Annex A
Paper by BertelsmannStiftung
LABORATORY FOR INTEGRATION
OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF THE "OPEN
METHOD OF CO-ORDINATION"
CLAUS GIERING AND ALMUT METZ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The policy areas in which the open method of co-ordination
(OMC) is applied have multiplied rapidly, and OMC could become
the fundamental model of future integration. To bring the method
out of the twilight of EU integration, some guidelines should
be set:
— Given the importance of OMC,
and given that the Convention's draft has already been opened
to amendments, the intergovernmental conference (IGC) should append
a "Declaration on the Open Method of Coordination" to
the Constitution.
— This declaration should define
the method's key characteristics concerning the right to initiate
action, decision-making, planning, co-ordination, evaluation and
control.
— In addition, the current and
planned guideline processes should be listed systematically, and
their respective success evaluated.
The definition of such a framework would counter
potential negative trends toward intransparency and a lack of
legitimacy and at the same time make use of OMC's potential to
increase efficiency and dynamism.
European integration is a process that requires
innovation and dynamism. If a particular path of development appears
blocked or exhausted, the application of flexible instruments
often provides new momentum. The newest innovative twist is the
development of the open method of co-ordination. This method arose
in the run-up to the Treaty of Amsterdam as a way to organise
the member states' varying ambitions concerning employment policy.
OMC enables the definition of common guidelines, without resorting
to the classic community method of legislation.
As so often in the history of the European Union
(EU), once an instrument for integration has been successfully
initiated in one field, it finds its way into other policy areas.
This is particularly true for the areas addressed by the Lisbon
process which will also play a key role in the meeting of the
European Council on 25-26 March 2004.
CURRENT AND
POTENTIAL POLICY
FIELDS FOR
OMC
— Fight against poverty and social
exclusion
— Research and development
— Security at the workplace
ACCELERATING IMPLEMENTATION
The EU has set itself an ambitious goal. By
2010, the EU intends to be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
area in the world. To reach this goal, at the summit in Lisbon
on 23-24 March 2000, the EU Heads of State and Government selected
a new instrument that was described in the European Council's
conclusions as a "new open method of co-ordination at all
levels, coupled with a stronger guiding and co-ordinating role
for the European Council." The conclusions explained the
OMC as a method "designed to help Member States to progressively
develop their own policies", and that should take effect
within a framework of guidelines. The main elements of the process
are:
— first, fixing guidelines combined
with specific timetables for achieving the goals which they set
in the short, medium and long terms;
— second, establishing quantitative
and qualitative indicators and benchmarks;
— third, translating these guidelines
into national and regional policies; and
— fourth, monitoring and evaluating
the process, which aims towards mutual learning.
Following the specifications set up at Lisbon,
OMC was first applied to the fight against poverty and social
exclusion, as well as the question of the future of pension schemes.
Moreover, agreements were quickly reached that called for applying
the method, or at least studying how it could be applied, to policy
areas that included migration, public health policy, security
at the workplace, youth policy, training, tourism and e-Europe.
Among the areas of supporting, co-ordinating and complementary
action listed in the Convention's constitutional draft, industry,
culture and civil protection are explicitly listed as possible
areas for co-ordination. With those additions, OMC could penetrate
areas that are neither the exclusive competence of the Union nor
of the national governments, such as cultural policy, which in
Germany is a matter for the Länder governments.
Its rapid extension makes clear that OMC has
the potential to become a formative pattern of European integration.
CYCLICAL GUIDELINE
PROCESS AS
A MAIN
FEATURE OF
OMC
— Guidelines: Defining targets and
setting schedules.
— Indicators: Agreeing on quantitative
and qualitative indicators (scoreboard).
— Implementation: Creating and implementing
national action plans.
— Benchmarking: Reporting by the member
states; summarising, analysing best practices and suggesting policy
recommendations by the Commission.
— Political Pressure: Naming, blaming,
shaming; peer review; monitoring.
— Guidelines: Renewed setting of goals,
targets and schedules.
NOT ANCHORED
IN THE
TREATIES
The open method of co-ordination is not yet
explicitly anchored in the Treaties. Given its increasing importance,
however, OMC played a significant role in the debates within the
European Convention. There, OMC was primarily discussed in working
groups V (Complementary Competencies), VI (Economic Governance),
IX (Simplification) and XI (Social Europe). A majority of the
members of the working groups on social Europe and economic governance
spoke in favor of explicitly including the open method of co-ordination
in the Constitution, provided that the method would be clearly
defined.
In the end, the group in favour of integrating
OMC into the Constitution did not achieve its goal, although the
Convention's Praesidium had signaled several times that it would
consider the possibility. Concrete proposals for the text of a
constitutional article were also submitted. The Praesidium reasoned
that the method's flexibility should not be endangered by fixing
it in a treaty's text. Furthermore, OMC could be subsumed under
the clauses for co-ordinating economic, employment and social
policy, which are found in Article I-14 of the constitutional
draft. Article I-16, which covers the areas of supporting, co-ordinating
or complementary action, also forms a legal point of reference
for additional policy areas.
Another reason for foregoing an explicit article
on OMC was that a formalised definition would have become an additional
bone of contention within the Convention. For open co-ordination
touches not only the question of how to involve EU institutions,
and thus the problem of legitimacy, but also the regions' worry
that OMC could undermine their legislative prerogatives.
ASSAULT ON
THE COMMUNITY
METHOD?
Whether or not it is anchored in the Constitution
in an explicit article, OMC does already play an important role
in EU policy making and will be applied in a growing number of
policy areas. For this reason, it is necessary to weigh the method's
opportunities and risks.
From a critical point of view, the process of
open co-ordination could, under certain circumstances, work against
the efficiency, transparency and legitimacy of European policies.
— The administrative structures on
various levels will be involved with planning, implementing and
evaluating a complex system of simultaneous guideline processes.
OMC could thus lead to intransparency, by blurring responsibilities
and abetting centralisation.
— An agreement on a set of qualitative
and quantitative goals might merely be non-binding, if there are
no mechanisms to sanction those who do not meet these goals. Furthermore,
orientation toward "best practices" is not necessarily
innovative. It may simply consolidate existing knowledge, in particular,
if distinctive national characteristics are not sufficiently taken
into account.
— There is also the basic question
of whether the governments of the member states are authorised
to begin a process of open co-ordination in certain policy areas.
This would clearly reach a limit if the national governments ignored
the prerogatives of sub-national units.
— The question of legitimacy is particularly
relevant because the participation of the European Parliament
is limited, and national parliaments have hardly any means of
overseeing all OMC processes. The role of national parliaments
will tend to be reduced to implementation, and their opportunities
for setting policy will be closed off in favour of the governments.
— Finally, OMC as a form of substitute
legislation could also undermine the community method, if it replaces
existing modes of policy-making and legislation.
Thus, there are a number of risks associated
with the open method of co-ordination. However, under certain
conditions, OMC could also develop in a different direction, one
that respects the principle of subsidiarity and the sovereignty
of the member states while simultaneously improving the EU's ability
to solve problems.
— The OMC can encourage subsidiarity,
because the process is intended to include all levels of government,
thus working against centralisation. In this respect, OMC is a
"milder" approach than the community method. In principle,
it would be possible to transfer competencies that had gone to
the community method to the OMC.
— Furthermore, the OMC is compatible
with sovereignty, because it leaves the member states sufficient
room for manoeuvre. It can thus be applied in delicate policy
areas in which national sensitivities do not (yet) allow communitarisation.
OMC can contribute to solving current socio-political problems
without necessarily having to pass community law.
— Due to its construction, OMC enables
relatively rapid agreement on quantitative and qualitative goals.
As there are no immediate sanctions, member states may be more
likely to participate in this form of benchmarking. Where the
countries succeed in living up to the goals, the results can also
be presented positively to the electorate.
— Simultaneously, governments will
also be put under pressure, because OMC creates comparability
among the member states, and public interest will be aroused by
the mechanism of "naming, blaming and shaming."
— Finally, open co-ordination can offer
an alternative to initiatives that have been unsuccessful within
the community framework. In the end, not every member state would
even have to participate.
There are thus as many good reasons to apply
OMC as there are potential pitfalls. The use and extension of
these guideline processes should only be applied on a case-by-case
basis on the grounds of an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits.
CREATING FRAMEWORK
CONDITIONS
To prevent the negative tendencies inherent
in OMC, certain principles and conditions should accompany the
decision to begin a process of open co-ordination. These principles
and conditions should aim at solving problems efficiently, reinforce
democratic legitimacy, and increase transparency.
In order not to endanger the instrument's flexibility,
the process should not be overly formalised. Instead, various
forms of open co-ordination should be available, each adapted
to the appropriate policy area. Nevertheless, given the risks
described above, it is necessary to create a common framework
for the process.
1. A formal decision of the European Council
should continue to be the starting point for launching an OMC
initiative. This decision should define, in co-operation with
the Commission, the guideline process, including schedule, qualitative
and quantitative goals, and the modes of participation of various
governmental levels.
2. The European Council should charge the
European Commission with co-ordinating and evaluating the guideline
process. This will give the Commission a comprehensive role in
planning, co-ordinating and overseeing the process, because it
enjoys the necessary independence.
3. The European Parliament and the national
parliaments should receive regular progress reports. These bodies
should, in addition, be able to pose questions to the Commission
at any time. In this context, the early warning system described
in the constitutional draft's "Protocol on the application
of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality" should
be extended to the open method of co-ordination.
4. In order that the EP, national parliaments
and the public at large can exercise some form of control, the
Commission should systematically summarise the current and planned
guideline processes and evaluate their success. This will make
the strengths and weaknesses of existing OMC initiatives visible,
and highlight the key points that future OMC applications should
take into account. The next summit of the European Council should
take a respective decision.
CONCLUSION
The OMC offers opportunities in those areas
that urgently require a common approach, but where the member
states have either been unwilling to give up sovereignty, or where
the existing community practices have not led to success. In addition,
the OMC could be applied as a new form of differentiated integration
or as an alternative to the instrument of enhanced co-operation,
if only a limited number of member states are willing to participate.
OMC is not one of the hot topics in the Intergovernmental
Conference. Given its growing importance and its potential, the
constitutional provisions concerning co-ordination should be revisited.
In view of the tight schedule and the expected concentration on
institutional questions, an explicit anchoring of OMC in the Constitution
does not seem realistic at this stage.
Nevertheless, the current Intergovernmental
Conference should make an effort to bring OMC out of its existence
in the "twilight" of integration. Therefore, a declaration
mentioning at least the conditions for starting and developing
OMC should be attached to the Constitution. The specific arrangements
could then be regulated in an interinstitutional agreement. At
the same time, the early warning system for national parliaments
that is included in the constitutional draft should be extended
to cover the applications of open co-ordination.
If the member states fail to set up appropriate
conditions for OMC, integration through co-ordination could increasingly
take place without parliamentary or public control. In that case,
the EU would have done itself a disservice, because one of the
most important demands for the constitutional process was to improve
transparency and legitimacy of EU decisions.
|
