POLICY LETTER

INSTITUTUL DE STUDII DIPLOMATICE – UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI

From the Lisbon Agenda to Europe 2020:

A dream recast from fat to lean years

Vol. I (2010), Nr. 1

Armando Marques Guedes

1. The Overall Framework

Following the presentation, on 4th March 2010, of the
Commission’s proposals contained in the Europe 2020 Strategy for
work and growth, the Spring European Council settled its guidelines.
Namely the key goals which will hopefully govern its implementation
and set the mechanisms for its monitoring. The agreement reached in
March 2010 was meant to signal an EU commitment to fundamental
reforms – and constituted a sort of vow as to the promotion of
conditions for an earnest take-off based on a growth model deemed
to be "intelligent, acceptable and inclusive". The Council approved the
majority of the Commission’s propositions, many carrying on from the
2000 Lisboa Agenda. It is my contention this was little more than the
recasting of that decade-old vision, albeit with a few tweaks and
adjustments to changed circumstances.
Breaking things up brings out clearly this conjunctural fine-
tuning, I believe, so allow me to begin there. What were the main
thrusts approved? Mostly seven of them were agreed on, and they are
listed here in order of inclusiveness:
• A more clear-cut definition of priority domains of the
strategy – knowledge and innovation, a more sustainable economy, a
high rate of employment, and a fuller level of social integration;
• The setting of common goals for 2020 concerning
employment, quantitatively estimated at the level of the EU, research
and energy/climate and a commitment to put adequate finishing

1
touches, in June 2010, to common goals in at least two areas,
education for third generation/school abandon and social
integration/reduction of poverty;
• The shared assumption of a centrality to structural
reforms, as far as macroeconomic stability and financial consolidation
go;
• An enhanced EU policy role in the strategy’s fulfilment,
particularly as concerns the ill-famed CAP and its gruelling Cohesion
Policy;
• An increased valuation of the external dimension of the
entire European project;
• Guaranteeing EU Member-States commitment to fixing their
own national goals in good faith, according to individual
circumstances but also according common, shared, goals;
• Strengthening surveillance and improvement of the temporary
alignment of Europe 2020 and SGP instruments, all the while insuring
the maintenance of both the autonomy of national units and SGP’s
overall integrity.
A few control mechanisms were added on to this list of seven
major lines of force. The Council took it as fundamental to develop
efficient supervising mechanisms, as well as stressing the need for a
general creation of conditions conducive to a reinforcement of the
economic policies coordination – and deemed it essential to carry this
out not only in the EU generally, but also in the smaller Euro zone. It
was also deemed that the EU should focus in the urgent challenges
which occur from changes concerning the ever-harsher
competitiveness environment and the extant difficulties as concerns
balances of payment. In June 2010, it was agreed, that the European
Council will again look into all these core themes.
Moreover, the European Council first determined strengthening
its intervention in the overall strategy, then decided to annually
estimate the Developments in at both EU and Member-States levels
(with a tonic on productivity), and finally veered toward approaching
 POLICY LETTER
INSTITUTUL DE STUDII DIPLOMATICE – UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI
simultaneously all macroeconomics’ aspects – taken as structural – of
competitiveness and of financial stability. In the same gist, it was also
decided, the EC will too regularly promote specific debates devoted to
the main priorities of the strategy – albeit in a phased manner, i.e.,
R&D and innovation already in October of this year and energy policy
in the beginning of the next, 2011.
In tune with the difficult times Europe is going through,
“subsidiary devolution” was largely taken into account. It was agreed
that goals at Member-State level would be defined within the
frameworks of national processes of political decision-making – all the
while, of course, Member-States, nevertheless dialoguing with the
Commission as a way of trying to ensure as wide a coherence with
common goals as possible. Other precautions were taken. With the
exception of the handful of climate goals already agreed upon, there
will not be any burden-sharing of EU goals.
Concerning measures to be developed at the Community level,
the Commission announced a group "of emblematic initiatives" of the
strategy (its so-called "flagship initiatives"), to present until next
October 2010 and which should be developed in partnership with
Member-States. On the other hand, the March European Council
required from the Commission a crisper focus on the “New Integrated
Orientations for Employment and Growth” (a.k.a. as “Integrated
Lines”, IL, which includes the Orientations for Employment and
General Orientations of Economic Policies).

2. An Institutional Overview
At the EU level, the work in the several areas of Europe 2020
unfolded according to an established calendar which took into
account its final adoption by the European Council of June 17th, 2010.
Adopted as a strategy in the European Council of June, the Council
should also politically adopt a new “LDI” [lines of direction] and reach
an agreement concerning common goals, something left open, on
education and social integration. The European Council of June will

3
also evaluate the work of Commission/Member-States concerning the
strangling and decline of common goals for national purposes – so
that these efforts it may be fully taken into account in the elaboration
of the national programs of reform which was pushed forward to next
Autumn.
As concerns LDI, work by sectors goes ahead taking into
account the decisions which will be made by both ECOFIN and EPSCO.
The Commission’s proposals, presented at the end of April, bring as
their main innovation a reduction in ‘lines of direction’ from 24 to 10,
six of them regarding economic policy of EU and of Member-States,
the other four being on Member-States’ employment policy. As could
be expected, LDI tries to include all policies with an incidence on the
strategy goals and to frame the preparation of National Reform
Programs, in the expectation of being used as base for warnings and
recommendations to Member-States, in the terms of articles 121 and
148 of the TFEU.
Not all flowed smoothly, on this point. The scant time available
to discuss LDI and other aspects of Europe 2020 – until mid-2010, the
end of the first semester – gave rise to a certain apprehension and
also discontentment in the European Parliament, an entity whose
consultation is required in the case of Employment Orientations. As a
result, voting was postponed and only in the Autumn the LDI group
will be formally adopted, since the vote of the European Parliament
concerning Employment Orientations is schedule for September.
Nevertheless, the 7th June EPSCO Council has adopted a general
approach regarding Employment Orientations, one already
incorporating European Parliament deputies’ concerns. In what
concerns Economic Policy Orientations, on the 8th June ECOFIN
approved a report for submission to the European Council and
eventual later formal adoption. As groundwork for an eventual
fulfilment of these aspirations, bilateral – i.e. Commission and
Member-States – meetings have taken place on the 27th June and 6th
May, and a 14th June Report will predictably be presented to the CAG
 POLICY LETTER
INSTITUTUL DE STUDII DIPLOMATICE – UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI
on these. The Commission is also developing an indicator study about
R&D and innovation’s intensity, to be presented in parallel with the
initiative “Innovation Union” – and one which its sights on the debate
of the R&D and innovation themes this next Autumn.
With regard to the two common goals , in the field of the
education1 that did not gather consensus in March, only the UK
expressed reservations. In the Education Council of May 11th it was
just possible to approve the conclusions of the Presidency, because of
the political situation in the Member-States. As for social integration,
the EPSCO Council of last June 7th did indeed reach an agreement on
the respective goal and on indicators to be used.
Keeping in mind the mandate of European Council of March (to
promote social integration specifically by a cross-board reduction of
poverty and by developing adequate faithful indicators on that), two
subjects were submitted to the EPSCO Council on June 7th, formulated
as questions:
- If it supports the Social Protection Committee proposals – which are
anchored on the definition of a goal for the reduction of the poverty or
the exclusion at EU level, defined in absolute terms until 2020, based
in 3 indicators: poverty risk rates, level of material privation and
employment situation of the family; rooted in these indicators, it was
stressed that Member-States ought to reduce in at least 20 million the
number of people in a situation of poverty or exclusion; which is equal
to a de facto 16 % reduction, and not 25 % as was the Commission’s
initial proposal;
- If it considers this goal (the reduction of 20 million underlined above)
as ambitious enough and realistic.

1 These were Commission's proposals in the two areas: 25% reduction in the
population is below the poverty line (less than 20 million); decrease of 15% to 10%
and increase of 31% to 40% in the school dropout, and creating conditions for
tertiary education of the population aged between 30 and 34 (Communication of
March 3).

5
 In this context, there are still doubts as to the possibility of the
European Council being able, in June 2010, to subscribe concrete
goals of EU as regards education and the social poverty/exclusion. We
shall see how this plays out. At any rate, all the decisions taken will
then follow a normal route, and they will be echoed in the elaboration
of the National Reform Programs, to be presented, in Autumn, on
behalf of the Member-States.

3. The Portuguese Position

Portugal unabashedly supports the European Council's intention
regarding a new strategy for jobs and growth for 2020.
There are several reasons for this. It is essential not to delay
decisions and we believe that we will be able to meet the timetable
set by the Spanish Presidency of the EU. Furthermore, the objectives
adopted in March are a benchmark of our common ambitions – and
responding to the mandate of the European Council, we committed
ourselves to reflect that ambition on our own goals, evidently doing
so in a realistic way.
My country has developed an internal consultation set of
mechanisms, widely participated and conducted by the national
structure for coordination of the 2000 Lisbon Strategy of old.
Following the meeting with the Commission in early May, we are
finalizing our national goals, but it is possible to advance that there
will be rather firm pushes for:
• a decrease in our employment rate: 75% for the population between
20 and 64 years;
• an increase in investments in R&D: [2.7% to 3.3%], of which 1.0%
1.2% in the public sector, and 1.7% to 2.1% in the private one.
We shall do this institutionally, as it were, since meanwhile,
bilateral meetings have been carried out between the Commission
and Member-States (they took place on 27th April and 6th May of this
year of 2010) aiming to try and somehow bridge the perceived
comparative decline of common goals into national purposes many of
 POLICY LETTER
INSTITUTUL DE STUDII DIPLOMATICE – UNIVERSITATEA BUCUREȘTI
us feel has of late been besetting the Union. On the CAG of 14th June,
the Commission will present a Report with the full summary of these
exercises of rapprochement, if you will..
Moreover:
• As concerns Goals in Energy/Climate, in Portugal we expect,
- as for emissions, a growth of 1% over 2005 (non-ETS sectors),
- renewable energy as per final consumption to grow by 31%,
- energy efficiency to benefit from a 10% reduction in consumption by
2015, and of 20% in 2020;
• We also aim at an explosion in the number of Higher Education
graduates: [38% to 42%], together with a reducing school dropout:
[10% to 15%];
• Last but not least, we are focused on a reduction of poverty risk –
and a substantial one at that, by 25%.
This last point has been the more complex goal as far as
agreement is concerned. Perhaps understandably, the Southern
Europeans are the most stubborn Member-States as far as the goal of
reducing poverty and exclusion is concerned. As other so-called PIIGS,
Portugal is in favor of setting a goal to reduce poverty at EU level. An
agreement at this level will signal our joint commitment on the
prevention and combat of both poverty and exclusion and on the
promotion of social cohesion – goals which are of the utmost
importance in the present context of deep (and maybe deepening)
crisis. We are also particularly interested in activities aimed at an
more efficient use of resources and restructuring of industrialized
Europe, mainly in areas of renewable energy and energy-resource
diversification. More and more, in my Portugal we also consider it
essential to underscore the dimension of external strategy I earlier
highlighted. This is now a centerpiece of our commitments. One must
promote an effective opening of markets, ensuring mutual benefits
and the approximation of regulatory frameworks – all of which are
essential conditions for strengthening the extant industrial base as
well as the global competitiveness of Europe.

7
4. Hopes, In Closing
As my title suggests, all this is well in line with the newly cast
old strategies designed for old ambitions drawn in the failed (let me
be blunt about this) 2000 Lisbon Agenda for the building of a so-called
“knowledge society”. It is so, however, with some tweaks here and
there and also some changes in priorities, ones which largely reflect
both internal and external alterations in the EU’s ecosystem and,
although perhaps to a lesser degree, an implicit recognition that the
initial design was politically and substantively less than perfect. Let us
hope this more sociopolitical spin now brought in ameliorates things
somewhat. Old wines in new bottles, scrambled with old bottles for
slightly newer wines?