PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

188
2010 is no greater than in 1998” (p.12). Other noteworthy elements are the already
previously announced revision of the guidelines for the (financing of) the TENs, due for
proposal in 2001, and a “marked reduction in the share of finance given to road
transport.” Teleworking is also to be promoted. Even more interestingly, the
Commission proposes to “assess the coherence of the zoning of different Community
policies,” which responds to criticisms that geographical eligibility criteria for
Community funding programs often seem illogical, outdated or simply inappropriate. As
far as spatial policies are concerned, the SDS simply refers to and re-endorses the
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and avoids any clarification of the
problem of rural-urban divides by simultaneously proposing to both “diversify income
sources in rural areas” and “encourage local initiatives to tackle the problems faced by
urban areas” (all quotes from p. 13). Among the provisions for the implementation and
review of the SDS are the proposal to establish a ‘Sustainable Development Round Table'
of 10 independent high-level experts and plans to hold a two-yearly Stakeholder Forum.
As might be expected, reactions to the SDS have been mixed. In an Open Letter,
the Green G8, i.e. the eight largest environmental NGOs in Europe, released a concise
ten-point statement that welcome many of the elements in the strategy, particularly the
intention to progressively decouple resource use from economic growth, costing polluting
and removing ‘perverse subsidies,’ including in the transport sector (BirdLife
International, Climate Network Europe et al. May 29, 2001). However, the NGOs also
contend that the global dimension of the SDS remains weak, that consultation was
marginal and that there is no clear indication in the strategy of what constitutes firm
policy commitments and what general policy aspirations.
Predictably, the