please scroll down for article -...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Schmidt, J. H.]On: 23 February 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 908872038]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Land Use SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t724921301

Assessing the land use implications of biodiesel use from an LCA perspectiveJ. H. Schmidt a; P. Christensen a; T. S. Christensen a

a Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2009

To cite this Article Schmidt, J. H., Christensen, P. and Christensen, T. S.(2009)'Assessing the land use implications of biodiesel usefrom an LCA perspective',Journal of Land Use Science,4:1,35 — 52

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17474230802645790

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17474230802645790

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t724921301

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17474230802645790

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Assessing the land use implications of biodiesel use from an LCAperspective

J.H. Schmidt*, P. Christensen and T.S. Christensen

Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

The land use required in order to meet the increasing demand for biodiesel has significantimpacts. New methodological developments within environmental life cycle assessment(LCA) establish a cause–effect relationship between the demand for biodiesel and itsimpacts on biodiversity. The objective of this article is to assess and compare the impactsof rapeseed oil (RSO) production in the EU and palm oil (PO) production in SoutheastAsia. The functional unit of the LCA is 20.8 Mtoe (million tons oil equivalents) biodieselequalling the EU25 goals for biodiesel in 2020. Land occupation and transformation arequantified for the two alternative vegetable oils, and losses throughout the product chainfrom cultivation over crushing to refining are inventoried. Market mechanisms and landwhich is indirectly affected by product substitutions from co-products are included in themodelling. Land occupation and transformation are evaluated by the use of life cycleimpact assessment (LCIA) models on land use and biodiversity. Three basic scenarios areevaluated: (1) RSO-based biodiesel is produced from rapeseed grown on fields whichwere previously grown by other crops (barley, BL) – the displaced BL is imported fromabroad; (2) RSO-based biodiesel is produced from rapeseed grown on former set-asideland in the EU; and (3) PO-based biodiesel produced in Southeast Asia is imported to theEU. It is concluded that the new EU policies on using set-aside land for energy cropscannot cover the European demand for biodiesel and crops must thus be imported fromoutside the EU. This means that land use outside the EU is affected. The modelling showsthat the use of PO affects the land use inMalaysia or Indonesia and that Canadian land usefor BL cultivation is affected when rapeseed is produced in the EU. The impacts on landuse and biodiversity are presented for all three scenarios. Finally, it is discussed how anLCA perspective like the one applied here can contribute to the assessment ofenvironmental impacts within land use science.

Keywords: land use; biodiversity; life cycle assessment (LCA); biodiesel; rapeseed oil;palm oil

1. Introduction

In recent years, a growing concern for climate change has led to the proposition of biofuel asa way to curb the growth in fossil fuel use. At the political level, this has already beenimplemented in the USA as well as in the EU. Recently, a goal of 10% renewable fuel fortransportation was formulated for 2020 (European Commission 2007a). This goal representsa further development of the increased promotion of biofuels. Previous goals in the EU were2% in 2005 and 5.75% in 2010 (European Parliament and Council 2003); later rising to 10%in 2020. But already at the outset, the goals and the means to reach these have been disputed.

Journal of Land Use ScienceVol. 4, Nos. 1–2, March 2009, 35–52

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1747-423X print/ISSN 1747-4248 online# 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17474230802645790

http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Schmidt, J. H.] At: 09:39 23 February 2009

Many scientists as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within the field havevoiced the concern that biofuels do not provide much benefit, as they also rely on manyforms of fossil fuel inputs and only result in a minor, if any, reduction in CO2 emissions.Another problem has been the clear signs that the use of agricultural products for biofuelpurposes can affect the food supply. This was seen in ‘the tortilla crisis’ and in other examplesof increasing food price levels which may be seen as an effect of the growing use of corn forbiofuel purposes in the USA (Ho 2006). While increasing the pressure on food production,biofuel may also affect another important global system; i.e. the natural habitats like rainforestand other pristine areas, which today form the backbone of global biodiversity (Ho 2006). Ithas been debated whether the use of biofuel, if not affecting the food supply system, wouldonly be possible if encroachments were made on the land used for other purposes, not least theland containing valuable biodiversity. One may ask if the hunger for biofuel produced in theUSA and Europe will eventually transform nature into farm fields and oil palm plantations? Insome cases, as has been revealed in Malaysia and Indonesia, this would not only entail thediminishing of biodiversity, but also the generation of huge amounts of CO2 from soils whichare rich in organic matter (peat swamps) (Reijnders and Huijbregts 2006). This woulddefinitely have an overall negative impact on the global environment. A serious ‘Catch 22’situation can be defined inwhich actionmust be taken to prevent the growing use of fossil fuelsin the transport sector; but no matter which action is taken, it has undesirable effects, either onpoor people’s chances of affording a reasonable food provision or on global land use patterns.

The land use implications of biofuels are often referred to as a trade-off between thereduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the one hand, and the impacts onbiodiversity and food security on the other. However, these implications are seldom quanti-fied and the assessment of trade-offs is thus dependent on more qualitative approaches. Newmethodological developments within life cycle assessment (LCA) enable the establishmentof a link between a change in the demand for biodiesel and land use as well as the associatedland use impacts on biodiversity.

LCA offers a method for predictive land use change modelling. While most models aremerely descriptive in nature when monitoring land use changes, the strength of thismethodology is precisely its ability to describe the global consequences of local decision-making. The decisions made may lead to land use changes or associated changes inproduction patterns. In this article, an LCA perspective is applied with the followinglimitations; the impact categories only include land use and biodiversity, and only the landuse interventions in the agricultural stage have been included. The reason for not includingother environmental impacts, such as global warming, acidification, etc., is the fact that itmakes it possible to specifically discuss land use impacts and biodiversity and thus to inspireto a discussion among the Journal of Land Use Science community on this subject.

Another relevant land use impact that ought to be addressed is the impact of landtransformation on global warming. It is now well known that land transformation involvesa CO2 release that would eventually be several hundred times larger than the annual GHGemissions gained by growing energy crops on the land in question (Fargione, Hill, Tilman,Polasky, and Hawthorne 2008). However, this impact is not quantified here since thepurpose of this article is limited to assess land use (area) and the associated impacts onbiodiversity only.

The purpose of this article is to assess the land use implications of implementing the EUtargets for biofuels in the year 2020 in the case of diesel. The land use implications include aquantification and assessment of the required annual occupation and the transformation ofland. In other words, the intention is to model the impacts which the EU target of 10%

36 J.H. Schmidt et al.


biofuel for diesel-driven transport may have on the demand for land use around the worldand the consequences that this may have for global biodiversity.

2. Methods

2.1. Applied methods and limitations: life cycle assessment (LCA) and land use

A LCA is a holistic description of the environmental impacts resulting from a decision madeon changing a product or other systems. The description covers all impacts at each stagefrom cradle to grave. It is holistic in the sense that most impacts are often described and itcovers all relevant life cycle stages from resource extraction to final deposition or recycling ofthe waste. An LCA is often madewith reference to the international standards on LCA, i.e. ISO14040 (2006) and ISO 14044 (2006).

An LCA starts by defining a functional unit that quantifies the product or services to beassessed. The functional unit is thus a quantified performance of a product system. Thefunctional unit in the present study is defined as 20.8 Mtoe (million tons oil equivalents)which correspond to 10% of the forecasted use of diesel in EU25 in 2020. The forecasted useof diesel for transport in 2020 is taken from the work ofMantzos et al. (2003). The 20.8Mtoecorresponds to 869 PJ (Mantzos et al. 2003). The corresponding amounts of palm oil methylester (PME) and rapeseed oil methyl ester (RME) are 23.1 and 23.4 Mt, respectively. Theseamounts are found using the energy contents and densities reported in the work of Fukuda,Kondo, and Noda (2001). The reason for not considering the amount of biodiesel required inEU27 is the fact that only estimates for EU25 have been identified.

The supply chain of biodiesel production can be divided into three life cycle stages.These are: (1) agricultural stage; (2) oil mill stage; and (3) transesterification stage. The landuse interventions which do not relate to the agricultural stage are insignificant in LCAs ofvegetable oils, but it would require detailed data collection and documentation to include it.According to Schmidt (in press, Appendix 9), the agricultural stages account for 99.1–99.9%of the land use interventions. Therefore, only the land use interventions which relate toagricultural cultivation are included.

In this study, only the impact categories such as land use (area) and biodiversity areconsidered. This means that other impacts like global warming, eutrophication, acidifica-tion, ecotoxicity, etc. are not taken into account. The impacts in focus are the ones that relateto the overall question: How does the change of 10% of the EU diesel consumption intobiofuel impact the overall land use and eventually affect biodiversity? This delimitationmakes the data collection much simpler than in conventional LCAs, because data collectionon emissions can be eliminated from the study.

The starting point of the assessment is to define how the EU will fundamentally providethe necessary biofuel; will it be by growing more rapeseed in Europe? If this is the case, willthe increased rapeseed cultivation take place at the expense of other crops? Will it cause anincreased cultivation of set-aside land? or will it involve the purchase of palm oil (PO) on theglobal market? These policy choices have fundamental impacts on the global crop produc-tion system and, consequently, on land use and biodiversity.

In order to establish the chain of causes that lead from the initial political decision toremote impacts in other parts of the world, these decisions must be followed meticulouslyfrom cause to effect. Often this leads to cascades of other implications. If, for example, it isdecided to take the increased production of rapeseed in the EU countries as the starting point,this decision may imply the challenge that more rapeseed meal is produced and hence thefodder import for the animal production may be reduced. Another challenge is that land

Journal of Land Use Science 37


previously cultivated with barley (BL) will now be cultivated with rapeseed. This leads to anexpansion of the system, since the displaced BL must be grown in another region of theworld.

2.2. System delimitation: expanding the system accounting for co-products, marketinformation and political environment

In state-of-the-art LCA, the included processes/suppliers should reflect the actually affectedprocesses/suppliers, i.e. marginal suppliers, and co-product allocation should be avoidedthrough system expansion (Ekvall and Weidema 2004; Kløverpris, Wenzel, Banse, Mila iCanals, and Reenberg 2008a; Kløverpris, Wenzel, and Nielsen 2008b; Schmidt 2008a;Schmidt and Weidema 2008). First, the challenge of co-product allocation is relevant inthe case of multiple product outputs from the oil mill (oil and meal) and from the transester-ification (biodiesel and glycerol). The challenge is then to answer the question: To whichdegree can the interventions from the oil mill and upstream processes be ascribed to the oil?According to Ekvall and Weidema (2004), co-product allocation can be avoided by expand-ing the system boundaries to include the displaced products; i.e. when the production ofvegetable oil of the oil mill is associated with the co-production of oil meal, the alternativeproduction of animal fodder is displaced.

Secondly, when identifying the affected processes/suppliers, these should be the actuallyaffected ones; e.g. when rapeseed cultivation is increased at the expense of other crops in theEU, the displaced crops included in the LCA should be those which will actually bedisplaced (Kløverpris et al. 2008a; Kløverpris et al. 2008b; Schmidt 2008a). The crop inquestion is referred to as the marginal crop. In addition, when identifying the displacedanimal fodder described above, the actual displaced animal fodder should be included in theLCA. The identification of marginal processes/suppliers is described in the followingsections. According to Schmidt (2008a) and Kløverpris et al. (2008b), changes in agricul-tural crop production can be achieved either by increasing the cultivated area or by increas-ing the productivity, e.g. by increasing the fertilizer input. In this article, all changes incultivation are assumed to be achieved by increasing the cultivated area. Regarding land use,this assumption represents the worst case. If knowledge on the distribution between the twoways of changing agricultural crop production become available, it is easy to adjust theresults presented in this article. The results (Figures 3–5) for a given crop and region shouldsimply be multiplied with the share representing the changes in cultivation achieved bychanges in the cultivated area.

2.3. Method for assessing land use and biodiversity impacts

In an LCA, all inputs and outputs of emissions, resources and other interventions throughoutthe life cycle are inventoried in the so-called life cycle inventory (LCI). The output of thisphase of the LCA is the inventory result, which is a list of usually hundreds of differentemissions and other interventions all relating to the functional unit. Two types of inventorydata can be defined regarding land use. These are land occupation and land transformation(Mila i Canals et al. 2007). Land transformation is the single activity through which one landuse type is changed into another. Land occupation is the occupation of land over time. Thistype of intervention can directly be derived from the annual yields of the affected crops;e.g. the land occupation related to 1 t rapeseed cultivated with an annual yield of 3 t/ha is0.333 ha year.



The inventory result of the LCI is made interpretable in the life cycle impact assessment(LCIA) phase. This means that all emissions and other interventions from the system inconsideration are summed up in usually 10–15 different impact categories. Normally, twoimpact categories are associated with land use, i.e. occupation impacts and transformationimpacts (Mila i Canals et al. 2007). Sometimes, a third type of impact is also referred to in LCAliterature, i.e. permanent impact representing the irreversible impact caused by transformationof land, e.g. if the top soil is removed and no longer supports the original renaturalizationpotential (see Figure 1). This type of impact is not considered in this article. One of theconsequences of land use is its impacts on biodiversity. Often, LCA studies do not include aquantitative assessment of biodiversity (Schmidt 2007a). In this article, the applied LCIAmethod for biodiversity is the method introduced by Schmidt (2008b). Schmidt (2008b)recently proposed a method which falls within the framework proposed by the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative on LCIA and land use (Mila i Canals et al. 2007).

By using the difference in species richness of vascular plants between the occupied areaand a reference land use type, which is defined as the current renaturalization potential, landoccupation (ha year) is converted into an indicator of biodiversity for occupation impacts,see Figure 1. Although the definition of biodiversity encompasses diversity in terms of theecosystem, species and genetic levels (‘within’ and ‘between’ species, UN 1992), therichness of vascular plants is here considered as a proxy for biodiversity. This differencein the species richness of vascular plants is then adjusted according to ecosystem vulner-ability, which represents the scarcity of low-intensity land in the affected region (Schmidt2008b). Low-intensity land is the land which is not cultivated with crops, not built-up land,nor roads or barren land.

Land transformation is converted into transformation impacts by use of the samemethod, but here the indicator is calculated as the accumulated number of species preventedfor living on the affected area in the time from end of occupation to the time whenrenaturalization is reached (see Figure 1). The renaturalization time determines the magni-tude of the impacts. The indicator unit showing occupation impacts and transformationimpacts is wS100, which refers to the affected species (S) measured on a standardised area of100 m2, and weighted according to ecosystem vulnerability (w).

Even though transformation impacts and occupation impacts are measured in the sameunit (wS100), the results of these two impacts cannot be directly compared and added.Occupation impacts will occur each year, whereas the transformation impacts will occuronly once. It is often difficult to allocate land transformation to a functional unit, because the

t1 t2 t3

Occupationimpact

Quality

Time

AD

B

D

B

Transformationimpact

Permanentimpact

Figure 1. Occupation, transformation and permanent impacts (Schmidt in press). ‘A’ is the originalbiodiversity quality, ‘D’ the current renaturalization potential and ‘B’ the biodiversity during occupa-tion. t1 is the time of transformation, t1 to t2 the period of occupation and t2 to t3 the period ofrenaturalization.



number of functional units supported by a certain transformation of land is unknown.Because of the uncertainty, no attempts have been made in order to estimate this.Therefore, occupation impacts and transformation impacts are treated separately in thisarticle. It has been chosen to allocate the transformation impacts to one functional unit.

2.4. Scenarios: establishing physical product systems for biodiesel produced onrapeseed oil and palm oil

With the aim of complying with the EU target for biofuels, the increased demand forvegetable oil can be met in different ways and with different land use impacts. First, if thetarget for biofuels is implemented without any additional regulation, the affected oil will bethe cheapest fuel, i.e. the marginal oil. Schmidt and Weidema (2008) have identified themarginal vegetable oil supply as PO from Indonesia and Malaysia. The EuropeanCommission (2007b) explicitly states that biodiesel based on PO is not desirable becauseit may lead to clearing of rainforest. Thus, if the biofuel target is to be implemented, it couldbe accompanied by a set of regulations ensuring that the vegetable oil used is rapeseed oil(RSO) produced in the EU. In principle, the production of rapeseed in the EU can beincreased in two ways: (1) by increasing the cultivation of rapeseed at the expense ofother crops; or (2) by increasing the cultivation of set-aside land (Schmidt in press). Theagricultural area in the EU is not likely to increase in the years to come (Schmidt 2007b).Which of the two ways of increasing the cultivation of rapeseed in the EU is most likelyagain depends on the political environment in the EU. If the rapeseed cultivation is forced tofollow the change in demand for biodiesel in the EU, and it is not accompanied by anyregulation, the increase will take place at the expense of other crops. But if more cultivationof set-aside land is made legal and economically attractive, then this will be the most likelyway of increasing rapeseed cultivation. Hence, three different potential ways of achievingthe required increased supply have been identified. These are included as scenarios in thestudy:

� Scenario 1: Rapeseed oil (displace)� Scenario 2: Rapeseed oil (set-aside)� Scenario 3: Palm oil

Regardless of the scenario, the supply chain of biodiesel consists of three life cycle stagesmentioned in Section 2.1: (1) agricultural stage, (2) oil mill stage and (3) transesterificationstage. The product flows at these three stages are addressed for each scenario in the followingsections.

2.4.1. Scenario 1: Rapeseed oil (displace)

The directly affected land use-related process in the RSO scenarios is the cultivation ofrapeseed in the EU. In the RSO (displace) scenario, average soils can be assumed to beaffected, since the shift from marginal crop to rapeseed does not involve any constraintsregarding soil type. According to Schmidt (in press), the average rapeseed yield in the EU is3.230 t/ha year. Schmidt (2007b) has identified the marginal crop in the EU as spring BL.Thus, when increasing the cultivation of rapeseed at the expense of other crops, spring BL ismost likely to be affected. The yield of spring BL is 5.120 t/ha year (Schmidt 2007b).Schmidt and Weidema (2008) have identified the marginal supplier of BL to be Canada.



Hence, the reduced production of spring BL in the EU will be compensated for by anincreased production in Canada.

CrudeRSO for biodiesel is pressed in a RSOmill by use of the full press technology, i.e. nosolvents are used for extraction. The process has two outputs, i.e. crude RSO and meal, whichare used as animal fodder. Animal fodder has two fundamental functions, i.e. providing energyand proteins. Thus, the RSO production is associated with three outputs, i.e. oil, fodder proteinand fodder energy. Schmidt and Weidema (2008) have identified the marginal suppliers offodder protein and fodder energy as soybean meal (SM) from Brazil and BL from Canada,respectively. The product flows related to the production of BL in Canada and SM in Brazil areshown in Figure 2.

When the production of RSO is associated with co-products; fodder protein and fodderenergy, the marginal alternative production of these co-products is displaced. It appears fromFigure 2 that SM is associated with the co-products: oil, fodder protein and fodder energy.Thus, the displacement of SM will lead to a decrease in the supply of oil. The oil missing onthe market will be compensated for by an increased production of the marginal source ofvegetable oil, i.e. PO. This loop can be solved either by iteration (Dalgaard et al. 2008) or byan equation system (Schmidt andWeidema 2008). The equation method is used in this study;see Equation (1) for the RSO scenarios.

2.4.2. Scenario 2: Rapeseed oil (set-aside)

The RSO (set-aside) scenario will affect the less fertile soils, i.e. sandy soils. According toSchmidt (in press), the rapeseed yield of sandy soils is 2.790 t/ha year. Compared to Scenario1, the only other difference in Scenario 2 is the fact that no spring BL is displaced in the EUand compensated for in Canada. All other elements are similar. Hence, the product system ofScenario 2 can also be described by Equation (1)

2.4.3. Scenario 3: Palm oil

The directly affected land use-related process in the PO scenario is the cultivation of freshfruit bunches (FFB). The marginal suppliers of the feedstock to PO (i.e. FFB) are identified

Rapeseed oil (RSO)

Rapeseed oil mill

1000 kg1558kg meal

2597 kg rapeseed

Rapeseed field

Aver. soil: 0.804 ha yearor

Set-aside: 0.931 ha year

530 kg1487 SFU

1 t RSO0 kg

ProteinFodder energy

Oil0 kg

0 SFU

Palm oil (PO)

Palm oil mill

1000 kg

4471 kg FFB

Oil palm plantation

0.264 ha year

18.5 kg98.0 SFU

0 kg0 kg

0 SFU

Palm kernel oil mill

238 kg kernels

107 kg CPKO

893 kg CPO

124kg meal1 t PO

Soybean meal (SM)

Soybean oil mill

249 kg1 t SM

1294 kg soybeans

Soybean field

0.403 ha year

436 kg1200 SFU

249kg SO0 kg

0 kg0 SFU

Barley (BL)

0 kg

Barley field

1 t BL

91.8 kg952 SFU

Reference flow

Canada: 0.357 ha yearor

Denmark: 0.195 ha year

Figure 2. Product flows and land use related to a defined reference flow for each of the affectedcommodities. Based on the works of Schmidt (2007b, in press). Abbreviations: CPO, crude palm oil;CPKO, crude palm kernel oil; SO, soybean oil; SFU, Scandinavian fodder units.



asMalaysia and Indonesia (Schmidt andWeidema 2008). This means that this region is mostlikely to respond to changes in demand for FFB.

The FFB yield in Malaysian estates in 2004–2006 was 19.03 t/ha year for matureplantations (Schmidt 2007b, in press). Generally, the life time of one generation of oilpalms is 23 years of which the palm trees are unripe for 2.5 years (Schmidt in press). Thus,the overall effective yield can be calculated as 16.96 t FFB/ha year. Malaysian yields areassumed to represent Indonesian yields, since statistics on Indonesian yields do not reflectthe yields in the longer term. This is because of the fact that young palms which have a loweryield are over-represented in Indonesian plantations, because the oil palm planted area hasbeen greatly expanded in recent years. In addition, it is assumed that the applied oil palmyield should be intended for estates not including smallholders. This is based on the generalassumption that smallholders are less likely to respond to changes in demand compared toestates, which have more capital to adjust to market trends.

The PO industry produces two types of crude vegetable oil from FFB, i.e. PO andpalm kernel oil. PO is produced by pressing the FFB in the PO mill; and palm kernel oil isproduced by pressing the kernels, which are outputs from the FFB processing, in the palmkernel oil mill. Schmidt and Weidema (2008) have identified the marginal supplyvegetable oil as a combination of these two types of oil. In the following, PO and palmkernel oil are together referred to as PO. The product flows related to a reference flow of1 t PO are shown in Figure 2. The production of PO and palm kernel oil has two mainproduct outputs, i.e. PO and palm kernel meal which are used as animal fodder (whichprovide fodder energy and fodder proteins). Thus, like RSO, the PO and the palm kerneloil productions are associated with three outputs, i.e. oil, fodder protein and fodderenergy.

When the production of PO is associated with co-products; fodder protein and fodderenergy, the marginal alternative production of these products is displaced. This is treated inthe same manner as in the case of the RSO system; see Equation (2) for the PO scenario.

3. Results

3.1. Quantification of the product systems related to the three scenarios

The amounts of PME and RME needed in order to fulfil the target of replacing 10% of thediesel for transport are identified as 20.8 Mtoe, corresponding to 869 PJ. As described inSection 2.1, the corresponding amounts of PME and RME are 23.1 and 23.4 million tons,respectively. Based on Pleanjai, Gheewala, and Garivait (2004), it is assumed that anoutput of 1 t of PME requires an input of 1.14 t of crude PO. Correspondingly, it isestimated that an output of 1 t RME requires an input of 1.04 t crude RSO [based on thefigures in the works of Sheehan, Camobreco, Duffield, Graboski, and Shapouri (1998),Lang, Dalai, Bakhshi, Reaney, and Hertz (2001) and Vicente, Martınez, and Aracil(2004)].

Figure 2 shows the product systems related to the production of each affected commodity,i.e. PO, RSO, SM and BL. The figure also shows the difference in yield for RSO cultivated onaverage soils and set-aside (sandy soils) in the EU and the difference in yield for BL cultivatedin Canada and Denmark, respectively.

In Equations (1) and (2), the system expansions related to the co-products of the productionsystems for RSO and PO, respectively, are calculated, i.e. the production of PO, RSO, SM andBL required in order to meet a change in demand for 1000 kg vegetable oil.



1 t RSO

1000 kg oil=t RSO

530 kg prot:=tRSO

1487 SFU=tRSO

264

375þ t PO

1000 kg oil=t PO

18:5 kg prot:=t PO

98:0 SFU=t PO

264

375þ t SM

249 kg oil=t SM

436 kg prot:=t SM

1200 SFU=t SM

264

375

þ t BL

0 kg oil=t BL

91:8 kg prot:=t BL

952 SFU=t BL

264

375 ¼

1000 kg oil

0 kg prot:

0 SFU

264

375

+t RSO ¼ 1:000

t PO ¼ 0:303

t SM ¼ �1:216t BL ¼ �0:0608:cr

(1)

t PO

1000 kg oil=t PO

18:5 kg prot:=t PO

98:0 SFU=t PO

264

375þ t SM

249 kg oil=t SM

436 kg prot:=t SM

1200 SFU=t SM

264

375

þ t BL

0 kg oil=t BL

91:8 kg prot:=t BL

952 SFU=t BL

264

375 ¼

1000 kg oil

0 kg prot:

0 SFU

264

375

+t PO ¼ 1:007

t SM ¼ �0:0284t BL ¼ �0:0678:

(2)

The land use in terms of occupied area over time (ha year) resulting from a change indemand of 1 t RSO and 1 t PO can be calculated by combining the information in Figure 2and Equations (1) and (2).

By including the losses at the transesterification stage and scaling up the product flows relatedto 1 t vegetable oil, the three scenarios are quantified in relation to the functional unit in Table 1.

As mentioned in Section 2.3, it is often difficult to relate land transformation to afunctional unit, because the number of functional units supported by a certain transformationof land is unknown. In this study, it has been chosen to allocate the transformation impacts toone functional unit. The impacts referred to in the section describing occupation impacts(Section 3.4) will occur each year, while the transformation impacts (referred to in Section3.3) will occur only once.

3.2. Land occupation

Figure 3 shows the land occupation related to the functional unit. The results in Figure 3 canbe derived directly from the information provided in Section 3.1. The corresponding landtransformation is more difficult to relate to the functional unit, because the number offunctional units supported by the transformation is unknown. Therefore, in this study, theland transformation (and the associated transformation impacts, in Section 3.3) is valid for



the total area required in order to produce a quantity of 20.8 Mtoe biodiesel, as defined in thefunctional unit. While the land transformation only occurs once, this occupation is repeatedeach year. Hence, the land transformation required can be seen directly from Figure 3; theunit should thus be ‘ha’ instead of ‘ha year’.

In Figure 3, the scenario where RSO in the EU is grown at the expense of other crops(RSO, displace scenario) requires the largest land use. The reason for the large impact of 25.3million hectares is the fact that other crops grown on this land will now have to be providedby other regions or continents. BL must then be grown in order to provide food or fodder forthe European market. The impacts on land use are mainly found in Canada. It also appears

Table 1. Summary of the product flows related to the functional unit (20.8 Mtoe) in the threescenarios.

Scenario 1: Rapeseedoil (displace)

Scenario 2: Rapeseedoil (set-aside)

Scenario 3:Palm oil

Agriculture and oil mill stagesRapeseed oil (RSO), EU 24.3 24.3 0Palm oil (PO), Malaysia/Indonesia 7.36 7.36 26.6Soybean meal (SM), Brazil -29.6 -29.6 -0.749Barley (BL), Canada 101 -1.48 -1.79Barley (BL), EU -100 0 0Total output from agricultural and oilmill stages, crude oil

24.3 24.3 26.4

Transesterification stageLosses 0.935 0.935 3.24Total output from transesterificationstage

23.4 23.4 23.1

Note: All values are given in million ton (Mt).

Land occupation

–20.0

–10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Rap

esee

d oi

l,di

spla

ce

Rap

esee

d oi

l,se

t-asi

de

Palm

oil

Milli

on h

a yr

per

func

tiona

l uni

t

EU

Malaysia/Indonesia

Brazil

Canada

25.3

12.1

6.07

Figure 3. Land occupation related to 20.8 Mtoe biodiesel.



from the figure that acreage can be saved in Brazil, since the rapeseed production in Europegenerates meal which can substitute the present fodder production in Brazil.

The second largest land occupation comes from the production of rapeseed in Europe,which uses set-aside land for the purpose. The land occupation from using set-aside land issmaller than in the first scenario. Again, it can be seen that the land occupation is reduced inBrazil. The main occupation takes place in Europe, but it is reduced compared to the land useidentified in Canada in the RSO (displace) scenario. The reason for this is the fact that theproduction in Europe has a higher yield than the one in Canada.

The smallest land occupation comes from growing oil palm for biodiesel inMalaysia andIndonesia. This is based on the high yield of palms because of favourable climate conditionsas well as the nature of this crop.

When considering the size of the land use in Figure 3, it should be mentioned that the totalagricultural area in the EU27 in 2005 was 161 million ha (European Commission and Eurostat2007). Of this area, 3.8 million ha comprised set-aside land in 2007 (European Commission2007c). The production of the rapeseed needed for the 10% target for biodiesel (Scenario 2)requires 22.6 million ha of set-aside land. Thus, this production is not possible within the EU.A mixed strategy using all of the set-aside land in the EU as well as relying on a rapeseedproduction displacing impacts to Canada can be considered the most likely solution.

3.3. Transformation impacts on biodiversity

The figures presented in Section 3.2 only include area. In this and in the next section, the landtransformation and land occupation figures in Section 3.2 are converted into a biodiversityindicator.When calculating transformation impacts, it is crucial for the result to identify the landuse type being transformed into agricultural cultivation. This has been identified in Schmidt(2007b). Table 2 summarizes the affected land use types. When land is transformed via asubsequent series of activities, the attribution of the total impact of these transformation activitiesmust be considered. The identified land use transformations do not include a shift from one cropto another, since these effects are dealtwith in themodelling of theproduction systems. Thus, theland transformations all include transformation of non-cultivated land into cultivated land.

When clearing land for oil palm cultivation, some NGO studies suggest that thetransformed land is primary forest (Casson 2003; Wakker 2004; Frese, Ibsen, Bang, andAndersen 2006). However, the actual clearing usually takes place on land which has alreadybeen degraded (Glastra, Wakker, and Richert 2002; ProForest 2003; Schmidt in press). Thequestion is then which driving force leads to the cutting of primary forest, before the oil palmplantations enter the scene. According to FAOSTAT (2008), the annual increase in the

Table 2. Affected land use types regarding land transformation.

Commodity Region Transformation from . . . Transformation into . . .

Rapeseed oil (RSO) Europe Set-aside land Annual crops, intensivePalm oil (PO) Malaysia and

Indonesia(1) Degraded forest Perennial, oil palm

plantation(2) Alang–alang grassland(3) Primary forest

Soybean meal (SM),Brazil

Brazil 95% Cerradosavannah 5%Degraded forest

Annual crops, intensive

Barley (BL), Canada Canada Prairie grassland Annual crops, intensive



agricultural area in Malaysia and Indonesia was 5600 km2 from 1993 to 2003. In the sameperiod, the area planted with oil palms increased by 3400 km2 annually. By comparison, theannual change in forest cover inMalaysia and Indonesia was 19,500 km2 from 1990 to 2000,and 20,110 km2 from 2000 to 2005 (FAO 2006). The annual change in the extent of primaryforest from 1990 to 2005 was 0 km2 inMalaysia and 14,478 km2 in Indonesia (FAO 2006). Itappears from these figures that the rate of deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia wassignificantly larger than the rate of increase of the agricultural area (factor 3–4). This is alsothe case if only considering the change in the extent of primary forest. This could indicatethat agriculture (and hence also oil palm cultivation) is not the driving force behind thelogging of primary forest. The same is the case of deforestation in Brazil and the role ofsoybean. Still, this is related to significant uncertainties. Therefore, scenarios are includedwhere degraded forest as well as primary forest are affected (see Table 2). However, when itcomes to the transformation of non-forested land, such as the Cerrado savannah in Brazil andprairie grassland in Canada, this transformation is fully ascribable to agriculture. Based onSchmidt (2007a), it has been assumed that transformation of non-productive land intocropland in Canada affects prairie grassland. It is obvious that if degraded land is trans-formed instead, the transformation impacts would be less significant. No data on theavailability of degraded land have been identified. This uncertainty of identifying theaffected type of land is taken into account in the conclusions.

In Malaysia and Indonesia, very large areas of grassland/scrubland, i.e. the so-calledalang–alang or imperata which are former forest areas that have now been cleared, areavailable and suitable for oil palm cultivation (Garrity et al. 1997; Corley 2006). It is difficultto predict the utilization of these available areas. Therefore, an additional scenario isincluded in which the affected land use type in Malaysia and Indonesia is alang–alanggrassland. For illustrative purposes, a scenario showing the impacts when the affected landuse type is primary forest is also included.

In Figure 4, it must be noted that the transformation impacts are allocated to onefunctional unit. This is the reason why the magnitude of the impacts here is significantlarger than the occupation impacts (Figure 5).

It appears from Figure 4 that, among the three main scenarios, the RSO (displace)scenario has the most significant transformation impacts. The reason for the high weightingof the transformation impact in Canada is the fact that land is transformed from non-degraded nature into productive land. In Europe, Malaysia and Indonesia, the processinvolves the transformation of degraded land into productive land. In the two RSO scenarios,it appears that the land transformation saved in Brazil is relatively highly weighted. This isbecause of the fact that the transformed Cerrado savannah is characterized as non-degradednature, as in the case of the prairie land of Canada.

The first additional scenario, PO (alang–alang), has a negative transformation impact.This is because of the fact that the species richness of vascular plants in an oil palm plantationis larger than in alang–alang grassland. The second additional scenario, PO (primary forest),has the largest transformation impact. This large impact is primarily because of a longrenaturalization time as well as a high species richness of the primary forest.

3.4. Occupation impacts on biodiversity

Occupation impacts are calculated by multiplying the land occupation (Figure 3) by thefactors of biodiversity from different types of habitats, obtained from Schmidt (2008b). Theoccupation impacts are shown in Figure 5.



It appears from Figure 5 that the ranking of RSO and PO now completely depends on theway in which rapeseed cultivation is increased in the EU. If the increase is implemented atthe expense of other crops, which are then compensated for in Canada, the impacts are verylow. This is because of the relatively low ecosystem vulnerability in Canada (Canada has ahigh share of low-intensity land). If rapeseed cultivation takes place locally on set-aside landin the EU, the impact is high. This is because of the relatively high ecosystem vulnerability in

Transformation impact, biodiversity

–20,000

–10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Rap

esee

d oi

l, di

spla

ce

Rap

esee

d oi

l, se

t-asi

de

Palm

oil

Palm

oil (

alan

g–al

ang)

Palm

oil (

prim

ary

fore

st)

Milli

on w

S 100

per

func

tiona

l uni

t

EU

Malaysia/Indonesia

Brazil

Canada

40,800

–8520 1510 –2180

47,800

Figure 4. Transformation impacts on biodiversity related to 20.8 Mtoe biodiesel.

Occupation impact, biodiversity

–100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Rap

esee

d oi

l,di

spla

ce

Rap

esee

d oi

l,se

t-asi

de

Palm

oil

Milli

on w

S 100

per

func

tiona

l uni

t

EU

Malaysia/Indonesia

Brazil

Canada

69.4

826

195

Figure 5. Occupation impacts on biodiversity related to 20.8 Mtoe biodiesel.



the EU. The use of set-aside land will thus dramatically increase the pressure on biodiversityin Europe. The conclusion – in biodiversity terms – would be that, as Canada has a high shareof land with a high level of biodiversity, it would be a convenient place to locate theproduction of biodiesel for Europe, although this does occupy a large area of land, as seenfrom Figure 3. However, this conclusion is only valid when the transformation impactsdescribed in the previous section are not taken into account.

The occupation impact of PO-based biodiesel is lower than the impact of the RSO (set-aside) scenario. This may seem counterintuitive since the reference land use type inMalaysiaand Indonesia is tropical rainforest, which supports much more species than temporal broad-leaved natural forest, i.e. the reference land use type in Europe. However, this is because ofseveral conditions. First, the land occupation related to PO biodiesel involves approximatelyhalf of the area required for the RSO (set-aside) scenario, see Figure 3. Secondly, theecosystem vulnerability in Europe is significantly higher than in Indonesia and Malaysia,which still have a large proportion of low-intensity land.

4. Interpretation of results

The results of this study show that PO biodiesel is two to four times more efficient than RSObiodiesel, when measured in terms of land occupation. Two ways of increasing rapeseedcultivation are included in the assessment. The first one is cultivation at the expense of othercrops (spring BL), which is compensated for by an increased cultivation of BL in Canada.This is the least efficient rapeseed scenario, because BL cultivation in Canada is significantlyless efficient than in the EU. The second means is the increase of rapeseed cultivation on set-aside land in the EU, which is the most efficient rapeseed scenario. However, it is notpossible to produce the amount of biodiesel defined in the functional unit when applying thisscenario. This is because of the fact that the required amount of set-aside land is notavailable.

Both rapeseed scenarios involve a significant displacement of soybean cultivation inBrazil. RSO is co-produced with rapeseed meal, which displaces a large amount of SM. Thesystem expansions related to the co-products of PO are less significant.

Looking into transformation impacts, the results show significant differences dependingon the land involved. In the scenarios in which non-degraded land is affected, the largesttransformation impact can be found. This means that the best performing scenario in terms ofoccupation impact (the RSO, displace scenario) turns out to be a bad solution in terms oftransformation impact. However, this result is sensitive to the assumption that non-degradedprairie grassland is actually affected in Canada. If degraded land could be found instead, theimpacts would be more similar to the transformation impacts in the EU as in the RSO (set-aside) scenario. The transformation impact of biodiesel produced from PO is significantlylower if the transformed land is alang–alang grassland.

When converting land occupation into a biodiversity indicator, the ranking of rapeseedbiodiesel and palm biodiesel becomes less clear. If rapeseed is cultivated at the expense ofspring BL, which causes increased BL cultivation in Canada, the impact on biodiversity issmall (i.e. close to 0 when measured by biodiversity indicator). This is because of the factthat the ecosystems in Canada are less vulnerable to changes than the high share of high-intensity land in the EU. If rapeseed is cultivated on set-aside land in the EU, the impact onbiodiversity is high, even higher than for palm biodiesel.

When considering land use as well as occupation and transformation impacts, the bestperforming scenario seems to be PO. It is the most efficient scenario in terms of required



area; the occupation impact is relatively low, and the transformation impact is also relativelylow, especially if it can be ensured that the expansion takes place on alang–alang grassland.

4.1. Uncertainties

The underlying assumptions in the modelling of land use interventions involve someuncertainties. In the methodology used to establish a relation between biodiesel demandand associated land transformation and occupation, it is assumed that (1) increased demandis met by increasing the cultivated area and not the productivity, (2) the marginal supplier of acrop can be represented by one region, (3) average yields of the affected region represent theproductivity of the actual affected land and (4) the identification of the land use types whichare actually affected when transforming land into agricultural land is uncertain. It is clear thatthe validity of these assumptions can be questioned and that policy interventions may requirethe alteration of these assumptions. The first two assumptions are further discussed inSchmidt (2007b, 2008a), and the third condition is regarded a valid assumption, as long asno additional information is available.

The method used for converting land transformation and occupation into biodiversityindicators also involves a number of uncertainties. Here, three parameters are regarded themost significant: (1) the indicator is only based on the species richness of all vascular plants;(2) the species richness is measured without distinguishing between species (widespread,rare, invasive, endangered, endemic, etc.); and (3) the weighting factor for ecosystemvulnerability is based on the level of nations and not ecosystems. These uncertainties arefurther discussed in the work of Schmidt (2008b).

5. Conclusion and discussion

Despite the uncertainties mentioned, the results of modelling changes in the land use relatedto biodiesel production serve as a clear support basis for decision making. At the Europeanlevel, it is obvious that the use of set-aside land for rapeseed production is a problematicstrategy, considering its land use (area) occupation impacts. First of all, it takes up a lot ofland – 22.6 million ha of set-aside land is required, and only 3.8 million ha is available(Figure 3), and secondly the impact on biodiversity during occupation is high (Figure 5).However, the transformation of set-aside land only entails smaller impacts. Set-aside land isalready degraded and the use of it involves less extra impacts when compared to the morepristine natural habitats in the region. The European Commission’s new policy on changingthe amount of set-aside land does not seem to be desirable. On a European scale, the requiredarea of set-aside land is not available. As of today, approximately 2% of the acreage in theEU is set-aside and this would only enable a production of 3.5 Mtoe of biodiesel, corre-sponding to 17% of the European demand.

Europe does have problems providing enough land for producing RSO. However, theproblems seem to escape Europe as market mechanisms will lead to a change, so that thecrops previously produced in Europe will be produced elsewhere. In general, the area of landused in Canada (or other regions representing marginal supply of BL) for BL production willincrease dramatically, when the acreage available in Europe does not suffice. On the positiveside, this results in a reduction of the soy production in Brazil, since more oil-producingcrops are now grown in Europe. If the land used in Canada is created by transforming prairiegrassland into annual crops, the impacts on biodiversity are significant, compared to theimpacts of clearing degraded forest in the tropics. But for the prairie which has already beentransformed, biodiversity impacts seem to be relatively small. The reason for this is the fact



that, according to the models used, the remaining land and biodiversity in Canada areassumed to be much larger than in Europe. The vulnerability of the European habitats ismuch higher, since there are few of these habitats left. Thus, it seems straightforward toconclude that rapeseed should be produced in Europe, while Canada should bear the burdenof this production. The acreage used is big and the price for transforming non-degradedprairie is high; but if other forms of already transformed land can be found, occupationimpacts are small. The open question is if this type of degraded land is available in Canada. Ifnot, it would be poorly advised to go for the Canadian option. Europe should not solve itsproblems of fossil-fuelled transport by encroaching on Canadian nature.

Another strategy could be to buy PO from Malaysia and Indonesia. Figure 3 clearlyshows that oil palm is a more land use efficient oil crop than rapeseed and land use associatedwith this production is very low. On the other hand, a large biodiversity is found in theseregions. It has been argued that, in these countries as well as in Brazil, the growth in oilproduction with the aim of quenching the thirst for fuel in Europe and the USA encroacheson pristine natural forests. As shown in this article, the expansion of these crops does notnecessarily relate to the destruction of rain forest. Actually, some of the plantations produ-cing oil are located on degraded soils like the alang–alang grasslands in Indonesia. If that isthe case, the transformation impacts are not as large as assumed. It may even be a positivesolution, since plantations may have a larger biodiversity than the alang–alang grassland.But on the other hand, devastating impacts can be found in places where primary rainforestsare cut down to leave room for plantations (or other activities for that matter). At the end ofthe day, it seems clear that many of these plantations are located in former pristine areas. Forthe time being, the main driving factor is not oil production, but timber production anddifferent forms of agriculture. But the close relationship between these activities, especiallythe historical dynamics between them, should be clarified by concrete studies in theseregions. Buying oil products from tropical regions is definitely an option, especially if it isascertained that the plantations are not established in pristine land. If such a ‘certification’could be introduced this would be a viable strategy, at least in the short term before thedemands for biodiesel from other parties than the EU start rising.

The EU demand for biodiesel may find its solution outside Europe in the short run,especially if degraded land in Canada or Malaysia and Indonesia can be used for theproduction. If not, this solution is not advisable and Europe should definitely solve itsproblems on its own. This task is – as shown in this article – more or less impossible. Even toprovide 10% biodiesel is impossible. The amount of set-aside land is not sufficient toproduce more than 31% of the demand. The growing of rapeseed would affect Canadiannature or, if oil is provided from oil palm plantations, Malaysian and Indonesian nature. Seenin that perspective, it seems reasonable to expect that biodiesel, and maybe also biofuels likemethanol, are not viable alternatives in a world where not only food but also biodiversityshould be provided.

ReferencesCasson, A. (2003), Oil Palm, Soybeans & Critical Habitatloss, Switzerland: WWF.Corley, H. (2006), ‘‘Ten Steps Towards Sustainability of Palm Oil Production. Round Table on

Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).’’ http://www.rspo.org/PDF/Main%20page/Ten%20steps%20towards%20increased% 20sustainability.pdf [Accessed January 2007]. Accessed 15 January 2008.

Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J.H., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Trane, M., and Pengue, W.A. (2008), ‘‘LCAof Soybean Meal,’’ International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13 LCA(3), 240–254.



http://www.rspo.org/PDF/Main%20page/Ten%20steps%20towards%20increased%20sustainability.pdf

http://www.rspo.org/PDF/Main%20page/Ten%20steps%20towards%20increased%20sustainability.pdf

Ekvall, T., and Weidema, B. (2004), ‘‘System Boundaries and Input Data in Consequential Life CycleInventory Analysis,’’ International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 9(3), 161–171.

European Commission (2007a), Renewable Energy Road Map, Renewable Energies in the 21stCentury: Building a More Sustainable Future, Brussels: European Commission, 10.1.2007,COM(2006) 848 final.

–––––– (2007b), Renewable Energy Road Map, Renewable Energies in the 21st Century: Building aMore Sustainable Future. Impact Assessment, Brussels: European Commission, 10.1.2007,SEC(2006) 1719.

–––––– (2007c), Cereals: Council Approves Zero Set-Aside Rate for Autumn 2007 and Spring 2008Sowings, Brussels: European Commission, IP/07/1402.

European Commission and Eurostat (2007), Agriculture: Main Statistics 2005–2006, Brussels:European Communities.

European Parliament and Council (2003), ‘‘Directive 2003-30-EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 8May 2003 on the Promotion of Biofuels or Other Renewable Fuels for Transport,’’Official Journal of the European Union, L123–42.

FAO (2006), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress Towards Sustainable ForestManagement, Rome: FAO.

FAOSTAT (2008), ‘‘FAOSTAT Agriculture Data. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations (FAO).’’ http://apps.fao.org/ [Accessed 15 January 2008].

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne P. (2008), ‘‘Land Clearing and the BiofuelCarbon Debt,’’ Science, 319, 1235–1238.

Frese, S.D., Ibsen, S.R., Bang, J.K., and Andersen, J. (2006), Madens Globale Fodaftryk (English:Global Footprint of Food), Denmark: WWF. [In Danish].

Fukuda, H., Kondo, A., and Noda, H. (2001), ‘‘Biodiesel Fuel Production by Transesterification ofOils,’’ Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 92(5), 405–416.

Garrity, D.P., Soekardi, M., Van Noordwijk, M., De La Cruz, R., Pathak, P.S., Gunasena, H.P.M., VanSo, N., Huijun, G., and Majid, N.M. (1997), ‘‘The Imperata Grasslands of Tropical Asia: Area,Distribution, and Topology,’’ Agroforestry Systems, 36, 3–29.

Glastra, R., Wakker, E., and Richert, W. (2002), ‘‘Oil Palm Plantations and Deforestation inIndonesia,’’ What Role Do Europe and Germany Play?, Switzerland: WWF.

Ho, M.-W. (2006), ‘‘Biofuels – Biodevastation, Hunger and False Carbon Credits. ISIS Press Release 11/12/2006.’’ http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php [Accessed 15 January 2008].

ISO 14040 (2006), Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework,Geneve: International Standard Organization (ISO).

ISO 14044 (2006), Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements andGuidelines, Geneve: International Standard Organization (ISO).

Kløverpris, J., Wenzel, H., Banse, M., Mila i Canals, L., and Reenberg, A. (2008a), ‘‘Conference andWorkshop on Modelling Global Land Use Implications in the Environmental Assessment ofBiofuels,’’ International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(3), 178–183.

Kløverpris, J., Wenzel, H., and Nielsen, P.H. (2008b), ‘‘Life Cycle Inventory Modelling of Land UseInduced by Crop Consumption. Part 1: Conceptual Analysis and Methodological Proposal,’’International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(1), 13–21.

Lang, X., Dalai, A.K., Bakhshi, N.N., Reaney, M.J., and Hertz, P.B. (2001), ‘‘Preparation andCharacterisation of Bio-Diesel from Various Bio-Oils,’’ Bioresource Technology, 80, 53–62.

Mantzos, L., Capros, P., Kouvaritakis, N., Zeka-Paschou, M., Chesshire, J., and Guilmot, J.F.(2003), European Energy and Transport – Trends to 2030. Greece: National TechnicalUniversity of Athens, E3M-Lab, on behalf of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport,European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030/index_en.htm[Accessed 15 January 2008].

Mila i Canals, L., Bauer, C., Depestele, J., Dubeuil, A., Knuchel, R.F., and Gaillard G. (2007), ‘‘KeyElements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment within LCA,’’ International Journal ofLife Cycle Assessment, 12(1), 5–15.

Pleanjai, S., Gheewala, S.H., and Garivait, S. (2004), ‘‘Environmental Evaluation of BiodieselProduction from Palm Oil in a Life Cycle Perspective,’’ in Paper presented at The JointInternational Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE), 1–3 December 2004,Hua Hin, Thailand. http://www.energy-based.nrct.go.th/Article/Ts-3%20environmental%20evaluation%20of%20biodiesel%20production%20from%20palm%20oil%20in%20a%20life%20cycle%20perspective.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2008].



http://www.energy-based.nrct.go.th/Article/Ts-3%20environmental%20evaluation%20of%20biodiesel%20production%20from%20palm%20oil%20in%20a%20life%20cycle%20perspective.pdf



ProForest (2003), Palm Oil Forests and Sustainability: Discussion Paper for the Round Table onSustainable Palm Oil, Oxford: ProForest.

Reijnders, L., and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2006), ‘‘Palm Oil and the Emission of Carbon-BasedGreenhouse Gases,’’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 477–482.

Schmidt, J.H. (2007a), ‘‘Life Assessment of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil,’’ Ph.D. thesis, Part 1:Summary Report, Aalborg University. http://vbn.aau.dk [Accessed 15 January 2008].

–––––– (2007b), ‘‘Life Assessment of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil,’’ Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life CycleInventory of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil, Aalborg University. http://vbn.aau.dk [Accessed 15January 2008].

–––––– (2008a), ‘‘System Delimitation in Agricultural Consequential LCA. Outline of Methodologyand Illustrative Case Study of Wheat in Denmark,’’ International Journal of Life CycleAssessment, 13(4), 350–364.

–––––– (2008b), ‘‘Development of LCIA Characterisation Factors for Land Use Impacts onBiodiversity,’’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(18), 1929–1942.

–––––– (in press), Life Cycle Assessment of Palm Oil at United Plantations Berhad, Teluk Intan,Malaysia: United Plantations Berhad.

Schmidt, J.H., andWeidema, B. (2008), ‘‘Shift in theMarginal Supply of Vegetable Oil,’’ InternationalJournal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(3), 235–239.

Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Duffield, J., Graboski, M., and Shapouri, H. (1998), ‘‘Life Cycle Inventoryof Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus.’’ United States: National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy on behalf of Office of Fuels Development, U.S.Department of Energy and Office of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2008].

UN (1992), Convention on Biological Diversity (with annexes). Concluded at the Rio Janeiro on5 June 1992. United Nations treaty series. Vol. 1760, I-30619. United Nations.

Vicente, G., Martınez, M., and Aracil, J. (2004), ‘‘Integrated Biodiesel Production: A Comparison ofDifferent Homogenous Catalysts Systems,’’ Bioresource Technology, 92, 297–305.

Wakker, E. (2004), Greasy Palms: The Social and Ecological Impacts of Large-Scale Oil PalmPlantation Development in Southeast Asia, United Kingdom: Friends of the Earth.



http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf

please scroll down for article -...

Documents