Environmentally Sound Technologies -
Harmonizing International Approaches to Performance Verification
Tuesday, March 28PthP, 2006
Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver, Canada

Summary and Presentations

Overview of Forum Objectives and Goals

Dr. John Wiebe, President and C.E.O., The GLOBE Foundation of Canada

Dr. Wiebe set the stage for the Forum by welcoming the participants and provided background on the Forum by outlining the main objective, the specific goals and the anticipated outcomes. The main objective of the Forum was to provide a venue for the exchange of ideas amongst representatives from countries interested in improving the effective application of independent environmental performance verification. Specific goals included:

• Sharing experiences and success stories to highlight the importance of environmental performance benchmarking and verification to the protection of human health and the promotion of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs);
• Exploring issues regarding performance verification and reporting processes;
• Fostering alliances amongst national programs to assist in the development and promotion of internationally accepted environmental performance verification approaches; and
• Developing a Plan of Action for future cooperation amongst interested parties.

I. Morning Theme: Importance of Independent Environmental Performance Verification and Reporting

The Importance of Environmental Technology Verification: Outcomes from the 1st International ETV Forum in Washington

Sally Gutierrez, Director, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

This presentation provided a summary of the major findings and conclusions from the July 2005 Forum in Washington, highlighting the importance of harmonizing environmental performance verification efforts.

International Roundtable on the Role and Benefits of Independent Verification and Reporting

This discussion focused on the perspectives of countries or regions seeking to develop an Environmental Performance Verification (EPV) or equivalent program. Presenters included representatives from UNEP, the European Commission, Bangladesh and India, each highlighting their perspectives on the role and benefits of environmental performance verification.

Panel Members:

Surya Chandak, Deputy Director
International Environmental Technology Centre
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Ian Clark, Directorate General Environment, Head of Unit
Research, Science & Innovation, European Commission

Dr. Choudhury Mahmood Hasan, Chairman
Bangladesh Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR)

S. Raghupathy, Senior Director & Head
Confederation of Indian Industry, Green Business Centre

SE Asia and UNEP Strategic Plan

Moderator:
Robyn Matravers, Deputy Director, Regional Office for North America
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Practitioners Roundtable on Current Efforts to Harmonize Environmental Performance Verification

Representatives from the United States, Canada, Singapore and Japan shared their ideas on the importance of independent performance verification, and the opportunity to work towards greater harmonization of independent performance verification. The session also touched upon the mechanisms to improve the commercialization of the environmental technologies, the difficulties associated with the early adopters of these innovative technologies, and the barriers faced throughout the commercialization process.

Panel Members:

Sally Gutierrez, Director, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

Kenji Kamita, Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Research and Technology, Ministry of the Environment, Japan

Mr. David Tee Liang, Vice President, Technology & Commercialization
Institute of Environmental Science & Engineering
Nanyang Technological University, Innovation Centre, Singapore

Abe Finkelstein, Chief, Innovative Solutions Division, Environment Canada

Moderator: Ed Mallett, President and CEO
Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA)

II. Afternoon Theme: An Action Plan for International Cooperation

Introduction on the Need for Action

The goal for the afternoon was to share ideas on key facets of the verification process and opportunities for cooperation. To accomplish this, four main topics were addressed as working sessions with facilitated discussion:

• Defining Effective Performance Criteria through Stakeholder Engagement and Benchmarking
• Harmonizing the Reporting of Environmental Performance Information
• Development and Sharing of Verification Protocols and Test Methods
• Qualification and Accreditation of Testing and Verification Organizations

A summary of the main points raised during the presentations was recorded by a rapporteur. Each rapporteur presented these points during the final session of the Forum. These summary points were also incorporated into the Charter of Guiding Principles for International Cooperation.

Working Session #1:
Defining Effective Performance Criteria through Stakeholder Engagement and Benchmarking

Through stakeholder engagement and benchmarking performance criteria can be developed and agreed upon, thereby making the verification process more relevant to market realities. Representatives from India, Canada and the United States made presentations highlighting their perspective on the following question: How can stakeholders be engaged to ensure that the criteria used for performance verification are meaningful?

Panel Members:

Surinder Kumar, General Manager, Sahara India Pariwar

Dennis Rogoza, President and CEO, Fleet Challenge Canada & Ken Fryer, Fleet Manager, City of Coquitlam, British Columbia

Brad Cumming, Manager, Pollution Prevention & Innovative Technologies Environment Canada - Ontario Region

Karen Riggs, Director, U.S. ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
Energy, Transportation and Environment Division, Battelle

Rapporteur: Mr. Andrew Trenholm, Director, U.S. ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center, RTI International

Major Points:

• If innovative technologies do not meet the requirements of the community where they are to be implemented, the project is unlikely to succeed.
• Social and cultural factors must also be taken into account during the planning and implementation stages.
• For vehicle fleets and fleet managers, one of the main criteria for meaningful information on which to base purchasing decisions includes obtaining ‘real world’ performance that addresses the priority issues facing the industry.
• Transparency and access to information about the verification for all stakeholders is essential.
• Emphasis on the diversity of the stakeholders from a regional perspective is important.
• Funding partners and collaborators should have stronger participation.
• Stakeholders must be involved in the verification process from beginning to end and more needs to be done to improve the mechanisms and processes to achieve this.

Working Session #2:
Harmonizing the Reporting of Environmental Performance Information

Transparent reporting of environmental performance is essential for providing technology suppliers and users with clear, credible information which can be used in decision-making. Representatives from UNEP and Canada made presentations highlighting their perspective on the following questions: (i) What is the most important information that should be included in all environmental performance claims and reports? (ii) Is there interest in working towards a common approach or standard for environmental performance reporting?

Panel Members:

Surya Chandak, Deputy Director
International Environmental Technology Centre
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Wayne Richardson, Director
Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM) Operations Office

Jacques Giguere, Director
Montreal Centre of Excellence in Brownfields Rehabilitation (MCEBR)

Rapporteur: Ian Clark, Directorate General Environment, Head of Unit
Research, Science & Innovation, European Commission.

Major Points:

This working session touched on the following points:

• More emphasis is required on the “cradle-to-grave” or sustainability approach instead of the “end-of-pipe” approach to performance reporting and information.
• There is currently a focus on SMEs, as large companies do not necessarily need environmental performance verification; however this may not be a sustainable concept moving forward.
• There is a need for additional capacity building, so that more expertise is available for all facets of verification.
• There is a wide range of funding available for SMEs; however there is a difficulty in determining the best allocation of these funds in order to obtain the best return on the investment.
• There is interest in a common reporting approach; however the harmonization process will be long and iterative.
• Both the SMART process and the MCEBR “bottom-up” approach to collecting performance information could potentially lead to harmonization in this area. Ian Clark mentioned that this might develop on its own.
• We should build upon the processes that already exist when applying environmental performance verification to specific country or sectoral initiatives.

Working Session #3:
Development and Sharing of Verification Protocols and Test Methods

Much can be done to facilitate the development and sharing of appropriate test methods and protocols. Representatives from India, the United States and Canada made presentations highlighting their perspective on the following questions: (i) What are the most effective mechanisms for cooperation in the development and application of relevant test methods and protocols? (ii) What are some of the priority areas where specific test methods and protocols are needed?

Panel Members:

Teresa Harten, Director, ETV Program, U.S. EPA

S. Rughupathy, Senior Director & Head, Green Business Centre
Confederation of Indian Industry

Camille Boulet, Director
Defence Research and Development Canada

Steven Young, President, Greenhouse Gas Measurement.Com

Rapporteur: Mr. Stewart Forbes, Advisor, Confederation of Indian Industry, CIDA Project

Major Points:

This working session touched on the following points:

• There needs to be a clear mechanism for the information exchange of testing and verification protocols, and it is apparent that the US EPA ETV Program is in a strong position to lead this.
• In the area of greenhouse gas measurement and reporting, there are new protocols being implemented. EPV practitioners can learn from this experience.
• There may be difficulties in applying existing protocols to certain situations, such as emergency preparedness and catastrophic events, when time is of the essence.
• There is a requirement for some informal information exchange mechanisms to build on the experience of existing ETV Programs and other performance measurement protocols, such as the new ISO greenhouse gas standards.

Working Session #4:
Qualification and Accreditation of Testing and Verification Organizations

National conformity assessment and accreditation organizations are essential to the successful operation of ETV/EPV Programs and related support activities. Representatives from India, Canada and the United States made presentations highlighting their perspective on the following questions: (i) How best to engage existing certification and accreditation organizations in the verification process? (ii) How can the conformity assessment process be used to strengthen international cooperation and harmonization of the environmental performance verification process?

Panel Members:

Stefan Janhager, Senior Program Officer, Standards Council of Canada

Vipin Sahni, Director, Quality Council of India

Lora Johnson, Director of Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA

Lauren Jones, Head, Greenhouse Gas Division, Environment Canada

Rapporteur: Mr. Raymond Klicius, Head, Incentives Program, Environment Canada.

Major Points:

This working session touched on the following points:

• Differences in infrastructure among countries internationally and within countries nationally present challenges in identifying accredited testing and verification organizations that are agreed upon and accepted.
• It makes sense to use and pool the resources and expertise that we currently have and integrate these into a more harmonized process for selecting these organizations.
• In the area of selecting Verification Entities, the Canadian and US EPA ETV programs are similar but there needs to be greater effort to harmonize approaches.

Final Session:
Opportunities for Inter-Jurisdictional and Inter-Program Reciprocity

John H. Neate, ETV Canada

John Neate described the proposed draft Charter for Action, and discussed the draft guiding principles. It is important now to establish common principles and key action items for future cooperation in order to move forward. Six key principles and a guiding vision were highlighted as part of a Charter for Action.

Vancouver Charter for Action – Guiding Vision

Long-term vision based on sustainability, recognizing the challenges in improving the relevance and usefulness of information used to support decisions related to the development and deployment of environmentally sound technologies.

Guiding Principles

Principle 1 – Environmental Sustainability
Recognize and respect the value of sustainability, through the development and nurturing of environmentally sound technologies, based on relevant performance criteria.

Principle 2 – Responsible Practices
Promote the use of environmental performance verification (EPV) as a decision-support tool to assist in the development and application of environmentally sound technologies and management practices.

Principle 3 – Stakeholder Engagement
Engage key stakeholders and foster their participation in the development of relevant environmental performance criteria through stakeholder-driven benchmarking and verification processes.

Principle 4 – Cooperative Networks
Expand and enable cooperative networks to facilitate the development and sharing of test methods and verification protocols which build upon existing delivery systems.

Principle 5 – Transparency
Ensure environmental performance information is reported in a manner which meets the needs of stakeholders by enabling continuous improvement, accountability and transparency.

Principle 6 – Scientific and Technical Capacity
Develop and implement performance verification and reporting processes based on reliable data and credible analysis.

Adjournment and Closing Remarks

Shirley Anne Scharf of Environment Canada closed the Forum, noting that the agenda covered much ground and that there were many benefits to be realized with future cooperation. She noted the complexities that arise when including social and economic factors in the performance verification model, as well as the common goals that exist among the different programs with respect to stakeholder engagement, testing protocols and accreditation organizations.

Ms. Scharf urged Forum participants to support the development of the Charter for Action by maintaining dialogue around the guiding principles. There is the potential for the Charter for Action to become a document of great significance. In closing, Ms. Scharf offered thanks to all the speakers/panel members/rapporteurs/moderators, specifically to the US EPA, UNEP, OCETA and ETV Canada.

John Neate thanked all of the sponsors, including the Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM) Operations Office, the Globe Foundation of Canada, Environment Canada, ETV Canada, and the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA).