The PEF final phase Product Environmental Footprint

Transcription

1 The PEF final phase Product Environmental Footprint EPD Stakeholder Meeting Elin Eriksson IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute & EPD International What is IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Established by the business and the state in 1966 Research and consultancy funded by private and public organisations Works within all main industrial sectors 270 employees, turnover 290 MSEK during 2016 Offices in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Beijing, and has continously projects and personell in New Delhi, Indien Certified laboratories and several pilot plants Daughter companies: EPD International, BASTA Online and IVL China Scope Status of the Environmental Footprint pilots and process Key learnings so far of the EF process Reflections; how are EPD and PEF related? How can they benefit from each other? Next step Council Conclusions 20 December 2010 The Council invites the Commission to develop a common methodology on the quantitative assessment of environmental impacts of products, throughout their life-cycle, in order to support the assessment and labelling of products 2013: EU Commission Communication on Single Market for Green Products 1

2 Involvement in the PEF/OEF Pilot Project Product Environmental Footprint and Organisational Environmental Footprint Pilots 1 st wave of pilots 2 nd wave of pilots Batteries and accumulators Leather Decorative paints Thermal insulation Hot & cold water pipe systems Beer Liquid household detergents Coffee IT equipment Fish Metal sheets Dairy products Non-leather shoes Feed Photovoltaic electricity generation Meat Stationary Intermediate paper products Pet food T-shirts Olive oil Uninterrupted power supplies Pasta Retailer sector Wine Copper sector Packed water PEF The same framework as LCA, but more specific requirements - to enable comparison and to have one single common methodology Outlook ILCD: International Reference Life Cycle Data System PEFCR: Product Environmental Footprint Category Rule OEFSR: Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rule ISO Standards ( , 14025) ILCD Handbook Environmental Footprint Guide PEFCR/ OEFSR (Tools, database) Increasing reproducibility consistency comparability practicality EC Evaluation Peer review Policy discussion Transition phase ( ) Monitoring the voluntary implementation of the developed PEFCRs/OEFSRs Development of a (limited) number of new PEFCRs/OEFSRs Methodological improvements 2

3 PEF can be used for: Issues still discussed Sustainable procurement, GPP Ecodesign requirements Ecolabelling requirement and control of fulfilment EPD Certified environmental declarations PEF EPD Improvement in the value chain Circular economy: requirements, quantification, communication of environmental performance/claim Product segment for comparison Process/methods for weighting Harmonization globally System boundaries for the use phase Methods for impact assessment e.g. Usetox Multi-output allocation (e.g. Cow model) Data for agriculture End of life formula allocation at recycling Methods for communication of PEF of a product and benchmark Letters alone seem less appriciated, diagram is better (also if combined with letter) Impact category too much information with other impact categories than e.g. climate change and water Easier for B to B to understand - difficult for consumers Still academic and subjective Olive oil pilot: Selected Environmental impact categories Selected default EF Impact Categories to be revisited after remodelling Climate Change Ozone Depletion Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics Acidification Photochemical Ozone Formation Eutrophication terrestrial Eutrophication aquatic Resource Depletion water Resource Depletion mineral, fossil Land Use Ozone depletion potential 12 3

4 Remodelling with secondary data, benchmarks Calculation of the benchmark of a product with e.g. three technologies Received most models eilcd under development Finalization Received In progress Delayed As Excel 13 Scope of verification Verification shall be mandatory whenever there is an external communication activity (i.e. communication to any interested party other than the commissioner or the practitioner of the study) Which documents shall be verified? 1. the data collected and the underlying model(s) (the EF study) 2. the EF report 3. the content of the communication vehicles, if any. Transition period Governance - Transition phase: 1 jan 2018 to 2020 SCP IPP group will only be consultative, no voting SCP IPP merged with Resource efficiency group, Circular Economy EF clusters are only participating in meetings when relevant topics (EF PEFCR etc) are on the agenda. TAB is opened up to LCA experts physical participation limited - 50% old members, 50% for new members 2 meetings per year in the SCP IPP group; additional around 3 meetings per year dealing with PEF. Separate agenda 4

5 Governance during the transition phase Steering Committee: IPP/SCP Expert Group Industry representatives organised by clusters: Food & drinks OLD PROPOSAL Intermediate products Food Drinks NEW PROPOSAL Apparel & footwear Construction products Retailers Chemistry-based products Electrical & electronics (empty) Apparel & footwear Construction products Materials & intermediate Chemistry-based final products Electrical & electronics (empty) Where are we going? If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable. The lack of clarity on the final use/application of PEF/OEF created difficulties to Pilots. Main conclusions from the review Value of using Life Cycle Thinking and highlighting hotspots Lack of trust of LCA by NGO Technocratic approach: in decision and implementation PEF/OEF is very difficult for non-experts High engagement from industry, but SMEs lagging behind. Civil society far less engaged: missing technical and economical resources Time spent for verification seems low compared with market experience on EPD 5

6 Harmonised modelling rules Main conclusions from the review Several see EF as a great opportunity for the creation of unique EPD system in EU Discussion is necessary on the need for a benchmark for each product category EF may be used to better define criteria for type 1 label (e.g. Ecolabel, Nordic Swan) Need for a concerted international action? Suggestion to bring the effort into international processes (e.g. 10 YFP) or ISO Learning from mistakes? (e.g. reasons that brought specific pilots to quit) Learning from good practice? (e.g.the experience with the construction sector) How to define representative product/organisation Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods Materiality principle (Hotspot procedure) Cut-off Climate change modelling Agricultural modelling Electricity modelling Transport modelling Infrastructure and equipment modelling Packaging modelling Use stage modelling End-of-Life modelling Data Need Matrix Functional Unit Scope (granularity) Allocation Biodiversity Data Quality Requirements Toxicity Weighting Slaughterhouse modelling Classes of performance Benchmark ~8000 EF-compliant secondary dataset Normalisation Key learnings Impressing project and activity large involvement from industry LCA methodology for declarations, product comparisons and assessments have been tested, discussed and decided Communication of LCA results have been tested and evaluated Wide sector participation Will lead to many new initiatives, side effects, ripples Influences also globally (however so far in smaller scale) Main effect will be Greening of products - when policy instruments use EF as a base, and companies compete to reduce EF Transparent process is a success factor EPD can learn from the communication part and using a benchmark EPD and PEF can benefit from each other, EPD can adopt PEF methodology and get higher acceptance and wider spread through PEF How can EPD be applied when PEF-compliance is needed? (e.g if PEF compliance will be required for GPP) PEF Insulation EPD Insulation PEFCR Insulation PCR Insulation material Example: The PEF EPD for insulation is calculated based on PEFCR allocation rules and fulfilling DQR, cut off rules etc The communication formats, performance classes and comparison to benchmark are added to the EPD format PEFCR Inner wall PCR Inner wall PEF Guide PEFCR wall framing PCR wall framing Add DQR, Adapt allocation, Add impact categories.. Global Programme Instructions for EPD 6

7 Thank you Elin Eriksson 7