16.12.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/67

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission communication Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources in principle and supports the broad aims described therein of improving the productivity and efficiency of resource use, i.e. further decoupling economic growth from resource use and, at the same time, also reducing the environmental impact of such resources as are used.

1.2

The EESC once again refers to its view communicated to the Commission two years ago, that such a Commission strategy must also give thorough consideration to the issue of non-renewable resources. One of the EESC's main criticisms is that the Commission document does not do so.

1.3

In the EESC's view, clear statements on non-renewable resources, which would certainly need to go beyond the 25-year planning horizon of this strategy, are also necessary. The EESC therefore believes that the strategy should be broadened and its timeframe extended to 50 to 100 years, though of course intermediate steps would then have to be determined.

1.4

Conversely, it is obvious that for the preservation of certain natural resources (such as fish stocks) there is no more time to waste, so that concrete and immediate action is needed in these areas.

1.5

For a true strategy to succeed, it is indispensable firstly to specify clear and achievable goals, which can then be reached with similarly specified, concrete instruments (which make up the actual strategy). However, one can search in vain in the Commission document for clear goals and specific instruments. One reason for this is doubtless that it is simply not possible to have an all-encompassing strategy for the large number of natural resources that exist. What is needed instead are individual, sector-specific strategies, which the Commission is to some extent working on.

1.6

The EESC therefore looks on the Commission communication not as a strategy in the true sense, but rather as a very welcome and proper basic philosophy, which will not be possible to implement by means of the proposed databases and panels of experts.

2.1

On 1 October 2003, the European Commission published a communication to the Council and the European Parliament entitled Towards a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources  (1). This set out the basis for an appropriate strategy and launched an initial consultation process with those parts of society that were affected or interested.

2.2

At the time, the EESC, in its opinion of 28 April 2004 on the sustainable use of natural resources (2), welcomed in principle the Commission's proposal to draw up an appropriate strategy.

2.3

On 21 December 2005, the Commission submitted this Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources to the Council, the European Parliament, the EESC and the CoR: The relevant Commission document (3) is the subject of this opinion.

2.4

Of course, the EESC also welcomes the publication of the ‘strategy’, which it sees as tying in with the strategy for sustainable development. A European strategy for preserving the various renewable and non-renewable natural resources is, in the EESC's view, urgently needed in order to sustainably address the challenges we face. The communication definitely goes in the right direction, but the EESC does not believe that the initiatives and actions it describes go far enough.

3.1

Understandably, there is no difference between the two Commission communications in terms of the Commission's analysis of the problems to be addressed. It is stated that

3.2

However, the current paper emphasises much more heavily that it is not only a matter of decoupling economic growth from resource use, but also of a reduction in the environmental impact of the (reduced or yet to be reduced) use of resources; in other words, a twin-track strategy as described by the Commission years ago, before the sustainability strategy was adopted, with the Factor 10 concept.

3.3

To cite one example: greater efficiency means that modern coal-fired power stations now use less resource input for each kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce. However, efforts are currently under way to reduce the environmental impact still further, e.g. by reducing the climate impact of each tonne of coal used, e.g. through the development of ‘climate-neutral’ power stations in which the CO2 that is produced is captured and then stored underground.

3.4

The ‘strategy’ that is being proposed here states that this efficiency approach should be adopted as a principle for the use of all natural resources. The EESC warmly welcomes this.

3.5

However, although the EESC fully supports this approach by the Commission, it must nonetheless make some very critical comments about the ‘strategy’ that has been submitted.

3.6

The Commission states in its communication that a distinction needs to be made between renewable and non-renewable resources, and that the major problems are to be sought mainly in renewable resources (such as fish stocks and fresh water).

3.7

It points out that resource use has already been, and still is, a key issue in European environment policy discussions over the past thirty years, and that ‘a major concern in the 1970s, following the first oil crises, was natural resource scarcity and limits to growth’. However, ‘scarcity has not proven to be as environmentally problematic as then predicted. The world has not run out of fossil fuels and the market, through the price mechanism, has regulated scarcity.’

3.8

In reality, the environmental problem is not primarily a matter of whether, for example, a non-renewable resource is scarce, still available or no longer available. The environmental problem arises — and this is the Commission's starting point, too — from the consequences (for example for the climate) of use or overuse. Consequently, it should not be perceived as an environmental problem if the solar energy that is stored as oil, coal or gas runs out. However, the EESC points out that the impending non-availability of non-renewable resources will prove to be a serious problem for our economy and thus also a social problem — with significant effects on people's standard of living. Thus, it is not simply a matter of the environmental consequences of resource use, but it must also be a matter of the potential availability of natural resources to current and future generations. Therefore, as part of the debate on sustainability, one of the key challenges of the coming decades will be to ensure the availability of resources for future generations. The EESC therefore believes that the increasing scarcity of resources is not an exclusively environmental issue, but one of sustainability, which includes ecological, social and economic aspects.

3.9

The Commission's reference to the ‘market’, which responds to increasing scarcity of supply with higher prices, is absolutely right. The — at times dramatic — oil price rises of recent months, which have had a significant impact on the European economy, are of course not exclusively down to the foreseeable long-term decline in the availability of certain non-renewable resources, but are related to the market power of — in some cases monopolistic — suppliers and to political instability in the countries in which most of these resources are to be found.

3.10

The EESC wishes to refer to the comments that it made two years ago in its opinion on the draft document: Putting forward a ‘strategy’ that looks forward only 25 years and does not address, or only inadequately addresses, the entirely foreseeable shortage or indeed exhaustion of certain key non-renewable resources (such as fossil fuels) in the long term sends the wrong political signal to society. The EESC believes that the availability of non-renewable resources is a key criterion for taking responsibility for the required sustainability criteria.

3.11

In this context, the EESC recalls that many sectors of the economy rely not only on the availability of fossil fuels in general, but on those fuels being available cheaply. Those economies that are structured in that way will in future have the greatest difficulties adapting. On that basis, the EESC once again endorses the Commission's statement that ‘inefficient use of resources… constitute[s a] … brake on growth’.

3.12

Rising resource prices can in the short run be partially offset by efficiency measures. However, in many sectors, such as transport and energy, shortages and/or extremely high prices may make major structural changes necessary. As this may imply extremely significant investment, the necessary decisions should be taken as soon as possible so as to avoid the inappropriate allocation of resources.

3.13

An example for such strategic long-term thinking is the Swedish government's announcement that it intends both to pull out of nuclear power and to move away from mineral oil. Of course, such aims can only be achieved in the long term, but it is important to start early so as to avoid disruption to the economy and society later on.

3.14

The EESC therefore believes that the EU's strategy should actively examine such questions; sadly, it does not. The Committee wonders whether this is because the 25 year period set by the European Commission for the strategy is perhaps (much) too short. The EESC cannot accept that the Commission points out that it is unlikely that there will be serious problems with shortages of non-renewable resources within this time period, and that the issue of non-renewable resources consequently gets barely a mention. The Commission needs to make clear statements about non-renewable resources that go beyond the current timescale of the strategy. It is therefore necessary to lengthen the period covered by the strategy, for instance to 50 or even 100 years, which is a relatively short period in terms of resource use. Of course, in the case of such a long timescale, intermediate steps towards the long-term goals would need to be determined. The EESC points out that the Commission announced such a way of doing things in a communication (4) in 2005.

3.15

Next, the Commission says in its paper that the overall objective of the strategy is to ‘reduce the negative environmental impacts generated by the use of natural resources in a growing economy’. To be sure, there is no one in Europe who would disagree with such a general, but also vague, objective.

3.16

The Commission's strategy consciously does not ‘at this initial stage … set quantitative targets’. The EESC believes that this is fundamentally wrong. For one thing, we are not at an initial stage: the problems have been known for years, in some cases for decades. For another, the EESC has already stated on many other occasions that a strategy must have clear aims if it is to be truly successful. A strategy is a plan to achieve specific goals. If goals are missing or are phrased so as to be non-binding or vague, policymakers lack guidance as to which policy instruments to use where.

3.17

The EESC therefore takes the view that the proposed Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources is not really a strategy, but rather an — it should be clearly emphasised — absolutely right basic philosophy for which specific implementation strategies for each natural resource need to be drawn up.

3.18

The EESC is also willing to recognise that one cannot really expect all natural resources to be dealt with comprehensively and exhaustively in a single strategy. The subject matter is far too complex. It is therefore indispensable to integrate this quite correct basic philosophy into specific strategies and/or policy in general. It is precisely for this reason that the Commission, almost at the same time as producing this ‘strategy’, has published a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (5) (which is indirectly a natural resource) and has announced a thematic strategy for the protection of soil. Strategic target-led decisions must primarily be rooted in the respective sectoral policies.

3.19

This would help all those involved to be clearer about which strategy starts where. Concrete examples would enable interconnections to other strategies and policy areas at EU and Member State level to be created and thus establish responsibilities more clearly, which would help improve implementation of the strategic goals.

—

‘Building the knowledge base’, which includes setting up a ‘Data Centre for policy-makers’;

—

‘Measuring progress’, which means developing various indicators by 2008;

—

the ‘internal dimension’, under which the Commission firstly suggests that individual Member States develop national measures and programmes on the sustainable use of natural resources, and secondly proposes a ‘High-Level Forum composed of senior officials’, which is to be ‘responsible for the development of natural resource policy’ in the Member States; this forum is also to include representatives of the commission and, ‘as appropriate’ (whatever that is supposed to mean), consumer organisations, environmental NGOs, industry, academia, etc.;

—

the ‘global dimension’ under which it is proposed to ‘[set] up an international panel’.

3.21

The EESC does not doubt the sense or the usefulness of such databases or new bodies. The more we know and the more people, especially people with political responsibilities, concern themselves with the subject, the better.

3.22

However, the EESC must ask the Commission whether it really believes that this amounts to a ‘strategy’ that will really influence policy. There is no way that the problems described above will be solved with the measures described above.

3.23

Rather, such announcements give the impression that the knowledge base first needs to be expanded so as to lay the foundations for political action. The EESC sees this not so much as a strategy for coherent action, but rather a strategy for putting off political decisions. The Commission should do everything possible to avoid creating such an impression.

3.24

For example, it has been known for years that fish, a natural resource, is being massively overexploited. The Commission responds to this threatening situation every year with the — doubtless entirely justified — demand that lower fishing quotas be set in order, for example, to stop overfishing of cod (6). Such calls have gone unheeded. Neither a new database nor new bodies will solve this problem in the future.

3.25

The EESC therefore expects there to be less talk about preserving certain natural resources, and action finally to be taken, for example to preserve fish stocks.

3.26

What the EESC is trying to reiterate here is that it does not consider the ‘instruments’ proposed by the Commission to be anything approaching adequate.

3.27

In its opinion on the Commission's preparatory document, and in other Committee opinions such as those on sustainable development or energy and transport issues, the Committee has called on the Commission:

3.28

To date, the Commission has not given so much as a whisper of advice on this matter. It has shied as far away from specific goals such as the concept of ‘factor ten’ (7) as it has from describing and discussing instruments.

3.29

The EESC therefore believes that the Commission must clearly set out clearly defined aims, and the policy instruments and measures with which they are to be achieved, whenever it talks about a ‘strategy’.

3.30

In this context, the EESC refers to its opinion, adopted in May 2006, on The review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action  (8) in which it also addresses this problem.