Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy
Contributor(s): Stupak, Inge (author); Joudrey, Jamie (author); Smith, C Tattersall (author); Pelkmans, Luc (author); Chum, Helena (author); Cowie, Annette  (author); Englund, Oskar (author); Chun, Sheng Goh (author); Junginger, Martin (author)
Publication Date: 2016
DOI: 10.1002/wene.166
Handle Link:
Abstract: Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades.We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders' views and experiences related to the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislationwhich uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes' inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 5(1), p. 89-118
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Place of Publication: United States of America
ISSN: 2041-8396
Field of Research (FOR): 160507 Environment Policy
050205 Environmental Management
Socio-Economic Outcome Codes: 850501 Biofuel (Biomass) Energy
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Statistics to Oct 2018: Visitors: 13
Views: 20
Downloads: 0
Appears in Collections:Journal Article

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record


checked on Nov 26, 2018

Page view(s)

checked on May 2, 2019
Google Media

Google ScholarTM



Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.