Upload
theodora-virginia-cummings
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 1
Environmental Technologies
Verification Systems
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
http://www.jrc.es/
Luis Delgado Sancho
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 2
Outline
ETAP
ETV
Existing systems, structure and costs
Market Survey
Scheme for an EU model
Upcoming ETV events
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 3
ETAP
Research to Market
Acting Globally Co-ordination
Market Conditions
TestingNetworks
Performance targets
TechnologyPlatforms
FundingMechanisms
Harmful SubidiesState Aids
R&DDemonstration
Funding& technology transfer
Indicators Best PracticeResponsibleInvestments
Environmental Technologies Action Plan
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/index_en.htm
Improving testing, performance verification and standardisation related
to environmental technologies
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 4
To establish or prove the truth of the performance of a technology
under specific, predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate
data quality assurance procedures (from US ETV glossary)
Accelerate diffusion –market acceptance – of innovative technologies trough:– Independent validation of performance – Networking centres for the testing and verification of technologies– Develop commonly agreed protocols, possibly common certificates
European Network of technology performance verification
Verification:
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 5
IPTS study
EURODEMO
PROMOTE
AIRTV
TRITECH ETV
47 organisations
18 EU countries
5.5 M€ EC contribution
8.5 M€ total cost
Existing ETV systems, European related systems Market Survey, Models for EETVS
TESTNET
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20102004
European ETV initiatives
Soil and groundwater remediation technologies
Collect and process information on technology demonstration
Water technologies and clean production technologies including monitoring
Soil and groundwater remediation technologies
Air emission reduction technologies
Soil remediation, waste water, energy
http://www.eu-etv-strategy.eu/
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 6
Environmental Technology Verification - Definitions
What is ETV?
Build confidence to buyers
Independent 3rd party verification
Protocols/test plans designed to suit specific technologies
Stakeholder input
No single definition of ETV
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 7
Environmental Technology Verification - Definitions
What ETV is not?
ETV is NOT certification (ISO, CEN, National systems…):
ETV does not verify against a standard (or minimum performance requirements), but can use standards and modify them
ETV does not necessarily use laboratories/personnel that are certified for specific tests/tasks
ETV does not supervise sound manufacturing
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 8
Available in the Market
Certification
Self Declarations
ETVR&D
No need for certification, but need for credible
performance data
Compliance to standards
No standards exist
Early research
Prototypes, Demonstration
The “positioning” of ETV
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 9
US ETV and ETV Canada – two different “philosophies”
Vendor
ETV system
ETV Managing
Organisation
Verification and
Testing
Organisation
Vendor
Testing
laboratory
ETV Managing
Organisation
Verification
Organisation
ETV system
US ETV objective
Testing done “inside” the system
Allows easy comparison
Stakeholder input very important
Protocol/Test plan development
ETV Canada flexible
Testing done “outside” the system
Strongly producer/vendor oriented
Uses previously established data
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 10
The US ETV system : structure
ETV system
Vendor
ETV Team
Establishment of general protocols and quality system
Review of quality
Oversight of verification organisations
Review of final verification report
Verification Organisations
Development of test protocols and test plans
Execution of verification tests
Preparation of verification report
Stakeholder Groups
Set verification priorities
Review protocols and operating procedures
http://www.epa.gov/etv/
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 11
The US ETV system : Costs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
M$
Vendor contribution
Center support costs
Verification costs
Total Costs
~ 380 verified technologies
Vendor contribution to costs was 8-13 % for years 2002-2005
Verification costs 3-5 times more than Centre support costs (’99–’04)
Total costs and Vendor Contribution
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 12
The US ETV system : average per technology verification costs
Technology categoryaverage verification cost (k€)
Number of verified technologies (until 2005)
Air pollution control 65 67
Monitoring 50 132
Drinking water treatment 95 64
Groundwater/surface water protection and wastewater treatment 135 28
Coatings and coating equipment 135 15
But the costs are very technology specific. Big differences in costs can be encountered even inside the same technology category
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 13
The ETV Canada system : structure
ETV systemEnvironment Canada
Program policy
ETV Canada
Collection of vendor claims and data
Identification of the Verification entity
Review of the final Verification report
Award of the Verification certificate
Verification Entities
Verification of supporting data
Comparison of data to claims
Preparation of the Verification report
Independent Laboratories
Execution of tests
Generation of data to verify the claimsVendor
http://www.etvcanada.com/
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 14
The ETV Canada system : Costs
Verification cost 18-21 k €
Vendor contribution 11-14 k€
Additional service for mini-market survey (optional)
3-5 k €
Testing (not included in the verification, paid by the vendor)
up to 71 k€
~ 50 verified technologies
The vendor pays ~ 60% of the verification costs
This amount does not include the tests/protocol development etc. costs that are paid directly to the testing laboratory
There are no protocols/test plans developed by ETV Canada, but with the optional step of the “mini-market survey” recommendations can be given
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 15
Other ETV systems, Japan, South Korea…
The Japan ETV system was inspired by the US ETV. This program is separated into a government sponsored scheme and a vendor financed scheme. Each verification project starts inside the first scheme but has to transfer to the second after a fixed period of time.
The South Korea ETV program is the only one which offers two separate certificates. The certificate of designation is awarded when the vendor can provide sufficient data to support his technology and the certificate of verification when the vendor cannot provide this data and the system has to verify the performance. Verified technologies benefit from a point system to be used in public procurement bids and special attention is paid to SME's with specific funds and loans.
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 16
IPTS Market Survey : the interviewed panel
Europe USA Canada Total
Vendor 17 13 8 38
Buyer/User 4 0 0 4
Public Authorities
10 0 0 10
Other Stakeholders
10 0 0 10
ETV-related programs
8 4 1 13
Total 49 17 9 75
Carried out between 02/2006 – 06/2006
Questionnaires and telephone interviews
Strongly focused on technology producers
The majority of the producers had previous experience with an ETV system
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 17
IPTS Market Survey : key findings – stakeholder expectations
A European ETV system is considered as a useful tool, provided bureaucracy is kept to a minimum and high technical level is guaranteed. It is expected to supersede existing, national procedures for technology evaluation.
Through European-wide recognition it should be able to eliminate any need for duplication of effort and tests throughout Europe. Harmonization with other non-European ETV programs is a factor of success.
Priority should be given to innovative, commercially available technologies with a positive environmental impact. Prototypes may be considered inside a limited scope framework.
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 18
SMEs are the type of companies that are expected to benefit the most from an
ETV system, since they are considered as innovation oriented and at the
same time they have limited financial, logistic or testing capabilities. It was
however stressed that bigger companies should be welcomed as well.
The different ETV or ETV related systems offer a large range of procedural
choices (US ETV-type, ETV Canada-type) and vendors' opinions are divided.
The meaning of the verification award (logo) that differs in every system and
how this is interpreted by potential buyers was mentioned as an important
issue that is possible to improve.
IPTS Market Survey : key findings – stakeholder expectations
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 19
IPTS Market Survey : key findings – stakeholder expectations
The ETV system has to be totally independent. The respondents see it as a public or private organization, supervised by a public body.
The cost is an issue of the utmost importance for the vendors. As many stakeholders as possible should financially contribute to the system. Financial help is a strong incentive for vendors to go through the verification process.
The ETV system should remain voluntary but strategies have to be developed to motivate the vendors to participate to it, without the system becoming mandatory.
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 20
The market survey revealed a contradiction in the way the respondents envisage the ETV system:
The vendors did not associate any increase in sales or any additional market penetration to the effects of the ETV system. Despite of that, almost all the respondents declared that ETV was worth the time and money spent. They did associate the presence of the ETV logo next to their mark as a contribution to the positive image of their company and admitted that they gained in recognition and in credibility.
The effects of ETV verification are difficult to detect. Vendors are reluctant to attribute part of their sales to the ETV logo; they prefer to attribute them to their product's own performance. Plausibly, both the product's performance characteristics and the ETV logo influence at the same time the purchase decision.
IPTS Market Survey : key findings – expected impact
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 21
IPTS Market Survey : key findings – willingness to pay
The practice followed until now by the existing ETV systems (US ETV and to a lesser extent Canada ETV) is that the vendor contributes only for a small part to the total costs necessary for the realization of the verification. The rest is supplied by the government and by other stakeholders.
The vendors' willingness to pay is directly related to the access to national markets, without having to go through additional national systems. They stated that they are willing to pay if the verification enables them to enter any national market in Europe, with no need of additional testing in national systems.
Vendors consider that they should not be charged for the development of generic protocols.
In general, in voluntary schemes, vendors expect to receive substantial public funding.
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 22
ETVS model : different possibilities
Verification tools
EU ETV Team
Promotion
Execution of tests/verification
Execute tests using predefined protocols and test plans
Verify the data
Network of national/regional/local
“ETV points”
Review and approval of verification report
Awarding certificate/logo
Review of applications
Dissemination of results
Write verification report
Appoint thematic verification
organisations (VO)
Stakeholders group(s)
Auditing the VOs(Quality Management)
Designate and coordinate the stakeholders group(s)
Test labs / verification centres
Thematic VO
Vendor
ETV Team
Promotion
Execution of tests/verification
Execute tests using predefined protocols and test plans*
Verify the data
Network of national/regional/local
“ETV points”
verification report
Awarding certificate/logo
Review of applications
Dissemination of results
Write verification report
Appoint thematic verification
organisations (VO)
Stakeholders group(s)
Auditing the VOs(Quality Management)
Designate and coordinate the stakeholders group(s)
Define quality management plan
Develop verification tools
Define quality management plan
Develop verification tools
Decides on program scope, objective and strategyDevelops program level protocolsAudits, evaluatesVerifies cost effectiveness
Xxxx
XXX
Xxxx
Organisation
Component of program
Task
Organisation involved in
Organisation responsible for
Establish test plans*
Establish protocols*
Define minimum performance requirements (if relevant)
Appoint Test Lab or Verification Centre
*Technology testing is done inside the ETV system
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 23
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
Scheme for an EU model
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 24
EU EPVSecretariat
TestingLaboratories
ContactPoints
Vendor
Thematic Verification
Centres
Contact Phase
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
Scheme for an EU model
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 25
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
EU EPVSecretariat
TestingLaboratories
Vendor
Thematic Verification
CentresClaims andexisting Data
Application Phase
Scheme for an EU model
ContactPoints
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 26
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
EU EPVSecretariat
TestingLaboratories
ContactPoints
Vendor
Thematic Verification
Centres
Testing Phase
Scheme for an EU model
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 27
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
EU EPVSecretariat
TestingLaboratories
ContactPoints
Vendor
Thematic Verification
Centres
Assessment Phase
Scheme for an EU model
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 28
Application phaseClaim definition and review
First review of available data and assessment whether further tests are
needed
Assessment phaseFinal review of data
Drafting of verification report
Testing phaseElaboration of test planImplementation of tests
Test report
If further tests needed
Contact phaseVendor contacts a Verification Center
directly or through a contact point
Publication phaseAward of verification certificatePublication of synthesis report
EU EPVSecretariat
TestingLaboratories
ContactPoints
Vendor
Thematic Verification
Centres
Publication Phase
ETV logo
Scheme for an EU model
Sevilla 16 October 2007 – ECREINetwork, 2nd Interregional Workshop 29
Upcoming ETV events
European Forum on Eco-Innovation:
Boosting Eco-technologies through Verification
November 26-27 – Ministry of Sustainable Development, Paris
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoinnovation2007/2nd_forum/index_en.htm
3rd International Forum on Environmental Performance Verification 'Engaging the Developing World'
within the Pollutec fair, November 28, Paris
http://www.pollutec.com