assessment of the 1st eu semester brussels, 19 october 2011 assessment of the first european...

Assessment of the 1st EU SemesterBrussels, 19 October 2011

Assessment of the first European Semester and its

contribution to the achievement of the EU2020

Strategy

Stakeholders & press presentation

EP, Brussels19 October 2011


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


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


EU 2020 performance chart


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


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


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)…


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 CouncilOne noteworthy amendment by the Council in the BU recommendation is to consult stakeholders on pension reforms (but why only in the BU case?)


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?


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.


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...)


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?)


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

assessment of the 1st eu semester brussels, 19 october 2011 assessment of the first european...

Documents