Informed debate: policies on the implementation of sustainable biofuels

- Open debate for better decisions

- Better understanding of stakeholders priorities

- Bridge different interests by finding a mutual agenda

Biofuels pro’s and con’s

Good for• Energy security• Combating climate change

But issues are raised- Land use changes (food versus fuel)- Energy efficiency - Economic feasibility- North – South distribution

Informing policy makers

Three-step approach:

• Harvesting input: 2 Public events (September 2008) + series of expert interviews

• Processing information: a Stakeholder Workshop (October 2008)

• Discussion: Dinner debate for European Parliament

Involved in the three steps

Step 1. Two public debates: Perspectives on Biofuels’www.parrhesia.info

Why did we consider these meetings to be important?

- Transparency

- Need for interaction between research centres and the public on research agendas

- Need to engage with the public on facts and issues

- Need to focus on social implications

audience: primary and secondary stakeholders

-(smaller) companies (industrial biotechnology) - companies working in the trade sector - transport sector- gas stations - car lease companies - the harbour company- scientists, engineers- social scientists- NGO’s (citizen, consumer and environmental issues), - policy makers

Perspectives on biofuels

AmsterdamPrinciples of sustainability:

2 panels, technology experts and social sciences: issue of social complexity

RotterdamViability of implementation:

1 panel, diverse stakeholders:Issue of dealing with sustainability in practice

Some statements on societal concerns:

Criteria for sustainability are defined too generally and abstract. The Dutch Cramer report is an example of that problem. Sustainability criteria defined on the basis of societal realities are highly needed, but it seems powerful lobbies stand in the way

Creating more lists of criteria will not lead to true sustainability Why should we pay tax money to implement sustainability criteria (social and environmental) for biofuels when we have never done this for fossil fuels?  

Some statements (continued):

 Scandinavia has created an infrastructure in which the consumer has a choice. Apparently this works  Taxes on flights should be calculated on the basis of the sustainability of the flight company in question   Biomass production necessitates a global overview   Citizens should be held more responsible for their use of fuels and decrease their need for transportation  

Some statements (continued):

The citizen has become cynical. Although this is not based on concrete facts, it has often been the experience that one cannot trust PR-stories of either politicians or industry. Therefore, even PR with good (but hidden) intent is counterproductive  Biofuels are an UPO, an unidentified political object. Too complex an issue to approach from one mono-causal (technological) perspective, and politically dangerous ground to tread  Experts have only knowledge about mini-causalities but the larger scope and technology-external issues are often left aside since they do not match the (scientific) paradigm

Some statements (continued):

The biofuels-market is a policy-driven rather than a consumer-driven market. This also determines the price differences and advantages

Unfortunately biofuels are still defined in terms of the old fossil fuel paradigm. There is no level playing ground between fossil energy sources and sustainable energy sources. The calculations are not based on a longer term effect. Ethanol from Brazil is taxed as an agricultural good, while it could also be seen as an environmental good

Full input document available through: l.landeweerd@tudelft.nl

28 experts from China, US and Europe discussed the drivers and issues for sustainable biofuels

Their recommendations for policy making are presented tonight

Input: •Public debates•Stakeholder and report analysis (interviews and >30 reports)•Zero Version Lausanne Round Table on sustainable biofuels

4th Kluyver Centre Stakeholder Workshop on Future Societal Aspects of Industrial Biotechnology

Step 2:

1. Bioenergy must be seen as contribution to a sustainable energy portfolio

2. Policy making should emphasise the issue the security of energy supply in looking for alternative sources of energy

3. It needs to be communicated more explicitly that the security of energy supply is an important driver for the implementation of biofuels

4. A comprehensive agro-industrial policy is needed for future food-, fuel-, feed- and fibre-production

5. The development of alternative energy sources requires a level playing field for all agro- and forestry products

List of 10 recommendations for policy

6.Policy measures should stimulate efficiency improvements in agriculture

7.We need global standards for monitoring and certification systems

8.Policy measures need to recognise investment options by providing for long-term trajectories rather than short-term fixes

9.Biofuel development needs priority in the short-term whilst alternative infrastructures for alternative energy sources need should be stimulated in the long-term

10.Attention should be given to the increase of welfare for an increasing world population

-

List (continued)

Programme for dinner debate (4-11-2008)

19.15: Welcome by Lily Jacobs, chair Malcolm Harbour (MEP’s)

19.25: Prof Luuk van der Wielen

19.35: Response by Dr Roger Wyse

 

19.45: Dinner Course 1

20.00: Dr Richard Heap

20.10: Plenary questions/remarks

 

20.20: Dinner Course 2

20.50: Prof Julian Kinderlerer

21.00: Response by Prof Han de Winde

21.20: Dessert (served while circulating)

21.30: Conclusion by Malcolm Harbour (MEP)