#adrdforum @adbioresources

DR MIRJAM ROEDERRESEARCH ASSOCIATE, TYNDALL CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC

PERCEPTIONS ON LAND USE

CHANGE FOR ANAEROBIC

DIGESTION

Stakeholder perceptions on land use for anaerobic digestion, a case study from the

United Kingdom

Mirjam Röder, Laura O’Keefe, Patricia Thornley, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, The

University of Manchester

Aims and objectives

• Examine stakeholder perceptions on land use for feedstock production for AD

• Considering competition between food and feedstock production on bio-productive land

• Understanding land use and feedstock use within the wider context of AD

Stakeholders

• Directly involved– AD operators (Farmers)

– Feedstock suppliers (Farmers)

– Energy community (who run AD facilities)

– AD community (all operators)

– Authorities (who give permissions and certifications)

• Indirectly involved– Farming community

– Public

Drivers of AD operators

Diversificationof farm business

Bioenergy generation- on farm- neighbourhood- grid

Stopping rural out-migration

Job creation

Income generation

Biomaterial production

Digestate production

Wastemanagement

Sustainability

Emission reduction

Incomeresilience

Beinginnovative

Benefits for stakeholders

Diversificationof farm business

Bioenergy supply

Stopping rural out-migration

Job creation

Income generation

Biomaterial production

Digestate production

Wastemanagement

Sustainability

Emission reduction

Incomeresilience

Image

Additionalincome

Nutrientmanagement

Soilmanagement

Contractfarming

Challenges for stakeholders

Seasonalvariation

Policyuncertainty

Landscape

Communicationbetween different actors

Traffic Regionalavailability

ContractlengthKnowledge of

feedstockcharacteristics

Categorisationof feedstock andwaste (PAS 110)

Processing

Odour

DegressionFIT, RHI

QualityScepticism of farmers Intensification

and agricultural inputs

Qualitycontrol

Trust betweencontract partners

Storage

Past experiences1st gen biofuels

Knowledge aboutAD activities

Perceptions on land use PGC for ADAD operator Farmer Public

Planning • Income

• Risk adverse

• Competition

• Location

• Direct impact on

everyday life

Production/

sourcing of

PGC

• Local sourcing

• Cost (price:gas ratio)

• Fit into existing system

• Benefits must be obvious

• Fit into existing system

• Dependent on market and price

• Less support for PGC

• Waste more acceptable

Role of PGC • Rotation

• Weed control

• Soil protection

• Nutrients and organic matter

Knowledge

about

feedstocks

• Different functions of different

crops and land use

• Critical towards PGC

from transport fuel

market experiences

Arguments

against food-

fuel

• Other none-food crops (fodder, industrial crops)

• Crops for malting industry

• Food waste much bigger “land user”

• Food-fuel is never argument No 1

• If it fits into production

system

Argument for

food-fuel

• Demand increase for PGC might shift land use

• Shortfall in feedstock

• Only local sourcing is economic and sustainable

• Sourcing from further away seen as problem

• Indirect impacts are not obvious and poorly understood

• Landscape

transformation

• Input intensity of PGC

• Difficult to see where

development goes

Conclusion

• A cow gives more than milk or meat

• Complexity of bioenergy (feedstocks and conversion/application)

• Lots of variability

• Scale of activity and penetration level

• Not oversimplifying by extrapolating single number (complexity, scale, interfaces)

• Avoid policy recommendations based on tunnel vision

• But consider options in its own context

• Communication in various directions

Supported by

• Funded by Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Exchange Hub, University of Manchester

• Supported by– Sutton Grange Services Ltd

– Future Biogas

– GreenAcres Energy Ltd

– APS Salads

– Friends of the Earth

Contact details

Mirjam RöderTyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

University of Manchester

mirjam.roeder@manchester.ac.uk

0161 275 4344

@Mirjam_Roeder