Update on the lites.asia Collaborative Labelling Survey Project. Moira Mathers. lites.asia Coordinator

Transcription

1 Update on the lites.asia Collaborative Labelling Survey Project Moira Mathers lites.asia Coordinator

2 Labelling Display Survey: Objectives 2 Improved national understanding of levels of labelling compliance Identification of the key areas of similarity or variation in labelling non-compliance in the region, including by type of retail outlet, product category or brand Measurement of the improvement in compliance rates through increased market surveillance and communication with suppliers The reporting of the project may also help other countries considering the uptake of labelling schemes

3 Labelling Display Survey: Methodology 3 National surveys conducted according to guidelines, with the results analysed and fed back to the responsible agency in each country The responsible agency will take appropriate actions to inform, warn or sanction those suppliers and/or outlets found to be non-compliant A second survey conducted to assess the impact of the actions taken on compliance rates, with the results analysed and fed back to the responsible agency in each country

4 Labelling Display Survey: Participants 4 Australia India Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam

5 Overview of Survey Status 5 Country Status of Surveys at 29 September 2013 Next Steps Australia First survey completed Follow-up with manufacturers and retailers Second survey in 2014 India First survey underway Completion of first survey Pakistan Introduction of labelling (and therefore survey) delayed Await introduction of labelling Philippines First survey completed Results from surveys in two further provinces pending Repeat visits to first survey stores in 2014 to see if corrective action taken Sri Lanka First survey underway Completion of first survey Thailand First survey completed Follow up with manufacturers and retailers during label application process Vietnam First survey planned for October/November 2013 Completion of first survey

6 Thailand: Background and Objectives 6 Background CFLs introduced into the Label No. 5 project in 2006 as part of the Compact Fluorescent Lamp Program Labelling for CFLs is voluntary 76 million labels distributed for 27 brands of CFLs Survey Objective To understand the status of labelling of CFLs sold in the lighting market To examine the non-compliance issues with labelled CFLs

7 Thailand: Survey Overview 7 Survey carried out in January and February 2013 Four provinces: Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani and Samut Prakan Across a range of store types: Dealers, electronics stores, hardware shops, house accessories shops, modern trade, supermarkets, wholesale stores 17,422 CFL samples collected Representing 128 models and 20 brands 64% of the models and 83% of the brands licensed to use the No. 5 efficiency label

8 Thailand: Results 8 Of the 17,422 CFLs sampled: 48% (8,282) were not labelled (but scheme voluntary) 52% (9,141) carried the No. 5 label Of these, only 1.16% (106) were non-compliant Non-compliance fell into seven categories

9 Number of CFLs Thailand: Non-compliance Categories 9 1. Damaged label 2. Only one label used on double packs 3. Labels attached on non-participating models 4. Label doesn't match model 5. Label obscured 6. Incorrect version of label used 7. Two labels on model (right and wrong) Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 14

10 Thailand: Next Steps 10 Following up non-compliance with manufacturers and retailers through normal label application process No second survey of CFLs being undertaken as no significant problems with labelling found (only 1.16% of 9,141 CFLs sampled)

11 Philippines: Survey Overview 11 Survey undertaken in May and June 2013 Two provinces in Northern Luzon: Abra and Ifugao 13 stores 222 samples: 170 CFLs 28 linear fluorescent lamps 23 circular fluorescent lamps 1 ballast

12 Number of Lamps Philippines: Results 12 47% (104) of samples non-compliant 70 Of these: 23 labelled but not carrying correct PS or ICC mark 64 unlabelled 16 showing wrong label or inconsistency between label and lamp ICC/PS markings incorrect or absent 64 Unlabelled 16 Wrong or inconsistent label 1 Wrong label design 1 using the wrong label design

13 % Non-compliance by Lamp Type Philippines: Results by Lamp Type % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% No Label Incorrect information Wrong Design No ICC or PS mark 20% 10% 0% Observations: CFL FCL LFL Large variation in compliance rate by lamp type. Does this reflect varying start dates for labelling program? No label the largest transgression

14 % Non-compliance by Region Philippines: Results by Region 14 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Ifugao Abra 10% 5% 0% No label No PS or ICC Wrong design Incorrect information Observations Variation in compliance rate by region, and also in type of transgression Sample size in Abra quite small

15 Philippines: Next Steps 15 Repeat visits to first survey stores in 2014 to see if corrective action taken Results from surveys in two further provinces pending

16 Australia: Survey Overview 16 Survey of 60 stores in March ,203 lamps, in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (metro) stores Primary aim to check registration (mandatory in Australia) Some labelling information also collected

17 % Unregistered Models by Lamp Type Australia: Registration Results 17 23% of all lamps found to be unregistered 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% CFL Incandescent Lamp Linear Fluorescent Lamp

18 % Unregistered Models Australia: Registration Results 18 Small stores in Sydney were found to have the largest proportion of unregistered lamps 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% VIC SA NSW 4% 2% 0% Small Medium Large

19 0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% % Distribution of Brands Australia: Registration Results brands covered by the survey 48% of brands had none of their lamps registered 29% of brands had % of lamps registered 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lamp Registration Compliance Bands

20 Australia: Registration Results 20 Brands with 10 or more models surveyed Brand A Brand B Brand C Brand D Brand E Brand F Brand G Brand H Brand I Brand J Brand K Brand L Brand M Brand N Brand O 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Registered Unregistered

21 % Correctly Registered Products Australia: Registration Results 21 Comparison with surveys of other products in Australia 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Whitegood s Air conditione rs Televisions CFL Lamps Incandesce nt Lamps Linear Fluorescen t Lamps Registered Products 99.40% 98.90% 88.20% 77.6% 73.2% 84.0%

22 Australia: Conclusions on Registration 22 A higher proportion of lamps are failing to register than for whitegoods, air conditioners and televisions. Linear fluorescent lamps have a higher level of registration compliance than other lamp types, but the results should be better as regulations in place since Registration compliance for CFLs compares poorly to televisions, even though mandatory requirements for both were introduced at the same time (2009). Regulations for incandescent lamps have been introduced progressively between , which may account for the lower registration rate. The large number of suppliers without registered models indicates a lack of awareness of their obligations and warrants further education. Survey results will be provided to individual retailers surveyed and product suppliers along with information on their obligations. A follow up survey focusing on the lighting sector is proposed for early 2014.

23 Australia: Labelling Results 23 Mandatory labelling for CFLs only No specific label, but CFLS must carry information on all of the following: Wattage Lumens Lifetime Mercury The survey collected details of the information displayed on all lamp packaging

24 % Labelled Lamps Australia: Labelling Results % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Linear Fluorescent CFL Incandescent Note: Equivalence not relevant for incandescent lamps

25 Australia: Labelling Results 25 General observations about the labelling of lamps Few lamps display information on colour temp Labelling of linear fluorescent lamps far worse than other types Results for CFLs & incandescent lamps similar Results for CFLs (labelling of mandatory attributes) Compliance rate = 57% Mercury labelling the least labeled attribute >95% included wattage and lifetime

26 % Labelled Lamps 26 Australia: Compliance with Mandatory CFL Labelling 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Wattage Lumens Lifetime Mercury All

27 Vietnam: Survey Plan 27 Labelling display survey planned for October- November 2013 Metro areas: Hanoi, HCMC, Da Nang, Can Tho Details to be finalised but likely to include: Compact fluorescent lamps (> 400 models); Tubular fluorescent lamps (> 400 models); Electronic & Electromagnetic ballasts (>200 models); These lighting products display an endorsement label on product or packaging Survey to be funded by Australian Government AusAID Program

28 Sri Lanka: Survey Plan 28 Survey being carried out in September/October 2013 Focusing on CFLs 25 retail outlets/200 lamps Assessing compliance against mandatory CFL labelling

29 India: Survey Plan 29 Survey ongoing in New Delhi 38 brands to be sampled: 20 CFLs 10 fluorescent lamps 8 metal halides Assessing compliance against mandatory label for tubular fluorescent lamps and voluntary labels for CFLs and metal halides

30 Pakistan: Survey Overview 30 Introduction of labelling in Pakistan delayed In interim, randomly selected samples tested for performance as part of ongoing improvement of quality culture

31 Results so Far 31 Limited participation to date so conclusions can only be tentative. But Even these show the benefits of labeling display surveys: To identify level of compliance with program requirements To pinpoint where problems exist, i.e. geographical regions, lamp types, etc. To pinpoint what type of issues exist, i.e. no label or incorrect label, lack of information on mercury content, etc. To help identify potential solutions, i.e. high rates of no registered products per brand in Australia suggests that suppliers may not be aware of obligations and should be the subject of further education, etc.

32 Conclusions and Next Steps 32 Of those that have completed a first survey... Thailand had high compliance rate Results in Philippines and Australia both a lot lower Is this because of the length of time the programs have been running? Are suppliers being made aware of their obligations? We need more data to gain further insights! More countries Brand data Impact of follow-up information (second survey)