Source: http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 08:25:29
Document Index: 231973338

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 1', 'art 1', 'ART 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

The Digital Agenda for Europe was accompanied by a Commission staff working document known as: Europe's Digital Competitiveness Report 2010 Both Volume 1 (general ICT competitiveness report) and Volume 2 (ICT country profiles) of the Commission staff working document 17.5.2010 SEC(2010) 627 have been published together in a glossy version. However, Volume 2 with the ICT Country Profiles in SEC(2010) 627 was also posted separately by the Commission, for the convenience of readers. Generally, the Digital Agenda web pages are quite good, but for some reason you won't find SEC(2010) 627 on Eur-Lex. Even if the EU legal portal calls them preparatory acts, I would appreciate if every COM and SEC document would be posted on Eur-Lex (with all available language versions), because having them all in one place would facilitate finding relevant reports and proposals compared to hunting for them on the web pages and subpages of some thirty Commission services. Ralf Grahn P.S. Dear Reader, I am interested in national Digital Agendas (existing language versions), as well as information society plans and IT policy actions in the member states of the European Union. If you know something about national policy and law, I am grateful if you can use the comment section or email me with relevant information.
We have looked at some basic economic and market trends, as well as broadband developments as they appeared at the time of the Digital Agenda launch. We return to the Commission staff working document SEC(2010) 630 final/2, which accompanied the 15th progress report about telecoms (eCommunications) markets in Europe: CORRIGENDUM Annule et remplace le document SEC(2010) 630 final du 25.5.2010 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the COMMUNICATION PROGRESS REPORT ON THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MARKET (15th REPORT); Brussels, 25.8.2010 SEC(2010) 630 final/2 PART 1 (422 pages) Since fixed telephony declines in terms of both revenues and volumes, I am just going to note the rapid rise of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony (page 34-36). Telecoms regulation The section about regulatory developments discussed the institutional framework, the implementation of regulatory measures, the consumer interest, horizontal regulation, spectrum management, as well as monitoring and enforcement. Here are a few regulatory observations I found interesting enough to share with you. NRAs The EU member states have an obligation to ensure that the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) are legally distinct from and functionally independent of electronic communications networks and services providers, including state-owned ones. One of the tasks of the Commission is to monitor the independence of NRAs, and it took action when necessary. Some of the critical issues were the institutional arrangements, the attribution of regulatory functions, the rules regarding the appointment and the dismissal of the regulator and the availability of adequate resources (staff, expertise and funding) (page 44-47). Consumer protection As the Commission said (page 55): The requirement to provide transparent and up-to-date information on tariff plans, prices, and service terms and conditions is one of the fundamental pillars of EU consumer protection rules in the area of telecommunications.
Universal service obligations The Commission mentioned four elements of universal telecommunications services, which had to be available to all end-users at an affordable price and specified quality (Universal Service Directive 2002/22, here link to consolidated version of 19 December 2009). These were currently under review in many countries: (i) access at a fixed location to telephony services, fax communications and functional internet, (ii) comprehensive directory and directory enquiry service, (iii) availability of public payphones, and (iv) special measures for disabled, those on low income and with special needs (page 57). Finland was the first country to take concrete measures to initiate a designation procedure for universal service broadband of 1 Mbps (page 57). Ralf Grahn P.S. Dear Readers, I am interested in national Digital Agendas (existing language versions), as well as information society plans and ICT actions in the member states of the European Union. If you know something, you can use the comment section or email me.
The latest roundups of my blog posts in the trilingual series about EU and national information society strategies can be found in the entries Euroopan digitaalistrategia – kirjoitussarja FI SV EN and Digital Agenda: EU and national FI SV EN. I commented briefly on one of the cornerstones of the Digital Agenda for Europe in the blog post EU electronic communications market(s) at Digital Agenda start. This was the communication COM(2010) 253 final/3, which exists in 22 official EU languages, but the version in force seems to be the third revision. We went to the English pdf version of the 15th report: CORRIGENDUM: Annule et remplace le document COM(2010) 253 final du 25.5.2010 Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques PROGRESS REPORT ON THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MARKET 2009 (15TH REPORT); Brussels, 25.8.2010 COM(2010) 253 final/3 (16 pages)
eCommunications We saw that telecoms networks and services are sorted under the Commission's Information Society web pages eCommunications. The web page 15th Progress report on the Single European Electronic Communications Market - 2009 offered us access to the communication COM(2010) 253 in 22 EU languages, as well as to the two parts of the accompanying Commission staff working document SEC(2010) 630 final/2 with much more detail (English only), including the Country chapters (Annex 1 in Part 1 or separately). SEC(2010) 630 final/2 Relatively short communications often build on more detailed documents intended for specialists. In most cases they are available only in English. In this case the accompanying Commission staff working document comes with a warning: CORRIGENDUM Annule et remplace le document SEC(2010) 630 final du 25.5.2010 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the COMMUNICATION PROGRESS REPORT ON THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MARKET (15th REPORT); Brussels, 25.8.2010 SEC(2010) 630 final/2 PART 1 It is a hefty document - 422 pages. The first 79 pages are dedicated to an overview of market and economic developments, as well as regulatory developments, while Annex 1 from page 80 deals with implementation in the individual EU member states. Let us take a look at some basic economic facts: revenues, investment, mobile market concentration, mobile communications and fixed broadband growth. Revenues An introductory paragraph on revenues offers us a picture of the economic importance of electronic communications and the European ICT sector in general (in 2008; page 4): Revenues for the EU electronic communications sector were €351 billion in 2008 in the EU, which account for about half of the ICT sector overall. Seven of the ten largest telecoms operators in the world are European. 43% of the sector revenues are driven by fixed voice telephony and broadband (both business and private users), 47% are provided by mobile communications (voice and data), with the remaining 10% from Pay TV.
Investment The financial and economic uncertainty and crisis curtailed investment in the telecoms sector in 2008 (page 5): Investment by the EU electronic communication sector accounted for €47 billion in 2008, which represents a drop of 1.5% on 2007. Investment in the fixed market accounted for 70% of the total (incumbents are responsible for 70% of that figure) while the mobile sector was responsible for the remaining 30%.
In a majority of member states the commercial launch of LTE (Long Term Evolution) had been delayed until 2010-2011, with extensive deployment expected in 2013-2014 (page 6). Mobile market concentration The study noted that the top 10 mobile operators concentrate 90% of the market (page 7, footnote 10) and described the situation (page 7) in the mobile markets: The four main groups are present in the majority of Member States (in the form of subsidiary, joint venture or commercial agreement) and they own the first and/or second largest mobile operator in almost all EU Member States (except in Denmark, Latvia and Finland). Most of the main mobile operators are subsidiaries of fixed incumbents. The only large European group which is not the subsidiary of a fixed incumbent has now entered the fixed market to complement its activities (in order to be able to supply convergent offers, e.g. quadrupleplay). While half of European operators are not part of these groups, these represent only 20% of the European market.
Mobile communications The study noted that the approach to auctioning of spectrum licences had led to a national focus which had not yet translated into pan European services (page 7). Mobile internet still drove only 4% of the total revenue with significant divergence across member states (page 8). However, the mobile broadband market was emerging rapidly. Mobile voice penetration in the EU reached 121.9% and, as expected, its growth rate in 2009 had begun to stabilise (+2.5%) (page 10). Fixed broadband According to the study (page 19): In January 2010 there were 123.7 million fixed broadband lines, up 9.3% since January 2009, and the EU average fixed broadband penetration rate reached 24.8%, up 2percentage points over one year.
Internationally, in 2009 the Netherlands and Denmark continued to have the highest broadband penetration rates, followed by Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg, which had penetration levels above 30% of the population, along with a group of four non-EU countries, Norway, Switzerland, Korea and Iceland (page 22). *** Even if not sizzling hot, I found the economic facts and market trends quite interesting, both with regard to the European Union as a whole and concerning the huge differences between individual member states. Ralf Grahn P.S. Dear Readers, I am still interested in Digital Agendas (language versions), as well as information society plans and ICT actions in the member states of the European Union. If you know something, you can use the comment section or email me.
As we saw in the blog post Digital Agenda for Finland: glossy or original? the colour brochure in Finnish and English differs from the original report from the government to Parliament in Finnish and Swedish. After a preface and an introduction the brochure heads straight for the results in the somewhat rose-tinted Vision for 2020 on pages 10 to 11. Thus, the publication does not burden the reader with the ”unsexy” situation analysis as well as past and present administrative developments, which actually form the most solid and informative part of the original government report (for politicians and officials). In short, ”boring stuff” was left out to make the brochure more readable. Part 1 of the publication, Challenges, continues by tackling the objectives and the necessary actions, one area at a time: improving productivity in services, seeing an ageing population as a resource, becoming a world leader in sustainable development and creating growth through the (digital) single market (pages 12-27). Later sections on the productive use of information, service users knowing their needs, improving skills and access, and reforming management and coordination of ICT policies, have been sorted into Part 2 Preconditions (pages 28-43). Here, too, the objective(s) are followed by the necessary actions in each field. The annexes contain information not contained in the official government report, namely about future trends, the new pardigm of user orientation, as well as the collaborative process to create the Digital Agenda and a list of the members of the Advisory Board (pages 46-49). *** The Digital Agenda for Finland was published late in the parliamentary term. Waiting for a new government to be formed and to start resolving administrative issues and future development work may have contributed to the somewhat fluffy contents of the recommendations. Ralf Grahn P.S. Dear Readers, I am still interested in Digital Agendas (language versions), as well as information society plans and ICT actions in the member states of the European Union. If you know something, you can use the comment section or email me.
As we have seen, Finland has a domestic Digital Agenda, which has been published English in addition to the national languages: Productive and inventive Finland – Digital Agenda for 2011-2020 (pdf brochure; 49 pages) There is a comparable brochure in the original Finnish: Tuottava ja uudistuva Suomi – Digitaalinen agenda vuosille 2011-2020 (49 pages) The glossy publications are probably intended for the wider public and international partners. However, the information in the original government reports to Parliament has been rearranged, at least. Did they aim at making the strategies more pleasing to readers? Original government reports If you are interested, you can compare the colour booklets with the original government reports in Finnish and Swedish, as available through the web pages of the Parliament (in pdf format; with document and page numbers added since the ministry versions): Finnish: Tuottava ja uudistuva Suomi – Digitaalinen agenda vuosille 2011–2020; Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle VNS 10/2010 vp (39 pages) Swedish: Ett produktivt och nyskapande Finland – Digital agenda för åren 2011–2020; Statsrådets redogörelse till riksdagen SRR 10/2010 rd (41 pages) Government report Here the word 'report' has a more forward-looking meaning than usually ('matter relating to the governance of the country') according to the Constitution of Finland, Section 44 - Statements and reports of the Government: The Government may present a statement or report to the Parliament on a matter relating to the governance of the country or its international relations.
This means that the national Digital Agenda for Finland was discussed at plenary sessions and dealt with in committies, but the end vote did not involve the confidence of the government. Ralf Grahn
At European Union level we have the information society strategy, which is a EU2020 flagship initiative: A Digital Agenda for Europe; Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2 (41 pages) National Digital Agendas? In the wake of the EU level Digital Agenda, are there national Digital Agendas or are the member states currently preparing their own knowledge society strategies? Finland, Denmark and Sweden have published national Digital Agendas, but I am grateful if anyone can show me where to find other language versions of the Danish or the Swedish ICT strategy. Information about implementing measures and possible updates being planned are most welcome. For the other EU member states as well I repeat my recent request for information, hoping to promote sharing and mutual learning to strengthen European competitiveness: Through Twitter @RalfGrahn and my blog I asked for information if there is a national Digital Agenda in your EU country in the footsteps of the Digital Agenda for Europe. The invitation remains open. It would be great if you could send me one tweet per language version. Please use the hashtag #DigitalAgenda to spread the word instantly. If you want to write more, you could use the comments section of this blog or send me an email. I will try to disseminate the information received.
Digital Agenda for Finland Finland has a national Digital Agenda for 2011-2020, published last autumn. The 26 November 2010 press release from the Ministry of Transport and Communications offers a glimpse, including the government aim of making high-speed, 100-Mbit broadband connections available to nearly all permanent residences and offices of businesses and public administration bodies by the end of 2015. There are three language versions of the Digital Agenda, glossy in Finnish and English, bare bones in Swedish. Finnish: Tuottava ja uudistuva Suomi – Digitaalinen agenda vuosille 2011-2020 (49 pages) English: Productive and inventive Finland – Digital Agenda for 2011-2020 (49 pages) Swedish: Ett produktivt och nyskapande Finland – Digital agenda för åren 2011–2020 (the original report to Parliament, without pictures and page numbers, but with 386 numbered paragraphs)
Twitter is a wonderful news source. How about information gathering? I @RalfGrahn decided to test through this Friday evening tweet: In the footsteps of #EU #DigitalAgenda does your country have a national one? In English or other widely understood language? Pls reply
If possible, tweet me a link to each language version and use hashtag #DigitalAgenda. Ralf Grahn
Is it possible that Europeans do not believe in a real digital single market as a realistic possibility, but see just one more slogan in an endless bog of internal market tinkering? European information society priorities As I mentioned in the blog post EU Digital Agenda Public consultation 2009, one of the key documents on the road to the new ICT priorities of the Digital Agenda was the Summary of responses to the public consultation public consultation Priorities for a new strategy for European information society (2010-2015) (DG INFSO, 28 pages). The public consultation was open from 4 August to 9 October 2009, but the summary is undated. I am still worried about the proportionately low level of responses to the information society consultation from the Mediterranean EU member states Greece, Portugal and Spain we have seen so much in the news, as well as from the new member states which still have a huge need to catch up. European information society themes Rereading the consultation summary, I still feel it offers useful facts and views about the state of the European information society themes (page 5): 1) ICT for a growth and jobs agenda, 2) ICT for a sustainable 'low carbon' economy; 3) Improving Europe's performance in ICT research and innovation; 4) Creating a 100% connected society and economy through a high-speed and open internet for all; 5) Consolidating the online Single Market; 6) Promoting access to creativity at all levels; 7) Strengthening EU's role in the international ICT arena; 8) Making modern and efficient public services available and accessible to all; 9) Using ICT to improve the quality of life of EU citizens.
Online single market In retrospect I am somewhat puzzled by the lack of interest, vision and ambition among both individual citizens and organisations relating to the online single market (nowadays often called the digital single market) as an ICT policy priority. See page 9. Is it possible that Europeans do not believe in a real digital single market as a realistic possibility, but see it as just one more slogan in an endless bog of internal market tinkering? In my view, a truly EU-wide digital single market would be a huge boost to European competitiveness and innovation and to most of the other worthy aims of the Digital Agenda for Europe. Despite the low priority in the abstract, section 3.4 Digital Single Market (on pages 18-20) showed clear interest in issues presented in more concrete terms. Some of them, such as copyright legislation and licensing regimes which stifle innovative pan-European digital content services, are controversial. *** All in all, in the context of the Europe 2020 growth strategy (EU2020) revisiting the ICT priorities through the EU information society consultation felt like a wortwhile exercise, not a waste of time. Ralf Grahn
A number of the aims of A Digital Agenda for Europe have been turned into measurable targets, mainly in the medium term (by 2015). What can European businesses and citizens expect from their digital environment? Annex 2 (pages 40-41) of the Digital Agenda communication offers us the following Key Performance Targets, mainly drawn from the Benchmarking framework 2011-2015 endorsed by the EU member states in November 2009: 1. Broadband targets: • Basic broadband for all by 2013: basic broadband coverage for 100% of EU citizens. (Baseline: Total DSL coverage (as % of the total EU population) was at 93% in December 2008.) • Fast broadband by 2020: broadband coverage at 30 Mbps or more for 100% of EU citizens. (Baseline: 23% of broadband subscriptions were with at least 10 Mbps in January 2010.) • Ultra-fast broadband by 2020: 50% of European households should have subscriptions above 100Mbps. (No baseline)
2. Digital single market: • Promoting eCommerce: 50% of the population should be buying online by 2015. (Baseline: In 2009, 37 % of the individuals aged 16-74 ordered goods or services for private use in the last 12 months.) • Cross-border eCommerce: 20% of the population should buy cross border online by 2015. (Baseline: In 2009, 8 % of the individuals aged 16-74 ordered goods or services from sellers from other EU countries in the last 12 months.) • eCommerce for business: 33% of SMEs should conduct online purchases/sales by 2015. (Baseline: During 2008, 24% and 12% of enterprises was, respectively, purchasing/selling electronically, for an amount equal to or greater than 1% of the turnover/total purchases. • Single market for telecoms services: the difference between roaming and national tariffs should approach zero by 2015. (Baseline: In 2009, the roaming average price per minute was 0.38 cents (call made) and the average price per minute for all calls in the EU was 0.13 cents (roaming included). 3. Digital inclusion: • Increase regular internet use from 60% to 75% by 2015 and from 41% to 60% for disadvantaged people. (Baseline figures are for 2009). • Halve the proportion of population that has never used the internet by 2015 (to 15%). (Baseline: In 2009, 30% of individuals aged 16-74 had never used the internet.) 4. Public services: • eGovernment by 2015: 50% of citizens using eGovernment, with more than half of them returning filled in forms. (Baseline: In 2009, 38% of individuals aged 16-74 had used eGovernment services in the last 12 months, and 47% of them used eGovernment services for sending filled forms.)
• Cross-border public services: by 2015 online availability of all the key crossborder public services contained in the list to be agreed by Member States by 2011. (No baseline) 5. Research & innovation: • ICT R&D increase: Double public investment to €11 billion. (Baseline: ICT government budget appropriations or outlays on R&D (ICT GBAORD) was 5,7 billion nominal euros in 2007.) 6. Low Carbon Economy: • Promotion of low energy lighting: By 2020 at least 20% overall reduction in energy use on lighting. (No baseline.) Digital Agenda context and contents The communication Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth COM(2010) 2020 outlined A Digital Agenda for Europe, one of the seven flagship initiatives. The Digital Agenda was launched 19 May 2010, but about three months later the first Digital Agenda communication was replaced by a corrected version in all languages. I do not remember seeing any explanation for substituting the original communication. The English communication comes with the same warning as the other language versions: CORRIGENDUM: Annule et remplace le document COM(2010) 245 final du 19.5.2010 Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques A Digital Agenda for Europe; Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2 (41 pages)
Planned actions In addition to the aim of ”A vibrant digital single market” the Digital Agenda communication sketched the planned actions concerning interoperability and standards, trust and security, fast and ultra fast internet access, research and innovation, enhancing digital literacy and skills and inclusion, ICT-enabled benefits for EU society, international aspects of the Digital Agenda, and implementation and governance. Annex 1 Table of legislative actions (pages 37-39) contains a lot of information in a nutshell. Digital Agenda updates Although it felt refreshing to return to the original communications, we should not forget that a lot has already happened. We can turn to updated information on the dedicated websites for the EU2020 growth strategy and the seven flagship initiatives intended to be mutually reinforcing, specifically the flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe which brings together the different strands, as well as the reform package known as the Single Market Act (SMA), relevant for the digital single market. Ralf Grahn
Originally the EU2020 flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe was outlined in the communication Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth COM(2010) 2020, then launched on 19 May 2010. However, about three months later the first Digital Agenda communication was replaced by a corrected version in all languages. Hence the English communication comes with a warning, as do the other language versions: CORRIGENDUM: Annule et remplace le document COM(2010) 245 final du 19.5.2010 Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques A Digital Agenda for Europe; Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2 (41 pages) ”A vibrant digital single market”
Persistent fragmentation is stifling Europe's competitiveness in the digital economy, and the EU is falling behind in markets such as media services, both in terms of what consumers can access and in terms of business models that can create jobs in Europe. The Digital Agenda authors understand that the single market (officially still the internal market) needs a fundamental update to bring it into the internet era, but the communication promises nothing more, nothing less than ”A vibrant digital single market” for Europe, the first action area presented (from page 7). The explanations regarding the reasons and the planned actions to progress towards the digital single market were bunched together under these group headings: Opening up access to content (page 7-10) Making online and cross border transactions straightforward (page 10-11) Building digital confidence (page 11-13) Reinforcing the single market for telecommunications services (page 13-14)
Digital Agenda themes Besides the digital single market, the Table of contents of A Digital Agenda for Europe offers an overview of the other themes of the communication: 1. Introduction 2. The action areas of the Digital Agenda 2.1. A vibrant digital single market 2.2. Interoperability and standards 2.3. Trust and security 2.4. Fast and ultra fast internet access 2.5. Research and innovation 2.6. Enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion 2.7. ICT-enabled benefits for EU society 2.8. International aspects of the Digital Agenda 3. Implementation and governance The Europe 2020 strategy, its Digital Agenda and the Single Market Act are of interest to the dynamic parts of European society. Ralf Grahn
A while ago I wrote a series of blog posts about the controversies regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): IPR trade protection: ACTA controversy Innovation and competitiveness Then, I turned to innovation, competitiveness and information society issues in line with the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020). Part of the series followed competitiveness reforms in Denmark, in an attempt to see how the EU countries can learn from each other: A Digital Agenda for Sweden EU2020 growth reforms Denmark: Policy outcomes EU2020 and WEF: Competitiveness EU2020: Learning from the best Productive and sustainable Denmark Denmark: Competitiveness challenges EU2020: Denmark aims for high employment EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark EU2020: Innovation Union evaluates RDI in Denmark Digital Single Market The EU2020 growth strategy, its flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe and the reform package known as the Single Market Act all contribute towards what could become the Digital Single Market. Earlier blog posts offer background to a new series about politics and law in the digital world, but this is only the beginning: EU Digital Single Market EU-kuuleminen televisiosta ja elokuvasta digimaailmassa Ralf Grahn
In July 2011 I wrote about how Mario Monti confronted the lack of an EU Digital Single Market. I looked at how Monti's proposals became a part of the Europe 2020 growth strategy (EU2020) and its flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe. Various aspects of the Digital Agenda, including the Digital Single Market, are covered in the blog posts mentioned in my 17 July and 24 July roundups. Consultation on distribution of audiovisual works One of the issues with relevance for the Digital Agenda is the ongoing consultation on the green paper concerning the distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union. Issues relating to the single market, as well as copyright and neighbouring rights are handled by the Commission DG for the internal market and services, so this is where you find the needed information. The deadline for contributions is 18 November 2011. The Green paper on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the EU is available in 22 official EU languages; the English pdf version: GREEN PAPER on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union: opportunities and challenges towards a digital single market; Brussels, 13.7.2011 COM(2011) 427 final (19 pages) You can stay updated by following @DigitalAgendaEU and @EU_Markt on Twitter and Digital Agenda on Facebook.
Innovation Union (with key documents), which was launched a year ago, is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The web pages are excellent. You can follow @innovationunion on Twitter and like Innovation Union on Facebook. Through Eur-Lex you can find the communication in 22 official EU languages; the English pdf version: Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union; Brussels, 6.10.2010 COM(2010) 546 final (43 pages) The communication was accompanied by the longer Commission staff working document: A RATIONALE FOR ACTION; Brussels, 6.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1161 final (103 pages)
Innovation Union Competitiveness Report 2011 The Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has just published a hefty report on where the European Union and its member states stand with regard to reseaarch, development and innovation: Innovation Union Competitiveness Report – 2011 edition Denmark RDI The blog post EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark told us that the country already invested more than 3 per cent of GDP in RDI activities. The then Danish government was more interested in improving the output from the efforts. There are Country Profile pages for 33 countries, the 27 EU member states plus Croatia, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. The country profile for knowledge-intensive Denmark shows that although the target of 3 per cent had already been reached, on current trends the country could attain 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2020.
Besides a general assessment of strengths and weaknesses, much of the information on the eight pages relates to Danish participation in the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), managed by CORDIS – the Community Research and Development Information Service. However, should we look for outside comparative evaluations in order to get a rounded view of innovation in Denmark? Ralf Grahn
In the blog post Denmark: Competitiveness challenges we found slow productivity growth as well as high and rising wage costs among the major hurdles for the future of the Danish economy. What does the National Reform Programme (NRP) tell us about growth-enhancing structural reforms in Denmark? The Danish Government's NRP in English: Denmark's National Reform Programme (May 2011; 67 pages)
Employment rate The more people work, the more they pay taxes and social contributions. This is good for the budget balance, especially when the demand for social benefits decreases when people move into employment. The ”work first” principle of the Swedish government guides decisions not only on taxes and benefits, but practically every aspect of government policy. The more successful societies seem able to mobilise more talent than the governments in the less competitive countries. Participation by women and real retirement ages are obvious factors, as are youth, people with an immigration background, the unemployed and various marginal groups. Denmark is well known for its flexicurity model, but the government of the day promised further reforms in order to reach an employment rate of 80 per cent among 20-64 year olds by 2020 (page 14). Denmark, like some of the other highly competitive EU member states, targets a clearly higher employment rate than the EU2020 headline target of 75 per cent. According to Eurostat, the Danish employment rate 76.1 per cent already surpassed the EU end goal in 2010. The European Union as a whole (EU-27), with an employment rate of 68.6 per cent, has a steep climb ahead of it to reach even the 75 per cent target by 2020. The Danish NPR offers inspiration based on a constant stream of Initiatives to promote labour supply and employment (Box 2.1, pages 15-16). The NPR of Denmark (page 17) found that the national efforts were in line with the Annual Growth Survey COM(2011) 11 from the European Commission, where the recommendations to mobilise the labour markets and to create job opportunities are found on the pages 5-7. However, the AGS found that the European Union as a whole was going to miss the much lower headline goal of 75 per cent on existing trends, so there is a great need for effective labour market reforms in the EU member states. Ralf Grahn
work first principle
Just as the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) aims for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is increasingly trying to actually measure or assess ”quality growth”, especially sustainable growth. The 527 pages of the global comparison The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 from the WEF offer a cornucopia of questions of method about competitiveness factors (Part 1) and substantive information about how well prepared the countries are for the future (Part 2). In other words, we can learn from both the general and the country-specific parts of the comparative study. The Global Competitiveness Index takes into account twelve interrelated groups or ”pillars” of competitiveness: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness (ICT), market size, business sophistication and technological innovation. As in previous years, this year’s top 10 remained dominated by a number of European countries, with Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands confirming their place among the most competitive economies. Singapore continued its upward trend to become the second-most competitive economy in the world, overtaking Sweden, while the United Kingdom returned to the top 10 as it recovers from the crisis, said the WEF.
On 6 October 2011 the government published an integrated IT strategy inspired by the Digital Agenda for Europe 2010-2020, which is a part of the EU2020 growth strategy: A Digital Agenda for Sweden. In English we find the government newletter: Sweden to be best in the world at IT. The four strategic areas are headlined: 1. Ease and security of use
4. The role of IT for social development In addition, you can find the earlier newsletter Sweden grows with IT and the background web page Digital agenda. Digital Agenda in Swedish I have found no English version (yet), but the national IT strategy is available in Swedish: Regeringskansliet: It i människans tjänst – en digital agenda för Sverige (Oktober 2011; 57 pages) Ralf Grahn
The European Commission has made two connected ACTA proposals: Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final The Council needs the consent of the European Parliament before the conclusion of the the agreement. See Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU. You can follow the procedure on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the EP, under the reference 2011/0167 (NLE). Commission asserts The European Commission knows that the less than open negotiating process leading to ACTA increased mistrust in many quarters. Some of the issues and proposals discussed during the negotiations have been criticised on Constitutional and civil rights grounds, as well as for being slanted in favour of big business interests – holders of intellectual property rights (IPR) - against the wider public (citizens, consumers, other users). In the superficial and brief explanatory memorandum, which seems to be identical in the signing and the conslusion proposals, the Commission tries to sell the benefits of stricter IPR enforcement in international trade. It also makes assertions intended to eliminate obstacles, calm doubts and to promote the smooth passage of the proposal. Here a few picks: * ACTA does not modify the EU acquis, because EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards * ACTA is a balanced agreement, because it fully respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of important stakeholders such as consumers, internet providers and partners in developing countries * It has never been the intention, as regards the negotiation of ACTA to modify the EU acquis or to harmonise EU legislation as regards criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights
Fundamental Rights The Green group in the European Parliament has constantly scrutinised supposedly illiberal proposals from the Commission or member states in relation to the digital environment and the Internet. This time the Greens/EFA have commissioned a legal study of the compatibility of ACTA with civil rights. The press release offers the conclusions in a nutshell: New study underlines rights concerns with ACTA, strengthens calls for deal to be scrapped. Yesterday, the Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said that the ACTA agreement violates binding fundamental rights, and that the EU and its member states have a duty to scrap the ACTA agreement as it stands.
Those who are interested in the individual arguments, can read the full study, or at least the Summary and Conclusions (page 58-61): Douwe Korff & Ian Brown: OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with the European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights The experts conclude: Our analysis shows that ACTA, as currently drafted, seriously threatens fundamental rights in the EU and in other countries, at various levels.
*** The assertions by the European Commission are not enough. The European Parliament and national parliaments need to look closely at the legal implications of ACTA, however keen they might be to promote the interests of IPR holders in international trade and the internal market. Ralf Grahn
After the signing ceremony blog post ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute and arguments by proponents in IPR protection in world trade: ACTA signed, we turn to recent and varied opinions about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the quest for more stringent protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in international trade. Information Society Project Margot has posted a note on the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, wondering if ACTA is unconstitutional in the United States as a Sole Executive Agreement. The post links to four articles, among which Infojustice.org and Techdirt are the most recent ones. Infojustice.org Sean Flynn, on Infojustice.org, discusses the Constitutional problem in the USA. Can ACTA be implemented by the executive, or does it need approval by Congress? The post links to a number of articles arguing the need for Congressional consent and doubting if the ACTA provisions are consistent with US law. The post also discusses potential approval or ratification problems in the European Union and Mexico, with links to detailed opinions and sources. Techdirt Ahead of the signing ceremony, Techdirt ran a story with links to a number of articles regarding Constitutional concerns in the United States and EU views corroborating that ACTA is an international treaty. According to the article, intellectual property is clearly a Congressional issue. USTR Official US views are expressed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which was diligent enough to post three news items during the weekend. Partners Sign Groundbreaking Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, with a link to the USTR ACTA ”fact sheet” ACTA: Meeting U.S. Objectives Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiating Parties Due to the lack of recent active information from EU institutions and services, the USTR serves European and other readers as well: Representatives of the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended the ceremony and confirmed their continuing strong support for and preparations to sign the Agreement as soon as practicable. All participants expressed their firm resolve to work cooperatively to achieve the Agreement’s prompt entry into force, and to support actively its goals.
According to The Mainichi Daily News the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed today, Saturday 1 October 2011, at the Iikura Guest House in Tokyo, by most of the eleven international partners. Through the web pages of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) we find the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (May, 2011; 24 pages) According to MOFA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was opened for signature on 1 May 2011. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan had announced that it will hold the signing ceremony for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on Saturday, 1 October 2011, at Iikura Guest House, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ahead of the ceremony MOFA reminded that: The negotiation has been carried out among Australia, Canada, the European Union and its Member States, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States, and reached a general agreement at the negotiation meeting held in Japan in October 2010, followed by the completion of technical and translation work in April 2011. The signing ceremony will be attended by the representatives of all the participants in the ACTA negotiations, and those that have completed relevant domestic processes will sign the agreement. The agreement is open for signature until May 1, 2013. European Union Even if the European Union was only to attend the signing ceremony, not yet to sign ACTA, I would have expected the European Commission's DG Trade, trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the Delegation of the European Union to Japan and the Council of the European Union to be sensitive enough to inform the public about the controversial agreement and the next steps ahead of the event in a visible and active manner. Nada. Ralf Grahn