WP1 Deliverable 1.8: Findings of the SWOT analysis

LOGO

ROKWOOD

WP1 Analysis of regional clusters state of play Task 1.3: SWOT analysis of each region

Del.1.8: SWOT analysis

Grant Agreement number: 319956

Project acronym: ROKWOOD

Project title: European regions fostering innovation for sustainable production and efficient use of woody biomass

WP1 Deliverable 1.8: Findings of the SWOT analysis

Due date of deliverable: 31st of December 2013

Actual submission date to European Commission: 13th of March 2014

Start date of project: 01.12.2012 Duration: 36 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Centre for Sustainable Energy

Project coordinator: ttz Bremerhaven

Project website address: www.rokwood.eu

Project funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013)

Dissemination Level

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

http://www.rokwood.eu/

ROKWOOD



Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2

3. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1. INDIVIDUAL SWOT OUTPUTS ................................................................................. 5

3.2. SWOT OF THE CLUSTER REGIONS OF ROKWOOD .................................................... 5

3.2.1. STRENGTHS ........................................................................................................ 5

3.2.2. WEAKNESSES ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2.3. OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................ 10

3.2.4. THREATS ........................................................................................................... 11

3.3. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS .............................................................. 12

4. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 13

ANNEX 1: Individual cluster SWOT outputs ............................................................................. 15

ANNEX 2: Session plan for SWOT workshop held at the ROKWOOD consortium meeting in Bristol .... 24

ROKWOOD



1

1. Introduction

This report acts as the deliverable and key output for Work Package 1, Task 1.3: SWOT analysis of each region (economic, innovation and RTD perspective), which was undertaken from August 2013 to February 2014.

The task details as given in the ROKWOOD Description of Work are as follows:

Duration Month 09 to13 (August 2013 to December 2013)

Task leader Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE)

Participating partners

Entire ROKWOOD consortium

Deliverable

D1.8: SWOT Analysis Month 13 (December 2013)

A SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play and especially of the PESTLE analysis will be executed in order to identify impediments and factors of success of regional research-driven cluster.

Objective (as per DoW)

To identify impediments and factors of success of regional research-driven clusters through a SWOT analysis resulted from the evaluation of their state of play and especially of the PESTLE analysis (task 1.1). The SWOT analysis also helps to find out the barriers for growing SRC and using the wooden biomass. Furthermore the lack of interest from farmers and the lack of infrastructure in the different countries can be found out with the SWOT analysis. CSE will prepare a matrix that each cluster will use to show their respective results. These matrixes will be discussed in the third consortium meeting together with all partners. The SWOT analysis will also identify strengths and weaknesses of the regions concerned in terms of their capacity to produce knowledge and transfer it into novel products, services and processes. It also identify the potential policy mechanism which stimulate growers and end users and what is required to get the industry moving into the use of wooden biomass.

During the anticipated workshop in month 13 a common SWOT will be established that presents common strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from an economic, innovation and RTD perspective. Findings will be compiled and used for the development of objectives, strategies and instruments to be defined within the Joint Action Plan in WP2.

The outcome of this WP will be a report on Findings of the SWOT analysis produced by CSE.

ROKWOOD



2

Helpful Harmful

WeaknessesStrengths

ThreatsOpportunities

Exte

rnal

ori

gin

Inte

rnal

ori

gin

2. Methodology

A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis is an established method of evaluating a situation, enterprise, individual or anything else that would benefit from a structured appraisal to help plan for the future. In a business context, for example, it can help identify internal strengths and weaknesses within an organisation and map these to external opportunities and threats so that the most effective strategies can be formulated to achieve market success.

SWOTs can generally be described as follows:

Strengths characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others

Weaknesses characteristics of the business or project that place it a disadvantage relative to others

Opportunities external elements that the business or project could exploit to its advantage

Threats external elements that could cause trouble or in some way disadvantage the business or project

SWOTs can therefore be arranged in a matrix as shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1:

Figure 1: SWOT matrix

ROKWOOD



3

SWOTEx 2.1.1 Regional characteristics

Ex 3.2.1 Infrastructure and research facilities

Ex 3.1.1/3.1.2 Key actors

Ex 5.2.1 RTD offer and demand Ex 5.3.1 Current

research within/outside

consortium

Ex 5.5.1 Regional/national policies state of

play

Questionnaire results from SMEs

Ex 4.2.1/4.2.2 PESTLE analysis

Often, a PESTLE analysis is used prior to SWOT in order to brainstorm a list of factors to consider, and this was the case for ROKWOOD (the outputs of which were reported as Deliverable 1.2). In its pure form SWOT analysis then simply applies categories to these factors but does not actually prioritise or generate strategies these activities are typically undertaken following the SWOT analysis as a separate exercise and rely heavily on the SWOT outcomes. However, for the purposes of this ROKWOOD task, the partners were specifically asked to rank in order of importance the points listed in each SWOT quadrant. This was done for two main reasons: to better inform the SWOT workshop session at the Bristol consortium meeting in January 2014 (see below), and to help prepare for the forthcoming Task 2.3: Elaboration of Policy Briefs in WP2, which will crucially draw on the SWOT results as the main evidence base for developing and prioritising a set of Policy Briefs for each region.

The SWOT analysis was undertaken by each cluster focusing on their corresponding region and most were developed in a workshop situation. Clusters were asked to draw on their PESTLE outputs and other findings resulting from WP1 tasks as indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Key inputs to SWOT analysis

ROKWOOD



4

The instructions given to each cluster are shown as follows:

1. We would recommend that you undertake this exercise as a group in a workshop context this could be with the key contacts from the three ROKWOOD cluster organisations in your region, or if appropriate, with a wider group of stakeholders that may have input to your PESTLE analysis exercises.

2. Be clear from the start on defining the overarching question i.e. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats concerning the development, production and use of SRP woodfuel in our region?

3. Gather the outputs from your cluster/region of the relevant Work Package 1 exercises and prepare a large SWOT matrix e.g. at least A1 size for a flipchart, and make sure all are on display to the group.

4. Starting with the PESTLE outputs, go through each of the factors in turn and assess whether they can be considered a strength, weakness, opportunity or threat. It is suggested that post-it notes are used to summarise each point and placed in the relevant quadrant of the SWOT matrix.

5. Continue with the outputs from the other exercises to see if additional factors not captured in the PESTLE exercise can be identified and added to the SWOT matrix.

6. Try to rank the factors in each SWOT quadrant in terms of relative importance and aim to choose the top factors (max 10).

7. Check through all the factors to ensure youre happy theyre in the appropriate category

8. Use the template SWOT matrix provided to transcribe the selected factors. Please ensure that each factor is clearly explained if necessary by a series of footnotes to the SWOT matrix.

Key points to note:

A SWOT analysis typically considers strengths and weaknesses together as internal factors i.e. those within the SRP industry. Factors external to the industry tend to be considered under opportunities and threats. The PESTLE analysis and other exercises would have captured both types so it may help to first categorise each factor according to whether it is internal or external.

Try to consider each factor within a context e.g. what are the SRP industrys strengths in relation to competing sectors such as forestry-derived woodfuel.

Make sure weaknesses youve listed do not counteract the strengths you have listed and vice versa the risk of an opportunity not being taken up is NOT a threat unless it actually exists in the present, dont imagine threats.

SWOT workshop session

Following completion of the task described above, a workshop session was held at the ROKWOOD consortium meeting in Bristol on 28/1/14. Annex 2 shows the plan for this session. The aim of this was to provide an opportunity for partners to present and discuss the cluster SWOT outputs. Any outcomes of this have been incorporated into the results section below.

ROKWOOD



5

3. Results

3.1. Individual SWOT outputs

A summary of the individual SWOT outputs from each cluster are included in Annex 1. Each cluster was asked to prioritise the points within each SWOT quadrant and hence the lists are numbered from one (highest priority) up to ten (lowest priority). The original date for this deliverable was December 2013, but was subsequently extended to February 2014 to allow the outputs of a SWOT workshop to be considered during the consortium meeting in Bristol held from 28-30 January.

3.2. SWOT of the cluster regions of ROKWOOD

3.2.1. Strengths

Carbon reduction

Reduced CO2 emissions and the environmental benefit of doing is an obvious environmental strength that all clusters recognised. For Germany, Poland and Spain this is the most important strength while Ireland placed this in third position. Most SWOTs described reduced emissions in terms of how SRC can contribute towards international carbon targets, although several also included the regional energy planning objectives that have their own individual targets. The UK included this as part of the multifunctional aspect of the crop that included other environmental benefits in addition to a passing mention of the renewable energy directive in the opportunities section. Sweden is the only SWOT to include this as an opportunity rather than a strength although here too it is seen as the most important point.

Fuel security and rising cost of fossil fuels

This is a particularly big issue in Ireland where the majority of fuel is imported making this their most important strength. Similarly Spain ranked fuel security as the second most relevant point, particularly for rural areas. Poland highlighted the importance of saving natural resources like fossil fuels and developing new energy sources as the third most pressing fact. The UK included the cost of fossil fuels in the opportunities section, where it is considered the second most important point and noted the specifics of the renewable heat incentive providing potential to increase demand. Sweden also included this in the opportunities section by noting the increasing international price of energy as their fifth point. Germany did not make this particular point although did state that SRP has the advantage of being a stable energy option in both the short term, due to easy storage of wood chips and the long term, due to being a renewable energy source; this is however considered one of the least relevant aspects.

Economic

As the country with the most well established SRP industry, Sweden puts as their first key strength that they have a working, economic SRP business and due to this also have the potential for large interest from international contacts, as their fifth strength. Poland and Spain both give quite general points regarding the potential to stimulate the economy, as second and fifth respectively. Poland focuses on the potential to stimulate economic activity in the agricultural sector whereas Spain put this in the opportunities section with their fourth point being economic development for Andalusia. The potential for job creation is cited by Ireland, Poland, the UK and Germany. This

ROKWOOD



6

point is of most importance to Ireland, listed second with particular mention made of the potential for low skilled workers. Poland made the point twice, fifth in opportunities and ninth in strengths suggesting this is considered a principal factor. Jobs were considered less key for Germany and the UK where it received a low listing in the opportunities section. Germany looked at the long term economic implications, with the need for less fertilizer meaning costs are ultimately covered as the fourth strength. Ireland is one of the few countries to receive an establishment grant for bio-energy of 50% of the start-up cost but this is not seen as a significant strength which may be due to the threat also given that the grant could be discontinued.

Regional advantages and potential benefits

Sweden included a high level of detail regarding their current strong situation; existing expertise is the second most relevant strength, followed by good developed logistics in the region, third. A suitable climate is in fourth position, the same as Ireland. The UK also had a several regionally specific advantages such as high levels of activity and innovation in renewable energy amongst a number of stakeholders as their third key strength. Additionally the UK possesses a well established wood fuel supply in the South West and local willow-breeding expertise, which were their seventh and eighth strengths respectively. Most of the other SWOTs looked at regional benefits more in terms of their potential than what is currently the case. For example regional value is the second most important strength for the German SWOT but no detail is given, suggesting this represents an opportunity for development rather than the status quo. Similarly Spain mentions local and rural development as part of their third strength and gives the possibility of SRP allowing rural people to diversify their income as their fourth; it is worth noting that a regional focus is included by Spain in their first and second strengths. In Ireland too it is the potential for change that is the focus, with oil dominated rural communities given as point five because SRP could provide an alternative fuel source. Poland considers the regional benefit more in terms of lack of harm rather than a positive contribution, their fifth point although allowing for regional promotion is included it receives a lower ranking as the tenth strength.

Biodiversity

The UK placed the highest priority on biodiversity which is included in their first point of a multifunctional crop as well as passing mention to bio-security corridors. The UK also gives as their fifth strength that SRP is more efficient in land use than that of other grown bio-fuels which may link to Germanys earlier point that the crop uses less fertilizer and is therefore beneficial to biodiversity. Germany also makes the point of extensive land use and links this to an increase in biodiversity as their third strength. Poland gives eco-system modernisation as their fourth point in the opportunities section Sweden simply states that SRP can be valuable in biodiversity as point six whereas Ireland only makes a passing mention of how willow can support a large number of invertebrate species.

Added Benefits

There were a few final points from the strengths section that didnt quite fall into any one category, although there is still a crossover. Both Germany and Spain point to SRPs ability to protect against soil erosion in second and third place respectively; although Germany lists this in opportunities. Germany also makes a passing mention of how a natural windbreak is made by the crop. Poland states as strengths the use of natural phenomena and of wasteland as points seven and eight respectively. The potential for SRP to act as a flood defence is mentioned by Germany, Ireland and UK although the UK also puts this as the third most pressing threat because this and other added benefits of SRP are not being properly supported. The use of sludge as fertilizer is given

ROKWOOD



7

as the seventh strength by Sweden and also mentioned by Ireland. The possibility of water recycling comes eighth for Sweden as it does for Spain in opportunities.

3.2.2. Weaknesses

Lack of political will

Political will is interpreted in both a regulatory, legal and financial sense and featured as a drawback in all SWOTs in both the threats and weakness sections in varying degrees.

Poland cites political barriers as both the greatest weakness and threat; first pointing to the lack of national laws and appropriate legal scope for SRC crops and then the lack of a regulatory framework for energy crops. The UK similarly points to unsupportive government policy as their biggest threat. Spain also puts political barriers in the threats section stating that lack of support, particularly in the form of subsidies is a significant reason why SRP is not considered an attractive option given as the largest obstacle. Germany makes the same point concerning the lack of funding in comparison with other renewable energy crops, giving this as their main weakness. Another weakness for Poland is the priority given to conventional energy by the state which is in sixth place. This point is also made by Ireland, who list a whole range of different political obstacles, most importantly the limited lobbying potential compared to other energy players such as oil and gas as their second biggest weakness, followed by the political focus on wind power, third. This point is given again by Ireland in the threats section, this time fourth along with a minimal compliance culture in political institutions which ranked fifth and the problem that there is no distinct classification for energy, seventh.

Another political barrier for Germany is the current protection laws relating to nature conservation which are in fourth position. This point is also made by Sweden, although it is considered of much lower importance, with conservation regulation and notification required for planting willow given seventh position in the threats section. Of greater concern for Sweden are the issues of EU waste legislation and the fact county administration have other ideas for how to use marginal land placed as fourth and sixth threats respectively. Regional political concerns are a factor in the UK threats section too with the isolation of local authorities due to a lack of regional support and leadership ranking seventh. Spains lack of a competitive stable framework for electricity generation is the sixth most pressing political threat. The UK echoes the financial aspect of the German and Spanish SWOTs with a passing mention that the capital allowance for machinery has been reduced although the lack of financial incentives and reductions in future funding is the second most significant threat. The UK also points to the lack of planting and harvesting kit and grants towards purchase of equipment as their fourth weakness. Inheritance tax liability for growing energy crops and high levels of bureaucracy for implementing sustainability criteria are the fifth and sixth biggest threats for the UK respectively.

Costs

Germany gives numerous economic barriers as both weaknesses and threats with most relating to cost. The high price for reconversion is the fourth most pressing threat and the high cost of transport, high investment costs for combustion and increased costs for combustion plants form the sixth, eighth and ninth weaknesses for Germany. Spain similarly noted the high costs associated with SRP focusing on the installation of pellet heating systems for the end user as their tenth weakness. Ireland listed several general weaknesses associated with cost: insufficient financial support, a point the UK also made in their threats section, the establishment costs being too high and grid connection costs, which are also considered to be too high. Poland focuses

ROKWOOD



8

more on the investment side of the cost issue, which is given as the third biggest threat facing SRP. Poland also notes that there is little opportunity for potential investor-equity for farmers provided as the ninth weakness. Sweden similarly points to the long pay off time, including the problem of capital being tied up which negatively affects a willingness to invest in SRP as their fifth weakness.

Under-developed market

The UK cites the lack of a long term market, including for CHP and district heating, as the greatest weakness and no potential for economies of scale as their second weakness. Poland cites insufficient economic mechanisms, including a fiscal plan as the second biggest threat facing SRP; until this is resolved it is difficult to see how a market can properly flourish. Spain notes that the supply chain for woody SRP is still being developed which partly accounts for limited supply and demand as their third weakness and similarly puts the lack of territorial contracts as undermining the long term market as their seventh threat. For Germany the lack of an industrial or public consumer is the focus for an under-developed market and is the third weakness. Sweden considers the small market as the fourth greatest weakness.

Land

There were different issues associated with land that were of foremost concern for most SWOTs. Swedens main weakness is the number of small, old neglected plantations which lead to high production costs with the implication that if these could be expanded greater economies of scale could be achieved. Land competition is the key problem for Ireland with dairy and beef taking up much of this resource; the issue of short term leasing of land mentioned is mentioned in passing. Spain gives land as their biggest weakness too highlighting that the requirements SRP places on fertile soil means competing with other crops that are more profitable in the short term is difficult. Similarly Germanys fifth weakness is long term farming which points to the long term commitment of SRP on the land. Land is of much lower concern to Poland and the UK, with the need for appropriate land preparation prior to SRC cultivation and a large quantity of protected landscape (37%) which is therefore unavailable taking their eighth and ninth positions respectively.

Lack of support

Lack of support from stakeholders on the ground is recognised by all SWOTs as a highly salient point. Even Sweden which currently has some of the most favourable conditions compared to other countries, the difficulty that growers have no confidence in SRP due to previous unsuccessful investments resulting in poor profitability is the second most serious weakness. This argument is reinforced with their seventh point concerning a lack of common goals or joined forces leading to missed win-win solutions. The mentality and attitude of farmers is another major hurdle given by several SWOTs; Germany states scepticism of new agricultural choices as their second weakness while the UK ranks the fact that the average UK farmer is 59 years old and therefore less receptive to new ideas as their fifth biggest threat. Similarly Ireland lists agricultural tradition and a generally conservative farming sector as their sixth weakness while a general low awareness and social acceptance are given passing mention. Sweden makes the same point, but places less importance on this with traditional use of arable land being for food being in eighth position.

Poland, Spain and the UK mention lack of support among the general population; with the lack of information regarding procedures for making an investment and the potential benefits of doing given as a leading reason for a lack of support being the fourth biggest threat for Poland followed

ROKWOOD



9

by an insufficient number of national organisations being involved in the industrial scale production of biomass as fifth. Spain similarly gives low social awareness of the benefits as their seventh weakness and then mentions several other difficulties such as poor collaboration between stakeholders, resistance to change, largely to uncertainty and even opposition from some social groups due to impacts such as deforestation. This links to Spains tenth given threat, that poor promotion of biomass SRP, such as low information campaigns and a lack of action by the public sector may be partly responsible for societys negative perception of SRP. The UK makes a passing mention to a general lack of cooperation and cohesion in the energy crop sector as reason for why support is generally low.

Lack of skills and infrastructure

Poland is particularly concerned with insufficiencies in this area, with a lack of adequate technical infrastructure their second greatest weakness followed by a lack of education and training in renewables for all stakeholders, fifth. Poland additionally makes a passing mention to the small number of best practices currently available, a point also made by Spain in ninth position. Spain is very concerned that the supply chain is still young which together with a lack of knowledge from specialists ranks as their third weakness. This links to poor knowledge of the actors involved in policies and plans, fourth and a lack of information for farmers, fifth. Spain also mentions poor collaboration, a low level of training and a general lack of experience as barriers to SRP progression. Sweden is similarly concerned that lack of knowledge amongst farmers and advisors is holding the industry back although this is only given sixth position of greater worry is that operators do not currently know how to combust SRP which comes in third weakness. Sweden also states there is insufficient technological development as their eighth concern something which other SWOTs make reference to. Ireland demonstrates the lack of understanding by relevant stakeholders in their fourth weakness which states that the biomass sector is considered to be complex as well as reiterating the Spanish point that the current scale is small, knowledge is limited and the supply chain is in its infancy. The UK and Germany are notably silent on this issue which may be because the issue is not present in these countries or because skill and infrastructure are regarded as subordinate to other weakness already mentioned.

Operational Issues

Poland is also particularly concerned with the practicalities of SRP, highlighting the high technical and operational risks as the third most notable weakness. The need to take into account soil and climatic requirements is also mentioned in passing. Spain raises the issue of the limited development of a strategic plan to ensure production runs smoothly as their sixth most pressing weakness and the low development of logistics as eighth. Germany notes that the storage of wooden chips with high humidity may cause potential problems giving this as the seventh weakness; the UK also picks up on the lack of storage and processing facilities as their third point and Ireland mentioning more generally that very high moisture levels present a challenge. Sweden makes the point that new heating plants and CHP do not accept SRP fuel which means options to expand the market are limited comes in ninth position of weaknesses. Sweden makes the more specific point that Salix roots can block drainage systems which means a limit on the extent that SRP can be intensively farmed as the tenth weakness and the high cadmium content effecting emissions as a supporting point. The UK similarly focuses on the botany of SRP stating that it produces poorer grade wood fuel due to the high level of more moisture and ash as their eighth weakness. Spain gives the threat of a lack of territorial contracts and long term SRP exploitation coming in seventh place.

ROKWOOD



10

3.2.3. Opportunities

Political

Germany sees the greatest potential for SRP in the opportunity for government funding and the possible change of laws regarding cultivation of woody biomass. Sweden recognises a whole host of political opportunities. These include the possibility of CAP being extended to SRP in second position, something the UK only ranks tenth, and reform of national rules that focus on farm support and the Rural development program in third. Both of these are also mentioned in threats as currently there is uncertainty as to whether or not change will prove positive or negative for SRP. Ireland tells a similar story by ranking the possibility that the public sector will increase green procurement fifth, which could include changes to CAP by making SRP a sub sector of forestry. Ireland too includes this as the main threat as CAP may alternatively continue to emphasize food and links into a wider issue of agriculture policy, their fifth threat. Sweden also mentions national ambitions in parts of East Europe to be less oil dependent as a political opportunity to extend the market for SRP, fourth opportunity and at the more local level, county council goals for the environment, seventh. Similarly Ireland also sees the highest political opportunity as coming from local authorities engaging in energy provision; Poland makes this point too but only ranks it sixth. Spain also sees political opportunities in the local context pointing to the fact that the Government of Andalusia is keen to promote renewables as their foremost opportunity followed by the support of EU policies which recognise and encourage the bio-energy sector, second.

Regional

Poland considers greater energy independence for the region as the biggest opportunity for SRP to develop. Ireland takes a similar view but this has already been detailed in the political section above. The UK sees a possible economic strength coming from local enterprise partnerships as their first key opportunity, as well as giving a more technical, regional advantage as their fourth opportunity, that there are many grass areas in the South West of England. Sweden also takes a technical view for their sixth major opportunity being municipal energy planning and requirements for sewage treatment plants. Spain sees great potential for biomass production in abandoned agricultural and marginal lands that have high slopes and are therefore unsuitable for other crops, tenth. Germany gives no regional opportunities.

Economic

Germany and Poland both include economic benefits but these have already been included in the strengths section above. Only economic points that are specifically opportunities are included here such as the UK, Sweden and Spain all note the increasing price of fossil fuels in second, fifth and sixth places respectively as this could potentially lead to a greater focus on SRP as a cheaper alternative energy source. The UK also includes the rebate from the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) as a possible way to increase demand in their second point although in the threats section it is mentioned that phase 2 of the RHI will bring in new emissions criteria. Similarly Spain gives the promotion of a financial scheme for biomass facilities, where up to 60% qualify for help from Andalusia as their third opportunity. Ireland gives the potential of the heat market to be the best value for production compared to oil as their third point.

ROKWOOD



11

Promotion of SRP

Germany is keen to focus on the significant problem of lack of support with a corresponding opportunity of fostering acceptance through education and civic involvement as their second highest point. The UK makes a more specific point in third place of the possibility to self supply wood fuel in a similar way to Poland focusing on an increase in the number of establishments using pellets, briquettes and wood chip, though this only ranks eighth. This is could improve the attractiveness, and ultimately increase acceptance, of SRP. The UK also mentions the need to target young farmers and the importance of linking heat networks with CHP, new housing and industrial development, where SRP could play a big role, in fifth and sixth place respectively. The opportunity for tourism comes in eighth position for the UK whereas Poland only mentions this in passing. Spain notes the growing importance of international markets and the possibility of exporting into niche markets such as biomass gourmet or fair price biomass as their fifth opportunity. Unfortunately neither Ireland nor Sweden note any opportunities for how to promote SRP despite the face both recognise problems associate with a lack of support for the crop.

Possible Environmental Benefits

Several of the environmental opportunities given have already been covered in the strengths section but some fitted more aptly in this section. Germany notes the possibility of regulating deep water by SRP and the opportunity to protect against floods (which Ireland makes a passing mention of) in the second and fourth place respectively. Spain gives the possibility of using sewage water to irrigate SRP as their seventh opportunity. Similarly Poland points to environmental performance of production factors and the remediation of brown-field sites in third and tenth place respectively, as well as a passing mention of the creation of green belts which appears in the strengths section. Ireland did not place a very high level of importance on additional environmental benefits making only passing mention of the possibility for walkways through willow crops and the fact SRP can be used for nitrates and pesticide reduction. All of the additional benefits from the Swedish and UK SWOTs have been mentioned previously.

Technical/ Logistical Improvements

Only half the SWOTs made specific points relating to this area which included Germany, Poland and Spain. Germany gives the opportunity for improved harvesting technology and quality of wood chips, due to new species as their sixth point while Poland makes the same more generally by stating the potential to stimulate the development of new technologies in the strengths section. Spain points to a regionally relevant opportunity in the potential to reduce logistical problems due to close proximity of rural and urban areas in the Andalusia region.

3.2.4. Threats

A large number of the threats have been included in the weakness section as there is a large degree of crossover in how SWOTs considered certain points, particularly with regard to economic and political threats/weaknesses.

Market Competition

The issue of an under-developed market has already been discussed in the weaknesses section; however all SWOTs also noted the threats to the fledgling market from other sources. Germany considers renewable resource competition as the greatest threat to SRP and competition from

ROKWOOD



12

foodstuff production as the third. Spain states that it cannot compete with other biomass such as waste or other woody crops which is the second greatest threat facing the industry. A similar point is made by the UK which points to the competition from other low carbon technologies as their second biggest threat. Ireland instead considers a greater threat to be coming from traditional fuel sources, including future fuel sources such as imported LNG and fracking which together form their third and sixth biggest threats. This is also picked up by Poland, which gives the inability of SRP to compete with conventional fuels as their seventh weakness. Sweden points to the issue of an established acceptance for imported biomass and how this will affect the market price, an issue also picked up by Ireland and which is given as their third and fifth threats respectively. The UK additionally notes miscanthus, a much more popular energy crop that is also a source of competition as their ninth threat.

Technical Issues

Germany is the country most concerned with threats coming from a logistics side, giving this as the second most pressing threat. This concern is reinforced by Germanys third threat, that of pests and diseases in third place, something the UK mentions in passing emphasizing how this would result in a glut of wood fuel. Sweden notes that the high nitrogen content of willow will mean the crop is subject to a NOx fee for thermal power stations in fifth position. Spain puts technical issues of lower concern by pointing to the lack of an appropriate plan for changing carbon power stations to use biomass power in eighth place. Neither Ireland nor Poland put anything in this section.

Lack of skills and information

Spain is particularly concerned that insufficient skills and information will undermine SRP, giving several points related to this: the scarcity of R&D in the Andalusia context regarding the profitability of SRP is highest in third place; the shortage of pilot demonstrations in abandoned and marginal land ranks fifth and a lack of extension and training programs at all levels of the chain by qualified specialists ninth. Similarly Poland had a long list of concerns relating to this topic with the lack of information relating to the different aspects of SRP being the main focus. The missing information includes: the distribution potential for different renewable energy sources, details for production companies and design consulting and guidance for manufacturers, suppliers and contractors using energy from SRC in sixth, seventh and eighth places respectively. An additional point from Poland is the insufficient scope of curricular taking into account energy crops and SRC in ninth place. Ireland made a more general point regarding increased urbanisation and how this is causing a drift from the land and Germany, Sweden and the UK raise no threats in this area.

3.3. General comments on the results

The SWOT proved a useful exercise for countries to clarify their own specific situation and that of other participants. The rich information contained in the SWOTs provided the opportunity to identify key similarities and differences between countries in order to best develop a coherent approach for how to progress in a mutually beneficial way.

Some SWOTs did contain repetition with the same point being made twice, as either both a strength and opportunity or as a weakness and a threat. This resulted in certain SWOTs being longer and less concise than others. There is also not always agreement between SWOTs regarding which category a particular issue fitted into which may have been due to a number of possible reasons. A clear distinction is required to ensure all participants understand that

ROKWOOD



13

strengths/weaknesses deal with things that are internal i.e. part of the status quo and opportunities/threats are external i.e. cannot be directly controlled by the organisation/group and are subject to change. On reflection, a definition of the internal business may have been helpful, to stress that this encompassed the current SRP energy crop supply chain, end use, industry and RTD activities.

The depth of information contained in the SWOTs is very variable with some giving quite detailed points that in some cases could have been shorter or overlapped with similar points already made, whereas others were too short and made it difficult to discern exactly what is meant by participants.

The lack of uniformity made a cross comparison of the SWOTs a delicate process and the development of a one size fits all SWOT is deemed inappropriate as it would lose too many of the nuances expressed by different participants. Outlined below are the main areas of agreement based on the rankings of each SWOT to ensure that the principal issues raised by each participant are given equal weight. Every effort has been made to clearly represent the views of each SWOT based on these rankings although some of the finer detail has necessarily been summarised. The first ten ranked points per SWOT category have been the focus and points beyond this initial ten receive minimal attention. Not all SWOTS ranked a complete ten points per section while others had several over this. These unnumbered points were only given a passing mention to reinforce the key points already made by other SWOTs.

4. Summary conclusions

It is important to note that many of the points made above could have fallen into different categories, for example the key opportunity for Spain is the local government of Andalusia promoting the use of renewable energy sources. This could have fitted into regional opportunities but a more coherent story is made by including it in the political section.

The Positive

The strengths and opportunities generated three main themes: Political, Economic and Regional.The greatest political strength is that SRP has the potential to help achieve CO2 reduction targets which are mandatory for all countries of the European Union. The economic potential of SRP also received a lot of attention; particularly with regard to the wider issue of the increasing cost of fossil fuels which is a significant issue for all participating countries. Another aspect all SWOTs shared focused on is the regional advantage, with each noting specific features of their area that could prove beneficial in advancing SRP; this covered a wide spectrum of political, economic and logistical potential. The opportunities section made clear that with the appropriate political encouragement, including subsidies directed towards developing expertise, infrastructure and support, the SRP market could be developed in a sustainable way. Political possibilities therefore also received the highest level of attention in the opportunities section with complementary economic opportunities a close second. Points from these two sections closely inter-link as with any fledgling industry, SRP requires the necessary political support to become economically viable. Regional opportunities received a lot of focus in the opportunities section; some were similarly political in nature whereas others recognised the potential to develop more locally.

ROKWOOD



14

The Negative

The weaknesses and threats section similarly have three key themes: Economic, Political and Information/Operations

The dominance of political and economic points in both the positive and negative sections is not a contradiction, but recognition by participants that a large number of points have the potential to be either good or bad for SRP depending on the final decision. A good example of this is CAP which, if renegotiated to include SRP will be very beneficial for the industry but if the status quo is maintained in favour of food farming and other, non-wooden energy crops will likely mean a continued struggle to access agricultural land. The issue of land access and an under-developed market were of roughly equal concern across the SWOTs. The land question linked to a number of other operational problems for several participants including insufficient knowledge on the part of relevant stakeholders but land was universally recognised as the most pressing logistical priority. The lack of a market for SRP was something all SWOTs recognized as requiring urgent attention, as high investment is required to kick-start what is a new industry for most countries. This also links to points made in strengths/opportunities section, as developing the supply chain and ensuring demand for the product is difficult, if not impossible without political support.

ROKWOOD



15

Annex 1: Individual cluster SWOT outputs (prioritised, showing a

maximum of ten of the top issues raised)

ROKWOOD



16

SWOT Results UK cluster

Strengths Weaknesses

1. Multifunctional crop

CO emissions

No pollution

Flood defence

Biosecurity corridors

Biodiversity

2. Advanced crop research evidence base in UK.

3. Regional innovation and high levels of activity

amongst stakeholders around RE & low carbon

tech.

4. Advantages over miscanthus in terms of 3rd party

usability and can grow on lower land grades.

5. Good land area resource efficiency compared to

other grown biofuels.

6. Flexible on scale local self-supply to large scale

schemes.

7. Well-established wood fuel supply chains in SW.

8. Local willow-breeding expertise

1. Lack of long term markets

2. No potential for ecomomies of scale at the present (e.g. use of

machinery)

3. Lack of storage and processing facilities for wood chip and energy

crops (e.g. compared to Brittany)

4. Lack of planting and harvesting kit and grants towards purchase of

equipment.

5. Need for better awareness of energy crops

6. Few existing examples of SRC planting in the SW or use (no case

studies)

7. High capital cost of planting (eg miscanthus using

micropropogation)

8. SRP produces poorer grade wood fuel, eg higher moisture and ash

content.

9. 37% of SW is designated for landscape protected area

10. Indirect emissions from land use change (eg permanent grass land

to energy crops)

Opportunities Threats

1. Economic strength of multifunctional crops to

Local Enterprise Partnerships.

2. Cost of fossil fuels, rebates from RHI = Increased

demand.

3. Self supply of wood fuel

4. Lots of off gas areas in the SW

5. Target young farmers

6. Linking heat networks / CHP / with new housing /

industrial development

7. Potential for job creation

8. Tourism, large off gas properties that need heating

(plus high fuel poverty

9. Carbon trading / taxation

10. Cap reform GreeningHigh level of fuel poverty

1. Unsupportive government policy

2. Lack of financial incentives and reduction in future funding.

3. Multifunctional benefits are not being supported e.g.

biodiversity, flood defence etc.

4. 75% of agri land in SW is under grass not used for growing crops.

Farmers not familiar with growing crops

5. The average age of UK farmers is 59 less receptive to new

ideas/risks...

6. Bureaucracy of implementing the sustainability criteria for biomass

7. LAs have become isolated due to lack of regional support and

leadership.

8. SW using existing woodland supplies and clean wood waste.

AONBs particularly focused on sustainable woodland

management.

9. Miscanthus is competing and is currently a more popular energy

crop.

10. Tree diseases resulting in a glut of wood fuel.

ROKWOOD



17

SWOT Results Polish cluster


1. Implementation of international commitments

to reduce emissions of harmful substances into

the atmosphere

2. Stimulate the development of the whole

economy, especially agriculture.

3. Saving natural resources-fossil fuels.

4. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

5. Dont cause climate change.

6. No harm to a small society.

7. Increase the alternative forms of energy.

8. Use of natural phenomena.

9. The possibility of the use of wasteland.

10. Allow the acquisition of new, quality jobs.

1. Lack of national laws and legal scope of SRC for energy crops.

2. Lack of adequate technical infrastructure.

3. High technical and operational risks.

4. Relatively high investment.

5. Lack of education and training programs for renewable energy

in the targeted use of energy crops for farmers, engineers,

designers, architects, representatives of the energy sector,

banking and decision makers etc.

6. Priority by the state of conventional energy.

7. Small price competitiveness with conventional fuels.

8. Need to prepare the ground for the cultivation of SRC.

9. Little opportunity to potential investors-equity farmers.

10. Small number of best practices for SRC.


1. Greater energy independence of the region.

2. Stimulation of economic development.

3. Environmental performance of production

factors.

4. Development of eco-systems modernization

5. Creating jobs and combating unemployment.

6. Opportunities for local government.

7. Great interest to the public and investors SRC

plants.

8. Increases the number of establishments using

pellets and briquettes, wood chips.

9. Realizing the potential of biomass energy.

10. Remediation of brownfield sites.

1. Lack of appropriate regulatory framework clearly defining the

program policies for energy crops.

2. Insufficient economic mechanisms, including in particular

fiscal, which would allow to obtain adequate financial benefits

in relation to the amount of capital expenditure incurred on

property, plant and equipment for the production of biomass

from energy crops.

3. Relatively high investment costs of technologies using

renewable energy, as well as the high cost of preparatory

work (e.g., geological) necessary to obtain energy from these

sources.

4. Lack of widely available information about the procedures of

the proceedings in making such investments, and the standard

cost of the investment process and the benefits of economic,

social and environmental impact of the implementation of

investment of energy plants.

5. Insufficient number of national organizations engaged in the

industrial-scale production of equipment in the processing and

use of biomass from energy crops.

6. Lack of universal access to information on the distribution of

the energy potential of different renewable energy sources,

potential for technical use.

7. Lack of information on production companies and design

consulting to companies dealing with the issue.

ROKWOOD



18

8. Lack of information on manufacturers, suppliers and

contractors systems using energy from the growing SRC.

9. Insufficient scope of curricula taking into account energy crops

SRC, in primary and secondary.

SWOT Results German cluster


1. Positive carbon footprint (1)

2. Regional value creation (2)

3. Extensive land use (benefits flora/fauna) (3)

4. Windbreak along fields (protection against

dehydration for other crops)

5. Increase of biodiversity on SRP (3)

6. Long-term cost-covering of SRP production (less

fertilizer application, etc.) (4)

7. Sustainable production

8. Stable energy demand management, due to

storage of wooden chips

9. Renewable resource covering

1. Low funding in compare to other renewable energy crops (a)

2. Scepticism of farmers towards new choices of agricultural

products/cultivation (b)

3. Lack of industrial and public consumer (c)

4. Limitations due to protection laws (by Federal Minister for the

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Saftey) (d)

5. Long-term farming (e)

6. Costs of transport (depending on distance)

7. Storage of wooden chips with high humidity (f)

8. High investments cost for combustion plants (funding starts at

5kwh), private boiler or co-generation plants

9. Increased regular maintenance costs for combustion plants


1. Governmental funding (a)

2. Regulation of deep ground water by SRP

(storage of water/air supplies by roots) (b) (d)

3. Protection of erosion (high floods) (b) (d)

4. Change of laws regarding cultivation and use of

woody biomass (a)

5. Improved harvest technologies (f)

6. Quality of wooden chips improves by new

harvest technology and new species (f)

7. Regional concepts for optimized logistics (e.g.

Short route of transportation) (c)

8. Acceptance (educational achievement, civic

involvement) (b)

9. Job offers (e)

1. Logistics (2)

2. Demand for improved heating and filtering technology

3. High start-up capital is required (4)

4. Reconversion at high price level (4)

5. Pests and diseases (3)

6. Renewable resource competition (1)

7. Competition to foodstuff production (3)

ROKWOOD



19

Key to labels German cluster:

ST-strategies, to identify ways that uses its strength to reduce its vulnerability to external threats.

(1) Positive carbon footprint renewable resource competition

SRP has several positive aspects in compare to other renewable energy productions, like high wildlife value, extensive form of farming, no harmful residues, storage of woody biomass, long-term calculation, improvement of eco-system (e.g. soil erosion, wind-breaker), landscape shaping.

(2) Regional value creation - logistics

Locally produced locally used. Missing logistic tools for the efficient planning of transport routes are a main problem for start-ups. Regional use and production minimizes source of logistic errors. Creation of storage centers of wood production near cultivated fields.

(3) Increase of biodiversity on SRP pests and diseases

SRP farming offers a flora and fauna rich in variety, which keeps pests and diseases under a damage-limited level naturally. However pest control only happens in the very beginning.

(3) Increase of biodiversity on SRP competition to foodstuff production

Foodstuff production emaciates the field - increases demand for fertilizer. In long-run production of SRP, the soil recovers compared to short-run foodstuff production.

(4) Long-term cost-covering of SRP production high start-up capital is required/ reconversion at high price level

Half of all costs are related to harvesting, transport and brokerage (selling the crop). A higher yield gives higher costs connected to harvesting and also higher costs for post-processing. For this reason, a higher price received for the chips sold is much more important compared to a high yield level. Costs for SRP will decrease significantly over time; a higher price for wooden chips compensates high start-up capital.

WO-strategies overcome weaknesses to pursue opportunities.

(a) Low funding governmental funding/change of laws.

Changes in policy and a higher demand for SRP will increase funding and will become accessible to farmers.

(b) Skepticism of farmer regulation of deep ground water, protection of erosion

Alternative to food production along rivers in areas endangered by annual flooding. SRP is able to relocate notable pollutants and help prevent soil erosion. (However, concerns were expressed about erosion on susceptible soils during the SRP establishment phase particularly when planted on sandy soils.)

(b) Skepticism of farmer acceptance

Education, civic involvements, acceptance by understanding. Supporting in financial issues, funding schemes, connections to SRP networks, sharing information.

(c) Lack of consumer regional concepts for optimized logistics

locally produced locally used, education, implementing in public buildings (schools, hospitals, )

(d) Governmental limitations regulation of deep groundwater, protection of erosion

Particularly with regard to conservation, the multifunctional character of SRP is a high wildlife value, providing a rich habitat and food source for diverse organisms.

(e) Long-term farming job offers

Long-term farming like SRP creates stable jobs and therefore has a positive impact on rural development.

(f) Storage improved harvest technologies, quality of wood

Direct chipping is very time efficient but it requires subsequent treatment of the fresh chipped crops since its moisture content is still high (approx. 50%). Rods are full-length stems, using spring/summer temperatures may reduce the moisture content down to approx. 30%. However chipping the rods requires greater energy consumption because they are much harder to cut.

ROKWOOD



20

SWOT Results Spanish cluster


1. Increasing importance of renewable energy in

national and regional energy policies. The

spread of SRP can help to achieve the regional

energy planning objectives and renewable

energy production.

2. SRP can help to ensure renewable energies

supply as well as increasing energy security and

sustainable rural development.

3. SRP can contribute to environmental

sustainability of energy production:

- Decreased risk of fires.

- Reduced CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases.

- Soil erosion reduction and biodiversity

increase.

- Local and rural development.

4. SRP allows diversification of income for rural

people.

5. In the long term, economic advantages in

domestic heating due to cheaper prices of

biomass compared to fossil fuels.

6. Great potential for boiler installation and

increase of national biomass consumption. Only

in the cold areas of Spain, 40,000 biomass boilers

per year could be installed.

1. High requirements of SRP on fertile and irrigated soils,

competing with other crops more profitable in the short term.

Water resources in Andalusia, are scarce and irregular.

2. SRP biomass cannot compete with other herbaceous energy

species profitable during the first year of establishment in the

field.

3. Limited supply and demand for woody SRP biomass in

Andalusia. Pellets supply chain is still in development stage

(relatively new sector lacking of specialists and knowledge).

4. Poor knowledge of stakeholders involved in the sector of

policies and plans for biomass, in general, and SRP in particular.

5. Lack of information on operating and selling costs and

uncertainty of return on investment with long-term plantations

(not clear economic benefits for farmers).

6. Limited development of a strategic plan to position the

receiving plant biomass near production areas, in order to

reduce costs in the supply chain, and ensure delivery of the

product on favourable terms.

7. Low social awareness towards environmental and economic

benefits of the use of energy from biomass, in general, and SRP,

in particular.

8. Low development of logistics (machinery and pre-treatment in

the field, planting, methods of collection, transport and storage)

and its associated processes in plant biomass supply.

9. Lack of technological and institutional innovations in the sector:

certification systems, new and best practices, new products,

new uses, logistics centres of biomass treatment and

distribution, possibilities for biofuels from 2nd generation. etc.

10. High costs of installation and assembly of pellet heating systems

for the end user.


1. The Government of Andalusia started to

strongly promote the use of renewable energy

sources.

2. EU policies recognise the need to support and

encourage the bioenergy sector.

3. Promotion of financial scheme on biomass

facilities (Agenda for sustainable energy

1. Lack of tools to support the production, processing and use of

biomass SRP. In particular, lack of subsidies for SRP production

since the beginning of the plantation to the cutting of the first

rotation (2-5 years) to reduce the lack of economic benefits.

2. SRP biomass cannot compete in production costs (equipment,

mechanization, storage, transportation, labour, no income

generated during the first years of cultivation, etc.) and prices

ROKWOOD



21

development in Andalusia, "Andalucia A+"). Up

to 60% in biomass facilities in special cases, and

usually nearly 20% of public help by the

Andalusian Energy Agency.

4. Contribution to economic development due to

the development of a new sector (SRPs biomass)

in Andalusia.

5. Growing importance of international markets for

the export of SRP biomass to countries with more

developed legal framework and market niches:

possible "biomass gourmet", "fair price biomass"

biomass quality certifications, etc.

6. Other fuels supplies are exposed to international

markets security and price fluctuations, contrary

to local biomass.

7. Possibility of using sewage water to irrigate SRP.

8. Objective of CO2 and NOx emission reductions.

9. Potential to reduce logistical problems for

domestic and small-scale supply. This is due to

the proximity of urban to rural areas in

Andalusia.

10. Great potential for SRP biomass production in

agricultural abandoned and marginal lands in

Andalusia. There are a high slopes of the majority

of arable lands that may be used for producing

SRP biomass.

with other waste biomass from woody agricultural crops

abundant in Andalusia, especially olive and forestry residues.

3. Scarcity of R&D and studies in the context of Andalusia on the

profitability of crops, current demands and offers and

potential markets.

4. Low spread of SRP biomass farming in marginal areas and on

abandoned land to contribute to its economic, social and

environmental development.

5. Shortage of pilot and demonstration projects in abandoned and

marginal agricultural land to produce biomass SRP and spread

the use of best management practices and utilization in the

land.

6. Lack of a competitive stable framework for electricity

generation as in other countries.

7. Lack of territorial contracts and long-term SRP exploitation.

8. Lack of a plan for changing carbon power stations to biomass

power stations.

9. Lack of extension and training programs at all levels of the

chain: qualified installers, specialization courses, etc.

10. Poor promotion of the use of biomass SRP, little diffusion in

information campaigns and lack of good actions at the

institutional level and in the public sector.

ROKWOOD



22

SWOT Results Swedish cluster


1. Existing working, economic SRP business from

planting to combustion of SRP.

2. Expertise through the whole SRP chain from

breeding to combustion.

3. Good developed logistics for SRP in the region.

4. Suitable climate for growing SRP.

5. Relatively large interest for international

contacts.

6. SRP plantations can be a valuable component of

biodiversity, especially in homogeneous

agricultural landscapes.

7. Using sludge as fertilizer.

8. Positive recycling impacts (water treatment

plant).

1. Lack of a rational SRP production such as small old neglected

plantations, giving high production costs.

2. Growers have no confidence in the SRP product because of

many unsuccessful investments with poor profitability.

3. Plant operators need to learn how to combust SRP.

4. Small market limits technological development.

5. Long Pay-off time, capital tied up affect willingness to grow SRP.

6. Lack of knowledge amongst farmers and advisors.

7. Lack of common concrete goals and joined forces for win win

situations.

8. Insufficient technological development.

9. New heating plants and CHP do not accept SRP fuel due to

guarantee conditions.

10. Salix roots can block drainage pipe systems, limits SRP to less

intensively farmed fields, marginal lands.


1. Swedish energy tax system, carbon dioxide tax

for fossil fuels

2. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform and

the role of SRPs.

3. National rules, routines, prioritizing and

regulations for support programs asfarm

support, The Rural Development Program.

4. National ambitions especially in east Europe to

become less dependent from gas and oil import.

5. Increase of energy prices internationally.

6. Municipal (energy) planning and requirements

for sewage treatment plants

7. County Councils goals for environment and

climate.

1. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform and the role of SRPs.

2. National rules, routines, prioritizing and regulations for

support programs asfarm support, The Rural Development

Programme.

3. Increased import of cheap biomass fuel affecting the market

price

4. EU waste legislation.

5. NOx fee for thermal power stations, which affects the use of

nitrogen-rich fuels such as willow.

6. County administration priorities use of marginal lands for SRP.

7. Natural conservation laws and regulations, Notification

requirements for planting willow. Notification obligations may

cause conflict of interest between rational cultivation and CAB's

view of the natural and cultural values.

8. Tradition, arable land preferably to be used for food.

ROKWOOD



23

SWOT Results Irish cluster


1. Fuel Security Ireland very import-dependent

need to develop indigenous fuels

2. EU Targets 20 20 : Key policy driver

3. Employment Potential: high employment

potential in the sector is a positive that has yet

to be exploited.

4. Irish national targets 12% not currently being

achieved therefore needs focus.

5. Climate: suggestion of high forest growth rates in

Ireland, possible implication of yields?

6. Oil Dominated Rural towns, villages and

communities

1. Land food competition: Dairy and beef and tillage good land,

currently attractive

2. Small and ineffective lobby

3. RES Wind: - political focus dominated by wind energy

4. Complexity of sector

5. Min Compliance Culture: technical / minimal compliance

culture in political / civil institutions

6. Traditional agriculture and social factors

7. ETS: forestry excluded.

8. Competition to established farming practices beef, diary etc.

9. Complexity of Sector: Bioenergy Sector and Biomass seen as

complex

10. Political and investment focus in Wind.


1. Local Authorities: Engaging in energy provision?

No tradition of this in Ireland, but could provide

opportunity.

2. Potential for job creation, including low skilled

3. Heat Market: Perhaps represents best value for

production, higher quality product and

significant opportunity comparison to oil. 9.5

c/kWh

4. Carbon profile and fuel security Replacement of

fossil fuel and indigenous supply

5. Public sector Green Procurement opportunity

to expand demand

6. SRP as sub sector of forestry

1. CAP and Agricultural Policy 20/20: - set toward increase, in

food production notably Diary expansion challenge for

biomass sector re land use, food fuel issue.

2. Govt Focus on Wind

3. Acceptance of imported Biomass

4. Emerging and future fuel sources imported LNG, Fracking.

5. Expansion of gas network

6. Continued politicial and investment emphasis on RES wind

ROKWOOD



24

Annex 2: Session plan for SWOT workshop held at the ROKWOOD

consortium meeting in Bristol on 28/1/14

ROKWOOD



25

SWOT Breakout session Tuesday 28th January (10:50 12:30) Aim: To enable all partners to understand the SWOT outputs from each country and to explore common and unique issues. Format:

CSE will place the outputs from each clusters SWOT onto an AO sheet. Each sheet will be displayed on a display stand. The display stands will be placed around the walls of the room.

Chairs will be placed around each display stand.

One representative from each Rokwood cluster will present their clusters SWOT findings by reference to their display stand.

The remaining partners will be put into 6 groups which will be mixed in terms of country/specialism i.e. business, research and local/regional government.

The 6 groups will then move round and spend approximately 12 minutes at each display. At the display the cluster representative presenting the findings will:

Present their top 3 priority findings for each element of their SWOT i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Encourage people in the group to discuss these and in particular consider

o If they think the country has missed an important issue

o If there are common issues with their own country The outputs from the discussion will be recorded on a flip chart. Each cluster representative will then feedback the results of their discussions in a plenary session (20-30 minutes).

Documents

WP1 Deliverable 1.8: Findings of the SWOT analysis