This document summarizes a study on stakeholder perceptions of land use for anaerobic digestion (AD) in the UK. The study examined views of directly involved stakeholders like AD operators and feedstock suppliers, and indirectly involved groups like the farming and public communities. AD operators are motivated by business diversification and bioenergy/biomaterial production. Benefits include new income streams, but challenges include feedstock availability and policy uncertainty. Perceptions of using food-producing crops (PGC) for AD vary - while operators see crop rotation benefits, the public is more skeptical and concerned about impacts on landscape and agricultural intensification. The conclusion advocates considering AD in its specific context rather than oversimplifying, and improving communication between stakeholders.

1. #adrdforum @adbioresources
DR MIRJAM ROEDER
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, TYNDALL CENTRE, UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC
PERCEPTIONS ON LAND USE
CHANGE FOR ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION

2. Stakeholder perceptions on land use for
anaerobic digestion, a case study from the
United Kingdom
Mirjam Röder, Laura O’Keefe, Patricia Thornley,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, The
University of Manchester

3. Aims and objectives
• Examine stakeholder perceptions on land use for feedstock
production for AD
• Considering competition between food and feedstock
production on bio-productive land
• Understanding land use and feedstock use within the wider
context of AD

4. Stakeholders
• Directly involved
– AD operators (Farmers)
– Feedstock suppliers (Farmers)
– Energy community (who run AD facilities)
– AD community (all operators)
– Authorities (who give permissions and certifications)
• Indirectly involved
– Farming community
– Public

5. Drivers of AD operators
Diversification
of farm business
Bioenergy generation
- on farm
- neighbourhood
- grid
Stopping rural
out-migration
Job creation
Income
generation
Biomaterial
production
Digestate
production
Waste
management
Sustainability
Emission
reduction
Income
resilience
Being
innovative

6. Benefits for stakeholders
Diversification
of farm business
Bioenergy supply
Stopping rural
out-migration
Job creation
Income
generation
Biomaterial
production
Digestate
production
Waste
management
Sustainability
Emission
reduction
Income
resilience
Image
Additional
income
Nutrient
management
Soil
management
Contract
farming

7. Challenges for stakeholders
Seasonal
variation
Policy
uncertainty
Landscape
Communication
between different
actors
TrafficRegional
availability
Contract
lengthKnowledge of
feedstock
characteristics
Categorisation
of feedstock and
waste (PAS 110)
Processing
Odour
Degression
FIT, RHI
Quality
Scepticism
of farmers Intensification
and agricultural
inputs
Quality
control
Trust between
contract partners
Storage
Past experiences
1st gen biofuels
Knowledge about
AD activities

8. Perceptions on land use PGC for AD
AD operator Farmer Public
Planning • Income
• Risk adverse
• Competition
• Location
• Direct impact on
everyday life
Production/
sourcing of
PGC
• Local sourcing
• Cost (price:gas ratio)
• Fit into existing system
• Benefits must be obvious
• Fit into existing system
• Dependent on market and price
• Less support for PGC
• Waste more acceptable
Role of PGC • Rotation
• Weed control
• Soil protection
• Nutrients and organic matter
Knowledge
about
feedstocks
• Different functions of different
crops and land use
• Critical towards PGC
from transport fuel
market experiences
Arguments
against food-
fuel
• Other none-food crops (fodder, industrial crops)
• Crops for malting industry
• Food waste much bigger “land user”
• Food-fuel is never argument No 1
• If it fits into production
system
Argument for
food-fuel
• Demand increase for PGC might shift land use
• Shortfall in feedstock
• Only local sourcing is economic and sustainable
• Sourcing from further away seen as problem
• Indirect impacts are not obvious and poorly understood
• Landscape
transformation
• Input intensity of PGC
• Difficult to see where
development goes

9. Conclusion
• A cow gives more than milk or meat
• Complexity of bioenergy (feedstocks and conversion/application)
• Lots of variability
• Scale of activity and penetration level
• Not oversimplifying by extrapolating single number (complexity,
scale, interfaces)
• Avoid policy recommendations based on tunnel vision
• But consider options in its own context
• Communication in various directions

10. Supported by
• Funded by Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Exchange
Hub, University of Manchester
• Supported by
– Sutton Grange Services Ltd
– Future Biogas
– GreenAcres Energy Ltd
– APS Salads
– Friends of the Earth

11. Contact details
Mirjam Röder
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of Manchester
 mirjam.roeder@manchester.ac.uk
 0161 275 4344
@Mirjam_Roeder