Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action (COM(2005) 658 final)
Date: 2006-05-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, climate change, demography, economic and social cohesion, environmental protection, poverty, public health, sustainable development

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/29

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Devel-
opment Strategy — A platform for action

(COM(2005) 658 final)

(2006/C 195/08)

On 13 December 2005 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

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 26 April 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe,
and the co-rapporteur was Mr Derruine.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions.

1. Summary of EESC conclusions and recommendations

The EESC has repeatedly mentioned the importance of
1.1
sustainable development
for Europe's future and for global
development, and therefore welcomes the presentation of a
‘platform for action’ in which the Commission addresses the
issue.

The communication presented by the Commission is
1.2
one of five documents published in 2005 alone on the subject
of sustainable development. Although he EESC is constantly
stressing the importance of concrete steps, it deplores this large
number of different documents produced, which makes it
almost impossible for the average politically aware person to
follow the dossier.

The links between the Lisbon strategy and the sustain-
1.3
able development strategy are unclear. Measures to provide
information and improve coherence are needed to ensure that
these links are understood by the general public. The impact
analysis tool must be adapted so as to take account of the
social and environmental dimensions to the same extent as the
economic dimension. The research and innovation advocated
under the Lisbon strategy should explicitly support sustainable
development.

1.4
The EESC does not see the ‘platform for action’ set out
in the communication as a new, revised strategy. Although it
provides an accurate analysis of the current situation and notes
that it is unsustainable, the communication does not really get
beyond this. Far too little,
is said about what
specific action could be taken.

if anything,

In this document, the Commission does not follow the
1.5
EESC's recommendation of April 2004 or meet its own under-
taking of June 2005. It does not set out clear goals to be
reached under the sustainability strategy.

result in gaps when it comes to identifying instruments. This is
if you do not
a definite problem with the communication:
know exactly where you are going, then you cannot decide
how you will get there.

The key actions described in the communication are
1.7
vague and very poorly defined. Some are former demands, or
undertakings, which have been pending for more than 30 years
without being carried out. But there is no discussion of why
such long-standing objectives have not been achieved, or of
whether they are still appropriate and above all sufficient.

the
1.8 Wherever a crucial statement is made, however,
Commission remains non-committal. Its stated intention to use
international trade as an instrument for promoting sustainable
development can only be welcomed. But a ‘platform for action’
can also be expected to answer the question of how to achieve
such an aim.

1.9
The Commission should clarify the role of the parties
concerned by answering the question of who should be doing
what, depending on the remits of the EU, the Member States,
the social partners and other players.

1.10
The EESC for its part intends to contribute to the
debate by building up a database that can be used to promote
best practice,
identifying obstacles encountered by operators,
etc. This should enhance the expertise which the Commission
and other parties can draw on.

1.11
The communication thus leaves more questions open
than it answers; it even raises new questions for which society
is vainly awaiting a response.

1.6
A strategy should normally describe the means of
achieving objectives. The absence of objectives is bound to

The EESC deeply deplores this situation. The communi-
1.12
cation is not really bringing sustainable development policy
forward, but rather proves that the process currently seems to
have stalled.

C 195/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

2. Main elements and background of the opinion

2.1
On 13 December 2005, just before the EU Council of
Economics and Finance Ministers in Brussels, the Commission
presented a communication to the Council and the European
Parliament on The review of the Sustainable Development Strategy
— A platform for action (1).

2.2
The EU's sustainable development strategy under review
was adopted at the summit meeting in Gothenburg held in the
summer of 2001. The EESC has expressed its views several
times both on preparations for the strategy and on the strategy
itself, most recently for example in its exploratory opinions on
Assessing the EU sustainable development strategy (2) (April 2004)
and on The role of sustainable development within the forthcoming
financial perspectives (3) (May 2005). It also held a high-profile
Stakeholder Forum with the Commission in April 2005 that
was considered to be very constructive, and another hearing in
March 2006 in connection with drawing up this opinion (the
results of the hearing have obviously been taken into account
in the opinion).

2.3
The Prodi Commission had announced that it would
revise and adopt the Sustainable Development Strategy, but this
never happened. Instead, there were considerable delays each
time with drawing up the document(s). This may be a sign of
how difficult the Commission — as well as the Council — find
it to take forward the sustainable development strategy.

2.4
In February 2005 the Barroso Commission presented,
not a revised strategy, but a communication entitled The 2005
Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: Initial Stock-
taking and Future Orientations (4).
In that communication the
Commission talked about ‘the worsening of unsustainable trends’,
noted that progress on integrating environmental concerns into
sectoral policies was ‘limited so far’, that ‘poverty and social exclu-
sion’ were a ‘growing problem’, and that ‘in a world of growing
'interdependence' we cannot continue to produce and consume as we
are doing today’.

2.5
The communication now under discussion must be seen
in the above context. The EESC can see the document as a
further step towards revising the sustainability strategy, but not
as the result of a completed revision. According to recent —
though mostly unofficial — information, the current intention
is that the European Council should adopt a revision of the
2001 sustainability strategy at its summit in June 2006 and
that the conclusions of the summit should then present the
common European sustainability strategy until 2009. The EESC
would point out firstly that the Commission has not fulfilled its

(1) COM(2005) 658 final.
(2) OJ C 117 of 30.4.2004, p. 22.
(3) OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005, p. 22.
(4) COM(2005) 37 final of 9.2.2005.

2001 commitment to present a revised strategy at the begin-
ning of each new Commission term. Now five documents (5)
drawn up in 2005 are on the table which at best can be consid-
ered ideas and background material for a revised strategy, but
in no way a new, revised strategy for the next four years that
addresses current — and increasingly worrying — trends.

2.6
The EESC is surprised that the Commission has not
provided any detailed comments on its recent exploratory
strategy (6),
opinion Assessing the EU sustainable development
although it had promised to do so. Many of the basic questions
raised by the Committee in that opinion have not yet been
addressed, which is reflected and confirmed in the lack of
goals, ideas and direction in the present ‘platform for action’.

2.7
The Committee is also unable to find — as was the case
in 2004 — any clear indication as to how the two major strate-
gies that guide the EU's action, sustainable development and
the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment, are defined
and classified in relation to the objectives set by the Union in
Article 2 of the EU Treaty (7). The national reform programmes
for the Lisbon strategy show that sustainable development is
not identified as a priority by the Member States. This conflicts
with the conclusions of the European Council of March 2005,
in which sustainable development was identified as the over-
arching strategy of the EU.

statements, questions

In this opinion, the EESC will consider mainly whether
2.8
the
it
presented in its above-mentioned opinions of April 2004 and
May 2005 have been taken on board and applied.

and recommendations

that

The opinion also considers whether the Commission's

2.9
own explicit undertakings are being fulfilled.

(5) 1) COM(2005) 658, Communication on the review of the Sustain-
able Development Strategy – A platform for action (13.12.2005)
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/
com2005_0658en01.pdf).

2) EUROSTAT report: Measuring progress towards a more sustain-
able Europe – Sustainable development indicators for the Euro-
pean Union – Data 1990-2005 (13.12.2005).

3) Presidency conclusions of the European Council on Guiding
Principles for Sustainable Development (16-17.6.2005). (http://
ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/85349.pdf).

4) COM(2005) 37: The 2005 Review of

the European Union
Strategy for Sustainable Development: Initial Stocktaking and
Future Orientations (9.2.2005)
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/
LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0037en01.pdf).
5) Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2005) 225.

(6) OJ C 117 of 30.4.2004, p. 22.
(7) OJ C 325 of 24.12.2002, p. 5.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/31

3. General comments

Commission documents prove that such an approach is also
effective (9).

3.1
In the communication under consideration the Commis-
sion first outlines the general situation, as it has done in many
previous documents. These two sentences from the third para-
graph of the communication surely sums up the situation quite
clearly: ‘Europe has made a good start in applying these principles of
sustainable development. […] However, the rapid pace of change
requires the stepping up of efforts … .’

3.2
The Committee agrees with this statement and with the
general analysis: many exemplary initiatives have been taken at
both EU and national level, as well as by companies, NGOs and
private individuals. But these are not yet enough to signal a
trend reversal.

3.3
There are concrete successful examples at national level
(e.g. the positive environmental and employment impact of the
German programme to promote energy-efficient building reno-
vation and use of renewables) at sectoral level (e.g. not using
climate-harming CFCs in car air-conditioning systems and the
‘Environmental Technologies Action Plan’)
and even at
company level (e.g. British Petroleum's undertaking in 1998 to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 10 % below 1990 levels by
2010, a goal that was already reached in 2003 thanks to
energy efficiency measures; see also the letter from major UK
and multinational companies supporting the British prime
minister in combating climate change (8).)

3.4
These examples show that sustainable production and
consumption practices are not only technically, but also
economically, feasible and help to maintain or create jobs. This
message must be conveyed more clearly than before.

is an alternative, new,

Sustainable development

the Committee welcomes the joint efforts of

3.5
inte-
grated social development concept; the economic, social and
ecological dimensions of sustainable development are mutually
reinforcing and help to uphold ‘European values’. Sustainable
development thus promotes the general social good. In this
the
context
Commission and Eurostat to develop a ‘welfare indicator’ that
is a more informative unit of measurement than GDP from the
perspective of sustainable development. The ‘ecological foot-
print’ reported by the European Environment Agency,
for
example, could serve this function. Such an indicator would
have to take external environmental costs, but also certain
social costs, into account.

However, a broad debate among political and social
3.7
stakeholders is first required about
the values we have in
Europe — sometimes in contrast to other regions of the world
— and which we must defend, and the objectives we wish to
achieve in Europe through sustainable development. Indeed the
debate seems to be long overdue. Only when the objectives and
(European) values aspired to have been clearly identified can we
begin to discuss ways of achieving these goals (i.e. the strategy).
Once again, the EESC is not convinced that the matter has
been adequately discussed. The Committee repeats its comment
from two years ago that the concept of ‘sustainability’ itself is
unfamiliar to many ordinary people, and those that have heard
of it are often unable to understand what it means. This may
be a poor basis for political action (the same applies to the
Lisbon strategy).

3.8
The EESC is very aware that this debate about values
and objectives is not an easy one, especially in the context of
global markets. If Europe takes the lead in maintaining living
conditions, this might for example cause unsustainable produc-
tion to be transferred from Europe to other parts of the world
(which would not be a positive achievement from a global
perspective) and have a negative impact on the competitiveness
of European companies. But
is precisely because many
problems are likely to arise that the broad debate repeatedly
called for by the Committee must finally take place.

it

Focusing on key issues

In its communication the Commission focuses on six

3.9
‘key issues’:

— climate change and clean energy,

— public health,

— social exclusion, demography and migration,

— management of natural resources,

— sustainable transport,

3.6
The point of sustainable development is not to correct
deficits created in the development of one sector through
measures taken in other sectors. That is how policy used to
work. In June 2005 the European Council confirmed this inter-
pretation of the concept of development, and several European

(8) http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/bep/downloads/CLG_pressrelease_letter.pdf.

— global poverty and development challenges.

(9) In particular the following:

‘The effects of environmental policy on European business and its
competitiveness: a framework for analysis’, SEC(2004) 769.
‘Commission staff working document on the links between employ-
ment policies and environment policies’, SEC(2005) 1530.
‘Employment and productivity and their contribution to economic
growth’, SEC(2004) 690.

C 195/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

it

As

3.10
repeatedly stressed in its above-mentioned
opinions, the EESC considers a certain focus to be appropriate,
but it would point out that at least those areas, such as agri-
cultural and regional policy, for which the EU has full responsi-
bility — including financial
responsibility — should be
addressed more thoroughly. These areas are notable by their
virtual absence from the communication: the only reference is
an internet link in Annex 2 to the Commission proposal for a
regulation on the strategic guidelines for rural development
2007-2013 (COM(2005) 304), but no more details are given
about the objectives and measures linked to sustainable devel-
opment.

reflects the commitment

Reform of the agricultural and fisheries policy, for
3.10.1
example,
is mentioned briefly in the introduction to the
communication in relation to the EU's efforts to date, where
the Commission stresses that ‘the reinforcement of rural develop-
to integrated policy-
ment policy’
making. But the EESC is completely baffled by this statement,
since there is absolutely no question of any ‘reinforcement’.
Contrary to the Commission's political commitment and the
EESC's recommendations (10), funding for rural development in
the 2007-2013 programming period will be significantly below
the current budget outturn and the Commission's planned
expenditure (11).

3.10.2
As regards fisheries, the EESC would simply point
out that so far it has not even been possible to guarantee the
agreed catch quotas, which means that seas continue to be
overfished. Simply listing various internet sites with informa-
tion on previous policies or possible planned Commission
communications or green papers does not in the circumstances
seem enough to achieve the stated ‘operational’ goal of
achieving a ‘maximum sustainable yield in fisheries by
2015’ (12).

trends represent long-term problems that will need long-term solu-
tions, the only way to ascertain that society is moving in the right
direction is by setting clear
intermediate targets and measuring
progress. Setting long-term objectives, therefore, must not come to
mean postponing action.’

3.12
In its opinion of April 2004 the EESC also lamented
the fact that the sustainability strategy contained so few clear,
and therefore also measurable, objectives. It noted that this had
not always been the case: the Commission communication on
which the sustainability strategy was based set out clear objec-
tives (13).

3.12.1
The EESC already made it clear in that opinion that a
strategy would lack direction without appropriate objectives
and interim targets. We asked what a ‘strategy’ actually meant,
noting:
‘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;

Lack of clear objectives

— address those factors that may cause problems in this

process; and

it announced approaches

3.11
In its communication of February 2005 (COM(2005)
37 final), the Commission made an important and — in the
Committee's view — correct analysis of the continuing unsus-
tainable situation and trends, and in Part II (‘Responding to the
challenges’)
the EESC had
previously called for. For instance, the Commission emphasised
that ‘economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection
go hand in hand, both in Europe and in other parts of the world’,
and said that it wished to put ‘sustainable development at the core
of EU policy-making’, pointing to ‘the need for clearer objectives,
targets and related deadlines as a way of giving focus to action in
priority areas and enabling progress to be measured. Although the

that

(10) cf. EESC opinion on The Proposal for a Council Regulation on support
for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Devel-
opment (EAFRD), OJ C 234 of 22.9.2005, p. 32; and its exploratory
opinion on The role of sustainable development within the forthcoming
financial perspectives, OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005, p. 22.

(11) cf. Speech given on 12 January 2006 by the Agriculture Commis-
sioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, at the International Green Week.

(12) COM(2005) 658, Annex 2, p. 30.

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

assessed using sustainability criteria (14).

3.13
Probably the greatest fault of the Commission commu-
nication and the ‘platform for action’ it describes is that again
no real, clear targets and milestones are set and ways of
reaching them outlined, although the Commission itself regards
these as necessary. In fact the document only contains very
vague key actions; Annex 2 mentions a number of ‘operational
objectives and targets’, as well as ‘examples of key actions:
ongoing and planned’, which either seem arbitrary, provide
little information or are intended only to be ‘explored’ or
‘considered’.

(13) That communication envisaged some very broad objectives, such as
the need for long-term CO2 reductions of 70 % (COM(2003) 745
final/2.

(14) OJ C 117 of 30.4.2004, p. 22, point 2.2.7.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/33

3.14
There is no mention either of who would ultimately be
responsible for what and of how the different political levels
should be interlinked in order to achieve optimum synergy
effects from the various remits.

No debate about instruments

tax, procure, subsidise,

3.15
The EESC was interested to read point 3.2. and the
comments on the most effective mix of instruments. It is
quite correct that: ‘Governments and other public bodies have a wide
range of tools by which they can encourage people to make changes
— how they regulate,
invest, spend and
provide information. The challenge is to achieve the right policy mix
[…]. Perhaps the most powerful method to promote change is to
ensure that markets send the right signals (“getting prices right”), thus
providing a powerful incentive for people to change their behaviour
and shape the market place accordingly. This can be done by making
sure that all of us, producers and consumers alike, face the full costs
and consequences of our decisions — when we are making those deci-
sions. For example, this means building the cost imposed on others in
society by “polluters” into the price of the product, … .’

3.16
The EESC can only endorse this approach, which is
consistent with many of the opinions it has adopted over the
past few years (15). However, the Committee deeply regrets that
the communication gets bogged down in the analysis and gives
no indication of how external costs are to be internalised in
this way.

3.17
In its opinion of April 2004 the EESC called on the
Commission to take action here by seeking and conducting
dialogue with all the parties involved. These parties had not
only every interest, but also a right, to learn how (and when)
internalisation of external costs would be guaranteed. In that
opinion the EESC also asked for clarification of the impact of
internalising costs on economic competitiveness in general and
transport in particular. The Commission itself had noted that
‘less than half the external environmental costs …. are internalised by
‘unsustainable …
the market
demand’ (16).

encouraging

thereby

prices’,

The EESC also regrets the Commission's relative lack of
3.19
commitment in the statement:
‘Member States should, together
with the Commission, exchange experiences and best practice on
shifting taxation from labour to consumption and /or pollution in a
revenue-neutral way,
increasing
employment and of protecting the environment.’ The EESC asks the
Commission to take steps without delay to undertake the
necessary research and pass on the findings with an evaluation
in the form of a communication
and impact assessment
addressed to the European institutions.

to contribute to the EU goals of

3.20
As well as abandoning an old EU virtue, that of formu-
lating clear goals and setting clear deadlines, the absence of
discussion about possible instruments and their
is
another major failure of the communication. Of course, this
avoids possible conflicts, but the EESC has called several times
for such a critical discussion with all those concerned to be
actively sought, since without it no substantial progress can be
made on the sustainability agenda.

impact

the announcement

The Committee welcomes

3.21
that
national strategies are to be better aligned with European strate-
gies. But as said, this requires a real European strategy, not just
one on paper that merely blends long-established positions,
declarations of intent and programmes that have so far not
succeeded in adequately reversing negative trends.

3.22
The Commission document assigns impact assessments
a key role in improving coherence between different initiatives
and their different phases (planning,
implementation, etc.).
However, it is essential to bear in mind that such assessments
should not be based solely on costs incurred, but must also
take account of economic, social and environmental bene-
fits (17). A criterion similar to the ‘competitiveness test’ should
therefore be designed to ensure that these last two dimensions
are not neglected.

3.22.1
The Committee reiterates its view that eligibility for
funding under the various programmes and budget
project
headings should be based on the criterion of sustainable devel-
opment (18). This should also be taken into account when evalu-
ating the effectiveness of spending.

Lack of clear governance

3.18
The EESC would like to know when and where the
Commission finally plans to have this debate. We believe that
Sustainable Development Strategy is exactly the right context
for doing so. The Committee regrets that a communication on
the use of market-based instruments for environmental policy
in the internal market, which was promised over two years
ago, is still not forthcoming.

3.23
The EESC sees another weakness in the Commission
document in addition to the absence of clear objectives and a
discussion of instruments, namely that the Commission does
not answer the question of how responsibility is to be shared.
This is a delicate issue, since some of the measures planned fall

(15) See point 1.3 of the EESC's own-initiative opinion on Renewable
energy sources, adopted on 15 December 2005, OJ C 65 of
17.03.2006, p. 105

(16) SEC(1999) 1942 of 24.11.1999, p. 14.

(17) See Commission communication on assessing adminstrative costs,

COM(2005) 518.

(18) See exploratory opinion on The role of sustainable development within
the forthcoming financial perspectives, OJ C 267 of 27.10.2005, p. 22.

C 195/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

within the remit of the Community (e.g. trade policy), whereas
others are more a matter for national governments (e.g. energy)
or for coordination at European level (e.g. social policy). Yet
another dimension — the global — can be added to this range
of remits (see above).

3.24
The EESC considers one of the reasons for the absence
of real progress on sustainable development to be the sheer
number of strategies, action plans, etc., as well as the changes
they have undergone over the years to reflect political priori-
ties. In accordance with the guiding principles for sustainable
development set out by the European Council of June 2005 (19),
the Committee believes that it is up to the Commission to
clearly state which level of authority is responsible for measures
taken. That level should then give an undertaking to the parties
concerned to ensure stability, also in the longer term, and
consistency with other measures.

In view of the principles set out in the White Paper on
3.25
European governance and the intention stated in the White
Paper on European communication policy to ‘close the gap’
between the EU and its citizens, and further to the consultative
forum on sustainable development held on 20-21 March 2006,
the Committee considers ongoing,
formal consultation with
stakeholders to be essential in order to translate mobilisation of
operators on the ground into definite progress and to put
sustainable development into practice. It will therefore take on
the task of creating a database similar to the one it already
manages on the single market (PRISM). The aim will be to iden-
tify obstacles encountered by operators, promote best practice,
provide information on the organisations responsible for these
innovative projects, establish a bottom-up approach and
enhance the expertise available to the Commission in particular
when it draws up proposals for directives, impact analyses and
communications.

3.26
The Committee also believes that the reform of the
International Monetary Fund announced in 2008 provides the
European delegation with an opportunity to speak with one
voice in order to ensure that the concept of sustainable devel-
opment becomes one of the conditions for granting aid.

The EESC welcomes the Commission's stated intention
3.27
to review the sustainability process every two years in a
progress report, involving both the European Council and the
European Parliament, and also making use of the EESC and the
CoR in their role as social catalysts.

Link to modern industrial policy and research

3.28
The Commission's recent communication on the new
industrial policy (20) announced that a high-level group on
competitiveness, energy and the environment would be set up
and that there would be discussion of the external aspects of
competitiveness and market access (spring 2006) and of mana-
ging structural change in manufacturing (end of 2005). The
Committee welcomes the setting-up of the High Level Group
(in February 2006) and its remit (21) and is willing to support it
It also hopes that the discussions
in its work if necessary.
which will be defined by the Commission at a later stage will
be consistent with its commitment to make proper use of
synergies between European policies and to make trade-offs so
that the objective of sustainability can be achieved.

3.29
Although the Committee fully supports the target of
earmarking 3 % of GDP for R&D (with two thirds of funding
provided by the private sector), it considers that this investment
and the resulting innovation must be part of an overall plan to
promote sustainable development. As far as possible,
the
Commission should present — in collaboration with Eurostat
and its national counterparts — a regular report summarising
the situation,
in order to ensure consistency between the
Lisbon strategy and the overarching sustainable development
strategy. If necessary it should put forward recommendations
in the integrated guidelines to guarantee that they are compa-
tible and create synergies.

4. Comments on some of the key issues described in the

Commission document

4.1 ‘Climate change and clean energy’

4.1.1
The EESC is dismayed to note that the Commission
concedes almost with resignation that climate change can no
longer be prevented and that the only thing that can now be
done is to soften the impact for those most affected.

The ‘key actions’ on this issue are no more than
4.1.2
declarations of intent and cautious verbal undertakings to work
towards further commitments and international agreements.
The failure to set clear goals in this policy area is particularly
alarming since it is already clear that current targets for redu-
cing greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 will probably not be
met, despite the mounting danger and the now undeniable
occurrence of serious storms with catastrophic consequences
for people and economies.

(19) See Annex I of the Conclusions of the European Council of 16 and
‘Declaration on Guiding Principles for Sustainable

17 June 2005,
Development’.

(20) ‘Implementing a Community Lisbon Programme: A policy frame-
work to strengthen EU manufacturing – towards a more integrated
approach for industrial policy’, COM(2005) 474.

(21) See press release IP/06/2006.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/35

4.1.3
The EESC nevertheless welcomes the rather general
statements about harnessing EU potential to improve efficiency
and develop technologies in the sphere of renewable energy
these
and energy consumption. The Committee endorses
Commission targets, but urges the Council and the Commission
to establish clear and genuinely ambitious objectives, to define
the instruments for achieving these objectives and to discuss
them with all those involved.

The ‘Operational objectives and targets’

4.3.2
for ‘Better
management of natural resources’ set out in Annex 2 merely
repeat already familiar and adopted policies, such as the target
published in a 1997 (!) White Paper (24) of achieving a 12 %
share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix by 2010,
but which the Commission itself in its communication of 26
May 2004 (25) assumes it will probably not meet using current
measures. But no new measures are proposed and no analysis
is made of the reasons for the likely failure.

4.1.4
It seems that industry may now be on the verge of a
breakthrough with regard to CO2-free coal-fired power stations.
Under a sustainability strategy the question should certainly be
raised of what framework (and therefore instruments) policy-
makers should establish in order to promote the application of
this technology.

4.2 ‘Social exclusion, demography and migration’

4.2.1
Although the Committee is pleased that the platform
for action regards combating poverty and social exclusion as
more than just a question of
it
considers the proposed key actions to be quite inadequate. In
particular, the Commission should update the Laeken indica-
tors (22) on quality of work (23) and strengthen this dimension in
the guidelines.

increasing low incomes,

The Commission says that it will consult the social
4.2.2
partners on the issue of the work-life balance. If the social part-
ners consider that measures are called for but fail to reach an
agreement
the
Committee believes that the Commission and the EU legislature
should take action. This approach should also be adopted in
the other spheres mentioned.

in accordance with Treaty Article 139,

4.3 ‘Management of natural resources’

The key actions for natural resources also sound
4.3.1
impracticable. Thus the
rather non-committal or downright
Commission writes:
‘The EU and Member States should ensure
sufficient funding and management of the Natura 2000 network of
protected areas, and better integrate biodiversity concerns into internal
and external policies to halt the loss of biodiversity’. Given the finan-
cial decisions taken by the EU Council
in December 2005,
which cut funding precisely in this sector, it will be immedi-
ately obvious to the general public just how much aspirations
differ from reality in EU policy.

(22) Intrinsic job quality: skills,

lifelong learning and career develop-
ment; gender equality; health and safety at work; flexibility and
security; inclusion and access to the labour market; work organisa-
tion and work-life balance; social dialogue and worker involvement;
diversity and non-discrimination; overall work performance.

(23) Cf.

‘Improving quality in work: a review of recent progress’,

COM(2003) 728.

Here too, the EESC believes that setting out ambitious
4.3.3
and forward-looking goals — like Sweden for example at the
beginning of February 2006 — would give the sustainability
strategy greater impact, attention and support than these vague
declarations of intent that are neither new nor appropriate to
the current situation. Sweden has famously set itself the objec-
tive of replacing fossil fuels and abandoning nuclear energy in
the long term.

4.3.4
In addition, an objective could be set for energy saving
and efficiency that would both go down well with the general
public and be forward-looking and encouraging of innovation,
e.g. that all new constructions in the European Union should
by 2020 be ‘zero-energy buildings’ which need no extra energy
input.

4.4 ‘Sustainable transport’

4.4.1
First,
‘unsustainable’.

‘current

trends’

in transport are described as

The Commission then states:

4.4.2
‘The benefits of mobility
can be provided with much lower economic, social and environmental
impacts. This can be done by reducing the need for transport (e.g. by
changing land-use, promoting telecommuting and videoconferencing),
making better use of infrastructure and of vehicles, changing modes,
for example to use rail instead of road, cycling and walking for short
distances and developing public transport, using cleaner vehicles and
developing alternatives to oil such as bio-fuels and hydrogen powered
vehicles.’ This
is consistent with the EESC's opinion on
‘Preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and
neighbouring countries — sustainable mobility — finan-
cing’ (26). The Commission also says that ‘the benefits of more
sustainable transport are wide ranging and significant’.

The EESC in principle welcomes these statements and
4.4.3
references to the ‘win-win’ situation. Why then, we wonder,
despite all
the
Commission constantly refer to negative trends, e.g. in trans-
port?

these advantages and opportunities, does

(24) COM(1997) 599 final.
(25) COM(2004) 366 final.
(26) OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004, p. 35.

C 195/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.8.2006

4.4.4
There must be reasons that people and businesses
invest in and prefer non-sustainable transport despite all the
advantages of sustainable transport described by the Commis-
sion. These motives are not analysed, but no proper counter-
strategies can be developed unless they are.

would be worthy of a European strategy for sustainable devel-
opment, and would allow the ‘win-win’ effects that are often
evoked to become a reality.

4.4.5
tion to transport:

The Commission mentions three key actions in rela-

4.5 ‘Global poverty and development challenges’

— ‘The EU and its Member States should focus on making
alternatives to road transport a more attractive option for
freight and passengers, … .’
the
Commission does not promise to stop investing money in
non-sustainable options.)

(The EESC notes that

— ‘The European Commission will continue to examine the
use of infrastructure charging in the EU, … .’(The EESC
notes that the Commission does not say it will introduce
full charging for infrastructure and the additional external
costs.)

— ‘The Commission will propose a package of measures to
cars by
(The

improve
promoting clean and energy efficient vehicles … .’
EESC welcomes this.)

environmental performance of

the

4.4.6
The EESC is very doubtful that these key actions will
enable the EU to control the rising transport congestion that
the sustainable development strategy (27) laments, so that traffic
can be adequately reduced. The demands and statements set
out in the key actions are far less radical than those contained
in earlier EU documents, e.g. the ‘Citizens' Network’ Green
Paper or in the White Paper on transport policy (28).

4.4.7
Setting an objective, for example, of Europe approving
only emission-free cars by the year 2020 or 2025 would
present the sustainability strategy to the general public in a
much more appealing way, and is much more ambitious and
likely to succeed. This would create strong incentives for
research and development, accelerate technological innovation
and increase the competitiveness of European cars, which in
turn would benefit Europe's economic development. It is also a
technological approach that could help prevent
the rise in
transport levels in certain developing countries towards the
levels of the industrialised world from leading to environmental
and climate collapse.

4.4.8
Such strategic goal-setting in transport, and implemen-
tation of EESC calls for sustainable transport development (29),

(27) COM(2001) 264.
(28) White Paper on ‘European Transport Policy for 2010: time to

decide’, 2001.

(29) cf. EESC own-initiative opinion on Preparing transport infrastructure
for the future: planning and neighbouring countries – sustainable mobility
– financing, which also contains a discussion about possible fiscal
instruments, OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004, p. 35

The communication must be criticised for more or
4.5.1
less recycling demands that the EU has been making for years,
but which have not been implemented. One example of this is
the key action of the sixth priority, global challenges, whereby
‘The EU and its Member States should increase their volume of aid to
0.7 % of Gross National Income (GNI) in 2015 achieving an inter-
mediate target of 0.56 % in 2010 with individual objectives of
0.51 % for the EU-15 and 0.17 % for the EU-10.’ The EESC does
not in any way question the legitimacy of this demand (30). But
it notes that the industrialised nations already promised at the
UN General Assembly meeting of 24 October 1970 — over 35
years ago — to commit 0.7 % of their GDP to development aid
(which obviously was not enough to solve all the problems).
Constantly repeating promises that are not kept does not
exactly make politics more credible.

The Committee obviously commends all the measures
4.5.2
announced to combat global poverty. The Commission under-
takes to step up its efforts to ensure that international trade is
used as an instrument for promoting truly sustainable develop-
ment. This is undoubtedly an extremely important approach,
perhaps the decisive one from a global perspective. The WTO
agreement
is a trade agreement and therefore contains no
sustainability criteria, although global trade has crucial effects
on sustainability trends. The Council and the Commission
should therefore highlight this important point, while at the
same time outlining how the principle is to be put into prac-
tice.

4.5.3
This is also important in terms of making the general
public aware that this is not a mere declaration of intent. It is
clear to the EESC that financial support alone will not sustain-
ably improve the living and working conditions of people in
developing countries.

The Committee also recalls that the EU Council Conclusions on
the Social Dimension of Globalisation (March 2005) placed the
concept of ‘decent work’ at the heart of EU external policy. The
Committee is not prepared to accept that certain countries
should enjoy a competitive advantage by flouting ILO or envir-
onmental standards. These standards are not a protectionist
ploy on the part of the rich countries; they help to guarantee
human dignity, social progress and justice. The EU should take
steps to monitor progress in these areas and launch trade sanc-
tions — if possible in conjunction with the trading partners

(30) See EESC opinion on Integrating environment and sustainable develop-
ment into economic and development cooperation policy, OJ C 14 of
16.1.2001, p. 87.

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/37

recognised by the ILO in the countries concerned (or the recog-
nised civil society organisations operating in those countries)
— if evaluation shows that the situation has deteriorated. It is
regrettable that the Commission does not refer to this in the
present communication.

4.6
At a general level, the Committee calls on the Commis-
sion and the Member States to show their trading partners that
sustainable development must not be seen as a cost factor, but
rather as a wealth generator both for their economies, where
they aspire to a higher standard of living, and for the planet as
a whole.

Brussels, 17 May 2006

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of floods

(COM(2006) 15 final — 2006/0005 (COD))

(2006/C 195/09)

On 13 February 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175(1) of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

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 26 April 2006. The rapporteur was
Ms Sánchez Miguel.

At its 427th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 May 2006 (meeting of 17 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 141 votes to none, with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission's Proposal for a
Directive on floods, as called for in the Committee opinion (1)
on the earlier Communication, especially since this proposal
incorporates the methodology and instruments created by the
Water Framework Directive (WFD). With the inclusion in the
river basin plan of flood risk maps and plans, all activities
relating to the management of
inland waterways and the
connected coastal areas are regulated.

1.2
The effectiveness of these arrangements depends heavily
on the preliminary assessment of the situation in the river
basins and associated coastal zones, based on a thorough
analysis of the current situation, especially in those areas at
high risk due to human activity and climate change.

It is also important to place emphasis on actions to
1.3
prevent the harmful effects of flooding,
including all public
information and participation measures. To this end, we call
upon the Commission to make particularly sure that these
arrangements as provided for in Article 14 of the WFD and the
Proposal for a Directive, are included in river basin plans.

(1) Opinion CESE 125/2005, OJ C221 of 8 September 2005.

1.4
The risk management plans and risk mapping, as set out
in the proposal, must be extended. The classification of river
basins at high risk of flooding should incorporate both priority
measures (with adequate funding) and criteria to be met in
order to reduce costs and increase the benefits to people. This
should result in integrated and sustainable activity in flood
areas.

1.5
Lastly, it should be added that, in the context of Com-
munity measures for multidisciplinary research and coordina-
tion, all policies that affect European waters should be strength-
ened.

2. Introduction

2.1
There has always been something missing from Direc-
tive 2000/60/EC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD):
the fixing of an objective to prevent, protect against and miti-
gate the effects of flooding. In fact, in the last decade, the EU
has suffered more than 100 floods, causing great loss of life