Imola Bedo, EC: PEF Food Pilots

PEF Food Conference International Conference on Environmental Footprinting in the Food & Drink Sector 6-7 May 2014, Berlin www.pef-world-forum.org

Product Environmental Footprint Developments

Imola Bedő Environmental Footprint Team DG Environment – A1 Eco-Innovation and Circular Economy Unit

2

WHY? • More than 400 environmental labels in the world • Only for GHGs, 80 leading reporting methods and initiatives • Issues:

=

Confusion, mistrust Free-riders win Costs

• What is green?

• How do I prove that my product or company is green?

• If I choose one approach, will it be accepted by everyone?

• Do I have to prove I'm green in different ways to different clients?

• Will consumers and business partners understand my claim?

3

Some figures…

•

Lack of consistency: a principle barrier for displaying environmental performance (72.5% stakeholders in agreement)

•

Market potential is high: 80% of EU consumers buy green products at least sometimes – 26% buy them regularly

•

89% of EU citizens believes that buying green products makes a difference for the environment

•

Only half of consumers find it easy to differentiate green products from other products

•

Only half of EU citizens trust producers' claims about the environmental performance of their products

•

Most important considerations when buying: quality (97%), price (87%), environment (84%)

•

69% of citizens support obliging companies to publish reports on their environmental performance

These figures are taken from the 2013 Eurobarometer on "Attitudes of Europeans towards Building the Single Market for 4 Green Products"

Objectives • Level playing field for competing based on environmental performance, based on a common tool for measuring performance

• Provide a reliable, reproducible, comparable tool for providing environmental information • Building the Single Market for Green Products [COM(2013) 196] • Recommendation on the use of common methods for measuring and communicating the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/EU): Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods

5

The pilots 3-year pilot (2013 – 2016) 1. Test the process for the development of PEFCRs and OEFSRs 2. Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts, traceability) 3. Communication vehicles (expected 2015) – B2B & B2C

Batteries and accumulators Decorative paints Hot and cold water supply pipes Household detergents IT equipment Leather Metal sheets Non-leather shoes Photovoltaic electricity generation Stationery Thermal insulation T-shirts Uninterruptible Power Supply Intermediate paper product 11 feed, food & drink products 6

2nd wave 30 applications focusing on feed, food, drink & related products

7

Selection • Criteria • Coverage of different product groups and sectors • Complexity of the supply chain (short, long) • Geographical prevalence of the production (Europe, developing countries, Asia) • Role of SMEs • Willingness of industry to collaborate • Availability of secondary data • Availability of PCRs/EPD/Sectorial rules • Environmental relevance

• Selection by a panel of policy officers from several EC DGs 8

Results Beer proposed by Brewers of Europe Coffee proposed by the European Coffee Federation Dairy proposed by the European Dairy Association Feed for food-producing animals proposed by the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation Fish for human consumption proposed by the Norwegian Seafood Federation Packed fresh meat from bovine, pigs and sheep proposed by the European Livestock and Meat Trades Union Uncooked pasta proposed by Union of Organizations of Manufactures of Pasta Products of the E.U. Packed water proposed by the European Federation of Bottled Waters Pet food (cats & dogs) proposed by European Pet Food Industry Federation Olive oil proposed by CO2 consulting S.L. Wine proposed by the ComitĂŠ EuropĂŠen des Entreprises Vins

9

Conditions • Packed beverages (beer, water, wine): take into account all types of packaging used • Olive oil: suggesting co-leadership of JRC in TS • Fish, coffee: there were two interesting applications – proposing to merge/ co-operate closely • Meat, dairy, leather, feed and pet food: common modelling of the "cow" through a Working Group • Chaired by the Commission • Of limited duration (31 December 2014) • Members: 5 pilots concerned, Food SCP Roundtable • After agreement, alternative models can be tested additionally to the baseline

10

Selection • 302 leading stakeholders in 27 pilots • 73% of the pilots have the majority of industry in the lead (TS) • Participants: 432 stakeholders (1st wave) • Average share of non-EU stakeholders: 16% (1st wave)

11

Timelines SC meeting: discussion of scope and representative product/ organisation for part of 1st wave

more or less

05/14

SC meeting: discussion of scope and representative product/ organisation for part of 1st wave

06/14

Kick-off 2nd wave

First screening studies completed 1st wave

09/14

Start of 1st physical consultations 2nd wave

Start of virtual consultations 1st wave

11/14 01/15

Start of 2nd physical consultations 1st wave Start of supporting studies 1st wave

03/15

First screening studies completed 2nd wave Start of virtual consultations 2nd wave

05/15 07/15 Start of 2nd physical consultations 2nd wave

Start of virtual consultations 1st wave Start of the review of final PEFCR/ OEFSR

09/15

Start of supporting studies 2nd wave

11/15 01/16 Start of virtual consultations 2nd wave 03/16 Start of the review of final PEFCR

Final PEFCRs/ OEFSRs

04/16 08/16 Final PEFCRs

Communication tests

12 End of pilots

12/16

End of pilots

Learnings • It's never too early to get organised • Consistency is the main added value, but comparability remains a goal to pursue "The main aim of developing PEFCRs is to create consistent rules for the calculation of the environmental performance of products belonging to the same category. The information calculated on the basis of existing PEFCRs could then be used for communication purposes, including, where appropriate, comparisons and comparative assertions of products fulfilling the same primary function." (Guidance 3.4)

• Approach to PEFCR/ OEFSR development needs more options Scope

Scope

Representative product

Common rules

Rules, benchmark…

Repr.

Product 1

Repr.

Product 2

Repr.

Product 3

Specific rules, benchmark

Specific rules, benchmark

Specific rules, benchmark

13

Participation

Commenting EF WIKI https://webgate. ec.europa.eu/fpfi s/wikis/display/E UENVFP/

•

Steering Committee

Technical Advisory Board

• • • •

Tech.

Secretariat 1

Tech.

Secretariat 2

SMEs NGOs

SMEs NGOs

PAs Ind.

Tech.

Secretariat …n

EF Technical Helpdesk

SMEs NGOs

PAs Ind.

MS representatives Commission Representative from pilots Representatives of main stakeholder groups Approvals, monitoring and conflict resolution

PAs Ind.

14

For any further information http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/ env-environmental-footprint@ec.europa.eu 15

nd 2

Save The Date!

Where are we…

PEF World Summit

01 - 02 2014, Berlin • 16 pilot projects running (+ ~October, 11 new ones) www.pef-world-forum.org/summit/2nd-pef-world-summit

• 100‘s of organisations involved

• First steps taken…(PCRs, system boundaries,…)

• Stakeholder consultations

• Several discussions & first solutions