CB Forum Meeting: Tuesday 14 April 2015

Transcription

1 CB Forum Meeting: Tuesday 14 April 2015 Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels, meeting room C 9:30-18:00 Organisation Phone number address MARTIN-PHIPPS Cécile ADEME Cecile ademe.fr GAUVAIN Murielle AFNOR Certification Murielle.gauvain@afnor.org GODIN Fabienne Belgian CB + SPF Santé publique et Environnement Fabienne.godin@environnement.belgique.be HRUBY Pavel CENIA pavel.hruby@cenia.cz WAIDTL W Jakob Ecolabelling Denmark jwa@ecolabel.dk AURANMAA Kirsi Ecolabelling Finland Kirsi.auranmaa@ecolabel.fi ESKELAND Marianne Ecolabelling Norway mbe@ecolabel.no KOEL Mari-Liis Estonian Ministry of Environment mari-liis.koel@envir.ee TOMINGAS Kadri Estonian Ministry of Environment Hadn.tomingas@envir.ee DE SOUSA PINTO Carla European Commission DG ENV Carla.pinto@ec.europa.eu FERRATINI Silvia European Commission DG ENV Silvia.FERRATINI@ec.europa.eu LUDAIN Sylvie European Commission DG ENV Sylvie.ludain@ec.europa.eu KOUGOULIS Jiannis European Commission DG ENV Jiannis.Kougoulis@ec.europe.eu VENDEVILLE Hubert EVEA Tourisme h.vendeville@evea-tourisme.com SCHORPION Hannelore FOD VVVC Hannelore.Schorpion@milieu.belgie.be CARMAN BURGOS Stéphanie Helpdesk (BIO by Deloitte) +33 (0) ecolabel@bio.deloitte.fr NYARI Eszter Hungarian Ecolabelling Organisation nyari.eszter@okocimke.hu ISPRA: Italian National Institute for CESAREI Gianluca Environmental Protection and gianluca.cesarei@isprambiente.it Research KOUGOULIS Jiannis JRC IPTS Jiannis.Kougoulis@ec.europe.eu DODDS Nick JRC IPTS Nick.Dodds@ec.europe.eu KAPS Renata JRC IPTS Renata.Kaps@ec.europe.eu WALUGA Janina Ministere du Developpement durable et les infrastructures Janina.waluga@aev.etat.lu GUBERINA Blanka Ministry of Environmental & Grahovac Nature Protection Croatia Blanka.grahovac-guberina@mzoip.hr HRISTOVA Nadejda Ministry of Environment and Water n.hristova@moew.government.bg TKACZYK Joanna PCBC jtkaczyk@pcbc.gov.pl RIMKUS Andrea RAL ggmbh Andrea.rimkus@ral-ggmbH.de SCHOLTZ Henning RAL ggmbh Henning.scholtz@ral-gGmbH.de BUTTNER Peter RAL ggmbh Peter.buttner@ral(gGmbH.de VLOT Ineke SMK ivlot@smk.nl SAHLBERG Ulla Sweden Ecolabelling ulla.sahlberg@svanen.se Hentling Susanne UBA Susanne.hentling@uba.de VAUGHAN Paul UK Ecolabel Delivery Paul.vaughan@oakdenhollins.co.uk VORNHERR Christian VKI Verein fur Vonsamenkeninprimation ckornherr@vki.at 1

2 1. Welcome, adoption of agenda and November 2014 CB Forum minutes + AOB requests (Chair) (9:30-9:40) The November 2014 minutes and the April 2015 CB Forum Agenda were accepted. A tour de table was carried out to present new CBs and the new EU Ecolabel colleague, Sylvie Ludain. 2. Updates by the European Commission (EC- Carla Pinto) - (9:40-10:30) a. Update on the requested amendments on Lubricants The current criteria for lubricants have been prolonged until 31/12/2018 together with tissue paper, printed paper, copying paper and newsprint paper criteria. The prolongation exercise was difficult because requests of amendments were submitted after the prolongation cut-off. Prolongation is foreseen to be adopted before 7 June. To provide background on the amendment requested by UK on lubricants, on 11 December 2014, the EC contacted all CBs that had lubricant licences, and in particular, asked for information on which ingredients no longer fulfil the criterion on hazardous substances after the 2 nd ATP of CLP. Results of the survey were based upon 8 CBs which had awarded licences for this product group. Notable remarks: - Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, and Madrid reported that CLP rules would not affect their EU Ecolabel products. - France and Germany indicated that two additives in their EU Ecolabel lubricants may be affected by the new CLP rules. Since these problematic additives will probably be re-classified as skin sensitising 1A, the overall impact will not be so high as the additives can continue to be used in EU Ecolabel product formulations although in concentrations lower than the treat rate established in the LusC-list. Based upon this conclusion, there will be no amendments. b. Update on the requested amendment on paper product groups This topic was originally discussed at the EUEB. The Danish CB requested an amendment or a shortened procedure exercise to modify the criterion on sustainable fibres asking higher percentages of certified fibres. This issue was also brought up on 29 January 2015, when the UK CB expressed concern about how tissue and copying and graphic paper products criteria on certified fibres are not in line with most paper certifications and with other more recent EU Ecolabel Criteria like Converted paper products. In February 2015, the German and French CB requested an urgent amendment on sustainable forestry for tissue paper, copying and graphic paper and newsprint paper. Before analysing the request, it was necessary to understand what actions were possible, taking into account the legal basis of each established product group. The goal was to see how an amendment 2

3 could be carried out (since the amendment would not follow a normal amendment procedure). Legal services indicated that there were no legal constraints. Tissue paper: the amendment is not possible because the related Decision from 2009, came into force before the adoption of the EU Ecolabel Regulation 66/2010. For these criteria the legal basis is the previous Ecolabel Regulation. C&G/Newsprint paper: the legal basis is the current Ecolabel Regulation. Three options were outlined: 1. OPTION 1: Carry out a simple amendment It would only be on sustainable forest management that would not legally necessitate an AHWG meeting, but would require justification on why a simple amendment needs to be performed only on this criterion, along with a market data analysis. Time line 18 months (vote Nov 2016). Not applicable to tissue paper. 2. OPTION 2: Carry out a shortened procedure for non-substantial modification As reported by IPTS, the timeline for this option would be about 20 months for a vote in March At least one AHWG meeting would need to take place, and this option would furthermore require a full reporting period. 3. OPTION 3: Carry out a standard process for the revision of tissue paper, copying and graphic paper, and newsprint paper. This option would require a full criteria revision for tissue, copying and graphic paper, newsprint paper and criterion 1 of printed paper. A transitional period would need to be added for this option, for a vote in March 2017 or November There would be an impact on all licences awarded for tissue, copying and graphic paper, news, and printed paper products. At least two AHWG meetings would be required. This option will set a favourably high level of forestry management. The EC is in favour of option 3. Options 1 and 2 would need to be carried out in parallel, however options 2 and 3 could be carried out independently. Only option 3 allows to modify the criterion for tissue paper. - UK: Indicated that the issue of sustainably forestry has been raised at the EUEB in the past and that there would need to be an increased percentage of certified fibres as in PEFC criteria. Did not believe that the short timeline for option 3 is realistic as it usually takes 2 years for revisions (therefore they envision 2018 as a more realistic objective). They are in favour of option 1, however they believed that the estimated timeline is too long, and suggests that this discussion should take place at the EUEB. - Chair: Believed that the fact that changes cannot be made to the tissue paper criteria in option 1 could be considered as a deterrent to choosing this option. - UK: Agreed with the Chair s comment, however they did not believe tissue paper would change to 100% sustainable origin in any case. - EC: Stressed that the position of the EC has to be neutral, that decisions cannot be taken based only on the request of a few CBs and that a larger consultation is necessary. - DK: Believed that option 1 s 18 month timeline is rather long, as other amendments have been made a lot faster. - EC: Answered DK by indicating that in option 1, IPTS would need to have the 18 month period to conduct the necessary. Explained that the amendment carried out in option 1 is a different 3

4 kind of amendment, as only ONE requirement would be stricter, while other requirements/criterions would not be assessed or revised. - Norway: Insisted that attention should be given to ensure that transitional periods are long enough for licence holders, regardless of which option is chosen. - EC: Indicated that revisions will start in summer 2015, however since a full revision will be needed for these mentioned product groups regardless of which option is chosen, they should be careful in selecting the carried out option. They reinstated that option 3 could be a favourable choice because of its shorter timelines. - Chair: Pointed out that option 2 was taken for TAs and did not work. - Norway: Suggested to opt for option 3, emphasising that the timeline should be heavily considered. In any case, licence holders will have a licence until end of 2018 (since the validity goes until then). s As result of the varied opinions, the final decision will be taken at the EUEB. c. Statistics on "Facts & Figures" website page (Raised By Germany) (see Annex) Two years ago, there was a decision to stop releasing and publishing EU-wide statistics on the Facts and Figures page since CBs were not reporting their products and licences in a harmonised manner. It should be noted that regardless, these statistics were found in each News Alert Special Edition as a point of reference. To date, there are two reporting periods (September 2014 and March 2015) that follow the harmonised reporting guidelines set out by the EC, therefore once Germany requested for the Facts and Figures page to be updated, the EC agreed and the Helpdesk carried out a mass update on the page. - Germany: Believed that the internal CB statistics should always be available to CB. - Helpdesk: Pointed out that since the September 2014 reporting period, the Helpdesk has been publishing each reporting period s Master Compilation Internal CB Statistics Excel sheet on CIRCA. This excel sheet is always available to Competent Bodies via CIRCA. They furthermore reminded CBs that any statistic enquiries can be directed to the Helpdesk for tracking purposes. Statistics on the Facts and Figures page will be updated twice a year (in line with the News Alert Special Edition update) by the Helpdesk, and will only go as far back as September 2014, since the harmonised period started at that time. CBs can refer to CIRCA to obtain internal CB statistics (graphs & tables). d. Termination of contracts (Raised By Germany) (see Annex) Whenever a new set of EU Ecolabel criteria is published, the licence holder must submit a new application and the CB has to sign a new contract. 4

5 - Belgium: Mentioned that in the past, they would ask for a new application even when a minimal change was made to the licence holder s product. However, in principle they believe that it should be up to the CB to assess if the licence holder s product formula changes are extensive enough for the CB to request a new dossier, or if they only need to slightly amend the application. - EC: Indicated that every time that a Commission Decision establishing a revised set of EU Ecolabel criteria is adopted, the reference to the Commission Decision changes and thus the licence holder should sign a new contract. - Norway: Believed that if the application is rather old, then they ask their licence holder to submit a new application. However, if the application in question is only 6-8 months ago, then it may not be necessary to have them apply for a new application. Regardless, they believed that this decision should be at the discretion of the CB. - Chair: Pointed out that there are no guidelines on how to consider if e.g., a CO2 analysis is still acceptable. The Chair believed that it would be useful to know the validity length of test reports. Whenever a new set of EU Ecolabel criteria is published, the licence holder must submit a new application and the CB has to sign a new contract. Then it is up to the CB s discretion to decide if the applicant has to send a brand new technical dossier or if only some parts of the old dossier need to be re-presented and updated. e. Publishing of prolongations (Raised By Germany) (see Annex) CBs encounter issues when companies ask if and when a Decision will be prolonged, as they do not have insight on when the publishing will actually take place. If it is a technical amendment, although it may be in a completed draft form, it cannot be published on the website until after its adoption (since it can still be changed during its draft form). - Germany indicated that they have seen that some Member States publish draft versions on their MS website before the official version is published. CBs need to wait to publish draft prolongations on their national websites until after they are officially adopted, as these versions may be subject to changes. However the EC will from now on indicate on the website that the process of prolonging the validity of criteria until xx/yyy/zz is ongoing. f. EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines In order for the Helpdesk to publish the final logo guidelines, they requested the feedback from all CBs on 3 questions: 1. Do all CBs agree to improperly coloured logo example, introduced by the Belgium CB? 2. Do all CBs agree to the new example on the logo s use on copying and graphic paper, newsprint paper and tissue paper products, which removed the authorisation to allowing the following text on these product groups individual sheets: This paper is printed on paper 5

6 awarded the EU Ecolabel. This phrase, although proposed to be unauthorised for the previously mentioned product groups (as there is already a printed paper product group), was proposed to be authorised for the fabric used on EU Ecolabel furniture. 3. Do all CBs agree to the new example on textiles used for EU Ecolabel furniture? If a product group for furniture (including textiles) is introduced, this example will be removed from the logo guidelines and will no longer be authorised. - Belgium: Suggested to add or associated promotional material to the end of the sentence for number 2. - France: Indicated that some of their editorial questions/comments were not taken into account and asked the Helpdesk to provide them feedback. The Helpdesk will consider France s editorial comments, provide them feedback, and incorporate Belgium s suggestion before publishing the final version of the EU Ecolabel logo guidelines. g. FAQ Sheet on Circa for all CB Forum outcomes? This request was made by the Italian CB, who indicated that it would be helpful to expand the current FAQ Virtual CB Forum Excel sheet to include all physical and virtual CB Forum discussions and outcomes. The Helpdesk finalised this document in early Within this document, all minutes dating back to 2010 were integrated into the Excel sheet. Aside from the four CB Forums in 2010, each year leading up to 2014 had three meetings. Whenever there was a conclusion that was explicitly applicable to more than one product group, it was to be copied/pasted into all relevant tabs (i.e. a conclusion that indicated that it applied to APC and laundry detergents shall be pasted into both sheets). The following sheets were added: o New product groups: Absorbent Hygiene Products Rinse-off Cosmetics Cleaning Services (added since there was already a discussion on it, even though it is not yet adopted). o New discussion topic sheets: Laboratories Marketing & Communication DID-list ECAT/Green Store & Statistics Logo Guidelines & Logo Use User Manuals Handing Applications/Fees o Sorting of General Issues sheet General Issues became Miscellaneous. The Helpdesk sorted out and added as many topic discussions that originally were within this sheet to other newly created sheets. 6

7 o Formatting: The title bars were harmonised: each page coloured EU Ecolabel green and have the corresponding Commission Decision and validity dates indicated. All discussion topic sheet tabs were coloured blue, while all product group tabs are coloured green, in alphabetical order, with the exception that miscellaneous sheet is the first tab. Filters were added on each page to facilitate searches to make it possible to sort by date, or by virtual or meeting discussions. - Chair: Mentioned that there are some outcomes listed for older decisions that are in the sheet for newer Decisions. - Belgium: Asked if it would be possible for CB Forum conclusions to be included in the User Manuals. - EC: Responded that it could be a difficult task, as it is very detailed and technical work to carry out. - Chair: Indicated that the website s FAQ for specific product groups are outdated, and could possibly be improved thanks to the newly created FAQ compiled Excel. The Chair furthermore suggests that IPTS could possibly be the most qualified to take on this task (up for discussion). The Helpdesk will add in additional pages for older decisions and move the corresponding outcomes to the proper sheets, as pointed out by the Chair. The EC will discuss the comments made from Belgium and the Chair internally with IPTS in order to see if and how it could be feasible to integrate FAQ Excel sheet conclusions in UMs or on the website s FAQ. h. EU Ecolabel and new binding legislation (see Annex) This topic was brought up in order to determine how to react to CLP changes. It is generally believed that from a legal point of view, it should be the licence holders to eventually change the formulation accordingly in order to be compliant. It is believed, though, on a formal point of view that formulation changes are difficult to control. The EC received a request from the Italian CB, requesting that the EC report (to all CBs) on all new binding legislation entering into force and see how it will impact all licences under all product groups. The EC indicated that they are not capable of doing this. - EC: Indicated that the regulation is downstream from the chemical regulation. Therefore, if changes are made to the chemical regulation, then the regulation must be changed. It is possible that an internal procedure can be established to handle amended criteria. However, they are not in the position to inform all CBs how new Decisions affect product groups. 7

8 - Chair: Pointed out that the current approach is bottom up, meaning that licence holders sometimes self-declare changes and conclusions to CBs. However, theses self-declarations are not always carried out by licence holders. - EC: Suggested that they could consider sending out an via the CB Forum Mailing List, indicating changes in Decisions, which would then prompt CBs to verify on their own end how these decisions affect product groups. - Belgium: Shared that since they believe that it is the licence holder s responsibility to selfdeclare changes, they have all of their licence holders sign an annual declaration which indicates that it is their responsibility to ensure that they are always compliant with the criteria. As it is the legal obligation of the licence holder to indicate when they no longer comply with criteria, and to provide self-declarations to CBs, it is consequently not the role of the EC to inform CBs of how amendments and changes to decisions affect product groups. An internal procedure could be established though, to decide how to handle these situations in the future. i. Pre-discussion of all CB Forum issues via virtual? (Raised by the Italian CB) Italy requested to have all CB Forum issues be pre-discussed via the Virtual CB Forum. - EC: Indicated that the Virtual CB Forum was established to address urgent situations that could not wait for the tri-annual CB Forums and are not sure that it is necessary to have double discussions (physical and virtual). Pre-discussions are not feasible. The normal procedure for virtual and physical discussions will continue as the physical and virtual CBs have different scopes. j. ECAT user interface for tourist accommodations As the ECAT search engine is not adapted to tourist accommodation/campsite searches, the EC is collaborating with the IT Team in order to create a new ECAT portal, specific to services for easier and more productive searches. On the website, there will now be two buttons for the ECAT, one for products, and one for TA&CS services. The TA&CS portal will facilitate searches by region, country, and city. Furthermore, an interactive map will appear upon selecting a TA&CS listing and will furthermore have an option to redirect the viewer, by providing a link to the licence holder s website. The Helpdesk will furthermore launch a call to all CBs to register as many TA&CS licences as possible in order for all licence holders to be in the system and to be included within the Online and Print Listing marketing opportunity, where licence holders will be contacted to request their consent to have their listings sent to booking sites, such as BookDifferent, for free marketing opportunities. 8

9 The EC and IT Team will launch the new portal in parallel with the Helpdesk s Online and Print Listings marketing activity. CBs will be contacted to carry out all necessary measures to register licence holders within the system. k. Handling LuSC-List product integration requests (Raised by Helpdesk) (see Annex) The Helpdesk has increasingly received enquiries from individuals requesting information on how to integrate their products into the LuSC list and would like to know who to direct these requests. For the moment, they are only aware that Hildo Krop (associated with Dutch CB) takes on these requests, however, as there is a charge, they are not sure how to communicate this to enquirers as they cannot promote a paying service. - Netherlands: Indicated that the Dutch CB charges around EUR 200 for their services, and they individually receive about 1 enquiry a month to handle requests. - UK: Mentioned that they also handle these requests, however they do not charge. They indicate that there should be an outlined set procedure on how to inform enquirers on the procedure for LuSC list applications. They emphasised this importance, as it is not a sustainable practice to rely only on one person to deal with requests. They believed that the LuSC list is very helpful for the entire supply chain for EU Ecolabel products. - Germany: Indicated that they too take on assessment for lubricants, in particular for the Blue Angel. They and the UK have consulted Hildo Krop for advice on how to handle LuSC list enquiries. These enquiries can be referred to all CBs, who will re-direct producers to the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK. 3. Presentation of the updated ECOLABEL TOOLBOX (ADEME) (10:30-11:30) (see Annex) As the ShMile project was introduced a year and a half ago, this presentation gave a follow up on the continuation of the project. This project initially promoted Mediterranean Sea countries in the north, however the second part of this project aims at promoting southern countries as well. They have been in constant collaboration with the ADEME EU Ecolabel experts to carry out this toolbox. In the first part of the project, the site and communication material was available in Italian, English, Arabic, Greek, and French. However, the second version is only in English and French. The following goals are outlined for the project: 1. Improve awareness raising of the EU Ecolabel: Particularly in Jordan and Egypt and Tunisia, as these countries are mostly aware of Green Globe. Currently there are about 180/670 tourist accommodations that use the tool. 2. Inform on the EU Ecolabel: Information on criteria and on the approach taken to meet criteria, what the application steps are, etc. Potential licence holders have access to a list of the 29 mandatory and 61 optional criteria in the form of a check list. Once they complete the checklist, they are able to submit a proposal to any CB for consideration. 9

10 3. Reporting and statistics: Reporting models were developed in light of comparing statistics. Users will be prompted to vote on their opinion of the most relevant and least pertinent optional criteria. The tool will also track the annual monetary, energy, and water savings per tourist accommodation. These parameters will be used for the next revision of Tourist Accommodation/Campsite services. A mapping tool allows users to click on a tourist accommodation listing, visualise it on a map, have a description and obtain a few facts on the service, and see a picture. - Chair: Asked if they were taking the ongoing revision into account. - ADEME: Responded that they are aware of it, and will take any modifications to criteria into account accordingly. - Chair: Asked how statistics were gathered in order to obtain the amount and list of all TA&CS licence holders. - ADEME: Responded that it came from the European Commission s annual reporting. - Norway: Asked how the information in the tool is verified for validity. They furthermore commented that following the ADEME-developed tool for TA&CS, IPTS should finance an online application tool for all EU Ecolabel products. - ADEME: Responded that Emilie Machefaux, the former ADEME EU Ecolabel CB representative, has closely worked with them to verify the content. They also mention that it may be pertinent to have a toolbox for cleaning services in the future. - Norway: Indicated that the Nordic Ecolabel have electronic applications that present the criteria in a reformulated manner that is easy to read and formulate. They asked if this type of reclassification of criteria for pertinence was also done in the ShMile toolbox. - ADEME: Indicated that this is taken into account. - EC: Pointed out that the LIFE Programme is currently accepting applications for funding. Although it was indicated that it is difficult to obtain, they believe that it could be something worthwhile to look into, since this project will not always be free. - EC: Suggests to use the Commission Decisions, which are available in all EU languages for translations. - Belgium: Enquired how submitted applications are sent to CBs and wanted to know if it would only be sent to France, or if it was open to other CBs. - ADEME: Responded that for the moment, applications are sent to France (AFNOR) since they are in their trial period. However, this could be arranged to be open to all CBs. In order to do this, CBs will need to register. - EC: Indicated that the old and obsolete EU Ecolabel logo was still being used and asked them to remove it and replace it with the correct logo, which the Helpdesk had sent to them after their last presentation. They furthermore asked them to refer to the scheme as the EU Ecolabel, instead of the European Ecolabel. ADEME will change the logo and wording to EU Ecolabel. Before publishing, ADEME will send the demo version to the EC and to CBs for their comments. 10

11 4. How to improve User Manuals (Denmark) (11:30-12:00) (see Annex) The purpose of this presentation was to launch discussions on how to improve User Manuals, and furthermore to take back any lessons learned during the presentation and continue discussions on the national level. Ultimately the conclusions made during this discussion, and in any follow up discussions can be used during UM updates and improvements. Denmark introduced this topic by presenting a bad example of User Manuals. This example consisted of simplifying appendixes, as they are generally too complicated. The room was spilt into small groups to foster group conversations; ideas per group were presented to the room: - Question 1: What needs to be improved in the UM? (i.e. should more information be provided on the application process? How about on explanations or clarity?) - Question 2: Why is this important? Explain who gains from the improvements or if there are other advantages. - Question 3: How can improvements be implemented and who should apply or carry out the improvements? Be as specific as possible and provide examples. - EC: Mentioned that the JRC most likely would welcome this type of feedback, as they request the feedback from CBs during the UM development process. - Group 1: Germany/Austria, believed that: o UMs are generally too long. o Declarations in UM lack structure. A suggestion was that they should be grouped together for easy identification. o UMs should be in a modifiable PDF version, as it is not reasonable to require applicants to hand write the information. - Group 2: Luxembourg/Poland, believed that: o UMs should be in a modifiable PDF format. o Every country should have the same User Manuals (i.e. The French and UK UM are more developed than the ones that are online and available to MS) France and the UK indicated that their UMs are different because they added an introduction on their country-specific auditing processes to make it more relevant for applicants. - Group 3: France, believed that: o UM Part B (section on criteria) is mainly comprised of copy/pasted sections from the Decisions. To foster added value, useful tips on how to interpret the criteria could be included, otherwise the entire section has no added value and could be deleted in its entirety. - Group 4: UK believed that: 11

12 o The current UM is not applicable to all EU Ecolabel stakeholder audiences (suppliers, licence holders, etc.), which makes it hard to provide sound feedback on how to improve it. They would be in favour of having UMs intended for specific stakeholders. o The Part A in the UM should be separate from the rest of the UM, as some CBs have their own country specific introduction document. o Part B is unnecessary as it is just a copy/paste from criteria. They would be in favour of deleting it. o UMs should be in a modifiable PDF format. - Group 5: Norway believed that: o The UMs are generally too long. Unnecessary sections should be removed. o Information such as chemical usage should be highlighted instead of copy/pasting from criteria. o The UMs should outline derogations more specifically. The EC/DK will send out an requesting to have good/bad examples of UMs sent in via , or to provide any additional comments by 15 May. Denmark will present conclusions at the June 2015 CB Forum. 5. CLP generic and specific limits for mixtures: an application to printed paper products (Denmark) (12:00-12:30) From the criteria document, it is indicated that Hazardous substances are: Consumables that could end up in the final printed paper product, and that contain substances and/or mixtures meeting the criteria for classification with the hazard statements or risk phrases specified below in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ) or Council Directive 67/548/EEC (4) or substances referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ) shall not be used for printing, coating, and finishing operations of the final printed paper product. DK presented this Table (see below), as a helpful way to make calculations: 12

13 Denmark used the following example to demonstrate mixture compositions: 2 % conservation: H400 4% detergent: H % oil: H % polymer: not classified 31% water: not classified How is this mixture classified? Denmark presented the proper calculation: H411: 0(H410)*10+4(H411) = 4% <25% (not classified H 411) H412: 0 (H410) * (H411) * (H412) = 74 > 25%, Therefore the mixture is classified as H Update on the conclusions taken at the Virtual CB Forum (Chair) (12:30-12:40) Tissue paper (proposed by Germany): how to calculate emissions associated to paper mill broke: - Question: How would you choose the emission values and electricity values to associate to mill broke that a producer asks to reuse for an EU Ecolabel tissue paper production? Would you ask for the worst case scenario described in option 1 (use all the worst emission values from all the pulps) or do you think it is too stringent and therefore would you agree to follow 13

14 option 2 (using weighted averages) and additionally verify that the results are clearly below the limits (so that possible slight changes in the production would not affect the result) and asking the applicant to verify these limits each year? - Refer to the FAQ Virtual and Physical CB Forum s Excel sheet for full details and for the conclusion. Copying and graphic paper: how the amount of certified fibres in the paper is verified: - How do you verify the amount of certified fibres in EU Ecolabel Copying and graphic paper? Would you require that the paper producer shows the balance sheet of their CoC account so that they can see how many certified fibres they have purchased? Would you also require that the amount of certified fibres that is sold out in the EU Ecolabel paper is deducted from the CoC account so that the certified fibres are not sold twice? (therefore relating to the example above would you agree that the "other" 1000 t of paper in output, other than the FSC (70%) labelled, cannot bear the EU Ecolabel Logo?) - Refer to the FAQ Virtual and Physical CB Forum s Excel sheet for full details and for the conclusion. Textile products (Cr. 14) surfactants H411 H412 H413-1) Do you agree that, in a EU Ecolabel textile product, it is possible to use a fabric softener which contains 1 - < 2,5 % of a surfactant, classified with H411, H412 or H413, once proven that recipes are formulated using automatic dosing systems and processes follow standard operating procedures? (German interpretation) - 2) Is it a laboratory testing necessary in this case? - 3) In case of positive answer to previous question: What is the level of acceptance? (The mentioned 1,0% level in table 6 is only for H311, H331, H317, not for H411,H412,H413). - Refer to the FAQ Virtual and Physical CB Forum s Excel sheet for full details and for the conclusion. Textile products: Article 1: Scope & filled pillows/blankets - Are pillows/cushions and blankets (with filling material); which in the combined nomenclature are listed in chapter 94, included within the scope of textile products (Decision 2014/350/EU)? Are filling materials (made of polyester) eligible for the EU Ecolabel for textile products? - Refer to the FAQ Virtual and Physical CB Forum s Excel sheet for full details and for the conclusion. All purpose cleaners decisions (2011/383/EU) - Article 1-Scope - Do you think the following products fall within the scope of APC? - 1) A product that is used for cleaning and impregnation of stone floors. (The product is similar to soap) - 2) A product that is a wax-based detergent with self-polishing wax protection. - 3) A product that is a cleaner that provides a light wax protection on the floors. - Refer to the FAQ Virtual and Physical CB Forum s Excel sheet for full details and for the conclusion. s The UK indicated that they would like for IPTS to have access to the Virtual CB Forum conclusions. LUNCH (12:40-13:40) 14

15 7. Overall issues concerning handling applications (13:40-16:25) a. PAPER PGs Residual Monomers criterion (4e) in certain paper product groups and new classification of Sodium Acrylate (Finland) (13:40-13:55)-(see Annex) A proposal was sent by a Finnish monomer producer, KEMIRA, in order to set a limit value for the concentration of environmentally hazardous residual monomers down to a reasonable level because: - Recent information regarding hazardous properties of substances may cause them to be classified as dangerous and sometimes the chemicals used no longer comply with EU Ecolabel requirements (i.e. ammonium acrylate and sodium acrylates have been assigned after CLP ATPs as environmentally dangerous H400/410, although previously they were classified as non-hazardous). - EU Ecolabel criteria indicate that classified residual monomers must not be present in production chemicals, in quantities exceeding 100 ppm (a limit that is very difficult and costly to achieve). - The reason that they proposed that the limit for environmentally hazardous residual monomers should be aligned with the SVHC to ppm in the mixture. According to KEMIRA, it is not reasonable to set a 100 ppm limit for hazardous monomers, as indicated in the current requirement. It is furthermore not justifiable for them, considering that production chemicals other than polymers can include more dangerous substances. - It was indicated that if an amendment is made, all technical arguments would have to be analysed to consider the amendment. This would therefore take time to reassess the information and the amendment would consequently only be ready to set forth by the end of the year. - Sweden: Indicated that if hazardous monomer levels are lower than 100 ppm, it cannot be found in the safety data sheet, which would mean that licence holders are not able to determine if these hazardous monomers are included. Therefore, licence holders/cbs would have to directly contact their suppliers to find out. The EC will first have to investigate whether KEMIRA s concern about hazardous monomer levels is a general concern. For this, the EC will contact all CBs that have awarded licences for copying and graphic paper and newsprint paper and will then consult with IPTS and present the conclusions at the June 2015 CB Forum. However a formal request of amendment is requested (by using IPTS forms for derogation requests). b. RINSE OFF COSMETICS (Decision 2014/893/EU): Criterion 5 When and how to provide certificates for Palm Oil and derivatives (Germany and France) (13:55-14:25) (see Annex) This point dealt with criterion 5 on sustainable sourcing of palm oil, palm kernel oil and their derivatives. In particular, there are questions on how to perform the assessment. It is unclear when the applicant has to provide book and claim certificates and which are equivalent schemes to RSPO. 15

16 In regards to bio based surfactant use, while there are different bio based sources / products, criterion 5 only covers palm oil and palm kernel oil. While the majority (90%) of palm oil from a palm fruit is used in food, 10% of the palm kernel oil is used for surfactants. For the most part, only palm/palm kernel oil derivate are used in cleaning products and rinse-off cosmetic products, with the exception of physically treated, via filtration, palm/palm kernel oil, which is not considered to be a derivate. There are three RSPO Supply chain systems: 1. Segregated: Certified palm oil is kept apart throughout the supply chain - Applicants must be members of RSPO to apply for EU Ecolabel. 2. Mass balance: Certified palm oil is mixed in with conventional palm oil, but monitored administratively. - Applicants must be members of RSPO to apply for EU Ecolabel. - UK: Indicated that this system is very similar to FSC and PEFC, and can furthermore have an end product that does not have any palm oil. 3. Book and claim: Certified palm oil is not kept apart; suppliers sell certificates to users; claimed volumes are matched. - Applicants must be members of RSPO or Green palm to apply for EU Ecolabel. If the applicant uses/bears either the Green Palm, or the RSPO logo, an independent audit must be carried out. As the chemistry behind palm oil is very complicated and difficult to decipher, Germany suggests their approach: Require the surfactant manufacturer to provide a declaration to the application that includes: the sue of palm/palm kernel oil in a specific surfactant, type of supply chain (segregated/mass balance) or no certificate, amount of palm/palm kernel oil in the specific surfactant (0,1 100%) based on organic carbon. The Germany declaration is available for download on for reference. Germany created and shared an excel sheet (available on CIRCA) to calculate the amount of book & claim certificates or surfactant manufacturer delivery notes. - The Netherlands: Asked how it can be guaranteed that the applicant does not double count certificates. - Germany: Responded that the auditor verifies this. - UK: Indicated that they see an issue with the fact that the applicant itself must look into suppliers for all palm/palm kernel oil because it may leave room for error. - Germany: Indicated to keep in mind that if certified pulps are not checked on a routine basis, then it is not possible to use the EU Ecolabel at all. A similar principle can be applied to the RSPO supply chain systems. - Sweden: Asked (in regards to book & claim use), if a company uses another company s brand, should it be the licence holder or the brand owner that purchases the certificate? 16

17 - Germany: Responds that it would be the licence holder that purchases the certificate as they are under legal jurisdiction. It is possible that contracts should only be made by the manufacturer. - Chair: Asked what kind of equivalent schemes of RSPO could be accepted. - Germany: Pointed out that there are certification systems that can be considered as equivalent to RSPO: ISCC (International Sustainability & Carbon Certification), Rainforest Alliance, and RSB. - EC: Indicated that due to its technicality, a special session on this topic should be reserved for a future presentation at the EUEB. There will be a special session held on this topic at the June or November 2015 EUEB. As for when to send book and claim certificates, in the UM it has been already clarified: after March of the following year. c. TEXTILE PRODUCTS (Decision 2014/350/EU) (14:25-15:25) i. Criterion 1a: Organic production standard and non-genetically modified cotton (Belgium) (see Annex) Belgium has had issues verifying whether or not cotton is non-gmo (in regards to criterion 1a. For the production standard 1a. Organic, all conventional cotton and IPM cotton used shall come from non-gmo modified varieties. They have found it challenging to verify its conformity against the Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003. They pointed out that certain cotton schemes or national legislation do not allow the use of GMOs but do accept the IPM scheme such as Cotton Made in Africa, Fairtrade Cotton, and AGRO 2 (Greece) Therefore, they believe that the following could be a practical interpretation of the criterion: - Option A: 10% organic + 90% Fair Trade, CMiA or AGRO 2 - Option B: 20% IPM (BCI, Fair trade, CMiA or AGRO 2), 80% conventional They proposed to consider the deletion of the non-gmo requirement because it makes the organic option unattractive compared to the IPM alternative. - JRC: The reasoning behind criterion 1a is that any cotton that is added to organic cotton should not be GMO. The organic regulation does not specifically apply to cotton, however, this reference is intended to trace cotton. The non-organic blend in 1a should not be GMO. - Belgium: Asked if organic yarn and conventional yarn can be used. - JRC: Responded that organic yarn and conventional yarn can be used. - Belgium: Indicated that although they believe that integrating non-gmo was done so in light of improving the criteria, it actually has adversely and unintentionally promoted the use of IPM cotton since it is easier to use IPM cotton. - EC: Suggested that this topic be represented at the June EUEB once more investigation has taken place. - UK: Asked if it is possible to extend the transitional period for textiles in order to take into account the raised issues from Belgium. 17

18 - EC: Responded that it is no longer feasible to extend transitional period, as an amendment takes on average 6 months to be adopted and the current transitional period ends on 5 June Belgium: Brought up that when cotton is harvested, it is not always immediately determined if it will be GMO or non-gmo cotton, therefore it is difficult for licence holders to identify non-gmo cotton. As they have a licence holder that needs to renew its licence by May, they will go for criterion 1b (IPM cotton) as an alternative, since a conclusion cannot be made immediately. The EC will discuss with the JRC internally to see if it should be discussed in more detail at the June 2015 EUEB meeting. ii. Criterion 7a: Level of antimony in polyester fibres and the use of recycled and virgin PET (Germany) (see Annex) See question in Annex. - Denmark: Indicated that the level of antimony present in the polyester fibres shall not exceed 260 ppm. In practice they first identify the product chain. If recycled PET bottles are supplied, then they accept the mixture if the tested mixture is lower than the 260 ppm. - It was pointed out that the criterion only addresses PET bottles, and not PET plastic in general. However it was collectively agreed that the PET bottle reference is also applies to PET non-bottle plastic. Only the 5% should be tested against antimony and the result must be lower than 260 ppm. iii. Can textiles (or fibres) from Polylactid (PLA) apply for the EU Ecolabel? (Germany) (see Annex) See question in Annex. It was determined that since polyester-categorised PLA products are not mentioned in article 2, they are considered to be an entirely different fibre product. PLA products should not be awarded the EU Ecolabel. This point shall be added in the User Manual. d. APC (Decision 2011/383/EU): Are less dangerous H phrases implicitly derogated? (UK-Chair) (15:25-15:40) (see Annex) All purpose cleaners have a derogation for fragrances classified as H412 R52/53 (harmful to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment) which 18

19 indicates that that the fragrance is not readily biodegradable and has an acute toxicity of mg per litre (LC50). - It was generally asked if it can be assumed that a derogation for H413-R53 should or should not be implicitly considered. - EC: Responded that it should be implicitly considered. - Norway: Indicated that if H413 is not biodegradable, it should be made clear whether it still be considered as toxic or not. - It was indicated that substances that are classified as H413 should be excluded because of their toxic impact on aquatic life. The derogation for H413-R53 may be accepted. (REACH experts from the Commission request to erase from the Ecolabel Criteria the H phrases implicitly derogated). e. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Outcome of a French survey among the distributors of EU Ecolabel P&V (France) (15:40-16:10) This point was moved to the June 2015 CB Forum f. PAINTS & VARNISHES: APEO definition (UK-IPTS) (see Annex) (16:10-16:25) See annex for more details. Internal consultation with Germany and IPTS took place to attempt at defining APEO and APEO derivatives in light of taking into account which substances are used in paints. It was indicated that substances with the structure element of nonylphenol (and also few with octylphenol ) in the molecule and ionic surfactants (polymers having the structure element NPEO or OPEO and additional phosphate or sulfate groups) would be excluded and would not fall within the definition. Having consulted within IPTS and with the German CB, who maintain a list of APEOs based on feedback from the chemical industry, IPTS proposed that the definition is limited to those derived from nonylphenol or octylphenol base structures, being primarily: - Nonyl or octyphenol base structures (branched or linear) with variable ethoxylate chain lengths i.e. NPnEO or OPnEO. - Isomers of NPEO or OPEO (e.g. chains on 2 nd position of phenyl ring instead of 4 th ). - Nonyl or octyphenol base structures with additional phosphate or sulphate groups (ionic surfactant forms). Substitution of the alkyl group by, for example, an aryl group would not fall within the proposed definition because it does not include the whole base structure i.e. the alkylphenol group. 19

20 8. Follow-up on the tasks from last CB meeting (16:25-17:40) a. Update on the Paints & Varnishes criteria (IPTS-EC) (16:25-17:05) The following elements were added in the voted amendment on P&V Decision 2014/312/EU: - 9 month prolongation of the transitional period for currently licenced EU Ecolabel products Substances in binders and polymer dispersions along with other substances that need to be checked was included within the verification and assessment section in Criterion (5). - It should be noted that the evaluation of the derogation request on Adipic acid dihydrazide is ongoing, as there was incomplete evidence, which hindered the possibility to include a derogation request in this particular amendment. - In regards to criterion 4, EU Ecolabel test results for SVOC was carried out, in which modifications of ISO that address SVOCs are proposed. Prescriptive references to testing parameters such as analytical systems, polar/non-polar markers) are removed. In the UM update which is scheduled to be released by June 2015, guidance will be updated in light of providing harmonised test parameters. VOC/SVOC definitions were amended within reference to the boiling point range and the most common markers retained, aligned with CEN/TS In regards to criterion 2 titanium dioxide pigment and information availability, page 70 in the UM is currently missing the following text: If more than one type of ore is used, the values will apply in proportion to the quantity. It was indicated that if information on the composition is not provided, the worst case option should be considered. In regards to criterion 5 restriction of hazardous substances and mixtures, a clarification will be added to the UM. - EC: Indicated that there should have been an amendment on the prolongation period, but now it is not possible. It was indicated that the UM will not be updated until the amendment is published to avoid mismatched information. IPTS indicated that applicants will have until February 2016 to reapply for P&V. Indicated that the adoption of the initial Commission Decision, comprising the amendment is planned to be published by 28 May. The EC reinstated that the official UM cannot be published until the amendment is published, however CBs can still provide guidance to their licence holders because they have the text of the draft amendment. i. Voted amendment (see Annex for question) The word and has been deleted from the Amendment Appendix 7. a) the requirement on formaldehyde on the limit 0,010% the methods HPLC / ISO It was asked if and was deliberately or non-deliberately deleted. 20