www.bapdriver.org

Efficient Bioenergy Strategies in the nationalRenewable Energy Action PlansFinal project report

MarCH 2010

3

This report is a deliverable of the European project BAP DRIVER,

funded under the Intelligent energy for Europe (IEE) programme

Contract N°: EIE/07/118/SI2.467614

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication

lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion

of the European Communities.

The European Commission is not responsible for any use that

may be made of the information contained therein.

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Biomass strategies and national Renewable Energy Action Plans (nREAPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Integration of different bioenergy policy fields – a high challenge for national policy-makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 Rationale for an integrated bioenergy strategy approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Best Practice for setting up biomass strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1 Benchmarking best practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2 Best practice recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Focussing on highly debated biomass issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1 Bioenergy from waste material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.2 Flexibility mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.3 Cost-effective policy support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.4 Sustainable biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Contents

4

Intr

od

uct

ion

Successful bio-energy policies are more important than ever. The Renewable Energy Sources (RES) Directive (2009/28/EC) sets very ambitious targets on renewable energy share for Member States. The complexity of the bio-energy policy field, due to its multidisciplinary nature, makes it very difficult for Member States to bring a coherent support structure in place. The European Commission encouraged the establishment of national biomass action plans in the European Biomass Action Plan (COM(2005)628) in 2005. This need for uniform and high quality action plans was taken one step further with the obligation to use a template to submit national Renewable Energy Action Plans in June 2010.

In the last 2 years the BAP Driver project supported the formulation and implementation of consistent national biomass strategies in its Member States. This paper summarizes the major findings of the BAP Driver projects for European stakeholders, national policy makers and key stakeholders.

The paper starts with a summary of the results of the extensive benchmark analysis and best practice research that was conducted on the bio-energy strategies of 12 member states and was the fundament for the future analyses. Then the findings of the BAP Driver project are described on four important topics for successful bio-energy strategies: Cooperation and Flexibility mechanisms under the RES directive, Cost-effective support of bio-energy strategies, Energy from Waste and Sustainability Criteria for solid biomass. The paper ends with the conclusion of the overall project.

Introduction

1

5

Bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

Key requirements by EU to member states

While acknowledging the need for a country-specific design of national RES policies, the EU requires member states to follow an integrated strategic approach. For that reason Directive obliges governments to adopt national Renewable Energy Action Plans (nREAPs) by 30 June 2010.

To ensure a consistent quality of these Action Plans, the European Commission has established a detailed template that governments have to comply with.

Although a separate national Biomass Action Plan (nBAP) is not required anymore, it should build an integral part of the overall NREAP, especially chapters concerning bioenergy policies. The nREAP should set out:

• Targets for the shares of energy from RES in transport, electricity and heating and cooling in 2020, as well as trajectories to achieve these targets 2010-2020;

• Strategic roadmap including adequate policy measures for achieving these targets;

• Assessment of national resources availability;• Monitoring and impact assessment of policies.

Status of nrEaP processes in the EU

According to the RES Directive nREAPs are due by 30 June 2010.

Existing national action plans are widely insufficient or outdated. In the past many governments had adopted a “wait & see” attitude because they were awaiting the new legislations and requirements on EU level before they take national actions. Since the publication of the detailed template on 30 June 2009 they are now under high pressure to set up new nREAP in line with EC requirements.

Biomass strategies and national renewableEnergy action Plans (nrEaPS)

2

© Is

tock

ph

oto

6

Bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

IntEgratIon of dIffErEnt bIoEnErgy PolICy fIEldS – a HIgH CHallEngE for natIonal PolICy-MaKErS

The main challenge for national policy-makers is to integrate the very high diversity and complexity of the bioenergy sector in a well-balanced political strategy.

A national bioenergy strategy and therefore relevant parts of the nREAP must tackle the following policy fields:

Production sectors:• Forestry/wood (and by-products of wood based

industries);• Agriculture/energy crops (and by-products from

agriculture and agroindustries);• Waste.

Conversion and transportation sectors (supply chains)

User sectors:• Electricity;• Heating & cooling;• CHP (cogeneration);• Transportation.

Assessment of demand vs. supply (resource potential); Target setting (incl. sub-targets, priorities and

arbitration between different sectors); Strategy formulation; Policy implementation (incl. support programme

management); Policy monitoring & impact assessment.

EU; National/federal; Regional/provincial; Local/municipal.

Short-term (1-2 years); Medium-term (2-10 years); Long-term (> 10 years).

ratIonalE for an IntEgratEd bIoEnErgy StratEgy aPProaCH

The following chart visualises the main steps of defining an integrated bioenergy strategy. The overall rationale applies classical methodologies applied in strategic management for companies to the policy context:

Step 1:

External analysis (esp. EU targets & requirements)

In a first step, national policy-makers should come to a clear understanding of external factors that represent fixed parameters (either drivers or constraints) for the national bioenergy strategy. This external analysis espe-cially concerns targets, directives and requirements defined on the EU level that need to be transposed by national legislations. Other important determinants for national bioenergy strategies are obviously political orien-tations in fields like security of energy supply, climate protection, economic progress & competitiveness or agri-culture, but also overall renewable energy policies.

Step 2:

Internal analysis (esp. biomass resource & demand assessment)

In a second step, national policy-makers must come to a clear assessment of the capabilities and constraints for biomass use in their country. This internal analysis mainly concerns the economic potential for mobilising domestic and/or importing biomass resources from other countries on one hand, and energy demand conditions on the other hand. In this analysis the arbitration between:

• Different biomass sectors (notably electricity and heat use);

• Biomass and other renewable energy technologies, as well as;

• Energetic uses and other uses of biomass (notably food uses) should be taken into account.

Step 3:

SWOT analysis (matching external requirements and internal capabilities)

To derive conclusions with regard to a feasible national bioenergy strategy, the external requirements (imposed by EU legislation & national energy political needs) on the one hand, and country-specific capabilities & constraints for biomass use on the other hand, should be matched. The result of this matching process should be a sound assess-ment of the national biomass potential, which should take into account both economic and sustainability criteria. The rationale of this task corresponds to a SWOT analysis, a very common strategic management method applied by companies in order to identify ways to match its internal strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) with the opportunities (O) and threats (T) of its external market and competitive environment.

different biomass sectors and/or steps of the value chains:

different administrative levels of the policy processes (top-down vs. bottom-up)

different steps of the policy process:

different policy perspectives (horizons):

2.1 2.2

7

Bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

Step 3

Step 4:

Target setting (incl. differentiated sectoral sub-targets)

Once the country-specific pre-requisites are clarified, differentiated national goals to be achieved by 2020, plus scenarios for realistic trajectories from 2010-2020 may be defined.

Obviously these goals should be aligned to national RES targets defined on EU level. A sufficient differentiation of overall national targets requires the setting of priorities and definition of separate sub-targets for the bioenergy sector in general, as well as for the different biomass sectors (esp. electricity, heat & cooling, transport), bio technologies (solid biomass, biogas, bioliquids), perhaps even for separate regions.

Step 5:

Strategy formulation (incl. development of NREAP)

In a next step, a general roadmap linking the afore-mentioned national targets to a clear programme of activities to achieve them should be defined. This task mainly comprises the definition of a set of political meas-ures to be implemented by the authorities and key actors in charge. Usually it makes sense to summarise this roadmap and programme of activities in one consistent document that can be effectively communicated to all relevant target actors. It will be included in the national renewable energy action plan (nREAP) due by 30 June 2010.

The national strategy must create a bioenergy policy and regulatory framework, which combines sufficient attrac-tiveness and long-term security for market actors.

Integrated national bio energy strategy approach

External analysis(opportunities & threats)

Internal analysis(capabilities & constraints)

Technical vs economic biomass potential.Arbitration with other usesCross country effects

National bio energy targetsDifferentiated sub-targets

National Renewables EnergyAction Plan (NREAP) incl. bioenergy chapters

Support scheme managementAdministrative processesEnergy sector infrastructureInformation & integration of stakeholdersQuality standards & qualification schemes

Market & industry monitoringPolicy impact assessmentSustainability guarantee

target setting

Strategy formulation

Policy implementation

Policy monitoring

feedback cycles feedback cycles

Eu targets, directives & NREAP templatesOther national policy prioritiesNational energy situation

Strategic choices(SWOT analysis)

Step 1

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 2

8

Bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

Process towards bioenergy plans

assessment area 1bIoMaSS rESoUrCE aSSESSMEnt

assessment area 2bIo EnErgy StratEgyforMUlatIon

assessment area 3bIo EnErgy PolICy IMPlEMEntatIon

assessment area 4bIo EnErgy PolICyMonItorIng

Step 6:

Policy implementation (incl. management of policies in practice)

Even the most elaborate and well-thought strategy is worthless if it is not properly implemented in practice. A proper implementation of policies mainly concerns:

• Efficient structures and processes for the management of single policies and public support schemes;

• Proportionate and efficient administrative processes for bioenergy projects;

• Sufficient energy sector infrastructure to integrate bioenergy plants;

• Effective information and integration of stakeholders, especially on local levels;

• Sufficient technical regulations and quality standards, as well as qualification measures for key actors.

Step 7:

Policy monitoring & impact assessment (incl. feedback cycles)

Finally, an integrated national bioenergy strategy should foresee the establishment of effective measures to monitor and evaluate the actual impact of policies in reality. A main issue in this context is to ensure a sound statistical information basis on market & industry developments. Results from impact assessment must be fed back in the aforementioned policy processes (Steps 1-6).

9

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

Best Practice for setting up biomass strategies

The Best Practice Report of the BAP Driver project (see www.bapdriver.org) focuses on four stages, required for setting up national biomass strategies and action plans: The Assessment of national biomass resources; the formu-lation of national bioenergy strategies and biomass action plans; the Implementation of national bioenergy policies and the monitoring of national bioenergy markets and policies.

bEnCHMarKIng bESt PraCtICE

In the benchmark analysis 12 national frameworks (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom) are assessed against the same set of performance criteria. It is important to note that this study was conducted in 2008 before the publication of the RES Directive and the template for nREAP. However strategies to develop bioenergy are implemented to some extent in all member states, partly under the impulse of the European Biomass Action Plan (COM(2005)628), the Renewable Electricity Directive (2001/77/EC) and the Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC).

For each criterion one outstanding country or national system serves as a benchmark for the assessment of the others. 15 assessment criteria were applied:

Assessment of national biomass resources

• Coherent biomass assessment approach;• Application of sustainability criteria;• Consideration of cross-country effects.

Formulation of national bioenergy strategies and biomass action plans

• Integrated & balanced national bioenergy strategy;• Setting of targets & priorities;• Status & quality of national biomass action plans

(nBAP);• Attractiveness & consistency of national policy

frameworks & support schemes for bioenergy promotion.

Implementation of national bioenergy policies

• Policy impact on actual market & industry development;• Cost-effectiveness of bioenergy strategy

& support schemes;• Efficiency of administrative procedures;• Information & integration of stakeholders;• Quality standards & qualification of key actors.

Monitoring of national bioenergy markets and policies

• Effective approach to market monitoring;• Effective approach to policy performance measurement;• Effective approach to sustainability guarantee.

This section presents four examples, one of each assess-ment area.

3.1

3

© Is

tock

ph

oto

10

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

biomass resource assessment (assessment area 1) Coherent biomass assessment approach

ExPlanatIon of PErforManCE CrItErIon:

This issue was assessed by means of the following research questions:

• Is there a coherent & systematic approach to assess the availability of national biomass resources at all?

• Is this approach based on a sound methodology and comprehensive, reliable statistical data?

• Does this approach consider BOTH the physically available AND economically viable biomass potential?

• Does this approach consider ALL potential types of national biomass resources (not only some of them), including: Wood / forestry products? Agricultural products / energy crops? Biogenic waste products? By-products (e.g. from industrial productions)?

• Does this approach cover BOTH the development of existing domestic resources AND the mobilisation of new resources AND the import of resources from other countries alike?

• Is the potential arbitration between the energetic use of biomass and alternative uses (esp. tensions with food/feed sectors) been considered?

• Does the approach address not only the availability of original biomass resources, but also their conversion and distribution along the value chain up to the final use?

• Is the assessment approach applied on the national level in line with EC requirements to ensure comparability of data across the EU?

bEnCHMarK dEfInItIon: UnItEd KIngdoM

The EC requires comparable data in order to monitor the achievement of common EU targets until 2020. At present, however there seems to be no clear benchmark for a fully integrated assessment approach of national biomass resources in line with this requirement. Overall the national approaches applied for biomass assessment are not optimal, so that practical guidelines from the EC are urgently needed. The EC has provided member states with a common tool (the “Matrix”) for standardised collec-tion on required information on nBAP, but not all have filled it in so far. There are various regulations & directives regarding EU-wide statistics pending, as well as working groups dealing with the same issue.

In this report the United Kingdom is presented as an exem-plary case. In preparation of the UK Biomass Strategy in 2007 a concerted attempt to understand the British biomass resource base was undertaken by the Energy Technologies Unit of the UK Department of Trade and Industry in May 2007. In the resulting working paper “economic analysis of biomass energy” policy-makers have been informed in a comprehensive way about the potential size of the British biomass resources and how

they compare with potential demands from various energy applications. The working paper covers a broad range of biologically derived resources including the biodegradable fractions of municipal and commercial and industrial wastes, sewage sludge, food waste, forest wood fuel, agricultural residues, wood waste and specifically grown energy crops. The availability of existing resources is compared with potential to mobilise new resources.

The economic analysis mainly considers the technical potentials, while widely neglecting factors as market and physical constraints. However, biomass supply cost and prices are taken into account (using general prices with price range) and economic assessments for different biomass conversion options, power/heat generation. The study seeks to construct simplified marginal cost curves for biomass resources. It focuses on a limited range of representative options, covering the production of heat, power, combined heat and power and liquid biofuels. It examines the main elements of biomass fuel chains covering collection or production and harvesting, prepa-ration, storage, transport and final conversion to useful energy supplies.

© Is

tock

ph

oto

11

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

gaP analySIS: dIffErEnCES bEtwEEn tHE UK and otHEr CoUntrIES

The methodology applied is sound and comprehensive, at least as long as data were available from established sectors such as agriculture and forestry – which was not the case in new areas such as waste. Data were not specifically collected for assessing biomass resources, but taken from existing measurements for other sectors like agriculture. The study’s main shortcomings are that it consists of top down assumptions, which were not robustly tested (e.g. supposing 5 % of the land were available for energy uses). The study has further weaknesses; for example the unclear definitions of waste, or the use of heterogeneous data from different, sector-specific sources and data sets. The analysis is not limited to an assessment of domestic resources, but also takes imported biomass into account in a simple way. Again the assumptions are top down and do not scrutinise the real development in exporting countries.

The potential arbitration of energy with alternative uses is acknowledged, at least with regard to biofuels, but the debate on these potential conflicts is still at an early stage in the UK.

The approach is not yet fully in line with EU requirements with regard to gathering comparable data on biomass resources availability and use.

In most countries the national approach to biomass assess-ment is insufficient and not in line with EC requirements yet. Guidelines and templates from the EC are definitely needed, in order to raise the quality and harmonization of national measures. These guidelines should also give indications on how Eurostat data may be used to support national assessments.

Obviously all countries depend on detailed statistics on their domestic biomass resources, especially in traditional sectors like forestry or agriculture. These data are typically derived from regular inventories of forests and agricultural sites co-ordinated by the respective authorities in charge. On the basis of these inventories, policy makers regularly ask specialists (e.g. scientific institutes, consultants) to conduct targeted expert studies to estimate the future potential from both existing resources and the mobilisation of new ones. At the same time, waste agencies must be better involved in supplying national biomass resource inventories.

While inventories of forests and agricultural sites are usually very complete, this is not the case for new areas such as waste or by-products. In many cases not even a clear definition of these resources exists.

While detailed studies on single sectors (forest, agricul-ture and/or waste) are undertaken in all countries, these are usually not integrated in a coherent approach to the assessment of national biomass resources. The results of these sectoral studies are often fairly heterogeneous data compiled on different assumptions that are not easily comparable. Some countries like Austria or France have developed integrated methodologies for single sectors (e.g. Austria’s comprehensive “wood flow chart” capturing all transactions along the supply chain for wood resources), but not covering all of them alike. Another exception may be the Netherlands’ “bio-based raw material platform”.

In most cases, the scientific studies focus on assessing the physical or technical potential for biomass use within the country, without clear delimitation of actually available potentials according to economic or sustainability criteria. Economic analyses are also undertaken (e.g. dynamic scenarios by specialist consultancies or energy agencies), but usually less on a national, but rather on a regional or local level (e.g. economic potential assessment of biogenic waste in single cities or urban areas). In no case the national biomass potential is broken down to single regions in a differentiated way yet (although first efforts into this direction are undertaken, e.g. in Austria).

Conflicts arising from the use of biomass resources for energy generation are only recently starting to be seen as a major issue in most countries. In countries with a strong traditional wood sector the conflict between energy and forest based industry is not new. Like the sustainability issue in general, these sectoral conflicts rank rather higher on the political agenda in various countries (e.g. Germany).

EU requirements in general and the national BAP processes in particular have already triggered a more integrated assessment of resources more in a few countries (esp. in the MOE states), for instance in the form of task forces, targeted studies or new software tools (e.g. GIS-based methodology developed by CRES in Greece). However, in the majority of countries there does not seem to be any alignment between national resource assessment and EU activities in this field. In some cases neighbour countries (e.g. Finland and Sweden) entertain a rather informal exchange on biomass resources.

12

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

bioenergy strategy formulation (assessment area 2) Status & quality of national biomass action plans (performance criterion 2.3)

ExPlanatIon of PErforManCE CrItErIon

This issue was assessed by means of the following research questions:

• Has a full-grown biomass action plan (BAP) already been developed and/or adopted at all?

• If yes, is the BAP really up-to-date and does it meet the requirements defined by the European Commission?

• If not, has a BAP process been started at least? Who is involved in this process?

• What is the quality of the national BAP process, esp. with regard to other policies, active involvement of relevant stakeholders, communication or monitoring?

• Is the national BAP process rather top-down or bottom-up?

bEnCHMarK dEfInItIon: roManIa

Although by May 2008 five other EU member states (Netherlands, Estonia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain) have submitted a full-grown national BAP to the European Commission, Romania has been chosen for the following reasons:

• Estonia, Ireland and Spain are not participating in the BAP Driver project;

• The BAP of the Netherlands and the UK are either outdated / not up to date or not fully in line with EU requirements;

• Although a Romanian BAP is not ready yet, a first draft has been developed in close alignment to EU requirements and may therefore be considered a “model case” for other EU member states.

The proposal of the national BAP includes a programme for implementation of the necessary activities to achieve the national biomass objectives, which again are aligned to EU targets. It consists of a number of measures corresponding to each stage of the supply chain from raw material production to the end user. As a result, several ministries are responsible for developing the adequate legislation:

• The Ministry of Economy and Finance; • The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development;• The Ministry of Environment;• The Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs.

The BAP aims to combine political principles of competi-tiveness, sustainability and positive environmental, economic and social impact, by setting out a coordinated programme for the development of the biomass sector in Romania. It summarises the various existing activities, and provides a framework under which they will be coordinated and also supplemented by further actions.

The Romanian Biomass Action Plan has been closely influenced by the EU Biomass Action Plan, and shares its

overall goals. The key drivers in the Romanian Biomass Action Plan can be summarised as follows:

• The desire for stronger yet sustainable economic growth;

• The need to reduce energy demand;• The commitment to increase use of renewable energy

sources;• The desire to diversify energy sources, particularly

focusing on domestic and sustainable resources;• The opportunity to enhance international cooperation.

The future of biomass supply from the agricultural sector is likely to follow a pattern of development where:

• The main drivers will come from the market and will require a great deal of effort in building and maintaining healthy and profitable supply chains;

• The sector will need to look at different scales of production to encourage energy self- sufficiency;

• Developments will need to take a regional view;• The reduction in transport costs by having

the processing capacity within the different rural areas will be important;

• The support for small scale (on farm) production of bio-energy.

The aim of the BAP is to ensure that Romania’s biomass resources are properly supported and exploited, and that it delivers additional economic & social benefits whilst making a contribution to the ambitious targets for emis-sions reduction. The key aims are:

• To provide a summary of the wide range of existing activities, actions and initiatives;

• To provide a focus for a strategic coordinated approach to developing biomass for energy;

• Production across the heat, electricity and transport sectors;

• To identify roles and responsibilities for government, industry and public stakeholders to develop a vibrant bioenergy industry in Romania;

• To identify future actions and gaps.

The draft of the Romanian BAP has been finalised by a team led by ICIA Cluj-Napoca, that in the proposal phase involved experts from research, universities and the National Academy for Agriculture and Forestry, as well as relevant policy makers. The proposal has been sent to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which in the next period will introduce it for approval as annex of a govern-mental decision.The National BAP was exposed to a public consultation process. According to this debate, neces-sary amendments are necessary before it may be fully approved. The national BAP team organised several open debates involving all the interested key actors, such as farmers, processors, end users, local and regional admin-istration, researchers, academic experts.

13

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

gaP analySIS: dIffErEnCES bEtwEEn roManIa and otHEr CoUntrIES

With the exception of the Netherlands and UK there is no nBAP yet. However, in the case of the Netherlands the BAP dates back to 2005 is considered outdated and of little actual relevance for future policies. The BAP of the UK is also not meeting EU requirements, especially it does not link binding targets to a roadmap of activities to achieve them.

Most other countries have at least started the BAP process, usually under the co-ordination of one or several Ministries. These authorities involve relevant stakeholders and/or experts (e.g. industry associations, energy agencies, scientific institutes, consultants) in consultation processes, e.g. by means of BAP task forces or preliminary studies. In most cases the process is organised top-down by national ministries, without the necessary involvement of regional actors.

In many cases there is little exchange of national nBAP teams and other countries, often not even with the EC (apart from participation in BAP expert meetings).

It seems that due to the variety of actors / interests involved and the complexity of the issues most pending nBAP will probably take some time. It also seems that in some cases the formulation of BAP is not considered a national top priority for achieving national energy and/or environmental political goals.

bioenergy policy implementation (assessment area 3) Policy impact on actual market & industry development

ExPlanatIon of PErforManCE CrItErIon

This issue was assessed by means of the following research questions:

• What is the impact of bioenergy policies in terms of market development (% of energy mix, installation figures, etc.)?

• Is the market development actually the result of effective political support or merely due to favourable natural conditions?

• What is the impact of national bioenergy policies in terms of industry & supply chain development (employment, investments etc.)?

• What is the impact of policy support on other important target areas such as rural development, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, security of energy supply etc.?

bEnCHMarK dEfInItIon: SwEdEn

Sweden may certainly be considered a benchmark for a well-developed and differentiated bioenergy market, as well as a competitive national industry.

The growth of the bioenergy market by about 75 TWh overall since 1978 and by 3-5 TWh every year has created roughly about 20 000 jobs. Studies have shown that each added TWh bioenergy adds another 300 jobs on the labour market. It has also created a whole sector of new compa-nies, mainly small and medium sized, ready to take on the expanding export market.

The impact on rural development is difficult to assess and has not been studied. However, most of the new jobs have been created in the rural and out-lying areas and small communities and towns. At the same time a lot of jobs have been lost in regular forestry and farming due to the on-going structural change in these areas. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been significant. From 1990 to 2006 the green house gas emissions in Sweden were reduced by 9 percent, while GDP rose by 44 percent. At the same time the use of bioenergy rose by 73 percent. A calculation made by the industry association SVEBIO shows that the emissions would have increased by 21 percent if the conversion from fossil fuels to biomass had not taken place. The impact on security of supply has also been significant as the biomass is domestic and all fossil fuels are imported.

14

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

This is proof that the policies overall have worked quite well. At the first stage most of the growth was in conver-sion of oil and coal in district heating, and expansion of district heating. Now growth is noted in several sectors:

• CHP in district heating – producing bio-electricity and heat at the same time which gives a very efficient use of the raw material;

• Bio-electricity production in the forest industry using biomass (mainly black liquor and other by-products).

• Pellets use for heating of single homes and for other buildings;

• Production, imports and use of biofuels in the transport sector.

The strong growth of the Swedish bioenergy market is closely linked to strong general measures like the carbon dioxide tax. The strong rise in fossil fuel prices has also been important. Interest and involvement from the forestry sector and from district heating utilities have been helpful but would have had lesser impact if the strong tax incen-tives had not been present.

The picture of the Swedish bioenergy industry in 2009 looks as follows:

• 480 biomass heat plants in all parts of the country (minimum heat delivery of 2 GWh heat), from small communities to big cities, using about 30 TWh of biomass (plus peat and municipal waste);

• Some of the district heating grids use more than 1 TWh of biomass per year;

• 80 bio-electricity producing units producing 10 TWh of bio-electricity/year (third largest power producer after hydro and nuclear). 40 of these are combined heat and power plants, CHPs, in district heating, 25 are in forest industry and the rest are biogas plants;

• 30 large pellets plants and 50 small production units, producing 1.7 million tons of pellets;

• Development of better boilers for traditional firewood. Combined systems for pellets and solar heating.

• Large use of by-products in forest industry (black liquor, bark, chips).

• Two large and several small biodiesel plants. One large ethanol plant, and several new projects for combination of transport biofuels together with other fuels, heat, electricity, biogas etc;

• A large number of biogas plants;• A diverse industry producing equipment: heat and

power plants, boilers, burners, chippers, handlings equipment, pelleting equipment, biogas technology, etc.

• A new market for flexifuel cars and buses. Today more than a third of the new cars sold are flexifuel cars;

• A large import of ethanol and biodiesel, promoting trade.

gaP analySIS: dIffErEnCES bEtwEEn SwEdEn and otHEr CoUntrIES

In no other EU country biomass is established as fully competitive main technology as in Sweden. Main reasons are certainly less favourable natural conditions (esp. biomass resources) and a shorter bioenergy history.

From the current perspective the achievement of EU targets until 2020 seems very challenging for most countries, at least without a major policy push.

Most countries have more succeeded in promoting bio electricit / CHP / biogas applications, in some cases also biofuels, than in biomass heating systems. A major pull is expected in the wake of new building regulations imposing higher energetic standards in new and refurbished build-ings (including installations of RES heating systems).

The best developed biomass resources in most countries are wood products delivered by the forestry industry. Here supply chains from resource production to final energy use are certainly best developed. The second most devel-oped sector is the agriculture (energy crops, by-products), followed by biogenic waste whose exploitation in most countries is still in a very early stage.

© Is

tock

ph

oto

15

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

bioenergy policy monitoring (assessment area 4) Effective approach to market monitoring

ExPlanatIon of PErforManCE CrItErIon

This issue was assessed by means of the following research questions:

• Is there a clear approach (appropriate processes, responsible actors, sufficient budgets, etc.) to monitor the development of national bioenergy markets (installation figures, energy production, etc.) and/or industries (employment, investments, etc.)?

• What is the quality of available market & industry data in terms of completeness, reliability and timeliness?

• Are data gathered in line with EU (Eurostat) requirements?

bEnCHMarK dEfInItIon: tHE nEtHErlandS

In terms of effective market monitoring, the Netherlands were selected as a benchmark case.

SenterNovem (now called Agentschap NL, NL Energie & Klimaat) has developed an instructional guideline for the calculation and monitoring of renewable energy markets in the Netherlands. The actual monitoring using this "monitoring protocol" is done by the Federal Bureau of Statistics and by KEMA (a commercial enterprise, specialising in business and technical consultancy, inspections and measurements, testing and certification in the energy sector).

The development of national bioenergy markets and impacts are also systematically monitored in the publica-tions "Status bioenergy in the Netherlands" and monitoring of permit grants. This information encloses installation figures, energy production, CO

2 reduction, investments

etc. Parts of the figures are provided by SenterNovem, part by another partner: CertiQ. CertiQ carried out the MEP support scheme (as a predecessor of the SDE support scheme) and SenterNovem carries out the new SDE support scheme. The production of RE is ensured in the figures of the green certificates gathered by the national regulating body CertiQ. Also interviews are held with the producers for the monitoring and implementation part.

gaP analySIS: dIffErEnCES bEtwEEn tHE nEtHErlandS and otHEr CoUntrIES

The monitoring data gathered is in the Netherlands are not in line with Eurostat requirements, because the country uses its own standard. However, the Netherlands use the substitute method for calculations and Eurostat uses the input method to retrieve their own data. As a result, Eurostat-compatible data are also available. The statistical procedure has been defined by the Commis-sion in a regulation (regulation 1099/2008) that give definitions of terms, structure of the statistics, units, etc.

Although good monitoring practice exists for certain market areas, a comprehensive approach to bioenergy market and industry monitoring is missing in most countries. It therefore is very difficult to find reliable and accurate market figures at all.

The measures applied for data collection, evaluation and dissemination are very disparate from country to country, as well as from biomass sector to sector. For example, the biodegradable part of waste is particularly heterogeneous.

Among many key actors, there still is a lack of knowledge and awareness for the relevance of monitoring.

To establish a sufficiently valid market monitoring system is often considered to be a very difficult and complex task whose costs exceed the benefits.

Often monitoring is based on one-off efforts (e.g. surveys) rather than a long-term, self-sustainable system.

A crucial factor for monitoring systems is the motivation of all contributors (e.g. collecting & delivering accurate data).

Monitoring findings/data are often inaccurate. Cross-checking reliability and validity of data is often neglected.

An obligatory national register for bio electricity and CHP installations delivers the most accurate and sound data basis for monitoring systems.

Effective market monitoring requires a continuous improvement of methods applied and data gathered. Therefore monitoring systems should somehow be linked to a quality management approach.

assessment of national biomass resources – key lessons learned:

• Data used for assessing national biomass resources and defining bioenergy strategies must be better harmonised between different policy fields and on the EU level in order to have a sound basis for political decisions.

• However, each country is facing very different national conditions (natural resources, climate, tradition in biomass use, etc.) in their assessment approach. For instance, highly differing pre-requisites in Mediterranean and Northern European countries.

• If possible biomass resources should not “travel”, but be used locally.

• However, import of biomass is an important issue since some member states depend on it in order to reach the EU targets.

• At the same time, the import poses a great challenge due to the relatively low energy density of biomass, and the ongoing debates about environmental problems of non-EU biomass production.

formulation of national bioenergy strategies and biomass action plans – key lessons learned:

• Key success factor for any support schemes for bioenergy investments is not only the attractiveness, but also the long-term security/reliability of conditions.

• Bioenergy differs from all other RES as its processes depend on continuous supply of feedstock. In case of soaring prices for raw material a flexible support scheme would be advantageous.

• Ambitious, but realistic targets signal clear political commitment to private market actors and are a key element of effective strategies. In absence of quantifiable targets for bio-energy, and left to pursue its own policy path, countries could run the risk of entering an endless cycle of consultations, strategies, and action plans.

• Effective strategies depend on the involvement of relevant stakeholders (also on regional / local levels) in policy-definition process & ongoing amendment, e.g. by means of communication platforms.

• Bioenergy policies also must be carried out at local levels, so that an effective regionalisation of policy processes is important.

• It is important to enable the development of professional supply chains on local levels, because they are the “transmission belt” for any successful policy measure

Implementation of national bioenergy policies – key lessons learned:

• Close involvement and information of key actors is important for effective bioenergy promotion, where usually a wide network of players is involved in the value chain.

• Long and costly administrative procedures for licensing, bureaucratic subsidy schemes and difficult grid access procedures are major market barriers, especially for small-scale installations.

• Policies are successful when they develop simultaneously support schemes for production and use of biomass.

• The impact of national biomass action plan processes depends on the effective involvement of all major stakeholders.

• Policies should avoid subsidising environmentally inefficient technologies.

• Liberal, market-driven policy frameworks tend to support some low cost “technology winners” only, while other technologies are not competitive enough to succeed.

Monitoring of national bioenergy markets and policies – key lessons learned:

• Most countries need a clear monitoring approach for all types of support programmes, being based on a consistent, balanced and long-term approach instead of single one-time measures.

• Monitoring systems should be based on a research design that precisely define target groups, key data, data collection methods and sources, incentives for data sources to deliver data, data management/ interpretation, cost and benefits.

• However, monitoring is very demanding due to complexity of bioenergy sector & insufficient in most countries yet.

• Setting up a national monitoring system should be done in accordance with the minimum requirements of a possible European-wide monitoring.

• Broad acceptance is a key pre-requisite to ensure the integration of sustainability principle in developing policies and support programmes.

3.2

1 3

2 4

bESt PraCtICE rECoMMEndatIonS

Based on the benchmark analysis key conclusions were drawn with regard to lessons learned, key success or risk factors, good or bad practices. Main conclusions for the main chapters of the analysis may be summarised as follows:

16

Bes

t p

ract

ice

for

sett

ing

up

bio

mas

s st

rate

gie

s

17

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

Within the BAP Driver project four Working Groups (WGs) were set up on the following topics:

• Energy from waste;• Cross country impacts/Flexibility mechanisms among

member states;• Cost effective policies;• Sustainability of solid biomass.

These WGs have met in dedicated workshops in April and December 2008, comprehensive and detailed papers were elaborated (www.bapdriver.org , follow “Best practices”), and results were presented in a BAP Driver workshop in Brussels in October 2009 and during the Sustainable Energy Week in March 2010 in Brussels (presentations on same web site). The text below presents a summary of the findings.

bIoEnErgy froM waStE MatErIal

Introduction

Over the last few decades, the solid waste management systems in many OECD countries have changed signifi-cantly. In the past, landfill was the standard disposal route for waste. However, in recent times, waste management has been all about utilising the value of waste in terms of material and energy in the best way possible. The various components of the solid waste management system have been arranged into what has become known as the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy is what the waste management policy in most countries is based on. In the first place, it promotes prevention and material recycling. When recycling is not feasible energy recovery is the main option. Landfill is the least preferred option in the chain. This hierarchy is implemented in the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). However, differences in imple-mentation are enormous.

Focussingon highly debatedbiomass issues

4.1

4

18

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

Step-by-step approach

The development of energy-from-waste is a complex process. It requires high trust level between stakeholders and acceptance of the public. Hard lessons from the past lead to the conclusion that it is not advisable to rush too soon in a wide application to prevent the loss of acceptance from crucial stakeholders. Therefore a stage approach in developing energy from waste is recommended.

Stage 1

UtIlIzatIon PotEntIal of bIogaS froM landfIll

In this phase the public acceptance for Energy from Waste (EfW) technologies in general, and Waste to Energy (WtE) in particular, is low and often confirmed by poorly performing, non state-of-the-art EfW facilities in a country. In general, the waste management policy will focus in the first place on proper landfilling, minimising the environ-mental impact and the escape of harmful greenhouse gases (particularly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)), and maximising the recovery of landfill gas (LFG). LFG is used in gas engines or upgraded to ‘green’ gas (bio-methane) and injected into the natural-gas grid or used locally for transportation purposes. Stage 1 also deals with material recycling, including composting. Attention is paid to the promotion of schemes for separate collection and the build-up of a proper recycling infrastructure. The extent of recycling has to be carefully considered since:

• Recycling leads to degradation of the material being recycled, demanding more and more energy and other resources;

• High-end utilisation of recycled materials and/or products needs to be guaranteed.

Stage 2

ProdUCtIon of ElECtrICIty by MEanS of CoMbUStIon or dIgEStIon

This stage is applicable to countries moving away from landfilling of combustible waste and having a well-estab-lished material recycling system.

Once proper landfilling and material recycling is in place, the emphasis can change towards EfW systems that are fuelled by non-recyclable, combustible waste. Whatever the local situation is, electricity can be produced in all cases and is thus the most common way of utilising the energy content in the waste. The main technologies are:

• Biological treatment: digestion of biodegradable waste and the resulting biogas is used in gas engines;

• Thermal treatment: waste combustion by means of grate firing or fluidized bed systems.

The main policy leading to the growth of EfW facilities is a ban on combustible and/or biodegradable wastes going to landfills, often part of an integrated waste manage-ment policy. The ban is sometimes enforced by a taxation system making landfilling so expensive that WtE makes economical sense. In practice, a landfill gate fee of around 100 euro/ton will be sufficient to enforce a change in the waste management system towards energy recovery.

Stage 3

IntEgratEd CHP

This step is applicable to countries focusing on combined heating (cooling) and power applications instead of electricity-only production. Site selection is crucial for energy supply and energy demand. Supply and demand, especially when they are of the same order of magnitude, have to be brought together to make heat (cooling) delivery economically feasible. To site heat demand (district heating and cooling, heat demand in industry, heating greenhouses, etc) and heat supply by means of EfW technologies close together, the public acceptance and the trust in the technology and reliability of heat supply has to be great. In each new project, CHP has to be the starting point in the development, being as high on the agenda as the waste supply itself. Support of local authorities and stakeholders is a pre-condition for the development of successful CHP projects.

Stage 4

InnovatIonS (towardS HIgHEr EnErgy UtIlIzatIon ratES)

This is applicable to countries were CHP applications are common and a next step is to, possibly, increase utilisation of recovered energy. Stage 4 innovations can also occur in former stages as a demonstration project. In stage 4, innovation and high utilisation of recovered energy are main stream.

ten lessons

During the BAP Driver workshops 10 general lessons where drawn and are summarized as follows: 1. In the countries assessed, the introduction of the

Council Directive on the landfill of waste has resulted in a reduction of the amount of waste being sent to landfill and an increase in recycling and energy from waste (EfW).

2. In the waste hierarchy recycling is given higher priority than EfW – EfW must complement and not displace recycling activities

3. Drivers for the promotion of EfW (the landfill directive and the desire to reduce CO

2 impacts) are

the same throughout the countries assessed. 4. Barriers to EfW vary from country to country as does

the rate of EfW utilization.5. Policies can change quicker than EfW project

development time, thus frustrating projects.6. Policies need to address the tension in the market

between solid recovered fuels (SRF), mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) and Waste to Energy (WtE)

7. Political will on utilization of waste heat is often high, but doesn’t always lead to subsequent market development.

8. Since waste management systems are capital invest-ment, intensive, long-term (contract) security is crucial.

9. More consideration is required to spatial planning (ie making room for EfW) - the major underestimated policy element.

10. There is a lack of trust between the proponents of EfW and NGO’s and interaction between them is often problematic

19

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

flExIbIlIty MECHanISMS

The Renewable Energy Sources (RES) Directive contains provisions for cooperation/flexibility mechanisms to assist Member States (MS) in reaching their renewable energy targets. Four mechanisms are possible :

1. Statistical transfer (Article 6)2. Joint projects in EU27 (Article 7 + 8)3. Joint projects with third countries (Article 9 + 10)4. Joint support schemes (Article 11)

At this stage it is difficult to predict the flexibility mechanisms' importance for MS, but some reflections can be made:

• The trajectory indicated in Annex I of the RES Directive gives a first interim target for 2011-2012 that is “not ambitious" compared to the 2020 targets (see graph below). Offers for flexibility might be higher for this first interim commitment period, while room from flexibility might decrease later on due to the relatively high RES targets. It is still questionable how far MS can offer flexibility while being unsure of reaching their target.

• Joint projects may offer advantages if administration efforts remain more affordable than the one for Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. They seem to be more attractive for the hosting country that will benefit from the installed infrastructure compared to the advantages for the country paying for the project.

• Joint support schemes require a closer collaboration and harmonization among MS and might be used more easily among Scandinavian countries.

• The information available for the implementation of flexibility mechanisms in the MS does not seem to be complete and may leave many questions open.

The potential for flexibility mechanisms is approached through three criteria:

1. The evolution of RES in the last years 2. The bioenergy development and its markets 3. The comparison of biomass use and its potential

1. tHE EvolUtIon of rEnEwablE EnErgy In tHE laSt yEarS

By projecting the RES share from 2000 to 2006 to the year 2012 and comparing it with the trajectory a significant RES bonus can be expected in DE and CZ and a reasonable shortfall in FR and UK.

2. bIo-EnErgy dEvEloPMEntS and MarKEtS

In addition, other criteria can also be considered such as:

• the importance of the bio-energy industry and its know-how: large dynamic multinational (bio)energy companies can more easily catalyse project opportunities. Such companies can be found mostly in Northern Europe (Vattenfall, Poyry, Fortum, Dong, etc.) but also in central Europe (RWE, Suez/Electrabel, Essent, etc.).

• Market opportunities: countries in which power plants and district heating plants are still significantly supplied by solid fossil fuels (coal, brown coal, lignite) offer opportunities for joint projects.

• Energy infrastructure: a large potential for energy infrastructure renovation can be found in Eastern European countries providing attractive investment opportunities for bioenergy projects in many of these countries.

RE

S(%

)

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

20052006

20072008

2009

+20%+30%

+45%

+65%

+100%

20102011

20122013

20142015

20162017

20182019

2020

First commitment period

4.2

trajectory of the rES directive for the EU

20

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

CoSt-EffECtIvE PolICy SUPPort

Decision makers are expected to use the most effective and efficient solutions in their policy formation since they need to meet the renewable energy targets at the lowest cost/benefit ratio for society. However the terms of costs and profits, assessed at a short medium or long term, cannot be easily interpreted when policies are assessed.

The Renewable Energy Directive requires MS to count the gross final energy consumption for heating/cooling, electricity and transport. In this regard, the same type of biomass converted into electricity or used by households for heating purposes will have a complete different "weight" towards the target (see figure below). Following these calculation conventions biomass used for heat will be more effective to reach the target compared to biomass used in plants producing only electricity or low efficient second generation biofuels plants, whatever the efficiency of the conversion technology for heat !

ContrIbUtIon to tHE fInal EnErgy ConSUMPtIon of 1 toE bIoMaSS

ConversionContribution to gross final energy consumption (toe)*

Useful final energy (toe)**

1 to

e b

iom

ass

Bioelectricity only 0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4

CHP 0.5 - 0.9 0.5 - 0.9

District heating 0.8 - 0.9 0.8 - 0.9

Individual heating 1 0.2 - 0.9

* For electricity the gross final energy consumption corresponds to the generation of RES bioelectricity in the country without taking into account the grid losses. The useful energy includes these losses.

** For individual heating a large range or technologies exists, from low efficiency open fires to very high efficient automatic

pellet boilers.

Therefore cost effectiveness of biomass support is strongly related with the successful operation of specific bioheat policies since:

• Bioheat technologies are, potentially, energy efficient (high efficiency combined heat and power is always the most efficient option) and cost-effective (due to lower fuel costs). So effective bioheat policies will offer more competitive uses for biomass to energy than electricity production, thus increasing the overall biomass cost effectiveness and mobilizing new resources (see following figure);

• Bioheat policies, usually have strong regional effects. Profits are directed to rural areas creating new jobs, while a big number of final users is involved, thus multiplying RES awareness.

Following the ideas expressed above it makes sense to optimize the use of the budgets available for bio-energy by benchmarking different policies based on several

Bio-energy industry and markets: countries with a strong bio-energy industry, especially for bioelectricity (like DE, SE, FI) have markets, technologies and know-how to offer in their own country and abroad. Countries that are still using a lot of solid fossil fuels in their power plants (like DE, PL, UK, ES, CZ) and district heating (like PL, DE, UK) have a potential to host flexibility projects.

3. bIo-EnErgy PotEntIal

It is relevant for flexibility potentials to compare the biomass production/supply in a country and the potential for biomass. The biomass production is directly given by Eurostat (by choosing the primary production and not the gross inland consumption that is influenced by import and export). The potential has been estimated by the European Environmental Agency, taking into account environmental constraints. Table 3 shows that today 41% of the bio-energy resources are exploited in Europe. However, the situation varies a lot among countries.

Top 5 countries in which a large unexploited biomass potential exists: PO FR ES UK IT

Top 3 countries that are already using much of their resource: DK NL PT

rEMarKS

The potential depends on the evaluation method and can be evaluated using many different methods and assumptions based on technical, environmental and economic criteria. The EEA study foresees biomass resources amounting to 283 Mtoe in 2030 against 235 Mtoe in 2020.

Imports will play an important role in the future for countries that have easy access to the sea like UK, NL, BE, SE, FI, DK. These countries can exceed their inland potential. The Netherlands and Denmark for example are already close to using 100% of their own potential according to BAP Driver calculation.

By February 2010 all Member States’ Forecast Documents with estimations of flexibility demand were published on the EC’s Transparency Platform website. While there are various links between the published documents and the reflections on flexibility made above the BAP Driver working group analysed the issue more from a biomass than from a general renewable energy perspective.

4.3

21

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

Quantitative Criteria Qualitative Criteria

Qn1 What is the RES contribution in final energy consumption compared to total or public funds invested?Unit: toe RES final energy/1000 € total or public fund invested

Ql1 Is the revision and evaluation process of the policy described?

Qn2 What is the maximum CO

2-reduction compared to total or

public funds investedUnit: t CO

2 avoided/1000 € total or public money invested

Ql2 What is the policy background? Have alternative uses of raw material been investigated? Does the policy compete with other policies related to the use of the same raw material?

Qn3 How a support measure maximizes the replacement of conventional fuels and what is the type of fuels replaced? (oil, gas, coal, nuclear)Unit: toe fossil replaced / 1000 € public money invested)

Ql3 How the impacts on employment and regional development are ensured? Are there any provisions inside the measure?

Qn4 What is the value of replaced conventional fuel? (including VAT and taxes)Unit: € replaced/ public € spent.

Ql4 What is the impact on spatial planning? Are there any specific provisions? Is the policy affected by specific spatial planning regulations?

Qn5 What is the maximum total investment compared to public budget spent?Unit: total € invested / public € spent

Ql5 Are there accompanying measures regarding infrastructures, logistic…

Qn6 What is the impact on employment?Unit: new (preserved) jobs/1000 € total or public fund invested

Ql6 Are there accompanying measures regarding the increase of public participation and awareness? (information campaigns, training and certification…)

Qn7 What is the average efficiency (or range of efficiencies) of the technologies promoted?Unit: gross final energy consumption/gross inland consumption

Ql7 Is the funding of the measure secured? Where do the funding resources come from?

Qn8 What is the number of final consumers involved as target group directly or indirectly? Unit: number of people per target group

The proposed criteria where reviewed on a workshop on both their importance and “easiness to adopt” (for more information see www.bapdriver.org). They can be useful to evaluate the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP). There has been already a link with such criteria and the NREAP template, specifically paragraph 5.3 ‘Assessment of impacts’. The criteria need to be used by member states as a framework to evaluate their policies. It is also a tool for EC to compare the effectiveness of policies that are implemented and facilitate the exchange of experience among them.

quantitative and qualitative criteria. This checklist may be used by policy makers as a provisional supporting document to the template for the national renewable action plan. It could be essential for the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of promotional policies.

Key questions when considering the support measures for bioenergy

22

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

SUStaInablE bIoMaSS

During the project the renewable energy directive (2009/EC/28) was published. It focused on sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids production and underlined the need to assess their possible impacts on agricultural food products. However, no sustainability criteria for solid biomass were identified in the directive. Sustainability criteria are subject to heavy discussions in every country and every session about this subject. Depending on the level of import of biomass compared to domestic supplies, countries have strong arguments pro or contra the introduction of sustainability criteria for solid biomass.

Main arguments in favour of the introduction of sustainability criteria for solid biomass:

• Green House Gas Emissions reductions should be guaranteed;

• Sustainability criteria minimize undesired side effects of bio-energy (e.g. reduction of bio-diversity, environmental effects);

• Sustainability criteria increase the acceptance for biomass as a renewable energy source, especially when depending on large import streams;

• A certification system would also include imports of biomass and would thus promote sustainable agriculture and forestry production abroad;

• Sustainability criteria for biomass for energy are a first step towards a fully sustainable agriculture sector.

The main advocates of sustainability criteria were countries with large biomass imports and NGO’s.

Main arguments against the introduction of sustainability criteria for solid biomass:

• There are already existing mandatory sustainable criteria for agriculture and forestry in Europe. e.g. FSC, PEFC;

• It is unfair to impose administrative costs to the total bio-energy sector when only a small fraction of the market has sustainability risks;

• It leads to unfair competition with fossil fuel (with does not have certification schemes);

• Certification will reduce the availability of affordable biomass potential for energy purposes;

• Differences in sustainability criteria will obstruct trade• Western countries are not entitled to put their moral

standards worldwide (‘green imperialism’).

The main opposition to sustainability criteria came from Nordic Countries, countries that mainly use domestic biomass and biomass associations.

Some sustainable criteria were suggested during the baP driver workshops

Environment Economic Social

Conservation of soil value (fertility) Production of biomass has to contribute towards local prosperity

Avoid the competition between energy, food use and building materials

Maintenance of carbon stocks in the soil

Economic sustainability of biomass utilisation assessed at the national and local levels

Basic workers rights

Protection of water quality Keeping reasonable income for biomass producers

Contribute towards the social well-being of the employees and the local population

Respect of biodiversity Develop short economic local scheme (Biomass production and use)

Annual harvest smaller or equal to annual production

The use of biomass must produce less GES emission than fossils fuels

Holistic attitude towards prevention of environmental pollution

Positive energy balance in the life cycle of bionergy

4.4

23

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

Another issue is the way how to implement the sustain-able criteria knowing that the differences of context and biomass production and use, between member states could be an obstacle to their application.

Different ways to implement sustainable criteria for solid biomass were identified:

Sustainable criteria could be implemented through the existing legislation and rules on agriculture, forest, energy and environment.

Sustainable criteria could be implemented through a mandatory scheme elaborated in the renewable energy directive and standardised to all member states (example of the Cramer criteria elaborated by the Dutch government).

Sustainable criteria could be implemented through sustainability certification scheme on a voluntary basis.

© Is

tock

ph

oto

no mandatory sustainability scheme for all countries at this stage

At the moment it is too early to put a mandatory sustainability scheme into place. For Europe as a whole, the risks of not having such a scheme are perceived to be lower than the administrative costs that are associated with it.

allow countries to make their own sustainability schemes (voluntary or mandatory)

Specific countries in Europe depend on large quantities of imported biomass to reach their renewable energy target. To prevent negative effects and lack of public acceptance for bio-energy it is vital that introduction of sustainability criteria is an option.

Harmonize schemes as much as possible

To be ready for future developments, to minimize trade barriers and to have a level playing field with bioliquids are all arguments to harmonize sustainability schemes in member states as much as possible. This can be done by mutual agreements between member states of preferably by specific instructions by the European Commission.

analyse lessons learned from voluntary schemes

The first countries are ready to implement sustainability schemes into their support schemes (e.g. Netherlands, Germany). It is recommended to evaluate their effects and needed administrative efforts. These experiences can be used for implementation in other countries or for an effective harmonized policy in Europe.

Evaluate sustainability policy on regular basis

Ambitions for renewable energy and bio-energy in Europe are challenging. With large quantities of biomass used, it is vital to ensure the sustainability of the bioenergy sector. Therefore it is recommended to evaluate sustainability policy on a regular basis.

tHE MaIn ConClUSIonS of tHE baP drIvEr ProjECt on SUStaInabIlIty CrItErIa for SolId bIoMaSS:

24

Focu

sin

g o

n h

igh

ly d

ebat

ed b

iom

ass

issu

es

25

Co

ncl

usi

on

s

In the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive each member state has to submit a national Renewable Energy Action Plan (nREAP) by end June 2010. The project BAP Driver has been funded by the Intelligent Energy Europe programme to help stakeholders in member states to set up Biomass Action Plan that were required by the European Biomass Action Plan in 2005. The findings of the project can now be integrated when preparing nREAPs.

Setting up a comprehensive and solid nREAP is a demanding task, especially when it comes to bioenergy. Bioenergy covers a wide range of fuels and technolo-gies to produce heat, electricity, transport fuels and also cooling in the future. Many interactions should be taken into account, including the fact that biomass is used by other sectors for food and materials applications. However bioenergy covers roughly 2/3 of renewables to day and will still produced the lion’s share of renewables in 2020. Beyond the fact that nREAP is an obligation Member States should take over this challenge and evaluate their biomass potential, their exiting policies and plan effective measures in the light of the objectives to reach.

Conclusions

5

26

Co

ncl

usi

on

s

Strategy approach

BAP driver has defined an integrated strategy approach to work out the plan, made of 7 steps. External factors (RES directive, energy situation, etc.) and internal factors (biomass potential, etc.) should be studied first. Strategic choices are made using SWOT analysis and targets are tested. A strategy is than formulated, followed by a policy implementation scheme. Finally a monitoring of the policies should be foreseen as well as the impact of the strategy. For each step the right questions should be addressed to ensure completeness. Lessons learned from other countries should also be integrated. The BAP Driver project has carried out a detailed analysis for 12 countries on this particular point.

bioenergy from waste

Wastes management follows the waste hierarchy procedure (first prevention, recycling, energy recovery, lastly landfill) in most countries but implementation varies a lot among countries. The BAP Driver project has identified a step by step approach to deal with this complex issue.

1. Firstly the landfill gas should be recovered for energy (CHP, transport) while separate collection of waste should be promoted. Recycling should be carefully evaluated against energy production, taking also account the energy and resources needs to treat degradated types of wastes.

2. With the ban of biodegradable waste to landfill Energy from Waste should be developed, and electricity is the easiest way (by biological or thermal treatments).

3. The involvement of the public, local authorities and stakeholders is a condition to use heat, as CHP offers higher total efficiencies compared to electricity only applications.

4. Innovations will allow the increase of the energy utilization rate.

flexibility mechanisms

Like the Kyoto protocol, the RES Directive contains provisions for flexibility mechanisms (part of the objective can be reached by implementing RES in other countries). Member States should be aware that the trajectory towards 2020 is not linear and it is unlikely that many member states will be able to offer flexibility in the last years of the commitment period. Hopefully the forecast documents that had to be submitted by member states on this particular issue at the end of 2009 are showing that all member states are keen to produce their own RES rather than counting on others. Still a brief evaluation of the biomass resources and the markets for bioenergy in the EU27 countries shows there is a potential for cooperation among member states.

Cost effective policy support

In these of financial resource limitations the wise use of public money is an essential condition to meet the mandatory targets with the lowest cost/benefit ratio for the society. Astonishingly the way bioenergy is accounted for in the target is of primary importance regarding this concern. Indeed targets are calculated as percentage of the gross final energy consumption. It means electricity is considered after biomass conversion while the energy content of biomass is accounted before conversion into heat. This is one reason why bioheat policies are cost efficient to reach the targets. The BAP Driver project has identified key questions, both quantitative and qualitative that have to be address for cost effectiveness of promotional measures.

Sustainability of solid biomass

While sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids are defined in the RES Directive, the way to deal with sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass for heat and electricity is still under discussion. Arguments in favour and against dedicated criteria are on the table, as well as possible criteria. The existing legislation for agriculture and forest, the existing certification schemes as well as the experience gained by private initiatives should certainly be taken into account.

Strategic use of biomass are you ready for the challenge ?

Key EC reference documents(http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/transparency_platform_en.htm)

• "Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC"

• "Commission decision on 30 June 2009 establishing a template for nREAP under Directive 2009/28/EC"

• "Frequently Asked Questions on the Template for nREAP", by EC DG TREN

• Regulation 1099/2008 on energy statistics

baP driver reference documents (www.bapdriver.org)

• "Cooperation and Flexibility Mechanisms under the RES Directive flexibility"

• "Efficient and effective bioenergy support policies" • "Energy recovery from MSW in European Union:

How to go one step further"• "Operational guidelines for Policy Makers working on

template for National Renewable Energy Action Plans"• "European Best Practice Report"

CoordinatorDeutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (DENA)- German Energy Agency

Contact: Michael Herr & Alexandra Lermen

Chausseestr. 128a, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 72 61 65 696

lermen@dena.de

www.dena.de

ADEME Picardie

Contact: Iman Bahmani & Pascal Corté

67 avenue d'Italie, Immeuble APOTIKA,

80094 AMIENS Cedex 03, France

Phone: +33 (3) 22 45 55 38

Iman.Bahmani@ademe.fr

www.ademe.fr

CRES

Contact: Vassilis Kilias

19TH KLM Marathonos Ave., Pikermi 19009, Greece

Phone: +30 2106603300 / 330

vkilias@cres.gr

www.cres.gr

VITO

Contact: Ruben Guisson & Nathalie Devriendt

Boeretang 200, Mol 2400, Belgium

Phone: +32 14 33 58 73

ruben.guisson@vito.be

www.vito.be

ISPE

Contact: Adriana Milandru & Alexandra Ignat

1-3 Lacul Tei Blvd., Bucharest 20371, Romania

Phone: +40212061002

amilandru@ispe.ro

www.ispe.ro

ApE

Contact: Matjaz Grmek

Litijska cesta 45, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia

Phone: +386 (1) 5863872

matjaz.grmek@ape.si

www.ape.si

KAPE

Contact: Ryszard Wnuk & Karolina Loth-Babut

Mokotowska 35, Warsaw 00-560, Poland

Phone: +48 (22) 8258692, 2345242

rwnuk@kape.gov.pl

www.kape.gov.pl

Agentschap NL

Contact: Kees Kwant, Har van Himbergen

NL Energie & Klimaat

Croeselaan 15, Postbus 8242,

3503 RE Utrecht, Netherlands

Phone: +31 886022794

Har.vanHimbergen@agentschapnl.nl

www.agentschapnl.nl

AEBIOM

Contact: Jean-Marc Jossart

Rue d'Arlon 63-65, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Phone: +32 10473455

jossart@aebiom.org

www.aebiom.org

eclareon

Contact: Stephan Orthen & Robert Brückmann

Luisenstr. 41, Berlin 10117, Germany

Phone: +49 30 246286 90

rb@eclareon.com

www.eclareon.com Gra

ph

ic d

esig

n: w

ww

.mar

di.b

e

www.bapdriver.org