![]() The results of the survey indicate that bioeconomy policy goals and agro-food policy goals are largely considered to be consistent and that synergies outweigh trade-offs, both in quantity and in strength. We utilised both a coherency score using a 7-point Likert scale and measures of confidence and disagreement. Coherency was measured by using a survey and focus groups based on expert opinion across scientific fields. To do this we conducted a qualitative content analysis of 41 EU policy documents across 5 policy domains, namely agro-food, bio-based industry, waste, energy and environment. In chapter 3 we conducted a study of policy coherence between these policy domains. The bioeconomy will therefore require coherence between many different policy domains. Given these trade-offs, biomass will become an increasingly important resource in the bioeconomy and will require careful and sustainable management. Given the many trade-offs between biomass uses, it is difficult for policies to manage issues that cut across different policy domains. ![]() To connect these perspectives, we suggested a framework where priority is given to basic human needs for the consumption of biomass. We found that these different types of solutions came from different disciplinary perspectives, each setting different priorities for biomass. A diversity of solutions was recommended by the literature to deal with these trade-offs and these ranged from production-side, governance, losses and wastes and consumption-side solutions. It also resulted in trade-offs with economic resources, leading to increasing food prices and higher land rents. For example, the factor of increasing bioenergy demand resulted in trade-offs with other natural resources such as increased land-use and land-use change, increased water consumption, and increased nitrogen demand. We found that the majority of the effects implied trade-offs. These shaped the biophysical option-space, determining which interactions (neutral), trade-offs (negative) and synergies (positive) between food, feed, fuel goals. ![]() We found seven factors that drive the availability of biomass and resources namely: increased bioenergy demand, increased crop yields, increase of human-edible feed, amount of animal-source food in human diets, efficiency of food supply chains, type of bioenergy feedstock and implementation of land-use policies. ![]() To do this, we conducted a systematic review of 75 studies that looked at competition between biomass uses and the resources that support them (i.e. This thesis, therefore, aims to advance the theoretical and empirical understanding of the governance of biomass with the ultimate aim of improving the governance process at the science-policy interface, taking the EU as a case study.Ĭhapter 2 provides an overview of the driving factors behind the growing demands for biomass as well as the trade-offs and synergies across different biomass uses. With its leading role in bioenergy and bioeconomy policy, the European Union (EU) plays a key role in debates surrounding biomass. Furthermore, little is known how these trade-offs and synergies may affect policy coherence and what solutions are needed to achieve more sustainable biomass use. ![]() However, there is limited knowledge on the interactions between different biomass uses and how these may result in trade-offs and synergies. Governing these interactions is difficult, because of the inherent complexity of these interactions but also due to the diversity of biomass resources, the diversity of policy domains and institutions that are needed to govern them. This demand cause interactions and trade-offs between different biomass uses, competition for biomass and other natural and economic resources. If these trends continue, the capacity of agroecosystems to feed the planet while also providing for humanity’s energy and material needs is at risk. Humanity’s growing demand for food, feed, bioenergy and biomaterials put pressure on agroecosystems and the biosphere. 1 online resource (PDF, 189 pages) figures, diagrams ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |