SJ\_Draft1\_220914 SJ\_Draft1\_220914

- - Currently, Member States are able to select which indicator they wish to use . This has meant that too many Member States are guilty of gaming, having cherry-picked the indicator which can show off their best performance, (e.g. Bulgaria which focuses on at risk of poverty with falling disposable incomes disguising a real rise in material deprivation) or ignoring the EU indicators entirely (e.g. Germany, Sweden who focus their poverty targets only on unemployment) or the UK that doesn't set an employment or poverty target), or settling for very unambitious national targets (e.g. Poland aiming for the same level as 2008 or Belgium aiming for a reduction of 380.000 although poverty has increased by 77.000 by 2008), without clear explanations of how they arrive at their figures. This undermines the credibility of the indicators, the target, and the support to achieve them. Nearly all EAPN networks feel the EU should be more prescriptive in the setting of national targets (BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, ES, IT, NL, PL, PT, SE, UK).
- - Further issues are the lack of timeliness and scope of the indicators used . Social data based on EU-SILC is currently only available for 2012, compared to economic and employment data that is available now for this year. This undermines the potential for the social impact to be seriously considered when taking economic decisions, and has been particularly damaging during the crisis. Moreover, the data collected still exclude key groups facing poverty e.g. homeless people and migrants which mean that current data is not capturing the reality of poverty. However, even good targets and indicators can only make a difference if backed by the right policies.

## Way Forward for the poverty target How

- • newpriority to the poverty target based on the3 indicators, but require a percentage • newpriority to the poverty target based on the3 indicators, but require a percentage decrease overall for each indicator by all Member States, as with the other targets.
- • Member States to use all 3 EU indicators to establish ambitious national targets • Member States to use all 3 EU indicators to establish ambitious national targets towards reducing poverty, by the agreed percentage, rather than cherry-picking the indicator which allows them to appear to perform best.
- • and establish new targets for MS who claim to have met the poverty target • and establish new targets for MS who claim to have met the poverty target already.
- • the Eurostat definition underpinning the employment target, and • the Eurostat definition underpinning the employment target, and complement it with indicators which measure also the quality and sustainability of the employment, and consider the introduction of sub-targets for key groups.
- • Member States to make medium to long-term projection planning in the NRPs • Member States to make medium to long-term projection planning in the NRPs and NSRs showing howthe targets will be reached, over what period and by what policies, requiring them to provide yearly updates explaining the trends and shortfall and setting out the plans for adjustment of policy to achieve the targets.
- • the Annual Progress Report and Annual Growth Survey, provide comparable • the Annual Progress Report and Annual Growth Survey, provide comparable information on the progress reached and the reasons for this, including the shortfalls.
- • sub-targets for key priorities - e.g. children, youth, homeless, migrants, Roma, • sub-targets for key priorities - e.g. children, youth, homeless, migrants, Roma, long-term unemployed, single parents.

12