The Conference of European Churches (CEC) is the regional ecumenical organisation
of the Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic and Protestant churches of Europe
which comprises 127 member churches from all European countries.
Its main aims are to promote the unity of Christians and service to the community at large.
A major concern of the Commission is developing relationships between churches and society.
The CEC Church and Society Commission works with its member churches to:

• promote the study of church and society questions
  from theological, social and ethical perspectives,
  especially concerning issues with a European dimension;
• represent the concerns of its member churches in relations
• monitor and follow developments of European political institutions.

The work of the Church and Society Commission covers several thematic areas
including European integration, human rights and religious freedom, peace building and security,
bio-ethics, globalisation and European community legislation.

The Working Group on Economy, Ecology and Social Issues examines the relationship
between the economic system and environmental and social policies,
especially with regard to the specific policies of the
European institutions and economies in transition,
focusing on the sustainable development perspective.

Web site: www.cec-kek.org

1.1. Caring for the environment - some Christian environmental principles

1.2. Sustainable development: some management principles

2.1. Climate Change - an issue for Johannesburg

2.2. The internal EU agenda - The Sixth Community Environmental Programme and

the European Climate Change Programme - Time to stand up to the test

2.3. The internal work of the EU from the perspective of the churches

2.4. Conclusions: towards real progress in combatting climate change

3.1. Evaluation of recent EU-documents on transport

3.2. Conclusions: towards sustainable transport in Europe

4.1. Introduction

4.2. The potential of renewable energy sources in the EU and in Central and Eastern

European countries

4.3. The Czech Republic as a case study

4.4. Conclusions: good things coming from above

5.1. The EU Commission agricultural policy and the Central and Eastern European

applicant countries

5.2. Problems and risks involved in the transition of agriculture

5.3. Sustainable development as a vision for agriculture

5.4. Conclusions: Towards a fundamental reorientation of EC agricultural and rural policies

6.1. Poverty and exclusion

6.2. The churches' commitment

6.3. The employment issue: full employment or full activity?

6.4. The quality of paid jobs

6.5. The care sector

6.6. Social protection

6.7. Conclusions: towards a more just, participatory and sustainable society

7.1. The moral and ethical dimension

7.2. The interrelationships between economic, environmental and social aspects

7.3. EU policies and a joint sustainable development strategy

7.4. Conclusions: Integrating a sustainable development strategy and the sectoral policies

8.1. Care for the Earth as a part of the life of the churches

8.2. Worship

8.3. Church management programmes with Award schemes

8.4. National Christian environmental organisations

8.5. Church research centres and ethical commissions

8.6. National Christian organisations on social issues

8.7. Lay academies in Europe

8.8. Networking across Europe

8.9. In conclusion: Working towards sustainable development

In September 2002 the United Nation's World Summit on Sustainable Development is to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. The tasks include evaluating progress since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit where the sustainable development agenda included the establishment of Agenda 21 and climate change negotiations, and establishing a new framework for action. This report is offered both as a contribution to the process leading to the Summit and a benchmark by which consequent proposals can be assessed and evaluated.

The 1992 Rio Earth Summit and 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development are characterised by a process involving individual member states, regional bodies such as the European Union, and NGO's seeking to shape and implement a sustainable development strategy. Within the NGO sector, and amongst other actors in civil society, the churches in Europe are motivated to contribute to the process, in part because we are members of a world-wide family of churches, and in part because we feel that we have some particular insights to share.

Sustainable development has been defined as "development that meets human needs without compromising the ability of others elsewhere or future generations to meet their needs". With this perspective the dominant economic growth-orientated model gives cause for concern. Firstly, witnessing the worldwide gap between the rich and the poor, it does not meet the needs of all the people of the current generation. Secondly, the growth-orientated model is leading to a damaged environment and the over-exploitation of natural resources. These consequences are compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and as well as endangering the survival of many animal and plant species.

From the early 1970's the concern for sustainability has been part of the agenda of the churches. At the World Council of Churches' Conference of Science and Technology at Bucharest in 1974, the first explicit discussion on sustainability took place. The following statement was issued:

This holistic approach to sustainable development was developed further by the World Council of Churches in the ecumenical programmes for "A Just, Participatory and Sustainable Society'(1977) and 'Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation'(1982). These process helped the church develop an holistic approach, encompassing conservation of the natural environment, the place of human beings in creation and the need for the care for creation and economic justice. The concept of sustainable development, with its three equally important ecological, economic and social dimensions is consistent with this approach.

It is with this vision of sustainable development that churches in Europe are contributing to the current world-wide exercise to develop truly sustainable development strategies.

Ms.Karin Lexen, Dr.Constantin Zorbas

Co-Moderators of the EESI Working Group May 2002

It is a core belief of the Church that human beings are an integral part of God's creation, having been formed "out of the dust of the earth", the same physical and chemical elements as all other creatures, and share the "breath of life" with them. Christians also believe that God is the foundation of all that exists and that not only human beings, but the universe, the planet, animals and plants, all have meaning in themselves and an inherent value in God's eyes.

Men and women are called upon to reflect God's gifts, given in love, through their love of each other and through their care of all creation. This care is to be exercised as companions, recognising our common bond as God's creatures, and as responsible stewards, assigned the duty to work in creation and care for it. The earth is not ours to do with as we please, but given to us in trust by God, to whom we are answerable for the way in which we handle this sacred responsibility. In living this calling Christians are encouraged to provide hope for our neighbours and future generations near and far, ensure justice for fellow human beings and care of the natural world, based on a life of sharing and sacrifice. To us this is the true foundation of sustainable lifestyles. To us this is a foundation of sustainable living. This chapter explores this foundation from a theological perspective, drawing on seven key principles from the Biblical witness and from three secular management principles.

1. Caring for the environment and humanity - some Christian principles

In the Old Testament the first two chapters of Genesis record two different creation stories. The first is the story of creation in six days, culminating with the Sabbath as a day of rest and celebration. Underneath the literal words is the declaration that everything is dependent for its existence and meaning upon the sovereign God. The crowning part of the story is the creation of humanity, with the expression 'made in the image' reflecting the privilege and responsibility given to humanity to oversee God's rule on earth. The second story, sometimes known as the 'garden' story, tells of the formation first of man and then of woman, in the Garden of Eden and includes the story of the 'fall'. This story was concerned with providing answers to some fundamental questions facing the community of Israel, including the consequence of their turning from God's ways.

These creation stories are not intended to provide as an ordered or scientific account of the origins of the cosmos, but may be viewed as a set of pictures that portray aspects of a proper relationship between God, humanity and the rest of the created order. Whilst they were written against the background of particular economic, social and political circumstances, they contain insights which transcend time and circumstance and which are applicable in the journey towards sustainable development.

The creation stories in Genesis have contributed to the development the Christian Doctrine of Creation, in which it is held that the world and all that it contains comes from the free creative actions of a loving God. This has been interpreted in different ways, but what is widely agreed is that God's involvement in creation is about producing something out of nothing.

Whilst the Doctrine of Creation is a product of reason and exploration, God the creator may also be also experienced within creation, in both good human relationships and in beautiful or awesome settings. In Psalm 19 these thoughts are found in the opening verses:

Or sound of any voice. Psalm 19: 1-3 Revised English Bible (REB)

The Orthodox tradition builds on the understanding of God being sensed in creation through the concept of the 'Book of Creation', in which Creation is a place to learn something of the wisdom of nature and purpose of God. Psalm 24 complements the creation stories in Genesis:

The psalmist presents picture of the Earth, floating on the depths, anchored by God's subduing of the powers of chaos. Though this imagery is dated, the principle that 'the earth belongs to the Lord, rather than to humanity, makes a positive contribution to an ethic for sustainable development. Humanities relationship to the earth is like a tenant occupying another's property, with the attendant privileges and responsibilities that this brings.

The first story of creation in Genesis is presented in a form that suggests an association with an act of worship. The story includes a refrain that: 'God saw that it was good', which serves to remind the worshipping community that the whole of creation has value in God's eyes.

Whilst human self-interest is a common motivation to live sustainability, there is a danger that the earth may be viewed solely from a 'what is in it for us' or anthropocentric attitude. For example, logging tropical forests might be stopped if it was thought that a plant with cancer-curing properties might be lost. The refrain: 'God saw that it was good' is an affirmation that God values the whole of creation, from aardvark to zebra, from shrimp to blue whale, from ragged robin to the giant redwood, the land, the sea and the air. This ascription of integrity to all species and the habitats gives a spiritual motivation to conserve the world's biodiversity.

Christians believe that God is eternal. This dimension of all time through which God exercises care, calls the Christian community to act for the benefit of those alive now and for those who will be born in the future. It also recognises the rights of future generations.

Caring for the 'poor and outcasts' is a traditional Christian practice involving both relief from poverty and tackling the causes of poverty. The concern was laid out in Old Testament teaching and law and given a renewed focus by Jesus in his teaching on the beatitudes and his command to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Poor economic conditions, poor social welfare including under-resourced health and education services and degraded environment are causes of poverty, and are often inter-linked.

Concern for peoples' welfare traditionally covers the social dimension, including education and training, social protection for people outside employment from childhood to old age, family and community life, health care and that basic human needs are met for all, and the economic dimension, which encompasses an economy that meets the needs of people in society with the availability of good work and working conditions. In addition it is recognised that people's welfare is linked to the condition of their natural and built environment, with often the poorest communities in a city or nation living in closest proximity or more vulnerable to environmental ills including floods, atmospheric pollution or fallout and busy or noisy highways. Working towards social and economic well-being for all people and respect and care for the environment are inter-linked and are compatible rather than competing goals. They are a fulfilment of the Kingdom values that Jesus both preached and practised.

The story of the fall is related in Genesis. This Biblical story gives the message that trying to live 'as self-regulating gods' rather than with 'respect for God's way', causes separation from God's purpose. Through the Bible there are many stories of human disobedience and calls from God to admit failure and to start a new relationship. The story of Noah's flood in the book of Genesis may be understood to be both an act of judgement and the offer of a new beginning, with the rainbow covenant to Noah and all living creatures giving God's commitment never again to destroy the earth by a flood. As with all covenants or agreements there is an assumption that the both parties have responsibilities. Such responsibilities are revealed through the scriptures and encountered in the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe came to save God's people and call them to exercise a saving ministry for the whole of the created order. The Gospel of John records:

'God so loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not perish but have eternal life. It was not to judge the world that God sent his Son into the world, but that through him the world might be saved.' John 3. 16-17 REB

The translation of the Greek word 'cosmos' as 'world' is common in English texts. The passage may be understood to refer to people's salvation and also salvation for the whole of creation. In some Christian traditions it is understood that God's people have a vicarious responsibility to offer back to God a renewed creation. In the Orthodox tradition it is said that as God's people look to God for blessing and salvation, so creation looks to humanity with the same hope. Together, these perspectives can contribute to the secular journey towards sustainable development by highlighting the importance of acknowledging mistakes, seeking reconciliation and then moving forward with appropriate actions.

The first two creation stories in the book of Genesis use images of agricultural practice. The stories are the symbolic start of a dynamic journey for God's people against the backdrop of a variety of economic, social and political circumstances, through which they are called to transform individual and community life in response to the revelation of God's purpose.

In the first story of creation, the sixth day includes an aspect of husbandry with the command to 'subdue and exercise dominion'. This passage has been interpreted as permission to 'do what you like'. However, interpretation of the text should account for the understanding of the people living 20-40 centuries ago. In those days the word 'subdue' was related to survival and the establishment of a homestead in the face of threats such as storms, drought and wild animals. In this context the motivation to 'subdue' was concerned with the maintenance of life, ensuring social and economic welfare rather than a command to abuse creation. The word 'dominion' is used in the Old Testament in the context to rule, or exercise authority, as one made in the image of God according to the law and teaching from God. For example, the kings and rulers of Israel were called to exercise dominion in accordance with the law and teaching as given in the Books of Moses, which included guidance on use of trees and animals and emphasised care of the poor and most vulnerable.

The second 'garden story' of creation uses arable imagery to give another perspective on the relationship that humanity is called to have with nature. This story opens with a garden into which the man, Adam, having been formed from the dust and given breath was placed. The man was commanded to till and care for the soil and to name each creature. The story emphasises the privilege to share God's garden, but responsibilities in our use of it with the call to develop a living loving relationship with the earth from which we came, and to which we will return.

Christian tradition has developed many models of living that can contribute to a move towards sustainable development, for example, the steward. A steward exercises dominion on behalf of the landlord for the benefit all for whom the landlord is responsible. Within the understanding of sustainable development this responsibility extends to all people and all creatures through all time.

Stewardship can be exercised in national/community life through environmental decision-making and within individual lives. Jesus spoke about 'living life in fullness', where life was based on a balance of both physical and spiritual needs, and where materialism didn't feature! Self control and 'living simply that others may simply live' are antidotes to materialism and their practise may enrich life and contribute to sustainable development.

Many of the above concepts are common to the monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, Christians further believe that God has demonstrated his particular concern for the earth through the life of Jesus Christ.

At the heart of Christian faith is the proclamation of a very down-to-earth God, who not only creates and sustains the cosmos, but also became flesh. This belief encourages engagement with the natural world, encompassing nature and human society, as a celebrations of the Word of God present in creation and as a way to reconnect people with the God of creation and give fresh meaning and purpose to things of the earth. This is witnessed in traditions such as the Celtic saints and Desert Fathers, through the spiritual and liturgical experience of worship, in the Christian sacraments, and especially through Holy Communion.

The move towards sustainable development may not be so much about 'giving-up', 'sacrifice' or 'anti-progress' but as a path to a more fulfilling lifestyle with a healthier balance between material and spiritual needs.

In the secular world, both Christianity and the environmental movement are sometimes associated with doom and gloom. The person in the street wearing a sandwich board bearing the message 'repent of your evil for the end of the world is nigh' seems to go hand in hand with the newspaper billboard declaring the latest earth-threatening environmental ill. Sometimes, bad news, whether environmental or another issue, can prove overwhelming leaving people or communities trapped like a rabbit caught in a car headlight at night, unable to avoid the impending disaster.

Christianity, as with other world faiths, offers hope and vision. Without minimising the gravity, scale or urgency of environmental issues, the starting point in caring for the earth is part of a proper response to a loving, creating God. The ending point is the Christian vision of a new heaven and a new earth which is neither a return to a mythical virgin Eden or God providing a brand new planet. Rather it is a vision leading to a radical transformation of life. It is in the spirit of this hope and this vision that this publication with perspectives from the Christian faith is offered as a contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

A system - an economic or an ecosystem - can be considered sustainable only if:

• the necessary "inputs"(resources) remain available on a long term or permanent basis,
• the inputs are available to make it possible to produce the necessary outputs on a continuous basis,
• any transferring of undesirable effects on to the natural environment, or onto present or future generations, is restricted to an acceptable minimum level.

For the first and second points this requires:

• renewable resources to be used only at a rate within which they can be renewed
• non-renewable resources to be used only to the extent to which they can be substituted in the future

For the third point this means that:

• production and consumption do not overstrain the resilience of ecosystems or the assimilation capacity of the ecosphere (the capacity to degrade, absorb, buffer, or store emissions without harmful effects),
• adverse effects on, the disappearance of, or irreversible change in plant and animal species, their biotopes and ecosystems, should be prevented.

In order to arrive at such a sustainable system the following essential principles are involved:

If any development presents a serious risk or threat to the natural environment then remedial action is required. Failing to exercise this principle, perhaps to gain a higher degree of proof prior to action, may lead to higher remedial costs or worse, the discovery that action may be too late. This principle requires the establishment and monitoring of environmental targets together with sound risk management.

Where environmental impact studies have shown developments to have undesirable side-effects that are within defined acceptable limits, then compensation may be sought from the actors involved. However, this principle is not applicable where developments have significant adverse effects on species, habitats and their ecosystems, particularly if they contribute to their disappearance or irreversible change. In some situations mitigation and compensation, preferably at the source may be called for. This principle includes the internalisation of external costs, preventing the shifting of consequences from producers and consumers to the environment.

Where increasing numbers of people seek to fulfil their basic needs and put pressure on finite and limited resources, it is unjust to maintain rich parts of the world at the expense of the poor. Sustainable development should contribute to the increasing dignity and prosperity of all, rather than of a few.

This study will follow the pattern of previous Working Group reports by critically reflecting on the policies pursued by the European Union in a number of specific policy fields including energy, transport, climate change, agriculture and social policy from the perspective of sustainable development, and propose some ways forward.

During 2001 the European Union produced several important documents relating to the issue of climate change. This paper will refer to 'European Climate Change Programme Report 2001', 'Proposal for a communication from the commission on the implementation of the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme,'¹ Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament of the Council laying down the Sixth Environmental Action Programme 2002-2011,' 'Presidency Conclusions, Göteborg European Council 15 and 16 June 2001' and 'Environmental Council conclusions of 13 December 2001'.

Churches have been concerned about climate change and have followed the relevant negotiations because of the ethical issues involved and the concern to more towards a sustainable society. This concern has been reflected in the work of the CEC Commission for Church and Society, the CEC European Christian Environmental Network, the World Council of Churches and within individual churches.

The work towards sustainable development provides an opportunity to create new policies, suitable for the 21^st Century. However, the churches recognise that the task is not easy and will require strong and brave political leadership that can take an innovative and flexible approach that is informed by an holistic perspective. This path towards sustainable development embraces the safeguarding of a clean and healthy environment, for the generation living now and those to come, together with the opportunity for poorest people, regions and nations to develop and to have equal access to the resources of our planet.

The political will and courage to combat climate change may be seen as an indicator for readiness to take on this global challenge. The task is for the whole global community, but the industrialised countries take the lead towards the application of energy efficiency, renewable energy and technical innovations and ensure that these mechanisms are accessible for the least developed nations.

The challenge to combat climate change is one of the most important environmental issues today. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated in their IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) that climate change is expected to be more dramatic with more severe consequences than previously predicted; highlighting observed changes in climate indicators:

• The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C. Globally; it is very likely that the 1990's were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861. Furthermore when the instrumental record is extended using proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere, the indication is that the temperature increase during the 20^th century is likely to have been the largest of any century.
• Snow cover and ice extent has decreased - satellite data reveals a likely decrease of about 10% in the extent of snow cover since the late 1960s.
• Global average sea level has risen and ocean temperature has increased.
• Precipitation patterns have changed. It is likely that precipitation has increased by 0.5 to 1% per decade in the 20th century over most mid- and high- latitudes of continents in the Northern Hemisphere and by 0.2 to 0.3 % per decade over tropical land areas.
• Ocean temperatures. Global ocean heat content has increased since the late 1950s, the period with adequate observations of sub-surface ocean temperatures

The IPCC report concludes that: "The Earth's Climate System has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era". This conclusion is broadly supported by the United States National Academy of Science's Review of Climate Change Science (June 2001), commissioned by the White House.

Climate change embraces social and economic as well as environmental dimensions. It is estimated that a million people have already been killed by climate change impacts, directly or indirectly, across the world. In the future, according to the IPCC report, even a medium scenario predicts that many millions people will become refugees because of the effects of climate change. The issue is also one of economic and social justice as most of the victims are from the poorest and most vulnerable communities, whilst rich and wealthy communities make the biggest contribution to climate change.

IPCC also reports that many mitigating measures are available now at low cost and indicates that rapid action, rather than complacency, is required. Meanwhile across the global community there is ongoing discussion as to whether the most cost effective strategy is early action or waiting for greater proof of the issue and improved technology to combat the problem. The churches argue for early action for a number of reasons:

• To postpone the more radical emission reductions with the hope it will be less costly later, or easier to get public support when the evidence is more obvious, is not in keeping with the precautionary principle (see chapter 1). To leave the difficulties to future generations indicates a lack of leadership. Early action allows society to keep its options open. Delayed action may require the implementation of more ambitious emission reductions which, when it becomes even more obvious that these are needed, may be practically impossible to implement.
• Secondly, a response which defers abatement action until later is likely to result in a more rapid rate of warming initially, compared to an early response to the same target. This is important since, according to IPCC, the faster the rate of temperature rise, the more difficult it is for plant and animal species to adapt! As we have set out in the first chapter of this publication, in the churches' vision we are called to act as responsible stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to care for God's creatures.
• Thirdly, early action provides incentives for technical innovation and hinders investments in unsustainable systems. The so-called "Porter Hypothesis" that states that environmental regulation can improve economic competitiveness by stimulating the development of better technologies, has gained a lot of support. Early policy induced innovation would lead in the long-term to relatively low costs for society compared with the higher investments to meet a problem of greater magnitude, if action is delayed.

The churches welcome the inclusion of climate change as a key issue addressed at the EU Strategy on Sustainable Development, agreed at the European Council in Göteborg 2001 and the intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol during 2002 and subsequently meet the targets. Churches also acknowledge that this protocol is just a first step in the efforts to combat climate change.

It is important that the EU strives for the issue of climate change to be a priority item on the agenda in Johannesburg. The UN Convention on Climate Change has been part of the Rio process from the beginning, so it is important that in evaluating the last ten years, as well as in developing strategies for the years to come, the work to combat climate change is emphasised. We recognise that the UNFCCC is the framework for negotiations on rules, modalities and commitments with regard to the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. However, it is important that the following issues are highlighted in the Johannesburg process:

• Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before the end of 2002. On many occasions the EU has declared its aim to ratify before Johannesburg and to strive for entering into force of the protocol. We urge the EU to stand by its objective and to come to Johannesburg with the ratification on board. Further, we urge the EU to continue strongly to advocate for ratification before Johannesburg by all Annex 1 countries.
• Climate change as a key issue with regard to sustainable development
• Concrete proposals on:
• how to reduce emissions from the transport sector and to provide possibilities for developing countries to build sustainable transport systems
• sustainable energy use with a focus on renewable sources
• energy efficiency in public buildings and enterprises as well as in the private sector as an example of sustainable consumption and production.

The US President, George W. Bush, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol process, arguing that the agreement was unfair and too costly and accused the EU of not being honest. He claimed that the EU Member States would be unable to reach their common target. NGOs and churches, supported the EU response to this allegation. Contrary to the US, the EU met the Climate Convention target to stabilise its CO₂ emission by 2000 at the 1990 levels. However, it is important to recognise that this was in part achieved through the transformation process in the former GDR and the switch from coal to gas in the UK, rather than through carbon reduction measures.

The churches also welcome the seriousness that the EU is taking the issue of climate change within its own agenda and its concerns to meet its Kyoto target. We received with interest the report on results from the EU Commission work on the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) published in the spring of 2001. This report indicates that there is technical potential for cost-effective options identified in order to even meet twice the amount required from EU by the Kyoto reduction target (=-8%). Further, we welcome the Environmental Council 'Common position with regard the Sixth Community Environmental Programme', adopted in June 2001, as real progress in the work to combat climate change.

Whilst the churches welcome the strong and promising work undertaken we identify that much still needs to be done to sharpen the objectives and the methods. For example, with regard to the autumn 2001 communication on the implementation of the first phase of the European Climate Change Programme, we conclude that whilst there are promising proposals and activities there is a lack of cohesive action to turn plans into projects. It remains to be seen if existing objectives will actually become fully implemented in the EU.

However, we recognise that there are a number of good initiatives in the pipeline including:

• the Directive on the Promotion of Electricity from Renewable Sources of Energy,
• the proposal for a Directive on Energy Performance in Buildings,
• the proposal for a Directive for the Promotion of Combined Heat and Power.

With regard to the transport sector, we welcome the Commission's plans to propose a framework directive on the principle and structure of an infrastructure charging system and a common methodology for setting up charges and cross financing. We also welcome, in principle, the proposal for uniform fuel taxation for commercial road transport, and hope that it will be set at a level that promotes sustainable development. In addition, proposals to stimulate the use of bio fuels for transport within the EU are important. However, these proposals need to be accompanied by stringent and effective Community tools and complemented with more radical action.

In the transport sector, we emphasise actions such as km taxes for heavy vehicles, already implemented in some countries, vehicle taxes, and CO₂ fees for landing and take-off in the aviation sector. In the energy sector, possibilities to implement the use of renewables (see chapter 4 of this publication) must be prioritised and supported. Subsidies for fossil fuels should be phased out more quickly than presently envisaged.

Against these worthy initiatives, the failure to establish a common carbon dioxide tax serves as a warning that that there still is a lack of political will to overcome obstacles to reduce CO₂ emissions. We note that greenhouse gas emissions trading is gaining political favour, but are concerned that too much emphasis put in developing a future trading system may delay the development of other emission reduction initiatives. This is because:

• it will take time to get a functioning system on track
• it is crucial that existing knowledge and techniques are being invested and developed now.

We note that although many other countries across the world emit more greenhouse gases per capita than most European countries, none of the European countries is close to the per capita level required for a safe and just global emission level to be reached by 2050. Hence, even if trading becomes a tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will not save us from having to make difficult decisions and adaptations in the future.

With regard to future work in the Sixth Community Environmental Programme we support the overall aim with regard to climate change (article 2). However, we regret that only CO₂ emissions are mentioned. An objective for a maximum concentration of all Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases would have been better. Governments of some member states have put forward more radical objectives. For example the Swedish Government, in its Governmental Bill, forwarded to the Parliament in December 2001, suggested the long-term objective of stabilisation below the 550 ppm CO₂ equivalents (covering all six Kyoto Protocol gases).

We acknowledge that the Environmental Council has sharpened many of the proposals originally proposed in the Commission text, not the least with regard to climate change. However, it is clear that most stringent proposals on targets were already decided in other Councils. We regret that no indicative reduction targets for the various sectors have been set (Article 5.2 ia). There is a risk that a short term cost effectiveness principle may result in a situation where too little effort is made by some sectors, for example transport and agriculture, where it is difficult and sometimes relatively costly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This might lead to higher transformation costs in the long term than if the reductions begin immediately. The churches are convinced that the setting of indicative targets and the taking of a long-term perspective of cost effectiveness are essential for the EU to succeed in meeting its long-term targets.

The churches would like to see a more substantial input with regard to the notion of demonstrable progress by 2005 (article 5.1). In addition, we would like the EU to concretely envisage what the overall objective as expressed in article 2 means, and identify realistic steps after 2012 to get there, even though we acknowledge that this has to been seen in the light of the global negotiations. For example, we could imagine an indicative Community target of a 60 percent mission reduction until 2050 and an intermediate reduction target in the range of 30 percent until 2025. If such intermediate steps are formulated we should like to see how it is proposed that such steps be met.

We acknowledge the need for incentives to aid the development of new technologies, but recognise that whilst new technologies will be helpful, they may not be sufficient to meet the objective of the Climate Convention. Consequently, we welcome the emphasis in the Council Conclusions of 13 December 2001 to public awareness building. Indicative long-term targets will contribute to good incentives and a public understanding of the need to change individual lifestyles as well. These "soft" parameters will be important for the development of a climate friendly policy in the future.

We agree with the conclusion that new investment in sectors such as energy and transport systems are vital to achieve long term reductions of energy use. For example, the Green paper on Energy Security concludes that the Community risks running into serious problems with regard to domestic energy supply, if policies and strategies are not changed. As a part of its energy reduction initiatives the Community should explore new ways of achieving energy efficiency across a number of sectors and develop alternative, renewable energy sources. ECCP is useful in showing that there are techniques available for efficient climate policies. The opportunities envisaged in, for example the Spring 2001 ECCP report, must be matched with Community and National policies and systems preparing for the successful implementation of new energy reduction measures. We consider that the overall objectives and visions are going in the right direction. However, these rather general objectives must swiftly be developed into stringent and concrete strategies for the various sectors in respective Councils.

We advocate a stringent strategy regarding subsidies and renewables, for example:

• the coal subsidies must be phased out as quickly as possible
• binding commitments, not only indicative targets must be developed for renewables
• massive economic and legal support must be given to research and implementation.

We also consider that the target of 12 % is too low and recommend a higher level.

With regard to article 5.2iii a and b, it is important that the EU starts to identify the way forward immediately. One important perspective is the legal possibilities of Community taxation on kerosene and carbon dioxide tariffs on take off and landing with regard to aviation and taxation on marine bunkers.

Relating to article 5.2iv c., we wish to point out that since the industrial fluorinated gases are very potent, we consider it vital to phase them out as quickly possible and we hope that the Community will develop strict regulations and incentives to this end.

Article 5.2v b deals with the important issue of reducing greenhouse gases in the agricultural and waste sectors, however, the intention stated is too vague. We advocate the development of a more stringent strategy for these sectors (see our comment on 5.2.i.).

With regard to article 5.5, we consider that the question of developing sustainable development strategies and adaptation measures in the so-called developing countries and countries in transition is of vital importance. It is important that the European Union clearly takes its responsibility in this respect.

The EU has taken a strong lead in upholding the Kyoto Protocol since the US pulled out of the process in spring 2001. We acknowledge the hard work and the commitment of EU politicians as well as civil servants. In the aftermath of Marrakech, we recognise the role of the protocol as a first step in a global effort to combat climate change. The legal character and the compliance system are something new in global institutional life.

However, in the light of the IPCC third assessment report, the final agreement over the Protocol is far from what is necessary to meet the objectives of the Climate Convention. We note that EU has gradually retreated from its initial position, not least with regard to the vital supplementary measures and sinks. The EU left The Hague round without compromising with the Umbrella Group. This decision received support from many environmental NGOs, as the proposals on the table did not seem to match the EU position to safeguard the environmental integrity of the Protocol. Subsequently, the final agreement is in certain respects further removed from initial EU position and even more so from what the churches had hoped for. As advocates of the weak economies, poor nations, vulnerable people and regions, the churches regret that sinks and trading schemes seem to have become the major instruments to meet the Kyoto commitments for many of the high emitting industrialised countries.

We acknowledge that the EU has had to manoeuvre in a very difficult situation and that the Bonn/Marrakech decisions mirror the global community's (lack of) political will with regard to its responsibility for the marginalised of our world and indeed for future generations. Thus we are aware that the EU had to make compromises. The results, however, lead us to the conclusion that the following commitment period must result in more binding and significant reduction targets.

Continuous strong leadership from the EU in preparing the way towards the next round of negotiations is therefore more vital than ever. In addition, as stated earlier in this paper, the EU must prove to be credible with its own internal agenda. We believe that the EU will become stronger and gain credibility, as well as economic benefits on the long run, if it invests in an early transformation process. If the EU is successful in implementing its climate change policies, it will become more difficult for other industrialised countries to explain why they can't engage in progressive climate policies. It will also encourage the so-called developing countries to take on their own binding commitments. The future generations of Europe benefit if the potential strong and brave leadership is realised at the dawn of this century.

With a view to the upcoming negotiations we advocate the following:

• The targets must be decided in the light of a long time perspective.

To do this two basic requirements must be met:

1. Stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that is in accordance with the overall objective of the Climate Convention, would prevent (further) dangerous anthropogenic interference with the natural climate system. We interpret the IPCC Third Assessment Report to mean that the six Kyoto greenhouse gases, measured as carbon dioxide equivalents, should not exceed the level of 450-550 ppm and that the concentration would even need to be lower than that, taking into account vulnerable countries and people.
2. A fair distribution of rights and obligations, meaning that emission rates must converge towards an equal distribution between high and low emitters. This leads us to the conclusion that next commitment period must start building a system for targets related to a specific "secure" greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and an equity burden of the emissions that allows for this. We foresee targets related to per capita missions or something similar. Proposals of the Global Commons Institute on "Contraction and Convergence" have gained some support from the churches. For high emitters this would lead to a step-by-step approach over the commitment period during which the emissions are reduced, while for the least developed countries and low emitters, a step-by-step approach for the possibility to increase emissions could be foreseen. However, systems for possibilities to increase emissions should be linked to the requirement to invest in sustainable energy and transport systems. Per capita parameters might need to be complemented with parameters such as vulnerability and need for adaptation measures, ability to pay etc.

• The rules and modalities for the commitments must take the Precautionary Principle

1. Despite lobbying for a protocol target to be based solely on source emissions, we acknowledge the inclusion of carbon sinks within the Kyoto Protocol. We are particularly critical of the inclusion of sinks according to article 3.4 in the first commitment period because:

• for many industrialised countries the inclusion of sinks may result in the delay of actions to reduce emissions at source as some high emitting industrialised countries can come close to their reduction targets according to the Kyoto protocol by counting already existing circumstances
• recent research indicates that the contribution that can be made by sinks is questionable in the long term due to the interactions within a warmer climate
• there is a qualitative difference between reducing greenhouse gases at the source and via sinks. Reductions at the source are a definite reduction of the input of greenhouse gases, while sinks have a degree of uncertainty. Uptake by sinks is a time-limited storage of carbon, always threatened by diseases, forests fires etc. In its Third Assessment Report the IPCC concludes that the potential carbon storage capacity of sinks will not be sufficient to meet the need to stabilise the increased concentrations of CO₂ emissions. Therefore, the present generation takes a risk at the expense of future generations if sinks become a major solution with regard to reduction of greenhouse gases. We are also concerned that whilst it is important to create incentives for preserving forests and biodiversity, sinks might be developed through monoculture which might threaten or reduce biodiversity. We note that the IPCC concludes that the inclusion of sinks must not reduce incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at source. In conclusion we propose that the mechanism of sinks should be used sparingly in the next commitment period.

1. Many churches, and particularly those in the South, are sceptical about the Kyoto mechanisms. They argue that natural resources such as water and air cannot be owned, sold or bought. However, we acknowledge the need for incentives for the private sector and that JI and CDM might become tools for facilitating processes towards sustainable systems in Eastern Europe and the so-called developing countries.

In two previous publications¹ European churches have tried to define what they might call "sustainable mobility". This was done for all the main modes of transport. In order to achieve this, a major reorientation of current transport policies and systems is called for, which should proceed simultaneously on four fronts:

• The reduction of traffic on all levels
• A transfer to ecologically sustainable modes of transport
• The development of optimised technology
• A general move towards deceleration

The introduction of the "polluter pays principle" is considered to be fundamental in bringing this about. A checklist of first steps was presented:

• Strategies are needed for decentralising and regionalising economic structures
• The calculation and internalisation of the transport costs of industrial products
• Urban planning needs to be integrated with public transport
• The impact and role of air traffic needs urgent attention
• The need to revitalise rail transport, both for freight and passenger traffic, especially for long distances
• Europe needs to rethink its idea of mobility. A new concept of "mobility-education" is needed.²

This chapter evaluates and critically reflects upon the transport policies that the European Commission has put into place, from the churches' perspective of sustainable development.

A number of recent policy documents published by the European Union will be analysed and commented upon.

This document includes five pages on transport. The title "mobility, land use and territorial development" reflects a welcome integrated approach which NGOs, including churches, have been advocating for some years. It comes close to truly sustainable modes of transport.

• Mobility, which contributes to continued economic and social well being. However, mobility is not an end in itself, but a means to access different goods and services. Increased mobility has significant negative side effects including the emissions of greenhouse gases - which are growing more rapidly with transport than from any other source, air and noise pollution, use of land, congestion, rising costs, concern about damage to eco-systems and bio-diversity.
• The relationship between spatial patterns and transport. Encouraging people to live close to work and social facilities and avoiding low-density development would help to lower transport-intensive living patterns
• The complex link between mobility and regional development. Improving transport links can give regional economies access to wider markets, but it is not a panacea for regional under-development³ - costs and benefits of new infrastructure need to be carefully weighed as regions require a range of other infrastructures and services to support economic activity⁴
• Internal market. The completion of the internal market has boosted trade flows, but the resulting patterns of transport activity have become unbalanced due to an absence of corresponding improvements in the pricing structure for different modes.
• The uneven pace of reduction in the costs of different modes of transport. Liberalisation - has had adverse environmental effects.
• Transport policy has generally sought to match the increase in demand for road and air policy by public investment in infrastructure from both national budgets and Community structural funds.
• In recent decades transport demand has risen broadly in line with GDP. While further growth in activity is expected, this trend is not sustainable. There clearly is a longer-term need to decouple transport growth from GDP and to limit the economic and environmental costs of transport growth.
• Appraisal of the following issues - among others - is needed:
• better pricing of different modes
• improvement of communication technologies to reduce mobility demands
• improvement in the use of infrastructure; with new infrastructure to be developed only when it is proved to be necessary
• recent shifts towards more sustainable rural development are still modest
• enlargement will bring new acute challenges - to move towards sustainable transport and land use practice it is crucial to undertake (a) an infrastructure appraisal and (b) a planning process that integrates economic, environmental and social issues, and which subsequently receives appropriate investment

The conclusions of the Göteborg European Council contained 16 lines on transport, entitled "ensuring sustainable transport". Such a policy should tackle rising volumes of traffic and its consequences and encourage environmentally-friendly modes of transport, as well as full internalisation of social and environmental costs. "Action is needed to bring about a significant decoupling of transport growth and GDP growth, in particular by a shift from road to rail, water and public-passenger transport." To achieve this it is necessary to:

• revise guidelines for TENs to give priority "Where appropriate" (sic!) to infrastructure investment for public transport, rail, inland waterways, short sea shipping, intermodal operations and effective interconnection
• to ensure that by 2004 the price of using different modes transport "better" reflects costs to society

Comment: Clearly the above-discussed documents stimulated sustainable transport more than this particular document does.

In this Programme, transport is mainly discussed under two headings:

1. Art. 4, tackling climate change, under 2, III, reducing gas emissions in the transport sector by:

• specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector
• specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector
• encouraging the switch to more efficient and cleaner forms of transport including better

• promoting the development and use of alternative fuels - and low fuel consuming vehicles
• promoting measures to reflect the full (!) environmental costs in the price of transport
• decoupling economic growth and the demand (!) for transport growth
• ensuring that the climate challenge is taken into account in the community's

2. Art. 6 concerning environment, health and the quality of life. 2g) "on noise"

...improving measures on noise emissions...

...implementing instruments to mitigate traffic noise, for example by reducing the

demand for transport reductions (!)

This White Paper on transport is the second one the Commission has published. As it is relevant to our topic it is discussed in more detail. The whole paper has already been criticised by T&E for lacking a clear vision of a new approach. "It is just business as usual extended for another 10 years, with a nod to sustainability" The following is offered as a perspective from the churches:

The paper is far from being the re-orientation of Europe's transport policy that the Churches have advocated for some time. The influence of the Göteborg Council Conclusions is evident, yet: "the nod to sustainability" should be looked after, supported and fostered in order to be developed further. Whilst the "new approach" may only come "step by step", the time-pressure is urgent, given the environmental problems we are facing. The following is an assessment of those parts of the document that can be seen as "a nod to sustainability" (3.1.4.1.) and those that don't follow this path (3.1.4.2.):

1) getting the prices right

2. B) Demand for cleaner urban transport
3. C) The long sought addressing of air-traffic

However, the importance of moving towards sustainable transport, including a reduction of transport on all levels is omitted. Worryingly, the Introduction to the White paper says: "By implementing the 60 odd measures set out there will be a marked break in link between transport growth and economic growth, without there being any need to restrict the mobility of people and goods."

3.1.4.2. A) The White Paper follows the long debated paradigm: "without sufficient transport

capacities there is no economic growth."

B) The White Paper stresses the importance of implementing the huge transport systems

of TEN and PEN in the future

C) The important line in the former Commission's transport policy, outlining a project

4. to "change user's behaviour" is omitted

With regard to the issue of "getting the prices right', the churches welcome nine pages on the internalisation of external costs" in Commission's White Paper. The paper says, "As prices do not reflect the full...cost of transport, demand has been artificially high." We agree!

Though a global increase in transport prices may be on the cards, the biggest change is likely to be in price structure." Starting with road transport, charges will vary according to the vehicle's environmental performance, be based on the type of infrastructure, distance covered, axle weight, type of suspension and degree of congestion. These charges will be introduced gradually and tie in with a reduction in other charges such as vehicle tax, so as to minimise the impact on the sector. Fuel tax will stay and should be harmonised across Europe. From road this taxation system shall spread to the other modes in a Europe-wide harmonised legislation framework. The chapter stresses a further key element is the gradual introduction of different types of substitute fuels.

Comment: The churches welcome all of these proposals.

The Commission plans to propose a framework directive in 2002, which will allow each Member State wide scope in terms of implementation; but it will include a common methodology for setting price levels.

This approach corresponds to the subsidiarity-principle. However, there is a risk that the political will may be watered down, but we urge the Commission to rise to the challenge of "getting the prices right." Further, the Commission could stimulate sustainable transport by

a) realising a "shift" that works

b) starting "decouplement" which reduces transport - this could begin key areas such as the food sector.

As far as the subject of the 'shift' is concerned a key-issue is the revitalising of rail transport. The paper contains nine pages analysing why EURO-Rail has not functioned and identifies that a key precondition is the opening of rail to regulated competition. The foundation stone was laid in 1991 with the meanwhile EU-Directive 91/440 requiring separate accounts to be kept for railway infrastructure management and the provision of railway transport services. Up to now Member States haven't adequately put this Directive into practice.

The main problem, which is identified in the relevant chapter being the existing monopolies of infrastructure holders, which stop competition on the tracks for newcomers by excessive fares, to protect their own (often incompetent) companies. This significant problem is not tackled. The organisation of an infrastructure holder, which on one hand looks after the tracks (a very expensive job) and on the other hand stimulates in a neutral way fair competition, calculating fares which cover the costs (resisting tendencies "to make profits") and enables service-companies to offer safe and comfortable Rail-transport for reasonable prices, has not been adequately formulated. The White paper doesn't acknowledge this, but instead identifies the need for further research.

However, the White Paper points to one possible direction. A final "fiction of rail in 2010" among other visions says: "the national infrastructure managers are organised at European level and jointly decide the conditions for access to the network... railway regulators meet regularly."

A "deviation over Europe" may minimise powerful nationalistic barriers (see below), but the described problem of organisation will remain the same. Opening up of rail toward Europe-wide Rail-net hasn't worked. This is particularly urgent for freight-transport where examples of malfunction include so-called "ghost-trains," which are national freight trains, passing a national frontier and simply "getting lost", because of antediluvian information-systems.

The White Paper reveals concern about Rail-freight, and examines the USA model. In 1997 the former DG VII developed the idea of "Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways" based on the same track-network as passenger-Rail (including high-speed-trains), but with different slots. However, this system didn't work. This White Paper aims at constructing a separate rail freight network with 50000km opened up by 2003 and 150000km by 2008. The Paper also proposes a new profession of "Freight integrators." Their job would be to make the most efficient use of the transport network across Europe and world wide.

1. Huge tunnel-projects, e.g. Munich-Verona (sic!) - regrettably whilst environmental problems are mentioned they are grossly underestimated.

2. By-passing by sea-transport (see below)

For passenger-transport the Paper stresses the "high-speed-model". This will be discussed in more detail below (B 3).

Some observations on the second "shift": "road-to-water":

The Paper indicates that inland waterway transport is a competitive alternative to road and rail transport as the EU has an important natural asset with a dense network of rivers flowing into the Atlantic and North Sea, with many river basins linked by a network of canals. River transport is reliable and therefore ideal for the carriage of heavy low-cost commodities over long distances, as well as for transporting potentially hazardous goods. A future inland waterway network across Europe would compliment sea transport. Accordingly, the Paper suggests the development of "motorways of the sea."

The Paper also notes that short-distance shipping along Europe's coasts is a competitive alternative to land transport and should be intensified to take advantage of the currently huge and under-used potential. Investment in the development of a modern infrastructure with appropriate staff would be required. The Paper has little to say about Public Passenger Transport, except that it needs to be improved and stimulated by means of regulated competition.

It is discussed in some more depth in:

With regard to the 'demand for clean urban transport', the Paper presents an integrated approach, incorporating all political sectors, in five pages. The Paper states that the lack of an integrated approach to town planning and transport has allowed the virtual monopoly of the private car, which has led to a situation in Europe's towns, which is unsustainable.

An alternative is to promote cleaner vehicles and develop the public transport system. The chapter has two interesting pages on establishing a new regulatory framework for substitute fuels and gives examples of European cities which have started to put these into practice. The chapter says that the available new clean car technologies need greater support from the Community in the future, especially under the 6^th framework programme of research. The Paper also promotes better infrastructure and service of Public Passenger Transport, which needs to achieve levels of comfort, quality and speed so that it meets people's expectations and hence is subject to greater use.

We comment that this chapter of the White Paper can claim to come close to a vision of sustainable transport.

With regard to air traffic, the churches welcome the inclusion of six pages on the issue in a White Paper of the Commission on Transport. The need to consider air-traffic was stimulated by delays which have increased since 1994. The "congestion" of European skies is linked to the rapid increase in air transport, with a 7.4% average annual growth over the last 20 years. At present 25000 aircraft fly across Europe's skies daily, a figure that is expected to double every 10-14 years. To sustain such growth, air traffic management will need to be reformed and sufficient airport capacity guaranteed in the enlarged EU.

The creation of the SINGLE EUROPEAN sky in 2004 is one of the European Union's current priorities, as emphasised by the European Council. The Paper indicates that Europe will not be able to cope without new airport infrastructure, including development within the applicant member states. "This is also one of the key conditions for saving airlines from losing competitiveness against their rivals, particularly from North America". The paper notes that the turnover of the largest European company is not as much as that of the fourth largest American company. As it is of difficult to get public support for the construction of new airports, the use of larger aircraft (500-600 passengers) is proposed.

We comment: These key issues have become more important post-September 11^th, and require further reflection.

With regard to the environmental implications of development the chapter has one page on "striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment." It says: "Introduction of measures to reduce noise and gaseous emissions caused by air-traffic is a sine qua non if the industry is to continue to grow." The chapter acknowledges that such an exercise is difficult as the EU has little room for manoeuvre and concludes that Member States should make international commitments via the ICAO. At the end of the chapter there is a short discussion of the merits of taxing Kerosene. It acknowledges that global competition prevents Europe acting alone to raise such a tax but does propose differential en-route air navigation charges.

The underlying paradigm "Without sufficient transport capacities, no economic growth" calls for further comment. This approach is made explicit in the Paper's discussion of Enlargement (p. 91ff.): "the first challenge in making enlargement a success will be to connect the future Member States to the Trans-European network; that is a pre-condition for their economic development, based on anticipated growth in transport, as was the case with the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece. The lack of efficient transport infrastructure networks to cope with this anticipated growth in movements is still greatly underestimated. And yet that infrastructure is a key element of the strategy for the economic development of the candidate countries and their integration into the internal market."

In the previously mentioned publications of the European Churches the prevailing thinking was of the acceptance of the notion that investing money in road-building boosts economic growth and generates employment. At European level this 'accepted wisdom' is witnessed in the so-called "Delors-White-Paper", confirmed at the Luxembourg summit and in many of the messages from former DG VII Commissioner Kinnock.

However, research has shown that this wisdom is simplistic. The link between transport capacity and economic growth is dependent upon a number of factors including the situations and stages of economic development. Further research is needed, particularly in the differences between member and applicant states. It is important that the perceived wisdom that improving transport capacity leads to economic growth should be handled with a greater degree of caution than was previously acknowledged.

It is apparent that many of the EU applicant nations would benefit from improvements in their transport infrastructure. However, the way that so-called PEN master plans are put into practice is also important. Against this background the White Paper clearly favours progress in rail networks and capacity in Eastern Europe, especially with regard to freight transport. The paper says: "The existence of a particularly extensive and dense rail network in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is a unique opportunity to rebalance the transport modes in an enlarged Europe. In Eastern Europe rail still retains over 40% of the freight market (a level similar to that of the USA), which compares favourably with just 8% in the EU. However, on the basis of current trends, this share of this mode of transport might fall to 30% by 2010. Every effort must be made to convince the countries in question of the need to maintain the railways high level, with a target of around 35% for 2010. Support is needs to be accomplished before road transport dominates".

Concerning the White Paper's stress on the need to implement the huge transport- systems of TEN and PEN for the enlarged Europe, one of the four parts of the White Paper (Part II, 16 pages), entitled "Eliminating bottlenecks" is dedicated to this particular topic. The Paper regrets that little progress had been made to get TEN-projects implemented, noting the example of the "Essen-projects" and says:

"Nevertheless, whatever the delay to certain projects, support should continue to be given to the Trans European Network which is an important factor in European competitiveness and improve the link between the European Union's outlying regions and its central markets...unless infrastructure is interconnected and free of bottlenecks, to allow the physical movement of goods and persons, the internal market and the territorial cohesion in the Union will not be fully realised."

The guidelines of TEN should have been revised in 1999, but this has yet to be done. The Paper proposes 2 steps:

In 2001: - eliminating bottlenecks to encourage rail corridors with priority given to freight,

greater integration of high-speed lines with air-traffic and the introduction of traffic

management plans on the main road arteries.

- amending the list of "specific" projects (the "Essen" list) by adding 7 more projects

project, improved navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen)

In 2004: - integrating networks of the applicant countries

- "motorways of the sea" being realised

- improving airport capacities

Funding - a change: EU will provide 20% for cross border projects crossing natural barriers

and projects at borders of candidate countries

- Community framework will channel revenue from charges of competing routes

towards the building of new infrastructure, particularly rail

Concerning rail for TENs - followed later by PENs - priority is given to high-speed-rail (above 250 km/h). Regrettably there is no mention of conventional rail!

Part II of the White Paper, which seems to be a main pillar of the Commission's future transport policy hasn't got a single word on environment! Further, it is not clear whether Article 8 of the TEN guidelines, prescribing relatively large environmental conditions to be observed, including an EJA for single projects of TEN and for the whole system, is still on board.

It is appropriate to restate the comment of the last publication of European Churches on TENs "The Vision of TENs and PENs working together seems to be that of a huge Big Ben Clock, where all inside wheels, smaller and bigger ones, work together most effectively. Inter-operability is important for the functioning of these systems. The procedures for deciding on and implementing these immense infrastructures are up to now lacking democratic processes. These infrastructures at least raise the question of the relationship between mobility patterns, transport-systems and culture."

These transport systems will shape the future of Europe. The functioning of the dominant economic model is the reason behind this vision. We know that in many ways this model is not sustainable. Meanwhile political movements for the protection of cultural identities of regions should have indicated that European citizens believe that Europe is more than the high-speed circulation of people and continuously transported goods. The vision for a Europe shaped by TENs and PENs should be rethought and discussed

With regard to the policy-line "change of user's behaviour is concerned it should be noted that this is apparently out of fashion.

Finally, the White Paper's conclusions say the document is to be seen merely as a first stage of a longer-term strategy. Transport policy must be part of an overall strategy integrating sustainable development. The need for research is underlined. This gives Churches an opportunity to continue challenging the policies pursued.

The detailed report on the White Paper, following the difficult step-by-step procedure of politics, has shown where support and help towards sustainable transport is possible. It is important to continue promoting the insight that unlimited growth of transport is destructive and unsustainable. It is also useful to identify where supposedly positive effects of transport and mobility start becoming destructive. The problems of deceleration in this context, together with the cultural dimension of transport patterns, have to be integrated into thinking and action. The paper titled 'Working document from the Commission Services', discussed above, provides the best opportunity in this respect.

This paper is following a similar line of argument. It picks out positive trends of the White Paper. It is less radical, certainly not pressing for a "re-orientation" of transport-policies.

This paper falls into the same category as the one previously discussed. No major reform is called for instead it emphasises merely technical solutions such as emission-reduction by better engines and more efficient use of fuels.

Having evaluated a number of relevant policy-documents the consistent viewpoint of European churches' is that the pursuit of sustainable development requires more radical changes which may involve:

• Strategies for decentralising and regionalising economic structures
• A calculation of the transport element of costs of industrial products as essential to the economy of sustainable development
• The internalisation of environmental costs in the pricing of the various modes of transport, particularly air traffic.
• Urban planning to be integrated with public transport planning
• The need to stimulate rail transport, both for freight and passenger traffic, especially for long distances in both Eastern and Western Europe
• A shift from road to rail and water transport in the course of a shift to more ecologically sustainable modes of transport
• The development of a new concept of mobility and "mobility-education"
• The development of optimised technology, including the use of bio-fuels
• A general move towards deceleration and a reduction of transport generally
• The application of the 'polluter pays", the "precautionary" and the "equity" principles involved in sustainable development and sustainable transport policies.

It is hope of the churches that that this will be done soon. In some senses recent EU documents do not contribute to achieving sustainable transport policies in Europe to the same extent as previous policy documents, rather it is business as usual extended into the future, with only a nod to sustainability. Europe is capable of much more than that. NGOs and churches, are urging the European Union to set the international agenda in this respect!

The challenges of climate change require a number of strategies to be developed including a reduction in the burning of fossil fuels, promotion of energy efficiency and a switch to renewable energy sources. This chapter explores the contribution of renewable energy sources from EU and applicant nations, notes that there is considerable disparity between many EU member and the applicant states, and makes some key recommendations.

In 1997 the EC adopted a 'White Paper on Renewable Energy', which set a target for the EU to double the use of renewable energy by 2010. The progress towards reaching this target varies between member states. In the past five years there has been progress in the development of renewable energy within the EU, based on economic, technological, environmental and political factors. Notable are promising developments in wind, photovoltaic, solar systems and biomass fields. However, other sources, such as hydro power did not progress as far as envisaged in the White Paper. We note that the utilisation of hydro power is limited by the need for specific conditions which are not available in countries which lack water or are very flat.

The next section reviews the development of those renewable sources that have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the development of a sustainable energy supply.

The 'wind' industry has developed rapidly across the EU, becoming a significant employer in the energy sector. Capacity in Germany expressed as wind energy equivalents has risen from 500 MW installed in 1995 to 4,500 MW in 1999 and over 6000 MW in 2000. Globally wind energy capacity increased by 14.6% in 2000 to a rated capacity of 18,449 MW from 49,238 wind turbines. It is anticipated that Europe will remain the leader in wind energy development, with about 70% cumulative installation between 2001 and 2005. In 2000 1,665 MW were installed in Germany, 1,024 MW in Spain and 603 MW in Denmark with total capacity of 13,630 MW representing 86.6% of all wind energy capacity installed in the world.¹

However, it is striking that there is little participation from many of the transition and Eastern European Countries in this promising development. Factors include the relatively high initial investments needed for wind energy projects and unfavourable political and economic climates. This is illustrated in the Czech Republic where by the end of 2001 of the 12 wind turbines larger than 100kW capacity, only one was in operation. A similar situation exists in other Central and Eastern European countries; for example only one large wind turbine was installed in Romania in 2001.

(Resource: Renewable Energy World, July-Aug 01, James & James, London, Page 92)

Photovoltaic energy sources have also increased to 288 MW across the world in 2000. Whilst this capacity is increasing rapidly in % terms, it represents a very small fraction of world energy demand. In 2000 the contribution of various nations/regions to the total energy generated was Japan - 33 %, Europe - 25% and North America - 16%. There was a rapid % increase in capacity in Germany in 2000 with more than 50% of Germany's capacity being installed as part of a new government programme aiming to achieve the operation of 100,000 photovoltaic systems. New programmes for photovoltaic generation are currently being prepared in the Netherlands, Italy and Spain.

There is a significant contrast in Eastern and Central Europe. Whilst photovoltaic cells and panels are produced by manufacturers such as Solartec in the Czech Republic or a plant in St Petersburg, the availability of such technology has not resulted in significant installation in the region. It may be noted that 95% of the production from Solartec is exported to Western Europe. It is good to report that recently, and after a lengthy delay, a programme for 100 schools to have photovoltaic installations (200W to 1.2kW) was started in the Czech Republic. However, the development of this type of new energy generating technology at a significant scale has been hindered by administrative and bureaucratic regulations, and complicated procedures accompanying government funding. These factors have hindered rather than facilitated the development and application of this promising resource.

The development and application of hydro power can provide a greater contribution as a source of renewable energy, but is subject to concerns including the impact on water basins, water resources and biodiversity. Nevertheless, there are promising developments in some so-called, 'small waters' where hydro power is being harnessed or re-introduced.

Across Eastern and Central Europe many former mills, saw-mills and small power stations are being used again. This development may be related to traditional practice, where, for example in Czechoslovakia there were 14,482 hydro stations and water mills in 1930. This tradition was disrupted during the communist period with just 259 plants still operating in 1989.²

Since then there has been a renewal of the small hydropower plants in the Czech Republic and several other Central and Eastern European countries. For example, there are now 12 small hydro stations in operation on 35 km of the river of upper Moravia in the Czech Republic. However, such promising developments have been limited by legal, administrative and bureaucratic barriers. The potential exists for further increase in capacity with an estimated 80% additional capacity which could be developed without dramatic impacts on the natural environment. It is good to note that several companies in the Czech Republic are investing in research and the building of these so-called micro-hydro power plants. However, the possibilities of new large-scale hydro-plants are currently hypothetical and in any case may have considerable environmental risks.

Solar thermal technologies cover various applications and have had significant growth with 11,470,000 m² installed in EU countries by 2000, aided by favourable economic, political and environmental factors. Further, targets of the 'Campaign for Take Off' - to have 15,000,000 m² of solar-thermal collectors installed in 2003 and 100,000,000m² by 2010 may be both realistic and feasible. In this sector the following EU countries took the lead in the year 2000: Greece with 2,645,000 m² Germany with 2.290.000 m², and Austria with 1,476,000 m² installed.³

This scale of development is not even across the EU or mirrored in Eastern and Central Europe, where solar thermal technologies have developed slowly despite some ambitious governmental and seemingly promising co-financing programmes. The inertia seems to be in part due to bureaucracy that appears to be an unsolvable problem for many potential builders of solar systems in the Czech Republic. In most Eastern and Central European countries, government subsidies for this purpose do not exist or are unavailable for individuals. This impacts on the solar-thermal companies, so preventing mass production and installation which would reduce prices.

There are a number of further promising renewable energy sources, the application of which, and in certain cases the potential for, varies between nations. The number of operating biomass installations has increased in Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Northern Italy. These mainly using wood (e.g. wooden pallets) and agricultural waste from animal husbandry. There have also been increases in biomass utilisation in some areas of the Czech republic, where there has been an increase in the use of the wood, in many rural areas in countries such as Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine. It is notable that in the more hilly parts, modern heating and gasification units using wood that are relatively clean and non-polluting, are growing in popularity.

Developments in the production of rape for oil along with other energy crops appear to have suffered with the overall problems of agriculture including the high costs of agricultural inputs. However, rape oil is extensively produced and used for the production of bio diesel with engines using it in a pure form becoming increasingly available in some countries. Additional capacities for the production of rape seed oil is being developed in the Czech Republic.

The use of geothermal energy installations and heat exchange pumps of various types is increasing in EU countries and in some transition countries. However, in Eastern and Central Europe the high initial investments and the complex technology involved seem to prevent the widespread application of these systems.

Total installed electric output installed in the Czech Republic in 1992 was 13,499 MW. Of this 11,277 MW was from coal, 1,400 from hydro, 1,760 MW from the Dukovany nuclear plant and 62 MW from gas plants. This capacity was increased in 2001 with the installation of the nuclear plant of Temelin with a 2000MW potential. The efficiency of energy use was, however, 2 or 3 times lower than in neighbouring EU countries.⁴

Developing alternative sustainable scenario's has not been easy. This may be related to the focus of the Government supported institutions and university departments in the Czech Republic on fossil fuel and nuclear research. Despite this there are promising developments with a growing number of politicians, parliamentarians, NGOs, church initiatives, and several small industrial companies, successfully and slowly promoting and developing sustainable energy strategies. These include some successful and popular programme for small solar installations for households and projects for small photovoltaic installations in the schools. Both of these programmes are successfully supported by the State Environmental Fund. In some regions biomass heating installations are built with the government support and at the beginning of 2002 there was a considerable increase of the State guaranteed purchasing prices for energy from renewable resources, which was as a very promising signal for its development.

Many hope that such signals, combined with the will of many concerned about sustainable development, may help shift the balance of the Czech Republic's energy strategy away fossil and nuclear fuel sources and towards renewable sources.

Continued dependency on centralised and often imported fossil fuels may lead to serious political tensions, an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor in our one world, as well as serious environmental damage including climate change.

Renewable energy sources have the potential to make a serious contribution to energy production across Europe, but at present the scale is small and with many of the emerging technologies focussed in Western Europe. There is considerable potential for the EU to foster development, particularly with the applicant nations.

Based on the principles and vision of sustainable development outlined in chapter one, we urge that:

• Governments in Europe and across the world co-operate on common standards and mechanisms based on the most promising examples and standards, to enhance utilisation of renewable energy and energy savings.
• the EU requires and financially support the achievement of such standards from all present and future member states.
• Governments and international bodies make available cheap loans and government support to install mechanisms supporting renewable energy applications accessible to a considerable number of potential users and producers. These should include households, local communities, NGOs (including churches), and other public and private enterprises.
• Governments should streamline administrative and bureaucratic regulations and procedures that act as serious obstacles to spreading renewable technologies. At the same time all safety measures and requirements related to technology, grid capacity and overall safety should be maintained.

Application of such strategies would make a significant contribution to sustainable development by improving environmental performance and stimulating economic development. Because many renewable energy resources require small and decentralised plant, producers can generate both additional energy and employment. There would also be considerable environmental, health and community benefits, benefiting the well being of citizens.

The good things coming from above, water, wind and sunshine should be utilised to the full and to the fullness of humankind as responsible stewards of God's creation.

It is not just since the emergence of BSE in the 1990s and the spread of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001 that the crisis within the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) became evident. From the perspective of sustainable development, the overall goals of the CAP pursued since 1957 have been questioned for some time by European churches.¹ Their concerns cover the quality of the products, food safety, health of the consumers, protection of the environment, preservation of biodiversity, and economic and social well being for the rural population in both Western and Eastern Europe, rather than a focus on the permanent increase in productivity.

The churches' are motivated by their concern to be the advocates of those suffering: the poor, those driven out of agriculture by the policies currently pursued, together with their concern for the well being of the environment. Churches tend to take a long-term view, as they are neither influenced by short-term economic profitability or the need to seek re-election. However, churches can be part of the solution as they can demonstrate that pioneering projects to enhance a more regional and ecological orientation of agriculture do work and that they recognise their responsibility to play their part in promoting more sustainable lifestyles.

This paper initially considers case studies of the agricultural sector in two Central and Eastern European countries: the Czech Republic and Romania. They illustrate the enormous problems facing agricultural and rural development in these countries and the need to develop strategies that are truly sustainable.

The agricultural system in the Czech Republic has changed considerably during the past few years. Generally speaking it has sharply decreased in importance: In arable agriculture this decrease was 20% and in animal husbandry more than 33%. Primary agricultural production went down by 30% percent. The main causes included that the demand and supply of agricultural commodities and food were insufficiently balanced, the purchasing power of citizens was seriously reduced and the price of food rose steeply. As a consequence, the share of agriculture in the GDP of the Czech Republic declined to just 2.1 % in 1997.

The economic situation of agricultural workers has deteriorated since 1991, with the exception of 1995 when the economic development was slightly more positive. Consequently, many farmers cannot bear the costs of running primary agricultural production, leaving many in debt and unable to pay off their loans. There are also serious financial consequences accompanying the transformation law for agricultural co-operatives and companies.

The situation is exacerbated by a number of factors including the:

• costs of production increasing at a faster rate than the prices achieved for the products
• reduction of government agricultural subsidies from 21.8 billion CZK in 1991 to 6.99 billion CZK in 1997
• inadequate market regulations reducing the efficiency of the functioning of the market
• inequality in the position of the different stakeholders in the food production chain such as primary producers, traders, food processing industries, supermarkets, retail shops and consumers, aggravated by multi-national companies, increased their profit margins at the expense of agricultural producers and small food processing companies
• competition that local producers face from the large quantity of imported agricultural produce, some of which are heavily subsidised by the EU (western) CAP

The impact of these developments has included the reduction of employment in the agricultural sector from 9.9% in 1989 to 4 % in 1997 and the number of people employed in agriculture decreased by 62% from 530,000 in 1989 to about 201,000 in 1997. Many left this sector for more promising jobs, with higher pay, in other areas. The average wage of employees in primary agricultural production declined from 109% of the average wage in the Czech economy in 1989 to 79.4 % in 1997.

The food processing industry and the primary agricultural production is continuing to face difficulties as they seek to modernise and develop. The factors include the:

• continuous change in the ownership of companies and land
• the high level of debt
• late payment of invoices creating cash flow problems
• incomplete restructuring
• limited use of the production capacity of the food processing industry
• lack of protection against subsidised imports

These factors combine to make it make it difficult for Czech agriculture to maintain its competitiveness regionally or internationally.

The loss of vitality in agriculture has had a negative impact on the rural economy. This is complicated by the social infrastructure that is typified by poor services, restricted public transport, a lack of culture, and minimal health care. In addition those in the rural areas find it increasingly hard to gain paid work where they live and their mobility to find work elsewhere is restricted by the increasing price of public transport. This has led to a 'spiralling down' of the quality of life in the rural areas.

Whereas the situation in the Czech Republic shows the difficulties of an agricultural sector that may be argued to have already made a reasonably good start with the process of transition, Romanian agriculture is still characterised by a set of problems associated with the initial stages of transition.

Across the nation, 63 % of the country is agricultural land and 45 % of the population live in rural areas. The privatisation of the land is more or less completed, but most of the holdings are too small to be profitable, with 72 % smaller than 3 ha. Many owners live far from their land.² Less than one third of the rural population is educated to a level beyond secondary school and only 1 in 1000 of the rural population has graduated from a higher educational institution. A significant proportion of the inhabitants, 7.4 %, has not had any formal education. This low educational attainment of the rural population is a major barrier to the implementation of the 'acquis communautaire' in Romania and to improving the competitiveness of agriculture, food production and processing in the rural economy.

In 2000, agriculture accounted for 12.6 % of Romanian gross value added as opposed to 14.8% in 1999. Agricultural employment represents 42.8% of the national labour force and around 70% of the labour force in rural areas, which is markedly higher than in western European countries, and which indicates the scale of the problem and the challenge to be faced.

However, the national rural development plan of Romania states: "Overall the diagnosis of the current situation of rural development in Romania identifies many problems but few solutions and especially lack of vision for rural development."³ A similar statement was made by the European Commission: "Romania still needs to carry out conceptual work to prepare the administrative structure and systems required for handling the Common Agriculture Policy expenditure under the Guarantee and Guidance section of the EAGGF."⁴

Nevertheless, the "National Rural Agriculture Development Plan 2000-2006" and the "SAPARD programme 2000 - 2006" are supposed to be the guidelines for the agricultural development. The majority of the population, however, is sceptic, and even Franz Fischler, EU commissioner for agriculture, said: "I regret very much that in Romania, the progress (of SAPARD) is not yet sufficient to start the distribution of the money. For Romania 153.2 million Euro will be allocated per year. The Commission has decided to extend the deadline for Romania to spend their 2000 allocation until the end of 2003."⁵

Farmers and their families are particularly affected by globalisation including the "internationalisation" of agricultural systems in the dominant global economic model. Structural changes are taking place at an ever-increasing pace, which many social and ecological needs have not been able to adapt to, and an increasing proportion of those reliant on agricultural production are being driven out of the system. It seems likely that this rate of development will intensify after the enlargement of the EU.

A small proportion of farmers try to survive within the increasing competition of the global (or EU-) markets and a smaller proportion try to survive by occupying some (ecological) niches of regional and international markets. Often agricultural workers have to take on the role of agricultural manager calculating everything from a purely economic and rational point of view; consequently what was once a craft and a calling is being lost.

The crisis in rural agriculture is widespread and serious in both the so-called developing and developed nations, with people increasingly losing control and sovereignty over their resources. In the face of threats from the globalised food economy, the churches call for the right of people to produce food, feed themselves and exercise their food sovereignty, to be protected.

The situation in the transition economies in Eastern and Central Europe requires careful policy development, as they cannot simply copy the development of the agricultural sector in the western European countries. "The problem of restructuring in the CEECs is directly linked to the dualism of their agricultural structures. On one hand, the commercial sector needs to invest and restructure. On the other hand, semi-subsistence farming continues to play a major role as a social safety net in rural areas. Direct payments can be a resource in this process, but they are not adapted to economic and social objectives of restructuring."⁶ To reach only half of the average productivity of the EU-15 would involve, with constant production, the destruction of 4 million agricultural jobs in the ten CEECs. We wonder about the personal and societal costs and the fate of such "restructured" people.

The problem is recognised by the EU Commission. In a speech held the 30^th of April, 2001, Franz Fischler said: "In fact, there needs to be realistic debate in your countries on what you want from agriculture and for rural communities. It is clear that without membership, a large number of people will have to leave agriculture for other activities in the coming years, if farm incomes are to rise in line with wage growth in other parts of the economy. The question is not "whether", but "how". Membership of the EU offers considerable resources and experience in restructuring agriculture, diversifying income sources and creating alternative sources of employment. A central question is how this process of change is cushioned and accompanied by appropriate social and welfare measures both for those within the sector and those leaving it. We must co-operate to ensure that in future, rural development programmes in your countries work effectively with national measures to best accompany the major social and economic changes in view."⁷ The EU is offering a "helping hand". However, the task to develop a vision for the future development of the agricultural sector is handed back to the people in the Eastern and Central European countries themselves.

We propose that there is an urgent need to develop the Common Agricultural Policy on the basis of a sustainable development policy as elaborated in the principles outlined in chapter one of this publication. For the agricultural sector, the following criteria are particularly relevant:

• the conservation of critical natural capital;
• the precautionary principle, especially regarding food safety and the use of new production methods;
• the intra-generational allocation principle, especially in regard to poor farmers and poor rural areas;
• the principle of intergenerational equity, especially regarding the preservation of biodiversity.

Based on these principles we now explore the development of an alternative and sustainable agricultural and rural development policy for the European Union.

The future of the agricultural sector is dependent on the development and the orientation of lifestyles in Europe. For example: the type of food people consume; the relative priority of cheap prices, quality and food safety; preferences for fresh, organic or highly processed fast food; concerns about where the food is grown; and the demand for the year round availability of products.

Local economic structures are extremely important. If consumers and producers orientate themselves towards local (production and consumption) of food, they can partially free themselves from the purely economic logic of the global market. If an economic system is oriented towards the true needs of humans instead of towards the profitability of capital, there are ecological, social and even long-term economic benefits, though these are not adequately accounted for in current measurement criteria. It is important to strive to preserve and revitalise the regional orientation of agriculture and to reduce the risk of its loss.

There is an increasing interest in bio products, with pilot projects demonstrating the value of these production schemes. The further development of bio-production offers the potential for the creation of 'good work' employment opportunities, though it is vital to expand from the "ecological niche", which requires the establishment of international ecological standards.

The national and international (EU) scale is essential for shaping a policy-framework that promotes the development of a more sustainable kind of agriculture with a regional orientation. "The sustainability of food systems is not merely a technical matter. It constitutes a challenge demanding the highest political will of states. The profit motive leads to the unsustainability of food systems by surpassing the limits of production allowed by nature."⁸

The EU should put its weight behind developing an agricultural strategy that:

• is primarily oriented towards the satisfaction of local and regional demands
• aims at production and processing methods based on the principles of 'closed systems' and 'cascade management', so that the energy efficiency of the agricultural sector is brought towards a sustainable level
• preserves or revitalises the multi-functionality of small holdings as a contribution to the management of rural areas
• balances international food trade with the right to develop self reliant structures of the food system
• applies methods to correct market prices by the internalisation of the external costs of the production method and transportation mode

A new CAP should include social as well as environmental, regional and international interests and focus on food safety, security and diversity. In particular the mid-term review of the CAP should lead to:

• an urgent and fundamental reform of the CAP
• compulsory social and environmental conditions on all CAP-payments according to a set of guidelines on good agriculture practice to be developed by the Commission
• a marked shift in EU-funding from traditional agricultural production to nature, landscape, water and environmental management by farmers, the production of "green public goods", resulting in earmarking a higher percent of the CAP budget for social and agri-environmental measures.

This approach would open the way for a much-needed regional differentiation of the European Union's agricultural and rural development policies.

In an enlarged European Union there are widespread differences between the various (ecological) regions. Some regions are highly urbanised with increasing pressure on the remaining rural areas in terms of additional demands to manage the valued natural resources and leisure opportunities. In these regions agricultural and rural development policies could be under-pined by a 'stewardship allowance' per hectare of land and/or water for farmers, based on key criteria. Basic building blocks for the development of such a policy instrument in current EU-policies are already present in the form of the 'second pillar' of the CAP, including rural development policies and the instruments of modulation, as well as cross-compliance in the first pillar of the CAP. This type of financial support for the production of 'green public goods' and proper environmental management is acceptable in the context of the world trade negotiations, as these payments would no longer be directly associated with the production of agricultural goods and commodities.

A stewardship allowance could replace many of the direct and indirect CAP production related payments received by farmers, so encouraging the development of a more sustainable and socially acceptable form of agriculture. In addition to this 'stewardship allowance', farmers may earn income by the production of agricultural produce for either the regional market, or international markets, provided that they adhere to additional environmental requirements. This would involve the application of closed systems and cascade management.

Europe also has a number of truly rural regions, often located in East and Central Europe, but also in Southern and Northern Europe. They are typified by having largely rural populations, often still living in a dense network of small villages where nature is valued and a rich biodiversity prevails. It is important to value, cherish and foster these regions through agricultural and rural development policies that combine continuos innovation of agriculture and development of the chain of production from primary production via agri-processing to marketing with wider socio-economic development. Building blocks for this kind of instrument are available in current EU-policies including the CAP, particularly if combined with the "structure funds" aimed at (integrated) regional development (e.g. Leader, Interreg)

In conclusion, the churches call upon European policy-makers to urgently develop new and truly sustainable strategies for agricultural and rural development to meet the needs of the various regions of Europe. Such strategies must account for the situation in Eastern and Central Europe, recognise that "the protection of the environment and biodiversity is closely related to cultural diversity"⁹, and accept that the transition from centralised to market economies will only be socially acceptable in the long-term if markets are regulated according to principles of sustainable development.

The strategic goal of the European Union was formulated at the Lisbon Council: "to become the most competitive and dynamic ...economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion".

This formulation begs the following questions:

• Firstly, what is the interrelationship between competitiveness and social cohesion? Are they compatible? We accept that economic prosperity may offer the means to increase social cohesion, but we note that competition has widened the gap between those who belong to the 'winning part' of the economy and those who are members of the 'losing part'. Economic prosperity can only benefit the whole of society, if there are means of sharing it and making it work for the common good, such as taxes on income and property.
• Secondly, the concept of sustainable growth instead of sustainable development is problematic. Do we want, to promote growth or promote sustainability? Sustainable growth in the churches' view¹ is a self-contradictory concept whilst sustainable growth in the EU-statement seems to imply quantitative growth. Cohesion and social justice are supposed to be fostered by increased productivity but this involves the risk that negative consequences are more easily accepted, because the general aim of productivity is understood to benefit everybody. Such growth may have negative effects on particular people, especially the poor and weak, as well as the natural environment. The churches have argued consistently that economy is not to be considered an aim in itself, but is a mechanism to serve the well being of all. True sustainable development renews the commitment of the Europeans to achieve a societal model to which Christians can subscribe, because it cares for its weakest members and respects God's creation for which we are called to be responsible stewards.

Development in the sense of promoting life (the real meaning of sustainability) requires choices about what should grow and what should not. Sustainable development, which encompasses social justice and wellbeing of the whole of creation, may be viewed as requiring selective growth. Whilst the ideology of growth and production in which people's lives are centred on consumption as an end in itself, is rooted in values that the churches have been criticising for some time.

In the Commission paper on 'Employment and Social Policies: a framework for investing in quality'² it is stated that "...quality can, and must, go hand in hand with improving efficiency, especially as far as public finances and labour market incentives are concerned". Efficiency can be in the service of promoting life (well organised work or energy efficiency), but the over-riding aim of reducing costs often has a negative impact on human relationships in the working life, endangering the quality of work life.

The incentives in work life can be a two edged sword. There are beneficial ones, such as life-long learning, gender equality, promotion of education of younger people and safety at work, which are mentioned in the Commission's paper, and other incentives, which if directed at the weakest in society, can infringe human rights and diminish the capacity of people to better their lives.

Poverty and social exclusion are mentioned in the Commission paper as one of the main threats to sustainable development, going hand in hand with ill health, suicide, and persistent unemployment. Poverty has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in society including single mothers, their children and older people living alone, and can trap successive generations of entire families and communities.

Sustainable development should address such divides at local, national, regional and global levels so enabling the combating of poverty and exclusion both within and outside the European Union. We commend the development of a sustainable development strategy as a key mechanism to combat poverty and exclusion.

The Church is traditionally concerned with this issue. The Orthodox tradition in Christianity has addressed the issue of poverty and social exclusion in the following way:

We note with particular concern the issue of migration that is often caused by the search for a better life by those in the world's poorest nations. The 'fortress Europe' approach involving the closing of borders, favoured by some, does nothing to alleviate the conditions from which migrants flee nor stem the flow of migrants to European shores. Instead we propose that policies involving development and co-operation should be implemented to combat poverty and promote fair partnership and fair trade at a global level, so tackling the global economic disparities that are the root of much migration.

The "Second report on economic and social cohesion", January 2001, indicates that 18% of the population of the European Union member states, roughly every sixth person, lives below the poverty line. The burden of poverty is borne by single mothers, particularly those with three or more children, and older women living alone, and is often inherited within families for generations.

EUROSTAT indicates that in 1996 around 21% of all children in the EU member states lived in households with a low income. Children living in single parent households are twice as likely to live in poverty, and children and young adults (18-24 years) are both more likely to live in poverty and to remain in it for a longer period than other age groups. The risk to live in a low-income household for more than three years increases by 50% for this group compared to 25-64 year olds. Also elderly people over 65 years of age are more likely to suffer poverty. Within this segment, more women (20%) than men (16%) live in poverty.

The National Action Plans for social inclusion (NAPs) are one of the most important initiatives to fight poverty and social exclusion at the national level. This particular line of action is in the view of the churches an important part of a sustainable development strategy. NAPs are one of the most important initiatives to combat poverty and social exclusion at the national level and we strongly support proposals for NAP discussion at the European level to include the formulation of European indicators for poverty and social exclusion. At the same time we propose that poverty is also analysed and addressed at regional and local levels. At regional levels specific indicators could be developed or adapted, for example regarding housing costs, that may differ widely between different regions in a member state. Two important methods of analysis should be introduced and explored on that level and later transferred to a European level:

1. The anti-poverty research needs qualitative research, in addition to the more quantitative statistical approaches. For example the suffering of poor people in a social, psychical or even physical sense can be analysed and taken into account that way.
2. Secondly, long term research should be initiated to explore the "poverty-careers" of people over at least 10 years. Such surveys should be done in different regions and then analysed in the course of a comparative study.

We identify that regional anti-poverty networks in which local and regional groups, communities and churches work together, may make an important contribution, for example, by exchanging best practice.

Prior to the Treaty Of Amsterdam poverty and exclusion were neglected topics and hardly appeared on the political agenda of the European Union. Since the Treaty, with its article 137, these issues have gained more attention. Article 137 enables the European Commission to initiate action concerning poverty and exclusion at the Community level leading to the development of a strategy with three major elements:

1. the implementation of the method of open co-ordination
2. National Action Plans, and,
3. an action programme to prevent and fight poverty and exclusion.

We welcome the adoption by the European Commission of the method of open co-ordination, so facilitate the participation of relevant actors, including NGOs.

Churches have a long-standing tradition and deeply rooted experience of fighting poverty and exclusion and are committed to contributing to the development of a just society for all people. The churches and their social services (diaconal work) are confronted with poverty and exclusion in their daily work. They experience hardship and worries, but are inspired by the strength of people living in poverty. Poverty and exclusion are not an inescapable destiny, but are very often caused by human-made structures. The churches with their tradition of speaking for the poor and the excluded, should help to empower people and to change these unfair structures in order to assure a life of dignity for all.

The reference to the goal of full employment is a very positive part in the European Commission's draft- paper on a European Sustainable Development Strategy, and is an issue which the churches have a distinctive perspective.

Churches have often described the purpose of work as partly being a co-worker in God's continuous act of creation and partly to serve humanity. In this sense work is a divine will of God providing humanity with a privilege and responsibility for the world around them. In modern eco-theology the task of human beings is sometimes expressed using the word "stewardship"(see chapter 1 of this publication).

The churches understand work as something very valuable. According to the Orthodox tradition in Christianity, an element of humanity prior to the fall was the command to "work and care" (Genesis 2.15) for the garden in which humankind had been placed." The intervention of God on earth - the work of Jesus Christ to save humanity - testifies to this effect: He cures and helps persons by emphasising that "my Father worketh hitherto, and I work" (John 5.17). Beyond a vertical dimension, the relation between man and God, a horizontal dimension also exists, because through work, humans learn to engage socially and are encouraged to give voluntarily (=diaconia). For the Church a genuine co-existence of humans is a prime responsibility. With good work everything can be moulded into a society of love, as a sign of the coming of a New World.

But what kind of work should be promoted in context of sustainable development? The goal of full employment can hardly be defended if the labour market is narrowly defined as that of paid employment only. Real full employment should include those engaged in activities such as training and education, politics, social commitments, family work (parental leave), in recovering from sickness and in temporary projects. In our view the concept of work includes not only paid jobs, but also all useful activities. Such periods of work belong to a sustainable social life. People involved in them should be entitled to a basic income, without pressure on the recipients to accept conventional paid employment.

Part time employment of women is an indicator of the challenge of combining work and family life, but it also highlights the traditional ideology of the family with only one bread-earner. Often this ideology is outdated or simply ignored by social policies. Increasing numbers of women are integrated into the labour market and thus into paid employment, but this does not necessarily improve their access to, and their chances in, the labour market, let alone their professional development.

Discussion of the European Union's project on lifelong learning is welcome, but is currently too vague. The project is not integrated into any sort of curriculum, and the nature and costs appear to be referred back to the individual. We question what is meant by life long learning? And ask if it is exclusively linked to employment?

The objective of full employment should not mean using negative incentives to coerce people into employment regardless of the quality of working life and basic human and social rights. The negative results of using 'work-fare' instead of 'well-fare' measures burden the working poor and can violate the human rights of the unemployed. Of particular concern are so-called activation measures, which are intended to activate people receiving social allowances or in danger of being excluded from the labour market, in order to make them enter or re-enter the labour market or engage in constructive social activities. These activation measures, that have become very common, seem to resort to a new version of paternalism providing welfare primarily to the "deserving poor" and disciplining the non-deserving. Limitations of the right to personal liberty and to private life should be avoided as much as possible, since they infringe upon the principles of equality and anti-discrimination.

Social policy decision-makers should aim to protect individuals and to implement interests of a more general nature, such as fostering the work ethic, the efficient functioning of the labour market or the appropriate level of public expenditure. The tension between these two components of social policy may be resolved in legal provisions where a democracy based on the rule of law should protect the status of recipients by legal safeguards and by the provision of human and basic rights, including guarantees of proper public administration and fair trial.

However, work-fare has many advocates in Europe, where municipal authorities threaten the long-term unemployed with the withdrawal of their benefits if they do not perform work for the public good (cleaning, earth-moving, clearance work etc.) and often offer a low per hourly rate intended to cover their travel and clothing expenses only.

Analysis suggest that many current measures are ambiguous in outcome, they can build on incentives or on sanctions; they may focus on the income of the participants or on their opportunities to work in useful activities and they can be directed to employees or employers.

Against the background of the steadily increasing importance of basic human rights, it is apparent that a readjustment of social policy should respect these rights. For example, the Church of Finland, in co-operation with the national organisation of the unemployed people (TVY), has promoted in particular the following rights:

• Right to vacation and travelling

Unemployment is not vacation. At present long-term unemployed cannot have a real holiday with their family and cannot travel abroad without risking losing their benefit. A proper vacation time should be agreed with the authorities.

• Right to income and work

Unemployment benefit should provide sufficient to live, though currently many people need to apply for additional social benefits. It would be beneficial if some days could be worked without loss of benefit.

• Right to voluntary work

This right should not be restricted so it should be possible to activate the passive part of the unemployed. However, voluntary work should be real voluntary work, not an obligation. In this context we are concerned about so-called "activation measures" and other mechanism to make unemployment benefit conditional.

Unemployed people, like employed people, have more to life than seeking or being engaged in work and their lives should have the opportunity to fulfil the many other essential purposes in life, that should be respected and developed in a society claiming to be sustainable.

We strongly support the inclusion of quality of work by the EU in its strategy of sustainable development. We interpret this as referring to quality in paid jobs.

The Commission has listed measurable standards for improving quality in work. We propose that these indicators should be part of the actual framework of all employment, whether temporary or regular. As churches we consider work to be part of life. However, the life of individuals and the community as a whole requires more than just quality in employment. Human activity is rooted in the relational nature of human beings. Sustainable development of the working life requires the recognition of personal and interpersonal relationships in society and respect towards natural resources and the natural environment.

The tradition of the Christian churches has developed some insights that we offer more widely. The following ten criteria for decent work were developed by the European Contact Group on Urban Industrial Mission (ECG), based on a proposal of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland:

4) gives the opportunity to fulfil one's vocation, but respects the fact that one

has other vocations

10) enables a good balance between work and family life

In conclusion, we propose that any strategy for sustainable development requires special attention to instruments promoting the work life balance.⁴

Sustainable development encompasses development of the commercial and care sectors in both the formal and the social economy. Within the care sector, women are responsible for the majority of work. Women's groups and networks practise a special kind of "care economy", which often involves unpaid work of (mostly) women caring for the elderly or sick people and children. This is neither regarded as part of the formal economy, nor reflected by official statistics, but it is nevertheless extremely important for the well being of a region or nation. This dimension of the care economy should actually be recognised by the formal economy, since it is of vital importance to a sustainable model of development, and the quality of the working conditions should be as high in this sector as in other sectors. Therefore, rights and the basic social security of women working in this type of care economy should be safeguarded within social policies developed in the context of sustainable development

The acknowledgement of the importance of voluntary work as a contribution to sustainable development by a number the EU documents is very welcome. Voluntary work is important for society as a whole, but there is a serious risk that the quality of work life is considered less important in the so-called third sector. For instance, proper safety precautions at work can be a problem. Therefore it is necessary to develop objective and measurable criteria for the quality and safety in voluntary work. In this respect, social auditing of care services is needed as a contribution to a truly sustainable development model.

A strategy for sustainable development should account for the welfare of all members of society in order to allow every European citizen to participate in the full life of society. There are various models to organise a welfare society, e.g. the Nordic (with laws), the Central European (with insurance systems) and the Southern European (with the Mediterranean family-culture). We consider it necessary for each of these models to stimulate the full participation of the weaker members of society including the sick, the elderly, the handicapped and the unemployed.

Looking at the Göteborg Summit conclusions and at the EU Commission draft-document on sustainable development, it would appear that the most important field of social protection is the ageing population in Europe. However, in our experience as Churches, this is not the most important field of social commitment and action in European countries. We feel it more important to focus on the risks attached to poverty among people without full employment. Introducing a basic income for all who are temporarily or structurally unable to take up employment could strengthen social security in our societies and we propose the that discussion be initiated to consider the introduction of an unconditional basic income for all citizens, as part of a sustainable development model for Europe.

Neither free markets nor even voluntary diaconal work of churches and other organisations can guarantee adequate conditions of life to all people. Instead we need a state-government that protects the weak and upholds social justice, that seeks to eradicate poverty and presupposes the re-allocation of income and where the strong and well accept a greater proportion of the tax burden than the weak and the poor.

Financing social security is not just a matter of charges paid by employers, and responsibility for welfare cannot be transferred to private organisations. A shared responsibility implies that people and companies with sufficient resources use their income and accept taxation as an important part of the welfare coverage. The churches have argued for an even broader kind of taxation. For instance, some churches consider in it necessary to alleviate the negative impact of international money markets and the crises caused by speculation by introducing international legislation allowing for the introduction of levies and taxes on the associated international currency exchange (the so-called Tobin Tax).

Welfare for citizens is not just a financial question. Stimulating participation in social life and fostering the qualitative aspects of social integration should also be developed, especially for young and elderly people. Various incentives that have become common in the EU are based upon introducing different kinds of 'work-fare' rather than a system of benefits of 'well-fare'. However, as we argued above, it is important to give the long-term unemployed people (and others who are at risk of being excluded) a real possibility for full participation in social life. Thus we welcome activation policies in as far as they are based on voluntary participation in training schemes and in all sorts of meaningful and worthwhile activities, rather than disqualifying ones offering no perspective. Last but not least, we remain very critical towards any policy that infringes the human or social rights of the people.

In terms of social policies the churches expect that priority is given to programmes that act to combat poverty and exclusion within member-states, across the European Union and globally. This requires the use of income and property tax systems for re-allocation, since economic prosperity can only benefit the whole of society if there are means of sharing it and making it work for the common good. Policies to counter poverty and exclusion should be designed to empower and protect individuals and to foster the common good, for example a work ethic and an efficient functioning of the labour market.

Within a democratic society protection of the status of recipients of social benefits should be ensured by legal safeguards, provisions in terms of human and basic rights and proper public administration and fair treatment and trial. The rights to vacation and travelling, to income and work, and for the unemployed to engage in voluntary work are to be respected and safeguarded within social policy provision. Furthermore, basic criteria for decent work are to be respected as for those in (paid) work and the introduction of a basic income for all who are temporarily or structurally unable to take up employment is as an essential element of a proper social dimension of a sustainable development strategy.

The above is based on the understanding that any strategy for sustainable development should consider the welfare of all members of society in order to allow every European citizen to participate fully in life and society.

At the time of compiling this document only a draft of the European Sustainable Development Strategy, to be presented at the WSSD in Johannesburg, was available. Consequently this chapter will critically reflect on this draft text together with a number of sectoral policy documents of the European Union relating to its energy, transport, agricultural, climate change and social policies, as discussed in the previous chapters of this report. Our perspective is rooted on the premise that an EU sustainable development policy needs to be internalised in European sectoral policies including energy, transport, agriculture, climate change, and social and employment.

A policy on sustainable development should encompass recognition of both the symptoms and causes of environmental and socio-economic problems, a set of aims/goals to work towards and strategies/methods to achieve such aims, all in a clear and precise manner.

As churches, we propose that a moral and ethical dimension is a further vital component of a sustainable development policy. As discussed in the first chapter of this report, this is rooted in the belief that the world is a part of God's creation, entrusted to our love and care, and that humanity has a role to be a worthy and responsible steward. As churches we also recognise that humanity can harm and even destroy the natural environment God has given us to live in and share with other creatures. These beliefs and perspectives lead us to call for responsible human behaviour towards the world to respect God and creation, so that these gifts can be passed to future generations, and to ensure justice enabling all people to live a decent life in fullness. Whilst we don't expect the EU to accept core Christian beliefs, we hope that the moral and ethical working out of such beliefs can make a significant contribution to the development of an holistic policy on sustainable development.

Wolfgang Sachs concluded in a recent study:

"Whatever the area - climate, biodiversity, or trade, - if the North fails to negotiate environmental agreements which are seen as fair arrangements by the South, sustainability cannot be achieved. There will be no Ecology without Equity. On the other hand, if the South continues to demand ever greater shares in the 'robber economy', sustainability cannot be achieved either. The principle of Equity conflicts with the principle of Ecology unless Equity is sought within a framework of environmentally unobtrusive development. There can also be no Equity without Ecology"¹

The challenge is to develop a truly sustainable development model that integrates the ecological, economic and the social dimensions.

European churches have consistently urged over the past ten years that the ecological, economic and the social dimensions of sustainable development should be integrated within any sustainable development policy, taking their mutual inter-relatedness and interdependence as a starting point in the development of coherent action-programmes. Such an approach will contribute to a better quality of life for present and future generations and respect for the integrity of creation. We have questioned whether the dominant economic model is compatible with sustainable development, noting that sustainable development requires a just sharing of natural resources, the application of the precautionary and polluter pays principles, the internalisation of external costs, green accounting with a high degree of democratic transparency and a definite orientation towards future generations, participation and fairness.²

We therefore outline a number of important policy-aims for each of the three dimensions of sustainable development:

• in the ecological/environmental dimension:
• conservation of ecosystems and the diversity of species
• reduction of pollution to the lowest possible levels
• waste minimisation
• conservation of renewable resources
• minimisation of the extraction of non-renewable resources
• improved mitigation and compensation of adverse environmental effects
• in the economic dimension:
• fair distribution of labour and income, between men and women, between employed and unemployed/self-employed as well as between regions in the world
• sustainable patterns of production and consumption
• balanced and just economic structure
• price stability
• healthy public budgets
• in the social dimension:
• a high level of education and cultural life
• a fair distribution of income and property
• a balanced relationship between rural and urban regions
• socially and environmentally adjusted mobility
• a high level of health
• a high level of security.

To achieve this we will need to develop new ways of living, particularly in two areas:

We urgently need to embrace energy efficient modes of development by:

• 'developing closed' systems of production and consumption, where the inputs of some parts of

the system are the outputs of others

• using resources literally for one hundred percent
• limiting the waste production to zero in the process
• developing so-called 'cascade-management'- techniques.

We need to develop new concepts of wealth and welfare

It is clear that the life-style of the so-called industrialised countries cannot be "globalised". Instead it is necessary to develop new concepts of wealth and welfare. To achieve this (inter)national accounting systems need to utilise indicators that account not only for wealth, but also the effects of economic activities on the sustainability of the system as a whole. This may in turn result in indicators reflecting social and environmental wealth, rather than narrowly defined economic wealth as within the dominant economic model.

Drawing on the citical analysis of EU policies in a number of policy-fields discussed in the previous chapters, we now briefly outline some conclusions for an integrated European Sustainable Development Strategy.

In order to reduce our dependency upon fossil and nuclear energy sources with their attendant risks, the development of renewable energy technologies and sources should be stimulated. The EU could undertake a number of important actions:

• develop common standards based on promising examples, fostering the utilisation of renewable energy and energy conservation, and promoting their international acceptance
• requiring and financially supporting the application of such standards by all present and future member states of the EU
• facilitating the availability of low-cost loans and subsidies to stimulate the use of renewable energy sources and the techniques involved by individuals, households, local communities, NGOs, churches, local governments and other public and private enterprises.

The application of such strategies would improve environmental performance, stimulate modern economic development, bring environmental, health and community benefits, create employment (decentralised renewable energy plants generate more employment than large centralised fossil or nuclear based energy plans do), so benefiting European citizens.

Strategies to develop a modern transport policy consistent with sustainable development include a number of urgent actions:

• reduction of traffic on all levels by decoupling transport growth and economic growth
• moving towards more sustainable modes of transport such as road and air to water and rail
• developing optimised technology, including substitute fuels less harmful to the environment, such as bio-fuels
• applying the polluter pays principle in the pricing of the various modes of transport
• moving towards deceleration, e.g. by developing new concepts of mobility and introducing 'mobility-education'

Recent policy documents published by the EU do not suggest that such urgently needed actions will be taken soon. NGOs, including churches, urge the European Union to show leadership in this respect, as exemplified in their climate change policy.

Agricultural policies need reforming as a part of an holistic sustainable development strategy. The EU could develop and promote agricultural policies that:

• are primarily oriented towards the satisfaction of local and regional demands,
• aim at production and processing methods based on the principles of 'closed systems' and

• apply methods to correct market prices by an assessment of negative external effects of the different production methods and the transport of food,
• preserve or revitalise the multi-functionality of peasant forms of production and proper management of rural areas,
• require environmental (and social) conditions for all agricultural and rural development financial support e.g. by developing a set of guidelines on 'good agricultural practice'
• allow for a regional differentiation of agricultural policies within the (enlarged) European Union, with an emphasis on rural development rather than agricultural production, so providing development opportunities for EU applicant states in Eastern and Central Europe
• balance international food trade with the right to develop self reliant structures of the food

With the widespread sense of urgency amongst European citizens and policy-makers for a fundamental reform of the agricultural policies, the churches urge the EU to incorporate these policies as an integral part of an integrated sustainable development strategy.

Policies combating climate change are of crucial importance to an integrated European Sustainable Development Strategy. As churches we urge the European Union to take a number of actions in the following areas:

• ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The EU has declared its aim to ratify before the WSSD in Johannesburg and to strive to implement the protocol. We urge the EU to stand by its objective and to continue strongly advocating ratification before Johannesburg by all Annex 1 countries.
• develop concrete emission reduction proposals, particularly within the transport and agricultural sectors,
• develop sustainable energy use with a focus on renewables and energy efficiency,
• invest in the transformation processes required to combat climate change at an early stage
• continue its strong leadership in preparing the next round of negotiations on combating climate change, for example:
• advocating the setting of clear targets for all six greenhouse gases
• emphasising the need to take domestic action by measures at source
• pressing for the application of the 'equity-principle' with the burden sharing involved, recognising the importance of this for the so-called developing countries.
• Striving for recognition of equitable rights to the atmosphere, with the costs and benefits of utilising global common resources to be shared equitably among all human beings.

The European Union should continue to demonstrate good leadership in this particular global arena for such a programme of action to be adopted and implemented. At the same time this would make any integrated sustainable development strategy both more effective and more credible!

In terms of social policies the working group advocate:

• programmes of action to combat poverty and exclusion within member-states, within the European Union and at a global level between regions in the world,
• policies to counter poverty and exclusion to be designed in such a way as to empower people to improve their well being,
• policies both protecting individuals and fostering aims of a more general purpose e.g. work ethic and an efficient functioning of the labour market,
• a democratic society to protect the status of recipients of social benefits by legal safeguards, provisions in terms of human and basic rights, proper public administration including fair treatment and trial,
• basic criteria for decent work to be respected as far as those in (paid) work are concerned,
• the introduction of a basic income for all who are temporarily or structurally unable to take up employment,
• ensure that strategies for sustainable development incorporate the welfare of all members of society, so allowing every European citizen to participate fully in life and society.

Such aims and actions would effectively contribute to and provide for the much-needed social dimension of an integrated sustainable development strategy. The churches would certainly welcome the European Union taking a leading role in this respect.

An integrated sustainable development strategy can only be effective in as much as it is applied to and integrated with the different sectoral policies developed by the European Union. Hence it is vital that sectoral policies incorporate sustainable development criteria to ensure a 'close fit' between individual sectors and the EU sustainable development strategy.

Analysis of several current sectoral policies indicates that there is a long way to go to achieve this aim. As churches we therefore urge the European Union to make a leap forward in developing strategies for all policy-fields that are truly sustainable and thus future-oriented.

Whilst the European Union and national governments have a significant role and responsibility to encourage and enable society to develop a more sustainable lifestyle, other bodies, including churches, also have a vital role and responsibility. In this final chapter we therefore recount some examples of how churches, parishes, congregations and church organisations are attempting to develop models and practice of sustainable development, so bringing alive the conviction that 'we should live more simply, so that others may simply live.

Care for creation should be an intrinsic part of Christian living. Accordingly, churches have advocated and implemented such care through their congregations and with grassroots communities. In addition they seek to support specialised church institutions, agencies and networks. The Agenda 21 process has stimulated this activity and offers a framework to improve and deepen their work.

Many churches are involved in the formation and implementation of the Local Agenda 21 policies, which they interweave with their ethical reasoning and community mission and which their individual members seek to respect in their personal lifestyle. Further, churches undertake networking, sharing their experiences with sister churches and secular groups, both locally and across Europe.

Churches offer their experience in approaching issues of the relationship between humanity and the Earth and putting them into practice. We welcome the exchange of ideas and experience in this area and are ready to offer our contribution to the common goal of protecting and improving the quality of life on the Earth. The following section is a selection of stories illustrating activities illustrating how churches across Europe seek to put into practise what they are called to preach.

Worship is a natural response, common to all Christians, to God's many gifts including that of creation. Worship is the central activity of churches rooted in God's ordination of the Sabbath in the book of Genesis as a time of rest and celebration. The story points to the need to set aside production and consumption for a period and to reflect that life has a spiritual as well as a material dimension. It also points to the importance of setting aside common time for social relationships and celebrations involving families, clubs, churches and other community groups. Observing the Sabbath encourages communities to view life as an enjoyable and fulfilling means to God's purpose and God's end, rather than the earth as a means to an end in life. As such worship acts as a springboard from which many practical initiatives spring.

Eco-Congregation is a programme developed for local churches to help them consider environmental issues and enable them to make appropriate spiritual and practical responses in their life and mission.

The programme has a set of resource modules designed for use in church life, provides support for churches by linking them with appropriate local environmental groups/networks, including within their local authority and runs an Award scheme, to recognise the creditable environmental work of churches. The Award, which is independently assessed, is given in recognition of the work that churches undertake to interweave creation care in their worship life, undertake practical initiatives in their church and work with or have a positive environmental impact on their local community

Eco-Congregation has enabled many churches to undertake a base-line assessment of their activities and formulate a plan to tackle their environmental concerns. Activities have ranged from special services to tree planting initiatives, recycling projects to creation-focused Bible studies, work in the community to greening members lifestyles, promotion of fair-trade to environmental activities with children and young people. Website: www.encams.org/ecocongregation.

E-mail: ecocongregation@encams.org

The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland established a Church Environmental Diploma in 2001. A local congregation meeting the requirements can apply for the diploma.

The diploma is to be awarded to a parish that has made long-term efforts in an environmentally friendly direction. The parish must chart the effects it has on the environment and set goals to reduce detrimental effects. Parishes are also required to monitor environmental effects.

In order to receive an environmental diploma the parish must adopt an environmental system and fulfil the criteria of the diploma. The parish must set up a working group to draw up an environmental programme. The parish itself applies for the environmental diploma. When the programme is carried out in the parish, an assessor appointed by the diocese will inspect whether the parish fulfils the conditions of the diploma. The assessment will take into consideration such things as collection and disposal of refuse, cleaning, offices, cemeteries, forestry and environmental education.

The Lutheran Church of Sweden has had its own diploma-project for some years. Their eco-labelling system covers buildings, transport, gardening and other relevant areas. The spiritual dimension of a sustainable lifestyle is the point of departure for the eco-management programme. Economic and social dimensions locally, as well as globally, constitute an essential part of the education material, as well as of criteria for certification.

Both diplomas of the Nordic Churches have been created for the special situation of the Churches, but they have a lot in common with the systems of ISO 14001 and EMAS. The Church environmental diplomas combine environment with social and global justice. Thus the requirements cover allocating money for international diaconia or mission work, using and promoting the sales and consumption of Fairtrade labelled products and investing money in a just way.

In Finland two parishes have received the diploma (February 2002) and many parishes are working to apply for it.

There are a number of Christian environmental organisations/projects across Europe, some of which are organised on a national basis and others that tackle one particular aspect of the environmental agenda.

CEL is a membership organisation that aims to spread awareness of environmental issues in churches as well as Christian perspectives in the green movement.

It publishes a quarterly magazine, facilitates local groups, engages in lobbying and campaigning, has a wide range of publications, promotes car-free Sunday and organises local and national conferences. Website: www.christian-ecology.org.uk

Environmental work is integrated in the work of Church of Sweden. The Environmental Committee of Church of Sweden was founded in 1992 and is part of the national organisation of Church of Sweden. Each of the thirteen dioceses has an environmental committee which are linked to the national environmental committee.

This association tries to foster responsible behaviour in Church and society in relating to the environment. It produces annual material for worship, education and reflection on ecological issues. It formulates positions on ecological questions and organises meetings and seminars, links with European partners, counselling for parishes, etc. Website: www.kirchen.ch/oeku

A Rocha is an international conservation membership organisation working to show God's love for all creation. The name A Rocha is Portuguese and means 'the rock'. A Rocha was founded in 1983 to put into practice the Biblical call to care for all creation. A Rocha has reserves/projects/field studies centres in Portugal, Lebanon, France, Kenya, Canada, the UK and Czech Republic. The UK nature reserve is sited in an inner city and multi-cultural part of London and operates for the benefit of all faiths in the community. Website: www.arocha.org

The Working Group is actively involved in educating churches and congregations on environmental issues and advises the Council of Churches in the NL on environmental issues and sustainable development. For its educational programme it received a grant from the Dutch Ministry of the Environment to issue its own periodical (three times a year).

A number of central bodies of European churches have established commissions or institutes to study ethical issues of present society.

FCEI has a working group on globalisation and environment charged with enabling its member churches to reflect on the issues.

SRT Project aims to promote an understanding in society of key issues that confront it as a result of current and emerging technologies. It works with scientists and churches to provide forums for the discussion of ethical perspectives. It also responds to consultation papers and initiatives from Government and other national and international bodies. SRT has produced a range of publications and has an associate membership. Website www.srtp.org.uk

KDA is a national organisation that supports the Christian presence in the field of economic and social issues in each German region. It organises meetings, training, seminars and collaborative work with Trade Unions and employers organisations. KDA works with special projects for weak groups in society. Website www.kda-ekd.de

SEMIS supports an Industrial Mission and a "Centre Social Protestant", provides a listening service to those in need of help and refers them to appropriate social institutions, and helps parishes in their social action. The Industrial Missioner leads seminars and meetings on economic and social issues, working conditions, professions and vocations, linking economic life with ethical insights from the gospel and networks with people active at every level of industry. Web page: http://pages.estelfree.net/semis/semis/index.html

DISK offers national support for the presence of churches locally in the economic field and in social issues. E-mail: disk@wxs.nl , Website: www.disk-arbeidspastoraat.nl

Lay academies with particular knowledge in the field of social ethics and sustainable development operate across Europe including in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe such as in Prague and Vilemov (Czech). Examples include:

Casa Cares operates from a house in the hills around Florence and is a member of the Network of Lay Academies in Europe. Over the last 10 years they have promoted seminars on sustainable lifestyle, mainly in the context of food and energy consumption.

This house is a centre belongs to the Lutheran Church, Hannover. It encourages open-minded discussion of questions of problem management and participation in shaping the future. It's purpose is to share in the search for values and standards that may guide individual and collective behaviour and laws. Website www.loccum.de/info-kontakt/info/info.html

This Church house organises meetings for a broad spectrum of organisations within the coal and steel area of Ruhr, notably during the production and employment crisis, and covers the issues of economy, ecology, social issues, migration and asylum. It has a special interest in German-Polish relationships. Website www.ev-akademie-muelheim.de

The organisation facilitates meetings on Local Agenda 21, hosts conferences of the World Council of Churches Climate Change Programme and of the National Council's Working Group on churches and agriculture. Website: www.kerkenwerld.nl

Presentations on ecological problems and new life styles are a tradition in this Swiss Church meeting place, and one of their leaders is also responsible for the Church presence in the Swiss national exhibition 2002 in Neuchatel. Website www.louverain.ch

This academy focuses its programme on environmental issues. Organises seminars, conferences and other programmes for broad spectrum of participants, particularly those from Central and Eastern Europe.

This meeting place has taken the responsibility for organising the Local Agenda 21, bringing together different organisations of the area. Website www.boldern.ch

ECEN aims to enable the churches of Europe and Christian groups involved in environmental work to:

• share information
• pool common experiences
• encourage each other in being a united witness to caring for God's creation.

ECEN was set up on 24 October 1998 at a meeting of environmental representatives from 26 countries at Vilemov in the Czech Republic. The network embraces a wide variety of church traditions and an equally broad range of environmental work. This includes policy issues such as climate change, transport and genetic engineering, practical action in local Agenda 21, and promoting an awareness of God's creation in worship and liturgy. ECEN has declared the six-week period from the beginning of September to mid-October as a time for creation within churches and has published worship material for use by churches. Website: www.ecen.org

ECG is an all European network drawn from member churches or ecumenical organisations in 25 countries. ECG promotes and organises training for new and existing workers and volunteers, seeks to support its members' engagement with issues of work and employment, together with economic issues and with social issues. Its main action-research and learning programmes are:

• supporting new initiatives on engagement with work life issues and especially focussing on new exclusions
• focusing on health and social impacts of changing work practices
• networking around sectors and issues such as coal and steel communities and regions
• working on issues of women and atypical work
• unemployment, deregulated work and growth of exclusion in city neighbourhoods
• focusing on the changing role of cities in the context of economic change and new political strategies for regeneration
• issues of racism and xenophobia - learning to live with diversity; network building with black, migrant and minority women

The main impacts of competitive globalisation and the processes of transition in CEE countries demand much attention. The office of the network is located in Prague. Web site: www.ecg.cz

The European Federation for Diaconia - Eurodiaconia is the Association of Social Welfare Institutions in the Protestant and the Orthodox tradition in Europe. Eurodiaconia has 46 members working at national levels in 25 European states. The aims of Eurodiaconia are to work for a European culture of solidarity, to contribute to a better social integration, to promote the exchange of experiences, to struggle against poverty and exclusion and to help people in difficult situations.

Diaconia, church social work, community work and social advocacy, is about reconciliation: bringing care where there is need, seeking justice for the oppressed, and activating the local church in concern for its immediate community. Diaconia is concerned with the socially excluded of all ages and is an integral part of the Church's mission. At the same time it is a European network of protagonists of civil society. Eurodiaconia combines the strengths of a network of churches with social work and social advocacy activities across Europe, together with a commitment to engage with the European Union in the formulation of its Social Policy.

Eurodiaconia works to raise awareness of the challenge and vocation to diaconia amongst European Christians. At the same time its task is to participate in, and to enforce, the networking of civil society's networks in the ongoing debates about the European Social System. Eurodiaconia has its seat in Brussels. Web site: www.eurodiaconia.org, e-mail: office@eurodiaconia.org

WEN brings together researchers in theology, economics and social sciences as well as policy makers and practitioners from churches and civil society. It is engaged with the dynamic relationship between faith, economy and work. Its main theme for the Network in the next period is: Alternatives to Competitive Globalisation, and it has a special focus on the issues of economy and work in Central and Eastern Europe. The aims of the network are:

• Research on economic and social change at local, national and international levels, identifying issues from the perspective of marginalised people and communities
• Theological reflection in the context of changing economic and political realities
• Production and dissemination of publications on relevant issues
• Mutual learning in order to strengthen the action of the churches at all levels, especially in relation to the European institutions
• Development of a European network to support the exchange of experience and analysis.

Offices of the WEN are located in Prague, web site: www.ecg.cz

The above brief indication of the work in and by the churches to foster sustainable development is not exhaustive, but illustrates the awareness and commitment of churches to seek imaginative, innovative and courageous new strategies to promote sustainable development. We also seek to encourage European citizens, and indeed members of our respective churches, to take responsibility for the development of new lifestyles that match the joint Sustainable Development Strategy. Let us all work towards creating a more just, participative, peaceful, and sustainable Europe that is open to the other regions of our one world.