
February 2025
What is bioenergy and what is its expected growth
Bioenergy is biomass that can be converted to biofuels and stored for many different applications (solid, liquid and gas).
Bioenergy can provide fuels that fit in the present infrastructure.
Liquid biofuels production must expand 150% to reach levels required by 2030 in the Net Zero Emissions scenario1.
Most of the growth in modern bioenergy use in the NZE Scenario comes from the emerging market and developing economies, where it almost doubles by 2030.
Main biofuels in use in the world: biodiesel, ethanol and HVO
Conventional biofuels such as ethanol (sugarcane, corn) and biodiesel (soybean, palm) are being sustainably produced and commercialized in substantial quantities in several countries. They represent, so far, the most relevant biofuels to replace fossil fuels in the world2.
Conventional biofuels have food crops as their main feedstock and are produced in integrated food-energy systems. Food, feed, fuel and power are produced in parallel.
Biodiesel is produced by extracting oil from oil seeds and ethanol is produced by fermenting sugars.
The advanced technologies used for advanced biofuel production are fermentation to cellulosic ethanol, hydrotreatment of oils and fatty acids, gasification followed by FT-synthesis and fast pyrolysis.
Hydrotreatment for HVO has reached commercial scales.
Biofuels produced exclusively from crop residues and non-food crops seem not to be economically produced on a scale large enough to replace the current volume of conventional biofuels.
A systematic review of the literature revealed that the impact of biofuels on food security is not correlated to the feedstock being edible or non-edible3.
Main raw materials for biofuels in Brazil: sugarcane, corn, soybean, animal fat, and wheat
Sugarcane is the main feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil, followed by corn produced in the second harvest, a practice that has been expanding and driving the growth of corn supply in the country.
In 2023 Brazil became the world’s leading corn exporter. The amount of corn processed for ethanol production nearly quadrupled in four years.
Soybean oil is the most important feedstock source for biodiesel production.
Beef tallow, palm oil and various other inputs in 2023 contributed with 15%.
Low quality wheat grains, when inappropriate for the food industry, show also potential to be used for ethanol production.
Currently, in Brazil, there are two sugarcane commercial lignocellulosic ethanol (E2G) plants operational, and five under construction.
For SAF Brazil has projects announced or in planning using soy, beef tallow, palm, macauba and sugarcane as feedstocks.
For Marine Biofuels Petrobras conducted the first test of bunker fueling with renewable content in the country (a blend of 90% conventional or mineral marine fuel oil (bunker) and 10% biodiesel). The tests were expanded to a mixture of 76% bunker and 24% biodiesel.
The biodiesel used in the test was produced from a mix of 30% beef tallow and the remainder from soybean oil.
Companies have already used the B100 as a substitute for fossil diesel in Brazilian inland vessels.
Feedstock production capacity and analysis of the supply/demand relationship of biofuels in relation to food security risks
Supply and demand of biofuels are affected by different policies in the world such as the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Brazilian Renovabio4.
The impact of biofuel policies on food prices has been extensively analysed5 revealing very limited impacts on agricultural commodities.
Modeling the removal of biofuel policies (mandates, tax credits, import and export tariffs) showed that while price variation for biofuels will be affected, the trickle-down effects to agriculture commodity markets are limited.
Biofuels are not the only driver for price variation in food commodities. Other variables such as fertilizer prices, energy prices and transport costs are directly affected by macroeconomic uncertainties and may have a larger impact on price variability in agricultural markets than biofuel policies.
Brazil has now 359 ethanol production plants6.
In the accumulated of the 2024 agricultural cycle, the manufacture of bioethanol totaled 32.42 billion liters (+3.07%), with 20.64 billion of hydrated ethanol (+9.8%) and 11.78 billion of anhydrous (-6.93%)7.
In the accumulated since the beginning of the harvest, corn ethanol production reached 6.03 billion liters – an advance of 30.86% compared to the same period last year.
Brazil has 58 biodiesel production plants8.
The 2023/24 cycle yielded 147.7 Mt of soybeans, the second highest in history and biodiesel production increased by 19% to 7.5 billion liters, with soy as the main raw material (69% share).
The sugarcane sector has become increasingly more efficient, since the cultivated area has grown at a lower rate (+1.5 times since 1985) than the stalk production (+1.8 times), and especially at a much lower rate than the production of derived products, such as sugar, ethanol, and bioelectricity (+5.0 times), thanks not only to improved crop yield and juice quality, but also to substantial increases in industrial efficiency in the last decades9.
Gains in productivity were also observed for food crops in Brazil. From 1977 to 2014 while soybean production grew 740%, its planted area grew 272%. Corn production grew 478% and the planted area grew 39%. This shows an important gain in productivity (especially resulting from double cropping), and implies that a significant amount of land was saved as a result of productivity gains10.
Productive model of Brazilian tropical agriculture and its environmental and social benefits
Brazil is the world’s largest producer of soybeans, coffee, orange juice and sugar, the second largest producer of chicken meat and beef and the world’s largest exporter of these six products, corn and pulp.
Some of the commodities exported, such as soybeans and corn, are the basis for the production of animal products, such as meat, milk, eggs, in several countries.
This great advance in agricultural exploration took place in a context, often ignored by the world, that Brazil is one of the countries that most preserves the environment.
Brazil preserves approximately 66% of its territory with forests11.
Integral conservation units and indigenous lands occupy 200 million hectares (23% of the territory)
About 49% of rural properties are occupied with native vegetation, making up 33% of the Brazilian territory.
Sustainable energy and food production is exempllified by the case of double-cropping of maize planted as a second crop following soybean to generate ethanol, thus allowing for combined food–energy production12.
This system provides renewable and affordable energy (5 billion litres of ethanol, 600 GWh of electrical power) and feed (4 million tons of distillers dried grains), reduces greenhouse gas emissions (9.3 million to 13.2 million tCO2e), saves land (160,000 ha), boosts regional income and consumption, improves food security and benefits ecosystems and human health.
The land cultivated with sugarcane removed 9.8 MtCO2/year of CO2 from the atmosphere, which over 20 years represents a total removal of 196 MtCO2 (equivalent to planting 1.4 billion trees, occupying an area larger than 1 million football fields or 80 times the city of Paris covered in forest).
Best management practices improve yields, preserve soils, avoid land degradation13: use of green manure, planting in beds, GPS techniques, straw layer on soil, soil amendments, (addition of lime and gypsum for remediation of soil constrains applied only in beds or in rows, allows for roots to develop deep in soil, exploring more water and nutrients), development of new cane varieties, use of residues, vinasse in fertirrigation, forest preservation, agroecological zoning principles and enforcement14.
Biofuels have a proven track record in improving socio-economic indicators15,16,17. Improved indicators include literacy, schooling years, wages, number of jobs, types of work contract, working conditions, GDP per capita increases, in municipalities hosting bioethanol companies, improved outlook for the daughters and sons of workers, involvement of more than 70,000 small producers.
Production potential for reuse of degraded land and expansion of bioenergy into pastureland
Globally there are up to 1,4 Bha of suitable land available for sustainable rain-fed agriculture without taking forests and urban uses into account18.
This is more than enough to expand the present agricultural area to fulfill growing demands for food production, which is calculated to need an additional 130-219 Mha after taking lower yield increases and possible negative effects of climate change into account.
The remaining land should be sufficient to allow bioenergy to make a considerable contribution to global energy needs.
Bioenergy crops can also be deployed to improve an additional area of up to 600 Mha of degraded land and make it productive again.
The conversion of pastureland into bioenergy cropland19,20 in Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand indicated great potential for reductions in GHG emissions and implementation of biofuel blending mandates.
Potential GHG savings > 300 Mt CO2e per year could be achieved in these countries by producing biofuels and adopting biofuel blending.
Using a harmonized life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis the required land in these eleven countries was found to be from 0.1% to 10.7% of their pastureland to produce 45.7 bi liters of biodiesel and 64.7 bi liters of etanol (55% from doubling ethanol in Brazil).
The effects of sugarcane expansion over pasture areas on soil carbon stocks are dependent on the productive capacity and/or degree of pasture degradation with a payback time of 2-3 years for soil carbon recomposition.
Together, the potential ethanol production in SSA and LAC (including Brazil), 60Mm3 year, would correspond to 85.7 Mton of CO2 mitigated annually. This is equivalent to the C stored in 110 thousand hectares of the Amazon forest (standing trees, dead wood, litter, and soil organic C at the 0–30 cm layer)21.
The Food versus Fuel Non-dilemma
The global food versus fuel debate is dominated by misinformation22, causing
policy makers to hesitate implementing policies to stimulate bioenergy production when it could benefit food security23,24.
A Systematic Review 25 on Effects of Bioenergy from Edible versus Non-Edible Feedstocks that examined 224 studies on bioenergy’s impacts on food security verified the effects of various classes of bioenergy feedstocks on food security parameters (food availability, food prices, and food production).
There is little evidence of a relationship between the type of bioenergy feedstock (edible, inedible, or both edible and inedible) and food security.
For food availability, approximately two-thirds of the articles reported positive effects or no effects and one-third reported negative effects.
For the food price, over threequarters of the publications reported a negative effect of bioenergy production on food price and the negative effects were concentrated on countries with High Social Development Index (SDI).
Papers that examined food prices that included low SDI countries, or that examined the household or regional scale found no effect of bioenergy on food security.
For the food security parameter of food availability the analysis revealed positive effects of bioenergy.
Considering spatial scales (household, community, regional, national, multinational, global, and multiple spatial scales) the reported negative effects were evenly distributed, with the exception of the household scale, where positive effects were most prevalently reported (57%).
Studies that report negative effects are most commonly based on modeling. When observed data was used the reporting of negative impacts was lower.
Regarding the food security parameter of food production, papers that included low SDI countries or examined food security at the household scale were more likely to report positive effects of bioenergy on overall food security.
Potential for GHG emission reduction considering LCA and guidelines to avoid inconsistencies (including information regarding land use change and ILUC on carbon accounting)
ILUC calculations are based on unobservable and unverifiable parameters and are dependent on assumed policy, economic contexts, and exogenous inputs.
ILUC numbers cannot be used to negate the effectiveness of biofuels to decarbonize transportation.
There is general agreement that sugarcane, corn and wheat ethanol carbon intensity ranges from 30-50 gCO2e/MJ without ILUC. The typical fossil fuel ranges are 87 to 100 gCO2/MJ. When ILUC is considered the range for biofuels becomes a staggering 60-120 gCO2/MJ. There is a clear tendency to classify biofuels, according to the EU classification, as emitting similarly to a fossil fuel.
ILUC effects, although formerly very controversial are now seen to have far less impact than previously thought and based on economic models that are not adequate for land use modelling.
Bioethanol from sugarcane and corn, and biodiesel from soybeans and palm can all present significant reductions of emissions when compared to fossil fuels26,27.
Significant reductions of emissions have also been found when analysing brazilian biofuels for maritime applications28,29.
Although core lifecycle assessment of biofuels is well understood, the available literature shows a wide range of GHG emission results across different biofuel value chains.30
Carbon accounting methods vary under different policy frameworks. For instance, CA LCFS uses CA-GREET, EU REDII/REDIII uses default values for multiple pathways and methodology for individual calculations in RED II, Annex V, RenovaBio uses Renovacalc, and ICAO uses GREET as the models for calculating default and individual core values.
A comparison of GHG emissions of several biofuels show a large range of values in comparison to the default values of EU RED II31.
Once harmonized with standardized assumptions, all the models give quite comparable results32.
A number of recommendations were made for the G20 to avoid inconsistencies, in particular in regards to ILUC33:
GHG and carbon accounting rely on Lifecycle Assessment (LCA). Input data and methodology for LCAs must be transparent, evidence-based, and verifiable.
For LCA or other technical-economic assessment results to be comparable, consistent system boundaries must be applied.
International standards exist for quantifying the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint of biofuels, and for assessing biofuel sustainability. Such standards recommend the use of “best available data,” emphasizing that data must be representative of the system being assessed.
LCA methods are recognized as being robust with the notable exception of potential or induced effects such as indirect land-use change (ILUC). International collaborations are constantly improving the transparency and consistency of LCA methods including those associated with allocation, carbon removals, and carbon credits.
Quantitative ILUC values cannot be directly measured or scientifically verified.
Quantitative ILUC factors shall be avoided in GHG accounting as they have not been proven to provide consistent results across models or to support effective actions for reducing LUC emissions.
Action is urgently needed to unlock innovation, investment and sustainable bioenergy production using robust, credible and effective mechanisms.
Performance-based mechanisms should rely on verifiable metrics that are technology-neutral and feedstock-agnostic.
The G20 must show leadership by promoting consistent political guidance for GHG accounting and to identify and share alternatives such as the ILUC risk-based approach, or direct measurements, that are more effective and broadly applicable for global implementation.
Biofuels certification
Biofuels policy frameworks34 exhibit a diversity of underlying rules and methodologies for calculating and accounting for GHG emissions and differ in the degree of stringency and robustness. Policies use verification/certification for the implementation of these rules35. Although this IEA Bioenergy report focused on SAF, since the supply chains will be similar, much will also apply in the case of Maritime Biofuels:
Differences in data quality and transparency of supply chain data reduce visibility and traceability of GHG emissions and complicate data verification.
Differences in GHG targets and calculation methodologies increase complexity for the exchange of SAF between policy frameworks.
Labelling and classification of feedstock materials diverge in policies and could pose a risk since feedstock categorization is linked to GHG performance.
Different implementation of policies into verification/certification usage and requirements hinders mutual exchange.
Requirements for auditor competence vary, which can impact the quality of the auditing on certification/verification.
Potential misuse and double counting could occur with trade.
The policy differences create a challenge for international supply chains as feedstocks and biofuel batches need to fulfill all the sustainability requirements set out in any policy where they may be used. Flexibility between policy frameworks isn’t possible and double certification is costly.
The policy differences, lack of transparency and traceability between countries, different certification/verification schemes and registries might create a risk regarding double counting of GHG savings. This could lead to higher reported total GHG savings than actually achieved in practice.
An opportunity to increase the robustness of policy frameworks is to ensure a level playing field and harmonized implementation rules to the greatest extent possible. Cover hard to harmonize discrepancies between frameworks in the short term by means of mutual agreements. For the long term, by means of complementary (regional) regulations.
Several policy frameworks allow for multiple schemes to be used for proofing compliance such as the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) and Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) with RSB being more aligned with Renovabio standards and local agricultural practices.
Coordination and exchange of information is necessary within and among (policy) frameworks and auditors to prevent doubling of claims in cases where this is not permitted. An example is the ISCC-format for auditing, that requires information on other sustainability audits done at the same location.
Comparative analyses between RenovaBio and other carbon accounting policy frameworks
Renovabio is a modern legislation that is part of the strategy to achieve the commitments to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and is in accordance with the Declaration of Vision issued at COP-23 (Bonn, Germany) in 2017.
Producers that register at Renovabio will be rewarded for proven reduction of GHG emissions of their biofuels when replacing fossil fuels, through independent certification agencies, based on the cradle-to-wheel life cycle analysis.
Decarbonization certificates, or CBios, are issued by financial institutions depending on the individual biofuel producer’s performance in volume and efficiency. One CBio is equivalent to 1 ton CO2eq of avoided emission.
Since June 2020, Cbios are negotiated at the Brazilian Stock Exchange, in amounts linked to the decarbonization goals of Brazil, established by the government for a 10-year period. Such goals for 2019–2029 were published in a government resolution, which established the transport sector’s annual decarbonization targets, including subtargets for fuel distributors, to be compensated with CBios.
Bioenergy producers must comply with some rules to benefit from RenovaBio: (a) zero deforestation (biofuels cannot come from areas that have been deforested, even legally, after December 2017, when the Renovabio law was approved); (b) be within the zoning areas allowed for the specific feedstock production; and (c) producers must abide by the Forest Code.
The combined legislations of Renovabio and Forest code are reaching its objectives of estimulating biofuels production while preserving the environment using a risk-based approach to deal with ILUC36.
Net carbon removal of 9.8 TgCO2∙yr−1 in sugarcane cultivation areas in the 2000–2020 period, which was due to the expansion of sugarcane over poor quality pastures (55% of the gross removals), croplands (15%) and mosaic (14%) areas, and the transition from the conventional burned harvesting to unburned (16%). Moreover, 98.4% of expansion was over existent agricultural areas. Considering all the land use changes within sugarcane-producing rural properties, the net removal is even larger, of 17 TgCO2∙yr−1, which is due to vegetation recovery37.
LUC emissions changes in a scenario of Renovabio with and without the conversion-free criteria (“Renovabio + Forest Code” vs “Renovabio – Forest Code”) was evaluated showing effectiveness in its approach to limit ILUC.
Significantly lower emissions (-428 Mt CO2e) with the no-conversion criteria compared to the no-criteria alternative were estimated, representing an additional reduction in 63% of emissions with the no-conversion certification criteria.
At a global level, policies diverge on important feedstocks definitions and classifications38. It is difficult to come to an objective, harmonized, internationally accepted classification of feedstocks.
A given feedstock may have different sustainability criteria in different countries and within the same policy diverging interpretations of the definitions among countries.
This is currently a matter of discussion in the EU where Member States give a different meaning to the definition of REDII Annex IX A(d) ‘biomass fraction of industrial waste not fit for use in the food or feed chain’. Another example of divergence between policies is the promotion of ‘advanced biofuels’ based on feedstocks listed on Annex IX A of EU-RED, while this definition is completely non-existent in Brazil’s RenovaBio.
Regarding GHG calculation rules between different policy frameworks sometimes national and international legislation are contradicting each other, leading to (international) trade barriers and inefficiencies.
A key example is how iLUC is handled. In systems where iLUC factors are part of the carbon intensity calculation (US, CORSIA) this could give those countries a disadvantage compared to systems without a contribution of an iLUC factor to the GHG emission value (Brazil, EU), especially in cases where high iLUC feedstocks like palm oil are used.
The contradicting rules don’t allow comparing GHG values between policy frameworks. For instance, frameworks differ in how improvements in agricultural or process management are rewarded in the GHG calculation. EU-RED allows the use of fixed emissions reduction values in case when manure is used as a feedstock or when crops are grown on degraded land, while ICAO CORSIA allows the use of fixed emissions reduction values in case of avoided emissions related to landfill or recycling.
To fulfill national or regional targets certain feedstocks may be excluded or limited in one country or policy, while being accepted in another. For example, in Europe, crop-based fuels are excluded (ReFuelEU Aviation) or less incentivized (EU-RED). At the same time, multipliers are used to further stimulate the use of specific feedstocks for SAF production and for the deployment of SAF in general (EU-RED). Another example is feedstocks with a high risk on indirect land-use change like palm oil. These type of feedstocks, unless certified as low-ILUC risk feedstocks, are for instance phased out in European policies but accepted in other policies.
Diverging definitions and classifications impede mutual recognition and comparability. It could lead to preferred feedstocks or fuels under certain policy frameworks. Feedstocks will likely flow to countries with the least strict sustainability and auditing requirements, impacting the trade flow and effectiveness of policy frameworks worldwide. For example, the US and Brazil mainly focus on SAF production based on crops intentionally cultivated for biofuel production. Generally, local waste streams are less under consideration. In the EU, local waste streams are considered to be preferred feedstocks and stimulated. At the same time, European policies have stricter requirements on crop based feedstocks competing with the food industry. These discrepancies could potentially lead to trade flows of waste streams to the EU and trade flows of food and feed crops to the US and Brazil.
Key developments in 2024 in Brazil39
Sugarcane Production: Forecast for 2024 is 690 million tons processed, second best in history (after 2023). Sugar production is forecasted to be 46 million tons.
Ethanol Production: Total ethanol production is forecast to be 35.4 billion liters, almost the same as 2023, with 28.5 billion liters from sugarcane and 6.9 billion liters from corn (a 17% increase). Net ethanol exports were 2.6 billion liters.
Fuel Prices and Consumption: Hydrous ethanol and type C gasoline prices decreased by 19.2% and 12.8%, respectively. Hydrous ethanol demand grew by 6.9%, and gasoline type C consumption increased by 6.5%.
Vehicle Licensing: 2.2 million new light vehicles were licensed, an 11.2% increase. The number of electrified vehicles rose by 90.7%, from 49,000 in 2022 to 94,000 in 2023.
Vehicle Importation: The fee to import combustion cars is 35%. Electric and hybrids will also be taxed in this amount from 2026. Outside the quotas were taxed with intermediate tariffs, re-established in January this year for electrified vehicles. Each modality has a different rate that evolves each semester until it reaches 35% in July 2026. 2024: electric – 10%; plug-in hybrid – 12%; Hybrid – 15%.
Biodiesel: The mandatory biodiesel addition to diesel was set at 12% by volume (B12) from April 2023. Biodiesel production increased by 19% to 7.5 billion liters, with soy as the main raw material (69% share).
Emissions Reduction: Emissions avoided by sugarcane and corn ethanol, biodiesel, and sugarcane bioelectricity totaled 85.6 MtCO2eq.
Biogas and Biomethane: Installed capacity in distributed generation reached 131 MW, with a domestic energy supply share of 460 thousand toe. There was an increase in biomethane operations and construction registrations.
New Biofuels: HVO and Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) projects are being developed, with hydrogen seen as a promising future energy source.
RenovaBio: Concluded its fifth operational cycle, with 329 production units certified and 33.1 million CBIOs retired, meeting 88% of the target.
Fuel of the Future: Sanctioned Oct 08, 2024. E22% to 27%, up to 35%. B20 by 2030. 705 MtCO2eq by 2037 avoided emissions. R$ 260 billion investment.
About this work
This Factsheet is a synthesis of recent literature published in high impact open access journals and reports from internationally and nationally recongnized agencies (cited below). For any inqueries contact Glaucia Souza (FAPESP Bioenergy Research Program BIOEN and University of São Paulo at glmsouza@iq.usp.br).
About BIOEN
O BIOEN, Programa de Pesquisa em Bioenergia da FAPESP, visa articular pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) entre entidades públicas e privadas, utilizando laboratórios acadêmicos e industriais para avançar e aplicar o conhecimento nas áreas relacionadas à bioenergia no Brasil. As pesquisas abrangem desde a produção e o processamento de biomassa até tecnologias de biocombustíveis, biorrefinarias, sustentabilidade e impactos. Para mais informações, acesse https://bioenfapesp.org/
References
1 IEA Net-zero Roadmap. 2023 update. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8ad619b9-17aa-473d-8a2f-4b90846f5c19/NetZeroRoadmap_AGlobalPathwaytoKeepthe1.5CGoalinReach-2023Update.pdf
2 Cantarella, H. ; Leal-Silva, J. F.; Nogueira, L. A.; Maciel Filho, R.; Rossetto, R.; Ekbom, T.; Souza, G. M.; Mueller-Langer, F. (2023). Biofuel technologies: Lessons learned and pathways to decarbonization. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 1-14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcbb.13091
3 Ahmed, S., Warne, T., Smith, E., Goemann, H., Linse, G., Greenwood, M., Kedziora, J., Sapp, M., Kraner, D., Roemer, K., Haggerty, J. H., Jarchow, M., Swanson, D., Poulter, B. and Stoy, P. C. (2021). Systematic review on effects of bioenergy from edible versus inedible feedstocks on food security. Science of Food (2021) 5:9; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-021-00091-6
4 Muisers, J., Jansen, A., Dijkstra, O. and Klerks, K. (2024). Improvement opportunities for policies and certification schemes promoting sustainable biofuels with low GHG emissions. Part 2: Robustness of GHG emission verification and certification of biofuels – a case study of selected supply chains and policies. IEA Bioenergy Task 39 December 2024. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/12/IEA-Bioenergy_T39-P3-Annex_final.pdf
5 Enciso, S. R. A., Fellmann, T., Dominguez, I. P., Santini, F. (2016). Abolishing biofuel policies: Possible impacts on agricultural price levels, price variability and global food security. Food Policy 61, 9-26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216000166
6 Painel Dinâmico da Produção de Biodiesel. Agência Nacional de Petróleo, Gas Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). 2024. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMmRhZWU2NDUtZWE2Yi00NzI5LWJjMGQtNjIwNjE0MjM0MjEzIiwidCI6IjQ0OTlmNGZmLTI0YTYtNGI0Mi1iN2VmLTEyNGFmY2FkYzkxMyJ9
7 https://unica.com.br/noticias/producao-de-etanol-ultrapassa-32-bilhoes-de-litros/
8 Painel Dinâmico da Produção de Biodiesel. Agência Nacional de Petróleo, Gas Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). 2024. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOTlkODYyODctMGJjNS00MGIyLWJmMWItNGJlNDg0ZTg5NjBlIiwidCI6IjQ0OTlmNGZmLTI0YTYtNGI0Mi1iN2VmLTEyNGFmY2FkYzkxMyJ9&pageName=ReportSection8aa0cee5b2b8a941e5e0%22
9 Cherubin, M. R.; Carvalho, J. L. N.; Cerri, C. E. P.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Souza, G. M.; Cantarella, H. (2021). Land Use and Management Effects on Sustainable Sugarcane-Derived Bioenergy. Land, 10,72. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Release-English-Land-Use-in-Brazil-for-Task-45.pdf and https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/72
10 Osseweijer, P., Watson, H. K., Johnson, F. X., Batistella, M., Cortez, L. A. B., Lynd, L. R., Kaffka, S. R., Long, S. P., van Meijl, H., Nassar, A. M. and Woods, J. (2015). Bioenergy and Food Security in Souza, G. M.; Victoria, R. L.; Joly, C. A.; Verdade, L. M. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps. 1. ed. Paris: SCOPE, 2015. v. 72. Page 95. https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioenergy_sustainability_scope.pdf
11 Boletim Agro Sustentável. Edição 9 – Jun 2024. Embaixada do Brasil, Lisboa. https://ugc.production.linktr.ee/ed37ef0a-853a-4eee-8887-f3ebb175382f_AF-Boletim-Agro-Sustent-vel-edicao-9-JUN-2024.pdf
12 Gurgel, A. C., Seabra, J. E. A., Arantes, S. M., Moreira, M. M. R., Lynd, L. R. and Galindo, R. (2024). Contribution of double-cropped maize ethanol in Brazil to sustainable development. Nature Sustainability volume 7, 1429–1440. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01424-5
13 Cherubin, M. R.; Carvalho, J. L. N.; Cerri, C. E. P.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Souza, G. M.; Cantarella, H. (2021). Land Use and Management Effects on Sustainable Sugarcane-Derived Bioenergy. Land, 10,72. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Release-English-Land-Use-in-Brazil-for-Task-45.pdf and https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/72
14 Joly, C. A., Verdade, L. M., Huntley, B. J., Dale, V. H., Mace, G., Muok, B. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2015). Biofuel Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Souza, G. M.; Victoria, R. L.; Joly, C. A.; Verdade, L. M. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps. 1. ed. Paris: SCOPE, 2015. v. 72. Page 555. https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioenergy_sustainability_scope.pdf
15 Moraes, M. A. F. D., Oliveira, F. C. R. and Diaz-Chavez, R. A. (2015). Socio-economic impacts of Brazilian sugarcane industry. Environ. Dev. 16,31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVDEV.2015.06.010.
16 Moraes, M. A. F. D., Bacchi, M. R. P. and Caldarelli, C. E. (2016). Accelerated growth of the sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol sectors in Brazil (2000–2008): Effects on municipal gross domestic product per capita in the south-central region. Biomass Bioenergy 91,116–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2016.05.004.
17 https://unicadata.com.br/listagem.php?idMn=158
18 Woods, J., Lynd, L., Laser, M., Batistella, M., Victoria, D., Kline K. L. (2015) Land and Bioenergy in Souza, G. M.; Victoria, R. L.; Joly, C. A.; Verdade, L. M. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps. 1. ed. Paris: SCOPE, 2015. v. 72. 259-300.
19 Canabarro, N.I.; Silva-Ortiz, P.; Nogueira, L.A.H.; Cantarella, H.; Maciel Filho, R.; Souza, G.M. (2023). Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews. 171: 113019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122009005
20 Silva, J. F. L.; Cantarella, H.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Rossetto, R.; Maciel-Filho, R.; Souza, G. M. (2024). Biofuels in Emerging Markets of Africa and Asia. IEA Bioenergy, 2024. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/10/Emerging-Markets-Policy-Brief-pb2_v06.pdf and https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/10/Biofuels-in-Emerging-Markets-Factsheet-G20.pdf
21 Cherubin, M. R.; Carvalho, J. L. N.; Cerri, C. E. P.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Souza, G. M.; Cantarella, H. (2021). Land Use and Management Effects on Sustainable Sugarcane-Derived Bioenergy. Land, 10,72. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Release-English-Land-Use-in-Brazil-for-Task-45.pdf and https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/72
22 Goldemberg, J.; Souza, G. M.; Maciel -Filho, R.; Cantarella, H. (2018). Scaling up biofuels? A critical look at expectations performance and governance. Energy Policy 118, 655-657. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421518301940?via%3Dihub
23 Osseweijer, P., Watson, H. K., Johnson, F. X., Batistella, M., Cortez, L. A. B., Lynd, L. R., Kaffka, S. R., Long, S. P., van Meijl, H., Nassar, A. M. and Woods, J. (2015). Bioenergy and Food Security in Souza, G. M.; Victoria, R. L.; Joly, C. A.; Verdade, L. M. Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the gaps. 1. ed. Paris: SCOPE, 2015. v. 72. Page 95. https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/chapters/bioenergy_sustainability_scope.pdf
24 Souza, G. M.; Victoria, R. L.; Verdade, L. M.; Joly, C. A.; Netto, P. E. A.; Cruz, C. H. B.; Cantarella, H.; Chum, H. L.; Cortez, L. A. B.; Diaz-Chavez, R.; Fernandes, E.; Fincher, G. B.; Foust, T.; Goldemberg, J.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Huntley, B. J.; Johnson, F. X.; Kaffka, S.; Karp, A.; Leal, M. R. L. V. et.al. (2015). Bioenergy & Sustainability. Policy Brief. SCOPE, v. 1, p. 6. ISSN 2412-0286. https://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/images/E-VERSION-SCOPE-Final-lowres.pdf
25 Ahmed, S., Warne, T., Smith, E., Goemann, H., Linse, G., Greenwood, M., Kedziora, J., Sapp, M., Kraner, D., Roemer, K., Haggerty, J. H., Jarchow, M., Swanson, D., Poulter, B. and Stoy, P. C. (2021). Systematic review on effects of bioenergy from edible versus inedible feedstocks on food security. Science of Food (2021) 5:9; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-021-00091-6
26 Canabarro, N.I.; Silva-Ortiz, P.; Nogueira, L.A.H.; Cantarella, H.; Maciel Filho, R.; Souza, G.M. (2023). Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews. 171: 113019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122009005
27 Silva, J. F. L.; Cantarella, H.; Nogueira, L. A. H.; Rossetto, R.; Maciel-Filho, R.; Souza, G. M. (2024). Biofuels in Emerging Markets of Africa and Asia. IEA Bioenergy, 2024. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/10/Emerging-Markets-Policy-Brief-pb2_v06.pdf and https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/10/Biofuels-in-Emerging-Markets-Factsheet-G20.pdf
28 Souza, L. C. and Seabra, J. E. A. (2024). Technical-economic and environmental assessment of marine biofuels produced in Brazil. Cleaner Environmental Systems 13:100195. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789424000333
29 Carvalho, F., Müller-Casseres, E., Poggo, M., Nogueira, T., Fonte, C., Wei, H. K., Portugal-Pereira, J., Rochedo, P. R. R., Szklo, A., Schaeffer, R. (2021). Prospects for carbon-neutral maritime fuels production in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 326:129385. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652621035691
30 Carbon accounting for sustainable biofuels. 2024. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/carbon-accounting-for-sustainable-biofuels
31 Carbon accounting for sustainable biofuels. 2024. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/carbon-accounting-for-sustainable-biofuels
32 Saddler, J., McMillan, J. and Ebadian, M. (2019). Comparison of international Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) biofuels models. IEA Bioenergy Task 39. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2019/07/IEA-B-T39_Summary_LCA-Project.pdf
33 Carbon Accounting of Biofuels – Workshop Synthesis Report. (2024). https://biofutureplatform.org/news/carbon-accounting-of-biofuels/
34 Mohammadi, H. and Saddler, J. (2023). Implementation Agendas: Compare-and-Contrast Transport Biofuels Policies (2021-2023 Update). IEA Bioenergy Task 39. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Implementation-Agendas-Compare-and-Contrast-Transport-Biofuels-Policies.pdf
35 Muisers, J., Jansen, A., Dijkstra, O. and Klerks, K. (2024). Improvement opportunities for policies and certification schemes promoting sustainable biofuels with low GHG emissions. Part 2: Robustness of GHG emission verification and certification of biofuels – a case study of selected supply chains and policies. IEA Bioenergy Task 39 December 2024. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/12/IEA-Bioenergy_T39-P3-Annex_final.pdf
36 Moreira, M. R., Arantes, S. M., Garofalo, D. F. T., Silva, J. F. L., Souza, G. M., Bachion, L. C., Harfuch, L., Palauro, G. R., Silveira, L., Maciel, V. G., Guarenghi, M. M., Cruz, G. M. (2024). Evaluation of the Brazilian RenovaBio conversion-free criteria on land use change emissions Brazilian Biofuel Program and the use of risk-management approach. IEA Bioenergy Task 45. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Report_ILUC_RenovaBio_t45_Final-version.pdf
37 Guarenghi, M. M., Garofalo, D. E. T., Seabra, J. E. A. and Moreira, M. M. R., Novaes, R. M. L., Ramos, N. P., Nogueira, S. F. and Andrade, C. A. (2023). Land Use Change Net Removals Associated with Sugarcane in Brazil. Land 12, 584; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030584.
38 Muisers, J., Jansen, A., Dijkstra, O. and Klerks, K. (2024). Improvement opportunities for policies and certification schemes promoting sustainable biofuels with low GHG emissions. Part 2: Robustness of GHG emission verification and certification of biofuels – a case study of selected supply chains and policies. IEA Bioenergy Task 39 December 2024. https://task39.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2024/12/IEA-Bioenergy_T39-P3-Annex_final.pdf
39 Analysis of Current Biofuels Outlook –Year 2023. TECHNICAL NOTE EPE/DPG/SDB/2024/03EPE. https://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-834/NT-EPE-DPG-SDB-2024-03_Biofuels%20Current%20Outlook_Year2023.pdf