EU activities in the "area" of labeling: The EU Ecolabel and Environmental Footprint

Dr Michele GalatolaProduct Team Leader

DG Environment – Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit

1

ContentContent

The EU Ecolabel

Revision process of Ecolabel criteria for textiles

The current work on Environmental Footprint

Possible future scenarios

2

Established in 1992

New Regulation 66/2010 on EU Ecolabel

Voluntary scheme aiming at promotingthe products with a lower environmental impact

Multi-criteria (pass/fail)

Criteria are mainly based on Life Cycle Assessment studies

Third party verified

3

The EU Ecolabel today• - 26 established product groups

• - New criteria recently voted• Newsprint paper• Printed paper

• - New criteria under development• Laundry detergents for professional use• Automatic dishwasher detergents for professional use• Office buildings• Hydronic central heating generators• Imaging equipment• Sanitary products• Taps and showerheads• Toilets and Urinals• Converted paper

- Criteria under revisionTextiles, Bed mattresses, Paint and varnishes, Soaps and shampoos, Light sources, Heat

pumps)

4

Evolution of the N of EU Ecolabel licences

0 0 0 0 6 11 33 39 5395 128

166224

279

386

514

754

10151064

1357

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Evolution of the Total Number of Licences from 1992 to 2011**December 2011

5

Number of EU Ecolabelled Products per Product Group Category (January 2012)

6

Coordinated Workplan GPP + Ecolabel

7

Revision of European Ecolabel Criteria for Textile products

8

Scope

The following are not covered by the criteria:• Furniture upholstery• Wall and floor coverings• Fabrics and that form part of structures intended for

use outdoors• Single use products

Fillings made of fibre covered by the EU Ecolabel should fulfill the relevant fibre criteria

9

10

Priority areas based on overall LCA findingsIssue Description Potential benefit

Cotton The ecotoxicity associated with the use of agrochemicals and the resource impact of water use for irrigation

High

Synthetic fibres (acrylic, nylon, polyamide, polypropylene)

The climate change and ecotoxicity impact of energy use to manufacture fibres

High to Medium

Wool scouring The climate change and ecotoxicity impact of associated with scouring and processing

High to Medium

Raw material and feedstocks

Required to manufacture cellulose, synthetic fibres, soaping agents and softeners

High to Medium

Sustainable systems of resource use

Closed loop recycling and greater durability. High to Medium

Cellulose fibres (viscose):

The climate change and ecotoxicity impacts associated with the manufacturing of fibres

Medium

Energy and ecotoxicity Associated with the use phase of textile products Medium to low

Process energy and ecotoxicity

Fabric formation, finishing, printing and dyeing stages of production

Medium to low

Fuel use and climate change impacts

Modal split of air freight and shipping to distribute products. Medium to Low

11

• Hazardous substances: To be restricted according to Article 6 (Paragraphs 6 and 7) of the Ecolabel Regulation (EC) No 66/2010

• Phthalates: Plasticisers which can act as endocrine disrupters require further consideration following REACH updates.

• Flame retardants: Feedback from stakeholders and updates of the REACH candidate list require a revision.

• Nano-silver: There is emerging evidence of risks associated with nano-silver surface coatings and treatments.

Further issues identified for considerationSpecific substances and treatments

12

Proposed new criteria areas

• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) criteria• Environmental management, social codes of conduct

• Ecodesign improvements• Design for durability, recycling systems

• Consumer labelling• Energy saving advice, Air freight

13

Follow-up contacts

Oliver WolfTel +34 954 48 82 96e-mail xxxxxx.xxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx

Nicholas DoddTel. +34 954 48 84 86  e-mail xxxxxxxx.xxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx

Mauro CordellaTel. +34 954 48 05 78  e-mail xxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx

European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit Edificio EXPO C/ Inca Garcilaso 341092 Sevilla, SPAIN

14

Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint

15

Problem definitionProblem definition

1. Lack of a level playing field, fragmentation of the markets on methods for reporting environmental performance of products (including both good and service) and companies.

2. Confusion in the market on how to measure, make and understand a claim on the environmental performance of products and companies (leading to misleading claims, unfair commercial practices and greenwashing).

3. Lack of multi-criteria environmental information covering the entire value chain makes it difficult for companies to tackle risks of scarcity of resources and volatility of resource-prices and therefore deliver significant cost reductions.

4. Lack of reliable information is impeding full potential of green markets and growth

16

Proposal No 10: Before 2012, the Commission will look into the feasibility of an initiative on the Environmental Footprint of Products to address the issue of the environmental impact of products, including carbon emissions. The initiative will explore possibilities for establishing a common European methodology to assess and label them.

Single Market Act

The Council invites the Commission to “develop a common methodology on the quantitative assessment of environmental impacts of products, throughout their life-cycle, in order to support the assessment and labelling of products”

Council Conclusions 20 December 2010

Resource Efficiency Roadmap – 20 September 2011

The The policy mandatepolicy mandate

Establish a common methodological approach to enable Member States and the private sector to assess, display and benchmark the environmental performance of products, services and companies based on a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts over the life-cycle ('environmental footprint') (in 2012);

Ensure better understanding of consumer behaviour and provide better information on the environmental footprints of products, including preventing the use of misleading claims, and refining eco-labelling schemes (in 2012);

17

ObjectivesObjectives

• Build on existing methods

• Be applicable without having to consult a series of other documents (a ‘stand-alone’ document)

• Provide comprehensive evaluation along the entire life cycle (upstream and downstream)

• Provide comprehensive coverage of potential environmental impacts (no ‘single issue’ method)

• Ensure comparability, e.g. of different products on the shelf

18

ComparabilityComparability

Ensure comparability, e.g. of different products on the shelf

High level of technical detail (balance with comprehensibility)

High level of prescriptiveness

Prioritise consistency over flexibility

Note:

Much of the feedback/criticism received from consultation and pilot studies (see next point) is linked to approaches that have been taken to fulfill those objectives, especially the objective of ensuring comparability.

19

• ProductsProducts

• ISO 14044 (International)• ISO 14067 (International)• ILCD (EC)• BP X 30 (France)• PAS 2050 (UK)• Ecological footprint

(International)• WBCSD/WRI (International)

AAnalyisis of nalyisis of existing methodsexisting methods

OrganisationsOrganisations

– ISO 14064 (International)– Bilan Carbone (France)– DEFRA guide (UK)– CDP Water footprint (International)– WBCSD/WRI (International)– GRI (International)

20

Variability vs detail of guidance

• Increasing consistency

• Increasing reproducibility

• Increasing comparability

• Less expert knowledge required, less cost

• Easier to apply

ILCD: International Reference Life Cycle Data System

PFCR: Product Footprint Category RuleOFSR: Organisation Footprint Sector Rule

21

Analysis of existing methodologies

Final methodological guides (internal)

Draft methodology guides

Stakeholder consultation on thepolicy options

Pilot tests concluded

June 2011

December 2011

June 2012

March 2011

Training on methodology

February 2012

Product Environmental

footprint

Invited Stakeholder Meeting 28-30 November 2011

January 2011 – April 2012

Organisation Environmental

footprint

September 2011

13-15 July 2011 19-20 Oct 2011

TimelinesTimelines

Start of pilot tests July 2011 September 2011

22

RoadtestingRoadtesting

ProductsProducts CorporateCorporate

• Food and drinks• Retailers (different products)• Construction• Chemicals• ICT• Footwear• Paper• Televisions

• Food, feed and drinks• Retailers• Public Administrations• Energy production• ICT• Water services• Paper• Mining• Chemicals

23

Needs for simplification (but not simplified approaches)

The importance of sector-specific/ product group-specific approach, taking into account existing Product Category Rules or Sectoral Rules

Availability and quality of life cycle data

Review/verification requirements

The importance of international coordination

Main feedbackMain feedback 24

Possible future scenarios

25

Policy optionsPolicy options

1.Business as usual - no policy change

2.PEF as methodological basis of a New policy framework for all EU product policies

3.PEF as methodological basis of New EU Ecolabel and GPP tools

4.PEF as methodological basis of existing EU Ecolabel tool

5.PEF as methodological basis of a new voluntary scheme for product benchmarking and communication of environmental performance

26

Is there already a PFCR?

YESA comparison based on the exact rules agreed in the PFCR is possible

(if needed)

NO

Do you want to compare it to another fruit?

YES A PFCR for “fruit” is necessary

NO

Multi-stakeholder process

Definition of the product category Definition of the average productScreening study based on PEF requirements Identification of the most relevant life cycle stages Identification of the 3 most relevant impactsDefinition of benchmark values and, if necessary,

values for a grade systemAllocation rulesDefinition of data quality requirementsScenario for the use and end-of-life (where

relevant)Other methodological tailored choice relevant for

the “fruit” product category

A study based on the PEF methodology is

necessary

Identification of the product Identification of the most relevant life cycle stages Identification of the 3 most relevant impactsAllocation rulesReport on data quality requirementsScenario for the use and end-of-life (where

relevant)Other methodological tailored choice relevant for

its productReview information

The apple producer will have to take (and report

transparently) on a number of methodological choices

Environmental impacts

Water

Resources

Climate

Verified by …

E

vs.

2012

27

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

For any further information

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/product_footprint.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/corporate_footprint.htm

xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx

28