Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 83–104
Steps towards the development of a certification system for
sustainable bio-energy trade
I. Lewandowski
, A.P.C. Faaij
Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Department of Science, Technology and Society (STS), Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan
2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
Received 28 July 2004; received in revised form 7 November 2005; accepted 7 November 2005
Available online 10 January 2006
Abstract
It is expected that international biomass trade will significantly increase in the coming years because of the possibly lower costs of
imported biomass, the better supply security through diversification and the support by energy and climate policies of various countries.
Concerns about potential negative effects of large-scale biomass production and export, like deforestation or the competition between
food and biomass production, have led to the demand for sustainability criteria and certification systems that can control biomass trade.
Because neither such criteria and indicator sets nor certification systems for sustainable biomass trade are yet available, the objective of
this study is to generate information that can help to develop them. For these purposes, existing certification systems, sets of
sustainability criteria or guidelines on environmental or social sound management of resources are analyzed with the purpose to learn
about the requirements, contents and organizational set ups of a certification system for sustainable biomass trade. First, an inventory of
existing systems was made; second, their structures were analyzed. Key finding from the analysis of internationally applied certification
systems was that they are generally led by an international panel that represents all countries and stakeholders involved in the biomass
production and trade activities. In third and fourth steps different approaches to formulate standards were described and a list of more
than 100 social, economic, ecological and general criteria for sustainable biomass trade was extracted from the reviewed systems.
Fifth, methods to formulate indicators, that make sustainability criteria measurable, and verifiers that are used to control the
performance of indicators are described. It is recommended to further develop the criteria and indicator (C&I) sets for sustainable
biomass trade by involvement of the relevant stakeholders (e.g. biomass producer and consumer) and the analysis of local conditions
(e.g. local production potentials and limits, and preferences of local people).
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biomass trade; Certification; Sustainability criteria
1. Introduction
Traditionally, biomass is mainly used in the region where
it is produ ced because transport costs are considered as
high and its availability as limited. This changed in
northern Europe in the 1990s with the introduction of
biomass in district heating; Sweden and Denmark became
the largest importers of bio-energy [1,2].
1
A review made in
2001 revealed that the trade with solid biofuels like wood
residues, pellets and wood chips in Europe had reached a
level of 50 PJ [3]. No actual numbers on bio-energy trade
are available, but a continuous increase of biomass trade
activities can be observed since then. The large st volumes
of bio-energy are traded from the Baltic countries (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania) to the Nordi c countries (especially
Sweden and Denmark). Some volumes are also traded
from Finland to other Nordic countries or between
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe
0961-9534/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.003
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 7640; fax: +31 30 253 7601.
E-mail address: I.lewandowski@chem.uu.nl (I. Lewandowski).
1
Here bio-energy is defined as any kind of solid, liquid or gaseous fuel
that stems from or is produced by processing biomass. Biomass is here
considered organic substance that was harvested from forestry or
(footnote continued)
agricultural plants, either from dedicated biomass production, as residue
(e.g. straw) or as waste from processing forestry or farming products
(e.g. coconut shells).
neighboring countries in Central Europe like The Nether-
lands and Germany. Sweden imports biofuels from Canada
and Italy firewood from Northern Africa [1,2] .
There are different reasons for international biomass
trade. Most important drivers are the lower prices. For
example the Latvian export prices were 2.6, 3.7 and 3.5
Euro/GJ in 1998 for wood chips, pellets and briquettes,
respectively. These prices are lower (e.g. for wood chips
about 1 Euro/GJ) than the average wood fuel prices in
Sweden [1]. Different studies [4,5] for the Netherlands have
shown that the import of residual wood or plantation
wood from the Baltic States, Latin America or North
America can be ch eaper than the biomass that is produced
in the Nethe rlands; this is also true when sea transport is
included. Not only costs, also energy losse s through
international biomass transport were discussed critically.
But energy balances and subsequent greenhouse gas
balances show that international bio-energy trade is
possible against a modest energy loss [6,7].
Bio-energy importing countries can benefit from lower
prices and enhanced bio-energy supply security. Supply
security, especially for large users of bio-energy, is equally
important to the price of bio-ene rgy [1]. The bio-energy
exporting countries benefit from the opportunities that the
production and export of bio-energy can provide, espe-
cially to rural communities, in terms of market access and
enhanced socio-economic development [8].
Policies play an important role in the development of
bio-energy trade. The demand for bio-energy is growing
due to the climate policies of various countries that search
for cost-effective strategies for the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions. In several countries the use of biomass is
promoted by national policies and incentives. In Sweden,
for example carbon taxes on fossil fuels have been a key
factor in shifting the energy system towards renewables,
respectively biomass [9]. Other examples are the German
financial support for biodiesel and CHP, the Danish straw
utilization program, The Austrian CHP program and the
Finnish industrial approach on advanced boiler concepts
[10]. Also on EU level high targets have been set for the use
of biomass. In recent years three documents, which contain
ambitious targets for the use of bio-energy in the EU, have
been released. The so-called ‘Green paper’, which was
adopted by the European Commission (EC) in 1996,
envisages an increase of the use of renewable energy in the
EU-15 to 12% of the primary energy use by 2010 [11] .
In the so-called ‘White Paper’, adopted by the EC in 1997,
a contribution of 5700 PJ from biomass in 2010 is projected
[12]; and the Directive on biofuels, which was issued in
spring 2003, strives for the increase of the consumption of
biofuels to 2% of the diesel and gasoline consumption in
2005 and to 5.75% in 2010 [13]. It is expected that these EU
documents, national support mechanisms (e.g. the Renew-
able energy law in Germany) and green certificates will
boost bio-energy trading [2].
On the background of rising bio-energy trade activities,
concerns arise on the potential negative impacts of these
activities. Major concerns are that biomass production
could compete with food production and lead to regional
food and energy supply shortage in developing countries
[6,8]. Experiences with the introduction of cash crops, for
example soybean in Bolivia, showed negative impacts like
deforestation (to gain agricultural land) and a shift of
landownership to big farms being owned by foreign
investors [14]. For this reason criteria and tools are
searched for that help to avoid that biomass, unsustainably
produced, is sold as ‘sustainable resource’ for the produc-
tion of ‘green electricity’ in Europe. In the forestry sector
certification was introduced in 1993 as a tool to avoid
unsustainable forest management. The development of
certification systems in forestry was a market-based
response to address public concerns related to deforesta-
tion in the tropics, resulting in loss of biod iversity and the
perceived low quality of forest management in areas where
traded wood products are sourced from. The introduction
of forest certification was spearheaded by the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) and a range of other schemes
have become operational by the end of the last decade [15].
Certification is the process whereby an independent third
party (called a certifier or certification body) assesses the
quality of management in relation to a set of predetermined
requirements (the standard). The certifier gives a written
assurance that a product or process conforms to the
requirements specified in the standard [15]. The ‘require-
ments’ are mostly formulated as criteria that have to be
fulfilled for the certification of a product or a production
process. Certification is also applied in other fields than
forestry, for example in agriculture. The first environ-
mental label for organic agriculture was introduced in 1991
at the European level [16]. The initiative was taken from
retailers, food processors, auctioneers and farmers to
reduce the negative impact of intensive agriculture on
environment and biodiversity [17]. Another important aim
of certification in agriculture was to improve the market-
ability of the product and the transparency to the
consumer. It was found that consumers prefer labeled
products because they think that labeled products are safer
and healthier [18]. It can be concluded that certification
caters for many different peers and their interests (Table 1).
Essent and EUGENE (European Green Electricity
Networks) were the first to take initiatives on the
development of labels for green electricity from biomass.
The ‘Green Gold certificate’ of the Dutch utility Essent
Sustainable Energy is a track-and-trace system that
provides control over the origin of traded biomass [19].
EUGENE defines which resources for renewable energy
(including wind, sun, geothermal, water, biomass) are
‘eligible’ resources, but does not provide criteria on the
production of these resources [20]. Therefore these systems
cannot yet provide the demanded sustainability criteria
that cover the whole bio-energy trade chain including the
production of biomass.
The development of certification systems could be an
important step towards the implementation and control of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Lewandowski, A.P.C. Faaij / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 83–10484
sustainable biomass trade. Today neither such certification
systems nor important information, like criteria or
indicator to describe sustainable biomas s trade, are
available. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
generate information that can help to develop a set of
criteria and indicator and a certification system for
sustainable biomass trade. For these purposes, existing
certification systems, sets of sustainability criteria or
guidelines on environmental or social sound management
of resources are analyzed with the purpose to learn about
the requirements, contents and organizational set ups of a
certification system for sustainable biomass trade.
The study is structured into six parts.
1. Inventory of existing certification systems and manage-
ment guidelines that provide insight in key elements for
the development of certification systems for sustainable
biomass trade.
2. Analysis of the structures of certification systems to
learn about the contents, procedures and actors of
international certification systems.
3. Description of the approaches for formulating certifica-
tion standards.
4. List of criteria with relevance for sustainable biomass
trade that ha s been extracted from existing certification
systems, criteria and indicator systems and management
guidelines.
5. Methods for the definition and formulation of indica-
tors
2
and verifiers
3
that can be used to describe the
criteria for sustainable biomass trade and make them
measurable.
6. Recommendations for the developm ent of a certification
system for sustainable biomass trade.
2. Inventory of existing systems
The basic activities included in the biomass trade chain
are biomass production, trading, transport, storage and
conversion (see Fig. 1).
4
Biomass can be produced in
agriculture, in plantations, or in forestry either as dedicated
product or as residues (see Fig. 1).
In Table 2, the systems selected for analysis in this study
are listed. These systems belong either to the categor y of
certification systems, to the category of criteria and
indicator systems or to the category of management
guidelines. Different categories of certification systems
were invent oried.
2.1. General certification systems
The list starts with general certification systems, which
are less specific to one of the biomass trade chain activities,
but can provide insight into the structures of internation-
ally operating certification systems. Most of these certifica-
tion syst ems provide procedures for the development of
quality standards (CEN, Eco-label, EMAS, ISO
5
)or
sustainability standards (CREM
5
) for a range of products.
CDM
2
is an international operating system, which contains
methods to assess carbon credibility of projects and
addresses environmental additionality.
The list in Table 2 is followed by certification systems
that are specific to one of the areas in the biomass trade
chain; these categories are ‘biomass for energy’, ‘agricul-
ture’, ‘forestry’ and ‘fair trade’.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Stakeholder groups and their interests in certification, partly based on [15]
Stakeholders Interests in certification
Industry and trade Instrument for environmental marketing
and market access
Tool for controlling the origin and quality of
raw materials, products or services
Buyers and consumers Provides information on the impacts of
products they purchase
Improves confidence in products
Provides information whether the product
meets quality or technical standards
Producers and managers Tool for market access or gaining market
advantage
Provides information for the optimization of
production processes
Allows for product differentiation
Governments Policy instrument to promote sustainable
management and sustainable consumption
pattern
Provides information for policy consultancy
Transport + Storage
Biomass Production
Forestry
Agriculture
Plantations
Residues (forestry,
Agriculture, others)
Chain-of-custody
Trading conditions
Fig. 1. Existing activity areas demanding for criteria and indicator
development in sustainable biomass trade.
2
Indicators are measurable parameters which characterize a system by
reduction of complexity and integration of information [21].
3
A verifier is defined as data or information that enhances the specificity
or the ease of assessment of an indicator [22]. Verifiers are needed for
(footnote continued)
indicator assessment and the control of the fulfillment of sustainability
criteria.
4
Certification of conversion systems is in this study not taken into
consideration because this rather would have to analyze technical aspects
and (existing) regulations on emissions than sustainability criteria.
5
For explanations of abbreviations see Table 2.
I. Lewandowski, A.P.C. Faaij / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 83–104 85
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Overview on all organizations, systems and sources that were analyzed for this study
Organization or
system
Explanations on the analyzed document (abbreviation) Internet address/source
Certification systems general
CDM (Clean Development Mechanism); Project approval carbon credits http://cdm.unfccc.int
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/index.htm
CREM (Consultancy and Research for Environmental Management) http://www.crem.nl
Eco-label Certification of different products or services http://www.eco-label.com/
EMAS (Eco Management and Audit Scheme) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
emas/index_en.htm
ISO (International Standard Organization) http://www.iso.org
Certification or criteria systems for Biomass for Energy
EUGENE (European Green Electricity Network) Certification system or green energy http://www.eugenestandard.org
Green Gold
certificate
Track and trace system for biomass; developed by Essent, energy utility in
the Netherlands
http://www.skalint.com/
Certification or criteria systems for Agriculture
EUREPGAP (EUREP ¼ Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group); EUREPGAP is a
normative document for certification of farming products (fruits and
vegetables) from integrated agriculture
http://www.eurep.org
EKO Label for products from organic agriculture produced according to rules
Council regulation (EEC) no. 2092/91
http://www.skal.nl/ [16]
IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) Basic
international standard for organic agriculture and accreditation criteria for
organic certification programs
http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/
standards/ogs.html
SAN (Sustainable Agriculture network) Coalition of local, nonprofit conservation
groups; Rainforest Alliance-certified
s
label for bananas, coffee, cocoa,
citrus, and flowers and foliage
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/
programs/agriculture/certification/
index.html
SQF Australian Certification system for farming products; Criteria for GAP
(Good Agricultural Practice) in food production
http://www.agriholland.nl/dossiers/
kwaliteitssystemen/sqf.html
USF (KUL) (Umweltsicherungssystem) ‘Environmental benign’ label for farming systems http://www.tll.de//kul/kul_idx.htm
UTZ KAPEH Certification system for fair traded coffee; GAP guidelines for Coffee www.utzkapeh.org
Certification systems Forestry
ATFS (American Tree Farming Systems) Forest certification system; initiated by
the American Forest Foundation
http://www.treefarmsystem.org/cms/pages/
26_19.html
CSA (Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest Management
Standard) Forest certification system; Operating in Canada, CSA is an
independent, non-profit organization
www.sfms.com/csa.htm/
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) Forest certification system; International, non-
profit organisation set up by WWF; and chain-of-custody control system
http://www.fsc.org/en/getting_involved/
become_certified/get_chain_of_custody
PEFC (Pan-European Forest Certification), Forest certification system; initiated by
14 European countries, private national forest interest groups
http://www.pefc.org
SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) Forest certification system; Operating in US
and Canada, initiated by the American Forest & Paper Association, the
forest trade association
http://goodforests.com/
Certification or criteria systems for fair trade
Agrocel Agrocel
s
Pure & Fair Indian Organic Cotton Organization that co-ordinates
the production of organic cotton and has developed Criteria for fair trade
chains of cotton
http://www.agrocel-cotton.com/english/
en_home.html
AgroFair Importer and distributor of organic and Fairtrade tropical fresh fruit http://www.agrofair.com/
FAIRTRADE Certification of fair traded products http://www.fairtrade.net/sites/standards/
standards.html
OXFAM Chain of world shops selling ‘fair’ products from developing countries;
Criteria for selecting partners for fair trade
http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/
strat_plan.pdf
Sustainability criteria
Biomass Transitie
Groep
Workgroup of the Dutch Ministry of Economy; Development of Criteria for
sustainable biomass trade
[6]
Biotrade workshop International workshop 2002; discussion of Criteria for sustainable biomass
trade
[8]
GRAIN Report, containing Criteria for sustainable biomass trade [5]
Greenpeace Environmental NGO; Ecological Criteria for Sustainability http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
campaigns/climate-change/solutions/
bioenergy/
I. Lewandowski, A.P.C. Faaij / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 83–10486
2.2. Certification or criteria systems for biomass for energy
In the category ‘biomass for energy’ only two systems
were found that are dealing with criteria for ‘sustainable’
energy from biomass. Green Gold is a new certification
system in operation for the Dutch utility Essent Sustain-
able Energ y. EUGENE is an independent network of
environmental (including WWF) and consumer s organiz a-
tions, and research institutes. EUGENE promotes green
electricity labeling as a market tool to facilitate and
stimulate additional production of renewables [20]. The
label of EU GENE is applicable to geothermal, wind, solar
electric, hydropower and biomass energy and is given to
defined ‘eligible sources’. Eligible sources for biomass are,
for example, dedicated energy crops, residual straw from
agriculture, etc. EUGENE, however, does not provide
more specific criteria for eligible biomass resources, like e.g.
on production methods.
2.3. Certification or criteria systems for agriculture
For the agricultural sector diffe rent certification systems
exist that were implemented to ensure environmental benign
or sustainable production methods that provide safer or
healthier products to the consumer. In agriculture there are
different definitions on sustainable production methods;
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2 (continued )
Organization or
system
Explanations on the analyzed document (abbreviation) Internet address/source
ILO (International Labor Organization) Conventions that describe acceptable
labor conditions
www.ilo.org
UN (United Nations) Conventions and Agenda 21 provide Sustainability criteria
for social, economic and ecological aspects
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd.htm
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Environmental NGO; Ecological Criteria for
Sustainability
http://www.wwf.org/
Indicator sets for sustainable Development
IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) Indicator for
sustainable development
http://www.iisd.org/
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Indicator for
sustainable development and Agro-ecological indicators
http://www.oecd.org/home/
UNDP (United Nations Development Program) Indicator for Sustainable
Livelihoods (SL)
http://www.undp.org/
Indicator sets for Assessment of sustainability of projects
UN-CSD (UN Commission of Sustainable Development) Method for development of
sustainability indicators; Indicator for sustainable development; Assessment
of Projects
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd12/
csd12.htm
Gold Standard Gold Standard ¼ tool for the Assessment of project sustainability. Best
practice benchmark for CDM and JI greenhouse gas offset projects;
developed by WWF (World Wildlife Fund)
http://www.panda.org/downloads/
climate_change/cop8standards.pdf
World Bank Assessment of sustainability of projects http://www.worldbank.org/
Guidelines for sustainable or environmental sound management
CCFM (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers) Set of C&I for sustainable
management of Canadian forests
http://www.ccfm.org/
CIFOR (Centre for International Forestry Research) Criteria for sustainable forest
management; manual for the development of locally adapted C&I sets
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/acm/pub/
toolbox.html
EU Council
Regulation
Definition of organic farming and principles of organic production at farm
level. Certification for organic farming logo
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
CELEX:31991R2092:EN:HTML
FARRE (Forum de l’Agriculture Raisonne
´
e Respectueuse de l’Environement)
Common Codex for integrated Farming ¼ Principles and indicator for GAP
http://www.farre.org/versionAnglaise/
CommonCodex.htm
IKEA Private company; developed strategy for environmental and social
responsibility in the business.
http://www.ikea.nl/ms/nl_NL/about_ikea/
social_environmental/enviromental.pdf
ITTO (International Timber Trade Organization) Guidelines for the sustainable
management of Natural tropical forests, criteria for the measurement of
sustainable tropical forest management
http://www.itto.or.jp/live/index.jsp
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Guidelines for
sustainable behavior of multinational enterprises
http://www.oecd.org/home/
Unilever International company; developed GAP guidelines for sustainable
agriculture
[26]
Worldbank IFC (International Finance Corporation) guidelines for environment, health
and safety
http://ifcln1.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/
e11ffa331b366c54ca2569210006982f/
f067bebe3af7995e85256d87005087e9?
OpenDocument
I. Lewandowski, A.P.C. Faaij / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 83–104 87
