Biomass-Biomess?

Opposition to the use of forest biomass for large-scale

heat and power in the EU

Key stakeholder issues to manage

Philip Peck

Bioenergy Australia 2015 Conference,

30 November Launceston, Tasmania

1

This 20 minutes

• Context – EU, Demand & Supply

• A study – Who and How – Utility biomass.

• Salient issues/ways forward

• Relevance to Australia

CONTEXT PART I – A challenge and some items framing this work in a larger context

Business, stakeholder & policy

dynamics

• EU forest biomass demand increasing rapidly under

policy stimuli

• Biofuels are important for EU utilities to reach EU 2020

renewables goal.

• Growing supply gap: import of large amounts will be

required, but stakeholders have sustainability concerns

• Utilities are adopting self-regulatory certification

schemes to reduce stakeholder pressures ….. but …

• Interplay between these efforts, stakeholder and policy

dynamics, and business risks are not well understood.

”Mind the gap”

• EU final biomass-derived energy use of the

electricity and heat sectors could total 107Mtoe in

2020.

– primary biomass demands of between 146Mtoe

and 158Mtoe

• Primary EU solid biomass production could increase

from 82Mtoe (2011) to some 120Mtoe by 2020

• A biomass supply gap of 26-38 Mtoe for the heat

and power sector demand

Supply side issues

• Pellets currently imported to the EU originate mainly

from North America, lesser extent Russia

– Also: Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam

– A number of coastal African states are viewed as

emerging or potential suppliers of large volumes

– Some of these source countries host high

biodiversity tropical forests

• Critiques apparently happy to ignore dominant

sourcing scenarios – and focus on risks for

tropical forests (not a dumb idea per se’)

Sustainability certification

• ‘Self-regulatory’ certification processes for forestry

processes and products essentially the only ‘formalised

avenue’ towards legitimacy

– part of a global shift from government to governance

that has emerged over the past three decades

– where government regulation is reduced, inept, or

difficult due to the impacts of globalisation

• governance mechanisms for ‘sustainability’ are a part of

a forest conservation continuum that has been

evolving towards a focus on the management of forest

carbon.

An NGO view ….

“At a time of a carbon overloaded atmosphere,

polluted air and stressed forests, increased

cutting and burning of forests is about the

dumbest thing we can do. So-called ‘green’

groups promoting such stupidity should be

exposed for their complicity in the destruction of

the world’s forests, and increases in carbon

emissions. Cutting and burning forests is NOT

‘green’ energy, and never will be.”

An EU official’s view ….

“ILUC renders the promotion of biofuels

pointless, if not disastrous for the environment”

“the same will happen with woody biomass.

Under NGO pressure, carbon debt will become a

major issue, scientific studies will confirm this,

undermine the policy and it will once again

create a mess and make the EU less credible.”

A notably absent topic …

• Scenarios exist with the most significant related to short rotation coppice (SRC) energy plantations up to 300Mt (105Mtoe):EU-27

• Important as this demonstrates that import from forests abroad is not the only option

– But … 10’s of thousands of Ha. Conversion of millions of hectares would represent a major and controversial change to Europe’s landscape

• SRC mobilization is unlikely in the period to 2020 …

– but what do we do with all the ‘marginal’ or contaminated crop land? (3 MHa in Poland ...?)

A STUDY

PART II – Survey of views/priorities on the range of criteria or 'concern areas' that can be found in all different types of certification schemes dealing with biomass

Topics addressed 1. Stakeholder attitudes,

priorities and concerns related to the use of (biomass for large-scale energy generation)

2. How sustainability certification schemes address such priorities & concerns

Survey & interviews

• Captured approaches applied in certification schemes with three thematic categories:

– environmental (e.g. greenhouse, deforestation and biodiversity):

– socio-economic (e.g. labour conditions, land tenure and competition for raw materials);

– governance (e.g. certification and accreditation processes, third party assessments in forests, and chain of custody procedures).

Priorities

Highest collective priorities: GHG balance,

biodiversity protection, chemicals, pest

control and fertilizer use, and primary forest

conservation

Industry actors prioritised ‘net

energy balance’ and the

‘minimisation of deforestation’

Standard setting & monitoring issues

All prioritise third party certification and

accreditation of sustainability certification

schemes, regular third party assessments of

local conditions, and chain of custody

processes for woody biomass sourcing.

Preoccupation with verification

reflects significant fears of

fraud, corruption and other

illegal practices

Simplistic & misleading use of

the carbon debt construct • Many refer to ‘carbon debt’ and carbon ‘non-

neutrality’ of forest biomass production systems

– most without mention of caveats such as the

sensitivity of system boundaries for analyses

– communicating these constructs as universally

applicable to forest-to-energy situations

– Deliberately excluded from survey – but all

took up topic in interviews

• Science not yet there, the industry

communcations certainly were not at that time …

Voices that are heard….

Press: “we're paying people to cut their forests down in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we are actually increasing them. No-one is apparently bothering to do any analysis about this”

Research “using woody biomass is not carbon neutral. The EU policy took off before science was ready”

Governmental (Environment): “the carbon neutrality assumption is absolutely false and the EU policy is questionable at best”.

“any certification system for

accreditation of internationally traded

biomass needs to be internationally

accepted at the highest level and have

teeth – i.e. some option for sanctions

and/or heavy penalties for violation”

1) LP-legal permit, LH-legal harvest, LlT-legal log transport, LlP-legal log processing, LlT-legal timber transport,

Dep./Furn- Deposit/Furniture making;

2) CH-clandestine harvest, ClP-Clandestine log processing, ClT-clandestine log transport, CtT-Clandestine timber

transport;

3) LnP-Launder permit, LnH-launder harvest, LnlT-laundered log transport, LntT-Laundered timber transport

Legal and illegal timber supply chain in Costa

Rica. Source: Adapted from Navarro et al., 2006.

Mammadova (2015) The Truth

Inside the Wood: Can Genetic

Analysis Help Us Win The Fight

Against Illegal Timber Trade

SALIENT ISSUES & ACTION AREAS TO MOVE FORWARD

PART III – EU focused but with implications for Australian context

Central items to extract

• Key metrics involve carbon, biodiversity and deforestation

– Crudely simplified: if carbon is considered holistically it captures & subordinate other issues

• Self-governance systems have serious legitimacy issues

– But it is also clear that they do not yet incorporate metrics to meet emerging expectations

– As carbon is increasingly dominating the discourse ….

Salient stakeholders?

• Many actors opposed to forest energy systems

– Not just the ‘usual actors’ but also many from policy and research fields

– Utility actors were notably ‘objective’ in comparison

• Critique is directed towards a nexus of industry and policy-makers

– In this study there was harsh critique of the policymakers – they ‘run scared’ and policy uncertainty escalates

• Critics are ascendant and entrenched – they drive policy processes

– such processes then become bogged down!

Power and urgency

“…. the attribute of power for forest energy critics has been achieved by a combination of direct critical

stakeholder action, and by ‘indirect catalysed pressure’…….., the key focus for stakeholder pressure

lies in two main areas: perceptions that the extra demand for woody biomass arising from the EU forest

energy supply gap threatens global forest systems; and arguments or beliefs that forest energy fails to

deliver climate benefits intended by EU policy interventions.”

EU policy sphere is central to

knowledge provision • Carbon balance of forest bioenergy carbon

balances now central to stakeholder concerns

– but from a life cycle perspective, the GHG emissions and temporal profile of forest bioenergy vary significantly.

• The EU policy-sphere (an ‘issue owner’) must intensify efforts to bring forth scientific evidence of that which constitutes ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ systems.

• Opportunities to differentiate systems – just as systems for transportation biofuels are being differentiated.

Self-governance legitimacy

• Long known that key criteria for a ‘superior’ forest certification schemes include: rigorous standards; independent third party certification; a thorough standard setting process; system transparency; inclusion of social standards; chain-of-custody certification; and global nature ….. efforts thus far in vain

• Stakeholders doubt the ability of existing certification systems to protect forests and climate

• remain dubious (at best!) of certification application (e.g. concerns related to stringency and system-multiplicity)

• demands related to new central ‘outcomes’ have evolved that demand new criteria such as metrics for overall and temporal carbon balances

Supply chain credibility

• Stakeholders in general seem to need more concrete evidence of where the EU can supply significantly more of its own needs – as well as where it cannot.

• Certification schemes are unlikely to appease those who already hold the view that the large-scale use of woody biomass in energy generation is an inherently bad idea

• The forest energy sector must move beyond certification into other efforts to establish ‘stakeholder belief and trust’ based on evidence from the field.

Supplier credibility & legitimacy

• Forest bioenergy supply chain actors must build more ‘credible track-records’

– Visible efforts to establish sustainable biomass supply from closer to home

– Visibility and quantification of sourcing from other developed countries

• More than ‘sustainable’ forestry efforts

– requires maximisation of biomass waste valorisation (and communication of such!)

– enhancement of synergies – or documentation of more visible synergies – with other forest biomass value chains

Purchaser credibility (?!)

• Consistent, transparently documented organisational track-records of biomass fuel sourcing undeveloped.

• if organisations wish their claims of ‘sound performance’ to be taken seriously

– engagement in a ‘sustainability certification system’ is only a part

– the nature and consistency of the firm’s activities in general, and the alignment of environmental and socially sound behaviour with the generic strategy of the company specifically, important for the credibility of self-governance efforts

Forest/plantation efforts?

• Many carbon balances can be markedly

influenced by management choices within

silviculture

• New forestry practices and differing harvest

cycles designed to deliver improved GHG

balances for many types of systems may help

differentiate

EU forest biomass chains need

to establish legitimacy • Efforts must deliver robust track records of strong

ecological, climate, and social performance for forest energy supply chains to allay concerns

• Distinct from just ‘sustainability certification’

– must include increased efforts to source woody biomass from the EU-27+ to engender trust in forest energy actors

– Will require scientific studies to delineate ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ ‘carbon and temporal carbon’ performance for forest energy systems

– Will take time …. and independent science.

General strategies required

• forestry sector, bioenergy supply actors, and utilities should/can:

– search for higher performance systems among new forest-bioenergy supply regions;

– pursue forest management strategies that deliver improved performance from within existing supply regions;

– prioritise forestry and indeed all biomass utilisation sequences to provide improved carbon cycle performance.

RELEVANCE TO AUSTRALIA ? PART IV – Items to consider in the specific Australian context

Fundamental differences .. but

• In Australia:

– Small to medium scale bioenergy utilisation

discussion is focused on utilisation of

Australian resources in Australia

– Larger scale residue processing is focused

on Export

Recognise these differences … the context

shifts, but many of the EU learnings remain

valid.

Economic issues

• Can you produce cost effectively for home markets? For foreign markets? Or both?

• Are you competing as a commodity or as a ’differentiated energy’ carrier?

• Do you have the socio-economic analyses that support utilisation of endogenous biomass?

– Account for environmental goods?

– Account for social goods?

– Account for trade-offs?

– Can be understood by lay-persons?

– Can be the fundamental foundation when calling for policy support ….

Residues • Can you clearly show that biomass:

– has truly been ’used’ ? (structure + nutrition + desalination + …)

– is ’captured’ for reuse/recycling (before) energy?

– reinforces existing economic activities?

• Always expect that critics will automatically PERCEIVE or communicate that you:

– will harvest stemwood

– will destroy existing businesses

– have displaced food production

– Remove soil carbon ….. Etc.

Carbon

• How well do you know your carbon balances?

• How will the importance of carbon discourse rise (or fall) in Australia?

• See carbon as:

– a (crude) umbrella metric that can capture and guide action on other important issues (land use, resource efficiency, local environmental impact etc.)

– not just a word subject to the whims of the media

THANK YOU ! Discussion, questions …..

And a bit of a plug …. An article in Environment Business News..

” Stimulating Australian Bioenergy – Insights from Sweden”

Stakeholder dynamics in the forest energy sector: key issues to manage and ways forward. Biofuels,Bioproducts and Biorefining, 9(1), 51–71. Biomass or Biomess? Examining sustainability schemes as a way to address stakeholder concerns of the use of forest biomass (M.Sc. Thesis). University of Lund, IIIEE, Lund, Sweden.

Project Leader/Lead author: Philip Peck, Lund University, Sweden works with environmental, socio-economic, policy, and deployment issues for technology systems. Bioenergy work encompasses local and regional development; supply chains, advanced bioenergy system emergence; policy frames, and social and political acceptance.

Researcher: Charlotte Sluka is a lawyer with broad experience in international forest, energy and biodiversity-related projects. Charlotte has implemented a number of aid projects for the German development agency GIZ and now works for the international law firm Freshfields Bruckhause Deringer LLP.

Key sources