Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The role of sustainable development within the forthcoming financial perspectives’
Date: 2005-05-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: economic and social cohesion, general budget (EU), multiannual financial framework, sustainable development

C 267/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The role of sustainable development
within the forthcoming financial perspectives’

(2005/C 267/04)

On 29 November 2004 the future Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union decided
to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, on ‘The role of sustainable development within the forthcoming financial perspec-
tives’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 April 2005. The rapporteur was Ms
Sirkeinen, co-rapporteurs were Mr Ehnmark and Mr Ribbe.

At its 417th plenary session, held on 11/12 May 2005 (meeting of 11 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 151 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions:

1. Introduction

earlier

The EESC has

adopted opinions

1.1
covering
comprehensively the sustainable development strategy of the
EU. In this exploratory opinion the EESC discusses, as requested
by the Luxembourg Presidency,
the relationship between
sustainable development and the financial perspectives; that is,
what can and needs to be done by budget policies to integrate
and enhance sustainable development. This opinion is struc-
tured according to the headings — priority areas — of the
Communication on the financial perspectives.

priorities for the enlarged European Union and its proposals
for financial requirements,
instruments, governance and the
new financial framework as well as the financing system. The
three priorities for the next financial perspectives are:

— completing the internal market in order to achieve, in par-
ticular, the broader objective of sustainable development,

— the political concept of European citizenship, which hinges
on the completion of an area of freedom, justice, security
and access to public goods, and

1.2
The relationship between the EU budget and the objec-
tive of sustainable development is complex. The EESC endea-
vours in this opinion to shed light on this, but cannot here
cover all details. Therefore it is important to collect and analyse
knowledge and views on the issues involved on a broad scale.

— Europe as a global partner, promoting sustainable develop-

ment and contributing to security.

2.1.1
for a new financial
grouped under the headings (table as an annex)

The proposal

framework is

1.3
The EESC is ready and willing to play an active role in
the continuing work on sustainable development. To this end,
it can also make a significant contribution in keeping with the
tasks entrusted to it for the implementation of the Lisbon
Strategy by the March 2005 European Council. The interactive
network encompassing civil society and stakeholders which it
has been asked to set up is an appropriate platform for an
effective, multidimensional
(economic, social, environmental)
and clear evaluation, while at the same time promoting owner-
ship of Community policies by grassroots players.

1. Sustainable growth

1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment

1b. Cohesion for growth and employment

2. Preservation and management of natural resources incl.

Agriculture

2. The Commission Communication on the Financial

Perspectives 2007-2013

3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice

4. The EU as a global partner

5. Administration.

2.1
In its Communication ‘Building our common Future —
Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the enlarged Union
2007-2013’ (1) of 10.2.2004,
the Commission presents its

(1) COM(2004) 101 final

2.1.2
The Commission proposes a larger increase in expen-
diture under priority 1. It is proposed to raise total appropria-
tions for commitments from EUR 120.7 million in 2006 to
EUR 158.4 million in 2013. This should be covered by
payments of 1.24 % of GNI, including a margin of 0.10 %.

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/23

2.1.3
In its opinion on the financial perspectives 2007-2013
the EESC generally endorses the communication as it is seen as
cohesive, having a solid, farsighted political premise, providing
clear and consistent practical policy priorities and choices as
well as being balanced. On the level of own resources of the
Community budget, the EESC takes the view that is necessary
to ‘opt for increasing the own resources of the Community
budget for the new 2007-2013 programming period beyond
the current budgetary framework, to the maximum level of
1.30 % of GDP’.

3. General comments

It

the frame of

is of utmost

importance that

the new financial
3.1
the EU budgets for 2007-2013,
perspectives,
reflect clearly the priorities of the Union,
in particular the
Lisbon goals and sustainable development. To this end a signifi-
cant restructuring of expenditures must take place. If the finan-
cial perspectives, given their fairly long term, do not direct EU
development in the right direction, there is little hope that
other policies or later financial adjustments will succeed in
doing so.

3.2
The EESC does not in this opinion discuss at length the
issue of level of own resources, since this was thoroughly done
in the previous opinion referred to in 2.1 It is, however, impor-
tant to point out that Europe cannot be strong in delivering on
its priorities and meeting the needs and expectations of its citi-
zens unless it has strong financial resources. EU financing can
have a significant multiplier effect on total resources devoted to
given objectives, and this potential should be fully exploited. At
present, there is tension between firstly, the views of the net
the current
contributing Member States, secondly those of
to new
main beneficiaries,
Member States and their citizens and fourthly needs to reallo-
cate resources to new priorities of the EU. The Committee
stresses that a restructuring of expenditures towards the priori-
ties of the Union must take place irrespective of the level of
own resources finally decided upon.

thirdly political commitments

4. The concept of sustainable development

4.1
The EU strategy for sustainable development is based on
interpenetration, interdependence and coherence between the
so-called ‘three pillars’ of economic, social and environmental
considerations. Sustainable development covers both quantita-
tive and qualitative aspects. Policy decisions have to take all
three
into consideration simultaneously. Policies
directed mainly to one of these areas, or other policy areas,
have to be coherent with the goals of the other areas.

aspects

4.2
Sustainable development has a long-term and a global
aspect. Intergenerational justice means that present generations

should not live at the expense of future generations. Global
distributive justice does not allow us to live at the expense of
other societies or by stifling the development of their well-
being or global poverty eradication.

The sustainable development strategy differs from the
4.3
standard definition of a strategy because, rather than defining a
goal and a programme of measures to reach it,
it takes the
sustainability of the development approach as its key objective.
At no point can sustainable development be said to have
achieved completion; it is not so much a goal as a process. The
important issue is to ensure that developments, particularly in
the longer term, are consistent with one another and firmly
aimed at fulfilling the criteria mentioned above (points 4.1 and
4.2). This is the real challenge of sustainable development — it
cannot be delivered by specific targets or policies, although it
must be possible to measure major reversals in trends (such as
progress on the millennium goals).

Sustainable development requires a high level of policy
4.4
coherence, at EU and national
level. The total effort is very
much a combination of big-scale and small-scale steps, together
building up a process that counters unsustainable developments
and promotes changes that are in line with the overarching
objectives. One of the most difficult challenges in this approach
is to develop indicators that properly reflect developments.

4.5
The EU sustainable development strategy concentrates
presently on a few of the most urgent unsustainable trends in
our societies — climate change, transport, public health and
natural resources. Others, like eradication of poverty and popu-
lation ageing have been left out, and can be added at a later
stage.

4.6
The EESC has in its earlier opinions on sustainable
development urged action in certain policy areas. These are:
support for private and public investment in new and clean
technology, new efforts to improve quality of work, setting
prices on the use of natural resources as well as strategies for
decreasing dependence of fossil fuels.

Policies in these areas, how important they may be, are
4.7
however not alone sufficient to deliver on the objective of
sustainable development. The goal and criteria of sustainability
should be reflected in all policies. Individual EU policies must
be framed more coherently.

4.8
the EU
It may be time to reconsider the form of
approach to sustainable development. The forthcoming revision
of the sustainable development strategy will have to consider
the best way to implement the overarching principle of sustain-
able development.

C 267/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

5. The financial perspectives and sustainable development

The structure and detailed contents of the budget have a
5.1
fundamental
influence on the direction of EU developments.
The renewal of the budget structure, giving the new priority
headings, features an acknowledgement of the importance of
sustainable development. The EESC expects this to be reflected
in the implementation of the budget in real terms, and not
only doing the same things in the same way under new head-
ings.

social

5.2
The EESC shares the view of the Commission in giving
priority to growth and employment, in the Lisbon perspective
of
the years up to 2010. Growth must be understood as
economic growth taking into account the key European values
of
inclusion, health and environmental protection.
Competitiveness and economic growth are not final goals in
themselves, but tools for promoting social and environmental
goals. The problem is, however,
that consistently slower
growth and weaker competitiveness in the EU compared to the
other main economic areas can put both the European social
model and our environmental values at risk.

5.3
Budgetary decisions should also take into account the
fact that social and environmental development for their part
also contribute to economic growth.

5.4
The EU is not monolithic in its achievements vis-à-vis
sustainable development. Member States are in very different
situations. A few have been able to successfully combine rela-
tively strong economic growth with a high level of social and
environmental protection. There seems to have been a positive
interaction between developments in different areas. Some
other Member States, again, seem to struggle with the opposite
situation, a combination of very sluggish growth, difficulties in
addressing social problems and lagging behind in environ-
mental development. New Member States are in a different
situation than the older ones, characterised by growth and clear
development
from problematic starting points in the other
‘pillars’.

ment, and taking part in the overall EU actions and considera-
tions. After accession, the acquis communautaire guides their
development in environmental, health, social and other fields
towards sustainability, insofar as sustainable development (not
explicitly included in the acquis) is promoted by the acquis. But
most of the work towards sustainability still needs to be done.
Support programmes providing assistance in the form both of
financial resources and expertise can, and should, help these
societies to develop in a sustainable direction.

The priority areas of

5.6
the sustainable development
strategy as well as other areas with recognised unsustainable
trends — mentioned in paragraphs 4.4. and 4.5. — must be
treated as priorities in budgetary policies as well.

5.7
A budget heading as such is mostly neither ‘sustainable’
nor ‘unsustainable’. The effects on sustainable development
depend on the detailed design of programmes, objectives and
criteria for projects to be financed.

5.8
The key instrument for ensuring policy coherence with
sustainable development goals is impact assessment. This is
acknowledged by all stakeholders, including the Commission,
but steps towards a systematic,
independent and competent
assessment of all proposals of importance have been slow. The
EESC sees the preparation and the implementation of the new
financial perspectives as a window of opportunity to finally
introduce systematic assessment in practice.

5.9
Impact assessments need to be performed on every
single programme in the budget and their objectives. In this
context in particular support for unsustainable activities, related
to areas identified in the sustainable development strategy and
inter alia in EESC opinions, should be stopped. Impact assess-
ments with regard to effects on long-term sustainable develop-
ment should also be introduced in the Lisbon strategy, in line
with what the EESC has previously recommended.

5.10
Clear and transparent criteria ought to be used for the
selection of projects to be financed under different budget
headings and programmes. These should include sustainability
criteria, such as the impact of the project on the environment,
health, creation or loss of jobs and EU competitiveness.

Enlargement has been the most dominant

factor of
5.5
change for the EU in recent years, and will probably remain so
during the 2007-2013 period covered by the financial perspec-
tives. Obviously, this has a considerable impact on the budget,
in particular on expenditure for cohesion. The EESC has
discussed the issues of enlargement, cohesion and funding in
other contexts. Concerning sustainable development, it is clear
that joining the EU constitutes a major challenge with regard
to developing national policies towards sustainable develop-

5.11
Particular attention should be directed to the use of
resources from structural funds, the cohesion fund and agri-
cultural expenditure as well as the TEN programmes. In these
fields of EU activity, which represent the vast majority of EU
expenditure, choices have to be systematically directed towards
solutions that fulfil sustainability criteria as far as possible.

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/25

5.12
In these areas better supervision of results and of the
impact of money spent is needed. It is not enough to monitor
how much money has been spent and whether there have been
any infringements of administrative rules. In order to be able to
develop activities in the right direction, comprehensive impact
studies in relation to sustainable development criteria are
needed.

The EESC consequently reiterates its earlier support
6.1.4.1
for
the Commission's proposals concerning the European
Research area, doubling the financial contribution to the 7th
Framework Programme and launching the Environmental Tech-
nology Action Plan. In its forthcoming opinions on the 7th
Framework Programme and specific programmes the EESC will
also incorporate the aspect of sustainable development.

5.13 Merely conducting assessments of the likely impact of
proposed policies does not always give a complete picture on
which to base decisions. In some cases the impact of inaction
also needs to be studied and the results assessed in comparison
with the impact of various possible measures.

6. Comments on the priority areas of

the financial

perspectives

6.1 A) Sustainable growth — Competitiveness

for growth and

employment

The EESC agrees with the main objectives of

the
6.1.1
Commission proposal
for competitiveness for growth and
employment: promoting the competitiveness of enterprises in a
fully integrated single market, strengthening the European
RD&T-effort,
through EU networks,
Europe
improving the quality of education and training and the social
policy agenda, and helping European society to anticipate and
manage change.

connecting

6.1.2
Under this heading, the EESC wants in particular to
stress the key role of knowledge, R&D and new technology. By
putting real emphasis on this and providing adequate resources,
Europe has a unique chance to enhance productivity, competi-
tiveness, growth and employment in the face of fierce competi-
tion from other parts of the globe, and also to ease the stress
on environment and natural resources by using more eco-effi-
cient technological solutions to peoples' needs which safeguard
health and security.

As emphasised by the recent Stakeholder Forum on
6.1.3
Sustainable Development in the EU which the EESC organised
on 14-15 April in cooperation with the Commission, sustain-
able development as an overarching objective for the European
Union necessitates systematic and long-term efforts in the field
three pillars of
of research and development, covering all
economic, social and environmental progress. A number of
universities and scientific institutions in the EU have formed
networks for coordinated research on sustainable development.
The financial perspectives provide a valuable opportunity for
supporting these and other initiatives.

In this part of

6.1.5
the financial perspectives, covering
TENs in addition to R&D and innovation, special emphasis is
needed on energy and transport. Support for development of
technologies and market
renewable forms of
energy, energy efficiency and clean energy solutions need to
have high priority. TEN-T projects that merely increase the
volume of transport do not comply with the sustainability prin-
ciple.

launches of

The EESC has emphasised in several opinions that
6.1.6
particularly in the areas of transport and energy additional
efforts are needed to redirect developments towards sustain-
ability. The Committee has also proposed policy lines towards
this end. The Communication on the financial perspectives
does not make it clear whether it is intended to make sufficient
resources available for this purpose.

In preparing the EU for the intensively competitive
6.1.7
global community the financial perspectives will have to
approach two diametrically opposing challenges: first, the high
level of unemployment in most EU member states, second, the
need — in the near future — for more people in the labour
market. The EESC has already put forward recommendations
on these issues in several of its recent opinions on ‘Employ-
ment policy: the role of the EESC following the enlargement of
the EU and from the point of view of the Lisbon Process’, on
‘Business competitiveness’ and on ‘Improving the implementa-
tion of the Lisbon Strategy’.

In particular,

the EESC would like to see a new
6.1.8
approach for life-long learning, as this is a tool both for
improving employment and for shaping a higher awareness of
the issues at hand in the perspective of sustainable develop-
ment. Life-long learning appears to be one of the key missing
links in the efforts to implement the Lisbon strategy. A serious
commitment to sustainable development requires, in this area,
cooperation between the social partners as well as additional
financial contributions by Member States.

6.2 B) Cohesion for growth and employment

6.1.4
Increasing global competition for minerals and oil —
to take but two examples — and its consequences for costs
illustrate the need to develop new materials, new production
processes, and in general terms more resource-efficient technol-
ogies.

Cohesion has been necessary to deepen the integration
6.2.1
process. The EESC acknowledges the attempt by the Commis-
sion to re-focus cohesion actions on sustainable development
objectives.

C 267/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

6.2.2
Cohesion policy should aim at increasing economic
performance and creating more and better jobs by mobilising
unused resources. EU funds should not be used to support
lame-duck enterprises in a way that distorts competition or
merely transfers jobs from one part of the EU to another.
Actions should primarily focus on supporting new, sustainable
jobs,
increased competitiveness, human and physical capital,
internal-market consolidation, and improving labour mobility.

6.2.3
Concentration of resources towards regions lagging
behind (objective 1) and for a closer fit with the general stra-
tegic goals of the EU in the framework of sustainable develop-
ment should be supported. More emphasis on cross-border
cooperation is also essential to integrate the internal market
more deeply.

6.2.4
The transition period for the regions in which per
capita GDP is higher than 75 % of the Community average, as
a result of
is needed.
the statistical effect of enlargement,
However, subsidies should progressively be reduced.

6.2.5
Here too clear qualitative tests should be put in place.
Due to the availability of funding ‘from Brussels’, a considerable
amount of resources, which could have been used much more
efficiently, has been used for planning. Nor has regional plan-
ning always created new jobs in Europe.

There is need for a higher degree of ownership of
6.2.6
specific measures for sustainable development at
local and
regional levels. The EESC recommends that projects for cohe-
sion should be assessed not only in terms of economic growth
and employment, but also in terms of their effects on sustain-
able long-term development of the region.

6.3 Preservation and management of natural resources

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The Committee's opinion on the Future of the CAP (2)
6.3.1
included detailed descriptions and analyses of
the various
reform measures taken by the EU in the field of agricultural
policy, and pointed out the difficult circumstances faced by
European sustainable agriculture against a backdrop of globa-
lised markets. In its opinion, the Committee noted that reforms
were always preceded by criticisms and debates questioning
whether agricultural expenditure was balanced and socially
equitable, and by concerns about their environmental impact.
The Luxembourg reform has not ended these debates.

sustainability’.

6.3.2
This prompted a series of proposals from the Commis-
sion on gearing agricultural expenditure more closely to
‘greater
former Agriculture
Commissioner Fischler initially suggested the introduction of a
ceiling and then of a sliding scale for payments in order to
secure a ‘fairer’ distribution of support. Mandatory linkage of
direct support to environmental constraints that go beyond the

example,

For

(2) OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, pp. 87-99

legislation in force was also discussed on several occasions by
Commissioners McSharry and Fischler, so as to assess the envir-
onmental impact of the funding too. However, these proposals
failed to obtain majority support in the Council.

The agricultural reforms decided in summer 2003 give
6.3.3
Member States two basic options for introducing production
subsidies to implement the new direct payments: these involve
either a production subsidy based on the level of existing
payments, or one that is calculated wholly or at least in part on
the basis of the farm's acreage (‘regionalisation’).

6.3.4
In neither case has it been made mandatory — even
this time round — to tie future payment to the retaining and/
or creation of jobs. Against the backdrop of the sustainability
debate, this is likely to spark a new debate within society, in
the same way as the related issue of the environmental compo-
nent.

all,

the

After

‘cross-compliance

6.3.5
standards’ which
farmers have to meet do not go very far beyond compliance
with existing laws, a fact which in some Member States, as the
reform has been transposed into national policy, has already
led to heated controversy.

6.3.6
For the EESC it is clear that transfer of government
funds must always be linked with the common good. Payments
Ideally
must be justified, warranted and socially acceptable.
there should be a clearly recognisable link between the CAP
and the sustainability objectives of the Gothenburg and Lisbon
strategies (creating jobs, promoting social
justice, preserving
the environment); however, at present no such link is yet
discernible, at least for the majority of citizens. This is likely to
spark further discussions about
the whole point of such
payments and about the role of farmers in relation to these
objectives. The mid-term reform of the CAP, which has been
carried out against the wishes of most representatives of Euro-
pean farmers and livestock breeders, should be reorientated
towards stimulating sustainable family farming in Europe,
which would give it social legitimacy.

6.3.7
Payments under the first pillar of the CAP, and parti-
cularly direct payments, are undoubtedly of vital importance to
many farmers. However, decoupled direct payments, instead of
offering any political scope to steer farmers towards sustainable
production, are rather a means of safeguarding incomes, which
does not even benefit all farmers equally.

6.3.8
Under the second pillar — support for rural develop-
ment — payments are subject to clearly defined quid pro quos,
set by programmes developed at Community level. Examples of
for
these are the agri-environmental programmes, support
organic farming, diversification of
(e.g.
promoting processing and sales of raw products), as well as
support for small and micro-businesses in rural areas.

farming activities

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/27

In this context,

6.3.9
the call by the new Agriculture
Commissioner Fischer-Boel at the launch of the Green Week in
Berlin on 20 January 2005 to ‘make rural development a
cornerstone of the Lisbon strategy’ is of relevance. Also signifi-
cant are comments from the Commissioner's cabinet to the
effect that, whereas there is unlikely to be a great deal of job
creation under the first pillar, rural development policy is seen
to have considerable potential. The EESC feels that it would be
particularly helpful for the Commission to carry out studies as
soon as possible to corroborate the probable impact of the
CAP's two pillars on employment, the environment and social
matters.

The new draft

6.3.10
regulation on rural development
currently under discussion envisages more activities in this area
(e.g. funding of NATURA 2000 areas and implementation of
the Water Framework Directive). Rural development is thus
increasingly becoming an important political
to steer
farmers towards sustainability, a tendency which is welcomed
by the EESC.

tool

However, the Commission's plans for the 2007-2013
6.3.11
period envisage maintaining the budget for rural development
at current levels. For the EESC this means that, given its objec-
tives, rural development is underfunded even in the EU's finan-
cial perspective.

6.3.12
Given the central relevance of rural development
measures to the sustainability debate, the Committee wholly
fails to understand the current Council discussion — launched
by the six net contributor countries — on sweeping cuts in this
area.

6.4.3
Safety and security of our everyday life, including daily
needs, is a high priority for Europeans. Citizens expect from
the Union a high level of protection against risks of natural
disasters, health and environmental crisis and other large-scale
disasters. Dangers to health from hazardous substances in the
environment or alimentation as well as safety and security stan-
dards of, in particular, energy and transport, need continuous
attention and action at the Union level.

6.4.4
An adequate level of basic services of general interest,
such as health and education, energy, transport and communi-
cations needs to be ensured. Physical safety of supply in some
of these cases, as energy and transport, is an important aspect
when developing the internal market as well as multi- and bilat-
eral trading and other external relations.

6.4.5
Sustainable development is gradually making headway
thanks to the awareness, attitudes and actions of individual citi-
zens and groups, and cannot ever again be substituted solely by
top-down actions decided by those at the head of our systems,
organisations and institutions. Europe can pride itself on well-
organised and functioning societies,
including well educated
and actively participating citizens as well as a highly developed
structure of civil society organisations. This is perhaps the best
possible cultural basis for further sustainable development.

Enlargement has

6.4.6
further widened the variety of
cultures in Europe. This can enrich everybody's life, but efforts
are needed to promote mutual understanding. Sharing of
knowledge and experiences of economic, political and everyday
life, including on how to proceed towards sustainable develop-
ment, needs also to be supported. The beneficiaries would not
only be the new Member States, but all of Europe and its citi-
zens.

6.4 Citizenship, freedom, security and justice

6.5 The EU as a global partner

To ensure a true area of freedom, security and justice
6.4.1
for the Europeans action at the EU level is necessary, both in
order to achieve effectiveness but also to share the financial
burden. Successful
integration of immigrants is a matter of
both social cohesion and a prerequisite for economic efficiency.
The establishment of the European Border Agency, a common
asylum and immigration policy, measures involving legal resi-
dents or newly arrived third country nationals in EU Member
States, as well as prevention and return of illegal residents are
supported by the EESC.

At the UN World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
6.5.1
ment in Johannesburg, the EU profiled itself as a dynamic and
result-oriented participant. Launching new efforts such as the
Water and Energy initiatives (the partnerships of the willing)
gained much goodwill for the EU.

6.5.2
At the UN level, implementation of the 52-page action
plan from Johannesburg is progressing. It is a slow process,
with considerable difficulties for the participating countries to
live up to the promises and plans.

Preventing and fighting crime and terrorism is a key
6.4.2
challenge for the Union. Sufficient resources to address the
need for security is a prerequisite for administrative, social and
economic sustainability of our societies.

6.5.3
The EU must live up to its commitments and the
leading role it took at the World Summit. This needs to be
reflected in the allocations of the financial perspectives.

C 267/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

6.5.4
In particular, the EU will have to give more impetus
to efforts in the least developed countries (LDCs), with focus on
basic needs such as water, energy, healthcare, safe food, basic
education and training as well as the development of agri-
culture.

6.5.5
Individual EU countries have developed ambitious
support programmes for LDCs, particularly in Africa. There is a
need for better co-ordination between the EU level and the
national level as to outlining and implementing these develop-
ment programmes.
In the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific)
countries, the Cotonou programme has proved to be a valuable
tool for involving social partners and organised civil society.

6.5.6
Sustainable development is to some degree integrated
in these development programmes. It has to be given a central
place, in accordance with the action plan adopted at Johannes-
burg.

In order to increase the coordination of efforts, and to
6.5.7
strengthen the dimensions of sustainable development,
the
EESC recommends further initiatives from the EU, primarily in
the form of building ‘coalitions of the willing’ for specific devel-
opment issues, such as water, energy, safe food and healthcare.

7. Conclusions

7.1
The renewal of the budget structure, giving the new
priority headings, features an acknowledgement of the impor-
tance of sustainable development. The EESC expects this to be
reflected in the implementation of the budget in real terms, and
not only doing the same things in the same way under new
headings. The Committee stresses that a restructuring of expen-
ditures towards the priorities of the Union must take place irre-
spective of the level of own resources finally decided upon.

It

the frame of

is of utmost

importance that

7.2
the new financial
perspectives,
the EU budgets for 2007-2013,
in particular the
reflect clearly the priorities of the Union,
Lisbon goals and sustainable development. To this end a signifi-
cant restructuring of expenditures must take place. If the finan-
cial perspectives, given their fairly long term, do not direct EU
development in the right direction, there is little hope that
other policies or later financial adjustments will succeed in
doing so.

7.3
The EESC shares the view of the Commission in giving
priority to growth and employment in the Lisbon perspective
the years up to 2010. Growth must be understood as
of

Brussels, 11 May 2005.

social

economic growth taking into account the key European values
of
inclusion, health and environmental protection.
Competitiveness and economic growth are not final goals in
themselves, but tools for promoting social and environmental
goals. The problem is, however,
that consistently slower
growth and weaker competitiveness in the EU compared to the
other main economic areas can put both the European social
model and our environmental values at risk.

The priority areas of

7.4
the sustainable development
strategy as well as other areas with recognised unsustainable
trends — climate change,
transport, public health, natural
resources, eradication of poverty, population ageing and depen-
dence on fossil
fuels — must be treated as priorities in
budgetary policies as well.

7.5
A budget heading as such is mostly neither ‘sustainable’
nor ‘unsustainable’. The effects on sustainable development
depend on the detailed design of programmes, objectives and
criteria for projects to be financed.

The key instrument for ensuring policy coherence with
7.6
Impact
sustainable development goals is impact assessment.
assessments need to be performed on every single programme
in the budget and their objectives. In this context support for
unsustainable activities in particular should be stopped.

Clear and transparent criteria ought to be used for the
7.7
selection of projects to be financed under different budget
headings and programmes. These should include sustainability
criteria, such as the impact of the project on the environment,
health, creation or loss of jobs and EU competitiveness.

7.8
Particular attention should be directed to the use of
resources from structural funds, the cohesion fund and agri-
cultural expenditure as well as the TEN programmes. In these
fields of EU activity, which represent the vast majority of EU
expenditure, choices have to be systematically directed towards
solutions that fulfil sustainability criteria as far as possible.

7.9
The EESC wants in particular to stress the key role of
knowledge, R&D and new technology. By putting real emphasis
on this and providing adequate resources, Europe has a unique
chance to enhance productivity, competitiveness, growth and
employment in the face of fierce competition from other parts
of the globe, and also to ease the stress on environment and
natural resources by using more eco-efficient
technological
solutions to peoples' needs which safeguard health and security.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/29

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected at the plenary session:

Point 4.5

Amend as follows:

‘The EU sustainable development strategy concentrates presently on a few of the most seemingly urgent unsustain-
able trends in our societies — climate change, transport, public health and natural resources. Others, like eThe
eradication of extreme poverty and hardship population ageing have been left out, and can be added at a later stage
and the age revolution must be dealt with at the same time. One of the main changes required and facilitated by the
sustainable development strategy is to get away from this notion of priorities, without losing sight of the need to
act, even on a sectoral basis.’

Reason

These proposals all have the same aim: to spell out in more detail than in the exploratory opinion the main cultural
changes required and generated by the strategy and concept of sustainable development.

It should be stressed that the cultural changes in question are already at work within society and among individuals, and
if they are encouraged by policies and institutions (and therefore the financial perspectives), then the sustainable develop-
ment strategy will become truly operational. Otherwise, our worst fears for the future could become reality.

Voting:

For:

Against:

51

54

Abstentions: 26.