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