Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen...

Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK

Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen

TSEC

27th July 2009

E-mail: [email protected]: +44 (0)20 7594 7306

TSEC BiosysTSEC Biosys

Biomass and Bioenergy 2008 : doi:10.1016/jbiombioe.2008.10.007

[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys

‘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’

The UK has sought to lead on climate change


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)

80%... (Climate Change Act 08)

The world needs to face up to the challenge of climate change, and to do

so now (07)


Increased deployment of bio-energy is part of the solution…

…will UK or EU initiatives lead the way?

The [UK] approach can be characterised as: no targets;

no concerted policy; no strategy; and, limited support

for development

“The UK is in danger of being left behind”

Royal Commission Environmental Pollution 22nd report

Sir Ben Gill – Biomass Taskforce

Modest increases in deployment, but more needs to be done


• Are existing UK policies performing?

• Will new UK initiatives increase deployment?

• The role of the EU

• Conclusions

Outline


Incentive schemes target all stages of the supply-chain and the innovation chain.

Feedstocks DistributionConversion

R&D

Knowledge transfer

Commercialisation

Supply chain

Innovationchain

16 incentive schemes identified* including:

* Biomass Task Force 2005

• Energy Crops Scheme

• Bioenergy infrastructure scheme

• DTI technology programme

• Community energy

• ROCs

• Community renewables initiative

Numerous organisations are responsible for administration:

The existing policy framework is extensive…

http://www.defra.gov.uk/

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem/index.jsp

http://www.berr.gov.uk/


Bio-energy

…but ambitious high level targets cannot be disaggregated

UK Set the UK on a path to cut CO2 by 60% by 2050

12.5% cut in CO2, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012

20% cut relative to 1990 levels, by 2010

“Is important”

“Significant contribution”


Specific targets run counter to Government policy…

Implications for bio-energy

Is the current level of deployment the most efficient and thus desirable?...

…or indicative of policy failure?

The political mindset

• Competition should be supported

• Technology options should compete of price

• Support mechanisms should be technology blind

• Policy cost should be minimised

…bio-energy policies cannot be assessed against objectives


“realise a major expansion in the supply and use of biomass in the UK”

This strategy aims to …

Will future policies increase deployment?

May 2007


Energy White Paper

RCEPBiomass

BiomassTaskforce

UK BiomassStrategy

03 04 05 06

Response to Taskforce

Year

Reg

ion

alN

atio

nal

Eu

rop

ean

08

Direct link

Influence

07

Non-food crops

strategy

Non-food crops progress

report

Transport Innovation Strategy

Micro-generation strategy

Energy review

Carbon trust Biomass

sector review

National Audit Office-

Renewable energy

Waste Strategy ConsultationFor England

Biomass action plan for Scotland

Waste Strategy for England

England wood fuel strategy

EU Biofuels Strategy

EU Biomass action plan

Agreement for ResE Directive

EU Biofuels directive

Policy processes and interactions


Reform issue On agenda

Not on

Decision for reform

Decision against

Successful implementation

Implementation& evaluation

DecisionAgenda

Unsuccessful

Evaluation

Time

The framework for assessment

• Unambiguous objectives

• Quantifiable outcomes

• Cause and effect are linked

• Adequate time and resources

• Compliance enforceable

• Implementation considered alongside policy formation

• Delivery agencies not interdependent

Best practice criteria

• Delivery mechanism- Incentives / standards / information /

further work

• Resource commitment- New funding / ambiguous / negligible

• Escape hatch- Review… / consider… / look at… / where

appropriate…

• Follow-up- Accepted / contingent / rejected

Action categories

Policy model


Setting the agenda

• Identified heat as a key area for support – proposed a heat obligation

• Implicit demand for additional financial support

• Failed to make request for support explicit

• Failed to link increased support to tangible benefits

• Little impact on subsequent reports

• Dismissed biofuels as ‘inefficient’ or ‘speculative’

2004


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

• Implicit rejection of RCEP demand additional funding

2005


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


Reframing the debate

• A return to the agenda phase: from bio-energy 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


Developments in the EU

Renewable electricity directive (2001)

Biofuels directive (2003)

Precise, legally binding targetsA co-ordinated approachMinimum sustainability

standards

Indicative, non-binding

targets

Agreement for renewable energy directive (2008)


• 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

Conclusions…


July 2009…The UK Renewable Energy Strategy


• 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!

RES Bioenergy related recommendations


“… understanding a social problem is not always necessary for its amelioration.”

“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.”

“Policy change is, under most circumstances, evolutionary…neither revolution, nor drastic policy change, nor even carefully

planned big steps are ordinarily possible…

An alternative (incrementalist) perspective…

(Lindblom 1979)


TSEC BiosysTSEC Biosys

Thank you for your attention

Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen...

Documents

Transcript of Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen...