چشم انداز آینده ی استفاده از انرژی زیستی مبتنی بر کشاورزی جایگزین در فنلاند __ ساخت سناریوها با داده های کمی و کیفی دلفی

In this paper, the potential of bioenergy production in agriculture (preferred and probable futures) is scrutinised using the Delphi method. We present a case of northern possibilities to utilise renewable energy sources within agriculture in a form of alternative bioenergy scenarios. Altogether 20 experts participated in the Delphi process which outlines the future of bioenergy production in Finland. The first round of the Delphi study was carried out by semi-structured interviews and the second feedback round by means of a mail questionnaire. Background information of key variables was presented to the panellists who responded with their views on developments between 2004 and 2025. Alternative scenarios were then constructed from these dimensions with cluster analysis in line with the Disaggregative Policy Delphi (DPD) approach. Quantitative statements were complemented with the experts' argumentation. Five scenarios were constructed: 1) Renewable prosperity, 2) Incremental change, 3) Vision of sun, wind and wood, 4) Let's burn it all, and 5) Flood of waterpower. After the Delphi rounds, a dialogue seminar for the agri-technology experts and policy-makers was organised. These results bring to the table an agri-food technology expert community view of the future directions for Finnish agro-bioenergy use.

The interest in bioenergy and other forms of renewable energy has risen in tandem as the price of fossil fuels has increased and climate protection has been raised on the policy agenda. As a result, the member states of the European Union (EU) have agreed together on new policy goals for bioenergy production. New goals which try to increase the share of renewable energy have also been stated nationally in the EU [1] and [2]. The decisions which are stated in these strategies mean extensive increase in different sources of biomass utilisation. Agro-based bioenergy production also increases competition both in energy and food markets. This question has risen because at the same time with the bioenergy boom, agricultural commodity prices rose sharply in 2006 and 2007. One of the reasons behind higher prices is the use of food as a raw material for producing biofuels. The emerging biofuels market is a new and significant source of demand for some agricultural commodities. These are especially sugar, maize, cassava, oilseeds and palm oil in the bioethanol and biodiesel production [3]. For farmers, producing raw material can be seen as a new opportunity to compete with their crops in markets. In addition, agro-policies need to face up to the question as to how much agricultural production of energy crops can increase their cultivated field area without endangering food production. Food production accounts for 15% of total energy consumption in Europe. Of this 15%, only 5% is consumed by agriculture including mineral fertiliser production [4]. Bioenergy, in its different forms, relates mostly to forests in relation to available national resources in Finland since the country is located in the Boreal vegetation zone. However, as the price of oil increases, biomass production from agriculture has also become a relevant and widely discussed policy issue in national policy [1] and [5]. Due to the economic structure emphasised by the pulp and paper industry, as well as by the steel and electronic industries, energy consumption in Finnish agriculture accounts for only a few percent points of the total national economy energy consumption. Within Finnish agriculture, the main energy sources are fuel oil (73%), energy wood (12%), electricity (10%), natural gas (2%), gasoline (1.5%), peat (1%), and district heating (0.5%) [6] and [7]. From these sources, a minor but increasing share is the farms' own production. Agriculture has at least two roles in the development of bioenergy solutions (Fig. 1). It can be a self-sufficient utiliser of its own energy production or a supplier of biomass to the refining industry. The role of agricultural biomass in energy usage involves producing, in the main, biomass feedstock which means crops, grasses, trees, and crop and livestock wastes [8]. These are then converted through a range of processes, for example, fermentation, gasification and combustion to produce fuels, power and fibre-based energy products. Many OECD member countries have recently established policy goals and targets to develop bioenergy production from agriculture. There are several reasons explaining the growing interest by governments. The main reasons are climate change (avoiding fossil fuels), energy security, environmental effectiveness, rural development, economic efficiency, and market innovation (solutions to energy technologies) [5]. Technological change has been traditionally one of the most studied futures research targets as it represents the possibilities of human capacity to develop new and innovative technology. There are at least three possible future approaches on which to take a stand—passive, reactive, or proactive [9]. Over recent years, the agricultural policy planning and formation process has included features which are drawing planning processes closer to a more proactive futures studies methodology, e.g. consensus conferences in Finland [10]. Through these novel and proactive planning practices which also welcome stakeholders from the broader field of society, the depth of strategic discussions increases and the outcomes afford more alternatives and arguments to form the basis of decision making. The potential of and future scenarios for bioenergy development have been studied widely recently [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. These studies give several reasons to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. Bioenergy has the potential to become a fundamental player in a sustainable energy system [12]. Furthermore, it contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In rural areas, it can generate new job opportunities and improve income distribution. Also, the reliance on imported energy generally decreases as well as in the food production sector. However, as the expectations of the bioenergy potential varies in public debate, there is a need to clarify the differing future views on the bioenergy production of agricultural stakeholders and interest groups for the purposes of long-term planning. One technique which can facilitate this approach is the Delphi method. Delphi, as one of the main methods in futures studies, is especially suitable as a method for generating future information for long-range planning in topics where changes in current trends are expected. There is a variety of views on these changes, where strong interest ladenness can be observed and more mathematical methods lack adequate data [17], [18], [19] and [20]. In our research project as a whole, the focus was on three main agricultural themes according to their policy relevancy: the future of alternative bioenergy sources, the agricultural production technology, and biotechnology and transgenic crop production in Finnish agriculture. These themes interact with each other, but the analysis in this paper is based on the bioenergy section in the Delphi process. We produce alternative bioenergy scenarios according to the chosen Delphi panellists. We concentrate also on the arguments of experts concerning the future of renewable energy production in Finland between 2004 and 2025. One of the goals in this study is also to present alternative scenarios as tools for strategic interactions between researchers, decision makers and other stakeholders in matters of planning. These kinds of approaches for Finnish agriculture have seldom been studied as only a few publications have been able to be sourced and acknowledged [10], [21], [22] and [23]. To be more precise, our research goals were to: 1. Identify and rank the potential of alternative bioenergy sources in the agricultural sector (self-sufficiency in farms and supplier of biomass to energy refiners); 2. Construct alternative bioenergy scenarios according to the Delphi panel views; 3. Give an overview of a policy dialogue process in which these results were discussed with decision makers, other researchers and stakeholders. One element of this study was a policy dialogue phase which was organised after the second Delphi round. The policy dialogue was a carefully constructed meeting which addressed both politically controversial and technically complex aspects [24] and [25]. Policy dialogues seek to exchange information and build consensus recommendations between the public, private and civic sectors. Typically, policy dialogues are useful in complex regulatory, policy and community situations in which multiple stakeholders, contending values and challenging procedural dynamics are involved. In this study, the dialogue was organised for relevant stakeholders in the agri-technology chain. The Delphi panellists were also invited to participate. Altogether 30 experts were gathered together to discuss the study findings and to bring their own argued future views into the discussion.

In this paper, we have presented alternative scenarios of bioenergy utilisation within the agricultural sector. The scenarios were constructed based on Delphi data about the views of desirable and probable future development paths. It is notable that the presented future paths are not forecasts, but alternative future developments depending on many societal premises and decisions. The results tell us how the chosen expert community sees the different paths in the futures map of bioenergy production in the national context in a northern country such as Finland. The prerequisites of each scenario in terms of decision-making are gathered to Table 3. This structure is not directly seen in the arguments but is driven from the total material by the authors. As mentioned at the beginning, the Delphi study was continued by a policy dialogue which was organised so as to cover three main issues in the agri-technology field: 1) the main driving forces, trends and changes in agri-technology operational environment, 2) the most important decisions to be taken in order to achieve the desirable and feasible future (vision), and 3) the identification of the future research needs for policy support and decision making. The reason to establish this kind of a forum was to bridge the gap between policy planners, decision-makers, researchers and NGOs, and to find ways to strengthen dynamic co-operation between policy and research. The results of the study were introduced in a form of background notes which were then used as input information for the discussions. The background notes focused on the three studied themes and their results i.e. agri-production technology, bioenergy utilisation within agriculture, and bio- and gene technology. The dialogue seminar was organised as a one-day event in the autumn of 2006. The seminar gathered altogether 30 individually invited participants from several agri-technology stakeholders comprising of members of the Finnish Parliament, agri-technology companies, financiers, administrators representing policy designers, research representatives, farmers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Delphi panellists were also invited. The seminar acted as a consensus conference concerning the thematic issues which were presented as results from the Delphi study. The added-value gained from this kind of conference is evident: results outlined beforehand about the research projected acted as an inspirer as the participants added their future views to the table. Presented research notes should therefore be as compact as possible to really attract the attention of participants beforehand. As mentioned earlier, three questions were asked during the discussions in the seminar. The participants concluded first and foremost that the main driving forces, trends and changes were seen to be climate change, growing demand on food and energy in Asia (India, China), insufficiency of natural resources, oil price, global decisions (states using their comparative advantage) on bioenergy production (demand and supply). Nationally, the seminar participants concluded that the question as to whether Finland should concentrate on high-tech and innovation or just increase volume in bioenergy production is crucial. The subsidy policy to promote bioenergy forms was also seen as important. Secondly, the most important decisions consisted of the removal of excise tax (decrease taxes in general on bioenergy), encouraging a subsidy policy for bioenergy production, lowering the barriers of bureaucracy, and foreseeing the critical (environmental) points in building a bioenergy society. Thirdly, the seminar identified future research needs. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methods were seen important in assessing and comparing different bioenergy forms with each other. Also, basic data (environmental, economic) were called for so as to permit comparison calculations. The participants emphasised the knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE) approach. Furthermore, knowledge was called for so as to evaluate environmental impacts of the use of alternative bioenergy forms and, also, a system level analysis of benefits and disadvantages of the whole bioenergy field was suggested. It seems that the location, logistical questions, scale, and sustainability in agricultural energy production are also decisive in Finland. The real advantage comes from the fact that the raw material should be produced near the refining industry and, furthermore, the industry should already be near the end consumer. Local bioenergy can be profitable for the farms, especially when small-scale energy technology develops. It was also argued that in order to be a really profitable business, the scale of agroenergy should be at power plant level. This means that there should also be an available field area to produce the needed raw material for that energy production. The small-sized structure of farms in Finland means that contracts should be signed extensively with a large number of farmers. Subsidies (investment and production) were proposed to guarantee the minimum level of price, for example, of produced electricity. This kind of support system should be long-term and therefore commit both farmers and society to bioenergy production. An important and fundamental question is also the sustainability of bioenergy sources. Sustainability varies between the forms of renewable energy (energy balance). Some general conclusions can be drawn from the results. Transgenic crop varieties were seen as an opportunity to develop energy crop varieties and this was also seen to be acceptable. However, transgenic crops were not considered feasible in food production. In addition, the Delphi panel anticipated that the increase in bioenergy production in farms would result in job opportunities in rural areas, and the dependence on imported energy in Finland would decrease. The panel also ranked the desirability of different bioenergy forms. The use of wood (and wood chips) was still seen as primary energy source in farms. The greatest potential source according to the panel was biogas, but the panel stated that there has not been much political support for small-scale and local energy production systems. Also, the need for developing energy sources such as biomass for bio-fuel production was seen for both heating and traffic fuel purposes. The panel called for practical demonstrations and cases to point out and ensure the profitability and usability of such new possibilities. Overall, the increase in renewable energy sources was seen as being strongly desirable. This would decrease the climatic effect of fossil fuel burning. From a strategic planning point of view, the results as future strategic options have to be placed before stakeholders and interest groups, and so therefore test the significance of the results and, furthermore, the methods [23]. The methods used must produce policy relevant information as a base for decision-making in order to be profitable. In our opinion, it is useful to organise a policy dialogue process which can be used as a forum to primarily test the results of the Delphi processes and their relevance to contributing to the strategic planning of the agri-food sector. At the same time, we can test the methods for generating the information- and knowledge-base in such a way that it can add value to policy discussions. The latter is an important scientific goal and a core challenge for futures studies overall.