Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments

Sustainable bioenergy systems are, by definition, embedded in social, economic, and environmental contexts and depend on support of many stakeholders with different perspectives. The resulting complexity constitutes a major barrier to the implementation of bioenergy projects. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the potential of Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) to facilitate the design and implementation of sustainable bioenergy projects. Four MCA tools (Super Decisions, DecideIT, Decision Lab, NAIADE) are reviewed for their suitability to assess sustainability of bioenergy systems with a special focus on multi-stakeholder inclusion. The MCA tools are applied using data from a multistakeholder bioenergy case study in Uganda. Although contributing to only a part of a comprehensive decision process, MCA can assist in overcoming implementation barriers by (i) structuring the problem, (ii) assisting in the identification of the least robust and/or most uncertain components in bioenergy systems and (iii) integrating stakeholders into the decision process. Applying the four MCA tools to a Ugandan case study resulted in a large variability in outcomes. However, social criteria were consistently identified by all tools as being decisive in making a bioelectricity project viable. & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Unlocking the potential of bioenergy The components of a complete bioenergy system include feedstock production, conversion technology, and energy allocation. These processes are each embedded in manifold social, economic, and environmental contexts. The resulting complexity is hard to manage effectively and is often ignored when bioenergy system planning only focuses on a single component of the system. Many different stakeholders with diverse perspectives and training participate in bioenergy systems, including on-theground biomass producers, power plant engineers, developers and marketing experts, regulatory agencies, and local communities. The diverse perspectives of these players create barriers that make communication extremely difficult. Moreover, stakeholders come with divergent values on how to assess and make decisions about the best solution to problems that are identified. In addition, bioenergy systems often have high levels of uncertainty and risk that are difficult to quantify because the data available is often limited, incomplete, or inconsistent. As a result, the information used in decision-making around these systems is often subjective and is based on normative values. Therefore an open and transparent participatory process that involves multiple stakeholders, not just experts, is needed to in order for projects to move forward and be sustainable. ll rights reserved. +13174706934. [email protected] (T. Buchholz). Decisions about various components of bioenergy systems are often made solely by ‘objective’ experts, who focus on finding the optimal solution and applying cost–benefit analysis, while neglecting holistic planning and stakeholder support (Cherni et al., 2007). The amount of data that is used in these decisions is often overwhelming to other stakeholders and they are often sceptical of the result of these approaches. The reasoning behind commonly used reductionistic approaches with little stakeholder involvement, all the while paying lip service to their contribution to the process, is largely due to the need for timely decisions made in a cost-efficient decision process or issues of trust and control. Opinions and perspectives of stakeholders are rarely consulted or they are only sought after the project plans have been completed, and the result is often the failure of a project. Such failures have been described for bioenergy projects in the United Kingdom by Upreti (2004), Upreti and Horst (2004), Upham and Shackley (2007), or Upreti and Horst (2002), who found that 27% of researched bioenergy plants were rejected in the planning stage. In India, Ghosh et al. (2006) describes similar failures, Ghosh et al. (2003) describe a case where 250 small-scale gasifiers for power production run for an average of 160h only and Ravindranath et al. (2004) describe a case in India where dual fuel mode gasifiers ran for 25% of the time on diesel only, both studies found nontechnical reasons for this failure of bioenergy systems, while Munda and Russi (2005) portray comparable constraints for 1 Powered by a mix of woodgas and diesel.