International co-product practice examples

The official consultation question

Q43 · §4.6(d) · paper page 33

Are there best international practice examples that could inform future work on co-products? In the absence of relevant standards, what other approaches could help harmonise the treatment of co-products across projects, jurisdictions and markets?

Shelby’s response

European experience demonstrates the value of combining modular recovery equipment with commercial services. In France, biomethane development has created opportunities to add standardised BioCO2 recovery systems to operating plants and to combine technology with investment, operation, transport and commercialisation services. The lesson for Australia is that installing recovery equipment is only one part of the business model: quality assurance, storage, logistics and customer contracts must be developed at the same time. Regional clusters can share these functions where aggregation lowers cost.

Denmark demonstrates the value of connecting biogas producers with established industrial-gas suppliers. Nature Energy and Strandmøllen partnered to recover CO₂ from the Korskro biogas plant for applications including beverages. Strandmøllen’s Korskro facility now produces biogenic CO₂ and supplies markets including horticulture. The relevant lesson is to involve customers and distribution partners early: a developer should be able to commercialise recovered CO₂ through an established supply chain, without having to build its own sales and delivery business. Australia could support comparable partnerships between regional producers, gas distributors and local manufacturers.

England provides a regulatory pathway for turning digestate into a recognised product. Its October 2025 anaerobic digestate resource framework establishes conditions for qualifying material to achieve end-of-waste status, linking permitted inputs, PAS 110 standards, independent certification and suitable use. This helps producers and agricultural customers understand when digestate can be marketed and used outside waste-management controls. Australia should assess an equivalent approach adapted to local feedstocks, soils and biosecurity requirements.

Sweden demonstrates how independent quality assurance can strengthen agricultural confidence. Its voluntary SPCR 120 biofertiliser certification covers eligible source-separated inputs, hygienisation, metals and visible contaminants. RISE’s certification process includes a qualification year, sampling and external inspections. This offers Australia a model for consistent product testing and credible customer assurance, allowing farmers to assess recovered nutrients with greater confidence and helping producers develop dependable outlets.

Shelby recommends combining these approaches: support modular recovery equipment, establish clear product rules, and help producers secure customers. Pending national standards, governments should agree on common testing methods, product specifications, traceability records and recognition of equivalent assessments across jurisdictions. Regional demonstration projects could bring producers, manufacturers, farmers and distributors together, supported by buyer trials and shared infrastructure. This would make co-products a practical driver of project viability, while creating opportunities for Australian equipment assembly, servicing, fertiliser production and industrial CO₂ supply.

Frequently asked questions

What is Shelby’s position on international co-product practice examples?

International examples connect modular recovery, distribution partnerships, end-of-waste pathways and agricultural assurance. Shelby recommends adapting these principles to Australian conditions through common testing, product specifications, traceability, buyer trials and shared regional services.

What should a project team read alongside this answer?

Read the linked commercial guides and original question. Separate the response’s recommendations and illustrative assumptions from source-reported operating evidence.

Sources & References

• Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, National Renewable Gas Policy consultation

  Publication: Date not verified

  Observation period: Not recorded

  Relevant page / section: Claim-level locator not yet verified

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Check scope and current applicability before relying on this reference.

• Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, National Renewable Gas Policy consultation paper

  Publication: 2026-08

  Observation period: Australia; 2026 consultation

  Relevant page / section: Consultation questions; use answer-specific paper page and question reference

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Source for questions/context, not proof of an implemented support mechanism. Question text attribution: Commonwealth, CC BY 4.0, as noted in Shelby’s supplied consultation response.

• Creative Commons, Attribution 4.0 International

  Publication: Date not verified

  Observation period: Not recorded

  Relevant page / section: Claim-level locator not yet verified

  Last link / title verification: 2026-10-11

  Publisher link checked; individual claims, costs and regulatory applicability still require review.

  Check scope and current applicability before relying on this reference.