le impronte ambientali della ce ai blocchi di … 7...le impronte ambientali della ce ai blocchi di...
Post on 27-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Le impronte ambientali della CE ai blocchi di partenza: gli studi-pilota in corso e le
prospettive di policy
Michele Galatola
Product Team Leader
Eco-innovation and circular economy European Commission - DG Environment
1
2
79
74
71
69
64
62
62
50
50
41
32
14
19
22
23
26
32
25
34
13
37
32
5
6
6
1
8
6
9
13
35
21
33
1
1
1
1
2
1
7
1
3
3
1
1
3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Manufacturing cost savings
Employee engagement and productivity
Trust and brand enhancement
Meeting retailer requirements
Logistics and supply chain cost savings
Meeting consumer demands
Packaging cost savings
Product material cost savings
Future regulatory risk mitigation
Supply chain risk reduction
Increased sales
Achieved, with ongoing efforts Not yet achieved, work in progress
Not yet achieved, but work will be done in the future Achieved, but not important/no longer working on
Not achieved, not seeking this/not important
Which business benefits have you achieved and are important to achieve from your company's product sustainability program?
Source: The path to product sustainability – A Pure Strategies Report (2014)
3
Behaviours are changing
Source: When Social Responsibility Lead to Growth (Report from Boston Consulting Group, 2014)
• In U.S., products labelled organic, natural, ecological &
Fairtrade no longer niche
• Growing at 9% last 3 years across US Home, Personal
Care & Foods retail
= 70% of total growth
= 15% of all sales
Historically, a trend observed in US will show itself in Europe within 5 years
4
What is this?
a) A chair
b) A element of modern furniture intended to host, for a more or less
prolonged period of time, a noble part of the human body
c) A yellow paper lying on a chair
CHAIR
5
Proliferation
• Environmental labels
• Reporting schemes
• Certification schemes
Internal Market
• National “tailor-made” legislations
Competitiveness
• Increase of costs due to multiple
requirements and restricted access to
markets
• Unfair competition/misleading claims
Consumers
• Mistrust in company driven green
marketing
Issues at stake
6
What’s the purpose?
Same calculation rules for everybody
Same/similar reporting requirements for companies
What does it mean to be “green”? – or better, when a product can be considered greener than another (including uncertainty)
7
What’s the problem?
Same calculation rules for everybody
Same/similar reporting requirements for companies
What does it mean to be “green”? – or better, when a product can be considered greener than another
8
The EF Pilot phase at a glance
Rules
Verification
Communication
Level playing field
Technical implementability
How to (vehicles)
Tools for SMEs
Horizontal Working Groups
International dimension
Batteries and accumulators
Decorative paints
Hot & cold water pipe systems
Liquid household detergents
IT equipment
Metal sheets
Non-leather shoes
Photovoltaic electricity generation
Stationery
Intermediate paper products
T-shirts
Uninterrupted power supplies
1st wave of pilots 2nd wave of pilots
Retailer sector
Copper sector
Leather
Thermal insulation
Beer
Coffee
Fish
Dairy products
Feed
Meat
Pet food
Olive oil
Pasta
Wine
Packed water
10
120 applications: 22.5% were selected = 27 pilots
Number of pilot meetings: 1081
Stakeholders (27 pilots):
777 individual stakeholders (2048 participations)
Public Administrations: AT, BE, FR, IT, PL, PT, CAN, CH, CL, JP, NZ, TN
The EU market is behind the pilots:
73% of pilots have the majority of
industry in the lead
Many are watching
74,197 unique visitors to the SMGP sites since kick-off
They have viewed it 249,090 times
Our webcommenting tool had 20,956 views
Average nr of new stakeholders registering/day: 5
+ PEF is THE news in the
scientific community: we
get invited to all major
international events
288 leading stakeholders in 27 pilots
All 1&2 wave participants in the world
Average stakeholders/pilot: 76
Share of non-EU stakeholders: 12%
Sectoral
associations:
18.3%
SMEs: 10,9%
Pilot numbers
Timelines
11/13
M03 1st physical consultation
End of pilots End of pilots
Kick-off 1st wave
1st draft PEFCR ready M10
Approval of scope and representative product by SC Start screening studies
M05
2nd draft of PEFCR ready M13
12/16
06/14 Kick-off 2nd wave
M09 Send screening for quick check to EC & Helpdesk
Virtual consultation M11
Approval of 2nd draft PEFCR by SC M14
Start of supporting studies M15
2nd consultation (physical and virtual) M19
External review M22
Final PEFCR ready M25
Approval of final PEFCR by SC M26
Release of final PEFCR M27
C
C Consultation
C
C
Review R
R
R
D Decision
D
D
D
12
Quiz
Which one of the three is THE green?
None of them
All of them
13
Do we need EPDs?
Impact EPD Brand A EPD Brand B Average product
GHG 550 421 243
Water 295444 165 160162
Acidification 825 1400 867
VOC 180 90 18
POP 1950 1625 1070
Particulate matter 3800 2100 2071
Eutrophication (water) 1500 915 1746
14
Current challenges
Horizontal consistency
“Cow model” working group
Screening reports
End-of-Life formula (Workshop 6th October in Brussels)*
Significance threshold
Identification of independent reviewers
Secondary datasets
* More info and background material at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm
15
LCI Data availability
Do we need data before being able/authorised to set up a policy ?
We need a policy to drive data production?
OR
16
Secondary datasets: cui
prodest?
Challenge 1: We need high quality secondary datasets
Problem 1: Most databases do not rate the quality of their datasets
Solution 1: EF quality rating system
Challenge 2: Secondary data shall be the same if comparison is an objective
Problem 2: Datasets shall be available for free to the final user
Solution 2: PEFCRs/OEFSRs will provide unique secondary datasets to be used
Challenge 3: Datasets shall be as disaggregated as possible
Problem 3: This is not always the case (e.g. ELCD, PlasticsEurope, etc)
Solution 3: work in progress
17
Future challenges
Timing of the meetings
Reconciliation with other initiatives
Consistency among pilots
International dialogue
18
Can LCA allow for product
differentiation?
Environmental impacts
Water
Resources
Climate
Verified by …
E
NO PEFCR (2012) WITH PEFCR (fictitious example; possible if PEFCR available)
Performance level B Performance level C
vs. vs.
Performance level A
Is it possible?
Is it always possible?
Is it desirable/useful?
Do YOU want it?
19
Stage 2: verification
Scope: Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts,
traceability)
Features: Balance between reliability, cost of verification and
feasibility of verification
No additional cost to industry - Independent Auditors
(Ernst & Young) paid by EC funds
Several verification options tested with future policy
applications in mind
Challenges: Due to limited budget availability only about 40% of the
total number of studies/reports will be subject to audits
20
Stage 3: communication
Scope: Provide useful information to help business and consumer choices
Features: Each pilot will test 3-4 alternative communication vehicles
(B2B and B2C)
The Commission line is that we do not want to enter into
the discussion of "how" to provide the information (the
vehicle) but we concentrate on the content, the "what"
The 3rd stage will be based on "real cases" communication
tests, involving retailers and consumers/stakeholders from
different MSs
Innovative communication channels will be tested thanks
to the collaboration with GS1 (barcode developers)
21
Evaluation of pilots 2017
What policy applications is the OEF fit for?
E.g. of potential links: • As an initiative complementing non-financial reporting
• Basis for incentives
• Reputational: league tables, industry awards, etc. • Incentives based on performance improvement (e.g. easier access to
public fund-based financing/ state aid, reduced charges) • Administrative (favourable conditions for well-performing or
improving companies)
• As a measurement tool in EMAS
Policy links
EMAS-OEF
EMAS
•Identify significant direct and indirect impacts
•KPIs
•SRDs
• Identify important impacts
• Sectoral indicators
• Best management practice
OEF
• Measure life cycle (= direct and indirect) impacts
•14 life cycle impact categories
•OEFSR
• Identify important impact categories
• Identify important life cycle stages
• Define quantitative benchmark (if possible)
• Specify calculation rules (data quality, scenarios, other tailored choices)
22
23
An alternative theoretical approach
Product group: XYZ
Attribute: Single attributes or weighted average
Environmental
performance of
products
Number of
products
ref <90%ref* >100%ref
GPP
Information freely accessible
* Plus additional requirements non captured by LCA
2nd phase
24
Policy discussion
Future
policies
Peer review of the pilot phase and of alternative methods tested under similar conditions (2017)
Internal evaluation of the pilots 2017
For any further information
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/
env-environmental-footprint@ec.europa.eu
25
@EU_EnvFootprint Follow us on Twitter:
top related