Making certification work for sustainable development:The case of biofuels

Simonetta ZarrilliUNCTAD

Geneva, September 2009

Biofuels Certification Initiatives

• National governments and regional groupings: Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Germany, Switzerland, US, Canada, Brazil, European Commission

• Companies: e.g. BP, Shell, Electrabel, Essent

• NGOs: e.g. WWF

• International Bodies and Initiatives (e.g., GBEP)

• International Networks and Roundtables: e.g. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (12 Principles and related Criteria), Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

What for?Ensuring that biofuels contribute to GHG emissions reduction, to energy security and to rural development, without having detrimental side-effects on food security, environmental protection, biodiversity preservation, etc.

Steps for developing certification schemes

• Principle- general starting points that describe the objective of certification. A principle is usually formulated in an abstract and non-quantifiable way

• Criteria- statements that translate objectives into substantive requirements that have to be complied with. A criterion is much more specific than a general principleIndicator/ Verifiers - quantitative or qualitative minimum parameter by which a criterion becomes testable

• Reporting- Information that is requested when testable indicators are not available; in reporting information is requested, but no minimum requirements are set that have to be met

Some examples (Kramer Report – NL)

• Principle – Biomass production must not be at the expense of important carbon sinks in the vegetation and in the soil

• Criterion - conservation of above-ground carbon sinks when biomass units are installed

• Indicator – The installation of new biomass production units must not take place in areas in which the loss of above-ground carbon storage cannot be recovered within a period of 10 years of biomass production

Some examples (RSB)• Principle – Biofuel production shall avoid negative

impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and areas of High Conservation Value.

• Criteria – (i) High Conservation Value areas, native ecosystems, ecological corridors and other public and private biological conservation areas shall be identified and protected; (ii) Ecosystem functions and services shall be preserved; (iii) Buffer zones shall be protected or created; (iv) Ecological corridors shall be protected or restored.

Some concerns related to implementation

Traditional instrument applied to a new sector

But certification will be linked to:

• Compliance with blending and utilization obligations

• Tax breaks and other incentives

• Consumer acceptance

Lessons from Past Experiences

Problems for foreign producers, especially from developing countries:– The proliferation of initiatives creates opacity and

confusion in the market and may become an obstacle to international trade

– Cost of compliance – Conformity assessment proves to be a major obstacle– Local conditions are not sufficiently taken into

account– Inadequate participation in the standard-setting

process

Specific difficulties

• Measurable criteria/indicators

• GHG emissions, methodologies

• Macro level effects

– Leakage effects

– Food security

An Internationally Agreed Programme as a Viable Alternative to Individual Programmes

Benefits:

• Increases transparency in the market and provides clear indicators for producers

• Avoids market fragmentation

• Provides for a broad participatory process & reflects the views and concerns of producers in different regions

BUT

• An international process is long and complex

• UN processes are particularly slow

• The extended time period needed to set it may hinder its merger with existing initiatives

Would this help?– Using existing Forums and building upon their

achievements– Strengthening analytical work – Launching pilot projects– Providing capacity building both for compliance and

conformity assessment – Linking compliance with support services, market

information, etc.– Striking a balance between comprehensiveness and

feasibility – Supporting the setting up of coherent policy strategies

WTO Implications• « Grey area »

– WTO coverage of initiatives developed by private bodies

– RSB – international standard?

• The “Like products” issue

• “Less favourable treatment” (EC-Biotech)

• The General Exceptions of GATT Art. XX

RiskThe simultaneous implementation of unilateral measures that may be WTO-consistent: who will be able to comply?

THANK YOU

Simonetta.Zarrilli@unctad.org