Estratégia Da UE para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

1
4
1
0
K
A
-
3
9
-
0
1
-
7
3
2
-
E
N
-
C
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
A

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

f
o
r

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
EN
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!
A European Union
strategy
for sustainable
development
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
A EUROPEAN UNION
STRATEGY
FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
European Commission
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
European Communities, 2002
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Foreword
Over the last 10 years the European Union has made a number of important advances, such as
the completion of the internal market and the introduction of the euro. More recently, the
European Council, at its meeting in Lisbon in March 2000, launched a strategy aimed at turn-
ing Europe into the world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, with
more and better jobs, within 10 years.
Alongside these economic reforms there has been a growing recognition that material prosper-
ity has to go hand in hand with social progress and environmental responsibility if it is to be su-
stainable. The social fabric and the natural environment around us are as fundamental to our
quality of life, and to that of future generations, as our economic performance. This vision of bal-
anced and responsible progress in social, economic and environmental spheres is precisely what
is captured by the idea of sustainable development.
In May 2001 the Commission published a proposal for a sustainable development strategy. The
Commissions proposal was well received by the Gothenburg European Council in June, and
many key elements of our proposal found their way directly into the summits written conclu-
sions. The Gothenburg summit also confirmed that in future there would be a stocktaking at
every spring European Council, to see what progress has been made in implementing the strat-
egy. This means that sustainable development is now very much at the top of the European
Unions agenda.
This brochure brings together the key documents that featured during this process of drawing
up and debating the EU sustainable development strategy. It includes the Commissions consul-
tation paper on sustainable development, the Commissions strategy proposal itself, and the
conclusions of the Gothenburg European Council. The Economic and Social Committee also
played a very valuable role in organising a stakeholder conference in April 2001 to discuss the
Commissions consultation paper, and summary proceedings of that conference are also includ-
ed here.
The strategy sets out very clearly what will have to be done if we are to put the EU on a more
sustainable path. For example, in the environmental field we need to take measures to help tack-
le climate change, to reduce emerging risks to public health from hazardous chemicals, to man-
age natural resources more wisely and to improve the performance of our transport systems. The
scope and variety of these challenges make it clear that sustainable development is not an aca-
demic concept with no practical importance it is about real issues and real choices that pro-
foundly affect our daily lives.
The EU strategy also calls for a new approach to policy-making that takes better account of the
interdependence between policy areas such as transport and the environment, or health and
poverty and that focuses on the long term rather than finding quick fix solutions. Too often
in the past policies in different areas have worked against one another, rather than acting in a
mutually supportive way. Better use of scientific expertise and more comprehensive dialogue
with stakeholders are also vital ingredients for improving the policy process. Sustainable devel-
3
opment will sometimes require hard choices, and so fair and transparent decision-making are at
a premium.
While the EUs sustainable development strategy adopted at Gothenburg focuses mainly on
what is needed to move Europe towards more sustainable development, we should not forget
that sustainable development has an important global dimension. Sustainable development has
always had a close connection to trade and development, following the important contributions
of the Brundtland Report in 1987 and United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
It is clear that in a world where environmental and social problems can cross even continental
boundaries, sustainable development requires improved governance at both national and inter-
national levels.
The EU will therefore aim to play a leading role at this years United Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the 10-year follow up to the 1992 Rio Summit. The
EU sustainable development strategy will be part of the EU contribution to that summit. But this
strategy will be extended, early in 2002, to include the global dimension. This will address the
challenge of integrating markets, global governance and development finance, with the aim of
moving towards a global partnership for sustainable development. This package will provide a
concrete plan both for putting Europe on a path to a more sustainable future, and to pursue su-
stainable development on the global scale.
In sum, sustainable development sets us the task of reshaping our policies to combine high envi-
ronmental standards and social cohesion with a dynamic economy. The EU sustainable devel-
opment strategy has set out a challenging road map for achieving this, and it is now up to us to
live up to these challenges, both for ourselves, and to protect the interests of those generations
to come.
Romano Prodi
4
Contents
Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001
Presidency conclusions (extracts) 7
A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for
sustainable development
Communication from the Commission (COM(2001) 264 final) 17
Consultation paper for the preparation of a European Union strategy for
sustainable development Working document from the Commission
services (SEC(2001) 517) 45
Shaping the strategy for a sustainable European Union Views from civil
society and public authorities Joint public hearing organised by the
European Commission and the Economic and Social Committee
(Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001) 97
5
Presidency
conclusions
Gothenburg European Council
15 and 16 June 2001
(extracts)
Gothenburg European Council
15 and 16 June 2001
(extracts)
[]
II. A strategy for sustainable
development
19. Sustainable development to meet the needs of the
present generation without compromising those of
future generations is a fundamental objective under
the Treaties. That requires dealing with economic, social
and environmental policies in a mutually reinforcing
way. Failure to reverse trends that threaten future quali-
ty of life will steeply increase the costs to society or make
those trends irreversible. The European Council wel-
comes the submission of the Commissions communica-
tion on sustainable development which includes impor-
tant proposals for curbing such trends.
20. The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainable
development which completes the Unions political
commitment to economic and social renewal, adds a
third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy
and establishes a new approach to policy-making. The
arrangements for implementing this strategy will be
developed by the Council.
21. Clear and stable objectives for sustainable development
will present significant economic opportunities. This has
the potential to unleash a new wave of technological
innovation and investment, generating growth and
employment. The European Council invites industry to
take part in the development and wider use of new envi-
ronmentally friendly technologies in sectors such as
energy and transport. In this context the European
Council stresses the importance of decoupling econom-
ic growth from resource use.
PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS
9
A new approach to policy-making
22. The Unions sustainable development strategy is based
on the principle that the economic, social and environ-
mental effects of all policies should be examined in a
coordinated way and taken into account in decision-
making. Getting prices right so that they better reflect
the true costs to society of different activities would pro-
vide a better incentive for consumers and producers in
everyday decisions about which goods and services to
make or buy.
23. To improve policy coordination at the level of the
Member States, the European Council:
invites Member States to draw up their own national
sustainable development strategies;
underscores the importance of consulting widely with
all relevant stakeholders and invites Member States to
establish appropriate national consultative processes.
24. To achieve better policy coordination in the Union, the
European Council:
will at its annual spring meetings give policy guidance,
as necessary, to promote sustainable development in
the Union;
invites the Union institutions to improve internal pol-
icy coordination between different sectors; the horizon-
tal preparation of the sustainable development strategy
will be coordinated by the General Affairs Council;
notes that the Commission will include in its action
plan for better regulation to be presented to the Laeken
European Council mechanisms to ensure that all major
policy proposals include a sustainability impact assess-
ment covering their potential economic, social and
environmental consequences.
25. To build an effective review of the sustainable develop-
ment strategy, the European Council:
invites the Council to examine, for the purposes of
implementing the strategy, the proposals in the
A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
10
Commission communication, in particular its proposals
for headline objectives and measures, as well as the
sixth environmental action programme and the sector
strategies for environmental integration;
will review progress in developing and implementing
the strategy at its annual spring meetings, in line with
the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council;
notes that the Commission will evaluate implementa-
tion of the sustainable development strategy in its
annual synthesis report, on the basis of a number of
headline indicators, to be agreed by the Council in time
for the spring European Council 2002; at the same
time, the Commission will present a report assessing
how environment technology can promote growth and
employment;
supports the Commissions work on a draft on labelling
and traceability of GMOs;
asks the Council to take due account of energy, trans-
port and environment in the sixth framework pro-
gramme for research and development.
The global dimension
26. Sustainable development requires global solutions. The
Union will seek to make sustainable development an
objective in bilateral development cooperation and in all
international organisations and specialised agencies. In
particular, the EU should promote issues of global envi-
ronmental governance and ensure that trade and envi-
ronment policies are mutually supportive. The Unions
sustainable development strategy forms part of the
Unions preparations for the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development. The Union will seek to
achieve a global deal on sustainable development at the
summit. The Commission undertakes to present a com-
munication no later than January 2002 on how the
Union is contributing and should further contribute to
global sustainable development. In this context, the
Union has reaffirmed its commitment to reach the UN
11
target for official development assistance of 0.7 % of
GDP as soon as possible and to achieve concrete
progress towards reaching this target before the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
in 2002.
Targeting environmental priorities
for sustainability
27. Building on the Commission communication on sustain-
able development, the sixth environmental action pro-
gramme and the sector strategies for environmental inte-
gration, the European Council has, as a first step, singled
out a number of objectives and measures as general
guidance for future policy development in four priority
areas: climate change, transport, public health and natu-
ral resources, thus complementing decisions on social
and economic issues taken by the European Council in
Stockholm.
Combating climate change
28. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity are
contributing to global warming with repercussions on
the worlds climate. Therefore, the conference of the
parties in mid-July in Bonn must be a success. The
Community and the Member States are determined to
meet their own commitments under the Kyoto
Protocol. The Commission will prepare a proposal for
ratification before the end of 2001 making it possible
for the Union and its Member States to fulfil their com-
mitment to rapidly ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The
European Union will work to ensure the widest possi-
ble participation of industrialised countries in an effort
to ensure the entry into force of the protocol by 2002.
To enhance the Unions efforts in this area, the
European Council:
reaffirms its commitment to delivering on Kyoto tar-
gets and the realisation by 2005 of demonstrable
progress in achieving these commitments; recognis-
ing that the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step, it
12
endorses the objectives set out in the sixth environ-
mental action programme;
furthermore reaffirms its determination to meet the
indicative target for the contribution of electricity pro-
duced from renewable energy sources to gross elec-
tricity consumption by 2010 of 22 % at Community
level as set out in the directive on renewable energy;
invites the European Investment Bank to promote
the sustainable development strategy and to cooper-
ate with the Commission in implementing the EU
policy on climate change.
Ensuring sustainable transport
29. A sustainable transport policy should tackle rising vol-
umes of traffic and levels of congestion, noise and pollu-
tion and encourage the use of environment-friendly
modes of transport as well as the full internalisation of
social and environmental costs. Action is needed to
bring about a significant decoupling of transport growth
and GDP growth, in particular by a shift from road to
rail, water and public passenger transport. To achieve
this, the European Council:
invites the European Parliament and the Council to
adopt by 2003 revised guidelines for trans-European
transport networks on the basis of a forthcoming
Commission proposal, with a view to giving priority,
where appropriate, to infrastructure investment for
public transport and for railways, inland waterways,
short sea shipping, intermodal operations and effec-
tive interconnection;
notes that the Commission will propose a framework
to ensure that by 2004 the price of using different
modes of transport better reflects costs to society.
Addressing threats to public health
30. The European Union must respond to citizens concerns
about the safety and quality of food, use of chemicals
13
and issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases and
resistance to antibiotics. To this end, the European
Council:
notes the Commissions intention to present formal
proposals, and invites the Council and the European
Parliament to adopt them, so that the chemicals pol-
icy is in place by 2004, thereby ensuring that within a
generation chemicals are only produced and used in
ways which do not lead to a significant impact on
health and the environment;
notes the Commissions intention to present by the
end of 2001 action plans for tackling issues related to
outbreaks of infectious diseases and resistance to
antibiotics;
urges the European Parliament and the Council to
profit from the substantial progress achieved and
rapidly agree on the final adoption of the European
Food Authority and food law regulation in order to
comply with the time frame agreed at the Nice and
Stockholm European Councils;
asks that the possibility of the creation of a European
surveillance and early warning network on health
issues be examined.
Managing natural resources more
responsibly
31. The relationship between economic growth, consump-
tion of natural resources and the generation of waste
must change. Strong economic performance must go
hand in hand with sustainable use of natural resources
and levels of waste, maintaining biodiversity, preserving
ecosystems and avoiding desertification. To meet these
challenges, the European Council agrees:
that the common agricultural policy and its future
development should, among its objectives, con-
tribute to achieving sustainable development by
increasing its emphasis on encouraging healthy, high-
14
quality products, environmentally sustainable pro-
duction methods, including organic production,
renewable raw materials and the protection of biodi-
versity;
that the review of the common fisheries policy in
2002 should, based on a broad political debate,
address the overall fishing pressure by adapting the
EU fishing effort to the level of available resources,
taking into account the social impact and the need to
avoid over-fishing;
that the EU integrated product policy aimed at
reducing resource use and the environmental impact
of waste should be implemented in cooperation with
business;
halting biodiversity decline with the aim to reach this
objective by 2010 as set out in the sixth environmen-
tal action programme.
Integrating environment into
Community policies
32. The Council is invited to finalise and further develop
sector strategies for integrating environment into all rel-
evant Community policy areas with a view to imple-
menting them as soon as possible and present the results
of this work before the spring European Council in
2002. Relevant objectives set out in the forthcoming
sixth environmental action programme and the sustain-
able development strategy should be taken into account.
[...]
15
Communication
from the Commission
A sustainable Europe for
a better world:
A European Union strategy for
A sustainable Europe for
a better world:
A European Union strategy for
Contents
I. Towards a sustainable Europe 21
Sustainable development a broader long-term vision 21
II. Making sustainable development happen: achieving our ambitions 26
Improve policy coherence 26
Get prices right to give signals to individuals and businesses 28
Invest in science and technology for the future 28
Improve communication and mobilise citizens and business 29
Take enlargement and the global dimension into account 31
III. Setting long-term objectives and targets: identifying priorities
for action 32
Action is needed across a wide range of policies 32
Limit climate change and increase the use of clean energy 33
Address threats to public health 34
Manage natural resources more responsibly 36
Improve the transport system and land-use management 37
IV. Implementing the strategy and reviewing progress: steps after
Gothenburg 38
Annual stocktaking checks our progress 38
Working methods need to change 39
Medium-term reviews allow us to adapt the strategy to changes
in long-term priorities 40
Annex1: The goals of the Lisbon strategy in the field of social policy 41
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
19
I. Towards a sustainable Europe
Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
World Commission on Environment and
Development (the Brundtland Commission), 1987
At its meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 the European
Council invited the European Commission to prepare a pro-
posal for a long-term strategy dovetailing policies for eco-
nomically, socially and ecologically sustainable development
to be presented to the European Council in June 2001. This
paper responds to that invitation. It builds on the
Commission services consultation paper issued in March,
and on the many responses to it.
Sustainable development is a global objective. The European
Union has a key role in bringing about sustainable develop-
ment, within Europe and also on the wider global stage,
where widespread international action is required. To meet
this responsibility, the EU and other signatories of the 1992
United Nations Rio declaration committed themselves, at
the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General
Assembly in 1997, to draw up strategies for sustainable
development in time for the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development. This strategy forms part of the EU
preparations for that summit.
Sustainable development
a broader long-term vision
Just over one year ago at Lisbon, the European Council set a
new strategic goal for the Union: to become the most com-
petitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world capable of sustainable economic growth with more
and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The Stockholm
European Council then decided that the EU sustainable
development strategy should complete and build on this
political commitment by including an environmental dimen-
sion. This recognises that in the long term, economic growth,
social cohesion and environmental protection must go hand
in hand.
21
Sustainable development should be
seen as a global objective
the Brundtland Commission
Completing and building on the
Lisbon strategy
Sustainable development offers the European Union a posi-
tive long-term vision of a society that is more prosperous and
more just, and which promises a cleaner, safer, healthier envi-
ronment a society which delivers a better quality of life for
us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. Achieving
this in practice requires that economic growth supports
social progress and respects the environment, that social pol-
icy underpins economic performance, and that environmen-
tal policy is cost-effective.
Decoupling environmental degradation and resource con-
sumption from economic and social development requires a
major reorientation of public and private investment towards
new, environmentally friendly technologies. The sustainable
development strategy should be a catalyst for policy-makers
and public opinion in the coming years and become a driv-
ing force for institutional reform, and for changes in corpo-
rate and consumer behaviour. Clear, stable, long-term objec-
tives will shape expectations and create the conditions in
which businesses have the confidence to invest in innovative
solutions, and to create new, high-quality jobs.
To bridge the gap between this ambitious vision and practi-
cal political action, the Commission proposes that the strat-
egy should focus on a small number of problems which pose
severe or irreversible threats to the future well-being of
European society:
22
Providing a positive vision for the
future
A strategy to unleash opportunities
to invest for the long term
Focusing on the most acute threats
23
The main threats to sustainable development
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity are
causing global warming. Climate change is likely to
cause more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods)
with severe implications for infrastructure, property,
health and nature.
Severe threats to public health are posed by new antibi-
otic-resistant strains of some diseases and, potentially,
the longer term effects of the many hazardous chemi-
cals currently in everyday use; threats to food safety are
of increasing concern.
One in every six Europeans lives in poverty. Poverty and
social exclusion have enormous direct effects on individu-
als such as ill health, suicide, and persistent unemploy-
ment. The burden of poverty is borne disproportionately
by single mothers and older women living alone. Poverty
often remains within families for generations.
While increases in life expectancy are obviously welcome,
combined with low birth rates the resultant ageing of
the population threatens a slowdown in the rate of eco-
nomic growth, as well as the quality and financial sus-
tainability of pension schemes and public healthcare.
Spending could increase by up to 8 % of gross domestic
product in many Member States between 2000 and
2040.
The loss of biodiversity in Europe has accelerated dra-
matically in recent decades. Fish stocks in European
waters are near collapse. Waste volumes have persistent-
ly grown faster than GDP. Soil loss and declining fertility
are eroding the viability of agricultural land.
Transport congestion has been rising rapidly and is
approaching gridlock. This mainly affects urban areas,
which are also challenged by problems such as inner-city
decay, sprawling suburbs, and concentrations of acute
poverty and social exclusion. Regional imbalances in the
EU remain a serious concern.
Very few of these unsustainable trends are new. Attempts
have been made at many levels of government and society to
address them. Initiatives such as local Agenda 21 have
proved to be an effective means of building a consensus for
change at local level. However, these efforts so far have only
had limited success due to the difficulty in changing estab-
lished policies and patterns of behaviour, and in bringing the
responses together in a coordinated way. Tackling these
unsustainable trends and achieving the vision offered by sus-
tainable development requires urgent action, committed and
far-sighted political leadership, a new approach to policy-
making, widespread participation; and international respon-
sibility.
Urgent action is needed: Now is the time to confront the
challenges to sustainability. Many of the trends that threat-
en sustainable development result from past choices in
production technology, patterns of land use and infrastruc-
ture investment, which are difficult to reverse in a short
time frame. Although the major impacts of losses in biodi-
versity, increased resistance to antibiotics, or climate
change may be felt only after many years, by then they may
be very costly or impossible to tackle.
Political leadership is essential: Strong political commit-
ment will be needed to make the changes required for sus-
tainable development. While sustainable development will
undoubtedly benefit society overall, difficult trade-offs
between conflicting interests will have to be made. We
must face up to these trade-offs openly and honestly.
Changes to policy must be made in a fair and balanced way,
but narrow sectional interests must not be allowed to pre-
vail over the well-being of society as a whole.
A new approach to policy-making: Although the Union
has a wide range of policies to address the economic, envi-
ronmental and social dimensions of sustainability, these
have developed without enough coordination. Too often,
action to achieve objectives in one policy area hinders
progress in another, while solutions to problems often lie
in the hands of policy-makers in other sectors or at other
levels of government. This is a major cause of many long-
term unsustainable trends. In addition, the absence of a
coherent long-term perspective means that there is too
24
Solving these problems calls for a
new policy agenda
Doing nothing may be much more
costly than taking early action
Political leadership is needed to take
tough decisions
A coherent, long-term view should
guide policy
much focus on short-term costs and too little focus on the
prospect of longer term winwin situations.
Action must be taken by all and at all levels: Many of the
changes needed to secure sustainable development can
only successfully be undertaken at EU level. Clear exam-
ples arise in policy areas where the Community has exclu-
sive legal competence, or where integrated European
economies mean that uncoordinated action by Member
States is likely to be ineffective. In other cases, action by
national, regional or local governments will be more
appropriate. However, while public authorities have a key
role in providing a clear long-term framework, it is ulti-
mately individual citizens and businesses who will deliver
the changes in consumption and investment patterns need-
ed to achieve sustainable development.
A responsible partner in a globalised world: Many of the
challenges to sustainability require global action to solve
them. Climate change and biodiversity are obvious exam-
ples. The Commission believes that developed countries
must take the lead in pursuing sustainable development,
and calls on other developed countries to accept their
responsibilities as well. The Commission believes that the
EU should start by putting its own house in order, to pro-
vide international leadership and as a first step towards
achieving global sustainability. As EU production and con-
sumption have impacts beyond our borders, we must also
ensure that all our policies help prospects for sustainable
development at a global level.
To meet these challenges the Commission proposes an EU
strategy in three parts:
1: A set of cross-cutting proposals and recommendations
to improve the effectiveness of policy and make sustain-
able development happen. This means making sure that
different policies reinforce one another rather than
pulling in opposite directions.
2: A set of headline objectives and specific measures at EU
level to tackle the issues which pose the biggest chal-
lenges to sustainable development in Europe.
3: Steps to implement the strategy and review its progress.
25
Everyone has a contribution to
make. A strong EU role is essential
Acting at home will provide
international leadership
II. Making sustainable
development happen:
achieving our ambitions
To achieve sustainable development requires changes in the
way policy is made and implemented, both at EU level and
in Member States. This in turn requires clear commitment at
the highest level. This section makes a number of proposals
aimed at securing more effective responses to the challenges
we face.
Improve policy coherence
Sustainable development should become the central objec-
tive of all sectors and policies. This means that policy-makers
must identify likely spillovers good and bad onto other
policy areas and take them into account. Careful assessment
of the full effects of a policy proposal must include estimates
of its economic, environmental and social impacts inside and
outside the EU. This should include, where relevant, the
effects on gender equality and equal opportunities. It is par-
ticularly important to identify clearly the groups who bear
the burden of change so that policy-makers can judge the
need for measures to help these groups to adapt.
Assessments should take a more consistent approach and
employ expertise available from a wide range of policy areas.
To assess proposals systematically better information is
needed. For example, the implications of an ageing popula-
tion are still imperfectly understood, as are the implications
for biodiversity and public health of some types of environ-
mental pollution or of chemicals such as endocrine dis-
rupters. However, in line with the precautionary principle,
lack of knowledge must not become an excuse for lack of
action or for ill-considered action. Risk and uncertainty are a
part of life. The role of science and research is to help iden-
tify the nature of the risks and uncertainties we face, so as to
provide a basis for solutions and political decisions. Policy-
makers have a responsibility to manage risk effectively, and
to explain its nature and extent clearly to the public.
26
Current policies need to change
All policies should be judged by
how they contribute to sustainable
development
To do this, we need better
information, especially to deal
with risk and uncertainty
27
Action
All policies must have sustainable development as their
core concern. In particular, forthcoming reviews of com-
mon policies must look at how they can contribute more
positively to sustainable development:
The mid-term review of the common agricultural policy
in 2002 should reward quality rather than quantity by,
for example, encouraging the organic sector and other
environmentally friendly farming methods and a further
shift of resources from market support to rural develop-
ment.
The common fisheries policy should promote the sus-
tainable management of fish stocks in the EU and inter-
nationally, while securing the long-term viability of the
EU fishing industry and protecting marine ecosystems.
The common transport policy should tackle rising levels
of congestion and pollution and encourage use of more
environmentally friendly modes of transport.
The cohesion policies need to improve their targeting of
the least developed regions and those with the most
acute structural problems such as urban decay and
the decline of the rural economy and the groups in
society most vulnerable to persistent social exclusion.
The Commission will submit an action plan to improve
regulation to the Laeken European Council in
December. This will include mechanisms to ensure that
all major legislative proposals include an assessment of
the potential economic, environmental and social bene-
fits and costs of action or lack of action, both inside and
outside the EU. The Council and Parliament should
amend legislative proposals in the same spirit.
Get prices right to give signals to
individuals and businesses
Market prices have a powerful influence on the behaviour of
individuals and businesses. Market reforms to get prices
right can create new business opportunities to develop serv-
ices and products that ease pressure on the environment and
fulfil social and economic needs. Sometimes, this means pub-
lic money for services which would otherwise not be sup-
plied, such as essential public services in sparsely populated
areas. More often, the issue is one of removing subsidies that
encourage wasteful use of natural resources, and putting a
price on pollution. Changing prices in this way provides a
permanent incentive for the development and use of safer,
less polluting technologies and equipment, and will often be
all that is needed to tip the balance in their favour.
Invest in science and technology
for the future
Our continued long-term prosperity depends critically on
advances in knowledge and technological progress. Without
these investments, adjustment to sustainable development
will have to happen much more through changes in our con-
sumption patterns. By promoting innovation, new technolo-
gies may be developed that use fewer natural resources,
reduce pollution or risks to health and safety, and are cheap-
er than their predecessors. The EU and Member States
should ensure that legislation does not hamper innovation
or erect excessive non-market barriers to the dissemination
and use of new technology.
Public funding to support technological change for sustain-
able development should focus on basic and applied
28
Action
The Commission will give priority in its policy and legisla-
tive proposals to market-based approaches that provide
price incentives, whenever these are likely to achieve social
and environmental objectives in a flexible and cost-effective
way.
Getting prices right will encourage
changes in behaviour and technology
Advances in knowledge and
technology are vital
research into safe and environmentally benign technologies,
and on benchmarking and demonstration projects to stimu-
late faster uptake of new, safer, cleaner technologies. Public
procurement policies provided they are not a cover for
protectionism are an additional means to accelerate the
spread of new technology. A green purchasing initiative
from the private sector could similarly increase the use of
environmentally benign products and services.
Improve communication and mobilise
citizens and business
Although science and scientific advice are a key input to
decision-making, public confidence in its objectivity has
been shaken by events such as recent human and animal
health scares. There are concerns that the policy responses
have been driven more by narrow sectional interests than the
wider interests of society. This perception is part of a wider
malaise. Many believe that policy has become too techno-
29
Action
The Community should fully exploit the potential of the
next Community framework programme for research to
support research activities related to sustainable develop-
ment as a part of the European research area.
Drawing on the guidance document the Commission will
issue shortly, Member States should consider how to
make better use of public procurement to favour envi-
ronmentally friendly products and services.
The Commission will encourage private sector initia-
tives to incorporate environmental factors in their pur-
chasing specifications.
The Commission invites industry to identify what it con-
siders the major obstacles to the development and wider
use of new technologies in sectors such as energy, trans-
port and communications.
The Community should contribute to establishing by
2008 a European capacity for global monitoring of envi-
ronment and security (GMES).
cratic and remote, and is too much under the influence of
vested interests. To tackle this rising disaffection with the
political process, policy-making must become more open.
An open policy process also allows any necessary trade-offs
between competing interests to be clearly identified, and
decisions taken in a transparent way. Earlier and more sys-
tematic dialogue in particular with representatives of con-
sumers, whose interests are too often overlooked may
lengthen the time taken to prepare a policy proposal, but
should improve the quality of regulation and accelerate its
implementation. The views of those from outside the Union
should also be sought.
Widespread popular ownership of the goal of sustainable
development depends not only on more openness in policy-
making but also on the perception that individuals can,
through their own actions, make a real difference. For exam-
ple, local Agenda 21 has been effective at promoting sustain-
able development at the local level. The education system
also has a vital role to play in promoting better understand-
ing of the aim of sustainable development, fostering a sense
of individual and collective responsibility, and thereby
encouraging changes in behaviour.
Public policy also has a key role in encouraging a greater
sense of corporate social responsibility and in establishing a
framework to ensure that businesses integrate environmental
and social considerations in their activities. Some of the most
far sighted businesses have realised that sustainable devel-
opment offers new opportunities and have begun to adapt
their investments accordingly. Business should be encour-
aged to take a proactive approach to sustainable develop-
ment in their operations both within the EU and elsewhere.
30
More open policy-making will
improve policy and stimulate citizens
and business to get involved
Take enlargement and the global
dimension into account
The EU strategy should look beyond the Unions present
borders to be relevant for the countries which will join the
Union during the coming years. These future Member States
face many of the same problems, but also have a number of
distinctive features. For example, they have much richer bio-
diversity. However, economic and social disparities will be
wider in an enlarged Union. The new Member States will
have much larger agricultural populations on average, and a
backlog of investment in infrastructure and in production
technology. Future reforms of Community policy will have to
take account of these differences. Candidate countries
should be actively involved in implementing this strategy.
Moreover, many EU policies influence prospects for sustain-
ability far beyond the borders of the Union, and EU pro-
duction and consumption increase the pressure on shared
global environmental resources. It is therefore important to
ensure that measures we take to move towards sustainable
development in Europe contribute towards sustainable
31
Action
The Commissions forthcoming White Paper on gover-
nance will include proposals on wide-ranging consulta-
tion of stakeholders from within and outside the Union,
typically including a public hearing, before tabling any
major policy proposal. Reviews of major policies will sim-
ilarly seek to obtain the views of stakeholders.
All publicly-quoted companies with at least 500 staff are
invited to publish a triple bottom line in their annual
reports to shareholders that measures their perform-
ance against economic, environmental and social criteria.
EU businesses are urged to demonstrate and publicise
their worldwide adherence to the OECD guidelines for
multi-national enterprises, or other comparable guide-
lines.
Member States should consider how their education sys-
tems can help develop wider understanding of sustain-
able development.
Sustainable development in the EU
must foster global sustainability
The EU strategy must look beyond
our current borders
development in the rest of the world. Our policies inter-
nal and external must actively support efforts by other
countries particularly those in the developing world to
achieve development that is more sustainable.
To make an effective contribution to achieving global sus-
tainable development the EU and its Member States need to
cooperate effectively with other countries and international
institutions, including the OECD, the World Trade
Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the
United Nations Environment Programme. The role of the
EU in helping to achieve sustainable development in this
wider context will be dealt with comprehensively by our
preparations for the Rio + 10 Summit in South Africa in
2002.
III. Setting long-term objectives
and targets: identifying
priorities for action
Action is needed
across a wide range of policies
The main challenges to sustainable development identified
above cut across several policy areas. Accordingly, a compre-
hensive, cross-sectoral approach is needed to address these
challenges. Concrete actions in specific policy areas should
be built on the policy principles set out in the previous sec-
tion. Reforms to existing Community policies must aim to
32
Cooperation with other countries
and international organisations is
important
Action
The Commission will present a communication in the first
half of 2002 further setting out its views on how the Union
should contribute to global sustainable development, in
advance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(Rio + 10) in Johannesburg. Among other issues, this com-
munication should address the question of mobilising addi-
tional financial resources for development aid, in particular
to reduce global poverty.
Concrete actions are needed
maximise their contribution to the strategic objectives of the
EU strategy for sustainable development.
Recent European Councils at Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm
have already agreed objectives and measures to tackle two of
the six issues that pose the biggest challenges to sustainable
development in Europe: combating poverty and social exclu-
sion, and dealing with the economic and social implications
of an ageing society. This strategy does not propose new
actions in these areas. However, these objectives are an inte-
gral part of the EU strategy for sustainable development and
are set out in Annex 1 below.
For the remaining four issues, the Commission proposes the
following set of priority objectives and measures at EU level.
Meeting these objectives will also require action to be taken
by Member States, both in their domestic policies, and in the
decisions taken by the Council on changes to Community
policies. The Commission will report on progress in meeting
all the goals of the strategy in its report to the annual spring
European Council (the synthesis report).
Limit climate change and increase
the use of clean energy
Headline objectives
The EU will meet its Kyoto commitment. However, Kyoto
is but a first step. Thereafter, the EU should aim to reduce
atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions by an average of
1 % per year over 1990 levels up to 2020.
The Union will insist that the other major industrialised
countries comply with their Kyoto targets. This is an indi-
spensable step in ensuring the broader international effort
needed to limit global warming and adapt to its effects.
Measures at EU level
Adoption of the energy products tax directive by 2002.
Within two years of this, the Commission will propose
more ambitious environmental targets for energy taxation
aiming at the full internalisation of external costs, as well as
33
The EU strategy must fully
integrate the economic,
environmental and social
pillars of sustainable
development
indexation of minimum levels of excise duties to at least
the inflation rate.
Phase out subsidies to fossil fuel production and con-
sumption by 2010. Where necessary, put in place flanking
measures to help develop alternative sources of employ-
ment. Analyse whether there is a need to create a stockpile
of coal reserves, and whether or not we should maintain a
minimum level of subsidised production for security of
supply reasons. Commission proposal in 2001 for adoption
by Council before the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in July
2002. Take account of the specific situation of some candi-
date countries in the accession treaties.
Greenhouse gas emission reduction measures based on the
outcome of the European climate change programme.
Specifically, the Commission will propose by end-2001 a
proposal for the creation of a European CO
2
tradable per-
mits system by 2005.
Alternative fuels, including biofuels, should account for at
least 7 % of fuel consumption of cars and trucks by 2010,
and at least 20 % by 2020. The Commission will make a
proposal in 2001 for adoption in 2002.
Clear action to reduce energy demand, through, for exam-
ple, tighter minimum standards and labelling requirements
for buildings and appliances to improve energy efficiency.
More support to the research, development and dissemi-
nation of technology on:
clean and renewable energy resources;
safer nuclear energy, namely the management of nuclear
waste.
Address threats to public health
Headline objectives
Make food safety and quality the objective of all players in
the food chain.
34
By 2020, ensure that chemicals are only produced and used
in ways that do not pose significant threats to human
health and the environment.
Tackle issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases
and resistance to antibiotics.
Improve consumer information and awareness, including
through education, and clear labelling of food.
Creation of a European Food Authority in 2002.
Improve capacity to monitor and control health impacts of
certain substances (for example dioxins, toxins, pesticides)
in food and the environment, especially their effects on
children.
Reorient support from the common agricultural policy to
reward healthy, high-quality products and practices rather
than quantity; following on from the 2002 evaluation of the
tobacco regime, adapt the regime so as to allow for a phas-
ing out of tobacco subsidies while putting in place meas-
ures to develop alternative sources of income and econom-
ic activity for tobacco workers and growers and decide an
early date accordingly.
Develop by 2003 a comprehensive Community strategy to
promote health and safety at work, to achieve a substantial
reduction in work accidents and professional illness.
All legislation to implement the new chemicals policy in
place by 2004.
The Commission will present by the end of 2001 a
European action plan to slow resistance to antibiotics,
through improving information, phasing out their use as
growth promoters in agriculture, and better control of the
use of antibiotics in human, animal, and plant care.
Create by 2005 a European capacity to monitor and con-
trol outbreaks of infectious diseases.
35
Manage natural resources more
responsibly
Headline objectives
Break the links between economic growth, the use of
resources and the generation of waste.
Protect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt
the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Improve fisheries management to reverse the decline in
stocks and ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marine
ecosystems, both in the EU and globally.
Develop an integrated product policy in cooperation with
business to reduce resource use and the environmental
impacts of waste.
EU legislation on strict environmental liability in place by
2003.
The Commission will establish a system of biodiversity
indicators by 2003.
The Commission will propose a system of resource pro-
ductivity measurement to be operational by 2003.
In the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy,
improve the agri-environmental measures so that they pro-
vide a transparent system of direct payments for environ-
mental services.
In the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy, remove
counter-productive subsidies which encourage over-fish-
ing, and reduce the size and activity of EU fishing fleets to
a level compatible with worldwide sustainability, while
addressing the consequent social problems.
36
Improve the transport system and
land-use management
Headline objectives
Decouple transport growth significantly from growth in
gross domestic product in order to reduce congestion and
other negative side-effects of transport.
Bring about a shift in transport use from road to rail, water
and public passenger transport so that the share of road
transport in 2010 is no greater than in 1998 (the most
recent year for which data are available).
Promote more balanced regional development by reducing
disparities in economic activity and maintaining the viabil-
ity of rural and urban communities, as recommended by
the European spatial development perspective.
The Commission will propose in 2002 a framework for
transport charges to ensure that by 2005, prices for differ-
ent modes of transport, including air, reflect their costs to
society.
Implement in 2003 a framework ensuring through the use
of intelligent transport systems the interoperability of pay-
ment systems for road transport; promote further techno-
logical progress enabling the introduction of road pricing.
Give priority to infrastructure investment for public trans-
port and for railways, inland waterways, short sea shipping
and intermodal operations. In particular, the Commission
will propose in 2001, for adoption in 2003, a revision of the
guidelines for the trans-European transport networks, and
will promote, in the mid-term review of the Structural
Fund programmes, a marked reduction in the share of
finance given to road transport.
Improve transport systems by addressing missing transport
links, developing open markets and cooperation at EU
level (e.g. railway liberalisation, air traffic systems).
European single sky to be operational by 2004.
37
Promote teleworking by accelerating investments in next
generation communications infrastructure and services.
In 2001, start the implementation of the European spatial
planning observatory network (ESPON) in order to define
a set of territorial indicators to analyse the regional impacts
of Community policies.
Assess the coherence of the zoning of different Community
policies, taking account of their objectives (e.g. Natura
2000, less-favoured agricultural areas, areas eligible under
the Structural Funds or for State aids).
Diversify income sources in rural areas, including by
increasing the proportion of common agricultural policy
funds directed to rural development.
Encourage local initiatives to tackle the problems faced by
urban areas; produce recommendations for integrated
development strategies for urban and environmentally sen-
sitive areas.
IV. Implementing the strategy
and reviewing progress: steps
after Gothenburg
Annual stocktaking checks
our progress
The Stockholm European Council decided that all dimen-
sions of sustainable development should be reviewed at the
annual spring European Council. Measuring progress will
imply adding a number of indicators to those already agreed
for monitoring the Lisbon strategy. These indicators flow
naturally from the long-term objectives and targets the
Commission is proposing in this document.
38
Regular monitoring and reporting
of progress, based on indicators
Working methods need to change
At all stages of the Community legislative process, policy
proposals in individual sectors are developed and discussed
without paying sufficient attention to the linkages between
different policy areas. The way the Commission, Council and
Parliament are organised reinforces this narrow, sectoral
approach. All three institutions should consider what steps
they can take to overcome this weakness.
The Commission will improve its internal procedures to
deliver more consistent policy proposals. The Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament should also review
their working methods. The Council should change its struc-
tures to improve the coordination and consistency of the
work of the sectoral Councils. The European Parliament
should consider creating a sustainable development commit-
tee to give a view on the wider implications of sectoral poli-
cy proposals. This committee could consist of representa-
tives of other committees, as is the case with the financial
control committee.
39
Action
The Commission will report to each spring European
Council in its synthesis report on progress in implement-
ing the sustainable development strategy.
The Commission will propose a small number of headline
performance indicators for this purpose to the
Barcelona European Council in spring 2002.
The process of integration of environmental concerns
in sectoral policies, launched by the European Council in
Cardiff, must continue and provide an environmental
input to the EU sustainable development strategy, similar
to that given for the economic and social dimensions by
the broad economic policy guidelines and the employ-
ment guidelines. The sectoral environmental integration
strategies should be consistent with the specific objectives
of EU sustainable development strategy.
All Community
institutions should review
their working methods
Medium-term reviews allow us to
adapt the strategy to changes in
long-term priorities
Sustainable development is by its nature a long-term objec-
tive. While annual stocktaking is important to maintain
momentum and give early warning of unforeseen difficulties,
too much focus on short-term developments and details may
cause us to lose sight of the bigger picture. For this reason,
the European Councils annual exercise should be periodi-
cally complemented by a more comprehensive review at the
beginning of each Commissions term of office.
This should examine the strategys effectiveness in achieving
sustainable development. Over time, the severity of some
problems or the value of some measures may change,
and new, more pressing problems may emerge. Regular
medium-term reviews will permit the Union to adapt the
strategy to these changes and to changes in our long-term
policy objectives.
Opening the review to stakeholders will increase its credibil-
ity and value. The Unions efforts to achieve sustainable
development ultimately depend on widespread ownership
of the strategy by individuals and businesses, as well as civil
society and local and regional authorities. Prospects for pub-
lic acceptance of the strategy will be greater, the more it is
based on comprehensive dialogue with representatives of
society at large.
40
Action
The Commission will establish a sustainable development
round table of about 10 independent experts offering a
broad range of views, who will report directly to the
Commission President in time for the preparation of the
Commissions synthesis report to the spring European
Council and make recommendations to improve the coher-
ence of Community policies.
Periodic far-reaching reviews
will keep the strategy on track
The voices of stakeholders,
including those from outside
the Union, must be heard
Annex 1: The goals
of the Lisbon
strategy in the
field of social policy
The commitments made at the Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm
summits are summarised below.
Combat poverty
and social exclusion
Headline objective
Make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty.
Raise the employment rate to 67 % for January 2005 and
to 70 % by 2010; increase the number of women in
employment to 57 % for January 2005 and to more than
60 % by 2010.
Halve by 2010 the number of 1824-year olds with only
lower secondary education who are not in further educa-
tion and training.
Combat social exclusion by creating the economic condi-
tions for greater prosperity through higher levels of growth
and employment, and by opening up new ways of partici-
pating in society.
41
Action
The EU strategy for sustainable development will be com-
prehensively reviewed at the start of each Commissions
term of office.
Starting in 2002, the Commission will hold a two-yearly
stakeholder forum to assess the EU strategy. The
Commission invites the Economic and Social Committee
to join it in organising this conference.
Strengthen the implementation of the European employ-
ment strategy. Define common approaches to maintaining
and improving the quality of work which should be includ-
ed as a general objective in the 2002 employment guide-
lines.
Complete work by the end of 2001 on updating existing
legislation on implementing the principle of equal treat-
ment of men and women as regards access to employment,
vocational training and promotion and working condi-
tions.
Agree in the course of 2001 the proposal for a social inclu-
sion programme.
Agree by the end of 2001 indicators on quality in work and
for combating social exclusion. Develop indicators on the
provision of care facilities for children and other depen-
dants and on family benefit systems by 2002. Develop indi-
cators to ensure that there are no discriminatory pay dif-
ferentials between men and women.
Deal with the economic and social
implications of an ageing society
Headline objectives
Ensure the adequacy of pension systems as well as of
healthcare systems and care of the elderly, while at the
same time maintaining sustainability of public finances and
inter-generational solidarity.
Address the demographic challenge by raising employment
rates, reducing public debt and adapting social protection
systems, including pension systems.
Increase the average EU employment rate among older
women and men (5564) to 50 % by 2010.
Use the potential of the open method of coordination in
the field of pensions and prepare a report on the quality
42
and sustainability of pensions in the light of demographic
change in view of the spring European Council 2002.
Identify coherent strategies and practical measures with a
view to fostering lifelong learning for all.
The Council should regularly review the long-term sustain-
ability of public finances, including the expected changes
caused by the demographic changes ahead, both under the
broad economic policy guidelines and in the context of sta-
bility and convergence programmes.
An in-depth discussion will take place at the Laeken
European Council in 2001 on immigration, migration and
asylum within the framework of the Tampere follow-up. In
this connection, due attention should be given to the posi-
tion of third-country nationals legally residing in the
Union.
The Council and the Commission to report jointly, in time
for the spring European Council in 2002, on how to
increase labour-force participation and promote active age-
ing.
43
Working document
from the Commission services
Consultation paper for the
preparation of a European
Union strategy for sustainable
development
Consultation paper for the
preparation of a European
Union strategy for sustainable
development
WORKING DOCUMENT FROM THE COMMISSION SERVICES
47
Contents
Foreword 49
1. Introduction 50
1.1. Why a sustainable development strategy for the European Union? 50
1.2. The political context of this communication 52
1.3. Interpreting sustainable development 52
1.4. The opportunities of sustainable development 53
1.5. Ensuring added value 55
2. Main sustainability challenges for Europe 55
2.1. Focusing on the most important issues 55
Topic 1: Climate change and clean energy 58
Topic 2: Public health 63
Topic 3: Management of natural resources 67
Topic 4: Poverty and social exclusion 71
Topic 5: Ageing 74
Topic 6: Mobility, land use and territorial development 78
3. Common problems 83
3.1. Wrong incentives 83
3.2. Sectoral policy inconsistency 83
3.3. Short-termism in policy-making 84
3.4. Policy inertia 85
3.5. Limited understanding 86
3.6. Inadequate communication and dialogue 86
4. Common solutions: A toolkit for sustainable development in Europe 87
4.1. Introduction 87
4.2. A common basis for policy design and implementation 87
4.3. Long-term targets and intermediate milestones 88
4.4. Creating markets and getting prices right 89
4.5. Sectoral policy coherence 90
4.6. Technology at the service of society 91
4.7. Improving knowledge and understanding sound science,
risk and transparency 92
48
4.8. Better information, education and participation 93
4.9. Measuring progress: indicators 94
5. Conclusions 95
49
Foreword
The Helsinki European Council in
December 1999 invited the European
Commission to prepare a proposal for a
long-term strategy dovetailing policies for
economically, socially and ecologically su-
stainable development for the Gothenburg
European Council in June 2001.
This consultation paper is designed to pro-
vide the analytical underpinnings for this
strategy. It sets out the Commission services
initial views on the challenges and opportu-
nities of sustainable development. It identi-
fies some important trends that pose a threat
to sustainable development in the EU, and
presents a policy toolkit for tackling these
problems. This consultation paper does not
include specific objectives and measures.
These will be contained in the Commissions
proposal for a sustainable development strat-
egy to the Gothenburg European Council.
Accordingly, this paper aims to generate dis-
cussion and encourage input from other EU
institutions and civil society. The
Commission services propose to structure
the debate around the 10 questions in the
box. All stakeholders are therefore invited to
express their views on these issues and to
consider what more concrete measures
should be included in the EU sustainable
development strategy for Gothenburg.
Questions
1. Does focusing on a limited number of
the most pressing problems help to
make the concept of sustainable devel-
opment operational? Do the six themes
chosen embody the main long-term
challenges confronting European socie-
ty?
2. This document focuses on sustainable
development problems in Europe. Are
there any cases in which actions to place
European society on a more sustainable
path might make the attainment of su-
stainable development at a global level
more difficult? How can reforms of EU
policies support efforts to achieve sus-
tainable development worldwide?
3. Since sustainable development is a long-
term idea, it should be of clear relevance
to accession countries. To what extent
are the challenges they face different
from those in the current Member
States?
4. Do you share the analysis of the causes of
these problems and their potential reme-
dies identified here? Do you have any
additions to the policy toolkit?
5. What practical measures can be taken to
better translate the principle of policy
integration into concrete action to
achieve greater sectoral policy consisten-
cy?
6. Governments cannot deliver sustainable
development on their own. Business,
workers, and civil society have an indis-
pensable role to play. How do we make
this happen?
7. How can we ensure that the costs of
adjusting to sustainable development are
minimised, and the opportunities seized?
50
1. Introduction
1.1. Why a sustainable
development strategy
for the European
Union?
During the course of the 20th century, the
countries of the European Union have
become enormously richer in material terms.
Average incomes are now around five times
what they were in 1900. Many inequalities
have been reduced through more widespread
access to education and the development of
systems of welfare provision. Life expectancy
has increased sharply due to better hygiene,
nutrition and medical care. In most respects
therefore, our standards of living now are
higher than they have ever been.
Growing economic interdependence result-
ing from the single market, globalisation, and
new communication technologies provide a
strong spur to efficiency and increased pro-
ductivity, and offer new opportunities at all
levels. But these positive developments
should not blind us to a number of potential
threats. Indeed, not everyone is equipped to
take advantage of these new opportunities.
There is a real risk that some will fall behind
and be unable to catch up. There is also a
growing awareness that we are putting
increased pressure on the carrying capacity
of our planet. A number of worrying long-
term trends have emerged:
8. In what areas of sustainable develop-
ment do you see a clear policy role for
the European Union?
9. What are the most urgent steps the
European Union should take in the
framework of an EU sustainable develop-
ment strategy?
10. What specific objectives would you like
to see included in the EU strategy for
Gothenburg? What arrangements
should be foreseen to ensure their
implementation?
Main challenges for sustainability
Severe weather events may become more
frequent if we do not act to avert climate
change. Rising sea levels threaten the very
existence of some small island States, and
we should not forget that a large part of the
European population lives at or below sea
level.
Recurrent, persistent, poorly understood
threats to food safety, rampant antibiotic-
resistant strains of bacteria, the unexplained
emergence of toxic algal blooms: these are
all warning signs that we are interfering
with our environment in unforeseen ways.
Unresolved, these and other menaces to
animal and human health threaten our very
survival.
One in every six Europeans more than
the population of all but the largest
Member States lives in poverty. Income
disparities are widening in some Member
States. Our social systems are failing to
deliver on a large scale, and are ill-equipped
to deal with the ageing of the population.
We are failing to secure the long-run viabil-
ity of our natural environment. Recent
decades have seen very significant losses in
biodiversity. A high percentage of existing
species is at risk of extinction. Fish stocks in
European waters are close to collapse.
51
The Communitys responsibility
The EU Member States share a significant
number of common values and aspirations,
together with a similar sense of what consti-
tutes progress and how our societies should
develop over the next generation. The aim of
a European sustainable development strategy
should be to give substance to this vision,
and to map out what needs to change if we
are to make this vision a reality. Moreover,
the growing institutional, economic and
social interdependence of our countries
requires us to work together to meet these
challenges. In a number of economic sectors,
moves towards sustainable development can
only be achieved by action at the EU level.
Clear examples arise where the Community
has exclusive competence because of internal
market regulations, or where integrated
European markets mean that uncoordinated
action by Member States is likely to be inef-
fective.
However, achieving sustainable development
will also require action at national, regional
and local level, as well as from business and
citizens. For this reason, in identifying and
analysing the main challenges to sustainabili-
ty facing the European Union, the
Commission services have not confined
themselves to subjects for which the EU
institutions have an exclusive or shared
responsibility. Moreover, the EU strategy
should look beyond the present borders of
the Union to be relevant for all the countries
that will join the Union in the coming years.
Economic and social disparities will be wider
in an enlarged Union, and many of the prob-
lems identified in this paper are faced to a
greater or lesser extent by the future Member
States. Our common future demands a com-
mon European approach.
Leading by example
the international dimension
EU policies in areas such as international
trade, foreign direct investment, develop-
ment cooperation and immigration influence
prospects for sustainability far beyond the
borders of the Union. This is very obviously
the case for issues such as global poverty or
climate change, where the EU and Member
States are only part of a much wider picture.
Furthermore, as a number of developing
countries industrialise and approach
European levels of economic development
there will be a gradual increase in global
environmental pressures. Sustainable devel-
opment is therefore a global objective that
the EU cannot achieve by itself.
Tackling these problems will require a coher-
ent international approach by international
organisations. However, to provide credible
and effective leadership in this global con-
text, the EU has to show it can make progress
at home towards sustainable development, as
well as meet its international commitments.
This paper therefore focuses squarely on pol-
icy reforms needed within Europe to enhance
sustainable development. It will nevertheless
be important to consider whether any of the
measures that we might take in Europe to
move towards sustainable development
might put at risk the prospects for sustainable
development in the rest of the world.
In major cities, transport congestion has
been rising rapidly and is approaching grid-
lock. This has major social, economic and
environmental costs which fall largely,
though not exclusively, on the three quar-
ters of the European population who live in
urban areas. Enlargement will intensify the
challenge of achieving economic and social
cohesion.
52
The role of the EU in helping to achieve sus-
tainable development on a global scale will
be dealt with much more comprehensively by
our preparations for the Rio + 10 Summit in
South Africa in 2002. This work has already
started, as described in a recent Commission
Communication Ten years after Rio:
Preparing for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in 2002 (
1
). The
EU also has an important role to play in
international organisations, such as the
World Trade Organisation and the upcoming
UN Conference on Least Developed
Countries. Our influence in this wider con-
text will be all the greater if we can demon-
strate that we are putting our own house in
order and thereby improving prospects for
global sustainability.
1.2. The political context of
this communication
Sustainable development was put on the
global political map by the 1992 United
Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, fol-
lowing the report of the World Commission
on Environment and Development (the
Brundtland report) in 1987 (
2
). At the Rio
+ 5 follow-up conference in 1997, the EU
and other signatories of the Rio declaration
committed themselves to drawing up sustain-
able development strategies for the Rio + 10
World Summit on Sustainable Development
in South Africa next year.
The Amsterdam Treaty, which came into
effect in 1999, makes sustainable develop-
ment one of the core tasks of the European
Community. Article 2 of the EC Treaty states
that The Union shall set itself the following
objectives [...] to promote economic and
social progress and a high level of employ-
ment and to achieve balanced and sustain-
able development, in particular through [...]
the strengthening of economic and social
cohesion.
Against this background, the Heads of State
or Government asked the European
Commission in Helsinki in 1999 to draw up a
European sustainable development strategy
and submit it to the European Council at
Gothenburg in June 2001.
This consultation paper is the first step in
this process. It sets out the analytical basis for
the EU sustainable development strategy. It
gives the Commission services initial views
on sustainable development, and the chal-
lenges and opportunities it presents. More
specifically, it identifies some persistent
trends that pose a threat to sustainable devel-
opment in Europe, and analyses the causes of
these problems. Finally, it presents a policy
toolkit to put Europe on a more sustainable
path.
Comments on this paper are invited from all
stakeholders as the Commission finalises its
proposals for the Gothenburg European
Council.
1.3. Interpreting
sustainable
development
The most widely quoted definition of sus-
tainable development is that in the
Brundtland report. It defines sustainable
development as development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their
(
1
) COM(2001) 53; European Commission, 2001.
(
2
) Our common future; World Commission on Environ-
ment and Development, 1987.
53
own needs. In essence, ensuring a better
quality of life now and for future generations.
There are many alternative interpretations of
sustainable development, and even with the
definition above it is clear that different
views are possible on what is meant by the
term needs. Nevertheless, there is a broad
consensus that, at a minimum, sustainable
development captures two important ideas:
That development has an economic, a
social and an environmental dimension.
Development will only be sustainable if a
balance is struck between the different
factors that contribute to the overall qual-
ity of life.
That the current generation has an obliga-
tion to future generations to leave suffi-
cient stocks of social, environmental and
economic resources for them to enjoy lev-
els of well being at least as high as our
own.
Because of its origins in the environmental
movement, sustainable development used to
be dismissed as a luxury that should not be
bought at the expense of economic growth.
But sustainable development is much more
than a purely environmental concept it
poses the fundamental challenge of combin-
ing a dynamic economy with a society offer-
ing opportunities to all, while improving
resource productivity and decoupling growth
from environmental degradation.
Although sustainable development has a very
wide scope it should not be seen simply as a
convenient way to bundle loosely together a
collection of social, economic and environ-
mental problems under a new label. Instead,
a comprehensive perspective is needed that
ensures that policies both sectoral and
horizontal are mutually supportive rather
than working against one another. Achieving
this in practice will oblige policy-makers to
ensure that economic growth is not bought at
the expense of a social divide and environ-
mental deterioration, that social policy
underpins rather than undermines economic
performance, and that environmental policy
is based on sound science and is cost-effec-
tive.
1.4. The opportunities of
sustainable
development
While sustainable development will require
changes to individual business and consumer
behaviour to avoid some negative conse-
quences for society as a whole present or
future it also offers great opportunities.
Indeed, many of the more far-sighted busi-
nesses have already realised that sustainable
development offers new possibilities and
have begun to adapt their operations and
investment plans accordingly.
It is now increasingly recognised that strin-
gent environmental policy need not put a
brake on economic growth even as conven-
tionally measured (
3
). While environmental
regulation can impose a one-off cost in terms
of economic output, these costs are at least
partly offset by a boost to employment and
revenues in eco-industries providing cleaner
technologies and services. Moreover, the evi-
dence shows that the long-run growth rate
depends largely on the rate of technological
progress. Policies for sustainable develop-
ment could increase economic growth by
(
3
) Current statistical measures of economic performance,
such as gross domestic product (GDP), are valuable indi-
cators, but are limited in many ways. For example, GDP
does not take into account the costs of pollution or put a
value on unpaid work.
54
boosting our rate of innovation, and may
eventually lead to goods that are cheaper to
buy and use than their dirty predecessors.
In addition, many of the more concrete poli-
cies needed for sustainable development are
likely to have a positive impact on economic
growth. For example:
Policy-making in the last quarter century
has tended to underexploit the potential of
the labour market and overexploit natural
resources. The inefficiencies in present tax
systems mean that there is scope to price
labour back into the market and pollution
out of it.
Removing unnecessary or harmful subsi-
dies will bring direct financial benefits to
tax payers and improve the efficiency of the
economy. Market reform to get prices right
will create new business opportunities to
develop services and products that ease
pressure on the environment, and that ful-
fil social and economic needs.
Policies to reduce poverty and extend
opportunity to all can help avoid the waste
of resources and individual talent that are
implied by social exclusion and unemploy-
ment, while lowering the costs of social
support.
Better pricing and new technologies can
break the trend of increasing congestion on
our roads by encouraging greater use of
other modes of transport and more effi-
cient use of infrastructure. This will pre-
vent gridlock and save time and other costs
for business and the general public.
Enhancing economic and social cohesion
by helping lagging regions to exploit their
full productive potential should benefit the
Community as a whole.
Encouraging the research, development,
and innovative use of new, cleaner and
more efficient energy technologies will not
only have a positive impact on the environ-
ment and possibly employment, but also on
the security of European energy supply.
Creating the opportunities
These examples show that there are many
winwin situations. A sustainable develop-
ment strategy should seek to identify and
exploit these opportunities, fostering eco-
nomic efficiency, employment growth and
environmental friendliness. The EU has an
industry with a rich potential in the applica-
tion of efficient and environment-friendly
technologies. This is one of Europes most
promising assets. To exploit this potential,
policy must provide Europes industry with a
better framework for innovation and techno-
logical development.
More generally, policy-makers should create
the conditions in which citizens and busi-
nesses are encouraged to integrate environ-
mental and social considerations in all their
activities. Although this will be beneficial for
society as a whole, some policy changes cre-
ate clear winners and losers. In such cases,
we need to ensure that we pursue policies
that are in the general public interest, while
making sure that those who have to adapt to
changes in policy are treated fairly and do not
suffer unnecessary costs. Sustainable devel-
opment therefore has an important institu-
tional dimension. It cannot be achieved with-
out good governance and active public par-
ticipation (
4
).
(
4
) These issues will be dealt with in much more detail
in the Commissions forthcoming White Paper on
governance.
55
1.5. Ensuring added value
The EU sustainable development strategy
will need to build on the foundations of sev-
eral processes rooted in Treaty provisions
which already guide European economic,
social and environmental policy-making.
The broad economic policy guidelines, and
the economic reform process initiated at the
Cardiff Summit in 1998, provide a solid
framework for economic policy coordina-
tion. Employment and social policy coordi-
nation has given rise to guidelines for
employment and labour market reform and
to cooperation between Member States in
modernising social protection and promoting
social inclusion. Environmental policy has its
own process for the integration of environ-
mental concerns into other sectoral policies
(the Cardiff process), while at the beginning
of this year, the Commission proposed the
sixth environmental action programme set-
ting out a 10-year perspective for EU envi-
ronmental policy.
At Lisbon in March 2000, the Heads of State
or Government decided to bring various
social and economic initiatives together in a
single annual review, geared towards making
Europe the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world
capable of sustainable economic growth with
more and better jobs and greater social cohe-
sion. As there is some obvious overlap
between the scope of the Lisbon review
process and the sustainable development
strategy, the Commission has proposed in its
report to the Stockholm European Council
to complete the Lisbon process by integrat-
ing an environmental dimension, and sug-
gested that to ensure consistency between the
two, the mechanisms to review progress
should be dovetailed.
In order not to duplicate the work contained
in other policy reviews, the EU sustainable
development strategy should focus on a small
number of themes where a cross-cutting
approach provides new insights by taking
into account the spillovers between decisions
in different sectoral policies. The sustainable
development strategy can also add value to
existing initiatives by putting stronger
emphasis on the long term. As the following
sections of this document show, many of the
trends that threaten sustainable development
are the consequence of past choices in pro-
duction technology, patterns of land use and
infrastructure investment, and are difficult to
tackle in a short time frame. The decisions we
take in the near future will also have long-
term effects over many decades on our pat-
terns of development and their social, eco-
nomic and environmental consequences. It is
therefore important that we address our cur-
rent problems as a matter of urgency.
2. Main sustainability
challenges for Europe
2.1. Focusing on the most
important issues
By its very nature, sustainable development is
an inclusive approach to policy-making. Its
scope covers almost any issue with an impor-
tant social, economic or environmental com-
ponent. This very wide perspective has both
advantages and disadvantages there is a
trade-off between breadth of coverage and
depth of analysis. The Commission services
have deliberately limited the scope of this
consultation paper to a small number of
issues that in their view pose the greatest
threat to sustainable development.
56
Choosing a set of topics to include implies
making judgments. The criteria that we have
used to judge whether a topic should be cov-
ered in the EU sustainable development
strategy are:
Severity Do current trends pose a sig-
nificant threat to our quality of life or
threaten to significantly reduce our stocks
of social, environmental and economic
assets? Are the costs of doing nothing
likely to be high or unevenly distributed?
The time dimension and irreversibility
Is there a slow burn problem that wors-
ens only gradually but that may be very
costly or impossible to put right if action
is left to a very late stage? Is there a sig-
nificant inter-generational aspect?
A European dimension Is the problem
identified common to a number of EU
countries, or are there spillover effects
between countries? Are policy responses
likely to have implications going beyond
national boundaries?
Based on these criteria, the Commission serv-
ices propose the following six topics as prior-
ities for inclusion in the European sustain-
able development strategy:
climate change and clean energy;
public health;
management of natural resources;
poverty and social exclusion;
ageing and demography;
mobility, land use and territorial develop-
ment.
Clearly, each of these topics covers a very
wide range of issues and we cannot hope to
provide a comprehensive picture here.
Moreover, within each broad heading, there
are some problems and policy dilemmas that
are much more acute than others. Within
each topic we have therefore again narrowed
our focus by applying the criteria above, in
order to identify those trends that pose the
most serious threat to sustainable develop-
ment:
Climate change is a global problem which
can only be solved by widespread interna-
tional cooperation. While its impacts are
difficult to predict precisely, they could
include changes in agricultural patterns,
land use, disease zones, water supplies,
increased risk of natural disasters and
flooding, and resulting labour migration.
These would have enormous economic and
social consequences. Decoupling economic
activity from emissions of greenhouse gases
notably carbon dioxide requires a
major shift to clean energy use, which will
not be achieved quickly or easily.
Severe threats to public health are posed by
the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of
some diseases, which reduce the effective-
ness of existing treatments. We also do not
yet know enough about the longer term
effects of the thousands of chemicals cur-
rently in use. Health problems related to
sedentary lifestyles or poor eating habits
are often passed from parents to their chil-
dren. All Member States face the challenge
of delivering high standards of healthcare
without excessively burdening public
finances.
Our management and use of natural
resources has implications for the well-
being of future generations. Loss of biodi-
versity and the resultant reduction in gene-
57
tic resources are irreversible. Restoring fish
stocks to sustainable levels will not be
achieved unless the severity of the problem
is recognised and traditional management
attitudes change. The volume of waste
some of it hazardous is rising inexorably.
Poverty and social exclusion are problems
common to all Member States. The severi-
ty of the issue can be judged from the fact
that one European in six is poor (with
much higher concentrations in some
groups such as one-parent families), and
poor health, low educational attainment
and deprivation tend to be passed from one
generation to the next. Moreover, rapid
changes in technology raise the threat of a
digital divide and a two-tier society.
All European countries face similar chal-
lenges due to the ageing of their popula-
tions. This will place considerable stresses
on the funding of pensions. Ageing popula-
tions may also place higher demands on
healthcare services and on long-term care,
though much will depend on whether peo-
ple enjoy relatively good health in old age.
The structure of the population alters very
slowly over time: those who will be pen-
sioners at the start of the second half of this
century have already been born, as has a
substantial part of the future population of
working age.
Current patterns of mobility cause severe
pollution and congestion throughout
Europe. Emissions of greenhouse gases
from transport are growing more rapidly
than from any other source, and in many
urban areas traffic seems to be grinding
gradually to a halt. Transport infrastructure
is one of several factors influencing territo-
rial development and land use. In turn,
concentration of economic activities can
give rise to congestion, but also has eco-
nomic benefits such as the creation of busi-
ness networks and fluid labour markets,
and can allow new solutions to emerge
such as the provision of urban public trans-
port systems.
Each of the topics touches to a greater or
lesser extent on each of the economic, envi-
ronmental and social dimensions of sustain-
able development. Each topic is relevant for
a number of existing Community and nation-
al policy areas. Moreover, each is linked to
some of the others. For example:
Addressing climate change should have
beneficial impacts on natural resource use,
on mobility and land use, and on public
health.
Poverty can lead to poor health. Poverty is
also closely related to educational under-
achievement.
The degree of social exclusion is influenced
by urban planning and land-use policies:
low-income families tend to cluster in
cheap housing, often on outlying suburban
estates. In such areas, investment in trans-
port infrastructure and other facilities may
not be economically viable, so uncontrolled
spatial development can aggravate segrega-
tion and social disparities.
The ageing of the population has implica-
tions for public health policies.
The following pages identify the main issues
raised by each topic. The discussion of each
takes roughly the same structure. First, the
nature of the problem and its relevance to
sustainable development are described.
Then, the key drivers of the issues raised are
reviewed (where are we? how did we get
here? and where are we going?). Emerging
threats or risks are also highlighted. The
58
examination of each topic concludes with an
outline of the ways in which policy to date
has tried to respond to the problems, and
sets out the main policy challenges which
must be overcome if we are to successfully
tackle these unsustainable trends.
Topic 1:
Climate change
and clean energy
Introduction
Human activity is affecting the planets cli-
mate system. Available scientific evidence
shows that the accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere due to human activ-
ity is causing global warming. The current
central estimate is that temperature will
increase by between 1 to 6 C by 2100 (
5
).
Significant geographical variations are
expected, and temperature extremes may be
even more susceptible to change.
Climate change is likely to have severe and
unpredictable consequences, such as higher
mean temperatures and radical changes in
weather patterns and rainfall. Higher tem-
peratures may mean that dry regions become
drier and wet regions wetter. Rapid tempera-
ture change may cause more extreme weath-
er events (hurricanes, floods) with severe
implications for infrastructure, property,
social systems and nature. Changes in agri-
cultural patterns, land use, water supplies
and the migration of labour will have knock-
on effects on the economy and society. While
some of these may be beneficial, major dis-
eases such as malaria are likely to extend
their reach as temperatures rise, with major
implications for public health.
Climate change is a global problem that the
EU alone cannot solve, as all countries emit
greenhouse gases. In 1992, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) was agreed. At present,
186 nations have ratified this convention and
are legally bound by it. This convention
explicitly recognises the problems posed by
climate change, and sets an ultimate objec-
tive of stabilising greenhouse gas concentra-
tions in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-
induced) interference with the climate sys-
tem. However, the text does not specify pre-
cisely what this level should be it remains
a subject of scientific research and political
debate.
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, agreed
in 1997, was an important additional step,
committing developed countries to emission
reduction and limitation targets for green-
house gases. The EU agreed to cut emissions
by 8 % relative to 1990 levels by the years
200812. However, the Kyoto Protocol has
not yet been ratified by most signatories, and
in particular none of the industrialised coun-
tries, and is therefore not yet legally binding.
Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change estimates that to stabilise
CO
2
concentrations at even around twice the
pre-industrial atmospheric concentration
would require cuts in global emissions of
around 50 to 70 % over the next 100 years.
This implies that implementing the Kyoto
Protocol will only be a first step.
At present, the developed world has far high-
er emissions per capita than developing
countries (the EU accounts for around 14 %
(
5
) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working
Group I third assessment report, summary for
policy-makers; IPCC, 2001.
59
of global CO
2
emissions, but about 6 % of
world population, while the rest of the
OECD has about 35 % of emissions and
11 % of world population). This raises
important questions about how to reconcile
the need to cut global emissions with eco-
nomic growth and development in poorer
countries. However, it also needs to be borne
in mind that greenhouse gas emissions from
less developed countries are expected to sur-
pass those of industrialised countries in the
next 15 years. Thus, any long-term solution
to climate change needs to include all nations
of the world.
Major concerns and driving forces
Global greenhouse gas emissions have
increased seven-fold during the 20th century.
This has largely been the result of increased
use of fossil fuels for energy as economies
have grown. The main facts and figures for
the EU are:
The dominant greenhouse gas produced by
human activity is CO
2
released from con-
sumption of fossil fuels which accounts for
around 80 % of emissions. The remaining
20 % are due to other gases, such as
methane, nitrous oxides and the fluorinat-
ed gases (HFC, PFC, SF
6
).
Some greenhouse gases have bigger effects
on global warming than others. In order to
put different gases on a comparable basis,
the emissions figures for non-CO
2
gases are
usually converted to tonnes of CO
2
equiva-
lents (
6
). The table below gives 1990 total
EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions by sector
on this basis as well as projected growth to
2010 (
7
).
(
6
) The conversions are based on the global warming poten-
tial for 100 years, as agreed in the IPCC. The GWP for
methane is 21, nitrous oxide 310 and for the fluorinated
gases more than 1 000. In other words, methane is 21
times more potent greenhouse gas than CO
2
.
(
7
) These figures include the projected effects of a number of
recent policy measures, such as the landfill directive, the
voluntary agreement with vehicle manufacturers to cut
CO
2
emissions from cars, the renewables directive, and
the liberalisation of the energy market.
60
EU Member States use large amounts of
energy, but they tend to use it relatively
efficiently: energy use and CO
2
emissions
per unit of GDP are low compared to most
other countries. However, emissions per
capita from fuel combustion in the EU are
around twice the global average and about
four times the average for developing coun-
tries. Due to the legacy of central planning,
the accession countries emit several times
more CO
2
per unit of GDP than the cur-
rent Member States.
Some countries have also managed to make
significant improvements in energy effi-
ciency over time. For example, between
1985 and 1998, the GDP of the EU grew
by 35 % while energy-related CO
2
emis-
sions grew only by 4 %. This is partly due
to a move towards less energy-intensive
sectors. In addition, a substantial part of
this decoupling has to do with one-off
events, such as the switch from coal to gas
on a large scale as a source of energy sup-
ply.
The main driving forces behind emissions in
the EU to date are listed below:
A high level of economic development
linked to a dominance of fossil fuels in
energy supply. Around 80 % of our energy
needs are supplied by fossil fuels. Our cur-
rent heavy reliance on fossil fuels results
from past investment decisions that were
made without adequate attention being
paid to the long-run environmental
impacts.
Table: Projected growth of greenhouse gas emissions
between 1990 and 2010
1990 Baseline 2010 Growth 2010/1990
Mt CO
2
eq. Mt CO
2
eq. %
Energy supply 1 421.7 1 276.6 10.2
Industry 757.1 686.1 9.4
Transport 753.1 1 098.2 45.8
Households 447.5 440.0 1.7
Private and public services 175.6 188.9 7.6
Agriculture 417.0 397.6 4.7
Waste 166.4 137.3 17.5
Total 4 138.3 4 224.8 2.1
Source: Environment 2010: Our future, our choice, sixth environmental action programme of the European Community,
COM(2001) 31 final, p. 25.
61
Low energy prices: prices in real terms of
oil, natural gas and coal have been relative-
ly low throughout the 1990s and much of
the 1980s. Coal prices declined by almost
50 % between 1990 and 2000 in real terms.
The low price of fossil fuels has reduced
incentives for households, industry and the
transport sector to invest in and use energy-
saving technologies.
Rapidly increasing demand for mobility,
being met largely by increased road trans-
port and aviation. Between 1970 and 1998
passenger transport demand (measured in
passenger kilometres) increased by over
100 %, as did freight transport (measured
in tonne kilometres). These trends are like-
ly to continue. At present, emissions of
greenhouse gases from transport are grow-
ing much faster than any other source.
Emissions of non-CO
2
greenhouse gases
such as methane from landfills and fossil
fuel extraction, methane and nitrous oxide
from agriculture, as well as fluorinated
gases (
8
) from industrial processes.
Policy issues
At the EU level, the only current instrument
specifically aimed at reducing CO
2
emissions
is the voluntary agreement of European,
Japanese and Korean car manufacturers to
improve the average fuel efficiency of new
cars by 25 % by 200809. However, some
other measures will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. These include the landfill direc-
tive (which will reduce methane emissions
from landfill sites), a proposed directive that
aims to encourage energy from renewable
sources and a directive on integrated pollu-
tion prevention and control.
Some policy instruments are best applied at
the national level, whereas others may
require international coordination to be
effective. A number of questions arise con-
cerning the appropriate balance between
policy developed at the EU level and policy
at the national level. At present, the
Commission is working with stakeholders in
the context of the European climate change
programme (ECCP) in order to identify the
building blocks for possible Europe-wide ini-
tiatives to implement the Kyoto commitment.
Major issues to contend with are the follow-
ing:
Meeting the requirements of the Kyoto
Protocol means achieving a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions of 8 % compared
to 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. The costs of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions vary
from sector to sector. Critical questions
therefore are what policy mix is best suited
to implementing a cost-effective approach,
and on which areas or sectors most atten-
tion should be focused.
Making the deep cuts in CO
2
emissions
and other greenhouse gases needed to help
stabilise atmospheric concentrations in the
long term will require major investments.
For example, in the power generation sec-
tor much of the current plant will reach the
end of its operating life during the next
2030 years and there is a continuing
technological and political debate about
the future contribution of various en-
ergy sources, including nuclear energy
and renewables, to electricity supply (
9
).
(
8
) The Montreal Protocol covers the phase out of ozone
depleting gases that are simultaneously greenhouse gases,
such as CFCs and HCFCs. Attention is shifting towards
HFCs, PFCs and SF
6
, all three of which are covered
under the Kyoto Protocol.
(
9
) As described in the recent Green Paper Towards a
European strategy for the security of energy supply
COM(2000) 769.
62
Investments in energy supply, transport
infrastructure, housing and industrial
installations are long lived. It is therefore
vital that consideration be given to what
instruments are needed to ensure that these
investment decisions take into account
these long-run effects.
The costs of reducing emissions are likely
to be significantly lower if cost-effective
instruments are put in place in good time.
A first step would be removal of subsidies
that encourage inefficient use of energy and
are a significant drain on the public purse.
An important question concerns the speed
at which subsidies should be withdrawn,
and how major adverse effects on particu-
lar sectors might be limited.
Energy taxes related to the CO
2
content of
fuels would be a cost-effective way to
reduce CO
2
emissions. Higher taxes would
increase costs in some sectors, but the rev-
enue could be used to cut other taxes. Any
disruptive effects of energy taxes on the
competitiveness of energy intensive sectors
could be minimised by having EU wide
coordinated tax measures. The European
Commission proposed an EU wide carbon-
energy tax in 1992, as well as a directive
setting a framework for taxation of energy
products in 1997. However, neither of
these initiatives has been accepted by the
Member States, and progress would
require a significant increase in political
will.
The Kyoto Protocol includes a number of
flexibility mechanisms that allow emissions
reductions to be achieved in a more cost-
effective way, such as emissions trading
schemes. Starting from a target for total
emissions, this instrument allows firms
flexibility to reach this joint target in a cost-
effective way. Some Member States are
considering introducing emissions trading,
and in this context an important issue is
whether it is best to arrive at European and
international emission trading schemes by
linking national trading schemes, or
through a more centralised design. The
liberalisation of energy markets will
improve operating efficiency in the sector
and lower energy prices. However, this will
increase energy demand in the absence of
any offsetting measures. Consideration
needs to be given to what flanking meas-
ures might be appropriate. Liberalisation
has the potential to allow new suppliers to
enter the market (such as renewable energy
sources), provided steps are taken to
ensure that they are granted fair access to
the transmission grid.
While it is uncertain what climate change
will bring, it is fairly certain that some cli-
mate change will take place. The damage
that climate change causes will be lower if
we can reduce the rate of change and help
nature and human habitats to adapt.
Efforts to reduce emissions are necessary,
but it is also important to consider now
how our societies can best adapt to climate
change as it occurs.
63
Topic 2:
Public health
Introduction
A healthy population is crucial for the well-
being of our societies, and is therefore a pre-
requisite for sustainable development. A safe
environment and decent healthcare are basic
elements of social and economic progress.
How a society cares for its most fragile mem-
bers is also a measure of its own health and
sustainability. Good health is important for
our economic and material prosperity: sick
or unhealthy people cannot work and are
dependent on those who do.
In general terms, the health of the
Community population has never been bet-
ter. Infant mortality has fallen sharply. People
are living longer: between 1960 and 1999,
average life expectancy increased by eight
years for men and women. Nevertheless, in
recent years new potential threats to health
have emerged. A number of major public
health issues which threaten social and eco-
nomic development are set out below.
Potential threats to our health come from the
substances and products we are exposed to
through the air we breathe, the water we
drink, and the food we eat.
Major health problems and causes of pre-
mature mortality, such as cancers, cardio-
vascular diseases and road accidents, are
related to lifestyles. Poor nutrition, lack of
exercise, tobacco use and misuse of alco-
hol, for example, impose a considerable
burden of disease and give rise to substan-
tial costs for individuals and society. Health
problems caused by lifestyles can have sig-
nificant and long-lasting effects, as parents
may pass bad habits on to their children.
Obesity is a rapidly growing problem in
many developed countries, and poor diet
generally is a feature of others.
Poor health is also related to social and
economic inequality. Various studies have
shown that relatively disadvantaged popu-
lations have lower life expectancy and
higher burdens of morbidity than higher
socioeconomic groups. For example, in the
early 1990s in England and Wales,
unskilled men aged 2064 were almost
three times more likely to die from coro-
nary heart disease than professional work-
ers. Moreover, the difference in death rates
had been widening over the preceding 20
years (
10
).
The emergence of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) and its transfer to
humans as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob
disease (nvCJD) have heightened concerns
about food safety and drawn attention to
the incentives facing farmers and the food
industry. According to a recent Commis-
sion report (
11
), by guaranteeing high prices
over decades, agricultural policy con-
tributed to increasing the quantity of food
produced, but had negative effects on the
quality of some food products. In addition,
agricultural policy has paid too little atten-
tion to its effect on diet (
12
).
(
10
) Report of the independent inquiry into inequalities in
health, UK Stationery Office, 1998.
(
11
) Agriculture, environment, rural development: facts and
figures a challenge for agriculture; European
Commission, 1999.
(
12
) For example, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of
17 May 1999 included among its objectives to rebalance
meat consumption in the Community to the benefit of the
beef sector, despite evidence linking higher levels of
consumption to increased risks of heart disease; see also
Agenda 2000 CAP reform decisions Impact analyses,
European Commission, 2000.
64
Various types of environmental pollution
from agriculture, industrial activity and
transport also cause ill health. Indeed,
some studies have suggested that transport-
related air pollution is a bigger killer than
traffic accidents (
13
), though the impact on
life expectancy is generally less than 12
months, as many of those affected are
chronically ill from other causes.
Importantly, emissions of conventional air
pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitro-
gen oxides and small particles are declining
due to new pollution controls, and this
trend is expected to continue, significantly
reducing their impact on health.
Nevertheless, high levels of pollution may
still occur in some areas. Agricultural
runoff, wastewater discharges, and atmos-
pheric deposition are the main sources of
nutrients in the marine environment which
are suspected to lie behind the unexpected
appearance in several coastal waters of
toxic algal blooms, an emerging threat to
public health.
Chemicals (especially in the form of phar-
maceuticals) make an important positive
contribution to public health, but there is
widespread use of chemicals whose proper-
ties and risks are poorly understood. There
are gaps in our knowledge about the toxic-
ity or otherwise of the tens of thousands of
chemicals in use in Europe today. While
many of these are surely harmless, recent
studies linking chlorine in the atmosphere
in indoor swimming pools to asthma illus-
trate the range of our ignorance of the
effects of chemical substances. The increas-
ing incidence of allergies, which now affect
one in three Europeans, has also been
linked with exposure to toxic chemicals,
though other factors are also important.
The effects of allergies go beyond their
direct impact on health: they are the major
cause of days lost from school and so may
lead to poor levels of educational achieve-
ment.
The substances of most concern are those
that are persistent pollutants that is,
they break down only slowly and are
bio-accumulative that is, they build up
in the body so that continued exposure
to even small doses can have chronic effects
on health. For example, dioxins by-
products of some industrial and combus-
tion processes are a continuing cause for
concern. Despite large and sustained falls
in emissions of dioxins, a recent
Commission study (
14
) indicated that many
individuals average daily intake of dioxins
was likely to exceed the World Health
Organisation recommended maximum
intake. Higher levels of dioxin exposure
are also related to diet, since dioxins accu-
mulate in fatty foods. Some chemical prod-
ucts have been identified as actual or
potential causes of cancer or physical
deformities. Endocrine disrupters, sub-
stances that may interfere with human and
animal reproductive systems, are especially
disquieting.
Communicable diseases, particularly the
re-emergence in a more virulent form of
diseases thought to have been conquered,
continue to threaten the health of the pop-
ulation. The recent rise in tuberculosis
encapsulates the dangers. Increasing levels
of resistance to antibiotics damage public
health: infection that cannot be treated
quickly spreads, and is more likely to be
(
13
) Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air
pollution: a European assessment, The Lancet, Vol. 356,
pp. 795801.
(
14
) Compilation of EU dioxin exposure and health data
Summary report; October 1999.
65
fatal. It is the older and less expensive
drugs that are in more widespread use
which tend to become ineffective as their
targets develop and mutate. If we cannot
master this trend, we risk undoing much of
the social and economic progress that has
been achieved on the back of improved
healthcare. Much of the problem is due to
mis- and overuse of antibiotics (
15
) for the
treatment of illness of both humans and
farm animals. The remaining four antibi-
otics still allowed for use as growth pro-
moters and as additives in animal feed are
planned to be phased out by 2006. The
Communitys Scientific Steering
Committee has also recommended changes
in animal husbandry as an additional way
to maintain animal health and welfare, and
reduce use of antibiotics (
16
).
Delivering high-quality health services is a
further challenge. The costs of healthcare
systems are high and rising, and now
absorb an average of around 8 % of GDP
in Member States. Much of this money
might be better spent preventing disease by
encouraging healthier lifestyles. The high
cost of many modern treatments, the high
rate of technological innovation which
makes available treatments for previously
incurable conditions and rising demand
for improved healthcare, place new pres-
sures on the financing of public care servic-
es. The impact of the ageing of the
Community population puts further strain
on healthcare costs and could cause public
expenditure on healthcare to rise by 3 % of
GDP.
The most important challenges of an age-
ing population, however, are the need for
better understanding and management of
diseases which particularly afflict the eld-
erly, and for health services to adapt to
provide patterns of care particularly suited
to meeting the needs of frail, elderly
patients, while also meeting the needs of
the healthy aged. These new patterns of
care will require substantial change in the
nature of public healthcare systems, partic-
ularly as extended family networks become
less common.
Policy issues
Specific Community competence in the area
of public health only dates from 1993.
Nevertheless, a wide range of policy areas
affects health, so Community action to
address health issues dates back much fur-
ther than this (
17
). For example:
A directive on the classification, packaging
and labelling of dangerous substances was
adopted in 1967, and has been updated on
many occasions. The Commission commu-
nication on endocrine disrupters (
18
) listed
some 30 Community legislative measures
relating to environment and health impacts
of chemical products; several of these
measures were directed at improving food
safety by reducing chemical use in farming.
The White Paper on a new Community
chemicals strategy (
19
) has the overriding
goal of sustainable development. It aims to
protect human health and the environment
(
15
) Antibiotic resistance in the European Union associated
with therapeutic use of veterinary medicines, report and
qualitative risk assessment by the Committee for
Veterinary Medicinal Products, European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 1999.
(
16
) Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on antimi-
crobial resistance, 28 May 1999.
(
17
) Article 152 of the Treaty on European Union states that A
high level of human health protection shall be ensured in
the definition and implementation of all Community poli-
cies and activities.
(
18
) Community strategy for endocrine disrupters,
COM(1999) 706, European Commission, 1999.
(
19
) White Paper Strategy for a future chemicals policy,
COM(2001) 88; European Commission, 2001.
66
while ensuring the competitiveness of the
chemical industry, though its implementa-
tion will raise many important practical
questions.
In the area of environmental policy, meas-
ures taken under Community legislation to
reduce pollution from large combustion
plants, and vehicle emissions technologies
have contributed to the substantial and
continuing improvements in air quality.
Nevertheless, much research work remains
to be done on assessing the impact of some
pollutants on health, particularly the effects
of small particles.
Four EU action programmes on health and
safety at work have been implemented
since 1978 (
20
). They have led to
Community measures to protect workers
against dangerous substances and situa-
tions, and to improve the working environ-
ment.
With Member States responsible for the
organisation and delivery of health services
and medical care, the new Community health
strategy aims to develop a coherent approach
to health issues across all EU policy areas. Its
core objective will be to identify all policies
and actions which might have an impact on
health (including healthcare systems) and to
find ways of assessing the health impact of
these policies. This will require better policy
coordination (a joined-up approach) to
address inter-sectoral issues such as enlarge-
ment or social exclusion, and emerging
health problems.
The proposed public health action pro-
gramme will focus on three main strands of
activity, intended to address many of the
issues raised above.
A first objective is to improve health infor-
mation and knowledge. A comprehensive
health information system will be devel-
oped to provide information and data on
health status, health determinants and
health systems to policy-makers, health
professionals and the general public.
A second priority will be to monitor and
respond rapidly to health threats, for
example from communicable diseases. This
could include attention to antimicrobial
resistance, work on hospital infections, vac-
cine policy, and communicable diseases
such as HIV/AIDS.
Finally, the new public health action plan
will address health determinants. It will
include actions aimed at tackling the
underlying causes of ill health, including
lifestyle and environmental causes, by pro-
moting health and preventing disease.
As many risks to health result from individ-
ual lifestyle choices, giving accurate informa-
tion to the wider public and improving
understanding at all levels is critically impor-
tant. Food safety is paramount in this
respect. In recent years, the credibility of
public authorities in the management of food
safety has been severely damaged by the per-
ception that they were more concerned to
protect the economic interests of producers
than the health of consumers. Assessment
and regulation of food safety that is inde-
pendent of the economic sectors concerned
is thus essential to improve public safety and
to restore public confidence (
21
). In addition,
(
20
) OJ C 165 of 11.7.1978, OJ C 67 of 27.2.1984, OJ C 28 of
3.2.1988 and COM(95) 282 of 12.7.1995.
(
21
) The Commission White Paper on food safety
(COM(1999) 719) proposed creating a European Food
Authority.
67
clear labelling of the health and nutritional
properties of foods is long overdue, given the
importance of diet and nutrition to health
and well-being.
Topic 3:
Management of natural
resources
Introduction
Natural resources underpin sustainable
development. They provide essential life sup-
port functions such as foods and habitats,
carbon storage and water catchment, and
provide essential raw materials. Although
small changes in most stocks of natural
resources pose little immediate threat, a per-
sistent decline is of great concern for
resources that are difficult or impossible to
replace, such as biodiversity.
We can distinguish broadly between those
natural resources that are renewable if care-
fully managed (such as fish stocks and fresh
water), and those that are non-renewable
(such as oil and mineral resources). In this
paper, we have concentrated on those where
the long-run trends are of most concern (bio-
diversity, waste generation, fish stocks). We
also include the question of exhaustion of
non-renewable resources such as minerals
and coal, although on current consumption
rates stocks may last for decades or even cen-
turies.
There are a number of general problems that
undermine the efficient and sustainable use
of natural resources. Different forms of
industrial and agricultural activity affect
many natural resources. When natural
resources are part of a shared commons and
access to their use is open to all, this means
that there is often little incentive for individ-
uals to conserve and use them in a responsi-
ble way. Overexploitation can be the result.
Poorly defined or disputed rights of owner-
ship or access to resources weaken the incen-
tives to conserve and use natural resources in
a sustainable way.
Bio-diversity
At present, we are failing to secure the long-
run viability of our eco-systems. Despite
measurement problems, there are indications
that recent decades have seen very significant
losses in virtually all types of eco-systems at
EU level. A high percentage of existing
species within the EU are at risk of extinc-
tion (
22
). In recent decades, the trend has
been persistently in the wrong direction, and
this poses a serious long-term threat to the
natural resources on which our economic
and social system depend.
Changing land use is an important factor.
Although measurement is difficult and
imprecise, data for the period 198090 for 11
EU countries indicate that close to 14 % of
land previously considered to be part of nat-
ural cover was lost to urban development
and housing. In addition, between 1980 and
1998 there was an 11 % rise in amount of
land taken by road networks in Member
States. A large percentage of all nature con-
servation sites in Europe can be considered
at risk from new infrastructure
development (
23
). Although policy at present
(
22
) Towards sustainable development Environmental indi-
cators, OECD, 1998.
(
23
) Headline environmental indicators for the European
Union, European Environment Agency and the
European Commission, forthcoming.
68
tends to pay some attention to preserving
particularly important habitats or sites of
interest from development, the average level
of protection is much lower.
Agriculture also profoundly influences the
pattern of land use. The scale, the scope, and
the nature of production techniques can have
substantial impacts good and bad on
the landscape and on natural habitats.
Intensive aquaculture in sensitive marine
areas is one of the driving forces for the
appearance of toxic phytoplankton which
can kill fish, seabirds and mammals.
Intensive farming practices seem particularly
prone to cause negative effects. These
include monotonous landscapes, the aban-
donment of traditional management meth-
ods, the use of large areas of wetland, moor-
land and natural rough pasture, pollution of
groundwater by increased use of pesticides
and fertilisers, and reduction in biological
diversity. (
24
) Another European Commis-
sion report noted that intensive farming had
taken little or no heed of its impact on the
environment. (
25
)
However, it would be too simplistic and
wrong to conclude that agricultural prac-
tices do nothing but damage the countryside.
Many landscapes and site-specific environ-
mental amenities reflect a farming heritage.
Particularly in remote or mountainous areas,
agriculture can play a crucial role in preserv-
ing attractive landscape features and ecologi-
cal diversity.
Abandonment of land or of traditional land
management practices in such areas would
be bad for biodiversity and would reduce the
environmental and amenity value of these
areas. Public policy therefore has a potential-
ly important role in setting the right incen-
tives to encourage the management of biodi-
versity and rural sustainability.
Water resources
At the global level, the problem of water
shortage will prove one of the major chal-
lenges over the next few decades. However,
at the level of the EU, there are few water
shortage problems, with the important
exception of parts of southern Europe,
where overexploitation of water has led to
drying out of some areas and to salt water
intrusion in aquifers around the
Mediterranean coast. It is a cause for concern
that in some areas current extraction is tap-
ping water tables that will take centuries to
replenish.
Pollution of water resulting from agricultur-
al, household and industrial activity is a more
widespread phenomenon in Europe. Water
pollution causes damage to aquatic life and
imposes sizeable costs in terms of the treat-
ment needed to supply clean water to agri-
cultural, household and industrial users. The
spread of built-on land, including into natu-
ral flood plains, highlights the links between
water management and land-use planning.
Absence of an integrated approach to these
issues is causing increased damage from
floods.
Fish stocks
Fish represent an important renewable
resource that provides a livelihood for those
in the fishing industry and an important food
source. There is strong evidence that existing
rates of harvesting of fish stocks are unsu-
stainable and threaten the viability of major
(
24
) European spatial development perspective Towards
balanced and sustainable development of the territory of
the European Union; European Commission, 1999.
(
25
) Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts and
figures A challenge for agriculture, European
Commission, 1999.
69
fishing areas. The International Council for
the Exploration of the Seas has persistently
warned that EU waters are being over-fished.
The same is true worldwide. Stocks of hake
and cod in EU waters are at crisis point, and
catches of all fish are falling rapidly. Landings
of fish in the mid-1970s were nearly twice as
high as in 1998.
Collapse of stocks is potentially disastrous
for those who derive their livelihood from
the industry and has important consequences
for marine eco-systems. The collapse of the
Canadian cod fisheries in the early 1990s
devastated local fishing communities, leaving
them few long-term prospects. The EU
industry is characterised at present by over
capacity, falling employment, and low prof-
itability. Lack of recognition that radical
adjustment is needed has also tended to delay
the introduction of effective adjustment
measures, aggravating the problems of those
in the industry.
Since 1983, the EU has regulated fishing
under the common fisheries policy (CFP).
The CFP has offered, and still offers, impor-
tant benefits, such as a legal framework for
regulation and enforcement, and a mecha-
nism for restricting access to the main fish-
eries. On the whole, however, the policy has
serious shortcomings:
The setting of total allowable catches year-
by-year has led to a neglect of longer term
conservation and management. Member
States have regularly postponed difficult
decisions because of the short-term costs of
the stringent measures needed for stocks to
recover.
As a result, the quotas that each country is
allowed for catches of fish are too high, and
are difficult to reduce by negotiation as
each country would prefer others to make
cuts. Member States have until recently
lacked the political will to act decisively.
The financial instruments used in the sec-
tor under the CFP have tended to work
against each other. The effects of measures
to reduce capacity have been partly offset
by subsidies to modernise and improve
fleet technology. Other operating subsidies,
such as exemption from fuel tax for fishing
vessels, encourage over-fishing.
There are technical problems in the scien-
tific measurement of stocks, and in control-
ling the impact of fishing on growing fish
and other species: finding a way to reduce
discards fish that are caught and then
thrown back into the sea is a major
problem.
There is evidence that enforcement of reg-
ulations on the part of Member States has
been too lax and very uneven, which has
reduced confidence in the CFP as a viable
policy.
Current policy has failed to secure sustain-
able exploitation of fisheries resources, and
will need to be changed if it is to do so. In the
future, the Community fisheries sector will
have to be significantly smaller than it is
today, if it is to survive. The common fish-
eries policy is to be reviewed between now
and 2002. Unless there is meaningful reform,
the costs in long-term economic damage to
fishing communities, as well as to the marine
environment, will be high. The recent
Commission Green Paper (
26
) puts forward
options for a change of approach towards
subsidies in the fisheries sector.
(
26
) The future of the common fisheries policy, COM(2001)
135, European Commission, 2001.
70
Non-renewable resources
Extraction of non-renewable resources such
as coal, oil and minerals may have significant
impacts on landscape and biodiversity if
appropriate measures for waste management
and restoration are not undertaken. A bal-
ance clearly has to be struck between exploit-
ing these resources and protection of nature.
In addition, there has been a long-running
debate about whether certain non-renewable
resources that are valued mainly for their
commercial potential, such as iron ore, coal
and oil deposits, are running out.
Conventional indicators such as trends in
prices do not suggest a rapid increase in
scarcity of these resources, and measured
reserves for many assets run into decades.
Moreover, rising prices in themselves stimu-
late the development of alternative technolo-
gies that reduce resource use. In many cases,
we can more than compensate for reductions
in stocks of resources by providing other
forms of wealth for future generations, such
as technology and infrastructure, or by devel-
oping substitutes for the resource being used
up, such as renewable energy sources.
However, despite little apparent evidence of
scarcity, there is still a question of whether we
are using these resources up too quickly, leav-
ing little for future generations. It is of course
true that these resources are essentially finite,
and so our current use erodes the stocks
available in the future. We should therefore
aim to use these resources responsibly and
more productively wherever possible.
Waste
Every person in the EU generates on average
3.5 tonnes of solid waste each year (
27
). In
recent years, waste volumes have grown
faster than GDP. Similar growth rates over
the longer term could significantly increase
pressure on the environment and adversely
affect public health. To date, the pressure to
improve resource efficiency and reduce
waste has come largely through commercial
pressures to cut costs and from regulation by
pollution control authorities. However, regu-
lation can be expensive if it forces unneces-
sarily rapid adjustments to existing technolo-
gy, rather than being designed to allow
cheaper improvements to develop over time.
As in other policy areas, the phasing in of
new measures therefore has to strike a bal-
ance between the costs and benefits of early
introduction.
A number of industrial sectors, such as the
paper, glass, and metals industries have made
significant improvements in resource effi-
ciency in recent years, either through restruc-
turing their activities towards higher value-
added products, or through raising process
efficiency. There has also been a reduction in
the use of hazardous substances in products,
thus helping their management as waste.
These are welcome developments, and there
are other innovative approaches being adopt-
ed in the business community to improve
resource efficiency. Policy needs to facilitate
an active approach from the business sector
that stimulates long-run improvements in
resource efficiency if we are to decouple
growth of waste and GDP.
Policy issues
The major challenge that cuts across almost
all resource issues is how to revise incentive
structures in such a way that non-commercial
considerations are given adequate weight by
those managing and exploiting natural
resources. The diversity and complexity of
natural resources makes this difficult. A par-
(
27
) Environment in the European Union at the turn of the
century (second assessment report), European
Environment Agency, 1999.
71
ticular concern is how to reform policies that
have an unacceptably high impact on natural
resources (such as over-fishing and agricul-
ture) without unacceptable socioeconomic
costs. In particular, how support and subsidy
regimes can be reoriented to generate an
interest in effective long-term management.
Water shortages and water pollution are both
due to failure to provide adequate incentives
to encourage more responsible water use.
In the farming sector, first steps have been
taken in broadening the focus of the com-
mon agricultural policy towards taking
account of wider economic, environmental
and social objectives. These have had some
success (
28
). Reduced levels of price support
contributed to less use of inputs such as
chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Agri-
environmental measures have contributed to
preserving biodiversity and led to lower lev-
els of water pollution. Taking land out of pro-
duction (set-aside) has been shown to have
beneficial environmental effects, provided it
is properly managed. However, at present,
the goal of sustainable rural development
remains subsidiary to the narrower objective
of supporting farmers incomes.
An important prerequisite for improved
long-run management of our natural
resource base is improved information on the
current state of our natural resources, such as
the measurement of biodiversity and levels of
fish stocks. Such data are essential for ensur-
ing that consumption does not exceed the
capacity of the resource to regenerate. The
difficulties in measuring stocks of some
resources and how they are evolving means
that trends are not picked up as quickly as
they should be.
In order to decouple economic growth from
the use of resources and the generation of
waste there is a need for effective instruments
to shape the awareness of business and con-
sumers and provide steady pressure for a
long-run increase in resource efficiency
throughout the economy. Greater efficiency
in our use of resources should reduce pres-
sure on the environment, preserve larger
amounts for future generations, and allow
more time for the development of substi-
tutes.
Topic 4:
Poverty and social
exclusion (
29
)
Introduction
Reducing poverty is central to sustainable
development. Although it is not a new phe-
nomenon, it has an enormous direct effect on
individuals in terms of ill health, suicide
rates, persistent unemployment, and poten-
tial exclusion from the mainstream of society.
The burden of poverty is borne dispropor-
tionately by single mothers and older women
living alone. Poverty also has a strong ten-
dency to repeat itself, often remaining within
families for generations. This has a high
social cost, particularly the waste of human
talent and energy implied by unequal oppor-
tunities. A well-designed set of integrated
policies to reduce these social costs would
improve both fairness and efficiency. Poverty
is a problem with long-term consequences
and requires a long-term approach.
(
28
) Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts and
figures A challenge for agriculture, European
Commission, 1999.
(
29
) Poverty and social exclusion are closely related but diffe-
rent. Exclusion is a broader idea than poverty as it implies
the idea of access at all levels, and this can be interpreted
very widely. We do not propose to expand on the diffe-
rences here, and for short hand we simply use the term
poverty.
72
Poverty can arise for a whole range of inter-
dependent reasons. Major factors are differ-
ences in family background and wealth, dif-
ferences in access to education and jobs,
effort and luck, the effects of tax and benefit
systems on redistributing wealth, and the
direct provision of some services by the State
(for example, health, policing, social servic-
es). These different effects can offset or rein-
force one another, so small initial differences
can sometimes have big effects. This com-
plexity also explains part of the difficulty in
arriving at a satisfactory definition of poverty.
The willingness to accept different forms of
deprivation depends on our social and polit-
ical values. These inevitably vary from
Member State to Member State, but there is
also a shared commitment between countries
of the EU to forming a more cohesive socie-
ty, and the fight against poverty and social
exclusion is acknowledged to be a major ele-
ment in the value systems of Member
States (
30
). This vision is reflected in the EU
Treaty (
31
).
Current patterns of poverty within the EU
are diverse and evolving. This section pro-
vides an overview of important trends, driv-
ers of change, and emerging risks:
The measurement of poverty depends on
the definition used, but on one common
definition (relative) poverty (
32
) averages
17 % in the EU (excluding Finland and
Sweden). Vulnerability is more wide-
spread: 32 % of Europeans experience at
least one annual spell of low income over a
period of three years, while 7 % of the
population around 25 million persons
experience persistent poverty during
this period. Persistent income poverty
ranges from around 3 % in Denmark and
the Netherlands to 12 % in Portugal.
There are significant income inequalities
which threaten social cohesion. At EU
level, the poorest 20 % of the population
receives less than one fifth of the income of
the richest 20 %. Social benefits reduce the
proportion of poor people in all Member
States but to very differing degrees, the
reduction ranging from around 10 % in
Greece and Italy to over 60 % in Denmark.
Income gaps between women and men
remain significant, with womens earnings
almost one quarter below that of men. This
gap increases the risk that women will fall
into poverty, since social security benefits
and pension entitlements are often related
to previous earnings.
Many cities have serious pockets of pover-
ty and social exclusion. Unemployment
rates can vary significantly between dis-
tricts, being up to 10 times higher in the
worst affected parts than in the least affect-
ed.
There is a high level of early school leavers:
more than one in five of those aged 1824
leave the education system with only lower
secondary education at best. This is a par-
ticular worry, as there is a possible vicious
intergenerational circle between childhood
poverty, low educational achievement and
poverty in adult life.
Significant proportions of the adult popu-
lation fail to attain the literacy levels con-
(
30
) See the conclusions of the European Council at Lisbon,
Feira, Nice (2000), which may be downloaded from the
Internet (http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm).
(
31
) See Section 1.2 above.
(
32
) Poverty line defined as 60 % of national median income
adjusted for household size. Source: Eurostat, European
Community Household Panel, 1996.
73
sidered as necessary to cope with everyday
life in advanced societies, though the
Nordic European countries in particular
have made significant progress in resolving
this problem (
33
).
Rapid change in the labour market is pos-
ing a risk to those unable to adapt to
change. Organisational and contractual
changes present risks for vulnerable indi-
viduals.
There is also some concern over the risk of
a technological divide. Persons in the high-
income groups use the Internet three times
more frequently than lower income groups.
Older people have scarcely any access to
the Internet (one in seven of the youngest
group). There is a significant gap between
men and women as regards access to infor-
mation and communication technologies.
Moreover, there are significant differences
across the Union in access to the Internet,
with a clear northsouth divide. In Greece,
Spain, Portugal and Italy, the rate is half the
EU average, while in the Nordic countries
it is considerably higher (
34
).
Changing family patterns and household
structures are increasing vulnerability for
particular groups in society. Household
sizes are declining. Around one in 12 peo-
ple live alone, an increase of 50 % over the
last 20 years. The proportion of dependent
children living in one-parent households
(mainly single mothers) has increased by
50 % since 1983. Around 13 % of all
dependent children in the EU are living
with just one parent. Three out of four sin-
gle-parent families are facing financial diffi-
culties and the probability of living in
poverty is twice as high for these children.
Ageing populations raise new concerns
about social exclusion and poverty among
the elderly. Provision for retirement
income needs to reflect the prospect of
increased life expectancy, with many living
perhaps 30 or 40 years after retirement.
This will be a particular problem for the
very old if their pension income fails to
keep pace with price rises. Changing fami-
ly patterns may reduce the amount of sup-
port and care given by families.
Immigration flows make global poverty a
domestic EU concern. The persistence of
racism, xenophobia, and of social and eco-
nomic discrimination make it difficult for
immigrants to be effectively integrated.
Policy issues
Economic and technological developments
offer new opportunities and more choices to
individuals to fulfil their potential. At the
same time, these developments increase com-
petitive pressures and carry the risk of creat-
ing a two-tier society where the more vul-
nerable members find themselves unable to
keep up with fast-moving changes.
At the Lisbon European Council in March
2000, the EU set out a new strategy to
strengthen employment, economic reform
and social cohesion. Modernising social pro-
tection and combating social exclusion were
identified as essential elements of this strate-
gy. Tackling the sources of unemployment
and poverty is central to its success. This
means enabling greater access to quality jobs,
in particular through increased opportunities
for education and training for all ages, to
encourage flexibility and the capacity to
adapt to the requirements of a rapidly chang-
(
33
) See the IALSOECD study (2000).
(
34
) Second report on economic and social cohesion in the
European Union, European Commission, 2001.
74
ing labour market. Equally important, tax
and benefit systems must be reformed to
make them more employment friendly and to
remove poverty traps, particularly those
which deny women the opportunity to take
up paid employment.
The Nice European Council gave further
substance to the objectives set at Lisbon by
approving the European social agenda. To
take full advantage of this momentum for
change, social policy must be placed in its
wider context of the European Union su-
stainable development strategy: many other
policies (such as education and training,
transport, housing, health) have an impact on
social exclusion. In addition, we must look
beyond the 10-year horizon of Lisbon:
Poverty is a persistent problem that is often
transmitted from one generation to anoth-
er. Eradicating poverty will take more than
a decade. It is especially important to limit
the passing of problems such as lack of
education or poor housing and living con-
ditions from one generation to another.
Strategies to tackle poverty and social
exclusion require a balance between target-
ed initiatives and general social measures.
There is a particular need to avoid the risks
of an underclass within which poverty
replicates itself. This may require specific
action for groups at risk (such as children,
early school leavers, minority groups, dis-
abled, elderly) or for some geographical
areas. Community support comes from the
European Social Fund and a specific pro-
gramme on social inclusion.
Financial integration and the increased
mobility of the tax base are putting more
pressure on tax and benefit systems. While
private markets have the potential to ease
this pressure by delivering some services
more cost-effectively, their use must be
carefully designed to ensure that universal
access to basic entitlements such as decent
healthcare, good education and core social
services is maintained. Modernising social
protection means building an active wel-
fare state, not dismantling it.
Topic 5:
Ageing
Introduction
The population of the European Union and
of the accession countries is ageing, in con-
trast with trends in most developing coun-
tries. Migration flows into the EU have
occurred in recent years and this has offset
some of the effects of the ageing of the
Community population. Nonetheless, recent
Eurostat projections show that the old-age
dependency ratio (those aged over 65 as a
percentage of the population aged 2064)
will double between 2000 and 2050. By the
middle of the century, there will be one per-
son aged 65 or over for every two aged
2064. These demographic changes will have
profound economic, budgetary and social
implications.
An ageing population puts into question the
financial sustainability of pension schemes
and public healthcare. Under plausible
assumptions, pension expenditure (now
reported to amount to 10 % of GDP on
average) would increase by 35 % of GDP in
the majority of Member States between 2000
and 2040 (
35
). Spending on healthcare could
increase by a further 3 % of GDP over the
same period. At the same time, the shrinking
(
35
) See EPC progress report to the Ecofin Council on the
impact of ageing populations on public pensions systems.
75
labour force will lead to a lower rate of eco-
nomic growth, unless it is offset by increased
productivity.
Public pensions in the EU are either provid-
ed by governments, using revenues from tax-
ation, or by the social partners, based on con-
tributions of employers and employees.
Many pension systems are funded on a pay
as you go basis, where todays workers sup-
port todays retired. Because demographic
change occurs slowly and is largely pre-
dictable, there is a strong temptation to put
off difficult political choices when problems
lie in the distant future. This raises the
prospect of threats to fiscal stability, or a sig-
nificant reduction in entitlements for future
pensioners. A long-term approach is essential
to prevent the occurrence of a social divide
between generations and widespread poverty
among the elderly.
Some options for reform to existing pension
systems would put more emphasis on todays
young people to provide for their own retire-
ment. For example, moving towards a fund-
ed system in which individuals build up their
own pension provision over time, often with
State support. This may have some advan-
tages in terms of transparency about who
pays for what, but funding would not over-
come the structural tension between the
length of working life and pension needs in
retirement. Moreover, a rapid shift from pay
as you go to a funded system would mean
that the current workforce would pay twice
once for pensions for the current aged,
and once to build up provision for their own
retirement. A wider range of policy options
must therefore be explored.
Due to rising life expectancy and declining
birth rates in Europe, the balance between
those of working age and those of non-work-
ing age is changing. In essence, we are living
longer and therefore require more in terms of
pension provision, but the length of active
working life is not increasing to provide a
matching increase in pension contributions.
The ratio between years in which contribu-
tions are paid and those in which benefits are
received is continually decreasing. The share
of young people in the total population is
declining, while that of older people is
increasing. The key trends and drivers are:
Unfavourable labour market develop-
ments, in particular high unemployment
rates and falling participation rates
amongst older workers. Employment rates
tend to drop off very sharply after the age
of 50. Effective retirement ages in the EU
are now well below both the statutory
retirement age and levels in other industri-
alised countries. This partly meets a social
preference for more leisure time (
36
), but in
many cases it is due to structural features in
the labour market that discourage employ-
ers from taking on older employees, or the
lack of suitable job opportunities matching
the capacities and requirements of older
people.
The sustainability of pensions systems will
also depend on what percentage of the
total population is active in the labour mar-
ket, as well as their productivity levels.
Current employment rates are much lower
in the EU than in other developed coun-
tries, particularly for women and older
workers.
Life expectancy at birth in EU-15 increased
by eight years between 1960 and 1999,
from 73 to 81 for women, and from 67 to
(
36
) See Eurobarometers, 1992 and 1999, about attitudes in
relation to retirement and pensions issues.
76
75 for men. This reflects improvements in
diet, less occupational risk, and better
healthcare, amongst other factors.
Birth rates have fallen well below the level
necessary for population replacement, due
to social and cultural change, and difficul-
ties for men and women in combining
work and family responsibilities. The aver-
age number of children per woman was
around 1.5 in 1999, whereas the figure
required for a stable population is 2.1. The
number of children per woman is also
below the average number of children
desired by couples (around two children,
according to survey data).
As a result, the proportion of people aged
65 years and over in the EU-15 has risen
from around 10 to 16 % over the last 30
years, while the proportion of those under
25 has fallen from just below 40 % to just
under 30 %. This trend would have been
even more marked were it not for immigra-
tion. It will continue over the next few
decades, when baby boomers progressive-
ly reach retirement age (see graph).
The number of very old people aged 80
and over will rise very sharply, and by 2010
the number is expected to increase by
about half. Changes in the structure of
households accentuate the significance of
this development. The elderly must
increasingly rely on themselves and on
public support, rather than on a family net-
work.
The age structure of the working age pop-
ulation (1564) is also affected: the share of
those aged 5564 is increasing and this is
projected to continue. This raises questions
about how to stimulate lifelong learning
and to adjust working patterns to accom-
modate this greying of the workforce.
People may prefer to spread economic
activity more evenly over their lifetime. For
example, through more part-time work
when they have young children, and also
towards the end of their working lives, to
phase in retirement.
Policy issues
A comprehensive approach must be adopted
to address the economic, budgetary, and
social implications of ageing (
37
). The number
of pensioners over the next three decades can
be forecast reasonably accurately, but there is
considerable uncertainty about migration
and other long-run demographic develop-
ments. If birth rates do not increase as
expected, and if there are very big increases
in life expectancy due to technological break-
throughs, the implications could be much
greater than described above.
Raising employment rates in line with the
Lisbon strategy is a critical first step to meet-
ing the ageing challenge. To achieve the tar-
get of an employment rate of 70 % in the EU
Share of each age group in the total EU
population, 1999 and 2040
0
10
20
30
40
50
014 1524 2554 5564 65 + 80 +
Source: Eurostat (2000-based) baseline scenario.
1999
2040
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
37
) See Commission communications The future evolution of
social protection (COM(2000) 622), and The contribu-
tion of public finances to growth and employment: impro-
ving quality and sustainability (COM(2000) 846),
European Commission, 2000.
77
by 2010, a higher priority must be attached
to lifelong learning and improving the adapt-
ability of the labour force. There is a need for
more family-friendly education structures
and better care services for both children and
the elderly, as present structures make it dif-
ficult to reconcile working and family lives.
Moreover, the taxation and pension systems
need to be reformed to discourage early
retirement.
This long-term approach focusing on more
employment among women and older people
should help to increase the number of poten-
tial contributors to pension schemes, reduce
the number of recipients and therefore
improve budgetary sustainability.
However, further progress must be achieved:
Simulations have shown that the EU
employment rate needs to reach 75 % by
2020 to ensure that the number of adults
not at work stabilises at its present level,
relative to the number of employed people.
Raising overall employment rates, especial-
ly amongst women and older workers,
could go a long way towards offsetting the
projected fall in the ratio of active to inac-
tive persons, and considerably lessen the
budgetary and economic impact of ageing
populations.
Revising early retirement schemes and the
tax and benefit systems in cooperation with
the social partners will be necessary to
encourage people to stay longer in employ-
ment, possibly part-time, in line with the
decreasing morbidity and disability levels
among older people.
Social protection and public pension sys-
tems should provide adequate income and
healthcare services to the elderly, while
keeping the tax burden at acceptable levels
and maintaining other essential public serv-
ices.
If the employability and employment rate
of older workers is to be increased, a major
investment in lifelong learning is required,
particularly in IT skills. Member States
and the social partners should intensify
their efforts in this respect.
The provision of infrastructure and servic-
es (care, transport, etc.) must be reconsid-
ered to take account of the increasing num-
ber of the elderly and their circumstances.
Population ageing in the EU Member States
could be partly counteracted by migration.
Building on the indications given by the
European Council in Tampere, legal chan-
nels for economic migrants should be
reopened, and arrangements should be
agreed at EU level to develop and coordinate
a common immigration policy. This should
be accompanied by measures to integrate
migrants and to combat discrimination and
social exclusion. Partnership with the coun-
tries of origin should be developed to facili-
tate orderly migration flows, to fight illegal
immigration, and to mitigate any negative
effects of migration for the countries of ori-
gin (brain drain) (
38
).
Migration within the EU may influence the
impacts of ageing at regional level if younger,
more mobile people leave less developed
regions for regions with a more attractive
range of employment opportunities.
Southern regions may also experience inward
migration of older people drawn by the
milder climate.
(
38
) Commission communication on a Community immigra-
tion policy, (COM(2000) 757), European Commission,
2000.
78
Topic 6:
Mobility, land use and
territorial development
Introduction
Mobility, land use and regional development
are tightly interwoven in modern societies. In
the short run, the demand for increased
mobility depends on incomes and prices for
using different modes of transport. In the
longer run, it also changes according to pat-
terns of land use the location of people,
homes, factories, offices, farms and shops.
This spatial pattern is in turn a function of
factors such as local planning rules, availabil-
ity of infrastructure, the price of transport
services, and personal preferences about
where people want to live. The relationship
between spatial patterns and transport thus
runs in both directions.
Mobility, for both work and leisure, is impor-
tant to our continued economic and social
wellbeing. However, mobility is not an end in
itself, but a means to access different goods
and services. It may enhance business,
employment and education opportunities as
well as allowing for a wider range of leisure
activities and lifestyles. However, increased
mobility has important side effects, like emis-
sions of greenhouse gases, air and noise pol-
lution, the use of land and congestion, effects
which reduce quality of life. Emissions of
greenhouse gases from transport are growing
more rapidly than from any other source.
Congestion costs are rising, while damage to
eco-systems and biodiversity are major con-
cerns. More than 40 000 people are killed
and over 1.7 million injured every year on
European roads.
Encouraging people to live close to work and
avoiding low-density development (urban
sprawl) can reduce the need for mobility and
land take. Better pricing of different modes
of transport and policies to improve the qual-
ity of life in urban areas can limit the desire
for long-distance commuting and would help
encourage less transport-intensive living pat-
terns. However, high-density living implies
less living space, as well as more congestion
and urban stress if not supported by effective
urban infrastructure and public transport.
Striking an appropriate balance between
urban and rural areas is therefore not solely a
transport issue, but also a matter for rural
and urban policy.
There is also a complex link between mobili-
ty and regional development. At present, the
picture of the EU is one of a richer, more
densely populated core and a poorer, less
populated periphery. The second cohesion
report (
39
) identified a group of central
regions covering just one fifth of the Unions
area, but which contain over two fifths of the
population and account for half of the EUs
GDP. However, several prosperous regions
lie outside this area. The uneven distribution
of population and economic activity will be
more marked in an enlarged Community.
Improving transport links can be important
to give regional economies access to wider
markets, but it is not a panacea for regional
underdevelopment and the costs and bene-
fits of new infrastructure need to be careful-
ly weighed. A region also requires a range of
other infrastructure and services to support a
centre of economic activity.
Higher mobility and greater land use for
building and infrastructure are above all
(
39
) Second report on economic and social cohesion,
COM(2001) 24, European Commission, 2001.
79
driven by economic development and
increased affluence. Recent decades have
seen very rapid growth in distances travelled
by both freight and people, as incomes have
grown and prices of some modes have fallen
or remained flat in real terms. The key facts
are:
Over the last 30 years freight transport
demand has persistently grown faster than
GDP and has doubled since 1970, with
much of the increase coming in road trans-
port. Air freight transport has grown even
more rapidly. Passenger transport, particu-
larly by car, has followed a very similar pat-
tern. On average, almost one European in
two now owns a car (
40
).
These trends are predicted to continue in
the immediate future. Freight transport is
expected to grow by around 40 % between
1998 and 2010, with road transport
accounting for most of this increase.
Passenger transport is expected to grow
more slowly, mainly due to the rising costs
of congestion on the roads, slow popula-
tion growth and lower growth of car own-
ership as it approaches saturation in some
countries. Air travel is expected to grow by
a remarkable 90 % over the same period.
Change in vehicle emissions technologies
have significantly reduced emissions of
some atmospheric pollutants over the last
decade, improving air quality. To some
extent these improvements have been off-
set by growth in traffic volumes, but
despite future increases in traffic, air quali-
ty is expected to improve significantly over
the next 20 years. Greenhouse gas emis-
sions on the other hand, are rising very rap-
idly due to the continued increase in trans-
port overall.
Congestion and inefficient use of infra-
structure have large economic costs, per-
haps as much as 2 % of GDP. As well as
wasting time, congestion raises costs for
business and prices in shops for con-
sumers. In Amsterdam, if current trends
continue, rush hour public transport will
move at little more than walking pace by
2005. One tenth of the trans-European
road network suffers from capacity con-
straints, causing congestion. The costs of
congestion will rise rapidly as infrastruc-
ture increasingly reaches capacity.
Over three quarters of the European popu-
lation live in towns and cities, which play a
vital role as providers of services and cen-
tres of economic activity. Traffic congestion
affects above all urban areas, which are also
challenged by problems such as inner-city
decay, sprawling suburbs, and concentra-
tions of acute poverty and social exclusion.
In aggregate terms, the Community has
been able to maintain a rough balance
between the rural and urban communities.
At present, the population of rural areas is
increasing, and in recent years their
employment levels have grown faster than
the Community average, though the pic-
ture varies from region to region (
41
).
However, this may change after enlarge-
ment of the Union. Structural change in the
new Member States could lead to a collapse
in rural areas and rapidly growing pressure
on urban infrastructure.
In some Member States, income inequali-
ties between regions are worsening, though
(
40
) Defining an environmentally sustainable transport sys-
tem, Commission expert group on transport and envi-
ronment, September 2000. (
41
) Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion.
80
at the level of the Community the gap
between richer and poorer regions has nar-
rowed somewhat in recent years.
Nevertheless, the differences remain sub-
stantial, and can be expected to be greater
still in an enlarged Union. In the EU-15,
the richest region has an income per head
six times that of the poorest; if the acces-
sion countries were included in the calcula-
tion, the ratio would be more than 10 to 1.
Relatively low levels of spending on
research and development in some lagging
regions may hamper their ability to catch
up, though this is only one of very many
factors influencing economic performance.
The factors that lie behind these problems
include:
The affordability of travelling by road and
air improved relative to other modes over
time. The price of private motoring and
aviation travel as a percentage of average
wages has fallen as cars have been pro-
duced more cheaply and efficiently and air-
lines have raised productivity, while the
price of public transport has tended to
keep pace with wages over time. For dis-
tances of more than a few kilometres, road
transport whether of people or freight
offers the convenience of door-to-door
service that other modes find difficult to
match.
The completion of the internal market has
boosted trade flows, but the resulting pat-
tern of transport activity has been unbal-
anced due to an absence of corresponding
improvements in the pricing structure for
different modes. In addition, liberalisation
of freight transport by road has been
achieved across the Community but only a
few Member States have opened rail freight
to competition, so rail freight markets
remain fragmented and closed. This
uneven pace of reduction in the costs of
different modes of transport has had
adverse environmental effects.
Local planning regulations also affect
transport demand. Urban sprawl in
particular low-density housing drives
people into private cars. The growth in car
use is closely associated with an increased
degree of urban sprawl, and the availability
(or not) of public transport. Transport-
related noise and poor air quality in urban
areas can encourage migration of people
and enterprises from cities to suburbs and
create a vicious circle.
Transport policy has generally sought to
match the increase in demand for road and
air transport by significant public invest-
ment in infrastructure, both from national
budgets and the Community structural
funds. Extension and improvement of the
road network has significantly increased
the flexibility and speed of road freight and
the speed and convenience of cars. This has
underpinned the rapid growth in freight
transport and use of private cars.
Patterns of mobility and land use are also
linked to the balance between rural and
urban communities. Access to good trans-
port and communication infrastructure is an
essential part of preserving the viability of
both rural and urban society. Poor infra-
structure and lack of access to services such
as information and communication technolo-
gies may discourage private sector invest-
ment in rural areas, limiting employment
opportunities. However, while better trans-
port links can support the rural economy by
expanding markets for local produce, they
also tend to increase commuting and rural
house prices and have environmental
impacts.
81
Policy issues
In recent decades, transport demand has
risen broadly in line with GDP. While further
growth in activity is expected, this trend is
not sustainable. There is clearly a longer term
need to decouple transport growth from
GDP and to limit the economic and environ-
mental costs of transport growth that does
occur. The Commission is preparing a review
of the EUs common transport policy, to be
published in a forthcoming White Paper.
This will set out the broad thrust of
Community policy over the next 10 years or
so. Although the time horizon for the su-
stainable development strategy will go beyond
this, it will be important to ensure that the
two are consistent. An accurate appraisal of
the policy issues is needed:
At present, the relative prices of using dif-
ferent transport modes do not reflect their
full costs of use, in terms of additional con-
gestion, damage to infrastructure and to
human health and the environment (
42
). As
a result, there is inefficient use of existing
infrastructure, and the balance between
modes is distorted. For example, aircraft
fuel is at present not taxed, unlike other
fuels. The need to develop better pricing of
different modes has been recognised in a
number of Commission documents (
43
) but
progress has been slow.
New developments in intelligent traffic
management systems, such as the use of
global positioning systems that track the
movement of vehicles, and electronic fee
collection systems for road pricing, have
the potential to improve the use of infra-
structure and reduce congestion costs. In
addition, successful technology would be a
world leader and could be exported wide-
ly. Improvements in communication tech-
nologies offer a potential alternative to
transport. Distance working using modern
communications may provide one way of
reconciling demands for distance living
with reduced mobility. It will be important
to consider how best this potential can be
exploited.
Improvement in use of infrastructure can
reduce congestion, and new infrastructure
when it is proved to be necessary can
fill important gaps in the network and
increase capacity. Local planning rules also
affect the location of economic activity and
the development of new infrastructure and
resulting transport flows. Planning deci-
sions in the past have often not properly
accounted for the effects of new develop-
ment on the natural environment, conges-
tion and other impacts, and policy needs to
take these issues into account in the future.
Development of housing, business, and
new transport infrastructure also has impli-
cations for the relationship between town
and countryside. Attention is needed to
ensure that policy does not actively under-
mine the balance between the rural and
urban economies. This means ensuring that
urban areas do not develop urban sprawl
that fractures communities and destroys
the distinctiveness of the countryside, while
ensuring that rural policy provides active
support for a living countryside. This can-
not be a matter for transport policy alone,
(
42
) See for example Revenues from efficient pricing: eviden-
ce from the Member States, study for the International
Union of Railways, Community of European Railways and
the European Commissions Energy and Transport DG,
2000, Efficient prices for transport (estimating the social
costs of vehicle use); CE consultants, 1999.
(
43
) See for example Fair payment for infrastructure use: a
phased approach to a common transport infrastructure
charging framework in the EU (COM(1998) 466), and
Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport: policy
options for internalising the external costs of transport in
the European Union (COM(95) 691).
82
but also requires more coherent rural and
urban policies.
The rural economy also continues to
depend to an appreciable extent on farm-
ing and the Communitys common agricul-
tural policy has been geared to maintaining
farm incomes. The recent shifts towards
more sustainable rural development
which aimed to improve the competitive-
ness of agriculture while enhancing its
social and environmental functions are
still modest. Agriculture is still associated
with high levels of pollution, and has dam-
aged many of the aesthetic and ecological
qualities of the landscape it once helped to
create. This in itself undermines the attrac-
tiveness of the countryside as a place to
live. There is therefore potential for agri-
cultural policy to provide more support for
a sustainable rural economy.
Community structural funds have made
sizeable investments in physical and social
capital in the less developed regions of the
Community and Irelands phenomenal eco-
nomic growth in recent years shows the
possibilities for territorial development if
Structural Fund assistance is used within a
coherent policy framework. In addition,
measures such as the trans-European net-
works (TENs) have aimed to improve links
between peripheral and central regions of
the Community. One of the main objectives
of the TENs in the future will be the com-
pletion of a rail network that will encour-
age a shift from road to rail.
Enlargement is likely to bring with it new
and more acute challenges. The new
Member States will in general be poorer
and have a much larger agricultural popu-
lation. Their infrastructure has suffered
from many years of under-investment.
Closing the gap with the Union will need a
major investment effort. Since these invest-
ments will shape their future transport and
land-use patterns for many years ahead, it
will be crucial to integrate economic, envi-
ronmental and social issues into planning
and infrastructure appraisal to ensure that
all costs and benefits are taken into
account.
Many of these issues are identified in the
European spatial development perspecti-
ve (
44
). This aims to offer Member States,
their regions and cities a non-binding
framework for coordination of policies
with significant impacts on regional devel-
opment, without, however, seeking to
impose it on them or on other policy areas.
This approach reflects the fact that solu-
tions to many of the problems relating to
the interactions between mobility, land use
and territorial development can only be
implemented at regional and local level,
while others may benefit from a national or
Community approach.
Very few, if any, of the unsustainable trends
reviewed above are new. They have been
known to informed public opinion and in
policy circles for some time. This can at times
give rise to a sense of dj vu, even compla-
cency. Such attitudes are, however, mistaken,
as familiarity with the phenomena is not the
same as understanding the fundamental
causes and how to tackle them. Nor does the
fact that many of the trends are already well
known make them any less preoccupying.
To make a decisive step from awareness to
action, and to put in place an effective
response to the issues raised in this section,
two important questions must be answered.
(
44
) European spatial development perspective Towards
balanced and sustainable development of the territory of
the European Union, European Commission, 1999.
83
First, are there any common causes to these
long-term social and environmental chal-
lenges? Second, why have we not done more
to deal with them? If, as argued in Section 1,
greater social and environmental responsibil-
ity is not an obstacle to long-term economic
development, why have Member States and
the European Union failed to pursue sustain-
able development more vigorously?
The next section develops a general answer
to these two questions by identifying the
main obstacles to creating a more sustainable
society and economy. Following from this
diagnosis, we then lay out the main tools we
can use to achieve the specific goals of the
European sustainable development strategy
which the Commission will propose to the
Gothenburg meeting of the European
Council.
3. Common problems
Many of the problems identified in the previ-
ous section have common roots. They are
characterised by complex interdependencies
between sectors. Several are long term in
nature, with problems building up gradually.
Firms and citizens often face poor incentives
to produce and consume in a sustainable way.
They may be ill informed about the wider
effects of their actions, or about alternatives.
And institutional obstacles make it difficult
to respond effectively to these failings. This
section looks at these issues in more detail,
and shows how they have contributed to the
problems identified above.
3.1. Wrong incentives
Individuals and companies often face incen-
tives which encourage them to behave in
ways which, while individually rational, have
negative impacts on others. Market prices for
the use of goods and services which do not
properly reflect the true cost to society of
providing them lead to too much consump-
tion of those goods and services and too little
of others. For example, when we drive we
generally slow down the progress of other
road users. Since this cost is not incorporat-
ed in the price we pay to drive we do not take
it into account in deciding how and when to
travel. As a result, there are enormous ineffi-
ciencies in the way we use road space. High
taxes on labour income act as a disincentive
to participate actively in the labour market,
while poorly designed tax and benefit sys-
tems can generate poverty traps.
Incorrect prices are also a major source of
many environmental problems. In general,
the market prices for goods and services do
not incorporate the costs of pollution.
Consequently, producers have little incentive
to find and adopt cleaner methods of pro-
duction, and consumers are not encouraged
to seek out cleaner products. Worse, in some
cases the most polluting industries benefit
from significant subsidies that encourage the
production of dirty goods and discourage
consumers from switching to cleaner options.
3.2. Sectoral policy
inconsistency
Both at national and Community level, indi-
vidual policies generally concern specific sec-
tors of the economy such as coal and steel, or
particular areas such as trade or competition.
These policies are normally developed by
separate administrative departments which
have specialised knowledge of their own sec-
tors, but are less concerned with how their
policies affect other parts of society and the
economy. This narrow, sectoral approach to
84
policy-making has led over time to some sig-
nificant problems:
Due to a high level of interdependence
between some sectors, the solutions to
some problems lie in the hands of policy-
makers in other sectors. Environmental
policy increasingly requires action by other
policy areas such as enterprise, energy,
transport and agriculture. Transport policy
depends on taxation, research and technol-
ogy, and land-use planning policy. Social
policy instruments acting in isolation will
not solve problems of social exclusion. In
many cases, these spillovers between sec-
tors are not fully taken into account, so
policies in different sectors pull in opposite
directions. This undermines their effective-
ness and wastes resources.
The narrow sectoral approach makes it eas-
ier for interest groups representing a par-
ticular sector to obstruct reforms which
would benefit society as a whole but would
have negative consequences for them. This
uncoordinated focus on sectoral impacts
rather than on the wider interests of socie-
ty means that reform in practice is attempt-
ed in a piecemeal and inconsistent way.
Measures that have clear winners and los-
ers are fought over one by one, rather than
being seen as part of a wider package that
could benefit all.
The Community dimension adds extra
potential for inconsistent policy-making.
Both responsibility (the extent of
Community competence) and the way in
which decisions are taken (unanimity or by
weighted majority) vary from one policy
domain to another. The sequence in which
new policy initiatives are taken, both at EU
and national level, can also lead to undesir-
able outcomes.
Problems of coordination are compounded
by a proliferation of new policy initiatives
and multi-annual programmes at EU level.
There are currently over 60 multi-annual
initiatives described as strategies. The dif-
ferent initiatives are rarely synchronised.
The Agenda 2000 time frame runs from
2000 to 2006, the single market strategy
from 1999 to 2005, the next framework
programme for research from 2002 to 2006
and the new environment action pro-
gramme from 2001 to 2011.
Clearly, there are limits to the extent to which
policies in different sectors can be reformed
simultaneously. The Agenda 2000 reforms
involved changes in particular to agricultural,
structural, and external policies. Undertaking
a similar exercise for an even wider set of
policies would pose severe practical prob-
lems. Attempting to review all Community
policies at the same time would lead to insti-
tutional paralysis. Measures to improve
coherence should instead focus on linking
together policies where the gains from coor-
dination are expected to be greatest. In addi-
tion, if the design of sectoral policy attempts
to take wider considerations than the inter-
ests of the sector into account, improving
policy consistency should not mean that all
policies need to adopt identical timetables.
3.3. Short-termism
in policy-making
A striking example of the possible effects of
a short-term perspective is our inability to
manage renewable natural resources sustain-
ably. The Community has been unable to
agree cuts in fish catches that are essential to
preserve stocks for the future because of the
short-term costs. This is despite the substan-
tial long-term economic and ecological bene-
85
fits in preserving stocks from collapse. Short-
termism has been a particular problem for
environmental policy as many environmental
problems are not immediately visible, but it
is also true in other policy areas. When
spending must be reduced to balance the
national budget the first item to be cut is usu-
ally investment. This is because cuts in every-
day services are immediate and painful,
whereas the deterioration of public infra-
structure takes time and is not immediately
noticeable.
A root cause of short-termism in the design
and implementation of policy is the nature of
the political cycle. The gap of at most four to
five years between elections naturally limits
governments time horizons. In addition, one
group that does not have a voice in these
political choices is the future generation. In
the absence of a coherent long-term vision,
policy priorities may be influenced too much
by short-term events. Policy responses then
take the form of quick fixes, which them-
selves may make the problem more acute, or
cause difficulties in other areas.
Problems of short-termism are likely to be
worse when the costs of doing something are
up-front and highly visible while the benefits
are difficult to quantify and spread over sev-
eral years. Moreover, costs and benefits may
be unevenly distributed: costs of change
often fall on particular groups of producers
or citizens, while benefits are more widely
spread. As a result, the winners from a pol-
icy change usually do not make themselves
heard, whereas the losers do. Short-termism
can therefore be compounded by a highly
sectoral approach to policy-making.
At Community level, the regular six-monthly
change in the Council Presidency induces a
short-term perspective. New initiatives are
often launched to take advantage of a politi-
cal window that becomes available while a
particular Member State holds the
Presidency. A Member States running of the
Presidency tends to be judged by the amount
of activity it generates the number of reg-
ulations or directives adopted rather than
the quality of those measures.
3.4. Policy inertia
The hardest innovation in policy-making is to
stop old practices. Some unsustainable
trends result from a failure to change or can-
cel policies which are past their sell-by date.
These are measures which made sense when
they were introduced, but which have not
been changed in response to changing cir-
cumstances. For example:
When State pensions for all were first
introduced, life expectancies were much
lower, and working lives typically much
longer than today. Early retirement
schemes and the tax and benefit system
have resulted in biases that favour early
withdrawal from the labour market, lead-
ing to a fall in the average retirement age.
Both need reform today, when skill short-
ages are emerging, and the shrinking work-
ing age population and increasing numbers
of pensioners threaten the sustainability of
public finances.
Town planning rules which imposed rigid
separation between the location of housing
and industry made sense when much
industrial activity was very polluting. Now
that industry is cleaner and services play a
more important role in the economy, these
zoning laws may no longer be justified.
More than this, together with rising levels
of private car ownership they worsen traffic
congestion.
86
Our energy supply infrastructure is cur-
rently heavily dependent on the use of fos-
sil fuels. This reflects investments made in
the past when the impacts of burning fossil
fuels on human health and the global cli-
mate were not as well understood.
Changing our sources of energy supply is
now a slow process as the infrastructure is
long lived.
Public policy as well as case-law and politi-
cal processes can, often for very good rea-
sons, move much behind the pace of tech-
nological progress in areas such as geneti-
cally modified organisms, genetically mod-
ified food, and other innovations.
The paradox of having both policy inertia on
the one hand, and short-termism on the
other, is more apparent than real. Both prob-
lems essentially arise from an excessively sec-
toral approach to policy-making. This
enables sectional interests to prevail over the
wider concerns of society, by preventing nec-
essary reform to outdated policies needed to
orient them towards the longer term.
3.5. Limited understanding
We have a poor understanding of the causes
and likely effects of several of the problems
identified in Section 2 above. For example,
the definition, causes and consequences of
poverty are complex and controversial.
There are competing explanations for why
disparities in the distribution of income are
widening in some places, and for changes in
family structures and birth rates. There are
large information gaps in many other areas
such as the measurement of changes in biodi-
versity and their potential long-run effects.
We face similar uncertainties about the pre-
cise impact of many policy responses. In
addition, in many cases inadequate attention
has been paid to whether existing policy has
actually been effective. Frequently, it is
assumed that spending money on a problem
is the same as successfully tackling it. In prac-
tice, we have often failed to assess whether a
policy has achieved its objectives, how much
it has cost, and what its positive or negative
spillovers on other areas have been. This is
complicated by the fact that policy objectives
are not always well defined. In consequence,
we often have an insufficient basis on which
to assess what reforms might be necessary.
3.6. Inadequate
communication and
dialogue
Arguably, many of the existing failures to
tackle unsustainable trends reflect a policy
process that is too fragmented, technocratic
and distant from the real concerns of people.
Alienation from the political process can also
result from a perception that policy-making
is excessively influenced by vested interest
groups, to the detriment of the population at
large. Whatever the truth of these views, it is
undeniable that there is at the very least a
strong belief that the average citizen has little
scope for direct input into the political
process, and that policy-making has become
disconnected from their daily concerns. This
is reflected in rising abstention rates at elec-
tions for all levels of government. These
issues will be examined in more depth in the
Commissions forthcoming White Paper on
governance.
Scientists and policy-makers often communi-
cate poorly with the public and with each
other, and misconceptions are common on all
sides. As a result public awareness of the
long-term consequences of different policy
87
options, consumption patterns and lifestyle
choices is also limited. In part, this may arise
from the increased complexity of the modern
world and the corresponding complexity of
policy responses. Recent health scares
such as those relating to BSE or phthalates
demonstrate the fragility of public confi-
dence in the integrity of science and scientif-
ic advice about risks. This confidence is fur-
ther undermined by the perception that the
interpretation and dissemination of research
results is sometimes subordinated to com-
mercial pressures (
45
).
4. Common solutions:
A toolkit for
sustainable
development
in Europe
4.1. Introduction
The previous section identified some com-
mon problems which have led to the emer-
gence of the unsustainable trends described
in Section 2. This section suggests how we
can go about solving them.
The analysis in Section 3 shows that better
policy integration is needed at all levels, so
that different policies complement each
other instead of pulling in different direc-
tions. Policy integration should start at the
outset of the policy-making process.
Sustainable development should become an
underlying principle in all areas of EU activ-
ity. However, joined-up thinking in policy-
making is not enough on its own. Better
coordination and greater dialogue will not
improve things if policy does not make full
use of the right tools and ideas. Accordingly,
this chapter not only sets out some ways to
improve policy coherence, but also describes
the most important tools that can and should
be used as the building blocks of a strategy
for sustainable development.
4.2. A common basis for
policy design and
implementation
One of these building blocks is the principle
that the costs and effects of all policies
should be examined more systematically.
This analysis should try to include not just
the impacts in the area targeted by the policy,
but also its spillovers good and bad
onto other policy areas. Identifying spillovers
and the sharing of expertise between differ-
ent departments of government are impor-
tant if we are to create the conditions for
winwin policies and improve the coher-
ence of policy-making. Inevitably though, in
some cases we have to make trade-offs
between changes in economic, environmen-
tal and social assets. Careful assessment of
the costs and effects of different policy
options and their distribution is vital to
ensure that these trade-offs are made in the
interests of society as a whole, and that
mechanisms are put in place to enable busi-
ness and citizens to adapt to change.
Good policy design should also consider the
different instruments available to meet the
policy objective. The aim should be to give
policy-makers as full an assessment as possi-
ble of the costs and effects, the advantages
and disadvantages of the different options, so
that we can reach our desired objectives,
(
45
) The success of the European research area will be judged
partly on its ability to develop a common basis for asses-
sing research results and to improve understanding bet-
ween science and society.
88
whatever they may be, at least cost. This does
not mean going for the cheapest or do noth-
ing option. It means doing things efficiently
and effectively. The more cost-effective poli-
cy is, the more resources we have to devote to
other priorities. This helps us get the most we
can out of the available resources by avoiding
waste and inefficiency.
Climate change provides a very good exam-
ple of the importance of cost effectiveness.
Some policy measures such as gradually
removing subsidies for the use of fossil fuels
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
while actually raising economic performance.
Still, meeting the targets in the Kyoto
Protocol is likely to have some economic
costs. However, the size of these costs and
how they are distributed will depend very
much on what policies are used. The
Commission services have estimated that a
policy of equal percentage reduction targets
for different economic sectors would be
nearly three times more expensive than a pol-
icy that encourages the biggest savings in sec-
tors where emissions can be reduced at rela-
tively low cost (
46
).
4.3. Long-term targets
and intermediate
milestones
Sustainable development is a framework for
policy that focuses on long-term manage-
ment rather than short-term quick-fix solu-
tions. Identifying concrete, ambitious,
achievable long-term objectives is necessary
to give substance to policies for sustainable
development, and to develop popular under-
standing and support for these policies.
These objectives should lead to the establish-
ment of clear and preferably measurable
targets. Intermediate milestones allow us
to judge our progress. When the policy target
can be expressed in very precise terms, it may
be possible to meet targets agreed at the
European level through Member States
applying their own, cost-effective solutions.
Clear long-term targets also provide other
important advantages:
Sustainable development means leaving an
adequate legacy to future generations.
Long-term targets are required to limit the
scope for short-termism and to ensure this
obligation is met.
Uncertainty and instability in the policy
regime generate their own costs. Clear
long-term signals can help companies and
individuals plan better. This is particularly
important as the capital stock of an econo-
my turns over only relatively slowly.
Investment decisions have long-lasting
effects and are costly to reverse.
Provided targets can be clearly defined, it
can make sense to delegate responsibility
for meeting targets to those most closely
involved with particular policy areas, or to
an independent authority free from short-
term political pressures. The latter is the
case of the European Central Bank, which
has been given responsibility to provide
stable prices. However, not all policy objec-
tives can be defined in such clear terms,
and there are limits to the extent to which
it is desirable to devolve power to unelect-
ed, unaccountable bodies.
Implementing new policy measures can
gradually reduce the costs of change con-
siderably by allowing adequate time for
businesses and individuals to change their
patterns of production and consumption.
For example, companies that have to adapt
(
46
) Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within
the European Union (COM(87) 2000), European
Commission, 2000.
89
to new technologies to remain competitive
generally have much less trouble adjusting
if these changes can be made as part of the
normal investment cycle. Taking a gradual
approach avoids the unnecessary creation
of unemployment and gives workers time
to acquire new skills.
A few policy initiatives have shown that it is
possible to gather consensus around gradual
but steady adjustment to long-term targets,
which smooth the transition to sustainable
policies. An example is the 10-year perspec-
tive for reform of economic and social policy
agreed by the European Council at Lisbon.
4.4. Creating markets and
getting prices right
Getting prices right so that they better
reflect the true costs to society of different
activities would give everybody the right
incentive to integrate the effects their behav-
iour has on others into their everyday deci-
sions about which goods and services to
make or buy. It is therefore one of the most
important tools available to policy-makers.
There are many different ways of changing
the prices or other incentives that companies
and consumers face so as to underpin su-
stainable development. Direct methods
include the creation of tradable property
rights (such as emission permits) that allow
markets to set a price for pollution, eco-taxes
that discourage over-use of environmental
resources, and legal liability regimes (
47
).
Governments can boost markets for sustain-
able products and services through their
public procurement policies (
48
).
Clearer definition of property rights can also
play a useful role in improving the manage-
ment of natural resources where there is a
risk of over-consumption. Subsidies can be
an effective tool in some cases where behav-
iour has positive spillover effects. For exam-
ple, there is some merit in the idea that com-
panies should be paid a temporary subsidy to
take on the long-term unemployed, as the
social costs of long-term unemployment on
individuals, their families and the public sec-
tor finances are very significant. Any propos-
al made in this respect would have to comply
with the principles of EU and Member
States legal systems.
The user pays principle is an important first
step in improving incentives. It means simply
that under normal circumstances those that
benefit from the use of something should pay
for it. This reduces wasteful consumption,
and gives those who use a resource the right
incentives to behave responsibly. Evidently,
the user pays principle cannot be applied
indiscriminately there are very legitimate
exceptions to its application in modern soci-
eties, not least in aspects of social provision
through the welfare state. Public subsidy is
often necessary and justified. However, the
user pays principle is an important
reminder that the rationale for subsidies
should be clearly set out to avoid wasteful use
of resources.
The polluter pays principle is an important
extension of the user pays principle to envi-
(
47
) Different instruments have different advantages and limi-
tations. For example, legal liability is unlikely to be an
effective approach in the case of climate change who
do you sue and for how much when there are many diffe-
rent sources of greenhouse gases? And how do you prove
causation between a given emission source and a given
effect? In other cases, such as oil tanker spills, it may
prove a much more promising option.
(
48
) Public procurement rules also have to be carefully desi-
gned to avoid them being used as a cover for protectio-
nism. The Commission will shortly publish a communica-
tion on public procurement and the environment.
90
ronmental policy-making. The underlying
philosophy is that polluters do not have an
inherent right to pollute. The polluter pays
principle has been defined in various ways,
but the most important interpretation is that
the polluter should pay for the costs his pol-
lution imposes on others for example
through a tax on polluting emissions. This
provides an added incentive to look for
reductions in pollution. A more limited inter-
pretation would be that polluters should pay
only for the costs of any pollution control
measures required by law.
The polluter pays principle is already part
of the EC Treaty, but it is not yet widely
enough applied at either EU level or in
Member States. A much more rigorous and
consistent approach is required. Significant
improvements in both economic and envi-
ronmental performance could be achieved
without increasing the overall tax burden by
gradual reform of existing tax structures and
subsidy regimes, so that the prices paid by
producers and consumers more accurately
reflect the costs and benefits their activities
impose on other members of society.
Part of the difficulty in applying the polluter
pays principle is that it can be difficult to
define who the polluter really is, as both pro-
ducers and consumers bear some responsi-
bility for the environmental impacts. For
practical purposes, therefore, the responsi-
bility for combating pollution should be
assigned to those who are in the best position
to reduce pollution at relatively low cost (
49
).
In recent years, a number of initiatives by
Member States have aimed to encourage pro-
ducers to design products that are easier to
deal with in the waste phase by making them
responsible for the environmental impacts of
products throughout their life cycle. Some
recent Commission proposals have also been
based on this idea of extended producer
responsibility.
4.5. Sectoral policy
coherence
In order to try to redirect policy in individual
sectors away from a narrow set of objectives
there have been several efforts at Community
level to integrate broader concerns into the
conduct of sectoral policies, such as employ-
ment promotion, regional development and
environmental protection. The current
efforts to integrate environmental concerns
into other sectoral policies (the Cardiff inte-
gration process) have shown that some
progress is possible through such initiatives.
The Cardiff process has increased under-
standing of the issues and helped develop
new policy approaches. However, there are
also limits. Improved dialogue does not in
itself solve all problems when there are
unavoidable trade-offs between competing
interests. Moreover, this type of policy inte-
gration is itself a sector by sector approach,
so it is unable to guarantee that different inte-
gration initiatives take a consistent approach.
It is therefore unlikely to produce the best
overall balance between the interests of con-
sumers, citizens and producers.
Practical improvements to the sectoral inte-
gration approach would result from greater
transparency that is, a clearer presentation
of the economic, social and environmental
costs and benefits of different policy options.
Consistent and rigorous evaluation should be
conducted jointly and openly to ensure that
(
49
) See Council recommendation of 3 March 1975, OJ L 194
of 25 July 1975.
91
the different objectives are given their appro-
priate weight in each sector. Improving our
understanding of causes, effects and inter-
linkages between sectors is therefore critical
to designing and implementing policies for
sustainable development.
Beyond integration: improved coordi-
nation in Community policy-making
Sustainable development implies a society-
wide approach to policy design.
Sustainability must be placed at the core of
the mandate of all policy-makers. This means
more than tagging on environmental and
social objectives to existing policies.
Achieving these objectives should be as rele-
vant to judging the success or failure of a pol-
icy as its sectoral targets. Otherwise, integra-
tion and sustainability risk becoming buzz-
words to which policy-makers pay lip service
only. Integration must mean something more
than minor adjustments to business as usual
if sustainable development is to move from
rhetoric to reality. This needs political com-
mitment and leadership.
As one part of the current internal reforms,
the Commission has established a strategic
planning and programming function to help
improve coordination between departments.
In addition, there is a need throughout the
Community institutional structure for a prac-
tical political mechanism to arbitrate in a
consistent and rational way across sectors
when competing interests are at stake, and to
provide clear long-term policy objectives.
Moreover, consideration could be given to
creating a council for sustainable develop-
ment with no direct stake in the policy
process. Such a body may be better placed to
provide objective critical reviews of existing
policies. Several Member States have already
established independent councils in order to
advise their governments on sustainable
development issues.
Regular policy reviews
Regularly and systematically evaluating poli-
cies to ensure that they are meeting their
objectives, bringing benefits to society as a
whole and are consistent with the overall
objective of sustainable development should
become a core element of policy-making.
Such reviews should be undertaken in an
open manner so that the views of all stake-
holders can be taken into account. In addi-
tion, more use should be made of sunset
clauses in legislation that provides for it to
be automatically ended or reviewed after a
number of years. Not all policy measures
need to last forever, but it is a rare and
brave! regulator who will voluntarily
declare that s/he is no longer needed.
4.6. Technology at the
service of society
In the context of sustainable development,
technology can be a double-edged sword.
Technological progress has enormously
increased our material wealth and improved
our quality of life in every area, from com-
munications and transport to new foods and
health. They can also offer major opportuni-
ties for more efficient use of resources
through changes in production techniques
and the way services are delivered. Moreover,
technology can help us ease potential trade-
offs between competing ends. New technolo-
gies can often reduce pollution or risks for
health and safety at work at much lower cost
than adjusting existing technologies. Without
further advances in technology and its wider
use, the most challenging environmental
problems, such as climate change, can only
92
be tackled through painful changes in pro-
duction and consumption patterns.
Technology will therefore be at the heart of
moves to sustainable development.
However, technology also brings its own
challenges, particularly when change is rapid.
New technologies and working methods can
increase competitive pressures and can force
difficult adjustments. Emerging technologies
create new opportunities but sometimes also
new risks and in some cases such as genet-
ics new ethical questions. The enormous
effect of technology on the material produc-
tivity of our societies also raises the prospect
that we increase the scale of output and con-
sumption more rapidly than we can reduce
pollution per unit produced, thereby increas-
ing overall pressure on the environment over
time the rebound effect.
This means that technological progress has to
be actively harnessed in the interests of su-
stainable development. The challenge for pol-
icy is to influence innovation so that the solu-
tions chosen by markets are winners for su-
stainable development. Market-based
approaches that get the prices right are
important to stimulate the development of
new and environmentally safe technologies
and their rapid take-up. Public policy can
also help to accelerate the diffusion of new
technologies by benchmarking, demonstra-
tion projects and removing non-market bar-
riers to their use, including regulations that
unnecessarily hamper innovation.
A clear, long-lasting commitment from gov-
ernments to pursue sustainable development
as a core policy objective will strengthen the
signals coming from prices. This will help to
give companies assurance about the stability
of the policy framework and encourage a
proactive approach by businesses during a
time of rapid structural change. Credible
long-term policy commitments will give com-
panies time to develop new techniques and
adapt smoothly to the transition to sustain-
ability. As well as aiming to provide the right
framework conditions, public authorities can
also fund basic and essential applied research
where it is too costly or too risky for an indi-
vidual company.
4.7. Improving knowledge
and understanding
sound science, risk and
transparency
Science and scientific research does not take
place in a vacuum. The results of research
can have important effects on the direction of
public policy. This inevitably raises doubts
about the objectivity and completeness of the
research methods and results when commer-
cial interests are at stake. To remove or at
least minimise such suspicions, research
results should be reported in an open way.
New research should be carefully peer
reviewed to ensure its credibility. Confidence
in the use of scientific information would also
be enhanced by independent synthesis of the
evidence so that it can be communicated to
and understood by a wider public.
Given the speed and complexity of techno-
logical innovation, independent scientific
research is essential to help us evaluate the
opportunities and risks of new production
techniques and new products. Risk is some-
times a necessary part of social progress
risk takers and innovators are essential for a
dynamic economy. However, many risks are
undesirable and have to be actively managed.
For example, in the development of new
medicines, a balance has to be struck
between the potential benefits that the treat-
ment offers, and the risk that it may turn out
93
to have damaging side effects. Similarly, the
risks posed by new synthetic chemicals have
to be weighed against their benefits in use.
Therefore, in the context of sustainable
development, dealing with risk means care-
fully evaluating the economic, environmental
and social effects of innovations and taking a
balanced view of the likely positive and neg-
ative impacts.
Inevitably, in some cases we do not yet have
enough information about the existence or
scale of a risk to properly assess its real
importance. However, lack of proof that a
risk exists does not provide an adequate
excuse for ignoring it. This simple truth is at
the heart of what is commonly known as the
precautionary principle. But the precau-
tionary principle in itself provides little prac-
tical guidance about how to manage risk and
uncertainty (
50
). Risk-management decisions
are inevitably a trade-off between the level of
protection desired, the costs of reducing risk,
and the weight of evidence that the risk is
real. This is ultimately a matter for political
judgment and responsibility.
During the course of the last few decades
many commonplace risks have been elimina-
ted or reduced, thanks to improvements in
systems of social protection, environmental
and health improvements and higher stan-
dards of living. However, recent years have
seen the rapid emergence of new problems,
many unforeseen or unforeseeable. This calls
for new institutional responses. We need to
improve our capacity to respond speedily to
emerging risks, to speed-up scientific assess-
ment of risks (such as the risks posed by per-
sistent pollutants or biotoxins), and to
improve our capacity for dealing with crises.
Most importantly, decisions on how to tackle
risks that we face as consumers and citizens
must be made transparently, in an account-
able manner, and with the public interest at
heart.
4.8. Better information,
education and
participation
Improved information for producers and con-
sumers is important to enhance the effective-
ness of policies that seek to encourage changes
in behaviour. Consumers can respond better
to price signals and other incentives if they
have relevant information, such as the cost
savings they can expect from using more ener-
gy-efficient domestic appliances, or the health
improvements they can expect from better
diet. Information gaps can undermine the
effectiveness of policy. Moreover, if we are to
exercise our personal freedoms wisely and
take an active part in civil society, we need
information about the wider effects of our
choice of lifestyle on matters such as our
health and on traffic congestion.
The process by which policy is made should
be transparent. An open dialogue about the
costs and benefits of different options will
help test the arguments that underlie differ-
ent policy proposals. Establishing a dialogue
between stakeholders can be time consum-
ing, but is essential to building mutual trust
and understanding and may increase the
chances of finding mutually acceptable solu-
tions. The current European climate change
programme is a good example of a more
open policy process. Sustainable develop-
ment can thus become a way to revitalise the
democratic process by involving citizens in
decisions that affect their daily life and gen-
erating a real debate on societys priorities.
(
50
) The Commission communication on the precautionary
principle (COM(1) 2000) provides a more complete dis-
cussion of the role and scope of the precautionary prin-
ciple in EU policy-making.
94
Access to high-quality education and training
for all ages will enable citizens to take an
active part in democratic society. Our behav-
iour as individual citizens is not determined
exclusively by strictly financial considera-
tions. It also reflects a sense of belonging to
society, of sharing a common set of social val-
ues. Providing better information to citizens
about the goal of sustainability and its impor-
tance is a way of strengthening this social
capital and encouraging sustainable behav-
iour by all.
4.9. Measuring progress:
indicators
Indicators provide the basis for assessing
progress towards the long-term objective of
sustainable development. Long-term targets
only have meaning as policy goals if progress
towards them can be assessed objectively.
This requires targets expressed in precise
terms. Careful measurement will also
improve our ability to identify interactions
between different policies and deal with pos-
sible trade-offs. There are some cases when
improvements in one area can only be
achieved at the expense of deterioration in
another. Such trade-offs are already a part of
policy-making, but the advantage of meas-
urement is that they are made explicit and
transparent.
This does not mean that everything must be
quantified. Quantified and measurable tar-
gets are important, but must not become the
exclusive focus of policy. Indeed, some ele-
ments of sustainable development are intrin-
sically hard to quantify. Not everything can
be turned into numerical data. This is partic-
ularly true of some environmental and social
assets. We cannot easily measure the value of
biodiversity or the quality and quantity of
social relationships. To avoid neglecting them
we must devise better qualitative indicators.
Identifying an appropriate set of measures
and indicators, both quantitative and qualita-
tive, will not be easy given the scope of the
issues addressed in this paper. Inevitably, not
all the desired data will be available. It is a
persistent temptation to measure what is eas-
iest to measure rather than what is important.
This has to be avoided if we are to develop
robust indicators that provide accurate sig-
nals. It is more important to be roughly right
(with imperfect indicators of what matters)
than precisely wrong (with perfect indicators
on developments of little importance).
There are a number of current initiatives to
measure sustainable development. These
include the indicator set drawn up by the
United Nations, which will be applied at the
European level in a forthcoming publication
by Eurostat (
51
), and a number of indicators
for policy integration in sectors such as ener-
gy, transport and agriculture. Some local
authorities are developing indicators which
reflect local priorities. The World Business
Council for Sustainable Development is pro-
moting measures of corporate performance
against the yardstick of sustainability.
These initiatives all have their merits, but to
measure progress on the themes identified in
this paper will require a more tailored set of
indicators. For each theme, a small set of
indicators will be needed. These must take
account, where necessary, of the differences
in the nature of what is being measured. The
set of indicators must be wide enough to cap-
ture the complexity of each area. At the same
time, the indicators must not be so complex
as to be incomprehensible to policy-makers
and the public.
(
51
) Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe.
To be published by Eurostat in June 2001.
95
5. Conclusions
This consultation paper is the first stage in
the preparation of an EU strategy for sustain-
able development. In it, the Commission
services have set out their views on the chal-
lenges and opportunities which would be
presented by making sustainable develop-
ment the overarching priority of Community
policy.
The paper focuses on problems of sustain-
able development within Europe. This
approach is underpinned by a belief that to
provide leadership in a global context, the
EU has to meet its international commit-
ments and reform its internal policies so as to
make progress towards sustainable develop-
ment. Of course, the EU also has to play its
full role in international organisations, such
as the UN, the IMF and World Bank and the
WTO, as these bodies have an important
contribution to make towards sustainable
development. The international dimension of
sustainable development will be fully
addressed in preparations for the Rio + 10
Summit in South Africa next year.
To move the sustainable development debate
from the realm of abstract discussion of defi-
nitions and concepts into the area of every-
day policy-making, the Commission services
have identified six key themes where current
trends threaten the sustainable development
of the European Union. These themes have
been chosen because of the severity and the
potential irreversibility of the issues identi-
fied, because they are common to several or
all Member States, and because finding and
implementing solutions will be eased by
cooperation.
Analysis of these topics has shown that many
of the problems have their origins in a small
number of shared failures. These include dis-
torted market prices, insufficient knowledge,
information and communication, and an
inconsistent sectoral approach to policy-
making which takes too little account of link-
ages and spillovers between sectors. In the
light of this analysis, the Commission servic-
es have proposed (in Section 4 of this consul-
tation paper) a policy toolkit which the
Community and Member States could use to
address the unsustainable trends described
in Section 2.
Shaping the strategy for a
sustainable European Union
Views from civil society and
public authorities
Joint public hearing organised by the European Commission and the
Economic and Social Committee
Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001
Shaping the strategy for a
sustainable European Union
Views from civil society and
public authorities
(*) Extracts of main speeches, key points raised from the floor and rapporteurs summaries.
Proceedings in brief (*)
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
99
Opening session
Mr Gke Frerichs, President of the
Economic and Social Committee
We in the Economic and Social Committee
an interdisciplinary, consultative body
made up of representatives of different, and
not always concurring interests routinely
seek consensus and coherence in a bid to find
sustainable solutions that promote European
integration.
The Economic and Social Committee sees
itself as the home of EU organised civil soci-
ety and that in turn means representing
civil society interests. We endeavour to meet
this ambitious objective not least by raising
awareness of the sustainable development
issue among the many organisations, associa-
tions and trade unions represented in or by
the Committee and harnessing their support.
Legislation and politics are certainly not the
only points at issue. Sustainable development
is also a matter of lifestyle and culture. In
social terms, for instance, sustainable devel-
opment undoubtedly concerns peoples
working lives, but also involves the family,
the neighbourhood, local authorities and
government.
What we are dealing with here is, in fact, one
of the new values of which our society has
been growing ever more aware over the past
few decades. It is a question of responsibility
our responsibility for future generations
and, in the final analysis, our responsibility
for creation. Sustainable development is thus
also a key dimension of solidarity, which is
one of the core values of European integra-
tion.
Ms Anna Diamantopoulou, Commissioner
with responsibility for employment and
social affairs
Sustainable development required mutually
supportive economic, social and environ-
mental policies. Winwin situations must be
created and, when trade-offs were necessary,
the situation and what is at stake must be
assessed transparently, with the help of indi-
cators and data.
The European sustainable development
strategy would not breed additional process-
es or procedures in Europe but orient exist-
ing ones towards building more integrated
approaches, with the contribution of all
stakeholders. In this last respect, the
Commissioner stressed the role the
Economic and Social Committee had to play.
The European strategy must be compatible
with, and complementary to, the global
development of sustainable development
strategies and therefore support global agree-
ments on the environment, trade, develop-
ment, labour standards. It must focus on
issues with the most scope or potential for
effective action within Europe. To put that
into practice, three selection criteria had
The hearing provided an opportunity for stakeholders (businesses, trade unions,
NGOs, academia, etc.) and public authorities to express their views on the Commission
consultation paper on the EU strategy on sustainable development published on
27 March 2001 and to contribute to shaping the Commissions final proposal and the
Gothenburg European Council conclusions on the strategy.
100
been used, as follows: the severity of the
problem and cost of doing nothing; the last-
ing character of damage including transmis-
sion from one generation to the next and the
time needed to put matters right; and third
the extent of the problem at European or
even world level.
Applying these criteria six priority topics, all
inter-related to some degree, were selected:
climate change and clean energy;
public health;
management of natural resources;
poverty and social exclusion;
ageing and demography;
mobility, land use and territorial develop-
ment.
The strategy should dovetail and put in long-
term perspective the commitments made by
the European Councils in Lisbon, Nice and
Stockholm, notably the full employment tar-
get and that of higher quality social and
employment policies, so that all could bene-
fit from enhanced economic efficiency. To
achieve and maintain this, science and tech-
nology has to find ways to reduce pressure on
natural resources, as instanced by the sixth
environmental action programme. Ms
Diamantopoulou pointed out the special
sensitivity of women to sustainability issues,
made clear in a 1999 Eurobarometer survey.
Closing, the Commissioner stressed the rele-
vance of sustainable development for the
countries planning to join the EU for eco-
nomic but still more for democratic reasons.
Failure to make long-run decisions and set
long-run goals would let down not only our-
selves but all those who look to Europe to set
an example, including those who wish to join
us soon.
Mr Jos Chabert, President of the
Committee of the Regions
The open method of coordination (e.g. the
Cardiff or Lisbon follow-up) needed to be
matched by adequate procedures for consul-
tation. A strategy for reaching specific objec-
tives and methods was not the same as hard
legislation and would therefore not follow
normal procedure where for example the
Committee of Regions and the Economic and
Social Committee are consulted under the
Treaty. New hearing procedures had there-
fore to be invented and conferences like this
were part of that process. But sufficient time
for response also needed respect and recog-
nition. That would ensure that the stakehold-
ers felt ownership of proposed methods and
targets.
Almost all the themes set out in the
Commissions paper were the daily responsi-
bility of local and regional authorities all over
Europe. It was they who would be faced with
putting most of the future EU sustainable
development strategy into effect. So the
Committee of Regions was not happy to see
the role of local and regional authorities
ignored in the Commission paper.
Just look at information, training and aware-
ness-raising, help and advice for individuals
and families, for all of which local and
regional authorities play an irreplaceable
role. These activities form a major part of the
toolkit presented by the Commission and
local and regional authorities are ready to
perform them in partnership with others.
101
Mr Antti Peltomki, Finnish Under-
Secretary of State for EU Affairs
Mr Peltomki set out the role of the Finnish
Presidency in furthering of the strategy for
sustainable development.
Although Helsinki did not spend much time
on environment and sustainable develop-
ment, Mr Peltomki expressed satisfaction
with the results which were as follows.
Firstly, the Council was asked to finalise the
strategies for integrating the environmental
dimension into all policy sectors and report
to the European Council in June 2001.
Second, Commission and Council were
urged to develop adequate instruments for
monitoring, adjusting and deepening sectoral
strategies. Third, the Community and
Member States were urged to continue
preparations to establish the prerequisites for
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before 2002.
Fourth, Helsinki asked the Commission to
prepare by the end of 2000 a proposal for the
sixth environmental action programme. Last
but not least, the Commission was invited to
prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy
dovetailing policies for economically, social-
ly and ecologically sustainable development
to be presented to the Gothenburg European
Council in June 2001. The Feira European
Council confirmed the political pressure by
asking the European Council to adopt the
strategy in Gothenburg.
He added some general observations. The
sustainable development strategy should be
truly operational and for that integrated into
Lisbons strategic objectives at the latest in
Barcelona next spring. The strategy had to
constitute EUs contribution to the Rio + 10
Summit. It should also take account of EU
enlargement. It should lay down general
qualitative objectives for sustainable devel-
opment in the long term. Environmental
objectives should be based on the sixth envi-
ronmental action programme.
The relation between the sustainable devel-
opment strategy and sectoral strategies
should be clear. The strategy should provide
the overall guidelines, while more detailed
sector-specific objectives should be left to the
sectors concerned.
Pursuant to the conclusions of the
Stockholm European Council, trends in su-
stainable development were to be examined at
the spring meetings. The Commissions role
seemed to be in place, namely monitoring,
the development of indicators for the sus-
tainable development and presentation of an
annual synthesis report within the Lisbon
process. The role of the General Affairs
Council in preparing the spring meetings of
the European Council should be re-assessed.
The European Council should not be a mere
coordinator it has to be responsible for
political guidelines.
Prof. Augusto Mateus, former Portuguese
Minister for Economic Affairs
The transition to sustainable development
meant more than integrating environmental
concerns into other strategies; it was about
re-redesigning current policies. We will, he
said, see a new paradigm, where technologi-
cal modernisation will no longer focus on
equipment, but on knowledge.
Session 1 sketched the historical back-
ground of the EU sustainable development
strategy (from Helsinki to Lisbon and
Gothenburg) and examined a number of
general horizontal aspects.
Chairman: Mr Ulf Svidn, Environment
Counsellor, Swedish Permanent
Representation.
102
Sustainability was not about preserving an
economic model with known negative long-
term effects on nature, people and markets,
acting through partial adjustments imposed
by a short-term response to scarcity, crisis
and need. Sustainability was about changing
the economic model to control and manage
long-term effects on nature, climate and peo-
ple through structural reforms to markets,
States and institutions, using intelligence
proactively to prevent scarcity or crisis, to
use science and knowledge efficiently to meet
even more demanding human and social
needs from a strategic approach.
Long-term vision was crucial, a platform to
give life to new ideas and innovation, for eco-
efficiency. This was a challenge for the market
to develop new business, and a political chal-
lenge to create a new policy platform. The
most unsustainable trends were due to human
concentration in urban areas, regional dispari-
ties in development, and transportation. The
real issue was how to change current behaviour
in a proactive way, intelligently. Sustainability
could be reached if we create a new economic
model, new sets of policies, and new sets of
institutions. The new policies should be hori-
zontal instead of sectoral, and we need to cre-
ate strategic market regulations which leave
opportunities for innovation to business.
The Lisbon strategy was a bit like Lisbon
sunny with low visibility. It lacked a specific
link to sustainable development. The chal-
lenge was to take the next steps towards su-
stainable development, for which one had to
be humble to face reality in an honest way,
and bold to create the new policy.
Comments from the floor
H. Mullet, Friends of the Earth Europe
There was need for a strong vision of EU
sustainable development. Important build-
ing blocks were innovation and eco-effi-
ciency, which if used rightly also create new
jobs.
Clear goals and targets would help to make
the vision more concrete.
Existing programmes like the common
agricultural policy and the Structural
Funds needed to be revised.
G. Deuchars, Eurolink Age
Sustainable development strategy based
firmly on fundamental social rights was
very welcome. Social policy was not to be
relegated as a part only built into econom-
ic policy.
Win-win solutions might very often be
found, but when there was a cost, this must
not fall upon the weakest; this would lead
to social exclusion. The strategy must
respect social fairness.
The crucial gender issue was not in the
consultative document, but should belong
to the strategy.
B. Gabellieri, CEEP
The consultative document was very much
based upon an analysis of the present situ-
ation, but we had to foresee all possible sit-
uations and solutions.
It was important to include those responsi-
ble for local policies and to develop instru-
ments for State actors.
D. Simionescu, Permanent Representation of
Romania
It was important for accession countries to
be part of the process. The consultative
103
document failed to provide active partici-
pation from accession countries. Special
paths had to be set out for the accession
countries to follow.
A. Grof, Eurochambre
Accession countries must be included.
What Commissioner Diamantopoulou and
Professor Mateus had put forward was
supported: a goal-oriented policy, horizon-
tal policies and a new fiscal system based
on free market mechanisms.
If there was a consumer information cam-
paign, business community support would
be offered for it.
Rapporteur: Mr Henning Arp, Cabinet
Commissioner Wallstrm
He summarised what had been said in the
session and instanced the following high-
lights:
The local level offered opportunities and
could mobilise different actors, for instance
to raise awareness among consumers and
develop voluntary agreements with differ-
ent actors.
At the same time, the international per-
spective was stressed. Enlargement created
a special challenge and had to be addressed
in the strategy.
The strategy should also include social
rights and the gender dimension.
The sustainable development strategy was
an opportunity to reform common policy
in the European Union, to show strong
political leadership, to develop vision, clear
objectives and concrete proposals.
Ms Teresa Presas,
Corporate Director of Environmental
Affairs, Tetra Pak Group
Innovation was a key tool not sufficiently
recognised in the Commissions approach:
innovation in new materials, in sorting tech-
nologies, in recycling technologies, in new
incentives. But improving scientific knowl-
edge for policy-making was not enough.
Improving understanding on how business
works was also important. Steps forward
would come by working closely with the pri-
vate sector. Many industries were prepared
to develop voluntary agreements within
stakeholder dialogue.
However, assigning to industry sole responsi-
bility for managing waste from the products
they put on the market was not efficient. The
consumer played a key role. Sending the
wrong signals to the consumer, that he or she
has no responsibility, would not lead to
change in behaviour. Education, transparent
information and effective communication
would progressively make consumers more
like responsible citizens, both in purchasing
patterns and in domestic and community
behaviour. The toolkit in the Commissions
document did not emphasise this enough.
Waste management was handled by local
authorities or their subcontractors, the waste
Session 2 focused on three priority themes
identified in the Commission consultation
paper: Public health, management of
natural resources and ageing.
Chairman: Mr Allan Larsson, Chairman of
the Board of Swedish Public Television (SVT)
and former Director-General of the
Employment and Social Affairs DG of the
European Commission.
104
managers. They both operate on the basis of
different conditions that vary substantially
from one community to another. Municipal
authorities should also be involved in the
promotion of tools to improve waste man-
agement.
In setting objectives for recycling, it was nec-
essary to realise that recycling also often
increases transport; it was important to opti-
mise these issues. It was important also to
take into account recycling costs. Some mate-
rials and products were very expensive to
recycle and efforts should be placed else-
where. Energy recovery should sometimes be
considered as a recycling option.
The Commissions toolkit was a good basis
for action. Great efforts must be made to
reach key audiences. The sustainable devel-
opment concept must be capable of moving
decision-makers and leaders, be it at political
or business level. The sense and implications
of a sustainable development strategy must
be accessible to everyone. Communication
was the key!
Dr Wilfried Kreisel,
Executive Director WHO and Head
of the WHO EU Office
The needs and different dimensions of su-
stainability should be defined. A particular
problem was the failure to resolve the rela-
tionship between, and relative status of, the
economic, social and environmental dimen-
sions. Thus, while the need to make trade-
offs between the three dimensions of sustain-
able development was recognised, an opera-
tional framework was lacking. The three
dimensions play very different roles in the
concept of sustainable development in
essence, economic performance was seen as a
means towards the end of improving social
conditions within the constraints imposed by
environmental considerations. Many public
health problems were created through specif-
ic sectoral policies, e.g. the common agricul-
tural policy (CAP) and transport. These poli-
cies had many positive aspects but they also
impinged profoundly on the big problems of
food-borne hazards, dietary problems, tobac-
co and alcohol issues, on pollution and loss
of biodiversity, are major instances. The
paper did not tackle the obvious possibilities
for food industry and agriculture to develop
production in line with demands of health
and sustainable development.
Mr Daniele Franco,
Research Department Bank of Italy
The consultative paper outlined a compre-
hensive strategy and several possible solu-
tions. Public policies related to the ageing
issue were affected by most of the problems
indicated in the consultative paper. Several of
the solutions mentioned would greatly
improve the capacity to deal with ageing. But
certain issues should be stressed more force-
fully. The budgetary implications of ageing
was the driving force for policy changes.
Recent projections pointed for most EU
countries to substantial increases in pension
outlays. Additional budgetary pressures
more difficult to quantify would come
from healthcare and long-term care. These
trends called for large increases in tax levels,
which would affect negatively the perform-
ance of EU economies and conflict with the
trend towards lower tax levels stemming
from greater economic integration. For pen-
sions, the most viable solution was to
increase average retirement age. There was
need for substantial increases in the employ-
ment rates of workers in the 5565 age
bracket, pension reforms should provide
incentives to stay longer in labour markets.
105
The consultative paper should also briefly
face the budgetary issues raised by ageing for
healthcare and long-term care. The control
of health expenditure would need a wide
range of policy action. The design of incen-
tives for consumers, producers and insurers
was especially important for the efficient pro-
vision of health services and long-term care.
Medical, social and budgetary issues should
be considered jointly. Social protection poli-
cies as well as health policies were typically
matters for national governments and policy
changes to deal with ageing were mostly the
responsibility of Member States. The EU
could support adjustment by providing a
forum in which views about solutions and
experiments were exchanged. Moreover,
cooperation at EU level could exert peer
pressure for structural reform.
Mr Michel Rocard,
Member of the European Parliament
Two elements are, I feel, essential:
1. The importance of the firm commitment
from the Heads of State or Government
who, at the Helsinki Summit, highlighted
the challenges faced by the EU in forging a
sustainable development agenda quickly.
The need to take environmental considera-
tions into account in the economy in an all-
embracing bid to promote growth and
jobs has thus been officially recognised.
2. The excellence of the adopted approach,
which makes for a wide-ranging debate on
the key issues by encouraging (i) input
from the EU institutions, (ii) the involve-
ment of the Member States and (iii) con-
sideration of the views of civil society. This
is, I feel, the only legitimate approach to an
issue which affects the future of the world
we live in.
People have become aware of the need for
twofold solidarity that is, solidarity between
generations and towards the most disadvan-
taged, including, I would stress, the develop-
ing countries, which are often left out of our
discussions. This awareness has shown that
social issues are one area on which to focus.
If they want to bequeath a viable world to
future generations, rich countries must set in
motion a genuine cultural revolution. They
must rethink the factors underpinning their
wealth. Poor countries still lack the prerequi-
sites for a decent standard of living the
capacity to feed, house and clothe them-
selves. To attain acceptable levels, they must
leave behind the solutions extolled to them
for centuries and seek out different strate-
gies. And I am not talking here about the
essential need for peace, which is the pre-
condition, the sine qua non, for the survival
of the world. I do not think that nations have
ever asked themselves in these specific
terms what conditions have to be met if
their future is to be secured.
Sustainable development means thinking
ahead, adapting; above all, it means a desire
to live.
J. Hontelez, European Environment Bureau
The concept of producer responsibility as
presented by Ms Presas was too simplistic.
There was a need to develop a concept for
an enlarged EU.
C. Puppinck, CEEP
Joint efforts by Member States should be
made to prepare for the accession of the
candidate countries.
106
There was a need to incorporate health
issues.
G. Deuchars, AGE European Older Peoples
Platform
There was a need to develop a more posi-
tive way to view ageing (alarming and neg-
ative impression from the Commission
document).
There was also an urgent need to increase
the level of employment among older peo-
ple.
Firm action against discrimination and
unemployment was important.
S. Nslund, Administrative Director
of the Swedish Environmental
Advisory Council
The use of natural resources should be
given stronger emphasis: energy, material,
soil, terrestrial and maritime systems.
Decoupling the use of natural resources
from economic development was needed
urgently.
A new concept of development should be
developed.
B. Gabellieri, European Association of Joint
Institutions (AEIP)
There was a need to establish a link
between companies and requisite invest-
ments.
I. Graenitz, Global Legislators Organisation for
a Balanced Environment
The chapter of health should be integrated
into the other chapters.
Our forms of education and training need-
ed changing.
There was scope for companies to promote
healthy lifestyle of employees.
Rapporteur: Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark,
Director for International Affairs at the
Swedish Trade Union SACO and Member
of the Economic and Social Committee
Sustainable development was very much a
matter of making rational choices based on
knowledge, on hard facts, on not being in a
situation where decisions are taken by neces-
sity, but where we have intellectual capacity
and time for analysis and for making rational
choices. To do this, a lot more knowledge
and much more research and development
was needed. A large number of technology
leaps and many more investments in human
capital were essential. A society marked by
sustainable development was a knowledge-
intensive society. To develop a genuinely
knowledge-intensive society took time.
Industrys participation was highlighted in
the discussion. Earlier industry was very
often the villain in this context. But today,
industrys active participation, active com-
mitment, to be part of a movement for su-
stainable development, was often emphasised.
It showed that the number of active stake-
holders in the work for sustainable develop-
ment was in fact growing and industry could
play a very important part.
To create a sustainable society, public finances
must be in such good order that sudden eco-
nomic crises could be tackled. The need for
sustainable public finances was especially
pressing in the perspective of population age-
ing. Age discrimination at the work place was
one issue in this context to be addressed.
107
Attention was drawn in the discussion to the
linkages between various policies and policy
sectors, e.g. between transport and health.
These linkages had absolutely to be taken
into account when a sustainable develop-
ment policy was outlined. The need to
mobilise public opinion was obvious. Also,
solidarity between generations, people,
regions was an essential part of a policy.
One question was conspicuously missing in
our discussion about the ageing population:
why do we have so few children? It was not
possible to discuss this problem without
examining this question. Therefore, an active
family policy should be part of a sustainable
development policy, a family policy with real
economic and social opportunities for par-
ents to choose children and career.
The Rt. Hon. John Gummer MP
(former UK Minister for the Environment)
The heart of the problem was that we do see
this huge issue of sustainable development,
we spend a great deal of time defining it and
then remark on how big it is, how huge the
problems are, how enormous the steps which
should be taken and how difficult it is to
start. We need to recognise that big targets
are met by a host of small steps and we do no
good by trying to find the big answer.
We need a large enough Union to be able to
make the real decisions which make a differ-
ence. We also rely upon the willingness of
Member States to take action and on individ-
uals and communities to recognise their role
as well, but all within the context of the
Union.
The first category of action was to start being
prepared to set clear targets for change. It
was a scandal that at a time when Coca-Cola
had committed itself not to purchase any
HFC-driven refrigeration after 2005, the EU
had not done the same. In many areas, busi-
ness was driving the sustainability cause. The
refrigeration industry would be different
after 2005 because Coca-Cola had made that
decision; the worlds biggest user of refriger-
ation could change an industry. If we set the
standards well enough in advance we could
make industry the driver of what it had to do.
The second area of action was how to change
individual decision-making. You cannot
make a man good by an act of Parliament,
but it was perfectly easy to make good easier
than bad. His biggest complaint about the
EU was that it was too often prey to pre-
scription. We believed that bureaucrats and
politicians knew the answer but often they
did not. Say what people have to achieve;
they will know how to do it.
Finally, he chose to refer to procurement pol-
icy. Governments and the EU drove many of
the decisions made by industry because they
procure buildings, materials, services, etc.
And yet they did not do so in a green way and
that could so easily be done. Belfast City
Council was an exemplary exception. It man-
aged to decrease costs by over 20 % at the
same time as it actively promoted the envi-
ronment and sustainable development.
Session 3 focused on three priority themes
identified in the Commission consultation
paper: Climate change and clean energy,
poverty and social exclusion as well as
mobility, land use and territorial devel-
opment.
Chairman: Mr Jorgen Henningsen, Principal
Adviser, Energy and Transport DG, European
Commission.
108
Mr Henry Malosse, Director European
Affairs, Assembly of French Chambers of
Commerce and Member of the Economic
and Social Committee
In many countries, including France, the idea
of sustainable development is difficult to
understand. Taking the dictionary and my
own conviction as a lead, I would define it
as a soundly-based Europe. A soundly-
based Europe how is that to be achieved?
First of all, the various stakeholders involved
both inside and outside government
and the public themselves should be called
upon to demonstrate a greater sense of
responsibility. Education and training are key
aspects.
People can only exercise this sense of respon-
sibility, however, in a Europe that fosters
cooperation and the active involvement of
civil society. It is essential to underscore the
role of economic and social stakeholders.
Their primary task is as consultants, interme-
diaries and experts. Beyond that, however,
civil society organisations have also taken on
a specifically regulatory role, involving co-
regulation, self-regulation, codes of conduct,
mediation, arbitration, etc. The example of
the European Automobile Manufacturers
Association which managed to head off regu-
lation by a contractual commitment (to cut
CO
2
emissions) should be publicised and
promoted more widely.
As a body representing organised civil socie-
ty and the European economic and social
players of which it is composed we would
advocate a more inclusive Union strategy, so
that we do not compartmentalise or superim-
pose priorities but endeavour to see them as
one single policy, expressed in a variety of
different ways and drawing on a variety of
different tools. In this way, the Economic and
Social Committee would see itself as the
staunch advocate of a broad approach to
development, which should be harmonious
and soundly based.
Mr Anders Wijkman, Member of the
European Parliament
He deplored that time was so limited for dis-
cussion and dialogue on the strategy before
the Gothenburg Summit. The central goal of
the strategy had to be to set the framework
for a new model of development, where
social and environmental objectives were bal-
anced with those of economic growth. The
task was not only one of bringing harmony
between different objectives. The natural
environment had certain values that cannot
be substituted. The way conventional eco-
nomics treated these values was totally inad-
equate. Hence, the need for a new economic
paradigm, where measuring wealth, the qual-
ity of growth, the short-term versus the long-
term, etc., were given priority. Against this
background and the challenge involved, it
was even more regrettable that only a few
weeks were set aside for dialogue with major
stakeholders on the discussion paper and
that there was even less time for consulta-
tions once the strategy was presented.
In the consultative paper, a more in-depth
discussion would have been desirable as
regards the limitations of the neo-classical
economic model in dealing with the chal-
lenges of sustainability. There was a general
perception in society that economic growth is
positive for the environment (the so-called
inverted Kusnetz curve). However, for some
environmental problems, like the carbon
cycle, the nitrogen cycle, biodiversity, fresh
water scarcity and waste generation, the
opposite seemed to be true. The strategy had
to address this.
109
A comprehensive strategy had to integrate
the various sector strategies and deal with
cross-cutting issues. It could not be devel-
oped in a vacuum since EU policies in many
areas had consequences far beyond Europes
boundaries. Prominent examples were
export subsidies in agriculture, fisheries pol-
icy and activities of the national export cred-
it agencies. The EU had to ensure coherence
between its internal policies and their impact
on the rest of the world, notably on develop-
ing countries.
Mr J. Wriglesworth BP / UNICE
The long-term strategy set out by J.
Gummer was very good.
It was true that big targets are met by small
steps.
Better cooperation between authorities and
industry on the use of market knowledge
would help sustainable development.
New technologies should be mobilised to
solve problems (the EU could learn from
the United States).
J. Hontelez Secretary-General, European
Environmental Bureau
Prices had to rise to bring consumption
down.
It was not true that energy taxation was
always ineffective (e.g. Denmark and the
Netherlands).
J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser, Energy and
Transport DG, European Commission
The Commissions view was that energy
taxes would have a strong impact on man-
ufacturing and power generation but a very
small one on transport.
S. Nslund, Executive Director
of the Swedish Environmental
Advisory Council
Perverse subsidies should be eliminated
and right incentives for business intro-
duced.
There was much scope for dialogue with
industry.
In Sweden, energy efficiency had grown
but energy use had increased even more
(the rebound effect).
H. M. Lent-Philipps ACEA
Indicators or targets for energy intensity
were important.
Whatever form it took, transport would
need energy but maybe not fossil fuel
based.
J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser,
Energy and Transport DG,
European Commission
Of course renewable energy was essential
in the long term, but in the short and medi-
um term, focus should be on energy effi-
ciency.
Concerning taxes, a key factor was demand
elasticity and therefore better understand-
ing of each sector was needed.
One had to be aware of the possible
rebound effect after making energy more
efficient. The solution to that was better
education.
110
D. de Juncker COPA (Committee of
Agricultural Organisations in the
European Union)
COPA held that primary recyclable materi-
als (particularly bio-mass from agriculture)
can play an important role in the fight
against climate change.
Targeted policy to promote the use of these
materials and provide a more coherent link
between agricultural and environmental
policies was needed.
W. Schmidt Kster,
Trade Association of
Nuclear Industries Foratom
Different policies had to be made more
compatible. Energy and environmental
policies were not really consistent, as for
example in Sweden, where taxes are levied
on nuclear carbon-free electricity.
P. Lorenz, Friends of the Earth Europe
It was unlikely that nuclear energy would
solve climate change as for the last 50 years
nothing had been solved and the problem
of waste was still there.
One had to internalise external costs and
avoid energy that with waste lasting for
1 000 years was not sustainable at all.
B. Ollier, Head of Department Business-friendly
environment Eurochambers
The creation of new market opportunities
would drive a virtuous circle developing
cleaner technologies; if the customer
rewarded such technologies, the producer
would respond; so the price and incentive
had to be right but so did the climate for
innovation.
The creation of enterprises had to be easi-
er, the entrepreneurial spirit favoured and
this started out from education itself.
B. de Galembert Organisation
Europenne de la Proprit rurale
The rural world had not waited for the EU
to apply sustainable solutions; forests were
an example.
Such efforts should be further acknowl-
edged and encouraged.
D. Cloquet Director Industrial Affairs
Department UNICE
Good management was essential at all lev-
els, one had to look at the big picture.
Fiscal instruments were not right for all
cases.
Emissions trading was another possibility.
Company competitiveness and capacity to
invest had to be preserved.
G. Sklavounos, ESC member
With little scope for new policies, existing
ones should be saturated with sustainable
development.
How could synergies be maximised? To
what extent was regulation needed world-
wide? What was the EU/Member State
division of tasks? The new economic model
needed definition but how?
A new view of mans relation to nature and
other generations was needed.
R. Becker European Bishops Conference
This document focused on sustainable
development in Europe but how could pol-
111
icy help to achieve sustainable develop-
ment world wide?
Post-Rio, one should not see sustainable
development devoid of social coherence;
sustainable development meant north
south cooperation removing differences
between the two.
The EU should avoid harm to developing
countries by imposing trade barriers and
raise development aid to 0.7 % of GDP. If
we really wanted sustainability, these issues
were unavoidable.
J. Henningsen
The priority was to put our own house in
order first.
There was currently a lack of consistency
within the EU and between certain of its
policies.
C. Roumet European Social Platform
The Commission paper suggests rightly
that one can find winwin policies but
since that was not always possible one must
try to avoid the cost of sustainable develop-
ment falling on those least able.
F. Usscher Forum for the Future
It was hardly mentioned, but it played a
vital role. A common IT literacy across the
EU was needed and the EU had to take
responsibility to promote it. There were
several ways, for example networks of
online services and free software. The
Europa web site could be a platform for
that. The EU had to use the latest informa-
tion-sharing technologies.
P. Vanderlayen Policy Officer at the
European Anti-Poverty Network
At the Lisbon Summit, it was said that
eradication of poverty was a priority. This
needed a very broad approach.
Fundamental rights were also an important
issue.
J. Henningsen
The second version of this document
would be very different and focus on poli-
cy actions for sustainable development.
The important phase is not Gothenburg
but what will happen after Gothenburg.
O. Gerhard Mouvement International
ATD Quart Monde
Sustainable development and human rights
were indivisible.
G. Gourgeochon Union of the
Finance-Personnel in Europe (UFE)
Policies should create incentives to redis-
tribute profits from sustainable develop-
ment to end social exclusion, i.e. a more
voluntarist approach.
NN, European Federation working with
Homeless People
To raise standards of housing quality was
positive for the environment and employ-
ment.
R. Lax European Union Road Federation
The consultative document focused on
inter-urban projects but urban transport
had the greater impact on the environment.
112
Rapporteur: Mr Hanns R. Glatz,
Delegate of the Board of Management,
DaimlerChrysler
There was clearly full agreement on the desir-
ability of sustainable development. But as a
speaker pointed out, one big difficulty with
this concept is that its sense is very difficult to
render in all languages. Linked to this may be
the question of the place for ethical values,
which were briefly mentioned. Clearly, a lack
of shared ethical values makes it difficult to
define common objectives. Everyone agreed
that there is no single solution that can solve
all the problems at one stroke. At best, one
should fix performance standards and
abstain as far as possible from prescribing
precise measures; leave the individual actors
to work out how to get there, for example
through popular campaigns, voluntary agree-
ments, self-regulation, a whole range of pos-
sibilities. Education, as all agreed, was cru-
cial, but education without ethical values did
not work.
Government had both direct and indirect
responsibility. It had direct responsibility for
public procurement, export subsidies, etc.
and indirect responsibility, e.g. through the
impact of EU policies on the developing
world. The idea was mooted that the EU
could set a blueprint for the rest of the world,
but sustainability, particularly in relation to
climate change, required global solutions.
Clearly, the EU could do very much by itself
and create this blueprint for the rest of the
world. But it would still need to persuade
others; maybe exclusion could be a good
field for such an approach.
The scope for a new economic model and the
relevance of some artificial elements added to
the standard market economy needed to be
discussed much further. But the question of
priorities and how to reach them could not
be dropped. Priorities had to be set between
the various absolutely legitimate objectives,
otherwise the targets were impossible to
achieve. Governments pursued different pol-
icy objectives, coal promoted to preserve jobs
and security of energy supply, for instance, or
nuclear energy promoted as clean energy
instead of CO
2
-emitting fuels. Without clear
prioritisation, conflicts would arise.
As illustration of these quandaries the advan-
tage of repressive as against persuasive means
was discussed. Several speakers pleaded for
persuasive means, positive incentives, while
others argued that raising energy taxes or fix-
ing strict limits was the best way to achieve
effective results.
An interesting aspect was the rebound effect:
once substantial progress in relative energy
efficiency was achieved, the relative cost
relaxation might not produce the desired
drop in overall consumption and thus cut
emissions of CO
2
or a dangerous product.
There was strong regret expressed that the
environment and climate change was a glob-
al problem but that there was no global gov-
ernance. This took us back to the Kyoto
Protocol discussion.
On poverty and social exclusion, different
objectives were pursued by different groups.
There were different objectives in domestic
and in foreign policies. There was a need to
really help the developing world. Direct
action was important but indirect implica-
tions must be considered. It was pointed out
that the gender issue is largely missing in the
consultative paper. The same was true for the
very important area of ICT: the digital revo-
lution must be inclusive, but the question
was how to achieve that.
Social exclusion was a multi-dimensional
problem and must not be looked upon only
113
in the context of economic implications.
Education and training as responsibilities for
government and for the private sector was
mentioned again.
In conclusion, one had to look at all aspects
cultural, environmental, societal, educa-
tional, etc. for society to develop a su-
stainable future.
Mr John Hontelez,
Secretary-General
of the European
Environmental Bureau (EEB)
For environmental organisations, there was
much at stake in Gothenburg. Environ-
mental organisations had successfully cam-
paigned for inclusion of sustainable develop-
ment in the Amsterdam Treaty and since
then continued to make proposals and create
pressure leading to the Helsinki initiative.
The EEB had, mostly in cooperation with
others, tried to stimulate the work within the
Commission. The EEB had organised discus-
sions with the Swedish Presidency, national
governments, stakeholders on what the strat-
egy should look like. Most recent was a pub-
lication with 17 contributions from different
stakeholders. It showed remarkable agree-
ment amongst people with different back-
grounds and interests. Today, we would like
to present some common conclusions of
stakeholders, including environmentalists,
church representatives, trade unions, indus-
try, agriculture, etc.
We propose an overall objective: To become
the most resource-efficient economy in the
world, combining high standards of living,
good public health, strong social inclusion
and cohesion and a high-quality environment
with the long-term objective of reaching lev-
els of resource use and environmental impact
in line with the carrying capacity of the
European and global environment taking
into account the need to share environmental
resources equitably to allow sustainable
development for all the worlds people.
We also formulate specific long-term objec-
tives for each of the six areas in the
Commission document. We have also added
two objectives concerning global interde-
pendence and accountability to citizens. We
furthermore insist on the leadership of the
EU combined with active involvement of
civil society.
He concluded with personal comments, not
necessarily shared by other organisations. It
was important that the Commission adopt
not just the nowadays-popular three-pillar
image of sustainability, but also recognise
that resources and services offered by the
environment cannot be traded for the eco-
nomic or social products of civilisation.
There was also another important dimension,
the cultural one. We cannot let our cultural
values be hijacked by commercial interests.
Gothenburg should present at least one bold
and concrete programme, which was green-
ing the economy, including a review of pres-
ent subsidies and taxes. Gothenburg should
also start a discussion, leading to pertinent
results during the Madrid Summit before Rio
+ 10, challenging the dominance of trade lib-
Session 4 aimed to provide input to the
Commissions final proposal on the sus-
tainability strategy and the Gothenburg
European Council conclusions.
Chairman: Mr Josly Piette, Secretary-General
of the Belgian Trade Union Confederation CSC
and member of the Economic and Social
Committee.
114
eralisation over other interests. Finally, politi-
cians and business should stop resisting deci-
sions on environmental targets and timeta-
bles with arguments about scientific uncer-
tainty and lack of costbenefit evidence.
Mr Claude Fussler, Director
at the World Business
Council for
Sustainable Development
First, he stressed the importance of the glob-
al perspective. The consultative paper took a
view that it was best for the EU to put its own
house in order first and on track towards su-
stainable development. But, Europe could
only succeed in a world that succeeds.
Europe was responsible also for the transi-
tion of developing economies towards su-
stainability. The impact of its trade, people
and investment flows was so large that any
policy change in Europe would affect the
developing world. On the positive side, for-
eign direct investments and imports created
jobs and wealth. Immigration to Europe pro-
vided job opportunities and education. On
the negative side, our agricultural subsidies,
the protection of textile and other primary
sectors prevented or taxed imports depress-
ing prices, income, labour standards and
employment in many producing countries.
Secondly, innovation was a key issue. The
Lisbon Summit declared ambitiously to
make Europe the the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world capable of sustainable economic
growth with more and better jobs and greater
social cohesion. Innovation in technology,
social relations, consumer behaviour and pol-
icy framework would be intense if we were to
succeed in this. Yet, the consultative paper
made a cautious and reassuring case of the
transformation required. It played to the
classic wish for careful costbenefit analysis
of every policy measure. This was hardly
conducive to innovation.
Finally, the usefulness of simple indicators.
The euro convergence criteria inflation,
budget deficit and debt levels covered
economic complexity with powerful indica-
tors. Yet, every one who runs a chequebook
knows that deficit demands control of not
one but a host of economic variables. This
was the same for eco-efficiency. In a recent
resource productivity conference, convened
by the British Department of Trade and
Industry, all participants agreed that if they
had to measure progress by one single indi-
cator they would pick green house gas emis-
sions related to GDP, clearly an eco-efficien-
cy type of ratio. An economy that creates
more wealth while drastically reducing its
output of greenhouse gases was bound to
create better urban air quality, domestic heat-
ing and lighting efficiency, a shift away from
fossil energy sources, etc. It did so through
innovative solutions, new skills and knowl-
edge.
Ms Martine Buron,
Member of the
Committee of the Regions
The most important part of a strategy for sus-
tainable development was reform of working
methods. To create a good quality of life and
to find innovations in rural development
were essential elements. The six priorities in
the consultative document formed a good
basis. But it was evident that there were con-
flicts of interest. To find good solutions to
such conflicts, we had to work together from
a local and regional perspective. Public serv-
ices to the citizens had to work and this was
mostly the responsibility of local communi-
ties. The EU strategy dealt with European
institutions but it was also most important to
115
analyse how the proposals met the existing
structure of community services. A report
from the Committee of Regions would short-
ly address this issue. The inter-linkages
between EU level and regional/local levels
were important in many areas, for instance
waste management, resource efficiency and
food safety.
The strategy had also to take into account the
situation of older people, not only a matter of
providing services to the elderly but also of
integrating them into making society more
dynamic.
To sum up:
Regional and local perspectives should be
taken into account at an earlier stage in the
decision-making process for EU policies,
since policies very often were applied at
local and regional level. Local and regional
levels should therefore play a role upstream
in the decision-making process, how to
implement and assess the costs of propos-
als.
Structural funds should also take account
of the accession countries. To this end,
inter-regional cooperation should be
encouraged. A broad approach was needed
at all levels of decision-making.
Information to citizens very often went
through regional and local levels. This was
another argument for involving them in the
decision-making process as early as possi-
ble.
Mr Marc Pallemaerts, Cabinet of Belgian
State Secretary, Mr Olivier Deleuze
Work on sustainable development showed
the need to go beyond existing institutional
frameworks to new structures where all
aspects of sustainable development could be
considered. The work underlined the across-
the-board structure. In 1997, a new federal
law in Belgium set the platform for sustain-
able development work. An interdepartmen-
tal committee was set up to propose a feder-
al plan for sustainable development. One
important aspect was the involvement of civil
society. Thus, the Federal Council on
Sustainable Development was created with
all interests in society involved. A public
hearing was held as part of the work on the
sustainable development plan.
The Belgian Government intended to back
the Commission initiative and was prepared
to continue the work during its Presidency.
But the Belgian Government regretted the
late arrival of the consultative document and
stressed the importance of public participa-
tion. The fact that the political view from the
Commission was not yet available and that
the specific targets had not been presented
was a further problem. Thus, the Belgian
Presidency would contribute during its
Presidency and promote stakeholder partici-
pation.
The Belgian Government considered the
domestic emphasis in the EU strategy justifi-
able at this stage. The global perspective was
necessary and could be added, as
Johannesburg was the next step in the Rio
process. The Commission communication on
a strategy for the preparation of the next
global summit in 2002 was an additional ele-
ment.
A final comment related to the toolkit pro-
posed in the consultative document. The
toolkit described the available tools and
instruments but one important tool was miss-
ing, namely legislation. Law-making was one
of the fundamental processes in the work of
116
the European Union and should continue to
be so. EU law should be used in future devel-
opment of the strategy.
L. Mills, Consultant
There should be more of an analytical
background in the consultative document,
and the objectives for the strategy should
also be presented.
The regional and local dimensions were left
out in the document. She gave an example
from a local Agenda 21 project, with EU
support, where the objectives had been the
starting point in the project. It was impor-
tant to recognise all the work that had
already been done, for instance within local
Agenda 21, different Interreg projects, sus-
tainable cities and other urban projects.
M. Insausti, World Wildlife Fund
The EU strategy must have a global view,
the EU was not a fortress. Both aspects
were needed in the same document, the
internal for the EU to put its own house in
order and the external for the EU as a
member of global society.
S. Blau, Member of the European Parliament
Which were the steps after Gothenburg in
work on sustainable development?
Mr Becker, European Bishops Conference
He stressed the northsouth dimension.
Even though it was important to focus, it
was vital to have a global approach.
I. Ripa Julia, Environmental consultant
She gave an example of a strategy from the
region of Rioja. It had been developed
within the Rio framework, and contained a
holistic, global vision.
The global dimension was important.
The EU strategy should also aim to support
work at regional and local level and pro-
vide an example.
I. Niestroy, European Environmental Advisory
Councils
The decision in Gothenburg should
include objectives, set the overall strategy,
recognise the need to continue and thus
decide to return to the issue at the
Barcelona European Council.
K. Bradley, Alliance for Beverage Cartons and
the Environment
The paper presented by John Hontelez was
very good. If these were the objectives in
the EU strategy, his organisation could sign
up to the strategy.
The strategy should set the targets, fix the
numbers and industry would then find the
solutions.
C. Puppinck, CEEP
It was important to include not only envi-
ronmental but also economic and social
dimensions. It was all about daily life and
solidarity.
M. Buitenkamp, Consultant
We had to be aware that it took time to
understand sustainable development, it
was not possible to move too quickly if
people were to be involved and find good
solutions.
117
Rapporteur: Marc Vanheukelen,
Head of the Commissions Sustainable
Development Task Force
Everyone seemed to agree that the EU
strategy needed targets and indicators.
We needed to learn from one another,
maybe create peer pressure by publishing
indicators. Points were made on the neces-
sity to develop regional and national indi-
cators and also some general convergence
indicators.
The importance of the local level was
stressed, local authorities were often the
bodies responsible for implementation.
Several speakers stressed the importance of
global perspective.
Several speakers commented on the green-
ing of the economy as a major policy instru-
ment. Several of the unsustainable trends
were deeply anchored in todays structure
of our economy.
The need for the Commission to provide
leadership was also emphasised, leadership
to review common policies and develop
new policies of cohesion.
He concluded with some personal responses
to what had been said during the session.
The first point was that law and regulation
were of course part of the toolkit; this was
self-evident. The work at local level with
local Agenda 21 had been extremely useful
for mobilising different groups, but the EU
strategy would focus on measures at EU level
and recognise the principle of subsidiarity.
Maybe a fourth pillar could be added, the
pillar of participative democracy. The chal-
lenge was to create processes that allowed us
to rethink jointly.
Closing session
Mr David OSullivan,
Secretary-General,
European Commission
The Commission was very pleased at the
level of interest this public hearing had gen-
erated. Although the period of public con-
sultation on the Commission services con-
sultative document was shorter than it would
have liked, sustainable development had to
be a bottom-up as well as a top-down
activity. Our societies would not be able to
make the changes needed unless society at
large felt that it owns the strategy. And this
would not happen unless we had mecha-
nisms which allowed ordinary Europeans to
give their views. This was the purpose of this
public hearing and why, in the consultative
paper, comments from everyone were
expressly invited. And indeed, many private
citizens had taken the opportunity to give
their opinions. He was grateful for those
opinions as for the views expressed by many
during the hearing.
The strategy for sustainable development,
which the Commission would propose to the
European Council in Gothenburg, would
focus on the six themes identified in the con-
sultative paper. In each area, we will set a
small number perhaps two or three
clear, ambitious, but achievable headline
objectives, backed by an indication of the
main measures seen as necessary to reach
them. Our belief in the importance of chang-
ing the way policy was made to achieve con-
sistent policies would be stressed. Policies
had to pull together rather than in opposite
directions and we would set out the steps
that we think were needed.
Many had criticised the emphasis placed on
putting our own house in order. Some had
118
even accused us of a fortress Europe
approach. Nothing was further from the
truth. The Commission was fully committed
to global sustainability. Of course, develop-
ment policy had to support efforts by devel-
oping countries to achieve more sustainable
development. Of course, trade policies and
the international trading system in general
should not place barriers in the way of the
legitimate needs of developing countries. But
how could we credibly make the case for
change at international level if we did not
demonstrably improve the way we conduct
our own affairs? And, he said, let me be clear,
when we propose reforming our internal
policies to make sustainable development
their goal, that means taking full account of
their effects beyond the borders of the
European Union.
Finally, he expressed special thanks to his
colleagues in the Economic and Social
Committee for their help in organising this
hearing. In its strategy proposal, the
Commission would stress the importance of
transparency in policy-making and of wide-
spread stakeholder consultation and involve-
ment. As this hearing showed, the
Commission was at least trying to practice
what it preached.
Ms Birgitta Bostrm,
State Secretary,
Swedish Environment Ministry
She thanked the Economic and Social
Committee for arranging this hearing, and
for giving an opportunity to express the
views of the Swedish Presidency. Sustainable
development was really at the centre of polit-
ical debate. A sound economy, responsible
and stable welfare systems and an ecological-
ly sound and sustainable use of natural
resources and the environment had to be
achieved. And these long-term objectives
must be achieved all together, in an integrat-
ed process. This was the background to the
very clear linkages between the two summits
during the Swedish Presidency. In
Stockholm, decisions were made mainly
related to the economic and social aspects of
sustainable development. In Gothenburg the
environmental aspects of sustainable devel-
opment would be discussed, in order to
bring all three dimensions together into an
integrated process for the future.
The work within the Commission and a broad
consultation process would help to build gen-
eral support for the decision. The Commission
had chosen a number of themes as a basis for
its proposal. These themes covered very well
the main problems we had to tackle.
One of the themes, climate change and clean
energy, raised a crucial and in its essence
ethical issue for the future development of
the globe. Europe had to act now. It was not
possible to wait for others. We needed to
tackle the emissions of greenhouse gases and
review the policies for energy and transport.
We needed to review use of renewable ener-
gy and energy efficiency. Transport systems
had to be reformed. The railways in Europe
had to make rail more competitive to road
transport. Climate change would be one of
the main issues in Gothenburg. The EU had
to be prepared to discuss and to accept long-
term commitments to reduce the emissions
of carbon dioxide for the period even after
the Kyoto Protocol.
Another important theme was public health.
It was a very central issue today, when food
safety was intensely debated. At the same
time, this theme gave the opportunity to deal
with the risks related to persistent and bio-
accumulative chemicals. A third theme was
the use of our natural resources. In a time
119
when the common agricultural policy and the
common fishery policy within the European
Union were intensely debated, it was impor-
tant to stress also the need to protect biodi-
versity.
The Swedish Presidency had three goals for
the Gothenburg decisions on sustainable
development: firstly, to decide on an EU
strategy and to establish a handful of objec-
tives and targets for the environmental
dimension this would complement the
objectives and targets that follow from the
Lisbon strategy; secondly, to create a strong
link between the strategy and the EU com-
mitments under the Kyoto Protocol; and
thirdly, to lay the foundation of a successful
process to implement the EU strategy.
European Commission
A European Union strategy for sustainable development
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2002 119 pp. 17.6 x 25 cm
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
1
4
1
0
K
A
-
3
9
-
0
1
-
7
3
2
-
E
N
-
C
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
A

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

f
o
r

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
EN
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!
A European Union
strategy
for sustainable
development
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Estratégia Da UE para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Estratégia Da UE para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

S-ar putea să vă placă și