Estimation of the costs and incomes

- The secretariat of the label:

o General administration.

o Information to companies.

o Verification of the application file.

o Contacts with monitors.

o Translation texts.

o The logistics of the expert committee.

o The logistics of the committee of the label.

o Promotion of the label.

o Updating website.

- Remuneration of the members of the expert committee defining the product specific guidelines.

- Remuneration of the members of the committee of the label.

The administration costs could be estimated in the beginning at 2 full time equivalent highly skilled employees (2x75.000 €), 1 full time equivalent employee for secretarial work (1X 50.000 €), working costs (100.000 €), the remuneration of the expert committee defining the product specific guidelines (5 experts x 3.000 €) and the remuneration of some of the non administrative members of the committee of the label (12 x 1.500 €).

The estimated total costs would be (till 30 applications a year):

Administration: 300.000 €

Product specific guidelines (4 guidelines): 4x 15.000 = 60.000 € Label committee: 18.000 €

Total: 378.000€

The monitoring could cost the label approximately between 250 € and 2.500 € for the screening, depending on the number of companies taking part in the production chain and the number of controversies and irregularities found. The monitoring in situ, done by an accredited monitoring institute could cost between 700€ and 1000 € a day per monitor. Visits will be conducted by at least two auditors and will take min. 1.5 days, and max. 4 days per location. It is possible that for one production chain different locations have to be visited.

So the estimated costs for the monitoring could be for the first year (based on a estimation of the average costs for 10 applications):

Screening: 10.000 €

Monitoring in situ: 40.000 € (estimating that most of the chains will have only companies in category 3).

Total: 50.000€

The average annual income with 10 applications could be (both application fee and annual licence fee included):

Application fee: 150.000 € Annual licence fee: 25.000€

Total: 175.000 €

Total with 10 applications:

Total costs: 378.000 € + 50.000€ = 428.000 € Total income: 175.000 €

In this case a support of 253 € will have to be found If the label is successful (eg. 40 applications):

Total costs 378.000 € + 60.000€ + (50.000€ x4)= 638.000 €

Administration + four more product specific guidelines + 4 times more monitoring Total income: 175.000 € x 4 = 700.000 €

In this case the label is self-supporting. With more than 40 applications a fourth person will have to be engaged.

6.3 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM

The relatively high costs of the label might be a problem for most companies, and in specific small companies off to introduce an application. Even companies who know they are complying with the criteria could refrain for this reason. Studies showed that the costs related to the European ecolabels seem to be one of the main reasons for the difficulties the project has to interest companies²³.

In order to give a maximum of companies the possibility to apply for the label for their products, an alternative “light” version of monitoring could be considered. This version would consist in a limitation of the monitoring to a desktop screening, without consultation of stakeholders for every company. Only if the document research would reveal possible problems, relevant stakeholders are contacted (cfr.

Chapter IV.4.6.). The costs of this monitoring system can be estimated between 250 and 3.000 €.

The application fee could equally be set in function of the estimated turnover of the product (eg. 0.2%

including a min. of 500€ and a max. of 4.000€). The same reductions as mentioned in the first case could be applied. This means that the fee would be reduced to an amount between 500€ and 4.000€.

The annual licence fee would only stand for the administration costs and if relevant a more thorough screening of one of the most sensitive companies of the chain.

It would also be estimated in function of the turnover of the product (eg. 0.15% including a min. of 150€ and a max. of 4.000€). The fee would be reduced to an amount between 150€ and 4.000€.

As stated in chapter IV this will make the label more accessible in particular to small companies, but the quality of the monitoring is lower. The internal monitoring of the company and the reliability of the information they communicate play a more important role.

23 Recommendations by the University of Ghent (Centrum voor Milieueconomie en Milieumanagement), December 1999, about the promotion of the European Ecolabel.

C

VII

V OORSTEL VAN WET EN VAN VERORDENING

(L EGAL BASIS )

In collaboration with the Centre for Environmental Law (Ghent University), a proposal for a national law and a proposal for an EU regulation for a sustainable development label were made up. They are summarised in paragraph 2 in this chapter, while the full versions are presented in annex 5. Annex 5 contains a Dutch and a French version of the proposal for a national law and a Dutch and an English version of the proposal for an EU regulation.

Both proposals are based on the existing legal basis of the European ecolabel and the Belgian social label and take into account international regulations. According to the proposals, the aim of the sustainability label is to promote those products which, compared to products in the same product group, diminish environmental impacts, do not have negative social impacts and have a positive economic effect, and therefore contribute to an efficient use of resources and to a high level of social, environmental and economic protection. This objective should be reached by drawing consumers’

attention to these products and by providing them with accurate, non-misleading information with a sound scientif basis.

The proposals were presented to the Users Committee. Their comments, presented in the paragraphs 2.2 and 3.2., were taken into account if possible. The feedback which did not lead to adaptations of the proposals are commented by the Centre for Environmental Law. In paragraph 4 the need for integration with other labels is commented.

The last paragraph is a note by the Centre for Environmental Law on the compatibility of the sustainable development label and the WTO regulations and on the issue of public tenders. The GATT- nor the WHO-regulations prohibit the introduction of a voluntary label. Governmental voluntary ecolabels / sustainability labels are subject to the GATT stipulations: if the requirements of the label do not imply arbitrary or irresponsible discrimination and if the aim (e.g. environmental protection) of the measure is indicated, it is allowed to introduce a label. The application of the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) regulations to voluntary environmental / sustainability labels however is being disputed.

Whether or not to live up to the TBT regulations is rather an ethical question. If Belgium does follow the TBT regulations concerning the introduction of a sustainibility label, there is no impediment, but the Belgian government then is responsible for the accordance of the label with the TBT agreement (i.e.

non-discirminating, no trade barrier and based on international standards). Imposing compliance with a label in public tenders equals the introduction of an obligatory label, which is subject to the TBT Agreement.

After long discussions, the European Parliament and the EU council of ministers agreed in December 2003 upon the elaboration of 2 regulations concerning public tenders in the EU in which production methods and environmental considerations could be considered when assigning contracts. This agreement has to be ratified by the European Parliament and the Council before the regulations can be adopted. Still, it is already clear that the accepted standards offer few possibilities. Where it is possible to pose environmental requirements, these have to be seen rather as technical requirements (i.e. it cannot be required that the product has an ecolabel, but it is possible to pose the criteria to obtain the label as requirements)). Working circumstances (cfr. a social label) are not considered at all.

1 INLEIDING

In samenwerking met het Centrum voor Milieurecht van de Universiteit Gent werd een voorstel van wet opgesteld, bruikbaar voor het Belgische beleid en een voorstel voor een Europese verordening (cfr. annex 5). Voor het ontwerpen van deze voorstellen werd rekening gehouden met de internationale wettelijke context en met bestaande wetgevingen voor het Europese ecolabel en het Belgische sociaal label. Het voorstel tot wet kadert tevens in het voorontwerp van het Federaal Plan inzake Duurzame Ontwikkeling 2004-2008. Actie 17 van dit plan gaat specifiek over de introductie van een label ‘duurzame ontwikkeling’ voor producten. Het voorstel voor Europese verordening werd uitgewerkt, gezien het de bedoeling is dat het duurzaamheidslabel op Europees niveau geïntroduceerd wordt. Een van de doelstellingen van het label is het ingaan tegen het ontstaan van verschillende labels voor duurzame ontwikkeling binnen Europa, wat niet efficiënt zou zijn en voor verwarring kan zorgen.

2 VOORONTWERP VAN WET TOT INSTELLING VAN EEN DUURZAAMHEIDSLABEL