Post on 18-Dec-2015
Governmental use of sustainability standards:
examples & lessons from the UK RTFO
ISEAL conference, Zurich, 8 June 2011
Dr Keeley Bignal - Sustainability Technical Guidance Specialist
RTFO Unit, Low Carbon Fuels, UK Department for Transport
Overview
• UK biofuel policy• C&S reporting• RTFO Biofuel Sustainability Meta-standard• Benchmarks of sustainability schemes against
the Meta-standard• Benchmarks against the RED carbon stock and
biodiversity criteria• Uptake of standards by suppliers of biofuel to
the UK• Lessons learnt
UK biofuels policy: the Road Transport Fuel Obligation
• Introduced in 2008
• Duty point obligation
• 2.5% biofuel volume
rising to 5% 2013
• Tradable certificates &
buy-out option (30ppl)
• Carbon &
sustainability reporting
Carbon & sustainability reporting scope
Company targets 2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
Percentage of feedstock meeting the ‘Qualifying’ Environmental Standard
30% 50% 80%
GHG saving 40% 45% 50%
Data provision 50% 70% 90%
Carbon & sustainability reporting overview
• To claim RTFCs C&S reports must be supplied
• C&S data must be independently verified
• Annual targets for company performance (no penalty for failing to achieve)
C&S reporting - the 'RED-ready' approach
• RTFO C&S reporting adapted to be as consistent as possible with the EC requirements from the start of the third year of the RTFO on 15 April 2010
• Aim to help UK industry best prepare for the RED• Aim to be transparent about which batches of fuel are
indicatively RED-ready• RTFO continues to require C&S reporting rather than
mandatory minimum performance until RED implementation
Benchmarks of sustainability assurance schemes against the RTFO Meta-Standard
En
vironm
enta
l
Principle Bonsucro RSPO RTRS Red Tractor
RSB SA8000 Pro-terra
Conservation of carbon
Conservation of biodiversity
Soil conservation
Sustainable water use
Air quality
So
cial
Workers rights
Land rights
The norm for Qualifying Standards
• Qualifying Environmental Standard:– Full compliance with all criteria referring to compliance with
national legislation (2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1);– On all principles one ‘partial compliance’ criterion is
permitted per principle, with a maximum of three in total.
• Qualifying Social Standard:– On principle 6, seven of the 11 criteria must be fully
complied with;– On principle 7 on land right issues and community relations,
one partial compliance is permitted.
The norm for audit quality
Criterion Norm Conformance
Certification
1. Requirements for CBs
ISO Guide 65: 1996, ISO 17021: 2006, or justified equivalents MAJOR MUST
Audit
2. Management of the audit programme
ISO 19011: 2002, or justified equivalent MINOR MUST
3. Audit frequency Once every 5 years for a full certification audit and once a year for a surveillance audit
MAJOR MUST
4. Audit competency
ISO 19011: 2002, or justified equivalent
Specific requirements relevant to the product that the CB is certifying should be added as training requirements where appropriate.
MAJOR MUST
MAJOR MUST
5. Stakeholder consultation
To include a range of relevant stakeholders. MINOR MUST
6. Public summaries of the certification audit
To include overall findings of the certification audit, any details of non-compliance and any issues identified during the stakeholder consultation. Information should be available in both English and the relevant local language(s), if applicable.
MINOR MUST
Accreditation
Benchmarks of sustainability schemes against the RTFO Meta-Standard
En
viron
me
nta
l
Principle Bon sucro
RSPO RTRS Red Tractor
RSB SA8000 Pro-terra
Conservation of carbon
Conservation of biodiversity
Soil conservation
Sustainable water use
Air quality
So
cial
Workers rightsQS
Land rights
Not qualifying standard
s
Not qualifying standards
Qualifying standards
Qualifying standards
Indicative RED Benchmark
Red Tractor FSC Genesis LEAF
RSB+RED RSPO
RTRS(draft)
SAN/RA
Ref date (biodiversity)
Primary forest
Nature protection
Ecosystem protection
Natural grassland
Species rich non-natural grassland
Ref date (carbon)
Wetlands
Continuous forest
10-30% canopy forest
Ref date (peatland)
Peatland
Key gaps & challenges
• No operational sustainability schemes currently assess GHG savings – though some are in development
• At time of RFA assessment only two schemes were strong enough on LUC to meet RED criteria on preservation of carbon stocks – some have now developed EU ‘add-on’ modules to cover this
• Many key biofuel feedstocks are not covered by an operational sustainability scheme
• Few cover the chain of custody – some are in development
General information
Country of origin information
Sustainability information
Carbon information
Indicative RED-ready
Batch No.
Inte
rnal
Batc
h
no.
(opti
onal)
Fuel
type
Quanti
ty o
f fu
el
(lit
res)
Bio
fuel
Feedsto
ck
Bio
fuel
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
cess
Countr
y
NU
TS 2
co
mpli
ant
regio
n
Sta
ndard
Env.
Level
Soci
al
Level
Land-u
se o
n 1
Ja
n 2
008
Carb
on i
nte
nsi
ty
g C
O2e /
MJ
Acc
ura
cy l
evel
Pla
nt
in o
pera
tion o
n
23 J
an 2
008?
GH
G
Bio
div
ers
ity
C-s
tock
RED
-ready
3301 Bio-ethanol
250,000 Wheat Unk UK Y LEAF QS - Cropland – non-protected
70 1 Y Y Y Y Y
3302 Bio-ethanol
100,000 Wheat Natural gas CHP
France FR51 RED - Biodiv
- - Cropland –protected
44 2 N Y Y Y Y
3303 Bio-ethanol
250,000 Sugar beet
- UK N ACCS QS - Cropland – non-protected
40 6 Y Y Y Y Y
3304 Bio-ethanol
1,000,000 Sugar cane
- Brazil N/A RTFO Meta-Standard
RTFO RTFO Cropland – non-protected
24 1 Y Y Y Y Y
3305 Bio-ethanol
500,000 Unk - Unk Unk Unknown - - Unknown 115 0 Y Y N N N
3306 Bio-diesel
1,000,000 Oilseed rape
- UK Y ACCS RTFO RTFO Cropland – non-protected
52 1 Y Y Y Y Y
3307 Bio-diesel
250,000 Oilseed rape
- Unk Unk Unknown - - Unknown 52 1 Y Y N N N
Monthly reporting format – using sustainability standards to identify RED-readiness
Moving sustainability forward
• RFA contacted standards bodies with recommendations - ‘simple’ updates in many cases to align with RED:– inclusion of reference date for LUC– aligning reference date with Jan 2008– more explicit and specific on carbon conservation
requirements• Several schemes are progressing quickly to cover key
feedstocks – e.g. RTRS, BSI, ISCC, RSB• Several schemes are developing EU market access/ RED
add-ons in response to market demand/regulatory framework• RTFO Meta-Standard can be used in absence of operational
assurance schemes
Biofuels supplied under the RTFO† - performance against the targets
Year One = 15 April 2008 – 14 April 2009
Year Two = 15 April 2009 – 14 April 2010
Year Three = 15 April 2010 - 14 April 2011
Annual supplier target Year 3 Year 2 Year 1
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
% of road transport fuel 3.5% 3.29% 3.25% 3.33% 2.5% 2.7%
% of feedstock meeting a Qualifying Environmental Standard
80% 49% 50% 31% 30% 20%
Annual GHG saving 50% 55% 45% 51% 40% 46%
Data capture 90% 82% 70% 72% 50% 64%
Environmental sustainability
Year One
Year Two
Proportion of biofuel meeting sustainability standards
8% 8%
40%33%
0%8%
51% 50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Environmental Social
None/ unknown
OtherStandards
QualifyingStandards
RTFO Meta-Standard
N.B. provisional data 2010/11 obligation year-to-date. Quarter 11.
Year Three
Environmental sustainability by company
Company performance – Year One
Environmental sustainability by company
Company performance – Year Two
Environmental sustainability by company
Proportion of fuel meeting a qualifying environmental standard
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mu
rco
Pra
x
INE
OS
Mo
rga
n S
tan
ley
Co
no
coP
hill
ips
Ma
ba
na
ft
To
pa
z
Ess
o
To
tal
Sh
ell
Ch
ev
ron
BP
Ha
rve
st
Pe
tro
plu
s
Liss
an
Gre
en
erg
yPro
port
ion o
f fu
el m
eeti
ng a
qualify
ing e
nvir
onm
enta
l sta
ndard
at or abovetarget<10% fromtarget
>10% fromtargettarget
N.B
. pro
visio
nal d
ata
2
01
0/1
1 o
blig
atio
n y
ear-
to-d
ate
. Qu
arte
r 11
.Company performance – Year Three
Key RED sustainability features
• 35% GHG savings• Cross-compliance• High carbon stock protection*
– Wetlands– Peatlands– Continuous forest
• High biodiversity protection*– Undisturbed primary forest– Conservation areas– Biodiverse grassland
*Post Jan 2008
First 9 months of Yr 3• 71% of biofuel met the
35% GHG saving threshold (may not have met all sustainability criteria e.g. unknown land use)
• 13% from unknown land use
• 49% met an environmental standard
RTFO data – are we ready for RED?
Lessons learnt
• The standard must be fit for purpose e.g. a scheme may be designed for food safety but not for environmental sustainability
• Engage the standard owner– Inform them of process and purpose of benchmarking– Ensure you have the latest (and all) documentation– Inform them of the results before finalising– Can work with the standard owners to drive sustainability
• Consult with experts and stakeholders on benchmark results• Be realistic – set the ‘standard’ you are aiming for but
recognise that there may be interim steps to get there • Get ‘buy-in’ from stakeholders – need the fuel suppliers and
supply chain to provide the demand for sustainability schemes
Lessons learnt
• Voluntary C&S reporting works– Uptake of sustainability schemes has
increased over time– Providing public access to data has driven
individual companies to improve performance
• Voluntary reporting can provide a ‘stepping stone’ to mandatory sustainability