"building the single market for green products" | michele galatola
TRANSCRIPT
Building the Single Market for Green
Products
Michele Galatola
Product Team Leader
Eco-innovation and circular economy European Commission - DG Environment
WHY? • More than 400 environmental
labels in the world • Only for GHGs, 80 leading
reporting methods and initiatives
• Issues: • What is green? • How do I prove that my
product or company is green? • If I choose one approach, will
it be accepted by everyone? • Do I have to prove I'm green
in different ways to different clients?
• Will consumers and business partners understand my claim?
• Does green mean more expensive?
= Confusion, mistrust
Free-riders win Costs
2
To improve the availability of clear, reliable and comparable information on the environmental performance of products and organisations
Objective
How
SMGP
Communication: Building the Single Market for Green
Products
Commission Recommendation
PEF
OEF
3-year Pilot phase
Communication principles
3-year pilot phase
International dialogue
UCPD Guidance
3
4
Standardised sectorial approaches
PEF/OEF methods should now ideally be “tailored” around the different sectors and then further elaborated into specific category and sectorial rules.
• ICT methods to calculate the carbon and energy footprint • CEN 15804 for construction products
• ENVIFOOD Protocol for food & drinks
• FP7 RTD projects (cars, fuel cells, building sector)
Ok, so we are on the right track!! ... Or NOT ??
If each sector starts to introduce their own basic requirements we are back to square zero
Engagement of key stakeholders,
including from outside EU
Focus on simplification and applicability
Pilot objectives/ features:
1. Test the process for the development of PEFCRs and OEFSRs
2. Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts, traceability)
3. Communication vehicles
Simplification / challenges:
Few simple and clear rules for specific products and sectors
Focusing on the most relevant environmental impacts and life cycle stages
Find a good balance between reliability, cost of verification and feasibility of verification
Provide useful information to help business and consumer choices
Multi-stakeholder process,
representative participation, need for international co-operation
Simplification enabling easier use by SMEs
6 Pilot proposals
Table 1: Distribution of pilot application (PEF= Product Environmental Footprint; OEF=
Organisation Environmental Footprint)
PEF – as
Technical
Secretariat
PEF – no
Technical
Secretariat
OEF – as
Technical
Secretariat
OEF – no
Technical
Secretariat
TOTAL
Number of
proposals 35 35 3 17 90
7 Pilot proposals
8 Pilot proposals
9
PEF vs 15804 ??
10
PEF vs 15804
11
Different methods for different scopes
EN 15804:2012 • Provides core product category rules for all construction products and services. It
provides a structure to ensure that all EPD are derived, verified and presented in a harmonised way.
• It is organised in modules covering different life cycle stages. Some modules are mandatory, others are optional. The indicators declared in the individual information modules of a product life cycle shall not be added up in any combination of the individual information modules into a total or sub-total of the life cycle stages.
• Declarations based on 15804 are not comparative assertions.
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) • Provide specific rules to calculate the environmental footprint for a certain product group,
including benchmark and, if appropriate, performance grades.
• Each PEFCR focuses on the most relevant life cycle stages, processes and impact categories for the product group in scope.
• A declaration compliant with a PEFCR can be used to make comparisons and comparative assertions.
12 The road to alignment
Short-term (asap)
• EN 15804 should use "best available practice" LCIA methods
• EN 15804 should introduce clear data quality requirements (at least ILCD entry level)
• Make Module D obligatory (maybe with the option to be reported separately)
13 The road to alignment
Medium-term (3-4 years)
• Use quantified thresholds for data quality
• Harmonise the end-of-life recycling formula
• Harmonise the requirements on cut-off
• EN 15804 should introduce requirements for reviewer qualifications
Long-term (5-7 years)
• Harmonise approach on normalisation and weighting
• Agree on the feasibility of introducing benchmarks
14 Quiz
Which one of the three is THE green?
None of them
All of them
15
Can LCA allow for product differentiation?
Environmental impacts
Water
Resources
Climate
Verified by …
E
NO PEFCR (2012) WITH PEFCR (fictitious example; possible if PEFCR available)
Performance level B
Performance level C
vs. vs.
Performance level A
Is it possible?
Is it always possible?
Is it desirable/useful?
Do YOU want it?
16 Do we need EPDs?
Impact EPD Brand A EPD Brand B Average product
GHG 550 421 243
Water 295444 165 160162
Acidification 825 1400 867
VOC 180 90 18
POP 1950 1625 1070
Particulate matter 3800 2100 2071
Eutrophication (water) 1500 915 1746
Less PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY More
Nu
mb
ers
of
pro
du
cts
in t
he
mar
ket
Interventions:
• Support
innovation
Interventions:
•Pricing and trading
•Voluntary initiatives
•Producer responsibility
•Business support
•Procurement
•Labelling
•Public information
Interventions:
•Minimum
standards
PRODUCT INTERVENTIONS – Overall approach
Cut out the
least
sustainable
products
Encourage
development
of new, more
sustainable
products
Drive the existing market towards greater
sustainabilityE
co
desig
n
GPP
Product-related approach in EU
17
18
An alternative theoretical approach (ISO Type IV?)
Product group: XYZ Attribute: Single attributes or weighted average
Environmental performance of products
Number of products
ref <90%ref* >100%ref
GPP
Information freely accessible
* Plus additional requirements non captured by LCA
2nd phase 19
Policy discussion
Future policies
Peer review of the pilot phase and of alternative methods tested under similar conditions (2017)
Internal evaluation of the pilots 2017
Thank you for your attention
20
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm