The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) is pleased to announce the publication of the SBP-endorsed Regional Risk Assessment (RRA) for US National Forest, alongside the final REDIII Level A Risk Assessment. These tools are central to SBP’s commitment to identifying and managing risks associated with sustainably sourcing feedstock for biomass production.

RRAs deliver an efficient and consistent approach to risk assessment by covering entire regions, removing the need for individual Biomass Producers to conduct separate assessments. They also ensure stakeholder engagement and support effective risk mitigation. The REDIII Level A Risk Assessment enables Biomass Producers to demonstrate compliance with mandatory EU RED requirements.

Biomass Producers utilising the RRA for US National Forest and REDIII Level A Risk Assessment, as well as Certification Bodies responsible for verifying these assessments, should take note of the following information.

On 26 January 2025, the United States notified the United Nations of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, effective 26 January 2026. As a result, the risk classification for Indicator 3.1.1 (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)) within the SBP RRA for US National Forest will change from low to specified risk on 27 January 2026. Simultaneously, the REDIII Risk Assessment conclusion will shift from Level A to Level B. Until that date, the current classifications remain in place.
Therefore, from 27 January 2026, Operators must comply with Route C of Indicator 3.1.1 and Level B of Article 29(7)(b) of REDIII, requiring additional steps to determine historical and future carbon stocks within sourcing areas. Guidance for these steps is provided in Annex D of SBP Instruction Document EU RED v2.0.

To support compliance, SBP is conducting an expert assessment of carbon stocks and stock changes across the 48 contiguous US states, including historical data and limited future projections. Preliminary findings will be shared before the end of 2025. However, Operators should begin preparing their management systems to include controls to ensure compliance with the above Indicators and Articles.

For more information and access to the published assessments, visit: https://sbp-cert.org/documents/normative-documents/version-2/risk-assessments/

The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) has today announced the publication of the Interim Regional Risk Assessment (RRA) for Norway (available here). Interim RRAs are developed in accordance with the RRA Procedure v2.0. They support Certificate Holders in implementing risk mitigation measures and enable Certification Bodies to verify compliance with SBP feedstock requirements until the SBP-endorsed RRA for the region becomes available.

The geographical scope for the RRA is the entire forested area of Norway. However, as most of that area is certified according to PEFC, the RRA is limited to PEFC certified forests. The SBP Benchmarking and Recognition Framework and its associated evaluation of the PEFC scheme concludes that 31 of the 42 indicators of SBP Standard 1 are fully covered by PEFC certification. Accordingly, the RRA addresses only the 11 indicators of SBP Standard 1 that are not already covered by PEFC certification at the forest level.

Preparation of the Interim RRA started with the development of a draft RRA prepared by the responsible Working Body – the consortium of Stora Enso Skog AS, Norsk Biobrensel AS, Viken AT Market AS, AT Skog SA and Nortømmer AS, supported by a team of experts from NORSKOG. This was followed by rigorous technical and quality reviews by SBP, independent local expert reviews, and a public consultation conducted by SBP itself, ensuring a transparent and inclusive approach.

Stakeholder engagement has been a critical component of the RRA development process. All comments received have been reviewed and taken into account. This comprehensive process ensures that the published interim RRA provides a robust foundation for assessing and mitigating risks within the specified region.

Once an SBP-endorsed RRA is available for a region, Certificate Holders using the Interim RRA must assess any changes in risk ratings. Should a final SBP-endorsed RRA indicate a shift from low risk to specified risk, Certificate Holders will be required to update their Supply Base Evaluation accordingly. A six-month transition period will be granted for Certificate Holder to implement the SBP-endorsed RRA, with compliance verified during the Certification Body’s next surveillance audit.

The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) has today announced a recent change to our Board of Directors. We welcome John-Paul Taylor as a new director representing Biomass Producers.

As with all SBP Board appointees, John-Paul will serve on the board in a personal capacity. We look forward to the valuable contributions he will bring, drawing on his extensive experience and expertise.

John-Paul has more than 15 years of international experience in the biomass sector, with a focus on building sustainable, stable supply chains across North America, Europe, and Asia. Having championed sustainability and market development, he has played a key role in introducing SBP-aligned operational practices to new markets, including Japan and throughout Europe. As Senior Vice President at Enviva, John-Paul leads global commercial strategy, contract execution, and logistics optimisation.

The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) acknowledges the concerns raised in the NGO report, Sustainable Biomass Program: Certifying the Unsustainable. While we strongly refute several of the claims made, particularly those that misrepresent the scope, rigour, and intent of the SBP certification scheme, we recognise the importance of constructive scrutiny. This statement provides an initial response to the key criticisms levelled at SBP. We will review the full report in greater depth over the coming days and welcome the opportunity to engage directly with the author and contributors to discuss the findings in detail. SBP remains committed to transparency, scientific integrity, and continuous improvement, and encourages dialogue that is grounded in fact and shared commitment to sustainability.

To ensure the remainder of this response is understood in the correct context, it is essential to clarify that SBP is not a forest management certification scheme, nor has it ever claimed to be. The SBP Standards are designed to assess the sustainability and legality of biomass sourcing at the level of the Biomass Producer, not at the forest management unit (FMU) level.

SBP does not certify forest operations or forest managers. Instead, it works alongside established forest certification schemes such as FSC and PEFC, and applies a risk-based approach to ensure that feedstock is responsibly sourced, particularly in areas where forest certification coverage is limited. This distinction is clearly stated in SBP’s normative documents and is central to understanding the scope and intent of the SBP certification scheme.

Mischaracterising SBP as a forest management certification scheme leads to inappropriate comparisons and expectations that fall outside the remit of the SBP Standards. The following sections address the specific claims made in the NGO report in light of SBP’s actual role and responsibilities.

Field audits and forest management oversight
SBP certification is closely linked to forest management practices, even though SBP does not certify forest operations directly. Biomass Producers are required to conduct comprehensive Supply Base Evaluations and implement Risk Assessments in line with SBP Standards. This process demands a clear understanding of the conditions within the Supply Base and the competencies of the evaluation team, as outlined in clauses 3.8 and 6.2 of SBP Standard 2 (v2.0).

Where risks are identified, mitigation measures must be applied across the supply chain, including, where necessary, at the forest level. Biomass Producers are expected to work with all suppliers and sub-suppliers to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented effectively at the source of the feedstock.

These requirements are enforced by independent, third-party Certification Bodies, which conduct on-site audits to assess the adequacy of mitigation. These audits may include direct engagement with forest managers, logging contractors, and other upstream actors to verify that sustainability risks are being addressed in practice, as required under clauses 6.14, 6.16, and 6.22 of SBP Standard 3 (v2.0).

Use of FSC and PEFC schemes
SBP does not misrepresent the role or credibility of other certification schemes, nor does SBP intend to replicate or compete with them. On the contrary, the SBP scheme makes a clear and deliberate distinction between feedstock certified under a Forest Management (FM) claim (for example, FSC FM) and feedstock certified under a Controlled Claim (for example, FSC Controlled Wood or PEFC Controlled Sources). This distinction is embedded in the SBP Standards, specifically in clause 3.2 of Standard 2 (v2.0), and is reflected in the claims that Biomass Producers are permitted to make.

Contrary to the report’s assertion that SBP merely screens out the worst practices, the SBP scheme requires that identified risks are actively mitigated and that mitigation measures are verified as effective before feedstock can qualify for an SBP-compliant claim. The objective is not simply to avoid problematic sources, but to drive improvements in sourcing practices through a structured, risk-based approach.

Feedstock carrying FSC Controlled Wood and PEFC Controlled Sources claims are only eligible for an SBP-controlled claim, not an SBP-compliant claim. This ensures transparency and avoids conflating lower-tier due diligence mechanisms with full sustainability certification. Where residual risks remain, SBP requires that they be addressed through additional, scheme-specific mitigation measures.

Carbon accounting methodology
SBP does not make overarching climate impact claims. If the report refers to GHG emissions from biomass supply chains, SBP’s scheme is designed to collect data across harvesting, production, and all transportation stages up to the End-user’s gate. This data is compiled in the SAR (SBP Audit Report) and calculated using the EU REDIII-compliant methodology outlined in Instruction Document 6D (v2.0). The claim that SBP relies on national averages is incorrect.

If the report refers to forest carbon stock accounting, we acknowledge that current guidance does not explicitly prohibit offsetting carbon-rich forest losses with regrowth in less dense areas. However, this practice is not in the spirit of the SBP scheme. SBP is developing new guidance that:

• Establishes a hierarchy of data sources for assessing carbon stock changes.
• Directs assessors to use IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, which exclude primary and old-growth forests from carbon stock calculations.
• Encourages the use of ecologically relevant sub-scopes (for example, catchments) rather than administrative boundaries.
• Clarifies that proxies such as annual allowable cut may not reflect below-ground carbon and should not be used to determine whether there is stable or increasing forest carbon in a Supply Base.

Forest carbon vs. supply chain emissions
While the report appears to conflate forest carbon loss with supply chain emissions, SBP’s scope is focused on the latter. However, SBP’s Standards also require the protection of High Conservation Value (HCV) areas and prohibit sourcing from primary and old-growth forests, in line with EU RED and national definitions.

Smokestack emissions
SBP’s mandate is to define and certify sustainable biomass sourcing, not to regulate combustion emissions. However, SBP does not defer responsibility. Under Standard 4 (v2.0), clause 1.21, certified organisations must comply with all applicable laws, including emissions regulations. Certification Bodies are required to verify this compliance during audits. Where regulators have set emission limits, SBP ensures that these are respected through its certification process.

Forest residues and primary forest
SBP does not treat any category of feedstock as inherently low-risk. Forest residues are subject to the same level of scrutiny as other feedstock types, including primary forest. SBP Standard 1 (v2.0), indicator 2.2.4 requires that the environmental impacts of residue extraction be evaluated, ensuring that no feedstock can bypass risk assessment requirements.

SBP also does not permit whole logs to be classified as residues or byproducts. The SBP Glossary provides clear definitions for each feedstock category, and any misclassification would constitute a breach of certification requirements. If the report has evidence of such practices, SBP would welcome the opportunity to investigate and take appropriate action.

In addition, processing residues and post-consumer feedstock are subject to verification, inspection, and audit under Standard 2 (v2.0), Annex 1. These requirements ensure that all feedstock types, regardless of origin, are subject to appropriate oversight.

Finally, SBP requires compliance with the EU Renewable Energy Directive sustainability criteria for all Certificate Holders. These criteria include, among other provisions, a prohibition on sourcing feedstock from primary and old-growth forests (Article 29, paragraph 3(a)), a requirement that SBP enforces through its certification framework.

Indigenous Peoples’ rights and FPIC
SBP upholds the rights of Indigenous Peoples through explicit requirements in Standard 1 (v2.0), indicators 4.2.4 and 4.2.6. Where FPIC has not been obtained, a formal consultation and accommodation process must be implemented. Certification cannot proceed unless risks are demonstrably mitigated to a low level.

Consultation and engagement with interested and impacted Parties are central to SBP’s governance and assurance systems. Stakeholder consultations are conducted during the development and revision of SBP Standards, as well as during the preparation of Regional Risk Assessments. In addition, all Certificate Holders are required to engage stakeholders when developing their own risk assessments.

To further strengthen these relationships, last year SBP launched its Regional Forums, a new platform designed to enhance dialogue and collaboration with stakeholders across different geographies and contexts.

Governance and conflict of interest
SBP is governed by a multi-stakeholder structure with strict conflict of interest policies. Board and committee members serve in a personal capacity and do not represent their employers.

Closing remarks
SBP is an independent, not-for-profit organisation committed to ensuring that biomass used for energy is sourced responsibly and sustainably. We remain open to constructive dialogue and welcome opportunities to collaborate with civil society, academia, and industry to strengthen sustainability outcomes. In the coming weeks, we will continue to review the full NGO report in detail and assess any specific evidence presented. Where appropriate, we will engage directly with the report’s authors and contributors to clarify misunderstandings, address concerns, and identify opportunities for improvement. SBP remains committed to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in support of credible, science-based climate and forest stewardship.

Today, the Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) has launched the public consultation on the newly developed Regional Risk Assessments (RRA) for Norway.

As a result of the Standards Development Process launched in May 2020, both SBP Standards 1 and 2 were revised, thus triggering the review of all existing SBP-endorsed RRAs and initiating the development of new RRAs. The consortium of Stora Enso Skog AS, Norsk Biobrensel AS, Viken AT Market AS, AT Skog SA and Nortømmer AS, supported by a team of experts from NORSKOG, was appointed as the Working Body responsible for drafting the new RRA for Norway. The draft RRA has now been submitted to SBP.

The geographical scope for the RRA is the entire forested area of Norway. However, as most of that area is certified according to PEFC, the RRA is limited to PEFC-certified forests. The SBP Benchmarking and Recognition Framework and its associated evaluation of the PEFC scheme concludes that 31 of the 42 indicators of SBP Standard 1 are fully covered by PEFC certification. Accordingly, the RRA addresses only the 11 indicators of SBP Standard 1 that are not already covered by PEFC certification at the forest level.

SBP is inviting all stakeholders to participate in the public consultations on the draft RRA. All comments from the public consultations, alongside comments from local experts mandated by SBP, will be reviewed by the Secretariat and may lead to changes to the draft RRA. An Interim RRA will then be published by SBP (expected Q4 2025) for Biomass Producers to use for certification purposes.

The draft RRA can be accessed via the Feedback Platform, stakeholders are requested to submit comments through that platform. The consultation closes on Friday, 15 August 2025.

If you have any questions regarding the public consultation or the RRA development procedure, please do not hesitate to contact us at RRA@sbp-cert.org.

RRAs are a key part of SBP’s focus on identifying and managing risks associated with sustainably sourcing feedstock for biomass production. With an RRA covering an entire geographic region, and determining the risks associated with sourcing feedstock from that region, the need for individual Biomass Producers to conduct risk assessments is avoided, leading to an efficient and consistent risk assessment process. RRAs also ensure active engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders in the region.

SBP notes the recent joint NGO briefing, Greenwashing Carbon Removal, which addresses the forthcoming European Commission delegated acts under the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming Regulation (CRCF). The briefing raises significant concerns about the methodologies under development for certifying Bio-CCS/BECCS and biochar projects.

We acknowledge the importance of rigorous scrutiny of carbon removal methods. Effective climate action demands scientifically robust, transparently governed, and environmentally sound approaches, particularly where certification is concerned.

However, we must respond to several specific claims made about SBP and biomass sustainability certification more broadly.

Traceability and accountability in SBP certification
The briefing alleges that certification schemes such as SBP “do not provide accountability or even basic traceability.” We categorically reject this characterisation.

SBP certification is grounded in:

• Comprehensive Chain of Custody requirements, ensuring traceability from sourcing area to End-user;
• Digital data transfer and tracking of every transaction in an SBP certified supply chain;
• Risk assessments at the supply base level, including forest and land-use monitoring;
• Third-party annual auditing by ISO 17065 accredited Certification Bodies under a robust performance monitoring and enforcement system; and
• Ongoing alignment with evolving EU regulatory frameworks, including REDIII.

Our Standards are not static. With the introduction of SBP Standards v2.0, we have significantly strengthened our requirements in a number of areas, including environmental, forest carbon, risk mitigation, social, and data collection and communications, aligning with scientific evidence and stakeholder expectations. We support the enhancement of forest carbon stocks through our Standards, in line with sustainable forest management and climate mitigation objectives. And to our knowledge, SBP is currently the only certification scheme that implements the cascading principle.

Further, under SBP Standards v2.0, the SBP certification scheme now has a fully standalone Chain of Custody Standard (Standard 4) and is no longer dependent on other certification schemes.

Having been recognised under the REDII in 2022, SBP was not an object of investigation by the EU Court of Auditors in 2016. It is wrong and misleading to mention SBP in this context. Nor has SBP been the subject of any bioenergy fraud cases.

The role of certification in ensuring credible removals
The briefing calls into question the validity of biomass-based carbon removals and the sufficiency of existing safeguards, including those provided by certification. It is critical to distinguish between:

• The policy frameworks under which removals are incentivised and accounted for (eg CRCF, REDIII); and
• The independent assurance mechanisms provided by certification schemes.

SBP does not make claims about the net carbon benefits of BECCS or biochar as removal technologies. Our role is to verify the sustainability and legality of biomass sourcing, ensuring that feedstocks meet strict requirements obeying the four principles of:

• Feedstock is legally sourced
• Feedstock sourcing does not harm the environment
• Feedstock is only sourced from Supply Bases where the forest carbon stock is stable or increasing in the long term
• Feedstock sourcing benefits people and communities

Certification cannot substitute for sound policymaking. But nor should it be misrepresented. We welcome stronger integration of lifecycle accounting, land-sector integrity, and biodiversity safeguards into EU rules, and we are ready to support that effort.

Moving forward: principles for credible certification
We agree with several of the principles advocated in the briefing, including:

• The need for complete, transparent, and conservative carbon accounting;
• The exclusion of high-risk feedstocks, where applicable; and
• The importance of protecting and restoring biodiversity.

SBP stands ready to contribute constructively to the development of carbon removal methodologies that:

• Are grounded in scientific integrity and environmental safeguards;
• Recognise the differentiated risks and characteristics of biomass supply chains; and
• Are supported by credible, third-party certification that demonstrably adds value.

We are actively exploring practical solutions to support and implement carbon accounting methodologies for BECCS through carbon projects and our Carbon Working Group. Our work will take its lead from with established best practices, such as those set out in the EU ETS Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR).

Invitation to dialogue
SBP welcomes open dialogue with all stakeholders, including Civil Society Organisations, EU institutions, and scientific experts, on how best to ensure sustainable biomass use and credible carbon removal practices.

We invite the signatories of the Greenwashing Carbon Removal briefing, as well as Commission representatives, to engage directly with us to understand how SBP operates, how our certification scheme is evolving, and how we can collectively ensure that sustainability remains the backbone of Europe’s energy and climate future.

Recent criticism by The Danish Society for Nature Conservation (Danmarks Naturfredningsforening) presents a misleading and incomplete picture of the SBP certification scheme and its role in promoting the responsible sourcing of woody biomass. We would like to address several inaccuracies and clarify what SBP does, and does not, certify.

• SBP was established to ensure robust sustainability assurance for biomass used in energy
  Whilst initiated by energy companies over a decade ago, SBP is an independent, non-profit organisation with multi-stakeholder governance representing civil society and commercial interests. The scheme is built on rigorous sustainability and legality requirements, aligned with legislative frameworks, such as EU RED, and defined best practices for sustainability systems, such as ISEAL.
• Underpinned by internationally recognised ISO standards
  SBP integrates ISO 17065, 17011 and 19011 because they represent international best practice in certification and assurance. These standards ensure the competence and impartiality of Certification Bodies (17065), the rigour of accreditation (17011), and the quality and consistency of auditing (19011). Their inclusion strengthens the credibility and reliability of the SBP certification scheme.
• SBP complements, not competes with, forest management schemes such as FSC and PEFC
  SBP does not certify forest management (FM). Instead, it builds on the assurance provided by FSC, PEFC and other credible forest certification schemes, whilst extending assurance to biomass supply chains that include residues, low-grade wood, and non-FM certified material. SBP certification requirements and systems include due diligence, risk assessment and mitigation requirements.
• Field audits are a requirement, paper-based audits are not sufficient
  Contrary to the claims made, SBP’s certification scheme requires on-site audits by independent, accredited Certification Bodies. These Certification Bodies are themselves overseen by a recognised accreditation body (ANAB), which regularly reviews their performance. Audits include document review, stakeholder consultation, and field (including forest) verification where applicable.
• Carbon and biodiversity considerations are integrated
  SBP Standards include requirements to protect biodiversity, safeguard key ecosystems, and address carbon impacts. These are assessed at the landscape and supply base level, not only at the stand level. SBP is also working to enhance its carbon-related requirements, with a dedicated Carbon Working Group bringing together leading experts in forestry and carbon from both Civil Society Organisations and business.
• Independent benchmarking confirms SBP is fit-for-purpose
  SBP has been subject to independent benchmarking by several regulatory authorities, including the European Commission. Our risk-based approach is designed to prevent unacceptable sourcing, and is continuously strengthened through feedback and review. If violations of Standards are discovered, Certificate Holders risk suspension or withdrawal of certification.
• SBP does not endorse biomass from high-carbon stock or high-biodiversity value forests
  SBP’s risk assessment process identifies and mitigates threats to forests and biodiversity. The claim that SBP allows “old forests” or biodiversity-rich habitats to be cleared for biomass is not supported by the facts. In all cases, compliance with legality and sustainability requirements, including protection of conservation values, is a condition of certification.
• Certification is not a silver bullet, but it is a critical tool
  We agree that certification alone will not resolve all challenges facing global forests. That is why SBP is part of a broader effort, including legal frameworks, policy incentives, and transparent reporting, to support the responsible use of biomass in a net-zero transition. We recognise the importance of continually improving our scheme and welcome constructive dialogue.

In summary, SBP certification provides credible, independent assurance of sustainable sourcing. We stand by the integrity of our scheme and the value it brings in supporting legal and sustainable biomass supply chains.

For more on how SBP certification works, visit: www.sbp-cert.org

SBP has today published the final documentation required for compliance with the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive EU/2023/2413 (REDIII). The documents come into effect from 21 May 2025 and mark a significant step in helping SBP-certified organisations remain compliant with evolving EU sustainability and GHG requirements.

The final documents are applicable as follows:

• SBP Standards v1.0: For Certificate Holders with EU RED in scope, implementation is mandatory from 21 May 2025.
• SBP Standards v2.0: Implementation for all Certificate Holders is mandatory from 21 May 2025.

Certification Bodies are to use these documents in evaluations as of 21 May 2025.

SBP received a positive technical assessment from the European Commission on 6 May 2025, confirming SBP’s recognition under REDIII.

SBP is committed to providing clear, practical solutions to support our Certificate Holders. Publication of these documents ensures they are ready to demonstrate compliance from day one. The REDIII documents are available here.

To support Biomass Producers with the transition to REDIII, SBP has created and published  a number of REDIII Level A Risk Assessments to assist them in implementing the management systems necessary for compliance with the EU RED sustainability criteria. As independent documents, the REDIII Level A Risk Assessments will replace the Annex 6 REDII Level A Risk Assessment from the Regional Risk Assessments.

The REDIII Level A Risk Assessments for the seven regions covered by SBP Regional Risk Assessments are currently available as consultation drafts. All stakeholders are invited to comment. Full details available here.

The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) has today launched public consultations on draft REDIII Level A Risk Assessments for Estonia Forest, Latvia Forest, Lithuania Forest, US National Forest, US Private Forest, and Vietnam Forest. The draft REDIII Level A Risk Assessment for Canada (covering provinces AB, BC, NB, NS, QC) will follow on 20 May 2025. Stakeholder input is critical to ensuring the continued rigour and relevance of SBP’s risk-based approach to biomass sustainability certification.

The REDIII Level A Risk Assessment for Denmark Forest was previously published for consultation on 29 April 2025. Once the Canada draft is published, SBP will have completed REDIII Level A Risk Assessments for all seven regions covered by its Regional Risk Assessments, demonstrating our proactive approach in supporting the sector through the REDIII transition.

To support Biomass Producers with implementation of the EU’s updated Renewable Energy Directive (EU/2023/2413), SBP has created and published a number of REDIII Level A Risk Assessments to assist in establishing management systems that meet the REDIII sustainability criteria. As an independent document, the REDIII Level A Risk Assessment will replace Annex 6 (REDII Level A Risk Assessment) in the applicable Regional Risk Assessment.

Biomass Producers can use the consultation draft to demonstrate compliance with the REDIII Level A requirements. If any of the risk ratings in the final REDIII Level A Risk Assessment differ from those in the consultation draft, the Biomass Producer must update its Supply Base Evaluation accordingly.

SBP’s readiness to support REDIII implementation was affirmed by a positive technical assessment from the European Commission, confirming the scheme’s recognition under the Renewable Energy Directive (EU/2023/2413).

The REDIII requirements come into effect on 21 May 2025. All SBP Certificate Holders with EU RED in their certificate scope must update their management systems in line with the SBP EU RED normative documents by that date and thereafter operate in conformance with the requirements. From 21 May 2025, Certification Bodies will verify conformance during regular audits.

We invite all interested stakeholders to review the draft REDIII Level A Risk Assessments and submit feedback via the relevant Feedback Platform. All details are available here. The closing date for submissions is Thursday, 19 June 2025.

The Sustainable Biomass Program (SBP) has issued a formal response to the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report Government’s support for biomass, expressing concern over the mischaracterisation of its assurance model.

As the largest certification scheme supporting the sustainable sourcing of biomass for energy, SBP welcomes scrutiny of assurance systems and strongly supports the principles of transparency, rigour, and continual improvement. However, the PAC’s suggestion that biomass generators are effectively “marking their own homework” does not reflect the realities of SBP’s governance or operations.

SBP: Not a self-certification scheme

SBP is an independent, internationally recognised certification scheme governed by a multi-stakeholder Board that includes representatives from Civil Society, Biomass Producers, and End-users. Certification is based on rigorous third-party auditing, not self-reporting or industry self-certification.

All audits are conducted by independent Certification Bodies that are formally accredited to ISO/IEC 17065, the globally recognised standard for product and service certification. These Certification Bodies are accredited by an independent Accreditation Body that is a member of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and operates in compliance with ISO/IEC 17011, the standard governing accreditation bodies.

SBP audits cover:

• Sustainability criteria (biodiversity, land use, and social safeguards),
• Supply chain integrity (traceability and legality), and
• Greenhouse gas emissions (full supply chain carbon accounting).

Importantly, audits are not carried out by biomass generators, and all audits are conducted according to the rules transparently set by SBP. Suggesting otherwise risks undermining public trust in independent certification and the broader ecosystem of credible sustainability assurance schemes.

Alignment with UK requirements

Ofgem has benchmarked SBP against the UK’s sustainability criteria and found the scheme to be aligned. SBP welcomes the PAC’s recommendation for DESNZ to conduct a comprehensive review of assurance regimes and stands ready to support this process by providing full transparency into its standards, audit procedures, and enforcement mechanisms.

A call for accurate representation

SBP urges all parties, including public institutions and the media, to ensure accuracy in how sustainability certification schemes are described. Mischaracterisations not only damage the reputation of responsible schemes like SBP, but risk eroding trust in the wider framework of sustainable sourcing.

SBP remains committed to maintaining the highest levels of assurance integrity and welcomes ongoing dialogue with policymakers, regulators, civil society, and industry stakeholders to strengthen and evolve sustainability certification in the biomass sector.