1 Challenges and experiences, a national perspective - Eva Eiderström

2 Standardisation and the Swedish Society for Nature ConservationSince 2002 Member of ECOS Member of the board of Swedish Standards Consumer Council Necessary evil? (Large activity in standardisation outside of ISO/CEN system; under ISEAL Alliance: IFOAM, MSC, FSC, ASC, Global Ecolabelling Network) Kansliet

3 Pre-2002 ISO Participation through gov fund for travel, for comittée fee The alternative would have been worse…….. Kansliet

4 2002 - ongoing 2004 tire recyclingenvironmental declarations (sc type 3) After Green Wishes for standardisation (2003) Swedish standardisation strategy proposal Seminars, conferences - aim to highlite the role of standards in legislative work Funding from Swedish Consumer Board 2008, 2009, 2010 Funding from Swedish Standards Consumer Council 2010 Coordinator (30% of full time) Education of technical expertise from within the organisation, of the organisation itself, strategic planning of input Watchdog, national and international participation Kansliet

5 Priorities Links to organisational priorities:Envirotoxins/Ecolabelling: Toys (Tk392) - chemicals Nano (Tk 512) - chemicals Leather and shoes (Tk 158) - chemicals Ecolabelling: Textiles (Tk160) - greenwashing Greenhouse gas/Carbon footprint (Tk 312) - greenwashing Kansliet

6 Necessary evil? Increased use of standards in areas of political contigency -CSR, environment, ”forces” participation in strategically defined areas - not all, not all the time Always subject to availability of resources - should common good perspectives be upheld with voluntary means? Common good representatives bring wider perspective which supports qulitatively better grounds for decisions Public good representatives have to be financed with ”earmarked” funds to ensure consitency - either publically or by ”taxing” private bodies Results obtained without particiaption are worse than results obtained with participation What would it take to reach a societally beneficial result? Kansliet

7 Aim with participationIf standards are where the decisions that matters are taken, then NGOs will participate If there is a window of opportunity for influence - the likelyhood of NGO participation is greater If legislation is forwarded to private bodies - NGO representation will be a contribution to ensure democracy and that societally defined goals are met If set up of the process ensures societal goals being met - standardisation would be an efficient and quick way to develop detailed legislation Participation is not about having the possibility of taking part in the technical committée - needs resources to maintain cooperation and coordination, both EU-wide and nationally Resources for coordination of technical expertise not enough Kansliet

8 Experiences The voice of the Environment is always underrepresented18 months is not sufficient Impossible to plan with 12 month funding Technical expertise exists, but needs training in standardisation Necessary to have coordination Participation is not about having the possbiity of taking part in the technical committée - needs resources to mainatain cooperation and coordination, both regionally, globally and nationally Resources for coordination of technical expertise is not enough Strategic link to other work areas of the organisation Kansliet

9 The future? Without more permanence not worthwhile to participateMember of ECOS? Member of the board of Swedish Standards Consumer Council? Necessity to rely on earmarked funding source Necessity to have coordination capacity Possibility to create mirror ECOS organisation nationally? German example Kansliet

10 www.naturskyddsforeningen.se [email protected]