@article{soderbergRisingPolicyConflicts2013,
  title = {Rising Policy Conflicts in {{Europe}} over Bioenergy and Forestry},
  author = {Söderberg, Charlotta and Eckerberg, Katarina},
  date = {2013-08},
  journaltitle = {Forest Policy and Economics},
  volume = {33},
  pages = {112--119},
  issn = {1389-9341},
  doi = {10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015},
  abstract = {[Highlights]

[::] EU Bioenergy policy cuts across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. [::] Increased pressure on forest biomass risks putting EU in a wood-deficit situation. [::] Bioenergy conflicts regard land use, biodiversity, climate and sustainability. [::] Conflicts on environmental consequences from bioenergy policy are reconcilable. [::] Conflicts on globally shared rights and responsibilities are not easily reconciled.

[Abstract] Growing concerns over emissions of green-house gases causing climate change as well as energy security concerns have spurred the interest in bioenergy production pushed by EU targets to fulfil the goal of 20~per cent renewable energy in 2020, as well as the goal of 10~per cent renewable fuels in transport by 2020. Increased bioenergy production is also seen to have political and economic benefits for rural areas and farming regions in Europe and in the developing world. There are, however, conflicting views on the potential benefits of large scale bioenergy production, and recent debates have also drawn attention to a range of environmental and socio-economic issues that may arise in this respect. One of these challenges will be that of accommodating forest uses - including wood for energy, and resulting intensification of forest management - with biodiversity protection in order to meet EU policy goals. We note that the use of biomass and biofuels spans over several economic sector policy areas, which calls for assessing and integrating environmental concerns across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. In this paper, we employ frame analysis to identify the arguments for promoting bioenergy and assess the potential policy conflicts in the relevant sectors, through the analytical lens of environmental policy integration. We conclude that while there is considerable leverage of environmental arguments in favour of bioenergy in the studied economic sectors, and potential synergies with other policy goals, environmental interest groups remain sceptical to just how bioenergy is currently being promoted. There is a highly polarised debate particularly relating to biofuel production. Based on our analysis, we discuss the potential for how those issues could be reconciled drawing on the frame conflict theory, distinguishing between policy disagreements and policy controversies.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11738844,~to-add-doi-URL,bioenergy,biomass,europe,forest-resources,ghg,science-policy-interface,uncertainty}
}

{"_id":"5cqZjAQncopSf48Dq","bibbaseid":"sderberg-eckerberg-risingpolicyconflictsineuropeoverbioenergyandforestry","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-09-09T06:27:31.323Z","title":"Rising Policy Conflicts in Europe over Bioenergy and Forestry","author_short":["Söderberg, C.","Eckerberg, K."],"year":null,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Rising Policy Conflicts in Europe over Bioenergy and Forestry","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Söderberg"],"firstnames":["Charlotta"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Eckerberg"],"firstnames":["Katarina"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2013-08","journaltitle":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"33","pages":"112–119","issn":"1389-9341","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015","abstract":"[Highlights] [::] EU Bioenergy policy cuts across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. [::] Increased pressure on forest biomass risks putting EU in a wood-deficit situation. [::] Bioenergy conflicts regard land use, biodiversity, climate and sustainability. [::] Conflicts on environmental consequences from bioenergy policy are reconcilable. [::] Conflicts on globally shared rights and responsibilities are not easily reconciled. [Abstract] Growing concerns over emissions of green-house gases causing climate change as well as energy security concerns have spurred the interest in bioenergy production pushed by EU targets to fulfil the goal of 20~per cent renewable energy in 2020, as well as the goal of 10~per cent renewable fuels in transport by 2020. Increased bioenergy production is also seen to have political and economic benefits for rural areas and farming regions in Europe and in the developing world. There are, however, conflicting views on the potential benefits of large scale bioenergy production, and recent debates have also drawn attention to a range of environmental and socio-economic issues that may arise in this respect. One of these challenges will be that of accommodating forest uses - including wood for energy, and resulting intensification of forest management - with biodiversity protection in order to meet EU policy goals. We note that the use of biomass and biofuels spans over several economic sector policy areas, which calls for assessing and integrating environmental concerns across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. In this paper, we employ frame analysis to identify the arguments for promoting bioenergy and assess the potential policy conflicts in the relevant sectors, through the analytical lens of environmental policy integration. We conclude that while there is considerable leverage of environmental arguments in favour of bioenergy in the studied economic sectors, and potential synergies with other policy goals, environmental interest groups remain sceptical to just how bioenergy is currently being promoted. There is a highly polarised debate particularly relating to biofuel production. Based on our analysis, we discuss the potential for how those issues could be reconciled drawing on the frame conflict theory, distinguishing between policy disagreements and policy controversies.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11738844,~to-add-doi-URL,bioenergy,biomass,europe,forest-resources,ghg,science-policy-interface,uncertainty","bibtex":"@article{soderbergRisingPolicyConflicts2013,\n title = {Rising Policy Conflicts in {{Europe}} over Bioenergy and Forestry},\n author = {Söderberg, Charlotta and Eckerberg, Katarina},\n date = {2013-08},\n journaltitle = {Forest Policy and Economics},\n volume = {33},\n pages = {112--119},\n issn = {1389-9341},\n doi = {10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015},\n abstract = {[Highlights]\n\n[::] EU Bioenergy policy cuts across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. [::] Increased pressure on forest biomass risks putting EU in a wood-deficit situation. [::] Bioenergy conflicts regard land use, biodiversity, climate and sustainability. [::] Conflicts on environmental consequences from bioenergy policy are reconcilable. [::] Conflicts on globally shared rights and responsibilities are not easily reconciled.\n\n[Abstract] Growing concerns over emissions of green-house gases causing climate change as well as energy security concerns have spurred the interest in bioenergy production pushed by EU targets to fulfil the goal of 20~per cent renewable energy in 2020, as well as the goal of 10~per cent renewable fuels in transport by 2020. Increased bioenergy production is also seen to have political and economic benefits for rural areas and farming regions in Europe and in the developing world. There are, however, conflicting views on the potential benefits of large scale bioenergy production, and recent debates have also drawn attention to a range of environmental and socio-economic issues that may arise in this respect. One of these challenges will be that of accommodating forest uses - including wood for energy, and resulting intensification of forest management - with biodiversity protection in order to meet EU policy goals. We note that the use of biomass and biofuels spans over several economic sector policy areas, which calls for assessing and integrating environmental concerns across forest, agriculture, energy and transport sectors. In this paper, we employ frame analysis to identify the arguments for promoting bioenergy and assess the potential policy conflicts in the relevant sectors, through the analytical lens of environmental policy integration. We conclude that while there is considerable leverage of environmental arguments in favour of bioenergy in the studied economic sectors, and potential synergies with other policy goals, environmental interest groups remain sceptical to just how bioenergy is currently being promoted. There is a highly polarised debate particularly relating to biofuel production. Based on our analysis, we discuss the potential for how those issues could be reconciled drawing on the frame conflict theory, distinguishing between policy disagreements and policy controversies.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11738844,~to-add-doi-URL,bioenergy,biomass,europe,forest-resources,ghg,science-policy-interface,uncertainty}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Söderberg, C.","Eckerberg, K."],"key":"soderbergRisingPolicyConflicts2013","id":"soderbergRisingPolicyConflicts2013","bibbaseid":"sderberg-eckerberg-risingpolicyconflictsineuropeoverbioenergyandforestry","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-11738844","~to-add-doi-URL","bioenergy","biomass","europe","forest-resources","ghg","science-policy-interface","uncertainty"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["rising","policy","conflicts","europe","over","bioenergy","forestry","söderberg","eckerberg"],"keywords":["bioenergy policy","energy","environmental policy integration","forest management","frame analysis","policy conflicts","*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-11738844","~to-add-doi-url","bioenergy","biomass","europe","forest-resources","ghg","science-policy-interface","uncertainty"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}