The EU eco-label scheme

1. Background

• to promote the design, production, marketing and use of products which have a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle, and

• to provide consumers with better information on the environmental impact of products. Disappointed by the weakness of the system and its failure either to compete with national eco-labels or to raise consumer awareness to any significant degree, the European Commission in 1996 suggested revising the Directive. ⁱⁱ That proposal has now been discussed in Parliament and Council and will be the subject of further consideration by the Commission.

2. Relevance to forests

3. NGO concerns related to forest products

• Criteria are too vague: The only proof of sustainable forest management required from companies is a declaration saying that they are managing their forests according to Helsinki Process guidelines (Europe), or ITTO criteria, UNCED Principles and other regional initiatives (outside Europe). However, these principles/guidelines are too vague to be applied at the forest unit management level. NGOs want to see the standards adopted by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) used instead.

• No chain of custody or independent verification: One of the major problems of the current eco-label scheme is that no method has been developed for tracing the origin of products. Nor is there any independent verification of claims that a product is managed in accordance with the guidelines/principles described below. The Commission proposal for a revision does not tackle these problems.

• Misleading consumers: NGOs are concerned that the statement which the Commission is proposing to use on tissue paper products will set a precedent for the use of vague and therefore misleading claims. The statement says that products bearing the eco-label 'promote the safeguarding of forests'. This will lead consumers to believe that such products always use fibre from sustainably managed forests, which is in fact not the case.

How it works The eco-label scheme is voluntary and open to manufacturers from both EU and non-EU countries. Manufacturers are under no obligation to apply for the eco-label. The definition of criteria for the award of the eco-label is based on the study of product life-cycles. The Commission is responsible for adopting and revising the criteria. Either the Commission or a Competent Body can propose a new product group. The award of labels to products is a matter for national authorities (Competent Bodies). These Bodies are independent and neutral. Manufacturers or importers applying for an eco-label must address the Competent Body in the country where the product is manufactured or into which it is imported from a third country. NGO involvement National level: Definitions of ecological criteria for a product group are drafted by a Competent Body in cooperation with relevant interest groups. EU level: On the basis of such a draft, the Commission prepares a final proposal for criteria. The Commission consults major European interest groups meeting within the 'Consultative Forum'. Environmental NGOs are represented by the EEB. The Commission is meant to take 'the utmost account of the opinion delivered' by the Forum. It then submits its final proposal to a Regulatory Committee composed of Member State representatives. If the Committee accepts the proposed criteria [by qualified majority), they are then adopted by the Commission. Two positive aspects of the scheme as it currently relates to NGOs are not guaranteed in the proposal for a revised Regulation. First, NGOs at present have a say in planning at both national and Community levels. Secondly, the Commission currently pays travel costs for NGO experts who participate in ad-hoc working groups, as well as providing funding for environmental and consumer groups to buy in expertise.

4. General problems with the current scheme

• The eco-label has not gained sufficient visibility in the market and thus has not had the environmental impact it was intended to produce.

• The procedure for setting criteria has led to confusion regarding the respective responsibilities of national authorities and the Commission (see Box I).

• There have been considerable delays in some instances in the appointment of the national authorities which award the eco-label.

• The eco-label has not been able to replace existing national labels, ⁱⁱⁱ which was its original goal. In practice, this has increased rather than diminished consumer confusion.

5. Proposed revisions to the current eco-label

• to establish and up-date the eco-label criteria and their assessment and verification requirements

• to co-ordinate the activities of Competent Bodies (see Box I)

  3. Ceilings would be set for annual fees, with reduced rated for SMEs in developing countries. Part of the fees collected would be devoted to financing the activities of the EEO.

  4. Retailers included: Retailers would be able to apply for the eco-label for products sold under their brand name.

  5. Co-ordination with national eco-labels: Since it is now accepted that the eco-label will not supersede national labels in the long term, provisions are proposed to ensure that co-existing schemes become complementary. This would be line with the opinion of the European Parliament's Environment Committee, which strongly opposed the elimination of national eco-labels.

6. NGO concerns about the proposed revision

• Will setting up such an organisation cost more than improving the current system? Will the time needed to create such an organisation postpone even further the time needed for the the eco-label to produce environmental improvements?

• Will an EEO develop the necessary sense of label 'ownership' among producers, when it is made up of representatives from the national Competent Bodies which also manage national eco-labels? Will problems arise because Bodies will have to promote two labels, often competing in the same areas?

• Will the EEO adopt eco-label criteria that are even more vague than the present criteria? The guidelines for setting criteria as contained in the Commission proposal for EEO are not precise. Nor are there requirements for a life-cycle analysis of a product, considering resource use, production, distribution, use and disposal. According to the proposal, this is because 'in most cases such an extensive application of the "cradle-to-grave" approach is not practically feasible'.

• NGOs are concerned that they would have even less influence under the revised scheme than they do at present. No formal participation by environmental organisations is foreseen. It would be up to the EEO to decide to consult with interest groups. NGOs want to see consultations carried out within a formalised structure, similar to that of the former Forum (see Box I) - although it must be noted that the opinions of the Forum have never been taken into consideration by the Commission, even when adopted unanimously.
  

9. The road ahead

• the eco-label is an important element in the creation of a comprehensive environment policy and an integrated product policy;
  
• the Commission should remain responsible for the eco-label, and should engage in closer involvement with interested groups;
  
• the Community and national eco-labels should co-exist and be better coordinated, particularly in regard to product criteria.

On the basis of these Council opinions, and those of the Parliament, the Commission has agreed to modify its revised proposal. The reworked proposal will probably eventually be considered by the German presidency.

What is Fern?

• Conservation and sustainable management of forests,
• Respect for the rights of forest peoples,
• Greater transparency in EU aid to tropical forest countries.

Fern Contacts

Chantal Marijnissen & Susan,
Fern
20 Av des Celtes 1040
Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 32 2 742 24 36
Fax: 32 2 736 80 54
Fern@arcadis.be

i) Regulation 880/92, OJ L 99, 11/04/92
ii) Com (96) 603, OJ C 114, 1/5/97
iii) The German Blue Angel, the Nordic White Swan, the Swedish Good Environmental Choice, the Dutch Milieukeur, the French NF-Environment, the Spanish Medio Ambiente, the Catalan Medi Ambient, and the Austrian UmweltZeichen. World-wide more than 50 eco-labels exist