European Semester Group - draft note for EESC bureau



67678301007999000European Economic and Social CommitteeNational European Semester DaysBucharest, 16.11.2018, 09h30 – 12h30REPORTAbstractOn the 16th of November 2018 the EESC European Semester Group, together with the Representation of the European Commission in Romania, organized a round-table debate on the nature and impact of the European Semester and country-specific recommendations with Romanian economic, social and civic partners. The debate was led by the three Romanian EESC members dealing with the project, Mr?Mihai Iva?cu (III) who also moderated the event, together with Mr Eduard Floria (I) and Mr?Petru Dandea (II). They were assisted by Bogdan Deleanu, from the REL A.3 Unit in the secretariat. They were joined by Mr?Istavan Jakab from the Commission, who introduced the EC’s routine actions on the European Semester.DebateThe participants followed the round-table format, dealing with the six debate questions proposed by the European Semester Group in the EESC and later on focusing on key specific subjects. A large part of the discussion focused on the national specifics of Romania and the behaviour of the Romanian Government towards the Country Specific Recommendations (CSR) and the National Report (NR).The input has been grouped according to the questions asked. The parts of the debate dealing with other topics have not been included.Answers to the debate questions:Question 1 (views on CSRs for Romania, topics, missing topics)Most participants were overall satisfied with the recommendations of the Commission.A majority of the participants deplored the low level of implementation of CSRs by the Romanian Government and noted little or no correlation between the Commission’s messages and the National Reform Package (NRP).Education and the health system are the two overarching topics mentioned by most participants as missing or being improperly highlighted in the CSRs. The weakness of education sector has wide implication for the skills market, affecting in a negative manner the predictability and stability of the business environment, something that should be properly reflected in the CSRs.Some participants expressed interest to see more in the CSRs on social dialogue and the European Pillar of Social Rights, but also the social dumping suffered by the Member States in the East. Collective negotiations were also a missing topic.Some participants called on the Commission to avoid creating a negative image of Romania.One participant suggested adding criteria to the MFF/CSR framework where the Members States, like Romania, which suffer from losing skilled labour in favour of others, should get compensated in a certain manner.One participant pointed out that there is a special need for investment in training the persons that are providing education.Question 2 (Romanian NRP vs. EC’s CSRs)The majority of those present agreed that there is little to no correlation between the NRP and the last CSRs.Question 3 (agreement with and implementation of Romanian NRP) and Question 4 (reasons for level of implementation of Romanian NRP)Many participants deplored several shortcomings of the Romanian NRP: a lack of medium to long-term planning, the fear of assuming responsibility for important reforms and measures involved in the CSRs, the low level of expertise present in the Government, the superficial levels of dialogue with economic, social and civic partners.Transparency on behalf of the government was also put into question.The issue of skills was also re-taken on this question as a major source of problems for implementing the CSRs.Question 5 (ways in which the EESC could assist)As most participants deplored a lack of abilities for monitoring, analysing and properly using the Commission's report and CSRs in the ranks of Romanian civil society and social and even economic partners, capacity building was identified as a particular area where the EESC could intervene. Participants requested that the European Commission and/or EESC find means to enhance the economic governance skills of local civic organizations, perhaps through funding or skills-exchange programmes.They also underlined the need for the EU institutions, like the EESC, to make more efforts to bridge the East-West and North-South divide in the Union.Question 6 (role of civil society in the process)All those present underlined that civil society and economic and social partners should have an instrumental role in the drafting of the CSRs and also the NRP and their implementation.They called for more structured, transparent and permanent means of dialogue, particularly with the Government, but also that the Commission takes into account, in its CSRs for Romania, the absence of the above.Other issues discussedThe issues and risks associated with the need of uniformity on social issues in Europe.The need for the Commission to deal with and listen more to Romanian NGOs and other actors on the topics of the CSRs (minimum wage, labour, skills, financial instability).The fact that the CSRs fail to properly take into account the new paradigm of competitivity as the report between production and social progress._____________ ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download