Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 - 18:00) DG Environment, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels (Meeting Room BU-05, 0/C)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate A - Green Economy
ENV.A.1 - Eco-Innovation & Circular Economy
Brussels,
Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 -18:00)

DG Environment, avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels
(Meeting room BU-05, 0/C)
Report of the Meeting
1 Welcome and introduction by the European Commission. Adoption of the

agenda.
2 The international dimension of SCP
2.1 The implementation of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on

Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP) 1
The EC and Germany, as member of the 10YFP Board, debriefed the group on recent
and planned 10YFP activities. A meeting of the 10YFP National Focal Points (NFP)
both from states and stakeholders within WEOG (Western Europe and Others Group)
took place in Rome on 10 November 2014. This event was co organised with the Italian
EU presidency. The emphasis was on the discussion of the state of play of the
implementation of the programme in the WEOG "region" and to identity possible
activities in support of implementation. Romania has debriefed on the First Eastern
Europe Regional Meeting on the 10YFP that was held in Geneva on 27 October 2014. At
the event the 10YFP Secretariat provided overview on the programme to representatives
from the region and also they shared information on progress on regional and national
initiatives and discussed possible cooperation.
The 10YFO Secretariat is planning to launch a survey of national SCP policies: It will be
done in two stages. Stage one will short 40 minutes survey to be filled up by focal points
based on their existing information without consultation. Stage two is planned to be a
longer survey that requires consultation with other ministries. Another planned
deliverables will be the country profiles on SCP policies: UNEP will provide a template
for this. Once work starts on these profiles, it would be useful to have consultations
between Commission and EU MS. A major meeting on 10YFP is planned for 14th May
and Friday 15th May 2015, in New York. This meeting will bring governmental and non-
1
http://www.unep.org/10yfp/
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

Office: BU-9; 6/143 - Tel. direct line +32 229-94420 - Fax +32 229-90313 pavel.misiga@ec.europa.eu
governmental stakeholders actively engaged in the implementation of the 10YFP,
together with a broad international audience, including representatives of UN missions,
potential donors and cooperation partners. The objective will be to promote the 10YFP.
In the follow-up discussion group members indicated their countries' or organisations'

involvement and interest in various 10YFP Programmes. Germany, the UK and also the
EC have been participating in the Consumer Information Programme. Finland is most
closely interested in the programme on sustainable buildings and constructions and
launched national action on this. Sweden is following the programmes on sustainable
lifestyle and education, and Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP). Spain referred to its
national waste prevention programmes. Denmark flagged that the Nordic Council of
Ministers has been discussing linking EU development policy to SCP. Participants
flagged the need to clarify and explore the connections of 10YFP with the PAGE
Programme and also UNEP work on the green economy.
There was a consensus on the usefulness of national and stakeholder focal points from
the EU keeping each other informed about their 10YFP related activities. An annual
meeting in this format and communication through a mailing list could serve this goal.
Germany has put forward the idea of producing a Commission "communication" on the
10YFP and also to hold a conference on SCP in the near future.
2.2 The Post-2015 Development Agenda2
The European Commission debriefed participants about the work of the Open Working
Group on the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs are to have a chapter
specifically dedicated to SCP but also other chapters are relevant, such as waste, cities,
innovation, etc. A related work for identifying the appropriate indicators for the SDGs is
also ongoing. In the discussion, it was emphasized that the relationship between the SDG
and the 10YFP should be strengthened and the 10YFP could serve as an implementation
mechanism in this respect. The stakeholder focal point present at the meeting found
SDGs short concrete elements, and overtly focusing on resource efficiency and business.
(3) The Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) pilot exercise3
BE presidency 2010 – event on LCA as tool for policies –

Companies to know better their product and process and improve it
Create knowledge – see whether based on that we can take eco-design measures
Individual information at product level – from the experience of the energy label it’s
interesting to have the data – in terms of communication there was no interest from the
consumer and from retailers – but there was strong competition between companies –
sound developments. Question – which will be the 1st users of information – companies
or consumers?
Standardisation – B2B communication more detailed; B2C more simplified (safety
datasheet  labelling)
Mandatory? Interesting to have a step-by-step approach (EIPRO study – for products
with huge impact it would be worth while to have a mandatory system; for long-term we
can expand).
CVs – not sure that it will be the consumer who will really transform the market through
its demand
2
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015.shtml
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm
2
DE – generally support the use of LCA in policymaking, in consumer information.
Definitely interested in robust methodology – see it as an opportunity.
SMEs – fearing that big companies will define the rules and SMEs will have to follow –
if this could be taken into account, in the process more emphasised
Communication – “no contribution to consumer confusion”
Use existing instruments – e.g. ecodesign directive – could be strengthened by suing the
methods for the preparatory studies and by using the results (the most relevant impacts)
for doing he minimum criteria and for doing the labelling (e.g. vacuum cleaners – 4
criteria).
Another use: EU Ecolabel that could be improved by working with one methodology.
Product passport idea – business use
FR/ sylvain – we should push away the possibility of a new instrument for consumer
communication. Current instruments (Ecolabel, energy label) are good. They cover a
limited share of the market – gap with the huge majority of consumer products that are
left without any information. It’s not necessarily thorugh a new EU label, it wouldn’t
have to be mandatory – agrees with the progressive approach ideas.
Options – it could be voluntary to communicate, but then if you do so, it would be
checked against the official method to check green credentials.
Potentially powerful to fight greenwashing in the Single Market
Communication phase – we can communicate only for those that are sufficiently robust,
and where the data is reliable enough. We do need reliable verification.
Cautious on the behaviour – don’t expect too much on this side. Unless some pilots
would like to conduct lab-like experiments – but if it’s online communication on a few
products for 6 months.
Sweden – March – online survey to consumers, hosted by the consumer agency – testing
also environmental information for organic goods –
i. please send any input for existing experience and info
UK – businesses use footprinting are using different methods

Most frequent use is identification of hotspots and improvement
Still struggle to imagine that the rules for both that and consumer communication
Free secondary data would be very much appreciated
Communication – we don’t have strong quantitative evidence, but B2B is the context in
which environmental information is most used
Caution for using energy label as a parallel – more direct translation into financial
benefits for the consumer than other factors
FI – support pilots – worry about who is setting the rules. Mostly it is the big companies
who rule and who have the resources. Be cautious to sell this idea to SMEs.
Progressive approach presented by BE – quite nice idea to have a baseline on certain
hotspots on each product – fulfilling these requirements in order to be sold and made in
EU countries.
Communication phase – evaluation communication phase? Consumer panels or groups
that are going to be followed?
I explained SME tools, the potential NGO contract,
EEB – at a certain point we need more information on what are the limits of the
methods.
3
The most probable - assessment tool for companies
We hope in methodological terms we’ll get to defining benchmark – could be integrated
into other policies as a tool
Don’t see it as a tool for minimum requirements or Ecolabels – don’t see it now
Communication – helpful to get a more comprehensive picture of the env performance of
products, but this doesn’t seem very relevant for consumers, rather B2B or to
stakeholders
Doesn’t seem very helpful to create another instrument for consumer communication
based on LCA – is the information generated based on the PEFCRs fit for that?
Opportunity once we identify key environmental information, communication on
hotspots
How much to we go behind quantified LCA results? Will the PEFCR lead to freeze the
situation? No further improvement, or complementary approaches in additional
environmental information?
Let’s clarify constraints and then go into the discussion
BE – evolution in creating knowledge is important. Now we are moving from CO2 to

other impacts, already there improving.
PL – LCA is a great method to assess internal processes in companies. However, there

are a lot of assumptions built in that can impact on the results. We can’t say that a
product is greener than the other, but rather that based on these and these assumptions,
this is greener. For us, it shouldn’t be used for comparing products.
Lot of SMEs will be “forced” to use the method, and they don’t have an impact in this
work.
Geographical balance – no participants from certain regions.
We should do it on a voluntary basis, afterwards decide how to go further
Use for public procurement – 25 groups of products – only through volunteering is not a
good criterion
DK – concerned by all the methods for Ecolabel, Ecodesign, how to make requirements.
When are we going to align?
Want to compare apples to apples pears to pears
BE – same concerns about the SMEs as others – we have an internal PEF project,
helping SMEs to participate in the exercise. The SMEs we are following are able to
participate in the debate, but not ready to provide an input. By big companies for big
companies?
Is it necessary to go to a label with specific information, or rather have the Ecolabel as a
“universal” label .
Green claims – will we be able to improve the rules on green claims?
Disappointed about the position of the Commission – general consumer protection rules,
that the rules are valid for green claims as well – in BE we have a legal framework for
the EPD of construction products – if they want to make a green claim, they have to be
registered; they cannot focus only on one element of the life cycle.
Different approach in the two regions – in the S of the country green claims are a big
debate
EEB – can we aask during the communication pilot phase if companies testing the green
claim aspects
E.g. sustainability marketing in companies participating – can we use the communication
pilots to ask companies to refrain from green claims unless they are supported by the
4
methodology – they could explore within their marketing department (not necessarily
communicated)
Energy label – testing different layouts – appreciated that run a consumer understanding
and consumer willingness to pay test – comparison on the success to drive consumers
towards the best products – so that outputs can provide this kind of information.
Methodology of the – which product performs better then the others. Which one would
you actually buy?
FR – we shouldn’t get stuck with the idea that PEf-based information is necessarily in
separate indicators. We can get to a single score and relative scales.
We continue to work on this aspect – had different labels and formats tested – not to
introduce new labels on the market . Most companies only want to disclose complicated
information.
UK – university in the UK – differences between consumers “acceptance”
EEB – we generally think that energy label is the best for

Also inf the energy label a margin is left to how the test was conducted – agree that we
need a certain robustness, but can also have the paralysis of analysis
We can also accept if we have something incremental
UK – added complication – different consumers have different views on what constitutes
important impacts – would that be a reason for the Ecolabel not so popular (what is
behind it?).
BE – make clear rules on communication – frequent misuse of communication

e.g. WEEE – possible hazardous substances present in equipment – after the obligation
the info became very bad
CEN work on communication on bio-based products – most of the companies are there
because they want to make a beautiful story-telling
The risk of other companies outside of the pilot phase start trying things
PL – What happens to the rules afterwards – are they EU methods on water?

A: until not embedded into policy it’s not an EU method, agreed by the majority of the
specific producers or sector -
UK – circular economy  EF feeding into that
(4) (17:00-18:00) Brief reports from the European Commission, Member States
and stakeholders about recent SCP related developments

Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 - 18:00) DG Environment, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels (Meeting Room BU-05, 0/C)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 - 18:00) DG Environment, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels (Meeting Room BU-05, 0/C)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 - 18:00) DG Environment, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels (Meeting Room BU-05, 0/C)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Wednesday, 25 February 2015 (10:00 -18:00)

Report of the Meeting

1 Welcome and introduction by the European Commission. Adoption of the

2 The international dimension of SCP

2.1 The implementation of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

In the follow-up discussion group members indicated their countries' or organisations'

2.2 The Post-2015 Development Agenda2

(3) The Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) pilot exercise3

BE presidency 2010 – event on LCA as tool for policies –

UK – businesses use footprinting are using different methods

I explained SME tools, the potential NGO contract,

BE – evolution in creating knowledge is important. Now we are moving from CO2 to

PL – LCA is a great method to assess internal processes in companies. However, there

UK – university in the UK – differences between consumers “acceptance”

EEB – we generally think that energy label is the best for

BE – make clear rules on communication – frequent misuse of communication

PL – What happens to the rules afterwards – are they EU methods on water?

UK – circular economy  EF feeding into that

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.