1

CB Forum Meeting: Tuesday 16 June 2015

Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels, meeting room C

10:30-17:30

Organisation Phone number Email address

AURANMAA Kirsi Ecolabelling Finland +35 8400949491 Kirsi.auranmaa@ecolabel.fi

BUTTNER Peter RAL gGmbH +49 2241 255 1652 Peter.buttner@ral(gGmbH.de

CARMAN BURGOS

Stéphanie Helpdesk (BIO by Deloitte) +33 1 40 88 70 88 ecolabel@bio.deloitte.fr

CESAREI Gianluca ISPRA: Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research

+39 06 5007 2853 gianluca.cesarei@isprambiente.it

DE SOUSA PINTO Carla European Commission DG ENV +32 22 99 89 76 Carla.pinto@ec.europa.eu

ESKELAND Marianne Ecolabelling Norway +472414 4609 mbe@ecolabel.no

FERRATINI Silvia European Commission DG ENV Silvia.FERRATINI@ec.europa.eu

GAJARSKA Anita Slovak Environmental Agency +42 1 915 595 204 Anita.gajarska@sazp.sk

GAUVAIN Murielle AFNOR Certification + 33 1 41 62 61 11 Murielle.gauvain@afnor.org

GERVASONI Cécile AFNOR +33 1 41 62 61 13 Cecile.gervasoni@afnor.org

GODIN Fabienne Belgian CB + SPF Santé publique et Environnement

+32 2 52 49 550 Fabienne.godin@environnement.belgique.be

HRISTOVA Nadejda Ministry of Environment and Water +35 929406358 n.hristova@moew.government.bg

HRUBY Pavel CENIA +420 267 125 347 pavel.hruby@cenia.cz

KAPS Renata JRC IPTS Renata.Kaps@ec.europe.eu

KOEL Mari-Liis Estonian Environment Agency +372 673 7596 mari-liis.koel@envir.ee

LUDAIN Sylvie European Commission DG ENV Sylvie.ludain@ec.europa.eu

MANCUSKOVA Adrianna Slovak Environmental Agency +42 1 006 31 40 14 Adrianna Mancuskova

NYARI Eszter Hungarian Ecolabelling Organisation +36 1 336 11 56 nyari.eszter@okocimke.hu

RIMKUS Andrea RAL gGmbH +49 224125516 51 Andrea.rimkus@ral-ggmbH.de

SAHLBERG Ulla Sweden Ecolabelling +46 8 55552430 ulla.sahlberg@svanen.se

SCHOLTZ Henning RAL gGmbH +49 2241 255 1623 Henning.scholtz@ral-gGmbH.de

SCHORPION Hannelore FOD VVVC +32 0486887693 Hannelore.Schorpion@milieu.belgie.be

STAMATIEU George Hellenic Ministry of REPPR./Environment & Energy

+30 210 8642445 asaos@prv.ypeka.gr

STARK Susanne Austrian Consumer Association +43 1 588 77 208 sstark@vki.at

TKACZYK Joanna PCBC +48 22 46 45 208 jtkaczyk@pcbc.gov.pl

VAUGHAN Paul UK Ecolabel Delivery +44 1296 423 915 Paul.vaughan@oakdenhollins.co.uk

VLOT Ineke SMK +31 70 358 63 00 ivlot@smk.nl

WAIDTLW Jakob Ecolabelling Denmark + 43 72 414816 jwa@ecolabel.dk

WOLTMANN Lars SMK +31 70 358 6300 Lwoltmann@smk.nl

1. Welcome, adoption of agenda and April 2015 CB Forum minutes, AOB requests, & Chair

position vacancy announcement (Chair) (10:30-10:40)

Regarding the April 2015 minutes, Germany’s requested change to point 8(a) Update on the Paints & Varnishes criteria (Page 20) was granted:

“In regards to criterion 2 titanium dioxide pigment and information availability, page 70 in the UM is currently missing the following text: “If more than one type of ore is used, the values will apply in proportion to the quantity”. It was indicated that if information on the composition is not provided, the worst case option should be considered. only taking into account the emissions related to slag ores.”

Deleted: I

Deleted: i

Deleted: Estonian Ministry of Environment

2

Following the agreed-upon modification, the April 2015 minutes and June 2015 agenda were accepted. The Chair Gianluca Cesarei announced that as his 2 years mandate as Chairman is expiring on November 2015 the Forum needs to find a new candidate for both the Chair and vice Chaire position. Several CBs attending the meeting expressed their appreciation for Gianluca's work as the Chair of the CB Forum and their willingness to have his mandate renewed. Gianluca explained that unfortunately it is not possible.

Conclusion In reference to the Chair vacancy, it was indicated that interested candidates should manifest themselves via email to the EC if interested in the Chair or Vice Chair position. A formal election will take place in November 2015.

2. Marketing and Communication activities on the MS and EU level (Helpdesk) – (see Annex

and presentation in CIRCA) (10:40-11:10)

The objective of this presentation was to understand what has been done in the past and to learn about CBs’ future marketing and communication activities in order to strengthen synergies. The EU Ecolabel Helpdesk sent out questionnaires and received 20 national responses and 1 regional response. The Helpdesk furthermore outlined the successful and unsuccessful marketing activities.

Discussion:

- EC: One week after launching the “Fall in Love with EU Ecolabel” video and posting it on the EC’s Facebook page, it got 2 million views. Following this success, we are looking into possibilities to translate or add in subtitles to the videos in 10 different languages.

- Chair: What budget has been allocated to these videos? Is it possible to translate the videos internally (by the CBs themselves)?

- EC: There was a total budget of €15k allocated to the EMAS and the EU Ecolabel videos. Due to copyright reasons, it must be translated by the company who created the videos. Furthermore, on a more broad communication scale, a contract for an EU Ecolabel communication campaign strategy will be launched in the coming months.

- Denmark & Germany: It would be a good idea to involve CBs as much as possible for the development of these marketing campaign strategy, not just the implementation.

- UK: The REFIT report should be taken into account when developing the marketing strategy.

- EC: We will indeed consult with CBs during the creation of the communication and marketing strategy call for tender in order to ensure its relevancy, in relation to CBs’ “on the ground” needs.

- Chair: In regards to the Helpdesk’s presentation, a possible opportunity for collaboration/synergy could be in designating an EU Ecolabel day or week, as has been done in Cyprus, Austria and Hungary in order to collectively promote the EU Ecolabel EU-wide at the same time.

3

Conclusion: The EC took note that CBs would like to be involved in the development of the communication and marketing strategy.

3. Market surveillance (verification upon complaint or random checks) (Germany) (11:10-

11:40) (See presentation in CIRCA)

Discussion: - Germany: If we identify a company that misuses the EU Ecolabel logo, instead of

aggressively approaching them, we opt to establish positive relations in light of convincing them to apply for the EU Ecolabel award officially. This is considered as a best practice and can lead to creating favourable outcomes.

- Greece: Under what conditions it is possible to withdraw EU Ecolabel products from the market (i.e. whether a CB has to ensure that the products are properly withdrawn from the market)?

- Germany: If there is a breach of the criteria, legally, companies should be responsible to withdraw the products themselves. By setting forth the proper measures in contacting and warning companies that misuse the logo, it acts as a support to licence holders that actually fulfil the criteria.

- EC: Does Germany remove the incompliant products from the market when companies misuse the logo?

- Germany: No, it is not feasible as a CB to completely supervise the removal of products from the market themselves. Rather, it is the company that should take their products (that misuse the EU Ecolabel logo) off the market if requested by the CB and inform the CB once the action has been carried out.

- Denmark: Sometimes we suspend contracts for companies. However the actions taken heavily depend on the reason why the contract was suspended/terminated. For example, during a random check on a licence holder’s wet wipes, we identified the product as non-compliant, meaning that we suspended their licence until the issue was resolved. It turned out that the supplier producing wet wipes had included a non-compliant ingredient. Upon further investigation, it was determined that this supplier supplied to multiple licence holders, and we ended up temporarily suspending all associated licences. As we realised that this situation was difficult for the licence holder to handle (as they rely on the supplier to be compliant), we guided them on how to communicate this issue to consumers during the licence suspension.

- Germany: We agree that licence suspensions/terminations should be carried out on a case by case basis. For example, if the issue was related to a licence number mistake, it would not necessarily need to be pulled off the shelves, while a product with an incompliant ingredient may be subject for recall.

- Norway: It is rather common for a licence holder to continue using the logo after the termination of the contract. In principle, these products can continue to be sold until they run out, however they must stop the use of the logo on general marketing material immediately.

4

- Belgium: Regardless of the situation, the discussion with the licence holder should be amicable, as they need support from us as CBs during a situation in which they do not comply with the criteria. In some instances, we have given our licence holder a period of time to comply with the criteria before using more extreme enforcement measures.

- Germany: We agree, although we believe that it is important to establish authority from the beginning. We first send out letters and initiate a discussion to find out what happened before enforcing more serious measures.

- Chair: Regarding market surveillance costs, do you charge the licence holder or do you pay for them?

- Norway: We include this cost in the annual fee. If any market surveillance is done on a broader scale, funding is obtained from general fees collected by licence holders. If a company is held accountable, it is penalised. If it refuses to pay the penalty, we send them to the authorities.

- Denmark: Onsite checks are paid by the licence holder, however random checks are paid by the government.

- Belgium: We believe that the internet is an easy and inexpensive tool to carry out market surveillance.

- France: All random on-site checks are paid by the licence holder. While we take on market surveillance for French licences, all non-French licence complaints received are sent to the Helpdesk with the official complaint form (found on the EU Ecolabel website) so that it is treated by the EC.

- UK: There should be a distinction between control of licence holders and market surveillance of non-licence holders. The EU Ecolabel Regulation only allows the control of licence holders, not non-licence holders. There is a chapter on the good practice guide on this.

- Chair & the UK: We agree that there should be a distinction between control and market surveillance.

- Bulgaria: There is an EU Regulation on market surveillance (Regulation (EC) N 765/2008) and the misuse of a logo is considered as an unfair practice according to Directive 2005/29/EC. In Bulgaria we have special penalties for the misuse of the logo. Does Germany have these types of special penalties, or they always refer to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive?

- EC: Stated that there are different levels of penalties that might be established in accordance with different type of incompliances and that examples of which type of penalties were considered by some CBs can be found in the publication on "Good Practice Guidance".

- Germany: Added that they do not operate on a rule basis but they do enforce penalties. - France: Does the EC receive many official complaints (i.e. complaint form)? - EC: While official complaints have been received, there have been very few cases over the

years. Conclusion While there are many practices used for market surveillance, it was generally understood that CBs must take proper action to ensure that the EU Ecolabel’s integrity is maintained through properly marketed EU Ecolabel products. For example, support a licence holder that has breached criteria, or motivate a non-licence holder that has used the logo to apply for the logo.

5

4. PAPER PGs: Upcoming revision of the paper-based family PGs: Issues to be taken into

account during the revision process based on the experience of CBs (EC) (11:40-12:10)

(See presentation in CIRCA)

The objective of the presentation was for the EC to collect information based on the experience of CBs to be considered in the upcoming revision of the paper product groups. Discussion:

- Norway: It is important to not merge any product groups together into one product group code (as was done for paints and varnishes). Merging product group codes risks obtaining less product group fees.

- EC: We will have to see if it is legal to keep two product group codes within one single Commission Decision document. Regardless, the detergent product groups will not be merged. Even if only one technical report was produced, separated criteria documents will be drafted.

- Norway: We have encountered many issues with CO2 emissions and energy use criteria. We have a position where ideally our licence holders would like to use the European electricity mix because that is what is relevant. However, some of our producers source their electricity from hydropower, meaning that it is not possible for them to comply with the CO2 criteria unless they switch to gas. Regardless, they cannot prove that a product uses 100 percent hydropower, which is an issue for them. Regarding recycled content, we have many arguments – pro/cons that can be discussed at a later time.

- Belgium: It would facilitate the retention of licences if expiration dates for product group categories were staggered, instead of harmonised (i.e. detergents product groups expire on the same day). This makes it very burdensome for a company with many licences in various product groups to reapply for the licences at the same time for financial and time constraints.

- EC: It is not feasible to establish different criteria validity, due to the fact that the validity period is determined based on the date of the adoption of the revised set of criteria. However, we have noted that we should focus on establishing reasonable transitional periods. If any transitional period is considered to be too short, it should be flagged to us ahead of time. There is not yet a set timetable for the revision of printed paper.

- Germany & the UK: We would like to make sure that the revision will not exclude the possibility to award coloured tissue paper, as it is popular within our countries.

- EC: This will certainly be properly evaluated during the revision. - Norway: Norwegian manufacturers do not place an emphasis on using fragrances within

their paper products, therefore, potentially stricter requirements about fragrance use would not affect our producers.

- Sweden: How shall surfactants be used within products? - Germany: We can check this and respond to Sweden at a later time. - Czech Republic: Regarding energy criteria, it would be useful if CO2 and fuel numbers were

simplified or unified.

6

- Norway: Our main priority during the revision period is to ensure that criteria is scrutinised before publication in order to avoid mistakes.

- EC: Do CBs think that it is pertinent to carry out on-site visits, as there are only three product groups that require on-site visits, two of them being services (although we generally have understood that most CBs carry these visits out for other product groups)?

- Norway: Site visits are very important, especially for licence holders that are out of the EU (i.e. Norway’s Pakistan-based licence holder).

Conclusion EC requests that all CBs send formal written comments to the EC by 30 June for consideration.

5. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Outcome of a French survey among the distributors of EU Ecolabel

P&V (France) – (see Annex and presentation in CIRCA) (12:10-12:40)

Discussion: - Germany: According to the presentation, storage time for paints and varnishes is 3 years.

However, a transitional period only lasts 6 months. If the stored paint overruns the transitional period, does this product need to be removed from the market?

- EC: There are no provisions in the EU Ecolabel Regulation that indicate when to take the product off the market. The six months period applies to the stock of the producer in respect of the products manufactured before the termination of the contract.

- Denmark: If this issue does not give the Forum any practical problems it should be left as it is and dealt by a case-to-case basis.

Conclusion Paints and varnishes validity within stores should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis by the CB.

LUNCH (12:40-13:40)

6. Overall issues concerning handling applications (13:40-14:20)

a. AHP (Absorbent Hygiene Products): Questions (Belgium) – (see Annex and

presentation in CIRCA) (13:40-14:00)

Question 1 Criterion 11: Which part of the supply chain should be covered? Only the sites where the EU Ecolabel product is produced? Discussion

- Denmark: In Denmark, if production sites and licence holders are not the same, we investigate all bodies and subcontractors along the supply chain.

Conclusion The final assembly site is the part of the supply chain that is verified. However, any sub-contractors that cut or trim the final product are also subject to verification. Question 2 Should we consider inks and dyes from a technical position for AHPs or is it ok if there are designs for aesthetic reasons?

7

Discussion - Sweden: This criterion seems to be in line with the inking and dies Directive. It is not

allowed to dye areas that are in contact in with the skin (also specified in the Nordic Ecolabel).

- Norway: Without allowing aesthetic printing on diapers, potential applicants may be deterred, as consumers rarely want to buy plain diapers.

- EC: The intention of the criteria was to reduce the production of ink in the production, not about the product in contact with the skin per se.

- Denmark: Dyed diapers colour the entire product while ink is for printing designs. While an AHP cannot dye the entire product (as it comes in direct contact with the skin) printing is allowed.

Conclusion A company can print whatever they want as long as the inks are not in direct contact with the skin, fulfil all the requirements on chemicals and the diaper is not dyed. Question 3 Criterion 1: What should the level of detail be of the Bill of Materials?

Conclusion When a criterion requires more detailed information (e.g., due to requirement 5.2.b) this should also be provided (list of additives used in the plastics). If no additional requirement is necessary, information on component or material level (what is bought by the manufacturer) is sufficient. Question 4 Criterion 6.5: What if the applicant does not apply silicone themselves? Do they still need to provide evidence for part 6.5.a?

- Sweden: For information on silicon criteria, the supplier should provide all necessary declarations, instead of the applicant themselves.

- Belgium: The user manual refers to the applicant and the supplier at different times for declarations, therefore the interpretation is not very clear.

- EC: If the applicant obtains the proper information from the supplier about silicone, then there is no need for the CB to contact the supplier themselves.

- UK: It should be noted in the FAQ that these declarations should be provided to the applicant by the supplier.

Conclusion The supplier shall provide declarations to the applicant consistently throughout section 6.5 of the criteria (as seen in point b of assessment and verification).

b. Applications during the transitional period (EC + Germany) – (see Annex) (14:00-14:20)

Discussion - Chair: Regarding the transitional period, the first two months from the date of adoption of

a new Decision for a certain product group in which it is possible to apply according to the old expiring Decision for the same product group has always been followed very strictly in Italy. Any modifications, extensions, or new applications were not accepted after this two month period. Applicants were encouraged to apply for the new criteria. Then an answer

8

received by the Italian CB from the EC has clarified that even after the 2 months, but within the date of expiration of the contract, in a legal point of view, applications concerning modifications and extensions should be accepted according to the “old” criteria.

- Germany: Modifications and extensions are allowed after the 2 months (mainly because licence holders are blocked from applying for new decisions due to late publications such as the UM for paints and varnishes). However, new applications are not allowed after the two month period.

- Norway & Netherlands: Modifications or extensions are also allowed after the two month period in Norway and the Netherlands.

- EC: From a legal point of view, during the validity of an EU Ecolabel contract, a CB cannot deny an extension and modification of a licence. Therefore CBs should allow these changes to the dossier during the 12 month transitional period.

- EC: CBs should either agree to say no to all modifications or extensions submitted after the two month transitional period, or to accept all of them. Another solution is to only allow ‘small changes’ such as new brand names, and not extensive formula changes. If this approach is followed, a ‘small change’ must be defined.

- Denmark: Throughout the entire 12 months, Denmark accepts all types of modifications and extensions, including formulation changes.

- UK: If a change is made by an existing licence holder after the first two months of the transitional period, such as a production facility change, it is allowed. However, if a new dossier is submitted during this 10 month period following the 2 months period for a new licence, the licence must be issued to the new criteria decision.

- Norway: Regarding paints and varnishes, as the EC has taken off the old criteria from the internet, it is not clear that the criteria is still valid (i.e. prolongation). It would be helpful if it is clearer to licence holders and consumers that the old decision is still valid.

Conclusion The EC will update the EU Ecolabel website by indicating that the old P&V criteria are still valid until date xxx. Although it is discouraged, modifications, extensions, and new products from an existent licence holder during the 10 month “grace period” can be granted. However, new products from a new licence holder cannot be awarded during this period.

7. Follow-up on the tasks from last CB meeting (14:20-17:20)

a. Conclusions and discussion on how to improve User Manuals (EC+ Denmark) – (see

Annex) (14:20-15:20)

All UM should have added value, and not just be copied pasted from the legislation. Conclusions taken from this presentation will be sent to the EC in light of improving all future UMs. CBs are invited to give their feedback. Discussion

- UK: As Part A is now available in different languages and acts as general guidance, it does not need to be inserted into each UM. Part A and furthermore Part B can be kept apart as stand-alone documents. With those parts taken out, the UM will be condensed and more

9

focused on the useful sections. The remaining sections within the UM should be regularly updated to keep it relevant.

- EC: Regarding removing Part A, sometimes it contains product group specific information. Therefore, it would not be relevant to detach from the rest of the UM.

- UK: As a solution to this identified problem, product group specific information from Part A can be moved to Part C.

- Germany: Any copied/pasted criterions have no added value within the UM. Instead, helpful clarifications on difficult-to-understand criteria should be included.

- Denmark: As suggested by the UK, separating the different parts of a UM would be very helpful, as a CB can send only the relevant parts to their clients. Writable PDFs are crucial.

- IPTS: Do any CBs have experience with online applications? - General consensus: It is very expensive to implement online application databases

(Sweden added that the Nordic Ecolabel online application database cost over EUR 100 000).

- Belgium: A few months ago, the JRC went through an application with the BE CB, which was a good exercise to show the JRC how the UM, criteria, and application dossier are used during an application assessment.

- Denmark: We believe that Belgium carried out a useful task. It would also be useful if CBs were involved early on the UM drafting process.

Conclusion Part B should be revised to simulate a check list or a guidance in the document for readability. UM sections should be separated and declarations should be available in writable PDF format. However, excel calculation sheets are already in "writable" formats. Word versions should be available to CBs for translation. The UM should clearly indicate which declaration are required for which particular stakeholder within the supply chain (i.e. licence holder, raw material supplier). UMs should be regularly updated.

b. PAPER PGs: Residual Monomers: Update on the requested amendment to criterion

on "residual monomers" in C&GP and Newsprint Paper product groups and new

classification of Sodium Acrylate (EC) – (see Annex) (15:20-15:35)

Since the last CB Forum, the EC did not receive any formal derogation request from KEMIRA on this subject. The Finnish CB informed that the person in charge of filling in the application is on vacation. Conclusion Once the EC receives the completed form from KEMIRA, they will start the consultation and evaluation process.

c. Follow up on 2014 DID List Update (EC) – (see Annex) (15:35-15:50)

At the last CB Forum, it was decided that misleading substances would be removed from the DID list, as they are not allowed in the Biocide Regulation. At this time, Norway was asked to explore the feasibility of removing these substances and to report back at this CB Forum.

Deleted: There should be separate sections (Part A, B, and C) in writable PDF format.

10

Discussion - Denmark: We agree that the misleading substances should be taken out, however taking

on the work to update the DID list is a huge task. - UK: We have never experienced issues or complaints about the misleading substances on

the DID list. - EC: The EC unit’s hierarchy is hesitant to have a new DID list in 2016 since the last revision

was done with a larger period of time (2007 to 2014). Could a possible solution be to form an informal work group to update the DID list?

- Norway: Although the Nordic Ecolabel is also going through revisions of the DID list, they are hesitant to share information about their advancement, as their work cannot be released publicly.

Conclusion As no conclusion was drawn, these substances will stay in the DID list until further discussions are made at the November CB Forum.

d. Follow up on EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines on the use of the sentence ”Printed on

paper awarded the EU Ecolabel” (Finland) – (see Annex) (15:50-16:05)

Discussion - Chair: Can a non EU Ecolabel product (i.e. printed paper) that is composed of an EU

Ecolabel substrate (i.e. C&G paper/newsprint paper) have an explanatory sentence indicating that a specific part of its product has the EU Ecolabel (without using the logo)? Do CBs allow this even if this example has been withdrawn by the latest guidelines for the use of the logo? Do CBs have legal authority to prevent individuals from writing down they are printed on EU Ecolabel C&G/newsprint paper?

- Germany: It is not legally possible to prevent individuals from using this explanatory sentence. However, CBs do have the right to prevent these individuals from using the logo.

- Denmark: We allow the use of this sentence as long as the logo is not used. - France: For clarity purposes, we are in favour of reintroducing this sentence in the

guidelines, especially since it is a good way to market and promote the EU Ecolabel. - EC: Even if in a legal point of view, CBs cannot prevent the use of this sentence, the aim of

the Logo Guidelines is to provide good guidance and promote EU Ecolabel products. In our opinion, this sentence should not be reintroduced within the guidelines, as it discourages a manufacturer of printed paper products from actually applying for the EU Ecolabel himself. Although in practice, we are aware that individuals may use this sentence, it should not be explicitly encouraged within the Logo Guidelines document.

- Chair: It should be clear to individuals/companies that want to use this sentence that they cannot use the EU Ecolabel logo.

- EC: The current example on EU Ecolabel logo guidelines on C&G/newsprint/tissue paper only prohibits the use of the logo for these substrates used in other finished materials (i.e. printed paper).

Conclusion The Helpdesk will remove textiles example 2 from the EU Ecolabel logo guidelines. Although this sentence is removed from the Logo Guidelines document and its use is discouraged, in practice, CBs can permit individuals to use the sentence if used properly.

Deleted: Therefore

11

e. TEXTILES: Update on criterion 1”Cotton” and GMO cotton (EC + Belgium + Norway)

– (see Annex) (16:05-16:35)

For this criterion, option “a” indicates that all cotton blended to organic cotton should be 100% non-GMO. However, option “b” allows for the use of GMO cotton,. As result of non-GMO traceability, almost no one chooses option a. Discussion

- EC: The issue at hand is that it is not clear if non-GMO cotton is sufficiently available and traceable to keep the criterion the way it is. The issue will have to be discussed internally in the EC and the JRC, especially since it is a politically sensitive subject.

- Norway: The IPM market is very small as it has been on the market for the past three years while organic cotton is only less than one percent of the world production, therefore this criterion is difficult to meet. As there is no immediate solution, what should licence holders do to reapply for the licence under the new criteria, as their current licence is only valid until the 5th of June?

- EC: While a solution is identified for option “a” of the criteria, licence holders should select option “b” (IPM option). A solution for option “a” could be to delete the non-GMO requirement to the organic cotton option.

- Norway: It would be a good solution to delete the criterion for non-GMO. As our textiles licence holder based in Pakistan has great access to organic cotton (without non-GMO traceability), but barely any access to IPM cotton, neither option “a” or option “b” is feasible. As a solution is underway, we will give our licence holder a provisional six months compliance period until the issue is sorted out.

- Denmark: We agree that tracing non-GMO cotton is difficult and that the criterion is ambiguous.

Conclusion Aside from applying option “b” instead of option “a”, there is no legal solution to offer while a formal solution is being evaluated. The EC will report on the advancement of this issue at the November CB Forum, namely if it is sufficient to erase the requirement on non-GMO cotton to keep the criterion as it is or if a total revision of the criterion is required. The EC encourages CBs to help them with criteria scrutiny during the drafting period of a criteria document before the voting, in order to avoid future interpretation issues.

f. TEXTILES: Conclusion on Appendix 1 point f) ii) surfactants, softeners, and

complexing agents (IPTS) – (see Annex) (16:35-16:45)

Conclusion The word “detergents” was accidentally removed in the revised version. Until this mistake is corrected into an amendment, the criterion should be interpreted without the mention of detergents.

Deleted: it is decided whether it is necessary to submit

12

g. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Conclusions of outdoor P&V use of IPBC (EC) – (see Annex)

(16:45-17:00)

Discussion - EC: The original intention of the criteria derogation was to allow the use of IPBC up to

0.65%. However, IPTS does not currently have any solution to offer (see Annex). If the derogation overrules criterion 5a, then the final product could be classified. As CBs should be expecting more and more situations where reclassifications will classify products, a solution is in need. A temporary solution is to keep the percentage of IPBC below the threshold 0.25% that would classify the mixture as H412.

Conclusion: More research will have to be made via legal services (i.e. political consultation, investigation by toxicologist, etc.) The EC will present the evolution of this point at the November CB Forum.

h. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Update on requested amendment (IPTS) – (see Annex)

(17:00-17:20)

Discussion - Chair: as the word ‘and’ disappeared in the Amendment –Appendix 7. a) text within the

new criteria, it was not clear whether this was on purpose or if the absence of this ‘and’ should be considered as an ‘or’.

- Germany: Whenever the word ‘or’ is not indicated in a list, it should be considered as an ‘and’.

Conclusion: The ‘and’ mistakenly disappeared from the text. The need of an eventual corrigendum to add in the “and” again will be evaluated. The EC will report on the status of this corrigendum at the November 2015 CB Forum.

8. AOB (17:20-17:30)

a. TEXTILES criteria (Germany) – (See Annex) Question 1 Discussion

- Norway: Do buttons and zippers need to be tested separately? - EC: While the criteria may be a bit misleading, the intention on this was not to award the

specific accessories with the EU Ecolabel, but to state that they are allowed to be used within the final textile product.

- Norway: The EC’s clarification needs to be explicitly indicated within the criteria. If not possible, this needs to be outlined in the UM.

Conclusion According to IPTS, the intention was to apply the criterion to the final product. While buttons and zippers can be used within the final product, it is not necessary to test them separately. Question 2 Discussion

- Germany: If yarn is in ten different colours, do they all have to be tested? Conclusion

13

Yes, in principle all colours need to be tested , or only the worst case scenarios, once it has been clearly indicated how and why this worst cases have been chosen. Question 3 Discussion

- Chair: In the appendix 1 (RSL-List) in chapter (iv) Extractable metals there are two testing tables, one that has more stringent values for babies. Hypothetically speaking, if the tested product is a yarn, the producer will not know if it will be used for babies, so which table should be used?

- Denmark/EC: The producer should go for the strictest values to ensure compliance. Conclusion For intermediate products, they should be tested for the strictest table (worst case scenario), unless the applicant can prove that the product will not be used for baby clothes. Question 4 Discussion Conclusion The checklist of the UM should clearly include also the tests for extraction and detection if these are not mentioned.

14

Annex:

2. Marketing and Communication activities on the MS and EU level (Helpdesk)

3. Market surveillance (verification upon complaint or random checks) (Germany)

Germany will deliver a presentation on the above mentioned point. LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS DUTY Article 10 of the EU Ecolabel Regulation: Market surveillance and control of the use of the EU Ecolabel SITUATION 1: No contract was concludes with the Competent Body (CB) to which the complaint was made SITUATION 2: The EU Ecolabel logo is misused in advertisement SITUATION 3: Finding breach of the criteria WHO CAN DO MARKET SURVEILLANCE

5. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Outcome of a French Survey among the distributors of EU Ecolabel P&V (France)

France will give us an update on the survey conducted among the distributors of European Ecolabel paints and varnishes in order to get feedback on their constraints on the flow of inventory, the time between the tender / selection / availability of products in stores, as well as on their needs in terms of communication on the European Ecolabel.

6.a AHP (Absorbent Hygiene Products): Questions (Belgium)

*Criterion 11: Which part of the supply chain should be covered? Or only the sites where the EU Ecolabel product is produced *Criterion 1: What should the level of detail be of the BOM? * Criterion 6.5: What is the applicant isn’t applying the silicone themselves? Do they still need to provide evidence for part 6.5.a? * Criterion 6.2: This is rather vague: what type of printing is allowed on a diaper. Only front landing zones of the tape? Also the back, full printing of the diaper?

6.b Applications during the transitional period (EC + Germany)

Germany would like to discuss an answer that the EC has given to the Italian CB regarding the possibility for an applicant to submit an extension of an existing contact even after the transitional period of 2 months from the adoption of a new set of criteria. Please see excel sheet attached in addition to the text below for context.

The Helpdesk gives a yearly presentation on marketing and communication actions on the MS and EU level in light of increasing synergies and collaboration between CB initiatives. This year, this presentation is given at the June CB Forum. In order to report on MS actions, we gathered each CB’s feedback on past marketing initiatives, best practices, lessons learned, and planned events for 2015 and 2016. In order to have the most representative presentation, CBs were asked to respond to the short 4 question survey below by 26 May.

Question Answer

Please list the top 3 most successful marketing initiatives of 2014 and why? Which ones will you repeat in the future?

Lessons learned from unsuccessful marketing initiatives.

What kinds of successful direct marketing have you carried out on behalf of licence-holders? (awards, success stories features, etc.)

Please list any planned marketing and communication initiatives for 2015 and 2016 (events, online, and print marketing)

15

“Applications for the EU Ecolabel for products falling within the product group ………. submitted within two months from the adoption of this Decision may be based either on the criteria set out in Decision ……… or on the criteria set out in this Decision” Enclosed some examples of “applications” which can happen during the validity of the contract, this means also during the “transition period”. Usually during the transition period companies will no more apply using the “old” criteria because the time for use of the logo compared with costs of the application will usually ends up with an application using the new criteria. Nevertheless due to market situation (urgent need of the logo) together with the problem of late publishing of new application documents sometimes applicants ask for the possibility to apply using still the old criteria. (especially at the moment for the product groups of paints) The examples 1-4 are some typical applications we call “modifications”, this means the product change (but only partly), but no products are added. (due to the lower work load we charge up to 50% of a normal application) The examples 5-8 are some typical applications we call „extensions“, this means products are added, but very similar products as already in the contract. (due to the lower work load we charge up to 50% of a normal application) Example 9 is a typical new application and we charge the normal application fee. Our interpretation of the answer of Carla “A”: only if a company applies the first time it is not possible during the transition period while all other possibilities (cases 1-9) are possible. Our understanding is (up to now): Modifications (case 1-4) are possible during transition period Extensions (case 5-8): to be discussed, we are open to make it possible during transition period. New application (case 9): not possible during transition period Looking especially to case 6. Normally the manufacturer (let us assume it is company A) make the application and got the licence. If another company (here B) wants to use the logo (still produced from Company A) we offer two possibilities: either company A makes an extension (for company B) or company B will be directly the licence holder (and it might be the first “application” for the company B). Following the view of Carla it is possible (during the transition period) for Company A but not for Company B to get the licence. From my point of view it should be possible either for Company A and for Company B (or not possible for both).

7.a Conclusions and discussion on how to improve User Manuals (Denmark + EC)

How EU Ecolabel User Manuals can be improved This is a summary of the input received from CBs on their views on how to improve EU Ecolabel User Manuals. In addition with a proposal of discussion points, the comments are sorted in two parts: one with general comments received and one containing suggestions that are more specific related to a particular product group. Specific solutions to implement the suggested improvements are expected from this discussion. Proposed discussion points:

Keep the UM simple. The type of reader should be considered and it should be made clear which different parts of the UM are aimed at different readers (e.g., CBs, applicants, suppliers or eventually suppliers of suppliers).

All parts of the UM should provide added value to the reader. It was proposed to avoid copying the EU Ecolabel criteria legal text in Part B of the UM (to be discussed and to be reconsidered the use of the legal text in Part B of the UM).

The UM should be always constituted by 2 parts, the user guide and the application.

Provision of guidance to the applicant is one of the most important aim of the UM. It was proposed the rewording the EU Ecolabel criteria legal text, the provision of further clarification of the content in a “non-legal language” and whenever feasible, the inclusion of a possible alternative way of demonstrating compliance with a criterion.

Declarations were considered useful. However, it was proposed that they should be clear and comprehensive and that the layout and content should be clearly fitted to whom has to sign it.

16

Use of symbols and drawings/figures were considered useful.

The inclusion of a comparison table of old and revised criteria was considered useful for EU Ecolabel licence holders wishing to renew their licences.

Whenever necessary, supporting Excel calculation sheets should be made available.

Discussion of the pros & cons of having editable formats of the UM available in CIRCA. General comments:

Keep it SIMPLE. The text in the manuals should be as SHORT as possible and as CLEAR and easy to read and understand as possible. It should help both the applicants and the CBs. There is no need to repeat the criteria text in the user manual.

The most important for us in User Manuals are parts D and E, whereas Part B is too redundant with the corresponding decision and has therefore no added-value.

Part B usually only repeat the criteria text word to word in the user manual without any added value

References to other documents than the criteria document should be avoided as long as possible. They are sometimes needed, but excessive use should be avoided.

If the user manuals were compact and short, it would be possible to translate them to other languages.

The user manuals should have uniform layout and as uniform content as possible. The layout of course changes during the years, but there should be clear rules what to include in the document, how it should look like, etc. Should the present rules how to write a user manual be more directive?

It is very important that an applicant is guided in the User Manual to provide all relevant information, corresponding with the ‘Assessment and verification’ as required in the criterion concerned.

Wording needs to be more simpler and structure easier. Also you may consider to divide user manuals into 2 parts: user guide and applications. There should be 2 documents with same numerations. If there is nr 1 in application form, then there is nr 1 also in user guide that explains what is meant there and how to verify etc.

It would help if the User Manual explains in clear wording to an applicant what is meant in the official criterion, as this is often written in formal, difficult language. For instance with regard to hazardous substances, a declaration needs to show clearly whether it regards individual substances, or a mixture (like with printing inks in printed paper). Also, it helps if it is (more) clearly stated on a declaration whether it needs to be signed and stamped etc. by the applicant or by the supplier of the applicant. Of course in some User Manuals this is mostly taken into account, but in others it is not; to include such details in User Manuals in a structured way will help applicants and CBs forward.

The main problem is that the manuals (Part B) only copy the text of the criteria without any added value - more detailed explanation of the criteria and hints how to prove compliance (e.g. the alternative way of showing compliance).

A good example of “good guidance” is the UM for Printed paper which states at Criterion 5b) (p. 23), that "Alternatively, the applicant may provide calculations regarding the total amount... Such hint I think really useful. To include such hints and comments the manuals should be provided before their publication to CBs, particularly those with the most experience with the particular product groups for comments.

Also the manuals in editable format could be available e.g. in BATIS (?) so that CBs can suggest additions and improvements and every 1-2 such changes can be implemented to update the UM. I am not sure whether anyone else than the CBs can do that. Unfortunately it means more work, particularly for the most experienced and active ones...

Specific comments:

Copying and Graphic Paper

+ General information on the pages 5-9 is clearly written. + Rules of Interpretation of the criteria are quite clear; for example guidelines on what has to be taken in account when performing emission calculations. + Declaration forms in the end of the document are very useful. + Annex 2 on fiber certification is useful.

- The whole criteria text has been included in the document. This is not needed. We don’t need any separate criteria documents if we repeat their texts in user manuals. Only information, which helps the applicant to understand the requirements and some (calculation) examples are needed in user manuals. - There are no examples how to calculate CO2-emissions or energy points.

Indoor and Outdoor Paints and Varnishes

+ The manual looks nice. + Symbols, , and make the user manual easier to read and understand.

- Too many pages - 153!!!. - The whole criteria text has been included in the document. This is not needed. We don’t need any separate criteria documents if we repeat their texts in user manuals. - Why to write the same definitions in the criteria document and in the user manual?

17

- The user manual includes also application form. Why? We have an official application form for all the product groups and it doesn’t look like this. - The point “Check to see if the criteria relating to your product(s) or service are due to be revised or updated in the near future.” should be immediately after “Download the relevant criteria” in the checklist on the page 16. - Comparison table of old and new criteria is good to have in a user manual, but sentence -“Criterion remains largely unchanged” in the table tells nothing to the licence holder, who wants to renew his licence. - I don’t understand the idea behind those declarations to be completed by the suppliers with text: “As the manufacturer/importer/retailer of components used in Paints and Varnishes that comply with the EU Ecolabel, I the undersigned, hereby declare that the values supplied to meet this criterion are accurate.” Do we really need these forms in user manual?

Tourist Accommodation Services

+ Terms and definitions part is good to have in general, but I’m not 100 % sure if the items included in the list are the most relevant ones.

- Too many pages. No page numbers! - The document looks like a draft, not a finished “official” document. The layout is messy and the document is not easy to read. - The whole criteria text has been included in the document. This is not needed. - Background text in the first chapter “Introduction to the eco-label for tourist accommodation service” is not needed (about one page in the beginning of the chapter).

Textiles

In the April CB Forum meeting we briefly mentioned an example in the User Manual for textiles that could be improved: (p.87) Declaration: Criterion 1(b) Cotton production according to IPM principles SECTION A/SECTION B ”The IPM principles by which the cotton has been grown are verified in the following way (tick one or more and provide details of IPM scheme)” This declaration does not correspond exactly with criterion 1(b), which includes: “Assessment and verification: The applicant shall provide evidence that the cotton has been grown by farmers that have participated in formal training programmes of the UN FAO or Government IPM and ICM programmes and/or that have been audited as part of third party certified IPM schemes. (…)”. To our applicant it was not clear that additional supporting documentation needs to be provided, e.g. a copy of the (recent), signed report of the audit of the farmers involved, who produce cotton according to the third party certified IPM scheme concerned. Concluding: it is very important that an applicant is guided in the User Manual to provide all relevant information, corresponding with the ‘Assessment and verification’ as required in the criterion concerned.

7.b PAPER PGs: Residual Monomers: Update on the requested amendment to criterion on "residual monomers" in C&GP and Newsprint Paper product groups and new classification of Sodium Acrylate (EC) Per the April 2015 CB Forum conclusions, the EC has consulted with the JRC regarding an amendment and will provide an update on the following context: Criterion 4.e of Decision 2011/333/UE (Copying & Graphic Paper); Decision 2012/448/UE (Newsprint Paper); Decision 2014/256/UE (Converted Paper Products) states: “4(e) Residual monomers The total quantity of residual monomers (excluding acrylamide) that may be or have been assigned any of the following risk phrases (or combinations thereof) and are present in coatings, retention aids, strengtheners, water repellents or chemicals used in internal and external water treatment shall not exceed 100 ppm (calculated on the basis of their solid content) […]” “The competent body may exempt the applicant from these requirements in relation to chemicals used in external water treatment.”

18

In this case sodium acrylate, existing as a monomer in some polymer dispersions used in paper production, is now classified as H400/H410. Earlier it was not classified. Because of this classification change, it is no more possible to use polymer dispersions containing more than 100 ppm of sodium acrylate in paper production. A Finnish chemicals supplier Kemira brought up this question. The issue was encountered as the REACH registration data of Sodium Acrylate (CAS 7446-81-3) was published by ECHA. Once the information is published, it can be considered as binding and reliable since based on the studies. If a substance has not been classified earlier with any hazardous phrases, a material with monomers of such substance has been EU Ecolabel compliant. If, based on the registration data, the substance is re-classified as environmentally hazardous (H400/H410 in the case of sodium acrylate), the EU Ecolabel criteria for monomers gets strict allowing only levels of < 100 ppm. To a material that has been previously approved to the criteria with levels exceeding the 100 ppm limit, it is a drastic change and will take some time and effort to modify the material or the production process to reach the lower levels – if possible at all. While considering options for modifications, we would like to have an opinion and guidance on the issue how to best proceed to comply with the EU Ecolabel criteria. Since the change in the substance data applies on a generic level and will impact more than a few companies, a generic rule on the issue would be appreciated. The Finnish CB supports the request of a major producer of raising the limit to 1000 ppm.

7.c Follow up on 2014 DID List Update (EC)

The conclusions of the April 2015 CB Forum indicated that Norway would look into the feasibility of updating the 2014 DID list.

7.d Follow up on EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines Use of sentence ”Printed on paper awarded the EU

Ecolabel” (Finland)

19

7.e TEXTILES: Update on criterion 1 - “Cotton” and GMO cotton (EC + Belgium + Norway) In addition to the interpretation of criterion 1 on cotton GMO and not GMO already requested by Belgium to the EC during the last CB Forum, Norway has added some other questions on the interpretation and verification of the same criterion: Norway asks: According to the criterion 1, the following requirement is given: 1. For the production standard 1a Organic cotton, all conventional cotton and IPM, cotton used shall come from non-genetically modified varieties. However, no verification is given. 1a Organic production standard –here there is a requirement on assessment and verification of GMO: “Non-genetically modified varieties of cotton shall be verified in conformity with Regulation EC 1830/2003..” We propose: no verification is needed for demonstrating non-GMO in organic cotton because to our knowledge GMO cotton is not allowed according to the standards for organic cotton. 1b Cotton produced according to IPM principles: Here the verification is: “Non-genetically modified IPM cotton used in combination with organic cotton shall be verified in conformity with Regulation EC 1830/2003. IPM schemes that exclude GMO cotton shall be accepted as proof of compliance for IPM content” Our interpretation: - There is a verification requirement on non-GMO for IPM cotton used in combination with organic cotton but not for IPM cotton used without the combination of organic cotton. - No verification requirement is given for conventionally grown cotton bought at the spot market. However: Regulation 1830/2003 does not give any instructions on the verification of genetically modified cotton. This regulation is all about labelling of food and feed produced from genetically modified organisms, and based on knowledge of the content of GMO-material. The only reference to testing is in article 9: 1. Member States shall ensure that inspections and other control measures including sample checks and testing (qualitative and quantitative), as appropriate, are carried out to ensure compliance with this Regulation. Inspection and control measures may also include inspection and control regarding the holding of a product 2. Prior to the application of Articles 1 to 7, the Commission, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 10(3), shall develop and publish technical guidance on sampling and testing to facilitate a coordinated approach for the implementation of paragraph 1 of this Article. In developing the above technical guidance, the Commission shall take account of the work of national competent authorities, the committee referred to in Article 58(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and the Community Reference Laboratory established under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 Do we have to ask for any verification for the non-use of GMO-cotton? If any, what kind of documentation do you ask for? While looking at this issue, I just noticed that criterion 1c says: All cotton used in ecolabelled textile products, with the exception of organic cotton and cotton from IPM schemes exempted in 1b, shall be grown without the use of any of the following substances (the horrible pesticides). This sounds as if we accept IPM and organic cotton grown with the use of these pesticides. This is of course wrong. All cotton used shall be grown without the use of these pesticides, but the requirement on testing is taken out for organic or IPM from programs which exclude these pesticides. Belgium adds:

Although it was concluded via voting and at the April CB Forum that this example should not be accepted (and was consequently omitted from the EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines), should this point be generalised, as well as the point inserted on EU Ecolabel textiles and furniture? An idea would be to create an example in the logo guidelines stating that when a product group exists (i.e. printed paper products), as sub product within the same product (i.e. C&Gpaper) shall not be identified via the phase “printed on xx awarded the EU Ecolabel”. However, if the product group does not exist (i.e. upholstered furniture), then this phase can be used on the sub product (i.e. textiles used to upholster furniture).

20

I raised a similar questions regarding this issue at the past CB forum (Nic was present). I understood more information would be given at the coming CB forum. And that nothing could be done for the time being.

I believe that the additional requirement that organic cotton should not be mixed with GMO cotton (this not due to organic regulation but this is an additional requirement from the EU Ecolabel) in practice makes the organic option much less interesting: you go for 100% organic (higher cost) or mix organic cotton with the cotton of schemes that exclude GMO’s like Cotton Madi In Africa or Fair Trade cotton.

Since there was no conclusion the only way forward for our applicant is 20% IPM with 80% conventional. Since in that case it can be GMO.

7.f TEXTILES: Conclusion on Appendix 1 point f). ii) surfactants, softeners, and complexing agents

(IPTS)

1. Appendix 1- point f). ii) Surfactants, softners and complexing agents Is it correct that the whole raw materials which are fabric softeners, complexing agents and detergents/surfactants shall be at least 95 % by weight of fabric softeners, complexing agents and surfactants shall be: — Readily biodegradable under aerobic conditions or — Inherently biodegradable and/or — Eliminable in wastewater treatment plants. IPTS will investigate why "detergents" has disappeared (either intentional or by mistake) to determine whether a corrigendum should be planned for the future and report back at the June 2015 CB Forum.

7.g P&V: Conclusions of outdoor P&V use of IPBC (EC) There are some P&V applicants want to use IPBC for outdoor paints and varnishes formulation. According to the appendix substance and derogation list, IPBC can be used up to 0.65% but in the concentration, the final paint will be classified as H412. Can derogations overrule criterion 5a on overall restrictions to classifications of risk phrases? If the derogation allows a level of 0.65% IPBC, but this causes the final product to be classified, can it be accepted or not? It is possible that a sentence is needed in criterion 5a to state that even though a derogation is in place the final product will not bear any classification with one of the final H phrases? Whether or not the final product can be classified, the EC will verify to see with legal services to formulate an opinion about the derogation.

7.h PAINTS & VARNISHES: Update on requested amendment (IPTS) The word “and” has been deleted from the Amendment –Appendix 7. a) the requirement on formaldehyde on the limit 0,010% the methods HPLC / ISO 16000-3. It was asked if “and” was deliberately or non-deliberately deleted. IPTS will double check to make sure that the Commission Decision should be interpreted as having an “and”. Furthermore they will provide information on how other proposed modifications will be addressed.

8.a AOB: TEXTILES criteria (Germany) In the appendix 1 (RSL-List) in chapter: (iv) Extractable metals Applicability are two tables (Appendix 1. G.): a) All products with different limit values applying to babies and children under 3 years old and b) The following limit values apply to all other products including interior textiles. Verification: Final product testing

1. What is your interpretation: does “all products / final product” include all products mentioned in Article 1 (a-e)? Or only the products made of “fibre”? (I think only “fibre” and not a criteria for (d) Non-fibre elements – zips, buttons,).

2. If only “fibres”: only for fibres in a woven, non-woven or knitted form or also for fibres, yarn, fabric and knitted panels? (I

think for both types). 3. And if necessary also for fibres, yarn, fabric and knitted panels: which table is valid? (I think table a) because the fibres,

yarn, fabric and knitted panels may be used in textiles made for babies and children under 3 years old)

21

4. In the user manual you find a declaration (I assume additionally the applicant has to submit the test report, that’s what we

expect) on page 175, but if the applicants follow strictly the check list (Part E, pages 181-194) they find no hint for this declaration/test (which is not good for a check list).