Business
Business
Business
Business Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
For an
EU
EU
EU
EU Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental Technologies Verification (ETV)
Technologies Verification (ETV)
Technologies Verification (ETV)
Technologies Verification (ETV)
Scheme
Scheme
Scheme
Scheme
October 2009
Contact:
Caroline Wadsworth
Beta Technology Limited
Barclay Court
Doncaster Carr
Doncaster
DN4 5HZ
Tel: 01302 322633
Fax: 01302 388800
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.betatechnology.co.uk
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 4
4
4
4
INTRODUCTIO
INTRODUCTIO
INTRODUCTIO
INTRODUCTION
N
N
N ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 6
...
6
6
6
1.
1.
1.
1.
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIVES
ES
ES
ES ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 7
7
7
7
2.1.
M
ISSION---7
2.2.
O
BJECTIVES---7
2.
2.
2.
2.
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV SYSTEM
SYSTEM
SYSTEM ...
SYSTEM
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 8
8
8
8
3.1.
K
EYL
ESSONSL
EARNED FROMT
RITECH-ETV ---8
3.2.
C
ONCLUSIONS FROM THEI
NSTITUTE FORP
ROSPECTIVET
ECHNOLOGICALS
TUDIES(IPTS) --- 10
3.
3.
3.
3.
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT
AGEMENT
AGEMENT
AGEMENT ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 17
17
17
17
4.
4.
4.
4.
MARKET ANAL
MARKET ANAL
MARKET ANALYSIS
MARKET ANAL
YSIS
YSIS ...
YSIS
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 22
...
22
22
22
4.1.
T
HEE
NVIRONMENTALT
ECHNOLOGIESM
ARKET--- 22
5.
5.
5.
5.
STRATEGY
STRATEGY
STRATEGY
STRATEGY ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 27
27
27
27
5.1.
S
COPE--- 27
5.2.
O
PERATION--- 30
5.3.
P
ROMOTION--- 32
5.4.
V
ERIFICATIONM
ETHODOLOGY--- 33
5.5.
A
PPROVAL OFT
ESTC
ENTRES--- 35
6.
6.
6.
6.
FINANCIAL PLAN
FINANCIAL PLAN
FINANCIAL PLAN
FINANCIAL PLAN ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 36
36
36
36
6.1.
B
ACKGROUND--- 36
6.2.
EU-ETV
B
UDGET--- 38
7.
7.
7.
7.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 40
40
40
40
APPENDIX 1: VERIFICA
APPENDIX 1: VERIFICA
APPENDIX 1: VERIFICA
APPENDIX 1: VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY
TION METHODOLOGY
TION METHODOLOGY
TION METHODOLOGY...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... 42
...
42
42
42
APPENDIX 2:
APPENDIX 2:
APPENDIX 2:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Innovative environmental technologies are urgently needed to provide solutions to the major environmental challenges faced by Europe and the world, including: climate change, scarcity and unsustainable use of resources and loss of biodiversity. However, new technologies face difficulties in convincing the first customers and investors of their merits; their difficulty to penetrate the market or to be diffused to potential customers is a barrier to eco-innovative companies benefiting from their new technologies, to users in tapping into new technological solutions and to policy-makers in achieving policy goals rapidly and cost-efficiently.
This Business Plan proposes a EU-wide Environmental Technology Verification (EU-ETV) scheme, based on the results of a recently completed pilot ETV scheme funded through the EU’s LIFE programme (Tritech ETV) and other recent studies of ETV schemes.
The proposed EU-ETV scheme would provide independent and credible information on new environmental technologies, on a voluntary basis, by verifying that performance claims put forward by technology developers and vendors are complete, fair and based on reliable test results. The objectives are three-fold:
To help developers and vendors, especially SMEs, provide objective and reliable evidence on the performance of new eco-technologies arriving on the market,
To support technology purchasers (public or private) base their decisions on sound information, and To facilitate the implementation of public policies and regulations in a more flexible way than
traditional command-and-control mechanisms.
The EU-ETV system would begin in a few technology areas and would enlarge its scope progressively. It is proposed that the following areas will form the initial scope of the EU-ETV:
1. Monitoring techniques
2. Water and soils treatment technologies
3. Renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency 4. Air pollution abatement including GHG
5. Clean technologies including waste and resource recycling
Together, these technology areas represent some 55% of the LCEGS industry.
A management and organisation structure is proposed that is based on conclusions and lessons from recent studies and best practice. The EU-ETV will be operated on behalf of the European Commission by a publicly-funded Central Verification Organisation (CVO), In this role, a public body would enhance the scheme’s credibility relative to a private sector body. The CVO will appoint a number of Verification Bodies (VBs) that will be thematically focused around the key technology areas listed above. These VBs could be private sector organisations and would require part public and part private financing – public financing for the general operation and overheads associated with the scheme and private financing in the form of a contribution by vendors to the costs of verification. Verification by the VBs will require the use of accredited experts in the form of Verification Panels.
The size and key locations for each of the technology sectors within the scope of the EU-ETV will require a flexible approach to the establishment of thematic VBs. It is envisaged that the following numbers and locations of VBs would be required:
No. of VBs Locations
Monitoring techniques 1 Central location, perhaps Belgium Water and soils treatment technologies 2 to 3 Germany, UK, France
Renewable sources of energy & energy efficiency 4 to 5 Germany, UK, France, Spain , Italy Air pollution abatement including GHG 1 Central location, perhaps Belgium Clean technologies including waste & resource recycling 4 to 5 Germany, UK, France, Spain , Italy
The verification process in the EU-ETV scheme would not involve testing. The role of the VBs will
be in verifying the data that are presented to the VB by the vendor. However, the VBs will have a
role in accrediting Testing Centres and ensuring that they comply with quality and technical
standards mandated by the CVO.
The EU-ETV scheme will incorporate a high degree of stakeholder involvement through Technical
Groups and Advisory Fora. Finally, it is envisaged that each Member State would have National
Contact Points to act as an entry point for vendors, reducing geographical, language or
administrative barriers by explaining to vendors the ETV concept and its benefits.
The basic features of the EU-ETV would be fixed in EU legislation establishing the ETV scheme.
The main documents defining the procedures followed by EU-ETV, in particular the list of
technology areas covered by EU-ETV, the General Protocol and Quality Management System, and
specific protocols where appropriate, should be adopted by the Commission using usual Committee
procedures where Member States experts are involved. Technical standards (ISO, IEC, CEN,
Cenelec) will be used extensively where available, in particular for testing methods. Standards
development will be encouraged to accompany the development of EU-ETV and facilitate its wider
recognition, including with non-EU programmes.
A comprehensive methodology for the verification process has been developed as part of the
Tritech-ETV project and it is proposed that this methodology be adopted in the EU-ETV scheme.
The process would be web-enabled in order to ensure efficiency and ease of operation for the
vendors and for the VBs.
A budget for the operation of the EU-ETV has been estimated based on experience in non-EU ETV
schemes and the Tritech-ETV pilot scheme. The EU Budget would cover the administrative cost
related to the EU-ETV in the Commission (through the CVO), the costs associated with meetings of
the Technical Groups and the Advisory Fora, Verification Bodies’ administration costs and
subsidisation of verification costs, focused on facilitating the access of SMEs to the system. Based
on the hypothesis that the number of verifications would increase progressively up to 200 over the
first five years of implementation of the EU-ETV scheme (at a settled-down rate of 60 per year), the
cost for the EU budget is estimated to be around €4 million Euros per year
€4 million Euros per year
€4 million Euros per year
€4 million Euros per year.
Finally, an outline implementation plan is presented, focusing on the key actions that are required to
establish the EU-ETV scheme described in this Business Plan.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Sustainable development is at the core of the European Union’s (EU) objectives. In October 2003,
the European Council recognised the potential synergies between environmental protection and
economic growth, and saw environmental technologies as the key to success in both of these areas.
With this in mind, the EU adopted the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) early in
2004. The action plan aims “to harness the full potential (of environmental technologies) to reduce
pressures on our natural resources, improve the quality of life of European citizens and stimulate
economic growth”
1. Three main areas of action are proposed in the plan, including “Getting from
Research to Market” – a priority action within this is “improving testing, performance verification and
standardisation related to environmental technologies”.
For a technology producer, particularly where they are an SME, it is often difficult to convince a
potential investor or purchaser that their product does as they claim it does. To overcome these
barriers, several verification programs have been adopted in countries outside of the EU in order to
provide users of the technologies with greater certainty in their purchasing decisions. Such a
mechanism, that independently and objectively validates the performance of a new product, would
instil confidence in both purchasers and investors, and thus help vendors to make the step between
pilot stage and commercialisation of technologies faster. These schemes have become known as
Environmental Technologies Verification (ETV) systems.
National verification programs have been running for almost ten years in the US, Canada and South
Korea. Japan started a program in 2002, which is still in a pilot phase. Many other countries, mainly
in Asia, have been contacted by the North Americans and, as a result, China is now about to launch
a national verification programme based on the Canadian system. However, there is no similar
technology verification approach established in Europe, despite the fact that most stakeholders
consider such a scheme on a European level to be of significant importance for the dissemination of
environmental technologies and for the competitiveness of this industry.
As a response to this, the European Commission has been running a number of programmes to
better understand how a robust ETV scheme can be best established across Europe. One such
programme, Tritech ETV, has recently completed a pilot scheme for the verification of
environmental technologies under funding through the EU’s LIFE programme. The main aim of
Tritech ETV was to establish a working methodology for the verification of technologies in the field
of waste water treatment, soil remediation and energy. A total of 15 technologies were verified
during the project, the mechanisms established and evaluated and the results reported to the EC.
An EU-wide ETV system would verify the performance characteristics of new environmental
technologies through commonly recognised and transparent protocols. In this context, “to verify”
1
(Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development – An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the European Union, 2004)
means “to establish or prove the truth of the performance of a technology, under specific
predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate data quality assurance procedures”. It is important
to note that verification is not the same as certification; the scope of verification is the independent
assessment of a vendor’s claims regarding the performance of their technology without making
further value-based judgements of it. On the other hand, certification usually implies a guarantee
that the technology meets specific standards. With new technologies, such standards may not yet
exist and while certification in these cases would not be possible, verification of claims can still be
made.
This Business Plan draws from the lessons learned during Tritech ETV, together with lessons
learned from other EU-supported projects in this area and from an examination of international best
practice. The Business Plan proposes a model for an EU-wide ETV system and an outline strategy
and plan for its implementation.
1.
1.
1.
1.
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIV
MISSION AND OBJECTIVES
ES
ES
ES
2.1. Mission
The mission of an EU-ETV scheme would be to provide: (i) users of environmental technologies
with confidence in the technology they are investing in, and (ii) vendors of environmental
technologies with an accreditation for their products. Ultimately, an EU-ETV scheme will make a
substantial contribution to the competitiveness of the EU’s environmental technologies market and
boost levels of investment in the development of new technologies.
2.2. Objectives
The objectives of an EU-ETV scheme would be to:
•
Remove key obstacles currently preventing the realisation of the full potential of
environmental technologies for protecting the environment, while at the same time
contributing to competitiveness and economic growth,
•
Ensure that over the coming years the EU takes a leading role in developing and applying
environmental technologies,
•
Mobilise all stakeholders in support of these objectives, and
•
Implement a scheme that has the minimum level of bureaucracy while assuring high
technical and quality standards and engaging with a wide range of stakeholders at national
and European levels.
2.
2.
2.
2.
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV
DESIGN OF AN EU ETV SYSTEM
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
The design of the EU ETV System described in this Business Plan is predominantly based on the
outcomes of two key studies – the Tritech-ETV Pilot Scheme, of which this Plan is an output, and
comprehensive analysis recently published by the IPTS. The EU ETV System described in the
Business Plan draws from the key lessons learned in these two studies.
3.1. Key Lessons Learned from Tritech-ETV
• There is significant interest from technology developers and purchasers in ETV schemes based on a general lack of trust in new technologies.
• It is imperative to understand the wider environmental, technical and commercial aspects of a vendor and their technology – i.e. to take a holistic view.
• The expertise of the Verification Bodies and a competent Expert Group is critical during the claim definition process. In addition to the definition of the claims, there may be a need for expert s to comment on the test plan and verification report, especially if there is little or no experience of the verification of the similar technologies. A list of qualified experts of different technology areas should be produced.
• To ensure the availability of competent experts, a system for compensation of their expenses should be developed.
• It is important for all of the tests to have been completed prior to entering the ETV scheme.
• Availability of suitable protocols should considerably shorten the time needed to complete the verification process. However, the range of technologies is wide and this may take a long time to achieve.
• If the ETV system is to support a decision, technologies that serve the same function should be clustered into one protocol, not just technologies using the same technical principles.
• The ETV system must be efficient and flexible to minimise the time required by the vendor to provide input into the process.
• It is essential to communicate the benefits of the vendor being involved in verification.
• At least small enterprises will need a national contact point. Some of them may have language barriers. It is also important that there is an opportunity for personal contacts and the information about the verification comes from a national organization. If possible, there should be accepted testing laboratories in all the countries involved in the scheme.
• The benefits of EU-ETV as a European-wide verification scheme should be emphasized.
• In addition to (or before) verification, the smaller technology vendors would need support in finding opportunities for technology piloting and/or demonstration.
• To enable a quantifiable assessment of the economic impact an ETV scheme there is a
requirement to establish a baseline of information on the SMEs within a region. This information must be held centrally and periodically reviewed to understand the economic growth.
• Impact assessment should be built into the EU-ETV scheme.
From the perspective of vendors:
• National Contact Point (NCP) – small vendors will benefit from the network-type approach that a NCP can offer. It will also allow the vendor to interact more directly with the EU ETV governing body.
• Offering incentives to the vendors – this could be achieved through part funding for the required verification trials. Vendors must be made aware and understand the benefits of an ETV scheme.
• Route to verification – there should be a clear route to verification, mapped out from the start along with the perceived costs involved with the process. The time-scales involved in the process should not be prohibitive and should be well documented.
• Administrative burden – vendors will be typically short on staff resources and therefore the administrative tasks involved should be minimised.
• Marketing – verification certification and EU ETV logo will increase exposure for the vendor and the scheme in general.
• International Harmonisation – ensure exposure to a wide range of markets.
From the perspective of end users:
• Targeted marketing – making the buyers aware of the benefits involved in purchasing a verified technology.
• Economic impact assessment – the buyer and vendor will benefit from understanding how an EU ETV has impact on growth.
• Quality – the independent verification party and the test facility should be of high quality to ensure an EU ETV scheme demands respect.
• Commercial credentials – the identification of wider impacts the technology has such as commercial and environmental impacts will help the end user with the procurement business case.
Other key points arising from Tritech-ETV with regard to the design of a successful Environmental
Technology Verification System are as follows:
•
The government’s influential leadership is necessary at the beginning of environmental
technology development. Small environmental businesses lack abilities to develop new
technologies and ordinary enterprises are not active in investing in environmental technology
development. Therefore, until the environment market grows to a certain size, the
government’s intervention is needed to sustain the technological development.
•
Public support is important. Environmental technologies are not for manufacturing, they
cannot produce visible results immediately and often quantified results are not meaningful.
Without the support of civil society, it may be difficult to secure government funding.
•
Environmental technology development projects must reflect national demands as well as
international demands for special environmental technologies and forecast future demands.
Precise estimation of demands makes the efficient distribution and execution of budgets
possible, contributes to the environmental solutions, and secures easily relevant budgets in
the future. To get an accurate forecast for technology demand, specialists in broad areas
must participate and share relevant information.
•
The environment market should be activated. Without this, technologies are useless.
Therefore it is important to create market environment for developed environmental
technologies to be utilized actively. This requires governmental intervention and support. For
example, the size of the environment market can be extended by tightening environmental
regulations, providing loans and tax exemption for the installation of treatment facilities,
expanding the government’s purchase of environmentally friendly goods.
•
Policies for promoting environmental corporations are also important. Environmental
businesses play a key role in forecasting demands for environmental technologies,
developing them and selling them. However, most early-stage environmental companies are
small in size and they have difficulties getting into the market. Therefore it is desirable for the
government to promote various policies in order to enhance environmental companies’ own
management and research capacities.
3.2. Conclusions from the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)
The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) recently published a report on
Environmental Technology Verification Systems
2. The study undertook an analysis of international
best practice and a European-wide survey amongst stakeholders. With regard to the existing,
non-European, programmes, these belong to either the USA (South Korea, Japan) or Canadian (China,
2
Spyridon Merkourakis, Ignacio Calleja, Luis Delgado (JRC/IPTS), Arlette Oçafrain, Sophie Laurent (JITEX), Environmental Technologies Verification Systems, JRC38236 (2007).
Bangladesh, New Jersey) models. IPTS compared the operation of these two models, illustrated in
Figures 1 and 2, and the key conclusions are as shown in Table 1.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1: Simplified view of the US ETV system
: Simplified view of the US ETV system
: Simplified view of the US ETV system
: Simplified view of the US ETV system
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tab
Tab
Tab
Table 1
le 1
le 1
le 1:
:
:
: Key conclusions from IPTS regarding the USA and Canadian models
Key conclusions from IPTS regarding the USA and Canadian models
Key conclusions from IPTS regarding the USA and Canadian models
Key conclusions from IPTS regarding the USA and Canadian models
USA ModelUSA Model USA ModelUSA Model Canadian ModelCanadian ModelCanadian ModelCanadian Model Focus
Focus Focus
Focus Market sector focus operated through specialized Verification Organisations (VOs) Technology focused. Verification Verification Verification Verification Process Process Process Process
Verification occurs "inside" the system - VOs decide, with stakeholder and vendor feedback, the type of tests that will be needed and the operational conditions that will be applied.
The technology is tested, often together with other similar technologies under the same conditions. The resulting performance data are made publically available, along with the test protocols and test plans. There is no guarantee that the technology will perform to the same level under the same, or different, conditions of use.
The system only verifies pre-existing data, The system can give advice to vendors but it does not define the type of tests to be executed. The data would have been produced by an independent laboratory prior to submission for verification, The system can verify that the tests were done according to sound scientific and engineering practice.
The system is more vendor-driven than the USA model as the verification is adapted to the vendor's claims.
The technology data submitted by the vendor are examined by the system and the system verifies that the vendor’s claims are supported by those data. There is no guarantee that the technology will perform to the same level at the same or different conditions. Access to Access to Access to Access to Results Results Results Results
All verification related data – test plans, test protocols and verification results – are publicly accessible. The system is therefore transparent and enables comparisons to be made between competing technologies.
Only the claims are published; the test protocols and the data supplied by the vendor are not made publically accessible.
Costs and Costs and Costs and Costs and Timescales Timescales Timescales Timescales
Longer process and more expensive than the Canadian model as tests are performed within the system. However, the fee is subsidised by a governmental contribution (which varies from case to case).
As there are no tests performed, the whole procedure is faster, and the fee that the vendor pays is lower, than in the US model. However, the vendor would have already paid for the tests (or will pay for additional tests) that are not included in the costs of the verification procedure.
Additional Additional Additional
Additional The US model creates new knowledge and performance information for the market. There is extensive stakeholder involvement and, while this is time consuming, it does enhance the credibility of the system.
The Canadian model does not produce new information – it simply uses previously
established data in order to corroborate claims. Stakeholder input is minimal – the key interaction is between the vendor and the ETV system.
Table 2
Table 2
Table 2
Table 2:
:
:
: Key conclusions from the IPTS market survey
Key conclusions from the IPTS market survey
Key conclusions from the IPTS market survey
Key conclusions from the IPTS market survey
Feedback from respondents and Key LessonsFeedback from respondents and Key Lessons Feedback from respondents and Key LessonsFeedback from respondents and Key Lessons Usefulness of ETV in Usefulness of ETV in Usefulness of ETV in Usefulness of ETV in relation to existing relation to existing relation to existing relation to existing systems systems systems systems ---- harmonization harmonization harmonization harmonization
An EU-ETV system would be useful provided: 1. Bureaucracy is kept to a minimum, and 2. A high technical level is guaranteed.
A European-wide system would remove the need for technology approvals in each country. However, the meaning of verification and of the ETV logo would need to be clearly communicated to avoid confusion with current national and local technology approval systems around Europe.
Cooperation and collaboration with the existing verification programs in the world (USA, Canada) would be valuable.
Factors of success Factors of success Factors of success Factors of success –––– requirements of ETV requirements of ETV requirements of ETV requirements of ETV
The scheme should be simple, fast and affordable for the vendors.
The scheme should be widely recognised, both in Europe and worldwide, as a reliable tool to assess the quality and performance of an environmental technology and should be based on a procedure of technical excellence.
The EU-ETV scheme should be a public/private initiative – the public part helping achieve recognition and the private part providing the funds and assuring that the system is close to the market. The system should start off as a public initiative in which the EU and Member States take part.
Prioritization of Prioritization of Prioritization of Prioritization of technologies and the technologies and the technologies and the technologies and the question of question of question of question of prototypes prototypes prototypes prototypes
The program should be open to all technologies, but priority could be given to some environmental technologies on the basis that:
• The technologies have environmental impact, • There is a clear need in the market,
• The technologies are new and innovative, and
• The technologies are not covered by current standards of regulations.
However, heterogeneity in Europe needs be taken into account in defining priority technology areas.
In addition to commercially-ready products, prototypes could be accepted. This could help small companies that cannot perform their tests in-house to learn about their product through testing done by a third party using well-recognised ETV test protocols. However, it is noted that testing prototypes is out of the scope of existing ETV schemes since prototypes are bound to evolve and nullify performance data gathered at earlier stages of development. Verification of a prototype also should not lead to awarding an ETV logo, and the verification report should not be published. SMEs versus large
SMEs versus large SMEs versus large SMEs versus large companies
companies companies companies
The program should be open to all companies, SMEs or large groups, whether European or not. However, specific treatment could be applied to SMEs (through financial support and guidance) and to non-European vendors (who should not receive public funds).
Credibility Credibility Credibility
Credibility –––– Market Market Market Market recognition
recognition recognition recognition
Recognition of the ETV scheme from the market is a crucial issue. The best ETV Team is generally considered to be a public body. A private body playing the role of the ETV Team could be credible provided it is totally independent.
Testing laboratories must be accredited by the EU-ETV system, an essential criteria being their independence. For each technology group, there should be more than one accredited laboratory to avoid monopoly and delay in producing test data.
For the Verification Organisation (VO), to be credible, it should not be directly involved in the performance testing itself, and it should have very good expertise in the
technology area it is focused on. Practical considerations, or the availability of the adequate expertise, may justify the merger of the VO and the Testing Laboratory in one entity, duly audited by the ETV supervising organisation.
Besides the vendors, it is important that the most relevant stakeholders of each technology category take part in the system: Member States, buyers, users, academia, trade associations, etc.
Test Protocols Test Protocols Test Protocols
Test Protocols The test protocols should be established by independent experts, using existing protocols as a starting point when possible. Their development should be paid for by the public part of the system (i.e. not by the vendor). However, this could be expensive for innovative technologies, which are the ones that would be expected to benefit the most from EU-ETV.
Costs Costs Costs
Costs Cost is a major issue for vendors who may go through the ETV program,
A suggested price range between € 5,000 (not including tests – ETV Canadian-type verification) and € 25-30,000 (including tests – US ETV-type verification) was often cited. But it is a function of whether it is mandatory to go through ETV or not.
A large source of the cost of verification for vendors is linked to the testing requirements. Generally, vendors feel that the verification should be subsidized, particularly for very innovative technologies since they contribute to the improvement of the environment.
A key issue is how to motivate vendors to go through the verification process, without its becoming mandatory. The ETV’s role in the market has to be made clear.
The choice of the The choice of the The choice of the The choice of the testing laboratory testing laboratory testing laboratory testing laboratory
Two opposing views were given regarding choice of the testing laboratories – either the vendor should or the vendor should not be able to pick the laboratory to do the testing. Behind this choice is the question of how the testing laboratories are accredited and monitored. Therefore it seems important to accredit testing laboratories and to regularly audit them. A strong VO (such as the US verification centre that sometimes performs most of the tests) is also a possibility.
Subsidies Subsidies Subsidies
Subsidies –––– financial financial financial financial support
support support support
Financial help will be a strong incentive for vendors to go through the verification process. SMEs are a key target of ETV as they are often innovative but would find it difficult to pay for verification. However, whether SMEs should have special public support to go through ETV is questionable.
However, size of company is not the only factor that should be considered as far as potential subsidies are concerned, with other factors being important such as:
• The innovative aspect, and
• The sustainable development quality of a technology. Mandatory versus Mandatory versus Mandatory versus Mandatory versus voluntary schemes voluntary schemes voluntary schemes voluntary schemes
Any action by Member States that provides an advantage to verified environmental technologies would encourage the market and in effect make the scheme resemble a mandatory one. However, some vendors stressed that an EU-ETV should not be compulsory and, if it were, then it should be fully subsidized.
Financiers Financiers Financiers
Financiers All stakeholders should contribute financially: not only the Member
States, the EC and the vendor, but also trade/industrial associations, users, regulators, environmental groups, public authorities etc. The contribution of
stakeholders could take different forms from financing the verification to providing the facilities, equipment and staff for the tests.
The IPTS proposed a model for the implementation of an EU-ETV system, describing a potential
organisational structure for an EU-ETV system, based on the principle that is should predominantly
rely on existing structures. The model foresees a central EU-ETV team to lay the foundations of the
system (scope, objectives, strategies and protocols). Although the IPTS do not judge whether this
entity should be private or public, the market survey indicated that the credibility of the system would
be enhanced if this entity were a public body.
The vendor would interact at the level of the Thematic Verification Organisation (VO). A Network of
National ETV contact points could be established to act as an entry point for vendors, reducing
geographical, language or administrative barriers by explaining to vendors the ETV concept and its
benefits. ETV contact points could be established in all Member States.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3
Figure 3:
:
: Model proposed by the IPTS
:
Model proposed by the IPTS
Model proposed by the IPTS
Model proposed by the IPTS
EU-ETV Team
• Coordinate and supervise the verification process,
• Be responsible for compliance with the objectives and quality management
procedures,
• Designate thematic verification organisations (VOs), depending on the
priority technology areas addressed by the program.
• Audit the VOs and verify that their procedures and outcomes comply with
the program requirements.
• Communicate program activities, progress, outputs and recommendations. • Award certificates and logos to successful vendors.
Thematic
Verification
Organisation (VO)
• Develop test plans and protocols.
• Identify technology vendors in their thematic areas that are potentially
interested in the program.
• Review vendor applications
• Carry out tests, appoint other Testing Laboratories (TLs) to perform the
tests, or designate Verification Centres (VCs) to verify the vendor claims.
• Verify the accreditation of any TLs or VCs utilised. • Review and approve the verification reports.
• Collaborate with thematic stakeholders groups, for scientific or technical
support, for guidance on market needs or selection of qualified testing laboratories, or for promotion or review purposes.
Testing Laboratory
(TL)
• Help in developing the specific
protocols and test plans appropriate to their scope.
• Execute the tests, respecting the
protocols and quality management procedures.
• Write the verification report.
Verification Centre
(VC)
If technology testing is required and if the Thematic VO does not have the necessary expertise If claim verification is required
and if the Thematic VO does not have the necessary expertise
• Examine the vendor data and verify if
they support the accompanying claims, respecting the protocols and quality management procedures.
• Propose to the vendor that tests be
repeated if the quality of the data is not sufficient.
• Write the verification report.
Thematic
Stakeholder
Group (SG)
• Help with the development and review of the verification tools, test
protocols, test plans and quality management plans.
3.
3.
3.
3.
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MAN
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT
AGEMENT
AGEMENT
AGEMENT
The organisation of the EU-ETV described in this Business Plan has been developed along the lines
of the conclusions from the studies summarised in Section 3. The verification structure is illustrated
in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4
Figure 4:
:
: Verification structure for the EU
:
Verification structure for the EU
Verification structure for the EU----ETV
Verification structure for the EU
ETV
ETV
ETV
The basic features of the EU- ETV would be fixed in EU legislation establishing the scheme. The
main documents defining the procedures followed by the EU-ETV, in particular the list of technology
areas covered by ETV, the General Protocol and Quality Management System, and specific
protocols where appropriate, should be adopted by the Commission using usual Committee
procedures where Member States experts are involved.
Nominate members, give mandate Provide advice Peer-review, drafts joints procedures Nominates VBs Accredits and monitors VBs
European
Commission
Central Verification
Organisation
(CVO)
Verification Body
Verification Body
Verification Bodies
(VBs)
Verification Panels
Member States
Technical Groups
Advisory Forum: Technology purchasers and
users, stakeholders
Applies
Test Centres
AccreditsTechnical standards (ISO, IEC, CEN, Cenelec) will be used extensively where available, in
particular for testing methods. Standards development will be encouraged to accompany the
development of ETV and facilitate its wider recognition, including with non-EU programmes.
The role of each of the bodies identified in Figure 4 will be as follows:
Central Verification Organisation (CVO)
The Central Verification Organisation (CVO) has the ultimate control of the EU ETV scheme for the
whole of Europe and corresponds broadly to the EU-ETV Team identified in the IPTS model in
Figure 3. While the Verification Body (VB) will gather all the necessary information and complete the
verification process, this verification report will be sent through to the CVO for a final review and the
verification certificate/stamp will then be issued where appropriate. The CVO will therefore:
•
Coordinate and supervise the EU-ETV scheme,
•
Be responsible to the European Commission for compliance with the objectives and quality
management procedures of the EU-ETV scheme,
•
Designate VBs, depending on the priority technology areas addressed by the programme.
•
Audit the VBs and verify that their procedures comply with the program requirements.
•
Communicate program activities, progress, outputs and recommendations.
•
Award certificates and logos to successful vendors.
The CVO will also have role in cooperating and collaborating with other verification programmes
around the world.
Verification Body (VB)
It is envisaged that several Verification Bodies will be set up to control the ETV scheme across
individual European nations and across sectors (thematic focus). The VBs will liaise between the
technology vendor and the CVO during the verification process (the vendor will not have direct
communication with the CVO). The VB will be responsible for identifying and allocating appropriate
test centres along with the verification panel of experts for individual technologies. All the vendor
details and commercially sensitive information made available to the VB will remain wholly
confidential and will not be available in the public domain. The VBs correspond broadly to the
Thematic Verification Organisations identified in the IPTS model in Figure 3.
Verification Bodies would be designated by Member States for a specific technology area, after
accreditation by the CVO to ensure that the VBs meet the requirements of ETV, and monitoring
continuously their qualifications. It should be stressed that there would not be necessarily one
Verification Body per Member State: the aim is rather to have a small number of VBs, for example 2
or 3 for each of the technology areas addressed, competent for the whole European Union.
Verification Bodies will operate Verification Panels. The role of the verification panels is to validate
the vendor claims. The verification panel will be made up of (a minimum of three) experts selected
from a predetermined pool, each having gone through a robust screening process. The experts
selected will have particular expertise relating to the technology under verification. Within the panel
there will be experts from industry (public sector and private sector) and also academic / technical
experts. The role of the panel is to assess the environmental claims made by the vendor. The
vendor may have included independent testing of the technology to support the claims made. The
verification panel may deem that the testing information is not sufficiently robust or has not been
undertaken by an ETV-approved test centre and may therefore request further testing to ensure that
the claims can be verified.
The Verification Bodies will therefore:
•
Develop test plans and protocols.
•
Identify vendors in their thematic areas that are potentially interested in the program.
•
Review vendor applications
•
Operate Verification Panels to verify the vendor claims.
•
Verify the accreditation of any Test Centres utilised by vendors.
•
Review and approve the verification reports.
•
Collaborate with Technical Groups for scientific and technical support, for guidance on
market needs and for promotion or review purposes.
Technical Groups
In order to harmonise the procedures followed by VBs competent for the same technology area,
Technical Groups would be set up by the Commission with Member State experts, in order to
organise the peer-review of VBs and prepare technical guidance or protocols where appropriate.
The Technical Groups correspond broadly with the Thematic Stakeholder Groups identified in the
IPTS model in Figure 3. An Advisory Forum could give advice to the Commission and to the
Technical groups, in particular from a customer's and stakeholder's perspective. The Technical
Groups will therefore:
•
Help the VBs with the development and review of the verification tools, test protocols, test
plans and quality management plans.
•
Help the VB with technology prioritization and Test Centre accreditation.
Test Centres
These must be both accredited (by the VBs) and independent. The technology vendor should
identify ETV approved test centres at the early stages of their product’s development as this will
minimise cost and avoid duplication of any testing down the line. The VB can help the vendor select
the most appropriate test centre for their technology.
National Contact Point (NCP)
NCPs will provide the vendor will an initial point of contact to obtain information about the ETV
scheme, the structure, and the verification process that is undertaken. The NCP is a non technical
contact that will provide pointers and an additional interface between the vendor and the appropriate
VB.
An overview of the operation of this structure is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5: An overview of the verification
: An overview of the verification
: An overview of the verification process
: An overview of the verification
process
process
process
The proposed system incorporates the key conclusions and lessons learned from the IPTS study
and the Tritech-ETV pilot:
•
The EU-ETV incorporates a central body, the CVO, to operate the scheme on behalf of the
European Commission, similar to the ETV Teams in the US and Canadian models. It is
proposed that the CVO be a publicly funded body dedicated to operating the scheme in line
with the conclusions of the IPTS market study. A public body in this role would enhance the
scheme’s credibility relative to a private sector body.
•
The EU-ETV will incorporate Verification Bodies that are thematically focused. These VBs
could be private sector organisations and would require part public and part private financing
– public financing for the general operation and overheads associated with the scheme and
private financing in the form of a contribution by vendors to the costs of verification and in
operating the Verification Panels.
•
In common with the Canadian ETV model (and contrary to the US ETV model), the
verification process in the EU-ETV scheme would not involve testing. The role of the VBs will
be in verifying the data that are presented to the VB by the vendor. However, the VBs will
have a role in accrediting Testing Centres and ensuring that they comply with quality and
technical standards mandated by the CVO.
•
The EU-ETV scheme will incorporate a high degree of stakeholder involvement through the
Technical Groups and Advisory Fora. In this regard, the scheme draws from a key strength
of the US ETC model relative to the Canadian model and also accords with the Thematic
Stakeholder Groups in the IPTS model.
•
It is proposed that the EU-ETV scheme accepts only commercially-ready technologies for
verification, rather than prototypes. Although the IPTS survey identified some advantages in
allowing prototypes to be verified, it is considered that prototype verification would generally
be meaningless as prototypes evolve in a commercial product.
•
In a similar fashion to the IPTS model, it is envisaged that each Member State would have
National Contact Points to act as an entry point for vendors, reducing geographical,
language or administrative barriers by explaining to vendors the ETV concept and its
benefits.
4.
4.
4.
4.
MARKET ANALYSIS
MARKET ANALYSIS
MARKET ANALYSIS
MARKET ANALYSIS
4.1. The Environmental Technologies Market
A 2002 EC report on Environmental Technology for Sustainable Development
3took as the definition
of eco-industries as “all activities which produce goods and services to measure, prevent, limit,
minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil, as well as problems related to
waste, noise and ecosystems”. Based on this definition, three categories of activities were defined:
1.
Pollution management of both a preventive or remediative nature (such as reducing
emissions, reducing environmental risk or clearing up environmental damage),
2.
Cleaner (integrated) technologies and products - activities that continuously improve,
reduce or eliminate the environmental impact of general technologies, and
3.
Resource management (such as renewable energy and water supply).
In 1999, the overall turnover of the EU-15 eco-industry sector was estimated at €183 billion (2.3% of
EU GDP), employing some 1.6 million people. The turnover of the EU-15 eco-industries relating to
pollution management, cleaner technologies and products was € 127 billion (equivalent to 1.6% of
GDP), employing around 1 million people. From 1994 to 1999, turnover for the pollution
management and cleaner technologies and products sectors in EU-15 grew by an average of 5%
per annum in real terms (compared with an average growth of around 2.5% in GDP). Employment in
this sector grew faster than turnover, at a rate of between 6 and 7% per annum
4.
The same report noted estimates of the size of the global market for environmental technologies of
around €550 billion, with the EU making up approximately one third of this market. The USA, EU
and Japan dominated the global environmental market accounting for 85% of it.
A five-year update of these figures, from 1999 to 2004, has also been reported
5. Total EU
eco-industry turnover in 2004 was estimated at €227 billion, from pollution management and resource
management activities. Pollution management consists of nine eco-industry sectors that manage
material streams from processes managed by humans (the technosphere) to nature, typically using
“end of pipe” technology. It also includes cleaner technologies and products, which are mentioned in
the definitions as “equipment”. In order of turnover:
•
Solid Waste Management & Recycling (€52.4 billion),
•
Waste Water Treatment (€52.2 billion),
3
European Commission, “Environmental technology for sustainable development”, COM(2002) 122 final (2002)
4
Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd, Analysis of the EU Eco-industries, their employment and export potential", (2002).
5
Eco-industry, its size, employment, perspectives and barriers to growth in an enlarged EU, DG Environment, September 2006.
•
Air Pollution Control (€15.9 billion),
•
General Public Administration (€11.5 billion),
•
Private Environmental Management (€5.8 billion),
•
Remediation & Clean Up of Soil & Groundwater (€5.2 billion),
•
Noise & Vibration Control (€2 billion),
•
Environmental Research & Development (€0.11 billion), and
•
Environmental Monitoring & Instrumentation.
Resource management includes five eco-industry sectors that take a more preventive approach to
managing material streams from nature to the technosphere:
•
Water Supply (€45.7 billion),
•
Recycled Materials (€24.3 billion),
•
Renewable Energy Production (€6.1 billion),
•
Nature Protection (€5.7 billion), and
•
Eco-construction.
Table 3:
Table 3:
Table 3:
Table 3: Total Turnover, Pollution Management and Resource Management
Total Turnover, Pollution Management and Resource Management
Total Turnover, Pollution Management and Resource Management
Total Turnover, Pollution Management and Resource Management Expenditur
Expenditur
Expenditur
Expenditures by
es by
es by
es by
Country, 2004
Country, 2004
Country, 2004
Country, 2004
Total employment, direct and indirect, in eco-industries in 2004 was estimated to be 3.4 million, 2.35
million from pollution management activities and 1.04 million from resource management activities.
Overall, eco-industry jobs accounted for 1.7% of EU-25 employment.
Total 2004 turnovers for the Pollution Management and Resource Management sectors by Country,
are presented in Table 3.
More recently, a study conducted by Innovas for the UK’s Department for Business Enterprise &
Regulatory Reform (BERR) on the Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and Services (LCEGS)
industry present some interesting figures
6. The report defines the LCEGS sector as including
solutions for problems such as air, noise, and marine pollution, land and water contamination,
environmental analysis, waste management and recycling and now, renewable energy and
emerging low carbon activities.
The global market value for the LCEGS industry for 2007/8 was estimated to be around €3,350
billion, significantly greater than the figure for ‘environmental technologies, estimated in the Ecotec
report for 1999. The global market is forecast to grow by 45% from 2007/8 to 2014/15, with a
potential global market value of €4,860 billion. The international breakdown is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: International breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 4: International breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 4: International breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 4: International breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry
industry
industry
industry
RegionRegion Region
Region Market value Market value €bn Market value Market value €bn €bn **** €bn % global total % global total % global total % global total
Asia and Far East 1,263 37.7
Americas 1,008 30.1
Europe (incl. Non-EU) 912 27.2
Africa 126 3.8
Oceania 41 1.2
3,350 3,3503,350
3,350 100.00
* Converted from UK Pounds Sterling at an exchange rate of 1.1 Euros to the Pound
Asia and the Far East have 37.7% of the value of the global LCEGS market. This is followed by the
Americas and then Europe. Together, these three regions account for 95% of the global total. Africa
and Oceania account for only 5% of the global total.
The report further breaks down the global market value of the Environmental, Renewable Energy
and Emerging Low Carbon sectors, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Table 5
Table 5
Table 5: Global market value of LCEGS by sector
: Global market value of LCEGS by sector
: Global market value of LCEGS by sector
: Global market value of LCEGS by sector
Market value Market value €bnMarket value Market value €bn€bn €bn % global total % global total % global total % global total
Environmental sector 723 21.6 Renewable Energy sector 1,034 30.9 Emerging Low Carbon sector 1,593 47.5
Total 3,350 100.00
6
The traditional Environmental sector accounts for 21.6% of the global market value. This is a
smaller share than either of the newer Renewable Energy and Emerging Low Carbon sectors, with
30.9% and 47.5% of the global market value, respectively. It is clear that the Renewable Energy and
Emerging Low Carbon sectors are no longer on the fringe of environmental products and services,
but are both larger and faster growing than the traditional Environmental sector.
In terms of individual technologies, these are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 6: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 6: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS
Table 6: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry
industry
industry
industry by technologies
by technologies
by technologies
by technologies
Market valueMarket value Market value
Market value €bn€bn€bn€bn % global total % global total % global total % global total
Alternative Fuels 620.3 18.51
Building Technologies 429.5 12.82
Wind 386.6 11.54
Alternative Fuels for Vehicles 374.1 11.17
Geothermal 304.0 9.07
Water & Waste Water Treatment 260.3 7.77 Recovery and Recycling 205.3 6.13
Photovoltaic 156.2 4.66
Waste Management 155.4 4.64
Biomass 154.2 4.60
Energy Management 80.4 2.40
Additional Energy Sources 39.8 1.19
Carbon Finance 34.8 1.04
Air Pollution 31.0 0.93
Contaminated Land 29.5 0.88
Environmental Consultancy 25.9 0.77 Renewable Consulting 16.7 0.50 Carbon Capture & Storage 14.6 0.44
Hydro 14.0 0.42
Noise & Vibration Control 6.9 0.21 Environmental Monitoring 4.8 0.14 Marine Pollution Control 3.9 0.12
Wave & Tidal 2.2 0.06
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
TOTAL 3,3503,3503,3503,350 100.00
The smallest sub sector is Wave and Tidal with 0.06% of the global total, followed by Marine
Pollution Control with 0.12%. Overall, manufacturing activities account for 32% of the global market
value.
The report focused on the UK market and found that the size of the LCEGS sector in the UK is
£105.6 billion, with 54,835 active companies, of which 17,303 are involved in manufacturing, and
881,000 jobs. Around 91.5% of the companies in the sector are SMEs. The UK turnover for the
LCEGS sector represents about 12.85% of that for Europe as a whole. Based on the assumption
that the UK market structure is typical of that for Europe, we can estimate that the number of active
companies in the Europe in the LCEGS industry is around 427,000, of which 135,000 are involved
in manufacturing.
The breakdown of the LCEGS industry figures by EU country is shown in Table 7 and illustrated in
Figure 6. About 60% of the industry is located in Germany, UK, France, Spain and Italy.
Table 7: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry by E
Table 7: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry by E
Table 7: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry by E
Table 7: Breakdown of market value of the LCEGS industry by European country
uropean country
uropean country
uropean country
Country Value €bn % Cum %
Germany 140 15.4% 15.4% United Kingdom 117 12.9% 28.3% France 102 11.2% 39.5% Spain 92 10.1% 49.5% Italy 90 9.9% 59.4% Netherlands 28 3.1% 62.5% Poland 26 2.9% 65.4% Belgium 18 2.0% 67.4% Sweden 15 1.6% 69.1% Austria 15 1.6% 70.7% Greece 13 1.4% 72.1% Romania 11 1.2% 73.3% Portugal 10 1.1% 74.4% Czech Republic 10 1.1% 75.5% Denmark 10 1.0% 76.5% Finland 9 1.0% 77.5% Hungary 9 1.0% 78.5% Ireland 7 0.8% 79.3%
Rest of Europe (Incl. Non-EU) 188 20.7% 100.0%
Totals 912 100%
Figure 6: Distribution of the LCEGS industry by European country
Figure 6: Distribution of the LCEGS industry by European country
Figure 6: Distribution of the LCEGS industry by European country
Figure 6: Distribution of the LCEGS industry by European country
Germany United Kingdom France
Spain Italy
