Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire

Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire J. van Dam a,b,n, M. Junginger b a b

Jinke van Dam Consultancy, van Beesdelaan 25, 3981 EC, Bunnik, The Netherlands Department of Science, Technology & Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history: Received 31 March 2010 Accepted 7 March 2011 Available online 7 May 2011

This questionnaire analyzed the ongoing development of sustainability criteria for solid and liquid bioenergy in the European Union and further actions needed to come to a harmonization of certification systems, based on EU stakeholder views. The questionnaire, online from February to August 2009, received 473 responses collected from 25 EU member countries and 9 non-European countries; 285 could be used for further processing. A large majority of all stakeholders (81%) indicated that a harmonized certification system for biomass and bioenergy is needed, albeit some limitations. Amongst them, there is agreement that (i) a criterion on ‘minimization of GHG emissions’ should be included in a certification system for biomass and bioenergy, (ii) criteria on optimization of energy and on water conservation are considered of high relevance, (iii) the large variety of geographical areas, crops, residues, production processes and end-uses limits development towards a harmonized certification system for sustainable biomass and bioenergy in Europe, (iv) making better use of existing certification systems and standards improves further development of a harmonized European biomass and bioenergy sustainability certification system and (v) it is important to link a European certification system to international declarations and to expand such a system to other world regions. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Certification Bioenergy Europe

1. Introduction Certification systems can be developed for various products as for agricultural or forest products, biomass energy crops or for liquid biofuels. Some of these systems exist on national level and others are internationally acknowledged. Within Europe, the European Commission (EC) has set mandatory targets for an overall share of 20% renewable energy and a 10% share of renewable energy in transport in the EU’s consumption in 2020 (EC, 2009a). By November 2010, 23 out of 27 Member States (MS) had published National Renewable Action Plans that outline how these targets are to be achieved per MS (EC, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a). With the increasing use of biomass, but also the rapidly increasing imports of both solid and liquid bioenergy carriers towards the EU (Junginger et al., 2008), safeguarding the sustainable production of biomass gained increasing importance. Mandatory environmental criteria on GHG emission reduction, biodiversity conservation and good environmental management practices have been developed and laid down in the Renewable

n Corresponding author at: Jinke van Dam Consultancy, van Beesdelaan 25, 3981 EC, Bunnik, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 6 3978 3382. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. van Dam).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.022

Energy Directive (EC-RED) to guarantee the sustainability of liquid transport fuels and other bioliquids. Those that do not fulfill the environmental sustainability criteria are not taken into account for the mandatory targets. Various individual European MS, as the Netherlands, UK and Germany, are already introducing biofuel standards on a national level (Fehrenbach et al., 2007; NEN, 2009; RTFO, 2009). Other European countries have so far developed no or few similar initiatives. It must be noted that the individual MS are obliged to follow, where applicable, the European legislation. For solid biomass for heat and power, the EC decided in February 2010 not to propose binding criteria at EU level, but recommended that MS that have, or will introduce, national sustainability standards should ensure that these in almost all respects (exceptions are indicated) should be the same as for liquid biofuels (as laid down in the EC-RED). The Commission will review at the end of 2011 whether further (mandatory) measures are needed (EC, 2010b). Stakeholder input and involvement may facilitate the introduction and implementation of national sustainability standards within the European MS. Within Europe, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has established a Technical Committee (CEN TC 383) with various working groups on ‘Sustainably produced biomass for energy applications’ to promote the standardization in the field of sustainable produced biomass (CEN/TC 383, 2009). In 2009, it was decided that the CEN/TC 383 focuses in first instance on those

4052

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

standards that assist the economic operators in implementing the EC-RED.1 The working groups on socio-economic aspects and indirect land-use change (ILUC) were therefore set on a hold (NEN, 2010). An extensive overview of existing systems and initiatives within Europe and worldwide can be found in van Dam et al. (2010a). This overview shows the overwhelming development in standards (in development) that are applicable to safeguard the sustainable production and use of bioenergy and its feedstock: 67 initiatives are included. This overview also shows that these systems and sustainability criteria for bioenergy differ (partially) in their methodologies, data requirement, feasibility, cost effectiveness and contribution to the removal of trade barriers, partly due to conflicting values and objectives at stake. However, a proliferation of systems – differing from one country to another – has to be avoided because of a risk for ‘‘shopping’’ between standards, market distortion and a decrease in credibility. To avoid proliferation of schemes, methodologies and approaches, harmonization is recommended (van Dam et al., 2010a). For liquid biofuels, this approach is clearly followed by the EC through the introduction of mandatory criteria, although as of November 2010, it still remains somewhat unclear, how the actual certification ‘on the ground’ will take place. For solid biomass, the Commission only ‘‘encourages harmonious development in national schemes’’ (EC, 2010b). Non-governmental organizations and market parties have also stressed the importance of harmonization of standards (IUCN and Shell, 2010). As example, a position paper by EURELECTRIC (EURELECTRIC, 2010) pledges for a rapid introduction of mandatory sustainability criteria for solid biomass. The European utilities fear the proliferation of too many national systems, and ask for the creation for a level playing field. The support for harmonization is also present in the rules about standards from the World Trade Organization. The Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards states that, when appropriate, a standardizing body must specify a standard ‘‘based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics’’ (Echols, 2009). A meta-standard approach, in combination with using international agreements, could partly solve proliferation and priority differences of standards (van Dam et al., 2010a). The sustainability of bioenergy is a complex and, sometimes, controversial issue that involves a huge variety of ideas, preferences, opinions, knowledge claims and values (Cuppen et al., 2010). Not only national policy makers are involved in the creation of policies and certification standards, but also other interest groups such as NGOs, research institutes and international organizations. Actors often have different opinions on the objectives of a (policy) measure as well as on the relevant measures that need to be taken for attaining it (van Dam et al., 2010a). Stakeholder participation can be used as a method to improve the understanding of how different stakeholders perceive and define the problem and its potential solutions (Cuppen et al., 2010). When both the problem and potential solutions are still (partly) unclear, stakeholder participation can be used to gain an improved understanding of each. This has been referred to as problem structuring and involves learning about the different ¨ perspectives of the problem and its solutions (Hisschemoller, 2005).

1 The use of standards is always voluntary. However, European standards are sometimes related to European legislation (Directives) and conformity to such standards may constitute a presumption of conformity to the legal requirements of the Directives. To support their legislation by written standards, the EC gives mandates to CEN.

By including divergent perspectives from groups with various backgrounds and knowledge, this work2 aims to analyze the ongoing development of sustainability criteria for solid and liquid bioenergy in the European Union (EU) and identify further actions needed to come to a harmonization of certification systems, based on EU stakeholder views. The following topics are further analyzed in this study:

 How European stakeholders perceive the sustainability cri-



 

teria, as basis for a certification system, for bioenergy found in emerging sustainability assessment frameworks within the EU (Section 4). To identify whether there is an expressed need for a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy and, if so, to indicate perceived limitations and possibilities for harmonization (Section 5). Explore expected possible impacts for implementation of a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy (Section 6). Identify a suitable Chain of Custody system, according to stakeholders, for the further implementation of a certification system (Section 7).

Section 2 discusses the methodology, followed by a characterization of the stakeholder groups in Section 3. The comments and possible solutions in the various sections result in final recommendations on possible development and harmonization efforts within the EU (Section 8). This evaluation contributes to the understanding of the criteria and to its implementation, in accordance with the EURenewable Energy Directive (for biofuels).

2. Methodology Stakeholder involvement in policy processes can take many forms and the degree of participation can vary widely (Cuppen et al., 2010). This research uses a stakeholder questionnaire to analyze how European stakeholders perceive various topics related to the development and implementation of sustainability criteria for biomass and bioenergy, found in emerging sustainability assessment frameworks in the EU. A questionnaire has proven to be a useful tool for this kind of analyses in studies from Buchholz et al. (2009) and in policy processes in the Netherlands (Bergsma and Groot, 2006) and in the EC (DG TREN 2007). 2.1. Study population To obtain a diverse sample in the questionnaire, EUBIONET III partners, based in 19 different European countries, identified stakeholders in the individual European countries from various stakeholder groups. Subcontracting parties covered the remaining European countries. Identification was based on the following criteria: active in the field of bioenergy and fitting within one of the stakeholder groups. Stakeholders had the possibility to respond on the questionnaire online, via e-mail or phone. The questionnaire was published from 1 February to 31 August 2009. In total, 473 responses were received. Not all respondents had provided information on their country of origin. Therefore, 285 responses could be used for further processing, which were collected from 25 EU member countries. Not included are Malta, Cyprus, Andorra and Luxembourg. In addition, responses were received from stakeholders outside Europe, due to open access of 2 This work is implemented within the EUBIONET III project (IEE/07/777/ SI2.499477), see also www.eubionet.net.

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

the questionnaire. Respondents outside Europe came from 9 different countries as India, Brazil, Tanzania and Argentina. The choice for open access of the questionnaire has as effect that the final return rate cannot be calculated.

B.

2.2. Questionnaire design C. The questionnaire is included in annex 1 of van Dam et al. (2010b). It was designed in the software tool QUESTIONPRO and contained various sections. In the first section, respondents were asked to give information about their background, geographical working area and their indicated level of expertise on the topic. In the next sections, respondents were asked to give their opinion on various issues related to the development and implementation of sustainability criteria for biomass and bioenergy in Europe. The selection of topics, sustainability criteria and statements for the questionnaire, were based on literature reviews and expert judgments from partners involved in the EUBIONET III project. The literature review included various sources for criteria identification, such as the sustainability scheme for bioenergy NTA8080 from the Netherlands (NEN, 2009), UK-RTFO from the United Kingdom (RTFO, 2009) and the Renewable Energy Directive from the EC (European Commission, 2008). In addition, information from previous surveys (e.g. Buchholz et al., 2009) and from international initiatives as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB, 2009) and the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC, 2009) was used as well. The draft version of the questionnaire and list of sustainability criteria (see Section 4) was sent around to the EUBIONET III project partners, all having a considerable expertise in bioenergy, for final selection and revisions of the most relevant criteria, topics and statements, after which the questionnaire was finalized. Definitions of technical words and expressions were included in the questionnaire for further guidance. Respondents were made aware of acronyms used in the list of sustainability criteria. However, the underlying concepts of the criteria (e.g. on GHG emissions, indirect land use or High Conservation Value areas) were not further explained. Respondents were asked to score each of the question or statement to a scale from high level of agreement to a low level of agreement. To give the respondents all opportunity to express their opinion on various issues, the questionnaire provided the opportunity to add own comments to the pre-defined ones under the answer ‘‘other’’ and in separate sections of the questionnaire. When relevant, respondents were able to give more than one answer on a question. Also, the proposed list of sustainability criteria could be completed with additional criteria. The results were analyzed using Excel Software. To compare the results for each stakeholder or country group, we calculated as a percentage how far a statement or question was agreed upon (or not) compared to the total number of answers. Note that some of these answers represent therefore a larger number of stakeholder groups than others. 2.3. Questionnaire analysis For further analysis, individual respondents were grouped together according to their demographic characteristics (so-called country groups) and their professional background (so-called stakeholder groups). Note that the individual country or stakeholder group data are available upon request to the EUBIONET III project (see footnote 2). The following division of country groups is used for our analysis: A. Front-running countries (FR countries): Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These are the MS that have

D.

E.

4053

already developed a policy to guarantee the sustainability of bioenergy, ahead of the decisions made by the EC. South and Mid-European Countries (SME countries): Austria, France, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. These are the MS that have not developed an own policy to guarantee the sustainability of bioenergy. European (Pre-) accession countries (PRE countries): Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. The MS that have accessed the European Union since 2004. Nordic countries (NOR countries): Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway. These countries are grouped together as their highly efficient forestry industry, partly used for energy, may lead to specific demands in the development of sustainability criteria for bioenergy. Countries outside the EU (OUT countries).

The respondents were also grouped into six different stakeholder groups to identify differences in perception between them in the development of sustainability criteria for biomass and bioenergy: 1. NGOs: Social and environmental orientated non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 2. Policy sector: Policy, government and respondents from the financial sector.3 3. R&D: Academia and consulting. 4. Bioenergy producers (industry) including (pre-) processing biomass, producing liquid biofuels, solid biofuels and/or bioenergy (heat and power). This includes e.g. a palm oil producer or a wood processing company. 5. End-users (small scale and industry): Energy end-users using liquid biofuels, solid biofuels or bioenergy to manufacture a non-bioenergy or biofuels related good or service. This includes e.g. an energy company or an end-user of wood pellets. 6. Traders: Respondents involved in the trade and distribution of biomass, biofuels or bioenergy (heat and power). This includes national and international trade between a seller and a buyer (bilateral) or between a seller and several buyers (multilateral trade). Table 1 provides an overview of the number of respondents per individual country, country group and stakeholder group. Although the study strived for a balanced representation of respondents per country and stakeholder group, this is not in all cases achieved. The country groups are (partly) characterized by the representation of various stakeholder groups. For example, the NGOs generally have a strong advocacy role in representing aspects of society. Consequently, a larger representation of NGOs in a certain country group may lead automatically to stronger representation of the NGOs values and concerns in the country group. The analysis shows e.g. that the Front-running and Nordic countries are characterized by a relatively low response from NGOs and the Policy sector compared to other country groups (see Table 1). The response from the Traders is for all country groups between 4% and 8% of total responses. A similar response can be found for the end-users, although no end-user is represented in the Countries outside Europe. Table 1 shows that the questionnaire received a high response from the Bioenergy producers in all country groups. This is especially true for the Nordic countries and for the Countries outside Europe. A similar high response was received from the R&D sector, which dominates in all but the Nordic countries.

3 Due to a low response from the financial sector, this stakeholder group was aggregated with the policy sector.

4054

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

Table 1 Overview of respondents on questionnaire per country, country group and stakeholder groups. Countries and country groups

A. Front-running countries Belgium Germany United Kingdom Netherlands

Code 1. NGOs (social and environmental)

3. R&D: Academia, 4. Bioenergy 5. Bioenergy end-users consulting producers (industry) (industry, small scale)

2. Policy, government and finance

6. Trading, distribution

Total

4

5

28

23

5

4

69

BE DE UK NL

2 2 0 0

1 3 1 0

8 4 6 10

5 4 6 8

1 1 1 2

2 1 0 1

19 15 14 21

B. South and MidEuropean countries Austria AT France FR Spain ES France FR Greece GR Ireland IE Italy IT Portugal PT

10

17

36

16

6

4

89

0 2 0 2 2 0 0 4

1 4 1 4 3 1 2 1

4 1 3 1 4 1 19 3

2 3 0 3 0 0 4 4

1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0

0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

8 12 8 12 9 2 26 12

C. European (Pre-) Accession countries Bulgaria BG Czech Republic CZ Estonia EE Hungary HU Lithuania LT Latvia LV Poland PL Romania RO Slovenia SI Slovakia SK

9

10

31

16

8

4

78

1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 3

1 1 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0

2 4 0 1 2 1 3 8 5 5

1 0 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1

0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0

0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

5 8 1 11 6 7 6 15 9 10

D. Nordic countries Denmark DK Finland FI Norway NO Sweden SE

1 0 0 1 0

2 0 1 1 0

14 1 10 3 0

16 2 3 6 5

4 1 1 1 1

2 1 0 1 0

39 5 15 13 6

E. Outside EU

2

2

3

5

0

1

13

26 9%

35 13%

111 39%

75 26%

23 8%

15 5%

285 100%

Out EU

Total in %

Local

Regional

National

Supranational

Global

OUT countries NOR countries PRE countries SME countries FR countries 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Fig. 1. Level of operation for different country groups.

3. Characterization of stakeholder groups Fig. 1 shows that the primarily focus of operation from respondents in the Front-running countries is mostly on global and supranational level. The focus of operation from respondents in the Pre-accession countries is, on the other hand, relatively more on a local level. Only few respondents in the Front-running countries operate on a local level.

The results of the stakeholder groups show that Traders, R&D sector and Bioenergy producers operate mainly on supranational and global level. This also explains to a large extent the international orientation of the Front-running countries, as the R&D sector and Bioenergy producers are prominently present in the sample of this country group. The indicated level of expertise from the country groups on biomass and bioenergy certification is shown in Fig. 2. A large

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

None

Little

Medium

4055

High

OUT countries NOR countries PRE countries SME countries FR countries 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fig. 2. Indicated level of expertise on biomass and bioenergy certification for different country groups.

Land-use rights compliance Minimization of child-labour Social w ell-being (labour and human rights compliance) Priority for energy security Priority for local food & construction product supply Minimization of indirect social and economic impacts Minimization of (indirect) land-use changes Sustaining yield of land Effect of the end-use on the local environment Protection of w ater quality and quantity

3

Biodiversity

Protection of soil quality and quantity Minimization of loss of biodiversity

Climate and energy

Environmental issues

(I)LUC

Socio-economic issues

All countries Local w elfare (improvement local economy)

Protection of air quality

Conservation of HCV areas Minimization of deforestation

2

Optimization of energy balance

1

Minimization of GHG emissions

0% Most relevant

Very relevant

Relevant

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not relevant

Fig. 3. Total response in all countries to indicate the importance of sustainability criteria to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system.

4. Environmental and socio-economic criteria for sustainable biomass and bioenergy certification

and in the Countries outside Europe, The South and Mid-European countries and Front-running countries gave – compared to the average total response – a slightly higher relevance to the inclusion of sustainability criteria in a biomass and bioenergy certification system. Results are more differentiated when we look at responses from the stakeholder groups.4 Around 70% of the NGOs and Traders gave a high importance to the inclusion of sustainability criteria (based on the list provided) in a certification system. This is around 50% for the end-users. This indicates that stakeholder groups give different significance to the importance of sustainability criteria (based on the list provided). Based on the sum of ‘‘most relevant and very relevant’’ the respondents rated the following three sustainability criteria with

Looking at the overall list of criteria (irrespective of individual preferences) shown in Fig. 3, 64% of all respondents considered the sustainability criteria (based on the list provided) of very to most relevant. This score was slightly lower in the Pre-accession countries

4 On average, weighted over all listed criteria, 74% of all NGO respondents considered the overall proposed list of sustainability criteria to be very to most relevant. This was 53% of the end-users, 60% for the policy sector, 62% for the R&D sector, 61% for the bioenergy producers and 69% for the traders and distributors.

majority of the respondents in the Nordic countries perceived their level of expertise on this topic as medium to high. A similar medium to high level of expertise is observed at other country groups. The results show no clear relation between the level of expertise and the level of response per stakeholder group. Other variables also seem to influence the response rate as the relative presence of a stakeholder group in a country or their accessibility. More information on the characterization of the stakeholder groups can be found in annex 3 of van Dam et al. (2010b).

4056

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

Table 2 Indication of relevance of sustainability criteria (ranging from most relevant, very relevant, relevant and not relevant) in % to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system for different country groups. Criteria

Minimization of GHG emissions Optimization of energy balance Minimization of deforestation Conservation of High Conservation Value areas Minimization of (indirect) land-use changes Sustaining the yield of the land Protection of soil quality and quantity Protection of water quality and quantity Protection of air quality Minimization of loss of biodiversity Priority local food and construction product supply Priority for energy security Social well-being Minimization of child-labor Minimization indirect social þeconomic impacts Land-use rights compliance Local welfare (improvement local economy) Effect of the end-use on the local environment

ALL

Not (%)

A. Front-running countries

B. South and Mid-European countries

C. European (Pre-) Accession countries

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Not (%)

51 34 35 19

35 47 38 42

11 16 25 32

2 3 3 7

60 43 47 41

28 35 35 27

7 17 18 24

5 5 0 8

60 32 36 13

28 55 36 54

12 12 28 32

0 0 0 2

36 28 29 14

45 52 42 40

17 18 26 38

2 2 3 8

14

25

50

11

27

22

44

7

10

30

51

10

11

22

51

17

19 29

41 39

34 26

6 6

24 32

44 42

24 19

8 7

16 35

37 38

43 23

5 3

19 28

44 34

32 31

5 8

33

42

19

5

32

47

15

5

34

47

17

2

34

32

28

6

32 27 22

36 39 40

27 29 29

6 6 9

25 37 29

37 29 34

32 31 24

7 3 14

32 37 29

40 29 46

21 32 22

6 3 3

37 17 11

31 45 38

28 29 45

5 9 6

26 19 36 15

41 42 22 36

24 28 19 35

8 11 23 14

22 33 41 21

36 34 22 26

24 24 25 40

19 9 12 14

26 25 45 19

42 44 22 40

27 24 16 35

5 6 17 6

32 6 22 8

45 44 17 37

18 33 18 32

5 17 43 23

12 23

33 43

45 25

10 9

25 34

31 31

39 20

5 15

11 25

35 49

49 19

5 6

5 16

25 45

55 33

15 6

23

47

21

9

27

34

20

19

25

52

22

2

18

54

20

8

D. Nordic countries

Minimization of GHG emissions Optimization of energy balance Minimization of deforestation Conservation of High Conservation Value areas Minimization of (indirect) land-use changes Sustaining the yield of the land Protection of soil quality and quantity Protection of water quality and quantity Protection of air quality Minimization of loss of biodiversity Priority local food and construction product supply Priority for energy security Social well-being Minimization of child-labor Minimization indirect social þ economic impacts Land-use rights compliance Local welfare (improvement local economy) Effect of the end-use on the local environment

Not (%)

Not (%)

E. Countries outside Europe

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Not (%)

Most (%)

Very (%)

Relevant (%)

Not (%)

48 35 19 3 3 17 13 32 32 6 20 19 10 40 10 7 13 19

45 39 42 48 29 37 45 45 39 65 43 45 45 30 47 50 50 52

6 16 26 32 58 40 35 13 26 23 17 32 35 17 33 27 27 23

0 10 13 16 10 7 6 10 3 6 20 3 10 13 10 17 10 6

75 38 29 14 13 13 25 14 0 14 29 29 0 0 0 14 14 0

25 25 43 71 25 50 38 43 43 57 0 29 43 29 14 29 43 43

0 38 29 14 50 13 38 43 57 29 71 29 57 57 86 43 43 43

0 0 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14

the highest scores in terms of relevance to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system: 1. Minimization of GHG emissions (87%). 2. Optimization of energy balance (81%). 3. Protection of water quality and quantity (76%). These results are shown for the individual country groups in Table 2. Results from the individual stakeholder groups can be found in annex 4 of van Dam et al. (2010b). The analysis shows that there is an agreement amongst the country and stakeholder groups on the importance5 to include at least ‘minimization of GHG emissions’ as 5 All country groups gave a high response (81% in Pre-accession countries to 100% outside EU) to the relevance of ‘minimization of GHG emissions’ as

criterion in a certification system, corresponding to the outcomes from Bergsma and Groot (2006) and Buchholz et al. (2009). The analysis shows differences in further prioritization of sustainability criteria amongst the country groups. For example, the optimization of energy balance did not have one of the highest priorities for the Front-running countries and the Countries outside Europe. Instead, minimization of deforestation was given a very high priority. The Pre-accession countries and the Countries outside Europe did not consider the projection of water resources as one of the

(footnote continued) sustainability criterion in a certification system. The same is true for all stakeholder groups, where 75% of the bioenergy producers to 100% of the NGOs indicated this to be a criterion of high relevance.

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

highest priorities. These country groups considered the conservation of High Conservation Value (HCV) areas as most relevant. Compared to the country groups, the results from the stakeholder groups show a larger diversity in the priorities given to the various individual sustainability criteria. Some examples of these ranges in priorities are given by showing the rating of ‘very to most relevant’ of some of the sustainability criteria, mentioned in the list:

 The optimization of energy balance (100% for Traders, 67% for end-users).

 Minimization of deforestation (94% for NGO, 59% for endusers).

 Local welfare (94% for NGOs, 43% for Policy sector).  Minimizing indirect social and economic impacts (82% for Traders, 29% for end-users).

Generally, the criteria that are given the highest importance are focused on climate and energy issues, followed by water conservation. There is no clear preference amongst respondents for including biodiversity, environment or socio-economic criteria in a certification system. The majority in the country and stakeholder groups (apart from the end-users) considered the minimization of (indirect) land-use changes as least relevant to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system (see Table 2). This outcome may reflect that this criterion is not given a high priority by the respondents. Alternatively, limited practicability, reliability or lack of knowledge on the topic can play a role (the concept was not further explained in the questionnaire). The latter was confirmed by one of the respondents mentioning that ‘‘displacement cannot be effectively regulated in a standard, because the standard works at field level, whereas displacement happens at the meso- and macro-level and is driven by market forces, not by production standards’’. Tackling indirect land-use changes requires ‘‘flanking measures to avoid indirect land-use change and deforestation’’, as is also the point of view from e.g. the Dutch and UK government (CBD, 2009; NEN, 2009; RFA, 2010).

4057

The criterion on minimizing indirect (negative) socio-economic impacts (as higher prices, food insecurity due to bioenergy production) was also rated with a relatively low priority (see Table 2). Remarkably, various respondents indicated a comparable criterion (the importance of the economic viability of biomass production) as relevant. The study from Buchholz et al. (2009) also indicates that criteria with low relevance and practicability, as indirect impacts, or socio-economic criteria are given low relevance. Suggested additions for criteria mentioned by individual respondents include the ‘contribution to local and regional selfsufficiency’ and ‘no competition with food and energy’. The criterion ‘land-use rights compliance’ (see Table 2) was not given a high relevance compared to the other sustainability criteria mentioned in the list. One of the respondents indicated that ‘‘ownership issues are an issue for the country in question and is not the responsibility of the managing company’’. The compliance with local and international laws, a criterion included in systems as NTA8080 (NEN, 2009) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, and suggested by one of the respondents, could overcome this obstacle. Other criteria that were considered of low relevance by some stakeholder groups are e.g. sustaining the yield of the land, local welfare or minimization of child labor. It can be concluded that all stakeholder groups, apart from the traders, have given the lowest scores to some of the socio-economic criteria, as was also an outcome in Buchholz et al. (2009) although responses are strongly mixed between groups. A more detailed look at the responses of various stakeholder groups (responses from the NGOs compared with the industrial end-users are shown in Figs. 4 and 5) indicate that the perceptions of stakeholder groups are more dispersed than the country groups in their opinions on which sustainability criteria are most relevant to include in a certification system for biomass and bioenergy, which is confirmed by the findings from Buchholz et al. (2009). Perceptions are in some cases even opposite: local welfare is considered highly relevant (in comparison to other criteria) for NGOs but not for the Policy sector. Note that the NGOs are largely

Fig. 4. Responses NGOs to indicate the importance of sustainability criteria to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system.

4058

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

Fig. 5. End-users responses to indicate the importance of sustainability criteria to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system.

characterized by environmental oriented NGOs, which may influence the results. Another example is the minimization of indirect social and economic impacts, which is considered highly relevant for Traders in contrast with other stakeholder groups. The presented results may show a reflection of the normative perceptions of the different stakeholder and country groups. Alternatively, it could reflect a weight in terms of the degree of (media) attention given to a criterion or in terms of effort already spent to design and evaluate these criteria. In all cases, it shows that stakeholder groups differ in their opinion which measures and criteria are needed to ensure the sustainability of a biomass and bioenergy certification system.

5. Needs, drivers and constraints for a harmonized European bioenergy certification system The further development of a certification system for bioenergy in Europe requires the uptake and implementation by the market: the producers, traders and end-users along the bioenergy supply chain. For an efficient uptake and implementation by the market, policies and operational guidelines are recommended to be developed through collaboration with especially these stakeholders involved, recognizing their needs and the impacts of such polices on these groups (Cuppen et al., 2010). Section 5.1 discusses the level of support from respondents for the development of a certification system for bioenergy to safeguard sustainability. Section 5.2 provides insight into the practical drivers and constraints experienced by different stakeholder groups along the bioenergy supply chain. 5.1. The need for a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy The respondents were asked to indicate the need for a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy (possibly based on CEN standards) to guarantee the sustainability of biomass and bioenergy. Feedstock independent means that

the system can be used for all feedstock suitable for bioenergy production such as energy crops, residues or forestry resources. The majority of all respondents saw the need (although with some limitations) for a European feedstock independent certification for biomass and bioenergy (see Figs. 6 and 7), in correspondence to the outcomes from Bergsma and Groot (2006); some individual respondents represented in all groups did, however, not see this need. Within the country groups, this opinion was mostly given by the Nordic and Pre-accession countries (see Fig. 6), while in the stakeholder groups, a large number of end-users group (and to some extent traders, see Fig. 7) also opposed such a system. Key argument mentioned by these groups is that own certification systems can be used or developed to safeguard the sustainability of bioenergy. Opponents in the Front-running countries argued that the EU Directive should be the single lead in this development. This argumentation was also shared by most opponents from the Bioenergy producers and the R&D sector. Most respondents that support the development of a European feedstock independent certification for biomass and bioenergy considered it as most important to link a certification system to existing international systems and declarations. Also, the use of existing systems was recommended. Several respondents provided additional argumentation for the use of existing certification systems. ‘‘There is a need to incorporate and expand existing standards (meta-standard approach) as much as possible rather than re-inventing the wheel’’ (bioenergy producer, UK). An energy user from Finland mentioned that ‘‘forest certification schemes already exist and are adequate for forest based biomass. For other biomass, new standards might be needed’’. An energy user from the UK mentioned that it is important to ‘‘avoid the use of different production standards for the same type of biomass, although it may be used for different purposes as food, timber or bioenergy. The use of different production standards will be distorting’’. Similarly, an environmental NGO in Germany stressed that there should not be a separate certification for food and non-food production as ‘‘this will assume that the biomass production is more dangerous than the food production and needs a specific

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

4059

OUT countries NOR countries PRE countries SME countries FR countries ALL 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes. This is highly needed Yes. This is needed although I see limitations Yes. But it should be related to international declarations and standards Yes. This is, however, responsibility of market actors and NGOs No. The EU Directive shall be the single lead in this No. Countries can develop their own certification system if needed No. We can make use of existing certification systems

Fig. 6. Total response and response of country groups in % on the need for a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy, possibly based on CEN standards, to guarantee the sustainability of biomass and bioenergy. (The respondents could choose between 7 different answers or leave the question unanswered if there was no opinion. It was possible to give more than one answer. Additional comments could be made.)

Traders

End-users

Bioenergy producers

R&D

Policy sector

NGOs 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Yes. This is highly needed Yes. This is needed although I see limitations Yes. But it should be related to international declarations and standards Yes. This is, how ever, responsibility of market actors and NGOs No, the EU directive shall be single lead in this No. Countries can develop their ow n system if needed No. We can make use of existing systems

Fig. 7. Response of individual stakeholder groups in % on the need for a European, feedstock independent, certification system for biomass and bioenergy, possibly based on CEN standards, to guarantee the sustainability of biomass and bioenergy.

regulation, which is definitely not true! If there will be a certification system then it has apply to all crop production forms’’. Another concern mentioned by an end-user in the UK is ‘‘that the current existing production standards are largely voluntary. To effectively restrict land displacement effects, there is a political need to regulate biomass production’’. The suggestion to develop a harmonized European certification system, as quoted in the questionnaire, yielded additional comments on the desired geographical scope. Various respondents pleaded for a worldwide certification system ‘‘to make a real impact’’ (Policy sector, Germany). A policy officer from Spain argued that ‘‘the guarantee of sustainability in bioenergy and biomass will only be effective if the conditions for the feedstock production, management, use and production of bioenergy are the same all over the world. The opposite situation, if certification systems are only bounded to EU

companies, can result in a 100% sustainable and the most expensive bioenergy in the world, meanwhile other countries can produce bioenergy without limits in any field’’. Other respondents stressed the need to reach, at least, a harmonized certification system with a European scope, possibly as a step towards further international standardization in the future. A bioenergy producer from Germany argued that ‘‘if a feedstock producer has to comply with different standards for different countries, this will either be expensive for him to certify for all countries, or a barrier to sell in all European countries. A standard European certification, which can be audited by independent surveyors, is the quickest solution to speed up the use of biomass’’. Various respondents considered the harmonization on a European level useful as it provides a forum for market actors and NGOs to send a consistent message, which could then be

4060

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

considered by crop-specific standard setting groups. The importance of a reliable verification structure for a European system was stressed as well (see also Section 6). 5.2. Key areas that limit the development of harmonized biomass and bioenergy certification systems Respondents had the possibility to indicate the key areas of attention (excluding the implementation) that limit the development of a harmonized biomass and bioenergy certification system in Europe. Main barriers, as perceived by all respondents, are the large variety of crops and residues, insufficient knowledge about sustainability criteria and the geographical diversity in the EU. The individual country groups shared this opinion, but the individual stakeholder groups were less unanimous in their responses on this question (see Figs. 8–9). The Nordic countries and the countries outside the EU mentioned relatively often that the large European geographical diversity might limit further harmonization. The variety of production processes and uses was relatively often indicated as a concern by the Policy sector. The end-users considered the large

variety of crops as a relatively important barrier for further harmonization, while the Traders remarkably often mentioned lack of knowledge. A further concern voiced by respondents relate to the lack of reliable criteria and indicators for verification of some sustainability principles. A consultant from Belgium mentioned that ‘‘various important sustainability criteria cannot be sufficiently verified yet at company level as social welfare of the local populationy’’. An academic from the UK said that ‘‘it is clear that the clarity and comparability of a Life Cycle Analysis will still require a great deal of work. In addition, our understanding of suitable indicators for biodiversity and the level of species richness needed to maintain ecosystem functioning is also much debated’’. This respondent underlined, however, that ‘‘this is not a reason not to develop a certification scheme. A system will need to incorporate and review processes so that adjustments can be made as our knowledge improves’’. Next to the pre-defined key areas of attention in the questionnaire (see Figs. 8–9), respondents provided information on additional barriers that may hamper the harmonization of

35% 8 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ALL

FR countries

SME countries

PRE countries

NOR countries

OUT countries

30% 9 25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

NGOs

Policy sector

R&D

Bioenergy producers End-users

Traders

Biomass covers a large area of crops and residues, which complica tes the formulation of sustainability criteria for all feedstock There is still insufficient knowledge about the criteria, indicators and methodologies neededto certify bioenergy products The geographical situation in EU countries differs largely, limiting the fomulation of sustainabilitiy criteria applicable from North to South Various chain-of-custody schemes (track & trace, mass balance, boo k & claim) hamper the harmonization of a bioenergy certification system Not enough attention is paid to harmonize a bioenergy certification system with existing (national) certification systems The variety of production processes and end uses Other

Fig. 8–9. The key areas of attention (in %) for all and for the individual country and stakeholder groups that limit harmonization in developing a biomass and bioenergy certification systems (this does not include the implementation). (The respondents could choose between 7 different answers or leave the question unanswered if there was no opinion. It was possible to give more than one answer. Additional comments could be made.)

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

certification systems for biomass and bioenergy in Europe. These can roughly be grouped into four key areas:

 Political barriers: Issues mentioned are political interference, 





lack of political will and the domination of less-related political agendas from stakeholder groups. Conflicts of interest: This relates both to the perceived lack of interest from specific stakeholder groups as well to the desire of stakeholder groups to bring specific issues and requirements on the table. An environmental NGO from Germany gave as example the specific interests and trade intentions of each country. A policy officer from Hungary stressed the need to motivate and activate the sector with limited interest (in this case the private sector). Differences in views and norms: This relates to the different view on various sustainability principles, especially ethical related standards – as child labor and health care – are different in various parts of the world. Most of these issues only exist outside the EU. This may lead to ‘‘incomparable views and miscommunications’’ (Trader from the Netherlands). Implementation and verification issues (see also Section 6): An environmental NGO from Germany mentioned for example the

4061

different forms and methods of existing certification systems to verify compliance and to control expenditure. 5.3. Recommendations for improving further harmonization of certification systems on European level The results show that generally no single recommendation was clearly preferred under most stakeholder and country groups for further improvement of the harmonization of a biomass and bioenergy sustainability certification system on European level and a combined set of actions to improve harmonization seems to have the preference (see Figs. 10–11). The most selected recommendation was to make better use of existing certification systems and standards; given by e.g. half of the respondents in the Nordic countries. The R&D sector, Bioenergy producers and end-users also supported this recommendation. Especially the Countries outside the EU and the Traders consider a ‘learning-bydoing-approach’ appropriate to further improve the harmonization of a European certification system. The Policy sector, NGOs and Bioenergy producers supported a stronger involvement of stakeholders, while this recommendation was (remarkably) hardly mentioned by the end-users. end-users considered it as

50% 45%

10

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ALL

FR countries

SME countries

PRE countries

NOR countries

OUT countries

NGOs

Policy sector

R&D

Bioenergy producers

End-users

Traders

35% 11

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

More stakeholder involvement

Learning-by-doing approach

Focus on risk areas / feedstock first

Make better use of existing expertise and certification systems

More attention for impacts implementation

Other

Fig. 10–11. Recommendations from all and for individual country and stakeholder groups (in %) for improvement of harmonization of biomass and bioenergy sustainability certification on European level. (The respondents could choose between 6 different answers. If not mentioned in the list, respondents could indicate additional areas of attention under the answer ‘‘other’’. It was possible to give more than one answer.)

4062

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

Europe. Also, 36% of all respondents saw a high risk for increasing (commodity) costs compared to 20% of the NGOs, 62% of the Traders and 53% of the end-users. The results show that the risk for different applicability of criteria among MS is a relatively large concern for the Nordic countries. The Front-running countries and the Countries outside Europe considered the risk relatively high that a certification system will be rather ineffective to control developments that are taking place on a higher level than the company level. Results from the individual stakeholder and country groups can be found in annex 5 of van Dam et al. (2010b).

most important, compared to other stakeholder groups, to have a focus on risk areas first. Other individual suggestions include:

 Trying to avoid trade barriers and market distortions.  Paying attention to small-scale producers.  Developing a cost effective system. 6. Impacts and risks of the implementation of a biomass and bioenergy certification system Respondents may expect different risks and impacts (positive and negative) from the implementation of a certification system for biomass and bioenergy in Europe. Some of these limitations, and approaches to overcome them, are also mentioned in van Dam et al. (2008). Section 6.1 will go into more detail on expected risks while Section 6.2 elaborates on the expected contributions of a certification system to trade, costs, biomass availability and sustainability.

6.2. Contributions of a certification system to trade, costs, availability and sustainability The respondents were asked to indicate whether and how they expect that a biomass and bioenergy certification system will contribute (both positively and negatively) to costs and profits, trade, biomass availability and sustainability and credibility. The results are presented for all respondents in Fig. 13. Results from the individual stakeholder and country groups can be found in annex 6 of van Dam et al. (2010b). Fig. 13 shows that there was consensus amongst the respondents that the introduction of such a certification system will lead to more sustainable biomass production in Europe and to an increased credibility of biomass as a renewable energy source. Fewer respondents expected that this will lead towards more sustainable biomass production outside Europe, although the Countries outside Europe estimated this impact to be larger. The majority of the respondents expected that a certification system will lead to a larger availability of biomass on the longer term in and outside Europe. Opinions were more divided on the availability of biomass on the short term due to the introduction of a European certification system. The respondents expected also that the introduction of an European certification system will lead to higher biomass production costs and prices for the end-consumer (see Fig. 13). Especially

6.1. Expected risk areas for implementing a certification system for biomass and bioenergy Respondents were provided with a set of pre-defined risk areas (see Fig. 12) for implementing a certification system for biomass and bioenergy and asked whether they perceived these as a high risk for implementation of a certification system or not. Respondents expected that there is a medium risk for commodity cost increases and for a WTO conflict when a certification system for biomass and bioenergy in Europe is realized. The risk of administrative burdens was considered high (47% of all answers). The results show notable differences in perceptions between the individual stakeholder and country groups whether identified risk areas will become reality when a certification system is implemented or not (see Fig. 12). As example: about half of all countries saw a high risk for administrative burdens compared to 70% of the Nordic countries and 13% of the Countries outside

ALL COUNTRIES: "There is a risk that….. There will be conflicting schemes or labels for a single commodity"

"There will be increasing (commodity) costs" "A carefully developed system, covering all sustainability principles will lead to low acceptance by farmers, traders and industry "A quickly developed system which possibly does not cover all necessary sustainability aspects will not be accepted by consumers "There will be high administrative burdens" "Only a limited number of sustainability criteria hold ground in case of a WTO conflict" "The certification system is not effective to influence developments taking place on a higher than company level" "There is a potential development ofweak, non-transparent certification systems in some EU countries" "There is a different application of sustainability criteria among member states" High risk

Medium risk

Low risk

No risk

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fig. 12. Indicated risk level of all respondents for various selected risk areas (in %) for the implementation of a biomass and bioenergy certification system in Europe. (Nine different risk areas, ranging from cost increases to WTO restrictions, were presented in the questionnaire. If not mentioned in the list, respondents could comment on other risk areas.)

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

4063

All countries: A biomass and bioenergy certification system will contribute to…. Sustainability and credibility:

Stimulate discussion about certification of biomass use for other non-food (industrial raw) materials and food applications Credibility of European certified biomass as renewable energy source More sustainable biomass production outside Europe More sustainable biomass production inside Europe Biomass availability:

Larger availability of certified biomass outside Europe in long term Larger availability of certified biomass outside Europe in short term Larger availability of biomass in Europe in long term Larger availability of biomass in Europe in short term Larger availability of biomass in your country in long term Larger availability of biomass in your country in short term Trade: Decreased imports of biomass from developing countries to Europe Increased export of bioenergy products to countries outside Europe Increased trade of bioenergy products inside Europe Distortion of prices on the market Improvement international competition European certified biomass with other world markets Costs and profits: Limitations for small-scale farmers in developing countries to produce biomass Increased investments in the bioenergy sector Lower profits for trader Higher end-use prices for the consumer A high cost burden for farmers Increased biomass production costs outside Europe Increased biomass production costs in Europe I totally agree

Neutral

I totally disagree

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fig. 13. Indicated level of agreement of all respondents (in %) in how far certification system for biomass and bioenergy in Europe can contribute to sustainability, biomass availability, trade, costs and profits.

Traders and end-users expected these increases in production costs (69% and 82%, respectively) and final prices (65% and 77%, respectively). At the same time, increased investments in the bioenergy sector are expected as well. Opinions were neutral or divided whether the introduction of a certification system will lead to increased export of bioenergy products to countries outside Europe. This uncertainty on possible export possibilities seems to be a conservative opinion compared with the agreement of more than

half of the respondents that the introduction of a certification system will lead to improved international competition of European certified biomass with other world markets (60%) and to increased trade of bioenergy products inside Europe (55%). This contradiction can be partly explained by the explanations given by two respondents. A Dutch respondent indicated ‘‘Of course it will improve the competition with other markets for products sold in Europe. It will have a negative effect, though, on the competition of these fuels for other markets’’ and ‘‘I expect EU products to

4064

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

become even more expensive that Asian products due to our higher level of sustainability awareness, which will increase imports into the EU of a cheaper Asian product’’. A respondent from the UK also made this final point stating that: ‘‘Europe is dramatically short of biomass and will be a net importer. Talking about certification in the context of increasing the attractiveness of European biomass outside Europe is therefore a totally misplaced debate. If that were the case, it would imply that more sustainable European biomass was exported and even more of the less sustainable non-European biomass was imported’’.

7. Implementation of certification: the Chain of Custody One of the important aspects, amongst others, for the further implementation of a certification system is the selection of the Chain of Custody (CoC) system. A CoC system traces the product from the user back to the producer. There are three different CoC systems, which can be operationalized in a certification system, called: Track and Trace, Mass Balance and Book and Claim. A more detailed explanation is given in van Dam et al. (2010b). The EC-RED has opted for the implementation of the mass balance system (EC, 2009a) and respondents were aware of this information during the publication of this questionnaire. Information about selected CoC systems by other systems can be found in (van Dam et al., 2009). In general, the respondents considered both the Track and Trace as well as the mass balance system as appropriate CoC systems for a European biomass and bioenergy certification system, covering all relevant feedstock as well as all major producing countries. The Track and Trace system was highly preferred by NGOs, Traders, Countries outside Europe and the South and Mid-European countries. The end-users, Nordic and Front-running countries showed a clear preference for the mass balance system. All respondents generally consider the Book and Claim system, allowing for an administrative tracing of the product independent from the physical chain, as less appropriate. Furthermore, the respondents considered a Track and Trace system as most capable to increase the credibility of European certified biomass. Especially the Policy (74%) and R&D (65%) sector expected at the same time that the introduction of this system will lead to increased costs. The introduction of a Book and Claim system was expected to have opposite consequences: relatively lower costs linked to less credible European certified biomass produced. Individual differences in opinion between stakeholder and country groups can be found in annex 7 of van Dam et al. (2010b).

8. Discussion and recommendations 8.1. Methodological discussion and limitations The project aimed to receive at least 5 responses on the questionnaire per country, including at least 2 responses from the market. The open access of the questionnaire enabled respondents to react on larger scale than expected, as the questionnaire was available for a wider public than our own list of contacts. For some countries or stakeholder groups, reactions were very limited though. This process created an opportunity for all interested stakeholders to respond and give their opinions. A disadvantage of this process was, however, that final respondents were – in numbers – not equally represented in the various country and stakeholder groups. Due to the unbalanced representativeness of respondents in the country and stakeholder groups, the conclusions should be handled with care. However, the dominant and marginal viewpoints do provide an interesting basis to map out

and articulate various perspectives and viewpoints on the development and implementation of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in the European Union. 8.2. Summary and discussion of stakeholder views There was agreement amongst the respondents that a criterion on the ‘minimization of GHG emissions’ should be included in a certification system for biomass and bioenergy. Criteria on the optimization of energy and on the protection of water were also considered highly relevant to include in a certification system. This prioritization is confirmed by Buchholz et al. (2009) who identified GHG balance, energy balance, soil protection, participation and water management as the five most important criteria. Inclusion of criteria on indirect impacts was given low priority, most probably because of the limitations of a certification system to regulate impacts that take place on a meso- or macro level. Buchholz et al. (2009) confirm that criteria with limited reliability and practicability receive a low ranking. Other criteria, such as child labor, were given by some stakeholder groups a low priority because this is considered the responsibility of the country where production takes place. Social criteria and locally applied criteria ranked low in reliability, practicability and importance in the study from Buchholz et al. (2009). In this study, more differentiation in importance of social criteria between stakeholder groups is found. For all other impact categories, differing views amongst stakeholder and country groups existed. The need for a European certification system for biomass and bioenergy was clearly recognized amongst respondents, and there was agreement that the introduction of a certification system for biomass and bioenergy in Europe will result in more sustainable biomass production in Europe and in an increased credibility of biomass as a renewable energy source. Respondents stressed, however, the need for a level playing field in the market, meaning that the European sustainability requirements for biomass and bioenergy should be extended to other geographical world regions and to other feedstock and renewable energy sources. The majority of the respondents expected that a certification system for biomass and bioenergy in Europe will result into a larger availability of biomass in the long term, in and outside Europe. More than half of the respondents also expected that this leads to (i) increased investments, (ii) improved international competition of European certified biomass with other world markets and (iii) to increased trade of bioenergy products inside Europe, largely due to increased European demand. On the other hand, it is expected to lead also to higher biomass production costs and end-prices for the consumer. The risk for administrative burdens was considered high by most respondents. The large variety of geographical areas, crops, residues, production processes and end-uses were considered as potential risk areas limiting the development of a harmonized certification system. Another concern was the lack of sufficient knowledge about criteria and indicators, which is needed to certify bioenergy products. At the same time, some respondents clarified that this may not be a limitation for further development of a certification system: a system will need to incorporate and review processes so that adjustments can be made as our knowledge improves. Additional points of concern, explicitly mentioned by respondents are the presence of political barriers, conflicts of interest, differences in views and norms and implementation and verification issues. The respondents considered the Track and Trace as well as the mass balance system as appropriate CoC systems for a European biomass and bioenergy certification system. A Track and Trace system was considered as the most expensive and most reliable system. The introduction of a Book and Claim system was

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

expected to lead to opposite developments: relatively lower costs along the bioenergy chain for less credible European certified biomass produced. 8.3. Policy recommendations Based on the results of this questionnaire, the following policy recommendations for further development of a European certification system for biomass and bioenergy can be drawn:

4065

Finally, as pointed out by many respondents, on the longer term, it seems undesirable to maintain sustainability criteria for biomass feedstocks used for bioenergy, but to not scrutinize the production of these feedstocks for other uses. While we realize that this is a highly controversial topic, we recommend to further explore the possibilities to introduce (additional) sustainability requirements for agricultural commodities (e.g. GHG emission thresholds, irrespective of the end-use) in the future, as otherwise the bioenergy sector will continue to face an unlevel playing field.

 The results indicate that several stakeholder groups consider

 





socio-economic criteria as relevant to include in a biomass and bioenergy certification system. This may plead for a continuation of the CEN TC 383 socio-economic working groups; and a reconsideration to include them on the longer term in the RED. It is considered important to link a European system to existing international declarations and to extend such a system to other world regions and feedstock sources. It is highly recommended to make better use of existing certification systems and standards for further improvement of the harmonization of a biomass and bioenergy sustainability certification system on European level. Other recommendations include better stakeholder involvement and following a learning-by-doing approach. Respondents do expect increased costs and investments along the bioenergy chain due to the introduction of a certification system for biomass and bioenergy. Better insight is needed whether cost increases are a realistic concern, and (if so) how the risk for high costs can be reduced by the introduction of e.g. supporting policy measures. Diverse (or conflicting) values seem to play a larger role between stakeholder groups than between country groups. Participation and commitment of the relevant stakeholders active in the bioenergy chain is therefore of key importance in the success of a European certification system for biomass and bioenergy.

The European Commission has decided to only take a decision on EU-wide (mandatory) sustainability criteria for solid biomass at the end of 2011, and has pointed out that the cost of meeting sustainability can be high, and could cause administrative burdens especially for small end-users. While these concerns are also recognized by a majority of the respondents, a large majority of them (81%) still thinks a harmonized certification system for biomass and bioenergy is needed, albeit some limitations. As the European Commission will only decide on the introduction of mandatory sustainability criteria for solid biomass at the end of 2011, these policy recommendations currently concern especially the European national governments that either have already introduced mandatory criteria in the past (e.g. in Belgium) or have announced intentions to do so in the future (e.g. in the Netherlands and the UK). It would seem sensible to develop such national systems jointly—this could possibly even be used as basis after 2011 in case the Commission decides to introduce mandatory criteria after all. On the other hand, this could mean that the preferences of the (dominant stakeholder groups in the) Front-running countries could dominate such as system, so such a joint national approach should ideally already include the views of all stakeholders—we hope that this survey may be a helpful starting point for this. In case no concerted action is taken by national governments or the Commission, it is possible that stakeholder groups will unior bilaterally develop their own systems to guarantee the sustainability of solid biomass, which would in our view be a less desirable outcome than a harmonized system, but better than no action at all.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank E. Alakangas (VTT), J. Hinge (DTI), A. Fa´ber (ECB), D. Blumberga (Ekodoma), A. Martikainen and P. von Bothmer (FNR), J. Vinterb¨ack and O. Ollson (SLU), M. Sarlej (UPEI VUT), B. Solberg (UMB), N. Pieret (CRA-W), J. Rathbauer (FJ BLT), J.M. Jossart (AEBIOM), I. Eleftheriadis (CRES), L. Nibbi (UNIFI), R. Erlickyte (LEI), C. Panoutsou (ICSTM), T. Almeida (CBE), S. Domjan (ApE), M.L. Borra (AAE) and many more for their input and for distributing and filling in the questionnaire. This paper was written in the frame of the EUBIONET III project (IEE/07/777/ SI2.499477) supported by Intelligent Energy Europe.

Appendix A. Supplementary Material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.022.

References Bergsma, G., Groot, M.I, 2006. Enquˆete Duurzame Biomassa Import. Delft, CE. Buchholz, T., Luzadis, V.A., et al., 2009. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. Journal of Cleaner Production. CBD, 2009. Maak landbouw deel van de oplossing! Advies: Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC). THe Hague, Commissie Duurzaamheidsvraagstukken (CBD). CEN/TC 383, 2009. CEN/TC 383 Sustainably produced biomass for energy applications, version of: 30/03/2009. The Netherlands. Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., et al., 2010. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics 69, 579–591. van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., 2010a. Background document from: From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (9), 2445–2472. van Dam, J., in cooperation with EUBIONET III partners, 2010b. Annexes full report questionnaire ‘striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire’. Utrecht, the Netherlands, Copernicus Institute, in cooperation with EUBIONET III project (www.eubionet.net). van Dam, J., Londo, M., et al., 2009. Work Package 3: Technical assistance for an evaluation of international schemes to promote biomass sustainability. Specific invitation to Tender TREN/A2/143-2007 In the context of the Multiple Framework Services TREN/A2/143-2007, ECN Energy Research centre of the Netherlands, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Forest & Landscape Denmark, University of Copenhagen, COWI A/S, ControlUnion Certifications. ¨ van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jurgens, I., Beste, G., Fritsche, U., 2008. Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (8), 749–780. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.018. DG TREN, 2007. Biofuel Issues in The New Legislation on the Promotion of Renewable Energy. Energy and Transport Directorate-General, European Commission, Brussels. EC, 2009a. 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. EC, 2009b. Communication from the Commission on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling COM (2009), Version 5 (28.10.2009). Brussels, Commission of the European Communities. EC, 2010a. European Commission overview of published National Renewable Energy Action Plans. Available at: /http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/ transparency_platform/action_plan_en.htmS.

4066

J. van Dam, M. Junginger / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4051–4066

EC, 2010b. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling, 2010. Echols, M.A., 2009. Biofuels Certification and the Law of the World Trade Organization. ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 19, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland. EURELECTRIC, 2010. Eurelectric position paper on sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biomass, in reaction to EC COM (2010) 11 final, May 2010. Fehrenbach, H., Giegrich, J., et al., 2007. Greenhouse Gas Balances for the German Quota Legislation. IFEU, Heidelberg (prepared for the Federal Environment Agency Germany). ¨ Hisschemoller, M., 2005. Participation as knowledge production and the limits of democracy. Democratization of Expertise?. In: Maasen, S., Weingart, P. (Eds.), Exploring New Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making.. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 189–207. ISCC, 2009. Information on Scheme ISCC International Sustainability and Carbon Certification. Available at. /http://www.iscc-system.org/S Cologne, Germany, Me´o Corporate development GmbH.

IUCN and Shell, 2010. Workshop Summary: Towards Harmonization for Biofuel Sustainability Standards 17–18 February 2010 London. /http://cmsdata.iucn. org/downloads/biofuel_sustainability_standards_workshop_report_final.pdfS. Junginger, M., Bolkesjø, Torjus, Bradley, Douglas, et al., 2008. Developments in international bioenergy trade. Biomass & Bioenergy 32 (8), 717–729. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.019 (August). NEN, 2009. Sustainability criteria for biomass for energy purposes NTA 8080:200_EN. Delft, The Netherlands, Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut NEN. NEN, 2010. CEN Standards and RED, CEN/TC 383 development of sustainability standards, March 16, 2010. Available at: /http://www.worldbiofuelsmarkets. com/downloads/presentations/iLuc_15th/Ortwin_Costenoble.pdfS. RFA, 2010. Renewable Fuels Agency 2008/09 Annual Report to Parliament on the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Presented to Parliament pursuant to The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 (SI 2007 no. 3072). London, Renewable Fuels Agency. RSB, 2009. RSB Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuel Production, Version 1.0 from 12-11-2009, EPFL. Lausanne, Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. RTFO, 2009. About the RTFO and RTFO targets. Available at: /http://www.renew ablefuelsagency.org/aboutthertfo/rtfotargets.cfmS (retrieved 14 July 2009).