Download
the european eco management and audit scheme n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

204 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

The European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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