Estratégia Da UE Para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

1410

KA

-39-01-732-EN

-C

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg�

A Eu

rop

ean U

nio

n strateg

y for su

stainab

le develo

pm

ent

EN

ISBN 92-894-1676-9

,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!›

A European Unionstrategyfor sustainabledevelopment

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY

FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

European Commission

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002

ISBN 92-894-1676-9

© European Communities, 2002Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

Foreword

Over the last 10 years the European Union has made a number of important advances, such asthe completion of the internal market and the introduction of the euro. More recently, theEuropean Council, at its meeting in Lisbon in March 2000, launched a strategy aimed at turn-ing Europe into the world's ‘most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, withmore and better jobs’, within 10 years.

Alongside these economic reforms there has been a growing recognition that material prosper-ity has to go hand in hand with social progress and environmental responsibility if it is to be su-stainable. The social fabric and the natural environment around us are as fundamental to ourquality of life, and to that of future generations, as our economic performance. This vision of bal-anced and responsible progress in social, economic and environmental spheres is precisely whatis captured by the idea of ‘sustainable development’.

In May 2001 the Commission published a proposal for a sustainable development strategy. TheCommission’s proposal was well received by the Gothenburg European Council in June, andmany key elements of our proposal found their way directly into the summit’s written conclu-sions. The Gothenburg summit also confirmed that in future there would be a stocktaking atevery spring European Council, to see what progress has been made in implementing the strat-egy. This means that sustainable development is now very much at the top of the EuropeanUnion’s agenda.

This brochure brings together the key documents that featured during this process of drawingup and debating the EU sustainable development strategy. It includes the Commission’s consul-tation paper on sustainable development, the Commission’s strategy proposal itself, and theconclusions of the Gothenburg European Council. The Economic and Social Committee alsoplayed a very valuable role in organising a stakeholder conference in April 2001 to discuss theCommission’s consultation paper, and summary proceedings of that conference are also includ-ed here.

The strategy sets out very clearly what will have to be done if we are to put the EU on a moresustainable path. For example, in the environmental field we need to take measures to help tack-le climate change, to reduce emerging risks to public health from hazardous chemicals, to man-age natural resources more wisely and to improve the performance of our transport systems. Thescope and variety of these challenges make it clear that sustainable development is not an aca-demic concept with no practical importance — it is about real issues and real choices that pro-foundly affect our daily lives.

The EU strategy also calls for a new approach to policy-making that takes better account of theinterdependence between policy areas — such as transport and the environment, or health andpoverty — and that focuses on the long term rather than finding quick fix solutions. Too oftenin the past policies in different areas have worked against one another, rather than acting in amutually supportive way. Better use of scientific expertise and more comprehensive dialoguewith stakeholders are also vital ingredients for improving the policy process. Sustainable devel-

3

opment will sometimes require hard choices, and so fair and transparent decision-making are ata premium.

While the EU’s sustainable development strategy adopted at Gothenburg focuses mainly onwhat is needed to move Europe towards more sustainable development, we should not forgetthat sustainable development has an important global dimension. Sustainable development hasalways had a close connection to trade and development, following the important contributionsof the Brundtland Report in 1987 and United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.It is clear that in a world where environmental and social problems can cross even continentalboundaries, sustainable development requires improved governance at both national and inter-national levels.

The EU will therefore aim to play a leading role at this years’ United Nations World Summit onSustainable Development in Johannesburg, the 10-year follow up to the 1992 Rio Summit. TheEU sustainable development strategy will be part of the EU contribution to that summit. But thisstrategy will be extended, early in 2002, to include the global dimension. This will address thechallenge of integrating markets, global governance and development finance, with the aim ofmoving towards a global partnership for sustainable development. This package will provide aconcrete plan both for putting Europe on a path to a more sustainable future, and to pursue su-stainable development on the global scale.

In sum, sustainable development sets us the task of reshaping our policies to combine high envi-ronmental standards and social cohesion with a dynamic economy. The EU sustainable devel-opment strategy has set out a challenging road map for achieving this, and it is now up to us tolive up to these challenges, both for ourselves, and to protect the interests of those generationsto come.

Romano Prodi

4

Contents

Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001 — Presidency conclusions (extracts) 7

A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for sustainable development — Communication from the Commission (COM(2001) 264 final) 17

Consultation paper for the preparation of a European Union strategy for sustainable development — Working document from the Commission services (SEC(2001) 517) 45

Shaping the strategy for a sustainable European Union — Views from civil society and public authorities — Joint public hearing organised by the European Commission and the Economic and Social Committee (Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001) 97

5

Presidency conclusions

Gothenburg European Council15 and 16 June 2001

(extracts)

Gothenburg European Council15 and 16 June 2001

(extracts)

[…]

II. A strategy for sustainabledevelopment

19. Sustainable development — to meet the needs of thepresent generation without compromising those offuture generations — is a fundamental objective underthe Treaties. That requires dealing with economic, socialand environmental policies in a mutually reinforcingway. Failure to reverse trends that threaten future quali-ty of life will steeply increase the costs to society or makethose trends irreversible. The European Council wel-comes the submission of the Commission’s communica-tion on sustainable development which includes impor-tant proposals for curbing such trends.

20. The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainabledevelopment which completes the Union’s politicalcommitment to economic and social renewal, adds athird, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategyand establishes a new approach to policy-making. Thearrangements for implementing this strategy will bedeveloped by the Council.

21. Clear and stable objectives for sustainable developmentwill present significant economic opportunities. This hasthe potential to unleash a new wave of technologicalinnovation and investment, generating growth andemployment. The European Council invites industry totake part in the development and wider use of new envi-ronmentally friendly technologies in sectors such asenergy and transport. In this context the EuropeanCouncil stresses the importance of decoupling econom-ic growth from resource use.

PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

9

A new approach to policy-making

22. The Union’s sustainable development strategy is basedon the principle that the economic, social and environ-mental effects of all policies should be examined in acoordinated way and taken into account in decision-making. ‘Getting prices right’ so that they better reflectthe true costs to society of different activities would pro-vide a better incentive for consumers and producers ineveryday decisions about which goods and services tomake or buy.

23. To improve policy coordination at the level of theMember States, the European Council:

— invites Member States to draw up their own nationalsustainable development strategies;

— underscores the importance of consulting widely withall relevant stakeholders and invites Member States toestablish appropriate national consultative processes.

24. To achieve better policy coordination in the Union, theEuropean Council:

— will at its annual spring meetings give policy guidance,as necessary, to promote sustainable development inthe Union;

— invites the Union institutions to improve internal pol-icy coordination between different sectors; the horizon-tal preparation of the sustainable development strategywill be coordinated by the General Affairs Council;

— notes that the Commission will include in its actionplan for better regulation to be presented to the LaekenEuropean Council mechanisms to ensure that all majorpolicy proposals include a sustainability impact assess-ment covering their potential economic, social andenvironmental consequences.

25. To build an effective review of the sustainable develop-ment strategy, the European Council:

— invites the Council to examine, for the purposes ofimplementing the strategy, the proposals in the

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

10

Commission communication, in particular its proposalsfor headline objectives and measures, as well as thesixth environmental action programme and the sectorstrategies for environmental integration;

— will review progress in developing and implementingthe strategy at its annual spring meetings, in line withthe conclusions of the Stockholm European Council;

— notes that the Commission will evaluate implementa-tion of the sustainable development strategy in itsannual synthesis report, on the basis of a number ofheadline indicators, to be agreed by the Council in timefor the spring European Council 2002; at the sametime, the Commission will present a report assessinghow environment technology can promote growth andemployment;

— supports the Commission’s work on a draft on labellingand traceability of GMOs;

— asks the Council to take due account of energy, trans-port and environment in the sixth framework pro-gramme for research and development.

The global dimension

26. Sustainable development requires global solutions. TheUnion will seek to make sustainable development anobjective in bilateral development cooperation and in allinternational organisations and specialised agencies. Inparticular, the EU should promote issues of global envi-ronmental governance and ensure that trade and envi-ronment policies are mutually supportive. The Union’ssustainable development strategy forms part of theUnion’s preparations for the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development. The Union will seek toachieve a ‘global deal’ on sustainable development at thesummit. The Commission undertakes to present a com-munication no later than January 2002 on how theUnion is contributing and should further contribute toglobal sustainable development. In this context, theUnion has reaffirmed its commitment to reach the UN


11

target for official development assistance of 0.7 % ofGDP as soon as possible and to achieve concreteprogress towards reaching this target before the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburgin 2002.

Targeting environmental prioritiesfor sustainability

27. Building on the Commission communication on sustain-able development, the sixth environmental action pro-gramme and the sector strategies for environmental inte-gration, the European Council has, as a first step, singledout a number of objectives and measures as generalguidance for future policy development in four priorityareas: climate change, transport, public health and natu-ral resources, thus complementing decisions on socialand economic issues taken by the European Council inStockholm.

Combating climate change

28. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity arecontributing to global warming with repercussions onthe world’s climate. Therefore, the conference of theparties in mid-July in Bonn must be a success. TheCommunity and the Member States are determined tomeet their own commitments under the KyotoProtocol. The Commission will prepare a proposal forratification before the end of 2001 making it possiblefor the Union and its Member States to fulfil their com-mitment to rapidly ratify the Kyoto Protocol. TheEuropean Union will work to ensure the widest possi-ble participation of industrialised countries in an effortto ensure the entry into force of the protocol by 2002.To enhance the Union’s efforts in this area, theEuropean Council:

— reaffirms its commitment to delivering on Kyoto tar-gets and the realisation by 2005 of demonstrableprogress in achieving these commitments; recognis-ing that the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step, it


12

endorses the objectives set out in the sixth environ-mental action programme;

— furthermore reaffirms its determination to meet theindicative target for the contribution of electricity pro-duced from renewable energy sources to gross elec-tricity consumption by 2010 of 22 % at Communitylevel as set out in the directive on renewable energy;

— invites the European Investment Bank to promotethe sustainable development strategy and to cooper-ate with the Commission in implementing the EUpolicy on climate change.

Ensuring sustainable transport

29. A sustainable transport policy should tackle rising vol-umes of traffic and levels of congestion, noise and pollu-tion and encourage the use of environment-friendlymodes of transport as well as the full internalisation ofsocial and environmental costs. Action is needed tobring about a significant decoupling of transport growthand GDP growth, in particular by a shift from road torail, water and public passenger transport. To achievethis, the European Council:

— invites the European Parliament and the Council toadopt by 2003 revised guidelines for trans-Europeantransport networks on the basis of a forthcomingCommission proposal, with a view to giving priority,where appropriate, to infrastructure investment forpublic transport and for railways, inland waterways,short sea shipping, intermodal operations and effec-tive interconnection;

— notes that the Commission will propose a frameworkto ensure that by 2004 the price of using differentmodes of transport better reflects costs to society.

Addressing threats to public health

30. The European Union must respond to citizens’ concernsabout the safety and quality of food, use of chemicals


13

and issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases andresistance to antibiotics. To this end, the EuropeanCouncil:

— notes the Commission’s intention to present formalproposals, and invites the Council and the EuropeanParliament to adopt them, so that the chemicals pol-icy is in place by 2004, thereby ensuring that within ageneration chemicals are only produced and used inways which do not lead to a significant impact onhealth and the environment;

— notes the Commission’s intention to present by theend of 2001 action plans for tackling issues related tooutbreaks of infectious diseases and resistance toantibiotics;

— urges the European Parliament and the Council toprofit from the substantial progress achieved andrapidly agree on the final adoption of the EuropeanFood Authority and food law regulation in order tocomply with the time frame agreed at the Nice andStockholm European Councils;

— asks that the possibility of the creation of a Europeansurveillance and early warning network on healthissues be examined.

Managing natural resources moreresponsibly

31. The relationship between economic growth, consump-tion of natural resources and the generation of wastemust change. Strong economic performance must gohand in hand with sustainable use of natural resourcesand levels of waste, maintaining biodiversity, preservingecosystems and avoiding desertification. To meet thesechallenges, the European Council agrees:

— that the common agricultural policy and its futuredevelopment should, among its objectives, con-tribute to achieving sustainable development byincreasing its emphasis on encouraging healthy, high-


14

quality products, environmentally sustainable pro-duction methods, including organic production,renewable raw materials and the protection of biodi-versity;

— that the review of the common fisheries policy in2002 should, based on a broad political debate,address the overall fishing pressure by adapting theEU fishing effort to the level of available resources,taking into account the social impact and the need toavoid over-fishing;

— that the EU integrated product policy aimed atreducing resource use and the environmental impactof waste should be implemented in cooperation withbusiness;

— halting biodiversity decline with the aim to reach thisobjective by 2010 as set out in the sixth environmen-tal action programme.

Integrating environment intoCommunity policies

32. The Council is invited to finalise and further developsector strategies for integrating environment into all rel-evant Community policy areas with a view to imple-menting them as soon as possible and present the resultsof this work before the spring European Council in2002. Relevant objectives set out in the forthcomingsixth environmental action programme and the sustain-able development strategy should be taken into account.

[...]


15

Communication from the Commission

A sustainable Europe for a better world:

A European Union strategy for sustainable development

A sustainable Europe for a better world:


Contents

I. Towards a sustainable Europe 21

Sustainable development — a broader long-term vision 21

II. Making sustainable development happen: achieving our ambitions 26

Improve policy coherence 26Get prices right to give signals to individuals and businesses 28Invest in science and technology for the future 28Improve communication and mobilise citizens and business 29Take enlargement and the global dimension into account 31

III. Setting long-term objectives and targets: identifying priorities for action 32

Action is needed across a wide range of policies 32Limit climate change and increase the use of clean energy 33Address threats to public health 34Manage natural resources more responsibly 36Improve the transport system and land-use management 37

IV. Implementing the strategy and reviewing progress: steps afterGothenburg 38

Annual stocktaking checks our progress 38Working methods need to change 39Medium-term reviews allow us to adapt the strategy to changes in long-term priorities 40

Annex1: The goals of the Lisbon strategy in the field of social policy 41

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

19

I. Towards a sustainable Europe

‘Sustainable development is development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’— World Commission on Environment and

Development (the ‘Brundtland Commission’), 1987

At its meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 the EuropeanCouncil invited the European Commission ‘to prepare a pro-posal for a long-term strategy dovetailing policies for eco-nomically, socially and ecologically sustainable developmentto be presented to the European Council in June 2001.’ Thispaper responds to that invitation. It builds on theCommission services’ consultation paper issued in March,and on the many responses to it.

Sustainable development is a global objective. The EuropeanUnion has a key role in bringing about sustainable develop-ment, within Europe and also on the wider global stage,where widespread international action is required. To meetthis responsibility, the EU and other signatories of the 1992United Nations’ ‘Rio declaration’ committed themselves, atthe 19th Special Session of the United Nations’ GeneralAssembly in 1997, to draw up strategies for sustainabledevelopment in time for the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development. This strategy forms part of the EUpreparations for that summit.

Sustainable development — a broader long-term vision

Just over one year ago at Lisbon, the European Council set anew strategic goal for the Union: ‘to become the most com-petitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in theworld capable of sustainable economic growth with moreand better jobs and greater social cohesion’. The StockholmEuropean Council then decided that the EU sustainabledevelopment strategy should complete and build on thispolitical commitment by including an environmental dimen-sion. This recognises that in the long term, economic growth,social cohesion and environmental protection must go handin hand.


21

‘Sustainable development should beseen as a global objective’ – the Brundtland Commission

Completing and building on theLisbon strategy

Sustainable development offers the European Union a posi-tive long-term vision of a society that is more prosperous andmore just, and which promises a cleaner, safer, healthier envi-ronment — a society which delivers a better quality of life forus, for our children, and for our grandchildren. Achievingthis in practice requires that economic growth supportssocial progress and respects the environment, that social pol-icy underpins economic performance, and that environmen-tal policy is cost-effective.

Decoupling environmental degradation and resource con-sumption from economic and social development requires amajor reorientation of public and private investment towardsnew, environmentally friendly technologies. The sustainabledevelopment strategy should be a catalyst for policy-makersand public opinion in the coming years and become a driv-ing force for institutional reform, and for changes in corpo-rate and consumer behaviour. Clear, stable, long-term objec-tives will shape expectations and create the conditions inwhich businesses have the confidence to invest in innovativesolutions, and to create new, high-quality jobs.

To bridge the gap between this ambitious vision and practi-cal political action, the Commission proposes that the strat-egy should focus on a small number of problems which posesevere or irreversible threats to the future well-being ofEuropean society:


22

Providing a positive vision for thefuture

A strategy to unleash opportunitiesto invest for the long term

Focusing on the most acute threats


23

The main threats to sustainable development

• Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity arecausing global warming. Climate change is likely tocause more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods)with severe implications for infrastructure, property,health and nature.

• Severe threats to public health are posed by new antibi-otic-resistant strains of some diseases and, potentially,the longer term effects of the many hazardous chemi-cals currently in everyday use; threats to food safety areof increasing concern.

• One in every six Europeans lives in poverty. Poverty andsocial exclusion have enormous direct effects on individu-als such as ill health, suicide, and persistent unemploy-ment. The burden of poverty is borne disproportionatelyby single mothers and older women living alone. Povertyoften remains within families for generations.

• While increases in life expectancy are obviously welcome,combined with low birth rates the resultant ageing ofthe population threatens a slowdown in the rate of eco-nomic growth, as well as the quality and financial sus-tainability of pension schemes and public healthcare.Spending could increase by up to 8 % of gross domesticproduct in many Member States between 2000 and2040.

• The loss of biodiversity in Europe has accelerated dra-matically in recent decades. Fish stocks in Europeanwaters are near collapse. Waste volumes have persistent-ly grown faster than GDP. Soil loss and declining fertilityare eroding the viability of agricultural land.

• Transport congestion has been rising rapidly and isapproaching gridlock. This mainly affects urban areas,which are also challenged by problems such as inner-citydecay, sprawling suburbs, and concentrations of acutepoverty and social exclusion. Regional imbalances in theEU remain a serious concern.

Very few of these unsustainable trends are new. Attemptshave been made at many levels of government and society toaddress them. Initiatives such as local Agenda 21 haveproved to be an effective means of building a consensus forchange at local level. However, these efforts so far have onlyhad limited success due to the difficulty in changing estab-lished policies and patterns of behaviour, and in bringing theresponses together in a coordinated way. Tackling theseunsustainable trends and achieving the vision offered by sus-tainable development requires urgent action, committed andfar-sighted political leadership, a new approach to policy-making, widespread participation; and international respon-sibility.

• Urgent action is needed: Now is the time to confront thechallenges to sustainability. Many of the trends that threat-en sustainable development result from past choices inproduction technology, patterns of land use and infrastruc-ture investment, which are difficult to reverse in a shorttime frame. Although the major impacts of losses in biodi-versity, increased resistance to antibiotics, or climatechange may be felt only after many years, by then they maybe very costly or impossible to tackle.

• Political leadership is essential: Strong political commit-ment will be needed to make the changes required for sus-tainable development. While sustainable development willundoubtedly benefit society overall, difficult trade-offsbetween conflicting interests will have to be made. Wemust face up to these trade-offs openly and honestly.Changes to policy must be made in a fair and balanced way,but narrow sectional interests must not be allowed to pre-vail over the well-being of society as a whole.

• A new approach to policy-making: Although the Unionhas a wide range of policies to address the economic, envi-ronmental and social dimensions of sustainability, thesehave developed without enough coordination. Too often,action to achieve objectives in one policy area hindersprogress in another, while solutions to problems often liein the hands of policy-makers in other sectors or at otherlevels of government. This is a major cause of many long-term unsustainable trends. In addition, the absence of acoherent long-term perspective means that there is too


24

Solving these problems calls for anew policy agenda

Doing nothing may be much morecostly than taking early action

Political leadership is needed to taketough decisions

A coherent, long-term view shouldguide policy

much focus on short-term costs and too little focus on theprospect of longer term ‘win–win’ situations.

• Action must be taken by all and at all levels: Many of thechanges needed to secure sustainable development canonly successfully be undertaken at EU level. Clear exam-ples arise in policy areas where the Community has exclu-sive legal competence, or where integrated Europeaneconomies mean that uncoordinated action by MemberStates is likely to be ineffective. In other cases, action bynational, regional or local governments will be moreappropriate. However, while public authorities have a keyrole in providing a clear long-term framework, it is ulti-mately individual citizens and businesses who will deliverthe changes in consumption and investment patterns need-ed to achieve sustainable development.

• A responsible partner in a globalised world: Many of thechallenges to sustainability require global action to solvethem. Climate change and biodiversity are obvious exam-ples. The Commission believes that developed countriesmust take the lead in pursuing sustainable development,and calls on other developed countries to accept theirresponsibilities as well. The Commission believes that theEU should start by putting its own house in order, to pro-vide international leadership and as a first step towardsachieving global sustainability. As EU production and con-sumption have impacts beyond our borders, we must alsoensure that all our policies help prospects for sustainabledevelopment at a global level.

To meet these challenges the Commission proposes an EUstrategy in three parts:

1: A set of cross-cutting proposals and recommendationsto improve the effectiveness of policy and make sustain-able development happen. This means making sure thatdifferent policies reinforce one another rather thanpulling in opposite directions.

2: A set of headline objectives and specific measures at EUlevel to tackle the issues which pose the biggest chal-lenges to sustainable development in Europe.

3: Steps to implement the strategy and review its progress.


25

Everyone has a contribution tomake. A strong EU role is essential

Acting at home will provide international leadership

II. Making sustainable development happen: achieving our ambitions

To achieve sustainable development requires changes in theway policy is made and implemented, both at EU level andin Member States. This in turn requires clear commitment atthe highest level. This section makes a number of proposalsaimed at securing more effective responses to the challengeswe face.

Improve policy coherence

Sustainable development should become the central objec-tive of all sectors and policies. This means that policy-makersmust identify likely spillovers — good and bad — onto otherpolicy areas and take them into account. Careful assessmentof the full effects of a policy proposal must include estimatesof its economic, environmental and social impacts inside andoutside the EU. This should include, where relevant, theeffects on gender equality and equal opportunities. It is par-ticularly important to identify clearly the groups who bearthe burden of change so that policy-makers can judge theneed for measures to help these groups to adapt.Assessments should take a more consistent approach andemploy expertise available from a wide range of policy areas.

To assess proposals systematically better information isneeded. For example, the implications of an ageing popula-tion are still imperfectly understood, as are the implicationsfor biodiversity and public health of some types of environ-mental pollution or of chemicals such as endocrine dis-rupters. However, in line with the precautionary principle,lack of knowledge must not become an excuse for lack ofaction or for ill-considered action. Risk and uncertainty are apart of life. The role of science and research is to help iden-tify the nature of the risks and uncertainties we face, so as toprovide a basis for solutions and political decisions. Policy-makers have a responsibility to manage risk effectively, andto explain its nature and extent clearly to the public.


26

Current policies need to change

All policies should be judged by how they contribute to sustainabledevelopment

To do this, we need better information, especially to deal with risk and uncertainty


27

Action

• All policies must have sustainable development as theircore concern. In particular, forthcoming reviews of com-mon policies must look at how they can contribute morepositively to sustainable development:

• The mid-term review of the common agricultural policyin 2002 should reward quality rather than quantity by,for example, encouraging the organic sector and otherenvironmentally friendly farming methods and a furthershift of resources from market support to rural develop-ment.

• The common fisheries policy should promote the sus-tainable management of fish stocks in the EU and inter-nationally, while securing the long-term viability of theEU fishing industry and protecting marine ecosystems.

• The common transport policy should tackle rising levelsof congestion and pollution and encourage use of moreenvironmentally friendly modes of transport.

• The cohesion policies need to improve their targeting ofthe least developed regions and those with the mostacute structural problems — such as urban decay andthe decline of the rural economy — and the groups insociety most vulnerable to persistent social exclusion.

• The Commission will submit an action plan to improveregulation to the Laeken European Council inDecember. This will include mechanisms to ensure thatall major legislative proposals include an assessment ofthe potential economic, environmental and social bene-fits and costs of action or lack of action, both inside andoutside the EU. The Council and Parliament shouldamend legislative proposals in the same spirit.

Get prices right to give signals toindividuals and businesses

Market prices have a powerful influence on the behaviour ofindividuals and businesses. Market reforms to get pricesright can create new business opportunities to develop serv-ices and products that ease pressure on the environment andfulfil social and economic needs. Sometimes, this means pub-lic money for services which would otherwise not be sup-plied, such as essential public services in sparsely populatedareas. More often, the issue is one of removing subsidies thatencourage wasteful use of natural resources, and putting aprice on pollution. Changing prices in this way provides apermanent incentive for the development and use of safer,less polluting technologies and equipment, and will often beall that is needed to tip the balance in their favour.

Invest in science and technology for the future

Our continued long-term prosperity depends critically onadvances in knowledge and technological progress. Withoutthese investments, adjustment to sustainable developmentwill have to happen much more through changes in our con-sumption patterns. By promoting innovation, new technolo-gies may be developed that use fewer natural resources,reduce pollution or risks to health and safety, and are cheap-er than their predecessors. The EU and Member Statesshould ensure that legislation does not hamper innovationor erect excessive non-market barriers to the disseminationand use of new technology.

Public funding to support technological change for sustain-able development should focus on basic and applied


28

Action

The Commission will give priority in its policy and legisla-tive proposals to market-based approaches that provideprice incentives, whenever these are likely to achieve socialand environmental objectives in a flexible and cost-effectiveway.

Getting prices right will encouragechanges in behaviour and technology

Advances in knowledge and technology are vital

research into safe and environmentally benign technologies,and on benchmarking and demonstration projects to stimu-late faster uptake of new, safer, cleaner technologies. Publicprocurement policies — provided they are not a cover forprotectionism — are an additional means to accelerate thespread of new technology. A ‘green purchasing initiative’from the private sector could similarly increase the use ofenvironmentally benign products and services.

Improve communication and mobilisecitizens and business

Although science and scientific advice are a key input todecision-making, public confidence in its objectivity hasbeen shaken by events such as recent human and animalhealth scares. There are concerns that the policy responseshave been driven more by narrow sectional interests than thewider interests of society. This perception is part of a widermalaise. Many believe that policy has become too techno-


29

Action

• The Community should fully exploit the potential of thenext Community framework programme for research tosupport research activities related to sustainable develop-ment as a part of the European research area.

• Drawing on the guidance document the Commission willissue shortly, Member States should consider how tomake better use of public procurement to favour envi-ronmentally friendly products and services.

• The Commission will encourage private sector initia-tives to incorporate environmental factors in their pur-chasing specifications.

• The Commission invites industry to identify what it con-siders the major obstacles to the development and wideruse of new technologies in sectors such as energy, trans-port and communications.

• The Community should contribute to establishing by2008 a European capacity for global monitoring of envi-ronment and security (GMES).

cratic and remote, and is too much under the influence ofvested interests. To tackle this rising disaffection with thepolitical process, policy-making must become more open.

An open policy process also allows any necessary trade-offsbetween competing interests to be clearly identified, anddecisions taken in a transparent way. Earlier and more sys-tematic dialogue — in particular with representatives of con-sumers, whose interests are too often overlooked — maylengthen the time taken to prepare a policy proposal, butshould improve the quality of regulation and accelerate itsimplementation. The views of those from outside the Unionshould also be sought.

Widespread popular ‘ownership’ of the goal of sustainabledevelopment depends not only on more openness in policy-making but also on the perception that individuals can,through their own actions, make a real difference. For exam-ple, local Agenda 21 has been effective at promoting sustain-able development at the local level. The education systemalso has a vital role to play in promoting better understand-ing of the aim of sustainable development, fostering a senseof individual and collective responsibility, and therebyencouraging changes in behaviour.

Public policy also has a key role in encouraging a greatersense of corporate social responsibility and in establishing aframework to ensure that businesses integrate environmentaland social considerations in their activities. Some of the mostfar sighted businesses have realised that sustainable devel-opment offers new opportunities and have begun to adapttheir investments accordingly. Business should be encour-aged to take a proactive approach to sustainable develop-ment in their operations both within the EU and elsewhere.


30

More open policy-making willimprove policy and stimulate citizensand business to get involved

Take enlargement and the globaldimension into account

The EU strategy should look beyond the Union’s presentborders to be relevant for the countries which will join theUnion during the coming years. These future Member Statesface many of the same problems, but also have a number ofdistinctive features. For example, they have much richer bio-diversity. However, economic and social disparities will bewider in an enlarged Union. The new Member States willhave much larger agricultural populations on average, and abacklog of investment in infrastructure and in productiontechnology. Future reforms of Community policy will have totake account of these differences. Candidate countriesshould be actively involved in implementing this strategy.

Moreover, many EU policies influence prospects for sustain-ability far beyond the borders of the Union, and EU pro-duction and consumption increase the pressure on sharedglobal environmental resources. It is therefore important toensure that measures we take to move towards sustainabledevelopment in Europe contribute towards sustainable


31

Action

• The Commission’s forthcoming White Paper on gover-nance will include proposals on wide-ranging consulta-tion of stakeholders from within and outside the Union,typically including a public hearing, before tabling anymajor policy proposal. Reviews of major policies will sim-ilarly seek to obtain the views of stakeholders.

• All publicly-quoted companies with at least 500 staff areinvited to publish a ‘triple bottom line’ in their annualreports to shareholders that measures their perform-ance against economic, environmental and social criteria.EU businesses are urged to demonstrate and publicisetheir worldwide adherence to the OECD guidelines formulti-national enterprises, or other comparable guide-lines.

• Member States should consider how their education sys-tems can help develop wider understanding of sustain-able development.

Sustainable development in the EUmust foster global sustainability

The EU strategy must look beyondour current borders

development in the rest of the world. Our policies — inter-nal and external — must actively support efforts by othercountries — particularly those in the developing world — toachieve development that is more sustainable.

To make an effective contribution to achieving global sus-tainable development the EU and its Member States need tocooperate effectively with other countries and internationalinstitutions, including the OECD, the World TradeOrganisation, the International Labour Organisation, theInternational Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and theUnited Nations Environment Programme. The role of theEU in helping to achieve sustainable development in thiswider context will be dealt with comprehensively by ourpreparations for the Rio + 10 Summit in South Africa in2002.

III. Setting long-term objectivesand targets: identifying priorities for action

Action is needed across a wide range of policies

The main challenges to sustainable development identifiedabove cut across several policy areas. Accordingly, a compre-hensive, cross-sectoral approach is needed to address thesechallenges. Concrete actions in specific policy areas shouldbe built on the policy principles set out in the previous sec-tion. Reforms to existing Community policies must aim to


32

Cooperation with other countriesand international organisations isimportant

Action

The Commission will present a communication in the firsthalf of 2002 further setting out its views on how the Unionshould contribute to global sustainable development, inadvance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development(Rio + 10) in Johannesburg. Among other issues, this com-munication should address the question of mobilising addi-tional financial resources for development aid, in particularto reduce global poverty.

Concrete actions are needed

maximise their contribution to the strategic objectives of theEU strategy for sustainable development.

Recent European Councils at Lisbon, Nice and Stockholmhave already agreed objectives and measures to tackle two ofthe six issues that pose the biggest challenges to sustainabledevelopment in Europe: combating poverty and social exclu-sion, and dealing with the economic and social implicationsof an ageing society. This strategy does not propose newactions in these areas. However, these objectives are an inte-gral part of the EU strategy for sustainable development andare set out in Annex 1 below.

For the remaining four issues, the Commission proposes thefollowing set of priority objectives and measures at EU level.Meeting these objectives will also require action to be takenby Member States, both in their domestic policies, and in thedecisions taken by the Council on changes to Communitypolicies. The Commission will report on progress in meetingall the goals of the strategy in its report to the annual springEuropean Council (the synthesis report).

Limit climate change and increasethe use of clean energy

Headline objectives

• The EU will meet its Kyoto commitment. However, Kyotois but a first step. Thereafter, the EU should aim to reduceatmospheric greenhouse gas emissions by an average of1 % per year over 1990 levels up to 2020.

• The Union will insist that the other major industrialisedcountries comply with their Kyoto targets. This is an indi-spensable step in ensuring the broader international effortneeded to limit global warming and adapt to its effects.

Measures at EU level

• Adoption of the energy products tax directive by 2002.Within two years of this, the Commission will proposemore ambitious environmental targets for energy taxationaiming at the full internalisation of external costs, as well as


33

The EU strategy must fullyintegrate the economic, environmental and socialpillars of sustainable development

indexation of minimum levels of excise duties to at leastthe inflation rate.

• Phase out subsidies to fossil fuel production and con-sumption by 2010. Where necessary, put in place flankingmeasures to help develop alternative sources of employ-ment. Analyse whether there is a need to create a stockpileof coal reserves, and whether or not we should maintain aminimum level of subsidised production for security ofsupply reasons. Commission proposal in 2001 for adoptionby Council before the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in July2002. Take account of the specific situation of some candi-date countries in the accession treaties.

• Greenhouse gas emission reduction measures based on theoutcome of the European climate change programme.Specifically, the Commission will propose by end-2001 aproposal for the creation of a European CO2 tradable per-mits system by 2005.

• Alternative fuels, including biofuels, should account for atleast 7 % of fuel consumption of cars and trucks by 2010,and at least 20 % by 2020. The Commission will make aproposal in 2001 for adoption in 2002.

• Clear action to reduce energy demand, through, for exam-ple, tighter minimum standards and labelling requirementsfor buildings and appliances to improve energy efficiency.

• More support to the research, development and dissemi-nation of technology on:

• — clean and renewable energy resources;

• — safer nuclear energy, namely the management of nuclearwaste.

Address threats to public health

Headline objectives

• Make food safety and quality the objective of all players inthe food chain.


34

• By 2020, ensure that chemicals are only produced and usedin ways that do not pose significant threats to humanhealth and the environment.

• Tackle issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseasesand resistance to antibiotics.


• Improve consumer information and awareness, includingthrough education, and clear labelling of food.

• Creation of a European Food Authority in 2002.

• Improve capacity to monitor and control health impacts ofcertain substances (for example dioxins, toxins, pesticides)in food and the environment, especially their effects onchildren.

• Reorient support from the common agricultural policy toreward healthy, high-quality products and practices ratherthan quantity; following on from the 2002 evaluation of thetobacco regime, adapt the regime so as to allow for a phas-ing out of tobacco subsidies while putting in place meas-ures to develop alternative sources of income and econom-ic activity for tobacco workers and growers and decide anearly date accordingly.

• Develop by 2003 a comprehensive Community strategy topromote health and safety at work, to achieve a substantialreduction in work accidents and professional illness.

• All legislation to implement the new chemicals policy inplace by 2004.

• The Commission will present by the end of 2001 aEuropean action plan to slow resistance to antibiotics,through improving information, phasing out their use asgrowth promoters in agriculture, and better control of theuse of antibiotics in human, animal, and plant care.

• Create by 2005 a European capacity to monitor and con-trol outbreaks of infectious diseases.


35

Manage natural resources more responsibly

Headline objectives

• Break the links between economic growth, the use ofresources and the generation of waste.

• Protect and restore habitats and natural systems and haltthe loss of biodiversity by 2010.

• Improve fisheries management to reverse the decline instocks and ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marineecosystems, both in the EU and globally.


• Develop an integrated product policy in cooperation withbusiness to reduce resource use and the environmentalimpacts of waste.

• EU legislation on strict environmental liability in place by2003.

• The Commission will establish a system of biodiversityindicators by 2003.

• The Commission will propose a system of resource pro-ductivity measurement to be operational by 2003.

• In the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy,improve the agri-environmental measures so that they pro-vide a transparent system of direct payments for environ-mental services.

• In the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy, removecounter-productive subsidies which encourage over-fish-ing, and reduce the size and activity of EU fishing fleets toa level compatible with worldwide sustainability, whileaddressing the consequent social problems.


36

Improve the transport system andland-use management

Headline objectives

• Decouple transport growth significantly from growth ingross domestic product in order to reduce congestion andother negative side-effects of transport.

• Bring about a shift in transport use from road to rail, waterand public passenger transport so that the share of roadtransport in 2010 is no greater than in 1998 (the mostrecent year for which data are available).

• Promote more balanced regional development by reducingdisparities in economic activity and maintaining the viabil-ity of rural and urban communities, as recommended bythe European spatial development perspective.


• The Commission will propose in 2002 a framework fortransport charges to ensure that by 2005, prices for differ-ent modes of transport, including air, reflect their costs tosociety.

• Implement in 2003 a framework ensuring through the useof intelligent transport systems the interoperability of pay-ment systems for road transport; promote further techno-logical progress enabling the introduction of road pricing.

• Give priority to infrastructure investment for public trans-port and for railways, inland waterways, short sea shippingand intermodal operations. In particular, the Commissionwill propose in 2001, for adoption in 2003, a revision of theguidelines for the trans-European transport networks, andwill promote, in the mid-term review of the StructuralFund programmes, a marked reduction in the share offinance given to road transport.

• Improve transport systems by addressing missing transportlinks, developing open markets and cooperation at EUlevel (e.g. railway liberalisation, air traffic systems).European single sky to be operational by 2004.


37

• Promote teleworking by accelerating investments in nextgeneration communications infrastructure and services.

• In 2001, start the implementation of the European spatialplanning observatory network (ESPON) in order to definea set of territorial indicators to analyse the regional impactsof Community policies.

• Assess the coherence of the zoning of different Communitypolicies, taking account of their objectives (e.g. Natura2000, less-favoured agricultural areas, areas eligible underthe Structural Funds or for State aids).

• Diversify income sources in rural areas, including byincreasing the proportion of common agricultural policyfunds directed to rural development.

• Encourage local initiatives to tackle the problems faced byurban areas; produce recommendations for integrateddevelopment strategies for urban and environmentally sen-sitive areas.

IV. Implementing the strategyand reviewing progress: stepsafter Gothenburg

Annual stocktaking checks our progress

The Stockholm European Council decided that all dimen-sions of sustainable development should be reviewed at theannual spring European Council. Measuring progress willimply adding a number of indicators to those already agreedfor monitoring the Lisbon strategy. These indicators flownaturally from the long-term objectives and targets theCommission is proposing in this document.


38

Regular monitoring and reportingof progress, based on indicators

Working methods need to change

At all stages of the Community legislative process, policyproposals in individual sectors are developed and discussedwithout paying sufficient attention to the linkages betweendifferent policy areas. The way the Commission, Council andParliament are organised reinforces this narrow, sectoralapproach. All three institutions should consider what stepsthey can take to overcome this weakness.

The Commission will improve its internal procedures todeliver more consistent policy proposals. The Council ofMinisters and the European Parliament should also reviewtheir working methods. The Council should change its struc-tures to improve the coordination and consistency of thework of the sectoral Councils. The European Parliamentshould consider creating a sustainable development commit-tee to give a view on the wider implications of sectoral poli-cy proposals. This committee could consist of representa-tives of other committees, as is the case with the financialcontrol committee.


39

Action

• The Commission will report to each spring EuropeanCouncil in its synthesis report on progress in implement-ing the sustainable development strategy.

• The Commission will propose a small number of headlineperformance indicators for this purpose to theBarcelona European Council in spring 2002.

• The process of integration of environmental concernsin sectoral policies, launched by the European Council inCardiff, must continue and provide an environmentalinput to the EU sustainable development strategy, similarto that given for the economic and social dimensions bythe broad economic policy guidelines and the employ-ment guidelines. The sectoral environmental integrationstrategies should be consistent with the specific objectivesof EU sustainable development strategy.

All Community institutions should review their working methods

Medium-term reviews allow us toadapt the strategy to changes inlong-term priorities

Sustainable development is by its nature a long-term objec-tive. While annual stocktaking is important to maintainmomentum and give early warning of unforeseen difficulties,too much focus on short-term developments and details maycause us to lose sight of the bigger picture. For this reason,the European Council’s annual exercise should be periodi-cally complemented by a more comprehensive review at thebeginning of each Commission’s term of office.

This should examine the strategy’s effectiveness in achievingsustainable development. Over time, the severity of someproblems — or the value of some measures — may change,and new, more pressing problems may emerge. Regularmedium-term reviews will permit the Union to adapt thestrategy to these changes and to changes in our long-termpolicy objectives.

Opening the review to stakeholders will increase its credibil-ity and value. The Union’s efforts to achieve sustainabledevelopment ultimately depend on widespread ‘ownership’of the strategy by individuals and businesses, as well as civilsociety and local and regional authorities. Prospects for pub-lic acceptance of the strategy will be greater, the more it isbased on comprehensive dialogue with representatives ofsociety at large.


40

Action

The Commission will establish a sustainable development‘round table’ of about 10 independent experts offering abroad range of views, who will report directly to theCommission President in time for the preparation of theCommission’s synthesis report to the spring EuropeanCouncil and make recommendations to improve the coher-ence of Community policies.

Periodic far-reaching reviews will keep the strategy on track

The voices of stakeholders, including those from outside the Union, must be heard

Annex 1: The goals of the Lisbon strategy in the field of social policy

The commitments made at the Lisbon, Nice and Stockholmsummits are summarised below.

Combat poverty and social exclusion

Headline objective

• Make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty.

• Raise the employment rate to 67 % for January 2005 andto 70 % by 2010; increase the number of women inemployment to 57 % for January 2005 and to more than60 % by 2010.

• Halve by 2010 the number of 18–24-year olds with onlylower secondary education who are not in further educa-tion and training.


• Combat social exclusion by creating the economic condi-tions for greater prosperity through higher levels of growthand employment, and by opening up new ways of partici-pating in society.


41

Action

• The EU strategy for sustainable development will be com-prehensively reviewed at the start of each Commission’sterm of office.

• Starting in 2002, the Commission will hold a two-yearlystakeholder forum to assess the EU strategy. TheCommission invites the Economic and Social Committeeto join it in organising this conference.

• Strengthen the implementation of the European employ-ment strategy. Define common approaches to maintainingand improving the quality of work which should be includ-ed as a general objective in the 2002 employment guide-lines.

• Complete work by the end of 2001 on updating existinglegislation on implementing the principle of equal treat-ment of men and women as regards access to employment,vocational training and promotion and working condi-tions.

• Agree in the course of 2001 the proposal for a social inclu-sion programme.

• Agree by the end of 2001 indicators on quality in work andfor combating social exclusion. Develop indicators on theprovision of care facilities for children and other depen-dants and on family benefit systems by 2002. Develop indi-cators to ensure that there are no discriminatory pay dif-ferentials between men and women.

Deal with the economic and socialimplications of an ageing society

Headline objectives

• Ensure the adequacy of pension systems as well as ofhealthcare systems and care of the elderly, while at thesame time maintaining sustainability of public finances andinter-generational solidarity.

• Address the demographic challenge by raising employmentrates, reducing public debt and adapting social protectionsystems, including pension systems.

• Increase the average EU employment rate among olderwomen and men (55–64) to 50 % by 2010.


• Use the potential of the open method of coordination inthe field of pensions and prepare a report on the quality


42

and sustainability of pensions in the light of demographicchange in view of the spring European Council 2002.

• Identify coherent strategies and practical measures with aview to fostering lifelong learning for all.

• The Council should regularly review the long-term sustain-ability of public finances, including the expected changescaused by the demographic changes ahead, both under thebroad economic policy guidelines and in the context of sta-bility and convergence programmes.

• An in-depth discussion will take place at the LaekenEuropean Council in 2001 on immigration, migration andasylum within the framework of the Tampere follow-up. Inthis connection, due attention should be given to the posi-tion of third-country nationals legally residing in theUnion.

• The Council and the Commission to report jointly, in timefor the spring European Council in 2002, on how toincrease labour-force participation and promote active age-ing.


43

Working document from the Commission services

Consultation paper for the preparation of a European

Union strategy for sustainable development

Consultation paper for the preparation of a European

Union strategy for sustainable development

WORKING DOCUMENT FROM THE COMMISSION SERVICES

47

Contents

Foreword 49

1. Introduction 501.1. Why a sustainable development strategy for the European Union? 501.2. The political context of this communication 521.3. Interpreting sustainable development 521.4. The opportunities of sustainable development 531.5. Ensuring added value 55

2. Main sustainability challenges for Europe 552.1. Focusing on the most important issues 55

Topic 1: Climate change and clean energy 58Topic 2: Public health 63Topic 3: Management of natural resources 67Topic 4: Poverty and social exclusion 71Topic 5: Ageing 74Topic 6: Mobility, land use and territorial development 78

3. Common problems 833.1. Wrong incentives 833.2. Sectoral policy inconsistency 833.3. Short-termism in policy-making 843.4. Policy inertia 853.5. Limited understanding 863.6. Inadequate communication and dialogue 86

4. Common solutions: A toolkit for sustainable development in Europe 874.1. Introduction 874.2. A common basis for policy design and implementation 874.3. Long-term targets and intermediate milestones 884.4. Creating markets and getting prices right 894.5. Sectoral policy coherence 904.6. Technology at the service of society 914.7. Improving knowledge and understanding — sound science,

risk and transparency 92


48

4.8. Better information, education and participation 934.9. Measuring progress: indicators 94

5. Conclusions 95


49

Foreword

The Helsinki European Council inDecember 1999 invited the EuropeanCommission to ‘prepare a proposal for along-term strategy dovetailing policies foreconomically, socially and ecologically su-stainable development’ for the GothenburgEuropean Council in June 2001.

This consultation paper is designed to pro-vide the analytical underpinnings for thisstrategy. It sets out the Commission services’initial views on the challenges and opportu-nities of sustainable development. It identi-fies some important trends that pose a threatto sustainable development in the EU, andpresents a policy toolkit for tackling theseproblems. This consultation paper does notinclude specific objectives and measures.These will be contained in the Commission’sproposal for a sustainable development strat-egy to the Gothenburg European Council.

Accordingly, this paper aims to generate dis-cussion and encourage input from other EUinstitutions and civil society. TheCommission services propose to structurethe debate around the 10 questions in thebox. All stakeholders are therefore invited toexpress their views on these issues and toconsider what more concrete measuresshould be included in the EU sustainabledevelopment strategy for Gothenburg.

Questions

1. Does focusing on a limited number ofthe most pressing problems help tomake the concept of sustainable devel-opment operational? Do the six themeschosen embody the main long-termchallenges confronting European socie-ty?

2. This document focuses on sustainabledevelopment problems in Europe. Arethere any cases in which actions to placeEuropean society on a more sustainablepath might make the attainment of su-stainable development at a global levelmore difficult? How can reforms of EUpolicies support efforts to achieve sus-tainable development worldwide?

3. Since sustainable development is a long-term idea, it should be of clear relevanceto accession countries. To what extentare the challenges they face differentfrom those in the current MemberStates?

4. Do you share the analysis of the causes ofthese problems and their potential reme-dies identified here? Do you have anyadditions to the policy toolkit?

5. What practical measures can be taken tobetter translate the principle of ‘policyintegration’ into concrete action toachieve greater sectoral policy consisten-cy?

6. Governments cannot deliver sustainabledevelopment on their own. Business,workers, and civil society have an indis-pensable role to play. How do we makethis happen?

7. How can we ensure that the costs ofadjusting to sustainable development areminimised, and the opportunities seized?


50

1. Introduction

1.1. Why a sustainabledevelopment strategyfor the EuropeanUnion?

During the course of the 20th century, thecountries of the European Union havebecome enormously richer in material terms.Average incomes are now around five timeswhat they were in 1900. Many inequalitieshave been reduced through more widespreadaccess to education and the development ofsystems of welfare provision. Life expectancyhas increased sharply due to better hygiene,nutrition and medical care. In most respectstherefore, our standards of living now arehigher than they have ever been.

Growing economic interdependence result-ing from the single market, globalisation, andnew communication technologies provide astrong spur to efficiency and increased pro-ductivity, and offer new opportunities at alllevels. But these positive developments

should not blind us to a number of potentialthreats. Indeed, not everyone is equipped totake advantage of these new opportunities.There is a real risk that some will fall behindand be unable to catch up. There is also agrowing awareness that we are puttingincreased pressure on the carrying capacityof our planet. A number of worrying long-term trends have emerged:

8. In what areas of sustainable develop-ment do you see a clear policy role forthe European Union?

9. What are the most urgent steps theEuropean Union should take in theframework of an EU sustainable develop-ment strategy?

10. What specific objectives would you liketo see included in the EU strategy forGothenburg? What arrangementsshould be foreseen to ensure theirimplementation?

Main challenges for sustainability

Severe weather events may become morefrequent if we do not act to avert climatechange. Rising sea levels threaten the veryexistence of some small island States, andwe should not forget that a large part of theEuropean population lives at or below sealevel.

Recurrent, persistent, poorly understoodthreats to food safety, rampant antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, the unexplainedemergence of toxic algal blooms: these areall warning signs that we are interferingwith our environment in unforeseen ways.Unresolved, these and other menaces toanimal and human health threaten our verysurvival.

One in every six Europeans — more thanthe population of all but the largestMember States — lives in poverty. Incomedisparities are widening in some MemberStates. Our social systems are failing todeliver on a large scale, and are ill-equippedto deal with the ageing of the population.

We are failing to secure the long-run viabil-ity of our natural environment. Recentdecades have seen very significant losses inbiodiversity. A high percentage of existingspecies is at risk of extinction. Fish stocks inEuropean waters are close to collapse.


51

The Community’s responsibility

The EU Member States share a significantnumber of common values and aspirations,together with a similar sense of what consti-tutes progress and how our societies shoulddevelop over the next generation. The aim ofa European sustainable development strategyshould be to give substance to this vision,and to map out what needs to change if weare to make this vision a reality. Moreover,the growing institutional, economic andsocial interdependence of our countriesrequires us to work together to meet thesechallenges. In a number of economic sectors,moves towards sustainable development canonly be achieved by action at the EU level.Clear examples arise where the Communityhas exclusive competence because of internalmarket regulations, or where integratedEuropean markets mean that uncoordinatedaction by Member States is likely to be inef-fective.

However, achieving sustainable developmentwill also require action at national, regionaland local level, as well as from business andcitizens. For this reason, in identifying andanalysing the main challenges to sustainabili-ty facing the European Union, theCommission services have not confinedthemselves to subjects for which the EUinstitutions have an exclusive or shared

responsibility. Moreover, the EU strategyshould look beyond the present borders ofthe Union to be relevant for all the countriesthat will join the Union in the coming years.Economic and social disparities will be widerin an enlarged Union, and many of the prob-lems identified in this paper are faced to agreater or lesser extent by the future MemberStates. Our common future demands a com-mon European approach.

Leading by example — the international dimension

EU policies in areas such as internationaltrade, foreign direct investment, develop-ment cooperation and immigration influenceprospects for sustainability far beyond theborders of the Union. This is very obviouslythe case for issues such as global poverty orclimate change, where the EU and MemberStates are only part of a much wider picture.Furthermore, as a number of developingcountries industrialise and approachEuropean levels of economic developmentthere will be a gradual increase in globalenvironmental pressures. Sustainable devel-opment is therefore a global objective thatthe EU cannot achieve by itself.

Tackling these problems will require a coher-ent international approach by internationalorganisations. However, to provide credibleand effective leadership in this global con-text, the EU has to show it can make progressat home towards sustainable development, aswell as meet its international commitments.This paper therefore focuses squarely on pol-icy reforms needed within Europe to enhancesustainable development. It will neverthelessbe important to consider whether any of themeasures that we might take in Europe tomove towards sustainable developmentmight put at risk the prospects for sustainabledevelopment in the rest of the world.

In major cities, transport congestion hasbeen rising rapidly and is approaching grid-lock. This has major social, economic andenvironmental costs which fall largely,though not exclusively, on the three quar-ters of the European population who live inurban areas. Enlargement will intensify thechallenge of achieving economic and socialcohesion.


52

The role of the EU in helping to achieve sus-tainable development on a global scale willbe dealt with much more comprehensively byour preparations for the Rio + 10 Summit inSouth Africa in 2002. This work has alreadystarted, as described in a recent CommissionCommunication ‘Ten years after Rio:Preparing for the World Summit onSustainable Development in 2002’ (1). TheEU also has an important role to play ininternational organisations, such as theWorld Trade Organisation and the upcomingUN Conference on Least DevelopedCountries. Our influence in this wider con-text will be all the greater if we can demon-strate that we are putting our own house inorder and thereby improving prospects forglobal sustainability.

1.2. The political context ofthis communication

Sustainable development was put on theglobal political map by the 1992 UnitedNations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, fol-lowing the report of the World Commissionon Environment and Development (the‘Brundtland report’) in 1987 (2). At the Rio + 5 follow-up conference in 1997, the EUand other signatories of the Rio declarationcommitted themselves to drawing up sustain-able development strategies for the Rio + 10World Summit on Sustainable Developmentin South Africa next year.

The Amsterdam Treaty, which came intoeffect in 1999, makes sustainable develop-ment one of the core tasks of the EuropeanCommunity. Article 2 of the EC Treaty states

that ‘The Union shall set itself the followingobjectives [...] to promote economic andsocial progress and a high level of employ-ment and to achieve balanced and sustain-able development, in particular through [...]the strengthening of economic and socialcohesion’.

Against this background, the Heads of Stateor Government asked the EuropeanCommission in Helsinki in 1999 to draw up aEuropean sustainable development strategyand submit it to the European Council atGothenburg in June 2001.

This consultation paper is the first step inthis process. It sets out the analytical basis forthe EU sustainable development strategy. Itgives the Commission services’ initial viewson sustainable development, and the chal-lenges and opportunities it presents. Morespecifically, it identifies some persistenttrends that pose a threat to sustainable devel-opment in Europe, and analyses the causes ofthese problems. Finally, it presents a policytoolkit to put Europe on a more sustainablepath.

Comments on this paper are invited from allstakeholders as the Commission finalises itsproposals for the Gothenburg EuropeanCouncil.

1.3. Interpreting sustainable development

The most widely quoted definition of sus-tainable development is that in theBrundtland report. It defines sustainabledevelopment as ‘development that meets theneeds of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their

(1) COM(2001) 53; European Commission, 2001.(2) ‘Our common future’; World Commission on Environ-

ment and Development, 1987.


53

own needs’. In essence, ensuring a betterquality of life now and for future generations.

There are many alternative interpretations ofsustainable development, and even with thedefinition above it is clear that differentviews are possible on what is meant by theterm ‘needs’. Nevertheless, there is a broadconsensus that, at a minimum, sustainabledevelopment captures two important ideas:

— That development has an economic, asocial and an environmental dimension.Development will only be sustainable if abalance is struck between the differentfactors that contribute to the overall qual-ity of life.

— That the current generation has an obliga-tion to future generations to leave suffi-cient stocks of social, environmental andeconomic resources for them to enjoy lev-els of well being at least as high as ourown.

Because of its origins in the environmentalmovement, sustainable development used tobe dismissed as a ‘luxury’ that should not bebought at the expense of economic growth.But sustainable development is much morethan a purely environmental concept — itposes the fundamental challenge of combin-ing a dynamic economy with a society offer-ing opportunities to all, while improvingresource productivity and decoupling growthfrom environmental degradation.

Although sustainable development has a verywide scope it should not be seen simply as aconvenient way to bundle loosely together acollection of social, economic and environ-mental problems under a new label. Instead,a comprehensive perspective is needed thatensures that policies — both sectoral andhorizontal — are mutually supportive rather

than working against one another. Achievingthis in practice will oblige policy-makers toensure that economic growth is not bought atthe expense of a social divide and environ-mental deterioration, that social policyunderpins rather than undermines economicperformance, and that environmental policyis based on sound science and is cost-effec-tive.

1.4. The opportunities ofsustainable development

While sustainable development will requirechanges to individual business and consumerbehaviour to avoid some negative conse-quences for society as a whole — present orfuture — it also offers great opportunities.Indeed, many of the more far-sighted busi-nesses have already realised that sustainabledevelopment offers new possibilities andhave begun to adapt their operations andinvestment plans accordingly.

It is now increasingly recognised that strin-gent environmental policy need not put abrake on economic growth even as conven-tionally measured (3). While environmentalregulation can impose a one-off cost in termsof economic output, these costs are at leastpartly offset by a boost to employment andrevenues in eco-industries providing cleanertechnologies and services. Moreover, the evi-dence shows that the long-run growth ratedepends largely on the rate of technologicalprogress. Policies for sustainable develop-ment could increase economic growth by

(3) Current statistical measures of economic performance,such as gross domestic product (GDP), are valuable indi-cators, but are limited in many ways. For example, GDPdoes not take into account the costs of pollution or put avalue on unpaid work.


54

boosting our rate of innovation, and mayeventually lead to goods that are cheaper tobuy and use than their ‘dirty’ predecessors.

In addition, many of the more concrete poli-cies needed for sustainable development arelikely to have a positive impact on economicgrowth. For example:

• Policy-making in the last quarter centuryhas tended to underexploit the potential ofthe labour market and overexploit naturalresources. The inefficiencies in present taxsystems mean that there is scope to pricelabour back into the market and pollutionout of it.

• Removing unnecessary or harmful subsi-dies will bring direct financial benefits totax payers and improve the efficiency of theeconomy. Market reform to get prices rightwill create new business opportunities todevelop services and products that easepressure on the environment, and that ful-fil social and economic needs.

• Policies to reduce poverty and extendopportunity to all can help avoid the wasteof resources and individual talent that areimplied by social exclusion and unemploy-ment, while lowering the costs of socialsupport.

• Better pricing and new technologies canbreak the trend of increasing congestion onour roads by encouraging greater use ofother modes of transport and more effi-cient use of infrastructure. This will pre-vent gridlock and save time and other costsfor business and the general public.

• Enhancing economic and social cohesionby helping lagging regions to exploit theirfull productive potential should benefit theCommunity as a whole.

• Encouraging the research, development,and innovative use of new, cleaner andmore efficient energy technologies will notonly have a positive impact on the environ-ment and possibly employment, but also onthe security of European energy supply.

Creating the opportunities

These examples show that there are many‘win–win’ situations. A sustainable develop-ment strategy should seek to identify andexploit these opportunities, fostering eco-nomic efficiency, employment growth andenvironmental friendliness. The EU has anindustry with a rich potential in the applica-tion of efficient and environment-friendlytechnologies. This is one of Europe’s mostpromising assets. To exploit this potential,policy must provide Europe’s industry with abetter framework for innovation and techno-logical development.

More generally, policy-makers should createthe conditions in which citizens and busi-nesses are encouraged to integrate environ-mental and social considerations in all theiractivities. Although this will be beneficial forsociety as a whole, some policy changes cre-ate clear winners and losers. In such cases,we need to ensure that we pursue policiesthat are in the general public interest, whilemaking sure that those who have to adapt tochanges in policy are treated fairly and do notsuffer unnecessary costs. Sustainable devel-opment therefore has an important institu-tional dimension. It cannot be achieved with-out good governance and active public par-ticipation (4).

(4) These issues will be dealt with in much more detail in the Commission’s forthcoming White Paper on governance.


55

1.5. Ensuring added value

The EU sustainable development strategywill need to build on the foundations of sev-eral processes rooted in Treaty provisionswhich already guide European economic,social and environmental policy-making.

The broad economic policy guidelines, andthe economic reform process initiated at theCardiff Summit in 1998, provide a solidframework for economic policy coordina-tion. Employment and social policy coordi-nation has given rise to guidelines foremployment and labour market reform andto cooperation between Member States inmodernising social protection and promotingsocial inclusion. Environmental policy has itsown process for the integration of environ-mental concerns into other sectoral policies(the Cardiff process), while at the beginningof this year, the Commission proposed thesixth environmental action programme set-ting out a 10-year perspective for EU envi-ronmental policy.

At Lisbon in March 2000, the Heads of Stateor Government decided to bring varioussocial and economic initiatives together in asingle annual review, geared towards makingEurope ‘the most competitive and dynamicknowledge-based economy in the worldcapable of sustainable economic growth withmore and better jobs and greater social cohe-sion’. As there is some obvious overlapbetween the scope of the Lisbon reviewprocess and the sustainable developmentstrategy, the Commission has proposed in itsreport to the Stockholm European Councilto complete the Lisbon process by integrat-ing an environmental dimension, and sug-gested that to ensure consistency between thetwo, the mechanisms to review progressshould be dovetailed.

In order not to duplicate the work containedin other policy reviews, the EU sustainabledevelopment strategy should focus on a smallnumber of themes where a cross-cuttingapproach provides new insights by takinginto account the spillovers between decisionsin different sectoral policies. The sustainabledevelopment strategy can also add value toexisting initiatives by putting strongeremphasis on the long term. As the followingsections of this document show, many of thetrends that threaten sustainable developmentare the consequence of past choices in pro-duction technology, patterns of land use andinfrastructure investment, and are difficult totackle in a short time frame. The decisions wetake in the near future will also have long-term effects over many decades on our pat-terns of development — and their social, eco-nomic and environmental consequences. It istherefore important that we address our cur-rent problems as a matter of urgency.

2. Main sustainabilitychallenges for Europe

2.1. Focusing on the mostimportant issues

By its very nature, sustainable development isan inclusive approach to policy-making. Itsscope covers almost any issue with an impor-tant social, economic or environmental com-ponent. This very wide perspective has bothadvantages and disadvantages — there is atrade-off between breadth of coverage anddepth of analysis. The Commission serviceshave deliberately limited the scope of thisconsultation paper to a small number ofissues that in their view pose the greatestthreat to sustainable development.


56

Choosing a set of topics to include impliesmaking judgments. The criteria that we haveused to judge whether a topic should be cov-ered in the EU sustainable developmentstrategy are:

— Severity — Do current trends pose a sig-nificant threat to our quality of life orthreaten to significantly reduce our stocksof social, environmental and economicassets? Are the costs of doing nothinglikely to be high or unevenly distributed?

— The time dimension and irreversibility —Is there a ‘slow burn’ problem that wors-ens only gradually but that may be verycostly or impossible to put right if actionis left to a very late stage? Is there a sig-nificant inter-generational aspect?

— A European dimension — Is the problemidentified common to a number of EUcountries, or are there spillover effectsbetween countries? Are policy responseslikely to have implications going beyondnational boundaries?

Based on these criteria, the Commission serv-ices propose the following six topics as prior-ities for inclusion in the European sustain-able development strategy:

— climate change and clean energy;

— public health;

— management of natural resources;

— poverty and social exclusion;

— ageing and demography;

— mobility, land use and territorial develop-ment.

Clearly, each of these topics covers a verywide range of issues and we cannot hope toprovide a comprehensive picture here.Moreover, within each broad heading, thereare some problems and policy dilemmas thatare much more acute than others. Withineach topic we have therefore again narrowedour focus by applying the criteria above, inorder to identify those trends that pose themost serious threat to sustainable develop-ment:

• Climate change is a global problem whichcan only be solved by widespread interna-tional cooperation. While its impacts aredifficult to predict precisely, they couldinclude changes in agricultural patterns,land use, disease zones, water supplies,increased risk of natural disasters andflooding, and resulting labour migration.These would have enormous economic andsocial consequences. Decoupling economicactivity from emissions of greenhouse gases— notably carbon dioxide — requires amajor shift to clean energy use, which willnot be achieved quickly or easily.

• Severe threats to public health are posed bythe growth in antibiotic-resistant strains ofsome diseases, which reduce the effective-ness of existing treatments. We also do notyet know enough about the longer termeffects of the thousands of chemicals cur-rently in use. Health problems related tosedentary lifestyles or poor eating habitsare often passed from parents to their chil-dren. All Member States face the challengeof delivering high standards of healthcarewithout excessively burdening publicfinances.

• Our management and use of naturalresources has implications for the well-being of future generations. Loss of biodi-versity and the resultant reduction in gene-


57

tic resources are irreversible. Restoring fishstocks to sustainable levels will not beachieved unless the severity of the problemis recognised and traditional managementattitudes change. The volume of waste —some of it hazardous — is rising inexorably.

• Poverty and social exclusion are problemscommon to all Member States. The severi-ty of the issue can be judged from the factthat one European in six is poor (withmuch higher concentrations in somegroups such as one-parent families), andpoor health, low educational attainmentand deprivation tend to be passed from onegeneration to the next. Moreover, rapidchanges in technology raise the threat of a‘digital divide’ and a two-tier society.

• All European countries face similar chal-lenges due to the ageing of their popula-tions. This will place considerable stresseson the funding of pensions. Ageing popula-tions may also place higher demands onhealthcare services and on long-term care,though much will depend on whether peo-ple enjoy relatively good health in old age.The structure of the population alters veryslowly over time: those who will be pen-sioners at the start of the second half of thiscentury have already been born, as has asubstantial part of the future population ofworking age.

• Current patterns of mobility cause severepollution and congestion throughoutEurope. Emissions of greenhouse gasesfrom transport are growing more rapidlythan from any other source, and in manyurban areas traffic seems to be grindinggradually to a halt. Transport infrastructureis one of several factors influencing territo-rial development and land use. In turn,concentration of economic activities cangive rise to congestion, but also has eco-

nomic benefits such as the creation of busi-ness networks and fluid labour markets,and can allow new solutions to emergesuch as the provision of urban public trans-port systems.

Each of the topics touches to a greater orlesser extent on each of the economic, envi-ronmental and social dimensions of sustain-able development. Each topic is relevant fora number of existing Community and nation-al policy areas. Moreover, each is linked tosome of the others. For example:

• Addressing climate change should havebeneficial impacts on natural resource use,on mobility and land use, and on publichealth.

• Poverty can lead to poor health. Poverty isalso closely related to educational under-achievement.

• The degree of social exclusion is influencedby urban planning and land-use policies:low-income families tend to cluster incheap housing, often on outlying suburbanestates. In such areas, investment in trans-port infrastructure and other facilities maynot be economically viable, so uncontrolledspatial development can aggravate segrega-tion and social disparities.

• The ageing of the population has implica-tions for public health policies.

The following pages identify the main issuesraised by each topic. The discussion of eachtakes roughly the same structure. First, thenature of the problem and its relevance tosustainable development are described.Then, the key drivers of the issues raised arereviewed (where are we? how did we gethere? and where are we going?). Emergingthreats or risks are also highlighted. The


58

examination of each topic concludes with anoutline of the ways in which policy to datehas tried to respond to the problems, andsets out the main policy challenges whichmust be overcome if we are to successfullytackle these unsustainable trends.

Topic 1:Climate change and clean energy

Introduction

Human activity is affecting the planet’s cli-mate system. Available scientific evidenceshows that the accumulation of greenhousegases in the atmosphere due to human activ-ity is causing global warming. The currentcentral estimate is that temperature willincrease by between 1 to 6° C by 2100 (5).Significant geographical variations areexpected, and temperature extremes may beeven more susceptible to change.

Climate change is likely to have severe andunpredictable consequences, such as highermean temperatures and radical changes inweather patterns and rainfall. Higher tem-peratures may mean that dry regions becomedrier and wet regions wetter. Rapid tempera-ture change may cause more extreme weath-er events (hurricanes, floods) with severeimplications for infrastructure, property,social systems and nature. Changes in agri-cultural patterns, land use, water suppliesand the migration of labour will have knock-on effects on the economy and society. Whilesome of these may be beneficial, major dis-

eases such as malaria are likely to extendtheir reach as temperatures rise, with majorimplications for public health.

Climate change is a global problem that theEU alone cannot solve, as all countries emitgreenhouse gases. In 1992, the UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) was agreed. At present,186 nations have ratified this convention andare legally bound by it. This conventionexplicitly recognises the problems posed byclimate change, and sets an ‘ultimate objec-tive’ of stabilising ‘greenhouse gas concentra-tions in the atmosphere at a level that wouldprevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate sys-tem’. However, the text does not specify pre-cisely what this level should be — it remainsa subject of scientific research and politicaldebate.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, agreedin 1997, was an important additional step,committing developed countries to emissionreduction and limitation targets for green-house gases. The EU agreed to cut emissionsby 8 % relative to 1990 levels by the years2008–12. However, the Kyoto Protocol hasnot yet been ratified by most signatories, andin particular none of the industrialised coun-tries, and is therefore not yet legally binding.Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change estimates that to stabiliseCO2 concentrations at even around twice thepre-industrial atmospheric concentrationwould require cuts in global emissions ofaround 50 to 70 % over the next 100 years.This implies that implementing the KyotoProtocol will only be a first step.

At present, the developed world has far high-er emissions per capita than developingcountries (the EU accounts for around 14 %

(5) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change WorkingGroup I third assessment report, summary for policy-makers; IPCC, 2001.


59

of global CO2 emissions, but about 6 % ofworld population, while the rest of theOECD has about 35 % of emissions and11 % of world population). This raisesimportant questions about how to reconcilethe need to cut global emissions with eco-nomic growth and development in poorercountries. However, it also needs to be bornein mind that greenhouse gas emissions fromless developed countries are expected to sur-pass those of industrialised countries in thenext 15 years. Thus, any long-term solutionto climate change needs to include all nationsof the world.

Major concerns and driving forces

Global greenhouse gas emissions haveincreased seven-fold during the 20th century.This has largely been the result of increaseduse of fossil fuels for energy as economies

have grown. The main facts and figures forthe EU are:

• The dominant greenhouse gas produced byhuman activity is CO2 released from con-sumption of fossil fuels which accounts foraround 80 % of emissions. The remaining20 % are due to other gases, such asmethane, nitrous oxides and the fluorinat-ed gases (HFC, PFC, SF6).

• Some greenhouse gases have bigger effectson global warming than others. In order toput different gases on a comparable basis,the emissions figures for non-CO2 gases areusually converted to tonnes of CO2 equiva-lents (6). The table below gives 1990 totalEU-15 greenhouse gas emissions by sectoron this basis as well as projected growth to2010 (7).

(6) The conversions are based on the global warming poten-tial for 100 years, as agreed in the IPCC. The GWP formethane is 21, nitrous oxide 310 and for the fluorinatedgases more than 1 000. In other words, methane is 21times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

(7) These figures include the projected effects of a number ofrecent policy measures, such as the landfill directive, thevoluntary agreement with vehicle manufacturers to cutCO2 emissions from cars, the renewables directive, andthe liberalisation of the energy market.


60

• EU Member States use large amounts ofenergy, but they tend to use it relativelyefficiently: energy use and CO2 emissionsper unit of GDP are low compared to mostother countries. However, emissions percapita from fuel combustion in the EU arearound twice the global average and aboutfour times the average for developing coun-tries. Due to the legacy of central planning,the accession countries emit several timesmore CO2 per unit of GDP than the cur-rent Member States.

• Some countries have also managed to makesignificant improvements in energy effi-ciency over time. For example, between1985 and 1998, the GDP of the EU grewby 35 % while energy-related CO2 emis-sions grew only by 4 %. This is partly due

to a move towards less energy-intensivesectors. In addition, a substantial part ofthis decoupling has to do with one-offevents, such as the switch from coal to gason a large scale as a source of energy sup-ply.

The main driving forces behind emissions inthe EU to date are listed below:

• A high level of economic developmentlinked to a dominance of fossil fuels inenergy supply. Around 80 % of our energyneeds are supplied by fossil fuels. Our cur-rent heavy reliance on fossil fuels resultsfrom past investment decisions that weremade without adequate attention beingpaid to the long-run environmentalimpacts.

Table: Projected growth of greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2010

1990 Baseline 2010 Growth 2010/1990Mt CO2 eq. Mt CO2 eq. %

Energy supply 1 421.7 1 276.6 – 10.2

Industry 757.1 686.1 – 9.4

Transport 753.1 1 098.2 45.8

Households 447.5 440.0 – 1.7

Private and public services 175.6 188.9 7.6

Agriculture 417.0 397.6 – 4.7

Waste 166.4 137.3 – 17.5

Total 4 138.3 4 224.8 2.1

Source: ‘Environment 2010: Our future, our choice’, sixth environmental action programme of the European Community,COM(2001) 31 final, p. 25.


61

• Low energy prices: prices in real terms ofoil, natural gas and coal have been relative-ly low throughout the 1990s and much ofthe 1980s. Coal prices declined by almost50 % between 1990 and 2000 in real terms.The low price of fossil fuels has reducedincentives for households, industry and thetransport sector to invest in and use energy-saving technologies.

• Rapidly increasing demand for mobility,being met largely by increased road trans-port and aviation. Between 1970 and 1998passenger transport demand (measured inpassenger kilometres) increased by over100 %, as did freight transport (measuredin tonne kilometres). These trends are like-ly to continue. At present, emissions ofgreenhouse gases from transport are grow-ing much faster than any other source.

• Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gasessuch as methane from landfills and fossilfuel extraction, methane and nitrous oxidefrom agriculture, as well as fluorinatedgases (8) from industrial processes.

Policy issues

At the EU level, the only current instrumentspecifically aimed at reducing CO2 emissionsis the voluntary agreement of European,Japanese and Korean car manufacturers toimprove the average fuel efficiency of newcars by 25 % by 2008–09. However, someother measures will reduce greenhouse gasemissions. These include the landfill direc-tive (which will reduce methane emissionsfrom landfill sites), a proposed directive that

aims to encourage energy from renewablesources and a directive on integrated pollu-tion prevention and control.

Some policy instruments are best applied atthe national level, whereas others mayrequire international coordination to beeffective. A number of questions arise con-cerning the appropriate balance betweenpolicy developed at the EU level and policyat the national level. At present, theCommission is working with stakeholders inthe context of the European climate changeprogramme (ECCP) in order to identify thebuilding blocks for possible Europe-wide ini-tiatives to implement the Kyoto commitment.Major issues to contend with are the follow-ing:

• Meeting the requirements of the KyotoProtocol means achieving a reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions of 8 % comparedto 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. The costs ofreducing greenhouse gas emissions varyfrom sector to sector. Critical questionstherefore are what policy mix is best suitedto implementing a cost-effective approach,and on which areas or sectors most atten-tion should be focused.

• Making the deep cuts in CO2 emissionsand other greenhouse gases needed to helpstabilise atmospheric concentrations in thelong term will require major investments.For example, in the power generation sec-tor much of the current plant will reach theend of its operating life during the next20–30 years and there is a continuing technological and political debate aboutthe future contribution of various en-ergy sources, including nuclear energy and renewables, to electricity supply (9).(8) The Montreal Protocol covers the phase out of ozone

depleting gases that are simultaneously greenhouse gases,such as CFCs and HCFCs. Attention is shifting towardsHFCs, PFCs and SF6, all three of which are coveredunder the Kyoto Protocol.

(9) As described in the recent Green Paper ‘Towards aEuropean strategy for the security of energy supply’COM(2000) 769.


62

Investments in energy supply, transportinfrastructure, housing and industrialinstallations are long lived. It is thereforevital that consideration be given to whatinstruments are needed to ensure that theseinvestment decisions take into accountthese long-run effects.

• The costs of reducing emissions are likelyto be significantly lower if cost-effectiveinstruments are put in place in good time.A first step would be removal of subsidiesthat encourage inefficient use of energy andare a significant drain on the public purse.An important question concerns the speedat which subsidies should be withdrawn,and how major adverse effects on particu-lar sectors might be limited.

• Energy taxes related to the CO2 content offuels would be a cost-effective way toreduce CO2 emissions. Higher taxes wouldincrease costs in some sectors, but the rev-enue could be used to cut other taxes. Anydisruptive effects of energy taxes on thecompetitiveness of energy intensive sectorscould be minimised by having EU widecoordinated tax measures. The EuropeanCommission proposed an EU wide carbon-energy tax in 1992, as well as a directivesetting a framework for taxation of energyproducts in 1997. However, neither ofthese initiatives has been accepted by theMember States, and progress wouldrequire a significant increase in politicalwill.

• The Kyoto Protocol includes a number offlexibility mechanisms that allow emissionsreductions to be achieved in a more cost-effective way, such as emissions tradingschemes. Starting from a target for totalemissions, this instrument allows firmsflexibility to reach this joint target in a cost-effective way. Some Member States areconsidering introducing emissions trading,and in this context an important issue iswhether it is best to arrive at European andinternational emission trading schemes bylinking national trading schemes, orthrough a more centralised design. The liberalisation of energy markets willimprove operating efficiency in the sectorand lower energy prices. However, this willincrease energy demand in the absence ofany offsetting measures. Considerationneeds to be given to what flanking meas-ures might be appropriate. Liberalisationhas the potential to allow new suppliers toenter the market (such as renewable energysources), provided steps are taken toensure that they are granted fair access tothe transmission grid.

• While it is uncertain what climate changewill bring, it is fairly certain that some cli-mate change will take place. The damagethat climate change causes will be lower ifwe can reduce the rate of change and helpnature and human habitats to adapt.Efforts to reduce emissions are necessary,but it is also important to consider nowhow our societies can best adapt to climatechange as it occurs.


63

Topic 2:Public health

Introduction

A healthy population is crucial for the well-being of our societies, and is therefore a pre-requisite for sustainable development. A safeenvironment and decent healthcare are basicelements of social and economic progress.How a society cares for its most fragile mem-bers is also a measure of its own health andsustainability. Good health is important forour economic and material prosperity: sickor unhealthy people cannot work and aredependent on those who do.

In general terms, the health of theCommunity population has never been bet-ter. Infant mortality has fallen sharply. Peopleare living longer: between 1960 and 1999,average life expectancy increased by eightyears for men and women. Nevertheless, inrecent years new potential threats to healthhave emerged. A number of major publichealth issues which threaten social and eco-nomic development are set out below.


Potential threats to our health come from thesubstances and products we are exposed tothrough the air we breathe, the water wedrink, and the food we eat.

• Major health problems and causes of pre-mature mortality, such as cancers, cardio-vascular diseases and road accidents, arerelated to lifestyles. Poor nutrition, lack ofexercise, tobacco use and misuse of alco-hol, for example, impose a considerableburden of disease and give rise to substan-tial costs for individuals and society. Healthproblems caused by lifestyles can have sig-

nificant and long-lasting effects, as parentsmay pass bad habits on to their children.Obesity is a rapidly growing problem inmany developed countries, and poor dietgenerally is a feature of others.

• Poor health is also related to social andeconomic inequality. Various studies haveshown that relatively disadvantaged popu-lations have lower life expectancy andhigher burdens of morbidity than highersocioeconomic groups. For example, in theearly 1990s in England and Wales,unskilled men aged 20–64 were almostthree times more likely to die from coro-nary heart disease than professional work-ers. Moreover, the difference in death rateshad been widening over the preceding 20years (10).

• The emergence of bovine spongiformencephalopathy (BSE) and its transfer tohumans as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacobdisease (nvCJD) have heightened concernsabout food safety and drawn attention tothe incentives facing farmers and the foodindustry. According to a recent Commis-sion report (11), by guaranteeing high pricesover decades, agricultural policy con-tributed to increasing the quantity of foodproduced, but had negative effects on thequality of some food products. In addition,agricultural policy has paid too little atten-tion to its effect on diet (12).

(10) Report of the independent inquiry into inequalities inhealth, UK Stationery Office, 1998.

(11) ‘Agriculture, environment, rural development: facts andfigures — a challenge for agriculture’; EuropeanCommission, 1999.

(12) For example, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of17 May 1999 included among its objectives ‘to rebalancemeat consumption in the Community to the benefit of thebeef sector’, despite evidence linking higher levels ofconsumption to increased risks of heart disease; see also‘Agenda 2000 CAP reform decisions — Impact analyses’,European Commission, 2000.


64

• Various types of environmental pollutionfrom agriculture, industrial activity andtransport also cause ill health. Indeed,some studies have suggested that transport-related air pollution is a bigger killer thantraffic accidents (13), though the impact onlife expectancy is generally less than 12months, as many of those affected arechronically ill from other causes.Importantly, emissions of ‘conventional’ airpollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitro-gen oxides and small particles are decliningdue to new pollution controls, and thistrend is expected to continue, significantlyreducing their impact on health.Nevertheless, high levels of pollution maystill occur in some areas. Agriculturalrunoff, wastewater discharges, and atmos-pheric deposition are the main sources ofnutrients in the marine environment whichare suspected to lie behind the unexpectedappearance in several coastal waters oftoxic algal blooms, an emerging threat topublic health.

• Chemicals (especially in the form of phar-maceuticals) make an important positivecontribution to public health, but there iswidespread use of chemicals whose proper-ties and risks are poorly understood. Thereare gaps in our knowledge about the toxic-ity or otherwise of the tens of thousands ofchemicals in use in Europe today. Whilemany of these are surely harmless, recentstudies linking chlorine in the atmospherein indoor swimming pools to asthma illus-trate the range of our ignorance of theeffects of chemical substances. The increas-ing incidence of allergies, which now affectone in three Europeans, has also beenlinked with exposure to toxic chemicals,

though other factors are also important.The effects of allergies go beyond theirdirect impact on health: they are the majorcause of days lost from school and so maylead to poor levels of educational achieve-ment.

• The substances of most concern are thosethat are persistent pollutants — that is,they break down only slowly — and are‘bio-accumulative’ — that is, they build upin the body — so that continued exposureto even small doses can have chronic effectson health. For example, dioxins — by-products of some industrial and combus-tion processes — are a continuing cause forconcern. Despite large and sustained fallsin emissions of dioxins, a recentCommission study (14) indicated that manyindividuals’ average daily intake of dioxinswas likely to exceed the World HealthOrganisation recommended maximumintake. Higher levels of dioxin exposureare also related to diet, since dioxins accu-mulate in fatty foods. Some chemical prod-ucts have been identified as actual orpotential causes of cancer or physicaldeformities. Endocrine disrupters, sub-stances that may interfere with human andanimal reproductive systems, are especiallydisquieting.

• Communicable diseases, particularly there-emergence in a more virulent form ofdiseases thought to have been conquered,continue to threaten the health of the pop-ulation. The recent rise in tuberculosisencapsulates the dangers. Increasing levelsof resistance to antibiotics damage publichealth: infection that cannot be treatedquickly spreads, and is more likely to be

(13) ‘Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related airpollution: a European assessment’, The Lancet, Vol. 356,pp. 795–801.

(14) Compilation of EU dioxin exposure and health data —Summary report; October 1999.


65

fatal. It is the older and less expensivedrugs that are in more widespread usewhich tend to become ineffective as theirtargets develop and mutate. If we cannotmaster this trend, we risk undoing much ofthe social and economic progress that hasbeen achieved on the back of improvedhealthcare. Much of the problem is due to‘mis- and overuse of antibiotics’ (15) for thetreatment of illness of both humans andfarm animals. The remaining four antibi-otics still allowed for use as growth pro-moters and as additives in animal feed areplanned to be phased out by 2006. TheCommunity’s Scientific SteeringCommittee has also recommended changesin animal husbandry as an additional wayto maintain animal health and welfare, andreduce use of antibiotics (16).

• Delivering high-quality health services is afurther challenge. The costs of healthcaresystems are high and rising, and nowabsorb an average of around 8 % of GDPin Member States. Much of this moneymight be better spent preventing disease byencouraging healthier lifestyles. The highcost of many modern treatments, the highrate of technological innovation — whichmakes available treatments for previouslyincurable conditions — and rising demandfor improved healthcare, place new pres-sures on the financing of public care servic-es. The impact of the ageing of theCommunity population puts further strainon healthcare costs and could cause publicexpenditure on healthcare to rise by 3 % ofGDP.

• The most important challenges of an age-ing population, however, are the need forbetter understanding and management ofdiseases which particularly afflict the eld-erly, and for health services to adapt toprovide patterns of care particularly suitedto meeting the needs of frail, elderlypatients, while also meeting the needs ofthe healthy aged. These new patterns ofcare will require substantial change in thenature of public healthcare systems, partic-ularly as extended family networks becomeless common.

Policy issues

Specific Community competence in the areaof public health only dates from 1993.Nevertheless, a wide range of policy areasaffects health, so Community action toaddress health issues dates back much fur-ther than this (17). For example:

• A directive on the classification, packagingand labelling of dangerous substances wasadopted in 1967, and has been updated onmany occasions. The Commission commu-nication on endocrine disrupters (18) listedsome 30 Community legislative measuresrelating to environment and health impactsof chemical products; several of thesemeasures were directed at improving foodsafety by reducing chemical use in farming.The White Paper on a new Communitychemicals strategy (19) has the overridinggoal of sustainable development. It aims toprotect human health and the environment

(15) Antibiotic resistance in the European Union associatedwith therapeutic use of veterinary medicines’, report andqualitative risk assessment by the Committee forVeterinary Medicinal Products, European Agency for theEvaluation of Medicinal Products, 1999.

(16) Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on antimi-crobial resistance, 28 May 1999.

(17) Article 152 of the Treaty on European Union states that ‘Ahigh level of human health protection shall be ensured inthe definition and implementation of all Community poli-cies and activities.’

(18) ‘Community strategy for endocrine disrupters’,COM(1999) 706, European Commission, 1999.

(19) White Paper ‘Strategy for a future chemicals policy’,COM(2001) 88; European Commission, 2001.


66

while ensuring the competitiveness of thechemical industry, though its implementa-tion will raise many important practicalquestions.

• In the area of environmental policy, meas-ures taken under Community legislation toreduce pollution from large combustionplants, and vehicle emissions technologieshave contributed to the substantial andcontinuing improvements in air quality.Nevertheless, much research work remainsto be done on assessing the impact of somepollutants on health, particularly the effectsof small particles.

• Four EU action programmes on health andsafety at work have been implementedsince 1978 (20). They have led toCommunity measures to protect workersagainst dangerous substances and situa-tions, and to improve the working environ-ment.

With Member States responsible for theorganisation and delivery of health servicesand medical care, the new Community healthstrategy aims to develop a coherent approachto health issues across all EU policy areas. Itscore objective will be to identify all policiesand actions which might have an impact onhealth (including healthcare systems) and tofind ways of assessing the health impact ofthese policies. This will require better policycoordination (a ‘joined-up approach’) toaddress inter-sectoral issues such as enlarge-ment or social exclusion, and emerginghealth problems.

The proposed public health action pro-gramme will focus on three main strands of

activity, intended to address many of theissues raised above.

• A first objective is to improve health infor-mation and knowledge. A comprehensivehealth information system will be devel-oped to provide information and data onhealth status, health determinants andhealth systems to policy-makers, healthprofessionals and the general public.

• A second priority will be to monitor andrespond rapidly to health threats, forexample from communicable diseases. Thiscould include attention to antimicrobialresistance, work on hospital infections, vac-cine policy, and communicable diseasessuch as HIV/AIDS.

• Finally, the new public health action planwill address health determinants. It willinclude actions aimed at tackling theunderlying causes of ill health, includinglifestyle and environmental causes, by pro-moting health and preventing disease.

As many risks to health result from individ-ual lifestyle choices, giving accurate informa-tion to the wider public and improvingunderstanding at all levels is critically impor-tant. Food safety is paramount in thisrespect. In recent years, the credibility ofpublic authorities in the management of foodsafety has been severely damaged by the per-ception that they were more concerned toprotect the economic interests of producersthan the health of consumers. Assessmentand regulation of food safety that is inde-pendent of the economic sectors concernedis thus essential to improve public safety andto restore public confidence (21). In addition,

(20) OJ C 165 of 11.7.1978, OJ C 67 of 27.2.1984, OJ C 28 of3.2.1988 and COM(95) 282 of 12.7.1995.

(21) The Commission White Paper on food safety(COM(1999) 719) proposed creating a European FoodAuthority.


67

clear labelling of the health and nutritionalproperties of foods is long overdue, given theimportance of diet and nutrition to healthand well-being.

Topic 3:Management of naturalresources

Introduction

Natural resources underpin sustainabledevelopment. They provide essential life sup-port functions such as foods and habitats,carbon storage and water catchment, andprovide essential raw materials. Althoughsmall changes in most stocks of naturalresources pose little immediate threat, a per-sistent decline is of great concern forresources that are difficult or impossible toreplace, such as biodiversity.

We can distinguish broadly between thosenatural resources that are renewable if care-fully managed (such as fish stocks and freshwater), and those that are non-renewable(such as oil and mineral resources). In thispaper, we have concentrated on those wherethe long-run trends are of most concern (bio-diversity, waste generation, fish stocks). Wealso include the question of exhaustion ofnon-renewable resources such as mineralsand coal, although on current consumptionrates stocks may last for decades or even cen-turies.


There are a number of general problems thatundermine the efficient and sustainable useof natural resources. Different forms ofindustrial and agricultural activity affectmany natural resources. When natural

resources are part of a shared ‘commons’ andaccess to their use is open to all, this meansthat there is often little incentive for individ-uals to conserve and use them in a responsi-ble way. Overexploitation can be the result.Poorly defined or disputed rights of owner-ship or access to resources weaken the incen-tives to conserve and use natural resources ina sustainable way.

Bio-diversity

At present, we are failing to secure the long-run viability of our eco-systems. Despitemeasurement problems, there are indicationsthat recent decades have seen very significantlosses in virtually all types of eco-systems atEU level. A high percentage of existingspecies within the EU are at risk of extinc-tion (22). In recent decades, the trend hasbeen persistently in the wrong direction, andthis poses a serious long-term threat to thenatural resources on which our economicand social system depend.

Changing land use is an important factor.Although measurement is difficult andimprecise, data for the period 1980–90 for 11EU countries indicate that close to 14 % ofland previously considered to be part of nat-ural cover was lost to urban developmentand housing. In addition, between 1980 and1998 there was an 11 % rise in amount ofland taken by road networks in MemberStates. A large percentage of all nature con-servation sites in Europe can be consideredat risk from new infrastructuredevelopment (23). Although policy at present

(22) Towards sustainable development — Environmental indi-cators’, OECD, 1998.

(23) ‘Headline environmental indicators for the EuropeanUnion’, European Environment Agency and theEuropean Commission, forthcoming.


68

tends to pay some attention to preservingparticularly important habitats or sites ofinterest from development, the average levelof protection is much lower.

Agriculture also profoundly influences thepattern of land use. The scale, the scope, andthe nature of production techniques can havesubstantial impacts — good and bad — onthe landscape and on natural habitats.Intensive aquaculture in sensitive marineareas is one of the driving forces for theappearance of toxic phytoplankton whichcan kill fish, seabirds and mammals.Intensive farming practices seem particularlyprone to cause negative effects. Theseinclude ‘monotonous landscapes, the aban-donment of traditional management meth-ods, the use of large areas of wetland, moor-land and natural rough pasture, pollution ofgroundwater by increased use of pesticidesand fertilisers, and reduction in biologicaldiversity.’ (24) Another European Commis-sion report noted that intensive farming had‘taken little or no heed of its impact on theenvironment.’ (25)

However, it would be too simplistic — andwrong — to conclude that agricultural prac-tices do nothing but damage the countryside.Many landscapes and site-specific environ-mental amenities reflect a farming heritage.Particularly in remote or mountainous areas,agriculture can play a crucial role in preserv-ing attractive landscape features and ecologi-cal diversity.

Abandonment of land or of traditional landmanagement practices in such areas would

be bad for biodiversity and would reduce theenvironmental and amenity value of theseareas. Public policy therefore has a potential-ly important role in setting the right incen-tives to encourage the management of biodi-versity and rural sustainability.

Water resources

At the global level, the problem of watershortage will prove one of the major chal-lenges over the next few decades. However,at the level of the EU, there are few watershortage problems, with the importantexception of parts of southern Europe,where overexploitation of water has led todrying out of some areas and to salt waterintrusion in aquifers around theMediterranean coast. It is a cause for concernthat in some areas current extraction is tap-ping water tables that will take centuries toreplenish.

Pollution of water resulting from agricultur-al, household and industrial activity is a morewidespread phenomenon in Europe. Waterpollution causes damage to aquatic life andimposes sizeable costs in terms of the treat-ment needed to supply clean water to agri-cultural, household and industrial users. Thespread of built-on land, including into natu-ral flood plains, highlights the links betweenwater management and land-use planning.Absence of an integrated approach to theseissues is causing increased damage fromfloods.

Fish stocks

Fish represent an important renewableresource that provides a livelihood for thosein the fishing industry and an important foodsource. There is strong evidence that existingrates of harvesting of fish stocks are unsu-stainable and threaten the viability of major

(24) ‘European spatial development perspective — Towardsbalanced and sustainable development of the territory ofthe European Union’; European Commission, 1999.

(25) ‘Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts andfigures — A challenge for agriculture’, EuropeanCommission, 1999.


69

fishing areas. The International Council forthe Exploration of the Seas has persistentlywarned that EU waters are being over-fished.The same is true worldwide. Stocks of hakeand cod in EU waters are at crisis point, andcatches of all fish are falling rapidly. Landingsof fish in the mid-1970s were nearly twice ashigh as in 1998.

Collapse of stocks is potentially disastrousfor those who derive their livelihood fromthe industry and has important consequencesfor marine eco-systems. The collapse of theCanadian cod fisheries in the early 1990sdevastated local fishing communities, leavingthem few long-term prospects. The EUindustry is characterised at present by overcapacity, falling employment, and low prof-itability. Lack of recognition that radicaladjustment is needed has also tended to delaythe introduction of effective adjustmentmeasures, aggravating the problems of thosein the industry.

Since 1983, the EU has regulated fishingunder the common fisheries policy (CFP).The CFP has offered, and still offers, impor-tant benefits, such as a legal framework forregulation and enforcement, and a mecha-nism for restricting access to the main fish-eries. On the whole, however, the policy hasserious shortcomings:

• The setting of total allowable catches year-by-year has led to a neglect of longer termconservation and management. MemberStates have regularly postponed difficultdecisions because of the short-term costs ofthe stringent measures needed for stocks torecover.

• As a result, the quotas that each country isallowed for catches of fish are too high, andare difficult to reduce by negotiation aseach country would prefer others to make

cuts. Member States have until recentlylacked the political will to act decisively.

• The financial instruments used in the sec-tor under the CFP have tended to workagainst each other. The effects of measuresto reduce capacity have been partly offsetby subsidies to modernise and improvefleet technology. Other operating subsidies,such as exemption from fuel tax for fishingvessels, encourage over-fishing.

• There are technical problems in the scien-tific measurement of stocks, and in control-ling the impact of fishing on growing fishand other species: finding a way to reduce‘discards’ — fish that are caught and thenthrown back into the sea — is a majorproblem.

• There is evidence that enforcement of reg-ulations on the part of Member States hasbeen too lax and very uneven, which hasreduced confidence in the CFP as a viablepolicy.

Current policy has failed to secure sustain-able exploitation of fisheries resources, andwill need to be changed if it is to do so. In thefuture, the Community fisheries sector willhave to be significantly smaller than it istoday, if it is to survive. The common fish-eries policy is to be reviewed between nowand 2002. Unless there is meaningful reform,the costs in long-term economic damage tofishing communities, as well as to the marineenvironment, will be high. The recentCommission Green Paper (26) puts forwardoptions for a change of approach towardssubsidies in the fisheries sector.

(26) ‘The future of the common fisheries policy’, COM(2001)135, European Commission, 2001.


70

Non-renewable resources

Extraction of non-renewable resources suchas coal, oil and minerals may have significantimpacts on landscape and biodiversity ifappropriate measures for waste managementand restoration are not undertaken. A bal-ance clearly has to be struck between exploit-ing these resources and protection of nature.

In addition, there has been a long-runningdebate about whether certain non-renewableresources that are valued mainly for theircommercial potential, such as iron ore, coaland oil deposits, are running out.Conventional indicators such as trends inprices do not suggest a rapid increase inscarcity of these resources, and measuredreserves for many assets run into decades.Moreover, rising prices in themselves stimu-late the development of alternative technolo-gies that reduce resource use. In many cases,we can more than compensate for reductionsin stocks of resources by providing otherforms of wealth for future generations, suchas technology and infrastructure, or by devel-oping substitutes for the resource being usedup, such as renewable energy sources.

However, despite little apparent evidence ofscarcity, there is still a question of whether weare using these resources up too quickly, leav-ing little for future generations. It is of coursetrue that these resources are essentially finite,and so our current use erodes the stocksavailable in the future. We should thereforeaim to use these resources responsibly andmore productively wherever possible.

Waste

Every person in the EU generates on average3.5 tonnes of solid waste each year (27). In

recent years, waste volumes have grownfaster than GDP. Similar growth rates overthe longer term could significantly increasepressure on the environment and adverselyaffect public health. To date, the pressure toimprove resource efficiency and reducewaste has come largely through commercialpressures to cut costs and from regulation bypollution control authorities. However, regu-lation can be expensive if it forces unneces-sarily rapid adjustments to existing technolo-gy, rather than being designed to allowcheaper improvements to develop over time.As in other policy areas, the phasing in ofnew measures therefore has to strike a bal-ance between the costs and benefits of earlyintroduction.

A number of industrial sectors, such as thepaper, glass, and metals industries have madesignificant improvements in resource effi-ciency in recent years, either through restruc-turing their activities towards higher value-added products, or through raising processefficiency. There has also been a reduction inthe use of hazardous substances in products,thus helping their management as waste.These are welcome developments, and thereare other innovative approaches being adopt-ed in the business community to improveresource efficiency. Policy needs to facilitatean active approach from the business sectorthat stimulates long-run improvements inresource efficiency if we are to decouplegrowth of waste and GDP.

Policy issues

The major challenge that cuts across almostall resource issues is how to revise incentivestructures in such a way that non-commercialconsiderations are given adequate weight bythose managing and exploiting naturalresources. The diversity and complexity ofnatural resources makes this difficult. A par-

(27) ‘Environment in the European Union at the turn of thecentury’ (second assessment report), EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 1999.


71

ticular concern is how to reform policies thathave an unacceptably high impact on naturalresources (such as over-fishing and agricul-ture) without unacceptable socioeconomiccosts. In particular, how support and subsidyregimes can be reoriented to generate aninterest in effective long-term management.Water shortages and water pollution are bothdue to failure to provide adequate incentivesto encourage more responsible water use.

In the farming sector, first steps have beentaken in broadening the focus of the com-mon agricultural policy towards takingaccount of wider economic, environmentaland social objectives. These have had somesuccess (28). Reduced levels of price supportcontributed to less use of inputs such aschemical fertilisers and pesticides. ‘Agri-environmental’ measures have contributed topreserving biodiversity and led to lower lev-els of water pollution. Taking land out of pro-duction (‘set-aside’) has been shown to havebeneficial environmental effects, provided itis properly managed. However, at present,the goal of sustainable rural developmentremains subsidiary to the narrower objectiveof supporting farmers’ incomes.

An important prerequisite for improvedlong-run management of our naturalresource base is improved information on thecurrent state of our natural resources, such asthe measurement of biodiversity and levels offish stocks. Such data are essential for ensur-ing that consumption does not exceed thecapacity of the resource to regenerate. Thedifficulties in measuring stocks of someresources and how they are evolving meansthat trends are not picked up as quickly asthey should be.

In order to decouple economic growth fromthe use of resources and the generation ofwaste there is a need for effective instrumentsto shape the awareness of business and con-sumers and provide steady pressure for along-run increase in resource efficiencythroughout the economy. Greater efficiencyin our use of resources should reduce pres-sure on the environment, preserve largeramounts for future generations, and allowmore time for the development of substi-tutes.

Topic 4:Poverty and socialexclusion (29)

Introduction

Reducing poverty is central to sustainabledevelopment. Although it is not a new phe-nomenon, it has an enormous direct effect onindividuals in terms of ill health, suiciderates, persistent unemployment, and poten-tial exclusion from the mainstream of society.The burden of poverty is borne dispropor-tionately by single mothers and older womenliving alone. Poverty also has a strong ten-dency to repeat itself, often remaining withinfamilies for generations. This has a highsocial cost, particularly the waste of humantalent and energy implied by unequal oppor-tunities. A well-designed set of integratedpolicies to reduce these social costs wouldimprove both fairness and efficiency. Povertyis a problem with long-term consequencesand requires a long-term approach.

(28) ‘Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts andfigures — A challenge for agriculture’, EuropeanCommission, 1999.

(29) Poverty and social exclusion are closely related but diffe-rent. Exclusion is a broader idea than poverty as it impliesthe idea of ‘access’ at all levels, and this can be interpretedvery widely. We do not propose to expand on the diffe-rences here, and for short hand we simply use the termpoverty.


72

Poverty can arise for a whole range of inter-dependent reasons. Major factors are differ-ences in family background and wealth, dif-ferences in access to education and jobs,effort and luck, the effects of tax and benefitsystems on redistributing wealth, and thedirect provision of some services by the State(for example, health, policing, social servic-es). These different effects can offset or rein-force one another, so small initial differencescan sometimes have big effects. This com-plexity also explains part of the difficulty inarriving at a satisfactory definition of poverty.

The willingness to accept different forms ofdeprivation depends on our social and polit-ical values. These inevitably vary fromMember State to Member State, but there isalso a shared commitment between countriesof the EU to forming a more cohesive socie-ty, and the fight against poverty and socialexclusion is acknowledged to be a major ele-ment in the value systems of MemberStates (30). This vision is reflected in the EUTreaty (31).


Current patterns of poverty within the EUare diverse and evolving. This section pro-vides an overview of important trends, driv-ers of change, and emerging risks:

• The measurement of poverty depends onthe definition used, but on one commondefinition (relative) poverty (32) averages17 % in the EU (excluding Finland andSweden). Vulnerability is more wide-

spread: 32 % of Europeans experience atleast one annual spell of low income over aperiod of three years, while 7 % of thepopulation — around 25 million persons— experience persistent poverty duringthis period. Persistent income povertyranges from around 3 % in Denmark andthe Netherlands to 12 % in Portugal.

• There are significant income inequalitieswhich threaten social cohesion. At EUlevel, the poorest 20 % of the populationreceives less than one fifth of the income ofthe richest 20 %. Social benefits reduce theproportion of poor people in all MemberStates but to very differing degrees, thereduction ranging from around 10 % inGreece and Italy to over 60 % in Denmark.

• Income gaps between women and menremain significant, with women’s earningsalmost one quarter below that of men. Thisgap increases the risk that women will fallinto poverty, since social security benefitsand pension entitlements are often relatedto previous earnings.

• Many cities have serious pockets of pover-ty and social exclusion. Unemploymentrates can vary significantly between dis-tricts, being up to 10 times higher in theworst affected parts than in the least affect-ed.

• There is a high level of early school leavers:more than one in five of those aged 18–24leave the education system with only lowersecondary education at best. This is a par-ticular worry, as there is a possible viciousintergenerational circle between childhoodpoverty, low educational achievement andpoverty in adult life.

• Significant proportions of the adult popu-lation fail to attain the literacy levels con-

(30) See the conclusions of the European Council at Lisbon,Feira, Nice (2000), which may be downloaded from theInternet (http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm).

(31) See Section 1.2 above.(32) Poverty line defined as 60 % of national median income

adjusted for household size. Source: Eurostat, EuropeanCommunity Household Panel, 1996.


73

sidered as necessary to cope with everydaylife in advanced societies, though theNordic European countries in particularhave made significant progress in resolvingthis problem (33).

• Rapid change in the labour market is pos-ing a risk to those unable to adapt tochange. Organisational and contractualchanges present risks for vulnerable indi-viduals.

• There is also some concern over the risk ofa technological divide. Persons in the high-income groups use the Internet three timesmore frequently than lower income groups.Older people have scarcely any access tothe Internet (one in seven of the youngestgroup). There is a significant gap betweenmen and women as regards access to infor-mation and communication technologies.Moreover, there are significant differencesacross the Union in access to the Internet,with a clear north–south divide. In Greece,Spain, Portugal and Italy, the rate is half theEU average, while in the Nordic countriesit is considerably higher (34).

• Changing family patterns and householdstructures are increasing vulnerability forparticular groups in society. Householdsizes are declining. Around one in 12 peo-ple live alone, an increase of 50 % over thelast 20 years. The proportion of dependentchildren living in one-parent households(mainly single mothers) has increased by50 % since 1983. Around 13 % of alldependent children in the EU are livingwith just one parent. Three out of four sin-gle-parent families are facing financial diffi-

culties and the probability of living inpoverty is twice as high for these children.

• Ageing populations raise new concernsabout social exclusion and poverty amongthe elderly. Provision for retirementincome needs to reflect the prospect ofincreased life expectancy, with many livingperhaps 30 or 40 years after retirement.This will be a particular problem for thevery old if their pension income fails tokeep pace with price rises. Changing fami-ly patterns may reduce the amount of sup-port and care given by families.

• Immigration flows make global poverty adomestic EU concern. The persistence ofracism, xenophobia, and of social and eco-nomic discrimination make it difficult forimmigrants to be effectively integrated.

Policy issues

Economic and technological developmentsoffer new opportunities and more choices toindividuals to fulfil their potential. At thesame time, these developments increase com-petitive pressures and carry the risk of creat-ing a ‘two-tier’ society where the more vul-nerable members find themselves unable tokeep up with fast-moving changes.

At the Lisbon European Council in March2000, the EU set out a new strategy tostrengthen employment, economic reformand social cohesion. Modernising social pro-tection and combating social exclusion wereidentified as essential elements of this strate-gy. Tackling the sources of unemploymentand poverty is central to its success. Thismeans enabling greater access to quality jobs,in particular through increased opportunitiesfor education and training for all ages, toencourage flexibility and the capacity toadapt to the requirements of a rapidly chang-

(33) See the IALS–OECD study (2000).(34) Second report on economic and social cohesion in the

European Union, European Commission, 2001.


74

ing labour market. Equally important, taxand benefit systems must be reformed tomake them more employment friendly and toremove poverty traps, particularly thosewhich deny women the opportunity to takeup paid employment.

The Nice European Council gave furthersubstance to the objectives set at Lisbon byapproving the European social agenda. Totake full advantage of this momentum forchange, social policy must be placed in itswider context of the European Union su-stainable development strategy: many otherpolicies (such as education and training,transport, housing, health) have an impact onsocial exclusion. In addition, we must lookbeyond the 10-year horizon of Lisbon:

• Poverty is a persistent problem that is oftentransmitted from one generation to anoth-er. Eradicating poverty will take more thana decade. It is especially important to limitthe passing of problems — such as lack ofeducation or poor housing and living con-ditions — from one generation to another.

• Strategies to tackle poverty and socialexclusion require a balance between target-ed initiatives and general social measures.There is a particular need to avoid the risksof an underclass within which povertyreplicates itself. This may require specificaction for groups at risk (such as children,early school leavers, minority groups, dis-abled, elderly) or for some geographicalareas. Community support comes from theEuropean Social Fund and a specific pro-gramme on social inclusion.

• Financial integration and the increasedmobility of the tax base are putting morepressure on tax and benefit systems. Whileprivate markets have the potential to easethis pressure by delivering some services

more cost-effectively, their use must becarefully designed to ensure that universalaccess to basic entitlements such as decenthealthcare, good education and core socialservices is maintained. Modernising socialprotection means building an active wel-fare state, not dismantling it.

Topic 5:Ageing

Introduction

The population of the European Union andof the accession countries is ageing, in con-trast with trends in most developing coun-tries. Migration flows into the EU haveoccurred in recent years and this has offsetsome of the effects of the ageing of theCommunity population. Nonetheless, recentEurostat projections show that the old-agedependency ratio (those aged over 65 as apercentage of the population aged 20–64)will double between 2000 and 2050. By themiddle of the century, there will be one per-son aged 65 or over for every two aged20–64. These demographic changes will haveprofound economic, budgetary and socialimplications.

An ageing population puts into question thefinancial sustainability of pension schemesand public healthcare. Under plausibleassumptions, pension expenditure (nowreported to amount to 10 % of GDP onaverage) would increase by 3–5 % of GDP inthe majority of Member States between 2000and 2040 (35). Spending on healthcare couldincrease by a further 3 % of GDP over thesame period. At the same time, the shrinking

(35) See ‘EPC progress report to the Ecofin Council on theimpact of ageing populations on public pensions systems’.


75

labour force will lead to a lower rate of eco-nomic growth, unless it is offset by increasedproductivity.

Public pensions in the EU are either provid-ed by governments, using revenues from tax-ation, or by the social partners, based on con-tributions of employers and employees.Many pension systems are funded on a ‘payas you go’ basis, where today’s workers sup-port today’s retired. Because demographicchange occurs slowly and is largely pre-dictable, there is a strong temptation to putoff difficult political choices when problemslie in the distant future. This raises theprospect of threats to fiscal stability, or a sig-nificant reduction in entitlements for futurepensioners. A long-term approach is essentialto prevent the occurrence of a social dividebetween generations and widespread povertyamong the elderly.

Some options for reform to existing pensionsystems would put more emphasis on today’syoung people to provide for their own retire-ment. For example, moving towards a ‘fund-ed’ system in which individuals build up theirown pension provision over time, often withState support. This may have some advan-tages in terms of transparency about whopays for what, but funding would not over-come the structural tension between thelength of working life and pension needs inretirement. Moreover, a rapid shift from ‘payas you go’ to a funded system would meanthat the current workforce would pay twice— once for pensions for the current aged,and once to build up provision for their ownretirement. A wider range of policy optionsmust therefore be explored.


Due to rising life expectancy and decliningbirth rates in Europe, the balance between

those of working age and those of non-work-ing age is changing. In essence, we are livinglonger and therefore require more in terms ofpension provision, but the length of activeworking life is not increasing to provide amatching increase in pension contributions.The ratio between years in which contribu-tions are paid and those in which benefits arereceived is continually decreasing. The shareof young people in the total population isdeclining, while that of older people isincreasing. The key trends and drivers are:

• Unfavourable labour market develop-ments, in particular high unemploymentrates and falling participation ratesamongst older workers. Employment ratestend to drop off very sharply after the ageof 50. Effective retirement ages in the EUare now well below both the statutoryretirement age and levels in other industri-alised countries. This partly meets a socialpreference for more leisure time (36), but inmany cases it is due to structural features inthe labour market that discourage employ-ers from taking on older employees, or thelack of suitable job opportunities matchingthe capacities and requirements of olderpeople.

• The sustainability of pensions systems willalso depend on what percentage of thetotal population is active in the labour mar-ket, as well as their productivity levels.Current employment rates are much lowerin the EU than in other developed coun-tries, particularly for women and olderworkers.

• Life expectancy at birth in EU-15 increasedby eight years between 1960 and 1999,from 73 to 81 for women, and from 67 to

(36) See Eurobarometers, 1992 and 1999, about attitudes inrelation to retirement and pensions issues.


76

75 for men. This reflects improvements indiet, less occupational risk, and betterhealthcare, amongst other factors.

• Birth rates have fallen well below the levelnecessary for population replacement, dueto social and cultural change, and difficul-ties for men and women in combiningwork and family responsibilities. The aver-age number of children per woman wasaround 1.5 in 1999, whereas the figurerequired for a stable population is 2.1. Thenumber of children per woman is alsobelow the average number of childrendesired by couples (around two children,according to survey data).

• As a result, the proportion of people aged65 years and over in the EU-15 has risenfrom around 10 to 16 % over the last 30years, while the proportion of those under25 has fallen from just below 40 % to justunder 30 %. This trend would have beeneven more marked were it not for immigra-tion. It will continue over the next fewdecades, when ‘baby boomers’ progressive-ly reach retirement age (see graph).

• The number of ‘very old’ people aged 80and over will rise very sharply, and by 2010the number is expected to increase byabout half. Changes in the structure of

households accentuate the significance ofthis development. The elderly mustincreasingly rely on themselves and onpublic support, rather than on a family net-work.

• The age structure of the working age pop-ulation (15–64) is also affected: the share ofthose aged 55–64 is increasing and this isprojected to continue. This raises questionsabout how to stimulate lifelong learningand to adjust working patterns to accom-modate this ‘greying’ of the workforce.People may prefer to spread economicactivity more evenly over their lifetime. Forexample, through more part-time workwhen they have young children, and alsotowards the end of their working lives, to‘phase in’ retirement.

Policy issues

A comprehensive approach must be adoptedto address the economic, budgetary, andsocial implications of ageing (37). The numberof pensioners over the next three decades canbe forecast reasonably accurately, but there isconsiderable uncertainty about migrationand other long-run demographic develop-ments. If birth rates do not increase asexpected, and if there are very big increasesin life expectancy due to technological break-throughs, the implications could be muchgreater than described above.

Raising employment rates in line with theLisbon strategy is a critical first step to meet-ing the ageing challenge. To achieve the tar-get of an employment rate of 70 % in the EU

Share of each age group in the total EUpopulation, 1999 and 2040

0

10

20

30

40

50

0–14 15–24 25–54 55–64 65 + 80 +

Source: Eurostat — (2000-based) baseline scenario.

1999

2040

Perc

enta

ge

of

tota

l p

op

ulat

ion

(37) See Commission communications ‘The future evolution ofsocial protection’ (COM(2000) 622), and ‘The contribu-tion of public finances to growth and employment: impro-ving quality and sustainability’ (COM(2000) 846),European Commission, 2000.


77

by 2010, a higher priority must be attachedto lifelong learning and improving the adapt-ability of the labour force. There is a need formore family-friendly education structuresand better care services for both children andthe elderly, as present structures make it dif-ficult to reconcile working and family lives.Moreover, the taxation and pension systemsneed to be reformed to discourage earlyretirement.

This long-term approach focusing on moreemployment among women and older peopleshould help to increase the number of poten-tial contributors to pension schemes, reducethe number of recipients and thereforeimprove budgetary sustainability.

However, further progress must be achieved:

• Simulations have shown that the EUemployment rate needs to reach 75 % by2020 to ensure that the number of adultsnot at work stabilises at its present level,relative to the number of employed people.Raising overall employment rates, especial-ly amongst women and older workers,could go a long way towards offsetting theprojected fall in the ratio of active to inac-tive persons, and considerably lessen thebudgetary and economic impact of ageingpopulations.

• Revising early retirement schemes and thetax and benefit systems in cooperation withthe social partners will be necessary toencourage people to stay longer in employ-ment, possibly part-time, in line with thedecreasing morbidity and disability levelsamong older people.

• Social protection and public pension sys-tems should provide adequate income andhealthcare services to the elderly, whilekeeping the tax burden at acceptable levels

and maintaining other essential public serv-ices.

• If the employability and employment rateof older workers is to be increased, a majorinvestment in lifelong learning is required,particularly in IT skills. Member Statesand the social partners should intensifytheir efforts in this respect.

• The provision of infrastructure and servic-es (care, transport, etc.) must be reconsid-ered to take account of the increasing num-ber of the elderly and their circumstances.

Population ageing in the EU Member Statescould be partly counteracted by migration.Building on the indications given by theEuropean Council in Tampere, legal chan-nels for economic migrants should bereopened, and arrangements should beagreed at EU level to develop and coordinatea common immigration policy. This shouldbe accompanied by measures to integratemigrants and to combat discrimination andsocial exclusion. Partnership with the coun-tries of origin should be developed to facili-tate orderly migration flows, to fight illegalimmigration, and to mitigate any negativeeffects of migration for the countries of ori-gin (‘brain drain’) (38).

Migration within the EU may influence theimpacts of ageing at regional level if younger,more mobile people leave less developedregions for regions with a more attractiverange of employment opportunities.Southern regions may also experience inwardmigration of older people drawn by themilder climate.

(38) Commission communication on a Community immigra-tion policy, (COM(2000) 757), European Commission,2000.


78

Topic 6:Mobility, land use andterritorial development

Introduction

Mobility, land use and regional developmentare tightly interwoven in modern societies. Inthe short run, the demand for increasedmobility depends on incomes and prices forusing different modes of transport. In thelonger run, it also changes according to pat-terns of land use — the location of people,homes, factories, offices, farms and shops.This spatial pattern is in turn a function offactors such as local planning rules, availabil-ity of infrastructure, the price of transportservices, and personal preferences aboutwhere people want to live. The relationshipbetween spatial patterns and transport thusruns in both directions.

Mobility, for both work and leisure, is impor-tant to our continued economic and socialwellbeing. However, mobility is not an end initself, but a means to access different goodsand services. It may enhance business,employment and education opportunities aswell as allowing for a wider range of leisureactivities and lifestyles. However, increasedmobility has important side effects, like emis-sions of greenhouse gases, air and noise pol-lution, the use of land and congestion, effectswhich reduce quality of life. Emissions ofgreenhouse gases from transport are growingmore rapidly than from any other source.Congestion costs are rising, while damage toeco-systems and biodiversity are major con-cerns. More than 40 000 people are killedand over 1.7 million injured every year onEuropean roads.

Encouraging people to live close to work andavoiding low-density development (‘urban

sprawl’) can reduce the need for mobility andland take. Better pricing of different modesof transport and policies to improve the qual-ity of life in urban areas can limit the desirefor long-distance commuting and would helpencourage less transport-intensive living pat-terns. However, high-density living impliesless living space, as well as more congestionand urban stress if not supported by effectiveurban infrastructure and public transport.Striking an appropriate balance betweenurban and rural areas is therefore not solely atransport issue, but also a matter for ruraland urban policy.

There is also a complex link between mobili-ty and regional development. At present, thepicture of the EU is one of a richer, moredensely populated core and a poorer, lesspopulated periphery. The second cohesionreport (39) identified a group of centralregions covering just one fifth of the Union’sarea, but which contain over two fifths of thepopulation and account for half of the EU’sGDP. However, several prosperous regionslie outside this area. The uneven distributionof population and economic activity will bemore marked in an enlarged Community.Improving transport links can be importantto give regional economies access to widermarkets, but it is not a panacea for regionalunderdevelopment and the costs and bene-fits of new infrastructure need to be careful-ly weighed. A region also requires a range ofother infrastructure and services to support acentre of economic activity.


Higher mobility and greater land use forbuilding and infrastructure are above all

(39) ‘Second report on economic and social cohesion’,COM(2001) 24, European Commission, 2001.


79

driven by economic development andincreased affluence. Recent decades haveseen very rapid growth in distances travelledby both freight and people, as incomes havegrown and prices of some modes have fallenor remained flat in real terms. The key factsare:

• Over the last 30 years freight transportdemand has persistently grown faster thanGDP and has doubled since 1970, withmuch of the increase coming in road trans-port. Air freight transport has grown evenmore rapidly. Passenger transport, particu-larly by car, has followed a very similar pat-tern. On average, almost one European intwo now owns a car (40).

• These trends are predicted to continue inthe immediate future. Freight transport isexpected to grow by around 40 % between1998 and 2010, with road transportaccounting for most of this increase.Passenger transport is expected to growmore slowly, mainly due to the rising costsof congestion on the roads, slow popula-tion growth and lower growth of car own-ership as it approaches saturation in somecountries. Air travel is expected to grow bya remarkable 90 % over the same period.

• Change in vehicle emissions technologieshave significantly reduced emissions ofsome atmospheric pollutants over the lastdecade, improving air quality. To someextent these improvements have been off-set by growth in traffic volumes, butdespite future increases in traffic, air quali-ty is expected to improve significantly overthe next 20 years. Greenhouse gas emis-sions on the other hand, are rising very rap-

idly due to the continued increase in trans-port overall.

• Congestion and inefficient use of infra-structure have large economic costs, per-haps as much as 2 % of GDP. As well aswasting time, congestion raises costs forbusiness and prices in shops for con-sumers. In Amsterdam, if current trendscontinue, rush hour public transport willmove at little more than walking pace by2005. One tenth of the trans-Europeanroad network suffers from capacity con-straints, causing congestion. The costs ofcongestion will rise rapidly as infrastruc-ture increasingly reaches capacity.

• Over three quarters of the European popu-lation live in towns and cities, which play avital role as providers of services and cen-tres of economic activity. Traffic congestionaffects above all urban areas, which are alsochallenged by problems such as inner-citydecay, sprawling suburbs, and concentra-tions of acute poverty and social exclusion.

• In aggregate terms, the Community hasbeen able to maintain a rough balancebetween the rural and urban communities.At present, the population of rural areas isincreasing, and in recent years theiremployment levels have grown faster thanthe Community average, though the pic-ture varies from region to region (41).However, this may change after enlarge-ment of the Union. Structural change in thenew Member States could lead to a collapsein rural areas and rapidly growing pressureon urban infrastructure.

• In some Member States, income inequali-ties between regions are worsening, though

(40) ‘Defining an environmentally sustainable transport sys-tem’, Commission expert group on transport and envi-ronment, September 2000. (41) Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion.


80

at the level of the Community the gapbetween richer and poorer regions has nar-rowed somewhat in recent years.Nevertheless, the differences remain sub-stantial, and can be expected to be greaterstill in an enlarged Union. In the EU-15,the richest region has an income per headsix times that of the poorest; if the acces-sion countries were included in the calcula-tion, the ratio would be more than 10 to 1.

• Relatively low levels of spending onresearch and development in some laggingregions may hamper their ability to catchup, though this is only one of very manyfactors influencing economic performance.

The factors that lie behind these problemsinclude:

• The affordability of travelling by road andair improved relative to other modes overtime. The price of private motoring andaviation travel as a percentage of averagewages has fallen as cars have been pro-duced more cheaply and efficiently and air-lines have raised productivity, while theprice of public transport has tended tokeep pace with wages over time. For dis-tances of more than a few kilometres, roadtransport — whether of people or freight— offers the convenience of ‘door-to-door’service that other modes find difficult tomatch.

• The completion of the internal market hasboosted trade flows, but the resulting pat-tern of transport activity has been unbal-anced due to an absence of correspondingimprovements in the pricing structure fordifferent modes. In addition, liberalisationof freight transport by road has beenachieved across the Community but only afew Member States have opened rail freightto competition, so rail freight markets

remain fragmented and closed. Thisuneven pace of reduction in the costs ofdifferent modes of transport has hadadverse environmental effects.

• Local planning regulations also affecttransport demand. ‘Urban sprawl’ — inparticular low-density housing — drivespeople into private cars. The growth in caruse is closely associated with an increaseddegree of urban sprawl, and the availability(or not) of public transport. Transport-related noise and poor air quality in urbanareas can encourage migration of peopleand enterprises from cities to suburbs andcreate a vicious circle.

• Transport policy has generally sought tomatch the increase in demand for road andair transport by significant public invest-ment in infrastructure, both from nationalbudgets and the Community structuralfunds. Extension and improvement of theroad network has significantly increasedthe flexibility and speed of road freight andthe speed and convenience of cars. This hasunderpinned the rapid growth in freighttransport and use of private cars.

Patterns of mobility and land use are alsolinked to the balance between rural andurban communities. Access to good trans-port and communication infrastructure is anessential part of preserving the viability ofboth rural and urban society. Poor infra-structure and lack of access to services suchas information and communication technolo-gies may discourage private sector invest-ment in rural areas, limiting employmentopportunities. However, while better trans-port links can support the rural economy byexpanding markets for local produce, theyalso tend to increase commuting and ruralhouse prices and have environmentalimpacts.


81

Policy issues

In recent decades, transport demand hasrisen broadly in line with GDP. While furthergrowth in activity is expected, this trend isnot sustainable. There is clearly a longer termneed to decouple transport growth fromGDP and to limit the economic and environ-mental costs of transport growth that doesoccur. The Commission is preparing a reviewof the EU’s common transport policy, to bepublished in a forthcoming White Paper.This will set out the broad thrust ofCommunity policy over the next 10 years orso. Although the time horizon for the su-stainable development strategy will go beyondthis, it will be important to ensure that thetwo are consistent. An accurate appraisal ofthe policy issues is needed:

• At present, the relative prices of using dif-ferent transport modes do not reflect theirfull costs of use, in terms of additional con-gestion, damage to infrastructure and tohuman health and the environment (42). Asa result, there is inefficient use of existinginfrastructure, and the balance betweenmodes is distorted. For example, aircraftfuel is at present not taxed, unlike otherfuels. The need to develop better pricing ofdifferent modes has been recognised in anumber of Commission documents (43) butprogress has been slow.

• New developments in intelligent trafficmanagement systems, such as the use ofglobal positioning systems that track themovement of vehicles, and electronic feecollection systems for road pricing, havethe potential to improve the use of infra-structure and reduce congestion costs. Inaddition, successful technology would be aworld leader and could be exported wide-ly. Improvements in communication tech-nologies offer a potential alternative totransport. Distance working using moderncommunications may provide one way ofreconciling demands for distance livingwith reduced mobility. It will be importantto consider how best this potential can beexploited.

• Improvement in use of infrastructure canreduce congestion, and new infrastructure— when it is proved to be necessary — canfill important gaps in the network andincrease capacity. Local planning rules alsoaffect the location of economic activity andthe development of new infrastructure andresulting transport flows. Planning deci-sions in the past have often not properlyaccounted for the effects of new develop-ment on the natural environment, conges-tion and other impacts, and policy needs totake these issues into account in the future.

• Development of housing, business, andnew transport infrastructure also has impli-cations for the relationship between townand countryside. Attention is needed toensure that policy does not actively under-mine the balance between the rural andurban economies. This means ensuring thaturban areas do not develop urban sprawlthat fractures communities and destroysthe distinctiveness of the countryside, whileensuring that rural policy provides activesupport for a living countryside. This can-not be a matter for transport policy alone,

(42) See for example ‘Revenues from efficient pricing: eviden-ce from the Member States’, study for the InternationalUnion of Railways, Community of European Railways andthe European Commission’s Energy and Transport DG,2000, ‘Efficient prices for transport (estimating the socialcosts of vehicle use)’; CE consultants, 1999.

(43) See for example ‘Fair payment for infrastructure use: aphased approach to a common transport infrastructurecharging framework in the EU’ (COM(1998) 466), and‘Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport: policyoptions for internalising the external costs of transport inthe European Union’ (COM(95) 691).


82

but also requires more coherent rural andurban policies.

• The rural economy also continues todepend to an appreciable extent on farm-ing and the Community’s common agricul-tural policy has been geared to maintainingfarm incomes. The recent shifts towardsmore sustainable rural development —which aimed to improve the competitive-ness of agriculture while enhancing itssocial and environmental functions — arestill modest. Agriculture is still associatedwith high levels of pollution, and has dam-aged many of the aesthetic and ecologicalqualities of the landscape it once helped tocreate. This in itself undermines the attrac-tiveness of the countryside as a place tolive. There is therefore potential for agri-cultural policy to provide more support fora sustainable rural economy.

• Community structural funds have madesizeable investments in physical and socialcapital in the less developed regions of theCommunity and Ireland’s phenomenal eco-nomic growth in recent years shows thepossibilities for territorial development ifStructural Fund assistance is used within acoherent policy framework. In addition,measures such as the trans-European net-works (TENs) have aimed to improve linksbetween peripheral and central regions ofthe Community. One of the main objectivesof the TENs in the future will be the com-pletion of a rail network that will encour-age a shift from road to rail.

• Enlargement is likely to bring with it newand more acute challenges. The newMember States will in general be poorerand have a much larger agricultural popu-lation. Their infrastructure has sufferedfrom many years of under-investment.Closing the gap with the Union will need a

major investment effort. Since these invest-ments will shape their future transport andland-use patterns for many years ahead, itwill be crucial to integrate economic, envi-ronmental and social issues into planningand infrastructure appraisal to ensure thatall costs and benefits are taken intoaccount.

• Many of these issues are identified in theEuropean spatial development perspecti-ve (44). This aims to offer Member States,their regions and cities a non-bindingframework for coordination of policieswith significant impacts on regional devel-opment, without, however, seeking toimpose it on them or on other policy areas.This approach reflects the fact that solu-tions to many of the problems relating tothe interactions between mobility, land useand territorial development can only beimplemented at regional and local level,while others may benefit from a national orCommunity approach.

Very few, if any, of the unsustainable trendsreviewed above are new. They have beenknown to informed public opinion and inpolicy circles for some time. This can at timesgive rise to a sense of déjà vu, even compla-cency. Such attitudes are, however, mistaken,as familiarity with the phenomena is not thesame as understanding the fundamentalcauses and how to tackle them. Nor does thefact that many of the trends are already wellknown make them any less preoccupying.

To make a decisive step from awareness toaction, and to put in place an effectiveresponse to the issues raised in this section,two important questions must be answered.

(44) ‘European spatial development perspective — Towardsbalanced and sustainable development of the territory ofthe European Union’, European Commission, 1999.


83

First, are there any common causes to theselong-term social and environmental chal-lenges? Second, why have we not done moreto deal with them? If, as argued in Section 1,greater social and environmental responsibil-ity is not an obstacle to long-term economicdevelopment, why have Member States andthe European Union failed to pursue sustain-able development more vigorously?

The next section develops a general answerto these two questions by identifying themain obstacles to creating a more sustainablesociety and economy. Following from thisdiagnosis, we then lay out the main tools wecan use to achieve the specific goals of theEuropean sustainable development strategywhich the Commission will propose to theGothenburg meeting of the EuropeanCouncil.

3. Common problems

Many of the problems identified in the previ-ous section have common roots. They arecharacterised by complex interdependenciesbetween sectors. Several are long term innature, with problems building up gradually.Firms and citizens often face poor incentivesto produce and consume in a sustainable way.They may be ill informed about the widereffects of their actions, or about alternatives.And institutional obstacles make it difficultto respond effectively to these failings. Thissection looks at these issues in more detail,and shows how they have contributed to theproblems identified above.

3.1. Wrong incentives

Individuals and companies often face incen-tives which encourage them to behave inways which, while individually rational, have

negative impacts on others. Market prices forthe use of goods and services which do notproperly reflect the true cost to society ofproviding them lead to too much consump-tion of those goods and services and too littleof others. For example, when we drive wegenerally slow down the progress of otherroad users. Since this cost is not incorporat-ed in the price we pay to drive we do not takeit into account in deciding how and when totravel. As a result, there are enormous ineffi-ciencies in the way we use road space. Hightaxes on labour income act as a disincentiveto participate actively in the labour market,while poorly designed tax and benefit sys-tems can generate poverty traps.

Incorrect prices are also a major source ofmany environmental problems. In general,the market prices for goods and services donot incorporate the costs of pollution.Consequently, producers have little incentiveto find and adopt cleaner methods of pro-duction, and consumers are not encouragedto seek out cleaner products. Worse, in somecases the most polluting industries benefitfrom significant subsidies that encourage theproduction of dirty goods and discourageconsumers from switching to cleaner options.

3.2. Sectoral policy inconsistency

Both at national and Community level, indi-vidual policies generally concern specific sec-tors of the economy such as coal and steel, orparticular areas such as trade or competition.These policies are normally developed byseparate administrative departments whichhave specialised knowledge of their own sec-tors, but are less concerned with how theirpolicies affect other parts of society and theeconomy. This narrow, sectoral approach to


84

policy-making has led over time to some sig-nificant problems:

• Due to a high level of interdependencebetween some sectors, the solutions tosome problems lie in the hands of policy-makers in other sectors. Environmentalpolicy increasingly requires action by otherpolicy areas such as enterprise, energy,transport and agriculture. Transport policydepends on taxation, research and technol-ogy, and land-use planning policy. Socialpolicy instruments acting in isolation willnot solve problems of social exclusion. Inmany cases, these spillovers between sec-tors are not fully taken into account, sopolicies in different sectors pull in oppositedirections. This undermines their effective-ness and wastes resources.

• The narrow sectoral approach makes it eas-ier for interest groups representing a par-ticular sector to obstruct reforms whichwould benefit society as a whole but wouldhave negative consequences for them. Thisuncoordinated focus on sectoral impactsrather than on the wider interests of socie-ty means that reform in practice is attempt-ed in a piecemeal and inconsistent way.Measures that have clear winners and los-ers are fought over one by one, rather thanbeing seen as part of a wider package thatcould benefit all.

• The Community dimension adds extrapotential for inconsistent policy-making.Both responsibility (the extent of‘Community competence’) and the way inwhich decisions are taken (unanimity or byweighted majority) vary from one policydomain to another. The sequence in whichnew policy initiatives are taken, both at EUand national level, can also lead to undesir-able outcomes.

• Problems of coordination are compoundedby a proliferation of new policy initiativesand multi-annual programmes at EU level.There are currently over 60 multi-annualinitiatives described as ‘strategies’. The dif-ferent initiatives are rarely synchronised.The Agenda 2000 time frame runs from2000 to 2006, the single market strategyfrom 1999 to 2005, the next frameworkprogramme for research from 2002 to 2006and the new environment action pro-gramme from 2001 to 2011.

Clearly, there are limits to the extent to whichpolicies in different sectors can be reformedsimultaneously. The Agenda 2000 reformsinvolved changes in particular to agricultural,structural, and external policies. Undertakinga similar exercise for an even wider set ofpolicies would pose severe practical prob-lems. Attempting to review all Communitypolicies at the same time would lead to insti-tutional paralysis. Measures to improvecoherence should instead focus on linkingtogether policies where the gains from coor-dination are expected to be greatest. In addi-tion, if the design of sectoral policy attemptsto take wider considerations than the inter-ests of the sector into account, improvingpolicy consistency should not mean that allpolicies need to adopt identical timetables.

3.3. Short-termism in policy-making

A striking example of the possible effects ofa short-term perspective is our inability tomanage renewable natural resources sustain-ably. The Community has been unable toagree cuts in fish catches that are essential topreserve stocks for the future because of theshort-term costs. This is despite the substan-tial long-term economic and ecological bene-


85

fits in preserving stocks from collapse. Short-termism has been a particular problem forenvironmental policy as many environmentalproblems are not immediately visible, but itis also true in other policy areas. Whenspending must be reduced to balance thenational budget the first item to be cut is usu-ally investment. This is because cuts in every-day services are immediate and painful,whereas the deterioration of public infra-structure takes time and is not immediatelynoticeable.

A root cause of short-termism in the designand implementation of policy is the nature ofthe political cycle. The gap of at most four tofive years between elections naturally limitsgovernments’ time horizons. In addition, onegroup that does not have a voice in thesepolitical choices is the future generation. Inthe absence of a coherent long-term vision,policy priorities may be influenced too muchby short-term events. Policy responses thentake the form of ‘quick fixes’, which them-selves may make the problem more acute, orcause difficulties in other areas.

Problems of short-termism are likely to beworse when the costs of doing something areup-front and highly visible while the benefitsare difficult to quantify and spread over sev-eral years. Moreover, costs and benefits maybe unevenly distributed: costs of changeoften fall on particular groups of producersor citizens, while benefits are more widelyspread. As a result, the ‘winners’ from a pol-icy change usually do not make themselvesheard, whereas the ‘losers’ do. Short-termismcan therefore be compounded by a highlysectoral approach to policy-making.

At Community level, the regular six-monthlychange in the Council Presidency induces ashort-term perspective. New initiatives areoften launched to take advantage of a politi-

cal window that becomes available while aparticular Member State holds thePresidency. A Member State’s running of thePresidency tends to be judged by the amountof activity it generates — the number of reg-ulations or directives adopted — rather thanthe quality of those measures.

3.4. Policy inertia

The hardest innovation in policy-making is tostop old practices. Some unsustainabletrends result from a failure to change or can-cel policies which are past their ‘sell-by date’.These are measures which made sense whenthey were introduced, but which have notbeen changed in response to changing cir-cumstances. For example:

• When State pensions for all were firstintroduced, life expectancies were muchlower, and working lives typically muchlonger than today. Early retirementschemes and the tax and benefit systemhave resulted in biases that favour earlywithdrawal from the labour market, lead-ing to a fall in the average retirement age.Both need reform today, when skill short-ages are emerging, and the shrinking work-ing age population and increasing numbersof pensioners threaten the sustainability ofpublic finances.

• Town planning rules which imposed rigidseparation between the location of housingand industry made sense when muchindustrial activity was very polluting. Nowthat industry is cleaner and services play amore important role in the economy, thesezoning laws may no longer be justified.More than this, together with rising levelsof private car ownership they worsen trafficcongestion.


86

• Our energy supply infrastructure is cur-rently heavily dependent on the use of fos-sil fuels. This reflects investments made inthe past when the impacts of burning fossilfuels on human health and the global cli-mate were not as well understood.Changing our sources of energy supply isnow a slow process as the infrastructure islong lived.

• Public policy as well as case-law and politi-cal processes can, often for very good rea-sons, move much behind the pace of tech-nological progress in areas such as geneti-cally modified organisms, genetically mod-ified food, and other innovations.

The paradox of having both policy inertia onthe one hand, and short-termism on theother, is more apparent than real. Both prob-lems essentially arise from an excessively sec-toral approach to policy-making. Thisenables sectional interests to prevail over thewider concerns of society, by preventing nec-essary reform to outdated policies needed toorient them towards the longer term.

3.5. Limited understanding

We have a poor understanding of the causesand likely effects of several of the problemsidentified in Section 2 above. For example,the definition, causes and consequences ofpoverty are complex and controversial.There are competing explanations for whydisparities in the distribution of income arewidening in some places, and for changes infamily structures and birth rates. There arelarge information gaps in many other areassuch as the measurement of changes in biodi-versity and their potential long-run effects.

We face similar uncertainties about the pre-cise impact of many policy responses. In

addition, in many cases inadequate attentionhas been paid to whether existing policy hasactually been effective. Frequently, it isassumed that spending money on a problemis the same as successfully tackling it. In prac-tice, we have often failed to assess whether apolicy has achieved its objectives, how muchit has cost, and what its positive or negativespillovers on other areas have been. This iscomplicated by the fact that policy objectivesare not always well defined. In consequence,we often have an insufficient basis on whichto assess what reforms might be necessary.

3.6. Inadequate communication anddialogue

Arguably, many of the existing failures totackle unsustainable trends reflect a policyprocess that is too fragmented, technocraticand distant from the real concerns of people.Alienation from the political process can alsoresult from a perception that policy-makingis excessively influenced by vested interestgroups, to the detriment of the population atlarge. Whatever the truth of these views, it isundeniable that there is at the very least astrong belief that the average citizen has littlescope for direct input into the politicalprocess, and that policy-making has becomedisconnected from their daily concerns. Thisis reflected in rising abstention rates at elec-tions for all levels of government. Theseissues will be examined in more depth in theCommission’s forthcoming White Paper ongovernance.

Scientists and policy-makers often communi-cate poorly with the public and with eachother, and misconceptions are common on allsides. As a result public awareness of thelong-term consequences of different policy


87

options, consumption patterns and lifestylechoices is also limited. In part, this may arisefrom the increased complexity of the modernworld and the corresponding complexity ofpolicy responses. Recent health scares —such as those relating to BSE or phthalates —demonstrate the fragility of public confi-dence in the integrity of science and scientif-ic advice about risks. This confidence is fur-ther undermined by the perception that theinterpretation and dissemination of researchresults is sometimes subordinated to com-mercial pressures (45).

4. Common solutions: A toolkit for sustainable development in Europe

4.1. Introduction

The previous section identified some com-mon problems which have led to the emer-gence of the unsustainable trends describedin Section 2. This section suggests how wecan go about solving them.

The analysis in Section 3 shows that betterpolicy integration is needed at all levels, sothat different policies complement eachother instead of pulling in different direc-tions. Policy integration should start at theoutset of the policy-making process.Sustainable development should become anunderlying principle in all areas of EU activ-ity. However, joined-up thinking in policy-

making is not enough on its own. Bettercoordination and greater dialogue will notimprove things if policy does not make fulluse of the right tools and ideas. Accordingly,this chapter not only sets out some ways toimprove policy coherence, but also describesthe most important tools that can and shouldbe used as the building blocks of a strategyfor sustainable development.

4.2. A common basis forpolicy design andimplementation

One of these building blocks is the principlethat the costs and effects of all policiesshould be examined more systematically.This analysis should try to include not justthe impacts in the area targeted by the policy,but also its spillovers — good and bad —onto other policy areas. Identifying spilloversand the sharing of expertise between differ-ent departments of government are impor-tant if we are to create the conditions for‘win–win’ policies and improve the coher-ence of policy-making. Inevitably though, insome cases we have to make trade-offsbetween changes in economic, environmen-tal and social assets. Careful assessment ofthe costs and effects of different policyoptions and their distribution is vital toensure that these trade-offs are made in theinterests of society as a whole, and thatmechanisms are put in place to enable busi-ness and citizens to adapt to change.

Good policy design should also consider thedifferent instruments available to meet thepolicy objective. The aim should be to givepolicy-makers as full an assessment as possi-ble of the costs and effects, the advantagesand disadvantages of the different options, sothat we can reach our desired objectives,

(45) The success of the European research area will be judgedpartly on its ability to develop a common basis for asses-sing research results and to improve understanding bet-ween science and society.


88

whatever they may be, at least cost. This doesnot mean going for the cheapest or ‘do noth-ing’ option. It means doing things efficientlyand effectively. The more cost-effective poli-cy is, the more resources we have to devote toother priorities. This helps us get the most wecan out of the available resources by avoidingwaste and inefficiency.

Climate change provides a very good exam-ple of the importance of cost effectiveness.Some policy measures — such as graduallyremoving subsidies for the use of fossil fuels— can reduce greenhouse gas emissionswhile actually raising economic performance.Still, meeting the targets in the KyotoProtocol is likely to have some economiccosts. However, the size of these costs andhow they are distributed will depend verymuch on what policies are used. TheCommission services have estimated that apolicy of equal percentage reduction targetsfor different economic sectors would benearly three times more expensive than a pol-icy that encourages the biggest savings in sec-tors where emissions can be reduced at rela-tively low cost (46).

4.3. Long-term targets and intermediatemilestones

Sustainable development is a framework forpolicy that focuses on long-term manage-ment rather than short-term quick-fix solu-tions. Identifying concrete, ambitious,achievable long-term objectives is necessaryto give substance to policies for sustainabledevelopment, and to develop popular under-standing and support for these policies.

These objectives should lead to the establish-ment of clear — and preferably measurable— targets. Intermediate milestones allow usto judge our progress. When the policy targetcan be expressed in very precise terms, it maybe possible to meet targets agreed at theEuropean level through Member Statesapplying their own, cost-effective solutions.Clear long-term targets also provide otherimportant advantages:

• Sustainable development means leaving anadequate legacy to future generations.Long-term targets are required to limit thescope for short-termism and to ensure thisobligation is met.

• Uncertainty and instability in the policyregime generate their own costs. Clearlong-term signals can help companies andindividuals plan better. This is particularlyimportant as the capital stock of an econo-my turns over only relatively slowly.Investment decisions have long-lastingeffects and are costly to reverse.

• Provided targets can be clearly defined, itcan make sense to delegate responsibilityfor meeting targets to those most closelyinvolved with particular policy areas, or toan independent authority free from short-term political pressures. The latter is thecase of the European Central Bank, whichhas been given responsibility to providestable prices. However, not all policy objec-tives can be defined in such clear terms,and there are limits to the extent to whichit is desirable to devolve power to unelect-ed, unaccountable bodies.

• Implementing new policy measures cangradually reduce the costs of change con-siderably by allowing adequate time forbusinesses and individuals to change theirpatterns of production and consumption.For example, companies that have to adapt

(46) Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading withinthe European Union (COM(87) 2000), EuropeanCommission, 2000.


89

to new technologies to remain competitivegenerally have much less trouble adjustingif these changes can be made as part of thenormal investment cycle. Taking a gradualapproach avoids the unnecessary creationof unemployment and gives workers timeto acquire new skills.

A few policy initiatives have shown that it ispossible to gather consensus around gradualbut steady adjustment to long-term targets,which smooth the transition to sustainablepolicies. An example is the 10-year perspec-tive for reform of economic and social policyagreed by the European Council at Lisbon.

4.4. Creating markets andgetting prices right

‘Getting prices right’ so that they betterreflect the true costs to society of differentactivities would give everybody the rightincentive to integrate the effects their behav-iour has on others into their everyday deci-sions about which goods and services tomake or buy. It is therefore one of the mostimportant tools available to policy-makers.

There are many different ways of changingthe prices or other incentives that companiesand consumers face so as to underpin su-stainable development. Direct methodsinclude the creation of tradable propertyrights (such as emission permits) that allowmarkets to set a price for pollution, eco-taxesthat discourage over-use of environmentalresources, and legal liability regimes (47).

Governments can boost markets for sustain-able products and services through theirpublic procurement policies (48).

Clearer definition of property rights can alsoplay a useful role in improving the manage-ment of natural resources where there is arisk of over-consumption. Subsidies can bean effective tool in some cases where behav-iour has positive spillover effects. For exam-ple, there is some merit in the idea that com-panies should be paid a temporary subsidy totake on the long-term unemployed, as thesocial costs of long-term unemployment onindividuals, their families and the public sec-tor finances are very significant. Any propos-al made in this respect would have to complywith the principles of EU and MemberStates’ legal systems.

The ‘user pays’ principle is an important firststep in improving incentives. It means simplythat under normal circumstances those thatbenefit from the use of something should payfor it. This reduces wasteful consumption,and gives those who use a resource the rightincentives to behave responsibly. Evidently,the ‘user pays’ principle cannot be appliedindiscriminately — there are very legitimateexceptions to its application in modern soci-eties, not least in aspects of social provisionthrough the welfare state. Public subsidy isoften necessary and justified. However, the‘user pays’ principle is an importantreminder that the rationale for subsidiesshould be clearly set out to avoid wasteful useof resources.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle is an importantextension of the ‘user pays’ principle to envi-

(47) Different instruments have different advantages and limi-tations. For example, legal liability is unlikely to be aneffective approach in the case of climate change — whodo you sue and for how much when there are many diffe-rent sources of greenhouse gases? And how do you provecausation between a given emission source and a giveneffect? In other cases, such as oil tanker spills, it mayprove a much more promising option.

(48) Public procurement rules also have to be carefully desi-gned to avoid them being used as a cover for protectio-nism. The Commission will shortly publish a communica-tion on public procurement and the environment.


90

ronmental policy-making. The underlyingphilosophy is that polluters do not have aninherent right to pollute. The ‘polluter pays’principle has been defined in various ways,but the most important interpretation is thatthe polluter should pay for the costs his pol-lution imposes on others — for examplethrough a tax on polluting emissions. Thisprovides an added incentive to look forreductions in pollution. A more limited inter-pretation would be that polluters should payonly for the costs of any pollution controlmeasures required by law.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle is already partof the EC Treaty, but it is not yet widelyenough applied at either EU level or inMember States. A much more rigorous andconsistent approach is required. Significantimprovements in both economic and envi-ronmental performance could be achievedwithout increasing the overall tax burden bygradual reform of existing tax structures andsubsidy regimes, so that the prices paid byproducers and consumers more accuratelyreflect the costs and benefits their activitiesimpose on other members of society.

Part of the difficulty in applying the ‘polluterpays’ principle is that it can be difficult todefine who the polluter really is, as both pro-ducers and consumers bear some responsi-bility for the environmental impacts. Forpractical purposes, therefore, the responsi-bility for combating pollution should beassigned to those who are in the best positionto reduce pollution at relatively low cost (49).In recent years, a number of initiatives byMember States have aimed to encourage pro-ducers to design products that are easier to

deal with in the waste phase by making themresponsible for the environmental impacts ofproducts throughout their life cycle. Somerecent Commission proposals have also beenbased on this idea of extended producerresponsibility.

4.5. Sectoral policy coherence

In order to try to redirect policy in individualsectors away from a narrow set of objectivesthere have been several efforts at Communitylevel to ‘integrate’ broader concerns into theconduct of sectoral policies, such as employ-ment promotion, regional development andenvironmental protection. The currentefforts to integrate environmental concernsinto other sectoral policies (the Cardiff inte-gration process) have shown that someprogress is possible through such initiatives.

The Cardiff process has increased under-standing of the issues and helped developnew policy approaches. However, there arealso limits. Improved dialogue does not initself solve all problems when there areunavoidable trade-offs between competinginterests. Moreover, this type of policy inte-gration is itself a sector by sector approach,so it is unable to guarantee that different inte-gration initiatives take a consistent approach.It is therefore unlikely to produce the bestoverall balance between the interests of con-sumers, citizens and producers.

Practical improvements to the sectoral inte-gration approach would result from greatertransparency — that is, a clearer presentationof the economic, social and environmentalcosts and benefits of different policy options.Consistent and rigorous evaluation should beconducted jointly and openly to ensure that

(49) See Council recommendation of 3 March 1975, OJ L 194of 25 July 1975.


91

the different objectives are given their appro-priate weight in each sector. Improving ourunderstanding of causes, effects and inter-linkages between sectors is therefore criticalto designing and implementing policies forsustainable development.

Beyond integration: improved coordi-nation in Community policy-making

Sustainable development implies a society-wide approach to policy design.Sustainability must be placed at the core ofthe mandate of all policy-makers. This meansmore than tagging on environmental andsocial objectives to existing policies.Achieving these objectives should be as rele-vant to judging the success or failure of a pol-icy as its sectoral targets. Otherwise, integra-tion and sustainability risk becoming buzz-words to which policy-makers pay lip serviceonly. Integration must mean something morethan minor adjustments to ‘business as usual’if sustainable development is to move fromrhetoric to reality. This needs political com-mitment and leadership.

As one part of the current internal reforms,the Commission has established a strategicplanning and programming function to helpimprove coordination between departments.In addition, there is a need throughout theCommunity institutional structure for a prac-tical political mechanism to arbitrate in aconsistent and rational way across sectorswhen competing interests are at stake, and toprovide clear long-term policy objectives.Moreover, consideration could be given tocreating a ‘council’ for sustainable develop-ment with no direct stake in the policyprocess. Such a body may be better placed toprovide objective critical reviews of existingpolicies. Several Member States have alreadyestablished independent councils in order to

advise their governments on sustainabledevelopment issues.

Regular policy reviews

Regularly and systematically evaluating poli-cies to ensure that they are meeting theirobjectives, bringing benefits to society as awhole and are consistent with the overallobjective of sustainable development shouldbecome a core element of policy-making.Such reviews should be undertaken in anopen manner so that the views of all stake-holders can be taken into account. In addi-tion, more use should be made of ‘sunsetclauses’ in legislation that provides for it tobe automatically ended or reviewed after anumber of years. Not all policy measuresneed to last forever, but it is a rare — andbrave! — regulator who will voluntarilydeclare that s/he is no longer needed.

4.6. Technology at the service of society

In the context of sustainable development,technology can be a double-edged sword.Technological progress has enormouslyincreased our material wealth and improvedour quality of life in every area, from com-munications and transport to new foods andhealth. They can also offer major opportuni-ties for more efficient use of resourcesthrough changes in production techniquesand the way services are delivered. Moreover,technology can help us ease potential trade-offs between competing ends. New technolo-gies can often reduce pollution or risks forhealth and safety at work at much lower costthan adjusting existing technologies. Withoutfurther advances in technology and its wideruse, the most challenging environmentalproblems, such as climate change, can only


92

be tackled through painful changes in pro-duction and consumption patterns.Technology will therefore be at the heart ofmoves to sustainable development.

However, technology also brings its ownchallenges, particularly when change is rapid.New technologies and working methods canincrease competitive pressures and can forcedifficult adjustments. Emerging technologiescreate new opportunities but sometimes alsonew risks and in some cases — such as genet-ics — new ethical questions. The enormouseffect of technology on the material produc-tivity of our societies also raises the prospectthat we increase the scale of output and con-sumption more rapidly than we can reducepollution per unit produced, thereby increas-ing overall pressure on the environment overtime — the ‘rebound’ effect.

This means that technological progress has tobe actively harnessed in the interests of su-stainable development. The challenge for pol-icy is to influence innovation so that the solu-tions chosen by markets are ‘winners’ for su-stainable development. Market-basedapproaches that ‘get the prices right’ areimportant to stimulate the development ofnew and environmentally safe technologiesand their rapid take-up. Public policy canalso help to accelerate the diffusion of newtechnologies by benchmarking, demonstra-tion projects and removing non-market bar-riers to their use, including regulations thatunnecessarily hamper innovation.

A clear, long-lasting commitment from gov-ernments to pursue sustainable developmentas a core policy objective will strengthen thesignals coming from prices. This will help togive companies assurance about the stabilityof the policy framework and encourage aproactive approach by businesses during atime of rapid structural change. Credible

long-term policy commitments will give com-panies time to develop new techniques andadapt smoothly to the transition to sustain-ability. As well as aiming to provide the rightframework conditions, public authorities canalso fund basic and essential applied researchwhere it is too costly or too risky for an indi-vidual company.

4.7. Improving knowledgeand understanding —sound science, risk andtransparency

Science and scientific research does not takeplace in a vacuum. The results of researchcan have important effects on the direction ofpublic policy. This inevitably raises doubtsabout the objectivity and completeness of theresearch methods and results when commer-cial interests are at stake. To remove or atleast minimise such suspicions, researchresults should be reported in an open way.New research should be carefully peerreviewed to ensure its credibility. Confidencein the use of scientific information would alsobe enhanced by independent synthesis of theevidence so that it can be communicated toand understood by a wider public.

Given the speed and complexity of techno-logical innovation, independent scientificresearch is essential to help us evaluate theopportunities and risks of new productiontechniques and new products. Risk is some-times a necessary part of social progress —risk takers and innovators are essential for adynamic economy. However, many risks areundesirable and have to be actively managed.For example, in the development of newmedicines, a balance has to be struckbetween the potential benefits that the treat-ment offers, and the risk that it may turn out


93

to have damaging side effects. Similarly, therisks posed by new synthetic chemicals haveto be weighed against their benefits in use.Therefore, in the context of sustainabledevelopment, dealing with risk means care-fully evaluating the economic, environmentaland social effects of innovations and taking abalanced view of the likely positive and neg-ative impacts.

Inevitably, in some cases we do not yet haveenough information about the existence orscale of a risk to properly assess its realimportance. However, lack of proof that arisk exists does not provide an adequateexcuse for ignoring it. This simple truth is atthe heart of what is commonly known as the‘precautionary principle’. But the precau-tionary principle in itself provides little prac-tical guidance about how to manage risk anduncertainty (50). Risk-management decisionsare inevitably a trade-off between the level ofprotection desired, the costs of reducing risk,and the weight of evidence that the risk isreal. This is ultimately a matter for politicaljudgment and responsibility.

During the course of the last few decadesmany commonplace risks have been elimina-ted or reduced, thanks to improvements insystems of social protection, environmentaland health improvements and higher stan-dards of living. However, recent years haveseen the rapid emergence of new problems,many unforeseen or unforeseeable. This callsfor new institutional responses. We need toimprove our capacity to respond speedily toemerging risks, to speed-up scientific assess-ment of risks (such as the risks posed by per-sistent pollutants or biotoxins), and toimprove our capacity for dealing with crises.

Most importantly, decisions on how to tacklerisks that we face as consumers and citizensmust be made transparently, in an account-able manner, and with the public interest atheart.

4.8. Better information,education and participation

Improved information for producers and con-sumers is important to enhance the effective-ness of policies that seek to encourage changesin behaviour. Consumers can respond betterto price signals and other incentives if theyhave relevant information, such as the costsavings they can expect from using more ener-gy-efficient domestic appliances, or the healthimprovements they can expect from betterdiet. Information gaps can undermine theeffectiveness of policy. Moreover, if we are toexercise our personal freedoms wisely andtake an active part in civil society, we needinformation about the wider effects of ourchoice of lifestyle on matters such as ourhealth and on traffic congestion.

The process by which policy is made shouldbe transparent. An open dialogue about thecosts and benefits of different options willhelp test the arguments that underlie differ-ent policy proposals. Establishing a dialoguebetween stakeholders can be time consum-ing, but is essential to building mutual trustand understanding and may increase thechances of finding mutually acceptable solu-tions. The current European climate changeprogramme is a good example of a moreopen policy process. Sustainable develop-ment can thus become a way to revitalise thedemocratic process by involving citizens indecisions that affect their daily life and gen-erating a real debate on society’s priorities.

(50) The Commission communication on the precautionaryprinciple (COM(1) 2000) provides a more complete dis-cussion of the role and scope of the precautionary prin-ciple in EU policy-making.


94

Access to high-quality education and trainingfor all ages will enable citizens to take anactive part in democratic society. Our behav-iour as individual citizens is not determinedexclusively by strictly financial considera-tions. It also reflects a sense of belonging tosociety, of sharing a common set of social val-ues. Providing better information to citizensabout the goal of sustainability and its impor-tance is a way of strengthening this socialcapital and encouraging sustainable behav-iour by all.

4.9. Measuring progress:indicators

Indicators provide the basis for assessingprogress towards the long-term objective ofsustainable development. Long-term targetsonly have meaning as policy goals if progresstowards them can be assessed objectively.This requires targets expressed in preciseterms. Careful measurement will alsoimprove our ability to identify interactionsbetween different policies and deal with pos-sible trade-offs. There are some cases whenimprovements in one area can only beachieved at the expense of deterioration inanother. Such trade-offs are already a part ofpolicy-making, but the advantage of meas-urement is that they are made explicit andtransparent.

This does not mean that everything must bequantified. Quantified and measurable tar-gets are important, but must not become theexclusive focus of policy. Indeed, some ele-ments of sustainable development are intrin-sically hard to quantify. Not everything canbe turned into numerical data. This is partic-ularly true of some environmental and socialassets. We cannot easily measure the value ofbiodiversity or the quality and quantity of

social relationships. To avoid neglecting themwe must devise better qualitative indicators.

Identifying an appropriate set of measuresand indicators, both quantitative and qualita-tive, will not be easy given the scope of theissues addressed in this paper. Inevitably, notall the desired data will be available. It is apersistent temptation to measure what is eas-iest to measure rather than what is important.This has to be avoided if we are to developrobust indicators that provide accurate sig-nals. It is more important to be roughly right(with imperfect indicators of what matters)than precisely wrong (with perfect indicatorson developments of little importance).

There are a number of current initiatives tomeasure sustainable development. Theseinclude the indicator set drawn up by theUnited Nations, which will be applied at theEuropean level in a forthcoming publicationby Eurostat (51), and a number of indicatorsfor policy integration in sectors such as ener-gy, transport and agriculture. Some localauthorities are developing indicators whichreflect local priorities. The World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development is pro-moting measures of corporate performanceagainst the yardstick of sustainability.

These initiatives all have their merits, but tomeasure progress on the themes identified inthis paper will require a more tailored set ofindicators. For each theme, a small set ofindicators will be needed. These must takeaccount, where necessary, of the differencesin the nature of what is being measured. Theset of indicators must be wide enough to cap-ture the complexity of each area. At the sametime, the indicators must not be so complexas to be incomprehensible to policy-makersand the public.

(51) ‘Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe’.To be published by Eurostat in June 2001.


95

5. Conclusions

This consultation paper is the first stage inthe preparation of an EU strategy for sustain-able development. In it, the Commissionservices have set out their views on the chal-lenges and opportunities which would bepresented by making sustainable develop-ment the overarching priority of Communitypolicy.

The paper focuses on problems of sustain-able development within Europe. Thisapproach is underpinned by a belief that toprovide leadership in a global context, theEU has to meet its international commit-ments and reform its internal policies so as tomake progress towards sustainable develop-ment. Of course, the EU also has to play itsfull role in international organisations, suchas the UN, the IMF and World Bank and theWTO, as these bodies have an importantcontribution to make towards sustainabledevelopment. The international dimension ofsustainable development will be fullyaddressed in preparations for the Rio + 10Summit in South Africa next year.

To move the sustainable development debatefrom the realm of abstract discussion of defi-nitions and concepts into the area of every-day policy-making, the Commission serviceshave identified six key themes where currenttrends threaten the sustainable developmentof the European Union. These themes havebeen chosen because of the severity and thepotential irreversibility of the issues identi-fied, because they are common to several orall Member States, and because finding andimplementing solutions will be eased bycooperation.

Analysis of these topics has shown that manyof the problems have their origins in a smallnumber of shared failures. These include dis-torted market prices, insufficient knowledge,information and communication, and aninconsistent sectoral approach to policy-making which takes too little account of link-ages and spillovers between sectors. In thelight of this analysis, the Commission servic-es have proposed (in Section 4 of this consul-tation paper) a ‘policy toolkit’ which theCommunity and Member States could use toaddress the unsustainable trends describedin Section 2.

Shaping the strategy for asustainable European Union —

Views from civil society andpublic authorities

Joint public hearing organised by the European Commission and theEconomic and Social Committee

Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001

Shaping the strategy for asustainable European Union —

Views from civil society andpublic authorities

(*) Extracts of main speeches, key points raised from the floor and rapporteurs’ summaries.

Proceedings in brief (*)

JOINT PUBLIC HEARING

99

Opening session

Mr Göke Frerichs, President of theEconomic and Social Committee

We in the Economic and Social Committee— an interdisciplinary, consultative bodymade up of representatives of different, andnot always concurring interests — routinelyseek consensus and coherence in a bid to findsustainable solutions that promote Europeanintegration.

The Economic and Social Committee seesitself as the home of EU organised civil soci-ety — and that in turn means representingcivil society interests. We endeavour to meetthis ambitious objective not least by raisingawareness of the sustainable developmentissue among the many organisations, associa-tions and trade unions represented in or bythe Committee and harnessing their support.

Legislation and politics are certainly not theonly points at issue. Sustainable developmentis also a matter of lifestyle and culture. Insocial terms, for instance, sustainable devel-opment undoubtedly concerns people’sworking lives, but also involves the family,the neighbourhood, local authorities andgovernment.

What we are dealing with here is, in fact, oneof the new values of which our society hasbeen growing ever more aware over the pastfew decades. It is a question of responsibility— our responsibility for future generations

and, in the final analysis, our responsibilityfor creation. Sustainable development is thusalso a key dimension of solidarity, which isone of the core values of European integra-tion.

Ms Anna Diamantopoulou, Commissionerwith responsibility for employment andsocial affairs

Sustainable development required mutuallysupportive economic, social and environ-mental policies. Win–win situations must becreated and, when trade-offs were necessary,the situation and what is at stake must beassessed transparently, with the help of indi-cators and data.

The European sustainable developmentstrategy would not breed additional process-es or procedures in Europe but orient exist-ing ones towards building more integratedapproaches, with the contribution of allstakeholders. In this last respect, theCommissioner stressed the role theEconomic and Social Committee had to play.

The European strategy must be compatiblewith, and complementary to, the globaldevelopment of sustainable developmentstrategies and therefore support global agree-ments on the environment, trade, develop-ment, labour standards. It must focus onissues with the most scope or potential foreffective action within Europe. To put thatinto practice, three selection criteria had

The hearing provided an opportunity for stakeholders (businesses, trade unions, NGOs, academia, etc.) and public authorities to express their views on the Commission

consultation paper on the EU strategy on sustainable development published on 27 March 2001 and to contribute to shaping the Commission’s final proposal and the

Gothenburg European Council conclusions on the strategy.


100

been used, as follows: — the severity of theproblem and cost of doing nothing; the last-ing character of damage including transmis-sion from one generation to the next and thetime needed to put matters right; and thirdthe extent of the problem at European oreven world level.

Applying these criteria six priority topics, allinter-related to some degree, were selected:

— climate change and clean energy;

— public health;

— management of natural resources;

— poverty and social exclusion;

— ageing and demography;

— mobility, land use and territorial develop-ment.

The strategy should dovetail and put in long-term perspective the commitments made bythe European Councils in Lisbon, Nice andStockholm, notably the full employment tar-get and that of higher quality social andemployment policies, so that all could bene-fit from enhanced economic efficiency. Toachieve and maintain this, science and tech-nology has to find ways to reduce pressure onnatural resources, as instanced by the sixthenvironmental action programme. MsDiamantopoulou pointed out the specialsensitivity of women to sustainability issues,made clear in a 1999 Eurobarometer survey.

Closing, the Commissioner stressed the rele-vance of sustainable development for thecountries planning to join the EU for eco-nomic but still more for democratic reasons.Failure to make long-run decisions and setlong-run goals would let down not only our-

selves but all those who look to Europe to setan example, including those who wish to joinus soon.

Mr Jos Chabert, President of theCommittee of the Regions

The open method of coordination (e.g. theCardiff or Lisbon follow-up) needed to bematched by adequate procedures for consul-tation. A strategy for reaching specific objec-tives and methods was not the same as ‘hard’legislation and would therefore not follownormal procedure where for example theCommittee of Regions and the Economic andSocial Committee are consulted under theTreaty. New hearing procedures had there-fore to be invented and conferences like thiswere part of that process. But sufficient timefor response also needed respect and recog-nition. That would ensure that the stakehold-ers felt ‘ownership’ of proposed methods andtargets.

Almost all the themes set out in theCommission’s paper were the daily responsi-bility of local and regional authorities all overEurope. It was they who would be faced withputting most of the future EU sustainabledevelopment strategy into effect. So theCommittee of Regions was not happy to seethe role of local and regional authoritiesignored in the Commission paper.

Just look at information, training and aware-ness-raising, help and advice for individualsand families, for all of which local andregional authorities play an irreplaceablerole. These activities form a major part of thetoolkit presented by the Commission andlocal and regional authorities are ready toperform them in partnership with others.


101

Mr Antti Peltomäki, Finnish Under-Secretary of State for EU Affairs

Mr Peltomäki set out the role of the FinnishPresidency in furthering of the strategy forsustainable development.

Although Helsinki did not spend much timeon environment and sustainable develop-ment, Mr Peltomäki expressed satisfactionwith the results which were as follows.Firstly, the Council was asked to finalise thestrategies for integrating the environmentaldimension into all policy sectors and reportto the European Council in June 2001.Second, Commission and Council wereurged to develop adequate instruments formonitoring, adjusting and deepening sectoralstrategies. Third, the Community andMember States were urged to continuepreparations to establish the prerequisites forratifying the Kyoto Protocol before 2002.Fourth, Helsinki asked the Commission toprepare by the end of 2000 a proposal for thesixth environmental action programme. Lastbut not least, the Commission was invited toprepare a proposal for a long-term strategydovetailing policies for economically, social-ly and ecologically sustainable developmentto be presented to the Gothenburg EuropeanCouncil in June 2001. The Feira EuropeanCouncil confirmed the political pressure byasking the European Council to adopt thestrategy in Gothenburg.

He added some general observations. Thesustainable development strategy should betruly operational and for that integrated intoLisbon’s strategic objectives — at the latest inBarcelona next spring. The strategy had toconstitute EU’s contribution to the Rio + 10Summit. It should also take account of EUenlargement. It should lay down generalqualitative objectives for sustainable devel-opment in the long term. Environmentalobjectives should be based on the sixth envi-ronmental action programme.

The relation between the sustainable devel-opment strategy and sectoral strategiesshould be clear. The strategy should providethe overall guidelines, while more detailedsector-specific objectives should be left to thesectors concerned.

Pursuant to the conclusions of theStockholm European Council, trends in su-stainable development were to be examined atthe spring meetings. The Commission’s roleseemed to be in place, namely monitoring,the development of indicators for the sus-tainable development and presentation of anannual synthesis report within the Lisbonprocess. The role of the General AffairsCouncil in preparing the spring meetings ofthe European Council should be re-assessed.The European Council should not be a merecoordinator — it has to be responsible forpolitical guidelines.

Prof. Augusto Mateus, former PortugueseMinister for Economic Affairs

The transition to sustainable developmentmeant more than integrating environmentalconcerns into other strategies; it was aboutre-redesigning current policies. We will, hesaid, see a new paradigm, where technologi-cal modernisation will no longer focus onequipment, but on knowledge.

Session 1 sketched the historical back-ground of the EU sustainable developmentstrategy (from ‘Helsinki’ to ‘Lisbon’ and‘Gothenburg’) and examined a number ofgeneral horizontal aspects.Chairman: Mr Ulf Svidén, EnvironmentCounsellor, Swedish PermanentRepresentation.


102

Sustainability was not about preserving aneconomic model with known negative long-term effects on nature, people and markets,acting through partial adjustments imposedby a short-term response to scarcity, crisisand need. Sustainability was about changingthe economic model to control and managelong-term effects on nature, climate and peo-ple through structural reforms to markets,States and institutions, using intelligenceproactively to prevent scarcity or crisis, touse science and knowledge efficiently to meeteven more demanding human and socialneeds from a strategic approach.

Long-term vision was crucial, a platform togive life to new ideas and innovation, for eco-efficiency. This was a challenge for the marketto develop new business, and a political chal-lenge to create a new policy platform. Themost unsustainable trends were due to humanconcentration in urban areas, regional dispari-ties in development, and transportation. Thereal issue was how to change current behaviourin a proactive way, intelligently. Sustainabilitycould be reached if we create a new economicmodel, new sets of policies, and new sets ofinstitutions. The new policies should be hori-zontal instead of sectoral, and we need to cre-ate strategic market regulations which leaveopportunities for innovation to business.

The Lisbon strategy was a bit like Lisbon —sunny with low visibility. It lacked a specificlink to sustainable development. The chal-lenge was to take the next steps towards su-stainable development, for which one had tobe humble to face reality in an honest way,and bold to create the new policy.

Comments from the floor

H. Mullet, Friends of the Earth Europe

• There was need for a strong vision of EUsustainable development. Important build-

ing blocks were innovation and eco-effi-ciency, which if used rightly also create newjobs.

• Clear goals and targets would help to makethe vision more concrete.

• Existing programmes like the commonagricultural policy and the StructuralFunds needed to be revised.

G. Deuchars, Eurolink Age

• Sustainable development strategy basedfirmly on fundamental social rights wasvery welcome. Social policy was not to berelegated as a part only built into econom-ic policy.

• Win-win solutions might very often befound, but when there was a cost, this mustnot fall upon the weakest; this would leadto social exclusion. The strategy mustrespect social fairness.

• The crucial gender issue was not in theconsultative document, but should belongto the strategy.

B. Gabellieri, CEEP

• The consultative document was very muchbased upon an analysis of the present situ-ation, but we had to foresee all possible sit-uations and solutions.

• It was important to include those responsi-ble for local policies and to develop instru-ments for State actors.

D. Simionescu, Permanent Representation ofRomania

• It was important for accession countries tobe part of the process. The consultative


103

document failed to provide active partici-pation from accession countries. Specialpaths had to be set out for the accessioncountries to follow.

A. Grof, Eurochambre

• Accession countries must be included.

• What Commissioner Diamantopoulou andProfessor Mateus had put forward wassupported: a goal-oriented policy, horizon-tal policies and a new fiscal system basedon free market mechanisms.

• If there was a consumer information cam-paign, business community support wouldbe offered for it.

Rapporteur: Mr Henning Arp, CabinetCommissioner Wallström

He summarised what had been said in thesession and instanced the following high-lights:

• The local level offered opportunities andcould mobilise different actors, for instanceto raise awareness among consumers anddevelop voluntary agreements with differ-ent actors.

• At the same time, the international per-spective was stressed. Enlargement createda special challenge and had to be addressedin the strategy.

• The strategy should also include socialrights and the gender dimension.

• The sustainable development strategy wasan opportunity to reform common policyin the European Union, to show strongpolitical leadership, to develop vision, clearobjectives and concrete proposals.

Ms Teresa Presas, Corporate Director of EnvironmentalAffairs, Tetra Pak Group

Innovation was a key tool not sufficientlyrecognised in the Commission’s approach:innovation in new materials, in sorting tech-nologies, in recycling technologies, in newincentives. But improving scientific knowl-edge for policy-making was not enough.Improving understanding on how businessworks was also important. Steps forwardwould come by working closely with the pri-vate sector. Many industries were preparedto develop voluntary agreements withinstakeholder dialogue.

However, assigning to industry sole responsi-bility for managing waste from the productsthey put on the market was not efficient. Theconsumer played a key role. Sending thewrong signals to the consumer, that he or shehas no responsibility, would not lead tochange in behaviour. Education, transparentinformation and effective communicationwould progressively make consumers morelike responsible citizens, both in purchasingpatterns and in domestic and communitybehaviour. The toolkit in the Commission’sdocument did not emphasise this enough.Waste management was handled by localauthorities or their subcontractors, the waste

Session 2 focused on three priority themesidentified in the Commission consultationpaper: ‘Public health, management ofnatural resources and ageing’.Chairman: Mr Allan Larsson, Chairman ofthe Board of Swedish Public Television (SVT)and former Director-General of theEmployment and Social Affairs DG of theEuropean Commission.


104

managers. They both operate on the basis ofdifferent conditions that vary substantiallyfrom one community to another. Municipalauthorities should also be involved in thepromotion of tools to improve waste man-agement.

In setting objectives for recycling, it was nec-essary to realise that recycling also oftenincreases transport; it was important to opti-mise these issues. It was important also totake into account recycling costs. Some mate-rials and products were very expensive torecycle and efforts should be placed else-where. Energy recovery should sometimes beconsidered as a recycling option.

The Commission’s toolkit was a good basisfor action. Great efforts must be made toreach key audiences. The sustainable devel-opment concept must be capable of movingdecision-makers and leaders, be it at politicalor business level. The sense and implicationsof a sustainable development strategy mustbe accessible to everyone. Communicationwas the key!

Dr Wilfried Kreisel, Executive Director WHO and Head of the WHO EU Office

The needs and different dimensions of su-stainability should be defined. A particularproblem was the failure to resolve the rela-tionship between, and relative status of, theeconomic, social and environmental dimen-sions. Thus, while the need to make trade-offs between the three dimensions of sustain-able development was recognised, an opera-tional framework was lacking. The threedimensions play very different roles in theconcept of sustainable development — inessence, economic performance was seen as ameans towards the end of improving social

conditions within the constraints imposed byenvironmental considerations. Many publichealth problems were created through specif-ic sectoral policies, e.g. the common agricul-tural policy (CAP) and transport. These poli-cies had many positive aspects but they alsoimpinged profoundly on the big problems offood-borne hazards, dietary problems, tobac-co and alcohol issues, on pollution and lossof biodiversity, are major instances. Thepaper did not tackle the obvious possibilitiesfor food industry and agriculture to developproduction in line with demands of healthand sustainable development.

Mr Daniele Franco, Research Department Bank of Italy

The consultative paper outlined a compre-hensive strategy and several possible solu-tions. Public policies related to the ageingissue were affected by most of the problemsindicated in the consultative paper. Several ofthe solutions mentioned would greatlyimprove the capacity to deal with ageing. Butcertain issues should be stressed more force-fully. The budgetary implications of ageingwas the driving force for policy changes.Recent projections pointed for most EUcountries to substantial increases in pensionoutlays. Additional budgetary pressures —more difficult to quantify — would comefrom healthcare and long-term care. Thesetrends called for large increases in tax levels,which would affect negatively the perform-ance of EU economies and conflict with thetrend towards lower tax levels stemmingfrom greater economic integration. For pen-sions, the most viable solution was toincrease average retirement age. There wasneed for substantial increases in the employ-ment rates of workers in the 55–65 agebracket, pension reforms should provideincentives to stay longer in labour markets.


105

The consultative paper should also brieflyface the budgetary issues raised by ageing forhealthcare and long-term care. The controlof health expenditure would need a widerange of policy action. The design of incen-tives for consumers, producers and insurerswas especially important for the efficient pro-vision of health services and long-term care.Medical, social and budgetary issues shouldbe considered jointly. Social protection poli-cies as well as health policies were typicallymatters for national governments and policychanges to deal with ageing were mostly theresponsibility of Member States. The EUcould support adjustment by providing aforum in which views about solutions andexperiments were exchanged. Moreover,cooperation at EU level could exert peerpressure for structural reform.

Mr Michel Rocard, Member of the European Parliament

Two elements are, I feel, essential:

1. The importance of the firm commitmentfrom the Heads of State or Governmentwho, at the Helsinki Summit, highlightedthe challenges faced by the EU in forging asustainable development agenda quickly.The need to take environmental considera-tions into account in the economy in an all-embracing bid to promote growth andjobs has thus been officially recognised.

2. The excellence of the adopted approach,which makes for a wide-ranging debate onthe key issues by encouraging (i) inputfrom the EU institutions, (ii) the involve-ment of the Member States and (iii) con-sideration of the views of civil society. Thisis, I feel, the only legitimate approach to anissue which affects the future of the worldwe live in.

People have become aware of the need fortwofold solidarity — that is, solidarity betweengenerations and towards the most disadvan-taged, including, I would stress, the develop-ing countries, which are often left out of ourdiscussions. This awareness has shown thatsocial issues are one area on which to focus.

If they want to bequeath a viable world tofuture generations, rich countries must set inmotion a genuine cultural revolution. Theymust rethink the factors underpinning theirwealth. Poor countries still lack the prerequi-sites for a decent standard of living — thecapacity to feed, house and clothe them-selves. To attain acceptable levels, they mustleave behind the solutions extolled to themfor centuries and seek out different strate-gies. And I am not talking here about theessential need for peace, which is the pre-condition, the sine qua non, for the survivalof the world. I do not think that nations haveever asked themselves — in these specificterms — what conditions have to be met iftheir future is to be secured.

Sustainable development means thinkingahead, adapting; above all, it means a desireto live.


J. Hontelez, European Environment Bureau

• The concept of producer responsibility aspresented by Ms Presas was too simplistic.

• There was a need to develop a concept foran enlarged EU.

C. Puppinck, CEEP

• Joint efforts by Member States should bemade to prepare for the accession of thecandidate countries.


106

• There was a need to incorporate healthissues.

G. Deuchars, AGE — European Older People’sPlatform

• There was a need to develop a more posi-tive way to view ageing (alarming and neg-ative impression from the Commissiondocument).

• There was also an urgent need to increasethe level of employment among older peo-ple.

• Firm action against discrimination andunemployment was important.

S. Näslund, Administrative Director of the Swedish Environmental Advisory Council

• The use of natural resources should begiven stronger emphasis: energy, material,soil, terrestrial and maritime systems.

• Decoupling the use of natural resourcesfrom economic development was neededurgently.

• A new concept of development should bedeveloped.

B. Gabellieri, European Association of JointInstitutions (AEIP)

• There was a need to establish a linkbetween companies and requisite invest-ments.

I. Graenitz, Global Legislators Organisation fora Balanced Environment

• The chapter of health should be integratedinto the other chapters.

• Our forms of education and training need-ed changing.

• There was scope for companies to promotehealthy lifestyle of employees.

Rapporteur: Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark,Director for International Affairs at theSwedish Trade Union SACO and Memberof the Economic and Social Committee

Sustainable development was very much amatter of making rational choices based onknowledge, on hard facts, on not being in asituation where decisions are taken by neces-sity, but where we have intellectual capacityand time for analysis and for making rationalchoices. To do this, a lot more knowledgeand much more research and developmentwas needed. A large number of technologyleaps and many more investments in humancapital were essential. A society marked bysustainable development was a knowledge-intensive society. To develop a genuinelyknowledge-intensive society took time.

Industry’s participation was highlighted inthe discussion. Earlier industry was veryoften the villain in this context. But today,industry’s active participation, active com-mitment, to be part of a movement for su-stainable development, was often emphasised.It showed that the number of active stake-holders in the work for sustainable develop-ment was in fact growing and industry couldplay a very important part.

To create a sustainable society, public financesmust be in such good order that sudden eco-nomic crises could be tackled. The need forsustainable public finances was especiallypressing in the perspective of population age-ing. Age discrimination at the work place wasone issue in this context to be addressed.


107

Attention was drawn in the discussion to thelinkages between various policies and policysectors, e.g. between transport and health.These linkages had absolutely to be takeninto account when a sustainable develop-ment policy was outlined. The need tomobilise public opinion was obvious. Also,solidarity — between generations, people,regions — was an essential part of a policy.

One question was conspicuously missing inour discussion about the ageing population:why do we have so few children? It was notpossible to discuss this problem withoutexamining this question. Therefore, an activefamily policy should be part of a sustainabledevelopment policy, a family policy with realeconomic and social opportunities for par-ents to choose children and career.

The Rt. Hon. John Gummer MP (former UK Minister for the Environment)

The heart of the problem was that we do seethis huge issue of sustainable development,we spend a great deal of time defining it andthen remark on how big it is, how huge theproblems are, how enormous the steps whichshould be taken and how difficult it is tostart. We need to recognise that big targetsare met by a host of small steps and we do nogood by trying to find the big answer.

We need a large enough Union to be able tomake the real decisions which make a differ-ence. We also rely upon the willingness ofMember States to take action and on individ-uals and communities to recognise their roleas well, but all within the context of theUnion.

The first category of action was to start beingprepared to set clear targets for change. Itwas a scandal that at a time when Coca-Colahad committed itself not to purchase anyHFC-driven refrigeration after 2005, the EUhad not done the same. In many areas, busi-ness was driving the sustainability cause. Therefrigeration industry would be differentafter 2005 because Coca-Cola had made thatdecision; the world’s biggest user of refriger-ation could change an industry. If we set thestandards well enough in advance we couldmake industry the driver of what it had to do.

The second area of action was how to changeindividual decision-making. ‘You cannotmake a man good by an act of Parliament’,but it was perfectly easy to make good easierthan bad. His biggest complaint about theEU was that it was too often prey to pre-scription. We believed that bureaucrats andpoliticians knew the answer but often theydid not. Say what people have to achieve;they will know how to do it.

Finally, he chose to refer to procurement pol-icy. Governments and the EU drove many ofthe decisions made by industry because theyprocure buildings, materials, services, etc.And yet they did not do so in a green way andthat could so easily be done. Belfast CityCouncil was an exemplary exception. It man-aged to decrease costs by over 20 % at thesame time as it actively promoted the envi-ronment and sustainable development.

Session 3 focused on three priority themesidentified in the Commission consultationpaper: ‘Climate change and clean energy,poverty and social exclusion as well asmobility, land use and territorial devel-opment’.Chairman: Mr Jorgen Henningsen, PrincipalAdviser, Energy and Transport DG, EuropeanCommission.


108

Mr Henry Malosse, Director EuropeanAffairs, Assembly of French Chambers ofCommerce and Member of the Economicand Social Committee

In many countries, including France, the ideaof sustainable development is difficult tounderstand. Taking the dictionary — and myown conviction — as a lead, I would define itas a ‘soundly-based Europe’. A soundly-based Europe — how is that to be achieved?First of all, the various stakeholders involved— both inside and outside government —and the public themselves should be calledupon to demonstrate a greater sense ofresponsibility. Education and training are keyaspects.

People can only exercise this sense of respon-sibility, however, in a Europe that fosterscooperation and the active involvement ofcivil society. It is essential to underscore therole of economic and social stakeholders.Their primary task is as consultants, interme-diaries and experts. Beyond that, however,civil society organisations have also taken ona specifically regulatory role, involving co-regulation, self-regulation, codes of conduct,mediation, arbitration, etc. The example ofthe European Automobile Manufacturers’Association which managed to head off regu-lation by a contractual commitment (to cutCO2 emissions) should be publicised andpromoted more widely.

As a body representing organised civil socie-ty — and the European economic and socialplayers of which it is composed — we wouldadvocate a more inclusive Union strategy, sothat we do not compartmentalise or superim-pose priorities but endeavour to see them asone single policy, expressed in a variety ofdifferent ways and drawing on a variety ofdifferent tools. In this way, the Economic andSocial Committee would see itself as the

staunch advocate of a broad approach todevelopment, which should be harmoniousand soundly based.

Mr Anders Wijkman, Member of theEuropean Parliament

He deplored that time was so limited for dis-cussion and dialogue on the strategy beforethe Gothenburg Summit. The central goal ofthe strategy had to be to set the frameworkfor a new model of development, wheresocial and environmental objectives were bal-anced with those of economic growth. Thetask was not only one of bringing harmonybetween different objectives. The naturalenvironment had certain values that cannotbe substituted. The way conventional eco-nomics treated these values was totally inad-equate. Hence, the need for a new economicparadigm, where measuring wealth, the qual-ity of growth, the short-term versus the long-term, etc., were given priority. Against thisbackground and the challenge involved, itwas even more regrettable that only a fewweeks were set aside for dialogue with majorstakeholders on the discussion paper andthat there was even less time for consulta-tions once the strategy was presented.

In the consultative paper, a more in-depthdiscussion would have been desirable asregards the limitations of the neo-classicaleconomic model in dealing with the chal-lenges of sustainability. There was a generalperception in society that economic growth ispositive for the environment (the so-calledinverted Kusnetz curve). However, for someenvironmental problems, like the carboncycle, the nitrogen cycle, biodiversity, freshwater scarcity and waste generation, theopposite seemed to be true. The strategy hadto address this.


109

A comprehensive strategy had to integratethe various sector strategies and deal withcross-cutting issues. It could not be devel-oped in a vacuum since EU policies in manyareas had consequences far beyond Europe’sboundaries. Prominent examples wereexport subsidies in agriculture, fisheries pol-icy and activities of the national export cred-it agencies. The EU had to ensure coherencebetween its internal policies and their impacton the rest of the world, notably on develop-ing countries.


Mr J. Wriglesworth — BP / UNICE

• The long-term strategy set out by J.Gummer was very good.

• It was true that big targets are met by smallsteps.

• Better cooperation between authorities andindustry on the use of market knowledgewould help sustainable development.

• New technologies should be mobilised tosolve problems (the EU could learn fromthe United States).

J. Hontelez — Secretary-General, EuropeanEnvironmental Bureau

• Prices had to rise to bring consumptiondown.

• It was not true that energy taxation wasalways ineffective (e.g. Denmark and theNetherlands).

J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser, Energy andTransport DG, European Commission

• The Commission’s view was that energytaxes would have a strong impact on man-

ufacturing and power generation but a verysmall one on transport.

S. Näslund, Executive Director of the Swedish Environmental Advisory Council

• Perverse subsidies should be eliminatedand right incentives for business intro-duced.

• There was much scope for dialogue withindustry.

• In Sweden, energy efficiency had grownbut energy use had increased even more(the rebound effect).

H. M. Lent-Philipps — ACEA

• Indicators or targets for energy intensitywere important.

• Whatever form it took, transport wouldneed energy but maybe not fossil fuelbased.

J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser, Energy and Transport DG,European Commission

• Of course renewable energy was essentialin the long term, but in the short and medi-um term, focus should be on energy effi-ciency.

• Concerning taxes, a key factor was demandelasticity and therefore better understand-ing of each sector was needed.

• One had to be aware of the possiblerebound effect after making energy moreefficient. The solution to that was bettereducation.


110

D. de Juncker — COPA (Committee ofAgricultural Organisations in theEuropean Union)

• COPA held that primary recyclable materi-als (particularly bio-mass from agriculture)can play an important role in the fightagainst climate change.

• Targeted policy to promote the use of thesematerials and provide a more coherent linkbetween agricultural and environmentalpolicies was needed.

W. Schmidt Küster,Trade Association of Nuclear Industries — Foratom

• Different policies had to be made morecompatible. Energy and environmentalpolicies were not really consistent, as forexample in Sweden, where taxes are leviedon nuclear carbon-free electricity.

P. Lorenz, Friends of the Earth Europe

• It was unlikely that nuclear energy wouldsolve climate change as for the last 50 yearsnothing had been solved and the problemof waste was still there.

• One had to internalise external costs andavoid energy that with waste lasting for 1 000 years was not sustainable at all.

B. Ollier, Head of Department Business-friendlyenvironment — Eurochambers

• The creation of new market opportunitieswould drive a virtuous circle developingcleaner technologies; if the customerrewarded such technologies, the producerwould respond; so the price and incentivehad to be right but so did the climate forinnovation.

• The creation of enterprises had to be easi-er, the entrepreneurial spirit favoured andthis started out from education itself.

B. de Galembert — Organisation Européenne de la Propriété rurale

• The rural world had not waited for the EUto apply sustainable solutions; forests werean example.

• Such efforts should be further acknowl-edged and encouraged.

D. Cloquet — Director Industrial AffairsDepartment — UNICE

• Good management was essential at all lev-els, one had to look at the big picture.

• Fiscal instruments were not right for allcases.

• Emissions trading was another possibility.

• Company competitiveness and capacity toinvest had to be preserved.

G. Sklavounos, ESC member

• With little scope for new policies, existingones should be saturated with sustainabledevelopment.

• How could synergies be maximised? Towhat extent was regulation needed world-wide? What was the EU/Member Statedivision of tasks? The new economic modelneeded definition but how?

• A new view of man’s relation to nature andother generations was needed.

R. Becker — European Bishops Conference

• This document focused on sustainabledevelopment in Europe but how could pol-


111

icy help to achieve sustainable develop-ment world wide?

• Post-Rio, one should not see sustainabledevelopment devoid of social coherence;sustainable development meant north–south cooperation removing differencesbetween the two.

• The EU should avoid harm to developingcountries by imposing trade barriers andraise development aid to 0.7 % of GDP. Ifwe really wanted sustainability, these issueswere unavoidable.

J. Henningsen

• The priority was to put our own house inorder first.

• There was currently a lack of consistencywithin the EU and between certain of itspolicies.

C. Roumet — European Social Platform

• The Commission paper suggests rightlythat one can find win–win policies butsince that was not always possible one musttry to avoid the cost of sustainable develop-ment falling on those least able.

F. Usscher — Forum for the Future

• It was hardly mentioned, but it played avital role. A common IT literacy across theEU was needed and the EU had to takeresponsibility to promote it. There wereseveral ways, for example networks ofonline services and free software. TheEuropa web site could be a platform forthat. The EU had to use the latest informa-tion-sharing technologies.

P. Vanderlayen — Policy Officer at the European Anti-Poverty Network

• At the Lisbon Summit, it was said thateradication of poverty was a priority. Thisneeded a very broad approach.

• Fundamental rights were also an importantissue.

J. Henningsen

• The second version of this documentwould be very different and focus on poli-cy actions for sustainable development.

• The important phase is not Gothenburgbut what will happen after Gothenburg.

O. Gerhard — Mouvement International ATD Quart Monde

• Sustainable development and human rightswere indivisible.

G. Gourgeochon — Union of theFinance-Personnel in Europe (UFE)

• Policies should create incentives to redis-tribute profits from sustainable develop-ment to end social exclusion, i.e. a more‘voluntarist’ approach.

NN, European Federation working withHomeless People

• To raise standards of housing quality waspositive for the environment and employ-ment.

R. Lax — European Union Road Federation

• The consultative document focused oninter-urban projects but urban transporthad the greater impact on the environment.


112

Rapporteur: Mr Hanns R. Glatz, Delegate of the Board of Management,DaimlerChrysler

There was clearly full agreement on the desir-ability of sustainable development. But as aspeaker pointed out, one big difficulty withthis concept is that its sense is very difficult torender in all languages. Linked to this may bethe question of the place for ethical values,which were briefly mentioned. Clearly, a lackof shared ethical values makes it difficult todefine common objectives. Everyone agreedthat there is no single solution that can solveall the problems at one stroke. At best, oneshould fix performance standards andabstain as far as possible from prescribingprecise measures; leave the individual actorsto work out how to get there, for examplethrough popular campaigns, voluntary agree-ments, self-regulation, a whole range of pos-sibilities. Education, as all agreed, was cru-cial, but education without ethical values didnot work.

Government had both direct and indirectresponsibility. It had direct responsibility forpublic procurement, export subsidies, etc.and indirect responsibility, e.g. through theimpact of EU policies on the developingworld. The idea was mooted that the EUcould set a blueprint for the rest of the world,but sustainability, particularly in relation toclimate change, required global solutions.Clearly, the EU could do very much by itselfand create this blueprint for the rest of theworld. But it would still need to persuadeothers; maybe exclusion could be a goodfield for such an approach.

The scope for a new economic model and therelevance of some artificial elements added tothe standard market economy needed to bediscussed much further. But the question ofpriorities and how to reach them could not

be dropped. Priorities had to be set betweenthe various absolutely legitimate objectives,otherwise the targets were impossible toachieve. Governments pursued different pol-icy objectives, coal promoted to preserve jobsand security of energy supply, for instance, ornuclear energy promoted as clean energyinstead of CO2-emitting fuels. Without clearprioritisation, conflicts would arise.

As illustration of these quandaries the advan-tage of repressive as against persuasive meanswas discussed. Several speakers pleaded forpersuasive means, positive incentives, whileothers argued that raising energy taxes or fix-ing strict limits was the best way to achieveeffective results.

An interesting aspect was the rebound effect:once substantial progress in relative energyefficiency was achieved, the relative costrelaxation might not produce the desireddrop in overall consumption and thus cutemissions of CO2 or a dangerous product.There was strong regret expressed that theenvironment and climate change was a glob-al problem but that there was no global gov-ernance. This took us back to the KyotoProtocol discussion.

On poverty and social exclusion, differentobjectives were pursued by different groups.There were different objectives in domesticand in foreign policies. There was a need toreally help the developing world. Directaction was important but indirect implica-tions must be considered. It was pointed outthat the gender issue is largely missing in theconsultative paper. The same was true for thevery important area of ICT: the digital revo-lution must be inclusive, but the questionwas how to achieve that.

Social exclusion was a multi-dimensionalproblem and must not be looked upon only


113

in the context of economic implications.Education and training as responsibilities forgovernment and for the private sector wasmentioned again.

In conclusion, one had to look at all aspects— cultural, environmental, societal, educa-tional, etc. — for society to develop a su-stainable future.

Mr John Hontelez, Secretary-General of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

For environmental organisations, there wasmuch at stake in Gothenburg. Environ-mental organisations had successfully cam-paigned for inclusion of sustainable develop-ment in the Amsterdam Treaty and sincethen continued to make proposals and createpressure leading to the Helsinki initiative.The EEB had, mostly in cooperation withothers, tried to stimulate the work within theCommission. The EEB had organised discus-sions with the Swedish Presidency, nationalgovernments, stakeholders on what the strat-egy should look like. Most recent was a pub-lication with 17 contributions from differentstakeholders. It showed remarkable agree-ment amongst people with different back-grounds and interests. Today, we would liketo present some common conclusions of

stakeholders, including environmentalists,church representatives, trade unions, indus-try, agriculture, etc.

We propose an overall objective: ‘To becomethe most resource-efficient economy in theworld, combining high standards of living,good public health, strong social inclusionand cohesion and a high-quality environmentwith the long-term objective of reaching lev-els of resource use and environmental impactin line with the carrying capacity of theEuropean and global environment — takinginto account the need to share environmentalresources equitably to allow sustainabledevelopment for all the world’s people.’

We also formulate specific long-term objec-tives for each of the six areas in theCommission document. We have also addedtwo objectives concerning global interde-pendence and accountability to citizens. Wefurthermore insist on the leadership of theEU combined with active involvement ofcivil society.’

He concluded with personal comments, notnecessarily shared by other organisations. Itwas important that the Commission adoptnot just the nowadays-popular three-pillarimage of sustainability, but also recognisethat resources and services offered by theenvironment cannot be traded for the eco-nomic or social products of civilisation.There was also another important dimension,the cultural one. We cannot let our culturalvalues be hijacked by commercial interests.

Gothenburg should present at least one boldand concrete programme, which was ‘green-ing the economy’, including a review of pres-ent subsidies and taxes. Gothenburg shouldalso start a discussion, leading to pertinentresults during the Madrid Summit before Rio+ 10, challenging the dominance of trade lib-

Session 4 aimed to provide input to theCommission’s final proposal on the sus-tainability strategy and the GothenburgEuropean Council conclusions.Chairman: Mr Josly Piette, Secretary-Generalof the Belgian Trade Union Confederation CSCand member of the Economic and SocialCommittee.


114

eralisation over other interests. Finally, politi-cians and business should stop resisting deci-sions on environmental targets and timeta-bles with arguments about scientific uncer-tainty and lack of cost–benefit evidence.

Mr Claude Fussler, Director at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

First, he stressed the importance of the glob-al perspective. The consultative paper took aview that it was best for the EU to put its ownhouse in order first and on track towards su-stainable development. But, Europe couldonly succeed in a world that succeeds.Europe was responsible also for the transi-tion of developing economies towards su-stainability. The impact of its trade, peopleand investment flows was so large that anypolicy change in Europe would affect thedeveloping world. On the positive side, for-eign direct investments and imports createdjobs and wealth. Immigration to Europe pro-vided job opportunities and education. Onthe negative side, our agricultural subsidies,the protection of textile and other primarysectors prevented or taxed imports depress-ing prices, income, labour standards andemployment in many producing countries.

Secondly, innovation was a key issue. TheLisbon Summit declared ambitiously tomake Europe the ‘the most competitive anddynamic knowledge-based economy in theworld capable of sustainable economicgrowth with more and better jobs and greatersocial cohesion’. Innovation in technology,social relations, consumer behaviour and pol-icy framework would be intense if we were tosucceed in this. Yet, the consultative papermade a cautious and reassuring case of thetransformation required. It played to the

classic wish for careful cost–benefit analysisof every policy measure. This was hardlyconducive to innovation.

Finally, the usefulness of simple indicators.The euro convergence criteria — inflation,budget deficit and debt levels — coveredeconomic complexity with powerful indica-tors. Yet, every one who runs a chequebookknows that deficit demands control of notone but a host of economic variables. Thiswas the same for eco-efficiency. In a recentresource productivity conference, convenedby the British Department of Trade andIndustry, all participants agreed that if theyhad to measure progress by one single indi-cator they would pick green house gas emis-sions related to GDP, clearly an eco-efficien-cy type of ratio. An economy that createsmore wealth while drastically reducing itsoutput of greenhouse gases was bound tocreate better urban air quality, domestic heat-ing and lighting efficiency, a shift away fromfossil energy sources, etc. It did so throughinnovative solutions, new skills and knowl-edge.

Ms Martine Buron, Member of the Committee of the Regions

The most important part of a strategy for sus-tainable development was reform of workingmethods. To create a good quality of life andto find innovations in rural developmentwere essential elements. The six priorities inthe consultative document formed a goodbasis. But it was evident that there were con-flicts of interest. To find good solutions tosuch conflicts, we had to work together froma local and regional perspective. Public serv-ices to the citizens had to work and this wasmostly the responsibility of local communi-ties. The EU strategy dealt with Europeaninstitutions but it was also most important to


115

analyse how the proposals met the existingstructure of community services. A reportfrom the Committee of Regions would short-ly address this issue. The inter-linkagesbetween EU level and regional/local levelswere important in many areas, for instancewaste management, resource efficiency andfood safety.

The strategy had also to take into account thesituation of older people, not only a matter ofproviding services to the elderly but also ofintegrating them into making society moredynamic.

To sum up:

• Regional and local perspectives should betaken into account at an earlier stage in thedecision-making process for EU policies,since policies very often were applied atlocal and regional level. Local and regionallevels should therefore play a role upstreamin the decision-making process, how toimplement and assess the costs of propos-als.

• Structural funds should also take accountof the accession countries. To this end,inter-regional cooperation should beencouraged. A broad approach was neededat all levels of decision-making.

• Information to citizens very often wentthrough regional and local levels. This wasanother argument for involving them in thedecision-making process as early as possi-ble.

Mr Marc Pallemaerts, Cabinet of BelgianState Secretary, Mr Olivier Deleuze

Work on sustainable development showedthe need to go beyond existing institutional

frameworks to new structures where allaspects of sustainable development could beconsidered. The work underlined the across-the-board structure. In 1997, a new federallaw in Belgium set the platform for sustain-able development work. An interdepartmen-tal committee was set up to propose a feder-al plan for sustainable development. Oneimportant aspect was the involvement of civilsociety. Thus, the Federal Council onSustainable Development was created withall interests in society involved. A publichearing was held as part of the work on thesustainable development plan.

The Belgian Government intended to backthe Commission initiative and was preparedto continue the work during its Presidency.But the Belgian Government regretted thelate arrival of the consultative document andstressed the importance of public participa-tion. The fact that the political view from theCommission was not yet available and thatthe specific targets had not been presentedwas a further problem. Thus, the BelgianPresidency would contribute during itsPresidency and promote stakeholder partici-pation.

The Belgian Government considered thedomestic emphasis in the EU strategy justifi-able at this stage. The global perspective wasnecessary and could be added, asJohannesburg was the next step in the Rioprocess. The Commission communication ona strategy for the preparation of the nextglobal summit in 2002 was an additional ele-ment.

A final comment related to the toolkit pro-posed in the consultative document. Thetoolkit described the available tools andinstruments but one important tool was miss-ing, namely legislation. Law-making was oneof the fundamental processes in the work of


116

the European Union and should continue tobe so. EU law should be used in future devel-opment of the strategy.


L. Mills, Consultant

• There should be more of an analyticalbackground in the consultative document,and the objectives for the strategy shouldalso be presented.

• The regional and local dimensions were leftout in the document. She gave an examplefrom a local Agenda 21 project, with EUsupport, where the objectives had been thestarting point in the project. It was impor-tant to recognise all the work that hadalready been done, for instance within localAgenda 21, different Interreg projects, sus-tainable cities and other urban projects.

M. Insausti, World Wildlife Fund

• The EU strategy must have a global view,the EU was not a fortress. Both aspectswere needed in the same document, theinternal for the EU to put its own house inorder and the external for the EU as amember of global society.

S. Blau, Member of the European Parliament

• Which were the steps after Gothenburg inwork on sustainable development?

Mr Becker, European Bishops Conference

• He stressed the north–south dimension.Even though it was important to focus, itwas vital to have a global approach.

I. Ripa Julia, Environmental consultant

• She gave an example of a strategy from theregion of Rioja. It had been developed

within the Rio framework, and contained aholistic, global vision.

• The global dimension was important.

• The EU strategy should also aim to supportwork at regional and local level and pro-vide an example.

I. Niestroy, European Environmental AdvisoryCouncils

• The decision in Gothenburg shouldinclude objectives, set the overall strategy,recognise the need to continue and thusdecide to return to the issue at theBarcelona European Council.

K. Bradley, Alliance for Beverage Cartons andthe Environment

• The paper presented by John Hontelez wasvery good. If these were the objectives inthe EU strategy, his organisation could signup to the strategy.

• The strategy should set the targets, fix thenumbers and industry would then find thesolutions.

C. Puppinck, CEEP

• It was important to include not only envi-ronmental but also economic and socialdimensions. It was all about daily life andsolidarity.

M. Buitenkamp, Consultant

• We had to be aware that it took time tounderstand sustainable development, itwas not possible to move too quickly ifpeople were to be involved and find goodsolutions.


117

Rapporteur: Marc Vanheukelen, Head of the Commission’s SustainableDevelopment Task Force

• Everyone seemed to agree that the EUstrategy needed targets and indicators.

• We needed to learn from one another,maybe create peer pressure by publishingindicators. Points were made on the neces-sity to develop regional and national indi-cators and also some general convergenceindicators.

• The importance of the local level wasstressed, local authorities were often thebodies responsible for implementation.

• Several speakers stressed the importance ofglobal perspective.

• Several speakers commented on the green-ing of the economy as a major policy instru-ment. Several of the unsustainable trendswere deeply anchored in today’s structureof our economy.

• The need for the Commission to provideleadership was also emphasised, leadershipto review common policies and developnew policies of cohesion.

He concluded with some personal responsesto what had been said during the session.The first point was that law and regulationwere of course part of the toolkit; this wasself-evident. The work at local level withlocal Agenda 21 had been extremely usefulfor mobilising different groups, but the EUstrategy would focus on measures at EU leveland recognise the principle of subsidiarity.Maybe a fourth pillar could be added, thepillar of participative democracy. The chal-lenge was to create processes that allowed usto rethink jointly.

Closing session

Mr David O’Sullivan, Secretary-General, European Commission

The Commission was very pleased at thelevel of interest this public hearing had gen-erated. Although the period of public con-sultation on the Commission services’ con-sultative document was shorter than it wouldhave liked, sustainable development had tobe a ‘bottom-up’ as well as a ‘top-down’activity. Our societies would not be able tomake the changes needed unless society atlarge felt that it ‘owns’ the strategy. And thiswould not happen unless we had mecha-nisms which allowed ordinary Europeans togive their views. This was the purpose of thispublic hearing and why, in the consultativepaper, comments from everyone wereexpressly invited. And indeed, many privatecitizens had taken the opportunity to givetheir opinions. He was grateful for thoseopinions as for the views expressed by manyduring the hearing.

The strategy for sustainable development,which the Commission would propose to theEuropean Council in Gothenburg, wouldfocus on the six themes identified in the con-sultative paper. In each area, we will set asmall number — perhaps two or three —clear, ambitious, but achievable headlineobjectives, backed by an indication of themain measures seen as necessary to reachthem. Our belief in the importance of chang-ing the way policy was made to achieve con-sistent policies would be stressed. Policieshad to pull together rather than in oppositedirections and we would set out the stepsthat we think were needed.

Many had criticised the emphasis placed onputting our own house in order. Some had


118

even accused us of a ‘fortress Europe’approach. Nothing was further from thetruth. The Commission was fully committedto global sustainability. Of course, develop-ment policy had to support efforts by devel-oping countries to achieve more sustainabledevelopment. Of course, trade policies andthe international trading system in generalshould not place barriers in the way of thelegitimate needs of developing countries. Buthow could we credibly make the case forchange at international level if we did notdemonstrably improve the way we conductour own affairs? And, he said, let me be clear,when we propose reforming our ‘internal’policies to make sustainable developmenttheir goal, that means taking full account oftheir effects beyond the borders of theEuropean Union.

Finally, he expressed special thanks to hiscolleagues in the Economic and SocialCommittee for their help in organising thishearing. In its strategy proposal, theCommission would stress the importance oftransparency in policy-making and of wide-spread stakeholder consultation and involve-ment. As this hearing showed, theCommission was at least trying to practicewhat it preached.

Ms Birgitta Boström, State Secretary, Swedish Environment Ministry

She thanked the Economic and SocialCommittee for arranging this hearing, andfor giving an opportunity to express theviews of the Swedish Presidency. Sustainabledevelopment was really at the centre of polit-ical debate. A sound economy, responsibleand stable welfare systems and an ecological-ly sound and sustainable use of naturalresources and the environment had to be

achieved. And these long-term objectivesmust be achieved all together, in an integrat-ed process. This was the background to thevery clear linkages between the two summitsduring the Swedish Presidency. InStockholm, decisions were made mainlyrelated to the economic and social aspects ofsustainable development. In Gothenburg theenvironmental aspects of sustainable devel-opment would be discussed, in order tobring all three dimensions together into anintegrated process for the future.

The work within the Commission and a broadconsultation process would help to build gen-eral support for the decision. The Commissionhad chosen a number of themes as a basis forits proposal. These themes covered very wellthe main problems we had to tackle.

One of the themes, climate change and cleanenergy, raised a crucial — and in its essenceethical — issue for the future development ofthe globe. Europe had to act now. It was notpossible to wait for others. We needed totackle the emissions of greenhouse gases andreview the policies for energy and transport.We needed to review use of renewable ener-gy and energy efficiency. Transport systemshad to be reformed. The railways in Europehad to make rail more competitive to roadtransport. Climate change would be one ofthe main issues in Gothenburg. The EU hadto be prepared to discuss and to accept long-term commitments to reduce the emissionsof carbon dioxide for the period even afterthe Kyoto Protocol.

Another important theme was public health.It was a very central issue today, when foodsafety was intensely debated. At the sametime, this theme gave the opportunity to dealwith the risks related to persistent and bio-accumulative chemicals. A third theme wasthe use of our natural resources. In a time


119

when the common agricultural policy and thecommon fishery policy within the EuropeanUnion were intensely debated, it was impor-tant to stress also the need to protect biodi-versity.

The Swedish Presidency had three goals forthe Gothenburg decisions on sustainabledevelopment: firstly, to decide on an EU

strategy and to establish a handful of objec-tives and targets for the environmentaldimension — this would complement theobjectives and targets that follow from theLisbon strategy; secondly, to create a stronglink between the strategy and the EU com-mitments under the Kyoto Protocol; andthirdly, to lay the foundation of a successfulprocess to implement the EU strategy’.

European Commission


Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2002 — 119 pp. — 17.6 x 25 cm

ISBN 92-894-1676-9

1410

KA

-39-01-732-EN

-C

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg�

A Eu

rop

ean U

nio

n strateg

y for su

stainab

le develo

pm

ent

EN

ISBN 92-894-1676-9

,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!›

A European Unionstrategyfor sustainabledevelopment

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Documents

Estratégia Da UE Para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável