Towards a global criteria based framework for the sustainability assessment of bioethanol supply chains

Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Towards a global criteria based framework for the sustainability assessment of bioethanol supply chains Application to the Swiss dilemma: Is local produced bioethanol more sustainable than bioethanol imported from Brazil? Tourane Corbière-Nicollier a,∗ , Isabelle Blanc b , Suren Erkman c a b c

Institute of Land Use Policies and Human Environment (IPTEH), Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland MINES ParisTech at Center of Energy and Processes, France Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 7 November 2009 Received in revised form 13 December 2010 Accepted 19 March 2011 Keywords: Sustainability assessment framework Biofuels Bioethanol supply chain Environmental social Economical indicator

a b s t r a c t Biofuels are considered as a promising substitute for fossil fuels when considering the possible reduction of greenhouse gases emissions. However limiting their impacts on potential benefits for reducing climate change is shortsighted. Global sustainability assessments are necessary to determine the sustainability of supply chains. We propose a new global criterion based framework enabling a comprehensive international comparison of bioethanol supply chains. The interest of this framework is that the selection of the sustainability indicators is qualified on three criterions: relevance, reliability and adaptability to the local context. Sustainability issues have been handled along environmental, social and economical issues. This new framework has been applied for a specific issue: from a Swiss perspective, is locally produced bioethanol in Switzerland more sustainable than imported from Brazil? Thanks to this framework integrating local context in its indicator definition, Brazilian production of bioethanol is shown as energy efficient and economically interesting for Brazil. From a strictly economic point of view, bioethanol production within Switzerland is not justified for Swiss consumption and questionable for the environmental issue. The social dimension is delicate to assess due to the lack of reliable data and is strongly linked to the agricultural policy in both countries. There is a need of establishing minimum sustainability criteria for imported bioethanol to avoid unwanted negative or leakage effects. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Biofuels are regarded as an interesting alternative to fossil fuels for transportation (Anex, 2004). They provide a direct substitute for fossil fuels and can easily be integrated into the fuel supply chain. However no consensus is yet achieved on their sustainability and a recognized sustainability framework has yet to be agreed on. Niven (2005) underlines that biofuels struggle with price-competitiveness and are facing environmental concerns like land and biodiversity issues. Considering environmental impacts assessed with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Blottnitz and Curran (2007) state that impacts on acidification, human toxicity and ecological toxicity, occurring mainly during the growing and processing of biomass, are more often unfavorable than favorable for biofuels. Moreover the energy and greenhouses gas balances are

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 21 692 35 50; fax: +41 21 692 35 55. E-mail addresses: [email protected], tourane.corbiere@epfl.ch (T. Corbière-Nicollier). 1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.018

not always systematically in favor of bioethanol as underlined for example by Gnansounou et al. (2009). Environmental performances assessed through LCA have been confirmed to be highly dependant on methodological specifications for functional unit, system boundaries, biogenic CO2 treatment and allocation choice, as well as very sensitive to different allocation methods (Van der Voet et al., 2010). It is recognized that biofuels sustainability criteria have to be developed as soon as possible in a consistent way worldwide (Solomon, 2010). Sustainability is a complex concept as it covers, for the biofuels supply chains case, a wide scope of issues related to environmental impacts, economic efficiency and other socio-economic issues such as equity, food security and health. Sheehan (2009) stresses the complex issue of sustainability for biofuels which certainly requires a holistic vision as well as the recognition of its ethical nature. This paper presents an effort to define an international assessment framework that takes into account the major issues linked to biofuels sustainability. This framework has been set to enable the comparison of supply chains sustainability considering environmental, social and economical issues.

1448

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

1.1. Existing biofuels sustainability criteria initiatives Many international organizations and countries are committed to developing sustainability assessment schemes for biofuels. Current approaches can be basically divided in two categories. The first group focuses on the climate change side of the problem by setting the basis for more or less simplified carbon Life Cycle Assessment. Let’s mention Farrell et al. (2007) and E4tech, ECCM, and Themba (2006). However no consensus exists on key points for biofuels CO2 life-cycle assessment (LCA). System boundaries and co-product allocation are the most controversial issues as they may significantly influence the result of the assessments. Specific comparison related to Energy Efficiency (EE) performed with different co-product allocation schemes have showed that EE is very sensitive and could be reduced by half when considering the energy content allocation scheme (Bio IS, 2008) instead of the substitution allocation scheme (Concawe/EU/JRC, 2007). Liska and Cassman (2008) state that there is a strong need of establishing standardized LCA for biofuels. The second group, going beyond the restricted carbon assessment vision, strives to identify the best way of defining a certification scheme and present sustainability principles to be quantified or at least qualified. E4tech, ECCM, and Imperial College London (2005) investigate the type of possible certifications. EcoFys (for WWF, 2007) studies the possibility of using Meta-Standards for biofuels certification. A Dutch stakeholder report (2007) proposes a calculation methodology for CO2 as well as a list of principles and criteria for the sustainability assessment. WWF Germany and the EU (2006) give a brief description of key potential problems and conflict areas arising from increased bioenergy supply. Delzeit and Holm-Müller (2009) propose possible sustainable criteria for a certification scheme. However, the authors are not applying their criteria to a complete case study and are not discussing the limits of such a framework in a real case. In 2010, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) published sustainability standards for sustainable biofuels. These standards are for certifying biofuels supply chains not for comparing them together. Members of the International Energy Agency Task 40 published an overview of the current biomass certification schemes strengths and weaknesses (Van Dam et al., 2008). They conclude that there is a need “of gradual development of a certification system with learning (through pilot studies and research) and expansion over time”. More recently, the comparison done between 67 certification initiatives confirmed that strong international cooperation is needed to further harmonize a certification scheme especially for biodiversity and land use issues (Van Dam et al., 2010). 1.2. Comparison of European ethanol production and imports from Brazil The specific question of comparing European production with imports – from Brazil or elsewhere – has been the subject of different studies. Öko-Institut and European partners (Hunt, 2006) worked together on an analysis of sustainable bioenergy. They conclude that bioethanol from sugar crops could be energetically and economically interesting and that current European biofuels pathways have to be considered individually. However, the question of biodiversity and water use, in particular the way of accounting for land use change, remains open. A review of assessments conducted on bioethanol (Blottnitz and Curran, 2007) draws similar conclusions. Two studies about the Brazilian case retained specially our attention. Goldemberg et al. (2008) studied the ethanol production in the State of Sao Paulo. They conclude that “biofuels trade contributes to local development and to GHG’s reduction in a cost

effective way as long as the adequate safeguards are put in place”. Interestingly, a Dutch study was carried out independently on a similar issue as the present study using a comparable methodology (Smeets et al., 2008). They studied the sustainability of Brazilian bioethanol versus Dutch bioethanol. Our study relies on similar assumptions to define relevant criteria. The Dutch assessment is based on general biomass sustainability criteria defined by the Dutch government. These criteria were developed along a framework with the emphasis on non-food applications (chemical industry, fuels, and energy production), valid for both biomass energy crops and biomass crops and both applicable for imported biomass and domestic biomass. This study reports as a major output that “in many impact categories, Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane scores average to positive according to this Dutch set of criteria”. 1.3. Objectives of the present study Our framework is an indicators-based sustainability assessment framework. It has been developed along a pathway (supply chain) and site specific concept covering three sustainability dimensions. Based on this new assessment framework, this paper presents a specific application for a comparison of biofuels supply chains: from a Swiss perspective, is locally produced bioethanol in Switzerland more sustainable than imported from Brazil? Forecasted results for two possible Swiss situations in 2010 are provided: the first corresponds to a percentage of bioethanol being domestically produced (a fully domestic ethanol production is not feasible when considering a systematic 5% incorporation rate of bioethanol into 95 octane petrol); the second describes 100% of bioethanol being imported from Brazil. 2. Framework for biofuels sustainability assessment The identification of a wide range of relevant criteria for sustainable biomass trade has been performed (Smeets and Faaij, 2010; Lewandowski and Faaij, 2006; Smeets et al., 2005). Lewandowski and Faaij (2006) proposed a list of criteria resulting in 125 criteria: 48 social criteria, 15 economic criteria and 62 ecological criteria. These criteria were identified from the systematic analysis of existing certification systems, criteria and indicator systems as well as management guidelines for sustainable biomass trade. More recently Smeets and Faaij (2010) narrowed this range of criteria to 12 areas of concern to be able to analyze the impact of these criteria on the cost and potential of bioenergy. This reduction was necessary to obtain a set of concrete (measurable) criteria and indicators that have an impact on the management system (costs) or the land availability (quantity). However, Buchholz et al. (2007) are critical on criteria lists. To take into account their view, we have converted our set of criteria into operational indicators, ranking the importance of factors, handling their interaction together. A comprehensive definition of sustainability is still lacking and no generally accepted reference sustainability framework exists as such for biofuels assessment. The following framework is a contribution to this very important discussion. Our proposed framework is an indicators-based sustainability assessment framework. It is also a pathway and site specific framework. 2.1. Indicators-based sustainability assessment Our research relies on the overarching well-known and recognized Bellagio Principles (Hardi and Zdan, 1997): • an explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision and goals to indicators and assessment criteria;

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

• a limited number of key issues for analysis; • a limited number of indicators or a combinations of indicators to provide a clearer signal of progress; • a standardized measurement wherever possible to permit comparison; • an indicator values comparison to targets, reference values, ranges, thresholds, or direction of trends as appropriate. The principles serve as practical guidelines for the whole assessment process. We can basically define two complementary types of indicatorsbased assessments (Corbière-Nicollier, 2005): (1) The state evaluation provides information about the state of the considered region. The corresponding indicators define the state of the environment (e.g. pollution indicators like concentration of heavy metals in the soil), of the economy (e.g. the well known GDP), or of the society (e.g. number of working poor). These indicators help to set priorities, as well as to define political and strategic goals and objectives. In our project, decisions about the criteria selection were taken on the basis of relevant state indicators. For example, if the state of both countries (Switzerland and Brazil) is very good in a specific area (e.g. if both countries do not face any problem of water scarcity) then the criteria are left aside. Our framework construction is therefore pathway and site specific. (2) The scenario evaluation provides information about its benefits and costs. It evaluates whether or not the scenario has attained its goals and how well. It focuses on the scenario objective (not on the global situation) and informs about the changes it induced in the region or in other words it links the scenario outcomes to the state of the region. The corresponding indicators help to evaluate and improve projects. 2.2. Organizing framework and underlying principles for the choice of indicators We developed our organizing assessment framework on the basis of the methodology worked out by the Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE, 2004) for the sustainability assessment of Swiss projects. In Switzerland, this framework is the legitimate reference, generally accepted, and widely practiced to assess the sustainability of projects. For the present study on bioethanol supply chains, the criteria defined by ARE guide have been used as a basis and adapted to the biofuels problematic. Each indicator was chosen on the basis of three key properties: the local applicability of the indicator, its relevance and the reliability of its corresponding data. First, we addressed the question of the adaptability of the indicator to the local context (local applicability). It is indeed crucial that the chosen indicators used for the scenario comparison make sense for the considered pathways. The ability of an indicator to address the acuteness of environmental issues at local scale is essential for a comprehensive sustainability definition (Blanc et al., 2009). Secondly, we analyzed the soundness of the indicator, its relevance to fulfill the criteria. Similarly, to the definition of indicators proposed by Jay (2010) in his strategic environmental assessment for energy production, indicators were drawn up relevant to the key criteria initially defined. For each criterion, one or two indicators have been defined. The chosen indicators are then quantified or, when not appropriate, described qualitatively. The relevance to fulfill the criterion is rated: a very relevant indicator gets 10/10, an irrelevant indicator 1/10. Thirdly, we assessed the data quality and availability of each indicator. We called this characteristic reliability of the data. This reliability has been rated on the same mode as the relevance.

1449

The results of this analysis and the choice of indicators are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and are explained in the following section. 2.3. Check of the soundness of the chosen indicators The choice of indicators was made with the approval of the advisory board, Swiss specialists from biofuels and sustainability assessment field1 in June 2006. The input from the advisory board helped to adapt the analysis framework, to understand the links and to define a relevant framework-based indicators. To further check the robustness of our framework, we looked at the international conformity of the adapted ARE criteria: we compared them with the RSB criteria (RSB, 2010) and with the Dutch criteria (Smeets et al., 2008). This comparison is documented in Table 1 where our selection of 18 criteria and their related indicators are described. Table 2 lists additional important criteria that need further development to be included in the first list. These criteria have only been studied qualitatively. Criteria from Table 2 were excluded as there is yet no scientific consensus on how to quantify them. These criteria should be included for further applications when reliable methodology and data will be available. A good example is the issue of biodiversity which is currently under discussion (Van Dam et al., 2010). 2.3.1. Remark concerning the environmental indicators Special care has been brought to the selection and validation of the Life Cycle Assessment data used for the environmental assessment being aware of the current discussions about biofuels LCA standardization. The environmental performances presented in Fig. 2 have been assessed following the life cycle inventory developped by ENERS Energy Concept and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL) (Gnansounou and Dauriat, 2004) and Dauriat (2006). Environmental impacts have then been applied to this life cycle inventory following the IMPACT 2002+ method (Jolliet et al., 2003). The following indicators follow the classical LCA impact categories: non-renewable resources and energy; climate change; human health; soil acidification; aquatic acidification; and aquatic eutrophication. In addition to them, we complemented LCA usual impacts with criteria related to biodiversity, natural areas, erosion, renewable resources and water currently under discussion. Hennenberg et al. (2009) point out the importance of minimizing the negative impacts of biofuels on biodiversity. The following case-study comparing Swiss and Brazilian supply chains will illustrate the use of this new methodology. 3. Case study 3.1. Scenarios definition (Switzerland and Brazil, 2010) Switzerland’s political agenda is to promote biofuels – and more specifically bioethanol – that demonstrate a positive environmental and social assessment. The two scenarios of our biofuels supply chains comparison are based on a total Swiss consumption of 200 million liters/year for 2010, as originally forecasted at the beginning of the study in 2006.

1 Dr Arnaud Dauriat, independent engineer and scientific adviser, Hans-Jörg Lehmann, Federal Office for Agriculture, Markus Luthi, independent cultivator and consultant, André de Montmolin, Federal Office of Statistics, Prof. Edgar Gnansounou, laboratory of energetical systems (LASEN), EPFL, Pietro Cattaneo, Federal Office for Spatial Development, Daniel Wachter, Director, Federal Office for Spatial Development, Lucien Erard, Swiss Federal Alcohol Board. For more details, see (Blanc et al., 2006).

1450

Table 1 Selected criteria. Corresponding to Swiss criteria (ARE, 2004)

International conformity (Smeets et al., 2008; Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, 2010)

Indicator

Quantification potential – chosen unita

1. Erosion 2. Non-renewable resources: energy

(Env 8) Land, surfaces, fertility (Env 7) Energy

Soil erosion Primary energy consumption

tonnes of soil eroded MJ primary energy over the life cycle

3. Non-renewable resources: land use

(Env 4) Landscape, natural and cultivated land (Env 2) Climate change

Yes Often taken together with climate change, this is a key criteria. Decision to treat energy and climate change separately Yes, land use is a key criterion in the biofuels domain Yes

Crops area

area exploited (in ha)

GHG

tonnes CO2eq over the life cycle

Key criteria, rarely quantified with other schemes?

Air pollutants

kg PM2.5eq over the life cycle

4. Climate change

5. Human health

6. Soil acidification

7. Aquatic acidification

(Env 8) Land, surfaces, fertility

kg SO2eq over the life cycle

Yes

Often known as water pollution or fertilizer use. Usually treated together with aquatic eutrophication

Water pollutants expressed in SO2 equivalents

kg SO2eq over the life cycle

Comment

In Switzerland, second generation biofuels are particularly interesting as far as the energy content is concerned

The wood and sugar cane pathways have the same performance in terms of emitted CO2 . The UMMP pathway (potatoes, sugar beet, cereals) is less efficient LCA enables us to consider this very important criteria – usually difficult to assess. For Brazil: 33% of the impact is linked to the burning on fields. For Switzerland: 60% is due to wood combustion Calculated on a classical LCA basis. For Brazil: 58% of the impact is linked to the culture phase Calculated on a classical LCA basis

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Name of the criteria – description

Table 1 (Continued) Name of the criteria – description

Corresponding to Swiss criteria (ARE, 2004)

8. Aquatic eutrophication

Indicator

Quantification potential – chosen unita

Comment

Often known as water pollution or fertilizer use. Usually treated together with aquatic eutrophication Known as overall benefits

Water pollutants expressed in phosphate equivalents

kg PO4 3− over the life cycle

Known as overall benefits

Return on sales (ROSb ) in %

Calculated on a classical LCA basis. For Brazil: 67% of the impact is linked to the culture phase This is the central decision criteria of investors. Thus crucial to assess Suitable for both scenarios

9. Profitability of the sector

(Eco 3) Investment rate that creates a more value

10. Competitiveness and capacity for innovation 11. Employment

(Eco 8) Innovation capacity

Yes

Qualitative estimation

(Eco 7) Employment potential

Present in the international discussions

Number of jobs created

12. Income (distribution between local and international enterprises)

Yes

Land ownership and distribution

% of land belonging to local structures

13. Income (bioethanol sector compared to classical plantations) 14. Land use change and allocation (linked to food self-sufficiency), also known as direct land use change 15. Income distribution – equity

Yes – often included in wages

Comparaison of wages between sectors Land distribution for ethanol use

Ratio: if > 1 ⇒ the activity is more profitable habioethanol /hatotal agriculture and habioethanol /hafood agriculture

(Soc 2) Health, security

Yes

(Soc 9) Equal rights, equal treatment, participation

Yes

16. Health and safety (LCA and qualitative results)

(Soc 2) Health, security

Yes

Human health depreciation

17. Equal rights, legal security

(Soc 9) Equal rights, equal treatment, participation (Soc 8) Social security, poverty

Yes

Work legality

Number of illegal workers

Yes

Malnutrition

Number of people suffering from malnutrition

18. Poverty prevention

a b

This indicator has been quantified on the basis of expert judgment DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) and qualitative estimation

This central criteria is transversal between the social and economic field This criteria clarifies the question of the ownweship and distribution This indicator is adapted to both contexts

The center of the problem here is the sugar cane burning. It is very impacting compared to the other impact sources

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

International conformity (Smeets et al., 2008; Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, 2010)

In Switzerland, there is no malnutrition problem. It should be further studied

Expressed per 200 millions liters bioethanol consumed in Switzerland. ROS = net income (before interest and tax)/sales.

1451

1452

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Table 2 Criteria not quantifiable at this point. Name of the criteria – description Original Swiss criteria (ARE, 2004)

International conformity – presence in Smeets et al. (2008) and RSB (2008)

Cause for exclusion

Comment

Natural areas, biodiversity

(Env 1) Biodiversity

Very important topic, present in the discussion at the international level

As for now, no consensus has been framed on how to define and quantify these factors

Renewable resources, water

(Env 5) Water

Very important topic, present in the discussion at the international level

Economic performance

(Eco 6) Competitivity

Known as economic efficiency

Income distribution

(Soc 6) Solidarity, community, social cohesion, justice (Soc 1) Formation, learning potential (Soc 4) Identity, culture

Yes

It is not the amount of water but its availability that is crucial. This criteria – although of great importance – is not appropriate for the present comparison This criteria compares biofuels with classical fuels and does not help for comparing two different biofuel patways This criteria is being left aside because of the lack of data This criteria is being left aside because of the lack of data This criteria is being left aside because of the lack of data

A non-concluding attemp to quantify this criterion on the basis of the number of endengered species has been done The number of liter necessary for producing 200 millions liters bioethanol consumed in Switzerland is non important in both scenarios:less than 10% difference The marketability of the products is included in indicator 8: profitability of the sector

Formation Culture, tradition

Yes

This quantity corresponds to a 5% incorporation rate of bioethanol into 95 octane petrol.

are usually animal feed which are waste potatoes (unsuitable for consumption).

1. Scenario 1: Switzerland imports 100 million liters from Brazil and produces 100 million liters (which is the maximum domestic capacity in 2010). 2. Scenario 2: Switzerland imports 200 million liters from Brazil.

The inputs in each process are listed on the left part of Fig. 1. On the right part we listed the outputs and waste.

It is foreseen that Swiss production will be divided in two equal sectors: (1) the “sugar” sector and (2) the “ligno-cellulosic” sector. The “sugar” sector corresponds to the operation of a multi raw material factory (called UMMP for “usine multi-matières premières”). This factory was planned following a very innovative and original design; it was foreseen to process, over different periods spread out during the year, the following raw materials: sugarbeet molasses, cereals (wheat) and potatoes. The project has not yet been realized. The “ligno-cellulosic” sector, which corresponds to second generation ethanol production sector, has a considerable potential regarding energy performance. The production of alcohol from wood waste is also being considered for this sector. The two pathways – Brazilian versus Swiss – are presented in Fig. 1. The figure describes the system boundaries which were considered. The figure is composed of two parts. - A part describing Brazil (in light gray) presents the different activities linked to Brazilian bioethanol import. We see sugar cane cultivation, transport from field to factory, factory, transatlantic transport, transport from Rotterdam to Switzerland and distribution in Switzerland. It is important to note that the changes linked to the extension of the sugar cane cultivation are taken into account in the box called “agricultural imports as substitution”. This box could play a key role if sugar cane replaces food cultivation, creating leakage effects. - A part describing Switzerland (on the right in darker gray) is structured in the same way. We find cultivation (here: cereals, potatoes, sugar beets and wood), transport, factory (either UMMP or ligno-cellulosic) as well as bioethanol distribution. In this case, we again have the box called “agricultural imports as substitution”. In Switzerland, these imports are mainly constituted of animal feed. In fact, the raw materials used in the UMMP factory

Scenario 1: 50% import, 50% Swiss production is described by the whole figure. Scenario 2: 100% import is described by the clear part of the figure on the right side. 3.2. Results and discussion 3.2.1. Environmental performance The environmental performances are presented in Fig. 2. Table 3 presents the indicators and criteria chosen for this environmental dimension as well as their relevance and reliability assessment. Scenario 2 has a systematically worse result then scenario 1, beside better results in consumption of non-renewable primary energy (−18%) and greenhouse gases (−11%). This weak performance is a result of sugar cane cultivation, which affects significantly more the soil and rejects more aqueous waste, having an impact on land and aquatic acidification as well as aquatic eutrophication. The soil erosion indicator stands out with an increase of +67% for scenario 2. The human health indicator should also be underlined: it takes into account the impacts of atmospheric pollution caused by stubble-burning sugar cane, a practice leading to significant potential respiratory problems for Brazilian agricultural workers. 3.2.2. Economic performance The economic performance related to each scenario is shown in Fig. 3. Table 4 presents the indicators that have been used for this comparison with the corresponding qualification in terms of reliability and relevance. From a strictly economic point of view, bioethanol production in Brazil is very competitive compared with the planned Swiss production (with a return on sales about five times greater in Brazil than in Switzerland). This is the case as the Brazilian workforce gets significantly lower wages compared to European wages. To establish a true comparison between the two productions (in Brazil and

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Inputs

1453

Outputs

Switzerland

Brazil

Agricultural processes Transport Fertilisers Herbicides, pesticides Grain

Emissions Agricultural waste agricultural imports as substitution

sugar cane cultivation

cereal cultivation

potato cultivation

sugarbeet cultivation

forest

sugar cane

cereal

potato

sugarbeet

wood

agricultural imports as substitution

Agricultural equipment

Molass is a coproduct of the sugar refinery

sugar refinery

molasse Fuels Equipment

Emissions truc k /t rain

truck/train

truck/train

truck/train

truc k /t rain

Waste

Electicity Chemicals Buildings

ethanol plant

ethanol plant

ethanol plant (lignocellulosic)

ethanol

ethanol

ethanol

Waste

Equipment

Fuels Equipment

Emissions boat/ train

t ruc k / train

truc k /t rain

Waste

Buildings Equipment

warehouse

Waste

Electricity petrol station

Fig. 1. System boundaries, scenario 1: 50% import, 50% Swiss production is described by the whole figure and scenario 2: 100% import from Brazil is described by the clear part of the figure.

in Europe), it would be necessary to amend the purchase price of imported bioethanol with increased social obligations guaranteeing decent conditions for all agricultural workers. The number of jobs created and resulting from the sugar cane sector in Brazil is also significantly greater than the number jobs created in the bioethanol sector in Switzerland. Overall, scenario 2 (100% importation from Brazil) is more profitable and creates more employment than scenario 1. However this is only true if the price of raw materials remains stable. These results rely on the assumption that a significant increase in employment is beneficial for a country. The nature of this employment

and its real impact on the national economy should be checked further. In contrast, the criterion relating to the innovation factor in Switzerland gives much value to scenario 1 and adds a more strategic vision to this purely economic evaluation: how would Switzerland benefit from adopting an innovative technological approach as some other European countries have done such as Sweden (for the ligno-cellulosic sector), France and Spain for biodiesel. The weight of this political decision compared with economic considerations should be clearly defined if one wants to choose a scenario.

1454

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Scenario 1 (50% Brazil, 50% Switzerland) Scenario 2 (100% Brazil)

1. Erosion 200%

8. Aquatic euthrophication

150%

2. Non renewable ressources primary energy

100% 50%

7. Aquatic acidification

3. Non renewable ressources land use

0%

6. Soil acidification

4. Climate change 5. Human health

Fig. 2. Environmental performance – comparison of the two scenarios.

Table 3 Environmental indicators. Criteria, indicator name/issue

Reliability of the unit (data, calculation mode)

Relevance of the indicator for the crieria

Calculation method – sources

5/10 In Switzerland, data are available for sugar beet only. Data for potatoes and cereals have been estimated

9/10

2. Non-renewable resources, energy How much primary energy is needed of both pathways? 3. Non-renewable resources: land use 4. Climate change What are the greenhouse gases linked to both scenarios?

7/10 Inventory data available only for Switzerland, use of estimations for Brazil.

10/10

Own calculation with data from: - WWF Action for Sustainable Sugar (2005) - Macedo (2004), assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil LCA results

5. Human health What is the impact on human health of both scenarios?

7/10 The data are not regionalised. We consider that the emissions have the same impact in both regions 6/10 The data are not regionalised. We consider that the emissions have the same impact in both regions 6/10 The data are not regionalised. We consider that the emissions have the same impact in both regions 6/10 The data are not regionalised. We consider that the emissions have the same impact in both regions

Environmental field 1. Erosion Do the intensive culture of sugar cane, sugar beet, potatoes or cereals erode the soil?

6. Soil acidification What is the impact on soil acidification of both scenarios? 7. Aquatic acidification What is the impact on aquatic acidification of both scenarios? 8. Aquatic eutrophication What is the impact on aquatic euthrophication of both scenarios?

7/10 Same comment as for energy: inventory data for Switzerland, estimation for Brazil

7/10 CO2 is not absorbed for ever, it is released into atmosphere during the combustion phase. Thus this indicator does not answer the question definitively 9/10

Taken from: Gnansounou et al. (2009) LCA results

LCA results

9/10

LCA results

9/10

LCA results

9/10

LCA results

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

1455

Scenario 1 (50% Brazil, 50% Switzerland)

9. Profitability of the sector 200%

Scenario 2 (100% Brazil)

150%

13. Income (bioethanol sector compared to classical plantations)

100% 10. Competitiveness and capacity for innovation

50% 0%

12. Income (distribution between local and international enterprises)

11. Employment

Fig. 3. Economic performance – comparison of the two scenarios.

Table 4 Economical indicators. Criteria, indicator name

Reliability of the indicator (data, calculation mode)

Relevance of the indicator for the crieria

Calculation method method – sources

7/10

8/10

10. Competitiveness and capacity for innovation What is the innovation potential of the scenarios? 11. Employment Which will be the effect on the employment?

10/10

9/10

Own calculation with data from: - Berg (2005), world biofuels conference, F.O. Licht 2005 - Alcosuisse (2005), Planair: Rapport final de la phase d’avant-projet, Document eˇıtabli pour le Center de profit RFA, par Planair, Switzerland, June 2005 Qualitative estimation: Brazil being in advance in this field, the innovation potential is already exploited

4/10 Reliabilty of the data is specially low in this case

9/10

12. Income (distribution between local and international enterprises) How is the income distributed between large and small-scale structures? How far do small farmers benefit from the bioethanol production? Is the income distribution equitable? 13. Income (bioethanol sector compared to classical plantations) Is the farmer producing for the bioethanol pathway make better of than a classical farmer?

6/10

9/10

6/10

9/10

Economical field 9. Profitability of the sector Is the bioethanol pathway profitable?

3.2.3. Social performance The social performance (Fig. 4) has been evaluated with the help of the indicators and criteria presented in Table 5. Scenario 1 (50% produced in Switzerland and 50% imported) is the one taken as reference (all values are expressed at 100%) and scenario 2 is expressed with values in higher or lower % depending on whether social performance is better or worse than in scenario 1. Three indicators, among the initials eight, were identified as being most relevant: land use (no 14), distribution of income (no

Taken from: - Pereira de Carvalho (2005), UNICA, future strategy of the Brazilian ethanol industry; World Biofuels 2005 - World Bank (2005): report “potential for biofuels for transport in developing countries”, October 2005 - ENERS Energy Concept (2005): business plan Taken from: - TERI (2005): international conference “biofuels – 2012 vision to reality” Delhi, October 2005 - FAT, Agroscope (2005), Swiss research into agriculture, nutrition and the environment, Tänikon, data of 2005 Taken from: - World Bank (2005): report “potential for biofuels for transport in developing countries”, October 2005

15) and health risks (no 16). The indicator quantifying the number of illegal workers is not satisfactory to determine equal rights and legal certainty. It would be more relevant to evaluate other information such as existing laws and their application. With regard to poverty, the indicator selected is malnutrition. This indicator does not show the whole picture, it is partial. Moreover it is not very relevant for the Swiss sector but is relevant for Brazil. This for two reasons: firstly, in Switzerland, most people live over the subsistence/poverty level according to UN figures; this is not the case in Brazil; secondly, in Switzerland, the whole agricultural sector

1456

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Table 5 Social indicators. Criteria, indicator name

Reliability of the indicator (data, calculation mode)

Relevance of the indicator for the crieria

Calculation method – sources

9/10

8/10

15. Income distribution – equity

5/10

9/10

16. Health and safety (LCA and qualitative results) Do the practices induce significant health problems/accidents?

5/10

9/10

17. Equal rights, legal security Does the bioethanol pathway goes againts human rights?

5/10

9/10

18. Poverty prevention Does the bioethanol pathway has an impact on poverty?

8/10

6/10

Own calculation with data from: - FAO Statistics (2006), http://www.fao.org/ countryProfiles/index.asp?lang=fr&iso3=BRA& subj=4 (accessed October 2010) - ENERS Energy Concept (2006), production de bioéthanol carburant en Suisse et au Brésil: les filières bois, UMMP et canne à sucre, Rapport final - Anex (2006), personnal communication – fichier Excel 2006 - Goes and Marra (2008). “a Expansão da Cana-de-Ac¸úcar e sua Sustentabilidade” (in Portuguese) (pdf). EMBRAPA. http://www.embrapa.br/imprensa/artigos/2008/ A%20expansao%20da%20cana-deacucar%20e%20a %20sua%20sustentabilidade.pdf. Retrieved 30.1108. http://www.embrapa.br/imprensa/artigos/2008 /A%20expansao%20da%20cana-deacucar%20e%20a%20sua%20 sustentabilidade.pdf (accessed October 2010) - UNICA (2006), Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union, http://english.unica.com.br/search.asp (accessed 14.10.10) Qualitative estimation based on information from: - Öko-Institut (2005), criteria for assessing environmental, economic and social aspects of biofuels in developing countries 2005. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/234/2005-002en.pdf (accessed April 2010) - FAT, Agroscope (2005), Swiss research into agriculture, nutrition and the environment, Tänikon, data of 2005. Data of 2009 to be found: http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/betriebswirtschaft/01044/03680/04477/index.html?lang=fr (accessed 21.10.10) Qualitative estimation based on information from: - Fleury and Thery (2005) Les contrastes du développement au Brésil, Dossiers documentaires sur l’Amérique latine, Académie de Rouen, 2005 - OFS (1997): 27 communiqueˇı de presse no 106/1997 - Risques de mortaliteˇı par professions chez les hommes en Suisse - Influence deˇıterminante des conditions de travail sur la santeˇı, Neuchâtel, 1997 Qualitative estimation based on information from: - World Bank (2005): report “potential for biofuels for transport in developing countries”, October 2005 - Öko-Institut (2005), criteria for assessing environmental, economic and social aspects of biofuels in developing countries 2005. http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/234/2005-002en.pdf (accessed April 2010) - FAT, Agroscope (2005), Swiss research into agriculture, nutrition and the environment, Tänikon, data of 2005. Data of 2009 to be found: http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/betriebswirtschaft/01044/03680/04477/index.html?lang=fr (accessed 21.10.10) Taken from: - World Bank (2005): report “potential for biofuels for transport in developing countries”, October 2005

Social field 14. Land use change and allocation (linked to food self-sufficiency), also known as direct land use change Does the bioethanol promotion provoke a change in the agricultural systems?

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

1457

Scenario 1 (50% Brazil, 50% Switzerland)

18. Poverty prevention

14. Land use change and allocation (linked to food selfsufficiency) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

17. Equal rights, legal security

Scenario 2 (100% Brazil)

15. Income distribution – equity

16. Health and safety (LCA and qualitative results)

Fig. 4. Social performance – comparison of the two scenarios. Scenario 1 (50% produced in Switzerland and 50% imported) is the one taken as reference (all values are expressed at 100%) and scenario 2 is expressed with values in higher or lower % depending on whether social performance is better or worse than in scenario 1.

represents 1.5% of the GDP – against 3.5% in Brazil. Even if the biofuels field growed quickly in Switzerland, it would not have an impact on the poverty level. All data have been identified as uncertain – none of them is 100% reliable. This stems from the fact that, in the social field, quantification is difficult and few figures are available. Significant differences exist between Switzerland and Brazil in the social field. It is therefore difficult to compare strictu sensu the two sectors for this aspect. In short, it is clear that the socioeconomic situation in Brazil is marked by inequalities greater than those existing in Switzerland and that they have existed for a long time. The answer to the question “Does production of bioethanol make the situation worse?” is not a simple or obvious one. Sugar cane has been grown for a long time for sugar. The percentage dedicated to bioethanol varies according to the demand. It seems that Brazil has enough cultivable land and is able to produce enough food for its inhabitants for the coming years (UNICA, 2006). A priori, it seems obvious that in order to ensure the sustainability of the ethanol production sector (and therefore imports from Brazil) from a social point of view, the priority is to improve the living conditions of local workers guaranteing minimum working conditions (in terms of wages, safety, etc.). 4. Conclusion This case-study comparing Swiss and Brazilian biofuels supply chains highlighted the fact that biofuels sustainability assessments have to be pathway and site specific. Several aspects are worth highlighting: • Production of biofuels in emerging countries brings advantages in terms of employment and, more generally, in economic terms in the production country. • Brazilian production of bioethanol is energy efficient and economically interesting for Brazil. • The social dimension is delicate to assess due to the lack of reliable data. Moreover, it is strongly linked to the agricultural policy in both countries. • All in all, opening up to exportation markets without safeguards is assorted with a risk of undesirable environmental impacts and difficult living conditions in the producing country. There is a need of establishing minimum sustainability criteria for imported bioethanol to avoid unwanted negative environmental impacts such as leakage effects (Ghertner and Fripp, 2007). To ensure sustainability of bioethanol supply chain, we propose to consider the following criteria as minimal sustainability criteria:

• Acceptable working conditions: by this, we mean fair pay/revenues (workers in the fields, etc.) and employment that does not pose excessive risks to health and safety. • Consideration of levels of water pollution, with the obligation of processing wastewater and regulating the spreading of vinasses (a stage in the production of ethanol). • Consideration of levels of atmospheric pollution, with gradual elimination of sugar cane burning techniques, use of more systematic mechanisation and renewal of the vehicle fleet, for example. • Respect for soil, with consideration of the impact of cultivation methods on the condition and development of soil. At this point of the research, we recommend to define a metaframework that can be declined in different forms depending on the considered energy pathway. More generally, sustainability frameworks are gaining importance at the international trade level and deserve a systematic methodological thinking. As for now, sugar (BSI, 2009), wood (FSC, 2010) and biofuels are assessed on a regular basis. We believe that such thinking should also be expanded to other resources energy related or not, like fossils fuels or cereals for example. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Arnaud Dauriat (ENERS) for his valuable help during the project and for his constructive feedback on this paper. The research has been funded by Alcosuisse (Swiss Alcohol Board). References Anex, R.P., 2004. Something new under the Sun? The industrial ecology of biobased materials. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7 (3/4). Anex, R.P., 2006. Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Personnal communication. ARE, 2004. Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), Évaluation de la durabilité: Conception générale; Évaluation de la durabilité: annexe (allemand); Évaluation de la durabilité: Guide succinct. Available from: http://www.are.admin.ch/themen/nachhaltig/00270/03005/index.html?lang=fr (accessed 14.10.10.). Alcosuisse, 2005. Planair: Rapport final de la phase d’avant-projet, Document eˇıtabli pour le Centre de profit RFA par Planair, La Sagne, Switzerland. Berg, 2005. Proceedings of the world biofuels conference, F.O. Licht 2005. Bio IS, 2008. Bio Intelligence Services sas, Report, Élaboration d’un référentiel méthodologique pour la réalisation d’Analyses de Cycle de Vie appliquées aux biocarburants de première génération en France, Paris, France, April 2008. Blanc, I., Corbière-Nicollier, T., Erkman, S., 2006. For Alcosuisse, Couverture de la demande Suisse en bioéthanol à l’horizon 2010, Production domestique de 50% des besoins versus 100% d’importation du Brésil, Quels sont les enjeux de la durabilité de ces deux scénarios pour la Suisse. Institute of Land Use Policies and Human Environment, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

1458

T. Corbière-Nicollier et al. / Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 1447–1458

Blanc, I., Friot, D., Mäenpää, I., Tukker, A., Steinberger, J., Vercaslteren, A., Van Hoof, V., 2009. Environmental accounting methods, societal expectations and challenges in a global economy. Report to ADEME and SKEP. Available from: www.imeaeu.com (accessed 14.10.10.). Blottnitz, H.v., Curran, M.A., 2007. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 607–619. BSI Standard Version 1, 2009. Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI), principles and criteria. Available from: http://www.bettersugarcane.org/ bsi standard.html#standard (accessed 14.10.10.). Buchholz, T., Volk, T., Luzadis, V., 2007. A participatory systems approach to modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Policy 35, 6084–6094. Concawe/EU/JRC, 2007. Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. Well-to-Wheels Report. Version 2c. Corbière-Nicollier, T., 2005. Integrated sustainability assessment for local projects: environmental impact and their connections with economic and social fields. EPFL thesis, no 3180, Lausanne. Dauriat, A., 2006. Production de bioéthanol-carburant en Suisse et au Brésil: les filières bois, UMMP et canne à sucre. ENERS Energy Concept, Lausanne, Rapport final, prepared for Alcosuisse. Delzeit, R., Holm-Müller, K., 2009. Steps to discern sustainability criteria for a certification scheme of bioethanol in Brazil: approach and difficulties. Energy 34, 662–668. Dutch stakeholder report to the Dutch Government – follow up from Cramer Commission, 2007. Testing framework for sustainable biomass. Final report from the project group, sustainable production of biomass. Available from: http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/Testing%20framework %20for%20sustainable%20biomass tcm24-232796.pdf (accessed 14.10.10.). E4tech, ECCM, and Imperial College London, 2005. Feasibility study on certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final report. Available from: http://www.bioenergywiki.net/Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (accessed 14.10.10.). E4tech, ECCM, and Themba, 2006. A methodology and tool for calculating the carbon intensity of biofuels. Draft final report. Available from: http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/Carbon%20methodology%20and %20tool%20-%20final.pdf (accessed 14.10.10.). EcoFys (for WWF), 2007. Towards a harmonised sustainable biomass scheme, Bart Dehue, Sebastian Meyer, Carlo Hamelinck, PBIONL072413, Copyright EcoFys 2007, Commissioned by: WWF International. ENERS Energy Concept, 2005. Business Plan UMMP. ENERS Energy Concept, Lausanne, Switzerland. ENERS Energy Concept, 2006. Production de bioéthanol carburant en Suisse et au Brésil: les filières bois, UMMP et canne à sucre. Rapport final. ENERS Energy Concept, Lausanne, Switzerland. FAO Statistics, 2006. FAO country profiles. Available from: http://www.fao. org/countryProfiles/index.asp?lang=fr&iso3=BRA&subj=4 (accessed 14.10.10.). FAT, Agroscope, 2005. Swiss research into agriculture, nutrition and the environment, Tänikon. Available from: http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/ betriebswirtschaft/01044/03680/04477/index.html?lang=fr (accessed 21.10.10.). Farrell, A.E., Haya, B.K., Hughes, J., Jenkins, B.M., Jones, A.D., Kammen, D.M., Kaffka, S.R., Knittel, C.R., Lemoine, D.M., Martin, E.W., Melaina, M.W., Ogden, J.M., Plevin, R.J., Sperling, D., Turner, B.T., Williams, R.B., Yang, C., 2007. A Low-carbon Fuel Standard for California. Part 1: Technical Analysis. UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center. Paper UCB-ITS-TSRC-RR-2007-2. Available from: http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/tsrc/UCB-ITS-TSRC-RR-2007-2 (accessed 14.10.10.). Fleury and Thery, 2005. Les contrastes du developpement au Bresil, Dossiers documentaires sur l’Amerique latine, Academie de Rouen, 2005. FSC – Forest Stewardship Council, 2010. FSC principles and criteria. Available from: http://www.fsc.org/pc.html (accessed 09.12.10.). Ghertner, D.A., Fripp, M., 2007. Trading away damage: quantifying environmental leakage through consumption-based, life-cycle analysis. Ecological Economics 63 (2–3), 563–577. Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., Villegas, J., Panichelli, L., 2009. Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresource Technology 100, 4919–4930. Gnansounou, E., Dauriat, A., 2004. Etude Comparative de Carburants par Analyse de Leur Cycle de Vie. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne, Laboratory of Energy Systems (LASEN), Reports 415.105:2002 and 420.100:2004, prepared for Alcosuisse. Goes, T., Marra, R., 2008. A Expansão da Cana-de-Ac¸úcar e sua Sustentabilidade. EMBRAPA. Available from: http://www.embrapa. br/imprensa/artigos/2008/A%20expansao%20da%20cana-de-acucar %20e%20a%20sua%20sustentabilidade.pdf (accessed 07.12.10.).

Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Guardabassi, P., 2008. The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36, 2086–2097. Hardi, P., Zdan, T.J. (Eds.), 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development, Principles in Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg. Hennenberg, K., Drasigic, C., Haye, S., Hewson, J., Semroc, B., Savy, C., Wiegmann, K., Fehrenbach, H., Fritsche, U., 2009. The power of bioenergy-related standards to protect biodiversity. Conservation Biology 24 (2), 412–423. Hunt, S., 2006. Potential challenges and risks of bio-energy production for developing countries, Entwicklung und ländlicher Raum 6. Available from: http://www.oeko.de/service/bio/en/start.htm (accessed 14.10.10.). Jay, S., 2010. Strategic environmental assessment for energy production. Energy Policy 38, 3489–3497. Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., et al., 2003. IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8, 324–330. Lewandowski, I., Faaij, A., 2006. Steps towards the development of a certification system for sustainable bio-energy trade. Biomass and Bioenergy 30, 83–104. Liska, A.J., Cassman, K.G., 2008. Towards standardization of life-cycle metrics for biofuels: greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and net energy yield. Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy 2, 187–203. Macedo, I., 2004. Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Production and Use of Fuel Ethanol in Brazil. Government of the State of São Paulo, Sao Paulo. Available from: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/brazil. unicamp.macedo.greenhousegas.pdf (accessed 20.10.10.). Niven, R.K., 2005. Ethanol in gasoline: environmental impacts and sustainability review article. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9, 535–555. OFS, 1997. 27 communiqueˇı de presse no 106/1997, Risques de mortaliteˇı par professions chez les hommes en Suisse, Influence deˇıterminante des conditions de travail sur la santeˇı, Neuchâtel. Öko-Institut, 2005. Criteria for Assessing Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects of Biofuels in Developing countries, Öko-Institut, Freiburg, Germany. Available from: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/234/2005-002-en.pdf (accessed 21.10.10.). Pereira de Carvalho, E., 2005. UNICA, future strategy of the Brazilian ethanol industry. In: World Biofuels Conference, F.O. Licht’s World Ethanol 2005 , Amsterdam, 2–4 November. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, 2010. RSB principles and criteria, status: draft for consultation. Version 1.1. Available from: http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (accessed 11.10.10.). Solomon, B., 2010. Biofuels and sustainability. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185 (Ecological Economics Reviews, 119–134). Sheehan, J., 2009. Biofuels and the conundrum of sustainability. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 20, 318–324. Smeets, E., Faaij, A., 2010. The impact of sustainability criteria on the costs and potentials of bioenergy production – applied for case studies in Brazil and Ukraine. Biomass and Bioenergy 34, 319–333. Smeets, E., Faaij, A., Lewandowski, I., 2005. The Impact of Sustainability Criteria on the Costs and Potentials of Bioenergy Production. An Exploration of the Impact of the Implementation of Sustainability Criteria on the Costs and Potential of Bioenergy Production Applied for Cases Studies in Brazil and Ukraine. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, ISBN 90-73958-00-8. Smeets, E., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Walter, A., Dolzan, P., Turkenburg, W., 2008. The sustainability of Brazilian ethanol – an assessment of the possibilities of certified production. Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 781–813. TERI, 2005. “Biofuels – 2012 Vision to Reality”, International Conference , Delhi, October. UNICA, 2006. Sao Paulo Sugarcane Agroindustry Union. Available from: http://english.unica.com.br/search.asp (accessed 14.10.10.). Van Dam, J.v., Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jürgens, I., Best, G., Fritsche, U., 2008. Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 749–780. Van Dam, J., Junginger, M., Faaij, A.P.C., 2010. From the global efforts on certifications of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14, 2445–2472. Van der Voet, E., Lifset, R., Luo, L., 2010. Life cycle assessment of biofuels, convergence and divergence. Biofuels 1 (3), 435–449. World Bank, 2005. Report “potential for biofuels for transport in developing countries”. Available from: http://vle.worldbank.org/ bnpp/files/TF020486ESMABiofuelsforTransport.pdf (accessed 20.10.10.). WWF and the EU Biofuels communication, 2006. http://assets.panda.org/ (accessed downloads/wwf on biofuels comm q a 2006 final 080206.pdf 14.10.10.).