• Energy Research

Biofuels have been promoted worldwide under the assumption that they can support several strategic policy goals, while mitigating associated risks. Drawing on published evidence on performance, contributing papers to this Special Section question assumptions commonly attributed to biofuels: their carbon neutrality, their positive effect on rural livelihoods, and policymakers’ ability to effectively govern for sustainability. This paper takes these findings as its starting point and asks, “What next?” for countries wishing to advance biofuels as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Deriving recommendations for national biofuel programs from past performance is no easy task. Context, complexity, power dynamics and scaling pose significant challenges to achieving policy aims. We are nevertheless able to distill a set of sine qua nons (indispensables) for sustainable biofuel governance from the evidence and change management literatures. They are put forward not as recipes for success, but minimum conditions and “best bet” approaches requiring testing, deliberation, and refinement. Perhaps the most fundamental sine qua non is to pursue options that downscale global demand – as current levels of global energy consumption, if only in the transport sector, cannot be met by biomass-derived agrofuels in a way that meets social and environmental sustainability goals.

Biofuels have been promoted worldwide under the assumption that they can support several strategic policy goals, while mitigating associated risks. Drawing on published evidence on performance, contributing papers to this Special Section question assumptions commonly attributed to biofuels: their carbon neutrality, their positive effect on rural livelihoods, and policymakers’ ability to effectively govern for sustainability. This paper takes these findings as its starting point and asks, “What next?” for countries wishing to advance biofuels as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Deriving recommendations for national biofuel programs from past performance is no easy task. Context, complexity, power dynamics and scaling pose significant challenges to achieving policy aims. We are nevertheless able to distill a set of sine qua nons (indispensables) for sustainable biofuel governance from the evidence and change management literatures. They are put forward not as recipes for success, but minimum conditions and “best bet” approaches requiring testing, deliberation, and refinement. Perhaps the most fundamental sine qua non is to pursue options that downscale global demand – as current levels of global energy consumption, if only in the transport sector, cannot be met by biomass-derived agrofuels in a way that meets social and environmental sustainability goals.

Abstract This editorial is the introduction to a Special Issue of Scaling Up Biofuels? A Critical Look at Expectations, Performance and Governance which assesses biofuels contribution to sustainability governance and upscaling. The issue aims to contribute to a more informed, evidence-based policy debate on the role of bioenergy for sustainable development. It comprises six review papers that share a solutions-oriented and policy-focused approach towards the assessment of sustainability. Bioenergy production and consumption is not evaluated as an isolated industry or additionality. Instead, it is assessed as an inherent component of the broader social-ecological system and history of which it forms a part. Synthesizing available empirical evidence on performance, and contextualizing the evidence in view of expectations and bioenergy governance in and over time, the papers address the role of biofuels for climate mitigation; their ability to deliver on socio-economic policy expectations; the actual performance in view of risk anticipation and mitigation; the role of state policy considering sector development and sustainability; and the ability of certification schemes to deliver on market conversion, and quality. The synthesis paper draws on the empirical findings to develop a set of sustainability conditions (sine qua nons) that have to be considered in processes of policy making and upscaling.

Abstract This editorial is the introduction to a Special Issue of Scaling Up Biofuels? A Critical Look at Expectations, Performance and Governance which assesses biofuels contribution to sustainability governance and upscaling. The issue aims to contribute to a more informed, evidence-based policy debate on the role of bioenergy for sustainable development. It comprises six review papers that share a solutions-oriented and policy-focused approach towards the assessment of sustainability. Bioenergy production and consumption is not evaluated as an isolated industry or additionality. Instead, it is assessed as an inherent component of the broader social-ecological system and history of which it forms a part. Synthesizing available empirical evidence on performance, and contextualizing the evidence in view of expectations and bioenergy governance in and over time, the papers address the role of biofuels for climate mitigation; their ability to deliver on socio-economic policy expectations; the actual performance in view of risk anticipation and mitigation; the role of state policy considering sector development and sustainability; and the ability of certification schemes to deliver on market conversion, and quality. The synthesis paper draws on the empirical findings to develop a set of sustainability conditions (sine qua nons) that have to be considered in processes of policy making and upscaling.

This paper investigates how risks are anticipated in national bioenergy policies and in which way related expectations that harms can be prevented or mitigated have actually been met. The paper draws on the national biofuel policies of ten countries and the EU, selected to represent a diverse sample of regions, producers and consumers, and pioneers and latecomers. It proceeds in two steps: firstly, it identifies three risk categories most frequently mentioned across the investigated national policies. Secondly, it conducts a systematic review of available empirical research about biofuels’ effects in these risk categories. Findings are discussed regarding the empirical conditions under which related expectations to do no harm have materialized or failed; and concerning the challenges of risks perception and management in actual policies. We observe issues of crop selection and inadequate sectoral governance of biofuels, but also challenges of large-scale modes of intensive production. Effective risk mitigation was often the result of risk adverse choices by contract farmers engaged in biofuels production. National policy documents have insufficiently conceptualized ‘do no harm’ concepts and strategies in place to address these performance issues; while remaining silent on the particular risk governance and accountability framework that keeps track of actual developments, commitments and responsibilities.

This paper investigates how risks are anticipated in national bioenergy policies and in which way related expectations that harms can be prevented or mitigated have actually been met. The paper draws on the national biofuel policies of ten countries and the EU, selected to represent a diverse sample of regions, producers and consumers, and pioneers and latecomers. It proceeds in two steps: firstly, it identifies three risk categories most frequently mentioned across the investigated national policies. Secondly, it conducts a systematic review of available empirical research about biofuels’ effects in these risk categories. Findings are discussed regarding the empirical conditions under which related expectations to do no harm have materialized or failed; and concerning the challenges of risks perception and management in actual policies. We observe issues of crop selection and inadequate sectoral governance of biofuels, but also challenges of large-scale modes of intensive production. Effective risk mitigation was often the result of risk adverse choices by contract farmers engaged in biofuels production. National policy documents have insufficiently conceptualized ‘do no harm’ concepts and strategies in place to address these performance issues; while remaining silent on the particular risk governance and accountability framework that keeps track of actual developments, commitments and responsibilities.

Abstract While excitement around biofuels initially focused on finding a clean and secure alternative to fossil fuels, many other expectations have subsequently been attached to the “biofuel boom.” Biofuels are not only expected to mitigate climate change or foster domestic energy security, but also to generate employment, provide opportunities to smallholders and support decentralized energy systems. This paper interrogates the expectations attached to biofuels. We begin by examining how policies in consumer and producer countries articulate a series of expectations for biofuels that are “bundled” with the promise of cleaner energy, using the rationales behind these expectations to derive criteria for success. We then review evidence from the published literature on biofuel outcomes against these criteria to assess whether the most prevalent assumptions have been met. We find that policy expectations for biofuels are often expressed in narrow terms, failing to capture important potential impacts – for example focusing on new jobs in the formal sector rather than job quality or whether employment offsets livelihood costs associated with biofuel investments. Some expectations have proven elusive irrespective of the metrics employed, for example using biofuels to improve energy access in remote rural areas. The paper concludes by discussing implications for policy and practice.

Abstract While excitement around biofuels initially focused on finding a clean and secure alternative to fossil fuels, many other expectations have subsequently been attached to the “biofuel boom.” Biofuels are not only expected to mitigate climate change or foster domestic energy security, but also to generate employment, provide opportunities to smallholders and support decentralized energy systems. This paper interrogates the expectations attached to biofuels. We begin by examining how policies in consumer and producer countries articulate a series of expectations for biofuels that are “bundled” with the promise of cleaner energy, using the rationales behind these expectations to derive criteria for success. We then review evidence from the published literature on biofuel outcomes against these criteria to assess whether the most prevalent assumptions have been met. We find that policy expectations for biofuels are often expressed in narrow terms, failing to capture important potential impacts – for example focusing on new jobs in the formal sector rather than job quality or whether employment offsets livelihood costs associated with biofuel investments. Some expectations have proven elusive irrespective of the metrics employed, for example using biofuels to improve energy access in remote rural areas. The paper concludes by discussing implications for policy and practice.

Abstract The special issue Scaling up bioenergy? identifies major policy expectations attached to biofuels production worldwide, and it provides systematic reviews of actual biofuel performance and governance in these areas. Papers address the extent to which policy expectations related to climate change mitigation, energy security, rural livelihoods and risk mitigation have been achieved, and the effectiveness of public and private governance in advancing sector sustainability. Building on these findings, the synthesis paper asks, "What next?" for countries wishing to advance national biofuel programmes as one option for the necessary divestment from fossil fuels. Among other sine qua nons, the special issue highlights the urgent need to downscale global energy demand, and to stop treating biofuels as an isolated sector. Goldemberg et al. (2018) query several aspects of our approach, from research design, data collection, to our recommendation to apply the "precautionary principle" in research as well as policy making. Unfortunately, Goldemberg et al. (2018) incorrectly portray our main argument. Moreover, they claim bias in our approach and mistakes in our empirical evidence, however, without bringing forward an evenhanded critique of research philosophy, methodology or referencing different empirical literature. We fully stand behind our research philosophy and findings presented.