| 1. |
- Pelkmans, L., et al.
(author)
-
Monitoring the Impact of Sustainability Certification in Relation to Biomass Use for Energy
- 2012
-
In: EUBCE 2012 proceedings. - 9788889407547 ; , s. 2013-2018
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Since the public has expressed concern about unintended consequences associated with potentially unsustainable biomass production and use for energy (or biofuels), producers of biomass feedstocks in the private sector as well as governmental and non-governmental organisations have initiated many generally unlinked efforts to define 'sustainable' bioenergy production and supply chains. These 'sustainability' standards may be implemented through certification systems involving 3rd party audit, and influence production systems and trade of bioenergy products from producers to consumers of ‘green' energy. At present numerous biomass and biofuel sustainability certification systems are being developed or implemented by a variety of private and public organisations. Systems are applicable to different feedstock production sectors (forests, agricultural crops), different bioenergy products (relatively unprocessed forest residues, ethanol, biodiesel, electricity), and whole or segments of supply chains (production system, chain of custody from growers to energy consumers). It is expected that such a wide range of systems, developed largely without coordination among the organisations involved, could be problematic for all stakeholders along the supply chain in individual sectors and for those involved in deployment of bioenergy systems globally. These are individual feedstock producers, companies and commodity sectors that must comply with these systems either to maintain market access and share or to comply with legislative mandates, and also consumers who prefer to purchase certified green energy, and regulatory agencies and local to national governments that may be involved in enforcing sustainability standards. The potential for confusion among the actors, depression of markets, and unnecessary restrictions on sustainable trade seems high. Within IEA Bioenergy a strategic study was initiated between Task 40, Task 43 and Task 38 to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability certification of bioenergy, evaluate how stakeholders are affected by certification initiatives, quantify the anticipated impact on worldwide bioenergy trade, assess the level of coordination among schemes, and make recommendations to remove barriers which may depress markets and reduce sustainable trade. Interaction with different stakeholder groups is one of the main objectives of this study, so we anticipate the recommendations being representative of the whole bioenergy certification sector and therefore having high potential to improve an otherwise uncoordinated interest in ensuring bioenergy trade is sustainable.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cowie, A. L., et al.
(author)
-
Applying a science-based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy
- 2021
-
In: Global Change Biology Bioenergy. - : John Wiley and Sons Inc. - 1757-1693 .- 1757-1707. ; 13:8, s. 1210-1231
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy-making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short-term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium- to long-term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Pelkmans, Luc, et al.
(author)
-
The role of sustainability requirements in international bioenergy markets
- 2013
-
In: International Bioenergy Trade. - : Springer. - 9789400769816 ; , s. 125-149
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As the main driver for bioenergy is to enable society to transform to more sustainable fuel and energy production systems, it is important to safeguard that bioenergy deployment happens within certain sustainability constraints. There is currently a high number of initiatives, including binding regulations and several voluntary sustainability standards for biomass, bioenergy and/or biofuels. Within IEA Bioenergy studies were performed to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability regulations and certification, evaluate how stakeholders are affected and envisage the anticipated impact on worldwide markets and trade. On the basis of these studies, recommendations were made on how sustainability requirements could actually support further bioenergy deployment. Markets would gain from more harmonization and cross-compliance. A common language is needed as ‘sustainability’ of biomass involves different policy arenas and legal settings. Policy pathways should be clear and predictable, and future revisions of sustainability requirements should be open and transparent. Sustainability assurance systems (both through binding regulations and voluntary certification) should take into account how markets work, in relation to different biomass applications (avoiding discrimination among end-uses and users). It should also take into account the way investment decisions are taken, administrative requirements for smallholders, and the position of developing countries.
|
|
| 9. |
- Pelkmans, Luc, et al.
(author)
-
The role of sustainability requirements in international bioenergy markets
- 2014
-
In: Lecture Notes in Energy. - Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands. - 2195-1292 .- 2195-1284. ; 17:1, s. 125-149
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As the main driver for bioenergy is to enable society to transform to more sustainable fuel and energy production systems, it is important to safeguard that bioenergy deployment happens within certain sustainability constraints. There is currently a high number of initiatives, including binding regulations and several voluntary sustainability standards for biomass, bioenergy and/or biofuels. Within IEA Bioenergy studies were performed to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability regulations and certification, evaluate how stakeholders are affected and envisage the anticipated impact on worldwide markets and trade. On the basis of these studies, recommendations were made on how sustainability requirements could actually support further bioenergy deployment. Markets would gain from more harmonization and cross-compliance. A common language is needed as 'sustainability' of biomass involves different policy arenas and legal settings. Policy pathways should be clear and predictable, and future revisions of sustainability requirements should be open and transparent. Sustainability assurance systems (both through binding regulations and voluntary certification) should take into account how markets work, in relation to different biomass applications (avoiding discrimination among end-uses and users). It should also take into account the way investment decisions are taken, administrative requirements for smallholders, and the position of developing countries.
|
|
| 10. |
- Stupak, I, et al.
(author)
-
A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy
- 2016
-
In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment. - : Wiley. - 2041-8396 .- 2041-840X. ; 5:1, s. 89-118
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
