A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy

Abstract

Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders' views and experiences related to (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes' inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground.

Long‐term strategies for sustainable biomass imports in European bioenergy markets

“…The basic approach in the research was to assemble the viewpoints of different stakeholder groups and strive towards a consensus regarding how sustainable biomass imports can be part of European bioenergy markets. This work builds further on the previous work of EUBIONET III 11,12 and IEA Bioenergy, 13,14 which focused on sustainability governance and trade barriers for biomass. This paper will present the approach followed and will discuss the results of the stakeholder consultations on key principles for sustainable trade, opportunities and risks, barriers for trade, and potential policy options.…”

“…It is difficult to define clearly what (indirect) trade barriers are and what general barriers hamper the use of biomass (irrespective of being traded or used domestically). Based on previous research work 7,8,11,12,13,14,24,25,26,27 and discussion panels with stakeholders and experts, we defined 23 potential biomass trade barriers, categorized in (1) national/regional protectionist policies and trade tariffs, (2) technical standards, (3) logistics, (4) safety and sanitary/phytosanitary requirements, (5) sustainability criteria and certification systems, (6) global classification and trade statistics and (7) public knowledge and public opinion. These were included in the global survey.…”

“…North America (37) South America (15) East Europe (non-EU) and Russia (26) Southeast Asia (5) Africa (14) No specific region (21) Overexploitation (biodiversity loss and carbon loss in forests and soils) (%) 24 Such image of biofuels/bioenergy. Respondents also argue that more and better education and training is needed.…”

“…-Sustainability requirements placed on biomass for energy create an extra administrative burden and cost to these value chains. 14 This gives them an extra disadvantage compared to fossil fuels, which do not have to track their chain of custody or demonstrate their performance in terms of sustainability criteria. Circa 70% of respondents rated this uneven playing field as an important barrier.…”

“…81 -The main driver for companies to seek sustainability certification is to comply with the requirements of legislation and to maintain or gain market access. 14 The proliferation of schemes has led to competition among schemes in the market. This may bring further improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, but different approaches and requirements may also lead to confusion in the market place, or a tendency to use the least demanding system.…”