Social Assessment of Biofuels

C H A P T E R

5 Social Assessment of Biofuels Edgard Gnansounou, Catarina M. Alves Bioenergy and Energy Planning Research Group, Institute of Civil Engineering, School of Architecture, Environmental and Civil Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.1.1 The Social Dimension of Sustainability Elkington and Rowlands [1] introduced for the first time the Triple bottom line sustainability approach. The approach relies on the consideration of three sustainability dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. For several decades, the majority of the viability assessment studies for new biofuel supply chains has taken into account the economic and environmental dimensions, but has neglected the social aspects. One example is the study from P
erez-Lo´pez et al. [2]. In the cases where social aspects were considered, the analyses were often superficial and performed in a nonmethodical way. Answering to such weakness, in the last decade, several governmental initiatives and guidelines have been created to promote the evaluation of the social sustainability dimension. Some instruments have been relevant for social assessment at the global level such as international policy frameworks, codes of conduct and principles, sustainability reporting frameworks, social responsibility implementation guidelines, auditing and monitoring frameworks and financial indices [3]. In recent years, public and private research institutions have been developing new methodologies for social assessment toward more structured and systematic approaches. One example is the social life cycle assessment of products that was developed to perform the assessment of the social and societal aspects of products from the perspective of the supply chain.

5.1.2 Importance of Social Impact Assessment of Biofuel Supply Chains The IOCPG [4] defined Social impact as “the consequences to human population of any public or private action that alters the way in which people live, work, play, and relate to one-another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society”. Any action or change which may interfere with the way communities live should be analyzed in order to Biofuels: Alternative Feedstocks and Conversion Processes for the Production of Liquid and Gaseous biofuels https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816856-1.00005-1

123

# 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

124

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

understand, first, the positive and/or negative impacts of such change and second, the extent of the impacts [5]. There are five social impact categories: lifestyle impact—affecting the way people behave and relate; cultural impact—affecting the customs, values, beliefs, and other elements which make a social group distinct; community impact—affecting infrastructure, services, and activity networks; quality of life impact—affecting security, sense of place, aesthetics, heritage, aspirations, and perception of belonging; and finally, health impact—affecting mental, physical, and social well-being [6]. The analysis of the social impacts is becoming more important in feasibility studies and starts being introduced in the context of sustainability assessment. Governments and policymakers strongly encourage the incorporation of social impact assessment along implementation of new projects, given the increased awareness of the current societal challenges and the importance of social assessment in the creation of new policies. The biofuels sector is nowadays the focus of a number of social controversies. The food vs fuel debate is one of the main subjects while analyzing the social sustainability dimension of biofuels. The use of large areas of land for biofuel crop production can directly be harmful for instance, by replacing edible crop production, or indirectly through the use of resources (such as water) and the occupation of rural land that could be necessary in the coming future for food production due to the increase of the global demand for food. When not well managed, biofuel crops can affect food availability, affordability and accessibility, and ultimately, have a negative impact in food security. Another big controversy is related to the type of land users and the protection of the smallholder rights. Repeatedly, large capital corporates “invade” the rural areas and implement their own conditions to the small farmers and producers, disrespecting their rights and compromising their socioeconomic situation. Part of the solution to these controversial actions is to set up new policies to monitor land use and local community rights. Social assessment can provide insights on the social and cultural circumstances, allowing corporates to have a dialogue and reach to win-win negotiations with the local communities, and policymakers to use the law and promote the well-being of the communities and socioeconomic growth. Moreover, social assessment of biofuels can help to reach a deeper understanding on tradeoffs. Sometimes, one action may have a positive impact within one dimension (economic, social, or environmental) and turns out having a simultaneous negative impact in the same or within another dimension. One example is the increase of the mechanization levels in the context of optimized biofuel production chains, which leads to, on one hand, reduced employment creation and on the other hand, increased training and education levels, improved working conditions, and reduced occupation injuries. Incorporating social assessment allows to evaluate such tradeoffs and to support the decision-making process. Such evaluation however, should consider an open-loop system since employment state and dynamics are the resultant of the whole economy. Finally, social impact of biofuel supply chains is assessed by using comparative analysis against the conventional fossil-based fuels. As an observation, applying social criteria only on biofuels may be unfairly benefiting fossil fuels [7]. The same kind of assessment should be carried out for fossil fuel supply chains.

5.1.3 Scope of the Chapter The goal of the current chapter is to review the state-of-the-art social assessment in the field of biofuels. The scope of the work covers a review of the methodologies and tools most used by researchers in the field, answering the research questions “how are the social II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.2 METHODS AND TOOLS

125

issues of biofuels currently assessed?” and “what are the major limitations and challenges for each methodology or tool?.” A brief description of the methods is presented in Section 5.2, as well as information related to the type of data used and data gathering system. Moreover, in Section 5.3, the authors have collected the peer-reviewed literature available on the topic of social assessment of biofuels published in the last 10 years. For each study constituting the review, one has spotted key information such as main product and coproducts, feedstock, geographical context, concerned stakeholders, and method applied. Additionally, the authors aimed to reply to the query “what, how, and from where social data have been collected?” Finally, a brief description of the outcomes of the assessments was presented highlighting the main social benefits and costs associated with different biofuel chains.

5.2 METHODS AND TOOLS 5.2.1 Social Life Cycle Assessment The social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) is a comprehensive methodology which aims to assess the positive and negative social impacts of a product or service in a life cycle perspective [3, 8, 9]. Similar to the environmental LCA (E-LCA) method, the S-LCA relies on the ISO 14044 framework, following the stages: (1) goal and scope definition—including functional unit and system boundaries definition; (2) life cycle inventory analysis; (3) life cycle impact assessment; and (4) interpretation [8]. When compared with E-LCA, the level of development, application, and harmonization of S-LCA is still in a preliminary stage [10]. Furthermore, one must say that S-LCA should have a different framework due to the complex and multidisciplinary features of the social behaviors and dynamics; S-LCA should not be a duplicate of E-LCA, even though the focus on supply chain should be kept [10]. The S-LCA presents sometimes extended and/or distinct requirements when compared to the conventional E-LCA. The social/socioeconomic subcategories are the basis of S-LCA, which are assessed by context-dependent inventory indicators. The subcategories can be classified based on stakeholder categories (e.g., workers, local community, consumers, etc.) and/or based on impact categories (e.g., human rights, working conditions, health and safety, etc.) as per Benoıˆt [8]. In E-LCA the stakeholders are often involved uniquely in the peer-review of the study, while in S-LCA they are usually more “active” and involved in providing input within the assessment itself. Moreover, in the S-LCA, the inventory covers the prioritization and characterization of the social impacts, social hotspots assessment, site-specific evaluation, and the iterative process of refining the system boundaries. The S-LCA subcategories and indicators are often assessed based on qualitative information rather than quantitative, given the nature of the social aspects under assessment. The allocation guidelines provided by the ISO standards for E-LCA faces the same challenges in the presence of multifunctionality. There are two main types of data for S-LCA: site-specific data and generic data. The sitespecific are collected for the particular process covered by the scope of the study in a specific geographic location and with the cooperation of the project stakeholders. The site-specific information is usually collected at the organization level by the S-LCA practitioner, by means of interviews, questionnaires, and/or available reports. In turn, generic data can be collected II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

126

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

from other manufacturing entities that produce the same product in the same country and timeframe. Often, generic data are suitable at the initial stages of the assessment in order to identify the main social hotspots in the life cycle of the target product. Once the hotspots are identified and classified, the S-LCA practitioner decides on the units that require further specific on-site investigation. Sometimes, only generic data are available in a situation where site-specific data would be desired, which brings extra challenges for the analysis due to geographical, temporal, and technological differences [8]. International databases are being developed in order to provide a tool to S-LCA executers and facilitate the data collection, especially at the S-LCA initial stages. The social hotspot database (SHDB) tool is one of the platforms used in the context of biofuels [7, 11], which is explained in Section 5.2.2. The S-LCA is still a novel technique in its infant stage which is still lacking of tools and data. Data availability and accessibility are still reduced [5, 8, 10, 12]. Knowing which people and groups are mostly affected by a social effect can be hard due to the vast number of actors that can be affected by a change [5]. Obtaining, tracking, and evaluating the consistency of site-specific data for an entire supply chain remains one of the biggest concerns in S-LCA [3, 5, 8, 11]. Besides the fact that gathering all the relevant data on site is a very lengthy job, many of the information collected are frequently biased. Another challenge in S-LCA is associated to the use of qualitative data to describe the social effects and its combination with the quantitative data, which requires an aggregation algorithm that might not always be straightforward. The integration of the information collected at different scales from general sector information to specific unit processes is also a current challenge [3]. Geographical and temporal sensitive data are often generalized with the absence of a proper reasoning due to the lack of time for further investigations. The exact definition of the S-LCA boundaries remains a challenge, as well as how to deal with the situation where the battery limits have been predefined and relevant causal chain social effects occur outside the boundaries [5, 8]. Furthermore, causal chain social effects of one change can simply be unknown for the S-LCA practitioner given its broadness or unpredictability and are not going to be taken into account even though they can be crucial. Moreover, the scientific community is trying to develop ways to include the assessment of positive impacts in S-LCA, which will bring the analysis a step closer to reality and broaden the focus of social assessment [10]. Concluding, at the moment S-LCA can provide a relative analysis, a ranking or an order of magnitude, but no exact evidence due to the unpredictable effects of the changes in a specific place and time, and its high complexity [5].

5.2.2 Social Hotspot Database The SHDB aims to fill the gap on the availability of transparent and reliable social data on the life cycle of a product or service. A product or service chain can include hundreds of unit processes and sectors and therefore, it is crucial to prioritize them in a unique way in order to economize resources and time [13]. Thus, SHDB’s objective is to offer a systematic and consistent method to identify the social hotspots in the target product supply chain to the decision-makers [14]. The SHDB tool is capable of compiling and interpreting publicly available data, generating site-specific data, and estimating the labor intensity according to the economic sector [13]. The SHDB has been recommended as a prioritization inventory tool

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.2 METHODS AND TOOLS

127

for S-LCA, but also as a tool for other diverse applications, not necessarily S-LCA. With the focus in the biofuels field, hybrid approaches for social assessment have been published which include SHDB analysis for screening potential social issues, such as in the study of Valente et al. [11]. Briefly, in such work, the authors identified the social hotspots with SHDB in a first stage and consequently, performed a bottom-up analysis in order to validate the data using information collected directly from the target stakeholders. The SHDB is composed of two main evaluation stages: Stage 1 Visualization of social impacts in the supply chains based on global data and Stage 2 Identification of the most important social issues in the supply chain based on a social hotspot index (SHI). Stage 1 is composed of two main elements: twenty social theme tables (STT) and worker hours model (WHM). The twenty STT contain country and sector-specific indicator data and the correspondent characterized social impact risks. The selection of the twenty themes relied on guidelines from International Policy Frameworks and New Earth’s esteemed advisory board. The social themes have been organized within the four following categories: Labor rights and decent work, Governance, Human Rights, and Community infrastructure. The number of indicators used to create individual or combined characterized risks per category may vary, as well as the number of sources used and the type of data (both qualitative and quantitative data are allowed). In turn, the WHM provides a labor intensity rank for the country specific sectors (CSS) within a supply chain. Labor intensity of a CSS corresponds to the ratio between the payment of wages (wage per dollar of product) and the wage rate (dollar of wage per hour). The CSS that are contributing the most to the life cycle in terms of worker hours are valued more and their risk level, as a hotspot, increases. Finally, Stage 2 uses the STT and the WHM data to identify high risk CSS and rank the social hotspots in the supply chain. To obtain the SHI for each CSS, the level of risk needs to be primarily defined—from 0 (low risk) to 3 (very high risk)—and subsequently, the final weighted sum across all social issues is calculated [13]. The social data that are used to build the STTs should be site-specific due to the huge societal, political, and cultural differences from project to project. Global data are collected from international statistical agencies and organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Bank, and the International Labor Organization. The SHDB includes indicator and risk social data and qualitative information for 191 countries and 57 economic sectors. Moreover, the data for the Working Hours Model are obtained from institutions such as the International Labor Organization’s Labors Database, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Statistics Extracts, and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Rural Income Generating Activities [13]. Finally, the SHI estimations use data from the STT and WHM. The SHDB presents limitations concerning the certainty level of the available data, reduced amount sectors compared to the global number of sectors one can think of, reduced presence of positive social impacts, and reduced involvement of stakeholders especially in the ranking stages [13]. Valente et al. [11] point out the lacking data in SHDB regarding the Norwegian and North American locations and leave a recommendation for more stakeholder participation. No data on specific plants, production sites or specific products are available but only data at the sector level [7]. Even though SHDB does not cover all subcategories of assessment nor every country, nor for every sector, the tool is still considered the best international database available for social metaanalysis [3].

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

128

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.2.3 Input-Output Analysis The input-output analysis (IOA) is a known tool in applied economics that was developed by the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Wassily Leontief [15]. The IOA method takes into account the interdependency between industries or economic sectors and simulates how the outputs from one industry or economic sector become inputs in another industry or sector. Therefore, the tool can be used for social assessment to evaluate the interindustry exchanges of social effects along the supply chain of a certain product or service. Often coupled with S-LCA, the IOA method provides a quantitative approach to measure the social effects “embodied” in a product or service [15, 16]. The interrelation between activities/sectors is represented in the form of a matrix, known as the input-output (IO) matrix. Activities/sectors are the same in the rows (i) and columns (j) of the IO matrix. In turn, each entry of one column j corresponds to the input consumed by the sector of column j supplied by the sector of row i. The entries of the matrix are frequently monetary values with respect to a specific timeframe. Therefore, the sum of all the entries of a row i represents the sum of the outputs of the sector, while the sum of the entries of a column j represents the sum of the inputs of the sector. As explained by Watanabe et al. [15], the Linear Open Leontief Model is able to compute the direct and indirect effects along the entire production chain through the use of matrix equations and the IO matrix. The required data for the IOA tool are the total amount of products or services to be produced, the supply chain information necessary to build the IO matrix, typically obtained from internal simulation output data, previously published studies, reports from industries and research institutes, official national databases, and project stakeholder surveys.

5.2.4 Others Another known approach is the Delphi method, which was developed in the 1950s by Dalkey and Helmer at the Rand Corporation in the United States [17]. The method consists of an experts’ participatory process that is used to disclosure value judgments of individuals assessing complex and uncertain issues. The method uses a feedback in the form of a questionnaire. Expert knowledge is used to establish a reflection, debate and expose tradeoffs, with the supposed objective of achieving consensus and convergence of opinions regarding a certain aspect [17, 18]. The Delphi method gathers data by using questionnaires/surveys that are delivered to the panel of stakeholders. After receiving the first round of answers and treating the data, the panel is encouraged to reassess their judgments and therefore, the method can have multiple iterations until reaching the consensus. The panel of stakeholders is chosen based on their background and activity concerning the target issue. The participants must be able to contribute with reliable inputs and willing to iteratively revise their evaluation toward the final consensus. The advantages of the method are the anonymity of each individual stakeholder, the high control of the feedback process, and the implementation of statistical analysis for data interpretation and management. In terms of downsides, the Delphi method can be time consuming, particularly if there are a large number of statements to be assessed in the questionnaires, which will consume more time from the panel. Moreover, the feedback rate is dependent on the panel’s willing to respond, and it is common that a certain portion of the subject discontinue the responses during the iterative process, leading to a

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

129

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS

decreasing assessment data quality. Another weakness of the method is related to the potential biased answers from the panel and potential molding of opinions due to the iterative exchange of information [17, 18]. Very often, social assessment of biofuel products consists of a reflection which relies on the qualitative or quantitative analysis of social aspects or indicators, based on published literature, observations, stakeholder interviews, and social community surveys, as performed by several authors [19–23].

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS In this section a number of peer-review articles on social assessment of biofuel production chains are analyzed, including assessments covering feedstocks for biofuel production, as summarized in Table 5.1.

5.3.1 Bioethanol Ekener-Petersen et al. [7] have investigated the social hotspots of vehicle fuel chains in the scope of EU, particularly northern Europe and Sweden, and highlighted the main risks associated to the vehicle fuels. The bioethanol typically consumed in EU and Sweden is produced from Brazilian sugarcane, French wheat, French maize, and US maize, which were the scenarios selected in the current study. The biofuel production chains have been simplified into three main steps: feedstock cultivation, processing, and transport. The SHDB has been used to first identify the social hotspots and main risks based on country and sector data. In this case, the authors aimed to provide a basis for policy making by identifying the main risks of negative social impacts, rather than stating which fuel is the best/worst. The SHDB sector data were based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) and the work of Taheripour et al. [27], which was used to identify the aggregated GTAP sectors that best characterize the biofuel processing. The sugarcane ethanol has been classified in the sector of “Chemicals, rubber, and plastic,” while the wheat/maize ethanol was considered to be in the “Food processing” sector and the rapeseed biodiesel in the “Vegetable and oilseeds” sector. All the other chain TABLE 5.1

Social Assessment of Biofuel Production Chains

Main Products (Feedstock(s))

Methodology

Social Aspects Highlighted

Region

Reference

Bioethanol 1G (Brazilian sugarcane; French wheat and maize; US maize) Biodiesel (Lithuanian rapeseed)

SHDB

Community; human rights; labor and labor laws; health and safety; governance

Northern EU and Sweden

[7]

Bioethanol 1G (cassava chips) Biogas (from the solids remaining from the distillation)

IOA

Employment generation; wage level; occupational health and safety

Thailand

[24]

Continued

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

130

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

TABLE 5.1 Social Assessment of Biofuel Production Chains—cont’d Main Products (Feedstock(s))

Methodology

Social Aspects Highlighted

Region

Reference

Bioethanol 1G, 1G optimized and 1G2G (sugarcane)

S-LCA and IOA

Relative frequency of workers; occupational accidents; wage profiles; percentage of female workers; education profile

Brazil

[16]

Bioethanol 2G (sugarcane bagasse, straws; wheat straw; short rotation coppices; perennial grasses; urban wastes)

Delphi survey with expert panel

Inclusion of small-scale farmers; food and water security; biodiversity; exclusion of low-skilled workers; exclusion of small-scale producers

Brazil, UK, Poland, Hungary, Germany, US, Canada

[18]

Bioethanol 2G (softwood)

SHDB and S-LCA

Health and safety; occupational toxic and hazards; labor rights and decent work

Norway, US

[11]

Biodiesel (palm oil)

S-LCA

Human rights; working conditions; cultural heritage; socio-economic repercussions; governance

Indonesia

[20]

Biodiesel (Indonesian palm oil) Synthetic biodiesel (local forest biomass) Biodiesel 3G (algae)

S-LCA

Health and well-being

Finland

[5]

Biogas (organic waste)

Analysis of social indicators

Food security; emigrant work; job quantity and quality; technical training of farmers

China

[19]

Biogas (urban waste)

Observations and interviews

Employment; working conditions; labor law; energy security; well-being

South Africa

[22]

Feedstocks for biobutanol (food and nonfood agricultural crops; wood-based biomass; food industry by-products)

Qualitative analysis

Energy security; employment; development of rural areas; education and training

Finland

[25]

Feedstocks for biodiesel (soybean; palm; jatropha)

Analysis of social indicators

Land use; employment; conditions for small-holders

Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Zambia

[26]

Feedstocks for biodiesel (jatropha)

Observations and interviews

Food security; well-being and local prosperity; labor and working conditions; land ownership and land rights; gender issues

26 countries

[21]

Biojet fuel (sugarcane; eucalyptus and macauba)

Analysis of social indicators

Employment; working conditions; gender equity; labor rights; social development

Brazil

[23]

Abbreviations: IOA, input-output analysis; S-LCA, social life cycle analysis; SHDB, social hotspot database.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS

131

activities and production processes themes and categories within the life cycle were available in the SHDB. No site-specific data from the production plants or agricultural sites were included in the study. The “high” and “very high” social risks were identified for the different production systems. Concerning bioethanol from sugarcane, the social aspects of “very high” risks were “Communicable diseases” and “Indigenous rights” in the category of “Human rights”; “Child labor,” “Forced labor,” “Minimum wages,” and “Nonpoverty wages” in the category of “Labor”; “Fatal injuries” in the category of “Health and Safety”; and, finally, “Legal system” in the category of “Governance.” For the US maize ethanol, the authors highlighted the following “very high” risks: “Communicable diseases” in the “Human right” category; “Child labor,” “Collective bargaining,” “Labor laws,” and “Migration” in the “Labor” category; and “Large land holdings” in the “Community” category. Instead, for the French maize ethanol, the highest social risks are associated with “Communicable and noncommunicable diseases” in the “Human rights” category; “Migration” and “Minimum wages” in the “Labor category”; “Nonfatal injuries” in the “Health and Safety” category; and “Corruption” in the “Governance” category. Identical results were obtained for the French wheat ethanol. Overall, the authors concluded that the origin country revealed to be more important than the nature of the fuel [7]. 1G bioethanol and conventional fossil fuels have been compared in this study. Russian and Nigerian oil production systems were found to have larger number of “very high” and “high” risks than any of the bioethanol systems. Moreover, in the context of Thailand, Papong et al. [24] assessed the social impacts of bioethanol supply chain from cassava and sugarcane molasses. In the cassava-based 1G ethanol process, cassava chips are processed for ethanol production. The solids remaining from the distillation stage are used to produce biogas that is further used to generate steam for the plant. The main coproduct of the 1G ethanol plant is cassava pulp. Concerning the molassesbased ethanol process, sugarcane production, harvesting, and milling are covered in the boundaries of the system, and thus, raw sugar and surplus electricity are coproducts. In this case, the social impact analysis relied on three indicators—employment generation, wage level, and fatal occupational health and safety—which were evaluated by combining process-based analysis (site-specific data) and input-output (IO) analysis [24]. The sitespecific data were collected by performing interviews at the farming area (direct employment, wages, and fatal occupational injury in the agricultural stages) and collecting figures from four sugar factories, five chips plants, and eight ethanol industries (direct employment, wages, and fatal occupational injury in the industrial stages). Moreover, for the top-down IO analysis, the authors combined the 2005 Thailand IO table with 180 economic sectors and social intensity data from previous own studies with 96 sectors. The data on fatal occupational injuries in Thailand were taken from Thailand’s Social Security Office. The main impacts of bioethanol are observed in the agro-sector in the rural area. The cassava-based ethanol brings positive impact in terms of job creation and increase of wages. The total employment in the bioethanol chains is 15–18 times higher than the conventional gasoline chain. Income distribution and wage rates are higher for bioethanol than for the conventional gasoline. However, the quality of the job and work conditions are still reduced in this context since most of the workers are low-skilled and have to perform their tasks in harsh conditions, relying on daily or seasonal contracts. Finally, the fatal occupational injury risk is higher in the bioethanol chain than in the oil-refining sector, given the still reduced safety and health training in

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

132

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

the bioethanol chain, and the contrasting high security systems and safety standards in the petrochemical industry. Moreover, Souza et al. [16] applied a hybrid approach to assess the social impacts along the supply chain of present and future sugarcane ethanol produced in a context of an integrated biorefinery in Brazil. Three distinct scenarios were considered for ethanol production from sugarcane feedstock with variations in agricultural and industrial technologies: 1G Base; 1G Optimized, and 1G2G. For the second and third scenarios there is a surplus of electricity, which is sold to the grid as a coproduct and therefore, the authors used economic-based method for the allocation of the social effects among bioethanol and electricity. The hybrid approach combined S-LCA and IO analysis. The S-LCA is a product-oriented method that was used to evaluate the social aspects of the two products of the biorefineries, while IO analysis was used to interrelate the different units/stages of each ethanol production chain. The target stakeholder group was the workers. A process-based inventory was built for the S-LCA based on data from the Virtual Sugarcane Biorefinery (internally developed tool) containing agricultural and industrial parameters. Subsequently, the inventory was fed to a commodityby-industry Brazilian IO table that covers 110 commodities and 56 industries in the country according to Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). Data from the Brazilian Ministry of Labour and Employment (MTE) and Ministry of Social Security (MPS) have been included to investigate social indicators related to education, employment, wage level and profile, as well as occupational accidents. The authors concluded that more modern scenarios (1G Optimized and 1G2G) are associated with lower employment creation due to the mechanization of the technologies, especially on sugarcane planting and harvesting process. On the other hand, advanced agricultural and industrial processing lead to very positive social effects due to the decrease of the number of occupational injuries, increase of the wages and education levels, and increase of the share of female workers in the workforce increasing gender equality. Even though the hybrid approach was considered suitable to evaluate the social aspects related to the ethanol production chains, the authors suggest implementing SHDB in future stages in order to estimate the social risks. The authors have also highlighted the need for focusing on developing suitable metrics to better describe aspects of social sustainability and analyzing risk levels. Furthermore, Ribeiro and Quintanilla [18] performed the social assessment of different 2G ethanol production routes and analyzed the transition from first to second generation ethanol under different contexts. The objective of the study was to promote reflection and explore the views of several biofuel experts from different geographical, sociopolitical and technological contexts of production of bioethanol. The social assessment was performed using the Delphi survey method. A range of hypothetical scenarios were developed based on various factors such as types of land (land dedicated to biofuel feedstock production, land dedicated to other agro-forestry activities, and degraded land), alternative feedstocks (sugarcane bagasse; straws; wheat straw; short rotation coppices; perennial grasses; and urban wastes), and geographical locations (Brazil, UK, Poland, Hungary, Germany, United States, and Canada). The expert panel expressed their opinion regarding social aspects such as inclusion of small-scale farmers, food security, water security, biodiversity security, exclusion of low-skilled workers in the stage of conversion processes, and exclusion of small-scale producers in the supply chain of cellulosic ethanol. The experts evaluated the social aspects based on three criteria: probability of occurrence, reversibility, and monitorability [18]. Both quantitative and

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS

133

qualitative components were present in the analysis. The Delphi survey analysis still highlighted some potential negative effects linked to food security: direct replacement of food crops by energy crops, reduced reversibility degree once energy crops are implemented and potential use of land that could be suitable for food production. Another important aspect is the use of land and resources. If there is a deficient management of land use, soil and water quality, the bioethanol production from biomass can lead concerns due to the large production scales, the intensity in the use of chemicals in the fields such as herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, the massive expansion of monocultures, and potential impacts on biodiversity. Moreover, the contribution of the 2G bioethanol chains to rural development may be uncertain due to the biofuel’s characteristic free market. In other words, the economies of scale favor large-scale ethanol supply chains due to the demand for reduced ethanol prices, and thus, small-scale land owners’ and producers’ interests could end up being forgotten, unless companies and policymakers act to guarantee an effective transfer of benefits to the rural host communities. The study evidences the importance of the socioeconomic and political context, concluding that the burden of the impacts most likely changes depending on the condition and vulnerability of the communities due to the low income, lack of resources, corruption, among others. Finally, the authors emphasized the high complexity and uncertainty inherent to the social impact assessment of cellulosic ethanol at a conceptual stage, given the development of new and complex markets around the bioethanol chain and the uncertain perception of the risk that might be associated to the large investments to build the agricultural and industrial ethanol chains. The same main author has also presented a review of bioethanol chains’ most pertinent social effects and tradeoffs [28]. The reflection covers the different units of the bioethanol production chain, whether it is 1G or 2G. Starting with the production of inputs used in the ethanol supply chain (fertilizers, pesticides, other chemicals, fuels, equipment, among others) the author highlighted only two main positive social aspects: input products availability for poorer communities and employment creation [28]. Moreover, the biomass production stage (which applies for both 1G and 2G ethanol) can be associated with negative social effects that are related to land use, deforestation, and impact on biodiversity, as well as the working conditions in the agricultural fields, which can impact workforce’s health and safety. The use of alternative crops for production of 2G ethanol is a measure to mitigate food vs. fuel competition. Yet, in the absence of proper land use and water management, food security can be still an issue in 2G ethanol due to either direct competition between the food/feed crops and the ethanol crop, or indirect battle for resources. The 2G ethanol may be linked to issues of water security due to the consumption of water in the fields and industrial chain. On the positive side, the increase of biomass production in rural areas and development of new agro-technologies will lead to local development, empowerment of women and rural communities, increase of availability of services, alleviation of poverty, and requalification of farming, which will indirectly lead to enhancement of food and water security. Concerning the 2G ethanol production plant, Ribeiro [28] identified two main positive social effects: improvement of working conditions and generation of services and benefits for the local community. In the transport sector, the increase of biomass and final product transport activities should lead to a reinforcement of the transportation infrastructure. However, very often high traffic flows and congestion patterns are verified, as well as the increase of the deterioration of the roads and risk of accidents. Regarding the final use of the ethanol product, energy security

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

134

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

can be improved and rural poor communities could benefit from locally produced cheaper fuels. The author emphasized also the health impact trade-off associated to the enhancement/reduction of the air quality. On one hand, urban air quality is expected to be enhanced by replacing gasoline with ethanol, which leads to reduced emissions of air pollutants. On the other hand, some authors affirm that the existence of governmental subsidies to reduce the bioethanol’s price could finally lead to more fuel consumption and to an increase of the number of kilometers traveled and consequence increase of pollution (rebound effect). In addition, Ribeiro [28] summarized the main crosscutting social aspects associated to the bioethanol chain: employment, income generation, energy security, compliance with legal framework and law enforcement, public participation and acceptance of biofuels. In case of lack of management, the implementation of a bioethanol production chain may lead to an increase of the social vulnerability at the surroundings of the production sites. One potential cause of instability is the creation of season and informal employment. Fast changes in traffic flows and water distribution may lead also to social vulnerability in long-term. Indirect chain effects from the bioethanol production activities can reach the broad societal level influencing the access to consumer goods, water, and food. It is urgent to develop methodologies and techniques to measure and analyze trade-offs, and design social assessment metrics and indicators that can successfully integrate the complexity inherent to these subjects. Finally, Valente et al. [11] investigated the 2G bioethanol social impact categories and indicators for further application in S-LCA. Two biorefinery systems were analyzed in two distinct locations: Norway and the US. The systems rely on the conversion of local biomass feedstock (softwood) into valuable cellulosic products such as bioethanol and biochemicals. The impacts have been allocated to the different products based on dry matter content. The authors have applied S-LCA considering a cradle-to-gate biorefinery plant system (in parallel to E-LCA). The target stakeholder group was the workforce. The S-LCA was performed using a hybrid method with two individual stages. The first stage consisted of a generic assessment to identify the social hotspots and main risks using SHDB tool. Since “Biorefineries” do not exist as a distinct sector in the SHDB, the authors selected “Chemical rubber and plastic products” as a proxy sector for both biorefineries. The goal of the second stage was to obtain site-specific information and data to validate/discard the SHDB outputs. The second stage was completed for the Norwegian biorefinery using data from stakeholders. Yet, due to the absence of on-site suitable records, the US plant was assessed only with generic data. In the general assessment, the social concerns in the Norwegian context are mainly associated to the category “Health and safety,” including themes like “Occupational injuries and deaths,” and “Occupational toxic and hazards.” Moreover, for the US case, besides “Health and Safety impacts,” the category “Labor rights and decent work” presented also a relevant SHI, which concerns social aspects such as “Child labor,” “Forced labor,” “Freedom of association,” “Collective bargaining,” “Right to strike,” “Labor laws,” “Poverty,” “Unemployment,” “Wage assessment,” and “Working time.” For the Norwegian biorefinery case, site-specific data proved that the exposure to chemicals and gases has been reduced in the recent years, which reduces the correlation between diseases and high risk in the health and safety category. This example illustrates the need for the collection of more specific data and increasing stakeholder participation in order to validate the results of the general assessment. The SHDB tool is crucial in S-LCA as the starting point to screen the social hotspots and prioritize efforts.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS

135

5.3.2 Biodiesel Manik et al. [20] investigated the social issues associated to palm oil biodiesel life cycle. The social assessment method of choice was S-LCA. The scope of the study comprised the stages of land clearing to the oil palm plantation and harvest, palm oil milling, and the crude palm oil transport from the mill to the port for export. In the geographical context of Indonesia, the authors aimed to define the most suitable social criteria to assess palm oil biodiesel and correspondent weights, analyze the stakeholders’ expectations and perception regarding each social aspect, identify the main social hotspots associated to the biodiesel chain, and finally, highlight the social hotspots that require further investigation and policy. The social impact categories and criteria were designed based on Benoıˆt [8], local survey by an expert panel from the Indonesian palm oil industry, and literature review. The weighting of the criteria was defined based on a stakeholders’ questionnaire. The stakeholder panel responded to questionnaires where they had to express their expectation (rate the importance of a social aspect) and perception (rate the actual state) regarding the social criteria designed a priori. Stakeholders’ overall expectations are higher than their perception on the social impacts. For each one of the social criteria, the higher the expectation/perception gap observed, the larger the concerns. “Cultural heritage” impact category presented the largest gap, followed by “Working conditions,” “Governance,” and “Socio-economic repercussion.” Within the category of “Cultural heritage,” the social issues are mainly associated to land use change due to the expansion of the oil palm plantations, which leads to delocalization of communities, migration, disrespect for indigenous culture, as well as the prejudicial effects on the living conditions, access to resources, and conservation of the cultural heritage. The “Working conditions” impact category expectation/perception gap is a consequence of short-term labor in the palm oil plantations/mills, which is associated to low salaries, absence of job security, and legal protection. The “Governance” impact category presents a low gap, which indicates that the supply chain actors consider there are public commitment and fair competition in the oil palm production systems, and absence of corruption. The “Socioeconomic repercussion” impact category shows also a reduced gap suggesting that oil palm industry has led to socioeconomic development. Finally, the palm oil stakeholders showed no concern regarding the indicators such as child labor, forced labor or other form of discrimination, belonging to the “Human rights” impact category. Moreover, still with first generation feedstock, Ekener-Petersen et al. [7] social hotspot assessment study covered rapeseed-based biodiesel, originating from Lithuania. The social assessment methodology has been previously described. The SHDB analysis identified the highest social risks of Lithuanian rapeseed biodiesel production chain in three distinct categories: “Noncommunicable diseases” in the category of “Human rights”; “Unemployment,” “Minimum wages,” and “Nonpoverty wages” in the category of “Labor”; and “Fatal injuries” and “Noise exposure” in the category of “Health and Safety.” Macombe et al. [5] presented a review concerning the life cycle methodologies for social impact assessment of biodiesel chains, covering both conventional and alternative feedstocks for biodiesel production. In terms of methodology, the authors state that, despite the quick developments in the field of S-LCA in the previous years, yet, the scientific community has not reached a full comprehensive S-LCA impact assessment due to knowledge gaps. Three distinct raw materials for biodiesel production have been considered in the review

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

136

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

as case studies: palm oil, forest biomass, and algae. The scenarios of the biodiesel chains are in the geographical context of Finland. In the particular case of palm oil biodiesel conventional process, the palm oil is produced in Indonesia and then transported to Finland by ship. The refining process, storage, and distribution are located in Finland for the three biodiesel feedstock processing. Biodiesel and by-products are consumed in the local markets. In the conventional palm oil process, the main by-products are the fruit press cake, palm kernel press cake, and glycerin. In the case of forest residues biodiesel, the main coproduct is surplus electricity. For the algae process, glycerin and methane are the two by-products. The authors focused on the well-being and health-related social impacts, which are due to an eventual change from the conventional palm oil-based biodiesel scenario to the forest-based biodiesel scenario or algae-based biodiesel scenario. The review addressed the social issues from the perspective of three distinct stakeholder levels: company, region, and state. At the company level, the main social concerns (within the well-being and health subject) are the occupational conditions in Finland along the production chains and the choice of suppliers/partners that respect the workforce rights and promote human health. At the regional level, as expected, the main focus is on the inhabitants of the region and the S-LCA boundaries are typically set in the region. Key concerns at this level are the employment creation and the changes in the health and well-being of the populations in the different biodiesel scenarios. At the state level, the review highlights issues related to changes in socioeconomic activities, energy security, occupational conditions, health and society welfare status, and life expectancy.

5.3.3 Others A couple of works covering the social assessment of small-scale biogas production projects were found [19, 22]. Yang et al. [19] investigated the social impacts of biogas production in agro-systems in rural areas in the geographical context of Gongcheng, China. The social benefits of biogas in rural areas are associated with the development of more sustainable agropractices by using the biogas slurry and residues to replace conventional chemical fertilizers; the enhancement of soil quality due to the use of organic fertilizer; the increase of food security as a consequence of better agro-practices and soil quality; the reduction of the emigrate workers and increase of the number of jobs and labor productivity; and finally, the increase of farmers’ technical training and income levels. The authors encourage the promotion of food and breeding industry waste recycling to produce biogas and the implementation of policies and direct incentives for the development of biogas in the Chinese rural areas [19]. Another interesting study was presented by Chingono and Mbohwa [22], who investigated a number of social aspects associated with biogas production in the geographical context of Johannesburg in South Africa. The stakeholders involved in the study were workers, neighborhood communities, government, and project-related nonlegislative associations. Based on the information gathered from interviews and local observations, the authors have highlighted two positive key social impacts: employment creation and provision of clean and sustainable energy to the communities. On the other hand, the authors presented also some negative points related to working conditions and well-being. The authors highlighted the need for labor legislation to regulate casual labor conditions and land use management. Industrial odors and air pollutants and increased truck activities may have an impact on the air quality.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

5.3 APPLICATIONS TO BIOFUELS

137

To the extent of our knowledge, no methodical social assessment has been published up-to-date for the particular case of biofuels derived from thermochemical routes, nor for bio-based hydrogen or butanol. Yet, one has found a sustainability assessment which covers the social impacts of distinct feedstocks to be used as raw material for biobutanol fuel production, in parallel to an economic and environmental analysis [25]. The analysis was performed in the context of Finland comparing different types of biobutanol feedstocks: food and nonfood agricultural crops, wood-based biomass and food industry by-products [25]. The raw materials from the agricultural and forest sectors are the ones providing the most benefits in terms of employment and rural development. The ethical issues regarding the use of edible crops for production of biofuels remain a big concern and largely affect the customer acceptance. Therefore, both nonedible and wood-based feedstocks present higher social acceptability. Finally, employers’ education and training for working with innovative technologies constitutes another positive social aspect of the biobutanol chain [25]. Remaining in the topic of biofuel feedstock cultivation, German et al. [26] analyzed social impacts associated to distinct feedstocks used for biodiesel production (soybean, oil palm, and jatropha) in the geographical contexts: Brazil (soybean); Malaysia and Indonesia (oil palm); Ghana, Mexico, and Zambia (jatropha). The scope of the work was the analysis of social issues associated with land use, employment, and conditions for small-holders. These issues were examined from the perspective of key stakeholder groups: customary land users, employees, and small-scale growers. With respect to land acquisition and large-scale land transfer processes, the main concerns are related to the following issues: land grabbing, small holder and livelihood displacement, deforestation and consequent threat to biodiversity and forest-based industries, land speculations and consequent increase of land cost, limited awareness of the law among customary right owners, variability of the compensation agreements between the land buyers and the original local owners, formulation of agreements prior to community consultation compromising local free-will, and inexistence of paper signed agreements [26]. In long term, it becomes relevant to investigate the extent of customary land user benefits from the installed biofuel companies and whether locals can get access to employment. Often, preferential employers in the plantations in traditional areas are migrants. Moreover, the authors looked into job creation but also job quality. Despite the relatively low levels of customary land users and household employed in the biofuel industry due to migrant work or high levels of mechanization, concrete benefits were from employment observed in the local areas. In the majority of the locations, there was a general improvement in the livelihood conditions and income flows. Finally, regarding the smallholder participation in the biofuel industry, tangible benefits were observed as a result of policy, incentives, and government subsidies. In Brazil, smallholders profited from policy which defines incentives to industries that buy feedstock from smallholders and family farms. Still, smallholders face difficulties in entering the biofuels market due to low profit margins, restricted access to credit, high transport costs, and need for certificates that prove that no deforestation has occurred [26]. Moreover, van Eijck et al. [21] reviewed the social aspects of jatropha feedstock for biodiesel production at the global level covering 26 countries, in parallel to an economic and environmental analysis. An extensive qualitative reflection on jatropha feedstock cultivation is presented based on 150 studies in the field. The majority of the data for the social studies are coming from observations and interviews. The social indicators investigated were food

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

138

5. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

security, local prosperity and well-being, labor and working conditions, land ownership and land rights, and gender issues. Overall, the existing social assessments show minimal concerns regarding most of the social aspects, except for the following issues: discontinuation of running projects which leads to a reduction of the income for the local communities, reduction of employment and trainings, increase of land uncertainty and increase of reluctance toward potential future projects, as well as local energy security, which can be affected when jatropha fuel targets external markets. van Eijck et al. [21] concluded that there still is a lack of studies that comprehensively measure the social impacts of jatropha cultivation, as well as a lack of well-organized and reliable databases containing social metrics. A social assessment study was published for biojet fuel chains in the context of Brazil, comparing biojet fuel chains produced from distinct feedstocks: sugarcane (bioethanol-to-jet technology), eucalyptus residues (fast pyrolysis technology), and macauba (hydro-processed esters and fatty acids technology). The social aspects covered in the comparative assessment were employment and working conditions, gender equity, labor right, and social development [23]. The bio-based aviation fuel is expected to generate employment and stimulate rural development. The authors of the study highlighted the need for further research in order to cover a larger range of social indicators and to fill the still existing methodological gaps.

5.4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES Social assessment of biofuels is considered to be still in its infant stage. In the previous years, the scientific community started including social evaluation of biofuel projects in order to complement the economic and environmental studies and provide a basis for policy making especially in rural areas. Nevertheless, the number of studies is still reduced and for some of the biofuels, investigations are inexistent. The coverage and comprehensiveness of the existing social databases as well as the stakeholder contributions to the data platforms are still insufficient. Therefore, one identifies an urgent need for research, aiming to improve the social assessment methods, enhance social databases, and apply those in biofuel projects. Further on, the challenge is to integrate the social dimension with the economic and environmental sustainability dimensions in a methodical and integrated analysis.

References [1] J. Elkington, I.H. Rowlands, Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business, Altern. J. 25 (1999) 42. [2] P. P
erez-Lo´pez, M. Montazeri, G. Feijoo, M.T. Moreira, M.J. Eckelman, Integrating uncertainties to the combined environmental and economic assessment of algal biorefineries: a Monte Carlo approach, Sci. Total Environ. 626 (2018) 762–775. [3] C. Benoıˆt, G. Vickery-Niederman, Social Sustainability Assessment Literature Review, The Sustainability Consortium, 2010. [4] R.J. Burdge, S. Chamley, M. Downs, K. Finsterbusch, B. Freudenburg, P. Fricke, J.G. Thompson, Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21, 2003, pp. 231–250. [5] C. Macombe, P. Leskinen, P. Feschet, R. Antikainen, Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs, J. Clean. Prod. 52 (2013) 205–216.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS

REFERENCES

139

[6] UNPAN, A Comprehensive Guide for Social Impact Assessment, Centre for Good Governance. United Nations Public Administration Network, 2006. [7] E. Ekener-Petersen, J. H€ oglund, G. Finnveden, Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles, Energy Policy 73 (2014) 416–426. [8] C. Benoıˆt (Ed.), Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2010. [9] UN Environment, Life Cycle Initiative, https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/starting-life-cycle-thinking/lifecycle-approaches/social-lca, 2017. Accessed 13 May 2018. [10] S. Sala, A. Vasta, L. Mancini, J. Dewulf, E. Rosenbaum, Social Life Cycle Assessment: State of the Art and Challenges for Supporting Product Policies, JRC Technical Reports. European Commission, 2015. [11] C. Valente, A. Brekke, I.S. Modahl, Testing environmental and social indicators for biorefineries: bioethanol and biochemical production, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23 (2018) 581–596. [12] A. Lehmann, E. Zschieschang, M. Traverso, M. Finkbeiner, L. Schebek, Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA), Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 1581–1592. [13] C. Benoit-Norris, D.A. Cavan, G. Norris, Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: overview and application of the social hotspot database, Sustainability 4 (2012) 1946–1965. [14] J. Fontes, Filling the Gaps With the Social Hotspots Database. Social Hotspot Database, https://www.presustainability.com/news/filling-the-gaps-with-the-social-hotspots-database, 2018. Accessed 18 May 2018. [15] M.D. Watanabe, L.G. Pereira, M.F. Chagas, M.P. da Cunha, C.D. Jesus, A. Souza, et al., Sustainability Assessment Methodologies, Springer, 2016. [16] A. Souza, M.D.B. Watanabe, O. Cavalett, C.M.L. Ugaya, A. Bonomi, Social life cycle assessment of first and second-generation ethanol production technologies in Brazil, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23 (2018) 617–628. [17] C.C. Hsu, B.A. Sandford, The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus, Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 12 (2007) 1–8. [18] B.E. Ribeiro, M.A. Quintanilla, Transitions in biofuel technologies: an appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 92 (2015) 53–68. [19] J. Yang, W. Chen, B. Chen, Impacts of biogas projects on agro-ecosystem in rural areas—a case study of Gongcheng, Front. Earth Sci. 5 (2011) 317. [20] Y. Manik, J. Leahy, A. Halog, Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 1386–1392. [21] J. van Eijck, H. Romijn, A. Balkema, A. Faaij, Global experience with jatropha cultivation for bioenergy: an assessment of socio-economic and environmental aspects, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 32 (2014) 869–889. [22] T. Chingono, C. Mbohwa, Social and environmental impact for sustainable bio-gas production by the city of Johannesburg, in: International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Michigan, USA, 2016. [23] Z. Wang, P. Osseweijer, J.P. Duque, Assessing social sustainability for biofuel supply chains: the case of aviation biofuel in Brazil, in: “Technologies for Sustainability”. IEEE Conference, 2017. [24] S. Papong, C. Rewlay-ngoen, N. Itsubo, P. Malakul, Environmental life cycle assessment and social impacts of bioethanol production in Thailand, J. Clean. Prod. 157 (2017) 254–266. [25] J. Niemisto, P. Saavalainen, E. Pongra´cz, R.L. Keiski, Biobutanol as a potential sustainable biofuel-assessment of lignocellulosic and waste-based feedstocks, J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 1 (2013) 58–77. [26] L. German, G. Schoneveld, P. Pacheco, Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: global comparative assessment and implications for governance, Ecol. Soc. 16 (2011). [27] F. Taheripour, D.K. Birur, T.W. Hertel, W.E. Tyner, Introducing Liquid Biofuels Into the GTAP Database, GTAP Research Memorandum. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, 2007. [28] B.E. Ribeiro, Beyond common place biofuels: social aspects of ethanol, Energy Policy 57 (2013) 355–362.

II. SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BIOFUELS