AdvanceETV - eu-etv

Transcription

AdvanceETV - eu-etv

AdvanceETV –
Supporting the European
Environmental Technologies
Verification (ETV) approach
and international cooperation
on ETV
AdvanceETV
www.eu-etv-strategy.eu
A C O O R D I N A T I O N A C T I O N F U N D E D b y t h e 7 t h F ra m e w or k p ro g ra m m e of t h e E uro p ean union
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
E n v i r o n m e n ta l
T e c h n o l o g i e s
V e r i f i c at i o n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
i n t e r n at i o n a l
c o o p e r at i o n
o n
ETV
Table of content
1.
The AdvanceETV Project
4
1.1Objectives
4
1.2 Achievements
4
1.3 Organisations
5
2.
The framework for Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) in Europe
6
3.
The General Verification Protocol (GVP) – the core of the EU ETV Pilot Programme
9
3.1lntroduction
9
3.2
What is the purpose of GVP?
9
3.3
How the document is structured?
9
IMPRINT:
4.
July 2012
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Thomas Track
DECHEMA e.V.
Theodor-Heuss-Allee 25
60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
5.
Editors:
AdvanceETV partners
Complementary benefits of ETV: synergies with EU policies and funding opportunities
14
4.1Background
14
4.2
What is ETV and what not?
14
4.3
Complementarities with some EU programmes
14
4.4
Complementarities with the Industrial Emissions Directive and BREF
15
4.5
Complementarities with Environmental legislation and initiatives
15
International Perspectives on ETV
5.1
The property rights of the content belong to the AdvanceETV consortium. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The authors of the articles are solely responsible for the
contents of this publication. It does not represent the
opinion of the European Commission. The European
Commission is not responsible for any use that might
be made of information out of AdvanceETV.
Readers should verify any information obtained from
this brochure before acting upon it.
The project was funded by the European Union under
the 7th Framework Programme with the contract number 226824.
6.
2
16
Practical International Environmental Technology Verification Cooperation –
networking, co-and joint verification
16
5.1.1
Bilateral cooperation
16
5.1.2
ETV network
17
5.1.3
Co- and joint verification
17
5.1.4
Availability of ETV cooperation forms
19
5.1.5Conclusions
19
5.2
The route towards an internationally accepted framework for ETV
19
5.3
The International Working Group on ETV (IWG-ETV)
22
5.3.1 Canada
22
5.3.2
23
United States (US)
5.3.3Korea
24
5.3.4Japan
25
5.3.5Philippines
26
5.3.6China
26
Appendix: The comprehensive guide for proposers to the EU Environmental
Technologies Verification Pilot Programme
3
27
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
1.The AdvanceETV Project
AdvanceETV (“Coordination action on Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) – Building
a framework for international cooperation”) was a coordination action on Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union between
01/2009 – 07/2012.
1.1Objectives
In order to show how ETV could be used as a supportive tool for other policies, regulations and voluntary
schemes potential complementarities were assessed in
the framework of the project (see chapter 4).
The overall target of AdvanceETV with its 12 partners
from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, USA and Canada was
to bring together the already proposed schemes and
protocols prepared within the previous EU ETV activities
and to link them with outcomes of already existing ETV
systems worldwide.
AdvanceETV has also helped develop a framework for
international mutual recognition on ETV, in particular by
drafting a framework for co-/joint verification at international level tested on real verifications with US, Canada
and EU (see chapter 5.1.3). Several AdvanceETV partners contributed to the work of the IWG-ETV by the
preparation of requirements for an ETV programme laid
down in the documents “ETV Framework and Policy”
and “ETV Procedure”, which are used for the development of a new ISO-ETV standard (see chapter 5.2).
Furthermore AdvanceETV aimed at building an international framework for cooperation and mutual recognition by supporting the cooperation of the European
Commission and the international ETV activities, e.g.
the International Working Group on ETV (IWG-ETV).
In a series of conferences and workshops AdvanceETV
involved various stakeholders (technology providers,
technology purchasers/ users, policy makers) and informed them about the principles of ETV and the current status of ETV in Europe and internationally.
1.2Achievements
To achieve these aims AdvanceETV supported the development of the EU ETV Pilot Programme1 by drafting
the General Verification Protocol (GVP) based on the
analysis of previous ETV related FP6 and LIFE projects
(see chapter 3). The GVP is the main technical reference for the implementation of ETV procedures and coordination at the European level.
More information on AdvanceETV and reports addressing the achievements of the project is available at
www.eu-etv-strategy.eu.
1.3Organisations
DECHEMA e.V. – Society for Chemical Engineering
and Biotechnology (Germany)
www.dechema.de
IVL – Swedish Environmental Research Institute (Sweden)
www.ivl.se
DHI (Denmark)
www.dhigroup.com
IPTS – Institute for Prospective Technology Studies (Spain)
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tecnalia (Spain)
www.tecnalia.com
UK EA – UK Environment Agency (UK)
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
IETU – Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas (Poland)
www.ietu.katowice.pl
Deltares – Stichting Deltares (The Netherlands)
www.deltares.nl
BLOOM– The Bloom Centre for Sustainability (Canada)
www.bloomcentre.com
CEN – European Committee for Standardization (Belgium)
www.cen.eu
Battelle – Battelle Memorial Institute (USA)
www.battelle.org
1 Launched in December 2011 as part of the document “COM(2011) 899 final: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Innovation for a sustainable Future – The Eco-innovation
Action Plan (Eco-AP)”
4
et – Environment and technology (Germany)
www.et-ertel.de
5
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
2.The framework for Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) in Europe
The EU and global markets demand more efficient environmental technologies and solutions as most countries
in Europe and worldwide continue to be challenged by
the need to green their economies and accelerate environmental improvement. At the same time however,
new environmental technologies face difficulties to penetrate the market and be diffused to potential users.
Purchasers, especially in the public sector, tend to opt
for established solutions whose track-record suggests
these technologies will perform according to their specifications. Breaking into the market with innovations can
be a significant problem since innovations by definition
cannot show a successful track-record. Without credible information about innovative technologies, potential purchasers are unsure whether or not to trust the
claims made about their performance. In consequence,
manufacturers and vendors face serious difficulties offering their innovative, potentially excellent technologies
on the market due to an inaccurate assessment of their
risks, benefits and limitations. This in turn creates a disincentive to further technological development, in particular by SMEs.
As a market tool, ETV has the following threefold
objective:
In order to improve the penetration of innovative environmental technologies into the EU and eventually
global markets, in the context of the European Commission together with seven Member States (Belgium,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Poland
and the United Kingdom) launched the EU Environmental Technologies Verification (ETV) Pilot Programme in
December 2011.
The political scene for ETV has been set by the Environmental Technologies Action Plan1 (ETAP). The need for
ETV has been also confirmed in a consultation process
carried out by the Commission. The feasibility for ETV
implementation in Europe was investigated in several
reports developed by the Commission’s Joint Research
Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
»» To help technology manufacturers, especially SMEs,
to market their eco-technologies by providing credible evidence about the performance the technologies, in order to convince purchasers (and investors)
of their merits;
»» To assist technology purchasers (public or private)
to select the performing eco-technologies fitting their
needs, by providing information on which they can
base their purchasing decisions, i.e. an ETV system
widely recognised as scientifically valid and acceptable as evidence in tendering and purchasing procedures;
»» To
facilitate the implementation of public policies
and regulations by providing citizens, regulators and
decision-makers with solid information on the level of
performance achievable by new environmental technologies ready for the market.
The current technological scope of ETV is limited to 3
technology areas: water treatment and monitoring, materials, waste and recycling, energy technologies, and
within each area (e.g. water treatment), to the specific
technology groups (applications) where ETV is most
likely to add value (e.g. drinking water treatment); the
areas will be determined by the Commission, in co-operation with the relevant Member States based on the
following criteria:
The primary goal of this initiative is to provide independent and credible information on new environmental technologies, by verifying that performance claims
put forward by technology developers and vendors are
complete, fair and based on reliable test results. The
confirmed performance claim is presented in a form of
a Statement of Verification which can be used by the
vendor or manufacturer in their marketing efforts and
help building a trustworthy business relationship with
potential customers and investors.
»» The existence or emergence of a significant number
of innovative environmental technologies potentially
suited to ETV;
tained in the course of the verification procedure or
accepted existing data used to confirm the claimed
performance are a credible proof.
»» The demand of technology developers and users, in
»» The fact that the verification procedures are robust,
particular SMEs,
transparent and harmonised accross technollogy areas, the process is carried out by ETV accrediated
verification bodies supervised by dedicated technical working groups in cooperation with the Eurpean
Commission stands for the guarantee of the ETV results and their credibility and veracity.
»» The
availability of protocols, technical standards,
scientific studies or research providing a satisfactory
basis for the verification procedures;
»» The availability of a significant number of testing lab-
»» ETV verification procedures are based on sound sci-
oratories having the necessary capacity and quality
standards to provide accurate and reliable test data;
entific principles which ensures that the verification
results represent a complete and comparable set of
data on the technical performance of the technollogy and its potential environmetal impact and thus
enable making informative decisions and choices.
»» The needs, in terms of technological development or
quality requirements, emerging from EU and international policy developments.
Recognition:
Applying for verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme is voluntary. The role of ETV is to provide an
opportunity for developers and manufacturers especially of innovative environmental technologies to prove
the claimed technical performance and potential environmental impacts of their solutions using scientifically
sound procedures. ETV is not a labeling system: it is
not based on a pre-defined set of criteria. ETV does
not give a pass-or-fail judgment on the performance of
technologies and it does not compare technologies,
but the information given by ETV should enable purchasers and decision-makers to make the comparisons
they think appropriate. ETV will not substitute the actual testing of a new technology, but will make review
test results in order to assess the veracity of a given
performance claim. The value added for the technology
developer or manufacturer will be the backing of the
overall claim provided by the ETV process, facilitating
recognition of the product across the European Union.
»» To verify the technology under the ETV system, the
developer or manufacurer may propose to use exiting test data obtained prior to aplication to support
the claimed performance. If the data review process
confirms that the data has been reliably established
and is of good quality, the ETV process would not
entail repeating the tests already carried out which
saves money and time.
»» Building
a successful business relationship with a
new customer, entering new markets or delivering a
break-through innovation on the market may require
demonstration of the technology performance by expensive on site tests. ETV helps avoiding multiplication of these costly demonstrations and tests on the
same technology by carefully planned and verified
test campaigns. It also shortens the market entrance
pathway and gives the developers or manufacturers
an advantage over their competitors.
The principal features of the EU ETV system are as
follows:
»» The recognition principle of the ETV system in EU
and global market is expressed by the statemet
«verified once, accepted everywhere». It is envisaged
that the EU ETV Pilot Programme will be harmonized
and mutually recognised by similar systems operat-
Credibility:
»» High standard of ETV quality control and manage1 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on ‘Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development:
An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the European Union’, COM(2004) 38 final, 28.1.2004
6
ment procedures ensures that the test results ob-
7
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
3.The General Verification Protocol (GVP) –
the core of the EU ETV Pilot Programme
»» Verification
3.1lntroduction
ing worldwide e.g. in Canada, US, Philipines, Korea,
China. This will be achieved by ensuring opportunities for both co and joint verifications and eventually
a common ETV standard. ETV will thus become and
efficient tool unlocking the marketing potential of an
innovative environmemtal technology by facilitating
its penetration and diffusion into the markets of both
developed and emerging economies.
Bodies providing the overall rules and
principles which they have to follow when performing individual verifications as well as requirements
concerning quality assurance and management
General Verification Protocol (GVP) is the background
document of the EU ETV Pilot Programme. The AdvanceETV report concerning Recommendations on ensuring best practice of European ETV as contribution to
the international mutual recognition development has
become the corner stone for drafting the General Verification Protocol of the EU ETV Pilot Programme by the
European Commission and the ETV Steering Group
who jointly coordinate the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
Flexibility and innovation marketing focus:
»» ETV is particularly advisable where there is no technical standard or certification system available to prove
the performance of the technology concerned, or
where the innovative features are not adequately reflected by the existing standards.
»» The verification procedure enures a flexible approach
to the claimed performance paratemers which are
not predefined but proposed by the developer or
manufacturer. It also accomodates other relevant
information corresponding to the actuall needs of
the technolgy users which is technology and market specific. In this way ETV helps developers and
manufactures provide credible evidence about the
technology which best suits its marketing purpose.
»» Test
bodies and analytical laboratories specifying
the requirements they have to meet in order to be
recognized by the EU ETV system as reliable data
providers
»» Organizations
and decision makers implementing
the EU ETV Pilot programme on the national level
3.2 What is the purpose of GVP?
»» ETV
General verification protocol describes the principles,
the general ETV procedure to be followed when verifying an individual environmental technology and the
main actors of the system including their roles and responsibilities. The document is accompanied by a set
of appendices which include templates of other ETV
documents to be used in individual verifications.
»» Technical
Steering Group and Commission services responsible for program coordination on the EU Level
in view of its harmonization and mutual recognition
with other ETV systems operating elsewhere in the world
Working Groups who will supervise and
guide the performance of the Verification Bodies in
the 3 technology areas of the EU ETV Pilot Programme
Also technology manufacturers or developers are encouraged to consult the GVP to get information on the
general principles and the requirements of the EU ETV
Pilot Programme. Additionally, to help proposers better understand the verification procedures, a comprehensive guide for proposers to the EU ETV Pilot Programme has been developed within AdvanceETV (see
annex). It presents the GVP principles from a practical
perspective and in the scope relevant for a proposer.
Provisions laid down in the GVP ensure that the individual technology verifications ware performed according to procedures which are robust, transparent and
harmonized across technology areas and that the main
outputs of the verification process – Statements of Verification are recognized in the European Union.
The principles and procedures included in the GVP are
considered subject to harmonization and recognition by
other ETV systems operating in the world. They also
constitute the basis for setting up a cooperation framework principles for verification bodies from two or more
different ETV systems undertaking a co or joint verification to ensure that the results of this effort are mutually
recognized.
3.3 How the document is structured?
The GVP consists of the following three sections:
»» Part A: Environmental Technology Verification pilot
programme
»» Part B: Verification procedure
GVP serves as a primary source of reference information for:
»» Part C: Quality management
»» Accreditation organizations – specifying the ETV re-
»» Part D: Supporting documents (Appendices)
lated requirements for the accreditation of Verification bodies which complement the ISO 17020
8
9
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
»» Verification structure entities: directly involved in the
Part A: Environmental Technology Verification
pilot programme
verification process: verification bodies, test bodies,
analytical laboratories and proposers.
This part describes the overall organization of the EU
ETV pilot programme including the objectives, technological scope, management and operation and the legal
framework. It also presents the two following groupings
of the ETV system entities together with a specification
of their roles and responsibilities:
Figure 1 below presents the two groupings of the ETV
entities together with the relations between them. As it
can be seen from the diagram verification bodies play a
role in both structures.
Beside the description of the organizational and management aspects of the EU ETV Pilot Programme and
the verifications, Part A includes also a general overview
of the verification procedure focusing on a stepwise approach and explaining in brief the subsequent phases
of the process as presented in figure 3.
»» EU ETV Pilot Programme structure: entities constituting the organizational framework for the management of the EU ETV Pilot Programme i.e. European
Commission, ETV Steering Group, European co-operation for Accreditation, accreditation bodies, verification bodies, technical working groups, advisory
forum;
Steering Group
(Member States)
Advises
Technical Groups
Accredits,
monitors
a p p r o a c h
a n d
Coordinates,
give guidance
Part A ends up with a specification of the requirements
concerning the use of the ETV logo and the Statement
of Verification and the follow up activities after the verification which are related to proposer’s feedback on the
CONTACT PHASE
Proposer contacts a Verification Body,
information exchange, eligibility check
SPECIFIC PROTOCOL PREPARATION PHASE
Verification Body reviews claim,
defines performance parameters for verification,
assesses available data and decides whether
further tests are needed, drafts specific protocol,
Contractual agreement completed
When further tests are needed
testing PHASE
Elaboration of test plan
Implementation of tests by test
bodies and analytical laboratories.
Developmenz of test report
Advises
Advisory Forum: Technology purchasers
Verification Bodies (VBs)
and users, other stakeholders
ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION PHASE
Final review of data and verification procedures
Drafting of verification report by Verification Body
Verification
procedure
If additional
tests needed
o n
PUBLICATION PHASE
Statement of Verification issued by Verification
Body, registered and published by the Commission
on the official ETV web site
Testing Bodys a/o
Analytical
Laboratories
Figure 1: The two groupings of ETV entities under the EU
ETV Pilot Programme
10
ETV
ETV usefulness, addressing the complaints which may
arise in relation to the verification procedure and outreach activities.
The phases and individual steps therein are described
in details in Part B.
Verification Structure
Technology
Manufacturer =
Proposer
European
Commission
Consult, informs
Accreditation Bodies
( ETV )
PROPOSAL PHASE
Proposer provides all relevant information, including
available test results and an initial performance claim
Contractual agreement
ETV Pilot Programme Structure
European cooperation
for Accreditation
Figure 2 : Overview of the verification process under the EU ETV Pilot Programme
11
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
Part B: Verification Procedure
»» testing including test plan development,
Part B is of an executive character and presents the operational details of the individual phases and the steps
within of the verification procedure:
»» requirements concerning the testing site selection,
drafting the test plan and development of a test report
»» assessment of all data, final verification of the claimed
»» entry into programme,
data and development of the key ETV outputs: verification report and Statement of Verification,
»» eligibility check of a candidate technology,
»» publication and use of the ETV outputs and the logo.
»» development of the proposal for verification,
»» key aspects of the contractual arrangements associ-
Part C: Quality management
ated with the verification procedure,
The aim of part C is to specify the requirements concerning quality assurance, control and management for
both verification activities and ETV entities performing
them under the EU ETV Pilot Programme so as to guarantee the credibility and veracity of the ETV results.
»» development of the specific verification protocol including revision of claim, requirements concerning
the test design, data quality, testing, measurements
and calculation
»» assessment
These refer in particular to the quality management system requirements which the entities involved in verifica-
of existing data and decision on the
need to perform additional tests,
Verification
body
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
Accreditation
body
Results
In addition to that, GVP lies down also the accreditation requirements of the EU ETV Pilot Programme of
the entities:
»» Verification
Appendices 3 and 4 present a flowsheet of the verification activities from the perspective of the proposer
and the verification entities. Appendix 5 consists of a
selection of templates to be used by verification entities
for drafting key documents of the ETV procedure i.e.
quick scan form, contract for verification, specific verification protocol, test plan, test report, verification report
and statement of verification. It also includes a table to
help define performance parameters relevant from the
life cycle assessment viewpoint. Appendix 6 aims at
explaining that an individual verification procedure is a
dynamic process. It illustrates an evolution pathway of
the initial performance claim presented by the proposer
to the final performance verified in the process with an
explanation of the different factors which may influence
the modification of the claim at the individual stages of
the procedure. Appendix 7 presents in details the quality management documentation requirements for the
test bodies to ensure that they are a credible and reliable data provider.
Bodies must be accredited under ISO
17020 to applying this GVP
»» analytical laboratories must be accredited according
to ISO 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories) for the
relevant methods of analysis
Figure 3 presents the overall system of quality control
and assurance of the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
Quality assurance
and control
Results
Analytical
laboratory
Assessment
Figure 3: Overview of the quality control and assurance system of the EU ETV Pilot Programme
12
ETV
Part D consists of 7 appendices which include documents supporting the implementation of the GVP for
individual verifications by the process entities. Appendix
1 includes a glossary of terms and definitions used in
the EU ETV Pilot Programme. Appendix 2 presents in
details the technology scope (technology areas broken
down to technology groups/applications) of the EU ETV
Pilot Programme.
Test body
Assessment
o n
Part D: Supporting documents (Appendices)
tion (Verification Body, test body and analytical laboratory) must have implemented. ETV Pilot Programme requires that this system must meet the principles of ISO
9001 (Quality management systems – Requirements) or
an equivalent standard and conforming to the requirements of GVP.
Part C includes also a description of procedures which
are to be followed by the individual entities in order to
ensure the quality management and control within the
scope of activities for which they are responsible in the
verification process with an overarching role of the verification body who takes the guarantee for the overall
quality assurance of the entire verification procedure.
Assessment, quality
assurance and control
13
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
4.Complementary benefits of ETV: synergies with
EU policies and funding opportunities
4.2 What is ETV and what not?
With the aim to improve implementation of innovative
environmental technologies and thus improving the environment, Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
has clear links to EU policies and might be useful to
support different directives. There are also EU funding
programmes, where ETV can be useful and which can
be used to support financing of verifications. For technology purchasers, it is interesting to see, if a verified
technology can be accepted by authorities. AdvanceETV assessed where ETV could serve as a supportive tool.
In order to assess potential complementarities of ETV
schemes with other policies, regulations and voluntary
schemes, it is necessary to extend this definition of ETV:
»» ETV is a mechanism that would help manufactures
to market innovative environmental technology. So, it
would be easier to assess the environmental performance of a technology, as it is verified with a sound
scientific basis.
»» ETV is a scheme addressing innovative technologies
4.1Background
with an environmental profile better than standard,
not only best environmental performing technologies. The highest level of environmental protection
may thus not be a consequence of using verified
technologies. Nevertheless, better environmental
protection is an indirect consequence, through the
informed choice of technology purchasers.
To better use the potential for new and innovative environmental technologies, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) was implemented by EU in
2004. Among the different priorities of ETAP, the need
of performance verification of innovative technologies
was identified as a mechanism to drive innovation from
research to the market. In December 2011 the European Commission officially launched the EU Environmentally Technology Verification (ETV) Pilot Programme
as part of the new Eco-Innovation Action Plan (EcoAP),
which is a follow-up to ETAP, expanding the focus of
ETAP from green technologies to all aspects of ecoinnovation.
»» ETV is a source of scientific reliable information for
purchasers and may increase the available knowledge for new technologies and may be particularly
relevant where verification is needed to justify the acquisition and use of innovative technologies.
»» ETV is not a certification scheme like product certi-
The EU ETV pilot programme aims to provide reliable
information on the performance of a technology to environmental technologies purchasers.
fication, but provides independently proven data for
decision making support, including e.g. public procurement.
»» ETV
One of the pillars of this EU ETV pilot programme is to
provide better access to the market for innovative technologies; another is to support environmental policies.
There are possible links to European instruments and
existing verification mechanisms of environmental regulation and directives. The Industrial Emissions Directive
(IED) is interesting as it provides a connection to the
Best Reference (BREF) documents, where best available technologies in different sectors are mentioned.
Emission limit values have to be based on best available technologies.
intends to cover main environmental impacts
with a life cycle perspective as far as relevant.
As the BREF documents provide information about
best available technology, it is desirable to link ETV
to this process, in order to allow a fast access to the
BREF for verified technologies that qualify. The current
BAT process though provides only limited possibilities.
An option is to integrate ETV results into the chapter of
emerging technologies in the BREF documents, which
would provide technology suppliers a possibility to refer
to the chapter.
The LIFE+ (Environment) programme supports innovation and demonstration of environmental technologies. As monitoring and evaluation of the demonstrated
technologies are integrated parts, verification according
to an ETV scheme fits well into a LIFE+ project. There
are also currently plans to continue LIFE+ after 2013,
which might open for possibilities in this funding programme also from 2014.
Some calls in the 7th Framework Program can benefit
of the usage of ETV in the projects. In several calls new
technologies are to be developed or demonstrated.
Elements of verification could be part of such a project, e.g. to perform the testing according to the ETV
scheme. There might also be possibilities for integration
of ETV in the programme following the 7th Framework
Program, Horizon, with its focus on innovations. Further
possibilities for funding might exist, also in different national schemes.
4.5 Complementarities with Environmental
legislation and initiatives
ETV is only one of the different instruments existing. In
cases where ETV can act as a complementary tool to
environmental policies, including legislative or voluntary
schemes, this might be beneficial for the schemes as
well as ETV. Environmental regulations (e.g. EMAS and
Ecolabel) directives (e.g. Ecodesign) and policy instruments (e.g. green public procurement) have regulated
verification protocols, which may be complemented by
EU ETV pilot programme. Further possible interaction
with other policy instruments might exist as well.
4.4 Complementarities with the Industrial
Emissions Directive and BREF
The IED is the successor of the IPPC Directive. It is
about minimising pollution from various industrial sources throughout the European Union. Operators of industrial installations operating activities covered by Annex
I of the IED are required to obtain an integrated permit from the authorities in the EU countries. The permit
conditions including emission limit values (ELVs) must
be based on the Best Available Techniques (BAT). There
is a specific process to determine BAT, which results in
BAT Reference Documents (the so-called BREFs).
ETV is mentioned as one possible measure to improve
confidence in new environmental technology in the Eco
Innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP, COM (2011) 899 final).
The action plan also mentions other instruments to support eco-innovation, of which some of them can benefit
of ETV.
4.3 Complementarities with some
EU programmes
As the objective of ETV is to support implementation
of new environmental technology solutions, it is relevant to look at possible complementarities with EU
programmes, especially funding schemes that at least
partly support the same aim.
14
15
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
5.International Perspectives on ETV
Technological Development has as one of the objectives to support this process. Pursuing this objective,
AdvanceETV has been involved in a range of practical
activities supporting international ETV cooperation.
Whereas environmental technology verification (ETV)
originates from national programmes initiated as by
governments in support of environmental legislation
and sustainable development, the trend is now towards
serving also the environmental technology industry and
the technology users in bringing new technologies in
operation. For the technology industry, the usefulness
of ETV depends upon the results being recognized as
valid in as many countries and regions as possible, for
technology user the main interest is to have access to
as many credible and comparable verifications as possible for their purpose. This development requires ETV
to develop from national programmes to become as
global as possible, without losing credibility. The European research programme AdvanceETV under the 7th
European Framework Programme for Research and
1
National and
regional verification
programmes
2
Duplicate
verification
Cooperating ETV
programmes –
trust building phase
5.1 Practical International Environmental
Technology Verification Cooperation –
networking, co-and joint verification
On the route from national and regional environmental
technology verification (ETV) programmes towards an
international ETV framework, see Figure 4, practical cooperation between the ETV programmes and operators
is important to enhance trust and understanding.
3
Joint verification
Cooperating ETV
programmes –
trust phase
Co- verification
4
International ETV
framework
Mutual
recognition
Figure 4: From national and regional to global ETV
»» Agenda
other ETV programmes in meetings and discussions,
e.g. the precursor of DANETV visiting ETV Canada,
and DANETV participating in an ETV Philippines
event
– Mutual information on on-going verifications
– Exchange of data of technology candidates for cooperation
–Conveying of contact information between technology owner and ETV operator on cooperation
candidates
–Information on preparation of generic verification
protocols and other tools of mutual interest and
status of the ETV programmes
»» Specific cooperation projects, e.g. ETV Philippines
and DANETV proposing to ASEAN to develop a
model for cooperation between ETV programmes
in industrialised and developing countries, and
DANETV preparing cooperation models for use in
co- and joint verification with China, Japan, Korea
and the Philippines
The benefits for technology owners would be that coor joint verification would be offered where relevant. For
both technology owners and users, a benefit would that
the technology operators delivering verifications would
be working according to the latest protocols and in accordance with best practice in a global perspective. For
the ETV operators, the benefit is access to the latest
protocols and best practice for ETV, as well as access
to knowledge on candidates for co- and joint verification cooperation.
In essence, all the currently established ETV programmes from Denmark, US, Canada, China, Japan,
Korea and the Philippines have been involved in and
have prioritised participation in one or more forms cooperation.
For the technology industry, the primary benefits of
the bilateral cooperation is, that operators from one
ETV programme can, if involved in these cooperations,
provide the industry with knowledge or status of ETV
in other countries and regions, as well as being entry
points for verifications under other programmes. For the
technology user, the bilateral cooperation can provide
access to latest information on verifications in progress
globally.
5.1.3 Co- and joint verification
In order to support corporation on delivering verifications recognized by two or more ETV programmes, a
set of “roadmaps” for co- and joint verification has been
developed. The roadmaps are consensus documents
prepared in cooperation between a broad range of ETV
stakeholders, Table 1, although it should be noted that
5.1.2 ETV network
5.1.1 Bilateral cooperation
precursor of DANETV, learning from the US ETV and
ETV Canada programmes through meetings and visits
Practical bilateral ETV cooperation, besides co- and
joint verification, between the ETV programmes has until now mainly had the form of exchange of knowledge
on organisation and methods of work, verification protocol exchange, specific cooperation projects and participation in/joint organisation of meetings, conferences
etc. Examples of bilateral cooperation experiences between ETV programmes and operators are:
»» Dissemination
of verification protocols and reports
and the inherent methodologies, e.g. the US ETV
publication on the web
»» Verification cooperation, e.g. co- and joint verifications performed by DANETV, the US and the Canadian ETV programmes, and translation/transfer of
verifications from Japan to the Philippines
»» Exchange
of information on organization and operation of ETV programmes, e.g. NOWATECH, the
»» Enhancing
16
In order to enhance cooperation between the ETV operators of the world and complementary to the International Working Group (IWG) ETV forum for ETV programme owners, a virtual ETV operator network has
been suggested. The final form of the virtual network is
not yet finally found, but currently, ETV operators are invited to register their interest with the Head of DANETV,
Mette Tjener Andersson, [email protected]. One possible form is:
»» Monthly virtual meeting based upon Skype or WebEx.
Joint verification of HACH-LANGE ECLOX Handheld
Luminometer (Photo: DHI)
ETV interests through participation of
17
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
ETV programmes
ETV operators
Other organisations
EU ETV pilot programme
DHI (Denmark)
European Committee for
Standardization
DANETV (Denmark)
IVL (Sweden)
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (EU)
US EPA ETV
Tecnalia (Spain)
Environment Agency (United Kingdom)
Canadian ETV program
Battelle (US)
HACH-LANGE (Germany)
ETV Korea
OCETA (ETV Canada)
DECHEMA (Germany)
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
Type of collaborative
verification
Involved ETV programmes
Sorbisense
Measurement of volatile organic
contaminants in groundwater
Joint verification
NOWATECH, US EPA ETV
HACH-LANGE
Toxicity testing of effluent wastewater
Joint verification
DANETV, US EPA ETV, ETV
Canada
Colifast
Automatic detection of total coliform
bacteria or Escherichia coli in drinking
water
Co-verification
DANETV, US EPA ETV, ETV
Canada
ETV Philippines
Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas (Poland)
Table 2: Completed co- and joint verifications
et environment and technology (Germany)
The benefits of co- and joint verification for the technology owner is enabling obtaining verification statements
that are recognized under more than one verification
programme, i.e. in broader markets thus minimizing the
ETV costs when aiming at more markets. For the technology user, the benefit is to gain access to verifications
done under programmes the user may not be familiar
with, while still having the benefit of a familiar verification
programme vouching for the quality and validity.
fication where two or more programmes actively participate throughout the entire verification process. In
co-verification, two or more verification organisations
cooperate to determine at the outset of the verification
process the acceptability of the parameters to be verified and the plan for verification; and upon completion
of the ETV procedure, the acceptability of the verification process and results against what was agreed upon
at the outset, and whether or not to issue a verification
statement.
Joint verification, Figure 5, is where a technology,
product, or process undergoes a single verification process carried out collaboratively by two or more verification programmes using mutually recognized verification
procedures, processes, and quality management systems. The outcome is a verification that satisfies the
requirements of the respective programmes.
In the roadmaps, detailed guidance is given on optional
and required steps and operations of co- and joint verification.
The intent of co-verification, Figure 6, is for a technology owner to obtain equivalent verification statements
from two or more ETV programmes based upon the
verification results obtained by a single verification organisation. This approach is different from a joint veri-
Program 1
A number of verifications have been completed, already.
Program 2
Program 1
5.1.5Conclusions
In summary, ETV is expanding globally, initiatives for
bilateral, regional and global cooperation are expanding, and tools and methods are being developed and
Program 2
Test activities
Co- and joint
Verification activities
Bilateral
cooperation
Figure 5: Illustration joint verification
Figure 6: Illustration co-verification
18
If there is one phrase which has characterised a crucial aim of the AdvanceETV project, it is Verified Once,
Accepted Everywhere. In simple terms, for a vendor of
an environmental technology, this means global acceptance for an environmental technology once it has been
tested and verified once, and once only. The opposite
would mean that a vendor would need to have the tech
nology tested and verified at least twice depending on
the countries for their target markets, and possibly several times. This situation happens when there is a lack
At present most ETV programmes are open for a variety
of cooperation forms, Table 3, refer to sections above
for details on the cooperation forms.
Test activities
Verification statement
Opportunities for cross-border verifications do exist –
seize them to expand your markets.
5.1.4 Availability of ETV cooperation forms
Plan
shared to an increasing extent. While waiting for the
ETV ISO standard, the challenge is to expand cooperation and NOT to end up with: verified everywhere to be
accepted globally.
5.2 The route towards an internationally
accepted framework for ETV
Plan
ETV
Application
Deltares (Netherlands)
the contributing organisations have not with their contributions endorsed the roadmaps in any way.
o n
Vendor
ETV Japan
Table 1: Contributors to the roadmaps for co- and joint verification
EU
USA
Canada
China
Korea
Japan
Philipines
Networking
Table 3:Cooperation forms available with selected ETV programmes (green: available, yellow: potentially available,
grey: not available)
19
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
elements of a framework, the organisational structures,
supporting standards, and procedures. The combined
group then developed a QA strategy and framework for
ETV, suggesting the framework for consideration by the
IWG-ETV. This proposed framework and strategy was
proposed in a document called Strategic Options for
Quality Management and Mutual Recognition of ETV.
of harmonisation between ETV programmes in different
countries; when there is no harmonisation, there is usually no mutual recognition. Therefore one objective of
the AdvanceETV project was to provide the means for
harmonisation – and hence mutual recognition – by developing a standard framework and procedure for ETV.
This work was carried out by Work Package (WP4) 4
of AdvanceETV, together with the International Working
Group for ETV (IWG-ETV). By the end of the AdvanceETV project, the group achieved this, and had produced both a framework and ETV procedure, which are
now being progressed to become international standards.
The proposed framework described four levels of organisation (Figure 7), including all the stakeholders
with an interest in the operation of ETV schemes, e.g.
verification bodies, test bodies, analytical laboratories,
accreditation bodies, standards organisations, and the
bodies providing governance. The QA requirements included the application of management systems, certification standards and accreditation, which would be applied depending on the level of the organisational structure. The IWG-ETV approved the proposed framework
and strategy, so WP4 began work on two documents,
working closely with the QA group of the IWG-ETV, and
the other work packages of AdvanceETV.
AdvanceETV consisted of several Work Packages
(WPs); amongst these, the main task of WP4 was to
determine how standards can support ETV and the
global aim of mutual recognition. So the team within
WP4 began by determining the needs of ETV schemes,
and then assessed which existing standards could
support ETV. The types of standards included those
for testing, analysis, quality assurance, management
systems, accreditation and performance-standards for
specific types of environmental technology.
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
In summary, if a country’s ETV scheme meets the requirements of the ETV Framework and Policy, and ETV
International coordination
»» An ETV Framework and Policy: This is a descriptive, policy document which describes how ETV programmes work at all the organisational levels.
»» An ETV Procedure: This describes the processes of
verification, and provides a harmonised framework
for mutual recognition.
During this time, other WPs of AdvanceETV were also
developing a policy and framework document for ETV
schemes in the European Union (EU), and the GVP. As
these two documents were developing in parallel to the
documents produced by WP4 and the IWG-ETV QA
group, it was essential to ensure that the ETV Framework and Policy, and ETV Procedure were aligned to
both the EU’s requirements, and the wider, international
requirements of the ETV schemes outside Europe.
At the same time, the IWG-ETV had set up a working
group to determine the necessary Quality Assurance
(QA) aspects of ETV. This group was given the task of
identifying the necessary functions of an international ETV
framework, also with mutual recognition in mind; therefore it was beneficial for the IWG-ETV and AdvanceETV
to work together, considering their mutual aim of mutual recognition. This in turn would mean identifying the
The ETV Framework and Policy describes the organisational structure developed by the IWG-ETV QA Group,
the roles and responsibilities of the organisations within
it, and in simple terms, the QA requirements. The ETV
20
ETV
Procedure, then the verification reports should be accepted internationally. In order to strengthen both the
ETV Framework and Policy, and ETV Procedure, the
IWG and AdvanceETV are now working together to
progress these documents to become international
standards through the International Standards Organisation, ISO. The aim is to develop one ISO standard
based on the two documents from WP5. If this project
is successful, then AdvanceETV will have produced an
important foundation for mutual recognition, and fulfil
the aim Verified Once, Accepted Everywhere.
Procedure then goes into more detail, describing the
process of verification, together with more details on
the QA requirements for the organisations which perform testing, analysis and verifications. These QA requirements include the requirements for management
systems and accreditation where appropriate. As the
ETV Procedure was aligned to the needs of the EU as
well as the wider ETV community, then AdvanceETV’s
GVP can be considered as an application of the ETV
Framework and Policy, and ETV Procedure.
The two WP4 documents were:
Then the team determined what gaps there were in
the available standards, and determined what types
of standards would be needed to serve as a basis for
harmonised approaches and mutual recognition. Ultimately, one aim was to have an international standard
or standards which would serve as a structure for harmonised ETV schemes. During this work programme,
the members of WP4 worked closely with the other
WPs of AdvanceETV, in order to ensure that the results
of WP4 were aligned to the work and other outputs of
the project, notably the General Verification Protocol
(GVP), which now serves as the foundation for the EU’s
ETV pilot-programme.
o n
Standardization
organisations
Methods for testing, analysis
and verification
International accreditation organisations
Accredation according methods for
verification test and/or analysis
Figure 7: Four-level framework for ETV programmes
21
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
5.3 The International Working Group
on ETV (IWG-ETV)
direction on ETV Program priorities, as well as linkages
with other federal departments, agencies, other levels
of government and international collaborative mechanisms such as the International Working Group on ETV
(IWG-ETV).
“The International Working Group on ETV (IWG-ETV)
was established in May 2008. It is working towards
international recognition to ensure that a technology
verified in one member programme will be accepted as
verified in other member programmes. At present Canada, Korea, the Philippines and the EU are members of
the IWG-ETV, while the USA, Japan and China belong
to the group of observers.”
An independent non-government delivery agent manages the market delivery and technical aspects of the
Canadian ETV program on behalf of Environment Cana
da. This includes the recruitment and management of a
network of qualified independent testing organizations
and technical experts with the skills needed to conduct
testing and verification using scientific and statistically
valid test methods and verification protocols.
5.3.1Canada
The Canadian ETV Program functions at two levels:
(1)Vendor-Driven – This involves verification of environmental performance claims put forward by technology vendors. In the case where the technology
vendor already has quality-assured technology performance data from an independent testing laboratory, the vendor is required to submit a preliminary
performance claim, based on relevant parameters
and a range of performance, as deemed acceptable by Canadian ETV Program.
Established by Environment Canada in 1997, the Canadian Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, provides an independent process for evaluating
and verifying the environmental performance claims of
innovative environmental technologies, systems,, processes and products. The Program offers a flexible
mechanism for obtaining quality-assured information on
the environmental performance of technologies using
scientifically sound and reliable techniques. Important
features of the Program are transparency, credibility and
accountability.
(2)User-Driven – In the case where quality-assured
performance data are not already available, Canadian ETV Program delivery agent, in conjunction
with affected stakeholders, defines the principal
performance parameters prior to testing, taking
into account the information needs of technology
users, buyers, regulators, and other parties.
Environment Canada is the federal department mandated to “preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including water, air, soil, flora and fauna; conserve Canada’s renewable resources; conserve
and protect Canada’s water resources…”. The Department’s commitment to innovative solutions in addressing environmental challenges is reflected in its programs
and initiatives, including the Canadian ETV Program.
Environment Canada is the owner of the Canadian ETV
Program which includes related trade marks such as
the ETV Logo and the quality assurance and management system as directed through the Canadian General
Verification Protocol which includes elements of appropriate accreditation, testing requirements and third party participation. Environment Canada provides strategic
Canadian technology areas:
»» Air Pollution Control
»» Water Treatment
»» Wastewater Treatment
»» Waste Management
»» Remediation
»» Energy Efficiency
»» Environmental Monitoring
Homepage: www.etvcanada.ca
22
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
5.3.2 United States (US)
o n
ETV
Moving forward, US EPA has notified its cooperators
that it will not continue agreements that expire in 2012
and 2013. As a result, international ETV participation
is limited. The future of ETV type activities beyond the
agreements that expire is currently under discussion at
US EPA as of the writing of this document.
The US EPA ETV Program develops test protocols
and verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the potential to improve protection of
human health and the environment. The program was
created in 1995 to help accelerate the entrance of new
environmental technologies into the domestic and international marketplaces. The US ETV is a voluntary
program that makes objective performance information
available to support decision-making. US ETV verification establishes or proves the truth of the performance
of a technology under specific, pre-determined criteria
or protocols and a strong quality management system.
US ETV does not endorse, certify, or approve technologies. Verification reports and statements are published
on the US EPA ETV Web site.
US ETV operates as a public-private partnership, mainly
through cooperative agreements between US EPA and
private nonprofit testing and evaluation organizations.
These US ETV verification organizations work with EPA
technology experts to create efficient and quality-assured testing procedures that verify the performance of
innovative technologies. US ETV efforts are guided by
the expertise of stakeholder groups. These stakeholders represent verification customers for particular technology sectors, including technology purchasers and
users, technology developers and vendors, the financial
community, state and federal regulators and permitters,
consulting engineers, environmental organizations, and
others. US ETV stakeholders assist the program by
helping to develop verification protocols for testing, prioritizing the types of technologies to be verified, and implementing outreach activities to the customer groups
they represent. Since the inception of US ETV Program
in 1995, over 460 technologies have been tested,
greater than 100 protocols have been completed, and
there are more than 500 active stakeholders in technical panels.
US technology areas:
»» Advanced Monitoring Systems
»» Air Pollution Control Technology
»» Drinking Water Systems
»» Greenhouse Gas Technology
»» Materials Management and Remediation
»» Water Quality Protection
Homepage: www.epa.gov/etv
23
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
5.3.3Korea
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
5.3.4Japan
The Korean ETV programme was initiated in 1997
called NET (New Excellent Technology) and the programme owner is the Ministry of Environment. Korea
Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) is
operating as verification and test body.
The Japanese ETV programme was initiated in 2003. It
is operated under the Ministry of the Environment, the
programme owner.
Today, a Korean verification is performed in two steps.
First, a NET, where a report from the vendor regarding the product performance including test results and
detailed technology description is evaluated by the
verification body. This evaluation can include on-site inspection of the technology. The vendor claims the performance of his technology, these claims are evaluated
and if found necessary supplemented with additional
performance requirements by the verification body. The
result of the NET evaluation is pass or failure evaluation
based on these combined requirements. If the technology passes the NET evaluation, an ETV can be performed. The ETV includes then performance of on-site
tests. The test will be performed by a test body or directly by the verification body. An evaluation of the test
results is performed and again, this is pass or failure
against the combined set of performance claims and
requirements. The Korean programme is the only one
ETV programme globally using a pass and failure approach.
It is operated by 8 verification bodies and a verification
management body under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment
has prepared Environmental Technology Verification
Programme Implementation Guidelines for all technology areas. Now, 8 technology areas under the Japanese ETV programme are performed. New technology
areas are supported with funding during a start-up period. During the financial years 2010 and 2011, 71 and
49 verifications were performed, respectively, under
the Japanese ETV programme. The main part of the
verification was performed in the technology area Heatisland mitigation technologies, representing 58 and 36
verifications, respectively.
Japanese technology areas:
»» Treatment technologies for night soil
generated in nature areas
»» Organic wastewater treatment for small-scale
generators
»» Technologies for improving water quality of
lakes and reservoirs
Korean technology areas:
»» All environmental technology areas
From 1997 to 2011, 143 ETV and 240 NET certificates
were issued under the Korean ETV programme.
So far the Korean ETV programme is only open for technologies produced or adapted and implemented in Korea, and there is public subsidy for parts of verification
expenses for SMEs. In public tenders, it is allowed to
give technologies having NETs and ETVs advantages.
»» Water environment improvement technologies
The Ministry of the Environment now is restructuring
the Japanese ETV programme to optimise the operation of the programme and to make it more inviting for
vendors.
in enclosed coastal seas
»» Heat-island mitigation technologies to reduce
air conditioning and other loads by using
building envelope systems
»» Simplified VOC measurement technology
»» Heat-island mitigation technologies (heat
pump air conditioning systems using
underground heat or wastewater)
»» Global warming mitigation technologies
(energy reduction for lighting (e.g. reflector
panel))
Japan is an observer in the International Working Group
on ETV.
Homepage:
www.koetv.or.kr/engpage.do?mode=engguid
The Korean ETV programme became active member of
the International Working Group on ETV in 2011.
24
Homepage: www.env.go.jp/policy/etv
25
A d va n c e E T V
–
S u p p o r t i n g
t h e
E u r o p e a n
( ETV )
a p p r o a c h
a n d
o n
ETV
6.Appendix: The comprehensive guide for proposers
to the EU Environmental Technologies Verification
Pilot Programme
5.3.5Philippines
5.3.6China
The Philippine ETV programme was initiated in 2006.
The programme owner is the Department of Science
and Technology (DOST), which also operates as verification body, as well as test body. The Philippine ETV
programme operates under broad definitions of the
technology areas covered.
The Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection has
in 2007 initiated preparation of a Chinese ETV programme. The developer of the programme is the Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences (CSES). The
Chinese have sought information for their programme
from the existing programmes in e.g. EU, Japan, Philippines and Canada. Their programme will be relatively
similar the EU ETV pilot programme.
The Philippine ETV programme performs verifications
based on existing test data provided by the proposer
or if no data are available, they prepare a test plan and
preform relevant testing. The proposer pays verification
fee and for performing of tests and analyses.
The China has launched its pilot programme in 2012.
CSES will be responsible for work of promote this programme. In the pilot beginning phase CSES operate as
verification body and At the moment selected test bodies are performing 4 case ETVs.
During the recent years more than 10 verifications
were performed per year, under the Philippine ETV programme.
China is observer in the International Working Group on
ETV.
Philippine technology areas:
and expertise gathered from these projects serves
as a reliable source to draft and share such hints and
recommendations.
The aim of this appendix is to provide the proposer
with some guidance on how to smoothly go through a
verification process under the EU ETV Pilot Programme
explaining each step of the procedure, the roles and responsibilities of the proposer associated with it together
with some practical hints and recommendations.
»» Secondly, the AdvanceETV project delivered a report
D1.3 Recommendations on ensuring best practice
of European ETV as contribution to the international
mutual recognition development which has eventually become the corner stone for drafting the General
Verification Protocol of the EU ETV Pilot Programme
(see chapter “Complementary benefits of ETV: synergies with EU policies and funding opportunities” of
this brochure). Knowledge gained in the development
of this document ensures that the guide for proposers, upon final revision of the Commission services,
may become a useful document for the proposers
developed in line with the provisions of the GVP.
The comprehensive guide for proposers to the EU ETV
Pilot programme was developed due to the following
reasons:
»» Firstly,
the Final AdvanceETV Conference together
with the workshops clearly indicated a need from potential proposers to draft a guide that will help them
better understand the ETV procedure and assist in
them at the individual stages of the procedure. Especially the need to translate the provisions of the General Verification Protocol (GVP) into practical examples was requested. The proposers also recognized
the need to provide some recommendations and
hints on “things to do and not to do” during the verification procedure. Since the scope of AdvanceETV
was to coordinate all the efforts related to building
an EU ETV system benefiting also from previous EU
projects dedicated to that purpose, the knowledge
»» Thirdly,
efforts undertaken within the AdvanceETV
project towards harmonization and mutual recognition of the ETV systems allow putting the roles and
responsibilities of an EU ETV Programme Pilot proposer already into a context which will help recognize
the verification results on the global level.
Chinese technology areas:
»» Use of technology in pollution control and
»» Water Treatment Technology
»» Air Pollution Control Technology
»» New Material and New Equipment
»» New non-standard Environmental Monitoring
abatement
»» Best environmental technology
»» Use of technology in treatment, storage and
disposal of wastes
»» Cleaner production technology
Technology
Homepage: http://etvphilippines.ph
Homepage: www.chinacses.org
26
27
A Comprehensive Guide
for Proposers to the
EU Environmental
Technologies Verification
Pilot Programme
AdvanceETV
A
C o m p r e h e n s i v e
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
t h e
EU
E n v i r o n m e n t a l
V e r i f i ca t i o n
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
Foreword: EU ETV Pilot Programme
Table of content
Breaking into the market with innovations can be a significant challenge since innovations by definition
cannot show a successful track-record. Without credible information about innovative technologies,
potential purchasers are unsure whether or not to trust the claims made about the performance. In
consequence, manufacturers and vendors face serious difficulties offering their innovative, potentially
excellent technologies on the market due to an inaccurate assessment of their risks, benefits and limitations. This in turn creates a disincentive to further technological development, in particular by SMEs.
Introduction to the guide
4
1.
Is EU ETV the right programme for your technology?
5
1.1 Who may apply?
5
1.2 Which technologies are verification candidates?
5
1.3
When is your technology ready for verification under
the EU ETV Pilot Programme?
7
Where to apply?
8
In order to improve the penetration of innovative environmental technologies into the EU and eventually global markets, the European Commission together with the Member States launched the EU
Environmental Technologies Verification pilot programme (ETV) in December 2011. The primary goal of
this initiative is to provide independent and credible information on new environmental technologies, by
verifying that performance claims put forward by technology developers and vendors are complete, fair
and based on reliable test results. The confirmed performance claim is presented in a form of a Statement of Verification which can be used by the vendor or manufacturer in their marketing efforts and help
building a trustworthy business relationship with potential customers and investors.
1.4 2.
As a market tool, ETV has the following threefold objective:
»» To help technology manufacturers, especially SMEs, to market their eco-technologies by providing
credible evidence about the performance the technologies, in order to convince purchasers (and
investors) of their merits;
»» To assist technology purchasers (public or private) to select the performing eco-technologies fitting
their needs, by providing information on which they can base their purchasing decisions, i.e. an
ETV system widely recognised as scientifically valid and acceptable as evidence in tendering and
purchasing procedures;
3.
»» To facilitate the implementation of public policies and regulations by providing citizens, regulators
and decision-makers with solid information on the level of performance achievable by new environmental technologies ready for the market.
Applying for verification under the EU ETV pilot programme is voluntary.
ETV is not a labelling system: it is not based on a pre-defined set of criteria. ETV does not give
a pass-or-fail judgment on the performance of technologies and it does not compare technologies, but the information given by ETV should enable purchasers and decision-makers to make
the comparisons they think appropriate.
4.
5.
ETV will not substitute the actual testing of a new technology, but will review test results in order to assess the veracity of a given performance claim.
The value added for the technology developer or manufacturer will be the backing of the overall performance claim provided by the ETV process, facilitating recognition of the product across the European
Union.
Being verified under the EU ETV Programme:
the verification procedure step by step 9
Step 1: Checking the eligibility of your technology for an ETV procedure
9
Step 2: Developing an ETV proposal file
10
Step 3: Describing the technology for verification
11
Step 4: Claiming technology performance – preparing realistic and ambitious
performance parameters 11
Step 5: Entering into a verification agreement – main considerations 14
Step 6: Drafting the specific verification protocol
15
Step 7: Final data assessment and verification
21
Step 8: The verification report and Statement of Verification
22
Verification completed – what’s next? 24
3.1
Providing proposer’s feedback 24
3.2 When changes are made to the verified technology
24
3.3 In case of complaints 24
Using verifications in marketing at home, in Europe and globally 26
4.1 When ETV is most beneficial for marketing your technology 26
4.2 How ETV helps unlocking your global export potential:
joint and co-verifications 27
Appendices 28
Appendix 1: List of national contact points and websites for
the EU ETV Pilot Programme
28
Appendix 2: List and websites of other ETV Programmes in the world 28
Afterword: The AdvanceETV Project
29
For more information on the EU ETV pilot programme visit: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv
2
3
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
Introduction to the guide
1.Is EU ETV the right programme
for your technology?
The aim of this document1 is to provide proposers, especially Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
(SMEs), with some guidance on how to smoothly go through a verification process under the EU ETV
Pilot Programme. The guide explains the steps of the procedure and indicates the roles and responsibilities of the proposer associated with them. Description of the individual steps has been supplemented with some practical examples and recommendations enabling the proposer to better understand
the requirements of the verification procedure.
The objective of the EU ETV Pilot Programme is to help developers and manufacturers of environmental
technologies market their innovative solutions. Indeed, the process has been designed to serve this
purpose, however there are some cases in which ETV will be of little or no added value. Therefore,
prior to any efforts dedicated to preparing for verification, it is worth considering if ETV is the right
programme for your technology. This chapter includes key issues proposed for considerations before
entering into a EU ETV Pilot Programme.
The reference document of the EU ETV Pilot Programme which has been used to draft this guide is
the General Verification Protocol (GVP)2. It should be always referred to in case of doubts. The GVP
describes the principles, the general ETV procedure to be followed when verifying an individual environmental technology and the main actors involved in the verification process including their roles and
responsibilities. The GVP is accompanied by appendices which include templates for ETV documents
to be used in individual verifications. They are also referred to in this guide. The GVP is available in English from the EU ETV Pilot Programme web site (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv). Other linguistic
versions are in preparation. For more information on ETV in Member States, consult the national ETV
contacts and web sites listed in Appendix 1.
We hope that this guide will be helpful for proposers supporting the decision and preparation for verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme and will eventually lead to a successful completion of the
procedure.
Verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme is neither a pass or fail system nor a certification against a set of predefined criteria or standards giving e.g. a CE-marking. Instead, it is a
dynamic process involving the proposer as much as the entities responsible for the verification tasks aiming at:
• an independent proof of verifiable performance parameters;
• a way to validate innovative technological features which satisfy specific user needs;
• a tool to demonstrate an added value for the environment.
Verification under ETV is concerned with the technical design of a technology, not with the
production series of industrial products.
1.1 Who may apply?
Candidate technologies for verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme can be proposed by any
legal entity or natural person established in or outside the European Union. The proposer can be a
technology developer, manufacturer or its authorised representative. If the technology manufacturers
concerned agree, the proposer can be another stakeholder undertaking a specific verification programme involving several technologies (e.g. as part of pre-procurement procedures).
1.2 Which technologies are verification candidates?
A candidate technology for verification under EU ETV Pilot Programme should be an innovative environmental technology ready for market uptake, whose performance characteristics are not fully covered
by existing regulations/standards, and for which an independent validation of environmental performance will help building purchaser’s trust thus accelerating its market penetration. The EU ETV Pilot
Programme is intended for use in a business-to business context.
Environmental technologies are all technologies (products, processes and services) whose
use is less environmentally harmful than relevant alternatives.
1 This document has been developed in the framework of the EU FP7 project AdvanceETV. More information on this project is presented
in the afterword to this guide.
2 General Verification Protocol Version 1.0 – December 15th, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv/pdf/gvp.pdf
4
5
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
A technology can be verified under the EU ETV Pilot Programme when it meets all of the following criteria:
»» it presents sufficient level of technological innovation in terms of design, raw materials involved,
production process, use, recyclability or final disposal, when compared with relevant alternatives;
»» is ready for commercialisation or is already commercially available (see also section 1.3);
»» shows potential to meet user needs and to perform in line with legal requirements;
»» belongs to one of the technology areas listed in the following table.
The technology scope of the EU Pilot Programme includes the following 3 technology areas and within
each area to the specific technology groups (applications):
Technology areas
Examples of technology groups / applications with illustrative
technologies
1.Water treatment
and monitoring
• Monitoring of water quality for microbial and chemical contaminants
(e.g. test kits, probes, analysers)
• Treatment of drinking water for microbial and chemical contaminants
(e.g. filtration, chemical disinfection, advanced oxidation) and
desalination of seawater
• Treatment of wastewater for microbial and chemical contaminants
(e.g. separation techniques, biological treatment, electrochemical
methods, small-scale treatment systems for sparsely populated areas)
2. Materials, waste
and resources
• Recycling of industrial by-products and waste into secondary
materials, recycling of construction waste into building materials
(e.g. reworking of bricks)
• Separation or sorting techniques for solid waste (e.g. reworking of
plastics, mixed waste and metals), materials recovery
• Recycling of batteries, accumulators and chemicals
(e.g. metal reworking technologies)
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
1.3 When is your technology ready for verification under the EU ETV Pilot
Programme?
In terms of technology development stage, a candidate technology for verification under the EU ETV
Pilot Programme should be at a “ready to market” phase which means that:
it has already been available on the market or ready for commercialisation
full scale units are available
at least it is available at a stage where no substantial change affecting its performance
will be implemented before introducing the technology on the market i.e. the next
unit sold shall be similar to the unit tested and verified
Ready for market
Established technologies are typically not subject for verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
However, in certain cases the proposer may still see an added value of having the performance verified.
For example is a standard relevant for the candidate technology or product does not exist or if proving
a better performance would help distance the competitors.
When choosing an optimal timing for performing verification, the proposer should seek for a balance
between the following two criteria:
the need to have a technology on the market as fast
as possible to generate income
• Reduction of mercury contamination from solid waste
(e.g. separation, waste mercury removal and safe storage technologies)
• Products made of biomass (health products, fibre products,
bioplastics, biofuels, enzymes)
3. Energy technologies
• Production of heat and power from renewable sources of energy
(e.g. wind, sea, geothermic and biomass)
a wish that the verification confirms the claimed high
performance
A premature entrance to an ETV procedure may be associated with the following risks:
• Reuse of energy from waste (e.g. 3rd generation biofuels and
combustion technologies)
»» the definition of verification parameters and testing requirements may take more time if the perfor-
• Energy efficiency technologies (e.g. micro-turbines, hydrogen and fuel
cells, heat pumps, combined heat and power production, logistics)
»» when the testing phase of a technology is completed, the obtained test results may turn out not
mance achievable or testing methods are not known in detail and/or not documented;
as promising as originally claimed making the Verification Statement less useful or even harmful for
marketing of the technology.
The technology scope of the EU ETV Pilot Programme may be extended in the future to cover further
technology areas such as soil and groundwater monitoring and remediation, clean production and
processes, environmental technologies in agriculture and air monitoring and air emission abatement.
6
»» if the technology is modified based on lower than expected test results, the verification procedure
(or at least the testing phase) has to be repeated from the beginning, which is a waste in time and
money;
7
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
»» the technology may be more likely to be modified after verification. Unless modifications are minor
(refer to section 3.2), the verification report and Statement of Verification are no longer valid. In this
case a new ETV procedure needs to be introduced, possibly with simplifications or a quicker process than the first time because the technology is already known by the Verification Body.
To help eliminate unnecessary risk, the EU ETV Pilot Programme provides for a “quick scan”
procedure carried out by the Verification Body to check if a specific technology is a verification candidate. The procedure is further described in section Step 1: Checking the eligibility
of your technology for an ETV procedure.
1.4 Where to apply?
To apply for verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme, the proposer shall contact a Verification
Body which is an organisation accredited as fulfilling the requirements of ISO 170203 to perform verifications under the EU ETV Pilot Programme. Each Verification Body is accredited for a specific technological scope, not necessarily covering all technology areas presented in section 1.2. Therefore it is
recommended that the proposer should first check with the Verification Body if the technology to be
verified falls in the scope of its accreditation. More on this issue is presented in Step 1.
It is up to the proposer which Verification Body to choose, in the same country where the proposer is
established or in another.
A list of the Verification Bodies together with the technology areas for which they intend to be accredited
can be found on the web site of the EU ETV Pilot Programme (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv).
The proposer may also use national ETV web sites or contacts provided in Appendix 1.
The verification procedures applied by accredited Verification Bodies are robust, transparent
and harmonized across the technology areas of the EU ETV pilot programme. This guarantees the credibility and veracity of the verification results and their recognition by the EU and
eventually global markets.
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
2.Being verified under the EU ETV Programme:
the verification procedure step by step
The aim of the chapter is to guide the proposer through the individual steps of the verification procedure. The following sections include some practical examples and hints helping the proposers to understand the key elements of verification and how the proposer is expected to contribute, e.g. defining
performance parameters and drafting the claim, agreeing on the verification contract, choosing and
interacting with test bodies and analytical laboratories, if relevant. An individual technology presented
to the EU ETV Pilot Programme for verification follows the process presented in the Diagram 1. The
individual verification steps indicated in the boxes of Diagram 1 are further explained in details in the
following sections of this chapter.
CONTACT PHASE
Proposer contacts a Verification Body,
information exchange, eligibility check
PROPOSAL PHASE
Proposer provides all relevant information, including
available test results and an initial performance claim
Contractual agreement
When further tests are needed
SPECIFIC PROTOCOL PREPARATION PHASE
Verification Body reviews the claim,
defines performance parameters for verification,
assesses available data and decides whether
further tests are needed, drafts specific verification
protocol, Contractual agreement completed
TESTING PHASE
Elaboration of test plan
Implementation of tests by test
bodies and analytical laboratories.
Developmenz of test report
ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION PHASE
Final review of data and verification procedures
Drafting of verification report by Verification Body
PUBLICATION PHASE
Statement of Verification issued by Verification
Body, registered and published by the Commission
on the official ETV web site
Diagram 1: Overview of the verification process under the EU ETV Pilot Programme
Step 1: Checking the eligibility of your technology for an ETV procedure
To check the eligibility of a technology proposed for verification, as a first step, the proposer fills in a
quick scan document (a template of this form is included in the General Verification Protocol, the form
can be also obtained from the Verification Body), which is then reviewed by the Verification Body.
3 International Standardization Organisation. General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection.
ISO 17020. 2012
8
9
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
The following information is required to fill in the quick scan document:
»» description of the candidate technology and its intended application;
»» stage of the technology development i.e. if it is ready for market;
»» initial performance claim expressed by quantifiable parameters;
»» whether the technology has already been verified and the result of this verification;
»» information on available test data relevant for the claim (including testing methods used, in particular
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
The technical documentation shall make it possible to understand the technology, revise the
performance claim and to assess the adequacy of the technology design with the performance claim.
The performance claim and the description of the intended technology application are the most difficult
parts of the verification proposal. Therefore, the next sections include some guidance, recommendations and practical examples on how to prepare these two crucial items.
if these methods are available, standardized and reproducible and their accuracy).
In order to prepare the
quick scan document the
proposer is encouraged
to consult the guidance
on how to describe the
technology and define
performance parameters
for verification provided in
sections Step 3 and Step 4
of chapter 2. The proposer
may also ask the Verification Body for assistance to
fill in the quick scan form.
Review and assessment of the data included in the quick scan document shall allow the Verification
Body to assess:
Step 3: Describing the technology for verification
»» if the technology falls in the scope of the EU ETV Pilot Programme;
»» if it is ready for commercialization;
»» if the performance claimed potentially meets the user needs and is in line with legal requirements;
»» if it shows some technological innovation;
»» the relevant technology group;
The technical performance parameters proposed in the claim shall refer to the intended application of
the technology. The proposer shall therefore describe the application of the candidate technology in
terms of matrix, purpose and a set of parameters defining the technical conditions valid for the claimed
performance (refer to Step 4).
and to give a first indication about the complexity and range of costs for a full verification excluding the
testing costs – estimate for tests shall come from a test body if additional test turn necessary.
»» Examples of matrices could be soil, drinking water, ground water, cooling water, alkaline degreasing
Based on the quick scan results, the Verification Body either recommends the technology for
a full verification or not.
Purpose is a measurable property that is affected by the technology. Description of the purpose should
indicate the way in which the matrix is impacted by the technology and the quantitative parameters
suggested for monitoring and documenting the effect.
If the Verification Body is not able to verify the candidate technology due to the fact that it does not fall
in the technological scope for which it is accredited, it should assist the proposer to find a Verification
Body whose technical scope is likely to include the relevant technology group. It may happen that the
competent Verification Body may be in a different country.
When describing the matrix, the proposer shall refer to the type of material which the technology is
intended for.
bath, effluent from domestic wastewater treatment plant etc.
»» Examples of purpose could be reduction of nitrate concentration, separation of volatile organic compounds, reduction of energy use (MW/kg), bacteria removal to drinking water standards, monitoring
of NOx, improvement of heating value etc. It is important that the purpose describes the claimed
effect in quantitative terms, e.g. reduction of nitrate concentration in mg NO3–/L.
Step 2: Developing an ETV proposal file
Once the eligibility of a technology for verification is confirmed by the Verification Body, the proposer
prepares a full ETV proposal. The full proposal consists of the following:
»» contact data of the proposer and the Verification Body;
»» the technical documentation including at least the following elements:
– a general description of the technology,
– conceptual design, user manual and if necessary for understanding, manufacturing drawings and
schemes of components, sub-assemblies, circuits, etc.
–descriptions and explanations necessary for the understanding of those drawings and schemes
and operation of the technology,
– where relevant, standards or technical specifications applied in full or in part,
– results of design calculations made, examinations carried out etc.,
Step 4: Claiming technology performance – preparing realistic and ambitious
The initial claim of the technology performance shall be a concise declaration using parameters which are:
»» describing the functioning or performance of the technology in a specified application and under
specified operational conditions;
»» related to the technology itself, and not e.g. to the environmental management of the company, to
the sources of raw material or to the information provided to users;
»» highlighting the advantages and innovative features of the technology;
»» reflecting potential, direct environmental impacts of the technology in the specified application and
under specified operational conditions;
»» to the degree possible including relevant, indirect impacts on the environment from a life cycle
– test reports if available.
»» the initial performance claim together with the specification of conditions of use or testing under
which the claim is applicable and any relevant assumptions made (refer to section Step 4 for details
on how to define the performance parameters);
perspective;
»» quantitatively verifiable through tests
»» the intended application of the technology described in terms of matrix, purpose and technical conditions (refer to Step 3 for details on how to describe the technology application).
10
11
When relevant, the proposer may define more than
one purpose of the candidate technology.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
– consumption of electricity or other energy (heat);
The initial performance claim should be ambitious yet realistic and should include the unique
features of the technology which distinguish it on the market. Moreover, the performance
claimed for a given technology should reflect the market requirements for the specified
application and operational conditions.
To include features that distinguish the technology on the market and meet market demands, different
types of performance parameters should be considered. In most cases, only few parameters of the listed
below will be relevant. The following list of parameters examples is adopted from the Generic Verification
Protocol.
»» performance parameters, i.e. the main claims related to the purpose of the technology as defined in
Step 3: what are the benefits of the technology, there might be more than one, e.g. when recycling
hot water not only the water quality might be relevant, but also the amount of energy/heat recovered;
»» operational parameters for the technology (always relevant), i.e. measurable parameters that refer
to the application of the technology specified in Step3 which define the conditions under which the
technology performs as claimed e.g. production capacity, concentrations of non-target compounds
in matrix, temperature range, pH range, other pre-requisites; they also define the conditions under
which the verification and tests will be carried out;
»» technical or legal reference values (to comply or perform better than a certain limit value will be cru-
– use of hazardous substances;
– use of recycled material/raw materials substitutes;
»» Waste generated (biodegradable / recyclable / hazardous, etc);
»» Emissions (air, water);
»» Man-power needed (specific qualifications if any), operating costs:
– for operation;
– for maintenance;
»» Impacts on occupational health, user manual;
»» Space, Area:
– as there might be restrictions on height or square-meter in typical applications;
»» Longevity:
– robustness/vulnerability to changing conditions of use or maintenance;
»» End of life decommissioning and disposal:
– Reusability, recyclability (fully or in part);
– Parts needed to be disposed.
cial for some applications):
– specific parameters to be reached by the targeted application on targeted markets (can be different in different countries);
–compliance with industrial or ISO standards in the field of application, compliance with specific
needs of technology users (niche markets);
»» parameters referring to the required use of resources for operation:
– consumption of water (e.g at which quality);
– consumption of electricity or other energy (heat);
The technical performance parameters of the initial claim are used as the starting point for preparing
the final performance parameters during the verification.
– consumables, e.g. chemicals, used during operation;
– use of hazardous substances;
The table below gives an example of relevant parameters specific to the functioning of a candidate
monitoring and water cleaning technology which may also reflect its advantages and innovative features:
Monitoring technology
Water cleaning technology
• Limit of detection
• The achieved cleaning effects
• Range of application
• Variation of effects
• Precision (repeatability/reproducibility)
• By-product formation
• Trueness
• Residual chemical
• Robustness
Other parameters which may be relevant relate to environmental impacts considered in a life-cycle
perspective and/or may be important for the user. Below are examples of these parameters:
»» Parameters referring to the required use of resources for production of the equipment/technology
itself:
–consumption of raw materials (e.g. steel used in construction; this parameter may also be combined with the end of life and decommissioning parameters in the context how much steel was
used for production and how much can be recovered);
12
Some of these parameters may be measured through tests, others not. Non-verifiable parameters cannot be considered as part of the verified claim at the end of the verification process, but they may however be added to the Statement of Verification, for information only and under the sole responsibility of
the manufacturer if they contain information important and useful for the user. A complete performance
claim could for example include not only high cleaning rate and high energy efficiency, but also costly
and/or environmentally risky decommissioning. The opportunity to include other parameters, verifiable
or not, should anyhow be discussed with the Verification Body during the verification process.
The table below illustrates how an initial performance claim of a candidate technology representative
for the three EU ETV Pilot Programme technology groups may look like.
ETV technology area
Water treatment
Energy technology
Example of
technology
Matrix
Purpose
Disinfection
technology
Industrial process water
Disinfect water for
reuse in industry
Solar air heater
Example of claimed performance
parameters
Removal of 99,9 %
of bacteria
Operational
parameters
Conductivity above
250 µS/m and
ambient temperature
5-35°C
Average air flow
60 m3/h. 5 %
lower indoor air
relative humidity
Temperature,
air volume flow rate
and solar radiation.
All as under standard
Northern European
weather conditions.
Indoor air / climate
Ventilate/heat/dry
e.g. a summer house
13
Materials and
resources
Biomass processing
Manure fibres
Improve dry matter
content in manure
fibres for better reuse
Dry matter content
in outlet of 90 %
Energy balance close
to zero or positive
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
Step 5: Entering into a verification agreement – main considerations
Before the full verification process is initiated, the proposer enters into a contractual agreement with the
Verification Body to carry out the verification activities under the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
The contracting procedure may consist of one or more steps depending on the complexity of
the verification procedures which shall be performed to verify the claim.
It should be noted that
the verification contract in
general does not include
the cost of tests. If the Verification Body, after assessment of existing test data,
decides that additional
tests are needed, it is up to
the proposer, in agreement
with the Verification Body,
to choose an appropriate
testing body (and, where
relevant, analytical laboratory) and to conclude another contract with the
testing body. In some
cases, the same organisation can act as Verification
Body and as testing body,
but this does not create an
obligation for the proposer
to conclude both contracts
with this organisation.
In some cases parts of the verification contract may need to be revised after elaborating the specific
verification protocol i.e. after definition of the application and performance parameters, requirements
on the test design and data quality, and assessment of existing data. In such cases, the proposer and
the Verification Body may conclude a contract only to perform the first activities and leave the remaining
parts for another contract. Alternatively the contract may be revised after performing the first activities.
The contract may also include the initial verification phase a posteriori i.e. contact, proposal and eligibility check, quick scan report, if the commercial policy of the Verification Body provides so. In many
cases however, the initial phase is covered by other funding sources (public support) and therefore not
included in the verification contract.
The ETV General Verification Protocol provides a template which can be used to draft such a contractual agreement, nevertheless it should be indicated, that specific provisions or modifications to this
template may apply which result from national regulations, internal rules of the Verification Body or upon
the request of the proposer.
However, based on the analysis of the quick scan document the Verification Body may already be able
to provide a first rough cost estimate of the test to be performed. This estimate is useful for the proposer tp plan for the total costs of the project, but the estimate for tests will anyhow need confirmation
by the testing body.
Beside the description of the candidate technology, below is a check list of issues which a verification
contract should include:
Intellectual Property Rights e.g. ownership or control over the technology must be guaranteed by
the proposer, he will also retain all rights to the technology and all technical data produced during the verification. The Verification Body will retain all rights to the verification process, protocols,
plans, methods and procedures developed by it;
information and communication principles between the proposer and the Verification Body including also notification on the changes to verification conditions if such occur;
specification of proposer’s and Verification Body’s obligations under the contract for verification;
a schedule for the verification procedures;
rules and statement on the use of the ETV report;
rules statement on the use of the Statement of Verification and ETV logo;
description of limitations for the use of the verification results e.g. a statement that the verification
results reflect the performance of the technology at the time and under the conditions of verification
and thus cannot be understood as guaranteeing the same level of performance in future or under
other conditions;
14
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
reporting for feedback of the impact (environmental, economic and other benefits in term of corporate image, market access etc.) of ETV by the proposer;
terms and conditions for withholding the verification procedure or withdrawal of parties from the
verification process;
terms and conditions for payment;
legal regime applicable and competent legal authorities in the case of a dispute related to the verification procedure;
confidentiality issues.
liability issues.
Typical obligations of the proposer under the contract for verification include:
• providing information enabling full understanding of the technology;
• providing comments to the developed documents as requested;
• providing training to the test body on the operation of the candidate technology;
• providing an adequate number of units of a technology/product for testing, etc.
Typical obligations of the Verification Body under the contract for verification include:
• verify the technology as indicated in the contract;
• develop a specific verification protocol, including requirements on test methods and test data
quality;
• develop a verification report and a Statement of Verification;
• advise the proposer, in particular as regards the performance claim, choice of testing body,
use of the Statement of Verification, within the limits of independence.
Throughout the entire verification process, the Verification Body is obliged to observe professional
secrecy with regard to all information obtained in carrying out their tasks during verification activities.
Step 6: Drafting the specific verification protocol
The Specific Verification Protocol serves as a basis for executing the verification activities of the candidate technology. The protocol is drafted by the Verification Body and involves a number of the following
sequential activities:
»» revision of the initial performance claim submitted by the proposer. This is the most essential part
of drafting the specific verification protocol as it sets up the background for the next subsequent
actions;
»» drafting the specific verification protocol document;
»» assessment of the existing data provided by the proposer in the proposal file;
»» assessment if additional tests are needed linked with the testing phase activities, if required.
Below each of these activities is described in more details with an indication of corresponding roles and
responsibilities of the proposer.
15
The proposer may withdraw from the verification
procedure at any step if
he decides so. Therefore
the contract should include
provisions regulating a
withdrawal procedure.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
Initial claim revision: are the initial claimed parameters relevant, complete and
properly expressed?
The technical performance parameters proposed in the initial claim together with the description of the
intended application are reviewed by the Verification Body in order to ensure that the parameters are
verifiable, able to be proven with an adequate precision, and that the specified operational conditions
are consistent with the professional practices observed for a given technology area and the technology
application.
When reviewing the claimed parameters the Verification Body will take into account the following:
»» if the parameters are relevant and complete to meet the users’ needs for this application (e.g. some
additional parameters may need to be included in the claim to describe the environmental aspects
of the technology or an expected result from the application);
t h e
EU
Initial claims
Example of technology
Revised claims in
specific verification
protocol
Purpose
Disinfect water for
reuse in industry
Disinfect water for
reuse in industry
Examples of
performance
parameters
1) Removal of 99,9 %
of bacteria
1) Removal of 99,9 %
of bacteria
2) Chloride in output
< 0.5 mg/L
3) Trihalomethanes in
output < 100 µg/L
»» if the claimed performance meets the requirements imposed by a regulatory framework specific for
the candidate technology (e.g. if a standard giving relevant performance parameters for the technology under verification and its verified application is available, reference to this standard can replace
the precise definition of the performnace parameter);
»» if the parameters are quantitatively verifiable and expressed in a specific and unambiguous way using absolute measurable figures;
»» if the specified operating conditions valid for the claimed performance are described in a relevant
and adequate way;
»» if similar technologies were verified under the EU ETV Pilot Programme or another ETV programme
or similar schemes, the parameters used for the old verifications should be considered for inclusion
in the new verification protocol where relevant.
Comments
Disinfection technology
Matrix
eters which may be non-verifiable but may be relevant for the user to help him make an informed
choice (e.g. a drinking water disinfection technology may allow to achieve an extra purity level of
drinking water, however this process may be more energy consuming, so the energy parameter
should be provided as an additional information);
useful comparison where relevant (e.g. knowledge of comparable technologies and users’ needs
may indicate that a given parameter could be expressed differently);
P r o g r a m m e
The table below shows how an initial performance for a disinfection technology may evolve after the
revision:
»» if there is a need to supplement the set of the performance parameters with some additional param-
»» how does the claim refer to the state of the art performance of similar technologies so as to enable
P i l o t
2) For some purposes
it is required that the
output water fulfils
the drinking water
criteria of 0.5 mg
chloride/L
3) During the treatment
process there is risk
for formation of
tri-halomethanes.
The listed criterion
is a standardised
EU drinking water
criterion
1) Conductivity above 3) Conductivity and
Operational parameters 1) Conductivity above
chloride often follow
250 µS/m
250 µS/m
each other, but after
2) Ambient temperature 2) Ambient temperature
revision of the tech
5-35°C
5-35°C
nology is was clear
3) Chloride in input
that a certain level
above 15 ppm
of chloride needs
to be controlled
separately.
Additional parameters
User manual: is the
maintenance process
fully described in the
user manual
Information relevant
for user
Occupational health
and environmental
impact
Claiming technology performance under the EU ETV Pilot Programme is a dynamic process.
The claim may evolve during the whole verification process e.g. the performance limits may
change, further modifications of the parameters may also take place e.g. as a result of testing
or the assessment of the exiting test data provided by the proposer.
16
17
During the claim revision phase carried out by
the Verification Body the
proposer is requested to
comment and approve to
the modifications of the
proposed by the Verification Body as a part of the
Specific Verification Protocol approval.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
Diagram 2 presents how a claim may hypothetically evolve throughout the verification process
Initial performance claim
Proposal
phase
Technology T: main purpose is A, expressed by quantifiable parameter a. Other relevant parameters to
measure the performance are b and c. Operating conditions are O
Regulatory framework: imposes that parameter b is < or = b0
Initial claim:
technology T, operated under conditions O, performs in such a way that:
a> or = a0
b< b0
c< or = c0
t o
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
Drafting the specific verification protocol document
Once an agreement on the performance parameters to be verified is reached, as a next step, the
Verification Body with an input from the proposer drafts the specific verification protocol. It is a document which describes how a specific verification of an individual technology under the EU ETV Pilot
Programme will be carried out. The protocol is developed applying the principles and procedures of
the GVP which also provides a template to be used for drafting the protocol. In the EU ETV Pilot Programme the specific verification protocol is not a publicly available document. Beside the revised claim,
the document specifies the requirements on the processes from which the test data has been acquired
(e.g. testing methods), the required quality of the test data, measurement and calculation methods (e.g.
how the test data is processed into performance parameters) etc.
After performance parameters definition phase
Key environmental aspects (in a life-cycle perspective) show that parameter d is crucial to describe the
environmental aspects of technology T; in addition, parameter e is not verifiable but should be known to
the user to enable an informed choice.
Knowledge of comparable technologies and users’ needs shows that parameter c is better expressed
in the form of parameter c’, and operating conditions should be more detailed in the form of O’
Specific
protocol
verification
phase
Revised claim:
Technology T, operated under conditions O’, performs in such a way that:
a> or = a0
b< b0
c’< or = c’0
d< or = d0
for information, the proposer indicates that e < or = e0 but this is not verifiable and therefore not part of
the claim to be verified.
After assessment of existing data
Third-party testing (for example, under control of the regulator) ensures that b < b0
In-house measurements, under third-party supervision by a qualified testing agency, provided quality
test data showing that a > or = a0
Not enough information is available on parameters c’ and d, requiring additional tests.
After testing phase
Testing phase
(when additioal
tests needed)
Data from test body and (if needed) analytical laboratory shows that:
c’< or = c’1 (not c’0)
d< or = d0
Agreement of the proposer to include c’1 instead of c’0 in the revised claim
Assessment
of all data and
verification
phase
Complete numerical assessment of test data relevant for parameter a shows that the statistical range of
confidence in practice in the technology area can only be obtained for
a> or = a1 (not a0)
Agreement of the proposer to include a1 instead of a0 in the revised claim (an alternative could be to
initiate additional tests to ensure the statistical range of confidence for value a0)
After final assessment phase
Published claim (in the Statement of Verification)
Publication
phase
(verified
performance)
Technology T, operated under conditions O’, performs in such a way that:
a> or = a1
b< b0
c’< or = c’1
d< or = d0
within the statistical range of confidence in practice in the technology area.
For information, the proposer adds under its responsibility that e < or = e0.
When specifying the requirements concerning the testing methods, the Verification Body will consider in
particular:
»» the overall design and the scale (pilot and/or field) of the tests providing the data to back the claim;
»» which specific performance parameters they shall measure,
»» which testing methods and, if relevant, the sampling, measurement and calculation methods should
be used to measure these parameters;
»» are these methods standardized , if not how their reproducibility is to be ensured;
»» how the acquired test data shall be managed (e.g. in which format it should be stored) and how its
quality shall be assured (e.g. quality control and quality management procedures of the organization
who is the data supplier).
The specific verification protocol shall also define the methods used to process the measurements into
performance parameters. These include statistical methods together with any required statistical levels
of confidence which shall comply with the professional practice for the technology group in question.
When the existing data can be recognized to prove your claim
To support the claimed performance of the technology the proposer is encouraged to propose exiting
test data including analytical data, if relevant. This data can be obtained prior to the application e.g. as
a part of the technology development process (e.g. from demonstration projects) or market implementation activities. However, in order to be recognised for the verification under EU ETV Pilot Programme,
the Verification Body will analyse the test data from the following point of view:
»» Does the data correspond to the parameters, methods and target values claimed for the specific
verification (i.e. is it relevant for the claim ) ?
»» Does the data meet the quality requirements (i.e. does it originate from ccompetent data providers
conforming to the relevant requirements specified in the GVP)?
The quality requirements of the test data and the competences of the data providers are further described in the following section.
If the assessment result is postive , the ETV process would not entail repeating the tests
already carried out which obviously saves money and time.
Diagram 2: Evolution of performance claim in the verification procedure
18
When drafting the Specific Verification Protocol,
beside providing existing
test data as mentioned
below, the proposer may
be requested to assist the
Verification Body in specifying the requirements for
testing and/or for the test
data, defining the testing
methods and any specific
requirements which shall
be fulfilled (e.g. for laboratory analyses) to be included in the protocol.
19
If the proposer intends to
obtain test data reliably established and of good quality before the ETV proposal,
it is recommended that
he contacts a Verification
Body to get an input on the
quality assurance requirements prior to testing and/
or consults the General
Verification Protocol.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
When additional tests are needed and where they can be performed
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
Based on the review of the claim, additional tests are needed when the Verification Body states that:
»» the submitted existing data is not acceptable in full or in part (e.g. because it does not meet the
»» review the testing plans elaborated by the proposer, in accordance with the relevant procedures or
protocols and in agreement with the Verification Body;
»» when the relevant data is incomplete to prove the claim.
Additional tests can be performed by an independent test body at a selected test site or as in-house
tests.
To ensure that the data necessary for verification is reliable, the EU ETV Pilot Programme imposes
requirements concerning quality assurance and quality management which the test bodies and the
analytical laboratories should fulfil, namely:
»» for a test body: have a quality management system in place including ETV procedures and
meeting
the requirements of ISO Standard 90014 or be accredited under the ISO Standard 170255 for the
relevant test methods
»» for an analytical laboratory accreditation to ISO 17025 is obligatory.
The proposer has a freedom of selection of an appropriate test body or analytical laboratory.
The proposer plays an active role in drafting the test
plan and execution of the
tests. It is his responsibility to review, provide comments as requested and finally approve the test plan.
For testing, the proposer
will be requested to ensure
access to the technology
(e.g. provide, if relevant,
the necessary number of
technology/product units
for testing, provide access
to the field site etc. ) or accessories, to provide user
manual and if necessary
training to the testing body
on the operation of the
technology etc.
EU
In some cases the proposer may choose to perform in-house tests to obtain the missing test data.
For that purpose he can contract an independent test body, in coordination with the Verification Body,
who will:
quality assurance requirements),
It is essential that the
proposer coordinates the
choice of the test body and
/or analytical laboratory
with the Verification Body
who may also advise on
the quality requirements
which these bodies shall
fulfil as test data providers.
t h e
»» witness the testing done by the proposer,
»» approve test reports if drafted by the proposer and if not done by the Verification Body.
The GVP includes also a set of requirements concerning the selection of an appropriate testing site to
perform additional tests. The requirements concerning the testing site should be clearly stated in the
specific verification protocol. The general requirements which must be considered when choosing the
testing site are as follows:
»» the site must be clearly related to the matrix, purpose and operational parameters defined for the
verification.
»» it must be accessible (e.g. the proposer must either provide access to the technology if installed at a
field site or provide a requested number of its pieces when tested at the test body’s site etc.)
»» if the technology is installed and used at the field site, the site should be free from any commercial
or other interests which could influence the test results.
Absence of accreditation or certification of a test body does not exclude it from performing
testing for verification purposes. In this case however, the proposer should be aware that in
order to meet the overall quality requirements of the verification procedure, the Verification
Body is obliged to check the quality management system of the test body by means of an
audit. This activity will result in additional costs to be covered by the proposer.
In principle the field site should not be dependent upon the proposer. However, if this is the
only option, it must be clearly explained and justified in the specific verification protocol
together with a specification of measures ensuring that the tests will be performed in an
independent way.
Once the testing body is selected, the proposer is responsible for agreeing a contract it. The contract
should ensure that the following activities are executed by the testing body:
Once the tests are completed, the test data are summarized and presented in a form of a test report
drafted by the test body. The test body submits the test report to the Verification Body for final data
assessment and verification.
»» drafting a test plan in agreement with the Verification Body taking into account the requirements of
the GVP and the specific verification protocol;
»» performing the tests, ensuring the level of quality required in the specific verification protocol;
»» ensuring quality of analysis used in the test and, when applicable, the compliance of analytical laboratories with the requirements of this GVP;
»» drafting the report on the tests performed.
It is also important to underline that the final assessment of the total cost associated with the verification procedure when additional tests are needed may be possible only at that point.
Upon approval by the Verification Body and the proposer, the test plan becomes an integral
part of the specific verification protocol. Once the tests are completed, the acquired test data
is elaborated by the testing body in a form of a test report which is provided to the proposer
and the Verification Body. The test report becomes an appendix to the verification report.
Step 7: Final data assessment and verification
The Verification Body collects all performance data i.e. both: accepted existing data if provided by the
proposer and test data from the additional tests, and assesses: if the whole set of data is accurate and
complete to verify the claimed performance, if it has been produced under the required procedures as
defined in the specific verification protocol. It also reviews the procedures followed.
Also at this stage the additional information (see section Step 4) that was not a part of the verification
procedures and was provided by the proposer under its own responsibility, may be considered by the
Verification Body who shall assess its appropriateness and usefulness.
Based on the final assessment of data and revision of the applied procedures the Verification
Body determines the final performance claim which can be considered verified under the
EU ETV Pilot Programme.
4 International Standardization Organisation. EN ISO 9001. Quality management systems – Requirements. 2008.
5 International Standardization Organisation. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
ISO 17025. 2005.
20
21
The proposer must approve
the test report before the
test body submits it to the
Verification Body.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
Step 8: The verification report and Statement of Verification
The verification report together with the Statement of Verification are key products of the verification
procedure determining the performance of a technology verified under the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
Both documents have a predefined content and structure (templates provided in the GVP) and rules
and principles of use.
The verification report is a comprehensive summary of all verification activities carried out throughout
the entire process. Its main parts include:
»» a detailed description of the technology and its application,
»» the verified performance,
»» operational conditions under which the declared performance is achieved,
»» all measurement uncertainties and relevant assumptions taken into consideration during the verification process,
»» description of the tests performed and the obtained results,
»» final assessment of all data from the test report and from acceptable existing data prior to verification,
»» quality management and control procedures applied.
Also all relevant documents produced during verification such as the quick scan document, the proposal, specific verification protocol, the test plan and test report are included as appendices.
It is in the interest of the
proposer to closely review
and comment the verification report before it is
approved.
The verification report is drafted by the Verification body while the proposer is responsible for approving
it. Under the EU ETV Pilot Programme, the report is owned by the proposer. It may be published if the
proposer agrees. This issue should be regulated by the contract for verification closed between the
verification body and the proposer.
The Statement of Verification is a summary of the verification report. It is a short document of approximately 4 pages which includes:
t h e
EU
P r o g r a m m e
There is no validity period defined for the statement but it is only valid as long as no major changes have
been introduced to the technology which could have an effect on its performance. If changes have
been are made, an assessment by the Verification Body will be required to assess if the Statement of
Verification is still valid or needs update (see also Section 3.2). The proposer is obliged to report any
such changes to the Verification Body.
How to use the verification report, the Statement of Verification and the ETV logo
In general, if the verification report is published, it should be published in full. In some cases the Verification Body may accept publication of parts of the report; however this may happen only if the legitimate
interests of the proposer in relation to the verified technology, in particular intellectual property, could
suffer disproportionately great harm because of the full publication of the report. Before publishing parts
of the report, the Verification Body checks, that the parts to be published may not lead to any misinterpretation of the meaning or results of verification under the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
If the verification report is not publicly available, the proposer may be requested to provide access it by
other Verification Bodies, by the Commission services, by national accreditation bodies and by members of technical working groups. If requested, the access should be granted under the condition of
confidentiality. EU and national control authorities (including the EU Court of Auditors and Anti-Fraud
Office) can request access under relevant procedures.
The Statement of Verification must be published in full and it cannot be used in parts for any purpose.
The proposer should quote the Statement of Verification as follows:
XX technology has been verified for the purpose PP in YY matrix by QQ Verification Body
on DD.MM.YYYY. The Statement of Verification has been registered under number NN and
is accessible at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv/index.htm or on
the dedicated website designated by the Commission services.
Also the ETV logo alone cannot be used neither on products nor on published (printed, web or other)
matter other than the Statement of Verification.
»» a summary description of the technology verified, complete denomination or reference number,
purpose and conditions of use;
»» the verified performance and the operational conditions under which it is achieved;
»» a summary of the procedures followed by the Verification Body, and by test bodies where relevant,
to verify the claim, including the statistical confidence range on specifications where applicable;
»» any other information necessary to understand and use the performance claim; this may include
information not verified under the EU ETV Pilot Programme, however this should be clearly stated
and explained.
The Statement of Verification is a key output of the EU ETV Pilot Programme to be used by
the proposer in any dealings with other organisations, for marketing purposes and for official
approval. It may become part of the technical documentation of the verified technology.
The Statement of Verification is drafted and, after approval of the proposer, issued by the Verification
Body who signs it and transfers to the European Commission services for publication. The document
has a registration number, an ETV logo and a date of issuance.
22
P i l o t
23
The proposers are recommended to make the verification report publicly available to make the verification result transparent and
thus more attractive to the
potential purchaser.
In the case when the proposer misuses the Statement of Verification i.e.
violates the conditions of
EU ETV Pilot Programme
stated above, the Verification Body is authorised to
withdraw the Statement.
The Statement together
with the verification report
or parts of it, if published,
shall then be removed from
the web site on which it
was published by the Commission services.
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
3.Verification completed – what’s next?
3.1 Providing proposer’s feedback
The contract for verification
should provide appropriate
provisions regulating the
details of the proposer’s
feedback and procedure
for its collection.
One year after completion of the verification process the proposer will be requested by the Verification
Body who performed the verification to provide feedback on the added-value of ETV in the marketing
of the verified technology and the economic and environmental benefits. This will be done in a form of
a survey carried out by the Verification Body.
t h e
EU
Complaints related to the competence or qualification of a Verification Body under the EU ETV Pilot
Programme should be addressed to the national accreditation body which accredited the Verification
Body for the EU ETV Pilot Programme. The quality manual of the Verification Body should provide relevant procedures to be followed that that case.
If the proposer lodges complaints related to the EU ETV Pilot Programme procedures, then he should
contact the services of the European Commission co-ordinating the EU ETV Pilot Programme through
the functional mailbox: [email protected]
Verification Bodies will forward the collected feedback to the Commission services. The aim of gathering this information from the proposers is to monitor the usefulness of ETV for applying verified technologies and the acquired associated environmental benefit and thus allow for a continuous evaluation
and improvement of the EU ETV Pilot Programme.
If there are any changes made in the verified technology, the proposer is obliged to report such information to the Verification Body. The information should be supported with a set of relevant data that
will enable the Verification Body to evaluate whether the conditions for verification have changed. This
evaluation will be performed at the cost of the proposer.
Substitution of one part of a verified technology with another with the same documented
specifications is not considered a change.
If, after evaluation, the Verification Body concludes that the conditions for verification have changed,
than alternatively:
»» either the proposer engages in updating verification procedure
»» or the Statement of Verification is withdrawn.
If a technology has already been verified but changes have been made to it which have an effect on the
verification conditions, a new verification procedure may be performed according to a simplified procedure. Its scope may refer only to these parameters and conditions which are relevant for the changed
parameters due to the modifications, unless serious reasons lead to use the complete procedure.
3.3 In case of complaints
There may be three types of complaints related to the ETV procedure:
»» complaints related to specific technology verifications under ETV;
»» complaints related to the competence or qualification of a Verification Body;
»» complaints related to the EU ETV Pilot Programme procedures.
24
P r o g r a m m e
Complaints related to the verification of a specific technology should be made to the relevant Verification Body. A procedure for dealing with these complains together with the legal regime and competent
legal authorities for the relations between the Verification Body and the proposer should be indicated in
the contractual agreement signed by the two parties (see also section Step 5).
3.2 When changes are made in the verified technology
To report changes to a verified technology, the proposer should contact the
same Verification Body who
performed the verification
process and issued the
Statement of Verification.
P i l o t
25
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
4.Using verifications in marketing at home,
in Europe and globally
4.1 When ETV is most beneficial for
marketing your technology
There is a number of cases in which ETV seems to provide the highest added value to for an environmental innovative technology which a proposer should take into consideration. These are in particular
the following cases:
»» no product standards exist which would express the claimed performance parameter of your technology;
»» the innovative features are not adequately reflected by the existing standards;
»» certification and / or standards which apply to your technology are unharmonised across EU;
»» your technology offers better performance than your competitors even if the cost for the customer
may be higher;
»» the market you intend to enter is populated by relatively homogeneous technologies – ETV will con-
t h e
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
4.2 How ETV helps unlocking your global export potential: joint and
co-verifications
Since markets for environmental technologies are becoming globalised, the expected benefits for a
proposer of having a technology verified may increase signifficantly, if the verification results are recognised beyond the EU market. One way to achieve it is to have the verification process performed in cooperation between an EU ETV Verification Body and a Verification Body from another ETV programme
in the world in particular in the U.S., Canada, Korea, Japan or the Philippines. China is also launching
its own ETV pilot. A list of such programmes together with the addresses of their web sites is provided
in Appendix 2.
The EU ETV Pilot Programme provides opportunities for cross-border verifications already now. From
the technical point of view, the cooperation between the Verification Bodies of two different ETV
schemes on the verification of an individual technology may be based on two collaboration models:
joint or co-verification. Diagram 3 illustrates how such cooperation between two Verification Bodies of
different ETV programmes may look like.
It is recommended that already at the contact phase
the proposer interested in
a potential joint or co-verification should check with
the Verification Body:
The verification procedure is carried out similarly as under the EU ETV Pilot Programme, only
with a different distribution of roles and responsibilities between the cooperating Verification
Bodies and testing bodies. The roles and responsibilities of the proposer remain in principle
the same.
• if a joint or co-verification with a selected ETV
programme is feasible;
In the situation when a Verification Body is not able to perform a joint or co-verification, it should refer
the proposer to another Verification Body who is likely to do so.
• if the Verification Body
will be able to perform a
joint or co-verification.
firm the distinctive features of your technology performance;
»» your technology is a discrete product and a complete novelty on the market and there are no actual
technologies the customer may compare it with;
»» you are a new player on the market (domestic, EU, global) and your relationships with customers are
not well established yet;
»» you know well the specific needs and requirements of your clients ( both industrial and public) towards the technical performance of a technology ( e.g. a drinking water purity level higher than the
standard) – the ETV may open a new market for you by proving the conformity of your technology
with these needs.
In the case when a candidate technology can be verified simultaneously by two ETV programmes and
the Verification Body will undertake this effort, it will also determine which cooperation model is the most
suitable for a specific verification procedure as well as guide the proposer throughout the procedure.
Key benefits of a verification performed in cooperation between two or more ETV programmes are as follows
• for technology proposer :
EU ETV
Cooperation
ETV Program
– obtaining a Statement of Verification that is recognized under more than one verification
programme;
– minimizing the verification costs when aiming at more markets at the same time;
Plan
• for technology client :
–gaining access to technologies verified under programmes he may not be familiar with
while still having the benefit of relaying on a performance proof originating from a familiar
verification programme vouching for the quality and validity.
Test activities
Diagram 3: Illustration of a joint verification procedure.
26
27
A
G u i d e
f o r
P r o p o s e r s
t o
5.Appendices
In Belgium (Federal Public Service for Health and Environment)
[email protected]
website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv/index.htm
Jean-Roger Dreze
e-mail: [email protected]
In the Czech Republic (Ministry of Environment)
Marie Petrova
In Denmark (Danish Environmental Protection Agency)
Miroslav Hajek
Gert S. Hansen
website: http://www.etv-danmark.dk
Merja Saarnilehto
In the European Commission
In France (Ministry of Industrial Renewal)
(Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development
and Energy)
EU
P i l o t
P r o g r a m m e
Afterword: The AdvanceETV Project
Appendix 1: List of national contact points and websites for the EU ETV Pilot Programme
In Finland (Ministry of Environment)
t h e
Annie Larribet
Michel-Louis Pasquier
website: http://www.verification-etv.fr
Izabela Ratman-Kłosińska
In Poland e-mail: [email protected]
(Ministry of Environment)
[email protected]
website: http://www.mos.gov.pl/kategoria/4675_etv
Leon Smith
In the United Kingdom (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) e-mail: [email protected]
Appendix 2: List and websites of other ETV Programmes in the world
US EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
www.epa.gov/etv
Canadian Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
www.etvcanada.ca
Korea New Excellent Technology (NET)
www.koetv.or.kr/engpage.do?mode=engguid
Coordination Action on Environmental Technology Verification (ETV ) –
Building a framework for international cooperation
AdvanceETV was a coordination action on Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) funded by the
7th Framework Programme of the European Union between 01/2009 – 07/2012.
The overall target of AdvanceETV with its 12 partners from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, USA and Canada was to bring together the already proposed
schemes and protocols prepared within the previous EU ETV activities and to link them with outcomes
of already existing ETV systems worldwide.
Furthermore AdvanceETV aimed at building an international framework for cooperation and mutual
recognition by supporting the cooperation of the European Commission and the international ETV
activities, e.g. the International Working Group on ETV (IWG-ETV).
To achieve these aims AdvanceETV supported the development of the EU ETV Pilot Programme by
drafting the General Verification Protocol (GVP) based on the analysis of former EU FP6 projects dealing with ETV. The GVP is the main technical reference for the implementation of ETV procedures and
co-ordination at the European level.
In order to show how ETV could be used as a supportive tool for other policies, regulations and voluntary schemes potential complementarities were assessed in the framework of the project.
AdvanceETV has also helped develop a framework for international mutual recognition on ETV, in particular by drafting a framework for co-/joint verification at international level tested on real verifications
with US, Canada and EU. Several AdvanceETV partners contributed to the work of the IWG-ETV by
the preparation of requirements for an ETV programme laid down in the documents “ETV Framework
and Policy” and “ETV Procedure”, which are used for the development of a new ISO-ETV standard.
In several conferences and workshops AdvanceETV informed the stakeholders (technology providers,
technology purchasers/ users, policy makers) about the principles of ETV and the current status of ETV
in Europe and internationally.
More information on AdvanceETV and reports addressing the achievements of the project are available
at www.eu-etv-strategy.eu.
Japan Environmental Technology Verification
www.env.go.jp/policy/etv
Philippine Environmental Technology Verification
http://etvphilippines.ph
AdvanceETV
EU Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Pilot Programme
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etv
China Environmental Technology Verification Pilot Programme
www.chinacses.org
28
29

AdvanceETV - eu-etv

Transcription

Similar documents

Ben Vaske – Unique approach of basic skills

Verification of Technologies Used for the Production of Drinking Water

Testimonials for ETV StreamlineSC

Julie Lovesay Chief Directorate: National Geo

Elementary - South Carolina ETV

1. - FOIS - Indian Railways

Social Security Name Verification Window