Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Integrating environment and sustainable development into economic and development cooperation policy"
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, developing countries, economic policy, environmental policy, international cooperation, sustainable development

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/87

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 Ferna´ndez.

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.

mittee regrets that, as a representative of civil society organis-
it has hitherto been only partially included in the
ations,
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.

The

Commission’s

communication

1.3.
‘Integrating
environment and sustainable development into economic and
development cooperation policy — Elements of a comprehen-
sive strategy’ (1) should be seen in the context of this integration
strategy.

1.4.
The Committee notes the discussions in the Develop-
ment Councils of 11.11.1999 and 18.5.2000 and the Com-
mission Communication to the Council and the European
Parliament
development
policy’ (2).

European Community’s

‘The

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 (2) that civil society has a fundamental role to play in
tackling the outstanding tasks. In this connection the Com-

(1) COM(2000) 264 final.
(2) COM(2000) 212 final of 26.4.2000.

The Committee views current global developments
2.3.
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 consider-
ably 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

C 14/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

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 dom-
estic demand, sometimes external demand.

3.

Specific comments

Further examples of the problematic environmental
2.5.1.
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 conse-
quences 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 devel-
opment of appropriate environmental technologies.

that

The Committee would point out

2.7.
integrating
environment and sustainable development into the EU’s devel-
opment policy must not mean transferring the European way
of life to the developing countries. In the evaluation of its own
Fifth Environmental Action Programme (1) the Commission
itself states that we are far from ensuring sustainable develop-
ment in Europe.

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

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.

The Commission document concentrates on the
3.1.2.
environment. There are no ideas whatsoever on integrating
sustainable development within the framework of develop-
ment 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.

One topic of crucial

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

3.1.4.
questions:

This means looking for answers to the following

— 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?

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/89

3.1.5.
The Commission itself states that ‘As yet the coher-
ence 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.

3.2.2.
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.

Further discussion of this issue by the Commission,
3.1.6.
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 systemati-
cally evaluated and integrated into the strategy.

The discussion would be clearer and more compre-
3.1.7.
hensible 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 environ-
mental 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.

and

evaluating

development

In future even more attention should be paid to fully involving
the general public and civil society organisations in framing,
implementing
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 popu-
lation. Unfortunately the Commission communication sup-
plies insufficient information on both points.

3.2.3.
In its relations with the ACP states, the Commission
has at its disposal a solid framework for dialogue on develop-
ment 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 Com-
mission officials responsible for development policy of the
importance of environmental protection and sustainable devel-
opment. 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 1 300 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.
lem of trade, but not in the necessary depth.

The Commission communication discusses the prob-

C 14/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

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 prob-
lems 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 environmen-
tal 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.

developing countries long after being banned in the EU
on environmental or health grounds, although they are
in many developing
Furthermore,
manufactured here.
countries persistent toxic chemicals, e.g. DDT (1) 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 environ-
mental protection in the developing countries, thought must
be given to raising the proportion of environmental investment
in total Community development aid (according to the Com-
mission 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.

3.3.4.
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 environmen-
tal standards of the developing countries and thus prevent
sustainable development. As this factor is not to be underesti-
mated, 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.

3.4.2.
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 Com-
mission 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.

3.3.5.
It is unacceptable that many products which are
harmful to the environment and human health are still used in

(1) Approx. 30 % of the DDT used in the developing countries comes

back to the developed countries through the atmosphere.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/91

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

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Strengthening of the law governing
concessions and public/private partnership (PPP) contracts’

(2001/C 14/19)

On 2 March 2000 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of
its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Strengthening of the law governing concessions
and public/private partnership (PPP) contracts’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 September 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Levaux.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000 the Committee adopted the following opinion by
72 votes to 2 with 7 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
At its meeting on 14 December 1999, the Section for
the Single Market, Production and Consumption decided to
apply to the Bureau for authorisation to draw up an own-
initiative opinion on Strengthening the law governing con-
cessions and public-private partnership (PPP) contracts as tools
to revive growth in Europe for the benefit of EU citizens and
to aid market integration. Community public-purchasing law
does not cover all PPP contracts. Directive 93/37/EEC (1)
provides a definition and framework for the award of public
works contracts, but not a general framework for public-
private partnership contracts. The Commission acknowledges
this need in a number of ways:

— The high-level group set up by Mr Kinnock proposed
recommendations which were fully adopted by the
Commission, but have remained a dead letter as far as
European legislation or the legal situation in several
countries is concerned.

— The Commission Interpretative Communication on con-
cessions under Community law (2) published after the
January 1997 Green Paper on public contracts, and the
March 1998 note for guidance, make a number of
points which raise several fundamental questions. The
Commission has recognised the variety of contractual
relationships falling within the ambit of PPP and has
focused its analysis on concessions alone.

The Committee intends to focus its deliberations on

1.2.
two main groups of questions.

1.2.1. E c o n o m i c ,
t i o n s

s o c i a l a n d s t r a t e g i c q u e s -

— Should there be a harmonised framework for such
contracts, bearing in mind the slow development of the
trans-European networks (TENs), which were to have
been created with the aid of these contracts?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) OJ C 121, 29.4.2000.