OpenLobby.EU
Explore

ZERO - ASSOCIAÇÃO SISTEMA TERRESTRE SUSTENTÁVEL

ZERO

ZERO is a Portuguese non-profit association dedicated to achieving sustainable development through the balance of environment, society, and economy.

Lobbying Activity

Portuguese NGO ZERO calls for stricter EU 2040 climate target

15 Sept 2025
Topic — EU proposal to amend Climate Law with 90% emissions reduction target by 2040.
Message — The organization calls for raising the 2040 target to at least 92% gross reductions, excluding international carbon credits, and setting separate transparent targets for emissions, land use, and industrial removals. They demand continued national accountability and a roadmap to phase out coal by 2030, fossil gas by 2035, and oil by 2040.123
Why — A stronger target would protect southern European countries from worsening droughts, fires, and climate impacts.4
Impact — Fossil fuel industries lose market position as coal, gas, and oil face accelerated phase-out deadlines.5
Read full response

ZERO Demands Full Fossil Fuel Phase-Out In EU Climate Strategy

10 Sept 2025
Topic — The initiative defines the EU's global climate and energy strategy for the 2025-2029 mandate.
Message — ZERO calls for a fossil fuel phase-out and 2040 climate neutrality. They also demand binding environmental safeguards and the exclusion of new gas infrastructure.123
Why — This strategy would ensure climate policies align with the organization's goals for sustainable development.45
Impact — Fossil fuel companies would lose access to subsidies and new international infrastructure projects.67
Read full response

ZERO urges EU to protect civic space and funding

5 Sept 2025
Topic — A framework to protect civil society actors and strengthen their engagement.
Message — The group calls for a binding agreement on civil dialogue. They also want an independent protection mechanism and predictable funding.12
Why — Stable funding and guaranteed access would protect their climate advocacy work.3
Impact — Corporate groups would lose their disproportionate influence over official EU consultations.4
Read full response

Portuguese NGO Demands Binding Climate Resilience Targets for 2030 and 2040

3 Sept 2025
Topic — EU framework for climate preparedness, resilience and harmonised climate risk management rules.
Message — The organization demands legally binding requirements for member states to assess risks and plan adaptation, with concrete targets for 2030 and 2040. They want adaptation mainstreamed across all EU policies including agriculture, energy, water and transport. They call for mandatory climate risk disclosure for financial institutions and an EU solidarity mechanism for countries hit by extreme weather.1234
Why — This would force governments to take concrete action on climate adaptation with measurable progress.56
Impact — Polluting industries and intensive agriculture lose flexibility as harmful subsidies are excluded from EU funds.78
Read full response

Portuguese NGO demands EU ban exports of prohibited pesticides

31 Jul 2025
Topic — EU regulation on export and import of hazardous chemicals under Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
Message — The organization demands that any pesticide banned in the EU for health or environmental reasons be automatically added to the export ban list. They argue the current proposal fails to address the EU's 2020 commitment to stop exporting banned hazardous chemicals.12
Why — This would align EU export rules with its domestic health and environmental standards.3
Impact — Workers and citizens in non-EU countries lose protection from cancer-causing pesticides and environmental pollution.45
Read full response

Meeting with Bruno Gonçalves (Member of the European Parliament) and Offshore Norge and Asociación Empresarial de Pilas, Baterías y Almacenamiento Energético

26 Sept 2024 · ITRE policies

ZERO group slams proposal for excluding long-haul flight monitoring

24 Jul 2024
Topic — Consultation on amending monitoring and reporting rules for aviation's non-CO2 climate impacts.
Message — ZERO demands that monitoring covers all flights arriving at or departing from European airports. They argue that excluding long-haul flights ignores the biggest contributors to climate-warming contrails.12
Why — Comprehensive data would help the group advocate for more effective aviation climate policies.3
Impact — Long-haul airlines would face new reporting burdens and potential future climate-related costs.4
Read full response

ZERO urges EU to end biomass subsidies to protect forests

10 Jul 2024
Topic — The consultation reviews EU rules on managing carbon emissions and removals from land and forests.
Message — ZERO calls for ending subsidies for burning wood and using land for biofuels. They demand protecting old-growth forests and restoring ecosystems to improve carbon storage.12
Why — Reversing the carbon sink decline helps the EU meet its 2030 climate targets.3
Impact — The biomass industry would lose billions in subsidies and face restricted demand for fuel.45
Read full response

Response to Minimum requirements for certification programmes and training attestations for RACHP equipment

7 Jun 2024

A ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável, é uma ONG ambiental portuguesa que trabalha em diversas temáticas, sendo prioritárias as áreas das alterações climáticas e energia. É membro ativo de várias redes de ONGs europeias, tais como: ECOS (European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation), EEB (European Environmental Bureau), CAN-Europe (Climate Action Network) e a RGI (Renewable Grid Initiative). A ZERO acolhe com satisfação a proposta da Comissão Europeia, que estabelece novos requisitos mínimos para a emissão de certificados para refrigeração estacionária e móvel. Gostaríamos de partilhar os seguintes comentários sobre esta mesma proposta: Por forma a facilitar a adopção dos fluidos frigorigéneos naturais, não deve ser fomentada a certificação exclusiva em substâncias sintéticas sugerindo-se incluir por defeito os hidrocarbonetos. Assim, no artigo 3, ponto 2, alínea a), bem como por extensão, no artigo 10, alínea a), a referência aos HC não deve ser apresentada como opcional mas compulsória. Por forma a combater a já prevista escassez de mão de obra qualificada, facilitar a livre circulação da mesma em solo europeu e o reconhecimento das competências dos profissionais visados, sugerimos que o sistema de certificação seja inteiramente digital, disponível nas múltiplas línguas da comunidade europeia, agregado numa só plataforma e associado a um sistema de validação electrónico. Sistema este acessível a todas as partes interessadas mediante inscrição e verificação de identidade. Tememos que, as intenções explanadas no artigo 9, ao serem relegadas para cada estado membro, dada a diversidade de países e possíveis exigências burocráticas, não só representem um atraso desnecessário na atualização dos atuais profissionais como impeçam o propósito a que este ato se destina, de facilitar a difusão de mão de obra, tanto por incompatibilidade e morosidade dos procedimentos, mas também pelos custos que estes processos possam representar para os profissionais bem como para os clientes finais que são, por fim, quem absorve todas a deficiências e falhas dos processos ineficazes. Agradecemos a atenção dispensada.
Read full response

Portuguese environmental NGO urges EU to ban all harmful bisphenols

8 Mar 2024
Topic — EU regulation restricting bisphenol A and related chemicals in food contact materials.
Message — The organization requests a broader ban covering all bisphenols classified as carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors. They want the prohibition expanded to all food contact materials, not just plastics, with a 12-month maximum sell-off period.123
Why — This would advance their mission to protect public health from endocrine-disrupting chemicals.45
Impact — Industry loses flexibility to use cheaper bisphenol alternatives in packaging and materials production.6
Read full response

ZERO urges 75% non-price weighting in offshore wind auctions

1 Mar 2024
Topic — EU guidance on qualitative criteria for national renewable energy auctions.
Message — The group demands that non-price criteria represent 75% of the total score in offshore wind auctions. This includes a 50% weighting for environmental factors and 25% for socioeconomic benefits.12
Why — These measures would prevent ecological degradation and support the long-term resilience of marine environments.3
Impact — Developers focusing strictly on the lowest price would lose their competitive market advantage.4
Read full response

Meeting with João Albuquerque (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

27 Feb 2024 · Preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution

Response to Guidance to facilitate the designation of renewables acceleration areas

23 Feb 2024

É indiscutível que, para atingir a neutralidade climática e cumprir os objetivos comuns em matéria de clima e biodiversidade, os Estados-Membros (EM) da União Europeia (UE) devem eliminar a utilização de combustíveis fósseis, reduzir fortemente o consumo de energia - através de máxima ambição em termos de eficiência energética, priorizando a eletrificação e limitando o uso de Hidrogénio Verde aos setores para os quais não existam alternativas viáveis - e transitar para um sistema de energia totalmente renovável até 2040, multiplicando as capacidades de energia solar e eólica, bem como as infraestruturas necessárias. Para efetivar a transição energética, os EM devem acelerar os processos de licenciamento através de um melhor ordenamento e mapeamento do território e do reforço e capacitação das entidades administrativas. O que não pode acontecer é a diluição da legislação ambiental e a restrição da participação pública. Como tal, é crucial perspetivar a transição energética sob o ponto de vista da interligação das crises climática e de biodiversidade, por forma a garantir um mapeamento e ordenamento do território que sejam robustos, inclusivos e que otimizem a implantação de energias renováveis ao mesmo tempo que se minimizam os impactes na biodiversidade. Para compreender os impactes da energia renovável na vida selvagem e habitats, a definição das RAA deve seguir as melhores práticas de planeamento, incluindo Avaliações de Impacto Ambiental (AIA) e Avaliações Ambientais Estratégicas (AAE). É crucial basear as AIA e AAE na melhor informação disponível, envolvendo a comunidade científica e a sociedade civil, e considerando os impactes cumulativos e transnacionais. Devemos evitar usar a invocação do interesse público para acelerar licenciamentos de energia renovável e promover alinhamento com políticas ambientais. Propostas, como o Simplex em Portugal, para aprovar automaticamente projetos se as autoridades de licenciamento não cumprirem prazos devem ser rejeitadas.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the definition of engineered nanomaterial in food

10 Jan 2024

ZERO, a Portuguese environmental NGO, welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on the Commissions draft of delegated act on Engineered nanomaterial in food revised definition. Unfortunately, the proposal presented is quite similar to the one already proposed a decade ago and that ended up being rejected by the European Parliament. We are particularly concerned with the definition proposed because, in our perspective, it is questionable from a scientific perspective and makes implementation, from a regulatory perspective, quite difficult by opening the door to litigation and lengthy discussions that can only be prejudicial for human health and the environment and will make life difficult for progressive companies that desire to work in contexts with regulatory certainty and for authorities, that will have to channel resources for the wrong objectives. The text as is would set aside a huge number of substances which would get out of authorities' oversight and out of consumers sight. For example, the [nano] labelling will disappear from substances which contain fewer than 50% of particles smaller than 100 nm. Substances made of up to 49% of nanoparticles will not be considered as nanomaterials anymore and thus fall off the radar. In a moment the EC is improving legislation to guarantee consumer right to transparent, clear and unambiguous information, the proposed defining is a huge step in the wrong direction, by legitimizing false claims by companies that although using substances with a high percentage of nanoparticles, will not have the obligation to come clean with consumers on that. This flawed definition that is now being proposed could also be set as a precedent for the definition to be adopted in REACH and other sectoral regulations, contributing to a less and less transparent market and to a clear threat to consumer rights to be informed about what goes into the product they buy. Therefore, as an organization that works daily for people and the environment, we cannot support the delegated act proposed.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Toy Safety Directive

31 Oct 2023

ZERO welcomes the revision of the Toy Directive and agrees with the ban of the new hazard classes of chemicals in toys including endocrine-disrupting and suspected endocrine-disrupting substances, respiratory sensitizers and STOTs (Specific Target Organ Toxicity). Besides these substances, we suggest that the ban of PBT substances should also be considered, because they are a great health threat to children as they accumulate in their bodies and cause harm to their healthy development. For children this is particularly concerning. We also support the ban on the use of bisphenol A, but we encourage its expansion to include all bisphenols, since they seem to have similar effects. The proposal suggests that the substances currently prohibited in products for children aged 0-3 should also be banned in toys for children of all ages. This is truly important because children are a vulnerable group, and not only children with less than 3 years old. For us it is clear that toxic substances can not be considered an essential use in toys, therefore, there are always alternatives or other design solutions to produce a toxics-free toy. ZERO supports the introduction of the digital product passport that shall contain information about chemical content for the benefit of consumers, retailers, and in waste management regarding circularity, but the most important is to prevent the presence of hazardous substances, since no information initiative will be as effective at protecting public health as a non-existent toxic chemical. Consumers and retailers wishing to avoid toxic substances exempted or not covered by this legislation should have a right to know if they are present in the toy, so full transparency or full material declaration accessible via the digital product passport shall be the first step in this direction. It can also serve as a precedence for other types of consumer products. The regulation should include the possibility of holding online marketplaces accountable for non-compliant products if no other economically responsible party can be identified, or if the economically responsible party does not act appropriately and responsibly. Online marketplaces should be obliged to verify the identity of sellers on their sites, as well as to detect, remove and prevent the (re)appearance of non-compliant toys. Additional obligations for Very Large Online Platforms under the DSA should be set regarding the systemic risks related to the appearance of non-compliant toys. The precautionary principle should be reintegrated in the legal text to guide the regulator in situations where there are reasonable grounds for concern but scientific evidence is insufficient or uncertain. Enforcement capacities should be strengthened, especially at national level, and the reporting of toy-related accident and injury facilitated by the setting up of a pan-European database. Joint market surveillance actions should be conducted. The proposed transition period should significantly be reduced.
Read full response

Meeting with Pedro Silva Pereira (Member of the European Parliament) and Sciaena - Ocean # Conservation # Awareness

27 Sept 2023 · Questões ambientais e conservação marinha

Meeting with João Pimenta Lopes (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

26 Sept 2023 · Embalagens e resíduos de embalagens, alteração do Regulamento (UE) 2019/1020 e da Diretiva (UE) 2019/904, e revogação da Diretiva 94/62/CE

Response to Mercury – review of EU law

6 Sept 2023

ZERO is a Portuguese Environmental NGO that has followed the issue of mercury for several years and has been advocating for a fast phase out of dental amalgam containing mercury. We are totally in favour of the Commission's proposal to phase-out dental amalgam by 2025. We support this approach because we will be able to avoid 10 t of Mercury that would otherwise be released into the environment by 2030! Each g of mercury should be avoided, as mercury is highly toxic and almost impossible to be removed from the environment. Coming of a country with very high levels of fish consumption, the level of mercury in the environment is a very high concern for us. So, all the measures that will contribute for the reduction of the presence of mercury in the environment is a priority. Also, this phase out by 2025 would allow for a reduction in public spending in managing mercury-contaminated urban wastewater and municipal waste. On the other hand, it is a fact that alternatives are available, are effective and affordable and are also safe (since the last thing we need is to have a regrettable substitution). It is also important to highlight that Member States have already phased out or are planning to phase out the use of dental amalgam at the same time as the overall declining trend in dental amalgam use is a fact. Therefore, ZERO supports and has the clear expectation that the Commission proposal to phase out amalgam by 2025 will become a reality and will be a clear example of leadership of the EU on this matter.
Read full response

Response to Review report on the Governance Regulation of the Energy Union and Climate Action

1 Aug 2023

ZERO Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System welcomes the initiative of the Commission to consult on the review report of the Governance Regulation, as announced by Article 45 of that regulation. The Governance Regulation establishes the elements which are needed to track progress in the implementation of the EU climate legislation. Yet, dated back to 2018, the Governance Regulation was not designed to support the challenges that the EU Member States (MS) have been facing since then. The new geopolitical landscape and the current global energy crisis, thus, makes the review, and possibly revision, of the Governance Regulation a mandatory need. Also adding to that, the EU climate and energy regulatory framework has changed greatly, following the adoption of the EU Green Deal, Fit for 55 package, REPowerEU Plan and the collective commitment to a long-term climate neutrality objective. Hence, this is also an important opportunity to call for higher ambition levels, more synergies and stronger requirements for policies. Furthermore, differences between EU and national approaches to climate governance are inevitable given the multi-level context of EU policy making. Thus, it is vital that the EUs climate architecture fosters national ownership and that this is reflected across the EU measures related with climate action. ZERO highlights the following recommendations that should be taken into consideration when reviewing the report of the Governance Regulation, aiming for a stronger European governance: Establish more rigorous decarbonisation requirements to MS and tackle the inconsistencies that persist in MS regarding the standards of national climate ambition and governance enabling conditions; Strengthen the process that allows for further action, in case MS fail to comply with the template, provide insufficient information, or disregard the recommendations given by the Commission; Public participation should be foreseen also throughout the implementation phase of the NECPs and nLTS, and not exclusively at their elaboration phase; The scope of public participation should be expanded in compliance with the Aarhus Convention and include clear references to its standards for public participation; Elaborate and strengthen the requirements concerning the need to create a Multilevel Dialogue (MD); Align the elaboration process of two fundamental instruments to accelerate climate action, nLTSs and the NECPs. ZERO Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System
Read full response

Meeting with José Gusmão (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

18 Jul 2023 · Critical Raw Materials e Net Zero

Response to European Critical Raw Materials Act

30 Jun 2023

EU and global industrial transformation needs to ensure that societies companies, governments and their services, citizens are designed to live in harmony with nature and well within planetary boundaries. This means climate, biodiversity (also through resources and materials), and pollution objectives need to be addressed together, not as separate silos or issues. To promote raw materials resilience and safeguard a just transition, the CRMA must be based on the principle of sufficiency as a first approach, to minimize the need for resources and to stimulate a deeper reflection on the needs identified and their justification. After that, it should include measures to reduce raw material demand, ensure that strategic projects operate transparently and guarantee complete participation of local civil society, communities and indigenous peoples, prioritise circularity, and mandate compliance with existing due diligence standards and international human rights and environmental laws. The best way to increase the resilience of the EU and to promote sustainability and future accessibility to resources is to reduce dependencies on primary and critical raw materials and mitigating demand and consumption. The CRMA lacks the proactive language to reduce demand and presumes that increased material consumption is inevitable. It is crucial to qualify that demand will only increase if sufficiency is not prioritised, managed, and implemented in EU policies. Resource use reduction will increase EU resilience, mitigate risks for human rights and environmental violations, help achieve EU climate goals under the Paris Agreement, foster innovation, and increase well-being amongst all EU citizens. Circular economy measures must be an instrumental part of meeting these reduction targets, while also providing less costly options than many technological fixes being proposed by industry. This includes designing long-lasting infrastructure and products that embody sufficiency and efficiency principles. The CRMAs language on circularity is weak, lacking explicit targets or indications that reduction and reuse should supersede recycling. The CRMA must align with the waste hierarchy, favouring waste prevention, repair and reuse over recycling. It ought to address this by implementing compulsory measures for reusability, prolonging product lifetimes, eliminating single-use items containing CRMs, and required minimum reused/recycled content in products. The CRMA references mutually beneficial partnerships and value addition in third countries, but it is grounded primarily on the EUs supply security, lacking a global justice approach. Strategic partnerships and projects are currently conceptualized in a way that risks exacerbating human rights and environmental risks, circumventing democratic participation, and undermining development in resource-rich countries. Strategic projects must guarantee access to information to facilitate proper engagement from local community stakeholders and Indigenous peoples. Strategic partnerships should ensure that third countries' regulatory frameworks are aligned with international agreements. As the mining sector is known as having the worst human rights abuses, environmental violations, and corruption, the absence of strong due diligence terminology and dependence on voluntary industry norms is a big risk. The CRMA fails to reference existing laws or those under development and does not reference the rights of indigenous peoples nor ILO 169, UNDROP or UNDRIP. Due Diligence, internationally recognized instruments, and a companys respect for these standards need to become an inherent part of the Commissions assessment of whether a project can be implemented sustainably.
Read full response

ZERO urges EU to prioritize natural refrigerants in heat pumps

25 May 2023
Topic — The consultation seeks an action plan to accelerate heat pump deployment across Europe.
Message — The group demands the plan prioritize climate-neutral alternatives like natural refrigerants. They request mandatory technician training and targeted subsidies for low-income households.123
Why — Prioritizing European manufacturers would strengthen the green economy and create local employment.4
Impact — Manufacturers of synthetic F-gas equipment face risks of their investments becoming stranded assets.5
Read full response

Portuguese NGO ZERO calls for more ambitious packaging targets

24 Apr 2023
Topic — The consultation reviews EU rules to reduce packaging waste and improve recycling design.
Message — ZERO demands increasing the waste prevention target to 15% and setting higher reuse goals. They request mandatory inclusion of glass in deposit return systems and stricter chemical safety rules.123
Why — Stronger environmental rules allow the group to push for stricter national conservation laws.4
Impact — Packaging manufacturers and retailers face higher operational costs from stricter reuse requirements.5
Read full response

Meeting with Frans Timmermans (Executive Vice-President) and Climate Action Network Europe and

15 Nov 2022 · Progress of COP27 negotiations

Response to Evaluation of the 2012 Directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment

28 Oct 2022

ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável is a Portuguese Environmental NGO working on various issues, among them sustainable circular economic models and waste management strategies. As such, we welcome this call for evidence for evaluating the WEEE Directive, supporting the urgent need to revise it extensively and align with its base principles of protecting the environment and human health. From this decade of lessons, the evidence is clear the EU initiative lacks enforcement strength, adaptability to an ever-changing global market and accountability at all levels of the management structure. As such, it fails to support the progress towards circular economy and environmentally sound waste management for electrical and electronic equipment. Not only the quantifiable goals were not achieved by most of the state members, namely the 65% target set for the collection of WEEE, but also the astounding near 50% growth of EEE placed in the EU market in the last years denounces that any strategy in place to prevent e-waste, by stimulating recovery, re-use and circular streams, have failed. For the upcoming and much-needed revision of the WEEE Directive, ZERO would like to make the following recommendations: The revision must bring the Directive up to date, in line with current EU legislation, and consistently applied across all state members. A clear focus on waste prevention and preparing for reuse targets of WEEE, autonomous from the recycling must be a priority. Only then we will have WEEE collection targets that disrupt current e-waste management but also have an effect upstream, directly linked to the aim of preventing EEE production. Overall enforceability, transparency and accountability must be enhanced throughout the entire process of e-waste management. In the age of digital platforms and blockchain methodologies, all records of producers, distributors and carriers must be readily verifiable and accessible to tackle illegal, non-compliant and evasive players - such as the very illusive online market. The Directive should reflect that the core responsibility for any product placed in the EU market must fall to the producer. This would be attainable by the reinforcement of the Extended Producer Responsibility that currently lacks strength and enforceability, being circumvented and deflected with ease or not applied at all, as experienced on the online market. The WEEE Regulation should align with the new Battery Regulation. WEEE legislation should make sure that all waste portable batteries collected undergo preparation for reuse, preparation for repurposing or a recycling process. Minimum common part design requirements should be applied to facilitate these processes. Also the WEEE recovery target for photovoltaics is based on weight and reached with glass and aluminium (90% of PV module). A more focused approach should help to recover metals, especially CRMs such as copper, electrical connections (incl. lead soldering) and polymers (incl. the backsheet containing fluorinated chemicals). Solar thermal and inverters should also be in scope. Strategic horizontal levelling requirements for the treatment, collection and re-use of all WEEE, such as: compulsory deposit return schemes that engage downstream to secure upstream liability; the adoption of standards, such as CENELEC, as mandatory to ensure proper treatment; obligation for disclosure of product design and information, so not to compromise its repair and re-use; and to consider all e-waste, by default, to contain hazardous substances or POPs unless proved otherwise, and not the other way around, ensuring safe handling, treatment and monitoring throughout the management process. The WEEE Directive has proved to be a necessary initiative but for the European Union to respect the Paris Agreement and follow through with the Green Deal road map, the utmost ambitious scenario must be adopted.
Read full response

Portuguese NGO ZERO urges faster implementation of endocrine disruptor rules

17 Oct 2022
Topic — EU regulation adding endocrine disruptors and persistent chemicals as hazard classes.
Message — ZERO requests rapid implementation of the new hazard classes, addition of pictograms for endocrine disruptors and persistent substances, and improved hazard statements. They argue the long transition period puts public health at risk.123
Why — This would increase transparency and help citizens identify hazardous chemicals in products.45
Read full response

Meeting with Peter Liese (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and European Environmental Bureau and

14 Oct 2022 · ETS

Meeting with Sara Cerdas (Member of the European Parliament)

6 Sept 2022 · Energias Renováveis e Desflorestação

NGO ZERO blames underfunding for Portugal's recycling failure

1 Aug 2022
Topic — The Commission evaluates Member States' progress toward meeting 2025 recycling and landfill targets.
Message — ZERO calls for a shift from ecopoints to door-to-door collection and better treatment of organic waste. They demand an end to fraudulent packaging declarations and the removal of economic incentives for incinerating recyclables.1234
Why — Stricter waste management enforcement would advance the organization's mission of promoting sustainable development.5
Impact — Electronics manufacturers and packaging producers would lose profits by paying higher waste management fees.6
Read full response

Response to Regulation on REPowerEU chapters

20 Jul 2022

A ZERO acolhe positivamente os esforços imediatos para reduzir a dependência da Europa face aos combustíveis fósseis da Rússia no quadro da grave agressão russa contra a Ucrânia. Contudo, a proposta da Comissão Europeia fica aquém na mobilização de financiamento adicional suficiente ao nível da EU e coloca em risco a prossecução dos objetivos ambientais centrais. Do total de fundos mobilizados através do Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência (MRR), apenas €20 milhões provêm de recursos "novos", ao passo que cerca de £264 mil milhões consistem num reajuste de linhas orçamentais existentes, ao mobilizar fundos de coesão e do mecanismo de empréstimos do MRR. Como tal, esta proposta acaba por não lidar com o grande desfasamento em termos de investimento (ou seja, o diferencial entre fundos da UE e o investimento necessário para a transição energética e objetivos climáticos) que já existia antes da invasão da Ucrânia. De notar que, a maioria dos recursos mobilizados através do MRR para o RePowerEU consiste em empréstimos não utilizados do MRR, uma reserva que será significativamente reduzida caso certos países decidam absorver os empréstimos do FRR a que têm direito no quadro do Regulamento MRR. Além disso, a ZERO considera que a proposta de mobilizar a Reserva de Estabilidade do Mercado (MSR) do Comércio Europeu de Licenças de Emissão (CELE) é francamente problemática e deverá ser evitada. Primeiro porque poderá prejudicar a capacidade de a UE alcançar os seus objetivos climáticos para 2030: um estudo da Sandbag demonstra que a medida não será neutra para o equilíbrio da procura/oferta do CELE, já que as licenças adicionadas a ser leiloadas não deverão voltar para a MSR no final da fase 4. Em segundo lugar, arrisca uma diminuição do total das receitas CELE ao enfraquecer o preço do carbono. Em consequência, enfraquece também a eficácia do próprio CELE, que tem sido o instrumento climático mais eficaz desde a subida dos preços do carbono nos últimos anos. Ao não permitir que os Estados-membros leiloassem antecipadamente as suas licenças de emissão para combater a crise energética, já que isso iria prejudicar o preço do carbono, a Comissão deu um sinal claro na direção certa, não fazendo sentido agora propor uma medida significativamente mais danosa. Por outro lado, a possibilidade de utilizar fundos em infraestruturas de petróleo e gás natural é uma clara contradição aos critérios de gastos do CELE, recentemente reforçados pela própria Comissão. É crucial que se encontrem alternativas viáveis, uma vez que o montante financeiro residual gerado pela proposta não é proporcional ao danos que poderá causar. Além disso, o Plano RePowerEU abre caminho para financiamento de novas infraestruturas de combustíveis fósseis através de fundos da UE, exemplificado pela renúncia do princípio de "Não Provocar Dano" para investimentos em petróleo e gás. Este desenvolvimento não só é perigoso ao nível climático, arriscando aprisionar a infraestrutura energética da UE num caminho de emissões elevadas e minando à partida os objetivos climáticos para 2030, mas é também desnecessário para a segurança energética, já que vários estudos demonstram que é possível afastar a Europa do gás russo nos próximos 4 anos sem importações adicionais de gás de outros países através da diminuição da procura energética, alavancando as energias renováveis e implementando opções de flexibilidade. Mais a mais, é crucial salientar que este importante princípio não deveria ser simplesmente descartado em alturas de crise, já que é precisamente nestas alturas que deve ser reforçado: é crucial que a UE não perca a visão de longo prazo se pretender manter e alcançar os objetivos climáticos a que se propôs. Por fim, a proposta de revisão do Regulamento do Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência falha em fornecer melhorias significativas às principais lacunas do Regulamento original, tais como as disposições sobre participação pública na formulação e monitorização dos capítulo.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Construction Products Regulation

12 Jul 2022

Exmos senhoras/es Pedimos que considerem o parecer da ZERO no documento em anexo. Consideramos que as nossas sugestões serão fundamentais para o sucesso da nova CPR. Obrigada
Read full response

Meeting with Sara Cerdas (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jun 2022 · Deforestation

ZERO urges faster update to hybrid car emission rules

17 Jun 2022
Topic — This consultation covers amendments to emission testing procedures for light-duty vehicles.
Message — ZERO recommends moving the 2027 utility factor targets to 2025. They also want corporate car data included and biennial reviews of emissions legislation.12
Why — This change would support their mission to protect the climate and air quality.3
Impact — Automakers lose the ability to meet CO2 targets using misleadingly low values.4
Read full response

Response to Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales

5 Apr 2022

One of our major concerns relates to the policy options presented, since they will most likely encourage manufacturers to “close” the repair market to independent actors and user repair. In order for product life extension to remain effective, timely and affordable, the repair market should be open and competitive. This means maximising access to a range of repair actors and options - i.e., ensuring open access to professional (affiliated and independent) repairers; social economy repair actors; repair cafes and community repairers; and user repairers. We also propose the introduction of a general prohibition on practices which deliberately limit repairability by professionals and end users. We see potential in exploring additional measures in the context of this initiative like: - A general prohibition on obsolescence practices which deliberately shorten the lifetime of a product. - A prohibition on actions or designs which prevent or hinder repair by independent actors or end users. - A general requirement to design for longevity, durability and repair, including the provision of repair information and spare parts. - Ensure that online marketplaces and fulfilment service providers face the same obligations as vendors and importers. - Ensure that product as a service business models face the same obligations with respect to repair compared to traditional sales avenues. Generally, repair should be the first remedy compared to replacement unless repair results in a higher environmental footprint. Repair should be offered as the main remedy unless repair is not possible or it results in a higher environmental footprint. - Repair should be encouraged beyond the legal guarantee period. - The cost of repair outside of the legal guarantee period should be minimised by fostering an open repair market involving a wide range of repair actors (independent actors, repair cafes, self repair). We support an extension of the legal guarantee period for new products - this should be associated with an obligation to repair rather than replace where possible. We encourage the Commission to explore options to link the legal guarantee period to the expected product lifetime (e.g. as defined in preparatory Ecodesign studies).
Read full response

Response to Waste Framework review to reduce waste and the environmental impact of waste management

22 Feb 2022

ZERO welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to enhance the potential of the WFD to be a promoter of Circular Economy in the EU. We have the following suggestions, organized in three main themes: 1. Adopt binding waste prevention (reduction and reuse) targets. a) Adopt overall binding waste prevention targets (baseline 2019) with an overall 20% binding waste prevention target to be achieved by 2030 by all Member States and of 30% by 2035. b) Set waste prevention targets for individual product groups, namely: food and beverages; large household appliances; small household appliances; IT and telecommunications equipment; toys, leisure and sports equipment; electrical and electronic tools; textiles; motor vehicles; furniture and furnishing. c) Define re-use targets for WEEE, packaging, textiles, furniture and CDW components, distinct from recycling. d) In addition, waste prevention targets should be set for industrial and commercial waste, not covered under MSW. e) Waste reduction targets should be complimented by resource use reduction targets, measured using Material Footprint, at the EU, MS and sectoral level. 2. Improve recycling a) Amend the waste hierarchy to distinguish recycling operations from recovery techniques. We recommend only categorising as ‘recycling’, processes that yield outputs that are or can be directly converted into polymer materials. b) Introduce definitions of chemical recycling and recovery technologies. We recommend updating the Waste Framework Directive to introduce harmonised definitions of different chemical reprocessing technologies. c) Make a distinction between high and low value recycling. Different types of recycling (including defining closed loops and open loops) should be placed in different levels within the waste hierarchy. d) Adopt a biowaste recycling target of 60% by 2030 or adopt a reduction target on the amount of bio-waste disposed in residual waste (kg/per capita) by 2030. e) Upgrade the EPR systems and extend the concept to nappies, menstrual items, furniture, textiles. Also in order to Extended Producer Responsibility to act as an incentive for better design it has to go beyond cost coverage and the fees should act as price signals that push producers to adopt systemic changes. EPR needs to promote prevention, repair and reuse and part of the fees must be used to promote real circularity. f) Recycling targets should be set for industrial & commercial waste as anticipated in the current WFD. The required recycling rate should be at least equal to– but preferably set higher than – MSW recycling rate. 3. Reducing residual waste. a) Adopt a residual waste generation cap set in kilograms per capita to be achieved on the same schedule as the existing WFD recycling targets: based on the results that can be achieved by the best performing cities across the EU and the ambition to “halve the amount of residual household waste by 2030”, we recommend the following targets to be adopted: 120kgs/cap/year by 2030; 100kgs/cap/year by 2035. b) Mandate the use of mixed waste sorting systems of a defined quality at the front of all incineration plants or prior to biological stabilisation at landfills. c) Revise the EU Landfill 10% landfilling target: amend the Article 5(5) target in the LFD to read as follows: Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that by 2030 the amount of municipal waste landfilled without pretreatment prior to landfilling is reduced to zero. d) Remove the R1 formula in Annex II of the Waste Framework Directive so that municipal waste incineration is no longer able to be classified as ‘recovery’.
Read full response

Meeting with Sara Cerdas (Member of the European Parliament)

8 Feb 2022 · Pacote Fit for 55

Meeting with Maria da Graça Carvalho (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Jan 2022 · Renewable energy, biomass, biofuels, deforestation law, round wood

ZERO calls for mandatory EU action to eliminate microplastic emissions

3 Jan 2022
Topic — EU initiative to reduce unintentional microplastic releases through labelling, standards, certification and regulation.
Message — The organization demands legally binding measures covering all microplastic sources, not just three. They want upstream prevention prioritized over downstream mitigation, harmonized definitions with REACH restrictions, and source-specific emission reduction targets including textile production limits and ecodesign requirements.12345
Why — This would advance their core mission of preventing environmental pollution at source rather than managing it downstream.67
Impact — Industries producing plastics, textiles, and agricultural products face higher costs from design changes and production restrictions.8910
Read full response

Response to Policy framework on biobased, biodegradable and compostable plastics

24 Oct 2021

ZERO – Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System welcomes the precautionary approach proposed by the Roadmap. From our experience, voluntary standards on biobased and biodegradables are insufficient, so the European Commission should create legal requirements that go beyond the current standards.For us one of the key elements is the need to work in a consistent way regarding the waste hierarchy set in EU law and for us that means that prevention and reuse solutions should always be given priority. From our perspective, biobased plastics cannot be considered as inherently circular and sustainable, and therefore should not be used as a substitute for fossil-based plastics in common single-use applications. The circularity hierarchy must be operationalized to favor the elimination of unnecessary products, reuse, and recycling of plastics, in that order and regardless of the material.We recommend developing sustainability criteria for the sustainable sourcing of bio-based plastics: these should not align with the mechanism from the Renewable Energy Directive, which has proven insufficient to address indirect land-use change and high-GHG intensity biofuels but should rather be applied at company-level requiring firms to carry out due diligence and comply with sustainability certification standards to ensure that biomass for bio-based plastics is sourced from locations where there is no risk of indirect land-use change and to demonstrate low environmental impacts.Bio-based content is not per se an inherently green characteristic for a product, yet it already leads to widespread greenwashing campaigns led by bioplastic manufacturers today. So the policy framework is an opportunity to eliminate greenwashing of bio-based plastics by defining a clear terminology and label. Regarding compostable and biodegradable plastics, priority should be given to prevention and reuse, acknowledging compostable and biodegradable are single-use. Compostable or “biodegradable” single-use plastics should not be considered a desirable alternative to so-called conventional single-use plastics, and EU measures aiming at reducing single-use plastics and packaging consumption and pollution should apply similarly to conventional and compostable and biodegradable plastics. The use of biodegradable and compostable plastics should be limited to very few selected applications, in application of the waste hierarchy and of the precautionary principle. For example, for very specific and limited applications as compostable bags for the collection of organic waste, and under a number of conditions such as the absence of reuse alternatives, the presence of the right infrastructures to ensure separate collection, the assurance that compostable plastics are accepted and accordingly treated by bio-waste treatment infrastructure, and the deployment of awareness-raising campaigns to ensure terms are mastered by consumers and compostable plastics are correctly disposed of. Anyway, this will be a difficult task, considering the difficulty in distinguishing bioplastics or biodegradable plastics and conventional plastics in many situations. This is why restricting their use to certain areas will be fundamental to avoid confusion and contamination of different waste streams.We are also in favor of restricting the use of the term ‘biodegradable’ on products and packaging, as it is already the case in French law. Regarding the term home compostability, we believe it may mislead consumers into thinking that home compostable materials may as well degrade in the open environment. A clear and uniform labelling for industrial compostability across Europe should be developed, yet it should only be implemented once the industrial composting technology is widely available and compostability is verified. Regarding “marine biodegradability”, we consider that designing products and packaging for “marine biodegradability” is not feasible, nor desirable.
Read full response

Response to Food waste reduction targets

24 Oct 2021

ZERO – Association for the sustainability of the Earth System has been following the issue of food waste with great concern. We consider that the Farm to Fork strategy envisions a high level of ambition to this process and therefore we should make the 50% food loss and waste reduction target by 2030 (SDG 12.3) that was voted by all UN member states in 2015, binding at the EU level and matching the bloc’s ambition on sustainability and climate change. Besides making those targets binding, we want to underline that citizen’s awareness or voluntary commitments will not be sufficient to achieve the 50% reduction goal. The responsibility should not be put on consumers but instead, on the stakeholders that have the greatest power to shape the food system. For that we could use binding measures and financial incentives. Addressing food loss and waste should be done holistically as one piece of the EU transition to a sustainable food system. It is therefore fundamental to look at food waste across the whole supply chain and make the connection with other interventions foreseen, like the transition to zero-packaging food, deposit return schemes or community-supported agriculture. Reducing the harvest food losses at the primary production level must be central. Food loss at this stage has been excluded from the EU methodology for food waste measurement but it is proven that harvest food losses are constantly underestimated. Respecting the food waste hierarchy will be fundamental if the objective is to deliver the best option for non-avoidable food loss and waste. In this context we recommend Regarding scope: we favor Option S1 - target covering the whole food supply chain, from farm gate to final consumer; because simply focusing on retail or consumers at the end of the food supply chain will lead to incomplete measures that won’t address systemic drivers or causes of food wastage happening in earlier stages (overproduction, long transportation decreasing the products’ shelf life, pre-fixed portion or size leading to over-purchasing, etc.). this is the way to fully implement the mandate given by the Farm to Fork strategy to holistically address food and agricultural challenges. Regarding expression: we favor “Option E2 - targets expressed as absolute amounts, i.e. in kilograms per capita per year to be achieved by 2030 (per country)”. Although we acknowledge the need for the EU to reach the 50% food waste reduction target across the supply chain by 2030, it should be reached through a kilogram’s per capita target that member states have to reach. Regarding how the targets are set for Member States: we favor “Option T3 – collective target on EU level – based on MS contributions”. Related to the way the targets are expressed above, we believe that: 1. Member states should reach the same kilograms per capita target… 2. … that will contribute to reaching a 50% reduction target by 2030. There is also a need to divide the targets fairly per sector of the food supply chain according to which sector is contributing the most. The mechanism should ensure that the most impactful sectors have the most effort. Regarding target to be reached: We recommend that the European Commission assess an option of at least 50%. It has been reiterated by the European Parliament that the 50% target to be reached by 2030 should be maintained while SDG goal 12.3 has been adopted in 2015.
Read full response

Response to Calculation, verification and reporting of data on the separate collection of SUP beverage bottles

16 Jun 2021

From ZERO's point of view it will be very important that strict requirements for the quality of the material are set, even in the cases where plastic botles are collected together with other recyclables, so that closed-loop bottle-to-bottle recycling is still possible. It is of the utmost importance that SUP bottles are collected in a way that allows recycling into foodgrade material Besides, it should be very strictly stated that bottles should not be collected with hazardous waste/contaminated materials, and such a requirement should also be controlled by an independent body and not by industry in order to guarantee independence of the assessment. In order to guarantee the necessary quqlity for food grade recycling, the collection with the residual waste, mixed waste, black bin, etc. should be banned from being counted as separate collection of SUP bottles for recycling because, it is not, in fact, separate collection. This point should be made absolutely clear by naming all those terms explicitly in the Implementing Act, and not leaving it as ambiguous as it is now. Waste-splitting of residual waste must be clearly ruled out. Also the respect for the definition of separate collection stated in the Waste Framework Directive should be guaranted, otherwise this could set a precedent for future deviation as well.
Read full response

Portuguese NGO ZERO demands stricter forest biomass sustainability verification

28 Apr 2021
Topic — EU guidance on proving compliance with forest biomass sustainability criteria under renewable energy directive.
Message — The organization demands revision of the renewable energy directive to distinguish between secondary biomass that may help mitigate climate change and primary biomass that intensifies it. They argue current criteria allow destructive legal practices to qualify as sustainable and that member states should verify operator information rather than relying on self-reporting.1234
Why — This would prevent forest destruction from qualifying as sustainable under current legal frameworks.56
Impact — Climate and biodiversity lose as destructive but legal forest harvesting continues unchecked.78
Read full response

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

31 Mar 2021 · Biomass in Portugal.

Response to Mercury – review of EU law

28 Mar 2021

From our experience as an environmental NGO following mercury issues, we are confident to say that phasing out dental amalgam by 2025 is technically and economically feasible, and therefore should be implemented without delay. Furthermore, the EU should follow this path if it is truly committed to promote the toxic-free environment goal of the European Green Deal. It is known that dental amalgam is one of the largest remaining uses of mercury in Europe. Most of amalgam’s mercury eventually ends up back in the environment via cremation, dental clinic emissions, waste incineration, human waste, and burials, among other pathways. The high cost of mercury pollution from dental amalgam falls on taxpayers, governments, and community members, besides the unaccounted costs for the health and wellbeing of all (humans and non-humans). It is very well documented that once dental amalgam’s mercury enters the environment, it can convert to methylmercury that can contaminate the fish eaten by humans. Studies and government health authorities have repeatedly conducted risk assessments that confirm mercury-free dental fillings are safe for both health and the environment. For all these reasons, action is urgent and 2025 already far too late. It is time to set the stage for the change to a non-toxic future for all. There are no economic, environmental or social reasons that can justify the prolongation of the use of dental amalgam with mercury.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU

22 Mar 2021

Para estar em linha com o objetivo do Acordo de Paris, a UE deve reduzir as emissões de gases com efeito de estufa em 65% até 2030. Isto requer metas energéticas vinculativas mais elevadas (pelo menos 45% para eficiência energética e 50% para energias renováveis) e pelo menos triplicar a taxa anual atual de renovações de energia, aumentando significativamente sua profundidade e caminhando para um fornecimento de energia totalmente baseado em energias renováveis. Assim, a ZERO apoia uma revisão mais ampla da EPBD, indo além da Opção 3, para uma transformação profunda deste setor e se estabelecerem as metas que o momento atual exige. O reforço e alinhamento da EPBD com o objetivo de neutralidade climática, abordando as deficiências dos planos atuais, é uma necessidade urgente para garantir que o setor da construção contribui para os esforços de descarbonização, e é um setor que dá um grande contributo para as metas climáticas da UE. O estabelecimento de padrões mínimos obrigatórios de desempenho energético são essenciais para “eliminar” os edifícios com pior desempenho, colocando-os num nível de alto desempenho, ao mesmo tempo que se combate uma das causas base da pobreza energética. Estes padrões devem basear-se em metas que definem e priorizam renovações profundas de todo o stock imobiliário, com0 uma implementação progressiva que tenha em conta as necessidades dos diferentes segmentos e proporcione um financiamento e apoio financeiro adequados. Isso também requer a revisão da abordagem de otimização de custos, a fim de levar em consideração os múltiplos benefícios ambientais, económicos e sociais ligados à eficiência energética. É necessário garantir a monitorização consistente e a comparabilidade dos resultados, pelo que os Certificados de Desempenho Energético devem ser mais harmonizados e acessíveis. Estes devem sempre incluir a componente de energia de fontes renováveis, e recomendações sobre as medidas necessárias para alcançar uma renovação profunda (por ex., passaporte de renovação de edifícios). O aumento da taxa e da profundidade das renovações, em consonância com o primeiro princípio da eficiência energética, deve ser complementado pela mudança para 100% do fornecimento por fontes de energias renováveis (FER), em coerência com a revisão da REDII. Os requisitos de novos edifícios devem proibir novos equipamentos que utilizam energias fósseis, enquanto progressivamente se eliminam os sistemas de aquecimento ineficientes e baseados em combustíveis fósseis dos edifícios existentes, que devem ser substituídos por FER, como a eletricidade renovável que alimenta bombas de calor elétricas e o calor solar térmico. Os edifícios também podem ser ligados a redes de aquecimento urbano renováveis. A par destas medidas deve-se suspender qualquer tipo de apoio a infraestruturas de combustíveis fósseis. Deve-se considerar também uma estrutura capacitadora que aborde também as barreiras não regulatórias, nomeadamente: aumentar a consciência pública, promover a qualificação do setor de construção e fornecer apoio público para famílias mais vulneráveis. As disposições sobre ferramentas de aconselhamento, como balcões únicos, devem ser reforçadas para incentivar a sua implantação a nível nacional e local, enquanto as autoridades públicas devem ser capacitadas através de assistência técnica para desenvolverem projetos e programas de renovação integrados, combinando eficiência energética e FER. Finalmente, esta revisão deve enquadrar- se na proposta de Estratégia para um Ambiente Construído Sustentável, dando a oportunidade de melhorar a sustentabilidade geral dos edifícios através da introdução de uma abordagem de ciclo de vida completa nas disposições da EPBD. Isso implica abordar a energia incorporada através da inclusão de princípios de circularidade que priorizam a recuperação e reciclagem de materiais em atividades de construção e renovação, promovendo materiais de base natural e de baixo carbono.
Read full response

Response to EU strategy for sustainable textiles

26 Jan 2021

ZERO welcomes the initiative of the EC to bring forward an EU Strategy for Textiles. We believe that this is an area where it is important to define a clear new path. We suggest that: • The strategy should be more ambitious to boost a shift towards circularity and ultimately discourage the EU textiles sector to maintain a linear economy. It needs to better promote upstream solutions including prevention, better design, re-use, and overall improve the environmental performance and impact of products put on the market instead of focusing mostly on the recycling/post-consumer phase. • The strategy should include an absolute reduction of global textile production and consumption to significantly reduce the overall environmental footprint of the sector, while ensuring a just transition that ensures the fair distribution of prosperity across the value chain. • There is an urgent need for a regulatory framework ambitious enough to contribute to deliver on EU zero pollution objectives and climate neutrality targets by 2050. • The primary focus must be on removing inefficient, toxic, wasteful and polluting products from the EU market altogether, to ensure a level playing field. Textile products which do not comply with a minimum sustainability requirements should not have access to the EU market. • Design for durability, reuse and repairability should be a priority. • Minimum ecodesign requirements are needed to address durability, reusability and recyclability, as well as eliminate hazardous chemicals, providing clarification on the expected lifespan of textile products and the durability of clothes, at the same time tackling microplastics release. • Mandatory requirements for textiles sold in the EU should cover microplastic release from textiles. • The Strategy should extend the right to repair to textile products. • Textiles need a product passport to include environmental information, including a bill of materials and chemicals, and information on repairability, durability, and due diligence. • Mandatory standardised labelling and claims on sustainable and circular textiles must be introduced to ensure environmental claims are relevant, transparent, and reliable to avoid ‘greenwashing’. • The strategy needs to include and enforce the ban on the destruction of textile products (including excess inventory, deadstock and return items). • The strategy is currently lacking a restriction on the manufacture, marketing, import, and export of textile products containing hazardous substances of concern. • Disclosure on chemicals used in finished products and during production processes is needed and ensuring their traceability is crucial. • Between 60-80% of textile products sold in Europe are manufactured outside of the EU. It is vital to achieve effective chemical management throughout the whole textile value chain and go beyond just looking at what is in the final product. • Ensure producers are responsible for the environmental performance of their products along the whole value chain. EPR schemes for textiles should be mandatory and respect and implement the EU waste hierarchy with a clear transparent governance. • EPR schemes should include garments, footwear, household textiles, carpets, mattresses, and other textiles. • The EU Strategy for textiles must be an overarching framework, tying together and reinforcing various new and existing legal instruments and policy initiatives affecting a textile product, from production to end-of-life and the different impact areas (environmental, social, human rights, etc.), preventing trade-offs and loopholes. • Ensure and enforce sustainable production processes inside and outside the EU is key for a level playing field where EU rules can set the bar, also through trade related initiatives.
Read full response

Response to Revision of EU rules on food contact materials

19 Jan 2021

ZERO congratulates the EU for finally moving forward in reducing the problems for health and the environment resulting from FCM. It is clear for us that hazardous chemicals must never be allowed in whatever FCM. That is fundamental to honor the commitments of the Green Deal and the new Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. We also consider that the current framework has deep flaws and therefore favor a new regulatory approach with a much more robust approach towards protecting human health (particularly vulnerable groups) . I more detail, from ZERO’s point of view: -New FCM legislation should be based on the precautionary principle and therefore implements a generic approach to managing risks. This is the most efficient way to guarantee that most hazardous chemicals (called tier 1 substances in the roadmap), such as endocrine disruptors and chemicals that are carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction, end up being allowed in FCM. - Food contact materials should be sufficiently inert to prevent any hazardous chemicals from migrating into food or leaking into the environment during its life cycle and attention should be given to so-called NIAS, the Non-Intentionally Added Substances, which constitute the biggest share of the chemical pollution that migrates into our food from food contact materials. - Protection of sensitive populations, such as pregnant women and children must be a priority. Impacts differ according to different factors and ignore that increases the risks for society. Also combination effects of chemicals should be taken under consideration for the same reason. Ignoring them will not make them disappear. - Industry bodies can have a role, but the substantial elements of defining safety and monitoring compliance must be on the side of public authorities. - The right of consumer to be informed about hazardous chemicals in the products they buy must be recognized and assured, particularly in a moment where strengthening the capacities of citizens to make informed and more sustainable choices will be fundamental in shaping the future of the EU.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

17 Dec 2020

On the Draft Taxonomy Delegated Act the Commission ignores several expert recommendations with scientific background, and this is a great risk to the taxonomy’s credibility, and the Green Deal’s success. It should be a priority to strengthening the following points: Forestry On the concept of sustainable forest management, the draft DA allow activities such as short-term rotation below 20 years, which is not climate-neutral due to the carbon released. On the other hand, short-term rotation generally uses tree species without considering the pre-existing forest, structure and biomass. The DA does not provide adequate safeguards to prevent this from happening. It´s important to specify that carbon storage must include carbon below and above ground. the former is usually forgotten. The Commission, and the taxonomy, should focus on protecting existing natural forests, restoring and enriching biodiversity as well as the carbon storage potential to generate forests that are resilient. Finally, any forestry activity qualify as “sustainable” can´t promote the reduction of forest carbon sink function, forest degradation, deforestation and biodiversity loss. Electricity and heat/cool generation from Bioenergy The draft DA has accepted that all forest biomass may be burned for as feedstocks. This contradicts the Commission own impact assessment on bioenergy which said that the idea that forest biomass can mitigate climate change is extremely problematic and recognised that the demand for forest biomass is undermining the ability of EU forests to act as a carbon sink. The Commission should reverse its decision to classify the burning of all the forest biomass and purpose-grown crops for energy as sustainable and exclude from eligibility, as it usually does not reduce full lifecycle emissions compared to the burning of fossil fuels. It has also decided to count most activities aligned with the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) as sustainable, while the RED II criteria are unscientific and totally insufficient to protect forests and the climate. Manufacture of biogas and biofuels for use in transport The draft DA weakens the TEG criteria by demanding simple RED-II eligibility for feedstocks, and proposes that all biomass, including food and feed, should be classified as sustainable. The draft DA should revert to the TEG criteria but strengthen them by excluding food and feedstock for biogas. The fossil fuels Fossil fuel operations are normally well above the emission threshold of 100gCO2/KWh, so the Commission must maintain this scientifically based threshold or the taxonomy will lose all credibility. There is no carbon budget left to classify any fossil fuel as a "transition" fuel. The adaptation criteria should be strengthened to ensure that they do not create a gap for gas investments. The incineration About the incineration, the draft DA should maintain its adequate exclusion, as proposed by the TEG. Hydrogen It should explicitly exclude hydrogen produced with fossil fuels.
Read full response

Response to EU Forest Strategy

3 Dec 2020

ZERO would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to give feedback. Attached go our comments.
Read full response

Response to Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets

2 Dec 2020

ZERO would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to give feedback on the Biodiversity Strategy. Attached go our comments.
Read full response

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

25 Nov 2020

We strongly recommend the inclusion of municipal waste (MSW) incineration in the EU ETS scheme in the upcoming review. Evidence shows that municipal waste incineration has a growing negative impact on climate, yet because they are not part of the EU ETS or any similar scheme to progressively reduce CO2 emissions, these incinerators are not compensating for the resulting climate damage. The CO2 emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) have grown by 288% (1), suggesting the CO2 emissions are intensifying. Since burning MSW results in much higher CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuel (2), continued use of incineration is simply delaying a much needed, and urgent, transition to less carbon-intensive power generation infrastructure such as wind and solar renewable energy (3). Promoting the use of waste incineration would make it impossible to facilitate ambitious emissions reduction in the energy sector that would align with the Paris Agreement and genuinely limit the global average temperature increase to below 1.5°C. The inclusion of incineration in the EU ETS would make waste incineration also more expensive thus encouraging other more sustainable and low-carbon waste treatment options e.g. material recovery and biological treatment facilities, thus driving better waste management (4). Inclusion of waste incineration in EU ETS system is in line with Article 17 of the Regulation 2020/852 which classifies it as activity causing significant harm to environmental objectives (5). References: 1. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2019/european-union-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2019/viewfile#pdfjs.action=download 2. http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28413/WTEfull.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 3. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/edd/2019/09/ZWE_Policy-briefing_The-impact-of-Waste-to-Energy-incineration-on-Climate.pdf 4. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/zero_waste_europe_cs_waste_incineration_getting_away_with_co2_emissions_unscathed_en.pdf 5, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R0852
Read full response

Response to Updating Member State emissions reduction targets (Effort Sharing Regulation) in line with the 2030 climate target plan

25 Nov 2020

Manter em vigor a ESR e as metas vinculativas nacionais para a maioria dos GEE Os Estados-Membros não assumirão reduções das emissões nos actuais sectores não abrangidos pelo ETS se estas forem eliminadas das obrigações nacionais ao abrigo da ESR, prejudicando a adopção e o reforço de medidas adicionais e complementares. Por conseguinte, a opção 1, que prevê uma eliminação progressiva da ESR, é inaceitável, e os objectivos vinculativos a nível nacional devem ser mantidos e aumentados a fim de contribuir para reduções globais colectivas de emissões de pelo menos 65%. A opção 3 também reduz significativamente a responsabilidade dos Estados-Membros no caso de haver sectores retirados do âmbito da ESR. Falta ainda uma opção alternativa para definir metas globais vinculativas nacionais em relação à neutralidade climática, a qual deveria ser considerada pela Comissão. Reforma da ESR como parte de um pacote para aumentar a ambição climática colectiva A acção climática na Europa continua desalinhada com o objectivo do Acordo de Paris de manter o aumento da temperatura global em 1,5°C. No geral, são necessários cortes de pelo menos 65% nas emissões para colocar a UE no caminho que faz honrar plenamente os seus compromissos internacionais. A fim de conseguir reduções de emissões de maneira social e economicamente justa, é necessária uma abordagem abrangente de toda a arquitectura de políticas. Não abranger no EU ETS as emissões nos transportes e edifícios A ZERO não apoia a inclusão das emissões nos transportes rodoviários e edifícios no EU ETS. As reduções nas emissões fósseis nestes sectores têm custos muito mais elevados do que o actual preço do carbono no ETS permite alcançar, particularmente no transporte rodoviário. A atribuição de um preço ao carbono é essencial para garantir o princípio do poluidor-pagador, no entanto por si só será insuficiente para resolver o problema da implantação de soluções de energia limpa em escala maciça nos sectores dos transporte e edifícios. A própria análise da Comissão mostra que a simples transferência dessas emissões para o ETS resulta em menores reduções de emissões nesses sectores do que alcançadas por políticas regulatórias, que proporcionem transferência modal, desenvolvimento infra-estrutural, sistemas de gestão de tráfego e normas de emissão apertadas. Alinhamento com o Acordo de Paris da ambição climática nos sectores cobertos pela ESR Caso o desenho actual se mantenha, a ESR precisa de promover reduções globais nas emissões significativamente mais altas, a fim de cumprir o Acordo de Paris. Os cortes nas emissões devem ser pelo menos de 65%, para cumprir a meta de 1,5 ° C, com as metas da ESR a dever ser aumentadas em conformidade. As brechas têm que ser corrigidas De acordo com a ESR actual, os Estados Membros podem servir-se de brechas que lhes permitem cobrir lacunas nas reduções reais de emissões para atingir suas metas para 2030, usando por exemplo compensações do sector do uso do solo ou licenças excedentes do EU ETS. A ZERO apela à rejeição da possibilidade de os países usarem estas compensações para reduzir os esforços nos sectores não-ETS. Os mecanismos de flexibilidade não deverão enfraquecer as metas gerais Actualmente, os Estados Membros podem pedir emprestadas, depositar e transferir alocações anuais de emissões para cumprir as suas metas nacionais para 2030 na ESR. A fim de evitar atrasar os esforços de mitigação, e de limitar o risco de problemas de conformidade no final do período da ESR, e de evitar a acumulação de licenças com o correr do tempo, estas actividades deverão ser limitadas.
Read full response

Response to Industrial pollution - revision of the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

22 Oct 2020

We support the preliminary EEB input available here https://eeb.org/library/eeb-input-to-e-prtr-impact-assessment/
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2018/2001

21 Sept 2020

Please see the attached paper for ZERO feedback to the Roadmap Consultation.
Read full response

Response to Review of the Construction Products Regulation

18 Aug 2020

The construction sector has a significant global impact on the environment, including here in Europe. Business-as -usual is no longer an option, but the current regulatory framework is not sustainability-ready. The planned revision of the Construction Product Regulation (CPR) can play an important role in reducing the impact of the sector, but incremental change will not be enough. The revision of the CPR must go beyond enhancement (proposed under options D1 and D2): a deep transformation of the CPR is needed for construction products to enable a more sustainable built environment. Therefore, the CPR should go beyond the options outlined and include ambitious environmental performance requirements, using the successful example of the Ecodesign framework as a basis. The Ecodesign directive has achieved significant results by setting technical specifications to measure, test and verify performance in product-specific regulations, in conjunction with EU harmonized standards to measure, test and verify performance, has achieved significant results. We believe the CPR should be revised and take a similar approach than the Ecodesign directive by: a) Establishing a range of ambitious mandatory environmental performance requirements, implemented through harmonized technical specifications focused on: - Reuse of construction products, as well as the use of secondary and locally available raw materials for construction products; - Full lifecycle environmental (including CO2) footprint requirements for end-products and intermediaries such as cement and steel to improve resource efficiency, and better contribute to improved energy performance of buildings; - Product take-back and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements to transform construction products and associated waste management; - Greater resource efficiency in the design, production and use of construction products and all constituent materials. b) Requiring on a mandatory basis that comprehensive information on the performance and impacts of a construction product throughout the entire lifecycle is readily available and accurately assessed through updated measurement standards; c) Adopting an Ecodesign-framework-style implementing process for the development of technical requirements to help lower the environmental impact of construction products. This process should be based upon preparatory work concerning all relevant technical information, involving broad stakeholder consultations with MS representatives, civil society, industry, and other organizations with a relevant interest; d) Increasing coherence with relevant industrial, chemicals, product and waste policy by ensuring that construction product requirements at the interface between relevant legislation are well aligned. This includes emission limit values under the industrial emissions directive, chemical restrictions under REACH, as well as reduction of construction and demolition waste goals under the Waste Framework Directive. Ambitious, clear and comprehensive regulatory requirements following the positive example of the Ecodesign Directive are needed to regulate construction products at EU level. Implementation through a robust process for developing technical specifications and harmonized standards will be important to deliver upon such requirements, and ultimately to support the commitments under the European Green Deal.
Read full response

Response to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste

6 Aug 2020

Europe’s action on reducing natural resource consumption is long overdue, and the huge amounts of packaging waste being produced every year is a clear sign that we have failed to implement the policies that will deliver on making the waste hierarchy a reality. Focusing on recycling will not do the trick. Circular Economy is an opportunity to finally place the emphasis of policies where it should have been all along – on the first steps of the hierarchy. In ZERO’s opinion there are some actions related to packaging waste prevention that should be a priority: • Make all packaging reusable or recyclable by 2030, with priority given to prevention and reuse in line with the waste hierarchy. Where products can be handled in a sustainable way without packaging or with reusable packaging, it should be prioritized. Targets will be fundamental to achieve results. Without them government and other stakeholders will aim for the areas where targets already exist. Prevention (reduction and reuse) must become mandatory, as recycling is. • Set packaging waste reduction targets based on total number of single use units and kg of packaging per person per year. Specific targets should be set for major materials, product groups and sectors (e.g. transport, food, beverages, e-commerce). Mandatory refill targets in the beverage sector are already in place in some countries (e.g. Germany) and should become the norm (as recycling targets are). Responsibility for meeting these targets should be of producers and retailers. The right of consumers to choose reusable packaging should be guaranteed, so if a beverage or other category of products is packed in a disposable solution, than it should also be available in a reusable solution (something that could be implemented progressively). • Implement standard reusable packaging formats for the EU market to create a scalable model for prevention for several major product groups (e.g. for beverages). • Scale up deposit refund schemes (DRS) as an essential tool for implementing successful reuse systems. DRS is an established tool to change behaviour, ensure take-back, and prevent environmental leakage. The system is already well-known in the refillable beverage sector, and a large number of reusable DRS are already in place for other types of packaging, including for cups, food containers and e-commerce. Implementing DRS with a strong focus on reuse should become the norm and clearly stated in the EU laws on waste. • Improve data and monitoring of packaging (e.g. based on units as well as weight), establish MS and EU monitoring of packaging reuse, and integrate packaging data into the forthcoming initiative for a “product passport”. • Set a clear timeline to phase out landfilling and incineration for packaging waste and before that use taxation to stimulate deviation from these treatment solutions. • Provide unbiased science based guidance on critical issues such as food waste prevention, transport emissions and hygiene which are often discussed as limiting factors for waste prevention and reuse, but do not have to be. • Explore restrictions for the use of some packaging materials/formats to certain applications, in particular overpackaging and where alternative reusable products or systems are possible or consumer goods can be handled safely without packaging. • Leverage both public and corporate procurement as instruments to scale-up reuse in key areas such as food services. • Ensure packaging legislation supports the objective of a toxic-free environment with no tolerance to hazardous substances in packaging items, even with regards to recycled content or in compostable packaging. • Create incentives to refill initiatives and to the use of dissolvable products, that can prevent a significant amount of packaging waste (among other benefits).
Read full response

Response to Update of concentration limit values of persistent organic pollutants in waste

30 Jul 2020

The EU POPs Regulation should respect the objectives and requirements of the Stockholm Convention and should therefore not lead to or promote the recycling of POPs waste. This may be the case if the defined limits for the content of POPs in waste are too benevolent and if their setting is based more on the economic interests of industrial groups than on the protection of public health and the environment. We think that some of the limits for POPs in waste, as set today, are too weak and do not hinder the circulation of POPs in reused materials and recycled products. This is shown, for example, by studies showing the presence of high concentrations of PBDEs in toys or kitchen utensils made from recycled plastics. The same phenomenon occurs by recycling ash from incinerators containing high concentrations of dioxins. It is known that most of the persistent organic pollutants are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) so stricter regulation will lead also to tighter European policy on EDCs which were found to cause very significant damage to human health. EDC exposure costs up to 163 billion EUROs or 1.28% of EU Gross Domestic Product per year according recent estimation by scientists. Therefore, we suggest implementation of stricter limits for the definition of POPs wastes. Those threshold levels in current POPs Regulation are very weak. For the same reason we would also suggest not to allow a content of 500 ppm of PBDEs in recycled products or mixtures and return to originally suggested common level of 10 ppm of the sum of PBDEs as trace contamination for all products and mixtures including recycled ones. In thos context, we call on the European Commission to exert leadership in the Basel and Stockholm Convention processes by setting low POPs content limits which will protect human health and environment and which will take into account ALL economic implications including costs due to health damage consequences. This means support for more protective low POPs content limits for the following substances: • 1 ppb (= 1 ng/g WHO-TEQ) for PCDD/Fs + dl-PCBs with additional limit of 50 pg WHO-TEQ/g (0.05 ppb) of these substances for untreated waste used on land surface • 100 ppm (= 100 mg/kg) for HBCD • 50 ppm (= 50 mg/kg) for sum of PBDEs (including Deca-BDE) • 100 ppm (= 100 mg/kg) for SCCPs • 10 ppm (= 10 mg/kg) for sum of PFOA/PFHxS and related substances It also means to change the legislative conditions to be more open to other technologies for destruction of POPs waste, which do not create new POPs as waste incineration or co-incineration does, in order to meet obligations set in Article 5 of the Stockholm Convention. Promoting alternative technologies for destruction of POPs waste can also be an incentive for job creation and for investment in economic activities that will directly contribute for a safer circular economy. Treating POPs waste in this way should not be seen as a cost, but as an investment in innovation, job creation and a safer circular economy (with environmental, social and economic benefits in the EU and beyond). We found these conditions as crucial for meeting Stockholm Convention objectives “to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants“ (Stockholm Convention 2010).
Read full response

ZERO demands stricter chemical controls and industry levies for safety.

19 Jun 2020
Topic — The consultation concerns a strategy to protect citizens and the environment from hazardous chemicals.
Message — The group urges a framework to "effectively reduce pollution at source" and phase out toxins. They demand "full disclosure" of substances and the "no data, no market" principle. They also propose a "0.1% levy" on chemical sales.123
Why — Stricter standards would help the organization achieve its goal of "better living standards".4
Impact — The chemical industry faces higher costs from a "0.1% levy" and stricter export rules.56
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

27 Apr 2020

In our view, as a Portuguese Environmental NGO that is working on promoting circular economy and sustainable climate friendly solutions, we want to make sure that the EU taxonomy distinguishes the investments coherent with the CEAP and Climate policies from those actions that are not compatible. In our opinion incineration of waste (with or without energy recovery) are examples of such incompatible investments and therefore should be excluded from the EU Green Taxonomy. In Portugal we have seen repeatedly how incineration of waste has been in the way of a circular Economy. For example, in the Lisbon region and the OPorto region had smaller recycling targets then some regions in the interior of the country, although they had much better conditions to collect recyclable materials. But the fact they have incineration and needed the waste to burn, their obligations where lowered (with the support of the government). Also, in the Islands, for example in Madeira, the incinerator has disincentivize biowaste collection and treatment, among other projects. This is not a reality that only occurs in Portugal. We can easily find a similar situation in most of the countries that have incineration. In the future, if we really want to promote a circular economy, we will have to move fast in the direction of reducing immensely the incineration and landfill deposition, so building new incineration capacity is clearly in the way of such an objective. Also, incineration emits GEE, whereas prevention and recycling prevents emissions, so it makes no sense to support projects that are not contributing for a circular economy or for carbon neutrality. There is no time to waste anymore.
Read full response

Response to ReFuelEU Aviation - Sustainable Aviation Fuels

21 Apr 2020

ZERO supports the introduction of a mandatory incorporation of advanced fuels into the aviation sector, however this should only be advanced if it brings a clear environmental benefit. It´s important the exclusion of food & feed crops and waste-based fossil fuels, key safeguards to ensure that the promised emission reductions are achievable and that the level of obligation following a serious assessment of the available feedstock, not forgetting their use in other competing uses. Incorporation legislation should aim to reduce GHG emissions by encouraging those fuels that deliver the greatest emissions reductions. Any support for advanced sustainable fuels in, whatever form, should support those fuels which can contribute to greater emission reductions and which are furthest from market deployment and therefore most in need of regulatory support. The legislation should target only sustainable quantities of waste and residues based advanced fuels and efuels. Strict criteria are needed for the fuels considered, with support for those fuels that deliver the greatest emission reductions and which are furthest from the market (e.g. cellulosic and efuels). Any measures should not result in an increased demand for additional fuels from waste or residues, beyond the targets that were considered sustainable in the RED cast because the limited feedstock availability, nor should they result in an extension of the RED definition of "advanced biofuels", which is already problematic. About other supports, the use of a multiplier in aviation could be a risk and transfer the cost of decarbonising aviation to other fuel users; the development of fuels for the aviation industry should not create disincentives to reduce waste or reuse certain feedstocks, which would go against the waste hierarchy; it´s important a carefully consideration about the non-CO2 effects, not only the ability of different advanced sustainable fuels, but also a clear distinction must be made between which fuels are capable of delivering further reduction in these effects. With regard to sustainability, it is important to recognise that the existing sustainability criteria in the RED are insufficient, for example due to the inclusion of unsustainable feedstock in Annex IX and the absence of accounting displacement effects. This initiative should review and strengthen these general criteria and ensure that there are effective sustainability criteria for efuels. Another relevant aspect relates to the import of fuels from outside the EU, for which it will be difficult to ensure that sustainability criteria is guaranteed, e.g. that the renewable electricity used to produce efuels is truly additional or that imported UCO has no indirect effects from transport. This initiative needs an assessment of which fuels can be scaled to bring decarbonisation of aviation sector, and to focus resources on supporting those fuels, such as efuels, rather than focusing on those fuels that do not have the capacity to be scaled significantly (such as HEFA - hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids from waste oils). For the last, it is regrettable that the price of carbon is not included in the list of measures. It is well known that aviation is one of the sectors that, despite having a very significant negative environmental impact, is one of the sectors that pays the least attention to society, in the sense that it operates with very low levels of taxation, when compared to other essential sectors. The price of carbon is a central element of European climate policy, is included in the European Green Agreement, for that an effort should be required to reduce (and not just offset) aviation's carbon emissions and to include all emissions in the medium term in European emissions trading for all flights, and that can help reduce the price difference between currently untaxed fossil jet fuel and sustainable advanced fuels.
Read full response

Response to 2030 Climate Target Plan

14 Apr 2020

The Special Report of the IPCC on Global Warming of 1.5°C has shown that missing the 1.5°C temperature target all countries have agreed to under the Paris Agreement entails severe additional damages to the global ecosystem and increases the chances of hitting systemic tipping points that could spiral global heating out of human control. The recent UNEP Emissions Gap report has underlined that current efforts will only limit global temperature increase to above 3°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. The report also stressed that in order to keep temperature rise to 1.5°C all countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions annually by 7.6% between now and 2030, implying a 2030 climate target of at least 65% for the European Union. In light of the EU’s global and historic responsibility and capacity to act and the equity principles underpinning the Paris Agreement, the impact assessment must also consider emission reduction pathways achieving higher than 55% emissions reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2040 in order to provide for a reasonable likelihood of keeping the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement attainable. It´s very clear that increasing climate ambition requires increased decarbonisation from all economic sectors, and particularly an increase of the 2030 energy targets. Although the revision of these targets can take place together with the revision of the relevant legislation, it is important to keep underlining the key role of energy efficiency and renewable energy to significantly reduce emissions. The trajectory towards a true 100% renewable energy supply needs to be included into the assessment. The full implementation of the current 2030 climate and energy legislative framework will only deliver emissions reductions of around 45%. It will be critical that the planned revision of implementing legislation, such as the EU-ETS, the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), the LULUCF Regulation, the CO2 Standards for Cars and Vans, the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the Energy Taxation Directive, and all forthcoming new policy measures to underpin the delivery of  the significantly increased 2030 climate ambition. Further to these, the European Commission needs to develop clear sectoral decarbonisation strategies, including clear action plans that demonstrate how these strategies will be achieved and financed, in particular for the industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and forestry sectors. In the bioenergy sector it´s important that the assessment addresses the environmental impact of land-use within the roadmap to 1) assess the CO2 and environmental impact of bioenergy and 2) expand beyond climate and energy legislation to sustainably achieve the EU’s carbon neutrality goal through actions that enhance the biodiversity and resilience of forests. Several EU countries, such as Portugal, are anticipating measures of their carbon neutrality strategy for 2050 along the decade 2020-2030 under the need to accelerate action. It´s real that insufficient responses to the climate crisis today will cause far reaching and irreversible damages to future generations, directly from extreme weather events that are expected to become more frequent and severe due to intensifying global heating. They also can significantly exacerbate associated future challenges, such as conflicts over water, resources and materials, public health strains and increasing wealth inequality globally and regionally. Any assessment of increased climate action needs to draw the full picture of its direct benefits (e.g. employment, reduced energy costs and import dependency, competitiveness) and avoided costs (e.g. environmental damage, health costs, fossil fuel subsidies), and implementing alternative solutions (e.g. energy efficiency, demand response, storage, increased flexibility) to prevent lock-in into carbon-intensive pathways.
Read full response

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

The new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) will be a cornerstone of the European Green Deal. In the opinion of ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável, the new CEAP should not be developed in isolation and should be consistent and complementary to other actions under the European Green Deal, including the including sustainable chemicals strategy, zero pollution strategy as well as the Climate and Biodiversity policy action. The European Green Deal rightly identifies plastics as a key sector to address in the new CEAP. Strong policy measures to address the plastic crisis, focused on prevention, redesign and reuse, will be instrumental for the success of the new CEAP and the European Green Deal. The way we produce, use and dispose of plastics at the moment is emblematic of our linear economy. Anyway, in our perspective it is also very relevant to look at single use as a problem, independently of the materials we are addressing. It is the single use that is at the root of the problem with plastics, and it can rapidly be at the root of a very concerning problem related to the use of “alternative materials”, that in some cases can be a worse problem than the one they are trying to solve. Only through prevention and a focus on sufficiency in many areas, it will be possible to create a truly circular economy that uses resources sustainably and can thrive within the planetary boundaries. The EU, as the world’s largest and most affluent single market on the planet, needs to bend the trends of the past few decades very considerably. This means that transformational, disruptive and systemic change is needed in our economy, particularly in key sectors. Our complete contribution can be found in the attached file.
Read full response

Response to Environmental Crime Directive Evaluation

4 Apr 2019

ZERO – Assotiation for the Sustainability of the Earth System welcomes the Commission’s roadmap and initiative to evaluate the Environmental Crimes Directive (ECD). Environmental crime is one of the most profitable and growing crimes in the world, with cross-border illegal activities and effects. Because of the scale of the impact and the huge economic value it has to offenders, it is of utmost importance that there is action at EU level and that states work closely together to tackle the increase of environmental criminal activities. The revision of the ECD has been long-awaited as it is currently an insufficient measure to address devastating environmental crimes, including wildlife and waste crime and trafficking, illegal logging, emissions and mining. Waste and wildlife crime cause flagrant environmental harm and are very often conducted by organised international criminal groups engaged in illegal trade and trafficking, therefore it makes sense that the evaluation will focus on these. The evaluation should, however, also assess the effectiveness in combatting other forms of environmental crime. For instance, as was identified by INTERPOL and UNEP, carbon credit fraud is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and illegal emissions and discharge in inland waterways should also be looked into. The scope of the evaluation should therefore be broadened. Especially as environmental crime is so often linked to other forms of criminal conduct, including sophisticated economic crimes, money-laundering and even terrorism, it is important to evaluate the relevance of the Directive within the context of tackling and prosecuting criminal activity generally. The focus should be on the Directive’s usefulness in combatting crimes that damage the environment, and therefore the Commission should look at whether the offenses under Article 3 and the legislation in the Annexes are exhaustive to this end. There should be an evaluation as to whether the transposition and implementation of the ECD in the Member States, has led to sentencing by the courts with effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. Indeed, if the efficiency of the Directive is measured against the costs of implementation, without first looking into whether the application in national courts has led to effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, then there will not be a complete picture to evaluate the benefits of the Directive in the protection of the environment. Especially if one considers the enormous economic value that environmental crimes generate to perpetrators, looking at costs of implementation without looking at the benefits that the Directive, is misplaced. In this sense, the evaluation on the efficiency should rather focus on the capacity, structures and allocated resources in each member state to investigate and prosecute environmental crime, with adequate cooperation between authorities and Member States.
Read full response

Portuguese NGO Zero Urges Stricter Soy and Palm Rules

4 Mar 2019
Topic — The European Commission is consulting on the climate risks of different biofuel sources.
Message — The group wants soy included in the high climate-risk category alongside palm oil. They also request ending certifications that allow high-risk crops to bypass strict regulations.12
Why — Stricter rules would help the NGO achieve its mission of ending deforestation for fuels.34
Impact — Biofuel importers would lose the financial subsidies that currently support their European market presence.5
Read full response

Response to Small, medium and large power transformers - Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 548/2014

20 Nov 2018

Esta proposta estabelece um precedente perigoso no que diz respeito ao rigor da regulamentação europeia. As ações da Comissão são contrárias ao Artigo 7 do Regulamento 548/2014, que não exige uma revisão da ambição da Fase 2. O enfraquecimento do atual regulamento comprometeria a estabilidade regulamentar e o clima de investimento. Estas revisões devem apenas aumentar a ambição dos requisitos com base nos desenvolvimentos tecnológicos mais recentes. Lamentamos que o nº de exceções ao âmbito de aplicação e de isenções corra o risco de gerar enormes lacunas e comprometer as poupanças de energia do atual regulamento. A Comissão adiou para 2023 os aspetos cruciais desta revisão. Com base nos factos disponíveis (transformadores podem cumprir o Nível 1 sem dificuldades e não restam barreiras técnicas importantes para alcançar o Nível 2) recomendamos: - Endurecer as derrogações Embora reconheçamos os desafios da resolução de derrogações em certas situações, estamos convencidos de que as isenções e derrogações baseadas nos custos ou na viabilidade técnica comprometem o objetivo político da Diretiva Ecodesign. Especificamente foram inseridas novas disposições alarmantes, que permitem derrogações que não atendem ao Nível 1 nem a qualquer requisito de eficiência no caso da substituição um-a-um ou da instalação em um local existente ou para novas instalações em novos locais, de transformadores de grande potência. Estas derrogações devem ser retiradas pois contrariam a natureza da própria medida. Se a Comissão se recusar a retirá-las ambas devem ser mitigadas com limites rigorosos nas perdas. Como está a proposta estabelece condições modestas para aceitar uma derrogação, mas a abordagem padrão permanece fraca e perpetua enormes lacunas para muitos tipos de produtos. Por isso instamos a Comissão a adicionar estes 5 critérios: Limite de perdas básicas para qualquer alternativa oferecida, Exclusão de áreas verdes, Exclusão de locais industriais, Não permitir isenções por lote, Colocar limitações específicas adicionais às isenções para novas instalações. Também pedimos uma transição gradual para a remoção das concessões para transformadores em postes, uma vez que as evidências mostram que a antiga tecnologia implantada para estas aplicações não tem lugar na rede eficiente necessária para as próximas décadas. - Reforçar as questões junto dos MEPs Estamos dececionados ao ver que a proposta não consegue resolver a fraca ambição para os transformadores de média potência <60 kVA, que permanece fraca em comparação com todas as outras economias. E lamentamos que os novos requisitos específicos para transformadores de tipo seco e imersos em líquido <4 MVA tenham sido significativamente flexibilizados. Ao fazê-lo a Comissão já não está alinhada com a norma IEC 60076-20, um retrocesso. - Preparar os MEPs para transformadores monofásicos Solicitamos evidências sobre a decisão de não abordar o desempenho mínimo para transformadores monofásicos que são especificamente mencionados na Cláusula de Revisão do regulamento atual. Também notamos algumas melhorias nas propostas. Congratulamo-nos com o facto de as derrogações gerais ao âmbito dos "custos desproporcionados" e "tecnicamente inviáveis" no Artigo 1 terem sido eliminadas, mas as lacunas referidas permitem ainda grandes melhorias. Apoiamos o progresso para definir reequipar, consertar e remodelar. Sugerimos a substituição de “aumentar significativamente o desempenho energético” por “aumentar a eficiência do transformador” para evitar possíveis lacunas na redação. Congratulamo-nos com as melhorias nos detalhes sobre os fatores de correção para enrolamentos especiais com permissões mais restritas para muitos tipos; e os requisitos mais rigorosos para o tipo seco com Um <36kV e para líquido imerso> 100MVA (Nível 2). E apoiamos fortemente a junção de opções para reforçar a verificação da fiscalização do mercado de transformadores (por ex., testemunhar testes de aceitação na fábrica).
Read full response

Response to Ecodesign requirements for (other) electric motors

20 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de saudar o projeto de requisitos de Ecodesign proposto pela Comissão Europeia, que inclui algumas melhorias importantes em termos de âmbito e ambição em relação ao atual regulamento. Confirmamos o nosso apoio por os motores integrados em outros produtos estarem no âmbito do regulamento, e também temos as seguintes recomendações sobre como melhorar ainda mais as propostas: - Antecipar a implementação de requisitos para certos motores: não vemos qualquer razão técnica para atrasar a entrada em vigor do Tier 1 para motores de 8 polos, motores de freio, motores à prova de explosão, motores com potência nominal útil de 0.12kW até 0.75kW. - Aumentar a ambição nos variadores de velocidade: o âmbito dos variadores de velocidade deve corresponder ao âmbito dos motores e, portanto, pedimos a inclusão dos variadores de velocidade que são classificados para operar com motores até ao mínimo de 0,12 kW. Não incluir esses produtos representa uma oportunidade perdida, já que a sua eficiência é muito baixa e eles são amplamente vendidos. Estes devem ser abrangidos já no Nível 1. Também acreditamos firmemente que os requisitos de Nível 2 devem ser levados para o próximo nível exigindo o IE3. - Apoiar a reciclagem de materiais raros da natureza em motores de ímanes permanentes: os aspetos dos recursos foram deixados para a próxima revisão, o que é uma oportunidade perdida e não está em conformidade com a estratégia da Economia Circular da União Europeia. No mínimo, é preciso tomar ações nos motores de ímanes permanentes, que podem conter materiais raros da natureza que foram identificados como materiais críticos no médio prazo com base no risco de fornecimento, crescimento da procura e restrições à reciclagem. Dispositivos com magnetos de materiais raros são difíceis de identificar como tal, sem ter um conhecimento técnico muito específico ou sem a realização intensiva de testes / desmontagens dos dispositivos. A reciclagem deve ser facilitada por uma marcação obrigatória e normalizada de produtos contendo magnetos de materiais raros, incluindo informações sobre sua localização, informações sobre o tipo aplicado (por exemplo, SmCo, NdFeB) e seu processo de extração. Uma cláusula que garanta a facilidade de desmontar os ímanes permanentes quando eles contêm materiais raros, conforme proposto em outros regulamentos em discussão.
Read full response

Response to Regulatory measure on the review of energy labelling for household washing machines and washer-driers

20 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar o projeto de regulamentos de Ecodesign e Rotulagem Energética e, em particular, as novas fórmulas de eficiência energética, menos lineares e com maior capacidade, evitando assim o incentivo atual a capacidades cada vez maiores. Congratulamo-nos também com as disposições para evitar programas muito demorados, com uma preferência para o limite de duração indicado no Ecodesign sobre a duração na etiqueta energética. No que diz respeito à eficiência de recursos, as propostas para facilitar a reparação e reciclagem de máquinas de lavar roupa foram substancialmente enfraquecidas em comparação com versões anteriores dos textos e, consequentemente, instamos os decisores a aumentar a ambição de regulamentação. - Alongar as escalas da etiqueta energética As escalas propostas de etiquetagem energética têm classes com pequena amplitude, especialmente nas classes de topo. Isso põe em risco a possibilidade de os rótulos durarem pelo menos 10 anos e torna muito fácil saltar uma classe através de pequenos ajustes aos produtos ou usando tolerâncias. Nós pedimos para alongar as escalas para um nível mais adequado, com classes A e B verdadeiramente desafiadoras. - Melhorar a duplicação da disposição sobre os programas Apoiamos totalmente a restrição do uso de nomes de programas como normal / diário / padrão / regular, mas recomendamos a reintrodução da redação do rascunho normativo anterior, mencionando também o uso do termo algodão. - Melhorar o design da etiqueta Os desenhos e descrições das etiquetas não possuem as classes cinza F e G que devem ser aplicadas após abril de 2024. Recomendamos enfaticamente que seja removido o círculo com a palavra “eco 40-60 °”, pois duvidamos que seu significado seja compreendido e vemos um risco muito significativo que os consumidores acreditem que tal certifica que o produto é de alguma forma "eco-friendly". Lamentamos que não tenham sido previstos ícones que possam ajudar os consumidores a comprar produtos mais duráveis e reparáveis, como o período de garantia gratuito oferecido pelo fabricante ou a disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes. - Permissão de adiamento do início do programa mais reduzida e melhor regulação dos modos em rede O limite de potência para a condição de adiamento do início do programa foi definido para um valor muito alto (6 W) e deve ser limitado a 1 W ou menos. Além disso, as disposições sobre o modo de espera em rede devem permitir que o utilizador desative conexões em rede. - Reforçar fortemente as disposições sobre eficiência de recursos Peças sobressalentes devem estar disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto, ou seja, 12 anos. Elas não devem estar restritas a reparadores profissionais, mas devem estar disponíveis a retalhistas, reparadores e consumidores. A lista de peças sobressalentes deve incluir as baterias. Um prazo máximo de entrega de uma semana deve ser especificado. Além disso, apelamos para a reintrodução do acesso irrestrito às informações de reparação e manutenção de eletrodomésticos a operadores independentes, apoiados por uma secção explicativa da definição de “operador independente”, como no Regulamento EC715/2007 sobre a disponibilidade de informações sobre a reparação e manutenção de veículos. Por último, embora os projetos anteriores previssem um fácil acesso a uma lista de peças fundamentais para reparação, as mais recentes propostas da Comissão apenas preveem que o desmantelamento seja facilitado para extrair a lista de materiais e componentes referidos no Anexo VII da Diretiva REEE. Este é um grande retrocesso em termos de reparabilidade de produtos, e pedimos a reintrodução da disposição anterior. Os comentários detalhados estão disponíveis no documento em anexo (da campanha Coolproducts).
Read full response

Response to Review of ecodesign requirements for household washing machines and washer-driers

20 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar o projeto de regulamentos de Ecodesign e Rotulagem Energética e, em particular, as novas fórmulas de eficiência energética, menos lineares e com maior capacidade, evitando assim o incentivo atual a capacidades cada vez maiores. Congratulamo-nos também com as disposições para evitar programas muito demorados, com uma preferência para o limite de duração indicado no Ecodesign sobre a duração na etiqueta energética. No que diz respeito à eficiência de recursos, as propostas para facilitar a reparação e reciclagem de máquinas de lavar roupa foram substancialmente enfraquecidas em comparação com versões anteriores dos textos e, consequentemente, instamos os decisores a aumentar a ambição de regulamentação. - Alongar as escalas da etiqueta energética As escalas propostas de etiquetagem energética têm classes com pequena amplitude, especialmente nas classes de topo. Isso põe em risco a possibilidade de os rótulos durarem pelo menos 10 anos e torna muito fácil saltar uma classe através de pequenos ajustes aos produtos ou usando tolerâncias. Nós pedimos para alongar as escalas para um nível mais adequado, com classes A e B verdadeiramente desafiadoras. - Melhorar a duplicação da disposição sobre os programas Apoiamos totalmente a restrição do uso de nomes de programas como normal / diário / padrão / regular, mas recomendamos a reintrodução da redação do rascunho normativo anterior, mencionando também o uso do termo algodão. - Melhorar o design da etiqueta Os desenhos e descrições das etiquetas não possuem as classes cinza F e G que devem ser aplicadas após abril de 2024. Recomendamos enfaticamente que seja removido o círculo com a palavra “eco 40-60 °”, pois duvidamos que seu significado seja compreendido e vemos um risco muito significativo que os consumidores acreditem que tal certifica que o produto é de alguma forma "eco-friendly". Lamentamos que não tenham sido previstos ícones que possam ajudar os consumidores a comprar produtos mais duráveis e reparáveis, como o período de garantia gratuito oferecido pelo fabricante ou a disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes. - Permissão de adiamento do início do programa mais reduzida e melhor regulação dos modos em rede O limite de potência para a condição de adiamento do início do programa foi definido para um valor muito alto (6 W) e deve ser limitado a 1 W ou menos. Além disso, as disposições sobre o modo de espera em rede devem permitir que o utilizador desative conexões em rede. - Reforçar fortemente as disposições sobre eficiência de recursos Peças sobressalentes devem estar disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto, ou seja, 12 anos. Elas não devem estar restritas a reparadores profissionais, mas devem estar disponíveis a retalhistas, reparadores e consumidores. A lista de peças sobressalentes deve incluir as baterias. Um prazo máximo de entrega de uma semana deve ser especificado. Além disso, apelamos para a reintrodução do acesso irrestrito às informações de reparação e manutenção de eletrodomésticos a operadores independentes, apoiados por uma secção explicativa da definição de “operador independente”, como no Regulamento EC715/2007 sobre a disponibilidade de informações sobre a reparação e manutenção de veículos. Por último, embora os projetos anteriores previssem um fácil acesso a uma lista de peças fundamentais para reparação, as mais recentes propostas da Comissão apenas preveem que o desmantelamento seja facilitado para extrair a lista de materiais e componentes referidos no Anexo VII da Diretiva REEE. Este é um grande retrocesso em termos de reparabilidade de produtos, e pedimos a reintrodução da disposição anterior. Os comentários detalhados estão disponíveis no documento em anexo (da campanha Coolproducts).
Read full response

Response to Ecodesign requirements for external power supplies

12 Nov 2018

Apoiamos a revisão do regulamento de Fontes de Alimentação Externas, em particular a extensão do âmbito para os EPS com múltiplas voltagens. Lamentamos que a proposta não se tenha tornado mais ambiciosa, principalmente em termos de eficiência de recursos, conforme descrito abaixo. Observe-se que os nossos comentários se referem aos projetos da Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. Os carregadores sem fio não foram integrados no âmbito. Acreditamos que é essencial considerar essa categoria que está a emergir rapidamente e será potencialmente uma nova fonte importante para o desperdício de energia. O design ineficiente pode ter um impacto na eficiência dos recursos em termos de efeitos térmicos adversos (sobreaquecimento) que podem causar mau funcionamento ou danos no dispositivo. Carregadores sem fio baratos e ineficientes no mercado da UE poderiam reduzir a vida útil dos telemóveis, além de eles próprios terem tempos de vidas reduzidos. Solicitamos à Comissão que emita um pedido de normalização o mais rapidamente possível para definir as abordagens de testes para estes produtos. Também pedimos a integração de uma cláusula de revisão antecipada, para poder regulamentá-los dentro de alguns anos. Lamentamos que um requisito de eficiência ativa de 10% de carga não esteja incluído na proposta e pensamos que um requisito de informação é o mínimo e essencial para se poder abordar isto na próxima revisão. Lamentamos também que este regulamento não tenha sido mais bem integrado na estratégia de economia circular da União Europeia. Em particular, acreditamos que este regulamento deve incluir um requisito para o EPS ser reparável com ferramentas amplamente disponíveis, para que reparadores independentes consigam reparar um EPS em vez de ter que o descartar como REEE. Consideramos também que as instituições europeias devem desempenhar um papel ativo na promoção da interoperabilidade dos produtos e EPS / carregadores. É manifesto que normalizar e reduzir a quantidade de EPS e carregadores em uso teria um impacto positivo na eficiência do material, reduzindo o desperdício eletrónico de EPS potencialmente até 500.000 toneladas, bem como aumentando a sua vida útil, aumentando a confiabilidade e diminuindo o peso até 30. Além disso, isso potencialmente teria um impacto significativo na energia incorporada, correspondendo a uma fração não desprezível da energia que pode ser economizada durante o período de utilização. Além disso, isso deve contribuir para a redução de custos para os consumidores, reduzindo a necessidade de comprar um novo EPS cada vez que um pequeno dispositivo de TIC é adquirido. Esta revisão é, portanto, uma oportunidade perfeita que deve ser aproveitada.
Read full response

Response to Review of ecodesign requirements for household cold appliances

12 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar o projeto de regulamentos de Ecodesign e Rotulagem Energética propostos pela Comissão Europeia. Também listamos abaixo recomendações sobre como melhorar ainda mais as propostas. Observe-se que os nossos comentários se referem aos projetos de Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. - Acelerar a implementação dos requisitos Lamentamos o atraso de um ano em todas as datas de aplicação em comparação com os documentos anteriores. Tudo deve ser feito para respeitar o Regulamento de Rotulagem Energética 2017/1369, que prevê que as novas etiquetas sejam exibidas nas lojas até o final de 2019. - Aperfeiçoar o âmbito Congratulamo-nos com a definição do âmbito, especialmente a reintegração de refrigeradores de vinho e minibares com portas de vidro. Ainda vemos o risco de possíveis lacunas nos âmbitos combinados desses regulamentos e dos para os aparelhos profissionais e comerciais. - Simplificar a fórmula do índice de eficiência energética Lamentamos que a fórmula para o índice de eficiência energética não tenha sido simplificada e aperfeiçoada. Acreditamos firmemente que existem demasiados fatores de correção e bónus. Em particular, o "fator encastrado" deve ser removido. Também consideramos que o fator de correção frost-free é muito generoso e não deve exceder os 5%. - Design da etiqueta Acreditamos que apenas um indicador deve ser mantido para o volume de armazenamento de todos os compartimentos em conjunto. Lamentamos que não tenham sido previstos ícones que possam ajudar os consumidores a comprar produtos mais duráveis e reparáveis. Além disso, o pedido de muitas partes interessadas para começar sem classes cinzentas desde o início (ou seja, alterar os limites F e G) deve ser considerado. - Reforçar fortemente as disposições sobre eficiência de recursos Apoiamos os requisitos que visam facilitar a reparação e a reciclagem dos frigoríficos. A proposta em discussão permanece muito tímida em comparação com o que é proposto para as máquinas de lavar loiça e roupa e pedimos um alinhamento com estas. Isso significaria ampliar a disposição sobre a facilidade de desmontagem, permitindo o fácil acesso a uma lista exaustiva de componentes-chave para reparação. A disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes deve ser estendida para que todas as peças sobressalentes importantes estejam disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto ou por um período mínimo de 10 anos. Consideramos também que o tempo máximo de entrega de peças sobressalentes deve ser reduzido. E, finalmente, acreditamos que uma cláusula sobre “acesso irrestrito a informações de reparação e manutenção” deve ser incluída.
Read full response

Response to Review of energy labelling for household cold appliances

12 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar o projeto de regulamentos de Ecodesign e Rotulagem Energética propostos pela Comissão Europeia. Também listamos abaixo recomendações sobre como melhorar ainda mais as propostas. Observe-se que os nossos comentários se referem aos projetos de Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. - Acelerar a implementação dos requisitos Lamentamos o atraso de um ano em todas as datas de aplicação em comparação com os documentos anteriores. Tudo deve ser feito para respeitar o Regulamento de Rotulagem Energética 2017/1369, que prevê que as novas etiquetas sejam exibidas nas lojas até o final de 2019. - Aperfeiçoar o âmbito Congratulamo-nos com a definição do âmbito, especialmente a reintegração de refrigeradores de vinho e minibares com portas de vidro. Ainda vemos o risco de possíveis lacunas nos âmbitos combinados desses regulamentos e dos para os aparelhos profissionais e comerciais. - Simplificar a fórmula do índice de eficiência energética Lamentamos que a fórmula para o índice de eficiência energética não tenha sido simplificada e aperfeiçoada. Acreditamos firmemente que existem demasiados fatores de correção e bónus. Em particular, o "fator encastrado" deve ser removido. Também consideramos que o fator de correção frost-free é muito generoso e não deve exceder os 5%. - Design da etiqueta Acreditamos que apenas um indicador deve ser mantido para o volume de armazenamento de todos os compartimentos em conjunto. Lamentamos que não tenham sido previstos ícones que possam ajudar os consumidores a comprar produtos mais duráveis e reparáveis. Além disso, o pedido de muitas partes interessadas para começar sem classes cinzentas desde o início (ou seja, alterar os limites F e G) deve ser considerado. - Reforçar fortemente as disposições sobre eficiência de recursos Apoiamos os requisitos que visam facilitar a reparação e a reciclagem dos frigoríficos. A proposta em discussão permanece muito tímida em comparação com o que é proposto para as máquinas de lavar loiça e roupa e pedimos um alinhamento com estas. Isso significaria ampliar a disposição sobre a facilidade de desmontagem, permitindo o fácil acesso a uma lista exaustiva de componentes-chave para reparação. A disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes deve ser estendida para que todas as peças sobressalentes importantes estejam disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto ou por um período mínimo de 10 anos. Consideramos também que o tempo máximo de entrega de peças sobressalentes deve ser reduzido. E, finalmente, acreditamos que uma cláusula sobre “acesso irrestrito a informações de reparação e manutenção” deve ser incluída.
Read full response

Response to Review of energy labelling for household dishwashers

11 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar os projetos de regulamentos relativo à conceção ecológica e à rotulagem energética, propostos pela CE, mas instamos as instituições europeias a reforçarem várias das disposições em discussão. Salienta-se que estes comentários se referem aos projetos apresentados na Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar de ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. Eficiência energética Estamos preocupados com a falta de ambição nos aspetos de eficiência energética. No Ecodesign, o 1º nível proposto define níveis de eficiência que já estão em vigor, o que significa que nenhuma melhoria será realmente implementada até o Nível 2 em 2024. Embora apoiemos a inclusão de um Nível 2, esta proposta é muito pouco ambiciosa. O Nível 2 desvia-se do princípio do menor custo de ciclo de vida da Diretiva de Ecodesign o que não pode ser aceite. O Nível 2 precisa ser estabelecido num nível adequado, correspondendo a pelo menos à classe D do novo rótulo (IEE de 50). Além disso, as classes da etiqueta foram aligeiradas, tornando mais fácil um equipamento sair das classes de menor eficiência, algo lamentável e uma ameaça à longevidade da nova etiqueta. Também, os riscos da escala proposta violam o Regulamento de Rotulagem 2017/1369, que estabelece que a Classe A deve estar vazia e a BAT situada na Classe B. Na realidade, a Classe A pode não estar vazia desde o início, uma vez que as máquinas de lavar loiça com bomba de calor referidas nos indicadores de referência podem já aí estar. Ainda, estamos convictos de que o método de ensaio utilizado para a declaração da etiqueta deve ser o mais representativo possível da utilização na vida real. O cenário correto incluiria testar diferentes programas ou uma combinação de programas e funções, selecionados com base nos hábitos do consumidor, em vez de continuar a usar o programa eco, como proposto. Eficiência de recursos Apoiamos as medidas que abordam a eficiência dos materiais e instamos as instituições europeias a manterem a ambição nesta questão. Alguns requisitos parecem ter sido aligeirados à medida que o processo avança, o que não é aceitável. Propomos as seguintes alterações: - Estender a disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes para um mínimo de 10 anos Apoiamos a inclusão de um período mínimo de disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes, que é fundamental para os objetivos de eficiência dos materiais e de vigilância do mercado. Estas peças devem estar disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto ou por um período mínimo de 10 anos. Além disso, sugerimos que as baterias também entrem na lista de peças sobressalentes agora incluídas no documento, e que apoiamos. - Reduzir o prazo de entrega das peças sobresselentes e reforçar a redação da disposição Apoiamos a existência de requisitos para o tempo máximo de entrega de peças sobresselentes, mas o prazo deve ser mais reduzido que 15 dias úteis, para evitar que esse tempo se torne uma razão para os consumidores substituírem os seus produtos. A redação deve ser reforçada, mencionando que as peças estão disponíveis para retalhistas, reparadores e consumidores. Finalmente, os requisitos de verificação permitem que os fabricantes tenham 3 possibilidades de atender ao requisito de tempo de entrega, além da opção de uma justificação de “força maior”. Na nossa opinião, isto é muito abrangente. - Reintroduzir o acesso sem restrições às informações para reparação e manutenção Estamos dececionados com as barreiras aplicadas para aceder às informações para reparação e manutenção. Apelamos para a reintrodução do “acesso sem restrições dos operadores independentes à informação para reparação e manutenção de eletrodomésticos”. - Ter como objetivo a desmontagem não destrutiva É essencial facilitar o acesso aos principais componentes com o objetivo da desmontagem não destrutiva para fins de reparação, e não só de desmontar para recuperação de material.
Read full response

Response to Review of ecodesign requirements for household dishwashers

11 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar os projetos de regulamentos relativo à conceção ecológica e à rotulagem energética, propostos pela CE, mas instamos as instituições europeias a reforçarem várias das disposições em discussão. Salienta-se que estes comentários se referem aos projetos apresentados na Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar de ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. Eficiência energética Estamos preocupados com a falta de ambição nos aspetos de eficiência energética. No Ecodesign, o 1º nível proposto define níveis de eficiência que já estão em vigor, o que significa que nenhuma melhoria será realmente implementada até o Nível 2 em 2024. Embora apoiemos a inclusão de um Nível 2, esta proposta é muito pouco ambiciosa. O Nível 2 desvia-se do princípio do menor custo de ciclo de vida da Diretiva de Ecodesign o que não pode ser aceite. O Nível 2 precisa ser estabelecido num nível adequado, correspondendo a pelo menos à classe D do novo rótulo (IEE de 50). Além disso, as classes da etiqueta foram aligeiradas, tornando mais fácil um equipamento sair das classes de menor eficiência, algo lamentável e uma ameaça à longevidade da nova etiqueta. Também, os riscos da escala proposta violam o Regulamento de Rotulagem 2017/1369, que estabelece que a Classe A deve estar vazia e a BAT situada na Classe B. Na realidade, a Classe A pode não estar vazia desde o início, uma vez que as máquinas de lavar loiça com bomba de calor referidas nos indicadores de referência podem já aí estar. Ainda, estamos convictos de que o método de ensaio utilizado para a declaração da etiqueta deve ser o mais representativo possível da utilização na vida real. O cenário correto incluiria testar diferentes programas ou uma combinação de programas e funções, selecionados com base nos hábitos do consumidor, em vez de continuar a usar o programa eco, como proposto. Eficiência de recursos Apoiamos as medidas que abordam a eficiência dos materiais e instamos as instituições europeias a manterem a ambição nesta questão. Alguns requisitos parecem ter sido aligeirados à medida que o processo avança, o que não é aceitável. Propomos as seguintes alterações: - Estender a disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes para um mínimo de 10 anos Apoiamos a inclusão de um período mínimo de disponibilidade de peças sobressalentes, que é fundamental para os objetivos de eficiência dos materiais e de vigilância do mercado. Estas peças devem estar disponíveis durante a vida útil média do produto ou por um período mínimo de 10 anos. Além disso, sugerimos que as baterias também entrem na lista de peças sobressalentes agora incluídas no documento, e que apoiamos. - Reduzir o prazo de entrega das peças sobresselentes e reforçar a redação da disposição Apoiamos a existência de requisitos para o tempo máximo de entrega de peças sobresselentes, mas o prazo deve ser mais reduzido que 15 dias úteis, para evitar que esse tempo se torne uma razão para os consumidores substituírem os seus produtos. A redação deve ser reforçada, mencionando que as peças estão disponíveis para retalhistas, reparadores e consumidores. Finalmente, os requisitos de verificação permitem que os fabricantes tenham 3 possibilidades de atender ao requisito de tempo de entrega, além da opção de uma justificação de “força maior”. Na nossa opinião, isto é muito abrangente. - Reintroduzir o acesso sem restrições às informações para reparação e manutenção Estamos dececionados com as barreiras aplicadas para aceder às informações para reparação e manutenção. Apelamos para a reintrodução do “acesso sem restrições dos operadores independentes à informação para reparação e manutenção de eletrodomésticos”. - Ter como objetivo a desmontagem não destrutiva É essencial facilitar o acesso aos principais componentes com o objetivo da desmontagem não destrutiva para fins de reparação, e não só de desmontar para recuperação de material.
Read full response

Response to Review of ecodesign requirements for lighting products

8 Nov 2018

Gostaríamos de apoiar o projeto de regulamento de Ecodesign proposto pela Comissão Europeia e, em particular, a eliminação progressiva das lâmpadas T8, as informações importantes sobre os produtos que serão disponibilizadas na base de dados de produtos da UE e os níveis revistos de verificação de tolerância. Também temos recomendações sobre como melhorar ainda mais a proposta. Note-se que os nossos comentários referem-se aos projetos de Consulta Interserviço e podem precisar ser alterados nas próximas semanas, dependendo da importância das mudanças nas novas versões enviadas à OMC. Recomendações para melhoria da proposta: - Acelerar a implementação de requisitos Não apoiamos a decisão de adiar a entrada em vigor dos regulamentos por um ano, para 2021. As medidas devem entrar em vigor em 2020, como inicialmente proposto no projeto de novembro de 2017. Opomo-nos particularmente ao período de transição de nove meses oferecido para a re-rotulagem dos produtos em lojas até junho de 2022. É muito mais longo do que o necessário e entra em conflito com o Regulamento de Rotulagem Energética 2017/1369 que estabelece que os novos rótulos devem ser exibidos nas lojas até ao final de 2019. - Expandir os limites de cromaticidade que definem a “luz branca” Instamos as instituições europeias a garantir que os limites de cromaticidade da luz que definem o âmbito da cobertura sejam alargados, de modo a não criar o risco de uma lacuna (isto é, produtos colocados no mercado que estão fora dos limites da luz branca, que ainda parece luz branca, mas que escaparia a todos os requisitos). - Definir o fator L em 1,0 em vez de 1,5 Nós alertamos para o “fator de perda final” L ser muito alto para os LEDs na fórmula para os requisitos de eficácia. Não haverá praticamente nenhum impacto nos produtos domésticos nas faixas de baixa e média luminosidade, onde a eficiência pode ser substancialmente melhorada. - Introduzir uma verificação intercalar na nova proposta de testes acelerados de resistência Congratulamo-nos com a nova proposta de teste de vida, que combina ciclos de resistência de comutação com a manutenção dos lumens. Já que acreditamos que alguns dos produtos de baixa qualidade falharão nas primeiras centenas de horas de testes, sugerimos a introdução de uma verificação intermédia durante o teste para garantir que produtos de mais baixa qualidade possam ser identificados e sujeitos a sanções atempadas. - Aumentar a ambição na desmontagem do produto A disposição sobre a possibilidade de remover as fontes de luz e os dispositivos de controlo sem danos mecânicos pelo utilizador final de qualquer produto que os contenha é demasiado fraca: está agora previsto o desmantelamento (não desmontagem) e apenas para fins de fiscalização do mercado. Este é um grande retrocesso e apelamos à reintrodução da proposta inicial, apoiada por vários Estados-Membros em dezembro de 2017.
Read full response

Portuguese NGO ZERO demands stricter EU endocrine disruptor rules

18 Jul 2018
Topic — Establishing a comprehensive European Union framework for managing endocrine-disrupting chemical substances.
Message — ZERO wants endocrine disruptors treated as substances without safe exposure thresholds. They request group-based chemical evaluations to prevent substituting one harmful substance for another.12
Why — These measures would better protect children and vulnerable citizens from toxic chemical exposure.3
Impact — Chemical manufacturers would face higher costs from bans on entire chemical structural groups.4
Read full response

Response to EU implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the area of access to justice in environmental matters

25 May 2018

Amendment of the Aarhus Regulation is the only means available to the EU legislature to bring the EU into compliance with its international law obligations. On 17 March 2017, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) found the EU to be in violation of the Aarhus Convention by failing to provide members of the public with access to the EU courts (CJEU). The findings of the ACCC are unequivocal: The EU fails to comply with the Convention and is recommended to amend the Aarhus Regulation (or adopt new legislation) in the absence of a change in jurisprudence of the CJEU. The lack of agreement on the findings at the last Meeting of the Parties was due to the unprecedented clash provoked by the EU’s attempt to block endorsement of the ACCC’s decision. However, some of the other State parties were strongly opposed to the EU’s argumentation. The decision was therefore postponed. During the meeting, a number of States voiced concern that the EU was seeking to obtain a special status under the Treaty, a status that is justified neither legally nor politically. By now, the EU Member States have also realized the disastrous precedent set and that the EU cannot exempt itself from international law obligations, as demonstrated by the intent of the Council to make an official request based on Article 241 TFEU to the Commission asking them to adopt a legislative proposal. The European Parliament and the EESC have also called upon the Commission to comply with the findings of the ACCC and to revise the Aarhus Regulation. The Commission seems to be the only one hesitating as to the way to bring about compliance. Rather than being “already complete” as stated in the Roadmap, the EU system of remedies suffers from considerable shortcomings. As recognized already in the first ACCC’s findings in 2011, the preliminary reference system under Article 267 TFEU does not meet the requirements of Article 9(3) of the Convention. Over the last years, the CJEU has further consolidated its case law in claims brought by NGOs, thereby clarifying that members of the public have no standing under Article 263 TFEU to challenge acts and omissions of EU institutions that are not addressed directly to them. The Aarhus Regulation is the only remaining avenue for the public but it remains unduly restrictive in its current form. Since the adoption of the Aarhus Regulation in 2006, members of the public have attempted to request the internal review of a range of acts of the EU institutions. However, to this day only 7 out of 35 requests were declared admissible. Almost all of these requests were denied on the basis of the requirement that an ‘administrative act’ must be of “individual scope”, “adopted under environmental law” and “have legally binding and external effects”. The Compliance Committee found that all of these requirements, as well as other aspects of the Regulation, fail to comply with the Convention. The situation is therefore clear: (1) The EU is a party to the Aarhus Convention in its own right; it therefore constitutes an integral part of the EU legal order. (2) The EU is in non-compliance with the Convention and therefore violates international law and primary EU law. (3) Based on one of the fundamental principles of the international legal order (article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties), the EU cannot avoid performing its obligations by invoking its internal law. (4) The only option open to the Commission to remedy this violation of international law is to propose an amendment of the Aarhus Regulation. There is no need to conduct a further assessment of “how access to justice works”. For over 10 years, the Commission has been presented with legal analyses, an abundance of specific case examples and statistics on access to justice. Nonetheless, the Commission has delayed remedying this issue, even contrary to calls by international bodies and its fellow institutions. It is time to amend the Regulation.
Read full response

Response to Towards an EU Product Policy Framework contributing to the Circular Economy

24 May 2018

- ‘Products & services’ are the entry point for material loops: 80% of environmental impacts are determined at design stage and if injecting single use & toxic materials through products we spoil the whole potential for circularity. It is no brainer that products and services need to be better designed for circularity. It’s impossible to make a good recipe with rotten ingredients. - Together with their potential for resources conservation and waste prevention, products placed on the market also have an impact on jobs and the development of our economy. If they are designed to be discarded quickly and replaced by products manufactured in low labour cost countries, this may not benefit the EU economy. In contrary if they are designed for making the best of each input of material they are made of – and most often imported in EU – they trigger opportunities to retain and share their ‘embedded’ value. For example, extending the life time of products through use of durable materials and features (e.g compatibility of software), upgrade or repair certainly create more jobs than recycling, which creates more jobs than disposal (even with energy recovery). The idea is to design products so that the economic and resources savings opportunities are multiplied, thus not going too early to recycling or disposal. - Circular and resources saving products is also a way to increase the control of consumers on what they buy. It should not be dictated how the products we buy and use should be handled. More freedom should be offered to consumers rather than forcing them to buy and bin after use or replace quicker than they wish. - Circularity of products is also a key contribution to a low Carbon economy, as embedded energy and CO2 emissions in products is a significant and still largely untapped potential. Product policy saving on resources use should be developed in parallel to continuous efforts to save on energy and CO2 in order to achieve our climate goals. - Policy action is needed. The EEB has suggested some directions here (link to our paper). The main points are: • An integrated policy approach towards performance in a Circular Economy • Joint preparatory studies and verification systems for different policy instruments • Ecodesign approaches for non-energy related products and services • An EU harmonised and digital Product Information System • Linking supply and demand levers more effectively
Read full response

ZERO demands independent third-party testing for vehicle emissions

2 Apr 2018
Topic — The consultation addresses improving emission legislation and conformity testing for light vehicles.
Message — ZERO demands that the Commission include independent third parties in vehicle emission testing. They propose increasing the frequency of mandatory annual vehicle checks from 5% to 20%. The group also calls for stricter accuracy standards for fuel consumption meters.12
Why — The proposed changes would grant independent organisations the legal authority to verify manufacturer compliance.3
Impact — Automakers would lose the ability to perform repeated tests to meet compliance standards.4
Read full response

ZERO urges stronger EU safety rules for registration of nanomaterials

6 Nov 2017
Topic — The consultation reviews technical requirements for registering nanomaterials under EU chemical safety laws.
Message — The organization demands that all nanoforms should be fully characterised to bridge knowledge gaps. They argue that all testing waivers should require a scientific justification.12
Why — Stricter rules would ensure ECHA has adequate data to assess the safety of nanomaterials.3
Impact — Industry registrants would face increased compliance burdens if tonnage-based data exemptions are removed.4
Read full response

ZERO demands strict deadlines and transparency for vehicle emission tests

29 Nov 2016
Topic — The consultation concerns new methods for measuring real-driving emissions from light passenger vehicles.
Message — ZERO demands that particle emission measurements begin by 2017 without any further delays. They request full public access to manufacturer test data and declared values. The group also wants loopholes regarding engine idling and cold-start emissions closed.123
Why — Achieving these demands would solidify the group's standing as a successful environmental watchdog.4
Impact — Car manufacturers would lose technical flexibility and face higher costs for transparency compliance.5
Read full response

ZERO urges stricter EU criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals

26 Jul 2016
Topic — Establishing scientific criteria to identify substances with endocrine disrupting properties in biocides.
Message — ZERO demands a three-category approach to identify confirmed, suspected, and potential endocrine disruptors. They argue criteria should include substances presumed to have adverse effects.12
Why — Strengthening these criteria would prevent diseases and avoid billions in annual health costs.34
Impact — Chemical producers face higher costs to develop and use better and safer alternatives.5
Read full response

ZERO Urges Stricter EU Criteria for Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

26 Jul 2016
Topic — Defining scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals within EU plant protection regulations.
Message — ZERO demands identifying substances when they are known or presumed to cause harm. They reject replacing "negligible exposure" with "negligible risk" to prevent major loopholes. The group calls for three categories based on the level of evidence.123
Why — This would protect citizens from hormone-related diseases and reduce massive annual health costs.4
Impact — Pesticide manufacturers would lose flexible exemptions and face requirements to phase out harmful materials.56
Read full response