,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!: A European Union Strategy For Sustainable Development

14
A European Union strategy for sustainable development
10 KA-39-01-732-EN-C
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
A European Union
strategy
for sustainable
development
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!
EN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
A EUROPEAN UNION
STRATEGY
FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
European Commission
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
European Communities, 2002
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Foreword
Over the last 10 years the European Union has made a number of important advances, such as
the completion of the internal market and the introduction of the euro. More recently, the
European Council, at its meeting in Lisbon in March 2000, launched a strategy aimed at turning Europe into the world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, with
more and better jobs, within 10 years.
Alongside these economic reforms there has been a growing recognition that material prosperity has to go hand in hand with social progress and environmental responsibility if it is to be sustainable. The social fabric and the natural environment around us are as fundamental to our
quality of life, and to that of future generations, as our economic performance. This vision of balanced and responsible progress in social, economic and environmental spheres is precisely what
is captured by the idea of sustainable development.
In May 2001 the Commission published a proposal for a sustainable development strategy. The
Commissions proposal was well received by the Gothenburg European Council in June, and
many key elements of our proposal found their way directly into the summits written conclusions. The Gothenburg summit also confirmed that in future there would be a stocktaking at
every spring European Council, to see what progress has been made in implementing the strategy. This means that sustainable development is now very much at the top of the European
Unions agenda.
This brochure brings together the key documents that featured during this process of drawing
up and debating the EU sustainable development strategy. It includes the Commissions consultation paper on sustainable development, the Commissions strategy proposal itself, and the
conclusions of the Gothenburg European Council. The Economic and Social Committee also
played a very valuable role in organising a stakeholder conference in April 2001 to discuss the
Commissions consultation paper, and summary proceedings of that conference are also included here.
The strategy sets out very clearly what will have to be done if we are to put the EU on a more
sustainable path. For example, in the environmental field we need to take measures to help tackle climate change, to reduce emerging risks to public health from hazardous chemicals, to manage natural resources more wisely and to improve the performance of our transport systems. The
scope and variety of these challenges make it clear that sustainable development is not an academic concept with no practical importance it is about real issues and real choices that profoundly affect our daily lives.
The EU strategy also calls for a new approach to policy-making that takes better account of the
interdependence between policy areas such as transport and the environment, or health and
poverty and that focuses on the long term rather than finding quick fix solutions. Too often
in the past policies in different areas have worked against one another, rather than acting in a
mutually supportive way. Better use of scientific expertise and more comprehensive dialogue
with stakeholders are also vital ingredients for improving the policy process. Sustainable devel3
opment will sometimes require hard choices, and so fair and transparent decision-making are at
a premium.
While the EUs sustainable development strategy adopted at Gothenburg focuses mainly on
what is needed to move Europe towards more sustainable development, we should not forget
that sustainable development has an important global dimension. Sustainable development has
always had a close connection to trade and development, following the important contributions
of the Brundtland Report in 1987 and United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
It is clear that in a world where environmental and social problems can cross even continental
boundaries, sustainable development requires improved governance at both national and international levels.
The EU will therefore aim to play a leading role at this years United Nations World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the 10-year follow up to the 1992 Rio Summit. The
EU sustainable development strategy will be part of the EU contribution to that summit. But this
strategy will be extended, early in 2002, to include the global dimension. This will address the
challenge of integrating markets, global governance and development finance, with the aim of
moving towards a global partnership for sustainable development. This package will provide a
concrete plan both for putting Europe on a path to a more sustainable future, and to pursue sustainable development on the global scale.
In sum, sustainable development sets us the task of reshaping our policies to combine high environmental standards and social cohesion with a dynamic economy. The EU sustainable development strategy has set out a challenging road map for achieving this, and it is now up to us to
live up to these challenges, both for ourselves, and to protect the interests of those generations
to come.
Romano Prodi
Contents
Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001

Presidency conclusions (extracts)
A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for

sustainable development
Communication from the Commission (COM(2001) 264 final)
17
Consultation paper for the preparation of a European Union strategy for

sustainable development Working document from the Commission
services (SEC(2001) 517)
45
Shaping the strategy for a sustainable European Union Views from civil
society and public authorities Joint public hearing organised by the
European Commission and the Economic and Social Committee
(Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001)
97
Presidency
conclusions
Gothenburg European Council

15 and 16 June 2001
(extracts)
PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS
[]
II. A strategy for sustainable

development
19. Sustainable development to meet the needs of the
present generation without compromising those of
future generations is a fundamental objective under
the Treaties. That requires dealing with economic, social
and environmental policies in a mutually reinforcing
way. Failure to reverse trends that threaten future quality of life will steeply increase the costs to society or make
those trends irreversible. The European Council welcomes the submission of the Commissions communication on sustainable development which includes important proposals for curbing such trends.
20. The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainable
development which completes the Unions political
commitment to economic and social renewal, adds a
third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy
and establishes a new approach to policy-making. The
arrangements for implementing this strategy will be
developed by the Council.
21. Clear and stable objectives for sustainable development
will present significant economic opportunities. This has
the potential to unleash a new wave of technological
innovation and investment, generating growth and
employment. The European Council invites industry to
take part in the development and wider use of new environmentally friendly technologies in sectors such as
energy and transport. In this context the European
Council stresses the importance of decoupling economic growth from resource use.
A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A new approach to policy-making

22. The Unions sustainable development strategy is based
on the principle that the economic, social and environmental effects of all policies should be examined in a
coordinated way and taken into account in decisionmaking. Getting prices right so that they better reflect
the true costs to society of different activities would provide a better incentive for consumers and producers in
everyday decisions about which goods and services to
make or buy.
23. To improve policy coordination at the level of the
Member States, the European Council:
invites Member States to draw up their own national
sustainable development strategies;
underscores the importance of consulting widely with
all relevant stakeholders and invites Member States to
establish appropriate national consultative processes.
24. To achieve better policy coordination in the Union, the
European Council:
will at its annual spring meetings give policy guidance,
as necessary, to promote sustainable development in
the Union;
invites the Union institutions to improve internal policy coordination between different sectors; the horizontal preparation of the sustainable development strategy
will be coordinated by the General Affairs Council;
notes that the Commission will include in its action
plan for better regulation to be presented to the Laeken
European Council mechanisms to ensure that all major
policy proposals include a sustainability impact assessment covering their potential economic, social and
environmental consequences.
25. To build an effective review of the sustainable development strategy, the European Council:
invites the Council to examine, for the purposes of
implementing the strategy, the proposals in the
10
Commission communication, in particular its proposals

for headline objectives and measures, as well as the
sixth environmental action programme and the sector
strategies for environmental integration;
will review progress in developing and implementing
the strategy at its annual spring meetings, in line with
the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council;
notes that the Commission will evaluate implementation of the sustainable development strategy in its
annual synthesis report, on the basis of a number of
headline indicators, to be agreed by the Council in time
for the spring European Council 2002; at the same
time, the Commission will present a report assessing
how environment technology can promote growth and
employment;
supports the Commissions work on a draft on labelling
and traceability of GMOs;
asks the Council to take due account of energy, transport and environment in the sixth framework programme for research and development.
The global dimension

26. Sustainable development requires global solutions. The
Union will seek to make sustainable development an
objective in bilateral development cooperation and in all
international organisations and specialised agencies. In
particular, the EU should promote issues of global environmental governance and ensure that trade and environment policies are mutually supportive. The Unions
sustainable development strategy forms part of the
Unions preparations for the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development. The Union will seek to
achieve a global deal on sustainable development at the
summit. The Commission undertakes to present a communication no later than January 2002 on how the
Union is contributing and should further contribute to
global sustainable development. In this context, the
Union has reaffirmed its commitment to reach the UN
11
target for official development assistance of 0.7 % of

GDP as soon as possible and to achieve concrete
progress towards reaching this target before the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
in 2002.
Targeting environmental priorities

for sustainability
27. Building on the Commission communication on sustainable development, the sixth environmental action programme and the sector strategies for environmental integration, the European Council has, as a first step, singled
out a number of objectives and measures as general
guidance for future policy development in four priority
areas: climate change, transport, public health and natural resources, thus complementing decisions on social
and economic issues taken by the European Council in
Stockholm.
Combating climate change

28. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity are
contributing to global warming with repercussions on
the worlds climate. Therefore, the conference of the
parties in mid-July in Bonn must be a success. The
Community and the Member States are determined to
meet their own commitments under the Kyoto
Protocol. The Commission will prepare a proposal for
ratification before the end of 2001 making it possible
for the Union and its Member States to fulfil their commitment to rapidly ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The
European Union will work to ensure the widest possible participation of industrialised countries in an effort
to ensure the entry into force of the protocol by 2002.
To enhance the Unions efforts in this area, the
European Council:
reaffirms its commitment to delivering on Kyoto targets and the realisation by 2005 of demonstrable
progress in achieving these commitments; recognising that the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step, it
12
endorses the objectives set out in the sixth environmental action programme;
furthermore reaffirms its determination to meet the
indicative target for the contribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to gross electricity consumption by 2010 of 22 % at Community
level as set out in the directive on renewable energy;
invites the European Investment Bank to promote
the sustainable development strategy and to cooperate with the Commission in implementing the EU
policy on climate change.
Ensuring sustainable transport

29. A sustainable transport policy should tackle rising volumes of traffic and levels of congestion, noise and pollution and encourage the use of environment-friendly
modes of transport as well as the full internalisation of
social and environmental costs. Action is needed to
bring about a significant decoupling of transport growth
and GDP growth, in particular by a shift from road to
rail, water and public passenger transport. To achieve
this, the European Council:
invites the European Parliament and the Council to
adopt by 2003 revised guidelines for trans-European
transport networks on the basis of a forthcoming
Commission proposal, with a view to giving priority,
where appropriate, to infrastructure investment for
public transport and for railways, inland waterways,
short sea shipping, intermodal operations and effective interconnection;
notes that the Commission will propose a framework
to ensure that by 2004 the price of using different
modes of transport better reflects costs to society.
Addressing threats to public health

30. The European Union must respond to citizens concerns
about the safety and quality of food, use of chemicals
13
and issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases and

resistance to antibiotics. To this end, the European
Council:
notes the Commissions intention to present formal
proposals, and invites the Council and the European
Parliament to adopt them, so that the chemicals policy is in place by 2004, thereby ensuring that within a
generation chemicals are only produced and used in
ways which do not lead to a significant impact on
health and the environment;
notes the Commissions intention to present by the
end of 2001 action plans for tackling issues related to
outbreaks of infectious diseases and resistance to
antibiotics;
urges the European Parliament and the Council to
profit from the substantial progress achieved and
rapidly agree on the final adoption of the European
Food Authority and food law regulation in order to
comply with the time frame agreed at the Nice and
Stockholm European Councils;
asks that the possibility of the creation of a European
surveillance and early warning network on health
issues be examined.
Managing natural resources more

responsibly
31. The relationship between economic growth, consumption of natural resources and the generation of waste
must change. Strong economic performance must go
hand in hand with sustainable use of natural resources
and levels of waste, maintaining biodiversity, preserving
ecosystems and avoiding desertification. To meet these
challenges, the European Council agrees:
that the common agricultural policy and its future
development should, among its objectives, contribute to achieving sustainable development by
increasing its emphasis on encouraging healthy, high-
14
quality products, environmentally sustainable production methods, including organic production,

renewable raw materials and the protection of biodiversity;
that the review of the common fisheries policy in
2002 should, based on a broad political debate,
address the overall fishing pressure by adapting the
EU fishing effort to the level of available resources,
taking into account the social impact and the need to
avoid over-fishing;
that the EU integrated product policy aimed at
reducing resource use and the environmental impact
of waste should be implemented in cooperation with
business;
halting biodiversity decline with the aim to reach this
objective by 2010 as set out in the sixth environmental action programme.
Integrating environment into

Community policies
32. The Council is invited to finalise and further develop
sector strategies for integrating environment into all relevant Community policy areas with a view to implementing them as soon as possible and present the results
of this work before the spring European Council in
2002. Relevant objectives set out in the forthcoming
sixth environmental action programme and the sustainable development strategy should be taken into account.
[...]
15
Communication
from the Commission
A sustainable Europe for

a better world:
A European Union strategy for
sustainable development
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Towards a sustainable Europe
21
Sustainable development a broader long-term vision
21
Making sustainable development happen: achieving our ambitions
26
Improve policy coherence

Get prices right to give signals to individuals and businesses
Invest in science and technology for the future
Improve communication and mobilise citizens and business
Take enlargement and the global dimension into account
26
28
28
29
31
Setting long-term objectives and targets: identifying priorities

for action
32
Action is needed across a wide range of policies

Limit climate change and increase the use of clean energy
Address threats to public health
Manage natural resources more responsibly
Improve the transport system and land-use management
32
33
34
36
37
Implementing the strategy and reviewing progress: steps after

Gothenburg
38
Annual stocktaking checks our progress

Working methods need to change
Medium-term reviews allow us to adapt the strategy to changes
in long-term priorities
Annex1: The goals of the Lisbon strategy in the field of social policy
38
39
40
41
19
I. Towards a sustainable Europe

Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
World Commission on Environment and
Development (the Brundtland Commission), 1987
At its meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 the European
Council invited the European Commission to prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy dovetailing policies for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development
to be presented to the European Council in June 2001. This
paper responds to that invitation. It builds on the
Commission services consultation paper issued in March,
and on the many responses to it.
Sustainable development is a global objective. The European
Union has a key role in bringing about sustainable development, within Europe and also on the wider global stage,
where widespread international action is required. To meet
this responsibility, the EU and other signatories of the 1992
United Nations Rio declaration committed themselves, at
the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General
Assembly in 1997, to draw up strategies for sustainable
development in time for the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development. This strategy forms part of the EU
preparations for that summit.
Sustainable development should be

seen as a global objective
the Brundtland Commission
Sustainable development
a broader long-term vision
Just over one year ago at Lisbon, the European Council set a
new strategic goal for the Union: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world capable of sustainable economic growth with more
and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The Stockholm
European Council then decided that the EU sustainable
development strategy should complete and build on this
political commitment by including an environmental dimension. This recognises that in the long term, economic growth,
social cohesion and environmental protection must go hand
in hand.
Completing and building on the

Lisbon strategy
21
Providing a positive vision for the

future
Sustainable development offers the European Union a positive long-term vision of a society that is more prosperous and
more just, and which promises a cleaner, safer, healthier environment a society which delivers a better quality of life for
us, for our children, and for our grandchildren. Achieving
this in practice requires that economic growth supports
social progress and respects the environment, that social policy underpins economic performance, and that environmental policy is cost-effective.
A strategy to unleash opportunities

to invest for the long term
Decoupling environmental degradation and resource consumption from economic and social development requires a
major reorientation of public and private investment towards
new, environmentally friendly technologies. The sustainable
development strategy should be a catalyst for policy-makers
and public opinion in the coming years and become a driving force for institutional reform, and for changes in corporate and consumer behaviour. Clear, stable, long-term objectives will shape expectations and create the conditions in
which businesses have the confidence to invest in innovative
solutions, and to create new, high-quality jobs.
Focusing on the most acute threats
To bridge the gap between this ambitious vision and practical political action, the Commission proposes that the strategy should focus on a small number of problems which pose
severe or irreversible threats to the future well-being of
European society:
22
The main threats to sustainable development

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity are
causing global warming. Climate change is likely to
cause more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods)
with severe implications for infrastructure, property,
health and nature.
Severe threats to public health are posed by new antibiotic-resistant strains of some diseases and, potentially,
the longer term effects of the many hazardous chemicals currently in everyday use; threats to food safety are
of increasing concern.
One in every six Europeans lives in poverty. Poverty and
social exclusion have enormous direct effects on individuals such as ill health, suicide, and persistent unemployment. The burden of poverty is borne disproportionately
by single mothers and older women living alone. Poverty
often remains within families for generations.
While increases in life expectancy are obviously welcome,
combined with low birth rates the resultant ageing of
the population threatens a slowdown in the rate of economic growth, as well as the quality and financial sustainability of pension schemes and public healthcare.
Spending could increase by up to 8 % of gross domestic
product in many Member States between 2000 and
2040.
The loss of biodiversity in Europe has accelerated dramatically in recent decades. Fish stocks in European
waters are near collapse. Waste volumes have persistently grown faster than GDP. Soil loss and declining fertility
are eroding the viability of agricultural land.
Transport congestion has been rising rapidly and is
approaching gridlock. This mainly affects urban areas,
which are also challenged by problems such as inner-city
decay, sprawling suburbs, and concentrations of acute
poverty and social exclusion. Regional imbalances in the
EU remain a serious concern.
23
Solving these problems calls for a

new policy agenda
Very few of these unsustainable trends are new. Attempts

have been made at many levels of government and society to
address them. Initiatives such as local Agenda 21 have
proved to be an effective means of building a consensus for
change at local level. However, these efforts so far have only
had limited success due to the difficulty in changing established policies and patterns of behaviour, and in bringing the
responses together in a coordinated way. Tackling these
unsustainable trends and achieving the vision offered by sustainable development requires urgent action, committed and
far-sighted political leadership, a new approach to policymaking, widespread participation; and international responsibility.
Doing nothing may be much more

costly than taking early action
Urgent action is needed: Now is the time to confront the

challenges to sustainability. Many of the trends that threaten sustainable development result from past choices in
production technology, patterns of land use and infrastructure investment, which are difficult to reverse in a short
time frame. Although the major impacts of losses in biodiversity, increased resistance to antibiotics, or climate
change may be felt only after many years, by then they may
be very costly or impossible to tackle.
Political leadership is needed to take

tough decisions
Political leadership is essential: Strong political commitment will be needed to make the changes required for sustainable development. While sustainable development will
undoubtedly benefit society overall, difficult trade-offs
between conflicting interests will have to be made. We
must face up to these trade-offs openly and honestly.
Changes to policy must be made in a fair and balanced way,
but narrow sectional interests must not be allowed to prevail over the well-being of society as a whole.
A coherent, long-term view should

guide policy
A new approach to policy-making: Although the Union

has a wide range of policies to address the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability, these
have developed without enough coordination. Too often,
action to achieve objectives in one policy area hinders
progress in another, while solutions to problems often lie
in the hands of policy-makers in other sectors or at other
levels of government. This is a major cause of many longterm unsustainable trends. In addition, the absence of a
coherent long-term perspective means that there is too
24
much focus on short-term costs and too little focus on the

prospect of longer term winwin situations.
Action must be taken by all and at all levels: Many of the
changes needed to secure sustainable development can
only successfully be undertaken at EU level. Clear examples arise in policy areas where the Community has exclusive legal competence, or where integrated European
economies mean that uncoordinated action by Member
States is likely to be ineffective. In other cases, action by
national, regional or local governments will be more
appropriate. However, while public authorities have a key
role in providing a clear long-term framework, it is ultimately individual citizens and businesses who will deliver
the changes in consumption and investment patterns needed to achieve sustainable development.
Everyone has a contribution to

make. A strong EU role is essential
A responsible partner in a globalised world: Many of the

challenges to sustainability require global action to solve
them. Climate change and biodiversity are obvious examples. The Commission believes that developed countries
must take the lead in pursuing sustainable development,
and calls on other developed countries to accept their
responsibilities as well. The Commission believes that the
EU should start by putting its own house in order, to provide international leadership and as a first step towards
achieving global sustainability. As EU production and consumption have impacts beyond our borders, we must also
ensure that all our policies help prospects for sustainable
development at a global level.
Acting at home will provide

international leadership
To meet these challenges the Commission proposes an EU

strategy in three parts:
1:
A set of cross-cutting proposals and recommendations

to improve the effectiveness of policy and make sustainable development happen. This means making sure that
different policies reinforce one another rather than
pulling in opposite directions.
2:
A set of headline objectives and specific measures at EU

level to tackle the issues which pose the biggest challenges to sustainable development in Europe.
3:
Steps to implement the strategy and review its progress.

25
II. Making sustainable

development happen:
achieving our ambitions
Current policies need to change
To achieve sustainable development requires changes in the

way policy is made and implemented, both at EU level and
in Member States. This in turn requires clear commitment at
the highest level. This section makes a number of proposals
aimed at securing more effective responses to the challenges
we face.
Improve policy coherence

All policies should be judged by
how they contribute to sustainable
development
Sustainable development should become the central objective of all sectors and policies. This means that policy-makers
must identify likely spillovers good and bad onto other
policy areas and take them into account. Careful assessment
of the full effects of a policy proposal must include estimates
of its economic, environmental and social impacts inside and
outside the EU. This should include, where relevant, the
effects on gender equality and equal opportunities. It is particularly important to identify clearly the groups who bear
the burden of change so that policy-makers can judge the
need for measures to help these groups to adapt.
Assessments should take a more consistent approach and
employ expertise available from a wide range of policy areas.
To do this, we need better

information, especially to deal
with risk and uncertainty
To assess proposals systematically better information is

needed. For example, the implications of an ageing population are still imperfectly understood, as are the implications
for biodiversity and public health of some types of environmental pollution or of chemicals such as endocrine disrupters. However, in line with the precautionary principle,
lack of knowledge must not become an excuse for lack of
action or for ill-considered action. Risk and uncertainty are a
part of life. The role of science and research is to help identify the nature of the risks and uncertainties we face, so as to
provide a basis for solutions and political decisions. Policymakers have a responsibility to manage risk effectively, and
to explain its nature and extent clearly to the public.
26
Action
All policies must have sustainable development as their
core concern. In particular, forthcoming reviews of common policies must look at how they can contribute more
positively to sustainable development:
The mid-term review of the common agricultural policy
in 2002 should reward quality rather than quantity by,
for example, encouraging the organic sector and other
environmentally friendly farming methods and a further
shift of resources from market support to rural development.
The common fisheries policy should promote the sustainable management of fish stocks in the EU and internationally, while securing the long-term viability of the
EU fishing industry and protecting marine ecosystems.
The common transport policy should tackle rising levels
of congestion and pollution and encourage use of more
environmentally friendly modes of transport.
The cohesion policies need to improve their targeting of
the least developed regions and those with the most
acute structural problems such as urban decay and
the decline of the rural economy and the groups in
society most vulnerable to persistent social exclusion.
The Commission will submit an action plan to improve
regulation to the Laeken European Council in
December. This will include mechanisms to ensure that
all major legislative proposals include an assessment of
the potential economic, environmental and social benefits and costs of action or lack of action, both inside and
outside the EU. The Council and Parliament should
amend legislative proposals in the same spirit.
27
Get prices right to give signals to

individuals and businesses
Getting prices right will encourage
changes in behaviour and technology
Market prices have a powerful influence on the behaviour of

individuals and businesses. Market reforms to get prices
right can create new business opportunities to develop services and products that ease pressure on the environment and
fulfil social and economic needs. Sometimes, this means public money for services which would otherwise not be supplied, such as essential public services in sparsely populated
areas. More often, the issue is one of removing subsidies that
encourage wasteful use of natural resources, and putting a
price on pollution. Changing prices in this way provides a
permanent incentive for the development and use of safer,
less polluting technologies and equipment, and will often be
all that is needed to tip the balance in their favour.
Action
The Commission will give priority in its policy and legislative proposals to market-based approaches that provide
price incentives, whenever these are likely to achieve social
and environmental objectives in a flexible and cost-effective
way.
Invest in science and technology

for the future
Advances in knowledge and
technology are vital
Our continued long-term prosperity depends critically on

advances in knowledge and technological progress. Without
these investments, adjustment to sustainable development
will have to happen much more through changes in our consumption patterns. By promoting innovation, new technologies may be developed that use fewer natural resources,
reduce pollution or risks to health and safety, and are cheaper than their predecessors. The EU and Member States
should ensure that legislation does not hamper innovation
or erect excessive non-market barriers to the dissemination
and use of new technology.
Public funding to support technological change for sustainable development should focus on basic and applied
28
research into safe and environmentally benign technologies,

and on benchmarking and demonstration projects to stimulate faster uptake of new, safer, cleaner technologies. Public
procurement policies provided they are not a cover for
protectionism are an additional means to accelerate the
spread of new technology. A green purchasing initiative
from the private sector could similarly increase the use of
environmentally benign products and services.
Action
The Community should fully exploit the potential of the
next Community framework programme for research to
support research activities related to sustainable development as a part of the European research area.
Drawing on the guidance document the Commission will

issue shortly, Member States should consider how to
make better use of public procurement to favour environmentally friendly products and services.
The Commission will encourage private sector initiatives to incorporate environmental factors in their purchasing specifications.
The Commission invites industry to identify what it considers the major obstacles to the development and wider
use of new technologies in sectors such as energy, transport and communications.
The Community should contribute to establishing by

2008 a European capacity for global monitoring of environment and security (GMES).
Improve communication and mobilise

citizens and business
Although science and scientific advice are a key input to
decision-making, public confidence in its objectivity has
been shaken by events such as recent human and animal
health scares. There are concerns that the policy responses
have been driven more by narrow sectional interests than the
wider interests of society. This perception is part of a wider
malaise. Many believe that policy has become too techno29
cratic and remote, and is too much under the influence of

vested interests. To tackle this rising disaffection with the
political process, policy-making must become more open.
More open policy-making will
improve policy and stimulate citizens
and business to get involved
An open policy process also allows any necessary trade-offs

between competing interests to be clearly identified, and
decisions taken in a transparent way. Earlier and more systematic dialogue in particular with representatives of consumers, whose interests are too often overlooked may
lengthen the time taken to prepare a policy proposal, but
should improve the quality of regulation and accelerate its
implementation. The views of those from outside the Union
should also be sought.
Widespread popular ownership of the goal of sustainable
development depends not only on more openness in policymaking but also on the perception that individuals can,
through their own actions, make a real difference. For example, local Agenda 21 has been effective at promoting sustainable development at the local level. The education system
also has a vital role to play in promoting better understanding of the aim of sustainable development, fostering a sense
of individual and collective responsibility, and thereby
encouraging changes in behaviour.
Public policy also has a key role in encouraging a greater
sense of corporate social responsibility and in establishing a
framework to ensure that businesses integrate environmental
and social considerations in their activities. Some of the most
far sighted businesses have realised that sustainable development offers new opportunities and have begun to adapt
their investments accordingly. Business should be encouraged to take a proactive approach to sustainable development in their operations both within the EU and elsewhere.
30
Action
The Commissions forthcoming White Paper on governance will include proposals on wide-ranging consultation of stakeholders from within and outside the Union,
typically including a public hearing, before tabling any
major policy proposal. Reviews of major policies will similarly seek to obtain the views of stakeholders.
All publicly-quoted companies with at least 500 staff are

invited to publish a triple bottom line in their annual
reports to shareholders that measures their performance against economic, environmental and social criteria.
EU businesses are urged to demonstrate and publicise
their worldwide adherence to the OECD guidelines for
multi-national enterprises, or other comparable guidelines.
Member States should consider how their education systems can help develop wider understanding of sustainable development.
Take enlargement and the global

dimension into account
The EU strategy should look beyond the Unions present
borders to be relevant for the countries which will join the
Union during the coming years. These future Member States
face many of the same problems, but also have a number of
distinctive features. For example, they have much richer biodiversity. However, economic and social disparities will be
wider in an enlarged Union. The new Member States will
have much larger agricultural populations on average, and a
backlog of investment in infrastructure and in production
technology. Future reforms of Community policy will have to
take account of these differences. Candidate countries
should be actively involved in implementing this strategy.
The EU strategy must look beyond

our current borders
Moreover, many EU policies influence prospects for sustainability far beyond the borders of the Union, and EU production and consumption increase the pressure on shared
global environmental resources. It is therefore important to
ensure that measures we take to move towards sustainable
development in Europe contribute towards sustainable
Sustainable development in the EU

must foster global sustainability
31
development in the rest of the world. Our policies internal and external must actively support efforts by other
countries particularly those in the developing world to
achieve development that is more sustainable.
Cooperation with other countries
and international organisations is
important
To make an effective contribution to achieving global sustainable development the EU and its Member States need to
cooperate effectively with other countries and international
institutions, including the OECD, the World Trade
Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the
United Nations Environment Programme. The role of the
EU in helping to achieve sustainable development in this
wider context will be dealt with comprehensively by our
preparations for the Rio + 10 Summit in South Africa in
2002.
Action
The Commission will present a communication in the first
half of 2002 further setting out its views on how the Union
should contribute to global sustainable development, in
advance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(Rio + 10) in Johannesburg. Among other issues, this communication should address the question of mobilising additional financial resources for development aid, in particular
to reduce global poverty.
III. Setting long-term objectives

and targets: identifying
priorities for action
Action is needed
across a wide range of policies
Concrete actions are needed
32
The main challenges to sustainable development identified

above cut across several policy areas. Accordingly, a comprehensive, cross-sectoral approach is needed to address these
challenges. Concrete actions in specific policy areas should
be built on the policy principles set out in the previous section. Reforms to existing Community policies must aim to
maximise their contribution to the strategic objectives of the

EU strategy for sustainable development.
Recent European Councils at Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm
have already agreed objectives and measures to tackle two of
the six issues that pose the biggest challenges to sustainable
development in Europe: combating poverty and social exclusion, and dealing with the economic and social implications
of an ageing society. This strategy does not propose new
actions in these areas. However, these objectives are an integral part of the EU strategy for sustainable development and
are set out in Annex 1 below.
The EU strategy must fully

integrate the economic,
environmental and social
pillars of sustainable
development
For the remaining four issues, the Commission proposes the

following set of priority objectives and measures at EU level.
Meeting these objectives will also require action to be taken
by Member States, both in their domestic policies, and in the
decisions taken by the Council on changes to Community
policies. The Commission will report on progress in meeting
all the goals of the strategy in its report to the annual spring
European Council (the synthesis report).
Limit climate change and increase

the use of clean energy
Headline objectives
The EU will meet its Kyoto commitment. However, Kyoto
is but a first step. Thereafter, the EU should aim to reduce
atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions by an average of
1 % per year over 1990 levels up to 2020.
The Union will insist that the other major industrialised
countries comply with their Kyoto targets. This is an indispensable step in ensuring the broader international effort
needed to limit global warming and adapt to its effects.
Measures at EU level
Adoption of the energy products tax directive by 2002.
Within two years of this, the Commission will propose
more ambitious environmental targets for energy taxation
aiming at the full internalisation of external costs, as well as
33
indexation of minimum levels of excise duties to at least

the inflation rate.
Phase out subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption by 2010. Where necessary, put in place flanking
measures to help develop alternative sources of employment. Analyse whether there is a need to create a stockpile
of coal reserves, and whether or not we should maintain a
minimum level of subsidised production for security of
supply reasons. Commission proposal in 2001 for adoption
by Council before the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in July
2002. Take account of the specific situation of some candidate countries in the accession treaties.
Greenhouse gas emission reduction measures based on the
outcome of the European climate change programme.
Specifically, the Commission will propose by end-2001 a
proposal for the creation of a European CO2 tradable permits system by 2005.
Alternative fuels, including biofuels, should account for at
least 7 % of fuel consumption of cars and trucks by 2010,
and at least 20 % by 2020. The Commission will make a
proposal in 2001 for adoption in 2002.
Clear action to reduce energy demand, through, for example, tighter minimum standards and labelling requirements
for buildings and appliances to improve energy efficiency.
More support to the research, development and dissemination of technology on:
clean and renewable energy resources;
safer nuclear energy, namely the management of nuclear
waste.
Address threats to public health

Headline objectives
Make food safety and quality the objective of all players in
the food chain.
34
By 2020, ensure that chemicals are only produced and used

in ways that do not pose significant threats to human
health and the environment.
Tackle issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases
and resistance to antibiotics.
Improve consumer information and awareness, including
through education, and clear labelling of food.
Creation of a European Food Authority in 2002.
Improve capacity to monitor and control health impacts of
certain substances (for example dioxins, toxins, pesticides)
in food and the environment, especially their effects on
children.
Reorient support from the common agricultural policy to
reward healthy, high-quality products and practices rather
than quantity; following on from the 2002 evaluation of the
tobacco regime, adapt the regime so as to allow for a phasing out of tobacco subsidies while putting in place measures to develop alternative sources of income and economic activity for tobacco workers and growers and decide an
early date accordingly.
Develop by 2003 a comprehensive Community strategy to
promote health and safety at work, to achieve a substantial
reduction in work accidents and professional illness.
All legislation to implement the new chemicals policy in
place by 2004.
The Commission will present by the end of 2001 a
European action plan to slow resistance to antibiotics,
through improving information, phasing out their use as
growth promoters in agriculture, and better control of the
use of antibiotics in human, animal, and plant care.
Create by 2005 a European capacity to monitor and control outbreaks of infectious diseases.
35
Manage natural resources more

responsibly
Headline objectives
Break the links between economic growth, the use of
resources and the generation of waste.
Protect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt
the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
Improve fisheries management to reverse the decline in
stocks and ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marine
ecosystems, both in the EU and globally.
Develop an integrated product policy in cooperation with
business to reduce resource use and the environmental
impacts of waste.
EU legislation on strict environmental liability in place by
2003.
The Commission will establish a system of biodiversity
indicators by 2003.
The Commission will propose a system of resource productivity measurement to be operational by 2003.
In the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy,
improve the agri-environmental measures so that they provide a transparent system of direct payments for environmental services.
In the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy, remove
counter-productive subsidies which encourage over-fishing, and reduce the size and activity of EU fishing fleets to
a level compatible with worldwide sustainability, while
addressing the consequent social problems.
36
Improve the transport system and

land-use management
Headline objectives
Decouple transport growth significantly from growth in
gross domestic product in order to reduce congestion and
other negative side-effects of transport.
Bring about a shift in transport use from road to rail, water
and public passenger transport so that the share of road
transport in 2010 is no greater than in 1998 (the most
recent year for which data are available).
Promote more balanced regional development by reducing
disparities in economic activity and maintaining the viability of rural and urban communities, as recommended by
the European spatial development perspective.
The Commission will propose in 2002 a framework for
transport charges to ensure that by 2005, prices for different modes of transport, including air, reflect their costs to
society.
Implement in 2003 a framework ensuring through the use
of intelligent transport systems the interoperability of payment systems for road transport; promote further technological progress enabling the introduction of road pricing.
Give priority to infrastructure investment for public transport and for railways, inland waterways, short sea shipping
and intermodal operations. In particular, the Commission
will propose in 2001, for adoption in 2003, a revision of the
guidelines for the trans-European transport networks, and
will promote, in the mid-term review of the Structural
Fund programmes, a marked reduction in the share of
finance given to road transport.
Improve transport systems by addressing missing transport
links, developing open markets and cooperation at EU
level (e.g. railway liberalisation, air traffic systems).
European single sky to be operational by 2004.
37
Promote teleworking by accelerating investments in next

generation communications infrastructure and services.
In 2001, start the implementation of the European spatial
planning observatory network (ESPON) in order to define
a set of territorial indicators to analyse the regional impacts
of Community policies.
Assess the coherence of the zoning of different Community
policies, taking account of their objectives (e.g. Natura
2000, less-favoured agricultural areas, areas eligible under
the Structural Funds or for State aids).
Diversify income sources in rural areas, including by
increasing the proportion of common agricultural policy
funds directed to rural development.
Encourage local initiatives to tackle the problems faced by
urban areas; produce recommendations for integrated
development strategies for urban and environmentally sensitive areas.
IV. Implementing the strategy

and reviewing progress: steps
after Gothenburg
Annual stocktaking checks
our progress
Regular monitoring and reporting
of progress, based on indicators
38
The Stockholm European Council decided that all dimensions of sustainable development should be reviewed at the
annual spring European Council. Measuring progress will
imply adding a number of indicators to those already agreed
for monitoring the Lisbon strategy. These indicators flow
naturally from the long-term objectives and targets the
Commission is proposing in this document.
Action
The Commission will report to each spring European
Council in its synthesis report on progress in implementing the sustainable development strategy.
The Commission will propose a small number of headline
performance indicators for this purpose to the
Barcelona European Council in spring 2002.
The process of integration of environmental concerns
in sectoral policies, launched by the European Council in
Cardiff, must continue and provide an environmental
input to the EU sustainable development strategy, similar
to that given for the economic and social dimensions by
the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines. The sectoral environmental integration
strategies should be consistent with the specific objectives
of EU sustainable development strategy.
Working methods need to change

At all stages of the Community legislative process, policy
proposals in individual sectors are developed and discussed
without paying sufficient attention to the linkages between
different policy areas. The way the Commission, Council and
Parliament are organised reinforces this narrow, sectoral
approach. All three institutions should consider what steps
they can take to overcome this weakness.
All Community
institutions should review
their working methods
The Commission will improve its internal procedures to

deliver more consistent policy proposals. The Council of
Ministers and the European Parliament should also review
their working methods. The Council should change its structures to improve the coordination and consistency of the
work of the sectoral Councils. The European Parliament
should consider creating a sustainable development committee to give a view on the wider implications of sectoral policy proposals. This committee could consist of representatives of other committees, as is the case with the financial
control committee.
39
Action
The Commission will establish a sustainable development
round table of about 10 independent experts offering a
broad range of views, who will report directly to the
Commission President in time for the preparation of the
Commissions synthesis report to the spring European
Council and make recommendations to improve the coherence of Community policies.
Medium-term reviews allow us to

adapt the strategy to changes in
long-term priorities
Periodic far-reaching reviews
will keep the strategy on track
Sustainable development is by its nature a long-term objective. While annual stocktaking is important to maintain
momentum and give early warning of unforeseen difficulties,
too much focus on short-term developments and details may
cause us to lose sight of the bigger picture. For this reason,
the European Councils annual exercise should be periodically complemented by a more comprehensive review at the
beginning of each Commissions term of office.
This should examine the strategys effectiveness in achieving
sustainable development. Over time, the severity of some
problems or the value of some measures may change,
and new, more pressing problems may emerge. Regular
medium-term reviews will permit the Union to adapt the
strategy to these changes and to changes in our long-term
policy objectives.
The voices of stakeholders,

including those from outside
the Union, must be heard
40
Opening the review to stakeholders will increase its credibility and value. The Unions efforts to achieve sustainable
development ultimately depend on widespread ownership
of the strategy by individuals and businesses, as well as civil
society and local and regional authorities. Prospects for public acceptance of the strategy will be greater, the more it is
based on comprehensive dialogue with representatives of
society at large.
Action
The EU strategy for sustainable development will be comprehensively reviewed at the start of each Commissions
term of office.
Starting in 2002, the Commission will hold a two-yearly
stakeholder forum to assess the EU strategy. The
Commission invites the Economic and Social Committee
to join it in organising this conference.
Annex 1: The goals

of the Lisbon
strategy in the
field of social policy
The commitments made at the Lisbon, Nice and Stockholm
summits are summarised below.
Combat poverty
and social exclusion
Headline objective
Make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty.
Raise the employment rate to 67 % for January 2005 and
to 70 % by 2010; increase the number of women in
employment to 57 % for January 2005 and to more than
60 % by 2010.
Halve by 2010 the number of 1824-year olds with only
lower secondary education who are not in further education and training.
Combat social exclusion by creating the economic conditions for greater prosperity through higher levels of growth
and employment, and by opening up new ways of participating in society.
41
Strengthen the implementation of the European employment strategy. Define common approaches to maintaining
and improving the quality of work which should be included as a general objective in the 2002 employment guidelines.
Complete work by the end of 2001 on updating existing
legislation on implementing the principle of equal treatment of men and women as regards access to employment,
vocational training and promotion and working conditions.
Agree in the course of 2001 the proposal for a social inclusion programme.
Agree by the end of 2001 indicators on quality in work and
for combating social exclusion. Develop indicators on the
provision of care facilities for children and other dependants and on family benefit systems by 2002. Develop indicators to ensure that there are no discriminatory pay differentials between men and women.
Deal with the economic and social

implications of an ageing society
Headline objectives
Ensure the adequacy of pension systems as well as of
healthcare systems and care of the elderly, while at the
same time maintaining sustainability of public finances and
inter-generational solidarity.
Address the demographic challenge by raising employment
rates, reducing public debt and adapting social protection
systems, including pension systems.
Increase the average EU employment rate among older
women and men (5564) to 50 % by 2010.
Use the potential of the open method of coordination in
the field of pensions and prepare a report on the quality
42
and sustainability of pensions in the light of demographic

change in view of the spring European Council 2002.
Identify coherent strategies and practical measures with a
view to fostering lifelong learning for all.
The Council should regularly review the long-term sustainability of public finances, including the expected changes
caused by the demographic changes ahead, both under the
broad economic policy guidelines and in the context of stability and convergence programmes.
An in-depth discussion will take place at the Laeken
European Council in 2001 on immigration, migration and
asylum within the framework of the Tampere follow-up. In
this connection, due attention should be given to the position of third-country nationals legally residing in the
Union.
The Council and the Commission to report jointly, in time
for the spring European Council in 2002, on how to
increase labour-force participation and promote active ageing.
43
Working document
from the Commission services
Consultation paper for the

preparation of a European
Union strategy for sustainable
development
WORKING DOCUMENT FROM THE COMMISSION SERVICES
Contents
Foreword
49
1.
Introduction
50
1.1. Why a sustainable development strategy for the European Union?

1.2. The political context of this communication
1.3. Interpreting sustainable development
1.4. The opportunities of sustainable development
1.5. Ensuring added value
50
52
52
53
55
Main sustainability challenges for Europe
55
2.1. Focusing on the most important issues
55
Topic
Topic
Topic
Topic
Topic
Topic
58
63
67
71
74
78
2.
3.
4.
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
Climate change and clean energy

Public health
Management of natural resources
Poverty and social exclusion
Ageing
Mobility, land use and territorial development
Common problems
83
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
83
83
84
85
86
86
Wrong incentives
Sectoral policy inconsistency
Short-termism in policy-making
Policy inertia
Limited understanding
Inadequate communication and dialogue
Common solutions: A toolkit for sustainable development in Europe
87
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
87
87
88
89
90
91
Introduction
A common basis for policy design and implementation
Long-term targets and intermediate milestones
Creating markets and getting prices right
Sectoral policy coherence
Technology at the service of society
Improving knowledge and understanding sound science,
risk and transparency
92
47
4.8. Better information, education and participation

4.9. Measuring progress: indicators
5. Conclusions
48
93
94
95
Foreword
The Helsinki European Council in
December 1999 invited the European
Commission to prepare a proposal for a
long-term strategy dovetailing policies for
economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development for the Gothenburg
European Council in June 2001.
This consultation paper is designed to provide the analytical underpinnings for this
strategy. It sets out the Commission services
initial views on the challenges and opportunities of sustainable development. It identifies some important trends that pose a threat
to sustainable development in the EU, and
presents a policy toolkit for tackling these
problems. This consultation paper does not
include specific objectives and measures.
These will be contained in the Commissions
proposal for a sustainable development strategy to the Gothenburg European Council.
Accordingly, this paper aims to generate discussion and encourage input from other EU
institutions and civil society. The
Commission services propose to structure
the debate around the 10 questions in the
box. All stakeholders are therefore invited to
express their views on these issues and to
consider what more concrete measures
should be included in the EU sustainable
development strategy for Gothenburg.
Questions
1. Does focusing on a limited number of
the most pressing problems help to
make the concept of sustainable development operational? Do the six themes
chosen embody the main long-term
challenges confronting European society?
2. This document focuses on sustainable
development problems in Europe. Are
there any cases in which actions to place
European society on a more sustainable
path might make the attainment of sustainable development at a global level
more difficult? How can reforms of EU
policies support efforts to achieve sustainable development worldwide?
3. Since sustainable development is a longterm idea, it should be of clear relevance
to accession countries. To what extent
are the challenges they face different
from those in the current Member
States?
4. Do you share the analysis of the causes of
these problems and their potential remedies identified here? Do you have any
additions to the policy toolkit?
5. What practical measures can be taken to
better translate the principle of policy
integration into concrete action to
achieve greater sectoral policy consistency?
6. Governments cannot deliver sustainable
development on their own. Business,
workers, and civil society have an indispensable role to play. How do we make
this happen?
7. How can we ensure that the costs of
adjusting to sustainable development are
minimised, and the opportunities seized?
49
8. In what areas of sustainable development do you see a clear policy role for
the European Union?
9. What are the most urgent steps the
European Union should take in the
framework of an EU sustainable development strategy?
10. What specific objectives would you like
to see included in the EU strategy for
Gothenburg? What arrangements
should be foreseen to ensure their
implementation?
1. Introduction
1.1. Why a sustainable
development strategy
for the European
Union?
During the course of the 20th century, the
countries of the European Union have
become enormously richer in material terms.
Average incomes are now around five times
what they were in 1900. Many inequalities
have been reduced through more widespread
access to education and the development of
systems of welfare provision. Life expectancy
has increased sharply due to better hygiene,
nutrition and medical care. In most respects
therefore, our standards of living now are
higher than they have ever been.
Growing economic interdependence resulting from the single market, globalisation, and
new communication technologies provide a
strong spur to efficiency and increased productivity, and offer new opportunities at all
levels. But these positive developments
50
should not blind us to a number of potential

threats. Indeed, not everyone is equipped to
take advantage of these new opportunities.
There is a real risk that some will fall behind
and be unable to catch up. There is also a
growing awareness that we are putting
increased pressure on the carrying capacity
of our planet. A number of worrying longterm trends have emerged:
Main challenges for sustainability
Severe weather events may become more
frequent if we do not act to avert climate
change. Rising sea levels threaten the very
existence of some small island States, and
we should not forget that a large part of the
European population lives at or below sea
level.
Recurrent, persistent, poorly understood
threats to food safety, rampant antibioticresistant strains of bacteria, the unexplained
emergence of toxic algal blooms: these are
all warning signs that we are interfering
with our environment in unforeseen ways.
Unresolved, these and other menaces to
animal and human health threaten our very
survival.
One in every six Europeans more than
the population of all but the largest
Member States lives in poverty. Income
disparities are widening in some Member
States. Our social systems are failing to
deliver on a large scale, and are ill-equipped
to deal with the ageing of the population.
We are failing to secure the long-run viability of our natural environment. Recent
decades have seen very significant losses in
biodiversity. A high percentage of existing
species is at risk of extinction. Fish stocks in
European waters are close to collapse.
In major cities, transport congestion has

been rising rapidly and is approaching gridlock. This has major social, economic and
environmental costs which fall largely,
though not exclusively, on the three quarters of the European population who live in
urban areas. Enlargement will intensify the
challenge of achieving economic and social
cohesion.
The Communitys responsibility

The EU Member States share a significant
number of common values and aspirations,
together with a similar sense of what constitutes progress and how our societies should
develop over the next generation. The aim of
a European sustainable development strategy
should be to give substance to this vision,
and to map out what needs to change if we
are to make this vision a reality. Moreover,
the growing institutional, economic and
social interdependence of our countries
requires us to work together to meet these
challenges. In a number of economic sectors,
moves towards sustainable development can
only be achieved by action at the EU level.
Clear examples arise where the Community
has exclusive competence because of internal
market regulations, or where integrated
European markets mean that uncoordinated
action by Member States is likely to be ineffective.
However, achieving sustainable development
will also require action at national, regional
and local level, as well as from business and
citizens. For this reason, in identifying and
analysing the main challenges to sustainability facing the European Union, the
Commission services have not confined
themselves to subjects for which the EU
institutions have an exclusive or shared
responsibility. Moreover, the EU strategy

should look beyond the present borders of
the Union to be relevant for all the countries
that will join the Union in the coming years.
Economic and social disparities will be wider
in an enlarged Union, and many of the problems identified in this paper are faced to a
greater or lesser extent by the future Member
States. Our common future demands a common European approach.
Leading by example
the international dimension
EU policies in areas such as international
trade, foreign direct investment, development cooperation and immigration influence
prospects for sustainability far beyond the
borders of the Union. This is very obviously
the case for issues such as global poverty or
climate change, where the EU and Member
States are only part of a much wider picture.
Furthermore, as a number of developing
countries industrialise and approach
European levels of economic development
there will be a gradual increase in global
environmental pressures. Sustainable development is therefore a global objective that
the EU cannot achieve by itself.
Tackling these problems will require a coherent international approach by international
organisations. However, to provide credible
and effective leadership in this global context, the EU has to show it can make progress
at home towards sustainable development, as
well as meet its international commitments.
This paper therefore focuses squarely on policy reforms needed within Europe to enhance
sustainable development. It will nevertheless
be important to consider whether any of the
measures that we might take in Europe to
move towards sustainable development
might put at risk the prospects for sustainable
development in the rest of the world.
51
The role of the EU in helping to achieve sustainable development on a global scale will
be dealt with much more comprehensively by
our preparations for the Rio + 10 Summit in
South Africa in 2002. This work has already
started, as described in a recent Commission
Communication Ten years after Rio:
Preparing for the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in 2002 (1). The
EU also has an important role to play in
international organisations, such as the
World Trade Organisation and the upcoming
UN Conference on Least Developed
Countries. Our influence in this wider context will be all the greater if we can demonstrate that we are putting our own house in
order and thereby improving prospects for
global sustainability.
1.2. The political context of

this communication
Sustainable development was put on the
global political map by the 1992 United
Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, following the report of the World Commission
on Environment and Development (the
Brundtland report) in 1987 (2). At the Rio
+ 5 follow-up conference in 1997, the EU
and other signatories of the Rio declaration
committed themselves to drawing up sustainable development strategies for the Rio + 10
World Summit on Sustainable Development
in South Africa next year.
The Amsterdam Treaty, which came into
effect in 1999, makes sustainable development one of the core tasks of the European
Community. Article 2 of the EC Treaty states
(1) COM(2001) 53; European Commission, 2001.
(2) Our common future; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987.
52
that The Union shall set itself the following

objectives [...] to promote economic and
social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through [...]
the strengthening of economic and social
cohesion.
Against this background, the Heads of State
or Government asked the European
Commission in Helsinki in 1999 to draw up a
European sustainable development strategy
and submit it to the European Council at
Gothenburg in June 2001.
This consultation paper is the first step in
this process. It sets out the analytical basis for
the EU sustainable development strategy. It
gives the Commission services initial views
on sustainable development, and the challenges and opportunities it presents. More
specifically, it identifies some persistent
trends that pose a threat to sustainable development in Europe, and analyses the causes of
these problems. Finally, it presents a policy
toolkit to put Europe on a more sustainable
path.
Comments on this paper are invited from all
stakeholders as the Commission finalises its
proposals for the Gothenburg European
Council.
1.3. Interpreting
sustainable
development
The most widely quoted definition of sustainable development is that in the
Brundtland report. It defines sustainable
development as development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs. In essence, ensuring a better

quality of life now and for future generations.
There are many alternative interpretations of
sustainable development, and even with the
definition above it is clear that different
views are possible on what is meant by the
term needs. Nevertheless, there is a broad
consensus that, at a minimum, sustainable
development captures two important ideas:
That development has an economic, a
social and an environmental dimension.
Development will only be sustainable if a
balance is struck between the different
factors that contribute to the overall quality of life.
That the current generation has an obligation to future generations to leave sufficient stocks of social, environmental and
economic resources for them to enjoy levels of well being at least as high as our
own.
Because of its origins in the environmental
movement, sustainable development used to
be dismissed as a luxury that should not be
bought at the expense of economic growth.
But sustainable development is much more
than a purely environmental concept it
poses the fundamental challenge of combining a dynamic economy with a society offering opportunities to all, while improving
resource productivity and decoupling growth
from environmental degradation.
Although sustainable development has a very
wide scope it should not be seen simply as a
convenient way to bundle loosely together a
collection of social, economic and environmental problems under a new label. Instead,
a comprehensive perspective is needed that
ensures that policies both sectoral and
horizontal are mutually supportive rather
than working against one another. Achieving

this in practice will oblige policy-makers to
ensure that economic growth is not bought at
the expense of a social divide and environmental deterioration, that social policy
underpins rather than undermines economic
performance, and that environmental policy
is based on sound science and is cost-effective.
1.4. The opportunities of

sustainable
development
While sustainable development will require
changes to individual business and consumer
behaviour to avoid some negative consequences for society as a whole present or
future it also offers great opportunities.
Indeed, many of the more far-sighted businesses have already realised that sustainable
development offers new possibilities and
have begun to adapt their operations and
investment plans accordingly.
It is now increasingly recognised that stringent environmental policy need not put a
brake on economic growth even as conventionally measured (3). While environmental
regulation can impose a one-off cost in terms
of economic output, these costs are at least
partly offset by a boost to employment and
revenues in eco-industries providing cleaner
technologies and services. Moreover, the evidence shows that the long-run growth rate
depends largely on the rate of technological
progress. Policies for sustainable development could increase economic growth by
(3) Current statistical measures of economic performance,
such as gross domestic product (GDP), are valuable indicators, but are limited in many ways. For example, GDP
does not take into account the costs of pollution or put a
value on unpaid work.
53
boosting our rate of innovation, and may

eventually lead to goods that are cheaper to
buy and use than their dirty predecessors.
In addition, many of the more concrete policies needed for sustainable development are
likely to have a positive impact on economic
growth. For example:
Policy-making in the last quarter century
has tended to underexploit the potential of
the labour market and overexploit natural
resources. The inefficiencies in present tax
systems mean that there is scope to price
labour back into the market and pollution
out of it.
Removing unnecessary or harmful subsidies will bring direct financial benefits to
tax payers and improve the efficiency of the
economy. Market reform to get prices right
will create new business opportunities to
develop services and products that ease
pressure on the environment, and that fulfil social and economic needs.
Policies to reduce poverty and extend
opportunity to all can help avoid the waste
of resources and individual talent that are
implied by social exclusion and unemployment, while lowering the costs of social
support.
Better pricing and new technologies can
break the trend of increasing congestion on
our roads by encouraging greater use of
other modes of transport and more efficient use of infrastructure. This will prevent gridlock and save time and other costs
for business and the general public.
Enhancing economic and social cohesion
by helping lagging regions to exploit their
full productive potential should benefit the
Community as a whole.
54
Encouraging the research, development,

and innovative use of new, cleaner and
more efficient energy technologies will not
only have a positive impact on the environment and possibly employment, but also on
the security of European energy supply.
Creating the opportunities

These examples show that there are many
winwin situations. A sustainable development strategy should seek to identify and
exploit these opportunities, fostering economic efficiency, employment growth and
environmental friendliness. The EU has an
industry with a rich potential in the application of efficient and environment-friendly
technologies. This is one of Europes most
promising assets. To exploit this potential,
policy must provide Europes industry with a
better framework for innovation and technological development.
More generally, policy-makers should create
the conditions in which citizens and businesses are encouraged to integrate environmental and social considerations in all their
activities. Although this will be beneficial for
society as a whole, some policy changes create clear winners and losers. In such cases,
we need to ensure that we pursue policies
that are in the general public interest, while
making sure that those who have to adapt to
changes in policy are treated fairly and do not
suffer unnecessary costs. Sustainable development therefore has an important institutional dimension. It cannot be achieved without good governance and active public participation (4).
(4) These issues will be dealt with in much more detail

in the Commissions forthcoming White Paper on
governance.
1.5. Ensuring added value

The EU sustainable development strategy
will need to build on the foundations of several processes rooted in Treaty provisions
which already guide European economic,
social and environmental policy-making.
The broad economic policy guidelines, and
the economic reform process initiated at the
Cardiff Summit in 1998, provide a solid
framework for economic policy coordination. Employment and social policy coordination has given rise to guidelines for
employment and labour market reform and
to cooperation between Member States in
modernising social protection and promoting
social inclusion. Environmental policy has its
own process for the integration of environmental concerns into other sectoral policies
(the Cardiff process), while at the beginning
of this year, the Commission proposed the
sixth environmental action programme setting out a 10-year perspective for EU environmental policy.
At Lisbon in March 2000, the Heads of State
or Government decided to bring various
social and economic initiatives together in a
single annual review, geared towards making
Europe the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world
capable of sustainable economic growth with
more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. As there is some obvious overlap
between the scope of the Lisbon review
process and the sustainable development
strategy, the Commission has proposed in its
report to the Stockholm European Council
to complete the Lisbon process by integrating an environmental dimension, and suggested that to ensure consistency between the
two, the mechanisms to review progress
should be dovetailed.
In order not to duplicate the work contained

in other policy reviews, the EU sustainable
development strategy should focus on a small
number of themes where a cross-cutting
approach provides new insights by taking
into account the spillovers between decisions
in different sectoral policies. The sustainable
development strategy can also add value to
existing initiatives by putting stronger
emphasis on the long term. As the following
sections of this document show, many of the
trends that threaten sustainable development
are the consequence of past choices in production technology, patterns of land use and
infrastructure investment, and are difficult to
tackle in a short time frame. The decisions we
take in the near future will also have longterm effects over many decades on our patterns of development and their social, economic and environmental consequences. It is
therefore important that we address our current problems as a matter of urgency.
2. Main sustainability
challenges for Europe
2.1. Focusing on the most
important issues
By its very nature, sustainable development is
an inclusive approach to policy-making. Its
scope covers almost any issue with an important social, economic or environmental component. This very wide perspective has both
advantages and disadvantages there is a
trade-off between breadth of coverage and
depth of analysis. The Commission services
have deliberately limited the scope of this
consultation paper to a small number of
issues that in their view pose the greatest
threat to sustainable development.
55
Choosing a set of topics to include implies

making judgments. The criteria that we have
used to judge whether a topic should be covered in the EU sustainable development
strategy are:
Severity Do current trends pose a significant threat to our quality of life or
threaten to significantly reduce our stocks
of social, environmental and economic
assets? Are the costs of doing nothing
likely to be high or unevenly distributed?
The time dimension and irreversibility
Is there a slow burn problem that worsens only gradually but that may be very
costly or impossible to put right if action
is left to a very late stage? Is there a significant inter-generational aspect?
A European dimension Is the problem
identified common to a number of EU
countries, or are there spillover effects
between countries? Are policy responses
likely to have implications going beyond
national boundaries?
Based on these criteria, the Commission services propose the following six topics as priorities for inclusion in the European sustainable development strategy:
climate change and clean energy;
public health;
management of natural resources;
poverty and social exclusion;
ageing and demography;
mobility, land use and territorial development.
56
Clearly, each of these topics covers a very

wide range of issues and we cannot hope to
provide a comprehensive picture here.
Moreover, within each broad heading, there
are some problems and policy dilemmas that
are much more acute than others. Within
each topic we have therefore again narrowed
our focus by applying the criteria above, in
order to identify those trends that pose the
most serious threat to sustainable development:
Climate change is a global problem which
can only be solved by widespread international cooperation. While its impacts are
difficult to predict precisely, they could
include changes in agricultural patterns,
land use, disease zones, water supplies,
increased risk of natural disasters and
flooding, and resulting labour migration.
These would have enormous economic and
social consequences. Decoupling economic
activity from emissions of greenhouse gases
notably carbon dioxide requires a
major shift to clean energy use, which will
not be achieved quickly or easily.
Severe threats to public health are posed by
the growth in antibiotic-resistant strains of
some diseases, which reduce the effectiveness of existing treatments. We also do not
yet know enough about the longer term
effects of the thousands of chemicals currently in use. Health problems related to
sedentary lifestyles or poor eating habits
are often passed from parents to their children. All Member States face the challenge
of delivering high standards of healthcare
without excessively burdening public
finances.
Our management and use of natural
resources has implications for the wellbeing of future generations. Loss of biodiversity and the resultant reduction in gene-
tic resources are irreversible. Restoring fish

stocks to sustainable levels will not be
achieved unless the severity of the problem
is recognised and traditional management
attitudes change. The volume of waste
some of it hazardous is rising inexorably.
Poverty and social exclusion are problems
common to all Member States. The severity of the issue can be judged from the fact
that one European in six is poor (with
much higher concentrations in some
groups such as one-parent families), and
poor health, low educational attainment
and deprivation tend to be passed from one
generation to the next. Moreover, rapid
changes in technology raise the threat of a
digital divide and a two-tier society.
All European countries face similar challenges due to the ageing of their populations. This will place considerable stresses
on the funding of pensions. Ageing populations may also place higher demands on
healthcare services and on long-term care,
though much will depend on whether people enjoy relatively good health in old age.
The structure of the population alters very
slowly over time: those who will be pensioners at the start of the second half of this
century have already been born, as has a
substantial part of the future population of
working age.
Current patterns of mobility cause severe
pollution and congestion throughout
Europe. Emissions of greenhouse gases
from transport are growing more rapidly
than from any other source, and in many
urban areas traffic seems to be grinding
gradually to a halt. Transport infrastructure
is one of several factors influencing territorial development and land use. In turn,
concentration of economic activities can
give rise to congestion, but also has eco-
nomic benefits such as the creation of business networks and fluid labour markets,
and can allow new solutions to emerge
such as the provision of urban public transport systems.
Each of the topics touches to a greater or
lesser extent on each of the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development. Each topic is relevant for
a number of existing Community and national policy areas. Moreover, each is linked to
some of the others. For example:
Addressing climate change should have
beneficial impacts on natural resource use,
on mobility and land use, and on public
health.
Poverty can lead to poor health. Poverty is
also closely related to educational underachievement.
The degree of social exclusion is influenced
by urban planning and land-use policies:
low-income families tend to cluster in
cheap housing, often on outlying suburban
estates. In such areas, investment in transport infrastructure and other facilities may
not be economically viable, so uncontrolled
spatial development can aggravate segregation and social disparities.
The ageing of the population has implications for public health policies.
The following pages identify the main issues
raised by each topic. The discussion of each
takes roughly the same structure. First, the
nature of the problem and its relevance to
sustainable development are described.
Then, the key drivers of the issues raised are
reviewed (where are we? how did we get
here? and where are we going?). Emerging
threats or risks are also highlighted. The
57
examination of each topic concludes with an

outline of the ways in which policy to date
has tried to respond to the problems, and
sets out the main policy challenges which
must be overcome if we are to successfully
tackle these unsustainable trends.
Topic 1:
Climate change
and clean energy
Introduction
Human activity is affecting the planets climate system. Available scientific evidence
shows that the accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere due to human activity is causing global warming. The current
central estimate is that temperature will
increase by between 1 to 6 C by 2100 (5).
Significant geographical variations are
expected, and temperature extremes may be
even more susceptible to change.
Climate change is likely to have severe and
unpredictable consequences, such as higher
mean temperatures and radical changes in
weather patterns and rainfall. Higher temperatures may mean that dry regions become
drier and wet regions wetter. Rapid temperature change may cause more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods) with severe
implications for infrastructure, property,
social systems and nature. Changes in agricultural patterns, land use, water supplies
and the migration of labour will have knockon effects on the economy and society. While
some of these may be beneficial, major dis(5) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working
Group I third assessment report, summary for
policy-makers; IPCC, 2001.
58
eases such as malaria are likely to extend

their reach as temperatures rise, with major
implications for public health.
Climate change is a global problem that the
EU alone cannot solve, as all countries emit
greenhouse gases. In 1992, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) was agreed. At present,
186 nations have ratified this convention and
are legally bound by it. This convention
explicitly recognises the problems posed by
climate change, and sets an ultimate objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic (humaninduced) interference with the climate system. However, the text does not specify precisely what this level should be it remains
a subject of scientific research and political
debate.
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, agreed
in 1997, was an important additional step,
committing developed countries to emission
reduction and limitation targets for greenhouse gases. The EU agreed to cut emissions
by 8 % relative to 1990 levels by the years
200812. However, the Kyoto Protocol has
not yet been ratified by most signatories, and
in particular none of the industrialised countries, and is therefore not yet legally binding.
Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change estimates that to stabilise
CO2 concentrations at even around twice the
pre-industrial atmospheric concentration
would require cuts in global emissions of
around 50 to 70 % over the next 100 years.
This implies that implementing the Kyoto
Protocol will only be a first step.
At present, the developed world has far higher emissions per capita than developing
countries (the EU accounts for around 14 %
of global CO2 emissions, but about 6 % of

world population, while the rest of the
OECD has about 35 % of emissions and
11 % of world population). This raises
important questions about how to reconcile
the need to cut global emissions with economic growth and development in poorer
countries. However, it also needs to be borne
in mind that greenhouse gas emissions from
less developed countries are expected to surpass those of industrialised countries in the
next 15 years. Thus, any long-term solution
to climate change needs to include all nations
of the world.
Major concerns and driving forces

Global greenhouse gas emissions have
increased seven-fold during the 20th century.
This has largely been the result of increased
use of fossil fuels for energy as economies
have grown. The main facts and figures for

the EU are:
The dominant greenhouse gas produced by
human activity is CO2 released from consumption of fossil fuels which accounts for
around 80 % of emissions. The remaining
20 % are due to other gases, such as
methane, nitrous oxides and the fluorinated gases (HFC, PFC, SF6).
Some greenhouse gases have bigger effects
on global warming than others. In order to
put different gases on a comparable basis,
the emissions figures for non-CO2 gases are
usually converted to tonnes of CO2 equivalents (6). The table below gives 1990 total
EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions by sector
on this basis as well as projected growth to
2010 (7).
(6) The conversions are based on the global warming potential for 100 years, as agreed in the IPCC. The GWP for
methane is 21, nitrous oxide 310 and for the fluorinated
gases more than 1 000. In other words, methane is 21
times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
(7) These figures include the projected effects of a number of
recent policy measures, such as the landfill directive, the
voluntary agreement with vehicle manufacturers to cut
CO2 emissions from cars, the renewables directive, and
the liberalisation of the energy market.
59
Table: Projected growth of greenhouse gas emissions

between 1990 and 2010
1990
Mt CO2 eq.
Baseline 2010
Mt CO2 eq.
Growth 2010/1990
%
1 421.7
1 276.6
10.2
Industry
757.1
686.1
9.4
Transport
753.1
1 098.2
45.8
Households
447.5
440.0
1.7
Private and public services
175.6
188.9
7.6
Agriculture
417.0
397.6
4.7
Waste
166.4
137.3
17.5
4 138.3
4 224.8
2.1
Energy supply
Total
Source: Environment 2010: Our future, our choice, sixth environmental action programme of the European Community,
COM(2001) 31 final, p. 25.
EU Member States use large amounts of

energy, but they tend to use it relatively
efficiently: energy use and CO2 emissions
per unit of GDP are low compared to most
other countries. However, emissions per
capita from fuel combustion in the EU are
around twice the global average and about
four times the average for developing countries. Due to the legacy of central planning,
the accession countries emit several times
more CO2 per unit of GDP than the current Member States.
Some countries have also managed to make
significant improvements in energy efficiency over time. For example, between
1985 and 1998, the GDP of the EU grew
by 35 % while energy-related CO2 emissions grew only by 4 %. This is partly due
60
to a move towards less energy-intensive

sectors. In addition, a substantial part of
this decoupling has to do with one-off
events, such as the switch from coal to gas
on a large scale as a source of energy supply.
The main driving forces behind emissions in
the EU to date are listed below:
A high level of economic development
linked to a dominance of fossil fuels in
energy supply. Around 80 % of our energy
needs are supplied by fossil fuels. Our current heavy reliance on fossil fuels results
from past investment decisions that were
made without adequate attention being
paid to the long-run environmental
impacts.
Low energy prices: prices in real terms of

oil, natural gas and coal have been relatively low throughout the 1990s and much of
the 1980s. Coal prices declined by almost
50 % between 1990 and 2000 in real terms.
The low price of fossil fuels has reduced
incentives for households, industry and the
transport sector to invest in and use energysaving technologies.
Rapidly increasing demand for mobility,
being met largely by increased road transport and aviation. Between 1970 and 1998
passenger transport demand (measured in
passenger kilometres) increased by over
100 %, as did freight transport (measured
in tonne kilometres). These trends are likely to continue. At present, emissions of
greenhouse gases from transport are growing much faster than any other source.
Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases
such as methane from landfills and fossil
fuel extraction, methane and nitrous oxide
from agriculture, as well as fluorinated
gases (8) from industrial processes.
Policy issues
At the EU level, the only current instrument
specifically aimed at reducing CO2 emissions
is the voluntary agreement of European,
Japanese and Korean car manufacturers to
improve the average fuel efficiency of new
cars by 25 % by 200809. However, some
other measures will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. These include the landfill directive (which will reduce methane emissions
from landfill sites), a proposed directive that
(8) The Montreal Protocol covers the phase out of ozone

depleting gases that are simultaneously greenhouse gases,
such as CFCs and HCFCs. Attention is shifting towards
HFCs, PFCs and SF6, all three of which are covered
under the Kyoto Protocol.
aims to encourage energy from renewable

sources and a directive on integrated pollution prevention and control.
Some policy instruments are best applied at
the national level, whereas others may
require international coordination to be
effective. A number of questions arise concerning the appropriate balance between
policy developed at the EU level and policy
at the national level. At present, the
Commission is working with stakeholders in
the context of the European climate change
programme (ECCP) in order to identify the
building blocks for possible Europe-wide initiatives to implement the Kyoto commitment.
Major issues to contend with are the following:
Meeting the requirements of the Kyoto
Protocol means achieving a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions of 8 % compared
to 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. The costs of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions vary
from sector to sector. Critical questions
therefore are what policy mix is best suited
to implementing a cost-effective approach,
and on which areas or sectors most attention should be focused.
Making the deep cuts in CO2 emissions
and other greenhouse gases needed to help
stabilise atmospheric concentrations in the
long term will require major investments.
For example, in the power generation sector much of the current plant will reach the
end of its operating life during the next
2030 years and there is a continuing
technological and political debate about
the future contribution of various energy sources, including nuclear energy
and renewables, to electricity supply (9).
(9) As described in the recent Green Paper Towards a
European strategy for the security of energy supply
COM(2000) 769.
61
Investments in energy supply, transport

infrastructure, housing and industrial
installations are long lived. It is therefore
vital that consideration be given to what
instruments are needed to ensure that these
investment decisions take into account
these long-run effects.
The costs of reducing emissions are likely
to be significantly lower if cost-effective
instruments are put in place in good time.
A first step would be removal of subsidies
that encourage inefficient use of energy and
are a significant drain on the public purse.
An important question concerns the speed
at which subsidies should be withdrawn,
and how major adverse effects on particular sectors might be limited.
Energy taxes related to the CO2 content of
fuels would be a cost-effective way to
reduce CO2 emissions. Higher taxes would
increase costs in some sectors, but the revenue could be used to cut other taxes. Any
disruptive effects of energy taxes on the
competitiveness of energy intensive sectors
could be minimised by having EU wide
coordinated tax measures. The European
Commission proposed an EU wide carbonenergy tax in 1992, as well as a directive
setting a framework for taxation of energy
products in 1997. However, neither of
these initiatives has been accepted by the
Member States, and progress would
require a significant increase in political
will.
62
The Kyoto Protocol includes a number of

flexibility mechanisms that allow emissions
reductions to be achieved in a more costeffective way, such as emissions trading
schemes. Starting from a target for total
emissions, this instrument allows firms
flexibility to reach this joint target in a costeffective way. Some Member States are
considering introducing emissions trading,
and in this context an important issue is
whether it is best to arrive at European and
international emission trading schemes by
linking national trading schemes, or
through a more centralised design. The
liberalisation of energy markets will
improve operating efficiency in the sector
and lower energy prices. However, this will
increase energy demand in the absence of
any offsetting measures. Consideration
needs to be given to what flanking measures might be appropriate. Liberalisation
has the potential to allow new suppliers to
enter the market (such as renewable energy
sources), provided steps are taken to
ensure that they are granted fair access to
the transmission grid.
While it is uncertain what climate change
will bring, it is fairly certain that some climate change will take place. The damage
that climate change causes will be lower if
we can reduce the rate of change and help
nature and human habitats to adapt.
Efforts to reduce emissions are necessary,
but it is also important to consider now
how our societies can best adapt to climate
change as it occurs.
Topic 2:
Public health
Introduction
A healthy population is crucial for the wellbeing of our societies, and is therefore a prerequisite for sustainable development. A safe
environment and decent healthcare are basic
elements of social and economic progress.
How a society cares for its most fragile members is also a measure of its own health and
sustainability. Good health is important for
our economic and material prosperity: sick
or unhealthy people cannot work and are
dependent on those who do.
In general terms, the health of the
Community population has never been better. Infant mortality has fallen sharply. People
are living longer: between 1960 and 1999,
average life expectancy increased by eight
years for men and women. Nevertheless, in
recent years new potential threats to health
have emerged. A number of major public
health issues which threaten social and economic development are set out below.

Potential threats to our health come from the
substances and products we are exposed to
through the air we breathe, the water we
drink, and the food we eat.
Major health problems and causes of premature mortality, such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases and road accidents, are
related to lifestyles. Poor nutrition, lack of
exercise, tobacco use and misuse of alcohol, for example, impose a considerable
burden of disease and give rise to substantial costs for individuals and society. Health
problems caused by lifestyles can have sig-
nificant and long-lasting effects, as parents

may pass bad habits on to their children.
Obesity is a rapidly growing problem in
many developed countries, and poor diet
generally is a feature of others.
Poor health is also related to social and
economic inequality. Various studies have
shown that relatively disadvantaged populations have lower life expectancy and
higher burdens of morbidity than higher
socioeconomic groups. For example, in the
early 1990s in England and Wales,
unskilled men aged 2064 were almost
three times more likely to die from coronary heart disease than professional workers. Moreover, the difference in death rates
had been widening over the preceding 20
years (10).
The emergence of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) and its transfer to
humans as new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob
disease (nvCJD) have heightened concerns
about food safety and drawn attention to
the incentives facing farmers and the food
industry. According to a recent Commission report (11), by guaranteeing high prices
over decades, agricultural policy contributed to increasing the quantity of food
produced, but had negative effects on the
quality of some food products. In addition,
agricultural policy has paid too little attention to its effect on diet (12).
(10) Report of the independent inquiry into inequalities in
health, UK Stationery Office, 1998.
(11) Agriculture, environment, rural development: facts and
figures a challenge for agriculture; European
Commission, 1999.
(12) For example, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of
17 May 1999 included among its objectives to rebalance
meat consumption in the Community to the benefit of the
beef sector, despite evidence linking higher levels of
consumption to increased risks of heart disease; see also
Agenda 2000 CAP reform decisions Impact analyses,
European Commission, 2000.
63
Various types of environmental pollution

from agriculture, industrial activity and
transport also cause ill health. Indeed,
some studies have suggested that transportrelated air pollution is a bigger killer than
traffic accidents (13), though the impact on
life expectancy is generally less than 12
months, as many of those affected are
chronically ill from other causes.
Importantly, emissions of conventional air
pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and small particles are declining
due to new pollution controls, and this
trend is expected to continue, significantly
reducing their impact on health.
Nevertheless, high levels of pollution may
still occur in some areas. Agricultural
runoff, wastewater discharges, and atmospheric deposition are the main sources of
nutrients in the marine environment which
are suspected to lie behind the unexpected
appearance in several coastal waters of
toxic algal blooms, an emerging threat to
public health.
Chemicals (especially in the form of pharmaceuticals) make an important positive
contribution to public health, but there is
widespread use of chemicals whose properties and risks are poorly understood. There
are gaps in our knowledge about the toxicity or otherwise of the tens of thousands of
chemicals in use in Europe today. While
many of these are surely harmless, recent
studies linking chlorine in the atmosphere
in indoor swimming pools to asthma illustrate the range of our ignorance of the
effects of chemical substances. The increasing incidence of allergies, which now affect
one in three Europeans, has also been
linked with exposure to toxic chemicals,
(13) Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air
pollution: a European assessment, The Lancet, Vol. 356,
pp. 795801.
64
though other factors are also important.

The effects of allergies go beyond their
direct impact on health: they are the major
cause of days lost from school and so may
lead to poor levels of educational achievement.
The substances of most concern are those
that are persistent pollutants that is,
they break down only slowly and are
bio-accumulative that is, they build up
in the body so that continued exposure
to even small doses can have chronic effects
on health. For example, dioxins byproducts of some industrial and combustion processes are a continuing cause for
concern. Despite large and sustained falls
in emissions of dioxins, a recent
Commission study (14) indicated that many
individuals average daily intake of dioxins
was likely to exceed the World Health
Organisation recommended maximum
intake. Higher levels of dioxin exposure
are also related to diet, since dioxins accumulate in fatty foods. Some chemical products have been identified as actual or
potential causes of cancer or physical
deformities. Endocrine disrupters, substances that may interfere with human and
animal reproductive systems, are especially
disquieting.
Communicable diseases, particularly the
re-emergence in a more virulent form of
diseases thought to have been conquered,
continue to threaten the health of the population. The recent rise in tuberculosis
encapsulates the dangers. Increasing levels
of resistance to antibiotics damage public
health: infection that cannot be treated
quickly spreads, and is more likely to be
(14) Compilation of EU dioxin exposure and health data

Summary report; October 1999.
fatal. It is the older and less expensive

drugs that are in more widespread use
which tend to become ineffective as their
targets develop and mutate. If we cannot
master this trend, we risk undoing much of
the social and economic progress that has
been achieved on the back of improved
healthcare. Much of the problem is due to
mis- and overuse of antibiotics (15) for the
treatment of illness of both humans and
farm animals. The remaining four antibiotics still allowed for use as growth promoters and as additives in animal feed are
planned to be phased out by 2006. The
Communitys
Scientific
Steering
Committee has also recommended changes
in animal husbandry as an additional way
to maintain animal health and welfare, and
reduce use of antibiotics (16).
Delivering high-quality health services is a
further challenge. The costs of healthcare
systems are high and rising, and now
absorb an average of around 8 % of GDP
in Member States. Much of this money
might be better spent preventing disease by
encouraging healthier lifestyles. The high
cost of many modern treatments, the high
rate of technological innovation which
makes available treatments for previously
incurable conditions and rising demand
for improved healthcare, place new pressures on the financing of public care services. The impact of the ageing of the
Community population puts further strain
on healthcare costs and could cause public
expenditure on healthcare to rise by 3 % of
GDP.
(15) Antibiotic resistance in the European Union associated
with therapeutic use of veterinary medicines, report and
qualitative risk assessment by the Committee for
Veterinary Medicinal Products, European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 1999.
(16) Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee on antimicrobial resistance, 28 May 1999.
The most important challenges of an ageing population, however, are the need for
better understanding and management of
diseases which particularly afflict the elderly, and for health services to adapt to
provide patterns of care particularly suited
to meeting the needs of frail, elderly
patients, while also meeting the needs of
the healthy aged. These new patterns of
care will require substantial change in the
nature of public healthcare systems, particularly as extended family networks become
less common.
Policy issues
Specific Community competence in the area
of public health only dates from 1993.
Nevertheless, a wide range of policy areas
affects health, so Community action to
address health issues dates back much further than this (17). For example:
A directive on the classification, packaging
and labelling of dangerous substances was
adopted in 1967, and has been updated on
many occasions. The Commission communication on endocrine disrupters (18) listed
some 30 Community legislative measures
relating to environment and health impacts
of chemical products; several of these
measures were directed at improving food
safety by reducing chemical use in farming.
The White Paper on a new Community
chemicals strategy (19) has the overriding
goal of sustainable development. It aims to
protect human health and the environment
(17) Article 152 of the Treaty on European Union states that A
high level of human health protection shall be ensured in
the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities.
(18) Community strategy for endocrine disrupters,
COM(1999) 706, European Commission, 1999.
(19) White Paper Strategy for a future chemicals policy,
COM(2001) 88; European Commission, 2001.
65
while ensuring the competitiveness of the

chemical industry, though its implementation will raise many important practical
questions.
In the area of environmental policy, measures taken under Community legislation to
reduce pollution from large combustion
plants, and vehicle emissions technologies
have contributed to the substantial and
continuing improvements in air quality.
Nevertheless, much research work remains
to be done on assessing the impact of some
pollutants on health, particularly the effects
of small particles.
Four EU action programmes on health and
safety at work have been implemented
since 1978 (20). They have led to
Community measures to protect workers
against dangerous substances and situations, and to improve the working environment.
With Member States responsible for the
organisation and delivery of health services
and medical care, the new Community health
strategy aims to develop a coherent approach
to health issues across all EU policy areas. Its
core objective will be to identify all policies
and actions which might have an impact on
health (including healthcare systems) and to
find ways of assessing the health impact of
these policies. This will require better policy
coordination (a joined-up approach) to
address inter-sectoral issues such as enlargement or social exclusion, and emerging
health problems.
activity, intended to address many of the

issues raised above.
A first objective is to improve health information and knowledge. A comprehensive
health information system will be developed to provide information and data on
health status, health determinants and
health systems to policy-makers, health
professionals and the general public.
A second priority will be to monitor and
respond rapidly to health threats, for
example from communicable diseases. This
could include attention to antimicrobial
resistance, work on hospital infections, vaccine policy, and communicable diseases
such as HIV/AIDS.
Finally, the new public health action plan
will address health determinants. It will
include actions aimed at tackling the
underlying causes of ill health, including
lifestyle and environmental causes, by promoting health and preventing disease.
The proposed public health action programme will focus on three main strands of
As many risks to health result from individual lifestyle choices, giving accurate information to the wider public and improving
understanding at all levels is critically important. Food safety is paramount in this
respect. In recent years, the credibility of
public authorities in the management of food
safety has been severely damaged by the perception that they were more concerned to
protect the economic interests of producers
than the health of consumers. Assessment
and regulation of food safety that is independent of the economic sectors concerned
is thus essential to improve public safety and
to restore public confidence (21). In addition,
( ) OJ C 165 of 11.7.1978, OJ C 67 of 27.2.1984, OJ C 28 of

3.2.1988 and COM(95) 282 of 12.7.1995.
(21) The Commission White Paper on food safety

(COM(1999) 719) proposed creating a European Food
Authority.
20
66
clear labelling of the health and nutritional

properties of foods is long overdue, given the
importance of diet and nutrition to health
and well-being.
Topic 3:
Management of natural
resources
Introduction
Natural resources underpin sustainable
development. They provide essential life support functions such as foods and habitats,
carbon storage and water catchment, and
provide essential raw materials. Although
small changes in most stocks of natural
resources pose little immediate threat, a persistent decline is of great concern for
resources that are difficult or impossible to
replace, such as biodiversity.
We can distinguish broadly between those
natural resources that are renewable if carefully managed (such as fish stocks and fresh
water), and those that are non-renewable
(such as oil and mineral resources). In this
paper, we have concentrated on those where
the long-run trends are of most concern (biodiversity, waste generation, fish stocks). We
also include the question of exhaustion of
non-renewable resources such as minerals
and coal, although on current consumption
rates stocks may last for decades or even centuries.

There are a number of general problems that
undermine the efficient and sustainable use
of natural resources. Different forms of
industrial and agricultural activity affect
many natural resources. When natural
resources are part of a shared commons and

access to their use is open to all, this means
that there is often little incentive for individuals to conserve and use them in a responsible way. Overexploitation can be the result.
Poorly defined or disputed rights of ownership or access to resources weaken the incentives to conserve and use natural resources in
a sustainable way.
Bio-diversity
At present, we are failing to secure the longrun viability of our eco-systems. Despite
measurement problems, there are indications
that recent decades have seen very significant
losses in virtually all types of eco-systems at
EU level. A high percentage of existing
species within the EU are at risk of extinction (22). In recent decades, the trend has
been persistently in the wrong direction, and
this poses a serious long-term threat to the
natural resources on which our economic
and social system depend.
Changing land use is an important factor.
Although measurement is difficult and
imprecise, data for the period 198090 for 11
EU countries indicate that close to 14 % of
land previously considered to be part of natural cover was lost to urban development
and housing. In addition, between 1980 and
1998 there was an 11 % rise in amount of
land taken by road networks in Member
States. A large percentage of all nature conservation sites in Europe can be considered
at
risk
from
new
infrastructure
development (23). Although policy at present
(22) Towards sustainable development Environmental indicators, OECD, 1998.

(23) Headline environmental indicators for the European
Union, European Environment Agency and the
European Commission, forthcoming.
67
tends to pay some attention to preserving

particularly important habitats or sites of
interest from development, the average level
of protection is much lower.
Agriculture also profoundly influences the
pattern of land use. The scale, the scope, and
the nature of production techniques can have
substantial impacts good and bad on
the landscape and on natural habitats.
Intensive aquaculture in sensitive marine
areas is one of the driving forces for the
appearance of toxic phytoplankton which
can kill fish, seabirds and mammals.
Intensive farming practices seem particularly
prone to cause negative effects. These
include monotonous landscapes, the abandonment of traditional management methods, the use of large areas of wetland, moorland and natural rough pasture, pollution of
groundwater by increased use of pesticides
and fertilisers, and reduction in biological
diversity. (24) Another European Commission report noted that intensive farming had
taken little or no heed of its impact on the
environment. (25)
However, it would be too simplistic and
wrong to conclude that agricultural practices do nothing but damage the countryside.
Many landscapes and site-specific environmental amenities reflect a farming heritage.
Particularly in remote or mountainous areas,
agriculture can play a crucial role in preserving attractive landscape features and ecological diversity.
Abandonment of land or of traditional land
management practices in such areas would
(24) European spatial development perspective Towards
balanced and sustainable development of the territory of
the European Union; European Commission, 1999.
(25) Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts and
figures A challenge for agriculture, European
Commission, 1999.
68
be bad for biodiversity and would reduce the

environmental and amenity value of these
areas. Public policy therefore has a potentially important role in setting the right incentives to encourage the management of biodiversity and rural sustainability.
Water resources
At the global level, the problem of water

shortage will prove one of the major challenges over the next few decades. However,
at the level of the EU, there are few water
shortage problems, with the important
exception of parts of southern Europe,
where overexploitation of water has led to
drying out of some areas and to salt water
intrusion in aquifers around the
Mediterranean coast. It is a cause for concern
that in some areas current extraction is tapping water tables that will take centuries to
replenish.
Pollution of water resulting from agricultural, household and industrial activity is a more
widespread phenomenon in Europe. Water
pollution causes damage to aquatic life and
imposes sizeable costs in terms of the treatment needed to supply clean water to agricultural, household and industrial users. The
spread of built-on land, including into natural flood plains, highlights the links between
water management and land-use planning.
Absence of an integrated approach to these
issues is causing increased damage from
floods.
Fish stocks
Fish represent an important renewable

resource that provides a livelihood for those
in the fishing industry and an important food
source. There is strong evidence that existing
rates of harvesting of fish stocks are unsustainable and threaten the viability of major
fishing areas. The International Council for

the Exploration of the Seas has persistently
warned that EU waters are being over-fished.
The same is true worldwide. Stocks of hake
and cod in EU waters are at crisis point, and
catches of all fish are falling rapidly. Landings
of fish in the mid-1970s were nearly twice as
high as in 1998.
Collapse of stocks is potentially disastrous
for those who derive their livelihood from
the industry and has important consequences
for marine eco-systems. The collapse of the
Canadian cod fisheries in the early 1990s
devastated local fishing communities, leaving
them few long-term prospects. The EU
industry is characterised at present by over
capacity, falling employment, and low profitability. Lack of recognition that radical
adjustment is needed has also tended to delay
the introduction of effective adjustment
measures, aggravating the problems of those
in the industry.
Since 1983, the EU has regulated fishing
under the common fisheries policy (CFP).
The CFP has offered, and still offers, important benefits, such as a legal framework for
regulation and enforcement, and a mechanism for restricting access to the main fisheries. On the whole, however, the policy has
serious shortcomings:
cuts. Member States have until recently

lacked the political will to act decisively.
The financial instruments used in the sector under the CFP have tended to work
against each other. The effects of measures
to reduce capacity have been partly offset
by subsidies to modernise and improve
fleet technology. Other operating subsidies,
such as exemption from fuel tax for fishing
vessels, encourage over-fishing.
There are technical problems in the scientific measurement of stocks, and in controlling the impact of fishing on growing fish
and other species: finding a way to reduce
discards fish that are caught and then
thrown back into the sea is a major
problem.
There is evidence that enforcement of regulations on the part of Member States has
been too lax and very uneven, which has
reduced confidence in the CFP as a viable
policy.
The setting of total allowable catches yearby-year has led to a neglect of longer term
conservation and management. Member
States have regularly postponed difficult
decisions because of the short-term costs of
the stringent measures needed for stocks to
recover.
Current policy has failed to secure sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, and
will need to be changed if it is to do so. In the
future, the Community fisheries sector will
have to be significantly smaller than it is
today, if it is to survive. The common fisheries policy is to be reviewed between now
and 2002. Unless there is meaningful reform,
the costs in long-term economic damage to
fishing communities, as well as to the marine
environment, will be high. The recent
Commission Green Paper (26) puts forward
options for a change of approach towards
subsidies in the fisheries sector.
As a result, the quotas that each country is

allowed for catches of fish are too high, and
are difficult to reduce by negotiation as
each country would prefer others to make
(26) The future of the common fisheries policy, COM(2001)

135, European Commission, 2001.
69
Non-renewable resources
Extraction of non-renewable resources such

as coal, oil and minerals may have significant
impacts on landscape and biodiversity if
appropriate measures for waste management
and restoration are not undertaken. A balance clearly has to be struck between exploiting these resources and protection of nature.
In addition, there has been a long-running
debate about whether certain non-renewable
resources that are valued mainly for their
commercial potential, such as iron ore, coal
and oil deposits, are running out.
Conventional indicators such as trends in
prices do not suggest a rapid increase in
scarcity of these resources, and measured
reserves for many assets run into decades.
Moreover, rising prices in themselves stimulate the development of alternative technologies that reduce resource use. In many cases,
we can more than compensate for reductions
in stocks of resources by providing other
forms of wealth for future generations, such
as technology and infrastructure, or by developing substitutes for the resource being used
up, such as renewable energy sources.
However, despite little apparent evidence of
scarcity, there is still a question of whether we
are using these resources up too quickly, leaving little for future generations. It is of course
true that these resources are essentially finite,
and so our current use erodes the stocks
available in the future. We should therefore
aim to use these resources responsibly and
more productively wherever possible.
Waste
Every person in the EU generates on average

3.5 tonnes of solid waste each year (27). In
(27) Environment in the European Union at the turn of the
century (second assessment report), European
Environment Agency, 1999.
70
recent years, waste volumes have grown

faster than GDP. Similar growth rates over
the longer term could significantly increase
pressure on the environment and adversely
affect public health. To date, the pressure to
improve resource efficiency and reduce
waste has come largely through commercial
pressures to cut costs and from regulation by
pollution control authorities. However, regulation can be expensive if it forces unnecessarily rapid adjustments to existing technology, rather than being designed to allow
cheaper improvements to develop over time.
As in other policy areas, the phasing in of
new measures therefore has to strike a balance between the costs and benefits of early
introduction.
A number of industrial sectors, such as the
paper, glass, and metals industries have made
significant improvements in resource efficiency in recent years, either through restructuring their activities towards higher valueadded products, or through raising process
efficiency. There has also been a reduction in
the use of hazardous substances in products,
thus helping their management as waste.
These are welcome developments, and there
are other innovative approaches being adopted in the business community to improve
resource efficiency. Policy needs to facilitate
an active approach from the business sector
that stimulates long-run improvements in
resource efficiency if we are to decouple
growth of waste and GDP.
Policy issues
The major challenge that cuts across almost
all resource issues is how to revise incentive
structures in such a way that non-commercial
considerations are given adequate weight by
those managing and exploiting natural
resources. The diversity and complexity of
natural resources makes this difficult. A par-
ticular concern is how to reform policies that

have an unacceptably high impact on natural
resources (such as over-fishing and agriculture) without unacceptable socioeconomic
costs. In particular, how support and subsidy
regimes can be reoriented to generate an
interest in effective long-term management.
Water shortages and water pollution are both
due to failure to provide adequate incentives
to encourage more responsible water use.
In the farming sector, first steps have been
taken in broadening the focus of the common agricultural policy towards taking
account of wider economic, environmental
and social objectives. These have had some
success (28). Reduced levels of price support
contributed to less use of inputs such as
chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Agrienvironmental measures have contributed to
preserving biodiversity and led to lower levels of water pollution. Taking land out of production (set-aside) has been shown to have
beneficial environmental effects, provided it
is properly managed. However, at present,
the goal of sustainable rural development
remains subsidiary to the narrower objective
of supporting farmers incomes.
An important prerequisite for improved
long-run management of our natural
resource base is improved information on the
current state of our natural resources, such as
the measurement of biodiversity and levels of
fish stocks. Such data are essential for ensuring that consumption does not exceed the
capacity of the resource to regenerate. The
difficulties in measuring stocks of some
resources and how they are evolving means
that trends are not picked up as quickly as
they should be.
(28) Agriculture, environment, rural development: Facts and
figures A challenge for agriculture, European
Commission, 1999.
In order to decouple economic growth from

the use of resources and the generation of
waste there is a need for effective instruments
to shape the awareness of business and consumers and provide steady pressure for a
long-run increase in resource efficiency
throughout the economy. Greater efficiency
in our use of resources should reduce pressure on the environment, preserve larger
amounts for future generations, and allow
more time for the development of substitutes.
Topic 4:
Poverty and social
exclusion (29)
Introduction
Reducing poverty is central to sustainable
development. Although it is not a new phenomenon, it has an enormous direct effect on
individuals in terms of ill health, suicide
rates, persistent unemployment, and potential exclusion from the mainstream of society.
The burden of poverty is borne disproportionately by single mothers and older women
living alone. Poverty also has a strong tendency to repeat itself, often remaining within
families for generations. This has a high
social cost, particularly the waste of human
talent and energy implied by unequal opportunities. A well-designed set of integrated
policies to reduce these social costs would
improve both fairness and efficiency. Poverty
is a problem with long-term consequences
and requires a long-term approach.
(29) Poverty and social exclusion are closely related but different. Exclusion is a broader idea than poverty as it implies
the idea of access at all levels, and this can be interpreted
very widely. We do not propose to expand on the differences here, and for short hand we simply use the term
poverty.
71
Poverty can arise for a whole range of interdependent reasons. Major factors are differences in family background and wealth, differences in access to education and jobs,
effort and luck, the effects of tax and benefit
systems on redistributing wealth, and the
direct provision of some services by the State
(for example, health, policing, social services). These different effects can offset or reinforce one another, so small initial differences
can sometimes have big effects. This complexity also explains part of the difficulty in
arriving at a satisfactory definition of poverty.
The willingness to accept different forms of
deprivation depends on our social and political values. These inevitably vary from
Member State to Member State, but there is
also a shared commitment between countries
of the EU to forming a more cohesive society, and the fight against poverty and social
exclusion is acknowledged to be a major element in the value systems of Member
States (30). This vision is reflected in the EU
Treaty (31).
spread: 32 % of Europeans experience at

least one annual spell of low income over a
period of three years, while 7 % of the
population around 25 million persons
experience persistent poverty during
this period. Persistent income poverty
ranges from around 3 % in Denmark and
the Netherlands to 12 % in Portugal.
There are significant income inequalities
which threaten social cohesion. At EU
level, the poorest 20 % of the population
receives less than one fifth of the income of
the richest 20 %. Social benefits reduce the
proportion of poor people in all Member
States but to very differing degrees, the
reduction ranging from around 10 % in
Greece and Italy to over 60 % in Denmark.
Income gaps between women and men
remain significant, with womens earnings
almost one quarter below that of men. This
gap increases the risk that women will fall
into poverty, since social security benefits
and pension entitlements are often related
to previous earnings.

Current patterns of poverty within the EU
are diverse and evolving. This section provides an overview of important trends, drivers of change, and emerging risks:
The measurement of poverty depends on
the definition used, but on one common
definition (relative) poverty (32) averages
17 % in the EU (excluding Finland and
Sweden). Vulnerability is more wide(30) See the conclusions of the European Council at Lisbon,
Feira, Nice (2000), which may be downloaded from the
Internet (http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm).
(31) See Section 1.2 above.
(32) Poverty line defined as 60 % of national median income
adjusted for household size. Source: Eurostat, European
Community Household Panel, 1996.
72
Many cities have serious pockets of poverty and social exclusion. Unemployment
rates can vary significantly between districts, being up to 10 times higher in the
worst affected parts than in the least affected.
There is a high level of early school leavers:
more than one in five of those aged 1824
leave the education system with only lower
secondary education at best. This is a particular worry, as there is a possible vicious
intergenerational circle between childhood
poverty, low educational achievement and
poverty in adult life.
Significant proportions of the adult population fail to attain the literacy levels con-
sidered as necessary to cope with everyday

life in advanced societies, though the
Nordic European countries in particular
have made significant progress in resolving
this problem (33).
Rapid change in the labour market is posing a risk to those unable to adapt to
change. Organisational and contractual
changes present risks for vulnerable individuals.
There is also some concern over the risk of
a technological divide. Persons in the highincome groups use the Internet three times
more frequently than lower income groups.
Older people have scarcely any access to
the Internet (one in seven of the youngest
group). There is a significant gap between
men and women as regards access to information and communication technologies.
Moreover, there are significant differences
across the Union in access to the Internet,
with a clear northsouth divide. In Greece,
Spain, Portugal and Italy, the rate is half the
EU average, while in the Nordic countries
it is considerably higher (34).
Changing family patterns and household
structures are increasing vulnerability for
particular groups in society. Household
sizes are declining. Around one in 12 people live alone, an increase of 50 % over the
last 20 years. The proportion of dependent
children living in one-parent households
(mainly single mothers) has increased by
50 % since 1983. Around 13 % of all
dependent children in the EU are living
with just one parent. Three out of four single-parent families are facing financial diffi-
(33) See the IALSOECD study (2000).

(34) Second report on economic and social cohesion in the
European Union, European Commission, 2001.
culties and the probability of living in

poverty is twice as high for these children.
Ageing populations raise new concerns
about social exclusion and poverty among
the elderly. Provision for retirement
income needs to reflect the prospect of
increased life expectancy, with many living
perhaps 30 or 40 years after retirement.
This will be a particular problem for the
very old if their pension income fails to
keep pace with price rises. Changing family patterns may reduce the amount of support and care given by families.
Immigration flows make global poverty a
domestic EU concern. The persistence of
racism, xenophobia, and of social and economic discrimination make it difficult for
immigrants to be effectively integrated.
Policy issues
Economic and technological developments
offer new opportunities and more choices to
individuals to fulfil their potential. At the
same time, these developments increase competitive pressures and carry the risk of creating a two-tier society where the more vulnerable members find themselves unable to
keep up with fast-moving changes.
At the Lisbon European Council in March
2000, the EU set out a new strategy to
strengthen employment, economic reform
and social cohesion. Modernising social protection and combating social exclusion were
identified as essential elements of this strategy. Tackling the sources of unemployment
and poverty is central to its success. This
means enabling greater access to quality jobs,
in particular through increased opportunities
for education and training for all ages, to
encourage flexibility and the capacity to
adapt to the requirements of a rapidly chang73
ing labour market. Equally important, tax

and benefit systems must be reformed to
make them more employment friendly and to
remove poverty traps, particularly those
which deny women the opportunity to take
up paid employment.
The Nice European Council gave further
substance to the objectives set at Lisbon by
approving the European social agenda. To
take full advantage of this momentum for
change, social policy must be placed in its
wider context of the European Union sustainable development strategy: many other
policies (such as education and training,
transport, housing, health) have an impact on
social exclusion. In addition, we must look
beyond the 10-year horizon of Lisbon:
Poverty is a persistent problem that is often
transmitted from one generation to another. Eradicating poverty will take more than
a decade. It is especially important to limit
the passing of problems such as lack of
education or poor housing and living conditions from one generation to another.
Strategies to tackle poverty and social
exclusion require a balance between targeted initiatives and general social measures.
There is a particular need to avoid the risks
of an underclass within which poverty
replicates itself. This may require specific
action for groups at risk (such as children,
early school leavers, minority groups, disabled, elderly) or for some geographical
areas. Community support comes from the
European Social Fund and a specific programme on social inclusion.
Financial integration and the increased
mobility of the tax base are putting more
pressure on tax and benefit systems. While
private markets have the potential to ease
this pressure by delivering some services
74
more cost-effectively, their use must be

carefully designed to ensure that universal
access to basic entitlements such as decent
healthcare, good education and core social
services is maintained. Modernising social
protection means building an active welfare state, not dismantling it.
Topic 5:
Ageing
Introduction
The population of the European Union and
of the accession countries is ageing, in contrast with trends in most developing countries. Migration flows into the EU have
occurred in recent years and this has offset
some of the effects of the ageing of the
Community population. Nonetheless, recent
Eurostat projections show that the old-age
dependency ratio (those aged over 65 as a
percentage of the population aged 2064)
will double between 2000 and 2050. By the
middle of the century, there will be one person aged 65 or over for every two aged
2064. These demographic changes will have
profound economic, budgetary and social
implications.
An ageing population puts into question the
financial sustainability of pension schemes
and public healthcare. Under plausible
assumptions, pension expenditure (now
reported to amount to 10 % of GDP on
average) would increase by 35 % of GDP in
the majority of Member States between 2000
and 2040 (35). Spending on healthcare could
increase by a further 3 % of GDP over the
same period. At the same time, the shrinking
(35) See EPC progress report to the Ecofin Council on the

impact of ageing populations on public pensions systems.
labour force will lead to a lower rate of economic growth, unless it is offset by increased
productivity.
Public pensions in the EU are either provided by governments, using revenues from taxation, or by the social partners, based on contributions of employers and employees.
Many pension systems are funded on a pay
as you go basis, where todays workers support todays retired. Because demographic
change occurs slowly and is largely predictable, there is a strong temptation to put
off difficult political choices when problems
lie in the distant future. This raises the
prospect of threats to fiscal stability, or a significant reduction in entitlements for future
pensioners. A long-term approach is essential
to prevent the occurrence of a social divide
between generations and widespread poverty
among the elderly.
Some options for reform to existing pension
systems would put more emphasis on todays
young people to provide for their own retirement. For example, moving towards a funded system in which individuals build up their
own pension provision over time, often with
State support. This may have some advantages in terms of transparency about who
pays for what, but funding would not overcome the structural tension between the
length of working life and pension needs in
retirement. Moreover, a rapid shift from pay
as you go to a funded system would mean
that the current workforce would pay twice
once for pensions for the current aged,
and once to build up provision for their own
retirement. A wider range of policy options
must therefore be explored.
those of working age and those of non-working age is changing. In essence, we are living
longer and therefore require more in terms of
pension provision, but the length of active
working life is not increasing to provide a
matching increase in pension contributions.
The ratio between years in which contributions are paid and those in which benefits are
received is continually decreasing. The share
of young people in the total population is
declining, while that of older people is
increasing. The key trends and drivers are:
Unfavourable labour market developments, in particular high unemployment
rates and falling participation rates
amongst older workers. Employment rates
tend to drop off very sharply after the age
of 50. Effective retirement ages in the EU
are now well below both the statutory
retirement age and levels in other industrialised countries. This partly meets a social
preference for more leisure time (36), but in
many cases it is due to structural features in
the labour market that discourage employers from taking on older employees, or the
lack of suitable job opportunities matching
the capacities and requirements of older
people.
The sustainability of pensions systems will
also depend on what percentage of the
total population is active in the labour market, as well as their productivity levels.
Current employment rates are much lower
in the EU than in other developed countries, particularly for women and older
workers.
Life expectancy at birth in EU-15 increased

by eight years between 1960 and 1999,
from 73 to 81 for women, and from 67 to
Due to rising life expectancy and declining

birth rates in Europe, the balance between
(36) See Eurobarometers, 1992 and 1999, about attitudes in

relation to retirement and pensions issues.
75
75 for men. This reflects improvements in

diet, less occupational risk, and better
healthcare, amongst other factors.
Birth rates have fallen well below the level
necessary for population replacement, due
to social and cultural change, and difficulties for men and women in combining
work and family responsibilities. The average number of children per woman was
around 1.5 in 1999, whereas the figure
required for a stable population is 2.1. The
number of children per woman is also
below the average number of children
desired by couples (around two children,
according to survey data).
As a result, the proportion of people aged
65 years and over in the EU-15 has risen
from around 10 to 16 % over the last 30
years, while the proportion of those under
25 has fallen from just below 40 % to just
under 30 %. This trend would have been
even more marked were it not for immigration. It will continue over the next few
decades, when baby boomers progressively reach retirement age (see graph).
Percentage of total
population
Share of each age group in the total EU

population, 1999 and 2040
50
40
30
1999
20
2040
10
0
014 1524 2554 5564 65 +
80 +
Source: Eurostat (2000-based) baseline scenario.
The number of very old people aged 80

and over will rise very sharply, and by 2010
the number is expected to increase by
about half. Changes in the structure of
76
households accentuate the significance of

this development. The elderly must
increasingly rely on themselves and on
public support, rather than on a family network.
The age structure of the working age population (1564) is also affected: the share of
those aged 5564 is increasing and this is
projected to continue. This raises questions
about how to stimulate lifelong learning
and to adjust working patterns to accommodate this greying of the workforce.
People may prefer to spread economic
activity more evenly over their lifetime. For
example, through more part-time work
when they have young children, and also
towards the end of their working lives, to
phase in retirement.
Policy issues
A comprehensive approach must be adopted
to address the economic, budgetary, and
social implications of ageing (37). The number
of pensioners over the next three decades can
be forecast reasonably accurately, but there is
considerable uncertainty about migration
and other long-run demographic developments. If birth rates do not increase as
expected, and if there are very big increases
in life expectancy due to technological breakthroughs, the implications could be much
greater than described above.
Raising employment rates in line with the
Lisbon strategy is a critical first step to meeting the ageing challenge. To achieve the target of an employment rate of 70 % in the EU
(37) See Commission communications The future evolution of

social protection (COM(2000) 622), and The contribution of public finances to growth and employment: improving quality and sustainability (COM(2000) 846),
European Commission, 2000.
by 2010, a higher priority must be attached

to lifelong learning and improving the adaptability of the labour force. There is a need for
more family-friendly education structures
and better care services for both children and
the elderly, as present structures make it difficult to reconcile working and family lives.
Moreover, the taxation and pension systems
need to be reformed to discourage early
retirement.
This long-term approach focusing on more
employment among women and older people
should help to increase the number of potential contributors to pension schemes, reduce
the number of recipients and therefore
improve budgetary sustainability.
However, further progress must be achieved:
Simulations have shown that the EU
employment rate needs to reach 75 % by
2020 to ensure that the number of adults
not at work stabilises at its present level,
relative to the number of employed people.
Raising overall employment rates, especially amongst women and older workers,
could go a long way towards offsetting the
projected fall in the ratio of active to inactive persons, and considerably lessen the
budgetary and economic impact of ageing
populations.
and maintaining other essential public services.

If the employability and employment rate
of older workers is to be increased, a major
investment in lifelong learning is required,
particularly in IT skills. Member States
and the social partners should intensify
their efforts in this respect.
The provision of infrastructure and services (care, transport, etc.) must be reconsidered to take account of the increasing number of the elderly and their circumstances.
Population ageing in the EU Member States
could be partly counteracted by migration.
Building on the indications given by the
European Council in Tampere, legal channels for economic migrants should be
reopened, and arrangements should be
agreed at EU level to develop and coordinate
a common immigration policy. This should
be accompanied by measures to integrate
migrants and to combat discrimination and
social exclusion. Partnership with the countries of origin should be developed to facilitate orderly migration flows, to fight illegal
immigration, and to mitigate any negative
effects of migration for the countries of origin (brain drain) (38).
Revising early retirement schemes and the

tax and benefit systems in cooperation with
the social partners will be necessary to
encourage people to stay longer in employment, possibly part-time, in line with the
decreasing morbidity and disability levels
among older people.
Migration within the EU may influence the

impacts of ageing at regional level if younger,
more mobile people leave less developed
regions for regions with a more attractive
range of employment opportunities.
Southern regions may also experience inward
migration of older people drawn by the
milder climate.
Social protection and public pension systems should provide adequate income and
healthcare services to the elderly, while
keeping the tax burden at acceptable levels
(38) Commission communication on a Community immigration policy, (COM(2000) 757), European Commission,
2000.
77
Topic 6:
Mobility, land use and
territorial development
Introduction
Mobility, land use and regional development
are tightly interwoven in modern societies. In
the short run, the demand for increased
mobility depends on incomes and prices for
using different modes of transport. In the
longer run, it also changes according to patterns of land use the location of people,
homes, factories, offices, farms and shops.
This spatial pattern is in turn a function of
factors such as local planning rules, availability of infrastructure, the price of transport
services, and personal preferences about
where people want to live. The relationship
between spatial patterns and transport thus
runs in both directions.
Mobility, for both work and leisure, is important to our continued economic and social
wellbeing. However, mobility is not an end in
itself, but a means to access different goods
and services. It may enhance business,
employment and education opportunities as
well as allowing for a wider range of leisure
activities and lifestyles. However, increased
mobility has important side effects, like emissions of greenhouse gases, air and noise pollution, the use of land and congestion, effects
which reduce quality of life. Emissions of
greenhouse gases from transport are growing
more rapidly than from any other source.
Congestion costs are rising, while damage to
eco-systems and biodiversity are major concerns. More than 40 000 people are killed
and over 1.7 million injured every year on
European roads.
Encouraging people to live close to work and
avoiding low-density development (urban
78
sprawl) can reduce the need for mobility and

land take. Better pricing of different modes
of transport and policies to improve the quality of life in urban areas can limit the desire
for long-distance commuting and would help
encourage less transport-intensive living patterns. However, high-density living implies
less living space, as well as more congestion
and urban stress if not supported by effective
urban infrastructure and public transport.
Striking an appropriate balance between
urban and rural areas is therefore not solely a
transport issue, but also a matter for rural
and urban policy.
There is also a complex link between mobility and regional development. At present, the
picture of the EU is one of a richer, more
densely populated core and a poorer, less
populated periphery. The second cohesion
report (39) identified a group of central
regions covering just one fifth of the Unions
area, but which contain over two fifths of the
population and account for half of the EUs
GDP. However, several prosperous regions
lie outside this area. The uneven distribution
of population and economic activity will be
more marked in an enlarged Community.
Improving transport links can be important
to give regional economies access to wider
markets, but it is not a panacea for regional
underdevelopment and the costs and benefits of new infrastructure need to be carefully weighed. A region also requires a range of
other infrastructure and services to support a
centre of economic activity.

Higher mobility and greater land use for
building and infrastructure are above all
(39) Second report on economic and social cohesion,

COM(2001) 24, European Commission, 2001.
driven by economic development and

increased affluence. Recent decades have
seen very rapid growth in distances travelled
by both freight and people, as incomes have
grown and prices of some modes have fallen
or remained flat in real terms. The key facts
are:
Over the last 30 years freight transport
demand has persistently grown faster than
GDP and has doubled since 1970, with
much of the increase coming in road transport. Air freight transport has grown even
more rapidly. Passenger transport, particularly by car, has followed a very similar pattern. On average, almost one European in
two now owns a car (40).
These trends are predicted to continue in
the immediate future. Freight transport is
expected to grow by around 40 % between
1998 and 2010, with road transport
accounting for most of this increase.
Passenger transport is expected to grow
more slowly, mainly due to the rising costs
of congestion on the roads, slow population growth and lower growth of car ownership as it approaches saturation in some
countries. Air travel is expected to grow by
a remarkable 90 % over the same period.
Change in vehicle emissions technologies
have significantly reduced emissions of
some atmospheric pollutants over the last
decade, improving air quality. To some
extent these improvements have been offset by growth in traffic volumes, but
despite future increases in traffic, air quality is expected to improve significantly over
the next 20 years. Greenhouse gas emissions on the other hand, are rising very rap(40) Defining an environmentally sustainable transport system, Commission expert group on transport and environment, September 2000.
idly due to the continued increase in transport overall.

Congestion and inefficient use of infrastructure have large economic costs, perhaps as much as 2 % of GDP. As well as
wasting time, congestion raises costs for
business and prices in shops for consumers. In Amsterdam, if current trends
continue, rush hour public transport will
move at little more than walking pace by
2005. One tenth of the trans-European
road network suffers from capacity constraints, causing congestion. The costs of
congestion will rise rapidly as infrastructure increasingly reaches capacity.
Over three quarters of the European population live in towns and cities, which play a
vital role as providers of services and centres of economic activity. Traffic congestion
affects above all urban areas, which are also
challenged by problems such as inner-city
decay, sprawling suburbs, and concentrations of acute poverty and social exclusion.
In aggregate terms, the Community has
been able to maintain a rough balance
between the rural and urban communities.
At present, the population of rural areas is
increasing, and in recent years their
employment levels have grown faster than
the Community average, though the picture varies from region to region (41).
However, this may change after enlargement of the Union. Structural change in the
new Member States could lead to a collapse
in rural areas and rapidly growing pressure
on urban infrastructure.
In some Member States, income inequalities between regions are worsening, though
(41) Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion.
79
at the level of the Community the gap

between richer and poorer regions has narrowed somewhat in recent years.
Nevertheless, the differences remain substantial, and can be expected to be greater
still in an enlarged Union. In the EU-15,
the richest region has an income per head
six times that of the poorest; if the accession countries were included in the calculation, the ratio would be more than 10 to 1.
Relatively low levels of spending on
research and development in some lagging
regions may hamper their ability to catch
up, though this is only one of very many
factors influencing economic performance.
The factors that lie behind these problems
include:
The affordability of travelling by road and
air improved relative to other modes over
time. The price of private motoring and
aviation travel as a percentage of average
wages has fallen as cars have been produced more cheaply and efficiently and airlines have raised productivity, while the
price of public transport has tended to
keep pace with wages over time. For distances of more than a few kilometres, road
transport whether of people or freight
offers the convenience of door-to-door
service that other modes find difficult to
match.
The completion of the internal market has
boosted trade flows, but the resulting pattern of transport activity has been unbalanced due to an absence of corresponding
improvements in the pricing structure for
different modes. In addition, liberalisation
of freight transport by road has been
achieved across the Community but only a
few Member States have opened rail freight
to competition, so rail freight markets
80
remain fragmented and closed. This

uneven pace of reduction in the costs of
different modes of transport has had
adverse environmental effects.
Local planning regulations also affect
transport demand. Urban sprawl in
particular low-density housing drives
people into private cars. The growth in car
use is closely associated with an increased
degree of urban sprawl, and the availability
(or not) of public transport. Transportrelated noise and poor air quality in urban
areas can encourage migration of people
and enterprises from cities to suburbs and
create a vicious circle.
Transport policy has generally sought to
match the increase in demand for road and
air transport by significant public investment in infrastructure, both from national
budgets and the Community structural
funds. Extension and improvement of the
road network has significantly increased
the flexibility and speed of road freight and
the speed and convenience of cars. This has
underpinned the rapid growth in freight
transport and use of private cars.
Patterns of mobility and land use are also
linked to the balance between rural and
urban communities. Access to good transport and communication infrastructure is an
essential part of preserving the viability of
both rural and urban society. Poor infrastructure and lack of access to services such
as information and communication technologies may discourage private sector investment in rural areas, limiting employment
opportunities. However, while better transport links can support the rural economy by
expanding markets for local produce, they
also tend to increase commuting and rural
house prices and have environmental
impacts.
Policy issues
In recent decades, transport demand has
risen broadly in line with GDP. While further
growth in activity is expected, this trend is
not sustainable. There is clearly a longer term
need to decouple transport growth from
GDP and to limit the economic and environmental costs of transport growth that does
occur. The Commission is preparing a review
of the EUs common transport policy, to be
published in a forthcoming White Paper.
This will set out the broad thrust of
Community policy over the next 10 years or
so. Although the time horizon for the sustainable development strategy will go beyond
this, it will be important to ensure that the
two are consistent. An accurate appraisal of
the policy issues is needed:
At present, the relative prices of using different transport modes do not reflect their
full costs of use, in terms of additional congestion, damage to infrastructure and to
human health and the environment (42). As
a result, there is inefficient use of existing
infrastructure, and the balance between
modes is distorted. For example, aircraft
fuel is at present not taxed, unlike other
fuels. The need to develop better pricing of
different modes has been recognised in a
number of Commission documents (43) but
progress has been slow.
(42) See for example Revenues from efficient pricing: evidence from the Member States, study for the International
Union of Railways, Community of European Railways and
the European Commissions Energy and Transport DG,
2000, Efficient prices for transport (estimating the social
costs of vehicle use); CE consultants, 1999.
(43) See for example Fair payment for infrastructure use: a
phased approach to a common transport infrastructure
charging framework in the EU (COM(1998) 466), and
Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport: policy
options for internalising the external costs of transport in
the European Union (COM(95) 691).
New developments in intelligent traffic

management systems, such as the use of
global positioning systems that track the
movement of vehicles, and electronic fee
collection systems for road pricing, have
the potential to improve the use of infrastructure and reduce congestion costs. In
addition, successful technology would be a
world leader and could be exported widely. Improvements in communication technologies offer a potential alternative to
transport. Distance working using modern
communications may provide one way of
reconciling demands for distance living
with reduced mobility. It will be important
to consider how best this potential can be
exploited.
Improvement in use of infrastructure can
reduce congestion, and new infrastructure
when it is proved to be necessary can
fill important gaps in the network and
increase capacity. Local planning rules also
affect the location of economic activity and
the development of new infrastructure and
resulting transport flows. Planning decisions in the past have often not properly
accounted for the effects of new development on the natural environment, congestion and other impacts, and policy needs to
take these issues into account in the future.
Development of housing, business, and
new transport infrastructure also has implications for the relationship between town
and countryside. Attention is needed to
ensure that policy does not actively undermine the balance between the rural and
urban economies. This means ensuring that
urban areas do not develop urban sprawl
that fractures communities and destroys
the distinctiveness of the countryside, while
ensuring that rural policy provides active
support for a living countryside. This cannot be a matter for transport policy alone,
81
but also requires more coherent rural and

urban policies.
The rural economy also continues to
depend to an appreciable extent on farming and the Communitys common agricultural policy has been geared to maintaining
farm incomes. The recent shifts towards
more sustainable rural development
which aimed to improve the competitiveness of agriculture while enhancing its
social and environmental functions are
still modest. Agriculture is still associated
with high levels of pollution, and has damaged many of the aesthetic and ecological
qualities of the landscape it once helped to
create. This in itself undermines the attractiveness of the countryside as a place to
live. There is therefore potential for agricultural policy to provide more support for
a sustainable rural economy.
Community structural funds have made
sizeable investments in physical and social
capital in the less developed regions of the
Community and Irelands phenomenal economic growth in recent years shows the
possibilities for territorial development if
Structural Fund assistance is used within a
coherent policy framework. In addition,
measures such as the trans-European networks (TENs) have aimed to improve links
between peripheral and central regions of
the Community. One of the main objectives
of the TENs in the future will be the completion of a rail network that will encourage a shift from road to rail.
Enlargement is likely to bring with it new
and more acute challenges. The new
Member States will in general be poorer
and have a much larger agricultural population. Their infrastructure has suffered
from many years of under-investment.
Closing the gap with the Union will need a
82
major investment effort. Since these investments will shape their future transport and
land-use patterns for many years ahead, it
will be crucial to integrate economic, environmental and social issues into planning
and infrastructure appraisal to ensure that
all costs and benefits are taken into
account.
Many of these issues are identified in the
European spatial development perspective (44). This aims to offer Member States,
their regions and cities a non-binding
framework for coordination of policies
with significant impacts on regional development, without, however, seeking to
impose it on them or on other policy areas.
This approach reflects the fact that solutions to many of the problems relating to
the interactions between mobility, land use
and territorial development can only be
implemented at regional and local level,
while others may benefit from a national or
Community approach.
Very few, if any, of the unsustainable trends
reviewed above are new. They have been
known to informed public opinion and in
policy circles for some time. This can at times
give rise to a sense of dj vu, even complacency. Such attitudes are, however, mistaken,
as familiarity with the phenomena is not the
same as understanding the fundamental
causes and how to tackle them. Nor does the
fact that many of the trends are already well
known make them any less preoccupying.
To make a decisive step from awareness to
action, and to put in place an effective
response to the issues raised in this section,
two important questions must be answered.
(44) European spatial development perspective Towards
balanced and sustainable development of the territory of
the European Union, European Commission, 1999.
First, are there any common causes to these

long-term social and environmental challenges? Second, why have we not done more
to deal with them? If, as argued in Section 1,
greater social and environmental responsibility is not an obstacle to long-term economic
development, why have Member States and
the European Union failed to pursue sustainable development more vigorously?
The next section develops a general answer
to these two questions by identifying the
main obstacles to creating a more sustainable
society and economy. Following from this
diagnosis, we then lay out the main tools we
can use to achieve the specific goals of the
European sustainable development strategy
which the Commission will propose to the
Gothenburg meeting of the European
Council.
3. Common problems
Many of the problems identified in the previous section have common roots. They are
characterised by complex interdependencies
between sectors. Several are long term in
nature, with problems building up gradually.
Firms and citizens often face poor incentives
to produce and consume in a sustainable way.
They may be ill informed about the wider
effects of their actions, or about alternatives.
And institutional obstacles make it difficult
to respond effectively to these failings. This
section looks at these issues in more detail,
and shows how they have contributed to the
problems identified above.
3.1. Wrong incentives

Individuals and companies often face incentives which encourage them to behave in
ways which, while individually rational, have
negative impacts on others. Market prices for

the use of goods and services which do not
properly reflect the true cost to society of
providing them lead to too much consumption of those goods and services and too little
of others. For example, when we drive we
generally slow down the progress of other
road users. Since this cost is not incorporated in the price we pay to drive we do not take
it into account in deciding how and when to
travel. As a result, there are enormous inefficiencies in the way we use road space. High
taxes on labour income act as a disincentive
to participate actively in the labour market,
while poorly designed tax and benefit systems can generate poverty traps.
Incorrect prices are also a major source of
many environmental problems. In general,
the market prices for goods and services do
not incorporate the costs of pollution.
Consequently, producers have little incentive
to find and adopt cleaner methods of production, and consumers are not encouraged
to seek out cleaner products. Worse, in some
cases the most polluting industries benefit
from significant subsidies that encourage the
production of dirty goods and discourage
consumers from switching to cleaner options.
3.2. Sectoral policy

inconsistency
Both at national and Community level, individual policies generally concern specific sectors of the economy such as coal and steel, or
particular areas such as trade or competition.
These policies are normally developed by
separate administrative departments which
have specialised knowledge of their own sectors, but are less concerned with how their
policies affect other parts of society and the
economy. This narrow, sectoral approach to
83
policy-making has led over time to some significant problems:

Due to a high level of interdependence
between some sectors, the solutions to
some problems lie in the hands of policymakers in other sectors. Environmental
policy increasingly requires action by other
policy areas such as enterprise, energy,
transport and agriculture. Transport policy
depends on taxation, research and technology, and land-use planning policy. Social
policy instruments acting in isolation will
not solve problems of social exclusion. In
many cases, these spillovers between sectors are not fully taken into account, so
policies in different sectors pull in opposite
directions. This undermines their effectiveness and wastes resources.
The narrow sectoral approach makes it easier for interest groups representing a particular sector to obstruct reforms which
would benefit society as a whole but would
have negative consequences for them. This
uncoordinated focus on sectoral impacts
rather than on the wider interests of society means that reform in practice is attempted in a piecemeal and inconsistent way.
Measures that have clear winners and losers are fought over one by one, rather than
being seen as part of a wider package that
could benefit all.
The Community dimension adds extra
potential for inconsistent policy-making.
Both responsibility (the extent of
Community competence) and the way in
which decisions are taken (unanimity or by
weighted majority) vary from one policy
domain to another. The sequence in which
new policy initiatives are taken, both at EU
and national level, can also lead to undesirable outcomes.
84
Problems of coordination are compounded

by a proliferation of new policy initiatives
and multi-annual programmes at EU level.
There are currently over 60 multi-annual
initiatives described as strategies. The different initiatives are rarely synchronised.
The Agenda 2000 time frame runs from
2000 to 2006, the single market strategy
from 1999 to 2005, the next framework
programme for research from 2002 to 2006
and the new environment action programme from 2001 to 2011.
Clearly, there are limits to the extent to which
policies in different sectors can be reformed
simultaneously. The Agenda 2000 reforms
involved changes in particular to agricultural,
structural, and external policies. Undertaking
a similar exercise for an even wider set of
policies would pose severe practical problems. Attempting to review all Community
policies at the same time would lead to institutional paralysis. Measures to improve
coherence should instead focus on linking
together policies where the gains from coordination are expected to be greatest. In addition, if the design of sectoral policy attempts
to take wider considerations than the interests of the sector into account, improving
policy consistency should not mean that all
policies need to adopt identical timetables.
3.3. Short-termism
in policy-making
A striking example of the possible effects of
a short-term perspective is our inability to
manage renewable natural resources sustainably. The Community has been unable to
agree cuts in fish catches that are essential to
preserve stocks for the future because of the
short-term costs. This is despite the substantial long-term economic and ecological bene-
fits in preserving stocks from collapse. Shorttermism has been a particular problem for
environmental policy as many environmental
problems are not immediately visible, but it
is also true in other policy areas. When
spending must be reduced to balance the
national budget the first item to be cut is usually investment. This is because cuts in everyday services are immediate and painful,
whereas the deterioration of public infrastructure takes time and is not immediately
noticeable.
A root cause of short-termism in the design
and implementation of policy is the nature of
the political cycle. The gap of at most four to
five years between elections naturally limits
governments time horizons. In addition, one
group that does not have a voice in these
political choices is the future generation. In
the absence of a coherent long-term vision,
policy priorities may be influenced too much
by short-term events. Policy responses then
take the form of quick fixes, which themselves may make the problem more acute, or
cause difficulties in other areas.
Problems of short-termism are likely to be
worse when the costs of doing something are
up-front and highly visible while the benefits
are difficult to quantify and spread over several years. Moreover, costs and benefits may
be unevenly distributed: costs of change
often fall on particular groups of producers
or citizens, while benefits are more widely
spread. As a result, the winners from a policy change usually do not make themselves
heard, whereas the losers do. Short-termism
can therefore be compounded by a highly
sectoral approach to policy-making.
At Community level, the regular six-monthly
change in the Council Presidency induces a
short-term perspective. New initiatives are
often launched to take advantage of a politi-
cal window that becomes available while a

particular Member State holds the
Presidency. A Member States running of the
Presidency tends to be judged by the amount
of activity it generates the number of regulations or directives adopted rather than
the quality of those measures.
3.4. Policy inertia

The hardest innovation in policy-making is to
stop old practices. Some unsustainable
trends result from a failure to change or cancel policies which are past their sell-by date.
These are measures which made sense when
they were introduced, but which have not
been changed in response to changing circumstances. For example:
When State pensions for all were first
introduced, life expectancies were much
lower, and working lives typically much
longer than today. Early retirement
schemes and the tax and benefit system
have resulted in biases that favour early
withdrawal from the labour market, leading to a fall in the average retirement age.
Both need reform today, when skill shortages are emerging, and the shrinking working age population and increasing numbers
of pensioners threaten the sustainability of
public finances.
Town planning rules which imposed rigid
separation between the location of housing
and industry made sense when much
industrial activity was very polluting. Now
that industry is cleaner and services play a
more important role in the economy, these
zoning laws may no longer be justified.
More than this, together with rising levels
of private car ownership they worsen traffic
congestion.
85
Our energy supply infrastructure is currently heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels. This reflects investments made in
the past when the impacts of burning fossil
fuels on human health and the global climate were not as well understood.
Changing our sources of energy supply is
now a slow process as the infrastructure is
long lived.
Public policy as well as case-law and political processes can, often for very good reasons, move much behind the pace of technological progress in areas such as genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food, and other innovations.
The paradox of having both policy inertia on
the one hand, and short-termism on the
other, is more apparent than real. Both problems essentially arise from an excessively sectoral approach to policy-making. This
enables sectional interests to prevail over the
wider concerns of society, by preventing necessary reform to outdated policies needed to
orient them towards the longer term.
3.5. Limited understanding

We have a poor understanding of the causes
and likely effects of several of the problems
identified in Section 2 above. For example,
the definition, causes and consequences of
poverty are complex and controversial.
There are competing explanations for why
disparities in the distribution of income are
widening in some places, and for changes in
family structures and birth rates. There are
large information gaps in many other areas
such as the measurement of changes in biodiversity and their potential long-run effects.
We face similar uncertainties about the precise impact of many policy responses. In
86
addition, in many cases inadequate attention

has been paid to whether existing policy has
actually been effective. Frequently, it is
assumed that spending money on a problem
is the same as successfully tackling it. In practice, we have often failed to assess whether a
policy has achieved its objectives, how much
it has cost, and what its positive or negative
spillovers on other areas have been. This is
complicated by the fact that policy objectives
are not always well defined. In consequence,
we often have an insufficient basis on which
to assess what reforms might be necessary.
3.6. Inadequate
communication and
dialogue
Arguably, many of the existing failures to
tackle unsustainable trends reflect a policy
process that is too fragmented, technocratic
and distant from the real concerns of people.
Alienation from the political process can also
result from a perception that policy-making
is excessively influenced by vested interest
groups, to the detriment of the population at
large. Whatever the truth of these views, it is
undeniable that there is at the very least a
strong belief that the average citizen has little
scope for direct input into the political
process, and that policy-making has become
disconnected from their daily concerns. This
is reflected in rising abstention rates at elections for all levels of government. These
issues will be examined in more depth in the
Commissions forthcoming White Paper on
governance.
Scientists and policy-makers often communicate poorly with the public and with each
other, and misconceptions are common on all
sides. As a result public awareness of the
long-term consequences of different policy
options, consumption patterns and lifestyle

choices is also limited. In part, this may arise
from the increased complexity of the modern
world and the corresponding complexity of
policy responses. Recent health scares
such as those relating to BSE or phthalates
demonstrate the fragility of public confidence in the integrity of science and scientific advice about risks. This confidence is further undermined by the perception that the
interpretation and dissemination of research
results is sometimes subordinated to commercial pressures (45).
4. Common solutions:
A toolkit for
sustainable
development
in Europe
4.1. Introduction
The previous section identified some common problems which have led to the emergence of the unsustainable trends described
in Section 2. This section suggests how we
can go about solving them.
The analysis in Section 3 shows that better
policy integration is needed at all levels, so
that different policies complement each
other instead of pulling in different directions. Policy integration should start at the
outset of the policy-making process.
Sustainable development should become an
underlying principle in all areas of EU activity. However, joined-up thinking in policy(45) The success of the European research area will be judged
partly on its ability to develop a common basis for assessing research results and to improve understanding between science and society.
making is not enough on its own. Better

coordination and greater dialogue will not
improve things if policy does not make full
use of the right tools and ideas. Accordingly,
this chapter not only sets out some ways to
improve policy coherence, but also describes
the most important tools that can and should
be used as the building blocks of a strategy
for sustainable development.
4.2. A common basis for

policy design and
implementation
One of these building blocks is the principle
that the costs and effects of all policies
should be examined more systematically.
This analysis should try to include not just
the impacts in the area targeted by the policy,
but also its spillovers good and bad
onto other policy areas. Identifying spillovers
and the sharing of expertise between different departments of government are important if we are to create the conditions for
winwin policies and improve the coherence of policy-making. Inevitably though, in
some cases we have to make trade-offs
between changes in economic, environmental and social assets. Careful assessment of
the costs and effects of different policy
options and their distribution is vital to
ensure that these trade-offs are made in the
interests of society as a whole, and that
mechanisms are put in place to enable business and citizens to adapt to change.
Good policy design should also consider the
different instruments available to meet the
policy objective. The aim should be to give
policy-makers as full an assessment as possible of the costs and effects, the advantages
and disadvantages of the different options, so
that we can reach our desired objectives,
87
whatever they may be, at least cost. This does

not mean going for the cheapest or do nothing option. It means doing things efficiently
and effectively. The more cost-effective policy is, the more resources we have to devote to
other priorities. This helps us get the most we
can out of the available resources by avoiding
waste and inefficiency.
Climate change provides a very good example of the importance of cost effectiveness.
Some policy measures such as gradually
removing subsidies for the use of fossil fuels
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
while actually raising economic performance.
Still, meeting the targets in the Kyoto
Protocol is likely to have some economic
costs. However, the size of these costs and
how they are distributed will depend very
much on what policies are used. The
Commission services have estimated that a
policy of equal percentage reduction targets
for different economic sectors would be
nearly three times more expensive than a policy that encourages the biggest savings in sectors where emissions can be reduced at relatively low cost (46).
4.3. Long-term targets

and intermediate
milestones
Sustainable development is a framework for
policy that focuses on long-term management rather than short-term quick-fix solutions. Identifying concrete, ambitious,
achievable long-term objectives is necessary
to give substance to policies for sustainable
development, and to develop popular understanding and support for these policies.
(46) Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within
the European Union (COM(87) 2000), European
Commission, 2000.
88
These objectives should lead to the establishment of clear and preferably measurable
targets. Intermediate milestones allow us
to judge our progress. When the policy target
can be expressed in very precise terms, it may
be possible to meet targets agreed at the
European level through Member States
applying their own, cost-effective solutions.
Clear long-term targets also provide other
important advantages:
Sustainable development means leaving an
adequate legacy to future generations.
Long-term targets are required to limit the
scope for short-termism and to ensure this
obligation is met.
Uncertainty and instability in the policy
regime generate their own costs. Clear
long-term signals can help companies and
individuals plan better. This is particularly
important as the capital stock of an economy turns over only relatively slowly.
Investment decisions have long-lasting
effects and are costly to reverse.
Provided targets can be clearly defined, it
can make sense to delegate responsibility
for meeting targets to those most closely
involved with particular policy areas, or to
an independent authority free from shortterm political pressures. The latter is the
case of the European Central Bank, which
has been given responsibility to provide
stable prices. However, not all policy objectives can be defined in such clear terms,
and there are limits to the extent to which
it is desirable to devolve power to unelected, unaccountable bodies.
Implementing new policy measures can
gradually reduce the costs of change considerably by allowing adequate time for
businesses and individuals to change their
patterns of production and consumption.
For example, companies that have to adapt
to new technologies to remain competitive

generally have much less trouble adjusting
if these changes can be made as part of the
normal investment cycle. Taking a gradual
approach avoids the unnecessary creation
of unemployment and gives workers time
to acquire new skills.
A few policy initiatives have shown that it is
possible to gather consensus around gradual
but steady adjustment to long-term targets,
which smooth the transition to sustainable
policies. An example is the 10-year perspective for reform of economic and social policy
agreed by the European Council at Lisbon.
4.4. Creating markets and

getting prices right
Getting prices right so that they better
reflect the true costs to society of different
activities would give everybody the right
incentive to integrate the effects their behaviour has on others into their everyday decisions about which goods and services to
make or buy. It is therefore one of the most
important tools available to policy-makers.
There are many different ways of changing
the prices or other incentives that companies
and consumers face so as to underpin sustainable development. Direct methods
include the creation of tradable property
rights (such as emission permits) that allow
markets to set a price for pollution, eco-taxes
that discourage over-use of environmental
resources, and legal liability regimes (47).
(47) Different instruments have different advantages and limitations. For example, legal liability is unlikely to be an
effective approach in the case of climate change who
do you sue and for how much when there are many different sources of greenhouse gases? And how do you prove
causation between a given emission source and a given
effect? In other cases, such as oil tanker spills, it may
prove a much more promising option.
Governments can boost markets for sustainable products and services through their
public procurement policies (48).
Clearer definition of property rights can also
play a useful role in improving the management of natural resources where there is a
risk of over-consumption. Subsidies can be
an effective tool in some cases where behaviour has positive spillover effects. For example, there is some merit in the idea that companies should be paid a temporary subsidy to
take on the long-term unemployed, as the
social costs of long-term unemployment on
individuals, their families and the public sector finances are very significant. Any proposal made in this respect would have to comply
with the principles of EU and Member
States legal systems.
The user pays principle is an important first
step in improving incentives. It means simply
that under normal circumstances those that
benefit from the use of something should pay
for it. This reduces wasteful consumption,
and gives those who use a resource the right
incentives to behave responsibly. Evidently,
the user pays principle cannot be applied
indiscriminately there are very legitimate
exceptions to its application in modern societies, not least in aspects of social provision
through the welfare state. Public subsidy is
often necessary and justified. However, the
user pays principle is an important
reminder that the rationale for subsidies
should be clearly set out to avoid wasteful use
of resources.
The polluter pays principle is an important
extension of the user pays principle to envi(48) Public procurement rules also have to be carefully designed to avoid them being used as a cover for protectionism. The Commission will shortly publish a communication on public procurement and the environment.
89
ronmental policy-making. The underlying

philosophy is that polluters do not have an
inherent right to pollute. The polluter pays
principle has been defined in various ways,
but the most important interpretation is that
the polluter should pay for the costs his pollution imposes on others for example
through a tax on polluting emissions. This
provides an added incentive to look for
reductions in pollution. A more limited interpretation would be that polluters should pay
only for the costs of any pollution control
measures required by law.
The polluter pays principle is already part
of the EC Treaty, but it is not yet widely
enough applied at either EU level or in
Member States. A much more rigorous and
consistent approach is required. Significant
improvements in both economic and environmental performance could be achieved
without increasing the overall tax burden by
gradual reform of existing tax structures and
subsidy regimes, so that the prices paid by
producers and consumers more accurately
reflect the costs and benefits their activities
impose on other members of society.
Part of the difficulty in applying the polluter
pays principle is that it can be difficult to
define who the polluter really is, as both producers and consumers bear some responsibility for the environmental impacts. For
practical purposes, therefore, the responsibility for combating pollution should be
assigned to those who are in the best position
to reduce pollution at relatively low cost (49).
In recent years, a number of initiatives by
Member States have aimed to encourage producers to design products that are easier to
(49) See Council recommendation of 3 March 1975, OJ L 194

of 25 July 1975.
90
deal with in the waste phase by making them

responsible for the environmental impacts of
products throughout their life cycle. Some
recent Commission proposals have also been
based on this idea of extended producer
responsibility.
4.5. Sectoral policy

coherence
In order to try to redirect policy in individual
sectors away from a narrow set of objectives
there have been several efforts at Community
level to integrate broader concerns into the
conduct of sectoral policies, such as employment promotion, regional development and
environmental protection. The current
efforts to integrate environmental concerns
into other sectoral policies (the Cardiff integration process) have shown that some
progress is possible through such initiatives.
The Cardiff process has increased understanding of the issues and helped develop
new policy approaches. However, there are
also limits. Improved dialogue does not in
itself solve all problems when there are
unavoidable trade-offs between competing
interests. Moreover, this type of policy integration is itself a sector by sector approach,
so it is unable to guarantee that different integration initiatives take a consistent approach.
It is therefore unlikely to produce the best
overall balance between the interests of consumers, citizens and producers.
Practical improvements to the sectoral integration approach would result from greater
transparency that is, a clearer presentation
of the economic, social and environmental
costs and benefits of different policy options.
Consistent and rigorous evaluation should be
conducted jointly and openly to ensure that
the different objectives are given their appropriate weight in each sector. Improving our
understanding of causes, effects and interlinkages between sectors is therefore critical
to designing and implementing policies for
sustainable development.
Beyond integration: improved coordination in Community policy-making

Sustainable development implies a societywide approach to policy design.
Sustainability must be placed at the core of
the mandate of all policy-makers. This means
more than tagging on environmental and
social objectives to existing policies.
Achieving these objectives should be as relevant to judging the success or failure of a policy as its sectoral targets. Otherwise, integration and sustainability risk becoming buzzwords to which policy-makers pay lip service
only. Integration must mean something more
than minor adjustments to business as usual
if sustainable development is to move from
rhetoric to reality. This needs political commitment and leadership.
As one part of the current internal reforms,
the Commission has established a strategic
planning and programming function to help
improve coordination between departments.
In addition, there is a need throughout the
Community institutional structure for a practical political mechanism to arbitrate in a
consistent and rational way across sectors
when competing interests are at stake, and to
provide clear long-term policy objectives.
Moreover, consideration could be given to
creating a council for sustainable development with no direct stake in the policy
process. Such a body may be better placed to
provide objective critical reviews of existing
policies. Several Member States have already
established independent councils in order to
advise their governments on sustainable

development issues.
Regular policy reviews

Regularly and systematically evaluating policies to ensure that they are meeting their
objectives, bringing benefits to society as a
whole and are consistent with the overall
objective of sustainable development should
become a core element of policy-making.
Such reviews should be undertaken in an
open manner so that the views of all stakeholders can be taken into account. In addition, more use should be made of sunset
clauses in legislation that provides for it to
be automatically ended or reviewed after a
number of years. Not all policy measures
need to last forever, but it is a rare and
brave! regulator who will voluntarily
declare that s/he is no longer needed.
4.6. Technology at the

service of society
In the context of sustainable development,
technology can be a double-edged sword.
Technological progress has enormously
increased our material wealth and improved
our quality of life in every area, from communications and transport to new foods and
health. They can also offer major opportunities for more efficient use of resources
through changes in production techniques
and the way services are delivered. Moreover,
technology can help us ease potential tradeoffs between competing ends. New technologies can often reduce pollution or risks for
health and safety at work at much lower cost
than adjusting existing technologies. Without
further advances in technology and its wider
use, the most challenging environmental
problems, such as climate change, can only
91
be tackled through painful changes in production and consumption patterns.

Technology will therefore be at the heart of
moves to sustainable development.
However, technology also brings its own
challenges, particularly when change is rapid.
New technologies and working methods can
increase competitive pressures and can force
difficult adjustments. Emerging technologies
create new opportunities but sometimes also
new risks and in some cases such as genetics new ethical questions. The enormous
effect of technology on the material productivity of our societies also raises the prospect
that we increase the scale of output and consumption more rapidly than we can reduce
pollution per unit produced, thereby increasing overall pressure on the environment over
time the rebound effect.
This means that technological progress has to
be actively harnessed in the interests of sustainable development. The challenge for policy is to influence innovation so that the solutions chosen by markets are winners for sustainable development. Market-based
approaches that get the prices right are
important to stimulate the development of
new and environmentally safe technologies
and their rapid take-up. Public policy can
also help to accelerate the diffusion of new
technologies by benchmarking, demonstration projects and removing non-market barriers to their use, including regulations that
unnecessarily hamper innovation.
A clear, long-lasting commitment from governments to pursue sustainable development
as a core policy objective will strengthen the
signals coming from prices. This will help to
give companies assurance about the stability
of the policy framework and encourage a
proactive approach by businesses during a
time of rapid structural change. Credible
92
long-term policy commitments will give companies time to develop new techniques and
adapt smoothly to the transition to sustainability. As well as aiming to provide the right
framework conditions, public authorities can
also fund basic and essential applied research
where it is too costly or too risky for an individual company.
4.7. Improving knowledge

and understanding
sound science, risk and
transparency
Science and scientific research does not take
place in a vacuum. The results of research
can have important effects on the direction of
public policy. This inevitably raises doubts
about the objectivity and completeness of the
research methods and results when commercial interests are at stake. To remove or at
least minimise such suspicions, research
results should be reported in an open way.
New research should be carefully peer
reviewed to ensure its credibility. Confidence
in the use of scientific information would also
be enhanced by independent synthesis of the
evidence so that it can be communicated to
and understood by a wider public.
Given the speed and complexity of technological innovation, independent scientific
research is essential to help us evaluate the
opportunities and risks of new production
techniques and new products. Risk is sometimes a necessary part of social progress
risk takers and innovators are essential for a
dynamic economy. However, many risks are
undesirable and have to be actively managed.
For example, in the development of new
medicines, a balance has to be struck
between the potential benefits that the treatment offers, and the risk that it may turn out
to have damaging side effects. Similarly, the

risks posed by new synthetic chemicals have
to be weighed against their benefits in use.
Therefore, in the context of sustainable
development, dealing with risk means carefully evaluating the economic, environmental
and social effects of innovations and taking a
balanced view of the likely positive and negative impacts.
Inevitably, in some cases we do not yet have
enough information about the existence or
scale of a risk to properly assess its real
importance. However, lack of proof that a
risk exists does not provide an adequate
excuse for ignoring it. This simple truth is at
the heart of what is commonly known as the
precautionary principle. But the precautionary principle in itself provides little practical guidance about how to manage risk and
uncertainty (50). Risk-management decisions
are inevitably a trade-off between the level of
protection desired, the costs of reducing risk,
and the weight of evidence that the risk is
real. This is ultimately a matter for political
judgment and responsibility.
During the course of the last few decades
many commonplace risks have been eliminated or reduced, thanks to improvements in
systems of social protection, environmental
and health improvements and higher standards of living. However, recent years have
seen the rapid emergence of new problems,
many unforeseen or unforeseeable. This calls
for new institutional responses. We need to
improve our capacity to respond speedily to
emerging risks, to speed-up scientific assessment of risks (such as the risks posed by persistent pollutants or biotoxins), and to
improve our capacity for dealing with crises.
(50) The Commission communication on the precautionary
principle (COM(1) 2000) provides a more complete discussion of the role and scope of the precautionary principle in EU policy-making.
Most importantly, decisions on how to tackle

risks that we face as consumers and citizens
must be made transparently, in an accountable manner, and with the public interest at
heart.
4.8. Better information,

education and
participation
Improved information for producers and consumers is important to enhance the effectiveness of policies that seek to encourage changes
in behaviour. Consumers can respond better
to price signals and other incentives if they
have relevant information, such as the cost
savings they can expect from using more energy-efficient domestic appliances, or the health
improvements they can expect from better
diet. Information gaps can undermine the
effectiveness of policy. Moreover, if we are to
exercise our personal freedoms wisely and
take an active part in civil society, we need
information about the wider effects of our
choice of lifestyle on matters such as our
health and on traffic congestion.
The process by which policy is made should
be transparent. An open dialogue about the
costs and benefits of different options will
help test the arguments that underlie different policy proposals. Establishing a dialogue
between stakeholders can be time consuming, but is essential to building mutual trust
and understanding and may increase the
chances of finding mutually acceptable solutions. The current European climate change
programme is a good example of a more
open policy process. Sustainable development can thus become a way to revitalise the
democratic process by involving citizens in
decisions that affect their daily life and generating a real debate on societys priorities.
93
Access to high-quality education and training

for all ages will enable citizens to take an
active part in democratic society. Our behaviour as individual citizens is not determined
exclusively by strictly financial considerations. It also reflects a sense of belonging to
society, of sharing a common set of social values. Providing better information to citizens
about the goal of sustainability and its importance is a way of strengthening this social
capital and encouraging sustainable behaviour by all.
4.9. Measuring progress:

indicators
Indicators provide the basis for assessing
progress towards the long-term objective of
sustainable development. Long-term targets
only have meaning as policy goals if progress
towards them can be assessed objectively.
This requires targets expressed in precise
terms. Careful measurement will also
improve our ability to identify interactions
between different policies and deal with possible trade-offs. There are some cases when
improvements in one area can only be
achieved at the expense of deterioration in
another. Such trade-offs are already a part of
policy-making, but the advantage of measurement is that they are made explicit and
transparent.
This does not mean that everything must be
quantified. Quantified and measurable targets are important, but must not become the
exclusive focus of policy. Indeed, some elements of sustainable development are intrinsically hard to quantify. Not everything can
be turned into numerical data. This is particularly true of some environmental and social
assets. We cannot easily measure the value of
biodiversity or the quality and quantity of
94
social relationships. To avoid neglecting them

we must devise better qualitative indicators.
Identifying an appropriate set of measures
and indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, will not be easy given the scope of the
issues addressed in this paper. Inevitably, not
all the desired data will be available. It is a
persistent temptation to measure what is easiest to measure rather than what is important.
This has to be avoided if we are to develop
robust indicators that provide accurate signals. It is more important to be roughly right
(with imperfect indicators of what matters)
than precisely wrong (with perfect indicators
on developments of little importance).
There are a number of current initiatives to
measure sustainable development. These
include the indicator set drawn up by the
United Nations, which will be applied at the
European level in a forthcoming publication
by Eurostat (51), and a number of indicators
for policy integration in sectors such as energy, transport and agriculture. Some local
authorities are developing indicators which
reflect local priorities. The World Business
Council for Sustainable Development is promoting measures of corporate performance
against the yardstick of sustainability.
These initiatives all have their merits, but to
measure progress on the themes identified in
this paper will require a more tailored set of
indicators. For each theme, a small set of
indicators will be needed. These must take
account, where necessary, of the differences
in the nature of what is being measured. The
set of indicators must be wide enough to capture the complexity of each area. At the same
time, the indicators must not be so complex
as to be incomprehensible to policy-makers
and the public.
(51) Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe.
To be published by Eurostat in June 2001.
5. Conclusions
This consultation paper is the first stage in
the preparation of an EU strategy for sustainable development. In it, the Commission
services have set out their views on the challenges and opportunities which would be
presented by making sustainable development the overarching priority of Community
policy.
The paper focuses on problems of sustainable development within Europe. This
approach is underpinned by a belief that to
provide leadership in a global context, the
EU has to meet its international commitments and reform its internal policies so as to
make progress towards sustainable development. Of course, the EU also has to play its
full role in international organisations, such
as the UN, the IMF and World Bank and the
WTO, as these bodies have an important
contribution to make towards sustainable
development. The international dimension of
sustainable development will be fully
addressed in preparations for the Rio + 10
Summit in South Africa next year.
To move the sustainable development debate

from the realm of abstract discussion of definitions and concepts into the area of everyday policy-making, the Commission services
have identified six key themes where current
trends threaten the sustainable development
of the European Union. These themes have
been chosen because of the severity and the
potential irreversibility of the issues identified, because they are common to several or
all Member States, and because finding and
implementing solutions will be eased by
cooperation.
Analysis of these topics has shown that many
of the problems have their origins in a small
number of shared failures. These include distorted market prices, insufficient knowledge,
information and communication, and an
inconsistent sectoral approach to policymaking which takes too little account of linkages and spillovers between sectors. In the
light of this analysis, the Commission services have proposed (in Section 4 of this consultation paper) a policy toolkit which the
Community and Member States could use to
address the unsustainable trends described
in Section 2.
95
Joint public hearing organised by the European Commission and the

Economic and Social Committee
Brussels, 26 and 27 April 2001
Shaping the strategy for a

sustainable European Union
Views from civil society and
public authorities
Proceedings in brief (*)
(*) Extracts of main speeches, key points raised from the floor and rapporteurs summaries.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
The hearing provided an opportunity for stakeholders (businesses, trade unions,

NGOs, academia, etc.) and public authorities to express their views on the Commission
consultation paper on the EU strategy on sustainable development published on
27 March 2001 and to contribute to shaping the Commissions final proposal and the
Gothenburg European Council conclusions on the strategy.
Opening session
Mr Gke Frerichs, President of the
Economic and Social Committee
We in the Economic and Social Committee
an interdisciplinary, consultative body
made up of representatives of different, and
not always concurring interests routinely
seek consensus and coherence in a bid to find
sustainable solutions that promote European
integration.
The Economic and Social Committee sees
itself as the home of EU organised civil society and that in turn means representing
civil society interests. We endeavour to meet
this ambitious objective not least by raising
awareness of the sustainable development
issue among the many organisations, associations and trade unions represented in or by
the Committee and harnessing their support.
Legislation and politics are certainly not the
only points at issue. Sustainable development
is also a matter of lifestyle and culture. In
social terms, for instance, sustainable development undoubtedly concerns peoples
working lives, but also involves the family,
the neighbourhood, local authorities and
government.
What we are dealing with here is, in fact, one
of the new values of which our society has
been growing ever more aware over the past
few decades. It is a question of responsibility
our responsibility for future generations
and, in the final analysis, our responsibility

for creation. Sustainable development is thus
also a key dimension of solidarity, which is
one of the core values of European integration.
Ms Anna Diamantopoulou, Commissioner

with responsibility for employment and
social affairs
Sustainable development required mutually
supportive economic, social and environmental policies. Winwin situations must be
created and, when trade-offs were necessary,
the situation and what is at stake must be
assessed transparently, with the help of indicators and data.
The European sustainable development
strategy would not breed additional processes or procedures in Europe but orient existing ones towards building more integrated
approaches, with the contribution of all
stakeholders. In this last respect, the
Commissioner stressed the role the
Economic and Social Committee had to play.
The European strategy must be compatible
with, and complementary to, the global
development of sustainable development
strategies and therefore support global agreements on the environment, trade, development, labour standards. It must focus on
issues with the most scope or potential for
effective action within Europe. To put that
into practice, three selection criteria had
99
been used, as follows: the severity of the

problem and cost of doing nothing; the lasting character of damage including transmission from one generation to the next and the
time needed to put matters right; and third
the extent of the problem at European or
even world level.
Applying these criteria six priority topics, all
inter-related to some degree, were selected:
climate change and clean energy;
public health;
management of natural resources;
poverty and social exclusion;
ageing and demography;
The strategy should dovetail and put in longterm perspective the commitments made by
the European Councils in Lisbon, Nice and
Stockholm, notably the full employment target and that of higher quality social and
employment policies, so that all could benefit from enhanced economic efficiency. To
achieve and maintain this, science and technology has to find ways to reduce pressure on
natural resources, as instanced by the sixth
environmental action programme. Ms
Diamantopoulou pointed out the special
sensitivity of women to sustainability issues,
made clear in a 1999 Eurobarometer survey.
Closing, the Commissioner stressed the relevance of sustainable development for the
countries planning to join the EU for economic but still more for democratic reasons.
Failure to make long-run decisions and set
long-run goals would let down not only our100
selves but all those who look to Europe to set

an example, including those who wish to join
us soon.
Mr Jos Chabert, President of the

Committee of the Regions
The open method of coordination (e.g. the
Cardiff or Lisbon follow-up) needed to be
matched by adequate procedures for consultation. A strategy for reaching specific objectives and methods was not the same as hard
legislation and would therefore not follow
normal procedure where for example the
Committee of Regions and the Economic and
Social Committee are consulted under the
Treaty. New hearing procedures had therefore to be invented and conferences like this
were part of that process. But sufficient time
for response also needed respect and recognition. That would ensure that the stakeholders felt ownership of proposed methods and
targets.
Almost all the themes set out in the
Commissions paper were the daily responsibility of local and regional authorities all over
Europe. It was they who would be faced with
putting most of the future EU sustainable
development strategy into effect. So the
Committee of Regions was not happy to see
the role of local and regional authorities
ignored in the Commission paper.
Just look at information, training and awareness-raising, help and advice for individuals
and families, for all of which local and
regional authorities play an irreplaceable
role. These activities form a major part of the
toolkit presented by the Commission and
local and regional authorities are ready to
perform them in partnership with others.
Session 1 sketched the historical background of the EU sustainable development

strategy (from Helsinki to Lisbon and
Gothenburg) and examined a number of
general horizontal aspects.
Chairman: Mr Ulf Svidn, Environment
Counsellor,
Swedish
Permanent
Representation.
Mr Antti Peltomki, Finnish UnderSecretary of State for EU Affairs

Mr Peltomki set out the role of the Finnish
Presidency in furthering of the strategy for
sustainable development.
Although Helsinki did not spend much time
on environment and sustainable development, Mr Peltomki expressed satisfaction
with the results which were as follows.
Firstly, the Council was asked to finalise the
strategies for integrating the environmental
dimension into all policy sectors and report
to the European Council in June 2001.
Second, Commission and Council were
urged to develop adequate instruments for
monitoring, adjusting and deepening sectoral
strategies. Third, the Community and
Member States were urged to continue
preparations to establish the prerequisites for
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before 2002.
Fourth, Helsinki asked the Commission to
prepare by the end of 2000 a proposal for the
sixth environmental action programme. Last
but not least, the Commission was invited to
prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy
dovetailing policies for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable development
to be presented to the Gothenburg European
Council in June 2001. The Feira European
Council confirmed the political pressure by
asking the European Council to adopt the
strategy in Gothenburg.
He added some general observations. The

sustainable development strategy should be
truly operational and for that integrated into
Lisbons strategic objectives at the latest in
Barcelona next spring. The strategy had to
constitute EUs contribution to the Rio + 10
Summit. It should also take account of EU
enlargement. It should lay down general
qualitative objectives for sustainable development in the long term. Environmental
objectives should be based on the sixth environmental action programme.
The relation between the sustainable development strategy and sectoral strategies
should be clear. The strategy should provide
the overall guidelines, while more detailed
sector-specific objectives should be left to the
sectors concerned.
Pursuant to the conclusions of the
Stockholm European Council, trends in sustainable development were to be examined at
the spring meetings. The Commissions role
seemed to be in place, namely monitoring,
the development of indicators for the sustainable development and presentation of an
annual synthesis report within the Lisbon
process. The role of the General Affairs
Council in preparing the spring meetings of
the European Council should be re-assessed.
The European Council should not be a mere
coordinator it has to be responsible for
political guidelines.
Prof. Augusto Mateus, former Portuguese
Minister for Economic Affairs
The transition to sustainable development
meant more than integrating environmental
concerns into other strategies; it was about
re-redesigning current policies. We will, he
said, see a new paradigm, where technological modernisation will no longer focus on
equipment, but on knowledge.
101
Sustainability was not about preserving an

economic model with known negative longterm effects on nature, people and markets,
acting through partial adjustments imposed
by a short-term response to scarcity, crisis
and need. Sustainability was about changing
the economic model to control and manage
long-term effects on nature, climate and people through structural reforms to markets,
States and institutions, using intelligence
proactively to prevent scarcity or crisis, to
use science and knowledge efficiently to meet
even more demanding human and social
needs from a strategic approach.
Long-term vision was crucial, a platform to
give life to new ideas and innovation, for ecoefficiency. This was a challenge for the market
to develop new business, and a political challenge to create a new policy platform. The
most unsustainable trends were due to human
concentration in urban areas, regional disparities in development, and transportation. The
real issue was how to change current behaviour
in a proactive way, intelligently. Sustainability
could be reached if we create a new economic
model, new sets of policies, and new sets of
institutions. The new policies should be horizontal instead of sectoral, and we need to create strategic market regulations which leave
opportunities for innovation to business.
The Lisbon strategy was a bit like Lisbon
sunny with low visibility. It lacked a specific
link to sustainable development. The challenge was to take the next steps towards sustainable development, for which one had to
be humble to face reality in an honest way,
and bold to create the new policy.
Comments from the floor
H. Mullet, Friends of the Earth Europe
There was need for a strong vision of EU

sustainable development. Important build102
ing blocks were innovation and eco-efficiency, which if used rightly also create new
jobs.
Clear goals and targets would help to make
the vision more concrete.
Existing programmes like the common
agricultural policy and the Structural
Funds needed to be revised.
G. Deuchars, Eurolink Age
Sustainable development strategy based

firmly on fundamental social rights was
very welcome. Social policy was not to be
relegated as a part only built into economic policy.
Win-win solutions might very often be
found, but when there was a cost, this must
not fall upon the weakest; this would lead
to social exclusion. The strategy must
respect social fairness.
The crucial gender issue was not in the
consultative document, but should belong
to the strategy.
B. Gabellieri, CEEP
The consultative document was very much

based upon an analysis of the present situation, but we had to foresee all possible situations and solutions.
It was important to include those responsible for local policies and to develop instruments for State actors.
D. Simionescu, Permanent Representation of
Romania
It was important for accession countries to

be part of the process. The consultative
document failed to provide active participation from accession countries. Special

paths had to be set out for the accession
countries to follow.
A. Grof, Eurochambre
Accession countries must be included.

What Commissioner Diamantopoulou and
Professor Mateus had put forward was
supported: a goal-oriented policy, horizontal policies and a new fiscal system based
on free market mechanisms.
If there was a consumer information campaign, business community support would
be offered for it.
Rapporteur: Mr Henning Arp, Cabinet
Commissioner Wallstrm
He summarised what had been said in the
session and instanced the following highlights:
The local level offered opportunities and
could mobilise different actors, for instance
to raise awareness among consumers and
develop voluntary agreements with different actors.
At the same time, the international perspective was stressed. Enlargement created
a special challenge and had to be addressed
in the strategy.
The strategy should also include social
rights and the gender dimension.
The sustainable development strategy was
an opportunity to reform common policy
in the European Union, to show strong
political leadership, to develop vision, clear
objectives and concrete proposals.
Session 2 focused on three priority themes

identified in the Commission consultation
paper: Public health, management of
natural resources and ageing.
Chairman: Mr Allan Larsson, Chairman of
the Board of Swedish Public Television (SVT)
and former Director-General of the
Employment and Social Affairs DG of the
European Commission.
Ms Teresa Presas,
Corporate Director of Environmental
Affairs, Tetra Pak Group
Innovation was a key tool not sufficiently
recognised in the Commissions approach:
innovation in new materials, in sorting technologies, in recycling technologies, in new
incentives. But improving scientific knowledge for policy-making was not enough.
Improving understanding on how business
works was also important. Steps forward
would come by working closely with the private sector. Many industries were prepared
to develop voluntary agreements within
stakeholder dialogue.
However, assigning to industry sole responsibility for managing waste from the products
they put on the market was not efficient. The
consumer played a key role. Sending the
wrong signals to the consumer, that he or she
has no responsibility, would not lead to
change in behaviour. Education, transparent
information and effective communication
would progressively make consumers more
like responsible citizens, both in purchasing
patterns and in domestic and community
behaviour. The toolkit in the Commissions
document did not emphasise this enough.
Waste management was handled by local
authorities or their subcontractors, the waste
103
managers. They both operate on the basis of

different conditions that vary substantially
from one community to another. Municipal
authorities should also be involved in the
promotion of tools to improve waste management.
In setting objectives for recycling, it was necessary to realise that recycling also often
increases transport; it was important to optimise these issues. It was important also to
take into account recycling costs. Some materials and products were very expensive to
recycle and efforts should be placed elsewhere. Energy recovery should sometimes be
considered as a recycling option.
The Commissions toolkit was a good basis
for action. Great efforts must be made to
reach key audiences. The sustainable development concept must be capable of moving
decision-makers and leaders, be it at political
or business level. The sense and implications
of a sustainable development strategy must
be accessible to everyone. Communication
was the key!
Dr Wilfried Kreisel,
Executive Director WHO and Head
of the WHO EU Office
The needs and different dimensions of sustainability should be defined. A particular
problem was the failure to resolve the relationship between, and relative status of, the
economic, social and environmental dimensions. Thus, while the need to make tradeoffs between the three dimensions of sustainable development was recognised, an operational framework was lacking. The three
dimensions play very different roles in the
concept of sustainable development in
essence, economic performance was seen as a
means towards the end of improving social
104
conditions within the constraints imposed by

environmental considerations. Many public
health problems were created through specific sectoral policies, e.g. the common agricultural policy (CAP) and transport. These policies had many positive aspects but they also
impinged profoundly on the big problems of
food-borne hazards, dietary problems, tobacco and alcohol issues, on pollution and loss
of biodiversity, are major instances. The
paper did not tackle the obvious possibilities
for food industry and agriculture to develop
production in line with demands of health
and sustainable development.
Mr Daniele Franco,
Research Department Bank of Italy
The consultative paper outlined a comprehensive strategy and several possible solutions. Public policies related to the ageing
issue were affected by most of the problems
indicated in the consultative paper. Several of
the solutions mentioned would greatly
improve the capacity to deal with ageing. But
certain issues should be stressed more forcefully. The budgetary implications of ageing
was the driving force for policy changes.
Recent projections pointed for most EU
countries to substantial increases in pension
outlays. Additional budgetary pressures
more difficult to quantify would come
from healthcare and long-term care. These
trends called for large increases in tax levels,
which would affect negatively the performance of EU economies and conflict with the
trend towards lower tax levels stemming
from greater economic integration. For pensions, the most viable solution was to
increase average retirement age. There was
need for substantial increases in the employment rates of workers in the 5565 age
bracket, pension reforms should provide
incentives to stay longer in labour markets.
The consultative paper should also briefly

face the budgetary issues raised by ageing for
healthcare and long-term care. The control
of health expenditure would need a wide
range of policy action. The design of incentives for consumers, producers and insurers
was especially important for the efficient provision of health services and long-term care.
Medical, social and budgetary issues should
be considered jointly. Social protection policies as well as health policies were typically
matters for national governments and policy
changes to deal with ageing were mostly the
responsibility of Member States. The EU
could support adjustment by providing a
forum in which views about solutions and
experiments were exchanged. Moreover,
cooperation at EU level could exert peer
pressure for structural reform.
Mr Michel Rocard,
Member of the European Parliament
Two elements are, I feel, essential:
1. The importance of the firm commitment
from the Heads of State or Government
who, at the Helsinki Summit, highlighted
the challenges faced by the EU in forging a
sustainable development agenda quickly.
The need to take environmental considerations into account in the economy in an allembracing bid to promote growth and
jobs has thus been officially recognised.
2. The excellence of the adopted approach,
which makes for a wide-ranging debate on
the key issues by encouraging (i) input
from the EU institutions, (ii) the involvement of the Member States and (iii) consideration of the views of civil society. This
is, I feel, the only legitimate approach to an
issue which affects the future of the world
we live in.
People have become aware of the need for

twofold solidarity that is, solidarity between
generations and towards the most disadvantaged, including, I would stress, the developing countries, which are often left out of our
discussions. This awareness has shown that
social issues are one area on which to focus.
If they want to bequeath a viable world to
future generations, rich countries must set in
motion a genuine cultural revolution. They
must rethink the factors underpinning their
wealth. Poor countries still lack the prerequisites for a decent standard of living the
capacity to feed, house and clothe themselves. To attain acceptable levels, they must
leave behind the solutions extolled to them
for centuries and seek out different strategies. And I am not talking here about the
essential need for peace, which is the precondition, the sine qua non, for the survival
of the world. I do not think that nations have
ever asked themselves in these specific
terms what conditions have to be met if
their future is to be secured.
Sustainable development means thinking
ahead, adapting; above all, it means a desire
to live.
J. Hontelez, European Environment Bureau
The concept of producer responsibility as

presented by Ms Presas was too simplistic.
There was a need to develop a concept for
an enlarged EU.
C. Puppinck, CEEP
Joint efforts by Member States should be

made to prepare for the accession of the
candidate countries.
105
There was a need to incorporate health

issues.
Our forms of education and training needed changing.
G. Deuchars, AGE European Older Peoples

Platform
There was scope for companies to promote

healthy lifestyle of employees.
There was a need to develop a more positive way to view ageing (alarming and negative impression from the Commission
document).
There was also an urgent need to increase
the level of employment among older people.
Firm action against discrimination and
unemployment was important.
S. Nslund, Administrative Director
of the Swedish Environmental
Advisory Council
The use of natural resources should be

given stronger emphasis: energy, material,
soil, terrestrial and maritime systems.
Decoupling the use of natural resources
from economic development was needed
urgently.
A new concept of development should be
developed.
B. Gabellieri, European Association of Joint
Institutions (AEIP)
There was a need to establish a link

between companies and requisite investments.
I. Graenitz, Global Legislators Organisation for
a Balanced Environment
The chapter of health should be integrated

into the other chapters.
106
Rapporteur: Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark,

Director for International Affairs at the
Swedish Trade Union SACO and Member
of the Economic and Social Committee
Sustainable development was very much a
matter of making rational choices based on
knowledge, on hard facts, on not being in a
situation where decisions are taken by necessity, but where we have intellectual capacity
and time for analysis and for making rational
choices. To do this, a lot more knowledge
and much more research and development
was needed. A large number of technology
leaps and many more investments in human
capital were essential. A society marked by
sustainable development was a knowledgeintensive society. To develop a genuinely
knowledge-intensive society took time.
Industrys participation was highlighted in
the discussion. Earlier industry was very
often the villain in this context. But today,
industrys active participation, active commitment, to be part of a movement for sustainable development, was often emphasised.
It showed that the number of active stakeholders in the work for sustainable development was in fact growing and industry could
play a very important part.
To create a sustainable society, public finances
must be in such good order that sudden economic crises could be tackled. The need for
sustainable public finances was especially
pressing in the perspective of population ageing. Age discrimination at the work place was
one issue in this context to be addressed.
Attention was drawn in the discussion to the

linkages between various policies and policy
sectors, e.g. between transport and health.
These linkages had absolutely to be taken
into account when a sustainable development policy was outlined. The need to
mobilise public opinion was obvious. Also,
solidarity between generations, people,
regions was an essential part of a policy.
One question was conspicuously missing in
our discussion about the ageing population:
why do we have so few children? It was not
possible to discuss this problem without
examining this question. Therefore, an active
family policy should be part of a sustainable
development policy, a family policy with real
economic and social opportunities for parents to choose children and career.
Session 3 focused on three priority themes

identified in the Commission consultation
paper: Climate change and clean energy,
poverty and social exclusion as well as
Chairman: Mr Jorgen Henningsen, Principal
Adviser, Energy and Transport DG, European
Commission.
The Rt. Hon. John Gummer MP

(former UK Minister for the Environment)
The heart of the problem was that we do see
this huge issue of sustainable development,
we spend a great deal of time defining it and
then remark on how big it is, how huge the
problems are, how enormous the steps which
should be taken and how difficult it is to
start. We need to recognise that big targets
are met by a host of small steps and we do no
good by trying to find the big answer.
We need a large enough Union to be able to

make the real decisions which make a difference. We also rely upon the willingness of
Member States to take action and on individuals and communities to recognise their role
as well, but all within the context of the
Union.
The first category of action was to start being
prepared to set clear targets for change. It
was a scandal that at a time when Coca-Cola
had committed itself not to purchase any
HFC-driven refrigeration after 2005, the EU
had not done the same. In many areas, business was driving the sustainability cause. The
refrigeration industry would be different
after 2005 because Coca-Cola had made that
decision; the worlds biggest user of refrigeration could change an industry. If we set the
standards well enough in advance we could
make industry the driver of what it had to do.
The second area of action was how to change
individual decision-making. You cannot
make a man good by an act of Parliament,
but it was perfectly easy to make good easier
than bad. His biggest complaint about the
EU was that it was too often prey to prescription. We believed that bureaucrats and
politicians knew the answer but often they
did not. Say what people have to achieve;
they will know how to do it.
Finally, he chose to refer to procurement policy. Governments and the EU drove many of
the decisions made by industry because they
procure buildings, materials, services, etc.
And yet they did not do so in a green way and
that could so easily be done. Belfast City
Council was an exemplary exception. It managed to decrease costs by over 20 % at the
same time as it actively promoted the environment and sustainable development.
107
Mr Henry Malosse, Director European

Affairs, Assembly of French Chambers of
Commerce and Member of the Economic
and Social Committee
staunch advocate of a broad approach to

development, which should be harmonious
and soundly based.
In many countries, including France, the idea

of sustainable development is difficult to
understand. Taking the dictionary and my
own conviction as a lead, I would define it
as a soundly-based Europe. A soundlybased Europe how is that to be achieved?
First of all, the various stakeholders involved
both inside and outside government
and the public themselves should be called
upon to demonstrate a greater sense of
responsibility. Education and training are key
aspects.
Mr Anders Wijkman, Member of the

European Parliament
People can only exercise this sense of responsibility, however, in a Europe that fosters
cooperation and the active involvement of
civil society. It is essential to underscore the
role of economic and social stakeholders.
Their primary task is as consultants, intermediaries and experts. Beyond that, however,
civil society organisations have also taken on
a specifically regulatory role, involving coregulation, self-regulation, codes of conduct,
mediation, arbitration, etc. The example of
the European Automobile Manufacturers
Association which managed to head off regulation by a contractual commitment (to cut
CO2 emissions) should be publicised and
promoted more widely.
As a body representing organised civil society and the European economic and social
players of which it is composed we would
advocate a more inclusive Union strategy, so
that we do not compartmentalise or superimpose priorities but endeavour to see them as
one single policy, expressed in a variety of
different ways and drawing on a variety of
different tools. In this way, the Economic and
Social Committee would see itself as the
108
He deplored that time was so limited for discussion and dialogue on the strategy before
the Gothenburg Summit. The central goal of
the strategy had to be to set the framework
for a new model of development, where
social and environmental objectives were balanced with those of economic growth. The
task was not only one of bringing harmony
between different objectives. The natural
environment had certain values that cannot
be substituted. The way conventional economics treated these values was totally inadequate. Hence, the need for a new economic
paradigm, where measuring wealth, the quality of growth, the short-term versus the longterm, etc., were given priority. Against this
background and the challenge involved, it
was even more regrettable that only a few
weeks were set aside for dialogue with major
stakeholders on the discussion paper and
that there was even less time for consultations once the strategy was presented.
In the consultative paper, a more in-depth
discussion would have been desirable as
regards the limitations of the neo-classical
economic model in dealing with the challenges of sustainability. There was a general
perception in society that economic growth is
positive for the environment (the so-called
inverted Kusnetz curve). However, for some
environmental problems, like the carbon
cycle, the nitrogen cycle, biodiversity, fresh
water scarcity and waste generation, the
opposite seemed to be true. The strategy had
to address this.
A comprehensive strategy had to integrate

the various sector strategies and deal with
cross-cutting issues. It could not be developed in a vacuum since EU policies in many
areas had consequences far beyond Europes
boundaries. Prominent examples were
export subsidies in agriculture, fisheries policy and activities of the national export credit agencies. The EU had to ensure coherence
between its internal policies and their impact
on the rest of the world, notably on developing countries.
Mr J. Wriglesworth BP / UNICE
The long-term strategy set out by J.

Gummer was very good.
It was true that big targets are met by small
steps.
Better cooperation between authorities and
industry on the use of market knowledge
would help sustainable development.
New technologies should be mobilised to
solve problems (the EU could learn from
the United States).
J. Hontelez Secretary-General, European
Environmental Bureau
Prices had to rise to bring consumption

down.
It was not true that energy taxation was
always ineffective (e.g. Denmark and the
Netherlands).
J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser, Energy and
Transport DG, European Commission
The Commissions view was that energy

taxes would have a strong impact on man-
ufacturing and power generation but a very

small one on transport.
S. Nslund, Executive Director
of the Swedish Environmental
Advisory Council
Perverse subsidies should be eliminated

and right incentives for business introduced.
There was much scope for dialogue with
industry.
In Sweden, energy efficiency had grown
but energy use had increased even more
(the rebound effect).
H. M. Lent-Philipps ACEA
Indicators or targets for energy intensity

were important.
Whatever form it took, transport would
need energy but maybe not fossil fuel
based.
J. Henningsen, Principal Adviser,
Energy and Transport DG,
European Commission
Of course renewable energy was essential

in the long term, but in the short and medium term, focus should be on energy efficiency.
Concerning taxes, a key factor was demand
elasticity and therefore better understanding of each sector was needed.
One had to be aware of the possible
rebound effect after making energy more
efficient. The solution to that was better
education.
109
D. de Juncker COPA (Committee of

Agricultural Organisations in the
European Union)
The creation of enterprises had to be easier, the entrepreneurial spirit favoured and
this started out from education itself.
COPA held that primary recyclable materials (particularly bio-mass from agriculture)
can play an important role in the fight
against climate change.
B. de Galembert Organisation
Europenne de la Proprit rurale
Targeted policy to promote the use of these

materials and provide a more coherent link
between agricultural and environmental
policies was needed.
W. Schmidt Kster,
Trade Association of
Nuclear Industries Foratom
Different policies had to be made more

compatible. Energy and environmental
policies were not really consistent, as for
example in Sweden, where taxes are levied
on nuclear carbon-free electricity.
P. Lorenz, Friends of the Earth Europe
It was unlikely that nuclear energy would

solve climate change as for the last 50 years
nothing had been solved and the problem
of waste was still there.
One had to internalise external costs and
avoid energy that with waste lasting for
1 000 years was not sustainable at all.
B. Ollier, Head of Department Business-friendly
environment Eurochambers
The creation of new market opportunities

would drive a virtuous circle developing
cleaner technologies; if the customer
rewarded such technologies, the producer
would respond; so the price and incentive
had to be right but so did the climate for
innovation.
110
The rural world had not waited for the EU

to apply sustainable solutions; forests were
an example.
Such efforts should be further acknowledged and encouraged.
D. Cloquet Director Industrial Affairs
Department UNICE
Good management was essential at all levels, one had to look at the big picture.
Fiscal instruments were not right for all
cases.
Emissions trading was another possibility.
Company competitiveness and capacity to
invest had to be preserved.
G. Sklavounos, ESC member
With little scope for new policies, existing

ones should be saturated with sustainable
development.
How could synergies be maximised? To
what extent was regulation needed worldwide? What was the EU/Member State
division of tasks? The new economic model
needed definition but how?
A new view of mans relation to nature and
other generations was needed.
R. Becker European Bishops Conference
This document focused on sustainable

development in Europe but how could pol-
icy help to achieve sustainable development world wide?

Post-Rio, one should not see sustainable
development devoid of social coherence;
sustainable development meant north
south cooperation removing differences
between the two.
The EU should avoid harm to developing
countries by imposing trade barriers and
raise development aid to 0.7 % of GDP. If
we really wanted sustainability, these issues
were unavoidable.
J. Henningsen
The priority was to put our own house in

order first.
There was currently a lack of consistency
within the EU and between certain of its
policies.
P. Vanderlayen Policy Officer at the

European Anti-Poverty Network
At the Lisbon Summit, it was said that

eradication of poverty was a priority. This
needed a very broad approach.
Fundamental rights were also an important
issue.
J. Henningsen
The second version of this document

would be very different and focus on policy actions for sustainable development.
The important phase is not Gothenburg
but what will happen after Gothenburg.
O. Gerhard Mouvement International
ATD Quart Monde
Sustainable development and human rights

were indivisible.
C. Roumet European Social Platform
G. Gourgeochon Union of the

Finance-Personnel in Europe (UFE)
The Commission paper suggests rightly

that one can find winwin policies but
since that was not always possible one must
try to avoid the cost of sustainable development falling on those least able.
Policies should create incentives to redistribute profits from sustainable development to end social exclusion, i.e. a more
voluntarist approach.
F. Usscher Forum for the Future
NN, European Federation working with

Homeless People
It was hardly mentioned, but it played a

vital role. A common IT literacy across the
EU was needed and the EU had to take
responsibility to promote it. There were
several ways, for example networks of
online services and free software. The
Europa web site could be a platform for
that. The EU had to use the latest information-sharing technologies.
To raise standards of housing quality was

positive for the environment and employment.
R. Lax European Union Road Federation
The consultative document focused on

inter-urban projects but urban transport
had the greater impact on the environment.
111
Rapporteur: Mr Hanns R. Glatz,

Delegate of the Board of Management,
DaimlerChrysler
There was clearly full agreement on the desirability of sustainable development. But as a
speaker pointed out, one big difficulty with
this concept is that its sense is very difficult to
render in all languages. Linked to this may be
the question of the place for ethical values,
which were briefly mentioned. Clearly, a lack
of shared ethical values makes it difficult to
define common objectives. Everyone agreed
that there is no single solution that can solve
all the problems at one stroke. At best, one
should fix performance standards and
abstain as far as possible from prescribing
precise measures; leave the individual actors
to work out how to get there, for example
through popular campaigns, voluntary agreements, self-regulation, a whole range of possibilities. Education, as all agreed, was crucial, but education without ethical values did
not work.
Government had both direct and indirect
responsibility. It had direct responsibility for
public procurement, export subsidies, etc.
and indirect responsibility, e.g. through the
impact of EU policies on the developing
world. The idea was mooted that the EU
could set a blueprint for the rest of the world,
but sustainability, particularly in relation to
climate change, required global solutions.
Clearly, the EU could do very much by itself
and create this blueprint for the rest of the
world. But it would still need to persuade
others; maybe exclusion could be a good
field for such an approach.
The scope for a new economic model and the
relevance of some artificial elements added to
the standard market economy needed to be
discussed much further. But the question of
priorities and how to reach them could not
112
be dropped. Priorities had to be set between

the various absolutely legitimate objectives,
otherwise the targets were impossible to
achieve. Governments pursued different policy objectives, coal promoted to preserve jobs
and security of energy supply, for instance, or
nuclear energy promoted as clean energy
instead of CO2-emitting fuels. Without clear
prioritisation, conflicts would arise.
As illustration of these quandaries the advantage of repressive as against persuasive means
was discussed. Several speakers pleaded for
persuasive means, positive incentives, while
others argued that raising energy taxes or fixing strict limits was the best way to achieve
effective results.
An interesting aspect was the rebound effect:
once substantial progress in relative energy
efficiency was achieved, the relative cost
relaxation might not produce the desired
drop in overall consumption and thus cut
emissions of CO2 or a dangerous product.
There was strong regret expressed that the
environment and climate change was a global problem but that there was no global governance. This took us back to the Kyoto
Protocol discussion.
On poverty and social exclusion, different
objectives were pursued by different groups.
There were different objectives in domestic
and in foreign policies. There was a need to
really help the developing world. Direct
action was important but indirect implications must be considered. It was pointed out
that the gender issue is largely missing in the
consultative paper. The same was true for the
very important area of ICT: the digital revolution must be inclusive, but the question
was how to achieve that.
Social exclusion was a multi-dimensional
problem and must not be looked upon only
in the context of economic implications.

Education and training as responsibilities for
government and for the private sector was
mentioned again.
In conclusion, one had to look at all aspects
cultural, environmental, societal, educational, etc. for society to develop a sustainable future.
Session 4 aimed to provide input to the

Commissions final proposal on the sustainability strategy and the Gothenburg
European Council conclusions.
Chairman: Mr Josly Piette, Secretary-General
of the Belgian Trade Union Confederation CSC
and member of the Economic and Social
Committee.
Mr John Hontelez,
Secretary-General
of the European
Environmental Bureau (EEB)
For environmental organisations, there was
much at stake in Gothenburg. Environmental organisations had successfully campaigned for inclusion of sustainable development in the Amsterdam Treaty and since
then continued to make proposals and create
pressure leading to the Helsinki initiative.
The EEB had, mostly in cooperation with
others, tried to stimulate the work within the
Commission. The EEB had organised discussions with the Swedish Presidency, national
governments, stakeholders on what the strategy should look like. Most recent was a publication with 17 contributions from different
stakeholders. It showed remarkable agreement amongst people with different backgrounds and interests. Today, we would like
to present some common conclusions of
stakeholders, including environmentalists,

church representatives, trade unions, industry, agriculture, etc.
We propose an overall objective: To become
the most resource-efficient economy in the
world, combining high standards of living,
good public health, strong social inclusion
and cohesion and a high-quality environment
with the long-term objective of reaching levels of resource use and environmental impact
in line with the carrying capacity of the
European and global environment taking
into account the need to share environmental
resources equitably to allow sustainable
development for all the worlds people.
We also formulate specific long-term objectives for each of the six areas in the
Commission document. We have also added
two objectives concerning global interdependence and accountability to citizens. We
furthermore insist on the leadership of the
EU combined with active involvement of
civil society.
He concluded with personal comments, not
necessarily shared by other organisations. It
was important that the Commission adopt
not just the nowadays-popular three-pillar
image of sustainability, but also recognise
that resources and services offered by the
environment cannot be traded for the economic or social products of civilisation.
There was also another important dimension,
the cultural one. We cannot let our cultural
values be hijacked by commercial interests.
Gothenburg should present at least one bold
and concrete programme, which was greening the economy, including a review of present subsidies and taxes. Gothenburg should
also start a discussion, leading to pertinent
results during the Madrid Summit before Rio
+ 10, challenging the dominance of trade lib113
eralisation over other interests. Finally, politicians and business should stop resisting decisions on environmental targets and timetables with arguments about scientific uncertainty and lack of costbenefit evidence.
Mr Claude Fussler, Director
at the World Business
Council for
Sustainable Development
First, he stressed the importance of the global perspective. The consultative paper took a
view that it was best for the EU to put its own
house in order first and on track towards sustainable development. But, Europe could
only succeed in a world that succeeds.
Europe was responsible also for the transition of developing economies towards sustainability. The impact of its trade, people
and investment flows was so large that any
policy change in Europe would affect the
developing world. On the positive side, foreign direct investments and imports created
jobs and wealth. Immigration to Europe provided job opportunities and education. On
the negative side, our agricultural subsidies,
the protection of textile and other primary
sectors prevented or taxed imports depressing prices, income, labour standards and
employment in many producing countries.
Secondly, innovation was a key issue. The
Lisbon Summit declared ambitiously to
make Europe the the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world capable of sustainable economic
growth with more and better jobs and greater
social cohesion. Innovation in technology,
social relations, consumer behaviour and policy framework would be intense if we were to
succeed in this. Yet, the consultative paper
made a cautious and reassuring case of the
transformation required. It played to the
114
classic wish for careful costbenefit analysis

of every policy measure. This was hardly
conducive to innovation.
Finally, the usefulness of simple indicators.
The euro convergence criteria inflation,
budget deficit and debt levels covered
economic complexity with powerful indicators. Yet, every one who runs a chequebook
knows that deficit demands control of not
one but a host of economic variables. This
was the same for eco-efficiency. In a recent
resource productivity conference, convened
by the British Department of Trade and
Industry, all participants agreed that if they
had to measure progress by one single indicator they would pick green house gas emissions related to GDP, clearly an eco-efficiency type of ratio. An economy that creates
more wealth while drastically reducing its
output of greenhouse gases was bound to
create better urban air quality, domestic heating and lighting efficiency, a shift away from
fossil energy sources, etc. It did so through
innovative solutions, new skills and knowledge.
Ms Martine Buron,
Member of the
Committee of the Regions
The most important part of a strategy for sustainable development was reform of working
methods. To create a good quality of life and
to find innovations in rural development
were essential elements. The six priorities in
the consultative document formed a good
basis. But it was evident that there were conflicts of interest. To find good solutions to
such conflicts, we had to work together from
a local and regional perspective. Public services to the citizens had to work and this was
mostly the responsibility of local communities. The EU strategy dealt with European
institutions but it was also most important to
analyse how the proposals met the existing

structure of community services. A report
from the Committee of Regions would shortly address this issue. The inter-linkages
between EU level and regional/local levels
were important in many areas, for instance
waste management, resource efficiency and
food safety.
The strategy had also to take into account the
situation of older people, not only a matter of
providing services to the elderly but also of
integrating them into making society more
dynamic.
To sum up:
Regional and local perspectives should be
taken into account at an earlier stage in the
decision-making process for EU policies,
since policies very often were applied at
local and regional level. Local and regional
levels should therefore play a role upstream
in the decision-making process, how to
implement and assess the costs of proposals.
Structural funds should also take account
of the accession countries. To this end,
inter-regional cooperation should be
encouraged. A broad approach was needed
at all levels of decision-making.
Information to citizens very often went
through regional and local levels. This was
another argument for involving them in the
decision-making process as early as possible.
Mr Marc Pallemaerts, Cabinet of Belgian
State Secretary, Mr Olivier Deleuze
Work on sustainable development showed
the need to go beyond existing institutional
frameworks to new structures where all

aspects of sustainable development could be
considered. The work underlined the acrossthe-board structure. In 1997, a new federal
law in Belgium set the platform for sustainable development work. An interdepartmental committee was set up to propose a federal plan for sustainable development. One
important aspect was the involvement of civil
society. Thus, the Federal Council on
Sustainable Development was created with
all interests in society involved. A public
hearing was held as part of the work on the
sustainable development plan.
The Belgian Government intended to back
the Commission initiative and was prepared
to continue the work during its Presidency.
But the Belgian Government regretted the
late arrival of the consultative document and
stressed the importance of public participation. The fact that the political view from the
Commission was not yet available and that
the specific targets had not been presented
was a further problem. Thus, the Belgian
Presidency would contribute during its
Presidency and promote stakeholder participation.
The Belgian Government considered the
domestic emphasis in the EU strategy justifiable at this stage. The global perspective was
necessary and could be added, as
Johannesburg was the next step in the Rio
process. The Commission communication on
a strategy for the preparation of the next
global summit in 2002 was an additional element.
A final comment related to the toolkit proposed in the consultative document. The
toolkit described the available tools and
instruments but one important tool was missing, namely legislation. Law-making was one
of the fundamental processes in the work of
115
the European Union and should continue to

be so. EU law should be used in future development of the strategy.
L. Mills, Consultant
There should be more of an analytical

background in the consultative document,
and the objectives for the strategy should
also be presented.
The regional and local dimensions were left
out in the document. She gave an example
from a local Agenda 21 project, with EU
support, where the objectives had been the
starting point in the project. It was important to recognise all the work that had
already been done, for instance within local
Agenda 21, different Interreg projects, sustainable cities and other urban projects.
M. Insausti, World Wildlife Fund
The EU strategy must have a global view,

the EU was not a fortress. Both aspects
were needed in the same document, the
internal for the EU to put its own house in
order and the external for the EU as a
member of global society.
within the Rio framework, and contained a

holistic, global vision.
The global dimension was important.
The EU strategy should also aim to support
work at regional and local level and provide an example.
I. Niestroy, European Environmental Advisory
Councils
The decision in Gothenburg should

include objectives, set the overall strategy,
recognise the need to continue and thus
decide to return to the issue at the
Barcelona European Council.
K. Bradley, Alliance for Beverage Cartons and
the Environment
The paper presented by John Hontelez was

very good. If these were the objectives in
the EU strategy, his organisation could sign
up to the strategy.
The strategy should set the targets, fix the
numbers and industry would then find the
solutions.
S. Blau, Member of the European Parliament
C. Puppinck, CEEP
Which were the steps after Gothenburg in

work on sustainable development?
It was important to include not only environmental but also economic and social
dimensions. It was all about daily life and
solidarity.
Mr Becker, European Bishops Conference
He stressed the northsouth dimension.

Even though it was important to focus, it
was vital to have a global approach.
I. Ripa Julia, Environmental consultant
She gave an example of a strategy from the

region of Rioja. It had been developed
116
M. Buitenkamp, Consultant
We had to be aware that it took time to

understand sustainable development, it
was not possible to move too quickly if
people were to be involved and find good
solutions.
Rapporteur: Marc Vanheukelen,

Head of the Commissions Sustainable
Development Task Force
Everyone seemed to agree that the EU
strategy needed targets and indicators.
We needed to learn from one another,
maybe create peer pressure by publishing
indicators. Points were made on the necessity to develop regional and national indicators and also some general convergence
indicators.
The importance of the local level was
stressed, local authorities were often the
bodies responsible for implementation.
Several speakers stressed the importance of
global perspective.
Several speakers commented on the greening of the economy as a major policy instrument. Several of the unsustainable trends
were deeply anchored in todays structure
of our economy.
The need for the Commission to provide
leadership was also emphasised, leadership
to review common policies and develop
new policies of cohesion.
He concluded with some personal responses
to what had been said during the session.
The first point was that law and regulation
were of course part of the toolkit; this was
self-evident. The work at local level with
local Agenda 21 had been extremely useful
for mobilising different groups, but the EU
strategy would focus on measures at EU level
and recognise the principle of subsidiarity.
Maybe a fourth pillar could be added, the
pillar of participative democracy. The challenge was to create processes that allowed us
to rethink jointly.
Closing session
Mr David OSullivan,
Secretary-General,
European Commission
The Commission was very pleased at the
level of interest this public hearing had generated. Although the period of public consultation on the Commission services consultative document was shorter than it would
have liked, sustainable development had to
be a bottom-up as well as a top-down
activity. Our societies would not be able to
make the changes needed unless society at
large felt that it owns the strategy. And this
would not happen unless we had mechanisms which allowed ordinary Europeans to
give their views. This was the purpose of this
public hearing and why, in the consultative
paper, comments from everyone were
expressly invited. And indeed, many private
citizens had taken the opportunity to give
their opinions. He was grateful for those
opinions as for the views expressed by many
during the hearing.
The strategy for sustainable development,
which the Commission would propose to the
European Council in Gothenburg, would
focus on the six themes identified in the consultative paper. In each area, we will set a
small number perhaps two or three
clear, ambitious, but achievable headline
objectives, backed by an indication of the
main measures seen as necessary to reach
them. Our belief in the importance of changing the way policy was made to achieve consistent policies would be stressed. Policies
had to pull together rather than in opposite
directions and we would set out the steps
that we think were needed.
Many had criticised the emphasis placed on
putting our own house in order. Some had
117
even accused us of a fortress Europe

approach. Nothing was further from the
truth. The Commission was fully committed
to global sustainability. Of course, development policy had to support efforts by developing countries to achieve more sustainable
development. Of course, trade policies and
the international trading system in general
should not place barriers in the way of the
legitimate needs of developing countries. But
how could we credibly make the case for
change at international level if we did not
demonstrably improve the way we conduct
our own affairs? And, he said, let me be clear,
when we propose reforming our internal
policies to make sustainable development
their goal, that means taking full account of
their effects beyond the borders of the
European Union.
achieved. And these long-term objectives

must be achieved all together, in an integrated process. This was the background to the
very clear linkages between the two summits
during the Swedish Presidency. In
Stockholm, decisions were made mainly
related to the economic and social aspects of
sustainable development. In Gothenburg the
environmental aspects of sustainable development would be discussed, in order to
bring all three dimensions together into an
integrated process for the future.
Finally, he expressed special thanks to his

colleagues in the Economic and Social
Committee for their help in organising this
hearing. In its strategy proposal, the
Commission would stress the importance of
transparency in policy-making and of widespread stakeholder consultation and involvement. As this hearing showed, the
Commission was at least trying to practice
what it preached.
One of the themes, climate change and clean

energy, raised a crucial and in its essence
ethical issue for the future development of
the globe. Europe had to act now. It was not
possible to wait for others. We needed to
tackle the emissions of greenhouse gases and
review the policies for energy and transport.
We needed to review use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Transport systems
had to be reformed. The railways in Europe
had to make rail more competitive to road
transport. Climate change would be one of
the main issues in Gothenburg. The EU had
to be prepared to discuss and to accept longterm commitments to reduce the emissions
of carbon dioxide for the period even after
the Kyoto Protocol.
Ms Birgitta Bostrm,
State Secretary,
Swedish Environment Ministry
She thanked the Economic and Social
Committee for arranging this hearing, and
for giving an opportunity to express the
views of the Swedish Presidency. Sustainable
development was really at the centre of political debate. A sound economy, responsible
and stable welfare systems and an ecologically sound and sustainable use of natural
resources and the environment had to be
118
The work within the Commission and a broad

consultation process would help to build general support for the decision. The Commission
had chosen a number of themes as a basis for
its proposal. These themes covered very well
the main problems we had to tackle.
Another important theme was public health.

It was a very central issue today, when food
safety was intensely debated. At the same
time, this theme gave the opportunity to deal
with the risks related to persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals. A third theme was
the use of our natural resources. In a time
when the common agricultural policy and the

common fishery policy within the European
Union were intensely debated, it was important to stress also the need to protect biodiversity.
The Swedish Presidency had three goals for
the Gothenburg decisions on sustainable
development: firstly, to decide on an EU
strategy and to establish a handful of objectives and targets for the environmental
dimension this would complement the
objectives and targets that follow from the
Lisbon strategy; secondly, to create a strong
link between the strategy and the EU commitments under the Kyoto Protocol; and
thirdly, to lay the foundation of a successful
process to implement the EU strategy.
119
European Commission
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2002 119 pp. 17.6 x 25 cm
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
14
10 KA-39-01-732-EN-C
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
A European Union
strategy
for sustainable
development
ISBN 92-894-1676-9
,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!
EN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!: A European Union Strategy For Sustainable Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

,!7IJ2I9-ebghge!: A European Union Strategy For Sustainable Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14

A European Union strategy for sustainable development

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001

A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for

Consultation paper for the preparation of a European Union strategy for

Gothenburg European Council

II. A strategy for sustainable

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A new approach to policy-making

Commission communication, in particular its proposals

The global dimension

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

target for official development assistance of 0.7 % of

Targeting environmental priorities

Combating climate change

Ensuring sustainable transport

Addressing threats to public health

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

and issues related to outbreaks of infectious diseases and

Managing natural resources more

quality products, environmentally sustainable production methods, including organic production,

Integrating environment into

A sustainable Europe for

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Towards a sustainable Europe

Sustainable development a broader long-term vision

Making sustainable development happen: achieving our ambitions

Improve policy coherence

Setting long-term objectives and targets: identifying priorities

Action is needed across a wide range of policies

Implementing the strategy and reviewing progress: steps after

Annual stocktaking checks our progress

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

I. Towards a sustainable Europe

Sustainable development should be

Completing and building on the

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Providing a positive vision for the

A strategy to unleash opportunities

Focusing on the most acute threats

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

The main threats to sustainable development

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Solving these problems calls for a

Very few of these unsustainable trends are new. Attempts

Doing nothing may be much more

Urgent action is needed: Now is the time to confront the

Political leadership is needed to take

A coherent, long-term view should

A new approach to policy-making: Although the Union

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

much focus on short-term costs and too little focus on the

Everyone has a contribution to

A responsible partner in a globalised world: Many of the

Acting at home will provide

To meet these challenges the Commission proposes an EU

A set of cross-cutting proposals and recommendations

A set of headline objectives and specific measures at EU

Steps to implement the strategy and review its progress.

A EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

II. Making sustainable

To achieve sustainable development requires changes in the