Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.4.6.3 Standards and certification for sustainability of biomass and land-use sectors ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors-block-1"></div>

During the past two decades, standards and certification have emerged as important sustainability and conservation instruments for agriculture, forestry, bioenergy, land-use management and bio-based products (Lambin et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r712|712]]</sup> ; Englund and Berndes 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r713|713]]</sup> ; Milder et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r714|714]]</sup> ; Giessen et al. 2016a <sup>[[#fn:r715|715]]</sup> ; Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r716|716]]</sup> ; Byerlee et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r717|717]]</sup> ; van Dam et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r718|718]]</sup> ). Standards are normally voluntary, but can also become obligatory through legislation. A standard provides specifications or guidelines to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for purpose, whereas certification is the procedure through which an accredited party confirms that a product, process or service is in conformity with certain standards. Standards and certification are normally carried out by separate organisations for legitimacy and accountability (Section7.6.6).The International Organization for Standardization is a key source for global environmental standards. Those with special relevance for land and climate include a recent standard on combating land degradation and desertification (ISO 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r719|719]]</sup> ) and an earlier standard on sustainable bioenergy and biomass use (ISO 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r720|720]]</sup> ; Walter et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r721|721]]</sup> ). Both aim to support the long-term transition to a climate-resilient bioeconomy; there is ''medium evidence'' on the sustainability implications of different bioeconomy pathways, but ''low agreement'' as to which pathways are socially and environmentally desirable (Priefer et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r722|722]]</sup> ; Johnson 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r723|723]]</sup> ; Bennich et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r724|724]]</sup> ).

Table 7.3 provides a summary of selected standards and certification schemes with a focus on land use and climate: the tickmark shows inclusion of different sustainability elements, with all recognising the inherent linkages between the biophysical and social aspects of land use. Some certification schemes and best practice guidelines are specific to a particular agriculture crop (e.g., soya, sugarcane) or a tree (e.g., oil palm) while others are general. International organisations promote sustainable land and biomass use through good practice guidelines, voluntary standards and jurisdictional approaches (Scarlat and Dallemand 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r725|725]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r726|726]]</sup> ). Other frameworks, such as the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) focus on monitoring land and biomass use through a set of indicators that are applied across partner countries, thereby also promoting technology/knowledge transfer (GBEP 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r727|727]]</sup> ). The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative provides common guidelines for economic assessments of land degradation (Nkonya et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r728|728]]</sup> ).

Whereas current standards and certification focus primarily on land, climate and biomass impacts where they occur, more recent analysis considers trade-related land-use change by tracing supply chain impacts from producer to consumer, leading to the notion of ‘imported deforestation’ that occurs from increasing demand and trade in unsustainable forest and agriculture products, which is estimated to account for 26% of all tropical deforestation (Pendrill et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r729|729]]</sup> ). Research and implementation efforts aim to improve supply chain transparency and promote commitments to ‘zero deforestation’ (Gardner et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r730|730]]</sup> ; Garrett et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r731|731]]</sup> ; Newton et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r732|732]]</sup> ; Godar and Gardner 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r733|733]]</sup> ; Godar et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r734|734]]</sup> , 2016). France has developed specific policies on imported deforestation that are expected to eventually include a ‘zero deforestation’ label (Government of France 2019).

The sustainability of biofuels and bioenergy has been in particular focus during the past decade or so due to biofuel mandates and renewable energy policies in the USA, EU and elsewhere (van Dam et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r735|735]]</sup> ; Scarlat and Dallemand 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r736|736]]</sup> ). The European Union Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED) established sustainability criteria in relation to EU renewable energy targets in the transport sector (European Commission 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r737|737]]</sup> ), which subsequently had impacts on land use and trade with third-party countries (Johnson et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r738|738]]</sup> ). In particular, the EU-RED marked a departure in the context of Kyoto/UNFCCC guidelines by extending responsibility for emissions beyond the borders of final use, and requiring developing countries wishing to sell into the EU market to meet the sustainability criteria (Johnson 2011b <sup>[[#fn:r739|739]]</sup> ). The recently revised EU-RED provides sustainability criteria that include management of land and forestry as well as socio-economic aspects (European Union 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r740|740]]</sup> ; Faaij 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r741|741]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r742|742]]</sup> ). Standards and certification aim to address potential conflicts between different uses of biomass, and most schemes also consider co-benefits and synergies (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Bioenergy may offer additional income and livelihoods to farmers as well as improvements in technical productivity and multi-functional landscapes (Rosillo Callé and Johnson 2010a <sup>[[#fn:r743|743]]</sup> ; Kline et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r744|744]]</sup> ; Araujo Enciso et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r745|745]]</sup> ). Results depend on the commodities involved, and also differ between rural and urban areas.

Analyses on the implementation of standards and certification for land and biomass use have focused on their stringency, effectiveness and geographical scope as well as socio-economic impacts such as land tenure, gender and land rights (Diaz-Chavez 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r746|746]]</sup> ; German and Schoneveld 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r747|747]]</sup> ; Meyer and Priess 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r748|748]]</sup> ). The level of stringency and enforcement varies with local environmental conditions, governance approaches and the nature of the feedstock produced (Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r749|749]]</sup> ; Lambin et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r750|750]]</sup> ; Giessen et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r751|751]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r752|752]]</sup> ). There is ''low evidence'' and ''low agreement'' on how the application and use of standards and certification has actually improved sustainability beyond the local farm, factory or plantation level; the lack of harmonisation and consistency across countries that has been observed, even within a common market or economic region such as the EU, presents a barrier to wider market impacts (Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r753|753]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r754|754]]</sup> ; ISEAL Alliance 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r755|755]]</sup> ). In the forest sector, there is evidence that certification programmes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have reduced deforestation in the aggregate, as well as reducing air pollution (Miteva et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r756|756]]</sup> ; Mcdermott et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r757|757]]</sup> ). Certification and standards cannot address global systemic concerns such as impacts on food prices or other market-wide effects, but rather are aimed primarily at insuring best practices in the local context. More general approaches to certification such as the Gold Standard are designed to accelerate progress toward the SDGs as well as the Paris Climate Agreement by certifying investment projects while also emphasising support to governments (Gold Standard).

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-7.3"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 7.3'''

<span id="selected-standards-and-certification-schemes-and-their-components-or-coverage."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Selected standards and certification schemes and their components or coverage.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:9eb3ea4cfc1cff52877c32deb96eb113 table-7.3.png]]

Source: Modified from (European Commission 2012; Diaz-Chavez 2015).

<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3747e69a13526344e0f424f79fc33c6d v.png]] indicates that the issue is addressed in the standard or scheme

* a includes restoration of degraded land in some cases (especially ISO 14055–1)
* b where specifically indicated
* c reference to the RSB certification/standard
* d where specifically noted

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-7-4-6-4-energy-access-and-biomass-use"></div>

<span id="energy-access-and-biomass-use"></span>