eesc stakeholder sd 05

8/8/2019 Eesc Stakeholder Sd 05

1/91

Reviewing theEuropean SustainableDevelopment Strategy


2/91

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy3

The Committee attaches great importance to the review of the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy and to the question of how stakeholders' views can be taken on board in theprocess and how their ownership of the Strategy and commitment to its implementation canbe strengthened. Last year's public consultation and the Stakeholder Forum on SustainableDevelopment in the EU, which the Committee organised on 14-15 April 2005 in cooperationwith the European Commission, are important elements which allow stakeholders toexercise a prominent role in the review of the Strategy.

The participants of the Stakeholder Forum produced the contributions contained in thisbrochure against the background of the Commission's initial stocktaking and futureorientations for the review, the Commission services' summary of the public consultation, acommunication on sustainable development indicators and the Committee's ExploratoryOpinion on the review. Based on the "Open Space" methodology designed to elicit maximuminvolvement and creativity in a constructive atmosphere, the participants in the Forumproduced a set of 38 interesting reports with recommendations for the future SustainableDevelopment Strategy. They also indicated their priorities for the future Strategy

highlighting the importance of a sustainable energy policy, the question of how to useimpact assessment as a tool for sustainable development, the need for a strengthenedsocial dimension, the sustainable use of natural resources and the link between the WTOtrade liberalisation process and sustainable development.

The Committee has made clear that it would welcome a concrete role in monitoring theimplementation of the Strategy and to be a focal point for the kinds of participatoryprocesses which sustainable development requires. We stand ready to organise futureStakeholder Forums as well as other kinds of discussion fora to communicate on sustainabledevelopment and the Commission has already demonstrated its readiness to take on boardour proposal to associate the Committee closely in the monitoring and implementation of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.

It is now up to the Commission to build on the views already expressed by civil society andto propose a reviewed Strategy for adoption by the European Council in 2006.

Anne-Marie Sigmund

PrefacePreface

Anne-Marie Sigmund, EESC President


3/91

Preface by Ms Sigmund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:Programme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:Speeches and debates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:Debate and concluding session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:Reports of the working sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

1. A sustainable energy future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282. How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for sustainable

development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

3. How to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy. The fight against poverty and socialexclusion an integral part of the Strategy. Ageing society . . . . 32

4. Sustainable use of natural resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

5. How WTO trade liberalization should relate to

Sustainable Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .366. What support do the local and regional levels need from

the EU and the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

7. Role of research in support to the SustainableDevelopment Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

8. Programme for communication and education aboutsustainable development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

9. Consumer information for supporting sustainable

development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43


IndexIndex


4/91


10. Sustainable development and global competitiveness. . . . . . . .46

11. Implementation. How to make the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy Live. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

12. How to communicate sustainable development. . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

13. Sustainable urban policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

14. Declaration on principles for sustainable development. What are the principles?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

15. What words could we use to make sustainabilityunderstandable (to the people)?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

16. How to measure progress towards sustainable development?. 53

17. Dematerialisation Factor X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

18. Mainstreaming gender into the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

19. Sustainable urban transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

20. How to generate the integrated knowledge needed for theSustainable Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

21. A focused strategy: what are the key ingredients for an EUSustainable Development Strategy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

22. Is sustainable development possible under

the neoclassical economics paradigm?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6223. How to make the Sustainable Development Strategy matter

for European politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

24. How can we improve communications about sustainabledevelopment with consumers?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

25. Beyond Lisbon and Gothenburg: EU policy instrumentsfor eco-competitiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66


5/91


26. How to motivate people (consumers) to buy green products. . 67

27. How to achieve the EU target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 69

28. Sustainable homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

29. Addressing all human needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7130. Leadership through government and how best

to demonstrate it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

31. Private ownership on the solution for the future of sustainable development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

32. What role is there for a broadened health policy ina reviewed Sustainable Development Strategy ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

33. What can the EU learn from Bangladesh ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

34. Better governance of the economy for the implementationof the Sustainable Development Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

35. How can the EU Sustainable Development Strategy maintainand preserve the European social model, representedby small agricultural holdings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

36. The European landscape A framework for sustainability . . . . 80

37. Hubberts Peak, infrastructure failure, food security andplanning resistance to attempts at mitigation and transition. 81

38. External dimension of the EU Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy : how can we engage the rest of the world,including developing countries?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EU:List of participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Documents on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy . . 95


6/91

This brochure contains the results of the 14-15 April 2005 Stakeholder Forum on SustainableDevelopment in the EU, hosted by the European Economic and Social Committee in cooperationwith the European Commission to allow stakeholders to take a more involved and prominentrole in the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy.

Contributions by the President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso, Vice-President Margot Wallstrm, Commissioner Stavros Dimas and EESC President Anne-MarieSigmund and their debates with stakeholders provided much food for thought and rounded off the discussions in the working sessions. You will find a summary of these contributions anddebates on the pages following this introduction.

The main content of this brochure consists of 38 working session reports with a series of recommendations for the future EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Using the "Open Space"approach, the Forum participants proposed a total of 50 issues for discussion in twoconsecutive sets of working sessions and then decided which sessions they would attend.Some issues were grouped and discussed in a single working session. On the second day, theparticipants of the Forum evaluated 37 working session reports produced on the first day. Theythen voted on priority issues in the context of the review of the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy. One report arrived late and was not evaluated, but is nevertheless included in thisbrochure. The working session reports are published in the order of priority established by theparticipants.

Indicating their main priorities for the future Strategy the participants highlighted in particularthe importance of a sustainable energy policy in the EU, the issue of how to use impactassessments as a tool for sustainable development, the need for a strengthened socialdimension to the strategy, the importance of a sustainable use of natural resources by the EUand the link between the WTO trade liberalisation process and sustainable development.

The participants of working sessions on energy issues decided to merge their discussion andprepared a single report and so did participants concentrating on social issues such as socialcohesion, poverty and ageing. A variety of working sessions dealt with the use of naturalresources and the decline in biodiversity.

The nature of the concept of sustainable development was touched upon in many workingsessions and recommendations were made as to how sustainable development could be betterdefined, what its principles should be and how the Sustainable Development Strategy shouldbe seen in relation to the Lisbon Strategy. Recommendations for institutions on different levelswere also formulated covering the distribution of tasks and responsibilities for implementationwithin the EU. Several working sessions resulted in recommendations for communicatingsustainable development and the Sustainable Development Strategy, including suggestions fora communication action plan. Linking in with communication issues were working sessionsdealing with the role of consumer information and education.


IntroductionIntroduction


7/91


Several working sessions focused on knowledge, research and development. Urban policy,including urban transport and housing, was discussed in three working sessions. Furtherworking sessions dealt with impact assessment and indicators, gender mainstreaming,competitiveness, trade liberalisation, human needs, the role of private ownership, healthpolicy, economic governance, small agricultural holdings, the European landscape and theexternal dimension of the Sustainable Development Strategy.


8/91

Stakeholder Forum on Sustainable Development in the EUCo-organised by the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Commissionat the building of the European Economic and Social Committee,99 rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels, on 14-15 April 2005

Thursday, 14 April 2005

9 a.m. Opening of the ForumMs Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and Social CommitteeMs Margot Wallstrm, Vice-President of the European Commission

9.30 a.m. The EU Sustainable Development Strategy: main achievements and shortcomingsMr Kay Walter, journalist, a talk show with:Ms Margot Wallstrm, Vice-President of the European Commission

Mr Lutz Ribbe, Rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee on the reviewof the Sustainable Development StrategyMs Mona-Lisa Norrman, Rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions on the review of theSustainable Development StrategyMs Madi Sharma, Member of the European Economic and Social CommitteeMr Gnter Bachman, Head of Office, German Council for Sustainable DevelopmentMr Jol Decaillon, Confederal Secretary, European Trade Union ConfederationMr Tony Long, Director, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy OfficeMr Alexandre Pasche, Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the environmentand societal questions

11.30 a.m. Mr Gert Fieguth, Professor, University of Applied Sciences Kehl, Germany:Introductionto the Open Space Method collection of issues and questions for the workingsessions identification of participants for the working sessionsThe EU Sustainable Development Strategy: what is the vision for the future?

2 p.m. 1st set of working sessions

4 p.m. 2nd set of working sessions

6 p.m. Evening news and closure of the first day (plenary session)


Stakeholder Forum

on SustainableDevelopment in the EUProgramme


9/91


Friday, 15 April 2005

Making Sustainable Development a reality from policy words to policy actions

9 a.m. Evaluation and prioritisation of the results of the working sessions next stepsThe participants in the Forum evaluate the working session reports and vote on priorityissues in the context of the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy.

10.30 a.m. Mr Willy De Backer, Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com,a discussion with:Mr Stavros Dimas, Member of the European CommissionMs Ulla Sirkeinen, Member of the European Economic and Social CommitteeThe following representatives of the top five prioritised working sessions join MrDimas and Ms Sirkeinen for discussion:How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for Sustainable Development:Mr Richard Howell, UK Environment AgencyA Sustainable Energy Future:Ms Georgia Nakou, Principal Policy Analyst, Institution of Electrical EngineersHow to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy; The fight against poverty and social exclusion an integral part of theEU Sustainable Development Strategy; Ageing society:

Ms Myriam Van Espen, Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en grontologieSustainable use of natural resources:Mr Patrice Christmann, Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS The Association of theGeological Surveys of the EU

How should WTO trade liberalization relate to Sustainable Development?Mr Staffan Nilsson, Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

12 noon Concluding sessionSummary of the debates: Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark, Member of the European Economicand Social CommitteeMs Anne-Marie Sigmund, President of the European Economic and Social CommitteeMr Jos Manuel Durao Barroso, President of the European Commission

1 p.m. End of Forum


10/91


Opening remarks and debates - Summary

Thursday, 14 April, 9.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.Opening remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund , President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Ms Sigmund welcomed all participants to the StakeholderForum on Sustainable Development explaining that thiswould not be a conference in the traditional sense, but anopen dialogue, using the "Open Space" method. There wouldbe no set agenda with specific topics, instead it would be upto the participants themselves to decide which issues theywould like to discuss. Since this was a non-conventional

approach, it was clear that the European Economic andSocial Committee (EESC) was taking a risk, but Ms Sigmund stressed that as the Committee(EESC) was an instrument of dialogue and democracy, this was a useful experiment in " live"participatory democracy, in which participation was voluntary, but highly encouraged.

Ms Sigmund noted that, in her position as the President of the EESC, she thought a lot aboutquestions of European identity, such as what was the binding force holding us all together andwhat made us European. She welcomed the Stakeholder Forum as a unique opportunity to givedirect input to the European decision-making process and to influence the future of theSustainable Development Strategy in Europe. Ms Sigmund hoped the participants would makefull use of the "Open Space" method to make their views known and that it would be anenjoyable process.

Opening remarks by Ms Margot Wallstrm , Vice-President of the European Commission

Ms Wallstrm said that sustainable development was a subject close to her heart. Sheremembered how as a teenager she had a very positive view of the future. Hergeneration saw only opportunities: better education, new possibilities to travel and anopen new world. The economy was booming, technology developed every day andeverything seemed possible. The millennium shift was seen as the target, when it wouldall happen. Then the millennium shift came and went, and we had somehow returnedback to the future. The future seemed no longer only bright. We started to see theproblems and learned that we could not continue the way we had been doing withoutruining our planet.

Stakeholder Forum

on SustainableDevelopment in the EUSpeeches and debates


11/91


Ms Wallstrm also referred to a strong image from the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Thereshe had seen what a difference the drilling of a well had madeto the life of a small village. Not only did it bring clean water,but it also saved the women time, which they could use todiscuss how to improve their lives. On fact, the well broughtdemocracy to the village. This illustrated how sometimessmall, inexpensive actions could make a large difference.

Ms Wallstrm underlined the timeliness of this Forum on

Sustainable Development, coinciding with the start of theCommission's work of revising the sustainable developmentstrategy. In this context, she also referred to the initiativeunderway to produce a statement of sustainable developmentprinciples and underlined the importance of the question as towhich policy areas the Sustainable Development Strategyshould cover in other words whether the Strategy focused onthe right priorities, whether there should be fewer priorities tocreate a better focus or whether for example security should become a new priority issue. Thisneeded to be discussed, and Ms Wallstrm concluded that her task today was to listen to thestakeholders and take on board their ideas.

Ms Wallstrm's draft speech has been published by the European Commission at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/Wallstroem-final.pdf

Mr Kay Walter, journalist, hosted a talk show on "The EU Sustainable Development Strategy:main achievements and shortcomings" with:Ms Margot Wallstrm , Vice-President of the European CommissionMr Lutz Ribbe, Rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee on the review of the Sustainable Development StrategyMs Mona-Lisa Norrman, Rapporteur of the Committee of the Regions on the review of theSustainable Development StrategyMs Madi Sharma, Member of the European Economic and Social CommitteeMr Gnter Bachman, Head of Office, German Council for Sustainable DevelopmentMr Jol Decaillon, Confederal Secretary, European Trade Union ConfederationMr Tony Long, Director, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy OfficeMr Alexandre Pasche , Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on theenvironment and societal questions

Mr Walter introduced the debate by reminding the participants that four years hadpassed since the Sustainable Development Strategy had been issued. He asked theparticipants if they were satisfied with the progress made to date.

Margot Wallstrm


12/91


Ms Wallstrm replied that a lot more needed to be done. However, positive achievements hadbeen made, such as making sustainable development an established policy. Nobody questionedits place among other policy areas and the objective of integrating sustainable development intoall other policy areas had become accepted. However, real implementation was still lacking andit was important to demonstrate that the European way, i.e. economic growth in combinationwith social integration and environmental protection, really worked. It had to be accepted thatthis would take time. She underlined the positive role of impact assessment for this purpose.Mr Longsaid that no real progress had been made. He saw the reason for this in the ecologicaland economic worlds being too far apart. We were still striving to increase GDP, without lookingat the constraints. To overcome this we would not need more regulation and tools such as

impact assessments, instead we would need a sense of urgency. We would need the atmosphereof the 70s, when people talked about the risks of running out of resources and the greatdangers of pollution. Ms Wallstrm replied that there was a risk that people perceived thesewarnings as crying wolf. The Club of Romes forecast that we would run out of oil and othernatural resources had not come true.

Mr Walter noted that enlargement was now a fact. He asked if the ten new countrieshad had enough time to consider sustainable development and how they werelooking at this issue.

Mr Ribbe replied that they had of course had as much time as any other country. Rio and Johannesburg had been international events, involving all countries. There had also been a long

pre-accession negotiation period with the EU, leading to adjustments of policies and legalframeworks in the accession countries. The problem was rather the difference in ways of perceiving the problem. The new Member States had probably not considered sustainabledevelopment as an important issue, since catching up economically had been their main goal.It had to be made clear that wealth came at a price, often paid by the environment.

Mr Walter asked if ordinary people really cared about sustainable development.

Ms Norrman said that it was difficult to read strategies and to follow debates, which meant thatmost people did not even try. It was difficult for people to understand that the SustainableDevelopment Strategy was meant seriously, when looking at the unsustainable society they livedin and how little was actually changing. She also stressed the difficulties of communicating

sustainable development. The EU could make sustainable action easier for local and regionalauthorities by, for example, encouraging green and local procurement. To be sustainable weneeded to adopt another view on trade and the free market economy. Ms Sharma said thatenvironmental policy only meant costs for companies. For a small or medium sized enterprise(SME) having to raise environmental standards meant having to raise prices, which meant in turnthat consumers would prefer to buy from China or other low-cost countries. Ms Wallstrmreacted by asking why countries with the highest living standards also had the highestenvironmental standards, if the situation really corresponded to Ms Sharma's description.Ms Sharma said that SMEs could not afford expertise in environmental policy. Largemultinationals could, but on the other hand they tended to leave the EU for China or India.


13/91


Mr Walter raised the question of how to communicate the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy.

Mr Pasche pointed to a strong willingness among companies to move towards sustainabledevelopment. Often they lacked the right motivation and the knowledge to really go ahead.This was most obvious among SMEs. It would have to be made clear that there were economicadvantages in implementing an environmental plan. He underlined the difficulty of communicating the term sustainable development and the terms surrounding it, such asownership, governance and stakeholder. They were vague and could mean anything ornothing. Ms Wallstrm said that improved communication was clearly a job for the

Commission. It would have to make people understand and convince them. Very fewconsumers today acted out of ecological conviction. It also had to be clear, especially forcompanies, that there was a cost of non-action.

Mr Walter asked at what level decisions should be made and whether all regions andcountries could be treated in the same way.

Ms Norrman said that some environmental problems were common for all. But in addition everyregion had its specific problems to deal with. If there were legal possibilities of taking local aspectsinto consideration in public procurement, local problems could be better dealt with and wouldsupport local SMEs. Ms Sharma said that consumers did not necessarily want to buy local orecological goods. They wanted to buy cheap goods. Mr Long responded that we were in a timeof change with an increasing demand for ecological food. One problem was that the real costs werenot included in prices of all goods. He criticised the failure to internalise environmental costs,which meant that non-ecological food was cheaper than it should be. Mr Ribbe emphasised thatwe still had the approach that sustainable development should not cost us anything. We expectedthat everything should remain the way it was and that the environment should become healthierat the same time. He underlined that things would clearly not work that way.

Mr Walter asked if eco-business really was possible and profitable.

Mr Pasche pointed to many advantages of going green. Companies needed to break out of the vicious circle of believing that being environmental cost more that prices would have tobe raised and that costumers would leave for low-cost country products. Some of theadvantages of being green included: decreased liability risks by respecting rules and laws; thepossibility to get other important clients by demonstrating a higher standard (schools,ministries etc,) and the opportunity to be a first-mover in a niche market. Ms Sharmaresponded that, instead, the cost of complying with EU standards could be saved: companiescould move to China and still keep European market share by exporting to the EU. MsWallstrm said this had to be looked at in a constructive way. The way forward could nolonger be to lower our standards to Chinas. One way to help SMEs could be to give financialsupport for environmental advice or to encourage SMEs and non-governmental organisationsto work together to find solutions. Mr Bachmann said that we were underestimating thesuccess stories we already had on eco-business in the EU. Corporate social responsibility andenvironmental awareness in companies were increasing rapidly. The renewable energy sector,for example, was a real job creating machine. He also pointed out that China and many otherneweconomies had increasingly strict environmental rules and laws.


14/91

Mr Walter asked the members of the panel if they thought the SustainableDevelopment Strategy should concentrate on fewer issues.

Ms Wallstrm replied that this question was currently being considered. The current sixmain issues were important, but it was possible that some should be exchanged. Oneimportant issue possibly to be added was security. Mr Long said that the six topics wereuseful as a guide. The focus had been right, but the level of ambition had been too low. Inthe future the big issues would remain climate, energy and transport. Mr Ribbe agreed thatthe topics were the right ones, but recommended to look further. Rules and norms tendedto be set for large enterprises and did not favour SMEs and local production. As an examplehe mentioned hygiene rules for food processing that clearly put local production at adisadvantage and therefore did not favour sustainable development. Mr Bachmann alsoagreed that the issues were the right ones, but that better benchmarking tools were neededto measure progress. Security was, and would continue to be, an important issue forsustainable development. Ms Norrman said that security was important, but rather from asocial point of view. Extreme events such as floods and terrorism were costly and difficultbut the real security problem was to be found in inter-personal violence, such as domesticviolence. This was an important issue linked to jobs, wealth and equity. Ms Wallstrmagreed that violence was an important issue to be dealt with which, however, did not haveits place in the debate on sustainable development. She warned of losing focus as a resultof trying to fit everything into sustainable development. Talking about the security aspectsof sustainable development meant mainly geopolitical instability because of shortage of oil,gas or other natural resources, or refugees from environmental phenomena. When talkingabout sustainable development we would have to keep the timeframe in mind. SMEs had a

short-term perspective having to manage payments at the end of the month, whilesustainable development policy was very much a long-term perspective, spanning ageneration or more.

Ms Sharma said that we would have to create wealth in Europe or else we would havenothing. She noted that she was the only member of the panel with an activity generatingwealth for society. Competitiveness was the most important aspect to consider because wecould not afford to lose more companies in the EU. Policy makers had to understand the SMEperspective. Ms Wallstrm admitted this to be partly true, while pointing out that if wedid not consider the environment while creating wealth, we would also end up havingnothing. Mr Long said that the concept of wealth as a measurement of a good and healthysociety was part of the problem. Instead we should talk about welfare, which included notonly economic growth, but also education, quality of life, etc. Mr Pasche noted that we all


Kay Walter and Margot Wallstrm


15/91


took the view that there was a conflict between profit and environmental protection. Thismight stem from a Catholic philosophy in which virtue and profit could not co-exist. Maybethat was why it had been easier to introduce sustainable development with win-winarguments in Protestant countries. Mr Decaillon said that to be able to implementsustainable development we needed a lot of new research and innovation. In order toachieve this we needed open minds and space, in the sense that we needed dialogue,negotiation and broad views. The Nordic countries were ahead in considering sustainabledevelopment, perhaps because of their tradition of negotiation and democracy. It wasimportant to remember that there would never be only one model for sustainable development.

Mr Walter asked the members of the panel for their vision of the SustainableDevelopment Strategy.

Mr Bachmann hoped that we would start producing more than papers so thatimplementation could really get going. The Millennium Development Goals were up for reviewthis year and while we were far away from actually meeting them he expressed his hope thatwe would remain ambitious and not back away from the goals set. He deplored that this wasthe case for the Lisbon Strategy. When we saw that the targets would not be met we loweredthem. It would be very sad to do the same with the Sustainable Development Strategy and theMillennium Development Goals. Ms Norrman said she wanted more of the money in theresearch programmes to go to research on sustainable development, including issues such asgender policy, public health and SMEs. Every policy area should integrate sustainable

development, but to better focus the actions priorities should be identified within each policyarea. Mr Pasche was optimistic about progress with sustainable development because almostall actors were saying that they were willing to do something. It was important to help peopleget to together, to communicate, so that things could start happening. Ms Sharma said hervision of the Sustainable Development Strategy was one that protected the environment andhelped create a strong social society. However, it must also allow for profit for SMEs and totake account of SMEs' special needs. Mr Decaillon said a Sustainable Development Strategymust take account of citizens and respect them. That was why the social dimension was soimportant. The social partners must have a strong role in the process. Mr Longsaid his visionwas a socially just, equitable EU where wealth would be shared. He said we needed realcommitment to sustainable development and to the Millennium Goals.


16/91

Making sustainable development a reality from policy words to policy actionsEvaluation and prioritisation of the results of the working sessions next stepsDebate and concluding session - Summary

Friday, 15 April, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Remarks by Mr Stavros Dimas , Member of the European Commission

Mr Dimas said that sustainable development remained at the heart of theCommissions policy agenda. The strategic objectives, which were settingthe Commissions priorities for the coming five years, recognised the needfor sustainable development and stressed that actions that promotecompetitiveness, growth and jobs could be mutually reinforcing withsocial cohesion and a healthy environment.

Mr Dimas said that unfortunately the environmental situation in the EUwas getting worse, not better. For example, the negative impacts of climate change were growing, and ecosystems were being increasinglyexploited. The revised Sustainable Development Strategy must thereforebe made more ambitious. He said we needed to set detailed targets,milestones and indications on how to measure progress. There needed tobe effective monitoring procedures put in place. In addition, we needed concrete actions, andone of the most important would be to change consumption and production patterns.Examples of how this could be done included to promote green procurement, develop furtherthe concept of Integrated Product Policy, and setting prices right, so that they would reflect thefull cost to society. He also mentioned the need to reform harmful subsidies, and to get REACHadopted. Finally, Mr Dimas said that the Commission was working on the seven thematicStrategies for the environment, which would be adopted this year.

Mr Dimas emphasised the importance of involving all actors in the work of revising theSustainable Development Strategy. He said that sustainable development was a concept elusiveto many citizens. The idea of a declaration could make it more comprehensive by focusing onsome important aspects in a short concise text. He added that events like the StakeholderForum were particularly important since they helped to focus on issues that people believed tobe most important. Mr Dimas concluded by saying that the best ideas from this Forum wouldcertainly be picked up by the Commission in its final proposal.

Mr Dimas' draft speech has been published by the European Commission at:http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/231&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en


Stakeholder Forum

on SustainableDevelopment in the EUDebate and concluding session

Stavros Dimas


17/91

Remarks by Ms Ulla Sirkeinen , Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

Ms Sirkeinen recalled that the EESC had been active on sustainable development for manyyears now, starting even before the Gteborg Summit. She considered the EESC to be very wellsuited to deal with sustainable development because of its composition of three groups of members, employers, employees, and other interests, including environmental interest groups.Ms Sirkeinen pointed out that this composition mirrored the three pillars of sustainabledevelopment and all of its aspects could therefore be well represented and defended. Shementioned that the EESC was pleased to see that the Commission had often taken up ideas

included in the opinions of the EESC.Ms Sirkeinen said that when we were talking about sustainable development there were in facttwo different approaches: the first was the horizontal approach where sustainable developmenthad to be considered in all policy areas, at all policy levels; the second was to look at the sixprioritised areas in the Sustainable Development Strategy to see how to improve them. TheEESC had mainly looked at the first approach, the horizontal, since it has been necessary andimportant to try to break down the barriers between different policy areas. Ms Sirkeinenemphasised that what we now needed to focus on was how to achieve results. She said thatmost people agreed on the goals but we would have to find tools to achieve them. Particularlyimportant, according to Ms Sirkeinen, was to search for win-win solutions, or at least balancedsolutions, and she therefore highlighted the importance of involving stakeholders. Sheconcluded by saying that to make things happen we would also need leadership and that all

would be looking particularly to the Commission for that.

Debate hosted by Mr Willy De Backer , Editor-in-Chief of Euractiv.com

Mr De Backer wondered if there was not a problem having two strategies, the LisbonStrategy and the Sustainable Development Strategy, running in parallel, and partlyover-lapping?

Mr Dimas answered that the two strategies were indeed partly over-lapping but that theywere also substantially different. He explained that the Lisbon Strategy would run until2010. It had been put into place to solve a relatively short-term problem; to kick-startEurope by putting focus on growth and jobs. The Sustainable Development Strategy on the

other hand was a permanent strategy. He said that it had a much broader scope. It wasenshrined in the Treaty as one of the priorities of the EU and it was global. Ms Sirkeinensaid that the economic pillar of the Sustainable Development Strategy was weak and thatthis had been compensated for by the Lisbon Strategy. The Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy had indeed a much broader scope. She added that it could be described as amoving target, since no clear targets had been set.

Mr De Backer said that if the Sustainable Development Strategy was considered anoverarching principle and one of the main priorities of this Commission, would therethen not be a problem when the Commission called itself the Lisbon Commissionand very strongly promoted growth and competitiveness?

Mr Dimas answered that it was true that the main focus was on increased growth and more



18/91

21

employment. However he explained that this did not mean that the social and environmentalparts of the Sustainable Development Strategy were being downgraded.

The participants in the Forum had voted on which five working groups they hadfound the most interesting. The following persons representing these workinggroups joined Mr Dimas and Ms Sirkeinen for a discussion:

Mr Richard Howell, UK Environment Agency: How to use Impact Assessment as a tool for Sustainable Development

Ms Georgia Nakou , Principal Policy Analyst, Institution of Electrical Engineers: A SustainableEnergy Future

Ms Myriam Van Espen , Director, SENIORINNOVATION, Cabinet-Conseil en gerontology : How to improve the social aspects of the European Sustainable Development Strategy; The fight against poverty and social exclusion an integral part of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy; ageing society

Mr Patrice Christmann , Secretary General, EUROGEOSURVEYS The Association of theGeological Surveys of the EU: Sustainable use of natural resources

Mr Staffan Nilsson , Member of the European Economic and Social Committee: How should the WTO trade liberalization relate to Sustainable Development?

Mr De Backer asked the representatives from the five working groups to presenttheir results and recommendations.Mr Howell represented the group that had discussed how impact assessments (IAs) could bea tool for sustainable development. The group had given the following recommendations:

- IAs are meant to inform decision makers but in the end the actual decisions must bepolitical;

- The assumptions made in an IA have to be very clearly stated;- The capacity of institutions to use IAs and to base decisions on them have to be increased.

Mr De Backer pointed out that in the case of REACH around 50 IAs had been made and theyall came to different conclusions, depending on who initiated the study. Mr Dimas said thatall these IAs served a purpose of bringing new pieces of information to the decision-makers.

Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Ulla Sirkeinen and Richard Howell


19/91

22

However he underlined that assumptions had to be made explicit and that it had to be clearfrom what angle the IA had been made. Ms Sirkeinen said that an IA was not easy to handlebut that is was the best tool available. She added that we would have to work on developingthe methodologies and that it was important to include qualitative measurements for all theimpacts we cannot measure in figures. Mr Paul Geraads , Member of the European Economicand Social Committee, asked at what geographical level an IA should be carried out since aglobal IA might undermine an IA made on EU level. Mr Howell said it was important to limitthe scope of an IA and to tailor it to the relevant area and level.

Ms Nakou presented the results of the working group on sustainable energy future. Some of

the main conclusions were:- The timeframe of the energy strategy should be extended to 40-50 years;- Energy efficiency should have a more prominent role in EU energy policy. That concerned

technology development but also education and awareness raising. Pan-Europeancampaigns similar to the one against smoking should be organised;

- There should be more focus on diversity of energy sources for geopolitical reasons, as wellas for low-emission supply reasons.

Ms Sirkeinen said that she missed the price aspect. Economic and social aspects were verymuch dependent on the price policy on energy. Ms Nakou answered that this issue had beendiscussed in the group, especially in relation to supply and to environmentally harmfulsubsidies. Mr Alexandre Pasche , Chairman of Eco&co, Consultancy for communication on the

environment and societal questions, asked what action the Commission had taken about carsthat consume an excessive amount of fuel. Mr Dimas answered that he drove a very small car!He added that it would be impossible to legislate against peoples freedom to buy a car of theirchoice but the full costs to society should also have to be paid by the consumers, which wasnot always the case today. Taxes and prices would have to take environmental costs intoconsideration. Mr De Backer said that maybe there ought to be a European action plan forenergy awareness.

Ms Van Espen presented the results of the working group on the social aspects of theSustainable Development Strategy. She said that in general the social pillar of sustainabledevelopment was far too underdeveloped and needed a lot more attention. She noted thatoften there were no links between the three pillars. Some of the main conclusions of the groupwere:

- The EU would have to consider the serious issue of poverty. We would need to reverse theunsustainable trends of today;

- Equality had to be considered a positive opportunity for sustainable development;- The EU should not look at the ageing of the population as something negative but should

also take advantage of experience and qualities.

Mr De Backer asked what specific actions could be taken within the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy, or the Lisbon Strategy, to better cover social problems. Ms Van Espen said that therehad to be awareness of the fact that social and environmental policies and actions also couldlead to jobs and growth, even though not always in the traditional sense of economic growth.Mr Dimas said that we must not forget the social dimension in a global perspective. He addedthat poverty in the third world was a very unsustainable factor for the whole globe.



20/91

23Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy

Mr Christmann presented the work carried out by the working group on natural resources. Hestressed that natural resources were the basis of everything and that there was an ongoingprocess of mass-extinction that was far from sustainable. Some of the recommendations from thegroup were:

- Harmful subsidies would have to be removed. Subsidies should only be allowed if theywere sustainable;

- Taxation should be moved from labour to natural resources. This would discourageexcessive exploitation of natural resources and lead to more employment;

- Develop knowledge about resources, use life cycle analysis more systematically;- Give support for capacity building in third world countries in order to better manage

natural resources.Mr Nilsson gave a brief presentation of the work done by the working group on WTO andsustainable development. Some of the recommendations were:

- The most important aspect would be to get an acceptance for internalising external costs;- To help internalise costs life cycle analysis and labelling could be useful tools;- It is important to address the fact that developing countries often perceive environmental

concerns as green protectionism;- The issue of global governance needs attention since institutions could be key actors.

Mr Ernst Erik Ehnmark , Member of the European Economic and Social Committee,

briefly summarised the results of the Forum . He said the work had been very interestingand fruitful and he highlighted the following issues:- Political signals : There needed to be a clear political signal confirming that sustainable

development really was an overarching policy for the EU;- Governance and leadership : Sustainable development was a radical concept, which would

require some very uncomfortable decisions. We would need an active dialogue to be ableto get people aboard and create a willingness to participate in the project;

- Lisbon strategy and Sustainable Development Strategy : The connections, the over-lappingand the conflicts between these two strategies would need to be more clearly explored andexplained;

- Impact assessments : Interestingly, impact assessment as a tool for sustainabledevelopment was perceived as the most important topic by many participants at the

Georgia Nakou and Richard Howell


21/91


Forum. This approach still needed to be better developed to win acceptance as a politicaltool for decision making;

- Energy, social dimension, natural resources and WTO were other priority areas : Sincepresentations had already been made from the working groups Mr Ehnmark did notcomment further on these topics;

- Research : More investment in research and education on sustainable development wouldbe needed;

- Communication : Better dialogue and communication with citizens and stakeholders wouldbe necessary to make sustainable development work in reality. This would be especially

important if we wanted consumption patterns to change.Mr Ehnmark said that this Forum had shown that the stakeholders were willing to take partin the work on sustainable development and that there were lots of valuable and interestingideas to capitalise on.

Closing remarks by Ms Anne-Marie Sigmund , President of the European Economic andSocial Committee

Ms Sigmund said that the Open Space method had proven to be a very useful approach forthis stakeholder forum and that she was very pleased with the results achieved. The Forum wasa good example of how the EESC can work as a bridge between civil society and the EUinstitutions. She said that the EESC did not necessarily have to stand in the centre but washappy to provide a platform for dialogue and communication. The participants were assuredthat the work that had been carried out in these two days would not be lost. The summariesfrom each working group would be handed to the Commission. She added that the EESC wouldensure a follow-up of the work on the Sustainable Development Strategy and would continuegiving its input. Ms Sigmund said that EESC would be happy to support the Commission in themonitoring and implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy. The EESC, togetherwith its network of partners and contacts all over Europe, could play a crucial role in themonitoring and implementation of the strategy.

Closing speech by Mr Jos Manuel Durao Barroso , President of the European Commission

Mr Barroso said that he would be happy for the EESC to be associated with the monitoringand implementation of the Strategy. There would be a need for more dialogue Forums. He saidthat looking at sustainable development made us think strategically and enabled us toincorporate the future in our day to day thinking. Sustainable development was not just astrategy for the EU but a permanent objective to be fulfilled by various other strategies of which the Lisbon Strategy was one. He emphasised that thepolitical signal was clear: there was a need to decoupleeconomic approach from environmental degradation and focuson sustainable production and consumption.

Mr Barroso said that sustainable development had become oneof the buzz words of this century. If it is typed into Google noless than 36,400,000 internet pages on the subject appear. Hesaid we have all heard the word but few have looked behind the

jargon to find out what it really means. Looking at this context,


22/91


Mr Barroso pointed out that this Stakeholder Forum on sustainable development had beenimportant. The participants had worked hard on finding recommendations and conclusions todeliver to the Commission in order to improve the Strategy on Sustainable Development.

Mr Barroso confirmed that he personally attached a lot of importance to sustainabledevelopment, and the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy. He had been at theWorld Summit in Rio in 1992 when sustainable development had first been discussed. Hementioned that the Commission had an integrated vision encompassing the economic, socialand environmental dimensions of the Union. Ensuring that the renewed Lisbon Strategyfocused on growth and jobs was an important step towards sustainability. Without increasingour growth potential we would not be able to sustain our unique model of society. However,all measures taken must be informed and guided by our broader vision of sustainabledevelopment.

Mr Barroso said that according to him a solid sustainable development strategy would need clearobjectives and targets. He took the example of transport and said that it was not enough thatCommissioner Dimas had such a small car, even though it clearly was a good contribution! Wewould need to be specific about what tools and policy measures we want to use. The strategyalso needed new instruments and innovative means of delivery. We must make greater use of technology and research. In addition, we would need to clarify the governance of the strategy.Who does what? What could be done at national level and what needs to be done at EU level?Finally, we must monitor the strategy better. We have to set clear targets and deadlines. MrBarroso said that particularly in monitoring the implementation of the strategy, the EESC couldhave an important role as well as in relation to monitoring the delivery and deadlines.

Mr Barroso thanked the participants at the Forum for their contributions. Almost all theimportant issues of sustainable development had been covered by the recommendations givenby the 50 working groups. He assured the participants that the Commission would take a closelook at the conclusions made and the priorities listed. There was a need to be positive andshare success stories. He outlined the timetable for future work, building on a declaration onguiding principles to be considered at the June Summit. Proposals would be made in theautumn which would be new and ambitious and linked closely to the internationalcommitments of the EU. The link between the Lisbon Strategy and sustainable developmentwould be brought to the fore.

Mr Barroso's draft speech has been published by the European Commission at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/Barroso-final.pdf

Staffan Nillson, Anne-Marie Sigmund, Jos Manuel Durao Barroso and Willy De Backer


23/91

Stakeholder Forum onSustainable Developmein the EU:Reports of theworking sessions


24/91

28

Names of participants: Jonas Norrman, Georgia Nakou, Vincent Denby Wilkes, Harry Lehmann, Francisco Nez, Manuel Irun Molina, Tomas Landers,Isabelle Matre, Torben Timmermann

Results:

A sustainable energy strategy shouldcombine low greenhouse gas emissions withsecurity of supply, avoiding long-termenvironmental risks. Energy should be thesubject of long-term strategic planning on atotal system level. The timeframe for thisstrategy should be longer than hithertoenvisaged in the EU Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy, in the range of 40-50 years, and thetransition to a low emission system shouldbe managed to phase in existingtechnologies while researching and planningfor future developments.

The most sustainable energy is the energyyou dont use. Measures to improve energyefficiency should be taken in all sectors. Forexample, the road transport sector currentlyhas no viable alternative to diesel fuel, butimprovements in engine technologiescombined with eco-driving initiatives canmitigate emissions from this sector. Ageingbuilding stock is resulting in a considerablewaste of energy, and incentives must befound to improve the energy efficiency of

buildings. Aside from technologicalsolutions, however, more information needsto be made available to the public throughlong-term education initiatives (similar toanti-smoking campaigns) to reverseunsustainable consumption habits.

Security of supply must be based on adiversity of energy sources and technologiesin the short, medium and long term.Concerns over the limited availability of primary energy sources, together withgeopolitical sensitivities in source regions

add urgency to the task of securing futureenergy. Both of these concerns need to beaddressed in tandem. In addition toencouraging the adoption of renewable, asustainable energy strategy should considerincluding other clean and efficienttechnologies, such as clean use of fossilfuels, cogeneration and safe nuclear power.

A truly sustainable energy system should

include strategic planning, not only at thelevel of primary energy sources, but alsoinfrastructure. New power generationpatterns and new fuel sources are alreadychallenging the existing systems forexample, electricity networks will have to bereconfigured to actively manage demand andsupply. The creation of an energy-efficientbuilt environment through retrofitting of existing stock and new build will needdecades of sustained effort.

Market mechanisms can deliver a sustainableenergy system if they are properly designedto internalise environmental costs and tostimulate innovation. The ongoingliberalisation of European energy marketsshould be used as an opportunity to promotesustainability by shaping the markets torespond to social demands. The carefuldesign of support schemes for renewableenergy through national policies but alsothrough the creation of a market for greencertificates at the European level couldensure that the best technologies are

implemented in the most cost-efficient wayin the most suitable regions.

Research into the technologies of the futureshould be encouraged, even as currenttechnologies are being applied. One of thefirst steps should be to encourageinformation exchange and knowledgedissemination within the European area overthe next 10-20 years to make the best of existing knowledge and share best practicethrough the Technology Platforms andsimilar mechanisms. Priority areas for future


A sustainable energy future1


25/91

research should be allocated around theprinciple of sustainability. Suggested areasinclude environmentally friendlytechnologies for the commercial vehiclesector, fuel cells, safe nuclear technology andbio-fuels. Finally, greater effort is needed tocreate the mechanisms for bringing newtechnologies to market.

On a more general level, there is a need to

create real policy coherence and to overcomethe divisions created by the establishedsectoral approach within the Commission,and the different and overlapping timescalesfor the various programmes and strategies.The tensions that currently exist betweencompetitive public procurement rules andsustainable transport and logistics patterns,are one example of a situation that must beremedied through better policy coordination.Strategy decisions should be based on arigorous and pragmatic assessment of costsand benefits.

Within the European-level policy-makingprocess, there needs to be greaterrecognition of the diversity among MemberStates, in terms of natural resources,processes, priorities, and pace of development. We do not need an averageenergy policy for the whole of the EU, butrather a strategy which will allow best use of locally available resources, while usingpooled knowledge to quicken the pace of development where possible.

Finally, the European strategy needs to beplaced within the global context. Thisincludes consideration of the balancebetween European initiative and the need forglobal action. While there are areas of synergy between, for instance, research inthe EU and the US, there is still debate overwhether mitigation of climate changerequires a formal global agreement.

Next steps / Recommendations: A longer term strategy for sustainable

energy (40-50 years)

Consideration of more diverse energysources and technologies

Strategic infrastructure planning

Careful design of sustainable market

mechanisms

Better knowledge dissemination

Better policy coordination

Flexible policy design

Better framing of the global context of theEU Sustainable Development Strategy

29Reviewing the European Sustainable Development Strategy


26/91


Names of participants:Nina Cunningham, Truus Huisman, David Sears, Roshan Di Puppo, Richard Howell,Pendo Maro

Results:The group agreed that the general purpose of Impact Assessment (IA) was to informdecision-making by providing decisionmakers with information about possibleeconomic, social and environmental impactsof a policy, identify trade offers and proposepolicy options to achieve policy objectives.

The group felt that IA should be a continuousprocess, throughout the policy-making cycle,and not a one-off event; it has to ensuret ransparency in pol icy-making andacceptance and ownership of legislation andregulations thought the EU and within

different sectors.In order to achieve this, the following issueswere discussed:

- Objectives of IA should be based on thethree dimensions of EU sustainabledevelopment and should identify whatpolicies are in place already and theireffectiveness;

- The timing : IA should be at the start of thepolicy making process; and should belinked with stakeholder participation;

- Affected stakeholders should be identifiedearly on in the process and should beconsulted on time, at the beginning of thepolicy making process;

- Who should conduct consultations?

- The IA methodology: there is a need forquality improvement and to considerexternal dimensions of impacts of EUlegislation;

- The assumptions underlying the analysis of c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s s h o u l d b e

communicated to all interested parties andstakeholders;

- Capacity building: there is a need for achange of culture within the institutions, sothat IA is seen as an integral part of policy-making. This is linked to training of staff within the institutions on IA;

- Budget and financing: there is a need toprovide financing to effectively carry out IA

at the institutional level (e.g. towardstraining of staff) and also to facilitatestakeholder participation. Financing shouldbe a part of risk-based approach;

- IA is underpinned by two fundamentalprinciples: sustainable development andgood governance;

- Data: this is linked with the knowledge-based society. However, the lack of knowledge should not be an obstacle todecision-making; we can always rely onassumptions e.g. the precautionaryprinciple;

- Allow for error margins in policy making:sometimes decisions made 20 years agoare not applicable now, so we need toadapt to priorities;

- The criteria for policy evaluation should bedecided at the start of the process and notat the end; this should allow for a review of the policy to decide whether it is stillneeded or not;

- Benefits : it is often difficult to identify

benefits of impacts, e.g. on human healthand biodiversity; also there are differencesin monetization approach within thedifferent sectors and Member States;

- What is the role of consultants in IA? Howobjective are they?

- Participatory democracy: who shouldident i fy s takeholders? Who arestakeholders? An agreed definition wasthat a stakeholder is someone representingpeople who are affected by a policy. On themode of consultation: questionnaires

How to use Impact Assessment as a toolfor sustainable development

2


27/91


versus written contributions, which aremore representative?

1. Objectives of IA as a tool todeliver sustainabledevelopment:- Should provide an assessment of t he

three dimensions equally: social,environmental and economic;

- S h o ul d g en e r at e q u al i t yinformation and identify gaps ininformation;

- S h o u ld i de n t i fy a ff e c t edstakeholders;

- Should lead to better legislation andintegration with other EU legislations;

- Should promote ownership of sustainable development and itsacceptability;

- Should facil itate information fordecision making;

- Should increase accountability of decision makers;

- Should identify best options forachieving policy objectives;

- There should be a Sus ta inableDevelopment Strategy/documentwithin each DG,

2. Process2.a. Timing of IA

- It should be a process, not an event;

- It should start at early stage of policymaking and identify pros and cons; setout clear objectives of policy; analyseeffectiveness of existing legislation andidentify newly available data andinformation;

- Consultations: improved guidelines areneeded on the minimum standards forconsultation, which should be built onexisting Commission Standards forStakeholder Consultation;

- Consultations should be tailored tostakeholders depending on what typeof information is sought;

- Role of consultants : they can be usedto carry out analysis of stakeholderinpu t bu t NOT to p rov idecontent/expertise. Emphasis should beon existing expertise e.g. EEA and JRC.


28/91


Names of participants:Ronan Dantec, Sophie Dupressoir, Gunda

Macioti, Valentina Salonna, Myriam VanEspen, Bernadette Hartley

Results:

Findings regarding the currentSustainable Development Strategy:

Disconnection between the economic environmental social aspects (e.g. whatkind of transport system is needed to

reconcile low environmental impact withcitizens mobility?);

Economic and environmental policiesmust recognise the risk of creating newsocial inequalities;

The danger of poverty not being takeninto account in sustainable developmentstrategy in Europe;

Poverty passing down through thegenerations (15% of the population living

in poverty); No link between unsustainable trends

(e.g. global warming and combatingsocial exclusion);

Lack of cross-connection betweenimportant documents (e.g. theCommissions Green Paper on ageing; thepan-European Berlin conference on ageingin 2002; the UN Madrid world assembly onageing in 2002);

Sustainable development is a dynamicprocess, but the methodological tools areinappropriate in social terms:

Quantitative indicators are developedto the detriment of qualitative ones;

A purely negative attitude towards theageing society;

Fa i lu re to t ake accoun t o f unremunerated production (e.g.:voluntary childcare by grandparents,voluntary work by retired people, etc.);

Failure to take account of hands-on

experts in order to make the most of existing experience and achievements.

The link between the revised LisbonStrategy and the Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy is unclear.

Objectives

1. To give serious consideration to, andensure urgent implementation of, steps toreverse unsustainable trends.

2. To emphasise social cohesion and fairnessbetween generations as positive factorsfor sustainable development.

3. Ageing: not to restrict the ageingissue to employment, dependence andpensions. A sustainable developmentapproach entails harnessing whatolder people have to offer in terms of resources and skills.

4. Fighting poverty: presentation of aEuropean model of social inclusion should

How to improve the social aspects of theEuropean Sustainable Development Strategy.

The fight against poverty and social exclusion an integral part of the Strategy. Ageing society

3


29/91


not be seen as a consolidated gain, but

rather as an objective to be (re)gained.Full employment targets predicated ongrowth do not tally with social cohesionobjectives.

5. To open up new areas of the economy:the social and solidarity-based economy,environmental protection and proximityservices must be promoted as newsectors generating employment andsocial ties.

6. To define a new European model giving

fair treatment to populations in all theirsexual, social, cultural and generationaldiversity.

Actions

1. The Structural Funds and subsidies mustbe made strictly conditional on anassessment of their impact on the threedimensions of sustainable development.

2. Inclusion of social standards in the rules

governing public procurement.3. Greater consistency between social

objectives and the Unions financialmeans.

4. A partial shift of the tax burden awayfrom employment and towards financialincome and use of natural resources.

5. Consolidation of citizens information andinvolvement as a key element in nationalsustainable development strategies.

6. Adoption by the Union of a frameworkdirective on strengthening services of general interest.

Drafting of a White Paper on the definition of a new European social and cultural model.


30/91

Names of participants:Patrice Christmann, Dominique Proy, Charles Belanger, Trygve Sundt, Laure Ledoux,Vronique Schmit, Ernst-Christoph Stolper,Stefanie Pfahl

Results:

The following issues have been discussed bythe group. Results are given for each of theissues discussed:

1 - Resources: Biodiversity: the need to curb the import

into the EU of endangered species (floraand fauna, to extend the list of speciesprotected by the CITES convention; toprotect habitats within reinforcing

NATURA 2000- and outside the EU; toreduce the impact of intensive breedingsuch as aquaculture, pig and poultry farmsas well as caring of animal welfare hasbeen recognized by the participants. Thereis also a need for more selective high seaand coastal fishing to avoid by-catch of unwanted species. Enforcement of existinglegislation and conventions is an issuewhich needs to be addressed, for instancevia Development Policy (e.g. training of -hopefully well paid - customs officials to

curb the export of endangered species). Energy: the development of EU renewable

energy sources wind, biomass, solarand geothermal should be more activelypromoted. Market-based instrumentssuch as a kerosene tax should beintroduced to raise awareness of theconsequences of the environmentalimpacts of certain energy uses. MemberStates should be invited to revise theirVAT rates to encourage the use of renewable energies and curb the use of

fossil fuels. Conflicting issues need to beaddressed such as the preservation of landscapes versus the development of wind farms.

Minerals and metals: There is a need todevelop an EU statistical capacity onproduction, imports (and their origins)and exports reflecting the real not theapparent consumption and production,

as a basis for material flow analysis andfor assessing the EU dependence onimports and the related geopoliticalissues. The strategy should also provide,via the EU Development Policy, support todeveloping countries to regulate andpromote their natural resources gainingactivities in line with sustainabledevelopment principles.

2 - Activities: Tourism: natural resources landscapes,

water, coastal areas, biodiversity - are keyelements for sustainable tourism whichshould be well-managed. Good practicesshould be identified and disseminated,especially in areas concerned by mass-tourism, within and outside the EU.

3 - Policies and instruments: Specific support should be provided to

assist SMEs in integrating sustainabledevelopment into their operations.

Integrated Product Policy should bestrengthened in all EU policies. Legal,fiscal and voluntary instruments shouldbe put in place.

Ecolabelling should be promoted at eachstage of the life cycle, from the initialresource to the final product and thewaste generated.

Sustainable use of natural resources4



31/91

Decoupling: resource use should be

decoupled from negative environmentalimpacts. To understand these impacts thelifecycle approach is needed, which in turnrequires extensive quality-controlled data.

Research and innovation play a prominentrole in developing and promoting bettertechnologies for the more efficient use of resources, the better understanding of their impacts and better natural resourcesmanagement.

Consumer education in sustainabledevelopment issues is of utmostimportance. Consumer choices will muchdetermine the spread of sustainabledevelopment practices throughout the EUeconomy.

Contradictions between sustainabledevelopment principles and other policiesneed to be addressed: are sustainabledevelopment and deregulation compatible?

Taxation and other market-basedinstruments should encourage employment

and curb inefficient use of non-renewable

resources.

Next steps / Recommendations: Subsidies for resource gaining activities

should be linked to the implementation of sustainable practices;

Individual behaviours and choices need tobe addressed;

Taxation should be shifted from labour to

non renewable resources; Knowledge needs to be improved on

material flows and related environmentalimpacts along the life cycle of individualresources;

Specific support ought to be given todeveloping countries to foster (andmaintain) their institutional capacity topromote and regulate their resourcegaining activities in line with sustainabledevelopment principles.



32/91

Names of participants:Thomas Ruddy, Lutz Ribbe, Susanne Droege

Results:Moderator Thomas Ruddy made someintroductory remarks about globalizationbeing driven by advances in technology andtrade liberalization. The technology of containerised shipping was then seen to be acause of environmental damage, as dieselfuel was too cheap and aviation fuel untaxed.His statement that trade liberalizationgenerates wealth caused great controversy,but trade liberalization generates welfare orhow much trade liberalization is compatiblewith sustainable development were morebroadly acceptable. Participants did not agreeon any framework for consolidating theirideas as had been suggested by the initiator.

Discussion points wereTrade liberalisation vs. limits to free trade;Cost internalisation, transportation cost;Labelling and Life Cycle Assessments;

Arguments:Trade is needed by developing countries togenerate growth.They also need special and differential

treatment (SDT).None of the participants disagreed with theneed for trade as such.The EU has had its own model of tradeliberalisation (the single market). Now it isdeveloping its own sustainable developmentidea, whereas history determines the actualpolicy approaches.

What is needed is a framework of rules, e.g.environmental, social, and ethical. An exampleof such rules would be the SustainabilityImpact Assessment to which EU international

development cooperation policy is subjected.Other sets of rules envisaged were theMillennium Development Goals and securityconcerns. It was felt that the use of differentstandards in different countries should beallowed despite the global uniformitydemanded in WTO agreements. Developingcountries also demand uniformity in that theyoften regard Northern environmental concernsas green protectionism. The potential

conflicts between human rights standards andMultilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)on the one hand, and WTO treaties such as theGeneral Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)on the other were mentioned.

Information for consumers, communication, andthe media are important in raising awareness.

Recommendation: prize-winning documentarymovie Darwins Nightmare, currently shownin local cinemas and supported by EU MediaProgramme. The film deals with (inter alia)biodiversity, the collapse of eco-systems, therole of EU money in developing countries, theeducation and training of locals, thedistribution of wealth and income, etc.

Supply chain management matters, StrategicImpact Assessment is needed at all levels of external relations, in particular for relations withdeveloping countries (the partnership approach).

Debate on standards: how do we deal withlower standards, which are imported?(Argument: it is okay if a nation has its ownlower standards, but trade transfers thesestandards also into the EU).

The sustainable development strategy needstime. DCs are on a parallel trajectory andleapfrogging would be very desirable. If notpossible, SDT is needed.

In the DOHA Round the trade-off betweeneconomic development and environmentalissues as perceived by major developingcountries becomes obvious (with regard totrade relations).

How WTO trade liberalization shouldrelate to sustainable development

5



33/91


Can the concept of ecological footprints beused for sustainable development tradestrategies? There are regulatory problems.Nonetheless one thought-provoking proposalwas to implement a trading system that tookcountries ecological footprints into accountin some way, like the emissions tradingsystem. Measuring material flows wasreported on, and a system providingecological justice was demanded.

Soon participants realised that institutionswere key, and global governance neededattention; whether to reform or replace theWTO. What type of global governance couldpromote sustainable development and trade?

Translational/multinational companies shouldbe leaders in setting standards (voluntarycodes of conduct), they have standard settingpower.

Governments should set standards (inaddition? In parallel? ).

The EU idea of sustainable development isunder pressure because of trade liberalisation.

The Codex Alimentarius is an internationalstandard acceptable to the WTO. Why notproceed in that direction, i.e. setting standardsin other institutions at international level?

The EU Strategic Impact Assessment systemis too narrow. Reduced to competition (?)

Information systems are crucial for futurestrategies. Information generation anddissemination is a bottleneck.

How could consumer awareness be raised?Via NGOs, governments?

Eco-marketing is a powerful tool, shouldntthere be more of it?

Are eco-markets niche markets forever?

How could sustainable development beintroduced into the supply chain?

Sustainable development management of resources would increase the prices of final

products only to a limited extent, e.g. sugarproduction Coca Cola.

India was said by one participant not tobenefit from the EUs liberalisation of thesugar market, Brazil being more competitive- where are the links?

NB: this workshop and workshop 8 coveredsome similar ground.

Next steps / Recommendations:The issue of internalizing external costs isalso a macro problem requiring measurementand indicators.

One example is the transport cost issue: an EUapproach is needed, but e.g. a kerosene taxhas been in the pipeline for a very long time.

Working backwards in the line of command,participants traced responsibility from thetrade lawyers in the WTO Secretariat to theministers attending ministerials to theMember States from which they come eventually arriving at the electorate,consumers and NGOs. Many participantsliked the idea of applying dual price labels toproducts in order to help raise awarenessamong consumers of external costs: inaddition to the label showing the retail pricethere would be a new label showing the full-cost per Life Cycle Assessment. Participantsfeared however that such ethicallydifferentiating marketplaces would remainonly a niche.


34/91


Names of participants:Nina Cunningham, Luc Bas, Ernst-ChristophStolper, Silvia Torresi, Pierre Godin, Peter Wenster, Sonia Moreno, Eva Baos deGuisasola, Sylvain Chevassus, Markus Tornberg, Michael Ferry, Manuel Rivera,Tomas Ekberg

Results:Why is the local and regional level important?

The local and regional level is key tosustainable development. The local andregional level taken together are strategicenough to make connections between issuesbut small enough to reflect true local needsand to involve stakeholders. A prerequisitefor sustainable development. Politicalleadership at the local and regional level canand does make a difference. The local andregional level is the place for innovation andfor building the systems of the nextgeneration. The participants in the groupgave several examples of this. Regionalidentity and culture differs. The way toachieve a more sustainable society must takethis into account. Sustainable development infact must be a shared responsibility betweendifferent levels of society if we are to move inthe right direction.

What are the key issues for thelocal and regional level?

The local and regional level is in a strongneed for a more clear and focused strategy.A strategy that is not another environmentalor socio-economic one but is true sustainabledevelopment and long term. A strategy withthree or four really intergenerationalquestions and with a vision that relates topeople and therefore can be communicated.

A focused strategy taken forward in closecollaboration with the local and regional levellike the one described would make asubstantial difference when it comes tofocusing common efforts in all parts of society. The important but not most importantquestions could be handled within ordinaryeconomic, environmental, social policy, etc.

This point is closely linked to the second one.

The need for clear political leadership andlong-term political commitment. One exampleis the active use of procurement motivated bysustainable development principles and amore focused sustainable developmentstrategy. The results could be fast and visible.

Another question with direct consequencesfor the local and regional level and the EU isthe need to have sustainable developmentfully integrated into all structural fundactivities. This is not about subsidiarity; it isabout Europes common future. Much publicEuropean money will be spent in futurestructural funds. This must be used in amore sustainable way. At the same timeregional distinctiveness must be embraced.

Sustainable development policy should meanadded value. The ability of sustainabledevelopment policy to improve quality of lifeshould be stressed, as well as the ability togenerate new and better business by being atthe forefront. For this to happen it is importantthat we have long-term cooperation,

agreements and support. Whenever possible,the speciality of the regional level should beused. To build networks between companies,education and research and the public sectorbroadly for a good cause. This means thatthere should be strong support for moremarket-driven change when possible.

The influence of local and regional level onsustainable development at European leveland participation in the forthcoming process iscertainly important for involvement. The localand regional dimension must surely be clear in

What support do the local and regionallevels need from the EU and the Strategy

6


35/91


the next European sustainabledevelopment strategy. The roleo f t h e r e g i o n s m u s t b eunderpinned.

Actions to be taken? (Sticksand carrots).

On tools and indicators: We arein need of guidelines that areclear, educational, motivationaland informative! Common andgeneral conditions for actionstaken in the EU to besustainable could be one way of doing this. Fulfilling thesec o n d i t i o n s c o u l d b e arequ i r emen t fo r ge t t i ngStructural Fund moneys andresources from other policyareas. We are strongly in favourof implementing SustainableManagement Systems.

Intensified monitoring of n a t i o n a l b e s t p r a c t i c ec o n c e r n i n g t o o l s a n d indicators isessential. One idea put forward was to moreor less copy the working methods andprinciples of the big companies doingsustainable development.

Procurement principles need to be strong onsustainable development principles, not onlyon money or market principles. The local andregional/social and environmental dimensions

must be as important as the economic one.Strong procurement demands in combinationwith market-driven projects would be a strongdriving force for regional transition at the localand regional level. Sustainable developmentwould then also become highly visible topeople in municipalities and regions.

On finance: financial principles that show thecommitment to sustainable development ingeneral policy and not at least in StructuralFund policy. Structural Fund programmes andfinancing that supports the local and regional

level in their ambitions to work with the wholechain of learning and implementing withinsustainable development from research topractical projects and implementation. Strongsustainability requirements are needed for allactions carried out under Structural Fundprogrammes. A local/regional sustainabledevelopment strategy should form the basisfor all regions given Structural Fund support.

Sustainable development evaluation should bean important part of the mid-term evaluation.

One project idea is to provide generalsupport for sustainable development policyadvisers at local and regional level in allEuropean countries, focusing not only onthe EU and the objectives of the union buton sustainable development in general. Thisalready exists in some countries and wethink that it is now time for active andp r o u d c a m p a i g n s f o r s u s t a i n a b l edevelopment at the local and regional level.


36/91


Names of participants:Richard Robson (European Chemical Industry); Paul Geraads (EESC DutchFarmers and Growers; Laure Ledoux (EUROSTAT); Lisa Boch-Andersen (AmChamEU); Eva Baos de Guisasola (EUROCITIES);Darinka Czischke (CECODHAS co-ordinator of European Social Housing Observatory);Pamela Kennedy (Joint Research Centre, EC)

WHY research and technical development are important :

IMPROVE UNDERSTANDINGof CURRENTSITUATIONand FUTURE TRENDS(processes,trends, problems, impacts, markets);

SUPPORT POLICYwith evidence (reliable,scientific, objective) KNOWLEDGE-BASEto UNDERPINpolicy and allow INFORMEDDECISION-MAKING;

MONITOR PROGRESS (indicators,

integrated analyses, target-setting anddistance from targets, informationsystems-networks);

SUPPORT, DEVELOPand APPLYinnovationswhich stimulate economic growth andcompetitiveness;

R