Product Policy and Environmental TradeoffsA research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Environmental Resources

Management. July 2006

1

Sustainable Consumption and Production Evidence Base:

Product Policy and Environmental Tradeoffs

Suggested citation for this report:

Aumonier, S., Madsen, J., Garrett, P., and Wallen, E., 2006. Product Policy and Environmental Tradeoffs, A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Environmental Resources Management Ltd. Defra, London.

2

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1.1 RESEARCH METHOD 51.2 STATUS OF THE EUP DIRECTIVE 61.3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS 71.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 12

2 GLOSSARY 14

3 INTRODUCTION 18

3.1 SCOPE OF RESEARCH 193.2 REPORT STRUCTURE 20

4 RESEARCH METHOD 22

4.1 RESEARCH PHASES 234.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 234.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 24

5 STATUS OF THE EUP DIRECTIVE 25

5.1 SCOPE OF THE EUP DIRECTIVE (EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2006) 255.2 STATUS OF THE EUP DIRECTIVE 255.3 ADOPTION TIMETABLE 28

6 REVIEW OF OFFICIAL DIRECTIVE TEXTS 30

6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 316.2 KEY MESSAGES 35

7 SELECTION OF EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIES 37

7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE OF EUPS 377.2 NATIONAL PRODUCTION OF EUPS 387.3 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY COUNTRIES 41

8 LITERATURE REVIEW: EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIES 43

8.1 UK 438.2 KEY MESSAGES 46

9 LITERATURE REVIEW: ACADEMIC SOURCES 49

3

9.1 ACADEMIC JOURNALS 499.2 CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS 519.3 RESEARCH GROUPS AND OTHER INITIATIVES 569.4 KEY MESSAGES 57

10 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 58

10.1 INTRODUCTION 5810.2 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 5910.3 KEY MESSAGES 59

11 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 63

11.1 SELECTION OF STAKEHOLDERS 6311.2 STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONNAIRE 6511.3 VALIDATION OF RESULTS 6511.4 WEEE 6611.5 ROHS 6811.6 ECO-LABELLING 7011.7 PACKAGING 7011.8 EMAS SCHEME 7111.9 ENERGY STAR 7211.10 NEW EVIDENCE 7311.11 IMPLEMENTING MEASURES VERSUS VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS 7311.12 KEY MESSAGES 74

12 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY BRIEF 75

12.1 ISSUES OF RELEVANCE FOR THE UK WHEN NEGOTIATING EUP IMPLEMENTING MEASURES 77

12.2 KEY MESSAGES AND POLICY BRIEF 81

13 RECOMMENDATIONS 85

14 REFERENCES 86

ANNEX A REVIEW OF OFFICIAL EU DIRECTIVE TEXTSANNEX B DATA USED TO SELECT EU COUNTRIES FOR LITERATURE REVIEWANNEX C LITERATURE REVIEW: EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIESANNEX D LITERATURE REVIEW: ACADEMIC SOURCESANNEX E EVIDENCE SUMMARY AND TESTS FOR ROBUSTNESS AND ISSUE PRIORITYANNEX F STAKEHOLDER SELECTION AND QUESTIONNAIRE

4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned Environmental Resources Management Ltd. (ERM) to conduct a project, as part of the Sustainable Consumption and Production Programme, to assess how actions brought about by the EU Framework Directive for setting eco-design requirements for energy-using products (2005/32/EC) have affected, or are perceived to affect, related product policies, including:

Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (‘WEEE’; 2002/96/EC);

Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (‘RoHS’; 2002/95/EC);

Directives and legislation related to Eco-labelling (‘Eco-labelling’); and

Other relevant Directives/regulations.

The objective of the study was to gather a robust evidence base that would support UK policy makers in two main areas:

1. To provide useful information in creating future regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) related to product policy; and

2. To identify issues relevant for the UK when negotiating EuP implementation measures.

Energy-using products (EuPs) account for a large proportion of our economy’s consumption of natural resources and energy. The EuP Framework Directive is the first legislative measure to tackle this area. The Directive aims to reduce adverse environmental impacts across the life-cycle of an EuP, while seeking to avoid shifting environmental burdens onto other parts of the product’s life-cycle.

The research aimed to identify and assess the synergies and conflicts that may exist between the EuP Directive and other product policies from an economic, environmental and policy perspective.

5

1.1 Research Method

Literature Review

Initially, we conducted a literature review to identify the unintended actions stemming from the EuP Directive with other product policy. The aim was to understand what studies and research had already taken place or was anticipated. We conducted the review in three main phases:

1. A review of the official EU Directive texts and a review of the European Parliament Procedure file on the EuP Directive.

2. A review of government documentation and publicly available data across eleven EU countries by contacting: government departments; trade associations; industry; and others.

3. A more general review of academic literature, activity by research groups and academic conferences to identify relevant issues.

Stakeholder Consultation

The results and findings of the literature review were validated through stakeholder consultation. However, due to the lack of data that was found in the literature review, the consultation was extended to elicit new information. A range of 25 representatives were invited to take part from industry, trade associations, the retail trade, environmental groups, and consumer organisations.

Stakeholders were consulted via a questionnaire that presented our initial findings and were asked to comment and to provide supporting evidence. They were also asked to identify any new or similar issues.

1.2 Status of the EuP Directive

The purpose of the EuP Directive is to establish a framework for setting eco-design requirements for EuPs, which must be fulfilled in order for EuPs to be placed on the European market and/or put into service.

The specific aims of the EuP Directive are to:

Ensure the free movement of energy-using products within the EU; Improve the overall environmental performance of these products

and thereby protect the environment; and Contribute to the security of energy supply and enhance the

competitiveness of the EU economy.

The text is in principle applicable to any product using energy, with the exception of transportation, from sources including electricity, solid,

6

liquid, or gaseous fuels. The EuP Directive became law in August 2005. Member States must transpose the Directive into national laws by August 2007.

The Directive defines a process for introducing implementing measures, which sets standards for eco-design of products or use of voluntary agreements to stimulate change through market forces.

The European Commission initially identified and tendered for 14 studies of candidate products which are likely to be significantly affected by potential implementation measures. A further five candidate products have also been identified. The future timetable for introducing measures is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Timetable for Introducing Implementing Measures

Source: Brisaer (2006). The Framework Directive on Ecodesign. Presentation given at the Ecodesign Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 2006.

1.3 Results and Findings

The study identified and assessed 10 potential issues (seven synergies and three conflicts) that exist between the EuP Directive and other product policies.

We prioritised each issue based on several key parameters derived from the RIA guidance provided by the Cabinet Office.

For this study, the environmental and economic aspects cover the range of important aspects relevant for the research. Social aspects

7

were excluded because these focus on topics such as demand for health services; safety at work; and rate of crime or crime prevention, etc. which are not directly applicable to the research scope.

Each issue was prioritised using the following four parameters:

1. Environment: will the issue significantly effect: i. The level of environmental impact?

2. Economy: will the issue significantly effect:ii. Certain sectors and groups?iii. Levels of competition within the sector? and iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring?

The six issues of highest importance, selected on the basis of key parameters for RIA creation, are briefly summarised below. In general, however, there was a dearth of evidence to adequately describe these issues.

Issue 2 - Conflict: Under the WEEE Directive, reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation, through increased energy efficiency, is considered a high priority environmental goal. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflict.

i. Environmental impact: evidence shows no product specific trade-offs were identified. However, trade-offs in different phases of the life-cycle will need to be considered further on a case by case basis. The results of the 14+5 preparatory studies will support this aim.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: Operators that reuse old technology could be affected. The reuse of older products may delay the launch of higher energy efficiency products onto the market. There is a trade-off between resource conservation in the production phase and energy consumption in the use phase.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 5 - Synergy: According to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. According to Kautto (2006) the implementation of RoHS will be good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management.

i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified.ii. Certain sectors and groups: Potentially there may be a

disproportionate effect on certain sectors and groups, such as SMEs, that do not have supply chain management systems in place .

8

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 6 - Conflict: When restricting certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances will potentially need to be partially or fully substituted. In certain cases, for example fluorescent lamps, the requirements of the EuP Directive and the RoHS Directive may conflict.i. Environmental impact: Specific trade-offs in different phases of

the life-cycle need to be determined for relevant EuPs. The results of the 14+5 preparatory studies will support this aim.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 7 - Synergy: Mandatory eco-design requirements will complement the eco-label initiative and provide supporting information of environmental aspects. Products with eco-design awards may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.i. Environmental impact: By nature the environmental impacts

across the life-cycle will be lower compared to products without an Eco-Label.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: Opportunity may favour those products/producers that already have an Eco-Label.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 9 - Synergy: The EuP Directive will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified. ii. Certain sectors and groups: Opportunity may favour those

enterprises already with an EMAS scheme. Although, a company may have an EMAS scheme implemented for some products but not all, which would mean that all products placed on the market would not be covered. Also, environmental management schemes may not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with specific measures, but simply demonstrate a general commitment to eco-design.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

9

Issue 10 - Synergy: The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.i. Environmental impact: By nature environmental impacts across

the life-cycle will be lower compared to products without an Energy Star label.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issues raised by the research to help inform and negotiate implementing measures for the UK are summarised below:

Large industry generally perceives the use of voluntary agreements as the favoured approach.

Energy Star is the primary voluntary agreement cited by industry as being very successful. Benefits of Energy Star include: quicker implementation, due to reduced time compared to setting regulation; quicker reaction to changing markets and product technologies, due to greater industry involvement; and easier acceptance by industry, due to greater industry control/leadership.

However, voluntary agreements, can lead to several disadvantages: In fragmented industries, such as consumer electronics, a voluntary agreement may not achieve sufficient coverage and a level playing field may not be achieved. An area for negotiation is the level of coverage required to justify a voluntary agreement. Siderius (2006) concluded that coverage of most products is too low and should be at least 80 % for the EuP Directive. SMEs will need to be involved as fully as possible, as they are not always in a suitable position to influence a voluntary agreement. In the UK, over 90% of the manufacturing industry is made up by SMEs (SBS, 2002). The level of the eco-design requirement will need to be negotiated. A low target may, in some cases, penalise companies who invest in the higher standard of product. For example, in the UK, sales of high efficiency motors fell once a lower efficiency standard was introduced. This effectively endorsed the lower standard (AEAT, 2006). Nonetheless, a high target will not be favoured by low performing product producers that could be excluded from the market. Results of the 14+5 EuP studies will provide the data, on improvement potential, necessary to inform the level of

10

eco-design requirement and environmental benefit that can be achieved.

Energy Star and the EuP Directive differ in principle. Energy Star only focuses on energy consumption in use and aims to promote high performing products. The EuP Directive focuses on all eco-design aspects across the life-cycle and aims to cut-out low performing products.

An area of synergy between Energy Star and EuP, however, is that in practice, if EuP implementing measures are to focus on the high impact phases of the life-cycle, in order to deliver maximum benefit, then these measures are likely to initially focus on the energy consumption in the use-phase. This would not exclude measures being adopted in other life-cycle phases.

Consequently, Energy Star may provide a good policy model for voluntary agreements relating to energy consumption in use. However, a target would need to be set to remove low performing products from the market; rather than promote high performers. Again, results of the 14+5 EuP studies will inform the level of target.As well as eco-design requirements for in-use energy consumption, which focuses on the highest impact phase of the life-cycle, the EuP Directive may impose eco-design requirements on other product parameters. These other requirements will be based on the results of the 14+5 EuP studies which will identify the areas for maximum practicable improvement potential of the product. These areas of improvement will be product specific. They may, for example, relate to implementation of new technologies, use of substitute materials or product life extension, etc. Consequently, it is possible to be detailed and explicit about the UK policy implications once these results of the 14+5 EuP studies are made available.

An area of conflict between Energy Star and EuP is that the EuP Directive has wider implications through the producer supply chain i.e. producers need to generate an environmental profile of the product, requiring information from suppliers; non-energy related eco-design requirements could imply wider supply chain involvement.

Thus, potential eco-design requirements will imply greater complexity to manage the supply chain in comparison to Energy Star. This will result in greater administration for the supply chain and to avoid free-riders.

Implementing measures have the advantage of establishing minimum standards to cut-out low performing products on the market. An implementing measure should help ensure a level

11

playing field because the eco-design requirement applies equally to all producers. However, several disadvantages also exist, including:

Implementing measures can be slower to implement and to react to changes in the market or product technology, due to time needed to set the regulation.Industry can be more reluctant to accept such measures because of a lack of leadership by industry.Additionally, industry sometimes perceives these measures as stifling innovation.

Other issues of relevance to the UK in negotiating measures include the following:

Product verification on the basis of self-declaration is preferred by industry, rather than by a third party, to reduce costs and reduce product time to market. To provide sufficient safeguards for self-declaration it would be necessary to implement a transparent and traceable verification system through the supply chain. From a policy perspective, this will require a certain level of standardisation to simplify the burdens of reporting by industry and the burdens for enforcement. Additionally, clearly defined responsibilities for industry and independent inspectors will be needed. The benefits will be reduced resource requirements as well as minimising free-riders.

Negotiations with industry should be prioritised on those products with highest environmental impacts and highest potential for improvement. For the UK, boiler production constitutes around 90% of global impacts, followed by televisions and computers, based on the EC funded study by VHK (2005). Improvement potential will be determined by the 14+5 studies.

1.4 Recommendations

In relation to future research, ERM recommends the following next steps for Defra to position itself as an active stakeholder at an EU level regarding the EuP Directive:

Update this study in mid to late 2007, based on the same method, to include the findings of the EC preparatory studies on priority EuPs. We anticipate that activity in relation to the EuP Directive will proliferate once the results of the studies are made available.

Establish a method to assess the suitability of choosing between implementing measures or voluntary agreements for priority EuPs in relation to the UK and EU, building on the work conducted by MTP in this area, and based on the results of the EC preparatory studies on priority EuPs. This should investigate further the implications of

12

the results of the 14+5 EuP studies and the product specific recommendations made for setting eco-design requirements. The assessment should consider the criteria provided in the EuP Directive, including the following:

Internal market and competition rules;Multilateral trade rules;Openness of participation e.g. third country operators;Added value i.e. more than ‘business as usual’;Representativeness e.g. shall represent a large majority of the relevant economic sector;Quantified and staged objectives;Involvement of civil society;Monitoring and reporting;Cost-effectiveness of administering a self regulatory initiative;Sustainability; and Incentive compatibility i.e. consistency in market pressure, taxes, legislation and policy.

Maintain a robust strategy for stakeholder consultation when negotiating and balancing the issues relating to potential future implementing measures or voluntary agreements.

13

2 GLOSSARY

Shown below is a list of terms used within the report.

AEAT AEA Technology plc

ADEME Environment and Energy Agency (France)

AGORIA Belgian sector organisation for 11 main manufacturing industries

AmCham American Chamber of Commerce in Germany

AMDEA Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances (UK)

ANIE National Federation of Electronically and Electrical Industries (Italy)

APAT National Environmental Protection Agency (Italy)

ARPA Regional Environmental Protection Agency (Italy)

Asimelec Madrid Regional Authorities for establishing energy efficient policies in industry (Spain)

BIM The Brussels Institute for Management of the Environment (Belgium)

BITCOM German Association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and New Media

BMU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conversation and Nuclear Safety (Germany)

BMWI Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (Germany)

CBI Confederation of British Industry

CE ‘Conformité Européene’ which literaturely means ‘European Conformity’, defined in Directive 93/68/EEC.

CECED European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers

CEI Electro Technical Committee (Italy)

14

CfSD Centre for Sustainable Design (UK)

CODDE French competence centre in eco-design and sustainable development

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)

DfE Design for Environment

DGEMP Directorate of Energy and Raw Materials (France)

DGRNE Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Belgium)

DTI Department of Trade and Industry (UK)

EEE Electrical and electronic equipment

EC European Commission

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EHL Association of manufacturers and importers of domestic electronic products (Sweden)

EICTA European Association of Consumer Electronics Manufacturers

ELIMA Environmental life cycle information management and acquisition

EMAS The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

EuP Energy using products

FED The Association for Electronic Design (Fachverband Elektronik Design, Germany)

FIEEC Electric, Electronic, Communication Industries Syndicate (France)

FIM Federation of the Mechanical Industries (France)

FLIPP Swedish competence centre for IPP research

ICER Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (UK)

15

IDEA National Institute of Energy (Spain)

IEA International Energy Agency

Implementing measures Measure adopted under the Directive laying down eco-design requirements for defined EuPs or for certain environmental aspects. These are mandatory and regulated measures

IPP Integrated Product Policy

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

KERP Competence Centre for Electronics (Austria)

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCT Life Cycle Thinking

MEP Member of European Parliament

MTP Market Transformation Programme (UK)

Orgalime European Engineering Industries Association

OVAM Public Waste Agency of Flanders (Belgium)

PPWD Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment

RoHS The restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

SME Small and medium sized enterprises

STEM Swedish Energy Agency

SYKE Finnish Environment Institute

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association (UK)

UBA Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, Germany)

VITO Flemish Institute for Technological Research

16

Voluntary agreementsA voluntary measure at an industry level which relies on market forces to promote change.

WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment

WWF World Wildlife Fund

YPSE The Impact of Environmental Policy Instruments on Activities, Products and Environmental Capabilities in the Electrical and Electronics Industry (Finnish research project)

ZVEI The German electrical and electronics industry

17

3 INTRODUCTION

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned Environmental Resources Management Ltd. (ERM) to conduct a project on Product Policy and Environmental Tradeoffs (SCP5.3), as part of the Economic Analysis theme within the Sustainable Consumption and Production Evidence Base Research Programme. The project aimed at assessing how actions brought about by the EU Framework Directive for setting eco-design requirements for energy-using products (2005/32/EC) affected, or are perceived to affect, related product policies, including:

Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (‘WEEE’; 2002/96/EC);

Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (‘RoHS’; 2002/95/EC);

Directives and legislation related to Eco-labelling (‘Eco-labelling’); and

Other relevant Directives/regulations.

This report presents the results of the study.

The objective of the study was to gather a robust evidence base that would support UK policy makers in two main areas:

1. To provide useful information in creating future regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) related to product policy; and

2. To identify issues relevant for the UK when negotiating EuP implementing measures.

Energy-using products (EuPs) account for a large proportion of our economy’s consumption of natural resources and energy. It is therefore important to encourage better design of these products to reduce the overall environmental impact generated during consumption. The first legislative measure to tackle this area is the EU Framework Directive for setting eco-design requirements for energy-using products (2005/32/EC; the EuP Directive). Building upon Integrated Product Policy (IPP) principles, the EuP Directive aims to reduce adverse environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product, while seeking to avoid shifting environmental burdens onto other parts of the product’s life-cycle.

The research aimed to identify and assess the synergies and conflicts that may exist between the EuP Directive and other product policies from an economic, environmental and policy perspective.

18

3.1 Scope of Research

The EuP Directive is a framework Directive that establishes a framework for setting eco-design requirements for EuPs, which must be achieved in order for them to be placed on the European market. Specifically, the Directive aims to improve the life-cycle environmental performance of these products; ensure their free movement; and contribute to security of energy supply and EU competitiveness.

The Directive became law in August 2005 and Member States must transpose the Directive into national laws by August 2007.

The Directive defines a process for introducing voluntary or regulated measures. Although no measures have yet been implemented, the European Commission has already identified a range of candidate products which offer high potential for implementing measures to be introduced.

The starting point for this study was an examination of whether the EuP Directive generates unintended positive or negative environmental consequences for WEEE, RoHS, and Eco-labelling, drawing on the experiences of 11 EU Member States. These effects could be positive or negative and might be measured in quantitative or qualitative terms.

However, the analysis was not limited to the complementary legislation listed above (Section ), but considered other policies, where relevant, including:

Directive 92/75/EEC on energy labelling; Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; Directive 92/42/EEC on efficiency requirements for new hot-water

boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels; Directive 92/57/EEC on energy efficiency requirements for

household electric refrigerators, freezers and combinations thereof; Directive 2000/55/EC on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts

for fluorescent lighting; UK Buildings Regulations; Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1148: The Water Supply (Water

Fittings) Regulations 1999; Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings; Proposed Directive on the end-use efficiency and energy services; European Energy Star (2422/201/EC); Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste; and Draft Directive on batteries and accumulators.

All evidence was evaluated to pass a simple ‘robustness test’ to be fit for purpose before the project was peer reviewed.

19

3.2 Report Structure

Initially, we conducted a literature review of: current EU level product policy and Directive texts; government documentation and publicly available data across the EU for 11 case study countries; and academic sources. This informed the primary outcomes of the research.

The results were assessed according to the ‘analytical framework’ based on the assessment criteria in the project tender. Where possible, all results are presented in a simple matrix-style format.

A stakeholder consultation was conducted which aimed to validate findings and elicit new evidence. All results and limitations are concisely discussed throughout the report.

The report takes the following structure:

Section 2. Glossary: here we provide a brief definition of some important terms used in the report.

Section 3. Introduction: this Section introduces the aims, scope and structure of the research.

Section 4. Research method: describes the parameters used to define each issue that was identified; the phases of the research; the process for reviewing literature and the stakeholder consultation; and the test applied to assess robustness of evidence.

Section 5. Status of the EuP Directive: this Section describes the current status of the Directive based on the evidence gathered from this project, including the present level of implementation and actions occurring at an EU level.

Section 6. Review of the Directive texts: this Section presents the results of the first stage of the literature review which assessed the main Directive texts relating to other product policy.

Section 7. Selection of EU case study countries: we describe the method used for selecting the EU case study countries, based on specified criteria, which were researched in the literature review to identify any conflicts and synergies.

Section 8. Literature review: EU case study countries: this Section presents the results of the second stage of the literature review of 11 EU countries, including the UK.

20

Section 9. Literature review: Academic sources: this Section presents the results of the second stage of the literature review of academic journals, conference papers and other academic research initiatives.

Section 10. Results of the literature review: here we present the results of the entire literature review in an easy to reference list of issues.

Section 11. Stakeholder consultation: in this Section we present the results of the stakeholder consultation which had two primary aims that were to validate the research findings and to elicit new information.

Section 12. Conclusions and recommendations: in this Section we present the final outcomes of the research and provide a policy brief of the important issues.

21

4 RESEARCH METHOD

As described in the Introduction, the aim of the study was to gather a robust evidence base to support UK policy makers in undertaking RIAs, and to identify issues relevant for the UK when negotiating EuP implementing measures.

The research study describes each issue that has been identified to be in conflict or synergy with the EuP Directive across three parameters, as follows:

1. Identifying and defining the conflict or synergy, including: Important evidence gaps; Issues that could discount the EuP Directive; Who is most affected by the issue (such as certain parts of

industry or SMEs, etc.); If any risks can be mitigated by alternative action; and Enforcement issues.

2. Does the issue matter from a policy or RIA perspective? Identifying the significance or scale of the conflict or synergy

using a green, amber, and red scoring system based upon usefulness to inform an RIA and relevance for the UK when negotiating EuP implementing measures. We considered the effects of: level of environmental impact; effect on certain sectors and groups; levels of competition within the sector; and enforcement, sanctions and monitoring.

3. How robust is the evidence supporting the issue? Assessing the robustness of the evidence underpinning the

'risk'/’opportunity’ using a green, amber, and red scoring system for credibility, reliability and objectivity.

The research focused on reviewing publicly available literature across the EU drawing on both grey and academic sources, and then complemented and validated these results through stakeholder consultation. Where issues were identified, the reference documentation was tested to be fit for purpose for ‘robustness’.

In the paper by Shaxson (2005), there are five components of robustness: credibility; generalisability; reliability; objectivity; and rootedness. It is necessary to take a proportional approach when screening evidence. This means deciding which aspects of robustness are important and why, given project time and resource constraints.

We conducted an analysis of the robustness of the documentation by adopting a proportional approach to screening the evidence,

22

considering project time and resource constraints. The test supported the research aim and the requirements by Defra for robustness. The test was based on the three parameters listed below. It provided an overall rank of: high; medium; or low for each source.

1. Credibility: who has supplied the evidence? Is it from an established or accredited source in the field, such as a government agency or independent body?

2. Reliability: is the evidence supported by quantitative data? Is the evidence based on known analytical methods or recognised consensus?

3. Objectivity: does the evidence acknowledge any bias or appear to have inconsistencies?

A score of ‘high’ was given if ‘yes’ is answered to the three criteria; a score of ‘medium’ if ‘yes’ was answered twice; and ‘low’ if ‘yes’ was answered once. Refer to Annex E for more detailed information.

4.1 Research Phases

The study was conducted in four phases, as follows:

Phase 1. Project initiation - leading to project plan: this included selecting the EU Member States to be used as case studies and developing the stakeholder strategy. This took place concurrently with initiating the literature review, which informed the stakeholder consultation.

Phase 2. Data gathering and initial analysis - leading to interim report: this phase continued the review literature and initiated consultations with stakeholders.

Phase 3. Further analysis and validation - leading to draft final report: phase 3 drew together the final recommendations and conclusions from the analysis.

Phase 4. Peer review process - leading to final report: this phase developed the final project output which includes within it a short policy briefing.

4.2 Literature Review

Initially, we conducted a literature review to identify the unintended actions stemming from the EuP Directive with other product policy. The aim was to understand what studies and research had already taken place or was anticipated. We conducted the review in three main phases:

23

1. A review of the EU Directive texts published in the Official Journal of the European Union (as previously listed in Section 2.1).

2. A review of government documentation and publicly available data across eleven EU countries by contacting: government departments responsible for product policy; industry trade associations; members of industry; and other representatives.

3. A more general review of academic literature, activity by research groups and academic conferences to identify relevant issues relating to the following search terms: EuPs; energy efficiency; ecodesign; WEEE; RoHS; IPP; LCA; and the preparatory studies e.g. ‘boilers’ or ‘computers’.

The specific case study countries for the review were selected based on the criteria required by Defra for the research, which related to: environmental evidence; sufficiency of data; implementation status of legislations in Member States; transferability of learning; and potential for informing future policy.

4.3 Stakeholder Consultation

The original aim of the study was to conduct a stakeholder consultation to validate the issues identified by the study. However, due to the lack of data that was found, the scope of the consultation was extended to elicit new information, as well as to validate interim results. As a result, a more open-ended questionnaire was developed with a greater emphasis on eliciting new information.

It was essential that a wide range of stakeholders were selected to reflect the complexity of the policy context and interrelated issues associated with the EuP Directive and other product policies. We contacted 25 stakeholders that covered representatives from industry, trade associations, the retail trade, environmental groups, and consumer organisations.

The questionnaire presented our initial findings and asked stakeholders to comment on these and to provide any evidence to support their answer, such as environmental or economic data. We also asked them to identify any new or similar issues faced by their organisation. Initially, we asked some general questions relating to perceived interactions of EuP with other policy, and then some more specific questions relating to WEEE, RoHS, Eco-labelling and EMAS. Additionally, we asked for a preference, and to provide supporting evidence, for introducing voluntary versus regulatory measures.

24

5 STATUS OF THE EUP DIRECTIVE

5.1 Scope of the EuP Directive (European Parliament, 2006)

The purpose of the EuP Directive is to establish a framework for setting eco-design requirements for EuPs, which must be fulfilled in order for EuPs to be placed on the European market and/or put into service.

The Directive is based on Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Eur-Lex, 2006), which contains a single market clause for the adoption of Community-wide rules which improve the internal market by qualified majority in the Council. This means that the Directive is harmonised and for the EuP Directive is used as a basis mainly to ensure the free circulation of goods that comply with the requirements that may be laid down in the implementing measures. Article 95 is used as the legal basis for establishing restrictions, prohibitions and labelling requirements in the EU.

The specific aims of the EuP Directive are to:

Ensure the free movement of energy-using products within the EU; Improve the overall environmental performance of these products

and thereby protect the environment; and Contribute to the security of energy supply and enhance the

competitiveness of the EU economy.

The text is in principle applicable to any product using energy to perform the function for which it was designed, manufactured, and put on the market for, with the exception of means of transporting people or merchandise. All energy sources are covered, although it is likely that only products using electricity, solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels will be subjects of implementing measures.

The Directive contributes to sustainable development by increasing energy efficiency and the level of protection of the environment, while at the same time increasing energy supply security. Sustainable development also requires proper consideration of health, social and economic impacts of the measures envisaged.

5.2 Status of the EuP Directive

The EuP Directive became law in August 2005. Member States must transpose the Directive into national laws within two years, i.e. by August 2007.

The EuP Directive defines a process for introducing implementing measures, which sets standards for eco-design of products. Three

25

existing EU Directives on minimum energy efficiency requirements have been brought into the EuP Directive, those for (MTP, 2006):

Hot water boilers (92/42/EEC); Domestic refrigeration appliances (96/57/EC); and Ballasts for fluorescent lighting (2000/55/EC).

Two further Directives have been repealed:

(78/170/EEC) on the performance of heat generators for space heating and the production of hot water; and

(86/594/EEC) on airborne noise emitted by household appliances. The European Commission initially identified 14 candidate products which offer “…a high potential for cost effective reduction of greenhouse gases", for which implementing measures could be agreed sooner” (TED, 2005). These candidates are:

1. Boilers;2. Water heaters;3. PCs and computer monitors;4. Copiers, faxes, printers, scanners, multifunctional devices;5. Consumer electronics: televisions;6. Standby- and off-mode losses;7. Battery chargers and external power supplies;8. Office lighting;9. Street lighting;10.Residential room-conditioning appliances;11.Electric motors of 1-150 kW;

a. Water pumps (in commercial buildings, drinking water pumping, food industry, agriculture);

b. Circulators in buildings; andc. Fans for ventilation (non residential buildings).

12.Commercial refrigerators and freezers;13.Domestic refrigerators and freezers; and14.Domestic dishwashers and washing machines.

A further five product groups have also been identified as providing potential candidates for introducing implementing measures, as follows:

15.Solid fuel boilers;16.Laundry driers;17. Industrial air compressors;18.Electric heating appliances (including heat pumps); and19.Domestic or industrial lighting.

The case still needs to be made for each of these products, but the EC has issued the first 14 tenders for preparatory studies for each product group. Studies will be commencing on all of these products towards the

26

end of this year and are scheduled to last between 11 and 24 months depending on their complexity. The results of these studies will be used as input data to the formal procedure of assessment.

In terms of timescales, this means that the earliest that an implementing measure is likely to be introduced is 2007. The implementing measure will specify when its provisions enter force. It is not possible to be definitive about this, but it is likely that one or more years would be allowed in most cases.

To meet the requirements of the Directive, the EC must put in place a committee to manage it (this has yet to be formed), a ‘working plan’ and a ‘Consultation Forum’. The working plan comprises a three year plan to be produced by 6 July 2007, which will set out a list of product groups (beyond the candidate products already mentioned) to be given priority for implementing measures. This plan will be updated periodically.

A Consultation Forum (Europa, 2006b) was formed comprising one representative from each Member State, EFTA and acceding country and other interested parties. The function of the forum is to provide input to a working plan monitoring the effectiveness of market surveillance, and to assess voluntary agreements and other self regulatory measures. The EC asked for expressions of interest to be part of this body with a closing date for applications in March 2006.

Since the EuP Directive is in the preparation phase candidates from industry and trade organisations, etc. have not initiated any concrete plans that are available in the public domain at time of writing for the Directive.

The Directive provides the framework to implement the following two types of measures, as follows:

1. Voluntary agreement: is a voluntary measure at an industry level and relies on market forces to promote change. There would be no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. These measures tend to promote change more quickly and cost-effectively.

2. Implementing measure: is a measure adopted under the Directive laying down eco-design requirements for defined EuPs or for certain environmental aspects. These are mandatory and regulated measures.

It is not yet clear what the effect of the EuP Directive will mean for industry. It is not clear if there will be any implementing measures at all, or if voluntary agreements will be sufficient. Before defining implementing measures, industry will be consulted. Thus, in general there have been no negative reactions towards the EuP Directive. Our research suggests that this is mainly because industry does not know

27

what will happen and, before any implementing measures are set, industry expects to be consulted fully.

5.3 Adoption Timetable

In terms of an historical timetable, the Directive has been adopted as follows:

August 2003: initial proposal for the EuP Directive for establishing eco-design requirements. All delegations welcomed the proposal and agreed that Article 95 establishing the European Comminity (Eur-Lex, 2006) constitutes the appropriate legal basis.

March/April 2004: first reading. MEPs argued that the directive was too vaguely worded and should contain more detailed requirements particularly relating to which products should be affected first and provision of additional consumer information.

November/December 2004: the Council unanimously adopted its common position. A number of issues, as identified in the first reading, were addressed.

April/May 2005: second reading. A further 24 amendments were adopted by the European Parliament, relating mainly to: definitions; market surveillance; provisions for information; selection criteria; an increased focus on energy efficiency; priority list of products; and the assessment to be performed by producers.

August 2005: Directive entered into force.

August 2007: transposition into national law by Member States.

In terms of an expected future timetable, André Brisaer (2006), Head of Unit, European Commission, presented the timetable for adopting implementing measures for original 14 preparatory studies at the most recent EuP workshop on 5th April 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark. This is summarised below.

11-21 months: Complete the preparatory studies and determine whether and which eco-design requirements should be set, incorporating a technical workshop based on draft final report;

5 months after the technical workshop: Submission of first draft to the consultation forum;

28

3 months after the consultation forum: Submission of draft measures to the committee (under Article 19(1)) (1) (impact assessment, inter-service consultation); and

After 4 months: Adoption by the Commission.

Figure 5.2 shows the overall timetable shown in the presentation.

Figure 5.2 Timetable for Introducing Implementing Measures

Source: Brisaer (2006). The Framework Directive on Ecodesign. Presentation given at the Ecodesign Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 2006.

1(?) Article 19(1) refers to a committee which will assist the Commission in the implementation of the EuP Directive.

29

6 REVIEW OF OFFICIAL DIRECTIVE TEXTS

This Section shows the results of the review of the following EU Directive texts from the Official Journal of the European Union:

WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC): the purpose of the WEEE Directive is to reduce the disposal of domestic and commercial electrical and electronic waste through prevention, reuse and recycling. Specific mandatory recovery targets are defined for producers to meet.

RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC): the purpose of the RoHS Directive is to ensure that domestic and commercial electrical and electronic products put on the market do not contain, above maximum concentration values, lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated bi-phenyls or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

Eco-labelling (EC Regulation No 1980/2000, ISO 14021/25): these are voluntary labelling schemes designed to encourage businesses to market products and services with better environmental performance.

Packaging Directive (94/62/EC): the purpose of the Directive is to prevent or to reduce the environmental impact of packaging and packaging waste. Specific mandatory recovery and recycling targets are defined.

Batteries Directive (91/157/EEC): the draft Directive aims to

maximise the separate collection and recycling of spent batteries and accumulators. Specific collection targets are proposed.

Landfill Directive (99/31/EC): the objective of the Directive is to prevent or reduce the environmental effects from the landfilling of waste. It sets technical requirements for waste and landfills and diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste.

Buildings Directive (2002/91/EC): the objective of the Buildings Directive is to promote the improvement of the energy performance of residential and tertiary (i.e. offices, public buildings, etc) buildings. It covers all aspects of energy efficiency and will set minimum standards.

European Energy Star (2422/2001/EC): the scheme is a voluntary energy labelling programme for office equipment for products that meet or exceed energy-efficiency guidelines.

30

Energy Labelling (92/75/EEC): the objective of the Directive is to harmonise national measures for the labelling of household appliances for the consumption of energy. Thereby allowing consumers to choose between appliances.

Hot-Water Boilers (92/42/EEC): this Directive sets energy efficiency requirements for liquid and gas hot-water boilers. This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure.

Domestic Refrigeration (96/57/EC): this Directive sets maximum electricity consumption values for different categories of refrigeration appliance. The CE mark shows conformity. This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure.

Fluorescent Lighting (2000/55/EC): the purpose of the Directive is to achieve cost-effective energy savings in fluorescent lighting. This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure.

Additionally, we reviewed the European Parliament Procedure file on the EuP Directive. The ‘Procedure File’ contains the official documents relating to the development of the EuP Directive, including the Directive drafts, position papers and official communications.

Annex A contains a full review of these Directives and texts.

6.1 Summary of Findings

The review shows that there are few practical synergies or conflicts that can be identified at this stage as interacting with the EuP Directive. Primarily, interactions identified are in synergy with the EuP Directive, and are briefly summarised below:

WEEE Directive

1. Synergy: EU producers will be encouraged to design and manufacture products to facilitate both reuse and recycling. A synergy exists, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design.

2. Conflict: reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options for the WEEE Directive across the EU. In the EuP Directive, greenhouse gas mitigation through increased energy efficiency should be considered ‘a priority environmental goal’. By focusing on different phases of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflicts between the WEEE and the EuP Directives. For example, for EuP it may be most beneficial to target electricity reduction during the use phase of a television. But a conflict would

31

exist where the new higher energy efficiency technology is less recyclable than the old technology and would therefore require a trade-off decision to be made between the benefits of reduced energy use versus the benefit of saved (recycled or reused) materials.

The above conflict can be described in more detail. As a consequence of taking a different life-cycle approach, the environmental benefit of the WEEE Directive is measured by mass, whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact of performing the same function. Specific targets for compliance could conflict. A mass based target under WEEE aims to prevent or to reduce the mass of EEE arising at end of life. Whereas, EuP would state that environmental benefit should be measured across the life-cycle for environmental impacts (e.g. global warming potential) and focus on improving the highest impact areas of the life-cycle. As with the example given above, in the second bullet point relating to televisions, the energy consumption in the use-phase will generate the highest environmental impacts in the life-cycle. Thus, actions should focus on reducing emissions from the use-phase energy consumption. However, the WEEE Directive would require a focus ease of recyclability at end-of-life to minimise waste. Conflicts can arise if new higher efficiency technologies are less recyclable. The trade-off between potential material resource savings and energy savings would need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

3. Conflict: the WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on each of the categories, e.g. the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP Directive, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. Theoretically, if the definitions used for specifying product categories in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be placed on the products. If the categories match then this issue would not be a concern. There was no evidence to support specific product cases.

RoHS Directive

4. Synergy: the RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but that are not subject to RoHS.

5. Synergy: The EuP Directive encourages manufacturers to investigate the possibility of avoiding the usage of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of a product’s life cycle. Furthermore, according to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to

32

provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. This activity can draw on the lessons learned from implementing the RoHS Directive.

6. Conflict: when restricting certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances will generally need to be substituted in the relevant products. Here there is a potential conflict with the EuP Directive. Although the RoHS Directive is effective before any potential measures under the EuP Directive, we have provided an example here of how a potential conflict could arise in the future. For example, due to the banning of lead in solder, a new solder composition needs to be developed. A possible solder composition is tin-silver-copper (SnAgCu). SnAgCu has a higher melting temperature and thus the soldering process consumes more energy. Minimising the energy consumption in the life cycle of electronics is, however, a key target of the EuP Directive. In the example above there is a trade-off decision to be made between the life-cycle impact of consuming more energy and the benefits of reducing toxicity. Of course emissions from electricity production have a toxicity impact also. Thus the EuP Directive could potentially result in several trade-off situations. A way to minimise trade-offs from the EuP Directive would be to extend the decision making to involve other aspects than environmental impacts in the life cycle of the EuP e.g. life cycle costs and risk assessment in the supply chain. To compensate for the increased energy consumed in the soldering process above, a producer of an EuP could focus on minimising the energy consumed in the use phase of a product. In that case we should also include potential rebound effects in the decision making. When saving energy in the use phase, the consumer saves money. The rebound effect occurs when the consumer is spending that amount of money on other products or services. Saved money on the energy bill might finance lights in the garden, a second car etc. Quantifying rebound effects is complicated since consumer behaviour differs substantially.

The above conflict can be described in more detail. As a consequence of taking a different life-cycle approach, the environmental benefit of the RoHS Directive is measured by risk assessment (e.g. 1kg of cadmium is more toxic than 1kg of iron), whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact of performing the same function. Thus, any substitute substance would need to provide an equal or better life-cycle environmental performance for the function it performs. Although an exemption under RoHS has been established, an example of where a conflict can arise relates to RoHS which would restrict mercury used in compact fluorescent lamps. Mercury provides an energy efficiency benefit in use. Studies have shown that less mercury is released into the environment across the life-cycle if mercury is actually used in lamp production. This mercury is released from electricity production that is offset by the increased

33

efficiency. A RoHS exemption applies to compact fluorescent lamps containing less than 5mg of mercury per lamp. This highlights how other specific cases may arise in the future for potential conflicts.

Eco-Labelling

7. There is a synergy here. As stated in the Directive text, products which have been awarded an Eco-label may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of the EuP Directive in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.

Packaging Directive

8. Synergy: Packaging is not an energy using product. However, the environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part. For example, packaging is not an energy using product. However, investigating the environmental impact of an EuP over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution and end-of-life disposal (waste), where packaging can be a vital part. Nonetheless, the environmental profiles of the EuPs presented in Section 7.1 show the global warming impact of the distribution and end-of-life to be minimal.

EMAS Scheme

9. Synergy: It will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design may be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.

Energy Star

10.Synergy: The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

Hot-Water Boilers, Domestic Refrigeration and Fluorescent Lighting

These three existing EU Directives on minimum energy efficiency requirements have been brought within EuP as implementing measures (MTP, 2006). These Directives compliment the objectives of the EuP Directive.

Other Directives and Legislation

There were no specific conflicts or synergies identified with the other Directives. In general, however, a life-cycle approach is not used as

34

a basis for these Directives or legislation, which may potentially cause conflict with the approach adopted by the EuP Directive, although we were not able to identify any specific examples.

Economic Impacts

Only marginal costs will be incurred by manufacturers to meet potential eco-design requirements. This was justified in the European Parliament case file resulting from direct cost savings due to improvements (e.g. reduced materials, energy costs, etc.) and where cost is incurred it was expected to decrease gradually over time.

6.2 Key Messages

Based on the Official Directive text, the main conflicts and synergies that exist were with the WEEE Directive, RoHS Directive and eco-labelling. These are:

Conflict: the environmental benefit of the WEEE Directive is measured by mass, whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact of performing the same function. Thus, a trade-off decision exists for specific product groups. A mass based target under WEEE aims to prevent, reuse or recycle the mass of EEE arising as waste. Whereas, EuP would focus effort on reducing the highest environmental impact phases of the life-cycle. For example, the energy consumption in the use-phase of most electrical appliances will generate the highest environmental impacts in the life-cycle. Thus, actions should focus on reducing emissions from the use-phase from energy consumption. However, the WEEE Directive would require a focus on ease of reuse or recyclability at end-of-life. A trade-off between energy saving versus material savings must be made on a case by case basis.

Synergy: the implementation of RoHS is good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management.

Conflict: the environmental benefit of the RoHS Directive is measured by toxicity risk assessment (e.g. 1kg of cadmium is more toxic than 1kg of iron), whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact of performing the same function. Thus, a trade-off decision exists for specific product groups. Any substitute substance under the EuP Directive would need to provide an equal or better performance across the life-cycle. For example, mercury is used in compact

35

fluorescent lamps to increase energy efficiency. RoHS would restrict the use of mercury. However, life-cycle studies have shown that increased energy efficiency in the use-phase from using mercury will outweigh the environmental benefit of banning its use. A trade-off between alternative materials must be made on a case by case basis for energy saving.

Synergy: products which have been awarded an Eco-label may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of the EuP Directive, if they meet the requirements of the implementing measure.

Other product policy and Directives do not adopt a life-cycle approach, which theoretically could be in conflict with the EuP Directive. However, no significant conflicts or synergies were identified to exist.

36

7 SELECTION OF EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIES

In this Section, we outline the identification and selection process of case study countries on which the literature review of government documents and publicly available sources was focused. The assessment of a wide range of EU countries supports the aims of the project and intends to deliver a range of perspectives and evidence for the knowledge base. It may also identify and stimulate action amongst stakeholders to be involved in the future implementation of the EuP Directive from respective EU countries.

Initially, we present the environmental profile of ten priority EuPs and subsequently select ten EU case study countries in accordance with Defra’s criteria to assess evidence for the project.

7.1 Environmental Profile of EuPs

Based on data from the EC funded study on priority EuPs, titled Methodology Study Eco-design of Energy-using products: MEEUP – Product Cases Report by VHK (2005), which studied 10 priority EuP product cases, as listed below. ERM has developed the environmental profile of the following EuPs. This VHK (2005) study is the first major work that draws together over 450 other references on these product groups, across the EU, in the context of the EuP Directive. This EC funded study represents the most recent work in this area and the methodology it creates forms the basis to evaluate whether and to what extent EuPs should be eligible for implementing measures.

1. Gas and oil fired central heaters;2. Room air conditioners;3. Central heating circulators;4. Street lighting;5. Domestic refrigerators and freezers;6. Domestic dishwashers;7. Vacuum cleaners;8. Copiers;9. Televisions;10.Personal computers.

Figure 7.3 shows the life-cycle global warming impact for each EuP, per unit, for the manufacture, distribution, use and end-of-life impacts. The results are presented in kg of CO2 equivalents. The results show that the use stage of the life-cycle dominates the global warming impact for all ten products.

In the case of room air conditioners there is also a relatively high global warming impact at end-of-life. This results from the disposal of

37

refrigerants, which are, it is assumed in the VHK (2005) study, released into the environment.

In the case of personal computers and televisions, there is a relatively high global warming impact in the production phase of the life-cycle. This results from the relatively low electricity consumption in use compared with the impacts of production resulting from printed wiring boards, metals and plastics manufacture.

Figure 7.3 Estimate of Life-cycle Global Warming Impact for EuPs per Unit

Note: Figures in table are in kg of CO2 equivalentsSource: VHK, 2005

7.2 National Production of EuPs

Figure 7.4 shows the production of EuPs for the top 11 countries based on the number of units manufactured, where data was available. Annex B shows the background data used for the assessment.

We see from Figure 7.4 that Germany, France and Italy respectively produce the largest volumes of EuPs based on the data from VHK (2005). The UK is positioned 5th in the ranking, manufacturing just under half that of Germany overall. Finland, Belgium and Romania produce a very small proportion of these products.

38

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

E nd-of-life 1 29 27 32 16 8 1,870 13 13 6Use 2,330 4,137 1,850 2,032 51,235 735 5,075 7,556 733 347Distribution 6 85 37 62 70 84 70 0 27 9P roduction 10 486 168 219 318 180 268 434 149 37

1. Central heating

circulators2. Copiers 3. Domestic

dishwashers4. Domestic fridges and

freezers5. Gas fired

central heaters6. P ersonal computers

7. Room air conditioners

8. S treet lighting 9. T elevisions 10. Vacuum

cleaners

Figure 7.4 Estimate of National Production of EuPs for a Selection of Countries

Source: (VHK, 2005)

We have combined the unit production data for each EU country with the environmental profiles for each product, to estimate the global warming impact per country. Figure 7.5 shows the results for the top 11 countries plus the total for the remaining EU Member States.

We can see that Italy generates the most significant global warming impacts of all countries, constituting nearly 40% of the EU. This is primarily due to the large volume of gas boilers which have the largest impact profile.

Overall, Italy, France, the UK and Germany constitute over 85% of the total global warming impact across the EU, based on the VHK (2005) data. For these countries the most significant global warming impacts arise from gas boilers, which constitute around 65% of impacts overall for all four countries. For the UK, boiler production constitutes around 90% of impacts, followed by televisions and computers.

39

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1. Germany 2. France 3. Italy 4. Poland 5. UK 6. Spain 7. Denmark 8. Sweden 9. Finland 10. Belgium 11. Romania

1000

Uni

ts

1. Central heating circulators 2. Copiers 3. Domestic dishwashers 4. Domestic fridges and freezers5. Gas fired central heaters 6. Personal computers 7. Room air conditioners 8. Street lighting9. Televisions 10. Vacuum cleaners

Figure 7.5 Estimate of Global Warming Impact of EuPs based on National Production for a Selection of Countries

Note: Chart represents proportion of global warming impact based on kg of CO2 equivalentsSource: VHK, 2005, VHK, 2005a

Additionally, Figure 7.6 shows the estimated global warming impact per product group across the EU based on production in all 25 Member States (VHK, 2005) and the environmental profiles presented in Figure 7.3. It can be clearly seen that gas boilers generate the dominant global warming impacts, at around 75%, followed by central heating circulators (8%), televisions (5%) and domestic dishwashers (4%).

40

Estimate of Global Warming Emissions of EuPs by Country based on National Production (VHK, 2005)

38.3%

20.1%

15.0%

14.4%

3.8%

2.7%

2.4%

1.0%

0.8%

0.8%

0.5%

0.2%

1. Italy 2. France 3. UK 4. Germany5. Poland 6. Spain 7. Denmark 8. Sweden9. Austria 10. Belgium 11. Finland Total of others

Figure 7.6 Estimate of Global Warming Impact of EuPs across all 25 EU Member States (based on Production)

Source: VHK, 2005

7.3 Selection of Case Study Countries

According to Defra’s case study selection criteria, we have made the following assessment shown in Table 0.1, which is also used for further selection at a later stage in the project.

Table 0.1 Selection of Case Study Countries

Selection Criteria Country Selection1. Evidence of environmental concern regarding the product group targeted by the legislation:

Environmental concern has been judged on the data shown in Figure 7.3 for the estimate of highest global warming impact per EU country.

2. Sufficiency of existing data (environmental and economic):

Alternative countries may be selected if there is a lack of data after initial selection.

3. Implementation status of legislations in Member States:

We have assessed implementation status of the WEEE, RoHS and Packaging Directives to test this criterion. There is insufficient budget to assess other Directives. Nonetheless, we believe that this provides a sufficiently clear picture of the status of implementation of the important Directives for the project. The results show that the status of implementation of the legalisation in the top 11 countries, prioritised according to EuP production, is at a similar stage.

41

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Mt C

O2

eq.

1. Centralheating

circulators

2. Copiers 3. Domesticdishwashers

4. Domesticfridges and

freezers

5. Gas and oilcentral heaters

6. Personalcomputers

7. Room airconditioners

8. Streetlighting

9. Televisions 10. Vacuumcleaners

No data No data

Selection Criteria Country SelectionAnnex B provides evidence for this assessment.

4. Potential transferability of learning:

It is judged that all 11 EU countries have a potential to provide transferable learning. These countries cover a breadth of experience from other Member States that are active in implementing current EU policy.

5. Potential for informing the strategy for future policy in the UK:

It is judged that all 11 EU countries have a potential to inform strategy for future policy in the UK. These countries cover a breadth of experience from other Member States that are active in implementing current EU policy.

Based on the environmental profiles and the selection criteria, we believe that covering 11 Member States including the UK, allows us to compile evidence from the principal producers of EuPs in Europe, whilst providing a breadth of experience from other Member States, including those with niche industries of interest. Limiting coverage to 11 Member States also avoids allocating resources where they will not be used effectively in meeting the objectives of the project, and is deliverable in terms of the timescale allowed for the project. We have selected the top 11 European countries for this study based on the above analysis, as follows:

1. Italy;2. France;3. UK;4. Germany;5. Poland;6. Spain;7. Denmark;8. Sweden;9. Austria;10.Belgium; and11.Finland.

42

8 LITERATURE REVIEW: EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIES

The aim of the literature review across the selected EU countries was to review the current status of legislation and policy, by reviewing consultations and expressions on the EuP Directive.

Initially, the review identified the government departments responsible for implementing and enforcing the EuP Directive in the selected countries, and subsequently it identified the major manufacturers and trade associations that were active in this area, and what actions had taken place or were anticipated to take place.

In general, the results showed that very few government departments or organisations are currently active or working on the EuP Directive. However, different initiatives are taking place e.g. a recent EuP workshop in Copenhagen where cooperation between member states in implementing the Directive was discussed.

Due to the limited activity at member state level, the review also focused at the EU level to understand the current position and activities, organisations included:

CECED; EICTA; Amcham; and Orgalime.

Furthermore, a range of producers were contacted directly, by prioritising specific industries according to the highest volume of EuPs produced in the selected countries.

Annex C contains the full review of each country and lists contact details for the relevant government departments responsible for implementation and enforcement of the EuP Directive.

Due to the limited relevance of information found in other EU countries, we present here more detailed results for the UK only and headline results for other countries in the Section , ‘Key messages’.

8.1 UK

In the UK, the departments responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive are the Department of Trade and Industry and Defra. Enforcement will be covered by the regulator in each country: the Environment Agency for England and Wales; Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland; and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland.

43

We contacted several industrial organisations for the study. Those that responded in the timescale of the project were:

Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances (AMDEA) who represent manufacturers, suppliers and appliance distributors; and

Intellect, the UK trade association for information technology, telecommunications and electronics industries.

AMDEA (2006) are following developments of the EuP Directive very closely. However, they said they are not in a position to comment until more is known about potential standards relating to mandatory implementing measures or voluntary agreements. They referred to the success of voluntary agreements developed for the white goods sectors.

Intellect has been focusing on implementation of the WEEE regulations in the UK and they actively support individual producer responsibility. In terms of EuP, Intellect referred to two voluntary initiatives in the electronic sector:

1. the ‘Self commitment to improve energy efficiency of consumer electronics’; and

2. the ‘Code of conduct for digital TV equipment and external power supplies’.

According to discussions with Intellect, voluntary agreements would be preferred and probably the two voluntary initiatives listed above should be enough.

Below we summarise information that is available in the public domain from following government departments’ websites:

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI): Three consultations were conducted on WEEE and RoHS. In the assessment of the first consultation (ERM, 2003), within the product design section, 11% of those who responded refer to the EuP Directive(1) and raise concerns about overlap between EuP and WEEE. This is also the trend of the stakeholder consultation undertaken in this study. The stakeholder consultation identified potential conflicts between WEEE and EuP mainly due to overlap of product categories and/or measurement of environmental improvement in the two Directives. However, the earlier analysis by DTI of the detailed responses showed no interactions were identified. However, it was generally stated that the WEEE Directive is a waste Directive and not an appropriate vehicle for eco-design measures. Respondents stated that eco-design would be correctly addressed by the proposed EuP Directive. In terms of preference for voluntary or regulatory measures for eco-design under the WEEE

1(?) Some refer to the Directive on Eco-design Requirements for End-use Equipment (EUE).

44

Directive, around two thirds of respondents preferred voluntary measures, supported primarily by manufacturers, retailers and trade associations. No concerns in relation to the EuP Directive were expressed in the assessment of the second and third consultations.

Market Transformation Programme (MTP): MTP has listed the product groups included in the EC preparatory studies in different priority categories (high, medium and low) for the UK based on consumption of energy during usage. No view is expressed in relation to voluntary or regulatory measures under the EuP Directive. The priority categories and products are:

High priorityLightingDomestic heating systemsMotorsDigital television adapters (box, cable and satellite)External power supplies (chargers)Fridge freezersWashing machines

Medium PriorityChest freezersUpright freezersRefrigeratorsDishwashers

Lowest PriorityPC DisplaysTelevisions

When comparing the list with Figure 7.4 illustrating the production amount per EuP in the UK we notice a slight discrepancy. According to Figure 7.4, the major EuP produced in the UK are boilers, televisions and PC’s thus two of the products with the lowest priority according to MTP have high production amounts. This indicates that these two product groups should be reclassified. However, it should be noted that the list produced by MTP does not contain several of the product groups assessed by this study, and vice versa. Those not included in the MTP list, but assessed in this study are: room air conditioners; street lighting; vacuum cleaners; and copiers;

Other organisations that were contacted but did not express a view on the EuP Directive within the project time scale include:

Confederation of British Industry (CBI); Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER); and Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA).

45

8.2 Key Messages

Case study Countries

In the following section a summary of the key findings per country are presented. In the initial phase of this project, very limited actions were taking place in the individual member states. The general framework for the EuP Directive is completed but preparatory studies for the selection and definition of implementing measures per product group are currently conducted by experts and academia. Therefore most governmental institutions per member state are awaiting the results of the preparatory studies before taking actions.

However, recently a workshop was held in Copenhagen where one objective was to discuss cooperation between member states in implementing the EuP Directive. The workshop was attended by 14 different EU countries and 2 Candidate countries thus indicating that the individual member states will take action soon. However, at present there is no indication on how the member states will move forward. Minutes from the meeting can be found on http://www.ramboll-energy.com/ecodesign/Ture_Hammar_Workshop_memo_draft.pdf.

The results from our analysis are shown in Table8.2.

Table8.2 EuP actions per analysed country

Country EuP ActionsItaly No actions taken.

France No actions takenThe institutions contacted do not anticipate any conflicts between the Directives

UK Earlier consultations done by DTI have shown concerns that EuP will overlap with WEEE and RoHS. MTP has listed the product groups included in the initial 14 preparatory studies in different priority categories based on consumption of energy in the use phase.

Germany Several pre-studies for measuring high volume EuP’s have started. Some are finished whilst other are

46

Country EuP Actionsstill under preparation. It has not been possible to obtain details of the finished studies or the time frame for the studies presently conducted.

Poland No actions taken.

Spain No actions taken

Denmark Limited preparatory work has taken place. A workshop was held in Denmark with participants of 14 EU countries and 2 Candidate countries. One objective was to discuss the potential cooperation between membership countries in the implementation of the Directive.

Sweden Activities are taking place on a general level to raise awareness of the EuP Directive among SME’s. The Swedish Trade Council also organised a seminar on WEEE, RoHS and EuP.

Austria Legal implementation has started. No synergies or conflicts were identified.

Belgium A study is being carried out to assess the legal implications of the Directive in relation to existing product law. It is thought that the current law will suffice to implement the EuP Directive.

Finland No actions taken

EU level organisations

The organisations and industry associations state the importance of the EuP Directive being based on Article 95 of the treaty. Furthermore all organisations contacted promote the use of voluntary agreements instead of implementing measures. These are potentially important

47

indications for policy makers. The EuP Directive cannot result in trade barriers within the internal market i.e. the EUP Directive cannot result in the possibility of discrimination between two products based on the environmental issues associated with the products.

Voluntary agreements have been a success for the Energy label which has minimised the energy consumption in the use phase of electronic products and some EU level organisations contacted use the Energy label Directive as an example of where voluntary agreements have proven to be fast and effective when implementing directives.

Self declaration and voluntary agreements prescribe a high level of transparency and traceability for a controlling institution to assess the validity of the information provided through the supply chain.

The administration of supply chains is a large task for most industries i.e. an industry can influence their first tier suppliers but influencing lower tiers in the supply chain is more difficult. Large industries can use their size and position on the market to demand information throughout the supply chain but SME’s would not have the resources or the knowledge to do this and this could affect their position on the market.

48

9 LITERATURE REVIEW: ACADEMIC SOURCES

This Section summarises the results of the review of the academic literature. The aim of the review was to draw upon academic literature from established journals and conferences, internationally, to identify the unintended actions stemming from the EuP Directive with other product policy. We reviewed literature from the following sources:

Academic journals; Conferences and workshops; and Research groups and other initiatives.

Academic journals were searched electronically through specific online search engines to access the journals and publishers databases. This was conducted using a key-word search of specific terms, as listed below in Box 9.1. Additionally, conferences and research groups were identified and surveyed through online search engines and through references from other literature sources.

Annex D contains the full findings of the academic literature review.

In summary, the review identified several papers which provided supporting evidence for some of the issues identified via the review of the EU Directive texts. One specific synergy, relating to the Energy Star Programme, was identified, as follows:

Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

9.1 Academic Journals

Table 9.3 shows the range of publishers and journal databases that were surveyed for the literature review. The list includes the major environmental journals in the field. Box 9.1 shows the keywords that were used in the literature search.

49

Table 9.3 Publishers and Journals Surveyed

Publisher Journals coveredScientific Journals(www.scientificjournals.com)

A selection of journals in the database: The International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment; Energy and Buildings; Energy; Energy Policy; and Applied Energy.In total 7 titles are featured in Scientific Journals.

Science Direct(www.sciencedirect.com)

A selection of journals in the database: Journal of Cleaner Production; Ecological Economics; Resources, Conservation and Recycling; Science of the Total Environment; and Waste management.Over 2000 titles are featured in the areas of science, technology and medicine.

Wiley InterScience(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com)

A selection of journals in the database: European Environment; Sustainable Development; and Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management.Over 1000 titles are featured in the area of science.

Ingenta Connect(www.ingentaconnect.com)

Academic and professional research articles from around 8000 publications available online.

British Library Integrated catalogue; and Current serials.

Box 9.1 Keywords used in Survey

* Design for Environment

The academic literature review revealed that there were no articles that specifically identified issues stemming from actions brought about by the EuP Directive, whether conflicts or synergies.

Nonetheless, several articles provided supporting evidence for the issues that had already been identified through ERM’s review of the official Directive texts (see Annex A). In particular, the evidence

50

EuP, ecodesign, WEEE, RoHS, DfE*, IPP, Energy Directive, WEEE + energy, RoHS + energy, LCA + (the preparatory studies, e.g. ‘boilers’ or ‘computers’) energy efficiency standard, energy efficiency product, integrated energy policy

presented in these articles related to aspects of the WEEE and RoHS Directives (see Section 9 for a summary of evidence).

9.2 Conferences and Workshops

The second part of the review surveyed the recent international conferences and workshops relating to the EuP Directive, as shown in Table 9.4.

The review identified one synergy with the EuP Directive, as follows:

Energy Star Programme

The Energy Star Programme will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

In the following Section, we have summarised in more detail the most recent EU-level workshop, held in April 2006, on the EuP Directive.

51

Table 9.4 Conferences and Workshops

Conference/Workshop Date/Location Description Issue(s) identified?Ecodesign workshop 2006,

DenmarkThe Danish Energy Authority held a workshop on eco-design and the EUP Directive on 5th April 2006. Representatives from 14 EU Member States and 2 Candidate Countries participated, in addition to representatives from the EC.

None.See summary in main text of this report in Section 9.2

Sustainable Energy Consumption European, Conference under the Marrakech-Process on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)

2005, Germany

Informal expert meeting organised by the German Government Departments for Environment, the European Commission, and the United Nations Environment Programme.

An objective of the meeting was to contribute to the development of EU level policies and activities for the EuP Directive.

None.

EcoDesign – Awareness Raising Campaign for Electrical & Electronics SMEs

2005, Europe This EcoDesign awareness raising campaign, co-ordinated by the Fraunhofer IZM (Germany), performed 28 awareness raising workshops held in 21 countries. The requirements of the EuP Directive were covered.

None.

Seeds, Needs and Scoteeds 2005, UK Seeds, Needs and Scoteeds were three regional shows held in the UK, with the theme ‘current and future European Directives that affect the electrical and

None.

Conference/Workshop Date/Location Description Issue(s) identified?electronic industries’ (Seeds, 2005). The EuP Directive was covered.

EC Energy Star Conference 2004, Germany

The Energy Star Conference (2004) was oriented towards promotional and policy aspects of energy efficient office equipment, primarily within the framework of the EC Energy Star programme.

A presentation given on the ‘Importance of Energy Star program in the light of EuP’, by Theo Schoenmakers (Philips and Chair of EICTA EuP working group), concluded that Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

Eco-Design Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, April 2006

The Danish Energy Authority held a workshop on eco-design and the EuP Directive on 5th April 2006. Representatives from 14 EU Member States and 2 Candidate Countries participated, in addition to representatives from the EC.

Seven presentations were given at the workshop, which are available for download from the workshop website (Ecodesign, 2006) at the following address: www.ramboll-energy.com/ecodesign/ Two of the presentations contained relevant information for this project and have been summarised below.

1. The Framework Directive on ecodesign, André Brisaer, Head of Unit, European Commission;

2. Ecodesign and other energy efficiency initiatives, Hans-Paul Siderius, Senior Programme Advisor, SenterNovem, Netherlands;

The Framework Directive on ecodesign

The presentation was given by André Brisaer, Head of Unit, European Commission (Brisaer, 2006). No further evidence was gathered directly from André Brisaer in the timeframe of the project.

In the presentation, the main steps of the implementation of the EuP Directive were presented. Additionally, the creation of the consultation forum and the regulatory committee (Article 19(1)) were discussed, and a summary of the preparatory studies was given, detailing the main contractor and the study website.

Section 5, Status of the EuP Directive, summarises the relevant evidence from Brisaer (2006).

Ecodesign and other energy efficiency initiatives

The presentation given by Hans-Paul Siderius, Senior Programme Advisor, SenterNovem, Netherlands (Siderius, 2006) identified three relationships between eco-design and other energy efficiency initiatives. These are briefly summarised below:

Self regulation: It was concluded that market coverage of most products by self-regulation is too low. It is concluded in the presentation that self-regulation needs market coverage of at least 80 % to prevent the introduction of an implementing measure. Further discussion around this theme would be a worthwhile next step.

55

Energy Star: According to the presentation, eco-design could be used to set minimum efficiency requirements for products within the Energy Star Programme.

European Energy Label: It is concluded that eco-design is not an alternative to energy labelling, eco-design is directed towards manufacturers, whereas the energy label is aimed at retailers and customers.

9.3 Research Groups and Other Initiatives

Due to a lack of published information that we could identify through the general literature review, we surveyed and directly contacted several research groups and other initiatives working in the field to understand what unpublished research might be currently underway.

Table 9.5 shows the organisations and individuals contacted.

The review identified the following synergy:

RoHS Directive

One research group identified that the implementation of RoHS will be good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management. This is due to establishing the communication channels and information flow between producers and their primary and lower tier suppliers.

Table 9.5 Research Groups and Other Initiatives

Organisation Region Issue(s) identifiedThe Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD)

UK and Asia None.

Furthering Lifecycle Considerations through Integrated Product Policy (Flipp)

Sweden None.

The Impact of Environmental Policy Instruments on Activities, Products and Environmental Capabilities in the Electrical and Electronics Industry (YPSE)

Finland The implementation of RoHS will be good preparation for the EuP Directive in Finnish industry, through the practice of supply chain management.

SusProNet (2002 to 2004)

EU None.

56

Organisation Region Issue(s) identifiedEco-Life II (2002 to 2006)

EU None.

GrEEEn Project (2001 to 2003)

EU None.

Elima (2001 to 2005) EU None.

9.4 Key Messages

Based on the evidence from the academic literature review, the key messages are summarised below:

Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

Implementation of RoHS will be good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management i.e. via establishment of communication channels and information flow through the supply chain.

At the most recent workshop on EuP Directive, held by the Danish Energy Authority in April 2006, the following relevant discussion points were raised:

Siderius (2006) thought that self-regulation needs market coverage of at least 80 % to prevent the introduction of an implementing measure and concluded that market coverage of most products by self-regulation is too low. Further analysis and interpretation of this at a UK level will be necessary.

Also, Siderius (2006) concludes that eco-design is not an alternative to energy labelling, eco-design is directed towards manufacturers, whereas the energy label is aimed at retailers and customers.

André Brisaer, Head of Unit, European Commission, presented the timetable for moving forward for the original 14 candidate products, as already shown in Section 5.

57

10 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

10.1 Introduction

In this Section and in Annex E we present the evidence from the three stages of the literature review (official text review, EU country review and academic review). We summarise the issues identified according to policy-specific themes. Each conflict or synergy has been assessed according to an extended set of criteria based on those specified by Defra to review evidence, shown in Table 10.6.

Table 10.6 Assessment Criteria for the Literature Review

Defra Criteria Criteria Used to Assess Literature1 Evidence of environmental

concern regarding the product group targeted by the legislation.

Evidence of environmental concern regarding product specific groups has been assessed in Section 7 of the report. 10 priority EuPs were assessed.

2 Sufficiency of existing data (environmental and economic).

We have divided this criterion into three parts: Environmental evidence; Economic evidence; and Policy-relevant evidence.This supports the research aim to gather evidence that will assist UK policy makers in creating future RIAs, or to negotiate potential implementing measures.

3 Implementation status of legislations in Member States.

Evidence regarding the implementation status of legislations in Member States has been assessed in Section 6 of the report. 11 EU case-study countries were selected for the literature review.

4 Potential transferability of learning. Potential transferability of learning.This criterion assesses, for example, the transferability of the issue from the EU Member States to the UK, from one product group to another, etc.

5 Potential for informing the strategy for future policy in the UK.

Potential for informing the strategy for future policy in the UK. For this criterion, ERM has extracted information of use in informing policy.

6 Does the issue matter? Does the issue matter?We have assessed the priority of each issue based on several

58

Defra Criteria Criteria Used to Assess Literaturequalitative environmental and economic criteria according the aims of the study. These were derived from the RIA guidance. See Annex E for details.

7 How robust is the evidence? How robust is the evidence?The reference documentation was tested to be fit for purpose for ‘robustness’ using the test described in Annex E.

10.2 Summary of Evidence

The literature review has shown that, at present, there are few practical synergies or conflicts that could be identified as interacting with the EuP Directive. Issues identified have been summarised in Annex E relating to:

WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC); RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC); Eco-labelling (EC Regulation No 1980/2000, ISO 14021/25); Packaging Directive (94/62/EC); EMAS (1836/93/EC); and European Energy Star (2422/2001/EC).

Below we have provided a summary of the key messages from the overall summary of evidence.

10.3 Key Messages

Based on the evidence from the complete literature review, the key messages are summarised below:

Issue 1 - Synergy: Producers will be encouraged to design and to manufacture products to facilitate reuse and recycling. A synergy exists, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design.

Environmental evidence shows that benefits of eco-design for the EuP Directive should focus on the use phase. Thus, synergies may be minimal with the WEEE Directive; with the exception for disposal of refrigerants for room air conditioners where eco-design could aid proper end-of-life disposal e.g. through take back system.

59

Issue 2 - Conflict: Under the WEEE Directive reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation, through increased energy efficiency, is considered a high priority environmental goal. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflict.

The environmental benefit of WEEE is measured by mass at end-of-life, whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by global warming impact across the complete life-cycle. Product specific trade-offs need to be identified and discussed further. This research did not identify specific cases from literature.Truttmann (2006) identifies that when assessing the benefits of policy to promote product reuse, a life-cycle approach is required that assesses the trade-off of extending the operating life of less efficient equipment versus the benefit of saving material resources.

Issue 3 - Conflict: The WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on each of the categories, e.g. the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP Directive, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be placed on the products.

Policy makers will rely on industry expertise to identify these conflicts. Consequently, a diverse range of stakeholders from each product group should be involved at an early stage to identify and resolve any potential conflicts. Our research did not identify specific issues.

Issue 4 - Synergy: The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but not subject to RoHS. The EuP Directive encourages producers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the use of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle.

The EuP Directive has the potential to deliver greater benefit than the RoHS Directive, by restricting substances, because it considers all substances in the product and it measures environmental impacts across the life-cycle rather than looking a limited set of six substances based on toxicity alone.

Issue 5 - Synergy: According to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs

60

throughout the life cycle. According to Kautto (2006) the implementation of RoHS will be a good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management.

Existing RoHS data collection and reporting systems should be maximised to reduce overall administrative burden. Although, the evidence suggests that SMEs should be considered a higher priority as they are likely to incur a costly administrative burden based on evidence from RoHS (ERA, 2004).

Issue 6 - Conflict: When banning certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances will need to be substituted. In certain cases, for example fluorescent lamps, the requirements of the EuP Directive and the RoHS Directive may conflict.

Policy makers will rely on industry expertise to identify these conflicts. Consequently, stakeholders from product specific groups should be involved at an early stage to identify and resolve any potential conflicts.The environmental benefit of the RoHS Directive is measured by toxic mass (e.g. 1kg of cadmium is more toxic than 1kg of iron), whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact to perform the same function. Product specific trade-offs need to be identified and discussed further. See Section 6.2 for example for fluorescent lamps.

Issue 7 - Synergy: Mandatory eco-design requirements will complement the eco-label initiative and provide supporting information of environmental aspects. Products with eco-design awards may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.

Cost savings to all parties may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent with EuP for data provision, analysis and reporting.

Issue 8 – Synergy: Packaging is not an energy using product. However, the environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part.

Environmental evidence (VHK, 2005) shows this issue to be insignificant.

Issue 9 - Synergy: The EuP Directive will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.

61

Cost savings to all parties may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent with EuP for data provision, analysis and reporting.

Issue 10 - Synergy: The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

Cost savings to all parties may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent with EuP for data provision, analysis and reporting.

62

11 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

As is clear from earlier Sections of the report, there is paucity of data that identifies or supports specific synergies or conflicts with other product policies that stem from actions brought about by the EuP Directive.

The original aim of the study was to conduct a stakeholder consultation to validate the issues identified by the study. However, due to the lack of data that is currently available, the scope of the consultation was expanded to elicit new information, as well as to validate results.

More specifically, we aimed to get an indication as to what expectations various stakeholders hold in relation to the EuP Directive and related measures, such as voluntary versus regulatory measures. We aimed to provide a feel of what to expect from various stakeholders as the EuP Directive progresses and to indicate the kind of data available and what research various stakeholders have commissioned or consider commissioning.

11.1 Selection of Stakeholders

It was essential that a wide range of stakeholders were selected to reflect the complexity of the policy context and interrelated issues associated with the EuP Directive.

The eco-design requirements of the Directive will be established on the basis of technical, economic and environmental analyses in consultation with stakeholders. In addition, Article 18 of the EuP Directive calls for balanced participation by Member State representatives, industry, trade associations, the retail trade, importers, environmental groups, and consumer organisations. We contacted 25 stakeholders in total, covering each of these groups with the exception of importers.

11.1.2 Selection Criteria

Where relevant, we have selected stakeholders according to criteria proposed by Defra in assessing evidence for the study, as below:

Evidence of environmental concern regarding the product group targeted by the legislation;

Sufficiency of existing data (environmental and economic); Implementation status of legislations in Member States; Potential transferability of learning; and Potential for informing the strategy for future policy in the UK.

63

We have translated these criteria into four criteria for selection, shown below:

1. Potential to verify or elicit information (for EuP, WEEE, RoHS, eco-labelling and other policy, etc);

2. Maintain balanced participation, i.e. to include balanced range of stakeholders;

3. Is the stakeholder currently active?; and4. Is the stakeholder available to participate?

Table 11.7 lists the stakeholders that were invited to take part in the study. Of the 25 stakeholders that were contacted, only 12 returned their questionnaires within the time period of the project. Of these, two declined to take part in the study due to a conflict of interest. One stakeholder wished to remain anonymous and one other provided a personal view. These two stakeholders were from the original 25 organisations contacted, but have been grouped in the ‘Others’ category.

Table 11.7 Stakeholders in Consultation

Organisation Took part in study?

Comment

Non-governmental Organisation

European Environment Bureau (EEB)

No

WWF Yes

Government

DG Energy and Transport (TREN)

No Declined to take part due to conflict of interest.

DG Enterprise and Industry No DG Environment No The Department of Trade

and Industry (Dti)Yes

Market Transformation Programme (MTP)

Yes

Trade Association

EICTA No Orgalime No CECED YesIndustry

Electrolux No Philips Yes Hewlett Packard No

64

Organisation Took part in study?

Comment

British Retail Consortium No Sony Yes Siemens No GE No Sky TV No Sun Microsystems (UK) NoConsultants

Van Holsteijn en Kemna BV No IVF Industrial Research and

Development CorpNo

IZM No Bio Intelligence Yes VITO No Armines No Declined to take part

due to conflict of interest.

AEA Technology YesOthers

Anonymous (upon request) Yes Personal view of Rosalinde

van der Vlies, DG Environment

Yes

11.2 Stakeholder Questionnaire

As mentioned, the original aim of the study was to conduct a stakeholder consultation to validate the issues identified by the study. However, due to the lack of data available, a greater emphasis in the questionnaire was placed on eliciting new information.

Initially we present the results of the validation process and then we summarise the new evidence relevant to the study.

Annex F contains the questionnaire sent to stakeholders.

11.3 Validation of Results

The views and evidence provided by the respondents have been cross-referenced with the 10 issues identified by the final results of the study to indicate the level of agreement or disagreement by the stakeholders. Although, it should be noted that the questionnaire was written at the interim results stage. The following Sections present these results.

65

Where ‘no view’ is indicated in the charts below this shows that no clear preference was provided in agreement or disagreement with the issue.

11.4 WEEE

Issue 1: Product eco-design (opportunity)Producers will be encouraged to design and to manufacture products to facilitate reuse and recycling. A synergy exists, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agreed Disagreed No view

Issue 1: Product eco-design (opportunity)

A question relating to this issue was not included in the questionnaire. However, one respondent (R van der Vlies) supported this synergy with the WEEE Directive.

Issue 2: End-of-life management versus eco-design (risk)Under the WEEE Directive reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation, through increased energy efficiency, is considered a priority environmental goal. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflict.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agreed Disagreed No view

Issue 2: End-of-life management versus eco-design (risk)

66

Nine of the ten respondents expressed a view on this issue. There was no clear trend in the answers: four (Bio Intelligence Service, MTP, Philips, Sony) agreed; one (R van der Vlies) disagreed and four did not show a preference in agreement or disagreement. .

Of those who agreed, no further explanation was given. The one respondent that disagreed argued that both Directives aim at reducing the environmental impacts during the use phase (EuP) or the waste phase (WEEE). They argue that the two Directives are complementary and therefore not mutually exclusive.

Issue 3: Product categories (risk)The WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on each of the categories, e.g. the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP Directive, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be placed on the products.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agreed Disagreed No view

Issue 3: Product categories (risk)

Nine of the ten respondents expressed a view on this issue. There was no clear trend in the answers: four (AEAT, Bio Intelligence Service, MTP, Sony) agreed; two (Philips, R van der Vlies) disagreed and three did not provide a clear answer.

Of those that agreed, it was stated that the life-cycle approach to be implemented in the EC preparatory studies on the 14 priority EuPs should help to identify any conflicts that may exist across product categories.

Of those who disagreed, it was stated that achievement of the recycling/recovery targets under the WEEE Directive will be determined primarily by the performance of the collection scheme, rather than by design measures implemented by manufacturers.

67

11.5 RoHS

Issue 4: Use of environmentally damaging substances (opportunity)The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but not subject to RoHS. The EuP Directive encourages producers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the use of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle.

Issue 5: Provision of data (opportunity)According to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. This activity will assist in the correct and speedy implementation and monitoring of RoHS through information supply along the chain.

In the questionnaire these two issues were grouped into one, and respondents were asked to comment on them together. However, we have distinguished between the responses to each issue.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agree Disagree No view

Issue 4: Use of environmentally damaging substances (opportunity)

The question was answered by nine respondents. The majority, five (AEAT, Bio Intelligence Service, R van der Vlies, CECED and Philips) agreed that the EuP Directive has a holistic approach, and that it would encourage producers to investigate further possibilities of avoiding the use of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle.

68

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agree Disagree No view

Issue 5: Provision of data (opportunity)

The question was answered by nine respondents. The majority, four (anonymous, CECED, Dti andPhilips) disagreed with the issue as presented. Of those who disagreed, the argument was made that RoHS will be implemented long before EuP, and that the compliance operations for RoHS will already be in place.

Issue 6: Substitute substances (risk)When banning certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances will need to be substituted. In certain cases, the requirements of the EuP Directive and the RoHS Directive may conflict.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agreed Disagreed No view

Issue 6: Substitute substances (risk)

Nine expressed a view on this issue. Four respondents agree (AEAT, CECED, DTI, Sony), three disagree (anonymous, Philips, R van der Vlies) and two did not give a clear answer.

One of the respondents who agreed that substituting materials to achieve RoHS compliance may conflict with the EuP Directive, identified another example, in which it was argued that silver has a negative impact on the environment in the mining process, where, on the other hand, lead tends to be found when mining other ores.

Of those who disagreed, it was noted that the EuP Directive does not mandate minimising energy consumption, but a careful balance of life-cycle aspects. It was argued that studies may indicate that the overall

69

effect of lead free soldering may be minimal. In addition, the possibility of making exemptions to the RoHS Directive was mentioned (Article 5.1.b), which would apply to cases where the environmental benefits of substitution are outweighed by the negative environmental impacts.

11.6 Eco-Labelling

Issue 7: Product eco-design (opportunity)Mandatory eco-design requirements will complement the eco-label initiative and provide supporting information relating to environmental aspects. Products with eco-design awards may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.

0

12

34

56

78

Agreed Disagreed No view

Issue 7: Product eco-design (opportunity)

This question was answered by eight out of the ten respondents.

All the respondents agreed with this identified opportunity. It was pointed out that this synergy was designed into the EuP Directive from the start (Article 9.3).

11.7 Packaging

Issue 8: Product eco-design (opportunity)The environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of packaging, distribution and packaging waste. Eco-design requirements should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part.

70

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agree Disagree No view

Issue 8: Product eco-design (opportunity)

This question was not included in the questionnaire because the environmental evidence gathered from the study has shown that packaging, distribution and packaging waste does not have a significant environmental impact over the life-cycle in comparison to the other life-cycle phases, such as product use. Consequently, this question was not included within the questionnaire as an issue.

11.8 EMAS Scheme

Issue 9: Demonstrate conformity (opportunity)The EuP Directive will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agree Disagree No view

Issue 9: Demonstrate conformity (opportunity)

Eight of respondents provided a view on the EMAS Scheme as a way to demonstrate conformity.

The majority, five (AEAT, anonymous, Bio Intelligence Service, MTP, Philips), agreed that the scheme could help demonstrate conformity. Of those who agreed, it was also stated said that it could be sufficient to demonstrate compliance by a number of other management systems, if they sufficiently cover the EuP requirements, such as ISO9001:2000 or similar.

71

Of the two respondents who disagreed (CECED, Sony), it was argued that a company may have an EMAS scheme implemented for some of the products it designs, but not all, which would mean that all products placed on the market would not be covered. Furthermore, environmental management schemes may not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with some implementing measures of the EuP Directive which may have thresholds or ceilings, i.e. demonstrating a commitment to the eco-design of products may not be sufficient. In addition, it was said that the Directive cannot regard environmental management schemes as providing a means of compliance, considering that it concerns an internal market law, and therefore free circulation of goods must be guaranteed.

11.9 Energy Star

Issue 10: Demonstrate conformity (opportunity)The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Agree Disagree No view

Issue 10: Demonstrate conformity (opportunity)

A question relating to this issue was not included in the questionnaire. However, one of the respondents (Philips) mentions the EnergyStar, and argues that it would be sensible to examine how these requirements could feed into EuP requirements.

11.10 New Evidence

The stakeholder questionnaire asked several other questions to identify new evidence, relating to:

Preference towards potential implementing measures versus voluntary agreements; and

72

Several opened ended questions requesting additional evidence relating the EuP Directive.

The new evidence relevant to the study is summarised in the following Sections.

11.11 Implementing Measures versus Voluntary Agreements

0

1

2

3

4

Implementingmeasures

Voluntaryagreements

Both No view

Support for Implementing Measures or Voluntary agreements

This question was answered by eight out of the ten respondents.

There was a mixed view over a preference for regulated or voluntary measures. In general, industry (CECED, Philips, Sony and anonymous) preferred a combination of both types of measure or voluntary agreements. WWF and AEAT preferred the use of implementing measures, although expressed that certain circumstances could dictate the use of either, to achieve a positive outcome.

Support for voluntary agreements was stated as: Delivery of results faster and in a more cost-effective way than

legislation. The example of a change from CRT to LCD TVs was given, where a higher efficiency technology can be introduced more quickly than legislative measures. There was no evidence available to suggest that this could be generalised to other product groups or technologies. .

The minimum eligibility criteria proposed in the Directive were supported as a valuable tool to justify self-regulatory initiatives.

Weaknesses of voluntary agreements were said to be: A potential lack of monitoring and verification. If not all producers have signed up, then not all the market is

covered.

73

Support for implementing measures was made on the basis that voluntary initiatives were not as effective. Evidence was provided as follows: Fraunhofer Institute on energy efficiency policy

(ww.isi.fhg.de/publ/e_en.htm ) states that regulation tends to have a more valuable impact than voluntary initiatives.

An OECD (2003) report states that voluntary agreements for environmental policy rarely go beyond business as usual.

Free riding, due to lack of enforcement, was seen as major weakness for the use of implementing measures. It was stated that requirements should be extremely simple to check by authorities.

11.12 Key Messages

The ten issues identified in the final results were, in general, supported by the stakeholders involved in the consultation.

Generally, there was a lack of provision of evidence to support the views expressed.

Of the conflicts identified, there appeared to be low levels of concern by stakeholders, as they either did not perceive a conflict to exist, or they expected to be fully involved with EuP implementation which would resolve any potential issues.

Of the synergies identified, there was unanimous support for using eco-labels to demonstrate compliance with potential measures. Support was shown for the use of EMAS or a similar scheme to show compliance, although in reality it was seen as impracticable. Other synergies appeared to be of lower importance.

In relation to implementing measures versus voluntary agreements, it can be concluded that industry would prefer a mix of measures to ensure a level playing field. Enforcement and free-riding were seen as a large concern for both types of measures.

74

12 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY BRIEF

In this Section we conclude how the evidence gathered in the research relates to the original aims of the study, which were to:

1. provide useful information in creating future regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) related to product policy; and

2. identify issues relevant for the UK when negotiating EuP implementing measures.

We have compared each issue based on several key parameters derived from the RIA guidance provided on the Cabinet Office’s website (1).

When performing an RIA a full range of potential impacts should be considered, relating to economic, environmental and social aspects. The impact on different sectors and groups must also be considered.

A checklist of areas to assess for each aspect (i.e. economic, environmental and social) includes:

1. costs and benefits;i. sectors and groups affected, e.g. individuals, charities,

or public or private sector organisations;ii. benefits; andiii. costs, e.g. split between policy and administrative

costs.2. Small Firms Impact Test;3. competition assessment; and4. enforcement, sanctions and monitoring.

For this study, we believe that the environmental and economic aspects cover the range of important aspects relevant for the research. We have excluded social aspects because this focuses on topics such as demand for health services; safety at work; and rate of crime or crime prevention, etc which we do not consider to be applicable to the scope of the research.

Based on guidance provided by the Cabinet Office’s website on conducting an RIA, we have assessed the evidence of each issue on the following four parameters:

1. Environment: will the issue significantly effect: i. the level of environmental impact?

1(?) http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/index.aspWebsite accessed 10-04-2006.

75

2. Economy: will the issue significantly effect:ii. certain sectors and groups?iii. levels of competition within the sector? iv. enforcement, sanctions and monitoring?

As a general guide, where possible, we have considered the following important aspects in relation to each parameter.

Environment

i. Level of environmental impact: is there evidence of significant environmental benefits? Is there evidence of increased levels of green house gas emissions?

Economy

ii. Effect on certain sectors and groups: is there a disproportionate effect on certain sectors and groups (e.g. SMEs)? Are individuals, charities, or public or private sector organisations significantly affected? Are there significant policy and administrative costs? Are there significant benefits?

iii. Levels of competition within the sector: would the costs substantially affect some firms more than others? Would the issue affect the market structure? Would the issue effect choice of price, quality, range or location of a firm’s products?

iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: would the issue affect enforcement? would the issue affect who is the enforcer? Would the issue affect the level of sanctions? Would the issue affect how monitoring is conducted?

In relation to the second study aim, which was to identify the issues surrounding the negotiation of the implementing measures, there is not a concise framework, such as that for RIA, which can be used to frame the important negotiation aspects. Nevertheless, there are important issues that are case specific to the EuP Directive which can be identified. We have considered the following to be important in identifying the issues:

Why is the differentiation between voluntary and implementing measures important in general for the EuP Directive?

What other issues/aspects should the UK be aware of when engaging with this negotiation?

What is the specific importance for the UK?

To identify these issues we have considered: who is important to the negotiation; what are the likely stances of the stakeholders; what is

76

important for UK industry as a whole; and what are the potential risks and opportunities.

12.1 Issues of Relevance for the UK when negotiating EuP Implementing Measures

Initially, we present in this Section a summary of the important aspects relating to voluntary and implementing measures. Subsequently, we identify other important issues surrounding the negotiation of the implementing measures for the UK.

Primarily, we have identified the additional issues/aspects based on the stakeholder consultation responses, as well as summarising the relevant evidence from the literature review.

The EuP Directive provides the framework to implement the following two types of measures, as follows:

1. Voluntary agreement: A voluntary measure takes place at an industry level and relies on market forces to promote change. There would be no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance. These measures tend to promote change more quickly and cost-effectively.

2. Implementing measure: is a measure adopted under the Directive laying down eco-design requirements for defined EuPs or for certain environmental aspects. These are mandatory and regulated measures.

The negotiation process of potential implementing measures for the UK, including legal and technical issues, is likely to involve the balancing of many perspectives and viewpoints from a wide range of interested parties. It is anticipated that industry and other stakeholders will be fully consulted when negotiating either type of measure. We have identified several important aspects in this context:

Large industry generally perceives the use of voluntary agreements as the favoured approach. Energy Star is commonly cited as a successful voluntary agreement. Benefits of this approach are said to be: quicker implementation time; quicker reaction to changing markets and product technologies; and easier acceptance by industry. The large industries who we approached in this study confirmed this. They are ready for the EuP Directive i.e. they have active supply chain management implemented in the organisation and they have significant amounts of environmental data from the life cycle. These resources can be used directly whether the EuP Directive will be based on voluntary agreements or not. However the voluntary agreements would mean that the large industries can utilise their existing data management

77

systems whereas an implementing measure could introduce a standardised framework for industries to use and the transformation to such a format could be very resource demanding for the industry. Additionally, SMEs are a very important actor in chain. By nature these enterprises generally have fewer resources or established data management systems in comparison to large industries to manage any additional legislative requirements. Introduction of either type of measure, regulated or voluntary, is likely to be very resource demanding for SMEs. The role of industry associations will be important in increasing the levels of awareness amongst these enterprises, as well as providing essential information, data and guidance to support implementation of the EuP Directive.

However, there are several important differences between Energy Star and potential voluntary agreements under EuP. Firstly, Energy Star focuses on energy consumption in the use phase alone, whereas the EuP Directive focuses on all eco-design aspects across the life-cycle of the product. This can lead to several disadvantages when considering voluntary agreements, including:

In fragmented industries, such as consumer electronics, a voluntary agreement may not achieve sufficient coverage. Hans-Paul Siderius, Senior Programme Advisor, SenterNovem, Netherlands (Siderius, 2006) concluded that market coverage of most products by voluntary agreement is too low. He concludes that self-regulation needs market coverage of at least 80 % to prevent the introduction of an implementing measure. This will be an area for further negotiation. A level playing field is not achieved if there is not complete coverage.In comparison to Energy Star, administration to avoid free-riders will be more complex due to the need to manage the entire supply chain.SMEs are not always in a suitable position to influence the voluntary agreement.Weak voluntary agreements can penalise companies who invest in the higher standard of product. As an example, the sales of Eff1 motors in the UK actually fell once the Eff1-3 motor efficiency standards were introduced, as they effectively endorsed a lower standard than was becoming the norm in the UK (AEAT, 2006).

In the UK more than 90% of the industries are SMEs, thus the above statements are very relevant for policy makers when negotiating implementing measures versus voluntary agreements. SMEs do not have the resources or knowledge to map the environmental impacts of their products in a life cycle perspective. This would be a large task for these companies and without firm guidelines (implementing measures)

78

an SME would not know how to carry out and maintain such environmental assessments and reporting. SMEs would need to be included in the voluntary agreement if 80% of the market coverage must be achieved. However, the voluntary agreement that the large companies of the 80% coverage are promoting would not be appropriate for SMEs.

Nonetheless, in practice, if implementing measures are to focus on the high impact phases of the life-cycle, in order to deliver maximum benefit, then these measures are likely to initially focus on the energy consumption of the product in the use phase. This would not exclude measures being adopted in other life-cycle phases. Although, these measures must be considered in conjunction with the improvement potential of the product, which may mean that other phases of the life-cycle are targeted first.

Implementing measures have the advantage of establishing minimum standards for all products on the market. In particular, an implementing measure should drive up the minimum performance of the lower end of the market and help ensure a level playing field. However, several disadvantages also exist, including:

Implementing measures can be slower to implement and to react to changes in the market or product technology.Industry can be more reluctant to accept such measures because of the lack of leadership by industry i.e. industry’s perceived influence on level of costs incurred and changes to business management. Our stakeholder consultation showed industry would prefer a combination of both types of measure. Additionally, industry sometimes perceive these measures as stifling innovation.

Several other issues that were identified to be relevant to the UK in negotiating measures include the following:

Industry generally tends to prefer verification on the basis of self-declaration rather than being conducted by a third party. This to reduce costs and reduce product time to market.

The aim of the EuP Directive is to set minimum performance standards, rather than to replace eco-label schemes which indicate those products that perform at the high environmental performance end of the market.

The eco-design requirements would not be seen as an alternative to energy labelling, because eco-design is directed towards manufacturers, whereas the energy label is aimed at retailers and customers.

79

For the UK, over 90% of the manufacturing industry is made up by SMEs (SBS, 2002). These companies need to be given sufficient priority in the negotiation process.

For the UK, boiler production constitutes around 90% of global impacts, followed by televisions and computers, based on the EC funded study by VHK (2005). We would recommend prioritising negotiations by industry based on an environmental prioritisation method. Consideration for improvement potential of products in these industries can then be investigated and negotiated as necessary.

UK operators that promote the reuse of older products may delay the launch of higher energy efficiency products onto the market. These operators may have concerns about being adversely affected by potential implementing measures.

From the findings in this study it is not possible to establish a preferred approach when comparing voluntary agreements and implementing measures. Voluntary agreements are preferred by industry since they are quicker to implement and will ensure a quicker reaction to changing markets. However this is not always the case. Hans Paul Siderius (Siderius,2006) has put the most recent voluntary agreements on stand-by power consumption into perspective and is questioning the efficiency of these. The main issue is incomplete market coverage of the voluntary agreement because many suppliers are located outside the EU and are thus not aware of the agreement or might not care. This would be case specific and will not create the level playing field that is essential in the internal market of the EU. Furthermore voluntary agreements are reactive i.e. they only start when the product has been on the market for some time.

In case of stand-by energy consumption, an implementing measure would be preferable since it is a basic feature of the product and independent of the functionality of other modes. This also makes it possible to use an implementing measure in more proactive way. An implementing measure can be constructed for different technologies within a product range. For example an implementing measure for stand-by energy consumption of televisions would be the same for CRT, LCD and plasma televisions and in this case the implementing measure would be transferable to products that are not yet on the market.

As described earlier voluntary agreements have advantages when compared to implementing measures. However for some products and features of the products, implementing measures could be preferred. Therefore the preparatory studies currently undertaken should be used to individually assess each EuP and identify where in the life cycle

80

implementing measures or voluntary agreements are preferred. Furthermore this could be extended to individual features of products e.g. stand-by energy consumption to assess and select the most efficient regulation tool.

12.2 Key Messages and Policy Brief

Issue 1 - Opportunity: Producers will be encouraged to design and to manufacture products to facilitate reuse and recycling. A synergy exists, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design. i. Environmental impact: evidence shows environmental impact

mainly arises in the use phase and is minimal in the disposal phase for the 10 EuPs researched. Therefore, the synergy is likely to be minimal.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified.iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 2 - Risk: Under the WEEE Directive reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation, through increased energy efficiency, is considered a high priority environmental goal. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is potential for conflict.i. Environmental impact: evidence shows no product specific

trade-offs were identified. However, trade-offs in different phases of the life-cycle will need to be considered further on a case by case basis. The results of the 14 preparatory studies will support this aim.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: Operators that reuse old technology could be affected. The reuse of older products may delay the launch of higher energy efficiency products onto the market. There is a trade-off between resource conservation in the production phase and energy consumption in the use phase.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 3 - Risk: The WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on each of the categories, e.g. the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP Directive, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP

81

Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be placed on the products.

i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified.ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 4 - Opportunity: The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but not subject to RoHS. The EuP Directive encourages producers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the use of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle. Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified.ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 5 - Opportunity: According to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. According to Kautto (2006) the implementation of RoHS will be a good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management. i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified.ii. Certain sectors and groups: Potentially there may be a

disproportionate effect on certain sectors and groups, such as SMEs, that do not have supply chain management systems in place .

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 6 - Risk: When restricting certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances potentially need to be partially or fully substituted. In certain cases, for example fluorescent lamps, the requirements of the EuP Directive and the RoHS Directive may conflict.i. Environmental impact: Specific trade-offs in different phases of

the life-cycle need to be determined for relevant EuPs. The results of the 14+5 preparatory studies will support this aim.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

82

Issue 7 - Opportunity: Mandatory eco-design requirements will complement the eco-label initiative and provide supporting information of environmental aspects. Products with eco-design awards may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.i. Environmental impact: By nature the environmental impacts

across the life-cycle will be lower compared to products without an Eco-Label.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: Opportunity may favour those products/producers that already have Eco-Label.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 8 – Opportunity: Packaging is not an energy using product. However, the environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part.

i. Environmental impact: Evidence shows environmental impacts of packaging and waste to be insignificant and this is therefore a very low priority issue for the 10 products assessed in this study.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 9 - Opportunity: The EuP Directive will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.i. Environmental impact: No clear evidence identified. ii. Certain sectors and groups: Opportunity may favour those

enterprises already with an EMAS scheme. Although, a company may have an EMAS scheme implemented for some products but not all, which would mean that all products placed on the market would not be covered. Also, environmental management schemes may not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with specific measures, but simply demonstrate a general commitment to eco-design.

iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

Issue 10 - Opportunity: The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

83

i. Environmental impact: By nature environmental impacts across the life-cycle will be lower compared to products without an Energy Star label.

ii. Certain sectors and groups: No clear evidence identified. iii. Levels of competition: No clear evidence identified.iv. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: No clear evidence

identified.

84

13 RECOMMENDATIONS

In relation to future research, ERM recommends the following next steps for Defra to position itself as an active stakeholder at an EU level regarding the EuP Directive:

Update this study in mid to late 2007, based on the same method, to include the findings of the EC preparatory studies on priority EuPs. At this future point in time the results of the original 14 preparatory studies should be made available. No clear timetable exists for the further five studies. However, the original 14 should provide sufficient evidence to conduct the research. We anticipate that activity in relation to the EuP Directive will proliferate once the results of the studies are made available.

Establish a method to assess the suitability of choosing between implementing measures or voluntary agreements for priority EuPs in relation to the UK and EU. Currently, MTP is conducting research in this area. However, when the preparatory studies are made available in 2007 we would recommend that this area is revisited in light of new research to update this area for the UK. Any measures that may be enforced are likely to be a contentious issue and will require further research and stakeholder engagement. We recommend considering the aspects described in Section when choosing between implementing measures and voluntary agreements.

Maintain a robust strategy for stakeholder consultation when negotiating and balancing the issues relating to potential future implementing measures or voluntary agreements. Article 18 of the EuP Directive calls for balanced participation by Member State representatives, industry, trade associations, the retail trade, importers, environmental groups, and consumer organisations. Clearly, development of an implementing measure will be an intricate process and involve many interrelated issues. We recommend that a robust stakeholder engagement strategy is developed to ensure adequate input from all relevant parties at the UK and EU levels.

85

14 REFERENCES

[1] AEDE, (2006). Asia eco-design electronics. Centre for Sustainable Design, UK. www document (accessed 31/03/2006) www.cfsd.org.uk/aede/

[2] AEAT, (2006). Response by AEAT to Stakeholder consultation for Product Policy and Environmental Tradeoffs (SCP5.3). (unpublished)

[3] AmCham, (2004). Eco-design Requirements for Energy-Using Products. www document (accessed 16/03/2006) www.amcham.de/fileadmin/templates/main/pdf/AmCham_Germany_EUP_Position_Paper.pdf

[4] AMDEA, (2006). Personal communication with Richard Hughes, AMDEA, April 2006.

[5] Banerjee, Abhijit; Solomon, Barry D., (2003). Eco-labelling for energy efficiency and sustainability: a meta-evaluation of US programs. Energy Policy, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 109-123.

[6] Brisaer (2006). The Framework Directive on Ecodesign. Presentation given at the Ecodesign Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark. www document (accessed 26/04/06) www.ramboll-energy.com/ecodesign/presentations/3%20Andre%20Brisaer%2005%20%2004%2006.pdf

[7] CfSD, (2006). www document (accessed 31/03/2006) www.cfsd.org.uk

[8] Dalhammar, C. (2005). Regulating indirect aspects in the product chain: The emergence of a life cycle approach in environmental law. In proceedings from the 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Helsinki, Finland, June 2005.

[9] Dalhammar, C; van Rossem, C. (2004). The Energy Using Products (EuP) Directive and product chain innovation, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University, Sweden.

[10] Des Rosiers, Jean-Pierre; Cockburn, John, (1997). Regulating appliance energy efficiency in Canada: some similarities and differences with the US. Energy and Buildings, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 89-94.DTI, (2006). Batteries and Accumulators. www document (accessed 07/03/2006) www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/ep/batteries.htm

[11] DTI, (2006a). Energy Using Products. www document (accessed 05/04/2006) www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/EUP.htm#Index

[12] Ecodesign (2006). Ecodesign workshop in Copenhagen www document (accessed 26/04/06) www.ramboll-energy.com/ecodesign/

[13] Ecodesign, (2005). EcoDesign – Awareness Raising Campaign for Electrical & Electronics SMEs. www document (accessed 30-04-2006) www.ecodesignarc.info

86

[14] Eco-Life II, (2006). Thematic Network Eco-Life II. www document (accessed 31/04/2006) www.ihrt.tuwien.ac.at/sat/base/EcolifeII/facts.htm

[15] EEDAL, (2006). International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting. www document (accessed 30/04/2006) http://www.livegroup.co.uk/eedal/index.php?view=introduction

[16] EFSOT, (2005). EFSOT – Just Lead-free is Not Yet Green! EFSOT Project 2002-2005. Technical University Berlin and EFSOT Project 2002-2005. www document (accessed 16/03/2006) www.efsot-europe.info/servlet/is/1/Press_Release-Europe.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=Press_Release-Europe.pdf

[17] EICTA, (2005). EICTA position paper on the proposal for a Framework Directive for the setting of Eco-design Requirements for Energy-Using Products. February 2005. www document (accessed 16/03/2006) www.eicta.org/files/Eco-design-173946A.pdf

[18] Elima, (2006). Sustainable management of product life cycles, EU Growth programme 2001-3. www document (accessed 31/04/2006) www.shu.ac.uk/design-research/index.htm

[19] Energy Star Conference, (2004). www document (accessed 30/04/2006) www.eu-energystar.org/en/index.html

[20] EPA, (2002). Fact sheet: Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). The US Environmental Protection Agency. www document (accessed 28/03/2006) www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

[21] ERA, (2004). Possible Compliance Approaches. for Directive 2002/95/EC. (The RoHS Directive). Dr. P. Goodman, Dr C. Robertson, Mr R. Skipper. and Mr J. Allen. ERA Technology. www document (accessed 05/04/2006)

[22] ERM, (2003). Responses to Discussion Paper: WEEE and RoHS Directives. www document (accessed 05/04/2006) www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/weee_rohsfr.pdf

[23] Eur-Lex, (2006). CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. www document (accessed 27/06/2006)

[24] Europa, (2006). Energy using products. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/eco_design/

[25] Europa, (2006a). Packaging and Packaging Waste. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/packaging_index.htm

[26] Europa, (2006b). Call for applications to the Eco-design Consultation Forum. www document (accessed 20/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/eco_design/consforum.htm

[27] Europa, (2004). Disposal of spent batteries and accumulators. www document (accessed 07/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l21202.htm

[28] Europa, (2003). DIRECTIVE 2002/96/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 January 2003 on

87

waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00240038.pdf

[29] Europa, (2003a). DIRECTIVE 2002/95/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00190023.pdf

[30] Europa, (2003b). Energy efficiency: energy performance of buildings. www document (accessed 09/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27042.htm

[31] Europa, (2002). DIRECTIVE 2002/91/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 09/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_001/l_00120030104en00650071.pdf

[32] Europa, (2000). REGULATION (EC) No 1980/2000 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/pdf/regulation/001980_en.pdf

[33] Europa, (1999). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 08/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31999L0031&model=guichett

[34] Europa, (1998). COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_001/l_00119990105en00010002.pdf

[35] Europa, (1994). EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1994/en_1994L0062_do_001.pdf

[36] Europa, (1992). Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 09/03/2006)

88

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0042:EN:HTML

[37] Europa, (1992a). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances. Official Journal of the European Union. www document (accessed 09/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=1992&nu_doc=75

[38] Europa, (1991). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances (91/157/EEC). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. www document (accessed 06/03/2006) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1991/en_1991L0157_do_001.pdf

[39] European Parliament, (2006). Procedure file - Environment: setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products (amend. direct. 92/42/EEC, 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC). European Parliament, Brussels. www document (accessed 23/03/2006) www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/file.jsp?id=235362

[40] Europen, (2001). Understanding the CEN standards on packaging and the environment: some questions answered. The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment, Brussels. www document (accessed 09/03/2006) www.europen.be/issues/CEN/CEN%20STANDARDS%2012_01.pdf

[41] Flipp, (2006). www document (accessed 06/03/2006) www.iiiee.lu.se/QuickPlace/flipp/Main.nsf/h_Toc/4e4650242cdb9919c1256e7a0070b6dd/!OpenDocument

[42] GrEEEn, (2006). Cost Management System for greening Electrical and Electronic Equipment. www document (accessed 31-04-2006) www.greeen.it

[43] Hischier, R., Wäger, P., Gauglhofer, J., (2005). Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective?: The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 25, Issue 5, July 2005, Pages 525-539

[44] IPC, (2006). International Electronics Conference and Exhibition. www document (accessed 30-04-2006) ww.ipc.org/calendar/2006/LFConf_0406/LFConf_Malmo.0406.htm#Agenda

[45] Intellect, (2006). Personal communication with George Fulham, April 2006.

[46] JRC, (2006). EU ENERGY STAR Programme: A Community Voluntary Energy Labelling Programme for Office Equipment. The European Commission Joint Research Centre. www document (accessed 23/03/2006) http://energyefficiency.jrc.cec.eu.int/energystar/

89

[47] Kautto, P., Hilden, M., (2004). "Expost" evaluation of future policy interventions – the real effects of interventions that do not exist. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference of the European Evaluation Society, Berlin, Germany.

[48] King, (2004). Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle? Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment.

[49] Koomey, Jontathan G.; Mahler, Susan A.; Webber, Carrie A.; McMahon, James E., (1999). Projected regional impacts of appliance efficiency standards for the US residential sector, Energy, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 685-689.

[50] Leroy, P., (2006). Personal interview with Pascal Leroy, Governmental Affairs Manager, CECED. March 2006.

[51] Meyers, S.; McMahon, J.E.; McNeil, M.; Liu, X., (2002). Impacts of US federal energy efficiency standards for residential appliances. Energy, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp. 755-767.

[52] Mayers, C. Kieren; France, Chris M.; Cowell, Sarah J., (2005). Extended Producer Responsibility for Waste Electronics: An Example of Printer Recycling in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2005, pp. 169-190(22).

[53] MTP, (2006). BNXS03: Framework Directive for the Eco-design of Energy Using Products (EuP Directive) - An Overview and Way Forward. www document (accessed 23/03/2006) www.mtprog.com/ApprovedBriefingNotes/BriefingNoteTemplate.aspx?intBriefingNoteID=389

[54] MTP, (2006a). BNXS30: Framework Directive for the Eco-design of Energy Using Products (EuP Directive) – An Overview and Way Forward. www document (accessed 05/04/2006) www.mtprog.com/ApprovedBriefingNotes/BriefingNoteTemplate.aspx?intBriefingNoteID=389

[55] OECD, (2003). Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in Policy Mixes.

[56] Orgalime, (2006). Energy-using Products (EuP). www document (accessed 23/03/2006) www.orgalime.org/issues/eup.asp

[57] Perchards, (2005). Transposition of WEEE & RoHS Directives into national law of EU Member States and implementation of compliance activities 19 December 2005.

[58] Rosenquist, Greg; McNeil, Michael; Iyer, Maithili; Meyers, Stephen, McMahon, James, (2005). Energy efficiency standards for equipment: Additional opportunities in the residential and commercial sectors. Energy Policy, Article in press, corrected proof.

[59] SBS, (2002). Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) Statistics for the UK, 2001. Small business service. www document (accessed 13/06/2006) www.sbs.gov.uk/sbsgov/action/newsDetail?topicId=7000000448&year=2002&type=NEWSITEM&itemId=7000003284&cat=SBS

90

[60] Seeba, (2006). Seeba workshop and conference programme. www document (accessed 30-04-2006) www.cfsd.org.uk/events/seeba/events.html#

[61] Seeds, (2005). Three Regional Shows - One Vital Theme. www document (accessed 23/03/2006) www.seeds2005.co.uk

[62] Shaxson, L., (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners. The Policy Press, 2005, ISSN 0547 4378.

[63] Siderius (2006). Ecodesign and other energy efficiency initiatives. Presentation given at the Ecodesign Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark. www document (accessed 26/04/06) www.ramboll-energy.com/ecodesign/presentations/6%20Hans%20Paul%20Siderius%20.pdf

[64] SusProNet, (2006). The product/service design network. www document (accessed 31-04-2006) www.suspronet.org/fs_suspronet.htm

[65] TED, (2005). B-Brussels: preparatory studies on eco-design requirements for energy-using products (I), 2005/S 129-127180. Tender electronic daily - Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union. http://ted.publications.eu.int/official/Exec?DataFlow=ShowPage.dfl&Template=TED/N_one_result_detail_curr.htm&docnumber=127180%202005&docId=127180-2005&StatLang=EN

[66] Truttmann, N., Rechberger, H., (2006). Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 9 March 2006.

[67] UN, (2005). Sustainable Energy Consumption. Meeting report and Co-Chairs Summary. www document (accessed 30/04/06) www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/consumption/Marrakech/SCPConferenceReportBerlin.pdf

[68] VHK, (2005). Methodology study eco-design of energy using product. Final report: MEEUP – Product cases report. VHK, Delft, Netherlands. www document (accessed 25/02/06) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/eco_design/finalreport2.pdf

[69] Wood, G.; Newborough, M., (2002). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp. 821-841.

YPSE, (2006). The Impact of Environmental Policy Instruments on Activities, Products and Environmental Capabilities in the Electrical and Electronics Industry. Finnish Environment Institute, Finland. www document (accessed 23/03/2006) www.miljo.fi/default.asp?contentid=152286&lan=EN

91

Annex A

Review of Official EU Directive Texts

1 REVIEW OF OFFICIAL DIRECTIVE TEXTS

Annex A shows the review of the following EU Directive texts from the Official Journal of the European Union:

WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC); RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC); Eco-labelling; Packaging Directive (94/62/EC); Batteries Directive (91/157/EEC); Landfill Directive (99/31/EC); Buildings Directive (2002/91/EC); European Energy Star (2422/2001/EC); Energy Labelling (92/75/EEC); Hot-Water Boilers (92/42/EEC); Domestic Refrigeration (96/57/EC); Fluorescent Lighting (2000/55/EC); and European Parliament Procedure file on the EuP Directive.

A brief summary of each Directive or policy is described and the interactions with the EuP Directive are identified.

1.1 WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC)

The purpose of the WEEE Directive according to Article 1 is to reduce the disposal of waste through prevention, reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. The Directive also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment.

WEEE covers all electrical and electronic equipment that are used by consumers and that are intended for professional use. In the Directive, specific mandatory recovery targets are defined for producers to meet.

1.1.1 WEEE versus EuP

Environmental Aspects

In WEEE, reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation through increased energy efficiency should be considered ‘a priority environmental goal’.

By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflicts between the WEEE and the EuP.

A1

Measurement of Environmental Benefit

The environmental benefit of the WEEE Directive is measured by mass, whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact to perform the same function.

Product design

Article 4 states that Member States shall encourage the design and production of EEE which takes into account and facilitates dismantling and recovery to promote reuse and recycling of WEEE. Producers must also not prevent reuse, through design or manufacturing, unless this presents overriding advantages e.g. to the environment and/or safety. There are no specific conflicts, although a synergy may exist, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design.

Categories

In Annex 1A of the WEEE Directive, ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment are specified. Different requirements are put on the categories, eg the recovery targets vary between the categories.

For the EuP, potentially all energy-products, having a certain market share, environmental impact and potential for improvement, are covered by the Directive. In the EuP Directive, product categories are not specified.

If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be put on the products.

1.2 RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

The purpose of the RoHS Directive is to make Member States ensure that all new electrical and electronic products put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated bi-phenyls or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

1.2.1 RoHS versus EuP

Article 95 in the EU Treaty

Both the RoHS directive and the EuP directive are based on Article 95 of the EU treaty.

A2

Environmental Aspects

The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances and the emissions of these should also be controlled. The EuP Directive encourages manufacturers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the usage of these substances in all phases of the product’s life cycle. Furthermore, according to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. This could promote the implementation of the RoHS Directive.

When banning certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances would need to be substituted. Here there is a potential conflict with the EuP Directive. For example, the banning of lead solder will result in a new solder composition which most likely will be tin-silver-copper (SnAgCu). SnAgCu has a higher melting temperature and thus the soldering process will consume more energy. Minimising the energy consumption in the life cycle of electronics is a key target of the EuP directive.

The RoHS Directive mentions that the substances are scientifically documented and evaluated. However, it is not clear how the selection was carried out. A selection like this should be life cycle based in order to avoid burden-shifting.

Measurement of Environmental Benefit

The environmental benefit of the RoHS Directive is measured by risk assessment (e.g. 1kg of cadmium is more toxic than 1kg of iron), whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact to perform the same function.

1.2 Eco-labelling

1.3.1 The European Eco-Label (Regulation No 1980/2000)

The Flower is the symbol of the European Eco-Label; a voluntary scheme designed to encourage businesses to market products and services that are kinder to the environment and for European consumers - including public and private purchasers - to easily identify them. The scheme is based on the EC Regulation No 1980/2000 on ‘Community eco-label award scheme’.

The regulation sets out that ‘The environmental impacts shall be identified on the basis of examination of the interactions of products with the environment, including the use of energy and natural resources, during the life cycle of the product’, i.e. a life cycle approach is used.

A3

Products which have been awarded the Eco-Label will be considered as compliant with the implementing measures in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure (Europa, 2006).

1.3.2 The ISO Standard on Environmental Labelling

Type I and Type II Eco-Labelling is covered in the ISO 14021 standard; and Type III labelling in the ISO 14025 standard.

Type I Labelling identifies products as being less harmful to the environment compared to other, similar products fulfilling the same function and within the context of a third-party verified programme. The European Flower is one example of a Type I Eco-Label.

Type II Labelling allow statements about the environmental performance of a product by the manufacturer itself i.e. self-declared environmental claims, such as being CFC free.

Type III Labelling is based on quantified environmental data for a product with pre-set categories of parameters based on LCA according to the ISO 14040 series of standards. There is a requirement for presenting a minimum of inventory data together with interpretation, and the information should be critically reviewed. The EPD scheme is one example of a Type III Label (www.environdec.com).

Type III Labelling is based on the environmental performance of the whole life cycle of a product, which is the same approach as the EuP Directive.

Specific environmental requirements on products/product groups are not required by Type III Labelling. The EuP Directive states that ‘it might be necessary to establish specific quantified ecodesign requirements for some products’, which means that potentially the EuP Directive can have higher requirements than Type III Labelling.

1.3 Packaging Directive (94/62/EC)

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) aims to harmonise national measures in order to prevent or to reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market. It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste (Europa, 2006a). Specific mandatory recovery and recycling targets are defined in the Directive.

A4

1.4.1 PPWD versus EuP

The essential requirements in the PPWD define the results to be attained by the Directive. The focus in the essential requirements is on minimisation of packaging weight and volume; on minimisation of the environmental impacts of disposal; and on suitability for reuse or recovery, including recycling.

A life-cycle approach is not used as a basis for the Directive, which potentially conflicts with the approach in the EuP directive.

Packaging is not an energy-using product. However, investigating the environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part.

Box 1.2 Quote from the Essential Requirements in Annex II of the PPWD

1.4 Batteries Directive (91/157/EEC)

Directive 91/157/EEC (Europa, 1991, Europa, 2004) prohibited, with effect from 1 January 1993, the placing on the market of:

manganese alkaline batteries designed for prolonged use in extreme conditions and containing more than 0.05% by weight of mercury; and

any other alkaline battery with a mercury content of more than 0.025% by weight.

Directive 98/101/EC (Europa, 1998, Europa, 2004) tightened up these standards sharply as of 1 January 2000, the date on which Member States prohibited the marketing of batteries and accumulators containing more than 0.0005% of mercury by weight. The same applies to appliances incorporating such batteries and accumulators.

Member States must draw up programmes aimed primarily at reducing the heavy-metal content of batteries and accumulators.

Under these programmes, Member States must encourage the separate collection of batteries and accumulators with a view to their recovery or ultimate disposal. The batteries and accumulators, or the

A5

Packaging shall be designed, produced and commercialised in such a way as to permit its reuse or recovery, including recycling, and to minimise its impact on the environment when packaging waste or residues from packaging waste management operations are disposed of.

appliances in which they are incorporated, must be marked in such a way as to indicate separate collection and recycling requirements and heavy metal content.

1.5.1 Draft Batteries Directive in short

The draft Directive (Dti, 2006) aims to maximise the separate collection and recycling of spent batteries and accumulators, and to reduce the disposal of batteries and accumulators in the municipal waste stream. Once adopted, the existing Battery Directive will be replaced.

Key requirements of the draft Directive include the following:

A partial ban on portable nickel-cadmium batteries that excludes batteries used in medical equipment, emergency lighting and alarm systems, and cordless power tools. However, the exemption for power tools is subject to review after four years.

Collection targets for spent portable batteries of 25% of average annual sales four years after the Directive is implemented in the UK, rising to 45% after eight years.

A ban on the disposal of untreated automotive and industrial batteries in landfill or by incineration.

Member States will have 24 months to implement the Directive once it has been agreed.

1.5.2 Battery Legislation versus EuP

There are no specific conflicts or synergies identified. However, a life-cycle approach is not used as a basis for the legislation on batteries, which may potentially cause conflict with the approach in the EuP Directive.

1.5 Landfill Directive 99/31/EC

The Directive (Europa, 1999) entered into force in 1999. The objective of the Directive is to prevent or reduce, as far as possible, negative effects on the environment from the landfilling of waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste and landfills.

The Directive is intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfill of waste on the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health.

One of the requirements in the Directive is that biodegradable municipal waste should progressively be diverted from landfill.

A6

1.6.1 The Landfill Directive versus EuP

The Directive affects mainly the management of biodegradable municipal wastes. There are no apparent implications of this Directive.

1.6 Buildings Directive (2002/91/EC)

The objective of the Buildings Directive is according to the EU ‘To create a common framework to promote the improvement of the energy performance of buildings’ (Europa, 2003b). The final date for implementation in the member states was 4th of January 2006.

The Directive concerns the residential sector and the tertiary sector (i.e. offices, public buildings, etc). It covers all aspects of energy efficiency in buildings.

Member States shall apply a methodology of calculation of the energy performance of buildings, based on a general framework provided in the Directive. Minimum requirements shall be set in each Member State on the energy performance of buildings.

The performance of boilers and air-conditioning systems are to be assessed for buildings covered by the Directive. The Directive lays down requirements regarding regular inspection of boilers (or an equivalent national information system) and the inspection of air-conditioning systems in buildings. In addition, heating installations shall be assessed when the boiler is more than 15 years old.

This Directive is a follow-up to the measures on boilers (92/42/EEC).

1.7.1 The Buildings Directive versus EuP

In the general framework for the calculation of energy performance of buildings, several aspects are covered, such as ‘thermal characteristics of the building’, ‘heating installation and hot water supply’, and ‘air-conditioning installation’.

When defining the calculation methodology, the use of a life-cycle approach is not mentioned. This potentially conflicts with the approach in the EuP Directive, although we have not identified specific examples.

1.7 European Energy Star

The European Energy Star Programme is a voluntary energy labelling programme for office equipment (JRC, 2006).

Manufacturers, assemblers, exporters, importers and retailers are invited to register with the European Commission allowing them to place the Energy Star label on products that meet or exceed energy-efficiency guidelines, i.e. computers, monitors, printers, fax machines,

A7

copiers, scanners and multifunction devices. The participation in the programme is voluntary.

1.8.1 The Energy Star Programme versus EuP

It is stated in the Energy Star programme that it shall be coordinated with other Community labelling or quality certification arrangements. No conflicts are identified between the EuP Directive and the Energy Star Programme.

1.8 Energy Labelling (92/75/EEC)

The objective of the Energy Labelling Directive (Europa, 1002a) is to harmonise national measures relating to the publication of information on the consumption of energy and of other essential resources by household appliances, thereby allowing consumers to choose appliances on the basis of their energy efficiency.

The Directive applies to the following types of household appliances, even where these are sold for non-household uses(1):

refrigerators, freezers and their combinations; washing machines, dryers and their combinations; dishwashers; ovens; water heaters and hot-water storage appliances; lighting sources; and air-conditioning appliances.

Household appliances offered for sale, hire or hire-purchase must be accompanied by a fiche and a label providing information relating to their consumption of energy (electrical or other) or of other essential resources.

1.9.1 Energy Labelling of Household Appliances versus EuP

The Directive relates to the labelling of household appliances and how this information should be published and communicated. No conflicts or synergies are identified.

1.9 Hot-Water Boilers (92/42/EEC)

This Directive (Europa, 1992) determines the efficiency requirements applicable to new hot-water boilers fired by liquid or gaseous fuels with a rated output of no less than 4 kW and no more than 400 kW.

1(?) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l32004.htmA8

This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure (MTP, 2006).

1.10 Domestic Refrigeration (96/57/EC)

This Directive applies to refrigerators, frozen food storage cabinets and freezers and combinations thereof, running on mains electricity. The appliance's electricity consumption must be lower than or equal to the maximum allowable value for its category. Household refrigeration appliances that conform to the energy efficiency requirements of this Directive must bear the CE conformity marking(1).

This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure (MTP, 2006).

1.11 Fluorescent Lighting (2000/55/EC)

The purpose of the Directive is to achieve cost-effective energy savings in fluorescent lighting. This Directive covers only newly produced ballasts, which are responsible for high energy consumption and offer considerable potential for energy savings(2).

This Directive has been brought within the EuP Directive as an implementing measure (MTP, 2006).

1.12 Procedure File on the EuP Directive

ERM has reviewed the ‘Procedure File’ of the official documents relating to the development of the EuP Directive, which can be found on the European Parliament website (European Parliament, 2006). The procedure file contains the Directive drafts, position papers and official communications.

Underlying considerations and concepts of the EuP Directive are explained in the document, published in August 2003, titled Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for the setting of Eco-design requirements for Energy-Using Products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC.

The document discusses coherence with other community legislation for the WEEE Directive, the RoHS Directive, energy efficiency requirements, the Eco-Label initiative, the IPPC Directive and the EMAS scheme. The positions outlined in the document are summarised below.

1(?) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l21016.htm2(?) http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27032.htm

A9

1.13.1 General Position

According to the authors, the EuP Directive will complement and facilitate implementation and monitoring of existing EU policy measures. It will also provide a framework for assessing emerging environmental issues.

1.13.2 The WEEE Directive

The WEEE Directive prescribes collection, recycling and recovery targets for electrical and electronic equipment. The EuP Directive will ‘(…) further promote the design of products to facilitate reuse and recycling by allowing for the systematic introduction of those aspects in the early stages of the design process and by providing concrete indicators for monitoring progress in this respect.’

1.13.3 The RoHS Directive

Two positive consequences are expressed in relation to the RoHS Directive and the EuP Directive. In the RoHS Directive, only six specific substances are regulated. In

the EuP Directive, the producer will be encouraged to examine the possibilities of minimising the release of substances with adverse environmental impact during the life-cycle of the product. Thus, a number of substances not included in the RoHS Directive could be controlled or indeed eliminated.

The EuP Directive will also, according to the authors, assist ‘the correct and speedy implementation and monitoring of RoHS’, through the information supply along the chain to product manufacturers and from them to end-users and treatment facilities.

1.13.4 Energy efficiency requirements

Energy efficiency requirements will complement other initiatives, such as the energy labelling of domestic appliances (92/75/EEC).

1.13.5 The Eco-Label Initiative

Mandatory specific eco-design requirements or requirements for improving the overall environmental performance of a product are complementary to the Eco-Label initiative. Information gathered during the Eco-Label exercise will be useful in identifying major environmental aspects of products.

A10

1.13.6 The IPPC Directive

The EuP Directive will facilitate compliance with other EU legal acts that are not directly related to products, including the IPPC Directive, due to the whole life-cycle perspective that is adopted.

1.13.7 The EMAS Scheme

The EuP Directive is ‘expected to increase dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme, to the extent that enterprises with an EMAS covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity of their products with implementing measures resulting from the present Directive.’

1.13.8 Economic Impact on Manufacturers

It was proposed that the marginal cost that would incurred by manufacturers in introducing any potential eco-design requirements of the EuP Directive would not be substantial. This assumption was supported by two factors:

direct cost savings due to improvements in environmental performance (e.g. reduced materials and energy costs); and

where costs occur, they are expected to decrease gradually over time.

A11

Annex B

Data used to Select EU Countries for Literature Review

1 DATA USED TO SELECT EU COUNTRIES FOR LITERATURE REVIEW

Annex B shows the data used to select the EU case study countries to be assessed as part of the research project.

1.1 Production Volume of EuP in EU Member States

Figure1.7 is based on data from the EC funded study on priority EuP products titled Methodology study eco-design of energy using product: MEEUP – Product cases report by VHK (2005), which studied 10 priority EuP product cases, as listed below, and provided data on the national production of these products in each EU Member State, measured in units.

11.Gas and oil fired central heaters12.Room air conditioners (RAC)13.Central heating circulators (CHC)14.Street lighting15.Domestic refrigerators and freezers16.Domestic dishwashers17.Vacuum cleaners18.Copiers19.Televisions20.Personal computers

B1

Figure1.7 National Production of EuPs (Units)

Note: No data was presented for fridges and freezers or street lighting in the source document. Production of PCs represents laptops and desktops.Source: VHK, 2005a

B2

Country 1. Central heating circulators

2. Copiers 3. Domestic dishwashers

4. Domestic fridges and freezers

5. Gas fired central heaters

6. Personal computers

7. Room air conditioners

8. Street lighting

9. Televisions 10. Vacuum cleaners

Total Production

Germany 1,193 0 3,947 641 3,306 48 625 4,895 14,655 24.2%France 7,185 168 0 942 876 55 2,671 0 11,897 19.7%Italy 459 0 2,609 2,322 49 705 1,131 1,889 9,164 15.1%Poland 0 0 0 113 131 1 7,808 0 8,053 13.3%UK 0 130 0 915 959 0 2,752 2,324 7,080 11.7%Spain 4 0 0 103 80 25 3,977 0 4,189 6.9%Denmark 3,371 0 0 11 6 0 0 89 3,477 5.7%Sweden 58 0 161 49 61 0 0 885 1,214 2.0%Finland 0 0 0 13 36 0 115 0 164 0.3%Belgium 0 0 0 49 113 0 0 0 162 0.3%Total of others 0 0 0.8%Romania 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 114 157 0.3%Portugal 0 0 0 1 71 0 0 0 72 0.1%Greece 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 62 0.1%Austria 0 0 0 53 0 8 0 0 61 0.1%Estonia 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 34 0.1%Slovenia 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 28 0.0%Croatia 0 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 22 0.0%Hungary 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 12 0.0%Latvia 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 10 0.0%Lithuania 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0.0%Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Luxemburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Iceland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Czech Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Slovakia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%Total 12,270 298 6,779 0 5,241 5,816 843 0 19,079 10,196 60,521

1.2 Implementation Status of Legislation in Member States

Table1.8 and Table1.9 show the implementation status of the WEEE, RoHS and Packaging Directives in the 25 EU Member States, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

Table1.8 Implementation Status of WEEE and RoHS Directive in EU Member States

Country Has the WEEE and RoHS Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

Austria RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Umweltbundesamt GmbH (Federal Environment Agency).

Belgium RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

One for each region:- Flanders: OVAM, - Brussels Capital: BIM- Walloon Region: DGRNE

Cyprus RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Environment Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment.

Czech Republic RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Ministry of Environment, Department of Waste Management.

Denmark RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Danish Environment Protection Agency (Miljøstyrelsen).

Estonia RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially

Waste Department, Keskkonnaministeerium - Ministry of the Environment.

Finland RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre (Birkalands Miljöcentral).

France RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially

ADEME - The French Environmental Agency.

Germany RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Greece RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

NOAMPWOP (National Organisation of Alternative Management of Packaging Waste and other Products) of the Hellenic Ministry of Environment.

Hungary RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The National Environmental and Water Chief Inspectorate.

Iceland RoHS - Yes Yet to be advised.

B3

Country Has the WEEE and RoHS Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

WEEE – No. Iceland has yet to begin the process of bringing in WEEE-type legislation

Ireland RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Irish Environmental Protection Agency

Italy RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially – some Sub-Decrees are awaited

Environmental Protection Agency of Italy

Latvia RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially – some amendments to existing laws are awaited

Yet to be advised – likely to be the State Environmental, Geological and Meteorological Agency

Lithuania RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially

Environmental Protection Agency

Luxembourg RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Ministre de l'Environnement

Malta RoHS - YesWEEE - Partially

MEPA, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Netherlands RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Ministry of Environment (VROM).

Norway RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes (although it is WEEE-type legislation as Norway is outside the EU)

Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT).

Poland RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (Glowny Inspektor Ochrony Srodowiska).

Portugal RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Instituto de Resíduos (Waste Institute).

Slovak Republic RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic.

B4

Country Has the WEEE and RoHS Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

Slovenia RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Slovenian Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MoE).

Spain RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

Ministry of the Environment.

Sweden RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), "Naturvårdsverket".

Switzerland RoHS - YesWEEE - Yes (although it is WEEE-type legislation called VREG as Switzerland is outside the EU)

The Swiss Environmental Protection Agency.

UK RoHS - YesWEEE – No. Fourth consultation announced.

Expected to be Environment Agency (England and Wales), Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Scotland) and Environment & Heritage Service (Northern Ireland).

Source: Perchards, 2005 and ERM internal research

Table1.9 Implementation Status of Packaging Directive in EU Member States

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

Producer Responsibility

Essential Requirements

Austria Yes Austrian Ministry of the Environment, Youth and Family

Apparently not stipulated

Belgium Yes The “Interregionale Verpakkings Commissie” (IVC)

Cyprus Yes Cypriot Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and

B5

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

EnvironmentCzech Republic Yes Czech Ministry of the

Environment and Czech National Drug Inspection Institute

Denmark Yes Danish Environment Protection Agency (DEPA).

Estonia Yes Administrative enforcement powers under the Packaging Law are granted to various bodies, depending upon the nature of the breach.

The Environmental Inspectorate, a subordinate to the Environment Ministry.

Finland Yes The Ministry of the Environment, in conjunction with Pirkamanmaan ympäristökeskus.

The Ministry of Environment.

France Yes DGCCRF – the French trading standards authority (Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes).

Germany Yes Regional Environmental Authorities.

Enforcement procedures not specified in the legislation.

Greece Yes The Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public.

Not specified in the legislation.

Hungary Yes The National Inspectorate for Environment, Nature Conservation and water Management (Inspectorate)

B6

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

(Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Fõfelügyelõség).

Iceland Yes The National Environment and Food Agency.

A supervisory committee (representatives from the National Environment and Food Agency, the Confederation of the Icelandic Employers, and the Union of Local Authorities), have the duty to supervise the ER implementation .

Ireland Yes Local authorities (enforcement of individual compliers only) and the OEE (Office of Environmental Enforcement, a separate unit within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).

Not defined in the legislation.

Italy Yes ONR (‘Osservatorio Nazionale sui Rifiuti’ or National Waste Observatory).

Not specified – the Packaging Decree specifies no procedure for demonstrating ER compliance,

B7

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

If a company fails to register with CONAI, financial sanctions will be taken by CONAI.

but part of CONAI’s remit was to draw up a programme of measures very much within the spirit of the ER.

Latvia Yes Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development.

The State Environmental Inspectors and regional Environmental Boards.

Lithuania Yes The Ministry of Environment through the State Environmental Protection Inspectorate.

Luxembourg Yes Environment Minister.

The legislation does not define the enforcement authority.

Malta Yes Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA).

Netherlands Yes The Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.

Norway Yes The State Pollution Control Authority.

Not yet applicable.

Poland Yes Regional (Voivodship) Environmental Inspectorate.

The Ministry of Environment.

Portugal Yes CAGERE (Comissão de Acompanhamento da Gestão de Embalagens e Resíduos de Embalagens -Commission for

Not specified in the legislation.

B8

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

the compliance with the packaging and packaging waste management) which is chaired by the General Directorate for the Environment, the General Inspectorate of Economic Activities, the Ministry of the Environment, and local delegations of the Ministries of the Environment and Economy (bodies responsible for the control of the law).

Slovak Republic Yes The Ministry of Environment.

Not specified in the legislation.

Slovenia Yes The Environment Ministry, in conjunction with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Commission.

Not specified in the legislation.

Spain Yes The Autonomous Regions and the General Government. The compliance schemes may also take action against its members (i.e. imposes fees) in the case of non-compliance (Ecoembes is responsible for monitoring the prevention plans of its members).

B9

Country Has the Packaging Directive been transposed?

Who is the enforcement body?

Sweden Yes The Swedish EPA has the authority on how the legislation is monitored and controlled, whilst the municipalities are responsible for the operative control.

Switzerland Yes BUWAL, the Swiss Federal Environmental Agency and UVEK (the Department for Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication).

None.

UK Yes Environment Agency (England and Wales), Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service.

Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (England & Wales), Procurator Fiscal or Lord Advocate (Scotland) or NI Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry.

Source: ERM internal research

B10

Annex C

Literature Review: EU Case Study Countries

1 LITERATURE REVIEW: EU CASE STUDY COUNTRIES

Annex C contains the full results of the EU literature for each of the 10 case study countries.

A summary is presented describing: which government departments are responsible for implementing

the EuP Directive; which government departments are responsible for enforcing the

EuP Directive; what activities have taken place or are anticipated to take place by

government; which industry associations or organisations are active in industry on

the EuP Directive; and evidence of how actions brought about by the EuP Directive affects,

or is perceived to affect, related product policies.

1.1 Government Agency Contact Details

Additionally, we have summarised the contact details of the government agencies for each country investigated involved in implementation and enforcement of the EuP Directive.

C1

1.2 Austria

The department responsible for implementing the EuP Directive in Austria will be the Division of Industrial Environmental Protection and Technology within the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water - Life Ministry.

For enforcement the likely department will be the Umweltbundesamt GmbH (Federal Environment Agency).

The main organisations involved with the EuP Directive in Austria that were contacted were:

KERP Kompetenzzentrum Elektronik (Competence Centre for Electronics);

Österreichischer Informationsknoten Eco-design (Austrian Information Platform Ecodesign); and

WWFF Wiener Wirtschaftsförderungsfonds (Industry Promotion Fund of Vienna).

No conflicts or synergies were identified. Presently, legal implementation has started through the pre-draft of an ordinance under the Electro-technical Act 1992 (Elektrotechnikgesetz 1992, BGBl. Nr. 106/1993, changed through BGBl. I Nr. 136/2001).

C2

Country: Austria

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft - Lebensministerium / Abteilung VI/5: Betrieblicher Umweltschutz und Technologie

(Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water - Life Ministry / Division of Industrial Environmental Protection and Technology)

Responsibilities of the division include: Industrial and product integrated environmental protection and the assessment of environmental and production technologies; Eco-efficient technologies; Integrated product design and eco-design; Environmental labelling and environmentally compatible products and services; Issues of environmentally suitable procurement; Technical and legal issues of industrial environmental management (EMAS), issues of permitting; Training in the field of public environmental administration regarding environmentally friendly technologies

Division of Industrial Environmental Protection and TechnologieHead of Division: Mr. Andreas Tschulik, Expert for EuP-directive: Mr. Gerald Vones (Phone: (+43 1) 71100-3050))http://www.lebensministerium.at/

2 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (BMWA)(Ministry of Economics and Labour of the Republic of Austria)

Responsible for electrical/electronic equipment for Electrical Engineering and Market Surveillance.

Mr. Kesner, EuP-issues (Phone.: ++43-1-171100-3055, E-mail: franz.kesner@bmwa.gv.at), Mr. Dittler (Phone: ++43-1-71100-8222, E-mail: reinhard.dittler@bmwa.gv.at)Dampfschiffstrasse 4, A-1030, Vienna, Austriahttp://www.bmwa.gv.at/

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Umweltbundesamt GmbH (Federal Environment Agency)

- -

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 Start of legal implementation Pre-draft of an ordinance under the Electrotechnical Act 1992 (Elektrotechnikgesetz 1992, BGBl. Nr. 106/1993, geändert durch BGBl. I Nr. 136/2001)

Mr. Dittler (Phone: ++43-1-71100-8222, E-mail: reinhard.dittler@bmwa.gv.at)

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 KERP Kompetenzzentrum Elektronik(Competence Centre for Electronics)

KERP is one of 23 Industrial Centers of Excellence and Networks, as formulated in Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor's guidelines on Public Private Partnerships aiming at a close co-operation with partners from industrial and scientific branches. Activities focus on research, development and consulting in the electronics industry, increasingly also in the automotive branch.

www.kerp.at/

2 Österreichischer Informationsknoten Ecodesign (Austrian Information Platform Ecodesign)

The Austrian ECODESIGN Information platform under www.ecodesign.at is running since 1996 operated by the Vienna University of Technology, Institute for Engineering Design. The principle idea was to collect all interesting information and links about ECODESIGN and make it accessible. Since then the research activities on design products according to ECODESIGN at the Institute for Engineering Design at Vienna University of Technology has been intensified. Scientific staff members and students from various fields successfully work together in dynamic teams.

www.ecodesign.at/

3 WWFF Wiener Wirtschaftsförderungsfonds (Industry Promotion Fund of Vienna)

The Vienna Business Agency is the City of Vienna’s primary business promotion vehicle. The mission is to boost the competitiveness of the Vienna business community by helping drive innovation and continually upgrading the city’s status as a state-of-the-art business destination.

www.wwff.gv.at

1.3 Belgium

In Belgium, the departments responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive are the Federal Government Department (FGD) for Economics, SMEs, Traders and Energy and the FGD for Public Health, Food Safety and Environment.

In Belgium, there are three regions each with their own separate departments responsible for enforcement:

Flanders: OVAM, Public Waste Agency of Flanders (Openbare Afvalstoffenmaatschappij voor het Vlaamse Gewest );

C3

Brussels Capital: BIM, Brussels Institute for Management of the Environment. (Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer); and

Walloon Region: DGRNE (Direction Generale Des Ressources Naturelles Et De L'environnement).

Several industry associations and other government departments were contacted, as listed below.

Federal Council for Sustainable Development; VITO – Flemish Institute for Technological Research; and AGORIA - sector organisation for 11 main manufacturing industries.

AGORIA state that self regulation should be given priority because this will be faster and more economic than imposing legal obligations.

Additionally, several concerns were raised by the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, including:

the Framework Directive should be coherent with IPP; the definition of eco-design should not be simplified to energy use; how will disputes be resolved if there is no agreement for a certain

product category; and will there be self-regulation or third party control?

At present, a study is being carried out to assess the legal implications of the Directive in relation to the existing Product Law. It is thought, although not confirmed, that the current law would suffice to implement the EuP Directive.

C4

Country: Belgium

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Federal Government Department (FGD) for Economics, SMEs, Traders and Energy [“FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie” – “SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie”]

The Federal Departement for Economics was the lead negotiator on behalf of Belgium with regard to the EuP framework Directive General Information

VAN HUMBEEK Bert & MASSON IsabelleCity Atrium - Vooruitgangstraat, 50B-1210 BrusselsTel.: +32 (0)2 - 277 82 96 (NL)Tél. : +32 (0)2 - 277 82 48 (F)E-mail: info.eco@mineco.fgov.bewww.mineco.fgov.be Economics Cabinet contact: Emmanuel De Corte, Tel: +32 (0)2 2130901 E-mail: emmanuel.decorte@kab.verwilghen.fgov.be

2 Federal Government Department (FGD) for Public Health, Foodsafety and Environment[”Federale OverheidsDients (FOD) voor Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu” – ”Services Publics Fédéraux (SPF) Santé publique, Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire et Environnement]

The Federal Department for Public Health, Food and Environment was the "co-pilot" in the EU negotiations

FGD for Public Health, Foodsafety and EnvironmentPeter Loncke and Denis PohlTel.:+32 (0)2/238.28.11 E-mail: peter.loncke@health.fgov.be, denis.pohl@health.fgov.be www.health.fgov.be

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Flanders: OVAM, (Openbare Afvalstoffenmaatschappij voor het Vlaamse Gewest )

- -

2 Brussels Capital: BIM (Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer)

- -

3 Walloon Region: DGRNE (Direction Generale Des Ressources Naturelles Et De L'environnement)

- -

Source: What activities have already taken place or are anticipated in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 The FGD for Health, Food and the Environment are expecting the European Commission to carry out product sector studies before going ahead with implementing measures. The Belgian interest would focus on products being produced in Belgium.

None Peter.loncke@health.fgov.be

2 Mr Pohl informed ERM that the implementation measures will be lead by Economics or Public Health depending on the focus of the measures. If the focus is on energy, the Ministry of Economics will lead, if it is more on environmental issue, the Ministry of Public Health. At the moment, an analysis is being carried out to study the legal implications of the Directive in relation to the existing Product Law. It is thought, not confirmed yet, that the current law would suffice the implement to new Directive (also because there are no requirements from this Directive as such, given it requires implementation measures). As for studies or consultations on the EuP Directive, nothing has been

Mr Pohl will be responsible for the transposition into national legislation of the Directive. In Belgium there is an existing Product Standards Law, of 21 December 1998 ("Wet betreffende de productnormen ter bevordering van duurzame productie- en consumptiepatronen en ter bescherming van het leefmilieu en de volksgezondheid" - "Loi relative aux normes de produits ayant pour but la promotion de modes de production et de consommation durables et la protection de l'environnement et de la santé" - http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/wetgeving.pl).

Denis.pohl@health.fgov.be Product Standards Law: http://www.juridat.be (NL-Fr only)

3 Mr Pohl informed ERM that the main sector of interest in Belgium would be the lightning sector, and the pump industry to a lesser extent. Also Mr Pohl confirmed that they are waiting for the EC to finish their studies for implementation measures. One of these studies is being carried out by VITO (Flemish Institute for Technological Research - see below).

As above.

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 VITO - Has just started the EC study on the lighting sector, in which among others, the interdepencies with other product policies/directives are to be analysed. This study will be finished between now and 18 months.

Flemish Institute for Technological Research - "Vlaams Instituut voor Technologisch Onderzoek". Research body which carries out scientific and technology studies in the field of energy, environment, and material science.

Theo Geerken +32 14 33 59 47

2 AGORIA - article from website Eco-design is also stimulated through WEEE and RoHS. Self regulation is the priority - a product is eligible for an implementation measure if it has significant environmental impact and if there is room for improvement (and a salesvolume over 200,000 units). An implementation measure should not influence price or quality of the product or interfere with European competitiveness. Self regulation should be given priority, if this is faster and more economical than legal obligations. The Commission studies, which have already started, are looking at boilers, waterheating systems, PCs, copy and fax machines, televisions, stand-by technology, office and street lightning, air conditioners, fridges and freezers, domestics washers and dryers. A balanced participation should be established when discussions are made for specific product groups for implementation measures. Agoria will certainly ask their members to participate when it is their product's turn.

http://www.agoria.be/pdf/nl/industrie/1005/verplichting.pdf

C5

1.4 Denmark

The department responsible for implementation and enforcement of the EuP Directive in Denmark is the Danish Energy Authority of the Ministry of Transport and Energy.

The main organisations involved with the EuP Directive in Denmark that were contacted were:

Confederation of Danish Industries (Dansk Industri); Danfoss; and Partners in the EU Ecodesign Awareness Campaign for Electical

and Electronic SME’s (Plan og Miljoe).

No conflicts or synergies were identified. Presently limited preparatory work has taken place regarding the EuP Directive in Denmark. However, recently the Danish Energy Authority organised a workshop for experts and representatives from 14 EU countries and 2 candidate countries. The objective of the workshop was to discuss the potential cooperation between member states in the implementation of the EuP Directive.

Country: Denmark

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Danish Energy Authority of the Ministry of Transport and Energy

- Peter NielsenAmaliegade 44, DK-1256 Copenhagen K0045 33926735pen@ens.dkhttp://www.energistyrelsen.dk/

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

2 Danish Energy Authority of the Ministry of Transport and Energy

- Peter NielsenAmaliegade 44, DK-1256 Copenhagen K0045 33926735pen@ens.dkhttp://www.energistyrelsen.dk/

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 None. - -

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 None. - -

C6

1.5 Finland

The Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive; both the Technology Department and Energy Department will be included in the preparation. The Ministry of Environment will also be involved in its implementation. (1)

The enforcement agency will most likely be the Technology Department under the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Very little information from the Finnish authorities was available. The technology industries and associations of Finland are not currently involved in the drafting process or able to communicate any issues. The organisations contacted included:

Government Department of Technology; Technology Industries of Finland; and Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE).

Country: Finland

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 The Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive; both the Technology Department and Energy Department will be included in the preparation. The Ministry of Environment will also be included.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for the operating conditions of enterprises, safeguarding the position of the citizens on the market and tending to the State's corporate assets.

The Technology Department is responsible for planning and implementation of technology policy within the administrative branch of the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

The Energy Department promotes energy conservation, the use of renewable energy sources and the functioning of the energy market, which is to be as efficient as possible.

Matti Oivukkamäki, Technology Department, Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry, +358 (0)9 1606 2697 Personal communication 2006-03-14

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

The enforcement agency will most likely be the Technology Department under Ministry of Trade and Industry.

- ERM UK

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 Contacts with industry has been made. Contacts with industry has been taken; organisations to keep informed has been identified, meetings will be arranged during the process.

Matti Oivukkamäki, Technology Department, Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry, +358 (0)9 1606 2697 Personal communication 2006-03-14

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 Technology Industries of Finland (Teknologiateollisuus)

Very little information from the Finnish authorities has been communicated. Technology Industries of Finland are not involved in the drafting process, probably no other industry associations either. No official meetings have been arranged. (Technology Industries of Finland represents the country's largest industrial sectors, including: electronics and electrotechnical industry, mechanical engineering, metals industry).

Carina Wiik, Technology Industries of Finland, +358 (0)9 1923315Personal communication 2006-03-14

1(?) The Technology Department is responsible for planning and implementation of technology policy within the administrative branch of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Energy Department promotes energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources.

C7

1.6 France

The departments responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive are the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry: Direction of Energy and Raw Materials (DGEMP) and the Ministry of Ecology, and Sustainable Development.

We could not confirm the department responsible for enforcement. But, as with the WEEE Directive, we anticipate the department responsible for enforcement to be ADEME, the French Environmental Agency.

These main organisations involved with the EuP Directive in France that were contacted were:

FIEEC: Electric, Electronic, Communication Industries Syndicate; FIM: Federation of the Mechanical Industries; Federation of Plastic Processing; ADEME: Environment and Energy Agency; Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry. Direction of Energy and

Raw Materials; CODDE: a competence centre in eco-design and sustainable

development; Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development - Delegation of

Sustainable Development; and Bio Intelligence Service.

According to the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, the WEEE and RoHS Directives will not be modified by the EuP Directive. However, in case of important modifications, these Directives will be abrogated and a common new Directive will be created. The Ministry said that any interactions of the EuP Directive with other policies could not currently be evaluated.

The Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry: Direction of Energy and Raw Materials (DGEMP) mentioned interdependencies could not be identified until preparatory studies are finalised.

According to ADEME, the impact of the EuP Directive on the other Directives could not currently be defined. EU-level studies on the priority EuP product groups and potential implementing measures, need to be clarified further before ADEME can comment on the impact.

According to the CODDE, the WEEE and RoHS Directives will not be affected by the EuP Directive.

C8

Country: France

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry. Direction of Energy and Raw materials (DGEMP).

The DGEMP specifies and implements the energy and mineral raw materials supply policies for France Its main missions are: - the opening of the markets of energy (electric and gas); - the follow-up of the key sectors of energy and mineral raw materials; - the supervision of the companies and public establishments; - controls and State missions; and- International and Community works, economic expertise.

Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry. Directorate of Energy and raw materials (DGEMP). Direction générale de l'énergie et des matières premières61 Bld Vincent Auriol 75703 Paris Cedex 13Tel: 01 44 87 17 17

2 Ministry of Ecology, and Sustainable Development - Delegation of Sustainable development.

The delegation of Sustainable Development ensures the implementation, the follow-up and the assessment of the national strategy of sustainable development. Its main missions are:- prepare the deliberations of the interdepartmental committee for the sustainable development,- work out recommendations, support projects of sustainable development of administrations, local authorities and economic actors; - animate, coordinate and organize preparation and achievement of the policies of adaptation and fight against the greenhouse effect.

Personal communication with M. Jean-Paul Ventere. Representative of sustainable development for products, sustainable consumption and ecolabels.

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

ADEME, the French Environmental Agency We could not confirm the department responsible for enforcement. But, as with the WEEE Directive, we anticipate the department responsible for enforcement to be ADEME

-

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 According to the Ministry of Industry, the Commission is in discussion at Bruxelles to clarify the list of products which are to be prioritised (article 16 of the Directive).

Direction of Energy and Raw Material. Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry.

2 Two French organisations (CODDE and Bio Intelligence Service) were chosen by the Commission to perform studies on five of the product groups.

The studies performed concern the products given below : - imaging equipment;- TV;- stand by equipment;- loader, external supply; and- refrigerators and freezers.

All studies are based on public information and organisations knowledge. Today, they are looking for industrial partners to confirm their results and specify the studies.

Some industrials have already contacted CODDE to participate in the studies. No industrial names were given.

Personal communication with Mme Lynda Lescuyer, CODDE;Personal communication with M. Mudgal, Bio Intelligence Service.

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 The ADEME (Environment and Energy Agency)

The ADEME is acting under the guardianship of the Ecology, and Sustainable Development Ministry. The ADEME performs research, supports industry and funds energy efficiency projects. As an example, the ADEME was actively involved with the WEEE Directive transcription and collected WEEE data for France.

For the Eup Directive, the role of the ADEME is not defined yet. It will be defined when the Directive will be transposed into French Law.

Personal communication with Mme Myriam Puaut, ADEME

2 The FIEEC (electric, electronic, communication industries syndicate)

The FIEEC offers legal, technical, environmental, and regulatory services. It is working with the Ecology, and Sustainable Development Ministry and Industry Ministry on the EU-level Directive transcription. The FIEEC has a double role:- being an advisor to the Ministries representatives- protecting the interest of the EEE industry.

Regarding the EuP Directive, the FIEEC currently performs studies for the Ministry with regard to transcription. However, no further information was available regarding the contents and the progress, due to confidentiality reasons.

Personal communication with Mme Courrouyan, FIEEC

3 FIM (Federation of the mechanical industries)Plastic Processing Federation FIEEC (electric, electronic, communication industries syndicate)

These Federations help industries to produce and sell in France and foreign countries. They promote the mechanical industry in France and in Europe. Their roles in the implementation of the EuP Directive would be to: help governement with studies; and organise conferences between industry, associations and Ministries.

M. Vincent Lauville - Ecoconcept

4 Ecoconcept / ECODIS This Europeen association is composed of different federations (FIM, Plastic processing, FIEEC) involved in an European project: Eco Design Interactive Systems (ECODIS) which is creating eco-design tools for industry. This tool could be modified in the future to answer to the prescriptions of the EuP directive.

Personal communication with M. Vincent Lauville, Ecoconcept

5 CODDE (Conception, Sustainable Development, Environment) Created by the FIEEC Federation 10 years ago.

This organisation assists companies with the implementation of the eco-design (eg Fagor Brandt, Schneider electrique, Alstom amongst others). CODDE has developed a tool "EIME" for the evaluation of the environmental impact of a product 10 years ago. EIME assesses the impact of the products in the different life cycle stages (conception, production, use and disposal) and with different indicators (eg energy, natural resources).

Personal communication with Mme Lynda Lescuyer, CODDE.

6 Bio-Intelligence Service Bio Intelligence Service assists private companies and public organisations with studies and advice on environment and health.

M. Mudgal, Bio Intelligence Service

1.7 Germany

In Germany, the government departments responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive are the Federal Ministry for the

C9

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWI).

The department that is likely to be responsible for enforcement is the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA).

Several pre-studies for measuring high volume EuPs have started. Some of these are finished, whilst others are still under preparation. However, information on these studies is currently confidential.

The BMU and BMWI have initiated internal task forces which include members of industry associations and other stakeholders, including:

ZVEI: the German electrical and electronics industry; EICTA: European Association of Consumer Electronics

Manufacturers; BITCOM: German Association for Information Technology,

Telecommunications and New Media; and Orgalime: the European Engineering Industries Association.

The organisations above are not all German i.e. EICTA and Orgalime are European Industry Associations. However, the task forces include companies who are members of these organisations.

The main concerns and opinions of the German organisations we contacted are listed below:

The Fraunhofer Institut believed that it was too early for this investigation, because the implementation measures, and thus the effects of the EuP Directive, cannot be assessed at the moment. They also identified that there could be an issue regarding consistency of measurement methods for eco-labels.

ZVEI has the opinion that the EuP Directive is not necessary, however changes made are welcomed. ZVEI has doubts regarding the risk of over-regulation and criticised the decision to make the EuP Directive more rigorous, in March 2005. More bureaucracy, higher costs and the slow-down of innovation processes were considered as consequences

UBA said that, currently, there are no studies regarding the interactions between the EuP Directive and other regulations like WEEE, RoHS or Blue Angel. No official opinion could be formulated at short notice.

Fachverband Elektronik Design e.V. (FED), the Association for Electronic Design, raised concerns for small enterprises due to elevated investment and development costs. Nonetheless, opportunities for sales of new products were also anticipated. They

C10

welcome the anticipated high level of involvement in the development of any implementing measures.

Ökopol, the Institute for Environmental Strategies, identify a potential opportunity for EU producers to differentiate themselves from lower cost imported products e.g.. frontrunners on environmental impacts of products. They also believe that medium sized enterprises could use this opportunity to optimise their products and processes to meet any implementing measures. Ökopol identify market supervision as a difficult issue and it will be very important to establish effective enforcement mechanisms.

1.8 Italy

The department responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive is the Ministry of Environment (Ministero dell'Ambiente), with technical support provided by the National Environmental Protection Agency (Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici, APAT).

Enforcement will be organised by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) which is organised through their network of local offices.

In Italy, to date, no action has been undertaken by government or industry associations to implement the EuP Directive. Organisations contacted included:

ANIE - National Federation of Electronically and Electrical Industries;

Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana - Confederation of Italian Industry;

Assolombarda - part of Confindustria, the Italian Entrepreneurial Association;

CEI - Italian Electro Technical Committee; and Legambiente - one of the main environmentalist associations in Italy.

C11

Country: Italy

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 The Ministry of Environment(Ministero dell'Ambiente. )

Information to the public: Tel. ++39 0644442401 - Fax ++39 065013429 e-mail :urp@apat.itwww.apat.it

2 National Environmental Protection Agency (Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici, APAT)

This department will provide technical support. It is currently assisting the Ministry with Eco-Label issues.

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 ARPA (Regional Environmental Protection Agency)

ARPA is organised through a network of many local offices.

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 In Italy, to date, no action has been undertaken in order to implement the Directive. Potential participants for the EC 'Consultation Forum' is currently being identified.

In Italy the deadline for the implementation of the Directive (2005/32/EC) is set to 11 August 2007.

The objective with the establishment of the experts group is to contribute to the definition and the review of the implementing measures, to monitoring the efficiency of established market surveillance mechanisms and to the assessment of voluntary agreements and other self-regulatory measures taken in the context of the Directive. The Forum is consulted by the Commission during the periodic modification of the working plan.

Entr-Mechan-Electr-Equipm@cec.eu.intMichail.Papadoyannakis@cec.eu.int

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 ANIE ANIE (National Federation of Electronically and Electrical Industries) represents the industries involved in electronic and electric activities operating in Italy. ANIE consists of 12 different associations representing different industrial sectors.

http://www.anie.it

2 CONFINDUSTRIA Confederation of Italian Industry (Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana) is a voluntary association engaged in the Italian economy, society and institutions. The organization consists in 105 local Associations established in 18 Regional Confindustria locations, 103 Sectorial Associations, 17 National Sector Federations, and 14 Associated Members.

www.confindustria.it

3 ASSOLOMBARDA Assolombarda is the largest territorial association of the entrepreneurial system in Italy. Assolombarda is part of Confindustria (Italian Entrepreneurial Association) and consists of over 5870 firms (involved in production or distribution of goods) located in the Lombardy Region. The Association protects and represents the enterprises' interests from a political, social, and administrative point of view. Furthermore, the association provides its members with assistance, advice and practical handbooks on relevant and sector specific aspects.

www.assolombarda.it

4 CEI CEI (Italian Electro technical Committee) is a private non-profit association with the mission to promote and spread technical culture and electrical safety of products. In order to fulfil its mission, CEI performs a number of standardisation and pre-standardisation activities both at national and international level. These activities include: the preparation of standards and the endorsement of the harmonised documents recognised by the European Union Directives; and co-ordination of research, development, communication and training in co-operation with other institutions involved in the standardisation process.

www.ceiuni.it

5 Legambiente Legambiente is one of the main environmental associations in Italy. It is a voluntary association whose aim is to protect and improve the environment and to enable the citizens and public administrations to play their part in achieving that goal.

www.legambiente.it

1.9 Poland

The Ministry of Economy, Department for Energy is likely to be responsible for the implementation of the EuP Directive.

The Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (Glowny Inspektor Ochrony Srodowiska) is likely to be the enforcement agency.

Currently, there is no evidence to support any interaction of the EuP Directive with other policies. Based on information from conversations with a Polish government officials (1) , there is very little understanding and no activity underway regarding the EuP Directive. Several large 1(?) Mr Martin Nowacki and Mr Andrzej Guzowski, Ministry of Economy, Poland

C12

manufacturers were contacted and expressed the same view. Those contacted include:

LG Electronics Polska Sp. z o.o. (TVs); OPTIMUS SA (PCs); AMICA WRONKI; Philips; and Panasonic.

Country: Poland

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Ministry of Economy, Department of Energy and Industrial Policy.

- Mr Andrzej Guzowski, Energy Department, phone (+48 22) 6935395 , email Andrzej.Guzowski@mg.gov

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (Glowny Inspektor Ochrony Srodowiska)

- -

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 No activities have been taken yet. - Personal communication, Mr Marcin Nowacki (+48 22 06935924), Mr Andrzej Guzowski (+48 22 6935695), Ministry of Economy

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 None known. No consultation has started yet.

- Personal communication, Mr Marcin Nowacki (+48 22 06935924), Mr Andrzej Guzowski (+48 22 6935695), Ministry of Economy

1.10 Spain

The Energy General Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism and the National Institute of Energy (IDAE) are responsible for the implementation of the EuP Directive.

Regarding enforcement, legislation is approved at national level and usually implemented by the different regions in Spain. These regions will be responsible for enforcement. However, it is too early for the regions to know how the Directive will be applied in their territories.

No significant activity could be identified in Spain at government or industry association levels. Several large manufacturers were contacted and we have had the same view expressed. Those contacted include:

AETIC - Association of Electronic, Telecommunication and Information Technologies;

Asimelec - the Madrid Regional Authorities for establishing energy efficient policies in industry;

Catalonian Waste Authorities (Agència Catalana de Residus);

C13

Bosch-Siemens; and Fagor – boiler manufacturer.

Two Spanish regulations where potential synergies were identified by the National Institute of Energy (IDEA) are listed below. However, no specific issues could be identified.

The Action Plan 2005/2007 regarding savings and energy efficiency (Plan de Acción 2005-2007 de ahorro y eficiencia energetica); and

The Spanish Thermal Installations Regulation which is currently under review.

Country: Spain

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Energy General Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism

This Department is responsible for energy related policies within the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism. The Department is in charge of the implementation of the Spanish Energy Programme 2005-2007.

Mr. Antonio Fernandez Segura, Head of the Secretariat; +34 91 349 40 03; +34 902 44 60 06.Paseo de la Castellana 160, CP 28071 Madrid, Spainhttp://www.mityc.es/es-ES/Ministerio/Estructura/SecretariaGeneralEnergia/Organigrama/

2 National Institute of Energy (IDEA) Responsbile for energy management (eg minimisation plans, etc) for Spain.

www.idae.es

Source: Which government department is responsible for enforcing the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Regarding the enforcement agency, legislation is approved at National level in Spain and is usually developed by the different regions in Spain. These regions will be responsible for enforcement. It is too early for the regions to know how the new requirements will be applied in their territory.

- ERM Spain

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 None. The Ministries of Environment and Industry were contacted verbally, and informed ERM that the Directive is under consideration, but that there is no specific action in place.

- Mr. Antonio Fernandez Segura, Head of the Secretariat; +34 91 349 40 03; +34 902 44 60 06.Paseo de la Castellana 160, CP 28071 Madrid, Spainhttp://www.mityc.es/es-ES/Ministerio/Estructura/SecretariaGeneralEnergia/Organigrama/

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 None. - As above.

1.11 Sweden

In Sweden, the department responsible for implementation of the EuP Directive will be the Ministry of Sustainable Development (Miljö- och

C14

Samhallsbyggnadsdepartementet) and the enforcement body will be the Swedish Energy Agency (Statens Energimyndighet).

There is activity happening at a general level to raise awareness of the EuP Directive among SMEs, as well as some work on preparatory studies and regulation. A seminar organised by the Swedish Trade Council (Svenska Exportradet) on WEEE, RoHS and EuP identified that there is a trade-off between WEEE recycling/recovery versus energy consumption in the use phase of EuPs. No other specific interactions were identified. The industry associations and organisations contacted included:

STEM - the Swedish Energy Agency (Statens Energimyndighet); The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries

(Teknikföretagen); Belysningsbranchen – lighting association; EHL - Elektriska Hushallsapparat Leverantörers – association of

manufacturers and importers of suppliers of Domestic Electronic Products;

FLIPP - furthering lifecycle considerations through integrated product policy;

El-kretsen AB – service company created by electronic trade association; and

Electrolux.

C15

Country: Sweden

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing and the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 The Ministry of Sustainable Development (Miljo - och Samhallsbyggnadsdepartementet) - ongoing interdepartmental investigation of the Directive; consultation during autumn 2006.

- Camilla Ottoson, STEM, +46 16 544 2202, personal communication 2006-03-10.

Source: Which government department is responsible for implementing and the EuP Directive?

Short description of department: Source/contact details:

1 Swedish Energy Agency (Statens Energimyndighet, STEM ).

Additional agencies will be involved, including the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate (Kemikalieinspektionen).

The Swedish Energy Agency reports to the Ministry of Sustainable Development.

The Swedish Energy Agency works towards transforming the Swedish energy system into an ecological and economically sustainable system through guiding state capital towards the area of energy. This is carried out in collaboration with trade and industry, energy companies, municipalities and the research community.

-

Source: What activities have already taken place in relation to the EuP Directive?

Short description of activity: Source/contact details:

1 STEM - the Swedish Energy Agency: Information from meeting on EuP held on the 9-3-2006 with industry associations.

Information on the coming legislation. Topics covered included the work with the preparatory studies and the self-regulating initiative.

Camilla Ottoson, STEM, +46 16 544 2202, personal communication 2006-03-10.

2 The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Teknikforetagen): EUP seminar held 14/11-2005

Introduction to the EuP Directive. The presentations held at the EuP-seminar are available and included those from ABB, Electrolux, Ericsson, DG Enterprise,

http://www.teknikforetagen.se/templates/outsidePage____1407.aspx

3 Swedish Trade Council (Svenska Exportradet): Seminar on practical advice on WEEE, RoHS and EuP (Praktiska råd inför tillämpningen av WEEE, RoHS och EuP) held 10-11-2005

Presenters included the Environment Agency, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, the Swedish Trade Council.According to the programme, available online, a 15-minute presentation were to be given on the EuP directive and it highlights the trade-off between WEEE recycling/recovery vs energy during use phase .

http://www.swedishtrade.se/exportinformation/?pageid=4111

4 EcoDesign Awareness Raising Campaign for Electrical and Electronics SMEs: 'Business benefits through Eco-Design - Beyond RoHS and WEEE', workshop 6-9-2005

On behalf of the European Commission, DG Enterprise, the Fraunhofer IZM performs a project to raise awareness among SMEs regarding ecodesign issues. Regional partners in this project are 17 universities, chambers of commerce, industry associations, consultants etc.

The workshop for Sweden was held in Jonkoping, 6-9-2005. ABB and Nokia were amongst the speakers.

http://www.ecodesignarc.info/servlet/is/803/

Source: Are there any industry associations or organisations that are actively involved with government on EuP?

Short description of organisation and main involvement: Source/contact details:

1 The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Teknikforetagen)

Contact with industry and authorities.

According to Teknikforetagen, the communication between the Ministry of Sustainable Development and the industry has been very good.

Elinor Kruse, Teknikforetagen, +46 8 782 0931, personal communication 2006-03-13

1.12 EU Level Organisations

This Section describes the current activities happening at an EU level within various important organisations.

1.12.1 CECED – European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (Leroy, 2006)

Presently CECED is not anticipating any positive or negative effect on other Directives due to the implementation of the EuP Directive.

CECED appreciates that voluntary initiatives and market forces have the potential to drive change. CECED members have proved that this approach works. They have pioneered improvement of energy efficiency of household equipment through ambitious unilateral industry commitments that promote better eco-design solutions. This means that CECED hopes that there will be no use for implementing measures at all.

C16

In case of implementing measures, all relevant stakeholders (including CECED) will be consulted beforehand to assure that any future legal requirements are clear and realistic, enabling fair competition in the market place.

1.12.2 EICTA - European Association of Consumer Electronics Manufacturers (EICTA, 2005)

EICTA shares the same views as CECED, emphasising that Article 95 should be the only legal basis for EuP, since their products are meant for a global market.

Furthermore, EICTA recommends that assessment of product compliance should be through self declaration and efficient market surveillance. Benefits were perceived as earlier product availability in the market and lower cost of implementation. Assessment of compliance through supplier’s declaration of conformity works well in critical areas such as product safety, so there is no justification for mandating third party verification in the environmental sphere.

EICTA believes that the right mechanism to create a market surveillance system capable of avoiding free riding is not to impose pre-distribution market third party verification, as this would introduce unacceptable delays in time-to-market and increased costs. EICTA recommends that market surveillance and product traceability are improved and that a monitoring role is setup for the European Commission.

EICTA has had a good experience with Energy Star, and has achieved considerable results with voluntary measures for consumer electronics products. Contrary to a legislative process, the requirements of a voluntary agreement can be revised easily to keep up with the fast development of the sector. EICTA believes that these voluntary measures between industry and the Commission have already achieved many of the desired performance improvements without the need for regulation, i.e. in a cheaper and faster way. Thus, voluntary measures should, to the greatest extent possible, be the first option for gaining environmental improvements.

Many stakeholders are potentially affected by the implementing measures under EuP, and EICTA believes that it is important that all stakeholders should be involved in development of implementing measures and their requirements.

The EICTA advocates the EuP directive to be based on self declaration and voluntary agreements and not on implementing measures. This would require an efficient market surveillance process. For this to succeed, the EuP Directive needs to include requirements on product

C17

traceability ie. the identification of a supplier associated with the product or equipment.

EICTA points at the Energy Star program as an example of a successful voluntary agreement. However, the Energy Star focuses solely on the energy consumption in the use phase. The EuP Directive not only includes energy in the use phase but also the environmental impacts from the processing and consumption of materials in the entire life cycle of the product. The administration of the EuP voluntary agreement to avoid free-riders will thus be much more complicated than the administration of the Energy Star due to the management of the entire supply chain.

1.12.3 American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (Amcham)

AmCham Germany's goal is to support unrestricted trade and investment between the United States and Germany.

AmCham support the EuP framework Directive with the following provisos:

If EuP is based on Article 95; the members of AmCham agree and support the fact that the EuP Directive is based on Article 95 of the treaty establishing the European Committee. They emphasise the importance of using Article 95 and in harmonising all the national provisions in the Member States.

If EuP takes precedence over other community measures in the field of eco-design. The EUP Directive should prevent legal disparities such as those stemming from WEEE Article 4, which mandates Member States to introduce national specific requirements on eco-design.

If voluntary measures are used. Through bodies such as AmCham Germany and EICTA etc. the voluntary measures and programs would be supported by the majority of the companies involved and would, therefore, result in a low number of free riders. AmCham Germany pushes forward the example of the TV’s voluntary measure and the Code of Conduct on External Power Supplies as successful examples of self-regulation. Voluntary measures lead to a high environmental gain, are practical to use and are signed by the majority of companies. Thus, AmCham encourage the Commission to extend the use of voluntary measures before developing implementing measures.

Regarding implementing measures, AmCham makes the following statement.

C18

The selection of implementing measures must not be a ‘copy & paste’ process as suggested by Annex II, point 2. The selection of products for implementing measures has wide-ranging consequences for the product category concerned and must not be made on the basis of motivations for local/regional eco-labels or conditions elsewhere in the world. A proper analysis from the EU point of view is of utmost importance.

The Commission should consult the stakeholders in the process of preparing implementing measures. The stakeholders have the expert knowledge necessary to quantify the environmental improvement and the business impact that the imposition of an implementing measure would have. Not consulting stakeholders could result in the implementation of measures which put a financial burden on industry without bringing about additional environmental improvement.

1.12.4 Orgalime (2006)

Orgalime is the European Engineering Industries Association representing the interests of the mechanical, electrical, electronic and metalworking industries.

Orgalime considers it important to preserve the following key principles in the future legislation:

Reference to Article 95 of the EC Treaty as sole legal base, in order to ensure a level playing field and avoid a further fragmentation of the internal market;

Priority to voluntary measures (i.e. no implementing measures) should be developed if market forces are functioning or if there is no cost-effective way to arrive at improvements through regulation;

Well balanced and workable criteria and procedures for the selection of product groups and the establishment of eco-design requirements;

Proper involvement of industry from the very start of the process of considering implementing measures;

Coherence with existing well established and proven concepts, especially in the area of conformity assessment: manufacturer’s declaration to be the relevant module i.e. no third party certification in connection with conformity assessment;

Proper and effective market control as the basis for fair competition amongst European and non-European manufacturers; and

C19

A flexible approach to the use of generic or specific eco-design requirements depending on the different needs and specific character of different product categories.

C20

Country Implementing Agency name(s) Contact name(s) Address Telephone/Fax Email Website

Austria Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water - Life Ministry / Division of Industrial Environmental Protection and Technologie

Mr. Andreas Tschulik, Head of DivisionMr. Gerald Vones, Expert for EuP-directive

(+43 1) 71100-3050 http://www.lebensministerium.at/

Belgium Federal Government Department (FGD) for Economics, SMEs, Traders and Energy

General Information:VAN HUMBEEK Bert & MASSON IsabelleEconomics Cabinet contact: Emmanuel De Corte

City Atrium - Vooruitgangstraat, 50B-1210 Brussels

General information: Tel.: +32 (0)2 - 277 82 96 (NL)Tél. : +32 (0)2 - 277 82 48 (F)Economics Cabinet contact:Tel.: +32 (0)2 2130901

General Information:info.eco@mineco.fgov.beEconomics Cabinet contact:emmanuel.decorte@kab.verwilghen.fgov.be

www.mineco.fgov.be

Federal Government Department (FGD) for Public Health, Foodsafety and Environment

Mr Peter LonckeMr Denis Pohl

Tel.:+32 (0)2/238.28.11 peter.loncke@health.fgov.bedenis.pohl@health.fgov.be

www.health.fgov.be

Denmark Ministry of Transport and Energy, Danish Energy Authority Mr Peter Nielsen Amaliegade 44, DK-1256 Copenhagen K 0045 33926735 pen@ens.dk http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/Finland The Ministry of Trade and Industry, Technology Department and Energy

DepartmentThe Ministry of Environment

Mr Matti Oivukkamäki, Deputy Director General P.O. Box 32, FI-00023 GOVERNMENT +358 (0)9 1606 2697 Matti.Oivukkamaki@ktm.fi http://www.ktm.fi/

France Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry. Directorate of Energy and Raw Materials (DGEMP).

- Direction générale de l'énergie et des matières premières61 Bld Vincent Auriol 75703 Paris Cedex 13

Telephone: 01 44 87 17 17

Ministry of Ecology, and Sustainable development. Delegation of Sustainable development.

M. Jean-Paul VENTERE. Representative of the products sustainable development - sustainable consumption - Ecolabel

Germany Federal Ministry for the Enviroment, Nature Conversation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin / Germany

www.bmu.de/english

Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology www.bwmi.de/englishItaly The Ministry of Environment (Ministero dell'Ambiente) -

The National Environmental Protection Agency (Agenzia per la protezione dell'ambiente e per i servizi tecnici (APAT))

- Tel. ++39 0644442401Fax ++39 065013429 e-mail :urp@apat.it

www.apat.it

Poland Ministry of Economy, Department of Energy Mr Andrzej Guzowski phone (+48 22) 6935395 Andrzej.Guzowski@mg.govSpain Energy General Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism Mr. Antonio Fernandez Segura, Head of the

SecretariatPaseo de la Castellana 160, CP 28071 Madrid, Spain +34 91 349 40 03;

+34 902 44 60 06.http://www.mityc.es/es-ES/Ministerio/Estructura/SecretariaGeneralEnergia/Organigrama/

Sweden The Ministry of Sustainable Development Mr Pär Lindahl Tegelbacken 2, 103 33 Stockholm +46 8 4051000 http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2066

Country Enforcing Agency name(s) Contact name(s) Address Telephone/Fax Email Website

Austria Umweltbundesamt GmbH (Federal Environment Agency)Belgium Federal Government Department (FGD) for Economics, SMEs, Traders

and Energy General Information:VAN HUMBEEK Bert & MASSON IsabelleEconomics Cabinet contact: Emmanuel De Corte

City Atrium - Vooruitgangstraat, 50B-1210 Brussels

General information: Tel.: +32 (0)2 - 277 82 96 (NL)Tél. : +32 (0)2 - 277 82 48 (F)Economics Cabinet contact:Tel.: +32 (0)2 2130901

General Information:info.eco@mineco.fgov.beEconomics Cabinet contact:emmanuel.decorte@kab.verwilghen.fgov.be

www.mineco.fgov.be

Federal Government Department (FGD) for Public Health, Foodsafety and Environment

Mr Peter LonckeMr Denis Pohl

Tel.:+32 (0)2/238.28.11 peter.loncke@health.fgov.bedenis.pohl@health.fgov.be

www.health.fgov.be

Denmark Ministry of Transport and Energy, Danish Energy Authority Mr Peter Nielsen Amaliegade 44, DK-1256 Copenhagen K 0045 33926735 pen@ens.dk www.energistyrelsen.dk/Finland Ministry of Trade and Industry, Technology Department Mr Matti Oivukkamäki, Deputy Director General P.O. Box 32, FI-00023 GOVERNMENT +358 (0)9 1606 2697 Matti.Oivukkamaki@ktm.fi www.ktm.fi/

France ADEME, the French Environmental Agency -Germany The Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt) -Italy Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) which is organised in

many local offices.- -

Poland Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (Glowny Inspektor Ochrony Srodowiska)

-

Spain Local regions will be responsible for the enforcement - no information is available today.

Sweden STEM - the Swedish Energy Agency (Statens Energimyndighet) Ms Camilla Ottoson Box 310Kungsgatan 43631 04 Eskilstuna

+46 16 544 2202 Camilla.Ottosson@stem.se www.stem.se

Annex D

Literature Review: Academic Sources

1 LITERATURE REVIEW: ACADEMIC SOURCES

Annex D contains the findings of the academic literature review.

The aim was to draw upon academic literature from established journals and conferences, internationally, to identify the unintended actions stemming from the EuP Directive with other product policy. We have reviewed literature from several sources:

academic journals; conferences and workshops; and research groups and other initiatives.

We have provided a list of the sources searched and, where relevant information was found, a brief summary of the source.

1.1 Academic Journals

Table 9.3 shows the range of publishers and journal databases that were surveyed for the literature review. The list includes the major environmental journals in the field. Box 9.1 shows the keywords that were used in the literature search.

Table 1.10 Publishers and Journals Surveyed

Publisher Journals coveredScientific Journals(www.scientificjournals.com)

A selection of journals in the database: The International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment; Energy and Buildings; Energy; Energy Policy; and Applied Energy.In total 7 titles are featured in Scientific Journals.

Science Direct(www.sciencedirect.com)

A selection of journals in the database: Journal of Cleaner Production; Ecological Economics; Resources, Conservation and Recycling; Science of the Total Environment; and Waste management.Over 2000 titles are featured in the areas of science, technology and medicine.

Wiley InterScience A selection of journals in the database:

D1

Publisher Journals covered(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com)

European Environment; Sustainable Development; and Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management.Over 1000 titles are featured in the area of science.

Ingenta Connect(www.ingentaconnect.com)

Academic and professional research articles from around 8000 publications available online.

British Library Integrated catalogue; and Current serials.

Box 1.3 Keywords used in Survey

* Design for environment

The academic literature review revealed that there were no articles that specifically identified issues stemming from actions brought about by the EuP Directive, either conflicts or synergies.

Nonetheless, the review identified several articles which provided supporting evidence for the issues that had already been identified through ERM’s review of the official Directive texts (see Annex A). These articles are briefly described below.

1.1.1 King (2004): Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle?

This paper (King, 2004) discusses some of the implications of the Landfill Directive and legislation on extended producer responsibility (EPR).

The paper describes and compares the four alternative strategies to reducing end-of-life waste: namely repairing; reconditioning; remanufacturing; or recycling.

It concludes that, from a producer perspective, remanufacturing may well be the best strategy. This is because it saves the embodied energy of virgin material production, preserves the intrinsic value of the

D2

EuP, ecodesign, WEEE, RoHS, DfE*, IPP, Energy Directive, WEEE + energy, RoHS + energy, LCA + (the preparatory studies, e.g. ‘boilers’ or ‘computers’) energy efficiency standard, energy efficiency product, integrated energy policy

product and enables the resultant products to be sold as new with updated features if necessary.

1.1.2 Hischier (2005): Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective?

The paper by Hischier (2005) assesses the environmental performance of two Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

The schemes assessed were: SWICO, for computers, consumer electronics and telecommunication equipment; and S.EN.S, for household appliances.

A combined approach of material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) were used to assess the environmental impacts. Impact assessment was based on characterisation factors according to the Dutch CML methodology. A baseline scenario of 100% incineration and no material recycling was assumed.

Collection of WEEE was more relevant than the sorting and dismantling activities. The results showed the main impacts arise during the treatment applied downstream to turn the waste into secondary raw materials.

The results showed WEEE recycling to be clearly advantageous from an environmental perspective in comparison to the baseline.

1.1.3 Truttmann (2006): Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances

This paper assesses the conflict between extending the product life of electric and electronic equipment via reuse (to conserve materials and energy) compared with introducing newer products that consume less energy during use.

The paper argues that reuse of older products delays the launch of more efficient products onto the market. Hence, there is a trade-off between resource conservation in the production phase and energy consumption in the use phase.

The paper focuses on eight product groups, including refrigerators, washing machines, PCs and monitors. The study compared two extreme scenarios: one assuming no reuse; and the other assuming complete reuse with product life extensions between 50 and 100%.

D3

The contribution to resource conservation was determined by materials and energy balances. Potential environmental impacts, such as global warming, were not assessed.

The result shows that intensive product reuse will reduce total resource consumption (materials and energy). It concludes that efficient recycling is crucial for saving primary materials.

1.1.4 Mayers (2005): Extended producer responsibility for waste electronics: an example of printer recycling in the United Kingdom

Mayers (2005) studied the performance of recycling of WEEE using life-cycle assessment and financial costing to investigate the possible environmental effects.

Four waste scenarios were assessed for nine environmental impact categories. The results varied, with no scenario emerging as best or worst overall compared to landfilling.

The level of environmental impact depended on the type of material and waste management processes involved.

Additionally, the paper shows that the use of mass-based targets may not necessarily ensure that producers adapt the design of their products to reduce environmental impacts.

The paper concludes that life-cycle impacts should be addressed and an alternative to mass-based recycling and recovery targets is needed.

1.1.5 Des Rosiers (1997): Regulating appliance energy efficiency in Canada: some similarities and differences with the US

This paper by des Rosiers (1997) looks at differences in energy efficiency regulations between Canada and the US.

In Canada, the objective of energy efficiency regulations is to eliminate the most energy inefficient products from the market by establishing minimum efficiency standards for certain energy-using equipment.

The North American market is an integrated one, and the market domination by US equipment manufacturers has a strong impact on energy-efficiency in Canada. Greater harmonisation of regulatory requirements among Canada, the US and Mexico, as well as globally, will be a key future driver of Canadian regulators.

Des Rosiers (1997) points out that greater harmonisation of regulatory requirements among Canada, the US and Mexico, as well as globally,

D4

will be a key future driver of Canadian regulators. The work towards a harmonised market supports Article 95 in the EC Treaty.

1.1.6 Meyers (2002): Impacts of US federal energy efficiency standards for residential appliances

In the paper by Meyers (2002), energy, environmental and consumer impacts of US federal residential energy efficiency standards taking place in the 1988-2007 period are estimated. In total, nine different products have been included in the study: refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, central ACs and heat pumps, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, water heaters and gas furnaces.

The paper concludes that the estimated reduction in residential primary energy consumption and CO2 emissions in US in 2020, due to energy efficiency standards, will be 8-9% compared to the levels expected without any standards.

1.1.7 Wood (2002): Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design

This paper by Wood (2002) provides a literature review of the application of information feedback methods for saving energy in the home. In addition, the paper presents the findings of a UK field study, in which the effectiveness of providing paper-based energy-use/saving information with electronic feedback of energy consumption via smart meters or displays is compared.

The study concludes that greater energy reduction was achieved with the smart meter than with paper-based information.

The consumer’s behaviour when using a product will affect the energy consumption during use phase. According to Article 14 in the EuP Directive, consumer information should be provided by the manufacturer, describing the role that the consumer can play in the sustainable use of the product. Information feedback methods for saving energy in the home were investigated by Wood (2002). According to the study, electronic feedback via smart meters or displays generates greater energy reductions than paper based information.

1.1.8 Benefits of Energy Standards in the US

There are several studies looking at energy standards and related savings in energy use, CO2 emissions and costs, which are summarised below.

Rosenquist (2005) analysis of potential new and upgraded energy efficiency standards for residential and commercial equipment in the US

D5

concludes that the national benefits may be substantial. Koomey (1999) assesses the potential energy, dollar and carbon impacts of minimum efficiency standards for residential appliances in the US. According to the study, average cost/benefit ratios for these standards are about 3.5 for the US as a whole, and projected carbon reductions are approximately 9 million metric tonnes of carbon per year in the years from 2000 to 2010.

An evaluation of five energy labelling systems in the US shows that government programs, in general, and Energy Star, in particular, were more successful than the private programs (Banerjee, 2003). The evaluation criteria used were consumer response and manufacturer/marketer response. According to the study, government support proved important in determining a program’s credibility, financial stability and long-term viability.

1.2 Conferences and Workshops

This Section reviews the recent international conferences and workshops where the EuP Directive has been included on the agenda. We also list three upcoming conferences that may be useful for future research.

In general, we did not identify any conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies. A summary of each conference is given below.

1.2.1 Sustainable energy consumption European, conference under the Marrakech-process on sustainable consumption and production (SCP), December 2005, Berlin, Germany

This informal expert meeting was jointly organised by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, the German Federal Environmental Agency, the European Commission, and the United Nations Environment Programme. It was hosted by the Federal Government of Germany. The Government of Switzerland also provided financial support (UN, 2005).

One of the objectives of the meeting was to contribute to the further development of policies and activities at European level, including the implementation of the EuP Directive.

From the meeting report, it is understood that the EuP Directive is considered to be an essential instrument for developing energy efficient products. Concrete actions proposed in workshops held at the conference include promoting energy targets using the EuP Directive.

D6

A review of the publicly available literature did not reveal any specific conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.2.2 EcoDesign – awareness raising campaign for electrical & electronics SMEs, 2005, Europe

The European Commission financed the EcoDesign campaign (2005), which was performed by the Fraunhofer IZM, Germany. In all, 28 awareness raising workshops were held in 21 countries over Europe, where the basics of eco-design were explained to SMEs.

The basic requirements of the EuP Directive were included in the workshops. However, the workshops did not identify any specific conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.2.3 SEEDS, NEEDS, ScotEEDS, UK

Seeds, Needs and Scoteeds were three regional shows held in the UK, with the theme ‘current and future European Directives that affect the electrical and electronic industries’ (Seeds, 2005). A presentation on the EuP Directive was given by Matthew Armishaw from the Market Transformation Programme.

A review of the publicly available literature did not reveal any specific conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.2.4 EC Energy Star Conference, April 2004, Frankfurt, Germany

The Energy Star Conference (2004) was oriented towards promotional and policy aspects of energy efficient office equipment, notably within the framework of the EC Energy Star programme.

A presentation was given on the ‘Importance of Energy Star program in the light of EuP’, by Theo Schoenmakers (Philips and Chair of EICTA EuP working group). The presentation concluded that Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

1.2.5 Upcoming conference: 4th International electronics conference and exhibition from April 25-27, 2006 in Malmo, Sweden

This international electronics conference is sponsored by IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries and Soldertec Global – a division of Tin Technology (IPC, 2006).

The EuP Directive will be introduced by Michail Papadoyannakis, European Commission.

D7

A workshop with the title ‘Preparing for the New European Directive Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuP)’ will be held by Graham Adams, PlesTech Ltd (UK).

1.2.6 Upcoming conference: 4th International conference on energy efficiency in domestic appliances and lighting – EEDAL’06, London, UK, June 2006

‘Standards and Labels’ is one of the topics of the conference, where the implementation of the EU Eco-Design Directive, including new studies, is included.

The conference is organised by the Market Transformation Programme and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (EEDAL, 2006).

1.2.7 Upcoming conference: Seeba conference to come: ‘preparing organisations for the EuP’, UK, June 2006

Short summary of the content of the conference to come is provided on Seeba’s website (Seeba, 2006). The conference will cover changes in the design process due to the EuP Directive, and what companies can do to prepare in a practical and cost-effective manner. How to integrate other legislation into the systems used to manage the EuP will also be looked at.

1.3 Research Groups

Due to a lack of published information that we could identify through the general literature review, we surveyed and directly contacted several research groups and other initiatives working the field to understand what unpublished research that might be currently underway.

This Section provides a review of activities. However, in general, we did not identify any new conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.3.1 Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD), UK

The Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) is a centre ‘facilitating the discussion and research on eco-design’ through training, workshops, conferences, research, consultancy, publications and the internet. Martin Charter is the Director of CfSD (CfSD, 2006). They are running two programmes of particular interest:

Seeba; and

D8

Asia Eco-Design Electronics (AEDE).

Seeba

Seeba (2006) is the electronics programme of CfSD, co-ordinated by Graham Adams and financially supported by government.

The programme covers WEEE and RoHS implementation, including: requirements of legislation texts and details of registration bodies and compliance organisations for most Member States. An eco-design checklist is presented on the website. This document is in the process of being updated to reflect the EuP Directive. The update should be available from March 2006.

Additionally, Seeba are hosting: a conference on how to prepare organisations for the EuP Directive

(see Section 1.2.7); and a workshop in April 2006 that will include an update on the EuP

Directive.

We did not identify any new conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

Asia Eco-Design Electronics (AEDE)

The AEDE project (AEDE, 2006) aims to support electronics companies in Asia that are required to meet increasingly stringent legal and customer requirements related to environmental and social issues from the EU, Japan and the US. The project is funded by the European Union as a part of the Asia-Pro Eco Programme. CfSD acts as the project leader for this project.

We did not identify any new conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.3.2 Furthering Lifecycle Considerations through Integrated Product Policy (Flipp) - Sweden

Flipp (2006) is a competence centre for IPP research, financed by the Swedish EPA (Naturvårdsverket). The program started in 2003 and has been prolonged to continue until 2008. The research has two main focus areas:

the relations between different actors within the product chain from an industry perspective; and

the possibilities for governments to control the environmental impacts in the product chain from a policy perspective.

D9

Discussions were held with Carl Dalhammar and Chris van Rossen, both PhD students within the Flipp program. They said that the effects of the EuP Directive are discussed in the research performed by the group, but not in the context of identifying positive or negative consequences in relation to other related product policies. It was not foreseen that the effects stemming from the EuP Directive will be included in the scope of the research.

1.3.3 The Impact of Environmental Policy Instruments on Activities, Products and Environmental Capabilities in the Electrical and Electronics Industry (YPSE), Finland

The YPSE project is undertaken jointly by the Finnish Environment Institute and Helsinki School of Economics. It is co-ordinated in close co-operation with several partners, including the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University, Sweden (YPSE, 2006).

The project analyses how environmental policy instruments (e.g. WEEE, RoHS, and EuP) affect environmental management and product development practices in the Finnish electrical and electronics industry. The research programme also assesses the long-term dynamic effects on enterprises.

Two doctoral theses are under preparation as part of the project:

Petrus Kautto: Who holds the reigns? Changing industry - government interaction in integrated product policy (2006); and

Anna Kärnä: The Interaction between Environmental and Product Development Competence (in Finnish, 2006).

Discussions held with Petrus Kautto revealed that the focus of the theses are mainly on the implementation of RoHS. According to the author, the implementation of RoHS will be a good preparation for the EuP Directive in the Finnish industry, through the practice of supply chain management. Industries participating in the study have been Nokia, Vaisala and several subcontractors and suppliers. He plans to publish his theses in English in June 2006.

1.3.4 Eco-Life II (2002 to 2006)

ECOLIFE II (2006) is an EC thematic network, focusing on the product-service lifecycle of electric and electronic products. The main activities of the network focus on the environmental and economic aspects of product design, functional innovation and service-system innovation.

D10

We did not identify any conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.3.5 GrEEEn Project (2001 to 2003)

The goal of the GrEEEn (2006) project was to develop and make available a ‘Cost Management System’ as a method to develop electrical/electronic products to include environmental aspects and to reduce the life-cycle costs.

The project was co-ordinated by the ITU institute at the Technical University Berlin and the IKP institute at University of Stuttgart. Several industrial and research partners were involved, including Motorola, Siemens, ICL and Lear Automotive and CIMA, PE, IVF and GAIKER.

We did not identify any direct conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.3.6 HOMES (1994-1999)

HOMES (2006) was an interdisciplinary conceptual and applied environmental research program that aimed to diagnosis, evaluation and change household metabolism, i.e. the supply to, consumption by and disposal of flows of selected resources (materials, products and energy) through households.

Relevant past, present, near future and more distant future characteristics of specific flows through households in the Netherlands were investigated.

HOMES started in 1994 and ended in 1999. The output of HOMES included five PhD theses as well as two books, one reporting the integral overview of the diagnostic phase, and the other reporting the integral overview of the change phase.

1.3.7 Elima (2001 to 2005)

Elima (Environmental life cycle information management and acquisition) was an EC-funded research project with eight partners that aimed to develop ways of better managing the life cycles of consumer products. Matthew Simon of Sheffield Hallam University was the technical coordinator of the Elima project (Elima, 2006).

In a presentation held in 2005 by M Stutz, Motorola, the following link is made between Elima and the EuP Directive:

D11

‘An ELIMA data base and management system provides a good opportunity to store the conformity assessment and documentation and link the information to the products, e.g. RoHS, WEEE and EuP.’

We did not identify any direct conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

1.3.8 SusProNet (2002 to 2004)

SusProNet (2006) was a Thematic Network of industries and institutes under the EU Fifth Framework Programme (FP5). SusProNet developed and exchanged expertise on design of product-service systems for sustainable competitive growth.

We did not identify any conflicts or synergies of the EuP Directive with other product policies.

D12

Annex E

Evidence Summary and Tests for Robustness and Issue Priority

1 EVIDENCE SUMMARY AND TESTS FOR ROBUSTNESS AND ISSUE PRIORITY

Annex E presents the following:

Evidence summary in a matrix format; Test the documentation to be fit for purpose for ‘robustness’; and Test the issues identified in the study for ‘priority’ to meet the project

aims.

These tests have been developed to meet the aims of the study. The results of applying these tests are shown in the Annex.

1.1 Evidence Summary

The literature review has shown that, at present, there are few practical synergies or conflicts that could be identified as interacting with the EuP Directive. We identified several issues that have been summarised in the following Figures relating to:

WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC); RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC); Eco-labelling (EC Regulation No 1980/2000, ISO 14021/25); Packaging Directive (94/62/EC); EMAS (1836/93/EC); and European Energy Star (2422/2001/EC).

E1

Figure 1.1a: Interactions of EuP with the WEEE DirectiveIssue

Directive/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Product eco-design 2. End-of-life management versus eco-design 3. Product categoriesInterdependence with the EuP Directive:

Opportunity: Producers will be encouraged to design and to manufacture products to facilitate reuse and recycling. A synergy exists, as both Directives encourage reduced environmental impact through product design.

Risk: Under the WEEE Directive reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation, through increased energy efficiency, is considered a priority environmental goal. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflict.

Risk: The WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on each of the categories, eg the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP Directive, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be placed on the products

Environmental evidence: The environmental profiles of the EuPs presented in Section 5.1 (VHK, 2005) show that the global warming impact arising at end-of-life are insignificant for all product groups, except room air conditioners, where this accounts for around 25% of the life-cycle due to release of refrigerants to air.

A case study in the European lighting sector (Gottberg et al, 2006) showed that links between extended producer responsibility, driven by the WEEE Directive, and eco-design have had little effect on product development so far. The study concludes that other drivers, such as bans on hazardous substances, product declarations and supply chain pressures, were often more effective promoters of eco-design.

The reuse of older products (Truttmann, 2006) may delay the launch of higher energy efficiency products onto the market. There is a trade-off between resource conservation in the production phase and energy consumption in the use phase.

A study by King (2004) concludes that remanufacturing, in comparison to repairing, reconditioning or recycling, may offer producers the best end-of-life product strategy. This is because it saves the embodied energy of virgin production and preserves the intrinsic economic value of the product.

The environmental profiles of the EuPs presented in Section 5.1 (VHK, 2005) show that, in general, the global warming impacts arising at end-of-life are and potential offests in production are insignificant in comparison to the use-phase, with the exception of TVs and PCs where this could theorectically account for up to 20%. However, we have not considered the relative importance of global warming versus resource depletion.

A case study in the European lighting sector (Gottberg et al, 2006) showed that eco-design driven by the WEEE Directive has had little effect on product development so far.

Insufficient research is available to indicate the progress of eco-design for other products groups.

Nonetheless, when looking within the end-of-life phase, Hischier (2005) shows that the environmental impact of WEEE recycling when compared with incineration of all WEEE and primary production of the raw materials, proves environmentally advantageous.

Also, when looking within the end-of-life phase, a study by Mayers (2005) on printer recycling in the UK shows recycling to be no worse or better environmentally compared to landfilling.

Economic evidence: No quantitative evidence identified to support this for specific product groups. Nonetheless, products that are designed for disassembly can often reduce costs for the producer in assembly, repair, upgrading and end-of-life disposal.

None identified None identified

Political evidence: None identified None identified None identified

WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC)

The purpose of the WEEE Directive according to Article 1 is to reduce the disposal of waste through prevention, reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. The Directive also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment.

WEEE covers all electrical and electronic equipment that are used by consumers and that are intended for professional use. In the Directive, specific mandatory recovery targets are defined for producers to meet.

E2

Figure 1.1b: Interactions of EuP with the WEEE DirectiveIssue

Directive/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Product eco-design 2. End-of-life management versus eco-design 3. Product categoriesWEEE Directive (2002/96/EC) Transferability of learning: Issue applies equally across the EU and the UK.

Evidence shows environmental benefits should be focused in use phase rather than end-of-life for 10 product groups assessed, with the notable exception of room air conditioners, where 25% of global warming impact is at end-of-life.

This issue potentially applies to the 10 product groups assessed in this study (VHK, 2005) across the whole of the EU.

Nonetheless, products that are reused more commonly now or in the future (such as TVs, PCs and fridge/freezers) are likely to be more affected by this issue.

Issue appears to apply equally across the EU and product groups.

Potential to inform policy: A mix of policy measures is required rather than reliance on economic instruments alone.

Environmental evidence shows that benefits of eco-design for the EuP Directive should focus on the use phase. Thus, synergies may be minimal with the WEEE Directive; with the exception for disposal of refrigerants for room air conditioners where eco-design could aid proper end-of-life disposal eg through take back system.

The environmental benefit of WEEE is measured by mass, whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by global warming impact.

When assessing the benefits of policy to promote product reuse, a life-cycle approach is required to assess the environmental trade-off of extending the operating life less efficient equipment versus the benefit of saving resources.

Policy makers will rely on industry expertise to identify these conflicts. Consequently, a diverse range of stakeholders from each product group should be involved at an early stage to identify and resolve any potential conflicts.

What priority is the issue:

LOW MEDIUM LOW

How robust is the evidence:

HIGH HIGH HIGH

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report. See Section 9 of report. See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): European Parliament, 2006, VHK, 2005, Gottberg et al, 2006

ERM, 2006, European Parliament, 2006, Truttmann, 2006, VHK, 2005, Hischier, 2005, King ,2004, Mayers, 2005.

ERM UK, Gottberg et al, 2006.

Figure 1.2a: Interactions of EuP with the RoHS Directive

E3

IssueDirective/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Use of environmentally damaging substances 2. Provision of data 3. Substitute substances

Interdependence with the EuP Directive:

Opportunity: The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but not subject to RoHS. The EuP Directive encourages producers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the use of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle.

Opportunity: According to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the input/outputs throughout the life cycle. This activity will assist in the correct and speedy implementation and monitoring of RoHS through information supply along the chain.

Risk: When banning certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances will need to be substituted. In certain cases, the requirements of the EuP Directive and the RoHS Directive may conflict.

Environmental evidence: None identified Administrative burden has already been reduced by repealing the requirement to conduct an LCA.

In the manufacturing phase, for example, the banning of lead solder will result in a new solder composition which most likely will be tin-silver-copper (SnAgCu). SnAgCu has a higher melting temperature and thus the soldering process will consume more energy in production (EFTOS, 2005).

Another trade-off exists for fluorescent lights that contain mercury compared to incandescent lights that do not (EPA, 2002). The purposeful use of mercury in the production of fluorescent lights improves energy efficiency of the lamp in use, and actually reduces the total mercury emissions over the life-cycle. This is due to reduced mercury emission from electricity production. This highlights a conflict between the Directives.

Nonetheless, the environmental profiles of the EuPs presented in Section 5.1 show that the majority of global warming impacts arise in the use phase. Trade-offs should focus on the life-cycle benefits achieved with the aim to reduce overall environemntal impacts.

Economic evidence: None identified Although an opportunity exists to streamline data collection and reporting, ERA (2004) states that collecting RoHS compliance information from suppliers will place a heavy cost burden on SMEs. No quantified data is provided. A similar, if not greater, burden is likely to apply for the EuP Directive.

According to Kautto (2006) the implementation of RoHS will be a good preparation for the EuP Directive, through the practice of supply chain management.

None identified

Political evidence: None identified ERA (2004) also states that data reporting requirements of the EuP Directive will be important, but is not for the RoHS Directive. For RoHS, the practical reporting requirements are that: materials; components; assemblies or equipment, do not contain the restricted substances. A simple statement to this affect may be sufficient as a materials declaration.

In theory, established communication links in the supply chain should provide quicker transfer of information.

None identified

RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

The purpose of the RoHS Directive is make Member States ensure that all new electrical and electronic products put on the market do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated bi-phenyls or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

E4

Figure 1.2b: Interactions of EuP with the RoHS DirectiveIssue

Directive/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Product eco-design 2. End-of-life management versus eco-design 3. Product categoriesRoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) Transferability of learning: Issue applies equally across the EU and the UK. Issue applies to those product groups across the EU that

are subject to the RoHS Directive. Issue potentially applies to all product groups. Although, the issue is technology specific and likely to arise when a substitute material will either: reduce energy efficiency in use; or increase the life-cycle emission of the substance it replaces.

Potential to inform policy: The EuP Directive has the potential to deliver greater benefit than the RoHS Directive, by restricting substances, because it considers a wider range of substances and it measures environmental impacts across the life-cycle rather than toxic mass.

Existing data collection and reporting systems should be maximised to reduce overall administrative burden.

Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that SMEs should be considered a higher priority as are likely to incur a costly administrative burden based on evidence from RoHS.

Policy makers will rely on industry expertise to identify these conflicts. Consequently, stakeholders from product specific groups should be involved at an early stage to identify and resolve any potential conflicts.

The environmental benefit of the RoHS Directive is measured by mass (eg 1kg of cadmium is more toxic than 1kg of iron), whereas the environmental benefit of the EuP Directive is measured by life-cycle environmental impact to perform the same function.

Thus, any substitute substance would need to provide an equal or better life-cycle environmental performance for the function it performs eg with lighting this may be per lumen of light output for fluorescent lamps.

What priority is the issue:

LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM

How robust is the evidence:

MEDIUM HIGH HIGH

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report. See Section 9 of report. See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): ERM UK European Parliament, 2006, Kautto, 2006, ERM UK ERM, 2006, EFSOT, 2005, EPA, 2002.

E5

Figure 1 Interactions of EuP with the Eco-labelling

E7

IssueDirective/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Product eco-design

Interdependence with the EuP Directive:

Opportunity: Mandatory eco-design requirements will complement the eco-label initiative and provide supporting information of environmental aspects. Products with eco-design awards may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.

Environmental evidence: None available

Economic evidence: None available

Political evidence: The American Chamber of Commerce in Germany (AmCham, 2004) state that the selection of products for implementing measures has wide-ranging consequences for the product category concerned and must not be made on the basis of motivations for local/regional eco-labels.

Transferability of learning: Issue applies equally across the EU and the UK.

Potential to inform policy: Costs savings may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent for data provision, analysis and reporting.

What priority is the issue:

HIGH

How robust is the evidence:

MEDIUM

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): European Parliament, 2006, AmCham, 2004

Eco-labelling (EC Regulation No 1980/2000, ISO 14021/25)

There are two main categories of eco-labelling:

1. The European Eco-Label (Regulation No 1980/2000) and similar schemes. These are voluntary schemes designed to encourage businesses to market products and services that are kinder to the environment.

2. The ISO standard on environmental labelling. There are three levels of label, Type I, Type II and Type III. Type I labelling identifies products as being less harmful to the environment compared to other, similar products fulfilling the same function. Type II labelling allow statements about the environmental performance and are self declared environmental claims eg CFC free. Type III labelling is based on quantified environmental data for a product with pre-set categories of parameters based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) according to the ISO 14040 series of standards.

Figure 1.4 Interactions of EuP with the Packaging

E8

IssueDirective/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Product eco-design

Interdependence with the EuP Directive:

Opportunity: Packaging is not an energy using product. However, the environmental impact of a product over its life-cycle should include the impact of distribution, where packaging can be a vital part.

Environmental evidence: Environmental impacts will arise from the life-cycle of the packaging itself. Impacts will vary depending on the product.

Additionally, one of the functions of the packaging is to provide product protection. Reduced packaging weight may result in a less protective packaging and therefore imply more damaged goods in distribution. This may result a higher number of scrapped or repaired products and therefore require additional resource consumption in production.

The environmental profiles of the EuPs presented in Section 5.1 show the global warming impact of the distribution phase (which includes packaging) and, according to ERM's estimate, the likely level of damaged/repaired product to be negligible. Therefore, this issue would be seen as low priority in comparison to other phases of the life-cycle.

Economic evidence: None identified

Political evidence: None identified

Transferability of learning: Issue applies equally across the 10 product groups studied by VHK (2005):1. Gas and oil fired central heaters;2. Room air conditioners;3. Central heating circulators;4. Street lighting;5. Domestic refrigerators and freezers;6. Domestic dishwashers;7. Vacuum cleaners;8. Copiers;9. Televisions; and10. Personal computers.

Potential to inform policy: Not relevant - environmental evidence shows this issues to be insignificant.

What priority is the issue:LOW

How robust is the evidence:

HIGH

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): ERM UK, VHK, 2005

Packaging Directive (94/62/EC)

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) aims to harmonise national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market. It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste (Europa, 2006a). Specific mandatory recovery and recycling targets are defined in the Directive.

Figure 1.5 Interactions of EuP with the EMAS

E9

IssueDirective/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Demonstrate conformityEMAS (Regulation 1836/93) Interdependence with the

EuP Directive:Opportunity: The EuP Directive will increase the dissemination and visibility of the EMAS scheme and, furthermore, enterprises covering product design will be able to use it for demonstrating conformity.

Environmental evidence: None identified

Economic evidence: None identified

Political evidence: None identified

Transferability of learning: Issue applies equally across the EU and the UK. However, it is not clear what consistency may exist between various enterprises that have implemented EMAS to cover product design.

Potential to inform policy: Costs savings may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent for data provision, analysis and reporting.

What priority is the issue:

MEDIUM

How robust is the evidence:

MEDIUM

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): European Parliament, 2006

Figure 1.6 Interactions of EuP with the Energy Star

1.2 Robustness Testing of Literature

We have conducted a short robustness test of each of the evidence that supports each of the issues raised by the research. In the paper by Shaxson (2005), there are five components of robustness: credibility; generalisability; reliability; objectivity; and rootedness. It is necessary to take a proportional approach when screening the evidence. This means deciding which aspects of robustness are important and why, given project time and resource constraints.

We were looking to conduct a ‘quick’ analysis of the robustness of the documentation to be fit for purpose for ‘robustness’, given the limited timescale of the project and the high-level nature of the current needs to support policy development. Several parameters were discussed with the project steering group as important to the project and set out in the tender specification, shown below.

Data: is the issue supported by quantitative and qualitative data?

E10

IssueDirective/Policy: Assessment criteria: 1. Demonstrate conformity

Interdependence with the EuP Directive:

Opportunity: The Energy Star will be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products to support the demonstration of conformity.

Environmental evidence: A presentation given on the ‘Importance of Energy Star program in the light of EuP’, by Theo Schoenmakers (Philips and Chair of EICTA EuP working group), concluded that Energy Star could be useful when evaluating the energy aspect of products, even though the EuP Directive should include all eco-design aspects.

No supporting evidence or case studies were provided.

Economic evidence: None identified

Political evidence: None identified

Transferability of learning: Issue mainly applies to office equipment such as computers, monitors, printers, fax machines, copiers, scanners, etc.

Potential to inform policy: Costs savings may be realised by ensuring requirements are consistent for data provision, analysis and reporting.

What priority is the issue:

MEDIUM

How robust is the evidence:

MEDIUM

Stakeholder validation:

See Section 9 of report.

Evidence source(s): Energy Star Conference, 2004

European Energy Star (2422/2001/EC)

The European Energy Star Programme is a voluntary energy labelling programme for office equipment.

Manufacturers, assemblers, exporters, importers and retailers are invited to register with the European Commission allowing them to place the Energy Star label on products that meet or exceed energy-efficiency guidelines. Products using the label include: computers, monitors, printers, fax machines, copiers, scanners and multifunction devices.

Analysis: is the evidence based on known analytical methods or recognised consensus? and

Consultation: does the evidence involve a range of stakeholder views?

We have conducted a robustness test based on the three parameters below and we provide an overall rank of: high; medium; or low.

4. Credibility: who has supplied the evidence? Is it from an established or accredited source in the field, such as a government agency or independent body?

5. Reliability: is the evidence supported by quantitative data? Is the evidence based on known analytical methods or recognised consensus?

6. Objectivity: does the evidence acknowledge any bias or appear to have inconsistencies?

Figure 1.7 shows the ranking system that was used to assess the evidence. A score of ‘high’ is given if ‘yes’ is answered to the three criteria; a score of ‘medium’ is given if ‘yes’ is answered to two of the criteria; and ‘low’ if ‘yes’ is answered once. As a general guide, the classification is:

a credible source would be a government agency or an established independent body;

a reliable source would be one that provides evidence of use of referenced numerical data or provides evidence of the use of recognised analytical methods; and

an objective source would be one that, if it does not acknowledge any bias and in the opinion of the reviewer, appears to be consistent within the report itself and the context of the subject. Therefore, providing a balanced view.

Figure 1.7 Robustness Test

E11

Information source: Credible? Reliable? Objective? Score

Report A yes yes no Medium

Report B no no yes Low

Report C yes yes yes High

etc.

1.3 Prioritisation of Identified Issues

This Section presents the test developed by ERM to assess qualitatively the relative priority of each issue identified by the study. The test assesses the issue based on the initial aims of the research. It compares each issue based on several key parameters derived from the RIA guidance provided on the Cabinet Office’s website(1). It provides an indicative rank of high, medium or low.

The primary aim of the research was to support UK policy makers in two areas:

3. to provide useful information in creating future regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) related to product policy; and

4. to identify issues relevant for the UK when negotiating EuP implementing measures.

A full range of potential impacts should be considered when performing an RIA, relating to economic, environmental and social aspects. The impact on different sectors and groups must also be considered.

A checklist of areas to assess for each aspect (i.e. economic, environmental and social) includes:

2. costs and benefits;i. sectors and groups affected, e.g. individuals, charities,

or public or private sector organisations;ii. benefits; andiii. costs, e.g. split between policy and administrative

costs.2. Small Firms Impact Test;3. competition assessment; and4. enforcement, sanctions and monitoring.

For this study, we believe that the environmental and economic aspects cover the range of important aspects relevant for this project. We have excluded social aspects because this focuses on topics such as demand for health services; safety at work; and rate of crime or crime prevention, etc which we do not consider to be applicable to the scope of the research.

Based on guidance provided by the Cabinet Office’s website on conducting an RIA, we have assessed the priority of each issue on the following four parameters:

3. Environment: will the issue significantly effect:

1(?) http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/index.aspWebsite accessed 10-04-2006.

E12

ii. the level of environmental impact?

4. Economy: will the issue significantly effect:v. certain sectors and groups?vi. levels of competition within the sector? and vii. enforcement, sanctions and monitoring?

Figure 1.8 shows the type of scoring system that has been used to assess the issue. A score of ‘high’ was given if ‘yes’ is answered to the three or more criteria; a score of ‘medium’ was given if ‘yes’ is answered to one or two of the criteria; and ‘low’ if ‘yes’ was answered to none of the criteria.

As a general guide, the classification used was as follows:

Environment

Level of environmental impact: is there evidence of significant environmental benefits? Is there evidence of increased levels of green house gas emissions?

Economy

Effect on certain sectors and groups: is there a disproportionate affect on certain sectors and groups (e.g. SMEs)? Are individuals, charities, or public or private sector organisations significantly affected? Are there significant policy and administrative costs? Are there significant benefits?

Levels of competition within the sector: would the costs substantially affect some firms more than others? Would the issue affect the market structure? Would the issue effect choice of price, quality, range or location of a firm’s products?

Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring: would the issue affect enforcement? would the issue affect who is the enforcer? Would the issue affect the level of sanctions? Would the issue affect how monitoring is conducted?

Figure 1.8 Priority Test

E13

Issue Significant effect on environmental impact?

Significant effect on certain sectors and groups?

Significant effect on levels of competition?

Significant effect on enforcement, sanctions and monitoring?

Score

Issue A yes no no no Medium

Issue B yes yes yes no High

Issue C no no no no Low

etc.

As a default, where no evidence was available to support the criterion, we have assumed that there is no effect and answered ‘no’ to the criterion. This is not a precautionary approach and may lead to the issue being ranked at a lower priority if new evidence in the future is found.

1.4 Results

This Section presents the results of the two tests. The robustness test has only been applied to the evidence that identifies or supports an issue.

The Priority test has been applied to all issues identified by the study.

E14

Annex F

Stakeholder Selection and Questionnaire

1 STAKEHOLDER SELECTION AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Annex F contains the list of stakeholders selected for the project and the questionnaire used to validate the research results and elicit new information.

Non-governmental Organisation

European Environment Bureau (EEB) World Wildlife Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund/WWF

Government

DG Energy and Transport (TREN) DG Enterprise and Industry DG Environment The Department of Trade and Industry (Dti) Market Transformation Programme (MTP)

Trade Association

EICTA Orgalime CECED

Industry

Electrolux Philips Hewlett Packard British Retail Consortium Sony Siemens GE Sky TV Sun Microsystems (UK)

Consultants

Van Holsteijn en Kemna BV IVF Industrial Research and Development Corp IZM Bio Intelligence VITO Armines AEA Technology

F1

Product Policy and Environmental Tradeoffs (SCP5.3)

A. Introduction to Project

As an important stakeholder for this project, we have selected you to help participate in this research. We would appreciate your time and involvement in the project through completion of the following short questionnaire which should take around 30 minutes to complete.

This research project has been commissioned by Defra in the UK to assess how action brought about by the EuP Directive affects, or is perceived to affect, other related policies, including:

Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (‘WEEE’; 2002/96/EC);

Directive on the Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (‘RoHS’; 2002/95/EC);

Directives and legislation related to Eco-labelling (‘Eco-labelling’); and

Other relevant Directives/regulations, such as Batteries Directive, Energy Star, Packaging Directive, Performance of Building Directive, etc.

These effects could be positive or negative and be measured in quantitative or qualitative terms. Our research has already identified some potential opportunities and risks that may be brought about by the EuP Directive.

A project summary of the research can be found on the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/scp/pdf/scp010.pdf

B. Completing the Questionnaire

The questionnaire presents some of our initial findings and asks you to comment on these and to provide any evidence to support your answer, such as environmental or economic data. We also ask you to identify any new or similar issues faced by your organisation.

Initially, we ask some general questions relating to the EuP Directive (Section C) and then we ask some more specific questions relating to several aspects of the EuP Directive (Sections D to J).

Please could you complete and return the questionnaire (preferably by email or fax) by Monday 10th April 2006 to:

F2

Peter Garrett T: +44 1865 384 928Environmental Resources Management F: +44 1865 384 848Eaton House peter.garrett@erm.comWalbrook CourtNorth Hinksey LaneOxford OX2 0QSUK

C. EuP Directive

1. Is your organisation currently active on, or thinking about, the EuP Directive?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if so, what activities have you undertaken or anticipate starting?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Do you see any environmental, economic or other opportunities offered by the EuP Directive for your organisation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if so, please describe and provide any evidence to support your answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Do you see any specific environmental, economic or other risks that may arise from the EuP Directive for your organisation?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if so, please describe and provide any evidence to support your answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. WEEE Directive

Introduction to the WEEE Directive: the purpose of the WEEE Directive is to reduce the disposal of waste through prevention, reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. The Directive also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment.

WEEE covers all electrical and electronic equipment that are used by consumers and that are intended for professional use. In the Directive, specific mandatory recovery targets are defined for producers to meet.

Potential Issues (risks/opportunities)

In WEEE, reuse and material recovery are considered the best environmental options. In EuP, greenhouse gas mitigation through increased energy efficiency should be considered ‘a priority environmental goal’. By focusing on different environmental aspects of the product’s life cycle, there is a potential for conflicts between the WEEE and the EuP.

Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WEEE Directive defines ten different categories of electrical and electronic equipment. Different requirements are put on the categories, e.g. the recovery targets vary between the categories. For the EuP, potentially all energy-products are covered by the Directive. If the definitions used for specifying categories/product groups in the WEEE and EuP Directives do not match, this is

F4

potentially an area of concern, since conflicting requirements could be put on the products.

Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Can you identify any new or similar issues to these for your organisation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. if so, please describe and provide any evidence (environmental, economic, political) to support your answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. RoHS Directive

Introduction to the RoHS Directive: the purpose of the RoHS Directive is to make Member States ensure that all new electrical and electronic products put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated bi-phenyls or polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

Potential Issues (risks/opportunities)

The RoHS Directive regulates the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical end electronic products. Obviously, EuPs consist of many other substances which are also controlled, but not subject to RoHS. The EuP Directive encourages the manufacturers to investigate the possibilities of avoiding the usage of environmentally damaging substances in all phases of the products life cycle. Furthermore, according to the EuP Directive, manufacturers need to provide an ecological profile describing the

F5

input/outputs throughout the life cycle. This activity will assist in the implementation of the RoHS Directive.

Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When banning certain substances following the RoHS Directive, these substances would need to be substituted. Here there is a potential conflict with the EuP directive. For example, the banning of lead solder will result in a new solder composition which most likely will be tin-silver-copper (SnAgCu). SnAgCu has a higher melting temperature and thus the soldering process will consume more energy. Minimising the energy consumption in the life cycle of electronics is a key target of the EuP directive.

Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Can you identify any new or similar issues to these for your organisation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if so, please describe and provide any evidence (environmental, economic, political) to support your answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F6

F. Eco-labelling

Introduction to Eco-labelling: there are two main categories of eco-labelling:

1. The European Eco-Label (Regulation No 1980/2000) and similar schemes. These are voluntary schemes designed to encourage businesses to market products and services that are kinder to the environment.

2. The ISO standard on environmental labelling. There are three levels of label, Type I, Type II and Type III. Type I labelling identifies products as being less harmful to the environment compared to other, similar products fulfilling the same function. Type II labelling allow statements about the environmental performance and are self declared environmental claims e.g. CFC free. Type III labelling is based on quantified environmental data for a product with pre-set categories of parameters based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) according to the ISO 14040 series of standards.

Potential Issues (risks/opportunities)

There is a synergy here. Products which have been awarded an Eco-label may be considered as compliant with the implementing measures of EuP in so far as the Eco-label meets the requirements of the implementing measure.

Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Can you identify any other schemes that should be considered in the same light?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if so, please describe and provide any evidence (environmental, economic, political) to support your answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. ‘Implementing Measures’ versus ‘Voluntary Agreements ‘

The EuP Directive defines a process for introducing ‘implementing measures’, which would set mandatory standards for eco-design of products that must be fulfilled in order for EuPs to be placed on the European market and/or put into service. Alternatively, the EuP Directive allows ‘voluntary agreements’ to be established which will rely on market forces to drive change.

7. Would your organisation prefer to see mandatory ‘implementing measures’ or ‘voluntary agreements’ introduced?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------please state your organisations reasons for the above choice, including any environmental, financial or business evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. EMAS Scheme

Our research has identified that a certified environmental management scheme, such as the EMAS Scheme, which also covers product eco-design may help enterprises to demonstrate compliance of their products with the implementing measures of the EuP Directive.

8. Do you agree with the above statement? (yes/no) If no, why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------please state why you agree or disagree and provide any evidence (environmental, economic, political) to support your answer.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F8

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if you agree, is your organisation considering adopting this approach to demonstrate compliance through an EMAS Scheme? (yes/no) If no, why?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Other Policy

As a result of the EuP Directive, can you identify any risks or opportunities that may exist for your organisation in relation to other Directives or regulations?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If so, please describe and provide any evidence (environmental, economic, political) to support your answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please attach any additional data or documents to support your answers to any of the questions as necessary

F9

Nobel House17 Smith SquareLondon SW1P 3JR

www.defra.gov.uk