1. Harmonisation of Procedures within EU Ecolabel Competent Bodies Workshop 18th November Paul Vaughan

2. Today’s Workshop Outline Background Approach Findings
Practice recommendations
Discussion & amendment
Ask questions as we go along
Important purpose of today is to add to, agree or disagree with recommendations

3. Background

4. Background – Project Aims
To identify a core set of procedures
To build upon the experience and expertise of Competent Bodies (CBs)
To check how they are implementing those procedures, and
To produce a manual of ‘good and best practice’

5. Background – ‘Good’ & ‘Best’ practice
Good practice
Meets minimum requirements efficiently and effectively
Room for improvement
Best Practice
Goes beyond the minimum requirements
Extra assurance
NB Likely requires extra resources

6. Background - Timeline Mid March 2013 April to September 2013
CBs selected and confirmed
April to September 2013
Questionnaire issued
Visits to CBs
18 November 2013
Workshop at CB Forum

7. Approach

8. 8 EEA Member States selected

9. Areas covered (linked to Regulation)
Questionnaire
Areas covered (linked to Regulation)
Competent Body Organisation
Impartiality & Independence
Assessment & Award
Market Surveillance & Control of the use of the EU Ecolabel
Promotion
Penalties

10. Visits Denmark May 1/2 Belgium May 14 Germany May 23/4 Romania June 11
Ireland
June 25
France
July 8/9
Malta
July 12
Italy
July 24
Norway
Sept 10

11. Findings – Competent Body Organisation

12. Competent Body Organisation
Regulation –Article 4
CB(s) designated
Operational
Procedural rules to ensure
Transparency in conduct
Involvement of interested parties

13. Competent Body Organisation
Member State Differences
Legislation or contract
Committee/Commission
More than one CB
Profit / NfP / Government
Standards Organisations
Scale Economies
Funding
Reporting
Stakeholder involvement

14. Practice Recommendations – Competent Body Organisation

15. Competent Body Organisation
Stakeholder Involvement - Good Practice
Meetings as required with various interests e.g.
Industry/Licence holders
NGOs – environmental/consumer
Other parts of Government
Obtain views on specific issues e.g.
Criteria development

16. Competent Body Organisation
Stakeholder Involvement – Best Practice
Regularity e.g. a standing committee
Leverage experience e.g. marketing
Induction training
Ecolabel ambassadors

17. Competent Body Organisation
Accountability - Good Practice
Public reporting
Website
Internal Reporting
KPIs
Licences
Products
Timescales
Assessments – progress

18. Competent Body Organisation
Funding - Good Practice
Some government support necessary
Alternative funding sources e.g. training

19. Competent Body Organisation
Accountability - Best Practice
Public Reporting
Published Annual Report
KPIs
Consumer recognition
Consumer understanding

20. Findings – Impartiality & Independence

21. Impartiality & Independence
Regulation –Article 4 & Annex V
Guaranteed impartiality of management and assessors including sub-contractors
Verification is independent of applicant
Activities that may conflict with CB’s independence and impartiality are prohibited
Remuneration is not dependent on numbers of assessments or their results

22. Impartiality & Independence
Member State Differences
Civil servants
Use of sub contractors
Other commercial activities
EN / accredited
Organisational separation

23. Practice Recommendations – Impartiality & Independence

24. Impartiality & Independence
Good Practice
Agree a policy
Nominate an individual who is responsible for its implementation
Write policy requirements into employment contracts including with sub- contractors

25. Impartiality & Independence
Best Practice
An impartiality committee
Organisational separation of commercial activities from ecolabelling activities

26. Findings – Assessment & Award

27. Regulation –Article 9 & Annex V
Assessment & Award
Regulation –Article 9 & Annex V
Assessment within 2 months
May inspect production sites
T & A costs chargeable (o/s MS)
Use of the Ecolabel only if fees paid
Technically competent, experienced and professional staff
Assessments recorded etc
Written procedures for assessments
Share CB forum information, follow guidance and participate if possible

28. Member State Differences
Assessment & Award
Member State Differences
Guidance to applicant
Written procedures
Fee policies
Supporting systems
Record keeping
Quality assurance

29. Practice Recommendations – Assessment & Award

30. Assessment & Award – Good Practice
Guidance to applicants
Available on web site
Procedures
Timescales
Fees
Use of the logo
Maintaining compliance
FAQs
Acceptance of electronic applications
Template structure

31. Assessment & Award – Good Practice
Procedures
Payment before assessment
Screening applications
Assessment log to record process/decisions
Inspections if high risk
QA of all assessments
Record mixtures/substances assessed
Record major issues and how resolved

32. Assessment & Award – Good Practice
CB Forum
Monthly briefings
Agendas/Minutes circulated
Attendance by assessment staff

33. Assessment & Award – Best Practice
Organisational separation of activities (where applicable)
EN 9001 certified or EN accredited
Bespoke application form, to include:
Checklist
A draft control plan

34. Assessment & Award – Best Practice
Meeting with each applicant
Timescales, Fees, Use of logo, FAQs etc
Agree work plan
Inspection of all facilities
Discuss how to jointly promote
Agree control plan for ongoing compliance
Time recording

35. Assessment & Award – Opportunities
Develop databases of assessed substances and mixtures
Facilitate sharing of guidance documents, forms, checklists, agendas, folder structures.
Shared/Approved list of auditors based outside EEA
Database of approved suppliers e.g. in Textiles – only if permission granted
Support and distribute application software

36. Findings – Market Surveillance & Control of the use of the Ecolabel

37. Surveillance & Control
Regulation –Article 10
Regular check that ecolabelled products/services maintain compliance with the relevant criteria
Maintain confidentiality and security of information supplied by the applicant or obtained during site verifications

38. Surveillance & Control
Member State Differences
Policies/Planning
Frequency
Fees
Risk based
Link to Assessment
Product testing

39. Practice Recommendations – Market Surveillance & Control of the use of the Ecolabel

40. Surveillance & Control
Good Practice
Plan from start – applicant declaration
Focus on labelling / logo misuse
Annual check of sample of products sold
Annual check of websites and marketing literature
Annual declaration of compliance
Complaints policy

41. Surveillance & Control
Good Practice
Risk based approach:
Issues raised in assessment
Major variations
National and local surveillance authorities
Complaints policy
Length of time licence held
Product group e.g. complex criteria, long supply chain

42. Surveillance & Control
Best Practice
Annual visit to each production facility (or at least once for period of licence validity)
Regular product testing required – cost to be met by licence holder

43. Findings – Promotion of the Ecolabel

44. Promotion of the Ecolabel
Regulation –Article 12
Awareness raising, information and public education campaigns
Encouraging uptake especially by SMEs

45. Promotion of the Ecolabel
Member State Differences
Some to none
Legislative requirements
Earmarking of licence fees

46. Practice Recommendations – Promotion of the Ecolabel

47. Promotion of the Ecolabel
Good Practice
Planning
Use web site
Licence holders club
Participation in workshops, conferences etc
Case studies
Newsletter

48. Promotion of the Ecolabel
Best Practice
Users club
Social media
Link with key intermediaries
Dedicated web site
Endorsements
Press kit, link with interested journalists
Market analysis

49. Promotion – Opportunities
Facilitate sharing of marketing collateral
A club for users at the EEA level
An ecolabel smartphone ‘app’

50. Findings – Penalties

51. Penalties Regulation –Article 17
Establish Penalties including applicability and enforcement

52. Member State Differences
Penalties
Member State Differences
None or some:
Maxima range from €500 to €3000
Legislative requirements
Focus on misuse of the logo/label

53. Practice Recommendations – Penalties

54. Penalties Best Practice Legal basis Clarity Deterrence
Allows legal action by other parties

55. Next Steps Further comments by 27th November
Publication of Practice Guide early 2014