211
B. Certification Is Not Mandatory
Choosing to certify a product makes it possible to differentiate it, by providing buyers with information about sustainability relating to the product. In particular, COC
certification can assure buyers that they are definitely getting a product that meets
specified standards and indicators. In this way, producers can add value to products,
thereby benefitting themselves. Certification can even have a substantial impact on
market share.
C. In Combination with Other Policy Measures, a Certification System Can
Drive Initiatives That Mitigate the Impacts of Biofuels
Certification can be linked to tax deductions and other incentives, and as in the case
of the EU and USA, it can serve as a precondition for measuring product consumption to reach the national goals.
On the other hand, there are limitations and problems with standards, indicators,
and certification systems, such as the following:
A. Scope and Effectiveness of Standards and Indicators
In setting standards and indicators, it is possible that some problems will be ignored.
For example, when making evaluations based on limited LCA criteria, it can be difficult to quantify social standards. Also, since the evaluation of macro effects, such
as the impacts of biofuel production on food and land prices and forest depletion,
depend on the adopted methods of evaluation, there is a risk that subjective points
of view can creep into the analysis. Although it is necessary both that criteria are
comprehensive and that a standard is technically and administratively practicable,
these requirements cannot necessarily be satisfied. Note that there is potential for
confusion when trying to make categorizations, i.e., certification is needed for a
crop used for biofuels but not for the crop consumed as foods. In policy matters as
well, this can lead to two kinds of standards, resulting indirectly in an increase in
land use conversion.
Addressing indirect land use change would require implementing certification
over the whole planet, in order to get a complete picture of the system. However,
since this is totally unrealistic, standards, indicators, and certification systems cannot be very effective in dealing with indirect land use change. Devices such as the
iLUC factor (indirect land use change factor) for specific products, i.e., the evaluation based on a global-scale life cycle for each consuming country/region and product/production process, are necessary, but data usability is still a problem.
B. Coexistence of Multiple Certification Systems
There are many certification systems now in existence, but the fact that they are all
different tends to reduce their effectiveness and reliability. Multiple systems also
tend to result in market fragmentation and reduced transparency. For this reason,
only international certification schemes can achieve environmental goals. However,
it must be noted that certified products only account for a small part of the market.
It is also important that developing countries, farmers’ associations, and local NGOs
are properly represented and are able to contribute to the international processes of
creating standards, indicators, and certification systems and to reaching agreements
between countries. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case at present.
13 Key Strategies for Policymakers
B. Certification Is Not Mandatory
Choosing to certify a product makes it possible to differentiate it, by providing buyers with information about sustainability relating to the product. In particular, COC
certification can assure buyers that they are definitely getting a product that meets
specified standards and indicators. In this way, producers can add value to products,
thereby benefitting themselves. Certification can even have a substantial impact on
market share.
C. In Combination with Other Policy Measures, a Certification System Can
Drive Initiatives That Mitigate the Impacts of Biofuels
Certification can be linked to tax deductions and other incentives, and as in the case
of the EU and USA, it can serve as a precondition for measuring product consumption to reach the national goals.
On the other hand, there are limitations and problems with standards, indicators,
and certification systems, such as the following:
A. Scope and Effectiveness of Standards and Indicators
In setting standards and indicators, it is possible that some problems will be ignored.
For example, when making evaluations based on limited LCA criteria, it can be difficult to quantify social standards. Also, since the evaluation of macro effects, such
as the impacts of biofuel production on food and land prices and forest depletion,
depend on the adopted methods of evaluation, there is a risk that subjective points
of view can creep into the analysis. Although it is necessary both that criteria are
comprehensive and that a standard is technically and administratively practicable,
these requirements cannot necessarily be satisfied. Note that there is potential for
confusion when trying to make categorizations, i.e., certification is needed for a
crop used for biofuels but not for the crop consumed as foods. In policy matters as
well, this can lead to two kinds of standards, resulting indirectly in an increase in
land use conversion.
Addressing indirect land use change would require implementing certification
over the whole planet, in order to get a complete picture of the system. However,
since this is totally unrealistic, standards, indicators, and certification systems cannot be very effective in dealing with indirect land use change. Devices such as the
iLUC factor (indirect land use change factor) for specific products, i.e., the evaluation based on a global-scale life cycle for each consuming country/region and product/production process, are necessary, but data usability is still a problem.
B. Coexistence of Multiple Certification Systems
There are many certification systems now in existence, but the fact that they are all
different tends to reduce their effectiveness and reliability. Multiple systems also
tend to result in market fragmentation and reduced transparency. For this reason,
only international certification schemes can achieve environmental goals. However,
it must be noted that certified products only account for a small part of the market.
It is also important that developing countries, farmers’ associations, and local NGOs
are properly represented and are able to contribute to the international processes of
creating standards, indicators, and certification systems and to reaching agreements
between countries. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case at present.
13 Key Strategies for Policymakers