IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v69y2014icp326-333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: Coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity

Author

Listed:
  • Gamborg, Christian
  • Anker, Helle Tegner
  • Sandøe, Peter

Abstract

The article focuses on the interplay between two factors giving rise to friction in bioenergy governance: profound value disagreements (e.g. the prioritizing of carbon concerns like worries over GHG emissions savings over non-carbon related concerns) and regulatory complexity (in terms of regulatory measures and options). We present ethical and legal analyses of the current stalemate on bioenergy governance in the EU using two illustrative cases: liquid biofuels for transport and solid biomass-based bioenergy. The two cases disclose some similarities between these two factors, but the remaining differences may partly explain, or justify, contrasting forms of governance. While there seems to be no easy way in which the EU and national governments can deal with the multiple sustainability issues raised by bioenergy, it is argued that failure to deal explicitly with the underlying value disagreements, or to make apparent the regulatory complexity, clouds the issue of how to move forward with governance of bioenergy. We suggest that governance should be shaped with greater focus on the role of value disagreements and regulatory complexity. There is a need for more openness and transparency about such factors, and about the inherent trade-offs in bioenergy governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gamborg, Christian & Anker, Helle Tegner & Sandøe, Peter, 2014. "Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: Coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 326-333.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:326-333
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514001025
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gernot Pehnelt & Christoph Vietze, 2012. "Uncertainties about the GHG Emissions Saving of Rapeseed Biodiesel," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-039, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Ribeiro, Barbara Esteves, 2013. "Beyond commonplace biofuels: Social aspects of ethanol," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 355-362.
    3. Ilona Cheyne, 2009. "Proportionality, Proximity and Environmental Labelling in WTO Law," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 927-952, December.
    4. de Beer, Jeremy & Smyth, Stuart J., 2012. "International Trade in Biofuels: Legal and Regulatory Issues," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Havlík, Petr & Schneider, Uwe A. & Schmid, Erwin & Böttcher, Hannes & Fritz, Steffen & Skalský, Rastislav & Aoki, Kentaro & Cara, Stéphane De & Kindermann, Georg & Kraxner, Florian & Leduc, Sylvain & , 2011. "Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5690-5702, October.
    6. German, Laura & Schoneveld, George, 2012. "A review of social sustainability considerations among EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels, with implications for rural livelihoods," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 765-778.
    7. Alan Swinbank, 2009. "EU Policies on Bioenergy and their Potential Clash with the WTO," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 485-503, September.
    8. Robert Ackrill & Adrian Kay, 2011. "EU Biofuels Sustainability Standards and Certification Systems – How to Seek WTO‐Compatibility," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 551-564, September.
    9. van Dam, J. & Junginger, M., 2011. "Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4051-4066, July.
    10. Cacciatore, Michael A. & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2012. "Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 673-682.
    11. Mohr, Alison & Raman, Sujatha, 2013. "Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-122.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Inge Stupak & Jamie Joudrey & C. Tattersall Smith & Luc Pelkmans & Helena Chum & Annette Cowie & Oskar Englund & Chun Sheng Goh & Martin Junginger, 2016. "A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 89-118, January.
    2. Rick Bosman & Jan Rotmans, 2016. "Transition Governance towards a Bioeconomy: A Comparison of Finland and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Kuhmonen, Tuomas, 2018. "Systems view of future of wicked problems to be addressed by the Common Agricultural Policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 683-695.
    4. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    5. Jenny Lieu & Niki Artemis Spyridaki & Rocio Alvarez-Tinoco & Wytze Van der Gaast & Andreas Tuerk & Oscar Van Vliet, 2018. "Evaluating Consistency in Environmental Policy Mixes through Policy, Stakeholder, and Contextual Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Proskurina, Svetlana & Rimppi, Heli & Heinimö, Jussi & Hansson, Julia & Orlov, Anton & Raghu, KC & Vakkilainen, Esa, 2016. "Logistical, economic, environmental and regulatory conditions for future wood pellet transportation by sea to Europe: The case of Northwest Russian seaports," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-50.
    7. Laurie Waller & Tim Rayner & Jason Chilvers & Clair Amanda Gough & Irene Lorenzoni & Andrew Jordan & Naomi Vaughan, 2020. "Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jambo, Siti Azmah & Abdulla, Rahmath & Mohd Azhar, Siti Hajar & Marbawi, Hartinie & Gansau, Jualang Azlan & Ravindra, Pogaku, 2016. "A review on third generation bioethanol feedstock," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 756-769.
    2. Brinkman, Marnix L.J. & Wicke, Birka & Faaij, André P.C. & van der Hilst, Floor, 2019. "Projecting socio-economic impacts of bioenergy: Current status and limitations of ex-ante quantification methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    4. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    5. Kargbo, Hannah & Harris, Jonathan Stuart & Phan, Anh N., 2021. "“Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: Critical review on techno-economic feasibility and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Ribeiro, Barbara E. & Quintanilla, Miguel A., 2015. "Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 53-68.
    7. Fedorova, Elena & Pongrácz, Eva, 2019. "Cumulative social effect assessment framework to evaluate the accumulation of social sustainability benefits of regional bioenergy value chains," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1073-1088.
    8. German, Laura & Goetz, Ariane & Searchinger, Tim & Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & Tomei, Julia & Hunsberger, Carol & Weigelt, Jes, 2017. "Sine Qua Nons of sustainable biofuels: Distilling implications of under-performance for national biofuel programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 806-817.
    9. Oliveira, Gustavo de L.T. & McKay, Ben & Plank, Christina, 2017. "How biofuel policies backfire: Misguided goals, inefficient mechanisms, and political-ecological blind spots," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 765-775.
    10. Robert Ackrill & Adrian Kay, 2010. "WTO Regulations and Bioenergy Sustainability Certification – Synergies and Possible Conflicts," NBS Discussion Papers in Economics 2010/9, Economics, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University.
    11. Jianliang Wang & Yuru Yang & Yongmei Bentley & Xu Geng & Xiaojie Liu, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    12. Bartolini, Fabio & Viaggi, Davide, 2012. "An analysis of policy scenario effects on the adoption of energy production on the farm: A case study in Emilia–Romagna (Italy)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 454-464.
    13. Arkadiusz Piwowar & Maria Dzikuć, 2022. "Bioethanol Production in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development-Current Status and Future Prospects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, April.
    14. Marek Helis & Maria Strzelczyk & Wojciech Golimowski & Aleksandra Steinhoff-Wrześniewska & Anna Paszkiewicz-Jasińska & Małgorzata Hawrot-Paw & Adam Koniuszy & Marek Hryniewicz, 2021. "Biomass Potential of the Marginal Land of the Polish Sudetes Mountain Range," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Weng, Yuwei & Chang, Shiyan & Cai, Wenjia & Wang, Can, 2019. "Exploring the impacts of biofuel expansion on land use change and food security based on a land explicit CGE model: A case study of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 514-525.
    16. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    17. O. Borodina, S. Kyryziuk, V. Yarovyi, Yu. Ermoliev, T. Ermolieva, 2016. "Modeling local land uses under the global climate change," Economy and Forecasting, Valeriy Heyets, issue 1, pages 117-128.
    18. Lochhead, Kyle & Ghafghazi, Saeed & Havlik, Petr & Forsell, Nicklas & Obersteiner, Michael & Bull, Gary & Mabee, Warren, 2016. "Price trends and volatility scenarios for designing forest sector transformation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 184-191.
    19. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    20. Batidzirai, B. & Smeets, E.M.W. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. "Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials—Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6598-6630.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:69:y:2014:i:c:p:326-333. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.