Summary Minutes IWPB SteerCo Schipol 19 December 2012

Transcription

1 Summary Minutes IWPB SteerCo Schipol 19 December 2012 Participants Attendees: Andreas Vetter, Bart Dehue, Michaël Schytz, Nigel Burdett; Jacob Rookmaker/Peter Paul Schouwenberg, Volker Türk, Yves Ryckmans, Gabriele Rahn Apologies: Duncan Robinson, Alf van Weereld; Rasmus Nikolaj Due Skov 1. Minutes Brussels meeting WG s: do they work alone or do they exchange with CU/SGS WG? to be treated in agenda. Presentation at ACI Amsterdam by Yves was in line with presentation in Vienna. Agreement that any pre reading to SteerCo meetings should be circulated min 1 week in advance to meeting. If written comments are expected prior to SteerCo draft, the goal should be to circulate documents about 2 weeks in advance. The ToR draft for the SteerCo should be adjusted accordingly. 2. IWPB Governance The governance structure should be independent, meaning that the Secretariat must be independent from all participants of IWPB, including utilities and inspection companies. Independence from inspection companies is to ensure a level playing field for the inspection companies securing a competitive market. The SteerCo has to be turned into the board at a certain moment that can be chosen adequately during the development process. The decision process should integrate the possibility for one member to ask for postponing the decision to the next meeting (low form of veto). Compliance with UK/BE does not exclude that other MS authorities can be associated to our work e.g. in the Advisory (Sounding) Board. Entrance/Exit of members: conditions should be specified and linked to the budget: ACTION: DR/MS. Representatives of IWPB to MS does not mean responsible but participants to common actions in that country. All members should be committed to represent their company views and perspectives and supporting the views and actions of IWPB internally in their company.

2 The chairmen will act as first point of contact for enquiries by external parties but any member is allowed to communicate on IWPB. Official representation of IWPB to stakeholder s meeting will be decided by the SteerCo. The inspection companies are in charge of making the documents describing the scheme (standard, auditing procedure, CoC, sanctions). On the topics of the Secretariat, Foundation and Accreditation they provide recommendations. Timeline: should be précised including communication actions. IWPB framework Agreement to delegate further work on the IWPB framework to the WG Governance / Organisation. The draft shared in advance to the SteerCo should be considered by the WG. Sounding Board Advisory board is lacking in the structure proposed in the draft document. The name should be changed into Sounding Board to avoid confusion with final Advisory Board of the scheme. The Sounding Board members are meant to continue to participate in the Advisory Board but without any formal commitment other than the one of the present SteerCo. A proposal of ToR for the Sounding Board shall be prepared by the WG Governance. The WG is expected to keep the IWPB long term ambition to develop the scheme towards a Multi Stakeholder Initiative in mind when developing the ToR. A telco can be organized by January 8 at 11 am CET. The proposal should be circulated one day before.

3 Suggested Members Authorities EC/DGENER and in UK/BE/NL DECC for UK, Vreg/VEA for Flanders CWAPE for Wallonia EC () One for NL (Agency NL or ELI) Producers: EIPS, WPAC, USIPA. NGOs: 3 NGO s if possible. Forestry: one member representing forest owners. Inspection companies are invited to participate as observers. Academic and NGO representatives are suggested to be reimbursed. Exact payment to be negotiated on a case by case approach. We need a budget and invoice process in place for this. The WG Governance is asked to come up with a proposal. Stakeholder meeting Responsibility of the Communication WG instead of Governance WG that only cares for the description of the key elements of the scheme. 3. Green Gold Label Due Diligence Reference: GGL process for due diligence. The due diligence must be an open process that shows the financial and legal liabilities for the IWPB members to step into GGL. According to PPS, minutes of meetings, scheme documents, foundation documents and Dutch law governing this foundation can be consulted by a Dutch lawyer. It will be selected by MS by early January and proposed to the lawyers of the 6 utilities that will be able to consult its recommendations and all relevant documents. PPS will share all relevant documents with the SteerCo. The lawyer will complete the due diligence by the SteerCo meeting in February. PPS offered to explore the possibility of issuing a parent company guarantee for 1 2 years to mitigate possible liability risks., subject RWE Board approval. Agreement that WG Governance should draft a default scenario outlining the expected framework conditions for the SteerCo members to join the GGL till next meeting. Working assumptions are: SteerCo members to become member of GGL Executive Board, Articles of Association are to be changed, Adv. Board member nominations to be revised, GGL name to be changed.

4 The final decision on using GGL or not as a basis for IWPB is expected to be taken during the February meeting of the SteerCo as well. Part of this decision concerns: The name, The foundation, The governance structure. If the decision is positive, then the present GGL organization must confirm in writing that this is accepted. In that case, the new Board should be put in place in March. PPS to explore parent company guarantee for Jan SteerCo meeting PPS to share relevant documents to exercise DD with SteerCo members MS to propose Dutch lawyer to SteerCo MS to send draft list of issues/questions to be covered in due diligence for comments to SG Members. SG Members to provide feedback on the draft, if any, before next SG meeting. Gov WG to draft framework conditions for Jan SteerCo meeting 4. Meeting with SGS / CU on the development of the scheme Reference: SC 003 document; slides SGS/PCU. Participants: Peterson Consultancy : Bas Verkerk, Control Union: Jenny Walther Thoß SGS: Bettina Jahn, François Ducarme Reference to: document SC 003 Raw Material: Guidance to Sourcing Standard by Bart Dehue, Nigel Burdett. Nigel and Bart summarized the content of the document. Two basic questions: What should be done if no PEFC/FSC certificate is available? How to handle the processing residues? The assessment in the UK might be based on verification, and processing residues should be covered because they represent a significant share of the raw material used for making pellets today. Wood pellets suppliers told already the UK authorities that they favor a regional approach. 3 options should remain open:

5 1. Regional approach, for example such as applied in Belgium through risk assessment and review of legislation in place. SGS/CU indicate that the outcome of the regional risk assessment could inform further verification/auditing requirements. 2. Verification based on IWPB criteria & indicators, 3. Certification based on mass balance as well as the availability of PEFC/FSC certificates for the raw material. In addition to that, group certification of the suppliers of the raw material could also be considered in a stepwise approach, possible in combination with a regional approach identifying the risk level. Making a benchmark of PEFC/FSC certification systems is not part of the ToR agreed by SGS/CU. Work by CU/SGS covers: Using IWPB criteria and indicators Integrating everything that does exist in GGL, Laborelec and Drax standards. Base criteria and indicators to the extent possible on FSC/PEFC approach Maintain a clear structure of criteria and indicators, in line with good practice in sustainability certification schemes, whereby the formulation of the criteria and indicators allow for unambiguous auditor conclusions. Bettina Jahn presents the slides circulated before the meeting and ask the IWPB members to check the table of content and the elements brought by the inspection companies. Scheme designated under temporary ID Sustainable Biomass Sustainability Scheme or SBSS. General (key) normative documents: heavier procedure to modify them Standard, Requirement for risk assessment Interpretation document Working documents, compulsory non normative: easy procedure to modify them Audit report Audit procedure & checklists Report for risk assessment Empty box for others like CPET Audit frequency of the biomass source (forest) may be impacted by the risk assessment. The IWPB principles are very high level and can be considered as the intention but cannot be turned as such into a standard. Principles should be better named Policy Aims. Legal requirements, complemented by requirements that can realistically be met from the start of the scheme s operation, from IWPB document n 2 should be integrated in the scheme immediately. Other criteria and indicators shall be identified and dealt with separately, e.g. in a self declaration.

6 Where use is made of a risk assessment for the sustainability of the biomass source, there can be two types of risk assessment : one on regional basis, for example as performed for Belgium. one on operator s level, that we want to keep for the raw material, that is new with respect to what is done in Belgium: this one could determine the periodicity of the checks done by the Certification Body No risk assessment is foreseen for other parties in the supply chain (e.g. pellet mill and traders). They are expected to be audited individually on an annual basis. In line with GGL and FSC/PEFC, the scheme shall initially focus on requirements for parties taking legal ownership of the product, not on requirements for service providers that do not take legal ownership of the product. However, special consideration shall be given to the need to have chain of custody requirements for parties providing storage services without taking legal ownership of the product. Timeline agreed as proposed by SGS/CU. Clarifications will be made by the representatives of IWPB participating to the WG s. PPS replaces VT in the last WG on Sanction and accreditation. No participation of inspection companies to the next SteerCo meeting. Important milestone for the meeting in March. 5. Harmonisation Update Reference: SC 005 document. Roadmap budget should be adjusted, synchronizing the set up of the Secretariat and the Executive Board, and put the set up of the Executive Board earlier. Mediation Board should be put outside of Governance and can be postponed to when the scheme is operational. Many stakeholders can be involved in this. Multi Stakeholders Initiative (MSI) was considered part of the Governance WG. But a ToR and external assistance might be needed, since it is now part of the continuous process of the scheme development and set up. The WG Governance is asked to pull together a first draft ToR / Request for Tender document for the MSI for the Jan SteerCo meeting. It is expected that the SteerCo invites external parties to present their approach at the Feb SteerCo meeting. An additional WG is considered to be needed to work on MSI development that is a very strategic issue. WG Gov to draft a draft ToR / Request for Tender outlining the support requirements for the Gov + MSI work for the Jan SteerCo meeting. MS/DR to block time slot in Feb SteerCo meeting for presentation of external parties 6. Budget We need to define a budget for the whole process and not only for the part carried out by SGS and CU.

7 It is not yet possible to put an exact figure on it. PPS volunteered to put together an indicative budget plan for the Jan SteerCo meeting Budget management will be taken over the Secretariat as soon as it will be in place. PPS to draft indicative budget plan for Jan SteerCo meeting. 7. Communication AV reports the work done by the WG with VT and YR (see Draft Communication Plan document). Agreement that no formal country representation approach is needed for the time being. See also role of chairman as 1 st point of contact for communication requests in section IWPB governance above. We would also need something for States outside Europe like USA and Canada. Agreement that further Communication / PR expertise is required for continuation of WG. Each member is asked check whether internal colleagues could join the WG. RWE offers the service of a colleague in charge of communication that prepared a presentation that was already circulated in the past. Communication time line presented by SGS/CU needs to be correlated with that discussed as part of the agenda. It is essential that the communication process for the October 2013 process occurs without conflict with that for the Multi Stakeholder process Each member to check availability of communication / PR experts. Please forward any suggestions to AV. 8. Procurement of services MS shared DONG Energy perspective on EU procurement regulations, stating that as long as no purchase is above EUR, the SteerCo would be incompliance with these. Individual procurement regulations was briefly discussed, and it was agreed that each member would investigate company regulations and investigate how to ensure an efficient procurement process in IWPB. It was agreed that future purchases in IWPB would be based on prudent business conduct e.g. by obtaining three tenders for large purchases. Each member to check company procurement regulation

8 9. Next meeting January 23, Schipol, 10am to 3pm, due to GGL Advisory Board meeting at 3pm.