EU Digital Agenda: finding Commission documents

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.

EU Digital Agenda: member state and market basics eCommunications

Telecoms networks and services are sorted under the Commission's Information Society web pages eCommunications. There the web page 15th Progress report on the single european electronic communications market - 2009 offers you 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).

After the pan-EU developments presented in the blog posts about Part 1 (latest post), we glance at Part 2:

CORRIGENDUM
Annule et remplace le document SEC(2010) 630 final du 25.5.2010

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS: PROGRESS REPORT ON THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MARKET (15th REPORT); Brussels, 25.8.2010 SEC(2010) 630 final/2 PART 2 (128 pages)


Part 2 contains financial indicators, information about mobile markets, fixed markets, broadband markets, converged services (bundled offers), broadcasting, tariffs for leased lines, as well as exchange rates and population.

As with the implementation in the member states in Part 1, we are content to signal Part 2 to those who are interested, since we are going to meet both EU member states and evolving market conditions in many future instances.



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, I am grateful if you can use the comment section or email me with relevant information.

EU Digital Agenda: Radio spectrum progress

After some basic economic and market trends, broadband and regulatory 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)

The working document continued by discussing various aspects of the consumer interest: users' access to the Internet and network management, number portability, out-of-court dispute resolution, the European emergency number 112, ”must carry” obligations and ePrivacy (page 61-70).


Radio spectrum management

The section on spectrum management reminds us of the digital dividend (page 73-74):

In 2009, the Commission stepped up efforts aimed at coordinating the allocation of the digital dividend – high-quality radio spectrum freed as a result of switch-over from analogue to digital television broadcasting – for innovative wireless communication services across Europe.

In 2009 EU member states took steps towards the introduction of market-based approaches in their spectrum management practices, the study records.

This reminds us of the fresh, 28 October 2011 press release about another forward step concerning a proposal we have discussed before: First radio spectrum policy programme: Political agreement between Council and Parliament (Council document 16072/11).

You can find background information through the Commission's information society web pages dedicated to the radio spectrum theme, including the latest news on approaching completion.


eCommunications infringement procedures

Monitoring and preventive work did not eliminate the need for infringement procedures (page 77):

Enforcing effective implementation of the regulatory framework for electronic communications continued to be a priority in 2009. The Commission opened some 170 infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (formerly Article 226 of the EC Treaty) from the date of application of the regulatory framework until the end of 2009. In around 110 cases this was due to failures to correctly implement the regulatory framework. While all Member States have been concerned by enforcement action, a significant number of issues have been settled since.

You can find updated information about implementation and enforcement of existing eCommunications rules.



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.

EU Digital Agenda: regulatory developments

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.

Some innovative approaches were noted. One was the deployment of IT tools which allow end-users to test their actual broadband speeds. Online evaluation mechanisms enabling cost comparisons of alternative usage patterns were another transparency tool (both on page 56).


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.

EU Digital Agenda: broadband trends

Yesterday we looked at some basic economic facts and market trends in the European ICT sector, available at the time the Digital Agenda was launched.

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)

Here are a few market trends I found interesting enough to share with you.


BRICS

Europeans generally and the movers and 'brakers' of European integration need to adapt the EU to a globalising world, with some countries (BRICS) not only emerging, but practically bursting unto the scene. Here a quote regarding broadband uptake (page 23):

Growth rates in developing countries (India 62%, China 23%, Russia 39%, Brazil 23%, Mexico 54%) outpaced the levels of developed countries, clearly from much lower levels of penetration. Many EU operators have been very active in these growing markets.

Europe did not necessarily offer the best deal for SMEs and consumers (page 23):

In October 2009 broadband standalone access at 100 Mbps was available at around 30 euros per month in Japan and 20 euros in Korea. These prices are between 20 and 50% lower than prices for similar products in those EU countries where these are available.

Broadband speed

With regard to broadband speed the trend was clear (page 27):

Low speed broadband lines with download rates between 144 Kbps and 2 Mbps only represent 15% of all fixed broadband lines in January 2010, down from 25% in 2009, while the fastest category of lines (10 Mbps and above) has increased its share, from 14% in January 2009 to 23% of all fixed broadband lines in January 2010.

State aid

The working paper referred to the guidelines adopted by the Commission on 17 September 2009 which outline how public funding can be provided for broadband in line with EU state aid rules (page 32-33):

In 2009 the European Commission took 12 decisions regarding broadband projects involving public funding. 11 of these were found to be compatible with the Treaty (article 4(3) decision types), while one was not considered aid but rather a Service of General Economic Interest.

The total amount of the aid approved was €467 million.

Since then the European Commission had advanced to 83 decisions by 28 July 2011. The Commission DG Competition (see Telecommunications) is now digesting the responses to the public consultation regarding the revision of the State aid Broadband Guidelines.



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 about national information society strategies, you can use the comment section or email me.

EU Digital Agenda: ICT markets and information society

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.

Digital Agenda for Finland: ”Boring stuff” left out

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.

Digital Agenda for Finland: glossy or original?

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.

----- No decision on confidence in the Government or its Member shall be made in the consideration of a report.

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

National Digital Agenda for Finland 2011-2020

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)



Ralf Grahn

EU media freedom, policy and law

The Europe 2020 growth reform strategy and its flagship initiatives, such as the Digital Agenda for Europe, offer opportunities for cross-border learning between the governments and administrations in the European Union.

Information society and ICT issues are among the most dynamic policy areas, where the needs and opportunities are great.


Media freedom high-level group

Some important aspects will be covered by the high-level group to provide recommendations for the respect, protection, support and promotion of media freedom and pluralism in Europe. The group was convened by the Digital Agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes, and it is chaired by the former president of Latvia, professor Vaira Vike-Freiberga. The press release of 11 October 2011 IP/11/1173 is available in 22 official EU languages.

On the Commission's Information Society web page Freedom and Pluralism of the Media the high-level group is called a Committee on Freedom and Pluralism of the Media.


EU media policy

For all those who are interested in EU media policy and law, the Commission's Media Task Force offers an inventory of measures affecting the media (updated April 2011).

On thirty plus pages the inventory offers concentrated views of measures – EU acquis and ongoing - within the following categories of policies across several Commission services:

1. Audiovisual and media policies
2. Electronic communications policy
3. Digital Agenda
4. Research
5. Other policy files with potential media impact
6. References

The short references and notes are augmented by helpful links.


National Digital Agendas

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.



Ralf Grahn

Twitter and Digital Agenda in your EU country?

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

EU electronic communications market(s) at Digital Agenda start

I returned to the sources of the EU strategies for economic growth and the knowledge society in a number of blog posts published between 14 and 20 October 2011 (FI SV EN). Links are provided in the entry EU2020 and Digital Agenda roundup: innovative and competitive Europe?


Electronic communications market(s)

On 25 May 2010 the Commission published one of the cornerstones of the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiative A Digital Agenda for Europe. This was a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions about the state of the communications market(s) in Europe. At the time I noted the publication of the progress report and its findings of market fragmentation.

I added an entry about consumers facing roaming charges in real life, and another post about ambitious agendas and progress as proclaimed by the member states' governments.


COM(2010) 253 final/3

The communication exists in 22 official EU languages, but the version in force seems to be the third revision. We go to the English pdf version:

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)

The 15th report made it clear from the start that European consumers and businesses were not served well in one functioning single digital market, but ripped off in 27 different electronic communications markets (page 2):

Consumers and businesses are still faced with 27 different markets and are thus not able to take advantage of the economic potential of a single market.

At least, the progress report did not leave the Digital Agenda people without useful employment during the EU2020 decade.

Among other things, the communication discussed the independence and resources of national regulatory authorities (NRAs), legislation and regulatory activities concerning the migration from copper cables to fibre, mobile termination rates, radio spectrum management and mobile satellite services, as well as charges faced by consumers.

The Commission concluded by promising certain actions (page 16):

In line with the Digital Agenda and the measures it outlines on spectrum, universal service, the regulatory treatment of NGAs and privacy, the Commission will also take a number of targeted measures:

(1) to address the divergences in regulatory approaches and the lack of timely and effective enforcement of remedies;

(2) to lay solid foundations for a correct and timely implementation of the revised regulatory framework and;

(3) to ensure an effectively functioning Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).

eCommunications

Telecoms networks and services are sorted under the Commission's Information Society web pages eCommunications. There the web page 15th Progress report on the single european electronic communications market - 2009 offers you 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).



Ralf Grahn

EU information society priorities revisited

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

Digital Agenda performance targets

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

”A vibrant digital single market”

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

EU2020: Competitiveness, innovation and digital single market

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

EU Digital Single Market

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.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Innovation Union evaluates RDI in Denmark

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

EU2020: Research and development quality in Denmark

In the blog post EU2020: Denmark aims for high employment we saw that a high employment rate (75 per cent) is a headline target of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, but new reform efforts are needed to put the European Union as a whole on track.

Although somewhat dented during the crisis years, Denmark had 76.1 per cent of 20-64 year old employed, so the National Reform Programme (NRP) 2011 promises continued reforms in order to reach an employment rate of 80 per cent by 2020.

We return to the English version of the Danish Government's NRP in in order to see the plans concerning research and development:

Denmark's National Reform Programme (May 2011; 67 pages)


Research and development quality

For the EU as a whole, the EU2020 strategy aims at a quantitative target – 3 per cent of GDP – for research and development (R&D) and innovation activities by 2020, including both private and public investment.

Admittedly, this quantitative input measure is a bit primitive, but better than nothing. The European Union as a whole needs to catch up with the most innovative countries, states (USA) and regions in the world.

According to Eurostat, in 2009 the EU-27 R&D investment was just 2.01 per cent of GDP, but Denmark on 3.02 per cent had already reached the EU2020 target, third behind Finland (3.96%) and Sweden (3.62%).

The Danish research, development and innovation (RDI) strategy does not aim to throw more into the input basket, but it is focused on increasing the effectiveness of productivity in the field of research (NRP page 19).

The NRP Box 2.2 on page 20 presents new initiatives in the areas of research, development and innovation.


Annual Growth Survey

The European Commission presented its guidance for the final versions of the National Reform Programmes in its communication:

Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU's comprehensive response to the crisis; Brussels, 12.1.2010 COM(2011) 11 final

The AGS made a few general points about research, development, innovation and competitiveness during tough times:

All Member States, especially those in excessive deficit procedure, should keep public expenditure growth firmly below the rate of medium term trend GDP growth, while prioritising sustainable growth friendly expenditure in areas such as research and innovation, education and energy (page 4).

Member States should simplify their regimes for the recognition of professional qualifications to facilitate the free circulation of citizens, workers and researchers (page 7).

To remain competitive in a globalised economy Member States must urgently begin the deep structural reforms needed to enhance the excellence of our research and our capacity to innovate, turning ideas into products and services that meet the demand of high-growth markets, taking advantage of the technological capabilities of our industry and helping SMEs to grow and internationalise (page 7).

In addition to budget priorities, the Danish government and the Commission point towards quality consciousness and RDI excellence in order to enhance competitiveness of European businesses.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Denmark aims for high employment

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

Denmark: Competitiveness challenges

After Productive and sustainable Denmark as seen by the World Economic Forum (WEF), we look at what Denmark has planned in order to become even more innovative and competitive, in line with the aims of Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.


National Reform Programme 2011

Last spring, in line with the European semester and the Annual Growth Survey, each EU member state submitted the final version of its National Reform Programme to the Commission. To a large extent the Danish NRP 2011 builds on the 39-page Danmark 2020 programme from February 2010:

Danmarks Nationale Reformprogram 2011 (Maj 2011; 65 pages)

Thanks to the English versions, the NRPs can be studied more widely:

The Danish Government: Denmark's National Reform Programme (May 2011; 67 pages)

The Introduction offers an overview of the NRP contents:

 Chapter 1 deals with the overall framework for the Danish economy based on the 2020 Plan.
 Chapter 2 focuses on the Danish national targets which will contribute to fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy and strategies for meeting the targets.
 Chapter 3 identifies the structural bottlenecks for growth in Denmark.
 Chapter 4 describes the inclusion of relevant ministries and non governmental organisations relevant for the Europe 2020 strategy, including their involvement in the drawing up of the national reform programme.

Competitiveness challenges

After presenting the macroeconomic background, the Danish NRP moves on to more specific issues of competitiveness. These reveal a number of challenges to Denmark's future prosperity. Two major ones:

The programme noted that between 1999 and 2009 Denmark recorded the second-lowest annual rate of productivity growth among the OECD countries.

Wage costs in Denmark have risen more than in Germany and elsewhere abroad during a number of years. In the Danish manufacturing industry wage costs are higher than in all other OECD countries except Norway.



Ralf Grahn

Productive and sustainable Denmark

Three magic words: competitiveness, productivity, prosperity.

Studying innovative and competitive independent countries, or states of the USA, much of the Europe 2020 growth strategy (EU2020) is about learning from the best.

Before turning to the WEF pillars of competitiveness, we had already taken a peek at the economy and society of Denmark.

We have also seen that among the 142 countries and territories compared by the World Economic Forum, Denmark ranked eighth according in the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2011-2012 (table 3, page 15):

Klaus Schwab (Editor): The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 (World Economic Forum WEF; 527 pages)

Tables 4 to 7 allow us to get a more detailed view of how competitive Denmark (or another country) is with regard to different groups of criteria or pillars, more fully explained on pages 47-49. According to the summary on page 24, Denmark has quality institutions, infrastructure and education like its Nordic neighbours, but its labour market flexibility is a distinguishing feature.

A fourth magic word is 'sustainability'.

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index (SCI; beta version) was presented by the WEF for the first time. The challenging and interesting SCI tries to determine the level of productivity while ensuring the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The SCI is an effort to integrate factors of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Denmark came in eighth in the integrated GCI as well.

Country presentation

You find the country presentation of Denmark on the pages 162-163, including the most problematic factors for doing business, as well as the scores for about a hundred different factors.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020: Learning from the best

After the series about the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), I reported the publication of a new Digital Agenda for Sweden and then took a first look at policy outcomes in Denmark in the light of the competitiveness, growth and employment aims of the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020). Next we looked at the twelve pillars of competitiveness wisdom, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).


Learning from the best

We have just scratched the surface of the comparative report on productivity and growth potential globally:

Klaus Schwab (Editor): The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 (World Economic Forum WEF; 527 pages)

Those who are interested in EU2020-related economic reform issues at national or EU level notice that among the 142 countries and territories ranked, the two top positions go to countries outside the European Union.

Switzerland remains the WEF World Champion, most notably with regard to innovation, technological readiness and labour market efficiency, but also due to its strong showing in practically every category (page 11 summary).

Singapore advanced to second place due to its excellent institutions, as well as its efficient goods, labour and financial markets (page 11-12 summary).

The following top ten emerged from the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2011-2012 rankings (page 15):

1. Switzerland
2. Singapore
3. Sweden
4. Finland
5. United States
6. Germany
7. Netherlands
8. Denmark
9. Japan
10. United Kingdom

Instructive summaries follow for the individual countries.

ITIF

Between 2005 and 2011 the United States has declined from first to fifth position, but let us remember the big differences between the states. When the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ITIF benchmarked innovation and competitiveness in the European Union and the United States, it found many worrying signs for both.

However, ITIF also found that Massachusetts and eight other states are on the top of the world:

Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, and New Hampshire are more innovative than any nation in the world. Only Finland breaks into the top 10. In other words, nine states lead all nations in the world in terms of innovation-based competitiveness. If it were a nation, Massachusetts would lead the world by a large margin, scoring 18 points above California and 38 points higher than Finland. Massachusetts has set itself apart in several indicators, as the only state or country to have business R&D investment levels over 5 percent of domestic product, over 0.5 percent of domestic product in venture capital, and over two-thirds of its college aged population having a college degree. But even the ninth most innovative state, New Hampshire, leads the EU-25 on all measures but venture capital and broadband.

***

For those who work to turn their national reform programme (NRP) or the EU2020 aims into real progress, learning from the best is essential. The WEF top ten and the nine most competitive and innovative US states are among the places to look.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020 and WEF: Competitiveness

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.



Ralf Grahn

EU2020 growth reforms Denmark: Policy outcomes

How does the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020) turn into reality in the EU member states? Indeed, after the failed Lisbon strategy we need to ask: Does it?

At least, through common statistics, shared goals and constant contact the European Union offers politicians and officials the opportunity to learn from the best.

Within the framework of the European semester, each member state submitted its macroeconomic stability or convergence programme according to the stability and growth pact (SGP), as well as its national reform programme (NRP) for structural reforms enhancing competitiveness and growth.

Denmark – of flexicurity fame – is one of the most competitive, innovative, inclusive - over all successful EU economies and societies.

Even if Denmark is also known for public expenditure above 50 per cent of GDP and correspondingly high taxes, the Nordic country is a reform model worth studying and learning from, if we want growth and jobs (a high employment rate) in Europe.

Before we turn to the national reform programme and policies, we need to get acquainted with Denmark.


Denmark in a nutshell

The OECD Government at a Glance 2011 offers us an astonishing amount of economic and administrative information on just four pages. I want you to give them careful thought:

Country note Denmark (24 June 2011)

The OECD Better Life Index for Denmark links to additional information concerning eleven policy areas (topics): housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance. Which Better Life Index policy outcomes do you find most desirable, most worthy of emulation?



Ralf Grahn

A Digital Agenda for Sweden

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
2. Services that provide benefits
3. Infrastructure is needed
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

Greens challenge ACTA legality

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

IPR protection: ACTA opinions USA and EU

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.

Ralf Grahn

ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute

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