Cohen-Tanugi report sketches in outline of European globalisation strategy after 2010. - Two years before it is due to end, the Lisbon strategy is neither the success claimed by the European Commission nor the failure it is wrongly depicted as being by France. It has enjoyed contrasting success from one country to another, and from one objective to another, and, overall, its results have been mixed for the European Union as a whole as a result of the mediocre performances of the major euro area economies (France, Germany and Italy). This is the conclusion of the final report from Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, who led the “Europe dans la mondalisiation”, set up by French ministers Christine Lagarde and Xavier Bertrand to take stock of the implementation of the Lisbon strategy, and instigate reflection on the major issues for European integration within the context of globalisation, just as France is about to assume the Presidency of the EU. The report sets out the state of play in Europe with regard to globalisation. The European Council set three “final” targets for the Lisbon strategy between 2000 and 2002 (growth, employment and greenhouse gas emissions levels) before refocusing on the first two in March 2005; a dozen interim targets were appended, to be met so that the growth and employment targets could be achieved, Cohen-Tanugi points out. The report notes: 1) growth: growth levels were often disappointing despite the recent recovery. The 3% growth target was not reached over the 2000-2006 period, but 17 member states recorded higher levels: the 10 Central European countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, along with Ireland, Luxembourg, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Finland and Sweden. 2006, however, saw recovery, with a 3% predicted growth level, the highest since 2000. In 2006, 20 member states had growth levels above this figure, and four others enjoyed growth above 2.5%. Forecasts for 2007 would appear to confirm the upturn (2.9% predicted for the EU). 2) employment: although lower than targeted, there have been positive developments in the situation since the strategy was launched, with a 65% rate of employment (the threshold set was 70%). Five countries reached or exceeded 70% (Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Austria), while nine others exceeded 65% (Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Estonia, Portugal, Germany, Slovenia, Latvia and the Czech Republic) and six others 60% or more (Spain, Lithuania, France, Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg). While the main characteristics of globalisation had already been identified in 2000, the process has accelerated rapidly since then and the Lisbon strategy is not a sufficient response, the report says. For the time being, “the agenda set out in Lisbon in March 2000 and subsequently complemented remains current, since its objectives are still relevant and will not be reached in 2010 … but things must move up a gear and a global perspective adopted, otherwise the European Union will no longer be in the hunt by 2020,” says Cohen-Tanugi. In the “EuroMonde 2015” strategy which he outlines, he suggests a “Lisbon Plus”, the first perimeter should be a three-part refocus on competitiveness through innovation: 1) a first section focused on research, internal market competitiveness-quality and industrial innovation; 2) a second centred on policies essentially to enhance human capital, policies relating to education, the labour market and setting up a European area of mobility; 3) a third focused on the environment as the driver for growth and competitiveness. Within the context of globalisation, “Lisbon Plus” should also have an external competitiveness section built around common external policies. The success of this strategy presupposes a series of conditions: a new European political consensus that will allow Europe to be an international leader; a new stance moving away from always seeking to be exemplary to looking at what is in its interests and to moving forward on concrete projects involving, if necessary, a limited number of member states; putting in place more coherent and effective institutions; and adaptation of national and Community budgets through a review of the EU's financial framework. (I.L.)