UK bioenergy innovation priorities: Making expectations credible in state-industry arenas

AbstractThe UK government has promoted bioenergy for several policy aims. Future expectations for bioenergy innovation encompass various pathways and their potential benefits. Some pathways have been relatively favoured by specific state-industry arrangements, which serve as ‘arenas of expectations’. Through these arrangements, some expectations have been made more credible, thus justifying and directing resource allocation. Conversely, to incentivise private-sector investment, government has sought credibility for its commitment to bioenergy innovation. These dual efforts illustrate the reciprocal character of promise-requirement cycles, whereby promises are turned into requirements for state sponsors as well as for innovators.Collective expectations have been shaped by close exchanges between state bodies, industry and experts. As promoters build collective expectations, their credibility has been linked with UK economic and environmental aims. When encountering technical difficulties or delays in earlier expectations, pathways and their benefits have been broadened, especially through new arenas—as grounds to allocate considerable state investment. Thus the concept ‘arenas of expectations’ helps to explain how some pathways gain favour as innovation priorities

Developing publicly acceptable tree health policy: public perceptions of tree-breeding solutions to ash dieback among interested publics in the UK

The UK needs to develop effective policy responses to the spread of tree pathogens and pests. This has been given the political urgency following the media and other commentary associated with the arrival of a disease that causes ‘dieback’ of European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) - a tree species with deep cultural associations. In 2014 the UK government published a plant biosecurity strategy and linked to this invested in research to inform policy. This paper reports the findings of a survey of informed UK publics on the acceptability of various potential strategies to deal with ash dieback, including “no action”. During the summer of 2015, we conducted a face-to-face survey of 1152 respondents attending three major countryside events that attract distinct publics interested in the countryside: landowners and land managers; naturalists and gardeners. We found that UK publics who are likely to engage discursively and politically (through letter writing, petitions etc.) with the issue of ash dieback a) care about the issue, b) want an active response, c) do not really distinguish between ash trees in forestry or ecological settings, and d) prefer traditional breeding solutions. Further that e) younger people and gardeners are open to GM breeding techniques, but f) the more policy-empowered naturalists are more likely to be anti-GM. We suggest that these findings provide three ‘steers’ for science and policy: 1) policy needs to include an active intervention component involving the breeding of disease-tolerant trees, 2) that the development of disease tolerance using GM-technologies could be part of a tree-breeding policy, and 3) there is a need for an active dialogue with publics to manage expectations on the extent to which science and policy can control tree disease or, put another way, to build acceptability for the prospect that tree diseases may have to run their course