IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/wireae/v5y2016i1p89-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy

Author

Listed:
  • Inge Stupak
  • Jamie Joudrey
  • C. Tattersall Smith
  • Luc Pelkmans
  • Helena Chum
  • Annette Cowie
  • Oskar Englund
  • Chun Sheng Goh
  • Martin Junginger

Abstract

Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders' views and experiences related to (1) the multi‐leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which uses market‐based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co‐regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta‐standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes' inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on‐the‐ground. WIREs Energy Environ 2016, 5:89–118. doi: 10.1002/wene.166 This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:wireae:v:5:y:2016:i:1:p:89-118
    DOI: 10.1002/wene.166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.166
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wene.166?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mrosek, Thorsten & Balsillie, David & Schleifenbaum, Peter, 2006. "Field testing of a criteria and indicators system for sustainable forest management at the local level. Case study results concerning the sustainability of the private forest Haliburton Forest and Wil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 593-609, August.
    2. Lamers, Patrick & Hamelinck, Carlo & Junginger, Martin & Faaij, André, 2011. "International bioenergy trade--A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 2655-2676, August.
    3. Pappila, Minna, 2013. "Forest certification and trust — Different roles in different environments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 37-43.
    4. Owari, Toshiaki & Juslin, Heikki & Rummukainen, Arto & Yoshimura, Tetsuhiko, 2006. "Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish suppliers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 380-391, December.
    5. Donald Schepers, 2010. "Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 279-290, March.
    6. Lamers, Patrick & Junginger, Martin & Hamelinck, Carlo & Faaij, André, 2012. "Developments in international solid biofuel trade—An analysis of volumes, policies, and market factors," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3176-3199.
    7. Buytaert, V. & Muys, B. & Devriendt, N. & Pelkmans, L. & Kretzschmar, J.G. & Samson, R., 2011. "Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3918-3933.
    8. Kollert, Walter & Lagan, Peter, 2007. "Do certified tropical logs fetch a market premium?: A comparative price analysis from Sabah, Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 862-868, April.
    9. Schouten, Greetje & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2011. "Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1891-1899, September.
    10. Hennecke, Anna M. & Faist, Mireille & Reinhardt, Jürgen & Junquera, Victoria & Neeft, John & Fehrenbach, Horst, 2013. "Biofuel greenhouse gas calculations under the European Renewable Energy Directive – A comparison of the BioGrace tool vs. the tool of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 55-62.
    11. 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.
    12. Teitelbaum, Sara & Wyatt, Stephen, 2013. "Is forest certification delivering on First Nation issues? The effectiveness of the FSC standard in advancing First Nations' rights in the boreal forests of Ontario and Quebec, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 23-33.
    13. Alakangas, E. & Junginger, M. & van Dam, J. & Hinge, J. & Keränen, J. & Olsson, O. & Porsö, C. & Martikainen, A. & Rathbauer, J. & Sulzbacher, L. & Vesterinen, P. & Vinterbäck, J., 2012. "EUBIONET III—Solutions to biomass trade and market barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4277-4290.
    14. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François, 2011. "Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1630-1646, March.
    15. Mena, Sébastien & Palazzo, Guido, 2012. "Input and Output Legitimacy of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 527-556, July.
    16. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Hansen, Christian P., 2012. "Why some forest rules are obeyed and others violated by farmers in Ghana: Instrumental and normative perspective of forest law compliance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 46-54.
    17. Ziolkowska, Jadwiga & Meyers, William H. & Meyer, Seth D., 2010. "Targets And Mandates: Lessons Learned From Eu And Us Biofuel Enforcement Mechanisms," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188119, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    18. Lena Partzsch, 2011. "The legitimacy of biofuel certification," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(3), pages 413-425, September.
    19. Pacini, Henrique & Assunção, Lucas & van Dam, Jinke & Toneto, Rudinei, 2013. "The price for biofuels sustainability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 898-903.
    20. Oskar Englund & Göran Berndes, 2015. "How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 26-50, January.
    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. Tapio Ranta & Antti Karhunen & Mika Laihanen, 2020. "Sustainability of Forest-Based Bioenergy—A Case Study of Students Surveyed at a University in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.

    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. de Man, Reinier & German, Laura, 2017. "Certifying the sustainability of biofuels: Promise and reality," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 871-883.
    2. Mikkel Kruuse & Kasper Reming Tangbæk & Kristjan Jespersen & Caleb Gallemore, 2019. "Navigating Input and Output Legitimacy in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: Institutional Stewards at Work," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-27, November.
    3. Sarah L. Stattman & Aarti Gupta & Lena Partzsch & Peter Oosterveer, 2018. "Toward Sustainable Biofuels in the European Union? Lessons from a Decade of Hybrid Biofuel Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Theresa Selfa & Carmen Bain & Renata Moreno, 2014. "Depoliticizing land and water “grabs” in Colombia: the limits of Bonsucro certification for enhancing sustainable biofuel practices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(3), pages 455-468, September.
    5. Peter, Christiane & Helming, Katharina & Nendel, Claas, 2017. "Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 461-476.
    6. Verena Bitzer & Alessia Marazzi, 2021. "Southern sustainability initiatives in agricultural value chains: a question of enhanced inclusiveness? The case of Trustea in India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 381-395, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    9. Yang, Jun & Dai, Guanghui & Ma, Luyi & Jia, Liming & Wu, Jian & Wang, Xiaohua, 2013. "Forest-based bioenergy in China: Status, opportunities, and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 478-485.
    10. Marin-Burgos, Victoria & Clancy, Joy S. & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Contesting legitimacy of voluntary sustainability certification schemes: Valuation languages and power asymmetries in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 303-313.
    11. Karel Janda & Ladislav Kristoufek & David Zilberman, 2012. "Biofuels: policies and impacts," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(8), pages 372-386.
    12. Janda, Karel & Kristoufek, Ladislav & Zilberman, David, "undated". "Biofuels: review of policies and impacts," CUDARE Working Papers 120415, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Lähtinen, Katja & Myllyviita, Tanja & Leskinen, Pekka & Pitkänen, Sari K., 2014. "A systematic literature review on indicators to assess local sustainability of forest energy production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1202-1216.
    14. Arthur P. J. Mol & Peter Oosterveer, 2015. "Certification of Markets, Markets of Certificates: Tracing Sustainability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Anica Zeyen & Markus Beckmann & Stella Wolters, 2016. "Actor and Institutional Dynamics in the Development of Multi-stakeholder Initiatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 341-360, May.
    16. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    17. Sung, Bongsuk, 2015. "Public policy supports and export performance of bioenergy technologies: A dynamic panel approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 477-495.
    18. Sébastien Mena & Daniel Waeger, 2014. "Activism for Corporate Responsibility: Conceptualizing Private Regulation Opportunity Structures," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(7), pages 1091-1117, November.
    19. Mukhtarov, Farhad & Osseweijer, Patricia & Pierce, Robin, 2014. "Global governance of biofuels: a case for public-private governance?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Pavel Castka & Charles J. Corbett, 2016. "Governance of Eco-Labels: Expert Opinion and Media Coverage," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 309-326, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:wireae:v:5:y:2016:i:1:p:89-118. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=2041-8396 .

    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.