Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Assessing the EU sustainable development strategy - exploratory opinion’
Date: 2004-04-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common commercial policy, globalisation, population ageing, poverty, sustainable development

C 117/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.3
Given that existing EU members have been granted
temporary exemptions in this area, it is only fair and reason-
able in terms of both principle and precedent that the accession
States should also be able to benefit from temporary exemp-
tions where this can be justified.

2.4
In conclusion, the EESC recommends the approval of
this directive, which will give a clear political signal to the
accession States that the EU is fully committed to their develop-
In order to ensure that the accession States are not
ment.
placed in a situation that could entail budgetary difficulties, the
EESC calls on the Council to adopt this directive as soon as
possible.

Brussels, 28 April 2004

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Assessing the EU sustainable devel-
opment strategy - exploratory opinion’

(2004/C 117/08)

On 12 November 2003, in a letter from Ms Loyola de Palacio, the European Commission asked the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, to draw up an exploratory opinion on ‘Assessing the EU sustainable development strategy.’

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 5 April 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe,
and the co-rapporteur was Mr Ehnmark.

At its 408th plenary session on 28 and 29 April 2004 (meeting of 28 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 77 votes to 23, with 14 abstentions:

0. Summary

0.1
Efforts have been under way for many years to promote
sustainable development in the EU and curb non-sustainable
trends. In a bid to consolidate and step up these efforts, a
sustainable development strategy was adopted for the Union at
the EU summit
the most recent
in Gothenburg. However,
studies by European Commission indicate that efforts so far
remain inadequate and that, on this front, Europe continues to
face major challenges.

0.3
The Committee feels that one key task of the revised
sustainable development strategy is to make clear that, for the
most part, sustainable development involves changes, which if
the ways and means of achieving them are chosen correctly,
can be for the better and that society as a whole benefits as a
result. On that point for the better and that society as a whole
benefits as a result. On that point, however, there is nowhere
near a consensus, and indeed, doubts are being raised as to
whether it is possible to square Europe's economic competitive-
ness with sustainable development.

0.2
This exploratory opinion, drawn up by the Committee at
the Commission's request, examines the range of problems
facing the EU on the road towards sustainable development
and considers how the EU should strengthen its sustainable
development strategy. The reasons are manifold. One is that, in
politics and society, views vary widely as to what actually
constitutes sustainable development and the extent to which
our current production and consumption patterns are already
compatible with sustainability considerations or have to be
changed – in other words what specifically needs to be done
and by whom (cf. point 2.2 below).

sustainable development generates

0.4
The Committee has never doubted that a healthy
economy with flourishing businesses is the key condition for
employment and environment and the further development of
society, or conversely that it is also, to an increasing extent, the
direct result of the level and quality of the latter factors. So far,
it has proved impossible to get over the message that, in that
sense,
significant new
opportunities. One reason for that is that no adequate response
has yet been given to many of the issues raised in various
demands and publications (cf. point 2.2). People are unclear
about the consequences, and so scepticism gains ground. The
Committee therefore urges the Commission to discuss in detail
and clarify all the basic issues of understanding involved, as
part of a broad social debate with organised civil society (cf.
point 2.3). This also includes issues that have so far been
taboo.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/23

0.5
Sustainable development means further developing the
market economy. It means linking environment, employment
and competitiveness even more closely with issues of distribu-
tive and intergenerational justice (cf. point 2.1.10 below). The
sustainable development strategy must therefore think in much
longer timeframes and take account of many more aspects than
the Lisbon strategy. The key aim of the latter is to make
Europe the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the
world by 2010. In point 2.4, therefore, the Committee looks at
the links between the two strategies and at how they can best
complement
the
Committee also notes that some issues do remain unresolved.

that, however,

each other.

In saying

0.6
Free market forces are already regulated today, among
other things by environmental and social obligations, and the
implementation of a consistent sustainable development policy
will continue this process. For some sectors, that will give a
new boost to growth while, for unsustainable activities, it will
mean economic decline. Thus, sustainable development will
also involve reducing unsustainable trends. This calls for debate
about taxation, subsidies,
licensing and regulation to ensure
implementation of this sustainability model.

0.7
The Committee is clear that the current EU sustainable
development strategy adopted at the Gothenburg summit needs
revision. This revision must seek a better balance between the
environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustain-
ability (cf. point 3.2 ff). The strategy must also make clear how
the individual EU policies can be framed more coherently (cf.
point 3.8 ff) and how the requisite national, regional and even
local sustainable development strategies can be interlinked (cf.
point 5).

0.8
Sustainable development not only necessitates changes
in production and consumption patterns within the EU, but
must of course also have an impact on international trade,
including therefore the WTO. Any policy which, for example,
internalises all external costs and takes account of additional
factors as well for the sake of sustainable development can
produce competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis other economies
which ignore, in full or in part, the principle of sustainability.
In such a case, it must be possible to compensate for sectoral
trade disadvantages. Therefore, in point 6, the Committee asks
the Commission to take account of the external aspects and
thus, inter alia, to urge a change in WTO rules.

The future sustainable development strategy is more
0.9
likely to succeed if it includes measures and objectives that are
quantified as far as possible, and lays down readily understand-
able indicators for monitoring progress and evaluating the
effectiveness of policies (cf. point 7). In the sustainable develop-
ment strategy, that is difficult as there is no point at which the
target can be said to have been reached. Seen in that light,
therefore, sustainable development is not so much a goal as a
process, and that does not make policymaking any easier.

Nonetheless, an attempt should be made to lay down the
clearest possible objectives and set a timeframe. Frequently,
that will involve a large number of intermediate steps. To make
that clear, the Committee cites the Kyoto objectives.

including about what

Sustainable development policy obviously also needs to
0.10
it needs to be transparent,
be reviewed. Above all, however,
since
social
sustainable development depends on wide
consensus and broad support. This requires a broad range of
knowledge,
sustainable development
actually is, what its impact will be and what will happen if we
fail to implement sustainable development policy. The new
strategy should therefore be worked out and subsequently
implemented in the context of a broad policy debate (cf. point
8). The participatory process must, however, be quite different
from the one pursued in the run-up to Gothenburg. At that
time, the deadlines were much too tight and there was no
genuine social discussion of
to some
extent, during the compilation of
this EESC exploratory
opinion.

the kind conducted,

1. Foreword

1.1
In a letter dated 12 November 2003, Ms de Palacio, vice-
president of the European Commission, asked the European
Economic and Social Committee to draw up an exploratory
opinion on the EU sustainable development strategy as input to
the main political orientations for a review of the strategy. The
Commission asked the Committee to:

— assess the progress made towards achieving the headline

objectives of the sustainable development strategy;

— assess the need for broadening the strategy;

— analyse the consequences of enlargement;

— discuss the possibility of constructing a stronger linkage to

national strategies;

— discuss the importance of including the external aspects
and follow- up to Johannesburg under the general strategy;

— discuss the need to set clearer strategic objectives and indi-

cators;

— provide insights on how to improve implementation proce-

dures; and

— provide ideas on how to devise a communication strategy

on sustainable development.

1.2 However, this exploratory opinion also seeks to carry
forward the ongoing internal debate within the Committee, as
organised civil society at every political and administrative level
has to play an instrumental role in – and contribute towards -
making sustainable development a reality for the good of
present and future generations.

C 117/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2. Assessment of progress made towards achieving the

headline objectives

2.1 Towards sustainable development: the current state of play

2.1.1
The European Economic and Social Committee has no
doubt that, over the past few years, sustainable development
has become an increasingly important topic for political discus-
sion. The Commission has undoubtedly recognised the funda-
mental importance of this issue, and sustainable development is
also formally enshrined in the European Treaties (1). The
Committee expects sustainable development to be consolidated
as an overarching objective in the upcoming constitution.

2.1.2
The Commission can now point to a broad range of
sustainable development initiatives. The attempt to establish
the requisite links between economic, social and environmental
issues has clearly become more important – and attracted more
attention – in recent years. To take one example, the June
1998 Cardiff European Council invited all relevant formations
of the Council to establish comprehensive strategies for taking
and sustainable development
account of
concerns within their respective policy areas (2). Regrettably,
this process – where very little is happening at the moment –
cannot be considered successfully completed. The Lisbon
strategy that has been launched in the meantime has so far
proved to be an inadequate vehicle for sustainable development
– hence the decision at the Gothenburg European Council to
add an environmental dimension.

environmental

2.1.3
The Gothenburg European Council, drawing on a
communication from the Commission, selected four out of six
proposed priority issues for the sustainability debate. These are:

— climate change

— transport

— public health

— natural resources.

The eradication of poverty and population ageing were not
selected. As a result,
the sustainable development strategy
appears to focus on the environmental dimension and pay less
attention to social aspects. The Committee feels this sends out
an inadequate signal. The Committee considers such structural
aspects as fundamental to a long-term perspective, to taking
into account the global dimension of the strategy, and, last but
not least, to citizens' commitment to its improvement.

(1) See Art. 2, EC Treaty
(2) Cardiff European Council presidency conclusions, 15 and 16 June

1998, no. 34

2.1.4
The Commission has started subjecting its own policies
– or at least policy elements – to scrutiny in a bid to establish
whether it is on the right track towards achieving sustainable
development. Probably the most recent (partial) assessment is
the Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament entitled the 2003 Environment Policy
Review (3). In this paper, the Commission examines the envir-
onmental dimension of sustainability and arrives at some very
sobering conclusions (4).

2.1.4.1 On the issue of climate protection, the Gothenburg
summit announced the intention of making ‘demonstrable
progress’ by 2005 already in achieving the Kyoto commit-
ments (5). However, as the Environment Policy Review makes
clear, the EU is unlikely to be in any position to achieve the
Kyoto objectives if it sticks to its current policy.

2.1.4.2 On transport too, there is no indication that the EU
is on the right track towards a more sustainable policy. Trans-
port-related climate-damaging emissions are
still on the
increase, for instance, and in particular trends are ‘not encoura-
ging in acceding countries: there has been a sharp fall in rail
and bus transport and higher growth rates in air and private
car transport than in the EU’ (6).

2.1.4.3 On the health front,
the Commission notes that
some 60,000 people in the EU's large cities die each year as a
result of excessive air pollution. One child in seven suffers from
asthma and numbers have risen dramatically in the past few
years (7).

2.1.4.4 On the question of natural resources, the outlook
also remains pretty poor. Particularly in the field of biodiver-
sity, the Commission still sees major difficulties for the EU (8).

2.1.5
The Commission finally came to the conclusion in
December 2003 that a great many measures have been taken
over the past few years to protect the environment but that not
enough has yet been done in ‘curbing current unsustainable
trends’ (9). This is by no means a welcome
environmental
finding, but nor is it wholly surprising, since the Commission's
1999 Communication on Europe's environment: Towards
Sustainability (10) had already made the point that ‘progress
towards sustainability has clearly been limited’ and that ‘the
trends highlighted in this Communication … show that we are
not on track in ensuring sustainable development’.

(3) COM(2003) 745 final, 3.12.2003, including the annex
(4) These conclusions

fully concord with European Environment
Agency studies. See http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_assess-
ment_report_2003_10/en

(5) Gothenburg European Council presidency conclusions, 15 and 16

June 2001, no. 28
(6) COM(2003) 745 final
(7) COM(2003) 745 final
(8) COM(2003) 745 final
(9) COM(2003) 745 final
(10) COM(1999) 543 final, p. 22

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/25

2.1.6
The upshot of all of this is, in the Committee's view,
that we are just at the start of a doubtless difficult road towards
sustainable development. This is also clear from the fact that, in
some key areas of environment policy, the Commission has
only just started drawing up the papers that, ultimately, are
supposed to set out specific strategies. The Committee is so far
unaware of any papers at all being drawn up on progress made
in the economic and social dimension of the sustainability
debate.

2.1.7

The Committee's current impression, therefore, is that

— the Commission is undoubtedly right in its assessment of
the difficulties Europe faces in the field of sustainable devel-
opment;

— tools and measures – both theoretical and practical – have
already been worked out, discussed and,
in some cases,
even implemented (e.g. an end to harmful subsidies, greater
support for sustainable procedures and the internalisation
of external costs);

— these tools and measures are not, however, being put into

practice consistently enough.

2.1.8
Thus, the Committee agrees with the Commission that
‘many of the current environmentally unsustainable trends stem
from a lack of attention to inter-linkages between sectors,
leading to policies in different areas working against one
another rather than being mutually supportive. This lack of
policy coherence renders policies both more costly and less
effective and thus hinders progress towards sustainable devel-
opment.’ (1)

That the Commission is aware that some of its own
2.1.9
policies are more of a hindrance than a help to sustainable
development is all the more significant in that it also recognises
the vital need for sound political
leadership on this front:
‘Strong political commitment will be needed to make the
changes required for sustainable development. While sustain-
able development will undoubtedly benefit society overall, diffi-
cult trade-offs between conflicting interests will have to be
made. We must face up to these trade-offs openly and honestly.
Changes to policy must be made in a fair and balanced way,
but narrow sectional interests must not be allowed to prevail
over the well-being of society as a whole.’ (2)

2.1.10
The Committee notes the EU's failure, in its consid-
eration of the sustainability issue to date, to include in any
discernible way key matters such as intergenerational
justice
(are we living at the expense of future generations?), distributive
societies,
justice (are we living at

the expense of other

(1) COM(2003) 745 final, p. 22
(2) COM(2001) 264 final

for instance the Third World?) or global poverty eradication.
Or at least, it has failed to give an adequate airing to these
matters. A better solution might well be for the Commission to
monitor sustainable development constantly, not only in terms
of the environment, but taking account of the economic and
social dimension as well. The 2001 Stockholm European
Council already made the point that ‘the forthcoming [broad
economic policy] guidelines should also integrate the promo-
tion of sustainable development’ (3). That, however, has still to
happen. In this context, the issues in question would have to
be addressed just as fully as the question of what the long-term
environmental impact would be if the entire world population
were to adopt our current production and consumption system
unchanged (4).

The EU financial perspective for 2007-2013 (5) could
2.1.11
have been an opportunity to give a decisive impulse to sustain-
able development. However, the Committee notes that it is not
enough merely to press ahead unchanged with current policies
that have raised difficulties for sustainable development, and to
pursue them in future under the ‘sustainable growth’ budget
heading. The Committee points out that, first of all, ‘sustainable
development’ and ‘sustainable growth’ are two different things,
which should be mutually reinforcing but may indeed conflict
(cf. point 2.3). Hence, a clear distinction is also needed in the
financial perspective.

2.2 Why have we not yet made more decisive progress? What are the

difficulties on the path to sustainable development?

2.2.1
not making sufficient progress for the following reasons:

The Committee feels that sustainable development is

— no consensus has yet been reached on assessing the current
state of play – let alone on the action to be taken - either
globally or at EU, national, regional or local level;

— there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what sustainable
development actually means and how future development
will differ from the situation in which we live today –
which, in turn, generates fears and resistance in the sectors
potentially affected;

— it still remains unclear how the sustainable development
agenda fits into day-to-day policy, what form it is to take
and how, in practice, the sustainability angle is to be incor-
porated into all the relevant policy areas;

— and how to resolve the potential conflict between a
rigorous sustainable development policy and, for example,
world trade rules (WTO) (6).

(3) Stockholm European Council presidency conclusions, 23 and 24

March 2001, no. 48

(4) The Committee notes that, at the moment, 20 % of the people
consume some 80 % of all resources. Thus, because of the exorbi-
tantenergy consumption, 5 % of
the living population (USA)
generate 25 % of all CO2 emissions.

(5) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament Building our common future – Policy challenges
and budgetary means of
the Enlarged Union, 2007-2013,
COM(2004) 101 final

(6) see also point 6

C 117/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.2.2
The Committee considers the sustainable development
strategy as the overarching political objective for the coming
decades. All current policies and programmes must be chan-
nelled towards it, and must be consistent with – and conducive
to – long-term sustainability objectives. That applies to the
Lisbon strategy (see point 2.4) and to all other policy strategies
and schemes currently in the pipeline.

Politically,

2.2.3
the Commission can build on broad
popular support. Surveys have shown that a very large majority
of the population support the principle of intergenerational
justice and the objective of using no more resources than it is
possible to regenerate, although only a minority have actually
ever heard the term ‘sustainable development’. In other words,
people can identify with the overall policy objectives of sustain-
able development, but only a small minority are au fait with
the term sustainable development itself. That indicates a major
problem of communication that must be resolved.

It is easy to agree on relatively woolly definitions of
2.2.4
sustainable development such as ‘development that meets the
needs of
the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’ (1). Such statements
brook no denial.

2.2.5
Phrases like ‘Let's not repeat our mistakes’ — often
heard in connection with EU enlargement — also trip easily off
the tongue. They remain just words, however, if nothing is said
about what precisely those mistakes are or if countermeasures
are put forward but not acted upon. Transport policy is a good
case in point.

2.2.6 One objective of the sustainable development strategy
must therefore be to identify the negative trends more clearly
than in the past and to work out how to counter them. Work
should also be stepped up to promote positive examples and
development trends.

2.2.7
A strategy is defined as a detailed plan for achieving a
specific goal, factoring in, from the outset, those elements that
might potentially impact any action taken. Thus, the future EU
sustainable development strategy should:

— provide clear objectives;

— outline the individual tools to be used to reach the objec-
tive(s); which also involves setting out precisely the respon-
sibilities, remits and scope for exerting influence in each
case;

— divide, if necessary, long-term objectives into intermediate
goals that can be regularly monitored using readily compre-
hensible indicators;

— address those factors that may cause problems in this

process; and

(1) Our Common Future – the Brundtland report, World Commission

on Environment and Development, 1987

— see to it that all policy areas are consistently analysed and

assessed using sustainability criteria.

2.2.8
Sustainable development is more a qualitative process
and only some of its objectives can be readily quantified using
specific figures. Many other policy areas have definable objec-
tives (x % growth, y % unemployment or a limit value of z),
but, with sustainable development, we shall never reach the
stage at which we can say that, as soon as a particular measure
is in place or a certain law adopted, then our goal will be
achieved. As political objectives remain somewhat vague for
many people however, it is all the more important to set out,
using specific examples drawn from real life, what sustainable
development actually means and what impact a strategy will
have.

In an own-initiative opinion of 31 May 2001 (2), the
2.2.9
Committee welcomed the then draft EU sustainable develop-
ment strategy. The Committee said it was ‘ 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.’ On this point, however, the EU sustainable development
strategy is extremely woolly and far too abstract. It fails to
make truly clear the specific changes that lie ahead – and at
which level – and the necessary impact of this long-term policy
on today's economic and commercial life.

2.2.10
In the foreword to the EU brochure on sustainable
development, the Commission president, Romano Prodi does
indeed say that sustainable development ‘is not an academic
concept with no practical importance — it is about real issues
and real choices that profoundly affect our daily lives.’ (3)
However, the highly abstract strategy is not specific enough
about what these profound effects actually are. That is one of
the critical shortcomings that must be remedied in future.

The Committee stands by its commitment to sustain-
2.2.11
able development.
It agrees that sustainable development is
neither a luxury for ‘rich’ societies, nor just one of several
possible options. It is necessary to move away from patterns of
production and consumption that have proven to be non-
sustainable. The aim, after all, is to safeguard the very founda-
tions of human life – which are also the foundations of
economic activity. Sustainable development is thus a sine qua
non for meeting future challenges.

2.2.12
It should be continually underlined that sustainable
development implies fundamental changes in how society func-
tions. Citizens must be empowered, on the basis of knowledge
and training, to make sustainable development a reality and
meet the challenges that it poses for the future.

(2) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the
preparation of a European Union strategy for sustainable develop-
ment, OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 169-177

(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/strategy_en.pdf

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/27

2.2.13
in the
The Committee stands by this statement,
knowledge that substantial changes will certainly come about.
It doubts that there will be nothing but win-win situations in
this context. If genuine progress is to be made, however, then
it is vital to provide a clear link between the abstract issues and
objectives and the practicalities of the real world. It is essential
to provide people with a clear picture close up of seemingly
remote issues. This means that the strategy has to provide
answers to a wide range of unresolved issues, including:

— How are external costs to be internalised (and by when)?
What impact will that have on,
for instance, transport,
where the Commission itself notes that ‘less than half of the
external environmental costs …. are internalised in the
market prices’
thereby encouraging ‘unsustainable …
demand’? (3) What would it mean for the energy sector if
the average external costs of electricity production were to
be factored into final consumers' bills (approximately 4-5
cent per kilowatt-hour for coal- and 3-6 cent for oil-fired
electricity production)? (4)

— What might be the specifics of

the factor 10 concept
mentioned in the Commission Communication Towards
Sustainability (1) which seeks in the longer term to cut
industrial countries' use of resources to one tenth of current
levels in absolute terms and to distribute resources more
fairly across the world? Is this concept to be made manda-
tory as part of the sustainable development strategy? How
can a (growing) economy operate, how can transport func-
tion if only a tenth of the raw materials is available? Where
are the realistic limits to resource efficiency? What tools
could or should be used to implement this approach?

— What form can a competitive economy (that also creates
high-quality jobs) take if climate-damaging emissions have
to be cut by some 70 % worldwide? (2) How would compe-
titiveness change once the factor 10 concept is also applied
to the energy sector, i.e. if the share of renewables has to
grow much more strongly than so far planned?

— What economic sectors will face difficulties if they have to
the considerable external costs of non-sustainable
meet
production methods? Which will see renewed growth? How
will that structural change pan out in practice and how
should it be framed and supported at a political level?

— What specific policy measures will be needed, for instance,
to decouple transport growth from economic growth?
What will such measures mean for the division of labour in
the economy?

— What, specifically, will be done to tackle the abolition of
subsidies that undermine sustainable development? What
particular subsidies are involved?

(1) Cf. COM(1999) 543, 24.11.1999, p. 15, point 4.4: Efficient use and
management of
the European
resources and the opinion of
Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission - Europe's Environment: What directions for
the
future? The Global Assessment of
the European Community
Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the environment and
sustainable development, ‘Towards Sustainability’, OJ C 204, 18 July
2000, p. 59-67

(2) For Europe, that could mean an even greater reduction, given the

rises expected across the world.

2.2.14
The strategy's failure to provide readily understand-
able answers to such questions may very well generate fears in
certain circles – and ultimately lead to resistance to the policy
in question. This risk is particularly great if the impression is
created that sustainable development is more of a complication
and a threat to the economy and is thus not seen as an oppor-
tunity for the future. The Committee's fear is that we in Europe
have now reached that stage. That explains why sustainable
development has run into difficulties and why reports on the
issue have not so far been more positive.

2.2.15 Although worthy of support, the following key state-
ment by the Gothenburg European Council does nothing, for
the time being, to remedy this state of affairs. The Council
states that: ‘clear and stable objectives for sustainable develop-
ment will present significant economic opportunities. This has
the potential to unleash a new wave of technological innova-
tion and investment, generating growth and employment.’ (5)
This important message, which the Committee endorses, has
not to date been credibly conveyed to – or rather has not been
taken on board by – large swathes of society and industry.
Sustainable development is not yet recognised as a genuine
engine for industry and growth.

is clear that

For the Committee it

2.2.16
implementing
sustainable development will require huge investments in areas
such as building renovation, environmentally-sound transport
systems, sustainable energy production and promotion of envir-
onmental technologies. These investments, which will create
many jobs and give a new fillip to growth, are essential to
making sustainable development a reality.

2.2.17 Due consideration must be given to the issues of allo-
cating financial resources, if a sustainable development strategy
is to become a reality. The framework for a climate conducive
to such investments must be created by policymakers on the
basis of consultation with – and the participation of – orga-
nised civil society. Public budgets must lay down appropriate
investment priorities. Heavy investment will also be needed in
in order to boost the
the private sector as well, however,
economy and the labour market.

(3) SEC(1999) 1942, 24.11.99 p. 14
(4) Figures from External Costs – Research results on socio-environ-
mental damages due to electricity and transport; EU Commission –
Community Research, 2003

(5) Gothenburg European Council presidency conclusions, 15 and 16

June 2001, no. 21

C 117/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.2.18
If, however, we do not succeed in making clear that
sustainable development generates significant new opportu-
nities for the economy, then there can be no constructive poli-
tical debate on sustainable development and on ways of
achieving it.

2.3.3
The Committee is aware that industry is instrumental
in developing and implementing better technologies to decrease
unsustainable trends and resource use. In order to play its role,
industry needs to be competitive, and only competitive compa-
nies can increase employment and contribute to social goals.

In addition to the fact that both the objectives and
2.2.19
the political tools are too vague and abstract, there is another
shortcoming in the sustainable development strategy to date,
namely that even interested observers are unable to keep track
of where all the provisions are to be found. The Committee
notes the vast amount of paperwork dealing with this issue to
a greater or lesser extent – and in greater or lesser depth (1). To
the interested reader, it is not clear which statements and provi-
sions are mandatory. Even the EU webpages fail to provide any
additional help in that regard.

2.2.20
The Committee recognises that it is very difficult for
the Commission to persuade people to support those facets of
the sustainable development debate in areas which they feel do
not directly concern them. That is true even for relatively ‘live’
issues (e.g. nature conservation, where some people wonder
why less biodiversity is a problem or why, say, the disappear-
ance of the stork is such a bad thing. It is even more difficult
to convey to people that large carnivores such as lynx and
wolves are also part of Europe's cultural and natural heritage
and deserve protection.) Two much more thorny issues have
already been touched on: distributive justice and intergenera-
tional
justice. People generally speaking do recognise that
future generations should have the opportunity to have a good
life, but there is a broad and noticeable trend in society to put
many of life's economic imponderables on the back burner.
This is hardly conducive to the sustainability debate.

2.3 The need to clear up some basic issues of understanding

2.3.1
For the Committee, sustainable development represents
the market economy,
a further, pro-active development of
expanded to take account of environmental issues and other
considerations such as intergenerational and distributive justice.

2.3.2
In widening the approach in this way – by no means
an easy task – the Committee considers one thing to be vital:
the new sustainability strategy must make clear that, when it is
being implemented, the economic, social and environmental
conditions must be such that sustainable development has the
least possible adverse effect on European economic competi-
tiveness, but rather acts as a new stimulus for growth.

(1) The brochure on the European Union's sustainable development
strategy alone quotes the conclusions of the Gothenburg European
Council, the Commission Communication on the EU sustainable
development strategy,
the consultation paper for drawing up a
sustainable development strategy and the minutes of a hearing co-
hosted by the Commission and the European Economic and Social
Committee on the issue. We also have the sixth environment action
programme and the Lisbon strategy, and will shortly have other
strategies on,
inter alia, the sustainable use of natural resources
(N.B.: … mention the others)

2.3.4
The sustainability debate likes to work with images.
One such image is of three pillars shoring up sustainable devel-
opment, each equally warranted and each equal in value, one
economic, one social and one environmental.

2.3.5
The three pillars are deemed to be closely linked,
making it vital, when framing policy, not to jeopardise the
existing balance. In economically difficult times in particular
(such as those that Europe is currently experiencing),
is
claimed that nothing should be done to upset industry. The
view taken is that long-term growth is essential and that,
if
necessary, cutbacks might have to be made, at least for a time,
in environmental protection or social policy.

it

2.3.6
A contrasting image to this pillar model is the para-
digm of buoys in a waterway. The buoys indicate the environ-
mental and social limits within which the ship (i.e. industry)
can move freely, but it may not leave the waterway.

considerations. The

2.3.7
The Committee would urgently recommend that, as
part of the sustainability debate, the Commission engage in
robust debate on these images and the philosophies that lie
behind them. The Committee does not doubt the need for a
balanced relationship between economic, social and environ-
mental
three dimensions, pillars or
elements are intrinsically linked. The natural environment is
essential as the basis and source for economic activity which
can ensure social wealth and a higher quality of life, and there-
fore a stable and sound natural environment is a prerequisite
for sustainable development. It is equally clear, however, that
sustainable development is much more than ‘just’ traditional
environment policy in a new guise using new methods.

2.3.8
The heads of state or government met in Rio in 1992
and in Johannesburg in 2002, because economic activity as it
had operated up to then was clearly pushing various limits. It
became clear that certain types of economic activity spawn
social and environmental problems and that
in trying to
resolve these problems environmental protection technology is
reaching its limits.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/29

2.3.9
As part of the sustainable development strategy, there-
fore, the Committee feels it is right to discuss issues that have
so far been seen as well-nigh taboo. One of these questions
concerns permanent economic growth as the primary goal and
the key aspect of all policies. The Committee has of course
over the past few years consistently emphasised the importance
of growth for economic development and has also backed a
growth initiative as part of the Lisbon strategy.

tivity trends. The Committee is glad to offer its services as a
partner in this venture. There is no doubt that
improving
productivity is essential
for businesses to press ahead with
development. Productivity has always been seen as an engine
for employment and prosperity, because high productivity has
so far made it possible to offer more goods and services at
lower prices, thus stimulating new demand and creating new
jobs.

2.3.9.1 However the Committee feels that, on the issue of
growth, a distinction should increasingly be made. It is espe-
cially important to identify those areas in which growth is
particularly desirable from a sustainability angle. One such area
– and on this point the Commission agrees - is renewable
energy. However, renewable energy often remains too expen-
sive compared to less sustainable energy resources and is thus a
problem for industry. The basic conditions have to be changed
by dedicated policy instruments and it is up to the sustainable
development strategy to identify and lay down in detail what
needs to done to bring that change about.

into GDP,

2.3.9.2 On the other hand, clearer mention should be made
of those areas in which further growth is more undesirable and
counterproductive. In Germany, EUR 40 billion are spent each
year on so-called health costs (1) - the result of people's poor
nutrition and reluctance to exercise.
In terms of per-capita
input
therefore, Germans on average contribute
more simply by failing to take proper care of their health than
Indians do through economic activity (some EUR 470 per
year). Although it does create jobs, growth in this sector is not
desirable from a sustainability angle. Seen in this light, sustain-
ability may indeed be,
for
economic growth. This example also shows that GDP alone,
whilst it is a useful indicator of economic activity, is not (and
does not claim to be) an appropriate indicator of social well-
being or a yardstick for public or environmental health.

in part, a constraining factor

Growth, however,

2.3.9.3
is not only a qualitative issue
affecting Europe. It also has a global quantitative dimension. In
communication entitled Europe's Environment (2),
its
the
Commission notes that, as globalisation continues, trade flows
increase and western patterns of behaviour spread, per-capita
GDP is set to rise by 40 % between 1990 and 2010 and by
140 % by 2050. Despite the transfer of technical know-how
and environmental technologies, this ‘may also have an impact
on global CO2 emissions, which are forecast to rise by a factor
of three by 2050’. The climate disaster would be complete.

2.3.10.1
In purely economic terms, high productivity is not
a sustainability indicator. To take one example: Brazil undoubt-
edly has, economically speaking, the most productive sugar
industry in the world but that benefits only a few multinational
companies;
the local populace and the environment are
exploited to the extreme.

2.3.10.2
Productivity, though, has to be redirected towards
sustainable development. Productivity must not be measured
only in terms of value of the product divided by its production
cost, but evaluated in a broader context, complementing it with
quality of life and less use of non-renewable resources at global
level.

2.3.10.3
Future productivity trends should be used as an
engine for sustainable development. Examples of productivity
gains conducive to sustainable development include improve-
ments in environmental performance and the more efficient
use of raw materials and energy. Governments and the Com-
munity must initiate interventionist policies to give incentives
that are consistent with this reorientation.

Thus, the sustainability debate should be more delib-
2.3.11
erately controversial than in the past, bringing together diame-
trically opposing viewpoints (‘We need growth at any price’
versus ‘Growth cannot be sustainable’ and ‘Productivity growth
is the mainspring of the economy’ versus ‘Productivity gener-
the environment and
ates more and more problems for
society’). This is because, far more than in other policy areas,
sustainable development
is contingent on a broad social
consensus.

2.4 The relationship between the Lisbon strategy and the sustain-

ability strategy

2.4.1
strategy on three key points. It:

The Lisbon strategy is distinct from the sustainability

2.3.10
Another sustainability issue which the Commission
should address in greater depth is the shape of future produc-

(1) In fact they are sickness-funding costs.
(2) COM(1999) 543 final, 24.11.1999, p. 21

— clearly puts the focus on economic growth and economic
reforms in order to achieve more and better jobs and social
cohesion;

C 117/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

— has a clear time limit (2010); and also

— has an almost purely European focus (its purpose is to
competitive, knowledge-based

the most

make Europe
economic area).

2.4.2
The Committee welcomed the addition, at the Gothen-
burg summit, of an environmental chapter to the Lisbon
strategy, and the adoption of a sustainable development
strategy – albeit with relatively limited content. (1) The fact that
the Council only recently reiterated its call for environmental
considerations to be incorporated more into the Lisbon strategy
shows the shortcomings still existing on this front. Taking
greater account of environmental protection can help to make
the Lisbon strategy more consistent with the sustainability
strategy, but it is clear that this will not automatically follow.

It should also be noted that important matters (such as
2.4.3
distributive justice and intergenerational
that were
considered at Rio and Johannesburg to be essential for sustain-
able development are not directly covered by the Lisbon
strategy and will therefore not necessarily result from its imple-
mentation.

justice)

2.4.4
The two strategies must be coherent under the over-
arching objective of long-term sustainable development. This
means that sustainable development objectives must permeate
all policy areas of the Lisbon strategy. In this way, the Lisbon
strategy can and should be an important intermediate step on
the way to sustainable development, but cannot be a substitute
for a long-term sustainability strategy.

2.4.5
The economic growth generated by the Lisbon strategy
must be qualitative and decoupled from resource use to a
greater extent, so that it is compatible with sustainable develop-
ment. However, this also means that the Lisbon strategy can
make an important contribution to the sustainability strategy if
it helps refocus the economy on a more sustainable model.

2.4.6
It is essential therefore that, like other EU spending,
investments in the context of the EU growth initiative meet the
the Committee would
sustainability criteria. On that score,
point out that this issue has been widely examined within orga-
nised civil society (2). The Committee recommends that, in a
specific communication to the Council, the Parliament, the
CoR and the EESC, the Commission should address the consis-

(1) Gothenburg European Council presidency conclusions, 15 and 16
June 2001, extracts from nos. 20 and 21: ‘The European Council
agrees a strategy for sustainable development which completes the
Union's political commitment to economic and social renewal, adds
a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy and estab-
‘Clear and stable
lishes a new approach to policy making.’
objectives
significant
economic opportunities. This has the potential to unleash a new
wave of
innovation and investment, generating
growth and employment.’

sustainable development will present

technological

(…)

for

(2) See, among other things, the Investing for a sustainable future mani-
festo in which the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Euro-
pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the Platform of Euro-
pean Social NGOs (Social Platform) put forward proposals

tency between EU investments (including those funded by the
EIB) in transport, energy and other infrastructure projects and
sustainable development policy.

3. The need to broaden the strategy

3.1 While the Committee certainly feels it is appropriate to
home in on certain issues, it must nonetheless draw attention
to the risk that key elements of sustainable development may
thereby fall by the wayside. From the point of view of
substance it is necessary to scrutinise the broad questions that
were extensively discussed in Rio and Johannesburg, but which
are barely touched on in the EU's current sustainability strategy
(such as the influence our economic activity has on global
poverty, distributive justice and intergenerational justice).

Step up the debate on the social dimension

3.2
In addition to the four policy areas ultimately addressed
at Gothenburg, the plan of implementation adopted at the
1992 Earth Summit in Rio also picked up on issues such as
poverty eradication. The draft sustainability strategy submitted
to the Gothenburg European Council (3) also made the point
that ‘one in every six Europeans lives in poverty’. However, the
Council did not address the two key social issues. (4) Sustainable
development in the EU must not, however,
focus only on
poverty within the Union, but must also address the impact of
our economic activity on global poverty and the chances for
future generations. The Committee does not feel that adequate
consideration has so far been given to the issues of distributive
and intergenerational justice. The fact that development aid is
running at less than half of the promised levels is just one sign
that a great deal remains be done before a coherent policy may
be said to be in place. Nor can this shortcoming be offset by
the Everything but arms or similar initiatives.

3.3
As well as the eradication of poverty, another key issue
mentioned by the Commission in the first draft of its sustain-
able development strategy was population ageing. While both
issues have been incorporated (at least verbally) into the Lisbon
strategy, they are not included in the longer-term sustainable
development strategy as this focuses on environmental issues.
That must be remedied and the social dimension must be
discussed in greater depth.

(3) Communication from the Commission: A Sustainable Europe for a
Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Develop-
ment, COM(2001) 264 final, 15.5.2001
(4) Poverty eradication and population ageing

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/31

Apart

from the global

issues mentioned above,

3.4
the
upcoming strategy must also focus on the question of employ-
ment and environment: what can be done to create new, skilled
jobs through environmental protection and sustainable devel-
opment?

3.5 Due to the high importance of the social dimension of
the relations between social and
sustainable development,
economic-environmental
and
be
issues must
expressed in concrete terms.

discussed

3.6
The EESC therefore underlines that the social dimension
must be given very high attention in the review of the strategy
for sustainable development. Any failure to do so will in the
end harm the whole strategy and support for it.

3.7
The EESC proposes that the forthcoming review of the
EU strategy for sustainable development pay particular atten-
tion, even beyond 2010, to four areas of the social dimension:

3.7.1
A sustainable working life focuses on quality of work
within a full employment society. Quality of work is about
creating a good working life throughout an individual's career.
The increasing demands for mobility and flexibility must be
met by deploying major resources on stimulating life-long
learning
social protection.
Combining working life and family life must be made easier. At
the workplace, priority must be given to health and safety,
work organisation and working hours in order to increase
worker satisfaction and self-confidence. Gender equality is one
of the cornerstones of policies for improving quality of work.

and new adapted forms of

3.7.2
The social and economic consequences of the ageing
of the population need profound analysis in order to anticipate
the changes in society and to adapt
the policies required.
Reforms have been taken or are underway in all Member States
to achieve long-term sustainable pensions. In particular, the
trend of retiring early before the age of 60 in many countries is
putting pressure on pensions
systems. Solidarity between
generations has to be promoted. Policies must focus on welfare
for children and their families in order to build the foundations
for the welfare of the next generations. Too many children live
leave school early and have a bleak future. The
in poverty,
Committee will draw up an opinion on relations between
generations; the opinion will also focus on the role of the orga-
nised civil society in bridging generation gaps.

3.7.3
Society must be inclusive for all citizens, giving them
rights and possibilities to achieve those rights. Eradication of
poverty is a key objective. The homeless, drug addicts, crim-
inals and other excluded groups must be reintegrated into
society. Ethnic minorities,
immigrants and other groups that
risk exclusion are priority target groups for active policies for

social inclusion. Consistent and outreaching efforts to support
education and training are among the most important tools.
Shaping inclusion policies for all citizens is one of the crucial
measures for improving possibilities for a good quality of life.

3.7.4
The issue of healthcare and new emerging health risks
has become ever more urgent in recent years. The EU and the
Member States have launched initiatives
in response to
alarming reports of health risks due to food, water, chemicals,
tobacco etc. The EU for its part has responded with an
umbrella programme to promote health and healthcare, and in
particular programmes for fighting diseases caused by environ-
mental factors and by erroneous lifestyles. There is, however, a
lack of coordination and cooperation between the various
programmes to support health and combat health risks. The
Committee has underlined this in a number of opinions.
According to the Committee, health safety is a collective obliga-
tion and a fundamental right for citizens. The Committee will
prepare an opinion on this issue in order to draw conclusions
from emergencies and devise an innovative approach of
forward-looking analysis which will serve as a basis for future
debate. In this context, the Committee will highlight the cost-
benefit effects of resources spent on healthcare.

A Sustainable Social Development Charter covering
3.7.5
the above fields and setting out the relevant fundamental rights
of citizens could provide a great stimulus. It would have to be
accompanied by an EU Action Programme, aiming at coordi-
nating the various actions, and assist Member States in focusing
priority areas. The Committee underlines that this approach
could be of specific added value in the context of the present
and future enlargement of the European Union.

EU policy coherence

The new strategy should also indicate how spending
3.8
from the Structural Funds can be brought into line with the
debate on sustainability in the new EU funding period (2007
onwards).
‘Establishing sustainable development as an over-
arching objective of cohesion’ (1) is an idea of the Commission
that ought to be pursued. The Commission needs to give the
recipients of the Structural Funds clear qualitative goals in
order to improve coherence. The Committee is looking forward
to the debate on the new financial perspective and the inclu-
sion of tools and monitoring mechanisms to promote sustain-
ability. It is no longer acceptable, for example, for the Commis-
sion to, on the one hand, criticise the thrust of transport policy
when in practice it sometimes helps to finance it through the
Structural Funds. These inconsistencies must be eliminated.
When awarding subsidies, the EU must lay down sustainability
conditions and see to it that these are met.

(1) COM(2003) 745 final, p. 34

C 117/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.9
Regional development in general in the Member States,
which is co-financed via the Structural Funds, also requires
close assessment, however. The largest single payment made to
agriculture from the Structural Funds over the past few years
has been a EUR 40 million investment grant for a large dairy
plant in Saxony, Germany. Thanks to EU support and the use
of cheap Czech milk, this large plant is one of the most effi-
cient and productive in Europe. As part of the sustainability
strategy, the Commission should consider whether support for
the further centralisation of processing structures is always
consistent with sustainability objectives. European taxpayers
surely have the right to know whether investment projects co-
financed by the EU are consistent with the sustainability
concept. A kind of sustainability impact assessment is thus
required.

partnership between the European business community and
public authorities in line with the conclusions of the Johannes-
burg World Summit. The aim would be to encourage measures
to promote efficiency in products and production processes
and to encourage sustainable patterns of consumptions in
order to optimise resource use and minimise waste. Business
organisations at European level (3) should be encouraged to
take up a leadership role in promoting sustainable patterns of
production and consumption that meet societal needs within
environmental limits.

4. The consequence of enlargement

3.10
Another aspect of policy coherence is to check whether
research and development policy is fully consistent with the
sustainability debate.

4.1
It was not sustainable development, but the adoption of
the acquis that was the subject of the accession negotiations. It
is beyond doubt that the problems that need to be addressed
by sustainable development arose within the framework of the
law and not outside it.

foster

3.11
The same also applies to finance and tax policy,
although the Committee is perfectly aware that this is a matter
more for the Member States than for the EU. How does the
stability pact fare on the sustainability front? Can new tax
sustainability? (1) The EESC calls on the
initiatives
Commission to directly incorporate environmental and social
criteria in any reform of the stability and growth pact and to
make these just as binding as the economic and financial
criteria. As regards the development of the use of economic
instruments, more environmental taxes and charges have been
used in the last few years, and there is a slow but growing
move towards environmental tax reform as some countries
change their
reducing labour-related taxes and
increasing taxes and charges on environmental pollution,
resources and services (2).

tax base,

4.2
As members of the United Nations, virtually all the new
Member States have worked out a national sustainable develop-
ment strategy. As with the current EU Member States, there are
considerable inconsistencies between the sustainability strate-
gies and actual policy on the ground (see point 5 below).

The EESC has dealt with the economic, social and envir-
4.3
onmental problems of the future Member States and the appli-
cant countries in many of its opinions.
It agrees with the
Commission that, on the one hand, the environmental situation
has already radically improved in part or can be expected to do
so in the future as a result of technical improvements, such as
the installation of filters or the construction of sewage treat-
ment works. On the other hand, some clearly unsustainable
trends can be observed (4).

3.11.1
The planning and implementation of public procure-
ment projects which support sustainable development would
make its mark, as public procurement accounts for 16 % of EU
GDP and would certainly also send out a signal to, for instance,
businesses or private households.

for example in buildings,

The example of - in some cases disastrous - energy effi-
4.4
ciency,
resource
conservation, protection of the environment and job creation -
particularly in SMEs - could definitely go hand in hand.
However, there is no sign of policies in the accession countries
adopting an appropriate strategy.

illustrates

that

3.12 Moreover, the Committee feels there is no doubt that
the role of business is crucial in progressing towards sustain-
It believes the EU should draw up and
able development.
sustainable production and
itself
commit
and
consumption

to a policy of
the
on

dialogue

basis

of

a

(1) It is strange, for instance, that across Europe, human labour (despite
its oversupply) is heavily taxed while the environment (which is
becoming increasingly depleted) is subject to virtually no tax at all.
the latest Eurostat publication: Environmental
Taxes in the European Union 1980-2001: First signs of a relative
‘green tax shift’ – Eurostat 2003

for example,

(2) See,

4.5
Rather, the trend in the future Member States and the
applicant countries seems to be towards the relatively rapid
adoption of the patterns of production and consumption that
are common in the EU, and with them the sustainability
problems that the EU is currently trying to address.

(3) Based, for instance, on the example set globally by the World Busi-

ness Council for Sustainable Development

(4) In areas such as transport and agriculture. For example, the biggest
pork producer in the USA (Smithfield)
is currently investing in
gigantic pig farms in Poland, which has nothing to do with sustain-
able (or multifunctional) agriculture.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/33

4.6
It will be particularly important to let the people in the
new Member States and the applicant countries know that
sustainable development will benefit them, too, and does not
mean giving up their newly-gained ‘quality of life’. Failure to do
this alone could make the implementation of the EU's sustain-
ability strategy more difficult for the simple reason that the
relevant Commission initiatives could meet with increasing
resistance from representatives of the new Member States and
the applicant countries in the Council.

At EU level, it is vital to lay down conditions and to see
4.7
to it that sustainability become a factor in the distribution of
financial support. Information must be provided at political
level and in public administrations in the new Member States
in order to give practical assistance to the appropriate authori-
ties in their decision-making (1).

5. The link between the EU strategy and national and

local strategies

Sustainable development

is not a matter for the EU
5.1
alone. There is no doubt that the EU plays a significant role;
however, Member States, regions, businesses and individual citi-
zens also have a share of the responsibility. In future, there
needs to be better integration of all areas of activity and it is
essential that the specific responsibilities, powers and remits of
individual political and administrative players be clearly set out
and interlinked as part of coordinated strategies. Now that
more or less all the Member States – including four of the new
Member States – have developed their own sustainability strate-
gies, it would be worthwhile evaluating these national strate-
gies, assessing their effectiveness, and examining the extent to
which they are consistent and how they stand in relation to the
EU's sustainability strategy.

5.2 Without wishing to pre-empt any detailed study of the
issue, it is clear that national strategies' approaches to sustain-
ability vary widely. Some strategies focus on the environmental
dimension, while others address the three facets of sustain-
ability and present overall strategies for future social develop-
ment. Most national strategies were certainly not framed as a
means of implementing the EU strategy but were drawn up
nationally to meet the Rio commitment on national sustainable
development strategies. Nonetheless, the key elements of the
EU strategy are also reflected in most of the national strategies.
As these strategies have different priorities and are at different
stages in their implementation – and also vary in terms of
participation and revision arrangements – the Committee
expects that a detailed study will provide extensive comparative
material and establish a good basis for mutual learning and the
transfer of best practices. The Committee is ready to cooperate

(1) The Committee provides practical information on this issue in its
opinion, currently in the pipeline, on appropriate environmental
technologies in the new Member States.

with national
sustainable development councils and their
umbrella organisation, the European Environmental Advisory
Councils (EEAC) network in order to stimulate such exchanges
or provide a clearing house for the exchange of information
and best practices.

towards

the agricultural

sustainable development. However,

5.3 Not only transport and energy policy, but also important
EU reforms in 2003, clearly demonstrate how necessary it is
in
for the EU and the Member States to work together
reform, Agricultural
harmony. As part of
Commissioner Fischler proposed redesignating 20 % of
the
resources from the first pillar to rural development and agro-
environmental measures. This policy would certainly have been
a move
the
Member States decided in favour a much smaller modulation.
Also as part of
the EU has given
the agricultural reform,
Member States scope to divert 10 % of the funds that have
hitherto taken the form of direct farm payments, to measures
in support of sustainable development. It appears that, when
they come to implement
the Luxembourg decisions, no
Member State will take up that option. In fisheries policy, too,
where the current unsustainable policy is now threatening not
only fish stocks, but also the livelihoods of fishermen, it took a
very long time to reach agreement on conservation measures.
This demonstrates the need for very close cooperation in
drawing up and implementing sustainability policy.

5.4 While the overall conditions for sustainable development
need to be put in place via the European and national strate-
gies, much of the practical
implementation will be done at
regional and local level. Appropriate objectives and measures
must be worked out as part of the Local Agenda 21 in close
collaboration with the responsible policymakers and organised
civil society. Sustainable development is impossible without a
‘bottom-up’ approach of this kind.

The Committee thus also considers sustainable develop-
5.5
ment as an area of practical social and economic activity on all
levels. Sustainable development establishes a wide-ranging
framework for action, which, however, requires specific knowl-
edge and skills. It is a framework that is geared very strongly
towards knowledge and awareness. So far, neither European
education systems nor informal education have done enough
to help get the message across.

5.6 Hence, sustainable development – both as a framework
for action and an end in itself – must be incorporated in par-
ticular into education and training, and thus become something
that, in principle, every individual has to aim for and work on
in his or her immediate (geographical and social) environment.

C 117/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

5.7
EU sustainable development policies are thus particularly
important within the Union as they can give an enormous
boost to local trends and measures on this front at local level.

also to a very large extent with international trade. However, in
the WTO, much too little account has so far been taken of
sustainability considerations.

5.8 One issue that should,
in the Committee's view, be
addressed with the highest priority is the refocusing of the
aforementioned EU policies in order to kick-start the framing
and promotion of comprehensive sustainable development
schemes at local level. The Committee therefore proposes that
particular support be given to those programmes that are based
on cooperation between organised civil society and local autho-
rities and are designed on an individual basis to achieve specific
and measurable (quantitative and qualitative) objectives by
drawing on authoritative knowledge, education and lifelong
learning.

6. External aspects

6.1
The future competitiveness of economies is, of course, a
key issue. Stringently pursuing a policy that has sustainable
development as its target and leads, for example, to the intro-
duction of the latest environmental technology or the interna-
lising of external costs, etc., can or indeed must produce
competitive disadvantages if, on the one hand, other economies
fully or partly ignore the principles of sustainability and, on the
other hand, these disadvantages are not compensated for in
trade.

6.2
The scenario outlined in the previous paragraph is
precisely the situation the EU now faces. The refusal of the
USA and Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and indeed the
Bush administration's stated intention to defer some environ-
mental legislation in order to stimulate the economy, is a clear
indication that one of the most important economic powers in
the world prefers an apparently different and unsustainable
kind of development.

It will be all the more important to increase the pressure
6.3
during international negotiations on those countries that have
rejected the principles of sustainability to a greater or lesser
extent. They should be persuaded – as far as possible – to live
up to their responsibility and to introduce measures to ensure
sustainable development.

6.4 However, this is not sufficient. The EESC has already
examined this fundamental problem in its opinion on the
future of the CAP. (1) The Commission must therefore work –
much harder than it has done hitherto – to ensure that, for
example, sustainability criteria such as clear environmental,
animal welfare and social standards are integrated into the
WTO negotiations as a matter of urgency. Sustainability there-
fore has to do not only with production and consumption but

6.5
Just as it is necessary to accept developing countries'
argument that they no longer wish to suffer, for example, from
agricultural subsidies, so too must other countries accept that
the EU can no longer tolerate the abandonment of domestic
production because it cannot compete with rival products that
are produced using methods that distort competition and are
unacceptable from a sustainability angle; to illustrate this, the
EESC points to the above-mentioned example of sugar (see
point 2.3.10.1).

6.6
The EU's revised sustainability strategy should give thor-
ough consideration to this policy area and set out an appro-
priate strategy (2).

A strategy of

this kind also involves, among other
6.7
things,
forming coalitions with countries prepared to make
joint moves towards sustainable development. This might
include in particular the ACP countries with which the EU
enjoys special relations.

6.8
The EU sustainability debate has its roots in earlier UN
efforts on this front, which, in turn, also spawned national stra-
tegies. In the long run, these different strands cannot operate
separately, but need to be linked up. The new EU sustainability
strategy should set out how the various tiers (international, EU,
national, regional and local) can be merged to form a coherent
policy.

6.8.1
At Johannesburg, the EU committed itself not only to
existing international development targets, including those laid
down in the Millennium Declaration, but also to a number of
new and quantifiable detailed objectives and to the world
summit's plan of implementation. That must be reflected in the
EU sustainability strategy.

7. Discuss the need to set clearer strategic objectives and

indicators

The Committee supports the Commission's opinion that
they

7.1
‘the likelihood that … strategies succeed increases if
include:

— objectives
measures;

that are quantified as

far as possible, and

— European, national, regional and local components;

(1) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the
future of the CAP, OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, p. 87-99 This states: ‘In
principle, the Committee therefore expects that world trade policy
must enable societies or economic areas to protect their producers
and customers against products which were either not produced in
accordance with the sustainable production rules recognised and
practised in their areas or which do not meet imposed standards.’

— indicators for monitoring progress and evaluating the effec-

tiveness of policies’. (3)

(2) See point 2.2.5, which pointed out that a strategy needs to take

account of foreseeable difficulties from the outset.

(3) COM(1999) 543 final, p. 23

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/35

7.2
A more in-depth sustainability strategy must make clear
that there will be structural changes (and what these are likely
to be), but that in the long term, these changes to the frame-
work will be good for employment, social justice and the envir-
onment. Enough clear and readily understandable indicators
should be laid down in the each of
fields
(economic, environmental and social)
in order to monitor
progress on the
road to sustainable development. The
Committee considers that work currently being done by Euro-
stat is going in the right direction. It rejects the ideas that have
been mooted in the context of the Lisbon strategy, such as that
of reducing the number of indicators (in the case of environ-
mental protection, going as far as to reduce the indicators to
one, namely CO2 emissions). The European Environment
Agency's core set of environmental
indicators can help to
complement the structural indicators.

the various

7.3
As well as using indicators to identify development
trends, scenarios should be also be drawn up for use in estab-
lishing so-called ‘milestones’. As sustainable development has
no final objective, all the stakeholders involved must be clearly
made aware of the direction of the venture and the ultimate
impact of various development trends on, for instance, a par-
ticular economic sector or on the daily lives of ordinary people.

The Committee recommends

7.4
that extensive bench-
marking be conducted and that a list be drawn up of good and
bad examples of sustainable development.

8. How to improve the implementation procedure

8.1
In this opinion, the Committee stresses that the reasons
for insufficient progress include a poor understanding of what
sustainable development actually is,
fears and
resistance in the sectors potentially affected, and the absence of
any clear short-, medium- and long-term objectives, with the
result that sustainability is not properly incorporated into all
the relevant policy areas. Addressing these shortcomings
should also facilitate implementation.

the resultant

8.2
As the 2003 Brussels European Council made clear, ‘in
order to deliver the full set of reforms proposed in Gothenburg,
it is crucial that the EU institutions and the Member States take
action to enhance the effectiveness and coherence of existing
processes, strategies and instruments’. (1) The European Council
made particular reference to the Cardiff process, decoupling
objectives and structural indicators, together with the need to
monitor progress and identify best practices (2).

8.3
Under the Gothenburg decisions, the Commission had
already been asked to make their proposals more coherent by
subjecting them to a sustainability impact assessment. Last
year, the Commission introduced a detailed impact assessment,
modelled on the sustainability impact assessment already in use
in trade policy. The detailed impact assessment is made by the
appropriate Commission departments and serves to underpin
and substantiate Commission proposals. The examples so far
fail, as yet, to provide a sufficiently integrated view of the
issues at hand, but focus too much on cost-benefit analyses.
For its part, the sustainability impact assessment is conducted
as a joint venture with the relevant stakeholders.

8.4
The Committee notes that the road map on the follow-
up to the Gothenburg conclusions has not been updated. The
Committee is unaware of any preliminary work in this field
despite the fact that the road map is due for review at the
2004 spring European Council (3). It is not surprising, however,
that the absence of clear objectives makes it impossible to draw
up a road map.

8.5
A stocktake of the Cardiff process is also due at the
2004 spring European Council (4). The Committee expects the
stocktake – that is, regrettably not available on time - to say
that the sectoral strategies of the various Council formations
have so far existed largely on paper.

8.6
There is a clear need for a much greater degree of poli-
tical commitment to the long-term aim of sustainable develop-
ment. At EU level this requires a much clearer, better coordi-
nated approach to policymaking on sustainable development
within the European Commission. The Commission should
produce an annual sustainable development report.
It also
requires a much greater commitment to making the Cardiff
Process function effectively and that specific Councils (energy,
competitiveness, economic, transport, agriculture, etc.) prepare
annual reports to indicate progress towards a more sustainable
approach in their own policy areas. The European Parliament
should set up a procedure to allow itself to have a coordinated
approach to sustainable development
issues. The European
Economic and Social Committee should be encouraged to
stimulate debate on sustainable development
issues and to
work in close cooperation with national sustainable develop-
ment councils to step up the level of public debate and involve-
ment on sustainable development.

9. Recommendations for a consultation and communica-

tion strategy on sustainable development

In all

its documents, the Commission recognises the
9.1
importance of
from
In the
Gothenburg, the European Council emphasises the ‘importance
of consulting widely with all relevant stakeholders’ (point 23).

communication.

conclusions

(1) Brussels European Council presidency conclusions, 20 and 21

(3) Brussels European Council presidency conclusions, 20 and 21

March 2003, no. 57

(2) ibid

March 2003, no. 58

(4) ibid.

C 117/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

things:

‘There are concerns that

In its sustainability strategy (1), the Commission writes,
9.2
among other
the policy
responses have been driven more by narrow sectional interests
than the wider interests of society. This perception is part of a
wider malaise. Many believe that policy has become too tech-
nocratic and remote, and is too much under the influence of
vested interests. To tackle this rising disaffection with the poli-
tical process, policy making must become more open. An open
policy process also allows any necessary trade-offs between
competing interests to be clearly identified, and decisions taken
in a transparent way. Earlier and more systematic dialogue – in
particular with representatives of consumers, whose interests
are too often overlooked – may lengthen the time taken to
prepare a policy proposal, but should improve the quality of
regulation and accelerate its implementation.’

Communication and consultation are

9.3
two different
things. The Committee considers it vital, first of all, to draft the
future new sustainability strategy in very close collaboration
i.e. with the Member States (in
with the parties concerned,
order to secure better link-up between the strategies) and with
civil society. Selling an internally drafted strategy to the outside
world is not enough. The strategy must be the fruit of open
consultation and coordination if, when presented in its new
and eminently practical guise, it is to meet with the requisite
broad acceptance and support.

9.4
The Committee considers it absolutely essential that a
much more participatory process should be used in future to
develop the sustainability strategy.
the draft
sustainability strategy that formed the basis for the discussions
in Gothenburg was published just two months after the consul-
tation document. The discussions that are urgently required in
order to reach a broad social consensus (see points 2.2 and
2.3) need far more time than they have hitherto been allowed.

It recalls that

9.4.1
This exploratory opinion can definitely be seen as a
first step in a participatory process of this kind. The Committee
trusts that the undertaking to publish a relevant draft in May/
June 2004 will be honoured. Civil society should then be given
enough time to discuss the draft. The Committee considers
three months at least to be an appropriate time frame.

9.4.2
To keep a watch on the further drafting of the new
strategy, a stakeholder forum should be convened, similar to
the one staged for the strategy on the sustainable use of natural
resources.

Finally,

the outcome of

9.4.3
the consultation process
should be discussed with the parties involved. Not until that
has been done should the new Commission adopt the new
sustainability strategy.
It should then draw up its policy
programme in the light of the new sustainability strategy.

9.4.4
The Committee is happy to keep an eye on and
support this process, and accepts Environment Commissioner
Margot Wallström's offer (2)
to organise the consultation
process jointly with the Commission.

9.5
As already stated in point 2 above, efforts should be
made in the next few months to deepen the sustainability
strategy and to give it practical form. It is vital to give the
strategy substance as people can be guided by clear goals but
not by visions.

In future,

9.6
greatly improved – among other things, all
should be summarised in a single document.

information on the strategy should also be
the measures

9.7
The Committee would also like to see better coordina-
tion in future between the sustainability debate and education/
training and research policy. Judicious coordination between
education/training and the sustainability debate also means,
indirectly, that everyone has an opportunity to take part in the
process.

9.7.1
Education/training policy, which can certainly be
understood as part of the communication strategy, will focus in
particular on developing long-term, joined-up thinking within a
social context.

The analysis of unsustainable trends in our societies is
9.7.2
most often made within a timeframe of five to ten years, and
seldom beyond that. This is understandable, bearing in mind
the difficulties. At
the same time, measures for promoting
more sustainable development will often have to work within
timeframes of fifteen to twenty years or more (generations).
This illustrates one of the profound problems in tackling unsus-
tainable trends and measures to combat them: the lack of scien-
tifically reliable methods for outlining alternative scenarios.
Consideration should be given to the creation of an EU long-
term policy think-tank on sustainable development and the
promotion of sustainable lifestyles. Sustainable development
has to rely, of necessity, on alternative scenarios covering a
number of issues and trends, and on critical thinking. The
Committee proposes that in the revised sustainable develop-
ment strategy, a special research effort is included for the devel-
opment of comprehensive sustainable development simulation
models. These must indicate not only the social and economic
impacts of a rigorous sustainable development policy, but also
the social and environmental effects that the failure to halt
unsustainable trends is likely to have.

(1) COM(2001) 264 final, p. 9 (under the heading ‘Improve communi-

cation and mobilise citizens and businesses’)

(2) See speech at the EESC, 17 March 2004

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/37

9.7.3
The modernising of workplaces and the introduction
of environmental-friendly technologies will have effects on the
level of employees' education and training. The more advanced
the production methods, the more hierarchical structures are
broken down, and the greater the need for in-service training
and lifelong education for everyone in the labour market. A
society marked by an ambition to think and act in terms of
sustainable development must be a society marked by high
levels of education and training.

Brussels, 28 April 2004.

9.7.4 Without doubt, a knowledge-intensive society is, in the
long run, a sine qua non of sustainable development. Yet it is
also a consequence of it. This means, inter alia, that the educa-
tion systems must include much more knowledge about the
issues of unsustainable trends. An understanding of the chal-
lenges will add to the understanding of measures to be taken.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were rejected in the course of the
discussion (Rule 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure).

Point 2.1.3:

At the end of the second sentence, add:

‘… to social and economic aspects.’

Outcome of the vote

For: 37, against: 51, abstentions: 8.

Point 2.3.10.1:

delete

Outcome of the vote

For: 33, against: 65, abstentions: 2.

Point 2.3.10.2:

delete

Outcome of the vote

For: 33, against: 62, abstentions: 3.

Point 3.6:

delete

Outcome of the vote

For: 32, against: 53, abstentions: 6.