Progress On EU Sustainable Development Strategy

Progress on EU Sustainable
Development Strategy
Final Report
Client: European Commission, Secretariat General
ECORYS Nederland BV
Brussels/Rotterdam, 29 February 2008

Legal address:
ECORYS Nederland BV
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Registration no. 24316726
Contact point:
ECORYS Brussels
Av. De Tervuren 13a
B-1040 Brussels
T +32 2 743 89 49
F +32 2 732 71 11
Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 2

Table of contents
Executive Summary 5
Background and Aims 5
Main findings 6
Conclusions 13
Recommendations 16
1. Introduction 17
1.1 Background to the EU SDS 17
1.2 Aims of his report 18
1.3 How the report has been prepared 19
1.4 About the structure of this report 20
2. Climate change and clean energy 21

2.1 Introductory remarks on objectives and targets 21
2.2 Main challenges and problems facing the EU 23
2.3 Appropriate policy response and EU action 29
2.4 Member State action 37
2.5 Conclusions and recommendations 40
3. Sustainable transport 45
3.1 Main challenges 45
3.2 Views on the appropriate policy response 48
3.3 EU action 50
4. Sustainable consumption and production 58

4.3 EU action 65
5. Conservation and management of natural resources 71


5.3 EU action 75
6. Public health 85
6.3 EU action 89
7. Social inclusion, demography and migration 96

7.3 EU action 100
8. Global poverty and sustainable development challenges 106

8.3 EU action 110
9. Cross cutting policies 116

9.1 Education and training 116
9.2 Research and development 119
9.3 Financing and economic instruments 121
9.4 Communication, mobilising actors and multiplying success 123
9.5 Implementation, monitoring and follow-up 125
9.6 Conclusions 128
10. Conclusions and recommendations 130

10.1 Strategic conclusions 130
10.2 Progress by theme 133
10.3 Cross-cutting themes 135
10.4 Convergence of national SDS towards EU SDS 136
10.5 Monitoring 137
10.6 Recommendations 138
Annex 1: Overview of key policy initiatives by theme 139

Executive Summary
Background and Aims
i. On 9th June 2006, the European Council approved the new EU Sustainable
Development Strategy (EU SDS) 1. The main challenge of the current EU SDS is to
gradually change the current unsustainable consumption and production patterns
and the non-integrated approach to policy-making. The overall aim of the renewed
EU SDS is to identify and develop actions to enable the EU to achieve continuous
improvement of quality of life both for current and for future generations, through
the creation of sustainable communities able to manage and use resources
efficiently and to tap the ecological and social innovation potential of the economy,
ensuring prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion. The themes are:
1. Climate change and clean energy;
2. Sustainable transport;
3. Sustainable consumption and production;
4. Conversation and management of natural resources;
5. Public health;
6. Social inclusion, demography, migration;
7. Global poverty and sustainable challenges.
The cross cutting policies are:

1. Education and training;
2. Research and development;
3. Financing and Economic Instruments;
4. Communication, mobilising actors and multiplying success.
ii. Implementation, monitoring and follow up. The EU SDS requires the Commission
to submit every two years (starting in September 2007) a progress report on
implementation of the EU SDS in the EU and the Member States (MS) also
including future priorities, orientations and actions. The Member States and DGs
have been asked to report to the Commission's Secretariat General (D2) on the
progress made. The Commission’s progress report consists of a political
Communication 2 and a detailed staff working paper 3 analysing progress in
quantitative and qualitative terms.
1
Council of European Union 15/16/th June 2006, see http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf
2
EC (2007) Progress Report on the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy 2007 (COM (2007) 642), see
http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/com_2007_642_en.pdf
3
EC (2007) Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Progress Report on the European Union Sustainable
Development Strategy (SEC (2007)1416), see http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sec_2007_1416_en.pdf

iii. The aim of this study is to assist the Commission in producing the Communication
and the staff working paper which will address two key questions:
• What progress has been made by the EU and Member States in implementing
the EU SDS?
• Is the EU on track compared to the objectives set within the key themes and
policies of the strategy?
This study is taken forward under the Framework Contract for Economic Analysis
of Environmental Policies and of Sustainable Development
(COWI/ECORYS/Cambridge Econometrics) and has been led by ECORYS
Netherlands/Brussels, in close-cooperation with COWI.
Main findings
iv. High importance is attached to climate change and clean energy; both the EU and
Member States give high importance to this theme and there is clear evidence that a
large number of diverse initiatives are being taken. Most attention is paid to
compliance with Kyoto, renewable energy, biofuels and energy efficiency targets.
However, much less attention is paid to post-2012 emission reductions, the
consistency of energy policy with competitiveness, security and broader
environmental targets. In addition, information is relatively scarce on adaptation to
climate change in other policies.
v. In the area of climate change and clean energy, there are a number of overlaps and
imperfections in the internal coherence within and between the individual
objectives/targets. In several cases, very different issues and levels of action are
included in one objective/target, making it a complex task to undertake a systematic
assessment of progress towards the objectives/targets in question. A further
problem is the lack of coherence between objectives/targets and actions. In a
logical framework approach, there should be a clear link between actions, outputs
and achievement of the objectives. This coherence is not clearly established, as
exemplified by adaptation to climate change, which has no corresponding actions
attached to it. For the purposes of the assessment in this report, we have analysed
each item included in the objectives/targets and actions of the SDS. On this basis,
we have subdivided three of the objectives/targets, and allocated the issues
addressed under the term "actions" in the EU SDS under each of the resulting
headings. A logical next step would be to assess whether these objectives should
be reformulated in a more coherent manner and whether all of them should be
maintained in the EU SDS.
vi. Most objectives and actions under the "climate change and clean energy" theme
result from separate processes in this field and are not directly driven by the EU
SDS. At the same time, the EU SDS process provides an opportunity to focus on a
range of sustainable development issues and their interrelationships in one process
and under one umbrella. This raises the question as to how the EU SDS can
contribute more to achieving the overall objectives in the area of climate change
and clean energy. One option would be to exploit the cross-cutting nature of the
sustainable development concept to focus activities under this theme on

mainstreaming energy and climate change issues into policies that may not be fully
aligned with the climate objectives. Examples of such policy areas include:
• Cohesion and structural funding;
• Trade policy;
• Agriculture, CAP;
• Research and technology development;
• Taxation, subsidies and other economic instruments;
• External relations broadly speaking, including policies relating to security,
development assistance and energy supply.
vii. In the area of sustainable transport, there is a focus on greenhouse gas emissions,
but only limited evidence of strategic thinking and overarching and well-founded
strategies. A range of key problems persist in the area of sustainable transport:
decoupling growth in demand for transport from economic growth and energy use
is one such problem. Ensuring that market prices reflect the real economic,
environmental and social costs of the different transport modes is another. Other
challenges include stimulating technological innovations and their adoption to
improve the performance of the road transport sector vis-à-vis emissions and
energy consumption; meeting the mobility needs of the urban population and of
groups with reduced mobility. Reconciling the growing demand for air transport in
Europe with environmental considerations is yet another challenge. Demand for air
transport is expected to double by 2020. The current capacity of the airport and air
traffic control infrastructure is inadequate for accommodating this demand.
Meeting future demand for air transport is also going to pose challenges with
regards to the safety of air transport 4.
viii. With regard to the progress reached by objective, there is only limited reason for
optimism in the area of sustainable transport. Decoupling is not happening: growth
of freight transport volumes has outpaced economic growth since 1995 and growth
of passenger freight transport has exceeded economic growth between 1990 and
2002. Growth in transport related energy use has exceeded growth in energy use in
all sectors: transport’s share of total energy consumption is increasing and oil
provides 98% of the energy used by the transport sector. Greenhouse gas
emissions from transport are increasing and it is doubtful whether the Kyoto targets
in this area can be met. The fleet average of 140g CO2/km by 2008 is unattainable
(in 2006 the fleet average was 162g CO2/km). Aviation and maritime sectors are
not covered by Kyoto and although harmful emissions are declining, air quality
problems in European cities persist. A shift to environmentally friendly transport
modes is not happening to date: road freight transport is still dominant and
continues to grow; passenger air transport has increased significantly; passenger car
transport shares have remained stubbornly stable and car occupancy rates and lorry
load factors are declining. There is still no comprehensive picture of the effects of
noise on health and quality of life. However, the situation is worrying since there is
strong evidence that noise contributes substantially to the loss of healthy life-years
and a large proportion of the population is exposed to noise pollution. Road
4
European Commission (2007) An action plan for airport capacity, safety and efficiency in Europe (COM(2006) 819), see
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/airports/doc/2007_capacity_en.pdf

fatalities have been declining, but it is unlikely that the number of fatalities in 2010
will be half the number in 2000, especially in light of recent reports on the topic.
ix. It is recommended that the processes used for evaluating sustainable transport
projects need to be modified so as to enable consideration of non-infrastructure,
and when relevant, non-transport alternatives (for example tele-working).
Financing of transport projects with European and national funds should be made
contingent on meeting specified targets (for example, air quality, and noise
standards). The potential role of non-motorised transport in meeting mobility
needs is to be further investigated. Furthermore, the availability and quality of data
in the area of transport policy is unsatisfactory and needs to be remedied.
Currently, most transport policy decisions are based on modelling outcomes that
have not been sufficiently validated with real data. Targets in this area should in
future be binding. Additionally, urban transport should be given more attention and
prominence in any future sustainable transport strategy.
x. Although a wide range of actions is being initiated, there is only limited evidence in
the area of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) that countries are
scratching beyond the surface of this fundamental objective. Moreover, it is
doubtful whether the EU SDS has sufficient leverage in this domain to trigger
change. The international SCP concept is itself poorly defined. However, it is
clear that a focus on just one aspect of SCP is not sufficient to drive change in
consumption and production patterns. Furthermore, many current initiatives take
the form of action plans, programmes and policy reviews whereas it remains to be
demonstrated how well these can be translated into real action and progress on the
ground.
xi. The horizontal nature of SCP means that it affects all other themes within the EU
SDS. As such, the question arises whether including it in the strategy on equal
terms as the other themes actually furthers, or rather impedes, progress towards
SCP. We therefore recommend either making SCP a cross cutting issue, rather than
an independent theme, or better defining the concept and making several
clarifications. If SCP is maintained as an independent theme, it must be
demonstrated that so doing adds value. If this can be demonstrated, it is necessary
to:
• Provide a clear definition of the characteristics of this theme highlighting the
interrelationships with the other six themes of the strategy and communicate this
effectively to relevant stakeholders;
• The scope of the objectives must also be clearly defined e.g. objective 1 is
somewhat unclear as well as the resemblance of objectives 2a and objective 4;
• The objectives then need to be operationalised by introducing specific targets
and actions to be carried out, both regarding the Member States and the EU.
xii. Effective regulation on SCP needs to address both the consumption and production
level. Regarding consumption, conventional policy intervention plays a significant
role in creating an institutional framework for sustainable consumption securing
that prices reflect the environmental and social cost of a product or service.
However, consumption patterns are also determined by habits, traditions and

ethical considerations that are not easily influenced by legislative interventions.
Changing these patterns is a lengthy process that also requires non-conventional
initiatives. Here, the role of policy makers is to promote dialogue, and encourage
societal experimentation and learning processes.
xiii. Success is partial at best in the area of conservation and natural resource
management. Most progress has been made in halting biodiversity loss and
designating Natura 2000 areas. However, the key question about how to reconcile
economic growth with more sustainable patterns of economic development remains
unanswered. Europe still has high absolute and relative levels of material intensity
which is the main driver of resource extraction and use. A major and obvious
challenge is how resources should be used more efficiently, but also how to
monitor the effects of shifting natural resource extraction to non-EU states as the
EU is importing more of its requirements from abroad.
xiv. A variety of policy options is available to support better management and more
efficient use of natural resources. These commonly include economic measures
such as ecological fiscal reforms (e.g. material input and energy taxes), reforms of
the subsidy systems (e.g. temporary support for development of new eco-efficient
technologies and materials), certificates trading systems, and eco-efficient public
procurement. Focussing on key sectors that are either directly (e.g. mining,
agriculture, fisheries) or indirectly (e.g. energy, transport, and industry) responsible
for large amounts of natural resource extraction will benefit the efficiency of the
selected mix of instruments. Currently, Member States tend to neglect these issues
in their reports to a certain extent and put considerably more weight on biodiversity
strategies and biological conservation.
xv. It is recommended that the EU develops indicators to measure progress against

international objectives, which will help to place the EU's performance in an
international context. The work on sustainable development indicators by Eurostat
should be carried out in conjunction with other indicator work, including the
Lisbon structural indicators and the 6th Environmental Action Programme (6thEAP)
as well as UN-specific indicators on sustainable development. Despite progress in
nature reserve policies, there is no guarantee that current policies will be an
effective measure in the long term due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems and,
moreover, due to the increasing unpredictability of species’ habitat preferences
which may be altered by climate change. Furthermore, the indicators for the
objective of nature conservation may warrant re-examination and efforts should be
made to develop more sophisticated indicators for measuring biodiversity and
ecosystem well-being.
xvi. The information collected and used by Member States on public health is rather
good but still varies strongly. In this area, the EU is facing big challenges related
to the determinants of human health such as lifestyle, living and working
conditions, access to health services and the general socio-economic, cultural and
environmental conditions. This is mainly due to the ageing of populations and the
increase in lifestyle related diseases associated to obesity, physical inactivity, and
tobacco and alcohol consumption. There is also evidence that factors such as

particulate matter in the air, noise and ground-level ozone damage the health of
thousands of people every year. Other pollutants, including pesticides, endocrine
disruptors, dioxins and PCBs persist in the environment, accumulating over time
and we do not know enough about their long-term effect on health.
xvii. Strong support exists for the approach proposed by the European Commission in
this area, namely:
• Taking action where European added value is clear and where challenges are of
a cross-border nature;
• Integration of health considerations in all relevant policies;
• Ensure preparedness for health threats and protection of European citizens
through enhanced cooperation between the Member States;
• Promote the use of "life-cycle" and "key setting" approaches;
• Focus on health education to children in schools, information to adults in the
workplace and information to the elderly through targeted tools;
• Provide more support for health research and for geriatric medicines or under-
researched diseases and;
• Further develop the field of health technology assessment.
xviii. Several actions to promote good health on equal conditions and to improve
protection against health threats are undertaken or set up by Member States as well.
However, it is difficult to measure progress towards the EU SDS because:
• There is no baseline measurement available (except for some of the structural
indicators measured by Eurostat);
• No clear (process and outcome) indicators/targets are defined in the SDS on
public health;
• Some objectives are related to more than one health indicators (e.g. health
determinants: overweight persons, present smokers);
• Health consequences of several environmental hazards are not well understood
due to complex interactions;
• Evidence on (cost-)effective measures is not clear cut in all instances (e.g.
awareness campaigns).
xix. It is recommended to develop more quantitative outcome indicators to support

measurement of progress towards more general public health measures. A
monitoring system should be established to provide ongoing routine information to
demonstrate actual progress against goals. Cross–policy cooperation should be
increased, including through horizontal approaches and initiatives to mainstream
health into all policies. Furthermore, health impact assessment should be
institutionalised.
xx. Most countries provide reasonably comprehensive but rather fragmented reporting
in the area of social inclusion, demography and migration. The main challenge in
the area is to ensure and increase the quality of life, in light of the changing
demography – in particular the ageing population and increasing immigration.
Demographic change and the consequences for society have notably risen in
importance in the last few years. It is also understood to be a cross-cutting theme,
which has impacts on various aspects of economy and society. By now, it is

increasingly accepted that European societies will need to adapt to demographic
change – rather than resist it. Demographic change can also provide opportunities,
for instance in areas such as the 'silver economy'.
xxi. Although the social dimension of sustainable development is not even reported on
by some Member States (e.g. Denmark, Poland), most countries provide reasonably
comprehensive reporting in this area. The importance of demographic change,
social protection and immigration are increasingly recognised as themes that are
vital for Europe's future. Most attention goes to the reduction of poverty and active
labour market policies – promoting the inclusion of various target groups (older
workers, younger workers, migrants, women and the disabled); this is an important
objective not only from the point of EU SDS but also from the perspective of the
Lisbon Strategy and deserves full support from many perspectives (perhaps apart
from sustainable transport angle as it could lead to an increase in the number of
commuters). Indeed, active labour market policies – resulting in higher
participation rates – appear to be a key response to the demographic, social and
economic challenges ahead.
xxii. When restructuring the EU SDS in the area of social inclusion, demography and
migration, a stronger focus on a restricted number of objectives appear to be most
crucial for retention, namely:
1. Reduce the risk of poverty an social exclusion, focusing on child poverty;
2. Modernise social protection in view of demographic change;
3. Increase overall labour market participation (including females, younger, older,
disabled, migrants);
4. Develop an EU migration policy – including the need to strengthen
participation of migrants in social and economic life.
xxiii. The impression that emerges from the national reports is that the objective of
addressing global poverty and sustainable development is overstretched – and
often beyond the scope of individual Member States' influence. The fundamental
problem in the area of global poverty and sustainable development seems to be
twofold. Firstly, the scale and scope of the problem: the effects of global warming
on developing countries are of a scale beyond the intervention power of any single
nation and the longer term effects are very uncertain. A second key problem lies in
the tensions between developmental goals – taking into account the still expected
population growth, the related demand for resources and the environmental
concerns. The Millennium Goals themselves are largely contradictory; economic
development needed to alleviate poverty will lead to an increase in industrial
outputs, consumption of cereals and meat and above all mobility. Reconciling
these aims in an effective way is a vast challenge.
xxiv. Despite the overall commitment to actively promote sustainable development

worldwide and ensure that the EU's internal and external policies are consistent
with global sustainable development, the impression that emerges is that this
objective is far beyond the scope of individual Member States' possibilities. An
overall statement about the progress on this objective is, therefore, not possible.
Member States tend to focus on specific themes or geographic regions that are

particularly important to them – which may lead to a rather patchy approach and
not necessarily a good basis for monitoring overall progress in this area. A broad
support basis is, therefore, emerging amongst Member States for the establishment
of a UN Environmental Organisation. Within the light of expected and targeted
increases in Official Development Assistance, a stronger emphasis on the
effectiveness and efficiency of such aid would have been expected (Paris
Declaration). Those Member States that are currently building up their external
development aid strategies have a unique opportunity to include the SD dimension
immediately – yet there is little sign that this is actually happening.
xxv. Beyond the horizon lie new and complex challenges – the social and environmental
impact of the demand for bio-fuels, the increased demand for commodities from
emerging markets and their interrelations. In light of these challenges, it is
recommended to focus the objectives of the EU SDS in this area and to distinguish
between wider objectives (beyond the reach of the EU as a whole) and specific
objectives (referring to EU objectives).
xxvi. Reporting on the cross-cutting themes is rather problematic; by formally giving the
cross cutting themes the same rank as the seven key challenges, the EU SDS of
June 2006 makes clear that it attaches equal importance to them. However, the
strategy does not provide a clear frame of reference against which progress on the
cross-cutting themes could be measured. In this respect, the EU SDS it is open to a
certain degree of interpretation what exactly is to be achieved under each heading
and what measures are to be taken. The fact that, in contrast to the seven key
challenges, there is no subdivision into operational objectives and targets on the
one, and actions on the other side, adds to that.
xxvii. Education and training is among the cross-cutting themes that have received
considerable attention in the progress reports, and Austria, France and Sweden are
good examples. However, the dominant stream of reporting shows (too) strong a
focus on school education and neglect of adult- and continuing education, as well
as vocational education and training. In many reports, the role education and
training are to play in the concept of SD is merely confined to teaching about the
environment and the importance of its preservation. This approach does not
sufficiently acknowledge the breadth of the SD concept.
xxviii.The EU SDS defines the role of research and development in sustainable

development in a broad way. However, this approach only found entry in less than
half of the MS progress reports. While virtually all MS assign great importance to
research and development in the field of renewable energy, energy saving, as well
as transport technology, the wider context of SD receives insufficient attention.
This narrow focus on supporting research into new technologies does not do justice
to the concept of SD and this section should not be confined to the creation and
availability of technology and knowledge, but also include scientific research
concerning its usage and uptake. A meaningful interlinkage of natural and social
sciences to further the cause of SD is only pursued by few MS, for instance in
Germany.

xxix. As concerns the usage of finance and economic instruments to promote SD, nearly
all Member States report an increase or the introduction of taxes related to energy
consumption or pollution. However, information on the usage of extra income
levied by these taxes is patchy and only a handful of states report an actual shift in
taxation from labour to resource and energy usage, as called for in the Strategy.
Finland is one of these few exceptions.
xxx. Only few MS seem to have a coherent strategy in place that would answer the
question as to what role communication and public involvement is to play in SD.
As a consequence, most MS report on a range of rather limited and seemingly
unrelated communication campaigns that address certain elements of SD and not
the concept as a whole. A clear rationale how communication and the involvement
of various groups of actors can contribute to progress in the SD area is almost
entirely missing. Overall, few MS really seem to have the ambition to enhance
public perception of SD issues on a broad scale.
xxxi. Clearly, the challenge for Member States to implement and report on SDS progress
is substantial. It requires good interministerial cooperation and horizontal methods
of working; the ability to synthesise all outputs varies considerably between
Member States.
Conclusions
1. The EU SDS remains relevant as the key European framework for promoting
sustainable development; sustainable development is becoming increasingly
important in European, national, regional and local policy making. The EU SDS
from June 2006 serves as a useful starting point for promoting sustainable
development in Europe. As such, its ambitions are high, particularly as it aims to
be coherent and broad-based, and addressing the fundamental behaviour of citizens
and firms is far from easy.
2. The EU SDS represents a prioritisation at a specific point in time. Various

sustainable development challenges are competing with each other. The 7 themes
can be considered equal in importance, but in practice the themes 1 and 2 may well
be considered as more important than themes 6 and 7. As of late, the theme of
climate change is clearly racing to the top, while sustainable consumption and
production and public health are also increasing in importance. Other priorities –
such as conservation and natural resource management or sustainable transport –
remain equally vital but there tend to be less key policy initiatives.
3. It is early day to review progress. At the time progress reports were submitted by
Member States, the EU SDS had been adopted just one year earlier. In light of the
need to translate the EU SDS to national practices, this can be considered a short or
even very short time frame for measuring progress.

4. The contexts for Member States is different – there is no one size fits all. The
ability to contribute to themes varies strongly; some Member States are not
willing/able to report on some themes at all – and this is sometimes indeed due to
the context. New Member States often face particular challenges, e.g. in areas of
energy conservation and pollution control. However, there is often more scope for
progress in the New Member States. For example, meeting the Kyoto targets in
this part of Europe is eased in the light of the closure of polluting factories.
5. EU and National SD are not the same; a fair amount of countries (about 1/3) prefer
to use structures that deviate from the EU SDS – often relying on the priorities as
set under National SD strategies. This is understandable in the light of the fact that
the alignment of these national strategies to the EU SDS will take time.
6. Signals of success can be recorded in all areas, but progress is overall encouraging
in areas of product lifecycle thinking and minimising waste; increasing the share of
national territory that receives protected status for the benefit of nature
conservation; sustainable forestry initiatives, harder targets for various
environmental policy areas such as energy efficiency, climate change, organic
farming, and active labour market policies. Key initiatives are also taken to curb
lifestyle related diseases, pandemic preparedness, and to improve the handling of
chemicals, while Official Development Assistance is increasing in order to live up
to Millennium Objectives more globally.
7. Reporting on various themes falls short and Member States can be reluctant to look
back. Conservation and natural resource management notably is a theme where
reporting is rather weak – there is only limited or no reporting on areas where
progress is limited or where actions are non-existent. Even when taking into
account the various national contexts, some Member States did not to report on
specific themes at all which leads to considerable white spaces. An example is the
objective to address the impact of globalisation on workers – where only two
countries (France and Finland) record initiatives.
8. Certain areas of relevance to SD are not explicitly covered; e.g. spatial planning/
land use/urban development or addressing wastelands (New Member States)
receive only limited attention. Despite reference to Local Agenda 21 and referring
to local and regional actors, the spatial or urban dimension could provide powerful
solutions, e.g. in the area of decoupling economic growth from transport demand.
9. Reporting is not always focused on key policy initiatives. A general tendency is to

report extensively on the situation without coupling this to specific policy
initiatives. Another tendency in the reports is to focus on future goals and targets
rather than on key policy initiatives that have been taken recently.
10. The relation between key policy initiatives and their impact is not direct – a time
lag is present. Therefore, it may be too early to measure the impact of the EU SDS
at this stage. Furthermore, a link between initiatives and impacts can be established
much more directly in some areas (e.g. public health) then in some other areas (e.g.
climate change), where relations are much more indirect. Furthermore, impacts can

vary between geographic levels: what is sustainable at one level may not be
sustainable at another level.
11. The added value of the EU SDS compared to National SDS cannot be measured
yet. The EU SDS priorities have impacted the majority of national SD strategies;
however a fair number still focuses on national priorities. The impression arises
that many national SD policy initiatives would have been taken without an EU SDS
as well.
12. The relation between the EU SDS and the Structural Funds is controversial. In the
12 New Member States, vast investment programmes in infrastructure are on their
way. In Poland for instance, the Operational Programme for Infrastructure
represents an EU investment of € 27 billion for the period 2007-2013 – of which a
considerable part will be invested in roads. The impact on SD is uncertain – at
least. However, on a more positive note, Structural Funds are also used for
investing in environmental infrastructures, such as waste water treatment plans,
while the Operational Programmes on Human Resources appear to be well aligned
with the EU SDS objective on social inclusion, demography and migration.
13. Impacting mainstream policies is the real challenge for the SDS. A real value
added of the EU SDS could be that it takes environmental (and social, economic)
priorities out of a silo and into the mainstream of national policy making. The
extent to which national and EU strategies are successful in this varies. For
instance, the EU SDS thus provides an excellent opportunity to analyse and
promote the integration of climate change and energy objectives in the policy areas
that may not already be fully aligned with the climate objectives. Examples of such
important policy areas include:
a. Cohesion and structural funding;
b. Trade policy;
c. Agriculture, CAP;
d. Research and technology development;
e. Taxation, subsidies and other economic instruments;
f. External relations broadly speaking, including policies relating to security,
14. International literature on SDS informs us about the complexity of challenges.

Also reports are being launched in which unwanted side-effects of key policy
initiatives are mentioned. Such complexities are rarely reported about in the
Member State reports; interlinkages between and within themes are not always
sufficiently grasped and much reporting can said to be fragmented.

Recommendations
a. Need to establish a hierarchy of objectives; sustainable transport could well be

regarded as an intermediate objective and there is a need to structure and prioritise
these objectives much better. The number of objectives is currently very large,
especially when the cross-cutting themes are seen to have similar weight. This risk
of overstretching reduces the possible impact of the EU SDS; a streamlining of the
EU SDS is, therefore, needed from a logical perspective.
b. Internal cohesion within themes needs to be strengthened. Operational

objectives/targets often demonstrate overlap; a hierarchy between operational
objectives – sometimes logical – appears to be missing; this leads to a less than
optimal coherence. The inconsistencies within themes make reporting by Member
States as well as the assessment of MS reporting more difficult and are likely to
have contributed to gaps in MS reporting.
c. Increase the impact of the EU SDS on mainstream policies through impact

assessments. The cross-cutting nature of sustainable development provides a
valuable opportunity to address the mainstreaming of the various SD themes in EU
and national policies. More of the focus in EU SDS implementation could be
directed toward assessing and promoting integration of sustainable development
priorities in main strands of EU and MS policy such as agricultural policy,
structural and cohesion funds, and trade policy.
d. Strengthen links with the Lisbon Strategy, especially in areas where synergy exists.
For instance actions to promote labour market participation or the promotion of
environmental technologies are in line with both concepts and there would be
significant scope for strengthening these links and join forces.
e. Promote SD specifically in New Member States; national policies are often still
under development or review in the New MS and considerable investment
programmes are being taken forward; more inclusion of SD thinking and acting
could lead to significant impacts at the EU level. This is especially important in
the light of major EU-funded investment programmes that will help to modernise
the economic infrastructure – an opportunity to test these programmes and projects
against sustainable development objectives.
f. At the latest by 2011, the European Council will decide when a comprehensive
review of the EU SDS needs to be launched. Already now, we can see
considerable scope for strengthening the EU SDS in such a way that it could make
more impact and contribute more effectively to the ever increasing number of
sustainable development challenges.

1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the EU SDS
Sustainable development means that the needs of the present generation should be met
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is an
overarching objective of the European Union set out in the Treaty, governing all the
Union’s policies and activities. It is about safeguarding the earth's capacity to support life
in all its diversity and is based on the principles of democracy, gender equality, solidarity,
the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights, including freedom and equal
opportunities for all. It aims at the continuous improvement of the quality of life and
well-being on Earth for present and future generations. To that end it promotes a
dynamic economy with full employment and a high level of education, health protection,
social and territorial cohesion and environmental protection in a peaceful and secure
world, respecting cultural diversity 5.
In 2001, the European Council in Göteborg adopted the first EU Sustainable

Development Strategy. This was complemented by an external dimension in 2002 by the
European Council in Barcelona in view of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg (2002).
On 9th June 2006, the European Council approved the new EU Sustainable Development
Strategy (EU SDS) 6. The main challenge of the current EU SDS is to gradually change
the current unsustainable consumption and production patterns and the non-integrated
approach to policy-making. The overall aim of the renewed EU SDS is to identify and
develop actions to enable the EU to achieve continuous improvement of quality of life
both for current and for future generations, through the creation of sustainable
communities able to manage and use resources efficiently and to tap the ecological and
social innovation potential of the economy, ensuring prosperity, environmental protection
and social cohesion. The themes are:
1. Climate change and clean energy;
2. Sustainable transport;
3. Sustainable consumption and production;
4. Conversation and management of natural resources;
5. Public health;
6. Social inclusion, demography, migration;
7. Global poverty and sustainable challenges.
5
Council of European Union 16/17th June 2005, see http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/85349.pdf
6
Council of European Union 15/16th June 2006, see http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf

The cross cutting policies are:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and development;
3. Financing and Economic Instruments;
4. Communication, mobilising actors and multiplying success;
5. Implementation, monitoring and follow up.
The EU SDS requires the Commission to submit every two years (starting in September
2007) a progress report on implementation of the EU SDS in the EU and the Member
States also including future priorities, orientations and actions. The Member States and
DGs have been asked to report to the Commission's Secretariat General (D2) on the
progress made. The Commission’s Progress report consists of a political
Communication 7 and a detailed staff working paper 8 analysing progress in quantitative
and qualitative terms.
1.2 Aims of his report
This study is taken forward under the Framework Contract for Economic Analysis of
Environmental Policies and of Sustainable Development (COWI/ECORYS/Cambridge
Econometrics) and has been led by ECORYS Netherlands/Brussels, in close-cooperation
with COWI.
The aim of this study is to assist the Commission in producing the Communication and
the staff working paper which will address two key questions:
• What progress has been made by the EU and Member States in implementing the EU
SDS?
• Is the EU on track compared to the objectives set within the key themes and policies
of the strategy?
In each of the thematic areas, the study will therefore aim to address the following
questions:
a. What are the key challenges facing the EU in this area and what are their relations?
b. Is there a clear view from the professional/academic community on the appropriate
policy response?
c. What are the latest developments in EU action to tackle the challenge/problem and
how to assess these in an international context?
d. What are the latest developments in MS action to tackle the challenge/problem and
how can these be assessed?
This report concerns primarily the assessment of national Member State reports that were
submitted to the Commission in the period June-August 2007 and addresses primarily the
question d. above. This assessment is framed within the broader context of independent
7
EC (2007) Progress Report on the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy 2007 (COM (2007) 642), see
http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/com_2007_642_en.pdf
8
EC (2007) Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Progress Report on the European Union Sustainable
Development Strategy (SEC (2007)1416), see http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sec_2007_1416_en.pdf

literature and draws on the expertise of thematic experts in each of the fields concerned.
The study is complementary to the Progress Report prepared by Eurostat and the
Commission’s own analysis.
1.3 How the report has been prepared
The report has been prepared in close co-operation with the Commission services, in
order to make it as useful as possible as an input to the overall progress review.
The following steps have been executed:

1. Overall analysis of the EU SDS, including its internal and external coherence – we
have assessed the coherence of the EU SDS from a logical perspective by using a
problem and objective tree, and gathered general literature of relevance to the EU
SDS;
2. Preparation of thematic fiches – in each of the seven thematic areas, assigned
experts have prepared thematic fiches based on EU sources, the national progress
reports available and independent sources that are referred to in this report;
3. Organisation of a thematic workshop – all thematic experts participated in a
thematic workshop held in Brussels on 15th August 2007, where an overview of key
problems and key responses was discussed by theme, followed by a broader
assessment of overall progress and generation of interim conclusions. Templates for
the preparation of thematic chapters and tables were then developed and agreed;
4. Drafting of thematic chapters and tables - based on standardised templates and
taking into account the latest information from Member States, thematic experts then
prepared the basis for the assessment as well as detailed tables where national
progress by country and objective have been recorded.
5. Complementary analysis of cross-cutting SDS themes – subsequently the cross-
cutting themes have been analysed on the basis of the national progress reports
mostly;
6. Compilation of the interim report – an interim report prepared in September 2007
focused on the assessment of the national progress reports and was used as input to
the Commission’s own progress report;
7. Compilation of draft final and final reports – the current report presents the key
findings of the study including the conclusions and recommendations.
Despite the comprehensive nature of this report, it is often limited by the information
provided by Member States. Another limitation of this progress report is the brief period
between the launch of the EU SDS (June 2006) and the cut-off date for the national
progress reports (June 2007). In view of this short time span, the report focuses on recent
key policy initiatives (mid 2006 until August 2007), rather than on context indicators or
measured progress on the ground. Other elements that hamper the measurement of
progress towards the EU SDS:
• There is usually no baseline measurement available (except for some of the structural
• Although there is an increasing amount of sustainable development indicators being
used, these are not always fully in line with the EU SDS themes. There is also a lack

of sophisticated indicators for measuring progress towards many themes and
objectives;
• No clear indicators and targets are defined in the EU SDS with regard to several
themes and objectives;
• Some objectives are unclear as to their linkages with others, i.e. how halving road
transport deaths by 2010 fits the objective to reduce levels of transport energy use;
• Evidence on effective measures is not always clear from either the academic or
policy literature. For example, does investing in costly waste treatment plants
generate better value-for-money than tackling waste generation at source?
1.4 About the structure of this report
This report is structured as follows. Chapters 2 to 8 will assess the progress in each of the
seven thematic areas: climate change and clean energy; sustainable transport; sustainable
consumption and production; conservation and management of natural resources; public
health; social inclusion, demography and migration; and global poverty and sustainable
development challenges. Each of the chapters presents the main challenges in the area,
views on the appropriate policy response, EU action, Member state action and ends with
conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 9 gives an overview of the progress in cross-cutting policies, namely: education

and training; research and development; financing and economic instruments;
communication, mobilising actors and multiplying success; and governance of the
strategy.
Chapter 10 draws conclusions and devises recommendations. It summarises progress by

theme, the structure of the strategy, the monitoring of the SDS, the convergence of
national and EU SDS, cross-cutting themes and recommendations.
Annexes 1-8 comprise the overview of key policy initiatives by theme, objective and
country.

2. Climate change and clean energy
Overall Objective from the EU SDS: To limit climate change and its costs and negative effects to society
and the environment
• Objective 1: Kyoto Protocol commitments of the EU-15 and most EU-25 to targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 2008 – 2012, whereby the EU-15 target is for an 8% reduction in
emissions compared to 1990 levels. Aiming for a global surface average temperature not to rise by
more than 2ºC compared to the pre-industrial level.
• Objective 2: Energy policy should be consistent with the objectives of security of supply,
competitiveness and environmental sustainability, in the spirit of the Energy Policy for Europe
launched in March 2006 by the European Council. Energy policy is crucial when tackling the
challenge of climate change.
• Objective 3: Adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change should be integrated in all relevant
European policies.
• Objective 4: By 2010 12% of energy consumption, on average, and 21% of electricity consumption, as
a common but differentiated target, should be met by renewable sources, considering raising their
share to 15% by 2015.
• Objective 5: By 2010 5.75% of transport fuel should consist of biofuels, as an indicative target,
(Directive 2003/30/EC), considering raising their proportion to 8% by 2015.
• Objective 6: Reaching an overall saving of 9% of final energy consumption over 9 years until 2017 as
indicated by the Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive.
Only few areas can claim that they have risen to the top of the policy agenda in such a
short time. In just one year time, climate change and clean energy have become a key
concern at both international, European, national, regional and local level. In this chapter
we will take stock of the progress that has been made in this area, which figures so
prominently in the EU SDS.
2.1 Introductory remarks on objectives and targets
A closer look at the "objectives and targets" of the EU SDS shows that there are a number
of overlaps and some imperfections in the internal coherence both within and between the
individual objectives/targets. In several cases, very different issues and levels of action
are included in one objective/target, making it a complex task to systematically assess

progress towards the objectives/targets. Furthermore, not all objectives/targets have
corresponding actions attached to them 9.
For the purposes of the assessment in this report, we have analytically considered each
individual item included in the objectives/targets as well as the actions of the SDS. As a
result of this process, we have subdivided three of the objectives/targets, while at the
same time trying to accommodate the issues addressed under the term "actions" in the EU
SDS under each of the resulting headings.
The following objectives/targets have thus been applied to the assessment of EU and
national progress in implementing the EU SDS:
Objective/target 1a Comply with Kyoto Commitments (through domestic measures,
EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and Joint Implementation
(JI) / Clean Development Mechanism (CDM))
Objective/target 1b Medium- and long-term EU emission reductions (post-2012)
consistent with 2ºC (including review and extension of EU ETS)
Objective/target 1c Work toward an international framework post-2012 consistent
with 2ºC (reduction pathways by the group of developed
countries in the order of 15-30% by 2020 and beyond)
Objective/target 2a Energy policy consistent with competitiveness
Objective/target 2b Energy policy consistent with security of supply
Objective/target 2c Energy policy consistent with environmental sustainability (incl.

non-climate environmental impacts of energy)
Objective/target 3.a Mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies (including e.g.
forestry, agriculture, cars, aviation, carbon capture and
sequestration, taxation)
Objective/target 3.b Adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies.
Objective/target 4 Renewable Energy (including biomass). Targets for Renewable

Energy (12%) and Renewable Electricity (21%). Analysis of
long-term promotion of Renewable Energy Sources (RES),
consider new targets. Long-term strategy for bio-energy beyond
2010.
Objective/target 5 Promotion of Biofuels. 5.75% of transport fuel by 2010. Analysis
of long-term promotion of biofuels
Objective/target 6 Energy efficiency in demand and supply. (Save 9% in
consumption until 2017. Adopt Action Plan bearing in mind the
EU energy saving potential of 20% by 2020. Promoting the use of
combined heat and power.)
9
The question of internal coherence among the objectives and actions within the EU SDS and a possible reorganisation of the
objective tree is dealt with further in Section 1.5.

2.2 Main challenges and problems facing the EU
a. A range of emerging challenges facing the EU

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published three volumes of
its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The Working Group 1 (WG1) report reinforces the
significance of man-made emissions to global climate change. The Working Group 2
(WG2) report confirms evidence that many natural systems are being affected by regional
climate changes, particularly temperature increases. The Working Group 3 (WG3) report
analyses mitigation options for the main sectors, including long-term mitigation strategies
for various stabilisation levels. These and many other studies confirm the major overall
climate-related challenges facing the EU:
• To make significant emission reductions in the near term and move onto a path of
very significant emission reductions in the period to 2050, global emissions of
greenhouse gases will need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and then be reduced to
very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000 by mid-century, if concentrations
are to be stabilised at safe levels.
• To address adaptation to unavoidable climate change that will happen even in a
scenario limiting global climate change to the EU 2 degree target.
The recent Vienna conference under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) also confirmed that avoiding the most catastrophic forecasts
made by the IPCC would entail emission reductions in the range of 25-40% below 1990
levels by industrialised countries by 2020 10.
Aggregate projections from the European Environment Agency (EEA) show that the
EU15 is barely on track to meet its Kyoto commitments of 8% reduction by 2008-12.
The 2010 emissions of the EU15 are only expected to be 0.6 % below base-year levels
(i.e. a 7.4 % distance from the emission reduction commitment). Additional domestic
measures are projected to reduce the gap by a further 4.0 %, down to 3.4 % by 2010.
Kyoto mechanisms are expected to deliver an additional 2.6 % emission reductions and
the removal through sinks should provide the remaining 0.8 %. The developments
confirm that decoupling of energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
from economic growth remains a major challenge.
With the approval of an Action Plan on an integrated energy and climate change package
by the March 2007 European Council 11, the EU has decided on a number of challenging
targets in relation to climate and energy policy :
• Emission reductions of 20/30% by 2020
• 20% Renewable Energy (RE) by 2020
• 10% biofuels by 2020
• A review of the EU Emission Trading Scheme
10
See:
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/20070831_vienna_closing_press_relea
se.pdf
11
Council of the European Union 8/9th March 2007, see
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/93135.pdf

A major challenge now remains in terms of agreeing on the burden sharing among the EU
27 countries when it comes to meeting the targets. In doing so, a large number of
national circumstances, interests and concerns as well as diverse policy regimes (e.g. with
regard to support schemes for deployment of Renewable Energy Technology (RET)) need
to meet under an umbrella covering all of the major elements of the climate/energy
package.
Ensuring that the significant increase in the use of biomass and biofuels is realised in a
sustainable way without compromising environmental and other sustainable development
concerns within the EU and in developing countries will be an important challenge.
While mitigation of climate change remains a major priority and challenge, adaptation to
the unavoidable climatic change that is already taking place now, in order to limit its
adverse effects on economies and natural systems is bound to take on a more prominent
position in the future. In the past, national initiatives in relation to adaptation have
dominated, but with its recent Green Paper on adaptation 12, the Commission is
increasingly devoting attention to this field.
A major challenge facing the EU are further negotiations on a global and comprehensive
post-2012 agreement building on the Kyoto Protocol. It is the EU's ambition that
negotiations should be completed by 2009. This takes place in a challenging context
where both the USA and developing economies, whose participation is vital to reach the
necessary emission reductions, remain reluctant to accept binding quantitative
commitments.
In a situation where impacts of climate change and the urgency of mitigation becomes
increasingly evident, mainstreaming of climate change concerns in broader foreign policy
is likely to be called for.
Security of supply is increasingly a concern which guides EU energy policies with import
dependency set to rise steadily over the coming decades.
Rising and volatile oil and gas prices are seen as a major challenge and a potential threat
to the economic development and competitiveness of Europe.
Research and development of sustainable energy technologies addresses exposure to

supply and price risks for fossil fuels while at the same time constituting an important
platform for European exports of climate-friendly technologies. In the longer term,
technology development is an essential factor in making possible the steep cuts in
emissions that will become necessary.
12
EC (2007) Green Paper "Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action" (SEC (2007)849), see http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0354en01.pdf

The findings of Eurostat's "Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe
2007" 13 confirm this picture, stating that the evaluation of changes in the Climate Change
and Energy theme shows that there are no favourable changes to report compared to
2000. Key findings include the following:
• Following the considerable progress achieved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
during the 1990s, and despite a significant reduction between 2004 and 2005, the
EU-15 trend has reversed and is now moving away from the target. In 2005, EU-15
emissions of greenhouse gases stood at 98% of their Kyoto base year value, while
EU-27 emissions were at 92.1% of their 1990 value. Overall greenhouse gas
emissions grew by 1.5 percentage points (EU-27) and 1.4 points (EU-15) between
2000 and 2005. Since 2000, the EU-15 emissions trend has thus been moving away
from the Kyoto target path.
• Gross inland energy consumption continues to grow. Since 2000, gross inland
energy consumption has grown at 1.1% per year for both EU-27 and EU-15,
growing considerable faster in EU-27 than in the previous decade, and reflecting
increasing energy demand. The switching from high-carbon solid fuels towards gas
and renewables continues, but at a slower pace. The greenhouse gas intensity of
energy consumption is thus moving in the right direction, but progress is too slow to
make a major contribution.
• The rate of energy dependency continues steadily to increase. EU-27 dependence on
imported energy has increased every year since 2000, and in 2004 exceeded 50%,
ending up 5.7 percentage points higher in 2005 than in 2000. The energy
dependency of EU-15 is about 3 percentage points higher than that of EU-27.
• The share of renewables in primary energy consumption is increasing, although at a
rate so slow that the distance from the target path is widening each year. The EU-27
consumption of renewable energy sources increased at the significant average rate of
4.1% between 2000 and 2005. Nevertheless, due to the relatively high growth rate
of energy consumption over recent years, the share of renewables has increased by
only 0.17 percentage points per year since 2000, reaching a level of 6.6% in 2005,
far from the 2010 target of 12%.
• Little, if any, progress has been made in increasing the share of renewables in
electricity consumption. Progress in the share of renewables in electricity
consumption has slowed down since 2000, growing at an average of 0.04 percentage
points per year compared with 0.14 during the previous decade. This leaves a gap of
7 percentage points between the level of 14% in 2005 and the 2010 target of 21%.
Achieving the target will require growth of 1.4 percentage points per year,
equivalent to the entire progress made between 1990 and 2000.
• The production of electricity through combined heat and power also appears to be
making little progress towards the 2010 target of 18%, standing at only 10.5% in
2004.
• Despite the growing use of biofuels in transport, the level of uptake in 2005 was
1.1%, far below the target level of 2% set for that year.
13
Eurostat (2007) "Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe – Sustainable development indicators for the
European Union", see
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1073,46587259&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_product_code=K
S-77-07-115

• Emissions due to international bunkers, which are not covered by the Kyoto
Protocol, account for a small but rapidly growing proportion of greenhouse gas
emissions, equivalent to 5.6% of the total in 2005 in EU-27, compared with 6.6% for
EU-15. Their share has increased significantly since 1990, from 1.2% to 2.4% for
aviation and from 1.9% to 3.1% for shipping.
b. Key problems and their interconnections

Objective/target 1a: Comply with Kyoto Commitments
Several EU15 countries are facing difficulties in bringing emissions pathways in line with
Kyoto targets. Many have been forced to introduce strong additional measures to limit
emissions, and the first period of EU ETS did not contribute strongly to emission
reductions. However, EU-15 countries are expected to comply with the commitments,
and most of EU12 have little problems in this regard due to steep emission reductions
since the base year 1990.
Objective/target 1b: Medium- and long-term EU emission reductions (post-2012)

consistent with 2ºC
Current energy and transport policies would mean EU CO2 emissions would increase by
around 5% by 2030. This is clearly not sustainable in view of the need for developed
country GHG emissions to be reduced by at least 20-30% (as per the decision of the
European Council) or even 25-40% by 2020 (a figure around which there is growing
consensus, cf. the recent Vienna meeting of the UNFCCC).
Objective/target 1c: Work toward an international framework post-2012 consistent with

2ºC
Keeping the long-term objective of 2ºC within reach will require global greenhouse gas
emissions to peak within 10-20 years, followed by substantial reductions perhaps by as
much as 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. Developed country emissions would
have to decrease by as much as 80-95% to keep CO2eq concentrations at compatible
levels. Such drastic emission reductions will require that a strong international
framework is established for the period after 2012.
Objective/target 2a: Energy policy consistent with competitiveness

Energy price volatility and price rises are issues already affecting EU economies today,
and could do so even more in the future with continuing growth in global demand
combined with continued concentration of supply reserves.
Objective/target 2b: Energy policy consistent with security of supply

Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on imported energy. Without measures to
address this situation, the EU's energy import dependence for gas is expected to increase
from 57% to 84% by 2030, and for oil from 82% to 93%.
Objective/target 2c: Energy policy consistent with environmental sustainability

The energy sector emits other air pollutants in addition to CO2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx),
particulate matter (PM) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) from agriculture and other sectors contribute to air pollution as well.

With existing air pollution legislation, the health effects would mean a loss of life
expectancy of around 5.5 months, and ground-level ozone would be causing some 21,000
premature deaths in the EU by 2020 at a cost ranging from € 162bn to € 587bn.
Objective/target 3a: Mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies

Mainstreaming climate and energy policies in all relevant policies and sectors is a major
challenge. The EU ETS provides a powerful instrument for influencing developments
and emissions pathways in the sectors covered. Policies and measures in several other
sectors are also important from a climate perspective. These include agriculture, land-
use, waste, and industrial GHGs. The most difficult sector to handle from an emission
mitigation perspective has been the transport sector with continuously growing emissions
from road, marine and air transport. Integration of short, medium, and long term climate
and energy concerns is also a challenge in cross-cutting policy areas such as Research and
Technological Development (RTD) and cohesion policy. Also trade policy, international
development cooperation and other aspects of general foreign policy have been identified
as increasingly relevant policy areas to include in a comprehensive approach to climate
change 14.
Objective/target 3b: Adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies.

All countries will need to take measures to adapt to climate change in order to lessen the
adverse impacts of global warming on people, the economy and the environment.
As explained in the Green Paper on adaptation, Northern countries are already

experiencing higher rainfall while those in the South struggle to cope with more frequent
droughts. Up to half of Europe’s plant species could face extinction by 2080. Economic
actors in climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism will
be directly impacted, and so will infrastructure in transport, public utilities and power
production.
Integration of adaptation in development cooperation is receiving increasing attention

because developing countries are relatively more exposed to the bulk of climate change
impacts and have least adaptive capacity to deal with it. Furthermore, adaptation plays an
important part in the international climate negotiations. A recent assessment by the
OECD of the experience with integrating adaptation into development cooperation 15
concluded that while there is increasing awareness and high-level policy endorsement
within donor agencies for the need to integrate adaptation, more efforts are needed with
regard to:
• Assessing the implications of climate change on development co-operation activities
• Development of operational measures on integrating adaptation considerations
within development activities.
• Cross-fertilisation and collaboration between agencies and institutions.
14
Foreign Policy and Climate Change - An exploration of options for greater integration. IISD for Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (2007).
15
OECD (2007), Stocktaking of Progress on Integrating Adaptation to Climate Change into Development Co-operation Activities

Objective/target 4: Renewable Energy
In 1997, the European Union established a target of a 12% share of renewable energy in
the energy mix by 2010. Although renewable energy production has increased, the share
of renewable energy is unlikely to exceed 10% by 2010, and only a limited number of
Member States have made serious progress in this area.
The lack of a coherent and effective policy framework throughout the EU and long-term
targets are seen as contributing factors 16. For example, wind is not sufficiently harnessed
in many countries due to delays in authorisations, unfair grid conditions and slow
reinforcement and extensions of the electric power grid 17.
Objective/target 5: Promotion of Biofuels.

Biofuels are today the only direct substitute for oil in transport that is available on a
significant scale, thereby potentially providing improved security of supply and, if
produced in a sustainable way, GHG emission reductions from the constantly growing
transport sector. By 2005, biofuels were in use in most Member States with a market
share of 1%, which is less than the non-binding target stipulated in the biofuels directive.
However, there are three main categories of concerns raised in relation to biofuel
production:
1) That they may be produced in ways that do not deliver significant greenhouse gas
savings;
2) That they may be produced in ways that cause significant environmental damage, for
example to biodiversity;
3) That the demand for biofuels may drive up food prices to the detriment of poor,
food-importing countries.
Several important contributions by international organisations have flagged these

concerns, such as the above-mentioned joint contribution from the United Nations 18 to the
public consultation on biofuels. Similar conclusions were drawn in the OECD-FAO
Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 report, which finds that growing biofuel demand is
likely to keep food prices high and rising throughout at least the next decade. A new
report for the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development 19 concludes that:
• The rush to energy crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage to
biodiversity with limited benefits;
• Second-generation technologies hold promise but depend on technological
breakthroughs;
• The economic outlook for biofuels seems fragile;
• Government policies supporting and protecting domestic production of biofuels are
inefficient and not cost effective;
• Liberalising trade in biofuels is difficult but essential for global objectives;
16
Energy Policy for Europe
17
Report on progress in renewable electricity – COM (2006) 849. 2) Identification of administrative and grid barriers to the
promotion of electricity from Renewable Energy Sources (RES-E), see
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/consultation/doc/2007_07_06_grid_barriers/progress_analysis_2007_07_admin_barriers_en.pdf
18
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/consultation/doc/2007_06_04_biofuels/non_og/un_en.pdf
19
Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease?, Paris, 11-12 September 2007.

• Certification of biofuels is useful for promoting good practices but cannot be trusted
as a safeguard;
• Current biofuel support policies place a significant bet on a single technology
despite the existence of a wide variety of different fuels and power trains that may
be options for the future.
The question of how biomass is used best in the energy system, i.e. for power/heat
production or transport is also continuously being raised.
Objective/target 6: Energy efficiency in supply and demand.

Europe continues to waste at least 20% of its energy due to inefficiency 20, thereby
undermining efforts to improve security of supply, competitiveness and GHG emissions.
In 2006, measures aiming at reducing energy use by 20% by 2020 were adopted 21. This
will require significant efforts both in terms of behavioural change and additional
investment. Among the barriers to the realisation of the potential are legal and financial
barriers; lack of internalisation of external costs in current tariff structures and pricing
policies where a strong incentive to use less energy is missing.
c. Problems that are receiving less attention overall

Adaptation
Adaptation to climate change has for many years received little attention compared to
mitigation of emissions in the EU. Most activities have taken place at the level of
Member States. The EU level is now starting to address the issue with the above-
mentioned Green Paper on Adaptation to Climate Change.
Integration of mitigation in all policies

The integration of mitigation in all policies is part of the EU SDS objectives, but it is not
followed up by concrete measures to ensure that this is not always taking place in
practice. Areas where emissions appear not to be addressed strongly and systematically
are cohesion and structural policy; trade policy; and agricultural policy. It is expected
that a White Paper on the issue will need to address these links.
Bunker emissions
Emissions from transport are recognised as a major challenge and are behind initiatives
such as biofuels in road transport and the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. GHG
emissions from international shipping have, however, not been subject to regulation, and
the EU is only beginning to address the issue.
2.3 Appropriate policy response and EU action
With regard to latest developments it is important to note that the theme Climate change
and clean energy is in a special situation. The European Council has adopted a very
comprehensive Action Plan covering climate change and energy, which means that by
20
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential.
21
The Energy Efficiency Action Plan.

early 2008, the Commission will have made proposals for a wide range of key measures
guiding the development of EU climate and energy policies toward 2020. Therefore, the
elements of this climate and energy package will necessarily be central elements of the
"latest developments in EU Action" although much of the action is only in the final
planning stages.

Overall, the EEA has concluded that the EU countries collectively are on track to reach
the Kyoto target. The Commission as part of the approval of National Allocation Plans
under the EU ETS assesses the national plans for achieving compliance with the Kyoto
commitments.
Compliance with the EU commitments under the Kyoto protocol by individual countries
and jointly (for EU15 under the burden sharing umbrella) is handled through three
categories of measures: 1) The EU ETS; 2) Emission reductions in the sectors not
covered by the EU ETS; and 3) The use of flexible Kyoto mechanisms.
Credits generated through the Kyoto mechanisms (JI and CDM) are relied upon to
provide a substantial contribution to the achievement of the Kyoto commitment of several
EU countries, subject to the criterion that such reductions must be supplementary to
domestic action.
The EU ETS is a key instrument in ensuring compliance with the Kyoto commitments. It
is seen as a groundbreaking innovation providing a mechanism for cost-effective
emission reductions across the EU, and with a potential for future expansion through
linkages with non-EU countries.
The effectiveness of the EU ETS in reducing emissions depends on the scarcity of

allowances created during the allocation process. The Commission has therefore adopted
a stringent approach to approving National Allocation Plans for the period 2008-12,
which has led seven New Member States to file lawsuits against the Commission.
In the ongoing review process of the EU ETS, a number of key issues relating to the
future effectiveness are addressed, including harmonisation of allocation methodologies
and ensuring incentives to invest in low-carbon technologies. The currently applied free
allocation of allowances based on grandfathering is generally agreed to have a number of
drawbacks, one of which being that it is not effective in spurring investments in low-
carbon technologies. A more general observation is that no single instrument alone –
market-based or other - can be expected to solve the whole problem 22.
Recently, questions have been raised concerning the project based Kyoto mechanism as
to whether a significant part of the emission reducing projects actually live up to the
criteria established by the UNFCCC system. Apparently, one expert advising the
22
See for instance Robert N. Stavins "Market-based Environmental Policies", in Paul R. Portney & Robert N. Stavins "Public
policies for Environmental Protection. US: 2000.

UNFCCC has experienced a number of irregularities which question whether the
reductions achieved through a number of these projects are real and additional 23.

There is general agreement that in order to have a good chance of achieving the 2ºC
global target, developed countries including the EU will have to make significant
emission reductions by 2020.
Against this background, the European Council has approved an Action Plan with a
comprehensive package including the following elements:
• EU has committed unilaterally to reducing GHG emissions by 20% in 2020
compared to 1990 levels and to reducing by 30% as part of an international
agreement;
• A binding target for 20% renewable energy by 2020;
• A minimum share of 10% biofuels by 2020;
• A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan.
The sufficiency of the GHG target has been questioned recently by the Swedish
Government's Scientific Council on Climate Issues. The Scientific council on climate
issues says emissions must be cut by up to 40 % compared to 1990 levels 24. Similarly,
the Council says EU emissions will have to be cut by up to 90 % by 2050. During the
recent UNFCCC meeting in Vienna, there was consensus that developed country
emissions reductions in the order of 25-40 % were warranted, also higher than the 20-30
% commitment of the European Council.
There is widespread consensus that in order to achieve ambitious targets in a cost-

effective way, the use of market-based instruments is central, providing price signals and
a predictable framework under which to undertake investments, both within the EU and
internationally (for example through JI and CDM).
There is also consensus that policy measures promoting research, development and
demonstration of low- or zero-emission technologies are key to cost-effective emission
reductions and to bringing the EU onto a path towards very large emission reductions
toward 2050.
A special challenge is formed by transport-related emissions. Policy measures will be

needed to target the growing emissions from transport, whether land-based, aviation or
marine. Aviation is set to be included in the EU ETS, which will make its emissions part
of a common cap, although not necessarily reducing emissions in the sector itself 25.
23
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/02/energy.business
24
www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/8202/a/86968
25
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Article458.html

2ºC
Bringing about a post-2012 climate regime is a top priority in the EU's international
relations. International action against climate change post 2012 is high on the
international policy agenda of the EU, as it is generally recognized that in order to bring
global emissions onto more sustainable pathways, countries like USA and Australia as
well as major developing country emitters including China, India, Brazil and others must
be included in a future regime. The EU benefits increasingly from businesses, who are
asking for a stable and coherent framework with clear price signals to guide investment
decisions.

The main elements of the EU approach to ensure energy-related competitiveness are:
• Using the Internal Energy Market to ensure competitive energy prices, energy
savings and incentives for investments;
• Boosting investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, thus strengthening
the EU's position in global markets for low carbon technologies;
• Security of supply.
With regard to the Internal Energy Market, some Member States, notably France and
Germany, question whether further liberalisation must also include ownership
unbundling, arguing that this may actually undermine energy security and drive up prices
for consumers 26.
Competitiveness issues are continuously being highlighted in connection with the energy
and climate policies, in particular with regard to the possible effects of the EU ETS,
where energy intensive industries both inside the ETS and outside but still affected by the
price effects, are making the case that the ETS will lead to a loss in competitiveness in
some industries. Studies show that often this effect is rather limited 27.

Security of supply is addressed in the following main ways:
• By promoting energy efficiency which has the potential to reduce energy demand
(20% compared to the baseline by 2020);
• By promoting development and deployment of renewable energy technologies that
are not dependent on import of energy resources;
• By strengthening cooperation agreements with third countries, in particular energy
suppliers around the EU. This cooperation takes different forms such as
international and bilateral agreements as well as financial instruments.

The focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency as being in line with environmental
sustainability is generally uncontested. Measures to reduce emissions of CO2 in most
cases also reduce emissions of other air pollutants such as NOx, particulate matter and
26
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/commission-set-climb-ownership-unbundling/article-166335
27
E.g. The Carbon Trust: "The European Emissions Trading Scheme: Implications for Industrial Competitiveness".

SO2 from energy, and emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) from
agriculture and other sectors.
However, on the particular issue of biomass and biofuels, there are widely diverging
opinions on their performance in relation to environmental sustainability.
The Commission has performed a public consultation exercise which addressed the
design of a biofuel sustainability system and effects on land-use.
A joint contribution from the United Nations 28 to the public consultation on biofuels
emphasises the need to build a biofuel sustainability system on principles and criteria
covering a range of not only environmental aspects of sustainability. These include
carbon stock conservation, biodiversity conservation, sustainable water use, air quality,
labour conditions, minimal impact on food prices / minimal competition with food
production, increased livelihoods of local populations and minimal displacement.
Among the challenges raised is the fact that a number of developing countries that have
the potential to produce biofuels are also food insecure, creating risks of land-use choices
that prioritise financial aspects over food needs. There is thus a real risk, for example, of
food crops being displaced to high biodiversity areas without any control mechanisms
being applied.
With regard to nuclear energy, environmental sustainability issues relate to nuclear safety,
disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioning. As set out in the Nuclear Illustrative
Programme 29, the reliance or not on nuclear energy remains the domain of Member
States, but EU work should contribute to ensuring high standards of safety and security.
Objective/target 3a: Mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies

Carbon Capture and Storage:
The Commission has identified two major tasks for deployment of Carbon Capture and
Geological Storage (CCS):
1. Developing an enabling legal framework and economic incentives for CCS within
the EU;
2. Encouraging a network of up to 12 demonstration plants across Europe and in key
third countries by 2015.
A key sustainability focus of the framework is on ensuring that CO2 is stored in safe sites
that are properly permitted, where the environmental impacts have been assessed, and
where provisions for management and abandonment of the site ensure that stored CO2 is
retained in the long term 30. A public consultation exercise showed widespread support
(75%) for the ambition to develop demonstration projects.
28
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/consultation/doc/2007_06_04_biofuels/non_og/un_en.pdf
29
COM (2006) 844 final.
30
Sustainable Power Generation from fossil fuels: aiming at near zero emission by 2020 – COM (2006) 843.

Transport
The EU aims at addressing the unsustainable development in emissions from the transport
sector in several ways (in addition to biofuels):
• By accelerating the use of fuel efficient vehicles for transport by requiring cuts in
CO2 emissions by the car industry;
• By making better use of public transport;
• By ensuring that the true costs of transport are faced by consumers, e.g. by including
aviation in the EU ETS.
Cars account for roughly 20% of total European CO2 emissions. The existing policy
measures for reducing emissions from road transport have been clearly inadequate, as
European carmakers are failing to deliver the lower carbon emissions they pledged to the
European Commission in a voluntary agreement in 1998.
The EU now aims at putting regulation in place that will enable the EU to reach its long-
established objective of limiting average CO2 emissions from new cars to 120 grams per
km by 2012. The Commission in February announced (endorsed by the Environment
Council in June) to propose new binding legislation that would compel vehicle
manufacturers to cut average emissions from new cars from the current 162g/km to
130g/km by 2012 through technical improvements. Other players, including tyre-makers,
fuel suppliers, repairers, drivers and public authorities, would contribute to a further
10g/km.
Research and Technology Development

A number of structural weaknesses in the energy research and innovation system have
been identified 31:
• Scattered and un-coordinated market incentives (e.g. innovation programmes);
• Reduction of Energy research funds, which have been reduced significantly since the
1980s;
• Scattered, fragmented and sub-critical research and innovation capacities;
• Strong international competition and weak cooperation.
As a response, annual spending on energy at EU level will increase by 50% through the
7th Framework Research Programme. Despite this increase, resources are still likely to be
too limited and the recently-launched European Strategic Energy Technology Plan 32 will
need to address this issue. Research policy is still rooted at national level, and the
European Strategic Energy Technology Plan aims to reinforce existing EU frameworks,
including European Technology Platforms and the European Institute of Technology.
Trade policy
The linkage between trade policy and climate change policy has focused mostly on two
aspects:
1) An EU proposal for a 0%-tariff deal on environmentally friendly technologies as part
of the Doha Round;
31
EC (November 2007) "A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan)', COM (2007) 723 final, see
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/com_2007/com_2007_0723_en.pdf
32
An Energy Policy for Europe COM (2007) 1

2) Possible measures to address the competitive effects of imports from countries not
being subject to GHG emission constraints on EU industries, e.g. through the
adoption of a "Kyoto border tax".
It has been argued from the academic side that such a border tax adjustment may be
compatible with WTO rules 33.
Cohesion and structural policy

The sustainability of the Structural and Cohesion funding has been questioned by NGOs
recently, who claim that EU funds have subsidised an energy-intensive type of
development and the danger is that the same pattern will be repeated in the New Member
States in the 2007-2013 period 34. According to them, EU funds could play a positive role
in the fight against climate change if systematically directed towards energy efficiency,
renewable energy and low-emission transport, which, it is claimed, is not happening.
According to the study, only 1% of funds are allocated to energy efficiency and
renewable energy, respectively in the draft Operational Programmes.
While most of the New Member States are not having problems with reaching their
Kyoto target, investments in emission-intensive infrastructure may lock in the countries
on unsustainable pathways and limit the potential to contribute to the large-scale emission
reductions necessary post-2012.
Poland, which is highlighted as a case in point, in its own EU SDS reporting mentions the
growth in emissions that is catalysed, inter alia, by the resources of the Cohesion Fund
and Structural Funds of the EU.
Objective/target 3b Adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies.

The above-mentioned Green Paper on adaptation 35 reflects the fact that most action on
adaptation has in the past been taken by Member States. It does not contain very specific
policy measures, but rather opens a debate over what the EU should do to help countries
adapt. Four lines of priority actions are presented:
• Development of adaptation strategies
• Integrating global adaptation needs into the EU’s external relations
• Filling knowledge gaps through EU-level research and exchange of information;
• Setting up a European advisory group on adaptation to climate change to analyse
coordinated strategies and actions.
Stakeholders have called for a more proactive stance on the part of EU, e.g. by amending
the EU water framework directive to directly address the impacts of climate change and
strengthening spatial planning, land management and ecosystem services policies 36.
33
Ismer & Neuhoff, Border Tax Adjustments: A feasible way to address non participation in Emission Trading,
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/camcamdae/0409.htm
34
http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/EU_cash_climate_clash.pdf
35
Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action. COM(2007) 354
36
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/adaptation/2007_07_03_conf/index_en.htm

As part of the climate and energy package, the Commission is expected to put forward in
early 2008:
• A proposal for a comprehensive 'framework directive' on renewable energies
including an update of the biofuels directive and a review on the need for
harmonisation of national support schemes for renewable electricity;
• A proposal to revise the EU-ETS for the period after 2012;
The above-mentioned Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) has been adopted in
November 2007.
While some stakeholders have demanded more ambitious targets, Business Europe, the
confederation of European business, has questioned the EU's target of achieving a 20%
share of renewables in the EU's energy mix by 2020, as agreed during the European
Council of 8-9 March. It considers the target unreachable and cites industry concerns
about the security of energy supply 37. However, comprehensive analyses have been
carried out of the potential and costs of achieving a large-scale penetration of RE 38.
One of the concerns raised is the absence of a proposal on renewable heating and cooling.
Using renewables for heating and cooling has a large potential, but there is a lack of
policy measures to support this.
Objective/target 5: Promotion of Biofuels.

The binding minimum 10% biofuel target by 2020 is explicitly made "subject to
production being sustainable" and to "second-generation biofuels becoming commercially
available". This conditionality reflects the concerns regarding the above-mentioned
environmental and social impact of a surge in energy crops.

In 2006, measures aiming at reducing energy use by 20% by 2020 were adopted 39. This
will require significant efforts both in terms of behavioural change and additional
investment. Among the barriers to the realisation of the potential are legal and financial
barriers, lack of internalisation of external costs in current tariff structures and pricing
policies, where a strong incentive to use less energy is missing.
IEA/OECD 40 has highlighted the fact that improvements in energy efficiency have
declined in recent years, and are currently about half the rate of improvement seen in the
1970s and 1980s, a period with high oil prices. According to the IEA, the changes caused
by the oil price shocks in the 1970s and the resulting energy policies did considerably
more to control growth in energy demand and reduce CO2 emissions than the energy
efficiency and climate policies implemented since the 1990s.
According to the IEA, electricity consumption by appliances and air conditioning in

households is catching up with heating as the biggest source of CO2 emissions from
37
http://212.3.246.117/Common/GetFile.asp?DocID=18908&logonname=guest&mfd=off
38
Green-X; FORRES
39
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential. COM(2006)545
40
OECD (2007). Energy Use in the New Millennium - Trends in IEA Countries

households. While cars are now using fuel more efficiently, the gains have largely been
eroded by increased congestion and changes in driver behaviour, such as more frequent
journeys. Energy efficiency measures have produced clearer effects in manufacturing
industries.
2.4 Member State action
Explanation of symbols used

♦ = limited/poor coverage (< 10 countries)
♦♦ = medium coverage (about 10-20 countries)
♦♦♦ = good coverage (> 20 countries)
This section systematically examines the individual objectives with a view to answering
the following questions:
1. What are the latest developments in MS action to tackle the challenge/problem?
2. What are the main concerns about the effectiveness of MS action?
The assessment is based on an analysis of the MS submissions on the progress of EU

SDS implementation as reflected in the overview table in Annex 1.
Objective 1: Comply with Kyoto Commitments (♦♦♦), long-term reductions and

international framework consistent with 2ºC (♦)
For most New Member States, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol commitments is
ensured through the dramatic decrease in emissions following economic transition
(Slovenia is an exception; its current emissions are above the Kyoto target). Subsequent
economic growth has led to increasing emissions in recent years, and the emissions
intensity of most new Member States remains high.
In response to the European Commission's position, several of the EU15 countries

(including Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain) have had to plan
significant additional policies and measures in order to bring emissions in line with the
EU15 burden sharing agreement. In addition to domestic emission reductions, Kyoto
mechanisms are relied upon to help comply with the individual and collective
commitments. The developments confirm that decoupling of energy consumption and
GHG emissions from economic growth remains a major challenge.
With regard to medium- and long-term EU emission reductions (post-2012), the EU27
countries have collectively committed to 20-30% emission reductions by 2020. However,
only a few countries have reported on the issue of post-2012 emission reductions. France
cites a target for 75% GHG emission reduction by 2050, the UK 60% by 2050, and the
Netherlands 30% by 2020. Several countries are making strategies for post-2012 that
include growth in renewable energy, a focus on energy technology R&D and plans for
carbon capture and storage.
Although the international framework for an agreement covering post-2012 is explicitly

addressed by the EU SDS, there is virtually no mention of the issue in the reporting. This
does not signify that no action is taking place at the Member State level, as several

countries are very active in the post-2012 negotiation process. It could be interpreted as
an indication that Member States do not regard this issue as being part of their national
obligation in relation to the EU SDS.
Objective 2: Energy policy consistent with security of supply, competitiveness and

environmental sustainability (♦)
Very few Member States address the issue of energy policy and its consistency with
security of supply in their reporting. Bulgaria explicitly states that reducing import
dependency from Russia is a priority. To Estonia, a development plan for biomass and
biofuels serves the purpose of reducing import dependency.
Equally limited reporting can be noticed on energy policy and its consistency with
competitiveness policies. A handful of countries report on restructuring of the energy
sector, including liberalisation of electricity and gas markets as well as expansion of
infrastructure such as transmission systems. The remaining Member States do not
address the issue explicitly.
Apart from the GHG emissions, which are addressed by all countries under Objective 1,
there are other relevant elements of environmental sustainability such as airborne
emissions of SO2, NOX, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), issues related to
nuclear energy and environmental sustainability in connection with the production of
biomass and biofuels. Few countries (Czech, Estonia, Spain) refer to the linkage to air
quality as a priority issue, whereas others do not address these issues at all.
Objective 3: Integration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in all relevant EU

policies (♦♦)
Different countries report various types of policies in relation to mitigation being
integrated in all relevant (EU) policies. Austria and Ireland emphasise innovation in the
transport sector; the Czech Republic cites environmental tax reform; Finland makes
mention of a climate change awareness campaign; France refers to carbon neutral
investment projects; Germany mentions CO2 compensation of government travel;
Slovakia and Spain put forward agriculture and carbon sinks. Several countries are
planning "fiscal greening", e.g. by reforming car taxation. The UK points to plans for
Carbon Capture and Storage.
Several countries are in various stages of updating existing climate change strategies
which usually address mitigation options in a range of sectors. The national planning
process to ensure compliance with Kyoto Protocol commitments has led countries to
identify emission mitigation options in different sectors.
Furthermore, several countries refer to Structural Cohesion funding as a source of

financing for programmes that are fully or partially supporting e.g. renewable energy
development. Poland makes the opposite point stating that emissions growth is catalysed
by the direct investments and by the resources of the Cohesion Fund and Structural
Funds.

Adaptation plays a very limited role in national reporting. Denmark, France, Spain and
Romania mention recent national adaptation strategies in different stages of development.
Other countries (such as UK, Finland) are known to have carried out extensive work on
adaptation but have not reported on this.
Objective 4: Renewable Energy including biomass (♦♦♦)

Renewable energy is at the centre stage of the EU SDS reporting of most countries. Most
of the Member States relate national targets to the overall targets of the EU of 21%
renewable electricity and a 12 % share of renewable energy in primary energy
consumption by 2010.
Reporting confirms the vast differences in the role that renewable energy is playing
currently, reflecting different national circumstances. Countries have widely differing
targets under the umbrella of 21% for the EU27, ranging from Hungary's 3.6% to
Austria's 78%. Nine countries are on track to meet their national renewable electricity
targets of 21% for 2010: Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxemburg,
Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands. Germany has shown strong growth in the
renewable share of both electricity and primary energy, doubling both from 2000 to 2006.
Portugal has even revised its target share for renewable electricity upward from 39% to
45%. The remaining countries are lagging behind to various degrees, although virtually
all countries report that support schemes are in place or are being strengthened. Malta
still has virtually zero renewable electricity penetration despite a 5% target, but is
alluding to a possible wind farm development.
The priority energy sources are wind, hydro, and biomass, the latter often being supported
as part of rural development programmes.
Several countries refer to support from Structural Funds as a source of funding for
promoting renewable energy. Confirming the known limitations in the penetration of
renewable heating, only a few countries are reporting on specific initiatives to support
this subsector either via solar or biomass. The support schemes applied differ with
tradable green certificates and special feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity being the
two main categories. In addition, investment support schemes and preferential tax
treatment are used. Several countries also report activities to remove administrative
barriers to renewable energy, e.g. in connection with planning and approval of projects.
Objective 5: Promotion of Biofuels (♦♦♦)

As for renewable electricity, there is a large diversity in the level of ambition and the
measures already undertaken to meet the EU target of 5.75% biofuels used in road
transport by 2010. Few countries are set to meet this target. Austria is ahead of schedule
and expects to reach the target by 2008, aiming for a 20% share in 2020, thus doubling
the recently agreed EU target of 10%. Germany, France and Sweden are the other three
leading countries. Several other countries are just beginning to move in the direction of
the target.
A number of countries integrate support for biofuels in rural development programmes

and provide support in addition to the energy crop support under the EU Common
Agricultural Policy. Two main categories can be distinguished, one being exemption

from taxation/excise duties and the other being a biofuels obligation placed on the
distributors of gasoline and diesel.
Sustainability of the production of biomass for biofuels is addressed most directly by the
UK and Netherlands, both are introducing sustainability criteria and reporting
requirements.
Objective 6: Energy efficiency in supply and demand (♦♦♦)

Energy efficiency is an equally high priority in most countries. In particular the New
Member States recognise that they have a large potential for improvements in energy
intensity.
Most of the Member States relate national targets and achievements to the overall targets
of the EU and key directives such as the directive on energy performance of buildings,
the directive on end-use energy efficiency and energy services and the CHP directive.
Among the countries that report quantitative targets for efficiency improvement the
Netherlands aims for a 2% improvement per year, where most other countries who report
on this have targets around a 1% improvement in energy efficiency annually.
Measures to improve energy efficiency target many different sectors and areas of
consumption. Buildings are a key area with both refurbishments and improved building
standards, moving toward zero-energy buildings.
A range of measures are being put in place, covering regulation and standards, labelling,
subsidies and tax credits, and finally tradable "white" certificate schemes pioneered by
Italy and France.
2.5 Conclusions and recommendations
a. Highlights and main conclusions

Overall, Member States give high importance to climate change and clean energy in their
reporting, and there is considerable evidence of a large number of diverse initiatives
being taken. The coverage and level of detail in reporting varies significantly, making the
national reports a far from perfect basis for assessing specific progress. Most attention is
paid to compliance with Kyoto, renewable energy, biofuels and energy efficiency.
However, much less attention is paid to post-2012 emission reductions, the consistency
between energy policy with competitiveness, security and broader environmental targets.
Finally, reporting on adaptation to climate change in other policies is scarce, while
integration of mitigation in other policies is addressed by some, but rather randomly.

The EU15 as a whole is likely to reach the Kyoto targets through a combination of the EU
ETS, policy measures in other sectors and the Kyoto mechanisms. However, several
countries have to take strong measures and may experience difficulties along the way.
Transport emissions growth is a challenge in all countries. In the new Member States,

Kyoto compliance is less of an issue due to the economic restructuring since 1990 but
concerns exist about the impact of new large-scale infrastructure investments.

The EU has taken significant steps with the climate and energy package agreed in March
2007 including quantitative targets for CO2 emissions, renewable energy, biofuels, as
well as energy efficiency. The spelling out and operationalisation of the decisions remain
a challenge. Several EU-15 countries are establishing ambitious national targets for GHG
emissions and renewable energy. New MS are less proactive with regard to future
emission reductions and seem to focus more on ensuring that they are not restricted in
achieving strong economic growth.

2ºC
The EU is playing a leading role in international policies regarding post-2012. Unilateral
GHG commitments and a push for an international post-Kyoto agreement are part of this.
Virtually no MS report on activities in this field.

The EU is intent on reaping the potential competitiveness benefits from technology
development within renewable energy and energy efficiency. The approach includes
specific programmes focusing on energy technology. A second leg consists of
liberalising and promoting competition on energy markets.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency targets are major tools in increasing security of
supply. In addition, measures are taken to improve the framework for cooperation with
third countries, in particular energy suppliers.

At the EU level, several policy measures address environmental aspects of energy supply
and consumption, including e.g. the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution.
National reporting on this issue is virtually absent.
Objective/target 3.a: Mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies

Integration of climate change concerns in other policies has been raised as an issue in
particular with regard to:
• Transport;
• Research and Technology Development;
• Trade policy;
• Cohesion and structural policy.
The most vociferous questioning of whether EU policies are supporting climate and
sustainable development objectives has been raised with regard to cohesion and structural
funding. National reporting on this issue is very limited.

Objective/target 3.b: Adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies.
Climate adaptation work at the EU level is still at an early stage. Most concrete
adaptation work has so far been undertaken at the level of Member States, with different
levels of ambition and efforts. Very limited country reporting has been made on this.

The EU as a whole as well as most Member States are lagging behind the EU and
national objectives with regard to the share of renewable energy and renewable
electricity. At the same time, the European Council has committed to a strong growth in
renewable energy by 2020, with negotiations about the implementation of these targets
ongoing.
Objective/target 5: Promotion of Biofuels

As for renewable energy, the development of biofuels is lagging behind EU targets in
Member States, but at the same time ambitious targets for the future are being established
(10% by 2020). This objective is subject to sustainability concerns being addressed with
regard to the way biofuels are produced, and these concerns are not easily addressed.

The rate of energy efficiency improvement has deteriorated significantly over the past
years. Similar to renewable energy, the recent climate and energy initiatives of the EU
aim to set more ambitious targets and provide the means for implementation in the next
decade. However, implementation of policy measures relies heavily on Member States.
b. Suggestions to restructure/adjust the objective tree

Many countries have not reported systematically on all of the objectives and targets that
are covered in the EU SDS. This may partly be explained by the way these are structured
and phrased, e.g. where there are several issues covered under one item. For example,
most countries write nothing or very little about adaptation to climate change. Equally,
most countries report nothing or very little about non-climate environmental aspects of
energy.
As mentioned in the introduction, there are a number of overlaps and imperfections in the
internal coherence within and between the individual objectives/targets. In several cases,
very different issues and levels of action are included in one objective/target, making it a
complex task to undertake a systematic assessment of progress towards the
objectives/targets. One example of this is the objective "Adaptation to, and mitigation of,
climate change should be integrated in all relevant European policies".
A further problem is the lack of coherence between objectives/targets and the actions,
which in a logical framework approach should serve to produce the outputs that lead to
achievement of the objectives. This coherence is not clearly established, as exemplified
by adaptation to climate change, which has no corresponding actions attached to it.
For the purposes of the assessment in this report, we have analytically considered each
individual item included in the objectives/targets and actions of the SDS. As a result of
this process, we have subdivided three of the objectives/targets, while at the same time

trying to accommodate the issues addressed under the term "actions" in the EU SDS
under each of the resulting headings.
In order to make possible a systematic assessment for this report, we broke down the
original objectives into 11 sub-objectives:
Objective/target 1a: Comply with Kyoto Commitments;
consistent with 2ºC;
2ºC;
Objective/target 2a: Energy policy consistent with competitiveness;
Objective/target 2b: Energy policy consistent with security of supply;
Objective/target 2c: Energy policy consistent with environmental sustainability;
Objective/target 3a: Mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies;
Objective/target 3b: Adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies;
Objective/target 4: Promotion of Renewable Energy;
Objective/target 5: Promotion of Biofuels;
Using these objectives as a point of departure for a revised objective tree would be a
starting point.
A logical next step would be to prioritise whether some of these objectives could be
merged and whether all of them should be maintained in the EU SDS.
A restructured set of merged objectives could look like this:

1. EU27 compliance with Kyoto commitments;
2. Medium- and long-term EU emission reductions (post-2012) consistent with 2ºC;
3. International efforts toward the 2ºC target are promoted in all external relations and
policies;
4. Emission mitigation integrated in all relevant (national and EU) policies;
5. Climate adaptation integrated in all relevant (national and EU) policies;
6. Renewable Energy including biofuels promoted in line with climate, competitiveness
and security of supply objectives;
7. Energy efficiency in supply and demand promoted in line with climate,
competitiveness and security of supply objectives;
8. Energy policy consistent with competitiveness and security of supply;
9. Energy policy consistent with environmental sustainability.
If the EU SDS is to become more coherent and in line with a logical framework approach,
each of these objectives would need to be operationalised by adding outputs and activities
to achieve the objectives.
c. Recommendations/comments on the theme within the EU SDS strategy

It is a common feature of the objectives and actions under the theme climate change and
clean energy that most of them reflect strategies and policy measures taken in separate
processes dedicated to the theme and are as such not driven by the EU SDS. At the same
time, the EU SDS process provides an opportunity to focus on a range of sustainable

development issues and their interrelationships in one process and under one umbrella.
This raises the question how the EU SDS can provide more added value to the process of
achieving the overall objective under the theme.
A proposal in this regard would be to make use of the cross-cutting perspective of

sustainable development to focus activities under the climate and energy theme on
mainstreaming of climate change in all policies. The EU SDS thus provides an excellent
opportunity to analyse and promote the integration of climate change and energy
objectives in the policy areas that may not already be fully aligned with the climate
objectives. Examples of such important policy areas include:
• Cohesion and structural funding;
• Trade policy;
• Agriculture, CAP;
• Research and technology development;
• Taxation, subsidies and other economic instruments;
• External relations broadly speaking, including policies relating to security
A logical part of such a focus would be to develop and apply various tools such as
indicators and impact assessment methodologies that analyze and monitor the
performance of different policies and programmes in terms of their integration of climate
change concerns.
A radical implementation of this approach would be to do away with the long list of
objectives, many of which derive from policy decisions in other processes, and focus on
the mainstreaming of climate change concerns, essentially focusing on the two objectives:
• Climate change mitigation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies;
• Climate change adaptation integrated in all relevant (EU) policies.

3. Sustainable transport
Overall Objective: To ensure that our transport systems meet society’s economic, social and
environmental needs whilst minimising their undesirable impacts on the economy, society and the
environment
• Objective 1: Decoupling economic growth and the demand for transport with the aim of reducing
environmental impacts.
• Objective 2: Achieving sustainable levels of transport energy use and reducing transport greenhouse
gas emissions.
• Objective 3: Reducing pollutant emissions from transport to levels that minimise effects on human
health and/or the environment.
• Objective 4: Achieving a balanced shift towards environment friendly transport modes to bring about
a sustainable transport and mobility system.
• Objective 5: Reducing transport noise both at source and through mitigation measures to ensure
overall exposure levels minimise impacts on health.
• Objective 6: Modernising the EU framework for public passenger transport services to encourage
better efficiency and performance by 2010.
• Objective 7: In line with the EU strategy on CO2 emissions from light duty vehicles, the average new
car fleet should achieve CO2 emissions of 140g/km (2008/09) and 120g/km (2012).
• Objective 8 Halving road transport deaths by 2010 compared to 2000.
The single biggest challenge facing policy makers in the area of sustainable transport is
how to reconcile the economic and environmental priorities of transport. The transport
sector consumes 70% of all petrol consumed in the EU and produces 21% of all
greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it is well recognised that transport is the
very life blood of a modern economy and its effects go far beyond the direct economic
effects of the employment and added value of the transport sector in an economy.
3.1 Main challenges
a. Emerging challenges facing the EU in this area

Decoupling the growth in the demand for transport from economic growth and energy use
The growth in the demand for transport continues unabated. Growth in the volume of
freight transported continues to outpace economic growth. Growth in passenger volumes
has equalled economic growth rates. Air transport is growing at several times the rate of
economic growth. The shares of the car in passenger transport and of road in freight
transport are still increasing, and there are no signs of decoupling from economic growth
for either passenger or freight transport.

It is often argued that this growth is necessary for Europe to remain competitive. This
assertion is not supported by observation since the five most competitive economies in the
EU (Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and the U.K.) are also the countries with
the lowest transport-intensity per 1000 € of GDP 41.
Getting the prices right

The efficient functioning of markets is contingent on the ability to get prices right. There
are two problems with prices in the transport sector. First, the transport sector benefits
from annual subsidies estimated to be between € 270 – 290 billion. These subsidies
distort the price signal, and hence the efficient functioning of transport markets leading to
over/under consumption of transport goods and services. Second, the transport sector
imposes external costs estimated to be around € 650 billion annually. Prices in the
transport sector, therefore, do not adequately reflect the external costs of transport 42.
Stimulating technological innovations and their adoptions to improve the performance of

the road transport sector vis-à-vis emissions and energy consumption
The road transport sector is dominant for both freight and passenger transport. The
volume of road transport is also expected to continue to grow. Given the dominance and
expected growth of road transport, it becomes essential to reduce GHG emissions and
improve energy use of the EU’s car and truck fleet 43.
Meeting the mobility needs of the urban population

80% of Europe’s population lives in urban areas, thus meeting their mobility needs is
essential. However, most cities have severe traffic congestion and suffer from the
accompanying environmental problems. Meeting the transport needs of the urban
population accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions from road transport emissions and 70%
of other emissions 44.
Meeting the future demand for air transport in Europe while minimizing its environmental
impacts
Demand for air transport is expected to double by 2020. The current capacity of the
airport and air traffic control infrastructure is inadequate for accommodating this demand.
Meeting future demand for air transport is also going to pose challenges with regards to
the safety of air transport 45.
Meeting the transportation needs of the elderly

With an increasingly ageing population, the mobility needs of the elderly are becoming an
increasing concern. Adjusting public transport to the needs of the elderly is important, in
order to curb the utilisation of private cars.
41
European Federation for Transport and Environment (2005) Doing more with less, towards the most transport-efficient
economy, Position paper submitted to the European Commission on the mid-term review of the European Transport Policy
42
European Environmental Agency (2006) Size, structure and distribution of transport subsidies in Europe
43
European Environmental Agency (2006) Transport and environment: on the way to a new common transport policy
44
European Commission (2007) Preparation of the Green Paper on urban transport, background paper.
45
European Commission (2007) An action plan for airport capacity, safety and efficiency in Europe, COM(2006) 819 Final

b. Key problems and their relations
Transport is necessary for the functioning of a modern economy. However, this does not
mean that the growth in transport demand has to exceed the rate of economic growth.
Energy consumption by transport grew at an average rate of 1.3% per year between 2000
and 2005 in the EU27, only slightly less than the average 1.7% GDP growth in this
period 46. There is reason to believe that economies with a lower transport-intensity per
unit of GDP are more competitive than economies with a higher transport-intensity.
Thus, the perception that breaking the link between transport and economic growth would
compromise the Lisbon Agenda needs to be challenged – as it leaves aside the sectoral
and structural composition of the economy. As long as this link is not broken – and the
general assumptions retained – the improvements in the performance of the transport
sector will continue to be swamped by the adverse effects resulting from the increased
volume of transport.
The transport sector is the single biggest contributor to climate change and global
warming. While emissions of GHG have been declining in non-transport sectors,
emissions from the transport sector have been increasing 47. Even assuming that all
planned emission reduction measures were implemented and effective, transport-
emissions would still increase. Therefore, as already claimed elsewhere in this report, the
CO2 emissions targets for the EU fleet agreed to by the automobile industry are likely to
be beyond reach.
The largest share of the transport sector’s energy requirements are met using imported oil.
This reliance on imported oil makes the EU economies susceptible to the whims and
fancies of oil-producing countries and oil-shocks.
The EC has been promoting alternative fuels such as bio-fuels as an option for reducing
GHG emissions. However, there are serious concerns about the potential negative effects
of bio-fuel production on biodiversity (see also Chapter 2 and 8).
Road transport continues to dominate the markets for both passenger and freight transport,
and the road transport sector is by far the largest contributor to GHG and other harmful
emissions, as well as the single largest user of energy.
The overall noise burden of transport has grown to keep pace with the growth in total
volume of transport.
Urban air pollution, and the resulting health effects, caused by transport remains a
problem. A particular problem is the annual concentrations of NO2 and PM10 in urban
areas.
Long-term financing of investments and operations of urban public transport systems is

difficult to realise.
46
Eurostat
47
Emissions increased by 27% in the period from 1990 -2003 in the EU27 + Norway, Turkey and Iceland.

Security of public transport has two dimensions, the perception of security of passengers,
and security to prevent terrorist acts. While actions have been taken to prevent the latter,
little is done to improve perceptions of security of users of public transport.
Although most objectives aim for developments in a similar direction, this is not always
the case. For instance the drive towards ever safer cars – needed to live up to the aim to
cut the number of transport deaths by half in 2010 – has led to an increase in the weight of
cars, with an increase in fuel consumption as a consequence 48. Similarly, the objective to
reduce fuel consumption has contributed to the popularity of diesel-fuelled passenger cars
in various Member States (e.g. France and Belgium, where over half of the passenger cars
are diesel-powered). However, this trend does not necessarily help to reduce pollutant
emissions – especially those of carcinogen particles – at least until the introduction of
obligatory particle filters (planned at the EU-level for the year 2009 only).
c. Which problems are receiving less attention overall?

It would be fair to say that in the last years policymakers have given less attention to the
environmental and social aspects of transport.
Cycling and walking do not receive enough attention as serious modes of transport in
urban areas.
The integration of land-use planning and transport planning can be improved, as this is a
domain which is closely related to the daily mobility patterns of European citizens.
Urban sprawl – a consequence of continuous suburbanisation – contributes to less
effective public transport systems, increased utilisation of the car, cross-commuting and
increased congestion overall.
While transport policy pays a great deal of attention to provision of infrastructure and
stimulating technological innovation etc., it does not devote much attention to the
behavioural aspects of transport choices made by individuals.
Little systematic research has been carried out on the transport implications of ageing
urban populations.
There is an acute lack of data on which to base transport policy and this problem is not
really even viewed as being a problem by transport policy makers.
3.2 Views on the appropriate policy response
a. Views from the professional/academic community

There is a general consensus among transport planners and economists that simply
building new infrastructure, or increasing the capacity of existing infrastructure is not the
solution for congested roads. There is a widespread consensus about the need for
managing the demand for transport and travel.
48
The European Federation for Transport and Environment reported that emissions for new cars were reduced only to 160g of
CO2 /km, or 0.2% lower than the previous year.

One mechanism regarded as effective in managing the demand for travel and transport is
the price mechanism. There are several broad areas of agreement as to what is needed in
order to facilitate the functioning of market forces in the transport sector.
All transport modes receive subsidies; the difference is in the extent of subsidy and
whether it is an overt subsidy or a hidden subsidy. These subsidies distort the price signal
and interfere with the functioning of the markets. These distortions lead to consumers
making choices different from what they would have made if the different transport
modes did not receive a subsidy. Thus, most transport planners and economists agree on
the need to eliminate the subsidies received by the transport sector. Public transport is an
exception to this rule, as it generates important and positive socio-economic and
environmental externalities that are otherwise not captured.
A second area of widespread agreement is regarding the need to reflect the external costs
of transport and transport related activities in the price of transport services and products.
Thus, the costs of environmental damage resulting from harmful emissions, the effects of
emissions and noise on human health and welfare, the cost of accidents to society all need
to be reflected in the prices charged/paid by supplier/consumers of transport services and
products.
While there is not an established consensus about what is the most appropriate
mechanism for doing the above, there is general agreement on the “polluter pays”
principle. The polluter pays principle simply states that those who are responsible for
pollution (or imposing external costs) must also pay for remedying the harmful effects of
pollution. The application of this principle has resulted in, for example, a policy debate
in the Netherlands to replace the current tax on car-ownership with a tax on car-use.
There is general agreement on the appropriateness and effectiveness of using the pricing
mechanism for rationing scarce capacity of transport infrastructure. Thus, there are
several examples of European cities choosing to implement some sort of a charge for
using the road network within a city.
Transport planners and economists also agree on the central role of technology in creating
a win-win situation (high mobility without the harmful side effects) and solving the
current transport and traffic problems. Although there has been a lot of discussion and
debate recently about alternative fuels and hybrid cars, there is an increasing recognition
that simple solutions, for example bio-fuels, can on their own not provide a complete
alternative to carbon based fuels. In itself, hybrid technologies can help alleviate, but not
solve the problems of harmful emissions from transport. In the long-term, it needs to be
recognised that solutions need to lie in alternatives to internal combustion technologies.
Thus, it is important to stimulate technological development and the potential role of
policy in doing so.
It is generally accepted that promoting multi-modal transport journeys is more effective

than trying to discourage or encourage the use of a given transport mode. Thus, for
example, instead of trying to discourage car use, policy makers can more usefully focus
on promoting the use of the bicycle, walking, or public transport for short journeys.

b. Have there been any recent changes in this view and if so in which direction?
Overall, the acceptance of road pricing and toll schemes has been growing in recent
years, due to the successful implementation of some recent initiatives in this area, notably
in London. The political acceptance of such solutions, however, has been limited and
public opposition has been strong at times. A harmonised road tax or road charge –
without distortions between Member States – could provide a way forward.
3.3 EU action
a. Latest developments in EU action

The European Commission has recently completed a mid-term review of its transport
policy (European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to decide). Based on its mid-term
review, the European Commission has stated its priorities for transport policy as being:
• Mobility: The EU must offer the necessary level of mobility to people and business;
• Protection: protect the environment, ensure energy security, promote minimum
labour standards, protect the passenger and the citizen;
• Innovation: increase the efficiency and sustainability of the growing transport sector,
develop and bring to the market new innovative solutions;
• International dimension: the EU must be a united, leading player in the international
transport stage.
Since the completion of the mid-term review, the actions the Commission plans to pursue
are listed below:
Mobility
• Road transport: internal market review (2006), review of legislation on working
conditions (2007);
• Rail transport: remove technical barriers to interoperability (2006), promote rail
freight corridors (2006), rail market monitoring (2007);
• Aviation: review air transport liberalisation measures (2006), complete Single
European Sky (2007), SESAR (2007), emissions policy;
• Waterborne transport: Common European Maritime Area White Paper (2008),
European ports policy (2007), deploy e-maritime systems (2009), promote inland
waterways transport;
• Infrastructure: smart charging (2008), identify the multi-annual investment
programme up to 2013 for the Trans-European Networks (2007).
Protection
• Energy: Urban transport Green Paper (2007), action plan for energy efficiency and
road map for renewables (2006), strategic technology plan for energy (2007), launch
of major programme for green propulsion (2009);
• Passenger rights: proposal on the rights of international coach passengers and
maritime passengers including rights of persons with reduced mobility (2007);
• Safety: European Road Safety Day (2007), consolidate European transport safety
agencies and develop their tasks, integrated approach in road safety;
• Security: strategy for land and public transport and protection of critical
infrastructure (2007);
• Employment: promote social dialogue, transport professions and training.

Innovation
• The 7th Framework Programme for research and technological development has
prioritised a programme on cooperation activities on transport, intended to develop
integrated, safer, greener and smarter pan-European transport systems;
• Freight transport logistics strategy & broad debate on possible EU action (2006),
definition of action plan for logistics (2007);
• Galileo: identification of possible future applications (2006), start of concession in
2009;
• Launch of major programme to bring intelligent road transport systems to the market
(2008);
• Implementation of ERTMS in certain corridors in 2009;
• RTD and support to dissemination, exploitation and market penetration of new
technologies.
International dimension
• Better representation of EU interests in international organisations – IMO, ICAO
(2006); possible membership in relevant international organisations (2009);
• Strategy for integrating the EU’s neighbouring countries into the internal transport
market (2007);
• Develop external relations through bilateral agreements and in multilateral for a,
deploy a common aviation area in Europe.
b. Main concerns about the effectiveness of EU action

Implementation of EU directives is slow, and even when the directives are implemented
they do not always have the intended results. A good example of this limited
effectiveness is provided by the railway sector in Europe. The European Commission
has had to take several governments to court because they were not complying with the
directive concerning the liberalisation of freight transport – aiming to improve the
competitiveness of rail compared to other modalities. Even where directives have been
implemented, the level of competition between operators is slow to increase, with often
little impact on the competitiveness of rail cargo. Clearly, there is no 'one size fits all' as
the scope for rail cargo overall such as in Ireland or Greece is limited by definition.
Much scope for improvement exists in the urban transport sector. Until now, the EU has
not played a large or direct role and most active in this area are cities themselves.
However, the Commission has stepped up its involvement and issued in September 2007
a Green Paper "Towards a new culture for urban mobility 49. The Green Paper states that
throughout the EU congestion poses a real threat to the economic development level of
cities, while urban transport has negative effects on climate change, air quality and noise
levels, endangering the health and wellbeing of citizens.
c. Positioning the EU in a broader international context

The EU is one of the largest and most lucrative markets in the world. By virtue of being
in this position, the EU can play a leading role in setting standards that improve the
performance of the transport system throughout the world. To give but a few examples:
The EU can set emission and efficiency standards for automobile manufacturers and have
an impact on global automobile production. Some argue that this is not realistic.
49
EC (2007) "Towards a new culture for urban mobility (COM (2007) 551)
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport/index_en.htm

However, it would be worth looking at the impact of new legislation issued in the past by
the State of California that required all new cars sold to meet very stringent emission
standards. As a result of these requirements, car manufacturers did not sell fewer cars,
they sold as many cars, all of which were a lot less polluting, and air quality improved
dramatically. Thus, a good case could be made for the EU taking a pioneering role and
setting the directions for improving the performance of the transport system. Recent
initiatives demonstrate that the EU is increasingly adhering to this line of thinking.

1. What are the latest developments in MS Action to tackle the challenge?

a. Progress by objective
Objective 1: Decoupling economic growth from demand for transport (♦)
This objective is relatively ambitious and about half the Member States report key
initiatives under this heading. Some of these are focused on transport policy, such as the
lorry tolls in Austria or the toll system on Czech highways. Other initiatives run the risk
of being counter-productive in this area, such as the Portuguese Logistics Strategic Plan
or the modernisation of roads in Bulgaria. Indeed, the large investments in infrastructure
in the New Member States notably provide an opportunity to build sustainable transport
infrastructures. However, there is a lack of evidence that this opportunity is fully and
always used. More fundamental actions also relate to spatial planning, such as the Irish
National Spatial Strategy and the Compact Cities Initiative in Denmark. These are rather
rare however, and the overall efforts that MS reports dedicate to this fundamental
objective remain average at best.
Objective 2: Sustainable energy use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (♦♦♦)
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a key area in the reporting on this subject and most
of the actions to realise this target are fiscal measures designed to stimulate the purchase
of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, and to promote alternative fuels. A shift from car
taxes to carbon-dioxide bases is becoming common (Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg
following the UK). The promotion of bio-fuels is mentioned under this heading as well.
Clearly, this is an area where progress has been booked in the early part of 2007 notably
and new and upcoming EU legislation appears to be driving this process forward.

Objective 3: Reducing pollutant emissions to minimise effects on health (♦)
This objective is closely related to the above objective and, therefore, most countries have
refrained from specific actions under this heading. Actions are broadly similar to the
above objective and are rather scattered; they vary from local speed limits to particle
filters, tax subsidies for smaller cars and park-and-ride systems. Again, the value added
of this objective appears to be small.
Objective 4: Balanced shift towards environmentally friendly transport modes (♦♦♦)

Many countries report on a wide range of actions to promote a shift towards
environmentally friendly transport modes, both for passengers and for freight. Public
transport initiatives include investment schemes in rail (both national, regional and
suburban) as well as road charges. Specific initiatives to promote bicycling have been
taken by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and the UK. Freight initiatives
concern multimodal transport, such as the new Danish strategy for intermodal transport
and Hungary. However, not all such initiatives from the past have proved to be effective.
Examples of early intermodal transport initiatives – often with a limited or mixed effect –
can be found in France, Germany and the Netherlands.
Objective 5: Reduce transport noise (♦)

Specific reporting on key objectives is limited to about 1/3 of Member States. Such
initiatives are commonly framed in the context of a national noise strategy, with actions
aiming to reduce road noise and that from railway lines – and much less to limit aircraft
noise with the exception of Austria. Member States report about different challenges in
this area and they are in different policy stages. Active Member States in combating
transport noise are Austria, Denmark, France (black spots along the national road
network), Italy (urban traffic plans), the Netherlands (silent road surfaces, noise walls),
and the UK (mapping noise sources).
Objective 6: Improve efficiency and performance of public transport (♦♦)

This objective has significant overlap with the objective to shift towards environmentally
friendly transport modes. Under this heading, public transport investment programmes
are frequently mentioned. However it is not always clear to which extent these
programmes will contribute to sustainable development. For instance in Ireland, public
transport investment programmes include an upgrading of regional airports.
Objective 7: Average car fleet emissions of 140g/km in 2008 and 120 g/km in 2012 (♦)
Despite the widely recognised importance of this objective, real progress appears to be
limited for the EU as a whole in the year 2006 – while a new range of initiatives has been
taken from early 2007 onwards following new EU policy initiatives. Reporting by
Member States is limited as there is a strong overlap with the previous Objective 2.
Specific initiatives under this heading are the Austrian Advanced Automotive
Technology Programme, the German national fuel strategy including a quota for biofuels
and various taxation schemes mentioned above already.

Objective 8: Halving road transport fatalities by 2010 compared to 2000 (♦♦♦)
Halving of transport deaths by 2010 compared to 2000 remains a challenging goal 50.
Nevertheless, Member State reports remain broadly optimistic. Indeed many key policy
initiatives are recorded. Actions range from more stringent enforcement of speed limits,
infrastructure improvements and enforcement of resting times and driving hours all the
way to information campaigns.
b. Latest developments in MS Action to tackle these challenge

• The only objective where all Member States are taking some action is Objective 2
(Promoting sustainable energy use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Most of
the actions to realise this objective are fiscal measures designed to stimulate the
purchase of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, and to promote alternative fuels.
• Related to Objective 2 is Objective 3 as this calls for reducing emissions from
transport to minimise health effects and effects on the environment. Thus, arguably,
the actions of MS in pursuit of Objective 2 can be seen as also supporting Objective
3.
• Objective 8 (halving of transport deaths by 2010 compared to 2000) is the other
objective where most MS have undertaken actions. These actions have ranged from
more stringent enforcement of speed limits, infrastructure improvements,
enforcement of resting times and driving hours, and information campaigns.
• Objective 5 (reducing transport noise) is also covered by many countries as they
proceed to comply with the noise directive (2002/49/EC).
• The remaining objectives are covered sporadically and for most practical purposes
are not the focus of actions being undertaken in MS.
It is difficult to say in general terms which countries are lagging and which are leading as
individual Member States are at different stages of development in terms of their
transport systems.
• An indicative suggestion is that Austria, France, Hungary, and the UK appear to be
performing well in terms of taking actions to realize the objectives.
• Relatively few key policy initiatives have been recorded in Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
• There is also a clear difference in the actions being undertaken by the New Member
States. Most of these actions are focussed on improving infrastructure and at
bringing their rules and regulations in line with EC directives.
c. Main concerns about the effectiveness of MS action

There are four main concerns:
• The first of these has to do with the lack of action to realise the objectives;
• And the second has to do with the link between the objectives and the actions that
are being undertaken by Member States; all too often the link between these
objectives and the actions is not clear;
50
A report published by the International Automobile Federation (2007) reports an increase in the number of road transport
fatalities in 2006, for the first time since significant decreases in the last few years.

• Not all actions are known to be effective; for instance regional or national initiatives
to promote intermodal transport are dependent on higher level system operability and
the fulfilment of a range of conditions;
• Interconnectedness between the aims and actions; many actions are taken forward
without necessarily being attentive to unexpected side-effects on other objectives
that are also needed to contribute to sustainable transport.
a. Highlights and main conclusions regarding the progress towards the EU SDS
A range of key problems persist in the area of sustainable transport: Decoupling the
growth in the demand for transport from economic growth and energy use is a first one; it
is not really happening until now. Getting the prices right is another challenge. Other
challenges include stimulating technological innovations and their adoptions to improve
the performance of the road transport sector vis-à-vis emissions and energy consumption;
meeting the mobility needs of the urban population and meeting the future demand for air
transport in Europe while minimising its environmental impacts. Meeting the
transportation need of the elderly is yet another challenge. Demand for air transport is
expected to double by 2020. The current capacity of the airport and air traffic control
infrastructure is inadequate for accommodating this demand. Meeting future demand for
air transport is also going to pose challenges with regards to the safety of air transport 51.
With regard to the progress by objective, there is only limited room for optimism. As a
conclusion, overall objectives are currently not being achieved and the actions being
taken by the EU and the MS do not offer much hope of reaching these objectives.
Decoupling is not happening (TERM 2005): Growth of freight transport volumes has
outpaced economic growth since 1995 and growth of passenger freight transport has
exceeded economic growth between 1990 – 2002.
Growth in transport related energy use has exceeded growth in energy use in all sectors
(WBCSD 2003): transport’s share of total energy consumption is increasing and oil
provides 98% of the energy used by the transport sector (TERM 2005).
Greenhouse gas emissions from transport are increasing and meeting Kyoto targets in this
area is doubtful; the fleet average of 140g CO2/km by 2008 is unattainable (in 2006 fleet
average was 162g CO2/km). Aviation and maritime sectors are not covered by Kyoto and
although harmful emissions are declining, air quality problems in European cities persist.
A shift to environmentally friendly transport modes is not happening at any major scale to
date: Road freight transport continues to grow and is the dominant mode, passenger air-
transport has increased significantly, passenger car-transport shares have remained
stubbornly stable and car occupancy rates and lorry load factors are declining.
51
European Commission (2007) An action plan for airport capacity, safety and efficiency in Europe, COM(2006) 819 Final

There is no comprehensive picture of the effects of noise on health and quality of life.
However, the conclusion of experts based on the limited evidence that is available is that
the situation is worrying: noise is one of the larger contributors to loss of healthy life-
years. A large proportion of the population is exposed and best efforts to mitigate noise
exposure have only resulted in stabilisation of noise annoyance.
Road fatalities have been declining, but it is unlikely that the number of fatalities in 2010
will be half the number in 2000, especially in light of recent reports on the topic.

The first three objectives; decoupling economic growth and the demand for transport,
achieving sustainable levels of transport energy use, and reducing transport greenhouse
gas emissions should be reconsidered. With regard to the decoupling objective it is
important to substantiate the claim that demand for transport could grow more slowly
than the economy – as the evidence to date is limited. Furthermore, if adverse impacts of
transport are reduced below acceptable or agreed levels, the justification for reducing
transport demand would be less strong.
With regard to the second objective, it is hard to define a “sustainable level of energy
use.” It would be better to replace this with terminology that specifies improving energy
efficiency as an objective.
With regard to the third objective, threshold values should be specified for noise and air
quality.
The fourth objective regarding a balanced shift towards environmentally friendly

transport modes is also difficult to define and measure. Instead, specific objectives
regarding rail transport, inland waterways, public transport and non-motorised transport
modes can be added.
An objective should be added with regard to the reduction/elimination of subsidies to the

transport sector.
c. Recommendations/comments on the theme within the EU SDS strategy

The processes used for evaluating transport projects need to be modified so as to enable
consideration of non-infrastructure, and when relevant, non-transport alternatives (for
example tele-working).
contingent on meeting evaluation guidelines.
contingent on meeting specified targets (for example, air quality, and noise standards).
The potential role of non-motorised transport in meeting mobility needs to be

investigated.

The situation with regards to availability of data for making transport policy is deficient
and needs to be remedied. Most transport policy is not based on data, but on the results of
models that have not been validated in any meaningful sense with real data.
Targets should no longer be voluntary, but should be binding.
Urban transport should be given more attention and prominence in the sustainable
transport strategy.

4. Sustainable consumption and production
Overall Objective: To promote sustainable consumption and production patterns
• Objective 1: Promoting sustainable consumption and production by addressing social and economic
development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems and decoupling economic growth from
environmental degradation.
• Objective 2: Improving the environmental and social performance for products and processes and
encouraging their uptake by business and consumers.
• Objective 3: Aiming to achieve by 2010 an EU average level of Green Public Procurement (GPP)
equal to that currently achieved by the best performing Member States.
• Objective 4: The EU should seek to increase its global market share in the field of environmental
technologies and eco-innovations.
In many ways, this theme represents the most fundamental challenge of the EU SDS as it
targets the behaviour or consumers and producers.
The overall EU objective in regard to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) is

"to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns". This objective is
specified at the SCP website of the Union: the SCP policy aims to "promote sustainable
consumption and production by addressing social and economic development within the
carrying capacity of ecosystems and decoupling economic growth from environmental
degradation" 52. To achieve SCP requires us to change "the way we design, produce, use
and dispose of the products and services we own and consume" 53.
52
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm
53
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/priority/consumption-production/index.htm#Responsible

After reviewing UN 54 and OECD 55 documents relating to SCP it is clear that there is a
lack of a clear definition of the concept. This is also reflected in academic literature 56.
This is also emphasised in the main conclusion of the Marrakesh meeting 16-19 June
2003 – the first expert meeting of the 10 year framework programme for sustainable
consumption and production, initiating the Marrakesh Process 57.
In order to operationalise this topic, this Chapter will follow the objectives set out in the
EU SDS:
1. Promoting sustainable consumption and production by addressing social and
economic development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems and decoupling
economic growth from environmental degradation;
2. Improving the environmental and social performance for products and processes and
encouraging their uptake by business and consumers;
3. Aiming to achieve by 2010 an EU average level of Green Public Procurement (GPP)
equal to that currently achieved by the best performing Member States;
4. The EU should seek to increase its global market share in the field of environmental
technologies and eco-innovations.
It should be noted that we consider the first objective to be horizontal and cutting into the
other three more specific objectives. The first objective is identical to the overall
objective of EU on SCP presented at the SCP website of the EU as mentioned above.
Moreover, the second objective could be separated into two objectives:
2a 58: Improving the environmental and social performance for products and processes;
2b: Encouraging the uptake by business and consumers of environmental and social
performance.
54
Johannesburg plan of implementation, see
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIChapter3.htm , International Expert meeting on the
10-year framework of programmes for sustainable consumption and production (Marrakesh 16-19 June 2003), UNEP, see
http://www.unep.org/themes/consumption/ Measuring changes in Consumption and production patterns, see
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/consumption/cppgoph2.htm
55
OECD website on Consumption production and the Environment, see
http://www.oecd.org/about/0,3347,en_2649_34289_1_1_1_1_1,00.html Documents on Consumption and Environment, see
http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3343,en_2649_34331_32383494_1_1_1_1,00.html
56
The literary review undertaken during this study is based on a limited number of high quality studies on sustainable
consumption and production. Regarding consumption, the main study is "Policies for Sustainable consumption" by Jackson
and Michaelis, 2003. Jackson is Professor at Centre for environmental strategy at university of Surrey. Dr. Laurie Michaelis is
director of the Oxford based Commission on Sustainable Consumption. Regarding sustainable production, finding relevant
information has been a greater challenge, but our point of departure has been Roome and Anastasious article "Sustainable
Production : Challenges and objectives for EU Research Policy" summarising the report produced by the Expert Group on
sustainable production established by the European Commission.
57
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/consumption/Marrakech/conprod10Yconcl.htm
58
The difference between objective 2a and objective four is somewhat unclear. The report is elaborated under the assumption
that 2a covers initiatives to enhance sustainability within production processes and product performance whereas objective
4 covers initiatives that supports research and development of new technologies that are environmentally friendly as well as
initiatives to increase the competitiveness of eco innovations.

4.1 Main challenges
a. What are the emerging challenges facing the EU in this area?

The emerging challenge of increasing unsustainable consumption in Europe can be
illustrated by the following statement from the business task force on sustainable
consumption and production at Cambridge University: “If replicated world wide, the
western patterns of consumption and production, it is estimated, need at least three planets
worth of resources” 59. This highlights the need for action and prioritising of SCP. The
challenge is thus that: “We need urgently to harness ingenuity, technological innovation
and behavioural change in ways that will enable us to make the transition to meeting our
economic and social goals within the capacity of our planet” 60.
More specifically, key challenges that are outlined in this area are:
• The environmental consequences of industrialisation in developed economies as well
as the life cycles of their citizens arising from the patterns of consumption and
production;
• The environmental and social consequences of transition i.e. economic development
in industrialising countries;
• The system for production in Europe does not fill its potential of improving
competitiveness while reducing negative environmental impacts of the life cycle of
products 61.
Achieving such sustainable consumption and production is complex, especially as it

concerns a poorly defined and very broad concept depending on interrelated actions
within political, business and civil society domains in order to change consumption and
production patterns. This is reflected in the figure below 62:
59
http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/programmes/sustainable_consumption/scp_taskforce/about/what_is_scp.aspx
60
Sabapathy (2007): A Business Primer - Sustainable consumption and production, University of Cambridge, Programme for
Industry, p.3
61
Roome and Anastasiou, 2002, p. 2
62
Sabapathy (2007):A Business Primer - Sustainable consumption and production, University of Cambridge, Programme for
Industry, p. 4

A broad scope of policy measures are needed in order to stimulate sustainable
consumption and production 63. Finding efficient policy responses within the
competencies of the EU taking into consideration the market mechanism including the
below mentioned challenges identified by the UK Sustainable Consumption Roundtable 64:
• Consumers alone are not able to change mainstream product markets - this change
depends on various factors;
• Product performance is pivotal. If the marketing mix, including price, is "within the
expected norms of the relevant market" then any attributes of a good, hereunder
sustainability, becomes attractive to the consumer;
• Regarding energy efficient appliances labelling has low efficiency when not
followed up by actions from regulators, retailers and manufacturers;
• Eco-labelling is not, as such, a driver for "significant market transformation", other
additional measures are needed;
• Studies indicate that fiscal incentives are effective when they close the price gap for
more sustainable products or create significant tax rebates for their use.
Another challenge lies in the difficulty to move from a generic discussion to specific
actions with a focus on implementation 65.
Furthermore, it is difficult to secure that SCP is prioritised and kept on both the EU and
national agendas and not down prioritised compared to other and more vote appealing
topics.
Well targeted international cooperation as well as coordination of action between the

various DGs and among Member states in order to create coherent policy responses.
Measuring progress in the SCP is also a considerable challenge. Eurostat has elaborated
several indicators on SCP which are divided into three main categories 66:
• Waste and resource management: seeks to monitor resource efficiency and reducing
the overall use of non- renewable resources and are measured on resource
productivity, municipal waste generation and treatment and emissions of acidifying
substances, ozone precursors and particulate matter;
• Consumption patterns: provides background information on consumption and the
level of consumption: the number of households, household expenditure, electricity
consumption by households, final energy consumption, food consumption and
motorisation rate;
• Production patterns: indicates the degree to which environmental concerns are made
in the production process and are measured the number of EMAS registered sites, the
number of eco-level awards, areas under agri-environmental commitment, organic
farming and livestock density index.
63
Jackson and Michaelis, 2003, p. 10
64
UK Sustainable Consumption Round Table: Looking back looking forward, lessons in choice editing for sustainability 19 case
studies into drivers and barriers to mainstreaming more sustainable products, UK, 2006
65
Conclusions from the Marrakesh meeting:
66
Eurostat, 2007

These three main categories of indicators do to a certain degree reflect the EU SDS.
Nevertheless, it can be questioned whether the actual indicators are sufficient to measure
progress in consumption and production patterns according to the priorities stipulated in
the SDS. The indicators focus mainly on three areas: waste, energy consumption and
agriculture, and neither of these are mentioned directly in the strategy, but only indirectly.
Some of the indicators do, however, reflect the strategy inter alia eco-labelling efforts.
Nevertheless, there is only a weak correlation between the strategy and the indicators.
b. What are the key problems and their relations in this area?
A number of key problems can be mentioned that limit progress in achieving sustainable
consumption and production:
• Lack of an institutional setup that caters for sustainable consumption and production,
hereunder a market where the benefits of sustainable products are reflected in the
price. This is a horizontal issue and includes objective 1 of the EU SDS on SCP;
• Lack of consumer and voter focus on and knowledge of sustainability and
environmental degradation and lack of willingness to pay for sustainable products.
This is to a certain extent catered for in objectives 2b and 3 in the SDS;
• Inertia in the process of changing to sustainable production patterns and external
competitive pressures and to establish a climate that supports sustainable production
patterns. This is to a limited extent included in objectives 2a and 4 in the SDS.

Objective 1: The institutional set up for creating a framework that caters for sustainable
supply and demand, coherent policy responses and reducing barriers. This is receiving
only little attention both at EU and national level.
Objective 2 a: Improving environmental and social performance of products and

processes receive attention through increased focus on innovation, under objective four,
but otherwise, attention is very limited. Some eco-labelling efforts have been initiated
however.
Objective 2 b: Most countries as well as the EU report initiatives to increase consumer

awareness. These activities are mostly limited, however, to a campaign here and there.
Which initiatives to increase consumer awareness are working?
Objective 3: Changing public procurement patterns also receives limited attention

although the legal basis for including environmental and social requirements in national
public procurement is provided by EC legislation.


One of the challenges within SCP is the lack of a clear definition and a vague approach to
the concept. This indicates that there is not a clear view on appropriate action. The
following policy responses can be formulated by professionals, as phrased by Roone and
Anastasiou:
• Strong mechanisms for benchmarking and programmes for sharing best practices;
• Awards or accreditations for leading companies within sustainable production;
• Economic support for initiatives changing consumption and production patterns;
• Aligning government visions and rhetoric with actual action and practices;
• A strengthened link between competitiveness and sustainability;
• Enhanced focus on research and development 67.
In the below we have compared the Johannesburg implementation plan with the four
objectives of the EU SDS on SCP to check for consistency and coverage.
Based on the comparison in Table 1 below, a correlation between the Johannesburg

implementation plan on SCP and the EU objectives can be drawn. However, the
implementation plan is considerably more specific than the EU SDS. The
implementation plan moreover has a clearer distinction between objectives on products
and processes, while innovation is mentioned in the EU SDS objectives 2b and 4 on SCP.
The EU SDS, on the other hand, has a more specified focus on public procurement.
67
Roone and Anastasiou 2002

Table 1: Correlation between the Johannesburg implementation plan and the EU priorities on SCP
Johannesburg implementation plan 68 EU SDS SCP priorities Correlation
Identify specific activities, tools, policies, measures and 1: Promoting sustainable Medium
monitoring and assessment mechanisms, including, where consumption and production by
appropriate, life-cycle analysis and national indicators for addressing social and economic The EU SDS is
measuring progress, bearing in mind that standards applied by development within the carrying general and covers
some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted capacity of ecosystems and the overall message
economic and social cost to other countries, in particular decoupling economic growth from of the
developing countries; environmental degradation. implementation
plan
Adopt and implement policies and measures aimed at
promoting sustainable patterns of production and consumption,
applying, inter alia, the polluter-pays principle described in
principle 16 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development;
Develop production and consumption policies to improve the 2a: Improving the environmental Medium
products and services provided, while reducing environmental and social performance for
EU SDS is vague
and health impacts, using, where appropriate, science-based products and processes
approaches, such as life-cycle analysis;
Develop awareness-raising programmes on the importance of 2b: Encouraging the uptake by Medium
sustainable production and consumption patterns, particularly business and consumers
The
among youth and the relevant segments in all countries,
implementation
especially in developed countries, through, inter alia,
plan also focus on
education, public and consumer information, advertising and
the good
other media, taking into account local, national and regional
governance aspects
cultural values;
and institutional
Develop and adopt, where appropriate, on a voluntary basis, requirements to
effective, transparent, verifiable, non-misleading and non- actually change
discriminatory consumer information tools to provide patterns of
information relating to sustainable consumption and consumption and
production, including human health and safety aspects. These production
tools should not be used as disguised trade barriers;
n.a. 3: Aiming to achieve by 2010 an Weak

EU average level of Green Public
The
Procurement (GPP) equal to that
implementation
currently achieved by the best
plan makes no
performing Member States.
mention of PP
Increase eco-efficiency, with financial support from all 4: The EU should seek to increase Medium
sources, where mutually agreed, for capacity-building, its global market share in the field
The
technology transfer and exchange of technology with of environmental technologies and
implementation
developing countries and countries with economies in eco-innovations.
plan is broader and
transition, in cooperation with relevant international
focuses also on
organizations.
other aspects than
technology such as
capacity building
b. Recent changes
There has been no significant change in the international view on SCP although there is
discussion on the topic. As mentioned earlier the UN sees a need for a clearer definition
of the concept 69.
68
Johannesburg Implementation plan (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIChapter3.htm)
69

4.3 EU action
a. Latest developments in EU Action

Comparing EU action to the objectives and targets set out in the SDS the EU has had
some action under three of the four objectives set out. It must be emphasised that the
information below is based on a review of DG ENV 70 and related Commission websites.
In order to secure a complete overview of EU action a more comprehensive analysis is
needed.
Objective 1: The EU has participated in the Marrakesh process and has started preparing
an SCP action plan. This will, however, not be finalised by 2007 which is the deadline
according to the actions in the EU SDS. There have also been some waste initiatives such
as the European Parliament’s position framework directive on waste 71 and a
communication from the Commission on waste and by-products 72.
Objective 2a: There has been some focus on Eco-management and Audit Schemes
(EMAS) and support to accession countries under the EMAS COMPAS PLUS
programme.
Objective 2b: There have been initiatives to increase awareness of consumers, with the
organisation of "Green WEEK" and to strengthen benchmarking.
Objective 3: We have not found any specific initiatives supporting this objective. A study
on costs and benefits on GPP in Europe has been carried out by ICLEI and published on
DG Environment's website 73.
Objective 4: There have been several initiatives under the umbrella of the ETAP
framework such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP)
where, amongst others, a user guide was presented in July 2007. The 7th Framework
Programme for Research (FP7) also gives attention to environment as well as other
sectors that are influencing production patterns 74.

The cross cutting nature of SCP is a challenge and the lack of clear definitions of the
theme itself and the objectives may weaken the understanding of the theme.
Lack of clear targets and objectives that can be qualified as SMART 75 which may reduce
the incentive to act due to lack of accountability and transparency.
70
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm
71
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/agenda_en.htm#3
72
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0059:EN:NOT
73
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm
74
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html
75
Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time bound

The competence of the EU versus the competence of the Member States on this issue
following the principle of subsidiarity – this may involve the risk that this competence
issue could lead to lack of responsibility and ownership at both the EU and Member States
level.
SCP is a broad issue and requires joint actions from several DGs e.g. DG TREN, DG
ENV, DG COMP, DG RESEARCH, DG TRADE, DG SANCO, DG MARKT and DG
ENTR; the EU clearly faces a challenge of policy coordination and coherence in this area.

1. What are the latest developments in MS Action to tackle the challenge/problem?

Objective 1: Promoting Sustainable Consumption and Production by addressing social

and economic development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems (♦♦).
This broad-ranging objective includes the fundamental target to decouple economic
growth from environmental degradation. Although the majority of Member States report
on progress in this field, there appears to be only limited consistency in the approach to
be taken. Actions are dominated by energy efficiency and waste management initiatives.
Only few countries have mentioned participation in the Marrakesh process or
development of an SCP action plan. References to different ways of economic
production – e.g. by promoting a knowledge or service economy – are relatively rare.
Objective 2: Improving the environmental and social performance for products and
processes and encouraging their uptake by business and consumers (♦♦♦)
Again, most Member States report on this objective and there appears to be more
agreement about the instruments needed to achieve this goal. The most frequent action
under this objective is support to companies introducing EMAS. However, none of the
countries has specifically mentioned environmental or social targets for products and
processes as is one of the actions in the EU SDS for SCP. In addition, most Member
States report about some initiatives to promote consumer awareness and some are also
engaged in the business dialogue.

Objective 3: Aiming to achieve by 2010 an EU average level of Green Public
Procurement equal to that currently achieved by the best performing Member States (♦♦)
In many Member States, Green Public Procurement does not yet play an active role but
initiatives to promote it are increasing. Several Member states have thereto prepared
action plans in the field. Mapping and identification of best practices is undertaken by a
limited number of countries. Amongst the leading countries in this area can be counted
Austria, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.
Objective 4: The EU should seek to increase its global market share in the fields of
environmental technologies and eco-innovations (♦)
Several countries refer to implementation of or action plans related to ETAP. But only a
limited number of Member States have actions other than this, including Austria, Estonia,
Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden and the UK. The limited attention to this objective is
rather unexpected, as it allows for more pro-active and positive actions that are not
necessarily opposed to the short-term interests of consumer and producers. Furthermore,
actions in this area also have the potential to contribute to the Lisbon Strategy.
a. What are the latest developments in MS Action to tackle the challenge/problem (by
objective)?
The following statements are based solely on the information supplied in the country
reports prepared by each Member state 76. Below follow some general observations of the
actions of the Member states under each of the areas identified as covered by the four key
objectives that are stated in the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.
Objective 1: Action is dominated by energy and waste management initiatives such as

renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives as well as efforts to increase recycling.
Only few countries have mentioned participation in the Marrakesh process or
development of an SCP action plan.
Objective 2a: The most frequent action under this objective is support to companies
introducing EMAS, 10 country reports refer to EMAS, and several countries make
mention of national or EU labelling schemes. None of the countries has specifically
mentioned environmental or social targets for products and processes, although Italy has
initiated a business dialogue to determine targets.
Objective 2b: Most MS have taken some initiatives to promote consumer awareness and
some also engage in business dialogue, inter alia Germany which otherwise has only
limited focus on SCP.
Objective 3: In many MS GPP does not yet play an active role but initiatives to promote
Green Public Procurement are increasing. Several MS also have prepared action plans in
this field. Mapping and identification of best practises is undertaken by a limited number
of countries. 18 out of the 25 countries that are included in the assessment have initiated
efforts to promote Green or Sustainable Public Procurement.
76
The country reports of Latvia and Lithuania are not included due to lacking English translation.

Objective 4: Several countries refer to implementation of or action plans related to ETAP.
13 out of the 25 Member States included in the assessment have initiatives falling under
this objective
b. What are the main concerns about the effectiveness of MS action?

A first impression is lack of direction in Member States action regarding SCP, particularly
concerning objectives 1, 2a and 4 where only limited action has occurred.
Some MS have a broad range of action plans and strategies, but there is little action in
several countries. A concern is that the focus on SCP is more words than action.
The effectiveness of awareness raising initiatives can be questioned as well. How are the
initiatives handled? Has the effect of the initiatives been measured? Has best practices
been identified? The initial impression based on the country reports is that the efforts are
rather scattered and an integrated approach to increasing awareness of consumers and
business seems to be lacking.
Several MS have created national labelling schemes. This raises several issues that
deserve further attention, such as:
• Do the labels contribute to fragment the internal market and serve as a barrier for
cross boarder trade?
• Does it confuse consumers that there are several labelling schemes on the market?
• How are these labels quality assured and can/do the consumers actually trust the
labels?
a. Highlights and main conclusions regarding the progress towards the EU SDS
• Little progress has been made both by Member States and the EU under all four
objectives;
• Many of the initiatives take the form of action plans, programmes and policy reviews
and actual action and effects following from these documents remains to be
demonstrated;
• The international SCP concept itself is poorly defined;
• Focus on one aspect of SCP is not sufficient to drive change in consumption and
production patterns;
• SCP has cross-cutting effects into all other themes within the SDS and is horizontal
in nature.

The theme Sustainable Consumption and Production is highly cross-cutting and both
affects and is affected by all the other themes. A question is whether it is more impeding
than furthering SCP to include it in the strategy on equal terms as the other themes.
We therefore recommend either to:

• Make SCP a cross cutting issue and not an independent theme; or
• Define the concept and make several clarifications.

It is important to see the connection between consumption and production patterns, the
six other themes and the overall aim of the renewed EU SDS strategy:
"to identify and develop actions to enable the EU to achieve continuous improvement of quality of life both for
current and for future generations, through the creation of sustainable communities able to manage and use
resources efficiently and to tap the ecological and social innovation potential of the economy, ensuring prosperity,
environmental protection and social cohesion" 77
In order to maintain SCP as an independent theme it must be demonstrated that doing so

provides value added. If this can be demonstrated it is necessary to:
• Communicate the particular characteristics of the theme as the theme is intertwined
with the six other themes of the strategy. Actions under these themes may influence
consumption and production patterns as well as actions under SCP influence the
other themes;
• The concept needs to be clearly defined to secure a common understanding, which
today seems to be lacking;
• The scope of the objectives must be clearly defined e.g. Objective 1 is somewhat
unclear as well as the resemblance of Objectives 2a and Objective 4;
• The objectives need to be operationalised by introducing specific targets and actions
to be carried out, both regarding Member States and the EU.
c. Recommendations/comments on the theme

It should be assessed whether including SCP as an independent theme provides added
value and hence whether it is useful to have it as an independent theme in the strategy.
If it does add value and remains an independent theme, the following tasks must be
carried out:
• Communicate the particularity of the theme;
• Clearly define the concept of SCP;
• Clearly define the scope of each of the objectives;
• Specify operational tasks and actions under each of the objectives;
• Clear assignment of tasks and roles of the Commission and the Member States since
there is a risk of neither taking the responsibility to act.
d. Policy Recommendations
Legislating on SCP is twofold and in order to change patterns action is needed both for
consumption and production - focus on one of them will not suffice.
Regarding consumption, conventional policy intervention plays a significant role e.g. in

creating an institutional framework for sustainable consumption hereunder securing that
prices reflect the environmental and social cost of a product or service.
77
SDS strategy on SCP p. 3

Consumption patterns are also steered by habits, traditions and ethical considerations that
are not easily influenced by mere legislative interventions and non conventional
initiatives are needed. Policy makers also have an important role to play in promoting
and driving dialogue, as well as by learning and experimentation 78.
78
Jackson and Michaelis, 2007, p. 58

5. Conservation and management of natural
resources
Overall Objective: To improve management and avoid overexploitation of natural

resources, recognising the value of ecosystem services
• Objective 1: Improving resource efficiency to reduce the overall use of non renewable natural
resources and the related environmental impacts of raw materials use, thereby using renewable
natural resources at a rate that does not exceed their regeneration capacity.
• Objective 2: Gaining and maintaining a competitive advantage by improving resource efficiency, inter
alia through the promotion of eco-efficient innovations.
• Objective 3: Improving management and avoiding overexploitation of renewable natural resources
such as fisheries, biodiversity, water, air, soil and atmosphere, restoring degraded marine ecosystems
by 2015 in line with the Johannesburg Plan (2002) including achievement of the Maximum Yield in
Fisheries by 2015.
• Objective 4: Halting the loss of biodiversity and contributing to a significant reduction in the
worldwide rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.
• Objective 5: Contributing effectively to achieving the four United Nations global objectives on forests
by 2015.
• Objective 6: Avoiding the generation of waste and enhancing efficient use of natural resources by
applying the concept of life-cycle thinking and promoting reuse and recycling.
This objective covers a broad territory and is in many ways to be considered as a

fundamental pillar of environmental policy.
5.1 Main challenges
a. Emerging challenges
The European model of wealth is based on a high level of resource consumption,
including energy and materials. Current material consumption in industrialised countries
is between 31 and 74 tonnes/person/year (total material consumption) 79, and
environmentally most significant is the consumption of materials for housing, food and
mobility. The average material intensity in the EU-27 is twice as high as in Japan. The
picture is similar for energy intensity, where the efficiency of the Japanese economy is
even more pronounced 80. However, there seems to be progress if one examines the
79
Source: European Environment Agency
80
Report: EEA Report No 9/2005

evidence (especially amongst industrialized and highly developed nations) for the
decoupling of global material extraction and use of natural resources from economic
growth, emphasising that the production of economic output is becoming less material-
intensive in relative terms. At the same time, however, overall levels of resource
extraction are increasing in absolute terms in all regions of the world, which potentially
detract from the positive environmental developments, such as structural change towards
the service sector and diffusion of cleaner technologies and products. This trend is at best
incompatible with sustainable development, considering the fact that global
environmental problems such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution (all
closely linked to the material throughput of the global economy) are already putting
pressures on the world's ecosystems beyond a sustainable level 81.

In general, the EU is facing natural resource conservation challenges which are
inextricably linked with how to maintain and increase economic growth with current
unsustainable patterns of economic development. Europe has high absolute and relative
levels of material intensity and this drives increased resource extraction and use. A major
and obvious challenge is how resources should be used more efficiently, but also how to
monitor the process of natural resource extraction shifting to non-EU states as the EU
imports more of its requirements from abroad. Europe should beware of claiming that the
associated problems of bad management of natural resources are no longer a “European”
policy problem. In addition to the internationalisation of the problem is the multi-sectoral
nature of the problem: specifically, how to create change across various policy arena’s all
of which affect resource use. Furthermore, concerns as to how to affect change while
keeping costs in line with realistic competitive necessities; how to ensure security of
supply and reduce import dependency; how to make better use of waste products as they
can be valuable in their own right, how to measure accurately the resources that are being
used, how to set quantitative targets for such issues, how to change consumer and
producer behaviour so as to be more sustainable, are all current.
Within each of the natural resource categories and themes there are also clear issues that
need to be addressed:
• 2/3rds of Europe’s trees are threatened 82. Whereas the estimate for the ratio of
felling of trees to increment of trees is still around 60% and is technically, therefore,
still sustainable 83, land-use changes and the encroachment of built-up areas still
jeopardizes the long-term viability of Europe’s trees, and is of significant concern
given the role that woodland ecosystems play in driving biodiversity. The
fragmentation of ecosystems remains one of the most important factors behind
declining biodiversity and hence reduced economic and physical values of ecosystem
services they produce;
• Biodiversity is decreasing; a century of growth in the welfare in the EU15 has meant
a loss of approximately 65% of the original terrestrial biodiversity, however
according to some reports biodiversity loss is showing signs of stabilising 84. This is
81
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 and UNEP, 2002
82
“Choices for a greener future: the EU and the environment; European Commission 2003
83
Eurostat: “Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe” 2007
84
Eurostat: “Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe” 2007

in fact misguided optimism as what is required is a recovery in biodiversity across
Europe, which seems unlikely to be attained with the EU’s future impact on
biodiversity expected to increase with ongoing economic growth;
• Total waste production is still around 1.3 billion tonnes per year in the EU 85;
• Registration of resource use is not currently taking place (and is currently
approximated by energy consumption statistics);
• Although there is relative decoupling of resource consumption, waste and pollution
with economic growth there is still an absolute level of resource consumption that
has remained largely unchanged;
• Technical innovation can only offset relative resource consumption and production
and does not really tackle the underlying processes;
• The types of responses to these problems are still of a reactive nature and have
tended to treat the externalities of economic growth as a non-market problem. The
policy response is possibly changing to encourage market-led solutions that provide
incentives to industry to take resource costs and waste costs more fully into its
accounts.

According to the Member States’ country reports on their progress implementing the EU
SDS, natural resource management challenges range from fisheries, marine and coastal
zone management to species and ecosystem protection, from wetlands and forestry
protection to waste management and pollution prevention, from urban design to impacts
of globalization, from lack of sustainable signals and incentives to the consumer and to
industry, to unsustainable lifestyles. The degree to which this range of issues is reported
on and more importantly are tackled through policy is according to these reports non-
uniform, which is not considered a sufficient excuse for the lack of coherence in
approaches. In particular the problems that receive less attention include:
• Inter-sectoral approaches and holistic policy;
• Improving resource efficiency and material efficiency (in absolute terms and not just
through decoupling);
• Addressing the over-use of resources and the long-term problem affecting future
generations that current societies are ill-equipped to deal with in an urgent fashion;
• The (inter)national, regional and local contexts that make unified policy response
difficult;
• Co-ordination of spatial planning policy in the EU, which is needed to provide a
framework for the different priorities that need to be considered when defining land-
use functions;
Furthermore, climate change policy is currently the leading framework for tackling
environmental issues, especially in terms of spatial policy harmonization 86, e.g. space for
water/rivers, mitigation policy (renewable energy in the form of wind turbines for
example), fire prevention etc; however, climate change is in danger of dominating the
debate concerning other environmental problems such as unsustainable agriculture, soil
degradation, desertification and urban sprawl, all which affect the sustainable use of
natural resources.
85
Source: European Environment Agency
86
European Spatial Planning: Adapting to Climate Events (Espace)


In a nutshell there is no clear view on the appropriate policy response as almost every
Community policy affects the use and management of natural resources. Different
contexts may imply a different interpretation and practical implementation of the policy
responses concerned, and therefore lead to different results. However, there is a wide
variety of policy options available to support better management of natural resources,
which if used in an effective manner can contribute to reduced impacts on natural
resources from continued economic growth. These commonly include economic
measures such as ecological fiscal reforms (e.g. material input and energy taxes), reforms
of the subsidy systems (e.g. temporary support for development of new eco-efficient
procurement. Focussing on key sectors that are either directly (e.g. mining, agriculture,
fisheries) or indirectly responsible for large amounts of natural resource extraction (e.g.
energy, transport, and industry) will benefit the efficiency of the selected mix of
instruments as well 87. The importance of improved material management for sustainable
development is also recognised by various institutions in international politics. The
European “Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources” (EC, 2005)
aims to increase resource productivity, increase eco-efficiency and – if cleaner use is not
achievable – aims to substitute currently used resources with environmentally-friendlier
alternatives. The strategy is based on a 25 year period.
Forestry policy is an example of how raising awareness on this issue seems to have borne
fruits as there has been a small but steady increase in the total area of forested land in the
EU year on year 88. There are, however, questions on the quality of the woods and
whether there is enough diversity within woodlands that is essential for good ecosystem
functioning. Sustainable forestry schemes can be considered as having succeeded and
there is generally more recognition of this fact. However, increasing forest fires and the
threat from global warming and climate change creates further uncertainties in terms of
appropriate policy response. To this end, it is necessary to develop more sophisticated
indicators to gauge the ecological conditions of woodland ecosystems.
In terms of biodiversity conservation there is the well-established response to protect

communities, populations and species through legislation inferring a form of protected
status on the habitat in question. The Natura 2000 network of protected nature areas that
exist throughout the EU is undoubtedly an ambitious plan to this effect and it is the
evaluator’s opinion that protecting wildlife resources in this fashion certainly has its
merits. There are, however, questions raised by ecological science about the
effectiveness of such areas as there is no simple recipe for determining the correct size
and location for protected areas. Instead, to determine their appropriate scale and design,
the types of species needing protection, the quality of the habitat, size and types of events
87
The material basis of the global economy: Worldwide patterns of natural resource extraction and their implications for
sustainable resource use policies Arno Behrensa, Stefan Giljuma, Jan Kovandab and Samuel Nizac
88
Forest Ecology and Management, Elsevier publishers 2007

like fires, the nature of surrounding landscapes, the distance between protected areas, and
other variables all need to be considered. Establishing nature parks on a European scale
should also focus on the connectivity between adjacent areas allowing extremely good
dispersal abilities for wildlife between the various areas.
There has also been progress in terms of deciding on the correct policy principles and
who should bear the costs of environmental degradation. The precautionary principle 89
and the polluter pays principle 90 are now both part of EU environmental law. A main
focus of EU legislation has been on industrial point sources of pollution with end of pipe
measures.
b. Recent changes
EU Member States have gone some way in developing strategic responses that are mainly
limited to managing the impacts of resource use and unsustainable consumption patterns.
Some obvious successes include shifting the concept of recycling and life-cycle thinking
into the mainstream of both policy making and citizen awareness. Another change is the
emergence of the ‘source principle’, which specifies that environmental damage should
preferably be prevented at the source, rather than by using the ‘end-of-pipe technology’.
In addition, the EU has indicated a preference for emission standards rather than
environmental quality standards, especially to deal with water and air pollution.
However, little efforts have so far been devoted to forecasting future patterns of natural
resource use and to providing ex-ante assessments of environmental and economic effects
of resource policies (both at a Member State level and on a European level). There are a
few exceptions as there have been studies on outlooks for material flows in Europe by the
European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management 91 and new approaches to
forecast Ecological Footprints on the national level 92. Nevertheless, the quantitative
assessment of the effectiveness of such policy is still at an early stage, making it difficult
to judge appropriateness in a meaningful way.
5.3 EU action
a. Latest developments in EU action

The EU has developed a strategic response mainly by managing the impacts of resource
use and consumption, as demonstrated by the directives concerning air and water quality.
Within the main fields of policy that drive resource consumption such as the CAP, the
common fisheries policy, regional policy and transport and energy policy there have also
been shifts towards better incorporating sustainable practices. The current EU SDS re-
confirms the actions that should be taken by Member States according to the strategies,
89
The precautionary principle was adopted by the UN Conference on the Environment and Development. According to the
precautionary approach, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
According to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by
States according to their capabilities.
90According to the polluter-pays principle (PPP), those who cause pollution should meet the costs to which it gives rise, whereas
the user-pays principle calls upon the user of a natural resource to bear the cost of running down natural capital. .
91
European Environment Agency (2005)
92
Lenzen et al. Forecasting the Ecological Footprint of Nations: a Blueprint for a Dynamic Approach. The University of Sydney,
Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, UK.

measures and programmes of various EU policy documents related to this field includes
references to agriculture and fisheries reforms as well as the new programmes for rural
development.
In relation to EU ambitions in this area, there has been action to:

• Decrease waste production and promote waste prevention, recycling etc;
• Decouple environmental impacts of resource use from economic growth;
• Increase the role of market-based instruments, in particular the use of taxation at EU
and national levels to help meet environment policy goals. The Commission is to
work more closely with Member states to encourage a shift in the burden of taxation
from labour towards protecting the environment;
• Halt biodiversity loss by 2010;
• Create a network of ecological/natural areas (NATURA 2000) throughout Europe
that is based on national protected areas and networks, e.g. the Ecological Main
Structure (EHS) in the Netherlands;
• Adopt various action plans, e.g. forest action plan and biomass action plan;
b. Direct Initiatives
In December 2005 the European Commission presented its Thematic Strategy for the
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, aiming to reduce the environmental impacts
associated with resource use by decoupling environmental impacts from economic
growth with a 25-year timeframe. Unfortunately, no quantitative targets have been set to
date. The Commission has outlined three factors, which are seen as key to achieving a
stable decoupling:
• More value- creating while using fewer resources (increasing ‘resource
productivity');
• Less impact- reducing the overall environmental impact per unit of resources used
(increasing ‘eco-efficiency');
• Better alternatives- if cleaner use cannot be achieved, substituting currently used
resources with better alternatives.
The strategy focuses on:

• Improving the understanding of resource use, its environmental impacts and its links
to economic growth;
• Developing tools to monitor and report progress;
• Initiating actions at different levels of governance to help achieve the overall goal;
• A number of specific measures have been identified for immediate implementation;
• Establishing a European Data Centre on natural resources;
• Developing indicators to measure progress towards achieving the strategy's goals;
• Developing national and sectoral measures and programmes;
• Establishing an International Panel on the sustainable use of natural resources.

The Waste Framework Directive establishes a framework for the management of waste
across the EU. Originally adopted in 1975 it sets out overarching objectives and
principles for EU waste policies. In December 2005 the Commission presented a
proposal to amend the Waste Framework Directive as part of the policy package of the
Thematic Strategy on Waste prevention and Recycling. The EU Thematic Strategy on
the Prevention and Recycling of Waste anticipates the following policy trends:
• bringing new environmental thinking and life-cycle thinking into waste policies;
• putting waste prevention policies into practice;
• improving the knowledge base;
• encouraging recycling through standards and other instruments;
• simplifying, clarifying and modernizing existing legislation;
• reinforcing waste recycling;
• markets.
c. Other initiatives
There have also been significant reforms to both the Common Agricultural and Fisheries
Policies, which can contribute to the EU’s objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2010,
for example by decoupling direct payments from production and promoting compliance
with environmental and food safety standards. This will also contribute to achievement
of the EU Water Framework Directive’s objectives for improving water quality.
d. What are the main concerns about the effectiveness of EU action

According to the various commentaries on the EU SDS and judging by the material
examined on this theme and its relation to sustainable development in general, we can
point towards the following concerns about the effectiveness of EU action:
• Credibility of EU sustainable development policy cannot be improved without
reference to the global nature of environmental phenomena, which is increasingly a
problem for effective natural resource management as the EU imports natural
resources from other regions;
• The fact that the EU still imposes high tariffs on agricultural products is a clear case
of lack of policy coherence, especially when the primary role that trade liberalisation
can play in generating more resources for sustainable development is considered;
• The effectiveness of policies that may apply to EU Member states is not capable of
capturing the true extent of the global pressure on resources given the EU is
importing more and more of its requirements from abroad and is essentially shifting
the burden of natural resource pressure to other regions;
• There is no focus on key defined sectors that affect natural resource extraction either
directly or indirectly such as the energy sector, especially as a lot of resource use is
tied up with supplying energy, therefore action should be more focused on energy
conservation and development of alternative energy sources;
• In order to make progress on the effectiveness of EU action particularly in reference
to the strategy of 2006 it should include the supply (production) and demand
(consumption) of the sustainable use of natural resources;
• Priorities should be identified by combining present absolute environmental impacts
with potential for relative impact reductions;
• It should be recognised that different policy measures will be needed for dealing with
renewables and non-renewables;

• There is no coherent monitoring in place to measure improvements in resource
efficiency within separate stages of the life-cycle of individual materials;
• Setting objectives and a clear roadmap for EU action is not currently taking place
(also in part due to the lack of monitoring and therefore the inability to set
quantitative targets);
• Furthermore setting plausible targets through the involvement of designated actors in
each key sector is not yet happening;
• There is a need to develop a well-informed citizen-base as conscious consumers of
goods and services, which would provide an impetus for improvement; this would
cause businesses to drive the agenda forward and not be reliant on public policy
intervention;
• A need for a holistic approach to avoid shifting the environmental burden from one
phase to another or from one sector to another.
e. How to position the EU in this respect in a broader international context

Based on some of the concerns about EU action we put forward recommendations
concerning the global nature of the problem and the way that the EU may be able to
position itself in a broader international context as set out here:
• Tackle the obstructions to presenting a coherent sustainable development policy to
the international community by incorporating the crucial trade-related aspects of
sustainable natural resource use. This entails taking steps to measure the natural
resource footprint of the EU that includes the net imports of natural resources from
less developed nations;
• Take steps to measure the flow of resources internationally and consequently to
gauge the relative contribution to resource exploitation that the EU is genuinely
responsible for through importing from other countries;
• The EU is the largest aid donor to the developing world and should incorporate
sustainable policies in this aspect of its international operations;
• Develop institutional facilities to take the lead on integrated sustainable natural
resource policy and conservation at the global level;
• EU participation at environmental conferences needs to be given more weight by
striving for voting rights and going beyond a mere representational status;
• Develop headline indicators, policy support indicators and monitoring indicators for
international benchmarking;
• Build on the practical experience with knowledge as a tool for improving ongoing
international political processes;
• Stimulate mutual learning in the context of the EU actions on the theme of
conservation with international bodies such as the UNEP;
• Develop international educational syllabus on sustainable development connected to
conservation of natural resources.



Objective 1: Improving resource efficiency (♦)
For actions regarding the improvement of resource efficiency, there is a noticeable
difference between Member States in how and to what extent the actions taken bear upon
the problem. In fact according to the country reports on their progress, the use of
language by Member States indicates there are more ambitions in this sub-field than
concrete actions being taken. Some Member States do have clear quantitative targets for
increasing resource efficiency and/or bettering materials consumption relative to GDP 93,
however many Member States simply do not focus on this issue and instead devote their
attention to issues connected to halting biodiversity loss, contributing to sustainable
forestry goals or conserving species. There is also no mention made of how best to
translate the measurements of resource efficiency into a system that measures
environmental pressures that can a) better highlight whether the resource in question
needs to be used more efficiently in the first place and b) further aid Member States to
implement all the ambitions they have shown in this area. More targeted action will also
be needed to reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture to achieve the objectives of
the Water Framework Directive 94.
Objective 2: Gaining and maintaining competitive advantage (♦)

For action on gaining and maintaining a competitive advantage Member States have
chosen various means to achieve this. However, less than half the Member States make
explicit reference to key policy initiatives in this area, which is remarkable in the light of
the strong possible synergies with the Lisbon Strategy. The renewed Lisbon Strategy of
the EU explicitly states that resource and environmental challenges could slow down
economic growth if not adequately addressed. It also mentions two concrete areas, where
environmental and economic goals intersect: (a) employment in European eco-industry
sectors, which already exceeds 2 million and possesses high potentials for further growth
and (b) increased competitiveness through cost savings. However, investing in and
93
The German Strategy for Sustainable Development (German Federal Government, 2002), for example, includes targets with
respect to resource productivity. Aiming for an absolute reduction of resource use, this strategy calls for doubling the 1990
levels of energy productivity and the 1994 levels of resource productivity until 2020. In the long run, Germany aims for a
“Factor 4” development — doubling wealth while halving resource use.
94
Source: UK Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy

developing eco-efficient technologies (e.g. Denmark) is a commonly reported method,
while some Member States opt for sectoral approaches, for example developing
sustainable tourist industries (e.g. Ireland). Germany has safeguards in place to maintain
supplies of raw materials for German industry through the raw materials strategy
developed to improve resource efficiency. This is an example of linking the various sub-
components/objectives of this theme in a way that can prove beneficial and is moreover
the ethos behind the integrated approach the EU SDS is aiming for. In general, there is
limited concrete action to speak of by Member States and yet there are many ambitions.
Objective 3: Avoiding overexploitation of renewables (♦)

There is considerable diversity in approaches being taken to avoid overexploitation of
renewables. There are national programmes aimed at sustainable management of lands,
there are also many management plans regarding the appropriate amount of fishing for
Cod and Plaice in the North Sea, as well as implementing the common fisheries policy in
general. Some Member States attempt to control non-point source pollution affecting
renewable stocks through various action plans, while less popular fiscal measures such as
taxing water use in areas where this is a scarce resource is still unusual. A limited
number of countries report key policy initiatives, actions or measures that contribute to
this objective, although there are often ambitions and qualitative targets set out for the
future. Currently, not all the reports are systematic in their approach to reporting on
renewable resources. Overall, sectoral policies that are related to forestry and agriculture
will be key to seeing real progress in achieving sustainable use of terrestrial resources as
80% of European land cover is allocated to farms and woodland. A particular hurdle to
overcome in this sub-theme is the fact that many different drivers of renewables
exploitation across various sectors of the economy are at play.
Objective 4: Halting biodiversity loss (♦♦)

For action regarding the themes related to conservation of biodiversity and halting
biodiversity loss, most countries have set in place actions that will designate land as
nature reserves under the auspices of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas and the
EU Habitats Directive within varying implementation phases. Marine areas under
protection are increasingly common where appropriate, and this can be considered a
worthy development. The share of protected natural areas varies considerably between
member states however; for example in Romania the share was 8% in 2005 95 while in
Slovenia the share is currently 35.5% 96; although this does not take into account the
growth of the share in protected areas as well as the many underlying factors relative to
each MS about their ability to designate and protect nature reserves - not to mention the
actual results and further outcomes of these types of intervention. In this sense it is
becoming increasingly clear that biodiversity indicators should better match the
objectives of the EU biodiversity strategy. Currently, the amount of land of a territory
that is designated as protected does not really tell us much about the ecological robustness
of the terrestrial ecosystem or of the different ecological scales that operate there. Based
on IUCN-World Conservation Union criteria for threats of extinction, between 10% and
50% of well-studied higher taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers and
cycads) are currently threatened with extinction and approximately 147 vertebrates and
95
See Country Report for Romania
96
See Country Report for Slovenia

310 invertebrate species that occur in the EU25 are considered to be globally
threatened 97. Thus it is not clear that this will change for the better with the policies
prescribed within the MS reports. What remains equally unclear is the progress being
made by Member States as to which extent connectivity between nature areas and
especially between nature reserves across trans-national boundaries are being taken into
consideration as well.
Objective 5: Contributing to UN goals on forestry (♦♦)

There is plenty of progress being made in the area of sustainable forestry and in particular
contributing to the UN goals on forestry. There are EU-wide increases in the amount of
forest reserves being designated, while the procurement rules of national governments
have been tightened so sources of timber being used are certified as sustainable.
Inventories of forests and their contribution to storing greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide have been carried out in many Member States, while particular Member States
(especially in the Mediterranean regions) have set up national plans for tackling forest
fires. Yet concrete key policy initiatives appear to be modest in countries such as France,
Spain or Greece – which have all suffered to various degrees from forest fires this
summer. The linkages between forestry and biodiversity and renewable resource
efficiency is not clearly defined by Member States, which is a pity as this is an areas
where the inter-linkages between the sub components of this theme and indeed between
the broader themes could be made explicit. Again as in other themes under natural
resource management, a potential weakness of this theme is the lack of nuanced
indicators that can adequately reflect the quality and quantity of forestry user services and
the ecosystem services that flow from these biomes too.
Objective 6: Avoiding the generation of waste (♦)

Action to avoiding the generation of waste and to deal effectively with waste is becoming
increasingly geared towards prioritizing recycling. National plans have been put in place
that also set ambitious targets for reducing household waste and that increase recycling of
materials. The degree to which separation of different materials occurs for recycling is
difficult to ascertain from the country reports. There is also the problem of variation
within Member States due to regional disparities in the laws concerning waste disposal.
Member States have recently started to tax for instance combustion of household waste in
order to increase recycling; others have started to tax land fill sites to achieve similar
effects. Despite progress in a number of countries, overall reporting under this heading
remains modest.
b. What are the latest developments in Member State action to tackle the
challenge/problem
For action concerning the conservation of natural resources in general there are three
different potential points of intervention:
• Resource extraction/imports;
• Production and consumption;
• Management of wastes and emissions.
97
Source EEA, 2005

Examples of types of above interventions:
• Some countries have introduced raw material taxes on the extraction of minerals e.g.
sand, gravel, limestone (also licenses for extraction of certain raw materials);
• Some countries focus on Integrated Product Policy (IPP) targets production and
consumption: e.g. directive on energy performance of buildings. Also economic
instruments such as water pricing falls under this category;
• Waste phase: An emission standard for waste treatment facilities, e.g. landfill and
incineration directives. Other instruments: the UK has introduced landfill tax, which
provides incentive to recycle more waste.
The contribution to the EU SDS according to the Member States’ progress reports is
varied. Some Member States have - more than others - incorporated various aspects of
sustainability policy into relevant conservation themes. Sweden and Germany stand out
for having taken significant measures within the different objectives of the theme of
natural resource management: Germany in particular setting out quantitative targets for its
goals on resource efficiency and targeting absolute reductions in material intensity of its
industrial activities. Portugal is also highlighted here as having many planned measures
that are linked to the EU SDS. Even though it has not necessarily implemented all the
measures while this report was being written, the progress report gives a strong signal that
there is strategy being developed that is holistic and moreover is due to the perceived
need for such a strategy. However, there are Member States which seem to be not as
clear in how they plan to proceed and have not prioritised the EU SDS into their policy
programming period (for 2007-2013).

• Approaches are not integrated;
• Policy response tends to be restricted to the most convenient of the three intervention
areas which should actually be tackled together;
• Costly investments may not be the most efficient way to make sustainability
practical;
• Competitiveness fears;
• Tax raising measures rather than real environmentally-friendly measures.

The EU is facing natural resource conservation challenges which are inextricably linked
to how to maintain and increase economic growth with current unsustainable patterns of
economic development. Europe has high absolute and relative levels of material intensity
and this drives increased resource extraction and use. A major and obvious challenge is
how resources should be used more efficiently, but also how to monitor the process of
natural resource extraction shifting to non-EU states as the EU imports more of its
requirements from abroad.
A variety of policy options is available to support better management of natural

resources, which if used in an effective manner can contribute to reduced impacts on
natural resources from continued economic growth. These commonly include economic

measures such as ecological fiscal reforms (e.g. material input and energy taxes), reforms
of the subsidy systems (e.g. temporary support for development of new eco-efficient
procurement. Focussing on key sectors that are either directly (e.g. mining, agriculture,
fisheries) or indirectly responsible for large amounts of natural resource extraction (e.g.
energy, transport, and industry) will benefit the efficiency of the selected mix of
instruments as well. There seems to be a tendency by Member States to report on and
weight biodiversity strategies and biological conservation more than the other sub-themes
and objectives.
Where resource efficiency is concerned, only one or two countries can point to concrete
measures being taken to improve the current inefficiencies.
Several actions to promote the conservation and management of natural resources have
been undertaken or set up.
Although the dimensions of the problem are of sufficient complexity to make one-size-
fits-all policy prescriptions dangerous, the unsystematic reporting on the progress towards
the EU SDS shows that at least some degree of unification of responses is desirable.
There is no clear definition of the range of policy options available to Member States for
tackling the issues mentioned in this theme, with the associated costs and benefits
attached.

The scope of this theme is probably too large and should be more clearly defined, i.e. the
conservation of nature and biodiversity plays a more prominent role in nearly all the
Member States reports and strategies and should probably be given its own whole theme,
especially when considering the close links between ecosystem services and human well-
being and the resultant ability to conduct economic growth that is in general increasingly
being recognized/emphasised by scientists.
Below are more specific suggested changes to the original EU SDS for this theme:
• Objective 4 (halting biodiversity) is also related to Objective 5 (UN goals on
forestry);
• Objective 1 (improving resource efficiency) is directly related to Objective 2
(maintaining a competitive advantage) as well as being indirectly related to
Objective 4 (halting biodiversity loss);
• The theme of Conservation and management of natural resources is related to
climate change and clean energy, to quality of life of citizens, to public health.
c. Recommendations/comments
The EU should develop indicators to measure progress against international objectives,
which will help position the EU in an international context as desired. The work on
sustainable development indicators by Eurostat should be carried out in conjunction with
other indicator work, including the Lisbon structural indicators and the 6th Environmental
Action Programme thematic strategies as well as UN-specific indicators on sustainable
development.

Develop more quantitative outcome measures (as well as indicators) to allow significant
targets that have been reached to be clearly recognized.
Increase inter-sectoral co-operation and horizontal approaches to tackle specific

objectives such as resource efficiency.
The focus on biological conservation is probably due in part to the relative ease with
which Member States can set aside conservation areas as opposed to tackling themes
directly related to generating economic growth and development, but that also affects the
conservation and management of natural resources – the latter may prove harder and less
popular to implement. There is also no guarantee that current nature reserve policies will
be an effective measure in the long term due to the dynamic nature of ecosystems and
moreover due to the increasing unpredictability of species’ continued habitat preferences
due to climate change. Furthermore, the ease with which Member States can report on
this leads one to the conclusion that the indicators warrant a re-examination of the current
reporting obligations by Member States along with the development of more sophisticated
indicators for measuring biodiversity and ecosystem well-being.

6. Public health
Overall objective: To promote good public health on equal conditions and improve protection against
health threats
• Objective 1: Improving protection against health threats by developing capacity to respond to them in
a coordinated manner.
• Objective 2: Further improving food and feed legislation, including review of food labelling.
• Objective 3: Continuing to promote high animal health and welfare standards in the EU and
internationally.
• Objective 4: Curbing the increase in lifestyle-related and chronic diseases, particularly among socio-
economically disadvantaged groups and areas.
• Objective 5: Reducing health inequalities within and between Member States by addressing the wider
determinants of health and appropriate health promotion and disease prevention strategies. Actions
should take into account international cooperation in fora like WHO, the Council of Europe, OECD
and UNESCO.
• Objective 6: Ensuring that by 2020 chemicals, including pesticides, are produced, handled and used
in ways that do not pose significant threats to human health and the environment. In this context, the
rapid adoption of the Regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of
chemicals (REACH) will be a milestone, the aim being to eventually replace substances of very high
concern by suitable alternative substances or technologies.
• Objective 7: Improving information on environmental pollution and adverse health impacts.
• Objective 8: Improving mental health and tackling suicide risks.
In many ways, public health is a theme that increases in significance. It has strong
relations with both environmental and social objectives – as well as economic themes. Its
place in the EU SDS, therefore, appears to be well justified.
6.1 Main challenges
a. Emerging challenges facing the EU

Apart from the emerging or re-emerging threats such as avian influenza and tuberculosis,
increasing infection rates of serious communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, the EU is
facing big challenges related to health determinants: lifestyle; influences within
communities which can sustain or damage health; living and working conditions and
access to health services; and general socio-economic, cultural and environmental
conditions 98.
98
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/healthdeterminants_en.htm.

The emerging challenges are mainly related to the ageing of its population and the
increasing trends in lifestyle related diseases linked with obesity, physical inactivity, and
tobacco and alcohol consumption. There is also evidence that factors such as particulate
matter in the air, noise and ground-level ozone damage the health of thousands of people
every year 99.
Environmental pollutants, including pesticides, endocrine disruptors, dioxins and PCBs

persist in the environment, accumulating over time and we do not know enough about
their long-term effect on health 100.
Regional disparities exist throughout the EU in relation to health environmental

problems. Examples include the prevalence of waterborne diseases and exposure to
outdoor pollution 101.

Seven leading risk factors are responsible for the burden of ill health due to non
communicable diseases 102. With the exception of tobacco all other risk-factors are either
directly or indirectly related to nutrition (overweight, low fruit and vegetable intake, high
cholesterol, high blood pressure, little physical activity and alcohol consumption).
Tackling major health determinants is therefore of great importance and a prerequisite for
reducing the burden of disease and promoting the health of the population. Health
determinants are amenable and can be influenced through policy interventions in different
sectors and policy making areas, including transport and environment (air pollution,
occupational factors, ultraviolet radiation and the built environment) 103.
The expectation that prevalence figures of depression will rise dramatically is a big
concern for the population 104. In addition to its contribution to ill health, mental health is
a crucial component of economic growth.
The safety of products and services — including food safety and rapid food alerts — are
key priorities. In this respect, health and consumer protection policies are connected.
Environmental and health policies also need to work in tandem to achieve a high level of
health protection 105. Reducing health inequalities include differences between Member
States, but also differences within them including, for example, social inequalities in
education or employment status which have a clear impact on health106.
99
Partnership for Health in Europe. Available at: http://www.evm-vaccines.org/pdfs/partnerships_health_en.pdf.
100
Reports of the EEA show an increase in asthma and allergies throughout Europe over the last few decades, illustrating the
impact of the environment on health – on average 10% of European children suffer from asthma. Environmental tobacco
smoke and air pollution are major threats, increasing the risk of lung cancer in non–smokers by 20–30%.http:// See:
ec.europa.eu/environment/health/index_en.htm.
101
Commission of the European Communities (2004). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee. The European Environment & Health Action Plan 2004-2010.
COM (2004)416 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
102
In 2002, in Europe, non communicable disease caused 86% of all deaths and accounted for 77% of the regions’ disease
burden.
103
http://www.euro.who.int/mediacentre/PR/2007/20070612_1.
104
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/mental/mental_health_en.htm.
105
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/health_in_the_eu/policies/index_en.htm
106
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/strategy/docs/consultation_frep_en.pdf

c. Problems receiving less attention
From the consultation exercise (2007) on the operational aspects of the new Health
Strategy that was adopted in October 2007 107 it appeared that many respondents said that
European cooperation should be enhanced in a number of fields including health threats
(vaccination and bioterrorism preparedness), health inequalities (gender specific health
promotion), health information and the promotion of healthy lifestyles – especially
nutrition, mental health, and smoking.
Prevention campaigns for improving healthy lifestyles should be targeted towards

particular groups such as children and young people, the elderly, people from minority
groups or people suffering from chronic diseases. Priority areas include obesity,
cardiovascular disease and cancer. Contributors also stressed the need for the
development of a European health information system, making use of reliable data 108.
Other issues include patient safety (healthcare-acquired infections, management of

clinical risks, quality standards and safety of products) and innovation (new technologies
such as personalized medicines and e-Health).

The stakeholders that provided input to the new Health Strategy 109 expressed support for
the approach proposed by the EC:
• Taking action where European added value is clear, and where challenges are of a
cross-border nature 110;
• Health in all policies is needed 111;
• On health threats: Ensure preparedness for health threats and protection of European
citizens through enhanced cooperation between the Member States;
• On health promotion: Using life-cycle and key setting approaches. Focus on health
education to children through schools, information to adults through workplaces and
information to the elderly through targeted tools;
• On health determinants: Focus on areas where Member States could agree on policy
goals and methods to tackle health determinants and inequalities. Examples of short
term objectives mentioned include: a reduction of alcohol and tobacco consumption;
• On health information: development of an information system with mandatory
collection and exchange of information that would be accessible to all;
• On innovation: more support for health research and for geriatric medicines or
neglected diseases. Further development in the field of health technology
assessment.
107
EC (2007) "Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013 (COM (2007) 630 final), see
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf
108
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/strategy/docs/consultation_frep_exs_en.pdf
109
The 153 contributors include Member States and Third Countries, European and international organisations, national and
regional/local organisations, companies, universities and academia, health care professionals and citizens.
110
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/strategy/docs/consultation_frep_exs_en.pdf
111
Ensure that public health is strategically addressed in other EC policies and programmes at all levels.

Mechanisms for implementing the actions above should include:
• Proposals for new legislative developments (alcohol, tobacco and food labelling and
advertisement);
• A mechanism to involve the Member States;
• Training in Health Impact Assessment;
• Broadening the mandate of some existing European agencies (ECDC, EMCDDA 112);
• Creation of new agencies, for example, European regulatory agency on tobacco and
nicotine products;
• Extending the use of centres of reference;
• European guidelines (exchanging best practice), for example implementation of
national policies for specific diseases;
• Council Recommendations in the field of prevention of major diseases, comparable
information, health promotion and education on healthy lifestyles.
Participants of the “Environment and Health in Europe Advocacy and Capacity Building
Training Programme”, held in 2005 113, mentioned that the main policy actions in the area
of environment and health in the next 3-5 years should focus on:
• EU chemicals legislation - REACH (cosmetics, hospitals, home products);
• Information system on Environment and Health 114;
• Children’s Environment and Health Action Plan for Europe (CEHAPE);
• Primary cancer prevention;
• Transport and urban environment;
• Indoor air pollution;
• Injuries;
• Climate change;
• Aarhus Convention 115 and the right to know;
• Use of independent research and data;
• Precautionary principle;
• Pesticides and agriculture policy (ILO 194);
• Organic foods: hospitals and schools and mercury.
b. Recent changes in this view

There is a call for outcome and process indicators to monitor progress towards clear
objectives. These should be defined in cooperation with Member States and international
organisations, such as WHO.
Use of the Health Life Years (HLY) indicator is stressed 116.
Success of strategies/actions will depend on the added value to the Member States,
including regional and local authorities.
112
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
113
http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/EEN_PSR_Advocacy_training_report_final_english.pdf.
114
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/health/integrated_en.htm.
115
This Convention is an international agreement which lays down a set of basic rules to promote citizens’ involvement in
environmental matters and improve enforcement of environmental law (http://www.epha.org/r/48).
116
The HLY indicator is seen as a useful benchmarking instrument with regard to the health situation and health promotion
between and within Member States, and can serve as relevant input for policies regarding labour market participation,
pensions, health condition and lifestyles.

Member States should be responsible for providing data, while the Commission should
provide a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating progress.
Importance of shifting the emphasis in global health actions from international

cooperation based on development aid to partnerships based on solidarity and guided by
the needs of the beneficiary countries.
There is a need to develop of a political mechanism to support cross-sectoral work 117.
6.3 EU action

The EC is developing a new health strategy which aims to provide an overarching
strategic framework spanning core issues in health as well as health in all policies and
global health issues 118.
Objective 1: In 2005, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control was set up
- as a decentralised agency of the EU - in part to improve the coverage and effectiveness
of existing dedicated networks between Member States for the surveillance of
communicable diseases on which Community actions should be built 119 120.
Objective 2: The European Commission aims to put in place a comprehensive nutrition

labelling policy that is responsive to the Lisbon Strategy’s agenda of better regulation for
Europe, and that helps consumers make healthy, sustainable dietary choices 121.
Objective 3: Proposal for a Commission Communication on the Community Animal

Health Policy (CAHP) Strategy for the 2007-2013 is planned to be adopted late 2007 122.
Objectives (1), 4 and 5: In 2007, a new proposal for a European Parliament and Council
Decision establishing the Community Programme for Health 2007–2013 was adopted by
Council and Parliament. The objectives of the new PHP are to:
• Improve citizens' health security to protect citizens against health threats;
• Promote health for prosperity and solidarity to foster healthy active ageing and to
help bridge inequalities, with a particular emphasis on the newer Member States;
• Generate and Disseminate Health Knowledge in areas where the EU can provide
genuine added-value in bringing together expertise from different countries, e.g. rare
diseases, cross-border issues related to cooperation between health systems, gender
health, children's health and mental health 123.
117
http://www.euro.who.int/envhealth/data/20060320_1.
118
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/strategy/health_strategy_en.htm.
119
Decision No 2119/98/EC EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for
the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (OJ L 268/1, 3.10.1998).
120
General presentation of ECDC, 2005.
121
Rabinovich L, Tiessen J, Van Stolk C, Tsang F (2007). Impact assessment of the revision of EU nutrition labeling legislation.
DRR-4253-EC. Santa Monica: RAND.
122
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/roadmap_en.htm
123
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/pgm2007_2013_en.htm.

Specific EU actions in 2007 include, for example, a Green paper “Towards a Europe free
from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level” 124 and a White Paper on physical
activity and nutrition: “A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity
related health issues.” 125
Objective 6: The Public Health Programmes (PHP) support the establishment of

networks to analyse the existing scientific knowledge and to assess the consistency and
the progress made in the implementation of the Community’s Health and Environment
legislative framework.
In 2006, the REACH Regulation was adopted focusing on gathering information on

toxicological properties of chemicals. Another concrete step forward is the proposed
directive for the sustainable use of pesticides (provisions for banning the use of pesticides
in and around areas where vulnerable groups are more exposed) 126.
Objective 7: DG SANCO, along with partner institutions from eleven Member States, has
also supported the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health in coordinating
the project ‘Implementing Environment and Health Information System in Europe:
ENHIS’. The aim is to create a comprehensive information and knowledge system to
generate and analyse environmental health information.
Objective 8: In 2005, a consultation exercise on the Green Paper ‘Improving the mental
health of the population – Towards a strategy on mental health for the European Union’
was undertaken 127. The results of the consultation exercise provide input for a strategy
on mental health that the EC is developing.

EU competence - this calls for innovative combinations in actions involving all levels,
available mechanisms and relevant actors.
Joint actions and co–operation on health issues across Commission services is overall
fragmented and should be further strengthened.
Setting European targets is only useful in those cases where it is possible to be clear about
who delivers the results and how and where comparable data exists.
With regard to PHP, there is risk to the sustainability of the results in the mid and long
term 128.
124
EC (2007) Green Paper "Towards a Europe free of tobacco smoke – policy options at the EU level (COM (2007) 27),
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/Tobacco/Documents/gp_smoke_en.pdf
125
EC (2007) White Paper "A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues (COM (2007) 279
final), see http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/nutrition/documents/nutrition_wp_en.pdf
126
http://www.env-health.org/a/2605.
127
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/mental/green_paper/consultation_en.htm.
128
Oortwijn WJ, Ling T, Mathijssen J, Lankhuizen M, Scoggins A, Van Stolk C, Cave J (2007). Interim evaluation of the Public
Health Programme 2003-2008. Final Report. Santa Monica: RAND.


Objective 1: Improving protection against health threats (♦♦)

In several Member States, much attention is being placed on the preparedness for
influenza epidemics and pandemic preparedness (Austria, Finland, Hungary, Italy,
Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Sweden). From the literature we know, however, that only
two Member States of the EU25 lack such a preparedness plan 129. Countries have also
reported on measures to combat and prevent HIV/AIDS (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary,
Luxembourg, Romania, Sweden). Spain refers to actions to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria
and tuberculosis in Africa and Latin America. Also, Ireland participates in an
international working group on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In some New
Member States, there is a continuous need to focus on tuberculosis (Bulgaria, Estonia,
Lithuania, and Romania). Limited information due to poor reporting on this subject has
taken place by Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia,
Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the UK.
Objective 2: Further improving of food and feed legislation (♦♦)

After a number of turbulent years (2002-2004), most Member States prefer to focus on
the implementation of earlier policy initiatives, such as current mandatory food labelling
requirements and eventually introduce legislation on the legibility of labels 130. New
initiatives have been recorded in the UK notably, where a food industry sustainability
strategy was taken forward. With regard to feed legislation, three Member States
reported on specific actions. Greece has implemented a Ministerial Decree regarding
undesirable substances in animal nutrition, Malta introduced animal feed rules in 2005,
while Slovenia introduced the Animal Feed Act in 2006.
Objective 3: Promote animal health and welfare standards (♦)

Based on the reports, animal welfare is a concern for less than half the Member States.
Common initiatives are taken in the area of reporting, monitoring, inspection (e.g. animal
129
National pandemic influenza plans currently available on the Internet: http://www.ecdc.eu.int/Influenza/National_
Influenza_Pandemic_Plans.php
130
Tiessen J, Rabinovich L, Tsang F, Van Stolk C (2007). Impact assessment of the revision of EU horizontal food labeling
legislation. DRR-4552-EC. Santa Monica: RAND.

movements) and vaccination. Active countries in this area are Austria, Belgium, Greece,
Italy, and the UK. Sweden reports on its participation in EU animal health policy, while
various New Member States are implementing legislation in this area (Estonia, Malta,
and Slovenia) as well.
Objectives 4: Curbing increase in lifestyle related diseases (♦♦♦)

Curbing the increase in lifestyle related diseases is a key concern to most Member States.
In the field of physical activity and nutrition, EU Member States recently stated that
‘visible progress, especially relating to children and adolescents, should be achievable in
most countries in the next 4-5 years and it should be possible to reverse the trend by 2015
at the latest 131. In addition, combating alcohol-related harm is a high priority for the
Member States 132.
An increasing number of key initiatives to combat obesity and malnutrition mentioned in

the progress reports focus on awareness and educational programmes targeted at children,
schools and local communities (Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy,
Lithuania, and Spain). The UK goes one step further by establishing regional public
health groups that address health determinants within their region – including socio-
economic drivers. Target groups are also used for ongoing initiatives against smoking
and (illegal) drugs, where legislative proposals play a more important role – e.g. to
restrict smoking in public spaces (Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia, and
Spain). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are also mentioned as lifestyle-related
diseases. Explicit links to national cancer strategies and action plans are made in Cyprus,
Estonia, Hungary, and Luxembourg.
Objective 5: Reducing health inequalities within and between Member States (♦)
Member States appear to be largely unprepared to report on their contribution to this
objective. Clearly, inequalities between Member States are more of a EU than a national
concern. Issues mentioned in this respect are universal access to health insurance
(Estonia, Greece, and Malta) and health care reform (Hungary). Vulnerable groups that
deserve policy attention include HIV patients (Ireland, Italy), minorities (Slovakia) and
disadvantaged socio-economic groups overall (Finland, Spain and UK).
Objective 6: Ensure that chemicals are handled in a safe way by 2020 (♦♦♦)
In 2004, at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health, Member
States made commitments to reduce exposure to environmental health hazards. The
WHO has collected information about how Member States have been doing since then 133.
Clearly, Member States consider this objective important and report on progress, but
most activities undertaken are in the area of monitoring (observatory), registration,
provision of information to industry, and regulation of chemicals – often in the context of
REACH. The actions to reduce the use of chemicals and pesticides (Belgium, Finland)
go one step further.
131
Commission of the European Communities (2007). A strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity related health
issues. COM (2007) 279 final. SEC (2007) 706/2.
132
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/alcohol_en.htm.
133
http://www.euro.who.int/eehc/implementation/20050601_10

Objective 7: Improving information on pollution (♦♦)
A range of awareness actions in this area is taken, such as improvement of websites, and
programmes to reduce exposure of children to chemicals (e.g. Slovakia, Sweden).
Progress has been made in the monitoring of air quality, such as the ozone alarm in
Belgium, Air Quality Index in Hungary, and the Air Quality Strategy in the UK.
Objective 8: Improving mental health and tackling suicide risks (♦♦)

Specific actions related to mental health are action plans or national programmes to
prevent suicide (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta,
Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and UK). Reported suicide risks vary strongly between
Member States and there is no clear evidence from the reports that there is always a
direct relation with key policy initiatives to respond to these. Nordic/Baltic countries
(other than Sweden) appear to fall somewhat behind in this respect.
b. Latest developments in MS Action

Most Member States have policies to support healthy ageing (i.e. focus on health and
quality of life).
• Objective 1: Member States have set up influenza preparedness plans. Only two
Member States of the EU25 lack such a plan 134.
• Objective 2: Most Member States prefer to maintain the current mandatory labelling
requirements and eventually introduce legislation on the legibility of labels 135.
• Objective 3: Better controls of animal movements and improved controls at
Community borders; vaccination policies.
• Objectives 4 and 5: Combating malnutrition and alcohol-related harm is a high
priority for the Member States.
• Objective 6: In 2004, at the Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and
Health, Member States made commitments to reduce exposure to environmental
health hazards. The WHO has collected information about how Member States have
been doing since then 136.
• At the intergovernmental mid-term review in June 2007, countries reported on the
development of children's environment and health action plans and on the
implementation of actions addressing national priorities and goals established in
2004 such as ensuring safe water, preventing injuries and promoting physical
activity, ensuring clean air and an environment free from hazardous chemicals 137.
c. What are the main concerns about the effectiveness of MS action?

The information collected and used by Member States on public health may be very
different (although initiatives such as the PHP and OECD sponsored system of health
accounts help limit this difference) and the categories used for data collection and
evaluating impact vary.
The capacity of Member States to participate in agenda setting and in delivering public
health gains varies.
134
National pandemic influenza plans currently available on the Internet: http://www.ecdc.eu.int/Influenza/National_
Influenza_Pandemic_Plans.php
135
Tiessen J, Rabinovich L, Tsang F, Van Stolk C (2007). Impact assessment of the revision of EU horizontal food labeling
legislation. DRR-4552-EC. Santa Monica: RAND.
136
http://www.euro.who.int/eehc/implementation/20050601_10
137
http://www.euro.who.int/IMR2007.

Incentives vary, in particular on controversial topics such as reproduction and sexual
health. Equally, there are also political sensitivities, especially when dealing with
interventions between Member States and not all Member States being open to
interventions 138.
Better inter-ministerial and inter-sectoral cooperation between the energy, transport,

industry, agriculture, planning, education and most importantly the finance ministries is
needed to ensure a coherent, well-funded and consistent strategy can be put in place and
real health improvements achieved.
Uptake of the HLY indicator within National or Regional Non-Health Ministries is

lagging behind use in National or Regional Health Ministries 139.

The EU is facing big challenges related to health determinants: lifestyle; influences
within communities which can sustain or damage health; living and working conditions
and access to health services; and general socio-economic, cultural and environmental
conditions. The emerging challenges are mainly related to the ageing of its population
and the increasing trends in lifestyle related diseases linked with obesity, physical
inactivity, and tobacco and alcohol consumption. There is also evidence that factors such
as particulate matter in the air, noise and ground-level ozone damage the health of
thousands of people every year. Environmental pollutants, including pesticides,
endocrine disruptors, dioxins and PCBs persist in the environment, accumulating over
time and we do not know enough about their long-term effect on health.
There is strong support for the approach proposed by the EC in this area: Taking action
where European added value is clear, and where challenges are of a cross-border nature;
Health in all policies is needed; Ensure preparedness for health threats and protection of
European citizens through enhanced cooperation between the Member States; Using life-
cycle and key setting approaches. Focus on health education to children through schools,
information to adults through workplaces and information to the elderly through targeted
tools. And on innovation: more support for health research and for geriatric medicines or
neglected diseases as well as further development in the field of health technology
assessment.
Several actions to promote good health on equal conditions and to improve protection
against health threats are undertaken or set up by Member States as well. However, it is
difficult to measure progress towards the EU SDS because:
• There is no baseline measurement available (except for some of the structural
138
Oortwijn W, Ling T, Mathijssen J, Lankhuizen M, Scoggins A, Van Stolk C, Cave J. Interim evaluation of the Public Health
Programme 2003-2008. Final Report. Santa Monica: RAND, 2007. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_programme/eval2003_2008_en.htm
139
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/indicators/lifeyears_awareness_en.htm

• No clear (process and outcome) indicators/targets are defined in the SDS on public
health;
• Some objectives are related to more than one health indicators (e.g. health
determinants: overweight persons, present smokers);
• Health consequences of several environmental hazards are not well understood due to
complex interactions;
• Evidence on (cost-)effective measures is not clear cut in all instances (e.g. awareness
campaigns).

Objective 1 (health threats) is also related to Objective 3 (animal health);
Objective 2 (food legislation) is also related to Objective 4 (life-style related disease);
Objective 5 (reduce health inequalities) is also related to Objective 8 (mental health).
Develop more quantitative outcome measures to support milestones which could chart
progress towards more general public health measures (such as HLY indicator).
In time, develop a monitoring system providing ongoing routine information

demonstrating actual progress against anticipated goals.
Increase cross–policy co–operation, horizontal approaches and initiatives to mainstream

health in all policies, to tackle specific health determinants and major diseases and to co–
ordinate programmes between DGs.
Institutionalise health impact assessment or a similar approach to both mainstream health

and evaluate how other policies affect health.
Co–ordinate better and inform more effectively on all European Community related
health issues to avoid overlaps and improve synergies.
Further coordinated action plans linking health with other policy areas should be
developed to exploit synergies and focus efforts.
Reintegrate the policy areas of public health, health and safety at work, social affairs,
environmental health and enlargement 140.
140
Oortwijn WJ, Ling T, Mathijssen J, Lankhuizen M, Scoggins A, Van Stolk C, Cave J (2007). Interim evaluation of the Public
Health Programme 2003-2008. Final Report. Santa Monica: RAND.

7. Social inclusion, demography and migration
Overall Objective: To create a socially inclusive society by taking into account solidarity between and
within generations and to secure and increase the quality of life of citizens as a precondition for lasting
individual well-being
• Objective 1: Pursuing the EU objective that steps have to be taken to make a decisive impact on the
reduction of the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by 2010 with a special focus
on the need to reduce child poverty.
• Objective 2: Ensuring a high level of social and territorial cohesion at EU level and in the Member
States as well as respect for cultural diversity.
• Objective 3: Supporting the Member States in their efforts to modernise social protection in view of
demographic changes.
• Objective 4: Significantly increasing the labour market participation of women and older workers
according to set targets, as well as increasing employment of migrants by 2010.
• Objective 5: Continuing developing an EU migration policy, accompanied by policies to strengthen
the integration of migrants and their families, taking into account also the economic dimension of
migration.
• Objective 6: Reducing the negative effects of globalisation on workers and their families.
7.1 Main challenges
a. Emerging challenges facing the EU in this area

The main challenge for European citizens is to ensure and increase the quality of life, in
light of the changing demography – in particular the ageing population and increasing
immigration.
In 2005, 16% of citizens in the EU25 were still at risk of poverty, and these numbers have
not improved significantly in recent years. This rate ranged from 10% or less in Sweden
and the Czech Republic to 21% in Lithuania and Poland. Children (aged 0-15) and young
people (aged 16-24) are often at greater risk-of-poverty than the rest of the population.
Women are also more at risk of entering poverty with a rate of 17% in 2005 compared to
15% for men 141. These levels of poverty provide a burden for social security systems that
are under strain already. The fact that poverty is strong amongst younger citizens is
alarming. It co-indices with an increase in school leavers – citizens that are often bound
to remain outside of the regular labour force and that have a high risk of remaining
dependent on the welfare system.
141
Eurostat (2007) "Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe".

The ageing population puts additional strains on Europe's social protection systems. The
old-age dependency ratio (those aged over 65 years as a percentage of the population
aged 15 to 64 years) is increasing, indicating an ageing of the population in the EU25 as a
whole. Eurostat projections show that the ratio will double between 2004 and 2050. By
the middle of the century, there will be one person aged 65 or over for every two aged
between 15 and 64. In the next decades, an ever-smaller working age population will
have to support an ever-greater number of pensioners. Some countries will be confronted
earlier and more strongly by ageing than others. Germany is amongst the fastest ageing
Member States, followed by Italy and Spain.
Figure: Projected proportion of the population aged > 65 in the year 2050 according to various scenarios
BE
BG
CZ
DE
IE
GR
ES
IT
HU
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SK
FI
SE
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Migration poses another fundamental challenge to Europe's future. Overall, immigration

levels to European countries have been increasing – with about 10% over the years 2004
and 2005, and so have they to other advanced Western nations. Amongst Member States,
the UK, Italy and Spain have been receiving most immigrants. In addition, illegal
immigrants are an increasingly important phenomenon – according to some estimates a
cumulative 1% of population in some European countries, 2-4% in Southern Europe but
4% in the United States.
Migrants can contribute significantly to socio-economic development and therefore to

sustainable development, provided their participation in the labour force is successful 142.
This, however, is not always the case as unemployment rates amongst foreign-born is
systematically higher than amongst nationals. In many Member States, unemployment
rates amongst foreign-born is about twice as high as that amongst nationals. This can
142
OECD (2007) International Migration Outlook.

provide an additional strain on social security systems – especially those that are more
generous.
b. Key problems and their relations in this area

Europe faces rapid demographic changes – faster than other world regions. During the
period 2005-2050, the median age of the European Union’s population is projected to rise
by 10 years: from 38 to 48 years. The key problem lies in shortages on the labour market
and the affordability of social security systems, especially those of Member states where
pensions are paid out of current accounts (e.g. Belgium, France, Italy).
The relation between ageing and migration is promising – in theory. Immigrants are
often young and could reduce the old-age dependency and help fund the pension systems
of the future. However, there are several problems with this reasoning, notably:
1. Numbers of magnitude: in order to compensate for the decline in the labour force,
European countries would need to attract almost 90 million labour migrants in the
period 2005-2050, or about 1.5 million annually; this could be easily 2 millions per
year. Even though these levels have been attained in the period 2002-2004, they are
about twice the average immigration numbers from the period 1990-2005. It is
highly questionable as to whether Member States could integrate and absorb such
high numbers over longer periods of time, without facing major social and cultural
crises. 143
2. Labour market mismatch – labour supply from migrants (often low-skilled) will
differ from the demand (mostly high-skilled).
3. Geographic imbalance – ageing and a shrinking population are strongest in rural and
peripheral regions, while migrants are attracted by larger cities mostly – which have
a relatively young population already.
Migrants are often having great difficulties in finding jobs – their unemployment rates are
relatively high and therefore they may draw on welfare more than contribute to it –
depending on the social protection in place.
A further problem relates to the stable numbers of excluded citizens, many of them young
and with income levels at or below the poverty line. Prospects for these excluded citizens
in society in general and on the labour market in particular are limited, as their skill sets
are not sufficiently in demand.
c. Problems receiving less attention overall

Policy attention to the above problems is increasing across Member States. However, the
interlinkages and complexity are not always fully grasped. On migration patterns, strong
differences exist between Member States and generalizations – often driven by popular
pressures – are not always helpful.
143
Rainer Muenz: "Ageing and Demographic Change in European Societies: Main Trends and Alternative Options". SP
Discussion Paper 0703. World Bank

Furthermore, the policy attention to demographic problems is not always translated into
concrete actions. The longer time horizon of these challenges (the 'white elephant') allow
decision-makers to postpone solutions – e.g. when it comes to modernizing social
protection and notably pension schemes.
a. A view from the professional/academic community

The demographic challenges – related to social protection - give European societies a
variety of policy options, each of them with particular pros and cons:
1. Pro-active recruitment of migrant labour and skills; related immigration policies
will have to address potential migrants at working age. If successful, such policies
will inevitably lead to much larger ethno-cultural and religious heterogeneity within
Member States.
2. Rising retirement age; higher labour force participation rates would require a radical
departure from early retirement which in many EU countries has become a
widespread phenomenon. Resistance against such measures is very strong,
especially so amongst organized parts of the labour force (e.g. in France or
Germany);
3. Promote higher birth rates; some European countries (e.g. France, Estonia) are
going quite far in promoting higher birth rates, by providing income subsidies and
child allowances. Short-term effects of these policies are encouraging, especially so
in Estonia, but it is too soon to say what longer term effects will be. Will families
really become larger, or are women simply advancing the moment at which they give
birth?
4. Reform of social protection systems; the reform of social protection systems is
needed, especially in countries where pensions are being paid out of current accounts
(e.g. France, Germany and Belgium).
5. Higher labour force participation of women; in several EU countries there is room
for higher female labour force participation which would require adaptations in the
educational and child care systems allowing mothers to continue their careers. In
many ways, this policy option is strongly favoured from the perspective of the
Lisbon Agenda as well.
6. Higher labour force participation of disadvantaged groups; a stronger involvement
of disadvantaged groups (including disabled) is essential from a social perspective,
however take-up in the labour market is limited only and the overall effectiveness of
measures is likely to be limited 144.
None of the above solutions alone will suffice; a combination will need to be sought.
Furthermore, there is a consensus that decisive responses in the short term are more
effective and powerful than palliative responses that would be implemented only in the
distant future – as a result to acute crises.
144
Rainer Muenz: "Ageing and Demographic Change in European Societies: Main Trends and Alternative Options". SP
Discussion Paper 0703. World Bank

Demographic change and the consequences for society have risen in importance in the
last few years notably. It is also understood to be a cross-cutting theme, which has
impacts on various aspects of economy and society. By now, it is increasingly
understood that European societies will need to adapt to demographic change – rather
than resist it. Demographic change can also provide opportunities, for instance in areas
such as the 'silver economy'.
Demographic change is increasingly seen as a cross-cutting subject, which is of influence

to many economic, social and environmental themes. As such it is not seen as a separate
pillar but a subject that needs to be interwoven with sectoral policies.
Furthermore, there is increasing attention for the need to include local and regional levels
in the demographic debate. Ageing will affect first and above all peripheral and rural
areas, while immigration challenges are strongest in larger cities – and even so in
particular districts 145.
7.3 EU action

The European Commission pays growing attention to Europe's changing demography.
Starting with a Green Paper "Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between
the generations" 146, the Commission put the emphasis on the reduction of people of
working age and the fact that by 2030 roughly two active people (15-65) will have to take
care of one inactive person (65+). The subsequent Commission Communication from
2006 147 explores types of solutions to adjust to this new reality: Promoting demographic
renewal in Europe, promoting employment; amore productive and competitive Europe;
receiving and integrating immigrants and sustainable public finance.
These responses have more recently (November 2007) been incorporated in the
Commission's "Social vision for a rapidly changing 21st century Europe" 148 - which
identifies the needs for investment in a number of areas, primarily by Member States but
with Europe contributing: youth, career opportunities, longer and healthier lives, gender
equality, inclusion and non-discrimination, mobility and integration, culture, participation
and dialogue.
145
See the EC DG Regio conference on Demographic change
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/demographicchallenge_jan07/home_en.cfm
146
European Commission (2005) Green Paper "Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations",
COM (2005) 94 final, see http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2005/mar/comm2005-94_en.pdf
147
European Commission (2006) "The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to opportunity", COM (2006)571 final,
see http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2006/oct/demography_en.pdf.
148
European Commission (2007) "Opportunities, access and solidarity: towards a new social vision for 21st century Europe,
COM (2007) 726 final, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0726en01.pdf

• Most policy responses with regard to the social dimension in general and social
protection systems in particular will need to be taken forward at the level of national
governments, and the ability of the EU to action these is limited;
• The limited progress to date regarding the introduction of a European immigration
policy; despite several policy initiatives taken by the Commission, real progress on
the ground is still rather limited to date; it is difficult to formulate a European policy
in an area where realities, issues, and political views across Member States are so
different;
• As a consequence of this, limited co-ordination action is taken at the EU level to date
to attract highly qualified migrants to Europe – and to convincingly engage in a
battle for talent which will need to be held to develop the future European
knowledge society;
• The fragmented response to ageing; this is clearly a cross-cutting topic that will
influence various domains of EU action (e.g. transport, housing, labour markets,
education, health, rural and regional development);
• Limited involvement from local and regional governments and actors in addressing
the demographic challenges.
c. Positioning the EU in a broader international context

The challenges as portrayed above are particularly strong in the EU, especially
concerning the ageing and the affordability of social protection systems which are
advanced in Europe. The US, Canada and Australia are known to have historically high
levels of immigration and absorption capacity. Particular concerns vis-à-vis the European
situation are the fact that:
• The European population will age much faster than that in the US, Canada and
Australia notably;
• Adjustments to demographic change are relatively slow, as the necessary
modernization of social protection and pension systems is falling behind reality in
many European countries; other OECD countries have less developed and therefore
less rigid protection systems;
• In Europe, the gap between immigrants and second generation citizens on the one
hand and native citizens on the other hand is larger in terms of education and
employment levels 149.
149
OECD (2007) International Migration Outlook.


♦♦ = medium coverage (about 10-/20 countries)

This theme is clearly targeting the social pillar of EU SDS and therefore different in
nature and aspiration. Some countries (Denmark, Poland) consider this theme not to be
part of their own SDS policy.
Objective 1: Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by
2010, focusing on child poverty (♦♦♦)
Most Member States report on their commitment to combat poverty, especially so
amongst children. The common key policy response lies in targeting families as a whole,
and offering them social protection, including income subsidies, housing subsidies and
minimum wage levels. In addition, action plans for social inclusion are frequently
mentioned. Behind these commonalities, differences between Member States are still
strong. Various New Member States are still facing deep pockets of poverty and welfare
systems are often young and under development.
Objective 2: Ensure a high level of territorial cohesion and respect for cultural diversity
(♦)
Only few Member States report on this objective, which includes both territorial cohesion
(e.g. amongst and between urban and rural areas in France, Hungary) as well as
promoting cultural diversity (e.g. Ireland). A particularly comprehensive approach in this
respect is that of the UK's Sustainable Communities – which adheres to 8 principles of
sustainable development at local level.
Objective 3: Modernise social protection in view of demographic change (♦♦)

The scale and phasing of demographic challenges vary significantly between countries,
but the policy responses do so even more. Apart from the single country which states to
be prepared for the demographic change already (Sweden), broadly three types of actions
can be distinguished: a) Reform of the welfare state, where terms for receiving social
assistance decrease (e.g. Czech Republic, Bulgaria); 2) Pension reforms including the
increase of working age (UK, Germany, Belgium, Spain); 3) Specific family planning
actions focusing on the increase of birth rates (Estonia, France, Italy).

Objective 4: Significantly increase the labour market participation of women and older
workers as well as migrants (♦♦)
This objective commonly fits within broader labour market strategies that are often
packaged in National Employment Action Plans already. Limited evidence could be
found that the EU SDS leads to new key policy initiatives – in addition to sector policies
already in place. The importance of this objective is underlined by independent research
stating that an increase in overall labour market participation is strongly dependent on the
ability to include female workers. This objective also demonstrates clear synergies with
the Lisbon Strategy – which adds to its weight.
Objective 5: Develop an EU migration policy – including attention to the economic

dimension of migration (♦)
Countries are reporting to only a limited extent on this objective, often by referring to EC
directives (Greece, Slovakia) or by mentioning national initiatives such as the Irish
Immigration Protection Bill which represents and overhaul of the country's immigration
and protection laws. Limited or no evidence exists about the added value of the EU SDS
in this respect.
Objective 6: Reduce negative effects of globalisation on workers (♦)

Reporting on the objective to reduce negative effects of globalisation on workers is
almost non-existent, apart from France and Finland. For most Member States, this
objective appears to be not concrete or clear enough to provide a basis for reporting.
Objective 7: Promote increased employment of young people (♦)

Unemployment among young people varies strongly within the EU and some countries
which are facing important challenges in this area (e.g. France, Germany) report on the
subject. Typical elements of active labour market policy – often supported by Structural
Funds - include training (Germany), apprenticeships (France), or job guarantees
(Sweden). Limited or no evidence exists about the added value of the EU SDS in this
respect. Quite often, unemployment amongst young males correlates with crime
incidents, especially when concentrated in specific urban neighbourhoods.
Objective 8: Increase labour market participation of disabled people (♦♦)

Member States are clearly concerned and committed to this objective, and reporting is
more comprehensive. Typical actions include both labour market and welfare measures.
Tax deductions for employers are increasingly popular. Limited or no evidence exists
about the added value of the EU SDS in this respect.
b. Latest developments in Member State action

• France is taking forward a Social cohesion plan (€ 12.8 bn. in 5 years) that focuses
on housing, employment and equal opportunities (Objective 1);
• Estonia links the demographic challenges to regional development, and aims to
ensure demographic balance in all regions (Objective 2);
• Belgium has agreed on the implementation of a Generation Pact, which includes
various actions to promote the inclusion of older workers (Objective 3);
• Estonia is promoting strong family policy steps, aiming at an increase of birth rates
(Objective 3);

• Netherlands has organised a Participation Summit (June 2007), that has led to
concrete agreements to increase labour participation by various groups of society
(Objective 4);
• Ireland has overhauled its immigration and protection laws through its Immigration
Protection Bill 2007 (Objective 5);
• United Kingdom has introduced a New Deal for Young People, aiming to help
850,000 people with a job (Objective 8).

• A number of solutions to reducing the risk of poverty and social exclusion go in the
direction of traditional subsidies to the poor, especially so in the EU-12 where these
instruments are still being developed; the effectiveness of this solution alone can be
questioned as it could promote poor citizens to fall in a welfare 'trap'.
• Many policy initiatives related to the modernisation of social protection and pension
systems are still in an early phase; finding agreements in parliaments and in society
overall can be very difficult and it is therefore likely that a number of these policy
initiatives will need to be withdrawn.

The main challenge for European citizens is to ensure and increase the quality of life, in
light of the changing demography – in particular the ageing population and increasing
immigration.
Although the social dimension of sustainable development is not considered opportune by

some Member States (e.g. Denmark, Poland), most countries provide reasonably
comprehensive reporting in this area. The importance of demographic change, social
protection and immigration are increasingly recognised as themes that are vital for
Europe's future. Most attention goes to the reduction of poverty and active labour market
policies – promoting the inclusion of various target groups (older workers, younger
workers, migrants, women and the disabled); this is an important objective not only from
the point of EU SDS but also from the perspective of the Lisbon Strategy and deserves
full support from many perspectives (perhaps apart from sustainable transport angle as it
could lead to an increase in the number of commuters). Indeed, active labour market
policies – resulting in higher participation rates – appear to be a key response to the
demographic, social and economic challenges ahead.

Objectives within this theme do not always sit comfortably together. A tension can be
noticed between the challenge to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty and the
need to modernise social protection in view of demographic change. In some countries
(e.g. the Czech Republic), cuts in welfare reform are explicitly mentioned. Reporting on
the objective to reduce negative effects of globalisation on workers is almost non-existent
and could be deleted unless there is evidence that important (non-reported) actions are
taking place on the ground. The same applies for the attention to territorial cohesion –

which opens again a completely different set of policies that prevents the EU SDS from
focus.
When restructuring the SDS, a stronger focus on a restricted number of objectives appear
to be most crucial for retention, namely:
• Reduce the risk of poverty an social exclusion, focusing on child poverty;
• Modernise social protection in view of demographic change;
• Increase overall labour market participation (including females, younger, older,
disabled, migrants);
• Develop an EU migration policy – including the need to strengthen participation of
migrants in social and economic life.
Limited or no evidence exists about the added value of the EU SDS in this respect
compared to already existing sectoral (social policies). A positive contribution of the
Structural Funds can be discerned in this area, as the Operational Programmes on Human
Resources have a direct link with several of the EU SDS objectives. This link could be
made more explicit.
A stronger focus on the four objectives mentioned above appears to be pivotal to

progress.

8. Global poverty and sustainable development
challenges
Overall objective: To actively promote sustainable development worldwide and ensure that
the European Union’s internal and external policies are consistent with
global sustainable development and its international commitments
• Objective 1: Make significant progress towards meeting the commitments of the EU with regard to
internationally agreed goals and targets, in particular those contained in the Millennium Declaration
and those deriving from The World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in
2002 and related processes such as the Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development, the
Doha Development Agenda and the Paris Declaration on Aid Harmonisation.
• Objective 2: Contribute to improving international environmental governance (IEG), in particular in
the context of the follow-up to the 2005 World Summit outcome, and to strengthening multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs).
• Objective 3: Raise the volume of aid to 0,7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2015 with an
intermediate target of 0,56% in 2010, Member States which have not yet reached a level of 0,51%
ODA/GNI undertake to reach, within their respective budget allocation processes, that level by 2010,
while those that are already above that level undertake to sustain their efforts; Member States which
have joined the EU after 2002 and that have not reached a level of 0,17% ODA/GNI will strive to
increase their ODA to reach, within their respective budget allocation processes, that level by 2010,
while those that are already above that level undertake to sustain their efforts; Member States
undertake to achieve the 0,7% ODA/GNI target by 2015 whilst those which have achieved that target
commit themselves to remain above that target; Member States which joined the EU after 2002 will
strive to increase by 2015 their ODA/GNI to 0,33%.
• Objective 4: Promote sustainable development in the context of the WTO negotiations, in accordance
with the preamble to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation which sets
sustainable development as one of its main objectives.
• Objective 5: Increase the effectiveness, coherence and quality of EU and Member States aid policies
in the period 2005–2010.
• Objective 6: Include sustainable development concerns in all EU external policies, including the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, inter alia by making it an objective of multilateral and
bilateral development cooperation.
Sustainable development is a global affair and the EU SDS is committed to contributing

to a harmonious economic, social and environmental development worldwide.

8.1 Main challenges
a. Emerging challenges
The key challenge is to actively promote sustainable development worldwide and ensure
that the European Union's internal and external policies are consistent with global
sustainable development and its international commitments. It includes the target to
make significant progress of the EU with regard to internationally agreed goals and
targets, in particular those contained in the Millennium Declaration – such as the aim to
reduce the number of people who live on less then $ 1 per day by 2010. Aims that
contribute to this ambitious goal are to raise the volume of aid as a % of GNP and to
improve the quality of aid.
Measuring the progress towards reaching the Millennium Goals is not an easy task, as
these are very broad and as many countries lack the data to monitor progress. Therefore,
in monitoring progress towards the Millennium Goals, the World Bank has opted for a
number of key objectives, namely:
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
2. Achieve universal and primary proportion of countries on their way to half poverty
by 2015;
3. Promote gender equality and empower women;
4. Reduce child mortality;
5. Reduce maternal mortality by three quarters;
6. Ensure environmental sustainability 150.
Nevertheless, the overview provided by the World Bank suggests that these goals are out
of reach for the poorest countries. Poverty eradication is making progress in Latin
America and Southern Asia, but much less so in Africa. More progress is made on
universal education, especially so in Asia and Latin America, but there is hardly any
progress in Sub-Saharan Africa. Latin America makes progress again on gender equality,
and so does East Asia & the Pacific. Sub-Saharan Africa also falls much behind the aim
to reduce child mortality and maternal mortality – areas where other parts of the
developing world show much more progress. Access to water and sanitation is improving
in Latin America and South Asia notably, while various parts of Africa fall behind in this
area as well.
The EU is expected to contribute to reaching the Millennium Goals by raising volumes of

aid to 0.56% of GDP by 2010 and to raise the effectiveness of aid.
150
World Bank http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/GMIS/gdmis.do?siteId=2&menuId=LNAV01HOME4

Table: Progress towards the Millennium Goals

Another aim of the EU SDS is to promote sustainable development worldwide. However
the global environmental challenges appear to be mounting. There is increasing evidence
that developing countries are likely to suffer from climate change in more than one
respect. Climate change is already likely to undermine food production in the developing
world, as crop yield potential is likely to decline as a consequence of global temperature
rises 151.
A recent OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 report 152 adds to this that growing
biofuel demand is likely to raise commodity prices in a 'food versus fuel' issues, with
detrimental effects for food importing countries notably. The International Grain Council
reports that the world's grain stocks (corn, wheat, barley) are approaching their lowest
levels since the 1970s, due in part by the soaring demand for biofuels. Increases in cocoa
prices have been recorded as well.
The increasing demand for biofuels globally may also lead to serious environmental and
social problems. Biofuel crops thrive best in tropical climates and the pressure on
deforestation in countries such as Brazil is mounting. Peasants have been evicted from
their land for as well, together with traditional crops 153.
The EU is expected to contribute to addressing these challenges by including sustainable

development concerns in all EU external policies especially in the context of WTO
negotiations.

The fundamental problem in the area of global poverty and sustainable development
seems to be twofold. Firstly, the scale and scope of the problem: the effects of global
warming on developing countries are of a scale beyond the intervention power of any
single nation and the longer term effects are very uncertain.
A second key problem lies in the tensions between developmental goals – taking into
account the still expected population growth, the related demand for resources and the
environmental concerns. The Millennium Goals themselves are largely contradictory;
economic development needed to alleviate poverty will lead to an increase in industrial
outputs, consumption of cereals and meat and above all mobility. Reconciling these aims
in an effective way is a vast challenge.
c. Problems receiving less attention overall

It is above all the impact of global population increase and the expected need for
resources that coincides with increasing levels of prosperity. It is the complexity of the
problems that is receiving insufficient attention; for instance the adverse effects of
increased fuel production on biodiversity and forest preservation; the obstacles that block
developing countries from building a sustainable future; the shortages of water and the
(in-) ability of developing countries to address natural disasters that are likely to increase
as a consequence of climate change.
151
FAO Newsroom Article, 7th August 2007
152
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/10/38893266.pdf
153
See the conference on biofuel assessment, held in Copenhagen on 4/5th June 2007. http://www.biofuelassessment.dtu.dk/


Increasing attention is now also put on the need to increase the quality of aid. In 2005,
the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was endorsed – based on the principles of
ownership, alignment, harmonisation, management for results and mutual accountability.
A first baseline report 154 points to the large number of actors with competing objectives,
the donor driven nature of much support, the need to strengthen country ownership and
the need to strengthen performance assessment frameworks. Ambitious reforms are
called for – both by donors and partners – not least to defend the scaling up of aid as part
of the Millennium Declaration.
It is increasingly understood that not only aid, but also trade is of key significance to
economic development and poverty eradication. In the area of trade liberalisation, the
multi-lateral institution WTO is the recognised body for further progress.

It is increasingly understood that global poverty, economic development, social aspects
and environmental concerns need to be seen in a broader and holistic perspective. The
belief in simple and straightforward solutions has decreased over time and the recognition
that there is a strong need for strategic, longer term approaches which are taken forward
by developing countries themselves – with the support of donors.
Although the attention to climate change and the impact on global development is
important and positive, an increasing number of experts are concerned about the danger
of simplification; other sustainable development concerns (e.g. biodiversity, consumption
and production, public health, natural resources, social dimension) need to receive full
attention as well. An increasing need for sustainable development impact assessments,
which can make explicit the intended and unintended consequences of policy proposals.
8.3 EU action

• EU external policies are increasing in volume and significance and there are clear
movements towards the inclusion of sustainable development ; 155
• In 2006, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission jointly agreed
‘the European Consensus on Development’, recalling that the principal aim of the
European Union's development policy is the eradication of poverty, in the context of
sustainable development , and setting out common objectives, principles and policy
coherence commitments for development cooperation, as well as a renewed
development policy;
• The Doha Development Agenda includes a range of initiatives to end all forms of
export subsidy and substantial reductions in trade-distorting support and agricultural
154
OECD 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Overview of the Results:
www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/monitoring
155

tariffs. Progress on the Doha Round has been limited only, especially after the June
2007 Potsdam conference, where a major impasse occurred between the US, the EU,
India and Brazil 156;
• Efforts to link the environment with trade are being strengthened. The European
Commission has been promoting Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments for some
time now, and a Handbook to this end has recently been prepared 157.

Key concerns relate to effectiveness of aid – in light of the increased support levels. The
2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration showed for instance that:
• The cost of uncoordinated aid is very high; there are too many actors with competing
objectives, especially in the poorest and most aid-dependent countries, leading to
high transaction costs;
• There is still slow progress in untying of aid an technical co-operation is still too
much donor-driven;
• Good headquarters policies are not always matched by in-country practices;
• There is a need to strengthen country ownership; mainly a partner responsibility,
donors can assist by capacity development and alignment on country programmes
and systems;
• A lot of work needs to be done in managing for results; mutual accountability, calls
for performance assessment frameworks and improved incentive systems in both
partner and donor countries 158.
A further concern lies in the impact of various Commission policies on development,

notably the Common Agricultural Policy and in certain cases trade liberalisation.
c. Positioning the EU in this respect in a broader international context

EU Member States comply relatively well with the Official Development Assistants
(ODA) objectives as set by the UN at 0.7% of GNI by 2015. Overall, development aid
from OECD countries fell by 5.1% in 2006, which is related to the exceptionally high
ODA in 2005 due to large Paris Club debt relief – notably for Iraq and Nigeria.
For the EU15 as a whole, the 2006 ODA level amounted to 0.43% of GNP (compared to
0.43% in 2005), slightly above the target that EU Members had set themselves for the
year 2006. Currently, the 0.7 level is within the EU only met by Sweden, the Netherlands
and Denmark. In 2006, significant increases in ODA from EU Member States came from
countries that have relatively low ODA levels (Ireland (+34%), Spain (+20%) but also by
Sweden (+15%), and the UK (+13%). ODA levels are increasing in New Member States
– from low base levels.
The EU-15 is ratio of 0.43% is also considerably higher than the 0.30% of GNP by
OECD-DAC Members overall. For instance, the ODA/GNI ratio in 2006 was only
0.17% for the US, 0.25% for Japan and 0.30% for Canada and Australia.
156
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/newround/doha_da/pr210607_en.htm
157
DG Trade (2006) Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/march/tradoc_127974.pdf
158
OECD (2006) Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration – Overview of the Results. Paris.


♦♦ = medium coverage (about 10-/20 countries)

a. Progress by Objective
Objective 1: Make significant progress toward meeting the commitments with regard to
international goals (especially Millennium Declaration) (♦♦)
Despite the political importance attached to this objective, only a limited number of
countries report about concrete key policy initiatives in this area. Clearly, the Millennium
Goals as such are difficult to monitor and live up to in practice as they are very broad in
nature. In this respect, the Netherlands reports about the need to strengthen the coherence
between various international goals. Germany reports about a 2015 Programme of Action
including ten priority areas for the fight against poverty, which go beyond the Millennium
Goals, while Greece has introduced a breakdown of its development budget by
Millennium Goal.
Objective 2: Improve international environmental governance (IEG) (♦♦)

A large number of Member States is committed to this objective, specifically by
supporting to develop a UN Environmental Organisation (UNEO) as a further
development of UNEP. Leading in this area are France, Sweden and UK, with support
from Italy and Luxembourg. Some countries (e.g. Netherlands, Estonia) call for support
to a Global Environmental Facility as the key international source to fund environmental
improvements.
Objective 3: Raise the volume of aid to 0.7% o GNI by 2015 and 0.56% in 2010 (♦♦♦)
Almost without exception, Member States confirm their support to the future targets,
while reporting on 2006 levels is less systematic. Significant divergence exists in the
ability to deliver such levels of support up to 2006. Within the EU-15, a distinction can
be made between the countries with high levels of support (above 0.7%, notably Sweden,
Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg) and medium-levels (0.5%). Italy, Greece and
Portugal are having low volumes of aid (0.2% or lower). Some MS have been able to
increase their aid level significantly, e.g. Ireland, while new Member States are starting to
increase aid volumes from low aid levels (typically 0.1%).

Objective 4: Promote sustainable development in context of WTO (♦)
Explicit reference to the Doha Development Round is expressed by only a handful of
countries, while national reports often fail to grasp the latest state of play in this area
(latest WTO initiatives following the Potsdam failure). Denmark announces concrete
initiatives to better link trade and environment – within WTO and beyond, while France
is supportive of environmental social aspects of the WTO dossier. Spain has taken
forward actions to better coordinate trade, aid and human interventions.
Objective 5: Increase effectiveness of aid policies (♦)

Despite overall commitment to the Paris Declaration, only few key policy actions have
been specifically mentioned in this area. Sweden makes reference to a range of actions in
support of the Paris Declaration, while Finland is involved in innovative funding and debt
relief initiatives. Overall, larger donors appear to be more committed to this objective for
understandable reasons (including Luxembourg). Aid effectiveness is also considered
important by New Member States which are building up their development policies and
agencies (e.g. Slovak Agency for International Development).
Objective 6: Include SD concerns in all EU external policies (♦♦)

Member States show their commitment to this objective through various ways. Helping
to build capacity for chemicals management in developing countries (Austria, Sweden),
the integration of climate issues in foreign policy (Denmark, Finland) or by including SD
concerns in regional strategies – e.g. the Mediterranean strategy on SD that was adopted
through French support or the Black Sea Economic Co-operation (Greece).
b. Latest developments in Member State action

While the importance of integrating SD concerns in international co-operation is
undisputed, the theme is very broad and Member States tend to focus on those aspects
that they can influence most directly or that closest to their heart. For instance several
New Member States – in the process of building up their development aid – are
committed to transformation co-operation (Czech Republic) and democracy and human
rights in CIS countries (Lithuania, Estonia). Many countries focus geographically on
their traditional areas of support. Large aid donors clearly take more policy initiatives
while new Member States have the opportunity to build SD concerns into their emerging
development policies.

Despite the overall commitment to actively promote sustainable development worldwide
and ensure that the EU's internal and external policies are consistent with global
sustainable development, the impression that emerges from the national reports is that this
objective is far beyond the scope of individual Member States attention. Member Stats
tend to focus on specific themes or geographic regions that are particularly important to
them – which may lead to a rather patchy approach and not necessarily a good basis for
monitoring overall progress in this area. This is in itself already a coordination challenge
for which a UN Environmental Organisation could be called for. Beyond the horizon lie
new and complex challenges – the social and environmental impact of the demand for
bio-fuels, the increased demand for commodities from emerging markets and their
interrelations.


The fundamental problem in the area of global poverty and sustainable development
seems to be twofold. Firstly, the scale and scope of the problem: the effects of global
warming on developing countries are of a scale beyond the intervention power of any
single nation and the longer term effects are very uncertain. A second key problem lies in
the tensions between developmental goals – taking into account the still expected
population growth, the related demand for resources and the environmental concerns.
The Millennium Goals themselves are largely contradictory; economic development
needed to alleviate poverty will lead to an increase in industrial outputs, consumption of
cereals and meat and above all mobility. Reconciling these aims in an effective way is a
vast challenge.
Despite the overall commitment to actively promote sustainable development worldwide

and ensure that the EU's internal and external policies are consistent with global
sustainable development, the impression that emerges from the national reports is that this
objective is far beyond the scope of individual Member States attention. An overall
statement about the progress on this objective is therefore not possible. Member States
tend to focus on specific themes or geographic regions that are particularly important to
them – which may lead to a rather patchy approach and not necessarily a good basis for
monitoring overall progress in this area. A broad support basis is therefore emerging
amongst MS for the establishment of a UN Environmental Organisation. Within the light
of expected and targeted increases in ODA, a stronger emphasis on the effectiveness and
efficiency of such aid would have been expected (Paris Declaration). Those Member
States that are currently building up their external development aid strategies have a
unique opportunity to include the SD dimension immediately – yet there is little sign that
this is actually happening.
Beyond the horizon lie new and complex challenges – the social and environmental
impact of the demand for bio-fuels, the increased demand for commodities from
emerging markets and their interrelations.

The current structure of objectives appears to be unbalanced and there is significant scope
for reformulating and repackaging these objectives. We suggest the following structure:
• Objective 1: Contribute to the Millennium Goals, as a wider objective, it is
suggested to specifically focus on those measurable aims and to take account of the
six World Bank objectives referred to in this Chapter; a specific objective regarding
the EU intervention then needs to clearly see how development assistance can
effectively contribute to this goal; simply measuring ODA/GNI appears to be
insufficient and it is essential to promote effectiveness of aid in line with
• Objective2: Promote worldwide sustainable development across Community
policies; taking into account sectoral Community policies including CAP and Trade
policies; promoting sustainable development impact assessments for Commission
policies that can affect this objective.

c. Recommendations/comments on the theme
A need to focus on the objectives and to distinguish between wider objectives (beyond
the reach of the EU as a whole) and specific objectives (referring to EU objectives).

9. Cross cutting policies
By formally giving the cross cutting themes the same rank as the seven key challenges,
the EU SDS of June 2006 makes clear that it attaches equal importance to them.
However, in contrast to the seven key themes discussed so far, the EU SDS often falls
short of providing a clear frame of reference against which progress on the cross-cutting
themes can be measured. On the whole, objectives and goals to be reached are
formulated in a more ambiguous and rather noncommittal way when it comes to
assigning responsibilities. These circumstances are reflected in the structure of the five
following chapters which depart from the objective based assessment of previous chapters
and assess EU and Member State action in a more general way.
The overall assessment of progress made by the MS on the cross-cutting themes,

provided in the following sections, is mostly based on the information given in the MS
progress reports. However, the majority of Member States have not reported
exhaustively on their activities in these areas. Therefore, it cannot be entirely ruled out –
though considerable effort has been made to do so – that the information this assessment
is based on does not accurately reflect the de facto situation in each of the 27 MS.
9.1 Education and training
Education is a prerequisite for promoting the behavioural changes and providing all citizens with the key
competences needed to achieve sustainable development. Success in reversing unsustainable trends will to a
large extent depend on high-quality education for sustainable development at all levels of education
including education on issues such as the sustainable use of energies and transport systems, sustainable
consumption and production patterns, health, media competence and responsible global citizenship.
Education can contribute to greater social cohesion and well-being through investments in social capital
and by ensuring equal opportunities, citizens´ participation especially of disadvantaged groups to achieve a
higher degree of awareness and understanding of the complexity and many interdependencies in today's
world. Education that provides women and men with competences that increase their employability and lead
to high quality employment is also key in strengthening the competitiveness of the EU.
On the basis of the Communication "i2010 - A European Information Society for Growth and Employment",
the Commission and Member States should address issues such as equal opportunities, ICT skills and
regional divides.
In the context of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014), Member States
could further develop their national action plans, making in particular use of the “Education and training
2010” work programme, whose objectives are focused on quality and relevance, on access for all and on

the openness of systems and institutions to society and the wider world. Member States could develop
education for sustainable development and targeted training for professions in key sectors such as
construction, energy and transport. Special attention should be devoted to teacher training. They should
also implement the UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development adopted in Vilnius in 2005.
Education for sustainable development should also be promoted at EU level. The European Parliament and
the Council will adopt an integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning for 2007-2013 in
2006.
a. EU action
Combining consideration for social justice, environmental compatibility and economic
growth, education lies at the heart of sustainable development. Therefore, Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) plays a key role in triggering the intellectual and
behavioural changes required to bring about a shift towards more sustainable
development patterns. In the international context, the UN "Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (2005-2014)" (DESD) provides the overarching policy
framework. The overall goal of the DESD is to integrate the principles, values, and
practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning.
The key EU document in the area of education is the "Education and Training 2010"
work programme 159. It represents the EU's education and training policy contribution to
the Lisbon Strategy and – among other objectives – aims at improving the quality and
effectiveness of education and training systems in the EU, and at making education in the
EU more inclusive, by widening participation and promoting equity. As a result of the
work programme, the new Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) 160, adopted in October
2006, has been brought on the way. The LLP integrates the EU's various educational and
training initiatives under a single umbrella. The second call for proposals under the
different lines of the new programme was launched in late 2007. To "reinforce
sustainable development, including issues relating to energy and climate change, through
actions in all sectors of education and training" 161 is one of the strategic priority areas of
the programme for the period from 2008-2010. Environmental learning and education
also forms part of the agenda of some of the LLP sub-programmes like Leonardo da
Vinci (vocational education and training), the Comenius action (school education), as
well as Grundtvig (adult education).
Another EU-level education initiative that relates to SD, the new "European
Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning" 162 (EQF), was officially launched on 26
November 2007. The EQF will link countries' qualifications systems, acting as a
translation device to make qualifications more readable to Member States, employers and
individuals. In so doing, it will make it easier for individual citizens to move to another
country to work or study. It is also set to open-up new pathways in the Member States'
education systems. At the national level, the EQF will promote the development of
national qualifications frameworks (NQFs), designed to promote lifelong learning, for
159
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html
160
http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/index_en.html
161
http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/call08/prior_en.pdf
162
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/eqf/index_en.html

example, by making it easier for people to move between different types of education and
training institutions.
b. Member State action

Education and training is among the cross-cutting themes that have received considerable
attention in the progress reports. Overall, a broad consensus that it plays a key role in
achieving a shift towards more sustainable development is reflected in the reporting. The
notion that it is essential to "promote behavioural changes and provide all citizens with
key competences needed to achieve a sustainable development" 163 is generally well
captured. However, the dominant stream of reporting shows a strong focus on school
education and a certain neglect of adult- and continuing education, as well as vocational
education and training. In many reports, the role education and training are to play in the
concept of SD is merely confined to teaching about the environment and the importance
of its preservation. This approach does not sufficiently acknowledge the breadth of the
SD concept. This may also account for the fact that in many cases MS are not reporting
on measures undertaken and progress achieved in the areas of teacher training and equal
opportunities, as well as ICT skills and regional divides. However, these are the
components that distinguish the broader SD approach from a more narrow environmental
protection approach.
In many cases, detailed information that would allow for putting a certain initiative into
perspective (e.g. scope and timeframe of a policy measure) is not given in the reports.
This makes it essentially hard to determine to what extent a certain initiative contributes
to reaching the goals of the EU Strategy. On the whole, efforts to promote the concept of
SD through education and training are made in all MS who report on this theme. The
depth and stage of implementation of these initiatives, however, differs widely. While in
some MS aspects of SD already form part of the nationwide curriculum on various levels
of education for years, others are still at the stage of developing curricula and are just
about to introduce the concept into teacher training. Austria, Denmark and Finland are
examples of MS where ESD has been incorporated into education and training to a
relatively high degree. In most cases, however, the reports are dominated by information
on pilot projects and other exercises of rather limited scope.
Though the short period between the introduction of the EU SDS and the first round of
progress reports only allows for very limited direct comparison of the progress made on a
country by country basis, more general statements concerning performance can be
derived from the reports and an overall trend become visible. In most MS under review,
the measures to introduce and strengthen the role of SD aspects in education and training
still lack the necessary precision and a clear rationale on how they connect to the goals of
the EU SDS. Some MS, however, have introduced a national action plan or strategy for
ESD that successfully links goals, objectives and measures in the area of ESD (most
notably Denmark and Finland).
163
Council of the European Union (2006) Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy, p.22.

9.2 Research and development
Research into sustainable development must include short-term decision support projects and long-term
visionary concepts and has to tackle problems of a global and regional nature. It has to promote inter- and
transdisciplinary approaches involving social and natural sciences and bridge the gap between science,
policy-making and implementation. The positive role of technology for smart growth has to be further
developed. There is still a strong need for further research in the interplay between social, economic and
ecological systems, and in methodologies and instruments for risk analysis, back- and forecasting and
prevention systems.
It is key in that regard to ensure effective implementation of the 7th Framework Programme of the
European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, involving
academia, industry and policy-makers and to advance the implementation of the Environmental Technology
Action Plan.
For better understanding of interlinkages between the three dimensions of SD, the core system of national
income accounting could be extended by inter alia integrating stock and flow concepts and non-market work
and be further elaborated by satellite accounts e.g. environmental expenditures, material flows and taking
into consideration international best practices.
Universities, research institutes and private enterprises all have an essential role to play in promoting
research that supports efforts to ensure that economic growth and environmental protection reinforce each
other. Universities and other higher education institutions have a key role in providing education and
training that equip the qualified workforce with the necessary competences to fully develop and exploit
sustainable technologies. They should also contribute to low environmental impact management through
interdisciplinary approaches and by building on existing networks. Creation of partnerships and
cooperation between European and third country universities and higher education institutions,
encouraging networking and peer learning, should be promoted.
a. EU action
The difficult task of reconciling high levels of employment and a high standard of living
with sustainable development can only be achieved through a shift from a resource-
intensive to a knowledge-intensive economy. Therefore, research and development not
only play a key role in making the EU more competitive in the Lisbon Strategy, but also
in making it more sustainable in the EU SDS. Additionally, research, especially at the
intersection between natural and social science, can help to take better informed decisions
and minimise the negative effects of new regulation by making economic, environmental
and social impacts more predictable.
The EU has recently launched an ambitious programme designed to supply European

decision makers with a short-term decision support instrument: The Global Monitoring
for Environment and Security (GMES) 164 aims to bring data and information providers
together to help improve the quality, accuracy and timeliness of environmental
information available to decision makers. By combing data from satellites and earth-
164
http://www.gmes.info

based in situ monitoring facilities, the system will make it easier to assess environmental
impacts and also provide forecasting services as well as mapping support for emergency
management.
The Seventh Framework Programme FP7, the EU's flagship programme in the area of
research and development funding for the period from 2007-2013, provides € 1.9 billion
for research into environmental issues under its "Cooperation" funding line 165. FP7 also
funds the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) 166 tasked with providing scientific
and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of
EU policies. The JRC provides important inputs in the SD area through the Institute for
Environment and Sustainability (IES), the Institute for Energy (IE) and the Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).
Another EU funding programme relevant to sustainable development is the

Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) which, in contrast to FP7, focuses on
the innovation activities of European companies. The IEE (Intelligent Energy Europe) 167
funding line provides financial support for R&D activities in the areas of renewable
energy, energy efficiency as well as new energy sources in transport. The budget
available for the period from 2007-2013 is € 730 million.

The EU SDS defines the role of research and development in sustainable development in
a broad way and stresses the "strong need for further research in the interplay between
social, economic and ecological systems" 168. However, this broad approach only found
entry into about half of the MS progress reports. While virtually all MS assign great
importance to research and development in the field of renewable energy, energy saving,
as well as transport technology, the wider context of SD receives insufficient attention.
This narrow focus on supporting research into new technologies does not do justice to the
concept of SD and this section should not be confined to the creation and availability of
technology and knowledge, but also include scientific research concerning its usage and
uptake. A meaningful interlinkage of natural and social sciences to further the cause of
SD is only pursued by few MS. Furthermore the Strategy's call for research into
improved risk-assessment methodologies remains largely unaddressed.
Apart from few exceptions, there is also broad neglect of the Strategy's call for research
into environmental accounting / green accounts and their successive incorporation into
national accounting systems (e.g. material flow and the consumption of natural
resources). Among the few exceptions are Austria that not only started to incorporate
these accounts into the national system, but also built up a strong scientific presence in
this area and Ireland that supplements economic accounts with green national accounts
and satellite accounting approaches.
165
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/environment/home_en.html
166
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm
167
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/index_en.html
168

The fact that this knowledge and expertise is not only applied internally, but also made
available to international organisations and other interested states is a good example of
best practice in this area 169. Germany's FONA research for sustainability framework
programme 170 that brings together a wide range of scientific disciplines is another
initiative with model character 171. Next to its considerable funding base,
multidisciplinary approach and international dimension, it also seeks to involve
businesses, training providers as well as management and labour organisations.
9.3 Financing and economic instruments
The EU will seek to use the full range of policy instruments in the implementation of its policies. The most
appropriate economic instruments should be used to promote market transparency and prices that reflect
the real economic, social and environmental costs of products and services (getting prices right). Their
potential to reconcile environmental protection and smart economic growth and exploit win-win
opportunities should be recognised. Additionally, their suitability should be judged against a set of criteria,
including their impact on competitiveness and productivity.
Member States should consider further steps to shift taxation from labour to resource and energy
consumption and/or pollution, to contribute to the EU goals of increasing employment and reducing
negative environmental impacts in a cost-effective way. In this context, the Commission should gather
relevant information by 2007.
By 2008, the Commission should put forward a roadmap for the reform, sector by sector, of subsidies that
have considerable negative effects on the environment and are incompatible with sustainable development,
with a view to gradually eliminating them.
In order to ensure that EU funding is used and channelled in an optimum way to promote sustainable
development, Member States and the Commission should co-ordinate to enhance complementarities and
synergies between various strands of Community and other cofinancing mechanisms such as cohesion
policy, rural development, Life+, Research and Technological Development (RTD), the Competitiveness
and Innovation Program (CIP) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).
a. EU action
The European Commission attaches high importance to prices reflecting the real
economic, environmental and social costs of products and services. Therefore, the EU
increasingly favours economic or market-based instruments – such as indirect taxation,
targeted subsidies or tradable emission rights – for policy purposes because they are seen
as a flexible and cost-effective means for reaching policy objectives. The Commission
Green Paper on market based instruments 172, published in March 2007, is the main EU
policy document in this area. In it, the Commission calls for an increased usage of
market based instruments in the areas of energy, transport, water management, waste
169
See Austria's National Progress Report p.52
170
http://www.fona.de
171
See Germany's National Progress Report p.13
172
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0140:FIN:EN:PDF

management, protection of biodiversity and reduction of air pollution. In the area of
climate change mitigation, the EU has identified the use of market based instruments as
the most important regulatory approach to reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions.
In the area of better regulation and policy integration, the Commission's system of
integrated regulatory impact assessment was put in place to ensure policy coherence and
to avoid unnecessary regulatory burden. An independent review of the Commission's
impact assessment system 173, published in April 2007, came to the conclusion that the
Commission's overall approach to the three dimensions of impact assessment was
"balanced". However, it also found that "because of the difficulty of identifying and
quantifying certain types of impacts, the analysis of economic impacts is often more
developed and concrete than the analysis of social or environmental impacts". This
means that in practice the environmental and the social pillar are often undermined by a
lack of methodologies and unavailability of data.

As concerns the usage of "economic instruments" to promote SD, nearly all Member
States report an increase or the introduction of taxes related to resource consumption and
pollution. Elements of environmental tax reform were explicitly implemented in
Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia and in the
United Kingdom. However, information on the usage of extra income levied by these
taxes is patchy and only a handful of states report an actual structural shift in taxation
from labour to resource and energy usage, as called for in the EU SDS. Finland and
Austria are two of these few exceptions. While environmental and especially energy
taxation is on the rise, there are no clear signs that the average level of direct taxation,
especially on labour, is actually declining 174. Additionally, the prospect of structurally
higher world energy prices in certain cases seems to have lead to somewhat reduced
appetite towards market-based instruments affecting energy prices.
Efforts to "reflect the real economic, social and environmental costs of products and
services" 175 are also made in form of financial incentive / disincentive schemes to
encourage the adoption of new eco-friendly technology (e.g. particle filters in diesel cars).
The objective of enhancing "complementarities and synergies between various strands of
Community and other co-financing mechanisms through better coordination" is only
touched on in most reports. The progress reports addressing this element of the EU SDS
stay overly abstract and only a minority of states provides information on concrete
measures. Here, mostly France sticks out as a positive example.
173
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/key_docs/tep_eias_final_report.pdf
174
Source: Structure of taxation in the EU (2006).
175

9.4 Communication, mobilising actors and multiplying success
The Commission will mainstream sustainable development in its information, awareness raising
and communication activities and continue, together with other Community institutions, to
organise events and stakeholder meetings on the various strands of the strategy, to disseminate
new ideas and exchange best practices. In this context the Commission should produce a
layman's guide to this strategy, including good practice and good policies in Member States, to
help increase public awareness of sustainable development. Use should be made of valuable
communication tools to measure the impacts of human activities on the earth's capacity to
support life in its diversity.
The Commission should elaborate a concrete and realistic vision of the EU on its way to
sustainable development over the next 50 years. Such a vision should be prepared in a
participatory manner and should identify the main long term objectives and describe
intermediate stages and steps towards their achievement.
Member States have the key role in targeting communication to the most appropriate level.
With regard to the important role of local and regional levels in delivering sustainable
development and building up social capital, it is the overall aim to build sustainable communities
in urban and rural areas where citizens live and work and jointly create a high quality of life.
Approaches like Local Agenda 21 and other processes with broad public participation must be
further strengthened and promoted. Municipalities, cities and towns should be invited to sign
and implement the Aalborg Commitments. Networks at different levels should support these
activities.
In this connection the Commission is invited to elaborate possible options of how to promote the “European
Sustainable Cities & Towns Campaign” which provides an exchange of good practice including the
elaboration of quality criteria, indicators and instruments like impact assessment. The best sustainable
development initiatives taken by regional and local authorities will be awarded prizes on an annual basis.
The Commission will invite proposals from other EU institutions and organisations on how best to organise
this.
Business leaders and other key stakeholders including workers' organisations and nongovernmental
organisations should engage in urgent reflection with political leaders on the medium- and long-term
policies needed for sustainable development and propose ambitious business responses which go beyond
existing minimum legal requirements. A proposal to foster this process will be made by the Commission in
2007. In accordance with the European Alliance for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), awareness and
knowledge of corporate social and environmental responsibility and accountability should be increased.
The EU welcomes civil society initiatives which aim at creating more ownership for sustainable
development and will therefore intensify dialogue with relevant organisations and platforms that can offer
valuable advice by drawing attention to the likely impact of current policies on future generations. In this
context, the EU will also continue to promote full implementation of the Aarhus Convention Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

a. EU action
Engaging the public through effective communication and making European citizens part
of the SD policy process is crucial to the success of the EU SDS. Only where a feeling of
co-ownership of the Strategy can be developed and where a critical mass of people and
societal groups start identifying with the concept of SD can real progress be achieved. In
this context, the European Commission has the task to mainstream sustainable
development in its information, awareness raising and communication activities and also
to organise events and stakeholder meetings dealing with all key aspects of SD.
As requested in the EU SDS, the Commission has recently finished its work on a
layman's guide to Sustainable Development which is about to be published. The guide
includes information on all the seven challenges of the Strategy and provides information
on key EU policies and informs citizens how they can contribute to sustainable
development. Additionally, the Commission seeks to deliver on SD trough approaches
such as Local Agenda 21, concerning SD at the local level, and the Aalborg
Commitments (shared European SD Commitments).

Naturally, the Member States play the key role in communicating the importance of
sustainable development to the European public. In order to be effective, this process
should be targeted to the most appropriate level, which will often be a regional or local
one. Since the shift towards sustainable development necessarily involves trade-offs
among environmental, economic and social objectives, which cannot be taken by
governments alone, Member States must also make every effort to involve all relevant
stakeholders in this process. However, the extent of stakeholder involvement varies
substantially between MS. While many countries introduced ad hoc participation
processes, where stakeholders were consulted in the development of the NSDS,
stakeholders are to a lesser extent involved regarding implementation and further
development of the strategies.
Some countries include stakeholders in special commissions and councils which provide
advice to but are separate from the government bodies which implement the strategy.
These include the Federal Sustainable Development Council (CFDD) in Belgium, the
National Council for Sustainable Development (CNDD) in France, the Council on
Sustainable Development (RNE) in Germany, the National Sustainable Development
Council in Ireland as well as the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) in the UK.
Other countries include stakeholders alongside government bodies as part of their overall
co-ordination structure for sustainable development. These include the Forum for a
Sustainable Austria, the Government Council for Sustainable Development in the Czech
Republic, the National Commission on Sustainable Development in Finland, the National
Sustainable Development Council in Ireland, the Board of Sustainable Development in
Poland, the Council for the Environment and Sustainable Development (CNADS) in
Portugal, and the Commission for Sustainable Development in the Slovak Republic.
Ideally, national strategies for sustainable development should be implemented by bodies
with wide representation from the social partners and other stakeholders to promote
consultation, dialogue and more innovative approaches.

The quality and scope of the reporting under this theme is quite diverse. While some MS
go a long way in describing numerous campaigns and initiatives, others, Denmark for
example, do not report on this theme at all. Even more than under other cross cutting
themes, the link between the activities mentioned and the goals and measures put forward
in the EU SDS seem particularly weak in this area. A clear rationale how communication
and the involvement of various groups of actors can contribute to progress in the SD area
is almost entirely missing. However, it has to be kept in mind that the EU SDS only
offers relatively limited guidance and orientation under this heading. On the whole, no
MS succeeds in outlining a coherent overall strategy as to how large parts of the
population and all relevant groups of actors (especially businesses, social partner
organisations and other societal interest groups) can be reached and involved. As a
consequence, MS frequently report on a range of rather limited and seemingly unrelated
communication campaigns that address certain elements of SD and not the concept as a
whole. Overall, few MS really seem to have the strong ambition to enhance public
perception and participation in SD issues on a broad scale.
9.5 Implementation, monitoring and follow-up
The Commission will submit every two years (starting in September 2007) a progress report on
implementation of the SDS in the EU and the Member States also including future priorities, orientations
and actions. As for the monitoring at EU level, the Commission will, in analysing the state of play with
regard to the challenges described above, draw on a comprehensive set of sustainable development
indicators (SDIs), taking into account the EUROSTAT SD Monitoring Report, to be updated every two
years, as well as on the latest scientific evidence and on developments in relation to key EU activities
(strategies, action plans, legislation).
To ensure both a comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the complexity of sustainable development, the
indicators are to be developed at the appropriate level of detail to ensure proper assessment of the situation
with regard to each particular challenge.
The Commission, in cooperation with Member States through the working group on SDIs, will further
develop and review indicators to increase their quality and comparability as well as their relevance to the
renewed EU SDS, also taking into account other indicator initiatives and focusing on those indicators
marked as most needed.
In 2007 at the latest, and at regular intervals after that, the Council will examine progress with regard to
sustainable development indicators and will consider endorsement of a limited set of indicators for
monitoring the SDS at EU level and for communication purposes.
With regard to the national level, the Commission progress report will build on Member States´ actions to
implement the EU SDS and the results gained from completed Peer Reviews. Each Member State will
appoint a representative acting as SDS focal point enabled to provide, at the latest by June 2007 (and then
at two-year intervals), the necessary input on progress at national level in accordance with National
Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs) and if appropriate taking into account developments at sub-
national level. Best use will also be made of relevant information from other reports by the Member States.

On the basis of the Commission progress report and the contributions of the Council, the December
European Council should review progress and priorities every two years (starting in 2007) and provide
general orientations on policies, strategies and instruments for sustainable development, taking account of
priorities under the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. In that way, results from the EU SDS can
contribute to work in the Lisbon context, including on the integrated guidelines, allowing for coherent
treatment of cross-cutting issues such as climate change, energy efficiency, ageing and social cohesion.
The European Parliament will be invited to contribute views in the context of future progress reviews and
engage in close cooperation with the Council and the Commission to ensure that the EU SDS enjoys the
broadest possible support. The European Parliament could also liaise with national Parliaments. The
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) should play an active role in creating ownership inter
alia through acting as a catalyst to stimulate debate at EU level, and is invited to prepare input to the
biennial progress report of the Commission including a collection of best practices of its members. The
Committee of the Regions could liaise with the sub-national and local levels.
Member States elaborating their first national NSDSs should complete these by June 2007. Future reviews
of NSDSs should be undertaken in the light of the revised EU SDS, to ensure consistency, coherence and
mutual supportiveness, bearing in mind specific circumstances in the Members States.
Voluntary peer reviews of NSDSs should start in 2006 with a first group of Member States. These should
involve officials and stakeholders from other Member States, including national councils for sustainable
development and, where appropriate, international observers. Peer reviews could focus either on the
strategies as a whole or on specific themes. They should also serve to identify examples of good policies
and practices. A subsequent round of peer reviews could start in 2007 with the next group of Member
States. Peer reviews could be supported by scientific evidence through external evaluation.
Member States could make use of the existing European Sustainable Development Network with the aim of
facilitating the exchange of good practices and experiences. It could gather views on specific priority
themes and issues to be discussed by Member States in order to exemplify and document good policies and
practices. This network could also be used to enhance the mainstreaming of sustainable development issues,
vertical integration and coherence between the EU, national and sub-national levels of policy-making.
Member States should consider strengthening or, where these do not yet exist, setting up multi-stakeholder
national advisory councils on sustainable development to stimulate informed debate, assist in the
preparation of NSDSs and/or contribute to national and EU progress reviews. National sustainable
development councils are meant to increase the involvement of civil society in sustainable development
matters and contribute to better linking different policies and policy levels, also by using their network of
European Environmental and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC).
The EU institutions should improve internal policy coordination between different sectors. While the
Council (General Affairs) should ensure the horizontal coordination of the EU SDS, other Council
formations should verify implementation in their respective areas of responsibility. When reviewing
progress, the Council should consider different options on how its work could be further strengthened to
ensure proper implementation of the EU SDS.
At the latest by 2011, the European Council will decide when a comprehensive review of the EU SDS needs
to be launched.

a. EU action
Implementation, follow-up and reporting play a very important role in turning the EU's
and the Member States' commitment to sustainable development, as expressed in the EU
SDS and the NSDSs, into actual progress on the ground. The EU SDS assigns the
responsibility of keeping track of progress to the Commission who, based on the reports
submitted by the MS, reported to the European Council for the first time in late 2007, and
will do so again in 2009 and 2011. Internal responsibility for the EUSDS and all
reporting duties connected to it lie with the Secretariat-General of the Commission. Since
the Secretariat-General's key task is to ensure the overall coherence of the Commission’s
work this seems to be an appropriate decision from an organisational standpoint.
The effectiveness of an SD strategy in achieving its objectives should be monitored

continuously with a set of SD indicators and be reviewed/evaluated in regular intervals.
The results of this process should be considered in the continuous adjustment and the
cyclical renewal of an SD strategy so that evidence-based policy learning takes place.
Therefore, EUROSTAT also plays an important role in the Commission's SD work and is
tasked with further developing a set of sustainable development indicators (SDI) in
cooperation with the Member States. To this end a working group on SDIs, composed of
both statistical and political representatives at national and EU level, was set up. The
group regularly assesses the progress made in developing new and better indicators. A
EUROSTAT report on the current state of its SDI work can be found in annex to the
Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying the Progress Report on the European
Union Sustainable Development Strategy 2007 176.

Setting objectives and measuring progress in achieving them with indicators are two
closely related features. SD indicators are being used and developed in all MS and form
an important part of the NSDS in many of them. However, the degree of their
incorporation into national statistics and their number and grouping into sets, and above
all their usage to inform political decisions and to monitor trends in sustainable
development varies widely. In a recent report 177 on good practices in NSDS of OECD
countries, the OECD highlights the work of Austria, the Czech Republic and Ireland on
indicators and targets. The Austrian SDS specifies 52 indicators in four action fields –
quality of life in Austria, Austria as a dynamic business location, Austria as a living
space, and Austria’s global responsibility – and includes 20 key objectives with
quantified time-bound goals. The Czech strategy outlines two sets of indicators, each
organised according to six categories: economic, environmental, social, research and
development and education, European and international context, and good governance.
One set (116 indicators) is used to monitor progress on specific elements, while the other
(24 indicators) is used in communications with policy makers and the public. The work
programme of the Irish government to develop indicators of sustainable development to
implement the Strategy for Ireland includes the formulation of green national accounts
and satellite accounting approaches to supplement economic accounts.
176
http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/sec_2007_1416_en.pdf
177
OECD (2006) Good Practices in the National Sustainable Development Strategies of OECD Countries, available at:

Only a minority of MS have put their National SD Strategies to a peer review or
participated in the review of another state's strategy. Noteworthy is the fact that the
external evaluation of the Dutch NSDS by a peer review team comprised of
representatives of Finland, Germany and South Africa, executed in 2007, was the first of
its kind under the revised EU SDS. The fact that the evaluation came to the conclusion
that the current Action Programme on Sustainable Development "Sustainable Action"
(2003) "is not a sustainable development strategy" 178 should not discourage other MS to
put their strategies to the same test. An external review should rather be seen as an
opportunity to improve existing strategies and turn them into more useful policy guiding
instruments – a process that is currently under way in the Netherlands.
Most MS have chosen to set up National Sustainable Development Councils or

comparable bodies tasked with the development and implementation of the NSDS.
However, considerable differences exist as to how well these Councils and the NSDS as
such are embedded in the institutional context. The political clout NSDSs actually have
in the national political systems is not reported on very well, but seems to vary
considerably. In this context Finland, France and Germany should be mentioned as
positive examples. In all three countries, the Prime Minister / Chancellor and their
respective offices play a central role in the implementation and development of the
NSDS. This assures a high level of visibility and, since Prime Ministers' offices and the
German Chancellery play a central role in policy coordination and development.
9.6 Conclusions
The cross-cutting themes form an important part of the EU SDS and have been given
equal status with the seven key challenges for good reason. They spell out what is needed
to turn a collection of interrelated, and mostly environmental, policies into a coherent
concept. However, for the reasons outlined below, the cross-cutting themes still play a
subdued role within the overall EU SDS.
Under all five headings, work by the Member States related specifically to SD is at a
relatively early stage and, in many cases, it is still observable in their reports that
considerable difficulties persist in making the link between the cross-cutting policy areas
and the seven key challenges. This apparent lack of a clear perspective, as to what role
these themes play in the concept of SD, brings with it a risk of fragmentation of policy
efforts. To avoid this, and to maximise the impact of the strategy, it would be desirable to
clarify the nature of the cross-cutting themes and, thereby, make more explicit what role
they play in delivering the EU SDS. Currently, the reader of the EU SDS is left in doubt
as to the real nature of these themes and as to how they relate to the seven key challenges.
In this context, it could be beneficial to acknowledge that the cross-cutting themes are
ultimately tools within the overall concept.
178
http://www.iied.org/Gov/spa/documents/NSDS_report.pdf

Developing a long-term vision and setting concrete objectives are two initial key steps of
a strategic process. While a long term vision is certainly present in the EU SDS,
sufficiently concrete objectives are not provided throughout. This especially concerns the
cross-cutting themes. Currently, the objectives put forward in this part of the strategy
often lack a clear addressee, are not measurable, stay rather vague and noncommittal and
frequently do not come with a timeframe for achieving them. In many cases, it is open to
a certain degree of interpretation what exactly is to be achieved under each heading and
what measures are to be taken. The lack of guidance provided by the EU strategy in this
respect obviously leaves Member States guessing which policy initiatives are relevant and
merit reporting. The fact that, in contrast to the seven key challenges, there is no coherent
subdivision into operational objectives and targets on the one side, and actions on the
other, adds to this.
Since the strategy itself often leaves it to the discretion of the MS what to focus on in
their reports, selective and incomplete reporting is often the result. MS whose report
structure is built on an explicit restatement of EU SDS objectives, for example, come to
differing conclusions about what these are – both as to their number and their content 179.
This not only impairs the comparability of efforts made and successes achieved, but also
dilutes the impact of the strategy as a whole. Furthermore, MS often do not succeed in
establishing a convincing link between the activities described in their reports and the
objectives of the strategy.
When it comes to formulating objectives, the strategic management and project

management literature 180 puts forward the idea of SMART objectives, i.e. that objectives
should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timed. Many of the
objectives of the EU SDS contained in the cross-cutting themes would clearly benefit
from a certain degree of focus and clarification in this respect.
179
The progress reports of France and Finland illustrate this claim.
180
See for example: Favell, Ian K. (2004). The Competency Toolkit. Ely, Cambridgeshire: Fenman.

10. Conclusions and recommendations
10.1 Strategic conclusions
1. The EU SDS remains relevant as the key European framework for promoting
sustainable development; sustainable development is becoming increasingly
important in European, national, regional and local policy making. The EU SDS
from June 2006 serves as a useful starting point for promoting sustainable
development in Europe. As such, its ambitions are high, particularly as it aims to be
coherent and broad-based, and addressing the fundamental behaviour of citizens and
firms is far from easy.
2. The EU SDS represents a prioritisation at a specific point in time. Various

sustainable development challenges are competing with each other. The 7 themes
can be considered equal in importance, but in practice the themes 1 and 2 may well
be considered as more important than themes 6 and 7. As of late, the theme of
climate change is clearly racing to the top, while sustainable consumption and
production and public health are also increasing in importance. Other priorities –
such as conservation and natural resource management or sustainable transport –
remain equally vital but there tend to be less key policy initiatives.
3. It is early day to review progress. At the time progress reports were submitted by
Member States, the EU SDS had been adopted just one year earlier. In light of the
need to translate the EU SDS to national practices, this can be considered a short or
even very short time frame for measuring progress.
4. The contexts for Member States is different – there is no one size fits all; The ability
to contribute to themes varies strongly; some Member States are not willing/able to
report on some themes at all – and this is sometimes indeed due to the context. New
Member States often face particular challenges, e.g. in areas of energy conservation
and pollution control. However there is often more scope for progress in the New
Member States. For example, meeting the Kyoto targets in this part of Europe is
eased in the light of the closure of polluting factories.
5. EU and National SD are not the same; a fair amount of countries (about 1/3) prefer
to use structures that deviate from the EU SDS – often relying on the priorities as set
under National SD strategies. This is understandable in the light of the fact that the
alignment of these national strategies to the EU SDS will take time.

6. Signals of success can be recorded in all areas, but progress is overall encouraging in
areas of product lifecycle thinking and minimising waste; increasing the share of
national territory that receives protected status for the benefit of nature conservation;
sustainable forestry initiatives, harder targets for various environmental policy areas
such as energy efficiency, climate change, organic farming, and active labour market
policies. Key initiatives are also taken to curb lifestyle related diseases, pandemic
preparedness, and to improve the handling of chemicals, while Official Development
Assistance is increasing in order to live up to Millennium Objectives more globally.
7. Reporting on various themes falls short and Member States can be reluctant to look
back. Conservation and natural resource management notably is a theme where
reporting is rather weak – there is only limited or no reporting on areas where
progress is limited or where actions are non-existent. Even when taking into account
the various national contexts, some Member States did not to report on specific
themes at all which leads to considerable white spaces. An example is the objective
to address the impact of globalisation on workers – where only two countries (France
and Finland) record initiatives.
8. Certain areas of relevance to SD are not explicitly covered; e.g. spatial planning/
land use/urban development or addressing wastelands (New Member States) receive
only limited attention. Despite reference to Local Agenda 21 and referring to local
and regional actors, the spatial or urban dimension could provide powerful solutions,
e.g. in the area of decoupling economic growth from transport demand.
9. Reporting is not always focused on key policy initiatives. A general tendency is to

report extensively on the situation without coupling this to specific policy initiatives.
Another tendency in the reports is to focus on future goals and targets rather than on
key policy initiatives that have been taken recently.
10. The relation between key policy initiatives and their impact is not direct – a time lag
is present. Therefore it may be too early to measure the impact of the EU SDS at
this stage. Furthermore, a link between initiatives and impacts can be established
much more directly in some areas (e.g. public health) then in some other areas (e.g.
climate change), where relations are much more indirect. Furthermore, impacts can
vary between geographic levels: what is sustainable at one level may not be
sustainable at another level.
11. The added value of the EU SDS compared to National SDS cannot be measured yet.
The EU SDS priorities have impacted the majority of national SD strategies;
however a fair number still focuses on national priorities. The impression arises that
many national SD policy initiatives would have been taken without an EU SDS as
well.
12. The relation between the EU SDS and the Structural Funds is controversial. In the
EU-12, vast investment programmes in infrastructure are on their way. In Poland for
instance, the Operational Programme for Infrastructure represents an EU investment
of € 27 bn. for the period 2007-2013 – of which a considerable part will be invested
in roads. The impact on SD is uncertain – at least. However, on a more positive

note, Structural Funds are also used for investing in environmental infrastructures,
such as waste water treatment plans, while the Operational Programmes on Human
Resources appear to be well aligned with the EU SDS objective on social inclusion,
demography and migration.
13. Impacting mainstream policies is the real challenge for the SDS. A real value added
of the EU SDS could be that it takes environmental (and social, economic) priorities
out of a silo and into the mainstream of national policy making. The extent to which
national and EU strategies are successful in this varies. For instance, the EU SDS
thus provides an excellent opportunity to analyse and promote the integration of
climate change and energy objectives in the policy areas that may not already be
fully aligned with the climate objectives. Examples of such important policy areas
include:
a. Cohesion and structural funding
b. Trade policy
c. Agriculture, CAP
d. Research and technology development
e. Taxation, subsidies and other economic instruments
f. External relations broadly speaking, including policies relating to security,
development assistance and energy supply
Impact assessments – requiring the ex ante economic, social and environmental
assessment of Commission proposals and initiatives – is a good tool for making such
impact at Community level.
14. International literature on SDS informs us about the complexity of challenges.

Although reports highlighting unwanted side-effects of key policy initiatives exist,
such complexities are rarely reported in Member State reports. Moreover,
interlinkages between and within themes are not always sufficiently grasped and
much reporting can be said to be fragmented. The prime example of such a policy
issue is biofuels. Although research 181 into the sustainability of different types of
biofuels has been undertaken, the complexity of the issue is only reflected in some
MS progress reports and is almost exclusively dealt with under the energy and
transport headings.
181
See for example: United Nations, Sustainable bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers, May 2007, www.un.org/esa/;
Richard Doornbosch & Ronald Steenblik, OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development, Biofuels: Is the cure worse
than the disease?, 11-12 September 2007, www.oecd.org; The Royal Society, Sustainable Biofuels: Prospects and
Challenges, http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28914

10.2 Progress by theme
Table: Coverage of the Themes by Operational Objective in the National Progress

Reports
Theme/ Climate Sustainable Sustainable Conservation Public Social Global
change and transport consumption and health inclusion, poverty and
clean and management demography SD
energy production of natural and
Operational Objective resources migration
Objective 1 ♦♦♦/♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦
Objective 2 ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
Objective 3 ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦
Objective 4 ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
Objective 5 ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Objective 6 ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
Objective 7 ♦ ♦♦ ♦
Objective 8 ♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦
Total/average score/ 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.8
ranking (1) (4) (2/3) (7) (2/3) (6) (5)
15. High importance attached to climate change and clean energy; there is considerable
evidence of a large number of diverse initiatives being taken. Many of these are
clearly driven more by Kyoto commitments and EU political developments within
the energy sector than by the EU SDS itself. The coverage and level of detail in
reporting varies significantly, making the national reports a far from perfect basis for
assessing specific progress. Most attention is paid to compliance with Kyoto,
renewable energy, biofuels and energy efficiency. However, much less attention is
paid to post-2012 emission reductions or to the consistency between energy policy
and competitiveness, security and broader environmental targets. Finally, reporting
on adaptation is scarce, while integration of mitigation in other policies is addressed
by some, but randomly.
16. In the area of sustainable transport, there is a focus on greenhouse gas emissions
but only limited proof of strategic thinking and overarching and anchored strategies.
Few countries dare to address the issue of decoupling economic growth from
transport demand. Member States report above all about reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, the balanced shift towards environmentally friendly transport modes and
the reduction of road transport fatalities. Many other objectives tend to be related –
and reporting on them is neither comprehensive nor systematic. Some objectives
present a strong overlap and Member States therefore focus their reporting to either
one of these headings. Efforts towards a balanced shift towards environmentally
friendly transport modes are well-reported, but there is little evidence across Europe
overall about the effectiveness of these policies (e.g. modal shift). Furthermore,
considerable attention is paid to the reduction of road transport fatalities.
17. Although a wide range of actions is being initiated in this area, there is only limited
evidence in the area of sustainable consumption and production that countries are
scratching beyond the surface of this fundamental objective – and that the EU SDS

has enough teeth and leverage in this domain to command change. Furthermore,
there appears to be a lack of direction in 3 out of 4 objectives. Some Member States
have a broad range of action plans and strategies, but there is little action in several
countries. A specific observation concerns the various national labelling schemes
that have been created. As these have the potential to influence purchase – and
therefore production – patterns, they could also fragment the internal market and
serve as a barrier for cross border trade, confuse consumers and not free of quality
assurance concerns. A wider – and more fundamental - concern is that the current
level of activities under this heading is limited in the light of the deep-seated habits
of producers and consumers – many of them being rather unsustainable in nature.
The limited attention to environmental technologies appears to be a missed
opportunity – especially when seen in the light of synergies with the Lisbon
Strategy.
18. Of all themes, reporting appears to be weakest in the area of conservation and
natural resource management. Most progress in has been booked in halting
biodiversity loss in general and designating Natura 2000 areas – but success is
partial at best. Reported progress on Natura 2000 areas easily masks the fact that
designating land as protected area alone does not necessarily induce a halt in
biodiversity loss. Despite progress in particular areas and countries and sectors, a
large group of Member States seem to be not very clear in how they plan to proceed
in this area – there is little proof of efforts that the EU SDS has been integrated in
substantial programming and investment plans (e.g. for 2007-2013). Often,
approaches are not integrated, policy responses are restricted to the more convenient
intervention areas; costly investments are not necessarily made and tax raising
measures appear to be sometimes driven by fiscal rather than by real environmental
considerations. Moreover, the current reporting from Member States indicates that
primary production is still being inefficiently used, while independent evidence
suggests that primary resources are in fact being heavily over-used.
19. The information collected and used by Member States on public health is rather
good but still varies strongly, so does the capacity of Member States to participate in
agenda setting and in delivering public health gains. Key policy initiatives have
above all been taken to curb lifestyle related diseases, pandemic preparedness, and to
improve the handling of chemicals. Reported progress is more limited in areas of
food and feed legislation, animal welfare, and mental health, while Member States
are scarce with providing information on progress toward reducing health
inequalities. Incentives vary, in particular on controversial topics such as
reproduction and sexual health. If the EU is to help enable good health for all, it
must address the behavioural, social and environmental factors that determine
health. This implies a need to promote health through all Community policies. Only
limited evidence exists of good inter-ministerial and inter-sectoral cooperation with
the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, planning, education and most importantly
the finance ministries – all needed to ensure a coherent, well-funded and consistent
strategy that can achieve significant health improvements.

20. Most countries provide reasonably comprehensive but rather fragmented reporting
in the area of social inclusion, demography and migration. Although the social
dimension of sustainable development is not considered opportune by some Member
States (e.g. Denmark, Poland), most attention goes to the reduction of poverty and
active labour market policies – promoting the inclusion of various target groups
(older workers, younger workers, migrants, women and the disabled); this is an
important objective not only from the point of EU SDS but also from the Lisbon
agenda. However, objectives do not always sit comfortably together. A tension can
be noticed between the challenge to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty
and the need to modernise social protection in view of demographic change. In
some countries (e.g. the Czech Republic), cuts in welfare reform are explicitly
mentioned. Reporting on the objective to reduce negative effects of globalisation on
workers is almost non-existent. Furthermore, limited or no evidence exists about the
added value of the EU SDS in this respect.
21. The impression that emerges from the national reports is that the objective of
addressing global poverty and sustainable development is overstretched. – and often
beyond the scope of individual Member States influence. Within this truly global
objective, Member States are searching for focus however and they direct
themselves to specific themes or geographic regions that are particularly important
to them – which may lead to a rather patchy approach and not necessarily a good
basis for monitoring overall progress in this area. This is in itself already a
coordination challenge for which a UN Environmental Organisation could be called
for. Within the light of expected and targeted increases in ODA, a stronger
emphasis on the effectiveness and efficiency of such aid would have been expected
(Paris Declaration). New Member States currently building up their external
development aid strategies could include the SD dimension immediately – yet there
is little sign that this is actually happening.
10.3 Cross-cutting themes
22. Reporting on cross-cutting themes is rather problematic; by formally giving the

cross cutting themes the same rank as the seven key challenges, the EU SDS of June
2006 makes clear that it attaches equal importance to them. However, the strategy
does not provide a clear frame of reference against which progress on the cross-
cutting themes could be measured. In this respect, the EU SDS it is open to a certain
degree of interpretation what exactly is to be achieved under each heading and what
measures are to be taken. The fact that, in contrast to the seven key challenges, there
is no subdivision into operational objectives and targets on the one, and actions on
the other side, adds to that.
23. Education and training is among the cross-cutting themes that have received
considerable attention in the progress reports, and Austria, France and Sweden are
good examples. However, the dominant stream of reporting shows (too) strong a
focus on school education and neglect of adult- and continuing education, as well as
vocational education and training. In many reports, the role education and training
are to play in the concept of SD is merely confined to teaching about the

environment and the importance of its preservation. This approach does not
sufficiently acknowledge the breadth of the SD concept.
24. The EU SDS defines the role of research and development in sustainable
development in a broad way yet, this approach only found entry in less than half of
the MS progress reports. While virtually all MS assign great importance to research
and development in the field of renewable energy, energy saving, as well as
transport technology, the wider context of SD receives insufficient attention. This
narrow focus on supporting research into new technologies does not do justice to the
concept of SD and this section should not be confined to the creation and availability
of technology and knowledge, but also include scientific research concerning its
usage and uptake. A meaningful interlinkage of natural and social sciences to
further the cause of SD is only pursued by few MS, for instance in Germany.
25. As concerns the usage of finance and economic instruments to promote SD, nearly
all Member States report an increase or the introduction of taxes related to energy
consumption or pollution. However, information on the usage of extra income
levied by these taxes is patchy and only a handful of states report an actual shift in
taxation from labour to resource and energy usage, as called for in the Strategy.
Finland is one of these few exceptions.
26. Only few MS seem to have a coherent strategy in place that would answer the
question as to what role communication and the public involvement is to play in SD.
As a consequence, most MS report on a range of rather limited and seemingly
unrelated communication campaigns that address certain elements of SD and not the
concept as a whole. A clear rationale how communication and the involvement of
various groups of actors can contribute to progress in the SD area is almost entirely
missing. Overall, few MS really seem to have the ambition to enhance public
perception of SD issues on a broad scale.
27. Clearly, the challenge for Member States to implement and report on SDS progress
is substantial. It requires good interministerial cooperation and horizontal methods
of working; the ability to synthesise all outputs varies between Member States.
10.4 Convergence of national SDS towards EU SDS
Table: NSDS – EU-SDS congruence of thematic coverage

Date of Review Structure Energy Sustainable Sustainable Conservation Public Social Global
NSDS in-line & Transport Consumption & Natural Health Inclusion, Poverty and
with EU- Climate & Production Resources Demography, Sustainable
SDS Change Migration Development
Austria 2002 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Belgium 1997 (2007) 9 9 9 9 9 9
Bulgaria* (2007) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Cyprus** (2007) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Czech 2004 (2007) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Republic

Denmark 2002 9 9 9 9
Estonia 2005 9 9 9
Finland 2006 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
France 2003 9 9 9 9 9 9
Germany 2002 2005 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Greece 2002 2003 9 9 9 9 9
Hungary** (2007) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Ireland 1997 2002 9 9 9
Italy 2002 9 9 9 9 9
Latvia 2002 9 9 9 9 9 9
Lithuania 2003 2006 9 9 9 9 9 9
Luxembourg 1999 9 9 9 9 9 9
Malta 2006 9 9 9 9 9 9
Netherlands 2003 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Poland 2000 9 9 9 9 9 9
Portugal 2002 9 9 9 9 9 9
Romania 1999 9 9 9 9 9 9
Slovakia 2001 2005 9 9 9 9 9 9
Slovenia 2005 9 9 9
Spain** (2007) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Sweden 2004 2006 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
UK 2005 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
* NSDS is currently being drafted, draft document only available in Bulgarian

** NSDS currently in the legislative process
() Process is currently under way
-- no information available
28) Overall, congruence between National SDS and the EU SDS is fair at the level of
themes, but not in all areas. Theme 1 to 5 are recognised much more strongly in the
National SDS than the themes 6 (social) and 7 (global poverty). Furthermore, New
Member States appear to be less in line with the EU SDS – even when the National
SDS are in a developmental stage. There appears to be some reticence in certain
quarters to embrace the environmental dimension when taking forward economic
and social development (e.g. Baltic States and Slovenia). Overall, there seems
absolutely no rush to bring National SDS's in line with the EU SDS and the EU SDS
seems not to be always functioning as a role model at the national level.
10.5 Monitoring
29) Monitoring: there is a strong need to have reliable information and despite
considerable progress (e.g. the SDI working group) much of it is not there yet.
Within the domain of monitoring, the matching between key indicators and
objectives is essential: the EU SDI group already works with a set of 12 key
indicators, followed by 105 secondary and 200 next level indicators. It would be
important to better link the objectives from the EU SDS.

10.6 Recommendations
a. Need to establish a hierarchy of objectives; sustainable transport could well be

regarded as an intermediate objective and there is a need to structure and prioritise
these objectives much better. The number of objectives is currently very large,
especially when the cross-cutting themes are seen to have similar weight. This risk
of overstretching reduces the possible impact of the EU SDS; a streamlining of the
EU SDS is therefore needed from a logical perspective.
b. Internal cohesion within themes needs to be strengthened. Operational

objectives/targets often demonstrate overlap; a hierarchy between operational
objectives – sometimes logical – appears to be missing; this leads to a less than
optimal coherence. The inconsistencies within themes make reporting by Member
States as well as the assessment of MS reporting more difficult and are likely to have
contributed to gaps in MS reporting.
c. Increase the impact of the EU SDS on mainstream policies through Community

impact assessments. The crosscutting nature of sustainable development provides a
valuable opportunity to address the mainstreaming of the various SD themes in EU
and national policies. More of the focus in EU SDS implementation could be
directed toward assessing and promoting integration of sustainable development
priorities in main strands of EU and MS policy such as agricultural policy, structural
and cohesion funds, and trade policy – beyond the assessment of economic, social
and environmental pillars on their own.
d. Strengthen links with the Lisbon Strategy, especially in areas where synergy exists.
For instance actions to promote labour market participation or the promotion of
environmental technologies are in line with both concepts and there would be
significant scope for strengthening these links and join forces.
e. Promote SD specifically in New Member States; national policies are often still
under development or review in the NMS and considerable investment programmes
are being taken forward; more inclusion of SD thinking and acting could lead to
significant impacts at the EU level. This is especially important in the light of major
EU-funded investment programmes that will help to modernise the economic
infrastructure – an opportunity to test these programmes and projects against
sustainable development objectives.
f. At the latest by 2011, the European Council will decide when a comprehensive
review of the EU SDS needs to be launched. Already now, we can see considerable
scope for strengthening the EU SDS in such a way that it could make more impact
and contribute more effectively to the ever increasing number of sustainable
development challenges.

Annex 1: Overview of key policy initiatives by
theme

Table: Overview of policy initiatives that contribute to the EU SD Strategy objectives
Theme: Climate Change and clean energy
Congruence with EU SDS Objective 1: Objective 2: Energy policy Objective 3a) Mitigation in all Objective 4) Renewable Objective 5) Biofuel Objective 6) Energy
objectives a) Kyoto Commitments a) <> competitiveness pol. energy targets targets efficiency
b) Post-2012 emission reductions b) <> Security of supply Objective 3b) Adaptation in all
c) Post-2012 Intl. framework c) <> Env. sustainability pol.
Austria Is lagging behind its Kyoto 1a) 3a) Transport: mobility management; RE targets: Ahead of 2010 schedule: From Buildings:
target. expand public transport. Innovative 2008 5.75% biofuels.
(Kyoto commitment: -13%. Status concepts ("railway taxis"). Share of total consumption: Thermal refurbishment
Has ambitious Renewable 2005: +18.1%). 2010: 10% rates increased to 3%
Energy targets and is ahead of klima: aktiv agreement between 2010: 25%, 2020: 45%. (2008-2012) and 5%
schedule on biofuel target National Climate Strategy revised. government and provinces. Provides 2020: 20% thereafter.
Share of RE electricity: 2010: 80%
1b) information, training, networking,
Is taking several initiatives with market development. 2020: 85% Improved standards for
a 2020 perspective. 2020: 400,000 households converted to zero-energy buildings
RE. Draw up Master Plan for
hydropower. End-use energy
Austrian Climate and Energy Fund. efficiency improvements
R&D for energy technologies, Double biomass by 2010 2010 5%; 2020: 20%
transport, market penetration of new Support for CHP 2006-
technologies. 2012.
Energy for the Future research
programme.
Belgium Both federal and regional 1a) 3a) Target share of RE: 6% Target 2010: 5.75%. Tax incentives for
climate plans. passive houses.
(Kyoto commitment: -7.5%). Status Restrictions on waste. Offshore wind. Mixing of 3.75% biodiesel
Support for RE, biodiesel and 2005: -2.1%. Internal burdens sharing encouraged through excise Federal: Company
EE through a mix of tax federal/regions. Walloon govt has Solar roof panels. duty relief. established to promote
incentives, subsidies and target to reduce by 10%.) Green certificates. third-party financing of
certificate schemes. 7% ethanol. EE in govt. buildings.
Flemish: New targets for RE heat. Tax exemption for pure Subsidized loans to
Support for R&D in RE vegetable oil. households.
Standardization,
labelling and awareness.
Flemish: Energy
performance regulations
Flemish: Targets for
CHP 19%
Bulgaria Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 2a) RE share increase from 2.2% to Draft legislation with Poor overall energy
through economic transition. 5.6% from 1997-205. Increase due indicative targets. efficiency. Energy
(Kyoto commitment: -8%. Status: - Focus on energy sector to biomass and hydro. consumption rising, incl.
High energy intensity of 47.2%. restructuring, including Drafting National Long-Term in transport.
economy > Scope for further Regional Energy Market in 97% of RE electricity is hydro. Programme for biofuels 2007-
reductions of emissions. NAP 2008-12 pending approval). South East Europe. 2020. Energy efficiency
2010 indicative target for RE measures more
Focus mainly on security of Focus on Joint Implementation 2b) electricity: 11%. No data on biofuel
projects. economical than RE
supply (Russia) and the need to consumption supply.
improve energy efficiency. Focus on import dependency RE priority in National Strategic
from Russia. NABUCCO gas Reference Framework 2007-2013. Focus on market
pipeline. Regasification terminal mechanisms and public-
for LNG. private partnerships.
Cyprus No Kyoto target. More focus on 1a) RE share 2006: 4.7%. Mainly solar Target 1%. Included in Energy saving potential
post-2012 and future EU water heating (92% of households) National Biomass Action Plan 25%
burden sharing. (No Kyoto commitment. Status 1990- and biomass. due in 2008.
2005: +63.7%.) Action Plan: 1% annual
Analysis of national emission Action Plan: 2010: 6%. reduction.

mitigation options. 50% of energy consumption is from Wind: 8% of electricity approved
Strong emission growth 1990- transport. (implemented?)
2005 and in future scenario 1b) National Biomass Action Plan due
(mainly energy/transport). in 2008
Baseline emissions expected to triple
from 1990-2020.
Strategic Plan for Reduction of GHG
Emissions 2010-2020. Emission
reduction potential quantified for key
sectors.
Czech Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 2b) 3a) RE Electricity target 2010: 8% Processing act with 2-4.5%
Republic through economic transition. biofuel target.
(Kyoto commitment: -8%. Status 2005: Maximum targets for energy Environmental tax reform. Preference Tax reform: Tax exemption for RE
Is planning an environmental -25.8%.) import dependency: for CHP, RE, fuel cells, CNG and heat and power.
tax reform 2007 with electricity in transport
preferential treatment for RE EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the 2010: 45% RE share of primary energy
and CHP. Commission regarding the National consumption: 2030: 15-16%.
Allocation Plan for 2008-12.) 2020: 50%
Is preparing position on future 2030: 60%
EU GHG reductions. 1b)
Currently preparing position on future 2c)
EU GHG reductions. Compliance with EU air
Indicative targets in 2004 National emission limits for SO2, NOx,
Programme on CC: VOC.
GHG emission reduction 2000-2020:

25%.
Annual decrease in energy intensity of
the economy: 3-3.5%.
Environmental tax reform phased in to
2017.
Denmark Energy strategy proposal by 1a) 2b) 3b) RE share of energy consumption: DK is an energy efficient
Govt.: 15%. economy.
(Kyoto commitment: -21%. Status Proposed Energy Policy until Climate Adaptation Strategy tabled in
30% of energy from renewables 2005: -7.8%. 2025: September 2007. Proposed Energy Policy until 2025: Proposed Energy Policy:
in 2025. RE share of energy consumption by
NAP 2008-12 pending approval). - Reduce the use of fossil fuels 2025 30% Energy saving effort
Energy saving effort by at least 15%. 1.25%/year. Prevent
1.25%/year National Climate Strategy 2003 guides increases in overall
action. energy consumption.
Climate Adaptation Strategy
proposal released. - Funds for JI and CDM projects. One of three Member
- Cost-effective measures to reduce States to submit
emissions. "National Energy
Efficiency Action Plan"
1b) on time.
Proposed Energy Policy until 2025:
- Reduce the use of fossil fuels by at
least 15%.
- Research in environmental and
energy technology.
- Targets for RE

Estonia Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 2b) Renewable electricity target 2010: Share of biofuels 2005: 0% Energy consumption
through economic transition. 5.1% (2005: 1.4%). saving objectives are
(Kyoto commitment: -8%. Status 2005: Development plan for biomass Development plan for biomass linked to the rate of
Environmental Action Plan -52%. and biofuels 2007-2013 to Share of RE in energy consumption and bioenergy 2007-2013. economic growth.
2007-2013: Keep GHG reduce import dependency. 2005: 11.3%. Objective: Keep primary
emissions at the level of 2005. EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the Biofuels exempt from excise
Commission regarding the National 2c) New legal basis for market entry of 2005-2010. energy consumption at
Energy savings objectives are Allocation Plan for 2008-12.) renewable electricity and CHP. the level of 2003 until
linked to the rate of economic National programme for the 2010.
growth. Environmental Action Plan 2007-2013: reduction of total airborne Development plan for biomass and
Keep GHG emissions at the level of emissions from stationary and bioenergy 2007-2013. Keep growth in
Biomass prioritized as a tool to 2005. mobile sources for 2006-2015. electricity consumption
reduce import dependency Mapping of RE resources. at half the rate of growth
Plans for national SO2 and NOx in GDP.
trading schemes
National Energy
Conservation
Programme 2007-2013:
Investment support,
information.
Adjustments to buildings
regulation.
Finland Climate Change awareness 1a) 3a) Electricity Market Act amended Cultivation area for energy One of three Member
campaign. 2007 to facilitate access of RE to crops doubled in one year. States to submit
(Kyoto commitment: 0%. Status 2005: Climate change awareness campaign the grid "National Energy
Electricity Market Act -2.6%). 2005-2007. Biodiesel plants under Efficiency Action Plan"
amended to facilitate access of Tax aid for electricity from construction. on time.
RE to the grid. renewables.
Biodiesel plants under Woody biomass is 80% of RE.
construction.
One of three Member States to
submit "National Energy
Efficiency Action Plan" on
time.
France Ambitious biofuel plan. 1a) 3a) Fiscal measures have been Biofuel plan with fiscal and Energy-saving schemes:
introduced to achieve 2010 regulatory measures aims to tax credits; energy
Long-term GHG target to 2050: (Kyoto commitment: 0%. Status 2005: Aims to make state-supported regional objectives: RE 10% of primary achieve 5.75% of biofuels in saving certificates;
-75% -1.9%). investment projects carbon neutral. energy consumption and 21% of 2008. 7% in 2010; 10% in labelling; thermal
National strategy on adaptation. 1b) 3b) electricity; 2015. regulations. Reduce
energy intensity by
Aims to make state-supported General objective to reduce GHG National strategy on adaptation Flexifuel vehicles using up to 2%/year from 2015.
regional investment projects emissions by 75% by 2050. elaborated in 2006. 85% ethanol will be marketed.
carbon neutral. Research on 2nd generation
biofuels.
Germany Pushing climate and energy as 1a) 3a) RE in primary energy 2000-2006: Biofuel share is rising. > % in Energy efficiency action
key themes in G8 and EU From 2.6% to 5.8%. 2006. From 2009: 6.25%. plan. Double energy
presidency. (Kyoto commitment: -21%. Status All official Federal Government travel From 2015: 8%. productivity from 1990-
2006: -18.7%). will be CO2 compensated from 2007. RE in electricity 2000-2006: From 2020.
Strong growth in RE and 6.3% to 12%. Tax concessions for 2nd
biofuels due to support On track to reach Kyoto commitments. generation biofuels. EUR 5.6bn for energy
measures. Renewable electricity target 2020: related renovation 2006-
20%. Market incentives for 2009.
Federal Government travel renewable heating.
CO2 compensated from 2007. Energy certificates for
Offshore wind test field. buildings.
RE R&D: EUR 83 million.

Greece Revision of CC strategy in 1a) 2b) RES 12% of electricity. Biofuel Allocation Programme Action Plan for Energy
process. allowing for exemption from Efficiency and Savings
(Kyoto commitment: +25%. Status Involved in international natural About to finalize Special special consumption tax. focusing on households
Action Plan for Energy 2005: +25.4%). gas, electricity and oil networks. Framework for Spatial Planning and buildings.
Efficiency and Savings Gas distribution infrastructure. and Sustainable Development for
focusing on households and RES. Economic incentives and
buildings. 99% import dependency on simplified permitting
oil/gas. Economic incentives and simplified system for the
Economic incentives and permitting system for the implementation of large
simplified permitting system implementation of large projects projects.
for RES and EE.
Hungary Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 3a) Renewable Electricity 2006: 3.8%. Package of measures to National Energy
through economic transition. Target 2010: 3.6%. achieve 5.75% biofuels by Efficiency Action Plan
(Kyoto commitment: -6%. Status 2005: National Climate Change Strategy 2010. under development.
Much planning going on: -35.5%. under development: RE in total energy 2006: 4%.
Excise duty increase for fuels Tender system to support
- National Energy Policy. EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the - Emission trends, mitigation potential National RE Action Plan under with less than 4.4% biofuel. consumer energy
Commission regarding the National and policy tools. Covers various development. savings, 2007: 2.4 bn
- National Climate Change Allocation Plan for 2008-12.) sectors.
Strategy Renewable electricity supported HUF grants, 16 bn HUF
1b) 3b) through fixed feed-in tariffs + credit facility = 17,000
- National RE Action Plan. investment support. homes improved.
2005 study on long-term GHG National Climate Change Strategy
- National Energy Efficiency commitments of Hungary including under development: Support for biomass utilization Various energy
Action Plan long-term emission mitigation model. under Rural Development efficiency programmes.
- Adaptation to CC, in particular in Programme.
2005 study on long-term GHG agriculture, water management, nature Environment and Energy
commitments. protection, forestry, health, Environment and Energy Operational Programme:
architecture, urban development. Operational Programme: 55 bn 34 bn HUF for energy
HUF for RE 2007-2013. efficiency 2007-2013.
Ireland Behind on Kyoto commitment 1a) 3a) Renewable Electricity target 2010: Biofuel targets: Emissions from housing
13.2% 2006: 8.5%. are 30% below 1990.
Much planning going on: (Kyoto commitment: +13%. Status Transport: Pilot projects for hybrid 2008: 2%
2005: +25.4%). electric vehicles. National target of 33% RE Building regulations
"National Climate Change electricity by 2020. 2010: 5.75%. revised 2008: 40% more
Strategy 2007-2012" with 2020 2007: "National Climate Change Plans to revise motor tax system to efficient.
perspective Strategy 2007-2012" give incentives for cleaner cars. Support programmes for Measures: Excise relief and
Renewable Energy Technologies. biofuels obligation. Funding Requirements for
White Paper 2007 "Delivering a Agriculture emissions 15% below for biofuel plants. Biofuel Government buildings.
Sustainable Energy Future for 1990. Bioenergy Action Plan launched requirement on public
Ireland". 2007: vehicles. Three-year Energy
1b) Efficiency Campaign
Wish to grow indigenous - Promotion of indigenous biofuel 2006.
biofuel sector. "National Climate Change Strategy sector.
2007-2012" includes assessment of Developing a National
Tax incentives for cleaner cars. 2020 targets. - Support measures for biomass Action Plan on Energy
heat. Efficiency to deliver 1%
- Additional energy crop payment energy saving per year
EUR 80/ha. and 20% reduction in
energy demand by 2020.
CHP grants scheme.
Micro CHP pilot
projects.
CHP target 400MW
2010, 800 MW 2020.
Italy Behind on Kyoto commitment 1a) 2a) 2002: Green Certificate scheme and Targets: Innovative energy
RE obligation of 3-4%. efficiency support
Continued deregulation of (Kyoto commitment: -6.5%. Status 2006 decree on deregulation of 2007: 1% scheme: Energy
energy sector 2005: +12.1%). the energy sector Simplified approval procedures for Efficiency

Innovative support scheme: 2002 "National Plan for Reduction of RE. 2008: 2% Securities/"White
Energy Efficiency Emissions" is being revised. certificates").
Feed-in tariffs for solar PV, aiming 2010: 5.75% Responsibility to achieve
Securities/"White certificates"). at 3000 MW by 2016. Net metering the national objective is
RE and EE are priority in recognising energy supplied to the € 73 million subsidy for
divided among energy
National Strategic Framework grid. development of bioethanol
distributors.
2007-2013. Solar heat and geothermal: sector and excise exemption
Support for CHP
for some biofuels.
- Recognized as energy saving
under energy efficiency support Agreement with agricultural
scheme (white certificates) associations and land owners
on cultivated land for oil seeds.
- VAT and tax concessions.
Only biodiesel production,
RE and energy savings are priority more than 50% exported large
in National Strategic Framework unused potential.
2007-2013. Inter-regional
Operational Programme for
southern Italy: EUR 2.4 bn.
Latvia Weak congruence with EU 1a) Direct support for the

SDS. Very little information on manufacturers of biofuels
actual progress provided. (Kyoto commitment: -8%. Status 2005: within a preset quota. (16
-58%. million litres for bio-ethanol
EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the and 18 million litres for bio-
Commission regarding the National diesel in 2006).
Allocation Plan for 2008-12) Lower level of excise-tax on
biofuels
Lithuania Missing (only reference to 2005 (Kyoto commitment: -8%. Status 2005:
report on implementation of -53%.
National SDS. National SDS is
being revised). EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the
Commission regarding the National
Allocation Plan for 2008-12.)
Luxembourg Behind on Kyoto commitment. (Kyoto commitment: -28%. Status 3a) Renewable electricity 2005: 3.45% Biofuel obligation from 2007: 2007: Awareness raising;
2005: +0.4%). of consumption. Minimum 2% of energy advice on energy
2006 Action Plan for CO2 Increase in road fuel excise duties. content. To be fulfilled efficiency; subsidies for
reduction covering all major 2006 Action Plan for CO2 reduction. Renewable heat 2005 = 1.88% of through imports. fuel-efficient cars; EE
sectors. Covers all major sectors. Task force of Motor vehicle tax restructured consumption.
according to environmental criteria. standards for houses.
ministers to monitor implementation.
Increased subsidies for Increasing focus on biomass.
renewable electricity, new New measures decided in 2007.
subsidy scheme will be Increased subsidies for renewable
implemented from 2008. Plan to use Kyoto mechanisms electricity, new subsidy scheme
extensively. from 2008.
1a)
2006 Action Plan provides framework
for a long-term strategy.
Malta Minimal share of RE. Wish to 1a) 2b) Renewable Electricity today: Biofuel share 2005: 0.3%. Grants for purchase of:
adjust downward the target 0.003% of consumption.
agreed during accession. (Non-Annex 1 country = No Kyoto Considers connecting to Biodiesel exempt from excise - energy efficient
commitment. Status 1990-2005: European gas or electricity grid. Target 2010: duty. household appliances;
Strong growth in emissions. +54.8%.
Preliminary target agreed during 2010 biofuel target to be - electric vehicles.
Much planning going on: EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the accession: 5%. In 2005, Malta established in 2007.
Commission regarding the National proposed revision to 1.37%, or Aim to increase use of
- 2006: "Proposal for Energy Allocation Plan for 2008-12.) 0.31% in case no large-scale wind efficient natural gas in
Policy " farm is implemented. power supply.

- "Draft Renewable Energy Solar heating main source of RE. Improved efficiency of
Policy". desalination.
RE in total energy: 0.18%.
- Proposal for national SDS. Green leaders appointed
Grants for households: in all Government
- PV systems ministries.
- solar heating Programme to make

schools zero carbon
- small-scale wind. emitters.
Plans to implement waste-to-energy Plans to introduce
projects. dimming of street
Plans for offshore wind farm, 75- lighting.
100MW based on public-private Plans to introduce "smart
partnership. metering" systems.
Trials with palm oil in power
production.
Draft renewable energy policy for
Malta (published Aug. 2006):
- Support schemes
- Govt. to lead by example
Netherlands Long-term perspective in 1a) 3a) RE 2.5% of energy consumption. Requirement on suppliers: 2% "Clean and Efficient"
planning. of total transport fuel in 2005, objective: EE
(Kyoto commitment: -6%. Status 2005: "Fiscal greening", e.g. including "Clean and Efficient" objective: RE 5.75% in 2010. improvement 2% per
Target 2020 -30%. 2050 -50% -1.1%). environmental performance in car 20% by 2020. year.
taxation. Sustainability criteria for
Demonstration of CO2 Capture Has acquired significant amounts of Consider Renewable Portfolio biomass production: Standards; energy
and Storage. JI/CDM credits. Support for innovation and new Standard. labelling of buildings.
technology. 2006-2007 Commission on Objective: All new
Focus on sustainability of 1b) Sustainable Biomass
biomass production. Policy programme for non-CO2 GHGs buildings 'energy neutral'
"Overarching policy programme: Production. New policy June by 2020
(i.a. industrial gases, agriculture, 2007:
Takes an economic efficiency "Clean and Efficient": 30% reduction waste..). Includes research,
approach: Tax instruments and by 2020. Review of measures by 2011. Energy companies to
demonstration, implementation - Improve current production provide 25% of savings.
focus on cost-effectiveness Measures based on cost effectiveness. support, communication.
- Transparency about origins Plans for EE agreements
2 demonstration projects for CO2 and production
capture and storage. with 10 industrial
- Methodology for CO2 branches.
Long-term "Energy Transition" is performance
focus area of environmental policy. Promotion of energy
Perspective to 2050: Ambitions for - Enforcement neutral greenhouse
2%/year efficiency improvement and farming.
50% CO2 reductions. - Support for improvements
Poland National Energy Policy by 1a) 2b) 3a) Target 2010: 7.5% of primary 5.75% in 2010. Labelling
2025: Expects growing energy and 7.5% of elecricity.
emissions and continuing (Kyoto commitment: -6%. Status 2006: Focus of energy supply will Want more focus on forest sinks in 10% 2020
reliance on coal. -32%. remain on coal future commitment periods. RE share 2005: 5.4%
Afforestation to increase forest cover.
Finds that post-2012 EU burden EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the 2c) 14% of energy by 2020.
sharing should give room for Commission regarding the National CCS: Interested but critical.
Allocation Plan for 2008-12. Claim Focus of energy supply will Green certificates scheme + tariff
emissions increase to new remain on coal. support.
Member States. that EC requirement will constrain
economic growth. Reduction of connection charge for
Sees growth in emissions as RE.
catalysed by the Cohesion Fund Revision of Act on EU ETS and Kyoto
and Structural Funds EU mechanisms. Subsidised credit schemes.

1b) Support through operational
programmes.
Finds that post-2012 EU burden
sharing should give room for emissions
increase to new Member States.
Expects growing emissions.
1c)
COP 14 in Poland 2008.
Portugal Behind on Kyoto commitment. 1a) 2a) 3a) 2010 target for Renewable share in 10% of biofuel added to all National Energy
electricity revised upward from petrol and diesel in 2010. Oil Efficiency Action Plan: -
Ambitious Renewable Energy (Kyoto commitment: +27%. Status Liberalization of gas and 2007: Climate Change Forum to 39% to 45%. tax exemption. 9% energy consumption
targets. Renewable energy 2006: +40.4%. electricity markets. promote wider involvement by civil by 2015.
policy is with industry policy, society bodies in CC issues - Wind power: Aim for regional
aiming to create regional NAP 2008-12 pending approval). industrial cluster. Energy legislation for
industrial clusters Need further reductions of 9.4 MT CO2 new buildings: Energy
- Hydropower: Target 5,575 MW in performance; solar
2006: National Climate Change eq/year. 3.7 MT through domestic 2010, 7,000 MW by 2020.
measures, the rest from JI/CDM. panels compulsory.
Plan with associated Sector
Action Plans and monitoring - Forest biomass: Increase capacity Tax on conventional
system. from 100 MW to 250 MW by 2010 light bulbs.
- Solar and PV: 150 MW by 2010, Tax on oil for domestic
worlds largest PV farm. heating.
- Biogas: 100 MW by 2010.
Wave power 200 MW, support for
technology development.
- Tariff support for
Microgeneration: 50,000 units by
2010 - solar water heating, micro
PV and wind power and solar
energy systems in buildings.
Solar panels will be made
compulsory in new buildings
Romania Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 3b) Draft National Energy Strategy: RE Target 5.75% 2010.
through economic transition. share of electricity (including large
(Kyoto commitment: -8% from 1989. 2007: National Climate Change hydro): 2010: 33%; 2015: 35%; Large potential for biofuel
2005 National Strategy and Status 2005: -45.6%. Adaptation Plan, integrating adaptation 2020: 38%. production.
National Action Plan on in sectoral policies.
Climate Change will be NAP 2008-12 pending approval) RE share of national consumption: New tax exemption for biofuel
updated in 2007. 11% 2010. production.
On track to meet Kyoto obligation.
New draft National Energy Emissions projected to rise by 34% Green certificates scheme with
Strategy. Foresees rising share from 2005 to 2012. mandatory RE share in electricity:
of renewables in energy Host for JI projects, totalling 10 MT 2006 2.2% - 2010 8.4%
generation. Green certificate CO2 eq.
scheme to support renewable
electricity.
2007: Climate adaptation Plan,
integrating adaptation in
sectoral policies.

Slovakia Kyoto compliance ensured 1a) 3a) Plans for 2007: Regulation on biofuels 2007.
through economic transition.
(Kyoto commitment: -8% from 1990. Emissions reductions in agriculture - Law on RE underway.
Focus on biomass and energy Status 2005: -33.6%. seen as a key area. Incorporated in
crops. rural development part of Strategic - Program for higher utilization of
EU ETS: Has filed lawsuit against the Framework and Operational biomass and solar power in
Emission reductions in Commission regarding the National Programme 2007-2013. households.
agriculture with support from Allocation Plan for 2008-12)
2007-2013 Operational 3b) Biomass energy part of Rural
Programmes. Development Programme 2007-
Focus on adaptation in forestry. 2013. EU support for energy crops.
Incorporated in rural development
Strategic Plan and 2007-2013
Programme.
Slovenia Behind on Kyoto commitment. 1a) 2000-2005: Declining RE share in Decree on promotion of Energy consumption
both electricity and overall energy. biofuels: growing above targets.
Reduction of overall energy (Kyoto commitment: -8% from 1990.
intensity lagging behind goals. Status 2005: 0.4%) 2010 target: 12% RE in total Target 2010: 5.75%. Mainly growth in
energy. industry and transport.
Budget allocations for RE and 2006: Update of Operational 2005: 0.35% (target 0.65%).
EE are insufficient and Programme for reducing GHG - RE in heat from 22% (2002) to National budget
declining. emissions 25% 2010. Excise duty exemption. allocations are
insufficient to reach
New support schemes for RE 1b) RE in electricity from 32% (2002) targets and will decline
power will be introduced in to 33.6% in 2010. in 2007/8 as share of
2008. Operational Programme to be upgraded
to take into account post-2012 EU National budget allocations for GDP.
Use of biomass (especially targets. investment grants and feed-in High overall energy
wood) is gaining ground, but tariffs insufficient. intensity; slower
the use of biofuels is not in line improvements than
with the objectives set. 2007: Joint declaration with
Germany and Spain on RE feed-in targets.
system to promote RE electricity. Information and
2008: New support schemes for RE awareness raising.
power. Subsidized loans and
CO2 tax exemption.
Main focus on biomass, including
Operational Programme on biomass Cohesion Fund:
CHP. Operational Programme
2007-13: Low energy
Cohesion Fund Operational public buildings. Energy
Programme 2007-13: Distributed efficiency in all sectors.
systems for RE and cogent supply.

Spain Behind on Kyoto commitment. 1a) 2a) 3a) 2005: RE Plan 2005-2010. Total Targets: 2007: Action Plan for
investment 2005-2010 EUR 23 bn., Energy savings and
Urgent measures have been (Kyoto commitment: +15% from 1990. Expansion of gas and power Plan of Urgent Measures includes of which EUR 0.7 bn public 2008: 1.9%; 2009: 3.4%; 2010: efficiency 2008-2012.
planned in non-energy sectors. Status 2005: +52.3%) transmission. Improves measures targeting non-CO2 gases and investment support. 5.83%. Reduce energy
international connections. non-energy sectors. consumption by 11%
2007 Strategy on Climate Supplements the +15% with 20% Feed-in tariff support Measures:
Change and Clean Energy with JI/CDM credits and 2% carbon sinks to 2c) R&D projects on agroforestry carbon against baseline.
perspective to 2020. reach a total emissions increase of sinks. Targets 2010: - Excise duty exemptions for
Implementation of the CC bioethanol and biodiesel. Includes 42 measures.
37%.
Expansion of gas and power action plan will contribute to the Interministerial group to identify 12% of primary energy. New building code with
transmission. 200/: Proposal for Strategy on Climate objectives under the Spanish air incentives to energy efficiency and - Support for energy crops in
30% of electricity. line with EU CAP. energy requirements, to
Change and Clean Energy, time quality strategy. renewable energy in the maritime reduce consumption in
horizon 2007-2012-2020. Need for sector. Focus on wind energy and biomass Collection of used vegetable new buildings by 30-
additional measures required to meet (including co-firing with coal). fats. 40%.
Kyoto target, gap is 27 MT CO2
eq./year. 3b) 2007: System of guarantees of Government buildings to
origin/green certificates to be improve efficiency 9%
Plan of Urgent Measures. 2006: National Plan for Adaptation to introduced. 2012, 20% 2016.
Contribution from autonomous Climate Change. Focus on adaptation
planning in sectors and systems. Improvements in transmission Support for cogeneration
regions. system to better incorporate wind through improved
Support for administrative levels and
1b) organizations, both public and private. energy. regulation and the new
system of guarantees of
2007: Study of energy sector with 2030 Cross-cutting studies: Scenarios; water origin.
perspective. Focus on self supply with resources; biodiversity; coastal zones.
renewable energy. All new electricity
meters must be "smart"
meters.
Sweden Is ahead of Kyoto commitment 1a) 3a) 2006: CO2-based vehicle tax. 2006: Green certificate system Targets: 3% 2005, 5.75% Acknowledges the need
and has a national objective ensures share of renewables 2010. for review of energy
which is more ambitious than (Kyoto commitment: +4% from 1990. 85% of government cars must be efficiency incentives.
the EU burden sharing. Status 2005: -7.4%) "green". Premium SEK 10,000 for in household electricity 60% of filling stations to
green car purchase. consumption. Time horizon 2030. provide biofuel by 2010. Proposals for
Climate Change Council has National objective more ambitious than implementation of EU
been established to provide EU burden: -4% by 2010, purely Plan to introduce climate labelling of Financial support for solar heating Considerations about biogas Directive on Energy
input to climate policy. domestic reductions. products and services in housing. investment support and End-Use Efficiency and
support for energy crops. Energy Services due
Plans to spend EUR 108m over CO2 tax since 1991. 3b) Action plan for wind power
including tax rebates. Market signals are expected to October 2008 (deadline
three years on climate 1b) 2007: Report from Commission on 30+ June 2007)
measures; research, energy be sufficient to ensure increase
Climate and Vulnerability. Simplification of regulations for in forestry production.
efficiency programmes and 2007: Scientific Council on CC RE. 2006: Energy
alternative fuels. appointed, to provide input for 2008 declarations of buildings.
climate policy legislation.
Green certificates introduced
for RE and strong measures in
support of biofuels and green
cars.

UK On track to meet Kyoto 1a) 3a) Renewable Electricity targets: 2008: Renewable Transport One of three Member
commitment. Has national Fuels Obligation to ensure States to submit
GHG reduction target that is (Kyoto commitment: -12.5% from Office of Climate Change established 2010: 10% increasing share: "National Energy
more ambitious than the EU 1990. Status 2005: -15.7%) 2006 providing analysis and policy Efficiency Action Plan"
development to all Departments. 2020: 20% 2010: 5%. CO2 and
commitment. National target to reduce emissions by on time.
Main tools Renewables Obligation, sustainability reporting
Much planning going on: 20% by 2010. Local Government Association requirement. EE expected to improve
established Climate Change improved planning system.
1b) 25% to 2020. New
- 2007: White Paper on Energy Commission. Offshore wind demonstration. package of possible
- 2007: Draft Climate Change Commissioned Stern Review on the Transport: Support for technology Development of wave and tidal measures identified to
Bill with obligation to reduce economics of CC. innovation and behavioural change. energy. improve energy
by 60% by 2050. White Paper on Energy and draft 2007: UK Biomass Strategy for efficiency by a further
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): 10% to 2020.
Climate Change policy Climate Change Bill: reduce emissions Demonstration of projects and electricity, heat and transport.
increasingly institutionalized. to 2020 and 60% reduction by 2050. regulatory work (OSPAR Convention) - Smart meters
Plans support for Carbon 5-year carbon budgets. - New homes zero
Capture and Storage (CCS) carbon by 2016
Plans to introduce emissions - Carbon Reduction

trading scheme for large service Commitment: Emissions
sector and Govt. trading scheme for large
service sector and Govt.
- Building energy
performance certificates.
- Make suppliers provide
energy services and not
energy units.
- Carbon Emissions
Reduction Target
comprising EE,
microgeneration and
behavioural measures.
Removal of barriers to
CHP.

Table: Overview of key policy initiatives that contribute to the EU SD Strategy objectives
Theme: Sustainable Transport
. Decoupling economic Sustainable energy Reducing pollutant Balanced shift towards Reducing transport Improving efficiency Average car flee Halving road
growth from demand for use and reducing emissions to environmentally noise and performance of emissions of 140g/km transport fatalities by
transport greenhouse gas minimise effects on friendly transport public transport in 2008 and 120g/km 2010 compared to
Congruence with EU SDS emissions health modes in 2012 2000
objectives
Austria Clear links to objectives Output-related toll for lorries; Implementation of EU Local speed limits for Master plan for bicycling; Implementation of the Large investment in Austrian Advanced Increased control of
Levy of a toll surcharge for directives on limiting road traffic in promotion of combined EU Directive on noise; public transport (6.5 Automotive Technology social regulations and
cross-financing of railway emissions; promotion of accordance with Air transport Technological assistance billion euro to 2010); Programme security standards with
infrastructures; bio-fuels; financial Pollution Protection Act program for air-traffic; higher toll for lorries respect to driving and
Implementation of the incentives for clean speed limits for road resting times;
National Action Plan for diesel cars; IV2S traffic; noise protection
inland navigation; Investment technology development initiative launched by the

assistance to combined cargo programme; programmes Austrian Railway
transport for changing driver Company
behaviour
Belgium No clear links New tax deductibility Tax-subsidy for the Government subsidy for Revised and modified
system for utility purchase of energy companies for the cost of road traffic legislation to
vehicles; tax relief for efficient cars; transport for their promote safer driving
sports utility vehicles publication of a CO2 employees by public behaviour; removal of
was abolished; green guide on cars transport; tax deductibility black-spots on roads;
public procurement for people using bicycles lowering of speed limits
policy for government for travelling to and from on regional roads
fleet; promoting eco- work; car pooling lanes;

friendly driving provision of additional
behaviour by modifying rail capacity; lowering
the driving exam and navigation duties for

instruction inland waterway

objectives
transport;
Bulgaria No clear links to objectives, priority Modernisation of road Increased use of lead Large investments in More stringent
seems to be on modernisation of infrastructure free fuel (no explanation renewing the rolling stock enforcement of EU
infrastructure and implementation of of why this has for rail services; Directives related to the
EU directives happened); State policy Implementation of the technical condition of
to encourage production River information System vehicles and inspections
and usage of bio-fuels; on the Danube river or the of the technical

emission requirements TEN-T priority Axis 18 conditions of vehicles
are in line with EU
requirements
Cyprus Range of specific actions Implementation of

Intelligent Transport
Systems; modernisation
of buses and public
transport
Czech Republic No clear links Introduction of a toll system Voluntary agreement Integrated transport A unified transport Accepted EU position for National road Safety
on Czech highways between government and system (PID) was information system is the need of binding limits Strategy was
CNG filling stations introduced in Prague; being implemented (does to reduce average fleet implemented in 2004
share of population living not say by when this was emissions to 120g/km
within the territory of the started, or will be
PID should be 70% by completed)
2010 and 90% by 2013

objectives
Denmark Links are clear, but not all objectives Compact cities initiative to Duty for cars has been New cars with particle A new strategy for Road noise strategy with
are covered reduce transport needs changed to provide filters are exempted intermodal transport has 10 initiatives to limit
incentives to purchase from duty; Introduction been developed; A road noise on an ongoing
smaller and more fuel- of environmental zones national cycling strategy basis; Noise reduction
efficient cars (does not in cities to limit particle focussing on operation along railway lines has
say when this pollution; and maintenance of also been a priority for
happened); national cycling routes, the government; less

and promotion of cycling noisy trains have also
with municipal authorities been introduced; Noise
partnerships between
home owners and public
authorities to finance
improvements to reduce
noise
Estonia No clear links Planning to increase Dedicated public Allocation of 15% of

excise duty on fuels transport lanes road management funds
faster than planned to local governments for

road construction in
2007; Building separate
tracks for light traffic

alongside national roads;
improving safety at
railway crossings

objectives
Finland Links are clear, but the coverage of New transport strategy Legislation was passed Implementation of
objectives is limited and some areas framework for transport; to promote use of bio- government's long-term
are not covered because of financial Helsinki Metropolitan Area fuels; road safety vision
constraints and 16 other urban regions are

required to develop plans to
reconcile land use, housing
and transportation, and to

make better use of regional
services across administrative
boundaries; All regions with a

population of more than
50,000 are required to produce
transport system plans
France Clear link to objectives Encourages companies, local Fiscal and regulatory Public funding of non- National noise pollution transport levy on Taxing company cars Stringent speed control
authorities and administrations framework for road infrastructure plan for eliminating companies is used to based on their emissions; system;
to assess impact of their promoting bio-fuels; (TGV); SNCF has "black-spots" along the subsidise and fund Compulsory use of a 7-
policies (no clear measures are measures to promote received lots of funding to national road network; public transport; Several class CO2 sticker system
mentioned) eco-driving (not stated help it to improve its implementation of the new tram systems have for new private vehicles;
what these are) quality of service to meet EC Directive been launched; Rail link linking the costs of
international quality 2002/49/EC; Support for to Charles de Gaulle vehicle registration to
standards; introduction of research on measures to airport CO2 emissions; tax
public bicycle rental reduce ambient transport credits for purchase of
systems in several cities noise (not stated how clean vehicles;

much money is allocated government procurement
for this, or what the of vehicles with

objectives
specific research is) emissions under 140g/km
and using flex-fuels
Germany Introduction of fuel tax; National noise protection

tax cuts on electricity and package adopted (2007)
rail transport
Greece Significant investments in Strategic Action Plan for

rail (Structural Funds) Road Safety (2006-
2010)
Hungary Some objectives are adequately dealt Objective of lowering Tax subsidies for Legal measures to Implementation of the Seven regional transport
transport intensity was defined smaller, energy efficient promote combined EC Directive organisations have been
in Hungarian national policy cars; costs of vehicle transport (not clear what 2002/49/EC created to organise
(not stated how or when); registration is linked to these measures are); transport at a regional
Development of regional energy efficiency and Provision of new level; government decree
logistic centres; engine size; Excise duty infrastructure for 2130/2006 and
regulation promotes use combined transport at 2230/2006 specify: New
of CNG three inland ports in way for vehicle
Hungary reconstruction in the

field of bus transport;
development of railway
stock; establishing
regulations regarding
public transport
associations;
harmonisation of

objectives
timetables, regional
organisation of transport,
and termination of
parallel transport modes
Ireland No clear links National Spatial Strategy 15.8 billion Euro Road Safety authority
emphasises the land-use investment in public was established in 2006
transport interaction and transport projects and

deploys a range of measures regional airports
for integrated land use-
transport
Italy Links are not clear Finance Act of 2007 instituted Policy agreements with Financial incentives for Refinancing of law on Municipalities with more
the fund for sustainable municipalities and replacing older cars, and bicycle mobility by than 30,000 residents
mobility (90 M euro/yr for industry associations to purchasing vehicles providing better require Urban Traffic
period 2007-09); established promote methane gas; running on methane, infrastructure and Plans; Urban Mobility
the financial sources for low impact fuels LPG or electricity intersections; purchase of Plans are also required
preparation of the General initiative was electric and hybrid cars (it is not stated which
Mobility Plan implemented; car for use in protected areas cities are required to
sharing initiative was produce these plans, or
implemented; what they are supposed
"wrecking" of two- to include)

stroke motor boats in
marine protected areas
was financed

objectives
Latvia No clear link to Registration of motor Network of bicycle paths Public transport National Road Traffic
vehicles presupposes a is being developed development guidelines Safety Plan
positive conformity for a reform of the sector Introduction of a points-
assessment with the based recording system

EURO norms for for driving offences and
exhaust gases higher penalties for
drunk driving
Lithuania Focused on three objectives: 1) Approval of Programme

decoupling, 2) improving the quality for enhancement of
of fuels, and 3) promote railways production and
and combined transport. Policy consumption of bio-fuels

measures are not mentioned in the
report. However, transport sector
seems to be performing well.

Situation is not yet in equilibrium
Luxembourg Investments in new rail Car taxation now based

lines (including trams) on CO2 emissions (Jan.
2007)
Malta Encouraging park-and-
ride systems with free

shuttle service

objectives
Netherlands Only a minority of the objectives is Opening of a new rail Funding for technology Investments in new Campaign targeting
clearly covered by policy measures track for freight transport development for "silent" public transport driving behaviour
linking Rotterdam port to road surfaces, tyres, infrastructure; collective
Germany rolling rail-stock taxi-systems outside

urban areas
Poland No reporting on the subject
Portugal No clear links to logistics initiatives Logistics Strategic Plan Approval of Strategic Promotion of public
(Portugal Logistics) being Guidelines for the transport links - suburban
developed Maritime and Ports and national systems

Sector, under which
ports are required to
submit annual
sustainability reports.
Romania Environmental fund EURO 4 norms come Information campaign

stimulates renewal of the into effect as of 1 for raising public
national car fleet and January 2008 awareness about road

replacement of cars older safety and pedestrian
than 12 years; Several safety.
EU directives were
incorporated into
national legislation (bio-
fuels, quality of petrol

and diesel fuels);
Provision of fuel-

objectives
economy and CO2
emission information to
consumers in the
marketing campaigns
has been agreed to
between the car
producers, importers,
and the government
Slovakia Links are clear but coverage of goals National program for Charging for road use Stimulating eco-driving
is limited development of bio-
fuels; provision of
information about CO2
emissions and fuel
consumption from
vehicles to purchasers of
new vehicles;
Slovenia no clear links In 2006, a Resolution on Requiring local Adoption of the EC type Resolution on the
Transport Policy laying communities to take approval legislation; National Program for
down the objectives and additional measures Road Transport Safety

measures for reducing when certain threshold 2007-2013
GHG emissions was values are exceeded (not
adopted stated what these values

are, or for which
emissions this
obligation holds)

objectives
Spain Transport investments Introduction of points
have strong focus on rail based drivers licence
(48%)
Sweden Not all objectives are clearly Adapting physical planning Carbon-dioxide based Safer roads: separated
covered by policy measures. and settlement development car tax was introduced in oncoming traffic lanes;
strategies to reduce demand 2006; Large petrol speed monitoring
for transport and increase the stations must offer programs; policing to
scope for environmentally renewable fuel alongside reduce drunken driving

friendly transport petrol and diesel; Grants and promote seat belt
are provided for use; government
investments in filling subsidies for in-vehicle

stations for biogas or safety technologies
other renewable fuels;
Vehicles purchased
under public
procurement have to be
green vehicles; 25% pf
all government vehicles
have to be green
vehicles; Premium for

individuals purchasing
green cars; fairway dues
(for ships) are
differentiated based on
emissions of sulphur and

objectives
nitrogen oxides; landing
and take-off charges at
state-owned airports are
based on emissions of
nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons
UK Clearly linked to objectives Carbon pricing (tax, trading); Renewable transport A new air quality Smarter choice campaign Maps for identification Significant investments Cleaner vehicle task force Road safety strategy
Low Carbon Transport fuels obligation: 5% of strategy has just been (for transport choices); of noise sources is in public transport (not has made several including 150 measures
Innovation Strategy; transport fuel sold in the published promotion of cycling by underway stated what these are, or recommendations across 10 themes
Voluntary agreements with U.K. will have to come providing infrastructure how large they are)
car manufacturers; Smarter from renewable sources; and information

choices information Urban congestion and campaigns; soft measures
campaign; communications road pricing schemes to encourage more people
campaign to bicycle; traffic demand

management schemes

Theme: Sustainable consumption and production
Congruence with EU SDS Promoting SCP by addressing social and Improving the environmental and social Aiming to achieve by 2010 an EU The EU should seek to increase its
objectives economic development within the carrying performance for products and processes average level of GPP equal to that global market share in the fields of
capacity of ecosystems and decoupling and encouraging their uptake by business currently achieved b the best performing environmental technologies and eco-
economic growth from the environmental and consumers. MS. innovations.
degradation.
Austria
Broad overall focus on SCP. Several awareness and eco-labelling GPP initiatives i.a. GPP agency, guidelines "Master plan for environmental technologies
Weak linkage to objectives initiatives i.a. EMAS and greening of events
Belgium
Actions both nationally and General policy evaluation with focus on SCP, Creation of a national "social label" National SPP action plan drafted, some
regionally regional SP initiatives regional initiatives and implementation
Bulgaria
No clear linkage to objectives. Some efforts put into waste management and
Most efforts put on caching up increased energy efficiency, National Strategic
and rural development Rural Development plan

Cyprus
Clear linkage to the objectives. Energy saving initiatives, including a Thematic Awareness raising activities on ECOLABEL GPP action plan March 2007
Park, water initiatives and EMAS. EMAS implementation training

Czech Republic
Several long term plans. Only Quantitative targets to reduce energy and material Awareness raising activities, including CSR,
weak link to objectives in SDS consumption until 2020 and on waste management. database on good practices, National program
SCP framework Programmes 2006-2008 on Eco-labelling scheme (Jan 07)
Denmark
Waste is in focus- only weak Planned new focus on waste management and Awareness raising initiatives
link to objectives in SDS efficiency adv. Waste strategy 05-08
Rural ecologic development and organic farming

Estonia
Range of action plans and A wide range of action plans: Environmental EMAS procedure implemented Green and sustainable public procurement Research and Development and innovation
planned actions. One of the Action Plan 2007-2013 and within agriculture, rural priorities determined Strategy 2007-2013, initiatives through EU
leading accession countries development and tourism. Waste management structural funds
system

degradation.
Finland
Actions covering all four ENVIMAT programme to map impacts of Service centre for material efficiency (2008). National programme for GPP 2007. Environmental Cluster Research Programme
objectives, however only to a consumption and production. Some support to Eco-benchmark for consumption. EMAS recommendation on energy efficiency
limited extent. organic farming introduction being prepared
France
Weak linkage to SDS SCP Increasing expenditure on environmental protection Awareness raising and business dialogue - A national action plan for SPP set-ting targets Initiatives support to promoting eco-
objectives. Over average action by 6% p.a. voluntary commitments and SME focus. for 2007-2009. Obligation on public innovation
on objective 3. Promotion of eco-labelling. Facilitating administration to take an eco-responsible
research/business partnerships approach e.g. on water and waste
consumption
Germany
Very limited information and Awareness raising initiatives and labelling PP guidelines - focus on social aspects
focus on SCP
Greece
n.a.
Hungary
Follows the structure of the SDS Environmental Awareness Raising Action Draft of GPP national action plan i.a. defining
on SCP. Plan. Won the EMAS price implementation ratios and deadlines
Ireland
Close relation to the SDS. A Transposing EU directives. Compare process - Awareness and information sharing initiatives. An action plan for GPP is being prepared Support to companies assessing reduction
wide range of initiatives but no Research on policy options for SCP. A wide range Business support in regards to EMAS opportunities. A range of ETAP initiatives
co-ordinated program for SCP of waste initiatives. certification. Promotion of organic food
production
Italy
Close link to SDS. International task force on SC** education and Financial support to SMEs implementing Possibility for SPP by implementation of EU Roadmap for implementing ETAP (2005)
national working group on i.a IPP environmental management systems. directives. National action plan is provided for which is also included in the Lisbon
Facilitation of EMAS. Leader in eco label
but not yet prepared implementation plan
licenses. Eco labelling - new criteria system
developed. Business dialogue to set targets
Latvia
Very limited relevant Efforts to raise awareness of and disseminate
information and focus on the information on GPP

degradation.
objectives of SCP
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Weak link to SDS objectives. Initiatives to promote energy efficiency Waste and Awareness raising initiatives towards Advice and guidance available to SMEs,
recycling initiatives producers of goods and services. ISO Center for environmental technologies
certification and labelling of goods. (CRTE)
Malta
Some linkage to objectives Renewable energy policy presented and energy Tax initiatives to steer consumption and GPP initiative (2006) - draft action plan Draft ETAP plan
conservation/efficiency initiatives Recycling production published 2007-2009 a range of actions are
initiatives. Eco-tourism scheme. Initiatives to Eco-labelling initiatives and EMAS prepared. Specific target.
promote organic farming

Netherlands
No clear linkage to SDS "committed to the UN Marrakesh process" and to Stakeholder dialogue with companies, branch Target: 100% SPP in 2010 in the government
objective. the "Commission on Sustainable Development" organisations and NGOs. Intensive dialogue and 50% at regional level. Information and
with selected sectors. Focus on CSR. advice to purchasers
Participates in WSSD partnerships
Poland
Portugal
No focus on eco-innovation. Waste prevention project and waste management Increasing number of companies whose National strategy for ecological public
Weak link to objectives. training. Business and Biodiversity initiative products are eco-labelled (six). Awareness procurement (2007). Project undertaken to
raising activities. Special focus on SMEs. IPP share best practice in public contract (2003-
project. DEUSA project and INATEC project 2006)

Romania
Newly introduced concept in Implementing legislation on ecological farming, Growth in ecological agriculture, participation Implementation of EU legislation. Translation Roadmap for implementation of ETAP
Romania, and waste handling in the BIOFACH 2007, and ecological of the EC GPP Handbook. Education and
agriculture (AE) label. Also labelling information initiatives.
concerning recycling. Implementation of eco-
labelling legislation education and awareness

degradation.
raising.
Slovakia
Week goal orientation compared Establishment of "Inter resort work committee" for Labelling scheme EVV. Focus on ecological
to SDS SCP. Strategy for use of voluntary instruments in agriculture
environmental policy is being developed
Slovenia
Primary focus on eco-innovation Eco-labelling and EMAS. Some awareness Recorded cases of good practices. Preparing Guidelines on environmental technologies.
and increasing focus on GPP raising activities. an "Operational Programme for the promotion Key objective to promote new environmental
of GPP. Legal basis is established technologies "Environmental Technologies
Excellence centre
Spain
Weak link to objectives. Only Focus on increased water efficiency in the
action within objective 1. agricultural sector and extended ecological farming
Sweden
A wide range of activities, in Memorandum of SCP to define current situation Various awareness raising initiatives towards Action plan on GPP (March 2007) GPP SWENTEC - council to strengthen
particular on GPP and eco and clarifying needs for further action (July 2007) industry and consumers. Also promotion of strengthened by extra resources in the Budget environmental technologies. Preparing
technologies fair trade. Bill 2007. Supporting councils to promote proposal for how to implement ETAP 2010
GPP and focus on education ambitions. "environment driven business

development" programme
UK
Leader within SCP Market transformation programme - policy GPP action plan (March 2007) based on A range of initiatives to promote eco-
briefs and awareness raising. Product "road business lead GP*** task force. Guide on SPP technologies e.g. Commission on
maps". Business task force on SCP, awareness Environmental markets and Economic
raising initiatives, i.a. government guide to Performance, PPD**** on financial issues,

greener living business lead Environmental Innovations
Advisory Group

Table: Overview of Key policy initiatives that contribute to the EU SD Strategy objectives
Theme: Conservation and management of natural resources
.
Congruence with EU Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6
SDS objectives Improving resource Gaining and maintaining Avoiding Halting biodiversity loss Contributing to UN goals Avoiding generation of
efficiency competitive advantage overexploitation of on forestry waste
renewables
Austria Coherent, limited actions 2007 Action Plan for Investment Initiative and Austrian Forest Act: increase 2006 Federal Waste plan
in 2006/7; no clear Increasing the Efficiency of Regional Initiative for rural areas in wooded areas.
linkages to SDS Resources; master plan for and for SMEs in order to
environmental technology; strengthen municipalities
biomass action plan etc.
Belgium Incoherent, limited actions Sustainable plans for mineral National Biodiversity Strategy 2007 Sustainable timber
in 2006/7; no clear extraction being drawn up. procurement plans for
linkages to SDS government (early 2006)
Bulgaria Ambitious plans, no National Programme for National plan for Preservation of
coherent strategy; no clear Action for Sustainable Biological Diversity 2005-2010;
linkages to SDS Management of Lands 2007- establishing 13 new protected areas
2013
Cyprus Focussed on prevention of Water Tax by 2010 182 Implementation of National
natural disasters; some plans for forest fires
linkages with SDS
Czech No coherent strategy, Ambition to achieve EU27 Stimulate use of environmental Prioritizing recycling to 55%
Republic sector focussed, many average for material technologies through economic, of all waste by 2012;
ambitions; no clear consumption to GDP till 2020 legislative and voluntary schemes; National Waste management
linkages to SDS (part of the Renewed CR however no details Strategy
strategy on SD (2007))
Denmark Focus on agriculture, lack DKK255 million investment for Legislation for establishment of State-owned forests certified
of coherent strategy; no eco-efficient agricultural national parks passed in 2007 and run on sustainable
clear linkages to SDS technologies grounds 2007;
Estonia Few concrete actions in Environmental Liability Act
2006/7, ambitions passed in 2007: enforcing
apparent, limited linkages “polluter pays principle”;
to SDS
182
Although to be implemented by 2010, mention is made of this as taxes on resource use are uncommon and politically sensitive and therefore can be viewed as a worthy effort by said MS and is included in the table.

.
renewables
Finland Focus on forestry with 2006: 110 concrete proposals for First-time drainage removed
seemingly good track action to implement strategy on from forest planning and
record and concrete protection of biodiversity and subsidy systems; “Forest
measures for the future. sustainable use of the Finnish nature Sector Future Review (2006)”;
Some clear linkages to for 2006-2016 New forest conservation areas
SDS, but limited. established in 2006.
France Many international efforts; 10-sector/territory biodiversity action State purchasing of wood “National Plan to support
no coherent strategy; plans approved by Council of should be certified by 2010 domestic composting”
mainly old schemes; no Ministers 2006 (2005) (2006)
clear linkages to SDS
Germany Vague and descriptive; Good focus on primary sectors Safeguard raw materials supply
Focus on raw materials via National Strategy for for German industry through Raw
supply for industry; little Sustainable Development; Materials Strategy.
on biodiversity and double materials productivity
conservation; few concrete by 2020; Raw Materials
actions; no clear linkages Strategy
to SDS
Greece Lots of progress in waste Action plans approved for National Strategy for Biodiversity; “Collective Alternative
management and recycling; Thessaloniki plain, 2006: 2.5% increase since 2002 in Management Scheme”:
actions through OP Strimonas basin and Arta- Natura 2000 areas; now 19.1% of opportunity for recycling
“environment and Preveza plain to control non- land surface. packaging waste”; February
sustainable development point source pollution. 2007: national plan for the
(2007-2013)”; overarching management of hazardous
strategy not identifiable; waste based on “polluter
limited overall contribution pays” principle legislated.
to SDS
Hungary No coherent strategy Natura 2000 = 21% of territory Development strategy of
though NRDP contains communal solid waste
sustainability components management 2007-2016
Ireland Good agri-environment “New Tourism Product Strategy for a Restructured, New National Plan in 2008 building
schemes focus on Development Strategy” launched Sustainable and Profitable on success of last years for
agriculture, no details of in early 2007; Seafood Industry (up to €334 conservation of biodiversity
concrete actions in many m spending till 2013)
areas.
Italy Main focus is through Environmental Business Award Various measures through National Inventory of Forests
structural funds, CSF and (2005) to promote innovation Community Support and Forest Reservoirs of
NSRF. Waste is still major Framework (CSF) focused Carbon by end 2007
issue; some linkages to on water improvement

.
renewables
SDS
Latvia Only very limited coverage 633 specially protected nature areas
of EU SDS objectives have been established (out of which
mostly geared towards 336 are Natura 2000 sites)
wildlife conservation 11 EU-Life Nature projects
Lithuania No strategy, no concrete
actions. no clear linkages
to SDS
Luxembourg
Malta Multiple action plans and Business Promotion Act and Declaration of 26 terrestrial and 1
ambitions in all areas; National Strategic Plan for marine protection area(s)
implementation and Research and Innovation: 2007-10
progress less clear; some
clear linkages to SDS
Netherlands No concrete actions – no

real strategy. No clear
linkages to SDS
Poland
Portugal Many planned measures Natura 2000 sector plan completed National Inventory of Forests;
for sustainable rural with creation of Protected Marine Regional Forest management
development; strong focus Areas plans; National Forest Fire
on forests and proposed Prevention Plan
regional water
management plans;
contribution is noteworthy
Romania Problems with waste – far Share of protected natural areas to Unitary management
behind EU average. grow from 8% (2005) to 15% by structures for all forests
Intentions are apparent 2013. introduced. Implementation of
Forest Development
Programme
Slovakia No strategy, focus on Action Plan of National
forestry; no clear linkages Forestry Plan
to SDS

.
renewables
Slovenia Main focus is through the Sustainable use of drinking Marine Fisheries Act (2006), Natura 2000 covers 35.5% of Co-financing of investments
OPs and RDP. Strong water backed by OP for implements common territory. in improving the economic
focus on nature protection. drinking water supply (2006); fisheries policy value of forests within RDP
Some clear linkages to many other OPs on waste and
SDS recycling
Spain Although a very strong 27% of territory is Natura 2000
focus on biological network. National Site List
conservation the rest of the completed December 2006. Natural
overall theme is entirely heritage and Biodiversity Bill (8th
missing. Therefore no June 2007); 12 national conservation
overall strategy identifiable strategies designed in addition to this
and very limited overall bill
contribution.
Sweden Strong commitment to RDP adopted (SEK 35bn) Management plan for cod 127 action programmes covering 250 Tax on combustion of
biodiversity strategy; (fish) in the Baltic sea species and different habitats; 67,000 household waste to increase
strong signals from (2006); Plans for plaice and ha nature secured in 2005/6; local recycling of materials (2006)
government, noteworthy sol in North Sea to be and municipal nature conservation
contribution and clear concluded. initiative was completed; Natura
linkages to SDS 2000 almost complete
UK Many separate strategies UK has developed a range of Funding to reduce number of National targets set in Waste
and reviews and action SCP indicators to support timber lorries on fragile rural Strategy for England 2007
plans on range of issues, no national SDS and sustainable roads
real quantifiable progress; resource use
limited linkages to SDS

Theme: Public Health
Congruence Improving Further Promote Curbing increase in Reducing health Ensuring that chemicals Improving Improving mental
with EU SDS protection against improving animal health lifestyle related diseases inequalities within are handles in a safe way information on health and
objectives health threats food and feed and welfare and between MS by 2020 pollution tackling suicide
legislation standards risks
Austria Clear linkage to Pandemic crisis plan Eggs laid by Introduction of ‘Healthy First pilot projects on
objectives evaluated by ECDC caged hens Schools’ chemical leasing business
removed from model
supermarket and
discount stores;
Ban on using
wild animals in
circuses or
showing dogs
and cats in pet
shops;
establishment of
an Animal
Protection
Council;
creation of
standardised
progressive
animal
protection
legislation
Belgium No clear Development of Collaboration Optimisation of Development of national Reduction programme on Introduction of Federal plan to
linkage to emergency plans; to and the legislation nutrition and health plan pesticides and biocides National Environment combat suicide;
objectives monitoring of diseases implementation for the (2006-2010); Development of Health Action Plan; Introduction of
and health indicators of additional protection of nutrition guides for different Introduction of network Flemish action plan
and assessment of EU regulations animals and age groups; Adoption of of medical to reduce suicide
risks; studies on on food humans against federal anti-tobacco plan environmental experts; mortality rate by 8%
emerging risks; additives and animal diseases; (since 2006, smoking ban in Provision of (2000-2010)
establishment of health claims; regulation of public spaces, and extended information on ozone
network for crisis explanation of veterinary to hotel and catering sector in alarm and heath wave;
prevention the regulation medical 2007); Set up of inspection Introduction of
on trade in food professionals system; scientific platform on
supplements and use of Declaration of intent to environment and health
veterinary promote health in primary
medicines; and secondary education (To
enactment of your health!); introduction of
strict regulations walking Sundays; TV

on animal programme on health in daily
welfare and the life; Introduction of policy to
organisation of promote a healthy food and
necessary physical behaviour for
inspections children and adolescents
Bulgaria No clear Since 2001, National National program for In 2006, the National National plan for the impact Adoption of National
linkage to strategy and National limitation of tobacco smoking strategy for of surrounding program on mental
objectives program for (2007-2010); Monitoring of implementation of e- environment-health health (2004-2012)
prophylactics and intervention program for Health was introduced;
control of AIDS and integrated prophylactics of National health strategy
sexually transmitted chronic non communicable of Bulgaria focuses on
diseases; National diseases ethnic minorities (2005-
program for prevention 2015)
and control of TB
(2007-2011); National
immunization calendar
is actualized
Cyprus No clear Continuous informing CBA of prevention and Development of information
linkage to families, teachers, therapeutic programs on collection systems and
objectives – overall community on CVD, cancer etc monitoring programs
actions dangers and means of
mentioned are prevention and
very general. A protection
general health
plan (health in
all policies)
was introduced
Czech No clear
Republic linkage to
objectives and
public health –
no specific
actions
mentioned
Denmark No clear Adoption of Chemicals action plan
linkage to EU rules in (2006-2009); Regulation on
objectives 2005 with working with chemical
regard to substances and materials
perfume has been amended (2004);
content of National list of unwanted
cosmetics, chemicals has been revised
detergents and
cleaning agents

Estonia No clear National strategy Amendment of Since 2005, oral National Strategy for the Since 2007, all Estonian Environmental
linkage to against HIV and AIDS the Food Act immunization of prevention of CVD (1005- unemployed persons are Strategy 2030;
objectives – for (2006-2015); National for the better wild animals 2020); National Cancer covered for health Environmental Action Plan
specific actions Programme against TB organisation of against rabies Strategy (2007-2015); insurance by the Social 2007-2013; Estonian
clear targets are (2004-2007). Targets food safety National Drug Prevention Tax Act legislation was updated and
set are set to decrease the Strategy 2010; Amendment aligned with EU directives
number of new HIV to the Tobacco Act (2007); on cosmetics and chemical
positive diagnoses per Estonian Sports for All safety
million inhabitants a Strategic Development Plan
year to the average (2006-2010); Healthy school
level of EU, to catering programme; Targets
decrease new cases of are set to decrease the
TB in Estonia mortality rate among men
and women <65 years caused
by CVD, to increase % of the
population participating in
recreational sports, to
decrease number of cancer
cases by 5% (compared to
2000), and to decrease the
number of people (15-65
years) trying illegal drugs by
5%
Finland No clear National preparedness Health 2015 PHP (2000- Implementing study on Establishment of a Centre of
linkage to plan for influenza 2015); Policy programme for policy action in the field Expertise on Serious
objectives, epidemic; health promotion was of reducing socio- Chemical Threats;
although some implementation of launched; Targets are set in economic health Implementation of national
targets are set training programme on Alcohol Programme (2004- differences; Work/Life programme on hazardous
with regard to pandemic 2007); Alcohol policy Balance Programme chemicals (2006)
specific actions preparedness; regulations; Drug Policy
nationwide telephone Action Plan (2004-2007);
advisory service on Introduction of training in
influenza pandemic; preventive alcohol and drug
introduction of bird flu for occupational health
diagnostic tools service and workplaces;
Establishment of inter-
sectoral committee for health-
enhancing physical activity
(2005-2008)
France Clear linkage to Action plans to National healthy nutrition Introduction of National National suicide
objectives combat programme (2006-2010); Health-Environment Plan prevention
Legionella Plan Health at Work (2006) (2004-2009); Annual action programme (2005)
bacteria (2004) plan on prevention of

environmental pollution
(2007)
Germany No clear National action plan for the
linkage to prevention of malnutrition,
objectives and lack of physical exercise,
public health obesity and related diseases
Greece Linkage to a Laboratory Introduction of Development of treatment Development of Improvement of
few objectives, accreditation; farmer support programmes for drug primary health care by mental health system
especially Development schemes problems; Creation of creation of Urban is studied –
improving of quality network of centres for Health Centres in psychiatric reform:
food, feed, management prevention Athens and closure of 5
animal welfare system for farm Thessaloniki since psychiatric hospitals
and mental production; 2003; Set up of Institute by end of 2008;
health Ministerial for Social Protection Establishment of 14
Decree and Solidarity; Social Cooperatives
regarding Introduction of of Limited
labelling of Ombudsman for Health Responsibility to re-
GMO: ban of and Social Solidarity employ and re-
GMOs intended integrate mentally ill
for human use; persons
Ministerial
Decree in 2006
regarding
undesirable
substances in
animal nutrition
Hungary Clear linkage to National influenza National Public Health Health care reform Organization of REACH Updating website of National programme
objectives pandemic Programme (“Healthy way of (2006) Competent Authority and National Institute of on mental health
preparedness plan is life, reducing factors that REACH national helpdesk; Environmental Health; (2007)
under revision; represent a risk to human Implementation of national elaboration of Air
establishment of health”); National Cancer halon-bank Quality Index;
national influenza Control Programme; Establishment of heat
pandemic prevention Programme for the warning system;
committee; mobile prevention and treatment of Distribution of
epidemic-mirco- CVD, National infant and publication “Protect
biological rapid child health programme, your environment and
response unit was set Hungarian network of your health” to all
up; National AIDS Healthy Schools public health
strategy is institutions and primary
implemented schools
Ireland No clear Participation in Health Inter-departmental and inter- Specific strategies are in Environment Protection
linkage to Regulations 2005 sectoral collaboration on place which target Agency and Health
objectives, but (2007); Participation in prevention of chronic health and personal Service Executive

linkage to international working diseases (development of social service needs of participate in EU
actions. groups on HIV/AIDS, policy framework); Strategic vulnerable groups; project on human bio-
Effectiveness TB and malaria (Irish’ Task Force on Alcohol, Stamp out Stigma monitoring; Monitoring
of measures has Aid) Smoke Free at Work campaign (HIV) and assessment of
been described Initiative (2004); Tax national air quality
in some increase on cigarettes; Illegal
instances to sell cigarettes in packets
<20; Use of surveys to
provide baseline data on
health and lifestyle behaviour
Italy Clear linkage to National Plan for the Specific Government Introduction of Gain in Evaluation of law on Chemical Industry A prototype of the Accordance to
objectives Preparation for and provisions on Programme Health Programme (inter- assistance to patients Observatory has promoted databank on eco- principles of the
Response to an food labelling (2006-2011) on sectoral approach), especially affected with an environmental toxicological values Mental Health
Influenza Pandemic (2004); protection of taking the position of HIV/AIDS certification project has been constructed; Action Plan for
(2006), Participation in National animals; migrants into account, participation in pan- Europe (WHO):
Health Regulations legislation on National Bovine National Prevention Plan European Environment promoting mental
2005 (2007) hygiene and Data Bank, (2005-2007) – Action and Health process, health at schools and
sale of implementation Strategy for the Prevention of CEHAPE a national
foodstuffs; of monitoring Obesity, National Alcohol information and
implementation and surveillance and Health Plan (2007-2009) media programme
of risk systems for against stigma and
assessment specific diseases prejudice towards
system (e.g. BSE) mental illness
Latvia Visible linkage Integrated Integrated Network of "Heart Health Public health
to objectives. approach to approach to Surgeries" is being strategy seeks to
Focus on the food safety and food safety and established and prophylactic improve the mental
pressing animal welfare animal welfare check-up programmes health of the
problem of (from field to (from field to extended population (until
cardiovascular table) table) 2010)
diseases. Lack introduced introduced Tighter restrictions on
of measurable smoking and ban in public
targets places
Lithuania No clear Vaccination policy Lithuanian Health National Environmental
linkage to (2004) focused on TB Programme is focused on Health Action Programme
objectives, improving life expectancy (2003-2006)
although some (73/78.8 years by
general health 2010/2020); Health offices in
targets are set all schools; Development of
network of health promoting
schools
Luxembourg No clear National plan on National plan to promote National plan on
linkage to influenza pandemic good health and physical psychiatry (reduction
objectives (2006); Action plan on exercise; National cancer of stigma of mental

bird flu; Strategy and strategies (e.g. illness)
action plan for mammography screening);
HIV/ADIS (2006- New tobacco legislation
2010) (2006)
Malta Clear overview Public Health Act Food Safety Animal welfare Legislation on smoking in Health care is provided National Environmental Environmental Health Mental Health Act;
of legislation (2003) Act (2002), act; Veterinary public and work places on the basis of universal Health Action Plan (2006- Unit (established in Renewal of National
and actions Food Safety Services Act; (2004); Provision of health access, fairness and 2010); Inter-ministerial 1990) monitors, reports Commission for
undertaken. Commission Establishment information by the Health solidarity; Accordance working groups are being and control Mental Health;
However, was set up; A of Animal Promotion Department to CEHAPE – set up to tackle issues such programmes in the area Several community
actions not guide for food Health and establishment of as environmental health, of water; Environment support initiatives to
always clearly industry was Welfare Commissioner for obesity and climate change; Protection Act; Health facilitate integration
related to developed to Inspectorate Children Malta Standards Authority Promotion Department of persons with
objectives. One comply to the (Foodstuffs, chemicals and organised several mental health
target is set food regulation; cosmetics Directorate) is campaigns (e.g. sun problems
with regard to implementation responsible for transposition awareness); Other
decreasing the of Hazard and adoption of legislation – organisations that
% of Analysis National Interim Strategy provide information
obesity/overwei Critical Control for the implementation of include MEPA and
ght in line with Point approach REACH (2004): setting up WasteServ; Initiation
EU average in to prevent of Pesticides Control Board of Eco Schools (2003)
2010 food-borne and Radiation Protection
illness; Animal Board; A national helpdesk
Feed Rules is set up in relation to
(2005) REACH Regulation
Netherlands No clear Enforcement
linkage to activities in the
objectives and field of
public health improving food
overall quality
Poland Public health is
not mentioned
in progress
report
Portugal No clear New actions plans and
linkage to programmes concerning
objectives various health issues
Romania No clear Awareness campaigns Awareness Awareness campaigns for Clean energy sources for Air quality monitoring Centres providing
linkage to targeted on HIV/AIDS campaign for promoting health nutrition household consumers; counselling for
objectives supported by mass food labelling and specific diets; Reducing programmes for families with hazard
media, sexual advantages, Information on the dangerous substance factor for mental
education; education introducing consequences of drug emissions; Strict rules for diseases; Limitation
campaigns in the field organic food, consumption and on TB in chemicals supply and of hazard factors and
of TB; maintenance of limitation of mandatory curriculum; handling vulnerability to

100% DOTS cover of dangerous National prevention mental diseases;
population affected by substances in campaigns; Programs for Programs promoting
TB food parents in order to acquire mental hygiene
necessary knowledge to
educate their children;
Preventing drug and alcohol
consumption
Slovakia Clear linkage to Integrated State Policy for the Health of Program of Support of Risks assessment focused Action Plan of National program on
objectives national Plan of the Slovak Republic focused the Health of on the specific use of Environment and mental health (2005-
Controls (2007- on chronic diseases, Disadvantaged Roma individual substances. The Health of Inhabitants of 2015)
2011); infection disease, Communities in Centre of Chemical the Slovak Republic
Office of environment and health and selected Segregated and Substances and III: human
Public Health tobacco and alcohol Isolated Roma Formulations provides biomonitoring,
provides the Settlements; guidance to manufacturers, information system of
continuous Participation in EC users etc environment and health
transposition Expert Group on Social and climate changes;
and Determinants and Ministry of Health,
implementation Health Inequalities, Ministry of
of the legal WHO and Environment, Office
acts; Central EuroHealthNet for Public Health and
Control and Environmental Hygiene
Test Institute of Department provide
Agriculture and information
the State
Veterinary and
Food
Administration
provide
inspectorates;
Food Research
Institute:
monitoring of
food chain
Slovenia Clear linkage to Pandemic Implementation Veterinary National Programme for Strategic Approach to Information provision,
objectives preparedness plan of legislation Compliance Nutrition Policy, Programme International Chemical especially to children;
on food and Criteria Act to promote physical activity, Management: national Monitoring drinking
feed – (2006); Restriction of the Use of chemical safety programme water and residual
especially implementation Tobacco Products Act (2006-2010); Establishment pesticides in foodstuffs
regarding of monitoring (2007), prohibiting smoking of system of permits for
quality and systems of in public places engaging in production of
safety of food harmful and trade in chemicals;
and feedstuff substances and Database on all hazardous
(Animal Feed zoonotic chemicals in Slovenia;

Act, 2006; diseases; Providing education to
Agriculture Animal industry (advisors for
Act, Act Protection Act chemicals);
Regulating the (1999, amended
Sanitary in 2007)
Suitability of
Foodstuffs,
Products and
Materials
Coming into
Contact with
Foodstuffs);
certification of
safe food
Spain No clear National Health Development of public Publication of the Strengthening of the Rapid
linkage to System National awareness raising campaigns; Promotion of Personal Exchange Network on
objectives – Quality Plan includes Design of preventive Independence and Care Chemicals; Set up of
some specific further support of recommendations; Spanish of Persons in a Situation working groups on the Air
actions are surveillance systems; strategy for nutrition, of Dependency and Quality Strategy (indoor air)
mentioned Sectoral physical activity and Families Act (2006)
Environmental prevention of obesity;
Strategy of the Spanish Prevention of alcohol
Cooperation Agency to consumption for under 18s
combat HIV/AIDS, and drunk driving;
malaria and TB Publication of Act 28/2005 to
(especially in Africa combat smoking (regulation
and Latin America) of sale, supply, consumption
and advertising of tobacco
products)
Sweden No clear Updated action plan Proposal for Participation in National Institute of Public Review of how Swedish National action plan for Draft national
linkage to for pandemic regulation on EU draft on Health report on public health chemicals legislation relates children’s environment suicide prevention
objectives – influenza; exercises the placing of animal health policy (2005); National to REACH requirements and health (2005), programme; Set up
some clear were held in 2006 and plant protection policy action plan for drugs (2006- (2007-2008); Council of including Sweden’s of a national
targets are set 2007 to test products on the 2010) – Since first action Swedish Chemicals Agency environmental quality knowledge centre for
for specific preparedness; national markets (2006); plan in 2002 use of drugs is responsible for objectives (Clean Air, early action for
actions strategy to combat Incorporation among school students has exchanging information and A non-toxic children and young
HIV/AIDS and certain of EU decreased slightly; national cooperation between environment, good people at risk of
other communicable regulations for targets are set for reducing relevant actors in matters quality groundwater, a severe mental ill
diseases (2006); feed and food tobacco use in the concerted concerning REACH; safe radiation health
Participation in the safety, feed and tobacco policy (including tax Participation of Swedish environment, good
Commission think tank food hygiene, incentives, 2007) Environmental Protection built environment);
on HIV/AIDS; protection from Agency in EU ERA-NET Report on chemical
pests and risks for children

public control (Swedish Chemicals
into Swedish Agency)
legislation
(2006);
produced
UK No clear Food industry Animal Health Several national strategies Healthy Communities Air Quality Strategy Development of
linkage to Sustainability and Welfare and action plans, e.g. Health Programme (2006- (2007); Information is mental health
objectives, but Strategy (2006) Strategy (2004), Challenge England – next 2008) is focusing on available via websites indicators (2007) in
development of – food miles incl. cost steps for choosing health tackling local health of Health Protection Scotland; Suicide
well-being are used as sharing on the (2006); Regional public inequalities (capacity Agency and reduction strategy in
indicators is a indicator costs of animal health groups address health building of local Environment Agency place
key issue diseases, determinants within their authorities)
veterinary region
surveillance

Table: Overview of Key policy initiatives that contribute to the EU SD Strategy objectives
Theme Social inclusion, demography and migration
Congruence with Reduce the number Ensure a high level Modernise social Significantly Develop an EU Reduce negative Promote increased Increase labour
EU SDS objectives of people at risk of of territorial protection in view increase the labour migration policy – effects of employment of market participation
poverty and social cohesion and of demographic market participation including attention globalization on young people of disabled people
exclusion by 2010, respect for cultural change of women and older to economic workers
focusing on child diversity workers as well as dimension of
poverty migrants migration
Austria Links to EU SDS exist Report on strategies Comprehensive Active labour market
but not so clearly for social protection training and policies taken forward
and social inclusion employment initiatives - unspecified
prepared through for women; various
OMC measures targeted to
older workers
Belgium Reform pressures Subsidise income of Implementation of National social
increasing families and costs of Generation Pact inclusion action plan;
housing Generation Pact
Bulgaria Social protection Social services for National Strategy for National Action Plan Funding for disabled
system under children have been Demographic for Employment is people in 2006
development stepped up Development adopted; being carried out increased; 20% more
Term for receiving people reached
social assistance
benefits has decreased
to 18 months
Cyprus Increase in minimum Minimum wage
wages increased to 50% of
national median in
2008
Czech Republic Reforms lead to Public finance reform Employment policy National Programme
reduced benefits (2008) leads to cuts in has been gradually for Support and

welfare benefits modernized; Integration of Persons
Programmes for Roma with Disabilities
Denmark Not considered part of
sustainable
development in DK
Estonia Wide range of social Strategy to ensure the Ensure demographic Strong family policy Labour market Youth Work Strategy Labour market and
policy measures taken Rights of Children balance in all regions; steps taken aiming to services changed 2006-2013 welfare measures
support cultural increase birth rates significantly developed
diversity actions
Finland Focus on further Finnish National General Policy Social Guarantee for
increase of labour Reform Programme: Incomes Settlement Youth (2006);
market participation of extend work careers, (TUPO): fast-tracking compulsory training
disadvantaged groups improve tax re-employment for this offered after 3 months
incentives, match group unemployment
demand & supply
France Increasing focus on Social cohesion plan Focus on urban and National Joint Action "welcome and Involve WHO, ILO Apprenticeship
devolution in social (€ 12.8 bn. in 5 years) rural initiatives; jointly Plan for Senior's integration" contracts and WB in fight charter: regional
policy area focuses on housing, with Regions employment (2006- drawn up with new against this type of contracts drawn up; nr.
employment & equal 10); fight against immigrants poverty of apprentices has
opportunities. discrimination stepped increased in 2005
up
Germany Broad range of actions “Joining Forces for a First impacts of reform "Experience if Future" Integration of migrants Training Pact –
Social Europe – a of social protection initiative by – integration courses extended by business
Social World” – become visible Chancellor – focusing (€ 140 mln. Per year) community until 2010
German presidency on participation of
initiative older people

Greece Including issues of Social expenditures on Focus on female Greek immigration law Active policies as part Quota for employing
urban sprawl the rise – combating participation, including harmonized with EU of Structural Funds persons with
poverty child care (2007) programmes disabilities
Hungary Focus on social Measures relating to Several programmes Family assistance has Wage assistance can
assistance programmes the social integration for disadvantaged been introduced (July be given to those
of Roma people areas of country 2006) employers who
employ disadvantaged
–people (since 2007)
Ireland Strong focus on labour A new Action Plan for Managing the National Women’s Immigration Protection
market participation Social Inclusion for relationship between Strategy 2007 – 2016 Bill 2007: an overhaul
the period 2007-16 – spatial planning, rapid adopted ( €120m has of Ireland’s
focusing on child population change, been made available) immigration and
poverty (Feb. 2007) housing and mobility: protection laws.
key sustainability
challenge
Italy Increased use of tax Special measures on Family policy as a Reform of immigration National Fund: tax
incentives for meeting equal tax system, child response to ageing policy, focusing on deductions for
social policy aims poverty and housing population entry, citizenship and companies employing
(Oct. 2006) social integration disabled (€ 42 mln. In
2008)
Latvia Focus on labour Social Protection and New child-care Marked increase in the Young people are the Doubling of the
market participation Social Inclusion allowance system and overall employment key target group for allowance to
and child-incentive Strategy 2006-2008 special child-care level (+6.4% form active labour market compensate for the
programmes. Living Biannual inflation allowance for disabled 1998-2006) as well as measures transport costs of
standard of pensioners indexing of small children introduced the employment level people with limited
is a key concern. pensions and of older people. mobility.

guaranteed minimum Female employment Strong increase in the
pension at social level 5.3 percentage employment level of
security level points above EU disabled people and
Higher social security average introduction of active
allowances introduced employment measures
Lithuania No new policy National Action Plan National Action Plan
initiatives report for Fight against for Employment
known Poverty and Social (2004) being
Exclusion (2004) implemented
Luxembourg Focus on preventing "Maison relais pour
child poverty enfants (MR)" – set of
actions preventing
child poverty
Malta Illegal immigration as National Report on Malta strongly favours
key concern Strategies for Social EU approach towards
Protection and Social illegal immigration
Inclusion 2006-08
Netherlands Focus on raising "Participation Summit"
participation in labour (June 2007) has led to
market concrete agreements
to increase labour
participation
Poland No attention paid to
this theme
Portugal No attention paid to
this theme

Romania First steps in Anti-poverty actions
development aid taken focusing on families
with children
Slovakia Social protection Social benefits for New draft law on New law on legal
system being built up families with children social assistance takes status of foreigners
increased account of ageing (Jan. 2007) – in line
with EU
Slovenia Focus on raising Implementation of Programme of active Fund for Human Vocational
participation in labour pension reforms aimed employment policy Resources Rehabilitation and
market at raising retirement measures (2007-2008) Development and Employment of
age Scholarships Disabled Persons Act
established adopted (2006)
Spain Focus on promotion of National Action Plan Pension reform actions Strategic Plan for Global Strategy on
disadvantaged groups on Social Inclusion focusing on incentives Citizenship and work for handicapped
and participation in (2006-2008) to work longer (61) Integration 2007-2010 people adopted (2006)
society (€ 2 bln.)
Sweden Model of active labour National action plan Sweden's surplus in Tax incentives Job guarantee for Increase in number of
market policy and for social inclusion public finance means introduced to increase young people jobs with wage subsidy
good social protection aims to combat as a long-term buffer participation of older (December 2007) –
is retained poverty and social workers and those with after 3 months
exclusion housework unemployment
UK Focus on active labour National Action Plan Emphasis on Pension Reform: The New Deal for
market policies for Social Protection Sustainable Retirement age to 65 Young People: helped
and Social Inclusion Communities as a (women) and 68 (men) to find 850,000 jobs
concept

Theme: Global poverty and sustainable development challenges
Congruence with EU SDS Make significant progress Improve international Raise the volume of aid to Promote sustainable Increase effectiveness of Include SD concerns in all
objectives towards meeting the environmental governance 0.7% of GNI by 2015 and development in context of aid policies EU external policies.
commitments with regard (IEG) 0.56% in 2010 WTO;
to international goals
(especially Millennium
Declaration)
Austria Development aid focused on 0.48% ODA reached in 2006 Helping to build capacity for
specific themes chemicals management in
developing countries; Energy
partnerships focus on CIS
countries
Belgium Divergence in policy Flemish Government policy 0.50% ODA in 2006 Federal plan on sustainable
objectives between regions geared towards Millennium development 2004-2008
Goals
Bulgaria Development aid still in
embryonic stage
Cyprus Focus on Mediterranean basin Increase in GNI ODA to 0.13% Include promotion of new
in 2006 environmental policies in
development
Czech Republic Focus on 'Trans-formation Co- New Law on development
operation' cooperation under preparation
Denmark Leading in development aid Powerful efforts on 0.8% ODA of GNI Initiatives to better link trade Integrate climate issues in
and environment international env. cooperation and environment – within foreign policy; env. concerns
WTO and beyond (esp. Asia + integrated in Danish assistance
Latin Am.) work
Estonia Committed to promoting Support to UNEP and Global
democracy in CIS Environment Facility

Declaration)
Finland Overall engagement Efforts under Finnish Involved in innovative funding Environment and climate
presidency taken to live up to and debt relief initiatives change emphasized in
expectations development policy
France Leading on development of Wide range of programmes Promoting UN World 0,47% ODA of GNI Supportive of environmental Mediterranean strategy on SD
UNEO Environmental Organisation and social elements in WTO adopted (2005);
a.o.
Germany 2015 Programme of Action Follow-up process to the
sets ten priority areas for the Johannesburg Summit – as part
fight against poverty, which go of German development
beyond the Millennium Goals cooperation
Greece Focus on Black Sea Economic Breakdown of development Support to establishment of 0.16% ODA of GNI n.a Focus on Black Sea Economic
Co-operation and Euro- budget by Millennium Goal UNEO Co-operation and Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership Mediterranean Partnership
Hungary Participation in relevant
international fora
Ireland Rapid increase of ODA over Full support to upgrade of the 0.53% ODA of GNI and
time UN Environmental Programme increasing
(UNEP) as the UN's
environmental pillar.
Italy Focus on Sub-Saharan Africa Support to French push to 0.20% ODA of GNI – below
UNEO target
Latvia Development aid still at an 2006-2010 financial planning
embryonic stage. Stated focus foresees annual spending of
on Moldova, Georgia and 0.1% of GDP on development
Ukraine (and Belarus in some assistance
areas)

Declaration)
Lithuania Focus on democracy and
human rights in CIS countries
Luxembourg Above its punch Support to develop a UN 0.89% ODA of GNI Pushing efforts to increase
Environmental Organisation effectiveness and efficiency of
(UNEO) aid
Malta Malta Development Policy
under preparation
Netherlands Active involvement in Coherence between various Support to Global 0.81% ODA of GNI
multilateral initiatives international goals to be Environmental Facility as the
strengthened (coherence unit key international source to
establ.) fund environmental
improvements.
Poland No attention to this theme
Portugal Focus on climate change in 0.21% ODA of GNI – below
development aid target
Romania Development aid still in National Strategy on Int.
embryonic stage Development Cooperation
Policy approved (May 2006)
Slovakia Development co-operation is 0.10% ODA of GNI (2006) Slovak Agency for
being built up International Dev. Aid hereto
established (Jan. 2007)
Slovenia Strategy and Resolution for the 0.11% ODA of GNI (2005)
International Development
Cooperation prepared
Spain Focus on trade, aid and human 0.32% ODA of GNI Coordination between trade,
interventions aid and human interventions

Declaration)
Sweden Leading in development aid Strong support to align FAO Strong support to 1.03% ODA of GNI Range of actions in support of Strong focus on chemicals in
and development with Millennium Goals establishment of UNEO Paris Declaration relation to development
UK Leading on several Support to upgrade UNEP into 0.52% ODA of GNI Support to Doha Development Leading OECD Task Force on
international initiatives UNEO Round SEA in development
Overall

Cross-Cutting Policies / Implementation
Cross-Cutting Policies Contributing to Financing and Economic Communication, Mobilising Implementation, Monitoring and
the Knowledge Society Instruments Actors and Multiplying Success Follow-Up
Education and Training Research and development
Austria National Strategy for Education for Good steps concerning the introduction of Financial incentive / disincentive system to Local Agenda 21 processes currently Set of indicators for the overall evaluation of
Sustainable Development (ESD) "should" be environmental accounts – "continuous work" encourage the uptake of particle filters in taking place in 13% of all Austrian SD was introduced as part of the NSDS and is
developed by the end of 2007 (p.50) being done on the satellite accounts of the diesel powered motor vehicles. Mineral oil municipalities (p.55) continuously being expanded (p.60) Last
2 year university course "Education for national accounting systems, such as material tax on petrol and diesel was increased in Various Corporate Social Responsibility indicator report published in June 2006
Sustainable Development – Innovations in flow analysis (p.52) 2007 – extra revenues partially allocated to (CSR) initiatives under the "respACT"
Teacher's Education" has been introduced. climate protection measures. umbrella
Belgium Federal government introduced "Science for SD Sustainable Development week was held Financial support for the European Sustainable
2005-2009" programme in 2005 and 2006 by the Federal Development Network provided in order to
Government improve European cooperation non SD
Bulgaria Observation group monitoring the
implementation of the NSDS has been set up
by the Economic Ministry
Cyprus
Czech Republic National Strategy for Education for Annual Sustainable Development Forum NSDS contains 87 statistical indicators (24 of
Sustainable Development approved in May facilitates broad public discussion and which are specified for communication
2007 access to information on SD purposes) Annual progress reports on progress
on NSDS
Denmark SD components are already part of primary Action plan for promoting environmentally Strong focus on partnerships and dialogue Set of SD indicators structured around four
and secondary school education. efficient technologies (p.17) between public sector institutions and, main categories exists (p.19-23)
businesses and NGOs Denmark participated in the OECD
environmental performance review 2007
(p.23)
Estonia SD incorporated in national curriculum Specific goal to increase the overall expenditure Clear move from direct to indirect taxes Various initiatives to foster broad public
Network of environmental education support on R&D to 2% of GDP by 2011 and 3% by (consumption taxes) involvement in the policy process
centres is currently set up 2015 Gradual decrease of income taxes

Increase in excise duty on petrol (+25%)

and diesel (+34.5%) in the beginning of
2008
Also marked increases in alcohol and
tobacco excise duties during 2008
Finland SD is included in the new national core Centres of excellence programme (2007-2013) Waste oil duty increased in 2007 Regional and local sub-committee to National indicators for SD introduced in 2000;
curriculum for basic and general upper- will have energy and the environment as one of Electricity tax for households and coal tax promote sustainable development in the current NSDS is base on 34 indicators
secondary education (p.19) its main foci and put emphasis on international are also set to increase regional and local government established (p.23)
Strategy on the national implementation of cooperation (p.20). "Depreciation of taxation on work will be in 2007 (p.22) Finland participated in the Dutch SD review
the UN decade for ESD completed in 2006 continued " (p.41) process
(p.19)
France Re-launch of "priority education" through the Support for the creation of 500 local Set of 12 "high-level indicators" used for SD
setting-up of "heading for success" networks Agenda21s within five years (p.43) monitoring (p.56)
will address equal opportunities in education
(p.35).
New 3-year plan for education in SD (EDD)
launched in early 2007 (p.35)
Germany In-service SD training schemes for teachers Research for Sustainability Programme makes Set of key indicators is used for monitoring
and material for SD lessons provided through (FONA) programme (EUR 800 million) makes SD related developments. Last indicator report
the BKL-21 programme (p. 11) the concept of sustainability a permanent published in 2006 (p.15)
specific target of research funding and takes an Both a Council for SD as well as a
interdisciplinary approach involving a broad parliamentary advisory council on SD exist.
range of actors.
Greece
Hungary "House of Chances Network" and "Even
Chances Forum" put in place to improve
awareness of equal opportunity policies
(p.32)

Ireland National Development Plan 2007-2013 "Tidy Towns" competition aims at

foresees spending of 25.8 billion EUR on encouraging the development of
education and seeks to "maintain access to the sustainable communities (700
highest standards of education for the entire participating towns each year) (p.50)
society" (p. 43/44)
DEIS "Delivering Equality of Opportunity in
Schools" action plan for educational inclusion
Italy SD among the strategic objectives in the
National Research Programme 2005-2007
Latvia National Programme based on the "Lifetime
Education Policy Guidelines 2007-2013"
seeks to improve the quality and accessibility
of education"
Lithuania
Luxembourg New road vehicle tax based on fuel
consumption (GHG emission) of cars.
Introduction of a "climate change
contribution" surcharge on the fuel price
Malta "Eco-contributions" levied on NSDS development process based on a National Commission on Sustainable
environmental unfriendly products wide consultation of relevant actors as Development is currently drawing up a NSDS.
well as the public
Netherlands Network of universities and professionals BSIK programme supports better cooperation in Survey on subsidies with potential negative The Dutch NSDS was evaluated externally
built around the Foundation Sustainable the academic community to address societal effects on the environment through peer review in 2007. The review came
Higher Education aims at adding needs: this includes collaborative research on Ongoing efforts to internalize the real to the conclusion that the Dutch NSDS is not a
"sustainability perspective" to higher CO2 capture, sustainable agriculture as well as environmental costs of products and real SD strategy and does not provide an
education sustainable construction. services adequate response to the current challenges.
Learning for Sustainable Development
Programme (LvDO) to stimulate awareness

and mutual learning on all levels of society

Poland
Portugal National Technology Plan foresees large scale New environmental motor vehicle tax from The "Sustainable Development System", built
reform of the scientific landscape, more July 2007, lower municipal property tax on around a set of SD indicators, is used as a
international research cooperation and a strong eco-friendly buildings as well as tax central monitoring and reporting tool for SD
focus on environmental and energy technology benefits for investments in eco-technology
for 2008 (p.17)
Romania Environmental Fund financed through
compulsory levies on a range of
environmentally unfriendly products and
activities funds SD related projects
Slovakia
Slovenia School curricula are currently revised to Progressive abolition of payroll taxes (by
include aspects of SD – additionally a Life January 2009)
Long Learning strategy is presently being Several new environmental charges
adopted introduced
Spain Special (lower) tax rates for biofuels and Spanish Network of Pro-Climate Cities.
bonuses on taxes managed by local bodies, The network’s principal aim is to promote
such as the tax on economic activities (IAE) policies of sustainability in all Spanish
or the tax on property (IBI) cities through education and awareness-
raising. To date, 140 cities, representing
almost 17 million people, have joined the
network.
Sweden Higher Education Act commits Institutions of Sustainable Development is a priority area for NSDS based on 87 indicators (out of which 12
Higher Education to promoting SD research and receives a 210 million SEK in are headline indicators)
national funding 2005-2010 Government Commission on Sustainable
Development started work in 2007

UK "Sustainable Development Action Plan" of "Sustainable Development Research Network" Large multi-media campaign on CO2
the Department of learning and skills and the promotes SD research and strengthens link launched in 2007 by the UK government
SD strategy of the Learning and Skills between providers of research and policy makers
Council embed SD principles in the education
sector (p.22)

Progress On EU Sustainable Development Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress On EU Sustainable Development Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress on EU Sustainable

Client: European Commission, Secretariat General

Brussels/Rotterdam, 29 February 2008

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 2

2. Climate change and clean energy 21

4. Sustainable consumption and production 58

5. Conservation and management of natural resources 71

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 3

7. Social inclusion, demography and migration 96

8. Global poverty and sustainable development challenges 106

9. Cross cutting policies 116

10. Conclusions and recommendations 130

Annex 1: Overview of key policy initiatives by theme 139

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 4

Background and Aims

The cross cutting policies are:

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 5

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 6

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 7

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 8

xv. It is recommended that the EU develops indicators to measure progress against

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 9

xix. It is recommended to develop more quantitative outcome indicators to support

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 10

xxiv. Despite the overall commitment to actively promote sustainable development

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 11

xxviii.The EU SDS defines the role of research and development in sustainable

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 12

2. The EU SDS represents a prioritisation at a specific point in time. Various

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 13

9. Reporting is not always focused on key policy initiatives. A general tendency is to

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 14

14. International literature on SDS informs us about the complexity of challenges.

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 15

a. Need to establish a hierarchy of objectives; sustainable transport could well be

b. Internal cohesion within themes needs to be strengthened. Operational

c. Increase the impact of the EU SDS on mainstream policies through impact

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 16

1.1 Background to the EU SDS

In 2001, the European Council in Göteborg adopted the first EU Sustainable

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 17

1.2 Aims of his report

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 18

1.3 How the report has been prepared

The following steps have been executed:

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 19

1.4 About the structure of this report

Chapter 9 gives an overview of the progress in cross-cutting policies, namely: education

Chapter 10 draws conclusions and devises recommendations. It summarises progress by

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 20

2.1 Introductory remarks on objectives and targets

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 21

Objective/target 2b Energy policy consistent with security of supply

Objective/target 2c Energy policy consistent with environmental sustainability (incl.

Objective/target 4 Renewable Energy (including biomass). Targets for Renewable

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 22

a. A range of emerging challenges facing the EU

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 23

Research and development of sustainable energy technologies addresses exposure to

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 24

Progress on EU Sustainable Development Strategy 25

b. Key problems and their interconnections

Objective/target 1b: Medium- and long-term EU emission reductions (post-2012)