Current biomass production and trade volumes for energy and new materials and bio‐chemicals are only a small fraction to achieve the bioenergy levels suggested by many global energy and climate change mitigation scenarios for 2050. However, comprehensive sustainability of large scale biomass production and trading has yet to be secured, and governance of developing biomass markets is a critical issue. Fundamental choices need to be made on how to develop sustainable biomass supply chains and govern sustainable international biomass markets. The aim of this paper is to provide a vision of how widespread trade and deployment of biomass for energy purposes can be integrated with the wider (bio)economy. It provides an overview of past and current trade flows of the main bioenergy products, and discusses the most important drivers and barriers for bioenergy in general, and more specifically the further development of bioenergy trade over the coming years. It discusses the role of bioenergy as part of the bioeconomy and other potential roles; and how it can help to achieve the sustainable development goals. The paper concludes that it is critical to demonstrate innovative and integrated value chains for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower that can respond with agility to market factors while providing economic, environmental, and societal benefits to international trade and market. Furthermore, flexible biogenic carbon supply nets based on broad feedstock portfolios and multiple energy and material utilization pathways will reduce risks for involved stakeholder and foster the market entry and uptake of various densified biogenic carbon carriers. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

The global pellet market is growing but with different characteristics in different countries and regions. In this paper we trace developments between 2008 and 2016. For 2008, production was reported at 9.8 Tg, expanding globally to 14.3 Tg in 2010 and surpassing 26 Tg in 2015. Global hot spots are North America (production) and Europe (consumption). Sustainability certification was applied for about 9 Tg in 2016. Nevertheless, projections for future development are difficult as low pellet prices and uncertain sustainability obligations may hinder further expansion. In general, there is a strong dependency of the pellet market on the policy framework. © 2018 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Low‐cost sustainable biomass availability in the European Union may not be able to meet increasing demand; exploring the option of importing biomass is therefore imperative for the years to come. This article assesses sustainable biomass export potential from Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Ukraine, and the United States by applying a number of sustainability criteria. Only biomass types with the highest potential are selected, to take advantage of economies of scale, e.g. pulpwood, wood waste, and residues in the United States, and agricultural residues in Ukraine. This study found that, except for the United States, pellet markets in the sourcing regions are largely undeveloped. The export potential depends strongly on pellet mill capacity and assumed growth rates in the pellet industry. Results show that the United States, Ukraine, Indonesia, and Brazil offer the highest biomass export potential. In the Business As Usual 2030 scenario, up to 204 PJ could potentially be mobilized; in the High Export scenario this could increase to 1423 PJ, with 89% of the potential being available for costs ranging from 6.4 to 15 €/GJ. These potentials meet the European Commission requirements for a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions set in the Renewable Energy Directive. The total export potentials do not reflect the net possible import potentials to the European Union, as biomass could be imported to other countries where there is a demand for it, where less strict sustainability requirements are applied, and which are proximate to the sourcing regions, notably South Korea, Japan, and China. © 2018 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

This paper compares national sustainability support schemes and sustainability requirements in four countries that import solid biomass for heat and power generation: Belgium, Denmark, the UK, and the Netherlands. The paper also reviews voluntary certifi cation schemes for solid biomass that may be used to demonstrate sustainability compliance. In the absence of mandatory EU criteria for solid biomass, different national support schemes and sustainability requirements may present barriers to trade. This paper identifi es some possibilities for harmonization and provides suggestions for policymakers for the improvement and alignment of national sustainability requirements. Ultimately the paper suggests establishing a harmonized certifi cation scheme in the short term based on legislative requirements in the four countries and in voluntary initiatives. The proposed harmonized certifi cation scheme may also reduce both implementation costs and complexity for biomass suppliers and generators. In the long term, the paper recommends binding criteria on sustainability requirements for solid biomass at EU level.

Background: Stakeholder's position of bioenergy sustainability is important for the deployment and contribution of bioenergy to sustainable development. Existing publications are usually limited to specific geographical contexts and focuses. This paper aims more broadly to examine the position and vision of a wider range of stakeholder groups towards bioenergy and its development at a global level. Method: The applied methodology includes six steps: (1) identification of stakeholders as belonging to one of seven groups; (2) describing the role of each group in relation to bioenergy; (3) data collection via an online questionnaire, roundtable dialogues and interviews to examine their stated awareness and opinions of bioenergy development, driver and barriers to such development; (4) data analysis; (5) comparison of interests and influence as a basis for expressing position and vision; and (6) recommendations for gaining support for sustainable bioenergy development. Results: The stakeholders state awareness of bioenergy development and have in general a positive view of the sector. They also inform that the general public is less aware of and not sufficiently involved in bioenergy development. Internet and social media are the most consulted sources of information but least trusted, while scientific information is most trusted but least used. Agricultural residues, energy crops cultivated on marginal or degraded land and forestry residues are widely accepted as feedstocks for bioenergy production, whereas use of agricultural land is viewed critically. The stakeholders generally support bioenergy development when jointly agreed sustainability requirements are met. Conclusions: The stakeholders acknowledge the important role of effectively disseminating scientific information as an influencing factor on the position towards bioenergy. They also find that enhancing support for the bioenergy sector relies on mandatory sustainability requirements covering social, economic and environmental aspects, applied to all types of biomass regardless of end use. Some also emphasise that all relevant sectors should work on market conditions to create a level playing field and that this is crucial to change stakeholders' position to gain more social acceptance of bioenergy. Transparency in demonstrating compliance with sustainability criteria is also an expected precondition to enhance support for bioenergy (and ultimately the bioeconomy) in the long term.

Highlights• By 2020, the global demand for internationally traded wood pellets from boreal and temperate forests is expected to reach 15-26 million tonnes (264-458 PJ) per year.• For the foreseeable future, critical demand markets will remain in the EU and, to a lesser extent, Asia.

No abstract