The Future of the Cardiff process
Annex I: Conclusions from IEEP's follow-up evaluation, June 200124
What follows reproduces IEEP's conclusions from its follow-up evaluation of the Cardiff strategies in mid-2001. |
The initial IEEP report contained an evaluation of the content of the Cardiff strategies
and the process for their development. It was clear that the nine strategies varied widely
in tone and content, not least because they were at different stages of development.
Nevertheless, a number of conclusions were drawn from the evaluations, as follows:
none contained all of the elements that one might expect a ‘strategy’ to
comprise; overall, some issues had been addressed much more fully than others; some aspects of strategy formulation were more fully developed than others; the strategies did not contain many specific measures which were ‘new’; there was considerable variation in approach and degree of adequacy between the
Councils, and the first wave of strategies tended to score higher, but even this was not clear cut.
A number of conclusions were also drawn in relation to the strategy development process, as follows:
| the Council formations were poorly adapted to strategy formulation; |
| interested Presidencies and ‘helper’ States played a vital role in all strategies; |
| the involvement of the Commission varied greatly, but was crucial in some cases; |
| the European Parliament had not engaged with the Cardiff Process; and |
| stakeholder participation had been extremely limited. |
This follow-up evaluation provides an update on progress since December 2000, noting considerable developments across the board and particularly in relation to GAC and fisheries, which began from a very low base. Addressing each of the points above in turn, there are however some distinctions and refinements which can now be made.
No strategy contains all of the desirable elements
This remains the case in spite of some useful progress set out above. In particular, problem formulation is at best vague, which necessarily limits the ability of a ‘strategy’ to address problems comprehensively. The ‘global footprint’ issue remains poorly addressed, even in the GAC strategy that is specifically directed towards the external dimension. No strategy has really got to grips with enlargement and few are even trying to do so, which is surprising in the light of the accession timetable.
Some issues had been addressed much more fully than others
Issue coverage has not improved greatly. Structural issues such as decoupling, and the relationship between environment and internal market, are still largely avoided.
Some aspects of strategy formulation were more fully developed than others
This is clearly the case. Good progress has been made on indicators, and in several cases, on ongoing monitoring and review arrangements. In contrast, the sensitive question of sectoral targets, for example, has been largely avoided.
The strategies do not contain many specific measures which are ‘new’
For the present this conclusion holds good, but in several of the more advanced strategies there are now processes in motion which seem likely to result in new measures in the foreseeable future. In general a much stronger sense of an ongoing process is likely to reinforce this conclusion in the future.
There is considerable variation in approach and degree of adequacy
Substantial variations remain, which is perhaps not surprising or even undesirable. Recent developments have however filled some gaps, and led to a degree of convergence, for example in the nature of the Commission’s participation.
The first wave of strategies tend to score higher
This remains valid. There has been important progress, especially in fisheries and GAC. By the same token, however, the ‘first wave’ Councils have all made substantial progress in some areas, so there is not yet an obvious ‘catch-up’ effect. Some elements of institutional learning (propagated by agencies such as Presidency initiatives, the role of the Commission and synthesis reports) may already have begun to address this point, however, and seem likely to do so in future.
The Council formations are poorly adapted to strategy formulation
This remains valid. However, the deficiencies of the Council structure have increasingly been remedied (at least for the present) by an active Presidency and a more coherent Commission input.
The Presidency and ‘helper’ States played a vital role in all strategies
This has perhaps never been more valid than in the past year. The good level of progress is a tribute to the considerable preparation and effort of the Swedish government, and other ancillary activities engendered by the advent of the Göteborg Summit. This however places a great onus on the upcoming Danish Presidency in particular, and equally careful preparation for that event is desirable. This conclusion also raises some serious and as yet unresolved issues as to how Cardiff will fare beyond the end of 2002.
The involvement of the Commission
This is one of the areas in which there appears to have been something of a sea change, with a generally better modus operandi appearing to emerge between Council and Commission.
The engagement of the European Parliament
This too is an area in which remarkable progress has been made, at least in relation to the almost total lack of engagement beforehand. It nonetheless remains to be seen how sustained, comprehensive and effective the EP’s role will be over time.
Stakeholder participation has been extremely limited
This remains broadly valid, and although participation has improved in some cases, this has been primarily through the good offices of agencies other than the Council itself. The Council remains institutionally inward-looking, and few formations have even paid lip-service to fuller participation in strategy development.
Overall conclusion
Thus our basic assessment of the Cardiff Process still stands in most areas, but with a number of caveats which reflect real progress in some cases. Work on the different Council strategies is still incomplete and at very different stages in the process. While all Councils will have at least a first report by June 2001, few if any could be considered as having developed complete strategies. As against this, there is now a much clearer sense of an ongoing process which should engender further improvements over time.
| 24 | IEEP, The Effectiveness of EU Council Integration Strategies and Options for carrying forward the Cardiff Process. IEEP and Ecologic, London, 2001. |