University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

556
conditions + + + + + + + +
Property
rights
++ ++
+
++
+
++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +
+
Local wellbeing
75 + +
++
+
++ 0 0 0
+
+
+
+ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Competition
with food
++
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
From this initiatives review, we can see that Cramer Commission and RTFO
initiatives cover the greatest number of sustainability criteria and describe them with
lots of details (and methodologies). Moreover, the Cramer Commission initiative
seems to guide European Union work on sustainability criteria. Even if the
Renewable Energy Directive adoption has recently limited the list of criteria to take
into account in bioenergy routes assessment, it keeps the right to enlarge this list in
coming years. Thus, Cramer Commission and RTFO, which are commissioned by
public authorities and developed by consultants in collaboration with stakeholders
(industries, NGOs…), must also inspire our own selection of criteria or externalities.
Both initiatives recommend the coverage of an exhaustive list of sustainability
criteria. This is also relevant for us as we want to articulate externalities or
sustainability criteria in a comprehensive qualitative model which will enable to
grasp all relationships between these externalities or criteria.
Table 2 presents our final selection of externalities or sustainability criteria to take
into account when evaluating bioenergy routes.
Table 2 - Externalities and sustainability criteria selected
Externalities Sustainability criteria
Environmental externalities
Socio-economical
externalities
Global warming
Environment quality
Biodiversity
Local prosperity
Social well-being 77
Property rights
Competition with food
Energy security
Macro-level externalities Indirect land-use change
GHG emissions
Carbon stocks
Direct land-use
change
Air quality
Soil quality
Water quality
Agricultural
Biodiversity
GMO
24 Participation, respect…
25 Monitoring by Government
26 Social well-being covers local well-being (dialogue, consent, complaints…) and working conditions