1. Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen TSEC 27 th July 2009 E-mail: raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 7306 Biomass and Bioenergy 2008 : doi:10.1016/jbiombioe.2008.10.007

2. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk ‘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

3. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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)

4. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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 22 nd report Sir Ben Gill – Biomass Taskforce Modest increases in deployment, but more needs to be done

5. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Are existing UK policies performing? Will new UK initiatives increase deployment? The role of the EU Conclusions Outline

6. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Incentive schemes target all stages of the supply-chain and the innovation chain. FeedstocksDistributionConversion R&D Knowledge transfer Commercialisation Supply chain Innovation chain 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…

7. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.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”

8. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

9. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk “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

10. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Energy White Paper RCEP Biomass Taskforce UK Biomass Strategy 03 04 0506 Response to Taskforce Year Regional National European 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 Consultation For 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

11. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Reform issueOn agenda Not on Decision for reform Decision against Successful implementation Implementation & evaluation Decision Agenda 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

12. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

13. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

14. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

15. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

16. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Developments in the EU Renewable electricity directive (2001) Biofuels directive (2003) Precise, legally binding targets A co-ordinated approach Minimum sustainability standards Indicative, non-binding targets Agreement for renewable energy directive (2008)

17. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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…

18. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk July 2009… The UK Renewable Energy Strategy

19. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk 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

20. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk “… 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)

21. Raphael.slade@imperial.ac.uk Thank you for your attention