PellCert Highlights of the Industrial pellets workshop 15 th of November in Laborelec - Linkebeek Contract number: IEE/10/463/SI Project duration: May 2011 – April 2014 Date of creation: July

39 PARTICIPANTS Mainly Associations EU + US + CA European Commission representatives Little heat users answers (industrial)

PROGRAM

SUSTAINABILITY Interaction between the different sectors Users Traders Producers Associations European Commission Much reflexion – no definitive answers Approach was to discuss the proposal for sustainability principles from IWPB according to specific topics FORESTRY PLANTATIONS GHG Accounting RESIDUES COMPETITION CROSS-COMPLIANCE

Forestry and Plantations FORESTRYPLANTATIONS No minimal percentage left-over – no common rule No Go Areas : no exclusion of specific biomes but rather specific practices needed No return of the ashes to soil Biannual basis verification of the management LUC should be verified against the criteria principles carbon stocks, … but difference between the principles with which we agree and the criteria and principles FSC PEFC should be usedBiodiversity – no definition dedicated to Enplus Very difficult to measure the indicators of biodiversity  a certain percentage of the plantation should be dedicated to biodiversity Difficult topic for assessing the conflicts with other communities

GHG Accounting Considered as an important topic : choice of references Basic ref retained : MAX 130 kg CO2/MWhp at FACTORY GATE OBJECTIVE : MIN 60% reduction emissions – GHG balance for END USE REFERENCES? ANNEX V RED Fossil fuel = 91 g CO 2 /MJ = 328 g CO 2 /MWhp Bonus should be considered for degraded land (as for liquid) but NO MALUS NO specific calculator in PELLERT BUT need for methodology & key parameters for collection of data and calculation FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS To be considered for the GHG accounting Should refer to existing studies (not yet considered by EC)

Residues RESIDUES AND WASTES SCOPE Residues = by-products / Wastes Residues are defined in the implementation guidance (list FPL) If increase of production of by-products - if intentionally producing sawdust - Should sawmills be audited? Pedro introduction of laundering wood - NO as long as they don’t do laundering wood POSITIVE LIST proposed – no agreement : majority against

Competition & Cross-compliance COMPETITIONCROSS-COMPLIANCE Market driven situation : depending on the money the sectors can put on the wood. Development of a BENCHMARK to identify the gaps  identification of the requirements to be more detailed in Enplus. Competition with food industry : authorization Only a concern for the FUTURE – for energy crops plantations – geographical situation risk in developing countries need for documentation – need to have need for auditing on the arable status of the land Take into account the local legislation development of a BLM - 3 as a limit No exclusion of high quality residues Endorsement of the schemes but not mandatory – additional proofs for the criteria that are not assessed Other schemes : WBA.

Technical specifications (reactions) ADDITIVES : “VEGETAL IN ORIGIN” MAX BULK TEMPERATURE (unloading): CONSIDERED FOR END-USE can’t be directly applied ENplus..  could put 40°C for Enplus ? Ash content : though the market is evolving towards higher ash content the demand for low ash is important for operation – judge no very restrictive for the wood SMELTING TEMPERATURE : 10°C tolerance : different from ISO CHLORINE / ALKALINE : common to most of fast growing plants – but also much more limited range of feedstock diversity. linked to KCl – but no parameters for K N & S are emissions – related + N limit is significantly lower in ENplus because shows the use of glue METALS – TRACE ELEMENTS : emissions and for the ash valorization – also determines the definition as contaminated wood Fines is determined at the port of loading - tolerance for the durability : for too high durability : problems for the milling The discussion about the particle size distribution, durability and fines should be overtaken by producers and then feedback to user NO AGREEMENT ON THE MAXIMUM SIZE : why putting all the load on our side!!!! NOT REASONABLE LIMIT!

Laboratory visit More information:

RETURN OF EXPERIENCE – TO IMPROVE Much interaction between the participants Lots of reflexion – questions maybe too high level – no effective answer Need for more involvement of the heat sector to have more information about their expectations (contacted by Laborelec but no answers) There are large heat facilities using wood pellets for Base Load (ex. Fortum) Importance of the FORWARD by AEBIOM and other PELLCERT actors  much more impact/network level Technical specifications should be discussed further : QUID of ISO linkage?