Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Implementation of the Lisbon Strategy: Current Situation and Future Prospects
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: competitiveness, dissemination of EU information, employment policy, energy policy, knowledge economy, research and development, social partners

C 120/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Implementation of the Lisbon
Strategy: Current Situation and Future Prospects’

(2008/C 120/20)

On 27 September 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on

Implementation of the Lisbon Strategy: Current situation and future prospects.

The Committee Bureau instructed the ad hoc Group of the Bureau ‘Lisbon Group’ to prepare the Committee's
work on the subject. The rapporteurs were Mr van Iersel and Mr Barabás.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr van Iersel
as rapporteur-general and Mr Barabás as co-rapporteur at its 440th plenary session, held on 12 and
13 December 2007 (meeting of 13 December 2007) and adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 1
with 12 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and Recommendations

agenda could be very useful. The EESC can be supportive in this
process.

1.1
The EESC considers it desirable that organised civil
society in the Member States, in particular national Economic
and Social Councils (ESCs), where these exist (1), are involved in
the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda as acting partners. To
that end the EESC proposes the following:

1.1.1
Besides governments, societal circles have to foster
creative approaches and take effective practical and concrete
measures in view of change. Additional partnerships and new
alliances are needed to make the Lisbon process a success and
endorse its implementation (2). To that end the present opinion
deals primarily with the contribution of national ESCs and orga-
nised civil society.

1.1.2
Following good practices in several Member States,
information, consultation and transparency are needed every-
where for the benefit of the design and the implementation of
the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), and the implementa-
tion of country specific recommendations.

1.1.6
All national ESCs should be included in the Commis-
sion's yearly consultation rounds. Commission representatives
could be invited by national ESCs and civil society organisations
to discuss ideas and desirable approaches in national context.

Regarding the work in the Council, the EESC is inter-
1.1.7
ested in participating in the Lisbon Methodology Working
Group, under the auspices of the Council's Economic Policy
Committee.

1.1.8
The EESC suggests that the European Council gives the
EESC a mandate to publish each year a report containing infor-
mation, as available, on the involvement of organised civil
society, and of national ESCs where they exist, in the progress
of
including concrete suggestions and
the Lisbon Strategy,
desirable improvements (3).

It is also important for organised civil society to be
1.1.3
involved at an early stage in the formulation of
the future
prospects for the next cycle after 2010 which should be based
on growth, jobs, social cohesion and sustainable development.

The approach of

1.1.9
the EESC corresponds with the
actions taken by the European Parliament and the Committee of
the Regions vis-à-vis national parliaments and the regions. The
EESC is in favour of further strengthening the cooperation.

1.1.4
The EESC emphasises that effective implementation will
enhance the desirable visibility and long-term consistency of the
Lisbon agenda.

1.1.5
Exchanges of views and practices between the EESC
and the national ESCs regarding the NRPs and the Lisbon

(1) The institutional framework in this respect is very diverse in the EU:
ESCs are present in a significant number of Member States, in most
‘new’ Member States there are so-called Tripartite Commissions (social
partners plus government), in a limited number of Member States there
are no ESCs. The EESC is trying to collect as many contributions from
representative bodies as possible, to be appended to this opinion in a
joint report to the European Council.

(2) See Resolution of the EESC on ‘The implementation of the renewed

Lisbon Strategy’ (OJ C 97, 27.4.2007).

2. Introduction

Since 2005 the Lisbon process has made progress both
2.1
in content and institutionally. There is growing unanimity
among Member States that structural adjustments regarding
competitiveness — knowledge based society — sustainable
growth and employment are needed.

(3) The EESC notes that it is in no way interfering in Member States, and in
particularly in Spain, in the existing procedure of consultation, compe-
tencies and legitimacy of social partners.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/97

Institutionally, the methodology of the relaunched Lisbon

2.2
Strategy has undergone beneficial changes. These include:

3. Co-responsibility of the EESC, national ESCs and orga-

nised civil society in the Lisbon process

— clear agenda for Integrated Guidelines;

— detailed National Reform Programmes (NRPs);

— clarification of the role of the Commission;

— monitoring of national processes by the Commission;

— country specific recommendations;

— peer pressure.

Practical evidence proves that

2.3
the combination of a
well-defined and agreed European agenda and the revival of a
valuable open coordination method which respects subsidiarity
is starting to pay off. Among Member States there is an
increasing openness
to mutual understanding and critical
exchanges of views on adjustments. As a result of the new
methodology, a growing number of Member States are more
willing to look beyond national borders and to examine best
practices.

3.1
The Lisbon Agenda is about enabling European society
to cope with the challenges of the 21st century and to guarantee
its position and role vis-à-vis an increasing number of world
actors. It is also about spirit and attitude.

3.2
This process cannot simply be limited to policy makers,
legislators and high level groups. It should be a process for all,
with all and by all, for two reasons:

— input from many circles in society is desirable to define the

best possible approaches;

— implementation in Member States depends largely on coop-
eration between all the stakeholders concerned. Co-owner-
ship is key.

3.3
Co-responsibility and an active engagement of social
partners and other civil society organisations would reinforce
the process, as it would combine top-down and bottom-up
approaches. They would also trigger an indispensable high
quality public support.

2.4
Nonetheless, there is a gap between rhetoric and reality.
The real issue is implementation, which is often incomplete or
inaccurate. In many cases concrete goals, measurable objectives
and timetables are lacking.

Hitherto, in many Member States national ESCs and civil
3.4
society have had only limited access,
to the Lisbon
process. Further steps are needed to foster their co-responsi-
bility. In Member States where national ESCs do not exist other
institutionalised ways of involvement should be developed.

if any,

are

there

substantial differences

2.5 Moreover,
among
Member States. Not all Member States accept critical comments
from partner countries or from the Commission easily. There is
now,
in the context of the Multilateral Surveillance, a certain
degree of reciprocal analysis of the NRPs by the Member States.

2.6
In the majority of governments a Mr/Ms Lisbon has been
nominated as coordinator. This provision should be beneficial to
streamlining
cooperation between the Commission and
governments, and to transparency. In most cases, though, this
minister/state secretary still has to define his/her role inside the
government as well as in relation to Parliament and society.

There is a saying that the Lisbon Strategy is Europe's best
2.7
kept secret as the expression ‘Lisbon Strategy’
is rarely used.
Since its relaunch in 2005, however, not least by the adjust-
ments in the methodology reforms along agreed lines are gradu-
ally taking place in Member States.

2.8
The process is now on track, but the next two years will
be critical with regard to its continuation and deepening. Above
all, it is crucial that the Lisbon process has a clear and accepted
structure, that it is recognised as a Europe-wide strategy, also by
non-governmental actors, and that it leads to adjustments and
to a convergence of governmental policies.

3.5
Social partners and other civil society organisations have
to participate in all stages of the Lisbon process during the
the ongoing
calendar year. These stages are: evaluation (of
cycle), preparation, implementation and follow-up actions of the
NRPs and country-specific recommendations in the longer term.

The EESC considers it desirable that the national ESCs

3.6
commit themselves to the Lisbon agenda in four ways:

— via satisfactory information and consultation;

— by critically examining national implementation;

— by making concrete proposals;

— by giving more visibility to the Lisbon agenda in giving

more profile to the national debate.

3.7
In countries without national ESCs or Tripartite Commis-
sions other ways have to be found to engage social partners in
the consultation process. This goes also for organised civil
society (4).

(4) An example could be Sweden where the Government is consulting the
social partners several times a year (in preparation of the NRP) as well
as, in separate meetings, organised civil society.

C 120/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

3.8
It must be emphasised that the same method should be
followed at regional and local level, which are often decisive for
real
level partnerships with
the social partners and the civil society organisations concerned
must be encouraged in view of territorial and social cohesion.

implementation. Also, at regional

3.9 Moreover, in order to translate the Lisbon Strategy action
plans into reality at regional and local level, they need to be
underpinned by efficient management and implementation of
the Structural Funds.

3.10
fold:

As far as the EESC itself is concerned, its role is four-

— It is to present views of organised civil society.

— It may act as a channel for information which expresses the
views of the national ESCs and of other civil society organi-
sations, bringing an added value to the debate in the
Commission and the Council.

— The EESC may serve as a forum for the exchange of views
and best practices in coordination with national ESCs and it
may provide a forum for discussion between them and the
Commission (5).

— The EESC can add to the dissemination of the objectives and

results of Lisbon process.

4. Work on priority themes decided by the 2006 Spring

Council

At its July 2007 plenary session, the EESC adopted, as

4.1
requested, four own-initiative opinions:

— ‘Employment of priority categories’ (6)

— ‘Investment in Knowledge and Innovation’ (7)

— ‘Business potential, especially of SMEs’ (8)

— ‘The definition of an energy policy for Europe’ (9).

National ESCs participated in the preparation of these own-ini-
tiative opinions and their contributions are annexed to the
opinions. Subsequently, the EESC has adopted a further opinion
on the better integration of climate change strategy into the
Lisbon Strategy.

4.2
These own-initiative opinions, also presenting thematic
contributions from national ESCs on key issues as identified by
the Council, have provided concrete input for the Commission's
report, and will serve to launch a wider debate in view of the
Lisbon Summit of March 2008.

(5) In this respect, it is worth noting that the European Parliament has also
recently set up a coordination structure together with national parlia-
ments.

(6) ‘Employment of priority categories (Lisbon Strategy)’, OJ C 256 of

27.10.2007, p. 93.
(http://www.eesc.europa.eu/lisbon_strategy/eesc_documents/index_en.
asp).

(7) ‘Investment in Knowledge and Innovation (Lisbon Strategy)’, OJ C 256

of 27.10.2007, p. 17.
(http://www.eesc.europa.eu/lisbon_strategy/eesc_documents/index_en.
asp).

(8) ‘Business potential, especially of SMEs (Lisbon Strategy)’ OJ C 256 of

27.10.2007, p. 8.
(http://www.eesc.europa.eu/lisbon_strategy/eesc_documents/index_en.
asp).

(9) ‘The definition of an energy policy for Europe (Lisbon strategy)’,

OJ C 256 of 27.10.2007, p. 31.
(http://www.eesc.europa.eu/lisbon_strategy/eesc_documents/index_en.
asp).

4.3
The present own-initiative opinion is, in the first place, a
contribution to the debate in the Council. Its aim is primarily to
specify the role of the social partners and other civil society
organisations in the process.

In the process of preparing its opinion the EESC has also
4.4
its ‘Liaison Group with
benefited from the contribution of
European Civil Society Organisations and Networks’. That
contribution is also appended to the present opinion.

5. Involvement of the social partners and organised civil

society

5.1
It is of great importance that the Lisbon Agenda be
discussed publicly across society as a desirable European agenda
fits with national circumstances, procedures and legal
that
requirements.

The Commission's documents should be well focused so
5.2
as to incite wider debate in society. A search for fruitful new
partnerships requires focus and identification, on the one hand,
and information and communication, on the other.

5.3 More debate and transparency means more public aware-
ness. It may also foster creativity and openness to unconven-
tional proposals and solutions. In various countries, beneficial
measures and practices and/or negotiations between the social
partners at sectoral or company level often result in interesting
micro-economic developments.

5.4 Most important is the way the social partners and other
civil society organisations that have the competences to partici-
pate in the process, are involved in the NRPs and in carrying
out EU recommendations.

5.5
Involvement of all these actors may also bring about
greater convergence between the domestic agendas which is
desirable because of
increasing economic interdependence in
Europe, and the corresponding spill-over effects.

5.6
There is practical evidence that in cases where the social
partners and other civil society organisations actively take co-re-
sponsibility, the Lisbon process functions better. Lisbon presup-
poses a non-antagonistic culture of cooperation. There are indi-
cations that such cooperation is underway in Member States.

5.7
The degree to which the social partners and other civil
society organisations are involved varies between Member
States (10), partly due to the different statutory regulations of the
ESCs and similar organisations and partly to the degree of infor-
mation and consultation, which is still less developed.

(10) See footnote 3.

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/99

The Commission should encourage all the Member States
in those countries

5.8
to include civil society organisations and,
where they exist, national ESCs, in national consultations.

— Education at all

levels,

including professional training —

New skills for new opportunities

5.9
During the consultation rounds with some Member
States, the Commission also meets with social partners. This
practice should gradually be extended.
It could allow the
Commission to play a more intensive monitoring role. More-
over, in those countries where the government is part of the
ESC or Tripartite commission,
it would be advisable for the
Commission to meet social partners separately.

5.10
It would be helpful for national ESCs to exchange their
experiences regarding consultation and involvement (11). These
could include:

— information and consultation on the Lisbon Agenda in the

national context;

— New start
centres

for lifelong learning pacts and open learning

— Cooperation between universities/research institutes and

SMEs

— Implementation of the European Technological Institute

— Innovation platforms with the participation of the private

sector.

Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness

— Promotion of start-ups and entrepreneurship

— Special attention for SMEs: legal conditions; risk capital

— the way ESCs present their opinion to the government;

— One-stop shops for businesses

— the extent to which these opinions are reflected in govern-

ment policies.

In order

to promote convergent practices among
5.11
national ESCs, bilateral or trilateral meetings (forums, roundta-
bles) might also be useful.

— Reduction of administrative burdens and,

in particular, an
identification of areas where such a reduction would be
most effective

— E-government

— Innovation subsidies for SMEs (‘innovation vouchers’)

5.12
The EESC could contribute by collecting examples of
good practice in relation to information and consultation across
Europe and by drawing up a list of interesting practices and
measures promoted by social partners and other civil society
organisations in the Member States.

— Specific tax measures.

Labour market and Employment

5.13
As regards contributions from Member States without
an ESC, the EESC may cooperate directly with national civil
society organisations through its Members that employ fact-
finding missions in various forms, for example by holding hear-
ings at national level.

— Innovative ideas and measurable objectives to create employ-

ment for young and elderly people

— Social inclusion for vulnerable groups

— Gender equality

— Fostering the creation of sustainable jobs

6. Sharing best practices

— Desirable approaches regarding part-time work

There is certainly an added value in presenting concrete
6.1
microeconomic examples of instances where national objectives
have either been, or are expected to be, attained with the partici-
pation of social partners and organised civil society in the
Member States.

6.2

Examples include:

Research, Innovation, Knowledge

— Promotion of the knowledge-based society

(11) An illustrative example of monitoring of national NRPs is the Greek
ESC that has set up an observatory for the Lisbon Strategy. This creates
a visible tool to follow its progress or lack of progress. Other ESCs are
interested in following this example.

— New ideas and ways of

implementation regarding ‘flexi-

curity’

— New partnerships at local and regional level

— Social Economy enterprises.

Furthermore, effective and concrete measures, including timeta-
bles, related to energy and climate change need to be discussed.

In all these cases, discussions among stakeholders in one or
more Member States are underway. National ESCs and organised
civil society have their own views on practical applications. The
discussions among government officials and politicians would
certainly be enriched by well-channelled bottom-up proposals,
which would illustrate the manifold potentialities in European
society.

C 120/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2008

6.3 Wider discussion involving stakeholders would help to
set new concrete objectives for the Open Method of Coordina-
tion. This may include a system of benchmarking,
indicators
and peer reviews to measure the degree of engagement of orga-
nised civil society.

It would also be interesting for the Commission and the
6.4
Council
issues national ESCs are discussing
among themselves. The EESC might list those of horizontal

to know what

European significance. The more these discussions concern
concrete approaches and measures promoting Lisbon objectives,
the more attention they will attract in government circles.

Implementation and the way it

6.5
is secured by goals,
measurable objectives and timetables is key. Organised civil
society as a whole and especially national ESCs can play an
effective role in identifying deficiencies and helping to find
sustainable solutions.

Brussels, 13 December 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive
on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version)’

COM(2007) 587 final

(2008/C 120/21)

On 24 October 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified
version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no
comment on its part, it decided, at its 440th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2007 (meeting of
12 December 2007), by 129 votes in favour with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the
proposed text.

Brussels, 12 December 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS