1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. Evolution of the N of EU Ecolabel licences

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

7. Coordinated Workplan GPP + Ecolabel

8. Revision of European Ecolabel Criteria for Textile products

9. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. Follow-up contacts Oliver Wolf Tel +34 954 48 82 96
Nicholas Dodd
Tel  
Mauro Cordella
Tel  
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

15. Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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 (International)
Bilan Carbone (France)
DEFRA guide (UK)
CDP Water footprint (International)
WBCSD/WRI (International)
GRI (International)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Possible future scenarios

26. 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

27. 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

28. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !
For any further information 28 28