The contents and goals of the Strategy Refocus on the essential:
• i.e. in practice what had already emerged from the Kok report; if possible restrict the scope even further, ‘clarify and rank the objectives in order’.
The Eu-2020 Strategy as the Growth Pact of the Eu:
• the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)
should be divided into astability and a growth section. Stability should remain with the, whereas growth should be channelled into the EU-2020 Strategy. Furthermore, in order to reduce the pro-cyclical feature and improve the contribution to crisis manage-ment it is worth making efforts for a more modern and flexible interpretation of the SGP. It is worth pondering the possibility of exceptions to the general rules of the SGP in a pre-determined fixed period if a country undertakes comprehensive structural reforms and the general government deficit increases due to the additional costs of the reform programme. as a result of the crisis the position of the European Central Bank has been strengthened among the institutions of the European Union. This may be an obstacle to the development of structural policy. The prospects of the EU-2020 Strategy become gloomier if the institutional weight of the European Central Bank increases. The macroeconomic environment could improve if in addition to the rate of inflation decision makers of the common monetary policy would consider other mac-roeconomic indicators (mainly unemployment) as well.
be more realistic, more modest and more cautious
• in expressing objectives in
quanti-tative terms; envisage different scenarios, possibly with ranges of values; do not make systematic comparisons with the United States, which can be psychologically coun-ter-productive, particularly at present.
Strengthen the social dimension of the basic paradigm
• which states, broadly, “Give
me a good economic policy and I will make you a good social policy”. Show in the new approach that, in the spirit of Lisbon, the relationship between the economic and the social is ‘two-way,’ which has been somewhat forgotten in the current implementation
of the Strategy, under the influence of a liberal mindset expressed a little too force-fully; while the crisis must certainly not be allowed to compromise the basic message (avoid a return to regressive utopias), certain balances need to be seriously reviewed and redressed if the spirit of the strategy is to be respected.
• This refocusing requires a detailed prior reflection process at the highest level which should result in a new reference text (or founding text) to inaugurate the new decade. The final report of the Felipe González Reflection Group may be that text.
develop the external dimension of the Strategy
• which so far has been largely missing
and explains some of the disappointments encountered; the global nature of the present crisis provides an opportunity to use the Strategy as a means of projecting Europe’s political and economic ideas on to the international stage.
• Integrating structural and sustainability policies in the Eu� This would imply that the European Union has an overarching unified framework for implementing some long-term key structural objectives, such as employment growth, regional policy, climate change, energy safety, knowledge-based economy, innovation, education and training, etc. The major value added content of this could be that the new strategy would co-ordinate and harmonise the Common and Community policies as well as those of the member states in a comprehensive framework and extend them to addi-tional fields (cohesion policy, common agricultural policy, etc.) not having been covered by the Lisbon Strategy yet. Harmonisation should be extended to both the time horizon and the contents of the individual policies and programmes. The guiding principle of the Strategy should be the integration of structural policy and sustain-ability. The objectives and the priorities of the other fields should be derived from the requirements of long-term structural changes. The proposed comprehensive strategy calls for the reform of the EU budget. This means that the expenditures of the Community budget should be based on the needs of the Strategy and the policies related to it rather than the other way round.
how to evaluate the achievements: indicators, incentives… and penalties Refine existing indicators such as that relating to the employment rate (too crude at
•
present) or that for innovation and research (the point is to measure actual perfor-mance rather than the financial resources allocated).
Introduce new indicators relating in particular to demographic change in the Union and
•
the member states, which determines directly or indirectly a number of the Strategy’s objectives.
Distinguish medium-term structural policy aspects – which are the only ones that
•
strictly come under the Strategy – and short-term aspects relating to the conduct of economic policy.
Develop a more rational method for evaluating national plans.
•
Reintroduce comparative performance reporting (peer pressure).
•
Reflect on the delicate issue of incentives and penalties.
•
The role for member states and for Eu institutions
Distinguish more clearly at all levels (concept, decision, execution) what falls within
•
the competence of the Union and what remains a matter for the member states; some of the present setbacks are a result of the confusion that prevails in this respect in current procedures.
Within the general strategy, develop a specific strategy for members of the eurozone;
•
restrict the role of the European Council to the setting of essential guidelines.
Strengthen the role of the General affairs Council (especially after the reforms
intro-•
duced by the Lisbon Treaty); the GaC must be the real architect of the detailed strategy formulation and the periodic adjustments required. Entrusting this task to the GaC is also the best way of enhancing coordination at EU and member state level (much more effective than the appointment of a Mr Lisbon).
Put the Commission back at the centre of the system for monitoring application of
•
the Strategy by the member states; ‘a permanent decentralised dialogue’ at all levels between the Commission and the member states is the best way of ensuring that the Strategy is applied.
Radical simplification of procedures and fewer documents
The system for the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy became bloated as regards
•
the number of meetings at ministerial level and others and the number of documents produced, which makes it too easy for certain members to shirk their obligations to comply with the Union’s guidelines and directives.
Make optimum use of the innovations of the Lisbon Treaty (Permanent President of
•
the European Council, General affairs Council (GaC) to simplify and better coordinate procedures.
Strictly limit the number of operational documents to three: a
• 10-year plan for social
and economic modernisation laying down the broad guidelines adopted by the European Council and adjusted if necessary by the same procedure and, each year, annual recommendations to the member states pursuant to the plan and a contribution by the Union to the implementation of the plan, adopted by the GaC.
a single annual meeting of the European Council (preferably in June to ensure better
•
preparation), for the purpose of adjusting the ten-year plan where necessary and ratifying the two documents containing the recommendations to member states and the Union contribution.
It is reasonable to distinguish two stages for the periods 2010-2014 and after 2014.
•
Developing the EU-2020 Strategy is not possible with one leapfrog. Taking the EU realities into account, it would require three to four years of preparatory work, gaining gradual commitment by the member states, the Parliament and society, and assigning consistent funding to the process. although the new Commission led by Barroso is likely to announce fundamental changes at the beginning of 2010, only some gradual,
smaller changes are possible in the 2010-2014 period. after that, it is possible to apply deep reforms and together with the new mid-term financial planning period. This way the whole budget could be changed, including the introduction of own EU financial resources (tax), the policy-driven reshaping of fiscal planning and increasing the EU’s total budget; and, in parallel, fiscal framework conditions could be adopted to help structural changes.
PoST lISboN STRATEGy
The Challenge of Building
a Low-Carbon European Future:
Combining Economic, Social and Environmental Policies into
a Post-2010 Lisbon Strategy
Elvire Fabry Research associate, Notre Europe Eulalia Rubio Research Fellow, Notre Europe
T
en years after the launching of the Lisbon Strategy, the EU needs to set new guide-lines for assuring a sustainable path of prosperity in the coming decade, in spite of the many factors that work against such an important goal: global economic crisis, lassitude created by the 2000 Lisbon Strategy, lack of member states’ involvement and a deficit of communication on the issue.Until recently, little attention has been paid to this issue. The Swedish Presidency had the intention to launch a debate on the post-Lisbon Strategy during its six month mandate but the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the preparation of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit eventually proved higher priorities. The launch of the Commission’s consultation on EU-2020 has attracted public attention to the question, but it is quite likely that in the coming months national governments’ priorities will stay focused on the short-term – how to exit from the crisis.
and yet, having reached in December 2008 an agreement on the energy and climate change package – the so-called “20-20-20 for 2020” – Europeans are more than ever before in need of a common strategy to promote prosperity and sustainable growth. Indeed, Europe’s challenge for the coming decade is to honour the EU’s commitments on climate change mit-igation while maintaining the competitiveness of European economies and securing social cohesion. In doing so, they should avoid repeating the mistakes of the Lisbon Strategy – very ambitious goals but weak implementation capacity. They should nevertheless retain the founding philosophy of ‘Lisbon’: the importance of adopting an integrated approach, fostering positive synergies between economic, social and environmental action.
The post-Lisbon Strategy needs to be strongly linked to this new ambitious climate change target Europeans have set for themselves. Europeans have to end ‘Lisbon as usual’ by putting at the core of a European agenda the priority of building a low-carbon economy.