Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 9 Price variation (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 1. Change in selected crop prices if biofuel demand was fixed at 2007 levels. Source: Rosegrant (2008). food crops (Peskett et al., 2007). In overall, poor consumers in urban areas who purchase all their food are expected to be worst o�. From this perspective and compared to other feedstocks, sugarcane bioethanol is likely to provide more limited opportunities to meet food security for small farmers. In Brazil, for example, sugarcane is a crop mainly grown under large-scale schemes, with limited participation of small farmers. In regions such as Asia, although small farmers participation in sugarcane cultivation is important, the need to use irrigation makes more unlikely to involve poorest farmers (ICRISAT, 2007). More widely, it is agreed that despite being producers of agricultural crops, most poor farming households in rural areas are net buyers of food (Dufey et al., 2007b; IFPRI, 2008). Finally, it should be noted that, historically, domestic food prices have not been tightly linked to international food or energy prices, as price transmission mechanisms are not straightforward (Hazell et al., 2005). For instance, agricultural pricing policies such as price �xation, the remoteness of some rural areas, trade distortions and power structures governing agricultural commodity markets are key factors preventing world prices from reaching domestic markets. �is may imply that farmers may not see the incentives to change feedstock production in tandem with changes in international prices. 3.2. Environmental pressure 2010 2015 Maize Wheat Sugar Oils Cassava Traditional environmental impacts associated with sugarcane appear when it comes to managing soil, water, agrochemicals, agricultural frontier expansion and the related biodiversity impacts. Among them, impacts on agricultural frontier and on water deserve especial attention. Regarding the former, it should be noted that the bulk of the sugarcane expansion in the last thirty years in Brazil has been concentrated in the central southern 210 Sugarcane ethanol
Impacts of sugarcane bioethanol towards the Millennium Development Goals region of the country. Between 1992 and 2003, 94 percent of the expansion occurred in existing areas of agriculture or pastureland and only a small proportion of new agricultural borders were involved (Macedo, 2005). O�en the sugarcane crop replaced cattle grazing and other agricultural activities (e.g. citrus crops), which in turn moved to the central region of Brazil where the land is cheaper (Smeets et al., 2006). Land converted to agriculture in the sensitive area of the Cerrado savanna (which accounts for 25% of the national territory) has been used for cattle grazing and/or planted to soya, with only a small proportion for sugarcane. However, given the new phase of expansion experiencing the sector for bioethanol production, new areas are expected to be converted to sugarcane, including the Cerrado of Mato Grosso do Sul, Goiás and Minas Gerais (Dufey et al., 2007a). �is could further increase the pressure on the already a�ected biodiversity and produce greenhouse emissions. �ere is concern in this sense on the impacts that the substitution e�ect - sugarcane taking over existing pastureland or other crops that become less pro�table which in turn advance into protected or marginal areas – may have on biodiversity. Indeed, in Brazil, substitution e�ect related impacts are considered more signi�cant than the direct e�ects of sugarcane expansion (Dufey, 2007). In Africa, on the other hand, land constraints appear unlikely in any near-term scenario, and resources such as water, as explained in the next paragraph, may turn out to be the key limiting factor (Johnson and Rosillo-Calle, 2007). Regarding water, sugarcane requires large amounts of water, both at the farming and processing level. Even in Brazil where most sugarcane is rain fed, irrigation is increasing. Energy cane, which is especially bred for energy production, requires more water and fertiliser than conventional sugarcane (Cloin, 2007). Water is likely to be a key limiting factor especially in dry and semi-dry areas in Africa and Asia. Bioethanol impact on water quality is another issue and not only at the farming level due to the use of agrochemicals but also at the processing level. Vinasse, - a black residue resulting from the distillation of cane syrup - is hot and requires cooling. In the mountainous areas of north-eastern Brazil, for instance, the costs of pumping storing vinasse were prohibitive, and it was therefore released into rivers, resulting in the pollution of rivers causing eutrophication and �sh kills. Currently, vinasse is used for ferti-irrigation of cane crops, together with wastewaters. Moreover, legislation has been implemented in Brazil to avoid the negative impacts of vinasse applications, although its coverage is incomplete and its enforcement is rather weak (Smeets et al., 2006). All in all, while steps have been taken in Brazil order to manage vinasse disposal, in countries such as Malawi it is still a major concern (Johnson and Rosillo-Calle, 2007). Furthermore, the air pollution associated with the slush and burn of sugarcane and the burning of the straw, a common practice in developing countries to facilitate the harvesting, is an additional issue. Sugarcane burning emits several gases including CO, CH 2 , ozone, non-methane organic compounds and particle matter that are potentially damaging for human health. Several studies were conducted in São Paulo in Brazil during the 1980s and 1990s to identify the impacts of sugarcane burning on human health. Although some studies did not found a link, others studies did con�rm the relationship (Smeets et al., 2006; Sugarcane ethanol 211
Page 1 and 2:
Sugarcane ethanol Contributions to
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contents Foreword 11 José
Page 5:
Chapter 8 �e global impacts of US
Page 8 and 9:
Foreword �e use of biofuels as a
Page 11 and 12:
Executive summary Do biofuels help
Page 13 and 14:
Executive summary 12. Projections o
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 Introduction to sugarcane
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol A
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol C
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol F
Page 23:
Introduction to sugarcane ethanol H
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2 Production (million tons)
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 2 Table 2. Sugarcane produc
Page 30 and 31:
Chapter 2 Harvested area (million h
Page 32 and 33:
Chapter 2 million hectares 8 7 6 5
Page 34 and 35:
Chapter 2 Table 5. Global significa
Page 36 and 37:
Chapter 2 (FAOSTAT, 2008). �e lan
Page 38 and 39:
Chapter 2 indicating that sugarcane
Page 40 and 41:
Chapter 2 and vinasse produced duri
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2 • • • • Harvested
Page 44 and 45:
Chapter 2 2.2. AEZ assessment of la
Page 46 and 47:
Chapter 2 The quantified descriptio
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 2 Table 8 summarizes by reg
Page 50 and 51:
Chapter 2 Table 9. Suitability of u
Page 52 and 53:
Chapter 2 Table 10. Suitability of
Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 2 of bio-diversity and land
Page 56 and 57:
Chapter 2 FAO, 1987. 1948-1985 Worl
Page 58 and 59:
Chapter 2 Smeets, E., M. Junginger,
Page 60 and 61:
Chapter 3 Considering that this deb
Page 62 and 63:
Chapter 3 1,000 ha 9,000 8,000 7,00
Page 64 and 65:
Chapter 3 Another source of data on
Page 66 and 67:
Chapter 3 Figure 3. Different land
Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 3 1-Pastureand crops expans
Page 70 and 71:
Chapter 3 Given that the model is u
Page 72 and 73:
Chapter 3 to the case studies; (d)
Page 74 and 75:
Chapter 3 Mato Grosso do Sul in 200
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 3 the Pasture class increas
Page 78 and 79:
Chapter 3 Table 5. Number of sugarc
Page 80 and 81:
Chapter 3 of 12.6% from 2001 to 200
Page 82 and 83:
Chapter 3 Table 6. South-Centre: ex
Page 84 and 85:
Chapter 3 4.5. Options for approach
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 3 states that have lost pas
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 3 It is important to contex
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 4 Mitigation of GHG emissio
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1. Basic data: sugarcane prod
Page 95 and 96:
Mitigation of GHG emissions using s
Page 97 and 98:
GHG emission (kg CO 2 eq/m 3 etOH)
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Table 7. Soil carbon content for di
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
5. Conclusions Mitigation of GHG em
Page 107:
Page 110 and 111:
Chapter 5 Oil reserves - Gasoline/d
Page 112 and 113:
Chapter 5 in research and developme
Page 114 and 115:
Chapter 5 Table 3. Summary of main
Page 116 and 117:
Chapter 5 3. Environmental indicato
Page 118 and 119:
Chapter 5 Table 4. Carbon stock in
Page 120 and 121:
Chapter 5 3.2. Water Total carbon i
Page 122 and 123:
Chapter 5 3.3. Soil and fertilizers
Page 124 and 125:
Chapter 5 3.4. Management of diseas
Page 126 and 127:
Chapter 5 Table 10. Sugarcane and v
Page 128 and 129:
Chapter 5 in the implementation of
Page 130 and 131:
Chapter 5 Table 11. Continued. Crit
Page 132 and 133:
Chapter 5 Brazilian Government. Lei
Page 134 and 135:
Chapter 5 São Paulo State Governme
Page 136 and 137:
Chapter 6 2. Development of the eth
Page 138 and 139:
Chapter 6 blends by car manufacture
Page 140 and 141:
Chapter 6 Brazil have been roughly
Page 142 and 143:
Chapter 6 Overall there are few di
Page 144 and 145:
Chapter 6 3.2.1. The impact of exis
Page 146 and 147:
Chapter 6 �e use of ethanol in he
Page 148 and 149:
Chapter 6 cropping systems that pro
Page 150 and 151:
Chapter 6 certainty, the supply of
Page 152 and 153:
Chapter 6 De Vries, B.J.M., D.P. va
Page 155 and 156: Chapter 7 Biofuel conversion techno
Page 157 and 158: Biofuel conversion technologies �
Page 159 and 160: Biofuel conversion technologies In
Page 161 and 162: Biofuel conversion technologies the
Page 163 and 164: Biofuel conversion technologies Imp
Page 165 and 166: Biofuel conversion technologies Pro
Page 167 and 168: Investment costs (Euro/kWth input c
Page 169 and 170: 4.2. Greenhouse gas balances Biofue
Page 171 and 172: Reduction in CO equivalent emission
Page 173 and 174: Biofuel conversion technologies �
Page 175 and 176: Biofuel conversion technologies pot
Page 177 and 178: Chapter 8 The global impacts of US
Page 179 and 180: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 187 and 188: Table 1. Change in output due to EU
Page 191 and 192: Forest cover Pasture cover USEU 201
Page 193: The global impacts of US and EU bio
Page 196 and 197: Chapter 9 also risks and serious tr
Page 198 and 199: Chapter 9 Box 2. Bioethanol stoves
Page 200 and 201: Chapter 9 �e highest impact on po
Page 202 and 203: Chapter 9 the increased generation
Page 204 and 205: Chapter 9 o�ers to support the MD
Page 208 and 209: Chapter 9 Dufey et al., 2007a). Leg
Page 210 and 211: Chapter 9 manufactured directly fro
Page 212 and 213: Chapter 9 in mechanical aid for the
Page 214 and 215: Chapter 9 Table 1. Import tariffs o
Page 216 and 217: Chapter 9 3.8. Improving efficiency
Page 218 and 219: Chapter 9 some minimum transport in
Page 220 and 221: Chapter 9 IEA, 2004. Biofuels for T
Page 223 and 224: Chapter 10 Why are current food pri
Page 225 and 226: Why are current food prices so high
Page 227 and 228: 2.4 Long-term drivers of supply Why
Page 229 and 230: 3.1. Effects on the supply side Why
Page 231 and 232: 3.3 Policy responses to rising food
Page 233 and 234: 3.4. Other effects • Why are curr
Page 235 and 236: - - - - Why are current food prices
Page 237 and 238: 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5. The fut
Page 239 and 240: • • • Why are current food pr
Page 241 and 242: 6.1. Policy implications Why are cu
Page 243: Why are current food prices so high
Page 247 and 248: Authors Dr. Marcos Adami, senior re
Page 249 and 250: Keyword index A Africa 204, 205, 20
Page 251: M maize 20, 83, 104, 173, 184, 187,
show all

Sugarcane ethanol: Contributions to climate change - BAFF

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?