1. 3rd Follow-up Workshop on COM(2004) of the EU Commission A twofold Case Study by Dipl.-Ing. F. Hencks Convenor to CEN TC Air Quality A. INTRODUCTION 1. Theme The challenge of stakeholder involvement in order to integrate environmental aspects into European standardization standardize evaluation methods for industrial emissions in support of better regulation Subject of the Case Study - - 1

2. 2. Respect of air emission limit values Need Standardization of evaluation methods for industrial emissions Indeed standardization is the best way to conciliate political and technical objectives 2

3. B. Context Standardization of evaluation methods for industrial emissions in support of « better regulation » 3 1. Statement by M. Ayral, Director for Regulatory Policy at GD ENT: “Standards play an important part in reducing regulation”

4. Standardization of evaluation methods for industrial emissions in support of « better regulation » 2. Lisbon Strategy Request for a balance between industry’s competitiveness and environmental protection 4

5. Standardization of evaluation methods for industrial emissions in support of « better regulation » 3. Need for satisfying the new EU stategy : initiation by industry of standards reducing regulation i.e. promoting self- and co-regulation by considering the EU environmental policy principles. These standards are elaborated as a complement or a substitute to EU Directives 5

6. C. The Case Study It relates on the experience with 2 projects promoting self- and co-regulation by complementing EU directives 1. Specificities 1 st project : evaluation methods of diffuse and fugitive emissions in the context of the IPPC Directive. 2 nd project : quantification of GHG, especially CO 2 in the context of the ET Directive. 6

7. The Case Study 2. Principles / Strategy - bottom up - prevention - subsidiarity this is the way for co- and self-regulation put forward in the « Communication (2004) on the role of European standardization in the framework of European policies and legislation ». 7

8. The Case Study 3. Involved stakeholders / multi stakeholder approach Project « fugitives »  EU Commission services  National authorities  Measurement institutes  Industrial experts (delegated by the Trade Associations)  Research Centres 8 -all experts are nominated by their national standardization bodies -involved industries : steel, non ferrous metals, petrochemistry. Project « CO 2 » The same stakeholders than for the « fugitives »  in addition : - accounting disciplines - ISO representative - ECOS representative involved industries : 6 energy intensive industries (steel, non ferrous metals, cement, paper, lime, glass)

9. D. Opportunities for stakeholder participation 1. The stakeholder « Industry »  Standards as a complement or substitute to EU Directives anticipating and so reducing regulation.  Statement by M. Ayral, Director for Regulatory Policy at GD ENT : « Standards play an important part in reducing regulations » Indeed Over-regulation is the greatest threat for the industry. Following EUROFER legislative acts increased of nearly 1000% from 1992 to mid 2003. 9

10. 2 Interests of EU Commission Services and national authorities  The standards being in line with the policy of « better regulation » enhance the acceptance of Environmental policy.  The standards conforming to the principle of subsidiarity within EU policy are accepted as a political tool to cover substainability of EU industry’s competitiveness. So they suit to the Lisbon strategy.  The standards being harmonized and validated facilitate accuracy and comparability of the measurement results. 110

11. 3. Opportunities for the stakeholder NGO’s  The proactive role of industry and its spirit of « pollution prevention » shall increase the confidence in the standards for the benefit of civil society.  More objective dialogue as the determination of a technical i.e. neutral basis is given.  European NGOs may become a tool for international pressure on application of a uniform environmental policy based on EU results. Indeed EU standards may be converted in ISO standards. This is particularly true for « Climate change actions ». 11

12. E. The occured difficulties 1. Facts Difficulties have occured even in the frame work of acting authorities and despite a broad and effective participation of a large range of stakeholders. 12

13. 2. How ? (generic scenario) The standardization process being already in an advanced stage, a neutral participating stakeholder (Case A ) or a not from the beginning participating stakeholder (Case B) having adopted a waiting position, started opposition to the scope of the project. A compromise has been arranged by the Convenor by the modification of the scope. 13

14. 2. (continued) Case A : The process could be continued, however by supplementary cost-intensive work. Case B : After the acceptance of the modified scope the stakeholder having made opposition became joined by another formerly proactive stakeholder, jeopardizing the whole standardization process. 14

15. 3. Why ?  Lack of open reciprocal information (f.i. between and among EU Commission services and industry).  Lack of clear communication.  Lack of having sufficiently analysed the need and opportunity of the standards before starting the process.  Lack of security in the planned objectives.  Lack of programming and consequently unsufficient preparatory work. To be noticed : The former PC 7 (programming committee) has been suppressed by CEN. 15

16. F. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas SUGGESTION FOR DISCUSSION 1. Identified needs on behalf of the occured difficulties 1.1 Need for preparatory work by direct involvement of all interested parties before starting the effective CEN standardization process in the WG 16

17. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas 1.2. Particularly : needs for : - an interface between EU Commission services and industry improving the information exchange on both partner’s needs and interests in possible new environmental standards and granting transparency 17

18. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas working out priorities in the developement of these standards fixing a common definition of the frame of the decided new project by respecting the new approach of « better regulation » - - 18

19. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas respecting the mutual agreements during the effective standardization step (if corrective actions are needed the preparatory work must be reviewed). - 19

20. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas 2. Consequence Request for a preparing structure inside CEN for environmental standards « reducing regulation » 20

21. How to promote standards « reducing regulations » i.e. standards tailored by industry for self- and co-regulated areas 3. Proposal The existing SABE structure inside CEN could be adapted to this purpose. Indeed SABE is open to all stakeholders : NGO’s play an important role and industry shall do the same. 21