CEN/TC 383 - Criteri di sostenibilità delle biomasse - Biocarburanti - Commissione Mista CTI-CUNA

Data Documento: 19/09/2010
Data Riunione: 09/09/2010
Organo Tecnico: CEN/TC 383 - Sustainably produced biomass for energy applications

Note:
Notes from Mirabella DAY ONE * UK wanting to only carry on if a Commission "mandate" would be given * GE further work would depend if it would be necessary to fulfil the directive provisions: different from a mandate from the Commission * GE environmental organisation not accepting a standard if incomplete * NT same discussion in The Netherland, but we mention sustainability aspects * A new title proposal then would be: "sustainability aspects to produce biomass for biofuels * FI supports GE proposal * CH supports * IT acknowledge sustainability is larger concept but we need a good enough piece of work (PR) as a basis for MSs to implement Directive obligations * Chairman: leave the title as it was: "sustainably produced biomass for energy applications…." * UK against to put on the transparency platform as a PR * Secretariat: PR would be the only publicly available document available before 1st December 2010 * FR no problem with putting reference in the transparency platform site * CH no issue * BIO value for operators * SP EUC approval needed for putting PR on the TP * UK add a note to the reference in the TP to alert to go for the latest update * NT there are part of a standard that can be interpreted by the auditor. Important than in EU the assessment is the same. Fro the standard is not clear what an assessor would ask. Which question are major or minor. Suggesting annex to explain what an auditor should do * BIO taken into account by WG5 * SP additional info needed (by WG5) not only for auditors but also for economic operators * SP how do we make sure that the CEN standard would cover ALL needs of the Directive * BE a standard is a long journey at any stage even if not complete still useful as a reference for further work * SW would the NT suggest "A way" of doing audit or "THE way" of doing it * SP CEN standard cannot be considered a voluntary scheme * UK and BIO agree * BE If put on the TP anybody can use it for preparing the voluntary scheme, or a national scheme accrediting the verification job * GE existing voluntary scheme also keep track of verifiers……CEN cannot do that * BIO Since not a "SCHEME" how would it be identified in the TP? * GE asked estimate of time needed to enhance the standard to a high level standard. Assume that cannot be produced within 2010. New work item to be initiated * BE "approval of other schemes standard" would be the mean of "high level standard". Not to do this and postpone to when we could see that's needed * SP EUC launched tender and they do not need this work from CEN * UK if any ISO should do it and not CEN * BE not it should be CEN * FR ask Commission to participate to the ballot evaluation * CH suggest CEN ask EUC about positive list of "Residues" * UK how would CEN practically do maintain/update such a list? * FR not to include the residue list in the standard not to make MSs operations more difficult * Chair & Secretariat phoned EUC Eward Deward. Will need to consult with other department of the EUC. If the other department would agree then the CEN standard would be automatically accepted if operators (or MS?) would use it in their voluntary schemes submission packages * GE in the German scheme they are detailing some parts that were not detailed in the Directive. They make mandatory sustainability * EUC is not going to list "residues". This open the possibility for operators to chose the most economic sourcing * CONCAWE this non-consistent approach to residues will also have consequences on CO2 performances * EUC: tender process. Contract signed in January. Current Voluntary schemes submitted handled under the previous tender * WG3 (Biodiversity and environmental aspects) non comments from delegates * WG5 (Conformity assessment). Very relevant for LBI to get copy of the presentation * Distribution-related CO2 must be calculated also downstream the (say) biodiesel delivery * WG5 Averaging not allowed * WM suggested secretariat would engage with the Commission to re-check and actually suggest that should be possible provided all batches are in compliance * WG2: issue of double counting of transport-related CO2 when using disaggregated defaults values and actual data * BioGrace will provide disaggregated values * Double ballot? For Standard inquiry itself and templates DAY TWO * WG1: definitions * Big debate on German (supported by Netherland) proposal to include a sentence warning that the sustainability covered by TC383 work is incomplete * Small olders: WM proposed to first analyse what would be, if any, the different implications of being a "smallmolder" and only then deciding 1) whether or not to go hahead with the exercise, and, if yes, 2) propose a criteria list for the inclusion of an entity into the small olders list * WG2 -JF Larivè: text ready beginning of november (after EUC planned meeting on Nov 5th) * Text draft will be distributed in November to the TC383 and discussed at the next plenary meeting * WG3 to further develop a proposal to work for RED-related mandatory requirement currently not considered because in due course the Commission didn't ask CEN to cover, not because not mandatory but rather because EUC wanted to keep for itself that work. * Nota per IT Mirror: abbiamo rapresentanti per bioenergia da solidi (ENEL, etc.) …e tutte le conseguenze * Ottenuto (resolution 2010/10) di lasciare aperta la possibilità che la Commissione accetti il conceto di averaging provided all batches comply * Ottenuto di avere (resolut. 2010/13) di avere la lista delle aree obbligatorie ma non coperte dallo standard CEN * Ottenuto successo circa small olders (resol. 2010/14)