The sustainability of forestry biomass supply for EU bioenergy: A post-normal approach to environmental risk and uncertainty

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 510-518

  Upham, Paul ^a   Riesch, Hauke ^b   Tomei, Julia ^c   Thornley Patricia, P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bioenergy; Biofuel; Post normal science; Risk perception; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

BIOFUEL;

ARTICLE; BIOENERGY; BIOMASS PRODUCTION; BIOTYPOLOGY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; EUROPE; FORESTRY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 79958163163     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.02.010     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ariza-Montobbio P., Lele S. Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India: viability, livelihood trade-offs, and latent conflict. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70(2):189-195.
2. Ariza-Montobbio P., Lele S., Kallis G., Martinez-Alier J. The political ecology of Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India. J. Peasant Stud. 2010, 37(4):875-897.
3. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity 1992, Sage, London.
4. Cabral O.M.R., Rocha H.R., Gash J.H.C., Ligo M.A.V., Freitas H.C., Tatsch J.D. The energy and water balance of a Eucalyptus plantation in southeast Brazil. J. Hydrol. 2010, 388:208-216.
5. Cannell M.G.R., Jeffery B. Plantation Silviculture: short rotation forestry for biomass production. Encyclopaedia of Forest Sciences 2004, Elsevier, Oxford.
6. Ceccon E., Miramontes O. Reversing deforestation? Bioenergy and society in two Brazilian models. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67(2):311-317.
7. Croezen, H., Bergsma, G., Otten, M., van Valkengoed, M., 2010. Biofuels: indirect land use change and climate impact. CE Delft, Delft. http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biofuels%3A_indirect_land_use_change_and_climate_impact/1068.
8. Doornbosch R., Steenblik R. Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease? 2006, OECD, Paris. http://media.ft.com/cms/fb8b5078-5fdb-11dc-b0fe-0000779fd2ac.pdf.
9. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture 1982, University of California.
10. EEA How Much Bioenergy Can Europe Produce Without Harming the Environment? 2006, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_7.
11. EEA Maximising the Environmental Benefits of Europe's Bioenergy Potential 2008, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
12. EC, 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.
13. EC Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Sustainability Requirements for the Use of Solid and Gaseous Biomass Sources in Electricity, Heating and Cooling SEC(2010) 65 and SEC(2010) 66 2010, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/2010_report/com_2010_0011_3_report.pdf.
14. EurActiv EU Rules Out Binding Green Criteria for Biomass. 26th February 2010 2010, EurActiv website, Brussels. http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/eu-rules-out-binding-criteria-biomass-news-290021.
15. Frame B., Brown J. Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:225-241.
16. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy 1990, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
17. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993, 25:739-755.
18. Funtowicz S.O., Ravetz J.R. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol. Econ. 1994, 10:197-207.
19. Funtowicz S., Ravetz J., Connor M. Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development. Int. J. Sust. Dev. 2004, 1:99-107.
20. Giddens A. Risk and responsibility. Mod. Law Rev. 1999, 62:1-10.
21. Greenergy Measuring Indirect Land Use Change from Biofuels: A Greenergy Perspective 2010, Greenergy, London. http://www.greenergy.com/Views/perspectives/ILUC_full.pdf.
22. Hardcastle P.D. A Review of the Potential Impacts of Short Rotation Forestry 2006, Forestry Commission, Farnham.
23. Hendriks C.M. On inclusion and network governance: the democratic disconnect of dutch energy transitions. Public Adm. 2008, 86(4):1009-1031.
24. Hendriks C. Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sci. 2009, 42(4):341-368.
25. IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2009, International Energy Agency/OECD, Paris. http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2009/key_stats_2009.pdf.
26. IFEU Synopsis Current Models and Methods Applicable to Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC). Executive Summary 2009, IFEU, Heidelberg. http://bdbe.de/downloads/PDF/fachinformationen/ifeu-Studie_ILUC/ifeu_Kurzfassung_englisch.pdf.
27. IPCCC, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report. http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html.
28. Lapola D.M., Schaldach R., Alcalmo J., Bondeau A., Koch J., Koelking C., Priess J.A. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:3388-3393.
29. Lorenzoni I., Jones M., Turnpenny J.R. Climate change, human genetics, and post-normality in the UK. Futures 2007, 39:65-82.
30. Mantau U., Steierer F., Hetsch S., Prins C. Wood Resources Availability and Demands - Implications of Renewable Energy Policies 2007, UNECE/FAO, Hamburg. http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/docs/tc-sessions/tc-65/policyforum/Wood_availability_and_demand.pdf.
31. Mathews J.A. Biofuels: what a biopact between north and south could achieve. Energy Policy 2007, 35:3550-3570.
32. Moran A. Who Should Take the Blame for the Biofuels Tragedy? 2008, Institute for Public Affairs Review, (September 2008). http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1394/who-should-take-the-blame-for-the-biofuels-tragedy-
33. Pereira .G., Raes F., De Sousa Pedrosa T., Rosa P., Brodersen S., Jørgensen M.S., Ferreira F., Querol X., Rea J. Atmospheric composition change research: time to go post-normal?. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43:5423-5432.
34. Pidgeon N., Henwood K., Parkhill K., Venables D., Simmons P. Living with Nuclear Power in Britain: A Mixed-Methodology Study 2008, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
35. Pilgrim S., Harvey M. Battles over biofuels in Europe: NGOs and the politics of markets. Sociol. Res. Online 2010, 15(3):4.
36. Ravindranath N.H., Manuvie R., Lakshmi C.S. Biofuels and climate change: implications for GHG emissions, biodiversity, impacts and adaptation. Food Versus Fuel: An Informed Introduction to Biofuels 2010, Zed Books, London. Frank Rosillo-Calle, F.X. Johnson (Eds.).
37. Ravetz J.R. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with policy implications. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere 1987, 415-432. Cambridge University, Cambridge. W.C. Clark, R.E. Munn (Eds.).
38. Ravetz J.R. Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecol. Complex. 2006, 3:275-284.
39. Richter G.M., Riche A.B., Dailey A.G., Gezan S.A., Powlson D.S. Is UK biofuel supply from Miscanthus water-limited?. Soil Use Manage. 2008, 24:235-245.
40. Searchinger T.R., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S., Hayes D. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319:1238-1240.
41. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk 2000, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
42. Smeets E.M.W., Faaij A.P.C. The impact of sustainability criteria on the costs and potentials of bioenergy production: applied for case studies in Brazil and Ukraine. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34:319-333.
43. Spiegelhalter, D., Riesch, H. Don't know, can't know: embracing scientific uncertainty when analysing risks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, in press.
44. Stirling A. 'Opening Up' and 'Closing Down'. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33(2):262-294.
45. Stupak, I., Lattimore, B. Brenna, Titus, B.D., Tattersall Smith, C. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest fuel production and harvesting: a review of current standards for sustainable forest management. Biomass and Bioenergy, in press. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.032.
46. Sylvester-Bradley R. Critique of Searchinger (2008) & Related Papers Assessing Indirect Effects of Biofuels on Land-Use Change. ADAS for AEAT, for the Gallagher Biofuels Review for the Renewable Fuels Agency and Department for Transport 2009, RFA, London. http://www.globalbioenergy.org/bioenergyinfo/bioenergy-and-climate-change/detail/en/news/8158/icode/4/.
47. Taleb N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable 2007, Penguin, London.
48. Thornley P., Upham P., Tomei J. Sustainability constraints on UK bioenergy development. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5623-5635.
49. Tomei J., Upham P. Argentinean soy-based biodiesel: an introduction to production and impacts. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3890-3898.
50. UNECE/FAO National Wood Resources Balances Workshop 2008, UNECE Timber Section, Geneva. http://www.unece.org/timber/workshops/2008/wood-balance/conclusions.htm.
51. UNECE/FAO Forest Products Annual Market Review 2007-2008 2009, UNECE Timber Section, Geneva. http://www.unece.org/timber/mis/fpama.htm.
52. Upham P. A comparison of sustainability theory with UK and European airports policy and practice. J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 63(3):237-248.
53. Upham P., Thornley P., Tomei J., Boucher P. Substitutable biodiesel feedstocks for the UK: a review of sustainability issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17(Suppl. 1):S37-S45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.014.
54. Upham P., Tomei J. Biofuels and Regulatory Co-Production: Critical Stakeholder Perceptions of Carbon and Sustainability Reporting in the UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, Tyndall Centre Working Paper 143 2010, UEA, Norwich, Conference paper version http://tinyurl.com/3537scf. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/biblio/view/2469.
55. Upham, P., Tomei, J., Dendler, L., 2011. Governance and legitimacy aspects of the UK biofuel carbon and sustainability reporting System. Energy Policy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.036.
56. van den Broek R., van den Burg T., van Wijk A., Turkenburg W. Electricity generation from eucalyptus and bagasse by sugar mills in Nicaragua: A comparison with fuel oil electricity generation on the basis of costs, macro-economic impacts and environmental emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19:311-335.
57. Wakker E. Greasy Palms: The Social and Ecological Impacts of Large Scale Oil Palm Plantation Development in South East Asia 2004, AIDEnvironment, Amsterdam. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/greasy_palms_impacts.pdf.
58. Wynne B. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science ad policy in the preventative paradigm. Global Environ. Change 1992, 2:111-127.
59. Wynne B. When doubt becomes a weapon. Nature 2010, 466(7305):441-442.