Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament - Ten years after Rio: Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002
Date: 2001-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: UN Conference, environmental policy, environmental protection, forestry policy, meteorology

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 6.2.2001
COM(2001) 53 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Ten years after Rio:
Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Ten years after Rio:
Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 raised considerable expectations. The international
community agreed an ambitious and comprehensive strategy to address environment and
development challenges through a global partnership for sustainable development.

Although some progress has been achieved, the expectations have not been realised.
Pressures on the environment and on the natural resource base have grown since Rio and
poverty has continued to increase globally. Turning production and consumption patterns onto
a sustainable path remains rhetoric rather than reality.

Tackling global problems needs action from both North and South, which will only come
about through politically challenging changes. Ten years after Rio, the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development will provide an opportunity to revitalise the spirit of Rio and
to shape a renewed political commitment by all countries to achieving sustainable
development. The EU has a responsibility to show leadership throughout preparations for the
2002 Summit and at the conference itself.

With a view to ensure an effective EU contribution to the 2002 Summit, this Communication
aims to set in motion a coordinated EU preparatory process, by:

(1)

(2)

suggesting the EUs strategic objectives and key issues for the Summit;

highlighting synergies with related processes,
- notably the EU sustainable
development strategy, the forthcoming Environment Action Programme, the Cardiff
Integration process and other related sectoral strategies (e.g. energy and transport) - as
a basis for a credible and decisive EU contribution to the Summit;

(3)

indicating preparatory measures to take in the lead-up to the Summit.

On the basis of an assessment of progress since Rio, the present Communication suggests
four strategic objectives that the EU should seek to obtain through the Summit:

– increased global equity and an effective partnership for sustainable development;

– better integration and coherence at the international level;

– adoption of environment and development targets to revitalise and sharpen the political

commitment; and,

– more effective action at national level, and international monitoring.

The Summit should have a focused and forward-looking agenda, therefore Agenda 21 or the
Rio outcomes must not be renegotiated. Four closely linked sets of issues are suggested:

2

– Protecting the natural resource base of economic development: Emphasising eco-
efficiency and the possibility of an eco-efficiency target, as well as a measurable target on
reversing the decline in natural resources by 2015. Those natural resource issues that are
closely linked to economic development should be prioritised: freshwater, energy and land.

– Integrating environment and poverty eradication: The Summit should improve the
understanding of
linkages between poverty and environmental degradation.
Furthermore, it should promote better integration and coherence in the global development
agenda and in the poverty eradication work of international financial institutions by better
integrating the three pillars of sustainable development.

the

– Making globalisation sustainable: There are both opportunities and challenges arising
from economic globalisation. The increase in international trade and in investment flows
needs to become a consistently more positive factor in the pursuit of sustainability. Often
this also requires action outside the trade and investment sphere proper, including inter alia
addressing the regional and national imbalances in the benefits deriving from globalisation,
including the digital divide, as well as building partnerships with business and industry.

– Enhancing good governance and participation both at international and national level:
Internationally, the question is whether the current institutional setting is able to respond to
the new challenges of economic globalisation and sustainable development. At the national
level, the 2002 Summit should emphasise the importance of such principles as democracy,
good governance, access to information and justice, and participation.

The EU should keep flexibility to ensure a balanced agenda that is supported by developing
countries. The EU substantive positions should not be locked, but need to be progressively
developed, taking also into account the objectives to be agreed internally.

Financial and technical assistance for sustainable development will remain a major issue,
since developing countries feel disillusioned because richer countries have not honoured
political commitments. The EU must seek to focus the debate on future action to make greater
progress. The 2002 Summit should recognise the primary role of domestic resources, as well as
the role that trade liberalisation and private financial flows, notably foreign direct investment
(FDI) can play in generating more resources for sustainable development. At the same time, the
Summit should recognise that international flows must be channelled so that progress made is
not counteracted by negative impacts on environmental resources or equity.

It is essential for the EU to consider means of implementation for its policy proposals for
2002, i.e. financial elements, including support for technology transfer and capacity building.
More importantly,
is necessary to have a solid foundation to achieve sustainable
development in the EU which also contributes to global sustainable development.

it

Therefore, the Communication also stresses the link with other processes at EU level, without
prejudging their outcome, and the need to ensure that they are complementary and mutually
reinforcing. The commitment at Rio+5 by all countries to have strategies for sustainable
development in place by 2002 requires the EU to go to the Summit with an effective strategy.

Finally, the EU needs to speed up its preparatory process. A Steering Group is proposed to
champion stakeholder preparations at European level and a major public event on an assessment
of the implementation of the Rio agreements so far. Support for the NGOs advocacy role for
sustainable development should be enhanced. Outreach to developing countries, supporting
civil society participation and regional preparations at pan-European level will also be required.

3

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Ten years after Rio:
Preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002

1.

POLITICAL CHALLENGE OF 2002

At the 1992 United Nations’ Conference on Environment and Development, the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the international community agreed an ambitious
and comprehensive strategy to address environment and development challenges
through a global partnership for sustainable development. The Rio Conference raised
considerable expectations. However, eight years have passed since the Conference
and the fundamental sustainable development challenges still remain. Environmental
policy has developed both nationally and internationally and a series of global targets
have been set for poverty eradication since 1992. But natural resources continue to
decline, pollution, notably of the air and seas, increases and a growing number of
people are born or pushed into poverty, living on less than a dollar a day. The
economic and social gap between the richest and the poorest nations keeps widening.

The ten-year review of Rio in 2002 offers the opportunity to rekindle the spirit of
solidarity and political resolve that characterised Rio. Success this time will depend
on a number of factors:

First and foremost, it will require developed countries to show real commitment to
changing their unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. For the
EU, this involves bringing to fruition some ambitious projects to support sustainable
development. This involves the adoption, at the upcoming Göteborg Summit, of a
Sustainable Development strategy, based among other things, on the integration
strategies prepared in follow up to the Cardiff Summit1. Progress on climate change,
notably a successful outcome of the resumed COP-6, and on the global forest issue,
as well as the ratification and implementation of some recently concluded
international environmental agreements, will influence the atmosphere and chances
of success in 2002.

Secondly, the overall atmosphere will also be conditioned by the way the deadlock
caused by developing countries’ expectations and OECD countries’ lack of delivery
of development aid finance are handled.

The European Union made a significant contribution to the Rio Summit. It has
worked hard to keep Agenda 21 high on the list of political priorities in Europe and
the world. Europe remains the catalyst in global socio-economic co-operation. The
EU should continue to show leadership in 2002.

To meet these challenges, a united, coherent and far-sighted EU position will be
crucial. It is therefore necessary to launch a preparatory process involving all EU
Member States, stakeholders and partners around the world. Early and open

1

The Transport, Energy, Agriculture, Development, Industry, Internal Market, Fisheries, Ecofin and
General Affairs Councils.

4

preparations are called for in order to allow the EU to provide an effective input and
to play a leading role.

With a view to ensure an effective EU contribution to the 2002 Summit, this
Communication aims – on a basis of an assessment of progress since Rio – to set
in motion a coordinated EU preparatory process, by

(1)

(2)

(3)

suggesting the EUs strategic objectives and possible key issues to
be addressed at the Summit;

highlighting synergies with related EU processes, as a basis for a
credible and decisive EU contribution to the Summit;

indicating preparatory measures to take in the lead-up to the
Summit.

This Communication does not attempt to lay out what the substantive EU positions
for the Summit might be, nor prejudge the outcome of ongoing internal EU processes
on them. It identifies some key problem areas for sustainable development where the
world must arrive at a consensus view on solutions by 2002. It also looks at the
connections between various processes in Europe and globally.

The approach reinforces the need for EU to have a strong and ambitious European
Sustainable Development Strategy. The sectoral integration strategies implementing
the mandate given by the Cardiff European Council, the forthcoming Environmental
Action Plan, effective action-plans under the Bio-diversity Strategy, including for
development, an European Climate Change Programme and a EU Chemicals
Strategy will also be essential. So will rapid progress in implementing the new
Development Policy and greater coherence between environment, development,
trade, energy,
fisheries, and research and technological
development policies. Together these will all provide substantial input for the EU
position in 2002.

transport, agriculture,

Similarly, the UN Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the UN
Financing for Development process, and the ongoing OECD work on sustainable
development, will provide wider platforms which will allow the EU to build
consensus for the Summit.

2.

BACKGROUND

2.1.

The Rio Process

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was a major breakthrough in international diplomacy and the
development of international law, and the first of a series of UN Summits during the
1990s. It reaffirmed the concept of Sustainable Development launched by the
Brundtland Commission, i.e. the pursuit of meeting the needs of today without
compromising the possibility of future generations to meet their own needs. This has
the Copenhagen Social Summit so that
since been further refined notably at

5

sustainable development
development, social development and environmental protection.

is now viewed as having three pillars, economic

The Conference adopted the Rio Principles, Agenda 21 and the Forest Principles.
Two major legally binding conventions on Climate Change and on Biological
Diversity were adopted, and negotiations started on a Desertification Convention
and the Barbados Programme of Action for Small Island Developing States, both
concluded in 1994. The Summit set up the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD) to monitor the implementation of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is a very comprehensive document, consisting of 40 chapters, over 100
programme areas and 3000 recommendations. It addresses key sectors such as
agriculture, industry and urban management, a range of environmental priorities such
as biodiversity conservation, protection of oceans and seas, climate change,
hazardous waste, toxic chemicals and water, as well as a series of cross-cutting issues
such as technology transfer, poverty, population and trade. It reflects the views of a
broad group of stakeholders. As such it is a long-term blueprint for sustainable
development in the 21st century.

The CSD has launched several international processes including the negotiations that
resulted in the adoption of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA),
the UN
Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS). On
forests, the Intergovernmental Panel (IPF) was followed by the Intergovernmental
Forum (IFF), which in turn led to the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF).

At the nineteenth Special Session of the UN General Assembly (Rio+5) in 1997,
Governments reviewed progress in implementing the Rio commitments. While
progress had been made, the review was marked by a general dissatisfaction at the
rate of actual implementation. Developing countries were also disappointed by the
developed countries not living up to their commitment to increase the levels of
official development assistance (ODA) and by the lack of sufficient new and
additional resources for meeting the incremental costs of tackling global problems.

Rio+5 in 1997 did however set
to make greater
measurable progress and to have national sustainable development strategies
(nssd’s) in place at the next review, which was decided for 2002. It also introduced a
new focus on key economic sectors: specifically energy, transport and tourism.

two important new targets:

2.2.

State of play of preparations

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Rio+10 at its 55th Session in
December 2000. This resolution decides to hold a Summit level UN Conference in
2002, entitled the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in South Africa.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development will be prepared by the Tenth
Session of CSD, which will begin in April 2001 with a procedural session, and hold
three substantive preparatory meetings (PrepComs) in 2002, the third and final being
at Ministerial level and held in Indonesia.

6

The outcome of the negotiations is in line with the EU position developed for the
Eighth Session on the CSD in April 2000, which addressed Rio+10. However, the
UN GA resolution has not identified the key issues to be addressed2.

Preparations have already started among EU Member States and other key players
for the Summit, as well as among environment and development NGO’s, and
business interests. The UN General Assembly resolution will also formally enable
the UN Secretariat
the World Summit on Sustainable
Development.

to start preparing for

3.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES

3.1.

Developments since Rio

The Rio Conference raised expectations of solving environment and development
problems through a global partnership for sustainable development.

The 1990s witnessed a number of positive trends such as economic growth, wider
availability of health services, better communications and transport, major advances
in life sciences and related technologies, enhanced participation of civil society,
the international
increased awareness
community has addressed a series of global environmental
issues – some
successfully, for example, in reducing threats to stratospheric ozone.

regarding environmental

issues. Also,

Overall, however, the unsustainable trends prevailing at the time of Rio have not
been reversed. On the contrary, pressures on the environment and on the natural
resource base are increasing, in the North as well as in the South.

Many natural resources (such as water, land and soil, forests and fish stocks) are
already being exploited at or beyond their limits. Waste and emissions are posing
serious threats to the health of the world’s people.

World population has reached 6 billion, and although growth is slowing,
is
expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2050. Nearly all of this growth will take place
in developing countries, and may be associated with negative environmental and
social impacts. The efforts required to meet the needs of an additional 3 billion
people in the next 50 years will be immense, even at present consumption levels3.
Current problems will become more acute as more countries move towards higher
consumption levels and adopt resource-intensive economic practices.

it

A few examples illustrate the obstacles that the international community will have to
overcome in order to ensure a more sustainable future for mankind:

2

3

At CSD-8 the EU suggested: poverty and environment, including the social dimension of sustainable
development; reversing the decline of natural resources through increased resource-efficiency;
environment and security (the potential threat of conflict due to environmental pressures); national and
local implementation of sustainable development strategies; strengthening of the international and
national institutional framework for sustainable development; follow-up and further review, including
the future programme of work for the CSD.
GEO 2000, UNEP 1999

7

• Although world energy consumption has experienced significant growth4, two
billion people do not have access to affordable and adequate energy services.
Wood remains the main energy source for a third of the world’s population. While
the link between GDP growth and increased energy use has been broken in OECD
countries, energy use shows strong prospects for rising over the coming decades.
Also the switch to renewable energy sources has been slow.

• Water consumption is rising each year by two to three percent. Freshwater
resources are being consumed faster than nature can replenish them. About one-
third of the world’s population already lives in countries with moderate to high
water stress. 20% of the world’s population lacks access to safe drinking water,
while 50% lacks access to safe sanitation. In addition, pollution of rivers, lakes
and groundwater remains a major cause of concern all over the world5.

• By 1990, poor agricultural practices had contributed to the degradation of 562
million hectares of land, about 38 percent of the roughly 1.5 billion hectares
cropland worldwide. Since 1990,
losses have continued to mount, with an
additional 5 to 6 million hectares lost annually due to severe soil degradation6. In
Africa, production losses from soil erosion alone are estimated at over 8%,
reaching 20% in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

• For biodiversity, 25% of mammal species and 11% of bird species are at a
significant risk of extinction7. This is mainly due to the destruction of habitats.
The introduction of new species into ecosystems is resulting in the spreading of
robust generalist species at the expense of specialist species8.

• Globally, between 1990 and 1995, 56 million hectares of forests were lost, a total
loss of 65 million hectares in developing countries, equivalent to an annual rate of
loss of 0.65%, (mostly biodiversity-rich primary forests) being partially offset by
an increase of nearly 9 million hectares in the developed world9.

• Exposure to hazardous chemicals in the environment continues worldwide, such
as pesticides, lead and mercury, and to new chemicals coming onto the market.
Heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants are of particular concern, because
they persist for many years in the environment, have widespread distribution and
effect the human health through the food chain.10

• Due to a variety of factors, including excessive fishing capacity, approximately
44% of the major fish stocks are fully exploited, 16% are over-fished, and an
additional 6% depleted11. Landings of marine fish are levelling off, and in some
cases production has declined. Aquaculture output is growing rapidly and has had

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

World energy consumption totaled 101,29 x 1012 kWh in 1990, reached 111,37 x 1012 kWh in 1997 and
is expected to reach 146,54 x 1012 kWh by 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions increased from 5,836 x 106
Mt in 1990 to 6,175 x 106 Mt in 1997 (Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA).
GEO 2000, UNEP 1999
GEO I, UNEP 1997
IUCN, 2000
Environment in Europe at the turn of the century, EEA 1999
FAO
GEO 2000, UNEP 1999
The state of world fisheries and aquaculture, FAO 1998].

8

some negative impacts on eco-systems. Marine habitats, such as coral reefs and
mangroves, are also degrading.

The world has not become more equitable either. The disparity in incomes
between the rich and poor, within nations and between wealthy and poorer nations in
general, continues to widen, meaning that global equity has worsened. A relatively
small percentage of the world’s people and nations still use most of the world’s
economic and natural resources.

Worldwide, population growth has meant
the number of people living in
absolute poverty continued to rise globally: 1 person in 5 lives on less than a dollar a
day12. The number of countries in which the child malnutrition exceeds 40% almost
doubled from 7 countries in 1992 to 13 countries in 1998, mostly in South Asia.

that

Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) are of particular concern: Per capita GNP
has declined since 1992, mostly as a result of decreasing export earnings, slow
growth and expanding populations. Compared to other low-income countries, HIPCs
have made less progress in reducing illiteracy, in lowering infant mortality, and in
slowing fertility. The G7 debt relief initiative has provided hope for the better, but
actual delivery is slow.

There have, on the other hand, been some encouraging developments in the social
field. In particular, primary education enrolment is growing in most regions. The
gap between girls’ and boys’ enrolment is also narrowing and adult literacy climbed
in the 1990s.

Health indicators have also improved with economic development and wider access
to health care services. However, substantial regional differences persist, and some
trends are worrying:

– 20% of children still die before they reach the age of 5 in developing countries
compared to less than 1% in developed countries13. On present trends, the world is
not on course to reach the OECD-DAC target of reducing infant and child
mortality rates by two-thirds by 2015, partly because 20% of the world’s
population lacks access to safe water and at least twice as many lack proper
sanitation facilities14.

– As a result of AIDS, life expectancy in developing countries did not improve in
the 1990s, averaging 65 years both in 1993 and 1997. Worse, AIDS has decreased
life expectancy in 33 countries (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa) since 199015.

12

13

14

15

A better world for all, UN-WB-IMF-OECD, 2000
A better world for all, UN-WB-IMF-OECD, 2000
GEO 2000, UNEP 1999
WHO, 2000

9

3.2.

Key problems in implementing the Rio agenda

Failure to change unsustainable patterns of consumption and production

There is a sharp contrast between consumption levels and the “ecological footprints”
in industrialised and developing countries16. For example, an American consumes up
to 50 times more resources in a lifetime than the average person in most developing
countries. Continued economic growth in industrialised countries, coupled with
population growth and the natural desire of developing countries to catch up in terms
of material welfare, is placing increased pressure on the environment and the natural
resource base.

Unsustainable consumption and production patterns are detrimental
to the
environment, economically inefficient and wasteful. Reversing current trends is
therefore both an environmental and an economic imperative. It is also necessary to
underpin development processes in developing countries and to ensure the
availability of resources to meet the basic needs of the poor. The lack of progress in
coming to terms with unsustainable production and consumption patterns can largely
be attributed to a failure to internalise environmental externalities into economic
activities.

It
is also necessary to provide consumers with relevant, accurate and readily
understandable information that enables them to make informed choices concerning
products and services that are environmentally preferable to competing products. It is
equally important
to work in partnership with business to improve industry’s
environmental performance.

Shortage of financial resources

Agenda 21 addressed the crucial question of financing sustainable development,
concentrating on the needs of developing countries and economies in transition. The
need for new and additional resources for tackling global environmental problems
was fully recognised in 1992. However, this has not been followed by an increase in
financial assistance to developing countries. On the contrary, official development
aid, including debt relief, (ODA), which represented 0.33% of donors’ GNP in
1992, declined to 0.22% by 199817, although it has slightly increased since then. The
ODA target of 0.7% of GNP reconfirmed in Rio is far from being met.

ODA constitutes on average only 1.7% of public investment in developing countries.
It would be counterproductive to focus on ODA as the sole source of financing for
sustainable development, since the main source or resources will almost always be
domestic. However, it is of strategic importance in covering “one-off” costs for the
transition towards sustainable development
re-alignment of
legislation etc.). More emphasis should be put on the role of public support, both
financial and non-financial,
in providing public goods which in general is not
provided by private finance. This includes, for example, specifically well defined and
enforceable access to and tenure of resources and a stable economic framework. For

(capacity building,

16

17

Living Planet Report 2000, WWF 2000
EU donors contributing on average 0.34% of GNP compared to 0.18 % of GNP from non-EU donors

10

the poorest countries, ODA is of much higher importance in the state budget, and in
the
these cases its decrease has meant fewer resources for action to protect
environment.

Whilst the quantity of aid has gone down, there has been qualitative progress in
mainstreaming the environmental dimension into both policy dialogue and concrete
programmes on the ground,
in part assisted by a more systematic use of
environmental appraisal in multilateral and bilateral aid programmes. Applied at the
level of plans, programmes and policies it could arguably have the most important
impact on sustainable development.

In addition, the increase in trade and private capital flows, including foreign direct
investment, to developing countries since 1992 has off-set the decline in ODA levels
by a huge margin and brought about technology transfer. More can be done to further
the benefits of this trend. Trade could make a decisive contribution to financing of
sustainable development, if products are sustainably produced and transport costs
internalised. Foreign direct investment could make an important contribution to
sustainable development,
supportive domestic policies on
transparency and predictability are in place. However, these private flows do not
remove the need for ODA, since they tend to benefit some countries, and certain
activities within those countries. Public goods such as institution building, research
on development problems and environmental protection do not often benefit from
private investment.

in particular

if

Insufficient response from international institutions

The international response to the challenges identified has been insufficient. The
1992 Rio Conference assigned tasks to a number of UN bodies and led to the
creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as the body to
mobilise the UN system towards sustainable development, and to integrate
economic, social and environmental aspects in UN activities. The CSD process has
brought together the major groups at the global arena, and set in motion a number of
processes (for instance, on forests and on oceans), but its decisions do not seem to
have had the desired effect on the ground in delivering sustainable development. One
reason for this could be that the relationship between the sustainable development
agenda of the Rio process, and other development processes of the UN is unclear.
Better coherence between the development objectives is needed, as pointed out by
the Millennium Declaration of the UN General Assembly.

While comprehensive, Agenda 21 lacks priorities, and while it contains a huge
number of target dates and actions, there is no overarching, politically uniting
target. There is also a lack of guidance on how the sometimes very broad goals of
Agenda 21 should be translated into operational terms.

Weaknesses in domestic governance and capacity

the national

At
there is increased attention to sustainable development
objectives, but progress is patchy. Several countries have embarked on government
strategies for sustainable development, based on the commitment in Rio. So far 70

level,

11

countries are reported to have strategies in place18. However, their real effectiveness
their
is still not known. National Councils for sustainable development or
equivalents, which provide for stakeholder participation at the national level, have
also been set up in several countries, but civil society still lacks access to information
the world’s countries. The
and participation in decision-making in most of
the establishment of new policy
strengthening of
mechanisms have not always resulted in the successful
integration of policy
measures. Access to scientific knowledge and the adaptation and take-up of more
sustainable and cleaner technologies has been slow.

institutional capacity or

4.

GIVING THE EU A GLOBAL EDGE

At the Summit, the EU must be able to point to progress internally as well as in
relation to third countries. A number of on-going processes should provide a basis
for achieving this objective.

The EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the sectoral strategies implementing
it, the forthcoming Environmental Action Programme, and the Cardiff integration
strategies should be complementary and mutually reinforcing. The EU positions
for the Summit will be influenced or even determined by these other policy
documents. The Sustainable Development Strategy will provide the EU response to
the Rio+5 commitment on national sustainable development strategies. Once
the
adopted,
environmental pillar in this process.

the new Environmental Action Programme

should provide

Other recent EU initiatives are linked to the economic and social pillars of
sustainable development – e.g. Luxembourg on employment, Lisbon on the
strengthening of employment, economic reform and social cohesion, as part of a
knowledge based economy, or even more recently the development of a Social
Policy Agenda for the EU. There are also some policy developments in the fields of
transport and energy which are important19 in so far as they address in an integrated
manner the economic, social and environment pillars of sustainable development.

By pursuing all these inter-linked processes in a mutually supportive manner, the
EU’s credibility on the international scene would be greatly enhanced.
Coherence and complementarity with EU Member States’ strategies also need to be
ensured.

At the same time the Summit will help to mobilise public support within the EU and
to bring a sense of urgency to the policy debate on sustainable development, as well
as lend support to an effective move towards integration in the EU policies.

Not all issues addressed in a European strategy will be relevant for a global context,
and not all issues that will be addressed at the 2002 Summit should be included in an
EU strategy. Nevertheless, the Göteborg sustainable development strategy and the
other processes mentioned should also contribute to providing a sound basis for the
EU’s substantive positions for the Summit. For example:

18

19

Earth Council, 2000
The Security of Energy Supply Green Paper, 29 November 2000, the Oil Supply Communication
(COM(2000)631) and the forthcoming review of the Common Transport Policy.

12

• The EU has a positive contribution to make in terms of integration of
in the Cardiff

environmental objectives into other policies. Lessons learnt
process could be transferred to the international level.

• If it is to be credible, the EU’s positions at the Summit on issues such as resource
use efficiency must take as a basis the actions and objectives agreed internally.
The international aspects of the new Environmental Action Programme,
the
Climate change strategy, and the Bio-diversity Action Plans should be the basis
for the EU objectives on substantive environmental issues. Similarly, internally
agreed policies and measures should provide a basis for the EU position on
specific sectors (e.g. transport and energy).

Progress in some ongoing international processes, notably a successful outcome of
the resumed COP-6 of the Climate Convention in May 2001, will be essential. The
EU’s ratification and implementation of all relevant international agreements
according to targets set will be important contribution to a credible EU position for
2002. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol remains perhaps the most important, but
also that of the Rotterdam Convention, the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety and a
future POPs Convention. Also relevant are the Aarhus Convention and other UN-
ECE based agreements, as well as international agreements on fisheries.

The enlargement of the European Union may in fact be the biggest single
contribution to global sustainable development that the EU can make. The extension
of EU policies and legislation to central and Eastern Europe will in effect be a
leapfrog development upgrading environmental protection, social development and
economic growth. The awareness of the challenges involved in this will probably
only rise as we approach 2002. This region is coincidentally the only one to have
received increased aid budgets through the 1990s.

In relation to developing countries,
the EU development cooperation is an
important expression of European commitment to global sustainable development. In
total, the European Community and the Member States provide some 55 percent of
total international Official Development Assistance and more than two thirds of grant
aid. The Council recently adopted a new European Community development policy
outlining measures to refocus the EC development cooperation on poverty reduction.
The Communication is complemented by the environment
integration strategy
prepared in the Cardiff exercise, and Communications on Poverty, Communicable
diseases, transport, fisheries etc..

5.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE EU FOR THE SUMMIT

As shown above, the Rio process has lost momentum due to a multiplicity of factors
Overall, a renewed political commitment to the revitalisation of Rio and to the
implementation of Agenda 21 should be the main result of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development. To achieve this, the Summit must make progress on
certain strategic points. These include:

Equity and partnership

The Summit should result
in a renewed atmosphere of partnership between
developed and developing countries. One way is to reassure developing countries

13

that the developed countries’ global environmental concerns do not take precedence
in sustainable development
over the development goals. The original idea that
economic development, social development and environmental protection are
interdependent and mutually reinforcing should therefore guide the Summit.

Furthermore, there needs to be a clear sense of equity in the preparations for and the
outcome of the Summit, making reality of the notion of common but differentiated
responsibilities, as reflected in Principle 7 of the Rio Principles on Environment and
Inter-generational equity, i.e. the need to ensure a sustainable future
Development.
for the generations to come, which is embedded in the concept of sustainable
development, should also be a prominent guiding principle.

Integration and coherence at the international level

In the same way as the EU is working towards implementing the Amsterdam Treaty
integration principle in all its policies, the Summit should help to push forward the
integration of environmental, social and economic objectives at the international
level, within and outside the UN system.

Also, a greater degree of coherence in international co-operation should be achieved
between the follow-ups of the main UN Summits: Rio, Cairo, Beijing, and
Copenhagen, in line with the UN Millennium Summit Declaration implementation.

Environment and development targets

Rio has suffered from being too imprecise. To revitalise and sharpen the political
commitment, targets could be adopted.

Since Rio, a series of so-called international development targets have been adopted
by donors and generally agreed in the main UN Summits or their follow-ups. They
have now been endorsed by the Millennium Summit of the UN and should be
mainstreamed in all UN processes, including Rio. However, the only target adopted
in the Rio process is having national sustainable development strategies in place by
2002. Unlike the other agreed UN targets this is a process target. Other more
specific sustainable development targets could be adopted (see below 6.1).

Effective action at national level and international monitoring – national strategies
for sustainable development

should encourage the implementation of

the Rio target on
The Summit
sustainable development strategies. Work by the OECD/DAC, carried out
in
cooperation with a number of developing countries, focuses on principles and
approaches, which should be applied to the planning process so as to enhance a
country’s implementation of sustainable development. The Summit should adopt this
broader but more effective definition of the target, and should put
in place
mechanisms to assist countries to implementing the strategies and to monitor
progress. A continuous peer review mechanism, complementing the annual
reporting to CSD, would be a very valuable outcome of the Summit.

Furthermore, the Summit should set the agenda and modalities for the follow-up and
monitoring of continued implementation of Agenda 21, through a mechanism for
future review. The local level follow-up is also important and should be supported, in
the form of Local Agenda 21 or Habitat processes.

14

6.

KEY ISSUES FOR THE SUMMIT AGENDA

The Summit agenda needs to be balanced integrating Northern and Southern
concerns and environment and development issues. It should also be attractive for
Heads of State or Government i.e. should have a high political content, and be
ground breaking, as Rio was.

Based on a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of Agenda 21, which
should be dealt with during CSD-10 in early 2002, and with a view to achieving the
strategic objectives as outlined above, the focus of the Conference should be
forward looking.

It would be premature at this stage to develop an elaborate view on the substantive
issues to be addressed at the Summit. The agenda would have to be based on a
consensus view on the comprehensive assessment. Furthermore, it is not in the EU’s
interest to lock its position on the substance too early. It would be opportune, on
the contrary, to keep flexibility to allow for a good North – South balance.

Moreover, the more detailed substantial content of the EU position on the various
issues identified as possible items for the Summit, needs to be developed, taking into
account other processes, most notably the Göteborg Sustainable Development
Strategy, the Cardiff strategies, the new Environmental Action Programme, and the
Development Co-operation policy and EC country support strategies.

However, it is clear already that the Summit should not renegotiate Agenda 21 or
other elements of the Rio outcome. It should address some major themes that have
proven particularly difficult
to solve, seek to make progress on some of the
unfinished business of Rio, such as technology transfer and capacity building and
consider new trends since Rio.

The overarching themes of poverty eradication and sustainable production and
consumption, which were agreed in 1997, are still relevant. But, while the focus on
poverty and development
to sustainable development, equal
attention must be given to environmental protection and sustainable management
of natural resources. Otherwise the Rio process has no justification, but would
merely be duplicating other development processes of the UN.

is fundamental

In order to design a balanced and forward-looking agenda, four closely linked
sets of issues should be addressed in an integrated manner:

– Protecting the natural resource base of economic development

– Integrating environment and poverty eradication

– Making globalisation sustainable

– Enhancing good governance and participation

15

1. Protecting the natural resource base of economic development

The World Summit on Sustainable Development should concentrate on those
natural resource issues that are of particular importance to economic
development. The links between natural resource depletion and security could also
be addressed. The Summit could thereby help place environmental protection at the
heart of preventive security policy making.

The Summit should focus on issues that are not effectively dealt with by other
intergovernmental processes. Natural resources issues such as oceans and seas,
forests, as well as convention areas such as climate change and bio-diversity may
be important to address, depending on the progress made in these areas before 2002,
but should in principle not be a priority for the Summit agenda.

Coming to terms with unsustainable production and consumption will on the other
hand remain an overarching priority, as was identified at Rio+5 in 1997. De-
coupling of economic growth and environmental pressures must be a key element in
the Summit debate. While recognising that countries have common but differentiated
responsibilities, this issue is also relevant for many developing countries. The main
message is that we need to change growth not limit growth. A target on eco-
efficiency could be a principal goal for the Summit to respond to the need to change
production and consumption patterns, notably in developed countries. This target
could be a quantitative target, or simply a process target (e.g. development of policy
measures and instruments to promote sustainable production and consumption).

The CSD has identified some of the key natural resource issues where global co-
operation has proven especially difficult. These issues are of global significance
although, as explained in section 3, they are probably more important for developing
countries than industrialised countries.

• Energy: The energy issue concerns both the access to and environmental impact
of energy. It includes areas such as air pollution and sustainable use of natural
resources. The EU has taken a lead in pushing for “Shared Goals for Action” to
achieve access to safe and sustainable energy for all, for which it needs to build
support. Also, the possibility of adopting a quantified target of the share of
renewable energy sources, and/or the market penetration of alternative fuels for
vehicles, could be addressed.

• Freshwater: Access to safe freshwater is a major and increasing resource
constraint for economic development. Several global and regional conferences on
freshwater issues are being held. These will provide a basis, but the Summit could
adopt an action plan which needs to include work on sewage management.

• Land and soil degradation will be an important issue, and one which developing
countries, particularly African countries, will push strongly. It is a horizontal issue
which addresses several economic sectors, including agriculture.

A global
target on ensuring that current trends in loss of environmental
resources are effectively reversed both at global and national levels by 2015,
which at present is an OECD-DAC target, as well as sectoral targets (e.g. forests,
water, soil) could be agreed, possibly based on indicators.

16

2. Integrating environment and poverty eradication

Although the 2002 Conference should not duplicate other ongoing UN processes
(e.g. Copenhagen, Finance for Development, LDC Conference in 2001 or the follow-
up of the UN Millennium Summit), poverty eradication issues will have to be a
major focus of the Summit.

Rio showed that there are strong links between poverty and environmental
degradation. Many environmental problems are caused by lack of social equity and
economic development and many environmental problems hinder poverty reduction
and economic development. The poor, for example, are very often the worst hit by
environmental degradation and suffer most from lack of access to basic services like
clean water supply and sanitation. There are many examples of win-win approaches
which improve both the social situation and environmental quality, often involving
ensuring poor people’s control over the natural assets from which they live.

Understanding of these positive linkages between environmental protection and
poverty eradication is crucial. One of the fundamental results of Rio was a consensus
on the need to move away from the belief that environmental problems could only be
addressed once we have achieved economic growth. The Summit should reaffirm
this consensus and stress the positive linkages.

In accordance with this, and in line with the Millennium Summit Declaration, the
2002 Summit must move us towards more integrated and coherent follow-up of
the development targets of the UN summits of the 1990s. The 2002 Summit
should promote the integration of the environment dimension into efforts to
implement
these targets in areas such as health, education and gender, by all
governments, relevant international organisations and financial institutions. It also
needs to effectively integrate the major concerns of those other processes.

3. Making globalisation sustainable

By influencing economic, social and environmental patterns all around the world,
globalisation affects sustainable development. The 2002 Summit should identify and
address the issues emerging therefrom.

International trade in goods and services and international flows of capital,
people and know-how, are parts of the process of globalisation and economic
growth. It is generally accepted that this process enhances economic development,
but
its overall effects on sustainable development will depend on whether
globalisation and economic growth result in more eco-efficient resource allocation or
in additional pressure on scarce environmental resources. The sustainability impact
of investment and trade liberalisation therefore needs to be addressed20.

The WTO is the expression of an open and non-discriminatory trading system, and
sustainable development is enshrined in the first preambular clause of the Marrakech
Agreement establishing the WTO. Although achieving sustainable trade also depends
on national actions outside the scope of WTO Agreements, it is essential to launch a
New Round of multilateral trade negotiations, with sustainable development as a

20

In this context, a civil society dialogue has been launched by the Commission with a view to taking
better account of sustainability concerns in trade policy matters.

17

central objective. A New Round would be beneficial to all, in particular by allowing
for better market opportunities and better multilateral rules.

including LDCs,

• Trade can and should make a decisive contribution to sustainable development by
further promoting the participation and equitable integration of developing
countries,
in the global economy. While recognising the
importance of strengthening local markets, LDCs and many low-income countries
should use the opportunities the multilateral system offers, including in the rapidly
growing global services market (e.g. tourism). They should be able to benefit
from better market access and from an improved framework for multilateral rules
to be brought about by a new WTO Round. The initiative to give free access to
European markets for LDCs’ exports should be pursued as a useful step to provide
increased income opportunities to the poorest countries. Other industrialised
countries should follow suit.

Better market access alone, however, is not a panacea for LDCs problems: The
reforms necessary in these countries need help to build capacity for
the
implementation of existing agreements as well as improved trade-related technical
assistance. This
intensified and improved supply side support
programmes (e.g. in the area of investment promotion, skill training, technology
transfer, strengthening of
transport and exporting facilities, developing of
marketing channels etc).

includes

• As regards the relationship between WTO and environment policy, the key
issues are: (i), a clarification of WTO rules, in particular concerning labelling and
process and production methods, trade measures in Multilateral Environmental
Agreements and precaution, and (ii) promotion of trade in environmentally
friendly products and services. In this regard, concrete ways should be explored to
facilitate exports of environmentally friendly products originating in developing
countries. At the same time, strong national and international policies aimed at
tackling existing and emerging environmental problems are increasingly
necessary to make sure that
in a mutually
supportive way.

trade and environment

interact

• Concerning the social dimension of sustainable development, trade can help to
enhance social development, by improving living and working conditions, and to
combat
social exclusion, particularly in developing countries. The WTO
contribution should concentrate on analytical work and dialogue with the ILO.

Business interests have a crucial role to play in ensuring the contribution of
globalisation to sustainable development. They have become increasingly involved
since Rio, but should now take on firm commitments. While Rio brought in NGOs,
the Summit should bring in industry, particularly multinational enterprises,
to
become committed. A new culture of environmental accountability is necessary, as
elaborated in the Malmö Declaration of the first Global Ministerial Environment
Forum (29 – 31 May 2000). Consumer awareness of public commitments, progress
made and the issues at stake can be a powerful way of turning commitments into
reality. The established multi-stakeholder Rio +10 Coalition, launched in June 2000,
also has a useful role to play.

Progress has been made in recent years, and the concept of corporate responsibility is
increasingly being invoked. The recently adopted OECD guidelines for Multinational

18

Enterprises (MNEs) provide a valuable instrument
to foster accountability and
for Sustainable
responsibility. Organisations like the World Business Council
Development (WBCSD) have also taken a pro-active stance and achieved some
progress,
in terms of improved
resource efficiency and reduced emissions and waste. However, even if these
developments are encouraging, much remains to be done to apply best practices more
widely and systematically by private actors.

in particular in large international enterprises,

The emergence of a new “Information Society” is another striking development
linked to globalisation. It raises issues related to the “digital divide” within countries,
between developed and developing countries and between generations. The potential
of the information society to strengthen economic development with less pressure on
the environment, while ensuring access and capacity for developing countries and the
poor, should be explored.

In order to promote sustainable globalisation, enhanced co-operation between all
relevant international institutions should be further encouraged to make the best use
of their respective expertise and to develop synergies. It is also necessary to ensure
that international financial institutions become more responsive to sustainability
concerns.

4. Enhancing good governance and participation

is therefore necessary to consider what

There is growing momentum for the Summit to address global governance on
sustainable development. The current institutional setting was designed a long time
ago and it might not be able to respond to the new challenges of a globalising world.
It
the prospects are for strengthened
governance on sustainable development. The CSD’s role and the adequacy of
current UN structures to deal with sustainable development should therefore be
addressed, taking into account the overall development structures of the UN. Lack of
regional structures in most parts of the world is another item worth exploring.

Good governance is a pre-condition for sustainable development. At the national
level, creating or enhancing a legal framework of transparent, democratic and
accountable institutions, including measures to promote and protect human rights, to
support an active and organised civil society and to combat corruption, are essential
prerequisites of sustainable development. The Millennium Summit of the UN
endorsed good governance at the national level. This could be elaborated further,
however, and would benefit from having global Summit-level approval.

Local communities must have a primary role in designing, planning and
implementing strategies for sustainability. This requires greater investment in people,
mainly in local populations.

Civil society (environment and development NGOs, business and industry, social
partners, etc.) has emerged as a major actor not only nationally but also
internationally. The social partners, for example, have a major role, which will have
to be further strengthened at
to ensure cohesion and sustainable
level
development. However, in many countries, constraints still exist, as well as in many
international institutions and processes. The principles of the Aarhus Convention on
access to information and justice, and participation should be pursued at global level.
The possibility of supporting similar structures as the Regional Environment

local

19

Centres might be considered. Young people also need to be allowed to be more
involved.

The role of media is also becoming increasingly important in a globalising world.
Awareness raising and development of shared values are necessary to promote
sustainable development at all levels. This presupposes independent and objective
media. The Summit should not only become a media opportunity in itself, but also
provide a platform for a longer-term perspective in media coverage.

7.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

together with technology
Levels of official development assistance (ODA),
transfer and capacity building, will continue to be the prime concern of developing
country partners. For the South real progress towards the promised 0.7% GNP aid
target remains a key measure of the North’s political commitment and is of strategic
importance even though private financial flows are now economically much more
important. In order to make a success of the 2002 Summit progress will have to be
made internationally in meeting the aspirations of the South.

Effective strategies must be found to deal with this fundamental impasse. These
should relate to the level, quality and contents of development assistance. For the
first, there are positive signs in terms of political declarations from major donors, but
so far only little evidence of real delivery. In addition, the EU should be ready to
back up specific proposals on key issues, such as energy, freshwater or land
degradation, by financial elements.

There are signs of increasing recognition of the complexity of aid finance. The UN
process on Financing for development may provide a break of some of the
stalemate surrounding this issue and come up with some innovative finance
mechanism. The Third UN Conference on Least Developed Countries will have an
important role to play in this context. Sustainable development needs to be included
in these processes.

Furthermore, the replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) should
be finalised in April 2002, and will influence the Summit. The EU’s role in finance
discussions both in the GEF and wider development aid needs reconsidering. While
the EU presents a united front on the environmental agenda, it does not use its
financial muscle collectively.

As regards private financial flows to developing countries,
there has been a
dramatic increase in the 1990s, although with imbalances between regions and over
time. Private financial flows now represent more than 5 times official aid flows. This
means that developing countries have a real interest in developing a partnership with
global business.

Scientific and technological cooperation with developing countries is also a critical
element for achieving the Rio objectives on technology transfer and capacity
building. An objective and validated knowledge base is required, developed in
cooperation with partners. Through research on policy, management of ecosystems
and the human dimensions of development, as well as specific technological tools,
the EU can build strategic alliances and efficiently promote sustainable development.

20

Research should be problem-driven, inter-disciplinary and cross-sectoral. It should
recognise the socio-cultural, economic and ecological specificity of the knowledge
required as well as the need to invest in human and institutional capital in partner
countries.

Research must seek a more balanced compromise between agricultural priorities and
the conservation of ecosystem biodiversity.
that national and
international agricultural research efforts (such as those of the CGIAR centres), adapt
and exploit the new knowledge and technologies, in conjunction with traditional
knowledge and methods, to develop more sustainable products and practices to
respond to economic, social and environmental needs.

is essential

It

8.

THE EU PREPARATORY PROCESS

To achieve international leadership the EU preparations need to be timely, have
focus, involve developing country partners as much as possible and be coherent with
EU positions. There is therefore a need to ensure an effective framework for
preparations. This should include the EU institutions, Member States, civil society
(NGO’s, business interests, social partners etc) and partners.

8.1.

Ensuring efficient EU co-ordination and inter-institutional dialogue

The EU will have to show in 2002 “greater measurable progress” in accordance with
the target set in the Rio+5 review in 1997. The regular reporting for the Summit
should be used as a basis for a debate at EU level, involving the European
parliament and Member states, on the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio
Agreements, including the Conventions. Its aim would be to contribute to a higher
degree of consensus on the state of implementation of Agenda 21.

The Commission will prepare such a report for CSD-10, to which, i.a, the European
Environment Agency should contribute. It would provide an overview of the EU’s
response to the Rio commitments, including how Agenda 21 and subsequent CSD
outcomes have had an impact on development and economic cooperation activities

Division of labour between EU countries will be needed to ensure that the EU
maximises its impact. This should be supported by information exchange in order
to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure coherence. Similarly, EU co-ordination
at the United Nations (notably in New York and Nairobi) should be strengthened.

In order to ensure better coherence between the international development processes,
better links with the other UN processes should be sought, including through more
enhanced participation of other ministries in the Council preparations for the
Summit. Links between Council groups should be strengthened.

the international

Parliamentary co-operation at
is increasing and bringing
intergovernmental processes. The European
additional dimensions
Parliament should be actively contributing to the preparations and be represented at
the Summit as part of the Community Delegation. The Committee of the Regions
and the Economic and Social Committee should also be involved.

to the

level

21

8.2.

Promoting dialogue with civil society

One of the main contributions of the Rio process has been the increased and more
structured participation of civil society. Civil society, industry and local communities
have already started preparations, which should be brought into the governmental
process and should take on commitments in the outcome of
the Summit.
Representatives of such groups should be part of EU delegations to the Summit as
advisers. An EU level Steering Group will be established to champion NGO and
in and contribution to the
other civil society organisations’ active involvement
preparations at the regional level.

The Commission will ensure a high degree of transparency in the preparations for
the Summit, including by way of its Europa web-site and an interactive dialogue with
civil society. The participation of civil society at Member State level should also
be ensured, involving the full range of interests and actors able to contribute to
sustainable development. The National Councils on Sustainable Development and
their equivalents have had an initial discussion on preparations for the ten-year
review of Rio, at European and global level, but could be brought further into the
preparations of the Summit.

A major civil society event could be envisaged at the end of 2001, possibly in
collaboration with the European Parliament and Member States. It should
contribute to the above-mentioned assessment of the EU’s implementation of
Agenda 21 and discuss its platform for the Summit.

8.3.

Strengthening dialogue with partners

The Union cannot work in isolation and must draw on all available mechanisms and
processes to ensure a global commitment to the Summit. First of all, the EU should
initiate a dialogue with the candidate countries on preparations for the Summit.
Using the informal ministerial meetings would be one opportunity.

Secondly,
the EU should ensure a pan-European preparation for the Summit
through the UN-ECE. The Regional Environment Centres might be called upon to
support civil society participation in Central and Eastern European countries.

The revitalisation of the Barcelona Process and the Euro-Mediterranean Dialogue is
an opportunity to involve our Southern neighbours and make best use of the
Mediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development. Likewise, the Baltic 21
provides a good platform for cooperation around the Baltic Sea.

The OECD Sustainable Development Project and the OECD Environmental Outlook
and Strategy which will be adopted by the OECD Council at Ministerial level in May
2001, could also play a role in building consensus among developed countries.

Links also need to be made, at an early stage, between regional processes (such as
the UN Regional Commissions), and between these and the global preparatory
process and in civil society preparations.

Furthermore, dialogue with developing countries is necessary to ensure a positive
outcome in 2002. There must be a real sense of ownership of the process and
preparations of the substantive issues by the global community. Support
for
developing countries’ preparations is important, including civil society. Support

22

should also be given to developing countries’ regional processes. Twinning
tools to
arrangements between governments or region-to-region can be useful
achieve stronger participation of developing countries.

One entry point for dialogue is the regular activities of development cooperation
which create opportunities to forward the Rio agenda. The EC, for example, has
ample opportunity to do so in the six focal areas of its development cooperation (i.e.
trade and development; regional integration and cooperation; support to macro-
economic policies and social sectors; transport, food security and sustainable rural
development; as well as institutional capacity-building and good governance).

9.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was a milestone in global partnership and raised high
expectations for sustainable development. However, by and large, the fundamental
challenges identified at Rio still remain. The 2002 Summit not only provides the
occasion of renewing the commitments made 10 years earlier, but also, and more
importantly, an opportunity to capture public attention and to focus political will for
stronger commitments in order to push forward the sustainable development agenda.

The European Union made a significant contribution to the Rio Summit. It has
worked hard to keep Agenda 21 high on the list of political priorities in Europe and
in the world. The EU should continue to show leadership in 2002. To this end:

• There is a need to achieve a strong degree of coherence and complementarity
between the preparations for the 2002 Summit and the European Sustainable
development strategy, the new Environmental Action Programme, the European
Employment Strategy, the new Development Policy and EC Country strategies.

• The EU should support a focused agenda, concentrating on key sustainable
development issues where progress can be measured and where commitments are
realistic, and a balanced agenda that integrates Northern and Southern concerns
and environment and development issues.

• The EU must be credible, i.e. have a solid foundation to achieve sustainable
development within the EU and make a positive contribution to sustainable
development worldwide.

• Ensuring the adequacy of means of implementation is important. Policy initiatives
must be backed up with financial elements, including support for technology
transfer and capacity and institution building

• Progress on some international issues before 2002 is important to create a political
atmosphere conducive to an effective outcome. This includes processes like the
including climate change, development
major environmental Conventions,
processes such as Financing for Development, debt relief and developments
regarding trade and investment.

• Preparations need to be launched as soon as possible, involving civil society and
reaching out to partners in the rest of the world. Support for preparatory processes
in Eastern Europe and developing countries should also be given.

23