EU activities in the "area" of labeling: The EU Ecolabel and Environmental Footprint Dr Michele...
Transcript of EU activities in the "area" of labeling: The EU Ecolabel and Environmental Footprint Dr Michele...
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 [email protected]
Nicholas DoddTel. +34 954 48 84 86 e-mail [email protected]
Mauro CordellaTel. +34 954 48 05 78 e-mail [email protected]
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
28