reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the uk raphael slade, caliope panoutsou, ausilio bauen...
TRANSCRIPT
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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)
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
• Are existing UK policies performing?
• Will new UK initiatives increase deployment?
• The role of the EU
• Conclusions
Outline
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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…
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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”
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
“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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC 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
• Implicit rejection of RCEP demand additional funding
2005
[email protected] BiosysTSEC 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] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
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)
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
• 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…
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
July 2009…The UK Renewable Energy Strategy
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
• 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
[email protected] BiosysTSEC Biosys
“… 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)