1 / 15

Assessment of EU2020 Strategy Impact: Lessons from the First European Semester

Learn the study findings on EU2020 strategy achievement and key lessons from the initial European Semester. Explore governance intricacies, policy focus shifts, and stakeholder impacts. Understand the challenges in recommendation consistency and Council influence dynamics. Discover insights on country-specific targets, imbalance approaches, and democratic participation gaps for a holistic view of the EU's policy landscape.

rwang
Download Presentation

Assessment of EU2020 Strategy Impact: Lessons from the First European Semester

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment of the first European Semester and its contribution to the achievement of the EU2020 StrategyStakeholders & press presentationEP, Brussels19 October 2011

  2. The study • Carried out in summer 2011 • Research team • Olivier DERRUINE (staff Ph. LAMBERTS MEP) • Anne TIEDEMANN • Base material • Commission annual growth survey • Country recommendations as proposed by the Commission • Country recommendations as adopted by the Council • EU 2020 strategy

  3. AGS says : EU2020 targets will not be met • 75% employment rate : will be missed by 2.2–2.6% • 3% of GDP on R&D : will be missed by 0.2-0.3% • 20-20-20 targets • 20% improvement in energy efficiency will be missed • Education targets • 10% drop-out rate will be missed by 0.5% (but several MS have no plans) • 40% in tertiary education will be missed by 2.7% (best case) • Poverty reduction target : several MS have no plans

  4. EU 2020 performance chart

  5. Lesson 1 : a (too) intricate governance scheme • Too many benchmarks on different levels • Different instruments, different status • SGP criteria : binding, sanctionable, treaty-based • Broad economic policy guidelines, employment guidelines : binding, treaty based • AGS : non-binding, solo-play by the Commission • Euro+ pact : non-binding, solo-play by the Council • Overlap, lack of consistency in contents • see next table

  6. Lesson 2 : EU 2020 no longer in focus • « Consolidation » of public finances is top (and only serious) priority • Although AGS itself says in annex that “fiscal consolidation is an essential pre-requisite for growth, it is [however] not sufficient to drive growth.” • While EU 2020 should be overarching strategy, it hardly features in the AGS • Education, climate/energy targets only slightly referred to • R&D, poverty reduction targets absent altogether • 7 EU 2020 flagships are totally left out

  7. Lesson 3 : Lack of consistency • No direct link between country recommendations and performance gaps • Regarding the employment target, top performers (SE, NL and CY, except DK) and laggards or less ambitious countries (EE, IE, SL) are equally treated : they all receive a recommendation as if they all face the same challenge ! • Regarding CO2 emissions, one recommendation for BU but none for HU, the worst performer • Appropriate data not available in due time • Few country recommendations do take all three dimensions (smart, sustainable, inclusive) of EU 2020 • When they are all present, they differ widely in definition and scope • For instance, some recommendations (5 MS) address « growth-enhancing expenditure » but the scope differ (R&D&I for NL, care for DE, structural funds for IT) and the content is not always specified (BU, SK)…

  8. Lesson 4 : Council impact on recommendations • In general, Council tends to water down the tone of recommendations • In some cases, original recommendations are substantially modified • Example : strong recommendations to NL on addressing transport congestion issue – simply erased by the Council • One noteworthy amendment by the Council in the BU recommendation is to consult stakeholders on pension reforms (but why only in the BU case?)

  9. Lesson 5 : Approach to imbalances… unbalanced! • AGS states it will address both deficit and surplus countries, however no recommendations for the latter • Focus on wages in country-specific recommendations • Six-pack confirmed the balanced approach (surplus/deficit ; also COM declaration) and that wages will not be addressed. So what is next?

  10. Lesson 6 : No distinction between EMU/non-EMU MS’ • Despite Article 136 (« one of the major achievement of the IGC ») , the recommendations do not specifically take into account if Member States adhere to the EMU or not. • The new roadmap to Stability and Growth (October 12) announced two legislative pieces based on Art.136 to strengthen discipline in the MS. • It means a contrario that all the potential of the distinction EMU/non-EMU has not been tapped.

  11. Lesson 7 : An increasing democratic gap • AGS & Euro+ pact de facto supersede integrated policy guidelines • Some parliamentary consultation for the guidelines • NO parliamentary involvement at all for AGS & Euro+ pact • Involvement of national, regional parliaments in NRPs and SCPs at best superficial, at worst non-existent Involvement of social partners non-existent • By the way, the 1st EU Semester pre-empted some provisions of the 6-pack that was not even in force at the time (the Directive on requirement for budgetary frameworks (to monitor infra-national public finances) (AU, CY, DE, IT, SL...) or the new preventive arm of SGP (enforceable ceilings on expenditure » for IT...)

  12. Recommendations • Streamline the process • EU 2020 as the multi-annual policy framework (should embed any Euro+ type commitments); to be made (as) legally binding (as possible) • AGS (pls find new name) as the annual EU-wide policy guidelines (superseding BEPG & EG) • BOTH to be subject to co-decision in order to enable legitimacy • Increase consistency of EU semester with EU 2020 • Each concerned DG should be involved upfront • Should the drive remain with DG EcFin (hence strong bias towards basic budgetary discipline vs. More encompassing approach?)

  13. Recommendations (continued) • Increase consistency between recommendations and performance gaps • Policy-area approach vs. Country-based approach? • Increase the democratic legitimacy of the process • Co-decision on binding EU 2020 and AGS • Consultation of social partners for both • Based on six-pack, enforce effective involvement of MS parliaments in tabling of NRPs & SCPs

More Related