Questionnaire for Value chains - Prunings and Plantation Removal
Value chains : Prime mover and Main Characteristics
Stakeholder Type
Agrarian Cooperative
Public Institution
Final Consumer
Farmer Association
Agro Industry
Pellet Producer
Biomass Supplier

Electric power generation plant

Location of Prime Mover

Municipality :

Latitude :

Longitude :

Type of Residue used in value chain
Plantation Removal

Crop Species used in Value Chain




Total Plantation Area involved in the Value Chain (ha)
Fruit trees

Start Date of the APPR value chain (Month-Year)
Key success Factors in Value Chain
Keys of successSelect the key success factors of your value chain in scale 0-3. Then indicate the 3 most crucial factors.

Check as many as apply
Factor Group Description Check the influence in success:(0)-Not relevant;(1)-May have influenced;(2)-Important for success;(3)It was crucial;(?)-Unknown Check the 3 most crucial factors in WHOLE table
0 1 2 3 ?
There was an important effort in determing the feasibility and planning prior starting the business
The implementation of the chain considered the target consumers and their quality requirements
The implementation of the chain considered the target consumers and their quality requirements
Product Quality
The quality of the biomass product is object of an assurance process
Permanent crop plantations are quite extended. The use of the agrarian residues for biomass was regarded by community as quite beneficial
There was an intense information campaign to promote social acceptance
There was already a mature market of biomass
There was a shortage of usual biomass resources
There was a high increase of biomass demand (e.g. new power plants opened, increase og household biomass heating)
The price of biomass locally rose, and made biomass residues of economic interest
Local Capacities
There was already service companies/persons with capacities to start new biomass chains on prunings/plantation removal
There was a campaign of information for biomass procurement
Pruning and/or agricultural residues were quite an issue in the course
Pruning Management
The management of the pruning/plantation removal is recognised to be expensive. Farmers found pruning for energy a good idea
There were already experiences in mobilisation/treatment of prunings/plantation removal (pilot experience etc.)
The high density of permanent crops plantations in the area
There is strict regulation making compulsory treatment/management of the residues
Lobbying of stakeholder groups caused policy makers to promote changes in regulation
The subject of argarian residues for energy was subject of new supporting measures
Enviromental regulations placed funds for subsidising partly pruning/plantation removal collection
The biomass consumption sector leading to pruning/plantation removal utilisation was subject of recent support for expansion
Availability of financial support (loan guarantees, green banks, etc.)
There was a combined initiative supported for LIFE (or equicalent) programs (for GHG reduction, for improving competitiveness, etc.)
There were published plans and/or roadmaps for biomass utilisation (including pruning/plantation removal utilisation)
There were clear objectives in mind of policy makers for utilisation of pruning or argarian residues
Existence of public initiative as pioneer in pruning/plantation removal utilisation leading to investment in public infrastructure (e.g. private/public consortium to use pruning for heating in public schools)
There were special taxation for the pruning/biomass (or agricultural residue) utilisation
There was a public media campaign to boost utilisation of prunings/biomass (e.g. in common by various city councils, or various countries)
The use of pruning/plantation removal was integrated with other enviromental/public strategies (e.g. landscaping conservation of vineyar scenery)
There was a ban to burn agricultural residues by open fires
Logistics Chain
There were pre-existent collaborations established between farmers sector and biomass cosumers/traders
The introduction of new technologies (machine, handling systems, logistic chain) supported the implementation of new chains
Private investment for entepreneurs was incentivised

Short summary of the initiative (<100 words)
Since 2016, ENCE has made a turn‐around in its supply strategy, betting on more local biomass,of agricultural or agroindustrial origin, and which had hardly any use at present and represented a management problem for most farmers. ENCE has made a commitment to the re‐orientation of its supply, dedicating an important effort.This radical shift has been facilitated by the high availability of agricultural biomass in the area, as well as the work of alignment of actors in the agricultural sector to release different types of agricultural residues.

Actors and Roles in Value Chain

Fuel Specifications
Final form of Biomass prior to Exploitation
Bales of branches
Wood chips
Hog fuel-shredded

Max Content of Moisture (% a.r.)
Value Chain Details and Prices of fuels
Industrial heating
Public-private buildings
Distributed heat networks
Biomass to Market

Electric power generation plant 50 MWe

Distance between biomass production and its final use (km)
Up to 100 km (average is around 30-60 km)

Storage options

On-farm storage

Intermediate storage prior transporting to end user

Direct delivery and storage at final user

No storage

Ownership of the APPR harvesting machinery
Farmer's community
3rd party-private

Agro service company

Contact Data
Company/Organisation :
Complejo Energético Ence Huelva 2

Website (of the company or the APPR initiative) :

Country :


References-External links:Provide references on which the information is based on or highlight any comments

The following are the main keys that have allowed the initiative to be implemented and be
- The change in the biomass support framework made that ENCE redirected its supply
strategy (initially oriented towards the implementation of forest energy crops), looking for
available resources in the short term.
- Quick reorientation of ENCE to include all types of agro‐biomass that until now were largely
- Solvency and trajectory of ENCE as a biomass consumer, which generate confidence in the
intermediate companies when facing new activities and investments (consumption of agrobiomass
ensured to suppliers).
- High experience of ENCE in forest biomass logistics. The new agro‐biomass logistics is
simpler than forestry, although it needs more speed to be removed from the field so that
farmers can continue with their agronomic operations.
- Very high potential of agro‐biomass in the area.
- Existence of companies with knowledge and devices to mobilize agro‐biomass in the area
(companies engaged in forestry work or previously dedicated to coal).
- ENCE's extensive knowledge of the biomass sector, as well as contacts with key agents in
the area for its mobilization.
- Farmers are aware that they cannot continue to burn their residues. They prefer to use
them for energy, as long as it does not cost them money.
External link: 

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691748