Plenary Session 2 – Round Table

How can policies support the deployment of sustainable bioenergy towards its most effective uses
Wednesday 23 October 2024, 8.30-10.00 BRT

Video recording of the session

Moderators: Dina Bacovsky (IEA Bioenergy/BEST, Austria) and Mark Brown (USC, Australia)

Keynote lecture: Jeremy Moorhouse (International Energy Agency/IEA): Bioenergy in the energy transition

Introductory statements of the panelists:

Panelists (L-to-R): Mark Brown, Daniela Thraen, Marlon Arraes Jardim Leal, Paul Bennett, Christian Rakos, Dina Bacovsky.

What is the role of bioenergy? And, if biomass is limited, what should be the policies to prioritize its use? With these questions, Dina Bacovsky, the chair of IEA Bioenergy, opened the first public policy panel at the BBEST – IEA Bioenergy Conference.

Jeremy Moorhouse of the International Energy Agency provided a video contribution to set the scene about the role of bioenergy in the energy transition. After that, the panelists provided introductory statements related to the central questions of this round table, followed by a round table discussion.

Keynote

Jeremy Moorhouse, Policy Analyst at the International Energy Agency

Modern bioenergy is a pillar of the energy transition. It provides an accessible, secure source of energy, which is affordable and compatible with a wide range of technologies. There are enough sustainable biomass supplies without increasing cropland use or negative impacts on forested lands if bioenergy resources are developed responsibly. Modern bioenergy accounts for nearly 20% of total energy use by 2050 in IEA’s net zero scenario. It has an essential role to play across sectors. Biofuels are essential to the transport energy transition, especially for the aviation and shipping sectors. In IEA’s net zero scenario, bioenergy use also doubles in the industrial sector and nearly triples in the electricity generation sector (often in combination with CCUS).

Bioenergy deployment is not on track to meet its contribution to the net zero pathway. Near term policy priorities should be to: (1) develop a clear, global ambition; (2) implement and expand demand and supply policies, especially in aviation and maritime sectors; (3) seek consensus on performance-based sustainability requirements (beyond greenhouse gas emissions); and (4) accelerate technology deployment.

Introductory statements

Marlon Arraes, Director of the Biofuels Department at the Ministry of Mines and Energy, Brazil

Access to energy is a crucial issue, especially when considering its impact on economic development and quality of life. According to IEA and the World Bank, over 700 million people worldwide did not have access to electricity in 2021. Around 2.4 billion people still use polluting energy sources for cooking, due to the lack of access to cleaner fuels and technologies.

Drivers for renewable energy investments are public policies; the cost of renewable energy, and industry practices (to set demand). Just a fraction of global energy investments is directed to sustainable / clean fuels.

International cooperation is important. The G20 Energy Transitions Ministerial Meeting of 4 October 2024 in Brazil underscored the crucial role of technologically neutral, integrated, and inclusive approaches to develop and deploy a variety of sustainable fuels and technologies, … with a view to creating scale and global markets to accelerate energy transition, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors. They also called to collaborate in order to increase consistency across methodological approaches for assessing GHG emissions of sustainable fuels and to enhance stakeholder engagement.

Paul Bennett, Integrated Bioenergy Portfolio Leader at Scion, New Zealand

He reflected on the impact of policies in emerging bioenergy markets, taking New Zealand as example. New Zealand currently has no specific policies to support bioenergy. Hydropower and geothermal energy dominate the mix of renewables, with a smaller role for bioenergy. Nevertheless, its policies to phase out coal and ban fossil fuel exploration, as well as a strong emission trading system are providing opportunities for the use of biomass, biofuels and biogas.

New Zealand’s economy strongly depends on exports; 45% of its GDP relies on shipping. This export focus leads to a high interest for marine and aviation biofuels.

The country wouldn’t look at agricultural crops as bioenergy sources; wood and timber residues from its planted forests would provide the main resource base.

Christian Rakos, President of the World Bioenergy Association (WBA)

The first question he posed is what is meant by ‘most effective use’. Does it imply conversion efficiency, GHG mitigation potential or the provision of essential services? We should reflect on the most essential needs for people and the economy. For example, the ability to heat their homes is essential for people, as well as the need to cook their food. Over 2 billion people in developing economies still rely on inefficient and highly polluting traditional biomass use for cooking. This can be addressed with modern bioenergy, which can provide this service in an affordable way without moving to fossil fuels.

It is important to create economic incentives. Open carbon markets and carbon credits could create a demand to fund the transition.

Panel debate

Mark Brown, professor at the University of the Sunshine Coast (UniSC) in Australia, and vice-chair of IEA Bioenergy, opened the panel debate with the first central question on which policies are needed to support the deployment of bioenergy.

Marlon Arraes stated that public policies are essential to support bioenergy deployment, but policies need to be very creative to reflect local reality. For example, it is important to take into account the current fleet, which will have a continued demand of liquid fuels in the coming decades. Brazil can’t assign high subsidies to industry sectors (as can be done in the United States or in Europe), so it focuses on technology neutrality and mandates to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of transport and displace fossil fuels. A long-term framework is provided through the Fuels of the Future program. The production of biofuels in Brazil can be increased threefold without having an impact on nature areas. RenovaBio provides a performance-based system relying on science-based carbon intensity measurements.

Christian Rakos reenforced his point that the needs of households are important to consider, as well as industrial heat (e.g. for food production). It is often mentioned that industrial heat should all move to electrification, but he disagrees as in many cases this will be very expensive and puts stress on the electricity system. Biomass can be used as a direct heat source in a very efficient way. He questioned the focus of biomass use towards higher value fuels, pointing to the different transformation steps that are needed to obtain these fuels. Each transformation step incurs additional energetic losses and costs and this needs to be considered as well.

Paul Bennett confirmed that industrial process heat is also one of the central uses of biomass in New Zealand. He referred to the well-thought-through long-term strategy in Brazil, which was missing in his country. Policy makers try to pick winners without sufficient information on the consequences, and bioenergy is often left out as people don’t want to get lost in debates. Nevertheless, New Zealand has high bioenergy potential, mostly low-grade wood logs and residues, or through the use of underutilized lands where biomass crops or new wood plantations can be established. Currently bioenergy is more a (unintended) consequence of other policies, like waste management. These interactions with other policies are relevant to consider.

Daniela Thraen stressed three points: (1) It is important to integrate bioenergy in bioeconomy policies and avoid considering it as a competition. The use of residues and waste are generally no-regret options. (2) There are strengths in combining bioenergy with other renewables, for example in delivering energy when/where other renewables fall short. (3) We have to zoom in on the resource base. For example, for forestry biomass there should be a common understanding of what is considered as sustainable resource. This can provide clarify for investors, help accelerate bioenergy deployment and make bioenergy less controversial.

Mark Brown came back to the integrated production of products and fuels and suggested extending this to integrated land management. In Australia, biomass is harvested in the frame of forest management to mitigate wildfire risks. Daniela Thraen agreed that there is a strong interlinkage with land management. Land should be used in the best possible way, and can produce multiple products and services at the same time. Biomass can also be produced in the process of degraded lands restoration.

Dina Bacovsky brought up the question if certain uses of biomass should be prioritized, recognizing that there is no single answer, and any prioritization depends on the circumstances.

Daniela Thraen indicated that prioritization is not only regional specific, but also time specific in the energy transition. With increasing amounts of variable renewables like solar and wind energy, important investments will be needed in flexibility. Certainly in countries with low amounts of hydropower, there is a clear role to play for bioenergy. She also wondered who should make this prioritization. Industry should be included in this process as they have to make it happen. Moreover, the general public should also be involved as public acceptance is important. Bioenergy plants running on regional resources with a clear connection to the local community tend to have much higher acceptance.

Paul Bennett said that countries should learn from what goes on around the world and not reinvent the wheel. Sustainability, covering environmental, economic and social aspects, is crucial to get on top of and we should align the understandings/interpretations of biomass sustainability conditions internationally. We also need to consider how to mobilize biomass within this sustainability framework.  Leaving a lot of biomass residues in the forest may not be a healthy situation as it increases the fuel load for wildfires. Next to the biomass supply, we need to develop technologies and invest in them. The valley of death between technology development and market maturity has often been a showstopper and industry need support at that stage, e.g. to raise capital. He also added that we need to look at all sectors and energy applications and consider if there are other alternatives. In that sense he understands the focus on aviation as there are little alternatives.

Christiane Rakos came back to the issue of acceptance and cited the alarming rate of disinformation against bioenergy. “Multi-million-dollar campaigns have been launched to undermine bioenergy in order to influence policies in the European Union. Most of that was based on misinformation and half-truths”, he denounced. The same is bound to happen in other areas, such as biojet fuels. “Those who don’t want to see their fossil fuels interests harmed can put a lot of money into this”, he concluded.

Dina Bacovsky agreed that the loudest voices may not always serve the interest of society. IEA Bioenergy aims to be recognized as an authoritative voice in the field, sticking to facts and unbiased information as a basis for decision and policy making.

Marlon Arraes stressed the importance of transparency. The aim is to provide society with the most cost-effective and sustainable reduction of carbon intensity. It is important to consider reality and the local context. In our communication to society, we always use objective science as guidance. Many of the sustainability concerns are considered through risk management.

The floor was opened for comments and questions from the audience. some of the points raised:

  • There are 4.5 billion people living in developing economies. Access to energy sources, preferably available on a regional basis, is one of the key factors to facilitate further development of these regions. There is a clear correlation between energy availability and economic development.
  • Strong public policy support for aviation creates challenges for inclusiveness as it may draw away biomass resources from local applications. Aviation fuel is no priority for people who want to heat their houses and cook their food.
  • Climate change is a global issue, and the global perspective is what matters most. This contrasts with the approaches of individual countries and even individual sectors who compete against each other. What policy levers can we use to bring these different interests/approaches together?

On the latter point, the panelists agreed that a national approach for a global problem is indeed suboptimal. Nevertheless, biomass has a regional connection, and it is important that everyone puts their house in order first (not waiting for others to solve the problem). What is most urgently needed also depends on local circumstances, considering different types of stakeholders and different solutions that can be applied. In this process, it is important to learn from policy approaches applied in different countries and sectors.