|
|
|
|
SBP Bulletin
June 2016 Issue 3
|
|
Welcome to issue 3 of the SBP Bulletin. I am delighted to have taken up the position of Chief Executive Officer and I look forward to the new challenges it will bring. During the first few months my priorities are split between getting to know those in the market, from Certification Bodies, through supply chain actors to interested parties, and shaping the future of SBP.
|
|
|
With regard to the former, it is my belief that all stakeholders need the assurance that the bioenergy sector is acting responsibly. I want to understand all stakeholders’ views and how they relate to SBP, and I am happy to receive input from our wider stakeholder community. My aim is to ensure that our certification programme is both robust and credible.
As for shaping the future of SBP, I have already started on a strategy review to consider the future development of SBP and to ensure that we are on track to achieve our vision and objectives.
In terms of operational performance, the second quarter of the year has been as busy as the first. We have approved three additional Certification Bodies, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, SCS Global Services, and DNV GL Business Assurance Finland Oy Ab. The number of Certificate Holders has increased to 27 and the interest shown by supply chain actors in the certification programme continues to be high.
Following our public consultation on the draft Regional Risk Assessments for the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, we have now published our response to consultation and the final SBP-endorsed Regional Risk Assessments for Estonia and Lithuania. We will follow suit for Latvia once the report is finalised.
From a more practical perspective, two Work Instruction Documents have been published on our website. These documents provide a step-by-step description of the Certification Body Approval Procedure and the Certificate Holder Approval Procedure. In the interests of transparency, we have put these documents in the public domain to clarify the processes and the people that are involved in every approval decision made by SBP.
On 1 April we published two proposed fee schedules, one applicable to Certification Bodies and one applicable to Certificate Holders. It is proposed to charge fees to cover those administrative costs of running the SBP certification programme and developing the scheme that are not already met by membership fees.
Also in April, the independent Advisory Board held its second meeting. For me, the key outcome was the discussion held on the future strategy and development of SBP. The Advisory Board has an important role to play in providing the SBP Board with advice on the strategic direction of SBP and the discussion gave much food for thought. I look forward to engaging with the Advisory Board over the coming months as I work on my strategy review.
Finally, two important initiatives have taken place in the last quarter – a scoping dialogue on sustainable woody biomass for energy organised by The Forests Dialogue and the SBP/Latbio workshop on the sustainability of wood chips. Both were well attended and participants were able to debate key issues.
You can read more on the above topics and other key highlights below.
As always, we welcome your views and comments on the work of SBP, please keep them coming.
|
|
|
Carsten Huljus, Chief Executive Officer
|
|
Certification Body approvals
In May, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), Canada became the third ‘SBP-approved’ Certification Body, and in June SCS Global Services (SCS), USA, and DNV GL Business Assurance Finland Oy Ab (DNV GL) became the fourth and fifth respectively. The three Certification Bodies provided evidence that they meet the SBP requirements regarding their existing accreditations and demonstrated sufficient resource and competence to manage the SBP certification programme.
PwC has been approved for certifications, in Canada and the United States of America, of Biomass Producers, typically pellet or wood chip mills, and the biomass supply chain, for example, Biomass Producers and components of the downstream supply chain, such as trade, transport and processing that require Chain of Custody certification.
SCS has been approved for worldwide certifications of Biomass Producers and the biomass supply chain. DNV GL has been approved for certifications of Biomass Producers and the biomass supply chain, with a geographic scope of Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
|
|
Certifications Update
Twelve further certificates were issued, to both Biomass Producers and biomass traders, during the second quarter of the year. The geographic spread has been increased by one country, bringing the total to nine – Belarus, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United States. The pipeline of applications for SBP certification remains very healthy, with around a further 80 organisations having made applications through SBP-approved or applicant Certification Bodies.
Stakeholders are notified of all applications for SBP certification via an email circular. If you wish to be added to the circulation please email Melanie Wedgbury.
Stakeholders are reminded that they may comment at any time if they hold particular concerns about any of the Certification Bodies or biomass supply chain actors, or indeed about the SBP certification programme itself.
|
|
|
Regional Risk Assessments
Draft Regional Risk Assessments (RRAs) for the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were published for consultation last year. RRAs are a key part of SBP’s focus on identifying and mitigating risks associated with sourcing feedstock for biomass pellet and wood chip production.
The purpose of an RRA is to evaluate an entire geographic region and determine the risks associated with sourcing feedstock for biomass pellet or wood chip production from that region. Thus, the need for individual Biomass Producers to conduct risk assessments is avoided. The SBP RRA procedure also ensures active engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders in the region.
Following consideration of the comments received from interested parties and a thorough internal review, we have now published our response to consultation and the final SBP-endorsed RRAs for Estonia and Lithuania. Both documents can be found at: http://www.sustainablebiomasspartnership.org/documents/risk-assessments/regional-risk-assessments-for-the-baltic-states.
The same will be published for Latvia once finalised.
|
|
Work Instruction Documents
In early June, SBP published two Work Instruction Documents, which provide a step-by-step description of the Certification Body Approval Procedure and the Certificate Holder Approval Procedure.
In the interests of transparency, these documents clarify the processes and the people that are involved in every approval decision made by SBP.
The documents can be viewed here: http://www.sustainablebiomasspartnership.org/documents/process-documents/work-instruction-documents
There are two points worthy of clarification:
- An approved Certification Body (CB) will have a scope statement detailing both the geographic and technical extent of its approval. The geographic scope statement qualifies the geographic region or regions where the CB is allowed to operate. It does not mean that all biomass supplied from that region or regions is certified. Similarly, the technical scope statement specifies those organisations within the biomass supply chain that the CB is allowed to certify, for example, Biomass Producers and biomass traders. It does not mean that the entire biomass supply chain from the Certificate Holder to the end user is certified. The individual supply chain actors each need to be certified if they take legal ownership of the biomass and if the biomass is to be accompanied by an SBP claim; and
- A certified organisation (that is, a Certificate Holder) is able to make claims that product it sells is SBP-complaint. That does not mean that all the product sold by that organisation is SBP-compliant, only that accompanied by an SBP claim.
|
|
|
Fee schedules
Since its inception, SBP has not levied any charges in relation to its activities associated with the approval of Certification Bodies and the certification of supply chain actors, such as Biomass Producers and biomass traders. On 1 April, we published two proposed fee schedules, which will be effective from 1 October 2016.
The first fee schedule is applicable to Certification Bodies and covers the fees associated with Certification Body approval and the review of a Certification Body’s certification decision in relation to applications for SBP certification.
The second is applicable to Certificate Holders, which include Biomass Producers, typically wood pellet and wood chip producers, and any entity taking legal ownership of SBP-certified biomass and selling that biomass with an SBP claim, typically biomass traders. These fees will cover the wider costs of administering and developing the SBP certification programme.
SBP is a not-for-profit organisation. It is proposed that fees will be charged to Certification Bodies and Certificate Holders to cover those administrative costs of running the SBP certification programme and developing the scheme that are not already met by membership fees.
Both the proposed fee schedules may be viewed at: http://www.sustainablebiomasspartnership.org/sbp-framework/fee-schedules
|
|
Second meeting of the independent Advisory Board
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, chairman of the Advisory Board to SBP, described the second meeting of the Advisory Board, held in Savannah, Georgia, as "a lively, engaging and critical discussion on the importance of a clear strategy for the continued development of SBP." The Advisory Board recorded a number of issues in this context that it will discuss in more detail with the new CEO, Carsten Huljus, and the SBP Board. For example, how the standard should develop over time in terms of its scope, the need for a clear identity and organisational structure to ensure the integrity of the initiative in the longer term and the importance of improved transparency through clear messaging and stakeholder engagement.
The Advisory Board visited several forests in Georgia where some of the woody biomass for energy production originates. The visits provided useful insights for discussions on the different regional challenges that need to be taken into account from an ecosystem and biodiversity perspective.
Nine of the ten members of the Advisory Board were present including Jeroen Douglas, who was welcomed as a new member. The meeting was hosted by Georgia Biomass, an SBP Certificate Holder, and included informative visits to its facilities and engagement with local authorities, forest owners and academics. Advisory Board members had good interactions with the members of the SBP Board who were able to participate in parts of the Savannah meeting.
The members of the Advisory Board will re-convene for their third meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in late September this year to discuss the strategic direction of SBP being worked on now by Carsten Huljus, as well as stakeholder engagement following the scoping dialogue on sustainable woody biomass for energy organised by The Forests Dialogue.
You can read more about the members of the Board at: http://www.sustainablebiomasspartnership.org/about-us/governance/advisory-board
|
|
|
The Forests Dialogue
Nearly 40 delegates gathered in Montpellier, France on 21 June for a two-day scoping dialogue on sustainable woody biomass for energy. The dialogue was sponsored by SBP along with the World Bank’s PROFOR project and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). It was run by The Forests Dialogue (TFD), a Yale-based organisation that specialises in facilitating multi-stakeholder discussion and collaboration through focused dialogues on the most pressing local and global issues related to forests.
The aim of the scoping dialogue was to bring together a diverse set of stakeholders to explore issues and identify ‘fracture lines’ relating to the use of woody biomass for energy (heat and power). This was an initial exploratory discussion, but ultimately the aim is to tackle the fracture lines by seeking a shared understanding and change through consensus-based collaboration.
Participants represented both industrial-scale biomass and traditional biomass uses in developing countries, and were drawn from civil society as well as those with economic interests. Whilst there is a marked contrast between the key issues, there is also some common ground.
After two days of positive discussion, it was clear that there are fracture lines and challenges to be addressed in both traditional and industrial-scale use of woody biomass.
The next step is to determine a way forward and build support for continuing dialogue.
|
|
Workshop on sustainability of wood chips
In late May, SBP together with the Latvian Biomass Association, LATbio, organised a workshop in Riga on the sustainability of wood chips.
More than 50 participants from the Latvian biomass industry, including wood chip producers and forest organisations, took the opportunity to learn more about SBP and discuss specific issues concerning the certification of wood chip production. The presentations and discussions focused on the issues of costs and procedures in the certification process, protecting woodland key habitats, and procedures for the collection of greenhouse gas data throughout the supply chain.
Presentations from the workshop are available on LATbio's website at:
www.latbio.lv/lv/2016/05/20/seminars-sbp-ilgtspejiga-biomasas-sertifikacija-koksnes-skeldai-latvija/
|
|
|
EU bioenergy sustainability policy
In May, SBP submitted a response to the EC’s public consultation, ‘A sustainable bioenergy policy for the period after 2020’. In summary, SBP made the following points:
- Efficiency and practicability must be at the heart of the EC’s approach so that the ambition for the Energy Union to be a world leader in renewable energy is not compromised;
- The EC should work to integrate EU and Member State requirements into a high level, simple and clear set of criteria which can be readily interpreted, elaborated and incorporated into the SBP certification programme; and
- The EC should recognise the SBP certification programme as providing the necessary evidence of legality and sustainability for woody biomass used in large-scale heat and electricity production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
