Global database - case studies on bioenergy conflicts

Transcription

1 Global database - case studies on bioenergy conflicts, Project Researcher PhD candidate University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences Department of Geographical and Historic Sciences , maxim.trishkin@uef.fi

2 What do we know about bioenergy conflicts? Resources (food vs. energy) Interests Lobby Space???

3 Introduction to assignment (1) Objective: retrieve information on bioenergy conflicts Sources: academic publications, policy reports, newspapers, ENGOs campaigns Criteria: conflict related to bioenergy production; preferably in your country/region. Structure: Title Date (when started, on-going or ended). Location: country, regions, coordinates. Conflict type: land use conflicts, biomass extraction conflicts (legally), bioenergy plants etc. Resources: Solid wood, Fire wood, Logging residues, Industrial residues, Agricultural products, Agricultural residues, Animal waste, Household waste, Industrial waste

4 Introduction to assignment (2) Evaluation of the conflict (Ecological, Economical, Social, Cultural) Main stakeholders involved (ENGOs, company, local/regional authority, local residents) Evaluation of the intensity (public debate, peaceful action, violence) Evaluation of possible causes (poor regulations, poor government actions, economic factors, corruption etc.) Obstacles to conflict resolutions Bridges to conflict resolutions Keywords References

5 Why bioenergy conflicts take place? August 2015: 7,28 billion people ( January 2017: 7,48 IEA, International Energy Agency, 2015

6 Tenure rights (governance) overlaps with forest resources and rural land

7 Land-use conflicts in daily press Babette Wehrmann, Land conflicts: a practical guide to dealing with land disputes

8 Arable land management worldwide Source: Fritz et al. Mapping global cropland and field size. IIASA-IFPRI 2015

9 India: land acquisition disputes 262 land conflicts between January 2013 June 2014 Source: RRI,2014

10

11 Why to study conflicts? On the photo: Fortum CHP plant, Joensuu, Finland, Communication of investment plans with stakeholders before the decision on land acquisition or plant investment should be considered...however not always taken into account by companies Everybody likes bioenergy unless it comes to implementation, then frequent phenomena pops up NIMBY On the photo: American citizens to EU Commission,

12 Drax AGM case in UK - conversion from coal to biomass On the photo: People are opposing the governmental desicion on subsidies to bioenergy, Reasons: enormous subsidies and possible budget cuts from education and health long-term transportation of biomass (huge carbon footprint) destruction of tropical forests

13 The complex platform which allows to identify, analyze and discuss the conflict with interested parties As part of the bioenergy governance the database with 191 cases until now is created Searching of cases: key words (bioenergy protest, bioenergy conflict etc) languages: English, Finnish, Swedish, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian Geographical positioning of the bioenergy conflicts (area or point) Analysis of each bioenergy case: Conflict type (land use conflict, biomass extraction conflicts (legally), illegal biomass extraction, bioenergy plans, bioenergy governance conflicts) Resources used (forestry, agricultural, wastes) Stakeholders involved Source: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0557e/a0557e00.pdf Key words References Start and end date Intensity (public debate, peaceful and violent action, regulatory actions) Barriers and forums for dialog

14 The database outlook red flag point data blue flag polygon data

15 Distribution of bioenergy conflicts by continents Number of bioenergy conflicts

16 Distribution of countries covered by bioenergy conflict database (39) UK EE AU MY BR IN CN ID SE RU FI DE US Sierra Leona (2) Ukraine (2) Zambia (2) Belgium (2) Kenya (1) Belorus (1) Honduras (1) Italy (1) Cameroon (1) Mozambique (1) Slovakia (1) Thailand (1) Peru (1) Uganda (1) Global (1) Mexico (1) Poland (1) Colombia (1) Denmark (1) Liberia (1) Romania (1) Senegal (1) Bolivia (1) Canada (1) South Africa (1) Philippines (1)

17 Area based vs. point based data Forest concession (polygon data) 88 conflicts (46%) Mill side (point data) 103 conflicts (54%) Past vs. ongoing conflicts

18

19 The intensity of the conflicts

20 Source of conflict (conflict type)

21 Resources used

22 Number of stakeholders invoved

23 Type of stakehodlers involved in the conflict

24 Key actors and triggers Investor (company) Local people (interested group) Local authority NGOs

25 Concluding remarks (1/2) The database was created with over 190 cases the cases are spatially-explicit and interactive Multi layered data with qualitative and quantitative characteristics The data is retrievable: ranking, grouping, searching, analyzing Current dataset covers 5 continents and 39 countries Out of all the described cases 60% are ongoing conflicts Intensity of conflicts: 83% are public debates, 13% - peaceful actions, 4% are violent actions, 1% regulatory actions developed countries public debates, regulatory action developing countries - public debates, peaceful and violent actions Most of the conflicts are on consumer side. Difference in conflict patterns for developed and developing countries, developing forest concession, developed general debate or mill side

26 Concluding remarks (2/2) The conflict types among the cases: EU countries: bioenergy governance, bioenergy plants Asia -> land use conflicts, illegal extraction Russia and CIS > illegal extraction, land use conflicts Australia, Oceania > land use change Africa -> land use conflicts, illegal extraction Latin America -> land use conflicts, illegal extraction North America -> bioenergy governance, bioenergy plants Mapping of stakeholders and identification of the most influential based on their repetition

27 Swedwood case in Republic of Karelia Profile of the company in Karelia: Swedwood was the first company to be FSC certified in Karelia in 2006 and is annually inspected by an independent third party audit for compliance with the FSC standard. Industry Area: 280 th. ha Identified HCVF 67 th. ha (23%) Fully excluded from forest use: 35 th. ha (12%) Government NGOs Env. activists Source:

28 SPOK non-governmental organization Source:

29 Campaign against Swedwood Karelia Boycott of products Suspension of audit Source:

30 Press-release of Swedwood Source:

31 Result Source: production-woodworking-news/ikeas-swedwood-regains-fsc-certification html

32 Any questions or concerns? Time for discussion