The Inconsistencies of Ecobalyse

We are going through anunprecedented moment: our country lacks a majority, and the government, havingresigned, is only managing "current affairs." If we add to this thesummer lethargy, the enthusiasm, and even the fervor for these Olympic Gamesthat are making France shine, nothing very significant should happen on thelegislative front.

And yet... What a surprise to find that regarding the fundamental issue of environmental labeling, everything continues as if nothing were wrong. On July 25th, the Ministry ofEcological Transition and the General Commission for Sustainable Development (CGDD)convened a meeting to announce to the various stakeholders that work is ongoing with one goal: to prepare the decrees on this labeling to finally implementArticle II of the Climate and Resilience Law. It is useful to recall that this law was adopted three years ago! Three years of taking their time when there was legitimacy to act, and now that this legitimacy no longer exists, there’s a rush.

Indeed, it is a question of legitimacy, on two counts. Institutionally, as I've just mentioned, but also scientifically. For months now, the government has been presenting us with a draft method for environmental labeling called "Ecobalyse," which is rough and inconsistent, incorporating criteria pushed by a few influential lobbies. Most importantly, this Ecobalyse method gravely ignores and deviates from the very clear methodological framework, the PEF method, as defined in the new eco-design regulation (ESPR) adopted by the European Union on April 23rd, published in the Official Journal of the EU on June 28th, and in force sinceJuly 18th.

However, the Ecobalyse method for clothing that this resigned government wants to force through is not based on the PEF. The "adaptations" proposed to evolve the European framework and "correct its supposed limitations," as they claim, are, in reality, serious negations of the requirements of this framework. There are not just significant modifications of the measurement indicators, but the addition of new, arbitrary criteria that are not based on any scientific element. For instance, the replacement of the impact category related to water resource use, the modification of calculation rules for considering the electricity mix of production countries, the addition of two new impact categories related to microfibers, and the vague concept of end-of-life outsideEurope. Finally, what should we think of the addition of the "emotional durability" criterion, for which the CGDD concedes that it is"approximate"? In the end, for the same product, the "French method" multiplies by a factor of 2 to 3, either positively or negatively, the results obtained during the strict application of the method set by the EU.

We are, therefore, in an absurd situation that legal experts will need to address: on one side, legitimate European institutions, capable of consensus, which despite difficulties, are acting for ecological transition by adopting a regulation binding on all member states and that will revolutionize industrial practices; and on the other, a French government that, after dragging its feet on environmental matters, is now, with its relative legitimacy, dismantling what the European Union is achieving, thereby putting our country at odds with ourEuropean partners by blatantly violating a European law.

It is high time for this government to abandon this forceful push. It is high time to wait for a new government to be appointed and be able, in perfect harmony with the European Union and the involved stakeholders, to finally implement environmental labeling according to the framework now set by the EU. By doing so, it will lead France and Europe to take a decisive step towards a true ecological transition of its industry.