Comments on CSES Draft Final Study Report: Evaluation of the Eco Design Directive 2009/125/EC
Published: 31 January 2012
Policies & Issues: Environment
Following the recent release of the CSES draft final report on the abovementioned study and the related stakeholder consultation meeting, Orgalime would like to add several remarks to its earlier contributions, especially on new elements that arise from the draft final report in comparison to its earlier version:
The CSES study recommendations should be fully based on evidence. This is in our view not the case for the recommendations which have now been amended to make them more positive regarding an extension of the scope beyond energy related products; this now clearly is in conflict with the evident risks of such an extension - creation of legal uncertainty, disruption of the ongoing implementation, weakened credibility of the instrument, higher non compliance or significant additional costs for industry. The previous CSES recommendation should therefore in our view be maintained. Changes to the scope, the MEErP methodology and subsequent procedures, including bodies involved in the preparation of implementing measures, should not be recommended - and certainly not be introduced- before the effectiveness and efficiency of the Directive and its implementing measures have been fully evaluated.
Anybody involved in the preparatory process of implementing measures needs to take into account important criteria, such as securing a transparent and inclusive process, involving industry experts throughout the process, demonstrating their expertise in eco design and the targeted products and being able to ensure confidentiality of sensitive data.
Orgalime is concerned with several parts of the study discussing “non energy in use” parameters for the future implementation. The final report should state that for legal certainty any further implementation activity has to respect all criteria and procedural elements of the Directive (notably article 15 and the criterion of “significant environmental improvement potential”) as well as take into account all existing study findings of already targeted product groups. It should also be recommended that no overlap with other legislation should be created and that enforcement must be possible.
We support strengthening enforcement through better cooperation and exchange of information, notably in the ADCO. However, the recommendation to create national registers should be removed: this option is in contradiction with regulators’ decisions taken during the legislative process, is too burdensome and costly and is also inappropriate in the area of fully harmonised European product policy, which cannot be compared with the purpose and function of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.
CSES should however recommend that the Eco Design Directive should go more in the direction of New Approach Directives and strive for a better use of standards, not only test and measurement standards, especially if generic requirements were considered for the future.
Finally, we welcome CSES’ assessment of the instrument of voluntary agreements, which should be kept as an option for the future.