miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, ISSN 2041-8396, E-ISSN 2041-840X, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 89-118Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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 (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which 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. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 5, no 1, p. 89-118
National Category
Industrial Biotechnology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-37244DOI: 10.1002/wene.166OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-37244DiVA, id: diva2:1352254
Available from: 2019-09-18 Created: 2019-09-18 Last updated: 2019-09-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Englund, Oskar

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Englund, Oskar
In the same journal
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment
Industrial Biotechnology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 2 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf