission to hold a 
mid-term review of the action plan “in advance of the Spring European Council 2004”. 

This  mid-term  review  Communication  provides  the  Commission’s  analysis  of  political  and 
concrete developments, responses by Member States and Candidate Countries to a survey in 
autumn  2003  and  inputs  from  an  online  questionnaire  and  a  public  hearing  held  in  October 
2003.  The  main  outcome  of  the  consultation  was  to  confirm  the  relevance  of  eEurope 
objectives  and  their  adequacy  to  the  challenges  of  information  society  in  the  acceding 
countries. A consensus was expressed on the need to focus the mid-term review on updating 
and  fine-tuning  the  initiatives  and  strengthening  the  implementation  mechanisms.  The 
Communication follows closely the structure of the Action Plan and is supported by a more 
detailed  working  paper  providing  further  background  on  policy  developments  and 
benchmarking in each domain. 

1 

2 
3 

See  eEurope  2002  Final  Report,  COM(2003)  66  and  eEurope  2002:  Progress  made  in  Achieving  the 
Targets SEC(2003)407. 
eEurope 2005 Action Plan, COM(2002)263. 
Council Resolution on the Implementation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan, 2003/C 48/02. 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2. 

SERVICES FOR CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES 

2.1. 

e-government 

It is now widely acknowledged that e-government is a key tool for public sector reforms. The 
strong  political  support  in  Member  States  is  indicated  by  all  of  them  having  active  e-
government  policies.  ICT  is  seen  as  a  catalyst  for  administrative  modernisation  and  service 
improvement.  e-Government  is  at  the  core  of  national  policies  for  the  Information  Society. 
Benchmarking shows that government basic services fully available online grew from 17% to 
43%  between  October  2001  and  October  2003,  although  wide  differences  persist  between 
Member  States,  ranging  between  72%  to  15%  of  services  fully  available  online  in  October 
2003.4 There is, meanwhile, a noted need for better ICT tools and interoperability, better skills 
and integration of back and front office.5 

The eEurope 2005 targets for e-government remain valid and Member States have agreed on a 
number of new joint initiatives at the EU level since the adoption of the Action Plan. Good 
progress is being made in most Member States on the number of broadband connections for 
administrations,  interactive  public  e-services,  and  Public  Internet  Access  Points  (PIAPs),  as 
well as e-procurement availability.  

Responses  to  the  consultation  called  attention  to  the  following  issues  for  the  review  of  the 
eEurope 2005 Action Plan:  

•  Benchmarking,  it  is  important  that  e-government  is  not  only  about  implementing 
technologies and supplying services but that it provides solutions.  Supply is growing but 
demand lags behind6. The factors that will drive demand need to be better understood. This 
calls for increased efforts to measure the social and economic impact of e-government and 
the  drivers  of  demand  for  e-government.  Complementary  quantitative  and  qualitative 
measures are needed to meet these concerns. 

•  Exchange  of  good  practices:  accumulated  experience  permits  the  identification  of  good 
practices and success factors. In addition to instruments such as conferences and awards, 
more structured exchange on best practice and transferability of lessons is required. Some 
Acceding and Candidate Countries requested guidance on e-government implementation. 

•  Reinforced co-operation at EU level on policy orientation and financial support: areas cited 
were  trust  and  security  (&  identity  management),  standardisation  and  open  source 
software, inclusive accessibility (& multi-platform access) and innovation. Many Member 
States also identified interoperability (e.g. common citizen identifiers, e-authentication and 
data vocabularies). Interoperable pan-European services might be targeted for development 
where there is a match with EU policy objectives and the needs of European citizens. 

4 

5 

6 

Web based Survey on Electronic Public Services, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, December 2003. 
 http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2002/action_plan/egov/index_en.htm  
Reorganisation  of  government  back  offices  for  better  electronic  public  services  –  European  good 
practices, Danish Technological Institute, December 2003.  
Management  A/S,  Top  of  the  web  –  Survey  on  quality  and  usage  of  public  services,  PLS  Ramboll, 
November 2003. http://www.topoftheweb.net/en/index.htm 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
2.2. 

e-learning: 

Connectivity  to  ICT  infrastructures  continues  to  rise  in  the  education  and  training  sector. 
There is increasing awareness of the factors that make its use a success. e-Learning requires 
reliable  technology  with  high  bandwidth  connectivity,  the  support  of  highly  qualified 
teachers/trainers  and  tutors,  high  quality  content  and  services  as  well  as  new  approaches  to 
learning.  High  policy  commitment  is  expressed  through  national  plans  and  the  recently 
adopted eLearning Programme. 

For the review of the Action Plan:  

•  There  is  a  need  to  systematically  evaluate  the  lessons  that  have  been  learnt  from  all  the 
initiatives and pilot actions in order to set a course for e-learning in the future. As with the 
eLearning  Programme,  the  priority  is  to  learn  the  lessons  from  all  the  experience  in  the 
field and to scale fast to an operational roll-out, as well as to promote new approaches to 
learning.  The  Action  Plan  could  contribute  in  this  respect  with  increased  efforts  to 
encourage co-operation share results and exchange practices.  

2.3. 

e-health: 

With its dependence on bandwidth, security and privacy, and user-centred service provision, 
e-health  encapsulates  all  main  themes  of  eEurope.  e-Health  is  becoming  a  central  aspect  of 
health  policy  at  regional,  national  and  European  level.  Most  Member  States  now  have 
developed  e-health  plans  many  of  which  call  upon  an  expenditure  of  more  than  3%  of  the 
health  budget  on  e-health  tools  and  applications.  At  European  level  both  the  research 
framework  programme  and  the  public  health  programme  put  considerable  emphasis  on  e-
health. 

For the review of the Action Plan: 

•  The  consultation  reaffirmed  the  need  to  continue  work  on  the  three  e-health  actions 
proposed in eEurope: electronic health cards; online health services and health information 
networks by Member States and the Commission. 

•  In  addition,  in  line  with  the  recommendations  of  the  EU  ministerial  conference  in  2003, 
strong  political  leadership  and  commitment  is  needed  to  create  European  wide 
interoperability  in  e-health  guaranteeing  citizen-centred  continuity  of  healthcare  and 
patient  mobility.  Challenges  identified  include:  interoperability  and  standards  for  health 
products,  systems  and  services;  safety  and  security  issues  at  human  and  technical  level 
(including training needs); legal certainty and privacy; measurement and dissemination of 
benefits  of  e-health  solutions  through  agreed  EU  wide  benchmarks  and  cost-benefit 
analyses; patients’ mobility.  

2.4. 

e-business:  

To  meet  the  goals  of  the  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  achievements  in  the  e-business  field 
should extend beyond e-commerce, for which surveys show a steady increase in buying and 
selling on-line, to encompass the full integration of ICT into business processes. 

The  main  action  lines  of  the  Action  Plan  (legislation,  standardisation,  skills  and  the 
stimulation of e-business use by SMEs) remain valid. The legal framework for e-business is 
consolidating, with the transposition of the e-signature, e-commerce and Copyright Directives 

5 

 
 
  
 
and  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  package  of  procurement  directives,  which  introduce  e-
procurement to the public sector. Furthermore, the e-business legal conference, to be held in 
Dublin  in  April  2004,  will  present  and  discuss  the  results  of  an  on-line  consultation  on 
persisting  legal  barriers  for  enterprises  doing  e-business.  In  addition,  the  Commission  will 
prepare  a  Communication  on  fair  trade  in  B2B  Internet  trading  platforms,  in  April  2004,  in 
order to stimulate and facilitate the participation of SMEs. 

A  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  unsolicited  commercial  communications,  or 
‘spam’, in January 2004 identifies actions for public and private stakeholders to reinforce the 
new EU-wide ‘ban on spam’ included in the e-privacy Directive7 Also, most Member States 
and many European regions have launched initiatives to stimulate the take-up of e-business by 
SMEs. 

For the review of the Action Plan attention is needed on implementation, especially: 

•  Monitoring  progress:  The  full  support  of  Member  States  for  large-scale  surveys  is 
essential.  Quantitative  targets  for  e-business  policies  should  be  implemented  in  the 
Enterprise Policy Scoreboard in line with the eEurope 2005 targets. 

•  Interoperability  and  standardisation:  The 

interoperability  of  business 
applications  impedes  the  adoption  of  new  forms  of  collaboration.  Support  from  the 
Member States is needed to ensure that interoperability issues can be addressed. Relevant 
mechanisms for this include the forthcoming European e-Business Interoperability Forum 
and relevant workshops to be established by CEN and a conference on interoperability in 
2004. 

insufficient 

•  The  take-up  of  the  .eu  Top  Level  Domain:  All  Member  States  and  acceding  countries 
support the establishment of the .eu Top Level Domain. Some regard it as a determining 
factor to instil confidence in e-commerce in the EU. Thus the eEurope Action Plan should 
focus on implementation of the Regulation and its availability to all in the EU by 2004. 

•  Secure  and  effective  e-payment  systems:  Confidence  and  trust  in  online  ordering  and 
payment  is  essential  to  stimulate  e-business  and  m-commerce  and  in  particular  efforts  to 
establish effective procedures for micro-payments and address policy issues relating to m-
payments are needed. 

3. 

A FASTER, MORE SECURE INTERNET FOR ALL 

3.1. 

Broadband: 

Broadband  is  at  the  top  of  the  political  agenda.  At  the  2003  Spring  European  Summit, 
Member Sates agreed to put in place broadband national strategies by the end of 2003. The 
Commission will report to the European Council on the State of the telecom Sector in March 
2004 and in detail on strategies in June 2004. 

7 

Unsolicited Commercial Communications or ‘spam’, COM(2004) 28. More information is available at: 
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/highlights/current_spotlights/spam/index_en.htm 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The  broadband  market  is  expanding;  availability  and  take-up  are  increasing  across  the  EU. 
There were 19.5 million connections in the EU at the end of October 2003 compared to the 
10.6 million in October 2002, 72.5% being DSL lines and most of the rest being cable modem 
access. Wider coverage and use is expected through a multi-platform approach based on the 
coexistence and exploitation of a variety of technologies. The EU approach to infrastructure 
development is technology-neutral, both in terms of regulation and policy.  

With the new regulatory framework for electronic communications coming into force, a full, 
effective  and  timely  transposition  of  EU  legislation  in  each  Member  State  and  Acceding 
Country is very important to create the correct and predictable environment for investment to 
occur.  The  Commission's  9th  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Electronic 
Communications  Regulatory  Package,  adopted  on  19  November  2003,  points  out  that 
competition in the broadband market is still weak, and that a number of Member States have 
not  yet  implemented  the  new  regulatory  framework.  Moreover,  in  light  of  the  fact  that  the 
consumer access to broadband is mainly via DSL lines it is of concern that the 9th Report also 
states that competition in broadband remains weak. 

The  EU  is  confronted  with  two  main  challenges  to  reap  the  full  benefits  of  broadband  and 
responses are being developed at the EU Level to overcome the bottlenecks: 

Where private investment in the information infrastructure in less favoured areas is held back 
by fears for its profitability, there is a risk that eEurope will not meet its goal to develop an 
"information society for all". To this end, specific actions have been taken, articulated around 
the use of the Union's structural funds, to overcome shortfalls of demand in rural and remote 
regions  and  economically  disadvantaged  urban  areas.  Indeed  the  Commission  recently 
adopted revised “guidelines on criteria and modalities of implementation of structural funds in 
support of electronic communications”.8 To give further impetus, new Digital Divide “Quick-
start  projects”  will  accelerate  provision  of  broadband  in  under-served  areas  through  a 
technology-neutral approach. 9 

The  second  issue  is  that  the  take-up  of  broadband  lags  behind  availability  in  all  Member 
States.  The  lack  of  attractive  broadband  content  is  one  of  the  bottlenecks  for  greater  use  of 
broadband.  Broadband  allows  a  broad  range  of  new  services,  in  particular  multimedia 
services,  but  the  emergence  of  new  business  models  requires  a  range  of  issues  to  be 
addressed.  For  example,  making  copyright  protected  content  available  on-line  is  highly 
dependent on the implementation of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies. 

For the review of the Action Plan issues include: 

•  Monitoring:  Wider  technological  choice  and  multi-platform  environments  calls  for  more 
detailed monitoring efforts for example on national level Digital TV Switchover Plans. 

•  Shift  from  supply  to  usage  patterns:  The  shift  from  concern  with  simple  connectivity  to 
stimulating  the  use  of  broadband  requires  an  assessment  of  how  people  integrate 
broadband into their daily activities. A better knowledge is needed of barriers to providing 
open and interoperable digital content and public services on all platforms. 

8 

9 

SEC (2003) 895   
http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/telecom_en.pdf 
See COM(2003) 65 ‘Road to the Knowledge Economy’ and COM (2003) 690 A European Initiative for 
Growth. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
•  Digital  Rights  Management  (DRM):  should  be  addressed  at  the  EU  level.    The  legal 
framework  for  the  protection  of  DRMs  is  set  by  Directive  2001/29/EC,  currently  being 
transposed  by  Member  States.  But  more  transparency  is  required  on  the  criteria  that 
Member States use or will use to take into account the application of DRMs in determining 
remuneration schemes. The market is at a critical point of development. On the one hand, 
the absence of an interoperable DRM infrastructure may lead  to further  fragmentation of 
the  market.  On  the  other  hand,  a  successful  implementation  of  DRM  technologies  in 
systems and services will help to ensure the development of important new on-line content 
markets,  a  vital  factor  in  the  roll-out  of  broadband,  as  well  as  to  support  the  economic 
vitality of the content industries more generally. 

3.2. 

Security:  

Network and information security is a prerequisite for the information society. Almost 80% of 
the  European  citizens  were  inhibited  in  buying  over  the  internet  because  of  security  fears, 
while  only  54%  of  companies  have  a  formal  security  policy.  Some  Member  States  are 
developing  national  strategies  on  information  security  that  cover  legal  responsibilities, 
awareness  campaigns,  management  and  technical  standards,  improvement  of  incident 
response and cybercrime strategy. All Member States and Acceding Countries emphasised the 
implementation of the electronic signature Directive as an important step in this field. 

legislative  framework  also 

The  new  EU 
includes  provisions  on  secure  electronic 
communications.  High  priority  on  security  issues  at  the  EU  level  is  reflected  by  the  fast 
political  agreement  to  establish  a  European  Network  and  Information  Security  Agency 
(ENISA). Its main objectives are to provide assistance and deliver advice to the Commission 
and  Member  States  on  issues  related  to  network  and  information  security  in  order  to  help 
ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. It will help to achieve an increased co-
ordination  and  information  exchange  between  stakeholders  on  information  security.  The 
Agency will provide the mechanism for the development of a culture of security. 

Issues to be considered in the review are: 

•  Achieving wider market acceptance of e-signatures by promoting at European level the use 
of  interoperable  standards  and  promoting  all  forms  of  electronic  signatures  regardless  of 
the technology used. 

•  The role of standards and certification in creating trust in the information society.  

•  Identifying  priorities  for  co-operation  at  the  EU  level  in  the  field  of  network  and 
information  security,  in  particular  in  the  framework  of  ENISA  (development  of  public 
private partnership at the EU level, inventory of activities and organisations in the Member 
States, best practices in the field of awareness raising and risk assessment). 

3.3. 

e-inclusion:  

ICT developments do not diffuse uniformly across all regions and socio-demographic groups, 
thus “e-inclusion” or the “digital divide” is a horizontal concern for all areas of eEurope 2005. 
The  consultation  showed  broad  awareness  of  these  issues  and  a  consensus  on  the  need  for 
further action.  

8 

 
 
  
 
In  particular,  a  greater  focus  is  needed  on  the  future  potential  of  new  platforms  to  increase 
accessibility and to encourage a wider range of people on line, this would include looking at 
local area and wide area wireless solutions and the switchover to Digital TV. 

For the review of the Action Plan attention is needed on: 

•  Data to assess the extent of regional imbalances, perhaps alongside the review of the policy 

orientations for the structural funds. 

•  EU  level  e-accessibility  standards,  including  e-procurement,  on  implementation  of  Web 
Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines and common labelling for accessible web pages.  

•  Improved  accessibility  for  excluded  groups  and  disadvantaged  regions  by  further 

promoting multi-platform ICT access (PC, digital TV, 3rd Generation Mobile, etc) 

•  Uptake and use of ICTs by groups at risk of exclusion to be stimulated by awareness and 

digital literacy actions and provision of appropriate content and services  

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1. 

Benchmarking:  

Following  the  guidelines  set  in  the  Council  Resolution  on  eEurope10,  the  benchmarking 
exercise  is  largely  based  on  official  statistics  Surveys  of  households  and  enterprises  were 
organised by Eurostat and carried out by National Statistical Institutes (NSI). These surveys 
supply  26  of  the  37  indicators.  By  January  2004,  results  had  been  made  available  for  12 
enterprise surveys and 11 household surveys. 

To ensure regular and comparable data provision in Member States and to enable greater use 
of official statistics  on  the  information society, in August 2003 the Commission proposed a 
European Parliament and Council Regulation concerning statistics in the Information Society. 

The  Council  Resolution  on  eEurope  requested  pilot  work  on  the  e-business  and  e-health 
indicators. The methodological analysis for an e-business readiness indicator was undertaken 
by Commission services and proposals will be presented when data for 2003 is available. This 
indicator could be included in the benchmarking exercise from 2004. Results from the pilot 
work on e-health should be available in spring 2004. 

Both the mid-term review survey responses and discussions in statistical working groups have 
stressed the need to review the indicators. For the review of the Action Plan the issues were: 

•  The  current  indicators  focus  too  much  on  readiness  and  not  enough  on  intensity  and 

impact11. 

•  Indicators do not show to what extent the targets of eEurope have been achieved.  

10 
11 

2003/C 48/02  
The  categories  of  readiness,  intensity  and  impact  were  defined  by  the  OECD  in  ‘Defining  and 
Measuring e-Commerce: A Status Report’ OECD-DSTI 08/10/1999. 

9 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
•  There  is  a  need  to  provide  comparative  figures  for  third  countries;  eEurope  should  be 

benchmarked against the best in the world. 

•  It  is  too  early  to  provide  an  assessment  of  the  eEurope  2005  benchmarking  exercise.  A 
benchmarking  report  with  all  available  data  for  2003  will  be  presented  in  June  2004. 
Initiatives additional to the current benchmarking exercise could be taken immediately as 
part  of  the  mid-term  review  outcome  to  address  the  need  for  more  analysis  and  a  more 
policy relevant and comprehensive set of indicators. 

4.2. 

Exchange of good practice:  

The exchange of good practices is complementary to the efforts on benchmarking and is an 
underlying principle of the Open Method of Co-ordination. A wide range of instruments are 
available to support good practice. These include forums and conferences, such as the second 
e-government  conference  in  2003,  organised  with  the  Italian  Presidency,  and  the  e-health 
conference during the Greek Presidency; competitions and quality awards; support networks 
to  promote  mutual  learning  such  as  the  e-Business  Support  Network  (eBSN)  and  European 
Schoolnet12
;  the  codification  of  lessons  into  guidelines,  checklists,  roadmaps  or  technical 
working documents; adoption of voluntary codes of good practice and open standards based 
upon codification of practices.  

These instruments are widely deployed in support of eEurope. However, in order to facilitate 
a more effective exchange of experience more thought is needed on how to target their use to 
achieve a greater impact than in an ad hoc manner. The need is to balance the mix of these 
policy instruments in each domain to optimise exchange, depending on the level of consensus, 
experience and maturity in the field. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

At mid-term of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan important progress has been made. 

The  eEurope  2005  targets  remain  valid,  in  the  context  of  the  enlargement  of  the  EU  to  25 
members  and  the  consultation  revealed  that  it  has  acted  as  a  stimulus  to  many  national  and 
regional efforts. Significant developments in the areas of broadband and e-government have 
been supported by increased political support at the national and EU levels. 

Achieving the goals of eEurope 2005 requires strong political leadership and commitment at 
all  levels.  There  are  many  areas  of  success  –  broadband  connectivity  is  rising,  government 
services  are  increasingly  fully  on-line..  However,  in  many  fields  progress  is  still  supply 
driven, concentrating on technology, applications and initiatives. A concerted effort is needed 
from  all  sides  if  we  are  to  achieve  the  productivity  gains  and  job  creation  expected  from 
eEurope. This push to maturity means emphasising the delivery of solutions and on scaling up 
fast from success stories to critical mass.  

Specific  areas  that  require  greater  focus  and  will  be  important  in  the  revision  of  the  action 
plan are: 

12 

http://community.eun.org/ 

10 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
•  Interoperability,  standards  and  multi-platform  access  emerged  in  all  areas  as  requiring 
greater focus. In many cases the key requirement is not technical solutions but the setting 
up of multi-party or institutional agreements.  

•  Reinforcement  of  the  pan-European  dimension.  Most  initiatives  remain  nationally  or 
regionally  focused.  The  possibilities  for  cross-border  learning  and  exchange  are  widely 
recognised  but  less  often  acted  upon.  Difficulties  of  interoperability  persist  or  are  even 
multiplied by the profusion of efforts. Opportunities to close the gap between leaders and 
followers through a more effective exchange of practices are missed. 

•  A move to a demand-driven approach that emphasises service delivery, end-user value for 
all  and  functionality.  In  e-business,  e-government,  e-health  and  e-learning  it  is  clear  that 
there are many  good initiatives, but so far the ways to bring really  effective services on-
line or their adequacy to the end-user are not fully understood. 

•  A prerequisite for further development of broadband is a greater availability of attractive 
content.  This  requires  attention  to  the  protection  of  copyrighted  content  and  the 
implementation  of  interoperable  DRM  solutions,  whilst  respecting  the  legitimate 
expectations of users 

•  Experimentation with new business and service delivery models that get more value out of 
the  shift  to  e-services.  e-Services  generally  yield  more  productivity  and  efficiency  gains 
when embedded in effective re-organisation of processes and service delivery.  

•  Respond to the need for greater monitoring and quantification of e-inclusion, especially in 
order  to  assess  the  extent  of  regional  imbalances,  the  potential  for  and  the  potential  for 
multiplatform delivery of e-services to widen accessibility.  

•  Finally, the impact of e-services in terms of efficiency or productivity gains and quality of 
work  and  life  should  be  measured,  taking  into  account  effects  on  citizenship  and 
governance.  In  particular,  there  is  a  need  for  structured  analyses  of  lessons  to  develop 
complementary  quantitative  and  qualitative  indicators  as  part  of  the  benchmarking 
exercise. Common work is required to identify the obstacles to progress and guidance on 
implementation.  Also  needed  are  more  evaluations  of  initiatives  so  that  policy  can  be 
guided by evidence.  

The Commission recommends the continuation of the existing lines of the 2005 Action Plan. 
The  review  found  that  the  existing  goals  are  still  valid  and  that  the  Acceding  Countries  are 
open to accepting them. Furthermore, it is to be expected that the 6th Framework Programme 
for  Research  &  Development  will  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  eEurope  Action 
Plan mainly through the Information Society Technologies part of the Programme. 

A  thorough  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  eEurope  2005  will  take  place  to  be  discussed  and 
agreed  with  Member  States  during  2004.  The  Commission  requests  the  Member  States  and 
Acceding Countries should give comments upon the document and play an active role in the 
process of revising the Action Plan until June 2004. 

11