| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Strengthening Environmental Integration in the EU

3 Integrated Product Policy

• 3.1 Integrated Product Policy at the EU level
  • 3.1.1 Implementing the Communication
• 3.2 Integrating IPP thinking into other policy areas
• 3.3 An IPP framework Directive?

3.1 Integrated Product Policy at the EU level

There have been a number of significant developments over the last few years in Europe in relation to cleaner product policies, integrated product policies (IPP) and policies to further sustainable consumption and production.

When this report refers to the IPP approach and IPP principles, it refers to – unless otherwise stated - the concepts as they are used in the Commission’s IPP Communication from 2003: Integrated Product Policy – Building on Environmental Life-Cycle thinking^[7].

The primary aim of IPP is to ‘reduce the environmental impacts from products throughout their life-cycle, harnessing, where possible, a market driven approach’. According to the Communication, the IPP approach is based on five key principles:

• Life-Cycle Thinking
• Working with the market
• Stakeholder Involvement
• Continuous Improvement
• A Variety of Policy Instruments

IPP is to form an integral part of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) and the delivery of the objectives set out in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6EAP). Resource use throughout the life cycle of products is a critical issue, and IPP is to be a key implementing measure for two of the eight Thematic Strategies, which are in preparation, namely those on natural resources and recycling. It is also to provide a major input into the ten-year framework of programmes on sustainable production and consumption agreed at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.

As well as contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the EU SDS and 6EAP, IPP is also to:

• supplement existing product-related policies by providing a wider life cycle framework; and most importantly,
   
• strengthen the coordination and coherence between existing and future environment-related product policy instruments.

3.1.1 Implementing the Communication

The Commission’s Communication contains an indicative list of what the Commission considers to be the roles and responsibilities of Member States and other stakeholders (Annex II, p 21 of the Communication). It also outlines the steps that the Commission itself will take. These steps are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Tools for Establishing the Framework Conditions as outlined in COM(2003) 302

It is clear that the IPP approach focuses on a mix of policy instruments. It is however, less clear at which level of governance these instruments are most efficiently introduced. To get an idea of where the EU could usefully make progress in a concrete and meaningful way, it would therefore be useful to analyse who is and should be responsible for putting into place these instruments.

Such an analysis would have to take into account the legal powers at the EU level (Community powers) as well as the subsidiarity principle. Community powers are those, which are conferred on the Community in specific areas by the Treaty. The Community is able to act only within this framework, although the framework is very broad. Within this, the scope for action is further limited in certain cases, by the requirement for unanimity in Council.

The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that the EU does not take action (except in the areas within its exclusive competence) unless such action is more effective than action taken at other levels. The principle is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at other levels. It is closely linked to the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the EU should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty. Given the need to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU’s internal market, the Union clearly has a significant role in relation to the development of Integrated Product Policy. However, this is not an exclusive role, for there remains the need for action at Member State level, and by industry itself.

The Communication has few deadlines and specific objectives for the above actions. In fact, many of the actions listed are already ongoing, and respond to other initiatives. The Environment Council Conclusions of October 2003, call upon the Commission and Member States, as appropriate, to ‘define more precisely how Member States are to be effectively involved in the development, implementation and monitoring of the IPP’ and to ‘establish a more detailed work-plan and timetable’.

3.2 Integrating IPP thinking into other policy areas

The IPP Communication states that ‘the Commission will encourage individual sectors, in their reports pursuant to the Cardiff Process, to be more explicit in how they intend to integrate the IPP approach into their work’. It further says that a possible role and responsibility of the Member State (Annex II, p 21 of the Communication) is ‘[e]nsuring the integration of IPP thinking into non-environment policy areas’.

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee adopted a report^[8] on 8 April 2004, which supported this by calling on the Commission to mainstream IPP thinking into all major EU policy areas, and to carry out an IPP compatibility review of existing legislation.

3.3 An IPP framework Directive?

The Environment Committee was also critical of the IPP Communication’s light approach, and called on the Commission to present an IPP framework Directive, based on a set of clearly defined principles and objectives. The idea of an IPP framework Directive also has the support of NGOs. Annex I shows the European Environment Bureau’s (EEB) suggestion for key tasks of such a Directive.

According to the EEB^[9] there are two different views on what IPP is. One perceives it as a new wave of voluntary action and as a mere streamlining exercise, which makes the different pieces of product legislation more consistent. The other sees it as a necessary push in a neglected policy field, which is applying various instruments in order to minimise the environmental impact of products, to substitute products by services, and to achieve quantitative environmental targets. The EEB supports and promotes the latter concept.

The issues surrounding whether to pursue IPP through a framework Directive or by integrating the approach into other relevant policy areas are similar to those which arose in relation to advancing the concept of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) at Community level. The danger of relying on a separate legal instrument is that the commitment to pursue action in other policy areas may be reduced, and the approach marginalized. It was partly for this reason that the Commission chose to pursue ICZM not through a framework Directive but in a Recommendation, which urged action at a number of different levels.^[10]  Similar considerations would appear to apply in relation to a possible framework Directive on IPP.

Fodnoter

^[7] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Integrated Product Policy: Building on Life-Cycle Thinking, COM(2003)302, 18.6.2003

^[8] Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy: Report on the Commission Communication Integrated Product Policy – Building on Environmental Life-Cycle thinking, COM (2003) 302

^[9] http://www.eeb.org/activities/product_policy/main.htm

^[10] Commission Communication Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe COM(2000) 547  27.9.2000, pp 2,11; Recommendation of the Council and European Parliament Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe, Preamble (17) Official Journal L148 6.6.2002

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 August 2006, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency