The principal objective of this report is to discuss the feasibility of a meta‐methodology that would be compatible with existing regulatory approaches to account for lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuels. A systematic study of the methodologies and input data used by existing regulatory schemes (Chapter 3) and non‐regulatory initiatives (Chapter 4) has been performed. This enabled the identification of areas of consensus and divergences between schemes (Chapter 5), and led to the conclusion that existing regulatory schemes do not present sufficient level of compatibility to enable the development of a meta‐methodology. Three alternative strategies were then identified where the RSB has the potential to add value to existing GHG accounting practices more broadly. These options have been assessed against criteria such as scientific rigor, potential for adoption by stakeholders and regulatory schemes, and ease of development and implementation (Chapter 6). This information is meant to enable the RSB stakeholders to take an informed decision as to the strategy to pursue in relation to the GHG accounting of biofuels. One of the proposed options forward is for the RSB to develop its own GHG accounting methodology and certification scheme, possibly coupled to the development of a computational reporting tool. Given the RSB’s recognized position as a leader in the biofuel sustainability area, the RSB methodology should be based on the scientific state‐of‐the‐art and be as rigorous and accurate as possible. The methodological ingredients given in Table 1 below have been identified as those offering the required scientific rigour, without jeopardizing implementability of an RSB certification scheme.
There are two key objectives of this project: to provide RSB with an overview of the characteristics of existing accounting methodologies and regulatory schemes and to discuss their relative merits and inter‐compatibilities; to discuss the feasibility of a ‘meta‐methodology’ approach, and outline possible options and their key elements. If the meta‐approach is deemed to be unfeasible, alternative strategies – both at the level of GHG accounting methodology and at that of biofuel certification schemes – will be identified and their advantages and disadvantages discussed.

By: A. Bauen, F. Vuille, P. Watson, K. Vad (E4Tech)

download this document:    1851 kb