Eesc Stakeholder SD 05

Reviewing the
European Sustainable
Development Strategy
Preface
Preface
Anne-Marie Sigmund, EESC President
The Committee attaches great importance to the review of the Sustainable Development
Strategy and to the question of how stakeholders' views can be taken on board in the
process and how their ownership of the Strategy and commitment to its implementation can
be strengthened. Last year's public consultation and the Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable
Development in the EU, which the Committee organised on 14-15 April 2005 in cooperation
with the European Commission, are important elements which allow stakeholders to
exercise a prominent role in the review of the Strategy.
The participants of the Stakeholder Forum produced the contributions contained in this
brochure against the background of the Commission's initial stocktaking and future
orientations for the review, the Commission services' summary of the public consultation, a
communication on sustainable development indicators and the Committee's Exploratory
Opinion on the review. Based on the "Open Space" methodology designed to elicit maximum
involvement and creativity in a constructive atmosphere, the participants in the Forum
produced a set of 38 interesting reports with recommendations for the future Sustainable
Development Strategy. They also indicated their priorities for the future Strategy
highlighting the importance of a sustainable energy policy, the question of how to use
impact assessment as a tool for sustainable development, the need for a strengthened
social dimension, the sustainable use of natural resources and the link between the WTO
trade liberalisation process and sustainable development.
The Committee has made clear that it would welcome a concrete role in monitoring the
implementation of the Strategy and to be a focal point for the kinds of participatory
processes which sustainable development requires. We stand ready to organise future
Stakeholder Forums as well as other kinds of discussion fora to communicate on sustainable
development and the Commission has already demonstrated its readiness to take on board
our proposal to associate the Committee closely in the monitoring and implementation of
the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.
It is now up to the Commission to build on the views already expressed by civil society and
to propose a reviewed Strategy for adoption by the European Council in 2006.
Anne-Marie Sigmund
Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 3

Index
Index
Preface by Ms Sigmund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:

Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Speeches and debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Debate and concluding session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Reports of the working sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. A sustainable energy future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for sustainable
development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3. How to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable Development
Strategy. The fight against poverty and social
exclusion – an integral part of the Strategy. Ageing society . . . . 32
4. Sustainable use of natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. How WTO trade liberalization should relate to
Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. What support do the local and regional levels need from
the EU and the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. Role of research in support to the Sustainable
Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Programme for communication and education about
sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. Consumer information for supporting sustainable
development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

10. Sustainable development and global competitiveness . . . . . . . . 46
11. Implementation. How to make the Sustainable Development
Strategy Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
12. How to communicate sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
13. Sustainable urban policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
14. Declaration on principles for sustainable development.
What are the principles ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
15. What words could we use to make “sustainability”
understandable (to the people) ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
16. How to measure progress towards sustainable development ? . 53
17. Dematerialisation – Factor X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
18. Mainstreaming gender into the Sustainable Development
Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
19. Sustainable urban transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
20. How to generate the integrated knowledge needed for the
Sustainable Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
21. A focused strategy : what are the key ingredients for an EU
Sustainable Development Strategy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
22. Is sustainable development possible under
the neoclassical economics paradigm ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
23. How to make the Sustainable Development Strategy matter
for European politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
24. How can we improve communications about sustainable
development with consumers ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
25. Beyond Lisbon and Gothenburg : EU policy instruments
for eco-competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

26. How to motivate people (consumers) to buy green products . . 67
27. How to achieve the EU target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 69
28. Sustainable homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
29. Addressing all human needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
30. Leadership through government and how best
to demonstrate it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
31. Private ownership on the solution for the future of
sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
32. What role is there for a broadened health policy in
a reviewed Sustainable Development Strategy ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
33. What can the EU learn from Bangladesh ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
34. Better governance of the economy for the implementation
of the Sustainable Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
35. How can the EU Sustainable Development Strategy maintain
and preserve the European social model, represented
by small agricultural holdings ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
36. The European landscape – A framework for sustainability . . . . 80
37. Hubbert’s Peak, infrastructure failure, food security and
planning resistance to attempts at mitigation and transition . 81
38. External dimension of the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy : how can we engage the rest of the world,
including developing countries ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU :

List of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Documents on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy . . 95

Introduction
Introduction
This brochure contains the results of the 14-15 April 2005 Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable
Development in the EU, hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee in cooperation
with the European Commission to allow stakeholders to take a more involved and prominent
role in the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy.
Contributions by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, Vice-
President Margot Wallström, Commissioner Stavros Dimas and EESC President Anne-Marie
Sigmund and their debates with stakeholders provided much food for thought and rounded off
the discussions in the working sessions. You will find a summary of these contributions and
debates on the pages following this introduction.
The main content of this brochure consists of 38 working session reports with a series of
recommendations for the future EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Using the "Open Space"
approach, the Forum participants proposed a total of 50 issues for discussion in two
consecutive sets of working sessions and then decided which sessions they would attend.
Some issues were grouped and discussed in a single working session. On the second day, the
participants of the Forum evaluated 37 working session reports produced on the first day. They
then voted on priority issues in the context of the review of the Sustainable Development
Strategy. One report arrived late and was not evaluated, but is nevertheless included in this
brochure. The working session reports are published in the order of priority established by the
participants.
Indicating their main priorities for the future Strategy the participants highlighted in particular
the importance of a sustainable energy policy in the EU, the issue of how to use impact
assessments as a tool for sustainable development, the need for a strengthened social
dimension to the strategy, the importance of a sustainable use of natural resources by the EU
and the link between the WTO trade liberalisation process and sustainable development.
The participants of working sessions on energy issues decided to merge their discussion and
prepared a single report and so did participants concentrating on social issues such as social
cohesion, poverty and ageing. A variety of working sessions dealt with the use of natural
resources and the decline in biodiversity.
The nature of the concept of sustainable development was touched upon in many working
sessions and recommendations were made as to how sustainable development could be better
defined, what its principles should be and how the Sustainable Development Strategy should
be seen in relation to the Lisbon Strategy. Recommendations for institutions on different levels
were also formulated covering the distribution of tasks and responsibilities for implementation
within the EU. Several working sessions resulted in recommendations for communicating
sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Strategy, including suggestions for
a communication action plan. Linking in with communication issues were working sessions
dealing with the role of consumer information and education.

Several working sessions focused on knowledge, research and development. Urban policy,
including urban transport and housing, was discussed in three working sessions. Further
working sessions dealt with impact assessment and indicators, gender mainstreaming,
competitiveness, trade liberalisation, human needs, the role of private ownership, health
policy, economic governance, small agricultural holdings, the European landscape and the
external dimension of the Sustainable Development Strategy.

Stakeholder Forum
on Sustainable
Development
Programme
in the EU
Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU
Co-organised by the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Commission
at the building of the European Economic and Social Committee,
99 rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels, on 14-15 April 2005
Thursday, 14 April 2005

9 a.m. Opening of the Forum
Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and Social Committee
Ms Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission
9.30 a.m. The EU Sustainable Development Strategy: main achievements and shortcomings
Mr Kay Walter, journalist, a talk show with :
Mr Lutz Ribbe, Rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee on the review
of the Sustainable Development Strategy
Ms Mona-Lisa Norrman, Rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions on the review of the
Sustainable Development Strategy
Ms Madi Sharma, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Mr Günter Bachman, Head of Office, German Council for Sustainable Development
Mr Joël Decaillon, Confederal Secretary, European Trade Union Confederation
Mr Tony Long, Director, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office
Mr Alexandre Pasche, Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the environment
and societal questions
11.30 a.m. Mr Gert Fieguth, Professor, University of Applied Sciences – Kehl, Germany : Introduction
to the Open Space Method – collection of issues and questions for the working
sessions – identification of participants for the working sessions
The EU Sustainable Development Strategy: what is the vision for the future ?
2 p.m. 1st set of working sessions
4 p.m. 2nd set of working sessions
6 p.m. Evening news and closure of the first day (plenary session)

Friday, 15 April 2005
Making Sustainable Development a reality – from policy words to policy actions
9 a.m. Evaluation and prioritisation of the results of the working sessions – next steps
The participants in the Forum evaluate the working session reports and vote on priority
issues in the context of the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy.
10.30 a.m. Mr Willy De Backer, Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com, a discussion with:

Mr Stavros Dimas, Member of the European Commission
Ms Ulla Sirkeinen, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
The following representatives of the top five prioritised working sessions join Mr
Dimas and Ms Sirkeinen for discussion :
How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for Sustainable Development :
Mr Richard Howell, UK Environment Agency
A Sustainable Energy Future :
Ms Georgia Nakou, Principal Policy Analyst, Institution of Electrical Engineers
How to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable Development
Strategy; The fight against poverty and social exclusion – an integral part of the
EU Sustainable Development Strategy; Ageing society :
Ms Myriam Van Espen, Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en gérontologie
Sustainable use of natural resources :
Mr Patrice Christmann, Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS – The Association of the
Geological Surveys of the EU
How should WTO trade liberalization relate to Sustainable Development?
Mr Staffan Nilsson, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
12 noon Concluding session

Summary of the debates : Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark, Member of the European Economic
and Social Committee
Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and Social Committee
Mr José Manuel Durao Barroso, President of the European Commission
1 p.m. End of Forum

Stakeholder Forum
on Sustainable
Development in
Speeches and debates
the EU
Opening remarks and debates - Summary
Thursday, 14 April, 9.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.
Opening remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, ➔

President of the European Economic and Social Committee
Ms Sigmund welcomed all participants to the Stakeholder

Forum on Sustainable Development explaining that this
would not be a conference in the traditional sense, but an
open dialogue, using the "Open Space" method. There would
be no set agenda with specific topics, instead it would be up
to the participants themselves to decide which issues they
would like to discuss. Since this was a non-conventional
approach, it was clear that the European Economic and
Social Committee (EESC) was taking a risk, but Ms Sigmund stressed that as the Committee
(EESC) was an instrument of dialogue and democracy, this was a useful experiment in "live"
participatory democracy, in which participation was voluntary, but highly encouraged.
Ms Sigmund noted that, in her position as the President of the EESC, she thought a lot about
questions of European identity, such as what was the binding force holding us all together and
what made us European. She welcomed the Stakeholder Forum as a unique opportunity to give
direct input to the European decision-making process and to influence the future of the
Sustainable Development Strategy in Europe. Ms Sigmund hoped the participants would make
full use of the "Open Space" method to make their views known and that it would be an
enjoyable process.
Opening remarks by Ms Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission
Ms Wallström said that sustainable development was a subject close to her heart. She
remembered how as a teenager she had a very positive view of the future. Her
generation saw only opportunities: better education, new possibilities to travel and an
open new world. The economy was booming, technology developed every day and
everything seemed possible. The millennium shift was seen as the target, when it would
all happen. Then the millennium shift came and went, and we had somehow returned
back to the future. The future seemed no longer only bright. We started to see the
problems and learned that we could not continue the way we had been doing without
ruining our planet.

Ms Wallström also referred to a strong image from the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. There
she had seen what a difference the drilling of a well had made
to the life of a small village. Not only did it bring clean water,
but it also saved the women time, which they could use to
discuss how to improve their lives. On fact, the well brought
democracy to the village. This illustrated how sometimes
small, inexpensive actions could make a large difference.
Ms Wallström underlined the timeliness of this Forum on

Sustainable Development, coinciding with the start of the
Commission's work of revising the sustainable development
strategy. In this context, she also referred to the initiative
underway to produce a statement of sustainable development
principles and underlined the importance of the question as to
which policy areas the Sustainable Development Strategy
should cover – in other words whether the Strategy focused on Margot Wallström
the right priorities, whether there should be fewer priorities to
create a better focus or whether for example security should become a new priority issue. This
needed to be discussed, and Ms Wallström concluded that her task today was to listen to the
stakeholders and take on board their ideas.
Ms Wallström's draft speech has been published by the European Commission at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/Wallstroem-final.pdf
Mr Kay Walter, journalist, hosted a talk show on "The EU Sustainable Development Strategy :
main achievements and shortcomings" with :
Mr Lutz Ribbe, Rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee on the review of
the Sustainable Development Strategy
Ms Mona-Lisa Norrman, Rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions on the review of the
Ms Madi Sharma, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Mr Günter Bachman, Head of Office, German Council for Sustainable Development
Mr Joël Decaillon, Confederal Secretary, European Trade Union Confederation
Mr Tony Long, Director, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office
Mr Alexandre Pasche, Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the
environment and societal questions
Mr Walter introduced the debate by reminding the participants that four years had
passed since the Sustainable Development Strategy had been issued. He asked the
participants if they were satisfied with the progress made to date.

Ms Wallström replied that a lot more needed to be done. However, positive achievements had
been made, such as making sustainable development an established policy. Nobody questioned
its place among other policy areas and the objective of integrating sustainable development into
all other policy areas had become accepted. However, real implementation was still lacking and
it was important to demonstrate that the “European way”, i.e. economic growth in combination
with social integration and environmental protection, really worked. It had to be accepted that
this would take time. She underlined the positive role of impact assessment for this purpose.
Mr Long said that no real progress had been made. He saw the reason for this in the ecological
and economic worlds being too far apart. We were still striving to increase GDP, without looking
at the constraints. To overcome this we would not need more regulation and tools such as
impact assessments, instead we would need a sense of urgency. We would need the atmosphere
of the ’70s, when people talked about the risks of running out of resources and the great
dangers of pollution. Ms Wallström replied that there was a risk that people perceived these
warnings as “crying wolf”. The Club of Rome’s forecast that we would run out of oil and other
natural resources had not come true.
Mr Walter noted that enlargement was now a fact. He asked if the ten new countries
had had enough time to consider sustainable development and how they were
looking at this issue.
Mr Ribbe replied that they had of course had as much time as any other country. Rio and
Johannesburg had been international events, involving all countries. There had also been a long
pre-accession negotiation period with the EU, leading to adjustments of policies and legal
frameworks in the accession countries. The problem was rather the difference in ways of
perceiving the problem. The new Member States had probably not considered sustainable
development as an important issue, since catching up economically had been their main goal.
It had to be made clear that wealth came at a price, often paid by the environment.
Mr Walter asked if ordinary people really cared about sustainable development.
Ms Norrman said that it was difficult to read strategies and to follow debates, which meant that
most people did not even try. It was difficult for people to understand that the Sustainable
Development Strategy was meant seriously, when looking at the unsustainable society they lived
in and how little was actually changing. She also stressed the difficulties of communicating
sustainable development. The EU could make sustainable action easier for local and regional
authorities by, for example, encouraging green and local procurement. To be sustainable we
needed to adopt another view on trade and the free market economy. Ms Sharma said that
environmental policy only meant costs for companies. For a small or medium sized enterprise
(SME) having to raise environmental standards meant having to raise prices, which meant in turn
that consumers would prefer to buy from China or other low-cost countries. Ms Wallström
reacted by asking why countries with the highest living standards also had the highest
environmental standards, if the situation really corresponded to Ms Sharma's description.
Ms Sharma said that SMEs could not afford expertise in environmental policy. Large
multinationals could, but on the other hand they tended to leave the EU for China or India.

Mr Walter raised the question of how to communicate the Sustainable Development
Strategy.
Mr Pasche pointed to a strong willingness among companies to move towards sustainable

development. Often they lacked the right motivation and the knowledge to really go ahead.
This was most obvious among SMEs. It would have to be made clear that there were economic
advantages in implementing an environmental plan. He underlined the difficulty of
communicating the term sustainable development and the terms surrounding it, such as
“ownership”, “governance” and “stakeholder”. They were vague and could mean anything or
nothing. Ms Wallström said that improved communication was clearly a job for the
Commission. It would have to make people understand and convince them. Very few
consumers today acted out of ecological conviction. It also had to be clear, especially for
companies, that there was a cost of non-action.
Mr Walter asked at what level decisions should be made and whether all regions and
countries could be treated in the same way.
Ms Norrman said that some environmental problems were common for all. But in addition every
region had its specific problems to deal with. If there were legal possibilities of taking local aspects
into consideration in public procurement, local problems could be better dealt with and would
support local SMEs. Ms Sharma said that consumers did not necessarily want to buy local or
ecological goods. They wanted to buy cheap goods. Mr Long responded that we were in a time
of change with an increasing demand for ecological food. One problem was that the real costs were
not included in prices of all goods. He criticised the failure to internalise environmental costs,
which meant that non-ecological food was cheaper than it should be. Mr Ribbe emphasised that
we still had the approach that sustainable development should not cost us anything. We expected
that everything should remain the way it was and that the environment should become healthier
at the same time. He underlined that things would clearly not work that way.
Mr Walter asked if eco-business really was possible and profitable.
Mr Pasche pointed to many advantages of “going green”. Companies needed to break out of
the vicious circle of believing that being environmental cost more – that prices would have to
be raised and that costumers would leave for low-cost country products. Some of the
advantages of being green included: decreased liability risks by respecting rules and laws; the
possibility to get other important clients by demonstrating a higher standard (schools,
ministries etc,) and the opportunity to be a first-mover in a niche market. Ms Sharma
responded that, instead, the cost of complying with EU standards could be saved : companies
could move to China and still keep European market share by exporting to the EU. Ms
Wallström said this had to be looked at in a constructive way. The way forward could no
longer be to lower our standards to China’s. One way to help SMEs could be to give financial
support for environmental advice or to encourage SMEs and non-governmental organisations
to work together to find solutions. Mr Bachmann said that we were underestimating the
success stories we already had on eco-business in the EU. Corporate social responsibility and
environmental awareness in companies were increasing rapidly. The renewable energy sector,
for example, was a real “job creating machine”. He also pointed out that China and many other
neweconomies had increasingly strict environmental rules and laws.

Kay Walter and Margot Wallström
Mr Walter asked the members of the panel if they thought the Sustainable
Development Strategy should concentrate on fewer issues.
Ms Wallström replied that this question was currently being considered. The current six
main issues were important, but it was possible that some should be exchanged. One
important issue possibly to be added was security. Mr Long said that the six topics were
useful as a guide. The focus had been right, but the level of ambition had been too low. In
the future the big issues would remain climate, energy and transport. Mr Ribbe agreed that
the topics were the right ones, but recommended to look further. Rules and norms tended
to be set for large enterprises and did not favour SMEs and local production. As an example
he mentioned hygiene rules for food processing that clearly put local production at a
disadvantage and therefore did not favour sustainable development. Mr Bachmann also
agreed that the issues were the right ones, but that better benchmarking tools were needed
to measure progress. Security was, and would continue to be, an important issue for
sustainable development. Ms Norrman said that security was important, but rather from a
social point of view. Extreme events such as floods and terrorism were costly and difficult
but the real security problem was to be found in inter-personal violence, such as domestic
violence. This was an important issue linked to jobs, wealth and equity. Ms Wallström
agreed that violence was an important issue to be dealt with which, however, did not have
its place in the debate on sustainable development. She warned of losing focus as a result
of trying to fit everything into sustainable development. Talking about the security aspects
of sustainable development meant mainly geopolitical instability because of shortage of oil,
gas or other natural resources, or refugees from environmental phenomena. When talking
about sustainable development we would have to keep the timeframe in mind. SMEs had a
short-term perspective having to manage payments at the end of the month, while
sustainable development policy was very much a long-term perspective, spanning a
generation or more.
Ms Sharma said that we would have to create wealth in Europe or else we would have
nothing. She noted that she was the only member of the panel with an activity generating
wealth for society. Competitiveness was the most important aspect to consider because we
could not afford to lose more companies in the EU. Policy makers had to understand the SME
perspective. Ms Wallström admitted this to be partly true, while pointing out that if we
did not consider the environment while creating wealth, we would also end up having
nothing. Mr Long said that the concept of wealth as a measurement of a good and healthy
society was part of the problem. Instead we should talk about welfare, which included not
only economic growth, but also education, quality of life, etc. Mr Pasche noted that we all

took the view that there was a conflict between profit and environmental protection. This
might stem from a Catholic philosophy in which virtue and profit could not co-exist. Maybe
that was why it had been easier to introduce sustainable development with win-win
arguments in Protestant countries. Mr Decaillon said that to be able to implement
sustainable development we needed a lot of new research and innovation. In order to
achieve this we needed open minds and space, in the sense that we needed dialogue,
negotiation and broad views. The Nordic countries were ahead in considering sustainable
development, perhaps because of their tradition of negotiation and democracy. It was
important to remember that there would never be only one model for sustainable development.
Mr Walter asked the members of the panel for their vision of the Sustainable
Development Strategy.
Mr Bachmann hoped that we would start producing more than papers so that
implementation could really get going. The Millennium Development Goals were up for review
this year and while we were far away from actually meeting them he expressed his hope that
we would remain ambitious and not back away from the goals set. He deplored that this was
the case for the Lisbon Strategy. When we saw that the targets would not be met we lowered
them. It would be very sad to do the same with the Sustainable Development Strategy and the
Millennium Development Goals. Ms Norrman said she wanted more of the money in the
research programmes to go to research on sustainable development, including issues such as
gender policy, public health and SMEs. Every policy area should integrate sustainable
development, but to better focus the actions priorities should be identified within each policy
area. Mr Pasche was optimistic about progress with sustainable development because almost
all actors were saying that they were willing to do something. It was important to help people
get to together, to communicate, so that things could start happening. Ms Sharma said her
vision of the Sustainable Development Strategy was one that protected the environment and
helped create a strong social society. However, it must also allow for profit for SMEs and to
take account of SMEs' special needs. Mr Decaillon said a Sustainable Development Strategy
must take account of citizens and respect them. That was why the social dimension was so
important. The social partners must have a strong role in the process. Mr Long said his vision
was a socially just, equitable EU where wealth would be shared. He said we needed real
commitment to sustainable development and to the Millennium Goals.

Stakeholder Forum
on Sustainable
Development in the EU
Debate and concluding session
Making sustainable development a reality – from policy words to policy actions
Evaluation and prioritisation of the results of the working sessions – next steps
Debate and concluding session - Summary
Friday, 15 April, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Remarks by Mr Stavros Dimas, Member of the European Commission
Mr Dimas said that sustainable development remained at the heart of the

Commission’s policy agenda. The strategic objectives, which were setting
the Commission’s priorities for the coming five years, recognised the need
for sustainable development and stressed that actions that promote
competitiveness, growth and jobs could be mutually reinforcing with
social cohesion and a healthy environment.
Mr Dimas said that unfortunately the environmental situation in the EU

was getting worse, not better. For example, the negative impacts of
climate change were growing, and ecosystems were being increasingly
exploited. The revised Sustainable Development Strategy must therefore
be made more ambitious. He said we needed to set detailed targets, Stavros Dimas
milestones and indications on how to measure progress. There needed to
be effective monitoring procedures put in place. In addition, we needed concrete actions, and
one of the most important would be to change consumption and production patterns.
Examples of how this could be done included to promote green procurement, develop further
the concept of Integrated Product Policy, and setting prices right, so that they would reflect the
full cost to society. He also mentioned the need to reform harmful subsidies, and to get REACH
adopted. Finally, Mr Dimas said that the Commission was working on the seven thematic
Strategies for the environment, which would be adopted this year.
Mr Dimas emphasised the importance of involving all actors in the work of revising the
Sustainable Development Strategy. He said that sustainable development was a concept elusive
to many citizens. The idea of a declaration could make it more comprehensive by focusing on
some important aspects in a short concise text. He added that events like the Stakeholder
Forum were particularly important since they helped to focus on issues that people believed to
be most important. Mr Dimas concluded by saying that the best ideas from this Forum would
certainly be picked up by the Commission in its final proposal.
Mr Dimas' draft speech has been published by the European Commission at:
http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/231&format=H
TML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

Remarks by Ms Ulla Sirkeinen, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Ms Sirkeinen recalled that the EESC had been active on sustainable development for many
years now, starting even before the Göteborg Summit. She considered the EESC to be very well
suited to deal with sustainable development because of its composition of three groups of
members, employers, employees, and other interests, including environmental interest groups.
Ms Sirkeinen pointed out that this composition mirrored the three pillars of sustainable
development and all of its aspects could therefore be well represented and defended. She
mentioned that the EESC was pleased to see that the Commission had often taken up ideas
included in the opinions of the EESC.
Ms Sirkeinen said that when we were talking about sustainable development there were in fact
two different approaches: the first was the horizontal approach where sustainable development
had to be considered in all policy areas, at all policy levels; the second was to look at the six
prioritised areas in the Sustainable Development Strategy to see how to improve them. The
EESC had mainly looked at the first approach, the horizontal, since it has been necessary and
important to try to break down the barriers between different policy areas. Ms Sirkeinen
emphasised that what we now needed to focus on was how to achieve results. She said that
most people agreed on the goals but we would have to find tools to achieve them. Particularly
important, according to Ms Sirkeinen, was to search for win-win solutions, or at least balanced
solutions, and she therefore highlighted the importance of involving stakeholders. She
concluded by saying that to make things happen we would also need leadership and that all
would be looking particularly to the Commission for that.
Debate hosted by Mr Willy De Backer, Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com
Mr De Backer wondered if there was not a problem having two strategies, the Lisbon
Strategy and the Sustainable Development Strategy, running in parallel, and partly
over-lapping ?
Mr Dimas answered that the two strategies were indeed partly over-lapping but that they
were also substantially different. He explained that the Lisbon Strategy would run until
2010. It had been put into place to solve a relatively short-term problem; to kick-start
Europe by putting focus on growth and jobs. The Sustainable Development Strategy on the
other hand was a permanent strategy. He said that it had a much broader scope. It was
enshrined in the Treaty as one of the priorities of the EU and it was global. Ms Sirkeinen
said that the economic pillar of the Sustainable Development Strategy was weak and that
this had been compensated for by the Lisbon Strategy. The Sustainable Development
Strategy had indeed a much broader scope. She added that it could be described as a
moving target, since no clear targets had been set.
Mr De Backer said that if the Sustainable Development Strategy was considered an

overarching principle and one of the main priorities of this Commission, would there
then not be a problem when the Commission called itself the “Lisbon Commission”
and very strongly promoted growth and competitiveness ?
Mr Dimas answered that it was true that the main focus was on increased growth and more

Ulla Sirkeinen and Richard Howell
employment. However he explained that this did not mean that the social and environmental
parts of the Sustainable Development Strategy were being downgraded.
The participants in the Forum had voted on which five working groups they had
found the most interesting. The following persons representing these working
groups joined Mr Dimas and Ms Sirkeinen for a discussion :
Mr Richard Howell, UK Environment Agency : How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for
Sustainable Development
Ms Georgia Nakou, Principal Policy Analyst, Institution of Electrical Engineers : A Sustainable

Energy Future
Ms Myriam Van Espen, Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en gerontology : How

to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable Development Strategy; The fight
against poverty and social exclusion – an integral part of the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy; ageing society
Mr Patrice Christmann, Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS – The Association of the

Geological Surveys of the EU : Sustainable use of natural resources
Mr Staffan Nilsson, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee : How should
the WTO trade liberalization relate to Sustainable Development ?
Mr De Backer asked the representatives from the five working groups to present
their results and recommendations.
Mr Howell represented the group that had discussed how impact assessments (IAs) could be
a tool for sustainable development. The group had given the following recommendations :
- IAs are meant to inform decision makers but in the end the actual decisions must be
political;
- The assumptions made in an IA have to be very clearly stated;
- The capacity of institutions to use IAs and to base decisions on them have to be increased.
Mr De Backer pointed out that in the case of REACH around 50 IAs had been made and they
all came to different conclusions, depending on who initiated the study. Mr Dimas said that
all these IAs served a purpose of bringing new pieces of information to the decision-makers.

However he underlined that assumptions had to be made explicit and that it had to be clear
from what angle the IA had been made. Ms Sirkeinen said that an IA was not easy to handle
but that is was the best tool available. She added that we would have to work on developing
the methodologies and that it was important to include qualitative measurements for all the
impacts we cannot measure in figures. Mr Paul Geraads, Member of the European Economic
and Social Committee, asked at what geographical level an IA should be carried out since a
global IA might undermine an IA made on EU level. Mr Howell said it was important to limit
the scope of an IA and to tailor it to the relevant area and level.
Ms Nakou presented the results of the working group on sustainable energy future. Some of
themain conclusions were :
- The timeframe of the energy strategy should be extended to 40-50 years;
- Energy efficiency should have a more prominent role in EU energy policy. That concerned
technology development but also education and awareness raising. Pan-European
campaigns similar to the one against smoking should be organised;
- There should be more focus on diversity of energy sources for geopolitical reasons, as well
as for low-emission supply reasons.
Ms Sirkeinen said that she missed the price aspect. Economic and social aspects were very
much dependent on the price policy on energy. Ms Nakou answered that this issue had been
discussed in the group, especially in relation to supply and to environmentally harmful
subsidies. Mr Alexandre Pasche, Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the
environment and societal questions, asked what action the Commission had taken about cars
that consume an excessive amount of fuel. Mr Dimas answered that he drove a very small car!
He added that it would be impossible to legislate against people’s freedom to buy a car of their
choice but the full costs to society should also have to be paid by the consumers, which was
not always the case today. Taxes and prices would have to take environmental costs into
consideration. Mr De Backer said that maybe there ought to be a European action plan for
energy awareness.
Ms Van Espen presented the results of the working group on the social aspects of the
Sustainable Development Strategy. She said that in general the social pillar of sustainable
development was far too underdeveloped and needed a lot more attention. She noted that
often there were no links between the three pillars. Some of the main conclusions of the group
were :
- The EU would have to consider the serious issue of poverty. We would need to reverse the
unsustainable trends of today;
- Equality had to be considered a positive opportunity for sustainable development;
- The EU should not look at the ageing of the population as something negative but should
also take advantage of experience and qualities.
Mr De Backer asked what specific actions could be taken within the Sustainable Development
Strategy, or the Lisbon Strategy, to better cover social problems. Ms Van Espen said that there
had to be awareness of the fact that social and environmental policies and actions also could
lead to jobs and growth, even though not always in the traditional sense of economic growth.
Mr Dimas said that we must not forget the social dimension in a global perspective. He added
that poverty in the third world was a very unsustainable factor for the whole globe.

Georgia Nakou and Richard Howell
Mr Christmann presented the work carried out by the working group on natural resources. He
stressed that natural resources were the basis of everything and that there was an ongoing
process of mass-extinction that was far from sustainable. Some of the recommendations from the
group were :
- Harmful subsidies would have to be removed. Subsidies should only be allowed if they
were sustainable;
- Taxation should be moved from labour to natural resources. This would discourage
excessive exploitation of natural resources and lead to more employment;
- Develop knowledge about resources, use life cycle analysis more systematically;
- Give support for capacity building in third world countries in order to better manage
natural resources.
Mr Nilsson gave a brief presentation of the work done by the working group on WTO and
sustainable development. Some of the recommendations were :
- The most important aspect would be to get an acceptance for internalising external costs;
- To help internalise costs life cycle analysis and labelling could be useful tools;
- It is important to address the fact that developing countries often perceive environmental
concerns as “green protectionism”;
- The issue of global governance needs attention since institutions could be key actors.
Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee,
briefly summarised the results of the Forum. He said the work had been very interesting
and fruitful and he highlighted the following issues :
- Political signals : There needed to be a clear political signal confirming that sustainable
development really was an overarching policy for the EU;
- Governance and leadership : Sustainable development was a radical concept, which would
require some very uncomfortable decisions. We would need an active dialogue to be able
to get people aboard and create a willingness to participate in the project;
- Lisbon strategy and Sustainable Development Strategy : The connections, the over-lapping
and the conflicts between these two strategies would need to be more clearly explored and
explained;
- Impact assessments : Interestingly, impact assessment as a tool for sustainable
development was perceived as the most important topic by many participants at the

Forum. This approach still needed to be better developed to win acceptance as a political
tool for decision making;
- Energy, social dimension, natural resources and WTO were other priority areas : Since
presentations had already been made from the working groups Mr Ehnmark did not
comment further on these topics;
- Research : More investment in research and education on sustainable development would
be needed;
- Communication : Better dialogue and communication with citizens and stakeholders would
be necessary to make sustainable development work in reality. This would be especially
important if we wanted consumption patterns to change.
Mr Ehnmark said that this Forum had shown that the stakeholders were willing to take part
in the work on sustainable development and that there were lots of valuable and interesting
ideas to capitalise on.
Closing remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and

Social Committee
Ms Sigmund said that the “Open Space” method had proven to be a very useful approach for
this stakeholder forum and that she was very pleased with the results achieved. The Forum was
a good example of how the EESC can work as a bridge between civil society and the EU
institutions. She said that the EESC did not necessarily have to stand in the centre but was
happy to provide a platform for dialogue and communication. The participants were assured
that the work that had been carried out in these two days would not be lost. The summaries
from each working group would be handed to the Commission. She added that the EESC would
ensure a follow-up of the work on the Sustainable Development Strategy and would continue
giving its input. Ms Sigmund said that EESC would be happy to support the Commission in the
monitoring and implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy. The EESC, together
with its network of partners and contacts all over Europe, could play a crucial role in the
monitoring and implementation of the strategy.
Closing speech by Mr José Manuel Durao Barroso, President of the European Commission
Mr Barroso said that he would be happy for the EESC to be associated with the monitoring
and implementation of the Strategy. There would be a need for more dialogue Forums. He said
that looking at sustainable development made us think strategically and enabled us to
incorporate the future in our day to day thinking. Sustainable development was not just a
strategy for the EU but a permanent objective to be fulfilled by various other strategies of
which the Lisbon Strategy was one. He emphasised that the
political signal was clear: there was a need to decouple
economic approach from environmental degradation and focus
on sustainable production and consumption.
Mr Barroso said that sustainable development had become one

of the buzz words of this century. If it is typed into Google no
less than 36,400,000 internet pages on the subject appear. He
said we have all heard the word but few have looked behind the
jargon to find out what it really means. Looking at this context,

Staffan Nillson, Anne-Marie Sigmund, José Manuel Durao Barroso and Willy De Backer
Mr Barroso pointed out that this Stakeholder Forum on sustainable development had been
important. The participants had worked hard on finding recommendations and conclusions to
deliver to the Commission in order to improve the Strategy on Sustainable Development.
Mr Barroso confirmed that he personally attached a lot of importance to sustainable

development, and the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy. He had been at the
World Summit in Rio in 1992 when sustainable development had first been discussed. He
mentioned that the Commission had an integrated vision – encompassing the economic, social
and environmental dimensions of the Union. Ensuring that the renewed Lisbon Strategy
focused on growth and jobs was an important step towards sustainability. Without increasing
our growth potential we would not be able to sustain our unique model of society. However,
all measures taken must be informed and guided by our broader vision of sustainable
development.
Mr Barroso said that according to him a solid sustainable development strategy would need clear
objectives and targets. He took the example of transport and said that it was not enough that
Commissioner Dimas had such a small car, even though it clearly was a good contribution! We
would need to be specific about what tools and policy measures we want to use. The strategy
also needed new instruments and innovative means of delivery. We must make greater use of
technology and research. In addition, we would need to clarify the governance of the strategy.
Who does what? What could be done at national level and what needs to be done at EU level?
Finally, we must monitor the strategy better. We have to set clear targets and deadlines. Mr
Barroso said that particularly in monitoring the implementation of the strategy, the EESC could
have an important role as well as in relation to monitoring the delivery and deadlines.
Mr Barroso thanked the participants at the Forum for their contributions. Almost all the
important issues of sustainable development had been covered by the recommendations given
by the 50 working groups. He assured the participants that the Commission would take a close
look at the conclusions made and the priorities listed. There was a need to be positive and
share success stories. He outlined the timetable for future work, building on a declaration on
guiding principles to be considered at the June Summit. Proposals would be made in the
autumn which would be new and ambitious and linked closely to the international
commitments of the EU. The link between the Lisbon Strategy and sustainable development
would be brought to the fore.
Mr Barroso's draft speech has been published by the European Commission at :

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/Barroso-final.pdf

Stakeholder Forum on
Sustainable Development
in the EU:
Reports of the
working sessions
1 A sustainable energy future
Names of participants : add urgency to the task of securing future

energy. Both of these concerns need to be
Jonas Norrman, Georgia Nakou, Vincent addressed in tandem. In addition to
Denby Wilkes, Harry Lehmann, Francisco encouraging the adoption of renewable, a
Núñez, Manuel Irun Molina, Tomas Landers, sustainable energy strategy should consider
Isabelle Maître, Torben Timmermann including other clean and efficient
technologies, such as clean use of fossil
fuels, cogeneration and safe nuclear power.
Results :
A truly sustainable energy system should
A sustainable energy strategy should include strategic planning, not only at the
combine low greenhouse gas emissions with level of primary energy sources, but also
security of supply, avoiding long-term infrastructure. New power generation
environmental risks. Energy should be the patterns and new fuel sources are already
subject of long-term strategic planning on a challenging the existing systems – for
total system level. The timeframe for this example, electricity networks will have to be
strategy should be longer than hitherto reconfigured to actively manage demand and
envisaged in the EU Sustainable Development supply. The creation of an energy-efficient
Strategy, in the range of 40-50 years, and the built environment through retrofitting of
transition to a low emission system should existing stock and new build will need
be managed to phase in existing decades of sustained effort.
technologies while researching and planning
for future developments. Market mechanisms can deliver a sustainable
energy system if they are properly designed
The most sustainable energy is the energy to internalise environmental costs and to
you don’t use. Measures to improve energy stimulate innovation. The ongoing
efficiency should be taken in all sectors. For liberalisation of European energy markets
example, the road transport sector currently should be used as an opportunity to promote
has no viable alternative to diesel fuel, but sustainability by shaping the markets to
improvements in engine technologies respond to social demands. The careful
combined with eco-driving initiatives can design of support schemes for renewable
mitigate emissions from this sector. Ageing energy through national policies but also
building stock is resulting in a considerable through the creation of a market for green
waste of energy, and incentives must be certificates at the European level could
found to improve the energy efficiency of ensure that the best technologies are
buildings. Aside from technological implemented in the most cost-efficient way
solutions, however, more information needs in the most suitable regions.
to be made available to the public through
long-term education initiatives (similar to Research into the technologies of the future
anti-smoking campaigns) to reverse should be encouraged, even as current
unsustainable consumption habits. technologies are being applied. One of the
first steps should be to encourage
Security of supply must be based on a information exchange and knowledge
diversity of energy sources and technologies dissemination within the European area over
in the short, medium and long term. the next 10-20 years to make the best of
Concerns over the limited availability of existing knowledge and share best practice
primary energy sources, together with through the Technology Platforms and
geopolitical sensitivities in source regions similar mechanisms. Priority areas for future

research should be allocated around the Next steps / Recommendations :
principle of sustainability. Suggested areas
include environmentally friendly ■ A longer term strategy for sustainable
technologies for the commercial vehicle energy (40-50 years)
sector, fuel cells, safe nuclear technology and
bio-fuels. Finally, greater effort is needed to ■ Consideration of more diverse energy
create the mechanisms for bringing new sources and technologies
technologies to market. ■ Strategic infrastructure planning
On a more general level, there is a need to
■ Careful design of sustainable market
create real policy coherence and to overcome
mechanisms
the divisions created by the established
sectoral approach within the Commission, ■ Better knowledge dissemination
and the different and overlapping timescales
for the various programmes and strategies. ■ Better policy coordination
The tensions that currently exist between
competitive public procurement rules and ■ Flexible policy design
sustainable transport and logistics patterns,
are one example of a situation that must be ■ Better framing of the global context of the
remedied through better policy coordination. EU Sustainable Development Strategy
Strategy decisions should be based on a
rigorous and pragmatic assessment of costs
and benefits.
Within the European-level policy-making

process, there needs to be greater
recognition of the diversity among Member
States, in terms of natural resources,
processes, priorities, and pace of
development. We do not need an “average”
energy policy for the whole of the EU, but
rather a strategy which will allow best use of
locally available resources, while using
pooled knowledge to quicken the pace of
development where possible.
Finally, the European strategy needs to be

placed within the global context. This
includes consideration of the balance
between European initiative and the need for
global action. While there are areas of
synergy between, for instance, research in
the EU and the US, there is still debate over
whether mitigation of climate change
requires a formal global agreement.

2 How to use Impact Assessment as a tool
for sustainable development
Names of participants : communicated to all interested parties and

stakeholders;
Nina Cunningham, Truus Huisman, David
- Capacity building: there is a need for a
Sears, Roshan Di Puppo, Richard Howell,
change of culture within the institutions, so
Pendo Maro
that IA is seen as an integral part of policy-
making. This is linked to training of staff
within the institutions on IA;
Results :
- Budget and financing: there is a need to
The group agreed that the general purpose of provide financing to effectively carry out IA
Impact Assessment (IA) was to inform at the institutional level (e.g. towards
decision-making by providing decision training of staff) and also to facilitate
makers with information about possible stakeholder participation. Financing should
economic, social and environmental impacts be a part of risk-based approach;
of a policy, identify trade offers and propose
- IA is underpinned by two fundamental
policy options to achieve policy objectives.
principles : sustainable development and
The group felt that IA should be a continuous good governance;
process, throughout the policy-making cycle, - Data : this is linked with the knowledge-
and not a one-off event; it has to ensure based society. However, the lack of
t r a n s p a re n c y i n p o l i c y - m a k i n g a n d knowledge should not be an obstacle to
acceptance and ownership of legislation and decision-making; we can always rely on
regulations thought the EU and within assumptions e.g. the precautionary
different sectors. principle;
In order to achieve this, the following issues - Allow for error margins in policy making:
were discussed : sometimes decisions made 20 years ago
are not applicable now, so we need to
- Objectives of IA should be based on the adapt to priorities;
three dimensions of EU sustainable
- The criteria for policy evaluation should be
development and should identify what
decided at the start of the process and not
policies are in place already and their
effectiveness; at the end; this should allow for a review of
the policy to decide whether it is still
- The timing : IA should be at the start of the needed or not;
policy making process; and should be
linked with stakeholder participation; - Benefits : it is often difficult to identify
benefits of impacts, e.g. on human health
- Affected stakeholders should be identified and biodiversity; also there are differences
early on in the process and should be in monetization approach within the
consulted on time, at the beginning of the different sectors and Member States;
policy making process;
- What is the role of consultants in IA? How
- Who should conduct consultations ? objective are they ?
- The IA methodology : there is a need for - Participatory democracy : who should
quality improvement and to consider i d e n t i f y s t a k e h o l d e r s ? W h o a re
external dimensions of impacts of EU stakeholders ? An agreed definition was
legislation; that a stakeholder is someone representing
- The assumptions underlying the analysis of people who are affected by a policy. On the
costs and benefits should be mode of consultation : questionnaires

versus written contributions, which are
more representative?
1. Objectives of IA as a tool to
deliver sustainable
development :
- Should provide an assessment o f t h e
t h re e d i m e n s i o n s equally: social,
environmental and economic;
- Should generate quality
information and identify gaps in
information;
- Should identify a ff e c t e d
stakeholders;
- Should lead to better legislation and
integration with other EU legislations;
- Should promote ownership of
sustainable development and its
acceptability;
- Should facilitate information for
decision making;
- Should increase accountability of
decision makers; - Consultations : improved guidelines are
- Should identify best options for needed on the minimum standards for
achieving policy objectives; consultation, which should be built on
existing Commission Standards for
- There should be a Sustainable Stakeholder Consultation;
Development Strategy/document
within each DG, - Consultations should be tailored to
stakeholders depending on what type
of information is sought;
2. Process - Role of consultants : they can be used
to carry out analysis of stakeholder
2.a. Timing of IA i n p u t b u t N O T t o p ro v i d e
content/expertise. Emphasis should be
- It should be a process, not an event;
on existing expertise e.g. EEA and JRC.
- It should start at early stage of policy
making and identify pros and cons; set
out clear objectives of policy; analyse
effectiveness of existing legislation and
identify newly available data and
information;

3 How to improve the social aspects of the
European Sustainable Development Strategy.
The fight against poverty and social exclusion –
an integral part of the Strategy. Ageing society
Names of participants : ■ Sustainable development is a dynamic

process, but the methodological tools are
Ronan Dantec, Sophie Dupressoir, Gunda inappropriate in social terms:
Macioti, Valentina Salonna, Myriam Van
Espen, Bernadette Hartley ❙ Quantitative indicators are developed
to the detriment of qualitative ones;
❙ A purely negative attitude towards the

Results :
ageing society;
Findings regarding the current ❙ Failure to take account of

Sustainable Development Strategy: unremunerated production (e.g.:
voluntary childcare by grandparents,
■ Disconnection between the economic – voluntary work by retired people, etc.);
environmental – social aspects (e.g. what
kind of transport system is needed to ❙ Failure to take account of “hands-on”
reconcile low environmental impact with experts in order to make the most of
citizens’ mobility?); existing experience and achievements.
■ Economic and environmental policies ■ The link between the revised Lisbon
must recognise the risk of creating new Strategy and the Sustainable Development
social inequalities; Strategy is unclear.
■ The danger of poverty not being taken

into account in sustainable development Objectives
strategy in Europe; 1. To give serious consideration to, and
■ Poverty passing down through the ensure urgent implementation of, steps to
generations (15 % of the population living reverse unsustainable trends.
in poverty); 2. To emphasise social cohesion and fairness
■ No link between unsustainable trends between generations as positive factors
for sustainable development.
(e.g. global warming and combating
social exclusion); 3. Ageing: not to restrict the ageing
issue to employment, dependence and
■ Lack of cross-connection between
pensions. A sustainable development
important documents (e.g. the
approach entails harnessing what
Commission’s Green Paper on ageing; the
older people have to offer in terms of
pan-European Berlin conference on ageing
resources and skills.
in 2002; the UN Madrid world assembly on
ageing in 2002); 4. Fighting poverty: presentation of a
European model of social inclusion should

not be seen as a consolidated gain, but 2. Inclusion of social standards in the rules
rather as an objective to be (re)gained. governing public procurement.
Full employment targets predicated on
growth do not tally with social cohesion 3. Greater consistency between social
objectives. objectives and the Union’s financial
means.
5. To open up new areas of the economy :
the social and solidarity-based economy, 4. A partial shift of the tax burden away
environmental protection and proximity from employment and towards financial
services must be promoted as new income and use of natural resources.
sectors generating employment and
5. Consolidation of citizens’ information and
social ties.
involvement as a key element in national
6. To define a new European model giving sustainable development strategies.
fair treatment to populations in all their
6. Adoption by the Union of a framework
sexual, social, cultural and generational
directive on strengthening services of
diversity.
general interest.
Drafting of a White Paper on the definition of

Actions a new European social and cultural model.
1. The Structural Funds and subsidies must
be made strictly conditional on an
assessment of their impact on the three
dimensions of sustainable development.

4 Sustainable use of natural resources
Names of participants : fossil fuels. Conflicting issues need to be

addressed such as the preservation of
Patrice Christmann, Dominique Proy, Charles landscapes versus the development of
Belanger, Trygve Sundt, Laure Ledoux, wind farms.
Véronique Schmit, Ernst-Christoph Stolper,
Stefanie Pfahl ■ Minerals and metals: There is a need to
develop an EU statistical capacity on
production, imports (and their origins)
Results : and exports reflecting the real – not the
apparent – consumption and production,
The following issues have been discussed by as a basis for material flow analysis and
the group. Results are given for each of the for assessing the EU dependence on
issues discussed: imports and the related geopolitical
issues. The strategy should also provide,
via the EU Development Policy, support to
developing countries to regulate and
1 - Resources : promote their natural resources gaining
activities in line with sustainable
■ Biodiversity: the need to curb the import
development principles.
into the EU of endangered species (flora
and fauna, to extend the list of species
protected by the CITES convention; to
protect habitats within – reinforcing 2 - Activities:
NATURA 2000- and outside the EU; to
reduce the impact of intensive breeding ■ Tourism: natural resources – landscapes,
such as aquaculture, pig and poultry farms water, coastal areas, biodiversity - are key
as well as caring of animal welfare has elements for sustainable tourism which
been recognized by the participants. There should be well-managed. Good practices
is also a need for more selective high sea should be identified and disseminated,
and coastal fishing to avoid by-catch of especially in areas concerned by mass-
unwanted species. Enforcement of existing tourism, within and outside the EU.
legislation and conventions is an issue
which needs to be addressed, for instance
via Development Policy (e.g. training of -
hopefully well paid - customs officials to 3 - Policies and instruments :
curb the export of endangered species). ■ Specific support should be provided to
■ Energy: the development of EU renewable assist SMEs in integrating sustainable
development into their operations.
energy sources – wind, biomass, solar
and geothermal – should be more actively ■ Integrated Product Policy should be
promoted. Market-based instruments strengthened in all EU policies. Legal,
such as a kerosene tax should be fiscal and voluntary instruments should
introduced to raise awareness of the be put in place.
consequences of the environmental
impacts of certain energy uses. Member ■ Ecolabelling should be promoted at each
States should be invited to revise their stage of the life cycle, from the initial
VAT rates to encourage the use of resource to the final product and the
renewable energies and curb the use of waste generated.

■ Decoupling : resource use should be and curb inefficient use of non-renewable
decoupled from negative environmental resources.
impacts. To understand these impacts the
lifecycle approach is needed, which in turn
requires extensive quality-controlled data. Next steps / Recommendations :
■ Research and innovation play a prominent ■ Subsidies for resource gaining activities
role in developing and promoting better should be linked to the implementation of
technologies for the more efficient use of sustainable practices;
resources, the better understanding of
their impacts and better natural resources ■ Individual behaviours and choices need to
management. be addressed;
■ Consumer education in sustainable ■ Taxation should be shifted from labour to

development issues is of utmost non renewable resources;
importance. Consumer choices will much
determine the spread of sustainable ■ Knowledge needs to be improved on
development practices throughout the EU material flows and related environmental
economy. impacts along the life cycle of individual
resources;
■ Contradictions between sustainable
development principles and other policies ■ Specific support ought to be given to
need to be addressed: are sustainable developing countries to foster (and
development and deregulation compatible? maintain) their institutional capacity to
promote and regulate their resource
■ Taxation and other market-based gaining activities in line with sustainable
instruments should encourage employment development principles.

5 How WTO trade liberalization should
relate to sustainable development
Names of participants : development cooperation policy is subjected.

Other sets of rules envisaged were the
Thomas Ruddy, Lutz Ribbe, Susanne Droege Millennium Development Goals and security
concerns. It was felt that the use of different
standards in different countries should be
Results : allowed despite the global uniformity
Moderator Thomas Ruddy made some demanded in WTO agreements. Developing
introductory remarks about globalization countries also demand uniformity in that they
being driven by advances in technology and often regard Northern environmental concerns
trade liberalization. The technology of as “green protectionism“. The potential
containerised shipping was then seen to be a conflicts between human rights standards and
cause of environmental damage, as diesel Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
fuel was too cheap and aviation fuel untaxed. on the one hand, and WTO treaties such as the
His statement that “trade liberalization General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)
generates wealth“ caused great controversy, on the other were mentioned.
but “trade liberalization generates welfare“ or Information for consumers, communication, and
“how much trade liberalization is compatible the media are important in raising awareness.
with sustainable development“ were more
broadly acceptable. Participants did not agree Recommendation: prize-winning documentary
on any framework for consolidating their movie “Darwin’s Nightmare”, currently shown
ideas as had been suggested by the initiator. in local cinemas and supported by EU Media
Programme. The film deals with (inter alia)
biodiversity, the collapse of eco-systems, the
Discussion points were role of EU money in developing countries, the
education and training of locals, the
Trade liberalisation vs. limits to free trade;
distribution of wealth and income, etc.
Cost internalisation, transportation cost;
Labelling and Life Cycle Assessments; Supply chain management matters, Strategic
Impact Assessment is needed at all levels of
external relations, in particular for relations with
Arguments : developing countries (the partnership approach).
Trade is needed by developing countries to Debate on standards: how do we deal with
generate growth. lower standards, which are imported?
They also need special and differential (Argument: it is okay if a nation has its own
treatment (SDT). lower standards, but trade transfers these
None of the participants disagreed with the standards also into the EU).
need for trade as such.
The EU has had its own “model” of trade The sustainable development strategy needs
liberalisation (the single market). Now it is time. DC’s are on a parallel trajectory and
developing its own sustainable development leapfrogging would be very desirable. If not
idea, whereas history determines the actual possible, SDT is needed.
policy approaches.
In the DOHA Round the trade-off between
What is needed is a framework of rules, e.g. economic development and environmental
environmental, social, and ethical. An example issues as perceived by major developing
of such rules would be the Sustainability countries becomes obvious (with regard to
Impact Assessment to which EU international trade relations).

Can the concept of ecological footprints be
used for sustainable development trade
strategies? There are regulatory problems.
Nonetheless one thought-provoking proposal
was to implement a trading system that took
countries’ ecological footprints into account
in some way, like the emissions trading
system. Measuring material flows was
reported on, and a system providing Sustainable development management of
ecological justice was demanded. resources would increase the prices of final
products only to a limited extent, e.g. sugar
Soon participants realised that institutions production – Coca Cola.
were key, and global governance needed
India was said by one participant not to
attention; whether to reform or replace the
benefit from the EU’s liberalisation of the
WTO. What type of global governance could
sugar market, Brazil being more competitive
promote sustainable development and trade ?
- where are the links ?
Translational/multinational companies should
NB : this workshop and workshop 8 covered
be leaders in setting standards (voluntary
some similar ground.
codes of conduct), they have standard setting
power.
Governments should set standards (in

addition? In parallel ? …).
Next steps / Recommendations :
The issue of internalizing external costs is
The EU idea of sustainable development is also a macro problem requiring measurement
under pressure because of trade liberalisation. and indicators.
The Codex Alimentarius is an international One example is the transport cost issue : an EU
standard acceptable to the WTO. Why not approach is needed, but e.g. a kerosene tax
proceed in that direction, i.e. setting standards has been in the pipeline for a very long time.
in other institutions at international level?
Working backwards in the line of command,
The EU Strategic Impact Assessment system participants traced responsibility from the
is too narrow. Reduced to competition (?) trade lawyers in the WTO Secretariat to the
Information systems are crucial for future ministers attending ministerials to the
strategies. Information generation and Member States from which they come –
dissemination is a bottleneck. eventually arriving at the electorate,
consumers and NGOs. Many participants
How could consumer awareness be raised ? liked the idea of applying dual price labels to
Via NGOs, governments ? products in order to help raise awareness
among consumers of external costs : in
Eco-marketing is a powerful tool, shouldn’t addition to the label showing the retail price
there be more of it? there would be a new label showing the full-
Are eco-markets niche markets forever ? cost per Life Cycle Assessment. Participants
feared however that such ethically
How could sustainable development be differentiating marketplaces would remain
introduced into the supply chain ? only a niche.

6 What support do the local and regional
levels need from the EU and the Strategy
Names of participants : A focused strategy taken forward in close

collaboration with the local and regional level
Nina Cunningham, Luc Bas, Ernst-Christoph like the one described would make a
Stolper, Silvia Torresi, Pierre Godin, Peter substantial difference when it comes to
Wenster, Sonia Moreno, Eva Baños de focusing common efforts in all parts of
Guisasola, Sylvain Chevassus, Markus society. The important but not most important
Tornberg, Michael Ferry, Manuel Rivera, questions could be handled within ordinary
Tomas Ekberg economic, environmental, social policy, etc.
This point is closely linked to the second one.

Results : The need for clear political leadership and
long-term political commitment. One example
Why is the local and regional is the active use of procurement motivated by
level important ? sustainable development principles and a
more focused sustainable development
The local and regional level is key to strategy. The results could be fast and visible.
sustainable development. The local and
regional level taken together are strategic Another question with direct consequences
enough to make connections between issues for the local and regional level and the EU is
but small enough to reflect true local needs the need to have sustainable development
and to involve stakeholders. A prerequisite fully integrated into all structural fund
for sustainable development. Political activities. This is not about subsidiarity; it is
leadership at the local and regional level can about Europe’s common future. Much public
and does make a difference. The local and European money will be spent in future
regional level is the place for innovation and structural funds. This must be used in a
for building the systems of the next more sustainable way. At the same time
generation. The participants in the group regional distinctiveness must be embraced.
gave several examples of this. Regional
identity and culture differs. The way to Sustainable development policy should mean
achieve a more sustainable society must take added value. The ability of sustainable
this into account. Sustainable development in development policy to improve quality of life
fact must be a shared responsibility between should be stressed, as well as the ability to
different levels of society if we are to move in generate new and better business by being at
the right direction. the forefront. For this to happen it is important
that we have long-term cooperation,
agreements and support. Whenever possible,
the speciality of the regional level should be
What are the key issues for the used. To build networks between companies,
local and regional level ? education and research and the public sector
broadly for a good cause. This means that
The local and regional level is in a strong there should be strong support for more
need for a more clear and focused strategy. market-driven change when possible.
A strategy that is not another environmental
or socio-economic one but is true sustainable The influence of local and regional level on
development and long term. A strategy with sustainable development at European level
three or four really intergenerational and participation in the forthcoming process is
questions and with a vision that relates to certainly important for involvement. The local
people and therefore can be communicated. and regional dimension must surely be clear in

the next European sustainable
development strategy. The role
of the regions must be
underpinned.
Actions to be taken ? (Sticks

and carrots).
On tools and indicators : We are

in need of guidelines that are
clear, educational, motivational
and informative! Common and
general conditions for actions
taken in the EU to be
sustainable could be one way of
doing this. Fulfilling these
conditions could be a
re q u i re m e n t f o r g e t t i n g
Structural Fund moneys and
resources from other policy
areas. We are strongly in favour
of implementing Sustainable
Management Systems.
Intensified monitoring of
national best practice
c o n c e r n i n g t o o l s a n d indicators is level in their ambitions to work with the whole
essential. One idea put forward was to more chain of learning and implementing within
or less copy the working methods and sustainable development – from research to
principles of the big companies “doing practical projects and implementation. Strong
sustainable development”. sustainability requirements are needed for all
actions carried out under Structural Fund
Procurement principles need to be strong on
programmes. A local/regional sustainable
sustainable development principles, not only
development strategy should form the basis
on money or market principles. The local and
regional/social and environmental dimensions for all regions given Structural Fund support.
must be as important as the economic one. Sustainable development evaluation should be
Strong procurement demands in combination an important part of the mid-term evaluation.
with market-driven projects would be a strong
One project idea is to provide general
driving force for regional transition at the local
support for sustainable development policy
and regional level. Sustainable development
advisers at local and regional level in all
would then also become highly visible to
people in municipalities and regions. European countries, focusing not only on
the EU and the objectives of the union but
On finance : financial principles that show the on sustainable development in general. This
commitment to sustainable development in already exists in some countries and we
general policy and not at least in Structural think that it is now time for active and
Fund policy. Structural Fund programmes and proud campaigns for sustainable
financing that supports the local and regional development at the local and regional level.

7 Role of research in support to the
Names of participants : integrated analyses, target-setting and

distance from targets, information
Richard Robson (European Chemical systems-networks);
Industry); Paul Geraads (EESC – Dutch
Farmers and Growers; Laure Ledoux ■ SUPPORT, DEVELOP and APPLY innovations
(EUROSTAT); Lisa Boch-Andersen (AmCham which stimulate economic growth and
EU); Eva Baños de Guisasola (EUROCITIES); competitiveness;
Darinka Czischke (CECODHAS – co-ordinator
of European Social Housing Observatory); ■ Required to CONVINCE, (via, sound case
Pamela Kennedy (Joint Research Centre, EC) studies and examples) politicians and EU
citizens of the trends, threats, major
issues. (Communication and mode of
WHY research and technical communication is a key element in the
development are important : convincing process);
■ IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING of CURRENT ■ Assist in SETTING PRIORITIES and MINIMIZE
SITUATION and FUTURE TRENDS (processes, risks in implementation of actions.
trends, problems, impacts, markets);
■ SUPPORT POLICY with evidence (reliable, WHAT can research offer in

scientific, objective) – KNOWLEDGE -BASE support of the EU Sustainable
to UNDERPIN policy and allow INFORMED Development Strategy?
DECISION-MAKING;
■ INPUT to every element of the POLICY
■ MONITOR PROGRESS (indicators, CYCLE;

❍ INTEGRATED ANALYSES; – the current trend is for social sciences/
issues to be given a lower priority;
❍ INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;
❍ INTEGRATED MODELLING; ❍ Establish a LONG-TERM EU research
programme INTRINSICALLY LINKED to
❍ NEW METHODS/TECHNIQUES for sustainable development objectives and
monitoring (indicators); key political and scientific questions
❍ INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT – which allows CONTINUITY beyond
political terms – a requirement for such a
SCIENTIFIC BASIS;
challenging political initiative;
❍ NEW TECHNOLOGIES;
❍ Improve RESEARCH CO-ORDINATION at
❍ RESEARCH NETWORKS to encompass both EUROPEAN and INTERNATIONAL
all necessary disciplines; Level (many sustainable development
issues require research results and
❍ TARGET-SETTING;
understanding at the GLOBAL Level, in
❍ MARKET UNDERSTANDING; order to remedy European difficulties);
❍ IDENTIFY WIN-WIN Situations, ■ FOCUS on tangible objectives, where
SYNERGIES and TRADE-OFFS. results can be attained and which touch
the European citizens directly and are at
the heart of European problems;
■ e.g.-, FOCUS on the social dimension
Make research an INTEGRAL element of (ageing, unemployment, mobility etc.) –
sustainable development policy and issues which are closer to the hearts (than
implementation regulations-actions : environment to the EU citizen);
■ Ensure a BALANCED and WELL-INTEGRATED
approach (social, environmental, economic)

8 Programme for communication and
education about sustainable development
Names of participants : views on the basis of the book’s content. A

documentary film could also help. The book
Christine Dalby, Jan De Smedt, Frans W. could be used in schools and universities as
Evers, Michael Ferry, Rob Lynas, Safy Moussa, well.
Alexandre Pasche
For 3, the main message is to bring the right
people to the right place. This is no longer a
traditional conference in a capital but an
Results : exchange of views in situ of the success stories
The group identified as issues : of 2. TOP INDUSTRIALISTS should confront civil
1. Target groups and level of communication; servants and politicians with their ideas about
2. Interests of target groups; gaining the competitive edge and sustainable
3. Meaning of the message and language used; development. CEOs of Shell, Unilever,
4. Methods and media; Heineken and others all have stories to tell.
5. Identity of the sender; Prime ministers should be among the guests
6. Branding; to show that they care about what they said at
7. Time span; the Spring summit. Social ambitions including
8. Financing. security and quality of life are the main
themes that should underpin the sustainable
There are three priority target groups :
development strategy, the environment only
1. Children aged between 5 and 12 years; adds to these concerns.
2. Producers (industry, services);
3. Policy developers and implementers; Marketing strategists should help to create
messages based on good feelings (we know
For 1, special teachers also involved in other how to have a better future), to actually find
society-related subjects should do the job by a branding for the message in sights and
using images and stories that appeal to sounds, and to create (inter)national heroes
children, like Disney figures and Harry Potter for the future.
stories. There should be no moralising and
they should start from respect for and building
on the values and norms they already have. Next steps / Recommendations :
The EU should provide the means to produce
a sustainable development kit in each Member Include in the updated EU Sustainable
State. Development Strategy an action programme
for the above to be carried out in the next 2
For 2, one needs the success stories as an to 3 years. The programmes should be
example for others. They should know there organised by 5 to 7 EU
is a latent demand for sustainable products re g i o n s s o M e m b e r
that just has to be addressed in the right way. States have to cooperate
Think about the examples of Dyson, the with the Commission on
Toyota Prius, Veja shoes and fair trade coffee. this. The necessary
budget is peanuts
An attractive book should be produced and compared to the
made readily available to all business leaders damage done to our
and the interested public. The book should be a economy and quality of
bestseller as a result of its content and life if not carried out. We
appearance. Compare the so-called “ livre estimated around 20 to
blanc” in France. Create active exchange of 30 million euros.

9 Consumer information for supporting
sustainable development
Names of participants : about products and services. Our workshop

discussed how an international system of
Michaela Holl, Luis Neves, Lettemieke Mulder, relevant product information could be
Claudia Seybold, Louise Ousten Olsen, developed and made globally accessible as
Richard Adams, Cindy Fökehrer, Eva Csobod, a foundation of consumer choice for
Roland Higgins, Madi Sharma, Josef Zboril, sustainability.
Alicia Portillo, Sonia Moreno Berrocal
Information on which consumers can make
choices is a product of statutory
requirements, supplier attitudes and (less
Results :
commonly) independent research. Often
Background such information competes one-sidedly with
advertising and promotion. But as global
6 % - 7 % average annual growth in worldwide supply has changed so has the global
trade in goods and services is economically marketplace. Consumers in developed
beneficial and environmentally unsustainable. countries are increasingly in a position to
Globalisation has stimulated not only a wider demand, and obtain, goods and services
variety and availability of products and tailored to their personal preferences. These
services but also an increasing complexity in preferences have been extended beyond the
manufacturing and supply chains. Product traditional ones of price, style and quality
availability and choice in most parts of the and now include a modest range of social
world is increasing rapidly. and environmental values. Increasing
affluence has led to consumers being
It has been recognised by economists, interested in and able to have their purchases
institutions and governments of all reflect their values and their lifestyle.
persuasions that if all actual social and European consumers comprise the largest
environmental costs, as well as direct and most complex market in the world.
manufacturing costs could be internalised in Responsible for 30 % of world consumption,
product pricing then the marketplace would this market is increasingly sophisticated, an
be much more attuned to sustainable awareness which now embraces the need to
development. But the WTO does not permit purchase more sustainably.
discrimination between products according
to the processes of their production; yet such The challenge facing manufacturers and
factors may make a significant difference to retailers is to judge the right level of
their environmental and social impact. response to the demand for ‘sustainable’
products, to develop such products cost-
effectively and then to ensure that the
Focus marketplace is aware of what is available. As
consumers are enabled to make their
Consumers can act directly by choosing purchase choices based on their values, a
products with one or more 'sustainable' form of ‘market democracy’ becomes a
aspects. For this choice to be exercised significant force within the commercial
effectively depends on two complex world, rewarding companies that meet
elements; an educational/social context in consumers’ concerns and gradually shifting
which consumers are firstly aware of the corporate behaviour towards the evolving
responsibilities of global citizenship (being norms of society. The challenge facing
covered in other workshops) and secondly consumers is in knowing which products
by having access to reliable information best provide the mix of functional, stylistic,

9
social and environmental answers at the under active development and trial such as
price they are willing to pay. the embedded chip.
Some suppliers promote the brand as Prototype consumer-friendly, in-store

encapsulating purchaser values; this makes information systems have been operating for
commercial sense and offers consumers a many years in some independent retail
potential ‘short cut’ to a package of values. outlets. The technology needed is simple,
However in most instances selection by brand widely available and cheap. What is missing in
will lead to ignoring much information providing an effective consumer information
particular to certain products within the brand service is an independent, reliable and
range or to particular concerns of the accessible product database. Were such a
consumer. Such information may relate not database available its use and application
only to social and environmental concerns, would be widespread. The access technology
fair trade, animal welfare, organic production is cheap enough to be purchased for home use
(the complex sustainability package), but also (direct scanning of products already
to personal factors such as health issues – e.g. purchased) and storage facilities can be
allergenic indicators, obesity factors etc. attached for use in-store by consumer groups,
Another successful generic approach is research bodies and other organisations. The
through guarantee marks or labels, but as technical capacity and global use of, e.g.
with the brand the guarantee mark is highly Google, illustrates that information on a
specific and often has low market penetration. massive scale can be handled and accessed
The alternative is specific, in-depth but other factors need resolution.
information about individual products, which
the consumer can obtain and use easily. The workshop discussed the conceptual and
practical feasibility of how such a massive
The prospect of assembling accurate database might be reliably assembled,
information on hundreds of thousands of independently verified and disseminated.
products is daunting. How might such an The key points which achieved general
extensive and comprehensive set of data be support from those present - representing
compiled and maintained? Furthermore, once industry, NGOs and environmental/consumer
such extensive product information is available, organisations – were :
how might consumers, with the variety of
■ This would be a major tool for consumers,
values they hold, be able to quickly and clearly
access it as a tool in their product selection? manufacturers, NGOs and institutions;
Most merchandise, irrespective of branding, ■ It should encourage the active

requires some type of identifier. This is responsibility of consumers and common
normally the label, which hitherto has been interests with producers;
the primary source of information about a ■ The information should be 'value free' and
product. To an increasing degree the label is
compiled by strict protocols;
no longer suitable for the complexity of
information that consumers require and is ■ Information supplied would be on a
being supplemented by web-based voluntary basis but transparent, accurate
information. However, for the foreseeable and verifiable;
future the label does provide a gateway to all
that is necessary to inform consumers about ■ It would lay a foundation for informed
their purchasing preferences. Currently this choice and – probably many years down
is through the bar code - with other systems the road - relevant supporting legislation;

■ Dissemination in various value-added Next steps / Recommendations:
'packages' (of simple to highly
sophisticated complexity) would not be ■ Expand this outline into a specific
by the organising body but by third proposal using extended input from other
parties – e.g. consumer groups, NGOs, participants in the Stakeholder Forum and
trade bodies, retailers, interest groups, beyond;
educational institutions.
■ Explore with the Commission and other
Pulling together various comments from EU institutions a 'scoping' study on data,
workshop participants a possible process criteria and protocols;
structure might look like this….
■ Investigate major corporate and
institutional response and partnerships,
Council of reference/
e.g. consortium of Google, major trade,
Research Advisory Board labour and consumer/NGO bodies;
■ Explore interest of 'third party' users of

Research protocols Data categories such information – both to refine concept,
and use but also to identify revenue
streams to finance an ongoing programme.
Companies
Research team
Data sources Richard Adams email:
Campaign groups richarda@contraflow.com
web-based
‘product/ issue
database
Consumer/
membership groups,
publications, retailers
web-based
‘wiki’ updates
Issue-specific
Consumers or value-based
advisory products

10 Sustainable development and global
competitiveness
Names of participants : compatible. For example, some companies

in Nordic countries are world class in their
René de Sousa, Hugues de Chavagnac, fields. They are therefore able to compete
Ulf Björnholm Ottosson, Igor Sevastiyanov, competitively on the global stage and
Christine Dalby penetrate new markets. Companies such
as Volkswagen have also achieved this in
China.
The initial question proposed
■ As developing countries increase in
“Should the European Union Commission be wealth, they are able to source goods
benchmarking economic growth against the from EU countries.
USA and Asia-Pacific regions, rather than just
within the European Union ?” ■ It is acknowledged that for some
countries, for example Russia, in the
The background short term, survival is the immediate
consideration.
EU statistical data often compares the
competitiveness of Member States (in terms ■ Certain measures, such as carbon dioxide
of GDP) with each other and with the EU emissions trading are leading to an
region as a whole. overall reduction in carbon emissions.
At the start of the discussion, it was believed
that there was little benchmarking against
global competitors, for example, the USA, Next steps / Recommendations :
China and India, who have recorded high ■ It is recommended that “competitiveness”
growth rates. Therefore, the group was
be viewed over a short- and a long-term
convened in the belief that the EU needed to
timescale. The EU should continue its
benchmark their goals in an international
sustainable development strategy as
context. It is acknowledged that this
pioneers, but be wary that in the short
benchmarking does take place, but it should
term global competitiveness may be
be emphasised more, as commerce is
reduced.
increasingly conducted at a global level.
■ It is acknowledged that there may be
Discussions then turned to analysing issues
implications for elected representatives
of competitiveness and sustainable
within government (EU and Member State
development. The conclusions were as
level) in taking a longer-term view.
follows :
■ There has been a focus on global issues,
■ There are limitations in using the term
but funding is fragmented. The focus on
“competitiveness”, as there is around the
global poverty reduction is laudable, but
use of the term “sustainable development
may be occurring at the expense of other
strategy”.
sustainable development initiatives. This
■ There has been much media coverage working group urges the EU to address
suggesting that a sustainable development issues of sustainable development in
strategy is not compatible with the Lisbon emerging economies now, before
goals of “competitiveness”. Evidence is problems develop further, rather than in
mixed, but the group cited evidence that twenty years time.
sustainability and competitiveness are

■ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a
vital part of sustainable development. It
may be voluntary or regulated.
■ The working group believes that a Code

of Conduct on sustainable development
be developed and promoted.
(Notes written by René de Sousa, and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the Chartered
Institute of Purchasing & Supply in the United
Kingdom).

11 Implementation. How to make the
Sustainable Development Strategy live
Names of participants : Member States to ensure that all the issues

addressed are kept firmly on the active agenda
Derek Osborn, Günther Bachmann and that difficult decisions are not avoided.
Public visibility : the new strategy needs to be

Results : made widely available in simple and
accessible format to the public, to
Any strategy is only as good as its stakeholder groups, in schools, etc.
implementation; Many past sustainable
development strategies at all levels have Clear goals and targets for each issue with
quickly been forgotten. criteria for success : indicators should include
measures of growth in welfare (not just GDP
We propose five key elements to ensure that growth), efficiency of the use of energy and
the new European Sustainable Development other resources etc.
Strategy does better:
Independent machinery for monitoring and
Tackle the big issues and the ones that people reporting on progress, so as to hold the
can understand. The agenda should include Institutions to account in a public way. A
the challenges of security, health, ageing, possible role for the EESC, perhaps working
climate change and other environmental in partnership with appropriate national
threats, depletion of natural re s o u rc e s , a n d bodies such as the National Councils for
p ro b l e m s o f o v e r consumption, obesity Sustainable Development where they exist.
etc; and how to maintain high standards on all
these issues while maintaining a
successful and competitive economy. Next steps / Recommendations :
Political commitment and leadership : The Commission, the EESC, and other
determined and sustained political appropriate bodies to consider together how
leadership from the Commission, the Council best to shape strategy and implementation
and the European Parliament and from all the framework to accommodate above the points.

12 How to communicate sustainable
development
Names of participants:
Pascal Wolff, Wolfgang Helm, Andras Laszlo, ■ Involve citizens in the strategy –
Rachel Tetlow, Ulrika Hagbarth, Notis communication should be a dialogue,
Lebessis, Günther Bachmann, Aldrik Gierveld, sustainable and not a one-way process. It
Bernd Heimbüchel, Philip Stamp, Luc Bas should be recognised, however, that some
issues are better communicated from a
national, regional or local level;
Next steps / Recommendations: ■ The Commission should acknowledge the
■ Set up a competition for best practices importance of communication on
sustainability in the Sustainable
communication measures within the EU;
Development Strategy. The Commission
■ The EU has to highlight the importance of s h o u l d s e t u p a p ro g r a m m e f o r
sustainability and communication. benchmarking in exchange for experiences
Remark – No members of the European on successful communications on
Parliament attended this conference. sustainability;
There was no mention of the press
■ When setting up the Sustainable
conference in the programme!
Development Strategy, identify the target
■ Prioritise communication work – groups;
Parliament and Council;
■ Simplify communication e.g. through
stories, pictures,
■ Communication should address people’s

life experiences and values.

13 Sustainable urban policy
Names of participants : such, there must be measures to promote

social mix, equitable access to public services
Ronan Dantec, David Edwards, Bernadette and facilities, as well as public transport. The
Hartley, Jacqueline Miller, Sylvain Chevassus reflection on sustainable urban development
must continue. Sustainable construction,
sustainable buildings and risk prevention
Results : must be integrated as well. Investing in
sustainable construction offers opportunities
80 % of EU citizens live in urban areas : there for the local economy. Furthermore, the EU
will be no effective EU sustainable must look at how to finance the additional
development strategy without a costs of sustainable development by
sustainable urban strategy. There is an allowing Member States and local authorities
European model of city : a city featuring a to shift some investment into functioning
social mix and access to public services. expenditure.
A sustainable city is a compact city. Urban In brief, we recommend :
sprawl leads to energy overuse, transport
(e.g. explosion of road transport) and social ■ Exchanging best practices in sustainable
problems (e.g. end of social mix). Urban urban development; strengthening of EU
sprawl must be stopped. Speculation on land research and exchange programmes.
prices and uncontrollable rises in land prices
and housing favour urban sprawl. The ■ The allocation of structural funds to urban
market dominates land use and housing projects must be made conditional on
prices. In consequence, cities and local meeting strong sustainability criteria.
authorities have lost significant control over
housing policies; profound analysis of this ■ A Thematic Strategy on the Urban
point is needed at EU level. Environment with binding plans for
environment management plans and
Urban sprawl is also detrimental to the systems, and with binding sustainable
environment and biodiversity, because it eats transport plans, and with measures for
into greenfield and increases pollution from sustainable design and construction.
road transport. Currently, across most of the
EU, greenfield use grows faster than ■ A Framework Directive on urban planning
brownfield use. This is completely based on best existing practice.
unsustainable and must be reversed.
There are many opportunities for
realising model projects on brownfield
sites. “Eco areas” must be developed in
city centres.
Next steps /
Recommendations :
The EU S u s t a i n a b l e Development
Strategy must propose an action plan
that helps to limit, with a view to halting,
the phenomenon of urban sprawl. As

14 Declaration on principles for sustainable
development. What are the principles ?
Names of participants : - Stop wasting (natural resources, finance and

human potential);
Bernadette Hartley, Monika Frieling, Johann - Responsible consumption and production;
Költringer, Katarina Lindahl, Anne Barbance,
Torben Timmermann, Dalma Fabian, Louise - Intergenerational;
Ousted Olsen, Christer Tiegs, Ingura Homeyr, - Global distribution and poverty reduction;
Rgamiate, Ulf Björnholm-Ottosson, Cmoulet, - Carrying capacity (Protection of the
Josef Zboril, Christine Dalby, Philip Stamp, environment);
Pernilla Knutsson - Democratic, open and participatory society
and governance;
- Equitable (gender, race etc), a just and safe society;
Background - Sustainable economy (dynamic, stable,
A Declaration on Principles for Sustainable responsible and responsive economy, economic
Development will be presented to the development) (internalise environmental and
European Council in June (according to the social costs);
European Council’s March conclusions) - Human rights and welfare;
- Education and knowledge;
- Precautionary principle;
Results :
- Proportionality.
■ We need both a Definition on Sustainable
Development and Principles;
■ The definition must be the Brundtland
definition. There is no need to create a Formulate the Principles.
new definition and there is no possibility Make efforts, through normal channels, to
of negotiating a new one; influence the decision on the Declaration in
the European Council.
■ The Principles must be Overarching for
all EU policies. They must cover both the
Lisbon Strategy and the Sustainable
Development Strategy;
■ Each Principle should interlink the three

dimensions as far as possible. A division
into “three pillars” (environmental, social
and economic) can create barriers
between them;
■ The Principles should be directed mainly

at the technicians and practitioners who
develop EU policies. For the public they
probably should be expressed in a
simpler way;
■ The following aspects should be dealt with

in the Principles. (it includes both what
and how) :

15 What words could we use to make
“sustainability” understandable
(to the people)?
Names of participants : example of an interesting use of images is
the “Ecoposter” in France which presents
Jochen Penker, Charles Belanger, Roland an inside view of a house (or an industrial
Higgins, Aldrik Gierveld, Rob Lynas, Roshan plant) with all the good and bad practices.
di Puppo, Notis Lebessis, Safy Moussa
3. Movies can be very efficient too. For
example “Darwin’s nightmare” explains
Results : very well some dramatic aspects of “unfair
trade”. For teenagers and young adults,
1. Sustainability, Sustainable development, “The yesmen” is a movie that, shows
governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, “unsustainable practices” in a funny and
ownership. enjoyable way. For kids, “ecoschools” are a
very good practice, but some movies can
Some words are difficult to communicate,
significantly raise their awareness on
especially abbreviations, Anglicisms and
biodiversity (Disney movies like “Nemo”
words that describe processes.
for example). An interesting experiment
2. The most difficult words are “sustainability” could be to produce a “utopian” movie (or
and “sustainable development” because novel), which would describe a sustainable
this is a complex concept, (like democracy), life in the future (in 2018 for example).
which describes a process.
4. It is dangerous to reduce “sustainable
3. But we must not get rid of them. The term development” to “environment”. There are
“sustainability” can be useful for example three pillars in “sustainability” economy,
inside the European institutions but it is environment, and social equity. But when
useless outside. It is useless, and it can be we communicate on social matters we
dangerous when we talk to citizens or must focus on the practical topics (for
consumers. example “domestic violence”) and never
talk about sustainability.
Next steps / Recommendations : 5. The more we progress in the discussion,

the more it seems to us that it is
1. We should present sustainable actions, absolutely necessary to set up a
sustainable products but not talk about Programme for Europe which would
the concept or the process. The question consist of an exchange of experience on
we should ask ourselves is “what does it successful communication. It would be
mean for people in everyday life”. “What financed by Europe, put together with the
would be the benefit for a household, for help of consultants and used by local
a farmer, for children, for someone who is governments and administration. A big
unemployed…”. event (charging entrance fees) could be
2. We can use images, stories, and part of it (there is a successful event
called “sustainable weeks” in Austria).
metaphors. It can be sometimes more
convincing than words. A good metaphor 6. Talking about words, there is a last point :
is the “Ecological footprint”, a notion if we want to convey a sense of urgency,
invented by the WWF. Some interesting we (Europe) should not be afraid to name
practices are the “virtual green houses” or unsustainable activities. Some activities
“virtual green transportation systems” that have to change, and we must have the
you can visit on the Internet. Another courage to say so.

16 How to measure progress towards
sustainable development ?
Names of participants : ■ The communication role of indicators :

- Role of indicators to support public
David Sears, Dominique Proy, Willy De
participation and debate (e.g. on health
Backer, Ulrika Hagbarth, Pascal Wolff, Laure
issues);
Ledoux
- Need to translate indicators into analysis
to communicate with the media.
Results :
■ What are we measuring ?
- Indicators should lead to political action ■ What are we measuring ?
and therefore should be closely linked
- Need for more emphasis and a better
to the policy process;
mechanism for reporting, on a regular
- EU indicators do not measure basis;
sustainable development in general, but
- Need for relevant, measurable and
progress towards the objectives of the
comparable indicators.
Sustainable Development Strategy;
- Indicators are developed not only for ■ Needs for additional or alternative tools
regulators but also for the general for monitoring :
public;
- Improve reporting process;
- Indicators should respond to the needs
of different parts of the population; - Explore alternatives to existing
quantitative indicators;
- Indicators are necessary for monitoring
Sustainable Development Strategy but - Develop forecasts and ‘what-if’ scenarios
not sufficient. as part of reporting.
■ Needs for additional or alternative tools ■ The communication role of indicators :

for monitoring. - Need for coordination between European,
- Analysis of trends is key to the national and local levels to avoid
monitoring process; duplication of efforts on communication;
- Desirability of some qualitative - Need to select easily understandable

monitoring to complement quantitative indicators, and improve their
information (but difficult to implement visualisation.
in practice);
- Diverging views on the need for the
parallel development of aggregated
indicators (e.g. ‘green GDP’);
- Develop long-term perspective for
indicators (forecasts) and ‘what-if’
scenarios.

17 Dematerialisation – Factor X
Names of participants : communities trying to shift towards more

dematerialised products and services are
Dr. Joachim H. Spangenberg, Dr. Harry hampered severely in their pioneering
Lehmann efforts towards a more sustainable economy
by the current price structure that tends to
favour the consumption of natural resources
Results : while making labour a high priced
productivity factor.
The predominant model of wealth in the
industrialised countries is based on a high Goals of sustainable resource consumption
level of resource consumption. The present
“Total Material Consumption” (TMC) of It is clear that the sustainable use of
industrialised countries ranges between 31 resources is one of the core objectives of the
and 74 t/cap per annum. Together with the future policy. To be able to formulate
high level of water consumption and land adequate political strategies and measures
use, this adds up to a total resource use, the first step is to define specific “hard”
which cannot be allowed to spread to the targets.
whole world. If the rest of the world copied a
More than 80 % of global raw material
“western style” wealth model with the same
consumption goes to provide the welfare for
resource productivity as today, a global
the 20 % relatively rich (mostly living in
increase of a factor 2 to 5 of resource
industrialised countries). With the
consumption would be the consequence. The
precautionary principle in mind a 50%
growing world population will aggravate this
reduction in global anthropogenic material
trend, by the increase of life expectancy and
consumption and material flows would
the trend towards living as “singles” in
undoubtedly be an important step towards
traditional industrialised countries.
stabilising the ecosphere. Assuming that
This level of resource consumption is not access to natural resources as a common
compatible with any idea of sustainable heritage of mankind constitutes a basic
development in Europe or the World, with human right, western-type welfare has to be
environmental limits or with social justice of dematerialised by a factor of ten or more to
resource access distribution. cope with both targets. A first publication of
this “hard” target in 1994 intensified the
For these reasons, Europe’s resource discussion. Surprisingly fast the discussion
productivity needs dramatic and systemic entered the political agenda – with a first
improvement (Dematerialisation). highlight at the Earth Summit +5 (New York,
Complementary and synergistic policies at June 1997), where an EU initiative on eco-
all levels would benefit the European aim of efficiency “to consider setting a target of
becoming the most competitive knowledge- achieving a tenfold improvement in
based and service oriented economy in the productivity in the long term with a possible
world, generating employment as well as four-fold increase in the next two or three
creating environmentally compatible decades” in the industrialised countries was
resource productive (dematerialised) agreed.
technologies, services and infrastructures.
In line with this we propose an increase in
The current economic framework and world material productivity by a factor of four by
trade system tend to hinder the increase of 2050 and by a factor of ten by 2080. In
resource productivity. Companies and addition to the general targets, sector-

specific targets have to be formulated and Important elements of a future integrated
integrated in an overall strategy. policy strategy are to:
In contrast to abiotic resources biotic ■ Review R&D priorities in order

resources are “renewable” if the sources are systematically to increase resource
used and managed in a sustainable way. productivity;
Current use of the biotic natural resources in
Europe is a long way from such use and ■ Prepare actions to strengthen the
management. We propose to develop knowledge base on resource consumption
sustainable management rules for biotic and the ways to dematerialise through
resources. In particular, management systematically training all actors;
strategies for fishery, forest, agriculture and
■ Review all direct and indirect subsidies
their products must be adjusted in the next
four years to take the challenge of with respect to their impacts on resource
dematerialisation into account. consumption and the ecosphere and
move to eliminate such subsidies, which
hinder higher resource productivity;
Next steps / Recommendations : ■ Review the right of levy-free use of
A dematerialisation strategy – bringing goals natural resources;
and measures together ■ Review current legislation with respect to
We urge the European Economic and Social its impact on the use of natural resources.
Committee and the Commission to develop In particular review the Common
and implement a complementary and Agricultural Policy and the Common
synergistic strategy for a dramatic increase Fisheries Policy, which seem t o h a v e
in resource productivity in the next decades c o n t r i b u t e d t o a n overexploitation of
(dematerialisation). A Resource Strategy will natural resources and loss of biodiversity,
on the one side c o m p l e m e n t e x i s t i n g rather than to have safeguarded them;
a n d f u t u re environmental policies which ■ Review all EU standards and laws with
address the status of environmental media
regard to the resource consumption they
and, on the other side it must also be a
create and undertake appropriate actions;
complementary part of other policy sectors
(e.g. agriculture, fishery, products, research). ■ Review purchasing procedure in EU
bureaucracy and establish procedures for
Only a holistic approach will generate
giving preference to products and
positive effects in all three core goals:
services with high resource productivity;
sustainable growth, social stability and
environmental protection. A courageous and ■ Strengthen the REACH system to ensure
significant paradigm shift is required as environmentally benign substitution in
regards our management and use of natural the course of the dematerialisation
resources and the efficiency with which they process.
are used for the benefit for all people.
Restructuring the economy and society to

introduce sustainable resource use and
management presents a huge investment
opportunity.

18 Mainstreaming gender into the
Names of participants : 2. Strengthen the social component of

strategic impact assessment, paying
Isabel Ripa-Julia, Mona-Lisa Norrman, Ute particular attention to gender impacts of
Noack, Ulrike Röhr policies and programmes;
3. Integrate a gender perspective into all

Results : issues of the Sustainable Development
Strategy (implement gender mainstreaming
Benefits from gender mainstreaming : as stipulated in the Amsterdam Treaty);
■ Integration of gender perspectives is the 4. Develop/strengthen tools for assessing

outstanding measure for interlinkages gender impacts (e.g., checklists, gender
between the three pillars of sustainability; disaggregated data collection, indicators,
gender impact assessment… );
■ The more holistic approach will lead to
more sustainable lifestyles, better quality 5. Set up monitoring/evaluation/reporting
of life, fair societies; systems on the achievements of gender
equality, explain if targets are not met and
■ By looking at “gender” we see the whole why they were not achieved, and propose
variety of societal groups (the elderly, how to tackle them in future;
children, migrants…);
6. Ensure fair distribution of resources (time,
■ Looking from a gender perspective will money, natural resources, power…)
open up new ways for addressing the within societies at different levels (local,
issues (e.g. caring and precaution are the national, regional, international) and
central concerns); between the levels.
■ New values will be raised, others will be

transformed: justice, respect for nature
and life, responsibility…;
■ Better communication of the strategy,

more support from society because of
the broader approach and broader
involvement of different groups of
society;
■ Being supportive of male moves towards

sustainable society (being more involved in
fatherhood and caring work, using more
public transport, part-time working…).

1. Identify a common vision and common
values that work for sustainable
development, e.g. respect, dialogue,
communication, responsibility…;

19 Sustainable urban transport
Names of participants : ❍ Goods (flexibility in time deliveries,

e.g. night, weekends, new logistics
Ulrich Weber, Virgilio Ranocchiari, Siv technologies);
Näslund, Isabel Mohedano Sanchez, Ludvik
Jirovec, Christine Marlet ❍ Passenger transport (policies,
technologies to achieve sustainable
transport);
Background : ■ Planning: thematic strategy for the urban
Unsustainable trends in urban transport environment (sustainable urban transport
plans for cities > 100.000 inhabitants,
■ Congestion / unsustainable space including concrete targets);
consumption; ■ Revision of White Paper including
■ Accidents; sustainable long term goals for urban
■ High energy consumption by urban transport;
transport systems with high share of ■ Tackle climate change, consider CO2
individual transport (cars); reduction in urban transport;
■ Pollution. ■ Promotion of clean vehicles;
■ Reallocation of space in urban areas,
restrictions for car use and improving the
Next steps / Recommendations : attractiveness of alternative modes of
at EU level transport (public transport, cycling and
walking) to enable modal shift to
■ Developing integrated programmes to
sustainable modes of transport, including
disseminate best practice in sustainable
improving of accessibility of public
urban transport (passenger transport;
transport;
goods transport; urban transport policies;
land use planning; cooperation of different ■ Regional development outside urban
local actors, e.g. retailers, authorities, areas enable people to live and work in
public transport undertakings, etc); rural areas and also to prevent them from
moving to cities, where problems are
■ Raising awareness of behavioural change concentrated.
towards sustainable urban transport
(individual citizens, businesses);
■ Identifying contradictory structures and Next steps / Recommendations :

means that promote unsustainable mobility; at local level
■ Financing sustainable urban transport: EU ■ Optimised city logistics adapted to local

funds (cohesion funds, structural funds) situation;
to be spent more on sustainable urban ■ Close cooperation between local actors
transport, better allocation of EU funds e.g. retailers, authorities, public transport
(more critical assessment of TENs); undertakings, logistic providers, etc.;
■ European Research and development on ■ Private-public partnership to look for
sustainable passenger and goods solutions to achieve sustainable urban
transport issues: transport.

20 How to generate the integrated knowledge
needed for the Sustainable Development
Strategy
Names of participants : development could be achieved by learning

from the attempts at coping with complex
Eva Csobod, Paul Geraads, F.O. Wolf problems of real societies.
Results : Next steps / Recommendations :

The time-scale and dynamics of the The recommendations refer to three points :
Sustainable Development Strategy require an
iterative, spiral-shaped learning process as
A) Methodology
regards the side of knowledge generated by
society, which uses its recurrent self- ■ Value the social dimension of all problems;
evaluation in order to advance to deeper ways
of posing and addressing the problems. ■ Value qualitative knowledge;
Backed up by an adequate methodology, a ■ Reduce gender blindness;
sufficient institutionalisation of this self- ■ Ta k e i n p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , b y
reproduction of knowledge within society
theoretical articulation;
constitutes an important condition for
building a realistic and sufficiently radical ■ Include stakeholder dialogue into
Sustainable Development Strategy. Its further research processes;

■ Assure plurality of practical perspectives; C) Learning from initiatives of coping
■ Encourage transnational research with complex societal problems
cooperation; ■ Learn from analysing complex societal
■ Overcome disciplinary limitations; problems;
■ Strengthen long-term forecasting. ■ Analyse full product life cycle, including
indirect and complex effects;
B) Institution building,
■ Learn from implementation at national and
■ Create a think-tank with scientists from all regional level (traditions, tacit knowledge);
disciplines plus representatives of all ■ Integrate multi-stakeholder consensus
stakeholders;
building into research communication;
■ Create a research institute for the Sustainable
■ Learn from historical experience as
Development Strategy financed by the EU,
regards the interactions between the
with a broadly recruited staff: scientists,
environment, the economy and society;
politicians, economists, environmentalists,
etc.; ■ Address and analyse problems of interest
and power;
■ Work out clearly the main elements
Sustainable Development Strategy; ■ Address and analyse problems of long
term trade and existing investment;
■ Make them measurable (indicators);
■ Draw up a vision for the future;
■ Make their economic aspects calculable
over the long term; ■ Give it practical form in a dialogue of
generations.
■ Minimise their economic costs over the
long term; It was seen that this would require
■ Enhance cooperation between national considerable effort from the side of all
research institutions. participants, but that it would repay them
more than equitably.

21 A focused strategy : what are the key
ingredients for an EU Sustainable
Development Strategy ?
Names of participants : noted that the strategy should facilitate the

delivery of short-term goals without
Siv Näslund, Stefanie Pfahl, Rachel compromising the strategic long-term goals
Garthwaite, Josef Zboril, Luc Goeteyn, Niklas set out by the framework. The inclusion of
Wallenius, Truus Huisman, Ulrike Röhr guidelines or criteria by which tradeoffs or win-
win situations can be made would help with
this. The need to decouple economic growth
Results : and environmental degradation both at the EU
and the global level, and the need for
The group was generally in agreement with transitional systems to facilitate decoupling
the approach proposed in the Commission over the long term, was seen as a key issue
Communication (COM 2005) 37. It was and was identified as one of the main
agreed that the Strategy needs to provide an objectives of the strategy. Related to this was a
overarching framework addressing all three discussion about the need to make the market
dimensions within which all EU policy work to give the right signals (e.g. through
(including the Lisbon Strategy) will sit and internalising environmental and social costs). It
that the Strategy needs to “add value” by was agreed that sustainable development
providing strategic direction in a global should be the criteria against which all EU
context over the long-term (e.g. 50 years) action is evaluated but that a societal paradigm
and in a way that facilitates policy coherence. shift is required to enable this. This paradigm
This vision should capture the concept of shift should include the addition of new
respect (of the economy) for the natural measures for evaluating growth and should
environment. reflect not only GDP but also welfare and
quality of life.
Within this framework, priority themes are
required with clearly defined short- and Ownership during the development and
medium-term targets. The framework should implementation phases of the strategy was
be flexible enough to capture new issues, identified as crucial. It was agreed that the
which may emerge over the longer term. The Commission, Council and European
relevance of the six critical issues was not Parliament have important roles to play, but
debated (although the ageing of the population that other EU institutional and stakeholder
and public health were two areas identified as groups (e.g. EEA, EESC, Eurostat, trade unions
a priority that are addressed through Lisbon, etc) are of equal importance in ensuring buy-
but not given sufficient attention in the in over the longer term. It was suggested that
Sustainable Development Strategy). new procedures might be required to enable
Quantitative targets were seen as essential to greater involvement of these groups (e.g. at
ensuring accountability and responsibility at the Spring Council and during strategy
the implementation level. development). Clear areas of responsibility
and accountability would facilitate effective
The development of principles* for sustainable implementation and it was recommended that
development was thought to be a useful tool the Strategy could provide direction here. This
for guiding policy development and it was was linked to the importance of having a
* Principles discussed were: synergy between the three dimensions of sustainable development, sustainable development must add value
to decision-making/policy development, ecosystem health, intra and intergenerational justice, global justice, consistency with the
Millennium development goals, polluter pays, precautionary approach, social inclusion and equity, and sustainable economic growth
(under restricted conditions).

strategy that is readily understood at
all levels (political through to grass
roots). Without this understanding it
was considered that buy-in would be
low, and that commitment to the
strategy and sustainable development
generally would be poor. measures other than GDP (e.g. welfare and
quality of life).
Implementation issues were discussed and it
was agreed that the strategy must provide High-level objectives or principles, which
practical guidance and targets and should help to guide activity within the EU, should
identify tools or mechanisms by which win- be included and these should be
win policies can be developed. It was thought complemented by criteria against which the
that this was essential to convince voters of sustainability of proposals, programmes or
the importance of sustainable development, policies can be measured.
i.e. the benefits of sustainable development Guidance for implementation should be
must be demonstrable at the grass-roots level included in the strategy and this should be
and also at the highest political level. pitched at a variety of levels to enable all
Consumption and production was a major groups (the public, producers, industry,
theme of discussion of the group and the use politicians, etc) to deliver sustainable
of taxes or other economic mechanisms were development outcomes.
thought to be valuable tools for promoting The six critical issues are appropriate at the
sustainable development. moment and the Strategy should provide
long-term, medium-term and short-term
targets for these policy areas. The framework
Next steps / Recommendations : should be flexible enough to provide for the
addition of new or emerging issues of
The Commission Communication appears to importance over the longer term.
be on the right lines. But the EU’s Sustainable
Development Strategy must provide a strong The means by which the vision, high level
statement regarding the relationship between objectives and specific targets will be met
Lisbon and the Strategy, that is, that Lisbon is should be identified as far as possible in the
a medium-term strategy that sits within the Strategy. This should include identification of
wider sustainable development framework. responsibility for action, monitoring,
reporting and accountabilities.
The Sustainable Development Strategy
should be a long-term strategy that Mechanisms for facilitating policy coherence
encompasses all three dimensions and and policy integration should be retained
provides a clear vision for the EU. within the Strategy.
Sustainable development should be the The Strategy should be reviewed on a regular

criterion against which all EU action is basis to provide for democratic legitimacy;
evaluated. This should be accompanied by a i.e., take into account any changes in voter
shift in emphasis in the strategy towards preferences, but also to provide for changes
encouraging the consideration of growth in targets, and the addition of new issues.

22 Is sustainable development possible under
the neoclassical economics paradigm ?
Ten participants development, case studies and support for

examples of alternatives.
The contradiction in a neoliberal ideology

Results : (based on neoclassical economics plus anti-
The concept of sustainable development is Statism and slim State ideology) has become
based on a human-centred value system, which obvious in the process of reviewing the EU’s
emphasises social values such as responsibility Sustainable Development Strategy. The Kok
and justice (fair sharing of gains and the efforts report, calling for a streamlining of
to produce them), and environmental concerns, objectives to only growth and employment,
in particular on limiting the consumption of and supported in this by the Commission, was
resources (including land) and energy. It is an countered by the Council’s demand not to
attempt to deal with the absolute scarcities downplay social cohesion and the environment.
which humanity faces in particular in the long What we need now is a revision of the EU’s
run (there are no substitutes, e.g., for water and Sustainable Development Strategy, which places
fertile soil). equal emphasis on a sound economic basis,
social cohesion, institutional reforms
This establishes a conceptual contradiction (sustainability governance) and environmental
to neoclassical economics, as the basic protection. All of these objectives are broadly
axiomatic assumptions of the neoclassical supported by the European electorate.
model make the selfish, utility-maximising
individual, uninfluenced by social However, even a broadly supported set of
concerns, a cornerstone of that theory. objectives cannot be implemented with
Together with the assumption of fully public support if the strategy uses only the
informed market competitors of equal instruments found in the neoclassical
influence leading necessarily to an toolbox (deregulation, liberalisation,
equilibrium, this makes it a belief system as decreasing welfare expenditure and lowering
much as a scientific method. taxation on industry). New strategic
approaches such as sustainable development
This model guides much of current policy need new policy instruments as well.
making in the EU, despite its obvious
contradictions with social reality, and even
though it is to a large degree out of touch
with people’s feelings and preferences. It
must be replaced by another approach based
on the European social and cultural model. To
this end, an alternative based on sustainable
development is needed, emphasising a
different, pluralistic value system, a more
integrated and down-to-earth worldview, and
the balance between individual self-
realisation and social responsibility. The
current paradigm works like a form of
brainwashing, declaring that there is no
alternative. Consequently, the development
of alternative approaches must be seen as a
long-term learning process. There is urgent
need for more conceptual research, model

23 How to make Sustainable Development
Strategy matter for European politics
Names of participants : Make the Sustainable Development

Strategy ‘concrete’ with realistic and
F.O.Wolf, Clare Coffey, Hugh Laxton, Dalma
meaningful objectives translatable
Fabian, Luc Bas
into everyday experiences
■ Translate into national and regional and
Results : local policies;
The current situation presents us with a ■ Identify costs and options;
vicious circle, whereby: ■ Define accountability;
Citizens fail to identify with sustainable ■ Strengthen the social and institutional
development. Sustainable development is not dimension of Sustainable Development
sufficiently ‘concrete’ and institutions are Strategy;
not prepared for handling sustainable ■ Strengthen long term economic debate
development issues and there is a lack of within Sustainable Development Strategy.
k n o w l e d g e a n d understanding, which
leads to people being unable to identify with Prepare EU institutions for
sustainable development – and on goes the
vicious circle.
■ Improve the transparency of the European
It is essential to break the vicious circle by
Council;
making the Sustainable Development Strategy
matter for European politics, in a way that ■ Establish an inter-institutional agreement
will shift the balance of power in the face of to improve cooperation between EU
coalitions/interests for unsustainable policy institutions, in this context;
options. The workshop identified three ■ Establish a sustainable development
broad groups of solutions to make the monitoring institution (e.g. sustainable
Sustainable Development Strategy matter. development oversight committee of the
European Parliament);
Getting the different publics ■ D e f i n e a n d a g re e t h e Sustainable
(people) to identify with sustainable Development Strategy with legislation
e.g. 6 th Environment Action Programme
development by:
(EAP) or Sustainable Growth Pact;
■ Establishing a link between personal ■ Improve synergies between EU and
convictions (e.g. on environmental issues) national and regional levels;
and sustainable development; ■ Generate multi faceted and integrated
■ Developing a sense of pride in a new knowledge and understanding of
“European way” based on the Sustainable Development Strategy for all
sustainable development (differentiating/ sectoral interest groups, committees,
competing’ with US model, for example). etc.

24 How can we improve communications
about sustainable development with
consumers ?
Names of participants : ■ This can help us to find a ‘hook’ to

communicate in a more attractive way to
Jonas Norrman, Ingeborg Niestroy, Katalin consumers on sustainability issues;
Bernáth, Staffan Nilsson, Ursula Vavrik,
■ We should consider creative ways of
Christine Marlet, Lettemieke Mulder
communicating with consumers (e.g.,
focus on other attributes and add
The key question : how we can sustainability over time, information in
shops, the possibility of tracing the
attract consumers; and thereby two
product back in the supply chain through
sub-questions:
info on the Internet).
How can we make sustainable development
more appealing to consumers ? A need for more and better
What are the various tools ‘out there’ that can education :
help promote consumer sustainable buying ■ We need more (integrated) and better
behaviour? education on what sustainable development
means, and why it is important;
Making sustainable development ■ Special attention is needed for schools;
more attractive to consumers is not ■ It is ultimately the consumer who decides
easy : what he/she will buy;
■ Consumers needs ‘tools’ and information
■ There is a dissonance between people as
to be able to decide;
citizens and people as consumers -
• Through clear (and credible!)
purchasing behaviour does not
information on the different
correspond to concerns expressed as
sustainability topics;
citizens;
■ Most consumers buy based on • And in different channels (not just on-
price/convenience and not based on packing, but also on the Internet, in the
sustainability (aspects); media, in-store).
■ Some products claimed to present ■ The Commission can play a facilitation/

‘sustainability attributes’ are perceived to promotion role.
be of lesser quality or ‘not so cool’ -
although some attributes (e.g., health) DO
Tools that can help to influence
attract consumers.
consumer behaviour :
■ Tools that exist (e.g., eco and fair trade
Useful lessons from marketing :
labels, in-store info, the Internet,
■ We can and should learn from marketing consumer in-store, procurement) can each
experts and market research data on play a role;
‘what consumers want/need’; ■ Eco-labels alone will not ‘do the job’;

■ Difficult trade-offs are to be made Key topics :
between ‘getting the data right’ (i.e.,
making sure that sustainability How to include consumer (communications/
information available is balanced and involvement) aspects in the EU’s Sustainable
includes the entire life-cycle) and ‘being Development Strategy; the role of government
clear and easy-to-understand’ to in establishing ‘the right framework’ to
consumers; promote a sustainable products; a definition
of sustainable product/services; a sustainable
■ Companies to (continue to) make reliable
products should not cost more.
product-related sustainable development
information available on the basis of
which stakeholders can decide.
Credibility of information is key:

Consumers cannot always decide on the
basis of the info available.
Concerned parties should therefore ensure

that the process of obtaining the info is
credible, and that it covers key sustainable
development areas relevant to the product in
question.
There is a need to cover the entire life-cycle

and value chain, and to involve all relevant
parties.

25 Beyond Lisbon and Gothenburg : EU policy
instruments for eco-competitiveness
Names of participants :
Torben Timmermann, Derek Osborn, Vincent
Denby Wilkes, Jussi Soramäki, Rachel Lee,
Luc Goeteyn, Pierre Godin, Willy De Backer
Results :
The EU has to move away from the
dichotomy of two strategies.
Sustainable development is the overarching

objective but needs a much stronger first
economic pillar including the objectives of
the competitiveness agenda.

The institutional structures at EU level but
also at national and regional level have to be
adapted to more integrated horizontal policy
definition.
Transport – aviation and cars – is the key area

where instruments and policies need to be
developed for eco-competitiveness.
Changes in our education system are needed

so that education is more in line with
business and sustainable development
issues.
Set up a European Sustainable Development

Council consisting of representatives from
civil society, business and NGOs to evaluate
EU policies on their competitiveness and
sustainable development impact on an
annual basis.

26 How to motivate people (consumers)
to buy green products
Names of participants :
Jose Leirião, Luisa Santiago, Marcus Tornberg,
Jo Ewert, Bruno Toussaint, Alexandra Klenke,
Johann Költringer
Results :
Everyone wants/need to buy cheap.
How to change minds ?
❙ E n s u re c h e a p e r p r i c e s f o r g re e n
products;
❙ Provide incentives to create cheaper
production conditions in the EU for
EU enterprises;
❙ Convince consumers that EU products
are safer and environment-friendly;
❙ Explain how buying EU products helps
to create jobs and growth and
modernises the European Social Model. Educate by the example from public
authorities :
Discrimination between green and
❙ Public purchasing must set the example
other products :
and buy European made products.
❙ Labels should state the origin of
products, particularly imported products;
2. Incentives to industry for clean
❙ There should be ECO labels from EU production technologies :
producers;
❙ Equipments and processes that meet
❙ The EU logo should appear on all products sustainable development requirements;
produced in EU Member States.
❙ Production conditions should meet
legislation on sustainable requirements,
Create a green products market :
ISO standards.
❙ Demand and Supply sides should work
together to create this market. Governance :
❙ Government to create opportunities for
The consumer must be educated about
what it means to buy green : people to become green consumers.
❙ Information campaign to change priorities

Change mentalities by creating a conscious
and the specific legislation applied;
culture of being a green buyer:
❙ Consumers should prioritise their
❙ Involve producers and consumers;
purchases and buying green should be
top of the list. ❙ Provide information to ensure transparency.

26
WTO countries must apply all agreed people to adhere to the green products;
legislation and requirements to ❙ Create mechanisms to give people
produce green products : confidence in the European Commission;
❙ The alternative is protectionism. ❙ Buying EU products creates jobs and
growth.
Next steps / Recommendations : 7. The Commission should facilitate the

creation of a GREEN MARKET, using
1. Definition of what is a GREEN incentive instruments involving
product/sustainable development producers and consumers and
related products; perhaps producing a catalogue of
green products.
2. Definition of what is a GREEN buyer;
3. Create a range of indicators on how

to identify a green product;
4. Age-specific guidelines informing

people about how to bring their
actions into line with sustainable
development requirements;
❙ Specific to schoolchildren from 6 to 10

years old;
❙ Specific to children from 11 to 18 years
old;
❙ Specific to adults from 19 to 30, from
31 to 50, from 50 to 65 and from 65
onwards.
5. What to do guide lines specific to

enterprises on;
❙ How they should procure materials/

components for their production lines;
❙ What indicators the enterprises should
maintain to certify the green products.
6. E U / N a t i o n a l / R e g i o n a l / L o c a l
campaigns to inform people of the
advantages of producing and buying
green products and why we should all
buy those produced in EU countries :
❙ Ensure the full awareness of producers

and consumers in order to build trust at
all levels;
❙ Create opportunities and incentives for

27 How to achieve the EU target to halt
biodiversity loss by 2010
Names of participants : to ensure it is progressively focused on

provision of public goods, including
Jonathan Burney, Rachel Lee, Lutz Ribbe, biodiversity.
Jussi Soramäki
3. Encourage the concept of marine spatial
planning, including protected areas and
Trends :
ensure Common Fisheries Policy reform
The discussion group agreed with the continues with wider marine ecosystem
assertion in the EU February 2005 objectives, while avoiding changes that
communication, that there remained simply shift the damage.
pressures causing biodiversity loss. However,
particular trends were noted. The most 4. Encourage awareness throughout the EU
significant concerns were : about the contribution that biodiversity
protection and restoration can make to
■ How to protect remaining biodiversity in l o c a l e c o n o m i e s , t h ro u g h l a n d
accession states as they intensify their management jobs, tourism, and a better
agriculture; environment. Encourage, also, the role that
■ Concerns about losses to marine biodiversity. biodiversity and nature plays in delivering
important ecosystem services to society,
Other trends noted were which often have an important insurance
■ Habitat loss in some countries is now function, e.g. flood risk management.
slowing, but continuing pressures on the 5. In line with the Financial Perspectives
quality of remaining habitat as a result of Communication, require Member States to
various pollution sources and other champion the EU biodiversity target by
pressures; developing a financial plan which identifies
■ Significant fragmentation of remaining their environmental needs, associated
habitats; costs, and shows how these will be met,
■ Some very good recovery initiatives, e.g. through domestic, structural, rural
especially for flagship species, but less development funds, etc. And link this plan
support for less well known species; to the approval process for national
■ Impacts from climate change and strategic reference frameworks for
concerns about capacity for nature to cohesion policy and rural development.
adapt because of habitat fragmentation; 6. Adopt a broader approach, going beyond
■ Losses of biodiversity in forests in some the Natura 2000 network, to encourage
countries resulting from more intensive projects resulting from business activities,
forestry operations; such as minerals restoration or other
■ Problems with establishing ecological developments, which can also make a
networks across member state boundaries. useful contribution to biodiversity.
7. Integrate nature into a more multi functional
Next steps / Recommendations : approach to flood-risk management, taking
advantage of the ecosystem service
1. Recognise pressures on agro environment
provided by some natural habitats.
budgets and encourage their full use for
Encourage Member States to use their flood
nature conservation objectives. This is
management budgets for more multi-
critical to prevent damage in accession
functional objectives. Use the environmental
States, and to finance the recovery needs
risk prevention mechanism for this
in other States.
objective, and ensure this approach is built
2. Further reform of the single farm payment into any future Flood Management Directive.

28 Sustainable homes
Names of participants : Next steps / Recommendations :

■ Darinka Czischke (CECODHAS) ■ European Commission to produce
(European Liaison Committee for Social sustainability criteria for regeneration
Housing) schemes that attract European funding;
■ Mona-Lisa Norrman (Rapporteur of the ■ EU to produce guidelines on sustainable
Committee of the Regions housing and create incentives for housing
■ Rachel Tetlow (CECODHAS) suppliers (e.g. house builders, Housing
Associations, Developers) to comply with
■ David Edwards (Chief Executive of
these guidelines;
exSite Limited)
■ EU to lead on coordination of benchmarking
■ Bernadette Hartley (European Fire
for household recycling schemes;
Sprinkler Network)
■ EU to lead on promoting a ‘Secured by
Design’ Agenda across Europe;
Results : ■ EU to raise awareness of the social,
economic, environmental, and financial
First of all, the group agreed on a common benefits of sustainable housing;
definition of “sustainable homes”: ‘Homes
■ EU to promote a coordinated approach to
that are safe, secure, meet residents’ needs
research on sustainable housing and link
and aspirations and are environmentally
to policy and practice;
friendly in socially mixed areas’.
■ Review current EU and national policies of
their possible negative impact on creating
sustainable housing developments, e.g.
Aims : the negative impact of rules on VAT for
■ A system that gives maximum choice to refurbished housing.
residents in terms of house type and
price;
■ Create housing developments where
people feel they belong, and where there
has been an integrated approach to the
provision of transport, services,
amenities and employment
opportunities;
■ Housing that has been designed to
minimise anti social behaviour;
■ Where homes have been designed to
minimise crime and maximise comfort
and safety, e.g. through inclusion of fire
precautions;
■ Create homes where the internal and
external waste from the homes is
minimised.

29 Addressing all human needs
Names of participants : Next steps /Recommendations :

Katarina Lindahl, Ulrike Roehr, Isabel The EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy
Mohedano Sanchez, Isabel Ripa Julia sha ll work for all human beings, for the
different groups of society within the EU and
for all countries in the world. To ensure this
Results : some recommendations are to;
Brainstorming on this issue came up with ■ Ensure that legislation addresses

the followin g: vulnerable groups’ needs e.g. : a healthy
environment for children and a labour
Humans have needs. Some needs that need market supportive of single mothers and
to be fulfilled to achieve sustainable young people;
development include:
■ Recognise the dependence of human
■ A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT; beings on nature and natural resources.
Human beings cannot live apart from
■ GENERATION REPLACEMENT;
them;
■ FEELING SAFE, SECURE, CONFIDENT;
■ Respond to EU interests and challenges,
■ PERSONAL FULFILMENT; but also respect non-EU interests, e.g. : on
■ EDUCATION; trade and agriculture issues;
■ FREEDOM; ■ More coherence between what the EU
■ INCOME; says and what it practises.
■ FEELING USEFUL.
In every society, at local, regional, EU or

global levels, humans in different situations
have different needs. Some groups are more
vulnerable, including
■ CHILDREN;
■ THE ELDERLY;
■ THE UNEMPLOYED;
■ THE HANDICAPED;
■ MIGRANTS;
■ SINGLE MOTHERS;
■ POOR PEOPLE.

30 Leadership through government and
how best to demonstrate it
Names of participants : Next steps / Recommendations :

Tim Irwin, Josef Zboril, Tomas Ekberg ■ Develop and express a long-term living
Vision;
■ Focus more sharply on fewer priorities;
Results :
■ Communicate sustainable development;
Why is it important ?
■ Seek attitudinal change through setting
■ To provide a real impetus to take out impacts of non-sustainable living;
sustainable development forward; ■ Establish a policy and legislative
■ To send out the signal that government is framework, which encourages and
serious; supports sustainable development;
■ To practice what is being preached and ■ Ensure that the allocation of EU funds is
build trust and credibility; transparent and targeted on the
■ To influence others. sustainable development priority areas;
■ Adopt a more precautionary approach
where scientific evidence is uncertain;
Key Issues :
■ Ensure EU policy and legislation is people
■ Lack of understanding of what centred;
sustainable development is; ■ Review and update key policy areas to
■ Inconsistency in policies across different re f l e c t s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t
sectors; principles;
■ Short term thinking and policies; ■ Regularly review strategy objectives,
■ Agenda too broad. priorities and implementation.

31 Private ownership on the solution for
the future of sustainable development
Names of participants : ■ Without understanding the different

priorities of different people, we risk this
Kendra Okonski, Natalie Hufnagl being an ivory tower exercise -- not
connected to reality; this is dangerous
and, will be self-defeating;
Results :
■ Eco-imperialism, where the EU would
Why is private ownership different
impose its standards; and values on other
to communal/government
countries, is a risk and should be avoided
ownership ?
at all costs. It would be counterproductive
Why might private ownership be the and detrimental;
solution ?
■ Example biodiversity loss, fuel wood and
Sustainable development is a process, deforestation – the root cause is not
not an outcome : tackled; poverty alleviation and lack of
economic development; politicians only
■ Most definitions of ‘Sustainable
look at the superficial part of the problem.
development’ focus on outcomes.
However, because human preferences
change, because change defines human Private ownership facilitates the
existence, sustainable development process of development :
should be seen as a flexible and a ■ Private ownership and other institutions
dynamic process. In 25 year, we may are a means to an end -- i.e., material
change our ideas about what sustainable wealth does not create happiness, but
development is; creates independence; enables people to
■ The Rio conference definition of sustainable achieve other goals; people living in
forest management is multifaceted. The EU poverty by definition lack amenities
should add the cultural aspect to the other (those of the developed world) that we
three pillars of sustainable development take for granted;
(economic, ecological, social).
■ Private property as an asset – it provides a
platform to engage in entrepreneurship,
Sustainable development should be
investment (not just in a financial sense). If
human-centred :
you don’t own anything, you cannot make
■ Rather than focusing on protecting the
these negotiations. Hernando de Soto’s
environment for its own sake, sustainable
work illustrates why this is a human
development is about empowering people
tendency that should be harnessed in the
to make decisions about using resources
context of development and environmental
sustainably, now and in the future;
protection;
■ People in different stages of
development have different priorities; ■ Institutions, including private property
imposing environmental standards on rights (traditional) and new institutions–
them. They should decide their path of depending on technology – such as ITQs
sustainable development; countries will (individual tradable quotas for fish) – are
make different decisions about what to the best way to harness the human
prioritize; entrepreneurial spirit.

31
Private ownership encourages self- Private ownership enhances long-term

responsible action : sustainable investment :
■ Institutions and the market process create ■ Resources that are privately owned may
the best kind of incentives to engage in not be subject to the same economic
environmental stewardship; the political pressures as those that are not privately
process creates the wrong kind of owned. (Ownership fosters a longer term
incentives (e.g. profit-seeking); thinking, in contrast with the short-term
thinking resulting from a lack of
■ If you know that you own something, you
ownership);
are more responsible, you act differently
than if that resource is not owned; Example –the experience of southern
■ Sustainable development from the bottom African countries shows why ownership
up – individual responsibility works better works to protect flora and fauna.
than politicians or outsiders deciding. Elephants and rhinos are not seen as
Decentralised ownership and enemies by local people, but as an asset
management of resources work best; because they have a stake in the
outcome. As a result, elephant and rhino
■ Government schemes generally fail to populations benefit;
protect the environment;
■ Ownership promotes a multifaceted
Example : the Amazon: the government perspective, not just a focus on a single
sees it as economic asset rather than as a use of a resource but a multifaceted
source of subsistence; rights are allocated approach.
to outsiders rather than to locals. Why not
give this right to the people who live there
– and let them decide?
Private ownership promotes cross-

generational commitment :
■ People who own resources are more likely

to think about the future and, the
implications of their decisions. Ownership
discourages exploitative behaviour.
Excluding non-owners from using
resources is imperative to ensuring their
continued existence;
■ Individuals may be encouraged to exploit
resources, which are not owned, as much
as they can, as quickly as possible;
■ Traditional thinking in family forestry in
U S / E u ro p e / C a n a d a / A u s t r a l i a / N e w
Zealand – spirit of family business- Europe
– 45-55 % private ownership of forests.

Trial and error/ experimentation ■ The EU’s Sustainable Development
Strategy should learn from the experience
■ Obsessive focus on using government to of other countries such as Iceland, New
create ‘solutions’ to address problems Zealand for example – which realised that
means that we don’t allow decentralised they had a problem with their fisheries,
experiments in environmental protection and solved the problem by creating new
to take place and to evolve to solve institutions called ITQs – individual
problems. tradable quotas, a form of property rights
■ We also fail to fail to allow new institutions for fish.
to evolve to address people’s changing ■ The EU should recognise that local
preferences over time. management and incentives are one of
the best ways to promote environmental
protection.
Next steps / Recommendations : ■ The EU’s Sustainable Development
■ To achieve a process of sustainable Strategy should be a process of creating
development, the EU’s Sustainable multiple values; cultural, aesthetic and
Development Strategy should rely on moral and enabling these to co-exist.
institutions rather than specific policy
The EU should rely on more decentralised
outcomes.
approaches to environmental protection, and
■ The EU’s Sustainable Development allow experimentation with different
Strategy should focus on the root causes institutional frameworks, in the revised
of problems – i.e. poverty as the driver of Sustainable Development Strategy.
biodiversity loss – rather than creating
superficial, feel-good policies.

32 What role is there for a broadened health
policy in a reviewed Sustainable
Development Strategy ?
Names of participants : and result in losses on a huge scale: the 2003

Avian Influenza outbreak in the UK cost the
Lisa Boch-Andersen, Christine Dalby, EU budget 650 million Euro. The 2001
Susanne Droege, Véronique Schmit, outbreak of food-and-mouth disease in the
Michael Holl UK cost the UK economy an estimated 13
billion Euro, and these figures do not include
long-term losses due to decreasing consumer
Results : confidence. Bio-terrorism is another issue in
the context of health and security. HIV/AIDs
People’s health, which is partly determined are not that new, but no cure for them has
by the state of the environment and the been found to date: infection rates have
health of animals, is key to sustainable recently reached worrying levels in certain
development. In fact, human health can be regions of the world such as Eastern Europe
considered a resource for economic activity. and are the major threat to economic
At the same time it is a fundamental right recovery in Africa.
(important in the context of provision of and
access to health services) and determines the Health is welfare – and health is wealth: EU
well-being and dignity of the individual. countries spend 8 % of GDP on health, yet
Health policy therefore illustrates the lose over EUR 135 billion to cardiovascular
interlinkages between the three pillars and diseases and 3 % of their GDP and 500 million
the need for policy integration. work days in work-related health problems
and accidents. With an ever-older society,
Despite the fact that public health has been healthcare cost will sooner or later threaten
included into the list of the six key the carrying capacity of public budgets.
unsustainable trends already in the Germany spends 500 Euro per capita a year
Commission Communication of 2001, as well on healthcare – expenditure that equals the
as in similar publications of other per capita productivity of India. Within the
organisations, its importance and scope category of lifestyle - i.e. also largely
nowadays exceed what were at that time preventable - diseases, obesity and nutrition
identified as alarming trends, namely with its consequences, such as diabetes and
environmental health and antibiotic cardiovascular diseases, is probably the most
resistance. (This statement does, of course, urgent threat to industrialised countries, but
by no means call into question the topicality mental health, smoking and alcohol-related-
of health problems caused by pollution with harm also play a role. Particular emphasis
an estimated 60,000 European citizens dying should therefore be given to prevention.
every year due to bad air quality!)
What are the new

unsustainable health threats ?
In an ever more globalised and
interconnected world, major threats to health
have reached a new order of magnitude in
recent years and decades. Newly-emerging
and contagious diseases such as SARS, avian
flu and influenza can spread over the globe

33 What can the EU learn from Bangladesh ?
Names of participants : ■ Conversely, the EU could benefit from

learning (and wanting to learn) from other
Christoph Müller, René De Sousa, Clare experiences.
Coffey, Kendra Okonski

Results :
■ A challenge for the EU’s Sustainable
■ The revisiting of the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy is to consider how
Development Strategy, including the experiences, practices and technologies
strengthening of its external dimension, can best be exchanged, in the common
presents an important opportunity for the interest of EU and third countries, with
EU to improve its contribution to global the genuine aim of facilitating effective
sustainable development. But it also governance, whatever the chosen model
provides important opportunities to reflect and stage of development.
on how the EU addresses global or non EU
sustainable development issues. ■ The question as to how to communicate
with different countries or groups, either
■ There is currently a tendency to present to involve them in discussions or
the EU as morally superior in relation to otherwise engage them, will also require
many sustainable development issues. greater sensitivity as regards national
The competitiveness debate, and communication channels.
suggestions to use this to promote the EU
sustainable development model, suggest ■ In some countries the religious groups
that the EU sustainable development is may be powerful conduits, and effective
about being the best, better than other stakeholder representatives to involve in
countries and regions. In practice this debates and exchanges of experience.
could mean exporting EU approaches,
technology practices, to the detriment of ■ The way in which the EU can better
others. engage in international sustainable
development discussions could be
■ The EU should take care not to preach and informed by a more culturally diverse (EU)
impose its particular model of staff. The limited existing representation
development on the rest of the world. of ethnic minorities in EU affairs can
First and foremost, there is no single contribute to “EU SD imperialism”, to the
model that will be suitable for all other EU and the rest of the world s detriment.
countries. There may be good practices or
lessons that can be transferred, but these
will normally only inform other countries.
■ There should be no attempt at eco

imperialism. The EU must acknowledge
that its past development and ongoing
lifestyles are dependent upon massive
exploitation of global resources.

34 Better governance of the economy for
the implementation of the Sustainable
Development Strategy
Names of participants : 5. Not to spend too much energy on

communicating the real image of quality
Ludvik Jirovec, Joseph Ewert of life to citizens and how to achieve it.
Communicate a sustainable vision of a
future, with all that entails in terms of
Results : opportunities and sacrifices.
1. Our economy/society is not ideally 6. This implies that the traditional paths of
organised to facilitate the achievement of economic development are no longer
sustainable development objectives. always valid:
Nature shows – as illustrated, for ❙ Training – Education – Communication
example, by bee populations – that (primary duty);

balanced structures are more likely than ❙ A high degree of transparency in
others to ensure that a given objective is decision-making;
reached.
❙ Participatory democracy must be
2. Sustainable development strategy is experienced for real and be more than a
based on three pillars – economic – slogan;
environmental – social. Interaction ❙ Sustainable development places
between these three elements must be obligations on those advantaged by the
harmonious if the European model is to present system towards the most
achieve a sustainable and balanced disadvantaged;
improvement in the quality of life of all
citizens. ❙ Where appropriate, sustainable
development requires greater labour
3. However, we find growing imbalances flexibility and mobility;
everywhere; there is much in Europe that ❙ Preparation of legislation and regulation
is dysfunctional. Young people are often as a framework to prevent over-
frightened of Europe. concentration of large conglomerates
beyond the reach of any democratic
4. Economic governance at present focuses
authority; not leaving “improvements to
essentially on the interplay of market
our well-being” to market forces;
forces. Success is measured primarily in
terms of growth rates and dividends for ❙ Strengthening local economies in order
distribution. to uphold and consolidate sustainable
Sustainable development is too important development in the regions, by means of
to be left to market forces. Europe is diversification.
backing itself into an over-liberal 7. Bring about a shift in how people think, so
approach. The capitalist economy has still that a proper value is put on economic
to find a way forward and needs to be development, environmental protection
fine-tuned if it is to make its full and fair social integration of all citizens.
contribution to Europe achieving the aims
of sustainable development. What are the
next steps ?

35 How can the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy maintain and preserve the
European social model, represented by
small agricultural holdings ?
Names of participants : P o l i c y, s h o u l d t h e n p ro v i d e t h e
necessary measures, tools and financial
Frank Allen (Member of the EESC), Susana aid to allow them to do so. Farmers n e e d
Gaona Sãez (COAG, Spanish farmers’ help with implementing
organisation), Véronique Schmit (EUROGROUP) regulations that in many cases impose
major obstacles to their activity. A new
CAP is needed in order to comply with
Results : Sustainable Development, for it to
preserve the European social model.
■ More and more smallholdings are
disappearing in the EU. This means loss of ■ There is a need to maintain European
employment and land being abandoned. Is rural landscape and biodiversity, and here
this sustainable development? the role of farmers is fundamental : there
is no rural landscape without agriculture
■ EU regulations increase costs for farmers, and there is no agriculture without
who face the great challenge of remaining farmers. European legislation must ensure
competitive in the world’s largest food this.
importer (the EU).
■ The EU must defend its local agriculture in
■ Trade liberalisation : how can European the WTO negotiations, and pay special
farmers continue to practise sustainable attention to very important issues such as
agriculture in a climate where subsidies animal welfare, hygiene measures and
are gradually disappearing. food traceability, as well as export
refunds, which are essential for many
agricultural products in the EU.
■ European farmers want to practise
s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u re , b u t t h e
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and
more specifically the Rural Development

36 The European landscape – A framework
for sustainability
Names of participants : ■ Sustainable development must include

sound management of both the unique
Trygve Sundt and the daily landscape. It must
acknowledge the importance of
protecting the biodiversity in both an
Results : urban and a rural context.
■ The landscape forms the framework for ■ Daily access to a sound and complex
human activity, biological diversity and landscape is highly important for people’s
the scene of interaction between “man” health and wellbeing. As a part of
and environment. developing sustainable strategies in
Europe, the importance of the quality of
■ The landscape is more than the sum of
the daily surroundings, whether in an
the elements in the landscape. The urban, semi-urban or rural context, must
interaction between them gives a be thoroughly considered.
biological diversity of unknown
importance and possibilities for future
generations. Next steps / Recommendations :
■ Landscapes, with their natural and ■ Research developing knowledge about
cultural elements, represent important the relations between a people’s health,
resources as a framework for physical social behaviour and the quality of the
a c t i v i t y, s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a n d landscape must be supported.
education.
■ The European Landscape Convention is an
■ Management, including protection, of not important document, defining a basic
only unique landscapes, but also people’s agreement on European landscapes. It can
daily landscape is an important part of be considered to be a foundation for the
creating sustainable development in development of a common European
Europe. policy for land-use and landscape
management.

37 Hubbert’s Peak, infrastructure failure,
food security and planning resistance to
attempts at mitigation and transition
Names of participants : based on fractional reserve banking. It is

not capable of contracting. It will crash.
Ahmet Djemal, Urban Sustainability Projects
Our current civilisation is a tightly
interwoven net and the failure of any one of
Results : several elements will cause the whole
system to cease to function. Banking is one
Oil geologists and scientists the world over of the essential elements, oil is another and
are seriously concerned about the likely in a related way electricity is also one. The
consequences of a phenomenon know as peak in oil will be shortly followed by a
"Peak Oil". The idea was first proposed by peak in natural gas, which will threaten our
M. King Hubbert, an oil geologist working electricity supplies.
in the United States. Oil is a finite resource.
He proposed that production in any field Most of our food production and
would rise to a maximum over a period of distribution is utterly dependent on oil and
time and then decline in something like a gas either for transportation and land
bell shaped curve. This curve can also be preparation or in agrochemicals such as
applied to all of the Earth’s available oil fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides.
resources. Energy advisor to President G. Industrial agriculture has damaged the soil
W. Bush, Matthew Simmons is currently to such an extent that production without
quoted as saying that the largest oil chemicals is no longer possible without
producing country in the world, Saudi serous remediation efforts on much of the
Arabia, has peaked in its production. More agricultural land in Europe.
to the point in its attempts to over-produce
the field over the years, it has damaged the
fields in Saudi Arabia, and currently Next steps / Recommendations :
Aramco is extremely sensitive about the
water cut in its main field, Ghawar. He also We need a crash programme in returning a
states that we may already have passed substantial proportion of our population
the global peak. from the cities to the land in an attempt to
return food production to a primarily local
The US Department of Energy released a basis. As the economic crash unfolds, water
report on this issue to ASPO (The and food will be the most essential
Association for the Study of Peak Oil and problems.
Gas) in March 2005 warning of the
potential economic implications of this We need assistance from our governments
event. In the US Congress on 14 March in dealing with this situation. We need the
Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett problem to be acknowledged and for
spent some time discussing this issue and rational approaches to solutions. This can
referred to a web site (http://www. be done in the background as sustainability
lifeaftertheoilcrash.net) detailing the issues. projects in order to avoid alarming the
general public and when the crash occurs
The implications of this are profoundly the work done in this way can be pointed to
alarming. The current economic system is and then accelerated. It can be stressed
based on perpetual growth primarily due to that mitigation is in progress and that any
the fact that the current banking system is hardship will be of a short-term nature.

37
My organisation has a project in mind for the vegetable seeds and useful plants on a
Lancashire area that is designed to mitigate local basis all over Europe the moment the
the problem in the west Lancashire area. We economic crash occurs. We can create self-
have the land and the money from private sufficient centres in many different places
sources and are simply presenting it as a to assist the population once the problems
sustainability centre. We are expecting start. The Catholic Church did this once
serious opposition from the planners. We've before on the fall of the Roman Empire.
already been told that the Department of
These centres were called monasteries and
Transport will oppose it on the grounds of
held much of the knowledge of the Romans
increased traffic, even though we stress that
after the fall of their empire.
vehicle usage will be minimised and
restricted on the project. In the mean time I most seriously urge you as our continental
the British government is proposing to government to act on this issue and prepare
extend the current road network by a further
for the difficult times ahead to the best of
1000 kilometres at a cost of £1.9 billion.
your ability. And, if you find yourself unable
Their response to the situation is not to do so for political reasons, at least allow
appropriate. We can ameliorate the those of us that see and understand the
situation by preparing to introduce problem to act on our own behalf.

38 External dimension of the EU Sustainable
Development Strategy : how can we engage
the rest of the world, including developing
countries ?
Names of participants : encouraging sustainable development

throughout the supply chain.
Truus Huisman, Unilever How can the EU convince the US and the
emerging economies (e.g. China, India) to
The issues raised : become more sustainable ?
Capacity Building – How can we encourage • What should be our targets ? Should the EU
developing countries to take the path towards orient itself on global actions and
sustainability ? instruments or focus on partner countries ?
■ More sustainable production; • What are the means we could use ?
■ Institutional capacity building, to ensure a ■ If others are not coming on board, will the
sustainable management of natural EU be at a competitive disadvantage ?
resources (fight against corruption);
■ Trade capacity. This issue will become even more challenging
bearing in mind that Europe’s weight in the world
Discussion took place on what the EU could do to economy is decreasing, and it will therefore
improve the production conditions. It was felt become a less influential player globally.
there were a number of complementary ways:
■ Capacity building – training/knowledge Efforts could be undertaken at
transfer to local producers on how to raise
the sustainability level. This approach could different levels :
be promoted through the exchange of best ■ Exchange programmes with young people
practices; and students;
■ Standards, but this could lead to new forms ■ Active engagement with the people in
of protectionism. At the same time, we may these countries;
need rules for production practices the EU
really cannot accept; ■ The EU should be an example itself, and
should highlight success cases, which
■ Labels – but there are already labels
show that sustainable development also
covering environmental, social, quality
makes business sense;
issues, this could lead to an abundance
of labels, leading to confusion. Also, ■ Continuous engagement by various
labelled products still remain a niche stakeholders (NGOs, business, government
market. The real challenge is etc.) could contribute to greater awareness
mainstreaming sustainability; about the need for sustainable development.
■ More efforts are need to get the citizen as How can the EU support the sustainable
consumer on board, keeping in mind that gaining of natural resources in developing
price is still a key issue; countries ? How can we improve the trade and
■ Procurement rules can also encourage production statistics on natural resources ?
sustainable production; How can the EU better honour its international
■ Companies can play an important role by commitments?

Stakeholder Forum
on Sustainable
Development in
List of participants
the EU
Richard ADAMS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Frank ALLEN, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Dirk AMEEL, Association of European Consumers - AEC
Dr. Günther BACHMANN, Head of Office, National Council for Sustainable Development,
Germany
Eva BAÑOS de GUISASOLA, Policy Officer Environment Forum, EUROCITIES
Miklos BARABAS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
José Manuel BARROSO, President, European Commission
Luc BAS, European representative, nrg4SD - Network of Regional

Governments for Sustainable Development
Markus BECKER, Manager Public Affairs, RWE - Rhein-Westfälische-

Elektrizitätswerke AG, Brussels
Eva BELABED, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Charles Etienne BELANGER, Directeur, Bureau international du tourisme social
Frida BERGMAN, Coordinator, South Sweden European Office
Katalin BERNÁTH, Adviser, Ministry of Environment and Water, Hungary
Lilas BERNHEIM, Environment attachée, Permanent Representation of France to

the EU
Thomas BERNHEIM, European Commission, DG ENV
Johannah BERNSTEIN, Environmental Law and Policy Consulting
Ulf BJORNHOLM OTTOSSON, Environment Counsellor, Permanent Representation of

Sweden to the EU
Lisa BOCH-ANDERSEN, Co-Chair Sustainable Development Task Force, American

Chamber of Commerce to the European Union
Patrizia BRANDELLERO, Policy Officer, European Anti Poverty Network
Matt BRIGHT, Policy Co-ordinator, Greater London Authority, London’s

European Office

Stephane BUFFETAUT, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Jonathan BURNEY, General Manager, English Nature
Brigitte BUSLIN, Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee
Joan CABALL I SUBIRANA, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Silvia CALAMANDREI, Head of Unit, European Economic and Social Committee
Liina CARR, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Clare CARROLL, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Paul CARTUYVELS, Conseiller, Bouygues SA, représentation européenne
Sylvain CHEVASSUS, Policy Officer - Council of European Municipalities and Regions
Patrice CHRISTMANN, Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS - The Association of the

Geological Surveys of the EU
Clare COFFEY, Senior Fellow, IEEP - Institute for European Environmental

Policy, UK
José CRUZ, Director, Direcção Regional do Ordenamento do Território e

dos Recursos Hídricos
Eva CSOBOD, Director, REC - Regional Environmental Center for Central and
Eastern Europe
Nina CUNNINGHAM, National Sustainable Development Policy Adviser, English

Regional Development Agencies
Darinka CZISCHKE, Coordinator of the European Social Housing Observatory,

CECODHAS - European Liaison Committee for Social Housing
Christine DALBY, Administrator, European Commission
Ronan DANTEC, Membre du comité directeur, AFCCRE
Willy DE BACKER, Editor-in-Chief, Euractiv.com
Hugues DE CHAVAGNAC, European Commission, DG RELEX
Sophie DE JONCKHEERE, Advisor Social Affairs and CSR, EUROCOMMERCE
Jan DE SMEDT, Secrétaire CFDD, CFDD - Conseil Fédéral du Développement

Durable, Belgium
René DE SOUSA, Senior Procurement Specialist, CIPS - The Chartered Institute

of Purchasing & Supply
Joel DECAILLON, Confederal Secretary, ETUC - European Trade Union

Confederation

Vincent DENBY WILKES, Sustainable Development Officer, EDF
Raymond DESTIN, Member European Economic and Social Committee
Loris DI PIETRANTONIO, European Commission, DG INFSO
Roshan DI PUPPO, Policy Officer, Platform of European Social NGOs
Stavros DIMAS, Member, European Commission
Ahmed DJEMAL, Director, Urban Sustainability Projects
Ann DOM, Group Leader Policy Analysis, European Environment Agency
Susanne DROEGE, Researcher, German Institute for Economic Research
Sophie DUPRESSOIR, Advisor, ETUC - European Trade Union Confederation
David EDWARDS, Chief Executive, exSite Research Limited
Ernst Erik EHNMARK, Member and Rapporteur on the review of the Sustainable
Development Strategy, European Economic and Social
Committee
Tomas EKBERG, Senior Research Officer, Sustainable European Regions

Network
José María ESPUNY MOYANO, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Frans W. EVERS, Chairman Steering Committee, EEAC - European

Environmental Advisory Councils
Joseph EWERT, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Dalma FABIAN, European Commission
Christos FAKAS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Henrik FALLESEN, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Emmanuelle FAURE, Director European Affairs, European Foundation Centre
Michael FERRY, Executive Secretary, Malta Council for Economic and Social
Development
Gert FIEGUTH, Professor, University of Applied Sciences – Kehl
Susanna FLORIO, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Cindy FÖKEHRER, Adviser, EUROCHAMBRES
Monika FRIELING, Referentin, Auswärtiges Amt, Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Susana GAONA SÃEZ, Technician, COAG

Rachel GARTHWAITE, International Officer, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK
Paul GERAADS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Aldrik GIERVELD, European Commission, Secretariat General
Pierre GODIN, European Commission
Luc GOETEYN, Director, MiNA-Raad, Flemish Environmental Council
Ulrika HAGBARTH, Project Manager, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Trygve HALLINGSTAD, Environment Councellor, Mission of Norway to the EU
Bernadette HARTLEY, Adviser, European Fire Sprinkler Network
Bernd HEIMBÜCHEL, Managing Director, Heimbüchel PR kommunikation und

publizistik GmbH
Wolfgang HELM, Adviser, Bündis 90 / die Grünen
Fernando HERVAS SORIANO, European Commission, Secratariat General
Roland HIGGINS, European Communications, Marine Stewardship Council
John HONTELEZ, Secretary General, EEB - European Environmental Bureau
Richard HOWELL, Water Management / Environmental Policy, Environment

Agency, United Kingdom
Clare HUDSON, Policy and Public Affairs Officer, UK Local Government

International Bureau
Natalie HUFNAGL, General Secretary, CEPF - Confederation of European Forest

Owners
Truus HUISMAN, European Public Affairs Manager, UNILEVER
Robert HULL, Director, European Economic and Social Committee
Manuel IRÚN MOLINA, Area medio ambiante y energia, Fundacion comunidad

Valenciana – region, Europea
Tim IRWIN, Principal Officer, Sustainable Development Team, Department

of the Environment, Northern Ireland
Luca JAHIER, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Ludvik JIROVEC, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Peter JOHNSTON, Head of Unit, European Commission, DG INFSO
Christiane JUST, Project Coordinator, UITP - Euroteam, Union internationale

des Transports Publics

Seppo KALLIO, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Jozsef KAPUVARI, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Pamela KENNEDY, Strategy Advisor to Director of Institute European

Environment Agency
Johannes KIND, European Economic and Social Committee
Pernilla KNUTSSON, Director, Ministry for Sustainable Development, Sweden
Thomas KOENEN, Econsense, Forum Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Deutschen

Wirtschaft
Johann KÖLTRINGER, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Hans KORTEWEG, Head of Cabinet & Institutional Affairs Manager, FORATOM,

European Atomic Forum
Christoforos KORYFIDIS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Pirjo-Liisa KOSKIMÄKI, Head of Unit, European Commission, DG TREN
Katri KOSONEN, European Commission, DG TAXUD
Jean-Marie LAMBOTTE, Conseiller, SPF Santé publique, sécurité de la chaîne

alimentaire et, environnement, Belgique
Tomas LANDERS, Forestry Coordinator, Bureau of Nordic Family Forestry,

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden
Andras LASZLO, President & CEO, EuroVisioning.org
Hugh LAXTON, Head of Office, Nature and Landscape Office, United Kingdom
Notis LEBESSIS, European Commission, DG Agriculture
Laure LEDOUX, European Commission, ESTAT
Rachel LEE, Regional Policy Officer, BirdLife International
Harry LEHMANN, Head of Department Environmental Planning and

Sustainability Strategies, Federal Environmental Agency,
Germany
Jose LEIRIÃO, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Teresa LENZI, Associate Expert, UN / DESA
Katarina LINDAHL, European Commission, DG Employment
Juan Luis LLORENS-URRUTIA, Head of Public Strategy Analysis, LKS S. Coop.
Tony LONG, Director, WWF European Policy Office

Rob LYNAS, Principal Officer, Sustainable Development Team, Department
of the Environment, Northern Ireland
Gunda MACIOTI, Déléguée Union européenne, ATD Quart Monde
Isabelle MAÎTRE, Head Goods Transport Union, IRV - International Road

Transport Union
Christine MARLET, Environment and Logistics Adviser, EUROCOMMERCE
Pendo MARO, EEB - European Environmental Bureau
Santiago MARTINEZ IGLESIAS, EU Advisor, Principality of Asturias
Jonas MECKLING, European Commission, DG ENV
Roland-Jan MEIJER, Holcim Ltd
Anne Margrethe MELLBYE, Adviser, EU Affairs, Statoil ASA
Robin MIEGE, Head of Unit, European Commission, DG Environment
Jacqueline MILLER, Présidente du groupe de travail Stratégies de développement

durable, CFDD - Conseil Fédéral du Développement Durable,
Belgique
Michael MODINOS, President, Interdisciplinary Institute for Environmental

Research, Greece
Isabel MOHEDANO SANCHEZ, Assistant, Euro*idées
Sonia MORENO, Assistant, Diputacion de Huelva
Ian MORTON, European Affairs Executive, Arriva PLC
Safy MOUSSA, Development Director, Eco&co, Consultancy for

communication on the environment and societal questions
Lettemieke MULDER, Environmental / Public Affairs Manager, UNILEVER
Christoph MÜLLER, Director for Political Coordination, Federal Chancellery

Austria
Siv NAESLUND, Executive Director, Environmental Advisory Council, Sweden
Georgia NAKOU, Principal Policy Analyst, IEE - Institution of Electrical

Engineers
Luis NEVES, Senior Manager, Deutsche Telekom
Leif NIELSEN, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Ingeborg NIESTROY, Secretary General EEAC - European Environmental Advisory

Councils

Staffan NILSSON, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Ute NOACK, Assistant, Coaching & Training
Michel NOLLET, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Mona-Lisa NORRMAN, Rapporteur on the review of the Sustainable Development

Strategy, Committee of the Regions
Jonas NORRMAN, Project coordinator, Centre for Environment and

Sustainability, GMV
Francisco NÚÑEZ, Regulatory Affairs Director, SOLVAY (Spain)
Kendra OKONSKI, Sustainable Development Programme Director, International

Policy Network, London
Derek OSBORN, Co-chair, EEAC Sustainable Development Working Group,

Member of the UK Sustainable Development Commission
Louise OUSTED OLSEN, Senior Adviser, EURO-COOP - European Community of

Consumer Co-operatives
Marc PALLEMAERTS, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for European Studies,

ULB / VUB
Antonio PANO BARRABES, Agriculteur, Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores

Ganaderos
Luis Miguel PARIZA CASTANOS,Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Alexandre PASCHE, Chairman, Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the

environment and societal questions
Stratos PEGIDIS, European Commission, DG Entreprise
Jochen PENKER, Central EU coordination unit, Federal ministry for economic

affairs and labour, Austria
Stefanie PFAHL, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany
Alicia PORTILLO, Environmental Technical Advisor, Delegación de la Junta de

Andalucía
Dominique PROY, ENL - Environmental Network Limited
Virgilio RANOCCHIARI, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Lutz RIBBE, Member and Rapporteur on the review of the Sustainable

Development Strategy, European Economic and Social
Committee
Arne RICHTERS, TME Senior Specialist Government Affairs, Toyota

Isabel RIPA-JULIA, Steering Committee Member & Sustainable Agriculture and
Rural, Development Coordinator, WECF- Women in Europe for
a Common Future
Manuel RIVERA, Project Manager, National Council for Sustainable

Development, Germany
Josiane RIVIERE, Brussels liaison office, European Environment Agency
Dr. Richard ROBSON, Director responsible for care and sustainable development,
CEFIC - European Chemical Industry Council
María José RODRIGUEZ CARBAJAL, Asesora UE, Gobierno del Principado de Asturias
Ulrike ROEHR, Director, Life - Women's Environmental Network
Thomas RUDDY, Researcher, EMPA Swiss Federal Labs
Catherine ROTH, Director for Culture and the Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Council of Europe
Valentina SALONNA, Volunteer, Project "Cittadini in un Europa Solidale", ACLI

Organisation (associations of Christian Italian Workers)
Javier SÃNCHEZ ANSÓ, Responsable Relationes Internationales, COAG-IR
Maria Luísa SANTIAGO, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Birte SCHMETJEN, Communication and Policy Adviser, Confederation of

European Forest Owners - CEPF
Véronique SCHMIT, Policy Officer Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
David SEARS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Igor SEVASTIYANOV, Senior Counsellor, Mission of the Russian Federation to the

EU
Claudia SEYBOLD, Programme Manager, ANEC
Madi SHARMA, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Anne-Marie SIGMUND, President, European Economic and Social Committee
Ulla SIRKEINEN, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Fredrick SJÖGREN, South Sweden European Office
Emily SMITH, EU Correspondent, ENDS Environment Daily
Robert SOÓS, Hungarian NGO Office in Brussels
Jussi SORAMÄKI, Environment Counsellor, Ministry of Environment, Finland

Joachim H. SPANGENBERG, Vice President, Sustainable European Research Institute - SERI
Silke STALLKAMP, Consultant, PLEON Public Affairs
Philip STAMP, Head of Branch, DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs, UK
Ernst-Christoph STOLPER, Director General, Planning and coordination, Sustainability,

One-World-Policy, Ministry of Environment of North Rhine-
Westphalia, Germany
Trygve SUNDT, Landscape Architect, European Foundation for Landscape

Architecture
Marialuisa TAMBORRA, European Commission, DG RTD
Rachel TETLOW, European Division Committee for Social Housing - CECODHAS
Christina THEOCHARI, Environment Secretary, Greek General Conference of Labour
Christa TIEGS, Global Marshall Plan Initiative, Eco-Social Forum Europe
Torben TIMMERMANN, Adviser, energy and environmental affairs, Confederation of

Danish Industries
Markus TORNBERG, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Janos TOTH, Member, European Economic and Social Committee
Bruno TOUSSAINT, Policy Adviser, CEPF - Confederation of European Forest

Owners
Pierre TSIAKKAROS, European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD)
Gisella UCCELLA, Responsible for Confesercenti office Brussels
Arantza URIARTE, Basque Delegation
Myriam VAN ESPEN, Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en

gérontologie
Sven VANEYCHEN, Attaché, Federal Public Planning Service Sustainable

Development, Belgium
Lea VATANEN, European Commission, Secretariat General
Ursula VAVRIK, European Commission, DG ENV
Patrick VENTURINI, Secretary General, European Economic and Social Committee
Ingmar VON HOMEYER, Senior Fellow, Ecologic - Institute for international and
European Environmental Policy
Bernd VOSS, Member, European Economic and Social Committee

Niklas WALLENIUS, Volunteer, Urban Sustainability Projects
Margot WALLSTRÖM, Vice-President, European Commission
Kay WALTER, Journalist
Ulrich WEBER, Expert environmental issues, UITP - Euroteam, Union

Internationale des Transports Publics
Peter WENSTER, Expert, Committee of the Regions
Martin WESTLAKE, Head of Communication, European Economic and Social

Committee
Laila WOLD, European Economic and Social Committee
Friedrich Otto WOLF, Co-ordinator, Privatdozent, Thematic Network ‘Sustainability

Strategy’, Freie Universität Berlin
Pascal WOLFF, Project Manager, European Commission, ESTAT
Josef ZBORIL, Member, European Economic and Social Committee

Stakeholder Forum
on Sustainable
Development in the
Documents on the review
EU
Documents on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "Assessing the EU sustainable
development strategy – exploratory opinion" (CESE 661/2004 - 28.04.2004).
http://www.esc.eu.int/sustainable_development/forum_14_04_2005/ces661-2004_ac_en.pdf
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "The 2005
Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Initial Stocktaking and Future
Orientations" (COM(2005) 37 final - 9.2.2005).
http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2005_0037_F_EN_ACTE.pdf
Commission Staff Working Document "Annex to the 2005 Review of the EU Sustainable
Development Strategy: Stocktaking of Progress (SEC(2005) 225 - 9.2.2005).
http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/COMM_PDF_SEC_2005_0225_1_EN_DOCUMENT
DETRAVAIL.pdf
Communication from Mr. Almunia to the Members of the Commission "Sustainable

Development Indicators to monitor the implementation of the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy" (SEC(2005) 161 final - 9.2.2005).
Commission Staff Working Document "Summary of the Public Consultation for the Review of
the European Sustainable Development Strategy 2001" (SEC(2005) 451 - 31.03.2005).
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "Draft
Declaration on Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development" (COM(2005) 218 final -
25.05.2005).

European Economic and Social Committee
Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

2005 - 96 pages - 21 x 29,7 cm
ISBN : 92-830-0503-1

Eesc Stakeholder SD 05

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

Eesc Stakeholder SD 05

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reviewing the

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 3

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 5

6 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU :

Documents on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy . . 95

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 7

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 9

10 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Thursday, 14 April 2005

2 p.m. 1st set of working sessions

4 p.m. 2nd set of working sessions

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 11

10.30 a.m. Mr Willy De Backer, Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com, a discussion with:

12 noon Concluding session

1 p.m. End of Forum

12 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Thursday, 14 April, 9.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.

Opening remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, ➔

Ms Sigmund welcomed all participants to the Stakeholder

Opening remarks by Ms Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 13

Ms Wallström underlined the timeliness of this Forum on

14 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Mr Walter asked if ordinary people really cared about sustainable development.

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 15

Mr Pasche pointed to a strong willingness among companies to move towards sustainable

Mr Walter asked if eco-business really was possible and profitable.

16 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 17

18 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Friday, 15 April, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Remarks by Mr Stavros Dimas, Member of the European Commission

Mr Dimas said that sustainable development remained at the heart of the

Mr Dimas said that unfortunately the environmental situation in the EU

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 19

Debate hosted by Mr Willy De Backer, Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com

Mr De Backer said that if the Sustainable Development Strategy was considered an

20 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Ms Georgia Nakou, Principal Policy Analyst, Institution of Electrical Engineers : A Sustainable

Ms Myriam Van Espen, Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en gerontology : How

Mr Patrice Christmann, Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS – The Association of the

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 21

22 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 23

Closing remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and

Mr Barroso said that sustainable development had become one

24 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Mr Barroso confirmed that he personally attached a lot of importance to sustainable

Mr Barroso's draft speech has been published by the European Commission at :

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 25

Names of participants : add urgency to the task of securing future

28 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Within the European-level policy-making

Finally, the European strategy needs to be

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy 29

Names of participants : communicated to all interested parties and

30 Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy