De Lissabon-doelstellingen en het Europees milieubeleid

• 2005-02-25

Conference by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) -
“The 2005 Summit and Europe’s Environment” -
Luxemburg, 25 February 2005


Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to you today – and I want to thank the EEB and NATURA for organising this discussion which comes at a particularly good time. As you know, the process of setting the EU’s policy agenda for the next few years is in full swing, with the reviews of the Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies and the new Commission's strategic objectives.

What I would like to do today is clarify what these policy documents mean for the environment and for sustainable development. I intend to demonstrate that the environment has a central place in the Commission’s overall agenda as well as in the renewed Lisbon strategy that the heads of State and Government will discuss in one month’s time.

Action needed on jobs and growth

A first and essential point is that in the Communications adopted this month the Commission sent a clear message that: sustainable development remains the overarching objective for all Community policies. This includes the Lisbon strategy. Lisbon itself is one of the means of achieving the EU’s sustainable development goals.

The Communication on the Lisbon mid-term review focuses on growth and employment. These are quite rightly priorities for the Union. There are more than 19 million people unemployed across the EU 25. New Member States such as Poland have unemployment rates as high as 18%. It is important to focus on economic growth and making sure that people have good jobs. This is after all a part of sustainable development.

But the key point is that this focus needs to be consistent with environmental protection. And what is more, we need to use environmental actions to spur our economic development.

The environment as a vehicle for economic growth

Environment and environmental technologies provide a strong vehicle for growth. The EU has tremendous potential for eco-innovation - it is already a world leader in many eco-technologies.

Overall, the European eco-industries sector has enjoyed a growth rate of around 5% a year since the mid-90s. This is excellent when compared to the rest of the economy.

In 2003, the world market for environmental goods and services was estimated at over €500 billion. EU companies are well placed to take up new market opportunities.

The role of policy-makers is to provide the necessary support and establish the right framework that promotes clean technologies.

A concrete example of such an EU policy is the Emissions Trading Scheme. It delivers reduced emissions by providing direct financial incentives for doing so. It will bring the best out of engineers and managers across the EU, who are now looking for ways to increase energy-efficiency and deploy climate-friendly technologies. As global demand for such technologies grows, EU companies will be able to supply them.

Dispelling the myths

Against this background, it is surprising to see how many popular myths still exist about environmental policy and its impact on the economy. They are proving to be very long-lived – but it is our role to dispel them.

Myth 1: we need growth before we can afford environmental protection

The first myth is that we need growth first so that we can afford environmental protection later. But this ignores the evidence that environmental policy can actually spur economic growth, rather than hinder it.

In addition, I believe that timely environmental intervention will avoid much greater costs in the future. It is a well demonstrated fact that the costs of preventing environmental degradation are many times less than the costs of taking action once it has occurred.

The costs of climate change alone are massive. The year 2004 was already the most costly year in insurance history in terms of natural catastrophes. It caused global insured losses of over € 30 billion - and climate-related severe weather events were responsible for 90% of these losses.

These costs, not to mention the human tragedies caused by climate change, will continue to rise unless we take action. Therefore, integrating the environment into our economic decisions is not something that we can postpone to a later date.

Myth 2: environmental regulation hampers growth

The second myth is that environmental regulation restricts growth and employment.

Here, I would like to quote Harvard professor and business strategist Michael Porter: “The conflict between environmental protection and economic competitiveness is a false dichotomy based on a narrow view of the sources of prosperity and a static view of competition.” He goes on to say that tough standards trigger innovation and upgrading.

This is from a New York Times article in April 1991. Many studies published since then reinforce this point. We simply have to look at the World Economic Forum's Competitiveness Report in 2004. Among the five most competitive countries are Finland in first place, Sweden (number 3) and Norway (number 5) - all countries with a very high degree of environmental regulation.

Myth 3: We cannot be sustainable and compete with China

The third myth is that competition from emerging economies does not allow us to pursue environmental goals.

This is the wrong approach. Environment is a comparative advantage for the European economy – not a luxury that undermines our global position. Emerging economies face serious environmental challenges. As incomes rise, there will be greater demand for improved environmental quality. For example, China is already introducing regulation to address these problems.

Europe will never be able to compete with countries like China in an economic race to the bottom. It is much more appropriate to view these countries as potential markets for EU companies. This argument applies to all sectors including environmental technologies where I am convinced that the demand from emerging markets will continue to grow. Wind energy already provides and excellent example of the opportunities that exist.

Citizens want environmental action

Last but not least, we must listen to the concerns of European citizens. Environmental quality is important to them. In a recent Eurobarometer survey, citizens were asked how far the state of the environment, economic factors and social issues affected their quality of life: 72% replied that the environment influenced their quality of life “very much” or “quite a lot”, and the figure for social factors was similar. Only a slightly higher number, 78%, felt economic factors were important. So clearly all three factors matter to citizens.

One striking result was that 63% of those polled agreed that the EU should give priority to environmental protection over economic competitiveness.

These opinions are a clear signal that EU needs to continue developing policies that protect the environment and ensure sustainable development. At a time when popular support for the Union is relatively low, this is one of the best ways of meeting the public’s expectations.

The Commission’s plans: Strategic Objectives, & Lisbon mid-term review

Against this context, I would like to turn and take a look at how the Commission has reflected these priorities in its recent proposals.

The Sustainable Development Review is a document that directly addresses environmental concerns. I will return to this issue later. But even if we look at the Commission’s other major orientation documents we can see that environmental protection and, in more general terms, sustainable development, remain at the heart of this Commission's strategic programme. The Strategic Objectives call for a new partnership for European renewal with the aim to restore dynamic growth and jobs while respecting the environment. They emphasise that actions that promote competitiveness, growth and jobs can be mutually re-enforcing with social cohesion and a healthy environment. This is embodied in the concept of Sustainable Development.

And as I have already mentioned, the Commission’s recent Communication on the Lisbon Review confirms this commitment to sustainable development – it remains the overarching objective to which Lisbon should contribute.

Lisbon covers the need to shift to more sustainable production and consumption patterns. The importance of eco-innovations is given particular attention, with recommendations for the promotion of eco-technologies, energy efficiency and renewables.

Lisbon also includes an annual review process that is to be carried out by the European Council. This is an important mechanism and should be extended to cover other key issues – such as climate change. I hope the Luxembourg Presidency, and other Member States, will take this proposal on board.

Reaping the benefits of environmental technologies

There are many areas in which the Commission can act. In January 2004, we launched the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP), which seeks to overcome barriers to the development and use of environmental technologies. ETAP sets out 25 actions to get from research to market, to improve market conditions, and for global action. More action is needed. Among other things, we need green investment funds in Europe, and Member States have to draft national roadmaps for the implementation of ETAP at national level.

Supply-side measures have to be backed up by demand-side measures. An example is greening public procurement, where the public sector can act as a driving force. Some 16% of EU GDP - is spent on public purchases. Last August, the Commission issued a Handbook to encourage public authorities to green their procurement.

Sustainable production and consumption

Green public procurement would represent an important step towards sustainable development. But we also need to find other ways to change our consumption and production patterns.

The Commission is working to reduce the negative environmental impacts of products and services throughout their life cycles, for example through Integrated Product Policy.

We also need to address consumer habits. Take transport as an example: despite the fact that we have much more fuel-efficient cars and cleaner fuels than before, CO2 emissions from the sector have grown by 22% since 1990 and continue to rise. One key in getting consumers to change their habits is to make sure that we get prices right, so that they reflect the full costs to society.

We also need to reform environmentally harmful subsidies. In 2005, the European Environment Agency estimated that annual energy subsidies in the EU for solid fuels, oil and gas were around € 24 billion. For renewable energy they were € 5.3 billion. This should change.

As the Emissions Trading Scheme shows, market-based instruments work well in influencing production and consumption habits. Later this year, I will present proposals on the use of market-based instruments to address emissions from aviation, which is a growing environmental concern. Commissioner Piebalgs will also present a new initiative for energy efficiency.

I can also assure you that the Commission will not change the proposal on REACH which is currently with the Parliament. This is a strong proposal that protects us and the environment from the risks of chemicals. It is therefore an essential part of the sustainable development agenda.

Lastly, I am also looking forward to the adoption of seven Thematic Strategies this year. The strategies on natural resource use and waste prevention and recycling will be particularly important in the context of sustainable production and consumption.

With all of this on the Commission’s agenda, it is clear that environment is not being downgraded as a political priority and that the new Commission is not putting environment in the back-seat.

Orientations for the forthcoming review of the EU SDS

I strongly believe that the EU needs an integrated and holistic vision of society, where economic, social and environmental concerns are balanced. The concept of sustainable development embodies this philosophy.

It was therefore of particular importance that the Commission adopted, one week after its contribution to the Lisbon mid-term review, a Communication that provides orientations for the up-coming review of the Sustainable Development Strategy. This revision should set sustainable development at the core of EU decision-making.

The Communication sets out the main conclusions from a stocktaking undertaken by the Commission, along with the outcome of a comprehensive public consultation carried out in the summer of 2004, to which the EEB made a very important contribution.

The Commission's orientation paper for the SDS review shows that since 2001 the EU has taken important decisions to promote sustainable development at home and internationally. However, many unsustainable trends persist and make the importance of achieving sustainable development clearer than ever. The Spring Council should therefore give a high political priority to the review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.

Competitiveness and “Better Regulation”

Before I conclude, I would also like to make two points on the linkage between the “better regulation” and “simplification” agenda and environmental protection.

The first point is that all environmentalists should welcome better regulation in the pure meaning of the term. The Commission is a legislative body and the better the quality of our legislation the better we are doing our job. Better regulation means a genuine consultation of all stake-holders, it means a rigorous assessment of costs and benefits, it means removing complexities wherever possible, and it means acting in a strategic rather than an ad hoc manner. Better and simpler legislation is one of the best ways of improving implementation – which is a concern that I know we all share.

But before getting too excited about this “magic bullet” I should point out that this is exactly the purpose of our consultation exercises, our Extended Impact Assessment and our Thematic Strategies.

The second point is that we must be honest about what we mean by the terms “better regulation” and “simplification”. It is not acceptable if they are used as code words for “weaker legislation” and for “de-regulation”.

To conclude: Getting a balanced outcome from the reviews

My task in this Commission is to argue for sustainable development and to ensure that environmental protection remains a high priority. I can only agree with those who would like to see the need for our economy to be simultaneously competitive and sustainable spelled out even more clearly.

However, when taken together with the Sustainable Development Review and the Commission’s Strategic Objectives I hope it is clear that the Lisbon agenda leaves plenty of room for a strong environmental policy.

To return to an analogy which has been widely quoted in recent weeks: when you are considering the needs of your children - whether or not one of them is sick - the best way to ensure the long-term success of the whole family is to care for all of them.

We must show that economic growth that ignores environmental considerations is not sustainable, and that a strong environment policy can contribute to EU competitiveness.

Lisbon is an agenda for change. It requires significant structural change. We need to take up the opportunities it offers us to shift onto a more sustainable path.

Let’s work to make Lisbon a real tool for sustainable development. By acting together we can show the world that competitiveness and environmental protection can be friends and not foes.