This document provides guidance to help biomass project developers and experts select an appropriate biomass certification scheme. It summarizes a workshop that discussed comparing biomass sustainability certification schemes. The workshop presented on Partners for Innovation, a consultancy firm that has experience supporting the biomass sector and manufacturing industry with sustainability services. The guidance developed a 3-step method for selecting schemes, including assessing appropriateness, evaluating scheme options, and making a final choice. It provides information on 18 certification schemes and examples of applying the selection process. The goal is to help biomass producers benefit from certification while meeting customer and legal requirements.

1. How to select a biomass
certification scheme?
Workshop
Meeting for DBM and DBI project developers and project experts
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
Slide 1 of 24

2. 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,
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
Slide 2 of 24

3. 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
Objective: Develop guidance for project developers to select
biomass certification schemes
(p13 guidance report) Slide 3 of 24

4. 2.2 Sustainability biomass standards:
potentially an important market
Market share of commodities certified
to a set of ten major social and environmental standards
25%
20%
20% 18%
17%
15%
10% 8%
5%
1%
?
0%
Global banana Global managed Global coffee Global tea Global cocoa Biomass-for-
exports forests production production sales energy trade
(Source: SSI Review 2010)
Slide 4 of 24

5. 2.3 Sustainability biomass standards:
a complex field
Clean air, water & land
Emission reductions
Zero waste, releases and spills
Biodiversity
Health & Safety
Environmental regulations
Global climate change Resource efficiency
Access to potable water Product stewardship
Crisis management Life cycle management
Environmental justice Products to services
Innovation
Diversity Capital efficiency
Human rights Risk management
Community outreach Margin improvement
Indigenous communities Job creation Growth enhancement
Labour relations Skills enhancement Shareholder return
Local economic impacts
Social investments
Business ethics
Security Slide 5 of 24

6. 2.4 Environmental and social labels:
many labels exist
Many ecolabels exist
(Number of ecolabels per keyword. Source: www.ecolabelindex.com)
500
430
400
300
200
100 76
53 51
25 22
9 8 5 4 1
0
All Energy Food Farm Fair Forest Fuel Wood FSC Biomass Biofuel
Slide 6 of 24

7. 2.5 Environmental and social labels:
many possibilities also for biomass
Bioenergy sustainability initiatives/standards
(Number of standards or initiatives. Sources: GBEP, FAO, EC, own research)
100
83
80
60
40
23 22
20
7
0
GBEP (2008) FAO (2011) EC RED (2011) EC RED (2011)
initiatives on bioenergy regulatory standards submitted standards approved
sustainable bioenergy frameworks, standards, for recognition (as far
development score-cards as known)
Slide 7 of 24

8. 2.6 Sustainability biomass standards:
an early market
Many standards went live only recently
(source: own research) 2011
Biograce
2009 NTA8080
Neste Oil RSB
2008 2010
Greenergy 2BSvs
Abengoa
2007 BSI
RSPO ISCC
REDcert
1992 1993 1997 2002 2006 Red Tractor
SAN FSC Globalgap GGL Laborelec RTRS
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Slide 8 of 24

9. 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
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 Slide 9 of 24

10. 3.2 We developed a 3-step approach
to select a certification scheme
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Make a final choice
Is biomass certification Which certification
and engage
appropriate for your business? scheme(s) to select?
2.1 Fit with organisational and
biomass chain characteristics
2.2 Does the scheme facilitate trade
of your product?
2.3 Does the scheme meet legal 3.1 Talk with certification bodies
requirements? about your plans
1.1 Assess your organisation’s
ambitions and situation
2.4 Is the scheme credible? 3.2 Talk with your customers about
selecting a certification scheme
1.2 Talk with your customers about
their needs and requirements
2.5 Easiness to comply with the
standard’s requirements 3.3 Make a final choice and engage
2.6 Fit with your willingness to pay
for the scheme benefits
2.7 Fit with customer needs and
requirements
(p12 and p21 guidance report) Slide 10 of 24

11. 3.3 We prepared a form to be filled in
by biomass actors
Question / Issue to decide Answer
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?
Is biomass certification
appropriate for your business? 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
scheme? If not, what are your customer’s needs and requirements?
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?
Which certification scheme(s)
to select? 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?
3.1 Talk with certification bodies about your plans
Make a final choice and engage 3.2 Talk with your customers about selecting a certification scheme
3.3 Make a final choice and engage
(p34 guidance report) Slide 11 of 24

12. 3.4 We provide info on the following
18 schemes
Operationa Chain RED Sustainability criteria Scope and coverage
Name
l since coverage applicant Biodiv GHG Env Social Feedstock Geographic focus
2BSvs 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass Global
Global (for
Abengoa 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass
Abengoa supply)
Biograce 2011 All stages Foreseen No Yes No No All biomass Global
Global (focus on
Bonsucro 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sugarcane
sugarcane regions)
FSC 1993 All stages No Yes No Yes Yes Forestry biomass Global
Global (for
GGL 2002 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Essent supply)
Biomass Agricultural
Globalgap 1997 No Yes No Yes Yes Global
production biomass
Global (for
Greenergy 2008 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Greenergy supply)
ISCC 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Global (for
Laborelec 2006 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Supply)
Global (for
Neste Oil 2009 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
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 Biomass Agricultural
2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU-27 /
Tractor production biomass
RSB 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Global (focus on
RSPO 2007 All stages Yes Yes No Yes Yes Palm oil
palm oil regions)
Global (focus on
RTRS 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Soy
soy regions)
Biomass Agricultural
SAN 1992 No Yes Option Yes Yes Global
production biomass
(p19 guidance report) Slide 12 of 24

13. 3.5 Example: selection method applied
to a Brazilian ethanol producer
Operationa Chain RED Sustainability criteria Scope and coverage
Name
l since coverage applicant Biodiv GHG Env Social Feedstock Geographic focus
2BSvs 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass Global
Global (for
Abengoa 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes No No All biomass
Abengoa supply)
Biograce 2011 All stages Foreseen No Yes No No All biomass Global
Global (focus on
Bonsucro 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sugarcane
sugarcane regions)
FSC 1993 All stages No Yes No Yes Yes Forestry biomass Global
Global (for
GGL 2002 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Essent supply)
Biomass Agricultural
Globalgap 1997 No Yes No Yes Yes Global
production biomass
Global (for
Greenergy 2008 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Greenergy supply)
ISCC 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Global (for
Laborelec 2006 All stages No Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
Supply)
Global (for
Neste Oil 2009 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass
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 Biomass Agricultural
2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EU-27 /
Tractor production biomass
RSB 2011 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All biomass Global
Global (focus on
RSPO 2007 All stages Yes Yes No Yes Yes Palm oil
palm oil regions)
Global (focus on
RTRS 2010 All stages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Soy
soy regions)
Biomass Agricultural
SAN 1992 No Yes Option Yes Yes Global
production biomass
Best fit Second best fit Third best fit (p35 guidance report) Slide 13 of 24

14. 3.6 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: credibility
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Global multi-
No standard
stakeholder Multi-stakeholder
setting (directly
Global multi- dialogue with dialogue with Global multi-
taken from RED).
Standard setting stakeholder important important stakeholder
Advisory
dialogue influence of influence of Dutch dialogue
committee on
German stakeholders
developments
stakeholders
Not focused on Beyond RED Beyond RED Aligned to RED Beyond RED
RED compliance
Coverage of
sustainability Broad coverage of Broad coverage of Broad coverage of Broad coverage of
principles sustainability sustainability sustainability sustainability
issues. No issues issues issues
coverage of GHG
By the German By the German
By an
By the Federal By the Dutch Federal
independent
independent Government Accreditation Government
Accreditation accreditation
accreditation Agency for Council and IAF Agency for
body
body Agriculture and members Agriculture and
(to be defined)
Food (BLE) Food (BLE)
Third party
Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes
verification
Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
Type of Not-for-profit Mix of not-for- Not-for-profit Profit Not-for-profit
organisation profit and profit
Full Member Affiliate Member of Full Member of
Adherence
of ISEAL Alliance of ISEAL Alliance and ISO ISEAL Alliance
(p27 guidance report, updated October 2011) Slide 14 of 24

15. 3.6 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: credibility
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
Global multi-
No standard
stakeholder Multi-stakeholder
setting (directly
Global multi- dialogue with dialogue with Global multi-
taken from RED).
Standard setting stakeholder important important stakeholder
Advisory
dialogue influence of influence of Dutch dialogue
committee on
German stakeholders
developments
stakeholders
Not focused on Beyond RED Beyond RED Aligned to RED Beyond RED
RED compliance
Coverage of
sustainability Broad coverage of Broad coverage of Broad coverage of Broad coverage of
principles sustainability sustainability sustainability sustainability
issues. No issues issues issues
coverage of GHG
By the German By the German
By an
By the Federal By the Dutch Federal
independent
independent Government Accreditation Government
Accreditation accreditation
accreditation Agency for Council and IAF Agency for
body
body Agriculture and members Agriculture and
(to be defined)
Food (BLE) Food (BLE)
Third party
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
verification
Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
Type of
organisation Not-for-profit Mix of not-for- Not-for-profit Profit Not-for-profit
profit and profit
Full Member Affiliate Member of Full Member of
Adherence
of ISEAL Alliance of ISEAL Alliance CEN and ISO ISEAL Alliance
(Best in class using ISEAL good practice principles and ISEAL-100 survey findings) Slide 15 of 24

16. 3.7 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: market uptake
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
19,749 621 3 945 None
CoC certificates, certificates certificates certificates (2 in progress)
Number of
certificates 1,028 FM/CoC
issued certificates
(Feb 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011)
Year of going live 1993 2010 2011 2010 2011
(p28 guidance report, updated October 2011) Slide 16 of 24

17. 3.7 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: market uptake
FSC ISCC NTA8080 REDcert RSB
19,749 621 3 945 None
CoC certificates, certificates certificates certificates (2 in progress)
Number of
certificates 1,028 FM/CoC
issued certificates
(Feb 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011) (Oct 2011)
Year of going live 1993 2010 2011 2010 2011
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)
(Highest number of users) Slide 17 of 24

18. 3.8 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: benefits
Total benefits
Direct Indirect
(additional revenue)
Price premium Additional sales Monetary Non-monetary
Organizational
Environmental
Cost reduction Social
Avoidance of loss Other
of sales revenue (Figure: adapted from Simula et al 2004)
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)
Slide 18 of 24

19. 3.9 We prepared guidance on specific
aspects. Example: costs
Total Costs
Direct cost Indirect cost
External auditing Internal costs Compliance with the Compliance with the
performance criteria management system
Preparation Participation in criteria
Initial costs the process
Monitoring and
Cost of
surveillance audits Social internal auditing R&D
Ecological
Plantation management Resource Documentation
assessment
and inventory Planning
There is also little information available on costs.
SSI (2010) indicates direct cost between Operational Management
€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) Slide 19 of 24

20. 4.1 Add on: info on the services of
certification bodies
NTA
ISCC REDcert RSB Other
8080
2BSvs,
Bonsucro, FSC,
GGL, Globalgap,
yes yes yes Applied
PEFC, RTRS,
RSPO, Fairtrade,
UTZ certified
yes yes yes - no info
- - - Applied no info
yes - yes Applied PEFC
2BSvs,
yes yes yes Applied Bonsucro, FSC,
RSPO, RTRS
(Source: websites of standard systems and certification bodies, October 2011)
Slide 20 of 24

21. 4.2 Add-on: a 3-step approach to prepare
biomass actors for certification
Preparation Roadmap Certification
Determine your current Define todo-s and Engage with
level of compliance improve cost auditors
effectiveness
Tools: Tools: Tools:
1. Gap analysis 1. Roadmap and 1. Guidance on
questionnaire and costing tool auditor
assessment tool selection
2. Checklist on required
documentary evidence
3. GHG questionaire
(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 )
Slide 21 of 24

22. 4.3 Add-on: a gap analysis tool for
biomass certification
P1 Legality
10 P2 Planning, monitoring, cont. Examplary identified
P12 Land rights
8 improvement gaps
6 Principle 2:
P11 Technology P3 Greenhouse gases EIA conducted but
4
social management
2 plan missing
P10 Air 0 P4 Human and labour rights >> 9 points
Principle 9:
Water sources
P5 Rural and local
P9 Water
development inventory missing.
>> 6 points
RSB compliance level
P8 Soil P6 Food security (possible pass) Gap scores :
P7 Conservation Typical Jatropha Company 10: adequate,
Mozambique 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 )
Slide 22 of 24

23. 4.4 Add-on: a roadmap tool: insight in
todo’s + reduced costs
900
The roadmap exercise of
800 Sun Biofuels
Estimated cost for RSB certification
Mozambique SA
700 Compliance costs resulted in:
and compliance (in k$)
600 to be spread over
years 1. Good insight in the
(
500 required actions and
their costs
400
300 Costs to obtain 2. Reduced cost to
the 1st certificate obtain the 1st
200 (compliance and certificate
100 certification cost) (-89%!!)
0 3. Possibility to spread
1st estimate 2nd estimate costs over several
(initial roadmap - (final roadmap - years and to
May 2011) June 2011) reassess actions
(Related report published on www.agentschapnl.nl/biomass)
Slide 23 of 24

24. 5.1 Our ambition: help biomass actors
to be successful
Partners for Innovation BV
Peter 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 ☺
Cruquiusweg 20 t +31 20 620 0511 (NL office)
NL-1019 AT Amsterdam (The Netherlands) m +31 6 4260 9354 (NL mobile)
e p.vissers@partnersforinnovation.com t +32 80 511 955 (BE office)
skype visserspeter m +32 497 570 466 (BE mobile)
i www.partnersforinnovation.com
i www.co2-neutraal.nu
i www.developingrenewables.org
Slide 24 of 24 Slide 24 of 24