Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources COM(2005) 670 final — [SEC(2005) 1683 + SEC(2005) 1684]
Date: 2006-07-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, conservation of resources, economic growth, environmental impact, management of resources, sustainable development

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/67

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council,
the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of
natural resources

the European Parliament,

COM(2005) 670 final — [SEC(2005) 1683 + SEC(2005) 1684]

(2006/C 309/14)

On 21 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 24 May 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 428th plenary session held on 5-6 July 2006 (meeting of 5 July), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 157 votes to two with six abstentions.

1. Summary of EESC conclusions and recommendations

2. Main elements and background of the opinion

1.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission communication
Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources in prin-
ciple and supports
the broad aims described therein of
improving the productivity and efficiency of resource use, i.e.
further decoupling economic growth from resource use and, at
the same time, also reducing the environmental impact of such
resources as are used.

The EESC once again refers to its view communicated to
1.2
the Commission two years ago,
that such a Commission
strategy must also give thorough consideration to the issue of
non-renewable resources. One of the EESC's main criticisms is
that the Commission document does not do so.

1.3
In the EESC's view, clear statements on non-renewable
resources, which would certainly need to go beyond the 25-
year planning horizon of this strategy, are also necessary. The
EESC therefore believes that the strategy should be broadened
and its timeframe extended to 50 to 100 years, though of
course intermediate steps would then have to be determined.

Conversely,

1.4
it is obvious that for the preservation of
certain natural resources (such as fish stocks) there is no more
time to waste, so that concrete and immediate action is needed
in these areas.

1.5
For a true strategy to succeed, it is indispensable firstly
to specify clear and achievable goals, which can then be
reached with similarly specified, concrete instruments (which
make up the actual strategy). However, one can search in vain
in the Commission document
for clear goals and specific
instruments. One reason for this is doubtless that it is simply
not possible to have an all-encompassing strategy for the large
number of natural resources that exist. What is needed instead
are individual, sector-specific strategies, which the Commission
is to some extent working on.

1.6
The EESC therefore looks on the Commission communi-
cation not as a strategy in the true sense, but rather as a very
welcome and proper basic philosophy, which will not be
possible to implement by means of the proposed databases and
panels of experts.

On 1 October 2003,

2.1
the European Commission
published a communication to the Council and the European
Parliament entitled Towards a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable
use of natural resources (1). This set out the basis for an appro-
priate strategy and launched an initial consultation process
with those parts of society that were affected or interested.

2.2
At the time, the EESC, in its opinion of 28 April 2004
on the sustainable use of natural resources (2), welcomed in
principle the Commission's proposal to draw up an appropriate
strategy.

2.3
On 21 December 2005, the Commission submitted this
Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources to the
Council, the European Parliament, the EESC and the CoR: The
relevant Commission document (3)
this
opinion.

the subject of

is

2.4
Of course, the EESC also welcomes the publication of
the ‘strategy’, which it sees as tying in with the strategy for
sustainable development. A European strategy for preserving
the various renewable and non-renewable natural resources is,
in the EESC's view, urgently needed in order to sustainably
address the challenges we face. The communication definitely
goes in the right direction, but the EESC does not believe that
the initiatives and actions it describes go far enough.

3. Comments on the content of the Commission commu-

nication

3.1
Understandably, there is no difference between the two
Commission communications in terms of the Commission's
analysis of the problems to be addressed. It is stated that

— the functioning of our economy is dependent on the exis-
tence and thus the availability of both renewable and non-
renewable resources;

— natural resources are crucial to our quality of life;

(1) COM (2003)572 final, 1.10.2003.
(2) OJ C 117, 30.4.2004.
(3) COM (2005)670 final, 21.12.2005.

C 309/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

— current patterns of resource use cannot be maintained, even
though ‘Europe has significantly improved material efficiency’;

— consequently, an even greater decoupling of the consump-
tion and use of resources from economic growth is impera-
tive, and

— inefficient use of resources and overexploitation of renew-

able resources constitute long term brakes on growth.

However,

3.2
the current paper emphasises much more
heavily that it is not only a matter of decoupling economic
growth from resource use, but also of a reduction in the envir-
onmental impact of the (reduced or yet to be reduced) use of
resources; in other words, a twin-track strategy as described by
the Commission years ago, before the sustainability strategy
was adopted, with the Factor 10 concept.

3.3
To cite one example: greater efficiency means that
modern coal-fired power stations now use less resource input
for each kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce. However,
efforts are currently under way to reduce the environmental
impact still further, e.g. by reducing the climate impact of each
tonne of coal used, e.g. through the development of ‘climate-
neutral’ power stations in which the CO2 that is produced is
captured and then stored underground.

3.4
The ‘strategy’ that is being proposed here states that this
efficiency approach should be adopted as a principle for the
use of all natural resources. The EESC warmly welcomes this.

The EESC's critical observations

However,

although the EESC fully supports

3.5
this
approach by the Commission, it must nonetheless make some
very critical comments about
that has been
submitted.

the ‘strategy’

3.6
The Commission states in its communication that a
distinction needs to be made between renewable and non-
renewable resources, and that the major problems are to be
sought mainly in renewable resources (such as fish stocks and
fresh water).

It points out that resource use has already been, and still
3.7
is, a key issue in European environment policy discussions over
the past thirty years, and that ‘a major concern in the 1970s,
following the first oil crises, was natural resource scarcity and limits
to growth’. However, ‘scarcity has not proven to be as environmen-
tally problematic as then predicted. The world has not run out of
fossil fuels and the market, through the price mechanism, has regu-
lated scarcity.’

3.8
In reality, the environmental problem is not primarily a
matter of whether, for example, a non-renewable resource is
scarce, still available or no longer available. The environmental
problem arises — and this is the Commission's starting point,
too — from the consequences (for example for the climate) of
use or overuse. Consequently, it should not be perceived as an
environmental problem if the solar energy that is stored as oil,
coal or gas runs out. However, the EESC points out that the

impending non-availability of non-renewable resources will
prove to be a serious problem for our economy and thus also a
social problem — with significant effects on people's standard
of living. Thus, it is not simply a matter of the environmental
consequences of resource use, but it must also be a matter of
the potential availability of natural resources to current and
future generations. Therefore, as part of the debate on sustain-
ability, one of the key challenges of the coming decades will be
to ensure the availability of resources for future generations.
The EESC therefore believes that
the increasing scarcity of
resources is not an exclusively environmental issue, but one of
sustainability, which includes ecological, social and economic
aspects.

3.9
The Commission's reference to the ‘market’, which
responds to increasing scarcity of supply with higher prices, is
absolutely right. The — at times dramatic — oil price rises of
recent months, which have had a significant impact on the
European economy, are of course not exclusively down to the
foreseeable long-term decline in the availability of certain non-
renewable resources, but are related to the market power of —
in some cases monopolistic — suppliers and to political
instability in the countries in which most of these resources are
to be found.

3.10
The EESC wishes to refer to the comments that it
made two years ago in its opinion on the draft document:
Putting forward a ‘strategy’ that looks forward only 25 years
and does not address, or only inadequately addresses,
the
entirely foreseeable shortage or indeed exhaustion of certain
key non-renewable resources (such as fossil fuels) in the long
term sends the wrong political signal to society. The EESC
believes that the availability of non-renewable resources is a
key criterion for taking responsibility for the required sustain-
ability criteria.

3.11
In this context, the EESC recalls that many sectors of
the economy rely not only on the availability of fossil fuels in
general, but on those fuels being available cheaply. Those econo-
mies that are structured in that way will in future have the
greatest difficulties adapting. On that basis, the EESC once
again endorses the Commission's statement that ‘inefficient use of
resources… constitute[s a] … brake on growth’.

3.12
Rising resource prices can in the short run be partially
offset by efficiency measures. However, in many sectors, such
as transport and energy, shortages and/or extremely high prices
may make major structural changes necessary. As this may
imply extremely significant investment, the necessary decisions
should be taken as soon as possible so as to avoid the inap-
propriate allocation of resources.

3.13
An example for such strategic long-term thinking is
the Swedish government's announcement that it intends both
to pull out of nuclear power and to move away from mineral
oil. Of course, such aims can only be achieved in the long
term, but it is important to start early so as to avoid disruption
to the economy and society later on.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/69

The EESC therefore believes that

3.14
the EU's strategy
should actively examine such questions; sadly, it does not. The
Committee wonders whether this is because the 25 year period
set by the European Commission for the strategy is perhaps
(much) too short. The EESC cannot accept that the Commission
points out that it is unlikely that there will be serious problems
with shortages of non-renewable resources within this time
period, and that the issue of non-renewable resources conse-
quently gets barely a mention. The Commission needs to make
clear statements about non-renewable resources that go beyond
the current timescale of the strategy. It is therefore necessary to
lengthen the period covered by the strategy, for instance to 50
or even 100 years, which is a relatively short period in terms
of resource use. Of course, in the case of such a long timescale,
intermediate steps towards the long-term goals would need to
be determined. The EESC points out
the Commission
announced such a way of doing things in a communication (4)
in 2005.

that

Next, the Commission says in its paper that the overall
3.15
objective of the strategy is to ‘reduce the negative environmental
impacts generated by the use of natural resources in a growing
economy’. To be sure, there is no one in Europe who would
disagree with such a general, but also vague, objective.

The Commission's strategy consciously does not ‘at this
3.16
initial stage … set quantitative targets’. The EESC believes that this
is fundamentally wrong. For one thing, we are not at an initial
stage: the problems have been known for years, in some cases
for decades. For another, the EESC has already stated on many
other occasions that a strategy must have clear aims if it is to
be truly successful. A strategy is a plan to achieve specific
goals. If goals are missing or are phrased so as to be non-
binding or vague, policymakers lack guidance as to which
policy instruments to use where.

3.17
The EESC therefore takes the view that the proposed
Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources is not
really a strategy, but rather an — it should be clearly empha-
sised — absolutely right basic philosophy for which specific
implementation strategies for each natural resource need to be
drawn up.

The EESC is also willing to recognise that one cannot
3.18
really expect all natural resources to be dealt with comprehen-
sively and exhaustively in a single strategy. The subject matter
is far too complex. It is therefore indispensable to integrate this
quite correct basic philosophy into specific strategies and/or
the
policy in general.
Commission, almost at
the same time as producing this
‘strategy’, has published a thematic strategy on the prevention

is precisely for this reason that

It

(4) COM(2005) 37 final; see relevant references in the EESC opinion on
the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy —
A platform for action (CESE 361/2006).

(5) COM(2005) 666 final.

and recycling of waste (5)
indirectly a natural
resource) and has announced a thematic strategy for the protec-
tion of soil. Strategic target-led decisions must primarily be
rooted in the respective sectoral policies.

(which is

3.19
This would help all those involved to be clearer about
which strategy starts where. Concrete examples would enable
interconnections to other strategies and policy areas at EU and
Member State level to be created and thus establish responsibil-
ities more clearly, which would help improve implementation
of the strategic goals.

3.20 Four initiatives to achieve the objectives

In all, the Commission mentions four new initiatives in its
communication that are intended to form the basis of the
strategy for the next 25 years:

— ‘Building the knowledge base’, which includes setting up a

‘Data Centre for policy-makers’;

— ‘Measuring progress’, which means developing various indi-

cators by 2008;

that

— the ‘internal dimension’, under which the Commission
firstly suggests
individual Member States develop
national measures and programmes on the sustainable use
of natural resources, and secondly proposes a ‘High-Level
Forum composed of senior officials’, which is to be ‘responsible
for the development of natural resource policy’ in the Member
States; this forum is also to include representatives of the
commission and, ‘as appropriate’ (whatever that is supposed
to mean), consumer organisations, environmental NGOs,
industry, academia, etc.;

— the ‘global dimension’ under which it is proposed to ‘[set]

up an international panel’.

3.21
The EESC does not doubt the sense or the usefulness
of such databases or new bodies. The more we know and the
more people, especially people with political responsibilities,
concern themselves with the subject, the better.

However, the EESC must ask the Commission whether
3.22
it really believes that this amounts to a ‘strategy’ that will really
influence policy. There is no way that the problems described
above will be solved with the measures described above.

3.23
Rather, such announcements give the impression that
the knowledge base first needs to be expanded so as to lay the
foundations for political action. The EESC sees this not so
much as a strategy for coherent action, but rather a strategy for
putting off political decisions. The Commission should do
everything possible to avoid creating such an impression.

C 309/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

For example, it has been known for years that fish, a
3.24
natural
is being massively overexploited. The
resource,
Commission responds to this threatening situation every year
with the — doubtless entirely justified — demand that lower
fishing quotas be set in order, for example, to stop overfishing
of cod (6). Such calls have gone unheeded. Neither a new data-
base nor new bodies will solve this problem in the future.

3.25
The EESC therefore expects there to be less talk about
preserving certain natural resources, and action finally to be
taken, for example to preserve fish stocks.

3.26 What the EESC is trying to reiterate here is that it does
not consider the ‘instruments’ proposed by the Commission to
be anything approaching adequate.

— to specify clear, i.e. quantifiable, objectives that the policy

seeks to achieve;

— to clearly specify the instruments — not least fiscal ones —
that are to be used to achieve those objectives. For instance,
the Committee has repeatedly requested the Commission to
set out how it intends to achieve the much-discussed inter-
nalisation of external costs.

To date, the Commission has not given so much as a
3.28
whisper of advice on this matter. It has shied as far away from
specific goals such as the concept of ‘factor ten’ (7) as it has
from describing and discussing instruments.

The EESC therefore believes that the Commission must
3.29
clearly set out clearly defined aims, and the policy instruments
and measures with which they are to be achieved, whenever it
talks about a ‘strategy’.

In its opinion on the Commission's preparatory docu-
3.27
ment, and in other Committee opinions such as those on
sustainable development or energy and transport issues, the
Committee has called on the Commission:

In this context, the EESC refers to its opinion, adopted
3.30
in May 2006, on The review of
the Sustainable Development
Strategy — A platform for action (8) in which it also addresses
this problem.

Brussels, 5 July 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(6) This, incidentally, has not led to the disappearance of endangered
cod from the menus of the canteens of the European institutions.

(7) See COM(1999) 543, 24.11.1999, p. 16 point 4.4: Efficient use and
management of resources, and also the opinion of the Economic
and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission
on 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, 18.7.2000, pp.59-67.

(8) COM(2005) 658, NAT/304 — Draft opinion on the Communica-
tion from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for
action (CESE 361/2006).