How to assess trade-offs in sustainability certification of low-ILUC-risk biomass – current status and proposals for best practices

Abstract

Background

Indirect land use change (ILUC) is a major challenge for sustainable biomass and bioenergy production. Although the use of low-ILUC-risk practices in sustainability certification could effectively manage ILUC risks, several potential trade-offs can arise from the use of such practices (e.g. biodiversity loss). However, it is not yet clear whether the certification criteria and indicators (C&I) proposed in certification schemes and in the literature to assess these trade-offs are appropriate to certify sustainable low-ILUC-risk biomass. To bridge this gap, this paper presents a structured system for assessing the quality of such C&I to support the improvement of existing C&I and the development of those that are currently lacking.

Methods

Building on a recently published review of trade-offs that can arise in low-ILUC-risk certification, relevant literature was reviewed (such as scientific articles, project reports, standard documents of biofuel certification schemes, documents of the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance) to identify and inventory potential certification C&I for a selection of these trade-offs (e.g. resource depletion, water pollution). In addition, defined requirements (e.g. validity of C&I) were used to assess the quality of the C&I. Finally, the C&I were classified according to the fulfillment of the requirements, for which the relative and the absolute ranking of the C&I were considered. Based in this, the quality level of the certification C&I currently in use and potential best practice C&I were identified.

Results

Most of the currently used and the potential best practice certification C&I meet the average quality level. This suggests that they are appropriate to certify the potential trade-offs almost sufficiently. On the other hand, the results indicate that there is still room for improvement and that more research on high-quality certification C&I is needed. In particular, the C&I used to assess increased economic expenses should be revised. In addition, challenges (e.g. audit interval, auditor qualification, data access, response time) and recommendations for improving the C&I are presented.

Conclusions

The assessed C&I can be considered suitable for the sustainability certification of the selected trade-offs. However, these C&I still have room for improvements. The best practice C&I can support voluntary certification schemes and policymakers in improving existing C&I and developing those that are currently lacking. Concrete recommendations for action are presented to overcome the challenges currently facing the sustainability certification of low-ILUC-risk biomass (e.g. required data, lack of requirements for indicator response time).