Environmental sustainability of biodiesel in Brazil

rica Geraldes Castanheira

a
, Renata Grisoli
b
, Fausto Freire
a
, Vanessa Pecora
b
,
Suani Teixeira Coelho
b,n
a
ADAI-LAETA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Plo II Campus, Rua Lus Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
b
CENBIO, Brazilian Reference Center on Biomass, Institute of Energy and Environment, University of So Paulo, Av. Prof Luciano Gualberto, 1289, 05508-010
So Paulo, Brazil
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 March 2013
Received in revised form
9 September 2013
Accepted 14 September 2013
Available online 21 November 2013
Keywords:
Soybean biodiesel
Sustainability assessment
Tallow biodiesel
a b s t r a c t
Biodiesel production in Brazil has grown from 736 m
3
in 2007 to 2.7 Mm
3
in 2012. It is an emergent
bioenergy for which it is important to guarantee environmental sustainability. The objective of this
article is to characterise the biodiesel production chain in Brazil, to identify potential environmental
impacts and to analyse key drivers and barriers for biodiesel environmental sustainability. This article
explores these aspects and focusses on the increasing demand for the main feedstocks for biodiesel
production in Brazil: soybean oil and beef tallow. The impacts of land use and land-use change on
greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and water, as well as the energy balance, were found to be critical
for the environmental sustainability assessment and development of biodiesel chains. Increasing
agriculture yields, diversifying feedstocks and adopting ethyl transesterication can contribute to
minimise environmental impacts. It was also found that environmental impacts could be mitigated by
appropriate policies aiming at an integrated optimisation of food and bioenergy production and through
agro-economicecological zoning, allowing adequate use of land for each purpose. Despite the limitation
and weakness of some sustainability tools and initiatives, certication and zoning can play an important
role in the sustainability of the emerging biodiesel production in Brazil.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Current liquid biofuel production processes rely on rst-
generation conversion pathways and comprise two distinct pro-
ducts: bioethanol and biodiesel. Policies worldwide have stimu-
lated biofuel demand by setting targets and blending quotas and
have aided its development by establishing support mechanisms
(such as subsidies and tax exemptions in the starting point of the
programmes) (Bringezu et al., 2009). In this context, over the past
5 years, liquid biofuel production increased at an average annual
rate of 17% for bioethanol and 27% for biodiesel, reaching over
107.5 million m
3
(21.4 and 86.1 million m
3
of biodiesel and
bioethanol, respectively) in 2011 (REN21, 2012). Biodiesel
accounted for approximately 5% of the world biofuel production
in 2000, but this share has been rising and, in 2011, biodiesel
represented about 20% of the total biofuel production.
Fig. 1 shows the growth in biodiesel production since the year
2000. The columns in the gure represent the contribution of
different world regions for biodiesel production of the ve
most important countries. Europe was the dominant region with
increasing production since 2005. North America was a distant
second producer led by the United States of America (USA) until
2009 when production in USA fell by over 10,000 barrels per day
(mainly due to the economic downturn, incentives changes for
biodiesel and foreign trade policies), while growth continued in
Central and South America and Asia and Oceania. The ve most
important countries (55% of world production in 2010) were
Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina and USA (EIA, 2012).
In Brazil, the federal government created in 2004 the National
Biodiesel Production and Use Program (PNPB). The objective of the
PNPB was to implement, in a sustainable way, in technical and
economic aspects, the production and use of biodiesel and to allow
initially the blend of 2% biodiesel (in volume) with diesel (B2) on a
voluntary basis. Federal law 11,097 (Brasil, 2005) was approved in
2005 to establish a mandatory target of 2% and 5% of biodiesel
addition to diesel oil in 2008 and 2013, respectively. In July 2008,
the National Council of Energy Policy (CNPE) adopted 3% of
biodiesel as the compulsory blend, which was raised to 5% (B5)
in January 2010, anticipating in 3 years the goal set in 2005 (MME,
2013).
The fast growing interest and production of biodiesel world-
wide has led to increasing concern about the environmental,
economic and social impacts, especially regarding competition
for land, air and water emissions, biodiversity and the fuel versus
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Energy Policy
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.062
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: suani@iee.usp.br (S.T. Coelho).
Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691
food debate, also in Brazil (e.g., Padula et al., 2012; GEA, 2012;
Janssen and Rutz, 2011; Diaz-Chavez, 2011; Lange, 2011; Lynd
et al., 2011; Schaffel and La Rovere, 2010; Santos and Rathmann,
2009). To counterbalance these potential negative effects, it is
crucial to establish an overview of current and future trends of
biodiesel in Brazil, including characterisation of the production
chain, main impacts and several policies, standards and certica-
tion schemes in place to help biodiesel sustainability assessment
and development.
This article provides an overview of the key challenging factors
towards environmental sustainability of biodiesel in Brazil, based
on an overview of the biodiesel production chain and environ-
mental impacts. It is organised in ve sections, including this
introduction. Section 2 presents a characterisation of the biodiesel
chain in Brazil, focussed on the main feedstocks (soybean oil and
beef tallow). Section 3 analyses the main environmental impacts
of biodiesel. The key drivers and barriers for the environmental
sustainability of biodiesel in Brazil are discussed in Section 4.
Section 5 sets forth the concluding remarks.
This article aims to address only the environmental impacts of
biodiesel from soybean and beef tallow in Brazil; however, it must
be taken into account that the economic aspects of biodiesel are
the main reason for choosing these two raw materials for biodiesel
in Brazil. Other feedstocks such as palm and castor oil present high
opportunity costs (NAE, 2005) as they are used in the food
industry and others (more interesting in economic terms). Soy-
bean oil is the main raw material because it is the by-product of
the production of soybean meal for animal feed (to be exported
together with the grains). In a similar way, beef tallow is the by-
product of meat production to be exported. However, it must be
observed that, even in the case of soybean and tallow biodiesel,
most biodiesel is commercialised in auctions by Petrobras (the
Brazilian oil company), which pays prices much higher that the
nal price of biodiesel blended with diesel oil in the country
(diesel oil prices are controlled by Federal Government as a tool
against ination rates).
2. Biodiesel production in Brazil
Biodiesel production in Brazil has grown from 736 m
3
in 2005
to approximately 2.7 million m
3
in 2011 (ANP, 2012). The effective
production in 2011 represented only 44% of the actual total
nominal capacity of biodiesel production (6.0 million m
3
) (MME,
2012). The regions with a higher nominal capacity (which pro-
duced over 76% of the biodiesel in Brazil) are the Central-West (the
states of Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Gois and Distrito
Federal) and the South (the states of Rio Grande do Sul, Paran and
Santa Catarina).
Cerri et al. (2010) presented an estimation of the total biodiesel
production in the 20102020 period and the requirement for
biodiesel production to supply domestic demand by 2020, based
on data from the National Energy Plan 2030 (NEP) (MME, 2007)
and the National Plan on Climate Change (NPCC) (Governo Federal,
2008). Regarding biodiesel production, the results show a total of
33.3 million m
3
(NEP scenario) and 35.23 million m
3
(NPCC
scenario). Concerning the requirement for biodiesel (B5) produc-
tion to meet domestic demand by 2020, the results vary between
3.9 million m
3
(NEP scenario) and 4.25 million m
3
(NPCC scenario).
These values show that the Brazilian requirement in 2020 can be
achieved by the total nominal capacity of biodiesel production in
Brazil in 2011 (6.0 million m
3
) (ANP, 2012).
Soybean oil is currently the main feedstock of biodiesel
production in Brazil. According to ANP (2011), in 2009 and 2010
this raw material was responsible for about 7782% of biodiesel
production. Other raw materials are beef tallow (1317%) and
cottonseed oil (2%). Cerri et al. (2010) estimated that biodiesel will
be produced from ve raw materials in 2020: soybean (58%), beef
tallow (27%), palm (10%), castor bean (4%) and sunower (1%). This
calculation took into account a decrease in the use of soybean as
feedstock in the long term, an increase in the participation of other
crops, the production of each oilseed in the Brazilian territory and
the amount of animals slaughtered by 2020 in Brazil. The two
main biodiesel feedstocks in Brazil are presented in the next
subsections.
2.1. Soybean oil
Soybean oil is a vegetable oil extracted from the seeds of the
soybean (Glycine max), which can be produced almost all over the
Brazilian territory. Fig. 2 presents the historic evolution of
soybean-cultivated area in the various Brazilian regions and the
soybean yield in Brazil. Since 20012002, the soybean-cultivated
area grew about 53%. The Central-Western and Southern regions
have the highest cultivated area, representing together 83% of the
total cultivated area in the last three seasons (20082009 to 2010
2011) (CONAB, 2012). The states of Mato Grosso (27%) and Gois
(11%) in Central-West and Paran (20%) and Rio Grande do Sul
Fig. 1. Global growth in biodiesel production (20002010).
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 681
(15%) in South are the major producers of soybean in Brazil
(CONAB, 2012).
1
Although the cultivated area in Brazil has grown
in recent years, an increase in the yield associated with technolo-
gical advances, management and efciency aspects is one of the
reasons for the increase in soybean production.
Fig. 3 presents the production, import, export and national
consumption (NC) of soybean grain (Fig. 3a), meal (3b) and oil (3c)
in Brazil since 1961. The NC quantities used for biodiesel produc-
tion and food purposes are also shown in Fig. 3c. Soybean grain
production increased about 76% since 2001, due to both an
increase in exportation and national demand. In 19801990,
exported soybean represented on average 27% of the Brazilian
production while in 2010, it represented over 42%. Brazil is self-
sufcient in soybean grains, meal and oil, supplying the domestic
market and exporting the surplus to international markets (MAPA,
2011).
The domestic consumption of soybean meal
2
and oil has been
growing signicantly, especially in the last 5 years. Over 93% of the
soybean grains consumed in the domestic market are processed to
co-produce soybean oil and meal (52% of meal and 23% of the oil
were exported in 2010). Only 67% was consumed as food or feed.
Oil exports have been reducing since 2005 due to the growing
biodiesel production (commercialised in Brazil since 2005). In
2010, biodiesel production required about 32% of the total domes-
tic consumption of soybean oil.
2.2. Beef tallow
Beef tallow is a co-product from the beef meat industry
(slaughterhouse, rendering and retail). Appendix A shows cattle
slaughter and beef tallow production and consumption in Brazil
from 1997 to 2011. In 2011, a production of more than 430,000
(metric) tonnes of beef tallow was calculated assuming that each
slaughtered cattle provides an average of 15 kg of usable tallow
(Levy, 2011; Peres, 2010). However, it is important to mention the
high uncertainty in the number of cattle slaughtered (statistical
data only include the slaughterhouses under sanitary inspection
and vary depending on the source considered as reference) and in
the quantity of usable tallow that can be produced from each
animal.
Beef tallow consumption in Brazil almost doubled in the last 14
years (since 1997), but little information is available about the
various uses of tallow. One of the reasons is that tallow has been
considered a low-value co-product of the cattle beef industry and,
historically, the main consumer of tallow is the soap industry. The
different uses of tallow in Brazil in 2003 were (Andrade Filho,
2007): 70% for soap production, 15% used as fuel in boilers, 10% for
animal feed and 5% others. In 2007, a study by Aboissa Vegetable
Oils presented other values (Gomes et al., 2009): 61% for cleaning
and hygiene purposes, 13% for chemical purposes, 12% for biodiesel
production, 10% for animal feed and 4% used as fuel in boilers.
Since 2007, beef tallow consumption for biodiesel production
increased almost six times and in 2010 more than 313,000 t of
beef tallow was used to produce biodiesel. Biodiesel production
was the main destination for beef tallow in Brazil in 2010 and
represented about 72% of the total beef tallow consumed.
The main driving forces behind the use of tallow as feedstock
for biodiesel in Brazil are the low price of raw material and the fact
that Brazil has the second largest cattle herd in the world (Levy,
2011). Biodiesel from beef tallow presents advantages in some
properties (cetane number and stability), compared with biodiesel
produced from soybean oil (Moraes et al., 2008) but has some
important limitations, namely viscosity, which does not allow
100% production from beef tallow, as concluded from eld visits
for this study.
3. Environmental impacts
Biofuel production has attracted the attention of stakeholders
because of concerns related with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(particularly from land conversion), food production, water secur-
ity and biodiversity (Ravindranath et al., 2011). In this context, a
country-specic approach to life-cycle assessment (LCA) is vital
when evaluating the environmental impacts of bioenergy systems.
Local conditions, such as agricultural practices, land-use changes
(LUCs) and transport infrastructures, will have a major impact on
the environmental performance of the system being modelled
(Panichelli et al., 2009). Only a few LCA studies were performed for
soybean and tallow biodiesel produced in Brazil, focussing on
energy and GHG balances (e.g., Cavalett and Ortega, 2009, 2010;
Mourad and Walter, 2011), and more recently on impacts resulting
from water (consumption and pollution), land use and LUC
(Prudncio da Silva et al., 2010; Batlle-Bayer et al., 2010;
Castanheira and Freire, 2013, 2012; Grisoli et al., 2012). This
section discusses the main environmental aspects.
Fig. 2. Evolution of soybean cultivated area and soybean yields in Brazil.
1
North and Northeast are the regions where the cultivated area is lower but
the area increased about 395% and 90%, respectively, in the last 10 years.
2
Soybean meal is approximately 80% of the soybean grain in mass and is a
high-quality, in-demand protein ingredient for animal feed and human food
protein.
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 682
3.1. Land use and land-use change
Biofuel feedstock currently occupies about 1% of arable land
(Berndes et al., 2010) and the increase in land use for biofuel
production initiated a widespread debate among policymakers
and researchers (Witcover et al., 2013; Ponsioen and Blonk, 2012;
Lange, 2011; Walter et al., 2011; Nassar et al., 2010; Yang et al.,
2009). Land is a limiting factor for biomass production in general
and three land-use-impact pathways can be identied (Mil i
Canals et al., 2007): biodiversity, ecological soil quality and biotic
production potential. Higher biofuel production can lead to
increased GHG emissions and loss of biodiversity if it is from
new land being converted to grow biomass (direct LUC) or
existing agriculture being displaced (indirect LUC), as discussed
in Gibbs et al. (2008), Fargione et al. (2008) and Goldemberg et al.
(2008). Cerri et al. (2010) assessed that Brazil will need to expand
about 6.46.8 Mha of area planted with oilseeds to meet the
domestic demand for biodiesel until 2020.
The land use in Brazil since 1970 is shown in Fig. 4. Since 1980,
there was not a signicant change in the total area of land use;
however, there were important changes between the different
types of land use, namely a decrease in natural grassland and
forest plantation areas and an increase in area for the other uses
(cropland, native forest and grassland plantations). Natural grass-
lands dominated the type of land use until 1985, since when
grassland plantations has become the major area in Brazil. In fact,
these data demonstrate that grassland plantations are occupying
increasing areas (grassland plantation area increased more than
241% between 1970 and 2006), mainly in the North and Central-
West regions. This increase in grassland plantation area since 1970
may be an indication of the substitution of natural grasslands, as
natural grassland areas have been reduced. However, natural
Fig. 3. Production, import, export and national consumption (NC) of soybean grain (3a), meal (3b) and oil (3c) in Brazil. The NC quantities used for biodiesel production and
food purposes are also shown in 3 c (ABIOVE, 2011).
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 683
grasslands still have a prominent place in the context of the
Brazilian cattle industry, mainly in the Northeast and in South
regions in Brazil.
Fig. 4 also shows the historic evolution (19702006) of the
cattle population in Brazil and for each region. In 2006, the total
cattle heads in Brazil was more than 205 million (double com-
pared to 1975) and 34% were located in the Central-West region
and 20% in North region of Brazil. Since 2000, there was a strong
increase of cattle heads in North region (67%) as a result of a
combined effect of an overall total increase in cattle (21% more)
and a shift in location. The total area of grassland was reduced
during the 19962006 period, while the cattle population
increased. This was possible due to cattle production intensica-
tion resulting from the conversion of natural grassland into
grassland plantations and improved management and mainte-
nance of grassland plantations. In addition, although cattle pro-
duction in Brazil is essentially based on the use of pastures, more
intensive systems through supplementary feeding on pasture or by
the use of feedlots have become important in the Central-West
and Southeast regions (Cezar et al., 2005).
Cropland area almost doubled since 1970, growing 45% of
perennial cropland and 86% annual cropland. The main reason
for this growth is the increased area of soybean and, to a lesser
extent, due to sugar cane. The area occupied by the most
important perennial and annual crops in Brazil is shown in
Fig. 5. In 1990, cropland was more diversied and maize (23%),
soybean (22%), beans (10%), rice (10%) and sugar cane (10%)
occupied most of the area. However, in 2010, most of the
cropland was occupied by soybean (36%), maize (20%) and sugar
cane (14%).
As can be seen in Fig. 4, annual cropland area increased
signicantly between 1996 and 2006, which according to Fig. 5,
was driven by the rise in soybean area. There was also an increase
of grassland plantation and reducing natural grassland, besides the
maintenance of forest plantation and native forest. Therefore, it is
possible to assume that soybean expansion occurred mainly with
respect to grassland (natural or plantation).
3.2. GHG and energy balance
The life-cycle (LC) GHG emissions of biodiesel arise directly
from LUC and from the use of fertilizers and fuels and indirectly
from the manufacture of feedstock inputs (e.g., fertilizers and
chemicals), electricity generation, transportation and transforma-
tion of raw fossil fuels, etc.
A wide range of GHG emissions has been reported in LCA
studies for biodiesel (e.g., Castanheira and Freire, 2013; Mala and
Freire, 2011). This wide variability of GHG emissions can be due to
technological and location issues such as the biodiesel conversion
route, agriculture mechanisation level, crop and farm management
and changes in land use for livestock and soybean production
3
or
associated with methodological assumptions in the LC calcula-
tions. According to several authors, LC modelling choices can have
a signicant effect on the GHG calculations. Mala and Freire
(2011), in a review of biodiesel LC studies, identied a strong
correlation between the key modelling issues addressed by the
surveyed LC models and biodiesel GHG intensity. This review
showed that LC studies of biodiesel that do not account for LUC
and N
2
O emissions from soil (or adopt low values), presented GHG
intensities below 73 g CO
2
eq MJ
1
. Instead, the studies that
accounted for higher N
2
O emissions from soil and LUC soil carbon
emissions presented intensities above 146 g CO
2
eq MJ
1
.
Fig. 4. Evolution of land use and cattle population in Brazil (19702006).
0
5
10
15
20
25
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
Cropland
(10
6
ha)
Soybean
Maize
Sugarcane
Beans
Rice
Wheat
Coffee
Cassava
Others
Source: IBGE, 2011
Fig. 5. Evolution of perennial and annual crops in Brazil (19902010).
3
CO
2
uxes from carbon stock changes
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 684
A positive net energy balance
4
(Kallivroussis et al., 2002;
Pradhan et al., 2008; Fore et al., 2011) is also one necessary
criterion for a biodiesel to be a sustainable alternative to fossil
diesel. To verify if biodiesel has a positive energy balance, an LC
approach must be employed, allowing quantication of the renew-
ability of biofuel delivered to consumers (Mala and Freire, 2006).
However, within the energy analysis and LCA literature, there is
lack of consensus concerning the denition and calculation of
energy efciency indicators to characterise the LC energy require-
ments of biofuels (Mala and Freire, 2011, 2009).
The energy balance of biofuels varies from one producer to
another due, for example, to different yields, agricultural practices,
industrial technologies, distances and transport used. In addition,
there are different methodological approaches for calculating the
energy balances of biofuels, which make direct comparisons of
results extremely difcult (Mourad and Walter, 2011). A large body
of work that relies on LCA to investigate the biofuel production
provides different, sometimes contradictory, results for net energy
values (Menichetti and Otto, 2009, Bureau et al., 2010). According
to Cavalett and Ortega (2010), 0.27 kg of crude oil equivalent is
required as input to produce 1 l of soybean biodiesel in Brazil,
which means an energy return of 2.48 J of biodiesel per Joule of
fossil fuel invested. A renewability factor of 4.3 for soybean
biodiesel in Brazil was found by Mourad and Walter (2011).
5
Recent studies performed for soybean biodiesel showed that
the land conversion from forest, savannah or grassland (improved)
to soybean plantation in Brazil leads to the most signicant LC CO
2
emissions. Castanheira and Freire (2012) and Grisoli et al. (2012)
calculated a wide range of GHG emissions for soybean biodiesel
(between 12 and 808 g CO
2
eq MJ
-1
) mainly due to alternative LUC
scenarios. Emissions due to LUC represent 6080% of the total GHG
emissions. When LUC is not considered, soybean cultivation is the
LC phase that contributes most to the GHG balance. In the past,
some LC studies reported a correlation between biodiesel energy
inputs and GHG intensity; however, recent LC studies for biodiesel
demonstrated that taking into account soil emissions in LC
assessments, namely carbon emissions due to LUC and N
2
O
emissions due to land use, negates the correlation between
biodiesel energy inputs and GHG intensity (Mala and Freire,
2011, 2010; Soimakallio et al., 2009; Reijnders and Huijbregts,
2008).
Regarding beef tallow biodiesel, various studies have dealt with
GHG and energy balance and the results also can vary signicantly.
Table 1 shows some results of energy output and GHG emissions
for tallow biodiesel. The large range observed is mainly related to
the system boundaries denition and allocation methods. Render-
ing (tallow production) generates the largest GHG emissions for
tallow biodiesel (Prabhu et al., 2009; Barber et al., 2007; Niederl
and Narodoslawsky, 2006). As tallow production is considered to
have an inelastic supply (Brander et al., 2009), GHG emissions
from beef production (including LUC) are usually excluded in the
studies (Brander et al., 2009; Niederl and Narodoslawsky, 2006;
Prabhu et al., 2009). Related to energy balance, according to Barber
et al. (2007), different energy ratios are due in part to different
allocation rates and have combined with different rendering
energy values. Furthermore, the results of Bruyninckx (2010) show
that the most critical stages in terms of energy requirements are
the transesterication process (47%), farming (32%) and slaughter-
ing and rendering (19%).
3.3. Biodiversity
One global hotspot of biodiversity is the Brazilian Cerrado
(Brazilian savannah), which represents about 9% of the tropical
savannahs worldwide (Myers et al., 2000). It is the largest
neotropical savannah formation in America (Eiten, 1972; Furley,
1999) and is the second largest biome in Brazil extending over 200
million ha (Batlle-Bayer et al., 2010). In the last years, there has
been a signicant increase in agricultural and cattle production in
the Brazilian Cerrado. It was estimated that more than half of the
Cerrado has been transformed into pasture, cash-crop agriculture
and other uses in a time period of only 35 years (Cederberg et al.,
2009). The development of agricultural activities (expansion and
intensication) in the region has been rapidly reducing the
biodiversity of the ecosystems.
The Cerrado is the main biome of the Central-West region in
Brazil, the most important beef-producing region in the country
(35% of the national beef production in 2010). Almost all of this
production proceeds from extensive breeding systems, charac-
terised for low animal productivity and low nancial payback.
These unfavourable indices reect the inadequate management of
the landplantanimal system practiced in a large part of the
cattle-breeding estates, what consequently leads to degradation of
the pastures (Jnior and Vilela, 2002). Cultivated pastures cover
around 25% of the Cerrado area (Klink and Machado, 2005) and
most of these cultivated pastures experience some degree of
degradation (Da Silva et al., 2004). Pasture degradation is the
most important obstacle to establishing sustainable cattle breed-
ing in agronomic, economic and environmental terms in the
Cerrado. Among the factors that explain the degradation of the
pasture areas in the region, the low soil fertility can be highlighted
(Jnior and Vilela, 2002).
Due to irrigation and soil amelioration techniques, the Cerrado
also became an important agricultural region for soybean, maize
and rice production in addition to its use for cattle breeding.
Currently, the region is increasingly threatened by single-crop
monoculture plantations mainly for soybean cultivation (Janssen
and Rutz, 2011). In 2010, 45% of soybean was produced in the
Central-West region of Brazil (more 30% than in 1980). The
expansion of soybean production replaced pasture lands and small
farms of varied crops. Flaskerud (2003) estimated that the overall
expansion of Brazilian cropland (also for soybean) will include 51%
on former pastureland, 42% in the Cerrado area and 7% in the
Amazon rainforest.
Change in land use in the Cerrado may cause indirect defor-
estation of the Amazon forest. The shift from small-scale farming
and cattle pasture to large-scale soybean monocultures forces
farmers and cattle breeders to search for alternative land, which
is often in the Amazon area. Valuable areas of the Cerrado need to
be protected by future biofuel sustainability schemes (Lucon,
2009; Janssen and Rutz, 2011).
3.4. Water footprint
The water footprint (WF) of a given product is the volume of
freshwater used to produce the product, measured in terms of
water volume consumed (evaporated) or polluted over the various
steps of the production chain (Hoekstra, 2012). The WF of biofuels
is highly dependent on feedstock type, geographic region (local
climatic, hydrological and soil conditions) and crop (or livestock)
management practices (Stone et al., 2010; Berndes, 2008).
The production of energy crops for biofuel production can have
substantial impacts on water demand, especially if irrigation is
used (Jumbe et al., 2007; Coelho et al., 2012; Gerbens-Leenes et al.,
2009; Emmenegger et al., 2011). As conventional production
methods, bioenergy feedstocks production can have water quality
4
This means a positive energy return compared with the energy required to
produce the biofuel.
5
They also showed that the soybean biodiesel production is strongly depen-
dent on the use of non-renewable resources in the industrial processing stages,
agricultural production and transport (Mourad and Walter, 2011; Cavalett and
Ortega, 2010).
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 685
impacts from fertilizer and pesticide use (Lovett et al., 2009;
Goldemberg et al., 2008). Furthermore, converting pastures or
woodlands into cropland (both for food or bioenergy production)
may exacerbate problems such as soil erosion, sedimentation and
excess nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) run-off into surface
waters and inltration into groundwater from increased use of
fertilizers (FAO, 2008).
According to Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2009), the WF of biofuels
ranges between 59 (ethanol from sugar beet) and 574 (biodiesel
from Jatropha curcas) l MJ
1
. Biodiesel WFs are nearly two to four
times higher than the WF for bioethanol crops, because oilseed
crops are less water efcient (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; Singh
and Kumar, 2011). Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2009) calculated a WF for
soybean biodiesel of 394 l MJ
1
(13,676 l per litre of biodiesel);
according to the authors, in terms of the bioenergy sources
considered in this study, biodiesel has the bigger WF, followed
by ethanol and bioelectricity. WF studies of biodiesel in Brazil are
still rare; few of them are indeed representative and this issue still
needs to be studied in depth in the country. A preliminary study
for showed that the soybean biodiesel WF varies from 40 to
60 l MJ
1
(Seabra et al., 2011). Another study in southern Brazil
for the production of biodiesel indicates that the major contribu-
tion to degradative water use is the agricultural phase (93.4%),
while for consumptive use the largest contribution is the oil
extraction process (37.6%) (Muller, 2012). No WF studies were
found for tallow biodiesel but Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2011) pre-
sented the WF of beef production in Brazil (881023,892 l per kg
of beef).
4. Environmental sustainability of biodiesel: key drivers
and barriers in Brazil
Environmental sustainability is a difcult concept to explain,
but it can be dened as the maintenance of natural capital
(Goodland, 1995). The two fundamental environmental services
(the source and the sink functions) must be maintained unim-
paired during the period over which sustainability is required. In
this context, the environmental sustainability of biodiesel is
critically related to LC impacts associated with air (GHG emissions
and others), water and soil, energy balance and biodiversity (FAO,
2013b). Another important issue involves developing strategies to
ensure that as the production of biofuels increases, adequate
supplies of other needed agricultural and forest-based goods are
produced (FAO, 2013b). However, to quantify the environmental
sustainability of biodiesel is complex.
An increasing number of countries have established initiatives
to dene sustainability criteria for biofuels. For instance, the
European Union Directive on the Promotion of Renewable Energy
Sources (RED) dened that for biofuels to be counted as renewable
energy, a minimum GHG saving of 35% is required by 2014
(comparing with fossil fuel). The directive also stipulates no-go
zones for feedstock production (e.g., areas where land is deemed
to be of high biodiversity value or high carbon stock, wetlands
and peatland) (FAO, 2013b). In addition, there is an important
initiative from the Global Bioenergy Partnership (FAO/GBEP, 2011)
dening sustainability indicators for bioenergy (FAO/GBEP, 2011),
which are now starting to be evaluated for different countries.
4.1. Land expansion versus agriculture intensication
The Brazilian annual growth rate of soybean production is
estimated at 2.4% by 2019, close to the global rate estimated
(2.6%) for the next 10 years (MAPA, 2011). This may be achieved in
two ways (Elobeid et al., 2010): land expansion or land intensica-
tion. Some authors consider that expansion of land area comes
with a number of environmental challenges highlighted by the
recent debate on direct and indirect LUC brought about by biofuel
expansion (Searchinger et al., 2008; Fargione et al., 2008). How-
ever, there are several studies (Goldemberg et al., 2008;
Goldemberg, 2009; Goldemberg and Guardabassi, 2009) showing
positive results for Brazil and also presenting the benets for
developing countries when sustainable bioenergy production
occurs, such as job generation in rural areas and local investments
allowing signicant development in such countries.
In the case of soybean in Brazil, the increased production comes
from additional land (land expansion), rather than from higher
yields (intensication). As shown in Fig. 2, the soybean-cultivated
area in 20112012 was 3.6 times greater than the area in 197677,
while the soybean yield in 20112012 was only 1.5 times greater
than in 19761977. The United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP, 2010) analysed that the limited potential for the expansion
of cultivated lands and the need to increase agricultural produc-
tion over the next decades leave no alternative other than land
intensication. In this context, it is essential to gain a better
understanding of the yield trends and the future yield potential
of biofuel feedstocks to help determine the impact of biofuel
expansion on agricultural markets (Elobeid et al., 2010). A more
detailed discussion on this subject is presented in GEA (2012), in
particular considering the specicities between the different types
of biofuels (mainly between bioethanol and biodiesel, which is the
focus of this analysis).
Brazil has achieved a soybean yield of 26653000 kg ha
1
in
the last 3 years (Fig. 2). An enhancement of 52% in 20112012
compared to 19761977 can be related to the improvement of
agricultural practices. Although future productivity is critical, as it
will shape emissions from conversion of native landscapes to food
and biodiesel, investment in agricultural research is rarely men-
tioned as a mitigation strategy (Burney et al., 2010; Somerville
et al., 2010). Experience shows that production can indeed be
intensied (meaning more production per unit area) whilst redu-
cing inputs and lowering the environmental impacts of agricul-
ture. Intensication and environmental sustainability are not
necessarily incompatible (Somerville et al., 2010). Burney et al.
(2010) estimated the net effect of historical agricultural intensi-
cation on GHG emissions between 1961 and 2005 and they found
that while emissions from factors such as fertilizer production and
application have increased, the net effect of higher yields has
avoided emissions of up to 161 gigatons of carbon (GtC) since 1961.
Their analysis indicates that yield improvements should therefore
be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions.
In addition, genetic improvements can allow the growth of
soybean production without excessive land-use expansion. Geneti-
cally modied (GM) crops are mostly herbicide-resistant or insect-
resistant. Since Brazil legalised GM soybean in 2005, GM soybean
has been growing and it represented 85% of the total planted area
in 20112012 (21.3 million ha). In the long term, some authors
expect that genetically modied organism (GMO) applications will
increase even more in Latin America (Janssen and Rutz, 2011). The
Table 1
Energy output and GHG emission for tallow biodiesel.
Reference Energy output
(per MJ input)
GHG emission
(g CO
2
eq MJ
-1
)
Bruyninckx, 2010; 2.9 62.0
Brander et al., 2009
a
13.097.2
Prabhu et al., 2009 1.6 38.6
Barber et al., 2007 2.0 42.0
Beer et al., 2001 5.6 47.0
a
There are no results for energy requirements in this study.
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 686
use of GMO for food and biofuel production in Brazil is contro-
versial but there is a greater acceptance of GMO in Latin America
than in Europe, as discussed in Elobeid et al. (2009) and Oplinger
et al. (1998), as well as van Meijl and von Tongeren (2004).
Regarding management practices (no tillage, reduced tillage or
conventional tillage) for soybean cultivation, only few Brazilian
producers used tillage systems (Castro et al., 2010). In no-tillage
systems, the rotation of crops with species that increase plant
residues on the soil surface is fundamental to avoid erosion and to
improve nutrient cycling through nutrient mobilisation from
deeper soil layers (Crusciol et al., 2005). However, it is likely that
other factors such as environmental stewardship, personal experi-
ence, equipment availability, switching costs, farm size, time and
labour availability, fuel prices and government incentive pro-
grammes will be a far greater inuence on the decision to not till
than the effect on crop yield (DeFelice et al., 2006).
Regarding beef production in Brazil (Fig. 4), it can be observed
that the cattle population has been rising, even with the reduction
of grassland. The intensication of livestock activity occurred due
to the evolution of the number of cattle heads per unit of area
(density): cattle density increased from 0.6 heads ha
-1
in 1975 to
1.3 heads ha
-1
in 2006 (IBGE, 2007), which is still a very low
density when compared to the average for developed countries.
Goldemberg (2009) also indicated possible increasing grazing
intensities using less land areas in livestock: in Sao Paulo State,
cattle density heightened in the last decade, thereby increasing
area for food/bioenergy crops. Soares et al. (2009) showed that the
overall balance on GHG emissions is positive despite the increase
in intensive animal husbandry and the corresponding replacement
of cattle areas by sugar-cane crops. This intensication in Brazil
can also contribute to the availability of large areas for soybean
(and other crops) expansion.
4.2. Biodiesel production: methanol versus bioethanol
Regarding biodiesel production, it is important to identify
opportunities for using bioethanol in the transesterication pro-
cess. In 2010, more than 97% of the biodiesel produced in Brazil
used methanol to produce fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) (a total
consumption of about 302,000 m
3
). Most industries in Brazil use
methylic transesterication for biodiesel production; however,
there are two companies that used (anhydrous) bioethanol for
biodiesel production (ANP, 2011). For instance, FERTIBOM
6
(in Sao
Paulo State) produces biodiesel from different raw materials
(vegetable oils and also residual oils) and considers it to be
economically feasible since it participates in the biodiesel auctions
(CENBIO, 2013).
The technical and economic success of replacing methanol
(fossil origin) by bioethanol to produce biodiesel (resulting in
fatty acid ethyl ester (FAEE) instead of FAME) is expected to be a
challenging factor for the environmental sustainability of biodie-
sel, particularly for Brazil. Chemically, the methyl and ethyl routes
are very similar; however, in practice there are differences
between these two routes, namely reaction time, catalyst amount
and reaction temperature. According to Hamelinck et al. (2007),
difculties in the separation phase are a major barrier in ethyl
ester production for any feedstock used.
Beyond the technical aspects, the main limiting factors for the
implementation of ethyl transesterication are the price and
availability of bioethanol. Brazil has the lowest bioethanol price
in the world but is strongly dependent on the geographical
location and on uctuations over time. However, methanol prices
are relatively constant along time, but witnessed a sharp increase
recently. Concerning bioethanol availability, Brazil is the second
biggest producer in the world with 21 million m
3
(REN21, 2012)
and according to Goldemberg and Guardabassi (2009), there is still
a signicant potential for increase in production from the bioetha-
nol rst-generation technology. A preliminary estimative shows
that 1.2 million m
3
of bioethanol would be required for the total
Brazilian biodiesel production in 2011 (6% of the actual
production).
Despite the difference of using a renewable (ethanol) and fossil
(methanol) source, it is important to compare the environmental
impacts of the two routes. A study performed by CENBIO (2013)
compared the production of biodiesel using the methyl and ethyl
routes considering the LCA approach. The difference between the
results of the two routes, for the various environmental impact
categories (e.g., climate change and acidication), is o10%. The
results showed that there were no signicant differences in the
environmental impacts of these two technological routes, despite
the fossil origin of the methanol imported in Brazil (Coelho et al.,
2013).
4.3. Sustainability tools and initiatives: strength and weakness
Sustainability assessment of biodiesel is critical at a methodolo-
gical and practical level because of the critical issues to be assessed:
(i) agricultural practices (use of fertilizers and pest control techniques
and intensive vs. extensive farming); (ii) competition with food, feed
and bre production for use of water and tillable land; (iii) regional
market structure; iv) logistics and distribution networks (including
biomass transport); (v) conservation of biodiversity; (vi) cost; and
(vii) uncertainties resulting from climate change. In this context, it is
crucial that the environmental impacts are evaluated and quantied
in order to provide a rational basis for assessing the long-term
viability and acceptability of individual biodiesel supply chain
options. To deal with these issues, several initiatives have also been
started by governments, industry players and civil society to develop
criteria for sustainable production of biofuels.
After the establishment of the Brazilian programme, several
sustainability initiatives have been established, initially based on
strategic, logistic and social issues, mainly focussing on the North
and Northeast regions for poverty mitigation. After several dif-
culties to develop local crops such as castor in the semi-arid
Northeast region, other social sustainability tools were introduced,
as discussed here. Taking into account the difculties to address
the production from small farmers due to lack of capacity building
and economic factors (Obermaier et al., 2010) and considering the
shift for soy-based biodiesel (large-scale farmers in Central-West),
the programme has established a Social Fuel Seali a regulatory
instrument designed to promote social inclusion throughout the
new fuel production and value chain. The Social Fuel Seal estab-
lishes the conditions for industrial producers of biodiesel to obtain
tax benets and credit. In order to receive the seal, an industrial
producer must purchase feedstock from family farmers and
smallholders enter into a legally binding agreement with them
to establish specic income levels and guarantee technical assis-
tance and training (MME, 2013). This programme has a positive
aspect of giving support to small producers. However, entrepre-
neurs claim against the high costs of the programme. Additionally,
as in the auctions the prices paid by Petrobras (around US$1.0
1.25 L
1
, 2012 US$ exchange rate, ANP, 2012) are higher than the
nal price of the dieselbiodiesel blend in the pump stations,
Petrobras covers the difference.
The Amazon Moratorium was established with the objective to
map protected areas, to set up an adequate monitoring system and
to work out arrangements for land use in the Amazon area. The
Amazon Moratorium is regarded as a valuable initiative to reduce
the negative impact of enhanced soy cultivation (for food, feed and
6
http://www.fertibom.com.br/.
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 687
Table A1
Cattle slaughter and beef tallow production, consumption (and uses), import and export in Brazil.
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cattle slaughter
n
(n1 heads)
N 890113 1436898 1787135 2037926 2228498 2842327 3079544 3620810 4381201 5450274 6253716 5325301 5397140 5651123 5770618
NE 1298742 1433337 1525136 1605456 1736169 1970116 2094144 2165947 2384238 2794912 3066324 3166450 3066380 3119017 3116503
CW 5848513 5635106 7167359 7284476 7351833 7707560 8461016 10054356 10695347 11394666 11171463 10071970 9895060 9993062 10460762
SE 3906186 3760769 3673406 3718451 4842747 5137540 5457989 6714962 6737399 6827814 7134538 7037987 6517704 6534773 5861553
S 2680705 2558825 2540725 2337085 2160345 2208671 2453963 3200967 3681183 3809259 3002207 3017160 3125760 3907344 3509988
Total 14624259 14824935 16693761 16983394 18319592 19866214 21546656 25757042 27879368 30276925 30628248 28618868 28002044 29205319 28719424
Beef tallow production
#
(t)
N 13352 21553 26807 30569 33427 42635 46193 54312 65718 81754 93806 79880 80957 84767 86559
NE 19481 21500 22877 24082 26043 29552 31412 32489 35764 41924 45995 47497 45996 46785 46748
CW 87728 84527 107510 109267 110277 115613 126915 150815 160430 170920 167572 151080 148426 149896 156911
SE 58593 56412 55101 55777 72641 77063 81870 100724 101061 102417 107018 105570 97766 98022 87923
S 40211 38382 38111 35056 32405 33130 36809 48015 55218 57139 45033 45257 46886 58610 52650
Total 219364 222374 250406 254751 274794 297993 323200 386356 418191 454154 459424 429283 420031 438080 430791
Beef tallow import
% 4% 8% 7% 13% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 5%
(t) 9313 17430 17655 34000 9209 7044 3011 1238 4483 4076 1743 13151 21976
Beef tallow export
% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3% 1% 9% 8% 2% 3% 0% 1%
(t) 5345 99 37 89 14158 8403 2794 33939 33615 9847 14440 473 2438
National beef tallow use

(t)
Total

223332 239705 268025 288662 269845 296634 323416 353655 389058 448384 446727 441960 439568 438080 430791
Cleaning&hygiene 272503
Soap production 226391
Chemical 58074
Biodiesel 53608 274924 313368
Animal Feed 32342 44672
Boilers (as fuel) 48512 17869
Others 16171 164644 124712
n
Data from IBGE (2011).
#
Estimation based on cattle slaughter and assuming a yield of 15 kg tallow/cattle slaughtered (Levy, 2011; Peres, 2010).

Estimation based on the beef tallow production plus imports and minus exports (FAO, 2013a). It was considered that no tallow was imported and exported in Brazil in 2010 and 2011 due to the lack of data and taking into
account that these percentages are very low (less than 5%) in the last years.

Estimation based on the percentage of different uses in 2003 (Andrade Filho, 2007), 2007 (Gomes et al., 2009) and 2009-10 (ANP, 2011).

.
G
e
r
a
l
d
e
s
C
a
s
t
a
n
h
e
i
r
a
e
t
a
l
.
/
E
n
e
r
g
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
6
5
(
2
0
1
4
)
6
8
0

6
9
1
6
8
8
biofuels) with respect to the Amazon rainforest (Lucon, 2009;
Janssen and Rutz, 2011). The Task Force Sustainable Soy is a
proponent of the current Amazon Moratorium applied in order
to achieve responsible land use in the Amazon biome. The Task
Force Sustainable Soy is the platform of a group of Dutch
companies involved in soy production and marketing. Participants
of the Task Force come from the oils and fats, processing, animal
feed, meat and dairy sectors. The Task Force recognises the need
for more attention to the ecological and social consequences of
the expansion of South American soy farming (Janssen and Rutz,
2011).
According to CEO (2012), despite the national and international
sustainability tools and initiatives, there has been some opposition
from social movements and environmental organisations both in
Europe and in biofuel producing countries, which has weakened
the legitimacy of these tools and initiatives. In fact, there are also
important economic interests (market barriers), but it must be
noticed that these tools are active in the country. The soybean
certication scheme makes sense in the context of the certication
of the several products that are produced from soybean; however,
the certication schemes exist for biodiesel only and not for oil or
meal. This issue is very important also because there should be
coherence between the methods to attribute impacts between the
various soybean-based co-products.
Agro-ecological zoning is an important policy tool and has
taken into account environmental, economic and social aspects as
an answer to challenges in sustainable expansion of bioenergy
crops. An interesting initiative was launched by the Federal
Government to guarantee the sustainable expansion of sugar cane
and oil palm in Brazil (two agro-ecological zonings): for sugar cane
in 2009 (EMBRAPA, 2009) and for oil palm in 2010 (EMBRAPA,
2010). In this process, maps were produced showing soils, topo-
graphy, climate and rainfall. This regulation enables a guidance to
credit policies and use for public banks as a condition for
production nancing. The zoning identied areas where sugar-
cane crop expansion could take place. It forbids sugar-cane
cultivation in 92.5% of the national territory. It has identied 64
million ha (EMBRAPA, 2009) that comply with environmental and
productivity requirements, mainly from the intensication of
cattle ranching, which is currently very inefcient (o1 head
ha
1
) (Strapasson et al., 2012). Such initiatives could be also
adopted for soybean expansion, contributing to the sustainability
of soybean biodiesel. However, here there is the issue of the
intensication of cattle ranching as an important goal to be
achieved both for these zonings and for the sustainability of cattle
ranching in Brazil (and indirectly to the sustainability of biodiesel
from beef tallow).
5. Concluding remarks
Biodiesel production in Brazil is an emergent bioenergy for
which it is important to guarantee environmental sustainability.
Aiming at contributing to this discussion, this article characterised
the biodiesel production chain in Brazil, identied potential envir-
onmental impacts and analysed key drivers and barriers for
biodiesel environmental sustainability, focussing on the main
biodiesel feedstocks in Brazil: soybean oil and beef tallow. The
main environmental impacts of soybean and beef tallow biodiesel
chains in Brazil were identied and discussed. Impacts related to
land use and LUC, namely GHG emissions and biodiversity, as well
as energy intensity and water impacts were found to be critical for
biodiesel environmental sustainability. Increasing agriculture yields,
diversifying feedstocks and adopting an ethyl-transesterication
process can contribute to minimise the impacts. The impact of
bioenergy production on food prices, GHG balance and the quantity
and quality of water can be mitigated by appropriate policies aiming
at an integrated optimisation of food and bioenergy production.
Conicts between food and biodiesel can be avoided through agro-
economicecological zoning for soybean and for beef, similarly to
the ones already made for sugar cane and oil palm in Brazil
(EMBRAPA, 2009, 2010), allowing adequate use of land for each
purpose. Despite the limitation and weakness of some sustainability
tools and initiatives, policies, standards and certication schemes
also can play an important role in the sustainability assessment
and development of the emerging biodiesel production in Brazil.
Although Brazilian social and environmental legislation applicable
to biofuels covers all the aspects pointed out in the certication
schemes, it is a fact that in many cases the legislation is not correct
accomplished, indicating that a better enforcement is required.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to CNPq (BIOACV Project 558733/
2010-7) for the nancial support. The research presented in this
article was also supported by the Fundao para a Cincia e a
Tecnologia (Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation, FCT)
projects: MIT/SET/0014/2009 (Capturing Uncertainty in Biofuels
for Transportation. Resolving Environmental Performance and
Enabling Improved Use) and PTDC/SEN-TRA/117251/2010
(Extended well-to-wheels assessment of biodiesel for heavy
transport vehicles). The authors are grateful to Fundao Fundao
para a Cincia e a Tecnologia/Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de
Pessoal de Nvel Superior (FCT/CAPES) for the approved project in
2013: Avaliao da sustentabilidade ambiental de bioenergia
atravs da Avaliao de Ciclo de Vida. rica Castanheira gratefully
acknowledges nancial support from FCT, through grant SFRH/BD/
60328/2009.
Appendix A. Cattle slaughter and beef tallow production,
consumption (and uses), import and export in Brazil
See Table A1 here.
References
ABIOVE, 2011. Brasil Complexo Soja: Evoluo das Cotaes FOB-Brasil. Associao
Brasileira das Indstrias de leos Vegetais ABIOVE. Available at: http://www.
abiove.org.br (accessed November 10, 2011).
Andrade Filho, M., 2007. Aspectos tcnicos e econmicos da produo de biodiesel:
o caso do sebo bovino como matria-prima. Dissertao de Mestrado em
Energia, Universidade Salvador, Bahia, 120 p.
ANP, 2011. Anurio Estatstico Brasileiro do Petrleo, Gs Natural e Biocombustveis-
2011. Ministrio de Minas e Energia, ANP-Agncia Nacional do Petrleo,
Gs Natural e Biocombustveis. ISSN1983-5884.
ANP, 2012. Produo Nacional de Biodiesel Puro - B100 (metros cbicos) por
produtor e estado 2005-2012. Ministrio de Minas e Energia, ANP-Agncia
Nacional do Petrleo, Gs Natural e Biocombustveis, Superintendncia de
Planejamento e Pesquisa. Available at: http://www.anp.gov.br (accessed August
10, 2012).
Barber, A., Campbell, A., Hennessy, W., 2007. Primary energy and net greenhouse
gas emissions from biodiesel made from New Zealand Tallow. CRL energy
report 06-11547b, report to Energy Efciency and Conservation Authority
(EECA). CRL Energy Ltd, Lower Hutt.
Batlle-Bayer, L., Batjes, N.H., Bindraban, P.S., 2010. Changes in organic carbon stocks
upon land use conversion in the Brazilian Cerrado: A review. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 137, 4758.
Beer, T., Grant, T., Morgan, G., Lapszewicz, J., Anyon, P., Edwards, J., Nelson, P.,
Watson, H., and Williams, D., 2001. Comparison of Transport Fuels. Stage
2 Study of Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles.
Australian Greenhouse Ofce, Final Report EV45A/2/F3C.
Berndes, G., 2008. Future biomass energy supply: The consumptive water use
perspective. International Journal of Water Resources Development 24,
235245.
Berndes, G., Bird, N.D., Cowie, A., 2010. Bioenergy, Land Use Change and Climate
Change Mitigation. IEA Bioenergy. Available at www.ieabioenergy.com (acessed
December 26, 2012).
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 689
Brander, M., Hutchison, C., Sherrington, C., Ballinger, A., Beswick, C., Baddeley, A.,
Black, M., Woods, J., Murphy, R., 2009. Methodology and Evidence Base on the
Indirect Greenhouse Gas Effects of Using Wastes, Residues, and By-products for
Biofuels and Bioenergy. Report to the Renewable Fuels Agency and the Depart-
ment for Energy and Climate Change. Report PR-091007-A, 30 November 2009.
Brasil, 2005. Lei federal n.11097, de 13 de janeiro de 2005. Dispe sobre a
introduo do biodiesel na matriz energtica brasileira; altera as Leis nos
9.478, de 6 de agosto de 1997, 9.847, de 26 de outubro de 1999 e 10.636, de 30
de dezembro de 2002; e d outras providncias. Dirio Ocial da Unio,
Braslia, Seo 1 - 14/1/2005.
Bringezu, S., Schuetz, H., Brien, O., Kauppi, M., Howarth, L., McNeely, J., R., 2009.
Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels.
United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France p. 102.
Bruyninckx, I., 2010. The use of tallow-sourced biodiesel in New Zealand. Master of
Engineering Studies. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of
Auckland, New Zealand, November 2010.
Bureau, J., Disdier, A., Gauroy, C., Trguer, D., 2010. A Quantitative Assessment of the
Determinants of the Net Energy Value of Biofuels. Energy Policy 38, 22822290.
Burney, J.A., Davis, S.J., Lobell, D.B., 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural
intensication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107,
1205212057.
Castanheira, .G., Freire, F., 2012. Life-cycle GHG assessment of soybean biodiesel.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and
Technology. 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and
Technology (ISSST), 5 pages.
Castanheira, .G., Freire, F., 2013. Greenhouse gas assessment of soybean: implica-
tions of land use change and different cultivation systems. Journal of Cleaner
Production 54, 4960.
Castro, A.M.G., Lima, S.M.V., Silva, J.F.V. (Eds.), 2010. Complexo Agroindustrial de
Biodiesel no Brasil: Competitividade das Cadeias Produtivas de Matrias-
Primas. Embrapa Agroenergia, Braslia.
Cavalett, O., Ortega, E., 2009. Emergy, nutrients balance and economic assessment
of soybean production and industrialization in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17, 762771.
Cavalett, O., Ortega, E., 2010. Integrated environmental assessment of biodiesel
production from soybean in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 5570.
Cederberg C., Meyer D., Flysj A., 2009. Life cycle inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions and use of land and energy in Brazilian beef production. SIK Report
No 792. June 2009.
CENBIO, 2013. Comparao da ACV de Biodiesel produzido a partir de leo de Soja e
Gordura Bovina via rota Metlica e Etlica. CENBIO Centro Nacional de
Referncia em Biomassa. Final Report Project BIOACV n1 558733/2010-7,
nancial support the CNPq. So Paulo, 2013.
CEO, 2012. Roundtable on Responsible Soy - the certication smokescreen.
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), May 22, 2012. Available at: http://www.
corporateeurope.org.
Cerri, C.C., Bernoux, M., Maia, S.M.F., Cerri, C.E.P., Junior, C.C., Feigl, B.J., Frazo, L.A.,
Mello, F.F.C., Galdos, M.V., Moreira, C.S., Carvalho, J.L.N., 2010. Greenhouse gas
mitigation options in Brazil for land-use change, livestock and agriculture. Sci.
Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.) 67, 102116.
Cezar, I.M., Queiroz, H.P., Thiago, L.R., Cassales, F., Costa, F.P., 2005. Sistema Produo
de Gado de Corte no Brasil: Uma Descrio com nfase no Regime Alimentar e
no Abate (Brazilian Beef Production Systems: A Description with Emphasis on
Animal Nutrition and Slaughtering). Campo Grande, MS: Documentos 151,
Embrapa Gado de Corte, 40 p.
Coelho, S.T., Agbenyega, O., Agostini, A., Erb, K.; Haberl, H., Hoogwijk, M., Lal, R.,
Lucon, O., Masera, O., Moreira, J.R., Land and Water. Linkages to Bioenergy. In:
Global Energy Assessment (Davis, G., Goldemberg, J., orgs). International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis and Cambridge University Press. Viena. 2012.
Coelho, S.T., Silva, G.A., Freire, F., Grisoli, R., Castanheira, E., Garcilasso, V.P.,
Nogueira, A. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of biodiesel from soybean
oil and beef tallow in Brazil. Energy for Sustainability 2013. Sustainable Cities:
Designing for People and the Planet. Coimbra, 2013.
CONAB, 2012. Levantamento de safras. CONAB - Companhia Nacional de Abasteci-
mento (National Company for Food Supply), Braslia. Available at: http://www.
conab.gov.br/ (accessed July 15, 2012).
Crusciol, C.A.C., Cottica, R.L., Lima, E.V., Andreotti, M., Moro, E., Marcon, E., 2005.
Persistncia de palhada e liberao de nutrientes do nabo forrageiro no plantio
direto. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 40, 161168.
Da Silva, J.E., Resck, D.V.S., Corazza, E.J., Vivaldi, L., 2004. Carbon storage in clayey
Oxisol cultivated pastures in the Cerrado region, Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystem
and Environment 103, 357363.
DeFelice, M.S., Carter, P.R., Mitchell, S.B., 2006. Inuence of tillage on corn and
soybean yield in the United States and Canada. Online Crop Management.
Available at: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org.
Diaz-Chavez, R.A., 2011. Assessing biofuels: Aiming for sustainable development or
complying with the market? Energy Policy 39, 57635769.
EIA, 2012. International Energy Statistics. Prepared by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA). Available at: http://www.eia.gov (accessed December 9,
2011).
Eiten, G., 1972. The Cerrado vegetation of Brazil. Bot. Rev. 38, 201341.
Elobeid, A.E., Tokgoz, S., Yu, T.-H., 2009. Assessment of Biofuel Resource Elasticity in
APEC Economies. APEC Energy Working Group, APEC# 209-RE-01.8, December
2009.
Elobeid, A.E., Tokgoz, S., Yu, T.-H., 2010. Mitigating Land Use Changes From Biofuel
Expansion: An Assessment of Biofuel Feedstock Yield Potential in APEC
Economies. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association - 2010 Annual
Meeting, July 2527, 2010, Denver, Colorado.
EMBRAPA - Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. Agro-ecological Sugarcane
Zoning, 2009. Available at: http://www.cnps.embrapa.br/zoneamento_cana_
de_acucar (accessed on 24 October 2012).
EMBRAPA - Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. Agro-ecological Palm oil
Oil Zoning, 2010. Available at: http://www.cnps.embrapa.br/zoneamento_
dende (accessed on 24 October 2012).
Emmenegger, M.F., Pster, S., Koehler, A., de Giovanetti, L., Arena, A.P., Zah, R., 2011.
Taking into account water use impacts in the LCA of biofuels: an Argentinean
case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16, 869877.
FAO, 2008. The State of Food and Agriculture Biofuels: prospects, risks and
opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO, 2013a. FAOSTAT - Food Balance Sheets. Available at: http://www.faostat.fao.org.
FAO, 2013b. Biofuels and the sustainability challenge: A global assessment of
sustainability issues, trends and policies for biofuels and related feedstocks. Trade
and Markets Division - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 2013. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3126e/i3126e.pdf.
FAO/GBEP, 2011. Global Bioenergy Partnership - Sustainability Indicators for
Bioenergy First Edition. December 2011. ISBN 978-92-5-107249-3. Available
at: http://www.globalbioenergy.org.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P., 2008. Land clearing and
the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 12351238.
Flaskerud, G., 2003. Brazil's Soybean production and impact. North Dakota State
University of Agriculture and Applied Science, NDSU Extension Services, July 2003.
Fore, S.R., Porter, P., Lazarus, W., 2011. Net energy balance of small-scale on-farm
biodiesel production from canola and soybean. Biomass and Bioenergy 35,
22342244.
Furley, P.A., 1999. The nature and diversity of neotropical savanna vegetation with
particular reference to the Brazilian cerrados. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 8, 223241.
GEA, 2012. Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA and the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. A comparative study
on the water footprint of poultry, pork and beef in different countries and
production systems. Value of Water Res. Rep. Ser. No. 55. UNESCO-IHE, Delft,
the Netherlands.
Gerbens-Leenes, W., Hoekstra, A.Y., van der Meer, T.H., 2009. The water footprint of
Bioenergy 106, 1021910223Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
106, 1021910223.
Gibbs, H.K., Johnston, M., Foley, J.A., Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N.,
Zaks, D., 2008. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the
tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 110.
Goldemberg, J., 2009. The Brazilian Experience with Biofuels. Innovations Journal 4,
91107.
Goldemberg, J., Guardabassi, P., 2009. Are biofuels a feasible option? Energy Policy
37, 1014.
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Guardabassi, P., 2008. The sustainability of ethanol
production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36, 20862097.
Gomes, M., Biondi, A., Brianezi, T., Glass, V., 2009. O Brasil dos agrocombustveis,
gordura animal, dend, algodo, pinho-manso, girassol e canola: impacto das
lavouras sobre a terra, o meio ambiente e a sociedade. So Paulo: Reprter
Brasil - Centro de Monitoramento de Agrocombustveis (CMA), 69 p.
Goodland, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual review of ecology
and systematics. Vol. 26, 1995. Available at: http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/
ARE298/Readings/goodland.pdf.
Governo Federal, 2008. Plano Nacional sobre Mudana do Clima (PNMC). Governo
Federal-Comit Interministerial sobre Mudana do Clima, Braslia, DF, Brazil.
132p. Available at: http://www.forumclima.org.br.
Grisoli, R. Nogueira, A. Castanheira, E.G. Freire, F. Silva, G.A. Coelho, S., 2012.
Emisses de gases de efeito de estufa no ciclo de vida do biodiesel de soja
produzido no Brasil. III Congresso Brasileiro em Gesto do Ciclo de Vida de
Produtos e Servios Novos desaos para um planeta sustentvel, pp. 220-225,
03 a 06 de setembro de 2012, Maring PR Brasil. ISBN: 978-85-88020-78-8.
Hamelinck, C., Schober, S., Mittelbach, M., Verolet, J., Dehue, B., 2007. Fatty acid
ethyl esters. Final report for Lot 3a of the Bioscopes project, June 2007.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. The hidden water resource use behind meat and dairy. Animal
Frontiers 2, 38.
IBGE, 2007. Banco de Dados Sries Estatsticas & Sries Histricas. IBGE, Rio de
Janeiro p. 2007.
IBGE, 2011. Banco de Dados Sries Estatsticas & Sries Histricas. IBGE, Rio de
Janeiro p. 2011.
Janssen, R., Rutz, D.D., 2011. Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: Risks and
opportunities. Energy Policy 39, 57175725.
Jumbe, C., Msiska, F., Mhango, L., 2007. Report on National Policies on Biofuels
Sector Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Final Working Draft from Food,
Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) to WIP
Renewable Energies, Germany, for Compete Competence Platform on Energy
Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems Africa.
Jnior, G.B.M., Vilela, L., 2002. Pastagens no Cerrado: Baixa Produtividade pelo Uso
Limitado de Fertilizantes. EMBRAPA - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agrope-
curia - Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuria dos Cerrados, Ministrio da Agricul-
tura, Pecuria e Abastecimento. Planaltina, DF, Dezembro, 2002. ISSN 1517-5111.
Kallivroussis, L., Natsis, A., Papadakis, G., 2002. RD-Rural Development: The Energy
Balance of Sunower Production for Biodiesel in Greece. Biosystems Engineer-
ing 81, 347354.
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 690
Klink, C.A., Machado, R.B., 2005. Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserva-
tion Biology 19, 707713.
Lange, M., 2011. The GHG balance of biofuels taking into account land use change.
Energy Policy 39, 23732385.
Levy, G., 2011. A insero do sebo bovino na indstria brasileira do biodiesel:
anlise sob a tica da Economia dos Custos de Transao e da Teoria dos Custos
de Mensurao. Dissertao apresentada para obteno do ttulo de Mestre em
Cincias. Universidade de So Paulo - Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de
Queiroz, Piracicaba.
Lovett, A.A., Sunnenberg, G.M., Richter, G.M., Dailey, A.G., Riche, A.B., Karp, A., 2009.
Land use implications of increased biomass production identied by GIS-based
suitability and yield mapping for Miscanthus in England. BioEnergy Research 2,
1728.
Lucon, O., 2009. Overview of sustainability assessment tools for biomass production
in Latin America. Final Report prepared for the BioTop project supported by the
European Commission in the 7th Framework Programme, April 2009.
Lynd, L.R., Aziz, R.A., de Brito Cruz, C.H., Chimphango, A.F.A., Cortez, L.A.B., Faaij, A.,
Greene, N., Keller, M., Osseweijer, P., Richard, T.L., Sheehan, J., Chugh, A., van der
Wielen, L., Woods, J., van Zyl, W.H., 2011. A global conversation about energy
from biomass: the continental conventions of the global sustainable bioenergy
project. Interface Focus 1, 271279.
Mala, J., Freire, F., 2006. Renewability and life-cycle energy efciency of bioethanol
and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of
allocation. Energy The International Journal 31, 33623380.
Mala, J., Freire, F., 2009. Energy and Environmental Benets of Rapeseed Oil
Replacing Diesel. International Journal of Green Energy 6, 287301.
Mala, J., Freire, F., 2010. Uncertainty Analysis in Biofuel Systems: An Application to
the Life Cycle of Rapeseed Oil. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, 322334.
Mala, J., Freire, F., 2011. Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review
addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 338351.
MAPA, 2011. Soja Mercado interno. Ministrio da Agricultura, Pecuria e
Abastecimento MAPA. Available: http://www.agricultura.gov.br/vegetal/cul
turas/soja (accessed July 10, 2012).
Menichetti E., Otto, M., 2009. Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of
biofuels from a life-cycle perspective. In: R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds)
Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land
Use. Proceedings of the Scientic Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE). International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September
2008, Gummersbach Germany. Cornell University, Ithaca NY, USA.
Mil i Canals, L., Bauer, C., Depestele, J., Dubreuil, A., Knuchel, R.F., Gaillard, G.,
Michelsen, O., Mller-Wenk, R., Rydgren, B., 2007. Key Elements in a Frame-
work for Land Use Impact Assessment within LCA. Int J LCA 12, 515.
MME, 2007. Plano Nacional de Energia 2030. Ministrio de Minas e Energia,
Braslia, DF, Brazil. 12v.
MME, 2012. Boletim Mensal dos Combustveis Renovveis. Ministrio de Minas e
Energia, Secretaria de Petrleo, Gs Natural e Combustveis Renovveis,
Departamento de Combustveis Renovveis. Edio n.1 48, Janeiro/2012.
MME, 2013. Portal do Programa Nacional de Produo e Uso do Biodiesel. Available
at: http://www.mme.gov.br/programas/biodiesel (accessed March 22, 2013).
Moraes, M.S.A., Krause, L.C., da Cunha, M.E., Faccini, C.S., de Menezes, E.W., Veses, R.C.,
Rodrigues, M.R.A., Caramo, E.B., 2008. Tallow biodiesel: properties evaluation and
consumption tests in diesel engine. Energy Fuels 22, 19491954.
Mourad, A.L., Walter, A., 2011. The energy balance of soybean biodiesel in Brazil: a
case article. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorenery 5, 185197.
Muller, G.T., 2012. Emprego da pegada hdrica e da anlise de ciclo de vida para a
avaliao do uso da gua na cadeia produtiva do biodiesel de soja. Dissertao
de mestrado. Programa de Ps-graduao em Recursos Hdricos e Saneamento
ambiental da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853858.
NAE, 2005. Cadernos NAE: Processos estratgicos de longo prazo Biocombustveis.
NAE: Ncleo de Assuntos Estratgicos da Presidncia da Repblica, n1. 2 (jan.
2005). Braslia, 2005. ISSN 1806-8588.
Nassar, A.M., Antoniazzi, L.B., Moreira, M.R., Chiodi, L., Harfuch, L., 2010. An
allocation methodology to assess GHG emissions associated with land use
change Final Report. ICONE. (Institute for International Trade Negotiations).
Niederl, A., Narodoslawsky, M., 2006. Ecological Evaluation of Processes Based on
By-Products or Waste from Agriculture: Life Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel from
Tallow and Used Vegetable Oil. In: Bozell, J., et al. (Eds.), Feedstocks for the
future; ACS Symposium Series 921, 2006. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC, p. 239.
Obermaier, M.; Herrera, S.; Rovere, E.L., 2010. Anlise de problemas estruturais da
incluso da agricultura familiar na cadeia produtiva de biodiesel. IV Congresso
Brasileiro de Mamona e I Simpsio de Oleaginosas Energticas, Joo Pessoa, PB.
Oplinger, E.S.M.J., Martinka, J.M., Gaska, K.A., Schmitz, C.R., 1998. Wisconsin
Soybean Variety Test Results. A3654, Department of Agronomy and Plant
Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at http://soybean.
uwex.edu/soytrials/printable/documents/98soyvar.pdf.
Padula, A.D., Santos, M.S., Ferreira, L., Borenstein, D., 2012. The emergence of the
biodiesel industry in Brazil: Current gures and future prospects. Energy Policy
44, 395405.
Panichelli, L., Dauriat, A., Gnansounou, E., 2009. Life cycle assessment of soybean-
based biodiesel in Argentina for export. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14, 144159.
Peres, S., 2010. Aproveitamento de Resduos de Animais para Produo de Biodiesel.
II Seminrio Biodiesel Fonte de Energia das Oleaginosas em Pernambuco.
Recife, 3-4 Maio de 2010.
Ponsioen, T.C., Blonk, T.J., 2012. Calculating land use change in carbon footprints of
agricultural products as an impact of current land use. Journal of Cleaner
Production 28, 120126.
Prabhu, A., Pham, C., Glabe, A., 2009. Detailed California-Modied GREET Pathway
for Renewable Diesel Produced in California from Tallow (U. S. Sourced).
Alternative Fuels Section and Fuels Section of the California Air Resources
Board. Stationary Source Division Release Date: July 20, 2009 Version: 1.0.
Pradhan, A., Shrestha, D.S., Van Gerpen, J., Dufeld, J., 2008. The energy balance of
soybean oil biodiesel production: a review of past studies. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers 51, 185194.
Prudncio da Silva, V., van der Werf, H.M.G., Spies, A., Soares, S.R., 2010. Variability
in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production
and transport scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 18311839.
Ravindranath, N.H., Sita Lakshmi, C., Manuvie, R., Balachandra, P., 2011. Biofuel
production and implications for land use, food production and environment in
India. Energy Policy 39, 57375745.
Reijnders, L., Huijbregts, M., 2008. Biogenic greenhouse gas emissions linked to the
life cycles of biodiesel derived from European rapeseed and Brazilian soybeans.
JCleanProd 16 (18), 19431948.
REN21, 2012. Renewables 2012 - Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st century. Available at: http://www.map.ren21.net
(accessed July 10, 2012).
Santos, O.I.B., Rathmann, R., 2009. Identication and analysis of local and regional
impacts from the introduction of biodiesel production in the state of Piau.
Energy Policy 37, 40114020.
Schaffel, S.B., La Rovere, E.L., 2010. The quest for eco-social efciency in biofuels
production in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 16631670.
Seabra, J., Hernandes, T., Galdos, M., 2011. Water Footprint and Water Consumption
for the Main Crops and Biofuels Produced in Brazil. American Geophysical
Union, Fall Meeting 2011, abstract #H11M-05.
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S.,
Hayes, D., Yu, T.-H., 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse
Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 319, 12381240.
Singh, S., Kumar, A., 2011. Development of water requirement factors for biomass
conversion pathway. Bioresource Technology 102, 13161328.
Soares, L.H.B., Alves, B.J.R., Urquiaga, S., Boddey, R.M., 2009. Mitigao das Emisses
de Gases de Efeito Estufa pelo Uso de Etanol de Cana-de-acar Produzido no
Brasil. Circular Tcnica 27. Embrapa, Seropdia, Rio de Janeiro. ISSN 1519-7328.
Soimakallio, S., Makinen, T., Ekholma, T., Pahkala, K., Mikkola, H., Paappanen, T.,
2009. Greenhouse gas balances of transportation biofuels, electricity and heat
generation in Finland: dealing with the uncertainties. Energy Policy 37, 8090.
Somerville, C., Youngs, H., Taylor, C., Davis, S.C., Long, S.P., 2010. Feedstocks for
Lignocellulosic Biofuels. Science 5993 (329), 790792.
Stone, K.C., Hunt, P.G., Cantrell, K.B., Ro, K.S., 2010. The potential impacts of biomass
feedstock production on water resource availability. Bioresource Technology
101, 20142025.
Strapasson, A.B., Ramalho-Filho, A., Ferreira, D., Vieira, J.N.S., Job, L.C.M.A., 2012.
Agro-ecological zoning and biofuels: the Brazilian experience and the potential
application in Africa. In: Johnson, F.X., Seebaluck, V. (Eds.), Bioenergy for
sustainable development and international competitiveness - the role of sugar
cane in Africa. Routledge, London, pp. 4865.
UNEP, 2010. Sustainable agriculture and the sustainable use of agricultural
biodiversity: Concepts, Trends and challenges. Fourteenth meeting Nairobi,
10-21 May 2010. Available at: www.cbd.int.
van Meijl, H., von Tongeren, F., 2004. International Diffusion of Gains from
Biotechnology and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. Agricul-
tural Economics 31, 307316.
Walter, A., Dolzan, P., Quilodrn, O., de Oliveira, J.G., da Silva, C., Piacente, F.,
Segerstedt, A., 2011. Sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in
Brazil considering land use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic
aspects. Energy Policy 39, 57035716.
Witcover, J., Yeh, S., Sperling, D., 2013. Policy options to address global land use
change from biofuels. Energy Policy 56, 6374.
Yang, H., Zhou, Y., Liu, J., 2009. Land and water requirements of biofuel and
implications for food supply and the environment in China. Energy Policy 37,
18761885.
. Geraldes Castanheira et al. / Energy Policy 65 (2014) 680691 691