Page 5

Bioenergy no 3 May 2015

pared to the n context of mes central. what he does a-based owners With no e of Lae commer t a ass f the mans (NGOs), r energy by te. Ten NGO imate and enhe cascading ng. il fuel counter- companies and ” by exterorms. It d downer hat and Bioenergy International No 79, 3-2015 5 INTERNATI NAL BIOENERGY INTERNATIONAL Holländargatan 17 SE-111 60 Stockholm, Sweden Tel: +46 8 441 70 80 E-mail: info@bioenergyinternational.com Twitter:BioenergyIntl www.bioenergyinternational.com PUBLISHER Kjell Andersson kjell.andersson@svebio.se EDITOR IN CHIEF Alan Sherrard alan.sherrard@bionergyinternational.com SALES, MARKETING & CO-EDITORS Dorota Natucka dorota.natucka@bioenergyinternational.com Jeanette Fogelmark jeanette.fogelmark@bioenergyinternational.com Xinyi Shen xinyi.shen@bioenergyinternational.com SUBSCRIPTION 7 issues 125 EUR. Order: info@bioenergyinternational.com PRINTING Exaktaprinting, Malmö, Sweden OWNER SBSAB/Svebio Holländargatan 17 SE-111 60 Stockholm, Sweden ABOUT BIOENERGY INTERNATIONAL Bioenergy International is produced in cooperation with the European Biomass Association, AEBIOM and published 7 times a year. COVER PHOTO A striking feature of Bacardi’s awardwinning Laverstoke Mill refurbishment in the UK is its two botanical greenhouses. Both are heated using residual heat from the distillery process in turn supplied by a biomass boiler. The fuel is a blend of woodchips and spent botanicals (photo Alan Sherrard). No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored in any form without the prior written consent of the publisher. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to check accuracy, all articles and information are published in good faith. Readers are advised to verify statements and facts direct with official sources before acting on them as the publisher cannot, under any circumstances, accept any responsibility. Opinions expressed should not be construed as being those of the publisher. SI units and ISO 4217 currency codes are used as a matter of preference. CAPPED AND CASCADED OR BRANDED AND EXILED At long last it seems that two of the world’s largest transportation biofuel, policy-driven markets – the US and the EU – have each reached a turning point; they look likely to provide some degree of short-term regulatory certainty for those in the biofuels value chain. In the US, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has, under duress it should be noted, announced a timeline for issuing Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for 2014 and 2015. The annual RFS sets the volumes of ethanol and biodiesel that must be blended into the US transportation fuel supply, and not before time. In the EU the European Parliament (EP) voted to endorse a compromise with the European Council (EC) on indirect land use change (ILUC), amending the current biofuels legislation, which is expected to be ratified by the EC next month. So, after three years or more of legislative debate and controversy, there is now closure on the ”ILUC file”, which has proved itself to be a Pandora’s box of agendas under the guise of facts and science. In this welcome moment of regulatory respite it is worth considering how biofuels, which have literally grown up to become as much as 10 percent of the fuel pool, end up being perceived as 100 percent controversial. There is a lot to be learned by reflecting over the process and chain of events. On a company level it’s about branding. Communicating and connecting with stakeholders to gain market access and position, or storytelling, to use a buzzword. The same is true on an industry sector level: generic branding of a product, solution or service on behalf of a collective that is competing with other generic products, solutions or services offered by other sectors. Indeed this is a vitally important and integral remit of trade associations. Obviously there are differences between business-to-business, business-to-consumer, and business-topolitician marketing or lobbying. Yet from a branding perspective it really doesn’t differ that much. A brand is charged with all the attributes and values that the stakeholder target can understand, perceive as relevant or worthwhile enough to engage, and endorse or identify themselves with. It is worth emphasising the importance of relevance. Not so long ago Rob Vierhout, former general secretary of ePURE, highlighted this when he suggested that the ethanol industry should think seriously about rebranding itself as ”protein producers that operate a biorefinery with a co-product called ethanol.” The Laverstoke Mill feature story is, to my mind, a textbook example of storytelling at its best. On its own the biomass boiler component may seem almost trivial compared Södra Värö pulp mill feature. Woodchips and botanicals: so what? Yet seen in the refurbishment project to create a brand home for its gin product it becomes Why? Master distiller Nik Fordham’s charmingly contagious passion about and why he does it comes across as almost a personification of what Bermuda-Bacardi claims, in corporate and brand communication, it wants to achieve. doubt in my mind, my perception is that Bacardi’s word and deed, in the case Laverstoke Mill, match entirely. A different repurposing story that is front page news in its own right is the commissioning of Zilkha’s first commercial-scale ”black pellets” plant at the former Dixie Pellets site in Selma, Alabama. Rich Donnell, Wood Bioenergy, who originally covered Dixie Pellets back when it opened and then closed, kindly agreed to allow us run his story. On a generic level there lies an interesting strategic branding choice ahead for advanced pellet producers and the industry: to compete with or complement the conventional pellet industry. Meanwhile the conventional industrial pellet industry has also been dealt portion of regulatory reprieve as the Dutch sustainability criterions for biomass co-firing have been agreed. As the stakeholders in the agreement consisted of major utilities operating in the Netherlands and non-governmental organisations the agreement, by implication, means an acceptance of the use of biomass for NGOs? Hardly, round two has begun in earnest with the EP “ILUC file” vote.groups have published “some strong recommendations” for EU post 2020 climate energy policy, like a cap on all biomass for energy use and implementation of the principle in addition to sustainability criteria and “correct” carbon accounting. If nothing else, we should have learnt by now that in contrast to their fossil counterparts, biomass fuels are anything but “low-engagement” products. Products,entire industry sectors can and do get moved from low to ”high engagement”external forces, sometimes very quickly and often under negative sensationalist forms.is of little consolation if such alarms later prove to be inconclusive at best and downright untruths at worst, the reputation damage is done. Put on your consumer consider your “engagement” level with brands, dare I suggest, while sipping a “Laverstoke”; the clothes you wear, your home heating appliance: they may provide clues to how your business story ought to be told to avoid being “capped and cascaded” or worse still, “branded and exiled” from the marketplace. Alan Sherrard


Bioenergy no 3 May 2015
To see the actual publication please follow the link above