Download Slide 1

TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Reconciling bio-energy policy and
delivery in the UK
TSEC
27th July 2009
Biomass and Bioenergy 2008 : doi:10.1016/jbiombioe.2008.10.007
Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 7306
The UK has sought to lead on climate change
‘Climate change is probably, in the long
term, the single most important issue we
face as a global community’
‘We need to go beyond Kyoto…
climate change cannot be ignored’
‘This is extremely urgent. A 50%
cut by 2050 has to be a central
component’
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
80%... (Climate Change Act 08)
The world needs to face up to the
challenge of climate change, and to do
so now (07)
Government must show leadership by
setting the right framework. Binding targets
for carbon reduction, year on year (06)
Tackling climate change is our social
responsibility (06)
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Increased deployment of bio-energy is part of
the solution…
…will UK or EU initiatives lead the way?
Modest increases in deployment, but more needs to be done
“The UK is in danger of
being left behind”
Royal Commission Environmental
Pollution 22nd report
The [UK] approach can be
characterised as: no targets;
no concerted policy; no
strategy; and, limited support
for development
Sir Ben Gill – Biomass Taskforce
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Outline
• Are existing UK policies performing?
• Will new UK initiatives increase deployment?
• The role of the EU
• Conclusions
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
The existing policy framework is extensive…
Incentive schemes target all stages of the supply-chain and the innovation chain.
Supply chain
Feedstocks
Conversion
Distribution
R&D
16 incentive schemes identified* including:
• Energy Crops
Scheme
• Bioenergy
infrastructure
scheme
• DTI technology
programme
• Community
energy
• ROCs
Innovation
chain
Commercialisation
• Community
renewables
initiative
Knowledge
transfer
Numerous organisations are responsible for administration:
* Biomass Task Force 2005
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
…but ambitious high level targets cannot be
disaggregated
12.5% cut in CO2, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012
UK
Set the UK on a path to cut CO2 by 60% by 2050
20% cut relative to 1990 levels, by 2010
“Significant contribution”
Bio-energy
“Is important”
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Specific targets run counter to Government
policy…
The political mindset
Implications for bio-energy
• Competition should be
supported
• Technology options
should compete of price
• Support mechanisms
should be technology
blind
Is the current level of
deployment the most
efficient and thus
desirable?...
…or indicative of policy
failure?
• Policy cost should be
minimised
…bio-energy policies cannot be assessed
against objectives
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Will future policies increase deployment?
This strategy aims to …
“realise a major expansion
in the supply and use of
biomass in the UK”
May 2007
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
European
Policy processes and interactions
EU Biofuels
directive
EU
Biofuels
Strategy
EU Biomass
action plan
Non-food
crops
strategy
National
Regional
Transport
Innovation
Strategy
Energy
review
National
Audit OfficeRenewable
energy
Microgeneration
strategy
Non-food
crops progress
report
Carbon trust
Biomass
sector review
Energy
White
Paper
Agreement
for ResE
Directive
RCEP
Biomass
Biomass
Taskforce
Response to
Taskforce
UK Biomass
Strategy
England
wood fuel
strategy
Waste Strategy
Consultation
For England
Direct link
Waste Strategy
for England
Biomass
action plan
for Scotland
Influence
03
04
05
Year
[email protected]
06
07
08
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
The framework for assessment
Policy model
Reform issue
Implementation
& evaluation
Decision
Agenda
On agenda
Decision for
reform
Successful
implementation
Not on
Decision against
Unsuccessful
Evaluation
Time
Best practice criteria
Action categories
• Delivery mechanism
• Unambiguous objectives
- Incentives / standards / information /
further work
• Quantifiable outcomes
• Cause and effect are linked
• Resource commitment
• Adequate time and resources
- New funding / ambiguous / negligible
• Escape hatch
• Compliance enforceable
• Implementation considered alongside
policy formation
• Delivery agencies not interdependent
- Review… / consider… / look at… / where
appropriate…
• Follow-up
- Accepted / contingent / rejected
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Setting the agenda
• Identified heat as a key area for support –
proposed a heat obligation
• Implicit demand for additional financial
support
• Dismissed biofuels as ‘inefficient’ or
‘speculative’
• Failed to make request for support
explicit
• Failed to link increased support to
tangible benefits
2004
• Little impact on subsequent reports
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Re-defining the agenda
• Called for a link between UK targets and
those for bio-energy, and to make them
quantifiable
• Recognised that fragmentation of delivery
was a problem
• Focused on “encouragement and
facilitation” actions only
• Starting point: no new funding could be
justified
• Heat obligation (from RCEP) rejected as
unworkable
2005
• Implicit rejection of RCEP demand
additional funding
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Agreeing an agenda
• Capital grant scheme ~10-15m / 2 years
(half that proposed by taskforce)
• Implicit rejection of link between UK
targets and those for bio-energy
• No commitments have quantifiable
objectives
• Most commitments have escape hatches
built in, or are contingent on other
reviews
2006
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Reframing the debate
• A return to the agenda phase: from bioenergy to climate change and innovation
• No causal link between policy goals and
delivery outcomes
• Intangible actions: ambiguous outcomes…
e.g. “the UK will continue to engage
internationally”
• Little additional funding: will a ~£7m/yr
capital grant scheme deliver a “major
expansion”?
May 2007
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Developments in the EU
Indicative,
non-binding
targets
Precise, legally binding targets
A co-ordinated approach
Minimum sustainability
standards
[email protected]
Renewable electricity
directive (2001)
Biofuels directive (2003)
Agreement for renewable
energy directive (2008)
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Conclusions…
• The UK has stretching renewable energy and carbon
targets, but targets for bio-energy are ambiguous
• There are many bio-energy policy initiatives, but no causal
link between objectives and outcomes
• Most policy actions are limited to information provision /
facilitation. Their efficacy is unknown.
• Attempts to translate UK-level targets into lower-level
targets for bio-energy have been made, but have not been
pursued
• Increased deployment will be driven by the EU
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
July 2009…
The UK Renewable Energy Strategy
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
RES Bioenergy related recommendations
•
•
•
•
Renewable heat incentive resurrected
New office for Renewable Energy Development
Feed-in tariffs for small-scale generators
Inclusion of sustainability criteria in RO
Numerous consultations…
Numerous new departments, boards, committees…
Increasing technology prescription…
A General Election before June 2010!
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
An alternative (incrementalist) perspective…
“… understanding a social problem is not always necessary for its
amelioration.”
“Policy change is, under most circumstances,
evolutionary…neither revolution, nor drastic policy change, nor
even carefully planned big steps are ordinarily possible…
“A fast moving sequence of small changes can more speedily
accomplish a drastic alteration of the status quo than can only
infrequent major policy change.”
(Lindblom 1979)
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys
Thank you for your attention
[email protected]
TSEC Biosys
TSEC Biosys