forcing products to be green?

8/14/2019 Forcing Products to be green?

1/31

ReportForcing products

to go green? Opportunities for strengthening EU ecodesign legislation

Melissa Shinn and Per Rosander


2/31

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

The views expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the viewsof the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

December 2007

ISBN 91 558 8021 5 Varunr: 89312

Financial support for this study has come fromthe Swedish Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket).

1. Background 42. Methodology 53. Current state of play 64. Strategies/Scenarios investigated 15

5. Findings and opportunities17

Annex 1: Questionnaire 24 Annex 2: List of interviewees 25Annex 3: Product design-relevant Directives and Regulations 26Annex 4: Responses to consultation on SCP/SIP plan 0

Table of Contents


3/31

forcing products to go green ?

CPD Construction Product DirectiveDG Directorate General (of the European

Commission)DG ENT Directorate General EnterpriseDG ENV Directorate General Environment

DG SANCO Directorate General Health & ConsumerProtection

DG TREN Directorate General Energy and TransportEEB European Environmental BureauEIPRO Environmental Impact of ProductsEEB European Environmental BureauEMAS Eco-Management Audit SchemeEP European ParliamentEPD Environmental Product DeclarationEPR Extended Producer ResponsibilityETAP Environmental Technologies Action ProgramEuP Energy Using ProductsEC European CommissionFoE Friends of the EarthGHG Greenhouse GasesGPP Green Public ProcurementIM Implementation MeasuresIMPRO Environmental Improvement of ProductsIPP Integrated Product PolicyIPPC Integrated Pollution ControlIPR Individual Producer ResponsibilityJRC Joint Research CentreLCA Life Cycle AnalysisLLCC Least Life Cycle CostMS (EU) Member StateREACH Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of

ChemicalsRoHS Restrictions of Hazardous SubstancesSCP Sustainable Consumption and ProductionSIP Sustainable Industry PolicySME Small and Medium-sized EnterpriseSSNC Swedish Society for Nature ConservationSVHC Substances of Very High ConcernWEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment VA

Voluntary Agreement

Abbreviations


4/31


4

1. Background

The Swedish Society or Nature Conservation (SSNC) has,or many years, been working to improve the environmental

quality o products on the market, most markedly throughtheir own eco-labelling system Good Environmental Choice(Bra Miljval). In order to sa eguard achievements in pro-duct eco-design, SSNC also strives to strengthen EU pro-duct legislation. Eco-labelling and other voluntary measureswill continue to spearhead the development o eco- riendlyproducts, but SSNC believes that cut o legislation (set-ting minimum requirements) is necessary to raise the levelo ecodesign requirements on products, and prevent badproducts rom entering the market.

What is needed to achieve this? EU product legislationshould seek to ensure that products and services on the

market are sa e or the environment in a sustainable so-ciety, and create producer responsibility or this. Sa e orthe environment could mean sa e or cl imate change, orresource biotic and abiotic su ciency/e ciency and sa e

or environmental and health toxicity.Such, extended concepts or eco-design have been discus-

sed or many years. One model was presented in a SwedishEPA report back in 1999. The concept included introductiono general obligations or all products with daughter directi-ves enacted or speci c product groups when required. Thesketched ramework directive included the use o voluntary standards, a code o conduct and guidelines. 1

In 2004, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) presen-ted a simulation o a directive titled Environmentally SoundProduct Directive 2. What the EEB proposed was a producteco-design umbrella directive, creating a ar reaching re-

gime o producer responsibilisation or the environmentalper ormance o their products in the design phase, andlaying down the principle that all consumer products shouldbe environmentally sound. 3

During 2007 the European Commission has been deve-loping an EU strategy on Sustainable Consumption andProduction Action Plan. This plan is a response to calls ora more proactive response and EU leadership on the 2002Johannesburg Sustainable Development Con erence com-mitment on a 10 year ramework o programmes and planson Sustainable Consumption and Production (being im-plemented through the so called Marrakech process). Thisplan coincides with the necessity or the EU Commissionto deliver its next steps on the Strategy on Integrated ProductPolicy (in particular an overdue assessment o what steps

could be taken on (eco) design requirements as proposedin the IPP strategy itsel .

This study looks at current trends in the development o eco-design law in EU. It takes a broad view, including towhat extent the EEB type o comprehensive producer re-sponsibility is being considered as a viable proposal. Theaim has not been to go into great detail on the pros and conso the di erent actions or policy tools on the table, but in-stead to generically map the legislative landscape and iden-ti y potential opportunities or avenues to be ollowed upat this point in time in the political discussions, taking par-ticular account o the ongoing developments o theSustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan, inorder to urther develop strategies within SSNC.

1 Naturvrdsverket [Swedish EPA]. (1999) Producenters ansvar fr varors miljpverkan, Report 5043 (In Swedish).2 For further description of the EEB proposal, see chapter 43 The term environmentally sound was used by the EEB as those products which ...do not have a significant impact on the environment, throughout the whole life cycle,

taking into account the objectives of the Sixth Environmental Action Plan and specific objectives on chemicals, res ource efficiency , energy etc established in the same legislation.


5/31


5

2. Methodology

The concrete goals o the study were defned as theollowing:

Analyse the state-o -play o on-going EU legislativeprocesses with relevance to product policy

Discuss with di erent stakeholders that could infuencethe decision making process on the options to intro-duce urther EU cut-o (minimum ) requirementson the ecodesign o products, and the advantages anddisadvantages and likelihood o having them realised.

Evaluate the most signi cant trends observed andhighlight opportunities or advancing the ecodesignlegislation debate.

The study has been carried out mainly through interviewswith Commission o cials, Member state authorities,

ministries, academic researchers, NGOs and industry re-presentatives. Some o these actors have the possibility todirectly infuence the decision making process, some o them were interviewed or their experience rom observingthe process.

The scope involved looking at legislative initiatives, butalso to some extent discussing the role o voluntary initiativesand other policy tools, given the assumption that this was stillthe pre erred policy option or most industry sectors. Basedon initial analysis o on-going political processes, three mainstrategies towards expanding the setting o ecodesign mini-mum requirements on products were de ned: Expanding scope and e ective implementation o EuP Creating a general legislative ramework or eco-design Making better use o other legislative instruments

The strategies are overlapping in scope, but give a concep-tual division o ideas. Based on these three scenarios, theinterviewees were asked about i) the most desirable way

orward disregarding political/administrative obstacles thatcould hinder accomplishment, and ii) the most administ-

ratively/politically easible way orward.

A second part o interviews related to the use o environ-mental targets. Interviewees were asked how environmen-tal objectives could drive the setting o minimum require-ments, which targets could be used or non-energy objecti-

ves, and how targets could be integrated into a new rame-work directive.Two di erent discussions o ndings have been arrang-

ed: One in collaboration with EEB in Brussels on 13September, with European NGOs participating. Here somepreliminary ndings were presented to provide backgroundto strategic discussions on the NGO response to the consul-tation on the SCP/SIP action plan. A second meeting washeld on 22 October in Stockholm in the orm o a Roundtablewith par ticipation rom national authorities, government,academics, NGOs and industry in Sweden.

The scenarios or possibly strategic approaches to expan-ding the setting o ecodesign minimum requirements onproducts is described in chapter 4 and the questionnaireused in interviews and as basis or meetings is presented inAnnex 1. The list o persons interviewed is shown in an-nex 2. A current state-o -play on relevant EU processes(legislative, voluntary and policy plans) provides a back-ground to the discussion and is covered in chapter 3. Thecomplete in ormation collected on the product relevantdirectives and regulations can be ound in annex 3.

Due to the act that the debate on the di erent legislativeoptions was less mature (and more diversi ed) than weexpected we chose just to present some dominant trends

ound in the discussion (as it stands now) instead o an ex-haustive account o the advantages and disadvantages o thedi erent scenarios as identi ed by the interviewees. Wethen identi ed some opportunities or action towards

urthering the eco-design legislation debate, presented inchapter 5.


6/31


6

This chapter gives an overview and some preliminary ana-lysis on the current state o EU processes with relevance toproduct eco-design. We cover the most obvious productrelevant directives and regulations. In addition to which weevaluated some current perceptions concerning voluntaryagreements and we summarised the background to and thecurrent EC activities on the SCP/SIP action plan under deve-lopment in the Commission. Finally we documented twointernational policy tools that might have a role to play.Note: A more detailed and descriptive overview o the di -

erent product relevant regulations and directives includingtheir implementation processes, evaluation, or revisionsthat are ongoing is presented in Annex 3.

3.1 Overview and gap analysis

This chapter intends to give an overview o the main direct-ives and regulations that are relevant to product eco-designand undergoing processes o either implementation, revisionor review. During the discussions and interviews conductedwe realised that the in ormation collected on the state-o -play on the di erent product design relevant directives and regu-lations could be used to per orm a gap analysis to comparethe maturity o the di erent legislative toolboxes or threemain areas o environmental concern in product policy (en-ergy, chemicals and resource e ciency).

We adopted a systematic approach using a tree o options namely:1. roughly which thematic area energy, chemicals,

resource e ciency does the law address2. roughly which product sectors electronics, other

household products such as textiles and urniture,ood, transport and building or building products are

covered by the scope3. what is the status o three di erent policy tools mini-

mum requirements ( or product design), obligatory gra-

ding/labelling requirements and voluntary better-than-minimum criteria

From this tree analysis a preliminary and very rough gapanalysis is constructed that gives some idea as to the priority areas that any new policy action on ecodesign could ll.

Energy and Greenhouse gases In this thematic area we see the highest number o legalinitiatives, linked to the high political priority given to re-duction in energy consumption and associated reductionsin GHG emissions.

Regulations/directives that speci cally address this thema-tic area include: the ecodesign or energy using products (EuP) directive

(including already existing implementing measures onboilers, ballast, r idges and reezers)

the energy labelling or household appliances regulation the energy star (voluntary) or o ce appliances the European ecolabel including energy criteria on

8 appliances and heat pumps minimum standards and certi cation o energy per or-

mance o buildings

Overall the product sectors covered are minimum (design)requirements on the electrical and electronic appliances(EuP directive) i.e. all energy using products except ve-hicles. Labelling requirements (obligatory) on householdappliances (8 categories) and new and renovated buildingsexist. Voluntary criteria (EU ecolabel and the energy star)exist on 8 household appliances, one building appliance(heat pumps) and several o ce appliances. Computers arethe one product that has existing voluntary criteria (EUecolabel and energy star) and uture possible minimumcriteria (EuP). There is also currently a political intentiono the European Commission to establish minimum require-ments on car emissions.

So ar there are no energetic minimum requirements,

obligatory labels or voluntary criteria on other householdproducts such as textiles and urniture or on ood and trans-

3. Current state of play


7/31


7

port other than cars. It is not currently possible to set obli-gatory labels or appliances other than the 8 covered by theappliances labelling directive.

The EU ecolabel regulation has however the reedom to

set better-than-minimum criteria on any appliances andany products except ood products. A revised proposal isdue in February 2008. The revision could potentially beused to expand it to ood products, although that is not apriority o the European Commission at this moment.

In summary the minimum requirements are missing onall non -electronic and energy consuming appliances andwould probably not be added till July 2010 when the EuP isdue or revision (i this was the policy tool chosen). Theobligatory labelling (grading) requirements is missing onthe majority o products and the voluntary criteria is mis-

sing on many energy using and non-energy using productsbut the policy tool to set these exists and is under revision.

Overall however concerning energy it could be observ-ed that the policy tools by and large exist and either need tobe created or non-energy using products presumably orthose that have relevant impacts in their production/useconcerning energy or the policy tools could be broadenedin scope (obligatory labelling similar to the energy labellingappliances directive).

Chemicals Regulations/directives that speci cally address (or potent-ially address) this thematic area include: RoHS, covering electrical and electronic appliances Substance restrictions in waste legislation such as the

batteries directive, end-o -li e vehicles legislation andpackaging and packaging waste legislation

REACH covering all chemical substances and mixturesand use in products

The Market Restrictions directive Product sa ety daughter directives such as the Toys

directive The Construction products directive (covering many

construction materials and products rom gypsumto sa ety systems)

EuP directive on all energy using products exceptvehicles

WEEE directive through individual producer responsi-bility or the end-o -li e costs o treating WEEE

Overall the product sectors covered are minimum (design)requirements on electrical and electronic appliances viaRoHS (currently under review or later revision o the scopeo substances) and batteries, cars and packaging via thewaste legislation. There is a potential or uture design re-quirements on all energy using products. Given the prio-rity ocus and urgency to establish minimum requirementson energy or EuP products it is however not expected that

the implementing measures on individual products willactually set any requirements concerning chemicals atleast not in the rst round (2008-2010).

For building products, requirements on chemicals con-tent could possibly emerge rom the coming revision o theConstruction Product Directive (CPD). At present, the di-rective merely covers health and environmental aspectsduring use o these products, which means that all aspectso chemicals during production, transport and the wastephase are le t out. A number o national environmentalauthorities have jointly suggested that the scope o the lawshould be extended to the whole li e cycle, and to integrateissues such as climate change, chemicals use and waste t reat-ment. Sweden has suggested a simi lar approach or broade-ning the scope on chemicals, and also wants a minimumrequirement that in ormation about dangerous ingredientsshould be provided when a product is marketed.

Housing is one o the priority areas de ned by the EIPROstudy, and it would seem logical that CPD is developed toinclude eco-design requirements on products. Howevergiven the approach taken so ar by COM, it seems unlikely

that any radical changes will be made during the revision.CPD also has the potential disadvantage o being heavily


8/31


dependant on the New Approach methodology or settingits standards.

The Toys directive, according to some interviewees, hasso ar ai led to properly address design requirements in toys

concerning chemicals. That may change during the ongoingrevision however.REACH introduces new requirements, both through its

authorisation and restriction procedures. It is sti ll unclearthough, to what degree this will actually a ect product de-sign. The current Market Restrictions Directive (76/769/EEC) which up to now has been a vehicle or introducinglimitations to chemicals in products, wil l cease to exist in2008 as its role is taken over by the restriction process inREACH. The new procedure provides (at least in theory)the possibility to restrict dangerous chemicals in both EU

manu actured and imported products, e ect ively creatingdesign requirements. However, i a substance is subject tothe authorization procedure, it wil l not be possible to subject the same substance to restriction initiatives underREACH. This seems to create a quite peculiar situationwhere a competition could take place between under whatchapter o REACH a substance is t reated.

REACH will e ectively create a orm o obligatory chemi-cals in ormation or all products manu actured in the EU butit would not do so or imported products. However this wil lnot necessarily extend to a label that could be used in the sameway as the energy label. There are some existing regulationsthat require listing o ingredients such as cosmetics, oodadditives and chemical preparations with hazardous substan-ces. However these requirements do not exist or more com-plex products such as electronic and electrical equipment,other energy using equipment, urniture, textiles or buildingproducts and materials or even buildings themselves.

The requirement to supply in ormation about substan-ces o very high concern (to the user o a product) could alsohave indirect design impacts. It is not clear at this moment

whether this will in act be implemented strictly or impor-ted products and how market surveillance will be set up on

both EU manu actured and imported products concerningthe substance restrictions. It may be necessary to have eco-design requirements introduced through more productoriented directives (such as EuP, the CPD or PSD daughter

directives) to make the restriction procedure a reality. Inwhich case there is a gap in the product areas o householdproducts such as urniture, textiles, and transport. Thechemical in ormation would have to be clearly establishedin the essential requirements o the CPD and stakeholderbalance rein orced to be able to use the CPD as a minimumrequirements policy tool.

The WEEE directive and its requirement that producersbear their own products end-o -li e costs can be a uturedriver or design. However this will require corrections inthe national transposition o the producer responsibility

regime (2/3 countries have transposed incorrectly or am-biguously undermining the unction o the individual pro-ducer mechanism). For producer responsibility to drivedesign changes the economic ramework surrounding end-o -li e treatment also needs to be correct such that treatingmore hazardous substances is more expensive otherwise. I this is not the case the economic signal will not push ordesigning out toxics.

Concerning voluntary better-than-minimum criteriasetting the EU ecolabel covers substance restrictions inalmost all its product categories, and has the theoreticalscope to cover any products except ood. However in thisarea it has tended to not go beyond the legal requirementso the EU. An example o this is recent discussions on PVCin urniture, brominated fame retardants in electronicsand potentially allergy causing per umes in detergentsduring revisions o di erent product Ecolabel criteria.

Overall there ore concerning chemicals it could beobserved that uncertainty exists concerning the setting o minimum requirements or restrictions o chemicals in pro-ducts. Some uncertainty also exists as to whether the pro-

ducer responsibility mechanism (only covering electricaland electronic appliances) will survive incorrect transpo-


9/31


sition. There is very litt le obligatory labelling outside o oodsector and chemical products (such as cosmetics andpaints). The voluntary better-than-minimum criteria set-ting is not so ar delivering better than minimum, and it is

not clear whether this will be improved by the revision o the EU Ecolabel regulation.

Resource efficiency There are no regulations/directives that speci cally addressthis thematic area. Indirectly, the waste legislation promotesproducer responsibiliity (or co-responsibility) to di erentextents or the end-o -li e impacts o their products. Thewaste legislation has not so ar however created directrequirements or the use o more or less or certain priority materials or the re-use o certain material ( through recycled

content quota or example).There is some evidence o changes in packaging materi-

als and composition due to the global recycling targets thatneed to be met (some packaging materials and materialcombinations are more easy to recycle). Light-weight ma-terials that has been used as an example o less use o resour-ces (materials) driven by the packing recycling targets beingweight based targets.

Concerning packaging there are also harmonised EU stan-dards on aspects such as compostability which could be seenas criteria or resource e ciency as they enable recycling andreuse o the material in the natural biodegradation cycle.

On certain products such as cars it is possible that thenext step in the recycling targets set (95% o the car to berecycled by 2015) will orce some design changes in theplastics components o cars to enable the car manu acturersto reach these targets. At the moment the plastics ract iono the car can be incinerated so its composition is o lit tleconcern to manu acturers (except to remove certain plasticsthat may cause problems in incineration e.g. PVC).

As or the chemicals the EuP directive cold theoretically

deliver criteria on product design linked to material e -ciency or example by requiring less use o certain mate-

rials or design or high recyclability or reuse. However, dueto the priority ocus on energy it is not expected that the rstgeneration o implementing measures (IMs) will set bindingrequirements on resource e ciency. There is also a lack o

strategic guidance on which materials/ resources should beaddressed as a priority. The EUs Natural Resources Strategy is still assessing methodology and has not arrived at eithera clear resource e ciency target or identi ed which resour-ces need to be addressed and how ( or example in whichsectors/products).

No obligatory resource e ciency or material e ciency labelling tools exist at the EU level so ar.

Concerning voluntary better-than-minimum labellingthe EU Ecolabel has some criteria concerning resourcee ciency, mostly via recycling. Products such as soil im-

prover materials are supposed to contain a minimum con-tent o recycled biodegradable waste and the packaging ma-terials o some products such as detergent should be clearly labelled and not exceed a certain level relative to the weighto the product, and di erent plastics should be easily sepa-rated into mono-material parts. Paper based packagingo ten has a minimum recycled content level, electronic app-liances o ten contain easy disassembly requirements andrequirements that attempt to ensure better quality recyclate(eg vacuum cleaner plastics should not have metal inlays)and labelling o component materials. Electrical and elec-tronic products and some household products like mattres-ses and textiles also contain some minimum durability andupgradeability requirements.

Overall there ore concerning resource e ciency itcould be observed that no policy tool is expected to deliverdirect product design minimum requirements in the near

uture. Indirect product requirements exist in some productsectors that have been a priority or waste management namely cars, packaging and electronics. It is di cult to ore-see design- or-resource e ciency coming rom the producer

responsibility mechanism as there are probably little or ewresource scarcity or resource use impact economic signals


10/31


10

coming back rom the end-o -li e phase as yet ( or example itis not yet cheaper or more pro table to design in certain ma-terials due to the demand o certain recyclates or the im-pacts o treating and processing certain types o materials).

There are no obligatory labelling tools and the voluntary better-than-minimum criteria are mostly ocused on plasticcomponents, durability and packaging. In terms o scope they probably do not cover the majority o material/resource im-pacts o household products, and certainly do not cover themain resource use impacts o ood and transport.

3.2 Non-legislative developmentsSince this study is primarily concerned with opportunities

or legislative action, we have not gone into depth assessingexisting non-legislative tools, or example product or sector

speci c voluntary agreements. However, a ew things areworth mentioning. Voluntary agreements are o ten presentedby industry associations or individual companies as a pre er-able path compared to legislative action. Gentlemens agree-ments have been said to deliver more fexible and e ectivesolutions to problems, and industry organisations have madea number o voluntary commitments concerning the environ-mental per ormance o their products in the past.

Recently there seems to be a shi t in the way voluntary agreements are seen by decision makers. One indicator isthe recent decision by CECED the European home appli-ance ederation to halt its work with voluntary commit-ments, and instead advocate legal standard-setting as theway orward. CECED states that its voluntary commitmentshave lead to signi cant results, but that they are abandonedbecause non-CECED members, which can act as ree-riders as they do not participate in the CECED commit-ments, have increased their market shares Regulatory stan-dards that apply to all rms are there ore pre erred.

3.3 Action PlansThe work to create a coordinated and coherent policy orproducts has a long history in the EU debate. A general eelingabout the Commissions IPP strategy Communication rom

2002 was that it didnt establish any clear work program oraction on product design requirements. IPP working groupsthat were carried out ocused on theoretical discussions onproduct in ormation strategies (although the working groupon Product In ormation Needs indeed recommended that toget quality and comparable in ormation a legislative rame-work would be needed) or on largely bureaucratic actionssuch as member state reporting ormats.

The exercise on voluntary pilot projects (dialogue withindustry/retailers on wooden urniture and mobile phones)produced no concrete results. The only tangible outcome

rom the last ve years o Commission activities on IPP couldbe said to be the product prioritisation studies on which pro-ducts would be the priority or improving environmentalper ormance the EIPRO and IMPRO studies and the LCAdatabase resource set up at the JRC. The ormer can be usedas a basis or prioritising the ocus o policy actions on pro-duct ecodesign and the latter could possibly be the basis o a

uture product per ormance data centre.With the event o the Marrakech process 4, discussions on

IPP have shi ted into the policy discussion on the EU contri-bution to the Marrakech process, and more speci cally intoan EU Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption andProduction (SCP). More recently, DG Enterprise announcedan initiative called Sustainable Industry Policy (SIP), whichhas obvious overlaps with the SCP Action Plan.

There is also some cross-over with existing action plansbeing implemented by DG Environment. The EnvironmentalTechnologies Action Program (ETAP) progress report 5 inMay 2007 emphasised the need to provide resources to in-

4 The UN lead Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the development of a 10-year framework of programmes and plan in support of regional and nationalinitiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production.

5 COM 2007 162


11/31


11

crease the demand or cleaner products, with ocus on threeor our sectors in particular. The report notes that demand( or environmental technologies) could be encouraged by providing nancing or technological development o such

products, but also by nancing users (tax and marketmechanisms). Demand could also be encouraged by in or-mation on cleaner products.

The existence o two act ion plans developing in parallelby two di erent directorates, apparently originally withoutcoordination led the Commission to merge the two dra tsinto one background document that was published orpublic consultation in June 2007 6. The two action plans,which are both to be presented in spring 2008, might alsobe merged into one single action plan ( oreseen as likely by some Commission sta members). Since they have develop-

ed separately, and are guided by di erent objectives, wehowever describe them separately here.

The SCP Action Plan7

According to indications rom DG Environment the SCPAction Plan will probably have a concrete list o actions anddescribe how existing policy instruments link together. ThePlan will cover three main themes Leaner Production,Better Products and Consumption. Leaner Production to ensure processes need to be

compatible with environmental and social constraintsand concerns

Better Products how do we design, use and disposeo the products we use every day

Consumption the patterns and behaviour in usingthe products available to us

Initiatives concerning Better Products could include pro-posals on dynamic per ormance requirements (beyond

minimum requirements or example using (ecolabel?)benchmarks as binding in the uture), re-evaluating thestandardisation system, the use o EPDs and sustainability labels, and a ramework or Eco-design o products. In sum-

mary the consultation eedback gave overall support orstrengthening ecodesign approach in general, support orextending EuP to non-EuP and creating dynamic require-ments or evolving product design. The commission con-cluded that the message was Use experience rom EuP tobase broader product policy on, let it be implemented or awhile be ore assessing and reviewing, look at successes o EuP to help improve other product policy in uture. 8

On Leaner Production the main tool that stands out apart rom existing tools such as IPPC and EMAS is thepossibility o establishing speci c targets on resource e -

ciency. The 3% resource productivity target is mentionedin the consultation questionnaire. On Consumption theinitiatives are less concrete, beyond the revision o the EUecolabel scheme. Possible actions include agreements withbig retailers, reconsidering VAT reductions ( or example onEU top runner/ecolabelled products), evaluating instru-ments or tackling misleading advertising, communicationand education campaigns and taking some initiative (prob-ably in a separate Commission policy proposal) on greeningPublic Procurement.

On GPP there is clear pressure or the Commission totake some steps towards making it mandatory, possibly through EU level or National level target setting. TheCommission does not seem entirely convinced however.

The Sustainable Industry Action Plan (SIP) DG Enterprise has or some time been engaged in elabora-ting a strategy called Greening Industry. In June 2007,they announced their intention to present an action plan,

6 http://ec.europa.eu /enterprise/environment/sip.pdf (Consultation ended 23 September 2007)7 Information here is based on presentations given by DG ENV at EEB workshop 13 Sept. and SCP stakeholder feedback event 2nd Oct. 20 078 Verbal communication by Herbert Aichinger, DG Environment, EU Commission stakeholder feedback meeting on SCP consultation results, 2 Octob er 2007


12/31


12

now renamed the Sustainable Industry Policy (SIP). Whenasked in June about the content, DG ENTR responded thatthe intention was to cover products and services, using asector approach. Regarding products, it would primarily

ocus on expansion o the EuP directive or possibly creationo a mirror directive on end-use products.The scope o the SIP plan seemed to be limited to current

Energy using Products (ie those in the scope o the EuPdirective) plus cars and would ocus primarily on energy use. The motivation or the energy ocus was the politicalurgency o this issue and the need or a ast-track process.

There is a lot o interest in EU Top Runner (also calleddynamic benchmarking or lead per ormance levels). DGENTR would like to see a link between green public andprivate procurement and lead per ormance levels or bench-

marks. There is a possible role or integrating an additionaldynamic benchmarking mechanism into the revision o theenergy label. Benchmarks would have time rames by whenthey became obligatory. However, i necessary timelinescould be fexible.

Other items o the act ion plan relevant to products wouldbe to oster green public and private procurement so thatlabelling schemes like the European energy label on house-hold appliances are used ambitiously (i.e. demanding A++).Possibly through an enhanced cooperation mechanism o interested member states, or example agreeing amongthemselves to aim or 40 per cent public procurement basedon the top levels o the labelling spectrum and possibly the

uture EU top runner or lead per ormance benchmarks(see chapter 5 or more details on the concept o lead per-

ormance benchmarks ).

The joint SCP/ SIP consultation document From July to September a joint background document tothe action plans (SCP and SIP) was subject to an online

consultation. It de ned ve key challenges: Leveraginginnovation, creating a dynamic internal market or bet terper orming products, increasing the resource e ciency o production, changing consumption behaviours, and ex-

ploiting rst mover advantages and levelling the playingeld or industry worldwide. The environmental issuesgiven special emphasis are climate change and use o natu-ral resources, energy and materials. The text states thatphasing out hazardous substances and endangered materi-als rom production and processes could also be addres-sed in a plan (indicating a lower prioritisation o this objec-tive). The document listed the ollowing main actionsunder consideration 9:

Lead market Initiative

Networking (innovation actors, research, industry) Dynamic Per ormance Requirements Environmental product declarations, sustainability

labels and data collection Enhanced use o eco-design instruments at EU level Standardisation Resource and material e ciency targets Rein orcement o eco-innovation and environmental

technologies Target-setting or eco-innovation and the uptake o

environmental technologies Review o eco-management legislation, etc (EMAS, IPPC) SMEs Environmental Per ormance Agreements with retailers Enhanced use o market based instruments Di erentiation o VAT rates Revision o the Eco-label regulation Misleading advertising/ alse environmental claims Green Procurement Consumer in ormation/education/training campaigns

9 Headings somewhat shortened here


13/31


1

Adapt EU policies to ostering energy and resourcee ciency

Global Sectorial Approaches Strengthened international cooperation on SCP

We have not analysed the background document in detailhere. However, it is worth mentioning the absence o theterm Producer Responsibility or any tool that would dealwith this concept in the document. This is in strong contrastto the Councils conclusions on the Natural ResourceStrategy published recently 10 (the same conclusions that theCommission claims is its mandate to take a lot o the actionsit oresees or the SCP AP e.g. on GPP). Note these CouncilConclusions also made re erence to the previous CouncilConclusions on the Sustainable Development Strategy that

has a speci c chapter on SCP.The absence o recognition o the importance o Producer

Responsibility is also in contrast to recent Council rstreading position on the Waste Framework directive (seeannex 3) and the ongoing debate on individual producerresponsibility in the review o the WEEE directive.

DG Environment presented an overview on the resultso the online consultation o the background document atan in ormal stakeholder eedback meeting in Brussels onthe 2nd o October. An overview o the presented eedbackis presented in Annex 4.

The two action plans, which both are projected to bepresented in spring 2008, are likely to be presented together,possibly as a package11 or merged into one document. Alsoaccording to COM, the package might also include anEcolabel and EMAS review and GPP communication. 12

3.4 International developmentsA number o international processes are also infuencingthe eco-design discussion in the EU, most notably theUNEP-led Marrakech process. However, whilst the EUs

involvement in these could be both proactive (aiming atspreading the EUs position to a wider arena) or reactive(bringing home visions and strategies rom ongoing in-ternational processes) the general expectation is that the EUshould take a proactive leadership role. Previous attemptsby the European Commission to limit its actions to a meredocumentation o existing actions were criticised by theNGOs and some member states. 13

A couple o examples o relevant policy processes relatingto the EUs interaction with other regions are FLEGT andSAICM:

FLEGT14

The EU Action Plan on Forest Law En orcement, Governanceand Trade (FLEGT), 2003, among other issues, addressesillegal logging and puts in place steps to tackle this issue. Itis currently aimed at illegal timber, with the main ocusbeing a process that permits the EU or member states tomake voluntary partnerships with countries that producetimber. I a voluntary partnership is made, then a processis set up to veri y the legality o timber, permitting EUcountries to reject illegal timber. i.e. countries enter theprocesses voluntarily, but once in it there are legal controls(but also opportunities or unding). The Commissionsaction plan (published in 2003) goes urther than thisthough, suggesting the possibility o uture legislation ban-ning the sale o all illegal t imber, including rom countries

10 23rd October 200611 Speech by Klaus Koegler, DG ENV at Stakeholder meeting 2 Oct, Brussels12 COM commentary at IPP regular meeting, 2 Oct13 The European Stakeholder Meeting on Sustainable Consumption and Production held in Ostend, Belgium, November 24-26 200414 Parts of the summary are t aken from the FoE position paper on the SCP action plan S eptember 2007


14/31


14

outside the voluntary partnerships. However, such legisla-tion has not yet been proposed by the Commission.

This process is an interesting step towards EU controlson the extraction o natural resources rom outside the EU.

It has a clear link through to governance (e.g. how to de neand veri y legality), and it is binding i the country concer-ned decides to enter the process, which will give them thebene t o more access to EU unding and, importantly,the EU market (though there is no block on market accesswhere countries have not joined a voluntary partnership).

SAICMThe Strategic Approach to International ChemicalsManagement (SAICM) is a process initiated by the UNCEDJohannesburg meeting in 2002. It aims to increase the con-

trol o chemicals in a global context. A Global Plan o Actionwas agreed in 2006, which sets out a number o actions tobe carried out nationally and internationally to combatchemical pollution. SAICM has no binding or en orcementstatus, but gives a political context to push or actions onthe international level. For instance, stronger in ormationrequirements about toxic chemicals in the internationaltrade o products could be one objective or EUs workwithin SAICM. SAICM could also be a vehicle or EU topush or international measures to meet the requirementsset out in REACH.


15/31


15

4. Strategies/Scenarios investigated

The possible strategies and ways orward that were the ini-tial ocus o the investigation started rom a single enquirythat ocused more on the di erent models o ProducerResponsibility legislation. However as the scoping exerciseevolved some alternative policy tools/strategic options andelements emerged as important parts o the way orward.In particular the role o having non-energy (non-GHG)related targets and subsequently the concept o an EU TopRunner type tool. Thus the ollowing options emerged assummarising the possible strategies:

A. Expanding scope and more effective implementation of EuP This option means basically how to make more use o exis-ting eco-design instruments. Discussion circled aroundbetter implementation and possibilities to establish pro-

gressive criteria to drive the development, e g by ocusingmore on non-energy criteria (such as resource e ciency,toxicology criteria). A gradual expansion o scope by addingcertain non-energy using products, or instance energy saving products, possibly in the orm o a mirror directive,was also discussed.

B. Creating a General legislative framework for Eco-DesignDi erent models o producer responsibility (responsibility implementing measures or a general responsibility or allproducts and aspects an EEB model (see box on next page) or responsibility only in case an EU implementing mea-sure exists setting minimum requirements EuP model )

Several interviewees brought up the concept o introdu-cing legislation based on experiences rom the Top RunnerProgramme in Japan. Such an EU regime would supposedly use legislation to chase dynamic benchmarking; a best prac-tice benchmark would be identi ed and a time gap would benegotiated by when all players have to reach it as it will be-come a minimum by law. It was discussed how such a systemwould be designed in EU terms. In the ollowing chapters, we

will call this a Frontrunner benchmarking mechanism.

C. Making better use of other legislative instruments Under this item possibilities was discussed how to makebetter use o , and create better synergies between, already existing legislation with relevance to eco-design, such as:

Waste and producer responsibility legislation, recyclinglegislation and the waste ramework directive under revi-sion. Other aspects dealt with possibilities to expand e g theRoHS directive to other product sectors. Another legislationdiscussed that could drive product eco-design orward wasthe REACH regulation.

The points A-C are overlapping in scope, but give a con-ceptual division o actions. Based on the options, the inter-viewees were asked about i) the most desirable way(s) or-ward, disregarding political/administrative obstacles thatcould hinder accomplishment, and ii) the most adminis-

tratively/politically easible way orward. A second part o the interviews related to the use o environmental targets:

The Role of global environmental objectives or targets The EEB emphasised the important role o setting objectivesaround which the product legislation can base its work.Such objectives are critical to making a meaning ul processout o the legislation and actually ensuring action is takenon individual products. Existing energy targets (Kyoto andthe EUs energy e ciency targets) are important drivers ordevelopment under the EuP directive. These targets and thesubsequent work o the EU Climate Change Panel enableda precise prioritisation o the products that needed to beaddressed to deliver on the EUs commitments or increasedenergy e ciency or example.


16/31


16

The EEB proposal or an Environmentally Sound Products Directive

The main objectives of the EEB proposal for a directive on Environmentally Sound Products1 would be to establish a framework legislation that would:

1. Lay down the principal that all consumer products should be environmentally sound.(Note: this is the element of the proposal that we have assumed as creating the comprehensive producer responsibilisation. It is this element that would distinguish the EEB proposal from anEuP type of legislation, whereby producer liability or responsibility for eco-designaspects, or environmental soundness, is only effectively created once an Implementingmeasure has been adopted at EU level).

2. Make the integrated methodology2 and lifecycle approach to environmental soundnessa general requirement of product design and manufacture.

3. Establish general background requirements for environmentally sound products in theabsence of specific requirements. Namely requiring producers to publish ecological profilesof their products and future improvements to be reached and regularly evaluate progress.

4. Foresee the establishment of specific minimum criteria (minimum requirements) for environ-mentally sound products and deny market access to products not meeting the requirementsand /or producers who are not disclosing information on the significant environmentalimpacts of their products.

5. Require producers to supply life-cycle data on their products and foresee standardisation of the reporting of this data.

1 Full texts available on EEB website: http://www.eeb.org/activities /product_policy/EEB-working-document-Explanatory-memorandum-on-Sound-Products-June2004.pdf and here http: //www.eeb.org/activities /product_policy/Simulation-of-Sound-Products-directive-edited-June2004.pdf

2 i.e.integrating all the environmental aspects (water, air, materials, substances etc).


17/31


17

5. Findings and opportunities

Based on the interviews conducted and the two meetingswhere preliminary ndings were discussed the EEB NGOworkshop in Brussels on the 13 September 2007 and theSSNC stakeholder roundtable in Sweden on the 22 October2007 the ollowing is a summary o some o the keyfndings and observations o the current political landscapeand the policy tools and opportunities that are on thetable.

5.1 FindingsThe in ormation collected shows certain aspects and toolsare getting less attention, or seem to be o a lower priority and some tools and aspects are gett ing widespread atten-tion.

Issues getting less attentionThe General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) approachand the EEB model With some exceptions, interviewees did not see the method-ology applied in the product sa ety directive as a viable way

orward in the eld o eco-design. Arguments against thisapproach included; that the process is too reactive (notproactive); that the current template o the GPSD does notmake use o objectives that can motivate the setting o cri-teria towards achieving these objectives; that experts deal-ing with sa ety do not have su cient competence to dealwith environmental issues, and that contrary to productsa ety issues the de nitions and boundaries or what canshould be considered environmental sa e is quite vague.

The EEB simulation o an umbrella style environmen-tally sound product directive based on a similar concep-tual structure to the GPSD was seen as having weaknesseson the same ground, even though the proposal improves

on the GPSD model (adds clear objectives and oresees EuPstyle Implementing Measures instead o only setting essen-tial requirements to then be speci ed using harmonisedstandards). There was some recognition that such a com-

prehensive umbrella model would bring some bene ts (set-ting a comprehensive ramework that oresee a number o unctions other than just setting minimum requirements

in ormation requirements and in ormation standardisa-tion, synergistic coordination between existing tools, pro-viding a mechanism or member states to demand act ionon a new product i they have new evidence that would war-rant it etc) but in general there was little understanding/awareness among respondents concerning the EEB initia-tive. It was also pointed out that such a comprehensive po-licy was not the way that the EC traditionally approached

environmental legislation, tending to have instead a morepiecemeal or individual sector ocused approaches. Therewas also some scepticism as to the capacity o EU policiesto create e ective coordination between di erent toolsgiven poor per ormance o e orts to do so in the past (egattempts to link innovation policy and product policy wereapparently not a success).

Producer Responsibility With the exception o some industry respondents romsectors addressed by the WEEE directive and its individualproducer responsibility requirements, very ew respondentsmentioned the need or possibility o using producer respon-sibility 15 tools. Those that did mention it saw it as playingmore o a role in the end-o -li e phase (i.e. producer respon-sibility or more types o waste),i.e. not as a generic eco-design driver or other li e phases.

15 By producer responsibility we mean ... a policy principle to promote total life cycle environmental improvements of product systems by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturerof the product to various parts of the products life cycle, and especially to the take-back, recovery and final disposal of the product (Lindhqvist, 2000) .


18/31


1

Information requirements Given the authors perception that in ormation about pro-duct per ormance is important as a driver or the establish-ment o binding requirements or voluntary criteria on pro-

ducts, and given that without su cient in ormation infuxon products it becomes di cult to do anything, it was some-what surprising to see that this aspect was not raised moreby interviewees. Especially given the situation that the areao product in ormation requirements was the only legisla-tive request that came out o the IPP WG processes. 16 REACH can be taken as an example o the importance givento the potential impact o in ormation requirements: al-though the regulation or most producers is restricted to

ew data requirements, it is driving producers to take broa-der actions, and take increased responsibility or their pro-

ducts.Industry did express ears that in ormation will be re-

quested without clear intentions or its use, and that thiswill just generate work or industry without delivering be-ne ts.

Issues getting more attentionGrowing readiness to introduce new legislative elements? There is increasing acceptance among key stakeholders tohave new legislative elements introduced in the producteco-design area. What these new elements would entail isstil l very open. The discussion is not mature enough to eva-luate what kind o producer responsibility model would besupported or not.

The serious consideration being given to the possibility o introducing new legislative measures by the EUCommission is somewhat contrasted by the lack o clearvoices o encouragement or a legislative measure romother actors, who seem to be more inclined towards instru-

ments based on so ter approaches, such as in ormationgathering and indirect mechanisms such as public procure-ment. This could however simply be because the Commis-sion has not been very clear yet in its communication about

the possibility o a legislative proposal. The various stake-holders positions and discussions are still refecting theprevious reality whereby the Commission was showinglittle appetite or legislative action instead concentrating onnon-legislative consultative and research actions (as illu-strated by the implementation steps taken under the IPPstrategy e.g. working groups on strategies, reporting or-mats, indicators and LC data collection act ivities).

However, regarding the very so t approaches such assectorial or product related voluntary agreements there ap-pears to be some loss o credibility as an instrument o EU

level policy. Despite the mechanism whereby the EC may sanction industry proposed voluntary agreements as parto the process o setting EuP implementing measures nonehave been put orward by any industry sector so ar. Somesectors are in act pulling out o existing initiatives orexample CECED (the European home appliances sector

ederation) recently declared its intentions to stop its ownexisting voluntary agreements on energy e ciency 17. Thereis also widespread criticism o the inability o the car indu-stry to be on track to meeting its voluntary agreed objectiveo reducing CO2 emissions to an average o 140 grams perkm by 2008 resulting in intentions or legislative proposalsto the same e ect rom the European Commission.

Linking up current product policy tools Some interviewees emphasised the importance o a newinitiative having a link ing role between the di erent policy tools e.g. making use o in ormation and/or criteria romdi erent policy tools (e.g. criteria rom existing ecolabels

16 see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/20070115_report.pdf 17 Top Executives Discontinue Voluntary Energy Efficiency Agreements for Large Appliances. CECED Press release 21 March 2007


19/31


1

to be used in green public procurement or or setting toprunner criteria or example). Hence it is clear that there isawareness o the possibility o a number o parallel andinter-linked initiatives and especially those involving

Ecolabel criteria, greening o procurement and top runnerinnovation stimulating criteria.

Two visions expansion of EuP or new legislationSome actors oresee an eventual expansion o the currentEcodesign or Energy Using Products Directive (EuP) di-rective methodology, by adding energy saving products ( orinstance insulation products). Concerning expansion o thecurrent EuP directive (i.e. revision o its scope to other pro-ducts than energy using products) there was concern thatthis would delay the implementation o setting the energy

e ciency requirements.Some interviewees saw expansion was more likely

through a new directive that mirrors the EuP one. Howeverseveral respondents noted that such a development is ham-pered by the act that the existing EuP directive is still newand that no implementing measures have yet been adoptedand there are some concerns about broadening the workbe ore any results have been obtained.

Several interviewees mentioned that it would be di cultto break away completely rom the EuP model ( or exampleto a broader ramework e.g. more along the line o the EEBumbrella directive model) or a variety o reasons, amongwhich they named the EuPs pragmatism, the act that it canassumed to be a (partly) proven model, its ocused scope toone sector o products EEE (instead o a broad all-en-compassing scope that a broader ramework might entail)is the traditional policy development approach o theCommission (i.e. piecemeal).

Some key ingredients of new legislationMany comments ocused instead on the mechanisms an

eventual new legislative tool should contain rather thanwhether it should be a revision o EuP or sister directive or

broader ramework. Examples o important mechanismsthat were identi ed were: a systematic assessment process i.e. periodical scan-

ning o products on the market or which it would be

necessary to set criteria, concerning a part icular envi-ronmental aspect e.g. water e ciency, chemicals the setting o minimum requirements compliance checking mechanisms (requiring resources

rom member states) setting o top runner levels or lead per ormance levels to

drive innovation towards more ambitious e ciency,beyond minimum requirements

possibility o ramework that allows national autho-rities to request action rom EU level on a particularproduct and impact identi ed by studies

desirable to capture the products de ned to givesigni cant environmental burden, i.e. those that werede ned by the EIPRO study. In particular dairy products and meat need to be dealt with.

it is necessary to limit the scope to a number o product sectors

Lack of innovation drivers There is requently discussion about how to go beyond thedelivery o (presumed to be) modest minimum requirementswhich are e ectively aimed at only getting rid o the worstper orming products and get into the realm o actually push-ing innovation (possibly hence the support or top-runnerstyle dynamic benchmarks lead per ormance criteria).

The concept o dynamic benchmarking (also calledthe setting o lead per ormance levels) has infuentialproponents, both inside the Commission and among mem-ber states. The concept is interpreted as a system wherebenchmarks are set based on the best per ormance withina product segment, making this level obligatory or all pro-ducers a ter a certain time. Benchmarks could be inspired

or directly linked to eco labelling criteria. They could be setthrough completely new legislation or developed as an add-


20/31


20

on mechanism o the energy labelling directive.Many re er to the Japanese Top runner Programme as

the inspirat ion or such a system in EU. However, the know-ledge about how this system is actually constructed, and its

results, is weak. Also unclear is how applicable the Japaneseexperiences are to the EU situation.The momentum to introduce an EU Top Runner model

comes partially rom German interest. Two di erent mo-dels have been raised so ar: Adding an additional classi cation to the energy label

that would identi y the lead per ormance level andsetting this as a dynamic benchmark, setting a dateby which it would become obligatory by law

A new piece o legislation that would work on non-ener-gy benchmarking as well. Possibly li ting criteria rom

existing eco-labels, or developing them where they donot exist e.g. on water e ciency or material e ciency.

Both would intend to make use o Public Procurement com-mitments (e.g. national targets o X% GPP that could usethese benchmarks as a basis or criteria de ning what GPPshould mean or a particular product. Both could be usedto apply scal and nancial incentives VAT reductions,subsidies etc.

Future of EU ecolabelling scheme.It is notable that there was little recognition o the EUEcolabel as an innovation driver ( or example in the contexto the need or a top runner type mechanism. The ocus onthe Ecolabel scheme was mostly its potential role in provi-ding criteria that could be used by GPP national initiatives.One interviewee saw a possibility to adapt the EU Ecolabelcriteria (alongside use o other national ecolabelling crite-ria) to set top runner type requirements. There was not

much concern about any risks to the Ecolabel scheme romthe development o new initiat ives such as Top runner styletools. Some o the industry interviewees were more inter-ested in B2B ecolabelling.

Predominance of Energy and climate issues The predominance o greenhouse gas emissions reductionsand there ore energy e cient products as an overridingpriority driving the implementation o the EuP directivewas noted by many interviewees and con rmed in the inter-views with the relevant Commission sta . As a result many stakeholders recognised that there is clearly a need or some-thing independent on Ecodesign concerning non-energy issues and a general trend o scepticism that the implemen-tation o the EuP directive could be signi cantly re- ocused

to address equally non-energy issues e.g. water or resourcee ciency.

Recent political scandals around toxic chemicals in toysand textiles imported rom China have however raised con-cern or urther measures on toxic chemicals in products. Theevents have or instance infuenced the Commission to sug-gest a ban o CMR substances through the toys directive.

Environmental objective setting resource targets on the table Whilst there is in general low preparedness to introduce andapply environmental objectives beyond existing energy tar-gets in legislation. The Ljubljana workshop 18 conclusionsrecon rmed a political push or setting urther resourcetargets (i.e. beyond those in the Natural Resource ThematicStrategy). While we noted some interest to set targets orcertain resource uses (such as water, tropical timber, and

sh stocks) no attempts has been made to concretize thesetargets. For other targets, such as use o toxic substances,

18 EU workshop on Action towards SCP in Europe, held 27-29 September 2007


21/31


21

the discussions seem even more immature. We noted thatthe EU Commission is also apparently investigating howthe ootprint methodology could be improved to work as ameta-indicator.

Concerns over the impacts of administrative ownershipin the CommissionOn issues o administrative ownership several intervieweesmentioned that it would not be a good idea to let DGs otherthan DG Environment have the lead on a general ecodesign

ramework due to a perceived lack o political prioritisationo the environmental priorities, beyond perhaps, energy.This was backed up to a certain extent by the clear absenceo ideas rom DGs other than DG Environment as to howto develop eco-design requirement setting on the non-

energy issues (note: some other DGs did see a role orbenchmarking on non-energy issues).

Concern over New Approach implications There is some concern about the implications o theCommissions latest proposal (currently in rst reading inthe European Parliament) to establish the New Approachas a de ault approach in product policy (ie the approach thatrelies heavily on standards set by private standardisationbodies). This could theoretically limit the possibility or

urther EuP style legislation (i.e. legislative measures oneach product setting minimum requirements).

International and global perspectives For several interviewees WTO objections on ecodesigncriteria as barriers to trade is seen as a hurdle to setting urthermarket access requirements on products. However there areprecedents o product criteria that initially raised WTO con-cerns but the legislation was adopted by the EU anyway. RoHson EEE (restriction o hazardous substances in electrical andelectronic equipment) is one such example.

Concerning International activities some stakeholders(mostly coming rom a chemicals background) alerted that

there are certain opportunities in the SACIM Plan o Actionthat could be used to push both EU initiatives and globalinitiatives e.g. better in ormation on products in interna-tional trade in general.

Other NGOs such as FoE suggested that the FLEGT sys-tem o mixed Voluntary/regulative Partnership Agreementson Forest Products could be expanded to other products(especially highly destructive commodities including un-sustainably produced agro- uels, ossil uels, meat and ani-mal eed). However, they also pointed out the act that newlegislation at the EU level to complement FLEGT PartnershipAgreements is necessary (i.e. to completely exclude illegaltimber rom entering the European market coupled withurgent action to establish mandatory traceability labell ing

or timber products).

5.2 OpportunitiesBased on the above ndings and observations, we see opp-ortunities or urther work in the ollowing areas:

1. Pushing for the creation of new (framework) legislationon product eco-designThe Commissions orthcoming action plan(s) on SCP/SIPis likely to include wording on preparation o an eco-design

ramework concept. Whether this wil l result in a proposalor a new legislat ive ramework, or merely revise and adapt

existing laws, it is still unclear. However, our suspicion isthat the Commission could be persuaded to continue withits work on new legislative elements and interviews con r-med that there is some member state interest, although thisinterest varies considerably as to the precise aim o the le-gislation. Much wil l depend on the positions taken by therest o the member states and it would probably help to seea stronger discussion among member states on i and whatkind o legislation they would like to see.

Likewise, i the Commission is seriously considering

such legislation, then this is the right time or it to come withproactive and concrete suggestions on how to design such


22/31


22

legislation, how comprehensive it should be and possibly even how to address the speci c products prioritised by theEIPRO study or example meat and dairy.

2. Use of gap analysis to define new areas for measures.Comparison o the maturity (variety o types o politicalinstruments i.e. just minimum requirements or also volun-tary and binding benchmarks and dynamic tools) and scopeo legislation in some sectors such as electrical and electro-nic equipment with other product sectors shows the gaps inexisting product policies. The gap analysis done in this reportis o a very preliminary and super cial nature. A much deeperand more comprehensive analysis could build a strong argu-ment or well ocused product legislation. This could be coup-led to active use o the EIPRO conclusions to de ne priority

areas or new legislative and other measures. The gap analysiscould also ocus on the lack o innovation drivers (as opposedto minimum requirements gett ing rid o the worst products)in the EU tool box and look speci cally at the coverage o di erent product segments.

3. Proposing specific parameters for building a lead performance or dynamic benchmarking system There is considerable interest in a dynamic or lead per or-mance benchmarking system along the lines o the Japanesetop runner approach to push innovation beyond minimumrequirements. The rst EuP working document (on fuore-scent lamps) is now published. This document identi es somebest benchmarks, although no mechanism to make expressuse o these benchmarks is provided. Given the high level o interest in this concept there is an opportunity and need tode ne the parameters o what such a lead per ormancebenchmarking system could look like in an EU context. Thiscould help the discussion on its pros and cons to become moreconcrete. It is also to provide an early warning or any prob-lems such a system could lead to e.g. duplication o existing

tools e.g. EU Ecolabel, distraction rom the necessity to getrid o the worst products (minimum requirements).

4. Making use of the EU Ecolabel regulation revisionThere would appear to be a general perception that the EUEcolabel has not had the impact it should or could have.However, given a revised proposal o the regulation is ex-

pected spring 2008 alongside the presentation o the SCPaction plan there is theoretically an opportunity to add toprunner mechanisms to the Ecolabel Regulation (i.e. makingvoluntary criteria binding a ter a period o time) or adaptthe regulation to speci cally generated criteria or GPP. Inthe case o adapting the Ecolabel Regulation to per orm Toprunner unctions, developing a set o parameters that wouldsa eguard the EU Ecolabels other voluntary lead per or-mance unctions, or at least the ambition level o theEcolabel criteria would be use ul. These would predictably come under increased pressure to be less ambitious i it is

clear that they wil l turn into binding requirements a ter acertain period o time. The EU Ecolabel aces the same pres-sure should it be clearly used or setting GPP criteria.

5. Making use of political momentum caused by the Chinese toxic toys scandals The current political scandals around toxic chemicals intoys and textiles imported rom China (most recently or-cing manu acturer Mattel to product withdrawals) couldprovide political momentum or urther steps on EU res-trictions and en orcement concerning product sa ety. Theevents have infuenced the Commission to suggest a ban o CMR substances through the toys directive. The establish-ment o an en orcement agency seems to be an achievablegoal. It could also create a discussion on the necessity orthe expansion o RoHS EEE type restrictions on otherproducts such as textiles.

6. Exploring the necessity to have product information avenue There is already some thinking going on about how to in-

crease the in ormation available to consumers on products,or example the KEMI (SE) is developing research in this


23/31


2

area. At the same time the EC IPP Working group onProduct In ormation Strategies speci cally called orstronger action in this area. There could be some urtherassessment o di erent legislative approaches REACH,

Norwegian right to in ormation model, cosmetics directivesamong others.

7. Assessment of the delivery of the IPP strategy to date Due to the ocus on a new policy process the Marrakechprocess and the SCP action plan the delivery (or lack o it)o the IPP strategy implementation has been rather orgot-ten. An assessment o stakeholders and authorities opinionson this ront would perhaps help to provide clear politicalmomentum or some urther policy actions

8. Investigating and overviewing Best available legislation internationally When acting or strengthened legislation, proven e ciency o legislation rom other countries can be a very valuabletool. By doing research on, and compare, existing legisla-tion, it might be possible to point out best available legis-lation. (Compare to concept o Best Available Technology)A comparison between chemical laws in US, Canada andthe EU has e.g. been conducted by the NGO EnvironmentalDe ence in US. The report19 can serve as an inspiration oran analysis into the eld o eco-design legislation. Exerciseso this nature have been done in the consultation leading upto the revision o the EU Ecolabel Regulation, but we are notaware o a similar targeted EU exercise on product eco-de-sign legislation.

9. Commission Communication on Resource Targets I the logic that any new initiative to orce products to gogreen will only work with a ramework o targets on re-source e ciency alongside hazardous chemicals priorities

and energy e ciency priorities then giving evidence basedinput to the Commissions work on a possible newCommunication on Resource targets is an important oppor-tunity.

19 Denison, R: Not That Innocent a comparative analysis of Canadian, European union and United States policies on industrial chemicals;Environmental Defence, April 2007


24/31


24

The points A-C below are overlapping in scope, but give aconceptual division o actions. Based on the options, whatare i) the most desirable way(s) orward, disregarding poli-tical/administrative obstacles that could hinder accom-plishment, and ii) the most administratively/politically

easible way orward?

A. Expanding scope and effective implementation of EuP (expanding use of existing eco-design instruments) Making sure progressive criteria are established to

drive the development (just implementing what wehave)

Adding more ocus on non-energy criteria (inparticular resource e ciency, toxicology criteria)

Adding energy saving products (requires a mirrordirective?)

Adding non-energy using products (mirror directive)

B. Creating a General legislative framework for Eco-Design The EEB proposal or an Environmentally Sound

Product Directive Di erent models o producer responsibil ity (respon-

sibility just or implementing measures or a generalresponsibility or all products and aspects)

Environmental target setting to rame/drive non-energy criteria setting and product prioritisation

Possible use o dynamic benchmarking [Leadper ormance benchmarking, an EU version o Top Runner mechanism]

C. Making better use of other legislative instruments Waste and producer responsibil ity Waste stream

recycling legislation / Waste Framework Directive RoHS, IPR, etc expanding model to other product

sectors Other legislation that could drive the development

orward (e g REACH, Construction Products

Directive)?

Use o environmental targets: Exist ing energy targets(Kyoto and EUs energy e ciency targets) are importantdrivers or development under the EuP directive. However,there is a lack o similar clear objectives or other environ-mental issues, such as resource use and toxicity.

How can new and existing environmental objectivesbe established to drive the setting o minimum require-ments?

Which targets can be used or non-energy objectives? How can targets be integrated into a new ramework di-

rective?

Annex 1: Questionnaire


25/31


25

Annex 2: List of interviewees

EU CommissionAnne France Woestyn, Bettina Lorz, DG EnvironmentPierre Henry, ETAP, DG EnvironmentDaniel Deybe, DG EnterpriseRobert Nuij, DG SANCO

NGOs Doreen Fedrigo, EEBFranz Fiala, Austrian Consumers OrganisationMichael Warhurst, FoESylvia Lorek, ANPED

Industry Viktor Sundberg, ElectroluxDanielle Freilich, Fed. o Swedish ConstructionIndustries

Academics / Experts Freider Rubik,IOW, Germany Ludwig Kramer EU lawyer/lecturerNaoko Tojo, iiiee, SwedenTomas Lindquist,iiieee, Sweden

Member states Ul Jaekel, MoE, Germany The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI)Bengt Davidsson, Swedish EPAJohanna Lissinger Peitz, MoE, SwedenGunilla Blomquist, MoE, SwedenBob Ryder, De ra, UK

Round table meeting, Stockholm 22 Oct, 2007 Participants:Bengt Elenius, Swedish Consumer Agency Per Bergman, Swedish Chemicals Agency Gunilla Blomquist, Ministry o Environment

Anne-Marie Johansson, Swedish Chemicals Agency Bengt Davidsson, Swedish EPAJohanna Lissinger Peitz, Ministry o EnvironmentPr Lindahl, Ministry o Enterprise, Energy andCommunicationsMona Blomdin Persson, Swedish Chemicals Agency Jan Berto t, Swedish Consumers OrganisationCarl Dalhammar, The International Institute orIndustrial Environmental Economics, Lund University Mikael Karlsson, Swedish Society or NatureConservation

Eva Eiderstrm, Swedish Society or Nature ConservationEmma Lindberg, Swedish Society or NatureConservationPer Rosander, EnviroActionViktor Sundberg, ElectroluxTomas Dahlman, Electrolux


26/31


26

Ecodesign of Energy Using Products (EuP) Directive 20

Other energy performance directives The EuP (2005/32) directive is currently being implemen-ted. The Directive sets up two procedures to requirements

on products that have been identi ed as requiring action.The rst is a generic procedure whereby measures are adop-ted by the Commission without setting limit values, but itshould (obligatory) require manu acturers to per orm LCAsand compare the resulting ecological pro le to a benchmarkde ned by the Commission. It may also set certain in or-mation requirements. The second is a procedure or settingspeci c requirements- or example minimum (precise andquanti ed) energy per ormance requirements. Both canresult in the Commission publishing so ca lled implemen-ting measures (IM) in the orm o a Commission Decision

that will restrict access to the EU market or products thatdo not respect the requirements.

A DG Enterprise methodological study was done in200521 and studies to asses the most signi cant potentials

or improvement are being undertaken on 15 products withanother ve to be started in 2007 22. The DGs responsible orimplementation are DG TREN (lead) and DG ENT (sup-port), thus the political emphasis is very much on the astdelivery o some IMs sett ing energy per ormance require-ments (most likely based on the Least Li eCycle Cost method-ology i.e. including use phase energy per ormance) aboveother environmental requirements. No consultation orummeeting has yet been convened to discuss speci c IMs on aspeci c product. 23

There are also a speci c energy per ormance directivethat impact design on boilers, ridges and reezers and

fuorescent lighting ballasts. These have been incorporatedas into the EuP as IMs. The theoretical revision date or theEuP directive is July 2010.

The energy labelling o appliances directive24, is appa-

rently also under scrutiny or potential review or revision or rather adaptation to new needs or promoting ecode-sign. All 8 categories o products (household appliances)covered have their own Commission directives establishingthe label requirements. The labelling appliances (mother)directive and the (daughter) Commission directives do nothave automatic revision dates so there is no xed timetable

or their revision.Via an agreement between the USA and the EU the use o

the American Energy Star voluntary label ( or o ce applian-ces computers, computer monitors, photocopiers, printers,

digital duplicators, axes, ranking machines, multi unctiondevices and scanners.) is also regulated in the EU. This agre-ement was renewed December 2006 or ve years. The en-ergy star agreement unctions separately rom the energy appliances labelling and the EuP directive however.

The directive on energy per ormance o buildings 25 set(some) minimum standards and creates obligatory cert i -cation or the energy per ormance o new and renovatedbuildings.- General Product Safety Directive, GPSD (evaluation)- The New Approach Directive (revision)- The Toys Safety Directive (revision)

There is an ongoing review o the GPSD but a revision as aresult o this is not oreseen. The scrutinized issues has todo with implementation surveillance and en orcement.

Annex 3: Product design relevantDirectives and Regulations

20 Directive 2005/32/EC21 MEEUP study, see http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/eco_design/f inalreport1.pdf 22 The first meeting of the Consultation Forum was convened in June 07 (working document on public street lighting discussed).

Next meeting foreseen f or 19 Oct (working document on standby to be discussed).23 After the discussions on working documents impact assessment studies are due to be launched on the preferred policy options, to be followed by drafting

of an actual IM after internal EC inter-service consultation. Submission to other bodies like WTO is also fores een. Publication of the first IMs are aiming for end 200 8.24 Directive 92/75/EEC25 Directive 2002/91/EC


27/31


27

There is no thinking in the relevant DG (SANCO) as to therevision o the GPSD to include product environmentalsa ety (ie environmental soundness).

The Commission (DG ENT as lead DG) has proposed a

new package o measures intended to strengthen the rame-work within which the goods are manu actured and traded,building upon existing mechanisms, to ensure that sa eproducts circulate. The package consists o the ollowingmain elements: Regulations a) setting out the requirements (rules

or Member States) or accreditation and marketsurveillance relating to the marketing o products 26 andb) on the application o certain national technical rules(ie not covered by EC legislation) to products law ully marketed in another Member State and repealing

Decision 3052/95/EC Decision on a common ramework or the marketing o

products 27 This decision constitutes a common legalramework or uture legislation on industrial products.

There is some concern among NGOs that this common rame-work might be interpreted as a requirement that the NewApproach (delegation o technical criteria to private standard-isation bodies) act as the model or any uture regulation inthe product eld (covering not only sa ety but also othersubjects such as health and environment). This could be un-derstood as a step towards the New Approach becoming themodel or any rulemaking in uture (e.g. in the services eld).This could pre-empt a shi t o relevant decision making romthe political level to private almost entirely industry control-led bodies. Obviously, this wouldnt be acceptable rom apublic interest and environmental perspective.

The Commission will propose a revision o the toys sa ety directive by the end o the year. According to media reports,the revision wil l propose banning carcinogenic, mutagenicand reprotoxic (CMR) substances in toys. According to EU

o cials28

, it has not yet been decided whether, or to whatextent, the law will move away rom the New approachdomain into product regulation.

- European Eco labelling directive (Revision) A Commission proposal o a revised EU Ecolabel directiveis expected in April 2008. The revision o the Ecolabel donot oresee that the basic role o the Ecolabel wi ll change i.e. a voluntary label o excellence (although its ambitionlevel is contested by NGOs). Revision is most likely to ocuson resources and procedural issues i.e. outsourcing o the

scheme to run the scheme as much as possible outside theCommission services, try to increase the budget available

or implementing background studies etcOverall the key elements o the revision are: a mechanism

or selecting priority product groups, more e cient processor developing Eco-label criteria, a fexible decision-making

process involving stakeholders and simpli cation o theoperation o the scheme. It is possible that the revision wil l

oresee a wider product policy ramework within which itwill sit and it wil l make re erence to this ramework some-how. The issue o how this ramework resolves the Ecolabelsaccess to product per ormance/ingredients data is relevantto the Ecolabel being able to set credible criteria on someproduct groups (e.g. recently the detergents industry set upa boycott on national detergent companies giving theEcolabel their product ormulations to prevent strict crite-ria setting.)

26 COM(2007) 37 final27 COM(2007) 53 final28 ENDS Europe Daily, 4 Oct 2007


28/31


2

- The REACH Regulation (implementation) - The Restrictions Directive 29 (replacement by REACH)) REACH entered into orce on 1 June 2007. The regulation setsrequirements primarily or individual chemicals and mix-tures/preparations. Its implications on products (= articlesin REACH terminology 30) are mainly indirect: As individual

chemicals become subject to REACH requirements (like test-ing or hazardous properties and exposure reporting or va-rious uses), the chemicals in EU-made products will gradu-ally become better known and controlled. 31

Beyond this notion, chemicals in products are in generalnot covered by REACH. However, REACH does introducecertain requirements on the suppliers o products. For in-stance, there exists an obligation to give in ormation aboutwhich Substances o Very High Concern (SVHC) are inclu-ded in a product. This right-to-know is primarily grantingin o to pro essional users o the product, while general con-

sumers wil l only be given in ormation upon request. Thisis obviously ar away rom any ormal eco-design require-ments, but could indirectly a ect product design; when in obecomes publicly available on the content o product, it willincrease the incentive or manu acturers and importers toeliminate hazardous substances. Su cient in o should beprovided to assure a sa e use o the product, at a minimumthe name o the chemical. 32

This requirement will become mandatory around 2009-2010, but might initially only cover about 100 SVHC. Thenumber o substances is likely to grow as more SVHCs arede ned and listed.

The restrictions directive is currently the main legalentity or restrictions to the marketing o hazardous sub-stances. For instance, all carcinogenic, mutagenic andrepro-toxic substances in category 1&2 are banned in chemi-

cal products or sale to individual consumers. REACH in-corporate much o the content o the Restrictions directiveand the latter wil l hence be removed 1 June 2009. Its unclearwhat impact the Restriction Procedure (RP) in REACH willhave.

- The RoHS Directive (review) A review o the directive was launched in March 2007. TheCommission has stated that the review is aimed at increa-sing the environmental bene t, removing the implementa-tion and en orcement problems and making the directivecost-e ective. Legislative proposals will be tabled in 2008and the new rules should be in place around 2010, accordingto the plan.

Among changes being considered are extending thedirective to other hazardous substances and materials andother product sectors such as medical equipment. The com-

mission is also considering how RoHS and WEEE directivecan be more clearly separated to prevent signi cant incon-sistencies and administrative costs.

The ban on dangerous substances could be extended toother chemicals. Other possible changes include modi edexemption criteria that would allow rms to claim a waiver

rom the ban i they can prove substitutes would be toocostly.

- Waste framework directive (revision) There are various direct and indirect eco-design driverscoming rom the area o waste legislation.

Specifc waste /product directives (such as on cars,packaging, electronics and batteries). The most speci crequirements are to do with the phasing out o heavy metals(packaging, cars electronics and batteries) and POPs (elec-

29 76/769/EEC30 i e an object which

forcing products to be green?

Documents