Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CB Forum Meeting, 11 March 2014
Avenue de Beaulieu 5,B-1160 Brussels, meeting room C
Tuesday 11 March10:30 – 17:00
Actions to be performed are highlighted in yellow, please check the points which concern you!
Last name First name Organisation Phone number Email addressMACHEFAUX Emilie ADEME +331 41 47 65 21 75 [email protected] Murielle AFNOR Certification + 33 141 62 61 4 [email protected] RIDDER Kathelijne Belgian CB +32 2 524 95 86 [email protected] Hannelore Belgian CB +32 2 524 96 18 [email protected]
GODIN Fabienne Belgian CB +32 2 52 49 550 [email protected]
GENEVA Svetla Taseva
Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water +359 878 254 390 [email protected]
HAJEK Daniel Czech Ministry of Environment +420 267 122 489 [email protected] Jakob Danish CB [email protected] Ineke Dutch CB +317 035 863 00 [email protected] Kirsi Ecolabelling Finland +35 8400949491 [email protected] Marianne Ecolabelling Norway +472414 4609 [email protected] Liisi Estonian Ministry of Environment [email protected] SOUSA PINTO Carla European Commission DG ENV +32 22 99 89 76 [email protected] Michele European Commission DG ENV +32-2-29 65759 [email protected] Renata European Commission DG ENV +34 954 488 385 [email protected] Oliver European Commission DG ENV +34-95-448 82 96 [email protected] Jiannis European Commission DG ENV +32-2-29 90727 [email protected] Liisi European Commission DG ENV +32 2 29 94 366 [email protected] BURGOS Stéphanie Helpdesk (BIO by Deloitte) +33 (0)1 40 88 70 88 [email protected] Eszter Hungarian CB +36 1 336 11 56 [email protected]
CESAREI GianlucaItalian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research
+39 06 5007 2853 [email protected]
NETO Belmina JRC/IPTS +34 954 488 224 [email protected] GARRIDO
Candela JRC/IPTS +34-95-448 84 83 [email protected]
JEGERE Iveta Latvian Environmental State Bureau +371 67770818 [email protected]
RACIENE Milda Lithuania Environmental Protection Agency +370 706 620 24 [email protected]
STAMATIOU George Ministry of EnvironmentGreek CB +30 210 864 24 45 [email protected]
GUBERINA Blanka Grahovac
Ministry of Environmental & Nature Protection Croatia +385 1 3717201 [email protected]
TKACZYK Joanna Polish CB +48 22 46 45 208 [email protected] Paula Portuguese CB [email protected] Andrea RAL gGmbH +49 224125516 51 [email protected] Henning RALgGmbH +49 2241 255 1623 Henning.scholtz@ral_gGmbH.deBUTTNER Peter RALgGmbH +49 2241 255 1652 Peter.buttner@ral_gGmbH.deKAUFMAN Peter Slovakian Environmental Agency [email protected] Monika Slovakian Ministry of Environment [email protected] Paul UK Ecolabel Delivery +44 1296 423 915 [email protected]
1
1. Welcome, adoption of agenda and of the minutes of last CB meeting (Chair) (10:30-10:35)
- Participants introduced themselves and the March agenda was adopted.- The following additional points were added to the agenda under AOB:
- Finland: Question on printed paper-deinking test/cover- Finland: Russian translation problems- Germany: ECAT and ECAT Import Template: Ask companies for permission
to enter their data into ECAT?- Germany: Updated guidelines for the use of the Logo - Belgium: WUR calculation (criterion 7 APC)- Italy: Practical applications of the “Originate guidelines” –discussed in point
1.- France: Electrolyzed water for cleaning purposes (in the scope of APC?) –
discussed in point 4.c- The November CB Forum Minutes were adopted. However, it was agreed that if
CBs concurred, some modifications could be made to section 3(b) “Text on origin-guidance document” on the basis of the Italian proposed changes to the document along with any potential comments from other CBs. Deadline for feedback on the document was set to 25 April 2014.
Discussion:- The Chair indicated that, based on practical application examples experienced
in Italy, the conclusions in the 2013 November CB Forum minutes, drawn on “origins”, might seem too loose to be used as concrete guidelines. However, it is difficult to have objective guidelines for handling applications, because there are numerous exceptions for each scenario. He reminded that in any case, article 9 of Regulation 66/2010 should be used as the official reference and that solutions to each controversial scenario should always be decided bilaterally by concerned CBs.
- The EC agreed that if the conclusions and the “origins” document were too loose to be regarded as guidelines, they need to be significantly restructured. However, it is not feasible to restructure this document since all of the scenarios naturally provoke numerous grey areas that require CBs to consult one another.
Conclusion:- CBs should first refer to the article 9 of Regulation 66/2010 (“which CB should
handle licences”) and then refer to the “origins” document as supporting information. Controversial situations should be bilaterally discussed amongst relevant CBs on a case by case basis.
- The Chair will send an email to CBs to get any additional feedback on the original document and on the Italian proposal of some minor modifications to “situation 3” and to the “Retailer” case. CBs shall respond by 25 April 2014. In
2
case any modification should be accepted, the November 2013 minutes will be modified accordingly.
2. Follow-up on the tasks from last CB meeting (10:35-11:30)
a. Guidelines for choosing laboratories and tests institutes: report on the data submitted by CBs (EC) (15 min)
- In preparation for the 2014 March CB Forum, the EC asked CBs to submit their data on laboratories to the Helpdesk to understand why there are discrepancies amongst CBs when choosing options for laboratories. Only 13/33 product groups were reported on because of the small reporting period (2 January 2014 – 21 February 2014) and because not all CBs had awarded licences during this period.
- The data provided by CBs was not harmonised and was cumbersome to compile. Therefore, the EC provided guidance on how to fill in the Excel template for future reporting: all CBs shall fill in a numerical value for the amount of licences awarded per product group per option rather than marking licences with an ”x”.
- In the comments column, CBs shall provide detailed information on which were the equivalent test methods they approve, as providing information relating to the test center is irrelevant.
- The EC will call relevant CBs to discuss unclear points outlined in their 1 st report.
- The EC will also request some CBs to clarify why declarations were used as proof of compliance for biodegradability requirements.
- Certain CBs had indicated that they used GLP studies for textile products, the EC will investigate to see if this could be considered as falling within option 1.
Discussion- Denmark expressed concerns that this new recurrent task will consume
resources. They then asked if this ongoing reporting would be considered as a guideline, or as a strict document to comply with.
- The EC clarified that the list of equivalent test methods approved by CBs should serve as a helpful guideline for CBs so that they spend less time assessing an application.
- Greece shared that they only use option 1 because of the massive expenditures used on switching test methods.
- Italy only uses option 1 and 2 and only labs accredited with ISO 17025. Italy responded to Denmark’s concerns by saying that this exercise should not be too laborious, since CBs are only expected to report on new licences for each reporting period.
- The EC pointed out that it could be possible for a CB to accept 2 different testing options for the same product group, as companies applying for the
3
EU Ecolabel could have different sizes (multinational or microenterprise) and different possibilities to access the testing market. These types of information were encouraged to be included in the “comments” section.
Conclusion- CBs shall report this information 3 times per year to the Helpdesk, who will
then submit the compiled information to the EC 2 weeks before each CB Forum. The final Excel sheet and PowerPoint will be posted on CIRCA by the Helpdesk.
- The EC will aim to compile the list of all approved equivalent test methods by the November 2014 CB Forum so that CBs can use this document as a reference.
- The EC will create and distribute a guidance sheet on how to fill in the excel tables so that it is properly completed for the next reporting period (June 2014).
b. Feedback on plastic parts for TVs (Criterion 4. Design for disassembly for TV) (Netherlands) (15 min)
- The criterion 4 of Decision 2009/300/CE states that:Plastic parts shall be one polymer or be of compatible polymers for recycling and have the relevant ISO11469 marking if greater than 25g in mass
- It should be noted that the 2002 Decision had an exemption for plastic parts in light-guide flat panel displays. It is possible that this point was overlooked in the 2009 version of the criteria. Therefore, companies are not able to comply with the current decision.
- On the other side, while it is not stated in the 2009 Decision, the application form for TVs (page 14) criterion 5: “Heavy metals and flame retardants” states:
Note: only plastic parts of weight greater than 25 grams shall be considered within the boundaries of this criterion
- As an amendment would be difficult to justify due to the fact that the 2009 Decision was adopted 5 years ago, the Polish and Dutch CBs would like to introduce a similar sentence to update criterion 4. Proposal:
Note: Excluded from marking according to ISO 11469 requirements are extruded plastic materials and the light-guide of flat panel displays (Dutch CB) or plastic optical components of the display panel (Polish CB).
Discussion- Denmark believed that the Netherlands’ and Poland’s proposal was a
practical solution. However, they were concerned that any amendments made to the user manual would not necessarily mean that licence holders are bound to it, since the text in the Commission Decision prevails to the user manual. They suggested accepting that a mistake was made, and to consider it for the next revision.
- The Netherlands did not believe that it should be dismissed, especially because this exception was included in the 2002 Decision.
4
- Germany clarified that the current criteria is valid until December 2015, which means that applications would not be possible if no action is taken.
- Since TVs have already been approved without taking the issue on flat screen plastic parts marking into consideration (in Poland and the UK), Germany asked Poland how this issue was addressed in their applications.
- Poland explained that they did their best in encouraging their licence holders to provide proofs of compliance, however, since it was not always done, they took away the EU Ecolabel awards. Therefore, the Polish CB lost several licence holders and also credibility.
- The UK explained that when they had awarded the EU Ecolabel to LG TVs, the optical unit was preassembled, therefore they did not encounter this issue. The way that the criteria are formulated only became an issue when the plastic parts came unassembled.
- The EC added that there will be repercussions regardless of if the Decision is amended or if it is left untouched. They suggest following the same procedure that was decided in the 2013 November CB Forum for yogurts in tourist accommodations. This would mean that an adjustment period would be granted to licence holders to demonstrate compliance with the requirement. If accepted, the CBs must actively communicate how the parts will be marked to the EC.
- Poland, the Netherlands and Norway initially agreed. However, regarding declaring information on plastic parts, if an applicant is not able to mark the parts, then they would be burdened to communicating their proper declarations to the CB, who would then relay them to the EC. This would mean although the EC left out a crucial text in the 2009 Decision, the licence holder would be held responsible for supplying supplemental information to compensate for the missing text in the 2009 Decision. The CBs did not think that this was fair and would not feel comfortable asking their licence holder to take this on.
- Denmark agreed and did not think it will be easy to market this product group when the applicant’s job is so difficult.
Conclusion- The EC reinstated that the purpose of marking plastics is in order for the
recycler to know how to properly dispose of it. Therefore they offered a second proposal: If there is no way to mark the plastic parts, the manufacturer shall create a declaration intended for the recycler that outlines how the products should be properly disposed of. This way, the producer can distribute the declarations to all involved recycling organizations that correspond to each manufactured model.
- JRC IPTS will investigate this issue during the on-going criteria revision process.
5
c. Follow up on Criterion 20 from French CB on Tourist Accommodation Services: how are other CBs implementing this criterion? – (EC) Please refer to the note in the Annex (10 min)
- The current criterion states that no single dose packaging can be used for for breakfast or other food service (with the exception of some dairy fat spread products). At the November 2013 CB Forum, it was agreed that all tourist accommodations licence holders shall comply with the criterion.
Conclusion- All CBs who have awarded licences to tourist accommodations shall send an
email to the EC stating whether the licence holders are compliant with this requirement and if not, how they will address the issue.
d. Link to the “EU Ecolabel toolbox ShMile 2” now available on EU Ecolabel website (EC) (5 min)
- On the occasion of the presentation on ShMile 2 EU Ecolabel Toolbox for Tourist Accommodation service at the 2013 November CB Forum the EC was requested to add the toolbox’s link to the EU Ecolabel website. This link is listed under the “Misellaneous” section under the “Tourist Accommodations” tab on the Product Groups and Criteria page .
Discussion- France indicated that they will update the Shmile 2 website according to
criteria changes. For example, they will merge the 2 sets of guidance on tourist accommodations and campsites in compliance with the future criteria merge.
3. Printed Paper Products: Criterion 4a. Emissions of Cu and Cr: How to define the number of printing jobs to calculate concentration of Cu or Cr? – Please refer to the note in the Annex (Italy) (11:30-11:40)
- Italy asked how CBs interpret criterion 4(a); does the number of printing jobs equal the number of cylinder rotations?
- 2 of Italy’s licence holders calculated the number of printing jobs differently. One considered each cylinder rotation as a printing job, but would get extremely high values for the printing jobs and very low values for Cr and Cu emissions (not in line with the limits posed by the criterion). The second counted the yearly carved cylindrical surface as printing cylindrical surface (and the results were comparable with the limits posed by the criterion).
- Could the yearly carved cylindrical surface be used for the calculation instead?
Discussion- Germany and Denmark have also encountered the same issue of low Cr and Cu
values for the number of printing jobs. Germany believed that Italy’s second example was the correct way to count printing jobs. They expressed that the
6
second example is more relevant since the waste water value is calculated per year.
- Denmark pointed out that if one cylinder is counted when printing 2 pages, then the emissions are higher. If only one cylinder is counted per page, then the emissions are lower.
- The EC asked if the explanations that Italy provided came from the Commission Decision or the user manual.
- Italy confirmed that the examples come from both the user manual and the Commission Decision. The only thing that the user manual adds is an additional number in the calculation of cylinders in a machine.
- The UK and Denmark believed that the criteria document’s presented method is the correct method to be used, despite the fact that the resulting values are very low.
- Conclusion - The EC recommended that CBs should follow the criteria document, even if it
gives a low value. The contrasting low Cr and Cu and high numbers of printing jobs will be taken into account for the next revision.
4. Overall issues concerning handling applications (11:40-12:45)
a. Licence registration number discrepancies (UK) - Please refer to the note in the Annex (5 min)
- A discrepancy was identified between the product group numbers listed in the Commission Decisions, which are assigned either 2 or 3 digits, and the EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines (page 4) which illustrates that the XX/ YY /ZZZ format should be used, meaning that the product group number shall be comprised of only 2 digits.
Discussion- The EC commented that this product group number discrepancy between 2 and
3 digits started when the guidelines for the use of the EU Ecolabel logo was published after the new Regulation went into force.
Conclusion- The EC stated that from now on, the product group code should always be
implemented, regardless of if the product group code has a ”0” at the beginning of the code or not. Therefore, the product group code shall be always composed by three digits, regardless what is stated in the product group’s corresponding Commission Decision.
- A clear statement outlining this conclusion will be introduced by the Helpdesk into the EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines, since it is currently under revision.
- CBs will not have to advise their licence holders to change their labels, however any additional labels that are manufactured from now on must respect this guidance.
7
b. Laundry detergents for professional use: use of peracetic acid as bleaching agent (Belgium) – possible amendment? Please see note in Annex (10 min)
- Criterion 2-Toxicity to aquatic organisms in Commission Decision Decision 2012/721/UE states that Hydrogen Peroxide (H 202) shall not be included in the calculation of the Critical Dilution Volume (CDV). Therefore, since there is no mention of peracitic acid, the assumption is that it can be used. The constraint identified was that peracitic acid is classified as R50. According to criterion 4(b), hazardous substances and mixtures classified as R50 cannot be used.
- It was debated whether an amendment would be necessary to allow peracitic acid, since it is considered to be environmentally friendly.
Discussion- Germany agreed with Belgium’s observation and points out that peracetic
acid is essential for industrial and institutional laundry detergents. - The EC asked Danish CB if there was any discussion about this point during
the criteria development for this product group, since they were responsible for the criteria development process.
- Danish CB (Jakob Wegener Waidtløw) mentioned that it was possible that this point was overlooked.
Conclusion : - The EC will contact Belgium, Germany, and Denmark to collectively research
the possibilities of an amendment.
c. Cleaning vinegar (and Electrolyzed water for cleaning purposes) and product scope EU Ecolabel criteria – Please refer to the note in the Annex (Netherlands) + France (AOB) (10 min)
- Article 1 in all-purpose cleaners’ (APC) Commission Decision states that products shall be mixtures of chemical substances, therefore, it is questionable if cleaning vinegar can fall within the scope of APC.
- There was interest in assessing whether cleaning vinegar could fall within APC’s scope because vinegar is known to be friendly to the environment and an inexpensive product.
Discussion- France pointed out that this discussion was similar to that of their previous
query on if electrolyzed water could fall within the scope.- Since food and medicinal products are excluded from the EU Ecolabel
scheme, Italy’s concern was that consumers may get confused about having EU Ecolabel cleaning vinegar (which could be considered as a food item).
- Germany did not agree with the clause on mixtures and believed that it should be opened to single mixture substances. However, they would not consider electrolyzed water as ever entering the scope. They believed that the applicant should have the right to submit cleaning vinegar to a
8
performance test and be awarded the EU Ecolabel if it passes. The UK agreed.
- Belgium added that the fact that vinegar is a substance used for cleaning does not necessarily make it a detergent.
- Denmark shared that the Nordic Ecolabel did not allow vinegar to enter its scheme, which makes it clear to them that single chemical substances do not fall within the scope.
- Germany added that since vinegar does not have a component that removes fat, and because it does not have surfactants, it could only be considered as a window cleaner within the APC category.
- Belgium suggested that since a substance technically becomes a mixture when any 2 substances are mixed, then vinegar could become a mixed substance by adding perfume.
Conclusion- Belgium will check with the detergents legal services under the detergent
regulation to see if cleaning vinegar could fall within the scope of APC by simply adding perfume to the single substance.
- Regarding the side debate on electrolyzed water, the UK was aware of a court case that moved it out of the market. Therefore, the UK will provide the court case documents to Germany, who will then communicate their findings to the EC.
d. Implementation of the new DID list (Chair)- how to behave when handling applications- Please see note in Annex (15 min)
Discussion- Denmark indicated that Nordic Ecolabel applications received after
implementation of the new DID list were handled using the new DID list. Licence holders with pre-existing licences before the introduction of the new DID list were allowed to refer to the old DID list for changes in already existing licences but they were restricted from referring to both. Exceptions were granted if a substance was only present on the new DID list. Norway agreed.
- If this procedure was implemented for the EU Ecolabel, then how long could the old list be used until it is phased out?
- Italy suggested that there should be a conformity period put in place, for example, a 12 month period for producers to change their product formulas in accordance to the new DID list.
- The EC reasoned that since it takes a couple of months to introduce a technical dossier for a new product group application, they will upload the new DID list as soon as possible, which would allow CBs to have enough time to inform licence holders about the change. The new DID list would be enforced as of 1st July. The old DID list could be used until then.
9
- The EC then clarified that they would not be able to upload the new DID list onto the EU Ecolabel website until the calculation sheets are developed and available online.
- Germany volunteered to change the calculation sheets for laundry detergents and pointed out that if the product is already awarded then the licence holder should be able to use the old calculation sheet. They furthermore indicated that it would be difficult to ensure that all CBs define new products and extensions correctly. For example, if there is a change in the formula, it is a different product, however if it is a change in packaging, then it is considered to be the same product. This needs to be a common understanding amongst all CBs.
Conclusion - The EC will get in contact with Germany to discuss their creation of the
calculation sheets.- As soon as the new calculation sheets are available, the new DID list and the
calculation sheets will be posted online. In the meantime, the EC will introduce a clause under the detergents product group tab on the Product Group and Criteria page, which will state that starting 1 October 2014, all applicants shall not use the old DID list, but instead the new version of the DID list, which is also relevant in case of extensions that were made on previously approved formulations.
e. How CBs implement the new fee structure (annual fee: flat rate or based on annual sales?) 2 issues arise: Firstly, applicants may choose to apply through a “less expensive” country, which links to the “origin of the product” issue. Secondly, should we go back evaluating turnovers? (Italy) (25 min)
- The EU Ecolabel Regulation indicates that Member States can set their own EU Ecolabel fees, under the condition that they comply with the general requirements established on Annex III, amended in August 2013 [Commission Regulation (EU) No 782/2013].
- The way each country establishes the EU Ecolabel fees structure is not transparent to licence holders, CBs, or any other stakeholders. Some countries use a percentage system when calculating fees, while others use a flat fee base and these differences should be clearly displayed in the European website.
Discussion- The Netherlands shared that when they changed their national fee
structure, they informed their licence holders about the change. - Germany suggested that since each Member State can choose their fees,
there should be an EU-wide « database » of these fee structures to create transparency. They mentioned that they have their fee structure published on their national EU Ecolabel website.
10
- Italy reinstated that fee transparency on the EU level is the key for minimizing licence holder “migration”.
Conclusion- The EC believed that the lack of fee transparency on the Member State level is
not desirable and that there is an added value for all involved parties to have these fees made public.
- The EC will send out a questionnaire on fees. The information that is collected will then be uploaded on the EU Ecolabel website. Extended deadline for answers: 9 April 2014.
5. Chair Update on the conclusions taken at the Virtual CB Forum on 'hard floor coverings', 'printed paper products' and 'laundry detergents' (12:45-12:55)
HARD FLOOR COVERINGS DISCUSSION ON THE SCOPE OF THE PRODUCT GROUP: PROPOSED BY ESTONIA.
Conclusion- MgO building boards can only fall within the agglomerated stone scope if it
fulfills the norm JWG/229/246 EN 14618. Furthermore, the applicant should sign a declaration stating that their product is compliant with the norm and have the declaration backed up by an independent accredited laboratory proving the same. The product must then comply with the applicable EU Ecolabel criteria.
PRINTED PAPER DISCUSSION ON DEINKABILITY: PROPOSED BY INTERGRAPH. Conclusion
- A deinkability test should be performed on a final product. Printing houses shall test final products with all inks used, or ask for the test results from their ink suppliers after giving them a EU Ecolabel sample product. Once a test is performed on a final product, it becomes redundant to use 3 different types of paper (uncoated, coated, surface sized).
- It is too soon to conduct generic deinking tests, therefore this will be discussed in the next criteria revision.
LAUNDRY DETERGENTS DISCUSSION ON PERFORMANCE TESTS: PROPOSED BY GERMANY. Conclusion
- The Commission corrected the incorrect reference on the Performance test for laundry detergents (version 10/02/2011) footnote 13 on page 26 with a new version of the document (07/01/2014) available on the EU Ecolabel web site
11
6. Logo use: French Cleaning Services company Adomplus – Ménage Ecologique à Domicile requests to use EU Ecolabel logo for marketing purposes - Please see note in the Annex (Helpdesk) (12:55-13:00)
- A company providing cleaning services requested the use of the EU Ecolabel on their marketing flyer to show that they only use EU Ecolabel detergents.
Discussion- The general consensus was that the logo cannot be used. However a phrase
stating that they use EU Ecolabel products can be permitted.- The UK brought up that a non-EU Ecolabel licence holder furniture
manufacturer asked them if they were able to use the EU Ecolabel logo if they use textiles awarded with the EU Ecolabel (produced by another manufacturer).
- The general consensus was that this particular manufacturer cannot use the EU Ecolabel logo, however he can include a text that says “This sofa is made with fabric awarded with the EU Ecolabel”.
Conclusion- The Helpdesk will include these 2 scenarios into the EU Ecolabel Logo
Guidelines during its revision.
Lunch (13:00-14:00)
7. Communication and marketing activities on MS level (Helpdesk and EC) – Please see note in the Annex (14:00 -14:30)
See the PowerPoint presentation on the Circa page.
- The Helpdesk compiled the answers received from CBs (23 CBs replied, 19 completed the questionnaire and 4 declined because their marketing strategies were not yet defined).
- The objective was to compile and present the national marketing activities for 2014 in order to open up the lines of communication between CBs. Furthermore, it was a good opportunity for the Helpdesk to share their/the EC’s 2014 Marketing strategy and recurrent tasks.
- The main marketing and communication activities on the MS level are: national websites, seminars, cooperation with other ecolabels and organisations, articles in magazines and press releases, social media, distribution of promotional material, national newsletters, coverage on TV segments, and targeting specific product groups/year.
- CBs identified the following as useful resources/collaborators: the EC (roll up flag and marketing material), collaboration with university-level students, fair managers, and other ecolabels, along with effective relationships with licence holders.
12
- The Helpdesk introduced new developments in 2014: creation of new ECAT User Manuals in collaboration with the EC IT Team, the News Alert published quarterly with 2 special editions First Quarter Edition (January-March) and Third Quarter Edition (July-September). The Helpdesk will continue to collect internal CB data on licences and products 6 weeks before the deadlines of the special News Alert edition (March and September). Lastly, the Helpdesk now has access to a user management page which can be used to recover lost applicant ECAT usernames or emails.
- The Helpdesk’s 2014 marketing and communication strategy will target retailers. This will be done through direct contacts, participation in conferences and through the development of success stories on retailers.
Discussion- Denmark asked the Helpdesk to pass along any positive or negative feedback to
CBs that are given to the Helpdesk via Facebook and Twitter. - CBs additionally noted that the Helpdesk does not necessarily have to have a
stand or give a speech at a fair and encouraged the Helpdesk to participate as a spectator in order to have low-cost involvement in influential fairs and conferences.
- Portugal shared that they have a new team working with the EU Ecolabel, who has created a fresh EU Ecolabel promotion strategy. This new strategy includes 2 TV programmes called Green Development and Green Minute, which constantly look for materials to promote green development.
- France asked the EC if they would be involved in the Waste Reduction week.The EC replied that they are not yet sure what kind of presence they will have in that event.
8. Update on the way licenses and trade names on the contract are defined and counted in each MS – Progress of the working group (EC) (20 min) (14:30-14:50)
- Since there are currently no accurate and reliable statistics on the EU Ecolabel, there is a need to have an agreement on how to instate them. A working group formed by 6 CBs (Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom) collaborated to find a harmonised approach to collect and report statistical information on licences and products awarded with the EU Ecolabel. The possibility of using an EAN code as an internal code reference to facilitate counting products was additionally discussed and was generally accepted by the working group. An Excel file comprising information on EU Ecolabel product group definition and scope was shared with GS1 (Global Standards One) in order to explore how EU Ecolabel product group categories can be matched up with those that are already in the GS1 system. The feedback is pending.
13
- There are currently 2 different approaches used to count licences:Approach 1 (most commonly used): 1 licence for 1 product group for 1 producer (independent of the number of production sites)*If a new application for the same product group and producer is made, the same licence number shall be used and the number of products increasesApproach 2: Each new application (from the same producer or the same product group) or for each modification of the products, a new licence number is issued.Special circumstance: For products (from the formulation/composition/design point of view), a retailer may request a new EU Ecolabel licence in order to offer a new product under their own brand. This means that separate applications will need to be made.
- Volume/size, colour, shape/design/model, packaging design, and commercial name/brand are the main features used by CBs to count products.
- The most common way that CBs count licences is Approach 1 and this is the proposed guidance to count EU Ecolabel licences. For detailed information on the different product group examples on how to count EU Ecolabel products, please refer to the PDF PowerPoint presentation: Statistics_CBForum_11 March2014 on CIRCA.
- Even if some CBs are currently using Approach 2 on the national level, they shall report the data by using Approach 1.
- The working group agreed that having access to a database highlighting the turnover of EU Ecolabel products would be helpful when identifying how useful and successful the EU Ecolabel is. This will be discussed further in the future.
- The EC will send a table to CBs that provides a methodology on how the harmonised reporting on EU Ecolabel products shall be done.
- CBs will report statistics to the Helpdesk, using the guidance provided by the EC for the next reporting period in June 2014.
Discussion- Denmark does not believe that all CBs will be able to change the way that they
report by June 2014. They believe that this extra task is unreasonably being demanded, especially since the ECAT should be able to provide this information.
- The EC commented that it is important to have reliable statistics in order to convince stakeholders that the EU Ecolabel makes a good impact on the market. The EC stressed the importance of having these statistics because they will need them in order to defend the EU Ecolabel internally and externally.
- Germany proposed to have June 2014 be a starting point, and to have a new deadline for full compliance on reporting to be set later in the year.
- Norway agreed with Germany and said that they would not be able to ensure that the statistics will be perfect by June 2014, especially when reporting paints and varnishes.
Conclusion- CBs shall provide their feedback on the presented proposal on counting
licences and products by 28 March 2014.
14
- The EC will send the final document presenting the methodology on how to count EU Ecolabel licences and products by 11 April 2014.
- CBs will report statistics to the Helpdesk, using the methodology provided by the EC for the next reporting period in June 2014.
- The collected statistics will be used to update the Facts and Figures page on the EU Ecolabel website, only if the agreed methodology is implemented. If CBs fail to properly report their statistics, the EC will add a disclaimer onto the website indicating the CB(s) who declined participation.
9. Discussion on the following product groups under revision/development (including scope) – 'wooden floor coverings', 'tourist accommodations and campsites', 'detergents', 'cleaning services' (IPTS) (14:50-15:50)
WOODEN FLOOR COVERINGS:- There are several challenges this product group is facing. There are currently
no licences to date (marketing efforts should focus on promoting this product group), the new biocidal product regulation in force since 2013 restricts EU Ecolabel products that contain biocides, and the EU Ecolabel must align with existing schemes and standards.
- Concerning general figures, IPTS shared that Poland, Germany and Sweden are the main producers of wood parquet, but Europe as a whole has the largest worldwide market for laminates. Bamboo, which currently comprises 2% of the wooden floor market in the EU is expected to double, thanks to the perception that those products are environmentally friendly.
- In summary, the production and consumption of wooden parquet and other floor coverings in the EU has exponentially increased, therefore there is no reason why this product group could not succeed.
- The current criteria Commission Decision of 26 November 2009 indicates that the wooden floor coverings comprises wood and plant based coverings, including wood and timber coverings, laminate floorings, cork coverings, and bamboo floorings.
- In order to properly assess this product group for revision, several questions will be sent out to CBs in a survey format to identify the product scope and definition in order to present a market analysis.
- Examples of survey questions are: What is the main barrier to uptake from manufacturers? Did the corrigenda work? Is there no demand because of the presence of other ecolabels?
Conclusion- IPTS (Oliver Wolf) will send out the survey to all CBs (deadline 31 March 2014).
The responses shall be sent to Alicia Boyano: [email protected]
15
TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS:- In January 2014 a survey was launched to gather information on this product
group revision. 98 responses were received, the majority of them gave positive feedback on the product group revision.
- The plan is to merge the tourist accommodations and campsites service groups. A shortened procedure was proposed for this revision process with the main focus being to merge the product groups into one common set of criteria and to update the current criteria accordingly.
- The timeline for this shortened procedure is to have the draft criteria ready for May 2014 and to be voted in November 2014. An alternative timeline was proposed: have draft criteria ready in October 2014 and vote in March 2015. The disadvantage of having a shortened procedure is that AHWG meetings are not foreseen and new requirements cannot be introduced into the revised set of criteria.
Discussion- France expressed the need to have the option of introducing new criterion. For
example, the EU Ecolabel competes with other ecolabels, such as Green Key, which has social criteria (that currently the EU Ecolabel lacks). Introducing social and quality criteria into the revised criteria is crucial for the competitiveness of the EU Ecolabel.
- JRC IPTS responded that the feedback concerning social criteria was divided 50/50, therefore it was not clear if this was a priority for the revision.
- Norway agreed with France and said that if there is no way through a shortened procedure to introduce new criteria in the revision, then the tourist accommodations/campsite revision should be a normal procedure, rather than a shortened one. They added that their tourist accommodation licence holders have sent them information on their energy and water consumption and suggests sending this data to IPTS so that they have as much relevant information as possible for the revision.
- Denmark shared that as of last year, they were not opposed to the shortened procedure.
- The UK agreed with moving forth with the shortened procedure with the understanding that social criteria shall be introduced. They indicated that the textile product group already has social criteria, therefore the tourist accommodation criteria would have an example to refer to. They will look into the article 6 in the shortened procedure to see if introducing new criterion is indeed prohibited.
- The EC asked if any other CBs have identified other criterion to be included into the revision besides social and quality.
- Italy mentioned that it would be a shame to miss out on holding working groups for this revision just because of the timing in the shortened procedure.
- The EC does not think that it would be possible to add criteria into a shortened procedure revision.
Conclusion
16
- Norway will send JRC IPTS their licence holder data on water and energy consumption.
- IPTS (Candela Vidal Abarca Garrido) will send out a questionnaire to CBs. CBs shall respond to [email protected] no later than 28 March. JRC IPTS will pay special attention to the answers to see if CBs prefer a short or normal process revision.
DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL & INSTITUTIONAL LAUNDRY AND DISHWASHING DETERGENTS:- IPTS is currently addressing these product groups by: examining the current
scope definitions, questionnaire results, other ecolabel schemes (Nordic Ecolabel, Green Seal, Environmental Choice), Eurostat classifications (which were proven not to be informative enough), and by sending questions to CBs.
- 15 responses were received for laundry detergents and 15 responses for dishwashing detergents.
- Through this questionnaire, IPTS wanted to assess whether or not the 2 industrial and domestic criteria should be merged or kept separate. For laundry detergents, over half of the stakeholders did not object with the current criteria, therefore these criteria will be kept separate. Comments were made on exploring the possibilities of including fabric softeners and non-pre-treatment stain removers into the scope.
- The general consensus for dishwashing detergents and industrial dishwashing detergents is that they should not be merged, and that there should be no scope extensions; generally, minimal changes will be made.
Discussion- Norway pointed out that since these product group revision conclusions seem
straight forward, they may be good candidates for a shortened procedure. Conclusion
- IPTS (Renata Kaps) will send out questionnaires for domestic and industrial & institutional laundry and dishwashing detergents to all CBs. The extended deadline for CBs to respond to [email protected] is 31 March 2014.
CLEANING SERVICES- The work on this new pcategory started in January 2014. 21 stakeholders (15 of
those from cleaning services) responded to the questionnaire.- One of IPTS’ goals is to explore the relationship between this new product
group and the existing EU Ecolabel criteria established for APC products. IPTS is additionally looking into GPP on cleaning services and cleaning products and how other ecolabels define the scope of cleaning services.
- The current product group definition is: “professional cleaning operations, performed regularly or periodical in order to keep an indoor space clean, and that can be performed annually or making use of machinery”.
- The feedback from the questionnaire was generally positive and there was an agreement on the product group definition and on the activities/operations outlined in the scope.
17
- IPTS shared that it has been difficult to identify what should be included or dismissed from the product group scope. Regardless, the proposed focus will be on cleaning service companies that service commercial buildings (offices) and public/institutional buildings.
- Certain cleaning service activities have already been dismissed from the scope such as: hospital disinfection, services uniquely geared towards cleaning laboratories and industrial site cleanup, laundry services, dry cleaning services, and outdoor cleaning (i.e. public areas).
- Some key environmental criteria that have been developed focus on: service practice, chemical use, water consumption, cleaning and material selection for purchase, energy consumption, transportation and waste water, transportation, and machinery.
Discussion- The UK believed that it would be a shame to exclude laundry services from this
product group, especially since the Nordic Ecolabel has already experienced proven success with their cleaning services category (that includes laundry services). They additionally were concerned that transportation will be included into this service group, since it has historically been a difficult requirement to develop in EU Ecolabel product/service groups and finally has been omitted from them.
- The Netherlands agreed that transportation would be tricky to address through criteria. They pointed out that there would have to be restrictions on the type of vehicles used, instruct how to plan service routes to optimise gas mileage, factor in energy efficiency optimisation by working throughout the day (in order to avoid using electricity on off hours).
Conclusion- IPTS shall email the questionnaire to all CBs who then will respond to JRC-IPTS-
[email protected] or [email protected] by 28 March 2014.
Coffee break (15:50 – 16:05)
10. AOB (16:05-17:00)
FINLAND: QUESTION ON PRINTED PAPER-DEINKING TEST/COVER
- A printing house, which is a current EU Ecolabel licence holder for printed paper wanted to make a similar printed product, but with a different cover. Finland wanted to know if they have to test the deinkability of the new cover, even if they already tested deinkability on the same product, but on a different cover.
- It became apparent that if the cover of a book is made of paper, tests should prove that it is deinkable. However, if the cover is made of other materials such as plastics, it was unclear how or if it should be tested.
18
Conclusion- The cover should be retested because the cover is, in principle, different.- The Chair had relayed this question to an Italian laboratory, which answered
that the deinkability test is not intended for plastic material and furthermore not possible to test. Although the answer was clear, the Chair suggests for Finland to contact laboratories and request information on the possibilities of performing deinkability tests on plastics.
- A list of laboratories that perform deinkablility tests is not available on the EU Ecolabel website, however the Chair will provide his list of Italian laboratories to Finland upon their request.
FINLAND: RUSSIAN TRANSLATION PROBLEMS
- A Finnish printing house which has the right to print EU Ecolabel certified publications has a Russian customer who wants to have the EU Ecolabel logo on the printed paper products that he orders. They would like to know if they can translate the text that appears near the EU Ecolabel certified paper “Please collect used paper for recycling” into Russian.
- Is it possible to translate this phrase into Russian, especially since it is not an official EU language? Furthermore would it be compulsory for the Cyrillic alphabet to be in Veranda, as indicated in the EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines?
Discussion- Germany reminded that if a product has no link to the European market, then
it cannot be awarded the EU Ecolabel in the first place. They are concerned that it appears as if this company only markets their products in Russia. If this is the case, they should not have been awarded the EU Ecolabel.
- Finland clarified that the “product” that the company would like to disperse is their company’s annual report. Therefore any consumer around the world can access this document.
Conclusion - Finland will investigate the company’s motivation to display the EU Ecolabel
and translate the text, and to identify if the product is intended for the EU market. The conclusions of this investigation will be presented at the June 2014 CB Forum by Finland.
GERMANY: PRESENTATION OF UPDATED EU ECOLABEL LOGO GUIDELINES- At the November 2013 CB Forum, Germany volunteered to provide proposals to
update the current EU Ecolable Logo Guidelines document for the March 2014 CB Forum.
- For full details on their proposal, please refer to their PowerPoint presentation and their Word document on the CIRCA page .
- Some of the amendments made were a clause to exclude the possibility of using the EU Ecolabel on signatures and on a company’s general paper. They additionally added more examples of acceptable logos (black logo with light
19
background and white logo on dark background) and excluded the possibility of using the color of the packaging as the background color.
- Amendments were made on the section when using the logo for advertisement purposes. In this case, the applicant shall ensure that it is exclusively associated with the particular product or service that is awarded, and the registration number must be clearly visible on the product. If more than one product covered by the same licence is advertised, it is suitable to only display the licence holder’s registration number once.
Discussion- France was hesitant about requiring a licence holder to display their
registration number. - Germany indicated that the registration number is important in order to trace
the advertised product, especially in the event that it is misused.- Denmark proposed to have the proposal distributed to all CBs in order to
gather input from all.- Italy pointed out that in the annex of the EU Ecolabel Regulation, it is indicated
that the logo background color cannot be the same color as the product’s packaging. However, they to some extent agree with Germany’s proposal since they do not see why it should be excluded. Their point was that, guidelines should not overrule the Regulation, and this approach should be followed.
- France would like to be included an exception for logo used in signatures for tourist accommodations. Since this specific category does not have a product to be labelled, their signatures are a crucial communication channel. They suggest that the tourist accommodation licence holder could include their registration number in the signature as well.
Conclusion- The EC proposes for all CBs to comment on the proposals made by Germany.- The Helpdesk will distribute Germany’s PowerPoint presentation and Word
document to all CBs. - CBs will provide their proposals in track changes to the Helpdesk by 4 April.
The conclusions of this exercise will be presented at the June CB Forum by the Helpdesk.
GERMANY: ECAT AND ECAT IMPORT TEMPLATE ASK COMPANIES FOR PERMISSION TO ENTER THEIR DATA INTO ECAT?
- Since CBs now are able to upload products and services via the ECAT Excel Import Template, Germany wondered if they could freely upload licences that have not previously been entered into the system without asking companies for their permission.
Conclusion- CBs shall upload missing licences onto the ECAT via the ECAT Excel Import
Template, especially since the article 9.1 of the EU Ecolabel Regulation stipulates that companies shall report their data to the ECAT.
20
- If certain licence holders retaliate against having this information public, exceptions may be made by masking the licence holder’s identity while keeping their data in the ECAT database.
BELGIUM: WUR CALCULATION (CRITERION 7 APC)- In criterion 7(f) for APC, Belgium wanted to ensure that the calculation of WUR
for a trigger spray (with a refill) is correct because when they plugged in the numbers, their total was more than 150 grams, which excludes it from meeting the criterion.
- Belgium wanted to know how CBs use the WUR calculation and if they would suggest to use r=2 also for the bottle and the label (while they use r=2 only for the trigger which is unscrewed by the trigger spray and screwed on the refill and r=1 for the bottle and for the label).
- Belgium indicated that they are aware of a product that was awarded the EU Ecolabel apparently with the same primary packaging weights. Therefore it is important that all the CBs calculate the WUR in the same way in order to avoid facing situations in which one CB believes that a product is not suitable to enter the EU Ecolabel scheme and another, with the same data, believes the opposite. In this case, it will be difficult to prevent other licence holders from trying to enter the scheme under the same circumstances.
Conclusion- Because of time constraints, the Chair will launch this question via Virtual CB
Forum (deadline 16 April 2014).
21
Annex / Notes to the agenda:
Point 2c: Follow up on Criterion 20 from French CB on Tourist Accommodation Services: how are other CBs implementing?
The action plan agreed by the Commission with France is the following:
1) A letter will be sent to all tourism accommodation holders to remind them the content of the criterion 20. It will be indicated that the yogurts cannot be accepted in a single dose packaging. However, it will also be clarified that home-made yogurt in single dose is accepted if the packaging (jars) used, are reused and reusable;
2) Tourism accommodation holders will be given 6 months maximum to be compliant with the criterion 20;
3) France will take advantage of meetings in region to inform also their license holders about this point;
4) The auditors will inform the hotel owners when they realize their checking.
The Commission expects other countries in similar situation to implement appropriate corrective actions within the same timeframe.
The Commission will ask each country having issued licences for tourism accommodations to provide an update on the situation during the CB Forum meeting and a final status of the issue at the June Competent Body Forum meeting.
Point 3: Printed Paper: criterion 4a. Emissions of Cu and Cr: How to define number of printing jobs to calculate concentration of Cu or Cr?
The Criterion states: The amount of Cr and Cu discharged into a sewage treatment plant must not exceed, respectively, 45 mg per m2 and 400 mg per m2 of printing cylinder surface area used in the press.
The Assessment and Verification states:Compliance with this criterion shall be assessed by dividing the content of Cr and Cu, as determined by the annual analytical test and by the cylinder surface used in the press during the printing. The cylinder surface used in the press during printing is calculated by multiplying the cylinder surface ( = 2πrL, where r is the radius and L the length of the cylinder) by the number of printing productions during a year (= number of different printing jobs).
One of our applicants interpreted this criterion in the following way: the number of printing jobs is the number of cylinder rotations. However, the final value of concentration for Cu and Cr is very low.
Do you (CBs) agree with this interpretation? Shouldn't it instead divide the emission value of Cr and Cu by the total surface of all the cylinders carved in a year?
The User Manual states:
22
The Cr and Cu concentration determined in the last analytical test by an accredited laboratory, is multiplied by the waste water amount discharged into the sewage, which will lead to the yearly amount of Cr and Cu sent to the sewage.This amount is divided by the galvanized cylinder surface area produced for all print jobs in the year.
The cylinder surface used in the press during printing is calculated by multiplying the total cylinder surface of a machine (= number of cylinders x 2πrL, where r is the radius and L the length of the cylinder) by the number of printing productions during a year (= number of different printing jobs).Please note that the calculation of the total surface is complex because in rotogravure printing, the length and radius of the produced cylinders for print jobs is selectable. Therefore, the result obtained by multiplying the total surface area of an average cylinder set by the number of print jobs in the last year could also be accepted.
Point 4a: Licence Registration Number discrepancy (Question proposed by UK CB)
On p.4 of the EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines, the box for displaying the Registration Number (XX/YY/ZZZ) shows that ‘YY’ for the product code is 2 digits. The example on p.4, reads: IT/20/012 which represents the code for all purpose cleaner. However, the criteria document states that the product code for APC’s is ‘020’. Some product codes in the criteria documents show 2 digits and some three e.g. Paint is 07 and Tissue Paper is 004.
Can the Registration Number logo display 2 or 3 digits in respect of the product code in the same way that the guidelines state that the country code can also be extended if necessary?
After taking a look at the ECAT, it is clear that even within the same product group, Member States assign either 2 or 3 numerical digits for the “YY” product group code. What should be the interpretation of the EU Ecolabel Logo Guideline’s indications? Should the product group code always be 2 numerical digits, or should it always correspond to what the Commission Decision states? The EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines should be revised based on the conclusion.
Point 4b: Laundry detergents for professional use: use of peracetic acid as bleaching agent (Belgium) –possible amendment?
In Criterion 2: “Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV)” it is written that acetic acid has to be used for the calculation instead of peracetic acid. So it looks like the peracetic acid is allowed.
But peracetic acid is classified R50, so it is not compliant with criterion 4b and no derogation is foreseen for it.
Because of his degradation in the washing process there should be no reason to forbid the use of peracetic acid; it is an environmental friendly alternative for bleaching.
Should an amendment be proposed?
Point 4c: Cleaning Vinegar and product scope EU Ecolabel critiera – Please refer to the note in the Annex (Netherlands) (10 min)
In The Netherlands, a candidate applicant contacted the Dutch CB with regard to an EU Ecolabel application for cleaning vinegar (“produced on a natural and sustainable way.”). The Dutch CB has referred to the definition of the product group of all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners, and have asked him to check whether, in his view, the candidate product would fall under the current scope of this product group
23
(because art. 1 says: “detergent products”). As a next step, he sent the Dutch CB a product group proposal form, which you find attached. This proposal, prepared by the candidate applicant, is not yet sent to Brussels. It seems that he expects the Dutch CB to us to give an advice on the content of the proposal.
About this proposal, the Dutch CB contacted Jakob – the Danish CB being leading in the last revision of cleaning products etc. Below you read Jakob’s response: “The products shall be mixtures of chemical substances”, and therefore it does not fall under the product scope, according to the Danish view. Nicholas and Carla do think that it is indeed a relevant question whether ‘cleaning vinegar’ falls under the current product scope. If not, in the upcoming revision research attention can be paid to this issue. But that will take time, the current criteria being valid until (at least) 28 June 2015.
The Dutch CB would very much appreciate to hear the opinion of the CB Forum about whether an EU Ecolabel application can be made for cleaning vinegar under the current product definition of the EU Ecolabel criteria for all-purpose cleaners and sanitary cleaners or not. During the meeting I can give a (very) brief presentation of this question.
Point 4d: Implementation of the new DID list: how to behave when handling applications (Chair)
The new DID list is foreseen to be approved soon and will be followed by its implementation. Since the new DID list has changed some of the values this will have an impact on our daily work handling applications.
Based on discussion already taken place in the Nordic scheme, Denmark would like to suggest the following:
1: applications received after the implementation shall be handled using the new DID list. (In the Nordic scheme applicants can choose either lists – but not mix values from the 2 lists)
2: changes in already existing licenses (recipes) can be based on either the old list or if the applicant prefers to have a new calculation only based on the new list.
In our opinion it will put too much work on both the CB´s and the license holders if we insist to only use the new list when changing a recipe.
Text proposed:
”The most up to date version of the DID list available at the time of application should be used, and will be available from the Competent Body dealing with the application. The list can also be found at the following web address: ………..”
Point 6: Logo use - French Cleaning Services company, Adomplus – Ménage Ecologique à Domicile requests to use EU Ecolabel logo for marketing purposes
This company only uses EU Ecolabel cleaning products from ULTRA VERT (FR/020-06, IT/20/09, FR/020/13). For that reason, Adomplus is interested in using the EU Ecolabel logo to show its clients that about their environmental commitment via EU Ecolabel products without actually being certified as an EU Ecolabel licence holder (working group for Cleaning Services has been recently launched by IPTS).
We understand this company’s interest in marketing their cleaning services with the EU Ecolabel, however, there is no mention of this situation in the logo guidelines and since their company does not bear the EU Ecolabel, we believe that it is not possible for Adomplus to use the logo for marketing purposes.
However, based on his insistence, we propose to the CB Forum the company’s below flyer. In the right hand side, it has the EU Ecolabel logo and the three licence registration numbers corresponding to the products that they use. Below the registration number, the Helpdesk has introduced the phrase in an attempt to
24
demonstrate that while the company is not an EU Ecolabel licence holder, they only use ULTRA VERT’s EU Ecolabel products:
“Nous utilisons les produits de nettoyage de la marque UTLTRA VERT, certifies par l’Ecolabel Européen“.
Translation in English :
« We use ULTRA VERT cleaning products which are certified by the EU Ecolabel ».
We would like to know if this type of logo use is possible if accompanied by the above phrase, or another phrase. It should be noted that the Helpdesk has not authorized Adomplus the right to use the below flyer and instead asked them to wait for the conclusions of the CB Forum. The Helpdesk also invited them to take part in the product group development process. See below for the proposed flyer:
25
26
Point 7: Session on communication and marketing activities on MS level
In March 2013 (cf. March 2013 CB Forum minutes) it was decided that a special session on communication and marketing activities will be held yearly at the CB Forum (November or March) to plan promotional activities for the upcoming year. The main objective is to share information on future activities, maximize synergies and improve coherence.
The Helpdesk will develop a three question survey that will be sent out to CBs. The answers to this mini questionnaire will help identify planned/previously planned communication and marketing activities on the Member State level, and will address which types of marketing activities have been/are feasible. The compiled answers of this short survey will be presented at the CB Forum by the Helpdesk to enable the identification of common ideas amongst CBs and would facilitate the creation of possible action plans for future marketing and communication strategies. The main goal of this initiative is to prepare and structure the session’s discussions in order to increase its efficiency and the potential to foster concrete outcomes.
27
