Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy"
Date: 2001-06-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU publication, environmental policy, environmental protection, industrial policy, public contract

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/53

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy’

(2001/C 357/14)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission Communication on the Green Paper on integrated product policy
(COM(2001) 68 final);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 13 February 2001, under Article 265, first
paragraph of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions
on the matter;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 13 June 2000 to instruct Commission 4 — Spatial Planning,
Urban Issues, Energy, Environment — to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply contracts, public service
contracts and public works contracts and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council co-ordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy and
transport sectors (CdR 312/2000 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on the review of the Community strategy for waste management (CdR 339/96
fin) (2);

having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission: The Global Assessment of
the European Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the environment and sustainable
development (Fifth Environment Action Programme) (CdR 12/2000 fin) (3);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 98/2001 rev.) adopted by Commission 4 on 3 May 2001 for
which the rapporteur was Mr Kramer Mikkelsen (DK, PES),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 39th plenary session on 13 and 14 June 2001 (meeting
of 13 June).

1. Position of the Committee of the Regions on the

Green Paper on an integrated product policy

The Committee agrees with the Commission that
1.1.
integrated product policy (IPP) must be based on a mix of
instruments. Voluntary and market-driven instruments such as
eco-labelling, eco-declarations, environment-friendly public
procurement, environmental management and eco-design
guidelines all have a part to play.

1.2.
However, the Committee would point out that IPP
incorporating the facets discussed in the Green Paper must be
viewed as an adjunct to traditional forms of legislation, such
as minimum directives, which it cannot replace.

1.3.
objectives and criteria for assessing target attainment.

Legislative initiatives are needed to establish priorities,
In

(1) OJ C 144, 16.5.2001, p. 23.
(2) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 74.
(3) OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 1.

particular legislation must provide for measures to be triggered
in the event of failure to meet the fixed objectives. In the
Committee’s view,
IPP must be framed on the basis of
the fundamental principles underpinning EU environmental
policy; viz. the precautionary and substitution principles.

In particular, directives to establish minimum stan-
1.4.
dards for waste treatment and use of chemicals need to be
further developed.
IPP can provide valuable back-up for
purposes of waste prevention and substitution of undesirable
chemical
in specific products but voluntary
measures in these areas must not impede attempts to achieve
basic environmental protection legislation.

substances

1.5.
To ensure that voluntary measures such as those
mentioned in the Green Paper are consistent with and reinforce
further legislative work, the Committee would suggest that the
Commission address this interaction in the future Communi-
cation.

C 357/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

1.6.
The Committee also feels that IPP’s linkage to, and
interrelationship with, traditional regulation of the business
environment and the existing measures in this sphere (IPPC
and BAT) need to be explained.

The Commission’s IPP Green Paper does not live up to
1.7.
the Committee’s expectations regarding long-term objectives
and priorities for waste prevention following the adoption of
the Commission’s Sixth Environment Action Programme,
which specifies that waste prevention is a key IPP component.

1.13.
Currently the scope for local and regional authorities
to promote environment-friendly products through their pro-
curement policies, in the case of large contracts, depends on
Community procurement rules making provision for the
inclusion of relevant environmental conditions. As regards
such contracts, the Committee regrets that the Green Paper
allows the success or failure of IPP to be dictated by these
authorities’ capacity to boost demand for less pollutant
products, in view of their restricted scope for action in this
field.

1.8.
The Committee of the Regions has on earlier occasions
and most recently in its opinion on the global assessment of
the Fifth Environment Action Plan (1), drawn attention to the
need for a determined waste prevention drive. The Committee
reiterates this demand in the present context.

1.14.
Unless the procurement rules include exemptions
allowing them to exercise this role properly, local and regional
authorities will be unable to meet the stated expectations. In
view of the key role the Commission ascribes to an environ-
ment-driven public procurement policy, it must therefore be
stressed that interpretations and amendments of procurement
rules are a prerequisite for effective implementation of IPP.

1.9.
The Committee would therefore urge the Commission
in its future Communication to identify objectives and prioriti-
es so that action to prevent waste receives the high priority
necessary to limit the volume of waste. The local and regional
authorities are largely responsible in Europe for waste disposal
and have considerable expertise in the problems caused by
the types and quantity of existing waste production. These
authorities are willing to make this expertise available to the
Commission and call on the Commission to involve the
Committee of the Regions closely in its future work.

1.10.
The Committee is pleased to learn that the Com-
mission wishes to involve all actors at all levels and that it is
keen for IPP to be founded on open dialogue and incentives
for the incorporation of a life cycle approach into all relevant
decisionmaking.

1.11.
The Committee particularly wishes to impress on the
Commission that heed should be given when drafting the
future Communication to the potential role of local and
regional authorities by virtue of the part they play in monitor-
ing businesses etc.

The Committee regrets that the Green Paper does not
1.12.
address the possibilities for local and regional environment
authorities to influence actual product development through
dialogue with companies. This is unfortunate as the local and
regional environment authorities are well placed to persuade
to take a life cycle-driven
companies,
approach to products’ environmental properties.

through dialogue,

(1) COM(1999) 543 final.

2. The Committee’s recommendations on specific chap-

ters of the Green Paper

The price mechanism

The Committee of the Regions fully supports the
2.1.
‘polluter pays’ principle which is a pillar of the Community’s
environmental protection action. Similarly the Committee
endorses the Commission’s view that the real environmental
costs of a product’s total life cycle should be factored into the
product’s price. In implementing the ‘polluter pays’ principle,
practical difficulties have sometimes arisen in incorporating
environmental costs in product prices. The Committee finds it
unlikely that the proposed measures will suffice to make an
immediate impact.

2.2.
The Committee proposes that the future IPP Communi-
cation should place emphasis on identifying a broader range
of measures to promote the factoring of environmental costs
into product prices. The Communication should highlight the
advisability of levying a special charge on certain raw materials,
chemicals, etc. It should also draw attention to the possibility
of withdrawing existing subsidies, state support etc. for the
development of agricultural, energy and other products and
processes which are incompatible with sustainable develop-
ment. Lastly, the Communication should specify how deter-
mined application of environmental responsibility, such as
mandatory guarantees against environmental damage, can
further the inclusion of environmental costs in product prices.

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/55

2.3.
Producer liability can be one way of factoring the costs
of waste treatment of discarded products, sewage etc. into the
prices of new products and could possibly serve as incentive
to prevent waste as early as in the design phase. The Committee
views producer liability as a means of implementing the
polluter pays principle. In many cases waste systems should
be structured on the basis of individual producer responsibility,
so that the producer has sole financial responsibility for the
collection of the product in question and the handling of it as
waste. In practice it is possible, and often desirable, for waste
to be treated by waste systems established by local and regional
authorities, provided that producers meet
the costs. The
Committee has on an earlier occasion, in connection with its
opinion on the review of the Community strategy for waste
management (1) stressed the need when determining producer
liability to take account of the principle of dividing the
responsibility in a financial and a practical part.

2.4.
In the Committee’s view, an individual assessment
should be made for each product category as to whether it is
appropriate for producer liability to require the producer to
take back products. Producer liability as a component of IPP is
especially suitable in the case of products whose size and value
also allow for individual treatment of the waste product (e.g.
scrap cars).

feels that in practice a greater effort is needed — as recognised
in the Commission Green Paper, which states that the system
needs to be extended to cover more product categories besides
requiring more public funding to promote it. For different
product categories, the EU’s eco-label programme should be
able to base itself on and coordinate with, environmental
labelling schemes (e.g. the Nordic ‘swan label’) which already
operate smoothly, rather than starting from scratch and
competing with these labels.

2.8.
In the Committee’s view, the Green Paper’s proposals
for a broader labelling strategy in the shape of product
environmental declarations (ISO Type III) can be valuable for
both producers who are not ‘pioneers’ in the development of
less pollutant products and therefore do not qualify for
environmental
labels. More detailed environmental declar-
ations will seldom be of use for individual private consumers
but can be of considerable relevance for larger public or
private purchasers and for customers in the supply chain.
Environmental declarations can also facilitate better consumer
advice from the responsible organisations. Priority should be
given to pragmatic action to improve communication rather
than making environmental declarations more comprehensive
and detailed.

Green consumer demand

2.5.
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the
importance of promoting the dissemination of understandable,
relevant and credible information on products’ environmental
properties. Here the Committee would stress that the dissemi-
nation of environmental information should largely be covered
by producer liability.

2.6.
The Committee would point to the great need to
educate both consumers and small and medium-sized business-
es in environmental matters; such education should form part
of IPP.

The EU’s voluntary environmental

2.7.
labelling system
(eco-label) has existed for many years and is a household
name. The Committee generally considers this system an
excellent one since it is an easy guide to consumers when
making purchases while the criteria for granting this label are
differentiated and allow for ongoing adjustment to develop-
ment within the product category concerned. The Committee

(1) COM(96) 399 final.

2.9.
The Committee supports the prioritisation of manda-
tory environmental declaration systems which, like the Euro-
pean energy label, can be applicable to all products on each
market.

Information in the form of green claims and self-
2.10.
declarations (ISO Type II) should, in the Committee’s view, be
a lesser priority since they are felt to inspire little confidence
in consumers and a confusing proliferation of labels could
result. Claims such as ‘does not contain...’ should only be
acceptable in exceptional cases. It is preferable instead to
indicate the substances used in the product; it should also be
established that the stated environmental properties are rel-
evant to the product category.

Public procurement policy

2.11.
The Committee is pleased to observe that the Com-
mission recognises the major potential of promoting environ-
mentally friendly products through a deliberately green public
procurement policy. The Committee would also point out
that, in many areas of the EU, local and regional authorities
have already given practical expression to their determination

C 357/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.12.2001

to pursue a green procurement policy. In this way they have
made a substantial contribution towards promoting new
technologies (electric cars, windmills etc.).

2.12.
Against this background it is most regrettable that
the rules on public calls for tender are interpreted in ways that
seriously impede the pursuit of a green procurement policy. In
drawing attention to Treaty Article 6, the Committee would
stress that there should be no conflict between the free market
for goods and services and the ‘greening’ of public calls for
tender. The current heavy constraints are reflected by the fact
that legal action has already been taken against a number of
towns which have shown their determination to make allow-
ance for environmental factors in their procurement policy.

2.16.
The Committee takes the view that it must be made
possible to require suppliers and their products to hold the
European eco-label, and that it should be possible to require
other national or trans-national green labels, (e.g. the Nordic
‘Svanemærke’), provided that open access is also provided for
goods with certification showing that they meet corresponding
requirements in the same areas.

2.17.
The Committee feels that it must be made possible to
require suppliers of public goods and services to have intro-
duced environment management systems, such as the Euro-
pean EMAS system or the international ISO 14000.

It also considers that provision should be made for
2.18.
excluding suppliers which fail to meet local, regional, national
or European environmental standards from being eligible to
supply public goods or services.

2.13.
The Committee has on earlier occasions — most
recently in its opinion of 13 December 2000 concerning
public procurement procedures (1) — pointed out that the
Commission seems to place greater emphasis on tightening
up procurement rules than on facilitating the inclusion of
environmental requirements in public calls for tender.

2.19.
In the Committee’s view, it is most important that the
planned Commission Communication should stress that the
above measures are necessary in order to exploit the full
potential of large public procurement contracts.

2.14.
The local and regional authorities would reiterate that
the rules governing calls for tender are merely intended to
ensure that purchasing methods are consistent with single
market aims. It is vital that such rules should not affect the
product to be procured (e.g. whether a contracting authority
is to purchase bio-vegetables or meat which does not contain
hormones), i.e. it must also be possible to impose environmen-
tal conditions on the production process. In this connection,
the Committee would again draw attention to its opinion
on the global assessment of the Fifth Environment Action
Programme (2), which highlights the need to promote an EU
agricultural policy focusing on sustainable development.

2.15.
The Committee is aware that minimising resource
and energy consumption etc. in the production of products
can entail substantial savings for producers. However, it would
stress that the local and regional authorities’ experience has
been that green procurement usually means higher prices as a
result, for instance, of development costs.

Bearing in mind the uncertainty accompanying, as
2.20.
mentioned above, the applicability of the projected measures
to incorporate environmental costs in product prices, and
bearing in mind the key role green public procurement plays
in the Green Paper, it is most regrettable that there seem to be
no immediate signs of resolve to facilitate a genuine ‘greening’
of public procurement.

Generation of product information

2.21.
The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal
that producers should be required to supply key data regarding
the product’s environmental properties to all players in the
supply chain and to the end consumer. In the Committee’s
view, it is important to frame binding guidelines guaranteeing
the supply chain and consumers access to relevant information
in a form which does not infringe the company’s right to
business secrecy.

Guidelines for product design

(1) COM(2000) 275 final — 2000/0115 (COD) and COM(2000)

276 final — 2000/0117(COD).

(2) COM(1999) 543 final.

2.22.
The Committee backs the Commission’s drive to
speed up the preparation and dissemination of guidelines to
incorporate environmental considerations into the design
process. In this way IPP can be a major means of promoting

14.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 357/57

waste prevention and sustainable development, and of securing
substitutes for dangerous substances. The guidelines should
focus on reducing both the volume and hazards of waste. A
scheme to collect experiences of local and regional authorities’
waste management could help in providing feedback which
can be of valuable assistance in preventing waste, in the design
and consumer phases.

2.26.
The Committee would also draw attention to past
experiences in applying new approaches in connection with
the Packaging Directive. Despite the allocation of substantial
funding for that purpose, it did not prove possible to frame
the recommended standards to govern key requirements
regarding e.g. reduced consumption of materials etc. in the
production of packaging.

Standardisation and the new approach

impact and that a potential

2.23.
The Committee agrees that the framing of product
standards is very important for the product’s actual environ-
mental
therefore exists for
integrating environmental considerations into standardisation
work as has been done in the case of consumer safety.
However, safety is a far less complex matter than environmen-
tal factors, where the long-term impact etc. has to be antici-
pated. The Committee would point out that environmental
issues, to a far greater extent than safety, also involve political
prioritisation in view of the multitude of different and often
mutually contradictory parameters which have to be taken
into consideration.

In the Committee’s view, major democratic problems
2.24.
arise in making the European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN) and other bodies which are not under direct democratic
supervision responsible for decisions on environmental protec-
tion standards. Environmental priorities must be determined
by political bodies and it is therefore difficult to apply the new
approach as a basis in environmental matters. The Committee
also feels that it is questionable whether the Treaty authorises
the transfer of political competence to bodies which are not
politically controlled, as is possible under the new approach.
It should be noted that decisions taken, for instance, by CEN
are not subject to the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.

The Committee would also point out that even if
2.25.
standardisation is a consensus-driven process, such consensus
is influenced by the partners’ capacity to earmark resources for
such work and not by any form of democratic process.

Brussels, 13 June 2001.

2.27.
Accordingly, the Committee does not feel that ‘new
approach’ directives can replace traditional regulation. When
considering the application of new approaches in the environ-
ment sphere, in future care should be taken only to do so if a
satisfactory solution has been found to the above problems.

Product panels

2.28.
In the Committee’s view, the setting up of product
panels can be of assistance in implementing IPP. However, it
should be noted that the success of such panels will depend
on reciprocal commitments between producers on the panel,
and their interest in building a constructive network. This
creates special demands when setting up product panels at
European level. The Committee calls for a regular evaluation
of the work of the future European product panels.

Environmental management and audit systems

2.29.
The Committee considers environmental manage-
ment systems to be a good means of boosting companies’
internal environmental prioritisation and work and that such
systems can be of assistance in upgrading their communication
of environmental information to authorities etc. The Com-
mittee therefore considers that the EMAS Regulation should
be integrated into IPP rather than being merely viewed as a
support measure.

Next steps

2.30.
The Committee calls for the Commission, in its next
IPP initiative, to indicate objectives and deadlines, as well as
indicators for assessing IPP impact.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT