Oral evidence: Sustainable development goals, HC 452Tuesday 2 December 2014

Oral evidence, 2 December 2014.

Witness

Karl Falkenberg, Director General, Environment, European Commission, gave evidence. Astrid Schomaker, Head of the Global Sustainability, Trade and Multilateral Agreements Unit, European Commission, was in attendance.

Chair

Willkommen. It is a great pleasure to have both of you before us this afternoon in terms of DG Environment. A very big welcome to you, Herr Falkenberg. Astrid, I think we have met previously, but it is very good indeed to have you before our Select Committee on sustainability issues. Thank you for making the effort to come along. I do not know whether you had a chance to hear the previous session, but we are looking at how the whole SDG process is going forward and the role of the European Commission in all of that. I believe that, to start off with, you would like to present a short opening statement to us, which we would be very grateful to receive.

Karl Falkenberg

Thank you very much for receiving me and giving me the opportunity to explain a little bit how we see the post-2015 process, as we normally refer to it. The European Union, I think, has been very much involved in setting this process in motion. We were extremely active in preparing the Rio+20 conference, where it all started in many ways. What were two separate processes in the beginning—the review of the MDGs and, on the other hand, the Rio+20 process focusing on green growth, environmental issues and sustainable development questions—merged eventually into something that now deals with both SDGs and MDGs in one integrated process. That does show, at this point in time, the developmental, economic and environmental intentions or objectives of the entire process. We are talking here about sustainable global development. Sustainability has three pillars: a social pillar, an environmental pillar and an economic pillar. All three are found in the objectives—the sustainable development goals that are on the table in the New York process as we speak. These goals are global goals. They are meant to be applicable to all nations participating in this exercise. That is perhaps one of the differences from the MDGs, which were the precursor in many ways. They were looking at development policy and at the development of the developing countries. Sustainable development is also relevant for the developed countries. They also have to try to come on to a sustainable course. These SDGs are therefore truly meant to be global goals for all participating nations. We are still in the process of negotiating those. We have a longer list of goals on the table for the moment than we might have thought at the outset. But from an EU position, that is not at all a problem. It encompasses the 17 goals that we have on the table for the moment, which really cover all three angles of the sustainable triangle. In that way, we think that they are a useful guidance for the process. We have also tried to argue from the outset for not simply setting goals as such. We have made it very clear that we feel that these goals need to be monitorable. We want not nice language but to make sure that what we set out at the UN process is something that can effectively be implemented and that progress in the direction of those goals could be measured. In order to do that, we have come up with a list—a very long list, I have to admit—of targets. There are some 169 targets supporting the 17 SDGs. They are meant to be more specific, with enough specificity to be measurable, so that once they are adopted, we can see over time whether countries are individually and collectively moving in the right direction. That is basically where we are at. We are expecting to engage or to continue these negotiations. The next major round is going to focus on the means of implementing these goals, so we are moving into the difficult area of who is going to pay for it. That is traditionally a rather difficult moment in these negotiations. At the EU level we are finalising a position and we hope to be able to play a constructive role in that process. So much for a starter—I hope there is enough appetite to engage in a good question session.

Chair

Thank you. Obviously, we are very fortunate to have someone who was so involved in Rio+20 come to our Committee. Astrid, would you like to add anything to what Herr Falkenberg just said?

Astrid Schomaker

No.

Chair

Okay. That is all very illuminating. The issue then comes down to where we are with the process, how much consensus or dissent there might be with the process and what the negotiations are around. One of the representations that we have had is that the paper that was issued earlier in the summer—I think the Commission put out a paper back in June—was, as our Government said, premature because it came before the Open Working Group had published its report. However, it could be said that that would be seen as, in the interests of transparency, an indicator of the way in which the talks as a whole are progressing. How far have we departed from what was in that document in June?

Karl Falkenberg

I think we have been quite successful in influencing the UN process with our ideas. Even where papers have been used informally in the process we have been quite successful in ensuring that our ideas are adequately reflected in the goals of the key environmental pressures that we have identified. We have been quite successful in getting that on board in working with our partners in New York, in trying to forge alliances with the African group of countries and with other countries, and in trying to narrow down our own goals. We have had some different views between member states about whether the European Union should act as a union or whether, in the process leading up to the tabling of the working party documents, we should act rather more individually in different country formations, siding with different countries so as not to trigger a G77 collective reaction.

Chair

Could you be a little more specific on that and give us a bit of insight into who is stacked up where in terms of, if you like, the competence of the European Union in taking this forward?

Karl Falkenberg

Yes, I can try to elaborate on why we think that the European Union is competent in these areas. There are many issues for which we have very clearly established European competence. For trade issues or for many of the environmental issues that we are trying to deal with there is EU legislation, and EU legislation provides EU competence. So the issue of competence for these areas is not really questioned. What we have seen in the process was more a matter of tactical arguments. This is also partly dealing with the fact that, as I explained, two processes are coming together. For the former SDG, which relates to the environment, I think there is clearly more European competence than there may be on the previous MDG, the development goals. There the debates are much more about questions on which the EU competence is less obvious. As I said, the whole process was more of a tactical discussion between different member states, and partly the Commission itself, to see whether it was more appropriate to act and to weigh in on the process as the EU. When we act as the EU we are clearly one of the key players in this entire process. Some perceive the EU as the natural counterpart to the G77, and wanted to avoid G77 solidarity developing against EU positions. I have never quite understood this, because throughout the entire process I have witnessed that the G77 countries were totally aligned and worked perfectly together. I do not think that an EU position, whether formal or informal, could possibly have strengthened the G77 cohesion. I am not sure that I understood the hesitation of some throughout the process to act more clearly and jointly but, again, I think it did not turn out to cause a weakening of our positions. This is because, as I said, for the moment EU positions are very well reflected in the process.

Chair

How will that EU position be finalised? Where are we now on the timeline? How are you going to resolve what differences there may be?

Karl Falkenberg

We have worked through Council discussions, trying to get EU positions, and for the moment we are in the process of finalising conclusions on a position paper that the Commission has put forward. These conclusions are being worked out. They are not quite there, but we are very optimistic that in the next Council and within the next few days—

Chair

Few days?

Karl Falkenberg

Two weeks.

Chair

You couldn’t give us an indication of what that final Secretary General synthesis report might say?

Karl Falkenberg

For the moment, I am talking about an EU position, so the Sec Gen paper will be interesting to see, when we actually see it. For the moment, I am talking about preparing an EU position on the further conducting of these discussions.

Chair

We are trying to understand various representations we have received which suggest to us that the UK is trying to end up with a list which is shorter than the original 17 items. Do you have any indication of the negotiating positions—or the desires, if you like—of the UK Government? What do they absolutely want to have on that list of what should be on the SDG list when it goes forward within the EU?

Karl Falkenberg

You would probably be better off asking the Government that question, with all respect.

Chair

I am asking you.

Karl Falkenberg

It is true that in our internal Council discussions, the UK seems to be the one member state with less enthusiasm to embrace the 17 goals and to basically feel that the 17 goals that are on the table usefully reflect the EU intentions in this process.

Chair

So there is a sense of trying to bring down the number of goals?

Karl Falkenberg

The UK position has repeatedly tried to reduce, or at least to keep the option open to reducing the list of goals.

Chair

We have had rumours suggested to us that a paper is doing the rounds which sets out where some of that change might be, in terms of reducing the number of goals. Are you aware of any paper that is looking to do that?

Karl Falkenberg

I have not seen any papers of that kind.

Chair

If 17 is going to be too many goals, how many do you think there should be?

Karl Falkenberg

As I said, from an EU position, 17 is not seen to be a problem. We would probably feel for the moment that any attempts to reduce the 17 would end up losing important targets—important goals. Squeezing more of the goals together is likely to end up doing an injustice to one of the three corners of sustainability. We have put two processes together. We have three angles, these three pillars. We want to have goals that deal with the social element, whether it is gender, health or education issues. All those issues are important. We want to make sure that the growth element is properly reflected, and we need to make sure that the environmental pressures in all of this are taken into account. Then you have the overarching goals of peace and prosperity, and so on. For the moment, a combination of the different elements of sustainability is on the table. It is going to be difficult from our perspective to further reduce that without risking doing an injustice to one of the three pillars. I represent DG Environment, so my concern is particularly that in this exercise the environmental side of sustainability might suffer if we tried to reduce the number of goals.

Chair

Finally, because I am trying to understand the process, am I right in thinking that the next step is the December Council of Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 December? So if there is going to be any watering down, that would be the place where the watering down through negotiation might take place?

Karl Falkenberg

The December Council meeting sets out the EU position.

Chair

Forgive me for interrupting, that would be the EU position?

Karl Falkenberg

In the December development Council that you were referring to.

Chair

That would be the final version?

Karl Falkenberg

Yes, we hope to have conclusions which would be the further positions that the EU would defend in the UN process.

Chair

So any attempts by any member state to try to water down from the 17 goals would have to have been resolved prior to that date?

Karl Falkenberg

If that was to become an EU position, yes. The way the work in Brussels is proceeding, I would expect that we would have very large support for accepting the 17 as a possible outcome. Then we would have to go on and continue negotiating in New York, obviously.

Chair

Thank you. I am handing over to my colleague Simon Wright.

Simon Wright

Thank you. What do you think the balance should be between having stand-alone environmental goals and environmental indicators being integrated into other goals? Do you think the Open Working Group outcome document has this balance right?

Karl Falkenberg

I think broadly, yes. I think it is an interesting set of 17 goals, from the very specific environmental considerations of land desertification, agriculture and food production to the importance of oceans, the incomes of many people and our consumption and production patterns. I think basically I would feel that the majority of EU member states feel that the balance is quite right as it has come out for the moment.

Simon Wright

As part of our Committee’s inquiry into growing a circular economy, we heard from the then Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik about the Commission’s circular economy package. There are some reports that it is now under review. I wonder if you could update us on the status of that package.

Karl Falkenberg

The question comes a few days too early. My answer can only be at this point that the Commission is still considering. The Commission is trying to define its work programme for 2015, and within the framework of that decision and the work programme of the Commission for 2015, the Commission is going to come up with ideas of what proposals to withdraw, modify or simply to continue. But that decision is expected for mid-December, and as we speak, the Commission President and his Vice-Presidents are looking at a number of hearings that they have held over the last two weeks and trying to forge their opinion on whether the proposals are sound, properly impact assessed and cost-benefit analysed, and whether they want to continue the work that the previous Commission and Janez Potočnik as Environment Commissioner suggested.

Simon Wright

Are you able to give us any indication today of what the potential implications could be of that process for ambitious action and green growth?

Karl Falkenberg

I think the circular economy package is a very important package for the European Union and for green growth in Europe. I think it is, probably, in the last five years that I have been in charge of Environment, the most economically important proposal we have made. We have not only evidence that a Europe scarce in raw materials needs to work, for the moment, with the materials we have in the stock of products in our economy, but in looking at waste not as something that we need to dump in landfills but as a valuable resource for the next generation of products that we want to build, we would be creating enormous employment opportunities. Studies that we have conducted are talking of 600,000 jobs created in Europe by implementing circular economy objectives in bringing landfill to an end, recycling up to 70% of waste and at least recovering the energy of the remaining 30%. If we turn to the second element of our proposal—becoming 30% more resource efficient by 2030—our studies are talking of some 2 million jobs that would be added. That is in the perspective of 2030, obviously, so it is not for tomorrow morning. The waste target, recycling and energy recovery targets would be relatively rapid increases in jobs across Europe.

Simon Wright

Thank you. What is the Commission’s view on targets for publishing economic, social and environmental accounts in all Governments and major companies?

Karl Falkenberg

We need to move forward with economic accounting, but we still have a number of problems with defining some of the precise indicators. We are working to make available in environmental accounts, not just domestic resource use, but global resource use; meaning that we don’t want to just take what has been used domestically in Europe to produce, but to see how and where those resources were sourced abroad and take a global picture into account. That’s one of the elements where we’re still working to fine-tune; to make sure that the numbers are readily available, so that those accounts are comparable and sufficiently solid.

Mrs Spelman

I have a small supplementary question on that. At Rio+20, the UK announced mandatory carbon reporting, having come to a view that it is possible for companies to report uniformly on carbon. Is there any plan afoot within the EU to make that uniform across a single market?

Karl Falkenberg

There is a distinction between resource efficiency, which is in many ways the broader approach that we have been developing in the past five years, and the specific focus on carbon emissions and energy efficiency, which is a cause of climate change. Our policy is still focusing on climate change, still recognising climate change as a major threat and a major challenge for all of us, but we feel that environmental reporting needs to go beyond simply carbon emissions and energy use. We need to become very much aware that our natural resources, from land to water and to minerals, are coming under threat from the way we produce and consume today and that they are simply not sustainable in a perspective of 9 billion people on this planet wanting to have a standard of life that we enjoy here in Europe.

Chair

We will move on to climate change.

Peter Aldous

To look at climate change for a few minutes, Herr Falkenberg, do you think there should be a separate sustainable development goal for climate change?

Karl Falkenberg

I’m not sure that we need to separate too much. We do have a concern about climate change, but one lesson I have learned is that environmental issues need to be taken holistically. We probably made some mistakes in the past: I am dealing for the moment, in Europe, with air pollution.

Chair

We will come on to air pollution in a minute.

Karl Falkenberg

Our cities, including London, suffer fine-particle concentrations that are really dangerous for human health. These are, to a large extent, due to overemphasis on diesel engines, out of a concern not to push climate change over the top. They are more energy-efficient and were thought to be the better solution to climate change, but they then produced ambient air problems in our cities that we now have to address. My conclusion is that we need holistic approaches to these environmental challenges.

Peter Aldous

Moving on, is there a risk of climate change monopolising the sustainability agenda, sidelining biodiversity and other issues in the sustainable development goals?

Karl Falkenberg

I think they are all sufficiently represented in the goals. You do see, in the 17 goals, references to biodiversity, to oceans, to land use. I think we have a wide set of the different elements. No, I don’t see for the moment that there would be too much focus on climate change in the UN process.

Peter Aldous

Do you feel that the sustainable development goals strike the right balance between ending fossil fuel subsidies and making energy available to all?

Karl Falkenberg

There should be energy for all. I was this morning in an event in Paris on an EU-China sustainability debate, and we had a very interesting discussion with Chinese representatives about the fact that China is today the largest investor in renewable energies—that is the good part of the story—but still the largest investor in the classical fossil fuel energies, which is the bad part of the story. So I think we will have to continue to argue for stronger reliance on renewables and on energy forms that risk less climate change effects.

Peter Aldous

Finally, how is the Commission co-ordinating negotiations for the sustainable development goals with the international climate change negotiations?

Karl Falkenberg

We are seeking to develop joint EU positions, as I explained earlier. We are developing papers for this purpose, and we seek then to have formal Council conclusions on those ideas. Those positions are then the positions that the EU, either through the voice of the Commission or through its member states, introduces into the UN process.

Mark Lazarowicz

Mr Falkenberg, you mentioned air quality. Can you clarify for us the current status of the air quality package the Commission is proposing? Where is it in the process?

Karl Falkenberg

It’s on the table of Council and Parliament. The examination of the package has been separate. On the one hand, the proposal trying to set emission targets for medium-sized combustion plants in Europe is more advanced than the assessment of what we call the national emissions ceiling directive, where, for a number of substances, we set targets for emissions by member states. This process in Council is moving forward. We have had a number of working parties on these questions. In Parliament, we are still waiting for the rapporteur to come up with their assessment. Then, eventually, this will go through the traditional trilogue negotiations between Parliament and Council.

Mark Lazarowicz

It has been suggested to us that the process of developing that strategy—these processes are never smooth—is under review or reconsideration. Has it been particularly difficult to come forward with a package?

Karl Falkenberg

It’s the question I addressed earlier. The new Commission is looking, as would any national Government, at whether to continue with legislative proposals of the predecessor Commission. That process is, for the moment, open-ended; I cannot tell you where the Commission would come out.

Mark Lazarowicz

Given some of the recent research that has appeared about the extent of the air quality problem in European cities and elsewhere, should not the air quality package be much stronger than was originally proposed? The suggestion is that it might, if anything, be watered down in this process, but the evidence suggests that, if anything, it needs to be much stronger.

Karl Falkenberg

I participated in developing this package, and therefore you will find me defending it.

Mark Lazarowicz

You are part of the process; it’s not you—

Karl Falkenberg

No, but we had a real challenge, because the air quality legislation applicable in Europe is based on World Health Organisation scientific findings of 25 years ago, and those ceilings that are by law to be respected in the 28 member states are, in many cities of Europe, not being implemented, not being respected, as we speak. Also, when we were developing this package, there was new scientific evidence coming from the World Health Organisation suggesting that for human health reasons, those ceilings need to be substantively stricter in order to reduce premature mortality. We had to find, obviously, a way of addressing this double challenge, and I think we have done that properly by setting a target for 2030, by which time we need to have made sure that stricter air emission ceilings will be imposed, beyond those that we have on the table for 2020 at the moment. We have found a way of reconciling these things, but we still have a real implementation problem with the existing ceilings.

Mark Lazarowicz

I understand that, and I understand that obviously there is a process that you have to go through. That is the situation, but let me ask this before we move on from air quality; others need to be able to come in as well. I am turning now to the international level, beyond Europe—to the SDGs. Some of the countries that have had the most success in tackling poverty have also been the ones in which air pollution and, in particular, urban air pollution has increasingly become a problem. You mention China as one of them. How far do you think that the SDGs should include a focus on air quality somewhere pretty high up the agenda? Does the European Commission have a position on that?

Karl Falkenberg

We need to pay attention to air pollution and the health problems that it can produce. Air pollution in Europe is the most important cause of premature mortality, as I said. We have numbers indicating that 400,000 premature deaths occur in Europe due to poor air quality, so it is a major health issue that we need to deal with, but I can tell you that in comparison with what is happening in Europe, my Chinese partners are coming to see us regularly to say, “Yes, we have been producing 8% economic growth, GDP growth, for at least the last 20 years, but we have done that at the price of no longer being able to allow our citizens to leave their apartments in Beijing.” That is because their health is so much at risk from the pollution levels that they have produced in going for the economic growth that they have achieved. Similar problems occur in many other emerging economies with economic success. At the moment, a lot of environmental problems are rapidly growing, and I think there is also a rapidly growing understanding by the responsible Governments that they need to find answers to these challenges. The SDG process could well begin to show a collective effort to reduce the negative aspects of economic growth, which is definitely needed, particularly in developing countries, because of their demographic growth.

Mrs Spelman

You have long experience as a trade negotiator, so I want to look at the way in which trade could be important in helping to achieve sustainable development goals. How is the Commission ensuring that issues around poverty and the environment are addressed in bilateral trade deals, of which there are many at the moment in the absence of a Doha round? How do you see that working out?

Karl Falkenberg

There are two aspects to your question. First, trade tends to create incomes. With the opening of world trade, we have seen that a lot of developing countries have discovered substantive economic growth. To the extent that that growth is equally distributed within those countries, it has certainly been a useful element of addressing those concerns. What we do more formally—administratively, if you want—is that within the bilateral agreements that we negotiate we try to include provisions on environmental sustainability objectives. Those provisions range from forms of dialogue to joint observation, and discussing how we can ensure that the opening of markets and the exchange of goods can respect environmental provisions; how we can ensure that our investors, when they go into those countries, respect existing legislative requirements in the way that we expect investors coming to Europe to respect European legislation; and how we can ensure that, through opening markets, we are not engaging in a downward spiral of competing at the expense of the environment.

Mrs Spelman

The race to the bottom that you have just described is something that has been signalled to us as a potential challenge to concluding trade deals. Removing some trade barriers can actually harm the poorest countries. I want to raise with you a specific case that was raised with us by the Fairtrade Foundation. Within Europe the quota system has been removed for sugar, and the speed with which those trade barriers have been removed has caused serious difficulties for the developing countries that are traditional long-term suppliers of that commodity to the EU, and the UK in particular—some 50% of our consumption is from developing countries. You might need prior notice, but are you aware of that case? Can anything be done to ease the transition for poor farmers in developing countries?

Karl Falkenberg

My impression is that, historically, Europe and the United States have done a lot of harm by closing their markets. We both have a lot of responsibility for what happened decades ago in countries such as the Philippines and Caribbean countries, when we both introduced substantive protections for our own markets. In the opening that we have negotiated in the past few years, I feel that we have created more opportunities for developing country farmers to export sugar to Europe and, to a great extent, the United States. We substantially opened our market in Europe in the negotiations with the Lomé countries—our African, Caribbean and Pacific partner countries—and we have done away with all limitations, which is creating opportunities. To some extent, it is at the expense of sugar produced in Europe, but I do not think that one can argue that that opening is at the expense of our developing country partners; I feel that we have created a lot of opportunities there. As always, it is done on the basis of competition, which does not treat every individual farmer equally. I cannot exclude the possibility that in the ACP countries that are more competitive and have more means of further expanding their exports of sugar, there is suffering here or there. We have tried, in particular with South Africa—the southern part of Africa is the most powerful potential producer of sugar—not to open access immediately in the same way that we opened, for example, Swaziland, Mozambique and our weaker partners’ sugar exports to Europe. We still have dampening or control mechanisms in place.

Mrs Spelman

You will understand why the UK has particular concerns. Historically, we supplied 50% of the market. One of the terms of our accession to the EU was the protections that have just been removed. Can I bring you on to another very important trade deal that is giving rise to anxiety: the proposed trade deal with the United States, known for short as TTIP? I am sure that you have followed the anxieties that pertain here. As a Select Committee, we are trying to gather evidence and bring out concerns. Can you give us any reassurances about the right of Governments to introduce environmental standards that are safeguarded in trade deals such as TTIP?

Karl Falkenberg

You are certainly right that TTIP is a big concern at the moment. We anticipate an outcome on it, but we don’t know the outcome at the moment. The EU’s negotiating mandate clearly states that the outcome should not in any way limit or downgrade environmental or social legislation in the respective partners, so TTIP should not lead to a watering down in the United States or the EU, but that is our negotiating mandate, not the outcome of the negotiations. I do not have a crystal ball, so I cannot tell you what the outcome is likely to be, but the EU is going into the negotiations. I know that the US position is equally firm on not watering down environmental or social legislation. The test is going to be in the eating, when we eventually see what outcomes are negotiated, but the intention going into the negotiations has been very clearly announced: there must be no watering down of the respective levels of protection.

Mrs Spelman

Conversely, do you see the potential, given that Europe and the US together comprise 50% of the world market, for setting some gold standards for environmental protection? Do you think there is that opportunity?

Karl Falkenberg

One of the motivations for TTIP is certainly the fact that if the two largest open markets on the planet could come up with joint norms, they would weigh very solidly on all the world’s trade. In many ways, Europe alone has been able to set very high standards, which many of our partners are taking over. China is following EU norms very closely; for example, it is watching very closely what Europe does about chemical substances through the REACH process, taking over those findings on the toxicity of substances, and ensuring that it learns from our process. If the EU and the US could agree on and set joint standards, that process would certainly be strengthened.

Mrs Spelman

How could the threat of litigation be better avoided? I know that the EU has been very active in developing greater transparency in the UN’s investor-state dispute settlements; do you have any thoughts on that?

Karl Falkenberg

The investor-state dispute settlement is certainly going to be one of the most difficult areas of the negotiation. The reality today is that individual EU member states, the United States and many other countries already have investor-state dispute settlement provisions in existing investment agreements. Some of those are being tested in litigation. We are trying to negotiate with the United States a more transparent, better framed investor-state dispute settlement system. We need to find ways of accepting that effective expropriation of investment should be duly compensated, and ensuring that effective discrimination against foreign investors is adequately compensated. No one with whom I have discussed this has argued against those two ideas. Where it begins to be difficult is where we look at not effective discrimination but de facto discrimination, or de facto expropriation. Having to implement air pollution policies—needing an additional filter in a steel plant—cannot, in my understanding, be likened to an expropriation, but every now and then we see attempts through existing ISDS provisions to interpret in that direction. We must be very careful to ensure that what we negotiate with the United States would set a standard that would recognise real expropriation and discrimination. I cannot imagine that Europe would take legislation that said, “Everyone can invest in Europe accept a US company,” but if we were to do this, I think that it would be right to allow the US company to go through an ISDS process and claim compensation, but not to argue that environmental and social legislation that is implemented and applied across the board would lead to any kind of claims for compensation for a non-European company.

Mrs Spelman

Thank you; that was very well explained. Compensation for the law of unintended consequences would be very challenging.

Peter Aldous

I want to look quickly at the monitoring and measuring of sustainable development goals. Given that SDGs provide a universal framework, what process will the Commission follow for setting appropriate national targets? Will they be looking to negotiate national targets across the EU?

Karl Falkenberg

That is a little premature, as far as I can see. I would think that it would be important first to see what the outcome of the UN process really is. We have these 17 goals on the table; we have 169 targets underneath those goals. I do not think that we will be able to measure—to quantify—all of those 169 targets. We need to still work within the process to find out how we want to measure and what we want to monitor. If we do this, we would have to establish baselines and where we stand as individual countries or as groups. When we have established all of that, we can begin to look at timelines—whether we are moving in the right or wrong direction. We can find whether the policies that we implement are taking us in the right direction. I do not expect the SDGs to have a strong, immediate implication for Europe. We tend to lead the world on environmental standards. Even an optimist would not necessarily expect that the UN process would come up with the highest standard; after the negotiation, we normally find some kind of average. My expectation is that Europe, in most situations, would probably find itself above average.

Peter Aldous

What role has EUROSTAT had in developing the proposals for indicators?

Karl Falkenberg

EUROSTAT is not present in those proposals. We have been working with EUROSTAT over the past three years to think beyond GDP. GDP is, for the moment, the main compass for the economic success of nations, but it does not incorporate at all the environmental cost of this economic success. Therefore, we are convinced that our GDP compass is taking us in the wrong direction; we need to adjust that. I have been discussing extensively with the director general of EUROSTAT to see how one could correct the GDP approach in taking in natural capital. EUROSTAT finds it very difficult to value our natural capital in monetary terms, to potentially have one integrated indicator. Work is ongoing, but it has proven to be a real challenge over the past few years.

Peter Aldous

Finally, given that there are a very large number of potential indicators, do you feel that the current level of ambition for the extent of disaggregated data is actually realistic?

Karl Falkenberg

We are working on two levels. We are trying to come up with a lead indicator and, underneath that, a dashboard of individual indicators. Ideally I would want to have a single indicator that could be merged with the GDP. That would reflect the best possible outcome, but we are not there. Therefore, having the GDP plus a lead indicator is something that one can still explain to a broad public. It is very difficult to explain to a broad public that Europe grew by 2% but lost 50 billion bees. That does not tell a good story, but perhaps we can show an additional or a single indicator next to GDP that would reflect the overall natural capital. Have we lost more? We are still losing biodiversity year after year. How much have we lost? How is the balance of our economic success at the expense of nature? If we could find that, it would be very useful. The more we have to go into the dashboard, the more I think we will effectively focus on specific aspects. What air pollution? What water pollution? How are our water accounts? Are we abstracting more water than we can regenerate? How much land are we sealing off? How long can we go on sealing off 1,000 square kilometres in Europe every year, basically taking it off any agricultural or food production use? Those are the kind of dashboard indicators that we have, but they are special indicators and they will not necessarily tell the overall story at the level of GDP.

Chair

I have one quick question at the end. We will only succeed on this agenda if people understand it in their hearts as well as through the political discourse. Is public engagement and awareness building on your agenda among the nation states as you look to see how it can be taken forward?

Karl Falkenberg

It is very much on our minds. We need to communicate, but at the same time I have the impression that whenever we do Eurobarometers—I do not know if you are familiar with them, but they are basically opinion polls among Europeans about specific European challenges—we regularly see that European citizens seem to attach importance to environment and seem to believe that the environment needs to be dealt with at European level. I have often explained that nature is not sufficiently clever to understand all our man-made borders. Pollution does not tend to stop at a customs office. Hence this is something where it is important to work across administrative borders. I have the impression that the vast majority of Europeans are convinced of this; at least that is what Eurobarometers tend to tell us.

Chair

I very much hope there will be an opportunity to tap into that. I must bring the session to a close. I should explain that we normally have our meetings on a Wednesday afternoon at a set time. Because of our autumn statement we have brought the meeting forward to Tuesday. I do apologise for some Members having to go off and see to other commitments. None the less, we are enormously grateful to you and Astrid Schomaker for coming this afternoon. It has been a very reassuring, frank and authoritative presentation. We are seriously intent to do all we can to get the UK in a leading role in the 17 goals that we need. I thank you both.

Karl Falkenberg

Thank you. Oral evidence: Sustainable development goals, HC 452 23