Environmental Dimensions of

Sustainability
Introduction:
Entry of Lisbon treaty on 1 December 2009, resulted into territorial cohesion, along with
economic and social cohesion, became a goal of the European Union as identified in the
previous EU treaty (Title XVIII). This part of the Treaty mentions the role of the structural
funds and the cohesion fund, but does not really define 'territorial cohesion'.
The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion states that:
Territorial cohesion builds bridges between economic effectiveness,
Social cohesion and ecological balance,
Putting sustainable development at the heart of policy design.
As this study underlines, the environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion need to be
clearly defined on equal terms with the economic and social elements of the concept.
Main Findings:
Territorial cohesion can be seen as the 'spatial representation of sustainability', which would
mean that assessing policies in terms of the environmental dimensions of territorial
cohesion could become an important step towards the better integration of environment
and sustainability. Indeed, the environmental dimensions of territorial cohesion need to be
integrated more strongly as part of the development of key EU policies, such as cohesion,
agriculture, energy and transport. Territorial cohesion means furthering a more balanced
and harmonious development of the European Union. Moreover, it should ensure that its
citizens were able to use and benefit from the inherent features of their territories, but
there is no one agreed definition.
The EU Sustainable Development Strategy:
Another key element is or could be the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS).
The European Council adopted the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development 'A
Sustainable Europe for a Better World' at Gothenburg in 2001.
The renewed SDS also identified seven priority challenges:
a) Climate change and clean energy;
b) Public health;
c) Sustainable consumption and production;
d) Sustainable transport;
e) Conserve and management of natural resources;
f) Social inclusion, demography and migration;
g) Global poverty and sustainable development challenges.


There are two main aspects are:
(1) Policy analysis: To describe and analyse the context of territorial cohesion and
the territorial dimension of environmental sustainability.
(2) Characterisation and indicator analysis: Draw up a first rough landscape
characterisation tool based on environmental and natural assets to support the
development of potential indicators for the environmental dimension of
territorial cohesion.


CASE STUDY:
Cohesion Policy and WFD/Saar and Mosel Rivers
Project: International Commission for the Protection of Mosel and Saar (IKSMS)
Location: Mosel and Saar rivers, Germany, Luxembourg and France.
Funding: Various.
Partners: Various agencies in Germany, Luxembourg and France.
Introduction:
Coordinated actions in relation to the Mosel and Saar rivers dates back to the
1950s when the Convention on canalisation of the Mosel River was first signed in 1956.
Since this time, a number of protocols, programmes and working groups have been agreed
and established to coordinate the protection and management of the Mosel-Saar
catchment. The first draft Mosel-Saar river basin management plan (as per the WFD) was
published in 2008. The national and international management plans under the WFD were
to be finalised and submitted to the European Commission by late 2009.
Key Issues:
a) Pollution, in particular with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) diffuse pollution.
b) 'Passability' is not assured, which disrupts fish migration.
c) Water use and spatial planning along the Mosel and Saar rivers contrary to the WFD,
in particular in the domains of shipping, energy production and flood protection.
d) Diffuse pollutants impacting upon groundwater quality (pesticides, nitrates and
metals).
e) Mining (coal and ore) disturbs water ecological balance.
f) High levels of contamination with hazardous materials in sever areas of the
catchment.



The management plan seeks to address and respond to these problems, through the
following key elements:
(1) The establishment of monitoring arrangements;
(2) Definition of environmental goals and management objectives;
(3) Programme of measures to support goals and objective and assessment of measure's
feasibility and costs. A number of shared issues are addressed by the management plan,
including: groundwater bodies and aquifers; protected areas; surveillance networks;
and, common environmental objectives.


Nature protection is one of the two environmental themes with the highest number of
cases ending up in the European Court of Justice to settle disputes between the European
Commission and Member States.
The importance of the biodiversity aspects of territorial cohesion transcends Europe and the
EU. UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme is an important international initiative for
biodiversity protection, and a recent cooperative project between Spain and Morocco has
established a common biosphere reserve
Climate Change Adaptation White Paper: Climate Change Adaptation White Paper
proposes a European 'framework for action' for adaptation to climate change. It
acknowledges that 'most adaptation measures will be taken at national, regional or local
level', to reflect variations in climate change impact. However, it calls for EU action to
strengthen these measures, in particular in the most vulnerable regions (e.g. Southern
Europe and the Arctic; here, the paper recognises some of the inherent features of
territories).
This integration is already foreseen in the actions planned in order to implement the Water
Framework Directive: the River Basin Management Plans, due in 2009, should take into
account climate change, and the next round of plans, due in 2015, should be 'climate-
proofed'. The paper also identifies the importance of ecosystem services in assisting climate
change adaptation.
The White Paper notes the importance of natural units, such as river basins, that cross
regional and national administrative units. This underlines the connections between
territories as well as their natural features. Indeed, the White Paper underlines the
importance of green infrastructure, including connections among natural areas.




Conclusion:
Indeed, recent assessments suggest that the Directive and the action plan are not sufficient
to protect biodiversity in Europe and its protected sites. Agriculture remains a major
pressure on biodiversity: a key need is to strengthen the integration between biodiversity
and agricultural policy. The fragmentation of natural areas created by infrastructure
continues; and climate change may exacerbate these pressures. These problems call for a
more in-depth analysis, including analysis performed from a territorial perspective.
This review has focused on the Habitats Directive; it should be noted that this is
supplemented by the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, which focuses on integrating biodiversity
goals into other policy sectors. Notably, one of the Plan's 10 objectives is to 'to reinforce
compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in the EU'.