Special Report The EU system for the 
certification of sustainable 
biofuels EN 2016  NO 18
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-5249-4 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/317613 QJ-AB-16-017-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-5283-8 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/82411 QJ-AB-16-017-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-5238-8 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/165815 QJ-AB-16-017-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
The EU system for the 
certification of sustainable 
biofuels
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 18
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber I — headed by ECA Member Kersti Kaljulaid — which specialises 
in preservation and management of natural resources spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Jan Kinšt, then 
taken over by ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen at the final stage of the report,supported by Alejandro Ballester Gallardo, 
Head of his private office; Bernard Moya, private office Attaché; Davide Lingua, Principal Manager; Krzysztof Zalega, Head 
of Task; and Paul Toulet-Morlane, Joao Nuno Coelho Dos Santos, Felipe Andres Miguelez, Zoltan Papp and Paivi Piki,  
Auditors. Secretarial assistance was provided by Murielle Siffert.
From left to right:  J. N. Coelho Dos Santos, B. Jakobsen, P . Toulet-Morlane, D. Lingua and A. Ballester Gallardo.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary
I-X Executive summary
1-17  Introduction
1-3 Definition of biofuels
4-5 The EU biofuels market
6 -17  Biofuels as a source of renewable energy in the EU transport sector
6-9 A target of 10 % of renewable energy in transport to be achieved by 2020
10-12  Sustainability criteria for biofuels
13-17  Certification of sustainable biofuels by voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission
18-24  Audit scope and approach
25-71  Observations
25-49  The Commission’s recognition assessment framework did not include some important 
sustainability aspects related to biofuel production
28-29  The respect of EU environmental requirements for agriculture was not ensured
30-33  Non‑mandatory sustainability issues
34-37  The impact of indirect land‑use changes (ILUC) was not considered
38-42  Weak verification of the origin of waste or residues used for the production of biofuels
43-45  Highly biodiverse grassland was not consistently protected until recently
46-49  Insufficient consideration was given to transparency and governance
50-61  Supervision of voluntary schemes was lacking
50-56  The operation of the schemes was not adequately supervised …
57-61  … and required improvements to their procedures were not appropriately enforced
04 Contents 
62-71  The statistics of biofuel certified as sustainable might be overestimated …
65-66  … because they included biofuels whose sustainability was not verified ...
67-71  … and because the origin of the biomass used for double counted biofuels was insufficiently verified
72-80  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Fuels and biofuels in transport – ktoe 2014
 Annex II — Governance of voluntary schemes
 Annex III — Transparency of voluntary schemes
 Annex IV  — The cross‑compliance requirements
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary
Biodiesel : An oil -based biofuel typically produced from vegetable fats, such as rapeseed, sunflower seed, soya 
bean and palm oil, and used as a diesel additive in motor vehicles.
Bioethanol : An alcohol -based biofuel typically produced from starch and sugar crops such as wheat, maize, barley 
and sugar beet or cane, and used as a petrol additive in motor vehicles.
Biofuel : Any fuel produced from plant- or animal -based feedstock (referred to as ‘biomass’). The two most common 
forms of biofuel are bioethanol and biodiesel.
Biomass : Biomass is organic matter used for the production of biofuels. It is the biodegradable fraction of products, 
waste and residues from biological origin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry 
and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and 
municipal waste.
CAP : Common agricultural policy of the European Union.
Certificate : Attestation by an independent certification body that an economic operator complies with the 
sustainability requirements for biofuels set by the RED.
Certification : An inspection (certification audit) procedure by means of which the conditions for issuing 
a certificate to an economic operator are assessed by a certification body.
Certification body : An independent inspection (audit) firm providing certification services for biofuels. 
A certification body concludes an agreement with a voluntary scheme on the certification of economic operators 
using a voluntary scheme’s certification system. Certification bodies issue certificates on behalf of the voluntary 
schemes.
Chain of custody/supply chain : The whole production chain from the farmer growing the feedstock for the 
production of biofuels up to the biofuel producer or trader. See: ‘Elements of the supply chain’.
Compliant biofuels : Biofuels that comply with the RED mandatory sustainability criteria.
Consultant : The contractor selected by the European Commission to provide the Commission with an assessment 
of voluntary schemes against the mandatory sustainability requirements established by the RED, and to provide the 
Commission with reports on the impact of biofuels production on social sustainability.
Cross compliance : The obligation for a farmer to comply with certain general statutory management requirements 
concerning the environment, public, animal and plant health, animal identification and registration and animal 
welfare, as well as with good agricultural and environmental conditions. 
DG Energy : Directorate -General for Energy of the European Commission responsible for developing and 
implementing the EU energy policy.
06 Glossary 
Double counted biofuels : Biofuels produced from waste, residues, non -food cellulosic material and ligno -cellulosic 
material whose contribution to the achievement of the target for the use of energy from renewable sources in all 
forms of transport is considered (counted) to be twice their energy content.
Double counting : The contribution of biofuels produced from waste, residues and non -food cellulosic material to 
the achievement of the target for the use of energy from renewable sources in transport is counted to be twice their 
energy content. 
Economic operator : A business producing and/or trading biomass or biofuels. Economic operators have to 
demonstrate that they comply with sustainability requirements, which can be done in accordance with a national 
system or making use of voluntary schemes. Economic operators are part of the biofuels supply chain. 
Elements of the supply chain : Economic operators such as farms/plantations, first gathering/collecting points, 
traders/warehouses, conversion units (mills, refineries, processing plants), transport and market players (those who 
bring sustainable biofuels into the market).
Eurostat : The statistical office of the European Union, which is a Commission directorate -general providing the 
European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions.
GHG : Greenhouse gases. A greenhouse gas is a gas that contributes to the natural greenhouse effect. The Kyoto 
Protocol covers a basket of six greenhouse gases produced by human activities: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
ILUC : Indirect land -use changes. Land -use changes occurring indirectly  as a result of displaced demand previously 
destined for food/feed/the fibre market as a result of biofuel demand.
Independent auditing : The auditing of the information submitted by economic operators. It should verify that the 
systems used by economic operators are accurate, reliable and protected against fraud. Independent auditing is 
performed by certification bodies.
Ktoe : One kilo (thousand) tonnes of oil equivalent. The tonne of oil equivalent (toe) defines the calorific value of 
fuels. It is a unit of energy defined as the amount of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil. Ktoe is used 
by Eurostat to present the reported use of biofuels in transport.
National system : The legal framework set by the Member States for verification that economic operators comply 
with the RED sustainability criteria.
Recognition : Approval by the Commission for a period of 5 years of a voluntary scheme, following assessment that 
the voluntary scheme adequately covers the sustainability criteria, applies a mass balance methodology and meets 
adequate standards of reliability and independent auditing, as required by the RED.
RED : Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of 
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 
2003/30/EC (OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16).
Sustainability criteria : Criteria for biofuels defined by the RED, related to GHG emission saving and land use. 
Target/‘10 % transport target’ : The overall RED target for each Member State to ensure that the share of energy 
from renewable sources in all forms of transport in 2020 is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in 
transport in that Member State. For the calculation of the share only sustainable biofuels may be taken into account.
07 Glossary 
Transparency platform : An online platform required by the RED to increase transparency, facilitate and promote 
cooperation between Member States and make public relevant information which the Commission or a Member 
State deems to be of key importance to the RED and to the achievement of its objectives.
UCO : Used cooking oil — common feedstock used for the production of advanced biofuel
Voluntary scheme : A sustainability certification system established to demonstrate compliance with the 
sustainability criteria for biofuels.
08
 Executive  
summary
I
The ‘ Renewable Energy Directive’ (RED) requires each Member State to ensure that by 2020 the share of energy 
from renewable sources used in all forms of transport is at least 10 % of the final consumption of energy in trans -
port. In practice, considering the present stage of technical development and possibilities to use alternative 
en ergies in transport, the 10 % target can be achieved only through a substantial use of biofuels.
II
Biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gases (GHG), CO2 in particular, than fossil fuels, because the quantity of carbon 
emitted during combustion is equal only to the amount absorbed by the source plants during growth. However, the 
sustainability of biofuels as a source of renewable energy is compromised by additional emissions due to land use 
change.
III
To ensure that biofuels placed on the EU market are sustainable, the RED lays down a number of sustainability 
criteria to be respected by economic operators. Furthermore, only biofuels certified as sustainable can be taken into 
account by the Member States for the achievement of their 10 % transport target. The sustainability of most biofuels 
placed on the EU market is certified by voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission. The recognition decisions 
are valid for 5 years and are issued after the positive assessment of the schemes’ certification procedures.
IV
The audit addressed the question ‘Have the Commission and Member States set up a reliable certification system 
for sustainable biofuels?’ We conclude that, because of weaknesses in the Commission’s recognition procedure and 
subsequent supervision of voluntary schemes, the EU certification system for the sustainability of biofuels is not 
fully reliable.
V
We found that the assessments carried out by the Commission as a basis for the recognition of voluntary schemes 
did not adequately cover some important aspects necessary to ensure the sustainability of biofuels. In particular, 
the Commission did not require voluntary schemes to verify that the biofuel production they certify does not cause 
significant risks of negative socioeconomic effects, such as land tenure conflicts, forced/child labour, poor working 
conditions for farmers and dangers to health and safety. Similarly, the impact of indirect land -use changes (ILUC) on 
the sustainability of biofuels is not covered by this assessment. Although we acknowledge the technical difficulties 
in assessing the impact of ILUC, the relevance of the EU sustainability certification system is undermined without 
this information.
09 Executive summary  
VI
Furthermore, the Commission granted recognition decisions to voluntary schemes which did not have appropri -
ate verification procedures to ensure that the origin of biofuels produced from waste was indeed waste, or that, 
as required by the RED directive, biofuel feedstocks cultivated in the European Union fulfil the EU environmental 
requirements for agriculture.
VII
Some recognised schemes were insufficiently transparent or had governance structures comprising only repre -
sentatives from few economic operators, thus increasing the risk of conflict of interest and preventing an effective 
communication with other stakeholders.
VIII
The Commission does not supervise the functioning of recognised voluntary schemes. Since the recognition deci -
sion is issued on the basis of a documentary review of the certification procedures, the lack of supervision means 
that the Commission cannot obtain assurance that voluntary schemes actually apply the certification standards 
presented for recognition. Furthermore, the Commission has no means to detect alleged infringements of voluntary 
schemes’ rules as there is no specific complaint system in place and the Commission does not verify whether com -
plaints directly addressed to voluntary schemes are correctly dealt with by them.
IX
As regards the achievement of the 10 % transport target, Member States are responsible for ensuring that the sta -
tistics concerning sustainable biofuels reported to the Commission are reliable. We found that these statistics might 
be overestimated, because Member States could report as sustainable biofuel whose sustainability was not verified. 
There were also problems with the comparability of data reported by the Member States.
X
Based on the audit observations, the Court formulates the following recommendations:
1. For future recognitions, the Commission should carry out a more comprehensive assessment of voluntary 
schemes to ensure that the schemes:
(i) assess the extent to which certified biofuels production entails a significant risk of negative socioeconomic 
effects and of ILUC. To this end, the Commission should require voluntary schemes to report once a year 
based on their certification activities any relevant information concerning the above mentioned risk;
(ii) effectively verify that EU biofuel feedstock producers comply with EU environmental requirements for 
agriculture;
(iii) provide sufficient evidence of the origin of waste and residues used for the production of biofuels.
10 Executive summary  
2. For future recognitions, the Commission should assess whether the voluntary schemes’ governance reduces the 
risk of conflict of interests and request the voluntary schemes to ensure transparency. 
3. The Commission should supervise recognised voluntary schemes by: 
(i) checking that the schemes’certification operations comply with the standards presented for recognition;
(ii) requesting voluntary schemes to set up a transparent complaints system.
4. The Commission should propose that the Member States support their statistics with evidence on the reliability 
of the biofuels quantities reported.
5. To ensure comparability of the statistics on sustainable biofuels and to increase assurance on the reliability of 
data on advanced biofuels, the Commission should propose to the Member States a harmonisation of the defi -
nition of waste substances.
11
 Introduction
Definition of biofuels
01 
Biofuels emit fewer greenhouse gases (GHG), CO2 in particular, than fossil fuels, 
because the amount of CO2 emitted during combustion of the biofuel is captured 
during the growth of the feedstock (the source materials — plants — absorb 
carbon dioxide as they grow)1. However, this equation only works if there are 
no additional emissions due to land use change, which can be direct (for ex -
ample, forest land is converted to agriculture land with a loss of stored carbon) or 
indirect (to compensate for the use of food crops for the production of biofuels, 
more land has to be cultivated to ensure food supplies); this means that, in ad -
dition to the GHG emissions due to the cultivation of biofuels crops, additional 
emissions are caused by the reclamation and cultivation of new areas for food 
crops. Competition with food production does not occur with biofuels produced 
from wastes, residues or other non-food biomass.
02 
Biofuels are defined in the relevant European Union legislation as ‘liquid or 
gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass’2, i.e. from biodegradable 
agricultural, forestry or fishery products, waste or residues or from biodegrad -
able industrial and municipal waste. At present, the only biofuels produced and 
used in relevant quantities in the EU are biogasoline (including bioethanol) and 
biodiesel.
03 
On the basis of the feedstock used, biofuels may be referred to as:
— conventional (first-generation) biofuels, mainly produced from agricultural 
crops which are also food or feed crops (i.e. for human or animal consump -
tion, e.g. cereals, sugarcane, beet, and oilseeds);
— advanced (second-generation and third-generation) biofuels produced from 
feedstocks, such as waste or residues, which do not compete directly with 
food and feed crops.1 Meaning that the greenhouse 
gas emissions, in particular 
CO2, released when converting 
biomass to energy (biofuel 
combustion) are equivalent to 
the amount of CO2 absorbed 
by the plants during their 
growing cycles.
2 Article 2(i) of Directive 
2009/28/EC (RED) and Article 
2(9) of Directive 98/70/EC of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 
13 October 1998 relating to 
the quality of petrol and diesel 
fuels and amending Council 
Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 350, 
28.12.1998, p. 58).
12 Introduction 
The EU biofuels market
04 
According to Eurostat data3, in 2014 the total of biofuels used in the European 
Union amounted to 14 370 ktoe (thousand tonnes of oil equivalent), made up 
of 11 367 ktoe of biodiesel (around 4 % of the total of transport fuel) and 2 637 
ktoe of biogasoline (around 0.9 % of the total of transport fuel) (see Annex I ). 
The most recent data published by the Commission4 show that in 2012 79 % of 
biodiesel and 71 % of bioethanol consumed in the EU were produced within the 
EU. Imports came primarily from Argentina and Indonesia for biodiesel, and from 
the United States and Brazil for bioethanol.
05 
The total agriculture area required to produce feedstock for biofuels consumed in 
the EU amounted in 2012 to 7.8 million hectares, made up of 4.4 million hectares 
in the EU (3 % of the total EU cropland) and 3.5 million hectares outside the EU5. 
The use of crops such as maize, wheat, sugar beet or sugar cane for the produc -
tion of biofuels has triggered public concerns about the risk of diverting crops 
and farmland from food to biofuels production.
Biofuels as a source of renewable energy in the EU 
transport sector
A target of 10 % of renewable energy in transport to be 
achieved by 2020
06 
Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable 
sources (the ‘renewable energy directive’, hereinafter ‘the RED’) is part of the 
EU energy and climate change package6, which was adopted by the Council on 
6 April 2009. A new renewable energy package, including bioenergy sustainabil -
ity policy for 2030, is to be presented by 2017.73 Eurostat tables ‘SHARES 2014’, 
results and detailed results, 
see also Annex I  to this report.
4 COM(2015) 293 final of 
15 June 2015 ‘Renewable 
energy progress report’.
5 SWD(2015) 117 final of 
15 June 2015 ‘Technical 
assessment of the EU biofuels 
sustainability and feasibility of 
10 % renewable energy in 
transport’, p. 3.
6 The 2020 package is a set of 
binding legislation, see  
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/
policies/strategies/2020/
index_en.htm
7 COM(2015) 572 final of 
18 November 2015 ‘State of 
the Energy Union 2015’. 
13 Introduction 
07 
The RED requires the EU to cover at least 20 % of its final energy consumption 
with energy from renewable sources by 2020. In addition, the RED lays down 
that each Member State has to ‘ensure that the share of energy from renewable 
sources in all forms of transport in 2020 is at least 10 % of the final consumption 
of energy in transport in that Member State’8. That target may be achieved by 
increasing the use of electricity and other alternative energies from renewable 
sources in transport and by incorporating biofuels with fossil fuels. In practice, 
considering the present stage of technical development and possibilities to use 
electricity from renewable sources or other alternative energies in transport, the 
10 % transport target can be achieved only through a substantial use of bio -
fuels. In 2014 the biofuel incorporation rate in European Union transport fuel was 
around 5 %9.
08 
Since biofuels made from agricultural crops compete with food production, in 
2015 the European legislator introduced10 a ceiling of 7 % for the contribution of 
biofuels produced from food crops to the 10 % transport target to be achieved by 
2020.
09 
As noted earlier, competition with food production does not occur with biofu -
els produced from wastes, residues or other non-food biomass. Hence, the RED 
stipulates that their contribution to the achievement of the EU’s 10 % transport 
target should be counted double. This means that Member States could theoret -
ically meet the 10 % target with 5 % of biofuels produced from ligno-cellulosic, 
non-food cellulosic, waste or residues materials. According to Eurostat statistics 
for 2014, the share of biofuels, based on double counting, in the reported total 
use of biofuels in transport for all Member States was around 20 % (see Annex I ).8 Article 3(4) of the RED.
9 Biofuels Barometer. 
Eurobserver, July 2015.
10 Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the 
European Parliament and the 
Council of 9  September  2015 
amending Directive 98/70/EC 
relating to the quality of petrol 
and diesel fuels and amending 
Directive 2009/28/EC on the 
promotion of the use of 
energy from renewable 
sources (OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, 
p. 1)
14 Introduction 
Sustainability criteria set out in RED Article 17(2) to 17(6)
(a) Greenhouse gas emission savings from the use of biofuels must be at least 35 %.
(b) Biofuels shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high biodiversity value (i.e. primary 
forest and other wooded land, nature protected area, highly biodiverse grassland).
(c) Biofuels shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock (i.e. wetland, 
forested area, peatland).
(d) Agricultural raw materials cultivated in the EU and used for the production of biofuels shall respect the 
minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions and some statutory manage -
ment requirements defined by the CAP .Box 1Sustainability criteria for biofuels 
10 
To mitigate the environmentally negative effects of direct land use change (see 
paragraph 1), the RED lays down that biofuels must comply with a number of sus -
tainability criteria, set out in Box 1 . The RED also refers to other issues which can 
affect the sustainability of biofuels, such as the potential negative socioeconomic 
effects (i.e. land tenure conflicts, forced/child labour, poor working conditions, 
etc.), GHG emissions caused by indirect land use change, fraud prevention and 
transparency with regard to biofuel production.
11 
Only sustainable biofuels may be taken into account for the achievement of the 
10 % transport target. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that 
the amounts declared are backed by valid certificates, and to collect and send 
this data to Eurostat. To ensure that biofuels placed on the EU market are sustain -
able, the Member States must require economic operators in the biofuels supply 
chain to show that the sustainability criteria have been fulfilled11. Operators can 
show that their consignments of biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria by 
fulfilling the requirements of national control systems or by making use of volun -
tary schemes recognised by the Commission12.11 RED Article18(3).
12 RED Article 18(4).
15 Introduction 
12 
Generally national systems require or accept as proof of sustainability the cer -
tificates issued under the voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission. 
Overall, all national systems include the use of recognised voluntary schemes, 
and usually several voluntary schemes operate in each Member State. Therefore, 
voluntary schemes certify most of the sustainable biofuels placed on the EU 
market.
Certification of sustainable biofuels by voluntary schemes 
recognised by the Commission
13 
A voluntary scheme is a certification system for the sustainability of biofuels. 
Voluntary schemes are established mostly by privately run entities. Many volun -
tary schemes have been developed by groups of economic operators and other 
interested parties (‘roundtables’ or consortia). There are also voluntary schemes 
developed by biofuel producers. Voluntary schemes can apply criteria which are 
stricter than the RED criteria and additional criteria, e.g. social criteria or criteria 
adapted to local conditions, and criteria to promote best agricultural practices. 
They may also take into account additional sustainability aspects such as soil, 
water and air protection.
14 
For the purpose of certification, the whole production chain from the farmer 
growing the feedstock up to the biofuel producer should be checked. To carry 
out the controls the voluntary schemes rely on independent auditors (i.e. ‘certifi -
cation bodies’, which are natural or legal persons), which certify compliance with 
sustainability criteria by economic operators on behalf of a voluntary scheme in 
accordance with a contract concluded with that scheme. The certification bodies’ 
auditors may carry out documentary and on-the-spot checks on farmers, first 
biomass collecting points, warehouses, oil mills, biofuels plants and biomass or 
biofuels traders (See Figure 1 ).
16 Introduction Figure 1Certification under VS
Note:  VS — voluntary scheme; CB — certification body.
Source:  European Court of Auditors.
15 
The operator producing biomass or biofuels pays certification costs to the certi -
fication body and fees to the voluntary scheme and obtains a certificate carry -
ing the logo of the voluntary scheme. Every economic operator in the chain of 
cultivation and conversion of biomass to biofuels has to provide purchasers of 
biomass or biofuels with information about the certificate it has obtained and the 
sustainability characteristics of the products it delivers.Each economic operator 
requests to be certiﬁed by a CB of its choice.If RED requirements are being 
complied with, CBs issue a 
certiﬁcate to each economic 
operator.
On the basis of the certiﬁcates delivered by the CBs, each economic operator can issue proofs of sustainability and trade its production to the next level of the chain.Farmer Trader ReﬁneryOnce CBs are  contracted by recognised VSs, they are 
entitled to provide certiﬁcation to the economic operators.Certiﬁcation under VS
VSVS sign contracts with CBs that are qualiﬁed to carry out 
audits of compliance with the RED requirements.
CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5
Petrol
station
17 Introduction 
16 
When an economic operator is certified by a recognised voluntary scheme, 
a Member State may not require further evidence of compliance with sustainabil -
ity criteria13. Therefore, a certificate issued by a recognised voluntary scheme is 
valid in all EU Member States. The recognised voluntary schemes certify biomass 
produced in the EU and also imported from third countries.
17 
The Commission’s responsibility is the recognition of voluntary schemes. The 
Commission has also the possibility of repealing the recognition decision if 
a scheme does not implement all the elements on which the decision was based. 
The recognition decisions are valid for a period of 5 years. The first recognition 
decision was issued in 2011. Up to December 2015 the Commission had recog -
nised 19 voluntary schemes (see Annex II )14.13 RED Article 18(7).
14 See Article 2(2) of each 
recognition decision.
18
 Audit scope  
and approach
18 
Considering the key role played by voluntary schemes for the verification of the 
sustainability of biofuels, it is essential that the Commission ensures that only 
reliable voluntary schemes are recognised. Therefore, the audit focused on the 
procedure applied by the Commission for the recognition of voluntary schemes 
(i.e. the recognition assessment framework).
19 
Furthermore, as only sustainable biofuels may be taken into consideration for the 
achievement of the EU’s 10 % transport target, it is essential that reliable data are 
collected on the quantities of certified sustainable biofuels placed on the market 
in each Member State. A further subject of the audit was therefore to examine 
whether the data collected by the Member States and submitted to Eurostat 
regarding the share of sustainable biofuels in transport were reliable.
20 
The main audit question was the following:
Have the Commission and Member States set up a reliable certification system 
for sustainable biofuels?
21 
The main audit question was further broken down into the following 
sub-questions:
— Does the Commission's recognition of voluntary schemes ensure that the 
certified biofuels are sustainable?
— Does the Commission ensure that recognised voluntary schemes operate as 
intended?
— Are national data relating to the share of biofuels in total transport fuels 
reliable?
22 
The audit was carried out between May and November 2015 and covered the 
Commission’s recognition assessments from 2011 to 2015. At the Commission, the 
audit covered the tendering procedures applied for the selection of the external 
consultant to assist the Commission with the assessment of voluntary schemes, 
the assessment and recognition of voluntary schemes and the subsequent super -
vision of voluntary schemes by the Commission.
19 Audit scope and approach  
23 
We also visited four Member States (Germany, France, Poland and the United 
Kingdom). These Member States were selected because they produce and/or 
consume the largest volumes of biofuels. In the Member States visited the audit 
focused on the systems used to collect and verify the figures on the use of sus -
tainable biofuels the Member States report for publication in Eurostat statistics.
24 
Voluntary schemes and the related certification bodies do not benefit from any 
EU expenditure and are therefore not subject to an audit by the European Court 
of Auditors. Consequently, we were not in a position to examine whether the rec -
ognised voluntary schemes operated effectively and whether their sustain  ability 
certificates were reliable. The scheme operators agreed however to provide an 
insight into their activities and organisation during information visits by the 
Court’s auditors. We also paid similar visits to certified operators in the biofuels 
production chain.
20
 Observations
15 RED Articles 17(1) and 17(6).
16  These requirements and 
conditions are part of what is 
known as cross-compliance 
obligations. See Annex IV  to 
this report.The Commission’s recognition assessment framework 
did not include some important sustainability aspects 
related to biofuel production
25 
Given that a large volume of biofuel is certified by voluntary schemes and 
that only voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission can produce valid 
sustainability certificates, it is essential that the recognition decisions are based 
on a complete and thorough assessment of the voluntary schemes’ certification 
standards and governance. Furthermore, to ensure that voluntary schemes cer -
tify truly sustainable biofuels the recognition process should include an assess -
ment of all relevant sustainability aspects linked to biofuel production.
26 
As noted earlier, the Commission’s assessments of voluntary schemes were 
carried out by an external contractor on behalf of the Commission based on 
pro cedures previously agreed by the Commission (the recognition assessment 
framework). The Commission’s selection of the external contractor was based 
on sound criteria and, overall, was compliant with the relevant provisions of the 
financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union. The examin -
ation of the consultant’s assessments of four voluntary schemes shows that they 
correctly applied the assessment framework agreed with the Commission.
27 
We also assessed whether the recognition assessment framework thoroughly 
covered the sustainability of biofuel production. We found that the framework 
only assesses the RED mandatory sustainability criteria. Therefore, other impor -
tant aspects, necessary to ensure the sustainability of biofuels, were not covered 
by the assessment. 
The respect of EU environmental requirements for 
agriculture was not ensured
28 
The RED lays down as a sustainability criterion15 for feedstocks cultivated in the 
European Union the fulfilment of the environmental requirements and agricul -
tural and environmental conditions defined in the CAP16. We found that, before 
granting recognition, the Commission did not verify whether voluntary schemes 
checked that biofuels feedstock producers (farmers) respect those conditions and 
requirements. As a result, we found that in three of the four voluntary schemes 
examined their standards did not allow effective and comprehensive verification 
of the fulfilment of that sustainability criterion. Those schemes relied on controls 
carried out by national authorities in the framework of the CAP , but they had no 
access to the results of such controls (see Box 2 ). 
21 Observations 
29 
It is worth noting that we systematically highlight in our annual reports infringe -
ments by farmers of these EU environmental requirements (see paragraph 28)17.
Non ‑mandatory sustainability issues
30 
Certain sustainability aspects of biofuels production are referred to in the RED18, 
but are not set as mandatory requirements. For example, there are no binding 
criteria under the RED to ensure that EU biofuel production does not generate 
negative socioeconomic effects. The possibility of such negative effects is there -
fore not assessed during the Commission’s recognition procedure for voluntary 
schemes. However, the production of biofuels could endanger local communities 
and cause damages to society at large. Examples of key problems to be ad -
dressed are land tenure conflicts, forced/child labour, poor working conditions 
and health and safety risks19.Good and weak practices for the verification of fulfilment of these requirements
Only one voluntary scheme visited set standards requiring complete and comprehensive verification of fulfil -
ment of these requirements. Its standards explicitly state that it is necessary to check that farmers fulfil the 
requirements. Its ‘regulation to carry out audits’ requires that certification bodies inspect whether the farms 
comply with the sustainability requirements of the RED.
In the case of the three remaining voluntary schemes, their principles either provided incomplete procedures 
(checklist) which did not cover all EU environmental requirements for agriculture referred to in the RED, al -
lowed compliance to be checked merely on the basis of farmers’ self-declarations or relied on the controls 
carried out by the national authorities responsible for cross-compliance within the CAP control system, even 
though the schemes do not have access to the results of these controls when certifying the farmers. Box 2
17 ECA 2014 annual report, 
paragraphs 7.22 and 7.33  
(OJ C 373, 10.11.2015).
18 Article 17(7).
19 Risks regarding biofuels 
production are identified, for 
example, in the ‘2050 criteria 
overview’ in ‘WWF Report, 
September 2012’, ( http://
assets.worldwildlife.org/
publications/458/files/
original/2050_criteria_final_
low_res_online_viewing.
pdf ?1348517472 ).
22 Observations 
31 
Although the consultant assessing the voluntary schemes delivered a method -
ology to the Commission in June 2012 for the assessment of whether voluntary 
schemes address non-mandatory sustainability issues, to date the Commission 
has not applied that methodology. As a result, the voluntary schemes were not 
obliged to include non-mandatory sustainability issues in the standards they 
submitted for recognition. We nevertheless found that one of the four voluntary 
schemes examined had set up certification procedures which included the verifi -
cation of socioeconomic effects (see Box 3 ).
20 Article 17(7), second 
subparagraph.
21 COM(2013)175 final, 
accompanied by SWD(2013) 
102 final and COM(2015)293 
final, accompanied by 
SWD(2015) 117 final. We have 
examined both the COM and 
the SWD documents.Box 3A good practice for the verification of social sustainability aspects
To ensure sustainable and environmentally and socially sound production of biomass, this voluntary scheme’s 
standard for sustainable production not only aims to prevent ecological damage but also to safeguard appro -
priate working conditions and protection of employees’ health on farms. This includes the protection of soil, 
water and air, and also safe working conditions (through training and education, use of protective clothing 
and proper and timely assistance in the event of accidents) and respect of human rights, labour rights and 
land rights. According to its principles, biomass production must promote responsible labour conditions and 
workers’ health, safety and welfare and must be based on responsible community relations.
32 
The RED requires the Commission to report every 2 years to the European Parlia -
ment and the Council on the impact on social sustainability in the EU and in third 
countries of increased demand for biofuels, on the impact of EU biofuel policy on 
the availability of foodstuffs at affordable prices, in particular for people living 
in developing countries, and on wider development issues. The Commission’s 
reports must also address the respect of land-use rights and national measures 
taken for soil, water and air protection20. We note that, although this reporting 
requirement cannot compensate for the lack of systematic certification of these 
sustainability aspects, it could provide the necessary overview of the significance 
of these issues.
33 
To date the Commission has submitted two reports21. We consider these reports 
to be of limited use as they contain limited information and unclear conclu -
sions, as shown in Box 4 . These reports do not provide enough data to assess the 
impact of the demand for biofuels on social sustainability and to propose, where 
necessary, corrective actions.
23 Observations Box 4Examples of insufficient information in Commission reports on social aspects 
affected by biofuel production
The Commission’s 2013 report does not address ‘wider development issues in developing countries22’ (for ex -
ample, rural and social development such as local prosperity, social well-being and access to energy, capacity 
development and technology transfer). The background report’s assessment of labour conditions23 is based 
merely on the status of ratification of international conventions by countries exporting biofuels to the EU.
Labour conditions issues in terms of remuneration, health safety (including exposure to chemicals), contrac -
tual agreements or gender-specific impacts are not assessed in those reports. 
The 2015 Commission report does not address wider development issues in developing countries at all. Its 
background report provides a vague conclusion that ‘overall wider development issues in developing coun -
tries could be positively or negatively impacted by biofuel production’24.
22 Reporting on ‘wider development issues in developing countries’ is required by the RED, but it does not specify what such issues are.
23 Ecofys et al., ‘Renewable energy progress and biofuel sustainability’, 2012.
24 Ecofys et al., ‘Renewable energy progress and biofuels sustainability’, 2014, p. 173.
The impact of indirect land ‑use changes (ILUC) was not 
considered
34 
Biomass production typically takes place on cropland which was previously used 
for agricultural production destined to be used for food or feed production. 
Since such agricultural production is still necessary, it might be partly displaced 
to land that was previously not cropland, such as grassland or forest. This process 
is known as indirect land-use change (ILUC), which risks negating the green -
house gas savings that result from increased biofuel use, because grasslands 
and forests absorb high levels of CO2. By converting such land types to cropland, 
atmos pheric CO2 levels might increase, as conversion could lead to additional and 
substantial greenhouse gas emissions.
24 Observations 
35 
The importance of assessing the impact of ILUC was highlighted in a mid-term 
evaluation of the RED25, which noted that biofuels can result in a GHG emission 
reduction, but the size of the emission reduction depends significantly on the 
type and feedstock used and on whether the uncertain impact of ILUC is taken 
into account. When ILUC is taken into account, some biofuels like the ones from 
waste and residues or sugar cane can result in high emission savings, while 
other biofuels from crops can in some cases even result in a net increase of GHG 
emissions.
36 
However, the RED does not require biomass and biofuels suppliers to include 
greenhouse gas emissions associated with indirect land-use change in the calcu -
lation of greenhouse gas emissions savings26. Consequently, the impact of ILUC 
on the sustainability of biofuels is not covered by the voluntary schemes’ assess -
ment and recognition procedure.
37 
We acknowledge the technical difficulties in assessing the impact of ILUC on 
greenhouse gas emissions (mainly a lack of methodology for calculating emis -
sions from ILUC that can take place all over the world, and not necessarily in the 
areas where biomass for biofuels is produced). The amended RED27 deals with the 
problem by capping the share of biofuels from food crops that can be counted 
towards the 2020 target to 7 %, and introducing additional reporting obligations 
for the Member States and the Commission28. At the time of the audit, there was 
no information available on the sources that may be used by the Commission for 
reporting on ILUC.
Weak verification of the origin of waste or residues used for 
the production of biofuels
38 
Biofuels produced from waste and residues, such as biodiesel produced from 
used cooking oil (UCO), are considered to be more beneficial for the environ -
ment, since they do not compete with food production for the use of agricultural 
land.25 CE Delft, ‘Mid-term evaluation 
of the renewable energy 
directive: a study in the 
context of the REFIT 
programme’, Delft, April 2015 
(www.cedelft.eu ).
26 Nevertheless, Article 3 of 
Directive (EU) 2015/1513 
amending the RED requires 
the Commission to submit to 
the Parliament and the 
Council by 31 December 2016 
a report including, among 
other things, an assessment ‘of 
the best available scientific 
evidence on indirect land-use 
change greenhouse gas 
emissions associated with the 
production of biofuels’.
27 Directive (EU) 2015/1513.
28 Annex VIII to the amended 
RED sets out provisional 
estimated ILUC emissions to 
be taken into account by 
Member States and the 
Commission for reporting 
purposes.
25 Observations 
39 
The possibility of double counting biofuels produced from waste and residues 
has led to a situation where biodiesel produced from UCO (see paragraph 9) ‘is 
often traded at a higher price than biodiesel from vegetable oil’29. This entailed 
a risk of virgin oil being adulterated to be sold as UCO. This risk was noted in 
a recent study30 which echoed concerns from operators and other stakeholders 
concerning ‘the risk of fraud if virgin vegetable oil would be sold as UCO’.
40 
It was therefore essential that, as part of the recognition process, the Commission 
assess the procedures of voluntary schemes to ensure that the origin of biofuels 
produced from waste is indeed waste. However, we found that this had not been 
the case, because the Commission did not assess whether voluntary schemes 
verify the origin of waste used for the production of biofuels.
41 
In October 2014 the Commission acknowledged that voluntary schemes were 
not providing sufficient evidence of the origin of waste (e.g. restaurants in the 
case of UCO) and addressed a guidance note to all recognised schemes. The 
note suggested they develop specific auditing procedures covering the origin of 
waste and residues, ‘i.e. the economic operator where the waste or residue ma -
terial arises’. The note pointed out that with regard to waste and residues there 
is ‘a real risk of fraud’ due to economic incentives (e.g. where ‘the price that can 
be achieved for feedstock declared to be a waste or a residue is higher than the 
price of the virgin product’31).
42 
This means that, since 2011, when the first voluntary schemes were recognised, 
until at least 2014, the biofuel certified as being produced from waste, and thus 
counted double towards national targets, was certified without appropriate 
verifications as to the origin of the waste used. As our audit detected weaknesses 
in the supervision of voluntary schemes (see paragraphs 50 to 56) and in the en -
forcement of the requirements set out in guidance notes (see paragraphs 57 and 
58) we cannot conclude that verification had effectively improved.29 EC note on verification of the 
chain of custody of biofuels 
made from waste and 
processing residues of 
10.10.2014, p. 2, paragraph 5.
30 Ecofys, ‘Trends in the UCO 
market’, 2013, p. 2.
31 Guidance note of 10.10.2014, 
p. 2.
26 Observations 
Highly biodiverse grassland was not consistently protected 
until recently
43 
A sustainability criterion set out in the RED32 concerns the protection of ‘highly 
biodiverse grassland’ (including endangered or vulnerable species) on that 
land33. To enforce this, the Commission was required to define34 ‘the criteria and 
geographic ranges to determine which grassland’ had to be considered ‘highly 
bio diverse grassland’. This definition was established by the Commission in 
December 201435 and applied from 1 October 2015, although the RED had to be 
enforced by the Member States by 5 December 2010.
44 
Despite the late definition of highly biodiverse grassland, some voluntary 
schemes ensured implicit compliance with that criterion from the beginning of 
their certification activities by prohibiting any conversion of grassland. For ex -
ample, three of the four voluntary schemes examined stipulated that ‘until defini -
tions, criteria and geographic areas featuring grassland with high biodiversity are 
determined by the Commission, any conversion of grassland in or after January 
2008 is prohibited’. Other schemes left the ‘highly biodiverse grassland’ aspect 
out of the recognition process, which means that the sustainability certificates 
delivered by these schemes before 1  October  2015 did not include verification of 
whether the feedstock was obtained from such land. Consequently, the Com -
mission granted a ’partial recognition’, explicitly excluding this sustainability 
criterion.
45 
So far, three of the 19 recognised voluntary schemes have obtained partial 
recognition on those terms. These schemes therefore certified the sustainability 
of biofuels without checking whether their feedstocks had been produced after 
conversion of grassland that might have been biodiverse grasslands. Despite the 
insufficient assurance provided by these schemes as regards that sustainability 
aspect, we found that their certificates were actually considered as covering all 
the RED sustainability criteria. This means, for example, that the biofuel certified 
by these schemes was counted to establish the level of progress towards the 
10 % transport target to be achieved in 2020.32 Article 17(3)(c).
33 Highly biodiverse grasslands 
differ between climatic zones 
and may include, inter alia, 
heaths, pastures, meadows, 
savannahs, steppes, 
scrublands, tundra and 
prairies, recital 3 of 
Commission Regulation (EU) 
No 1307/2014 of 
8 December 2014 on defining 
the criteria and geographic 
ranges of highly biodiverse 
grassland for the purposes of 
Article 7b(3)(c) of Directive 
98/70/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
relating to the quality of petrol 
and diesel fuels and Article 
17(3)(c) of Directive 2009/28/
EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on the 
promotion of the use of 
energy from renewable 
sources (OJ L 351, 9.12.2014, 
p. 3).
34 RED Article 17(3), second 
subparagraph, in the version 
applicable until September 
2015.
35 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2014.
27 Observations 
Insufficient consideration was given to transparency and 
governance
46 
Apart from the sustainability issues above, the Commission’s assessment and 
recognition did not cover the voluntary schemes’ governance (management and 
staff qualifications). A voluntary scheme’s governance and the technical cap  acity 
of its staff have a significant influence on the robustness of its standards and 
their implementation. Transparent governance, ensuring adequate representa -
tion of stakeholders, and solid know-how on the part of managers and staff, in -
creases the likelihood of correct field-level implementation of the standards and 
reduces the risk that specific interests of certain biofuels operators are favoured. 
If a voluntary scheme’s governance is in the hands of representatives of only 
a few economic operators, this increases the risk of conflict of interest, and con -
sequently of ineffective verification of compliance with the scheme’s standards. 
Likewise, if the technical capacity of the voluntary scheme’s managers and staff 
is weak, this increases the risk that the quality control of the certification bodies 
will not ensure effective compliance by economic operators with the scheme’s 
standards.
47 
On the basis of publicly available information, we examined the transparency and 
the governance of the 19 recognised voluntary schemes (see Annexes II  and III). 
We identified five types of schemes: voluntary schemes set up as an association 
of single interested persons or entities, voluntary schemes set up as consortia 
of organisations or associations, voluntary schemes set up by a public body, 
voluntary schemes set up by private companies, and a greenhouse gas emission 
calculation tool managed by a research institute and recognised only as a meas -
urement scheme for GHG emission savings.
48 
Our analysis presented in Annex II  confirms that, overall, transparency of govern -
ance is greater for the voluntary schemes based on ‘open’ membership and for 
those created by public bodies than for company or consortium based schemes, 
which in general publish less information. For one voluntary scheme, not even 
a webpage was found. The information publicly available suggests that, for 
company-based schemes, no specific governance bodies or procedures have 
been created and that voluntary schemes are run by the current management 
and staff of the companies. In our view, these governance arrangements present 
a higher risk of conflict of interests.
28 Observations 
49 
Some voluntary schemes include different stakeholder groups in their manag -
ing bodies, such as producers, traders, environmentalists, researchers, etc. This 
is good practice as the representation of different groups of interests ensures 
a more balanced decisionmaking process, as well as a more comprehensive 
development of the schemes’ standards and a wider supervision of their 
implementation.
Supervision over voluntary schemes was lacking
The operation of the schemes was not adequately  
supervised …
50 
Voluntary schemes are recognised on the basis of a documentary review of their 
certification standards and procedures to be applied after recognition. Therefore 
we consider that supervision of voluntary schemes’ operations is essential to pro -
vide assurance that the certificates of sustainability are issued in accordance with 
the standards presented for recognition.
51 
The RED does not require the Commission to exercise supervision over volun -
tary schemes. We found that, once it had recognised them, the Commission 
did not supervise the voluntary schemes (see paragraph 57). According to the 
Commission, the only control instrument at its disposal is the withdrawal of the 
recognition of a scheme, if it has evidence that the scheme has incurred a serious 
infringement of its certification rules and requirements. However, as the Commis -
sion does not supervise how voluntary schemes operate, it is very unlikely that it 
can obtain sufficient evidence in this regard.
52 
In fact, our review of the work carried out by the certification bodies shows that 
the standards presented by the voluntary schemes as a basis for their recognition 
are not always applied in practice, which shows the need for active supervision 
by the Commission of how voluntary schemes operate.
29 Observations 
36 Article 17(4) and 17(5).53 
For example, the standards of one voluntary scheme visited require the certifica -
tion body to perform an audit of a number of biomass producers and confirm 
that the biomass declared as sustainable is from a known and sustainable origin, 
and that conformity with the RED sustainability criteria can be demonstrated. 
According to the voluntary scheme’s instructions the audits can be documen -
tary verification audits and/or on-site verification audits, depending on the 
context, the situation and the level of risk. However, we found that in practice 
the certification body’s auditors did not carry out any on-site verification of 
farmers, although the scheme’s standard required on-site verifications in certain 
circumstances.
54 
Another example concerns the requirement for protection of wetland and 
peatland. According to the RED36, sustainable biofuels cannot be grown in areas 
converted from such high carbon stocks. Voluntary schemes must set up spe -
cific guidelines related to that issue and arrange a comprehensive compliance 
control system to be used by independent auditors. In France, the audit revealed 
that despite the fact that the visited voluntary scheme had developed extensive 
standards related to the conversion of such protected areas, it was difficult for 
the certification bodies to verify compliance with those standards. As confirmed 
by the French national authorities, this was due to the fact that in France there 
was no accurate mapping system related to the identification of wetlands and 
peatlands. The national mapping database is still under construction and does 
not guarantee accuracy, updating, integrity and completeness of data on wetland 
and peatland areas. Therefore, the control system put in place by the voluntary 
scheme on the wetland and peatland areas could not be applied in practice. 
The documentary recognition assessment made by the Commission’s contractor 
could not identify that specific problem.
55 
Furthermore, there is no specific complaint system in place to inform the Com -
mission of alleged infringements of voluntary scheme rules and the Commission 
does not verify whether complaints directly addressed to voluntary schemes or 
made public elsewhere are correctly dealt with by them. The Commission relies 
on the stakeholders’ awareness of the existence of a general system for com -
plaining via the internet against infringements of EU law. However, the webpage 
of that system explains that ‘the European Commission can only take up your 
complaint if it is about a breach of Union law by authorities in an EU Member 
State’, which does not apply to voluntary schemes.
30 Observations 
56 
We found that certain Member States imposed specific requirements on volun -
tary schemes and certification bodies (see Box 5 ). Although this might be seen as 
an attempt to compensate at national level for supervision that is not provided 
at EU level, we consider that it undermines the harmonisation in the EU of the 
certification of sustainable biofuels. This is because in certain Member States 
recognition by the Commission is, in practice, of no value if the voluntary scheme 
does not fulfil certain specific conditions imposed by the Member State. The lack 
of harmonised supervision of voluntary schemes at EU level increases the risk of 
discriminatory control practices in the Member States.
Examples of national requirements restricting the effects of Commission's 
recognition
To be able to carry out the certification activities contracted with a voluntary scheme, certification bodies 
with their seat in Germany must obtain recognition by the German administration and submit themselves to 
controls which are additional to the controls already carried out by the voluntary scheme. In particular, the 
administration has the right to be present at any audit carried out by the certification body, in what is called 
a ‘witness-audit’, and, if the audit takes place outside Germany, the certification body must cover the travel 
costs of the officials charged to carry out the ‘witness-audit’. In Poland, to be able to carry out certification 
activities, both the voluntary schemes and the certification bodies acting on their behalf are required to es -
tablish an office in that country.Box 5
… and required improvements to their procedures were not 
appropriately enforced 
57 
Although direct supervision of voluntary schemes is the most effective way to 
identify and correct their operational shortcomings, the promotion of best prac -
tices through guidance notes can also contribute to improving the effectiveness 
of the schemes. So far, the Commission has issued three guidance notes (which 
are not legally binding) to the recognised voluntary schemes, aimed at improv -
ing the verification of the origin of waste or residues used for the production of 
biofuels, allowing the identification of highly biodiverse grasslands and increas -
ing the transparency of the schemes.3737 EC notes on ‘Verification of the 
chain of custody of biofuels 
made from waste and 
processing residues’ 
(10.10.2014); on 
‘Implementation of the 
recently adopted criteria and 
geographic ranges of highly 
biodiverse grassland’ 
(29.1.2015); and on ‘Update of 
Commission website, 
notifications and transparency 
measures’ (12.3.2015).
31 Observations 
58 
We found that, despite the importance of the issues covered by the guidance 
notes, the Commission did not press for compliance with the requirements 
set out in the notes, for example by setting deadlines for voluntary schemes 
to implement the required improvements. For example, in the note issued on 
12 March  2015 concerning transparency measures the recognised voluntary 
schemes were requested to provide a link to their websites and to disclose other 
relevant information as detailed in Annex III  of this report. We reviewed the vol -
untary schemes’ websites and found that, almost 1 year after the guidance note 
had been issued, the requirements were far from being accomplished: many gaps 
still existed where information had either not been published or was unclear or 
incomplete.
59 
For the legislator, transparency is a paramount concern as Article 24 of the RED 
requires the Commission to establish an online public transparency platform ‘to 
increase transparency and facilitate and promote cooperation between Member 
States’. According to the same provision ‘the platform may be used to make pub -
lic relevant information which the Commission or a Member State deems to be of 
key importance to this directive and to the achievement of its objectives’.
60 
The Commission considers that a dedicated website of the Commission Direc -
torate-General for Energy38, containing all legally required information received 
from the Member States and other useful information, constitutes the transpar -
ency platform. In its current form, the transparency platform, managed solely by 
the Commission, does not fully respond to the RED requirement to ‘facilitate and 
promote cooperation between Member States’. This was confirmed by the stake -
holders met (national authorities, voluntary schemes), which strongly supported 
more transparency and information sharing.
61 
Box 6  shows that the need for strengthening information sharing is not restricted 
to the Commission and the Member States, but also applies to the voluntary 
schemes.38 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/
en/renewable-energy-  
transparency-platform
32 Observations 
Example of a possible infringement due to insufficient information sharing
Today, it is possible for an economic operator to whom certification is denied by a given certification body to 
address itself to another certification body with the purpose of obtaining a certificate without implementing 
the improvements requested by the first certification body.
Although there is an obligation for the new certification body to request the last certification report and an 
obligation for the economic operator to provide it, there is no way to ensure that this is actually done.
In some voluntary schemes, information is transparent and audit reports issued by one certification body are 
accessible to the other certification bodies operating under that scheme. However, if the two certification 
bodies are under different voluntary schemes, the new certification body has no means of seeing the report 
that led to the denial of certification if the operator refuses to disclose it.Box 6
The statistics of biofuel certified as sustainable might 
be overestimated …
62 
The largest part of energy used in transport comes from fuel. Without a substan -
tial contribution from biofuels the target of 10 % of renewable energy in trans -
port in 2020 cannot be achieved. As only biofuels complying with the sustain -
ability criteria may be taken into consideration for the calculation of the share of 
renewable energy in transport, it is essential that data on the use of sustainable 
biofuels are reliable. Eurostat publishes such data in specific tables (‘SHARES’ 
tables) on the renewable energy share of energy consumption in transport and 
other economic sectors covered by the RED.
63 
It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that the amounts declared 
are backed by valid certificates and may therefore be considered compliant with 
the sustainability criteria for biofuels.
33 Observations 
64 
When Eurostat receives the data sent by the Member States, it carries out an 
overall data consistency check39 and verifies to the greatest extent possible that 
the reported data comply with the harmonised methodology. The problems 
encountered by Eurostat typically concern data input (typing mistakes) and data 
gaps. If, after contacting national authorities, Eurostat still finds problems in the 
reported data, it informs the Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy, which 
is responsible for supervising the implementation of the RED by the Member 
States and is the directorate-general empowered to take further action.
… because they included biofuels whose sustainability was 
not verified ...
65 
In Poland the law has only required compliance of biofuels with RED sustainabil -
ity criteria, and verification of compliance, since 1 January 2015. This means that 
in the period 2011-2014 economic operators were not required to produce proof 
of sustainability for the quantities of biofuel blended with fossil fuel. However, 
Poland reported that all biofuels used were ‘compliant’ with the RED sustain -
ability criteria. Eurostat accepted and published those data despite the absence 
of provisions requiring compliance of the biofuels with the RED sustainability 
criteria and verification of such compliance.
66 
France, where the national system for certifying sustainable biofuels was not yet 
fully operational in 2011, declared ‘0’ compliant biofuels for that year and that 
was the figure published in Eurostat’s statistics. In our view, this should have 
been the case for Poland too.
… and because the origin of the biomass used for double 
counted biofuels was insufficiently verified
67 
The national statistics clearly separate the quantities of biofuels which are double 
and single counted, but only the national authorities can ensure that the origin of 
each type of biofuel is traceable (see paragraph 63). Considering the inadequacy 
of the checks to verify the origin of biomass consisting of waste or residues re -
ferred to in paragraphs 38-42, it cannot be excluded that data on double counted 
biofuels might include quantities of biodiesel certified as produced from UCO, 
whilst, in reality, the feedstock may have been from virgin oil or fraudulently 
denatured virgin oil.39 For example, by comparing 
the received data with other 
publicly available sources (e.g. 
previously prepared 
publications by other bodies) 
or verifying that the reported 
data are complete and do not 
contain input errors.
34 Observations 
68 
Double counting is the responsibility of Member States. Before the amendment 
of the RED, double counting was generically possible for biofuels produced from 
waste and it was actually up to the Member States to decide what substances 
could be classified as waste. We found that there was no unique identification in 
the EU of the substances to be considered waste40. Consequently, double count -
ed data reported by different Member States were not directly comparable: the 
same substance could be considered in one Member State as having a use, and 
therefore not being waste, while in another Member State it was considered as 
waste and eligible for the production of biofuels which were double counted41.
69 
Since its amendment in September 201542 the RED has contained a list of feed -
stocks that can be used to produce double counted biofuels43. However, the RED 
still allows, for the production of advanced biofuels in the installations existing 
before the adoption of the amendment, the use of feedstocks not included in the 
list, but determined to be waste by the competent national authorities44. 
70 
Member States pointed out that the verification of the chain of custody of bio -
fuels made from waste and residues is an area that requires close monitoring as 
a risk of fraud had been identified. Examples of detected risks of fraud linked to 
waste and residues are:
— the operator could classify as waste or residues something that it is not (or 
was adulterated); or
— the operator may attempt to get the same double counted product certified 
twice, by different voluntary schemes.
71 
Monitoring and possible measures to prevent fraud have been discussed among 
the Member States, mainly on the initiative of Germany and France, but the dis -
cussions have been deferred as other Member States are of the opinion that only 
the Commission has the legitimacy to lead such discussions.40 See Section 2 of ‘The 
sustainability of advanced 
biofuels in the EU’, IEEP, 
London, 2013.
41 For example, tall oil (which 
comes from the wood 
processing industries) is 
considered as waste and, thus, 
double counted in Sweden, 
whilst in the United Kingdom 
it is not doubled counted as it 
is used as a chemical 
precursor.
42 Directive (EU) 2015/1513.
43 Article 3(f) and Annex IX, to be 
complied with by Member 
States by 10 September 2017.
44 RED Article 3(4)(e), as 
amended.
35
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
72 
As part of the EU energy and climate change package adopted by the European 
Council in 2009, the Member States have to ensure that the share of energy from 
renewable sources in all form of transport in 2020 would be at least 10 % of their 
final consumption in this sector. The source of renewable energy predominantly 
used by the Member States in the transport sector is biofuel. However, Member 
States can only count biofuels certified as sustainable by voluntary schemes rec -
ognised by the Commission towards this 10 % transport target45.
73 
The audit addressed the question ‘Have the Commission and Member States set 
up a reliable certification system for sustainable biofuels?’ We conclude that, 
because of weaknesses in the Commission’s recognition procedure and in the 
subsequent supervision of voluntary schemes, the EU certification system for the 
sustainability of biofuels is not fully reliable.
74 
The Commission's recognition of voluntary schemes, limited to the RED manda -
tory verification requirements, does not ensure that the certified biofuels are sus -
tainable. We found that the assessments carried out by the Commission as a basis 
for the recognition of voluntary schemes did not cover adequately some impor -
tant aspects which are necessary to ensure the sustainability of certified biofuels. 
In particular, the Commission did not require voluntary schemes to verify that the 
biofuel production they certify does not cause significant risks of negative socio-
economic effects, such as land tenure conflicts, forced/child labour, poor working 
conditions for farmers and dangers to health and safety. Similarly, the impact of 
ILUC on the sustainability of biofuels is not covered by this assessment. Although 
we acknowledge the technical difficulties in assessing the impact of ILUC, the 
relevance of the EU sustainability certification system is undermined without this 
information (paragraphs 30 to 37).
75 
Furthermore, the Commission granted recognition decisions to voluntary 
schemes which did not have appropriate verification procedures to ensure that 
the origin of biofuels produced from waste was indeed waste (i.e. did not check 
the economic operator where the waste was produced). Not until October 2014 
did the Commission become aware of the problem and then issue a guidance 
note suggesting voluntary schemes should develop specific auditing procedures 
covering the origin of waste (paragraphs 38 to 42).45 Member States can also set up 
national certification systems 
but the bulk of biofuels used 
in the EU are certified by 
voluntary schemes.
36 Conclusions and recommendations 
76 
The RED requires the fulfilment of EU environmental requirements for agricul -
ture as a sustainability criterion for biofuel feedstocks cultivated in the European 
Union. We found that voluntary schemes which did not have specific verifica -
tion procedures to ensure compliance with this sustainability requirement were 
never  theless recognised by the Commission (paragraph 28).
Recommendation 1  — Comprehensive assessment of 
voluntary schemes requesting recognition
For future recognitions, the Commission should carry out a more comprehen -
sive assessment of voluntary schemes. In particular, the recognition assessment 
framework should also verify that the schemes:
(a) Assess the extent to which the certified biofuel production entails a signifi -
cant risk of negative socioeconomic effects, such as land tenure conflicts, 
forced/child labour, poor working conditions for farmers, dangers to health 
and safety, and of ILUC emissions. To this end, the Commission should require 
voluntary schemes to report once a year based on their certification activities 
any relevant information concerning the abovementioned risks. The Commis -
sion should take account of such voluntary schemes’ reports when fulfilling 
its own reporting obligations as laid down in the RED.
(b) Effectively verify that EU biofuel feedstock producers comply with EU envir -
onmental requirements for agriculture.
(c) Provide sufficient evidence of the origin of waste and residues used for the 
production of biofuels.
77 
We found that some schemes were insufficiently transparent or had governance 
structures comprising only representatives from a few economic oper  ators, thus 
increasing the risk of conflict of interest and preventing effective communication 
with other stakeholders (i.e. Commission, national authorities, other schemes, 
certification bodies and economic operators). In our view, this is explained by the 
fact that the Commission did not consider these issues during the recognition 
process. The Commission issued in 2015 a guidance note aiming to improve the 
transparency of the recognised voluntary schemes. However, its requirements 
were not enforced (paragraphs 46 to 49, and 59).
37 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 2  — Ensuring appropriate governance and 
transparency of voluntary schemes
For future recognitions, the Commission should: 
(a) assess whether the voluntary schemes’ governance reduces the risk of con -
flict of interests;
(b) request that voluntary schemes set up an official website where minimum 
transparency requirements will be made publicly available. Those require -
ments include, at least: official contact details (address, telephone, email); in -
formation on the governance of the voluntary scheme and the qualifications 
and experience of its managers and key staff; complete list of the certifica -
tion bodies operating under the scheme; detailed lists of valid, expired and 
withdrawn certificates (with dates); audit reports; information on the volun -
tary schemes’ complaints/enquiries system and information on infringements 
detected. The voluntary schemes should undertake to update the informa -
tion disclosed in a timely manner. 
78 
We also found that the Commission does not supervise the functioning of rec -
ognised voluntary schemes. Since the recognition decision is issued on the basis 
of a documentary review of the certification procedures, the lack of supervision 
means that the Commission cannot obtain assurance that voluntary schemes 
actually apply the certification standards presented for recognition. Furthermore, 
the Commission has no means to detect alleged infringements of voluntary 
scheme rules as there is no specific complaints system in place and the Commis -
sion does not verify whether complaints directly addressed to voluntary schemes 
are correctly dealt with by them (paragraph 55).
38 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 3  — Supervision by the Commission
The Commission should with immediate effect supervise recognised voluntary 
schemes by: 
(a)  checking that the schemes’ certification operations comply with the stand -
ards presented for recognition;
(b) requesting voluntary schemes to set up transparent complaints systems 
which should, as a minimum, have the following features: (i) be easily ac -
cessible on their websites; (ii) be informative on how complaints should be 
made, on the timeframe of the procedure and on the possibility of appealing 
against the rejection of complaints; (iii) cover both complaints against certifi -
cation bodies and economic operators under the voluntary scheme; (iv)  have 
a tracking system based on registers. The Commission should system  atically 
verify information contained in the registers and take action if deemed 
appropriate.
79 
Member States are responsible for ensuring that the data on sustainable biofuels 
reported to the Commission are reliable. The national data relating to the share 
of compliant biofuels in total transport fuels may not be reliable, as the statistics 
of biofuel certified as sustainable might be overestimated. We found that Mem -
ber States (as is the case of Poland) could report biofuels as sustainable whose 
sustainability had not been demonstrated (paragraph 65).
Recommendation 4  — Collection and reporting of data on 
sustainable biofuels
In order to increase assurance on the reliability of data on sustainable biofuels, 
the Commission should propose to the Member States that they support their 
statistics with evidence on the reliability of the biofuels quantities reported. This 
might be in the form of an overall certificate/declaration issued by the entity in 
charge of collecting data on sustainable biofuels and transmitting it to the na -
tional authority, which sends it to Eurostat.
39 Conclusions and recommendations 
80 
The reliability and comparability of the statistics on sustainable biofuels are 
undermined by the fact that there is no unique identification of the substances 
to be considered as waste in the EU. Consequently, definition of waste differs 
between Member States: the same substance can be considered in one Member 
State as having a use and therefore as not being waste, while in another Member 
State it is considered as waste and eligible for the production of biofuels which 
are double counted. One of the amendments adopted in September 2015 intro -
duces an annex to the RED with a list of feedstocks and fuels whose contribution 
towards the 10 % transport target may be double counted. However, the RED still 
allows use of feedstocks not included in the list, but determined to be waste by 
the competent national authorities46 (paragraphs 68 and 69).
Recommendation 5  — Harmonisation of the definition of 
wastes used for production of advanced biofuels
Although the definition of feedstock that may be used to produce ‘double count -
ed’ biofuels is now set out in the amended RED, the possibility that a substance 
is considered waste in one Member State, but not in another, remains. In order to 
ensure comparability of the statistics on sustainable biofuels and to increase the 
assurance on the reliability of data on advanced biofuels, the Commission should 
propose to the Member States as soon as possible a harmonisation of the defini -
tion of waste substances, not included in the RED list, used for the production of 
advanced biofuels in the installations existing before the adoption of Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 amending the RED.
This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mrs Kersti KALJULAID, 
Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 25 May 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President
46 RED Article 3(4)(e), as 
amended.
40
 Annexes
Fuels and biofuels in transport — ktoe 2014
Fossile Fuels Biofuels
Member State Petrol (1) Diesel (2)Total petrol and 
diesel (3=1+2)All biofuels a) Compliant 
biofuelsOf which: Double 
counted biofuels
BE 1 241.74 6 862.66 8 104.40 387.60 387.60 0.00
BG 495.06 1 610.39 2 105.45 110.87 110.87 0.00
CZ 1 509.78 3 757.93 5 267.71 316.76 316.76 0.00
DK 1 299.22 2 375.54 3 674.76 213.42 213.42 0.00
DE 17 474.16 31 813.51 49 287.67 2 806.49 2 806.49 518.25
EE 236.22 494.00 730.22 5.76 0.00 0.00
IE 1 136.93 2 420.73 3 557.6 6 116.18 116.18 76.96
EL 2 583.00 2 175.27 4 758.26 135.21 30.05 30.05
ES 4 405.03 20 616.75 25 021.78 944.88 0.00 0.00
FR 6 522.12 32 159.62 38 681.74 2 955.35 2 955.35 133.91
HR 536.15 1 216.01 1 752.16 29.86 29.86 0.00
IT 8 303.64 2 2 987.15 31 290.79 1 065.17 1 063.47 185.80
CY 350.22 230.06 580.28 9.72 9.72 6.09
LV 201.30 688.12 889.41 22.02 22.02 0.00
LT 197.19 1 213.96 1 411.15 63.20 59.71 0.00
LU 313.25 1 707.9 6 2 021.21 68.68 68.57 41.37
HU 1 211.90 2 332.40 3 544.31 193.27 193.27 52.77
MT 73.95 102.70 176.65 4.65 4.32 4.32
NL 3 715.85 5 770.92 9 486.77 349.06 336.56 212.56
AT 1 581.62 5 483.35 7 064.97 593.41 531.91 0.00
PL 3 462.26 9 090.31 12 552.57 705.37 705.37 0.00
PT 1 119.49 3 813.39 4 932.88 261.25 151.54 15.82
RO 1 339.28 3 615.17 4 954.45 166.96 166.65 0.00
SI 439.60 1 288.93 1 728.53 42.37 42.37 0.00
SK 540.22 1 350.55 1 890.78 133.87 130.60 0.00
FI 1 364.95 2 101.32 3 466.27 497.65 496.28 451.01
SE 2 731.97 3 676.79 6 408.76 992.10 992.10 419.80
UK 12 678.62 24 554.41 37 233.03 1 179.00 1 179.00 686.00
Total 77 064.72 195  509.91 272  574.63 14 370.13 13 120.04 2 834.71
of which:
Biodiesel 11 367.62 4.0% % in transport fuels
Biogasoline 2 636.91 0.9%
Total transport fuels 286  944.76
a) The figures in this column include biodiesel, biogasoline and, for certain Member States, small quantities of biogas.
Source:  EUROSTAT SHARES 2014 detailed results.Annex I
41 Annexes 
Governance of voluntary schemes
Voluntary 
schemeOwnership GovernanceStatutes or 
equivalent
VS owned by its members (open membership)
VS01 MembersThe General Assembly appoints six Board Members. 
The Board manages the affairs of the association and is bound to the resolutions of the General 
Assembly , where all members participate.
The Board  reports to the General Assembly and is supported by an Executive Board  and Techni -
cal Committees .
The Executive Board carries out the operational business of the certification system.Yes
VS02 MembersMembers  are assigned to Electing Classes. Electing Classess appoint two to 18 Directors for the 
Board of Directors . The Board has responsibility for the supervision and management of the 
scheme. The Board appoints the executive officer and the executive body of the scheme: the Chief 
Executive Officer  and the Secretariat . The Board also constitutes a Governance Committee .
The Board sets up and delegates certain powers to Committees, Working Groups  and Task 
Forces .Yes
VS03 MembersThe General Assembly  is the highest decision-making body of the scheme and it elects the 
Executive Board  of a maximum of 15 members. The Executive Board appoints a Secretariat  and 
entrusts it with the operational management of the scheme.
Ad hoc Working Groups  are formed according to the needs for some specific topics.Yes
VS04 MembersThe scheme’s members are organised into seven Chambers  that elect the governing body of the 
organisation (the General Assembly of Delegates ). The Assembly elects a Board of Directors  
(of five to nine members) that is responsible for the management of the scheme and represents 
the Association towards third parties. The Board of Directors provide oversight to the Secretariat  
and may appoint an Executive Director . The Executive Director is responsible for implement -
ing the strategy and policies of the Association and leads the activities of the Secretariat, which is 
respon  sible for the day-to-day running of the scheme. The Directors may also set up committees, 
working groups  and advisory panels .Yes
VS05 MembersThe ordinary General Assembly  is comprised of all scheme Members. The General Assembly elects 
the three to 16 members of the Board of Governors . The general management of the scheme 
is the responsibility of the Board of Governors in collaboration with the Secretary General . The 
Board of Governors entrusts the daily management of the scheme to the Secretary General and to 
the Secretariat . The Board of Governors may appoint and delegate part of its powers and responsi -
bilities to Working Groups, Standing Committees or Task forces.YesAnnex II
42 Annexes 
Voluntary 
schemeOwnership GovernanceStatutes or 
equivalent
VS owned by consortiums, organisations or associations
VS06Consortium of seven 
entities.The consortium of the seven founding members appoint members to the Steering Committee of 
the scheme. The Steering Committee is the governing entity of the scheme and mandates (by selec -
tion and contract) a Technical Advisor  — which is also part of the Steering Committee — with 
appropriate technical competences for the technical management of the scheme.Yes
VS07Umbrella body for 
several assurance 
schemes.The umbrelly body Board  comprises a team of experts and governs the operation of the company. 
It oversees the different schemes, which are managed by sector Boards. The Assurance Sector 
Boards  oversees the management of the Sector Schemes, among them the Voluntary Scheme , 
and their activities. These Sector Schemes are made up of experts and representatives from the 
sectors. 
The Assurance Sectors each have Technical Advisory Committees  which are made up of experts 
within the sector. They are responsible for the ongoing maintenance and development of Voluntary 
Schemes’ Standards.
Different schemes operate in different food sectors and the umbrella body helps develop the 
detailed standards and inspection systems for each sector.Not found
VS08Company Limited by 
Guarantee, with the 
members/guaran -
tors comprising 
eight different 
entities.The online information available is not very clear and suggests that the scheme's Board of Directors 
reports to the mother company’s Chief Executive . 
The scheme is controlled by a Board of Directors  responsible for the direction, overall manage -
ment and administration of the company. 
Two working groups  are responsible for developing and monitoring technical and marketing 
aspects of the scheme's operation.Not found
VS09Ten associations and 
organisations from 
the agricultural, 
trade, fuel, biofuel 
and biogas sectors. A Shareholder Assembly  appoints the Executive Management  and nominates an Advisory 
Committee  and a Sanction Committee  for supporting the Executive Management.
The management and operation of the scheme was delegated (through an agency agreement) to 
a company.
It is the Advisory Committee that initiate and coordinate measures to maintain and further develop 
the scheme's certification system.Not found
VS10 Trade association.The scheme’s Technical Advisory Group  is made up of representatives from the trade association 
as Scheme Owners and a lead Certification Body. This Expert Group makes decisions and recommen -
dations regarding operational issues surrounding the application and delivery of the scheme.Not found
VS11 Confederation.The scheme is owned and managed by a  confederation , which developed and implemented the 
scheme.Not found
VS12 Confederation.The scheme is owned and managed by a  confederation , which developed and implemented the 
scheme.Not foundAnnex II
43 Annexes 
Voluntary 
schemeOwnership GovernanceStatutes or 
equivalent
VS owned by public bodies
VS13National Standardi -
sation BodyThe scheme is managed by the National Standardisation Body according to the structures estab -
lished for managing its schemes. The National Standardisation Body is responsible for the develop -
ment of standards.
The National Standardisation Body has the following bodies involved in the management of its 
schemes: Scheme Management; Scheme Management Committee; Committee of Experts; and 
Review Committee.Not found
VS14National Research 
InstituteThe System Administrator  is the Director of the National Research Institute. He/she sets up the 
System Board . The System Board supervises certifying bodies within the framework of the system 
and sets directions for the development of the scheme. The Board is supervised both by the System 
Administrator and the System Council . The System Office supports the Board in its activities and 
reports to the System Administrator.
The scheme’s System Council is comprised of five to 10 members (external experts appointed by the 
Director of the National Research Institute). Its main tasks are: supervision over independence, trans -
parency, avoiding conflicts of interests between the system participants and certification bodies, 
examination of complaints and proposals, and setting directions for the development of the scheme.Not found
VS owned by companies
VS15 Private companyManagement under the overall responsibility of the company that will delegate responsibility to its 
own personnel or to specialist third party companies.Not found
VS16 Private company Not found Not found
VS17 Private companyFrom DG Energy website: ‘The documents referred to in this scheme are part of [the company] Man -
agement System and are updated and maintained according to the procedures therein. The person 
responsible for updating this scheme in [the company] is the Director, Sustainability and Supplier 
Compliance.This verification scheme is reviewed annually by [the company] HSEQ & Sustainability 
function. The participants of the scheme are informed accordingly. In case material changes are 
introduced, the scheme is sent to the European Commission for information or for approval.’Not found
VS18 Private company Not found Not found
Calculation tool recognised as VS
VS19 Research InstituteCurrently the voluntary scheme is managed by the Research Institute , one of the former project 
partners.N/A
Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on internet sites.
As an EU institution, the European Court of Auditors has to balance the EU’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its acts and ensuring the best use 
of public funds against the interference with the right of the persons and entities concerned to respect for their private life in general and to the protection 
of their personal data in particular. Therefore, we do not identify by name in this report the voluntary schemes concerned by our observations. An objective 
description of the facts which establishes the shortcomings reported should suffice for the competent institutions to draw their own conclusions from the 
report and to adopt appropriate measures in response.Annex II
44 Annexes Annex III
Voluntary 
scheme a)Transparency items listed in the Commission's guidance letter b)Other important transparency items
Contact 
details 
(telephone, 
email, 
address)Economic 
operators 
under the VS  
(valid 
certificates)Economic 
operators not 
any longer under 
the VS  
(expired 
certificates)Certification 
bodiesNames of 
other VSs 
recognisedGovernanceStatutes or 
equivalentTeam 
qualifications 
(CVs, etc.)Complaints 
systemDetected in -
fringements  
(withdrawn 
certificates)
VS owned by its members (open membership) or by public bodies
VS02 Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found High Yes Yes Yes (not online) Yes
VS03 Yes Yes Not found Yes Not found High Yes Yes Yes (not online) Not found
VS13 Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found Low Not found Not found Needs 
improvementYes
VS05 Partly c)Yes Not found Yes Not found High Yes Yes Yes Not found
VS04 Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found High Yes Yes Yes (not online) Not found
VS14 Yes Yes Not found Yes Not found High Not found Not found Needs 
improvementNot found
VS01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found High Yes Not found Yes (not online) Yes
Best practices improvements recommended Unclear situation. Improvements recommended.
(a) Due to its different nature, the Biograce GHG calculation tool is not part of this list.
(b) The items listed also include the latest versions of the scheme but only the Commission can confirm its compliance.
(c) At least one of the forms of contact listed is not disclosed.
(d) Information of the owner entities. Not indicated if it applies to the VS.
Governance: High = sufficient information is disclosed.
Medium = information disclosed should be improved.
Low = Information disclosed is insufficient.Transparency of voluntary schemes
45 Annexes Annex III
Voluntary 
scheme a)Transparency items listed in the Commission's guidance letter b)Other important transparency items
Contact 
details 
(telephone, 
email, 
address)Economic 
operators 
under the VS  
(valid 
certificates)Economic 
operators not 
any longer under 
the VS  
(expired 
certificates)Certification 
bodiesNames of 
other VSs 
recognisedGovernanceStatutes or 
equivalentTeam 
qualifications 
(CVs, etc.)Complaints 
systemDetected in -
fringements  
(withdrawn 
certificates)
Other kinds of VS
VS08 Yes Not found Not found Not found Not found Medium Not found Not found Not found Not found
VS17 Not found Not found Not found Not found Not found Low Not found Not found Not found Not found
VS11 Yes d)Yes Not found Not found Not found Low Not found Not found Needs 
improvementYes
VS06 Partly c)Yes Yes Yes Not found High Yes Not found Needs 
improvementYes
VS16 Yes Not found Not found Not found Not found Low Not found Yes d)Not found Not found
VS07 Yes Not found Not found Yes Not found Medium Not found Yes Needs 
improvementNot found
VS09 Yes Yes Yes Yes Not found High Not found Not found Not found Yes
VS12 Yes d)Yes Not found Not found Not found Low Not found Not found Needs 
improvementYes
VS10 Yes d)Yes Not found Yes Yes Medium Not found Yes d)Needs 
improvementNot found
VS18 Yes Not found Not found Yes Not found Low Not found Not found Not found Not found
VS15 Yes d)Yes Not found Yes Yes Low Not found Not found Not found Not found
best practices improvements recommended unclear situation. Improvements recommended.
(a) Due to its different nature, the Biograce GHG calculation tool is not part of this list.
(b) The items listed also include the latest versions of the scheme but only the Commission can confirm its compliance.
(c)At least one of the forms of contact listed is not disclosed.
(d) Information of the owner entities. Not indicated if it applies to the VS.
Governance: High = Sufficient information is disclosed
Medium = information disclosed shall be improved
Low = Information disclosed is insufficient.
Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on internet sites.
As an EU institution, the European Court of Auditors has to balance the EU’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its acts and ensuring the best use of public funds against the interference with the right of the persons 
and entities concerned to respect for their private life in general and to the protection of their personal data in particular. Therefore, we do not identify by name in this report the voluntary schemes concerned by our obser -
vations. An objective description of the facts which establishes the shortcomings reported should suffice for the competent institutions to draw their own conclusions from the report and to adopt appropriate measures in 
response.
46 Annexes 
Point 9:Annex IVCross ‑compliance requirements
Cross ‑compliance requirements referred to by Article 17(6) of the RED
(‘the requirements and standards under the provisions referred to under the heading ‘Environment’ in part 
A and in point 9 of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 and the minimum require -
ments for good agricultural and environmental condition defined pursuant to Article 6(1) of that Regulation’)
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, Annex II, Part A:ANNEX II
Statutory management requirements referred to in Articles 4 and 5
Point A.
Environment
1. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conserva-
tion of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1)Article 3(1), Article 3(2)(b), Article 4(1), (2)
and (4) and Article 5(a), (b) and (d)
2. Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the
protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certaindangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43)Articles 4 and 5
3. Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection
of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewagesludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6)Article 3
4. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates fromagricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1)Articles 4 and 5
5. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conserva-
tion of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (OJ L 206,22.7.1992, p. 7)Article 6 and Article 13(1)(a)
Public and animal health
Identification and registration of animals
6. Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on identification
and registration of pigs (OJ L 213, 8.8.2005, p. 31)Articles 3, 4 and 5
7. Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the iden-
tification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the
labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1)Articles 4 and 7
8. Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003
establishing a system for the identification and registration ofovine and caprine animals (OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8)Articles 3, 4 and 5
Point B.
Public, animal and plant health
9. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
19.8.1991, p. 1)Article 3
10. Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the
prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substanceshaving a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists
(OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3)Article 3(a), (b), (d) and (e) and Articles 4, 5and 7
11. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general princi-ples and requirements of food law, establishing the European
Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of
food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1)Articles 14 and 15, Article 17(1) (
1) and
Articles 18, 19 and 20
12. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the preven-tion, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1)Articles 7, 11, 12, 13 and 1531.1.2009 L 30/69 Official Journal of the European Union EN
Article 6(1):
‘Good agricultural and environmental condition
1. Member States shall ensure that all agricultural land, especially land which is no longer used for produc -
tion purposes, is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. Member States shall define, at 
national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental condition on the 
basis of the framework established in Annex III, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas 
concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming systems, land use, crop rotation, farming prac -
tices, and farm structures.’ANNEX II
Statutory management requirements referred to in Articles 4 and 5
Point A.
Environment
1. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conserva-
tion of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1)Article 3(1), Article 3(2)(b), Article 4(1), (2)
and (4) and Article 5(a), (b) and (d)
2. Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the
protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43)Articles 4 and 5
3. Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection
of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewagesludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6)Article 3
4. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1)Articles 4 and 5
5. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conserva-
tion of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (OJ L 206,22.7.1992, p. 7)Article 6 and Article 13(1)(a)
Public and animal health
Identification and registration of animals
6. Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on identification
and registration of pigs (OJ L 213, 8.8.2005, p. 31)Articles 3, 4 and 5
7. Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the iden-
tification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the
labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p. 1)Articles 4 and 7
8. Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003
establishing a system for the identification and registration ofovine and caprine animals (OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8)Articles 3, 4 and 5
Point B.
Public, animal and plant health
9. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
19.8.1991, p. 1)Article 3
10. Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the
prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substanceshaving a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists
(OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3)Article 3(a), (b), (d) and (e) and Articles 4, 5and 7
11. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general princi-ples and requirements of food law, establishing the European
Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of
food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1)Articles 14 and 15, Article 17(1) (
1) and
Articles 18, 19 and 20
12. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the preven-tion, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1)Articles 7, 11, 12, 13 and 1531.1.2009 L 30/69 Official Journal of the European Union EN
47 Annexes Annex IVANNEX III
Good agricultural and environmental condition referred to in Article 6
Issue Compulsory standards Optional standards
Soil erosion:
Protect soil through appropriate
measures—Minimum soil cover —Retain terraces
—Minimum land managementreflecting site-specific conditions
Soil organic matter:
Maintain soil organic matter levels
through appropriate practices—Arable stubble management —Standards for crop rotations
Soil structure:
Maintain soil structure through appro-
priate measures—Appropriate machinery use
Minimum level of maintenance:
Ensure a minimum level of mainte-
nance and avoid the deterioration of
habitats—Retention of landscape features,including, where appropriate,
hedges, ponds, ditches trees in
line, in group or isolated and field
margins—Minimum livestock stocking rates
or/and appropriate regimes
—Establishment and/or retention of
habitats
—Avoiding the encroachment of
unwanted vegetation on agri-
cultural land—Prohibition of the grubbing up of
olive trees
—Protection of permanent pasture —Maintenance of olive groves and
vines in good vegetative condition
Protection and management of water:
Protect water against pollution and
run-off, and manage the use of water—Establishment of buffer strips
along water courses (
1)
—Where use of water for irrigation
is subject to authorisation,
compliance with authorisation
procedures
(1) Note: The GAEC buffer strips must respect, both within and outside vulnerable zones designated pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive
91/676/EEC, at least the requirements relating to the conditions for land application of fertiliser near water courses, referred to in
point A.4 of Annex II to Directive 91/676/EEC to be applied in accordance with the action programmes of Member States established
under Article 5(4) of Directive 91/676/EEC.31.1.2009 L 30/71 Official Journal of the European Union EN
Annex III:
48 Reply of  
the Commission
Executive summary
IV
The Commission has conducted thorough assessments of all voluntary schemes that have been recognised fulfilling 
all the legal requirements of the Directive. The Commission considers that the voluntary schemes provide assurance 
that the certified biofuels comply with the mandatory criteria for which the schemes have been recognised on the 
basis of thorough assessments of all voluntary schemes certified. Nonetheless the Commission is always open to 
promote the further development of standards to improve the system even further, to address challenges that are 
encountered during the operation of the system and take into account changes of the legal base. 
V
The RED defines a number of mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels which have to be met to be eligible 
for support and to be counted towards the renewable energy targets. The assessments of the voluntary schemes 
adequately covered these mandatory sustainability criteria and the voluntary schemes were only recognised to the 
extent they were able to demonstrate compliance with those criteria.
In addition the RED makes reference to a number of other sustainability issues such as negative socio-economic 
effects. Many voluntary schemes include additional non mandatory sustainability criteria. This can be considered 
good practice but is strictly voluntary. The voluntary schemes were not assessed to which extend they cover also 
non-mandatory criteria. Consequently, also none of the voluntary schemes were recognised for covering these 
issues. 
In the view of the Commission it would not be appropriate to oblige voluntary schemes to include non-mandatory 
sustainability criteria. If inclusion of those criteria should be obligatory, the legislator would have decided to include 
them in the set of mandatory criteria. 
The Commission will continue to assess whether the recognition of voluntary schemes should be extended to non-
mandatory sustainability aspects. It is noted, however, that the assessment of schemes with regard to non-manda -
tory criteria is complex because those are spelled out in much less detail in the legislative text than the mandatory 
criteria. 
In order to mitigate the risk of ILUC the RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes a cap of the amount 
of food based biofuels that can count towards the renewable energy targets (7% of transport energy consumption). 
The sustainability criteria themselves do not cover ILUC. Therefore, the voluntary schemes that are verifying compli -
ance with the mandatory criteria for each batch of biofuel separately cannot be required to cover ILUC. 
VI
The verification of the origin of wastes and residues was covered in the assessment. In all assessments it was 
required that the voluntary schemes apply the relevant provisions of the Directive. This covers all types of feedstock 
including wastes and residues. Specific audit criteria for biofuels produced from wastes and residues are not fore -
seen in the Directive. In the guidance note the Commission services reacted to market developments which could 
not be foreseen at the time the voluntary schemes were recognised and called for the implementation of dedicated 
measures to take into account an increased risk of fraud that emerged over time when Member States implemented 
the double counting mechanism. The voluntary schemes have updated their verification procedures accordingly.
Reply of the Commission 49
Further, the RED does not set out any specific obligation of verification for Member States in relation with Article 
17(6) RED (which is linked to the CAP GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations). The Commis -
sion also is required to recognise voluntary schemes on other grounds than those included in Article 17(6) RED. 
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to include this element in the assessment of the voluntary schemes. 
VII
The RED does not include requirements regarding the governance structure of voluntary schemes and thus the gov -
ernance structure was not in the focus of the early assessments. The focus was to ensure that operators are subject 
to third party auditing which is explicitly mentioned in the Directive.
However, both governance structure and the transparency measures need more attention in the future. The main 
reason for this are the increased requirements for transparency and governance reflected in the amendments of 
Directive (EU) 2015/1513. 
VIII
The supervisory power of the Commission regarding the implementation of all the operations was limited by the 
legislator. However, the Commission requires an independent third party audit. 
The Commission is supervising the voluntary schemes in line with the legal competences provided by the RED as 
amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 which requires voluntary schemes to report annually on their operation. The 
Commission will on its own submit a report on the operation of voluntary schemes in April 2017. 
The Commission agrees that supervision and transparency, including complaints procedures, could be 
strengthened. 
IX
The Member States have partly transposed the RED including the sustainability criteria for biofuels with a significant 
delay. 
In countries where the sustainability criteria for biofuels had not yet been implemented also the verification system 
was not yet in place and it was not possible to demonstrate that biofuel comply with the sustainability criteria. To 
the understanding of the Commission this caused the reporting issue. However, the renewable energy target for 
transport has to be fulfilled in 2020. The Commission is confident that the Member States will correctly implement 
the RED including the recent amendments by 2020. If necessary the Commission will take the measure foreseen by 
the treaty to enforce compliance of EU law. 
X 1. (i)
The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. The Commission cannot oblige the voluntary schemes 
to include socio-economic criteria which are not mandatory. However, the voluntary schemes should report once 
a year based on their certification activities as set out in the RED amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513. The Commis -
sion will take the reports received from the voluntary schemes into account in its own reports. 
X 1. (ii)
The Commission accepts this recommendation in so far as compliance with Article 17(6) RED (which is linked to the 
CAP GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations) should be verified. Compliance with CAP GAEC 
standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations is verified as part of the CAP . 
Reply of the Commission 50
X 1. (iii)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and agrees that waste based biofuels deserve to be covered by dedi -
cated verification procedures. The Commission has already acted in that direction as it has included the application 
of dedicated measures in all its assessments starting in October 2014. 
X 2.
The Commission accepts this recommendation and agrees that both governance structure and the transparency 
measures need even more attention and has already taken the necessary steps through the requirements for 
increased transparency and governance reflected in the amendments of Directive (EU) 2015/1513. 
X 3. (i)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
It will address the issue in the context of the reporting on the operation of the voluntary schemes as foreseen in the 
RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513. The implementation of the scheme procedures by economic operators 
is verified by independent third party auditors.
X 3. (ii)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and has already taken the necessary steps.
X 4.
The Commission partially accepts this recommendation and will continue to work with Member States on the reli -
ability of data supplied, as Member States will receive information from economic operators on compliance with 
the sustainability criteria. Further, Member States provide the Commission with a report on the quality of all data 
transmitted every five years. However, requiring additional evidence (certificates/declarations) for the purposes of 
one particular statistical data collection is not justified.
X 5.
The Commission accepts the need to have a harmonisation of definition of waste used for the production of 
advanced biofuel.
The legislator has already taken measures to harmonise the definition of waste in the RED. The RED as amended by 
Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes a definition of waste by establishing a link to Directive 2008/98/EC.
Introduction
05
In many cases only a part of the crop is used to produce the biofuels while other parts, sometimes the main parts, 
are used for food and feed purposes. The displacement effect of conventional biofuels is therefore considerably 
lower but still significant.
Reply of the Commission 51
06
The Commission intends to present a policy proposal for the renewable energy package by the end of 2016.
09
The RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes an Annex (Annex IX) with a list of feedstocks and renew -
able fuels that count double towards the renewable energy target for transport. Annex IX certainly includes wastes, 
residues or other non-food biomass but there is no formal link to these definitions. 
All renewable energy sources consumed in transport, including renewable electricity, count towards the renewable 
energy target. It is expected that the contribution of renewable electricity will be significant (~2% points). 
10
The RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 requires that greenhouse gas emission savings of biofuels pro -
duced in new installation are at least 60%. The general requirement will increase to 50% as of January 2018.
Observations
28
The RED does not oblige the Member States to verify compliance with Article 17(6) RED (which is linked to the CAP 
GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations) although they are part of the criteria. The Commis -
sion is required to recognise voluntary schemes on other grounds than those included in Article 17(6) RED. 
Common reply to paragraphs 30 and 31 
The Commission is not obliged to recognise voluntary schemes and has so far recognised only schemes for covering 
Article 17(2)-(5) RED. Therefore, it was also not required to assess compliance with other non-mandatory sustainabil -
ity issues.
The Commission notes that it would not be appropriate to oblige voluntary schemes to include non-mandatory 
sustainability criteria, as the legislator did not decide to include them in the set of mandatory criteria. Regarding 
specifically the social sustainability aspects (Box 3), the Commission notes that including such criteria in the scope 
of the certification can be considered good practice, yet notes that the inclusion is made on voluntary basis.
The Commission will nevertheless continue to assess whether the recognition of voluntary schemes should be 
extended to non-mandatory sustainability aspects. It is noted, however, that the assessment of schemes with regard 
to non-mandatory criteria is complex because those are spelled out in much less detail in the legislative text than 
the mandatory criteria. 
Box 3
The Commission considers that including such criteria in the scope of the certification can be considered good prac -
tice, yet notes that the inclusion is made on a voluntary basis.
Reply of the Commission 52
33
Whilst the Commission acknowledges the lack of data, in all reports, it provided references to and an assessment of 
the available data including additional dedicated studies regarding the impacts of the EU biofuel policy on develop -
ing countries. 
Regarding the social aspects described in Box 4, the Commission notes that, whereas the exports of biofuels from 
developing countries are limited, it has provided reports on the impacts of the EU biofuel policy on wider devel -
oping countries in different reports submitted in 2013 and in 2015 including also as regards developing countries 
which do not export biofuels to the EU1. 
Common reply to paragraphs 34 ‑37
The RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 introduced a cap of (7% of transport energy consumption) the 
amount of food based biofuels that can count towards the renewable energy targets. This measure limits the incen -
tive to use crops-based biofuels to meet the renewable energy targets and therefore limits the risk of ILUC induced 
by EU biofuel policy. 
The sustainability criteria themselves do not cover ILUC. Therefore, the voluntary schemes that are verifying compli -
ance with those criteria for each batch of biofuel separately cannot be required to cover ILUC. 
The Commission will further analyse the matter and will publish the results of the analysis in a report that is due end 
of 2016. 
40
The Commission acknowledges that waste-based biofuels deserve to be covered by dedicated verification proce -
dures. The Commission has already acted in that direction as it has included the application of dedicated measures 
in all its assessments starting in October 2014. 
Common reply to paragraphs 41 ‑42
In the guidance note the Commission services reacted to market developments which could not be foreseen at the 
time the voluntary schemes were recognised and called for the implementation of dedicated measures to take into 
account an increased risk of fraud that emerged over time when Member States implemented the double counting 
mechanism.
The Commission issued the note to voluntary schemes to raise the attention on the subject and to ensure that all 
schemes take appropriate action. This does not indicate that this matter was generally treated inappropriately 
before. Indeed to our knowledge many of the relevant voluntary schemes took action on their own initiative. In the 
view of the Commission the possibility of voluntary schemes to react quickly and proactively to identified chal -
lenges is one of the merits of the certification systems.
45
Following adoption of the definition, the Commission requested partially recognised schemes to submit verifica -
tion of compliance with the new definition. Three schemes that had been only partially recognised have submitted 
updates and have been assessed. The updating of the Decisions is currently ongoing. 
1 SWD(2013) 102 final; SWD(2015) 117 final
Reply of the Commission 53
46
The Commission's assessments were in the line with the requirements set by the RED. The RED did not include 
requirements regarding the governance structure of voluntary schemes and thus the governance structure was 
not in the focus of the early assessments. The focus was to ensure that operators are subject to third party auditing 
which is explicitly mentioned in the Directive.
The Commission considers, however, that governance structure should receive more attention in the future in order 
to further improve best practice. The main reason for this is the increase of the GHG emission calculation threshold 
that requires frequent calculation of actual GHG emission savings which require even stronger scrutiny.
Common reply to paragraphs 50 ‑51 
The supervisory power of the Commission regarding the implementation of all the operations was limited by the 
legislator. However, the Commission requires an independent third party audit. 
The Commission is supervising the voluntary schemes in line with the legal competences provided by the RED as 
amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 which requires voluntary schemes to report annually on their operation. The 
Commission will on its own submit a report on the operation of voluntary schemes in April 2017. 
53
The Commission has entered into a dialogue with the schemes in view to clarify the situation and to look for 
improvements. The Commission is currently checking a specific case and it is therefore too early for the Commission 
to comment at this stage.
However, in general terms the requirement to strengthen internal governance of schemes that has been taken on 
board in ongoing assessments can contribute towards a better oversight about the implementation of the scheme 
rules by certification bodies. 
54
Many voluntary schemes operate globally. This means in practice that the auditor who is verifying compliance has 
a lot of responsibility and needs to decide on a case by case basis whether the supplied evidence provides sufficient 
assurances that the sustainability criteria are met. The Commission encourages the voluntary schemes to enter into 
a close dialogue with the auditors to continuously improve the certification standards.
55
Although there is no dedicated complaint system, the stakeholders have the possibility to contact the Commission 
should they have concerns regarding the operation of voluntary schemes. Indeed, the sustainability scheme for 
biofuels is a very technical subject that requires expert knowledge and the stakeholders are expected to be aware 
that the scheme has been recognised by the Commission.
56
The RED sets out clearly that the Member States are obliged to accept evidence from voluntary schemes. As long 
as this provision is respected Member States are welcome to contribute to the improvement of certification pro -
cesses. In the view of the Commission nothing speaks for instance against the involvement of Member States in the 
supervision of certification bodies because certification bodies themselves are not recognised by the Commission. 
Member States however, should not question the validity of certificates issued by voluntary schemes. 
Reply of the Commission 54
Regarding the specific case of Poland referred to in Box 5, the Commission is currently verifying compliance of the 
requirement with EU law.
58
These notes are not legally binding for the voluntary schemes and are aimed to promote best practice by indicating 
what the Commission may require in the future. The Commission will enforce the adaptation of higher standards 
when the voluntary schemes apply for an extension of the recognition. 
The Commission may also repeal the decisions if it has been clearly demonstrated that a scheme has not imple -
mented elements considered to be decisive for the Decision and if severe and structural breach of those elements 
has taken place.
Common reply to paragraphs 59 ‑60
The Commission attaches the highest importance to transparency.
The transparency requirement included in the RED is addressed via the dedicated website2. It includes also a lot 
of useful information which is not legally required such as information on new events and relevant Commission 
documents. All legally required information received from the Member States can be found on this web site and the 
linked pages. As part of this web site also a page that is dedicated to the types of information referred to in RED has 
been established3. 
61
In the updated assessment framework issued in November 2015 the Commission requires full verification by the 
third party auditors. The auditors should require access to all relevant information. If the system does not include 
this information it should not be accepted under the scheme. The auditors should also require access to the infor -
mation on material that is certified under the name of other voluntary schemes. Voluntary schemes must publish 
the names of the operators that are or have been certified under the scheme. This will enhance transparency and 
exchange of information. 
66
Poland transposed the RED, including the EU sustainability scheme for biofuels only in 2015. Therefore, during the 
period 2011-2014, the provisions of the RED were not yet in force. Member States shall ensure the quality of the data 
transmitted; the Commission has no legal means to contest the 2014 data on sustainable biofuels. 
However, in the meantime Poland has transposed the RED. The Commission is confident that Poland and other 
Member States will correctly implement the RED in 2020, including the recent amendments by 2020. If necessary the 
Commission will take the measure foreseen by the treaty to enforce compliance of EU law. 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy
3 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/renewable-energy-transparency-platform
Reply of the Commission 55
67
Member States shall ensure the quality of the data transmitted. In their data transmission to Eurostat, France 
reported value zero and Poland reported a non-zero value. All reported data passed validation rules (plausibility, 
coherence and consistency checks) given the information available to Eurostat at that time. Eurostat published data 
as transmitted by countries without any alterations or modifications.
72
The implementation of measure to combat fraud is a competence of the Member States. The Commission is sup -
porting the efforts of the Member States to mitigate the risk of fraud and has created a working group in the Com -
mittee on the sustainability of biofuels and bio-liquids that will analyse different aspects and measures that are 
relevant in this context. The subject was also taken into account in the RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 
which is requiring the Member States to report on the measures they have taken against fraud and is calling for 
improved co-operation among national systems and between national systems and voluntary schemes.
Conclusions and recommendations
74
The Commission considers that the voluntary schemes provide assurance that the certified biofuels comply with 
the mandatory criteria for which the schemes have been recognised on the basis of thorough assessments of all 
voluntary schemes certified. Nonetheless, the Commission is always open to promote the further development of 
standards to improve the system even further, to address challenges that are encountered during the operation of 
the system and take into account changes of the legal base. 
75
The RED defines a number of mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels which have to be met to be eligible 
for support and to be counted towards the renewable energy targets. The assessments of the voluntary schemes 
adequately covered these mandatory sustainability criteria.
Many voluntary schemes include additional non mandatory sustainability criteria. This can be considered good 
practice but is strictly voluntary. The voluntary schemes were not assessed to which extend they cover also non-
mandatory criteria. Consequently, also none of the voluntary schemes were recognised for covering these issues. 
In the view of the Commission it would not be appropriate to oblige voluntary schemes to include non-mandatory 
sustainability criteria. If inclusion of those criteria should be obligatory, the legislator would have decided to include 
them in the set of mandatory criteria. 
The Commission will continue to assess whether the recognition of voluntary schemes should be extended to non-
mandatory sustainability aspects. It is noted, however, that the assessment of schemes with regard to non-manda -
tory criteria is complex because those are spelled out in much less detail in the legislative text than the mandatory 
criteria. Further, the recognition would not have direct legal consequences.
In order to mitigate the risk of ILUC the RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes a cap of (7% of trans -
port energy consumption) the amount of food based biofuels that can count towards the renewable energy targets. 
The sustainability criteria themselves do not cover ILUC. Therefore, the voluntary schemes that are verifying compli -
ance with the mandatory criteria for each batch of biofuel separately cannot be required to cover ILUC. 
Reply of the Commission 56
76
As for conventional feedstock, traceability is ensured by the provisions of the Directive. With the guidance note 
the Commission services reacted to market developments which could not be foreseen at the time the voluntary 
schemes were recognised in the first place and called for the implementation of dedicated measures to take into 
account an increased risk of fraud that emerged mainly to the implementation double counting mechanism in the 
supply obligations. 
77
The Commission is obliged to work within the framework set by legislator. As a consequence, it has to accept that 
the RED does not oblige the Member States to verify compliance with Article 17(6) RED (which is linked to the CAP 
GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations) although they are part of the criteria. The Commis -
sion is required to recognise voluntary schemes on other grounds than those included in Article 17(6) RED. There -
fore, it would not have been appropriate to include this element in the assessment of the voluntary schemes
Recommendation 1 (a)
The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. The Commission cannot oblige the voluntary schemes to 
include socio-economic criteria because they are not mandatory. However, the voluntary schemes should report 
once a year based on their certification activities as set out in the RED amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 that 
stipulates on which matter voluntary schemes have to report (Article 18(6)). These legal reporting requirements 
focus on subjects related to auditing but the scheme can of course use the opportunity to include also other sub -
jects. The Commission will take the reports received from the voluntary schemes into account in its own reports. 
Recommendation 1  (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation in so far as compliance with Article 17(6) RED (which is linked to the 
CAP GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations) should be verified. However, the RED does not 
oblige the Member States to verify compliance with Article 17(6) RED although they are part of the criteria. The 
Commission is required to recognise voluntary schemes on other grounds than those included in Article 17(6) RED. 
Compliance with CAP GAEC standards and other relevant Directives and Regulations is verified as part of the CAP . 
Recommendation 1  (c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and agrees that waste based biofuels deserve to be covered by dedi -
cated verification procedures. The Commission has already acted in that direction as it has included the application 
of dedicated measures in all its assessments starting in October 2014. 
78
The Commission attaches always the highest importance to transparency and has already taken action. Its ser -
vices issued a guidance note to the voluntary schemes calling for the implementation of a number of transparency 
measures. This was done partially to ensure that voluntary schemes prepare themselves at an early stage for the 
increased need for transparency reflected in Directive (EU) 2015/1513 which was at a final negotiations stage at that 
point of time. These measures will be enforced when the voluntary schemes apply for a renewed recognition. This 
process is already ongoing. 
Reply of the Commission 57
Recommendation 2 (a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers that potential conflicts of interest including the own -
ership of schemes should be taken into account. The Commission has already acted in that direction and is introduc -
ing in its assessments an analysis of the ownership and governance structure of the voluntary schemes.
Recommendation 2 (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers that voluntary schemes need to fulfil minimum trans -
parency requirements. It is asking them to publish a set of information that is very similar to the suggestions made 
by the Court. Moreover, the Commission will report on the operation of the voluntary schemes in April 2017. In this 
context the Commission will have the opportunity to assess the need to further specify the data to be published by 
the schemes and to specify the auditing requirements for voluntary schemes in an implementing act.
79
The supervisory power of the Commission regarding the implementation of all the operations was limited by the 
legislator.
The RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 foresees a procedure how the operation of the voluntary schemes 
is supervised.
The voluntary schemes are obliged to report annually to the Commission about the operation of the scheme.
The Commission in turn reports to the European Parliament and the Council and could also if deemed appropri -
ate to specify the auditing requirements for voluntary schemes in an implementing act. The supervision, however, 
does not include on site verification checks at the premises of economic operators that are certified by voluntary 
schemes as the RED places the responsibility to verify the implementation of the scheme rules on the third party 
audit. 
Recommendation 3 (a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
It will address the issue in the context of the reporting on the operation of the voluntary schemes as foreseen in the 
RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513. The implementation of the scheme procedures by economic operators 
is verified by independent third party auditors.
Recommendation 3 (b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation that voluntary schemes should have a complaint system and requires 
this already in the framework of its assessments. However, the Commission considers it necessary to conduct a fur -
ther assessment before setting out detailed technical requirements of such a complaint system. Such an assessment 
will be done in the context of the reporting on the operation of the voluntary schemes as foreseen in the RED as 
amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513. The first report is due in April 2017. 
Reply of the Commission 58
80
The Commission agrees that Member States shall ensure the quality of the data transmitted. 
Recommendation 4  
The Commission partially accepts this recommendation and will continue to work with Member States on the reli -
ability of data supplied, as Member States will receive information from economic operators on compliance with 
the sustainability criteria. Further, Member States provide the Commission with a report on the quality of all data 
transmitted every five years. However, requiring additional evidence (certificates/declarations) for the purposes of 
one particular statistical data collection is not justified. 
81
The legislator has already taken measures to harmonise the definition of waste in the RED. The RED as amended by 
Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes a definition of waste by establishing a link to Directive 2008/98/EC.
The RED as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1513 foresees indeed a ‘grandfathering’ clause that allows Member 
States to count biofuels produced from substances that were determined to be wastes by the competent national 
authorities and are used in existing installations prior to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/1513 towards the 
national target for advanced renewable fuels. The fuels, however, do not count double against the renewable 
energy target in transport. In the view of the Commission this legal provision can indeed lead to a situation where 
some types of biofuels are treated differently in the Member States and this is allowed under the RED within the 
limits set out therein. 
Recommendation 5
The Commission accepts the need to have a harmonisation of definition of waste used for the production of 
advanced biofuel.
The legislator has already taken measures to harmonise the definition of waste in the RED. The RED as amended by 
Directive (EU) 2015/1513 includes a definition of waste by establishing a link to Directive 2008/98/EC.
Measures for further harmonisation of the advanced renewable fuels might be considered for the renewable energy 
policy post 2020. 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Event Date
Adoption of the Audit Planning Memorandum (APM) / Start of audit 11.3.2015
Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee) 31.3.2016
Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure 25.5.2016
Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all languages 22.6.2016
The Member States must ensure that the share of energy 
from renewable sources in transport in 2020 will be at least 
10 % of the final energy consumption in this sector. They 
can count towards this target biofuels certified as 
sustainable by voluntary schemes recognised by the 
Commission. 
We conclude that, because of weaknesses in the 
Commission’s recognition procedure and in the subsequent 
supervision of voluntary schemes, the EU certification 
system for the sustainability of biofuels is not fully reliable. 
As regards the achievement of the 10 % transport target, 
we found that the statistics might be overestimated, 
because Member States could report as sustainable biofuel 
whose sustainability was not verified. 
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS