Sustainable development in the European Union : key messages : 2013 edition.
Date: 2014-01-28
Institutions: Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics, European Union, development plan, development policy, economic development, report, social development, sustainable development

St at ist ical  book s

Sustainable development in the  
European Union
Key messages

2013 edition

S

u

s

t

a

i

n

a

b

l

e

d

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

i

n

t

h

e

E

u

r

o

p

e

a

n

U

n

i

o

n

:

l

i

t

e

e

d

i

t

i

o

n

2

0

1

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
St at ist ical  book s

Sustainable development in the  
European Union
Key messages

2013 edition

S

u

s

t

a

i

n

a

b

l

e

d

e

v

e

l

o

p

m

e

n

t

i

n

t

h

e

E

u

r

o

p

e

a

n

U

n

i

o

n

:

l

i

t

e

e

d

i

t

i

o

n

2

0

1

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union.

freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*)  the information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, 

phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet  
(http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

ISBN 978-92-79-31158-1
doi:10.2785/1163
Cat. No: KS-03-13-331-EN-C

Theme: General and regional statistics 
Collection: Statistical books

© European Union, 2013
Reproduction of content other than photographs is authorised provided the source is 
acknowledged.

Photo credits: Cover images © Kues/URRRA, Shutterstock
Illustrations: © Gary Wing
Reproduction of photos is allowed for non-commercial purposes and within the sole context 
of this publication.

Printed in Belgium 

PRINtEd ON RECyCLEd PAPER thAt hAS BEEN AWARdEd thE EU ECOLABEL fOR GRAPhIC PAPER 
(http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel)

foreword 

Foreword

In  2012,  the  United  Nations  Conference  on  Sustainable 
Development  (‘Rio+20’)  renewed  the  global  political 
commitment  to  taking  a  holistic  approach  to  tackling 
modern  world  challenges.  According  to  the  provisions 
made  at  Rio,  environmental  protection  should  be  inte-
grated into economic growth strategies. Both should also 
be  linked  to  decent  living  and  working  conditions  and 
equitable access to resources. This is what we call sustain-
able development. 

The  EU  SDS  brings  together  the  many  strands  of  eco-
nomic, social and environmental policy under one over-
arching  objective  —  to  continually  improve  the  quality 
of life and well-being for present and future generations. 
The  Eurostat  monitoring  report,  based  on  the  EU  set  of 
sustainable development indicators and published every two years, provides an objective, 
statistical picture of progress towards the goals and objectives of the EU SDS. 

In the rather busy time we live in, there is an increasing need for presenting complex infor-
mation in a concise way. This ‘lite’ version of the 2013 monitoring report therefore makes 
use of the universal language of visuals, offering a shortcut to the essence of the messages 
delivered through the full version of the monitoring report. 

I hope that this monitoring report ‘lite’ provides you with a useful snapshot of the key trends 
related to sustainable development in the European Union. For a more comprehensive pic-
ture, I invite you to read the complete 2013 edition of the monitoring report (1) available on 
the Eurostat website.  

Walter Radermacher
Director-General, Eurostat
Chief Statistician of the European Union

(1)	 See	Eurostat,	Sustainable development in the European Union — 2013 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy,	

Luxembourg:	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union,	2013.	To	allow	a	quick	switching	between	this	‘lite’	version	and	the	complete	
monitoring	report,	the	numbering	of	the	figures	is	consistent	in	both	publications.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

3

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Editor-in-chief:

Mariana Popova (Eurostat, Unit C4 — Key indicators for European policies)

Editors:

Markus  Hametner,  Asya  Dimitrova,  Andreas  Endl,  Gerald  Berger,  Umberto  Pisano 
(Institute  for  Managing  Sustainability,  WU  Vienna),  Juliane  Fliedner,  Bettina  Rüegge, 
Andrea Schultheiss, Myriam Steinemann, Remo Zandonella (INFRAS), McKenna Davis, 
Christiane Gerstetter, Albrecht Gradmann, Martin Hirschnitz-Garbers, Timo Kaphengst, 
Katriona McGlade, Katharina Umpfenbach (Ecologic Institute)

Co-editors:

Viktoria  Bolla,  Ales  Capek,  Dorothea  Jung,  Lorenzo  Menna,  Vittorio  Perduca,  Iliyana 
Savova, Mario Giuseppe Varrenti, (Eurostat, Unit C4 — Key indicators for European poli-
cies), Carolyn Avery (ENDS, Haymarket Media Group Ltd)

Production:

Production co-ordinator: Carolyn Avery (ENDS, Haymarket Media Group Ltd)
Infographics: Leonard Dickinson, Carolyn Avery (ENDS, Haymarket Media Group Ltd), 
Mariana Popova (Eurostat, Unit C4 – Key indicators for European policies); Illustrations: 
Gary Wing;  
Cover art direction: Kevin Hilton; Logo design: Sally Marshall; Weather symbols: Agtel

Expert advisors:

Martin Adams, Barbara Bacigalupi, Marisa Banasiak, Eusebio Bezzina, Paolo Bolsi, Jeanne 
De  Canniere,  Arturo  de  la  Fuente  Nuño,  Hans-Martin  Füssel,  Sabine  Gagel,  Peter  Gal, 
Christine Gertsberger, Lien Havard, Christian Heidorn, Rennie Herve, Ian Hodgson, Rolf-
Jan Hoeve, Judita Horvathova, Annabelle Jansen, Catherine Kesy, Paulus Konijn, Fabienne 
Lefebvre, Bartek Lessaer, Luca Marmo, Paola Migliorini, Boryana Milusheva, Stephan Moll, 
Csaba Mózes, Andreas Nägele, Spyridoula Ntemiri, Alessandra Palmieri, Cinzia Pastorello, 
Reni  Petkova,  Roberta  Pignatelli,  Cristina  Popescu,  Teresa  Rabade,  Petronela  Reinecke, 
Mathieu Remond, Elisabeth Rohner-Thielen, Anna Rybkowska, Eero Saue, Heidi Seybert, 
Stela Stamatova, Anton Steurer, Marek Šturc, Martin Teichgraber, Vincent Tronet, Stefaan 
Van der Jeught, Martin Vintera, Ulrich Wieland, Albrecht Wirthmann.

Data coverage and direct links to Eurostat’s database:

The data presented in this publication were extracted during October 2013.

An online data code available under each table/figure can be used to directly access to the 
most recent data on Eurostat’s website, at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database 

4

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Acknowledgements

For more information please consult:

Eurostat  
Bâtiment Joseph Bech 
5, rue Alphonse Weicker  
2721 Luxembourg  
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
E-mail: estat-user-support@ec.europa.eu

Disclaimer:

All  statements  on  policies  within  this  publication  are  given  for  information  purposes 
only. They  do  not  constitute  an  official  policy  position  of  the  European  Commission  and 
are  not  legally  binding.  To  know  more  about  such  policies,  please  consult  the  European 
 Commission’s website at: http://ec.europa.eu.

Drafts of this publication were reviewed by an extensive team of experts. The editorial team 
would like to thank all those who freely gave their time. The publication could only be pub-
lished thanks to their contributions and support. The final publication is, nevertheless, the 
complete responsibility of the editorial team.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

5

Contents

Contents

Foreword	................................................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgements	...................................................................................... 4

Executive summary	....................................................................................... 9

Introduction	...................................................................................................... 29

1. Socioeconomic development	........................................................41

2. Sustainable consumption and production	...................... 55

3. Social inclusion	......................................................................................... 71

4. Demographic changes	....................................................................... 89

5. Public health	.............................................................................................101

6. Climate change and energy	.........................................................113

7. Sustainable transport	...................................................................... 125

8. Natural resources	.................................................................................135

9. Global partnership	............................................................................. 145

10. Good governance	............................................................................. 159

Abbreviations and acronyms	.......................................................... 169

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

7

Executive	summary

Executive summary

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

Executive	summary

Executive summary

Of  the  more  than  100  indicators  presented  in  this  report,  12  have  been  identi-
fied  as  headline  indicators.  They  are  intended  to  give  an  overall  picture  of  whether 
the  EU  has  achieved  progress  towards  sustainable  development  in  terms  of  the 
objectives  and 
the  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy  
(EU SDS). An evaluation of progress since 2000 based on these headline indicators shows a 
rather mixed picture, as shown in the table 0.1 over the page. 

targets  defined 

in 

Table 0.1: Evaluation of changes in the SdI headline indicators (EU-27, from 2000) (1)

SDI theme

Headline indicator

Evaluation of change  
in the EU-27

Socioeconomic	development

Real	GDP	per	capita

Sustainable	consumption	and	
production

Resource	productivity

Social	inclusion

People	at	risk	of	poverty	or	social	exclusion	(*)

Demographic	changes

Employment	rate	of	older	workers	(2)

Public	health

Life	expectancy	at	birth	(**)

Greenhouse	gas	emissions

Climate	change	and	energy

Share	of	renewable	energy	in	gross	final	energy	
consumption	(**)

Primary	energy	consumption

Sustainable	transport

Energy	consumption	of	transport	relative	to	GDP

Natural	resources

Common	bird	index

Fish	catches	from	stocks	outside	safe	biological	
limits

Global	partnership

Official	development	assistance	(**)

Good	governance

[No	headline	indicator]

(*)	From	2008		(**)	From	2004	

The following pages provide a more  detailed  assessment  of the  key  trends observed since 
2000, complementing the analysis of the SDI headline indicators.

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.
(2)	 Due	to	a	change	in	the	methodology	the	evaluation	of	the	indicator	is	not	comparable	with	previous	editions	of	the	Monitoring	

Report.	For	details	please	see	the	‘demographic	changes’	chapter	in	this	report.

10

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Is the EU moving towards sustainable development?

Key trends in socioeconomic development

Real GDP per capita — signs of modest recovery?

•  Between 2000 and 2012 real GDP per capita in the EU grew by 0.9 % per 
year on average. In the period from 1995 to 2007, before the onset of the 
economic crisis, GDP per capita had been growing continuously in the EU, 
at an annual average rate of 2.4 %.

•  The financial and economic crisis took hold of the real economy in 2008, 
with GDP per capita contracting by 4.8 % in 2009 (compared to 2008). Swift 
implementation of fiscal stimuli and other policy actions at national and 
EU level contained the worst effects of the crisis and stabilised GDP per 
capita in 2010 and 2011.

•  In 2012, against the background of a weak recovery, real GDP per capita fell 

again by 0.6 % compared to 2011.

The recession continues to weigh on the investment climate in the EU

•  Between 2003 and 2007 investment (as a share of GDP) increased mod-
erately, following the economic cycle. As household and corporate confi-
dence tumbled during the financial market turmoil and economic crisis, 
investment  started  decreasing  rapidly.  The  sharp  fall  in  investment  to  a 
decade  low  of  about  19 %  between  2009  and  2011  was  mainly  driven  by 
business sector cuts.

•  Between 2000 and 2012 the household saving rate in the EU followed the 
economic cycle. While households reduced their savings during the eco-
nomic upswing between 2003 and 2007, this trend was reversed by the eco-
nomic upheaval and increased market uncertainty after the crisis. Despite 
signs of weak economic recovery, the household saving rate began to fall 
again after 2009.

Has the EU economy become more competitive and innovative?

•  The  steady  increase  in  labour  productivity  between  2000  and  2007  was 
stalled by the slowdown in economic activity in 2008 and 2009. Although 
productivity picked up in 2010 and continued rising in the following years, 
long-term improvement will depend on future labour market adjustments. 
This  could  include  changes  in  worker  flows  between  states,  sectors  and 
regions or the response of wages to different labour market conditions.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

11

Executive	summary

•  In  the  period  2000  to  2007  total  R&D  expenditure  as  a  share  of  GDP 
remained relatively stable at 1.85 %. The indicator remained resilient to the 
short-term effects of the economic crisis. It even recorded a moderate increase 
in 2008 and 2009 before stabilising at 2 % over the following two years. This 
was mainly due to government efforts to support economic growth by boost-
ing R&D expenditure.

•  Energy intensity in the EU declined steadily between 2003 and 2009, fol-
lowed by a rebound in 2010 and an accelerated decline in 2011. The posi-
tive trend occurred against the background of absolute decoupling of gross 
inland energy consumption from economic growth.

Muted labour market recovery 

•  The EU employment rate increased from 66.6 % in 2000 to 70.3 % in 2008. 
The rise ended in 2009 as the economic recession prolonged labour market 
stagnation and the employment rate remained around 68.5 % until 2012. 
This pushed the EU off-track to meeting the Europe 2020 target of 75 %. 

•  Between  2000  and  2007  regional  disparities  in  employment  in  the  EU 
were  reduced  by  2.1  percentage  points.  Progress  was  erased  by  the  eco-
nomic crisis, which gradually brought regional inequalities in employment 
back  to  the  2000  level  (13.3 %  in  2012).  On  the  positive  side,  the  gender 
gap in regional employment was reduced to a decade low of 5.6 percentage 
points.

•  Overall,  in  the  period  between  2001  and  2004  the  total  unemployment 
rate  in  the  EU  increased.  In  the  following  four  years  (2005  to  2008)  the 
unemployment rate fell continuously, reaching a low of 7.1 % in 2008. These 
improvements  were  followed  by  a  sharp  increase,  and  in  2012  the  EU’s 
unemployment rate reached a record high of 10.5 %.

12

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Key trends in sustainable consumption and production

Absolute decoupling of material use from economic growth?

•  In 2011 the EU was able to generate an economic value of EUR 1.60 for each 
kilogram of material consumed. This was a considerable improvement in 
resource productivity since 2000, when only EUR 1.34 per kg had been 
created from the same amount of resources. 

•  This efficiency gain occurred because GDP was growing faster than domes-
tic material  consumption (DMC), particularly before the economic crisis 
hit. Since 2007, EU resource use has dropped sharply, putting DMC below 
levels  seen  even  ten  years  ago.  However,  economic  recovery  indicates  a 
trend reversal in 2011.

•  These divergent trends — GDP growing while DMC falls — imply an abso-
lute decoupling of economic growth from resource use in the EU between 
2000 and 2011. However, it is unclear whether this is an actual turnaround 
in  resource  use  patterns  or  merely  a  reflection  of  the  impact  of  the  eco-
nomic crisis on resource-intensive industries such as construction.

Improvements in waste treatment and pollutant emissions

•  Waste treatment practices have improved considerably in the EU since 2000. 
Landfilling, the least environment-friendly method of disposal, has been grad-
ually replaced by incineration and, to a greater extent, by recycling and com-
posting. In 2011, about 40 % of municipal waste was recycled or composted. 

•  There  is  huge  variation  in  waste  treatment  across  the  EU.  In  2011,  land-
filling  was  the  main  way  of  disposing  of  waste  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia  and 
Romania (more than 90 %), whereas its share was below 1 % in Germany, 
the Netherlands and Sweden. 

•  Similar improvements have occurred with atmospheric emissions of acidi-
fying  substances  and  ozone  precursors.  Steady  declines  since  1990  have 
allowed the EU-27 to meet its emission targets for sulphur oxides (SOX) and 
non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) by 2011. However, 12 
Member States reported emissions above their national ceilings for at least 
one of the four pollutants.

No clear trend towards more sustainable consumption patterns

•  Electricity  consumption  of  households  has  risen  almost  continuously 
since 1990. This trend has been driven mainly by a rise in the number of 
households and changes in their consumption patterns, outstripping effi-
ciency improvements of electronic devices. This phenomenon is known as 
the  ‘rebound  effect’.  In  contrast  to  other  consumption  indicators  in  this 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

13

Executive	summary

report, household electricity consumption proved rather unresponsive to 
the economic crisis, with 2011 being the first year to show a sharp drop in 
electricity use since 1990.

•  Similarly, final energy consumption in the EU has been on the rise since 
1990. However, 2005 marked a turning point, with energy use stabilising 
and then falling in the years after. The contractions in the EU economy in 
2009 and 2011 contributed to the drop, pushing final energy consumption 
in 2011 down to pre-2000 levels. 

•  Because  household  electricity  consumption  and  final  energy  consump-
tion have shown different trends, particularly since 2005, it is not possible 
to conclude whether consumption patterns in the EU have become more 
sustainable.

More environment-friendly production patterns

•  Production patterns, by contrast, have improved in the EU over the past 
years.  The  number  of  organisations  implementing  a  certified  environ-
mental  management  system  according  to  the  Eco-Management  and 
Audit Scheme (EMAS) has grown since 2003. In 2013, EMAS uptake — 
expressed in number of EMAS-registered organisations per million inhab-
itants — was particularly high in Cyprus, Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany 
and Denmark.

•  Similarly, farming practices have become more and more sustainable in the 
EU since 2005, as illustrated by the increase in the share of organic farm-
ing. This dynamic development has also been reflected in growing sales of 
organic products in the EU food market.

14

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Key trends in social inclusion

The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion has risen 
since 2008

•  Between 2008 and 2012 the number of people at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion  grew  by  8.7  million,  from  115.7  million  to  124.4  million.  This 
number  had  been  falling  between  2005  and  2009.  With  the  onset  of  the 
economic crisis, however, it started to rise again.

•  The 124.4 million people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU in 
2012 translate into a 25 % share of the total population. This means that one 
fourth of the EU population experienced at least one form of poverty cov-
ered by the theme’s headline indicator, namely monetary poverty, severe 
material deprivation and lack of access to jobs. The current levels of pov-
erty and social exclusion jeopardise the Europe 2020 strategy’s target for 
poverty alleviation, which aims to lift at least 20 million people out of the 
risk of poverty and social exclusion by 2020.

Monetary poverty increasing and living conditions deteriorating

•  The number of people at risk of poverty after social transfers increased 
from 80.7 million in 2008 to 85.3 million in 2012. In contrast to the head-
line indicator, this number has seen an almost continuous increase since 
2005,  even  before  the  economic  crisis,  with  an  acceleration  after  2009. 
Monetary poverty is the most prevalent form of poverty in the EU, affect-
ing 17.1 % of the total EU population in 2012.

•  The number of people affected by severe material deprivation rose consid-
erably from 2008 to 2012, from 41.4 million to 51.0 million. However, the 
trend was not continuous, with 2009 marking a significant turning point. 
While the number of people in severe material deprivation fell considerably 
by almost 12 million between 2005 and 2009, it has since grown again by 
11.2 million, resulting in 10.3 % of the EU population being affected in 2012.

•  Between  2005  and  2012  income  inequality  barely  changed.  In  2012,  the 
richest  20 %  of  the  population  in  the  EU  earned  more  than  38 %  of  the 
national equivalised income and thus about five times more than the poor-
est 20 %, who only accounted for a share of slightly less than 8 %. 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

15

Executive	summary

No clear trend towards more sustainable labour market

•  The number of people living in households with very low work intensity 
increased  between  2008  and  2012,  from  34.3  million  to  36.9  million.  In 
line with other poverty-related indicators this number fell between 2006 
and 2009, but then increased again in parallel with rising unemployment 
levels, before dropping by 4.1 % between 2011 and 2012. Economic inactiv-
ity substantially increases the risk of being poor. In 2012, 9.8 % of the EU 
population aged 0 to 59 lived in households with very low work intensity. 

•  The EU’s long-term unemployment rate showed a falling trend between 
2004 and 2008. Since 2008, however, the rate has increased again, reaching 
a historical high of 4.6 % in 2012.  

•  Between 2006 and 2011 the gender pay gap substantially reduced. Despite 
this  favourable  trend,  hourly  gross  earnings  of  women  were  still  16.2 % 
lower than those of men in 2011.

Improvements in education

•  The share of early leavers from education and training has fallen steadily 
since 2003, reaching 12.8 % in 2012. If recent trends can be sustained, the 
target to reduce early school leaving rates to less than 10 % by 2020 seems 
to be in reach. 

•  The share of the population aged 30 to 34 with tertiary educational attain-
ment has been continuously increasing since 2000. The trend suggests that 
the Europe 2020 target of increasing this share to at least 40 % by 2020 will 
be reached.  

•  The share of adults with low educational attainment has fallen substan-

tially since 2000. The trend is visible across all age groups.

•  Participation in lifelong learning increased between 2003 and 2012; how-
ever,  most  of  this  increase  occurred  between  2003  and  2005,  while  par-
ticipation in lifelong learning has not seen further progress since then. The 
Nordic countries achieve the highest participation rates, whereas Bulgaria, 
Greece and Romania have recorded little or no progress in improving their 
low levels of involvement.

16

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Key trends in demographic changes

Employment rate of older workers unaffected by the economic crisis

•  48.9 %  of  older  workers  were  in  employment  in  2012.  The  employment 
rate  has  slightly  and  continuously  increased  since  2000.  The  increase  in 
labour force participation of older workers is a stable trend, which seems to 
be resistant to the economic crisis. Nevertheless, the 50 % target set in the 
Lisbon strategy – the predecessor of Europe 2020 – to be met in 2010 has 
still not been achieved.

•  A narrowing of the gap in employment of older workers between men and 
women  is  visible  over  the  period  2000  to  2012.  While  the  employment 
rate for women remained lower than that of men, the increase was clearly 
higher for women, at 14.4 percentage points since 2000, compared with 9.3 
percentage points for men. 

Trends of population structure confirm demographic challenges

•  Life expectancy at age 65 in the EU was at a level of 21.3 years for women 
and 17.2 years for men in 2011. Since 2002 the expected years to live have 
increased  continuously  for  both  sexes  and  the  gap  between  men  and 
women has declined. As the rate of increase per year in 2011 was below 1 % 
for women, it is unclear whether it will still increase in the future.  

•  In 2011 the EU fertility rate was 1.57 children per woman. This indicates 
an increase of 8 % since 2002. Nevertheless, after a period of stabilisation 
at 1.6 children, the average number of children born slightly decreased in 
2011. 

•  In addition to the recent decrease in the fertility rate, the net rate of migra-
tion in the EU decreased in 2011. These two downward trends might lead to 
an acceleration of demographic change, with an increasing share of older 
people in European countries. 

•  The ratio of elderly people to the population of working age in the EU has 
steadily increased to a level of 25.8 % in 2012. Recent projections predict a 
continuous increase in the future until 2050, followed by stabilisation at a 
level of about 55 %. 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

17

Executive	summary

No major improvements in the income levels of pensioners

•  In 2012 the average income level of pensioners in EU was 56 % of the earn-
ings of the working population in their 50s. After remaining more or less 
stable  at  about  50 %,  the  replacement  ratio  has  experienced  a  moderate 
upward trend since 2010.

•  Across EU Member States the ratio of income levels from pensions of eld-
erly people relative to the income level from earnings of those aged 50 to 
59 ranged from 39 % in Cyprus to 79 % in Luxembourg. Between 2005 and 
2012 the spread between the Member States increased slightly. 

Still no recovery of public finances in EU

•  Public debt in the EU has considerably increased since the onset of the eco-
nomic crisis in 2007. After falling below the Maastricht reference level of 
60 % in 2007 (to 59 %), it climbed substantially during the following years, 
reaching  85.3%  of  GDP  in  2012.  Across  the  EU  the  levels  of  public  debt 
varied significantly, ranging from 10.1 % of GDP in Estonia to 156.9 % in 
Greece. 

•  One factor of public spending is the costs for pension payments by the state. 
Many Member States reformed pension systems to extend the population’s 
duration of working life. Between 2000 and 2011 the average duration of 
working life in EU increased by 1.8 years. In 2011 men worked on average 
37.4 years and women 31.9 years during the course of their life. 

18

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Key trends in public health

Improvements in life-expectancy not leading to longer life in good 
health

•  Between 2004 and 2011 life expectancy at birth for both women and men 
increased moderately with an annual growth rate of 0.4 % (men) and 0.3 % 
(women).  In  contrast  the  number  of  healthy  life  years  at  birth  did  not 
improve for women and only slightly for men. 

•  Higher growth rates in life expectancy and lower growth rates in healthy 
life  years  imply  that  people  on  average  do  not  spend  their  years  in  good 
health but with some kind of disability or disease.

Improvements in health indicators slowing since the onset of the 
economic crisis, and health inequalities persist

•  Between 2000 and 2009 the death rate due to chronic diseases fell from 
142 to 116 per 100 000 people aged less than 65 in the EU. Men, who are 
currently  more  likely  to  die  of  a  chronic  disease,  experienced  a  higher 
decrease (2.4 %) than women (1.9 %), suggesting a gender-convergence of 
the death rates. In spite of the improvements in death rates due to chronic 
disease, the ratio of deaths due to chronic disease on all death remained 
constant. This indicates that the decrease in the death rates from chronic 
disease could mainly be explained by the overall decrease in death rates.

•  The  suicide  death  rate  recorded  an  overall  average  decrease  of  1.4 % 
between  2000  and  2010.  However,  the  trend  has  not  been  continuous. 
Between  2000  and  2007  the  average  yearly  decrease  was  much  higher  at 
2.5 %. However, suicides increased substantially during 2008 (by 2 %) and 
2009 (by another 3 %), but fell again in 2010. Most of the increase in suicide 
death rates since 2007 has been experienced by men, potentially reflecting 
the impact of the economic crisis on unemployment.

•  Economic constraints limit access to health care. After falling between 2005 
and 2009, the share of the population that felt unable to afford medical care 
started to grow in 2009, reaching 2.3 % in 2011. The alignment of this change 
in trend with the economic crisis and persisting income inequalities in access 
to health care shows economic constraints reduced access to medical care.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

19

Executive	summary

No or insufficient improvements in health determinants such as 
toxic chemical production and exposure to air pollution

•  Production of toxic chemicals in the EU increased slightly between 2002 and 
2007, but fell considerably in 2008 and 2009 due to the economic crisis. Two 
years later (in 2011), after the European market recovered, production settled 
back to the old high level. The temporary drop can hence be explained by the 
stagnating economy reducing industrial production during the economic crisis.

•  Between  2000  and  2011  urban  exposure  to  air  pollution  by  particulate 
matter decreased by 1 microgram per cubic metre, reaching a level of 27 
micrograms per cubic metre in 2011. However, given the substantial year-
on-year variations it is difficult to discern any clear trend. The 2010 target 
to reduce emissions to 20 micrograms could not be achieved. In 2010 the 
emission of particulate matter constituted 26 micrograms per cubic metre, 
which was 6 micrograms above the target.

•  Overall urban exposure to air pollution by ozone rose at an annual aver-
age rate of 1.7 % between 2000 and 2011. However, the development was 
volatile due to the influence of weather on ozone concentrations and wide 
variation between countries.

Key trends in climate change and energy

Reductions in EU greenhouse gas emissions, but rising global 
temperature

•  EU  greenhouse  gas  emissions  have  fallen  substantially  since  1990.  The 
strongest drops occurred in the early 1990s and between 2007 and 2011. 
The Europe 2020 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % com-
pared with 1990 levels by 2020 is clearly within reach.

•  The biggest reductions were achieved in the manufacturing, construction 
and energy industries. The waste and agriculture sectors have also reduced 
emissions, but they make up a smaller share of the total. The only sector 
with  growing  emissions  is  the  transport  sector.  Emissions  from  interna-
tional aviation and maritime transport have risen particularly fast. Emis-
sions from inland transport also remain above 1990 levels, but have shown 
a downward trend since 2007. 

•  Reductions  in  EU  greenhouse  gas  emissions  are  overcompensated  by 
quickly rising global emissions. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere are rising. Even though there is a time lag between emissions 
and temperature increase, global mean temperature records already show 
a  clear  upward  trend.  Warming  has  continuously  sped  up  over  the  past 
four decades.

20

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

No clear trend towards lower energy demand

•  After having risen more or less continuously between 1990 and 2006, pri-
mary energy consumption in the EU fell to 1990 levels in 2011. Yet, the 
downward trend was not continuous. It remains to be seen if the decline 
can  be  maintained  once  the  EU  economy  returns  to  higher  economic 
growth.

•  The  EU  imported  more  than  half  of  its  energy  in  2011.  Since  the  early 
1990s the share of total energy needs provided by imports from non-EU 
countries  has  increased  almost  every  year.  From  2006  onwards  it  has 
remained at slightly more than 50 %.

Rapid expansion of renewable energies, particularly in the 
electricity sector

•  Energy generated from biomass, wind, solar and the earth’s heat is helping 
to provide an ever increasing share of final energy demand in the EU. All 
Member States have increased their renewable energy share between 2005 
and 2011. While the contribution of biomass is by far the largest, wind and 
solar energy have expanded fastest.  

•  Penetration of renewable energies is highest in the electricity sector, where 

renewables covered a fifth of gross power generation in 2011.  

•  By contrast, the share of renewables used in transport went down in 2011 
compared to the previous year. However, this is due to statistical adjust-
ments that exclude biofuels that have not been certified as sustainable. Yet 
2010 data show that the EU has missed its interim target for increasing the 
use of renewable energies in transport.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

21

Executive	summary

Key trends in sustainable transport

No absolute decoupling of energy consumption of transport from 
economic growth

•  Energy  consumption  of  transport  per  unit  of  GDP  has  fallen  by  8.3 % 
since 2000. This trend has been somewhat stronger since the start of the 
economic  crisis,  as  the  environmental  component  of  this  indicator  — 
transport energy use — fell for four consecutive years after 2007. Overall, 
between 2000 and 2011 transport energy use increased by 6.7 %, while eco-
nomic growth was faster, with 16.5 %.

•  These coinciding trends — growth in both energy consumption and (even 
stronger) in GDP — imply relative decoupling of energy consumption of 
transport from economic growth in the EU over the period 2000 to 2011. 
Absolute decoupling (that is a reduction in transport energy consumption 
while the economy is growing) could be observed on a year-over-year basis 
both in 2010 and 2011. It is, however, uncertain whether this is an ongoing 
trend or merely a consequence of the economic crisis. 

No substantial change of transport modes and mobility

•  Transport performance of different transport modes do not vary greatly. 
The modal split of passenger transport in 2011 remained very similar to 
its 2000 levels. Freight transport has shown slight shifts since 2009, with 
rail regaining its lost share from road transport. Therefore, modal shares of 
freight transport are also nearing their 2000 levels. However, these slight 
changes may also be due to methodological reasons.

•  Even though the modal split does not show large changes at the EU-level, 
the shares of each transport modes vary greatly between Member States. 
While road transport dominated both passenger and freight transport in 
2011, rail had substantial shares of more than 30 % of freight transport in 
some Member States, such as the Baltic countries.

•  No substantial decoupling effect is observed for freight volumes relative to 
GDP. The crisis had a deep impact on both GDP and transport volumes, the 
latter being affected more heavily. Since 2009, numbers have shown a timid 
recovery. Whether this represents a decoupling cannot yet be concluded. 

22

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Negative transport impacts yet to be reduced 

•  There has still not been an overall decrease of greenhouse gas emissions 
from  transport  since  2000.  Although  emissions  have  been  falling  since 
2007 as a result of the economic downturn, this decline has not offset the 
increases in emissions seen before. 

•  Road fatalities have continued to fall since 2000. However, the goal of only 
27 000 victims due to road accidents in 2010 was reached. Therefore, fur-
ther efforts need to be implemented to attain the 2020 goal of fewer than 
15 500 fatalities. 

Key trends in natural resources

Is the EU losing its natural capital?

•  Between  2000  and  2011  the  index of common birds  remained  relatively 
stable, but more polarised trends are evident in the populations of  com-
mon farmland and  forest birds. While forest  birds  have  increased by  9.7 
percentage  points  over  this  period,  the  farmland  bird  index  dropped  by 
5.6 percentage points. 

•  Changes  in  agricultural  methods,  intensification  and  specialisation  are 
largely  responsible  for  farmland  bird  declines  in  Northern  and  Western 
Europe.  Major  drivers  are  the  provision  of  harmful  subsidies,  a  lack  of 
incentives for maintaining high nature value farmland (agricultural areas 
supporting  high  species  and  habitat  diversity  and/or  species  of  conser-
vation  concern)  and  the  increasing  use  of  biomass  for  the  production  of 
renewable energy.

•  Total fish catches taken from stocks outside safe biological limits declined 
by 23.1 percentage points from 2000 to 2010. However, annual values from 
2002 to 2010 fluctuate around an average of 16.3 %, which is well above the 
safe biological limits. Thus total fish stocks remain threatened by overfish-
ing in the North East Atlantic. 

A declining fishing fleet: good for the environment and the coastal 
economy

•  The  size  of  the  EU  fishing  fleet  (measured  in  terms  of  engine  power) 
decreased by 2.4 % on average per year from 2007 to 2012. But more efforts 
and policy reforms are needed for a sound fleet capacity adjustment, which 
would  lead  to  more  sustainable  fish  stock  management  and  better  eco-
nomic conditions for active fishermen.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

23

Executive	summary

Water abstraction close to sustainable levels

•  Total water abstraction decreased over the past decade in most regions 
of Europe with the exception of West Southern Europe, where it has been 
constant.  Countries  such  as  Lithuania,  Romania  and  Belgium  made  sig-
nificant progress towards more sustainable water management. 

Urbanisation and transport drive further land take in the EU

•  4.6 %  of  the  EU’s  land  area  was  covered  by  artificial  areas  in  2012.  Ris-
ing demands for housing and economic activities in urban areas and the 
increasing expansion of network areas in coastal zones are mainly respon-
sible for a continuous shrinkage of semi-natural and arable land in the EU. 

Key trends in global partnership 

Official development assistance in decline, EU missing its targets

•  Between  2004  and  2012  the  EU’s  total  official  development  assistance 
(ODA) expressed as a share of gross national income (GNI) increased by 
0.05 percentage points, reaching 0.39 % in 2012 (3).

•  However,  over  the  period  from  2010  to  2012  total  ODA  from  the  EU 
declined due to budget constraints resulting from the economic and finan-
cial crisis. A similar trend can be observed for other major donors.

•  The  EU  already  missed  its  collective  interim  target  of  dedicating  0.56 % 
of its GNI to ODA in 2010. If the increase continues at the same pace as 
between 2004 and 2012, the EU will not reach its long-standing collective 
target of dedicating 0.7 % of its GNI to official development assistance in 
2015. 

(3)	 Provisional	data	for	2012

24

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

Increase in share of EU financing for development for developing 
countries

•  Financing  for  developing  countries  from  the  EU-15  Member  States, 
including both public and private flows, grew by an average of 4.6 % per 
year between 2000 and 2011. Despite this positive overall trend, fluctua-
tions  can  be  observed  which  may  create  unpredictability  for  developing 
countries that are particularly reliant on external financial support. 

•  Since 2000, the share of ODA to least developed countries and other low 
income countries has increased, with 52.5 % of official development assist-
ance from the EU-15 going to these countries in 2011. 

•  Foreign  direct  investment  (FDI)  is  a  vital  complement  to  development 
efforts. However, from 2000 to 2011, EU-15 FDI to least developed coun-
tries and other low-income countries decreased by 3.4 % per year on aver-
age, from 3.2 % of total FDI in 2000 to 2.2 % in 2011.

Increase in EU imports from developing countries

•  Imports from developing countries into the EU increased by an average 
annual rate of 7.8 % between 2000 and 2012; the share of developing coun-
try imports in overall EU imports increased from 35.2 % in 2001 to 47.2 % 
in 2012.

•  Imports from China were the single largest factor behind this trend. Their 
share in total EU imports from developing countries increased from 24 % 
in  2000  to  35 %  in  2012.  In  absolute  terms,  the  volume  of  imports  from 
China in 2012 was more than three times the 2000 amount.

•  Imports  from  least-developed  countries  also  increased,  but  on  average 
the  growth  rate  was  only  about  a  third  the  growth  rate  of  imports  from 
all developing countries to the EU. In 2012 imports from least-developed 
countries still represented less than 2 % of overall EU imports.

Gap in CO2 emissions closing due to increases in developing 
countries

•  Although the gap in per capita CO2 emissions narrowed between the EU 
and developing countries in the decade 2000 to 2011, the EU’s emissions 
remain at 7.4 tonnes per capita; 2.6 times higher than the developing coun-
try average of 2.9 tonnes per capita.

•  The gap narrowed primarily due to increasing emissions from developing 
countries and the financial crisis which led to lower per capita CO2 emis-
sions in the EU.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

25

Executive	summary

Key trends in good governance 

Positive trends in policy coherence and effectiveness, but less trust 
from the public

•  Less than half of EU citizens have trust in the three main EU institutions. 
In 2012, the European Parliament was the most trusted among them (44 % 
of citizens say they trust it), followed by the European Commission (40 %) 
and the Council of the EU (36 %). Citizens’ trust in political institutions 
on all political levels is generally low, especially regarding political parties 
and institutions at the national level (for example only 15 % trust political 
parties and 27 % trust national governments). 

•  Between 2007 and 2012 the number of new Single Market related infringe-
ment cases fell by 38 %. Most of this decline occurred since 2010. Taxation 
and environmental issues make up the two largest groups of Single Market 
related infringement cases by policy sector, representing 44 % of all pend-
ing infringement cases in November 2012.

•  After  dropping  significantly  since  2000,  the  transposition  deficit  of  EU 
Single Market law reached a new low of 0.6 % in November 2012. Promoted 
by the Internal Market Scoreboard as the ‘best result ever’, the transposi-
tion deficit was 0.4 percentage points below the 1 % target for the transposi-
tion of Single Market rules.

Citizen’s online interaction with governments on the rise, but less 
participation in elections

•  Citizens’  online  interaction  with  public  authorities  in  the  EU  rose  by 
8 percentage points between 2008 and 2012. After a slight decrease in 2011, 
internet interactions with public authorities have increased again, reaching 
44 % in 2012. This trend partly reflects an overall increase in internet usage 
across the EU.

•  Voter turnout has seen a 1.5 percentage point reduction in national parlia-
mentary elections in the EU between 2000 and 2012. A decreasing trend is 
also visible in participation in EU parliamentary elections.

No shift in taxation from labour to energy and environmental taxes 
achieved

•  The ratio of labour to environmental taxes in the EU increased by 10.1 % 
from 2000 to 2011. Over this period, the share of environmental taxes in 
total revenues from taxes and social contributions declined compared with 
labour  taxes. This  trend  runs  counter  to  the  goals  of  the  EU  Sustainable 
Development Strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy, both of which call for 

26

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Executive	summary

taxation to shift from labour to energy and environmental taxes (‘greening’ 
the taxation system). 

•  Similarly, the implicit tax rate on energy also dropped in the EU. How-
ever, this was less substantial dropping by just 1.6 % from 2000 to 2011. The 
fall in the implicit tax rate on energy indicates a decline in the effective tax 
burden on energy relative to the potentially taxable base. 

Impacts of the global economic and financial crisis on the 
key trends

The  indicators  presented  in  this  report  show  a  rather  mixed  picture.  In  addition, 
the disruptions caused by the economic crisis make it hard to draw comprehensive 
conclusions  about  whether  the  EU  has  moved  along  the  path  towards  sustainable 
development. 

As a consequence of the global economic and financial crisis that began in late 2007, 
the EU went into recession during 2008. In late 2013, as this report was being final-
ised, the EU economy was still only growing slowly. The impact of the crisis has been 
severe and goes far beyond the economy, affecting many of the social and environ-
mental trends analysed in this publication. This section provides a brief summary 
of  the  areas  affected  over  a  period  starting  in  2007  and  extending  where  possible 
to 2011/2012. Although it is not clear at this point, some of the consequences, such 
as lower levels of investment, could have long-term and persistent knock-on effects 
which will only become apparent in later reports.

Liquidity problems in the banking sector, which began in 2007, led to a squeeze on 
credit and falling asset prices, feeding into lower consumer demand and an increase in 
‘household saving’, a decrease in ‘investment’ from businesses and households, a fall in 
international trade (reflected in the indicator ‘imports from developing countries’) and 
a decline in ‘real GDP per capita’. Levels of ‘public debt’ rose drastically. ‘Employment’ 
fell,  particularly  among  the  young,  and  men  were  hit  harder  than  women  (‘female 
employment’). The trend of increasing ‘employment rate of older workers’ slowed. Due 
to labour hoarding and changes to working hours ‘labour productivity’ fell.

‘Research  and  development  expenditure’  on  the  other  hand  increased,  as  several 
countries boosted their expenditure to try to support economic recovery and longer 
term growth. In response to falling demand, industrial production also fell. This is 
evident in the example of the ‘production of toxic chemicals’.

The rise in ‘unemployment’ and ‘long-term unemployment’ has had social impacts. 
Although the overall ‘risk of poverty’ decreased, it grew for  the 25 to  49 year age 
group and also slightly for 18 to 24 year olds. The ‘intensity of poverty’ also increased, 
as did ‘suicides’, especially among men and the middle-aged. The ‘crude rate of net 
migration’ also fell, probably as a reaction to the difficulty in finding employment in 
the EU. In terms of combating global poverty, ‘financing for developing countries’ 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

27

Executive	summary

fell, due to reduced flows from private donors, rather than from official sources or 
NGOs.

Energy demand (‘final energy consumption’) fell in parallel to GDP. This lower con-
sumption led to a stabilisation of the EU’s ‘energy dependence’, breaking the long-
term trend towards increased dependency. ‘Greenhouse gas emissions’ and pollutant 
‘atmospheric emissions’, which were already decreasing, fell even more quickly.

Freight transport fell faster than GDP (reflected in the indicator ‘volume of freight 
transport relative to GDP’). Nevertheless, energy consumption of transport fell less 
than  GDP  (‘energy  consumption  of  transport  relative  to  GDP’),  probably  due  to 
a  slower  decrease  in  passenger  transport.  ‘Greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  trans-
port’ fell, and ‘emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from transport’ and ‘emissions 
of particulate matter from transport’ decreased faster than in previous years. The 
‘number  of  people  killed  in  road  accidents’  also  fell,  probably  as  a  result  of  lower 
traffic volumes.

The public reaction to the crisis and how it has been handled is reflected in the fall in 
‘citizen’s confidence in EU institutions’ and in ‘voter turnout in national elections’.

Overall,  the  circumstances  outlined  above  make  it  hard  to  assess  whether  real 
progress towards sustainable development has been made in the EU over the past 
few years. However, keeping in mind that almost half of the headline indicators of 
the EU SDI set are moving in a moderately or clearly unfavourable direction, more 
efforts  seem  to  be  needed  to  put  the  European  Union  on  the  path  to  sustainable 
development.

28

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Introduction

Introduction

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

Introduction

Introduction

Sustainable development is a fundamental and overarching objective of the European 
Union, enshrined in the Treaty (1). Measuring progress towards sustainable devel-
opment is an integral part of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS), 
and it is Eurostat’s task to produce a monitoring report every two years based on 
the EU set of sustainable development indicators (EU SDIs). This 2013 edition of the 
monitoring report is the fifth quantitative assessment of whether the EU is moving 
towards its sustainable development objectives (2). 

The EU set of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs)

Background

Eurostat  took  its  first  steps  towards  measuring  sustainable  development  (SD)  in 
the  1990s.  Following  the  United  Nations  (UN)  Conference  on  Environment  and 
Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (also known as ‘Rio Earth Summit’), 
Eurostat worked closely with the UN work programme on global indicators of sus-
tainable development, and published indicator compilations in 1997 (3) and again 
in 2001 (4).

A first EU-oriented set of SDIs was proposed following the adoption of the first EU 
SDS  in  2001  (5)  and  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Commission  in  2005  (6).  The 
set was slightly revised after the review of the EU SDS from 2001 (7) that led to the 
adoption of a renewed strategy in 2006 (8). Since then several reviews of the SDI set 
have been carried out by the Commission with the assistance of the working group 
on SDIs, which is composed of both statistical and policy representatives at national 
and EU level. Nevertheless, the current set of SDIs, as presented in this report, is very 
similar to that endorsed in 2005.

(1)	 Article	2	of	the	Treaty	on	European	Union.
(2)	 For	previous	assessments	based	on	the	EU	SDIs	see	http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/sdi/publications.	
(3)	 Eurostat,	Indicators of sustainable development: A pilot study following the methodology of the United Nations Commission on 

Sustainable Development,	Luxembourg,	Office	for	Official	Publications	of	the	European	Union,	1997.

(4)	 Eurostat,	Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe: Proposed indicators for sustainable development,	

Luxembourg,	Office	for	Official	Publications	of	the	European	Union,	2001.
(5)	 Göteborg	European	Council,	Presidency	conclusions,	15	and	16	June	2001.
(6)	 Communication	from	Mr	Almunia,	Sustainable development indicators to monitor the implementation of the EU Sustainable 

Development Strategy,	SEC(2005)	161.

(7)	 Commission	Communication,	On the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action,	COM(2005)	658.
(8)	 Council	of	the	European	Union,	Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) — Renewed Strategy,	10917/06.

30

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Introduction

The thematic framework

The set of EU SDIs is organised within a theme-oriented framework, to provide a 
clear and easily communicable structure and relevance to political decision-making. 
The framework is based on priority policy issues, but is flexible enough to adjust to 
possible changes in these priorities and objectives, bearing in mind that new issues 
and priorities emerge from time to time.

The ten themes of the SDI framework follow a gradient from the economic, through 
the social and environmental to the global and institutional dimensions:

•  Socioeconomic development

•  Sustainable consumption and production

•  Social inclusion

•  Demographic changes

•  Public health

•  Climate change and energy

•  Sustainable transport

•  Natural resources

•  Global partnership

•  Good governance.

Each theme is further divided into subthemes and includes three levels of indicators 
(see the following section on the different kinds of indicators included in the set).

The main body of the renewed EU SDS from 2006 is built around seven key chal-
lenges, with corresponding operational objectives and targets as well as associated 
actions and measures. In addition, a number of key objectives and policy guiding 
principles serve as a basis for the strategy. Each of the seven key challenges of the 
renewed EU SDS was already represented by a theme in the original framework from 
2005 (9). The SDI framework additionally includes a theme on ‘socioeconomic devel-
opment’ which focuses on the key objective of economic prosperity, and a theme on 
‘good governance’ related to the guiding principles of the EU SDS and other cross-
cutting issues. Both of these themes have been retained from the original version of 
the framework from 2005.

(9)	 The	topics	‘social	inclusion,	demography	and	migration’	are	considered	together	in	one	EU	SDS	key	challenge,	but	are	
represented	by	two	separate	themes	(‘social	inclusion’	and	‘demographic	changes’)	in	the	SDI	framework.	This	division	
has	been	retained	even	after	the	adoption	of	the	renewed	EU	SDS	in	2006	in	order	to	reflect	the	different	nature	of	these	
two	issues.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

31

Introduction

The  most  recent  changes  to  the  indicator  set  were  related  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Europe  2020  strategy  (10)  and  its  eight  headline  indicators,  which  have  been  inte-
grated into the SDI framework in the themes ‘socioeconomic development’, ‘social 
inclusion’ and ‘climate change and energy’. 

Thus over the course of several revisions, some changes have been made to reflect 
trends  in  EU  policies  related  to  sustainable  development,  although  the  overall 
framework has proved sufficiently robust to remain unaltered. 

The different kinds of indicators

The set of EU SDIs is structured as a three-storey pyramid, distinguishing between 
three  levels  of  indicators.  This  approach  not  only  reflects  the  structure  of  the  EU 
SDS (overall objectives, operational objectives, actions), but also responds to differ-
ent kinds of user needs. The three-level pyramid is complemented with contextual 
indicators, as illustrated below:

•  Headline (or level 1) indicators are at the top of the pyramid, monitoring 
the ‘overall objectives’ related to the seven key challenges of the EU SDS. 
On the whole they are widely used indicators with a high communicative 
and educational value. They are robust and available for most EU Member 
States, generally for a period of at least five years.

•  The second level of the pyramid consists in most cases of indicators related 
to the ‘operational objectives’ of the Strategy. They are the lead indicators 
in their respective sub-themes. They are robust and available for most EU 
Member States for a period of at least three years.

•  The  third  level  consists  of  indicators  related  to  actions  described  in  the 
strategy or to other issues which are useful for analysing progress towards 
its objectives. Breakdowns of higher level indicators, for example by gender 
or income group, are usually also found at level 3.

•  Contextual  indicators  are  part  of  the  SDI  set,  but  either  do  not  moni-
tor directly a particular SDS objective, or they are not policy responsive. 
Generally,  they  are  difficult  to  interpret  in  a  normative  way.  They  are 
included because they provide valuable background information on issues 
that have direct relevance to sustainable development policies and are help-
ful to gaining an understanding of the topic.

(10)	European	Commission,	Europe 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,	COM(2010)	2020	final.

32

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Figure 0.1: the SdI pyramid

Introduction

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Overall objectives

Operational objectives and targets

Actions/explanatory variables

Contextual indicators

Background

The 2013 monitoring report mainly analyses level 1 and level 2 indicators thus focus-
ing on the most important issues related to SD. The current set of indicators is avail-
able on the Eurostat website at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/sustainabledevelopment.

Data coverage

Data are mainly presented for the aggregated EU-27 level, referring to the situation 
of the 27 EU Member States before the accession of Croatia to the EU in July 2013. 
This is because EU-28 aggregated data were not available for many of the indicators 
at the time of writing this publication. In a few cases (in particular for indicators in 
the ‘global partnership’ theme) data are shown for the EU-15 aggregate level, refer-
ring to the ‘old’ EU Member States before the EU enlargement of 2004.

Croatia  is  nevertheless  included  in  the  country-wise  comparisons  throughout  the 
report that complement the EU-level analysis whenever the differences in perform-
ance between Member States are of interest. In addition to the 28 EU Member States, 
data  for  EU  candidate  countries  and  the  countries  of  the  European  Free  Trade 
Association (EFTA) are included when available. 

Additionally, global comparisons of the EU with other major economies in the world 
(such as the United States, Japan and China) or sub-national comparisons of the EU 
regions (at NUTS (11) 2 level) are included, mainly for the SDI headline indicators 
and the Europe 2020 indicators.

(11)	The	NUTS	(Nomenclature	of	Territorial	Units	for	Statistics)	classification	is	a	hierarchical	system	for	dividing	up	the	
economic	territory	of	the	EU.	For	further	details	see	http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_
nomenclature/introduction.	

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

33

Introduction

Most  of  the  data  used  to  compile  the  indicators  stem  from  the  standard  Eurostat 
collection  of  statistics  through  the  European  Statistical  System  (ESS),  but  other 
data sources have also been drawn on, notably other European Commission serv-
ices,  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA),  the  Organisation  for  Economic 
Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank.

Most  of  the  data  presented  were  extracted  in  early  October  2013.  Data  stemming 
from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) were extracted 
at the end of October 2013 because the most recent data (from 2012) only available 
became at that time. 

Evaluation of indicators

What is evaluated?

This publication’s main purpose is to assess progress towards sustainable develop-
ment based on the objectives and targets set out in the EU SDS and other relevant 
policy initiatives such as the Europe 2020 strategy. The object of the evaluation is the 
relative direction and rate of change in light of sustainable development objectives, 
not the ‘sustainability’ (12) of the situation at any point in time. It is therefore a rela-
tive, not an absolute assessment. 

Ideally,  each  indicator  would  be  evaluated  against  either  a  quantitative  target  set 
within the political process or a scientifically established threshold. However, many 
of the EU SDS’s objectives lack an explicit quantified and measurable target. In these 
cases, the indicator is evaluated according to a set of common and objective rules to 
ensure a consistent approach across indicators and to avoid ad hoc value judgments. 
These rules, although imperfect, provide a simple, transparent, consistent and easily 
understandable approach across the report.

How is an indicator evaluated?

The report evaluates progress by means of four categories depending on how favour-
able or unfavourable the developments have been over recent years. The four catego-
ries are represented visually by means of weather symbols, as shown in Table 0.2.

It is the purpose of this publication to assess the progress of the EU as a whole since 
the adoption of the first EU SDS (13). The evaluation of each indicator is therefore 

(12)	The	concept	of	sustainable	development	should	be	distinguished	from	that	of	sustainability.	‘Sustainability’	is	a	property	
of	a	system,	whereby	it	is	maintained	in	a	particular	state	through	time.	The	concept	of	sustainable	development	refers	to	
a	process	involving	change	or	development.	The	strategy	aims	to	‘achieve	continuous	improvement	of	quality	of	life’,	and	
the	focus	is	therefore	on	sustaining	the	process	of	improving	human	well-being.	Rather	than	seeking	a	stable	equilibrium,	
sustainable	development	is	a	dynamic	concept,	recognising	that	change	is	inherent	to	human	societies.

(13)	Although	it	could	be	argued	that	longer	time	periods	are	needed	to	monitor	sustainable	development,	it	is	the	purpose	
of	this	publication	to	assess	progress	since	commitments	were	taken	on	the	various	issues	monitored.	The	year	2000	was	
chosen	as	reference	year	because	it	is	the	last	round	year	before	the	adoption	of	the	EU	SDS	in	2001.

34

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Introduction

based, as far as possible, on the evolution of the indicator between 2000 and the latest 
year of data available for the EU-27 (14). The calculation involves two separate steps:

Calculating the pace of the development of an indicator

The ‘compound annual growth rate’ is calculated to assess the pace of an indicator’s 
evolution. This method uses the data from the first (usually the year 2000) and the 
last year of the available time series and calculates the annual rate of change of the 
indicator (in %) between these two data points. A change of more than 1 % per year 
is considered clearly favourable or unfavourable (depending on the direction of the 
change  in  relation  to  SD  objectives).  This  refers  to  the  sun  and  the  thunderstorm 
symbols in Table 0.2 below. A change between 0 % and 1 % is considered moderately 
favourable or unfavourable. 

Calculating the consistency of the trend

Because  the  calculation  of  the  ‘compound  annual  growth  rate’  only  takes  into 
account the data from the first and the last year of the time series, it is necessary to 
complement this result with a measure related to the trend’s consistency over the 
whole  time  series. This  refers  to  whether  the  observed  trend  was  continuous  over 
time (a constant increase or decrease), or whether it was more volatile (experiencing 
ups  and  downs,  making  it  difficult  to  assess  the  direction  of  change). This  is  par-
ticularly relevant for indicators that have seen strong ‘disturbances’ caused by the 
economic crisis, such as GDP growth, energy consumption or risk of poverty. 

Calculating the consistency of an indicator trend is based on ‘Spearman’s rank order 
correlation  coefficient’  (Spearman’s  ρ),  whereby  a  significance  level  of  0.1  is  used 
to distinguish between continuous (below 0.1) or more volatile (above 0.1) trends. 
Based on this result, two different kinds of weather symbols are shown for each cat-
egory (see Table 0.2).

(14)	EU	aggregates	are	back-calculated	when	sufficient	information	is	available.	For	example,	the	EU-27	aggregate	is	often	

presented	for	periods	prior	to	the	accession	of	Bulgaria	and	Romania	in	2007	and	the	accession	of	ten	new	Member	States	
in	2004,	as	if	all	27	Member	States	had	always	been	members	of	the	EU.	The	label	is	changed	if	the	data	refer	to	another	
aggregate	(EU-25	or	EU-15)	or	a	note	is	added	if	the	data	refer	to	a	partial	aggregate	created	from	an	incomplete	set	of	
country	information	(no	data	for	certain	Member	States	or	reference	years).

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

35

Introduction

Table 0.2: Categories and associated weather symbols for the evaluation of the 
indicators

Symbol  
(continuous trend)

Symbol  
(non-continuous 
trend)

Evaluation category

Changes	are	clearly favourable	in	relation	to	
SD	objectives

No	or	moderately favourable	changes	in	
relation	to	SD	objectives

Changes	are	moderately unfavourable in	
relation	to	SD	objectives

Changes	are	clearly unfavourable in	relation	
to	SD	objectives

Contextual	indicator	or	not	enough	data	
available	for	an	evaluation

:	

How the absence or presence of quantified targets influences the evaluation

In the absence of a quantified target, the evaluation of an indicator is entirely based 
on the calculation of the observed rate of change and the consistency of the trend, 
using the thresholds previously described.

In the presence of a quantified political target (such as for greenhouse gas emissions 
or employment), the actual rate of change of the indicator (based on the ‘constant 
average  growth  rate’  as  described  above)  is  compared  with  the  theoretical  rate  of 
change  that  would  be  required  to  meet  the  target  in  the  target  year.  If  the  actual 
rate is 95 % or more of the required rate, the indicator is evaluated as clearly favour-
able (‘on target path’). Between 80 % and 95 % is evaluated as moderately favourable 
(‘close to target path’), and between 0 % and 80 % is evaluated as moderately unfa-
vourable  (‘far  from  the  target  path’). The  evaluation  is  clearly  unfavourable  if  the 
actual trend is pointing in the wrong direction, away from the target path.

Decoupling indicators as a special case

For some of the indicators the issue of interest is not the change in one single number 
but in the relationship of two trends. One of these two trends is usually an economic 
variable (such as GDP growth), and the other an environmental variable that shows 
the environmental pressures exerted by the economic activity. For example, this is 
the case when analysing trends in resource productivity, where the focus is put on 
the relationship between the trends in GDP growth and material use.

These indicators are called ‘decoupling’ indicators because they show the strength of 
the link (or the ‘coupling’) between the economic and the environmental variable. In 
relation to sustainable development objectives, the aim is to achieve a ‘decoupling’ 

36

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Introduction

of these two variables so that continued economic growth does not lead to a 
further increase in environmental degradation. 

‘Decoupling’ indicators are evaluated by comparing trends in the two under-
lying variables (that is the type of ‘decoupling’ that has occurred). ‘Absolute 
decoupling’ occurs when the pressure on the environment decreases while 
the  (economic)  driving  force  increases  and  is  evaluated  as  being  ‘clearly 
favourable’. 

When pressure on the environment decreases but at a slower pace than the 
decrease  in  the  economic  variable,  this  situation  is  referred  to  as  ‘relative 
decoupling’  and  is  evaluated  as  ‘moderately  favourable’  (15).  A  situation 
where the an environmental pressure is increasing but at a slower rate than 
the  increase  in  the  driving  force  is  also  called  ‘relative  decoupling’,  but  is 
evaluated as ‘moderately unfavourable’ because of the increase in the envi-
ronmental impacts.

When the pressure on the environment increases at the same or a higher rate 
than the growth of the economic variable, no decoupling has taken place and 
is evaluated as ‘clearly unfavourable’.

What’s new?

Given  the  recent  developments  at  European  and  international  level,  the 
monitoring report 2013 features some new elements compared with previ-
ous editions. 

One  of  the  new  features  of  this  edition  is  looking  at  interlinkages  at  vari-
ous levels. This includes the interlinkages between the concept of sustain-
able development and new, emerging concepts such as ‘green growth’, ‘green 
economy’,  and  ‘quality  of  life’.  Although  these  concepts  are  intrinsically 
linked  to  sustainable  development,  they  are  usually  discussed  in  different 
arenas. The following chapter analyses the concepts of ‘green economy’ and 
‘quality of life’ and their links to sustainable development from a concep-
tual  point  of  view.  In  addition,  at  the  beginning  of  each  thematic  chapter 
in this report selected ‘green economy’ and/or ‘quality of life’ indicators are 
analysed. These ‘green economy’ and ‘quality of life’ pages show indicators 
that are at the nexus between sustainable development and these two related 
concepts (16). The aim is to show how ‘green economy’ can be seen as a means 

(15)	It	has	to	be	noted	that	this	situation	describes	a	rather	theoretical	case,	as	a	decline	in	the	economic	driving	

force	(GDP	growth)	has	so	far	only	been	observed	for	individual	years	but	not	for	the	whole	time	series	that	is	
used	for	the	evaluation.	For	the	sake	of	completeness	this	case	has	nevertheless	been	added	to	the	set	of	rules	
used	for	evaluating	the	indicators	in	this	2013	edition	of	the	Monitoring	Report.

(16)	The	indicators	highlighted	on	the	‘green	economy’	pages	are	proxies	of	the	green	economy	indicator	set	

currently	developed	by	UNEP.	The	indicators	presented	on	the	‘quality	of	life’	pages	were	chosen	according	
to	their	relatedness	to	the	social	inclusion	concept,	whereby	priority	was	given	to	indicators	from	Eurostat’s	
quality	of	life	indicator	set.	In	case	of	lacking	data	similar	indicators	from	the	European	Quality	of	Life	Survey	
(EQLS)	were	taken	on	board.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

37

Introduction

for implementing the concept of sustainable development, and how ‘quality of life’ 
can be perceived as its ultimate outcome.

Figure 0.2: Relationship between ‘sustainable development’, ‘green 
economy’ and ‘quality of life’

Green economy

A means 
for

Sustainable
development

Outcome

Quality of life

Important  interlinkages  also  exist  between  different  geographical  levels,  that  is, 
between countries and their regions, between the EU  and its Member States, and 
between the global level and the EU. To this end, global comparisons of the EU with 
other major economies in the world or sub-national comparisons of the EU regions 
are included for some SDI headline indicators and Europe 2020 indicators.

Additionally,  inequalities  between  different  sub-groups  of  the  population  are 
increasingly recognised as an important aspect not only for sustainable development 
but also for official statistics. The outcome document of the 2012 UN Conference on 
Sustainable Development — ‘The Future we want’ — emphasises that ‘sustainable 
development  must  be  inclusive  and  people-centered,  benefiting  and  involving  all 
people, including youth and children’, recognising that ‘gender equality and wom-
en’s  empowerment  are  important  for  sustainable  development  and  our  common 
future’  (17).  Whenever  data  are  available,  inequalities  between  the  sexes,  between 
age groups or between EU citizens and people with a migration background or from 
ethnic minorities are therefore highlighted throughout this report, for example in 
‘women’s corners’.

An important novelty is the change in the evaluation methodology. The method for 
evaluating trends in the indicators — based on the ‘compound annual growth rate’ 
and visualised through weather symbols — was complemented with the Spearman’s 
rank order correlation coefficient test. The aim was to indicate whether trends have 
seen a continuous (structural) development over time, or whether they have rather 
been based on volatile developments that make it difficult to determine the direction 
in which the indicator is evolving.

(17)	UN	GA,	The future we want,	A/RES/66/288,	2012	(para	31).

38

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Introduction

Finally,  if  you  should  be  wondering  why  a  whole  beehive  is  flying  around  in  this 
report: bees can be seen as a good example of sustainable societies, contributing not 
only to the well-being of the hive but also providing important ecosystem services 
for the good of humanity (by pollinating plants and by producing honey). We have 
therefore made excessive use of the new ‘bee-logo’ of the EU SDI set to remind us 
about  the  bigger  role  that  we  are  playing  in  the  Earth’s  ecosystem  and  about  the 
importance of the progress that needs to be made towards sustainable development 
in the EU and worldwide.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

39

Socioeconomic 
development

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

1

Socioeconomic	development

Socioeconomic development seen through the 
lens of the Green Economy 

Green jobs on the rise – but are they decent jobs too?

The ‘environmental goods and services sector’ (EGSS) comprises production ac-
tivities that generate environmental products. Environmental products are prod-
ucts that have been produced for the purpose of environmental protection or re-
source management. 

From 2002 to 2011, employment in the EGS sector (based on estimated data for the 
whole EU) increased by 37 %. In 2012, about 4.2 million people (in full-time equiva-
lents) were employed in this sector, a majority of them in environmental protection, 
which includes preventing, reducing and eliminating pollution and any other envi-
ronmental  degradation.  However,  growth  in  resource  management  activities  con-
tributed most to the overall increase in employment in the EGS sector. Between 2002 
and 2011 employment (in full-time equivalents) in this area almost doubled.

Employment in the environmental goods and services sector, EU-28
(millions of full time equivalent)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total environmental protection activities

Total resource management activities

NB: Estimated data
Source: Eurostat (online data code: env_ac_egss1)

The increase in employment in the EU EGS sector is in line with the findings of a 
recent ILO/UNEP study (1). According to this the shift to a greener economy is cre-
ating employment across a range of sectors. However, a greener economy is not in-
clusive and socially sustainable by default, and the transition is likely to entail some 
challenges, particularly in certain sectors and for certain workers. Consequently, a 
comprehensive approach is needed to ensure that green jobs are also decent jobs that 
contribute to social inclusion.

(1)   ILO and UNEP, Working towards sustainable development — opportunities for decent work and social inclusion 

in a green economy, 2012.

42

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Socioeconomic	development

1

Overview of main changes  

Many  of  the  changes  in  the  socioeconomic  development  theme’s  indicators  have 
been influenced by the financial and economic crises from 2008 and the prolonged 
recession  that  followed.  The  slowdown  in  economic  activity  not  only  directly  re-
strained real gross domestic product (GDP) growth, but also led to subdued invest-
ment, increased unemployment and to a lesser extent restrained household saving. 
The employment trend also deteriorated, although it did stabilise over the past two 
years. Overall expenditure on research and development (R&D) remained more re-
silient,  but  it  lacked  the  impetus  to  stay  on-course  to  meet  its  2020  target.  There 
were also positive developments: labour productivity increased and energy intensity 
declined.  However,  it  is  too  early  to  interpret  these  trends  as  major  turnarounds. 
They might reflect delayed economic adjustments or turbulence rather than actual 
long-term improvements. 

Table 1.1: Evaluation of changes in the socioeconomic development theme (EU-27, 
from 2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Economic development

Investment	

Household	saving

Innovativeness, competitiveness and eco-efficiency

Real	GDP	per	
capita

Labour	
productivity

Research	and	development	
expenditure

Energy	intensity

Employment

Employment

Unemployment

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

43

1

Socioeconomic	development

Socioeconomic development seen through the 
lens of Quality of Life 

Underemployment has increased since the onset of the crisis

Underemployment  covers  people  who,  in  spite  of  being  employed,  do  not  work 
full-time and lack a sufficient volume of work; a situation that is somewhat similar 
to being unemployed.

In 2012, some 38.9 million people aged 0 to 59 years, corresponding to 10.3 % of 
the EU population of that age group, were living in households where the adults 
worked less than 20% of their total work potential during the past year. Compared 
with 2008, this represents an increase of about 4.5 million people affected by un-
deremployment.

Women were slightly more affected by this situation in 2012 than men. Low work 
intensity was also much higher among older workers, in particular those aged 55 
to 59, whereas it was lowest for prime-aged workers 35 to 44 years old. With the ex-
ception of single person households with dependent children (which usually suffer 
most from any form of poverty or social exclusion), households with one or more 
dependent children showed the lowest underemployment levels in 2012. 

People living in households with very low work intensity by sex, age and 
household type, EU-27, 2012
(% of population)

People aged 0–59

Women aged 0–59

Men aged 0–59

People aged 55–59

People aged 35–44

People in households with two adults,
 at least one aged 65 years or over
People in single person households with dependent children
People in households with two adults
 and two dependent children

NB: Estimated data.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: ilc_lvhl11 and ilc_lvhl13)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

44

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Socioeconomic	development

1

Real GdP per capita

11.5 % increase in real GDP per capita in the EU between 2000 and 
2012. Economic activity picked up in 2010 and 2011, but slowed 
again the following year

Figure 1.1: Real GdP per capita, EU-27
(EUR per inhabitant)

25 000

24 000

23 000

22 000

21 000

20 000

19 000

18 000

17 000

16 000

15 000

20 900

23 300

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec100)

In absolute terms, the EU economy is the largest in the world. Living 
standards in the EU, as measured by GDP per capita, remain some 
of the highest in the world, surpassed only by Australia, the United 
States, Canada and Japan

Figure 1.2: the EU compared with other economies in the world, 2012

India

100 000

)
$
S
U

f
o
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(
P
D
G

10 000

1 000

100

1 000

China

EU

US

Brazil

Russia

South Korea

Japan

Canada

Australia

Indonesia

Mexico

South Africa

10 000
GDP per capita (US$)

100 000

NB:	The	size	of	the	bubbles	reflects	the	population	size.

Source: World Bank

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

45

 
 
 
1

Socioeconomic	development

Investment

10.5 % reduction in total investment in the EU between 2000 
and 2011. This trend was largely driven by a sharp fall in private 
investment in the aftermath of the economic crisis

Figure 1.3: Investment by institutional sectors, EU-27
(% of GdP)

21.13

18.90

25

20

15

10

5

0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total

Business

Household

Government

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec210)

46

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Socioeconomic	development

1

household saving rate

0.2 percentage point drop in the household saving rate in the EU 
between 2000 and 2012. After a sharp increase in 2009 the rate fell 
significantly as result of slow growth and high household debt in 
some Member States

Figure 1.4: household saving rate, EU-27
(%)

14

13

12

11

10

11.26

10.95

NB:	EU-27	aggregate	based	on	data	from	23	EU	Member	States	(no	data	available	for	BG,	EL,	MT	and	RO).

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec240)

Figure 1.5: household saving rate, by country 
(%)

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
– 2

EU-27

LU DE FR BE SE AT SI

IT NL ES IE HU CZ SK PT CY FI DK UK EE PL LT LV

CH NO

2000

2011

NB:	EU-27	aggregate	based	on	data	from	23	EU	Member	States	(no	data	available	for	BG,	EL,	MT	and	RO);	2002	data	for	IE	

(instead	of	2000).

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec240)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

47

1

Socioeconomic	development

Labour productivity

15 % increase in output per hour in the EU between 2000 and 2012. 
The continuous increase in labour productivity stalled during the 
economic downturn before picking up again slowly in 2010

Figure 1.6: Labour productivity per hour worked, EU-27
(EUR per hour worked)

32.2

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

28.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec310)

Figure 1.7: Labour productivity per hour worked, by country 
(EUR per hour worked)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU-27

LU DK IE BE NL FR SE DE

FI UK AT

IT

ES CY EL

SI PT MT CZ SK HU EE PL LT LV RO BG

NO CH

US

2000

2012

NB:	2002	data	for	LU	(instead	of	2000),	2008	data	for	CH,	2009	data	for	US.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec310)

48

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Socioeconomic	development

1

Research and development expenditure

About a 9 % increase in R&D intensity in the EU between 2000 and 
2011. Although R&D spending stabilised at about 2 % of GDP during 
the economic downturn, further progress is needed to remain on-
track to meet the 2020 target of 3 % of GDP

Figure 1.8: total R&d expenditure, EU-27
(% of GdP)

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

3.00

1.85

2.03

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

R&D expenditure

Path towards Europe 2020 target

NB:	Data	1995–2002	and	2008–2011	are	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec320)

Figure 1.9: total R&d expenditure, by country 
(% of GdP)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
EU-27

FI SE DK DE AT SI EE FR BE NL CZ UK IE PT LU ES IT HU LT HR PL MT LV SK EL BG RO CY

IS CH NO

TR

KR JP US RU

2000

2011

NB:	2001	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	EL,	SE	and	NO,	2002	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	HR	and	MT,	2007	data	(instead	of	2011)	
for	EL,	2008	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	CH,	2009	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	IS,	JP	and	US,	2010	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	KR	
and	RU;	2000	data	are	estimates	for	EU-27,	AT,	PT	and	IS;	2011	data	are	estimates	or	provisional	for	EU-27,	BE,	BG,	DK,	DE,	
EE,	IE,	IT,	CY,	LV,	LT,	LU,	MT,	NL,	AT,	PT,	SI,	SE,	UK	and	NO;	break	in	series	for	DK	(2007),	FR	(2004	and	2010),	HU	and	MT	(2004),	
NL	(2011),	PT	(2008),	SI	(2008	and	2011),	SE	(2005	and	2011),	JP	(2008)	and	KR	(2007);	definition	differs	for	HU	(2000),	SE	
(2001),	US	(2000–2009),	KR	(2000)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec320)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

49

1

Socioeconomic	development

Energy intensity

15.5 % drop in energy intensity in the EU between 2000 and 2011. 
The overall declining trend indicates absolute decoupling of energy 
consumption from economic growth

Figure 1.10: Energy intensity of the economy, EU-27
(index 2000=100)

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

116.5

98.4

84.5

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

GDP

Gross inland energy consumption

Energy intensity

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdec360, tsdcc320 and nama_gdp_k)

50

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Socioeconomic	development

1

Employment

1.9 percentage point increase in the EU employment rate between 
2000 and 2012. As a result of the recent economic downturn the rate 
has slipped away from its 2020 target path

Figure 1.11: total employment rate, EU-27
(% of age group 20–64 years)

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

75

70.3

68.5

66.6

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

EU-27

Path towards Europe 2020 target

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec410)

Figure 1.13: total employment rate, by country 
(% of age group 20–64 years)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU-27

SE NL DE AT DK UK FI EE CZ LU CY FR LT SI LV BE PT SK PL RO IE MT BG HU IT ES HR EL

CH IS NO

TR MK

JP US

2000

2012

NB:	2002	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	HR,	2003	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	IS.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec410)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

51

1

Socioeconomic	development

Figure 1.14: Employment rate, by NUtS 2 regions, 2012
(% of population aged 20–64)

e
r
i
h
s
r
e
t
s
e
c
r
o
W
e
r
i
h
s
d
r
o
f
e
r
e
H

,

e
r
i
h
s
k
c
i
w
r
a
W
d
n
a

a
n
r
a
ö
d
e
m
d
n
a
å
m
S

l

n
r
e
y
a
b
r
e
b
O

g
r
u
b
e
r
F

i

e
r
i
h
s
m
a
h
g
n
k
c
u
B

i

,

e
r
i
h
s
k
r
e
B

e
r
i
h
s
d
r
o
f
x
O
d
n
a

t
h
c
e
r
t
U

n
e
g
n
b
ü
T

i

n
e
b
a
w
h
c
S

81.8

81.3

81.1

80.8

80.7

80.6

80.3

80.3

50.1

49.8

49.6

49.4

48.8

45.9

45.2

t
r
a
g
t
t
u
t
S

e
g
i
r
e
v
s
t
s
ä
V

80.0

44.9

80.0

43.7

l

a
í
c
u
a
d
n
A

i

a
n
o
d
e
k
a
M

i

k
i
t
y
D

)
R
F
(
n
o
n
u
é
R

i

)
S
E
(
a

l
l
i
l

e
M
e
d

a
m
o
n
ó
t
u
A
d
a
d
u
C

i

a

i
l

g
u
P

)
S
E
(
a
t
u
e
C
e
d

a
m
o
n
ó
t
u
A
d
a
d
u
C

i

a

i
l
i
c
i
S

a
i
r
b
a
a
C

l

i

a
n
a
p
m
a
C

d
n
a
Å

l

86.4

50.8

a
t
a
c
i
l
i
s
a
B

l

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

82.4

50.4

a
r
u
d
a
m
e
r
t
x
E

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lfst_r_lfe2emprt)

Women are less economically active than men, but the gender 
employment gap is shrinking

Figure 1.12: Employment rate, by gender, EU-27
(% of age group 20–64 years)

76

57.3

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

74.6

62.4

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Men

Total

Women

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec420)

52

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Socioeconomic	development

1

Unemployment

1.7 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate between 
2000 and 2012. More people aged 15 to 74 have become jobless since 
the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, with youth hit more severely

Figure 1.15: total unemployment rate, EU-27
(%)

10.5

7.1

8.8

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdec450)

Young people aged below 25 and men were most affected by the 
labour market downturn since the onset of the crisis

Figure 1.16: Unemployment rate, by gender and age group, EU-27
(%)

25

20

15

10

5

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Age group <25

Women

Total

Men

Age group 25–74

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdec450 and tsdec460)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

53

Sustainable consumption 
and production

  Sustainable development in the European Union
  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

Sustainable consumption and production seen through 
the lens of the Green Economy

Measuring ‘true’ resource use

Raw Material Consumption (RMC) provides the most accurate picture on resource use 
because  it  ‘corrects’  imports  and  exports  of  products  with  the  equivalent  amount  of 
domestic  extraction  of  raw  materials  that  were  needed  to  manufacture  the  respective 
traded good. 

In 2011, each EU inhabitant consumed an average of 15.3 tonnes of raw materials. Non-
metallic minerals accounted for 46 %, fossil energy resources for 23 %, biomass for 22 %, 
and metal ores for 10 %. There has been a significant drop in raw material consumption 
since the onset of the economic crisis due to fewer construction activities, leading to a fall 
in the use of non-metallic minerals (sand and gravel).

Raw Material Consumption (RMC), by main material categories, EU
(tonnes per capita)

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Non-metallic minerals

Fossil energy materials/carriers

Biomass

Metal ores

Source: Eurostat

56

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  
Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

Overview of main changes

Many of the sustainable consumption and production theme’s indicators are strongly linked 
to economic activity. Because of this, any interpretation of them should take into account 
the turbulence caused by the economic and financial crisis. Its temporary effect may explain 
many recent improvements rather than an actual shift towards more sustainable consump-
tion and production patterns. This is particularly so for resource productivity and material 
use,  where  data  suggest  an  absolute  decoupling  of  resource  consumption  from  economic 
growth. The situation is similar for final energy consumption and, to a lesser extent, electric-
ity consumption. However, some long-term improvements can be seen in waste treatment, 
pollutant emissions and in environment-friendly production patterns. 

Table 2.1: Evaluation of changes in the sustainable consumption and production theme 
(EU-27, from 2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Resource use and waste

Domestic	material	
consumption

Recycled	and	composted	
municipal	waste

Atmospheric	emissions

Consumption patterns

Electricity	
consumption	of	
households

Final	energy	consumption

Production patterns

Environmental	
management		
systems	(*)

Organic	farming	(**)

Resource	
productivity

(*)	From	2003			(**)	From	2005

(1)	 	An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

57

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

Sustainable consumption and production seen through 
the lens of Quality of Life

Despite emissions falling, air pollution still affects European city dwellers

Air pollution damages human health (from minor respiratory irritation to cardiovascular 
diseases  and  premature  death)  and  the  environment,  thus  strongly  affecting  quality  of 
life  in  the  EU.  Despite  significant  cuts  in  emissions  of  air  pollutants  over  the  past  dec-
ades,  particulate  matter  (PM),  ozone  (O3)  and  reactive  nitrogen  substances  still  pose  a 
significant  threat.  Urban  areas,  hosting  the  majority  of  the  European  population,  have 
been affected most strongly by poor air quality. 

In 2011 about 33 % of the urban population in the EU was exposed to PM10 above the daily 
limit value (1). Between 2001 and 2011 the extent of exposure above the limit value varied 
between 20 % and 44 % without any apparent trend over this period. 

Exposure to above-limit O3 levels (2) was slightly lower in 2011, at about 14 %. However, 
the trend since 2001 has been much more volatile, with peaks of almost 65 % in 2003 and 
50 % in 2006. It is important to note that O3 concentrations are not only determined by 
precursor emissions but also by meteorological conditions; episodes of elevated O3 levels 
occur during periods of warm, sunny weather.

About 5 % of the urban population in the EU was exposed to NO2 above the EU annual 
limit value (3) in 2011. Between 2001 and 2011 NO2 exposure showed a decreasing trend.

Urban population residents living in areas where pollutant concentrations are 
higher than selected limit/target values, EU-27
(% of urban population)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
PM10

2006
O3

2007
NO2

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: European Environment Agency
(1)	 Limit	value	for	PM10:	50	micrograms/m3	(24	hour	average,	i.e.	daily),	not	to	be	exceeded	more	than	35	times	a	calendar	year.
(2)	 Target	value	for	ozone:	120	micrograms	of	O3/m3	as	daily	maximum	of	8	hour	mean,	not	to	be	exceeded	more	than	25	days	per	

calendar	year,	averaged	over	three	years.

(3)	 Annual	mean	limit	value	for	nitrogen	dioxide:	40	micrograms	of	NO2/m3.

58

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

Resource productivity

An almost 20 % increase in resource productivity in the EU between 
2000 and 2011. This trend was mainly driven by a fall in the 
consumption of non-metallic materials by the construction sector

Figure 2.1: Resource productivity, EU-27
(index 2000 = 100)

130

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

2000

2001

2002

119.4

116.5

97.4

2007
GDP

2008

2009

2010

2011

DMC

2004

2003
Resource productivity

2005

2006

NB:	Data	for	resource	productivity	and	domestic	material	consumption	are	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdpc100, tsdpc230 and nama_gdp_k)

Figure 2.2: Resource productivity, by country 
(EUR per kg)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

EU-27

UK LU NL MT FR IT DE ES BE IE DK SE AT EL SI PT FI HU CY HR CZ SK LT EE PL LV RO BG

CH NO

TR RS

2000

2011

NB:	EU-27	data	are	estimates;	2001	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	HR	and	RS;	2008	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	NO;	2010	data	

(instead	of	2011)	for	CH,	TR	and	RS.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc100) 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

59

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

domestic material consumption

One tonne less material consumed per EU inhabitant in 2011 
compared to 2000. The crisis stopped the growth in material 
consumption, but economic recovery indicates another turnaround

Figure 2.4: domestic material consumption per inhabitant, EU-27
(tonnes per inhabitant)

16.7

14.6

18

17

16

15.6

15

14

13

12

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

NB:	Eurostat	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdpc220 and demo_gind)

Figure 2.7: domestic material consumption per inhabitant, by country
(tonnes per inhabitant)

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

EU-27  MT  UK  HU  HR  ES  NL  EL 

IT  FR  SK  LT  SI  PT  DE  BE  CZ  BG  LV  LU  PL  RO  EE 

IE  CY  SE  AT  DK  FI 

CH 

TR  RS 

2000

2011

NB:	EU-27	data	are	estimates;	2001	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	HR	and	RS;	2008	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	NO,		
2010	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	CH,	TR	and	RS.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdpc220 and demo_gind)

60

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

The impacts of the crisis on the construction sector have 
significantly reduced consumption of non-metallic minerals, which 
still make up about half of the resources used in the EU

Figure 2.6: domestic material consumption by materials, EU-27 
(million tonnes)

9 000

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Non metallic minerals

Fossil energy materials/carriers

Biomass

Metal ores (gross ores)

NB:	Eurostat	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc230)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

61

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

Municipal waste generation and treatment
Municipal waste generation and treatment

Over 50 % more waste recycled or composted between 2000 and 
Over 50 % more waste recycled or composted between 2000 and 
2011. Significant improvements in waste management were driven 
2011. Significant improvements in waste management were driven 
by EU and national strategies for efficient waste management
by EU and national strategies for efficient waste management

Figure 2.8: Municipal waste generation and treatment, by treatment method, 
EU-27
(kg per capita)

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Other forms of recycling 
(including composting)

Deposit onto 
or into land

Material 
recycling

Not 
speciﬁed

Total incineration 
(including energy
recovery)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc240)

Figure 2.9: Municipal waste treatment, by type of treatment method, by 
country, 2011
(%)

100

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

EU-27

DE AT NL BE SE LU DK IE SI UK FR FI

Other forms of recycling 
(including composting)

IT EE ES PL HU LT PT CY EL CZ LV MT SK HR BG RO
Material 
recycling

Total incineration 
(including energy recovery)

CH NO IS

TR MK RS BA

Deposit onto 
or into land

NB:	Data	are	estimates	for	DE,	ES,	FR,	CY,	LT,	LU,	PL,	IE,	IT,	AT,	RO,	UK,	IS	and	PT

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc240)

62

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

The EU is outperforming other countries in the world with regard 
to shifting waste management practices away from landfilling and 
incineration towards more environmentally friendly ones

Figure 2.10: Municipal waste treatment, by country, 2011
(%)

EU-27

14.5

25.4

37.2

22.9

United States

8.4

23.8

13.6

54.3

Mexico
3.3

96.7

Japan
3.4

16.8

74.0

Republic
of Korea

36.4

49.2

14.4

Australia

30.3

69.7

Municipal waste 
landfilled

Municipal waste 
incinerated

Municipal waste 
recycled

Municipal waste 
composted

NB:	2003	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	AUS,	JP;	2004	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	Republic	of	Korea,	2005	data	(instead	of	
2011)	for	US;	2006	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	Mexico;	2011	data	for	EU-27

Source: UNSd/UNEP Questionnaires on Environment Statistics, Waste section; OECd Environmental data 
Compendium, Waste section; Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc240)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

63

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

Atmospheric emissions

Significant fall in emissions of the four air pollutants SOX, NOX, 
NMVOC and NH3 between 2000 and 2011. Regulatory actions, in 
particular emission ceiling targets, contributed to the decline

Figure 2.11: Atmospheric emissions, EU-27
(million tonnes)

25.7

18.7

16.7

5.0

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

11.1

6.9

6.0

3.6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Emissions of 
sulphur oxides
(SOx)

Emissions of 
nitrogen oxides
(NOx)

Emissions of non-methane 
volatile organic compounds 
(NMVOC)

Emissions of 
ammonia (NH3)

Source: European Environment Agency (online data codes: tsdpc260, tsdpc270, tsdpc280 and tsdpc290)

64

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

Electricity consumption of households

One third increase in household electricity consumption in the 
EU between 2000 and 2011. An increase in the number of smaller 
households contributed to this trend

Figure 2.12: Electricity consumption of households, EU-27 
(million tonnes of oil equivalent)

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

69.1

61.4

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc310)

Figure 2.13: Electricity consumption per household, by country
(kg of oil equivalent per household)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

EU-27

RO LT PL LV SK IT HU CZ NL DE PT EE

SI BG HR UK LU EL BE MT ES DK AT

IE

FR CY SE

FI

TR MK

NB:	2005:	no	data	for	SE

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc310, lfst_hhnhtych)

2005

2011

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

65

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

final energy consumption

1.6 % drop in final energy consumption in the EU between 2000 
and 2011. It is unclear to what extent the economic crisis drove this 
decline

Figure 2.14: final energy consumption, by sector, EU-27
(million tonnes of oil equivalent)

1 200
1 100
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Industry

Transport

Residential

Agriculture/
forestry

Services

Non-speciﬁed 
(other)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc320)

Transport and services have driven final energy consumption over 
the past two decades, partly offsetting reductions in other sectors

Figure 2.15: final energy consumption, by sector, EU-27
(% of final energy consumption)

1990

1 %

10 %

3 %

34 %

2011

1 %

13 %

2 %

26 %

26 %

25 %

26 %

33 %

Industry

Transport

Residential

Agriculture/forestry

Services

Non-speciﬁed (other)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc320)

66

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

Environmental management systems

EMAS registrations doubled in the EU between 2004 and 2012. 
Southern European countries were the main contributors to this 
trend

Figure 2.16: Organisations and sites with EMAS registration, EU-27
(Number)

9 000

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

4 063

3 068

8 092

4 452

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Sites

Organisations

Source: EU Commission, dG Environment (online data code: tsdpc410)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

67

2

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

Organic farming

More than 50 % increase in organic farming in the EU between 
2005 and 2011. The steep increase is supported by a series of agri-
environmental measures varying between EU Member States

Figure 2.17: Area under organic farming, EU-27
(% of utilised agricultural area)

5.5 

6.0 

5.5 

5.0 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

3.6 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

NB:	Eurostat	estimates

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdpc440)

68

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	consumption	and	production

2

The EU is among the world leaders with regard to organic farming, 
by far outperforming other G20 countries

Figure 2.18: Certified organic agricultural area in the EU-27 and in other 
G-20 countries, 2011
(% of total agricultural area)

Canada

1.1 %

United States

0.5 %

Mexico

0.3 %

Brazil

0.3 %

Argentina
2.6 %

EU-27
5.5 %

Turkey

0.9 %

India

0.5 %

Japan

0.2 %

China

0.2 %

Indonesia

0.1 %

Australia
2.7 %

NB:	2003	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	AUS,	JP;	2004	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	Republic	of	Korea,	2005	data	(instead	of	
2011)	for	US;	2006	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	Mexico;	2011	data	for	EU-27

Source: fAO; Eurostat online data code: tsdpc440)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

69

Social inclusion

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

3

Social	inclusion

Social inclusion seen through the lens of  
Quality of Life

Social exclusion and deprivation do not confine to income 
poverty

The index of perceived social exclusion included in the European Quality of Life 
Survey (EQLS) provides an overall measure of social exclusion, by taking into ac-
count a variety of relevant issues such as the sense of connectedness, recognition 
of one’s activities and barriers to participation in wider society.

Based on the index in 2011 the countries with the lowest level of perceived social 
exclusion were Denmark, Germany, Austria and Sweden. Highest perceived social 
exclusion was reported in Cyprus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Greece. Pov-
erty and social exclusion seem to be closely linked as most of the countries scoring 
low on the subjective indicator of social exclusion are also at the lowest rank in 
terms of the objective measure of at risk of poverty and exclusion and vice versa. 
However, there are a number of unusual cases such as the Czech Republic, which, 
having the second lowest at risk of poverty rate in the EU, still  ranks third in terms 
of high perceived social exclusion.

Index of perceived social exclusion, by country, 2011
(mean of scores, scale 1–10)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

7
2
-
U
E

K
D

E
D

U
A

E
S

I

S F
E

L
N

T
P

L
S

R
F

U I
E
H

T

I

U
L

K
S

E
B

K
U

E
E

T
L

V
L

T
M

L
P

O
R

Z
C

L
E

G
B

Y
C

Source: European Quality of Life Survey

72

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion

3

Overview of main changes

The  economic  crisis  has  influenced  many  of  the  indicators  in  the  social  inclusion 
theme.  Trends  have  deteriorated  in  the  short  term,  in  particular  after  2009,  with 
an increasing number of people being affected by one or more forms of poverty as 
covered by the headline indicator ‘risk of poverty or social exclusion’, namely mon-
etary poverty, severe material deprivation, and low work intensity. The same is true 
for long-term unemployment. In contrast, trends have been favourable for most of 
the education indicators, in particular early school leavers and tertiary education. 
However, trends in adult education, as monitored through participation in lifelong 
learning, are less encouraging.

Table 3.1: Evaluation of changes in the social inclusion theme (EU-27, from 2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Monetary poverty and living conditions

Risk	of	poverty	after	
social	transfers	(*)	

Severe	material	
deprivation	(*)

Income	inequalities	(**)

Access to labour market

Risk	of	poverty	or	
social	exclusion	
(*)

Very	low	work	
intensity	(*)

Long-term	
unemployment

Gender	pay	gap	(***)

Education

Early	school	leavers	
(****)

Adults	with	low	
educational	attainment

Tertiary	education

Lifelong	learning	(****)

(*)	From	2008.				(**)	From	2005.				(***)	From	2006.				(****)	From	2003.

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

73

3

Social	inclusion

Gender inequalities and sustainable development

‘Gender equality and women’s empowerment are important for sustainable devel-
opment and our common future’ (1). This statement from the outcome document 
of the Rio+20 conference held in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro makes it clear that re-
ducing inequalities, in particular between the sexes, is one of the main challenges 
of the sustainable development agenda. The major differences between the sexes 
observed in the indicators analysed in this report are briefly summarised below.

Employment 

Women  are  still  less  economically  active  than  men.  While  in  2012  almost  two-
thirds  of  men  (74.6 %)  were  employed,  the  rate  was  much  lower  for  women,  at 
62.4 %.  The  gap  was  slightly  larger  for  older  workers  in  the  55  to  64  age  group. 
Variations in regional employment among women exceed those of men fivefold. 
Nevertheless, the gender employment gap in the EU has reduced substantially over 
the past decade. This trend also occurred during the economic crisis, when men 
were more affected by its impacts on the labour market than women. 

Duration of working life

In 2011, men on average worked 5.5 years longer than women over their lifetime. 
However, a convergence in the duration of working life between the sexes is visible, 
mainly due to the continuous increase in the working life of women. 

Long-term unemployment

During  the  early  part  of  the  last  decade,  long-term  unemployment  was  slightly 
higher for women, regardless of their age. The rates have assimilated since then. 
Among the young, more men than women are affected, which can be explained by 
a higher proportion of male early school leavers.

Early leavers from education and training

In 2012, 14.5 % of boys left school with at most lower secondary education, whereas 
the girls’ share of early school leavers was 11.0 %. Overall, girls were more likely to 
reach upper secondary education.

Tertiary educational attainment

In  2012  women  had  already  achieved  the  Europe  2020  strategy’s  target  for  this 
indicator, with a tertiary education rate of 40 %, as compared to 31.6 % for men. 
Between 2000 and 2012 the increase in tertiary education was almost twice as fast 
for women as for men. By 2012, women significantly outnumbered men in terms 
of tertiary educational attainment in all Member States except for Luxembourg. 

(1)  UN GA, The future we want, A/RES/66/288, 2012 (para 31).

74

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion

3

Low educational attainment 

In 2012, 16.6 % of women aged 25 to 34 had low educational attainment. The share 
of men in the same age group with low levels of education was higher, at 20.4 %. 
On the contrary, in the age groups of 45 to 54 year olds and above, low educational 
attainment was more widespread among women than men. 

Lifelong learning

In  2012,  the  share  of  women  participating  in  lifelong  learning  was  higher  than 
the respective share of men (9.7 % as opposed to 8.4 %). This gender difference is 
observable for the whole period 2000 to 2012.

Tensions within society

Regarding perceived tensions between men and women, the European Quality of 
Life Survey (EQLS) suggests that the level of these tensions as seen by respondents 
is relatively low. Nevertheless, fewer women have responded that there is no ten-
sion at all (32 %) than men (41 %). On average, the share of respondents reporting 
a lot of tensions between men and women in the EU Member States has been 10 %. 
Countries with a share of respondents reporting a lot of tensions being above aver-
age were Cyprus (30 %), Greece (18 %), Hungary (16 %) and Luxembourg (16 %).

Life expectancy

In 2011 life expectancy at birth was 5.5 years higher for women than men. For the 
age group 65 this gap was 3.5 years. In contrast, the gap in expected healthy life 
years at birth between men and women remained almost negligible, at 0.4 years. 
Although life expectancy for both sexes has increased since 2004, improvements 
in overall life expectancy for women did not lead to a higher number of healthy life 
years but to a higher number of years with a disability or disease. While between 
2005 and 2011 the number of healthy life years remained stable for men aged 65, it 
decreased for women by 0.3 years.

Death due to chronic diseases

Men are much more likely to die of a chronic disease than women. In 2009 about 
80 out of 100 000 women and about 150 out of 100 000 men aged less than 65 died 
of  a  chronic  disease.  However,  the  average  decrease  per  year  between  2000  and 
2009 was considerably higher for men (2.4 %) than for women (1.9 %), suggesting a 
gender convergence of the death rates.

Suicide death rate

Suicide is nearly four times more common among men than among women. How-
ever, the gap between men and women is slowly closing. Most of this closing took 
place between 2000 and 2007, a period of decline of the death rate among men. 
After 2007, however, suicide deaths started to increase among men.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

75

3

Social	inclusion

Risk of poverty or social exclusion

8.7 million more people were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 
the EU between 2008 and 2012. Impacts of the economic crises have 
deflected the EU from its 2020 target path

Figure 3.1: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, EU-27
(million people)

123.9

124.4

115.7

130

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

95.7

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU-27

Path towards Europe 2020 target

NB:	2005,	2006	and	2012	data	are	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc100)

76

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

The ‘people at risk of poverty or social exclusion’ headline indicator 
combines three different forms of poverty: monetary poverty, 
severe material deprivation, and lack of access to work

Figure 3.2: Aggregation of sub-indicators of ‘People at risk of poverty or social 
exclusion’,  EU-27, 2012
(million people)

Severely materially
deprived people

People at risk of poverty
after social transfers

51.0

85.3

36.9

People living in households 
with very low work intensity

Some people are at risk of more 
than one type of poverty

24.1

15.5

47.9

8.8

2.7

13.0

12.4

NB:	Estimated	data;	the	overall	number	of	people	at	risk	of	poverty	in	the	EU	was	124.4	million.
Source: Eurostat (online data codes: ilc_pees01, tsdsc270, tsdsc280 and tsdsc310)

Figure 3.3: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by country 
(% of population)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

0

EU-27

NL CZ AT

FI

SE LU DK FR SI DE SK BE MT UK EE PT PL CY ES

IE

IT HR HU LT EL LV RO BG

IS NO CH

2008

2012

NB:	2011	data	(instead	of	2012)	for	BE,	IE,	AT	and	UK;	2012	data	are	estimates	(EU-27)	or	provisional	(IT);	break	in	series	for	
LV	(2011).
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc100)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

77
77

3

Social	inclusion

Who is most at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU? 
Identifying the most disadvantaged subgroups in society

Figure 3.5: People most at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by sub-group, EU-27, 
2012
(% of population)

Activity: Unemployed persons 
(aged 18 or over)

Education level of parents: Children younger than 
6 years with parents having at most lower 
secondary education (ISCED levels 0-2)

Household type: Single persons
with dependent children

Citizenship: Adults from
non-EU-27 countries

Tenure status: Tenants, rent at
reduced prices or free

Country of birth: Adults born
in non-EU-27 countries

Education: Pre-primary, primary
and lower secondary education
 (ISCED levels 0-2)

Age: From 18 to 24 years

Degree of urbanisation: People
from thinly populated areas

Sex: Females

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NB:	data	for	breakdowns	by	citizenship,	tenure	status,	degree	of	urbanisation	and	education	level	of	parents	are	estimates.
Source: Eurostat(online data codes: ilc_peps01, ilc_peps02, ilc_peps03, ilc_peps04, ilc_peps05, ilc_
peps06, ilc_peps07, ilc_peps13 and ilc_peps60)

78

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

Risk of poverty after social transfers

4.6 million people fell into the ‘at risk of monetary poverty’ 
category in the EU between 2008 and 2012. This form of poverty 
remains the most prevalent in the EU

Figure 3.6: People at risk of poverty after social transfers, EU-27
(million people)

95 000

90 000

85 000

80 000

75 000

70 000

65 000

79.1

80.7

85.3

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB:	2005–2007	and	2012	data	are	Eurostat	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc280)

Figure 3.7: People at risk of poverty after social transfers, by country 
(% of population)

26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 

EU-27 

CZ  NL  AT  DK  SK  FI  SI  HU  FR  SE  CY  MT  LU 

IE  BE  DE  UK  PL  EE  PT  LT  LV 

IT  HR  BG  ES  RO  EL 

IS  NO  CH 

2008

2012

NB:	2011	data	(instead	of	2012)	for	BE,	IE,	AT	and	UK;	2012	data	are	estimates	(EU-27)	or	provisional	(IT).
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc280)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

79
79

3

Social	inclusion

Severe material deprivation

A further 9.6 million people were living in conditions severely 
constrained by a lack of resources between 2008 and 2012. Severe 
material deprivation is the second most prevalent form of poverty 
in the EU

Figure 3.8: Severely materially deprived people, EU-27
(million people)

51.7

51.0

41.4

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB:	2005,	2006,	2009	and	2012	data	are	Eurostat	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc270)

Figure 3.9: Severely materially deprived people, by country
(% of population)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

EU-27

LU SE NL DK FI AT DE UK FR BE ES CZ

SI

IE MT PT EE SK PL

IT CY HR EL LT HU LV RO BG

CH NO IS

2008

2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc270)

80

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

Income inequalities

Five times greater average income earned by the richest 20 % 
compared to the poorest 20 % in EU countries in 2012. Income 
inequality has been stable over time

Figure 3.10: Inequality of income distribution, EU-27
(income quintile share ratio)

5.0

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

5.1

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB:	2006	and	2012	data	are	Eurostat	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc260)

Figure 3.11: Inequality of income distribution, by country
(income quintile share ratio)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

EU-27

SI

CZ NL

FI

SE SK AT BE MT HU LU DE DK FR IE
2008

CY PL LT UK EE HR IT PT BG RO LV EL ES

NO IS CH

2012

NB:	2011	data	(instead	of	2012)	for	BE,	IE,	AT	and	UK;	2012	data	are	estimates	(EU-27)	or	provisional	(IT);	break	in	series	for	

HR	(2010)	and	LV	(2011)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc260)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

81
81

3

Social	inclusion

Very low work intensity

2.6 million more people were living in households with very 
low work intensity in the EU between 2008 and 2012. Lack of 
employment is a major driver of monetary poverty and material 
deprivation

Figure 3.12: People living in households with very low work intensity, EU-27
(million persons)

50 000

45 000

40 000

39.1

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

34.3

36.9

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB:	2005,	2006	and	2012	data	are	Eurostat	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc310)

Figure 3.13: Persons living in households with very low work intensity, by country
(% of population aged 0 to 59)

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

EU-27

LU CY CZ PL SK RO SI AT MT FR NL EE

FI DE SE PT

IT DK LT UK LV BG HU BE EL ES HR IE

CH IS NO

2008

2012

NB:	2011	data	(instead	of	2012)	for	BE,	IE	and	UK;	2012	data	are	estimates	(EU-27)	or	provisional	(AT	and	IT).
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc310)

82

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

Long-term unemployment

0.5 percentage points increase in long-term unemployment in the 
EU between 2000 and 2012. The trend was more or less favourable 
until 2008, but the situation worsened considerably with the onset 
of the economic crisis

Figure 3.14: Long-term unemployment rate, by sex, EU-27
(%)

4.6

4.1

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Women

Men

Total

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc330)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

83
83

3

Social	inclusion

Gender pay gap

1.5 percentage point drop in the gap between women’s and men’s 
earnings in the EU between 2006 and 2011. This means the hourly 
gross earnings of women are catching up with those of men

Figure 3.15: Gender pay gap in unadjusted form, by country
(%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

EU-27

SI PL

IT LU BE

LT RO PT MT BG LV

IE FR SE ES CY DK HR NL HU FI UK SK CZ

EL DE AT

EE

NO CH

2006

2011

NB:	2008	data	for	EL,	2010	data	for	IE	(instead	of	2011);	2011	data	for	EU-27,	AT,	CY,	DE,	FI,	FR,	HR	and	LU	are	estimates	or	
provisional.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc340)

84

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

Early school leavers

3.7 percentage point drop in the share of early leavers from 
education and training in the EU between 2003 and 2012. If this 
trend can be sustained, the Europe 2020 target of reducing the rate 
of early school leavers to less than 10 % by 2020 should be in reach

Figure 3.16: Early leavers from education and training, EU-27
(% of the population aged 18 to 24 with at most lower secondary education and not in 
further education or training)

16.5

21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8

12.8

10

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total

Men

Women

Path towards Europe 2020 target

NB:	2000	and	2001	data	are	estimates;	break	in	series	in	2003;	2012	data	are	provisional;	Europe	2020	target:	less	than	
10	%.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc410)

Figure 3.17: Early leavers from education and training, by country
(% of the population aged 18 to 24 with at most lower secondary education and not in 
further education or training)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EU-27

HR SI SK CZ PL LT SE AT LU NL FI DK IE EE DE LV EL CY HU FR BE BG UK RO IT PT MT ES

CH NO IS

MK TR

2005

2012

NB:	2006	data	for	SE,	NO,	MK	and	TR	(instead	of	2005),	2007	data	for	HR	and	UK	(instead	of	2005);	provisional	data	for	MT	
(2005)	and	EU-27,	DE,	LU,	NL,	PL	(2012);	break	in	series	for	DK	(2007),	LU	(2009),	MT	and	NL	(2010),	LV	(2011)
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc410)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

85
85

3

Social	inclusion

tertiary education

13.4 percentage points increase in the share of the 30 to 34 years 
old population with tertiary education in the EU between 2000 and 
2012. The Europe 2020 target of reaching a share of 40 % by 2020 
seems to be attainable

Figure 3.18: tertiary educational attainment, EU-27
(% of the population aged 30 to 34 with completed tertiary education (ISCEd levels 5 
and 6))

40

35.8

42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20

22.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total

Women

Men

Path towards Europe 2020 target

NB:	Europe	2020	target:	at	least	40	%.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc480)

Figure 3.19: tertiary educational attainment, by country
(% of the population aged 30 to 34 with completed tertiary education (ISCEd levels 5 
and 6))

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EU-27

IE CY LU LT SE UK FI BE FR DK NL ES SI EE PL LV DE EL HU PT BG AT CZ HR SK MT RO IT

NO CH IS

MK TR

2005

2012

NB:	2006	data	(instead	of	2005)	for	NO,	MK	and	TR,	2007	data	(instead	of	2005)	for	DK;	break	in	series	for	LU	(2009),	MT	
and	NL	(2010),	LV	(2011);	provisional	data	for	MT	(2005),	NL	and	PL	(2012).
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc480)

86

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Social	inclusion
Social	inclusion

3
3

Adults with low educational attainment

9.8 percentage points drop in the share of low-educated adults in 
the EU between 2000 and 2012. Younger people tend to have higher 
educational levels

Figure 3.20: Persons with low educational attainment, by age group, EU-27
(% of population with at most lower secondary education)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

35.6

25.8

25–64 years

25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years >64 years

2000

2012

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc430)

Low educational attainment more widespread among older women, 
while younger women outperform men

Figure 3.21: Persons with low educational attainment, by sex and age group, 
EU-27, 2012
(% of population with at most lower secondary education)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

25.3 26.3

25-64 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

>64 years

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc430)

Males

Females

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

87
87

3

Social	inclusion

Lifelong learning

0.5 percentage points increase in participation in lifelong learning 
in the EU between 2003 and 2012. No improvement observable since 
2005, putting into question the achievement of the 2020 benchmark 
of at least 15 % of adults participating in lifelong learning

Figure 3.22: Lifelong learning, EU-27
(% of population aged 25 to 64)

15

8.5

9

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Women

Total

Men

Path towards ET 2020 benchmark

NB:	2000	and	2001	data	are	estimates,	break	in	series	in	2003.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdsc440)

88

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Demographic changes

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

4

Demographic	changes

Demographic changes seen through the lens of the  
Green Economy

Space is a finite resource — but not in all countries

Scandinavia and the Baltic countries offer the most space for their inhabitants. With 
less  than  50  inhabitants  per  km²  (2011  figures),  these  countries  were  much  more 
scarcely populated than the EU as a whole. At the other end of the scale, the island 
of Malta was the most ‘crowded’ place to live in the EU, with more than 1 300 people 
having to share one km². The Netherlands and Belgium followed at some distance, 
with population densities of 495 and 365 inhabitants per km² respectively. Despite 
their  size,  Germany  and  Italy  also  show  population  densities  higher  than  in  most 
other EU countries.

Population density, by country, 2011
(inhabitants per km²)

9
1
3
1

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

EU-27 MT NL BE DE IT LU CZ DK PL PT SK HU FR AT SI RO CY ES EL HR BG IE LT LV EE SE FI

LI CH NO IS

MK ME

NB: EU-27 data are estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tps00003)

90

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

 
Demographic	changes

4

Overview of main changes

Trends  in  the  sub-theme  ‘demography’  have  been  favourable,  albeit  to  varying 
degrees. The fertility rate and life expectancy of women have increased very margin-
ally, by less than 1 % per year. Substantial progress has been made in the employ-
ment rate of older workers, which is also reflected in a slight increase in the duration 
of working life. However, the employment rate of older workers has remained well 
below the employment levels of younger age groups. The income level of elderly peo-
ple has developed favourably, even though this might be linked to economic factors 
other than real gains in pensions. As a persisting effect of the recession, public debt 
levels rose to an average of 85 % in the EU by 2012.

Table 4.1: Evaluation of changes in the demographic changes theme (EU-27, from 
2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Demography

Life	expectancy	at	age	
65	(men’s)	(*)

Fertility	rate	(*)

	Life	expectancy	at	age	
65	(women’s)	(*)

:	

Migration

Employment	rate	
of	older	workers	(2)

Old-age income adequacy

Income	level	of	over	
65s	compared	to	
before

Public finance sustainability

Public	debt

Retirement

(*)	From	2002			(**)	From	2005

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.
(2)	 Due	to	a	change	in	the	methodology,	the	evaluation	of	the	indicator	is	not	comparable	with	previous	editions	
of	the	Monitoring	Report:	so	far,	the	employment	rate	of	older	workers	has	been	evaluated	against	the	50	%	
target	set	out	in	the	Lisbon	strategy	and	the	EU	Sustainable	Development	Strategy,	to	be	reached	by	2010.	Since	
the	validity	of	the	target	has	expired,	and	in	the	absence	of	a	new	target	for	older	workers	in	the	Europe	2020	
strategy	or	in	a	revised	EU	SDS,	the	evaluation	in	this	2013	edition	is	only	based	on	the	trend	over	time,	which	
results	in	a	drastic	change	of	the	weather	symbol	to	“clearly	favourable”	despite	the	fact	that	the	original	target	
has	still	not	been	met.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

91

4

Demographic	changes

Demographic changes seen through the lens of 
Quality of Life

Europeans are more satisfied with their education system, health 
and childcare services than with long-term care

Access to high quality services of general interest such as healthcare, education, 
child and long-term care, are fundamental for ensuring quality of life in the EU. 
Public services are estimated to contribute to almost a quarter of EU’s GDP. The 
health and social care sectors are among the largest, and their importance is grow-
ing continuously and at a fast pace due to population ageing and rising demand for 
personalised care and professional social service.

In general, Europeans are more satisfied with health services, education services 
and childcare as compared to long-term care. However, the perceived quality of 
public services tends to vary greatly between different subgroups of the popula-
tion. Older people and those in the highest income quartiles tend to give higher 
ratings to health services than the younger and those in the lowest quartiles. The 
education  system  is  rated  highest  by  people  in  higher  income  quartiles  and  the 
younger. Overall, lower income households give a higher rating to childcare serv-
ices and satisfaction of women tends to be higher than for men. Long-term care 
services are on average rated highest by people in the highest age group (60 and 
over) and those with lower income levels.

There also exist large variations in the ratings of public services between Member 
States. Health care system is rated highest in Austria (8.0) and lowest in Bulgaria 
(4.5). Both education system and childcare services ratings are highest in Finland 
(8.1 and 7.7, respectively) and lowest in Greece (4.6 and 4.9). Ratings of the quality 
of long-term care services range from 7.6 in Luxembourg to 3.8 in Bulgaria.

Perceived quality of public services, 2012
(mean of scores, scale 1–10)

Health services

Education system

Childcare services

Long-term care services

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

Source: European Quality of Life Survey

92

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Demographic	changes

4

Employment rate of older workers

12 percentage points increase in the proportion of 55 to 64 year olds 
in employment in the EU between 2000 and 2012. The economic 
crisis has not had an impact on the trend so far

Figure 4.1: Employment rate of older workers, EU-27
(%)

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

36.9

48.9

1997

1998

1999

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Women

Men

Total

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde100)

Figure 4.2: Employment rate of older workers, by country 
(%)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU-27

SI MT EL HR HU PL BE IT LU RO AT SK ES FR BG PT CZ IE CY LT LV UK FI NL EE DK DE SE

CH NO IS

TR MK

US JP

2000

2012

NB:	2002	data	for	RO	and	HR	(instead	of	2000),	2003	data	for	IS	(instead	of	2000);	break	in	series	for	IT	and	AT	(2004),	DE,	ES	
and	SE	(2005),	IE	and	CY	(2009),	LT,	NL,	PL	and	CH	(2010),	BG,	CZ,	LV,	PT	and	SK	(2011)
Source: Eurostat (online date code: tsdde100) 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

93

4

Demographic	changes

Retirement

1.8 years increase in duration of working life in the EU between 
2000 and 2011. Women have been slowly but continuously catching 
up with men

Figure 4.15: duration of working life, by sex, EU-27
(years)

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

32.9

34.7

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total

Women

Men

NB:	Data	calculated	with	probabilistic	model	combining	demographic	data	and	labour	market	data.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde420)

94

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Demographic	changes

4

fertility rate

8 % increase in fertility rate in the EU between 2002 and 2011. 
Nevertheless after stabilising between 2008 and 2010 at 1.6 children 
per woman, the average number of births decreased slightly in 2011

Figure 4.5: total fertility rate, EU-27
(number of children per woman)

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.46

1.2

1.0

1.57

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

EU-27

Replacement level

NB:	Break	in	series	in	2010	and	2011;	2011	data	are	provisional.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde220)

Figure 4.6: total fertility rate, by country 
(number of children per woman)

2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0
EU-27

IE FR UK SE FI BE LT NL DK SI EE LU BG MT SK CZ AT EL HR IT DE ES CY PT LV PL RO HU
2000

Replacement level

2011

IS NO LI CH

TR ME MK RS

RU

NB:	2002	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	EU-27,	HR	and	LV;	2009	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	RU,	2010	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	TR
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde220)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

95

4

Demographic	changes

Figure 4.7: total fertility rate, by NUtS 2 regions 
(number of children per woman)

a
m
o
n
ó
t
u
A
d
a
d
u
C

i

)
S
E
(
a

l
l
i
l

e
M
e
d

1
7
2

.

7
0
1

.

a
i
c
i
l

a
G

)
R
F
(
e
n
a
y
u
G

4
4
3

.

4
0
1

.

)
S
E
(

s
a
i
r
a
n
a
C

5
0
1

.

o
d
a
p
i
c
n
i
r
P

s
a
i
r
u
t
s
A
e
d

)
R
F
(
n
o
n
u
é
R

i

6
3
2

.

1
1

.

l

ú
t
n
á
n
u
D

-
t
a
g
u
y
N

)
R
F
(
e
p
u
o
e
d
a
u
G

l

6
2
2

.

n
o
d
n
o
L
r
e
t
u
O

8
1
2

.

1
1

.

i

e
k
s
l
o
p
O

4
1
1

.

a
n
g
e
d
r
a
S

4
1
1

.

g
á
z
s
r
o
r
a
y
g
a
M
-
p
é
z
ö
K

l

s
i
a
a
C
-
e
d
-
s
a
P
-
d
r
o
N

1
1
2

.

5
1
1

.

t
s
e
V

t
e
s
r
e
m
o
S
d
n
a
t
e
s
r
o
D

8
1
2

.

5
1
1

.

i

a
n
e
t
l

O

t
s
e
V
-
d
u
S

NB:	2009	data	for	all	regions	in	BE,	2010	data	for	all	regions	in	IT,	UK	and	TR
Source: Eurostat (online data code: demo_r_frate2)

s
d
n
a
d
M

l

i

t
s
e
W

1
1
2

.

6
1
1

.

e
s
i
l

o
M

-
s
e

l
l

e
x
u
r
B
e
d
n
o
g
é
R

i

t
s
e
w
e
G
k
j
i
l

e
d
e
t
s
d
f
o
o
H

s
l
e
s
s
u
r
B
/
e
a
t
i
p
a
C

l

1
2

.

i

e
d
r
a
c
i
P

1
2

.

6
1
1

.

l

d
ö
f
l

A
-
l
é
D

7
1
1

.

a
t
a
c
i
l
i
s
a
B

8
1
1

.

n
ó
e
L
y
a

l
l
i
t
s
a
C

e
r
i
h
s
n
o
c
n
L

l

i

1
2

.

8
1
1

.

v
o
f
l
I

-

i
t
s
e
r
u
c
u
B

t
n
e
K

1
2

.

9
1
1

.

l

ú
t
n
á
n
u
D
-
p
é
z
ö
K

96

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demographic	changes

4

Migration 

One quarter decrease in net rate of migration in the EU between 
2000 and 2011. It is unclear whether the downward trend due to the 
economic crises has already drawn to a halt

Figure 4.8: Crude rate of net migration plus adjustment, EU-27
(per 1 000 inhabitants)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

2.3

1.8

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

NB:	break	in	series	in	1998,	2007,	2010	and	2011;	data	for	2001–2011	are	provisional.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde230)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

97

4

Demographic	changes

Income level of over-65s compared to before

10 % increase in the ratio of income levels from pensions of elderly 
people relative to the income level from earnings of those aged 50 
to 59 between 2005 and 2012. Since 2007 the ratio has been rising 
steadily

Figure 4.9: Aggregate replacement ratio, EU-27
(%)

60

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

51

56

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB:	2005,	2006	and	2012	data	are	estimates.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde310)

Figure 4.10: Aggregate replacement ratio by sex, by country, 2012
(%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

EU-27

LU RO IT

FR SK AT HU ES PT PL SE CZ EL EE

FI MT LV UK DE SI NL LT BE

IE DK BG CY HR

NO IS CH

NB:	2011	data	for	BE,	IE,	AT,	UK	and	CH;	data	are	estimates	(EU-27)	or	provisional	(IT).
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdde310)

98

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Demographic	changes

4

Public debt 

More than a one third increase in public debt in the EU between 
2000 and 2012. No recovery since the onset of the economic crisis

Figure 4.11: General government gross debt, EU-27
(% of GdP)

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

61.9

85.3

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

EU-27

Reference level

Source: Eurostat (online data code tsdde410)

Figure 4.12: General government gross debt, by country 
(% of GdP)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

EU-27

EE BG LU HR RO SE LT LV CZ DK SK FI

2000

SI PL NL MT AT HU DE ES CY UK FR BE IE PT IT EL
Reference level

2012

NO IS

TR

NB:	2001	data	(instead	of	2000)	for	NO,	2002	data	(instead	of	2000)	and	2009	data	(instead	of	2012)	for	HR,	2010	data	
(instead	of	2012)	for	TR.
Source: Eurostat (online data code tsdde410)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

99

Public health

  Sustainable development in the European Union
  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

5

Public	health

Public health seen through the lens of  
Quality of Life

Long-standing illnesses — gender, income and education matter

Healthy  life  is  fundamental  for  well-being  and  for  full  participation  in  society. 
Being intrinsically important, health is also a factor for social cohesion and eco-
nomic development through improving work participation and productivity.

In 2011, 31.7 % of the European population was suffering from a long-standing 
illness  or  health  problem;  about  one  percentage  point  higher  than  in  2005. The 
highest incidence of long-term health problems was observed in Finland (45.1 %) 
and Estonia (44.7 %) and the lowest in Bulgaria (18.1 %), Romania (20.8 %) and 
Luxemburg (20.8 %). 

The health status of the population varies by income, gender and education. The 
proportion of the European population having a long-standing health problem is 
highest for the lowest two income quintiles (35.6 % for the first and 36.4 % for the 
second quintile in 2011) and lowest for the top income quintile (25.1 %). Long-term 
health problems in the EU are much more common among women (33.8 %) than 
men (29.4 %) and among those with pre-primary, primary and lower secondary 
education (39.4 %) as compared to those with upper-secondary (28.9 %) and terti-
ary education (24.6 %).

People having a long-standing illness or health problem, EU-27, 2011
(% of population)

Total population

Lowest income quintile

2nd lowest income quintile

Highest income quintile

Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education
 (ISCED levels 0–2)
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
 (ISCED levels 3–4)
First and second stage of tertiary education
 (ISCED levels 5–6)

NB: Estimated data.
Source: Eurostat (online data codes: hlth_silc_05 and hlth_silc_11)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

102

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Public	health

5

Overview of main changes

Public health indicators are strongly linked to economic activity. The nature of this 
interlinkage depends on the respective indicator group. The headline indicators of 
life  expectancy  and  healthy  life  years  as  well  as  the  sub-indicators  on  health  and 
health inequalities improve with economic growth. This can be observed over time, 
during economic crises and across countries. In general life expectancy is increasing 
over time and improvements in the reduction of deaths due to chronic diseases, sui-
cides and access to health care since 2000 are visible. During the current economic 
crisis a reversal of the downward trend can be observed for the suicide death rate 
and the number of people reporting problems of access to health care. Furthermore 
the sub-indicators production of toxic chemicals, exposure to air pollution by par-
ticulate matter and ozone, being negative determinants of health, can increase with 
economic  activity  or  production  growth  respectively.  This  implies  that  economic 
growth can have both positive and negative effects on public health and points out 
to the importance of the sustainability of economic growth.

Table 5.1: Evaluation of changes in the public health theme (EU-27, from 2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Health and health inequalities

Deaths	due	to	
chronic	diseases

Suicides

Unmet	needs	for	
healthcare

Determinants of health

Production	of	
toxic	chemicals	
(**)

Exposure	to	air	
pollution	by	particulate	
matter

Exposure	to	air	
pollution	by	ozone

Life	
expectancy	
and	healthy	life	
years	(*)

(*)	From	2004.		(**)	From	2002.

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

103

5

Public	health

Life expectancy and healthy life years

1.7 years (women) and 2.2 years (men) increase in life expectancy in 
the EU between 2004 and 2011. However, people do not necessarily 
live longer in good health

Figure 5.1: Life expectancy and healthy life years at birth, by sex, EU-27
(years)

81.5

75.2

62.5

61.1

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

83.2

77.4

62.2

61.8

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Life expectancy — Women
Life expectancy — Men

Healthy life years — Women
Healthy life years — Men

NB:	Life	expectancy:	break	in	series	in	2010,	2010	data	are	provisional,	2011	data	are	estimates;	Healthy	life	years:	data	
for	2005,	2006	and	2011	are	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph100)

Figure 5.2: Life expectancy at birth, by sex, by country, 2011
(years)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU-27

FR ES IT PT AT FI SE LU SI BE DE CY EL NL UK MT IE DK EE CZ PL HR SK LT LV HU RO BG

CH LI

IS NO

TR ME RS MK

Women

Men

NB:	Data	for	EU-27,	BE,	IT	are	estimates;	data	for	RO	are	provisional;	2009	data	for	TR	and	RU.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph100) 

104

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Public	health

5

Figure 5.3: healthy life years at birth, by sex, by country, 2011
(years)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU-27

MT SE

IE LU EL BG ES UK CZ FR BE PL

IT

LT HR CY AT DK HU NL DE PT

FI

EE RO LV SI SK

NO IS CH

NB:	Data	for	EU-27,	BE,	IT	and	NO	are	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph100)

Women

Men

Figure 5.4: Life expectancy at birth, by region, 2011
(years)

)
S
E
(
a
r
r
a
v
a
N
e
d

l

a
r
o
F
d
a
d
n
u
m
o
C

i

)
R
F
(
e
c
n
a
r
F
e
d
e

l
Î

)
S
E
(
d
i
r
d
a
M
e
d
d
a
d
n
u
m
o
C

i

)
T
I
(
o
n
i
c
i
T

)
T
I
(
n
e
z
o
B
/
o
n
a
z
l
o
B

i

d
a
m
o
n
o
t
u
A
a
i
c
n
v
o
r
P

i

)
T
I
(
o
t
n
e
r
T

i

d
a
m
o
n
o
t
u
A
a
i
c
n
v
o
r
P

i

)

H
C

i

(
e
u
q
n
a
m
é

l

i

n
o
g
é
R

)
R
F
(

l

s
e
p
A
-
e
n
ô
h
R

)
S
E
(
n
ó
e
L
y
a

l
l
i
t
s
a
C

)
R
F
(

s
e
é
n
é
r
y
P
-
i
d
M

i

)
S
E
(
a
j
o
R
a
L

i

)
T
I
(
o
t
e
n
e
V

)
T
I
(
a
n
a
c
s
o
T

)
T
I
(
a
i
r
b
m
U

84.0
73.0

84.0
73.4

83.8
73.4

83.7
73.7

83.7
73.8

83.5
73.9

83.4
73.9

83.4
74.1

83.4
74.2

83.3
74.2

83.1
74.3

83.1
74.5

83.1
74.6

83.1
74.6

)

G
B
(
n
e
d
a
p
a
z
o
r
e
v
e
S

)

G
B
(
n
e
h
c
o
t
z
i
o
g
u
Y

)

U
H

(
g
á
z
s
r
o
r
a
y
g
a
M
-
k
a
z
s
É

)

l

G
B
(
n
e
a
r
t
n
e
s
t
n
e
r
e
v
e
S

)
T
L
(
a
v
u
t
e
L

i

)

G
B
(
n
e
h
c
o
t
z
i
o
r
e
v
e
S

)
V
L
(
a
j
i
v
t
a
L

)

O
R
(

t
s
e
V

)

O
R
(

t
s
e
V
-
d
r
o
N

)

O
R
(

t
s
E
-
d
u
S

)

O
R
(

t
s
E
-
d
r
o
N

)

i

O
R
(
a
n
e
t
n
u
M

-
d
u
S

)

U
H

l

(
d
ö
f
l

A
-
k
a
z
s
É

)

l

G
B
(
n
e
a
r
t
n
e
s
t
n
e
h
z
u
Y

NB:	2010	data	for	all	regions	in	IT.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: demo_r_mlifexp)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

105

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5

Public	health

Life expectancy at age 65

9 % increase in the life expectancy at age 65 for women and 12 % 
increase for men in the EU between 2002 and 2011. However, these 
improvements did not lead to a longer healthy life

Figure 4.3: Life expectancy and healthy life years at age 65, by sex, EU-27
(years)

19.5

15.9

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

8.9

8.6

21.3

17.8

8.6

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Life expectancy
(Women)

Life expectancy
(Men)

Healthy Life Years
(Women)

Healthy Life Years
(Men)

NB:	break	in	series	in	2010;	life	expectancy:	2010	data	are	provisional,	2011	data	are	estimates;	healthy	life	years:	data	for	
2005,	2006	and	2011	are	estimates

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdde210 and tsdph220)

106

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Public	health

5

deaths due to chronic diseases

18 % drop in the death rate due to chronic diseases in the EU 
between 2000 and 2009. However, chronic diseases remain the most 
frequent cause of death among people aged under 65

Figure 5.5: death rate due to chronic diseases, by gender, population aged 
under 65, EU-27
(per 100 000 persons)

142.3

116.2

250

200

150

100

50

0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Men

2004
Total

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Women

NB:	2000-2009	data	are	provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph210)

Figure 5.6: death rate due to chronic diseases, population aged under 65, by 
country 
(per 100 000 persons)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

EU-27

SE CY IT MT LU ES NL FR IE

FI PT BE DE EL UK AT DK SI CZ EE PL HR BG SK LT LV RO HU
2009

2000

IS CH NO

MK

NB:	1999	data	for	BE	(instead	of	2000);	2007	data	for	CH,	2008	data	for	IT	and	FR	(instead	of	2009);	EU-27	data	are	provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph210)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

107

5

Public	health

Suicides

14 % drop in the suicide rate in the EU between 2000 and 2010. 
However, the decline has stopped since the onset of the economic 
crisis, in particular among men 

Figure 5.7: Suicide death rate, by gender (standardised death rate), EU-27
(per 100 000 persons)

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

11.8

10.2

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Men

Total

Women

NB:	Provisional	data.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: hlth_cd_asdr)

Suicides are more common in older age groups. However the gap 
between the older and the younger age groups has been closing 
over time

Figure 5.8: Suicide death rate, by age group (crude death rate), EU-27 
(per 100 000 persons)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
85+

2005
50–54

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

15–19

NB:	Provisional	data.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph240)

108

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Public	health

5

Unmet needs for medical health care

1.4 percentage point drop in the share of people perceiving unmet 
needs for medical health care in the EU between 2005 and 2011. 
However, since the onset of the economic crisis more people have 
felt unable to afford medical expenses. Differences between income 
groups persist

Figure 5.9: Self-reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment, by 
income quintile, EU-27
(%)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

First quintile
Fourth quintile

Second quintile
Fifth quintile

Third quintile
Total

NB:	Data	for	2005	and	2006	are	estimates.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph270)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

109

5

Public	health

Production of toxic chemicals

204 million tonnes of toxic chemicals produced in the EU in 2011. 
Production reached a low in 2009 but climbed back to pre-crisis 
levels until 2011

Figure 5.10: Production of toxic chemicals, by toxicity class, EU-27
(million tonnes)

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Toxic chemicals
CMR-chemicals

Harmful chemicals
Chronic toxic chemicals

Very toxic chemicals
Total production of chemicals

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdph320)

110

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Public	health

5

Exposure to air pollution by particulate matter

One microgram per cubic metre reduction in exposure to air 
pollution by particulate matter in the EU between 2000 and 2011. 
The 2010 target has not been met

Figure 5.11: Urban population exposure to air pollution by particulate matter, 
EU-27
(micrograms per cubic metre)

28

27

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EU-27

Target

Source: European Environment Agency, Eurostat (online data code: tsdph370)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

111

5

Public	health

Exposure to air pollution by ozone

About 770 micrograms per cubic metre day increase in exposure to 
air pollution by ozone in the EU between 2000 and 2011. Changing 
weather patterns contribute to yearly and regional differences in 
ozone concentrations 

Figure 5.12: Urban population exposure to air pollution by ozone, EU-27
(micrograms per cubic metre day)

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

2 937

3 706

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: European Environment Agency, Eurostat (online data code: tsdph380)

112

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate change 
and energy

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

6

Climate	change	and	energy

Climate change and energy seen through the lens 
of Green Economy

Our planet is warming — and Europe even more

Recordings  of  the  combined  global  land  and  marine  surface  temperature  show 
a clear upward trend. 2012 was the ninth warmest year on record, and all years 
between 2001 and 2012 were among the top 13 warmest. Warming is stronger over 
land and thus temperatures have risen more in the northern hemisphere than in 
the southern part of the world.

For  Europe,  the  average  temperature  in  the  last  decade  (2003-2012)  was  1.3°C 
above  the  pre-industrial  level,  making  it  the  warmest  on  record.  As  a  result  of 
this warming, extremes of cold have become less frequent, while the frequency of 
warm extremes has increased. According to simulations, temperatures in Europe 
will continue to increase by more than global average during the 21st century.

Global annual mean temperature deviations
(temperature deviation in °C, compared to 1961–1990 average)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

– 0.2

– 0.4

– 0.6

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Northern hemisphere

Global

Southern hemisphere

Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre

114

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate	change	and	energy

6

Overview of main changes

At first glance, the EU has made substantial progress towards achieving its energy 
and climate objectives. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy de-
mand are approaching the 2020 targets. However, an analysis of the driving forces 
behind these positive trends leads to a more cautious assessment. The lowered indus-
trial production, transport volumes and energy demand during the economic crisis 
and its aftermath caused a strong drop in energy consumption and GHG emissions 
between 2007 and 2011 (with the exception of an increase in emissions from 2009 to 
2010). A mild winter in 2010/2011 further pushed down energy demand. The most 
recent  reductions  are  thus  at  least  in  parts  linked  to  low  economic  performance, 
rather than reflecting a thorough transformation of the EU energy sector. By con-
trast, the fast expansion of renewable energies is a clearly favourable trend, particu-
larly in the electricity sector. 

Table 6.1: Evaluation of changes in the climate change and energy theme (EU-27, 
from 2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Greenhouse	gas	
emissions	

Consumption	of	
renewables	(*)

Climate change

Energy

Energy	efficiency

Energy	dependence

Electricity	generated	
from	renewables

(*)	From	2004

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

115

6

Climate	change	and	energy

Greenhouse gas emissions

17 % less greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been emitted in 2011 
compared to 1990 in the EU. At the current rate of reduction, the EU 
will overachieve its 2020 target to reduce GHG emissions by 20 % 

Figure 6.1: Greenhouse gas emissions, EU-27
(index 1990 = 100) 

105

100

100

95

90

85

80

75

83

80

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

Greenhouse gas emissions

Path towards Europe 2020 target

NB:	Total	emissions,	including	international	aviation,	but	excluding	emissions	from	land	use,	land	use	change,	and	
forestry	(LULUCF).	The	EEA	reports	a	reduction	of	18.4	%	in	2011	compared	to	1990	level	because	it	focuses	on	domestic	
emissions	only	and	thus	does	not	include	emissions	from	international	aviation.

Source: European Environment Agency, Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc100)

Figure 6.3: Greenhouse gas emissions, by country, 2011 
(index 1990 =100)

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

EU-27

LT LV RO EE BG SK HU CZ DE UK DK BE SE PL FR HR NL IT FI LU IE SI AT EL PT ES CY MT

LI CH NO IS

TR

NB:	total	emissions,	including	international	aviation,	but	excluding	emissions	from	land	use,	land	use	change,	and	
forestry	(LULUCF).

Source: European Environment Agency, Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc100)

116

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate	change	and	energy

6

Since 2000, GHG emissions have fallen in all sectors except 
transport. In particular international transport (aviation and 
maritime) shows a strong increase in emissions

Figure 6.4: Greenhouse gas emissions by sector, EU-27
(million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) 
6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

1 017

180
204
600

458

774

854

1 668

1990

876

251
177
505
390

910

706

1 502

2000

878

299
152
478
403

963

670

1 585

2005

733
299
133
461
332

921

564

1 406

2011

Energy industries
Agriculture

Manufacturing industries and construction

Transport

Waste

International aviation and maritime transport

Industrial process
Other (energy-related)

NB:	Emissions	from	land	use,	land	use	change,	and	forestry	(LULUCF)	are	excluded.

Source: European Environment Agency, Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc210) 

While emissions in the EU have been falling since 1990, global 
emissions of CO2, the most important greenhouse gas, have risen 
(by 44 % by 2010). Most of the increase has taken place in emerging 
economies, in particular China

Figure 6.6: Global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion
(million tonnes of CO2)

1990

617.8

2000

838.9

2 712.2

4 050.0

3 637.7

3 830.6

2 244.1

1 278.8

3 895.5

3 077.2

2 541.5

6 175.5

2 134.8

7448.5

2010

1 099.0

3 659.5

4 664.5

2 806.6

7 258.5

7 457.3

3 330.6

EU-27

Rest of Europe

Americas

Asia

China

Rest of the world

International bunkers

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

117
117

6

Climate	change	and	energy

GHG emissions have increased the concentration of greenhouse 
gases in the atmosphere, which in turn has led to a rise in surface 
temperature. All years between 2001 and 2012 were among the 
warmest years since records began

Figure 6.7: Global annual mean temperature deviations 
(temperature deviation in °C, compared to 1961–1990 average)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

– 0.2

– 0.4

– 0.6

– 0.8

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Annual 
series

Annual series smoothed 
with a 21-point binomal 
filter

95% uncertainty range 
from the combined effects of 
all the uncertainties

Source: Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia and the UK Met Office hadley Centre

118

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate	change	and	energy

6

Consumption of renewables

4.9 percentage points increase in the share of renewables in gross 
final energy consumption in the EU between 2004 and 2011. This 
favourable trend has put the EU on track to reach its 2020 target

Figure 6.8: Share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption, EU-27 
(%)

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

20

13

8.1

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

EU-27

Path towards Europe 2020 target

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc110)

Figure 6.9: Share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption, by 
country
(%)
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

EU-27

SE

LV FI AT EE PT DK RO LT

SI HR ES BG DE EL
2004

FR IT

PL SK CZ HU IE

CY NL BE UK LU MT

NO

2011

NB:	Data	for	BE	are	provisional.	

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc110)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

119
119

6

Climate	change	and	energy

Positive trend towards more renewable energy use in the transport 
sector. The drop in 2011 reflects statistical adjustments related to 
incomplete transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive by 
Member States

Figure 6.10: Share of renewable energy in fuel consumption of transport, EU-27
(%)

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

2004

2005

2006

2007

Compliant biofuels only

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc340)

5

3.8

2011

2008
Without compliance criteria

2009

2010

120

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate	change	and	energy

6

Energy efficiency

1.5 % less primary energy consumed in the EU in 2011 compared to 
2000, but the trend is not continuous. The EU is moving towards the 
2020 target of improving energy efficiency by 20 %, but sustained 
efforts are required

Figure 6.11: Primary energy consumption, EU-27
(million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe))

1 750

1 700

1 650

1 600

1 550

1 500

1 450

1 400

1 350

1 562

1 706

1 583

1 474

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

Primary energy consumption

Path towards Europe 2020 target

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc120)

Figure 6.12: Change in primary energy consumption, by country 
(index 2005 = 100)

135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70

EU-27

LT UK EL PT ES IT SK DE HU IE RO FR LV LU DK SE HR CZ NL BG AT BE FI

SI CY PL EE MT

CH NO

MK TR

2007

2011

NB:	2010	data	(instead	of	2011)	for	CH.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc120)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

121
121

6

Climate	change	and	energy

Energy dependence

Net energy imports into the EU increased by 15 % between 2000 and 
2011. However, the upward trend levelled off in 2006 due to lower 
energy demand in the EU

Figure 6.13: Energy dependence, EU-27
(share of imports in total energy consumption, %)

90

80

75.7

70

60

48.9

50

46.7

43.2

40

30

20

2000

2001
Total petroleum products

2002

2003

2004

2005

Natural gas

2007

2009
2006
Hard coal and derivatives

2008

84.9

67

62.2

53.8

2010

2011

All products

NB:	‘Total’	is	not	the	average	of	the	other	three	fuel	categories	shown.	It	also	includes	other	energy	sources,	such	as	
renewable	energy	or	nuclear	energy,	which	are	treated	as	domestic	sources.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdcc310)

122

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Climate	change	and	energy

6

Electricity generation from renewables

About a fifth of EU gross electricity generation came from 
renewable sources in 2011, up from 13.6 % in 2000. Effective support 
schemes and lower production costs have enabled the expansion 

Figure 6.14: Gross electricity generation from renewable energy sources, EU-27, 
1990–2011
(gigawatt hours)

700 000

600 000

500 000

400 000

300 000

200 000

100 000

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Hydro 
power

Wood and 
other solid 
biomass

Geothermal

Wind 
power

Renewable 
wastes

Biogas and 
bioliquids

Solar 
power

Source: Eurostat (online data code: nrg_105a)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

123

Sustainable transport

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

7

Sustainable	transport

Sustainable transport seen through the lens of the  
Green Economy

New passenger cars are becoming more and more ‘carbon-
efficient’

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the average car sold in the EU fell by 16.7 % 
between 2007 and 2012, cutting the EU average to 132.2 grams of CO2 per kilome-
tre. This is close to the 130 gram target for the average new car sold in 2015.

According  to  the  European  Environment  Agency,  based  on  emission  levels 
recorded in vehicle tests, all major car manufacturers (1) have met their targets for 
their fleet in 2012. However, most will need to sell increasingly efficient vehicles to 
meet targets in 2015 and beyond. Each manufacturer has a different target, based 
on the average mass of their fleet, which is gradually phased in, meaning that in 
2012 only 65 % of each manufacturer’s fleet needed to meet the target, increasing 
to 100 % of cars in 2015. By 2020, the average car sold in the EU must not emit 
more than 95 grams of CO2 per km (2).

Average carbon dioxide emissions per km from new passenger cars, EU-27
(gram of CO2 per km)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

NB: 2012 data are provisional.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdtr450)

(1)  ‘Large car manufacturers’ are defined as the 20 companies selling more than 100 000 cars in 2012.
(2)   European Environment Agency, All larger carmakers met CO2 targets in 2012 (accessed 4 december 2013).

126

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	transport

7

Overview of main changes 

Transport  volumes  as  well  as  energy  consumption  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
from transport are all strongly dependent on economic activity. In the aftermath of 
the economic and financial crisis, EU economies are still confronted with challeng-
ing conditions. This means the evaluation results of the transport indicators should 
be  interpreted  carefully.  The  economic  downturn  has  led  to  decreasing  transport 
volumes, and as a consequence has also substantially reduced energy consumption 
and greenhouse gases. These tendencies have lowered the pressure of transport’s en-
vironmental impacts. Only time will tell whether this is a temporary or long-term 
trend and whether economic recovery will affect transport’s performance. 

Table 7.1: Evaluation of changes in the sustainable transport theme (EU-27, from 
2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Transport and mobility

Modal	split	of	freight	
transport	

Modal	split	of	passenger	
transport

Transport impacts

Greenhouse	gas	
emissions	from	transport

People	killed	in	road	
accidents	(*)

Energy	consumption	
of	transport	relative	
to	GDP

(*)	From	2001

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

127

7

Sustainable	transport

Energy consumption of transport relative to GdP

8.3 % drop in energy consumption of transport per unit of GDP in 
the EU between 2000 and 2011. But economic growth still meant 
transport energy use increased over the period

Figure 7.1: Energy consumption of transport relative to GdP, EU-27
(index 2000 = 100)

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

116.5

106.7

91.7

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Energy consumption / GDP

Transport energy consumption

GDP

NB:	Energy	consumption	of	transport	includes	all	modes	of	transport,	with	the	exception	of	maritime	and	pipeline	
transport.

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdtr100, tsdtr250 and nama_gdp_k)

Post-crisis downward spiral in energy consumption since 2007, but 
not for all transport modes

Figure 7.2: Energy consumption of transport, by mode, EU-27
(index 2000 = 100)

210

190

170

150

130

110

90

70

50

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

Aviation

82.4 %

2.0 %

1.6 %
1.7 %

171.5

12.3 %

126.2

96.3

89.8

Road
International aviation
Domestic aviation
Domestic navigation
Rail

7
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

8
0
0
2
Rail

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

0
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

6
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
Domestic navigation

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

9
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1
Road

NB:	Not	including	international	navigation,	pipeline	transportation,	and	unspecified.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdtr250)

128

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	transport

7

Figure 7.3: Energy consumption of transport relative to GdP, by country
(% change 2000–2011)

20

15

10

5

0

– 5

– 10

– 15

– 20

– 25

EU-27 MT IE DE UK FR EE SE LT ES CY NL EL BE IT

FI BG RO DK PT CZ HR AT LV HU LU SK PL SI

CH NO

TR MK

NB:	Change	2000–2010	for	CH;	Energy	consumption	of	transport	includes	all	modes	of	transport,	with	the	exception	of	
maritime	and	pipeline	transport

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdtr100, tsdtr250 and nama_gdp_k)

Share of transport in total energy consumption in the EU higher 
than the global average, but lower than the OECD average

Figure 7.4: Global comparison of road sector energy consumption 
(% of total energy consumption)

17 %

22 %

19 %

10 %

14 %

23 %

24 %

7 %

7 %

6 %

5 %

European
Union

North
America

OECD

non-
OECD

All
countries

United
States

Brazil

Russian 
Federation

India

China

Nigeria

NB:	Road	sector	energy	consumption	is	the	total	energy	used	in	the	road	sector	including	petroleum	products,	natural	gas,	
electricity,	and	combustible	renewable	and	waste.	Total	energy	consumption	is	the	total	country	energy	consumption.

Source: World Bank

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

129
129

7

Sustainable	transport

Modal split of freight and passenger transport

Moderate increase in the share of road and car in freight and 
passenger transport in the EU between 2000 and 2011. Thus, no 
substantial shift towards more environmentally friendly transport 
modes could be observed

Figure 7.5: Modal split of freight and passenger transport, EU-27
(a) freight transport (% in total inland freight tonne-km)

2000

6.5 %

2011

6.2 %

19.7 %

18.4 %

73.8 %

75.4 %

(b) Passenger transport (% in total inland passenger-km)

2000

7.1 %

9.9 %

2011

7.1 %

8.8 %

Road

Rail

Inland waterways

Car

Bus and coach

Train

83 %

84.1 %

NB:	Data	on	passenger	transport	performance	are	collected	on	a	voluntary	basis.	Some	remaining	gaps	have	been	
filled	with	estimates.	Road	transport	data	are	not	harmonised	at	the	EU	level	(see	Eurostat	metadata	on	passenger	
transport).	Road	freight	transport	is	based	on	all	movements	of	vehicles	registered	in	the	reporting	country,	whereas	
rail	and	inland	waterways	transport	are	based	on	movements	on	national	territory	(see	Eurostat	metadata	on	freight	
transport).	

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdtr220 and tsdtr210)

130

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	transport

7

Greenhouse gas emissions from transport

1.1 % increase in greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the EU 
between 2000 and 2011. The post-2007 economic downturn played 
a major role in reducing GHG emissions

Figure 7.7: Greenhouse gas emissions from transport, EU-27
(million tonnes of CO2 equivalent)

910.1

920.6

1 100
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total

Road transportation

Other modes of transport

NB:	GHG	emissions	from	international	aviation	and	navigation	are	not	included.

Source: European Environment Agency (online data code: tsdtr410)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

131
131

7

Sustainable	transport

People killed in road accidents

44.3 % drop in the number of people killed in road accidents in 
the EU between 2001 and 2011. This is close to the path towards 
reaching the 50 % reduction goal by 2020

Figure 7.8: People killed in road accidents, EU-27
(number of killed people)

54 302

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

30 268

15 515

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

EU-27

Target path

Source: EU Commission, dG for Mobility and transport — CARE database (online data code: tsdtr420) and Statistical 
Pocketbook 2013

Figure 7.9: People killed in road accidents, by country
(% change from 2001 to 2011)

40

20

0

– 20

– 40

– 60

– 80

EU-27

LV

ES

LT

IE

LU FR

SI

EE DK HU SK

PT

IT UK AT

SE NL DE

BE

CZ

EL

BG

FI

CY

PL

RO MT

Source: EU Commission, dG for Mobility and transport — CARE database (online data code: tsdtr420) and Statistical 
Pocketbook 2013

132

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Sustainable	transport

7

Figure 7.10: Victims in road accidents in 2011, top and bottom 10, by NUtS 2 regions 
(number of people killed per million inhabitants)

l

d
n
a
o
v
e
F

l

7
1
2

s
o
s
i
n
n
o
p
o
e
P

l

0
1
2

0
2

n
o
d
n
o
L
r
e
n
n

I

0
2

n
o
d
n
o
L
r
e
t
u
O

9
1

g
r
u
b
m
a
H

)
E
B
(
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

.

v
o
r
P

3
7
1

6
1

n

i
l
r
e
B

j

o
e
t
n
e
A

l

2
9
1

7
1

l

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

a
d
a

l
l

E
a
e
r
e
t
S

3
9
1

9
1

d
n
a
l
r
e
b
m
u
h
t
r
o
N

r
a
e
W
d
n
a
e
n
y
T
d
n
a

i

i

o
a
g
A
o
i
t
o
N

2
6
1

3
1

a
t
u
e
C
e
d

a
m
o
n
ó
t
u
A
d
a
d
u
C

i

a
d
a

l
l

E

i

k
i
t
y
D

0
5
1

n
r
e
t
s
a
E
h
t
r
o
N

d
n
a
l
t
o
c
S

8
4
1

3
1

a

l
l
i
l

e
M
e
d

a
m
o
n
ó
t
u
A
d
a
d
u
C

i

3
1

n
e
W

i

9

d
n
a
l
t
o
c
S
n
r
e
t
s
a
E

i

e
k
s
y
z
r
k
o
t
e
w
S

i

1
4
1

7

d
n
a
l
r
e
d
e
G

l

NB:	2009	data	for	Peloponnisos,	Sterea	Ellada,	Notio	Aigaio,	Dytiki	Ellada.

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tran_r_acci) 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

133
133

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natural resources

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

8

Natural	resources

Natural resources seen through the lens of the  
Green Economy

More than 40 % of the EU is covered by woodland

Land cover refers to the bio-physical coverage of land. Forests and other wooded 
areas occupied 41.2 % of the total area of the EU in 2012, cropland nearly a quarter 
(24.7  %)  of  the  area  and  grassland  almost  one  fifth  (19.5  %),  while  built-up  and 
other artificial areas, such as roads and railways, accounted for 4.6 % of the total 
area.

Woodland  is  the  prevailing  land  cover  in  northern  parts  of  Europe  and  for  a 
number  of  countries  whose  typography  is  dominated  by  mountains  and  hilly 
areas.  Woodland  covered  more  than  half  of  the  total  area  in  Sweden  (75.6  %), 
Finland (71.8 %), Estonia (60.6 %), Slovenia (60.2 %) and Latvia (55.5 %). At the 
other  end  of  the  scale,  forests  and  other  wooded  areas  were  most  scarce  in  the 
United  Kingdom  (19.8  %),  Denmark  (18.3  %),  Ireland  (13.2  %),  the  Netherlands 
(12.6 %) and Malta (5.1 %).

Land cover overview, EU-27, 2012
(% of total area)

3.2 % 1.4 %

1.5 %

4.6 %

24.7 %

19.5 %

4 %

Source: Eurostat (online data code: lan_lcv_ovw)

41.2 %

Artiﬁcial land

Cropland

Woodland

Shrubland

Grassland

Bare land

Water

Wetland

136

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Natural	resources

8

Overview of main changes

Despite some improvements, the EU’s natural resources are under continuous pres-
sure.  Ecosystems  and  their  services,  which  are  the  backbone  of  biodiversity  and 
human  well-being,  are  increasingly  threatened  by  land  take  for  settlements  and 
infrastructure as well as intensification of agricultural production. Some progress 
can be observed in marine resources. Yet it should be interpreted cautiously because 
a reduction in the size of the EU fishing fleet has not yet led to a meaningful recov-
ery of fish stocks. Further reforms of and new concepts within agriculture, fish and 
water  policies,  as  well  as  in  transport  and  consumption  and  production,  will  be 
needed to put use of natural resources in the EU on a sustainable path. 

Table 8.1: Evaluation of changes in the natural resources theme (EU-27, from 
2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Common	bird	index

Conservation	of	fish	
stocks

Marine resources

Fishing	capacity	(*)

Fresh water resources

Surface	and	ground	
water	abstraction

Land use

Built-up	areas

:	

:	

:	

(*)	From	2007

(1)	

	An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

137

8

Natural	resources

Natural resources seen through the lens of  
Quality of Life

Less Europeans express concerns with the environmental quality 
of their residential areas

Living  conditions  and  housing  quality  are  important  determinants  of  human 
well-being. However, housing quality does not only depend on the quality of the 
dwelling itself, but also on the wider residential area. In particular, problems such 
as noise, pollution and environmental degradation can have direct negative con-
sequences on the perceived quality of a residential area. 

In recent years the reported overall exposure of the European population to pol-
lution, grime or other environmental problems has seen a sizeable decline, from 
17.6 % in 2005 to 14.1 % in 2012. 

The population in different parts of Europe is unevenly exposed to environmental 
issues.  At  one  extreme,  in  2011  over  40  %  of  the  population  in  Malta  perceived 
the area in which they lived as being affected by pollution, grime or other envi-
ronmental problems. In contrast, the proportion of residents suffering from these 
problems was considerably smaller in Ireland (4.0 %), Sweden (6.9 %) and Croatia 
(7.0 %).

Pollution, grime or other environmental problems, by country, 2011
(% of population)

50

40

30

20

10

0

7
2
-
U
E

E

I

E
S

R
H

S
E

I

K F
D

U
A

U
L

L
P

K
U

R
F

U
H

E
E

T
L

L
N

T
P

G
B

E
B

K
S

Z
C

L
S

O
R

Y
C

T

I

E
D

V
L

L
E

T
M

O
N

H I
S
C

Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_mddw02)

138

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Natural	resources

8

Abundance of common birds

1.1 % increase in the EU index for all common birds between 2000 
and 2011. While forest birds showed an even stronger recovery, 
farmland birds declined further, reaching a record low in 2011

Figure 8.1: Index of all common, common farmland and common forest birds, 
EU
(Index 1980 = 100)

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

92.2

86.8

52.0

101.9

87.7

46.4

0
8
9
1

1
8
9
1

2
8
9
1

3
8
9
1

4
8
9
1

5
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

9
8
9
1

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

Common forest birds

All common birds

Common farmland birds

Source: Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme, Eurostat (online data code: tsdnr100)

Figure 8.2: farmland bird index, by country
(% change over the period 2000–2008)

LV
15.2

FI
7.6

EE
5.5

HU
5.3

IT
4.6

EU-27
-12.3

PL
-0.7

FR
IE
NL
-3.8 -7.6 -7.7

BE
-9.2

CZ
-2.7

SE
-13.6

ES
-15.8

UK
-16.6

DK
-20.8

AT
-22.6

DE
-24.3

CH
-11.2

NO
-27.3

NB:	EU-27:	change	over	2000-2010,	EE:	change	over	2000-2006;	IT:	change	over	2000-2007;	EU-27	aggregate	based	on	

data	from	18	Member	States

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdnr100) 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

139
139

8

Natural	resources

Conservation of fish stocks

14.3 % of the total EU fish catches in 2010 were from stocks outside 
safe biological limits. Catches of non-industrial fish exceeded 
sustainable levels of exploitation

Figure 8.3: fish catches from stocks outside safe biological limits: status of fish 
stocks managed by the EU in the North-East Atlantic, total catches
(%)

37.4

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

14.3

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

NB:	EU-managed	waters	of	the	North-East	Atlantic	only	(North	Sea,	Baltic	Sea,	Bay	of	Biscay	and	the	Iberian	Peninsula)	
and	excluding	the	Mediterranean	Sea	and	the	Black	Sea
Source: European Commission services, ICES (online data code: tsdnr110)

Demersal fish (living on or near the bottom of the sea) show the 
highest values in unsustainable catches

Figure 8.4: fish catches from stocks outside safe biological limits, by category
(%)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Demersal

Pelagic

Benthic

Industrial

NB:	EU-managed	waters	of	the	North-East	Atlantic	only	(North	Sea,	Baltic	Sea,	Bay	of	Biscal	and	the	Iberian	Peninsula),	and	
excluding	the	Mediterranean	Sea	and	the	Black	Sea
Source: European Commission services, ICES (online data code: tsdnr110)

140

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Natural	resources

8

fishing capacity 

2.4 % average annual decrease in EU fishing fleets from 2007 to 
2012. Further reduction of fishing capacities in the EU is needed for 
recovering fish stocks

Figure 8.5: fishing fleet, total engine power, EU-27
(million kilowatts)

7.06

7.2

7.0

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

6.25

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source: European Commission services, Eurostat (online data code: tsdnr420)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

141
141

8

Natural	resources

Water abstraction

Water abstraction from ground and surface water seems to be 
sustainable in most Member States. Eleven countries appear to have 
stabilised abstraction pressure on water resources between 2000 
and 2011

Figure 8.6: Surface water abstraction as a share of available resources, by 
country
(%)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

DK NL MT LV SK SE LU FI LT HU AT BG CZ EL EE RO BE CY

IS CH

TR

2000

2011

NB:	1999	data	for	AT,	LU,	MT,	FI	and	CH	(instead	of	2000);	2008	data	for	HU,	2009	data	for	BE,	2010	data	for	AT,	LV,	SE	and	TR	
(instead	of	2011);	no	2000	data	for	HU	and	NL,	no	2011	data	for	AT,	EL,	MT,	FI,	CH	and	IS.
Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdnr310)

142

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Natural	resources

8

Built-up areas

4.6 % of the EU land area was covered by artificial areas in 2012. 
Urbanisation and increasing transport infrastructure are the main 
drivers of land sealing

Figure 8.8: Artificial land cover and built-up areas, EU-27, 2012
(% share of total area of country)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
EU-27

FI LV SE EE BG RO LT SK SI HU EL

IE ES PL CZ FR AT PT UK DK CY DE IT LU NL BE MT

Built-up areas

Non built-up areas

Source: Eurostat, LUCAS 2012 — preliminary results

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

143
143

Global partnership

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

9

Global	partnership

Global partnership seen through the lens of the 
Green Economy

From ‘how much ODA?’ to ‘ODA for what purpose?’ — tracking 
ODA related to climate change adaptation

Official  development  assistance  (ODA)  is  administered  with  the  promotion  of 
economic development and welfare in developing countries as its main objective. 
However,  apart  from  looking  at  how  much  ODA  is  actually  spent  by  developed 
countries, attention is increasingly put on the question of the purpose for which 
ODA is actually spent. 

In December 2009 the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) mem-
bers approved on tracking the amount of ODA that supports the objectives of the 
Rio Conventions in climate change adaptation (1). The aim is to allow presenting a 
more complete picture of aid in support of developing countries’ efforts to address 
climate change. 

In  2011,  10 %  of  the  ODA  spent  by  the  OECD  as  a  whole  was  related  to  climate 
change adaptation. The shares were highest for ODA from Finland, Sweden and 
Germany,  at  more  than  20 %.  Above  average  contributions  also  stemmed  from 
the  European  countries  Denmark  and  Switzerland  as  well  as  from  Japan  and 
Australia, all with a share close to 15 %. 

Official development assistance related to climate change adaptation, 2011 
(% of total ODA)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

n
e
d
e
w
S

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

i

n
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

a
e
r
o
K

a
d
a
n
a
C

n
a
p
a
J

a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

l

d
n
a
a
e
Z
w
e
N

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

l

a
t
o
T

—
D
C
E
O

NB: 2010 data for Greece and france.

Source: OECD (data code: GG_E321)

146

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

(1)  the United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change (UNfCCC) is one of three so-called ‘Rio 

Conventions’ that derive directly from the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ held in Rio de Janeiro.

 
 
 
 
 
Global	partnership

9

Overview of main changes

Many of the indicators in the global partnership theme are linked to some extent to 
the EU’s economic situation. For this reason, several show clear impacts from the 
onset of the financial and economic crisis in 2008. This is particularly visible in the 
case of ‘official development assistance’ (ODA) where overall flows fell during the 
economic downturn. Although the EU remains the world’s largest donor, it is not 
on-track  to  meet  its  long-standing  target  of  dedicating  0.7 %  of  its  gross  national 
income (GNI) to ODA in 2015. Nevertheless, the share of ODA for least-developed 
countries did improve in the decade 2000 to 2010. Also, although ODA to develop-
ing countries is insufficient to meet the EU’s targets, it remains a largely stable source 
of finance in absolute terms. A negative trend that emerges is the fluctuation of pri-
vate  financial  flows.  These  fluctuations  can  create  unpredictability  for  developing 
countries that are particularly reliant on external financial support. 

In relation to trade, EU imports from developing countries have increased, mainly 
driven by imports from China, while imports from least-developed countries repre-
sented considerably lower shares of overall EU imports. The largest increase among 
imports from least-developed countries has been in mineral fuels and lubricants. 

With regards to global resource management, the gap in CO2 emissions per inhabit-
ant has narrowed between the EU and developing countries, although this is in large 
part due to the economic crisis and increased emissions from developing countries. 

Table 9.1: Evaluation of changes in the global partnership theme (EU-27, from 
2000) (1)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Financing for sustainable development

Official	
development	
assistance	
(ODA)	(*)

Financing	for	
developing	
countries

Share	of	official	
development	assistance	for	
least-developed	countries

Share	of	foreign	direct	
investment	in	low-income	
countries

Globalisation of trade

Imports	from	
developing	
countries

Share	of	imports	from	least-
developed	countries

Global resource management

CO2	emissions	
per	inhabitant

(*)	From	2004.

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

147

	
9

Global	partnership

Global partnership seen through the lens of  
Quality of Life

Access to drinking water and sanitation — progress notable but 
still insufficient

By the end of 2011 about 89 % of the world population had access to an improved 
drinking-water  source.  Although  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDG) 
target on access to drinking water has already been met overall, serious concerns 
remain regarding the access to, quality and safety of drinking water for the rural 
poor (1). According to estimates, 83 % of the population without access to drink-
ing water (636 million) live in rural areas. Furthermore, about 38 % of the people 
using an improved drinking water source do not enjoy the convenience and associ-
ated health and economic benefits of piped supply at home.

Improvements have also been achieved in access to sanitation facilities; since 1990 
almost  1.9  million  people  worldwide  have  gained  access  to  improved  sanitation 
facilities. However, progress is still insufficient for countries to stay on-track with 
the MDG sanitation target. To meet the target coverage must extend to 75 % from 
the current level of 64 %.

World access to drinking water and sanitation facilities 
(% of population)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Access to improved drinking 
water source (urban)

Access to improved drinking 
water source (rural)

Access to improved sanitation
facilities (urban)

Access to improved sanitation
facilities (rural)

1990

2000

2011

Source: World Health Organisation and UNICEF

(1)  WhO and UNICEf, Progress on sanitation and drinking-water — 2013 update.

148

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Global	partnership

9

Official development assistance

0.05 percentage point increase in official development assistance 
(ODA) in the EU between 2004 and 2012. This is not enough to meet 
the UN target of dedicating 0.7 % of gross national income to ODA 
by 2015

Figure 9.1: Official development assistance as a share of gross national income, 
EU-27
(% of GNI)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0.34

0.7

0.56

0.39

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

NB:	2012	data	are	preliminary.

EU-27

EU target path

UN target

Source: OECd, European Commission services, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp100)

Figure 9.2: Official development assistance as share of gross national income, 
by country
(% of GNI)

1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

EU-27

LU SE DK NL UK FI

IE BE FR DE AT PT ES EL IT

MT LT SI CY CZ EE HU PL SK BG LV RO

NO CH IS

TR

NB:	2012	data	are	preliminary,	2007	data	for	BG	and	RO	(instead	of	2005).

Source: OECd, European Commission services, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp100)

2005

2012

Target (2015)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

149

9

Global	partnership

From ‘how much?’ to ‘what for?’: In 2011, the EU-15 spent most of 
their bilateral aid on infrastructure and services

Figure 9.3: Bilateral official development assistance, by category, EU-15
(EUR 1 000 million; at current values) (24)

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0

2001

2000
Social infrastructure 
and services

2002

2003

2004
2005
Economic infrastructures 
and services

2006

2007
Production sectors

2008

2009

2010
Multi sector/cross cutting

2011

Budget support, food aid, 
food security

Action relating to debt

Humanitarian aid

Unallocated/unspeciﬁed

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp350)

ODA per capita in EU and developing countries has increased by 
more than a third since 2004

Figure 9.4: Official development Assistance per capita in donor and recipient 
countries 
(EUR per inhabitant; at current values)

2011
105

EU-27

2004
71

2011
9.3

2004
6.8

DAC countries

NB:	For	EU	total,	the	nominator	refers	to	the	ODA	sum	of	all	Member	States	for	which	data	are	available	in	a	given	year	(and	
not	necessarily	EU-15	before	2007	and	EU-27	after	2007);	the	denominator	always	refers	to	the	total	EU-27	population.

Source: OECd, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp520)

150

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Global	partnership

9

The EU is still the biggest ODA donor globally in absolute terms, 
providing over half of total ODA made available by OECD DAC 
countries in 2012

Figure 9.5: Official development assistance as a share of gross national income, 
by donor
(% of GNI)

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

0.34

0.27

0.19

0.17

0.39

0.32

0.19

0.17

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU-27

Canada

United States

2010

Japan

2011

2012

NB:	EU-27	data	for	2012	data	are	provisional.

Source: OECd, European Commission services, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp100)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

151

9

Global	partnership

Share of official development assistance for  
least-developed countries

3.4 % annual increase in EU ODA to least-developed countries 
between 2000 and 2011. The increase was not enough for the EU to 
reach its 2010 target of dedicating 0.15 to 0.20 % of gross national 
income to ODA in least-developed countries

Figure 9.6: OdA to least-developed countries (LdCs), EU-15
(% of GNI; at constant 2011 values)

0.09

0.13

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ODA to LDCs

Target

NB:	ODA	including	imputed	multilateral	aid	(i.e.	flows	to	multilateral	organisations	such	as	the	UN,	the	World	Bank,	etc.)

Source: European Commission Services

152

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Global	partnership

9

Favourable trend towards more ODA for low-income countries 
(least-developed countries and other low-income countries). By 
2011 low-income countries received more than 50 % of country-
allocated ODA

Figure 9.7: Official development assistance, by income group, EU-15
(EUR million; at current values)

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Least-developed 
countries

Other low-income 
countries

Lower middle income 
countries

Upper middle income 
countries

Unallocated

NB:	‘Unallocated’	refers	to	ODA	disbursed	at	regional,	rather	than	country	level.

Source: OECd, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp330)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

153

9

Global	partnership

financing for developing countries

4.6 % average annual growth in financing for developing countries 
from the EU-15 between 2000 and 2011. However, public funding 
has only seen a modest increase and fluctuating private finance may 
contribute to economic uncertainty in recipient countries

Figure 9.8: financing for developing countries, by type, EU-15
(EUR 1 000 million; at current values)

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

– 20

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Official development aid

Private flows

Grants by NGOs

Other official flows

Source: OECd, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp310)

154

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Global	partnership

9

Share of foreign direct investment  
in low-income countries

One percentage point drop in the share of the EU’s foreign direct 
investment to low-income countries between 2000 and 2011. 
Greater effort is needed to increase the share apportioned to low-
income countries and to reduce economic uncertainty

Figure 9.9: foreign direct investment in developing countries, by income 
group, EU-15
(EUR 1 000 million and %; at current values)
120

100

80

60

40

20

0

– 20

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

1 %

1 %

2 %

27 %

1 % < 1 %

14 %

47 %

2000
62 975 million
EUR 

49 %

2011
97 033 million
EUR 

58 %

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

– 10

Least-developed 
countries
Not speciﬁed

Other low-income 
countries
Share of FDI to LDCs and OLICs (right-hand scale)

Lower middle 
income countries

Upper middle 
income countries

Source: OECd, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp320)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

155

9

Global	partnership

Imports from developing countries

7.8 % annual increase in EU imports from developing countries 
between 2000 and 2012. Growing share of China imports main 
driver behind the increase

Figure 9.10: EU imports from developing countries by income group, EU-27
(EUR 1 000 million; at current values)

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

24 %

42 %

35 %

48 %

2000
357 million
EUR 

4 %

23 %

2012
856 million
EUR 

1 %

4 %

<1 %

19 %

Upper 
middle income 
countries

Lower 
middle income 
countries

China 
(including 
Hong Kong)

Other 
low-income 
countries

Least-
developed 
countries

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp210)

156

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Global	partnership

9

Growth in imports from least-developed countries highest for fuels, 
lubricants and related materials. Manufactured goods still make up 
almost two thirds of imports from developing countries

Figure 9.11: EU imports from developing countries and from least-developed 
countries, by group of products, EU-27
(%)

Imports from least developed countries

Imports from developing countries

2000

17 %

2012

7 %

6 %

2000

11 %

8 %

2012

7 %

6 %

49 %

13 %

57 %

13 %

38 %

62 %

19 %

25 %

62 %

Manufactured
goods

Mineral fuels, lubricants,
and related materials

Raw
materials

Food, drinks 
and tobacco

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdgp220 and tsdgp230)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

157

9

Global	partnership

CO2 emissions per inhabitant 

2.6 times higher CO2 emissions per EU inhabitant as compared with 
developing country inhabitants in 2011. The gap between the EU 
and developing countries narrowed between 2000 and 2011, but 
primarily due to increasing emissions from developing countries

Figure 9.13: CO2 emissions per inhabitant in the EU and in developing countries
(tonnes per inhabitant)

9.4

1.7

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

8.5

1.7

7.4

2.9

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

EU-27

Developing countries

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdgp410)

158

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Good governance

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

10

Good	governance

Good governance seen through the lens of the  
Green Economy

Greening taxation as a means for jobs creation and stimulating 
innovation 

Environmental  taxes  can  change  behaviour,  encouraging  consumers  to  redirect 
consumption  towards  less  taxed  commodities.  Not  only  can  this  contribute  to 
achieving environmental objectives, it can also help raise revenues. According to 
literature, environmental taxes also have a less negative effect on GDP compared 
to other taxes, such as direct taxes (for example income tax) or indirect taxes (for 
example  value  added  tax). This  feature  of  environmental  taxes  means  countries 
could use them to support fiscal consolidation or to reduce other taxes. In addi-
tion, the incentives from environmental taxes are expected to create both low and 
highly skilled jobs, for example in the recycling and energy efficiency sectors (1).

Implicit tax rate on energy, EU-27 
(index 2000 = 100)

110

105

100

95

90

85

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Final energy consumption

Implicit tax rate

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: tsdcc360 and tsdpc320)

Energy  taxes  are  the  major  part  of  environmental  taxes,  accounting  for  almost 
three  quarters  of  environmental  taxes  in  2011.  The  implicit  tax  rate  on  energy 
(ITR)  is  measured  as  ratio  of  energy  tax  revenues  to  final  energy  consumption 
and represents the effective tax burden on energy. In 2000, the ITR in the EU as 
a whole was EUR 186.8 per tonne of oil equivalent (TOE). Until the onset of the 
economic crisis the ITR fell to a low of EUR 168.7 per TOE in 2008, only to climb 
to EUR 183.8 per TOE by 2011. The increase over 2008 to 2011 occurred against the 
backdrop of strong falls in final energy consumption spurred by the impacts of the 
economic crisis. Across the EU, the ITR varied considerably in 2011, from more 
than EUR 300 per TOE in Denmark to less than EUR 50 per TOE in Slovakia.

160

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

(1)	 European	Environment	Agency,	Green fiscal reform can create jobs and stimulate innovation across the EU	(accessed	4	

December	2013).

Good	governance

10

Overview of main changes

The  trends  observed  in  the  good  governance  theme  since  2000  have  been  mixed. 
There  have  been  favourable  trends  as  regards  new  infringement  and  the  transpo-
sition  deficit  of  EU  law  with  respect  to  Single  Market  rules.  In  addition,  citizens 
increasingly interact with public authorities over the internet. Some unfavourable 
trends, however, persist. Voter turnout in national parliamentary elections contin-
ues to decline, and a general shift from labour to environmental taxes, as called for 
in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and more recently in the Europe 2020 
strategy, has not been achieved.

Table 10.1: Evaluation of changes in the good governance theme (EU-27, from 
2000) (1)(2)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Policy coherence and effectiveness

Infringement	cases	(*)

:	

Citizens’	confidence	in	EU	
institutions

Transposition	deficit	of	
EU	law

Openness and participation

Voter	turnout	

Citizens’	online	
interaction	with	public	
authorities	(**)

Economic instruments

Environmental	taxes	
compared	to	labour	
taxes

(*)	From	2007			(**)	From	2008

(1)	 An	explanation	of	the	evaluation	method	and	the	meaning	of	the	weather	symbols	is	given	in	the	introduction.
(2)	 The	chapter	contains	no	headline	indicator	because	none	was	judged	robust	and	policy-relevant	enough	to	provide	a	

comprehensive	overview	of	the	good	governance	concept.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

161

10

Good	governance

Good governance seen through the lens of  
Quality of Life

Most Europeans trust less in government than in local 
authorities

Trust  in  institutions  affects  not  only  individual’s  subjective  well-being,  but  also 
the overall functioning of a democratic system though the effectiveness of policy 
initiatives, tax contributions, participation in and fair use of public services.

In 2011, the government received overall lower scores in trust compared to local 
and municipal authorities both at EU and national level. Trust in national institu-
tions was highest in Luxembourg (6.5), Finland (6.1) and Sweden (6.0) and lowest 
in Greece (2.1), Romania (2.5) and Slovenia (2.8).  Local authorities were trusted 
the most in Luxembourg (6.7), Denmark (6.5) and Austria (6.5) and less in most 
countries  that  joined  the  EU  in  2004  and  2007.  Notable  exceptions  are  Malta 
and  Estonia  with  trust  levels  above  the  EU  average  both  for  national  and  local 
institutions.

The low levels of trust in national political institutions might partly be affected 
by the extent to which countries managed to sustain the effects of the economic 
crises. On the other hand, the high level of trust in local authorities, which is espe-
cially pronounced in rural areas, might reflect the ease of approaching and inter-
acting with this branch of public institutions.

Trust in government and local (municipal) authorities, by country, 2011
(mean of scores, scale 1–10)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

7
2
-
U
E

I

U F
L

E
S

K
D

L
N

E
D

T
M

T
A

E
B

E
E

K
U

R
F

E

I

S
E

G
B

Y
C

U
H

L
P

Z
C

R
H

T
P

K
S

T

I

T
L

I

V S
L

O
R

L
E

S

I

R
T

K
M

E
M

S
R

Trust in local (municipal) authorities

Trust in government

Source: European Quality of Life Survey

162

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Good	governance

10

Citizens’ confidence in EU institutions

44 % trust in European Parliament in 2012 keeps it the most 
trusted among the main EU institutions. Citizens’ confidence in 
EU institutions remains generally low, but increased again after a 
historic low

Figure 10.1: Level of citizens’ confidence in EU institutions, EU-27
(%)

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

European Parliament

European Commission

Council of the European Union

Source: European Commission, Eurobarometer, Eurostat (online data code: tsdgo510)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

163

10

Good	governance

Infringement cases

38 % drop in the number of Single Market related infringement 
cases in the EU between 2007 and 2012. Taxation and environmental 
issues make up the two largest groups of infringement cases by 
policy sector

Figure 10.2: Pending infringement cases, EU-27
(number)

1 400

1 332

1 298

1 326

1 271

1 256

1 229

1 091

1 001

922

843

829

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

Nov.
2007

May
2008

Nov.
2008

May
2009

Nov.
2009

May
2010

Nov.
2010

May
2011

Nov.
2011

May
2012

Nov.
2012

Source: Internal Market Scoreboard No. 26, february 2013

Taxation and environmental issues made up almost half of all 
pending Single Market related infringement cases in 2012

Figure 10.3: Pending Single Market related infringement cases by policy area, 
EU-27, November 2012
(%)

22 %

19 %

Taxation

Environmental issues

22 %

3 %

3 %

3 %

4 %

4 %

4 %

5 %

11 %

Source: European Commission services, dG MARKt

Transport (air and inland)

Health and consumers

Services

Social security schemes and free 
movement of workers

Justice including non-discrimination 
and data protection

Agriculture

Free movement of goods and 
market surveillance

Public procurement

Other fields

164

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Good	governance

10

transposition deficit of EU law

2.4 percentage points drop in transposition deficit of EU law in the 
EU between 2000 and 2012. This put the EU again below the target 
for transposition deficit of Single Market rules

Figure 10.4: transposition deficit of EU Single Market law, EU-27
(%)

6.3

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

3.9

3.6

3

3.6

2

2.1

2.3

1.6

1.2

1.2

1

0.7

0.9

1.2

0.6

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2003
EU-27

2005
Target

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source: Internal Market Scoreboard No.26, february 2013

Almost half of the transposition deficit of EU Single Market law was 
related to transport and environment in 2012

Figure 10.5: Incompleteness rate of EU Single Market directives, EU-27 directives 
(73) not fully notified by at least one Member State, by policy area, 2012
(%)

10 %

3 %

3 %

3 %

3 %

4 %

5 %

7 %

7 %

9 %

27 %

Transport

Environment

Financial services

Social policy

Veterinary and phytosanitary legislation

Telecommunications and audiovisual services

Motor vehicles and agricultural and forestry tractors

Capital goods

Energy

19 %

Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics

Taxation

Other ﬁelds

Source: European commission services, dG MARKt 

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

165

10

Good	governance

Voter turnout 

1.5 percentage points reduction of voter turnout in national 
parliamentary elections in the EU between 2000 and 2012. The 
trend from previous years remains confirmed, as the turnover of 
citizens casting their vote continues to slightly decrease

Figure 10.6: Voter turnout in national parliamentary elections, EU-27 
(%)

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

70.9

69.4

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

NB:	The	calculation	of	the	Eurostat	estimate	for	the	EU-27	aggregate	level	is	based	on	voter	turnout	in	parliamentary	
elections	for	all	countries	except	Cyprus,	France	and	Romania,	for	which	presidential	elections	are	used	instead.

Source: Election Guide (CEPPS), Eurostat (online data code: tsdgo310)

Figure 10.7: Voter turnout in national and European parliament elections, by 
country
(%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

EU-27 MT LU BE DK IT CY SE AT FR NL DE FI

IE ES SI UK HU EE EL LV SK PT HR LT BG PL RO CZ

IS LI NO CH

TR MK

National elections

European Parliament elections

NB:	The	EU-27	figure	for	national	elections	is	a	Eurostat	estimate.	Data	for	national	elections	refer	to	the	latest	year	in	
which	national	parliamentary	elections	were	held.	For	all	countries,	this	year	lies	between	2006	and	June	2013.

Source: Election Guide (CEPPS), Eurostat (online data code: tsdgo310)

166

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Good	governance

10

Citizens’ online interactions with public authorities

8 percentage points increase in the online interactions of citizens 
with public authorities in the EU between 2008 and 2012. Overall, 
more than 40 % of EU citizens used e-government in 2012

Figure 10.8: Individuals using the internet for interaction with public 
authorities, EU-27
(% of individuals aged 16 to 74)

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

36

2008

2009

Internet usage (general)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tin00012)

44

2010

2011
Internet interactions with public authorities

2012

Figure 10.9: Individuals using the Internet for interaction with public 
authorities, by country
(%)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

EU-27

IT HR BG CY CZ RO PL EL

LT PT MT HU SK UK ES LV SI

IE BE DE AT EE FR LU NL

FI

SE DK

NO IS

2008

2012

NB:	2009	data	for	RO	(instead	of	2008).

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tin00012)

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

167

10

Good	governance

Environmental taxes compared to labour taxes

10.1 % increase in the ratio of labour to environmental taxes in 
the EU from 2000 to 2011. This trend is counter to the EU goals of 
shifting the tax burden from labour to energy and environmental 
taxes (‘greening’ the taxation system) 

Figure 10.10: Ratio of labour to environmental taxes, EU-27
(ratio of the share of labour taxes in total revenues from taxes and social contributions to 
the share of environmental taxes)

8.23

7.48

8.6

8.4

8.2

8.0

7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

7.0

6.8

6.6

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdgo410)

The share of labour taxes in total revenues from taxes and 
social contributions has increased since 2000, while the share of 
environmental taxes has fallen

Figure 10.11: Shares of environmental and labour taxes in total revenues from 
taxes and social contributions, EU-27
(%)

6.7 %

6.2 %

47.0 %

2000

2012

39.0 %

46.3 %

54.8 %

Environmental taxes

Taxes on labour

Other taxes

Source: Eurostat (online data code: tsdgo410)

168

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Abbreviations and 
acronyms

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

Geographical aggregates and countries

EU-28 (1) 

EU-27 

 The 28 Member States of the European Union from 1 July 2013 (BE, BG, CZ, 
DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, 
RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK)

 The 27 Member States of the European Union from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 
2013 (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU, MT, NL, 
AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK)

EU-15 

 The 15 Member States of the European Union from 1 January 1995 to 30 April 
2004 (BE, DK, DE, IE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LU, NL, AT, PT, FI, SE, UK)

Note that EU aggregates are back-calculated when enough information is available — for 
example, data relating to the EU-27 aggregate is presented where possible for periods before 
Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007 and the accession of ten new Member States in 
2004, as if all 27 Member States had always been members of the EU. The label is changed if 
the data refer to another aggregate (EU-15).

European Union Member States

BE  

BG  

CZ  

DK  

DE  

EE  

IE  

EL  

ES  

FR  

HR  

IT  

CY  

LV  

LT  

Belgium  

Bulgaria

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia

Ireland

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia

Italy  

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

(1)	 At	the	time	of	drafting	this	publication,	the	EU-28	aggregate	(including	Croatia	since	its	accession	on	1	July	2013)	was	not	
available.	Therefore,	only	the	EU-27	aggregate	(referring	to	the	situation	in	the	EU	before	the	accession	of	Croatia)	is	used	
for	the	analysis.

170

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

LU  

HU  

MT  

NL  

AT  

PL  

PT  

RO  

SI  

SK  

FI  

SE  

UK  

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

European Free Trade Association (EFTA)

IS  

LI  

NO  

CH  

Iceland (2)

Liechtenstein 

Norway 

Switzerland 

EU candidate countries

ME  

MK  

RS  

TR  

Montenegro 

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (3)

Serbia 

Turkey

(2)	 Note	that	Iceland	is	also	an	EU	candidate	country.
(3)	 The	name	of	the	former	Yugoslav	Republic	of	Macedonia	is	shown	in	tables	as	‘FYR	Macedonia’.	This	does	not	prejudge	
in	any	way	the	definitive	nomenclature	for	this	country,	which	is	to	be	agreed	following	the	conclusion	of	negotiations	
currently	taking	place	on	this	subject	at	the	United	Nations.

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

171

Abbrevi
Abbreviations	and	acronyms

Countries from the rest of the world

JP 

KR 

RU  

US 

Japan

South Korea

Russia

United States

Units of measurement

% 

°C 

: 

EUR 

GWh 

kg 

kgoe 

km 

Mtoe 

pkm 

ppm 

tkm 

TOE 

TWh 

US$ 

per cent

degree Celsius

data not available

euro

gigawatt hours

kilogram

kilograms of oil equivalent

kilometre

million tonnes of oil equivalent

passenger kilometre

parts per million

tonne-kilometre

tonnes of oil equivalent

terawatt hours

US dollar

Abbreviations

AIC 

AMS 

Actual individual consumption

Aggregated measurement of support

AROPSE  At risk of poverty or social exclusion

CCS 

CFP 

Carbon capture and storage

Common Fisheries Policy

172

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

CHP 

CO2 

CSR 

DAC 

DMC 

EDP 

EEA 

Combined heat and power

Carbon dioxide

Corporate Social Responsibility

Development Assistance Committee

Domestic material consumption

Excessive deficit procedure

European Environment Agency

EERP  

European Economic Recovery Plan

EMAS 

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme 

EFTA 

EQLS 

European Free Trade Association 

European Quality of Life Survey

ERDF 

European Regional Development Fund

ESD  

ESS 

Effort Sharing Decision

European Statistical System

ET 2020 

‘Education and Training 2020’ Framework

EU 

European Union

EU ETS  

EU Emissions Trading System

EU LFS 

EU Labour Force Survey

EU SDS 

EU Sustainable Development Strategy

EU SILC 

EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

FAO 

FDI 

GDP 

GE 

UN Food and Agriculture Organization

Foreign direct investment

Gross domestic product

Green economy

GHG 

Greenhouse gas

GNI 

GNP 

HLY 

ICT 

Gross national income

Gross national product

Healthy life years

Information and communications technology

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

173

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

IEA 

ILO 

IMF 

International Energy Agency

International Labour Organisation

International Monetary Fund

IPCC 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRTAD 

International Road Traffic Accident Database

ISCED 

International Standard Classification for Education

ITR 

Implicit tax rate

IUCN 

International Union for Conservation of Nature

JRC 

Joint Research Centre 

LDCs 

Least-developed countries

LLL 

Lifelong learning

LMICs 

Lower middle-income countries

LULUCF 

Land use, land-use change and forestry

MDGs 

Millennium Development Goals

MEA 

MIP 

MSY 

Multilateral environmental agreement

Macroeconomic imbalances procedure

Maximum sustainable yield

NECD 

National Emissions Ceilings Directive

NEET 

Not in education, employment or training

NGOs 

Non-governmental organisations

NH3 

Ammonia

NMVOC  Non-methane volatile organic compounds

NNI 

NO2 

NOX 

NRP 

Net national income

Nitrogen dioxide

Nitrogen oxides

National Reform Programmes

NUTS 

Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics

O3 

Ozone

ODA 

Official development assistance

174

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

OECD 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OLICs 

Other low-income countries

PEC 

Primary energy consumption

PIAAC 

Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies

PISA 

PM 

QoL 

Programme for International Student Assessment

Particulate matter

Quality of life

OWG 

Open working group

R&D 

RDI 

RMC 

RME 

RTD 

SCP 

SD 

Research and development

Research and Development Initiative

Raw material consumption

Raw material equivalents

Research and technological development

Stability Convergence Programmes

Sustainable development

SDGs 

Sustainable development goals

SDIs 

SGP 

SME 

SMS 

SO2 

SOX 

TAC 

TFC 

Sustainable development indicators

Stability and Growth Pact

Small and medium enterprises

Single Market Scoreboard

Sulphur dioxide

Sulphur oxides

Total allowable catch

Transferable fishing concessions

UAA 

Utilised agricultural area

UMICs  

Upper middle-income countries

UN 

United Nations

UNCSD 

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UNEP 

United Nations Environment Programme

  Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

175

Abbreviations	and	acronyms

UNESCO  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNGA 

United Nations General Assembly

VAT 

Value added tax

WCED 

World Commission on Environment and Development

WHO  

World Health Organization

WMO  

World Meteorological Organization

WTO 

World Trade Organization

176

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages  

European Commission

Sustainable development in the European Union — Key messages

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2013 —  176 pp. —  14.8 x 21 cm

Theme: General and regional statistics 
Collection: Statistical books

ISBN 978-92-79-31158-1
doi:10.2785/1163
Cat. No: KS-03-13-331-EN-C

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

•	

•	

	one	copy:	
via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	more	than	one	copy	or	posters/maps:	
from	the	European	Union’s	representations	(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);		
from	the	delegations	in	non-EU	countries	(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);		
by	contacting	the	Europe	Direct	service	(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)	or	
calling	00	800	6	7	8	9	10	11	(freephone	number	from	anywhere	in	the	EU)	(*).	

(*)	The	information	given	is	free,	as	are	most	calls	(though	some	operators,	phone	boxes	or	
hotels	may	charge	you)

Priced publications:

•	

	via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

•	

	via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union		
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

	
Sustainable development in the 
European Union

Key messages

Sustainable	development	is	a	fundamental	and	
overarching	objective	of	the	European	Union,	
enshrined	in	the	Treaty.	The	EU	Sustainable	
Development	Strategy	(EU	SDS)	brings	together	
the	many	strands	of	economic,	social	and	
environmental	policy	under	one	overarching	
objective	—	to	continually	improve	the	quality	
of	life	and	well-being	for	present	and	future	
generations.

The	Eurostat	monitoring	report,	based	on	the	EU	
set	of	sustainable	development	indicators	and	
published	every	two	years,	provides	an	objective,	
statistical	picture	of	progress	towards	the	goals	
and	objectives	of	the	EU	SDS.	This	‘lite’	version	
of	the	2013	monitoring	report	makes	use	of	the	
universal	language	of	visuals,	offering	a	shortcut	
to	the	essence	of	the	messages	delivered	through	
the	full	version	of	the	monitoring	report.	It	thus	
provides	a	snapshot	of	the	key	trends	related	to	
sustainable	development	in	the	European	Union.	
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat 

For	quick	access	to	some	
of	the	main	findings	of	the	
2013	monitoring	report	
of	the	EU	sustainable	
development	strategy,	
watch	the	video	‘Keeping	
the	balance	—	Eurostat	
figures	for	sustainable	
development	of	the	EU’.

K
S
-
0
3
-
1
3
-
3
3
1
-
E
N
-
C

doi:	10.2785/1163