1 / 42

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Performance, credibility, transparency . EMAS REVISION – PROPOSAL 29 JUNE 2006 – ARTICLE 14 MTG - LUXEMBOURG. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW . 1) TIMING. 2) EVALUATION. 3) SCENARIOS . 4) DETAILED PROPOSAL .

graham
Download Presentation

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme Performance, credibility, transparency EMAS REVISION – PROPOSAL 29 JUNE 2006 – ARTICLE 14 MTG - LUXEMBOURG

  2. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW 1) TIMING 2) EVALUATION 3) SCENARIOS 4) DETAILED PROPOSAL

  3. TIMING (I) Progress Since Turin Art. 14 Meeting • Result EVER Study • Result REMAS study • Two expert groups: • Legal compliance, • Accreditation, Verification, Validation • Environmental Management System • Environmental Performance and Reporting • Visit to Member States • Revision concept discussion in DG ENV

  4. TIMING (II) Next Steps EP – Council agreement 1st draft Revision 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 External evaluation Commission adoption New EMAS III Next steps until COM adoption: • 1st Draft text: end-summer • Open internet consultation: Sept - Oct • Stakeholder workshop: End-October • COM Impact assessment: Sept - Oct • COM Inter-Service Consultation: Nov-Dec

  5. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW 1) TIMING 2) EVALUATION 3) SCENARIOS 4) DETAILED PROPOSAL

  6. EMAS EVALUATION (I)Political Context • EMAS created in 90ies as complement to traditional ‘command-and-control’ legislation • 5th + 6th Environment Action Programme strongly advocate use of voluntary instruments, specifically EMAS • Currently, renewed Lisbon strategy focus on improving and simplifying regulatory framework for business • => renewed interest for voluntary instruments

  7. - Majority do not want to stop EMAS : useful policy tool - Most requested changes: make EMAS global + provide incentives to participating organisations EMAS EVALUATION (II)EVER Result Drivers: - EMAS improves environmental performances - EMAS improves compliance w/ environmental legislation - No significant barrier to EMAS implementation found Barriers: - EMAS not seen as ‘the’ system of reference - Lack of competitive reward Other main findings:

  8. EMAS overall environmental impact = Impact per organisation X Number of organisations EMAS EVALUATION (III)REMAS – Our Analysis REMAS: • EMS leads to better site environmental management • Better site management = • better environmental performance • better regulatory performance EMAS ranks highest overall Conclusion: Not working, low market penetration Working, EMAS is best existing EMS

  9. EMAS EVALUATION (IV)WG I Interim Results EMS: • Keep link w/ ISO14001 (problem with implementation, not standard) • Introduce proportionality and simplified implementation in Regulationfor SMEs • Not accept other EMS (would create verification problems) • Innovative idea: Replace EMS with requirements on key management activities and performance, to focus more EMAS on performances. Performance improvement / reporting: • Standardise statement content with indicators • Liberalise statement format • Clarify verification – statement validation link • Liberalise use of EMAS logo

  10. EMAS EVALUATION (V) WG II Interim Results Legal Compliance: • Clarify definition Legal Compliance in Regulation • Clearly put LC verification responsibility to verifier • Create mechanism to involve MS enforcement authorities • Create single procedural requirements for LC verification Accreditation / Verification / Competent Bodies: • Very little room to improve current situation • Single accreditation system unrealistic • Single verification, CB procedures unrealistic • Not necessary to regroup NACE codes • Clarify role / tasks of AB, verifier, CB

  11. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW 1) TIMING 2) EVALUATION 3) SCENARIOS 4) DETAILED PROPOSAL

  12. 4 SCENARIOS ANALYSED Scenario: Evaluation: 1) Develop a world-class EMAS 2) Re-inforce the scheme 3) Keep as current 4) Terminate the scheme + -

  13. SCENARIO 1 – WORLD-CLASS EMAS (I) Objective: • Fundamentally reappraise EMAS with the aim to: • Rapidly expand number of organisations, especially towards SMEs • Clearly make EMAS ‘the benchmark’ for legal compliance, performance improvement and reporting Rationale: - Problems facing EMAS are well-understood - Strong revision is only chance to turn EMAS into what it should be: a true, sizeable, alternative to ‘command-and-control’ EU Environmental legislation

  14. SCENARIO 1 – WORLD-CLASS EMAS (II) Changes required: • Clearly position EMAS as standard of excellence • Simplify implementation to open EMAS to SMEs • Make EMAS Global • Provide meaningful incentives to organisations • Improve the institutional set-up of the scheme • Add optional reporting options Potential impact: Pros: Only chance to improve EMAS significantly Cons: Some changes difficult to reach agreement on Risks: Smooth transition with current EMAS needed

  15. SCENARIO 2 – RE-INFORCE CURRENT SCHEME (I) Objective: • No major changes to the scheme content / ambition • Only changes to make the current scheme run better Rationale: • Since many changes after 1st revision: leave time to organisations to accustom to EMAS II • Drop in registration after EMAS I replaced by numbers up again & higher political support in some Member States

  16. SCENARIO 2 – RE-INFORCE CURRENT SCHEME (II) Changes required (limited and low depth): • - All useful content from guidelines in Regulation • - 3 years cycle for statement validation • - One registration for organisation in several MS • No more need to print statement • Slightly increase support (promotion, incentives) • - Single accreditation, verification, registration Potential impact: Pros: No significant effort needed from MS / Commission Cons: Only little improvement and no chance for much wider diffusion, especially towards SMEs Risks: Low uptake = continue to raise credibility questions

  17. SCENARIO 3 – KEEP THE SCHEME AS CURRENT Objective: Leave EMAS as current, to allow maximum stability Rationale: Same as Scenario 2 Changes required: None Potential impact: Pros: No effort needed – maximum stability for new MS Cons: No improvement and no chance at all for much wider diffusion, especially towards SMEs Risks: Criticism for no action

  18. SCENARIO 4 – TERMINATE THE SCHEME (I) Objective: Abolish EMAS, while minimising heavy criticism and major discontent from involved stakeholders Rationale: • EMAS should close as it missed some of its target • EMAS ‘problems’ will take time to solve + cost efforts • Any changes proposed are uncertain to succeed • Alternative to EMAS (e.g. ISO14001) exist

  19. SCENARIO 4 – TERMINATE THE SCHEME (II) Changes required: • Slowly reduce all resources allocated to EMAS • at Commission level - at Member State level • Remove from Regulation obligation to promote / inform Potential impact: Pros: Financial & human resources set free for potential new initiatives Cons: No plan B; cost decrease slowly, political struggle continues; closure = return to ‘command-control’; opportunity loss to turn EMAS into successful tool Risks: Difficult to gain acceptance for this scenario; Commission credibility suffers

  20. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW 1) TIMING 2) EVALUATION 3) SCENARIOS 4) DETAILED PROPOSAL

  21. EMAS REVISION Detailed proposal – Scenario 1 – World-class EMAS • Position EMAS as standard of excellence • Reinforce Legal Compliance • Reinforce Performance improvement • Reinforce Reporting • Simplify implementation to open EMAS to SMEs • Simplify Environmental Management System • Simplify the institutional set-up of the scheme • Provide meaningful incentives to organisations • Make EMAS Global • Improve EMAS promotion • Add optional reporting options • Increase incentives at Member States and EU level

  22. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE (I)Reinforce Legal Compliance (1) Objective: Clarify and unify legal compliance requirements to make EMAS a true support to MS regulators Rationale: • Little incentive granted by MS regulator • Different way of checking EMAS legal compliance in MS • No clear definition of who checks what how in Regulation • LC mentioned in 11 different places in Regulation

  23. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE (II) Reinforce Legal Compliance (2) Changes required: • Clearly define in Regulation: • What is Legal compliance • Role of organisation, verifier, competent body • Mechanism to involve MS regulator • List of minimum generic points to be checked Potential impact: Pros: clearly position EMAS on its value added, more clarity for organisations and regulators Cons / Risk: clarification may be perceived as strengthening and scare organisations; no certainty MS Regulators will provide incentives

  24. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE(III) Reinforce Performance Improvement (1) Objective: Clarify and unify performance improvement requirements to make EMAS a true performance oriented instrument Rationale: • No clear definition in Regulation of: • what is performance improvement • how is should be measured • No systematic measurement by organisations • No comparison between organisations • No market or regulatory reward

  25. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE (IV) Reinforce Performance Improvement (2) Changes required: • Clearly define performance improvement in Regulation • Set requirements to organisations to: • Measure performance based on a set list of generic KPIs • Report on reasons for missed targets Potential impact: Pros: clearly position EMAS on its value added, more clarity for organisations and regulators; better comparability; more focus on political priorities Cons / Risk: clarification may be perceived as strengthening and scare organisations; no certainty MS Regulators or market will provide incentives / rewards

  26. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE (V) Reinforce Reporting (1) Objective: - Clarify & unify reporting content to make EMAS a true reporting instrument + free reporting format and dissemination to make EMAS a true marketing tool Rationale: • Reporting main differentiating factor to ISO 14001 • Current reporting requirements not very prescriptive • => Different requirements to organisations from verifier, CB • => No comparison possible between organisations • Report mainly used by Competent Bodies • No market or regulatory burden relief reward

  27. POSITION EMAS AS STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE (VI) Reinforce Reporting (2) Changes required: • Standardise reporting content, incl. with list of indicators • Fully ‘liberalise’ reporting format • Fully ‘liberalise’ validated information dissemination • Validation of report every 3 years vs. 1 years for SMEs Potential impact: Pros: clearly position EMAS on its value added, more clarity for organisations and regulators; better comparability; more focus on political priorities Cons / Risk: clarification may be perceived as strengthening and scare organisations; no certainty MS Regulators or market will provide incentives / rewards

  28. SIMPLIFY IMPLEMENTATION (I)Environmental Management System (1) Objective: - Simplify EMS implementation to allow more organisations, notably SMEs to join the scheme Rationale: • ISO14001 (current EMAS EMS) perceived as too complicated for SMEs • Direct link between EMAS and ISO detrimental to EMAS uptake (EMAS positioned as ISO+) • EMAS value added in performance, legal compliance, reporting, not EMS, yet biggest part in Regulation

  29. SIMPLIFY IMPLEMENTATION (II)Environmental Management System (2) Changes required: • Keep ISO14001 as EMAS EMS (in Annex IA or just link?) • Introduce proportionality and simplified implementation in Regulation for SMEs Potential impact: Pros: attractive ‘selling point’ that EMAS simplify ISO implementation; link w/ ISO will keep EMAS credibility Cons / Risk:will not solve problem of positioning of EMAS; no certainty that it will simplify EMS implementation; may be perceived as weakening the scheme

  30. SIMPLIFY IMPLEMENTATION (III)Simplify Institutional Set-up (1) Objective: - Align all procedures for all actors (AB, Verifier, CB) in all Member States to simplify EMAS implementation Rationale: • Different accreditation procedures • Different verification procedures • Different Competent Bodies procedures • - No clear definition of their role / tasks in Regulation • Many problems for organisations - Company registration limited at Member State level for the same Regulation

  31. SIMPLIFY IMPLEMENTATION (IV)Simplify Institutional Set-up (2) Changes required: • Clarify & align in Regulation role / tasks / procedures of: • Accreditation Bodies • Organisations, Verifiers, Competent Bodies, Enforcement Authorities • Enable company-wide registration, even if in several MS • Regroup NACE codes Potential impact: Pros: more clarity / less room for interpretation for all parties involved = more similar procedures Cons / Risk: very difficult to achieve single procedures in all Member States for all actors involved

  32. SIMPLIFY IMPLEMENTATION (V)Others Changes proposed: • Write new Regulation in a more user-friendly way • No more guidelines, keep important part in Regulation • Separate specific parts for each actor (AB, verifier, CB, organisation) • Abolish necessity to print statement Potential impact: Pros: Will further simplify understanding and implementation of Regulation by organisations Cons / Risk: None

  33. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (I)Make Emas Global (1) Objective: - Open EMAS registration to organisations outside the EU to raise EMAS knowledge / interest outside the EU Rationale: • Most frequent reason by Multinational companies and EU companies exporting outside of EU not to join EMAS • cannot apply same system in all countries • no knowledge outside of EU in procurement procedures • Many companies outside EU wish to apply

  34. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (II)Make Emas Global (2) Changes required: • Create mechanism to allow 3rd country organisation registration under EMAS: • all 3rd country organisations or only those from EU with ops abroad? • 3rd country organisation validation/registration tasks done by any EU CB or negotiate with each country to create own CB? Potential impact: Pros: will address the single most frequent criticism of EMAS Cons / Risk: must not undermine credibility of scheme (EU vs. 3rd country legal compliance); higher CB worlkload?

  35. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (III)Improve Promotion (1) Objective: • Increase promotion activities by MS and Commission • Increase possibilities for organisations to promote EMAS Rationale: • Still very low knowledge / big mis-conceptions on EMAS • Very big difference in level of EMAS promotion by MS • Little pan-european promotion + follow-up • Organisations cannot use statement for mkting purpose • Organisations cannot use logo for mkting purpose

  36. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (IV) Improve Promotion (2) Changes required: • Increase promotion by Member States • Stronger mandatory requirement to MS in Regulation • Create reporting mechanism on MS promotion activities • Create pan-EU promotion strategy and actions • Liberalise use of the EMASLogo Potential impact: Pros: Higher EMAS knowledge will create snowball effect Cons / Risk: Logo on products may cause confusion with EL; not certain all MS will promote more EMAS

  37. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (V)Optional Product Reporting (1) Objective: • Give EMAS organisations possibility to create product information report certified under EMAS Rationale: • Product dimension already in EMAS but weak • Companies want possibility to produce 3rd-party-verified product reports • Currently finalising Guidance on how to consider the product dimension within EMAS

  38. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (VI) Optional Product Reporting (2) Changes required: • Option in Regulation to make certifiable product report • Credibility of information provided? (full LCA, information from the EMS) • Standard reporting requirements, format? Potential impact: Pros: create new value added for organisations; could be used in public / private bids; Cons / Risk: may be perceived as entering eco-label territory; no certainty market will provide rewards, market demand unclear

  39. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (VII)Optional Social/ Sustainability Reporting (1) Objective: • Give EMAS organisations possibility to report on social / sustainability information under EMAS Rationale: • Growing trend to report on social / sustainability issues (although still mainly limited to big multinationals only) • No 3rd-party-verified CSR management system exists (GRI, etc but guidelines only) • EMAS pure focus on environment until now • Recent COM communication on CSR – industry-led

  40. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (VIII) Optional Social/ Sustainability Reporting (2) Changes required: • - Option in Regulation to report on social issues • Verification of information provided? • standard reporting requirement / format? Potential impact: Pros: create new value added for organisations, even though not creating full CSR system Cons / Risk: lose opportunity to spearhead new trend if not full CSR scheme; no certainty market will provide rewards, market demand unclear

  41. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (IX) Increase Incentives (1) Objective: • Provide meaningful incentives to EMAS organisations at Member States and EU level Rationale: • Existing EU incentives not really useful to organisations • Member States incentives generally work better • However, very different picture in different MS • Together with EMAS Global, single most requested change by organisations for EMAS III is more incentives

  42. PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ORGANISATIONS (X) Increase Incentives (2) Changes required: • Set mandatory requirements to MS to: • Provide financial/ fiscal/ market-related incentives • Reduce the administrative burden • At EU level, link EMAS with: • ETS (verification as part of EMAS) • IPPC (reduce permit renewal timing / cost, etc) • Others to be identified Potential impact: Pros: Create new value added / interest from organisations; answers their most frequent request Cons / Risk: Will be difficult to achieve changes required

More Related