final publication Layout 1

Rokwood | Resource efficient production and utilization of woody biomass from SRPsFuelling dialogue between biomass research, industry, policy & business | www.rokwood.eu

RokwoodResource efficient production and utilizationof woody biomass from SRPs

European Best Practice and Key Findings

Rokwood partners at training workshop, Kingston Maurward College, Dorset (May 2015)

Rokwood | Resource efficient production and utilization of woody biomass from SRPs

Contents

Introduction 1

Work packages 2

PESTLE and SWOT analysis 3

Research requirements 5

Joint Action Plan 6

Policy briefs 7

International co-operation and staff exchange 9

Dissemination 12

Project ideas 13

Project highlights 14

Legacy 17

History of SRPs in Europe 18

Focus on Skåne, Sweden 20

Focus on Andalusia, Spain 21

Focus on Midlands and Western Ireland 22

Focus on South West England 23

Focus on Mazovia, Poland 24

Focus on Northern Germany 25

Biodiversity in SRPs 26

SRPs compared 27

The future for SRPs in Europe 28

Rokwood is an ambitious three-year, six-country study which aims to make theregionallybased production of woody biomasseconomically attractive, technically feasibleand environmentally sustainable.

Funded by the European Commission,Rokwood focusses on researching thedevelopment, implementation, monitoring and utilisation of woody crops grown in shortrotation plantations (SRPs).

www.rokwood.eu

The main objectives of the project include:

1 Creation of an overview of the mainobstacles and barriers hindering thedevelopment of local biomass regions inEurope

2 Generation of at least 10 innovative co-operative project ideas tackling thetechnical barriers(e.g. harvesting, dryingtechnologies)

3 Identification of financial resources for thedevelopment of innovative products andservices in this sector

4 Reaching a maximum number ofstakeholders by effective disseminationactivities


1

Biomass is increasingly being seen as an importantenergy source for Europe. In 2009, the European Com-mission set binding targets for renewable energy: a 20%share of renewable energy in the European Union’soverall energy mix shall be reached by 2020. In order toachieve this, a possible strategy suggested by the Com-mission is to triple the use of biomass energy comparedwith 1997. The greatest growth potentials for bioenergy(up to 50%) were identified in wood and agro-biomass.

For this reason, biomass production and trade havebecome a flourishing sector that requires innovativesolutions to meet the current international demand.Compared to the conventional energy sector, thestructure of the European biomass sector ischaracterised by SMEs. The industry of renewable energycurrently employs more than 1.5 million people. Lateststudies predict that, by 2020, nearly 3 million more jobscould be created, with the greatest potential for energyfarmers, equipment manufacturers, installers,technicians, builders and engineers.

The demand for wood has been growing steadily inEurope during recent years and will further grow in thefuture. Due to the competition from different sectors (e.g.construction, manufacturing and power production) woodhas become a scarce resource. A gap between supplyand demand of hundreds of millions of tonnes of wood ispredicted for 2020. One way to mitigate this scarcity isthe production of wood in plantations of fast-growingtrees such as willows and poplars. These are managed ina similar way to agricultural crops and harvested in shortintervals of only a few years, and therefore referred to asshort rotation plantations (SRPs.)

Besides their high productivity, SRPs offer further advan-tages such as providing landscape diversity, increasedbiodiversity compared to annual crops and numerousecosystem services such as reduction in soil erosion anda possible approach to flood mitigation.

These promising attributes are not being fully exploited,however, as there are a variety of obstacles and barriershindering or even preventing the further development ofthe SRP sector. These obstacles and barriers comprise,amongst others, missing or unfavourable legal frameworkconditions, missing financial support as well as varioustechnical and non-technical barriers.

Rokwood is a three year trans-European research projectwhich has attempted to confront these issues head on

Introduction and find innovative ways to increase the market penetra-tion of woody energy crops. The project is funded withinthe Regions of Knowledge (ROK) Programme of the Euro-pean Union’s 7th Framework Programme for Researchand Technological Development (FP7).

The project involves a large consortia of 20 partners fromsix regional cluster countries (Northern Germany, SouthWest England, Mazovia in Poland, Skäne in Sweden,Andalusia in Spain and the Midlands and Western Regionof Ireland) as well as EUBIA, the European Biomass Indus-tries Association who provide the means of disseminatingthe results to a broad range of stakeholders. The projectpartners have identified research requirements, proposedworkable policy options and suggested joint activities withEuropean and international partners.

Each cluster is represented by three partners, respectingthe triple-helix concept (a business entity, a researchentity and a local or a regional authority). The six clusters,in spite of their structural differences and levels of SRPengagement, face similar challenges in terms of devel-oping the SRP market. Rokwood was intended to enforcethe co-operation between these countries through a col-lective Joint Action Plan for tackling the most importantobstacles and barriers on the European level. By con-necting these clusters, Rokwood has striven to promotethe exchange of established best practices and thusimprove the economic growth of SRPs.

The Rokwood project has identified the main impedimentsand factors of success for the promotion of the use of woodybiomass. This knowledge and know-how on SRPs is crucialto help this new sector, which needs a framework thatfosters the technological, legal and market innovation anddevelopment.Samir Sayadi Gmada and Carlos Parra Lopez, IFAPA

“ “


2

WORK PACKAGE 1Analysis of regional clusters state of play

Back in early 2013 project partners engaged in a majoranalysis of the factors that influence the SRP sectorwithin their regions in order to prioritise and select thosewhich could be best targeted by policymakers to help theindustry expand. This process also served to identify keysimilarities and differences between the partnercountries.

Each cluster performed an in-depth PESTLE analysis(Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Envi-ronmental factors) for their respective region to identifyfactors currently affecting the production and use of SRP,and those which are likely to affect it in the future. ThePESTLE outputs were condensed into a more manageableform by the completion of a SWOT (Strengths, Weak-nesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. The outputs ofthis exercise were used extensively in later tasks.

WORK PACKAGE 2Definition of Joint Action Plan and FinancialPlan

The middle part of the project involved activities that weredesigned to get beyond the obstacles that the SRP sectorfaces. Year 2 was dominated by the production of theJoint Action Plan (JAP), which essentially provides a routemap on how to develop the SRP sector. The JAP bringstogether many of the outputs of the project into a singledocument and indicates the sort of research and innova-tion projects that are required. Alongside the JAP a Finan-cial Plan (FP) was produced to identify suitable fundingsources to finance its implementation.

The JAP was supported by two other significant outputs:an Agenda of Research Topics which identified andranked research needs of the SRP industry according toimportance in each country; and regionally specific policybriefs - a series of recommendations for policy makers,public authorities and government agencies to supportthe development, production and use of SRP derivedwoodfuel in their countries.

Work packages

WORK PACKAGE 3International co-operation strategy

In tandem with the JAP, the consortium developed anInternational Co-operation Strategy. Part of the Strategyinvolved individual clusters identifying countries orregions that they would like to engage with and identifyingand making contact with SMEs and researchers withwhom the clusters may have similar interests and couldbenefit from synergies. This work package had lots oflinks with other tasks throughout the project.

WORK PACKAGE 4Measures towards the implementation ofJoint Action Plan

The final year of the Rokwood project involved the firststeps to implement the JAP principally by raising aware-ness. Each cluster ran training workshops, conducted sitevisits and engaged in staff exchanges. Based on theknowledge and technology gaps identified by the projectthe Rokwood consortium developed a catalogue of fifteenfully formed project ideas covering harvesting and pro-cessing, end use of SRP products and multifunctionaluses of SRPs.

An important output of the project was a book of bestpractice case studies covering every step in the biomasssupply chain, from initial business planning to the distri-bution and use of the heat and power produced.

WORK PACKAGE 5Dissemination and exploitation

Throughout the project the consortium sought to promotethe SRP industry through its own website, social mediaupdates, project leaflets and downloadable reports, var-ious project videos, presentations at con-ferences , attendance at trade fairs,joint publications in journals andtrade press and a number ofevening seminars/receptions forindustry stakeholders and policymakers.

The Rokwood project ran from December 2012 to November 2015. The principal aim of the project was to increase themarket penetration of woodfuel produced from short rotation plantations (SRP) by encouraging more dialogues betweenindustry participants, researchers, policy makers and business.


3

PESTLE and SWOT analysisThe key objective of the PESTLE and SWOT analysis wasto help each cluster identify all the factors that influencethe SRP sector within their region in order to prioritiseand select those which could be best targeted by policy-makers to help the industry expand. It also served toidentify key similarities and differences between thepartner countries, which helped develop a coherentapproach for the clusters to work together in a mutuallybeneficial way.

Each cluster first performed an in-depth PESTLE analysis(Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Envi-ronmental factors) for their respective region in order togather information for a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities, Threats) analysis. The PESTLE analysis rep-resents a checklist of factors currently affecting the pro-duction and use of SRP, and those which are likely toaffect it in the future. The factors can be at differentlevels (e.g. global, EU-wide, regional, local) and may varyin importance across levels and countries. Each clusteridentified the key factors most relevant to their owncountry and ranked each in order of importance. Thepartners were encouraged to consult with expert stake-holders outside the cluster group, and in most cases astructured workshop was arranged to ensure a widerange of views was captured.

The follow-up SWOT analysis drew on the PESTLE outputsand other ‘state of play’ research undertaken during Year1 of Rokwood. Each cluster populated a SWOT chartmade up of four quadrants to identify ‘internal’ strengthsand weaknesses within the SRP industry alongsideexternal opportunities and threats. The most importantfactors in each quadrant (up to a maximum of 10) werethen recorded.

Factors that could make up a ‘common’ SWOT across allthe clusters were then discussed at a consortiummeeting workshop. This aimed to identify commonstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from aneconomic, innovation and RTD perspective to inform thedevelopment of objectives, strategies and new researchideas for the Joint Action Plan.

SWOT factors varied widely across the clusters but therewas a noted dominance of political and economic issuesthat could either be viewed as opportunities or threatsdepending on policymakers’ decisions. Common Agricul-tural Policy (CAP) reform and the role of SRP in EcologicalFocus Areas, government national policy and the extent towhich SRP is prioritised and supported, and EU and/ornational targets for renewables and emission reductionsall featured highly in this respect, with most being viewedas opportunities. This made clear that with appropriatepolitical encouragement, backed up by the right economicincentives, the SRP market could be kick-started to ulti-mately compete on an equal footing with many otherplayers in the sustainable heat market. The wider issue ofthe increasing cost of fossil fuels was also noted by mostclusters as a significant opportunity in this respect.

Common threats included a lack of local markets, withthe more advanced clusters also highlighting the risk oflocal markets being affected by an increased import ofcheap biomass fuel and the low prices attracted by thebiomass power industry. The fact that SRP requires signif-icant land take and a long term contractual commitmentwith the landowner was also recognised by most as aweakness. A general lack of public awareness of theindustry, the supply chain and end-user benefits also fea-tured highly as a weakness.

A number of factors were found to be specific to eachcountry and/or region due to variations in marketadvancement, existing national/local policies and thelocal characteristics of the area. Example of theseincluded ‘flood defence’ included as a strength by the UKcluster, which reflects the high incidents of flooding expe-rienced in the cluster’s south west region of focus, andregulations around landscape protection and nature con-servation, which were viewed as threats by the Germanand Swedish clusters. Also the UK, Irish and Spanish clus-ters noted weaknesses in the lack of harvesting infra-structure and supply chain logistics, whilst the Swedish,Polish and German clusters identified a lack of profitablespecialised machinery for SRP and lack of technologicaldevelopment to address this.

Political

Economic

Social

Technological

Legal

Environmental

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats


4

Developing and prioritising a ‘common SWOT’ for all clus-ters was challenging due to the differing characteristics,circumstances and priorities for each cluster but a sum-mary of the SWOT outputs by theme is shown opposite.More in-depth findings of the SWOT are summarised in areport available via the Rokwood website. Arguably, this

represents the core of the evidence base that was usedby all clusters to formulate their country-specific PolicyBriefs during Year 2 of Rokwood, but the findings havealso usefully informed several other Rokwood activitiessuch as the Joint Action Plan and the production of jointpublications.

Helpful Harmful

Exte

rnal

orig

inIn

tern

al o

rigin

Strengths

• Carbon reduction• Fuel security• Regional benefits• Ecosystem services• Biodiversity

Weaknesses

• Competition for land• Political will• Lack of skills and infrastructure• Lack of incentives• Supply and demand

Opportunities

• Local heat networks• Multifunctional benefits• Diversification• Rural regeneration• Economic potential

Threats

• Political barriers• Poor cash flow for farmers• Market competition• Technical issues• Awareness and information

Summary of outputs from the common SWOT analysis


5

There has been research on SRPs for over 40 years. As aresult of this we have tremendous knowledge on bestpractice cultivation methods, husbandry, breeding andselection techniques, pests and diseases and methods tocombat these, storage parameters, combustion qualities,biodiversity, ecosystem services and multifunctional uses.It could be argued that the amount of research done ispossibly more than an industry with just 50,000 hectaresof commercial SRPs across Europe can justify. We knowso much about SRPs but we are still struggling to getfarmers to grow them. There is an evident hole betweenthe outputs of research and the incentives provided bypolicy makers. We addressed this in the policy task.

However, even though there is a rich research base stillmore needs to be done. The aim of this task was todefine regional and transnational research topics andmatch them by the importance level for each country. Notsurprisingly, as this project is to a great extent driven bySMEs who are involved in the practical delivery of proj-ects, this focussed on a lot of technical issues such asmachinery improvement, woodfuel quality and environ-mental applications and non-technical areas or missinglegal and financial support structures such as devisingincentive schemes that could provide a financial tippingpoint and lead to more SRPs being planted, and the typeof farmer that should be targeted to grow energy crops.

Each cluster was responsible for describing the researchneeds of their region or country, in terms of:• Development perspectives (the current position and

the broad issues that need to be addressed• Strategic goals (the planned objectives that the

research project will be striving to achieve), and • Development activities (the actions that need to be

undertaken in order achieve the required outcome orto answer the specific questions posed)

Six technical areas of research were identified.

1 Resource mapping2 Adaptation and agronomy3 Production economics4 Quality and standards5 Technological advancements and refining

supply chains6 All round benefits to society

Non-technical areas such as obstacles caused by lack oflegal and financial support and lack of awareness weredealt with separately under the Joint Action Plan.

Research requirements

The potential benefits to society provided by the pollination services ofSRPs (especially willow) are not widely appreciated and so far notquantified. Research in this field could help stimulate better financialincentives for SRPs.

Based on this exercise an “Agenda of research areas tobe addressed” was created which gathered knowledgeabout the research gaps of each cluster and identifiedcross-sectional research topics. The goal of the Agendawas to support later Rokwood activities such as thedevelopment of future project ideas as well as providing auseful document for partners to take forward withresearch councils in their own countries. The Agenda alsoenables partners to better recognize common topics withother countries, which should help in the creation of newprojects and partnerships.

The triple helix that characterises the structure of eachregional cluster has made possible, from my point of view,real valuable working conditions. It is quite common thatresearchers are not so aware of the market needs,authorities do not know that much about the technicalpossibilities available that are beneficial for the environmentand for business, and companies do not usually transmittheir needs to both researchers and authorities. Thus, thisproject has made possible to create “regional discussionforums” that have helped us all to broaden our views.Moreover, this kind or interaction with other Europeanregions has obviously made the discussion much richer. Pilar Zapata Aranda, BioAzul

““


6


Joint Action PlanThe Joint Action Plan (JAP) is one of the main outputs ofthe project and essentially provides a route map on howto develop the SRP sector across Europe. The JAP wasinformed by many of the previous outputs of the project(e.g. SWOT analysis, research requirements, policyimprovements etc.) and collated these into a single docu-ment. Each cluster summarised their obstacles, interests,offers and needs according to the relevant order in theirregion, and transformed this into the “Ideal situation”towards which they would like the woody biomass sectorto be driven. Based on this finishing point the clustersidentified “Future Joint Actions” which represent the pri-ority measures to take and these were sub-divided intoactivities or “Steps to implementation”.

At the mid-project meeting in Goslar, Germany, partnersdiscussed the ideal situation for their cluster regions, pri-oritised them and chose those to be worked on in the JAP.The methodology used for these discussions was the oneknown as ‘World Cafe’ in which a large group of peoplecommunicate with each other about subjects which areimportant to them. The World Cafe should lead to dis-course in small groups as in street cafes. The participantsduring the exercise changed tables to bring their know-how and interests to different groups. At the end of thesession the plenum discussed the results in a whole. Itwas revealed that many interrelations were possible evenwhen dealing with regions at very different levels of devel-opment in the SRP sector.

The outcome of this exercise was the recognition of sixjoint actions and a total of 34 steps to implementation (oractivities) that need to be taken to achieve an ideal situa-tion for the SRP sector. This took the form of a catalogueof future activities, a timeframe for these activities andthe allocation of tasks among the partners. Some ofthese were initiated during the final year of the projectwhilst others will have a timeframe beyond the project.

The six priority areas proposed in the Rokwood JAP are:

1 Development of SRP pilot and demonstration projects 2 Engagement in lobbying at the EU-level3 Production of regional species and transnational

agronomy guidelines4 Knowledge transference of cultivation, logistics and

end-use5 Encourage multi-functionality and added value

research 6 Develop education and training programs for sector

stakeholders

This JAP was widely used within the consortium. Never-theless, it contained information that could be consideredas confidential for many partners, so it was decided thata public version should be prepared for disseminationand also to bring together possible future collaboratorsfor the initiatives described. Thus a shortened, more userfriendly JAP in a printable dossier format was produced asboth a hard copy and uploaded to the website to be freelyaccessible to everyone.

The JAP will remain relevent long after the Rokwoodproject finishes and will hopefully continue to inform theEuropean Commission and national research councils onthe sort of research and innovation projects that arerequired and influence the future direction of R&Dspending on SRPs.

However, the intention is not only to wait for futurefunding and initiatives to be tailored to our requirementsbut also to adapt our needs to existing and ongoingfunding pots. To this end, alongside the JAP a financialplan was produced to identify suitable funding sources tobegin its implementation. The consortium identified morethan 20 regional and 40 national funding sources and ata European level, diverse calls under the Horizon 2020programme: Interreg V, European Agricultural Fund forRural Development, Life+, European Energy EfficiencyFund. As a result of this task, a catalogue of different pro-grammes and funding sources that are potentially avail-able in the regions and countries participating inRokwood was created for financing SRP related R&D andfacilitate the effective implementation of the JAP.

This task has been quite important, as this is one of themain outcomes of the project. It has been quite difficult, asthere were different views on what the JAP should look like,and this also had strong influence on other related activities.This was both a problem and an advantage; a problem, as itcaused delays in this and other tasks, and an advantage assuch discussions were actually enriching and the finaldocument satisfies us all, as it is understandable, feasible,reasonable and achievable in the medium to long term. Pilar Zapata Aranda, BioAzul

“

“

Some of the outputs from the World Cafe exercise in Goslar (June 2014)


7


Policy briefsDuring December 2013 to September 2014 partnerstook part in the task called ‘Elaboration of policy briefsfor the future implementation of strategies’. The aim ofthe task was to put together a series of recommenda-tions for policy makers, public authorities and govern-ment agencies to support the development, productionand use of SRP derived woodfuel in each of the partnercountries. These recommendations took the form of‘policy briefs’ and drew on the evidence base gatheredfrom the outputs of the previous Rokwood work packagesand tasks. Each cluster produced one Policy Brief, whichwas developed through a series of exercises that wereintended to help identify andexplore key issues, prioritiseoptions and define recom-mendations.

Due to the regional focus ofthe Rokwood project, thebriefs were inevitablyshaped by the characteris-tics of each cluster regionand were primarily focusedon influencing regionalpolicy (although this doesvary to some extent, basedon the structure of gover-nance in each country).

There was a relatively high degree of alignment in theissues identified by the clusters, although theapproaches to resolving each of these were morediverse. Six broad themes emerged, with each havingbeen identified by more than one cluster as an area inwhich appropriate policy change is required:

1 All of the clusters identified the need to educate rele-vant groups about the benefits of SRPs (includingmulti-functional benefits, such as their potential foruse as part of flood defence schemes), particularlyfarmers and policy makers.

2 Greater financial support is required in order to growthe SRP market, and there was general agreementthat some of this additional funding should comefrom regional and/or national government.

3 A lack of local supply chains was identified as a bar-rier to uptake. The introduction of targeted subsidiesas an incentive for growers was popular as a pro-posed solution to this.

4 Three of the clusters suggested that improved clarityin policy would support the expansion of SRP. Someambiguity was noted in two areas of policy in partic-ular; in Ireland this related to the definition of bio-mass in applications for funding, and in Spain andGermany land use categorisation was cited.

5 The importance of continued research and the devel-opment of resources was also noted by several part-ners, and the need for research funding and closerworking between universities and industry was high-lighted.

6 Finally, a lack of lobby groups supporting SRPs wasidentified, which is a particular issue due to the waythat the topic ‘falls between two stools’ in terms ofgovernment responsibility.

Once finalised, the briefs were distributed widely to rele-vant stakeholders. Cluster members were also free topublicise their release on their own websites, and vianewsletters and social media. Where possible, policybrief documents were also taken to events that were heldin each of the participating regions for further dissemina-tion. For example, the Spanish cluster handed out copiesat their ‘Granada es Verde’ workshop and BIOPTIMAtrade fair (amongst others), and the UK cluster distrib-uted copies at a land energy workshop at Cambridge Uni-versity and at a LogistEC seminar in Brussels. TheSpanish policy brief was also featured in ‘Energias Renov-ables’ magazine.

Using SRPS as a crop with more than one use was highlighted as a majorarea where the policy framework needs to be bolstered. Here a plantationof willow is being used to treat municpal waste water as well as providingan energy crop (Photo: Chris Johnston, AFBI).


8

Clusters have reported that their policy briefs have gener-ally been well received, however there has been somevariation in the level of engagement that has beenachieved in the different regions. The Spanish cluster hasperhaps had the most success in this respect, with thebriefs feeding directly into their Biomass Provincial Plan,which is to be adopted by the regional government. In Ire-land, at the same time the policy briefs were developed,the government’s Department of Communications,Energy and Natural Resources developed a draft Bioen-ergy Plan, which included the development of a Renew-able Heat Incentive. This was one of therecommendations contained within the briefs.

Some partners have confirmed that they intend to keepusing the policy briefs after the Rokwood project hasended. As the briefs are based on the political and eco-nomic landscape in each country at the time of writing,their ongoing relevance is dependent on the continuity ofthe existing conditions and so it is likely that these part-ners will need to revise the documents to account for newdevelopments. For example, since the Swedish brief wasfirst drafted, a new issue relating to increased competi-tion due to the importation of waste for use as fuel inincinerators has become more prominent and theSwedish cluster have expressed their desire to address it.

Through Rokwood we’ve been able to bang thedrum a little bit louder for energy crops. We havebeen doing this for years but Rokwood facilitatedus with the opportunity to publicise the benefits ofSRPs to a much wider audience”.Kevin Lindegaard, Crops for Energy

The acceptance of SRPs in politics and theeconomy in EU member states is not as high as itshould be. At the beginning of the project our mainaim was to get together with other “players”involved in SRPs in other countries to find out thedifferent targets and markets, to bring mindstogether and to find a bigger lobby.Hans-Georg von Engelbrechten, Agraligna

It’s been really positive working with the UK clusterpartners and networking with the Rokwoodconsortium members. The project helped us toinfluence local policy and future fundingopportunities, including successfully lobbying theDorset Local Enterprise partnership to includefinancial support for a biomass trade centre andbiomass supply chains in the Dorset EU Structuraland Investment funding programme 2015-2020.Pete West, Dorset County Council

“ “

“ “

“

“


9

International co-operation andstaff exchangeGlobal challenges such as climate change call for interna-tional co-operation to develop scientific solutions whilstglobal markets unleash opportunities for innovative Euro-pean companies and research institutions. In order for theSRP industry to develop and respond to the current andfuture requirements for large volumes of sustainably pro-duced biomass there needs to be much greater co-operation between SMEs and researchers in differentcountries, both in the EU and beyond. This task was anintegral part of the Rokwood project enabling the consor-tium partners to identify and correspond with other SMEsand researchers with a view to:

• Sharing knowledge and experience• Exploiting new market opportunities through partner-

ships and risk sharing• Creating links that could lead to future collaborative

research and development projects• Working together to achieve a better policy framework

Each Rokwood cluster was tasked with finding out aboutthe SRP and/or biomass production and use in 3-4 neigh-

bouring countries and one broader, non-EU region (e.g.North America, China etc). The aim of this was to providethe consortium with a better understanding of theimport/export opportunities with different countries. Fol-lowing this, clusters identified countries or regions of theworld that they wanted to engage with and detailed thetechnologies that could be imported to or exported fromtheir region. In each case, partners needed to think abouthow this trade could be encouraged and how obstacles tointernationalisation could be overcome.

Internationalisation exercise identifying SRP trading/research partnercountries.

N. Germany P P P P P P P PMid/W. Ireland PMazovia P P PAndalusia PSkåne P P P P P P P PSW England P P P P

New SRP Planting Harvesting Processing Logistics End use Consultancy Mentoring varieties machinery machinery machinery technology services services

N. Germany P P P PMid/W. Ireland P P P P P P PMazovia P P P P PAndalusia P P P PSkåne P PSW England P P P P P P

New SRP Planting Harvesting Processing Logistics End use Consultancy Mentoring varieties machinery machinery machinery technology services services

SRP technology offer of the six Rokwood clusters

SRP technology demand of the six Rokwood clusters


10

For each potential trading partner, clusters were asked toproduce a shortlist of companies that would be worth-while collaborators. In certain cases contact was madewith relevant individuals to see if there was any possibilityof developing a specific opportunity. Rokwood partnersidentified around 70 organisations outside the consortiumthat they would like to explore collaborations with. Ger-many and Sweden were most progressive in their desireto work in new markets. This is based around the fact thatthese countries generally have more to offer in terms ofservices and expertise. The four other Rokwood clustersare looking to gain from linking up with countries that aremore developed in SRP or with their near neighbours.

Earlier Rokwood tasks had indicated areas whereresearch was required urgently. Clusters were remindedto look back at these documents and then search theinternet for researchers in their own country and othercountries who could help in these fields. The aim was tocreate a network from which future research collabora-tions could evolve. Partners identified 99 scientists from17 different countries outside the Rokwood consortiumthat they would like to explore collaborations with. TheSpanish were very keen to establish research opportuni-ties with eight South American researchers.

The raw lists of potential collaborators (both companiesand researchers) will inform Rokwood partners of organi-sations active in SRP in Europe and worldwide. The

sharing of the list will mean that more of the Rokwoodpartners will be able to exploit these contacts.

The Swedish cluster took up the opportunity to host acouple of trade missions, one from Lithuania and onefrom Ukraine. The participants of the Ukraine visitincluded representatives from the national Governmentof Ukraine, the regional governments of Poltava, Ivano-Frankivsk, Donetsk and Transcarpatia, an environmentalNGO organization, one company called Ecosolum, theSwedish Embassy, the organisation Business Sweden andthe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

A number of staff exchanges took place between clustersin order for Rokwood partners to learn more about howSRPs have been developed in different regions and gainfrom best practice. Sweden and Ireland were the clustersthat accepted the most exchanges. Most of these tookplace between consortium members but some new linkswere made. For instance, English SME partner Crops forEnergy created a new liaison between Teagasc, the cropsresearch centre in Ireland and SP in Sweden who areboth conducting research on combustion and emissionsfrom SRP willow. Other exchanges were written up as bestpractice case studies (e.g. SRP self supply at Gurteen Col-lege) or enabled discussions that resulted in funding bids.The staff exchange between the Swedish and Germanclusters allowed partners to explore a common researchproject to develop a new SRP harvesting machine. The

The Ukrainian trade delegation with Anders Nylander (SEA, 2nd from left) and Annika Henriksson (SEE, 5th from left). Volodymyr Lyashchenko of the UnitedNations Development Programme, later wrote to Annika: “On behalf of the official delegation from Ukraine I would like to express our appreciation for theremarkable work you did for organizing such wonderful meetings, visits and sharing the experience in energy crops cultivation. Thank you!”


11

If I had to start the project again from the very beginning Iwould definitively give more weight to the IPS.Internationalisation is a key point for us; enlarging ournetwork is very important if we want it to survive. At thesame time, engaging relevant stakeholders from our ownregions was also a key point, and I think we all should havedevoted more time to achieve this “massive involvement” wewould have wished.Pilar Zapata Aranda, BioAzul

““

For me the internationality of the project was the mostimportant thing. We had partners from 7 different countries(Belgium, Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Sweden andPoland) with different backgrounds (research, business andpolitics) which made up a great mix and made work reallyinteresting. Every partner had different knowledge andexperience to contribute. Valuable contacts have beenestablished that will reach beyond Rokwood.Christoph Knauer, TTZ

“

“

Mike Pearson, Principal of Gurteen College, Tipperary, Ireland in his willowcrop. Mike was instrumental in setting up a woodfuel self-supply projectwhich heats the whole college. He hosted C4E in an exchange and thenagreed to speak at the English training event – the aim of this was to helpKingston Maurward College to use their willow in a similar way.

Expanding the Network

Here are some of the organisations we’ve reached out to,worked with, liaised with and helped during the project:

exchange between Bioazul and TTZ was used to discuss aproposal for a follow up to Rokwood called EU BIOMASSHUB which would take forward some of the recommenda-tions in the Joint Action Plan.

“ “The staff exchange programme encouraged territorialcohesion, especially concerning demonstration projects,technology and management approaches among Rokwoodpartners. In addition, the staff exchanges contributed to theimprovement of knowledge regarding available technologies,investment, and performance of bioenergy systems.Samir Sayadi & Victor Hugo Durán Zuazo, IFAPA


12

The project partners established a set of instruments toensure that the largest possible group of stakeholdersbenefits from the key findings, project outputs andmutual learning activities.

Within the first month of Rokwood, a website was devel-oped (www.rokwood.eu) to inform people about the projectand its objectives. On the website the user finds detaileddescriptions of the project partners and links to inter-esting projects with similar topics. The main outputs, suchas the Joint Action Plan, Best Practice Booklet, PolicyBriefs, Public Project Reports and dissemination materialare gathered in the Public Library Section. In the News &Events Section there are details of workshops, seminarsand conferences organized by Rokwood and otherexternal events that could be interesting for stakeholders.

Dissemination

In order to attract users to the website a set of socialmedia accounts were created. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedInand YouTube are used to cross-publish content developedwithin the project. This strategy helps to reach as manystakeholders as possible by using these different chan-nels. The Twitter account (@RokwoodEU) also shared itemsof interest posted by users we followed, often organisa-tions and individuals with an interest in SRPs. Today we

Kevin Lindegaard, C4E (top)and Pete West, Dorset CountyCouncil (left) are interviewedfor the Rokwood videos.

The Rokwood video has beenwatched more than 500 timeson YouTube.


13

Projects like Rokwood involve a lot of partners from sev-eral countries and different perspectives workingtogether over a number of years. This provides a fertilebreeding ground for new ideas. Through the Joint ActionPlan (JAP) and other project outputs, Rokwood shouldplay a big part in influencing the future direction of R&Dspending. An important part of the second half of theproject involved gathering the many ideas together toestablish a better platform for further pan-European co-operation.

Based on the knowledge and technology gaps identifiedin previous activities Rokwood partners developed a cat-alogue of 15 project ideas covering three broad themes:

1 Harvesting SRPs and processing the biomass 2 End use of SRP products 3 Multifunctionality (added value) of SRPs

Some of these aim to plug distinct gaps in the market(e.g. machinery provision) whilst others look at ways toreplicate best practice or further develop the work ofRokwood and increase the availability of information togrowers. Example project ideas include:

• Development of an affordable small scale willowharvester

• Development of machinery for use on sloping landand wet soils

• Pilot SRP plantations for flood mitigation andwastewater treatment

Project ideas

have over 200 followers, 45% of whom are based in theUK, 12% in the USA and 12% in Spain. This reflects thefact that we tweet almost entirely in English and focus onevents and news in the UK and Spain (the clusters thathave engaged most with the social media strategy).

Another very successful tool to facilitate cross-border co-operation in research is the Rokwood marketplace(www.rokwood.eu/marketplace) where stakeholders of thesector can register to start networking activities withmarket actors across Europe and the world. Today morethan 300 companies, research institutions, regional com-petence centers and other stakeholders are registered in

“I think the written outputs and the videos produced duringthe project are very informative, relevant and professionallooking. These resources will serve the sector well as theydocument best practice which is already being conducted aswell as making suggestions on what is required goingforward in term of policy instruments and project ideas”. Kevin Lindegaard, Crops for Energy

• Investigation of SRP as a feedstock for the pulp andpaper industry

• Pellet production from SRPs• SRP online information hub• International SRP study tour programme

Each of these areas of interest has been developed intoa fully formed project idea complete with project title,description, goal, short agenda, tasks description anddistribution, expected costs and funding possibilities. Inaddition, as a follow on from the International Co-opera-tion Strategy, partners were better able to identifyprospective partners from outside the consortium.Potential partners have been approached in NorthernIreland, Denmark, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic,Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine.

This is a very valuable outcome of the project. ManyEuropean funded projects have less time to plan whichinevitably means that there will be some weaknesses.As a result of this exercise some of the initial ground-work is done ensuring that Rokwood partners and col-leagues from other organisations will be able toprogress more rapidly once a suitable funding call isannounced.

Already, one project proposal has been written and sub-mitted to the EC in June 2015. It was framed within thecall “ISIB-2-2014/2015 Closing the research and inno-vation divide: the crucial role of innovation support serv-ices and knowledge exchange”, and it maintained manyof the Rokwood partners, having at least one represen-tative per cluster (UK, Spain, Sweden, Poland, Irelandand Germany), and also includes new partners fromneighbouring regions Latvia, Romania, Czech Republicand Italy.

“

“

the database. That this tool works is proven by a commonproposal for a follow-up project developed by Rokwoodpartners and registered marketplace members.


14

The final part of Rokwood involved the first steps toimplement the Joint Action Plan (JAP). Each cluster hasrun training workshops, conducted site visits, engaged instaff exchanges, promoted the project through publica-tions and presented at conferences. For many of the con-sortium partners these facets of the project haveprovided the highlights.

An important output of Rokwood was a book of best prac-tice case studies covering every step in the biomasssupply chain, from initial busi-ness planning to the distributionand use of the heat and powerproduced. This authoritative doc-ument has been downloadedover 1,000 times, and is almostcertainly the first time that sucha wealth of information fromSRP practitioners has beenbrought together into onevolume. Many of the inititivesdescribed such as the self-supply of SRP woodfuel atGurteen College and district heatingat Beuchte Energy Village could and should be replicatedelsewhere. Furthermore, the use of SRP as biofilters asdemonstrated in Northern Ireland and Sweden exemplifythe wider opportunities for multifunctional benefits andefficient land use.

Project highlights From the outset of the project the co-ordinator TTZ statedthat there was freedom within the project to adapt thedescription of work and make the tasks fit the localneeds of the clusters. Some of the partners have lookedto really add value and go beyond the deliverables in thedescription of work.

The English cluster has used the project to challengeentrenched views about SRPs and educate policymakers, conservationists, wood fuel suppliers andfarmers about the opportunities that SRPs provide. As aresult the cluster made a big effort in policy tasks andtried to engage with particular groups in their trainingsessions and site visits. During the English clustermeeting in Bristol an evening seminar was hosted forpolicy makers and key local influencers. Kevin Linde-gaard of Crops for Energy was very proactive speaking atnumerous conferences about the Rokwood project. As aresult of talks at the International Bioenergy Conferencein Manchester (March 2013) and the Supergen AnnualAssembly (Nov 2014), the UK research community is wellaware of the project and should be ready to work towardsfuture R&D needs.

Project partners have sought to make links with otherEuropean funded projects. A strategic relationship wasmade with the sister project, LogistEC (Logistics forEnergy Crops Biomass, www.logistecproject.eu), leading totwo Rokwood partners, Kevin Lindegaard and AnnikaHenriksson, speaking at LogistEC events in Brussels.These events gave us an opportunity to have our voicesheard and input into their project outputs – each work-shop was attended by EU policy makers and produced alist of recommended actions to help the sector grow.


15

The Irish cluster set up key linkages within their region.They held a half day workshop in May 2014 in Athlone,Co. Westmeath. As part of this, the Rokwood partnersand Barry Caslin of Teagasc organised a group of willowgrowers from the Midlands, who had previously had nocontact with each other, to meet and form a group forinformation and knowledge exchange. This group hasdeveloped since then and have met up a number of timesindependently of the Rokwood project. They also liaisedwith Irish Bioenergy Association (IrBEA) who held theinaugural meeting of their energy crops sub-group at thesame workshop, at which participants from both theRepublic of Ireland and Northern Ireland met to develop astrategy to address the challenges of the energy cropsindustry on both sides of the border.

The Swedish cluster needed to spend less time trying tocreate links in their region as the industry is already wellestablished there. Instead they used the supply chain fortraining visitors from abroad. They hosted two trainingseminars for large SRP producers: Klasmann-Deilmann

(who have planted 2000 hectares of willow in Lithuania)and Energy Crops Vattenfall (who are involved in poplarcultivation in Germany). In addition, they also ran atraining workshop for a new Romanian willow grower whois planning large plantations in the Danube region andwelcomed a trade delegation from Ukraine.

The German site visit to the Beuchte Bioenergy Villagewas a particular favourite of many partners (see countryprofile). This demonstrated how SRP poplar could be grownand used to heat 65 houses via a heat network, and pro-vided another great vehicle for training: Agraligna hosteda group visit from Poland and Clemens von König made apresentation at the English cluster’s training seminar.

In its final 6 months, Rokwood forged links with twoimportant organisations that run conferences/exhibitionsto make sure the outputs of the project are disseminatedas widely as possible. In June 2015 Rokwood had a sideevent Short Rotation Plantations: A winning Strategy forSustainable Production and Efficient Use of Wood Bio-mass at the European Biomass Conference and Exhibi-tion (EUBCE) held in Vienna. In October 2015, the projectwill conclude with a 3 day international conference inBrussels run by the Association of Applied Biologistscalled Biomass and Energy Crops V. One whole sessionand an evening reception for non-conference delegateswill be devoted to Rokwood.

Photos: Opposite page, clockwise from top L : Networking at the Bristolevening reception for policy makers (Jan, 2014); Christoph Knauer (TTZ)presenting at the EUBCE side event in Vienna (June 2015); AnnikaHenriksson (SEE) being interviewed for Polish TV with translation by ŁukaszDrzewaszewski (GZ) (May 2015); Rokwood sponsored members meeting ofthe UK Wood Heat Association are shown the billet harvester at Strawson’sEnergy (June 2015); Susanne Paulrud (SP) leading a training seminar for aLithuanian company UAB Klasmann-Deilmann Bioenergy (July 2014). Thispage: (top) Annika Henriksson (SEE) and Kevin Lindegaard (C4E) at theLogistEC seminar “Impact of Energy Crops” at COPA-COGECA, Brussels(Dec 2014); (below) Delegates at the Biomass Granada is Green event(March 2014).

In our opinion the members of some clusters co-operatedvery efficiently, providing each other with valuable inputsand joining forces to reach common targets. Some madesignificant efforts to invite to site visits and events a largenumber of external stakeholders from across the sustainablewoody biomass production sector. These events showed howthe SRP sector in the hosting country compared to the SRPframework at the EU level, and were fruitful occasions fordebate for farmers, technology providers, business actors,researchers and policy makers. They allowed the mostrelevant results of the project to be presented to a large andvaried audience. Valeria Magnolfi, EUBIA

“

“


16

Outputs from the project

Training courses 1 4 1 3 5 5 17

People who have received training 20 95 32 260 53 124 584

Site visits 5 7 4 2 27 7 52

Staff exchanges 2 4 5 2 3 3 19

Articles produced 4 3 2 13 2 5 29

Conferences attended 6 6 1 3 3 12 19*

Conference presentations 4 2 0 3 4 10 23

Organisations signed up to Rokwood marketplace 34 14 83 45 14 45 235

N. Germany Mid/Western Mazovia, Andalusia, Skåne, South West TotalIreland Poland Spain Sweden England

*19 unique conferences (some clusters attended the same conference)


17

The need for sustainable sources of locally producedbiomass is widely recognized but despite over 30years of research and development and 25 years ofpolicy support there are still only around 50,000hectares of SRPs planted in the EU28. In some ofthe countries represented by Rokwood such asSweden and UK the area of SRPs has fallen rapidlyin recent years. The Rokwood partners haveattempted to understand the reasons for this lack ofpenetration and propose measures to reverse thistrend and kick start the industry.

Rokwood has been successful in a number of ways:the showcasing of best practice should help redresssome widely held entrenched views on the useabilityof these biomass fuels. In addition, the project hasthrown light on many multifunctional uses of SRPsthat should be exploited to benefit local communi-ties. The lack of any lobbying power has meant thatthe sector has been in the past the recipient ofnumerous policy measures that have failed.Rokwood has enabled sector participants to producecoherent policy wish lists that have a greater likeli-hood of influencing policy makers. The project hasalso facilitated greater networking opportunitiesamongst SMEs which should help develop partner-ships and improve export opportunities. The agendaof research requirements will hopefully lead tofunding being channeled into more applied areasthat will benefit project practitioners.

LegacyUntil now there is no positive reaction in our region whichhas been caused by the Rokwood Project. But from ourbusiness experience we know that it needs a longer time-period to get movement.Hans Georg von Engelbrechten, Agraligna

“ “

“

We believe that biomass in general – and SRPs specifically– have the potential to make a significant contribution to theSpanish and Andalusian sustainable energy mix and thattheir multifunctional characteristics further justify their useas an environmentally and economically beneficial energycrops. Even when the Rokwood ends in November 2015, theSpanish cluster will keep on working to help all stakeholdershave a clearer view of local biomass and SRP energy crops,organizing promotional events and social media campaign,and fund raising for new projects.Victor Hugo Duran Zuazo, Carlos Parra Lopez & Samir Sayadi Gmada, IFAPA

At present, it’s rather hard to notice any direct impact of theproject on SRPs production in our region. But this is a slowprocess and I think that through new contacts andknowledge-exchange we may see some changes in thefuture, especially when we seek new energy sources for thepeople in our community. These ideas can be combined withpossible EU donation programs, especially for farmersthinking about biomass production not only for their ownneeds, but also larger markets. Some changes can occur atthis moment, independently from our own actions but as aresult of contacts made during the site visits.Łukasz Drzewaszewski, Gmina Załuski

““

“

18


SRPs have been considered as an option for biomassenergy and fibre production for over 40 years. Initially,interest was sparked in the early 1970s by the potentialshortage in pulp wood used for paper and cardboardproduction. Work in Northern Ireland suggested that fastgrowing coppiced willow could potentially meet theindustry’s needs from large areas of low grade farmland.This potential land use also received significant attentionin the wake of the oil crisis of 1973 and the subsequentsupply shortages and price increases.

Countries like Sweden and Northern Ireland, with lowlevels of indigenous fossil fuels were particularly exposedto this issue and endured fuel rationing. In the light of thisincident the need for greater security of energy supplybecame important and research on willow for biomassenergy began in these two countries as well as at LongAshton Research Station in Bristol, England which wasthe holder of the world’s largest willow germplasmcollection.

Initial work focussed on agronomy, spacing and rotationlength to determine the most economical stocking densityand best yields. In Sweden in 1977, there was anationwide collection of fast growing willows supported bythe farming magazine Land and the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences in Uppsala in order to provide a goodbasis for a breeding programme. Around the same time,SRP poplar research was also being initiated in Germanyand Italy. The initial research efforts suggested that highyields could be achieved on marginal land and an industrystarted to develop. The first commercial willow plantingstook place in Sweden in 1981. Cuttings suppliers wereoffering large volumes of material from 1985, the firststep planter was developed in 1986 and Svalöf-WeibullAB began commercial willow breeding in 1987.

The industry began to grow with the introduction of set-aside in 1988 under the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP). This programme imposed production quotas andforced farmers to take a proportion of their land out of

History of SRPs in Europe

Five-year-old Eucalyptus glaucescens at Dartington, Devon shows the high yielding capabilities of SRPs

19

food production in order to control the over-supply ofagricultural commodities such as milk and grain. Therewere suggestions at the time that 6 million hectares ofUK farmland would need to be removed from foodproduction. SRPs emerged as an attractive diversificationoption.

Other geo-political factors also stimulated the industry.The realisation that over reliance of fossil fuels wascausing the world to warm led to the Earth Summit in Rioin 1992 and the signing of Kyoto Protocol 1997. The needto reduce carbon emissions on a massive scale led somecountries like Sweden and Denmark to adopt carbontaxes. This gave a favourable advantage to renewableenergy and home grown biomass production.

The introduction of a planting grant in Sweden led to amini boom in planting in the mid-1990s. At its peak therewere 18,000 hectares planted and over 1,250 growers.Also, numerous harvesting machines were developed.However, the reduction of compulsory set-aside from 15%to 10% in 1996/97 brought about a huge slump. Plantinglevels fell from 2,000 to 200 hectares in the space of ayear and 10-15 cuttings producers left the market. Duringthe years that followed the Swedish market shrunk. Thiswas due to the removal of crops - some plantations hadbeen established on poor land hundreds of kilometresfrom heating plants and were not economical. In addition,the price paid to farmers has reduced due to competitionfrom imported biomass.

The UK saw a similar (albeit smaller) boom and bust inthe SRP sector on two occasions. The Arbre Energyproject was supported by the UK Government’s Non FossilFuel Obligation and European development funds andcreated a market for around 1,500 hectares of SRPwillow. The plant was built but never became fullyoperational and was closed in 2002. Despite theintroduction of an establishment grant, farmer confidencewas badly affected and planting levels fell from a peak of422 ha in 2000 to just 65 ha in 2002. The introduction ofpolicy favouring the co-firing of energy crops with coal ledto a gradual increase in planting (peaking at 502 ha in2007) but this again plummeted due to uncertaintybecause of the cessation of the Energy Crops Scheme for18 months, the abandonment of set-aside and thesudden increase in cereal prices at this time.

In many countries there has been a similar trend withrelatively large areas being established in a short timefollowed by a rapid decline. For instance: over 1,500hectares of willow was planted in the whole of Ireland (NIand Republic) between 2006 and 2011; 6,000 ha of

poplar was planted in Lombardy, Italybetween 2003-2008; and 6,500hectares of poplar planted inGermany in the 2000s.

In most of these westernEuropean countries the currentSRP market is static with verylittle planting going on. Around100 hectares of willow wasplanted in the UK in 2015. Therecent introduction of shortrotation coppice as anEcological Focus Area optionunder the current CAP socalled “greening” measuresmight have some impact butthe low weighting (0.3)compared to other optionssuch as buffer stripsdiscriminates against SRP asit requires as much as fivetimes the amount of land tobe taken up compared toother measures.

The current areas of growthfor SRP are in EasternEurope. Large plantationshave been planted inLithuania, Latvia. Polandand Ukraine over the last 3-4 years and this looks set tocontinue.

Throughout the history ofthe SRP sector there havebeen key breakthroughs inresearch and technologydevelopment. For instance,there are numerous breedingand selection programmes forSRPs in Sweden, UK, Italy,Belgium, Germany, Poland andSpain. From these efforts thereare some exceptional, highyielding and disease resistantvarieties. In addition, planting andharvesting technology has beendeveloped making it easier toensure a good establishment andensure the biomass is harvestedefficiently.



20

Demonstration of chipping baled willow (June 2013).

Focus on Skåne, SwedenPopulation 1.3 mArea (ha) 1.09 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 2,042 Forest cover (ha) 390,00 (35.7%)Installed capacity of biomass 1,840 MWthBiomass installations 33,140 heating &

33 district heating/CHP plantsArea of agricultural land (ha) 510,000 (46.3%)Predominant agricultural land use Arable and livestock

Skåne is in the Swedish part of the Swedish-Danish Öre-sund region and has very good agricultural land domi-nated by cereal production. There are around 1,800hectares of SRP willow and 200 hectares of single stempoplar.

There are 33 municipalities and all of these are heated bybiomass district schemes. The vast majority of the SRPproduced in the region is consumed in these. Most of thedistrict heat schemes are small scale (5-10 MW) butthere are 10 larger combined heat and power (CHP)plants ranging from 50-100 MWth. There are many 100-1000 kW biomass boilers heating farms mainly usingstraw but some are using wood chips. In recent timessome estates have built boilers of 2-4 MW to supply to anearby district heat net as well as for their own use. Thisprovides a very successful business model for theowner/operator.

Rokwood funds assisted in getting this excellentSwedish publication by Susanne Paulrud of SPabout using willow as fuel for small-to-mediumboilers (50 kW – 2MW) translated into English.

The SRP market is comparatively welldeveloped in our region, so we aremainly interested in the export marketfor Salix varieties, Salix cuttings, SRPmachinery and knowledge. We have runtraining seminars for companies fromUkraine, Germany, Lithuania and Romania who are planninglarge-scale (500-3,000 ha) Salix-growing projects and wantto learn from us. It is difficult to charge for this training sincethe companies see it as a marketing activity for us. However,the time from the first contact with potential clients to anactual business deal can be years, and for a small companylike ours it is difficult to allocate resources with a long termperspective. Rokwood provides this opportunity.Annika Henriksson, Salix Energi Europa

Direct chipping of willow with a JD forage harvester with a HSAB head(June 2013)

Rokwood partners:SalixEnergi EuropaScania’s Association of Local AuthoritiesSP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

The area of SRP in Sweden has decreased during the lastfour years due to the drop in energy prices and an over-supply of biomass. The situation in Skåne is better thanelsewhere, partly because the import of waste has notaffected the use of local biomass as much as in otherregions. Nevertheless, there has been little new invest-ment, and many harvesting machines are being exported,mainly to eastern Europe. There have been two positivedevelopments, however, with the opening of a 110 MWCHP plant at Örtofta in 2014 and the re-opening of the 55MW heat plant at Flintrännan this year. Both are likely toinclude willow in the fuel mix and improve the market situ-ation for SRP in Skåne.

““


21

Focus on Andalusia, SpainPopulation 8.4 mArea (ha) 8.76 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 150–170Forest cover (ha) 2.54 m (29%)Installed capacity of biomass 1,555 MWthBiomass installations 23,431 heating

and 18 power plantsArea of agricultural land (ha) 3.85 m (43.9%)Predominant agricultural land use Olive plantations

The SRP sector in the Spanish region of Andalusia is stillin development. There are lots of ongoing trials and cer-tain types of SRPs (e.g. poplar, Paulownia and Euca-lyptus) can grow well and produce good yields as long asthe plantations are irrigated. The hot, arid conditions andscarcity of water need to be overcome if the SRP sector isto grow in the region. This could be achieved through har-nessing the multifunctional qualities of SRPs and irri-gating them with waste water.

It is difficult for the sector to gain a foothold as there is alack of awareness amongst farmers and policy makersand a lack of a good legal framework to promote SRPsand incentivise biomass power plants. There is also com-petition from the large volume of cheap waste biomassproduced from the olive industry. The Spanish clusterwould like to see SRPs being grown on marginal andabandoned land where they would not be competing withother crops and providing sustainable and stable bio-mass supplies for local industrial heat and districtheating projects.

A recent opportunity has been developed in northernGranada with the construction of the Tupellet wood pelletproduction plant that will use SRPs as a feedstock.

We identified that one of the main problems associatedto SRPs development in our region was ignorance.Farmers don’t even know that that planting SRPs is anoption, and as long as we have plenty of other biomassresources, it is difficult to promote anything.

The best thing about Rokwood was being able to seereal projects related to SRPs already working in differentregions of Europe, learn about these possibilities andpromote similar project opportunities in our region withthe know-how and contacts needed to accomplish them.Gonzalo Esteban López, Agencia Provincial de la Energía de Granada

Rokwood partners:Institute of Agricultural and Fishery Research & Training (IFAPA)ASAJA GranadaBioAzulAgencia Provincial de la Energía de Granada

The Spanish cluster held a training event in March 2015 which involved avisit to SRP trials on the Patronato Rodriguez Penalva and the new Tupelletpellet plant in Granada.

Rokwood partners are shown around aPaulownia trial at SAVB (AndalusianSociety for Biomass Upgrading) in theCampillos municipality (Jan 2013).

“

“

Our participation in Rokwood was seen as a good oppor-tunity to look at new opportunities for our farmers as agri-culture is becoming more difficult every year. In Granadapoplars are very common but the prices are very low. Theproject gave us some new ideas that we hope to put intopractice in our territory.Javier Morales Luque, ASAJA Granada

“ “


22

Focus on Midlands and Western IrelandPopulation 1.1 mArea (ha) 3.25 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 117Forest cover (ha) 340,000 (10.5%)Installed capacity of biomass 94 MWthBiomass installations 951 heating boilersArea of agricultural land (ha) 2.05 m (63.1%)Predominant agricultural land use Livestock

The Irish Cluster region comprises two separate regions,the Midlands (Laois, Offaly, Longford and Westmeath)and the Western Region (Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo,Roscommon, Mayo, Galway and Clare). Around 75% ofthe total population are based in the West.

Agriculture in the region is dominated by grassland sup-porting a signficant beef and dairy industry. The use ofSRPs is underdeveloped with an area of just 117 hectaresplanted to date (mostly in the western counties). There islimited arable land in either region so Common Agricul-ture Policy (CAP) “greening” measures such as ecologicalfocus areas (EFAs) will have no impact on the SRP area.

Rokwood partners:Biotricity LimitedDublin Institute of Technology & Dublin Energy LabWestern Development Commission

The region has significant peat bogland areas with indus-trial scale peat processing and power generation. Ire-land’s energy use is dominated by fossil fuels (93%) witha highly centralised electrical generation system. Renew-able energy accounts for circa 6.5 % of the national totalwith wind energy accounting for about 50% of this. Thesmall SRC willow sector in Ireland commenced around2007 in response to the development of renewable elec-tricity feed in tariffs (FITs) for bioenergy, (which stimu-lated a number of proposals around the country forbiomass based CHP), mandatory requirements for co-firing at peat burning power plants, and supported by theinitiation of establishment grants.

There are significant opportunities for using SRPs inthese regions particularly for heat. A large proportion ofproperties in rural areas are off the gas grid and rely onexpensive oil heating. The region has a low level of forestcover so SRPs could provide a rapid growing, local sourceof sustainable biomass.

The Irish Bioenergy Action Plan includes a proposal for aRenewable Heat Incentive. It is anticipated that this willbe introduced in 2016 and incentivise large commercialusers to install biomass systems.

There is a lack of support for the SRP industry in Ireland andan over focus on traditional forestry as a source of biomass.The SRP sector in Ireland is still hugely undeveloped, and itwill take some years before changes will be made to this.This will involve the need for policy changes to promote andencourage planting of SRPs so that an economically viablereturn is available to the grower. This could be facilitated bythe further development of the bioenergy scheme, changingthe classification of energy crops to make them competitivewith traditional forestry on an income and taxation basisand increasing training / knowledge sharing in the sector. Pauline Leonard, Western Development Commission

Alan Fox, Managing Director of HDS Energy shows Rokwood partners plansfor the 15 MW biomass CHP plant at Belrath, Co. Meath which will befuelled by locally grown SRP willows (Nov 2014).

“

“

“Rokwood provided local stakeholders with training,knowledge, information and expanded networks, regionally,nationally, and EU wide. The site visits to different regionsprovided an excellent learning experience to understand thecomplexity of the regional differences in relation to theirrenewable energy strategies and in particular their regionalbiomass and SRC sectors”.Patrick Daly, Dublin Institute of Technology

“


23

Focus on Mazovia, Poland Population 5.3 mArea (ha) 3.56 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 1,100 Forest cover (ha) 850,000 (23.8%)Installed capacity of biomass 2,480 MWthBiomass installations 32,262Area of agricultural land (ha) 2.31 m (65%)Predominant agricultural land use Fruit, vegetables,

potatoes, cereals

The Mazovia region is in the mid north east of Poland andincludes the capital city Warsaw. The agricultural land useis varied with production of cereals, potatoes, fruit, veg-etables, dairy, pork, beef and poultry. Most farms aresmall with an average farm size of just 8.55 hectares.

There is some interest in SRPs with a current area ofaround 1,100 hectares being grown. This is mainly beingused to supply large combined heat and power (CHP)plants.

We can very often use brochures, books and claimknowledge from the Internet, but still it is a questionablesource of gaining information. Especially, when someonedoesn’t know where to start and there are a limited numberof specific guides consisting of the basic knowledge neededto go further. Rokwood enabled many people from differentcircles to meet and exchange knowledge and experience ina much more straightforward way. My knowledge aboutbiomass usage for energy and heat production has risenradically throughout the last three years. Before Rokwood,we even hadn’t had the proper knowledge about biomassusage in our own country. We rather had imagined thatbiomass was a less effective and much more expensiveenergy source. Now the situation, the awareness haschanged, and we see biomass in a completely different light.Łukasz Drzewaszewski, Gmina Załuski

A representative of PGNiG talking to Susanne Paulrud (SP) and AndersNylander (SEA). May, 2015.

Rokwood partners:Gmina ZałuskiMazovian Agricultural Advisory CentreEKSPERT-SITR

70% of the heat demand of Warsaw is provided by PGNiGTermika’s Siekerki (2,078 MWth and 622 MWe) andZeran (1,560 MWth and 364 MWe) plants. SRP willowbiomass is supplied from several large plantations within200 km of Warsaw. In 2011, 160,000 tonnes of willowchip was used at these two plants. Unfortunately, thisfigure has fallen since due to the collapse in value of“green certificates” in Poland.

Nevertheless, there is an increasing demand for biomassand this bodes well for SRP. Whereas, there is limitedpotential for increasing woodfuel supplies from forestrysources, there is a large potential resource of 280,000 haof uncultivated and fallow land that could be suitable forSRP cultivation. Furthermore, unlike some of the otherclusters, Poland has a large number of young farmers andit may be possible to get them more interested SRPs.

PGNiG’s Siekierki plant in Warsaw - the biggest combined heat and power(CHP) plant in Europe (May, 2015)

“

“


24

Focus on Northern GermanyPopulation 19.5 mArea (ha) 13.77 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 2,500 Forest cover (ha) 2.37 m (17.2%)Installed capacity of biomass 500 MWthBiomass installations 7,500 Area of agricultural land (ha) 6.91 m (50.2%)Predominant agricultural land use Cereals, pasture

Due to climate change, limited fossil energy sources andthe risks of nuclear power plants, the German govern-ment has initiated the “Energiewende”, a transformationprocess aimed at an energy system based on renewableenergy. Biomass is an essential part of this process, andthe Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Deutschland pro-gramme was released in 2009. In parallel, the Germangovernment implemented several financial programmesto support the growth of the bioenergy-economy, espe-cially the Renewable Energy Act.

The political toolset has been very successful, leading toincreasing numbers of bioenergy plants. However, theincrease in utilization of biomass for energy productionalso caused an intensive critical discussion in Germanyabout limited resources, the competition of food vs. fuel,agricultural monocultures and tropical deforestation -finally leading to a significant reduction of the financialsupport of bioenergy projects in 2014. Thus, the currentpolitical support for bioenergy projects is very limited inGermany.

Northern Germany is the Rokwood cluster with the largestSRP area. This is mainly poplar although there is alsosome willow. The cluster partners are very keen to pro-mote SRPs as a way of reducing the impact of flooding aspart of floodplain forest management and reducingnutrient emissions into rivers and lakes. In this way, SRPscould play a part in achieving targets of the EuropeanWater Framework Directive.

In our cluster region we have the ‘best practice’ example ofBeuchte, a small village where 65 houses are joined to adistrict heating system fueled by woodchips produced from30 hectares of local SRPs and operated by our partnerAgraligna. The example of Beuchte was repeatedlypresented to project partners through staff exchanges andtraining workshops, many of whom wish to replicate theinitiative in their countries. Christoph Knaeur, TTZ Bremerhaven

Rokwood partners:ttz BremerhavenAgralignaRegional Planning Authority Altmark

Beuchte is a village of 400 inhabitants like thousands ofothers across Germany. If it is possible to start this inBeuchte then it is possible to do it anywhere.Clemens von König, Agraligna

Top: Rokwoodpartners visit theBeuchte BioenergyVillage boilerhouse (June2014). Below:Clemens von König(Agra) showspartners aroundpoplar plantationsused to fuel theBeuchte BioenergyVillage.

“Layout of district heating network at the village of Beuchte. Sixty-fivehouses are heated with SRP poplar grown on nearby farmland.

“

““


25

Focus on South West EnglandPopulation 5.3 mArea (ha) 2.38 m Area of SRPs today (ha) 93 Forest cover (ha) 250,000 (10.5%)Installed capacity of biomass 280.3 MWthBiomass installations 3,414 heating boilersArea of agricultural land (ha) 1.91 m (80.4%)Predominant agricultural land use Livestock and dairy

The South West of England is dominated by livestockfarming: 75% of the land is grass or rough grazing (repre-senting 29% of all English grassland) and this is home toaround a third of the English beef and dairy herd and afifth of its sheep. Around 37% of land in the South West isdesignated nationally for its landscape quality andincludes two National Parks, 14 Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty and just under a quarter of the Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI) in England. There aretighter restrictions on growing energy crops in designatedareas.

The current area of SRPs in SW England is 93 hectaresalthough there are also around 900 hectares of mis-canthus. There are no biomass power stations in theregion and a large amount of the energy crop biomass isexported to Drax Power Station nearly 400 km away.There are significant opportunities for SRPs in the regionbased on their multifunctional attributes. The SW has ahigh dependency on oil heating in rural areas, low wood-land cover, many areas that are prone to flooding andissues with diffuse water pollution from agriculture.Planted appropriately, SRPs could provide several bene-fits to society from a single plantation.

The UK Government introduced the world’s first Renew-able Heat Incentive in 2011. The South West is theleading region for biomass boiler installations. Around2,500 have been installed since the Rokwood projectstarted but only a few are using energy crops.

Rokwood partners:Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE)Crops for EnergyDorset County Council

Kevin Lindegaard (C4E) talks to Rokwood partners and other stakeholdersat Fenswood Farm, Bristol (Jan 2014). The farm hosts trials for theRothamsted Research willow breeding programme

Andrew Wear of FernhillFarm addressesRokwood partners abouthis wetland eco systemusing willows and otherplants for cleaningeffluent from the farm(Jan 2014).

Energy crops are a hard sell in the UK. Farmers have seenprojects fail and markets disappear and are reluctant toplant. You get the impression that policy makers are a bitbored by the subject – it’s as though they think that energycrops have had their fair share of incentives. Within thebiomass industry there is reluctance to embrace SRPsespecially in the small scale heat sector. And then there aresome conservationists who really should be supporting us(as we’re fighting the same battles) but instead are often athorn in our side. We’ve engaged with all these peopleduring Rokwood. It’s a slow process but I’m convinced thatmindsets are gradually changing.Kevin Lindegaard, Crops for Energy

Hopefully the project has gone some way towards raising theprofile of SRPs in the South West, for example by inviting keypolicymakers to the seminar in Bristol last year, by distrib-uting the policy briefs, and by inviting current and potentialstakeholders to site visits and workshops. It is also hopedthat these activities will lead to new projects in the SouthWest that are practical and/or research-based.Martin Holley and Annette Lamley, CSE

“

“

“ “


26

Apart from producing usable biomass, SRPs provide a host of additional benefits including erosion control, soil improve-ment, water quality improvement, flood defence and windbreaks. They can also be beneficial to wildlife, and increaselevels of flora and fauna on farmland. This is quite contrary to the received wisdom that they are sterile monocultures.These pictures on this page were taken in SRP plantations across Europe from Ireland to the Czech Republic. We’vegiven this some prominence in our final publication in order to share the message that SRPs can provide fuel whilstadding diversity to the landscape, helping to safeguard biodiversity and providing other ecosystem services.

Biodiversity in SRPs

TOP ROW Bird’s nest in willow, Czech Republic (©Jan Weger); Caterpillar of lesser willow sawfly feeding on willow (©Rothamsted Research Ltd); Fieldfare in willow,UK (©Rufus Sage); Roe deer in front of SRP willow, Sweden (©Nils Erik Nordh). CENTRE ROW SRPs tolerate inundation and their many stems help prevent soilerosion and potentially reduce the flow of flood water. (©Kevin Lindegaard); Willow can provide shelterbelts and windbreaks for horticultural crops (©KevinLindegaard); bumble bee foraging for nectar on willow, UK (©Jonathan Carruthers). BOTTOM ROW Feathered thorn caterpillar on a willow, UK (©Kevin Lindegaard);hens and ducks feeding in an enclosed SRP willow plot, Czech Republic (©Jan Weger); leaf litter from SRPs improves the nutrient status of poor quality soils andincreases invertebrate populations (©Kevin Lindegaard)


27

SRP crops comparedSalix (Common names: willow, osier, sallow)Native range Northern temperate zones

Typical rotation length 3 years

Stocking rate (plants/hectare) 15,000

Mass density (kg/m3) 400

Typical yield range (dry tonnes/ hectare/year) 8-10

Populus (Common names: poplar, aspen, cottonwood)Native range Northern temperate zones

Typical rotation length 3-5 years

Stocking rate (plants/hectare) 1,667 or 6,000



Eucalyptus (Common name: gum tree)Native range Australasia





Paulownia (Common name: foxglove tree)Native range North America and Asia





Alnus (Common name: alder)Native range Northern temperate zones





Betulus (Common name: birch)Native range Northern temperate/boreal zones





Robinia (Common name: black locust)Native range North America





Pic:

Joh

n Pu

rse,

Prim

a B

io


28

I’ve been involved in SRPs for almost 20 years. When Ibegan my career in the mid-1990s there was every sug-gestion that energy crops were going to be a really bigpart of future agriculture. There had already been 20years of research and development and significantareas were being planted in Sweden and the UK. Butinstead of gradual and consistent growth, the industryhas seen several localised surges in activity followedshortly afterwards by inertia. Across Europe there havebeen similar trends – anywhere where there is a signifi-cant area of energy crops grown there was once afavourable policy framework, followed by a few years ofintense planting and then a rapid depression due to amarket failure, a policy change or an increase in globalcommodity prices. Any embryonic sector like the energycrops industry finds itself vulnerable to these sorts ofthings – it is so easy for green shoots to be nipped in thebud. After 40 years of R&D the SRP sector can lay claimto just 50,000 hectares in the EU 28. Considering theutilised agricultural area is 176 million hectares thisarea is miniscule.

Yet despite this lack of penetration, forward energyplans continue to point to a massive role for fast growingtrees and energy grasses. The most recent example, inthe UK suggests that planting energy crops on 10% ofthe farmland (1.8 m hectares) could provide 6.3% of theUK’s energy demand. This could reduce the cost ofmeeting UK’s 2050 carbon targets by more than 1% ofGDP*. To put that in perspective, these savings wouldbe worth more to the economy than the entire currentoutput from UK agriculture (0.7% of GDP in 2014).

At the same time, researchers continue to find morebenefits that can be derived from these crops such asecosystem services and multi-functionality. The sugges-tion is that SRPs have a positive energy balance of over20 to 1. So, for every 1 unit of energy in you get 20 out.That makes for pretty good land use efficiency. On top ofthat you might get several uses from the same area ofland – such as energy, improvements of local waterquality and flood defence. Woodland and forestry dothese things as well but SRPs achieve better results in afraction of the time. Furthermore, instead of deprivingus of precious land, these crops actually work in har-

The future for SRPs in EuropeAn SME perspective

mony with food production by offering beneficial insectsand pollination services – SRP willows can provideabundant pollen and nectar at a time of year when therearen’t many food sources available for foraging bees.We need pollinators to keep working for us so we cancontinue to produce fruit and vegetables. PotentiallySRP willows could help rebuild bee populations and,who knows, if there are more bees around there mayalso be higher food crop yields as a result. You canpotentially get so much value by planting these crops ona small fraction of the land and as SRPs are permanentcrops they provide productivity and services for over 20years. And all the while, these perennial crops are qui-etly locking up carbon in the soil.

The need is there and the benefits should be clear toeveryone. Farmers need to be encouraged to plant andcrucially, be rewarded financially for the benefits thatthese crops bring. It’s time for long term planning anduninterrupted incentives that will lead to a sustainablegrowth industry. For farmers to grow SRPs and energygrasses they need certainty: few will risk a 20 yearinvestment unless there is some guarantee that they willmake money and the returns are favourable comparedto other crop options. As long as we expect farmers totake the large proportion of the risk we will get nowhere.Also, the perceived wisdom that SRPs create sterilemonocultures needs to be challenged and politiciansand policy makers must have courage in their convic-tions and respond positively to the scientific outputsfrom research bodies. If public money pays for researchand the findings point in one direction then we need tofollow this course, not ignore it or go the opposite way.

Time is short – we have 15 years to 2030 and 35 until2050. If we really want to make a positive difference tothe planet we need to act now. Rokwood has helped laya platform to build on. There is a future for SRPs inEurope – now is the time to start realising the potential.

Kevin LindegaardCrops for Energy Ltd (October 2015)

* Bioenergy: Enabling UK Biomass. An insights report by the Energy Technologies Institute (www.eti.co.uk/bioenergy-enabling-uk-biomass)


29

Germany

ttz Bremerhaven: Christoph Knauer,Benjamin Küther, Mirko Hänel, JosefineGumprecht, Angela Bröcker, KatharinaBrandt

Agraligna: Hans-Georg vonEngelbrechten, Clemens von König

Regional Planning Authority Altmark:Ralf Winterberg, Gerhard Faller-Walzer,Sabine Majaura

Poland

Mazovian Agricultural Advisory Centre:Wojciech Rzewuski, Lukasz Cwikla, MariaJanicka, Agata Sosinska, AgnieszkaVasileiou, Łukasz Cwikła

Gmina Zaluski: Romuald Wozniak, IlonaSzulborska, Lukas Drzewaszewski

EKSPERT-SITR: Teresa Janik, JarosławGopek, Magdalena Kiner, Artur Kiner

Spain

Institute of Agricultural and FisheryResearch and Training: Victor HugoDuran Zuazo, Carlos Parra Lopez, SamirSayadi Gmada Pablo Almarcha

BioAzul: Angela Magno,Pilar ZapataAranda

Agencia Provincial de la Energía deGranada: Gonzalo Esteban LópezASAJA Granada: Javier Morales Luque

UK

Centre for Sustainable Energy: MartinHolley, Molly Asher, Kat Blacklaws,Annette Lamley, Joe McMullen, CatMcClaughlin, Tim Weisselberg

Crops for Energy: Kevin Lindegaard,Sheena Lindegaard

Dorset County Council: Pete West, KateHall, Antony Littlechild

Sweden

SP Technical Research Institute ofSweden: Susanne Paulrud, Anna Sager

Scania’s Association of LocalAuthorities: Anders Nylander, SaraTherner

SalixEnergi Europa: Annika Henriksson,Lena Asheim, Per Asheim

Ireland

Dublin Institute of Technology/DublinEnergy Lab: Aidan Duffy, Patrick Daly

Western Development Commission: IanBrannigan, Pauline Leonard

Bio-tricity: Briain Smyth, Declan Kennedy

EU

European Biomass IndustryAssociation: Valeria Magnolfi, AndreaSalimbeni, Giuliano Grassi, Juan Vergara

www.rokwood.eu

Rokwood partners meeting, Warsaw 2015

List of Rokwood partners, and people who worked on the project

Our apologies if we’ve left anyone off this list!


Fuelling dialogue betweenbiomass research,industry, policy & businesswww.rokwood.eu

This project is supported by the European Commissionunder call FP7-REGIONS-2012-2013-1 “Regions ofKnowledge” of the 7th Framework Programme forResearch and Technological Development.

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor theEuropean Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Copies of this report can be downloaded from www.rokwood.eu

Documents

final publication Layout 1