• Energy Research

Over the last decade Brazil has implemented a new and ambitious biofuel program: the National Program of Production and Use of Biodiesel (PNPB). When launching this program in 2004 the government stated that it wanted to avoid the same kind of geographical concentration, single crop focus, dominance of agribusiness, and exclusion of family farmers that have occurred with bioethanol production through the ProÁlcool policy since 1975. This paper compares the life histories of the bioethanol and the biodiesel policies of Brazil by analyzing their substantive policy content; the power and politics of actors that struggle for the design and implementation of the policies; and the polity in terms the organization and institutionalization of the policies. The paper concludes that both policies have become submerged by and dependent on the polity and politics of primarily the energy and agricultural sectors that operate as the two semi-autonomous governance fields. This submerging has shaped the substantive contents of biofuels policies, and explains why the 2004 biodiesel policy PNPB, in spite of its objectives for social inclusion and rural development, faces similar problems in implementation as its predecessor, the 1975 bioethanol policy ProÁlcool.

Reducing the climate impact of rural household energy consumption in China is complicated since it is bound up with deeply routinized daily practices and dependent from existing infrastructural systems of energy supply. To assess the potential for low carbon development we first estimate the overall CO2 emissions of rural households, followed by a more in depth description and characterization of the different energy use practices within the households. Space heating turns out to be the largest emission source among domestic energy practices in north China. We present lifestyle and context related factors that help to explain existing differences in domestic energy use practices of households. The potential for low carbon development is discussed both at the demand side and the supply side. At the demand side, the use of more efficient technologies and cleaner energy sources for space heating seems to be a high potential measure for achieving low carbon households. At the supply side the reduction of rural domestic CO2 emissions could be effectively supported by making available to householders renewable and cleaner energy sources and technologies. In order to be effective, such low carbon energy options should take into account the (income) characteristics and lifestyles of rural householders

Greening flood protection (GFP) is increasingly recognized as an adaptive and flexible approach to water management that is well suited to addressing uncertain futures associated with climate change. In the last decade, GFP knowledge and policies have developed rapidly, but implementation has been less successful and has run into numerous barriers. In this paper, we address the challenge of realizing green flood protection goals by specifically considering knowledge in the decision-making of a Dutch flood protection project in Lake Markermeer. In this project, an ecological knowledge arrangement and a traditional flood protection knowledge arrangement are compared and their interactions analysed. The analysis provides insight into the specific difficulties of implementing GFP measures and identifies ways to realize GFP goals. The primary challenge is twofold: First, a self-reinforcing cycle of knowledge production and decision-making in the flood protection domain inhibits the introduction of innovative and multifunctional approaches such as GFP; second, the distribution of power is severely unbalanced in terms of ecological enhancement and flood protection, favouring the latter. Implementation of GFP requires structural change and the integration of ecological and flood protection knowledge and policy. Potentially rewarding routes towards this integration are the exploration of shared interests in GFP and the creation of mutual dependency between knowledge arrangements. The case study and the insights it provides show that GFP is far from mainstream practice and that implementation requires serious effort and courage to break with historical practices.

This article presents a detailed review and analysis of the discussions around the new market mechanism (NMM) and explores its potential in China. It contributes to the current discussion of the NMM in three aspects. First, this article attempts to streamline ideas about the NMM. The term NMM is considered to be an umbrella concept for emission trading systems which all Parties can engage in on a voluntary basis in the implementation of their intended nationally determined contributions, and which need to satisfy three criteria: (i) having a large scale scope; (ii) aiming to facilitate a net emission reduction; (iii) allowing flexibility for the host country. We also present a framework to clarify the NMM. Based on this framework, major options with a high implementation potential are identified. Second, we argue that the national-level operational framework determines the chance of successful implementation of the NMM. We identify different options based on a literature survey and evaluate them with respect to effectiveness and efficiency. Third, we choose China, a highly influential country regarding climate change polices, as a case to analyze the potential contributions and challenges of the NMM and its implementation at different stages of national development

In many of the least developed countries the energy security conundrum is how to provide affordable, safe and clean energy to a low income rural population. Household level generation of biogas from animal waste for both cooking and lighting, while producing high quality organic fertiliser, is increasingly proposed as a viable part of the solution for farming households. Since the early 1990s international development organisations – often in cooperation with the national government – have attempted to introduce biogas technologies in many least developed countries, but most initiatives failed. In this landscape of failed biogas development programmes the National Biodigester Programme (NBP) Cambodia started in 2006, with the aim to establish a permanent market oriented and self-financed biogas sector. The results show the development of a sustainable domestic biodigester sector, a rapid diffusion of biodigesters among poor rural households, but still ambivalences on financial independency from external funding and carbon finance. The conclusion is that a pure market model for biogas development in the rural area of the least developed countries will not easily work. Governmental regulation and coordination will remain needed, and carbon finance will not easily fully replace ODA and governmental financial support.

The current generation of crop-based biofuels is heavily contested for its negative consequences for the environment and the poor. Hence, the current biofuel system needs to be transformed in the direction of what can be labelled 'fair fuels': (bio) fuels that are environmentally and socially sustainable. Conventional state environmental authorities have limited power and legitimacy to effectively regulate the sustainability of current global biofuels. Hence, we witness the emergence of private market environmental authorities, moral environmental authorities and all kinds of hybrid authorities in biofuel regulation. These new forms of environmental authority should neither be condemned as ineffective and undemocratic nor celebrated as the modern answer to transnational environmental problems that face state failure. Further critical inquiry into the changing environmental authority structure under conditions of globalisation is needed.