1、raising standards worldwideNO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWBSI Standards PublicationConstruction products Assessment of release of dangerous substances Barriers to use Extension to CEN/TR 15855 Barriers to tradePD CEN/TR 16410:2012National forewordThis Published
2、 Document is the UK implementation of CEN/TR 16410:2012. The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted to Technical CommitteeB/557, Construction products Assessment of dangerous substances.A list of organizations represented on this committee can be obtained on request to its secretary.This
3、publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application. The British Standards Institution 2012.Published by BSI Standards Limited 2012 ISBN 978 0 580 77944 2 ICS 91.010.10Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer i
4、mmunity from legal obligations.This Published Document was published under the authority of the Standards Policy and Strategy Committee on 30 November 2012.Amendments issued since publicationDate Text affectedPUBLISHED DOCUMENTPD CEN/TR 16410:2012TECHNICAL REPORT RAPPORT TECHNIQUE TECHNISCHER BERICH
5、T CEN/TR 16410 October 2012 ICS 91.010.10 English Version Construction products - Assessment of release of dangerous substances - Barriers to use - Extension to CEN/TR 15855 Barriers to trade Produits de construction - Evaluation de lmission de substances dangereuses - Barrires lutilisation - Extens
6、ion du CEN/TR 15855 Barrires aux changes Bauprodukte - Bewertung der Freisetzung von gefhrlichen Stoffen - Nutzungsbarrieren - Erweiterung von CEN/TR 15855 zu Handelsbarrieren This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 13 August 2012. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 351. CEN
7、 members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, P
8、ortugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION COMIT EUROPEN DE NORMALISATION EUROPISCHES KOMITEE FR NORMUNG Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels 2012 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and b
9、y any means reserved worldwide for CEN national Members. Ref. No. CEN/TR 16410:2012: EPD CEN/TR 16410:2012CEN/TR 16410:2012 (E) 2 Contents Foreword 3Executive summary 41 Introduction 42 The Wider Perspective on Barriers to Trade 72.1 General 72.2 Examples of Non-Tariff Barriers 82.3 Barriers to trad
10、e within the European Union 92.4 Barriers to Trade A Question of Safety? 103 The State of the European Union Single Market 124 Barriers Created by National Legislative Approaches 144.1 The national approach to legislation a comparison of three countries 144.2 National Building Regulations and the Ef
11、fectiveness of the CPD 235 Controls on Market Legislation 245.1 Technical Standards and Regulations Directive 98/34 EC 245.2 The Official Perspective 245.3 Does TRIS (and the 98/34 procedure) Work? 256 Barriers Resulting from Policy Instruments or Schemes 256.1 Public procurement 256.2 Sustainable T
12、imber 277 Examples of the restrictions on use of materials 287.1 Barriers to use 287.2 UK Collateral Warranties and deleterious Materials clauses 287.3 Green product or building labelling The Eco-label 327.4 Dutch Environmental Certification Label 347.5 European Schemes for labelling of emissions to
13、 air 347.6 Green Building labelling schemes 377.7 Swedish BASTA (online) Scheme 378 The Industry Perspective 389 Can Standardisation Eliminate Barriers to Use? 3810 Conclusions 39Annex A (informative) German System for derivation of OELs 41Annex B (informative) The World Trade Organisation 43B.1 Gen
14、eral information about the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement 43B.2 National Activities to Support the TBT Agreement 43B.3 Other information sources 43Annex C (informative) European Commission Process for Setting Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria 44Bibliography 45PD CEN/TR 16410:2012C
15、EN/TR 16410:2012 (E) 3 Foreword This document (CEN/TR 16410:2012) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 351 “Construction products - Assessment of release of dangerous substances”, the secretariat of which is held by NEN. Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of t
16、his document may be the subject of patent rights. CEN and/or CENELEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. PD CEN/TR 16410:2012CEN/TR 16410:2012 (E) 4 Executive summary CEN Technical Report 15855 examined the concept and realities of barriers to trade in constr
17、uction products within the European Union insofar as the products were affected by regulations relating to Essential Requirement 3 (ER3) of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC). Within the body of CEN/TR 15855, the topic of barriers to use was investigated briefly and it was concluded th
18、at these could be at least as significant as technical barriers to trade. The European Commission, in noting these findings, asked that the report be extended to further examine the reasons for and scope of barriers to use of construction products in the European Union (insofar as they related to ER
19、3) of the Construction Products Directive (CPD) 2. This report further examines the types of barriers and the fundamental reasons behind their creation and continued existence, such as the laudable aim to protect health. Like the earlier report, this report considers barriers resulting from legislat
20、ion and examines the approaches to national legislation in three countries: the UK, Germany and The Netherlands. The latter two were considered especially because they appeared to have the largest number of regulatory requirements or were cited by respondents to the original report as being the caus
21、e of barriers to use of construction products. This report also examines European and national initiatives such as Green Public Procurement and a number of voluntary schemes, especially related to health and safety or environmental labelling issues particularly product or building labelling and, of
22、course, eco-labelling schemes which are far from harmonised around the world. Specific examples of barriers to use are reviewed in detail including the use of “collateral warranties” in the United Kingdom, green product labelling, the Dutch Environmental Certification label and indoor air emission l
23、abelling schemes such as AgBB in Germany and AFSSET in France. An industry perspective, previously identified in TR 15855, is also presented. From this point of view, not all barriers to use are seen in a negative way, but this is highly dependent upon the industry concerned and their scale of opera
24、tions. The conclusion of the report is that standardisation can only do so much to help provide the framework for prevention of barriers to use of construction products; and the harmonised test methods of CEN/TC 351 will provide some of that framework insofar as the barriers are of a technical natur
25、e and regulatory. Standardisation can provide tools but cannot prevent or eliminate voluntary measures or controls that create barriers to use. 1 Introduction “Barriers to trade” is an emotive subject that polarises opinion amongst regulators and manufacturers alike. For regulators, there are those
26、who believe in setting minimum performance targets but allowing manufacturers the freedom on how these are achieved, and those who believe that the level of control, through legislation, should be very high and prescriptive to afford maximum protection to health and the environment. Amongst manufact
27、uring industry, views are influenced partly by national custom (and legislative background) and also by size of the enterprise the latter, however, is not a consistent measure. Broadly, there are three groups from manufacturing whose opinions can be summarised as follows: those who believe that almo
28、st every piece of national legislation, and every measure and control applied to products is a barrier to them trading that product on the market; PD CEN/TR 16410:2012CEN/TR 16410:2012 (E) 5 those who take their responsibilities for meeting legislation very seriously and fulfil their obligations und
29、er the legislation as the law demands or as they perceive society or the market demands for their product; those who support strong controls, high standards and levels of certification, not just to fulfil their responsibilities as they understand them but also to protect the product image (and perfo
30、rmance) and to protect the market from cheap imports or cost cutting. The original report on Barriers to Trade, prepared in response to Mandate M/366 given to CEN/TC 351 by the European Commission, and published as CEN/TR 15855 1, identified that some of these barriers were truly technical or legal
31、“barriers to trade” which can usually be overcome or minimised by technical harmonisation work. However, others were found to be quite legally in place, sometimes voluntary, but nonetheless still seen as a barrier to the use of certain products in a free market place. This report is a further examin
32、ation of these concepts in more detail and an attempt to identify the reasons behind the presence of barriers to use and to present specific examples in more detail. The information has also been provided at the request of the European Commission to support their activities in this field and to exam
33、ine whether the standardisation work in CEN/TC 351 can influence or eliminate barriers to use for construction products in the field of dangerous substances (ER3 of the Construction Products Directive 2). CEN Technical Report 15855 1 examined the concept and realities of barriers to trade in constru
34、ction products within the European Union insofar as the products were affected by regulations relating to Essential Requirement 3 (ER3) of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC) 2. ER3 relates to hygiene, health and environmental requirements for the “works” and how they may affect the cho
35、ice and use of products. The original Technical Report 15855, commissioned under Mandate M/366 from the European Commission to CEN/TC 351, was required to establish the degree to which “technical barriers to trade” already existed and, if they did, whether the harmonisation process under Mandate M/3
36、66 could, or would, eliminate any or all of the observed or perceived technical barriers. CEN/TR 15855 stated that: “Although the principle emphasis of the Mandate and the report was technical barriers to trade, discussions outside of the TG meetings with the Commission DG Enterprise, established th
37、at the Commission was interested in all barriers to trade including barriers to “use” although it was acknowledged that such barriers could be beyond the scope of CEN harmonisation activities. The Commission also confirmed that the presence of a single national requirement and test method was suffic
38、ient grounds for commencing harmonisation procedures since the presence of an existing requirement and test method may create a future barrier to trade scenario see later. “As well as establishing the presence of any true technical barriers to trade, TG1 therefore also considered that other barriers
39、 to trade may exist which may not be under the usual definition of a technical barrier. In particular, TG1 thought it necessary to investigate indirect technical requirements or barriers to trade that may impact construction products one way or another, especially if due to de facto regulations or n
40、ational requirements. It was therefore considered relevant and useful to include in the report some examples of the various types of barrier to trade where they may directly impact the use of a construction product in one or more Member States compared to the rest of Europe.” It also referred to the
41、 differences between Barriers to Trade (BTT) and Barriers to Use (BTU): “Initial concepts of the different types of barriers in the market place were considered and some examples were provided to consultees to assist in their understanding of the issues and hence their responses. These included volu
42、ntary market measures and specific national requirements, whether notified regulations or recommendations. Market measures can become de-facto barriers. “Opinions on what constitutes a barrier to trade vary but national regulatory barriers can be created within the European legal framework. Some reg
43、ulations, such as the new REACH Regulation for health protection, provide common European levels of protection but the CPD defines Essential Requirements that are open to interpretation by Member States. Under Article 95 of the EU Treaty, the grounds for derogation from a harmonised level are strict
44、, but greater freedom is afforded to countries when they implement non-harmonised levels of protection for health or environment in construction works. According to case law in the European PD CEN/TR 16410:2012CEN/TR 16410:2012 (E) 6 Court of Justice, a measure should be proportional and reasonable,
45、 and it can take precedence over other regulations such as Public Procurement. A Member State may have a legitimate health and safety requirement based upon their perception of risk which is different to that usually accepted in most other Member States. The Member State then notifies this proposed
46、regulation and provided no justifiable and sustained objections are received from other Member States the regulation is adopted and then cannot be regarded as a legal barrier to trade, although it can create a distortion in the market place and possibly result in the creation of different products f
47、or each market area. It may also result in different certification requirements for a similar end use in different countries. “The Notification process (98/34 procedure) is seen as being complex for industry and in many cases is not understood. Failure of industry to ask their member state authority
48、 to raise objections (either due to lack of knowledge of the proposal, or due to lack of understanding) can result in approval of the new regulation. When in force the industry only then sees the problem and encounters barriers to the use of their products. Even if objections are registered they may
49、 not be considered sufficient to stop the implementation. “Alternatively, it has also been suggested that a similar type of Member State requirement, purported to be needed for health and safety reasons, and based upon a stated demand for a higher level of protection than that generally accepted in the EU, is actually a market protection measure to make the sale of cheaper imported p
