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

1. EU activities in the "area" of labeling: The EU Ecolabel and Environmental Footprint Dr Michele GalatolaProduct Team Leader DG Environment – Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit

2. Content • The EU Ecolabel • Revision process of Ecolabel criteria for textiles • The current work on Environmental Footprint • Possible future scenarios

3. Established in 1992 • New Regulation 66/2010 on EU Ecolabel • Voluntary scheme aiming at promoting the products with a lower environmental impact • Multi-criteria (pass/fail) • Criteria are mainly based on Life Cycle Assessment studies • Third party verified

4. The EU Ecolabel today • - 26 establishedproduct groups • - New criteriarecentlyvoted • Newsprintpaper • Printedpaper • - New criteriaunderdevelopment • Laundry detergents for professional use • Automaticdishwasherdetergents for professional use • Office buildings • Hydronic central heatinggenerators • Imaging equipment • Sanitaryproducts • Taps and showerheads • Toilets and Urinals • Convertedpaper - Criteriaunderrevision Textiles, Bedmattresses, Paint and varnishes, Soaps and shampoos, Light sources, Heatpumps)

5. Evolution of the N of EU Ecolabel licences

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

7. Coordinated Workplan GPP + Ecolabel

8. Revision of European Ecolabel Criteria for Textile products

9. Scope The following are not covered by the criteria: • Furniture upholstery • Wall and floor coverings • Fabrics and that form part of structures intended for use outdoors • Single use products Fillings made of fibre covered by the EU Ecolabel should fulfill the relevant fibre criteria

11. Priority areas based on overall LCA findings

12. Further issues identified for considerationSpecific substances and treatments • Hazardous substances: To be restricted according to Article 6 (Paragraphs 6 and 7) of the Ecolabel Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 • Phthalates: Plasticisers which can act as endocrine disrupters require further consideration following REACH updates. • Flame retardants: Feedback from stakeholders and updates of the REACH candidate list require a revision. • Nano-silver: There is emerging evidence of risks associated with nano-silver surface coatings and treatments.

13. Proposed new criteria areas • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) criteria • Environmental management, social codes of conduct • Ecodesign improvements • Design for durability, recycling systems • Consumer labelling • Energy saving advice, Air freight

14. Follow-up contacts Oliver Wolf Tel +34 954 48 82 96 e-mail xxxxxx.xxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx Nicholas Dodd Tel. +34 954 48 84 86  e-mail xxxxxxxx.xxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx Mauro Cordella Tel. +34 954 48 05 78  e-mail xxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit Edificio EXPO C/ Inca Garcilaso 3 41092 Sevilla, SPAIN

15. Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint

16. Problemdefinition Lack of a level playing field, fragmentation of the markets on methods for reporting environmental performance of products (including both good and service) and companies. Confusion in the market on how to measure, make and understand a claim on the environmental performance of products and companies (leading to misleading claims, unfair commercial practices and greenwashing). Lack of multi-criteria environmental information covering the entire value chain makes it difficult for companies to tackle risks of scarcity of resources and volatility of resource-prices and therefore deliver significant cost reductions. Lack of reliable information is impeding full potential of green markets and growth

17. The policy mandate Single Market Act Proposal No 10: Before 2012, the Commission will look into the feasibility of an initiative on the Environmental Footprint of Products to address the issue of the environmental impact of products, including carbon emissions. The initiative will explore possibilities for establishing a common European methodology to assess and label them. Council Conclusions 20 December 2010 The Council invites the Commission to “develop a common methodology on the quantitative assessment of environmental impacts of products, throughout their life-cycle, in order to support the assessment and labelling of products” Resource Efficiency Roadmap – 20 September 2011 • Establish a common methodological approach to enable Member States and the private sector to assess, display and benchmark the environmental performance of products, services and companies based on a comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts over the life-cycle ('environmental footprint') (in 2012); • Ensure better understanding of consumer behaviour and provide better information on the environmental footprints of products, including preventing the use of misleading claims, and refining eco-labelling schemes (in 2012);

18. Objectives • Build on existing methods • Be applicable without having to consult a series of other documents (a ‘stand-alone’ document) • Provide comprehensive evaluation along the entire life cycle (upstream and downstream) • Provide comprehensive coverage of potential environmental impacts (no ‘single issue’ method) • Ensure comparability, e.g. of different products on the shelf

19. Comparability Ensure comparability, e.g. of different products on the shelf • High level of technical detail (balance with comprehensibility) • High level of prescriptiveness • Prioritiseconsistency over flexibility Note: Much of the feedback/criticism received from consultation and pilot studies (see next point) is linked to approaches that have been taken to fulfill those objectives, especially the objective of ensuring comparability.

20. Analyisis of existing methods • Organisations • ISO 14064 (International) • Bilan Carbone (France) • DEFRA guide (UK) • CDP Water footprint (International) • WBCSD/WRI (International) • GRI (International) • Products • ISO 14044 (International) • ISO 14067 (International) • ILCD (EC) • BP X 30 (France) • PAS 2050 (UK) • Ecological footprint (International) • WBCSD/WRI (International)

21. Variability vs detail of guidance • Increasing consistency • Increasing reproducibility • Increasing comparability • Less expert knowledge required, less cost • Easier to apply ILCD: International Reference Life Cycle Data System PFCR: Product Footprint Category RuleOFSR: Organisation Footprint Sector Rule

22. Timelines Product Environmental footprint Organisation Environmental footprint March 2011 Analysis of existing methodologies June 2011 September 2011 Draft methodology guides July 2011 September 2011 Start of pilot tests 13-15 July 2011 19-20 Oct 2011 Training on methodology 28-30 November 2011 Invited Stakeholder Meeting December 2011 February 2012 Pilot tests concluded Stakeholder consultation on the policy options January 2011 – April 2012 Final methodological guides (internal) June 2012

23. Roadtesting Products Corporate • Food and drinks • Retailers (different products) • Construction • Chemicals • ICT • Footwear • Paper • Televisions • Food, feed and drinks • Retailers • Public Administrations • Energy production • ICT • Water services • Paper • Mining • Chemicals

24. Main feedback • Needs for simplification (but not simplified approaches) • The importance of sector-specific/ product group-specific approach, taking into account existing Product Category Rules or Sectoral Rules • Availability and quality of life cycle data • Review/verification requirements • The importance of international coordination

25. Possible future scenarios

26. Policy options Business as usual - no policy change PEF as methodological basis of a New policy framework for all EU product policies PEF as methodological basis of New EU Ecolabel and GPP tools PEF as methodological basis of existing EU Ecolabel tool PEF as methodological basis of a new voluntary scheme for product benchmarking and communication of environmental performance

27. A comparison based on the exact rules agreed in the PFCR is possible (if needed) YES vs. Is there already a PFCR? NO A PFCR for “fruit” is necessary • Definition of the product category • Definition of the average product • Screening study based on PEF requirements • Identification of the most relevant life cycle stages • Identification of the 3 most relevant impacts • Definition of benchmark values and, if necessary, values for a grade system • Allocation rules • Definition of data quality requirements • Scenario for the use and end-of-life (where relevant) • Other methodological tailored choice relevant for the “fruit” product category YES Do you want to compare it to another fruit? Multi-stakeholder process NO The apple producer will have to take (and report transparently) on a number of methodological choices A study based on the PEF methodology is necessary • Identification of the product • Identification of the most relevant life cycle stages • Identification of the 3 most relevant impacts • Allocation rules • Report on data quality requirements • Scenario for the use and end-of-life (where relevant) • Other methodological tailored choice relevant for its product • Review information Environmental impacts E Water Resources Climate Verified by … 2012

28. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION ! For any further information http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/product_footprint.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/corporate_footprint.htm xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx