Guidance biomass certification - Partners for innovation - NL Agency 20111013

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)

?


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


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


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


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


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


Global


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


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


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


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


dialogue

Coverage of sustainability

principles

Not focused on RED compliance

Broad coverage of sustainability

issues. No

Beyond RED


issues

Beyond RED


issues

Aligned to RED Beyond RED


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 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)


aspects. Example: credibility


Standard setting Global multi-stakeholder

dialogue


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


dialogue

Coverage of sustainability

principles

Not focused on RED compliance


issues. No

Beyond RED


issues

Beyond RED


issues

Aligned to RED Beyond RED


issues

Slide 15 of 24

issues. No coverage of GHG

issues issues issues

Accreditation

By the independent accreditation

body




By the Dutch Accreditation

Council and IAF members




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)


aspects. Example: market uptake


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)


aspects. Example: market uptake


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)


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


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)

e [email protected]

skype visserspeter

i www.partnersforinnovation.com

i www.co2-neutraal.nu

i www.developingrenewables.org

Slide 24 of 24

Guidance biomass certification - Partners for innovation - NL Agency 20111013

Business

Transcript of Guidance biomass certification - Partners for innovation - NL Agency 20111013