Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Preparation of a European Union strategy for Sustainable Development"
Date: 2001-05-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: economic development, environmental policy, public awareness campaign, social development, sustainable development

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/169

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Preparation of a European Union strategy
for Sustainable Development’

(2001/C 221/27)

On 24 and 25 January 2001 the Economic and Social Committee decided, in accordance with Rules 11(4),
19(1) and 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘The preparation of a European
Union strategy for sustainable development’.

The Subcommittee ‘Sustainable Development’, which was responsible for the preparatory work, adopted
its draft opinion on 17 May 2001. The rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark, the co-rapporteur Mr Ribbe.

At its 382nd plenary session (meeting of 31 May 2001) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
unanimously the following Opinion.

0.

Summary of the Opinion

0.1.
The Economic and Social Committee strongly supports
the intention to launch, at the Gothenburg European summit
in June this year, a long-term policy change in favour of
Sustainable Development (SD). The Committee considers that
this meets the concerns and anxieties of broad groups of
citizens although society as a whole is not sufficiently infor-
med. It is urgent for policy to take new directions and this is
the right time to start the process.

0.5.
The Committee will undertake, in co-operation with
organized civil society in general, the work of initiating and
supporting a wide public debate on the issues involved. The
Committee welcomes the Commission’s plan to hold biennial
Stakeholder Forums to assess the EU SD Strategy and declares
its willingness to be joint organiser.

0.6.
The Committee underlines that, due to the short
deadline, it is at present unable to make the full contribution
it would have wished. For the same reason, Gothenburg will,
of necessity, be only the start of a strategic process, not the
final stage in adoption of an EU policy. The Committee
therefore will make further, more substantive, inputs into the
evolution of a strategy for sustainable development.

0.2.
The Committee is aware that policies for Sustainable
Development contain in part and by their very nature a radical
approach to the development of society in the future. Some
painful decisions will have to be taken along the road. It is
therefore all the more important that the policy shift is well
anchored in public opinion. Without strong public support,
no policy for Sustainable Development will be a success.

0.7.
The Gothenburg summit should, bearing in mind the
short time for preparation, focus on setting a number of
general objectives and call on the Commission and other
relevant bodies to present more concrete proposals to the
Laeken and Barcelona summits.

0.3.
The Committee strongly deplores that the process of
public consultation on the initial development of such an
important and far-reaching strategy was confined to such a
patently inadequate timespan as just over one month. The
issue of sustainable development is far too important to handle
in such a way.

The Committee recommends that a sustained effort be
0.4.
made after the Gothenburg summit to create public awareness,
inspire debate at local
level, and channel comments and
suggestions concerning the development of the Strategy for
Sustainable Development. The Committee sees this effort as
an ideal case for creating wider public participation in a key
Union policy issue.

0.8.
The EU SD Strategy must aims to consolidate the inter-
relationship between the three pillars — economic, social and
environmental — and in this regard the Committee stresses
the need for all
to introduce new
levels of Government
horizontal structures for planning and monitoring the SDS.

0.9.
The Committee proposes that sustainability targets be
set in transport, energy production, agriculture and climate
change.

0.10.
The Committee notes that a society profiled by
an SDS must be a knowledge-intensive society, with high
investments in R&D and in education, training and lifelong
learning.

C 221/170

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

0.11.
The Committee is surprised that the issue of the
ageing population is not more clearly linked to low and
declining fertility rates in Member States. As part of the SDS
there is scope for an active family support policy at national
level, creating real economic and social opportunities for
parents to combine children and career.

1.1.4.
The SDS will also encompass the response to the
1992 Rio summit and the decisions made at Rio+5, serving as
the EU’s contribution to the Rio+10 World summit in South
Africa in 2002. In addition, it should also be considered in the
light of the OECD’s work in this field, carried out on the basis
of a three-year mandate from the OECD Ministerial Council
Meeting in 1998. This work culminated in the OECD’s
Ministerial Council Meeting of 17 and 18 May 2001.

0.12.
The Committee strongly supports the Kyoto protocol
and expects the EU to act forcefully to sustain it as global
strategy, pointing at the same time to the need for new and
stricter limits.

The Committee declares its interest to be involved in
0.13.
the assessment and follow-up work of
the Strategy for
Sustainable Development. Particularly, the Committee is ready
to mobilise its member organizations for strengthening com-
munication with grass-roots levels, and to develop a Watch-
dog function focusing on quality analysis of the SD implemen-
tation.

The Economic and Social Committee has a long record
1.2.
of opinions concerning environmental, economic and social
issues. The Committee has contributed to the objectives and
targets decided upon at the Lisbon European Council in March
2000 and the follow-up at the Stockholm Council. The
Committee, with its broad representativity of organized civil
society,
is thus in a special position to contribute to the
preparation and follow-up of a strategy for sustainable devel-
opment.

1.

Introduction

1.3. The concept of sustainable development

1.1. An EU Strategy on Sustainable Development

1.1.1. With this Opinion, the Economic and Social Com-
mittee seeks to contribute to the discussion and preparation of
the planned EU Strategy on Sustainable Development (SDS).
This strategy, currently under preparation by the Commission
and Council in response to the mandate of the December
1999 Helsinki European Council, will be the centrepiece of
the Gothenburg European Council of 15 and 16 June 2001.

1.1.2.
This European Council is expected to set in motion
an SD process to be carried through under future EU Presidenc-
ies, adopting a set of political priorities and targets and
agreeing on procedures. The intention is for the EU SDS to be
intertwined with the Lisbon follow-up. Thus, the strategy’s
purpose is not to start up an additional EU process similar to
‘Lisbon’ or ‘Luxembourg’ but rather to provide a new and
wider dimension to the Lisbon step. In this sense, there is a
clear link between the Stockholm summit (March) and the
Gothenburg summit (June).

1.3.1.
The 1987 report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission)
contained what has become the most widely accepted defi-
nition of sustainable development, describing it as ‘develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

1.3.2.
In line with this, and in accordance with the Helsinki
European Council conclusions, the EU SDS will be ‘a long-
term strategy dovetailing policies for economically, socially
and ecologically sustainable development’.
It is thereby a
concept that aims at reconciling continued economic stability
and growth with sustained social welfare and environmental
protection requirements including such issues as food safety
and public health. Put in another way, the SDS is about trying
to solve some unsustainable long-term problems that have
economic, social and environmental dimensions.

1.3.3.
comments on the concept of sustainable development:

The Economic and Social Committee adds these

1.1.3.
The time perspective of the SD strategy will be long,
up to 20-25 years for some objectives. Moreover, the strategy
will emphasise the need for continuous evaluation and further
development of targets and procedures.

1.3.3.1.
The concept is not new, and the policy implications
are not unnoticed. A number of countries have taken decisions
— particularly at the Rio conference and the follow-up —
concerning the need for policies for sustainable development.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/171

1.3.3.2.
However, as to concrete actions not very much has
happened. A number of reasons can be given for this. The key
one is probably that sustainable development is a very wide
concept which involves parallel action at international and
national levels as well as at local level, and indicates a change
in life and consumer patterns. It is a concept with very clear
implications for the individual citizen.

substantial progress in this field and an outline of a possible
‘toolkit’ for implementing an SDS. To show the concept in
terms of practice the paper focused on a limited number of
contemporary crunch issues selected on the basis of three
criteria: ‘severity/impact’, ‘timescale’ (irreversibility, inter-gener-
ational aspects) and ‘European/international dimension’. These
led the Commission to pick six priority issues:

Nonetheless,

1.3.4.
the process has to begin, concrete
policies to be outlined, and the ambition to launch an EU
strategy for sustainable development can be, at long last, a real
contribution to the implementation of the high ambitions of
the Rio conference.

1.3.5.
The EU strategy should help ensure a sustained and
improved quality of life. It is a vision projecting development
of our societies based on a platform of responsibility towards
both people and nature. It is a timely theme, bearing in mind
the increased attention attributed to issues of quality of life
broad by groups of citizens. Sustainable development is a
concept and a vision that is gaining in importance, in the EU
and world-wide.

1.3.6.
The Committee underlines that the concept of sus-
tainable development presents a fairly radical approach to
policies for developing our societies over a longer time-span.
These policies will
inevitably include some uncomfortable
decisions. Our societies are however experiencing a number of
trends that are simply not sustainable if we are to maintain
economic growth, healthy public finances and a welfare system
encompassing all.

1.3.7.
Essentially, the choice is between taking decisions in
a planned, rational way, or being forced to take them in
emergencies.

2.

The Commission’s preparatory work on the SDS

2.1.
On 27 March the Commission presented its consulta-
tive document on sustainable development. The document
aimed to provide a basis for wide-ranging debates and
discussions. A deadline for comments was set at the end of
April so as to be able to take them into account in the final
preparation of the proposal for an EU strategy.

— social exclusion/poverty;

— public health;

— demography/ageing;

— climate change/clean energy;

— depletion of natural resources;

— mobility and land use.

2.1.2.
For each of these six areas, the consultative paper
identified unsustainable trends in terms of economic, social
and environmental development. The consultative paper was
thus inviting broad discussion on positive and negative aspects
of trends in society regardless of their connection to an SD
strategy.

2.2.
The strength of the consultative paper is the analysis
of the unsustainable trends. As the paper points out, there is a
broad consensus that the SDS should capture two important
ideas:

— that development has an economic, a social and an
environmental dimension. Development will only be
sustainable if a balance is struck between the different
factors that contribute to the overall quality of life;

— that the current generation has an obligation to future
generations to leave sufficient stocks of social, environ-
mental and economic resources for them to enjoy levels
of well being at least as high as our own.

2.3.
The Committee has found the consultative paper
valuable as a basis for discussion. The key problem is that it
came late and offered too little time for broad consultation.
The Committee comments on this in part 6.

3.

Joint ESC/Commission Hearing

2.1.1.
The consultative paper did not include proposals for
the forthcoming strategy. It provided instead a structure for
analysing and making operational certain relevant issues. It
included an analysis of factors that have so far prevented

In cooperation with the European Commission, the
3.1.
Committee organized at the end of April a two-day Hearing
on the consultative paper. The Hearing brought together

C 221/172

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

some 200 representatives of stake-holder and civil society
organizations, governments and EU institutions. The debates
were lively, concrete, and gave a number of suggestions in
view of the Gothenburg summit decisions.

public finances. The issue of a more active family policy —
comprising children, parent(s) and elderly — at national level,
was thereby not discussed; yet an active family support policy
could give parents real opportunities to combine children,
caring and career.

3.2.

Three overriding comments stood out:

4.

Comments on the preparatory work.

The first focused on the need for political vision
3.2.1.
and leadership.
It was emphasised again and again that
governments and politicians must take the lead in shaping a
political vision,
leadership and fixing
priorities.

in showing political

3.2.2.
The second centred on the need for extensive R&D
work as forming the basis for the SDS decisions. If anything, a
society with an SDS profile must be a society with high
investment levels in R&D and in education and training.

3.2.3.
The third looked to the global dimension, not much
discussed in the Commission paper. It is necessary that the EU
take the lead in a global context, in deciding on an SDS and
giving inspiration to other countries.

3.3.

To these comments could be added a few others.

There was no single solution. So the right method
3.3.1.
was to saturate existing policies with sustainable development
above and beyond the Cardiff Process. Important policies
would be agriculture and fisheries where bio-diversity, public
health and ultimately survival itself were at stake on account
of non-sustainable policies.

The role of industry in shaping and implementing an
3.3.2.
SDS was much discussed. In line with what was said, industry
is to-day as a general rule to be seen as an ally in implementing
SDS.

3.3.3.
The need for sustainable public finances was another
important topic, particularly in the context of the ageing
population and increasing demands for elderly care.

The Economic and Social Committee views the upcom-
4.1.
ing decisions on sustainable development as the start of a long
process.

4.2.
Even so, the Committee deplores that the Commission
consultative paper is presented late in the preparatory process
allowing such a short time for wide-ranging consultation. The
Helsinki European summit in 1999 decided that the issue of
sustainable development should be a key topic at the Gothen-
burg summit. The time-span would have made it possible to
launch a wide consultation process prior to the decisions.
Broad public support could have been established. Organized
civil society would have been actively involved in the prep-
aration of the strategy.

4.3.
A sustainable development strategy is clearly very
difficult to formulate and for this very reason cannot be drawn
up and adopted in a rush.

4.4.
A broadly-based consultation and participation process
should have been set in train. A consultative paper — such as
the one presented on 27 March 2001 — could have presented
the interim findings of such a process. After the causes of
previous failings had been discussed, the framing of a strategy
— as part of a dialogue — to remedy these failings would have
been the right way to formulate a policy that would have been
acceptable.

4.5.
The Committee appreciates, however, that the Com-
mission and the Committee have had the opportunity to
organize jointly the two-day hearings at the end of April.

knows

The Commission, however,

itself how
4.6.
important consultation and participation is as it has just
presented a paper on governance dealing with this. Moreover
the Strategy Proposal
‘A Sustainable Europe for a better
World’ (1), written after the joint hearing (4.5 above) insists on
the key role of early and systematic dialogue.

On the other hand, the issue of low fertility was
3.3.4.
more or less left out, although it does constitute a very obvious
part of the total equation of ageing population and sustained

(1) Commission Communication of 15th May for the Gothenburg

European Council.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/173

5. Wide Public Consultation

5.1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee views the
decision on a strategy for sustainable development as one of
the most important decisions of the European Union in recent
years. It will have profound effects on our societies. It will deal
with changes in life-style and consumer patterns.

Because of their importance, issues in sustainable
5.1.2.
development must be supported and implemented from
bottom up, not introduced top down.

5.1.3.
issues that require grass-roots support to this extent.

Rarely has the Union been confronted with policy

in advance of

5.2.
The Committee, bearing in mind the insufficient time
for wide-ranging consultation and opinion forming to help
build support
the decisions, strongly rec-
ommends that the Gothenburg summit be followed by a
systematic information and consultation effort in all member
countries. In this effort, there would be possibilities for various
organizations and the political parties to take part, and to
channel views and comments from bottom-up.

5.3.
This would have consequences for the decision-making
process. The Gothenburg summit could focus on setting a
number of fairly general objectives for the next 10-20 years,
indicating how the Lisbon objectives should be adapted to the
new strategy, and ask for further preparatory work to be
postponed to the Barcelona summit in March 2002.

5.4.
In this way, the summit in Gothenburg would invite
citizens and organizations to take active part in the discussions
up until the Barcelona summit, where more concrete decisions
could be sufficiently prepared. Of course, the participatory
work would have to continue afterwards also.

5.5.
The Committee proposes: Make the issue of sustainable
development a test case for new and wide participation in key
Union policies!

6.

Framework of an SDS decision

The ESC strongly supports this conclusion. A process of
change has to begin somewhere and sometime and now is in
all probability the time to initiate it. There is a wealth of
analysis on which to base decisions, a considerable potential
of research and development and an economic situation in the
Union better than for many years.

Moreover, large groups of society are seriously worried over
basic issues of health and food, to mention just two aspects.
There is thus a window of opportunity to generate wide public
support for the beginning of a process of change in the
direction of sustainable development.

6.1. Balancing the three pillars

The SD concept can be described as the Lisbon
6.1.1.
strategy (economic and social sustainability) with a third pillar,
environmental sustainability, added. The SD strategy should
emphasise the interrelationship between the three pillars. The
SD strategy should combine a dynamic economy with a
society offering opportunities to all, while improving resource
efficiency and decoupling growth from environmental degra-
dation.

6.1.2.
The consultative paper has listed six areas of possible
action. One area that is not expressly mentioned is employ-
ment, a key issue in the Lisbon strategy. Without high
employment levels, economic and social sustainability will not
be possible. Employment is both a means and an objective in
itself. The Committee recommends that employment be added
to the list, together with the issue of demography.

The social pillar should, moreover,

include some
6.1.3.
other issues. Cohesion within the Union will depend not only
on economic factors but also on cultural understanding and
exchange. The European cultural
inheritance is in fact an
integral part of the European social model. A policy for
sustainable development must take into account the need for
higher awareness of inherited European cultural values in
customs and patterns of behaviour.

The upshot of the Commission analysis is that an SD strategy
is not only necessary but urgently so if we are to change some
trends that de facto pose a threat to our and our children’s life
potential.

The European social model

6.1.4.
is one in continuous
development, as times and societies change. Sustainable devel-
opment will add to this development, in particular on the need
for solidarity between peoples and generations.

C 221/174

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

6.2. Lead themes

the various integrated strategies. Seas of statistics of limited
use are all too easy to create.

6.2.1.
Because of its complexity, sustainable development
is a phenomenon not easily described or identified. There is
no doubt a need for some new catch-phrases when presenting
it to the public opinion.

6.4. SDS and the stakeholders

6.2.2.
One such image could centre around responsibility:
Europe should become the most responsible region in the
world for environment and mankind.

6.2.3.
Another could centre around the two generations,
this and the next: Europe should shape the options for a good
life also for the next generation, in terms of economic, social
and environmental development.

6.4.1.
The SDS will never be a successful part of the
Lisbon strategy without active involvement by stakeholder
organisations. This issue has recently been raised by a number
of such organizations. The Committee supports their overall
view that without active stakeholder support, the SDS will
have considerable difficulties to take off.

Stakeholder

6.4.2.
should include both
involvement
implementation and follow-up, and revision of previous
objectives and targets.

6.2.4.
The Committee emphasises the importance of the
inter-generational element, particularly with regard to its
appeal to large groups of citizens.

6.4.3.
Organized civil society thus has indeed a key role to play.

The definition of stakeholders must be very wide.

6.3. Relation of
programmes

the SDS to other policy EU strategies and

6.5. Vision and leadership

6.3.1.
The strategy for sustainable development must
emphasise the need for policy coherence between a number of
EU strategies and programmes. These include the Luxembourg
and Cardiff processes, the VIth Environmental Action Pro-
gramme, the Broad Economic Guidelines, etc.

Success in co-ordinating and planning these as an
6.3.2.
integral part of the Sustainable Development Strategy requires
constant monitoring. New horizontal structures at all levels of
Government will be needed.

6.3.3.
The consultative paper mentions that there are now
approximately 60 relevant strategies and programmes at
EU level. Apart from the obvious fact that strategies and
programmes have been permitted to proliferate very gener-
ously, the key strategies inherent in an SDS already illustrate
the absolute need for better policy coherence in setting
objectives and in implementation.

6.5.1.
The consultative paper does not discuss issues of
vision and leadership. It can be argued that an SD strategy will
terms without vision and
never be possible in practical
leadership. Political parties, civil society organisations and
governments will have to take the lead in the debate on
possible visions. Even if the visions are supposed to be long-
term (20-25 years), they should not go farther than over to the
next generation. This is in fact a timespan that most adults
find both natural and adequate.

The Lisbon European Council adopted the objective
6.5.2.
for the EU to be the most competitive and competent region
in the world by 2010. This objective brought together a
number of issues and values of high attraction: it included
growth, employment and competitiveness objectives of a
character similar to the Commission White Paper of 1993.
The White Paper objectives were approved as both realistic
and visionary.

6.3.4.
The systematic use of a Sustainability Impact Assess-
ment procedure before initiation of new programmes would
also help.

6.6. Creating a knowledge society

6.3.5.
This policy coherence must also include indicators
for evaluation and follow-up. There will be a need for indicator
coherence: viz. a limited number of indicators that are really
vital for evaluation and follow-up of the SDS as a whole and

A society profiled by policies for sustainable develop-
6.6.1.
ment
is axiomatically a knowledge-intensive one. New
advancements in transport and energy production require
major new efforts in research and development. More efficient
use of natural resources in production will add to the need for
a higher knowledge component in products.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/175

6.6.2.
Human resources will be more important relative to
financial and natural resources. The demand and need for
higher investments in skilling and lifelong learning will be
considerable. School systems will be required to take good
care of every single child so as to avoid drop-outs, to add
another aspect.

6.6.3.
The Lisbon strategy has laid down a platform for
building a European Knowledge Society. A strategy for sus-
tainable development can only further underline the import-
ance of this platform.

6.7. A changing working life

7.

Priorities for an SDS for the European Union

7.1.
The Committee has taken note of the final Strategy
Proposal from the European Commission. Given the very short
notice to examine in depth this important document the
Committee limits itself in this Opinion to broad general
comments on aims and procedures. It will subsequently state
its views in the light of the Gothenburg conclusions.

7.2.1.
First the Committee expresses its satisfaction that the
strategy is concentrated and focused on a limited number of
clearly unsustainable situations, that it clearly indicates this as
the beginning of a long policy process and underlines the need
for sufficient consultation at every step and for every action.

6.7.1.
The transitions in industry and productive occu-
pations will have to be matched by considerable and sustained
investment in re-skilling and re-training of the workforce.

New and well functioning industrial relations will be
6.7.2.
a necessity in a working life profiled by high investments in
training and research.

6.7.3.
by the Stockholm summit.

Quality of work will be a key topic, as stated already

The Commission has set out in the proposal how the
7.2.2.
new SD Strategy can be integrated in the Lisbon strategy and
be part of the same annual evaluation and follow-up. This is
essential because of the need for policy coherence between
economic, social and environmental issues.

The Commission rightly emphasises that the ultimate
7.2.3.
responsibility for the outcome of
the work for a more
sustainable society cannot be placed on only one or other
group but must be shared collectively by all institutions and
all citizens.

6.7.4. Working life issues will also encompass working
environment. The ICT sector is already revealing new forms of
stress and burn-out. The knowledge-intensive working life will
require new efforts for counteracting the potential negative
effects. Trades Unions have a particular responsibility here.

7.2.4.
In a wider sense the Committee would have liked to
see more emphasis on Research and Development; the new
VIth Framework Programme should be closely targeted to the
objectives of the SD Strategy.

In all these aspects, the objectives adumbrated in
6.7.5.
Lisbon can also integrate objectives and targets of a strategy
for sustainable development.

7.3.1.
As to the Gothenburg Summit the Committee would
like to give some overall priorities for an SD strategy for the
Union. For obvious reasons, these considerations build upon
the Committee’s earlier work.

6.7.6.
The Lisbon strategy includes the objective of full
employment. This objective has to fully supported within the
SD strategy.

It

6.7.7.
The ageing of the population and diminishment of
both work force and population create another set of chal-
lenges.
is obvious and also consistent with the new
Directive (1) against age discrimination that new incentives will
have to be developed in order to motivate the older workforce
to stay longer in active working life.

7.3.2.
Procedure: The Economic and Social Committee
proposes that the Gothenburg summit focus on a limited
number of more general objectives for sustainable develop-
ment and calls on the Commission and other relevant bodies
to present more concrete proposals to the Barcelona summit
in March next year. This would make it possible to launch a
broad consultation and participation process all over the
Union, and create satisfactory support for the more concrete
actions envisaged.

(1) Directive 2000/78/EC of 27.11.2000.

Time-span: the Committee proposes that the objec-
7.3.3.
tives of the SD strategy cover two time horizons, one medium-
term (up to ten years), one long-term (20-25 years).

C 221/176

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

7.3.4. Measurement: the objectives chosen should be capa-
ble of definition in such a way that their implementation can
be measured. Relevant indicators will have to be identified.

communautaire, it is expected that candidate countries become
partners in the strategy as members of the Union. In a sense,
this is not a new challenge. The countries have already taken
part in the decisions at the Rio Conference, and its follow-up.

7.3.5.
strategy and be part of the annual follow-up.

The SD strategy should be integrated into the Lisbon

7.3.6.
Sustainable Development objectives: The Committee
finds it necessary that targets be set in the four areas of
transport, energy production, agriculture, and climate change.

7.3.7.
Level of concreteness: the Committee proposes that
the decisions at Gothenburg do not go into too many details.

7.3.8.
Climate change: The Committee strongly supports
the Kyoto protocol and its implementation but at the same
time points to the need for going further.

Ageing population: the ageing population presents a
7.3.9.
number of challenges to the SD strategy. It is a complex issue,
including both longer working life and new efforts for elderly
care in which member countries have much experience in
common. The Gothenburg summit should set a deadline for
the Commission to present a benchmark report up-dating best
practice with a view to facilitating employment for older
workers.

7.3.10.
Low levels of fertility: the Commission has indi-
cated, at earlier stages, that it would consider presenting some
ideas for stimulating member countries to enact family support
action intended to help parents combine children and career.
The Committee would welcome an initiative from the Com-
mission, and proposes that the Gothenburg summit includes
this in its considerations.

7.3.11.
Scientific networks: the strategy for sustainable
development has to be vigorously supported also by the
scientific community. Through networking between research
institutes, the necessary critical mass of science resources can
be marshalled. The Committee proposes that one or more
scientific network coordinators be identified. One such coordi-
nator could be the university institutions in Gothenburg itself,
which already are establishing themselves as a network
coordinator.

However, in its more concrete forms, the EU strategy
8.2.
for sustainable development will no doubt present new
challenges and new strains on scarce financial resources. It will
also require, among other things, new investment in human
resources and in motivating citizens to change life and
consumer patterns.

It would be wrong to underestimate the scope of the
8.3.
challenges that candidate countries may meet
in the SD
strategy. Any tradition of environmental protection is barely
present there. The issues of unsustainable trends are not at the
forefront of political debate.

8.4.
The Committee proposes that the EU take special steps
to enable candidate countries that so wish to be integrated in
the SDS process at an early stage, that is even before they have
become members of the Union.

8.5.
The Committee proposes that earmarked financial
resources be considered to assist the candidate countries to
integrate fully into the SDS.

9.

The role of the ESC in monitoring and follow-up of
the SD strategy

Organized civil society should take active part in
9.1.
preparation, implementation and follow-up of the strategy for
sustainable development. The Economic and Social Committee
has a unique position among the European institutions, with
its broad representativity of civil society.

The Committee proposes that

9.2.
support of the SD strategy be identified in three parts.

its participation in

8.

Enlargement and the SDS

The adoption of a strategy for sustainable development
8.1.
for the EU will have important consequences for the candidate
the acquis
countries. Although the SDS is not part of

9.2.1.
The Forum role: A successful implementation of the
strategy requires good communication from and to the grass-
roots level. ESC and its member organizations can play a
crucial role here. In the Strategy Proposal the Commission
declares its intention of holding a biennial Stakeholder Forum
to assess the EU Strategy and invites the Committee to join it
in organizing these events. The Committee welcomes the
Commission’s plan to hold such Hearings and declares its
willingness to act as co-organiser.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/177

9.2.2.
The Mobilisation role: Closely connected to the
Forum role, the ESC member organizations can act at national
and local levels in order to raise awareness of the issues, inspire
debate, channel opinions and act as communicators in a wide
sense.

9.2.3.
The quality Watch-dog role: The Commission will
have the general responsibility for evaluation and follow-up of

the SDS, including producing statistical base material. How-
ever, there will be a need for evaluation work also in other
forms. The Committee is willing to take on a Watch-dog role
vis-à-vis the SDS, focusing on quality assessments of the
implementation work and possibly publishing an annual
scoreboard. Such an exercise could feed in to the annual
European summit follow-up of the full Lisbon and SD strategy.

Brussels, 31 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2001’

(2001/C 221/28)

On 28 February 2001, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2001’.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Simpson as rapporteur-general for this
opinion.

At its 382nd plenary session (meeting of 31 May 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 86 votes to one, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

effectiveness of the Union. This annual review also offers an
important opportunity for the ESC to influence the decision-
making processes affecting the European economy.

The Economic and Social Committee welcomes this
1.1.
opportunity to assess and comment on the recently published
draft Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPG) (1) for 2001
that will be considered by the European Council at its meeting
in Göteborg on 15-16 June 2001.

1.2.
This process of an annual review and further refine-
ment of the BEPG has now assumed an important place in the
co-ordination and management of economic policy within the
European Union. The evolution of an overall strategy in which
the Commission and the Governments of the Member States
contribute, both to the debate and then accept the obligations
of the agreed policies, represents a major strengthening of the

The publication of the Commission recommendations
1.3.
for the 2001 BEPG has coincided with the publication of the
economic forecasts for 2001 prepared by the Commission.
These forecasts confirm that the background to the preparation
of the Guidelines is now less favourable than in 2000 due to
adverse developments, and also that
the less favourable
conditions have evolved, in the main, outside the European
Union.

(1) Commission recommendations for the 2001 Broad Guidelines of
the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community;
ECFIN/228/01 25 April 2001.

1.3.1.
To facilitate the effective consideration of the BEPG
by the ESC and the other European institutions, as well as the
Governments of the Member States, the economic forecasts
should be published in advance of the publication of the BEPG.