Assessment of the first European
Semester and its contribution to the
achievement of the EU2020 Strategy
Stakeholders & press presentation
EP, Brussels
19 October 2011
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 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
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
EU 2020 performance chart
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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)…
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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?)
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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?
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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.
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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...)

Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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?)
Assessment of the 1st EU Semester
Brussels, 19 October 2011
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