VCI-Position

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (COM(2008) 402 final; Council doc. 12108/08

Stand: 4.September 2008

1.    General observations

We note that industry companies are not given an adequate reward, in return for their extra workload and costs connected with a participation in EMAS. Consequently, the participation of manufacturing industry companies in EMAS has been declining for years, while the interest in EMAS is rising especially among cultural, social and religious organisations. For example, in Germany the number of EMAS-certified representatives of interests and religious organisations rose from 13 to 96 in the period from 2002 to 2006, whereas the relevant number of chemical industry companies dropped from 230 to 123 during the same period. Therefore, stronger incentives for EMAS-certified industrial companies are urgently needed, such as e.g. more consideration and privileges in environmental regulation at European and national levels. The presented proposal does not only fail to meet this demand, it contains additional requirements.

2.    Detailed observations on the proposal

Article 2: Definitions

The number of definitions has increased noticeably. New definitions include e.g. "Best environmental management practice" (13) and "environmental performance report" (16).

Both definitions provide the basis for further-going rules in the Regulation. Two examples: "Best environmental management practice" is an element in the "Development of sectoral reference documents" (Article 46). The "environmental performance report" is a major prerequisite for the maintenance of EMAS registration (Article 6.2b).

Article 3: Determination of the Competent Body

Here, the scope of EMAS is extended to organisations outside the Community. But it is left unclear in what way this extension is supposed to work, especially as EMAS – already in its existing form - is unsuitable for international use. This applies even more to the now presented proposal.

Moreover this leads to rivalry with ISO 14001, which is widespread and well-accepted internationally. From industry's viewpoint, the existence in parallel of two environmental management systems causes unnecessary work, costs and bureaucracy.

Article 4: Preparation for registration

Article 4 (5) lays down an obligation to prove legal conformity, for which the competent enforcement authority can issue a statement of compliance. This statement of compliance should usually be impossible to obtain – or, at most, if the competent authority conducts comprehensive additional examinations.

Article 6: Maintenance of EMAS registration

Newly included is the demand to submit – additionally to the environmental statement – an annual "environmental performance report", which needs to be validated by the competent authority for subsequent publication. In conjunction with the equally newly created "Core Indicators" (Annex IV D), this causes extra work and costs, which are disproportionate to the genuine benefits for the environment. The former approach of an environmental statement only is fully sufficient for the purposes of the Regulation.

Article 39: EMAS and other environmental policies and instruments in the Community

Here, it is obviously tried to take into account registration under EMAS in the development of new legislation. Facilitations for registered organisations are not expressly mentioned. This article is so vague that doubts arise whether facilitations are brought about under European or national law (even though this is currently being discussed in connection with the German Environmental Code (Umweltgesetzbuch / UGB).

Article 46: Development of sectoral reference documents

The Commission seems to be planning the development of "sectoral reference documents" for industry sectors, taking into account both the above-mentioned "best environmental management practice" and the new "Core Indicators".

It might be assumed that such "sectoral reference documents" can be used in the meaning of a (non-admissible) benchmark for a ranking of organisations. This would lead to a paradox situation where companies come under discussion, even though they have an EMAS registration.

Annex IV D. Core indicators and other relevant existing environmental performance indicators

Within the elaboration of the "environmental performance report" it is obligatory to gather and publish data for a new set of indicators, covering the following fields: Energy efficiency, material efficiency, water, waste, biodiversity and (greenhouse) emissions. Such data are to be expressed both is absolute figures and in specific figures (i.e. total annual gross value-added).

This is rejected, as specific figures based on total annual gross value-added are of no informative value. The approach of expressing environmental performance figures as gross value-added is misleading, because different types of production involve different emissions – also within one given industry. This generalising approach must be seen in a particularly critical light when taken in the development of sectoral reference documents. Here, distortions of competition are bound to occur.

Conclusion:

EMAS is not made more attractive for companies who want to newly join this scheme. More far-reaching requirements will result in less interest in EMAS, considering that facilitations remain vague and nebulous. Consequently, the following new elements of EMAS III are rejected:

w:charB7;     Best environmental management practice

w:charB7;     Core indicators

w:charB7;     Environmental performance report

w:charB7;     Sectoral reference documents

Instead of making EMAS even more unattractive with further-going requirements, emphasis should be given on strengthening and rewarding the self-responsibility of companies, e.g. by including in the draft regulation some concrete starting points which lead to facilitations for registered organisations.