Comments on Commission Consultation on Resource Efficiency Indicators

Published: 22 October 2012

Policies & Issues: Environment

European Engineering industries are generally committed to the objectives of the EU Resource Efficiency Roadmap. We believe that developing indicators that are meaningful and appropriate needs to be based on a clear set of criteria, including the Commission’s suggested criteria of RACER (relevance, acceptability, credibility, easiness, robustness), but also on further criteria, such as data availability, fitness for purpose to guide regulators in their policy making, consistency, completeness or timeliness.

Orgalime wishes to raise the following core comments on the Commission consultation paper on resource efficiency indicators:

If indicators are to be developed, they need to be fully harmonised, shared, representative and based on robust data, with an appropriate methodology, which we believe is not the case for the moment being.

The existing lack of available data also interferes with the development of reliable indicators. European standardisation should be used to fill gaps where it is possible.

A very careful approach that embraces environmental and economic aspects alike should be adopted when assessing possible resource efficiency indicators. In this respect, we question the suggested methodology and structure proposed by the consultation document.

In our view, the proposed lead indicator of Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) shows considerable weaknesses in terms of its capacity to reflect all aspects of Resource Efficiency in an appropriate and reliable manner. This risks leading to misinterpretations in environmental and economic terms and should therefore not be applied.

Orgalime industries recommend abandoning the lead indicator, and to focus directly on the development of dashboard macro-indicators instead, which should in particular include the following indicators: economy, environment, technology and (environmental) policy implementation score.

As long as there are no robust and transparent indicators derived from representative data and methodologies, it is in our view inappropriate to progress with the setting of targets.


Related Position Papers

Environment: Joint statement on the need for a transition period for the implementation of the Batteries Regulation [28 July 2021]

Environment: Orgalim input to the European Commission consultation on the Revision of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive [20 July 2021]

Environment: Orgalim position on the Sustainable Products Initiative [8 June 2021]

Environment: Orgalim position on draft reporting rules for companies under the EU Taxonomy Regulation [2 June 2021]

Environment: Orgalim position on the cross-cutting aspects of the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Working Plan 2020-2024 [2 June 2021]

Environment: Orgalim comments on the REACH revision roadmap [1 June 2021]

Environment: Orgalim comments on the French draft decrees on the identification of hazardous substances and the provision of information identifying endocrine disruptors in products [22 March 2021]

Environment: Orgalim comments on a proposal for a Regulation for Batteries and Waste Batteries [1 March 2021]

Environment: Orgalim comments on the 1st draft delegated act on climate change sustainable activities supplementing the EU Taxonomy Regulation [18 December 2020]