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

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

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 2016, vol. 5, issue 1, 89-118

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

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.166

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:wireae:v:5:y:2016:i:1:p:89-118

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=2041-8396

Access Statistics for this article

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment is currently edited by Peter Lund and John Byrne

More articles in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().