Brussels, 04/05/2004 (Agence Europe) - During its plenary session in Brussels on 28 April, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted an explanatory opinion, by a large majority, which was requested last November by Vice-President of the European Commission Loyola de Palacio, on the EU's strategy for sustainable development (see, amongst others, EUROPE of 4 March, p.17). Entitled "Evaluation of the EU's strategy for sustainable development", this opinion was written by the German Lutz Ribbe (director of the European nature heritage foundation Euronatur), and Swedish Trade Unionist Ernst Erik Ehnmark.
In this opinion, the Committee regretted the lack of progress and political commitment for an EU sustainable development strategy. It noted that opinions differ strongly on how to define sustainable development, its potential impact and the consequences of failure in implementing a sustainable development policy by the EU, and more specific measures to be taken, and by whom, to adapt the current production and consumption models. The Committee also noted that one of the aims of the EU sustainable development policy should be to guarantee that European citizens, businesses and society as a whole are perfectly aware of the potential benefits to them of sustainable development. It also stated that the revised strategy should take full account of enlargement and that European and national strategies should be closely linked. The Committee also stressed that the revision of the sustainable development strategy would require a re-assessment of the current evaluation criteria for growth and productivity. Lastly, the EESC called upon the European institutions and the Member States to ensure that the EU's commitment to sustainable development underlies and complements all European policies, especially the forthcoming reviews of the Lisbon strategy and the EU financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013.
Presenting his opinion to the press, Lutz Ribbe clearly defined the concept of sustainable development, which has been interpreted differently, stating that "sustainable development implies the transformation of a market economy, the creation of a closer link between the environment, work and competitiveness on the one hand, and issues on inter-generational balance and fairness of allocation on the other". He also talked of the importance of specifying in which sectors further growth would be undesirable, or even counter-productive. He explained that in Germany, 40 billion EUR are spend on healthcare each year (funds to medical costs, he clarified) for people who are ill due to diet ("they drink too much beer and each too much fatty food"), noted Mr Ribbe), or spend too little on themselves. This means that each German citizen is contributing to the GNI, "just because of unhealthy habits", an average which is higher than each inhabitant of India for all their economic activities (around 470 EUR per annum). In this sector, therefore, growth is not desirable for the point of view of sustainability, even if it does create jobs, and this could be a factor which partly limits economic growth, concluded Mr Ribbe.