Standards Development Process: Management Guide for Sub …...All members of a sub-group are required to acknowledge and agree, via email to [email protected], to follow

Standards Development Process

Sustainable Biomass Program sbp-cert.org

Standards Development Process: Management Guide for Sub-Groups

Management Guide for Sub-Groups Page ii

Version 1.0

August 2020

Document history

Version 1.1: published 25 August 2020

© Copyright Sustainable Biomass Program Limited 2020

Management Guide for Sub-Groups Page iii

Contents

Version 1.0 ii

August 2020 ii

Scope 4

1 Management of the sub-groups 5

2 Sub-groups 8

2.1 Nature capital and biodiversity 8

2.2 Country specific requirements 10

2.3 Structure Standard 5 versus ID5E 11

2.4 Verification of federal Land 12

2.5 Technical content of carbon and energy data collection and calculation 13

2.6 Mass balance reconciliation 14

2.7 Feedstock 15

2.8 Glossary 16

2.9 Impact & monitoring 18

2.10 Social criteria 20

2.11 Supply chain criteria 22

2.12 Forest carbon & GHG 23

2.13 Risk assurance 24

2.14 Endorsement of other schemes 26

2.15 Multi-site and group certification 27

2.16 Stakeholder consultation 29

2.17 Accreditation scope 30

Annex 1 SBP Guidance Note 31

Management Guide for Sub-Groups Page 4

Scope

This document provides an overview of the process and management of the sub-groups convened under the three umbrella Working Groups (A, B and C) in the SBP Standards Development Process. This document will be adapted as necessary as part of the ongoing Process and will cover the management, title, tasks and memberships of the sub-groups.


1 Management of the sub-groups

The Standards Development Process is structured through the three umbrella Working Groups (WGs):

Working Group A: Standards 1 & 2

Working Group B: Standards 3 & 4

Working Group C: Standards 5 & 6

Due to the unprecedented COVID-19 situation, the Standards Development Process needs to be implemented and managed virtually and long meetings with a lot of participants will not be productive or effective. To promote active participation from a wide range of stakeholders, the Secretariat together with the WG Chairs have decided to break issues and topics out of the overall WG meeting process and form sub-groups. Discussions over which sub-groups to form were held by the three WGs during June and July 2020.

In terms of working method, the sub-groups will make recommendations to the WGs as part of the Standards Development Process; any proposed changes will then go through the process set out in the Terms of Reference for the SBP Standards Development Working Groups and the Document Development Procedure (DDP). A sub-group only has a remit and delegated responsibility to the extent properly granted by the WG. It derives authority from WG and can’t step outside the remit of that WG. But out of the discussion in a sub-group new proposals and questions can arise and can be suggested to the WG.

If sub-groups make recommendations outside of normative text of the Standards these will also be presented to the WG. The WG will in turn make recommendations to the Secretariat, which will then be considered.

Initially, 17 sub-groups have been established. The list of sub-groups will change over time as new sub-groups are formed as needed and existing sub-groups closed once their objectives are achieved.

Each sub-group is linked to one of the umbrella WGs. Ordinarily, the sub-group chair will report to the respective WG in the plenary calls. Where sub-groups cover cross-cutting topics these will be reported and discussed in more than one WG. Coordination of the reporting will be the responsibility of the Standards and Projects Manager.

All WG members, no matter which WG they belong to, can be a member of any sub-group.

Members of standing SBP Working Groups (that is, those Working Groups outside of the Standards Development Process) can join sub-groups without being part of an umbrella WG. For very specific topics, experts will be invited to become members of the sub-groups without the need to be a member of one of the umbrella WGs.

To ensure diverse engagement, no more than one person from an organisation may join the same sub-group.

Responsibilities of sub-group members

All members of a sub-group are required to acknowledge and agree, via email to [email protected], to follow and be bound by the Terms of Reference for the Working Group/s under which that sub-group is constituted and to abide by the Code of Conduct applicable to the Working Group/s, including compliance with all relevant SBP policies and guidance for participants, including the SBP Anti-trust Compliance Policy Statement.

The requirement also applies to any individual (for example, an expert) invited to join one or more sub-groups without being a member of any other SBP Working Group.

Individuals are attending as individuals not as representatives of their affiliated organisation.

mailto:[email protected]

https://sbp-cert.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SBP-Anti-trust-Compliance-Policy-Statement-Jan-19-FINAL.pdf


sub-group members, including observers, shall adhere to the SBP Anti-trust Compliance Policy

Statement. The statement shall be referenced at the beginning of each meeting by the Chair.

Each member of a sub-group needs to dedicate the necessary time resource to deliver the task.

All sub-groups will be provided with an MS Teams channel to store and collaborate on documents. If sub-group members agree, other tools such as Google Docs or Zoom may be used to facilitate discussions and work on documents. The outputs from sub-groups need to be stored in the Teams channel.

Sub-groups with more than four members should appoint a sub-group chair. In smaller groups the group needs to appoint a rapporteur.

Decision making/management: Proposals from the sub-group to the WG should be put forward based on consensus. The sub-group may also present a proposal to the WG giving differing views if consensus cannot be reached.

Meeting Notes: For meetings use the Teams ‘Meeting Notes’ function and agree short bulleted lists covering the following three categories:

topics discussed;

actions agreed; and

decisions taken (where no consensus / it takes extensive discussion to reach consensus, more detailed notes might be needed).

Sub-groups should agree the notes before the meeting closes. Detailed minutes of meetings are not required but decisions and recommendations, including where necessary a note of divergent opinions, should be documented. This will form the basis for the sub-group Chair or rapporteur to report back to the umbrella WG/s.

Logistics: The Secretariat will endeavour to find meeting times that will maximise participation by all members of the sub-group. Although it should be noted that, due to the tight schedule of the Standards Development Process, it may be necessary to arrange meetings that not all members can attend. If 60% of the sub-group members can participate then the meeting will go ahead. It is important that members of sub-groups also dedicate time in between calls to work on the tasks of the sub-groups.

Responsibilities of the Secretariat

The Standards and Projects Manager is the main point of contact within the Secretariat for all matters related to the Working Groups and sub-groups. Other members of the Secretariat will join sub-groups that link to their areas of technical work and may also provide facilitation support during sub-group meetings.

Key responsibilities are:

1) Manage the sub-groups’ meeting schedule (for example, set up Doodle Polls, send out

invitations to the members, oversee the Standards Development email address) (SBP Office

Manager);

2) Collate all meetings of the sub-groups and the three WGs into the Standards Development

calendar (SBP Office Manager);

3) Record meeting participation and meeting notes into the SBP internal Salesforce system (SBP

Office Manager);

4) Provide the sub-groups with required background documents (SBP sub-group responsible

person);

5) Upload the documents into the relevant Teams channel (SBP sub-group responsible person);

and

6) For cross-cutting issues, secure dissemination of information to the other WG (Standards and

Projects Manager).

Responsibilities of the sub-group chair/rapporteur




1) Secure participation of the sub-group members, with support from the SBP Standards and

Projects Manager and SBP Office Manager;

2) Facilitate a balanced discussion to hear all views;

3) Ensure balanced and complete meeting notes (bullet points); and

4) Report back to the relevant plenary calls and WG chair/s.

The following sub-groups were established as the first step in August 2020:

Sub-Group SBP Secretariat WG Lead

Related WG for cross cutting topics

1. Natural capital and biodiversity

JW-T

A

2. Country specific requirements

AA

C B

3. Structure standard 5 versus ID5E RP

C

4. Verification federal land

JW-T

B A

5. Technical content of carbon and energy data collection and calculation

SA

C B/A

6. Mass balance reconciliation

RP

B C

7. Feedstock JW-T A B/C

8. Glossary JW-T B

9. Impact & monitoring AA ABC

10. Social JW-T A

11. Supply chain criteria

SA A B/C

12. Forest carbon & GHG

SA A C

13. Risk assurance RP B A/C

14. Endorsement of other schemes

AA

B A/C

15. Multi-site and group concepts

RP

B A/C

16. Stakeholder consultations

JW-T

B A/C

17. Accreditation scope:

RP

B A/C

Key:

AA – Annie Adams

JW-T – Jenny Walther-Thoss

RP – Roman Polyachenko

SA – Simon Armstrong


2 Sub-groups

2.1 Nature capital and biodiversity

Sub-Group to WG A

Links to:

SBP Secretariat Jenny Walther-Thoss

MS Team Channel Natural Capital and Biodiversity

Task: To discuss and decide on how the sstandards 1 & 2 will deal with environmental issues, define new or comprehensive criteria and indicators, include new approaches and tools

Issues to address:

Standard 1 - gaps Should there be downstream sustainability requirements – for example in relation to transport, feedstock processing, pellet mills etc

Standard 1 - gaps Indirect LUC and other environmental and social impacts

Standard 1 - gaps Handling of invasive Non-Native Species

Standard 1 - gaps Handling of introduced pests and diseases

Standard 1 - strengthen

Biodiversity


Soil as a part of biodiversity / Natural Capital


Compliance with the RED II article 29 (5) fertility of soils


Defining what is not acceptable LUC to non-forest – also a biodiversity issue;


Driving increased forest area and management


Resilience


Defining (and banning?) unacceptable practices


Style & Layout Rationalise reference to species, habitat and species in different Criteria - make them all biodiversity? HCV?

Chair Don Grant

Participants:

Name Organisation WG

Dana Doran Professional Logging Contractors of Maine A

Jessica Marcus US Industrial Pellet Association A/B/C

Uwe R. Fritsche IINAS & IEA Bioenergy A & B

Tat Smith University of Toronto A

Richard Stich Weyerhaeuser A

Don Grant Enviva A & B

Mike Read Mike Read Associates A

Matthew Ford Efeca A

Michele Pisetta PMI A

Kyla Cheynet Drax Biomass A

Peter Kofod Kristensen

Ørsted A/B/C

Rogelio Gonzalez Ineva A & B

Tjasa Bole-Rentel WWF South Africa A

Katrine Bang Hauberg

Skovdyrkerne (The Danish Forest Owner Cooperatives)

A

Ondrej Tarabus NEPCon A/B/C

Jesus Esparza Solidaridad A & C

Sune Balle Hansen HOFOR A

Inge Stupak University of Copenhagen A & C


2.2 Country specific requirements

Sub - Group to WG C

SBP Secretariat Annie Adams

MS Team Channel Country specific requirements

Task: Identify specific country specific requirements

Decide where to integrate this in the right way in the standard system: part of the normative standard documents or addendum or instruction documents

Chair

Participants


Yves Ryckmans Engie C

Kim Cesafsky Enviva C

Rob de Kruijff RWE C

Tim Brink RWE B

Peter Kofod Kristensen Ørsted C

Rogelio Gonzalez Ineva A

Anders Bjoernkjaer-Nielsen A

Joseph Aquino Pinnacle Renewable Energy

A

Wayne Lei Restoration Fuels

C

Aleksey Kuritsin Lesexpert C

Laura O`Brien Drax A

Ciara McCarthy SCS A

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a3fc298dc76b540419aa494df59962772%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=1b9839d3-f55e-4997-b869-4fde35ae68d0&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.3 Structure Standard 5 versus ID5E

Sub - Group to WG C

SBP Secretariat Roman Polyachenko

MS Team Channel Standard 5 versus ID5E

Tasks: To decide which part of the current instruction documents needs to be part of the new standard 5 and which can and should be part of instruction documents Define threshold/barrier to what needs to be part of standard documents and what will be an instruction

Chair

Participants



Kevin Tam Drax None


Joseph Aquino Pinnacle Renewable Energy C

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a3323b93c11b143428094252c9eb0d770%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=70752c82-427e-4a0d-a30c-6a1a9481a494&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.4 Verification of Federal Land

Sub - Group to WG B


MS Team Verification of Federal Land

Task: To identify and discuss possibilities to verify federal forest land in US and other regions in the world without single unit forest management certification Testing additional approaches like due diligence procedures

Chair

Participants



Bretta Palmer Drax B

Alicia Cramer US Endowment B


Ørsted A/B/C


Wayne Lei Restoration Fuels C

Laurent Kosakowski

Enviva C

Ana Dahlin ASI B

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3af14ba55dcd5340e4b2effa80034b74ea%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=3143d6d9-b0c2-4b41-9b95-4b470c27c1cf&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.5 Technical content of carbon and energy data collection and calculation

Sub - Group to WG C

SBP Secretariat Simon Armstrong

MS Team Technical Content of carbon and energy data collection

Task: Address the comments on specific technical issues from the stakeholder survey and the Working Group discussions Technical content of carbon and energy data collection and calculation:

Chair

Participants


Ryckmans Engie C

Mike Goldsworthy Drax A

Francois Ducarme SGS C

Uwe R. Fritsche IINAS & IEA Bioenergy A

Sebastian Haefele SCS Global Services B


Peter Mulder RWE none

Stephen Wright Drax Biomass C

Elizabeth van Tilborg Fram Renewable Fuels A & C


A

Theodore Brauer SCS B

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a2b6ce3af310f4cfa9435aedf3711fe79%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=5f5b1e78-64ea-44c6-82c6-cb61f1acece5&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.6 Mass balance reconciliation

Sub - Group to WG C

Links WG B

SBP Secretariat

Roman Polyachenko

MS Team Mass Balance Reconciliation

Task: To discuss the different MB approaches in SBP, define a way forward including new requirements from RED II, specify the data which would be needed.

Chair

Participants


Elizabeth van Tilborg

Fram Renewable Fuels A & C

Mike Goldsworthy

Drax C




Sarah Harris Independent A & B


Ørsted A/B/C


A & C

Gabriele Rahn-Inselmann

Vattenfall A & B

Sebastian Haefele

SCS Global Services B

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a94ec3c1e71314a09acbae6bec94f4eca%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=b12d674c-1751-4b49-a889-dc69e20a74e7&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.7 Feedstock

Sub - Group to WG A


MS Teams Feedstock

Task: To discuss and identify feedstock definitions and concepts and decide a way forward for new feedstocks. Feedstock definition and links to SBP claims like secondary and third-rated feedstock Way forward to accepted new feedstock groups

Issues: Definition of feedstock

Agri based Feedstocks

Claims related to different types of Feedstock

Chair

Participants


Roman Polyachenko SBP B

Don Grant Enviva C

Ryckmans Engie C

Bretta Palmer Drax Biomass C

Peter Kofod Kristensen Ørsted A/B/C



Marcelo Levy RFS A

Ernst Eriksen HedeDanmark A


Elizabeth van Tilborg Fram Renewable Fuels A & C

Oscar Espinosa Mijares

Pellet Mexico A

Joseph Aquino Pinnacle Renewable Energy A

Gabriele Rahn-Inselmann

Vattenfall A

Ana Dahlin ASI B

Laura O’Brien Drax A

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3afd019c46dc2f47bdba4c8762d098fd7f%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=2ef9a908-1333-410b-b8be-e85137430a2d&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.8 Glossary

Sub - Group to WG B


MS Teams Glossary

Task: Clarifying and harmonising used definitions and terms through the SBP documents

Clarifying layout, language, and style?

Define how to deal with various definitions/glossaries in national legislations

Issues to address:

Style & Layout Review the style of the Standards, to ensure documents are accessible & easy to use:

Style & Layout Clarifying and harmonising used definitions and terms through the SBP documents

Style & Layout Update/check links to external organisations & documents –

Style & Layout Update guidance – review other scheme guidance to identify best practice?

Style & Layout Add the normative interpretations into the main text?

Style & Layout Remove reference to trees?

Style & Layout Check and update templates

Chair

Participants




Jessica Marcus US Industrial Pellet Association

A/B/C


Tim Brink RWE B


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a141aba1c9ab34e4cb34718975f70e7de%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=01a21bbd-ff29-46e6-a05e-5d560ca5610b&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


Randy Stevenson Fram Renewable Fuels B

Richard Peberdy Drax B

Erik L. van Bueren ISAFOR B

Katrine Bang Hauberg Skovdyrkerne (The Danish Forest Owner Cooperatives)

A

Sebastian Haefele SCS Global Services B

Aleksey Kuritsin Lesexpert B


2.9 Impact & monitoring

Sub - Group to WG A

Links to WG B & C


MS Teams Impact and Monitoring

Task: To discuss and identify the key indicators which SBP can use to show and monitor our impacts. Discuss needed data sources and ways to provide the needed data to SBP.

To discuss and decide how the Standards can drive greater beneficial outcomes.

To discuss and decide how the Standards can deliver outcomes at the landscape and regional level?

Issues to address:

Standard 1 - impacts Delivering change and benefits at the landscape level as well as within the management unit

Standard 1 - impacts Currently most indicators are process measures rather than the outcome ones

Standard 1 - impacts Is there a role for certification in driving capacity building & learning?

Standard 1 - impacts What is the role of certification in driving improvement?

Standard 1 - impacts Move on from just needing to identify, assess and address issues/threats

Standard 1 - impacts For social impacts move from avoiding harm to mitigating impacts to delivering benefits

Standard 1 - impacts Set asides on management units

Standard 1 - impacts Rather than just requiring monitoring – add ‘and evaluate’ when it occurs?

Standard 1 - impacts Importance of generating M&E data.

Chair

Participants:






https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3afc168393f3914595a440f30aa2d3d94c%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=2cd18e61-8d3d-4e11-a8d0-9f0f19d4a60c&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e



Ernst Eriksen HedeDanmark a/s A


Ellen Kincaid Highland Pellets A & C


Randy Stevenson Fram Renewable Fuels B

Stuart Harker Drax none



Ørsted A/B/C


Marcelo Levy RFS A

Inge Stupak University of Copenhagen A


2.10 Social criteria

Sub-Group to WG A

Links to: WG B especially sub-group supply chain criteria


MS Teams Social Criteria

Task: To discuss and decide on how the Standards will deal with social issues like human right, FPIC and labour rights.

Issues to address:

Standard 1 - gaps Landscape/visual impacts/access/recreation/peace/wilderness

Standard 1 - gaps Identify gaps on labour rights in the standard and suggest additional criteria

Standard 1 - strengthen FPIC

Standard 1 - strengthen Poverty alleviation

Standard 1 - strengthen Food security

Standard 1 - strengthen Labour standards

Standard 1 - strengthen Dispute, grievances, and complaints systems

Standard 1 - strengthen Equality

Standard 1 - impacts Is there a need for or value in developing a Smallholder scheme?

Standard 2 - process What level of transparency and consultation with/participation of stakeholders do we want? – sub-group stakeholder consultation

Chair

Participants:





Henry Pease RWE none


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a1c6a863b15ad4bee8df7dab2b0246a36%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=3a473b39-97de-4325-8fe4-c492b5d7803a&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


Alicia Cramer US Endowment B


Jesus Esparza Solidaridad A


A


Laurent Kosakowski Enviva B

Julian Eldridge Fair Trade USA B


2.11 Supply chain criteria

Sub-Group to WG A

Links to: WG C and WG B

SBP Secretariat Simon Armstrong & Agita Nagle

MS Teams Supply Chain Criteria

Task: To discuss and decide if and how the Standards will apply to downstream operators

Discuss and propose new criteria like H&S, ILO and other social criteria for downstream operations

Issues to address:

Standard 1 - gaps Downstream standards – for example transport, feedstock processing, pellet mills etc

Standard 4 Gaps in Social economic requirements

Should SBP add more requirements about shared responsibility, social responsibility in the supply chain, air and water pollution?

Chair

Participants


Tim Brink RWE B



Laura O'Brien Drax A

Nicolas Blanchette QWEB A & B

Jesus Esparza Solidaridad A


Marcelo Levy RFS A



Chad Leatherwood Weyerhaeuser C

Aleksey Kuritsin Lesexpert B


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a7cc34c688e7448eaaaa35d4a5ce9222f%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=65d114c0-1d48-46f2-81b1-2a02bac0a3bd&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.12 Forest carbon & GHG

Sub-Group to WG A

Links to: WG C and Forest Carbon WG (the sub-group forest carbon & GHG will merged with the existing Forest Carbon WG)

SBP Secretariat Simon Armstrong

MS Teams Forest Carbon WG

Task: To discuss and decide on how the Standards will deal with climate issues

Issues to address:

Standard 1 - gaps Forest carbon


GHGs, beyond carbon, associated with management and harvesting (processing also?)

Chair

Participants:


Mike Goldsworthy Drax C

Dana Doran Professional Logging Contractors of Maine

A





Peter Mulder RWE None

Mike Read Mike Read Associates A


Ørsted A/B/C



Joseph Aquino Pinnacle Renewable Energy A/B/C

Matthew Ford Efeca A


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3aa28beaf931d74020ae58f1befce4ea18%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=bd99f9e1-4265-4d60-84e1-bcdb6cd2f0a7&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.13 Risk assurance

Sub-Group to WG B

Links to: WG A and WG C


MS Teams Risk Assurance

Task: To discuss and decide on how the Standards will deal with identifying and managing risks and assuring compliance

Issues to address

Standard 1 - impacts

How do Biomass Producers demonstrate that their suppliers are delivering against the Standard?

Standard 1 - impacts

It seems all indicators are MAJOR and have to be 100% conformant to get certified, should SBP implement a more step wise approach?

Standard 2 - process

Clarity/confusion of Supply Base definition and how Standard 1, 2, and 4 treat material originating outside of the supply base


Expand the concept of ‘sub scopes’ to all Supply Bases?


If the SBP standard is moving beyond regulation should the SBE do so as well?


Do we need to clearly separate RA and SVP – the frame conditions from operator risks:


Is the (desk-based) risk assessment robust and comprehensive enough?


Is there more guidance and/or further requirements needed for the RA?


Should risk rating be precautionary?


Is there a mismatch between wording and approaches in RRAs and RAs?


The RRA is encouraged to uncover ‘new’ issues that may not be in the P&C


What level of consultation is needed for the RA?


How is ‘evidence of compliance’ with regulation gathered via a desk-based assessment?


Does SBP want to introduce risk-based auditing?

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3ab2cac8f89f6440a8b151b2026f5a2a51%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=a61f65eb-32b7-46c6-bfcb-e9063ecd05b6&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e



Review SVP requirements:


Who is supposed to implement the mitigation measures – the BP or the supplier?


What is the consequence of a non-compliance against an SVP?

Style & Layout Should we make more of the Means of Verifications normative?

Style & Layout Need to clarify how MoVs are used in risk assessments in the supply base?

Style & Layout Require ‘transcription of best practice into SOPs’ as a possible MoV?

Chair

Participants


Elizabeth van Tilborg

Fram Renewable Fuels A & C





Erik L van Bueren ISAFOR A


Ellen Kincaid Highland Pellets A & C

Nicolas Blanchette

Qweb A & B


Roman Polyachenko

SBP B


Stephen Wright Drax Biomass C


Ørsted A/B/C


Marcelo Levy RFS A



Ana Dahlin ASI B


2.14 Endorsement of other schemes

Sub-Group to WG B

Links to: WG A WG C


MS Teams Endorsement of other schemes

Task: Endorsement of Schemes

To discuss and develop the procedure for the endorsement of other schemes.

Issues to address:

RED II compliance (Article 30 (6.7)

Chair

Participants:



Roman Polyachenko SBP B



Dana Doran PLC of Maine A


Chad Leatherwood Weyerhaeuser C

Ana Dahlin ASI B


Ted Wright TCNEF B

Michele Pisetta PMI A


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a51d23ce3600445c7b89737268f074e61%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=4ae37214-560b-4d9b-83d9-f2070818a0b2&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.15 Multi-site and group certification

Sub-Group to WG B

Links to: WG A & WG C


MS Teams Multi-Site and Group Certification

Task: Development of a proposal to introduce new concepts like Multi-Size or Group Certification into SBP.

Issues to address:

Discuss separately Multi Size and Group Certification

Include RED II requirements

Risks related to both concepts

Consider FSC and PEFC rules

Chair

Participants





A

Elizabeth van Tilborg Fram Renewable Fuels

A & C



A


Ted Wright TCNEF B

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a448dd4655be14c2280e556cc889ba381%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=79f03f52-c700-4612-bc9b-4bc97ae4faf3&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


Doug Patterson Renewable Strategies

B

Julian Eldridge Fair Trade USA B



2.16 Stakeholder consultation

Sub-Group to WG B



MS Teams Stakeholder Consultation

Task: To discuss and develop a proposal for efficient and comprehensive Stakeholder Consultations.

Issues to address

How to organise effective and meaningful stakeholder consultations:

for CAB

for certificate holders

for SBP

Today the stakeholder consultation processes for the certificate holders are inefficient and do not bring benefits to the certification process

CAB consultation processes are not efficient and comprehensive

Look into the standard for stakeholder consultation from the Accountability Framework Initiative

Overcome stakeholder fatigue

Chair

Participants



Ørsted A/B/C


Marcelo Levy RFS A

Ana Dahlin ASI B

Laurent Kosakowski Enviva B


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a9845185ccf4d4da2940cd43beb4f850a%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=482c871c-2692-4925-8a9e-a4812d02ba69&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e


2.17 Accreditation scope

Sub-Group to WG B



MS Teams Accreditation Scope

Task: To decide if SBP is moving to 17021 as the basis for accreditation;

To develop a credible sampling methodology for audits

To adjust and complete auditor competence criteria

Establish minimum recommended Level of Effort for SBP audits

Issues to address:

Accreditation scope of SBP

Audit sampling

Competence of auditors

Audit level of effort

Chair Ana Dahlin

Participants:


Roman Polyachenko

SBP B


Ana Dahlin ASI B


Robin Rosendahl Control Union Certifications B


https://teams.microsoft.com/l/team/19%3a1e31c0a97e5a4f50bfbf9f9b7736a54a%40thread.tacv2/conversations?groupId=a102b6c5-b40e-498d-a754-55eaae93c5ce&tenantId=9953f8d5-f9d2-435c-8987-03c99877933e

mailto:Ciara%20McCarthy%20%[email protected]


Annex 1: SBP Guidance Note

Participating in a Multi-stakeholder Meeting: Ensuring Competition Law (Anti-trust) Compliance for All

Introduction

The Sustainable Biomass Program (“SBP”) is a certification system designed for woody biomass, mostly in the form of wood pellets and woodchips, used in industry. The certification system provides assurance that woody biomass is sourced from legal and sustainable sources.

SBP is committed to compliance with competition law, (as set out in our Anti-trust Compliance Policy Statement). The purpose of this note is to assist you in understanding both your personal and SBP’s legal obligations when participating in multi-stakeholder meetings and discussions facilitated through SBP.

It is an offence under competition laws in a number of jurisdiction to take or allow collective action or sharing of information that could limit the market between businesses, discriminate against businesses or collectively adversely impact or boycott a particular business or class of business or reduce competition in services or supply to end users.

Multi-Stakeholder meetings

In its operation and development of the certification system, SBP, its committees, its Secretariat and its various stakeholders will require to regularly hold and participate in multi-stakeholder meetings and discussions.

In all such meetings, including meetings of the Board, Standards Committee, Technical Committee, Working Groups or others, all participants need to be aware of competition law when discussing matters or sharing information between participants.

No SBP meeting may be conducted in any manner or way that could potentially have an anti-competitive effect.

SBP’s stakeholders consist of or represent organisations, businesses, industry bodies and individuals from various sectors and areas of industry which may be connected or in competition with one another.

As a result, SBP must be cautious of taking any action that could have an adverse impact on competition.

Practical Dos and Don’ts for you in such a meeting

To assist you in participating safely and effectively in any multi-stakeholder meetings or discussions facilitated by or involving SBP, you must always follow this guidance:

Do:

stop a discussion or leave a meeting if you consider there is a risk of violating any of the

“don'ts” set out below;

record any steps you take to ensure compliance with competition rules;

keep a written record of SBP discussions;

seek independent legal advice if you are at any time unsure on how to apply these rules; and

if SBP proposes to collect or use any confidential information for the purposes of benchmarking or standard-setting, ensure that all the following are complied with:




o Mark confidential information ‘Private & Confidential’;

o that the information is treated by SBP as confidential and not disclosed to members in a form which identifies the information;

o that the data is sufficiently historic;

o ensure that a sufficient number of members or stakeholders provide data prior to any aggregated data being disseminated (as a rule, this is more than three); and

o ensure that the SBP Anti-trust Compliance Policy Statement is read out and acknowledged by participants at the start of any multi-stakeholder meeting you are part of.

Don’t

discuss, give to, or receive from any other members or stakeholders of SBP, whether before, during or after a meeting, any information, documents or material concerning or including details of:

o the prices at which products, materials or services are purchased or supplied;

o the level of discounts received or offered;

o the identity of purchasers from or suppliers to any businesses associated with any SBP members or their competitors (unless this information is known in the market place);

o the terms and conditions on which products are purchased or supplied;

o customers including their identities or profiles;

o details of business plans and intentions;

o details of sales, marketing or investment plans;

o information relating to over-production or capacity problems; and/or

o any other confidential business information (think: would you be prepared to publish the information in a newspaper or have your customers know about it?).

under any circumstances, discuss or reach any agreement relating to price-fixing, market sharing, territorial divisions of the market or customer sharing with another member of SBP at any time before, during or after any SBP meeting or as a result of any recommendation or decision made by SBP;

do anything to seek to influence the conduct of a competitor (other than through your normal commercial activities);

limit your own commercial freedom of action through discussions with your competitors, especially if you operate in a market where there are only a few major players; and/or

share any information you know or suspect to be commercially sensitive or not in public knowledge.

Ask for further guidance or help

If you are participating in such a meeting you should also ask whether it is appropriate to have all participants agree to and sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. This is more likely to be appropriate for one-off, exploratory, or introductory meetings or discussions sitting outside the normal planned activities of the SBP organisation. Doing so might afford a further level of assurance and protection against unintentional breach of competition laws and also ensure any information you are properly sharing and discussing remains subject to such conditions and restrictions on use and transmission as might be agreed. The Secretariat will help you decide on an appropriate position on this.



Where meetings are part of a structured SBP programme of standards development, review, or oversight this might not be necessary due to the commitments given by participants through other processes.

Should you require any further advice regarding competition law while engaging in multi-stakeholder meetings or discussions please contact a member of the SBP Secretariat ([email protected]) or the Company Secretary ([email protected]).

Company Secretary

July 2020




Documents

Standards Development Process: Management Guide for Sub …...All members of a sub-group are required to acknowledge and agree, via email to [email protected], to follow