The concept of the bio-based economy has gained increasing attention and importance in recent years. It is seen as a chance to reduce the dependency on fossil resources while securing a sustainable supply of energy, water, and raw materials, and furthermore preserving soils, climate and the environment. The intended transformation is characterized by economic, environmental and social challenges and opportunities, and it is understood as a social transition process towards a sustainable, bio-based and nature-oriented economy. This process requires general mechanisms to establish and monitor safeguards for a sustainable development of the bio-based economy on a national and EU level. Sustainability certification and standardisation of bio-based products can help to manage biogenic resources and their derived products in a sustainable manner. In this paper, we have analysed the current status of sustainability certification and standardisation in the bio-based economy by conducting comprehensive desktop research, which was complemented by a series of expert interviews. The analysis revealed an impressive amount of existing certification frameworks, criteria, indicators and applicable standards. However, relevant gaps relating to existing criteria sets, the practical implementation of criteria in certification processes, the legislative framework, end-of-life processes, as well as necessary standardisation activities, were identified which require further research and development to improve sustainability certification and standardisation for a growing bio-based economy.

The development of a sustainable biobased economy (BBE) in Europe is associated with several challenges. Amongst others, lessons learned from the development of the biofuel sector and the complex debate around land use change associated with a growing demand for biomass have to be considered when developing BBE policies. In that regard, strategies to identify and verify feedstocks with low potential risks for direct and indirect land use change (iLUC) impacts are of specific importance. Complementing existing efforts to assess iLUC with modelling activities, the European Commission (EC) has proposed a risk-based approach, aiming to differentiate high and low iLUC risk biomass. Amongst others, different additionality measures can be used to produce certified biomass with low iLUC risk. However, a comprehensive overview and analysis of these additionality measures and the challenges related to their integration in an integer verification approach is still missing. Therefore, we analyse European Union (EU) policies dealing with iLUC, iLUC risk assessment studies, certification approaches, and iLUC modelling studies to identify and develop additionality practices potentially applicable in certification and to show how the potential application of the proposed measures could be realised and verified in practice. We identified five potential practices for low iLUC risk biomass production, which are likely to be used by market actors. For each practice, we identified methods for the determination of low iLUC risk feedstock and products. Finally, our review includes recommendations for follow-up activities towards the actual implementation of additionality measures in biomass certification schemes.

Biobased materials may help to achieve a renewable, circular economy, but their impact could be similar to those of non-renewable materials. In the case of biofuels, the indirect land use change (ILUC) effects determine whether they can provide sustainability benefits compared to fossil fuels. ILUC modeling estimates have large uncertainties, making them difficult to include in a policy aiming at reducing environmental impacts. The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) II reduced ILUC estimate uncertainties by shifting the focus from ILUC environmental impacts to ILUC risk. Nevertheless, this does not take into account either certifiable additionality practices to reduce the ILUC risk for the production of biobased materials, or biobased materials other than biofuels. Here we propose a simple, user-friendly tool to bridge the gap between ILUC modeling and policy, by estimating the ILUC risk of biobased material production and to assess by how much different additionality practices can reduce that risk at different levels of the value chain. This was done by explicitly including the additionality practices in an ILUC model, simplifying the model to a spreadsheet tool that relates automatically the input provided by the user, which may be a producer or a policy maker, with a certain ILUC risk. We demonstrate the functioning of the tool on two examples: maize production in Iowa and in Romania. In Iowa, maize production is already very intensive, so the additionality practices proposed have little effect on its ILUC risk category, and the low-ILUC-risk-produced maize would amount to 0.03 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹. In Romania there is ample margin for implementation of additionality practices, and thus a large potential to reduce the ILUC risk category of maize production, with low-ILUC-risk-produced maize amounting to 0.19 t ha⁻¹ year ⁻¹.

Indirect land use change (ILUC) is considered a significant challenge, resulting from an increasing demand for biomass and bioenergy. On a political level sustainability certification of biomass-derived products is discussed as one potential instrument to manage the risk of ILUC. However, extending existing schemes towards a credible and reliable certification approach to account for ILUC-risks is still an open challenge. To develop such a certification instrument, so-called “additionality practices” are gaining relevance. Such practices include measures that an individual producer can adopt to provide an amount of biomass in addition to the business-as-usual feedstock production. This applies in particular to the certification of low ILUC-risk biofuels through voluntary certification schemes recognised by the European Commission. To date, however, no studies have been conducted that examine how such schemes account for potential trade-offs that may arise from the use of additionality practices. In preparation of an integrated assessment framework for low ILUC-risk certification, this study presents a gap analysis that examines whether such trade-offs are considered already in existing sustainability certification schemes for biofuels. In this way, we have found trade-offs that are preferentially addressed by the schemes, e.g., biodiversity loss, on the one hand, and considerable gaps for certain trade-offs, e.g., resource depletion, on the other. In addition, we identified biomass cultivation on unused land as the most promising additionality practice. Most schemes already have certification instruments in place to verify the large number of trade-offs that could be identified as preferentially addressed for this additionality practice. Moreover, only a few new criteria and indicators need to be developed for the small number of gaps found for biomass cultivation on unused land. Finally, this paper recommends future work to verify the scientific evidence of existing certification instruments for the trade-offs addressed and to develop assessment approaches for the identified gaps.

Background: Indirect land use change (ILUC) is a major challenge for sustainable biomass and bioenergy production. Although the use of low-ILUC-risk practices in sustainability certification could effectively manage ILUC risks, several potential trade-offs can arise from the use of such practices (e.g. biodiversity loss). However, it is not yet clear whether the certification criteria and indicators (C&I) proposed in certification schemes and in the literature to assess these trade-offs are appropriate to certify sustainable low-ILUC-risk biomass. To bridge this gap, this paper presents a structured system for assessing the quality of such C&I to support the improvement of existing C&I and the development of those that are currently lacking. Methods: Building on a recently published review of trade-offs that can arise in low-ILUC-risk certification, relevant literature was reviewed (such as scientific articles, project reports, standard documents of biofuel certification schemes, documents of the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance) to identify and inventory potential certification C&I for a selection of these trade-offs (e.g. resource depletion, water pollution). In addition, defined requirements (e.g. validity of C&I) were used to assess the quality of the C&I. Finally, the C&I were classified according to the fulfillment of the requirements, for which the relative and the absolute ranking of the C&I were considered. Based in this, the quality level of the certification C&I currently in use and potential best practice C&I were identified. Results: Most of the currently used and the potential best practice certification C&I meet the average quality level. This suggests that they are appropriate to certify the potential trade-offs almost sufficiently. On the other hand, the results indicate that there is still room for improvement and that more research on high-quality certification C&I is needed. In particular, the C&I used to assess increased economic expenses should be revised. In addition, challenges (e.g. audit interval, auditor qualification, data access, response time) and recommendations for improving the C&I are presented. Conclusions: The assessed C&I can be considered suitable for the sustainability certification of the selected trade-offs. However, these C&I still have room for improvements. The best practice C&I can support voluntary certification schemes and policymakers in improving existing C&I and developing those that are currently lacking. Concrete recommendations for action are presented to overcome the challenges currently facing the sustainability certification of low-ILUC-risk biomass (e.g. required data, lack of requirements for indicator response time).