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

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

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

The EU Ecolabel today - 26 established product groups - New criteria recently voted Newsprint paper Printed paper - New criteria under development Laundry detergents for professional use Automatic dishwasher detergents for professional use Office buildings Hydronic central heating generators Imaging equipment Sanitary products Taps and showerheads Toilets and Urinals Converted paper - Criteria under revision Textiles, Bed mattresses, Paint and varnishes, Soaps and shampoos, Light sources, Heat pumps)

Evolution of the N of EU Ecolabel licences

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

Coordinated Workplan GPP + Ecolabel

Revision of European Ecolabel Criteria for Textile products

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

Priority areas based on overall LCA findings Issue Description Potential benefit Cotton The ecotoxicity associated with the use of agrochemicals and the resource impact of water use for irrigation High Synthetic fibres (acrylic, nylon, polyamide, polypropylene) The climate change and ecotoxicity impact of energy use to manufacture fibres High to Medium Wool scouring The climate change and ecotoxicity impact of associated with scouring and processing Raw material and feedstocks Required to manufacture cellulose, synthetic fibres, soaping agents and softeners Sustainable systems of resource use Closed loop recycling and greater durability. Cellulose fibres (viscose): The climate change and ecotoxicity impacts associated with the manufacturing of fibres Medium Energy and ecotoxicity Associated with the use phase of textile products to low Process energy and ecotoxicity Fabric formation, finishing, printing and dyeing stages of production Fuel use and climate change impacts Modal split of air freight and shipping to distribute products. to Low

Further issues identified for consideration Specific 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.

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

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

Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint

Problem definition 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 16 16

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); 17

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

Comparability Ensure comparability, e.g. of different products on the shelf High level of technical detail (balance with comprehensibility) High level of prescriptiveness Prioritise consistency 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.

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

Variability vs detail of guidance No Guide ISO Standard ILCD Handbook situation A Environmental Footprint Guide PFCR/ OFSR (Tools, database) 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 Rule OFSR: Organisation Footprint Sector Rule

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

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 23 23

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

Possible future scenarios

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 26 26

vs. E 2012 YES NO YES NO Is there already a PFCR? A comparison based on the exact rules agreed in the PFCR is possible (if needed) NO Do you want to compare it to another fruit? Multi-stakeholder process 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 A PFCR for “fruit” is necessary NO 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 The apple producer will have to take (and report transparently) on a number of methodological choices Environmental impacts Water Resources Climate Verified by … E 2012

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 28 28