This paper focuses on the sustainable use of solid and gaseous biomass for electricity, heating and cooling. It provides updated findings of policy analyses and corporate strategy analyses performed in the frame of BIOENERGY PROMOTION, one of the flagship projects under the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. In particular, the paper highlights policies and measures which have been adopted by the EU and EU Member States to address environmental and social sustainability risks of bioenergy. Taking into account the conclusions of BIOENERGY PROMOTION, the paper identifies promising policy developments, but also shortcomings. On the Member State level, the paper refers to the examples of Germany and Poland. It illustrates how problematic policy priorities and policy malfunctioning in two sub-sectors (biogas from energy crops in Germany, biomass co-firing in Poland) led to undesirable environmental and social developments and how policies have been re-adjusted to mitigate sustainability risks. The paper also portrays a number of voluntary corporate sustainability initiatives which emerged due to the lack of a binding European sustainability framework for solid and gaseous biomass. The authors conclude that without a binding sustainability framework at EU level there is a risk of having a patchwork of potentially diverging sustainability regimes and initiatives across Europe causing market intransparency and insecurity for investors.
In accordance with the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) bioenergy is in the following defined as en- ergy from biomass. Biomass means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues of biological ori- gin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste. Biofuel means liquid or gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass. Bioliquids comprise liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for transport, including electricity and heating and cooling, produced from biomass. Biogas is a gas pro- duced from anaerobic digestion of biomass and composed mainly of methane and carbon dioxide. Biogas can be burnt to produce heat and/or electricity or upgraded for use in vehicles that run on Compressed Natural Gas or Liquid Petroleum Gas, or upgraded and injected into local and/or national gas grids.
The focus of this paper is the use of solid and gaseous biomass for electricity, heating and cooling. Bioenergy production and use can provide multiple environmental and socio-economic opportunities and benefits. These include significant reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to the use of fossil fuels, impro- vements in energy security and foreign trade balances, business and job opportunities along the supply chain, opportunities for economic and social development particularly in rural areas, mitigation of waste disposal problems and a better use of natural and other resources, synergies with other goals, like water protection, main- tenance of biodiversity, business development, or tourism development. Furthermore, biomass is the most versa- tile of all renewable energy sources (RES). Biomass, unlike most other renewable energy sources, can be stored relatively easily and can provide energy to dispatch as needed [
On the other side, the production, extraction, processing, transport and conversion of biomass into final en- ergy can sometimes have adverse impacts for GHG balances, biodiversity, natural habitats and ecosystem ser- vices, and soil and water quality.
In 2012 the Council of the European Union emphasized that the challenge in developing renewable energy sources not only needs to focus on making the relevant technologies more attractive and cost-efficient, but also to ensure that their entire lifecycle remains sustainable. Therefore, the Council concluded, further consideration needs to be given to the economic, environmental and social aspects of production and use of renewable energy sources. In particular the expected rise in the use of biomass in the coming years heightens the need to consider the sustainability dimensions of the use of sensitive biomass resources [
There are a number of environmental sustainability risks associated with increasing energy uses of biomass from forestry and agriculture. Growing demand for bioenergy has raised serious concerns about negative long term effects of removing forest residues for soil fertility, soil organic carbon, water quality and habitat. In- creased harvesting and removal of forest residues and stumps for bioenergy are expected to have a greater im- pact on soil, water and habitat than conventional forest practices [
Solid biomass imports from countries in Central Africa, South America, or Asia, but also from other non-EU countries might raise significant environmental and social sustainability concerns due to insufficient safeguards addressing deforestation and forest degradation or ensuring sustainable forest management.
The European Commission recently identified the following sustainability risks that need to be properly managed by both economic operators and Member States [
・ Unsustainable feedstock production;
・ Emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF);
・ Lifecycle GHG emission performance;
・ Indirect impacts;
・ Inefficient bioenergy generation;
・ Air emissions.
A recent study performed by the International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy, the European Forest Institute and Joanneum Research [
Hence, the potential of bioenergy to contribute to Sustainable Development depends very much on a case to case basis, particularly on the feedstock, land use changes, cultivation, collection and harvesting practices, transport needs, the refinement and conversion processes and conversion technologies.
Whereas the European Union introduced a set of mandatory sustainability criteria for transport biofuels and bioliquids in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the introduction of sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling has so far been left to the discretion of the Member States. In the absence of any binding EU wide sustainability scheme for solid and gaseous biomass energy utili- ties and commercial actors developed own or joined emerging voluntary sustainability schemes in the frame of their biomass procurement policies.
Sustainability challenges of bioenergy and the question how governments and enterprises respond to these challenges were a major topic of BIOENERGY PROMOTION1, a flagship project under the EU Baltic Sea Re- gion Strategy (COM(2012) 128 final), which received funding by the European Union under the Baltic Sea Re- gion Programme. In addition to many other project activities, the consortium commonly developed principles and criteria for sustainable bioenergy production in the Baltic Sea region, conducted policy assessments explor- ing European, national and regional bioenergy policies and explored voluntary corporate strategies. The purpose of this paper is to present updated findings of this research
The paper is structured as follows: firstly we will summarize key conclusions of BIOENERGY PROMO- TION regarding sustainability of bioenergy. This will be followed by a summary and appraisal of recent policy developments at the European level. Furthermore, the paper analyses policies and measures adopted on the Member State level addressing the sustainability of bioenergy with a special focus on Germany and Poland. Both countries represent vivid cases illustrating the sustainability challenges and risks of two very different bioenergy pathways. They show how these risks draw public attention and debate, and how governments finally respond to it. The final chapter provides portraits of voluntary corporate sustainability initiatives in the Baltic Sea region.
Within BIOENERGY PROMOTION the project partners developed a set of principles and criteria for sustain- able bioenergy production in the Baltic Sea region to provide guidance to multiple stakeholders, including pol- icy makers, biomass producers and users, investors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), energy compa- nies, etc. [
The consortium agreed that bioenergy systems should be developed in a way that enables substantial reduc- tions of lifecycle GHG emissions preferably in the range of 80 per cent compared to the use of fossil fuels to achieve the EU aspiration of 80 - 95 per cent GHG emission reduction by 20502 (see sub-chapter 3.1). The ambitious GHG performance value clearly favours the utilization of residues from European forests and agri- cultural land, of processed residues and waste. It also reflects the scepticism shared by a majority of partners concerning pathways using tropical/sub-tropical feedstock, pathways which need high fossil energy inputs, but also certain pathways utilizing annual energy crops like maize for biogas production.
Since biomass has relatively low energy densities and high land requirements, a global biomass market with large scale intercontinental trade was not regarded as a step in the right direction. Long distance transport of bio- mass and bioenergy carriers was also disapproved by the vast majority of project partners, particularly in com- bination with co-firing in large power plants based on fossil fuels. The consortium rather supported local and re- gional use of biomass. Furthermore, like imports of fossil fuel, biomass imports carry their own risks of insecu- rity. It should also be considered that demand for RES including biomass might increase in the exporting coun- tries in the future.
In this context, the consortium acknowledged that co-firing of biomass might be a low cost and efficient way to reduce GHG emissions from electric power production, but should be viewed critical from a resource effi- ciency and energy efficiency perspective, particularly if this implies long distance transports of biomass and in- efficient conversion processes with no or limited use of surplus heat. Yet at the same time, efficient utilization of surplus heat in small to medium scale dedicated biomass plants and cogeneration processes can contribute to the decarbonisation of both the heat and electricity sector. The consortium also considered that co-firing of biomass in conventional power plants would complicate the transition to a more distributed and flexible energy system [
The most promising bioenergy routes from a Sustainable Development perspective were regarded those that use locally available biomass residues from forestry and agriculture, processed residues and by-products from related industries, biogenic waste streams, and which employ highly efficient biomass conversion technologies and processes (e.g. co-generation processes). Wastes and by-products are currently underused, but can contrib- ute significantly to reaching EU bioenergy targets. Hence, further effort is needed to facilitate exploitation of the large EU waste and residue potentials [
The consortium also emphasized the need to support minimum energy conversion efficiencies by referring to Article 13.6 of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC), according to which Member States shall promote biomass conversion technologies that achieve conversion efficiencies of at least 85 per cent for residential and commercial applications and at least 70 per cent for industrial applications.
BIOENERGY PROMOTION stands out particularly by its emphasis on resource efficient and energy effi- cient bioenergy production and use. The partners emphasized that biomass is a limited natural resource and should therefore be used as efficient as possible. The consortium suggested promoting resource efficient bio- mass uses, including integrated and multi-functional bioenergy systems, biomass cascading, bio-refining or ag- ricultural/forest/industrial symbiosis approaches. Finding resource efficient combinations of biomass sources, conversion technologies and energy end uses can be regarded as the main challenge for the further development of EU bioenergy production in an environmental perspective [
The following chapter includes a description of the recent EU policy developments with regard to biomass sustainability and concludes with an appraisal taking into account the conclusions of BIOENERGY PRO- MOTION.
Energy policy has been a major driver for European integration. However, for about 30 years European energy policy has been limited to the areas of nuclear energy and coal based on the European Coal and Steel Commu- nity (ECSC) and the European Atomic Community (EURATOM). Although the founding treaties of the EU did not assign any explicit competence to the EU in the area of energy, the EU increasingly developed energy policy measures on the grounds of other policy objectives (e.g. referring to the internal market, competition, or envi- ronmental protection).
The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, introduced a specific and broad legal basis for European energy policy. Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)3 contains four objectives of European energy policy. Hence, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of soli- darity between Member States, to:
・ ensure the functioning of the energy market;
・ ensure security of energy supply in the Union;
・ promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
・ promote the interconnection of energy networks.
The Lisbon Treaty also stipulates that corresponding policy measures shall not affect the right of the Member States to determine the conditions for exploiting their energy resources, their choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply except on environmental grounds (Article 194 of the TFEU). However, the European Union is influencing the energy mix of individual Member States indirectly, e.g. by setting ambitious targets for renewable energy sources (see below).
The Lisbon Treaty also contains explicit provisions referring to Sustainable Development. According to Article 3 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) the Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. Sustainable Development is also recognized as one of the specific policy goals of the EU in its external relations. Paragraph 5 of Article 3 states: “In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, ... as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”
In March 2007 the Council of Ministers agreed on three climate and energy policy targets, also known as the “20/20/20” goals for 2020:
・ a 20 per cent reduction of GHG emissions compared to 1990;
・ a 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency compared to forecasts for 2020;
・ a 20 per cent share for renewable energy in the EU final energy consumption including a 10 per cent minimum target for renewable energy consumed in transport to be achieved by all Member States.
In 2009 the European Council endorsed the long term objective of curbing Europe’s GHG emissions by 80 - 95 per cent compared to 1990 levels as part of necessary reductions by developed countries as a group. To outline the pathways to a low carbon future, the European Commission published roadmaps for resource efficiency, energy, transport and a low carbon economy.
In order to bridge the gap between the targets for 2020 and the long term targets for 2050, in October 2014 the European Council agreed on the climate and energy policy framework for 2030 [
The EU has not endorsed any biomass-specific policy targets. There is a target of 10 per cent renewable energy in transport to be reached by 2020, contained in the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/29/EC). The European Commission intends to limit the contribution made from first generation biofuels produced from food crops to 5 per cent in order to reduce global land conversion for biofuel production (see sub-chapter 3.3.1). In its Com- munication “A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030” of 22 January 2014 [
Solid and gaseous biomass used for electricity, heating and cooling is the most important source of renewable energy in the EU and plays a key role in achieving the 2020/2030 renewable energy targets and the long-term decarbonisation goals by 2050. In 2012, biomass and biowaste accounted for about two-thirds of all renewable energy consumption in the EU. The consumption of biomass for heating and electricity in the EU has already significantly grown since 2005 and is expected to further increase from 86.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2012 up to 110.5 Mtoe in 2020, although its share of total final renewable energy consumption would decrease from 54 per cent to 45 per cent due to the faster deployment of other renewables. By the end of the decade, on the basis of current trend, biomass for energy is expected to be used mainly for heating (90.4 Mtoe), followed by electricity (20 Mtoe) [
While by 2020 the vast majority of the EU’s solid biomass consumption will likely still be met through domestic supplies, imports from third countries are projected to grow by the end of the decade. The Commission forecasts a biomass supply gap of about 21.4 Mtoe equal to over 15 per cent of EU primary bioenergy supply in 2018. This is likely to be met by imports mainly from the US and Canada, followed by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and largely in the form of wood chips and densified biomass, e.g. wood pellets including torrefied pellets [
EU imports of wood pellets have grown from 2.7 million tonnes in 2010 up to 4.3 million tonnes in 2013. Conversions of large-scale coal fired power plants to wood (co-)firing in Europe led to an explosive growth of wood pellet exports from Canada and Southwest US. By 2020, EU wood pellet imports from third countries are expected to be in the range of 15 - 30 million tonnes (equal to about 6 - 12 Mtoe). The main market for these wood pellet imports is the industrial sector, i.e. large-scale co-firing and dedicated combined heat and power (CHP) installations (ibid).
In general, sustainability concerns related to renewable energy are addressed by cross-cutting EU legislation. In other cases, like e.g. in the case of biofuels and bioliquids, the EU has developed energy-specific rules.
As a consequence of the global biofuel controversy of 2007 and 2008 [
In its proposal to amend the Renewable Energy and the Fuel Quality Directives of 2012 the Commission underlined its intention to limit global land conversion for biofuel production, to improve the GHG performance of biofuels used in the EU and to encourage a greater market penetration of advanced biofuels. The objective of the proposed amendments is to promote biofuels that will help achieving substantial GHG emission reductions, that do not directly compete with food and feed and are more sustainable at the same time while limiting the maximum contribution made from biofuels and bioliquids produced from food crops to 5 per cent of the 10 per cent renewable energy target applying to the transport sector [
In February 2010 the Commission published the Report on Sustainability Requirements for the Use of Solid and Gaseous Biomass Sources in Electricity, Heating and Cooling, also known as the Biomass Report [
While in the meantime about half of the EU Member States have adopted regulations promoting higher efficiency of bioenergy production (i.e. efficient combined heat and power production), only few Member States (Belgium, Italy, United Kingdom) have adopted GHG saving criteria for biomass used in electricity/heating, which appear broadly in line with the Commission’s recommendations [
After the Biomass Report of 2010 had been published, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers, and industry proponents like the European Union of the Electricity Industry (EURELECTRIC), the European Biomass Association (AEBIOM) and the European Biogas Association (EBA) called for a binding sustainability framework on the European level, although with different motivations. Scientists and NGOs criticized the recommendations as insufficient [
In July 2014 the European Commission published an updated report on the sustainability of gaseous and solid biomass used for electricity, heating and cooling [
The Commission argued that while a number of knowledge gaps still exist, the vast majority of the biomass pathways used today in the EU for heat and power are considered to provide significant GHG savings compared to fossil fuels. At the same time, a number of biomass routes can lead to negligible or negative GHG savings or other sustainability impacts. According to the Commission, further research and analysis is needed to assess the future role of such pathways in the EU energy sector and to gain better information on overall biomass availability for the EU in the period post-2020 (ibid.).
The Commission also argued that a limited number of Member States have adopted broadly consistent sustainability schemes and no apparent internal market barriers have been identified thus far. Therefore, at this stage, the risk of market distortion caused by national sustainability regulations could be effectively managed through the existing EU tools on technical standards (ibid.).
The Commission emphasized its commitment to closely monitor the origin and the end-use of biomass in the EU through the reporting requirements under the Renewable Energy Directive, and other policy initiatives related to the bio-economy, with the view to take appropriate corrective action, if needed (ibid.). Furthermore, it is committed to conduct research and analysis, to identify good practices on the cascading use of biomass and to gain a better understanding of future biomass availability (ibid.).
The report considers GHG savings of at least 70 per cent compared to the fossil fuel comparators “good practice” for existing bioenergy installations. As the carbon intensity of energy is projected to decrease in the future, higher GHG emission savings thresholds could be set for post-2020 in order to promote higher carbon savings, technology innovation, and best practices in feedstock production (ibid.)
In the report the Commission also announced to develop an improved biomass policy for the post-2020 period in order to maximise the climate and resource efficiency benefits of biomass in the wider bio-economy, while delivering robust and verifiable GHG emission savings and minimising the risks of unintended environmental impacts (ibid.). This is in line with the Communication “A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030” in which the Commission conceded that an improved biomass policy will be necessary to maximise the resource efficient use of biomass in order to deliver robust and verifiable GHG savings and to allow for fair competition between the various uses of biomass resources in the construction sector, paper and pulp industries and biochemical and energy production. This should also encompass the sustainable use of land, the sustainable management of forests in line with the EU forest strategy and address indirect land use effects as with bio fuels [
In its recently adopted Energy Union Strategy, the Commission committed itself to propose a new Renewable Energy Package in 2016-2017 which will include a new policy for sustainable biomass and biofuels as well as legislation to ensure that the 2030 EU target is met cost-effectively [
・ Postponing the decision about binding biomass sustainability criteria does not reduce the level of uncertainty for investors who need to have a clear perspective on regulatory developments beyond 2020 when making investment decisions today.
・ The current EU policy addressing bioenergy sustainability lacks coherence. The EU should develop a comprehensive and consistent sustainability framework in order to ensure a level playing field for all biomass applications and to progressively develop a coherent and ambitious set of sustainability criteria for all biomass uses across heat, electricity, transport, chemical industry, but also food, fodder and other bio-based pro- ducts. A Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy where the same raw material including wastes, residues and other feedstock will be used increasingly for different end uses requires clear regulations and minimum standards which apply to all uses of biomass. In this context, the proposals to develop a “Biomass Framework Directive” [
・ The EU lacks a comprehensive vision of its future biomass supply and consumption both for energy and non- energy uses. Such a vision should be based on reducing the need for bioenergy, using biomass resources efficiently and on ensuring a balance between overall biomass demand and sustainable supply.
・ It can be regarded a promising signal that the Commission obviously raised its level of ambition regarding the GHG performance of bioenergy pathways compared to the first Biomass Report of 2010 which proposed the same GHG saving target as for biofuels (only 35 per cent).
・ It is likewise positive that the importance of resource efficient use of biomass is increasingly reflected in recent EU policy documents.
・ The resilience and enforcement of sustainable forest management legislation varies considerably in Europe. National legislation needs to adequately address specific risks of intensified production and harvesting me- thods related to forest biomass. Sustainable maximum cutting levels, whole tree harvesting, harvesting on steep slopes, stump extraction, removal of logging residues (e.g. tops, branches, foliage) and removal of deadwood should deserve particular attention. Monitoring, implementation and enforcement of forest legislation should be ensured.
・ It is questionable whether existing governance mechanisms for sustainable forest management in biomass exporting countries are sufficiently robust and effective4 [
・ Trans-continental transport of wood pellets and ultimate co-firing in inefficient fossil power plants should not be promoted. Minimum conversion efficiency requirements for fossil and renewable energy plants would safeguard against developing bioenergy options that are efficient in reducing GHG emissions but still inefficient in terms of resource use. Instead, efficient utilization of surplus heat in small to medium scale cogeneration processes can contribute to the decarbonisation of both the heat and electricity sector [
Under BIOENERGY PROMOTION the partners prepared a number of country policy assessment reports based on in-depth analyses of national bioenergy policy frameworks and support schemes5. The key rationale of those assessments was to examine to what extent national policy frameworks and support schemes for solid and gaseous biomass integrate sustainability considerations. This chapter presents updated findings of the policy assessments conducted in Germany and Poland. In both countries flawed policies and misplaced incentives led to undesirable developments which became a matter of controversial public debate. The German case examines the use of energy crops (maize) for biogas production, whereas the Polish case refers to co-firing of biomass in coal fired power plants. The section will also describe how support schemes were re-adjusted in order to address sustainability risks and mitigate negative side effects.
Following the nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011, the federal government decided to initiate a long-term transformation of the entire energy system, also known as the Energiewende. This decision includes phasing out nuclear power by 2022.
Electricity from RES is mainly supported through feed-in tariffs and feed-in premiums regulated by the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). The Act entered into force in 2000 and was continuously amended in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2014. On 1 August 2014 the latest amendments took effect, representing a fundamental overhaul of the existing support scheme. By 2017 at the latest, the support system will be replaced by competitive bidding procedures6.
Renewable heating and cooling is promoted by the Renewable Energies Heat Act (EEWärmeG), the Market Incentive Programme (MAP) governed by the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) and low-interest loans offered via the state owned promotional bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW)―see
Sector | 2012 | Target values | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 2030 | 2040 | 2050 | |||||
Reduction of GHG emissions compared to 1990 level | −24.7% | At least −40% | At least −55% | At least −70% | At least −80% to −95% | |||
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption | 12.4% | 18% | 30% | 45% | 60% | |||
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption for electricity | 23.6% | At least 35% | At least 50% (2025: 40% - 45%) | At least 65% (2035: 55% - 60%) | At least 80% | |||
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption for heating/cooling | 11.1% | 14% | ||||||
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption for transport | 6.9% | 10% | ||||||
Reduction of primary energy consumption (compared to 2008) | −4.3% | −20% | −50% | |||||
Share of electricity generation from combined heat and power plants | 17.3% | 25% | ||||||
Final energy productivity | 1.1% p.a. (2008-2012) | 2.1% p.a. (2008-2050) | ||||||
Annual building renovation rate in per cent of the total building stock | Approx. 1% | Doubling to 2% p.a. | ||||||
Number of electric vehicles | 10,078 | 1 million | 6 million | |||||
Source: Progress Report [
Sector | Measure | Details |
---|---|---|
Electricity | Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) | Feed in tariffs and feed in premiums guaranteed for 20 years depending on the plant size; special remuneration rates for biowaste and manure; transition to competitive bidding procedures from 2017 |
Heat | Renewable Energies Heat Act (EEWärmeG) | Renewable heat obligation for new buildings and public buildings under major renovation |
Heat | Market Incentive Programme (MAP) | Investment grants for small scale/individual RES based heating systems + reduced interest loans for larger scale RES based heating systems, RES based DH/C networks and storage systems |
Biofuels | Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG) Energy Tax Act (EnergieStG) | Renewable transport quota system (since 2015 based on GHG emissions); tax exemptions and tax relief for certain biofuels |
Source: compiled by the author.
Germany was a frontrunner in establishing sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids and the first Member State to transpose and implement the EU sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids through the Biofuels Sustainability Ordinance (Biokraft-NachV) and the Biomass-Electricity Sustainability Ordinance (BioSt- NachV). Until 2012 the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection via the Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR) provided financial support to the development of the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) system. In July 2011, the European Commission recognized ISCC as one of the first certification schemes to demonstrate compliance with the sustainability requirements for biofuels and bioliquids under the Renewable Energy Directive. Additionally, the system ISCC PLUS was developed for food, feed, technical/chemical and bioenergy applications (e.g. solid biomass).
At the European level, the German government supported the extension of the binding EU sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids to other bioenergy carriers [
To ensure sustainable bioenergy production and consumption, the Federal Government relies mostly on sector regulations (e.g. environmental legislation, nature conservation legislation, forest legislation, environmental Cross compliance rules in agriculture). However, as the example of using maize for biogas production illustrates, these regulations do not automatically prevent undesirable and unsustainable developments, also due to loopholes and lack of enforcement.
The number of biogas plants has increased considerably in Germany since 1992―see
The dominant feedstock currently used in biogas plants is energy crops accounting for 80% of the energy supply from biogas with silage maize being the most important crop [
The growing cultivation and use of dedicated energy crops (particularly maize) for biogas production came under severe public criticism in recent years. The main reasons are adverse effects for visual landscape and increasing environmental problems like reduced crop variety and insufficient crop rotations, soil erosion and compaction, humus depletion, nitrate leaching, conversion of permanent grassland into arable land even in protected areas, losses of agricultural biodiversity, an increased risk of attack by pests and growing transport volumes for transporting raw material and fermentation digestate. Many of these effects have been acknowledged by the Government in its recent progress report pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources [
Particularly in areas with a high share of animal husbandry a significant increase in maize production for biogas led to a growing competition between food, fodder and energy feedstock production and contributed to sharp price increases for agricultural land. In several regions of Lower Saxony the cultivation of maize requires more than half of the agricultural land (ibid.).
There is evidence that the Cross Compliance rules which, inter alia, aim at preserving permanent grassland, face loopholes and implementation deficits, partly failing to avoid unsustainable developments on a local scale. The growing cultivation of (energy) maize in Germany led to an increasing conversion of permanent pasture into arable land. A study by the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute [
Another drawback was that in the beginning the support scheme did not encourage the efficient use of surplus heat from electricity production.
Hence, social and political acceptance for biogas production based on dedicated energy crops like maize has been continuously decreasing during the last years and the Government and also several federal states took mea- sures to re-adjust existing support schemes in order to address the undesirable developments described above and reduce environmental and social sustainability risks.
With the amendments to the Renewable Energy Sources Act taking effect in 2012 and 2014 the Federal Government mainly intended to make electricity from RES more cost-effective and to improve their market and system integration. Remuneration rates for biomass were generally reduced. Furthermore, the law was re-adjusted in order to address environmental and social risks of renewable energy, particularly biogas production based on energy crops. The following changes were introduced in order to improve resource efficiency and energy efficiency of biogas systems and to avoid land use conflicts and negative environmental impacts:
・ The utilization of maize as input material was stepwise limited since 2011. A ceiling of 60 per cent (by weight) was introduced for the use of maize and grain to prevent their excessive cultivation and foster greater diversification of substrates. Until 2014, the use of maize and other dedicated energy crops including cereals, fodder beet, sugar beet, or grass were still eligible for a special premium in the amount of 4 - 6 ∉ct/kWh paid on top of the basic remuneration.
・ The amendments of 2012 gave more weight to the use of organic residues compared to the use of dedicated energy crops and encourage the use of ecologically more beneficial substrates. New premiums for using liquid manure and biomass from landscape management were introduced already in 2009. From 2012, these premiums were extended to include other types of environmentally beneficial material including blooming strips, buffer strips, wildflower growth, poultry manure, and clover as catch crop from arable land or straw. Use of these substrates was eligible for a special premium in the amount of 6 - 8 ∉ct/kWh.
・ Since 2012 preferential remuneration rates for biowaste fermentation plants (14 - 16 ∉ct/kWh) and small scale biogas facilities (up to 75 kWel) which use at least 80 per cent liquid manure (25 ∉ct/kWh) applied.
・ The amendments of 2012 replaced the “CHP bonus”, a premium for using surplus heat from electricity production, by a general energy efficiency requirement. Biogas plants only qualified for support if at least 60 per cent of the heat produced was used, or the facility was operated using 60 per cent or more of slurry, or the electricity was sold directly.
The recent amendments of 2014 mark a turnaround not only for the biogas sector [
Below we describe key provisions referring to biomass and biogas introduced in 2014:
・ For the first time, growth corridors and flexible ceilings7 for the annual expansion of different renewable energy technologies were imposed. For biomass, a flexible ceiling of 100 MWel/year applies for newly installed capacity. Compared to the ceilings for photovoltaic systems (2500 MW) and wind onshore systems (2500 MW) the 100 MW ceiling for biomass is by far the most stringent one, taking into account previous average annual installation rates which reached 800 MWel in 2011 for biogas only.
・ The previous, rather complex support structure with basic remuneration rates and supplementary premiums depending on plant size, feedstock and conversion technology was simplified. Now, there is only a basic remuneration in the range of 5.85 to 13.55 ?t/kWh depending on the plant size which applies in principle to all plants using biomass, regardless of feedstock or conversion technology. Previous premiums for specific raw material categories were abolished including the premium for environmentally beneficial input material and that for using dedicated energy crops like maize.
・ Preferential remuneration rates exceeding the basic remuneration apply only in two cases: For small-scale biogas systems (up to 75 kWel) using manure, the feed-in tariff is 23.73 ?t/kWh, if these systems use at least 80 mass per cent of manure and if they operate in cogeneration mode―see
・ As a general rule, direct marketing of renewable electricity was made mandatory for new renewable energy plants.
Rated electric power (kWel) | Remuneration (ct/kWh) |
---|---|
≤150 | 13.66 |
≤500 | 11.78 |
≤5000 | 10.55 |
≤20,000 | 5.85 |
≤500 (biowaste plant) | 15.26 |
≤20,0000 (biowaste plant) | 13.38 |
≤75 (biogas plant based on liquid manure) | 23.73 |
Source: Renewable Energy Sources Act―EEG (21.07.2014).
The amendments of 2011 and particularly of 2014 led to a considerable slowdown of the market. The reduced remuneration rates and the flexible ceiling negatively affected the economical attractiveness of new investments in biogas. Annual installation rates sharply dropped from 800 MWel in 2011 to 255 MWel in 2012, 158 MWel in 2013 and 136 MWel in 2014 [
The amendments pose a serious challenge to the German biogas sector which experiences a period of stagnation and further market consolidation. Several German plant manufacturers like AC Biogas GmbH or MT- Energie GmbH filed for insolvency, others seek to diversify their business portfolio and to unlock new export markets. According to the German Biogas Association, the number of employed persons in the sector dropped from roughly 63,000 in 2011 to 41,000 in 2013 [
Experts of the German Biomass Research Centre (DBFZ) criticized the recent amendments for being too restrictive, even from a sustainability point of view. The new remuneration rates are considered too low, therefore, installation rates are anticipated to remain even below the ceiling of 100 MWel. Market growth can only be expected for biowaste digestion and small scale biogas plants using liquid manure. The scientists argue that the reduced remuneration rates do not allow to fully exploit the sustainable biomass potential which mainly comprises animal excrements, agricultural residues and by-products like catch crops or straw. (Co-)fermentation of agricultural waste and residues is not considered cost-effective with the new support rates which negatively affects the utilization of animal excrements. The researchers also argue that the recent amendments jeopardise technology development and efficiency improvements [
Despite the remarkable market contraction, there are some promising developments which might contribute to a partial recovery of the biogas sector. The new German Circular Economy Act (KrWG) that transposes the European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) makes separate biowaste collection from households mandatory by 2015. Up to four million tonnes of household and kitchen waste might be additionally collected and fermented [
Polish energy policy is mainly shaped by economy and tradition. In 2012, coal constituted 55 per cent of Poland’s total primary energy consumption with the remainder represented by oil (26 per cent), natural gas (15 per cent) and renewable energy sources (RES) (4 per cent). For many years coal-firing plants produced 75 per cent or more of electric energy utilized in the country. In 2013, 11.3 per cent of electric energy was produced using RES (5.2 per cent from biomass―mainly co-fired with coal, 4.0 per cent from wind farms and 1.6 per cent from hydroelectric power stations).
2011 | 2012 | 2013* | 2014** | 2015** | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of biogas plants (thereof biomethane injection plants) | 7180 (77) | 7500 (109) | 7850 (144) | 7944 (153) | 8005 (156) |
Number of additional installations per year | 1270 | 340 | 335 | 94 | 61 |
Installed electric capacity including electricity from biomethane injection (MW) (capacity relevant for electric work) | 3100 | 3350 | 3543 (3510) | 3859 (3646) | 4054 (3654) |
Additional electric capacity of new installations per year (MW) (relevant for electric work) | 806 | 255 | 158 | 136 | 8 |
Annual generation of electricity (TWh) | 19.1 (net) | 22.8 (net) | 26.42 (gross) | 27.55 (gross) | 27.88 (gross) |
Households supplied with electricity from biogas (million) | 5.5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 8.0 |
Share in total electricity generation (%) | 3.2 | 3.9 | 4.1 | ||
Jobs | 63,000 | 45,000 | 41,000 | 41,000 | 39,000 |
*Data based on extrapolation; **Data based on an expert survey; Source: Data published by Fachverband Biogas e.V. [
Poland’s national target of 15 per cent of renewable energy in final energy consumption to be reached by 2020 results from a compromise between EU aspirations to reach an overall 20 per cent share and conflicting interests of the domestic coal industry which has a strong lobby in Poland. The strong influence of the coal industry, the abundance of coal and the expectation of increasing energy prices as a consequence of growing shares of renewable energy in the energy balance, explain the government’s general reluctance to environmental measures proposed by the European Union.
・ National Renewable Energy Action Plan, [
・ Energy Policy of Poland until 2030, [
・ Energy Policy of Poland until 2050 - draft ver. 0.2, [
The main objectives formulated by these strategic policy documents are to ensure security of energy supply, to limit energy price increases and to reduce GHG emissions. The moderate policy targets regarding future GHG emissions should be reformulated in view of the climate and energy policy framework for 2030 endorsed by the European Council in 2014 [
After years of uncertainty a new renewable energy act was adopted by the Parliament on 20 February 2015 [
The government will decide which amount of energy will be accepted for each auction. Separate auctions will be organized for installations with capacities in the range 40 kWe - 1 MWe and those above 1 MWe. Also, special provisions apply for existing RES installations which wish to shift from the renewable certificate scheme into the new auction system.
The Government expects that the new support scheme will be more efficient and effective than the previous one. In the auctions, the lowest bids will be entitled to sell their electricity. However, the prices offered in the bids certain cannot exceed technology-specific reference prices calculated annually by the Polish Energy Regulatory Office (pl. Urząd Regulacji Energetyki).
The support for prosumers depends on plants capacity: for installations up to 3 kWe the feed-in tariff equals 0.75 PLN for 1 kWh supplied into grid during 15 years and for installation from 3 till 10 kWe it equals 0.40 - 0.70 PLN for 1 kWh).
The support scheme will be financed through a newly introduced RES charge (pl. Opłata OZE) paid by all electricity customers. In 2015 the Ministry of Economy proposed a RES charge equal to 2.27 PLN/MWh (0.54 ?MWh).
The new regulations will likely help to develop a new model of distributed energy, i.e. the creation of local autonomous energy production centres, which enable savings and minimize transmission losses. It is also assumed that the new act will have positive employment effects (10,000 new jobs).
The new act will enter into force 30 days after its publication in the Polish Journal of Laws. However, the new auction scheme will enter into force on 1 January 2016.
Nowadays, about 40 per cent of renewable electric energy in Poland comes from co-firing in large installations and is eligible for RES support, although it faces strong criticism from experts in the field and among small energy producers (see e.g. Olszewski [
Co-firing of biomass and coal in big-scale power plants is reported to cause numerous problems, with respect to the process efficiency as well as regarding the sustainability advantage. Co-firing of biomass and coal in large-scale generation systems usually results in a reduction of the system efficiency (by a few percent on average) and problems with contamination of the installation. It can be assumed, that without significant revenues from the renewable energy certificates, co-firing would hardly be economically attractive. Biomass is often transported over long distances including from Brazil, Indonesia and Africa (ibid.) which reduces the lifecycle GHG savings. Besides, large scale power plants contribute to distort the biomass market, which jeopardizes the development of local, distributed energy systems which can be regarded as the most efficient way for utilization of renewable energy sources enabling regional economic development and regional value creation, and improving security of energy supply [
Unfortunately, despite these disadvantages biomass co-firing is financially supported in a number of European countries, and shall be supported in Poland until 2020 according to the Government’s National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) [
The new OZE regulations help to increase the share of renewable electricity to at least 25 per cent, particularly in installations with capacity below 1 MWe, which utilize local energy resources. The regulations also include provisions targeting sustainable production of biofuels and bioliquids as well as the protection of high- quality wood.
Referring to biomass, the Polish NREAP [
Sector | 2012 | Target values | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 2025 | 2030 | ||
Reduction of CO2 emission compared to 1990 level1 | 29.1%2 (GHG) | −23.8% | −19.9% | −17.5% |
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption1 | 10.9%3 | 15% | 15.8% | 16% |
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption for electricity1 | 10.7%3 | 18.5% | 19.5% 37.9 TWh/194.6 TWh | 18.2% 39.5 TWh/217.4 TWh |
Renewable energy share in gross final energy consumption for transport1 | 6.1%3 | 10% | 10.4% | |
Reduction of primary energy consumption (compared to 2006)1 | −4.7% (2010) | 4% | 13.5% | 21.2% |
Share of electricity generation from combined heat and power plants1 | 16.2% (2006) | 22% | ||
Primary energy intensity [toe/1000 PLN]1 | 0.048 | 0.0466 | 0.0386 | 0.033 |
1Source: Energy Policy of Poland until 2030 [
Biomass plant operator | Country | Electrical capacity (MWel in operation including CHP) | Biomass fuel used |
---|---|---|---|
Drax Group plc. | UK | 1260 | Pellets |
UPM/Pohjolan Voima Oy | Finland | 955 | Wood, black liquor, peat |
E.ON | Germany | 783 | Pellets, wood chips |
Fortum | Finland | 610 | Solid biomass, bio wastes, bio oil |
Vattenfall | Sweden | 444 | Solid biomass, waste |
Metso | Finland | 265 | Biomass co-firing |
Electrabel/GDF Suez | Belgium | 260 | Wood chips |
Veolia (Dalkia) | UK | 250 | Biomass co-firing |
GDF Suez/Cofely | France | 223 | Biomass co-firing |
DONG Energy | Denmark | 220 | CHP (wood chips, pellets, straw) |
Kaukaan Voima Oy | Finland | 125 | CHP (wood, bark, stumps, forest residues, peat) |
Source: EurObserv’ER 2015 [
wide sustainability framework for solid and gaseous biomass used for electricity, heating and cooling production, energy utilities and other industry stakeholders started to develop voluntary biomass sustainability schemes. In early 2010, major European energy companies that co-fired wood pellets and wood chips in their thermal power plants or dedicated biomass plants formed the Initiative Wood Pellet Buyers, which in 2013 was transformed into the Sustainable Biomass Partnership (SBP). Most of the companies joining the SBP had own sustainability schemes and biomass procurement policies in place. Furthermore, several energy utilities or industry associations concluded voluntary agreements with national or regional governments to ensure sustainable biomass sourcing and bioenergy production. Sustainable procurement and use of biomass are also a growing concern for regional and local utilities―see
In the frame of BIOENERGY PROMOTION 2, the project consortium examined a number of corporate biomass sustainability initiatives which are particularly relevant for the Baltic Sea region without intending to be exhaustive. The findings were published online [
The Sustainable Biomass Partnership (SBP) is an industry-led sustainability initiative formed in 2013 by several major European utilities that use biomass, mostly in the form of wood pellets in large thermal power plants. SBP continues the work of the former Initiative Wood Pellet Buyers (IWPB)10 [
SBP involves the utility companies DONG Energy, Drax, E.ON, GDF Suez, HOFOR, RWE and Vattenfall. The objective of the SBP is to develop the tools necessary to ensure that solid biomass used for energy production by its member organisations, complies with regulations on sustainability and biomass legality, and that the sector is recognised as an exemplar of good practices [
In 2014, the SBP endorsed its draft Biomass Assurance Framework (BAF). According to the SBP, the BAF is designed as a clear statement of principles, standards and processes necessary to demonstrate compliance with legal, regulatory and sustainability requirements. The BAF includes the following five standards:
・ Sustainable feedstock standard
・ Evaluation of feedstock against the sustainable feedstock standard
・ Certification systems standard
・ Chain of custody standard
・ Energy and carbon data selection [
As a result of a public consultation process held in 2014, BAF Version 0.0 was released in June 2014 for final testing by certification bodies and biomass producers. SBP expects to launch version 1.0 in the first quarter of 2015. So far, SBP accepted six certification bodies as applicants which are progressing towards SBP-approved status.
SBP seeks to align the Biomass Assurance Framework with existing forest certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) as far as possible. Yet SBP also argues that there is a limited uptake of certification in some key forest source areas, especially in the US and source areas based on small forest owners and that those certification systems do not cover all relevant requirements of biomass users (e.g. GHG accounting including forest carbon stock changes). Therefore, SBP aims to provide a mechanism for assessing and mitigating risk for biomass from non-certified sources as well through a specific risk assessment approach to be performed by the biomass producers (e.g. pellet plants).
The SBP can be regarded as a promising initiative, although it primarily reflects the interests of the traditional energy industry. One of the key rationales behind the initiative is to alleviate co-firing of biomass in large-scale fossil power plants or their conversion to dedicated biomass plants. As we pointed out earlier (see chapter 2), the BIOENERGY PROMOTION consortium concluded that co-firing of biomass might be a low cost and efficient way to reduce GHG emissions from electric power production, but should be viewed critical from a resource efficiency and energy efficiency perspective, particularly if this implies long distance transport of biomass and there is no or low use of surplus heat. Taking into account the findings of BIOENERGY PROMOTION, another drawback of the BAF is that in its current version it does not formulate any minimum lifecycle GHG reduction target compared to the use of fossil fuels11.
Prior to 2013, in Europe there were mainly three large-scale industrial wood pellet consumers for electric power production: Electrabel (Belgium), RWE Essent (the Netherlands, UK), and Drax (UK). All developed their own verification system for sustainable biomass, like, for example, the Green Gold Label developed by Essent [
E.ON operates throughout Europe, Russia and North America. Use of biomass involves mainly operations in Sweden at a number of coal-fired power stations and dedicated biomass power plants across Europe. The company aims to convert some of its existing coal fired plants to dedicated biomass plants or to co-firing facilities. E.ON disposes of a Responsible Procurement Policy that lays out the minimum standards for the corporate social responsibility performance of the company’s business partners, suppliers and their sub-contractors. For the procurement of biomass the company applies the Biomass Purchasing Amendment, which is in place since 2009 [
To ensure compliance with the company’s procurement policies, E.ON carries out risk reviews of all suppliers and joint venture partners, conducts audits locally and makes these guidelines an integral part of all contracts. E.ON can undertake internal or external audits and site visits to monitor and control the compliance with its Biomass Purchasing Amendment, and non-compliance with these standards can lead to sanctions.
In publicly available documentation the company does not disclose information on quantities, types or origin for its biomass supply (ibid.). Criteria were criticized for being too general and open to interpretation. Verification was criticized by for not being sufficiently independent [
The Finnish utility Fortum operates in the Nordic and Baltic countries, Poland, Russia and the UK. In 2014, one per cent of the company’s total electric power production was based on biomass [
In 2011 the company endorsed its “Position and Actions to ensure sustainable use of bioenergy in its operations” [
・ Protection of biodiversity, carbon stock and environmental quality (air, soil, water);
・ GHG emission savings compared to fossil fuels;
・ Optimization of resource use efficiency;
・ Social issues including human rights, labour rights, living conditions, land ownership.
According to the paper Fortum takes measures to verify the traceability and sustainability of biomass to ensure that purchased wood and wood products are legally logged and sourced. Bioenergy suppliers are requested to provide information on the origin of the bioenergy traded. To monitor compliance supplier audits shall be conducted by Fortum’s own professionals or, if needed, by independent third parties. Fortum aims to certify its wood biomass supply chain and to increase the share of certified wood in the supply of wood from forestry in accordance with the forest certification schemes FSC, PEFC, corresponding global standards or national regulations [
Vattenfall is one of the largest purchasers of biomass for power generation worldwide. More than 30 of the utility’s heating and power plants are powered entirely or partially by biomass. However, currently only one per cent of Vattenfall’s electricity production and 14 per cent of heat production is based on biomass [
Vattenfall provides a certain degree of transparency regarding the type, source and origin of biomass. In publicly available documentation, such as corporate reports and websites the company discloses some information on the type and origin of biomass. Vattenfall uses a “Code of conduct for suppliers”, which is based on the ten principles of the UN Global Compact as well as risk and impact assessments and audits and monitoring. Vattenfall is a founding member of the Sustainable Biomass Partnership. In 2012, Vattenfall Europe and the city state of Berlin concluded a voluntary agreement on the sustainability of biomass procurement valid from 2010 until 2020 (see sub-chapter 5.4).
The Danish company DONG Energy started to convert a number of coal- and gas-fired CHP plants to biomass or multi-fuel plants. By this, the utility aims to raise the share of biomass in combined heat production from 28 per cent in 2014 to at least 40 per cent in 2016 and 50 per cent in 2020 [
DONG Energy only purchases wood chips and wood pellets from suppliers who ensure that the biomass orig- inates solely from forest areas where processes and initiatives have been implemented resulting in:
・ Continuous reforestation
・ Protection of the ecosystem and biodiversity
・ Protection of particularly exposed areas or areas worthy of preservation
・ Compliance with social and professional rights, including the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Furthermore, the suppliers must meet DONG Energy’s ethical, social and environmental requirements and document that the lifecycle GHG emission savings reach at least 70 per cent rising to 75 per cent in 2025.
The programme adheres to the requirements and certification system under the Sustainable Biomass Partnership in which DONG is a member (see above). In the future, DONG Energy’s biomass supply shall be based on SBP-certified suppliers, once the SBP sustainability framework has been fully implemented.
Under the project BIOENERGY PROMOTION 2 other energy companies in the Baltic Sea Region and beyond were analysed, including EDF Polska, Dalkia, JSC Tukuma Siltums, JSC Komunālserviss TILDe, or Energinet.dk. However no explicit corporate biomass sustainability schemes, policies or programmes were identified.
Biomass sustainability agreement in Denmark (2014)
On December 4, 2014 the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building announced that the Danish energy association Dansk Energi and the Danish district heating association Dansk Fjernvarme signed a biomass sustainability agreement in response to an earlier request of the Minister Petersen to use only biomass for energy which was produced in a sustainable way. The voluntary industry agreement contains requirements on sustainable forest management and minimum lifecycle GHG emissions12. Subsequently, the utility DONG Energy endorsed a Programme for Sustainable Biomass Sourcing translating the agreement’s provisions into the company’s biomass procurement policy (see sub-chapter 5.2).
Agreement between the Senate of Berlin and Vattenfall Europe on sustainable procurement of woody biomass (2011) [
In Berlin, where Vattenfall is co-firing biomass in several combined heat and power plants, the company’s biomass sourcing policy came under severe criticism from the public when Vattenfall announced plans to import substantial amounts of biomass stemming from non-productive rubber trees. This led to an intense public debate about the environmental and social sustainability risks of Vattenfall’s biomass procurement policy. As a result, to ensure the sustainable procurement of woody biomass, in April 2011 Vattenfall signed an agreement with the Senate of Berlin on criteria for the sustainable procurement of woody biomass [
The agreement applies only to biomass used by Vattenfall Europe in power plants located in Berlin, but would be co-ordinated with voluntary standards used throughout Vattenfall. The agreement is valid from 2011- 2020 and covers mainly environmental criteria including GHG savings and social criteria. The agreement includes criteria referring to:
・ GHG reductions of 50 per cent compared to the use of coal;
・ Biodiversity protection, protection of carbon stock, preservation of environmental quality (air, soil, water);
・ Social issues referring to land use rights and labour legislation.
In the agreement the company committed itself to verify compliance with the sustainability criteria and every two years to carry out a third party assessment. Compliance shall principally ensured by certification systems, except for those cases when untreated wood residues from forestry or other origin are used.
The first assessment report pursuant to the agreement was published in 2013 [
The paper presented updated findings from policy and corporate strategy analyses conducted in the frame of BIOENERGY PROMOTION, one of the flagship projects under the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy. The overall purpose of this research was to examine how policy and business actors address environmental and social sustainability concerns of biomass.
In order to achieve the long term decarbonisation goals of the EU, the BIOENERGY PROMOTION consortium recommended supporting particularly those bioenergy pathways which achieve high lifecycle GHG saving compared to the use of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the operation stood out with its emphasis on resource efficient and energy efficient bioenergy production and use. Hence, policies promoting sustainable cultivation/harvesting/ sourcing of biomass need to be accompanied by measures that encourage efficiency improvements downstream the supply chain including logistics, conversion and final use of bioenergy (see also [
Although many stakeholders including the European Parliament, energy utilities, industry associations, NGOs, researchers have been advocating binding EU sustainability criteria for solid biomass, in 2014 the European Commission re-affirmed its earlier decision not to introduce any binding sustainability scheme for solid and gaseous biomass before 2020. However, a Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy where the same biomass streams
Category | Sustainability scheme/initiative | Minimum GHG savings (%) | Fossil fuel comparator |
---|---|---|---|
EU sustainability framework for biofuels/bioliquids | Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (referring to biofuels and bioliquids) | 35% (50%/60%) | EU fossil fuel comparator |
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE amending Directive 98/70/EC and amending Directive 2009/28/EC; COM (2012) 595 final | 60% for new installations in operation from 7/2014 | EU fossil fuel comparator | |
EU sustainability framework for solid/gaseous biomass used in electricity, heating and cooling | Biomass Report COM (2010)11 | 35% | EU-wide fossil fuel comparators for different technologies |
Biomass Report COM (2014)11 | 70% (good practice) | EU-wide fossil fuel comparators for different technologies | |
National sustainability schemes | UK Renewable Obligation | 60%/66% 72% (2020) 75% (2025) | EU wide fossil fuel comparator for electricity |
Corporate sustainability schemes and voluntary agreements | Initiative Wood Pellet Buyers | 60% | Reference fossil fuels |
Agreement between the Senate of Berlin and Vattenfall Europe | 50% | Coal (taking into account the GHG calculation methodology proposed by the EU Commission) | |
Green Deal on sustainability reporting of solid biomass for energy between the Dutch government and various energy companies | 60% | Reference fossil energy | |
DONG Energy Programme for Sustainable Biomass Sourcing | 70% 75% (2025) | n/a | |
Project based initiatives | Biomass Futures (Intelligent Energy Europe Programme) | 55% (2015) 60% (2020) 75% (2030) | Natural gas |
Bioenergy Promotion II (Baltic Sea Region Programme) | 80% | Fossil fuel based energy systems |
Sources: Department of Energy and Climate Change [
will be used increasingly for different applications requires clear regulations and minimum standards which apply to all uses of biomass. Without having a consistent and preferably binding biomass sustainability framework at EU level there is a risk of having a patchwork of potentially diverging sustainability regimes and initiatives across Europe causing market intransparency and insecurity for investors.
It can be regarded a promising signal that the European Commission raised its level of ambition regarding the GHG performance of bioenergy pathways compared to the first Biomass Report of 2010. It is likewise positive that energy and resource efficiency gained a more prominent role in recent EU policy documents.
National forest legislation needs to adequately address the specific risks of intensified production and harvesting methods related to forest biomass. The paper revealed that it is at least questionable whether existing governance mechanisms for sustainable forest management in biomass exporting countries are sufficiently robust and effective.
Only few Member States have so far introduced or plan to introduce binding sustainability schemes including lifecycle GHG savings requirements in accordance with the recommendations from the Commission. Most countries rely on overall environmental regulations. However, the paper illustrates that these regulations are not always sufficient due to regulatory gaps and weak enforcement.
The paper also illustrated how problematic policy priorities and policy malfunctioning in two sub-sectors (biogas from energy crops in Germany, biomass co-firing in Poland) led to undesirable environmental and social developments. To mitigate the negative developments associated with biogas production from maize, the German Federal Government gradually amended the Renewable Energy Sources Act, prioritizing the use of residues and wastes over energy crops. However, the recent amendments of 2014 probably fail to effectively unlock the sustainable potential of residues and wastes due to insufficient support rates. In Poland there are some positive signs of a re-orientation of policies towards distributed energy systems and local use of renewable energy sources, although biomass co-firing is still supported, albeit to a lesser extent.
About half of the EU Member States have adopted regulations promoting higher efficiency of bioenergy production (i.e. efficient combined heat and power production). On the other side, biomass co-firing is supported in several EU countries, like UK, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands or Poland. The BIOENERGY PROMO- TION consortium expressed its concerns regarding biomass co-firing particularly if combined with long distance transports of biomass. Minimum conversion efficiency requirements for fossil and renewable energy plants would safeguard against developing bioenergy options that are efficient in reducing GHG emissions but still inefficient in terms of resource use. Instead, efficient utilization of surplus heat in small to medium scale cogeneration processes can contribute to the decarbonisation of both the heat and electricity sector (see also [
Besides assessing EU and national policy frameworks the paper also examined how industrial stakeholders, particularly energy utilities respond to the growing sustainability concerns associated with biomass. The paper portrayed a number of voluntary biomass sustainability initiatives which recently have been developed on own initiative or as a result of voluntary agreements between national or regional governments and the utilities. There are notable differences in scope, level of ambition, verification procedures and level of independence, as well as chain of custody systems.
The Sustainable Biomass Partnership promises acceptance from energy utilities as it involves some of the biggest market players using biomass in large-scale for power generation which represent 70 per cent of the European wood pellet market. However, a key driver of the initiative is to alleviate global trade of biomass and biomass co-firing in fossil plants or dedicated biomass plants. The scheme might further develop as an authoritative sustainability and certification system for solid biomass, although there exist several other potentially competing certification schemes including the Green Gold Label, another industry-led scheme, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, ISCC plus, ENplus, or NTA8080. There are indications of harmonisation between SBP and some of those schemes13 [
Research leading to this paper was conducted in the frame of the projects BIOENERGY PROMOTION and BIOENERGY PROMOTION 2. Both operations received funding from the European Commission under the Baltic Sea Region Programme. Funding was also provided by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection through its funding programme Renewable Resources.