DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate G - Sustainable Development and Integration
ENV.G.4 - Sustainable Production & Consumption
Minutes of the IPP REGULAR MEETING
2 MARcH 2005
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The Chairman, Klaus Kögler, opened the meeting. The minutes from previous meeting, that took place in September 2004, were adopted. The proposed agenda was adopted, with small changes due to practicalities.
In the previous regular meeting EEB asked the Commission (COM) to discuss the Commission’s reaction to the responses of the European Institutions to the IPP Communication. The Chairman explained that the Commission will rather discuss this issue in the next regular meeting partlyas EEB is not represented at the present meeting.
2. UPDATE ON THE TWO WORKING GROUPS(by the COM- Bengt Davidsson)
The new colleague on IPP from the Commission’s side, Bengt Davidsson, seconded national expert on integrated product policy, introduced himself.
His task at the Commission is to implement IPP covering the following areas:
-The two working groups within the IPP Regular Meetings;
-Identifying products with the greatest potential for environmental improvement (EIPRO);
-The LCA/LCI related to JRC in Ispra;
-Product guidelines;
-Environmental declarations (EPDs).
The two IPP working groups
The second IPP Regular Meeting in September 2004 agreed to set up two IPP working groups on:
-Product information needs;
-Reporting formats;
The aim of the working groups is to discuss and find solutions to specific subjects important to the development of IPP with the participation of relevant experts. The working groups have clear objectives, mandates and they are organised for a limited period of time.
Update on the working group on product information needs
The working group on product information needs will examine:
- What life-cycle information is needed by which stakeholder throughout the product chain;
- Which tools exists to fulfil these needs and where the gapsare;
- How these gaps can be filled and the demand for environmental information on products increased.
An official mandate for this working group was agreed on 20 September 2004.
The COM received 15 applications from different organisations, altogether 19 people, to participate in this working group. From this list, ten experts from government and industry and NGOs have been selected. UK (Bob Ryder, DEFRA) will chair the working group. The COM will host the working group secretariat.
The duration of the working group is 12 months, approximately 4-5 meeting will be held. The first meeting is scheduled for April, but this date needs to be confirmed.
Tentative list of activities:
- information generated by companies;
- relevant standards and standardisation activities;
- public and private consumer needs for information;
- verified and non-verified labelling;
- consumer education and information;
- information flow throughout the product life-cycle.
Several member states such as Denmark and Sweden as well as the industry have already been doing a lot of work in the field of environmental product information, which may be used as input to this working group. It is important that existing knowledge and experience should be available to this working group. On the other hand, this working group should not duplicate already existing work performed in member states (MS) or within the industry. A tentative work plan will be developed for this working groupby the COM in cooperation with the chairman of the group, Bob Ryder from UK DEFRA.
Update on the working group on reporting formats
The Commission will submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the progress made in implementing IPP in 2007. This will allow the Commission and the institutions to reflect on whether the nature and direction of IPP needs to be altered. This reporting will be based on the reports that the MemberStates and other stakeholders will submit to the Commission. For this an IPP reporting format is to be filled out by member states and stakeholders on the measures taken and the progress made in implementing the IPP approach.
The IPP Regular meeting agreed on creating a working group for drawing up these reporting formats, and agreed on an official mandate for this. Nevertheless, no Member States volunteered to participate in this working group, theCOM received only two applications to participate, none of them connected to any of the organisations who will do the reporting. Due to the lack of participants in this working group the European Commission will carry out the work on the reporting formats itself in cooperation with the European Environmental Agency. The EEA has allocated resources and will contribute to IPP by assisting in the preparation (i.e. in the development of information acquisition and reporting methodologies, including the setting of criteria, reliability and validity of information and their assessments, and long-term monitoring) of the IPP reporting formats. A letter was sent to the IPP Regular Meeting representatives regarding this issue. No representative objected to this initiative by the COM.
Thus, the working group will consist of one or more representatives from the COM and the EEA. The COM will chair the working group and will host the secretariat. The duration of the project is 15 months. A first contact has been made and a meeting is scheduled for April, but this is to be confirmed. Approximately 4-5 meeting will be held for this working group. Tentative list of activities:
- review the types of information that could usefully be reported;
- examine their relative availability in Member States and at stakeholders;
- draw up a suggested list for information to be reported;
- devise a format for reporting.
When the work is progressing, the COM still can cooperate with member states or other stakeholders on this issue. The COM emphasised that they do not consider the membership for this working group closed and encouraged the regular meeting participants to express interest to participate in it in the future.
Questions and answers (Q/A) on the two IPP working groups
NL suggested an open process on information sharing and dissemination of results. The Chairman agreed that the process has to be as open as possible for all participants.
Steven Andrews UK said on behalf of Bob Ryder that he was pleased to be nominated as chair for the WG on product information needs. The COM is happy to have Bob Ryder as a chairman for this working group.
AT asked a question on stakeholder cooperation on product information needs. The COM replied that procedure for cooperation is not yet decided. However, it is important to get contribution from stakeholders.
The Chairmansummarisedthat we still have to spend a lot of effort in explaining to all stakeholders what IPP is – and show its added value. IPP is still to often misunderstood as either “nothing but an empty box”, or “yet another layer of administration”. This discussion is important to be taken seriously, not least because IPP can contribute significantly to “better regulation”. But also, we have to show in concrete action what the added value of IPP is.
3. UPDATE BY THE COMMISSION ON THE IPP PILOT PROJECTS EXERCISE (by Orsolya Csorba)
IPP Pilot Project Exercise
The COM gave a presentation on the two IPP Pilot Projects that it is running in cooperation with two companies, Nokia on mobile phones and Carrefour on a teak garden chair. The COM described the setup of the projects and the progress made.
(Presentation slides to be found on the following link:
Questions and answers (Q/A) on the two IPP Pilot Project
Participants have asked both general and technical questions on the mobile phone IPP pilot project. Bellow are the highlights from the discussion:
DE asked about the procedure for selecting the stakeholders. The COM explained that the procedure was an open call for all interested stakeholders, published on the website.
DE was concerned about toxicity issue in the mobile phone project, referring to the Blue Angel eco-label in Germany. The COM noted that toxicity is part of the products life-cycle and this is one of the areas the project is focusing on.
DE explained that there was a common agreement among mobile phone producers not to use any eco-label. The COM asked if DE could provide more information on this issue.
NL was concerned if LCA needs to be improved. If so, they have to specify the improvement options on methodology.
AT was concerned that the health implications during the use phase of the mobile phonecaused by electromagnetic radiation was left out from the project. The COM explained that the stakeholdersdecided prioritising energy and toxicity, based on the studies carried out on the mobile phones’ impact throughout their life-cycle. The COM asked AT to send reports and studies on this issue. AT responded that the mobile phone producers are not interested to highlight this issue, but it is a question of credibility of IPP to take this into account.The Chairman indicated that consumers and NGOs did not take a position during the stakeholder meeting on this specific issue, and highlighted once more the need for all stakeholders to participate proactively in a co-operative way.
UK asked if any other pilot projects were in the pipe-line. The answer from the Chair was that the COM has no concrete plans for new pilot projects. The purpose of the pilot projects is to demonstrate the added valueof the IPP approach. They are not to be understood as only another eco-design exercise.
UK asked about the relation to EuP. The COM responded they will keep the dialogue open, also including ETAP.
The Chair gave an up-date on the thematic strategy on natural resources. While IPP focuses on the performance of products, this thematic strategy will add an overall environmental objective to be achieved. The outcome will be a strategy for how we can reduce the environmental impact in a growing economy. The strategy paper is planed to be presented in June.
The Chair gave an up-date on the thematic strategy on recycling and reuse. This strategy has been developed as a first example of how the thinking of the resources strategy can be applied to a specific policy area, in this case waste policy. The strategy paper is planed to be presented in June.
AT mentioned that already in the IPP Green Paper, the MS raised the issue on the ever growing consumption.
4. UP-DATE ON THE STUDIES CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION
Study on Development of indicators for IPP
This study aims at developing indicators to monitor the progress of IPP. These indicators should measure the impact of IPP. The study will select a basket of products representing the economy where the progress will be monitored.
The report is at the interim report stage. The COM held a working group meeting on the findings of the interim report with different experts.
The stakeholder meeting discussed and validated the methodology used by the contractor to define indicators for the purpose of the study. The interim report gives an overview of Indicators that would be possible to use based on literature research and selects a basket of around 30 product groups that indicators could apply to.
The final report of this study will be delivered by the consultants in June, according to current work schedule.
Questions and answers (Q/A) on the indicators for IPP report
UNICEdoubted whether stakeholders agreed on the methodology of this study. The COM noted that UNICE had particular concern in at the study working group with regard to the basis of the study, and how the products were selected for the study. The COM explained that the contractor is doing work according to what was set up in the technical annex of the study.
Study on Making life-cycle information and interpretative tools available (life-cycle awareness)
For IPP to be effective it is important that stakeholders who come in contact with the product are familiar with life-cycle thinking.
This study looks at the level of awareness in 3 groups of actors (SMEs, retailers, consumer organisations). The study will observe the main trends for using life-cycle assessment tools, who are the main promoters in the target group of life-cycle thinking and what the target groups’ need is for further communication on the community level on life-cycle thinking.
This study will provide baseline knowledge on the awareness of these groups that can be used for comparison in the future.
Preliminary results confirm that life-cycle awareness is very low among most members of the target groups. This confirms earlier results (e.g. on national level). The final report will be available approximately in June. Either the contractor or the COM will make a presentation on the result of the study when it is finalised.
Questions and answers (Q/A) on the life-cycle awareness study
UEAPME asked about methodology used by the consultants and SMEs involvement in the study. UEAPMEclaimed to have not been contacted during this work. The COM clarified that the study produced by UEAPME was used in the report.
Contract on Internet site on life-cycle assessments tools and services and life-cycle inventory data insupport of European IPP
The COM summarised the objective of this study. The objective is to improve availability and accessibility of selected life-cycle instrumentson the European level in support of IPP. The contract will feed into further work to be carried out within the COM. The contractor is PE Europe. The contract will comprise two main tasks that are thematically related to each other, carried out inparallel with each other:
- to establish a directory of life-cycle assessment tools and service providers that can support the wider up-take of life-cycle thinking;
- to collect life-cycle inventory data for a European LCI database;
Task 1:
i) Develop web-pages that can be integrated into the EUROPA web-site of the COM;
ii) The intention of this web site is to facilitate the access to existing information such as LCA databases, LCA tools and LCA services;
iii) The web site should be particularly suitable for smaller companies and business;
iv)However, it should also be useful for other stakeholders, for example public administrations and for larger companies intending to assist suppliers and customers.
Task 2:
v) Life-cycle inventory data from the following sectors:
- electricity production;
- transports including fuel production;
- fuel production;
- production of packaging materials;
- waste management of packaging materials;
- production of engineering / construction materials;
- waste management of engineering / construction materials;
- production of chemical products;
- waste management of chemical products.
vi) Transfer the inventory to the COM in an electronic format suitable for incorporating the data in the European database.
A workshop will take place in Brussels in September 2005 in the framework of the study. The consultant PE Europe will deliver the results by the end of this year. The results will then be fed into the LCA/LCI handbook project run by JRC Ispra.
Questions and answers (Q/A) on the LC Internet site project
DK asked if there were links to national databases. COM said that this will be taken into consideration.
UK asked if there will be a link to the e-LCA project. The COM will look into this.
5. UPDATE BY COMMISSION ON THE DISCUSSION ON PERFORMANCE TARGETS IN THE CONTEXT OF ETAP AND THE LINKAGES WITH IPP
The presentation on this point of the agenda was made by Pierre Henry, DG ENV. (Presentation slides to be found on the following link:
Questions and answers (Q/A) on ETAP
UEAPME asked about the link to the Dutch initiative on Clean, Cleaver and Competitive (CCC). The COM responded that the Dutch initiative has many issues in common with ETAP, it can contribute to the implementation of ETAP. However, the Commission is not considered to be a driver for CCC. UAPME also wondered how stakeholders could be involved in ETAP as the ETAP meeting the COM is hosting only includes Member States. The COM responded that when looking into performance targets the involvement of stakeholders will be important. When performance target (PT) pilot projects will be carried out this aspect will be considered and a group will be established which will be composed not only by member states but other interested stakeholders too.
SE asked about i) relation to eco-labelling, ii) what they mean by “simple” parameters in the context of life-cycle perspective, and iii) about technology procurement in the context of IPP. COM responded: i) they have to consider if they use the same parameters, it will depend of the product, ii) only few parameters will be defined that will be coherent with the life-cycle approach, it will depend on the case by case basis what parameters can be used, and iii) they will start with GPP while technology procurement is a possible way forward.