208 Mariana Silaen et al.
aspects such as feedstock, infrastructure, and electricity reliability. These risks
will later be introduced as implementation risks, also understood as barriers, and
consequential risks, also understood as negative outcomes (Figure 12.1). All
policy decisions and actions carry some potential risks that need to be considered in the context of multiple uncertainties.
Uncertainties in the development of biogas as a renewable
energy option
Four key uncertainties underlying the energy transition to biogas were identified: (i) the unclear role of public and private sectors; (ii) the changing focus
over each political term; (iii) the unspecified national biogas target; and
(iv) different views on biogas development. Otherwise understood as ‘epistemic
uncertainty’, the first three risks are a result of incomplete or insufficient knowledge of the system, while the fourth one is rather classified as an ‘ambiguity’
due to the existence of multiple knowledge frames.
First, the blurred lines between the roles of public and private sectors are
responsible for a situation where overlapping and even contrasting context
and goals of biogas development exist. This undermines the ability of all
actors involved to form innovative partnerships, intensify engagement, or
effectively collaborate on programmes. Second, the end of each political term
in Indonesia creates a significant uncertainty as there is an absence of knowledge whether the new government will continue or abandon previous/existing
programmes. Both of these uncertainties are compounded by a third uncertainty: the lack of biogas development targets. This lack of leadership from
the government affects commitments to biogas development by the civil
service and the private sectors. If the national biogas target was set, it would
motivate ministries and other actors to better co- ordinate biogas programmes
to pursue a common objective (Devisscher et al., 2017). Fourth, we found
three different perspectives or ‘worldviews’ on the development and value of
biogas. They include a technological- based paradigm in addressing barriers, a
scale- based paradigm that put forward the agricultural benefits, and independence prioritisation through biogas. The lack of consensus and differences in
viewpoints, framings, and perspectives may be implicit or tacit, thus adding
additional layers of uncertainty. This uncertainty is present in the different
objectives of biogas programmes in Bali, for example the BIRU programme
that undertook market- based approach that emphasised technological services
and the SIMANTRI programme that put forward the sustainable agriculture
and economic profit approach.
Out of the four sources of uncertainty, three stem from the influence of government. The fourth source of uncertainty is a consequence of institutional
complexity and the diversity of actors and their experiences and priorities.
Investigating this complexity can nonetheless reveal important patterns, such as
distinctive views on biogas development and the ways in which different constellations of actors line up behind these perspectives.
aspects such as feedstock, infrastructure, and electricity reliability. These risks
will later be introduced as implementation risks, also understood as barriers, and
consequential risks, also understood as negative outcomes (Figure 12.1). All
policy decisions and actions carry some potential risks that need to be considered in the context of multiple uncertainties.
Uncertainties in the development of biogas as a renewable
energy option
Four key uncertainties underlying the energy transition to biogas were identified: (i) the unclear role of public and private sectors; (ii) the changing focus
over each political term; (iii) the unspecified national biogas target; and
(iv) different views on biogas development. Otherwise understood as ‘epistemic
uncertainty’, the first three risks are a result of incomplete or insufficient knowledge of the system, while the fourth one is rather classified as an ‘ambiguity’
due to the existence of multiple knowledge frames.
First, the blurred lines between the roles of public and private sectors are
responsible for a situation where overlapping and even contrasting context
and goals of biogas development exist. This undermines the ability of all
actors involved to form innovative partnerships, intensify engagement, or
effectively collaborate on programmes. Second, the end of each political term
in Indonesia creates a significant uncertainty as there is an absence of knowledge whether the new government will continue or abandon previous/existing
programmes. Both of these uncertainties are compounded by a third uncertainty: the lack of biogas development targets. This lack of leadership from
the government affects commitments to biogas development by the civil
service and the private sectors. If the national biogas target was set, it would
motivate ministries and other actors to better co- ordinate biogas programmes
to pursue a common objective (Devisscher et al., 2017). Fourth, we found
three different perspectives or ‘worldviews’ on the development and value of
biogas. They include a technological- based paradigm in addressing barriers, a
scale- based paradigm that put forward the agricultural benefits, and independence prioritisation through biogas. The lack of consensus and differences in
viewpoints, framings, and perspectives may be implicit or tacit, thus adding
additional layers of uncertainty. This uncertainty is present in the different
objectives of biogas programmes in Bali, for example the BIRU programme
that undertook market- based approach that emphasised technological services
and the SIMANTRI programme that put forward the sustainable agriculture
and economic profit approach.
Out of the four sources of uncertainty, three stem from the influence of government. The fourth source of uncertainty is a consequence of institutional
complexity and the diversity of actors and their experiences and priorities.
Investigating this complexity can nonetheless reveal important patterns, such as
distinctive views on biogas development and the ways in which different constellations of actors line up behind these perspectives.