15 TH IPP/SCP Regular Meeting

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate C - Sustainable Resources Management, Industry & Air ENV.C.1 - Sustainable Production and Consumption Brussels, AP/anm env.c.1(2011) TH IPP/SCP Regular Meeting Monday, the 17 th of October 2011 (10:00-16:30) CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, 36 RUE FROISSART (room AB-2B) 1000, Brussels DRAFT MINUTES JOINT MEETING BETWEEN IPP/SCP REGULAR MEETING AND EPG WORKING GROUP "ENTERPRISE, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY POLICY

2 1. WELCOME BY EUROPEAN COMMISSION CHAIRS (DG ENV AND DG ENTR) AND ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMON IPP/EPG MEETING OF 10 MARCH AND THE IPP/SCP MEETING OF 1 ST JUNE 2011 DG ENTR welcomed participants and introduced the DG ENTR team working on the review of the SCP/SIP Action Plan. She proposed a change to the draft agenda, moving point 5 to the afternoon. The change was adopted. Poland requested a few amendments to the minutes of the 1 st June 2011 meeting. Poland will send track changes to allow the required changes to be introduced. The minutes of 10 March 2011 were adopted with no amendments. 2. PRESENTATION OF THE RESOURCE EFFICIENCY ROADMAP WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 (DG ENV) DG ENV presented the Resource Efficiency Roadmap adopted by the Commission on 20 September The Roadmap can be downloaded in all EU official languages in: &Submit22=GO epg_ /roadmap_copenhagenpdf/_en_1.0_&a=d The presentation was followed by a Q&A session. Germany asked about the links between the 2050 goal and the 2020 milestones presented in the Roadmap, and how the Commission intends to bridge them. The Commission recognized the challenge; however it underlined the coherence between the 2050 goal and the 2020 milestones: if properly implemented the milestones will be conducive to the achievement of the overall goal. Indeed, the Roadmap is not prescriptive on how to bridge them, also because it would be inappropriate to try predicting the situation in in terms of technological and societal change that may occur. Finland asked for clarification on the process towards the development of indicators for resource efficiency. The Commission explained that the intention is to set the process for the development of indicators by 2013 in collaboration with stakeholders. Deliverables are expected along the way but only few can be expected to be ready by Spain made a remark on the reference to the concept of "value" made during the presentation and warned on the need to assess in depth the implications of the theory of value when using that terminology. Latvia stressed the importance of having resource efficiency indicators as soon as possible and made reference to the future 7th Environmental Action Programme calling for strong links with the Resource Efficiency Roadmap.

3 CEN took the opportunity to announce a workshop on resource efficiency and standardization organized in collaboration with EFTA. The workshop is scheduled on 13 December 2011 and more info will be provided to participants when available. 3. PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY ON RESOURCE EFFICIENCY (DG ENTR) DG ENTR presented the result on a study on the Competitiveness of European companies and Resource Efficiency epg_ /entr_study_repdf/_en_1.0_&a=d The presentation was followed by a Q&A session Lithuania asked for clarifications on the reference to Ecodesign. Anna clarified she did not refer to the legislation, but to the idea of circular economy and designing products taking account of their disposal. There is an ongoing review of the Ecodesign Directive to assess the extension of scope. EEB suggested that to address the current lack of measurement systems we could rely to the few existing ones, such for instance the eco-efficiency indicators and we could build on them. Lack of indicators should not be used as an excuse for inaction. The Commission stressed that there are actually a lot of indicators already available but they are neither homogenous nor consensual. Domestic Material Consumption (which is part of the Lead Indicator in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap) is not the most suitable indicator and it is just a temporary one to start the work with. The Commission also referred to on-going methodological work, which will have repercussions on the development of indicators for resource efficiency as well. For ANEC the findings of the study show that industry is interested in recyclability, in establishing a single market for waste, and in setting more industrial symbiosis systems. These issues should be addressed in the review of the SCP/SIP AP, not only in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap. CEN asked what would be the added value compared to existing methodologies? The Commission explained that current standards leave a lot of room of maneuver to companies, causing incomparability. A common methodology won t allow this, reducing the amount of interpretation. It is still to be seen how the methodologies developed will become the reference in Europe and hopefully globally. UK support attempts to improve consistency at EU level. Consistency should be achieved also at sectoral level. It warned that barriers are in data availability. It stressed the importance of collaborating with industry as it knows best what works and the need to also keep a close eye on developments at global level. The Commission confirmed that this is its approach. 4. REPORT FROM MEMBER STATES AND STAKEHOLDERS ON SELECTED SCP/SIP POLICY INSTRUMENTS

4 Sweden presented a discussion paper on the review of the SCP/SIP Action Plan that was circulated to participants ahead of the meeting. It also underlined the importance of the implementation and enforcement of existing rules and advocated stronger co-operation with the business community. _engdocpdf/_en_1.0_&a=d Within its "Green Economy Strategy" the Swiss Federal Council has identified six primary fields of action. One of these fields is the better information on the environmental impact of products. That s the reason why Switzerland is currently working on the improvement of market transparency. To date, quality requirements for environmental product information have been worked out. There are 8 general requirements, 3 of them being called essential quality requirements: Relevance for decisions to be influenced Total picture in focus Reliability The 5 others are complementary quality requirements. In a second step, Switzerland will try to break down these general requirements to concrete voluntary recommendations for food and drink products. Retailers and consumer organisations are part of the working group. A first result should be available by spring Switzerland is taking into account the work that is undertaken by the Commission and by some EU countries (France) regarding the same issue, its interest being to harmonise the different ongoing activities as much as possible. Also in the context of the Green Economy Strategy, the Federal Council adopted in September 2011 the Masterplan Cleantech as one of the before mentioned six primary fields of action. The Masterplan Cleantech sees public procurement as an important means to foster cleaner technologies. Switzerland is now building up a monitoring system for SPP. A first monitoring report should be ready by the end of UK is currently preparing a paper on the review SCP/SIP Action Plan highlighting what in its opinion has worked and has not worked. When available the paper will be posted in Circa. France made an update on the national experimentation on environmental footprint of products and its communication to consumers. The number of application received shows that the issue is becoming strategic for companies in spite of the economic crisis. Hungary announced that in September the government adopted a decree introducing a new strategy on environmental technology innovation which will last until The Hungarian text of the strategy can be found at: ovációs%20stratégia.pdf

5 A leaflet in English will be circulated as soon as available via CIRCA. 5. (11:00 11:20) PRESENTATION OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ON THE 2008 SCP/SIP ACTION PLAN (DG ENV) DG ENV presented the mid-term evaluation report on the 2008 SCP/SIP Action Plan drafted by Ecorys. epg_ /scp_evaluationpdf/_en_1.0_&a=d The report will be published on-line in the coming week and participants will be duly informed. 6. (11:20 11:50) PRESENTATION OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WORK TOWARDS THE REVIEW OF THE SCP/SIP ACTION PLAN ON THE BASIS OF A DISCUSSION PAPER PREPARED BY THE COMMISSION DG ENV presented the state of play in the on-going work for the development of two methodological guidances for the environmental footprint of products and companies. Information was provided on: the policy mandates given by the Council the build-up of the methodological work: the analysis of existing methodologies, the drafting and testing of the new technical guides supporting studies in the area of communication of the environmental footprint of products and incentives driving the environmental performance of companies, upcoming milestones and possibilities for inputs (expert consultation on the methodologies November, workshop on incentives on the 14 th of December, upcoming public consultation on the policy options). epg_ /environmental_footprintp/_en_1.0_&a=d The presentation was followed by a Q&A session France asked for clarification on the project timeline, to see how best synchronize with the on-going French work and see whether provisional results can be taken into account. The Netherlands asked whether the Commission intends to make incentives mandatory for Member States. She warned that it is better to see what is (or will be) available nationally. The Commission is well aware of the distinction on what the EU is entitled to do and what Member States can do. The purpose is not to mandate predetermined options, but to provide elements for Member States to steer decisions on national incentives.

6 Germany asked whether the work on common methodology will lead to a reference framework or a harmonized single methodology. The Commission aims at a single methodology to be used as a reference, as referred to in the recent Council Conclusions and the Single Market Act. There is a need to avoid confusion and distortions in internal market. The Commission will look at it carefully and will make use of the stakeholder consultation to select the right option. CEN asked what would be the added value compared to existing methodologies? The Commission explained that current standards leave a lot of room of maneuver to companies, causing incomparability. A common methodology won t allow this, reducing the amount of interpretation. It is still to be seen how the methodologies developed will be become the reference in Europe and hopefully globally. UK support attempts to improve consistency at EU level. Consistency should be achieved also at sectoral level. It warned that barriers are in data availability; therefore it is compelling working with industry at global level as well. The Commission confirmed that this is its approach. 7. (11:50 12:30) FEEDBACK AND REACTION FROM MEMBER STATES ON THE DISCUSSION PAPER DG ENTR gave a brief oral presentation of its vision and ambition for the SCP/SIP review. It pointed out that in addition to reviewing how to further develop product policies, the whole area of waste and how it can best be used as a resource and secondary raw material will also be considered along with how to help SMEs overcome big challenges and realise their potential to contribute to a more resource efficient economy. DG ENTR also see opportunities to look at new and better ways of working while increasing focus on the global competitiveness implications of our sustainability actions (speaking points in annex). DG ENV presented orally the part on SCP of the discussion paper circulated ahead of the meeting, available at: epg_ /scp-sip_ docpdf/_en_1.0_&a=d The Netherlands asked clarification on the relationship and risks of overlaps between the methodological work on environmental footprint and to existing policy instrument such as Ecolabel and others. The Commission stated that there is no contradiction: indeed LCA is widely used in Ecolabel for instance. It is sure nevertheless that there is still a lot of room for improvements once methodology is ready, as there is a need for more robust and scientific basis for assessment of impact of products under the scope of existing policy instruments. The Commission will see how to make this work coherent also with the review of the Ecodesign directive. The Commission would like to use the LCA methodologies under development also beyond existing instruments, for instance linking Member States and EUwide incentives to the methodologies. DG ENTR reminded about the on-going review of the EuP methodology but also stressed that globally the existing Ecodesign methodology has been well accepted by different stakeholders. DG ENTR has caution approach towards the environmental footprint for the time being.

7 Lithuania asked about global aspects and the relation with EU main trading partners. The issue is under consideration and very much linked to the climate negotiations. Indeed the review of the SCP/SIP Action Plan will contribute to EU climate policy. Germany stressed the need of global harmonization, synergies and integrated capacity. At present capacity is split in different label schemes, fora, etc. and prioritization is the way out. The Commission agreed, the problem however is the first move (i.e. eliminating national ecolabels to promote harmonization of environmental information to EU consumers). Poland is still analyzing the discussion paper and will send a comprehensive feedback soon. Monetization of environmental impacts means increasing prices; therefore Poland is hesitant on that aspect as well as on the use of reduced VAT. The Commission pointed out that the work is still on-going and it is not possible to say now what parts of the proposal will be mandatory or voluntary. Moreover, it will be necessary to identify the specificity of each product category that will be addressed to avoid wrong or inefficient incentives. Spain made reference to IPPC, standardization for companies, and market surveillance for the Ecodesign directive. In its view, it would be more appropriate to improve the enforcement of the directive instead of focusing on the extension of its scope. The Commission believes that there will be several stages of implementation starting with pilot voluntary phases; once feasibility and costs are assessed the new instruments can be rolled out and even made mandatory. IPPC is a good instrument but limited in certain parameter, especially on indirect impacts. Moreover, IPPC excludes important sectors, such as retailers that are very important from a resource efficiency perspective. Market surveillance is under the responsibility of Member States, so the Commission can only welcome calls for better implementation. This aspect will be added in the discussion paper. Standardization is key and the Commission will ask standardization bodies to provide further support. EEB thanked for the "micro-economic" focus of the review. It stressed the importance of being realistic for the implementation of product policy, when only 10 people are working on Ecodesign in the Commission. EEB recognized that the Ecodesign Directive is a good and powerful instrument but there is a clear need to optimize Ecodesign policy and its implementation structure before expanding its scope. For instance we need to get more data; better engage SMEs; and integrate environmental parameter other than energy efficiency in it. Concerning sustainable consumption EEB highlighted the importance of affordability as well as working with local community. It also requested more significant commitments by retailers in the context of the review of the Retail Forum. UK asked clarifications concerning GPP and taxation, which may be difficult to handle due to the current economic climate. The Commission believes that it is possible to design GPP policies in such a way that they don t have negative budgetary implications. A good example is life cycle costing, which is part of GPP. The Commission considered UK remark more compelling for taxation, however is convinced that taxation should be shifted from labour to resources as stated in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap. CEN intends to provide concrete proposals on how standardization can help the review of the SCP/SIP Action Plan. ANEC showed satisfaction with the ideas presented in the paper, and will react with a position paper soon. ANEC had reservations on the methodologies, it possible uses and the confusion that might emerge if different instruments have different methodologies, political processes, etc.

8 Denmark showed dissatisfaction on the way the Ecodesign directive has been implemented so far, especially for the fact that environmental aspects other that energy efficiency have not been taken into account in drafting implementing measures. According to Denmark this could have happened without the review; however simple LC thinking is not widespread within the industry. Existing knowledge should be used to shorten the process for setting Ecodesign requirements in connection with other SCP instruments. The Commission needs to wait for the end of the on-going Ecodesign evaluation which will end in February There is still one month to give evidence and Denmark was invited to send it to the consultant via the web connection. Finland too stressed the importance of environmental aspects other that energy efficiency in Ecodesign especially to tackle waste generation. Concerning GPP Finland suggested that the EU institutions should lead by example. BEUC highlighted the importance of review of the Retail Forum which will be discussed during the annual event scheduled on 10 November and encourage the Commission to propose changes to the way the forum works, especially in terms of clarity of objectives and indicators of success. The Commission agreed that marginal procedural improvements (i.e. in drafting issue papers) will not be satisfactory: the review should lead to more ambitious objectives for the sector for the next 3 years. Eurocommerce asked what the Commission has to offer to retailers to persuade them to step up in their commitments. It mentioned that discussion on the review has already started and is focusing on the implementation of the issue papers recommendations as well as the list of topics for the next 3 years. On food waste Eurocommerce pointed out that retailers cannot be considered the main cause. France highlighted the fact that stakeholders had no opportunity to comment or give input to the review of the Retail Forum. 8. (16:20 16:30) ANY OTHER BUSINESS The question of the future of the Marrakesh process and the 10 years framework of programmes on SCP was raised. Belgium will get back on the issue. The Commission proposed to schedule the next meeting in April when the stakeholder consultation will be over. ANNEX DG ENTR SPEAKING POINTS œ œ Š œ ŠŽ ž Œ Š œ œžœš Š Š Œ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ ŠŒ ŒŠ ŠŒ œ Š Š ŽŠ Ž Ž ŒŽ Œ Š ŽœŠ Œ œž Ž œ

9 Ž Ž ŽŸŽ Š Ž Ž œš žœ ŽœœŒŠœŽ ŠŒ œ Ž Š Š žœ Ž œ ŸŽŠ ŠŒ ŸŽ œ Š Ž Ÿ Ž Š Žž Š œ Š ŠŒ œ Ž ŽŽ œ Š Š œ ž ŒŽœ œ Ž žœ Ž Ž žœ Žœœ ž Žœ Žœž Ž Š œ Š ŽœžœŠ Š Ž Žœ ž ŒŽŽ Œ Ž ŽŒ Š žœšœ Œ Š Ž œ ŽŽ Œ ŽŠŽ Ž Š Œ œ žœ Ž ŸŽ ŸŠ ŸŽ œ ž œ Ž Ÿ Ž Š Œ Š Ž Žœ žœš Š Ž Œ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ œ Ž žœ Žœœ Š žœ ŽœœŽœ Š ŽŽ œ ŸŽ ŽŠŒ ŸŽ Š žžœ œžž Š Šœ Ž Ž Ÿ Ž ŠœŠž Š ŒŠ Š žœ ŽœœŠ Ž Ž ŸŠ Ž Œ Š Ž Ž Š žœ Œ ž œž œ Ž ŸŽ Ž œ Š Œ Žœ Š ŠŒ œ Š œ œ ŠŒ ŒŽ Ž ŽŽ œ Ž Š œ ŽŽ ŽŠ œ Œ Š ŽŠœ Ž Œ Ž Š ŽŸŽ œ Žœ ž ŒŽ Ž Œ Ž Œ žœ Š Œ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ ŠŽ ŽŒ ŒŠ œžœœžœœž Œ Š Žœ ŽŸŽ ŽŒ ŸŠ ŸŽ žœœ Ž Š Ž Œ žž ŽŽŒ ŸŽ Ž Ÿ Ž Š ŽŒ Š œ Œ Š Žœœ Ž ŽŽ žœ Š œžž Šœ Š Žœ ž œ žœ Š Ž Ž Ž Ž ŸŽ Ž ŽŽ žœœ Š Ÿ Ž Ž žœ ŽŽŽ Š œ Ž ŽŽ Ž Š Ž œ œ Š Žœœ Ž Œœ Ž žœš œ Ž Ž Ž Š œš Ž Š ž œš žœ ŽœœŠ œžœš œš Ž Šœ Š Ž Ž žœ Ž ŽŽ œ Ž Žž Š ž Ž Ž Ž ž Ž œš Ž Š Š Ž ž žœœš Š ŽŠ ŽŠ Ž Ž Š œ Ž ŽŽ ŒžœŠœ žœ Ž Ž Ž Ž Š ŸŽœ Ž ŠŸŽ Ž Ž Šž Œ Ž Žœ Ž Œ Žœ ŽŒ ŸŽ œš ŒŽ žœœ Ž Ž Ž Ž Œ Ž œ Š ž œ Šœ Š ŽŠ Ž ŸŽ Ž Š Žœž œ Š œšÿž Š Ž Ž žœ œœž Š Ž ŠŽ Ž ŒŠ Ž ž Ž ŠŸŽ Ž ŽŠ œ Œ Š ŸŽ Ž Ž Š œž Š Ž ŠŸŽ Ž Žœ ž ŒŽœ Ž ŸŽ Š œ œ Š Ž ŸŽ Ž ŽŠ œ ŽŸ Ž Š ž Ž Š ŽŽŠŒ œ Ž Ž œ ŠŠ Ž žœž Ž Š Ž žÿž ŽŒŽ ŸŽ ŽœŽŠ Ž Ž ŽŸŽ Ž Œ œžœ Š Š ž Œ ŽŠžŽœ Š Ž Š Ž Š žœ Š œžœ œ Ž Š Ž Ž Œž ž Š ŸŽ Š œ Ž œ Ž šžžœ œ Ž ž Šœ Žœ Š Œ Š œ Ž œ Š Ž œ œžœš Š ŽŒ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ

10 žœ ŸŽ Ž Žœ Ÿ žœ žœ Œ œ Œ žœ Š Š ŒŽ Ž ŽŸ Ž ŽŽŒ Žœ ŽŒ ŸŽ œœ ŽŽ Ž œžž ŽŒŠ Ž Š ž žœž ž œÿš žš Ž Ž ŽŠ Ž ŠœŽ Š Ž ŒŠ Žœ žœž Šœ Š Žœ ž ŒŽ Šœ Š œ ŽŽ œ Ž ž Šœ Š Š Š œ žœ Š Š œ ŽŸ žœ Š ž Ž Ÿ Ž œ Š ŽŒŠ Š žœ Ž Ž Ž Ž Š žœ Š Ž œ Š œ ŽŽ žœ Žœœ Ž œš Ž Š Š Œ Ž Š Š Žž Ž Š Š ŽŠœ ŠœŽŠ ŽŒ Œ ŠœŽ Ž Ž ŒŽ Š Š Ž ŽœœŠ ž ŠœŽŠœŠŸŠ žš Ž Žœ ž ŒŽ Š Ž Š Ž œš Ž Ž œ ŽŸŽ Š œžœ œ Ž Š žšœž žœ ŠŒŽ Œž Žœ ŠŸ œž Œ Ž ŠŒŒŽœœ Š ŠŽ Š œ Žœ ŽŒ Š Š Ž ŽŠ œ Š Ž Œ ŒŠ Š ŠŽ Š œ Š ŠŒŒŽ Š Ž ŒŽœ Ž Š Ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Š Ž Ž ŽœŽ Ž ŽŒ Œ žœœš ŠŽ Š œš ŽœŠ œ ŠŒ Œž Š ŽŒ ŽŠ œ ŽŠ Ž ŠœŽŠ ŽŒ Œ œžœ Š Ž Ž Š Ž ŠœŽŒ ž Ž ŸŽ Ž Ž œ Ž ŽŠ Ž ŠŽ ŽŒ œ ŽŠ ž ŽŠžŒ Š Œ ŒŽž Žœ Ž ŠœŽ œ Ž Š œ Ž Ž Ž Ž ŠŽ Š Ž ž Š Œ Ž Ž ŽŽ ŸŠŽ Š ž Œ ŠœŽŒ ŽŒ Š ŽŒ Œ Š ŠŒ Œ ŽŠ Ž œ Š Š žœ ŽœœŠœœ Œ Š œš Ž Ž œž Š Ž œ œž Ž Ž ž Š Ž Ž Š Ž Š Ž Ž Š œ žœ Š œ œ œ œ Š Ž ŠœŽ ŽŠ Ž Š ŽŸŽ ŽŸŽ ŠœŽ Šœ ŽŽ Ž ŠŽ ŽŒ Œ Š Ž ŠœŽŒ Ž Š ŸŠ žœ žœœ Ž Ž ŽœŽ Š Žœ œ ŽŠ ŠŽ Š œ Š ŸŽ Œ œ ŽœœŽœ Ž Š ŒŽ Ž ŽŒ Œ Œ ŒŠ Š ŠŽ Š œ Š Š ŸŽœ Œž Ž ŽšžŽ Œ ŽŠ ŠœŽœ Ž œ Ž ŽŠ œ œ œž Š Š ŽŸ œ ŠœŽ Š ŽŒ Œ Ž œ Š ž Ž Ž ŽŸŽ Š Ž ŠŸŽ Œ ŽŠœŽ ž Š Š Ž Žœœ ŠŒœ Ž œ Œ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ ŠœŽ Ž œ Š Š Žœ ž Ž Ž Ž Ž Š œ œž žœžš ŽžœŽ ž ŠŽ Š œ œ œ Ž ŽŽŸ Ž Ž Š žœ ŽœœŒ Ž Š œšœ Žœ Žœ ž ŒŽŽ Œ Ž Œ œš Ž

11 Ž Š ŽŽ Ž œž Ž Ž Ž Žœ ž ŒŽœ ž Š Š Š Œ Š Ž Ž Ž Ž ŽŸ Ž ŽŒ Š œ ž ŽŠ Ž Ž Ž Š Žœ ž œ Ž Ž ŽŽŸ Ž Ž œ Œ žž Š Žœ ž ŒŽŽ Œ Ž ŽŒ Š Ž Š Œ Œ ŽŽ Šœœ œš ŒŽ Ÿ Ž žœ Žœœ œž Š œš œ œžœ Šœ ŽŒ Š Ž œ Œ Ž ŒŽŠ ŠŸ œ œž Ÿ ŒŽœ ŽŽ Ž Œ ž ŠŽŽ Ž Š Žœ ž ŒŽŠž œ Ž Š œ ŽŽ Ÿ Š Ž žœ Žœœ Ž œš ŽŠ Ž œ Š Ž Ž ŠŽœ œ ŽœŽ ŠŸŽŒ Ž ŠŒŽ ž Ž Ÿ ŸŽ Ž Œ Š ŸŽœ ž Žœ ŠŸŽœ ŽŸŽ Š Ž Ž œš ž Š Ž Ž Š Ž œ œ ŸŠ Š Žœ ž ŒŽ Ž Œ Ž Œ œ ŽŠ ŽœŽ Ž œ ŽŽ Ž ŠŽœŠ ŽœŽŒ œ ŽŸŽ Š Š Ž œž œ Š ŽŸŽ Š Ž Š Žž ŽœŽ Œ žž Š Š Ž Žœœ Ž Ž Š œ ŠŒ Ž Š ŒŽ ŸŽœ žœ ŽœœŽœ Š ŠŽ Ž œ ŠŒ œš Š œšœ Œ œœ Žœ Ž Ž Š Ž œ žœ ŽœœŽœŠ ŽŠŒ Š œ Ž ŽŸ Ž Ž œœ Ž Š ŽŒ œ Ž Œ ŽŒŠ Ž Š ŽŽ Ž ŠŽœŽ Ž Ž ŒŽœ ŽŽ žœ Žœœ Ž œ Š ŽŸŽ Š ŠŽ Œ Žœ œžœš ŠŒ œ œž žœ Ž ŒŽ ŸŽœ Ž Ž Š œš Š Ž ž Ž Œ Š Ž œ Š Œ ŽŒŠ Š Š œžšžš Š ŸŽŠ šžš Š ŸŽ Š Ž ž Ž œš ŽœŒŠ Ž ŽŽŒ Œœ Œ Š Š Ž Ÿ Ž Š Š œ Ž œœž Š ŽŽ žœ Žœœ Ž œ Š Ž ŸŽ Žœœ Ž Š Š Ž Š ž ŽŠ žœ Šœ ŸŽ œ ŸŽ Ž Š Š Ž ŠŒŽ ŽŒŠ ŠŒ ž Žœ žœž œš Œ œž Ž œ ŸŽŒ Š Ž Ž œ Ž œžœš Š Ž žœ Š Œ œž œœ ŒŠ ž Žž ŽŠ žœ Š ŒŽœœŽ œœ œ œš ŒŽŠŒŒ ž Žœœ Š Š

12 ŽŽ žœžšœž œœ œ Ž ŠŸŽ Ž Ž Ž Ž ŽŠ œ ŒŠ ž Ž Œ ž ŠŠŒ œš ŽŸŽ ŒŠ Š Ž ŠŒ Ž Ÿ Ž Š Œ Š Ž ŽœŠ ŽŽŸŽ ž Ž Š Œ Ž ŸŽ Žœœ ŒŠ œ ž ŠŒ œ ž Ž ŽŠ ŸŠ žžš ž œž ž ŽŽ Š œ ŽŠ ž ŽŸŽ ŽŽ ž œ Ž ž ŽŠœ ž Ž Š ŽŠ ž œ ž Ž Ž Ž ŒŽŠ œ œž Œ Š Ž Ž ž œžš Ž Š Œ ŽŒ ŸŽ Žœ œ Ž Ž ŸŽ Žž Œ Š Šœ œ Ž Š Œ Š Š ž Š Žœ ž ŒŽœ Š œ ŠŽ ŽŸŽ Œ Œ ŒŽ œ ŠŒ ŒŠ ŽŠœž Žœ Š Žœ ŠŒŠ ŽŠ Ž žœ Š Ž ž Ž Ž ŠŽœ ŽŠ œ ŽŽ Š ž ŽœŠ œžž ŽŒŠ Ž Ž ŽœŽŽŒ 1 EU27 industrial process emissions in 2008 had a share of 8.3% of total EU27 GHG-emissions (Commission staff working document, page 5, accompanying the Commission's 2010 report on 'Progress towards achieving the Kyoto objectives, COM(2010) 569 final. EU27 GHG emissions have a share of 'a bit more' than 10% of total global GHG-emissions (section of IA for the 2050 Roadmap, page 30, (SEC (2011) 288 final). Accordingly, EU27 industrial process emissions have a share of x 0.1 = or less than 1%, of total global emissions.