impacts and summary report - european commission...intelligent energy – europe ii (iee ii)...

Impacts and achievements

of bioenergy projects

supported under the EU

programme IEE II

EUR 2016.6933

Summary report

Disclaimer:This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Acknowledgements:The completion of this review would not have been possible without the participation and assistance of so many people. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated and gratefully acknowledged.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu)

Cover photographs courtesy of: BiomassTradeCentre II, Promobio, BioenergyFarm and Agriforenergy II

Internal photographs courtesy of: Photo 1 (page 6) – BiomassTradeCentre II, Photo 2 (page 8) – Promobio, Photo3 (page 13) – BioEUParks, Photo 4 (page 23) – SRCplus, Photo 5 (page 26) – BiomassTradeCentre II

© European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.Printed in UKPRINTED ON PAPER MADE FROM 100% GENUINE DE-INKED POST-CONSUMER WASTE

This report was prepared for:Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises – EASME under contract number EASME/H2020/EE/2014/008

This report was prepared by:Pat Howes, Lisa Groves, Susan O’Brien, Heather Haydock, Arani Myvalganam,

Kathryn Rushton, Marzena Chodor (Ricardo Energy & Environment)

Reviewed by:Silvia Vivarelli (Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises – EASME) and

Emilio Font de Mora (Innovation and Networks Executive Agency – INEA), European Commission

Design and layout by:Ricardo Energy & Environment

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Print ISBN 978-92-9202-220-4 DOI:10.2826/89443 EA-04-16-948-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-9202-219-8 DOI:10.2826/733510 EA-04-16-948-EN-N

ii 1I m p a c t s a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s o f b i o e n e r g y p r o j e c t s

s u p p o r t e d u n d e r t h e E U p r o g r a m m e I E E I I – S u m m a r y r e p o r t

http://europa.eu

Impacts and achievements of bioenergy projects supported under

the EU programme IEE II

Summary report

ii 1I m p a c t s a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s o f b i o e n e r g y p r o j e c t s


2 3I m p a c t s a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s o f b i o e n e r g y p r o j e c t s


Contents

1. Introduction 41.1. What was the purpose of Intelligent Energy Europe? 4

1.2. What was the purpose of this review? 6

2. Findings 82.1 Impacts directly linked to project outputs 9

2.1.1 Success points: dissemination and capacity building impacts 9

2.1.2 Success points: Bioenergy supply chain impacts 18

2.1.3 Success points: policy impacts 22

2.2 The direct impact of IEE II bioenergy projects 26

2.2.1 Success points: Biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced 26

2.2.2 Success points: renewable energy production impacts 33

2.2.3 Success points: GHG emission reduction impacts 38

2.2.4 Success points: Investment impacts 38

2.2.5 Success points: potential employment impacts 41

2.3 How IEE II bioenergy projects fit into the broader EU context 42

2.3.1 IEE II as part of the EU’s funding in bioenergy 42

2.3.2 Survey of stakeholders on the reach of IEE II bioenergy support 43

3. Concluding remarks 47

4. Full report 48

Annex 1 49



This report provides a summary of the review of the support for bioenergy projects delivered under the Intelligent Energy – Europe II (IEE II) programme in terms of measurable outputs and impacts.

It shows how IEE II bioenergy projects resulted in an increased uptake of bioenergy in Europe, beyond that that would have been achieved by EU and national Member State policy alone, and how they will continue to influence the sector now and into the foreseeable future.

The full report is available at https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/IEE-publications and contains detailed analysis and source data for each stage of the review and Executive Summary.

1.1. What was the purpose of Intelligent Energy Europe?• IEE was a programme open to calls for proposals between

2003 and 2013.

• IEE addressed non-technological barriers to realise EU objectives for sustainable energy.

• IEE II ran between 2007 and 2013 and had a total budget of EUR 730 million.

• In total, 47 bioenergy projects have been supported under IEE II with EUR 48.3 million of funds. These comprised:

- 18 solid biomass projects (total funding EUR 17.5 million).

- 14 biogas projects (total funding EUR 16 million).

- 6 liquid biofuels projects (total funding EUR 5.2 million).

- 9 strategic initiative projects (total funding EUR 9.6 million).

IEE’s role was to support the provision of secure, sustainable and competitively priced energy for Europe by funding actions in the marketplace to overcome non-technological barriers to the efficient use of energy and greater use of new and renewable energy sources.

The bioenergy projects supported by IEE II aimed to increase the share of renewables in electricity generation, heating and cooling applications, and in transport fuels. Each project addressed one or more of the following fields of delivery:

1. Shape policy development and implementation (e.g. provision of recommendations and market feedback to policy makers in the European Commission and Member States; actions to support the implementation of EU directives and policies; and actions that assist local and regional policy makers to develop and implement local strategies and action plans).

2. Create favourable market conditions (e.g. contribution to standards development and implementation; accelerated uptake of certification schemes; development of infrastructure and logistics; improved information; and tackling common barriers).

3. Change behaviour (e.g. large-scale information exchange and awareness raising; and actions encouraging market players to change behaviour).

4. Build skills and capacities (e.g. supporting the development of appropriate skills and competencies of market players, such as through training, study tours, workshops, and developing tools and guidelines).

5. Mobilising investments (e.g. providing necessary information; performing feasibility studies, mobilising decision makers and funding technical assistance; promoting cooperation between market actors; preparing tendering procedures and contractual arrangements, and facilitating the use of structural and other investment funds).

Since 2014, the European Commission’s Research and Innovation (R&I) programme, Horizon 2020, has supported many similar activities.

1 Introduction

Non-technological barriers are challenges to bioenergy market uptake that include:

• The need to create more favourable policy and support frameworks for bioenergy uptake at European, national and local level.

• Knowledge and experience-related factors (such as lack of specific capacity and skills, and low confidence in feedstocks and technology), which impact development and investment in bioenergy.

• The need to develop bioenergy supply chains, including biomass and investment mobilisation, which are crucial factors in supply-and-demand-driven bioenergy development.



https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/IEE-publications


ADORE IT

GasHighWay

FARMAGAS

BIOMASS FUTURES

2AGRIFORENERGY

EUBIONET3

ALTER-MOTIVE

WhS

BEN

BioEnerGIS

AFO

MAKE-IT-BE

BioGrace

BiogasIN

MixBioPells

BiomassTradeCentreII

BioRegions

SWEETHANOL

FOREST

BioEnergy FarmBIO-HEAT

CrossBorderBioenergy

SolidStandards

Bio-methane Regions

GERONIMO II Biogas

UrbanBiogas

BIOMASTER

BIOEUPARKS

PellCert

GreenGasGrids

PromoBio

OILECO

SUSTAINGAS

BioGrace II

BiogasHeat

GR3

FABbiogas

EPIC2020

BASIS

BIOTRADE2020plus

SRCplus

Solid biomass

Mid-term review Project timescale

Type

Biofuels

Planning & Strategic projects

Biogas & Biomethane

18

6

9

14

Biogas 3

SUCELLOG

BiomassPolicies

BIOTEAM

RecOil

BioEnergyFarm II

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

EUR 0.62 million

EUR 1.37 million

EUR 1.02 million

EUR 0.74 million

EUR 1.05 million

EUR 0.94 million

EUR 1.30 million

EUR 0.44 million

EUR 1.11 million

EUR 1.14 million

EUR 1.01 million

EUR 1.0 million

EUR 0.89 million

EUR 1.13 million

EUR 0.73 million

EUR 1.12 million

EUR 0.90 million

EUR 0.96 million

EUR 1.21 million

EUR 0.58 million

EUR 0.65 million

EUR 1.01 million

EUR 1.24 million

EUR 1.26 million

EUR 0.88 million

EUR 1.85 million

EUR 1.19 million

EUR 0.68 million

EUR 1.5 million

EUR 0.69 million

EUR 0.68 million

EUR 1.18 million

EUR 0.83 million

EUR 1.4 million

EUR 0.73 million

EUR 1.0 million

EUR 1.51 million

EUR 1.14 million

EUR 1.14 million

EUR 1.14 million

EUR 1.4 million

EUR 1.01 million

EUR 0.83 million

EUR 1.37 million

EUR 1.02 million

EUR 0.9 million

EUR 0.98 million

Bioenergy projects supported by IEE II, by date of project and colour coded by project category. The red line indicates the timing of the mid-term review. The green line indicates the timescale of this review. The number beside the project acronym indicates the EU contribution.



1.2. What was the purpose of this review?As of May 2015, 34 of the 47 IEE II bioenergy projects had been completed. The EASME commissioned this review to assess the potential impacts that IEE II funding had had on bioenergy in Europe and its lasting impact up to 2020. This review collected all the available evidence and expert opinion on the impacts claimed by each project and the resulting overall achievements of the programme, which will feed into future support programmes for bioenergy such as Horizon 2020. By the end of this review, 43 of the 47 projects were complete, and their final data was taken into account when possible. This publication is a summary version of the work.

In addition, the review aimed to determine the level of stakeholder engagement in capacity building and dissemination activities, and the influence of the projects in policy development and implementation.

IEE II projects were requested to indicate specific objectives, and to provide related project-specific performance indicators and a way to monitor their achievement. Furthermore, strategic objectives and performance indicators showing the impact after the end of the project up to 2020 were also requested.

However, project-specific indicators were too tailored to each project, resulting in heterogeneous data (e.g. few projects provided information on bioenergy; in some cases data was provided as aggregated figures, and different unit measures and different terminology were used), which was difficult to compare and aggregate.

Review of the impact of projects in terms of:

Biomass feedstocks mobilised (e.g. agricultural and forestry residues, and animal manure).

Reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year).

Bioenergy carriers mobilised (e.g. woodchips, pellets, biogas and biomethane).

Contribution to the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) sectoral targets relevant to bioenergy.

Final renewable energy production (e.g. heat, electricity, combined heat and power (CHP), and biofuels for transport).

Contribution to the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) overall target. Potential employment impacts.

Leverage effect.

Investments triggered (EUR million).



In addition to project-specific indicators, since 2010, project teams have been requested to provide common performance indicators (CPIs) to ensure the impact of projects is measured in a harmonised way. These were:

• The sustainable energy investment triggered (million euros per annum (M€/a) and estimates for 2020);

• The renewable energy production (tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per annum and estimates for 2020);

• The reduction of GHG emissions (tonnes CO2e per annum and estimates for 2020).

The review was conducted over the course of 12 months, with a team of six experts carrying out detailed in-depth reviews of the documents produced by each project and interacting with key stakeholders. Telephone interviews took place with project coordinators, a survey of stakeholders and target groups was carried out, and field trips were organised to review the credibility of the reported impact information.

A fundamental element of this review has been to assess all available evidence on the basis of the reliability of the data. Data was categorised into three levels:

• Reliable data represents data where the origin was clear and evidenced. It was based on measured data or on clear and justified calculations with fully credible assumptions.

• Acceptable data covers data that was less certain, but was based on previous experience, data and assumptions are given and they seem broadly credible.

• Potential data is data based on metrics or estimates that involved generalised assumptions because specific, good-quality data was missing. Assumptions have had to be made to fill data gaps, which would need to be further substantiated.

Evidence assessment

Evaluation of impact

Stakeholder evidence

Enhancement of dataInformation obtained from stakeholders through:

• Telephone interviews with project co-ordinators and with stakeholders impacted by the projects.

• A survey of stakeholders.

• Field visits to stakeholders who developed plants as a result of the projects.

• Other evidence provided by stakeholders (e.g. trade associations).

Estimation of impacts using assumptions and conversions of available data:

• Conversion to standard units for comparison.

• Assumptions regarding mobilisation, investment and jobs.

• Checking summed data against total country and EU projections.

How was impact estimated in each project?

What assumptions were made by the projects?

Were these assumptions reasonable?

How much confidence is there in the impact estimate?

What evidence is available through projects?

What other sources of information are available (e.g. from EASME, at regional/national level, trade associations)?



This review shows that IEE II bioenergy projects have played an important role in assisting the development of bioenergy in Europe between 2007 and 2013, and continue to influence the sector. There is evidence that this programme accelerated the development of bioenergy in Europe by:

• Providing tools for assessing opportunities and risks for the development of bioenergy.

• Enhancing user confidence in the feedstocks and technology available.

• Building awareness and understanding of bioenergy, and capacity and skills needed to implement bioenergy.

• Spreading best practices.

• Creating networks between stakeholders and developers.

• Establishing bioenergy supply chains.

• Promoting investments.

• Supporting policy development and implementation at EU, national and regional levels.

The analysis shows that projects funded through IEE II have helped to promote bioenergy to a wider audience of stakeholders, and boosted sector developments and best available technologies. Projects actively sought to increase access for stakeholders to best practice demonstrations and experience in the field through training and knowledge-exchange activities. These activities included site visits, demonstrations, workshops, meetings and seminars.

Together, IEE II bioenergy projects have directly supported the entire bioenergy supply chain through guiding business-plan development; encouraging commitments (such as signing fuel supply contracts); developing tools that make it easier for stakeholders to assess the opportunities, benefits and risks; and, ultimately, promoting investments.

The diagram below shows how intervention along the whole biomass development chain is important to mobilise biomass and use it for energy purposes. In the IEE II bioenergy projects, intervention at every stage in this process was observed, although the most common types of intervention were at the earlier stages (awareness of opportunities, supply chain establishment, feasibility studies and assistance with access to finance).

2 Findings

Bioenergy theory of change and the key activities carried out by IEE II projects in that context

MW installed,GHG savings

Biomassmobilised

Access to finance

FeasibilityStudies

Supply chainestablished

Awareness ofopportunities

BioenergyPolicy

Facilitation of information

exchange with policy makers

Exchange of information at the local level

Development of infrastructure for

distribution

Developing of networks and

knowledge hubs

Developing tools and guidelines

Training and skills

development

Developing of fuel standards

Harmonising data on sustainability

and GHG emissions

Promoting of cooperation

between key actors

Provision of data and information of performance

Outcomes of project activities

Economic data and analysis of best

cost options

Business case for investment developed



A wide range of stakeholders were involved in IEE II bioenergy projects: 13 300 farmers, 19 150 foresters, 18 100 representatives of SMEs, 15 200 decision makers, 7 100 representatives of local authorities and 4 900 experts.

2.1 Impacts directly linked to project outputsA key component of the impact of IEE II bioenergy projects stems from the outputs produced. It is clear from our analysis that the projects have delivered high numbers of a range of very useful outputs.

2.1.1 Success points: dissemination and capacity building impacts

The projects have accessed considerable numbers of different stakeholder types across the EU:

• Around 2.8 million stakeholders were reached through dissemination activities.

• 1.8 million people accessed websites hosted by the projects, including around 240 000 downloads

• Just over 200 000 stakeholders attended dissemination events, including almost 70 000 at workshops, over 122 000 at conferences, over 8 600 stakeholders at one to one meetings and around 6 000 at study tours/site visits.

• Handbooks and guidelines were distributed to over 23 000 stakeholders and leaflets to 600 000

• Informative videos were watched by more than 7 000 people.

Who were the target stakeholders?

The IEE II programme targeted stakeholders along the whole bioenergy development chain, including:

• Biomass suppliers including farmers, foresters, the agro-food sector and relevant sector associations.

• Biomass fuel producers; equipment manufacturers; heat, electricity and transport biofuel suppliers.

• Final bioenergy users.

• Investors and financiers.

• Regional and local stakeholders including local policy makers, administrators and planners.

• National and European policy makers.

• Experts including academics; consultants; energy, agricultural and forestry advisers; auditors; and verifiers.

• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) including trade organisations, nature conservation organisations and sector organisations.

• Standards organisations.

Information sourcesThe data presented in this review is based on available project documentation, supplemented by interviews with relevant parties and data extrapolation. Although the research and identification of project-level data was far-reaching, some specific project data was not available. Where data extrapolation or estimation was required, all estimates developed used conservative figures so that the impact was not overestimated.

Dissemination outputs:

Website visits and downloads (including use of tools).

Questionnaires answered.

Leaflets, media interviews, catalogues, posters, etc.Development of databases with

information.

Publications.

Participation in events.

Information/reports on best practice (handbooks, guides, videos and other informative material).



INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE II �IEE II� BIOENERGY PROJECTS IEE has offered a helping hand to private and public stakeholders to improve energy sustainability, support policy development and implementation across the EU, prepare the ground for investment, and improve the capacity and skills of European market actors.

18 solid biomass projects (Funding: € 17.5 m)

14 biogas projects (Funding: € 16 m)

6 liquid biofuels projects (Funding: € 5.2 m)

9 strategic projects (Funding: € 9.6 m)

47 bioenergy projects (Funding: € 48.3 m)14 600 stakeholders

engaged in development meetings and site visits to

boost bioenergy

Over 200 000 stakeholders attended conferences, workshops and

training sessions

Further information on all IEE II projects is available from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligentThe sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the author Ricardo. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Data extracted from a review of all 47 IEE II bioenergy projects. This is the impact of the IEE II programme taking

into account only reliable and acceptable data. If potential data would be included the impact would be much higher. Please see the final report for an assessment of reliability of all data.

2.8 million stakeholders informed by project dissemination activities (websites,

downloads, publicity, questionnaires)

Awareness and understanding of bioenergy

Increased knowledge, skills and confidence

Set-up of bioenergy supply chains

Stakeholders networks

Investments triggered

Sustainable development of bioenergy

Regional, national and EU policies more supportive for bioenergy

I M P A C T S

A C T I O N I M P A C T SBarrier: Unfavourable policy framework

Recognise biomass and

bioenergy potential

Regional action plans

and roadmaps

Change in legislative and

support frameworks

Barrier: Underdeveloped biomass supplyI M P A C T S

Bioenergy carriers produced by 2016

I M P A C T S

1 400 ktoe Pellets

350 ktoe Woodchips

20 ktoe Woodlogs

20 ktoeBiomethane

20 ktoeBiogas

2.6 ktoeBiodiesel

(ktoe = kilo tonnes oil equivalent)

A C T I O NBarrier: Lack of information and practical experience

A C T I O N

15 200Decision makers

4 900Technical experts

18 100Company

representatives

7 100Local authorities and municipalities

13 300Farmers

200Experts supporting

development of standards

19 150Foresters

Stakeholders brought together

Policy monitoring

Policy tools (e.g. assessments of bioenergy potentials,

decision-making tools)

236Supply chains across Europe

Progress towards implementation

Investment triggered by 2016

A C T I O N

Biomass boilers

Co-firing with biomass

Anaerobic digestion with CHP

Biomass CHP

Biomass power plants

Biofuel vehicles (biodiesel,

biomethane)

Main bioenergy technologies triggered via the opportunities

created by IEE II

1 536 Feasibility

studies

443 Business

plans

2 000 ktForest wood

50 ktWood industry residues

96 kt Animal manure and agricultural residues

72 kt Short rotation coppice

160 ktBiofraction of MSW and

agro-food industry residues

185 ktUsed cooking oil/ pure vegetable oil

Sustainable biomass feedstocks mobilisedby 2016

(kt = kilo tonnes)

Strategy papers and

policy advice

Share of IEE II on total EU bioenergy funding

€ 48 m IEE II bioenergy

Funding to bioenergy

from other EU programmes

(€ 1.2 bn between 2007 and 2013)

€ 913 m Leveraging € 18.9 m for every

€ 1 m EU fundingLeveraging

investment

5.7 MtCO 2e/year

Total GHG emissi

ons

savings

1 655 ktoeTotal renewable energy produced

(1.22 % of EU bioenergy projections for 2015)

30 ktoeBiomethane for grid

injection

10 ktoeLiquid biofuel

1 430 ktoeHeat

110 ktoeCHP (10 ktoe electricity,

100 ktoe heat)

50 ktoeElectricity

How IEE II projects have addressed barriers to increase the uptake of bioenergy



The spread of dissemination of IEE II projects across the EU is quite wide. Dissemination statistics show that stakeholders in most EU Member States were accessed through internet and events. Countries with more than 4 000 website hits were Germany, Italy, Spain, Slovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Greece and Belgium. Participants from 20 countries attended events and conferences.

Capacity building includes activities that expand the knowledge and ability of stakeholders to undertake bioenergy projects.

Approximately 200 000 European bioenergy stakeholders were engaged in various capacity-building activities:

• Almost 2 500 workshops were organised with almost 70 000 participants.

• Around 2 200 targeted small-scale meetings were organised to encourage networking, enable commitment to the supply

and use of biomass, and assess feasibility of bioenergy for a specific company or area. These meetings were attended by around 8 500 stakeholders.

• Over 6 000 stakeholders participated in site visits.

• Conferences recorded more than 120 000 participants.

• Projects reported direct contact (one-to-one meetings) with over 560 policy makers and many more at other dissemination events.

• 1 100 online scans have been performed using online tools and 15 000 stakeholders downloaded or used project tools to assess the feasibility of bioenergy to understand the economic viability and the potential risks.

RecOil’s successful involvement of members of the general publicThe RecOil project aimed to increase sustainable biodiesel production and its local market by improving household used cooking oil collection (UCO) and conversion to biodiesel. To do this it launched a highly successful stakeholder engagement campaign in target regions. This included UCO collection promotional campaigns, using media (newspapers, TV and radio) and leafletting the general public. For example, in Portugal the partners launched 77 promotional campaigns, distributed around 222 000 flyers and held 53 events in schools. Similar campaigns were organised in the other participating countries and overall over 2 million citizens were reached in the target regions, resulting in pilots that demonstrated the potential for significant increases in the recycling of UCO (improving recycling by 20% in targeted areas).

In addition the project used other engagement methods, such as production of best practice guidance including best collection methods and a communication plan aimed at decision makers and waste companies. It also developed a framework for contracts between municipalities and UCO companies and set up and monitored eight pilot/demonstration projects in five countries (Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain). This effort paid off, resulting in the project exceeding its performance indicators.

This project far exceeded stakeholder engagement and dissemination activities compared to other projects that were not targeting the general public.

Budget: EUR 1 519 796 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (7 May 2012 to 8 May 2015)Project co-ordinator: Orlando Paraiba (ENA)Email: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/recoil

Capacity building activities reported by projects:

Study tours. Meetings.

Consultations.

Online tools.

E-learning modules.

Seminars.

Conferences.

Training.

Demonstrations of best practice.

Workshops.



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/recoil

What was done?The BioEnergy Farm project aimed to increase the amount of renewable energy, generated on farms in Italy, Poland, Estonia, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. BioEnergy Farm 2 focuses on micro-scale biogas installations that mainly use manure and feed leftovers of the farm. This can increase the amount of sustainable energy produced on farms, by assisting farmers to assess the feasibility of business plans.

The projects developed an online quick-scan that gives reliable independent information on the profitability of bioenergy at farm-level. Experts then assisted farmers and landowners with more in-depth scans and development of business plans in order to get the technology financed.

AchievementsUnder BioEnergy Farm, the online quick-scan was used over 3 000 times. Experts then went on to support in-depth scans for 459 farmers and landowners, and 83 business plans were developed. By the end of the first project in 2013, 44 business plans were realised, with a resulting 50.7 MW of bioenergy installed (18 MW of which were delivered in 2013). This triggered approximately EUR 30.4 million of investment in bioenergy by the end of the project.

BioEnergy Farm 2 has a target of delivering 700 business plans. So far, 722 quick-scans have been recorded (last update September 2015) and the project is on-track to realise 60 MW of installed bioenergy by 2020.

Budget: EUR 1 614 335 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 34 months (1 June 2010 to 31 March 2013) Project co-ordinator: Dr Ir. René Cornelissen – Cornelissen Consulting Service B.V.Email: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioenergyfarm

Budget: EUR 1 869 679 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 34 months (1 March 2014 to 31 December 2016)Project co-ordinator: Dr Ir. René Cornelissen – Cornelissen Consulting Service B.V.Email: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioenergyfarm2



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioenergyfarm

[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioenergyfarm2

What was done?CrossBorderBioenergy provided biomass market information on all EU Member States, with the aim of assisting SMEs to evaluate bioenergy markets in Europe in view of cross-border investment and to develop international market strategies.

What need did this address?

Bioenergy is well established in some regions of Europe. SMEs with experience in these regions have much to offer to other regions in Europe where there is promising bioenergy potential. However, many SMEs do not have the resources to develop international business. CrossBorderBioenergy facilitated this by providing marketplace data and enabling networking.

Achievements

50 criteria were identified to assess five market sectors (biogas/biomethane, small-scale heat, biomass district heating, biomass CHP and biofuels for transportation), including business criteria such as project financing availability, readiness for uptake, policy aspects, regulations and economic conditions (374 marketplace indicators in

total). These were summarised in market handbooks for each sector in 27 EU countries. An online geographic information system (GIS) tool and database was developed for companies to explore EU markets to identify the best countries for their expertise. The map shows a sample of results – the depth of colour indicates market attractiveness for a particular sector. This tool was accessed by 4 150 companies between 2012 and 2013. Feedback showed that the information provided was valued by SMEs.

A virtual marketplace was also provided in the form of an online business-to-business (B2B) platform for SMEs to internationalise by registering their company profile. In total, 807 users registered on this platform, with 322 activated accounts and 300 company profiles in more than nine countries.

How does this help bioenergy?

The project provided accessible data on an international basis that gives a clear indication of the potential of regional markets. SMEs were able to use this to identify where their experience and products would be useful to allow expansion of their business. The B2B platform gives them a means to advertise their products and skills.

Linked project

The BASIS project (running from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2016) produced a GIS tool covering all 28 EU Member States. It provided in-depth regional information on demand and potential supply of wood for woodchips boilers, including information on biomass potential, on current plants using wood chips (more than 4 000 plants larger than 1MW identified), conversion efficiency, sustainability indicators and information on the logistic infrastructure. A further 870 wood chip users were also identified.

More than 3 700 website visits from almost 2 300 visitors have been registered.

The BASIS project has maintained the CrossBorderBioenergy tools, including the B2B platform, which registered 1 000 users.

Budget: EUR 865 690 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 September 2010 to 31 May 2013)Project co-ordinator: Jean-Marc Jossart, European Biomass Association (AEBIOM)Email: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/crossborderbioenergy



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/crossborderbioenergy

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/crossborderbioenergy

What was done?Wood fuel use in England, Slovenia and Croatia was boosted by working with small scale woodland owners, farmers and heat users to raise awareness of the advantages of wood fuel for heat production, and to implement specific wood fuel supply and wood heat production projects.

Information and experience from countries with well-developed wood fuel markets (Finland and Austria) was transferred to the target countries. In particular workshops and study tours were held and materials specific to the individual needs of the target countries was prepared and disseminated.


There was an opportunity to better utilise small scale and fragmented woodlands and to provide affordable local heat solutions. In order to achieve this there was a need first to increase awareness of the opportunity amongst local woodland owners, farmers and heat users/ suppliers. There was then a need to provide a forum to enable co-operation between wood fuel suppliers and users. Finally there was a need for support and guidance to interested parties during project development. In particular there was a need for examples of similar successful projects, which was provided from Austria and Finland, and for guidance on producing good quality wood fuel and choosing appropriate wood fuel conversion equipment.

Achievements

202 Letters of Intent were signed by both forest owners registering an interest to supply forest biomass and organisations interested in the purchase of woodheat. This translated into 90 new woodheat projects during the project. More were developed in the UK after the end of the project when financial support was available from the Renewable Heat Incentive and Woodfuel Woodland Improvement Grants. A network of wood fuel champions was set up in the target countries to pursue further wood fuel development opportunities and share learning. Information from the WHS project continues to be used daily by the UK Forestry Commission. and just under £3 million in funding for new wood fuel development projects has recently been secured building on the work carried out under the WhS project

How does this help bioenergy

The project helped local stakeholders understand the potential of wood fuel from small scale and fragmented woodlands in their region and supported the processes required to develop wood fuel supply and wood heat production. Ongoing use of information from the project has helped to secure further funding for wood fuel development.

Budget: EUR 976 253 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 October 2008 to 31 March 2011)Project co-ordinator: Matthew Woodcock, Forestry Commission, UKEmail: [email protected] Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/whs



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/whs

Capacity building was particularly successful. Stakeholders attending training indicated that it was very successful and well received. These activities provided an invaluable foundation to the development of bioenergy, particularly for stakeholders who do not have the resources to undertake such work themselves (such as regional or local authorities, and SMEs, farmers and foresters). Project co-ordinators reported that feedback indicated that conferences and websites were good tools for advertising the projects. However, smaller scale workshops, study tours, networking and one-to-one meetings really allowed interested stakeholders to interact and to explore the feasibility of investing in bioenergy. In the projects, there is evidence of a link between capacity building activities and investments by stakeholders, such as in bioenergy plants.

Online and offline tools for decision-making (e.g. for feasibility studies, biomass and bioenergy potentials) were also used by stakeholders to assess the feasibility of bioenergy development, and to understand the economic viability and the potential risks. In total, 30 tools developed by the projects were downloaded just under 25 000 times. These tools were also used for targeted training. Network tools or B2B platforms enabled companies to register and contact complementary companies along the supply-use chain. However, the success of these within the projects is not evident.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Solidbiomass

Biogas/Biomethane

Liquid biofuels

Strategic projects

Website visits

Website downloads

Leaflets

Handbooks

Workshops, seminars, training

Conferences

One to one meetings/networks

Site visits

Posters

Videos

Best practice examples

Databases

Catalogues

Media articles

Questionnaires answered

Dissemination activities split by category of project



Number of different types of tools developed in the IEE II bioenergy projects by type of project

Solidbiomass

Biogas/Biomethane

Liquid biofuels

Strategic projects

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000 Companies

Nature conservation

NGOs

Municipalities

Regional/Local authority representatives

Decision makers

Standards organisations

Experts

Ago -food

Farmers

General public

Forestry sector

Stakeholders involved in capacity building activities, by category of project

Table 2-1 Number of stakeholders involved in selected dissemination activities

Workshops Conferences Meetings Site visits

Solid biomass 41 851 22 244 5 793 4 877

Biogas/Biomethane 15 682 4 381 1 121 959

Liquid biofuels 4 137 91 692 936 59

Strategic initiatives 8 222 3 795 717 213

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Solid biomass

Biogas/ biomethane

Biofuels

Strategic

Techno-economic General biomass policy Biogas/biomethane PolicyGIS Sustainability Guidance Business to business



2.1.2 Success points: Bioenergy supply chain impacts

Supply chain actions as part of projects included activities that support the development of biomass supply for energy purposes. Two fundamental needs were addressed:

• Bioenergy plant developers need to be ensured of a reliable biomass supply.

• Biomass suppliers need to be ensured of a market for their product.

Supply chain support:

• In total, 443 business plans and 1 536 feasibility studies were recorded by the projects.

• A total of 236 supply chains were developed

• IEE II projects have been linked directly with the development of over 400 bioenergy plants across the EU representing over 165MW (280 heat and CHP plants, 9 pure vegetable oil (PVO) plants, 46 biogas/biomethane plants and 91 biogas plants). In addition to this, 6 upgrading plants for biomethane and 68 filling stations were installed and almost 3 300 alternative fuel vehicles were purchased.

Business planning was a key activity for the projects. Production of a business plan does not lead directly to a bioenergy plant being developed, but it is a key part of the decision-making process. The development of business plans enabled networking along the supply chain and set out what is needed for the implementation of bioenergy.

Supply chain activities reported by projects:

Feasibility studies. Contracts.

Commitments to supply biomass, to produce bioenergy fuels or to use biomass for energy purposes.

Business plans.

Creating supply chain clusters.Networking between stakeholders in the bioenergy supply chain.

Some examples of how the IEE II projects supported the development of supply chains:• Mobilising biomass supply.

• Improving forest management.

• Developing infrastructure for biomass collection/harvesting, transformation, distribution and use.

• Increasing the confidence of bioenergy users by supporting the development and implementation of standards for biomass fuels and related certification schemes.

• Performing feasibility studies and/or business plans for potential investors.

• Meetings between relevant stakeholders, promoting cooperation between them and creating networks.

• Supporting investments and improving access to finance.

• Establishing bioenergy supply chains.

Business plans developed or supported by IEE II bioenergy projects1

1 UCO = used cooking oil; PVO = pure vegetable oil

0

50

100

150

200

250

Electricity Heat PVO UCO Biomethane

Business plans - Solid biomass Business plans - Biogas & Biomethane Business plans - Liquid biofuels



What was done?• BioEUParks was a project that aimed to start up local

biomass supply chains in Nature Parks in 5 EU countries, promoting short chains and small-scale installations.

• It involved six EU countries in the delivery of the work – Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Austria, Germany and Hungary.

The project’s achievements included:

• Set-up of 5 solid biomass supply chains, through the processing of pilot actions in 5 Natural Parks in 5 countries in Europe. This is expected to result in 197 626 tons of biomass mobilised annually.

• Development of a methodology to face social conflicts, through an open and shared approach.

• 80 public awareness events, attracting 1 002 local stakeholders.

• 21 round tables with 272 local key actors and the signature of 5 Memoranda of Understanding between supply chain promoters and local key actors.

• >400 stakeholders trained through capacity building events.

• 43 ad hoc meetings with >300 stakeholders.

• Dissemination of the project results to 180 Natural Parks representatives, to >10 000 citizens and general public living in the parks.

• Informed a further 5 500 stakeholders through outreach activity.

• 13 706 t of biomass harvest and sustainably exploited; 31 981 MWh of thermal eergy used; 11 059t CO2e reduction.

Budget: EUR 1 333 116 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 April 2013 to 31 March 2016)Project co-ordinator: Diego Mattioli, Legambiente ONLUSEmail: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioeuparks

What was done?Sub-regional wood supply clusters were established and developed in 5 regions where private ownership of forests is high (France, Slovenia, Latvia and UK), to improve the supply of wood from private forest owners (PFOs). This was done through workshops, study tours, practical training in Austria and Finland where there is more experience of wood fuel supply and use, and face to face meetings. Co-operation between wood fuel suppliers and small and medium scale users was also improved by bringing stakeholders together.


Identifying and overcoming the barriers to the production of wood fuel by PFOs is key if the bioenergy resource in the EU is to be fully realised.

Achievements

The project clarified the challenges facing PFOs and identified the best solutions, e.g. practices technologies and business

models to overcome these, and increase wood fuel supply by encouraging thinning and clearing in undermanaged forests. 23 wood fuel supply clusters were formed in four countries and negotiations begun for a further 15 cluster. In total, this will lead to approximately 27,000 ha of woodland being brought into active management. Dissemination of best practice identified in the project through the project website, and national seminars and conferences is leading to its adoption in other Member States.


The project has proved the efficacy of a number of methods and supply chain model to overcome barriers and activate the supply of wood fuel from private owners. Effective dissemination of these methods and supply chain models across the EU is increasing bioenergy supply.

Budget: EUR 1 348 742 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 October 2009 to 30 September 2012)Project co-ordinator: Jyrki Raitila, VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEmail: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/afo



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioeuparks

[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/afo

A number of project co-ordinators reported that project impacts are slow to be achieved and begin to show only towards the end of the projects or just after their completion. Most of the project coordinators thought that the data they provided probably underestimated the number of plants built because,

in many cases, projects triggered small-scale bioenergy plants, which are more difficult to identify. Sometimes, there was a serious commitment to install bioenergy plants, but investors were waiting for new, more-supportive policies.

2 Source: PellCert (2014) European Pellet Quality Certification: Creating a uniform system for Europe www.pellcert.eu)

What was done?These projects assisted the development of standards and certification schemes for solid biomass across Europe.

PellCert developed and implemented an EU certification system for pellets (ENPlus) to ensure uniform quality for wood pellets. It also addressed environmental aspects, and developed procedures for the sustainability of pellet production and trade.

SolidStandards supported the implementation of EU standards for solid biofuels by delivering training, implementing standards in selected companies (in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland and Poland) and collecting feedback on biomass standards from the stakeholders.


Quality and sustainability of solid biofuels are key issues for bioenergy in Europe. Solid biofuels are produced from a variety of biomass types of different origin, and have different chemical and physical characteristics. Production processes and handling also influence solid biofuel quality. Biomass users need to have confidence in their biomass fuels for a number of reasons. They need to know that the fuels are fit for purpose, suitable for combustion on the equipment they are using and are environmentally sustainable (particularly that regulatory requirements can be met). There are a number of ways to approach this. The PellCert approach provided a framework for certifying the quality of wood pellets. SolidStandards provided guidance for training, enabling users to implement standards (including environmental requirements) themselves.

Achievements

PellCert used the European Pellet Council, consisting of 18 national pellet associations, to drive the use of the ENplus quality seal across Europe. By 2014, the use of ENplus certified pellets had grown to 6 million tonnes (see chart2),

more than three times the original target for the project. At the end of the project, there were 12 national licensers implementing the system in their countries, accounting for 4.5 million tonnes of pellets being certified. The ENplus handbook has sustainability requirements that oblige producers to state the type of raw materials they are using, the percentage of raw material that is certified, the carbon footprint of the pellets produced in the plant and offer a statement of commitment to sustainability.

SolidStandards developed training material to enable producers and users to apply standards and participate in certification systems.

In total, 34 training sessions were organised in 11 countries. The training was successful, with 880 participants.

Most of the training sessions received a recommendation from national standardisation bodies.

More than 450 comments on standards and certification schemes for solid biofuels were collected from stakeholders, resulting in 10 national industry position papers and recommendations for future developments.

A new particle size classification system was proposed by the project and accepted by the ISO committee.


Without standardisation, users cannot be assured of the quality of the fuel they receive. This can be a major barrier to biomass use. These projects helped to accelerate the development of common standards for biomass that could be understood by producers and users, and be audited and certified. PellCert provides small-scale pellet users with confidence in the fuel they use Both projects contributed to increasing confidence in biomass fuel standards and the uptake of biomass.

Budget: EUR 901 623 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 May 2011 to 30 April 2014) Project co-ordinator: Jean-Marc Jossart – the European Biomass Association (AEBIOM)Email: [email protected] Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/pellcert

Budget: EUR 1 353 106 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2014)Project co-ordinator: Cosette Khawaja and Rainer Janssen – WIP Renewable EnergiesEmail: [email protected], [email protected] Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/solidstandards



Implementation of business plans developed within the programme, where data was available and reported

SwedenHeat 13BG/BM 12Biogas 2

NorwayBG/BM 6

BelgiumBiogas 45UCO 1

DenmarkHeat 1Biogas 10UCO 1

NetherlandsBG/BM 5Biogas 3

FinlandHeat 4BG/BM 3

LithuaniaBiogas 1

EstoniaBG/BM 1

LatviaHeat 1Biogas 1

CroatiaHeat 30

RomaniaUCO 4Supply chains 1France

Heat 18Biogas 4Wood supply chains 8

PortugalUCO 7

PolandBiogas 10Wood supply chains 1

SlovakiaWood supply chains 8

GreeceUCO 1

AustriaHeat 2BG/BM 4Biogas 2Supply chains 2Biomass 4

SpainBG/BM 4UCO 4Supply chains 2BTLC 4

ItalyHeat 3BG/BM 4Biogas 18UCO 7Supply chains 5BTLC 1

LegendHeat = Heat plants

DH = District heating

BG/BM = Biogas/Biomethane

Biogas = Biogas plants

Other = Other plants

Wood supply chains

UCO = Used cooking oil

Supply chains = Not specified

BTLC = Biomass Trade & Logistic Centres

SloveniaHeat 20Biogas 1Wood supply chains 8Supply chains 3BTLC 2

HungaryBiogas 29UCO 2

BulgariaHeat 7UCO 1

GermanyHeat 51DH 16BG/BM 2Biogas 2Supply chains 2

Czech RepublicHeat 3BG/BM 3Biogas 1

UKHeat 41Biogas 2UCO 2

IrelandHeat 1



2.1.3 Success points: policy impacts

Actions by projects to assist policy development and implementation included:

• Providing information necessary for policy development – such as biomass resources availability, biomass competing uses and bioenergy potential or providing information on the economics of biomass development.

• Suggesting recommendations for policy implementation – such as actions that would address barriers, ensure sustainability or improve economics.

• Influencing policy decisions or assisting policy development through meetings with policy makers – such as discussion of specific local/national/EU needs to implement specific types of bioenergy (for example, biomethane production and injection into the grid or developing district heating schemes).

Type of policy implementation activity

reported by projects:

Policy Implementation actions.

Engaging policy makers.

Provision of information needed for policy development, including identification of biomass and bioenergy potential.

Policy recommendations and strategies.

Development of tools that help monitor or develop policy.

Development of regional, national or European bioenergy planning tools.

What was done?This project built on the success of the previous project ‘Agri for Energy’. It continued to stimulate farmers to enter the European bioenergy market, but specifically targeted improving communication between feedstock suppliers and energy producers. This was to increase the number of bioenergy investments and the capacity of bioenergy plant installed. A number of workshops, study tours and one-to-one meetings were held for potential biomass suppliers and energy users. These targeted energy production from wood fuel, biogas and PVO.


The Agri for Energy project had identified that one of the main barriers to the development of bioenergy projects was the lack of communication between bioenergy providers and energy producers. Workshops allowed potential bioenergy providers (e.g. farmers and cooperatives, forest owners and forest entrepreneurs) and potential end-users to meet and gain awareness of their respective offers and requirements. Study tours allowed these actors to gain confidence in bioenergy businesses by visiting real bioenergy plants. One-to-one meetings enabled this to be taken one step further – by gathering around the same table, committed actors from the supply and the demand side were able to explore, in further detail, a business case with the technical support of project partners.

Achievements

The charts below show that the project approach was successful and led to the preparation of business plans and subsequent installation of additional renewable energy capacity from wood heat, biogas and PVO.

The project successfully produced 77 business plans: 53 woodheat business plans, 15 biogas business plans and 9 pure vegetable oil business plans. These were produced across each of the participating countries. These plans resulted in over 20 600toe of installed capacity.

In addition, 26 regional bioenergy coordinators were trained to foster investments in new businesses. They were given advisory folders containing best practice examples realised during the project. It is anticipated that they will stimulate further bioenergy investments in the future.


The project helped to overcome the communication barrier between bioenergy providers and end users, and so supported bioenergy development. It also enabled sharing of knowledge and experience widely within the EU to engender confidence in bioenergy developments.

Budget: EUR 1 523 520 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2012)Project co-ordinator: Christian Metschina, Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry in Styria, AustriaEmail: [email protected] Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/agriforenergy-2



• Developing tools to explore policy options at local, national and EU levels – such as tools that explore policy options under a range of scenarios (for example, the impact on land, agriculture/forestry, waste production or import of biomass) or that enable policy makers to understanding the impact of a specific policy on a range of bioenergy options.

Policy makers have been involved in IEE II bioenergy projects in a variety of ways including through attendance at project events (e.g. conferences, workshops) or participating in project activities (e.g. training, round tables, meetings and study tours). Sometimes they were more directly involved in the projects, either being part of the project team, or as member of a project steering committee or working group. The active involvement of policy makers provided a foundation for policy development and implementation. In many cases, this resulted in a commitment to support bioenergy, implementation of bioenergy action plans, and changes in local and national policies to create a more favourable framework for bioenergy.

Support to policy development and implementation included:

• Direct contacts with over 560 policy makers, with many more attending conferences or other events.

• A total of 76 biomass action plans, roadmaps or implementation plans were developed by 18 projects. Of these, 59 were aimed at specific regions that had been involved in the projects, 5 provided plans of relevance at EU level and 12 were aimed at national level. These resulted in 39 action plans or project recommendations implemented at the regional level and 17 at the national level. A particular success in this area is the BioRegions project, which aimed to help local regions become BioRegions in which a third of energy needs was supplied by bioenergy. This project achieved endorsement of action plans in five regions and was contacted by 130 additional regions expressing an interest in becoming BioRegions.

• Policy makers provided 130 letters of intent to take into account the project results.

• In total, 30 projects developed tools and methods to evaluate the potential and uptake of bioenergy; the impact on the reduction of GHG emissions in regions, EU Member States and Europe; and tools that allow policy makers to understand the impact of various policy measures.

• Some European Commission studies (such as the ReceBio study on impacts on resource efficiency of future EU demand for bioenergy (2016) and an ongoing study on sustainability and optimal use of biomass for energy) have taken into account the outcomes of the IEE II projects:

- Biomass Futures – providing quantitative information at EU level on biomass potential to meet EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) targets for 2020.

- BiomassPolicies – aiming to develop integrated policies for the mobilisation of resource efficient indigenous bioenergy value chains to contribute towards the 2020 and 2030 bioenergy targets.

Achievements in policy harmonisation: • GreenGasGrids achieved an agreement on a

harmonised methodology to allow a cross-border market for biomethane and to establish ‘guarantees of origin’, and agreement to exchange information on biomethane transactions

• The tools for the harmonisation of GHG emission calculations developed by BioGrace and BioGrace II have been recognised at European level and endorsed by a number of EU Member States.



What was done?The first BioGrace project developed a spreadsheet-based tool that shows how the default values in the RED for GHG emissions from 22 liquid and gaseous biofuels production pathways were calculated. It also allows users to calculate their actual emissions by combining actual data with standard values provided in the tool. The BioGrace II project developed a similar spreadsheet calculation tool for GHG emissions from electricity, heat and cooling produced from biomass.


A requirement of the RED and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) is that GHG emissions associated with liquid and gaseous biofuels used in transport are calculated. They also provide default values for common production pathways. The BioGrace tool provides a uniform and transparent basis for these calculations that can be used by all stakeholders, which helps to harmonise the way calculations are carried out.

Achievements

The BioGrace tool covers 22 biofuel production pathways and BioGrace II covers 27 biomass pathways. Both tools also have lists of standard values, a description of calculation rules and a user manual. Three Member States (Germany, Netherlands and Spain) have modified their liquid biofuels calculator tools to give the same results as the BioGrace tool. Up to March 2012, seven Member States refer to BioGrace standard values in national legislation or technical guidance and at least five more are planning to do so. The BioGrace II tool is being used by companies in Denmark and the Netherlands to demonstrate that bioenergy meets national sustainability criteria. The tools have been widely disseminated and, for example, the BioGrace II tool has more than 1 000 users from more than 40 countries.

The European Commission has recognised the BioGrace GHG calculation tool as a voluntary scheme in line with the sustainability criteria of the RED and FQD (Article 18 (4-6) of the RED). The decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 June 2013: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:147:0046:0047:EN:PDF

The European Commission concluded that the ‘BioGrace GHG calculation tool’ contains accurate data for the purposes of Article 17 (2) on GHG emission saving and complies with the methodological requirements laid down in Annex V of the RED.

BioGrace-II is mentioned as a reference tool to facilitate the calculation of GHG emissions in the European Commission’s Communication (SWD(2014)259) on the state of play of the sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass used for electricity generation, heating and cooling in the EU: ‘To facilitate such calculations, bioenergy operators and regulatory agencies can use the standardised GHG calculation tool developed by the EU-funded BioGrace II project’: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2014_biomass_state_of_play_.pdf


The user-friendly tools in BioGrace provide a clear explanation of how the default values in the RED are derived and how to calculate actual emissions from actual data. These tools provide valuable time and cost savings for economic operators and policy makers in Member States, who would otherwise need to develop their own tools and understanding. Furthermore, the tools and lists of standard values will help to ensure that the calculation of emissions is harmonised between Member States.

Budget: EUR 1 187 289 (IEE II support: 75%)Duration: 36 months (1 April 2010 to 31 March 2012)Project co-ordinator: John Neeft, RVOEmail: [email protected] page: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biograce

Budget: EUR 1 194 202 (IEE II support: 75%)Duration: 36 months (1 April 2012 to 31 March 2015)Project co-ordinator: John Neeft, RVOEmail: [email protected] page: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biograce-ii



http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:147:0046:0047:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:147:0046:0047:EN:PDF

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2014_biomass_state_of_play_.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/2014_biomass_state_of_play_.pdf

[email protected]

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biograce

[email protected]

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biograce-ii

What was done?5 “Bioenergy regions” were created in rural Europe with the aim of supplying at least a third of heating and electricity needs from local and sustainable bioenergy. The main tools were the development and implementation of regional bioenergy Action plans; and study tours to best practice regions in Sweden and Germany.


A promising way to implement bioenergy is to match supply with needs on a regional basis in rural areas. However, often key stakeholders relevant to the bioenergy chain are not familiar with how this could be done; they have no experience of biomass and do not understand how it can be implemented locally. A common challenge in local bioenergy exploitation is the engagement of the wide range of local stakeholders necessary. The guidance and best practice visits organised by Bioregions enabled stakeholders to understand how implementation of bioenergy would benefit their own regions.

Achievements

The project successfully formulated a vision of regional bioenergy that motivated five regions to develop Action plans. It achieved strong inclusion of local stakeholders in the decision making process, accomplishing common targets and development mechanisms, fast decision making, networking between organisations and companies and a good understanding between business and local public administration. Concentrating on public relations from the start enabled successful communication with the

public. The site visits to regions demonstrating best practice, received strong positive feedback: attendees said the visits enabled them to go from a “can’t be done” frame of mind to “can be done, perhaps this way instead”.

The Action plans addressed why and how bioenergy is relevant to the region. They provided an overview of the situation in the region; analysis of bioenergy potential; strengths and risks analysis; and a regional target. They included a method for adapting the target into actions and assessing the impact of the plan. These plans resulted in more than 20 bioenergy projects with a total installed capacity of 14MW and another 18 energy efficiency projects that contribute to the bioenergy targets by reducing the energy demand. These developments, together with other activities (e.g. training and development of biomass trading centres) are creating the conditions for a fast and efficient bioenergy market development, with clear roles and benefits for all stakeholders and the community as a whole.

In Bulgaria the project also supported the establishment of a biomass testing and certification laboratory; in the Czech Republic a biomass trading centre was established; and in Westmeath, Ireland a forestry growers group was formed. The project also inspired other regions: over 130 regions expressed an interest in the project and concept.


The project helped local stakeholders understand the potential of biomass in their region and supported the processes required to develop bioenergy.

Budget: EUR 1 491 384 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 May 2010 to 30 April 2013)Project co-ordinator: Michael Papapetrou, WIP – Renewable EnergiesEmail: [email protected] page: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioregions



[email protected]

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/bioregions

2.2 The direct impact of IEE II bioenergy projects

The intended impact of IEE II funding for bioenergy was an increased market uptake of bioenergy in Europe, beyond that that would have been achieved by EU and national Member State policy alone. The data and analysis carried out in this review support the conclusion that this impact has been achieved.

2.2.1 Success points: Biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced

Biomass feedstock mobilised refers to the feedstock from which bioenergy carriers are developed, such as forest wood, agricultural residues, wood industry residues, manure, co-digestion feedstocks, food and beverage industry residues, and used cooking oil. Bioenergy carriers produced include pellets, wood chips, wood logs, biogas, biomethane, bioethanol and biodiesel. The data on biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced presented below is up to 2016. Of the 47 IEE II projects analysed, 31 (66%) provided data on these metrics or provided data from which biomass feedstock mobilised and/or bioenergy carriers produced could be estimated.

• Based on reliable data3, 0.89 million tonnes of biomass feedstock were mobilised as a result of IEE II between 2010 and 2016. This can be expressed as 0.49 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe). Using Mtoe allows for the different energy densities in each feedstock to be compared.

• Looking at reliable data and acceptable data, IEE II bioenergy projects were likely to have mobilised approximately 2.97 million tonnes of biomass feedstock between 2010 and 2016. This equates to 1.2Mtoe.

• Taking all available data for the short-term impacts of completed projects into account, IEE II bioenergy projects potentially mobilised 18.6 million tonnes of biomass feedstock. This equates to 3.4Mtoe.

• In the longer term, up to 2020, there is a potential for 6.58Mtoe of biomass feedstocks to be mobilised.

Table 2-2 Acceptable and reliable data for biomass feedstocks mobilised by type of feedstock (short term, split by category of project)4

Project Category Biogas/ Biomethane

Liquid Biofuels

Solid biomass

Strategic Initiatives

Total

Agricultural residues 3 362 - 1 149 4 360 8 871

Animal manure 0.4 - - 140 140

Bifraction of MSW & C&I 5 898 - - 1 600 7 498

Co-digestion feedstocks 6 689 - - - 6 689

Food processing residues 14 976 - - - 14 976

Forest wood - - 926 765 73 700 1 000 465

SRC - - 17 921 - 17 921

Wood industry residues - - 13 549 - 13 549

Pure vegetable oil - - 10 737 - 10 737

Used cooking oil - 112 650 - - 112 650

Total 30 925 112 650 970 121 79 800 1 193 495

3 In this review, data is classified as reliable, acceptable or potential. Data was assessed as reliable where it was based on actual values, evidenced through documentation and/or study outcomes; or where the data and assumptions were fully documented. Data was classified as acceptable where it was based on previous experience, the data and assumptions were given and assumptions seem broadly credible, although there could be improvements. Data was classified as potential where it was not supported by detailed assumptions or it was not possible to identify good quality data and assumptions had to be made by the evaluation team to fill data gaps.

4 MSW: municipal solid waste; CIW: commercial and industrial waste; SRC: short rotation coppice



5 Note: Entries without data are where the project did not record any data on feedstocks or bioenergy carriers, and it has not been possible to estimate this information using other project data (such as extrapolation from CPI data). Entries marked potential are estimates where these is no measured data, so estimates calculated from other data provided by the project have been used. We have no means of checking this data, so can only regard it as a potential impact. A large proportion of the bioliquids projects did not provide data from which biomass mobilised could be calculated. For strategic projects it was not always possible to assign impacts to specific types of biomass, so a number of these also do not have data on biomass mobilised or bioenergy carriers produced.

Table 2-3 IEE II Bioenergy projects showing all available data on biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced (Toe, short term data only)5

Project Feedstock mobilised

Toe of feedstock mobilised

Reliability Bioenergy carrier produced

Toe of bioenergy carrier produced

Reliability

Solid biomass

AFO Forest wood 5 803 Reliable Woodchips (assumed)

5 803 Potential

AGRI-FORENERGY Agricultural residues 476 Reliable Biogas 3 745 Potential

Pure vegetable oil 10 737

BASIS Wood extracted from waste

5 400 Potential Woodchips (assumed)

54 000 Potential

Forest wood 24 300

Wood industry residues 24 300

BioEUParks Agricultural residues 673 Reliable Pellet 163 Reliable

Forest wood 4 917 Woodchips 2 703

BIO-HEAT SRC 17 921 Acceptable Woodchips (assumed)

17 921 Potential

Biomass Trade CentreII Forest wood 309 201 Acceptable Pellet 63 973 Reliable

Wood logs 15 460

Woodchips 153 534

CrossBorder Bioenergy - - - - - -

EPIC 2020 Forest wood 12 038 Acceptable Woodchips (assumed)

12 038 Potential

EUBIONET III - - - - - -

FOREST - - - - - -

MixBioPellets Agricultural residues 27 730 Potential Pellet 73 480 Potential

PellCert Forest wood 447 857 Potential Pellet 1 100 000 Reliable


PromoBio Forest wood 5,807 Reliable Woodchips 28 675 Acceptable


Solid Standards Forest wood 589 000 Acceptable Pellet 146 680 Acceptable

Woodchips 88 920

SRCplus SRC 1 788 Potential Woodchips (assumed)

1 788 Potential

SUCELLOG Agricultural residues 51 590 Potential - - -

Wood heat Solutions Forest wood 8 300 Potential - - -



Table 2-3 (Continued) IEE II Bioenergy projects showing all available data on biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced (Toe, short term data only)





Reliability

Biogas/Biomethane

BioEnergy Farm Co-digestion feedstock 6 689 Acceptable Biogas 11 809 Acceptable

Animal manure 5 120 Potential

BioEnergy Farm II Animal manure 3 396 Potential Biogas 10 226 Potential

Co-digestion feedstock 2 287 Biomethane 2 266

BIOGAS3 Food processing residues 525 Potential Biomethane 525 Potential

Biogas Heat - - - Biogas 3 270 Acceptable

BiogasIN - - - - - -

BIOMASTER Animal manure 22 047 Potential Biomethane 22 110 Acceptable

Biomethane Regions Animal manure 23 198 Potential Biogas 24 165 Potential

Biomethane 23 198

FABbiogas Food processing residues 14 976 Reliable Biomethane 518 Reliable

FARMAGAS Agricultural residues 0.001 Potential Biogas 3 Acceptable

GasHighWay - - - - - -

GERONIMO2BIOGAS Animal manure 283 Potential Biogas 283 Potential

GR3 Agricultural residues 3 362 Reliable Biogas 3 354 Reliable

GreenGas Grids - - - Biomethane 97 073 Potential

SustainGas Animal manure 0.4 Reliable Biogas 38 148 Potential

UrbanBiogas Municipal waste 5 898 Reliable Biogas 5 408 Potential

Biomethane 5 408

Liquid Biofuels

ADORE IT - - - - - -

ALTERMOTIVE - - - - - -

BioGrace - - - - - -

OILECO Used Cooking Oil 3 376 Acceptable Biodiesel 1 720 Reliable

RecOil Used Cooking Oil 109 274 Reliable Biodiesel 850 Acceptable

SWEETHANOL Sweet sorghum - - - - -



Table 2-3 (Continued) IEE II Bioenergy projects showing all available data on biomass feedstock mobilised and bioenergy carriers produced (Toe, short term data only)





Reliability


BEN - - - - - -

BioEnerGIS Agricultural residues 4 360 Reliable Woodchips 1 250 Reliable

Animal manure 140

Biofraction of MSW and C&I waste

1 600

Forest wood 1 250

BioGrace II - - - - - -

Biomass Futures - - - - - -

Biomass Policies Forest wood 870 000 Potential - - -

BioRegions Forest wood 72 450 Acceptable Woodchips 72 450 Acceptable

BIOTEAM - - - - - -

BIOTRADE2020plus - - - - - -

MAKE-IT-BE - - - - - -

Total Toe (biomass feedstock mobilised)

3 373 452 Total Toe (bioenergy carriers produced)

2 092 916

Table 2-4 Reliable and acceptable data for biomass feedstocks mobilised by type of feedstock (Toe, short term, split by category of project6

Category Biogas / Biomethane

Liquid biofuels

Solid biomass

Strategic initiatives

Total Mtoe

Agricultural residues 3,362 1,149 4,360 0.01

Animal manure 0.4 140 0.00

Biofraction of MSW and C&I 5,898 1,600 0.01

Co-digestion feedstock 6,689 0.01

Food processing residues 14,976 0.01

Forest wood 926,765 943,700 1.87

Pure vegetable oil 10,737 0.01

SRC 17,921 0.02

Used cooking oil 112,650 0.11

Wood industry residues 13,549 0.01

30,925 112,650 970,121 949,800 2.06

6 Toe: Tonnes of oil equivalent, MSW: municipal solid waste, C&I: Commercial and industrial waste, SRC: Short rotation coppice



• Based on reliable data, 1.34Mtoe of bioenergy carriers were produced as a result of IEE II between 2010 and 2016.

• Looking at reliable data and acceptable data, IEE II bioenergy projects were likely to have produced approximately 1.71Mtoe of bioenergy carriers between 2010 and 2016.

• Taking all available data for the short-term impacts of completed projects into account, IEE II bioenergy projects potentially produced 2.09Mtoe of bioenergy carriers.

• In the longer term, up to 2020, reliable estimates of bioenergy carrier production are 5.53Mtoe, rising to a total of 8.29Mtoe if reliable, acceptable and potential data are taken into account.

The reason the level of biomass carriers is three times that of biomass feedstock is because a number of projects provided data for biomass carriers, but not for biomass feedstock. Therefore, biomass feedstock figures had to be estimated and were assigned a lower reliability rate. In addition, biomethane estimates assume the use of existing digesters (that is, the feedstock is already in use and has not been stimulated by the project). Finally, the data on biomass pellets is considered to be accurate, but the data on biomass feedstocks used in the production of pellets is estimated, so it is only included as potential data.

All reported biomass feedstocks mobilised by country7

7 The data presented is taken from 16 projects, representing 21% of the total biomass feedstock mobilised overall by IEE II bioenergy projects

Bioenergy carriers produced by type of carrier (reliable and acceptable data only)

AT1%

BE0% BG

10%

HR4%

CZ8%

DK3%

FR1%DE

1%

EL3%HU

1%

IE2%

IT6%

LV0%

LT0%

NL0%

PL0%

PT2%RO

3%SK1%SI

5%

ES41%

SE3%

UK1%

Unknown5%

AT BE BG HR CZ DK FR DE EL HU IE IT LV LT NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE UK Unknown

Total data split by country is 0.66Mtoe. Pie chart shows country split by percentage.

Biomass feedstock mobilised not specified by country = 2.71 Mtoe.

Data includes all categories (reliable,acceptable and potential)

Bioenergy carriers produced by 2016

1 400 ktoe Pellets

350 ktoe Woodchips

20 ktoe Woodlogs

20 ktoeBiomethane

20 ktoeBiogas

2.6 ktoeBiodiesel

(ktoe = kilo tonnes oil equivalent)



SwedenAM 22127

BelgiumMix 133

DenmarkMix 2710AM 15632AR 616

NetherlandsMix 1073FW 32

LithuaniaSRC 720

LatviaFW 2901SRC 426

CroatiaFW 26401SRC 255

RomaniaSRC 15761FW 6103France

FW 509Mix 318AM 1243WPR 3260SRC 255

PortugalAR 1672UCO 12825

PolandFW 84

SlovakiaSRC 1440UCO 1FW 3645

GreeceFW 19380UCO 2SRC 255

AustriaFW 5331AM 23FPR 4

SpainFW 225828UCO 56586

ItalyMix 3001FW 28542AM 619AR 92UCO 12499

LegendFW = Forest wood

Mix = Mix

SRC = Short rotation coppice

AM = Animal manure

WPR = Wood processing residue

FPR = Food processing residue

AR = Agricultural residue

UCO = Used cooking oil

SloveniaFW 31224Mix 2400AM 114

Not specified by countryMix 3400UCO 29924

HungaryFW 2692AM 1801UCO 178

BulgariaWPR 69190UCO 3194

GermanyFW 2119AR 1144SRC 255

Czech RepublicWPR 867FPR 51546SRC 255UK

FW 3498Mix 1400AM 3687

IrelandFW 14732

Biomass feedstock mobilised by type and country

Note: The data presented is based on 21 projects that reported business plans and supply chain data



Mobilisation of biomass feedstocks and production of bioenergy carriers is highest in the solid biomass category and lowest in the liquid biofuels category. One main reason for this is linked to the number of projects in the respective categories

(18 solid biomass and 6 liquid biofuels projects). Starting from the IEE II 2012 Call for Proposals, there has been no specific priority given to liquid biofuel projects. Furthermore, most liquid biofuel projects did not include data on biomass mobilised.

Reliable and acceptable data for bioenergy carriers produced by type of fuel (Toe, short term, split by category of project)

Reliability of bioenergy carriers produced data for short term and long term (Toe, all levels of reliability)

- 200,000

347 532

15 460

22 628

18 435

2 570

1 310 815

400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000

Biodiesel

Biogas

Bio-methane

Pellet

Woodlogs

Woodchips

Toe

Biogas / Biomethane Liquid biofuels Solid biomass Strategic

Reliable and acceptable total is 1.71 Mtoe. Potential data would add another 0.38 Mtoe.

Graph 4

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Short term Long term Short term Long term Short term Long term Short term Long term

Solid biomass energy carriers mobilised

Biogas produced Bio-methane produced Liquid biofuels produced

Toe

Reliable Acceptable Potential



2.2.2 Success points: renewable energy production impacts

The potential short-term annual renewable energy produced by all IEE II bioenergy projects (once completed) is 2.6Mtoe. The potential long-term annual renewable energy produced by all IEE II bioenergy projects will be 15.Mtoe by 2020. Data on renewable energy produced was available for 37 of the 47 projects assessed.

This total reliable and acceptable contribution was 1.6 Mtoe or 1.18% of the EU PRIMES modelling projections (136Mtoe8) and the contribution to 2020 projections for reliable and acceptable data was 11.3Mtoe (7.5% of the total 2020 projection). This is considered to be a realistic contribution given that 2015 data is based on actual direct impact from the projects and is classified mostly as reliable or acceptable. The figures for 2020 are based on estimates and are less reliable. However, most of the projects set the ground for concrete longer term investments in bioenergy and the estimated increase seems to be consistent with those.

What was done?The project established biomass logistic trade centres in Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Spain. It also improved the quality of solid biofuels produced by developing a system for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) suitable for small biomass producers.


The logistic trade centres provide a hub for the mobilisation of biomass in a region. Ensuring the quality of biomass and raising the confidence of users that biomass will be of high quality are key to increasing the use of biomass.

Achievements

• A total 14 new biomass logistic and trade centres were built during the project and 40 are in progress, receiving support from the project though feasibility studies, technical support, financial business plans, etc. The centres carry out a variety of activities (e.g. the centres in Slovenia supply wood fuel from local suppliers to local users).

• A QA/QC system for wood fuels was developed that can be easily implemented by smaller biomass/wood fuel producers and was tested in 26 companies. Documentation for the system is available in national languages.

• A network of 23 biomass laboratories that can help with QA/QC was created.

• Support was provided to 93 investment projects (with a total estimated investment of nearly EUR 20 million). These projects will mobilise one million tonnes of biomass.

• Relevant reports on wood biomass production; catalogues of forestry companies and biomass producers; and technical information on advanced biomass technologies, fuel quality, energy contracting models, state-of-the-art certification and necessary quality control assurance systems.

• Monitoring wood fuel prices in participating countries, providing useful information to potential investors.

• Wide dissemination of information though the internet and articles, and nearly 400 events (workshops, training, study tours, match-making events and open days) attracting over 16 500 stakeholders.


This project has enabled the development of bioenergy on a regional scale by providing support to supply chain development, including establishing wood supply centres or hubs, promoting wood fuel quality standards, providing booklets on the development of quality wood fuels in local languages, holding networking events and producing brochures that publicise wood fuel producers, and providing of bankable data on biomass resources and prices.

Budget: EUR 1 382 545 (75% from IEE II)Duration: 36 months (1 May 2011 to 30 April 2014)Project co-ordinator: Dr Nike Krajnc, Slovenian Forestry InstituteEmail: [email protected] page: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biomasstradecentreii

Table 2-5 Short and long-term renewable energy production (Mtoe), split by reliability

Timescale Reliable Acceptable Potential Total

Short term – completed (by 2015) 0.20 1.40 0.95 2.55

Short term – ongoing (to be completed in 2017) 0.04 0.01 - 0.05

Long term (to 2020) 4.45 6.80 3.76 15.01

8 The projections for bioenergy used in this project were drawn from DG ENER Primes modelling: EC (2014) EU28 – Energy, transport and GHG emissions trends to 2050 (Reference scenario 2013) (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/statistics/energy-trends-2050)



[email protected]

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/biomasstradecentreii

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/statistics/energy-trends-2050

Table 2-6 Renewable energy produced per project (Mtoe, short and long term, reliability assessment)

Project Short term Long term Reliability Status

Solid biomass

AFO 0.01 0.05 Acceptable Complete

AGRIFORENERGY 0.05 - Reliable Complete

BASIS 0.25 1.05 Potential Complete

BioEUParks <0.01 0.07 Reliable Complete

BIO-HEAT 0.01 0.02 Potential Complete

BiomassTradeCentreII <0.01 <0.01 Reliable Complete

CrossBorderBioenergy No data for renewable energy Complete

EPIC 2020 0.07 0.57 Acceptable Complete

EUBIONET III No data for renewable energy Complete

FOREST No data for renewable energy Complete

MixBioPellets 0.08 3.65 Reliable Complete

PellCert 1.10 5.25 Acceptable Complete

PromoBio 0.02 0.02 Reliable Complete

SolidStandards 0.19 0.72 Acceptable Complete

SRCplus <0.01 0.04 Acceptable Ongoing

SUCELLOG 0.04 0.46 Reliable Ongoing

Wood heat Solutions 0.01 - Potential Complete

Biogas/biomethane

BioEnergyFarm 0.01 0.06 Acceptable Complete

BioEnergyFarm II 0.01 0.03 Acceptable Ongoing

BIOGAS3 <0.01 0.05 Reliable Complete

Biogas Heat <0.01 0.02 Reliable Complete

BiogasIN No data for renewable energy Complete

BIOMASTER 0.02 0.17 Potential Complete

Biomethane Regions 0.02 0.09 Reliable Complete

FABbiogas 0.01 <0.01 Acceptable Complete

FARMAGAS <0.01 - Acceptable Complete

GasHighWay No data for renewable energy Complete

GERONIMO2BIOGAS <0.01 0.01 Reliable Complete

GR3 <0.01 0.01 Acceptable Complete

GreenGasGrids 0.10 0.93 Potential Complete

SustainGas <0.01 0.65 Potential Complete

UrbanBiogas 0.01 0.03 Reliable Complete



Table 2-6 (Continued) Renewable energy produced per project (Mtoe, short and long term, reliability assessment)

Project Short term Long term Reliability Status

Liquid biofuels

ADORE IT No data for renewable energy Complete

ALTERMOTIVE - 0.01 Potential Complete

BioGrace No data for renewable energy Complete

OILECO <0.01 0.02 Potential Complete

RecOil <0.01 <0.01 Acceptable Complete

SWEETHANOL No data for renewable energy Complete

Strategic initiatives

BEN 0.01 0.02 Acceptable Complete

BioEnerGIS 0.01 0.01 Acceptable Complete

BioGrace II <0.01 0.01 Reliable Complete

Biomass Futures No data for renewable energy Complete

BiomassPolicies 0.54 0.74 Potential Complete

BioRegions 0.01 0.05 Acceptable Complete

BIOTEAM 0.02 0.04 Reliable Complete

BIOTRADE2020plus 0.01 0.17 Potential Complete9

MAKE-IT-BE No data for renewable energy Complete

Total (Mtoe) 2.60 15.01

9 BIOTRADE 2020+ is classed as complete as the project finished during the evaluation period. However, as the final report was not available, the figures are reported from earlier documentation.

RES production by end use (toe, short and long term, all levels of reliability)Graph 4

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Toe


Short term Long term Short term Long term

Heat Electricity

Short term Long term

Heat as part of CHP


Electricity as partof CHP


Biomethane forgrid injection


Transport fuel



Data on renewable energy production shows that the most common bioenergy production was heat generation. This is in line with the definition of bioenergy priorities in IEE II Calls for Proposals, promoting efficient use of biomass in heating and CHP installations. The increase of bioenergy produced over time takes into account the longer time needed in many cases for actual implementation and the replication factor.

Contribution to future EU bioenergy targets

To understand how IEE II bioenergy projects contribute to the RED’s overall target, projections from the Directorate-General Energy and Transport (DG ENER) Price-Induced Market Equilibrium System (PRIMES) energy system model13 have been used. The reference scenario projections have been used to provide an indication of what these projects will contribute. The figure from this projection is 137Mtoe for 2015 and 150.7Mtoe for 2020.

Table 2-7 Short-term renewable energy production (Mtoe/year) by IEE II category and end use (including all reliability levels)

Note: This data is a subset from projects where this data was provided or where it could be estimated. Data represents 97% of renewable energy production data

CategoryBi

omet

hane

fo

r gr

id

inje

ctio

n

Tran

spor

t

fuel

Elec

tric

ity

as

par

t of

CH

P

Elec

tric

ity

Hea

t

Hea

t as

pa

rt o

f CH

P

Tota

l pr

oduc

tion

Solid biomass - - 0.0041 0.11 1.55 0.11 1.77

Biogas/biomethane 0.15 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.19

Liquid biofuels - <0.01 - - - - <0.01

Strategic initiatives - 0.01 <0.00 0.18 0.39 - 0.57

Grand total 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.29 1.95 0.12 2.5410

Table 2-8 Long term renewable energy production (Mtoe/year) by IEE II category and energy end use (including all reliability levels)

Note: This data is a subset from projects where this data was provided or where it could be estimated. Data represents 89% of renewable energy production data

Category

Biom

etha

ne

for

grid

in

ject

ion

Tran

spor

t fu

el

Elec

tric

ity

as p

art

of

CHP

Elec

tric

ity

Hea

t

Hea

t as

par

t of

CH

P

Dis

tric

t he

at

Tota

l pr

oduc

tion

Solid biomass - - 0.23 0.27 8.41 0.05 2.4511 11.4

Biogas/Biomethane 1.28 - 0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.05 1.38

Liquid biofuels - 0.04 - - - - 0.04

Strategic Initiatives - 0.01 <0.01 0.51 0.47 <0.01 0.85

Total 1.28 0.05 0.24 0.78 8.91 2.55 2.45 13.8112

10 Minor differences occur from the calculated total of 2.60Mtoe for short term RES production, as some projects gave a lower total for type of fuel breakdowns than that for total overall production (BIOTEAM, SustainGas, FABbiogas, BioenergyFarmII and BioEUParks) meaning that the full total RES production could not be differentiated into type of fuel.

11 This was an estimate of long term potential district heating by MixBioPellets.12 Minor differences occur from the calculated total of 15.01Mote for long term RES production, as some projects gave a lower total for type of fuel breakdowns

than that for overall production (BIOTEAM, SustainGas, FABbiogas, BioenergyFarmII and BioEUParks) meaning that the full total RES production could not be differentiated into type of fuel.

13 Taken from the PRIMES modelling reference scenario in DG ENER report: EC (2014) EU28 – Energy, transport and GHG emissions trends to 2050 (Reference scenario 2013) (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/statistics/energy-trends-2050) and http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/analysis/models/docs/primes_model_2013-2014_en.pdf



http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/analysis/models/docs/primes_model_2013-2014_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/analysis/models/docs/primes_model_2013-2014_en.pdf

When only the reliable data for all projects to 2020 is considered, IEE II bioenergy projects will reliably contribute at least 5.38Mtoe to the European bioenergy sector projections for renewable energy generation for 2020.

If reliable and acceptable data for long-term impacts are considered, then IEE II bioenergy projects are likely to contribute approximately 11.3Mtoe to the European bioenergy sector projections for renewable energy generation for 2020. This is 7.5% of the bioenergy projection.

Taking all available data for long-term impacts into account, then IEE II bioenergy projects will potentially contribute 15.01Mtoe to the European bioenergy sector projections for renewable energy generation for 2020. This equates to 10% of the bioenergy projection of 150.7Mtoe.

The contribution of IEE II bioenergy projects to EU projected use of biomass is greatest for heat and biomethane production. The impact is greater in the long term because of the time lag for actual delivered bioenergy generation.

Reliable and acceptable data for IEE II projected contribution (A) to 2015 sectoral target for bioenergy production (B) 2020 sectoral target for bioenergy production (Mtoe, reliable and acceptable data only, split by category of project)

Table 2-9 Estimated contribution to EU sector projections (2015 and 2020) for heat, electricity and transport (Mtoe, includes all levels of reliability)

Sector

Proj

ecti

on

2015

IE

E II

cont

ribu

tion

2015

%

IEE

II co

ntri

buti

on

Proj

ecti

on

2020

IE

E II

cont

ribu

tion

2020

%

IEE

II co

ntri

buti

onBioenergy production 136 2.60 1.9% 150.7 15.0 10%

Biomass fuel input to thermal power generation Mtoe 47.4 1.945 4% 54.92 8.907 16%

Biomass gross electricity generation 16.2 0.28 2% 19 0.65 3%

Heat demand from bioenergy CHP and DH 11 0.117 1% 14.02 2.55 18%

Fuel input from biofuels and hydrogen 19.6 0.013 0% 30.3 0.05 0%

Biofuels use - 0.013 38.1 0.02 0%

Biomethane 0.5 0.153 31% 7.63 1.28 17%

(A)

Graph 5 B

150.7

10.82

0.30.13

11.252

Graph 5 A

1361.53

0.056

0.010.06

1.656

(B)

Bioenergy projection 2015

Solid biomass

Biogas / Biomethane

Liquid biofuels




The type of actions supported under IEE II, such as dissemination, capacity building, development of bioenergy supply chains and policy implementation, take time to produce tangible results. Furthermore, many IEE II bioenergy projects focused on small-scale thermal energy systems, which do not give immediate high figures in terms of bioenergy produced, but have high replication potential. These small-scale systems are also difficult to identify and their impact difficult to be captured by project teams. Therefore, it can be expected that higher impacts have been achieved by IEE II bioenergy projects and that the long-term impacts, especially, are underestimated.

When viewed in context with support for bioenergy in other EU programmes running during the 2007-2013 period, IEE II accounts for about 4% of the EU budget for bioenergy, so its potential impact is approximately in line with its budget.

2.2.3 Success points: GHG emission reduction impacts

The potential short-term annual GHG emission reductions from all IEE II bioenergy projects (once completed) is 6.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), of which 0.5MtCO2e/year is from reliable data and 5.2MtCO2e/year is from acceptable data. The potential long-term annual GHG emission reductions from all IEE II bioenergy projects could be 30.3MtCO2e by 2020. The relevant data was available for

35 of the 47 projects assessed. On average, only 8% of GHG reduction data was deemed to come from reliable data and 75% of data was deemed acceptable. The remainder was treated as potential/unreliable.

The contribution to the GHG emission reductions identified from the different forms of bioenergy produced by the projects (heat, electricity, transport and biomethane for grid injection) shows that heat accounts for 70% of the total. This correlates with the major contribution of biomass projects.

2.2.4 Success points: Investment impacts

In the short term, the reliable and acceptable investment in renewable energy triggered from all IEE II bioenergy projects (once completed) is EUR 913 million, 14% of which comes from reliable investment data (EUR 258 million). Potential data added a further EUR 905m. The long-term total and reliable investment triggered from all projects could be EUR 6 372 million by 2020, of which EUR 1 138 million (9%) would come from reliable estimates., Potential data would add a further EUR 5 848m. The relevant data was available for 32 of the 47 projects assessed.

For many projects, it has been difficult to assess the investment triggered as the relevant information was not provided. This creates uncertainty, especially around long-term estimates.

Total GHG reduction by final energy use (MtCO2e/year, short term and long term, reliable and acceptable data only)

Short term, reliable and acceptable GHG reduction (5.64 Mt CO2e/year)

Long term reliable and acceptable GHG reduction (25.66Mt CO2e/year)

Table 2-10 Short and long term GHG reductions (MtCO2e/year), split by reliability

Timescale Reliable Acceptable Potential Total

Short term 0.46 5.18 1.28 6.92

Long term 2.87 22.79 4.63 30.29

Unspecified

Pie chart ABiomethane for

grid injection4%

Electricity1%

Heat67%Transport fuel

1%

Unspecified27%

Biomethane for grid injectionElectricity Transport fuelHeat

Pie chart B

Biomethane forgrid injection

5%Electricity

0%

Heat67%Transport fuel

2%

Unspecified26%

UnspecifiedBiomethane for grid injection

Electricity Transport fuelHeat



Table 2-11 Data on investment triggered from project CPIs.

Note: Short-term data is investment by 2016 and long-term data is investment by 2020. In the short term, 14% of this data is considered reliable and 50% acceptable. In the long term, 9% of the data is reliable and 52% acceptable.

Project Short term (EUR million)

Long term (EUR million)

Reliability Status

Solid biomass

AFO 2.1 - Complete

AGRIFORENERGY 71.4 - Reliable Complete

BASIS 282 596 Potential Complete

BioEUParks 0.7 0.7 Reliable Complete

BIO-HEAT No data for investment Complete

BiomassTradeCentreII 20.4 398.3 Reliable Complete

CrossBorderBioenergy No data for investment Complete

EPIC 2020 32 598 Acceptable Complete

EUBIONET III No data for investment Complete

FOREST No data for investment Complete

MixBioPellets 42.2 418.2 Potential Complete

PellCert 350 3 800 Acceptable Complete

PromoBio 6.1 7.5 Potential Complete

SolidStandards 7.9 32.5 Acceptable Complete

SRCplus 22.7 263 Acceptable Ongoing

SUCELLOG 5 55 Reliable Ongoing

Wood heat Solutions No data for investment Complete

Biogas/Biomethane

BioEnergyFarm 30.4 - Acceptable Complete

BioEnergyFarm II 84 180 Acceptable Ongoing

BIOGAS3 2.7 260 Reliable Complete

Biogas Heat 0.7 21.2 Reliable Complete

BiogasIN No data for investment Complete

BIOMASTER 96 958 Potential Complete

Biomethane Regions 94.2 248.8 Reliable Complete

FABbiogas 15 - Acceptable Complete

FARMAGAS No data for investment Complete

GasHighWay 6.8 - Reliable Complete

GERONIMO2BIOGAS 2 19 Reliable Complete

GR3 <0.1 <0.1 Acceptable Complete

GreenGasGrids 288 2 940 Potential Complete

SustainGas 8 93 Acceptable Complete

UrbanBiogas No data for investment Complete



Solid biomass projects contributed more investment per project than any other project type. Liquid biofuel projects made very low contributions to the investment triggered. This is likely to

be because most liquid biofuels projects were supported in the early stages of IEE II before this indicator was required. It is difficult to calculate investment triggered retrospectively.

Table 2-11 (Continued) Data on investment triggered from project CPIs.

Note: Short-term data is investment by 2016 and long-term data is investment by 2020. In the short term, 14% of this data is considered reliable and 50% acceptable. In the long term, 9% of the data is reliable and 52% acceptable.

Project Short term (EUR million)

Long term (EUR million)

Reliability Status

Liquid Biofuels

ADORE IT No data for investment Complete

ALTERMOTIVE No data for investment Complete

BioGrace No data for investment Complete

OILECO 2 10 Acceptable Complete

RecOil 4 8.6 Acceptable Complete

SWEETHANOL No data for investment Complete


BEN No data for investment Complete

BioEnerGIS - 9.1 Acceptable Complete

BioGrace II 0.3 8.25 Reliable Complete

Biomass Futures No data for investment Complete

BiomassPolicies 184 682 Potential Complete

BioRegions 96.4 240.1 Acceptable Complete

BIOTEAM 54.2 126.4 Reliable Complete

BIOTRADE2020plus 7 246 Potential Complete14

MAKE-IT-BE No data for investment Complete

Total (EUR million) 1 817.8 12 219.6

14 BIOTRADE 2020+ is classed as complete as the project finished during the evaluation period. However as we did not receive the final report, the figures are reported from earlier documentation.

Investments triggered by project category (EUR millions, short and long term, all levels of reliability)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Short term Long term Short term Long termShort term Long term Short term Long term

Solid biomass Biogas/biomethane Liquid biofuels Strategic initiatives

€m




In addition to calculating investment, the leverage effect of the IEE II bioenergy projects was examined using the ratio of leverage ‘per EUR 1 million of EU funding’. Two parameters were considered:

• EUR of investment triggered per million euro of EU funding.

• Mtoe of renewable energy generation triggered per million euro of EU funding.

Taking the reliable and acceptable data only:

• In the short term, EUR 18.9 million was leveraged per EUR 1 million of EU funding.

• In the long term, EUR 132 million was leveraged per EUR 1 million of EU funding.

Taking the reliable and acceptable data only – in the short term, 0.04Mtoe of renewable energy was leveraged per EUR 1 million of EU funding to bioenergy projects, rising to 0.23Mtoe per EUR 1 million of EU funding in the long term. The highest energy triggered is for solid biomass, followed by strategic initiative projects. These results are influenced by two projects that have high estimates for Mtoe triggered, such as PellCert (solid biomass) and Biomass Policies (strategic initiatives).

2.2.5 Success points: potential employment impacts

Some projects provided data on direct jobs created during the project and an estimate for increases in jobs by 2020. For other projects, general data on jobs per Mtoe has been used to provide an indirect estimate of the numbers of jobs that could potentially be created as a result of the projects.

EUR leveraged per EUR 1 million of EU funding by project category (short and long term, reliable and acceptable data only) Note: The overal leverage data is an average of the leverage per category of project.

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

Transport fuels

Heat from CHP

Heat Only

Electricity as part of CHP

Electricity only

Biomethane for grid injection

toe


Short term average: 0.04 Mtoe leveraged per EUR 1 million fundingLong term average: 0.23 Mtoe leveraged per EUR 1 million funding

294

52

3.55

39.98

29

15.28

1.14

15.68

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Solid biomass

Biogas/Biomethane

Liquid biofuels


EUR Million


Short term average: EUR 18.9 million leveraged per EUR 1 million fundingLong term average: EUR 132 million leveraged per EUR 1 million funding

Leverage by end use in toe renewable energy generated per EUR 1 million of EU funding (reliable and acceptable data only) Note: This graph is representative of 36 out of the 47 projects. Unspecified data was 41 000 toe per EUR 1 million funding in the short term and 639 000 per EUR 1 million funding in the long term. The average overall leverage figures spread this data across all 47 projects.



In total, 119 jobs were created as a direct result of IEE II bioenergy projects during the project duration. This figure is expected to grow to 370 by 2020. These direct jobs are those that have actually been created or are very likely to be created as a result of actions implemented by the projects and that were recorded by the projects.

The figures for the potential job creation are much higher, reflecting the high potential impacts estimated for renewable energy generation – around 9 240 jobs in the short term and around 55 000 in the longer term (by 2020). The significant difference between the direct jobs created and potential jobs estimated stems in large part from the lack of recording of job creation by most projects and the use of proxy data (based on Mtoe of renewable energy generated) to estimate job creation.

2.3 How IEE II bioenergy projects fit into the broader EU context

2.3.1 IEE II as part of the EU’s funding in bioenergy

Bioenergy projects were supported under a number of EU programmes and initiatives in the period 2007-2013. Overall, IEE II accounted for around 4 % of total EU support for bioenergy during the 2007-2013 period, with total funding for bioenergy in all programmes amounting to an estimated EUR 1.2 billion. Total EU funding for bioenergy in the period 2007-2013 was in the region of EUR 1.2 billion, putting IEE II bioenergy funding at about 4% of the total EU budget for bioenergy. About half the total EU funding is taken up by seven large-scale demonstration projects aimed at supporting

Estimation of jobs from EurObserv’ER

The potential jobs per Mtoe were obtained from data provided in the EurObserv’ER annual renewable energy report in 2016 . The EurObserv’ER 201615 report provides data on the amount of bioenergy produced and the number of jobs resulting from different types of bioenergy (solid biomass, biofuels and biogas). This data has been used to calculate the number of jobs created for bioenergy projects per Mtoe and these estimates have been used to calculate the potential jobs created for projects where Mtoe of renewable energy is available.

15 http://www.eurobserv-er.org/

Potential job creation by project category (short and long term, including direct and estimated jobs only)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Direct

119 370

54 772

Estimated

8 600

Direct Estimated

Short Term Long term

Strategic projects Liquid biofuels

Biogas/Biomethane Solid biomass

5 projects provided direct job dataData has been estimated for a further 31 projects



http://www.eurobserv-er.org/

advanced and efficient bioenergy, which are supported under the NER 300 programme16. Bioenergy is only a small part of most of the other programmes or a part in projects having a wider scope, making it difficult to have exact figures for bioenergy funding.

Other EU programmes funding bioenergy include:

• Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7)17, NER 30018 and the European Industrial Bioenergy Initiative (EIBI)19 where the main focus is technology and rural development programmes20.

• European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)21 where technology is a secondary focus and where (like IEE II) the main focus is on capacity building and feasibility.

Within the spectrum of this support, IEE II has the strongest market focus and addresses a wider range of target groups. IEE II is a programme with a strong focus on attitude and behaviour change. IEE II has a capacity building and dissemination activity in common with European Regional Development Funds (ERDF)22 and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)23. Although these focus on different target groups, there is an opportunity for exchange of information between the programmes. IEE II and ETC have already held a joint initiative to share learning24.

Contribution of IEE II bioenergy funding to all EU bioenergy funding 2007-2013

A key aim for biomass funding in general is reducing GHG emissions. The timeframe and mechanisms by which this will be achieved vary from programme to programme. For example, capacity building aims to reduce emissions now, whereas research is looking to future savings when new technologies are implemented. LIFE+ Energy has GHG emissions reduction and waste utilisation as its main focus, and public authorities are its main target group. EAFRD includes biodiversity, but also soils management, which reflects the agricultural emphasis.

Awareness of the IEE II programme in other EU programmes is generally good.

The potential for overlap in bioenergy support between different EU programmes and also between EU and national programmes is recognised. In addition, there are initiatives such as ERA-NET and EIBI that aim to minimise duplication and maximise value from research in the EU.

2.3.2 Survey of stakeholders on the reach of IEE II bioenergy support

To understand the reach and impact of the IEE II programme among EU stakeholders, a web-based survey of 100 EU and national bioenergy related stakeholders was carried out as part of this review.

In addition, during the review, exchanges with a number of policy makers and bioenergy stakeholders occurred, and the reach and impact of the IEE II programme has been discussed.

The IEE II programme is better known than the bioenergy projects it supports. Over 75% of survey respondents knew about bioenergy projects under IEE II. Nearly 50% of respondents knew about the projects through direct involvement.

The majority of respondents to the survey said that IEE ll was relevant to their work, that the programme demonstrated additionality and had a positive influence on bioenergy uptake. Around 80% of respondents have seen an improved uptake of bioenergy in their region/country since 2010.

The respondents to the survey said that IEE II bioenergy projects have been predominantly successful in enabling knowledge sharing, and developing understanding, capacity and skills for various stakeholders. Projects are perceived to have the least impact in the area of facilitating access to funding. Respondents were either ambivalent or negative about the programme’s influence on bioenergy policies in Member States. The perceived impact of projects on job creation was generally considered low. However, a larger sample size would have been needed to make it more representative.

16 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300/index_en.htm17 https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/18 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300/index_en.htm19 https://setis.ec.europa.eu/set-plan-process/european-industrial-initiatives-eiis/eii-dedicated-sections/bio-eii20 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/index_en.htm21 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/22 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al6003224 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/library/brochures/accelerating-change-delivering-sustainable-energy-solutions.pdf

Share of IEE II on total EU bioenergy funding

€ 48 m IEE II bioenergy

Funding to bioenergy

from other EU programmes

(€ 1.2 bn between 2007 and 2013)



http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300/index_en.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300/index_en.htm

https://setis.ec.europa.eu/set-plan-process/european-industrial-initiatives-eiis/eii-dedicated-sections/bio-eii

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al60032

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/library/brochures/accelerating-change-delivering-sustainable-energy-solutions.pdf

Summary of focus areas for bioenergy projects supported under EU programmes and initiatives

Prog

ram

me

Actio

ns f

or b

io-e

nerg

y pr

ojec

ts w

ithin

the

se p

rogr

amm

es

Tech

nolo

gy f

ocus

Envi

ronm

ent

focu

sM

arke

t fo

cus

Polic

y fo

cus

Feas

ibili

tyRe

sear

chD

evel

opm

ent

Dem

onst

ratio

nCa

paci

ty

build

ing

GHG

em

issi

ons

redu

ctio

nBi

odiv

ersi

ty

cons

erva

tion

Soils

/ wat

er

man

agem

ent

was

te

man

agem

ent

Supp

ly /

infr

astr

uctu

re

deve

lopm

ent

Attit

ude/

be

havi

our

chan

geD

isse

min

atio

nTr

aini

ngJo

b cr

eatio

nst

anda

rds

deve

lopm

ent

polic

y de

velo

pmen

t su

ppor

tpo

licy

impl

emen

tatio

n

IEE

II-Bi

oene

rgy

32

35

55

31

23

FP7

45

31

11

31

13

NER

300

53

41

13

3

ETC

fund

ed u

nder

ERD

F5

12

11

13

13

LIFE

+ (E

nerg

y st

rand

)4

55

11

4

RDPS

fun

ded

unde

r EA

FRD

13

53

35

33

44

Bio-

ener

gy E

RA-N

ET4

21

23

23

2

EIBI

53

42

4

Scal

e of

invo

lvem

ent

of

prog

ram

me

in t

his

aspe

ct

of b

io-e

nerg

y

51

Hig

h in

volv

emen

tA

little

invo

lvem

ent



Survey respondents by organisation type

Responses to the survey question: I consider IEE II to be relevant to my work

Responses to the survey question: IEE II has been effective in promoting the uptake of bioenergyPie chart 5

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don’t know

26%

39%

15%

8%

0% 12%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don’t know

42%

41%

8%

3%

2%

4%

3%2%

1%

1% 1%

4%

14%

26%

1%1%

6%

8%

6%

5%

1% 3%

16%

Land owner

Financier/Funder

NGO

Trade association

Central government

Local government

Civil society

Solid biomass producer

Biogas producer

Biomass supplier-farmer

Biomass supplier-forester

Bioenergy producer-CHP

Energy producer-heat

Energy producer-electricity

Energy producer-CHP



Responses to the survey question: Would bioenergy have developed in your region without IEE II funding?

Responses to the survey question: How did IEE II improve bioenergy in your region?

8%

46%

27%

19%

No, I think bioenergy in my region has only developed as a result of IEE funding

Yes, I think bioenergy would have developed in my region, although not at its current scale

Yes, I think bioenergy would have developed

Don’t know

in my region irrespective of IEE - II funding

25.8%

34.0%

49.5%

36.1%

9.3%

23.7%

39.2%

22.7%

27.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Investment in biomass

mobilisation

Improved bioenergy production

and use

Improved understanding of the potential

of bioenergy

capacity and skills

ImprovedImprovedfinance or funds

Improved fuel standards

Improved understanding

of sustainability

Improvement in legislation for

bioenergy

Improvement and/or

implementation of bioenergy

policies



This assessment has shown that IEE II bioenergy projects played an important role in assisting the development of bioenergy in Europe between 2007 and 2013, and continue to influence the sector at present and into the foreseeable future. There is evidence that this programme accelerated the development of bioenergy in Europe by providing the basic tools for assessment of opportunities and risks, providing users with confidence in the feedstocks and technology available, building capacity and skills, creating networks between stakeholders and developers, and establishing supply chains. Support to policy development and implementation at EU, national and regional level has also contributed to create a more favourable framework for bioenergy.

It is likely that the presented impacts are conservative. Furthermore, the impacts of activities such as standardisation, certification, dissemination, capacity building, and policy development and implementation are difficult to quantify. If those could be properly taken into account, the achieved impacts could be expected to be much higher.

This review has found good examples of projects that report impact and output data diligently, and where project teams have provided figures that are transparent and reliably estimated. However, with more guidance, many more projects would meet this standard.

During the IEE programme implementation the need for a more harmonised methodology for capturing the impacts of projects has been recognised and since 2010 project teams had been asked to provide common performance indicators (CPIs). The reliability of data improved for the projects that started in 2010, and even more for those that used the methodology developed in 2012 to calculate their CPIs transparently. Strong management from EASME and continuous improvement approach to project monitoring and reporting has been one of the factors resulting in this increase in reliable data.

Since 2014, Horizon 2020 has operated as the common programme for research and innovation, including support to renewable energy. The outcomes of this assessment could provide useful input for ongoing and future projects supported under Horizon 2020.

3 Concluding remarks



The full report is available here:


4 Full report




Annex 1IEE II Bioenergy projects: an overview

Solid Biomass IEE II projects

Logo Acronym Led by

AFOActivating private forest owners to increaseforest fuel supply. VTT, Finland

AGRIFORENERGY IIPromoting and securing the production of biomass from forestry

and agriculture without harming the food production.Lk-stmk, Austria

BASISBiomass Availability and Sustainability Information System. AEBIOM, EU

Bioenergy farmImplementation plan for BioEnergy Farm. CCS, The Netherlands

BioEUParksExploiting the potentialities of solid biomasses in EU Parks. LEGAMBIENTE, Italia

Bio-HEATPromotion of Short Rotation Coppice for District Heating Systems

in Eastern EuropeBIOAZUL, Spain

BiomassTradeCentre IIDevelopment of Biomass Trade and Logistics Centres for

Sustainable Mobilisation of Local Wood Biomass Resources.SFI, Slovenia

Cross Border Bioenergy (CBB)Cross-border markets for the European bioenergy industry AEBIOM, EU

EPIC 2020Symbiotic bio-Energy Port Integration with Cities by 2020. City of Malmö, Sweden

EUBIONET IIISolutions for biomass fuel market barriers and raw material

availability.VTT, Finland

FORESTFOsteRing Efficient long term Supply parTnerships University of Exeter, UK

MixBioPelletsMarket Implementation of Extraordinary Biomass Pellets. DBFZ, Germany

PellCertEuropean Pellet Quality Certification. AEBIOM, EU

PromobioPromotion of regional bioenergy initiatives. Metla, Finland



Logo Acronym Led by

SolidStandardsEnhancing the Implementation of Quality and Sustainability

Standards and Certification Schemes for Solid Biofuels.WIP, Germany

SRC-PlusShort Rotation Woody Crops (SRC) plantations for local supply

chains and heat use.WIP, Germany

SUCELLOGTriggering the Creation of Biomass Logistic Centres by the

Agro-Food Sector.CIRCE, Spain

WhsWoodheat Solutions Forestry Commission, UK

Biogas & Biomethane IEE II projects

Logo Acronym Led by

BioEnergy Farm IIManure, the sustainable fuel for the farm. CCS, The Netherlands

Biogas HeatDevelopment of sustainable heat markets for biogas plants in

Europe.Ekodoma, Latvia

BIOGAS3Sustainable Small-scale biogas production from agro-food waste

for energy Self-sufficiency. Ainia, Spain

BiogasINSustainable biogas market development in Central and Eastern

Europe.EIHP, Croatia

BiomasterBiomethane as an Alternative Source for Transport and Energy

Renaissance.ISIS, Italy

Biomethane regionsPromotion of BioMethane and its Market Development through

Local and Regional Partnerships

Severn Wye Energy Agency Limited, UK

FABbiogas Biogas production from organic waste in the European Food and

Beverage industry. TUV, Austria

FarmagasBiogas Production from Agricultural Wastes in European Farms. TTZ, Germany

GasHighWayPromoting the Uptake of Gaseous Vehicle Fuels, Biogas and

Natural Gas in Europe.Hermia, Finland

Geromino biogasA Focussed Strategy for Enabling European Farmers to Tap into

Biogas Opportunities.IRIS, Spain



Liquid Biofuels IEE II projects

Logo Acronym Led by

Adore-ITAdolescence for renewable energies in transport

Province of Groningen, The Netherlands

ALTERMOTIVEDeriving effective least-cost policy strategies for alternative

automotive concepts and alternative fuels.EEG, Austria

BioGraceAlign biofuel GHG emission calculations in Europe. VRO, The Netherlands

OILECOFostering Public-Private Partnerships for the Local Bio-Energy

Market Value Chains of Used Cooking Oils.ECB, Belgium

RecOilPromotion of used cooking oil recycling for sustainable biodiesel

production.ENA, Portugal

SweethanolDiffusion of a sustainable EU model to produce 1st generation

ethanol from sweet sorghum in decentralised plants.CETA, Italy

Logo Acronym Led by

GR3GRass as a GReen Gas Resource: Energy from landscapes by

promoting the use of grass residues as a renewable energy resource. DLV, Belgium

Green gas gridsBoosting the European Market for Biogas Production, Upgrade and

Feed-In into the Natural Gas Grid.Dena, Germany

SustainGasEnhancing sustainable biogas production in organic farming. STUDIA, Austria

Urban BiogasUrban Waste for Biomethane Grid Injection and Transport in Urban

Areas.WIP, Germany



Strategic initiative IEE II projects

Logo Acronym Led by

BENBiomass energy register for sustainable site development for

European RegionsFraunhofer, Germany

BioEnerGISGIS-based decision support system aimed at a sustainable

energetic exploitation of biomass at regional levelCESTEC, Italy

BioGrace IIBioenergy Greenhouse gas emissions: Align Calculations in Europe RVO, The Netherlands

BIOMASS FUTURESBiomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy Targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the

perspective of Stakeholders

Imperial College, UK

BiomassPoliciesStrategic Initiative for Resource Efficient Biomass Policies Imperial College, UK

BIOREGIONSRegional Networks for the development of a Sustainable Market

for Bioenergy in EuropeWIP, Germany

BIOTEAMOptimizing Pathways and Market Systems for Enhanced

Competitiveness of Sustainable Bio-EnergyJIN, The Netherlands

Biotrade2020plusSupporting a Sustainable European Bioenergy Trade Strategy CENER, Spain

MAKE-IT-BeDecision Making and Implementation Tools for Delivery of Local &

Regional Bio-Energy Chains CRPV, Italy



https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/official-documents

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) Unit B1 H2020 Energy

Title: Impacts and achievements of bioenergy projects supported under the EU programme IEE II - Summary report

PDF: ISBN:978-92-9202-219-8, DOI:10.2826/733510

https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/official-documents

impacts and summary report - european commission...intelligent energy – europe ii (iee ii)...

Documents