guidance biomass certification - partners for innovation - nl agency 20111013
DESCRIPTION
Presentation 'how to select a biomass certification scheme?'TRANSCRIPT
How to select a biomass
certification scheme? Workshop
Meeting for DBM and DBI project developers and project experts
13 October 2011, Utrecht
Slide 1 of 24
13 October 2011, Utrecht
Workshop organisers
Ella Lammers (NL Agency)
Arjen Brinkman (Brinkmann consultancy)
Presentor
Peter Vissers (Partners for Innovation)
Project
Comparison of biomass sustainability certification schemes (DBI1004)
Report available on: http://www.agentschapnl.nl/content/report-certification-schemes-partners-innovation
1. Partners for Innovation: sustainability services for biomass actors and industry
• Consultancy firm in Amsterdam since 2004
• Experienced staff with many years in international projects
• Works for: private sector (E+Co, Jatropha Alliance, SunBiofuels, GreenResources, Sara Lee, Desso,
DAF, SITA, MaxiCosi/Dorel etc) and government (European Commission, Dutch government etc)
• Topics: a) support of biomass sector (sustainability pre-certification services, business plan development,
feasibility studies, potential studies, policy studies, capacity building, carbon footprints)
b) support of manufacturing industry (sustainability requirements, lifecycle analysis,
Slide 2 of 24
cradle-to-cradle, eco-design)
• Provides pre-certification services to biomass operators through its network of affiliated experts
• These experts typically have 15 years of involvement in the biomass sector in Europe (EU, Ukraine), South
America (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia), Africa (e.g. Ghana, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia)
and Asia (e.g. Indonesia, Vietnam)
• More information: www.partnersforinnovation.com and www.developingrenewables.org
Slide 2 of 24
2.1 Background for the guidance study
Background: NL Agency funds more than 40 sustainable biomass
projects.
Problem: Project developers encounter difficulties with the
selection of biomass certification schemes
Slide 3 of 24
Objective: Develop guidance for project developers to select
biomass certification schemes
(p13 guidance report)
20%
18%17%
20%
25%
Market share of commodities certified
to a set of ten major social and environmental standards
2.2 Sustainability biomass standards:
potentially an important market
Slide 4 of 24
8%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Global banana
exports
Global managed
forests
Global coffee
production
Global tea
production
Global cocoa
sales
Biomass-for-
energy trade
(Source: SSI Review 2010)
?
2.3 Sustainability biomass standards:
a complex field
Health & Safety
Environmental regulations
Global climate change
Access to potable water
Crisis management
Environmental justice
Clean air, water & land
Emission reductions
Zero waste, releases and spills
Biodiversity
Resource efficiency
Product stewardship
Life cycle management
Products to services
Slide 5 of 24
Innovation
Capital efficiency
Risk management
Margin improvement
Growth enhancement
Shareholder return
Diversity
Human rights
Community outreach
Indigenous communities
Labour relations
Environmental justice
Job creation
Skills enhancement
Local economic impacts
Social investments
Business ethics
Security
2.4 Environmental and social labels:
many labels exist
430
300
400
500
Many ecolabels exist (Number of ecolabels per keyword. Source: www.ecolabelindex.com)
Slide 6 of 24
7653 51
25 229 8 5 4 1
0
100
200
300
All Energy Food Farm Fair Forest Fuel Wood FSC Biomass Biofuel
2.5 Environmental and social labels:
many possibilities also for biomass
83
60
80
100
Bioenergy sustainability initiatives/standards (Number of standards or initiatives. Sources: GBEP, FAO, EC, own research)
Slide 7 of 24
23 22
7
0
20
40
GBEP (2008)
initiatives on
sustainable bioenergy
development
FAO (2011)
bioenergy regulatory
frameworks, standards,
score-cards
EC RED (2011)
standards submitted
for recognition (as far
as known)
EC RED (2011)
standards approved
2.6 Sustainability biomass standards:
an early market
2008
2009
Neste Oil
2010
2BSvs
2011
Biograce
NTA8080
RSB
Many standards went live only recently(source: own research)
Slide 8 of 24
1992
SAN
1993
FSC
1997
Globalgap
2002
GGL
2006
Laborelec
2007
RSPO
2008
Greenergy 2BSvs
Abengoa
BSI
ISCC
REDcert
Red Tractor
RTRS
20151990 1995 20102000 2005
3.1 Sustainability biomass standards:
the approach chosen
So, how to select in such an early market?
How to make sure that biomass producers get
benefits out of their certificates?
We developed a simple selection method > biomass producers make their
own assessment in a structured approach while contacting customers and
Slide 9 of 24
own assessment in a structured approach while contacting customers and
other chain partners.
We also provided information on 18 most relevant biomass standards.
These are the 12 standards that were submitted to the EC for RED recognition
in May 2011 and 6 additional standards. We provided detailed validated
information for 5 standards, and briefs for 13 standards.
We used the views of 5 certification bodies while designing the selection
method.
Contract period: November 2010 – May 2011
3.2 We developed a 3-step approach
to select a certification scheme
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
2.1 Fit with organisational and biomass chain characteristics
2.2 Does the scheme facilitate trade of your product?
Is biomass certification
appropriate for your business?
Which certification
scheme(s) to select?
Make a final choice
and engage
Slide 10 of 24
1.1 Assess your organisation’s ambitions and situation
1.2 Talk with your customers about their needs and requirements
2.3 Does the scheme meet legalrequirements?
2.4 Is the scheme credible?
2.5 Easiness to comply with the standard’s requirements
2.6 Fit with your willingness to pay for the scheme benefits
2.7 Fit with customer needs and requirements
3.1 Talk with certification bodies about your plans
3.2 Talk with your customers about selecting a certification scheme
3.3 Make a final choice and engage
(p12 and p21 guidance report)
3.3 We prepared a form to be filled in
by biomass actorsQuestion / Issue to decide Answer
Is biomass certification appropriate for your business?
1.1a Describe the expected revenues (preferably in numbers) and
market opportunities (short and long term), both national and export.
1.1b What regulatory requirements are relevant for your organisation
and what could be their impact?
1.1c Are there operational risks (environmental, social and financial)
associated with your organisation?
1.1d Is there an intrinsic motivation to do business in an ethical and
responsible way? What are you already doing?
1.1e Is an increase of your operational costs a problem? Do the
advantages outweigh these extra costs?
1.2 Does your customer want your products to be certified? Which
Slide 11 of 24
1.2 Does your customer want your products to be certified? Which
scheme? If not, what are your customer’s needs and requirements?
Which certification scheme(s) to select?
2.1 Which schemes fit with your organisational and biomass chain
characteristics?
2.2 Which schemes facilitate trade of your product?
2.3 Which schemes meet the relevant legal requirements?
2.4 Which schemes are credible?
2.5 Which schemes are the easiest to comply with?
2.6 What are the scheme and compliance costs?
2.7 Which schemes fit with your (potential) customer needs and
requirements?
Make a final choice and engage
3.1 Talk with certification bodies about your plans
3.2 Talk with your customers about selecting a certification scheme
3.3 Make a final choice and engage
(p34 guidance report)
NameOperationa
l since
Chain
coverage
RED applicant
Sustainability criteria Scope and coverage
Biodiv GHG Env Social Feedstock Geographic focus
2BSvs 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass Global
Abengoa 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomassGlobal (for
Abengoa supply)
Biograce 2011 All stages Foreseen No Yes No No All biomass Global
Bonsucro 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SugarcaneGlobal (focus on
sugarcane regions)
FSC 1993 All stages No Yes No Yes Yes Forestry biomass Global
GGL 2002 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Essent supply)
Globalgap 1997Biomass
productionNo Yes No Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
Global
3.4 We provide info on the following
18 schemes
Slide 12 of 24
production biomass
Greenergy 2008 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Greenergy supply)
ISCC 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Laborelec 2006 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Supply)
Neste Oil 2009 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Neste Oil supply)
NTA8080 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
REDcert 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No EU-27 biomass EU-27
Red Tractor
2010Biomass
production Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
EU-27 /
RSB 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
RSPO 2007 All stages Yes Yes No Yes Yes Palm oilGlobal (focus on palm oil regions)
RTRS 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SoyGlobal (focus on
soy regions)
SAN 1992Biomass
productionNo Yes Option Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
Global
(p19 guidance report)
NameOperationa
l since
Chain
coverage
RED applicant
Sustainability criteria Scope and coverage
Biodiv GHG Env Social Feedstock Geographic focus
2BSvs 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass Global
Abengoa 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomassGlobal (for
Abengoa supply)
Biograce 2011 All stages Foreseen No Yes No No All biomass Global
Bonsucro 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SugarcaneGlobal (focus on
sugarcane regions)
FSC 1993 All stages No Yes No Yes Yes Forestry biomass Global
GGL 2002 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Essent supply)
Globalgap 1997Biomass
productionNo Yes No Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
Global
3.5 Example: selection method applied
to a Brazilian ethanol producer
Slide 13 of 24
production biomass
Greenergy 2008 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Greenergy supply)
ISCC 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Laborelec 2006 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Supply)
Neste Oil 2009 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomassGlobal (for
Neste Oil supply)
NTA8080 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
REDcert 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No EU-27 biomass EU-27
Red Tractor
2010Biomass
production Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
EU-27 /
RSB 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
RSPO 2007 All stages Yes Yes No Yes Yes Palm oilGlobal (focus on palm oil regions)
RTRS 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SoyGlobal (focus on
soy regions)
SAN 1992Biomass
productionNo Yes Option Yes Yes
Agricultural biomass
Global
(p35 guidance report)Third best fitBest fit Second best fit
3.6 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: credibility
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Standard setting Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue
Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue with important
influence of German
stakeholders
Multi-stakeholder dialogue with
important influence of Dutch
stakeholders
No standard setting (directly
taken from RED). Advisory
committee on developments
Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue
Coverage of sustainability
principles
Not focused on RED compliance
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues. No
Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Aligned to RED Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Slide 14 of 24
issues. No coverage of GHG
issues issues issues
Accreditation
By the independent accreditation
body
By the German Federal
Government Agency for
Agriculture and Food (BLE)
By the Dutch Accreditation
Council and IAF members
By the German Federal
Government Agency for
Agriculture and Food (BLE)
By an independent accreditation
body (to be defined)
Third party verification
Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes
Type of organisation
Independent
Not-for-profit
Independent
Mix of not-for-profit and profit
Independent
Not-for-profit
Independent
Profit
Independent
Not-for-profit
Adherence Full Member
of ISEAL AllianceAffiliate
of ISEAL AllianceMember of and ISO
Full Member of ISEAL Alliance
(p27 guidance report, updated October 2011)
3.6 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: credibility
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Standard setting Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue
Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue with important
influence of German
stakeholders
Multi-stakeholder dialogue with
important influence of Dutch
stakeholders
No standard setting (directly
taken from RED). Advisory
committee on developments
Global multi-stakeholder
dialogue
Coverage of sustainability
principles
Not focused on RED compliance
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues. No
Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Aligned to RED Beyond RED
Broad coverage of sustainability
issues
Slide 15 of 24
issues. No coverage of GHG
issues issues issues
Accreditation
By the independent accreditation
body
By the German Federal
Government Agency for
Agriculture and Food (BLE)
By the Dutch Accreditation
Council and IAF members
By the German Federal
Government Agency for
Agriculture and Food (BLE)
By an independent accreditation
body (to be defined)
Third party verification
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Type of organisation
Independent
Not-for-profit
Independent
Mix of not-for-profit and profit
Independent
Not-for-profit
Independent
Profit
Independent
Not-for-profit
Adherence Full Member
of ISEAL AllianceAffiliate
of ISEAL AllianceMember of
CEN and ISOFull Member of ISEAL Alliance
(Best in class using ISEAL good practice principles and ISEAL-100 survey findings)
3.7 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: market uptake
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Number of certificates
issued
19,749 CoC certificates,
1,028 FM/CoCcertificates
(Feb 2011)
621certificates
(Oct 2011)
3certificates
(Oct 2011)
945 certificates
(Oct 2011)
None(2 in progress)
(Oct 2011)
Slide 16 of 24
Year of going live 1993 2010 2011 2010 2011
(p28 guidance report, updated October 2011)
3.7 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: market uptake
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Number of certificates
issued
19,749 CoC certificates,
1,028 FM/CoCcertificates
(Feb 2011)
621certificates
(Oct 2011)
3certificates
(Oct 2011)
945 certificates
(Oct 2011)
None(2 in progress)
(Oct 2011)
Slide 17 of 24
Year of going live 1993 2010 2011 2010 2011
(Highest number of users)
It is unclear how the market uptake will evolve. Certification bodies have high opportunity
cost to be in business for a certification system: each system asks for qualified auditors,
specific procedures and other requirements. A number of certification bodies indicate
that the market only needs a few standards covering all types of biofuels and
addressing 3 to 4 levels of sustainability. (Source: interviews with 5 certification bodies, internal memo to AGNL, 2011)
3.8 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: benefits
Total benefits
Direct
(additional revenue)Indirect
MonetaryAdditional salesPrice premium Non-monetary
Organizational
Slide 18 of 24
There is only very little factual information available about benefits. In forestry, improved
market access was found to be the most consistent economic effect (Cashore 2006).
SSI mentions price premiums for FSC (4-20% in USA and EU) and PEFC (0-1% in USA and EU)(SSI review 2010).
Other studies indicate positive cost/benefit ratios for forest and fair trade initiatives (International Tropical Timber Council 2004, FAO 2007)
(Figure: adapted from Simula et al 2004)
Social
Environmental
Cost reduction
Avoidance of loss
of sales revenue
Other
Total Costs
Direct cost Indirect cost
Compliance with the
performance criteria
Internal costs External auditing Compliance with the
management system
criteria
Monitoring and Initial costs
Preparation Participation in
the process
3.9 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: costs
Slide 19 of 24
Resource
assessment
and inventory
R&D
Planning
Monitoring and
internal auditing
Operational
Documentation
Initial costs Cost of
surveillance audits
Plantation management
Ecological
Social
Management
There is also little information available on costs.
SSI (2010) indicates direct cost between
€0.1 and €1.5/ha/yr for sustainable forestry initiatives.
Savcor (2005) reports direct costs between €0.02 and €0.8/ha/yr in
Scandinavian forestry, and indirect costs between 0.5€ and 14€/ha/yr.
(Figure: adapted from Simula et al 2004)
4.1 Add on: info on the services of
certification bodies
ISCC NTA 8080
REDcert RSB Other
yes yes yes Applied
2BSvs, Bonsucro, FSC, GGL, Globalgap,
PEFC, RTRS, RSPO, Fairtrade,
UTZ certified
Slide 20 of 24
(Source: websites of standard systems and certification bodies, October 2011)
UTZ certified
yes yes yes - no info
- - - Applied no info
yes - yes Applied PEFC
yes yes yes Applied2BSvs,
Bonsucro, FSC, RSPO, RTRS
PreparationDetermine your currentlevel of compliance
Tools:1. Gap analysis
RoadmapDefine todo-s and improve costeffectiveness
Tools: 1. Roadmap and
CertificationEngage withauditors
Tools:1. Guidance on
4.2 Add-on: a 3-step approach to prepare
biomass actors for certification
Slide 21 of 24
1. Gap analysisquestionnaire and assessment tool
2. Checklist on requireddocumentary evidence
3. GHG questionaire
1. Roadmap and costing tool
1. Guidance on auditorselection
(Reports and selected tools available on http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/index.php?id=66 and
www.agentschapnl.nl/nieuws/toolbox-gap-analysis-rsb-sustainability-standard )
0
2
4
6
8
10P1 Legality
P2 Planning, monitoring, cont. improvement
P3 Greenhouse gases
P4 Human and labour rightsP10 Air
P11 Technology
P12 Land rightsExamplary identified
gaps
Principle 2:
EIA conducted but
social management
plan missing
>> 9 points
4.3 Add-on: a gap analysis tool for
biomass certification
Slide 22 of 24
0 P4 Human and labour rights
P5 Rural and local development
P6 Food security
P7 Conservation
P8 Soil
P9 Water
P10 Air
RSB compliance level (possible pass)
Typical Jatropha Company Mozambique
>> 9 points
Principle 9:
Water sources
inventory missing.
>> 6 points
Gap scores :
10: adequate,
8: needs improvement
5: needs significant improvement
0: not covered
(Reports and selected tools available on http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/index.php?id=66 and
www.agentschapnl.nl/nieuws/toolbox-gap-analysis-rsb-sustainability-standard )
4.4 Add-on: a roadmap tool: insight in
todo’s + reduced costs
400
500
600
700
800
900
Est
ima
ted
co
st f
or
RSB
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n
com
pli
an
ce (
in k
$) Compliance costs
to be spread over
years
The roadmap exercise of
Sun Biofuels
Mozambique SA
resulted in:
1. Good insight in the
required actions and
their costs
Slide 23 of 24
(Related report published on www.agentschapnl.nl/biomass)
0
100
200
300
400
1st estimate
(initial roadmap -
May 2011)
2nd estimate
(final roadmap -
June 2011)
Est
ima
ted
co
st f
or
RSB
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n
an
d c
om
pli
an
ce (
Costs to obtain
the 1st certificate
(compliance and
certification cost)
2. Reduced cost to
obtain the 1st
certificate
(-89%!!)
3. Possibility to spread
costs over several
years and to
reassess actions
5.1 Our ambition: help biomass actors to be successful
Partners for Innovation BVPeter Vissers
Peter Karsch
Emiel Hanekamp
Saskia de Lint
Ingeborg Gort-Duurkoop
Siem Haffmans
Please do contact us if you think we can be of value for you ☺☺☺☺
Slide 24 of 24
Please do contact us if you think we can be of value for you ☺☺☺☺t +31 20 620 0511 (NL office)
m +31 6 4260 9354 (NL mobile)
t +32 80 511 955 (BE office)
m +32 497 570 466 (BE mobile)
Cruquiusweg 20
NL-1019 AT Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
skype visserspeter
i www.partnersforinnovation.com
i www.co2-neutraal.nu
i www.developingrenewables.org
Slide 24 of 24