Abstract

Cascade use or "cascading" of woody biomass is increasingly being discussed as a key principle upon which to base efficient utilization of wood, especially in the European Union (EU). Cascading does not have one universal definition, although a common theme is that "material use of wood should be prioritized over energy use of wood", which forms the basis for our analysis herein. This working paper aims to inform the debate on cascading through an analysis of the terminology around cascading, and a review of how the concept is framed and implemented in policies of the EU and selected member states. We also discuss potential implications on international bioenergy markets from implementation of the cascading principle. In recent years, the cascading concept has been emphasized in EU Bioeconomy Strategy, the EU Circular Economy Package and the EU Forest Strategy. As of September 2015, the cascading principle is also part of EU legislation as part of the so-called "iLUC Directive" that largely governs the role of biofuels in the EU's climate change mitigation policies up until 2020. However, the terminology surrounding cascading is fragmented in both the research literature and among EU policy documents. There is no clear consensus on a clear and precise definition of what cascading actually entails. Absence of coherent terminology in legislative documents is likely to be a cause for problems and we want to stress the importance of developing a clear definition of cascading if it is to be included in future legislative processes. We analyze the consequences of potential implementation of the cascading principle by looking at both historical cases of similar policies and current examples from Europe and North America. Conclusions from the cases suggest that there are clear risks that policy implementation of the cascading principle results in complicated legislative processes, especially pertaining to reaching agreement on the set of wood assortments that can be used for material purposes and which therefore should be excluded from energy use. Given the large and growing international trade in both bioenergy and biomaterials, further complications are likely to arise if the cascading principle is enforced only in select EU member states or in the EU but not in North America. Without harmonized rules, the efficiency and efficacy of cascading policies could be compromised as market actors focus more on exploiting regulatory loopholes than on improving their performance. To support a fruitful debate on the policy structures of a future economy based on renewable resources, and the role of bioenergy therein, it is important to first define the policy goals and from that starting point discuss potential measures to achieve these goals. The measures sorted under the "cascading" banner could be part of the policy portfolio, but before cascading has been properly defined and evaluated, it should not be seen as the silver bullet that resolves all potential problems in the transition to a biobased economy.

Published in

IEA BIOENERGY: Task
2016,
Publisher: IEA Bioenergy

SLU Authors

• Roos, Anders

  • Department of Forest Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
    

Associated SLU-program

Forest


UKÄ Subject classification

Energy Systems
Economics


Permanent link to this page (URI)

https://res.slu.se/id/publ/76886