European Economic and Social Committee s2

European Economic and Social Committee Europe 2020 Steering Committee

December 4 National ESCs contributions 2013

Towards the mid-term review of the EN Europe 2020 strategy TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION...... 2 LETTER TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCILS, SENT 4 JULY 2013...... 4 NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROTOCOL ORDER...... 6 BELGIUM...... 7 BULGARIA...... 11 CZECH REPUBLIC...... 20 GREECE...... 23 SPAIN...... 26 FRANCE...... 30 ITALY...... 36 LUXEMBOURG...... 45 HUNGARY...... 52 NETHERLANDS...... 55 PORTUGAL...... 56 ROMANIA...... 68 SLOVAK REPUBLIC...... 72 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 74

2 INTRODUCTION

The European Council highlighted in October 2013 that in the framework of the Europe 2020 Strategy it is necessary to involve all relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the strategy, including the European Semester, for a better ownership of reforms.

The new Annual Growth Survey 2014 was published on 13th of November. It also underlines the necessity to involve stakeholders efficiently in the design and implementation of National Reform Programmes and Stability and Convergence Programmes. Furthermore, for the first time ever, the Commission published the European social partners' views together with the Annual Growth Survey.

The present report gathers 13 contributions received from national Economic and Social Councils (ESCs) and similar institutions, civil society organisations and members of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in relation to their implications and activities regarding the 2013 European Semester. Its aim is to bring a useful input to European institutions and national authorities in view of the 2014 exercise (National Reform Programmes, country-specific recommendations). The report gives also an opportunity to ESCs / similar organisations to bring forward bottlenecks and best practices.

Regarding the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), the contributions received contain specific proposals to improve the formulation and implementation of these programmes. For instance the problems of monitoring are brought up. There is a proposition to include a progress report on Europe 2020 flagships in next year's AGS. There is also a suggestion to improve monitoring through a civil society led monitoring chart and scoreboard, which is already being done in one member state. Additionally many contributors propose to review the targets of the strategy, perhaps even by adding an additional target for youth employment.

Regarding the country-specific recommendations the report shows that there is a variety of opinions within social partners and civil society on how the recommendations should be reviewed. Some see that member states are not being monitored enough on the implementation of the recommendations, whereas some think more room of manoeuvre should be left to countries and the recommendations should therefore not be too rigid.

Given the need for continuous improvement of the governance of the European Semester, the EESC and its network of national ESCs and partner organisations hope that these evaluations will be helpful for the European Semester and preparing the mid-term review of the Europe 2020. The national stakeholders are a valuable source of information for assessing the effects of the strategy in the member states.

Indeed, as stated in its Europe 2020 related opinions, the Committee calls for enhanced participation of organised civil society in shaping and implementing policies and reforms under the strategy. To take into account the high quality civil society propositions that are gathered in this report can only lead to higher ownership of the strategy and an effective mid-term review. 3 LETTER TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCILS, SENT 4 JULY 2013

European Economic and Social Committee The President

Brussels, 4 July 2013 DA-2020/2013/D/4099

Presidents of national Economic and Social Councils and Heads of similar organisations

Dear President,

The Europe 2020 strategy and the European Semester have reached their third year. They play an increasing role in national policy making, despite the difficulties imposed by the current profound crisis. The scale of these challenges requires extra effort from all stakeholders, and I believe that European civil society at large, with its strong commitment, is a key partner in the process of reform.

The impact of the uncertain socio-economic outlook is far-reaching. It is important to build public support for successful policies now, as they may take some time to bear fruit. It is critical to identify effective policy models and implement best practices across Member States, and, after assessment spread them across the EU for optimal effect.

Each autumn, the network of national economic and social councils (ESCs) and similar organisations puts together a highly valuable contribution on the Europe 2020 strategy for the European institutions. This year cooperation will extend beyond the calendar year and look back at the strategy since its launch in 2010, with the objective of adding our input to the forthcoming review of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Therefore, in order to make a substantial contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy and its review, I have proposed the following questions:

1. Has there been a comprehensive debate or broader efforts to provide information on the NRPs involving representatives of organised civil society?

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË Tel. +32 2 546 9931 — Fax +32 2 546 9752 email: [email protected] — Internet: http://www.eesc.europa.eu 2. What problems/opportunities are there regarding the NRPs? Have the views of civil society been taken into consideration? Please provide specific examples of best practices and/or bottlenecks.

3. Which are the main issues/challenges when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as whole – set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations?

4. Could you outline specific proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015-2020 period?

I would like to thank you in advance for drawing up a submission of no more than eight pages by 10 October 2013. I look forward to discussing the EESC's work on the strategy and your contribution at our next joint meeting on 4 December 2013.

For more information on our ongoing work, please do not hesitate to contact the Europe 2020 Steering Committee Secretariat, Mr Jüri Soosaar, email [email protected], tel. +32(0)25469628.

Yours sincerely,

Stefano Palmieri, President of Europe 2020 Steering Committee

5 NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROTOCOL ORDER

6 BELGIUM

Joint contribution from the Belgian Central Economic Council and the National Labour Council

For the attention of. Mr S. Palmieri President of the EESC's 2020 Steering Committee Rue Belliard, 99 1040 Brussels

Dear Mr Palmieri

In response to your letter of 4 July 2013, please find herewith the joint contribution from Belgium's Central Economic Council and National Labour Council for the EESC's report on the Europe 2020 Strategy, setting out our responses to the EESC's questions on the assessment of the social partners' involvement in the National Reform Programme, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the European and national Semester more generally. We have taken note of the fact that the EESC report is also intended to feed into the forthcoming revision of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Involvement of the social partners

Since the launch of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Central Economic Council (CCE) and the National Labour Council (CNT) have frequently drawn attention to the need for the EU and national political authorities to organise dialogue and consultations with the social partners, at all levels and from the very first phases in the annual cycle of the European Semester, so that their work and contributions can feed into the National Reform Programme (NRP) in an effective and relevant way.

It is worth recalling, in our view, that the joint declaration by the Secretaries-General of the national ESCs and the EESC of September 2010 appealed, in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy, for the development of a system of governance that would allow the social partners and other representative organisations of civil society to be more closely involved at European, national, regional and local levels, this being seen as a precondition for ensuring the success of the new strategy and achieving its objectives1.

The CCE and the CNT have also taken note of the discussions and European proposals for moving towards genuine economic and monetary union. In this connection, the role of social dialogue was

1 The declaration included a number of concrete proposals concerning the clarity and comprehensibility of the Europe 2020 strategy, the systematic involvement of the ESCs in the strategy, organising true dialogue with the social partners and organised civil society, setting realistic consultation timetables, access to information and exchange of information and best practice between ESCs (http://www.eesc.europa.eu/ceslink/?i=ceslink.en.documents-joint-declarations ). 7 also reaffirmed at the European Summit in June 2013 and in the European Commission's Communication of 2 October 2013 on the social dimension of EMU.

As regards European governance, social dialogue is needed to bring the necessary clarity to the European Commission's analytical framework and evaluations of socio-economic policy and to the underlying challenges that are identified by these evaluations.

We welcome the fact that the European Commission's Annual Growth Survey (AGS) and Alert Mechanism Report will, henceforward, be published in the Autumn, as this will ensure that there is sufficient time to analyse the main challenges in the Member States and assess the progress made towards implementing the recommendations in the run-up to the Spring Summit.

However, the length of time available between the publication of the Commission's proposed recommendations, the discussions within the various Council formations and their validation at the June summit is still very short. The aim of coordinating the work of the various European Council Committees (the EPC, the Employment Committee, the Social Protection Committee and the EFC) is to identify the most appropriate and balanced policy responses, particularly in areas where the social partners and social dialogue play an important role.

At national level, the dialogue with the social partners must cover the intentions of the country's various national political authorities in relation to the follow-up of the EU recommendations, the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and, more broadly, the coordination of socio-economic policies at European level. Another aim of this dialogue is provide input on the interrelationship between European coordination and the other objectives of the action taken by the public authorities and the concerns of the social and civil society partners at all levels of authority.

The process of drawing up the European recommendations and, more broadly, the European Semester, demonstrates that, when it comes to governance and the coordination of socio-economic policies, the primary responsibility for major reforms lies with the Member States. This particular relationship between the decision-making authorities in deciding, formulating, implementing and assessing socio-economic policies is still a largely new phenomenon. For the social partners, continuously adapting and perfecting the social dialogue at all levels of authority (European, federal and regional), can defuse or resolve significant economic and social questions that arise as a result of the proposed reforms, whilst simultaneously boosting competitiveness, social progress and quality of life. To this end, in accordance with Belgium's institutional structure, the Regions and Communities and the regional social dialogue are developing initiatives for inclusion in the NRP.

As part of their remit, the Central Economic Council and the National Labour Council have consolidated or initiated ad hoc procedures for informing and involving the social partners during the various phases of drawing up and assessing the EU strategy at national level. The Belgian representatives on the European committees responsible for multilateral surveillance (the Employment Committee, the Social Protection Committee, the Economic Policy Committee and the Economic and Financial Committee) take part in the work of the Central Economic Council and National Labour Council on a regular basis. The Central Economic Council holds ad hoc meetings 8 with representatives of the Belgian National Bank on sovereign debt problems and the monitoring of national and international regulation of financial markets.

For the preparation of the 2014 NRP, the bodies of the CCE and CNT have introduced a procedure for the two councils' participation in the process, which will fall into three stages: a) A meeting with the European Commission's Belgium Desk concerning the analysis of socio- economic developments in Belgium, to be held during the month in which the European Commission's "in-depth review" is published; b) A first meeting in April with the Prime Minister's Strategy Cell to assess the current commitments and results of the implementation of the socio-economic policy in relation to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, the NRP and European recommendations; c) A second meeting with the Prime Minister's Strategy Cell on drawing up measures in the framework of the objectives set by Belgium and the recommendations of the European institutions. This meeting, to which the social partners attach considerable importance, is to be held in September/October 2014.

The 2013 Recommendations

In June 2013, the European bodies approved the recommendations for reforms put forward by the European Commission for each of the EU Member States. These recommendations are important, since they affect the Member States' choices on budgetary, economic and social matters. In Belgium, the publication and implementation of these recommendations is discussed both at political level and by the social partners.

The discussions between the social partners within the two Councils and the dialogue with the government did not lead to a consensus regarding the balance and general orientation of the 2013 recommendations. In this connection, it is becoming increasingly clear that the European recommendations are covering some areas that have traditionally been the preserve of the social dialogue: by addressing issues such as the revision of the system for wage negotiation and indexation, raising effective retirement ages, containing age-related expenditure, including expenditure on health, and active employment measures, for instance through the unemployment benefits system, the European institutions are now addressing issues that are at the heart of the remit of the social partners and the existing "social pact" in Belgium.

As a result of the timetable, the current rules of procedure and the difficulties the social partners experienced in developing a common response to the recommendations, genuine and effective collaboration with the social partners in the process of drawing up and assessing the NRP did not occur. The government's consultations with the social partners were limited to a pro-forma exchange of arguments.

More broadly, since the crisis of 2008, social dialogue and collective bargaining have struggled to produce general inter-professional agreements. The worsening economic situation, the weak gains in productivity, the deterioration of public finances, rising unemployment and the closure of major 9 companies have not been conducive to the conclusion of general social agreements in our country. The last major agreement between the social partners was the Exceptional Agreement of 2009-2010.

Concluded in a particularly difficult economic context, this agreement fully reflected the social partners' commitment to support a strategy that would lead to sustainable economic recovery and enhance the competitiveness of businesses, with a view to supporting the creation of sustainable activities and jobs and maintaining the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. This agreement was made possible, in particular, by a significant injection of funding from the government.

As part of the work carried out in each of the two Councils, the social partners have also drawn up a chart for monitoring government decisions, focusing on the implementation of the government's recovery plan, and a scoreboard showing the measures that relate, directly or indirectly, to the socio- economic aspects of the government agreement of 1 December 2011.

Yours sincerely

R. TOLLET, P. WINDEY President of the Central Economic Council President of the National Labour Council

10 BULGARIA

1. Was there a broad debate or greater efforts to provide information on the National Reform Programme (NRP) with the involvement of representatives of organised civil society?

Over the last three years the Economic and Social Council (ESC) has been involved in preparing the National Reform Programme to implement the Europe 2020 strategy, focusing on the following areas:

– defining strategic goals and instruments to achieve them; – discussions/consultation on drafts/versions of the NRP; – drawing up recommendations to improve the content of the NRP; – discussing the recommendations of the European Commission (EC) and Council on the Bulgarian National Reform Programme and means of reflecting them.

The ESC considers participation of social partners and civil society in the drafting of the NRP to be well organised and that our country's model for dialogue between the institutions and stakeholders is a good one. Interdepartmental working group 31 on Europe 2020, which draws up the NRP, includes representatives of the ESC, the social partners and other stakeholders. Through this group, for three years representatives of organised civil society have been able to submit their comments and recommendations on the draft NRP in writing. A preliminary version of the Bulgarian NRP is published on the public consultation website www.strategy.bg. After approval of the document by the Council of Ministers, it is submitted for broad public debate, and for discussion by special parliamentary committees. One example of best practice is the established process in Bulgaria of regular dialogue between the ESC and the government team responsible for drawing up the NRP. This consultative process is reflected in the final version of the NRP.

It should be noted that the Bulgarian NRP was drawn up in 2013 under a caretaker government, prior to early parliamentary elections in the country. In view of this, the draft NEP was not submitted for broad public debate, but published on the www.strategy.bg public consultation website, on which all stakeholders were able to present their specific recommendations for the programme. Like in every other year, the draft document was presented and debated in special parliamentary committees.

Another way in which civil society is involved in drafting the NRP is through participation in public debates on the basic challenges and policies set out in the NRP. These are organised by the ESC and are attended by representatives from the government, parliament and the social partners, along with scientists and experts.

Over the past three years, the ESC has co-hosted public debates on the country-specific recommendations on the NRP made by the European Commission and the Council in the context of the European Semester. In 2013 the ESC adopted resolutions on the"2013 Annual Growth Survey" and on the "European Commission's specific recommendations on the 2013-2020 Bulgarian NRP and

11 the 2013-2016 convergence programme". These resolutions were submitted to government institutions and to the general public. At the same time, the ESC is being consulted by the relevant government representatives during the process of drawing up the final versions of recommendations for Bulgaria. The ESC is pleased that the schedule for the 2013 European Semester allows for discussion at national level, including through multilateral dialogue, of the country-specific recommendations to each Member State before their adoption by the European Council in June, in line with the recommendations set out in its resolution.

2. What challenges/opportunities are presented by the NRP? Were the views of civil society taken into account? Please give specific examples of best practices and/or weak points.

The ESC has identified the following challenges/opportunities presented by the NRP.

1. Firstly, the ESC feels that the pessimistic expectations of growth in Bulgaria set out in the 2013 NRP are a problem. In its resolution on the country-specific NRP recommendations, the ESC is concerned that our country is not aiming to catch up with the EU average for a series of indicators. In practice this pessimistic forecast implies that the Bulgarian economy is not expected to grow at all. Given the crisis conditions in Bulgaria, an active policy is needed to mobilise efforts and resources enabling productivity to catch up with the European average. This would allow the country to achieve the NRP's key national objective by 2020, i.e. per capita gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity to reach 60% of the EU average. In view of this, the ESC approves the EC's recommendation to establish an independent national body responsible for macro-economic analyses and forecasts as a real corrective to the Bulgarian government's policies.

2. In its resolution the ESC also warns that overemphasising financial consolidation and pursuing restrictive economic policies could result in failure to meet objectives for growth and employment, as well as for education, research, and combating poverty/social exclusion. The ESC feels that this is reflected in the NRP implementing plan; for example priority reforms in the fields of education and science, health care and employment are fundamentally contingent on European funding from national operational programmes, and much less on national funding.

3. In its statements, the ESC points out the need for more realistic indicators in the Bulgarian NRP for the planned reforms. The ESC feels that the NRP should set achievable national goals for education and employment, in order to avoid subsequent criticism by the European Commission. It should be noted that in 2011, in its resolution on the draft NRP for Bulgaria (2011-2015), the ESC recommended cutting the national employment objective from 76%, which it felt could not be achieved by 2020; at the same time, it argued that the 11% target for the school dropout rate was not ambitious enough. Current data and forecasts for these indicators show that these recommendations were well founded. The ESC is disappointed to note that it will not be possible for the government to follow these important recommendations, as the national Europe 2020 objectives have already been approved and adopted by the Council of Ministers, and cannot now be changed.

Activities of the ESC to date in relation to the drafting of the Bulgarian NRP and specific results. Best practices in civic dialogue. 12 As part of the European Semester, the ESC is focusing its work on the key challenges, priorities and policies linked to the Europe 2020 strategy and the European Commission's recommendations to Bulgaria, i.e.: demographic challenges to labour markets; active ageing; the economic recovery and job creation; curbing early school leaving; employment for persons living with disabilities; the social economy and social entrepreneurship; "Single Market Act II – Together for new growth"; cutting administrative burdens for companies; etc. In some of these areas, the ESC is organising and itself participating in public debate, in which it presents its positions and recommendations. The ESC is satisfied with the impact of its statements, the main recommendations of which have been taken up in legislation, as well as in government strategies, programmes and specific measures set out in the NRP.

1. The last European Semester in Bulgaria saw a strengthening of the mechanisms for monitoring progress towards NRP goals and reforms. Each quarter, the National Assembly issues a publicly accessible statement on progress made in implementing NRP measures. These positive government measures reflect specific recommendations by the ESC and other stakeholders.

2. One of the ESC's recommendations taken up by the government was to update the Bulgarian National Strategy on Demographic Change up to 2030 and to present an implementation plan for the strategy. This is of great importance for the ESC, given that demographic change is a major challenge for our country in both the medium and long term. Demographic processes in Bulgaria are of a specific national character and are likely to result in pressure on public finances.

3. In its resolution on the "Single Market Act II – Together for new growth", the ESC placed particular emphasis on facilitating access to financing for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It also recommended revolving credit instruments enabling SMEs to obtain easy access to financing without excessive collateral, thus enabling the economic growth and employment the country so badly needs. At the same time, in its resolution on the "2013 Annual Growth Survey", the ESC drew attention to high debt levels among the country's non-financial companies, mentioned by the European Commission as in previous years in its analysis of micro-economic imbalances. The ESC calls for urgent measures to settle late payments by the State and local and regional authorities for public procurement contracts, and to speed up the VAT recovery process. The ESC is happy that the government is taking specific measures to settle late payments by the State and to recover VAT in 2013. A decision has also been taken to step up the activity of the Bulgarian Development Bank, with additional resources earmarked for loans to SMEs. The ESC is particularly pleased that EU Internal Market and Services Commissioner Michel Barnier personally expressed his gratitude in a written reply for the numerous specific recommendations set out in the ESC's two resolutions. These will be taken into account in framing policies and initiatives envisaged by the Single Market Act.

4. Having already voiced its opinion on improving public services in its previous statements, in July 2013 the ESC adopted a resolution on "Improving the business environment in Bulgaria through better regulation". The ESC takes a positive view of the government's efforts in this area, and expects implementation of the second "Action Plan to Reduce Administrative Burdens (2012-2014)" and the additional measures set out in the 2013 NRP to yield more substantial results over the coming year.

13 5. In response to the negative influence of unfavourable economic labour market conditions and emerging structural challenges aggravating the current situation, in 2012 the ESC adopted an opinion on "An active professional life for older workers and intergenerational solidarity". The ESC is pleased that in February 2013 the government adopted a "National strategy to reduce poverty and encourage social inclusion by 2020", at the same time as drawing up an implementation plan backed up by clear funding arrangements.

6. In its statements, the ESC has repeatedly noted the untapped employment potential of Bulgarian young people, as well as the higher risk of poverty faced by them. In view of the deteriorating youth unemployment situation in the country and the European Commission's recommendation, in its resolution the ESC calls for faster implementation of measures under the "Youth Guarantee" initiative, supported by EU funding. In the ESC's view, it is particularly important that these initiatives cover early school-leavers and other disadvantaged groups of young people. The ESC considers it indispensable to strengthen regional monitoring of youth unemployment and early school- leaving. The ESC is satisfied with the work of the task force drawing up a national implementation plan for the "Youth Guarantee", given the active involvement of representatives of the social partners and other stakeholders in the process. At the same time, the EESC is currently drawing up a resolution on the challenges and opportunities presented by youth employment.

7. The ESC clearly stated its support for reform of the Bulgarian educational system and made some specific recommendations in an opinion adopted in 2012. The Bulgarian government has identified education as a key priority in the Bulgaria 2020 national development programme, and has decided to develop a "Science and education for smart growth" operational programme for the forthcoming programming period. At the same time, the European Commission has defined education as a special priority and issued a communication on "Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio- economic outcomes". The ESC is satisfied that a series of recommendations made in its statements are reflected in this EU document.

8. Another positive outcome is the "Draft strategy to prevent educational failure and reduce the school dropout rate (2013-2020)", which the EEC adopted a resolution on. The strategy was revised after consultation, and the ESC notes that most of the suggestions made in its resolution were taken into account in the revised document.

One best practice in terms of the consultative dialogue between civil society and government institutions in Bulgaria is the ESC's initiative to organise regional public debates on young people's problems. Three regional roundtable discussions were held on three specific "School dropout issues", as well as a consultative meeting with the Spanish ESC on "Early school leavers - challenges and decisions". The ESC is pleased with the outcomes of the forums which were held. Regional branches of government institutions, together with local authorities, social partners, NGOs, teachers and young people were actively involved in these. The ESC will summarise the conclusions, recommendations and best practices presented at these meetings in a resolution, so that they can be submitted to the competent government authorities, and it will also call for them to be reflected in the relevant national plans for education and employment.

14 9. The ESC emphasises the potential for growth and jobs offered by the social economy and social entrepreneurship in Bulgaria, particularly under crisis conditions. In connection with the "National strategy for a social economy", the ESC has adopted a series of documents and recommended specific actions and measures to stimulate stakeholders in the sector, including cooperatives, in particular for the disabled. Some of these recommendations have been implemented by the government.

In two of its statements (Resolution on the Single Market Act II and the analysis of "Social enterprises and social entrepreneurship") the ESC calls for the creation of an environment conducive to channelling investment into social enterprises. The ESC is pleased that the social economy and social entrepreneurship have been included as a separate investment priority in the future Human resource development operational programme (2014-2020), and supports the idea of reviving entrepreneurial mindsets in Europe through the "Entrepreneurship 2020" action plan. The government has also committed in the 2013 NRP to specific measures to develop the Bulgarian social economy.

10. Given the importance of EU funding channelled through national operational programmes as part of the public investment which our country needs, the ESC calls in its opinion on "Priorities and policies in the use of EU funding during the next programming period (2014-2020)" for efforts by all stakeholders to use up the available funding by the end of 2013. Among other things, these resources could be used to modernise and effectively implement employment, social and environmental policies. Consultations held with government and operational programme managing authority representatives while drafting the opinion are a best practice, reflecting the existence of an effective dialogue and consultative process in Bulgaria. In the course of public debate, the government reported that many of the ESC's recommendations had been taken up and were reflected in draft operational programmes for the next programming period; at the same time, specific measures had been taken to improve the Public Procurement Act, and to simplify and speed up the process of absorbing funding during this period.

3. Looking back at "Europe 2020" as a whole, which are the most controversial areas/challenges - objectives; flagship initiatives and their implications; the European Semester; progress in implementing the NRP; coherent requirements for individual countries?

In its resolution on the draft NRP (2011-2015), the ESC points to the need first to formulate a national vision for our priorities up till 2020, and then to define our objectives in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. Unfortunately, the "Bulgaria 2020 National Development Programme" was only adopted in early 2013, whereas national objectives had already been adopted by the Council Ministers in late 2010. In view of this, the ESC feels that at European Council level, following an in-depth assessment of Member State implementation of Europe 2020 strategy objectives, and taking into account the impact of the crisis, the European Commission could decide to revise/update national targets for countries such as Bulgaria, in line with their current situation.

The ESC is pleased that the European Commission has included its first annual report on the integration of the Single Market in the 2013 Annual Growth Survey. In two resolutions on the subject, the ESC has emphasised the enormous potential of the Single Market as the foundation of the social 15 market economy in generating economic growth and jobs. The ESC calls for political will on the part of all European institutions to successfully translate the European Commission's recommendations into legislation before expiry of the European Parliament's and Commission's terms of office in 2014.

The ESC feels that the Annual Growth Survey should pay more attention to growth in the social economies of the Member States. Establishing a reliable statistical database of enterprises in the social economy is a prerequisite for effective subsequent analyses and monitoring of this sector's development.

In its resolution on the "2013 Annual Growth Survey", the ESC is concerned about the close similarities between the 2013 AGS and its predecessor in 2012, which it feels reflect the slowing down of structural reforms in several Member States and insufficient implementation of country- specific recommendations in 2012. The ESC feels that this reflects weaknesses in the European Commission's monitoring mechanisms; in its resolution on the "Council Recommendation on Bulgaria’s 2013 national reform programme and delivering a draft Council opinion on Bulgaria’s convergence programme for 2012-2016", it therefore recommends that the European Commission pays much more attention to Member State implementation of its recommendations.

The ESC notes that the Annual Growth Survey is based on forecasts made by the European Commission in autumn, and therefore suggests that potential errors in these forecasts be taken into account, in view of the potential implications for the budgetary adjustments required from the Member States.

In the ESC's view, both in the European Semester proper and in the macroeconomic imbalance procedure, Member States were treated relatively similarly despite differences in their economic situation. The ESC therefore feels that when implementing country-specific recommendations, Member States need a certain amount of freedom when choosing how to implement these recommendations in a way best suited to their particular situations. This particularly applies to areas which remain national competences, such as fiscal and revenue policies.

The ESC feels that the overall approach in the 2013 AGS is geared to general monitoring of the adjustment measures taken in the EU following the financial crisis, and to defining the EU's social priorities for 2013. This approach does not sufficiently reflect what has been achieved by individual Member States; instead, the emphasis is on monitoring problems and processes in euro area countries, as well as in countries facing serious budgetary and debt challenges, against the backdrop of general EU trends. By contrast, it overlooks the economies of countries such as Bulgaria and Romania which are still catching up. In this connection, the ESC's view is that a system of indicators in the early- warning mechanism to identify countries for in-depth assessment should be accompanied by a detailed analysis of all Member States, together with comparisons between Member States with similar structural characteristics. This would help to achieve more objective conclusions.

The ESC is concerned that several euro area countries are failing to meet the criteria set out in the Stability and Growth Pact. In view of this, the ESC welcomes the European Commission's actions to

16 combat excessive deficits in the euro area, such as the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU.

These are steps in the direction of "more instead of less Europe". The ESC calls on the European institutions and the Member Status to support closer integration and efforts to promote national economies and stimulate investments, which are currently the only possible means of overcoming the crisis and restoring confidence among investors, businesses and consumers.

Improvements made in 2012 with the introduction of "thematic comments" by the European Commission's Employment and Social Protection Committees are also a step in the right direction. The ESC also welcomes the Commission's efforts to publish its first annual report on the integration of the Single Market and its second report on the early-warning mechanism on macroeconomic imbalances simultaneously with its 2013 Annual Growth Survey, thus helping to prepare more effectively for discussion of the country-specific recommendations. The ESC feels that this is a positive signal, reflecting a coherent and decisive response to the problems arising from the crisis which are facing European economies.

The ESC feels that the European Commission's proposal for National Employment Plans to become part of National Reform Programmes from 2013 and for country-specific recommendations to the Member States to include specific recommendations on employment objectives is appropriate.

Given the growing importance of the European Semester, the ESC feels that dialogue with Member States should include all stakeholders right from the first phase of the semester, during preparation of the Annual Growth Survey and accompanying documents. The ESC therefore supports the EESC's call for European politicians responsible for decisions in this field to structurally integrate consultations with the social partners and public involvement into the various political mechanisms of the Europe 2020 process, and for the European Commission to ensure greater democratic legitimacy of this process.

4. Could you give some outlines of concrete proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015-2020 period?

The ESC feels it would make sense to discuss the possibility of prioritising the planned reforms and policies, with a view to rapid implementation of those having the fastest and strongest impact at the relevant stage of implementing the Europe 2020 strategy. The ESC feels that such prioritisation of reforms and policies could identify those which can be implemented immediately, with a direct impact on restoring growth and employment, as well as a second group of reforms and policies requiring implementation in stages.

In early 2013, the ESC adopted a resolution on the Communication from the European Commission on the "2013 Annual Growth Survey". This resolution pointed out that not only was the requisite progress lacking, but that there was also a definite lag in achieving the main objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, including in our country.

17 The ESC also expressed its concern about declining employment rates in the 20-64 age group, potentially jeopardising the target of 75% employment in this age group by 2020. Moreover, restoring labour markets and employment would take several years of robust economic growth - and unfortunately such growth was not yet in sight in Europe during 2013. With European and national policies focusing on combating youth employment and promoting jobs for young people this year and in future years, the ESC felt it was important to define an additional target for youth and employment unemployment rates.

In its resolution, the ESC fully agreed with the need for Europe to act with greater determination in defending its interests and values on the international arena in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit, in order to meet the challenges of globalisation in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. At the same time, it considered that unless other major economies such as China, the United States, Russia, India, etc. followed the example of the EU's self-imposed environmental restrictions - limiting emissions, increasing the share of green energy - the EU's competitiveness would suffer, without solving Europe's environmental problems.

The ESC felt that serious attention should be paid to the problem of deindustrialisation in Europe. In order to confirm and guarantee the role played by the European Union as a leader in the field of industrial manufacturing, and to help protect and create new jobs, proactive management of industrial restructuring was needed in response to the challenges arising from globalised markets. Manufacturing, in particular of highly-added value products, was a driver of economic growth. Particular attention should be paid to this area in the Single Market Act. At the same time, R&D policies and measures were to be encouraged.

The ESC has repeatedly emphasised the great importance of achieving the educational objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Regardless of the incipient decline in the number of school dropouts, the ESC notes that among those with lower educational levels employment rates are not increasing, while unemployment is on the rise. The ESC therefore suggests that the European Commission could observe labour market conditions for persons with primary or lower education at the same time as monitoring the target on school drop-out rates.

The ESC suggests that as part of the European Semester in 2013 an analysis be carried out of progress towards the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and consideration be given to the possibility of adding certain sub-targets and indicators for monitoring.

At the same time a clear answer is needed to the question of the extent to which the basic priorities set out in the 2013 AGS and the guidelines adopted by the spring European Council are sufficient to ensure achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives. The ESC feels it is vital to analyse interaction between each of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. On the basis of this analysis appropriate priorities and guidelines could be formulated for the 2015-2020 period.

This will become even more necessary in the new approach adopted by the European institutions to defining and managing the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework. This requires thematic ex- ante conditionalities to be met at national level by 31/12/2016 as a prerequisite for co-financing from 18 European Structural and Investment Funds. EU funding will therefore be subject to implementation of reforms set out in the NRP and to the ex-ante conditionalities set out in 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements, to be monitored through the European Semester. It is therefore vital to confirm that there will be a mechanism in place for ongoing involvement of the social partners and civil society throughout the process - from realistic programming, to the definition, coordination and implementation of economic and social policy priorities.

The ESC recommends ensuring sufficient coordination and synergies between the NRP and the Stability and Convergence programme as the key strategic documents underpinning the reforms envisaged by the Europe 2020 strategy. The ESC feels that establishing clearer links between reform objectives for restoring and stimulating growth with the five national objectives and the accompanying policies and measures is the only possible means of achieving the requisite synergy and best possible use of the available potential and resources.

19 CZECH REPUBLIC

The government of the Czech Republic considers it necessary to involve a widest possible range of relevant public and stakeholders in the process of NRP preparation as well as of other important strategic documents. In the preparations of NRP for 2013 included a number of intensive formal an informal discussions with representatives of both Chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, with partners of social and economic dialogue (Council of Economic and Social Agreement), with representatives of the Association of Regions of the Czech Republic and of the Union of Towns and Municipalities of the Czech Republic), also with representatives of universities, academia, members of the National Economic Council, NGOs, Representation of the European Commission to Prague, and other experts and interested public. The plenary session of the Council of Economic and Social Agreement debated the NRP and the Council expressed its appraisal for the inclusive process of the NRP preparation.

2. What problems/opportunities are there regarding the NRPs? Have the views of civil society been taken into consideration? Please provide specific examples of best practices and/or bottlenecks.

A great number of comments were received by the Government during different stages of NRP preparatory consultations from many stakeholders. The majority of these comments were reflected in the final NRP text. Nevertheless, given the fact that the NRP is primarily an executive document drafted by the Government it primarily accommodates the positions of the Government. Naturally, a very limited number of issues may therefore remain open for further discussion beyond the framework of the NRP.

Generally, the final NRP text reflects, to a highest possible degree the suggestions put forward by the civil society as well as the priorities of the Government of the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic supports the Europe 2020 Strategy implementation and can express its satisfaction with the progress that has been made so far in the European semester process since the 2011. The room for further improvements in upcoming European Semester should ideally focus on the following aspects.

First, on formulation of the recommendations. The recommendations should not be prescriptive and leave enough space for the Member States to choose the most effective means and ways of addressing the identified challenges. 20 Second, on the content and context of the recommendations. The recommendations should always reflect social and political reality of the Member States. For example, the recommendation on the system of pre-retirement scheme ignored a wider context of social impacts. The scheme has neither negative impact on the sustainability of public finances, nor does it encourage leaving the labour market2. On the contrary, the measure aims at improving income and living conditions of older persons, who, in age close to a retirement age, for various reasons have problems to assert themselves on the labour market, including those working in demanding and risky occupations. As such, the scheme was an outcome of the inclusive dialogs with social and economic partners. Despite repeated attempts to explain the matter, the recommendation was not acceptable either for the Government or to the partners of social dialogue.

Third, on the quality of analysis underpinning the recommendations. The partners of social dialogue expressed strong disappointment with the poor quality of the staff working document. In their view (shared by the Government) the factual errors included in the document led to confusions in public debate on important proposals for reform measures. Such confusions in turn may have negative impact on the chances of having the important bills approved by the Government, as well as the Parliament (e.g. draft bill on public officers).

4. Could you outline specific proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015- 2020 period?

First and upmost, the current setting of European Semester provides sufficient tools for economic policy coordination. NRPs remain the pivotal communication instrument that serve well also the purpose of mutual exchange of views on major envisaged national reforms.

The Country Specific Recommendations represent an adequate interface between the EU dimension of economic policy coordination and democratically legitimised reform efforts by the Member States’ Governments. Therefore, the recommendations should retain their legally non-binding nature. Possible improvements could be made in several areas. First, regarding the dialogue between the Commission and the Member States. A lack of consultations during the later stages of the Semester, when the country specific recommendations are being drafted was felt both in 2012 and 2013. This may subsequently result in a considerable degree of inconsistency, factual mistakes and, effectively, to a weak ownership by the Member States of the recommendations. A more comprehensive dialog should ensure that the draft recommendations are better targeted and reflect the real stale of play of the ongoing reforms.

Second, the quality of analysis included in the staff working document. Although, the staff working document does not represent the official view of the Commission, the document is made public and represents the main input for justification the country specific recommendations. As such, the document should avoid incorrect of misleading information that may cast doubts on reform efforts of the Member States.

2 Currently not more than 20 person benefits from the scheme. 21 Third, emphasis on the objectives of the recommendations. The recommendations should be designed in such a way that they focus on challenges rather than presenting concrete solutions. Enough room should be left for the Member States to choose the most suitable means of addressing the challenges. When drafting the recommendations, the Commission should avoid being prescriptive with regard to the methods to be used in order to achieve a set of national and European objectives, especially in the areas, which can be more appropriately dealt with at national or regional level of governance.

Fourth, the timetable. More time should be provided for the Member States for an initial analysis of the Commission’s draft recommendations. The amount of time that has been provided in 2013 for initial comments on the onset of debates in the committees is not sufficient for the internal discussions. That in turn hampers the debate and weakens the whole process of the European Semester.

22 GREECE

Economic growth and social cohesion of the member-states of European Union constituted the big challenge for the second half of 20th century and was the main objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. However, the progress made, as well as the evolution of the European economy into a competitive and pioneer economy of knowledge was slow.

The “Lisbon Strategy” has been succeeded by “Europe 2020", which is a new chance for Europe to overcome the crisis that threatens the social cohesion and the European welfare state. "Europe 2020” includes the social dimension as a motive force for the economic growth and the social dialogue as important part of the development process. The society, the environment and the energy are the main targets. The achievement of these targets should not only be a technocratic but at the same time a deep political and social process.

According to the Greek Economic and Social Council’s opinion, if we want a long-term and viable economic growth, the recovery of the European economy from recession and stability should be based on stronger social cohesion, more environmental protection and more innovative entrepreneurship. And all the before mentioned priorities should be completed by the wider and deeper participation of the social partners. Thus, structural changes are needed, focusing on the enforcement of the social dialogue, as one of the main conditions for the European economic growth. As the past reveals, the social partners should collaborate closer both in national and international level so that their role will be strengthen.

Concerning the Greek Economy, the 2008-2009 international economic crisis exposed the long- standing structural weaknesses and enhanced the fiscal imbalances. The Greek government sought official financial assistance from the euro area member states. As a result, since May 2010, the euro area Member States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been providing financial support to Greece through an Economic Adjustment Programme in the context of a sharp deterioration in its financing conditions. The overarching objective of the economic adjustment programme is to restore Greece’s fiscal sustainability, safeguard the stability of the financial system and boost competitiveness, sustained growth and employment.

The release of the disbursements of the financial assistance is based on observance of quantitative performance criteria and a positive evaluation of progress made. The Greek Government is committed to pursue all growth-enhancing reforms which constitute a prerequisite for the stabilization of the economy and the strengthening of the basis for economic growth.

The most important macro-structural obstacles to growth that the Greek government is facing are: a) Implementing the agreed frontloaded fiscal consolidation and thereafter sustaining a large primary surplus to reduce debt level and also improving long-term sustainability of public finances. b) Strengthening the efficiency and effectiveness of the public administration. 23 c) Ensuring a well-functioning and stable financial sector including the safeguarding of banks' balance sheets. d) Ensuring wage and price adjustments to regain and sustain competitiveness. e) Reducing the size of the informal economy by facilitating the full participation of all groups in the formal labour markets. f) Restructuring the educational system in order to improve the quality of the country's human capital. g) Improving the business environment that could make significant contribution to Greece's productivity and growth.

The Greek economy has already experienced five consecutive year of recession, while projections regarding the growth rates for 2013 envisage one more year of contraction. However, on the positive side, the reforms that have already been enacted in key areas are expected to assist the recovery effort by creating a more competitive and flexible economic environment.

However the risks from the implementation of the Economic Adjustment Programme and of the whole agenda of structural reforms remain important, due primarily to the slow recovery in business and consumer confidence, the contracted liquidity, and the continuous recession. Additionally, unemployment has risen to historically high levels, affecting more severely the vulnerable groups of the population (low skilled and youngsters) and further making the maintenance of social cohesion and social solidarity difficult. Social cohesion should be an issue of high priority as the mixture between fiscal consolidation and the provision of social protection net needs to be carefully balanced.

Given the reporting requirements under financial assistance programmes and the great complexity of monitoring and enforcement procedures, Greece has been exempted from the obligation to submit the national reform programme and stability or convergence programme. However, the Greek Ministry of Economy has presented the National Reform Programme of 2013.

The Greek National Reform Programme 2013 under the Europe 2020 Strategy is drafted in coherence with the above mentioned “Economic Adjustment Programme” that the Greek government is already implementing. The Greek National Reforms Programme 2013 constitutes an exhaustive list of all measures that have been taken or planned to be adopted in the near future in Greece. The majority of reforms are being implemented in the context of the Economic Adjustment Programme and only some of these are partly in line with the effort of achieving the Europe 2020 targets. The continuous recession and the dramatic cut in the public expenditure have a profound effect in approaching our nationally set targets.

In the past, during the implementation and the monitoring of the Lisbon Agenda, the dialogue and the exchange of views lead to the establishment of an Observatory, under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council of Greece.

The Greek Economic and Social Council with the collaboration of all social partners created the Observatory of Policies for sustainable Growth which functioned until two years ago. In this frame

24 the Greek Economic and Social Council tried to incorporate society’s opinion into the reforming policies and evaluated the measures included in the National Reforms Programmes.

Nowadays, the close involvement of the Greek Economic and Social Council in the formulation and the evaluation of Greek National Reforms Programmes has been stopped. Under the restrictions of the Fiscal Adjustment Programme, Social dialogue has significantly deteriorated. There are few cases when the Government takes the initiative to consult the Economic and Social Council during legislation process. Nevertheless the ESC of Greece has issued Initiative Opinions on the reforms that are necessary for the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals.

25 SPAIN

1. Has there been a broad debate on the participation of representatives from organised civil society in the National Reform Programmes or have further steps been taken to provide information on it?

In previous communications to the EESC on the 2020 strategy, the social partners in the Spanish ESC have criticised the scope of the procedures enabling them to participate in the drafting of the National Reform Programmes. For example, it was pointed out that these procedures did not allow them to have a real say on the content of the NRP, both because the consultations were short and because there was no in-depth substantive debate.

Although in Spain a protocol regulating this participation was drawn up with the agreement of the government and the social partners, it has become clear in recent years that the protocol has not been adjusted to take account of the new timetables and procedures of the European Semester. There have also been shortcomings or limitations in the procedures for participation, which have prevented the social partners from making an effective contribution to the drafting of the NRPs. The current cooperation protocol on the strategy between the government and the social partners therefore needs to be revived, giving the social partners a more substantial role; it would also be useful for more technical meetings to be held in order to monitor implementation of the NRPs more comprehensively.

2. What problems/opportunities exist in relation to the National Reform Programmes? Have the views of civil society been taken into consideration? Please provide specific examples of good practice and/or bottlenecks.

The first question to be asked here would be to what extent measures relating to the drafting and application of the NRPs are seen as part of the 2020 strategy's implementation.

There is no doubt that the social partners can see the link between measures relating to NRPs and measures to guide or even organise national economic and social policies by the EU. However, against the backdrop of the crisis it is not easy to separate national measures to implement the 2020 strategy from other measures or actions being carried out in the context of EU-Member State relations: those linked to bail-outs, those which involve the conditions for applying the European financial stability mechanisms or, more generally, those adopted in connection with excessive deficit procedures or macroeconomic imbalances.

In this regard, the last report on the socio-economic and labour market situation in Spain stresses how the timetable for stabilising the public deficit is making the recession worse, especially as the priority given to this objective and the speed with which it is to be met are not accompanied by measures to stimulate growth, which are just as important. The ESC shares the view that stabilising the euro area and restoring macroeconomic balance in the countries with the biggest imbalances are necessary and urgent conditions for ensuring a return to growth in the EU. However, restoring the financing of the

26 productive economy and stimulating aggregate demand should be considered equally important for ensuring a return to prosperity in the region.

There must be a balanced combination of economic stimulus and adjustment, not least because an excessive emphasis on austerity may end up complicating efforts to adhere to the fiscal path if its impact on the economy is too great.

The ESC wishes to highlight one particularly important issue, from its perspective as a body representing one form of institutionalised social dialogue. This is the question of how social dialogue may be affected by the increased importance that European economic policy guidelines might assume in national budgetary policies. Strengthening European oversight includes structural reforms on matters such as labour market policies or social protection, typical fields of action for the social partners, even going as far as matters such as wage negotiation. This institutional change may marginalise the social partners in the decision-making process. At issue here is the balance between expanding the scope of European policies and enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the European institutions. This is a matter which we could call "institutional quality", which is of particular interest to the Spanish ESC, having compiled a special report on the matter, entitled, Nueva gobernanza económica en la Unión Europea y crecimiento [New economic governance in the European Union and growth].

In making reference to concrete examples of good practice and bottlenecks, mention should be made of the fact that implementation of the 2020 strategy may lead to action by the social partners on two different levels. A significant example of the first would be participation in NRPs, to which we have already made reference. In this connection, apart from what has already been mentioned in terms of shortcomings in participation mechanisms, it is worth highlighting certain problems in the implementation of these programmes using specific measures or rules. In many cases, the urgent need to meet European criteria by national authorities significantly reduces the scope for ensuring broad involvement of the social partners. This gives rise to the situation that many national measures to implement the NRPs are being adopted under urgency procedures, which rule out a mandatory opinion by the ESC.

The second example of good practice relates to the second field of action by the social partners in the implementation of the 2020 Strategy. This has to do with measures that might be taken by the social partners in their more specific respective fields, such as collective bargaining, setting of salaries or, more generally, labour relations. In this connection, it is important to highlight good practices that exist in Spain, such as the continuity of negotiations between trade union and business organisations on agreements concerning collective bargaining and wage developments, which give take full account of the Spanish socio-economic situation against the backdrop of the current circumstances and policies at European level.

Especially given the importance of continuing this culture of negotiations with the social partners, it is important to return to what was mentioned earlier regarding the need to find a fresh balance, not only in the relationship between the European institutions and countries' policies, but also in the

27 relationship between political action, at European and national level, and the action taken by the social partners at both levels.

3. What key themes/challenges arise when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as a whole? Setting objectives, flagship initiatives and their follow-up, the European Semester, progress made in National Reform Programmes, the content of country-specific recommendations

When analysing the economic outlook of the European Union, the ESC report states that, the experience of the crisis has demonstrated a lack of consistency between the economic governance proposals, which are focussed on fiscal and wage adjustment and are presented as desirable in themselves, and the objectives for growth set in the Europe 2020 strategy, which have largely been forgotten.

More specifically, the ESC considers that the stress on improving price-competitiveness emphasises the factors on which competitiveness has been traditionally based and marginalise key elements such as investment in physical, human, social, organisational and technological capital. Unless these factors are promoted, no economy can compete effectively on the international stage, and these elements are also inherent in the 2020 strategy's model of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth which, as has just been mentioned, seem to no longer be the institutions' main interest.

In light of this, an important challenge for the 2020 strategy's future would be to take up these objectives once again, incorporating them more fully into the guidelines for European economic policy and thus correcting the imbalance between the objectives of fiscal consolidation and restoring economic activity and employment on the basis of sustainable production in the medium term. This could make the development of the European Semester and coordination between guidelines, NRPs and recommendations more effective.

4. Could you highlight some specific proposals to develop the Europe 2020 strategy in the 2015-2020 period?

Recently, the journal of the Spanish ESC, Cauces [Channels], published an article entitled, "The EU's employment polices: a genuine priority in the European agenda?" This article points out that, against the backdrop of the crisis, European employment policy has been developed in a piecemeal manner, in response to developments in the economy and jobs market which have gone far beyond the forecasts made at the beginning of the crisis. It soon became clear that the employment objectives set by the 2020 strategy would be difficult to achieve, given the effects that economic instability was having on European labour markets.

At the same time, it was evident from the beginning that the various Member States were developing in very different ways, with regional differences being even more marked, especially in the Mediterranean countries, which experienced a downward trend, unlike the others. All of this happened without the new 2020 Strategy having the right governance tools to deal with such a situation. 28 In light of this, it seems clear that in order for the European employment strategy to be more effective in the 2015-2020 period, there needs to be an evaluation of the strategy's results and its key aspects.

In particular, the article examines the problem of youth unemployment, welcoming the Commission's commitments to supporting the hardest-hit countries. However, the amounts provided, which mainly come from the Structural Funds, seem limited given the high number of young unemployed people for whom these funds are earmarked. The article also notes that the Commission's commitments and objectives are, in some cases, far from being clear and precise.

Finally, the article questions to what extent the objective of job creation is compatible with a policy almost exclusively based on consolidating public finances without there being any clear sign of a stable economic recovery.

Reflections such as those presented above should be included in the debates on the second phase of the 2020 strategy's implementation. Mention should also be made of the crucial role of social dialogue in the European Union with a view to developing European employment policies. The absence of any significant positive outcome from this social dialogue against the backdrop of the crisis makes it necessary to reflect on the reasons behind this, from the difficulty in reaching consensus between the social partners on the nature of the measures adopted to deal with economic and labour market instability, to the broader problems of economic governance which have emerged as a result of the crisis.

29 FRANCE

As in previous years, the European Economic and Social Committee is asking national economic and social councils (ESCs) to submit their comments on the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy at national level and their involvement in the process of drawing up their country's national reform programme (NRP) for 2013.

Indeed, the March 2011 European Council and the European Commission have encouraged the European Economic and Social Committee to work together with its network of national ESCs and similar organisations on enhancing the involvement of civil society at both EU and national levels in the process of implementing the Europe 2020 strategy in the context of the European semester.

The French economic, social and environmental council (French ESEC) intends to participate fully in strengthening ownership of this process at national level and stepping up the tangible involvement of organisations it represents.

It warmly welcomes this initiative, which should help facilitate the comprehension of complex and abstract European mechanisms.

And this initiative seems more necessary than ever at a time when the gap is continually widening between the people and the development of the European project under the current arrangements.

This year, the exercise proposed by the European Economic and Social Committee comprises two strands: firstly, contributing to the 2014 European semester, which gets underway in November 2013, and secondly, casting a critical eye over the Europe 2020 strategy since its launch in 2010, so as to provide input into the mid-term review of the strategy to be discussed by the European Council of heads of state and government in March 2014.

In response to the questions posed by the European Economic and Social Committee, the French ESEC would highlight the following key points.

1. Has there been a comprehensive debate or broader efforts to provide information on the NRPs involving representatives of organised civil society? a) Consultation on the NRP

On 9 April 2013, the secretariat-general for European affairs (SGAE), which coordinates European affairs in France, under the authority of the prime minister's office, consulted the French ESEC on France's draft national reform programme (NRP) for 2013.

The government also submitted this programme to other stakeholders for their opinion, i.e. the social partners, local authorities and the national council for combating poverty and social exclusion.

30 All of these contributions were appended to the NRP in full, for submission to the European Commission.

Meeting in plenary session, the French ESEC heard the views of the secretary-general of the SGAE. As in previous years, all of the ESEC's working groups were involved in preparing the contribution. b) Comments

Although the French ESEC welcomes this consultation, which it considers important on several grounds, it regrets the particularly short timeframe this year, which made it difficult to deliver an entirely satisfactory response.

Moreover, and despite repeated requests to this end, the lack of follow-up or reporting-back before and after the adoption of the recommendations in June by the European Council has led the members of the ESEC to question the sense and value of the consultation process and is fuelling doubt about any real and effective democratisation of the decision-making process in European affairs.

It should be admitted that, outside of a narrow circle of specialists, many stakeholders and members of the public are still largely unaware of the Europe 2020 strategy and its multi-annual guidelines.

As with the Lisbon strategy before it, the investment being made, particularly by public authorities, to explain and place within the European context certain policies and measures decided at national level is still falling far short of what is required.

Of course, it is not always easy to distinguish between what pertains to general constraints at national level and what could shape the development of coordinated policies at European level on the basis of specific national circumstances.

Indeed, this strategy, which is designed to bear fruit in the long term is coming up against two obstacles that make communication at national and European levels particularly difficult: a lack of immediate results at a time of sustained crisis, and the diminishing confidence of Europeans in the future development of the European project under current arrangements.

The French ESEC is surprised that the issue of sustainable development does not feature among the priorities and is not taken into account in the NRP.

Indeed, despite its repeated requests, the ESEC notes that the proportion of the NRP document devoted to the environment and to sustainable development more generally is still meagre and reflects the scant interest in these issues in Europe 2020.

31 In 2012 and 2013, the ESEC has been stressing the need to engage society in a wholesale transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy, while maintaining the economic and social performance of the country. The energy transition is one of the most important aspects of this.

The French ESEC also regrets that the guidelines that emerged from the environment conference on making France an exemplary country in recovering biodiversity, preventing environmental health risks and enhancing environmental governance did not feature in the NRP presented in April 2013.

In its opinion presented to the government on the 2013 NRP, the French ESEC made a number of points, some of which are set out below. a) The Europe 2020 goals seem to be drifting away.

The Commission's Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2013 communication, published in November 2012, which opens the European semester, sets out what the Commission believes should be the overall budgetary, economic and social priorities for 2013, and these should feed into the Member States' NRPs.

However, questions should be raised about the fact that apart from a brief footnote reference to a Eurostat report, the Commission's AGS is largely silent on the Europe 2020 strategy.

The Commission document simply states that "overall, Europe is lagging behind its objectives". Yet the Commission does not analyse the exact causes of the lack of progress in meeting these goals and does not raise the question whether current policy choices are responsible for moving the EU further away from the Europe 2020 strategy.

We would therefore suggest that the next AGS include a progress report on Europe 2020 so as to identify on an annual basis the progress that needs to be made. b) The Compact for growth and jobs falls short.

With regard to the Compact for growth and jobs, the French ESEC considers that its total funding of EUR 120 billion is not sufficient for helping to restore and support growth; moreover, the potential of the package of investment measures set out in the compact is far from being fully tapped.

It would seem important for the Commission to provide a more detailed account of the implementation of the Compact for growth and jobs. c) A reduced multiannual financial framework dampens prospects of growth driven by forward- looking investment. 32 At a time when national public finances are subject to severe constraints, the draft multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 was revised downwards by the European Council in February 2013 as compared to expenditure in the previous period.

It would have been wise to gear the EU budget more towards pro-growth investment, particularly in infrastructure and in the fields of education, training, research and development and innovation, and support to SMEs.

Furthermore, the budget cut proposed by the European Council will affect funding for the energy transition, which is a major challenge for all EU countries.

The French ESEC regrets that the budget for the next seven years is not equal to the challenges of competitiveness and forward-looking investment which Europe needs more than ever.

Generally speaking, the EU budget should be underpinned by a bolder, more ambitious political vision of the European project. d) Towards a social and tax dimension of economic and monetary union.

Europe cannot move forward into the future without a social and tax dimension to complement its economic and monetary strands.

As the European Parliament pointed out to the Council and the Commission in a resolution adopted in February, the Member States should be required to submit a national jobs plan as part of their NRP.

The French ESEC calls on the European Council to adopt common guidelines and practical measures aimed at balancing economic and monetary union with a genuine social and tax dimension.

At national level, the French ESEC considers it extremely important for the consultation process undertaken by the authorities with the various stakeholders to be followed up, with the results reported, to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of this work.

There could be more and better consultation of the ESEC at each of the stages involved in preparing the NRP, as well as with regard to the annual recommendations made to France under the European semester.

In particular, the ESEC would like to have more consultations and information exchanges with the French authorities upstream of the European Commission's country-specific recommendations.

33 This consultation could take place at the beginning of the European semester, i.e. well in advance of the draft NRP.

At European level, the Commission would, overall, have everything to gain from better explaining the political importance of the Europe 2020 strategy and what is at stake, and this could be done during the review process, which is due to begin in 2014.

This mid-term review should include, firstly, a genuine European industrial policy.

It is true that the Commission has just updated its 2010 communication on A stronger European industry. Specifically, it proposes to raise the share of industry in EU GDP to 20% by 2020 from the current level of 16% (and 19% in 2000).

But the guidelines remain too general. For an effective industrial strategy, there needs to be better use made of Europe's existing potential as regards training and research, stronger links forged between industrial activity and services, and a European energy policy.

Secondly, it should be noted that the Commission has tended, as was the case with the Lisbon strategy, to prioritise economic objectives to the detriment of social objectives. Indeed, social Europe has been treated throughout the history of Europe on the basis of complementarity with the single market.

In an opinion issued to coincide with the G20 in France in September 2011, the French ESEC called for economic growth to serve the wellbeing of women and men by giving priority to the social dimension, job creation, combating inequalities and poverty and protecting the environment, and thus advocated the principle of social conditionality. The ESEC feels that the EU should set the example in this regard.

The ESEC believes in particular that both the EU institutions and the Member States should endeavour to implement the conclusions adopted by the recent European regional meeting of the ILO as well as the provisions of the Global Jobs Pact adopted in 2009 in response to the crisis, which remain fully relevant.

More generally, the Commission's message would have a stronger impact at national level if it focused less on procedures and more on the purpose of these planned actions, in order to give political meaning to this reform process, which is undervalued and little known to Europeans, who perceive it as a set of constraints and efforts without visible benefits.

34 ITALY

The last two years have been marked by institutional and political events: the term of the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, ended on 15 May 2013; the Government crisis at the end of 2012 and the resignation of the President of the Council, Mario Monti; and the early elections for the Chamber and the Senate at the end of February.

This inevitably brought about a stalemate, with institutional affairs on hold pending new elections and appointments which took place in the first half of 2013. In this context, the dialogue between the CNEL and the institutions primarily took the form of documents setting out background analyses and specific proposals, rather than hearings at the Parliament; although this did not prevent new channels being set up in response to the new procedures of the European Semester.

Article 28 of Law 234 of 2012 developed the instruments already planned to guarantee broad participation by the social partners and industry in the work preparing Italy's position on the European Union's initiatives and acts. The President of the Council or the Minister for European Affairs is expected to forward proposals and acts on economic and social issues to the CNEL. Under Articles 10 and 12 of Law 936 of 30 December 1986, the CNEL can send any contributions it deems appropriate to the Government and the Parliament and to this end, in accordance with its own rules of procedure, it can set up a specific committee to discuss EU acts. In cooperation with the CNEL, the Government can organise study sessions, inviting local authorities and other stakeholders to attend.

When the European Semester was launched, the CNEL prepared its own comments and proposals on the five priorities set out in the European Commission's Annual Growth Surve y3. Before discussion by the Assembly, on 21 February 2013 the CNEL heard the views of social partner representatives on the draft document which was subsequently approved in March. It met with representatives of the ministries involved in drawing up the NRP and then expressed its views to the Parliament.

The meetings focused on the current economic and social situation in Italy, marked by a number of ongoing and critical issues: the high public debt (with its heavy interest payments), fiscal pressure (on income from employment and corporate income), the contraction in primary expenditure, the high rate of unemployment, the lack of competitiveness and sustainable, inclusive growth, a shrinking manufacturing sector and rising inequality.

3 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23106 35 2. What problems/opportunities are there regarding the NRPs? Have the views of civil society been taken into consideration? Please provide specific examples of best practices and/or bottlenecks

The CNEL has taken action regarding the dangers arising from the serious situation brought about by the insufficient funding for "exceptional social shock absorbers", unanimously approving an Assembly agenda on 17 April. The social partners have called on the institutional system (national Government, Parliament and regional governments) to take immediate and consistent action to swiftly identify both the resources needed and stable and timely means for disbursing them, so as to avoid further deterioration in the condition of hundreds of thousands of workers and thousands of businesses.

During the parliamentary hearing on 23 April 2013, the president of the CNEL presented his views on the Economic and Financial Document 2013, pointing out that when shaping policies and developing the relevant actions the Government needed to comply with European requirements without denying their deflationary effects and to see reforms as fundamental levers for development4.

The CNEL here criticises two points: the failure to include the rearrangement of public expenditure among future actions, and the underestimation of the dangers, following extended and rigid fiscal austerity measures, of both the pro-cyclical impact on the sustainability of the public debt and the damage to human capital and industry.

Specifically, it points out the need to reduce and/or amend expenditure (including that of subnational administrations) and to redistribute the fiscal burden, so as to identify opportunities to reduce revenue. The CNEL suggests that efforts be made to identify means to grant appropriate and directly effective incentives which should include overcoming the contraction in the public sector. The aim will be to boost efficiency and set up platforms which will note the performance of the public administration, as stated in the two reports prepared by the CNEL under Article 9 of Law 15 of 4 March 20095.

The CNEL also recommends that greater use be made of the flexibility recently introduced into the European agreements (currently used when paying money owed by the public administration to businesses), and that a wider margin be given to growth support.

Specifically, the CNEL is pleased to note that the excessive deficit procedure for Italy has been closed. This means that it is possible to diverge, temporarily, from the mid-term objective as regards non-recurrent public investments, particularly those linked to public expenditure on projects co- financed by the EU via the Structural Funds.

4 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for president/addresses by the president: http://www.cnel.it/application/xmanager/projects/cnel/attachments/shadow_interventi_presidente/allegatis/000/002/894/audizion e_20Marzano_2023_20aprile_202013.pdf 5 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/reports: http://www.cnel.it/213?shadow_documenti_fldtipologiaattach=Relazione 36 The CNEL has put forward a number of proposals to counter the negative effects of the current period of macroeconomic stagnation, characterised by low purchasing power for families and rising unemployment. They include: reforming the healthcare system, cutting public spending following selective criteria rather than linear ones, reducing the tax burden on employment by modulating taxation on consumption and property, modulating levies on corporate revenue, expanding non-bank sources of financing for SMEs, implementing the European directive on late payment by the public administration, cutting red tape, reforming federalism and the governance and structure of local authorities, reducing political costs, reprogramming the Action and cohesion plan and speeding up the 2014-2020 Structural Funds. As regards the last point, the CNEL intends to establish an internal Council for Southern Italy, an area earmarked by Europe to receive a large share of European funds.

With regard to industrial policy, the CNEL welcomes the various measures described in the Economic and Financial Document and in particular in the NRP (reorganisation of the system, incentives offered by the Sustainable Growth Fund, incentives for network contracts and property growth, innovative start-ups, the SME guarantee fund, etc.).

As regards credit, the CNEL flags up a number of solutions: support for banks (in compliance with European Central Bank guidelines) in view of the Basel requirements on capitalisation, in order to avoid a reduction in the supply of credit and rising costs, expanding non-bank sources of financing for SMEs, rolling out a large system of project bonds up to the ambitious "euro union bonds".

Suggestions by the social partners are set out in the document approved by the Assembly on 17 April 2013 on urgent measures for the payment of debts by the public administration6. In this document, the CNEL criticises the instruments for paying outstanding bills fully and immediately, and calls for either greater involvement of all interested parties, or for steps to be taken to minimise the danger – given that the 3% debt ceiling has been reached – of having to use new methods to deal with mandatory expenses which are not covered by the budget.

As regards energy, the document approved on 22 May 2013 addresses the CNEL's proposals for framing energy policies in the context of the European strategies (the European climate-energy package 2020 and the Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies). In this document, the CNEL supports the EESC's opinions on adopting a European definition of "energy poverty" and the need for closer coordination of Member-State energy policies in order to shape a real European energy strategy, which the CNEL hopes will be organised along two main lines. The first will involve delivering an integrated European electricity and gas market, and the CNEL proposes that Italy be promoted as the main gas hub for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. The second will involve capitalising on European industrial sectors with a focus on renewable sources which will help limit energy imports while also creating new jobs in the EU, benefitting other economic sectors (industry, agriculture, etc.).

When calling for energy guidelines to be consistent with the general economic policy framework and EU and Member State parameters for financial sustainability, the CNEL proposes that derogations

6 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23118 37 from the stability pact be allowed for specific investments in energy and that a tool be developed to compensate the most exposed sectors for indirect costs; the EU would be directly competent for this tool, thereby overcoming the considerable latitude left to individual initiatives of the Member States.

Still with a view to ensuring equal and fair distribution of efforts to achieve the common objective of guaranteeing that the energy market functions more efficiently in terms of environmental constraints, the CNEL proposes guaranteeing a degree of flexibility to take account of national features and ensure that environmental results can be achieved according to the best criteria of cost effectiveness and be reconciled with social needs and the need to safeguard each country's competitiveness. One method would be to involve the social partners in a useful dialogue on energy and climate and to arrange for democratic consultation of interested parties, where Europe's territorial diversity makes this necessary7.

The CNEL submitted to the Government and the Parliament a legislative proposal for a tax code which rationalises and harmonises rules in this area, simplifying the procedures for implementing and checking taxes and for revising administrative penalties8. Specifically, this text constitutes the social partners' contribution to identifying broadly supported legislative principles and a single, coherent set of tax rules which will facilitate the spontaneous payment of taxes owed, cooperation between taxpayers and the tax authorities, and a reduction in the costs incurred by businesses when fulfilling tax requirements, thereby promoting productivity and encouraging investment. The legislative principles set out in this proposal were subsequently submitted in the form of an amendment to a legislative proposal on the reform of the tax system and approved by the Parliament.

3. Which are the main issues/challenges when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as a whole (set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations)?

The first issue concerns the need to ensure that the public debate on the Economic and Financial Document and in particular on the NRP demonstrates national agreement on the objectives set out in them. As was the case in the 1990s for the run-up to the euro, the country as a whole now needs to take ownership of the run-up to Europe 2020. It is therefore essential to find ways to ensure that the debate on these documents does not take place solely at the Parliament. The proposals set out in point 1) can help boost participation in and ownership of the Europe 2020 strategy and the NRP.

In line with the recommendations for Italy, the CNEL issued an opinion on promoting education and higher technical training, approved on 22 May 20139. With the production system currently undergoing radical changes, training needs to become a key development factor for both businesses and workers. It is therefore crucial to steer higher technical colleges towards sectors which are more

7 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23138 8 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/legislative proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23098 9 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23134 38 geared towards prospects for economic growth in Italy, particularly ICT. Although the link between ICT skills and being able to find/keep a job is well established, awareness of this point seems to be rather lacking in Italy; the same applies to promoting internships and learning in the workplace.

In the past, the CNEL expressed some reservations regarding the rule on balancing the budget (opinion of 7 March 2012). Once this rule had been approved by the Parliament, it submitted the outline for a legislative proposal approved on 20 June 201310, setting out three key components of policies for rationalising the budget and modernising the administration: 1) drawing up programming and budget documents solely in terms of cash in hand; 2) framing, implementing and assessing policies; 3) directing the organisational models of administrative activity towards satisfying people's needs.

The most important step in modernising the administration is doing away with an accounting system and administrative practices based on legal competence, and replacing them with forecasts, authorisations and final budgets based on financial transactions. This places the emphasis on clear budgets and budgetary procedures for each policy area, as well as on the responsibilities of the units and officials responsible for implementation, who are responsible for making the best possible use of the resources allocated. This link between a projected balance sheet, organisational responsibilities and assessing final services to citizens is an essential precondition for developing effective methods of reviewing public expenditure (spending review).

Since 2010, the CNEL has carefully analysed and endorsed the organisation of the 2020 strategy, with its five objectives, eight indicators and seven flagship initiatives which aim to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the European economy.

However, the CNEL considers that owing to the 2020 strategy's complexity and the protracted economic and financial crisis, with its serious social repercussions, the strategy needs to be reviewed for at least two closely related reasons:

 The 2020 strategy, developed by the European Commission after the crisis of 2008, was unable to interpret the signs heralding the sovereign debt crisis; in addition, the failure to analyse the impact of poorly-functioning financial markets and the knock-on effect on the real economy is making it difficult to achieve the strategy's objectives.  In order to cope with the impact of the debt crisis, the European Union – and primarily the European Council – has adopted a series of measures (Euro Plus Pact, the European Semester, Fiscal Compact, Six Pack, Two Pack) which overlap the measures of the 2020 strategy. The 2020 strategy objectives, involving promoting convergence of Member States' economic measures to combat the crisis and avoid negative repercussions, have been relegated to second place.

10 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/legislative proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23154 39  Also with a view to coping with the crisis, the European Commission will need to view the social dimension of future policies under the 2020 strategy as fundamental. Policies which rely solely on austerity measures to shore up the economy and ignore the fact that people's wellbeing depends on a wide range of factors, beginning with the social dimension, will not drive development and cohesion. The European institutions need to tackle the current crisis by setting themselves up as actors of a genuinely social programme as well as an economic one, as called for by the EESC opinion of 27 May 2013.

The CNEL considers that the relationship between non-binding structural topics (Europe 2020) and binding topics relating to fiscal and financial stability has made it both imperative and urgent to overhaul the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly in the following areas.

4.1 Governance

 At European level, the European Semester has overshadowed the Open Method of Coordination (OMC); the OMC needs to be reinforced, with the Commission supporting the capacity of individual countries to conduct reforms (capacity building). In this context, it is important to strengthen the participation of Council configurations dealing with social and employment issues (primarily the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council), coordinating with the objectives of the 2020 strategy.  At national level, steps must be taken to put the social partners' role on a more formal footing (the councils should work on this) as regards ex post evaluation of the policies and targets set in the NRPs, with the chief objective of boosting debate and organised civil society participation and promoting greater transparency in reform processes.  The fiscal consolidation and austerity measures at the heart of the new model of economic governance clash with the objectives of the 2020 strategy. This explains the urgent need to ensure that the social dimension, which needs to be mainstreamed into all objectives, is placed on the same footing as economic/financial measures – i.e. it needs to be binding. This also applies to the reform of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU Blueprint).

4.2 Gender policies

The gender dimension is not given sufficient weight in the 2020 strategy objectives. The structural reforms implemented as a result of the crisis have had an impact on gender issues. At national level, the 2020 strategy should establish measures to: a) reduce the income gap; b) develop female entrepreneurship; c) evaluate the gender impact of economic policy measures; d) apply gender budgeting.

4.3 Inclusive growth

 In the 2020 strategy, achieving social cohesion centres on the fight against poverty, which is expressed by means of a small number of indicators. These indicators should be reviewed and

40 extended to take account of the multidimensional aspects of the problem, shown by the growing inequalities between and within Member States.  Scoreboards and social indicators should be established to monitor social developments. In the area of good practice, the CNEL and the National Statistics Institute have prepared a joint set of equitable and sustainable wellbeing indicators to promote more effective inclusion strategies11.  The CNEL's work against corruption and criminal behaviour, carried out through the social and economic observatory on crime, has contributed to the work of the Government and the Parliament: in late 2012, a paper was adopted on the dangers of infiltration by organised crime into the sector of wind energy, as well as a second paper on protecting and promoting legal behaviour in the legal gambling sector12. The CNEL's work aims to tackle corruption and criminal behaviour.

4.4 Research and development, competitiveness, industrial policy

 In the 2020 strategy, innovation focuses almost exclusively on R&D, although the approach should include the concept of intangible capital, adapting the relevant indicators accordingly. The relationship between investment in R&D and investment in education/training should be illustrated more clearly; the two types are often considered separately. Businesses' R&D activities are one means to boost their intangible capital (knowledge, skills, etc.), although the topics of incentives for research and of education/training are separate, with the exception of the useful practice of researcher traineeships in businesses.  Competitiveness and its area of application should be clarified, to ensure that 2020 strategy statements on competitiveness in international markets are not added to Euro Plus Pact statements (which cover indications on wages and productivity factors in the internal market).  The broad roll-out of ICT technologies, methods and organisation plays a vital role in boosting productivity and competitiveness. This is a priority of the Europe 2020 strategy, which seeks to promote growth and distribution of networks and the digital economy. The CNEL's contribution to the proposals on the Digital Agenda supports the Council's work on the role of measures to be implemented at national level: economic (productivity, competitiveness, efficiency, employment), social (social equity, transparency, equal opportunities, new jobs, training) and environmental. Discussions have focused on the role of ICT in Italy's growth, broadband coverage, the impact of ICT on jobs and productivity and the difficulties involved in rolling out the electronic currency. The data, information and considerations which have emerged during the consultations have fed into the documents and analyses used to prepare the two papers (November 2011 and February 2013)13.

11 Documents available at www.cnel.it, section www.misuredelbenessere.it: http://www.misuredelbenessere.it/index.php?id=11 12 Documents available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=22802 http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=22770 13 Documents available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=22646 http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23078 41  Steps must be taken to reinforce the flagship initiative on industrial policy. This is increasingly a priority for growth, drawing on recent Commission communications and ideas which have emerged during the debate.  The importance of properly operational infrastructure for modern growth should be underscored. At a time of budgetary constraints when choices need to be made, the priority must go to identifying benchmarks for evaluation and criteria for public investments, as recommended by the CNEL in its paper of December 2012. This paper was drawn up with contributions from the social partners, experts, the national administrations and public authorities which unanimously recognised the need for this work and undertook to revise outdated benchmarks and criteria, partly by setting up a CNEL working group14. Attention should also be drawn to efforts made in recent years to bring consensus procedures in the identification and planning of major infrastructure projects into line with those in place in the main European countries, thereby avoiding delays in implementation and social unrest.

4.5 Migration policies

In order to cope with the ageing European population and the rise in global competition, a stricter migration policy is needed at European level. Currently, migrants only feature in the 2020 strategy in the flagship initiative "European Platform against poverty". The CNEL believes that labour force integration and immigrant participation should also be incorporated into the flagship initiative "An agenda for new skills and jobs".

4.6 Active employment policies

The CNEL considers that the objective of bringing the employment rate up to 75% should be targeted more accurately. The CNEL's analyses on the labour market in Italy show that the strong and persistent impact of the crisis is creating the danger that a significant percentage of the current high unemployment rate may become structural. This is a problem which also affects other Member States. This means that active policies need to focus on correcting a number of key problems: a) the high share of long-term unemployment; b) a large proportion of young people drop out of both education/training and the labour market (NEET); c) involuntary part-time work is becoming too frequent; this contributes to and amplifies a further loss of purchasing power for families and so a further dragging effect on the single market.

4.7 Role of the EESC

The CNEL hopes that the role of the EESC will become stronger, with a representative from the Council configurations (ECOFIN, EPSCO) and the European Parliament attending the regular meetings of the Europe 2020 steering committee, and other forms of bilateral discussion.

14 Document available at www.cnel.it, section for documents/comments and proposals: http://www.cnel.it/53?shadow_documenti=23050 42 43 LUXEMBOURG

Since 2010, many meetings have been held between the government, social partners and civil society to discuss the crisis and the instruments available for resolving i t15. During the first half of 2011, the government also organised consultations with the social partners and civil society on the various national objectives16 set in the framework of the Luxembourg 2020 strategy, and many views were then communicated to the government17.

Two orientation debates have taken held in the Chamber of Deputies (June 2010 and March 2011 )18. The various parliamentary committees involved with the Europe 2020 strategy submitted their comments to the government.

On 29 April 2011, the NRP/SGP was presented at a joint meeting at the Chamber of Deputies of the Committee on the Economy, Foreign Trade and the Solidarity Economy, the Committee on Finance and the Budget, and the Committee on Control of Budgetary Implementation.

On 7 June 2011, the CES held a seminar on the European semeste r19 to highlight the procedure for establishing the stability and growth programme, macroeconomic and fiscal surveillance and the synchronisation of budgetary and structural policies. The procedure for drawing up the NRP in the context of the new coordination cycle was also presented, as well as thematic coordination, the budgeting of objectives and their link with the structural funds, and the evaluation, monitoring and follow-up of actions. The seminar was followed by lively and fruitful debates which enabled participants to familiarise themselves with the new economic governance under the Europe 2020 strategy.

On 14 July 2011, a consultation debate was held at the Chamber of Deputies on the Council's conclusions regarding the Luxembourg NRP/SGP, followed by various meetings in autumn 2011 between the government and the social partners to discuss the crisis and the tools available to remedy the deteriorating economic situation.

15 For more details: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2010/04/Tripartite2010/index.html http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/actualite/2011/03-mars/08-pm-syndicats/index.html http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/actualite/2011/04-avril/02-tripartite/index.html 16 By way of example, see the consultations on national objectives regarding R&D and energy: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2011/02/consultation_rdi_europe2020/index.html http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2011/02/consultation_energie_europe2020/index.html 17 For example, the positions of the Luxembourg Chamber of Employees (CSL) and on the annual growth survey of of16 February 2011 (http://www.csl.lu/prises-de-position) or the contribution of the Union of Luxembourgish Enterprises (UEL) of 22 March 2011 (Source: http://www.uel.lu/fr/position/index.php). 18 For more details: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2011/03/debat_europe_2020/index.html 19 For more details: http://www.ces.public.lu/fr/actualites/2011/06/semestre-europeen/index.html 44 On 29 March 2012, a consultation debate took place at the Chamber of Deputies on the NRP and on the budget policy guidelines in the context of the European semester20.

Since the CES had not issued its opinion on the reform plan in 2012, the Minister for the Economy and External Trade, Mr Etienne Schneider, asked to meet the social partners on 4 October 2012 at the headquarters of the CES, to hear their respective positions regarding the Council's 5 recommendations of 10 July 2012 on the Luxembourg national reform programme and to enable them to express their views on the reform policies proposed therein21. The meeting ended with a debate between the social partners and the Minister, and the social partners agreed to provide the Minister, and the Prime Minister, with a document setting out the key points of their respective positions on the main topics covered.

On 21 February 2013, the government invited representatives of civil society to express their views regarding the 2012-2013 recommendations to Luxembourg and their proposals for the 2013 NRP.

On 6 June 2013, the CES held a conference, jointly with the Chamber of Deputies and the Council of State and with the participation of the European Commission Representation in Luxembourg, on "The EU's response to the sovereign debt crisis - a strategy for growth and employment". The three institutions invited Mr Gerassimos Thomas, Director of the European Commission's Directorate- General for Economic and Financial Affairs and a renowned expert in European public finances, to the CES to present the possible ways to resolve the sovereign debt crisis increasingly affecting European countries. Under the co-chairmanship of Mr Victor Gillen, President of the Council of State and Mr Gary Kneip, President of the CES, the guest presented the actions taken by the EU to tackle this crisis which arose in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-2010, as well as the related economic growth and employment challenges. The participants held a lively debate on policies for stabilising and absorbing the debt and for restoring competitiveness, growth and employment.

Of the other awareness-raising and information actions, we would highlight a public event with great visibility in the media: the symposium "En route vers Lisbonne/Luxembourg 2020"22 which has been held regularly since 2004 under the patronage of the Minister for the Economy and External Trade with the support of the Competitiveness Observatory, the Henri Tudor Centre for Public Research and the Central Service for Statistics and Economic Studies (STATEC).

Finally, an exchange of good practices took place during 2010-2012 with the European partner regions in the framework of the EU2020 European cooperation project 'going local', in which the government is a partner in cooperation with the Pro-Sud union23. On 28 January 2010, the Pro-Sud union held a European seminar on the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy/EU2020 at local level, in cooperation with the Ministry of the Economy and External Trade, the Minister for Sustainable

20 For more details: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2012/03/debat_PNR_2012/index.html 21 For more details: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2012/10/Consultation_CES_CSR_2012_2013/index.html 22 For more details: http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2010/12/colloque_Luxembourg_2020/index.html 23 http://www.odc.public.lu/actualites/2010/12/colloque_Luxembourg_2020/index.html http://www.europaforum.public.lu/fr/actualites/2010/02/pro-sud/index.html 45 Development and Infrastructures, the Information Unit for Urban Policy (CIPU) and the region of Sörmland (Sweden). Around 70 people from nine different countries (Morocco, Sweden, the UK, Portugal, Slovenia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) took part in this seminar which aimed, on the one hand, to strengthen vertical and horizontal exchanges and, on the other, to promote European dialogue in order to prepare the ground for possible European cooperation projects under the INTERREG IVC programme.

The European Council's decision in June 2010 to provide Europe with a strategy to 2020 to promote sustainable growth, which is crucial to progress and social cohesion, should be welcomed, since it aims to help Europe recover from the recent financial and economic crisis.

It is important that the new strategy is able to strengthen the Union's economic governance and the coordination of economic and budgetary policies. The approach chosen, consisting of establishing common and uniform guidelines and objectives applicable to Member States in drawing up National Reform Programmes (NRP), may nevertheless raise problems, since the different Member States' levels of progress and specific characteristics often vary considerably.

In November 2010, a preliminary draft of an NRP drawn up by the government was circulated to various State institutions and to social partners so that they could provide their comments. We would point out that Luxembourg has not set its own objectives beyond those set by the EU and that a more in-depth consideration of the country's economic and social future has not been carried out. The document entitled « Plan stratégique regroupant un ensemble de mesures pour améliorer la compétitivité du pays et lever divers freins à la croissance », presented in the first half of 2010 – in the context of the declaration on the state of the nation – did not contain an overall view of the country's future to 2020 and did not stipulate the means for achieving the objectives in question.

The government has not provided any further details regarding its medium- and long-term view or how to achieve it, and has simply based national objectives on the European objectives. While this is in accordance with the horizontal nature of the EU plan, the most urgent and relevant national objectives are not necessarily taken into account.

Another major challenge is the new strategy's very tight timetable, which gives the social partners little time to react adequately in relation to the policies laid down in the national reform programme. Furthermore, during the CES's work on the annual opinion on the country's economic, social and financial evolution of 15 April 2010, the increasing difficulties of social dialogue became truly apparent, particularly in relation to the analysis of public finances and employment policy, and in the discussions on the government referral regarding social dialogue in companies.

The result of these difficulties has been a temporary suspension of the work on government referrals under way and those of a mandatory nature, and the work regarding the Europe 2020 strategy has also 46 therefore been blocked. The CES has therefore temporarily abandoned the classic notion of the opinion on integrated guidelines; which too often took the form of a response to an evaluation or recommendations from the European Commission and lacked forward-looking elements to guide national policy in key areas.

The 2010 Tripartite discussions24 were intended to analyse Luxembourg's economic, social and financial situation and the three following key issues in particular: employment, the competitiveness of the economy and public finances. The government's objective in relation to public finances was to achieve a balanced budget in 2014 and to maintain a sustainable level of public debt. Following the 5th and final session of the Tripartite Coordination Committee on 27 April 2010, the Prime Minister lamented the fact that the government and the social partners had not been able to reach an agreement.

Since the social partners' positions regarding the measures to take were diametrically opposed, the government's efforts to bring the social partners together round the negotiating table were in vain.

In 2011, despite intensive bilateral talks with representatives of the trade unions and employers' organisations, an agreement in the Tripartite to tackle the crisis was not possible. The various parties in the social dialogue therefore expressed their views on the national reform programme unilaterally and the Prime Minister, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, expressed his regret that it was not possible to bring the social partners to the table to seek a consensus on the policies and said that social dialogue "had flu", but nevertheless denied that social dialogue in Luxembourg had come to an end and talked about a "temporary disagreement between the social partners" before calling for social dialogue to continue "at all levels". The Prime Minister stressed that, despite this failure, the government remained open to dialogue.

The key challenge is therefore to restore a genuine dialogue social in order to consider together the best way to prepare the country's future. For its part, and with a view to relaunching social dialogue at national level, the CES has sought to adapt its tasks to the evolution in the national and international situation since the last reform of the CES in 2004, defining them more precisely and coordinating them with other arenas for socio-economic agreement. In order to re-launch social dialogue in the short term, the CES has agreed to focus initially on topics with a medium- to long-term outlook in order to provide genuine added value by working in the general interest of the whole of society.

24 The Tripartite Coordination Committee ('the Tripartite'), set up by the anti-crisis law of 24 December 1977, has the legal capacity to act when, as a result of a worsening economic and social situation, measures of general application and national solidarity are needed. The Tripartite brings together representatives of the government (Minister for Finance, Minister for the Economy, Minister for Employment and Work), employers and employees and is chaired by the Prime Minister. This is the instrument enabling the government to act quickly, to draw up and finalise, in agreement with social partners, the measures it intends to take to tackle a problem requiring a rapid solution, in a spirit of national solidarity, to restore the economic situation and maintain employment. 47 3. Which are the main issues/challenges when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as a whole – set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations?

Designed to rectify the main shortcomings of the previous strategy and aiming to provide a detailed roadmap to European economic recovery and sustainable growth over the next ten years, the Europe 2020 strategy inspires enthusiasm amongst some, but doubt and criticisms amongst others.

As at the time of the Lisbon Strategy, launched in 2000, it is clear that the programme of reforms needed in order to achieve "smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" cannot be implemented at European level alone, but are also needed at national level. Lessons need to be drawn from the many failings of the previous strategy, which were identified in the mid-term assessment in 2005: an excessively complex structure which multiplied objectives and actions, an unclear distribution of tasks and responsibilities, the Member States retaining competence in many of the policy fields in question, weak leadership from the European Commission, and a lack of commitment on the part of Member States.

As a result of this mid-term assessment, the strategy was re-launched in 2005 to focus almost exclusively on growth and employment, making a slight adjustment to the governance model in order to improve cooperation between the European Commission and the Member States. However, the overall approach of the strategy was still not without its shortcomings. There were undoubtedly too many objectives covering too many fields in order to please as many stakeholders as possible: growth, competitiveness, research, social protection, the environment.

Furthermore, the problems relating to the method employed also need to be prevented. Rather than the community method used for the CAP, the customs union and the single market, the 'open method of coordination' (OMC) had been chosen. Much more flexible, it simply set objectives for the Member States and promoted benchmarking, i.e. comparison between different State policies and the dissemination of best practices. Furthermore, the Lisbon Strategy did not have specific financial resources.

The aim is to bring together the EU's economic, social and environmental agendas in a more coherent fashion. A number of fundamental policy objectives need to be achieved both at European level (through policy and funding programmes) and through reforms at national level. The challenge is to strengthen policy synergies and hence European integration process, on the basis of a stronger vision and model of governance.

The new Europe 2020 strategy must succeed in promoting European growth based essentially on knowledge and innovation, aiming for a high employment rate, while promoting social cohesion and ensuring sustainability (in terms of both competitiveness and the environment).

In relation to governance, the challenge is to rectify the shortcomings of the previous model. In this regard, the 2020 strategy contains two essential innovations. The European Council is now responsible for leading the process, on the basis of proposals from the Commission, which also has 48 the option of issuing "policy warnings" if, following several recommendations and after a given period of time, a Member State has not achieved a particular objective.

The system for evaluating Member States' efforts towards achieving the 2020 objectives and the system for evaluating the Stability and Growth Pact, which requires Member States to report on the reforms carried out in the macroeconomic and public finance fields, as well as the new Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure launched for the first time at the end of 2011 following the adoption of the "six-pack" by the European Parliament in order to monitor macroeconomic imbalances, will remain three distinct processes, but it is to be hoped that these effectively simultaneous evaluation procedures will encourage Member States to better coordinate their macroeconomic reforms with the thematic initiatives carried out under the 2020 strategy.

The CES believes that the EU needs a well-defined policy approach that supports economic recovery, puts public finances back on a sound footing and actively promotes sustainable growth and jobs. All relevant instruments need to be brought together to ensure that future policy decisions are coherent, serve these goals and, once decided, are implemented and enforced. By strengthening its economic policy co-ordination the EU can hope to carry out this new sustainable growth agenda.

The Europe 2020 strategy provides a complete and open framework which can accommodate the great developments in policies linked to growth, employment, social cohesion and the environment in Europe. It can therefore provide the basis for a wide range of measures to be implemented at national level in order to respond to the challenges considered priorities.

In an international economic context of great financial turbulence, the CES believes that particular attention should be drawn to the problems of maintaining households' purchasing power, controlling inflation, the competitiveness of companies and maintaining balanced public finances.

Economic policy coordination needs to be reinforced and concrete proposals made to address imbalances through stronger macroeconomic surveillance, including alert and sanction mechanisms. Strengthening national budgetary frameworks, taking greater account of the dynamic of debt and deficits and multiannual planning rather than annual planning of budgets should improve coordination between Member States.

In relation to the drawing up of European policies in an enlarged Union, the CES would stress the importance of the community method, which should be given precedence over the intergovernmental method. The community method has passed the test in terms of the efficiency of decision-making procedures. It makes each institution an essential element of community governance. The bases, procedures and stakeholders for this method must be strengthened in order to ensure that policies are effective. On the basis of past experiences, the community method has shown itself to be crucial to promoting the Union's common good and to ensuring a balance of policies, benefitting all Member States and all citizens. 49 Furthermore, multilateral dialogue as a form of governance and greater involvement by national parliaments, social partners and civil society should secure approval and ownership on the part of all stakeholders and ensure the greater cross-cutting which is crucial to the success of the new strategy.

The identification of the bottlenecks which impede or delay the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives is a key element of thematic surveillance. An integrated approach to the implementation of policies is essential, but the specific needs and preferences of Member States must nevertheless be respected.

The common rules and co-ordination procedures enshrined in the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact have not prevented a number of deviations. Over recent years there have been diverging economic developments amongst the Member States, which has led to macroeconomic imbalances within the EU. Establishing a new surveillance mechanism aimed at rectifying these tendencies much more quickly should make it possible to prevent such phenomena.

The content of Stability and Convergence Programmes has to be adapted to the rationale of having a European semester. The European semester must make it possible to debate economic and budgetary priorities at the same period every year, and hence to take account of the EU guidelines at an early stage in the drawing up of national budgets and other economic policies. Enhanced economic governance would benefit from early and strong involvement by national parliaments in the European semester process and from greater dialogue with the European Parliament.

Complementarity of national economic policy plans must be ensured at European level through policy guidance before final decisions on the budget for the following year are taken in the Member States. The setting up of the European Semester must integrate the different strands of economic policy coordination and allow for better and ex-ante coordination of economic policies.

Taken together, this combination of proposals will probably equip the EU and national levels to have confidence in the quality of the policy- and decision-making process and to have earlier warning when national situations are going off track. This will enable all Member States to maximise the positive synergies of belonging to the same Union. It will bring greater transparency and mutual confidence through a more collective process. It will also minimise the negative spillover effects where Member States do not stick to agreed limits and ultimately, sanction those who endanger the common good through unsustainable national actions. By bringing the Stability and Growth Pact and Europe 2020 processes together the EU can build on the necessary consolidation measures as essential steps in its longer term growth strategy, building a smarter, more sustainable and more inclusive EU for the future.

50 HUNGARY

Mr Stefano Palmien President of Europe 2020 Steering Committee European Economic and Social Committee 99-101 Rue Belliard Brussels

Budapest, 31 October, 2013

Dear Mr President,

We are pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the review of the Europe 2020 Strategy. We received your letter through various channels a week ago nevertheless we hope that our late contribution could also be taken into account.

The Ministry for National Economy of Hungary is the national coordinator of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the National Reform Programme, and in this capacity we are responsible for the social consultations.

Let me inform you about our views regarding your questions on the Europe 2020 Strategy.

1. On the national consultation and the involvement of the organized civil society of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Concerning the Hungarian National Reform Programme 2013, the draft programme was discussed in two major steps; first, the line ministries carried out the essential partnership consultations with the legally designated and other relevant stakeholders; then the Ministry for National Economy organized a partnership conference to present the planned measures. Around 100 social and expert groups had been invited for the conference and the main relevant civil society organisations, scientific institutions and universities participated. Furthermore, beyond the traditional civil society organisations, representatives from local and regional organisations also participated actively in the dialogue on the National Reform Programme and Europe 2020 strategy. During the conference, the Minister of State for National Economy and the Deputy State Secretary for Competitiveness, who are responsible for the national coordination of the Europe 2020 strategy, have introduced the process of the European Semester and the structure of the NRP, its development process and its connection to the EU2020 strategy and to the country specific recommendations. The line ministries responsible for the five main goals of the NRP have elaborated in three blocks on the implementation of the measures presented in last year's NRP and on the proposed measures in the NRP of 2013, which was followed by an open discussion, with the representatives of civil society and scientific institutions. After the conference, the civil society representatives gave written suggestions. Apart from the civil society 51 organisation, the Minister of State consulted the Committee on European Affairs of the Hungarian Parliament on Europe 2020 issues several times, for example in case of the Annual Growth Survey, the National Reform Programme, and in case of the Country-specific recommendations.

2. On the problems/opportunities regarding the NRP.

One of the main problems was the short window given for preparing and coordinating the NRP. If national governments had more time for it, the public consultation could have been more broadly elaborated and more frequent.

As the coordinator of the National Reform Programme, a great challenge is to provide a balance of ambitious and manageable reforms. Ministries sometimes propose too many measures and a part of them are not so vital. A selection of the measures had to be made in order to have an appropriate NRP, and to respect the guidance of the Commission on NRPs.

3. On the main issues/challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Regarding the Europe 2020 strategy as a whole, our contributions are the following;

 Setting out objectives is a good strategic direction; however, experience shows that some countries decided on too ambitious and on rather unrealistic objectives. Consequently, the monitoring of progress proved to be not so successful, in cases of some headline targets, many countries and thus the whole EU are lagging behind. The 10-year period Is long enough to take over structural changes in Member States. More flexible headline targets should be set, since unforeseeable circumstances could arise - as it was the case with the recent economic crisis. A mid-term review could be a good solution to review whether the targets are still relevant or not.  The flagship initiatives are mainly EU-level initiatives. The success of these flagship initiatives depend on the timely adoption of the different regulations, strategies by the EU institutions.

Concerning the European Semester, Hungary would like to add the following:

 The coordination and organisation of the third European Semester show significant evolution in several points. We appreciate that the Commission paid large attention to the preparation of the European Semester. In this framework, the Commission held bilateral consultations with the Member States three times during the preparation and implementation of the Semester regarding the implementation of CSRs and the organisation of the European Semester.  The involvement of more committees (EPC, EMCO, SPC) to the discussions on the country specific recommendations was rather useful. Due to the more thorough preparation phase, the cooperation among these committees was more structured and smoother than in previous exercises.  We believe that the strengthening of ownership is the main issue. Therefore a consultation

52 after the issuing of draft council recommendations could help in this respect. In the meantime, it should not increase the administrative burden on the Member States and the Commission.  The application of the principle of "comply or explain" introduced in 2012 raised a number of issues and undermined Member States' engagement towards the recommendations. Due to this principle the modification of the text of CSRs was practically impossible, which cannot contribute to the strengthening of ownership.  The eventual political risks jeopardizing ownership should be taken into account in the formulation  of CSRs.  Only the objectives should be defined not the policy tools needed to reach them. More room should be left for Member States to define their own policy tools to achieve the commonly agreed objectives, particularly in the areas falling under Member State competence.

4. Specific proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy.

The 2015-2020 period is too long to exclude the possibility of economic changes in Europe. On the basis of the experience gained in the period 2010-2014, more flexible elements should be built in to the Strategy including the possibility of modification of headline targets through more structured discussion and well balanced country-specific recommendations. Some member states may introduce major reforms, that are not directly linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, but could be involved in the National Reform Programme - for example health care. We suggest that the thematic scope of the Strategy should be handled more flexible. We hope that our contributions should serve as a useful input to the discussion in EESC in December. One again, let me apologize for the late response.

Yours sincerely,

Turóczy Lásló, Deputy State Secretary

53 NETHERLANDS

The Labour Foundation has provided the social partners with extensive information on the content of the NRP.

2. What problems/ opportunities are there regarding the NRPs? Have the views of civil society been taken into consideration? Please provide specific examples of best practices and/or bottlenecks.

The social partners have had the opportunity to submit comments on the (draft) NRP via the Labour Foundation. The cabinet invited the social partners to submit points for the NRP at an early stage, before the programme had been drafted. In other words, there has been an open exchange of views. Ultimately, the cabinet only incorporated those points that aligned with implemented/initiated cabinet policy. The social partners have no issue with that, as they recognise that the Dutch government is responsible for the content of the Dutch NRP. It is partly for that reason that the social partners are preparing their own appendix.

3. Which are the main issues/ challenges when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as whole – set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations?

The social partners have not evaluated the Europe 2020 strategy via the SER or the Labour Foundation since 2010. However, there is an annual consultation between the Dutch government and a delegation from the SER to prepare the Dutch position for the EU Spring Summit, which also involves discussion of progress on the Europe 2020 strategy.

The social partners have not (yet) produced any joint proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015-2020 period via the SER or the Labour Foundation. Nor are there any ongoing advisory projects that would be able to answer this question.

Another consultation will be held in February or March 2014 between a delegation from the Dutch government and the SER. Preparations for this consultation have already started; for example, the country-specific recommendations for the Netherlands were discussed in the meeting of the SER's social and economic affairs committee on 3 October 2013. It is not clear whether the social partners will be further discussing experience with and the future of the Europe 2020 strategy in the run up to the consultation.

54 PORTUGAL

Due to the fact that Portugal is under an Economic and Financial Adjustment Programme (EFAP), the national Government does not prepare a National Reform Programme. For the same reason, in order to avoid duplication with measures set out in the EFAP, there are no Country-Specific Recommendations either. It is understood that the mentioned information is encompassed by the regular reviews performed for the EFAP. On the other hand, the Government yearly submits to the European Commission information regarding the progress towards the main targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The inputs below should be analysed under this framework

1.1 Trade unions

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) (13 September 2013): There has been a debate on the measures contained in the Memorandum, largely because updates to the document are public and there is pressure from trade unions and other organisations for the topics to be discussed. However, the discussion goes no further than the content of the document, e.g. to discuss progress towards the strategy's objectives. No meetings are held on this, and no information is sent or opinions sought. The NRP documents are published on the EU website without us being informed of the fact. Indeed, the Government has systematically taken measures without consulting anyone and has only convened the social partners afterwards, basically just to discuss their implementation.

General Union of Workers (UGT) (30 September 2013): In the period under review, there was no debate with the social partners on the national reform programme (NRP)/European Semester. Only the subjects included in the strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment, which are just one part of the 2020 strategy, received any consideration by the social partners, and even this was separate from the community process of the European Semester. The scant involvement of the social partners in the drafting of the NRPs and the European Semester, observable in most Member States (and not only in those in receipt of intervention) shows that there is a need – also at EU level – to adopt mechanisms for promoting their participation.

1.2 Employer associations

Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (CCP) (13 August 2013): A number of specific topics were debated by the standing committee for social consultation (CPCS), inter alia on employment and labour-related issues. Other bodies also contributed to this debate, including the (interministerial) coordinating and monitoring committee for the “Impulso Jovem” initiative (a plan for combating youth unemployment) and the working group on streamlining active employment measures. The CCP welcomes these steps to involve it. The results are less favourable 55 when it comes to incorporating specific input from the social partners in the measures subsequently adopted by the Portuguese Government: the results have depended to a large extent on the matters involved.

Business Confederation of Portugal (CIP) (12 September 2013): Since 2011 there has been no debate, nor have we detected any additional attempts to provide information on the NRP.

1.3 Local government

Ovar City C ouncil (16 September 2013): The debate was non-existent. In actual fact, debate has been confused with the existence of pre- formed ideas which are insinuated to be true.

1.4 Government (12 September 2013):

Portugal has been involving civil society in discussions and preparation of its strategy documents for achieving the objectives established over the course of time by the EU. In both 2012 and 2013, Portugal has been concerned not only to take stock of progress towards the Europe 2020 targets but also to draw up a detailed document on the main initiatives that are helping to improve the relevant indicators. These flagship initiatives have been discussed by the Government, via the sectoral ministries concerned, with the various civil-society players, although Portugal's policy options are heavily constrained by the Memorandum of Understanding. Moreover, when preparing the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, many debates were held with civil society which involved aspects of the Europe 2020 Strategy, bearing in mind the close relationship between the two exercises.

1.5 Cooperative sector

Portuguese Cooperative Confederation (Confecoop) (30 July 2013): We do not feel that there has been any debate with civil society: there has only been debate with certain sectors. Regarding the social economy, for example, debate has been practically non-existent.

1.6 National Council for Professional Associations

National Council for Professional Associations (CNOP) (12 September 2013): There was not any extensive or in-depth debate involving civil society organisations, as far as we are concerned – the main engine and source of practical solutions for relaunching the economy, creating jobs and getting out of the crisis that is affecting virturally all Member States and the main world economies. In fact, the professional associations and their national council were not involved in the priorities laid down in the NRP, and this is highly regrettable.

Additional note from the Association of Nursing Staff (OE), which is a member of the CNOP (13 September 2013): 56 In the context of the four operational programmes (OP) in which cohesion policy funds were allocated, the OE considers that it should have been more closely involved in the framing of measures for each of these for the health sector.

1.7 Private social welfare institutions

National Confederation of Solidarity Institutions (CNIS) (31 August 2013): The 2020 strategy and its implementing cycle are not widely known or discussed in Portugal. For example, it is not clear which body within the Government's structure is responsible for coordinating it. When there is any debate, it tends to be at sectoral level. "Forums" gtiving an opportunity for an overall assessment are rare. One positive aspect is that although the Portuguese Government is not obliged to undertake monitoring, it has done so until now. Unfortunately, the Commission has chosen not to provide for specific recommendations as it considers that monitoring the EFAP is enough. However, the EFAP was not designed with a view to enabling Portugal to achieve its 2020 strategy objectives.

1.8 National associations for consumer protection

Portuguese Consumer Protection Association (DECO) (12 September 2013): At present there is no NRP which the current Government recognises as being valid.

1.9 Family-based agriculture and rural society

Minha Terra, Portuguese Federation of Local Development Associations (16 September 2013): Civil society organisations have no knowledge of any organised or detailed information (territorial and thematic) on monitoring of the NRP objectives. In the first quarter of 2011, the national coordinating body for the Lisbon Strategy and the Regional Development Coordination Committees (CCDRs) organised public hearings to present progress and gather regional input, but the response was limited.

2.1 Trade unions

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) (13 September 2013): The Memorandum of Understanding with the Troika places major constraints on Portugal's development, and is even leading it into poverty, without solving the problem of the deficit or public debt, which is continuing to grow. It is causing unemployment, poverty and the destruction of public services. Society's views are not taken into account because the aim is to reduce the deficit and the debt regardless of the consequences. This is being done by slashing public spending, thereby affecting public services and social policies (including education and health), while at the same time aid is granted to banks. However, it is not just a matter of measures to reduce the deficit; it is imposing 57 further privatisations, and a drop in salaries even in the private sector.

General Union of Workers (UGT) (30 September 2013): Please refer to previous question and answer.

Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (CCP) (13 August 2013): Please refer to previous question and answer.

Business Confederation of Portugal (CIP) (12 September 2013): It is clear that the main policy guidelines and national objectives are influenced by the commitments made in the EAFP, and that there has not been a sufficiently thorough debate with civil society organisations on the matter. In this context, Portugal is freed of the obligation to present its NRP. However, we feel that there should be more dialogue between the Government and the social partners (dialogue on this subject has been almost non-existent) as regards both the framing and implementation of the NRPs or the targets, not least in order to create a greater sense of “ownership” of them.

Ovar City C ouncil (16 September 2013): Failure to take proper stock of needs, resources and goals. Tendency to work on a case-by-case basis without proper foundations. For example, how is it possible to assess whether resources are sufficient or not without defining the functions of the State? (It should be noted that a country with one of the lowest percentages of public servants in the EU emerges in public opinion and on the political agenda as being one of the countries that needs to shed human resources from its public administration.)

The NRP, coming within the period of the "European semester", is an essential internal discussion document for the development of policies targeting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, on the one hand, and coordination of national and European policies on the other. The preparation period for the partnership agreement can be given as an example of best practice, as a considerable effort was made to debate with Portuguese society, in various forums and using various communication tools, regarding the objectives to be pursued under the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Portuguese Cooperative Confederation (Confecoop) (30 July 2013): The first problem relates to the development scenarios sketched out, which do not seem reasonable at the present time. And there are clearly some contradictions. "Smart growth" calls for more and better education, but all education policy measures point to the opposite. Taking as a reference the 2011 NRP, it should be noted that one of the flagship initiatives here – "new opportunities", which at the 58 time was the standard-bearer for improving skills – has fallen by the wayside. And since then, with both sustainable and inclusive growth, the role and importance of the social economy has practically been ignored, whether in terms of creating jobs or even of the development and promotion of sustained growth practices.

2.6 National Council for Professional Associations (CNOP)

Additional note from the Association of Nursing Staff (OE), which is a member of the CNOP (13 September 2013): The view of the OE does not seem to have been taken into account in the priorities laid down for the NRP. Among various problems and opportunitites identified, we would point out the mass emigration of nurses trained in Portugal: this is a case of inability to guarantee the inclusion and employment of highly qualified young people, and can lead to wasted investment in human capital.

National Confederation of Solidarity Institutions (CNIS) (31 August 2013): From a national viewpoint, we propose that the list of measures in the NRP should be more concrete and quantifiable. The political initiatives already taken present a subject assessment of implementation and make hardly any reference to impact. The new measures are formulated as unmeasurable objectives. This process could/should rest on a broader consensus between the political system, official bodies and civil society because it is a long-term strategy which extends beyond the electoral cycle and has a very significant practical impact on people's lives. Regarding the social and employment goals, a variety of national bodies have tried to monitor the NRPs. For example, the Caritas-Europe network draws up an annual shadow report on the evaluation and implementation of measures in the field of employment and the fight against poverty.

Portuguese Consumer Protection Association (DECO) (12 September 2013): It must be acknowledged that virtually no account was taken of the opinions (and still less, the concerns) of civil society organisations, whether regarding the preparation or revision of an NRP.

Minha Terra, Portuguese Federation of Local Development Associations (16 September 2013): The Europe 2020 Strategy and the measures ensuing from it in the NRPs and the CSF could provide a satisfactory intervention basis for preparing national strategies to promote growth, employment and regional development. However, in the partnership agreement, the list of guidelines and priorities which underpin national policies focuses too much on constraints and on economies of agglomeration, highlighting infrastructure needs and the benefits of polarisation, while undervaluing natural and local resources, which are often just equated with tourism.

59 3. Which are the main issues/challenges when looking back at the European 2020 strategy as whole – set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations?

3.1 Trade unions

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) (13 September 2013): The main challenge relates to the redrafting of the strategy, removing the guidelines aimed at: liberalisation of the main markets for goods and services, notably public ones, in the field of transport, communications, energy, services, social security and capital; liberalisation of the labour market, with the central aim of wage moderation and cutting unit labour costs, and finally the excessively tight focus on the public accounts, as this runs counter to growth and social cohesion.

General Union of Workers (UGT) (30 September 2013): The EU authorities should pay special attention to ensuring that the Europe 2020 Strategy instruments are mutually consistent and effective, at a time when austerity has been gaining ground and the new economic governance architecture and the goal of budget stability have sidelined other Europe 2020 objectives, especially those with a social dimension: employment, poverty, inequalities, innovation. European economic governance makes many of the Europe 2020 objectives difficult to achieve, or even impossible. Policies and guidelines thus urgently need to be altered. The immediate priority is to ensure conditions conducive to boosting economic growth and job creation. The fight against unemployment must be a central objective:  Urgent implementation of a European plan to relaunch youth employment, designed to combat the high level of unemployment facing this group;  Strengthening of mechanisms to promote better protection of the unemployed in all Member States, in particular through measures to improve vocational skills and facilitate integration into the labour market, but also by means of adequate financial support – unemployment subsidies – that is adapted to current conditions;  Need for a European investment plan, on a supranational level and providing solidarity in fundamental areas such as education and training, renewable energy, R&D and innovation, and in terms of modern and efficient infrastructure. Improving the strategy will also entail placing the social dimension and the economic dimension at the same level:  The 2020 strategy objective should be integrated within a more balanced context of European governance; the objectives for employment, education, innovation, poverty or the environment should be just as binding as the economic objectives, notably as regards budgetary adjustment.  The social partners should be fully involved in the preparation and implementation of the strategy.  The EU authorities should promote a thorough evaluation of the current framework, in particular by assessing whether instruments and policies are appropriate for the objectives being pursued.

60 3.2 Employer associations

Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (CCP) (13 August 2013): The main challenge will be to keep sight of individual national circumstances (related to differing levels of economic growth and specific difficulties), which tend to clash with goals established for the Member States as a whole. As regards the situation in Portugal, the update which the Government sent the European Commission concerning the 2020 strategy goals reflects the commitment and efforts made to achieve these despite the economic and social crisis. The goals which our country took on when Europe 2020 was launched were already extremely ambitious, and since then they have come up against the severe austerity scenario associated with the EAFP. In this context, and with the scarcely encouraging forecasts for economic growth, it would be realistic to accept the need for flexibility about adjusting/readjusting them as part of an interim review of the strategy.

Business Confederation of Portugal (CIP) (12 September 2013): In a context marked by a serious crisis, both economic/financial and social, in Portugal and other Member States, and in view of the widespread uncertainty about the immediate future, the CIP considers that all the aspects mentioned in this question are broadly significant. It is equally or even more important to ensure prompt, effective implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Here we would point out that much of the failure of the earlier Lisbon Strategy was the result of its inadequate implementation.

Ovar City C ouncil (16 September 2013): There can be no strategy for Europe without effective convergence in terms of harmonising basic areas such as taxation, labour and social provisions. Convergence and solidarity in policies is also vital.

3.4 Government (12 September 2013): Countries have to make a serious effort to achieve the objectives they signed up to in the Europe 2020 Strategy. However, those objectives were set during different economic circumstances from the current crisis Europe has been facing, and the impact of this crisis has been especially severe in certain countries (such as Portugal). Because of this, progress with some of the indicators has been slow. The big challenge now is to keep society mobilised towards achieving the targets, even when they seem more distant. Basically, we have to make society aware that the cyclical effects of the crisis must not jeopardise a strategy which is designed to increase the wellbeing of Europe's citizens over the medium term.

Portuguese Cooperative Confederation (Confecoop) (30 July 2013): The main challenge concerns the development scenarios and restrictive agendas imposed on us by our creditors. We do not think it is feasible to talk about investment when the "sole" aim of the targets is to reduce the budget deficit but when, in actual fact, the public debt continues to rise. 61 3.6 National Council for Professional Associations

Additional note from the Association of Nursing Staff (OE), which is a member of the CNOP (13 September 2013): The NRP could be more in keeping with Portugal's specific needs in the health sector. The importance assigned to partnerships reflects the inter-sectoral approach needed for health policies following the WHO recommendations which were also adopted by the European Commission. However, a specific plan must be established in order to identify priorities for setting up partnerships for the sector.

National Confederation of Solidarity Institutions (CNIS) (31 August 2013): Please refer to previous question and answer.

Portuguese Consumer Protection Association (DECO) (12 September 2013): The Europe 2020 Strategy's objectives include increasing competition, innovation and integration in the single market, with an appropriate consumer policy which should make an essential contribution to the Digital Agenda (reliable border-free digital services and content markets, access, digital literacy), to social inclusion (taking account of the situation of the most vulnerable consumers), to sustainable growth (sustainable consumption) and to the growing importance of smart regulation (monitoring the consumer market as a basis for devising effective specific policies). We consider that in the current economic crisis, Portugal urgently needs to establish measures that will boost consumers' confidence in the market; this confidence can only be achieved by providing a high level of consumer protection. Accordingly, and in terms of specific proposals, we recommend a competition framework that guarantees consumers (both individually and collectively) adequate redress when businesses engage in predatory or restrictive competition practices. In parallel with this, it is important to put in place a regulatory framework for consumer protection in the digital market, not only as regards contracts but also for data protection, digital inclusion and the neutrality of the internet. In the same area, we call for a better guarantee of consumer access to justice, in particular through the deployment of alternative mechanisms for settling disputes, so that consumers can be more confident when purchasing goods and services.

Minha Terra, Portuguese Federation of Local Development Associations (16 September 2013): The conditions imposed by the EFAP have impeded the economic recovery and employment boost which are the keys to achieving the objectives and targets of the NRP, in particular innovation, strengthening higher education, ensuring young people remain in education, and bringing down the high levels of poverty and social exclusion. These latter objectives, which affect rural and periurban areas, are not receiving the requisite public policy measures, not only in terms of financial resources but also of the local social capital for building effective, efficient solutions. 62 4. Could you outline specific proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015- 2020 period?

4.1 Trade unions

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN) (13 September 2013): The CGTP-IN advocates a reformulation of the Europe 2020 Strategy so that it meets Europe's socio- economic development requirements, notably by redefining guidelines in order to pursue economic growth, a better distribution of wealth, improvement of public and social services, re-industrialisation of the EU, innovation, improvement of education and skills, and reduction of poverty and social exclusion. The main priorities should be economic growth and relaunching the European economy, creating jobs and reducing unemployment – which means an end to austerity policy – and increasing financial resources for improving public services, education and the health service.

General Union of Workers (UGT) (30 September 2013): Please refer to previous question and answer.

Confederation of Trade and Services of Portugal (CCP) (13 August 2013): A swifter political response is needed than happened in the preceding period. In terms of financing, there must be a true Community budget for an effective European policy on production activities. The issues to be addressed should include those that are the direct result of the crisis, i.e. those relating to the operation of automatic shock-absorbers, where austerity policies end up entailing bigger deficits and increased debt. There should be more of a "partnership" approach when implementing the strategy, both in EU-Member State relations and at national level: there should be greater involvement of the social partners in framing, implementing and monitoring the policies, programmes and measures underway or to be created. There should also be greater involvement of regional stakeholders in local government, business associations and NGOs. Lastly, we have stressed the role of procedures and instruments for continuous assessment of results, as these make it possible to re- orient measures when necessary.

Business Confederation of Portugal (CIP) (12 September 2013): Greater ownership of the strategy is necessary throughout the whole of society, on the part of government, the public and businesses. Despite its cross-cutting nature, attention and efforts must also urgently focus on economic recovery, growth and the fight against unemployment. Failure to do this will condemn the European strategy to failure. Implementation of the EU Structural and Investment Funds for the 2014-2020 period must thus give priority to improving business competitiveness and must be in harmony with the Europe 2020 objectives which Portugal signed up to. Lastly, with regard to the European Semester, we consider that the macroeconomic imbalance procedure should be used in a more balanced and effective manner: this will mean correcting the highly asymmetric nature of adjustment, which has only fallen upon the countries with deficits.

63 Confederation of Construction and Real Estate (CPCI) (10 September 2013) Steps must be taken to ensure that the importance which the European strategy accords to urban regeneration is matched by practical incentives to implement it on the ground. Investment in housing has not been deemed eligible for Community funds, with the result that incentive programmes end up being geared to the renovation of public spaces. Efforts have been made to ensure that, at national level and by using resources allocated to energy efficiency, programmes can be developed which are directed at the private sector, including small-scale measures that are vital for effective, holistic, sustained and inclusive urban regeneration which can enable our cities to reach the levels of competitiveness and attraction required by the 2020 strategy.

Ovar City C ouncil (16 September 2013): - Tax harmonisation and an end to tax havens; - Structural cohesion policies; - Greater consideration of political aspects compared to economic ones.

Being a medium-term strategy, Europe 2020 must retain its original foundations, which seek to create smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. A significant change of direction would send the wrong signal about the bases that underpinned the chosen path. However, there are two improvements which might perhaps be introduced: a) a mechanism making it possible to adjust the strategy's aims to the new economic circumstances (without this meaning being less ambitious or changing direction); b) creation of a standard monitoring model to help understand the relation between the policies being pursued and the results achieved.

Portuguese Cooperative Confederation (Confecoop) (30 July 2013): One proposal would certainly be to make use of the social economy as a tool for modernisation and change. The clear failure of the capitalist system should make us rethink the place and role of the social economy, and particularly of cooperatives, in the NRP. As regards Smart Growth, we believe it makes sense to invest in education for cooperation, taking the social economy as a backdrop. When it comes to Sustainable Growth, there is even more reason to boost conditions for promoting employment in the social economy, where issues such as relocation or lack of sustainability either do not arise at all or at least arise less often. Action for Inclusive Growth should focus on strengthening the mechanisms available to the social economy, to combat poverty and insecure employment and, of course, to improve people's rights.

64 4.6 National Council for Professional Associations

Additional note from the Association of Nursing Staff (OE), which is a member of the CNOP (13 September 2013): i) Increase the number of nursing professionals available for meeting community needs in the OPs for improving levels of social inclusion and employment of highly skilled young people; ii) In the context of the national health system, a shift towards the outcomes of Community funding will mean making use of support to assess the impact of healthcare on people's health and quality of life. These impact assessments should promote projects and measures whose effects are mutually reinforcing, supporting demonstrations of the impact of increasing nursing care for the elderly and the chronically ill, both in the community and in the home.

National Confederation of Solidarity Institutions (CNIS) (31 August 2013): Assign greater importance to the objectives of combating poverty, education and employment in the 2020 strategy, in the political agenda and in the NRPs; recognise and strengthen the social and environmental sector as generators of jobs and growth; adopt European investment programmes to offset fiscal adjustment; encourage governments to provide more specific information by setting annual objectives and producing more regular reports with high-quality information on all the targets, not only the economic ones; improve the involvement of civil society by holding regular consultations and structured dialogue (for example, as happens at European level, with the setting-up of the platform against poverty and social exclusion); significantly raise the profile of the 2020 strategy.

Portuguese Consumer Protection Association (DECO) (12 September 2013): Please refer to previous question and answer.

Minha Terra, Portuguese Federation of Local Development Associations (16 September 2013):  Analytical and strategic relevance of the local dimension. Sectoral and cross-cutting policy measures must stimulate and exploit the closer focus this offers, as it will give them a better picture of the situation they seek to address.  Making use of local resources as the starting point for devising measures that will further the objectives and goals of the NRP. Local policy instruments should promote autonomy and the social capital of stakeholders in local-rural development processes (associations, producers and producer organisations), who still find themselves at the end of the "planning and management chain". New policies for social and territorial innovation. The natural resources of Europe's regions can make a significant contribution to growth and employment, attracting residents who value their amenities and life styles, but also knowledge-based resources that are vital to innovation of goods and services in the patchwork of activities found in rural economies. 65 ROMANIA

1. Was there a global debate or higher efforts for giving some information on the national reform programs, involving representatives of the organized civil society?

2. What problems/ opportunities are there related to the national reform programs?

3. Which are the main issues/ challenges when we look back at Europe 2020 Strategy overall – set-up objectives, significant and follow-up initiatives, European semester, the progress of national reform programs, the coherency of the country specific recommendations?

4. Can you present some clear propositions to improve the Europe 2020 Strategy for 2015-2020?

Answers:

1. No, definitely not. All is made only at government level, and it is designed for EC.

2. None. They are drafted, as this is what EC is asking for, and they are forgotten as soon as they are sent and registered in Brussels. Their ignoring is quicker if, meanwhile, the parties in the government structure change.

3. In our opinion, the issues relate to the language, which is very permissive for national drifting from the objectives, not to mention the follow-up. Follow-up to what, to national un- accomplishments? The recommendations coherence should be reported to the objectives from the national reform programs, and it is an example for the above statement on EC language.

4. At general level, we believe that, at least to the so-called significant initiatives, their transposition should not be left to the Member States, and the accomplishments reporting should be made by the social partners. What happens now in Romania proves the need to involve the social partners and the civil society representatives, to make them responsible in the monitoring structures of the European funds.

EC Country Recommendations on 2015-2020 should not be left anymore on governments’ representatives for the “transposition” depending on the national specificity, to read according to the closed groups of interests. The appreciation is made related to what happens in Romania, when, for instance, the priorities on the “intelligent growth and sustainable development” which can only be accomplished through Scientific Research – Technological Development, corroborated with the main objective 2 “investment in research and development of 3% of the EU NGP”, turned into 1% of Romania’s NGP for scientific research in 2020, and into Smart Specialisation”, of course, without consulting the social partners on it.

66 Under the current circumstances, it is no longer necessary to refer to the emblematic Initiative C- Innovation Union – nor to the guideline – Completing the European Research Area, when recommendations and definitions from the European Researcher’s Charter and the Code of Conduct for Researcher’s Recruitment are ignored, and when the area is cancelled by the Government structure (the National Authority for Scientific Research disappeared from the Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sports, who currently is the Ministry for National Education), and the field of activity has been replaced with Higher Education and Scientific Research, consequently disappearing the Scientific Research as independent activity through the creation of this new area according to the provisions of a clientele, aberrant law – the Law no. 1/ 2011. So, we have now the explanation why the Scientific Research – Technological Development is “smart specialization” and who are the recipients of funds. It is the same university clientele, which had subscribed to the European funding in 2007-2013 in order to increase the scientific research management capacity, and with wordings having the same goal, a clientele who regards the PhD as research activity, and as such they have been benefiting from the research funds.

As a way to express the requested propositions for improvement not only the Europe 2020 Strategy but, more important, its provisions, we consider to be the last address sent to the minister in charge with the European Funds, Mr. Eugen Orlando Teodorovici, after the meeting on October 7, 2013, of the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Partnership Agreement.

Mister Minister,

We find out that our actions to rectify some issues of maximum importance for the future of our integration and for a beneficial impact on the citizens, on those who we represent, are not only in vain but cause unacceptable reactions from You.

The policy of the interest groups, of manipulation of the European bodies through false analyses and statistics pursues, generating strategy and objectives far from the national interest and in discordance with the real situation.

You have not learnt from the previous disaster and continue on the same direction with the same compromised persons, specialized not only in the detour of the European funds (flagrant case being Ms. Dana Gheorghe, among others, the one who created the “smart specialization” aberration, that was generalized in the Agreement), but also in the detour of the national funds. We also notice the attempts at the edge of common sense, and of a minimal respect to the partners’ opinion to block any critical justified opinion, which is in opposition with the official one (to read Your opinion), opinions that might lead to rightfulness and normality. In the same line, we consider registering and bringing in CIAP some structures whose representatives are well-known for the servitude and the connection with the groups of interest that crooked the European funding in 2007-2013 (one example is bringing the Alma Mater Federation in, whose representative, Mr. Anton Hadăr, is well-known for belonging to the university group of interest).

Your answers to our information and the perseverance in preventing any attempt to enter in normality and correctitude, in ceasing any action of EC disinformation and manipulation are emphasized by the 67 Partnership Agreement which defies Romania’s interests, and which is offending for us all. I drew your attention that it was Romania’s Partnership Agreement, therefore reflecting Romanians’ interests which were not negotiable. They were negotiable from your point of view as you wanted to impose some objectives representing the interests of some clientele groups, and EC had understood that from the analysis of the prior exercise (2007-2013) and did not accept a priori your offers.

Without consulting us, you submitted this Agreement directly to EC, though we had warned you that it was compulsory to discuss the proposition in Romanian first, as Romanian is our country official language, and as dignitary, you were responsible to obey this requirement. Not considering the disqualifying answer you had given like “you had tried to eliminate some bridges…”, we considered the defiance of the national language pushed to the limit, as we have read right after the document title in Romanian: “Observation: English version prevails”

We also do not mention the aberrant figures from the document, or the conclusions resulting from some sectoral socio-economic analyses – “we believe you would better consider them clientele”, which you did not present (sent) to the partners, as you had committed yourself to (you stated that there were no time, due to commitment made to Brussels), a small part of it were mentioned by our representative in CIAP, and the enumeration, though limited one, might take too much space, and the effect would have been noticed.

In addition, you have assured yourself with the focus groups whose structure was made based upon the “invitation” you had sent, of course to your close one who proved faithful and supporting in your actions, and, so, you have insured yourself the necessary “tranquillity” to promote the clientele interests and the EC manipulation, under Agreement coverage.

Consequently, for a justified analysis of the Agreement, we ask you to publish with it, the sectoral socio-economic analyses based upon it, and, with regard to CSDE, we firmly ask to receive the analyses for the Scientific Research – Technological Development area, and the ones for Education, as besides our responsibility to those whom we represent, these areas are in the category for maximum interest directions for the EU within the “EUROPE 2020” Strategy – Competition (priority objective 1), and People and Society (priority objective 2).

The attempt to promote the Agreement with the Objective 1, before knowing the Competition Strategy of the Ministry for Economy, which was also discussed in Brussels, with all the minuses in its drafting, raises plenty of question marks on the interests behind the Agreement, and not to mention Romania’s interests, in the country and in European framework.

The Democratic Trade Unions Confederation of Romania, comprising the federations representative at national level for high education and for Scientific Research – Technological Development, rejects the current Partnership Agreement, and considers totally unacceptable “the proposed objectives, correlations, and solutions” for the Scientific Research – Technological Development in the Objective 1 – Competition. Starting from the descriptions on page 21 and so on, where it is “forgotten” that the area no longer exists in the current government structure, and continuing with 68 the avoidance of this reality by including the Objective 1 into the “synergies with other thematic objectives” or in the “proposed for funding priorities” (see pages 115-117), and everywhere where there is Higher Education mentioned as such or covered as Third Education and/ or Adult Formation. Not the last, the drafting of the so-called analysis and Objective 1 of the Agreement, the part related to the Scientific Research – Technological Development were made with the breaching of the European Researcher’s Charter and with the main EC objectives, and the “smart specialization” – term not translated in the Romanian version maybe due to the ridicule that involves bringing it close to the Scientific Research and Technological Development, and which might be translated as “clever specialization – proves clearly the direction of the funds towards those to “form” the researcher.

We ask you to send the CIAP members our point of view and we ask for the recording of the CIAP meeting on October 7, 2013, as well in order to inform properly our members, as we do not benefit of Your willingness shown to other confederations that have member federation in the council, in opposition to the normative act of establishing the Committee.

We hope the need to involve CE ever since the programs drafting for 2015-2020, for the opinion of the social partners’ and civil society representatives which should weigh more than the authorities representatives. This way, the possibility for blackmail and/ or corruption might be avoided, as, in Brussels only the government representatives and the documents drafted by them are submitted and supported.

The ulterior accomplishments and sanctions bring prejudice to all those who should benefit of the proper use of the allowed European funding for fulfilling the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, as the respective ones receive the penalties for something other had been doing through “clientele objectives” like the above mentioned one.

69 SLOVAK REPUBLIC

The strategy coordinators engaged representatives of organised civil society including Federation of employers' associations of the Slovak Republic through direct negotiations at a working level, which supplemented standard procedures. There was also active participation in the preparation and implementation process through various informal platforms, such as conferences and seminars. For example vice-president Roman Karlubik presented substantial contributions for the NRP during National convention on the European Union, which was held in March 2011 in Bratislava. It is important that dialogue is running on a continuous basis.

The pace of change is very slow, especially in Smart regulation and decreasing the administrative burden on businesses. On the other hand single points of contact were put in operation in January 2012 to remove redundant administrative burden on business entities. For example, it allows the submission of electronic applications when starting a business, including electronic payments, or applications for the incorporation of companies in the business register. Entrepreneurs may thus handle all the necessary administrative requirements before starting their business in one place, including in electronic format.

3. Which are the main issues/challenges when looking back at the Europe 2020 strategy as a whole - set objectives; flagships and their follow-up; the European Semester; progress on NRPs; consistency of country-specific recommendations?

Engagement of employers and employers' associations in the system of vocational training and preparation will have to be improved, which in turn will increase the qualification of the labour force and allow employees to better adapt to the rapidly changing labour market requirements. Effectiveness of public administration is still very weak. Public service lags behind, particularly in the use of instruments for the strategic management of human resources. A major weakness of the bureaucratic apparatus is that public servants (civil servants) are replaced whenever a new government takes office.

4. Could you outline specific proposals to improve the Europe 2020 strategy for the 2015- 2020 periods?

As for better delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy is substantial how professional and non-political civil service (public service) is organized in EU Member States. Not all of them fully complied with this general requirement for a professionalism and non-politicisation. Some of them, including 70 Slovakia, have fallen back into strong politicisation after accession in 2004. Given this development basic requirement for professional and depoliticised civil service does not seem self-evident and we think a special Conference should question it. Why is it so difficult for some Member States to understand and to accept the need for a professional and depoliticised civil service, and to implement it? Well-functioning civil services are based on the principles of merit, professionalism and non- politicisation, even if these principles are implemented in different ways. We think the values and principles of stabile and apolitical civil service are not propagated clearly and sufficiently as a prerequisite for creation and maintaining favourable environment for economic development. Simultaneously, it is a condition sine qua non for a responsive administration at the service of all citizens and for the appropriate delivery of public services. With all due respect to policy novelties (administrative capacity building and public administration reform) we could compare civil service legislative framework in the USA (federal and states civil services) and EU as tools to deliver these policies.

71 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the following participants for their contribution:

Central Economic Council (CCE-CRB) Belgium National Labour Council (CNT-NAR) Bulgaria Economic and Social Council of the Republic of Bulgaria Council of Economic and Social Agreement of the Czech Czech Republic Republic Greece Economic and Social Council of Greece Economic, Social and Environmental Council of the Republic of France France Spain Economic Council of Spain Italy National Council for Economics and Labour Economic and Social Council of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Luxembourg Hungary Hungarian National Economic and Social Council Netherlands Economic and Social Council of the Netherlands Portugal Economic and Social Council of Portugal Romania Economic and Social Council of Romania Council for Economic and Social Partnership of the Slovak Slovak Republic Republic