Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland

8/10/2019 Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland

1/14

1

Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic

digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland

Delft University of Technology, course Sustainable Innovation and Social Change

Supervisor of the course

Jaco Quist

Group

2 (Biogas), individual assignment topic 3 (participatory Transition Management or Backcasting)

Report made by

Sanne de Groot, student Industrial Ecology 1188313 (Delft) 1190431 (Leiden)

June 2012


2/14

2

1 IntroductionThis report is a continuation on the research Biogas in the Netherlands (de Groot et al, 2012) where

Functions of Innovation Systems (FIS) analyses current opportunities and Backcasting states

recommendations for a desired future. Backcasting is shifting towards a more participatory

orientation (Quist and Vergragt, 2006). A participatory approach has not yet been discussed in

mentioned research which is the reason to extend this aspect in relation to Backcasting.

The research questions is: How can participatory Backcasting be used to stimulate spin-off or follow-

up activities in the case of biogas in Gelderland?

In case no stakeholders were organised a project group or platform for anaerobic digestion could be

founded. However in the Netherlands the national Platform Nieuw Gas (Dumont, 2008) and EDGaR

(Weidenaar et al., 2012) are already active in the field of co-digestion and market creation. The

excising networks and their knowledge can be used to embed a participatory Backcasting project. A

regional approach could help to come closer to the stakeholders involved and have a less diffuseworking area. In the province of Gelderland (Migchels et al., 2011) there are regional developments

starting to stimulate the production of biogas. It was an initiative from the Province Gelderland

government. Transition paths are developed by Platform Nieuw Gas and stakeholders have been

identified with their corresponding interests. There are developments to realise a transition.

However there has not been involvement of all the stakeholders with participatory Backcasting.

Interaction between stakeholders is the key issue. Stakeholder identification and involvement will be

included.

2 Methodology

2.1 Existing frameworks

Realising system changes to reach the desired future situation can be approached with the

Backcasting approach but also with the Transition Management (TM) framework. Each

methodological tool has its own field of application with parts overlapping. They are still under

development and not set in stone. This makes an understanding of the different uses and flexibility

to adapt to new situations a must. The frameworks do not describe what has to be done but

stimulate a way of thinking. With participatory oriented case studies it is possible to observe what

went well in certain situations and borrow the way of implementation.

Stakeholder participation can have different functions. Involvement of stakeholders during the

decision making phase is a more democratic process that increases the support for decisions.

Stakeholder participation to create a vision and pathway also makes use of their knowledge. Duringthe implementation phase participation of all stakeholders will be needed. Changing socio-technical

systems will face resistance from the incumbent regime. Motors of change can be derived from

inevitable changes in the landscape, creation of legitimacy and other advantages that a transition can

offer. Participation and interaction between stakeholders is integrated in TM (Loorbach, 2007;

attachment 2): Firstly the development of knowledge and the transfer of knowledge can be done in a

participatory way; Secondly the application of this knowledge and change in real life is necessary to

realise transitions.

2.2 Participatory Backcasting

Backcasting uses a desired future vision to communicate where a system change should lead us to.

This is opposed to forecasting that mainly depends on likely business-as-usual scenarios. A futurevision and pathway can strengthen a belief that reaching this desired future is really possible (Quist


3/14

3

and Vergragt, 2006). A participatory Backcasting exercise with pathway development has multiple

goals:

Generating awareness among stakeholders;

Creating future visions or reaching normative targets;A follow-up agenda for research and projects to start realising the future vision;

Higher order learning and understanding of other stakeholders.

These goals can be different during phases of a project. Quist and Vergragt (2006) made a distinction

between five phases in participatory Backcasting. In the case of the SusHouse project it is structured

in seven steps (Green and Vergragt, 2002) that can be grouped in the five phases.

Figure 1, structure in five stages as used with STD (left) and in seven steps as in SusHouse (right).

Phase 1. Strategic problem orientation

This phase in participatory Backcasting will depend to a large extend on the situation. In a complex

and uncertain case it could be the main phase. Problem orientation can provide learning experiences

for stakeholders sharing their perspectives (Cuppen, 2011) so they will better understand the other

stakeholders which is one step closer to a solution. The stakeholder analysis and selection makes

sure there is enough diversity and inclusion of marginal perspectives in a balanced way (Cuppen,

2011). Diversity increases the learning opportunities for stakeholders. Marginal perspectives are

usually not being articulated in the public debate. Balance ensures that all perspectives have an

equal importance. A creativity session can brainstorm on solutions. Groups that have a similar

perspective make it easier to speak up for every stakeholder (Cuppen, 2011). By confronting the

different groups in a later stage there will be less barriers between sharing perspectives. This can

lead to different scenarios and is not forced towards consensus.

Problem orientation looks at current trends from a multi level perspective and how these will affect

the future (Vergragt and Quist, 2011). A creativity session could result in a quantitative goal. The STD

programme has a goal of factor 20 reduction in environmental impact per service provided.


4/14

4

Phase 2. Construction of sustainable future visions or scenarios

If no scenarios are constructed in a participatory manner these can be constructed in the beginning

of the second phase. Trends that will and could happen can be the basis of the scenarios.

Construction of scenarios that should happen can be done as preparation for a stakeholder workshopto come to a desired future vision. Construction of multiple scenarios worked out well in the MSL

case to let the stakeholders be an active part in selecting and combining the scenarios in a single

vision. Participants of the workshop came to a vision based on the main MSL scenario (Quist, 2007).

The SusHouse case produced three scenarios that reduce environmental impacts with a Factor 20.

Stakeholders were involved in creativity workshops that led to far reaching aims for 2050 (Quist and

Knot, 2001).

It is recommended to have a single desired future vision to communicate a common ambition.

Multiple visions are more open-ended which will decrease the probability of follow-up. The extend

that the vision can be realised within a certain timeframe can be further elaborated.

Phase 3. Backcasting

Realising the vision can be planned with pathways that involve the corresponding stakeholders.

Pathways can be divided in time slots that make a gradual transition. The timeframe is already

determined in the Backcasting phase. Implementation of the vision over the pathway can be done in

collaboration with stakeholders. Questions are WHAT has to be changed, HOW can it be done and

WHO will have to take action (Quist, 2012). Like in the first phase, one of the most important aims is

that participants can learn from each other (Cuppen, 2011).

The WHAT part consists of technical changes in technology, culturalchanges in the way consumers

behave and structural changes how the system is organised. HOW to change things can be for

example with knowledge development and consumer awareness. The WHO part can be the

participants of the Backcasting exercise or other stakeholders that are not present (Quist, 2012).

Phase 4. Elaboration, analysis and action agenda

Alternative solutions can be compared that fit in the future vision. A vision and Backcasting with

many cultural changes will result in fitting cultural oriented solutions. Possible solutions can be

compared according to environmental, social and economic criteria. Different stakeholders can have

their own contribution in finding alternative solutions, setting criteria and making the comparison.

The action agenda prescribes the short term implementation by stakeholders. Participation of

stakeholders in making the action agenda will motivate them, leading to more success with

implementation.

Phase 5. Embedding of results, generating follow-up and implementation

The next phase of implementation is less manageable with stakeholder consultation and workshops.

The foundation can be laid with the other phases. Supporting entrepreneurs can be with information

meetings, network meetings to bring different parties together and incentives (i.e. subsidies). If more

research is needed the topic can be brought in the attention of the academic world with

recommendations.

Results of participatory Backcasting are not limited to the participating stakeholders. The vision,

pathways, action agenda and recommendation can affect others as well by knowledge diffusion.

Evaluation of results can only be done after some time. It reflects on the action agenda and draws

conclusions for improvement in next projects. Evaluation is relevant to perform case studies of

finished projects or start up a new project. Interaction of successful examples can help higher orderlearning.


5/14

5

3 Applying Participatory Backcasting

3.1 Strategic problem orientation

Strategic problem orientation is mostly being done on a high level decision making in the case ofbiogas. Involving stakeholders can help to set the scope to energy or closing of nutrient loops. Some

problems will be seen as of minor importance but can support the main message.

Stakeholder analysis is already in progress in this case. Stakeholders to be involved are biomass

producers and transporters, manure producers, Alleander, LTO Noord (farmer interests), Province,

municipalities, manure traders, users of fertiliser, suppliers of digestion plants, consumers,

researchers, policy makers (EU), bio industry, retail stakeholders and NGOs.

3.2 Construction of sustainable future visions or scenarios

The ambition to become an energy neutral province in 2050 (Bus, 2012) includes a mix of energy

sources. Stakeholders can be involved to influence the scenarios and come with their own future

vision.

Stakeholder participation can result in more in depth consequences of the scenarios with related

opportunities and barriers. This increases the understanding of the other stakeholders. Providing

quantitative tools to give an indication to what extend the ambition of energy neutrality will be

reached could also help to make a concrete vision. Eventually coming to a single vision is

recommended to get everyone in line.

3.3 Backcasting

What has to be changed to reach the vision is mostly the technology because in the case of biogas

there can be technical oriented change in the vision. Stakeholders can here give advise and select the

best option (Quist, 2012). Cultural changes also play a role in the scenarios described in the previousphase. Consumers that purchase food and energy need to be represented to include cultural

preferences. All stakeholders are consumers at the same time so they can bring in this perspective as

well as long as there is paid attention to it. Structural changes will be large in the local scenario

where there is less need for centralised food and energy production. Utility companies could take the

role of energy service companies to reduce energy demand. These stakeholders might see this as a

threat or an opportunity. Opportunities mobilises them to stay in business and avoid missing the

boat.

Next question is how the alternative options come closer to be implemented. Removing barriers with

upscaling the technology, new systems to distribute biomass, a biogas pipeline to attach multiple

farms, involving consumers or an organisational change can be applied over a certain pathway.

Opportunities are synergies between combinations of options. Stakeholders might also see synergies

with other renewable energy sources, food production systems and the processing of digestate from

the anaerobic digestion. Stakeholders with knowledge about the options and from diverse

backgrounds are needed for this.

Who will have to take action is then the question. Implementation will have to be done by the

stakeholders. An energy cooperation between consumers is an option but a representative of the

cooperation is needed. Change in the behaviour of consumers can be their own responsibility but

supporting them with information the necessarily means influences more people. If stakeholders are

involved in this process they will also be more committed.


6/14

6

3.4 Elaboration, analysis and action agenda

The choise of alternative solutions is something for an expert group that has a system view in how

the choices influence each other. These will mostly be researchers but allowing reactions from other

stakeholders can avoid that their solution is not represented.

Selection criteria can be gathered from interviews with stakeholders to avoid missing certain aspects

and make a weighting in importance. Ethical questions of energy dependency, biomass scarcity and

animal rights have huge emotional reactions that make an objective view difficult. To take the vision

into account for system changes the realisation of the impacts in the future instead of changing a

small aspect in the current situation. The final choise of a solution can contain some subjective

criteria that can be justified with a certain weighting system.

For the action agenda there can be ideas from all stakeholders to start implementing the chosen

solution. This will again get support from stakeholders to actually implement them. If there is a clear

direction what has to be done and there is a probable implementation then it is a good

recommendation. Too general or unrealistic points should be avoided. Sometimes there can alreadybe some support before putting it on the agenda.

3.5 Embedding of results, generating follow-up and implementation

If the first step is made for an infrastructure that support further adoption of biogas projects there

will be less barriers to continue. A facilitating role for the government helps to realise the first step in

a protected atmosphere. Spreading information about the importance of the projects can get the

attention of more stakeholders and increase the involvement. Neighbours of a projects can get

involved in the realisation to avoid any resistance against it. The supply energy and less

environmental impacts that are caused by the spreading of untreated manure shows the neighbours

the positive aspects of biogas.

Conclusions and recommendationsFrom this report can be concluded that there are various stakeholder participation possibilities.

Different kinds of participation are interviews and workshops. Workshops increase learning from

interaction. It is recommended to create a vision based on multiple scenarios where stakeholders can

learn from each other. During the following phases a participatory approach can mean individual

feedback from stakeholders how to realise the vision and their willingness of participation.

The maturity of transitions determines if the orientation phases are more important or if the focus is

on the implementation phase. The case of biogas is part of an existing transition process where a

problem orientation can improve understanding of stakeholders. The first phase can in this case be

performed by a smaller steering group. Now the main challenge is to involve stakeholders in the

implementation phase.

Neighbourhood and consumer participation with information meetings and an interactive website

decreases resistance and creates support. Especially with transitions of the socio-technical regime

users have to be involved. Awareness and market formation of sustainable niches is an important

driver behind changes in the rest of the system.

Development of the Backcasting methodology profits from case studies with a varying amount of

success. Recognising the maturity of transitions and the corresponding focus on certain phases needs

further development in the methodology. Selecting participating stakeholders and their role in the

process is also a pattern in case studies that needs further methodological research.

4


7/14

7

LiteratureBus, R., 2012. Biogas Infrastructuur Oost Nederland (BION) [Biogas infrastructure in east

Netherlands]. Provincie Gelderland, available online: www.bioenergieclusteroostnederland.nl/

images/stories/downloads/18042012-provincie-gelderland-biogas-infrastructuur-oost-

nederland.pdf, last accessed: 23-06-2012.

Cuppen, E., 2011. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for

design and methods. Policy Sci, 45, 2346.

de Groot, S., M. van Paassen, A. Tardast, J. van der Veen and J. Versluis, 2012. Biogas in the

Netherlands The past, present and future socio-technical innovations in anaerobic digestion. TU

Delft, available online: http://tinyurl.com/c3yuy87, last accessed: 21-06-2012.

Dumont, M., 2008. Vol gas vooruit! De rol van Groen Gas in de Nederlandse energiehuishouding [Full

speed ahead! The role of green gas in the Dutch energy market] . Energie Transitie, available

online: www.refman.et-model.com, last accessed: 20-06-2012.

Loorbach, D. A., 2007. Transition Management - New mode of governance for sustainable

development. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Migchels, G., P. Kuikman, H.F.M. Aarts, H.J.C. van Dooren, P.A.I. Ehlert, J. Luttik, L.B. Sebek and K.B.

Zwart, 2011. Kansen en bedreigingen voor mestvergisting en groengasproductie in de Gelderse

landbouw [Opportunities and threats for manure digestion and green gas production in

Gelderland]. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Report 505.

Quist, J. and M. Knot, 2001. Strategies towards sustainable households. Int. J. sustainable

Development, 4(1), 7589.

Quist, J., and P. Vergragt, 2006. Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation

and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38, 10271045.

Quist, J., 2007. Backcasting for a sustainable future, the impact after 10 years. Delft: Eburon

Academic Publishers.

Quist, J., 2009. Stakeholder and user involvement in backcasting and how this influences follow-up

and spin-off. Paper for the Joint Actions On Climate Change conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 8-

10 June 2009.

Quist, J., W. Thissen and P. J. Vergragt, 2011. The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting:

From vision to niche. Technological Forecasting & Social Change78: 883897.

Quist, J., 2012. Handbook of Sustainable Engineering, chapter 52: Backcasting and Scenarios for

Sustainable Technology Development. Houten: Springer.

Vergragt, P. and G. van Grootveld, 1994. Sustainable Technology Development in the Netherlands:

the first phase of the Dutch STD programme.J. Cleaner Prod., 2(54), 13-137.

Vergragt, P. and J. Quist, 2011. Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 747755.

Weidenaar, T., E. Bekkering and R. van Eekelen, 2012. Scenarios for the Dutch gas distribution

infrastructure in 2050. Groningen: Energy Delta Gas Research, Working Paper n1.

5


8/14

8

Appendix 1, FIS Biogas in GelderlandThe information about the status of biogas developments is mostly based on a recent report about

opportunities of biogas in Gelderland (Migchels et al., 2011). Latest developments and differences

between regions have become more clear during conversations with Gerard Migchels from WUR and

Roland Bus from the Province of Gelderland. Broader developments in the Netherlands are described

in de Groot et al. (2012) and wil not be discussed here. The available information will be structured

according to the Functions of Innovation Systems (FIS) to assess the opportunities and barriers.

.1 Support of advocacy coalitions

Support started with the national government and the Province to initiate the Gelderland climate

programme 2008-2011 (Migchels et al., 2011). Currently biogas in Gelderland is part of the Green

Deal between the national government and the Province Gelderland (Rijksoverheid, 2011). On a

more local scale there are the regions Achterhoek and city triangle Apeldoorn-Zutphen-Lochem that

have motors of change that support biogas developments. There is no resistance from thestakeholders like there is in the region of De Vallei. Energy distribution companies Alleander and

Essent participate in the project that will create legitimacy for them.

Region De Vallei has developments with biogas production from sewage treatment. A local biogas

grid is an option to make use of the biogas other than as a transportation fuel. However the

developments are not going as fast as in the other regions. Co-digestion of biomass is an issue that

has a reputation to compete with food supply. Small scale digestion of only manure could still be

implemented here with little resistance from stakeholders.

.2 Guidance of the search

The Province Gelderland has a vision to reach 60PJ of biobased energy with manure digestion in2050. This is a substantial part of the current natural gas demand, electricity use and transport. The

other goal is to make a transition to a sustainable agriculture. Synergies with other aspects can be

possible to improve the livability of the region.

.3 Availability of resources

The availability of manure in the province of Gelderland will not be a limiting factor to reach biogas

production of at least 50% van the current natural gas demand in the province. A larger constraint is

the availability of biomass for co-digestion. Biomass is allowed to consist of maximum 50% of the

digestion feedstock and increases the biogas production significantly (de Groot et al., 2012). Manure

digestion without biomass co-digestion would solve this issue and can well be applied for farm scale

digestion plants. Sterksel is running a small-scale digester.

Subsidies from the national SDE+ programme will only be sufficient cover the gap between expenses

and revenues in some cases. Large scale digestion plants with the availability of biomass for co-

digestion and an existing infrastructure to supply green gas or electricity and to the grid could be

economically interesting. For small scale energy production there is an interesting tax arrangement

(AgenschapNL, 2012). Other cases might need additional subsidies from for example the province.

.4 Market formation

Production of green gas has to take the variation in gas demand into account. Some periods during

the summer will have a low gas demand. It is not possible to inject more green gas than there is

demand. When injection in the high pressure (40 bar) network is an option then there is a larger

capacity. A local biogas grid could make a connection to the high pressure gas grid. Waiting for otherstakeholders to construct the infrastructure, production capacity or market will cause a lock-in. First


9/14

9

investments in for example a biogas grid can be an incentive for more potential biogas producers to

join. Small scale production of biogas is more suited to production of electricity and heat for own

use. Small scale production of green gas can be used for transport or injection in distribution

networks (4-8 bar).

Figure 2.2, green dots are biogas related activities (http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaart)

.5 Entrepreneurial activities

Most stakeholders are entrepreneurs that want to make a profit. For potential producers of biogas

there will be a tool available from the province to assess the profitabolity for their situation. If they

have a need for more information there can be arranged a coffeetable meeting.

Frieslandcampina is prepared to buy biogas to replace natural gas in their facilities. Alleander (gas

distributor) will transfer the biogas if there are biogas producers involved.

.6 Knowledge development

Biogas grids are a new development with the BioNoF (Kooistra and de Jong, 2012) being developed in

Friesland. This local biogas grid will supply biogas to the natural gas grid after purifying the biogas.

More developments like the use for transport fuel or combined heat and power generation could be

a contribution to the knowledge development.

Also manure-only digestion plants are a development that makes the process less depending on

other biomass availability. The company HoSt has developed the Microferm that allows the use ofonly manure. The german government actively supports manure-only digestion with extra subsidies.

Thirdly the use of digestate could be further researched. If digestate could replace artificial fertiliser

then there be a solution to the manure problem and a saving of fertilizer.

.7 Knowledge diffusion

Participation of Alterra brings knowledge from researchers to other stakeholders. There have been

several workshops by Province Gelderland (duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl). There will be

more information meetings and workshops in the coming year.

References:

AgenschapNL, 2012. Energie-investeringsafrek (EIA) [Energy investement discount]. AgenschapNL,available online: www.agentschapnl.nl/eia, last accessed: 23-06-2012.
http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaarthttp://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaarthttp://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaarthttp://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaart


10/14

10

Jonkman, J., 2011. Verkenning mogelijkheden invoeding groengas op het aardgasnetwerk

[Exploration possibilities feed-in of biogas to the gas grid] . NV RENDO, available online:

www.rendonetwerken.nl/bestanden/documenten/327-onderzoek-groengasinjectie-totale-

rendo-netwerk-definitief.pdf, last accessed: 20-06-2012.Kooistra, K and K. de Jong, 2012. BioNoF een biogasleiding met gevolgen [BioNoF a biogas pipeline

with consequences]. Leeuwarden: Ekwadraat.

Rijksoverheid, 2012. Green Deal van Provincie Gelderland met de Rijksoverheid [Green Deal of

province Gelderland with national government]. National government, available online:

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-139602.pdf, last accessed: 21-06-2012.


11/14

11

Appendix 2, case studies of participory Backcasting, TMand AM.

The Sustainable technology development (STD) programme assumes constant interaction between

the present actions and possibility of a desired future. It was a programme of the Dutch government

between 1993 and 2001 to explore the possibilities of the contribution of technology to sustainable

development (Quist, 2009). A normative goal was already known from the start in the Factor 20. This

Factor 20 is based on the technological improvement to halving environmental effects while doubling

the world population and increasing affluence with a factor 5. In the case of novel protein foods it

appeared to be technically possible to reach the goal. Consumer behaviour change is mentioned as

essential.

The SusHouse project was a follow-up of the STD funded by the European Union. Technical, cultural

and structural changes were the key to make the project a success. The focus is more on households

than in the STD programme (Quist, 2007). The steps can be adjusted according to each case. TheSusHouse case has an emphasis on strategic problem formulation with the subdivision in three steps.

Stakeholder consultation led to further knowledge development and commitment. In the SusHouse

case there was also a consultancy firm was involved for a feasibility study (Quist, 2012). When a case

is more structured and there is consensus among the stakeholders more emphasis can be put on

other phases.

Multiple Sustainable Land-use (MSL) was also part of the STD programme. It aimed at a vision for

system change with the large amount of uncertainties and interest conflicts involved. Data was being

collected with interviews. Four different system options were made as an input for a second

workshop. The different system options created interaction and involvement of participants of the

workshop (Quist, 2007). At the end of the second workshop a single vision was based on MSL.

Stakeholders in the selected areas were interviewed and the area Winterswijk was chosen because

of the high level of commitment in the area. After completing the project involved stakeholders like

the province and steering group committed to continue with follow-up activities.

Table 1, participatory backcasting case studies

Novel protein foods SusHouse project MSL

Time period 1993-2001 1998-2000 1994-1997

Topics Meat replacement by

other protein sources

Nutrition from a

consumer perspective

Integration agriculture with

other rural area functions

Stakeholders

involved during

Backcasting

National government,

Dutch food companies,

7 universities/institutes,

key persons from

research and NGOs,

broader stakeholder

group

Emphasis on participation

of non-governmental

stakeholders

National government,

research,

business (production side),

public interest groups,

the wider public

Vision One vision with gradual

development

Three different scenarios Different scenarios leading

to one vision

Assessment NPF make a Factor 10

30 possible compared to

Factor 20 improvement

environmental,

Viable for some areas

Reduced environmental


12/14

12

production

of pork meat

economic, consumer

acceptance analysis

impact per function

Action agenda 1. Communication with

general public;

2. Education and

knowledge transfer;

3. Consumer research;

4. Research and chains;

5. product developm.;

6. Environmental

reduction, instruments;

7. Regulation and social

measures.

2nd stakeholder

workshop focusing on:

implementation;

follow-up;

construction of action;

policy

recommendations;

new innovative ideas

developed.

Spreading of outcome to

other areas

Follow up research (Profetas)R&D major Dutch food

companies

growth in NPF SMEs

food purchase of

ministry

co-operation betweenstakeholders

workshop focusing on

domestic appliances for

treating NPF at home

Continues influence of thevision in own domain,

continues research

Analysis of transition processes go back almost two hundred years ago with the development of

steam ships instead of sailing ships. A way to describe these transitions is done by Rotmans et al.

(2001). Transition Management (TM) was part of the Fourth Netherlands Environmental Policy Plan

(NMP4) that was published in 2000. It aims to address climate change, biodiversity issues, depletion

of resources and threats to human health in a transition way instead of a collapse of the system. Itcan be described as a tool for policy making that sits in between incrementalism that has a short

term adaptive approach and long term planning (Kemp et al., 2007). There are four parts of TM:

forming a transition arena, development of long term visions, experiments and programmes for

system innovation and monitoring and evaluation. These parts have no particular order which makes

them more flexible to use (Foxon et al., 2009). A steering group that manages a transition for a

certain is called a transition arena.

Adaptive Management (AM) is meant for socio-ecological systems where TM more focuses on socio-

technical systems. The foundation in structural change and ecosystem functioning is gradually

transforming in a framework that takes complexity into account (Foxon et al., 2009). There are many

similarities with TM and the adaptive learning approach of both frameworks makes them suited to

adopt parts of each other.

Learning by doing can be illustrated with several case studies. Paredis (2008) described the DuWoBo

project in Flanders as the first TM project outside the Netherlands. Parkstad Limburg was started

during formation of the theory and implementation by the Dutch national government (Loorbach,

2007). The UK Upland case study (Foxon et al., 2009) faces with erosion of the soil leading to

decrease in water quality and agriculture that needs subsidies to survive. The government has

started a programme to address these problems with stakeholder participation. Fot the Peak Hill

area three phases were proposed: context determination, scenario development and management

options. (Dougill et al., 2006).


13/14

13

Table 2, Adaptive Management case studies

DuWoBo Parkstad Limburg UK Upland

Time period 2004-2006 1998-2002 2005-2025

Frameworks TM TM AM

Stakeholders

involved during

project

Flemish government,

IVAM,

SERV, MINA-Raad,

DRIFT (research)

Commissioning board P.L.

(companies, research),

local municipalities,

UK national policy-makers,

agricultural community,

grouse managers,

conservationists

Vision substantive side and

process side

Different scenarios

resulting in a vision

No long term vision,

Maintaining status quo

Assessment Integrated System

Analysis,transition paths

6 transition paths Recommendations on short

term

Action agenda Continuation of Arena+:

advise on local policy,

spreading information,

start spin-offs

local organisation

Cooperation (housing

and health care)

Cooperation education

Thematic plans

Coalitions

Media attention

- control natural fires

- concentrate moorland

burning in small area

- keep agricultural subsidies

Follow up continuation under

TWOL program

collaboration between

companies and education

The multi-level perspective (Geels, 2002) is interwoven in TM and to some extend in Backcasting. It

distinguishes niche developments from the socio-technical regime and landscape level. All three

levels influence each other. A successful niche development can become part of the regime.

Society is becoming more complex to manage with the increasing number of connections and the

division in sub-systems (Luhmann, 2002). Sub-systems are for example the political and judicial

systems. To manage society it is increasingly important to be aware that not everything can be

overseen by a single individual. Conceptual frameworks can be used as a tool to bring order in

complex matter. For transitions in society there are knowledge developments in progress in the field

of social sciences.

Backcasting is typically divided in five different phases. TM consists of four parts but is less restrictedin a chronological order of the parts. AM has three main phases that complete a learning process.

The structure in five Backcasting phases as is done in Biogas in the Netherlands - The past, present

and future socio-technical innovations in anaerobic digestion fits participatory Backcasting as well.

This structure would need little change. Only the involvement of stakeholders will be more important

in every phase. In particular the last two phases where generating follow up and implementation

happens stakeholders are important. Stakeholder participation is part of TM and AM. Backcasting is

originally not participatory but is making a shift towards stakeholder participation.

Lessons learnt with TM and AM can help to integrate stakeholder participation more in Backcasting.

The first part in TM to form a transition arena can be called a project (core) group in Backcasting that

starts with the first phase of problem formulation. From the case study DuWoBo it can be learned

that a bottom up approach can work well to avoid inconsequent government policy. The UK Uplandcase showed a conscious selection of stakeholders to be involved during the first phase. Parkstad


14/14

14

Limburg has members from companies and education involved in the transition arena that can help

each other. Also the enthusiasm of local governments ensures the continuation of the project and

awareness beyond their own local boundary. The second TM part to construct a vision is similar to

the second phase of the Backcasting framework. This can take place during a workshop. The thirdBackcasting phase is a part of the second TM part of creating pathways. Experiments and

programmes for system innovation can be part of the last two phases of the Backcasting Framework.

The cooperation of the Parkstad Limburg case has resulted in follow-up projects. Monitoring and

evaluation is not part of the Backcasting framework. Only evaluation could be done after setting the

action agenda to indicate the involvement of participants and try to improve it.

Three scenarios for the case of biogas that take the local situation into account will now be

proposed.

Digestion of manure with all available biomass streams (e.g. roadside grass, swill, agricultural, algae)

is a scenario that generates the maximum amount of biogas. This can be called the biobased

economy scenario. When emphasis is placed on small scale digestion plants that process only the

manure, a transition towards local and organic agriculture can be imagined. Eating less meat anddairy products would further reduce the environmental impacts of the agricultural sector but few

stakeholders in the sector will be in favour of this local scenario. A third scenario could be the other

extreme with fully industrialised farms that feed animals according to their needs or even in vitro

meat is a possibility. With the current trend of battery cages being abolished in the EU this might not

be a very realistic scenario.

References:

Cuppen, E., 2009. Putting perspectives into participation constructive conflict methodology for

problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOXPress.

Dougill, A. J., E. D. G.Fraser, Holden, J., K. Hubacek, C. Prell, M. S. Reed, S. Stagl and L. C. Stringer, 2006.

Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park.Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(2), 259-275.

Foxon, T. J., M. S. Reed and L. C. Stringer, 2009. Governing long-term socialecological change: what can

the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn from each other?

Environmental Policy and Governance,19(1), 320.

Geels, F. W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level

perspective and a case-study. Research Policy,31, 12571274.

Kemp, R., D. Loorbach and J. Rotmans, 2007. Transition management as a model for managing processes

of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology,14, 7891.

Luhmann, N., 2002. Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Palo Alto:

Stanford University Press.

Paredis, E., 2008. Transition management in Flanders. Policy context, first results and surfacing tensions.

Ghent University: Centre for Sustainable Development, Working Paper n6.

Raven, R. P. J. M., 2005. Strategic Niche Management for Biomass, A comparative study on the

experimental introduction of bioenergy technologies in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology.

Rotmans, J., R. Kemp and M. van Asselt, 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in

public policy. Foresight, 3, 15-31.

Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland

Documents

Transcript of Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland