We are not accepting donations from people or companies in Florida due to unfair reporting requirements and fees not imposed by any other state.

Call to Action for a Truly Sustainable Renewable Future
August 8, 2013 – 5:07 pm | No Comment

-Include high octane/high ethanol Regular Grade fuel in EPA Tier 3 regulations.
-Use a dedicated, self-reducing non-renewable carbon user fee to fund renewable energy R&D.
-Start an Apollo-type program to bring New Ideas to sustainable biofuel and …

Read the full story »
Business News/Analysis

Federal Legislation

Political news and views from Capitol Hill.

More Coming Events

Conferences and Events List in Addition to Coming Events Carousel (above)

Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA

Sustainability

Home » certification, European Union (EU), Feedstocks, Infrastructure, Opinions, Policy, R & D Focus, Sustainability

Certifying Biofuels: Weaknesses in Recognition and Supervision of the System

Submitted by on July 21, 2016 – 6:26 pmNo Comment

(European Court of Auditors)  Weaknesses in the system of certifying sustainable biofuels could undermine the basis of the EU’s 2020 targets for renewable energy in transport, according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors.

Under the Renewable Energy Directive, EU Member States can only use biofuels certified as sustainable to reach their 2020 target of sourcing ten per cent of the energy in transport from renewable sources. Most biofuels placed on the EU market are certified through voluntary schemes recognised by the European Commission. But the auditors concluded that the schemes suffer from weaknesses in the Commission’s recognition procedure and in its supervision.

The 2020 targets for sustainable energy in transport are important for the EU environment and for all transport users. But tracking the achievement of the targets must be based on sound data and a reliable certification system. That is what our audit set out to examine”, said Bettina Jakobsen, the Member of the European Court of Auditors responsible for the report.

The auditors found that the Commission did not require schemes to verify whether biofuel production carried risks such as conflict over land ownership, forced or child labour, poor working conditions for farmers and dangers to health and safety. The schemes’ assessments did not cover the impact on biofuel sustainability of indirect land‐use change (when more land is cultivated for food to make up for crops used in biofuel production). The auditors accept that assessing indirect land‐use change presents technical difficulties, but without this information the relevance of the certification system is undermined.

The Commission gave recognition to schemes lacking procedures to ensure that biofuels did indeed come from waste or that feedstocks fulfilled environmental requirements, say the auditors. Some schemes were not transparent enough or were governed by only a few members, which increased the risk of conflict of interest as well as prevented effective communication with other stakeholders.

The Commission does not supervise the operations of voluntary schemes and can therefore not be sure that these actually apply the standards on which they have been certified or detect infringements of the rules.

Member States are responsible for the reliability of their statistics on sustainable biofuels counting towards the achievement of the ten per cent transport energy target. But the auditors found the statistics might be overestimated, because Member States could include biofuel whose sustainability was not verified. There were also problems with the comparability of data.

In their recommendations, the auditors call on the Commission to ensure that the certification schemes:

• assess how much biofuel production entails significant socioeconomic risks and indirect land‐use change;

• verify that feedstock producers comply with environmental requirements for agriculture;

• provide sufficient evidence of the origin of waste and residues used for biofuels.

They recommend that the Commission itself should:

• assess whether the schemes’ governance reduces the risk of conflict of interest and are sufficiently transparent;

• check that the operations of the certified schemes comply with the standards presented at the time of recognition and that the schemes set up transparent complaints systems;

• seek evidence from Member States on the reliability of their biofuels statistics and harmonise the definition of waste substances.  READ MORE and MORE (Politico) and MORE (UFOP)

Related Post

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments are closed.