REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312(SYN))

31 March 1998

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
Rapporteur: Danilo Poggiolini

By letter of 8 April 1997 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article 189c and Article 130s(1) of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a revised Community ecolabel award scheme.
A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
OPINION
OPINION
OPINION

By letter of 8 April 1997 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article 189c and Article 130s(1) of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a revised Community ecolabel award scheme.

At the sitting of 9 April 1997 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection as the committee responsible and to the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy for their opinions.

At the meeting of 16 April 1997 the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection appointed Mr Poggiolini rapporteur.

By letter of 9 December 1997 the committee consulted the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights on the proposed legal basis pursuant to Rule 53(2).

It considered the Commission proposal and the draft report at its meeting of 18 March 1998.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 23 votes to 4, with 1 abstention.

The following took part in the vote: Poggiolini, vice-chairman and rapporteur; Dybkjær and Lannoye, vice-chairmen; Blokland, Bowe, Breyer, Diez de Rivera Icaza, Eisma, Flemming, González Álvarez, Hautala (for McKenna), Hulthén, Kokkola, Kronberger, Kuhn, Lienemann, Marinucci, Needle, Papayannakis, Pollack, van Putten, Roth-Behrendt, Schleicher, Tamino, Trakatellis, RiisJørgensen (for Olsson), Sjöstedt (for Bertinotti) and White.

The opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy and opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights on the legal basis are attached.

The report was tabled on 31 March 1998.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.

A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL - DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

Proposal for a Council regulation on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312(SYN))

The proposal is approved with the following amendments:

Commission text⁽¹⁾

Parliament's amendments

(Amendment 1)

Preamble

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 130s(1) thereof,having regard to the proposal from the Commission,having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of the Treaty in cooperation with the European Parliament,

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 100a and Article 130s(1) thereof,having regard to the proposal from the Commission,having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty.

(Amendment 2)

Recital 4a (new)

Whereas for the acceptance by the general public of the European eco-label award system it is essential that environmental NGOs and consumer organisations have an important role in the decision-making process for the award of Community eco-labels;

⁽¹⁾ OJ C 114, 12.4.1997, p. 9

(Amendment 3)

Recital 6

whereas the scope of the scheme should include products and environmental factors which are of supreme Community interest from the point of view both of the internal market and of the environment;

whereas the scope of the scheme should include products, the provision of services and environmental factors which are of supreme Community interest from the point of view both of the internal market and of the environment;

(Amendment 4)

Recital 9a (new)

Whereas in the various stages of the award of an eco-label efforts must be made to ensure a high level of environmental protection;

(Amendment 5)

Recital 10

Whereas it is necessary to introduce a grading in the eco-label in order to stimulate and recognize further environmental improvements, over and above the hurdles set for the award of the label;

Whereas it is necessary to provide more information on the label about the reasons for the award in order to assist consumers in understanding the significance of the award;

(Amendment 6)

Recital 11

whereas it is necessary to assign the task of setting eco-label criteria and assessment and verification requirements to an appropriate independent body, in order to achieve an efficient and neutral implementation of the scheme;

whereas it is necessary to assign the task of setting eco-label criteria and assessment and verification requirements to an appropriate technical committee, in order to achieve an efficient and neutral implementation of the scheme;

(Amendment 7)

Recital 12

whereas such a body should be composed of the competent bodies already designated by the Member States under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, in order to make full use of the expertise, structures and resources of those bodies and to prevent duplications and waste of resources;

whereas such a committee should be composed of the competent bodies already designated by the Member States under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, in order to make full use of the expertise, structures and resources of those bodies and to prevent duplications and waste of resources;

(Amendment 8)

Recital 12a (new)

whereas the composition of such a committee should be such that it is ensured that representatives of environmental NGOs and consumer organisations are appointed on an equal basis with representatives of industry;

(Amendment 9)

Recital 13

whereas the establishment of such a body in the form of an Association of the competent bodies will take some time, and the full application of this Regulation should be subject to such a body being operational;

deleted

(Amendment 10)

Article 1(2)

2. The environment impacts are identified on the basis of examination of the interactions with the environment, including use of energy and natural resources, during the entire life cycle of a product.

2. The environment impacts are identified on the basis of examination of the interactions with the environment, including use of energy and natural resources, and with due regard for a high level of environmental protection, during the entire life cycle of a product.

(Amendment 11)

Article 1(4a) (new)

In order to improve the use of eco-labelled products, the Commission and other European Institutions, as well as other public authorities both at Community and national levels, should actively act as examples concerning the purchase choices they make.

(Amendment 12)

Article 3(3)

3. The criteria and their selectivity level shall be determined in accordance with the eco-label rating set out in Annex III.

deleted

(Amendment 13)

Article 3a (new)

The degree of technical reliability relating to the quality of the product.

(Amendment 14)

Article 4(1)

1. The Community eco-label may be awarded to products manufactured in the Community, or imported into it which comply with the essential environmental requirements provided for in Article 2 and the eco-label criteria. The eco-label criteria shall be set out by product group.	1. The Community eco-label may be awarded to products manufactured in the Community, or imported into it which comply with the essential environmental requirements provided for in Article 2 and the eco-label criteria. The eco-label criteria shall be set out by product group.
	The eco-label may also be awarded for the provision of services.

(Amendment 15)

Article 4(5)

5. This Regulation shall not apply to food, drink or pharmaceuticals.

5. This Regulation shall not apply to food, drink, pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

(Amendment 16)

Article 5

1. The Commission shall encourage the creation of an Association of the competent Bodies referred to in Article 9, having legal personality, under the title of European Eco-label Organization, hereinafter referred to as 'the EEO'.	1. The Commission shall encourage the creation of an Association of the competent Bodies referred to in Article 9, under the title of Technical Committee for the Ecolabel, hereinafter referred to as 'the TCEL'.
2. The Commission, acting according to the procedure provided for in Article 13, shall give mandates to the EEO to establish and to review periodically, at intervals of no longer than three years, the eco-label criteria as well as the assessment and compliance verification requirements related to those criteria, for the product groups within the scope of this Regulation.	2. The Commission, acting according to the procedure provided for in Article 13, shall give mandates to the TCEL to establish and to review periodically, at intervals of no longer than three years, the eco-label criteria as well as the assessment and compliance verification requirements related to those criteria, for the product groups within the scope of this Regulation.
The Commission shall act on its own initiative or at the request of the EEO. Interested parties may submit to the Commission or the EEO suggestions concerning the product groups to be considered.	The Commission shall act on its own initiative or at the request of the TCEL. Interested parties may submit to the Commission or the TCEL suggestions concerning the product groups to be considered.
Before selecting a product group and giving the corresponding mandate to the EEO, the Commission shall undertake to open consultations of all the interested parties in accordance with the principles of Annex IV, paragraphs a and b.	Before selecting a product group and giving the corresponding mandate to the TCEL, the Commission shall undertake to open consultations of all the interested parties in accordance with the principles of Annex IV, paragraphs a and b.
Such a mandate will specify the procedure for the establishment of ecolabel criteria in accordance with the principles of Annex IV.The procedure shall in particular ensure transparency and access to consultation for all interested parties as provided for in Annex IV.	Such a mandate will specify the procedure for the establishment of ecolabel criteria in accordance with the principles of Annex IV.The procedure shall in particular ensure transparency and access to consultation for all interested parties organized in the Consultation Forum (procedure in Article 6 of Regulation 880/92).
3. The Commission will publish the references to those criteria and requirements and their updatings in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series, when it is satisfied that the terms of the relevant mandate have been complied with.	3. The Commission will publish the references to those criteria and requirements and their updatings in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L Series, when it is satisfied that the terms of the relevant mandate have been complied with.

(Amendment 17)

Article 5(3a) (new)

	The TCEL shall provide a written statement of reasons if its final decision differs from the opinion of the Consultation Forum.
	Adequate financial contributions shall be provided to enable a sufficient number of members of the major consumers' and environmental organizations to take part in the Consultation Forum.

(Amendment 18)

Article 6(2)

2. The application may refer to a product put on the market under one or more brand names. No new application will be required for modifications in the characteristics of products which do not affect compliance with the criteria.

(Amendment 19)

Article 6(4)

4. The eco-label may be awarded to products which comply with the eco-label criteria established by the EEO, the references to which have been published under Article 5(3). The decision to award the label shall be taken by the competent body receiving the application, after verifying that the application is in conformity with the assessment and compliance verification requirements established by the EEO. To this end, the competent bodies shall recognize tests and verifications performed by bodies which are accredited under the standards of EN 45000 series or equivalent international standards.

4. The eco-label may be awarded to products which comply with the eco-label criteria established by the TCEL, the references to which have been published under Article 5(3). The decision to award the label shall be taken by the competent body receiving the application, after verifying that the application is in conformity with the assessment and compliance verification requirements established by the TECL. To this end, the competent bodies shall recognize tests and verifications performed by bodies which are accredited under the standards of EN 45000 series or equivalent international standards.

(Amendment 20 )

Article 7

The eco-label shall consist of the logo and information set out in Annex III. Specifications concerning the information to be included and its presentation shall be part of the criteria established by the EEO. The Commission shall consult national consumer associations represented in the Consumer Committee established by Commission Decision 95/260/EC⁽¹⁾, within five years of the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of this Regulation, in order to assess how effectively the graded eco-label meets the information needs of consumers. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission shall introduce any appropriate modifications as to the information to be included in the eco-label, according to the procedure set out in Article 13.

The eco-label shall consist of the logo and information set out in Annex III. Specifications concerning the information to be included and its presentation shall be part of the criteria established by the TECL. It shall be ensured in each case that the information is clear, simple and legible. The Commission shall consult national consumer associations represented in the Consumer Committee established by Commission Decision 95/260/EC⁽¹⁾, within five years of the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of this Regulation, in order to assess how effectively the eco-label and the additional information meet the information needs of consumers. On the basis of this assessment, and after the consultation of the European Parliament, the Commission shall introduce any appropriate modifications as to the information to be included in the eco-label, according to the procedure set out in Article 13.

⁽¹⁾ OJ L 162, 13.7.1995, p. 37

(Amendment 21)

Article 10

Member States and the EEO shall accompany the development of the scheme by promoting awareness raising actions and information campaigns for consumers, producers, retailers and the general public, specifically aimed at promoting the use of the Community eco-label.

Member States and the TCEL shall accompany the development of the scheme by promoting awareness raising actions and information campaigns for consumers, producers, retailers and the general public, specifically aimed at promoting the use of the Community eco-label.

(Amendment 22)

Article 11(1)

1. Within five years of the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(2), existing and new public and private eco-label schemes in the Member States shall be organized in such a way as to apply to product groups for which no specific Community eco-label criteria are established, ensuring complementarity between such schemes and the Community eco-label.

1. Within five years of the date referred to in Article 16(1), existing and new public and private eco-label schemes in the Member States shall be organized in such a way as to apply to product groups for which no specific Community eco-label criteria are established, ensuring complementarity between such schemes and the Community eco-label.

(Amendment 23)

Article 13

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee of an advisory nature composed of the representativesof the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.	The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee of an advisory nature composed of one representative per Member State and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a timelimit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote.	The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures of general application to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time-limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote.
The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.	The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.
The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.	The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.

(Amendment 24)

Article 15, point 2

The Commission shall propose any appropriate amendments to this Regulation.

Should the Commission propose any appropriate amendments to this Regulation, it must do so in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 189c of the Treaty.

(Amendment 25)

Article 16(2)

Apart from Article 5(1), the provisions of this Regulation shall apply as from the day following that on which the Commission decides that the EEO is in a position to perform its tasks.

deleted

(Amendment 26)

ANNEX III

DESCRIPTION OF THE ECO-LABEL

.Commission text

Shape of the eco-label

The eco-label is awarded to products which comply with at least the minimum level of the criteria, for all the selected key environmental aspects. It includes information for consumers according to the following scheme:

!!! The following table cannot be reproduced in HTML - Please refer to the WP or the PDF version !!!

Contents

The label will include those aspects for which there are quantified eco-label criteria. These aspects will be described in non-technical and unambiguous terms.

The label will also include generic information on qualitative criteria.

(Amendment 26)

ANNEX III

DESCRIPTION OF THE ECO-LABEL

Parliament's amendments

Shape of the eco-label

The label consists of two parts: box 1 and box 2, see illustration below.

!!! The following table cannot be reproduced in HTML - Please refer to the WP or the PDF version !!!

Box 1Box 2

Box 2 contains information about the reasons for the award of the eco-label. This information must relate to at least one and not more than three environmental impacts. The information will be in the form of a brief description in words.

This is an example

*	low air pollution
*	energy efficient
*	reduced toxicity

Box 1 and box 2 shall be used together where this is practical but, where consideration of space is an important factor, box 2 may be omitted on some applications, provided that the full label is used in other applications relating to the same product. For example, box 1 may be used on its own on the product itself if the full label appears elsewhere on the packaging, information leaflets or other point-of-sale material.

(Amendment 27)

ANNEX IV

PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING ECO-LABEL CRITERIA

Point (a)

The involvement of the parties directly or indirectly concerned by the mandate and a balanced participation of all the relevant interest groups, such as industry, including SMEs and hand crafts through their business organizations, trade unions, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups, consumer organizations, shall be actively pursued.

(Amendment 28)

ANNEX IV

PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING ECO-LABEL CRITERIA

Point (c)

A specific ad hoc working group involving the interested parties mentioned above shall be established for the development of ecolabel criteria for each product group.

A specific ad hoc working group involving the interested parties mentioned above and the competent bodies interested shall be established by the TCEL for the development of eco-label criteria for each product group.

(Amendment 29)

ANNEX IV

PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING ECO-LABEL CRITERIA

Point (d), third paragraph

All reasonable efforts shall be made to achieve a consensus throughout the process, while aiming at high levels of environmental protection. However, the EEO shall apply decision-making procedures in conformity with practice of European standardization bodies.

All reasonable efforts shall be made to achieve a consensus throughout the process, while aiming at high levels of environmental protection.

(Amendment 30)

ANNEX IV

PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHING ECO-LABEL CRITERIA

Point (i) Planning

A deadline for completion of work shall be provided in the mandate. An indicative planning of work and its up-datings will be published every six months by EEO.

A deadline for completion of work shall be provided in the mandate. An indicative planning of work and its up-datings will be published every six months by the TCEL.

(Amendment 31)

ANNEX V

Fees

Point 4

4. The annual fee shall be calculated as a percentage of the annual volume of sales within the European Union of the product awarded the eco-label.

4. The annual fee shall be calculated in relation to the annual volume of sales within the European Union of the product awarded the eco-label

(Amendment 32)

ANNEX V

Fees

Point 5

5. The percentage figure of the annual volume of sales shall be 0.15% with a ceiling of ECU 40 000.

5. The annual fees shall be ECU 500 for an annual volume of sales up to ECU 500 000, ECU 2000 for an annual volume of sales up to ECU 2 000 000, and ECU 5000 for an annual volume of sales exceeding ECU 2 000 000.

(Amendment 33)

ANNEX V

Fees

Point 6

6. The minimum figure shall be ECU 500.

deleted

(Amendment 34)

ANNEX V

Fees

Point 7

7. In the case of SMEs and manufacturers of developing countries, the percentage figure of the annual volume of sales shall be 0.10%.

7. In the case of SMEs and manufacturers of developing countries, the annual fees provided for at point 5 shall be reduced by 50%.

(Amendment 35)

Financial Statement

Points 2 and 3

2. Budget lineB4-30403. Legal basisArticle 130sRegulation 880/92 as amended.

2. Budget lineB4-3040 and B5-3003. Legal basisArticle 130s and Article 100aRegulation 880/92 as amended.

(Amendment 36)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 4.1, second paragraph

For this aim it is proposed to revise the eco-label scheme established by Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, in particular by transferring its operation to an independent body within that framework, to establish a European Eco-label Organization.

For this aim it is proposed to revise the eco-label scheme established by Regulation (EEC) No 880/92, in particular by transferring its technical operation to the Technical Committee for the Eco-label.

(Amendment 37)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 7.1, first paragraph

The operation consists in establishing the European Eco-label Organization, as foreseen in the revised eco-label Regulation, and launching its activities.

The operation consists in establishing the Technical Committee for the Eco-label as foreseen in the revised eco-label Regulation, and launching its activities.

(Amendment 38)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 7.1, fifth and sixth paragraphs

No further Community financing is foreseen after the fourth year of operation.	deleted
The EEO is expected to become in the longer term self-financing on the fees resulting from the eco-label awards. Execution of the mandates which will be given by the Commission and the general costs of the EEO should be financed by the 50% of eco-label award annual fees which the EEO is entitled to obtain from the competent bodies.	Execution of the mandates which will be given by the Commission and the general costs of the TCEL should inter alia be financed by the 50% of eco-label award annual fees which the TCEL is entitled to obtain from the competent bodies.

(Amendment 39)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 7.1, eighth paragraph

The calculation is based on the following assumptions. The EEO will move to coordinate the activities of setting eco-label criteria and testing requirements by establishing and managing ad hoc working groups for the various product groups considered and organizing and promoting life cycle studies. Moreover, in the first period the EEO will have to set its methodological and procedural rules.

The calculation is based on the following assumptions. The TCEL will move to coordinate the activities of setting eco-label criteria and testing requirements by establishing and managing ad hoc working groups for the various product groups considered and organizing and promoting life cycle studies. Moreover, in the first period the TCEL will have to set its methodological and procedural rules.

(Amendment 40)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 8

The financing of the EEO considered, shall be subject to all the verification requirements and other contractual conditions applied to Community financial contributions.	The financing of the TCEL considered, shall be subject to all the verification requirements and other contractual conditions applied to Community financial contributions.
In addition, the following specific measures will be applied:	In addition, the following specific measures will be applied:
. all study, service, consultant and purchasing contracts of the EEO exceeding ECU 10 000 will be subject to call for tender;	. all study, service, consultant and purchasing contracts of the TCEL exceeding ECU 10 000 will be subject to call for tender;
- open calls for tender to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, for contracts above ECU 50 000;	- open calls for tender to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, for contracts above ECU 50 000;
- restricted calls for tender based on lists resulting from 'appel à manifestation d'intérêt', in the other cases;	- restricted calls for tender based on lists resulting from 'appel à manifestation d'intérêt', in the other cases;
. reimbursements for attendance to meetings should only be accepted on presentation of appropriate documentation. This documentation will be kept at the disposal of the Commission;	. reimbursements for attendance to meetings should only be accepted on presentation of appropriate documentation. This documentation will be kept at the disposal of the Commission;
. an annual detailed financial report shall be submitted by the EEO to the Commission. The Commission will make systematic checks on the basis of this report at the premises of the EEO. Approval of the report by the Commission will be a condition for payments.	deleted

(Amendment 41)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 9.2, tenth to fourteenth paragraphs

It is therefore proposed to set up a European Eco-label Organization (EEO) which should establish and update the ecolabel criteria and the corresponding assessment and verification requirements as well as coordinate the activities of the competent bodies. The EEO would be a private international association of the ecolabel Competent Bodies. The Commission would promote the establishment of the EEO. The EEO would act on mandate by the Commission.	It is therefore proposed to set up a Technical Committee for the Eco-label (TCEL) which should establish and update the eco-label criteria and the corresponding assessment and verification requirements as well as coordinate the activities of the competent bodies. The TCEL would be a association of the eco-label Competent Bodies. The Commission would promote the establishment of the TCEL. The TCEL would act on mandate by the Commission. The Commission would provide the chair of the committee.
The EEO would act as a coordinating network between the competent bodies and would not require the creation of costly new complex structures.	The TCEL would act as a coordinating network between the competent bodies and would not require the creation of costly new complex structures.
The approach proposed is therefore parallel to the 'new approach' for the European technical standardization and the role of the EEO would be similar to that of the European Standardization Committee (CEN).	deleted
The specific technical tasks attributed to the EEO will regard mainly the management and coordination of the studies in order to develop or to renew the ecological criteria for the different product groups. The studies will be carried on following a mandate from the Commission and with the assistance of technical consultants.	The specific technical tasks attributed to the TCEL will regard mainly the management and coordination of the studies in order to develop or to renew the ecological criteria for the different product groups. The studies will be carried on following a mandate from the Commission and with the assistance of technical consultants.
A specific ad hoc working group will be established for the development of ecolabel criteria for each product group. The EEO will actively involve at different stages of the studies the different stakeholders (parties directly or indirectly concerned by the mandate) ensuring a balanced participation of all the relevant interest groups, such as industry, including SMEs and hand crafts through their business organizations, trade unions, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups and consumers.	A specific ad hoc working group will be established for the development of ecolabel criteria for each product group. The TCEL will actively involve at different stages of the studies the different organized stakeholders (parties directly or indirectly concerned by the mandate) ensuring a balanced participation of all the relevant interest groups in the Consultation Forum, such as industry, including SMEs and hand crafts through their business organizations, trade unions, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups and consumers.

(Amendment 42)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 9.2, eighteenth paragraph

The operative costs of running the system should take into account the fact that the EEO should meet at least four times per year in plenary sessions. The organization should be assisted by a permanent secretariat constituted at least by a director, an assistant, a communication officer and a secretary.

The operative costs of running the system should take into account the fact that the TCEL should meet at least four times per year in plenary sessions. The organization should be assisted by a permanent secretariat provided by the Commission.

(Amendment 43)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 9.3, first and second paragraph

Given the nature of the operation, monitoring will take the form of a supervision by the Commission on the functioning of the EEO and its ability to perform the tasks defined in the Regulation. The Commission will examine and evaluate, together with the EEO, the success of the operation within three years of the entry into force of the Regulation.

Given the nature of the operation, monitoring will take the form of a supervision by the Commission on the functioning of the TCEL and its ability to perform the tasks defined in the Regulation. The Commission will examine and evaluate, together with the TCEL, the success of the operation within three years of the entry into force of the Regulation.

In particular the monitoring of the operation will have important quantitative aspects. In fact, the success of the new system will be judged on the basis of the growing number of product groups established by the EEO. Another element to assess the efficiency of the system will be the visibility of the eco-label products available to the public on the market. The growing involvement of retailers and distributors within the system will be another indicator of the overall success.

In particular the monitoring of the operation will have important quantitative aspects. In fact, the success of the new system will be judged on the basis of the growing number of product groups established by the TCEL. Another element to assess the efficiency of the system will be the visibility of the ecolabel products available to the public on the market. The growing involvement of retailers and distributors within the system will be another indicator of the overall success.

(Amendment 44)

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Point 10.1, second paragraph

Therefore, after a transitional period, part of the staff presently working on the operation of the eco-label system could be redeployed towards activities related to the promotion and extension of the scheme, as well as monitoring the activities of the new organization, the EEO. Two A officials and one C official will be required in order to follow the revised EU eco-label Regulation.

Therefore, after a transitional period, part of the staff presently working on the operation of the eco-label system could be redeployed towards activities related to the promotion and extension of the scheme, as well as monitoring the activities of the committee, the TCEL. Two A officials and one C official will be required in order to follow the revised EU eco-label Regulation.

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council regulation on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312(SYN))[1]

(Cooperation procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council COM(96)0603 - 96/0312(SYN)[2],

- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 189c and Article 130s(1) of the EC Treaty (C4-0157/97),

- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy and of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights (A4-0119/98),

1. Approves the Commission proposal, subject to Parliament's amendments;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Calls for the conciliation procedure to be opened should the Council intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Commission proposal;

5. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.

[1] () OJ C 114, 12.4.1997, p. 9.
[2]

B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Introduction: the Community eco-label and implementation of Regulation 880/92

The proposal for a regulation revising the Community scheme to award a quality label for products with a reduced environmental impact, generally known as the 'eco-label award scheme', COM(96) 603, was presented by the Commission on 11 December 1996. It sets out to amend Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 in the light of the experience gained over the past five years, in accordance with Article 18 of the Regulation.

The Community eco-label award scheme was greeted with great satisfaction and high expectations by Parliament, especially by our own committee (Roth-Behrendt report, A3-0299/91), as it equipped the European Union with an important environmental policy instrument designed to help prevent and reduce pollution by encouraging the efficient use of raw materials through the promotion of ecologically compatible products on the market, with the exception of foods, drinks and pharmaceuticals.

The European eco-label, whose logo is a flower consisting of a corolla of petals in the form of the twelve EU stars surrounding an E for Europe, thus provided a possible vehicle, as part of a broader strategy, for applying the principles enshrined in the Fifth Community Environmental Action Plan for the promotion of sustainable consumption. It was intended, at least in its original conception, to respond, on the one hand, to the growing environmental awareness of consumers when purchasing goods and, on the other hand, to the need to create incentives for manufacturers on the basis of competition, by enabling them to distinguish their more environmentally friendly products on the market with a special eco-label; this would in turn contribute to the promotion of research and development, particularly into clean technologies.

Thus, the European eco-label has two objectives. The first is to promote the design, manufacture, marketing and use of 'green' products by giving consumers reliable information on their environmental impact in the form of an easily recognizable label which certifies compliance with specific, rigorous criteria during the product's entire life cycle ('from the cradle to the grave') i.e. from the manufacturing process, through distribution and consumption/use to the recycling and disposal of waste. The second objective is to create the conditions which will make it possible to establish a single label in the Community, despite the proliferation of eco-labelling schemes now or in future.

However, although a regulation was adopted to implement the scheme, i.e. a legal act which is directly applicable in all the Member States with no need for further acts to transpose the legislation in the Member States, it immediately became clear to your rapporteur that the system has unfortunately not matched the expectations it created. Numerous problems have arisen in implementing the regulation which have in practice prevented the 'European Flower' from taking off as had been hoped.

Above all, it is clear that there have been serious delays in implementing the Community system, especially at national level. Indeed, five years after the present regulation entered into force, a mere handful of Member States have only recently set up the competent bodies responsible for awarding the eco-label at national level whilst, at present, Belgium still has only one contact person. In addition, a major problem of a conflict of competence has arisen because the authorities responsible for the national systems will be setting up the bodies responsible for issuing the Community ecolabel.

It is true, however, that after an initial adjustment period and particularly in the past two to three years, substantial progress has been made, resulting in the publication of criteria for awarding the eco-label to twelve groups of products (washing machines, dishwashers, soil improvers, toilet paper, kitchen paper rolls, laundry detergents, single and double-ended light bulbs, bed-linen and T-shirts, copying paper and refrigerators) and the award, by the end of September 1997, of 40 licences to 22 manufacturers for a total of 182 products.

However, the limited or non-existent visibility of the European eco-label is a fact and the EU public is not familiar with the Community eco-label with the possible exception of the United Kingdom, the only Member State which has 'invested' in the European eco-label with proper advertising campaigns as it lacks its own eco-label.

In the light of the Amsterdam Treaty, in which the achievement of balanced and sustainable development is added to the EU's objectives, your rapporteur is ready to lend his full support to the Commission's overall efforts, reflected in its proposal for a revised regulation, to preserve and improve upon the Community eco-label but finds it necessary to propose structural alterations, which in some cases differ from those proposed by the Commission, in order to ensure that the system is ultimately efficient, effective and transparent.

2. The other eco-labelling systems in the EU

The growing environmental awareness of consumers is in no doubt. They are conscious that merely by choosing one product over another they can make some contribution to protecting the environment in which they live.

This is demonstrated by the proliferation of eco-labels all over the world (more than 50 have been counted). Unfortunately, they are all too often confused with totally unfounded 'eco' claims made in the advertisements for a growing range of products which exploit the 'green' concerns of consumers. The potential influence of eco-labels on the market, with their capacity to attract consumers to certain products, has already been amply demonstrated.

Following the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria, the eco-label has existed alongside eight other major schemes which are very well known to and valued by consumers in the respective countries. The first eco-label to be launched at both European and international level was the German "Blue Angel" label created in 1977 which now covers some 80 groups of products and is used by a total of over 1 000 companies for 4 350 products. It was followed by the Scandinavian "Nordic Swan" in 1989 covering Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland and a total of 40 groups of products, with 287 licences awarded and more than 1 000 products labelled. This was followed by the Austrian eco-label, created in 1991, the French and the Dutch eco-labels created in 1992 and two Spanish eco-labels in 1993.

Recently however, Member States such as Italy and Greece have followed the example of the others and have decided in their turn to establish a national eco-label, demonstrating the capacity of these eco-labels to influence the market. This proliferation of uncoordinated national systems, along with the incredible expansion of false or misleading environmental advertising, has created confusion amongst consumers, undermining the very credibility of the European eco-label and creating further complications for its development.

3. Substance of the proposal

The key proposal for the revised system is certainly the establishment of a European Eco-label Organization (EEO). This would be a private international association with legal personality, which would act on a mandate from the Commission to set and update the eco-label criteria and carry out the necessary assessments and verifications for each group of products. The Commission would give a mandate to the new association, formed from the competent national bodies responsible for the eco-label, to perform the complex and delicate task of setting the criteria, using an approach based on the 'new approach' for governing relations with the European Standardization Committee (CEN). Thus, the Commission's aim in its proposal is to eliminate the difficulties in applying Regulation 880/92 which have arisen because, in its present form, the regulation not only creates a considerable administrative burden but fails to provide clear indications of the procedure to be followed for selecting products.

Another significant change made by the Commission is to replace the present single symbol with a 'graded' eco-label in which a score of between one and three flowers is awarded for each of the three principal environmental criteria considered for each individual group of products. The aim, a laudable one, is to give consumers better and fuller information on the actual environmental impact of the product on the basis of the main aspects justifying the award of the eco-label to a given product, e.g. consumption of water, energy, etc., and to give the system a degree of flexibility so that it can be better adapted to conditions in the Member States which differ greatly in terms of market structures and the level of consumer interest in environmental issues.

Emphasis is also laid on the need to ensure that the Community eco-label and the national eco-labels complement one another within the single market in order to avoid any possible market distortions and confusion amongst consumers as a result of the proliferation of labels which now exist. The wide disparities between the criteria adopted by the individual Member States for awarding the label could in fact create a barrier which, although it would not constitute a tariff barrier, could lead to the return of 'hidden' forms of protectionism in various guises.

In Article 11 of the Commission proposal it is therefore proposed that, within five years of the entry into force of the regulation, the national schemes would be replaced by the European scheme but only for those product groups for which specific Community criteria have been adopted.

The Commission also makes an important modification to the current regulation by extending access to the European eco-label. The scheme is opened to retailers, e.g. the large supermarket chains now present in every EU town which market a growing range of products under their own brand name. A ceiling is also set for the annual fees in order to ensure that manufacturers marketing products with a reduced environmental impact are not penalized by excessive costs. A final major innovation is the introduction of reduced rates for SMEs and manufacturers of developing countries in order to encourage their participation in the scheme (Annex V).

4. Your rapporteur's remarks and proposed amendments

The proposal for a revised Community eco-label award scheme put forward by the Commission with the aim referred to above of clarifying, streamlining and simplifying the system to make it efficient, contains many interesting aspects and innovations which should certainly be supported, in the form in which they have been drafted, and others which your rapporteur feels should be explored in more depth.

Despite the difficulties created by the complex web of interests at stake, there is a general consensus amongst all the interested parties that the European eco-label should be retained and improved. However, widespread criticism has been levelled at the above-mentioned changes which the Commission proposes to make to the current regulation, particularly the establishment of the EEO and the complexity of the graded logo.

The Commission is to be praised for seeking, in its proposal, to cut the red tape in order to make the system competitive and arrive at a definition for a least 30 product groups. Many of the innovative proposals put forward merit support, e.g. opening the scheme to retailers, the special concessions for SMEs and manufacturers in developing countries and, above all, the provisions for the information and awareness campaigns needed to make the Community eco-label more effective.

The first point your rapporteur would make is that codecision should be demanded to enable Parliament to exert more influence over the passage of this regulation which should be based on Article 130s of the Treaty as well as Article 100a.

The reasons behind this request obviously lie in the influence which the eco-label exerts not only over environmental aspects but also over the internal market itself because of the impact it can have on goods using the label.

Your rapporteur also sees a justification for extending the regulation's scope to the provision of services. If, as we hope, the European flower does come to be known and valued by consumers, extending the Community eco-label to the services sector could create major opportunities for the craft sector and SMEs by allowing them to gain an advantage over their competitors with a 'green' marketing system, thereby giving the scheme a major boost (as in the case of the 'green' coachbuilders which only use environmentally friendly paints and varnishes!).

However, your rapporteur distances himself from the Commission's main innovation in its proposal, namely the establishment of the EEO with a view to overcoming the difficulties created by the complex procedure for establishing the criteria, and suggests a compromise which takes into account the problems experienced in implementing the scheme as well as the vital need to involve all the groups concerned by the regulation.

Given the problems caused by the difficulty of coordinating the competent national bodies and the undeniable conflict of interest between the European logo and the national logos, simply to set up a new agency does not appear to be the ideal solution; it is totally unrealistic to believe that it could become self-sufficient in four years with its funds deriving solely from the income generated by new members joining the scheme. One need only consider the experience of the 'Nordic Swan', the Scandinavian eco-label scheme, in which the fees only cover two-thirds of the budget, despite its undeniable success six years after it was launched.

Your rapporteur is aware of the considerable difficulties surrounding this issue but, having heard the opinions of all the interested parties, beginning with European consumers, and including manufacturers' and retailers' associations, SMEs and the craft sector, the representatives of the national competent bodies and the Economic and Social Committee, he takes the view that the encouraging results of the past few years mean that the Commission can and must retain its important role of political mediation and technical coordination.

Whilst there is a clear need for simplification, if the option of using the European Environment Agency, which would have been preferable, cannot be taken up, a simpler solution would be to set up an ad-hoc technical committee within the Commission with the task of adopting the criteria and with a chairman and a permanent secretariat provided by the Commission.

The Technical Committee for the Eco-Label, or TCEL, proposed by your rapporteur, should be composed of the representatives of the competent national bodies. The involvement of all the groups directly or indirectly concerned would be guaranteed by the consultation forum provided for in the current regulation and oddly omitted in the revised regulation which is proposed. Its members should be drawn, in accordance with Annex IV, from environmental protection groups, consumer associations, industry, including SMEs and hand crafts, through their business organizations, retailers, trade-unions and importers.

This solution would obviate the establishment of a new, costly structure which would cause delays and uncertainty and would certainly hold up the regulation's entry into force. Instead, efforts would be made to improve the existing structure which has been operating for the past few years, and to make it more flexible.

We also need to explore in more depth the issue which is the crux of the entire regulation, namely the relationship between the Community eco-label and the various national eco-labels, set out in Article 11 of the proposal.

In your rapporteur's judgment, the principle established in this article of ensuring that the national and the Community eco-label award schemes complement one another remains valid. The single market is a reality and consumers must not be confused by a plethora of symbols, nor should manufacturers have to waste resources.

Your rapporteur therefore agrees with the Commission's proposal whereby, after an appropriate transition period of five years, the national eco-labels would be replaced by the European one but only for those product groups for which criteria have been adopted at Community level.

The national schemes would therefore continue alongside the European one except for a limited number of products in economically important sectors. This means that for copying paper, for example, for which European criteria have been adopted, manufacturers would only have to apply and pay for one label instead of two: the "European flower" instead of the German "Blue Angel" or the "Nordic Swan" used at present. On the other hand, these labels would be retained for products such as shovels, which carry the "Blue Angel" label and for which no criteria have been set at Community level.

5. Conclusions

The main problem in relaunching the European eco-label is publicizing it. Until the eco-label is recognized and valued by consumers, manufacturers will have no interest in attempting to meet the criteria for applying for the label.

It is vital for the very survival of the European eco-label to conduct major advertising, information and awareness campaigns in order to involve the greatest possible number of citizens, from consumer associations to producer groups, big business, retailers, handcrafts and SMEs and, last but not least, schools.

There is no doubt that the European eco-label will gain visibility and come to be increasingly valued by consumers if it is clear that it guarantees, on the basis of stringent scientific criteria, that the products it sponsors have a reduced impact on the environment, irrespective of their quality, since the "European flower" must be first and foremost an instrument of environmental policy.

Your rapporteur therefore considers it extremely important that the Members of the European Parliament send out a strong signal in support of the European eco-label as he is convinced that, properly revised, the scheme can make an effective contribution to consolidating the European public's environmental awareness and at the same time strengthen the feeling of belonging to the Union.

A label which represents the recognition of a single European symbol as a commitment to a cleaner world is perfectly in tune with a European Union on the brink of acquiring a single currency and aspiring to ever greater economic and political integration.

15 September 1997

OPINION

(Rule 147)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on a revised Community eco-label award scheme

(COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312 (SYN)) (Poggiolini report)

Committee on Budgets

Draftsman: Mr. Michael Tappin

At its meeting of 14 April 1997, the Committee on Budgets appointed Mr. Michael Tappin as rapporteur.

It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 15 September 1997.

At this meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.

The following were present for the vote : Tillich, Vice-chairman (acting Chairman);Tappin, Rapporteur; Bösch, Bourlanges, Dell'Alba, Desama (for Colom I Naval), Elles, Kellett-Bowman (for Bardong), Müller, Pimenta, Theato, Virrankoski and Wynn.

Presentation of the proposal

1. The Community eco-label system adopted by the Council in 1992 (Regulation EEC N. 880/92) is one element of a wide strategy aimed at promoting sustainable production and consumption. The main objectives are:

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

- to provide consumers with better information on the environmental impact of products.

2. Despite the substantial progress recently made, in particular the publication of eco-label criteria and the link established between the fundamental objectives of the scheme and the goals and priorities of the environmental policy, there is a need for improving and streamlining the approach, methodologies and working procedures of the scheme, in order to increase its effectiveness, efficiency and transparency.

This is the objective of the present amending regulation.

3. This demand corresponds to the principle of action at the most appropriate level. Commission proposes to associate national competent bodies in a European association to set eco-label criteria corresponding to expectations and perceptions of consumers in the Member states.

Budgetary Aspects

4. The objective of the operation is to promote the establishment of a nonprofit organisation The European Eco-label Organization through a subsidy from the EU budget for joint financing with other sources in the public sector.

This organisation will be an international association of the different national eco-label competent bodies set out by the Member states which will receive a subsidy from the EU, under the budgetary line B4-3040.

5. It will be run by the existing Commission staff currently working for the eco-label activity (5 full-time A-grade officials, one part-time A-grade official, one A-grade auxiliary, one B and two C-grade officials) with no additional resources. After a transitional period, the Commission even envisages a redeployment towards activities related to the eco-label promotion scheme because only two A-grade and one C-grade will be required to follow the implementation of the Regulation.

6. The Commission envisages a cofinancing between the Community and the eco-label competent bodies. The period covered is four years, during which the contribution from the Community Budget will be decreasing from 70% in 1998 to 30% in 2001. The rate of the EU participation over four years will be of 56.5%.

in Mecu	1998	1999	2000	2001	TOTAL
Operation costs + Life cycle analysis + requirement activities	2.6	2.3	2.0	2.0	8.9
EU Contribution proposed by the Commission	1.8	1.6	1.0	0.6	5.0
	70%	70%	50%	30%	56.5%

in Mecu	1998	1999	2000	TOTAL
EU Contribution proposed by the rapporteur	3.5	1.15	1.5	3.55
	70%	50%	30%	39.8%

7. The Commission states that the European Eco-label Organization (EEO) is supposed to become self-financing on the fees resulting from the eco-label awards "in the longer term". The rapporteur would like the Commission to clarify the long term: does it start after four years when the EU subsidy is planned to be 30% of the entire cost or are those 30% supposed to be prolonged after the year 2001?

The rapporteur considers that a contribution over 3 years from the EU budget should be sufficient to launch the organisation within the principle of a phasing out.

8. Effectively, Commission says that "the financing of the establishment and first years of operation of the EEO is a stumbling block for its launch". The competent bodies "would have to ensure the complementary financing", especially because under the revised eco-label criteria the control would be transferred from the Commission to an independent body. In this case, the rapporteur considers that the mentioned body should also participate in the responsibility of the funding.

Not an Agency

9. In Point 7.1 of the financial sheet, the Commission gives some precision about the preliminary phase of the functioning of this Organization, which "will have to set its methodological and procedural rules". Further it mentions that coordination will have to take place in Brussels, where the EEO should establish its seat and secretariat". (This last sentence, by the way, does not exist in all the different linguistic versions).

10. Even if the legal framework of this organisation's supposed to elaborate a common scheme, which does not have the characteristics of an Agency/Office/Foundation/Centre ... The rapporteur wishes to remind the Commission that it should not become an independent body for which the Commission will propose a similar structure (administrative board, scientific committee, own budget, and staff) after some years.

11. Parliament cannot accept that Member States should set up satellite bodies outside the normal places of work of the institutions under article 235 of the Treaty and most of the times entirely supported by the Community budget, unless the process of the financial regulations has been secured and harmonized.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets has taken note of this proposal implying a contribution of the Community budget due to launch a body which will play a role of federating national associations in charge with the eco-label scheme; within that wishes to emphasize the following:

- a private organisation is intended to receive public support to implement a Common policy with no further legal consequences (amendment 1);

- comitology applies under the regular agreement (amendment 2);

- the EU contribution is attributed during the first three years only (amend 3);

- any legislative change concerning the organisation should involve the Parliament as a legislative authority (amendment 4).

Following the above remarks, the Committee on Budgets requests that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection inserts in its report the following amendments:

Commission text

Amendments

(Amendment 1)

whereas 13a (new)

Whereas the present proposal consists in giving a public support for a limited time (three years) to a private and independent Organisation with the aim of improving the implementation of a Community policy implying no further legal commitment from the Union;

(Amendment 2)

Article 13

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee of an advisory nature composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.

The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time-limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote.

The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.

The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee of an advisory nature composed of one representative per Member State and chaired by the representative of the Commission.

The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures of general application to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time-limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter.

The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes, in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.

The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.

(Amendment 3)

Article 13 a (new)

Financing

To establish the EEO, a subsidy could be granted by the Community budget for a period not exceeding three years.

(Amendment 4)

Article 15, point 2

The Commission shall propose any appropriate amendments to this Regulation.

Should the Commission propose any appropriate amendments to this Regulation, it must do so in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 189c of the Treaty.

11 February 1998

OPINION

(Rule 147)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

on the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312(SYN)) (Poggiolini report)

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy

Draftsman: Mr Karl von Wogau

PROCEDURE

At its meeting of 22 May 1997 the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy appointed Mrs Soltwedel-Schäfer draftswoman.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 3 September, 25 September, 8 October, 30 October and 1 December 1997.

At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 24 votes to 5, with 12 abstentions.

As a result of the outcome of the vote in this Committee, the initial draftswoman, Mrs Soltwedel-Schäfer, decided to renounce being draftswoman for this opinion.

The following took part in the vote: von Wogau, chairman and draftsman; Katiforis, Secchi, vice-chairmen; Argyros (for Areitio Toledo), Arroni, Barton (for Berès), Billingham, Blokland (for de Rose), Boogerd-Quaak (Larive), Bowe (for Caudron), de Brémond d'Ars, Burenstam Linder (for Carlsson), Camisón Asensio (for Christodoulou), Cassidy (for Fourçans), Cox, Ettl (for Donnelly), Ewing, Filippi (for García-Margallo y Marfil), Friedrich, Funk (for Langen), Gallagher, García Arias, Gasòliba i Böhm, Hautala, Hendrick, Herman, Hoppenstedt, Ilaskivi, Kestelijn-Sierens, Konrad, Kuhn (for Glante), de Lassus (for Castagnède), Lukas, Lulling, Mather, Metten, Miller, Paasilinna, Peijs, Pérez Royo, Peter (for Fayot), Read, Rübig, Soltwedel-Schäfer, Svensson, Theonas (for Ribeiro), Thyssen, Torres Marques and Watson.

Minority opinion by the initial draftswoman, Mrs Soltwedel-Schäfer

Quite a few weaknesses in the Commission"s proposal for a revised Community eco-label scheme have to be overcome. First of all, it has to be stated that an eco-label will win the confidence of the consumers only if - in the consumers" eyes - trustworthy organisations are strongly involved in the procedure. As opinion polls show that NGOs have gained the utmost confidence of consumers and as a label also has to be independent with respect to the source of finance and input of information, NGOs should be much more involved in the procedures and institutions of Eco-labelling, and should have a decisive saying concerning the selection of product groups and the setting and evaluation of criteria. Furthermore, transparency is crucial and therefore an effective label needs to be accompanied by an exhaustive list of ingredients/substances of the product (unless this is not at all feasible). In order to protect the interests of an enterprise in special mixtures, this declaration should be classified only according to quantity grades (less than 1%, 1-10% etc.). This full declaration shall be placed under the label or it should be indicated that it is available in the shop where the product is sold.

Concerning the design of the eco-label itself, the graded label proposed by the Commission with the flexibility of adding up to three flowers for each criterion, is to go too far and will cause confusion. For a quick orientation for consumers doing their daily shopping it might be of little help to be forced to count a host of flowers. The argument used by the Commission that it is difficult to set criteria because values differ between Member States is not solid enough. The criteria have to be set at a sufficiently high level in order to be trustworthy. The increased flexibility is not a big issue either, as this easily can be solved by revising the criteria. Concerning the scope of the label, it should also apply to food as soon as the initial problems of the scheme are overcome.

There are some doubts about the proposed private international association of national ecolabelling bodies (EEO), which - according to the Commission"s proposal - should be responsible for setting the product criteria. The open question is whether the EEO could be set up rapidly enough to avoid slowing the present eco-label scheme"s - at last! - growing momentum and whether it is wise to expect the EEO to be self-financing within four years. Another problem concerns the competition between the already existing eco-labels in Member States and the Community label. The national labels have the advantage of being familiar to the enterprises and are well known by the consumers. The disadvantage, however, is that this is true only for a limited part of the EU, which hinders the positive effects of eco-labelling in transborder trade. Possible ways out of this dilemma would be either to allow both labels to be used in parallel or not to label products on an EU-level for which a nationally established label already exists. The first alternative seems to be the most appropriate one.

Background

On 23 March 1992 the Council adopted Regulation No 880/92 establishing a Community ecolabel scheme. The objectives were to promote products with a reduced environmental impact and to provide consumers with better information on the environmental impacts of products. In accordance with Article 18 of this regulation a revision of the Community eco-label scheme should be made by the Commission within 5 years of its entry into force. The present draft regulation is the result of this review.

Up until September 1997, only 40 licences had been granted to 22 manufacturers and 1 importer for 182 products within the European eco-label scheme. However, the criteria setting process and the awarding of the eco-label have significantly speeded up during the last two years, since the initial period was devoted to overcoming procedural, methodological as well as political difficulties.

The responsibility for establishing and revising the criteria lies mainly within the Commission, whereas the award of the label to products is a matter for the competent national bodies, which have been designated by the Member States to implement the Community eco-label scheme at a national level. At present there are 16 competent bodies, 14 in the EU (Belgium only has a "contact person") and one in Norway and Iceland respectively.

Other eco-label schemes

A number of eco-label schemes have been established in the Member States. In Germany , the Blue Angel was created in 1977 and covers around 80 product groups and 4 350 products. More than 1 000 companies use this label. The "Nordic Swan", one of the Scandinavian ecolabels, was created in 1989 and covers Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. The scheme covered 40 product groups in April 1996, and 287 licences had been awarded for more than 1 000 products. Another eco-label in Sweden, created in 1990 and managed by an independent NGO (the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation), is the peregrin falcon. In Austria, the "Umweltzeichen-Bäume" was created in 1991 and covers 34 products from 23 companies. The France "NF-environment" mark was created in 1992, as well as the Dutch "Stichting Milieukeur" which covers 32 products from 26 companies. In Spain the "AENOR - Medio Ambiente" eco-label was created in 1993.

The main proposals in the Commission's present review of the Community eco-label scheme

A problem with the present scheme is that there are no indications in the regulation 880/92 concerning the procedure for the selection of product groups or for the technical preparatory work. The Commissions is of the opinion that it in practice has been very difficult to coordinate the involvement of the competent bodies, the consultation of interest groups at national and European level, the search for a qualified majority in the Regulatory Committee and the internal procedures of the Commission. Therefore the Commission proposes steps to be taken in these areas. The main proposal in the revised scheme is to set up a European Ecolabel Organization (EEO), which should be a private international association of the ecolabel Competent bodies in the Member States. The Commission envisages to promote the establishment of the EEO, which would establish and update the criteria, be in charge of the assessment and verification, as well as coordinate the activities of the competent bodies. The EEO would act as a coordinating network between the competent bodies in an approach similar to the "new approach" for the European Standardization Committee (CEN). The aim of the Commission's proposal is to involve interest groups in the process and ensure transparency of the EEO.

Another problem with the Community scheme is that the market structure for many product groups differs from one Member State to another, as do environmental practices and consumer expectations. Therefore it is often difficult to set uniform Community-wide eco-label criteria without introducing undue discrimination, while preserving the credibility of the Community eco-label to consumers in the most environmentally advanced Member States. For this purpose the Commission proposes the introduction of a graded label, with 1-3 "flowers" for a limited number of key environmental aspects. The Commission also points to the fact that this would help keep the system from stagnating, as companies then can continue to develop their environmental achievements and be awarded more "flowers", also after their product has been awarded the eco-label.

Yet another problem concerning the Community eco-label scheme is that at least some of the national schemes have been working successfully fora long time, and it is therefore unwise to abolish them for a Community scheme that does not cover many products so far. It is often the same national authority which is in charge of the both the national scheme and the Community scheme in that particular Member State, and they are therefore more likely to prioritize the functioning of their own national schemes. At the same time it is in the future of importance for consumers and for industry that there are not too many different schemes, as this would create confusion. It is therefore of importance to find a good way of reconciling the Community scheme with the existing national and other schemes. In the new proposal the Commission proposes that the harmonisation between the Community and the national schemes concerning products that are included in the Community scheme should be done within five years. After this time limit Member States can only have their own criteria for products that are not covered by the common scheme.

Concerning the fees involved in the scheme, the Commission proposes an application fee of 500 ecu and an annual fee of 0,15 % of the annual turnover with a ceiling set for the annual fees at ECU 40 000. The fees for SME's and manufacturers of developing countries are proposed to be lowered.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, as the Committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments into its report:

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendments by Parliament

(Amendment 1)

Article 1 (1)

1. The objective of the Community eco-label award scheme (hereinafter "the Scheme") is to provide guidance and accurate, non-deceptive and scientifically based information to consumers on products which have the potential to contribute to the reduction of certain specific environmental impacts as compared with those of other products in the same product group, therefore contributing to the efficient use of resources and better protection of the environment.

1. The objective of the Community eco-label award scheme (hereinafter "the Scheme") is to provide guidance for the choice of the consumers on the basis of accurate, non-deceptive and scientifically based information on products for which the design, production, marketing and use have a reduced environmental impact during their life cycle compared with those of other products in the same product group, therefore contributing to the efficient use of resources and better protection of the environment.

(Amendment 2)

Article 1 (4a) (new)

4a. In order to improve the use of eco-labelled products, the Commission and other European Institutions, as well as other public authorities both at Community and national levels, should actively act as examples concerning the purchase choices they make.

(Amendment 3)

Article 5 (3)

3. The Commission will publish the references to those criteria and requirements and their updatings in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series, when it is satisfied that the terms of the relevant mandate have been complied with.

3. The Commission will publish the references to those criteria and requirements and their updatings in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C Series, within one month after it has concluded that it is satisfied that the terms of the relevant mandate have been complied with.

(Amendment 4)

Article 6 (2)

(Amendment 5)

Article 7

The eco-label shall consist of the logo and information set out in Annex III. Specifications concerning the information to be included and its presentation shall be part of the criteria established by the EEO. The Commission shall consult national consumer associations represented in the Consumer Committee established by Commission Decision 95/260/EC, within five years of the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(2(') of this Regulation , in order to assess how effectively the graded eco-label meets the information needs of consumers. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission shall introduce any appropriate modifications as to the information to be included in the eco-label, according to the procedure set out in Article 13.

The eco-label shall consist of the logo and information set out in Annex III. Specifications concerning the information to be included and its presentation shall be part of the criteria established by the EEO. The Commission shall consult national consumer associations represented in the Consumer Committee established by Commission Decision 95/260/EC, within five years of the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 16(2(') of this Regulation , in order to assess how effectively the eco-label meets the information needs of consumers. On the basis of this assessment, and after the consultation of the European Parliament, the Commission shall introduce any appropriate modifications as to the information to be included in the eco-label, according to the procedure set out in Article 13.

OPINION

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a revised Community eco-label award scheme (COM(96)0603 - C4-0157/97 - 96/0312(SYN)) (Poggiolini report)

Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

Letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights to Mr Collins, Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

Brussels, 7 January 1998

Dear Mr Collins,

At its meeting of 5 January 1998, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, of which I have the honour to be chairman, adopted[1] the conclusions put forward by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, member responsible for legal bases.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights noted that the objectives of the regulation are to promote products which have a reduced environmental impact and to steer consumers towards those products. The aim of the eco-label system is thus to improve the quality of the environment, which comes within the field of application of Article 130r(1).

In addition, the committee took the view that the conditions for the application of Article 100a are not fulfilled. There is no harmonization of the various bodies of national legislation, as the proposal in question provides for the coexistence or even coordination of the Community system with existing or future national schemes. Furthermore, the functioning of the internal market is merely a secondary object of the proposal for a regulation. There is thus no question of directly safeguarding trade in those products or of making it subject to certain conditions or even avoiding distortions of competition in the sectors affected to by that proposal.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights also considered the relevance of Article 129a of the Treaty as the supplementary legal basis of this proposal, on the basis of the implications for and impact on the choice of consumers of the information contained on the eco-label. It decided however that the purpose of that information, which is ultimately to enable the consumer to identify that type of product, was incidental to the main objective of protection of the environment.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights therefore decided that Article 130s(1) is the appropriate legal basis for this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

(sgd) Willy de Clercq

[1] ()The following were present for the vote: De Clercq, chairman; Palacio Vallelersundi, vice-chairman and member responsible; Falconer, Gebhardt, Janssen van Raay, Martin D., Newman, Thors and Ullmann.

Legal notice - Privacy policy