Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation policy"

(2001/C 14/18)

On 18 May 2000 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on "Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation policy".

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 October 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe and the co-rapporteur Mr Gafo Fernández.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000 the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 83 votes in favour and 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Fostering sustainable development is a central objective of the Community's development cooperation policy under Article 177 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

1.2. At its summit in Cardiff in June 1998 the European Council stressed the importance of integrating environmental protection and sustainable development into all EU policies and invited the Commission and specialist councils to draw up appropriate strategies.

1.3. The Commission's communication "Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation policy - Elements of a comprehensive strategy"(1) should be seen in the context of this integration strategy.

1.4. The Committee notes the discussions in the Development Councils of 11.11.1999 and 18.5.2000 and the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament "The European Community's development policy"(2).

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes the presentation of this paper by the Commission. Not only does it show that the Commission is endeavouring to implement the edicts of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Cardiff Summit, but it also makes clear that this is an extremely important subject on which much work remains to be done.

2.2. The Commission quite rightly states several times in this communication and in its general paper on development policy(3) that civil society has a fundamental role to play in tackling the outstanding tasks. In this connection the Committee regrets that, as a representative of civil society organisations, it has hitherto been only partially included in the Commission's deliberations. It would ask the Commission, Council and Parliament to bear in mind that the Committee can only contribute meaningfully to the evolution of this important portfolio if it is involved in the whole process of framing development policy and not merely consulted on isolated issues and documents. The Commission is asked to inform the Committee how it sees the ESC's future involvement in framing economic and development cooperation policy.

2.3. The Committee views current global developments with concern. It notes that the promises given by the industrial nations as far back as the UN General Assembly of 24 October 1970 and reaffirmed later - namely to invest at least 0,7 % of their GNP in development aid - have not been kept by most countries and that currently only 0,23 % is given on average.

2.4. The gap between rich and poor grows ever wider. The vicious circle in which many developing countries find themselves - and which is inadequately described by such catchwords as economic underdevelopment, poverty, low level of education, population growth and lack of environmental protection - has been known for a long time and is also recognised by the developed world. So far it has not been possible to break the circle, in part because the political will is not there.

2.5. The environmental situation naturally varies considerably from one developing country/region to another; it is not therefore possible to generalise. But it has to be said that in many cases the situation is desperate: many people lack clean drinking water; the lack of waste water treatment (and hence frequently sanitary conditions) is catastrophic; proper waste management is largely non-existent; air pollution is often acute, and not only in large cities. In many cases natural resources are being over-exploited, sometimes to satisfy domestic demand, sometimes external demand.

2.5.1. Further examples of the problematic environmental situation are overgrazing and the overfarming of marginal land, resulting in declining fertility and yields. Another example is the deforestation of large areas. The environmental consequences can also be very varied. They range from climate change to increased desertification or major flooding. Hence it can have global as well as regional/local consequences. In other words: most developing countries are far from having a healthy environment and "sustainable development". This situation affects not only the developing countries, but also impacts on the developed countries, so that the Commission's initiative is particularly important and even a matter of conscious self-interest.

2.6. It has to be realised that it is not the developing countries but the industrialised nations which are mainly responsible for many of the world's environmental problems. The fact is that about 20 % of the earth's population consumes about 80 % of its resources, and that this consumption is covered in part by stripping or overexploiting renewable and non-renewable resources in the developing countries.

2.6.1. The 20 % of the population which consumes 80 % of raw materials lives mainly in the industrial countries. Thus it is above all the production, consumption and behaviour patterns of the industrial nations which are responsible for the depletion of resources, for climate change and for the dramatic dwindling of biodiversity and hence genetic variety. Passing on these habits to the developing countries would hugely exacerbate the already highly sensitive environmental situation worldwide.

2.6.2. Nevertheless, the industrialised nations can make an important contribution to solving the problems in the developing countries by transferring know-how for the development of appropriate environmental technologies.

2.7. The Committee would point out that integrating environment and sustainable development into the EU's development policy must not mean transferring the European way of life to the developing countries. In the evaluation of its own Fifth Environmental Action Programme(4) the Commission itself states that we are far from ensuring sustainable development in Europe.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Inadequate strategic approach in the paper

3.1.1. It should be noted that in its communication the Commission puts forward relatively non-committal proposals in those areas it addresses. In the Committee's view this communication does not give any clear indication as to:

- where precisely the Commission sees the root causes of the problems now;

- what have hitherto been the main shortcomings in cooperation between the EU and the developing countries;

- how they can be combated really effectively.

3.1.2. The Commission document concentrates on the environment. There are no ideas whatsoever on integrating sustainable development within the framework of development policy. Hence the Committee cannot agree that the communication addresses all the "elements of a comprehensive strategy", as suggested by the document's sub-title.

3.1.3. One topic of crucial importance to sustainable development in the developing countries is, for instance, population growth. This is ignored completely in the Commission document. The Committee recommends that the document be vetted once again for such shortcomings and the strategic considerations supplemented accordingly.

3.1.4. This means looking for answers to the following questions:

- Are the current phenomena of a rural exodus and the growth of mega-cities of 10, 20 or even 30 million people sustainable in the long term?

- Is it not partially inconsistent to promote - quite sensibly - the education and training of people in the economically underdeveloped countries while at the same time deliberately wooing skilled workers away from these countries by means of special government initiatives (e.g. immigration schemes), thus hugely damaging the growth and competitiveness of enterprises in these countries (brain drain)?

- Why does the Commission document not envisage the promotion of mechanisms for an increased transfer of technology beyond those already contained in the Kyoto Protocol?

3.1.5. The Commission itself states that "As yet the coherence of EU and EC policy and the impact on developing countries have not been systematically analysed". This self-criticism is to be welcomed. In the Committee's view the paper gives no firm indication of when such an undoubtedly very necessary analysis will be carried out and presented.

3.1.6. Further discussion of this issue by the Commission, Council and Parliament, in which the ESC would like to participate (see point 2.2), would therefore be aided by a clear analysis of the failings of global development policy to date. The Committee would point out that in particular the United Nation's environment programme (UNEP) has already carried out important work in this respect which should be systematically evaluated and integrated into the strategy.

3.1.7. The discussion would be clearer and more comprehensible to the general public, which must be made urgently aware of these issues, if certain developments identified as environmentally unfriendly, i.e. not sustainable, were described more precisely; in particular the extent to which public bodies and enterprises in the developing countries are contributing to this should be clarified.

3.2. Bases for more environmental protection

3.2.1. The Commission document repeatedly stresses how important it is to "promote enabling activities for and increase environment management capacity of both public and private sector". The Committee agrees entirely; but promoting environmental awareness and training is mentioned only once.

The Committee would stress that environmental protection does not work if simply decreed from above. It will only be successful if society is behind it, if people understand why measures have been taken and accept them, maybe even call for more to be done.

In future even more attention should be paid to fully involving the general public and civil society organisations in framing, implementing and evaluating development strategies, especially in the area of environmental policy and sustainable development. A prerequisite for the real participation of civil society is prior access to appropriate information, for instance on planned projects and environmental impact assessments, in accordance with the Aarhus Convention signed by the European Community. Secondly, extra support for small and micro environmental protection projects is an important starting-point for the direct involvement of the local population. Unfortunately the Commission communication supplies insufficient information on both points.

3.2.2. In many cases the developing countries suffer from major shortcomings in environmental management and in environmental law and its implementation. The Committee therefore thinks that they should receive increased assistance in these areas, especially in devising appropriate courses and curricula in universities.

3.2.3. In its relations with the ACP states, the Commission has at its disposal a solid framework for dialogue on development strategies; this represents an ideal integration instrument, especially as the economic and social actors have to be included in the dialogue, as called for by the ESC.

3.2.4. As long as too little account is taken in the developing countries of the demands of a modern environmental policy, it is in Europe's, and the world's, general interest ("global governance") that the European Commission and governments of the individual Member States accord environmental factors their rightful place in bilateral discussions and negotiations. To fall back on the position that environmental protection must be "demand-oriented" is not acceptable.

3.2.5. Therefore it is also important to convince all Commission officials responsible for development policy of the importance of environmental protection and sustainable development. The integration of the environment starts here.

3.2.6. In this connection the Committee would also like to comment on the staffing of the Commission departments responsible for development issues. The figures quoted in footnote 22 of the communication (according to which each staff member is responsible for checking on the environmental impact of EUR 1300 million of investment in the ACP states) provide plenty of food for thought. Under such circumstances it must be impossible to carry out the necessary checks properly. The Commission should explain how the certain increase in the number of tasks can be adequately managed in the light of the planned restructuring of both the RELEX and DEV DGs and the Common Service for External Relations.

3.2.7. One possibility for raising efficiency would be better coordination and use of existing resources, on the part of both the Commission and the Member States and relevant private and public organisations.

3.3. Impact of trade

3.3.1. The Commission communication discusses the problem of trade, but not in the necessary depth.

3.3.2. Trade relations between EU Member States and developing countries are at the root of some problems that currently severely hamper sustainable development in both the developing and developed countries or make it impossible. One example: feedingstuffs imports. European agriculture imports large quantities of feedingstuffs (and other agricultural raw materials), some of it from developing countries. Within the EU this leads in some cases to a concentration of intensive livestock rearing in coastal regions. In terms of the competitiveness of farms this is understandable, but at the same time it is an environmental problem and a problem for the development of sustainable agriculture in the EU. The cultivation of raw materials for feedingstuffs in the developing countries also causes various social and environmental problems in those countries; for instance, small farmers are driven from their land, land is deforested, delicate soil is overcropped, environmental requirements are flouted in the processing of raw materials (e.g. fishmeal factories). The future environmental consequences of the use of and world trade in genetically modified varieties are a complete unknown. In a paper setting out "the elements of a comprehensive strategy", the Commission should look in greater depth at such cases and propose solutions.

3.3.3. The Commission document frequently mentions the particular importance of international companies in building up environmental protection and sustainable development. This is undoubtedly correct as these companies can effect a massive transfer of know-how and, with their management experience and use of modern environmental technologies, introduce "clean" economic processes. This is the positive side of development and must be supported wholeheartedly.

3.3.4. On the other hand, the Committee feels it must point out that unfortunately there are other trends which work in the opposite direction: companies operating on a global scale which adhere fully to high environmental standards of their host countries in the developed world, but in some cases systematically exploit the lower social, labour and environmental standards of the developing countries and thus prevent sustainable development. As this factor is not to be underestimated, the Commission should launch a debate with European and international institutions as to how this can be stopped, e.g. by drawing up a code of conduct. It is also vital for the Community and the Member States to give active support to the international campaign for the ratification of ILO basic conventions and to bring investments, official loans and certain programmes into line with their provisions.

3.3.5. It is unacceptable that many products which are harmful to the environment and human health are still used in developing countries long after being banned in the EU on environmental or health grounds, although they are manufactured here. Furthermore, in many developing countries persistent toxic chemicals, e.g. DDT(5) to combat malaria, are used which are an increasing global threat to the environment on account of their volatility and longevity.

3.3.6. Such known trade-related shortcomings mean that the Commission's statement that "Trade and environment need to play a mutually supporting role" (1st paragraph of point 4.2 of the Commission document) must at present be seen as more wish than reality. In particular the Commission and the Member States must see that the environmental dimension is incorporated into the WTO's terms of reference.

3.4. Investing in environmental protection

3.4.1. In view of the patent underinvestment in environmental protection in the developing countries, thought must be given to raising the proportion of environmental investment in total Community development aid (according to the Commission it is currently only 8,5 %). At the same time the Committee would point out that for sustainable development it is equally important to ensure that the other, much more substantial, funds allocated for the European development policy priorities proposed in April 2000 - e.g. combating poverty, trade promotion, structural adjustment programmes, health, education, promoting the private sector and productive sectors - take environmental aspects into consideration.

3.4.2. In the eyes of the industrialised countries, some environmental problems in the developing world are often rooted in relatively banal problems. One of the reasons for increasing desertification is the clearance of trees, e.g. for cooking purposes. Decisive improvements could be made with appropriate modern environmental technology (e.g. solar cookers). At the same time training programmes could be started to enable people in these countries to manufacture such equipment themselves. It would be the wrong approach to see the developing countries only as buyers of such equipment manufactured in the industrialised world. The Committee would welcome an indication from the Commission as to whether building up the manufacture and application of appropriate technology in these countries through bottom-up projects is an approach which should be used much more for solving many local problems.

3.4.3. Such appropriate projects can show very clearly that environmental protection is not a luxury that only rich societies can afford, but a sine qua non for ensuring global environmental and economic stability.

3.4.4. Finally, it is not clear how the Commission arrives at the view that "Privatisation of environmental services, such as waste management, sanitation and wastewater treatment, could also improve economic and environmental efficiency".

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) COM(2000) 264 final.

(2) COM(2000) 212 final of 26.4.2000.

(3) COM(2000) 212 of 26.4.2000.

(4) COM(1999) 543 final, 24.11.1999.

(5) Approx. 30 % of the DDT used in the developing countries comes back to the developed countries through the atmosphere.