Discussion Forum for the February 2008 IMP WG Meeting
From BioenergyWiki
Bioenergy > Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels > Discussion Forum for the February 2008 IMP WG Meeting
We've opened this page to start an early discussion of the topics to be covered in the Implementation WG's meeting on February 21st at 3 pm GMT. Once you've downloaded the two documents: background paper and call-in information and Letter to Implementation WG from Environmental Impacts WG, please share your early thoughts here, which will help us prepare for the teleconference on February 21st. You can also e-mail your comments to charlotte.opal (at) epfl.ch and she can post them here.
Contents |
How to incent progress in the standard?
In the background paper, the Secretariat proposes three principles for incenting progress improvements: 1. Producers could be required to improve over time or as their capacities (for instance, income) allow, up to the best-practice potential of their particular supply chain. This would require the RSB to define crop-specific better-practices and develop guidance for producers for how to improve performance (for instance, how to reduce energy inputs). Rather than develop new guidelines we would aim to recognize other definitions of crop-specific better practices where they exist (for instance, those being developed in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil). 2. Buyers could be required to buy a higher and higher percentage of ‘green’ fuels over time, as a condition of membership or participation in the RSB. This would create a market for better-performing fuels. 3. Governments could be encouraged to link biofuel subsidies to better performance (scores).
Questions
(please leave your comments directly under the question using the Edit function of this Wiki, and include your name)
How do you feel about this general direction and these implementation principles?
What other mechanisms are available to encourage better practices?
How much visibility do current actors already have in their supply chains?
Are there specific feedstocks or countries where measuring performance will be more difficult?
General Comments
- I think one of the overarching questions is what is the precise goal of RSB and/or the implementation working group (e.g., to develop minimal standards to define 'sustainable biofuels' across all regions/crops? To promote the use/expansion of sustainable biofuels?, etc.). From my experience with the Better Cotton Initiative - BCI , trying to develop standards for even one crop across such varied regions is challenge enough. I would caution RSB from taking on too much directly. For instance, in section 2.1 of your background paper you mention 'should buyers be required to buy a higher and higher % of 'green' fuels over time'. I would argue that RSB should define 'green' fuel, possibly help support / promote its use but to let buyers compete with one another and/or set their own policies to increase the use over time. Competition could lead to higher level of use/promotion than any requirement that RSB would dictate.
Additionally, interfacing with governments is a whole work stream in and of itself (even if it were for one crop only). I am assuming you are referring to EU policies/subsidies given the continued analysis they are doing, but this may require another Task Group and/or approach. Liz Muller, US Biodiesel Group. - Secretariat respose: The RSB aims to define minimum acceptable standards for biofuels, and also to encourage progress towards better practice. How best to do that remains up for debate - we look forward to discussing these points during the IMP Working Group call! Regarding interfacing with governments, we are eventually hoping to create something that governments could use, but you're right that this could be resource-intensive; for our next strategic phase we will need to see what resources we would require to be able to create a standard that could be recognized in law.
Letter from the Environmental Impacts Working Group
The ENV WG letter states that small producers must have lessened environmental requirements vis-à-vis large-scale producers. ENV WG requests IMP to: a) Define small vs. large producers; b) Give guidance to ENV re. which parameters are more important for small vs. large to follow; and c) Help small producers comply with the standards.
Proposal
The RSB Secretariat will draft a definition of small producers and investigate how other standards-setters support their compliance. This paper should be discussed in a joint meeting of the SOC and IMP Working Group, with these groups then making recommendations to the Steering Board.
Comments on this proposal (please leave your comments directly here, using the Edit function of this Wiki, and include your name.
The letter also states that:
Governments should identify and map ecological corridors and conduct land use planning on a regional or national scale. Producers should identify and map high conservation value (HCV) areas. IMP should discuss mechanisms to allow for these activities; and
That IMP should identify athe mount of land to be set aside in ecological corridors, per farmer’s capacity.
Proposal for discussion
The Secretariat is drawing up a concept note for a joint meeting of the RSB, other multi-stakeholder initiatives (for instance Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Round Table on Responsible Soy), the HCV Network, the forestry sector, and other interested parties to discuss how we can jointly collaborate to map and protect HCV areas. This conference would likely include a discussion of how best to conduct mapping exercises and tools that individual farmers can use to identify these areas, as well as other tools besides certification that can be used to protect these areas. Would such a conference enable IMP to answer the ENV WG’s concerns?
Comments on this proposal (please leave your comments directly here, using the Edit function of this Wiki, and include your name.
