Publication / 27 January 2015

Betting on best quality

Within the framework of the EU Renewable Energy Directive, the European Commission accredited some 17 certification schemes ranging from RTRS, RSPO to ISCC. Differences in quality: in terms of transparency, criteria, verification & assurance.

To assess the situation in-depth, the Ecosystem Alliance (IUCN-NL, Wetlands International and Both ENDS) commissioned consultancy firm ProForest to undertake a comparative benchmarking study, supervised by IUCN-NL.

This benchmarking study offers a systematic overview. It also surfaces that some schemes lack the most basic assurance mechanism and are failing to offer transparency. This, while companies and consumers increasingly demand openness and guarantees that the sourcing of feedstock meets sustainability criteria.

It is a matter of urgency that the Commission and EU member states ensure that all schemes offer transparency, reliable systems for third party verification and assurance and encompass at least the minimum in social and ecological criteria.

Both ENDS serves on the Board of Governors of RSPO and is a member of the Committee on Sustainable Biomass (Corbey Commission) advising the Dutch government. Both ENDS is pleased to see the ProForest report confirms that RSPO, and other schemes such as RTRS which also offer a robust assurance system, sets the highest standard.

You need to indicate consent to cookies in order to view this document using the ISSUU viewer

Read more about this subject