A new aspect of the "European model". "The European Council agrees a strategy for sustainable development which completes the Union's political commitment to economic and social renewal, [and] adds a third, environmental dimension to the Lisbon strategy". This is how paragraph 20 of the conclusions of the European Council of Gothenburg begins. The EU Heads of Government therefore launched with a certain amount of solemnity this new, particularly significant part of the "European model", which makes Europe so specific in the world. The Lisbon strategy aims to make the European economy the world's most innovative and most efficient economy by 2010. This aim remains, but it is completed by a new approach that links economic growth to its sustainability. This mainly involves natural resources being used in so far as they can be renewed, and means that the link between economic growth and the use of resources must be severed.
It is not easy to fully realise the extent of the revolution that this strategy implies regarding methods of production, and it is not easy to conduct economic policies. Growth remains indispensable for improving the population's standard of living, you may say. Yes, certainly, but with new methods and new priorities. In my opinion, it is the very notion of growth that should be radically revised. One example of this are the traffic jams in towns. Such congestion causes an enormous waste of fuel, increases pollution, delays and upsets productive activities. And yet, the effects on the calculation of growth are positive! The rise in petrol consumption makes the production index for the oil industry rise, and respiratory illnesses mean that hospital services are developed and the demand for medicines increased: all growth factors, according to the statistics. The Gothenburg Conclusions state: "The relationship between economic growth, consumption of natural resources and the generation of waste must change". The case of waste is obvious. If, for example, bottles, boxes and other packaging waste are thrown out into nature, their production increases - with a positive effect on the rate of growth. This is quite simply absurd. The Summit's conclusions also affirm the need to reduce the fishing effort in order to adjust catches to available resources. This is indispensable, in order to safeguard tomorrow's fishing industry and keep our seas alive - but in terms of growth the result is seen as negative. Another absurdity.
Reticence and obstacles. We shall not have a new method for evaluating growth by tomorrow. But it is necessary to immediately transform the solemn political declaration from Gothenburg into concrete targets with commitments. And that is where the difficulties begin. The European Commission's preparatory document, presented on 15 May, contains - alongside a remarkable analysis of the stakes involved and the need to act - a considerable number of aims and projects, which involve a radical change in three Community policies (agricultural policy, fisheries policy and transport policy) as well as revision of decision-making procedures. Today, the "sectoral" Councils each deliberate in their own relevant field, and their decisions are sometimes contradictory. Consistency must be brought back. It is not just the Council, however, that needs a revolution. From the preparatory stage, all the institutions should take into consideration, for each project being developed, the consequences in terms of "sustainable development", in order to prevent inconsistency and contradiction between the various sector-specific policies. The Commission document (summarised in our bulletin of 17 May, pp.7/8) received a largely favourable welcome, mainly within the European Parliament. The Environment Council had even felt that the Commission had not been sufficiently ambitious! In the context of preparation for the Summit, however, the ambitions of environment ministers were reduced and national reticence and reservation expressed. Shall we give a few examples?
a) Energy tax. Spain maintains its "no". The United Kingdom and Greece link this tax to liberalisation of markets. Mr Bolkestein then felt that it could be made into an "enhanced cooperation" with the participation of Member states that are in favour. Spain, however, believed this was not possible. The European Parliament took a stance in favour of the tax, but with a large number of "no" votes (224 for, 173 against), proving that opposition and reservation is widely spread.
b) Abolition of aid to coal by 2010. Germany is against. Commissioner Wallström invited the environment ministers to insist saying: "What good are environment ministers if they do not cause disruption for industry ministers?"
c) Ending of subsidies to tobacco farming. Italy and Greece are opposed, emphasising that this measure would, in itself, have no impact on the reduction of cigarette consumption. The only result would be to subsides indirectly the tobacco producers in third countries;
d) Adapting the fishing effort to resources. This aim calls for a package of measures covering both the size of the fishing fleet, the aid system, quotas, agreements with third countries. The account from the Fisheries Council this week (in our bulletin on 18/19 June, pages 9 and 10) is very informative as to the barriers faced by the Commission's plans in this area.
Difficult concepts, distant public opinion. These examples only offer a partial picture of a problematic that is in reality of a partly limited scope, for example involving the taking into account of the environmental dimension in the allocation of public procurement, and a radical transformation of transport taxation. Sometimes, the concepts themselves are not simple to concretise. For example, the Commission asserts that it is necessary to curb the reduction of biodiversity by 2010. How? By farming new varieties of vegetables presently abandoned, or by reintroducing the animal species that have disappeared from our lands? The Commission proposes to establish, by 2003, a system of biodiversity indicators. We will see.
To the national aims and reticence, are added the difficulty of reach public opinion, due to the distance nature and difficulty in quantifying the results as well as the scattering of necessary actions that until now involve food safety and the war against infectious diseases.
The convictions of Romano Prodi. Seemingly impressed by this two fold difficulty, and possibly a little discouraged by the weakness of the first results, the Commission President, Romano Prodi, wrote what was on his heart in an article published simultaneously by Die Welt, Les Echos, la Stampa e degens Industri, which begins with the following phrase: Sustainable development: rarely a concept would have so much to offer and be appreciated by so few (strangely, this phrase is not present in the Italian version). The continuation is a passionate defence of the Commission plan and its meaning. Mr Prodi notes: nobody challenges the core idea (…), but then it is a case of moving to actions, though political will sometimes be lacking: a) a certain umber of developments underway represent a threat for our quality of life; b) the policies in favour of sustainable development could unleash a new wave of technological innovation and investments, thus creating the jobs of tomorrow; c) certain problems call for an immediate answers, as it is far more costly to resolve them later, or, even worse, there efforts are irreversible (rise in sea levels following climatic change, disappearance and loss of biodiversity); d) sustainable development does not oppose growth or the market. An ambitious strategy could even force economic growth by stimulating our pace of innovation and allow the production of far cheaper and cleaner goods (including, progressively, renewable energies); e) there could provisionally be job losses in a few sectors, but they will be compensated by other job creations. People who experience the negative effects of this change will have to receive aid to adapt all the more so as sustainable development has an evident social dimension. And the conclusion from the Commission President was: I want the European Union to have the ambition to become the world champion of sustainable development by leading the way in the technological domain and by being a political example for all our partners.
A basis for action. What remains of these ambitions? We have said so: the expression at the highest level of the political will to act, the support, in principal, for the Commission document, the invitation by the Summit for the Council to examine the proposals contained in the Commission document, and the confirmation of a few priority undertakings already previously agreed upon, such as achieving the Kyoto objectives and achieving by 2005 tangible progress in this direction and increasing to 22% by 2010 the share of electricity produced from renewable sources. A partial timetable is also present in the Summit conclusions, with a few significant deadlines: 2003 for revision of transeuropean transport networks (by prioritising the railways, short distance maritime transport, inland waterways, intermodal operations); 2004 for the establishment of the policy for chemical substances. The procedures accepted sometimes seem to waiver (for example, confining the General Affairs Council to the coordination at all levels, while this Council, formed of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, is totally absorbed by external relations and diplomatic tasks and for many years no longer ensures the coherence of the Union activity), other are encouraging. The core is that the Commission maintains its heading and makes full use of its right to initiative. It seem to have started well, as recently it approved a Communication on the possibility of integrating environmental considerations into public procurement and another on the Community strategy to fight against anti-microbial resistance. Though the road is long and the task is heavy.
(F.R.)