Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on "The Lisbon Strategy and Sustainable Development"

(2003/C 95/14)

On 24 October 2002, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rules 19(1) and 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on "The Lisbon Strategy and sustainable development".

The Subcommittee on Sustainable Development, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 February 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark and the co-rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 397th plenary session on 26 and 27 February 2003 (meeting of 27 February), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 98 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1. Sustainable development was conceived as an overarching priority for the European Union. Over recent years, sustainable development has become an ever more urgent policy approach for safeguarding a balanced shaping of economic growth, welfare, social justice and environmental knowledge. This urgency should be clearly reflected in the Union's policy decisions. At present, however, this is not the case. Sustainable development is still a very general concept rather than an integrated working instrument.

1.2. The world around confronts us with more rapid change than anticipated. Climate change, concerns about long-term energy supply and transport facilities, the challenges from social exclusion, unsustainable production and consumption patterns - a number of factors pose challenges for the EU's own sustained future welfare. They require decisions backed up by citizens, and implemented by inspiring political leadership.

1.3. Having been launched at the Göteborg European Summit in June, 2001, sustainable development has so far not been a very visible guiding objective for EU policy considerations. Instead of being vigorously moved forward - as was decided by the Göteborg Summit - sustainable development is too often identified as mainly an environmental issue, and not integrated in a total policy mix of economic, social and environmental issues. Sustainable development was conceived as a new approach to policy-making. There is still much to do in this respect.

1.4. The EESC finds it regrettable that sustainable development is still not fully integrated in the Lisbon Strategy and not recognised as one of the EU's most important and wide-ranging challenges and one which will require difficult choices to be made.

1.5. The EESC therefore calls on the Spring Summit, in March 2003, to firmly re-establish sustainable development as an overarching objective for the European Union. The EESC calls on the Summit to give the necessary impetus for integrating sustainable development fully in the Lisbon strategy. The EESC calls on the Greek and Italian Presidencies of the Union to initiate in operational terms this integration of sustainable development.

1.6. It is time to sharpen the vision of sustainable development as a major objective for the European Union. This includes establishment of a consensus of what sustainable development could be, and what political steps would be taken. Policies for sustainable development will have effects on the everyday life of citizens. It is all the more important therefore that there is a continuous dialogue between European citizens and their political leaders.

1.7. Now is also the time to make clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of the debate on the future of Europe. The vision should be clearly stated in the new Treaty.

1.8. The Lisbon strategy is in trouble, because of inadequate delivery on the bold objectives and actions set out in 2000. The strategy has to be re-invigorated. The EESC proposes that a special effort is made to review the strategy during 2003, with the aim of providing a basis for conclusions to be drawn by the Spring European Summit in March, 2004. The EESC is ready to make its contribution to such a review.

1.9. The EESC would like to give an indication of issues in the Lisbon strategy where sustainable development considerations should be integrated and where economic, social and environmental considerations are coupled instead of decoupled.

1.10. The EESC underlines particularly three such issues: more vigorous support for private and public investments in new and clean technology and equipment, new efforts for improving quality in work, and a new wide consultation on setting prices on the use of natural resources.

1.11. A group of key issues in sustainable development stem from the use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, for energy production and for transport. Although some approaches have been taken in these fields, the EESC proposes that the Spring European Summit should signal the start of a coherent action to lower dependence on fossil fuels.

1.12. Sustainable development is a vision with clear consequences for governance, political leadership and policy coherence, both at national level and at EU level. Dialogue with citizens can not be a one-off effort, but requires continuing endeavours. The recent agreement on public participation in the shaping of environmental policies is a positive development. To establish policy coherence will be a challenge for the EU institutions, and for national governments. Both the Commission and the European Parliament should take further action in order to ensure policy coherence.

1.13. The new member states of the EU will automatically be partners in the Lisbon strategy and the strategy for sustainable development. These issues were not included in the accession talks, because they are not part of the acquis communitaire. It will become essential to be able to offer the new member states appropriate assistance particularly in implementation of the strategy for sustainable development.

1.14. The approach signed up to by the EU at the Johannesburg World Summit in 2002 gives the EU a unique and historic opportunity to set an example and to take the lead globally in forging practical policies to implement sustainable development. In addition to forcefully pushing ahead with its own strategy for sustainable development, the EU should act strongly to ensure other countries and regions follow, including through partnerships.

1.15. In a number of opinions, and by organizing stakeholder consultations, the EESC has taken a very active part in the development of the strategy for sustainable development. The EESC intends to continue this work.

1.16. In the current economic and political situation, it is all the more important that the EU gives a clear message on the importance of pushing ahead in the realm of sustainable development. This vision is not an answer to all problems. Nor does it yet have a perfectly clear policy framework. But it is a guiding vision with a strong appeal, setting out key aspects for our common future quality of life, in economic, social and environmental terms. Sustainable development must not be seen as a limitation to economic growth and employment, but rather as an attractive investment strategy for prosperity, welfare and social justice.

2. A strategy in trouble

2.1. The Lisbon strategy of economic, social and environmental renewal is one of the most ambitious projects initiated by the European Union. However, three years after its launch, the strategy is in trouble. The objective to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion remains highly relevant, but its delivery and implementation is falling seriously behind schedule. The European Commission in its 2003 Report to the Spring European Council has illustrated the deficiencies in the implementation of the Lisbon strategy.

2.2. It is particularly regrettable that with the Lisbon strategy in trouble the concept of sustainable development is also falling behind in planning and delivery. The Spring Report fails to deliver a coherent report on progress with sustainable development and particularly in those areas identified as priority items by the Göteborg European Council. The Spring Report refers to sustainable development issues only in passing. The Commission repeats the common mistake of identifying sustainable development mainly as an environmental issue. The European Economic and Social Committee would have appreciated a more thorough analysis of progress and shortcomings as regards the implementation of sustainable development as an overarching priority.

2.3. The European Summit in Göteborg in June 2001 agreed a strategy for sustainable development, which added a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy giving environmental issues the same political priority as economic and social issues. The real importance of the decision was to establish a new approach to policy-making for the EU stipulating that the economic, social and environmental effects of all policies should be examined in a coordinated way and taken into account in decision-making. This required that all EU actions should be subject to a sustainability impact assessment covering their potential economic, social and environmental consequences.

2.4. The absence of sustainable development as a topic for reflection at the Convention on the Future of Europe further illustrates that the concept of sustainable development has yet to be integrated into mainstream political thinking and decision-making.

2.5. Sustainable development has not played a significant role in any of the 31 chapters which formed the basis for the negotiations with the new member states. It will be essential to support the new member states in adapting to and integrating the EU strategy for sustainable development in order to avoid unsustainable developments. An example is the development in the transport sector, to which the EESC has already pointed several times. The EESC would have expected that the Commission in its Spring Report would open a discussion on how to introduce sustainability criteria into the implementation of EU financial aid in the enlarged Union.

2.6. The EU played a leading role at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, pushing for more ambitious commitments and actions to implement sustainable development. The EU should not lose the opportunity to be a global leader on these issues. It should act strongly to ensure other countries and regions follow, including through partnerships.

3. The policy challenges of the Göteborg vision

3.1. The importance of the decisions of the Göteborg European Council did not lie in their details but in establishing a new overall approach to policy-making: sustainable development was made the impact assessment factor against which all major policy proposals should be measured. Implementing this decision has proved difficult. So far, only a limited number of Commission proposals have been subjected to this impact assessment. The set of criteria used has to be further developed, particularly as regards environment. New indicators to be used could include limits on the use of undeveloped land, for built-up purposes, environmental constraints by urbanisation, proportion of nature protection areas and implementation of protection policies.

3.2. In the run-up to the Göteborg Summit, the Commission set in train a short consultation process on sustainable development, including a hearing co-organised with the EESC, in order to involve the public in the political decision-making process. Two Stakeholder Forums, organised jointly with the EESC, have since been held.

3.3. The September 2002 Stakeholder Forum examined progress and future priorities for the EU sustainable development strategy and clearly indicated three overriding concerns:

- The concept of sustainable development needs to be further developed, particularly in a long-term perspective. Conflicting views on the meaning of sustainable development persist, both inside and outside of the EU.

- Sustainable development has to be defined in concrete terms, making it possible to communicate the concept to citizens and what it implies for the present and for future generations.

- There is a lack of political leadership on the subject and sustainable development is still not yet integrated into a coherent approach to policy making at EU level. Links between economic, social and environmental considerations must be combined building win-win situations into the sustainable development strategy rather than following a compartmentalised approach. The strategy could provide a unique opportunity for the EU to develop a new approach to its economic development based on more sustainable production and consumption patterns and involving new patterns of innovation for technological development. Sustainable development must be turned into an attractive investment strategy for the environment and prosperity based on competitiveness, employment and combating social exclusion.

4. Agreement on a common concept of "sustainable development"

4.1. Sustainable development, as an overarching vision and priority for the EU, suffers from one obvious weakness: there has never been any wide-ranging, comprehensive and systematic consultations on this matter with the governments of the Member States and candidate states or with organised civil society. As a result, the concept is sometimes still difficult to grasp.

4.2. It is clear from the 2003 Spring Report and the outcome of the debates at the Stakeholder Forum that comprehensive agreement has yet to be reached on the meaning of the term "sustainable development", the changes which will have to be introduced and the ways and means of implementing these changes. It is easy enough to reach verbal agreement on the need for sustainable development. Introducing and applying concrete measures in this field, which in some cases may have a severe impact on life in present-day society is, however, a more difficult proposition, particularly when no uniform objective has yet been set. This has been clearly demonstrated by the political discussions in recent months on issues such as fisheries policy and the reform of the CAP.

4.3. It is therefore becoming ever more obvious that there is, as yet, no general understanding on the meaning of "sustainable development". Until such time as the sometimes diametrically opposed views can be brought into line with each other, no more far-reaching measures can be taken with any degree of satisfaction.

4.4. Sustainable development is based on the three-pillar principle. Some people interpret this as meaning that economic, social and environmental aspects are to be addressed on an equal footing. Others maintain that the aim is not to achieve equal treatment but rather to seek a "balanced consideration" of economic, social and environmental aspects. Shifts in emphasis between the different pillars are therefore perfectly conceivable. Both of these approaches entail difficult political decisions.

4.5. There is a lack of awareness in large sections of society with regard to the consequences for the future of the current, unsustainable trends. Other sections of society are aware of these consequences but are more afraid of the short and medium-term consequences of reorganisation than of the long-term consequences of the current unsustainable system (which they will not live to see). The necessary political decisions to reverse all unsustainable trends in industrialised countries have not yet been taken, and the situation is even worse as regards our readiness to take responsibility for the impact of industrial development in other parts of the world.

4.6. There is no disputing the fact that, as a general rule, economic competitiveness has to be maintained and any reorganisation has to be carried out with care. There are, however, at present a number of economic sectors which are sustainable but not competitive (such as renewable energy production) whilst unsustainable sectors form the backbone of the economy because of the general conditions which currently apply. This is where the reorganisation must commence.

4.7. There is therefore a need to redefine the general conditions under which new markets and new jobs are to be developed. Competitiveness has to be given a strong boost with a view to achieving a competitive, socially just and sustainable economy. This objective is bound to call into question a number of current activities and make a broader public debate necessary. The groups concerned need a forum in which to address the conflict in order to be able to advise political decision-makers on difficult decisions which might be necessary for the well-being of mankind and future generations but could go against the short-term interests of individuals, groups or whole regions.

4.8. On this basis the EESC proposes that sustainable development be tackled from three angles:

- the Commission must help bring about a consensus over what is really meant by the term "sustainable development";

- in the short term, up to 2010, the focus should be on formulating concrete actions to follow up the Göteborg European Council decisions, inter alia in the light of: the priorities set for combating climate change; ensuring sustainable transport; addressing threats to public health; managing natural resources more responsibly; integrating the environment into Community policies; and incorporating the concept of sustainable development into the Lisbon strategy;

- in the long term, i.e. over the next 25 to 30 years, the focus should be on deciding which issues have to be tackled if our generation is to give succeeding generations sufficient scope for maintaining and further enhancing a high standard of living. In this context the key issues to focus on should be efforts to decouple economic growth from the consumption of resources and to decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

5. Integrating the Lisbon strategy into the vision of sustainable development

5.1. It has been agreed that sustainable development is an integral part of the Lisbon strategy. With this addition, the strategy should integrate the economic, social and environmental aspects in all policy decisions. The Lisbon strategy is thus an opportunity to operationalise sustainable development in the short- and medium-term perspective. However, this opportunity has so far not been very visibly grasped. The Spring Report 2003 from the European Commission is an improvement compared with the Spring Report of last year, but it still falls short of meeting the expectations inherent, ultimately, in the Göteborg European Council decisions.

5.2. It should, however, be emphasised that in a long-term perspective, sustainable development must be further developed as an overarching priority for all EU policymaking. In policy terms, this means that the Lisbon strategy has to be integrated into the vision of sustainable development, and that actions within the Lisbon strategy as well as other EU programmes and actions should be the subject of sustainability impact assessments, as was decided by the Göteborg European Council.

5.3. Making the Lisbon strategy operational and consistent with sustainable development has sometimes proved difficult. In a number of opinions on the subject, the EESC has called for the Lisbon strategy objectives to be made more concrete so as to demonstrate how the strategy and sustainable development objectives can be merged. In the view of the EESC, it is vitally important to translate sustainable development theories into practical policies for people. Otherwise, sustainable development will remain an undefined long-term vision.

5.4. The EESC would like to point to examples of issues where a coherent and integrated approach is essential. One such issue is the need for promoting and supporting investments in new and clean technology and equipment which would also enhance EU competitiveness in the longer term. Another issue is that of quality of work, where practical action is still missing. A third is the need to launch a wide public consultation on the issues of unsustainable production and consumption patterns.

5.5. The EESC limits itself to these three examples. Together with others they should also be part of a major review of the Lisbon strategy, three years after its launching. The strategy was conceived in a particular economic climate, and subsequent developments have changed the context. The EESC proposes that the Lisbon strategy be reviewed during 2003, in order to make it possible for the Spring European Council in 2004 to take the necessary decisions for the further implementation of the strategy.

6. Coherent policy-making for sustainable development

6.1. The choice of indicators which allow a sustainability assessment of new EU actions and programmes is of fundamental importance to establish policy coherence and create win-win situations. At present, most indicators refer to only one or another of the three dimensions instead of systematically assessing interrelations and progress towards overall sustainable development. The EESC recommends that the indicators chosen for the 2003 Spring Report are refined in view of the Report to the Spring European Summit in 2004.

6.2. Appropriate institutional arrangements are a key factor in reaching coherence in sustainable development. On repeated occasions the EESC has emphasised that it is essential that the EU institutions, and particularly the Commission, take steps in order to establish mechanisms for effective internal coordination and policy coherence on sustainable development. The Commission President must assume an even stronger leadership role on sustainable development, ensuring the alignment of compartmentalised and competing policy objectives.

6.3. The Göteborg European Council gave the General Affairs Council overall responsibility for coordinating the horizontal preparation of the sustainable development strategy. One of the initiatives taken by the General Affairs Council was to ask all other Council formations to report, by the end of 2002, on progress in the field of sustainable development. Even if the reports in many cases were fairly basic, they constitute an important step towards policy coherence. The EESC, in applauding this initiative, suggests that the General Affairs Council should follow-up on this reporting exercise with further specific questions in view of the preparations for the 2004 Spring Council.

6.4. To establish policy coherence with regard to sustainable development will be a challenge for the EU institutions as well as for the national governments. Both the Commission and the Parliament should take further action in order to ensure policy coherence internally.

6.5. Several Member States have presented national sustainable development plans within the UN framework and produced national sustainable development strategies as a follow-up to the Göteborg European Council decision on this matter. The EESC recommends that the European Council calls upon Member States to report annually on their sustainable development strategies as part of the preparation of the Spring European Council.

6.6. Given the decision by the Göteborg European Council to add an environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy, the EESC considers that in addition to the report on Economic Policy Guidelines and on Employment Guidelines, which in themselves should make due reference to the integration of sustainable development, an annual sustainable development policy report would also be prepared for the Spring European Council.

7. The role of the EESC

7.1. The EESC has given very high priority to the problem of ensuring that sustainable development is given the necessary prominence, above all in view of the profound effects that measures in this field will have on the everyday life of European society. A number of the EESC's own-opinions and a range of different kind of stakeholder meetings have illustrated the importance the EESC attaches to discussion of the issues.

7.2. The EESC stands ready to assist in the future development of the EU strategy for sustainable development. It is prepared to take on further tasks in this development, to ensure that there is full integration of sustainable development into the Lisbon strategy.

7.3. The EESC calls on the Commission to produce an annual or bi-annual scoreboard on progress in sustainable development, in connection with the annual or bi-annual Stakeholder Forum that has been envisaged in cooperation between the Commission and the EESC.

Brussels, 27 February 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch