BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF BIOFUELS

Transcription

1 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF BIOFUELS Camila Ortolan F. Oliveira a, Arnaldo Walter a,b, Manoel R. L. V. Leal a a) CTBE Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory Giuseppe Maximo Scolfaro PO Box 6170, Brazil, camila.oliveira@bioetanol.org.br b) University of Campinas Unicamp/FEM and NIPE PO Box Brazil, awalter@fem.unicamp.br ABSTRACT: Sustainability has been recognized as an essential aspect for the consolidation of the international markets of biofuels. The discussion about sustainability gained momentum during and after the food crisis in As consequence, sustainability initiatives and certification schemes have been proposed. It is believed that one of the worst consequences of non sustainable biofuel production is biodiversity loss and, as consequence, the principles of the main sustainability initiatives determine that biofuels cannot be produced in areas of High Conservation Values (HCVs). On the other hand, the need of biodiversity protection and conservation is very complex and involves controversies and conflicts between developed and developing countries: for instance, the concept of biodiversity protection is well disseminated in developed countries and in many developing countries the expansion of agricultural activities can cause land use change. The ultimate aim of this paper is analysing how biodiversity protection has been dealt in the most important sustainability initiatives and certification schemes already proposed. First, the main concerns regarding biofuels production, exclusively from the point of view of biodiversity, are identified. Second, some certification schemes are scrutinised targeting the identification of the main principles and criteria. Finally, it s analysed if the current proposals are able to address the main concerns regarding biodiversity. The main conclusion are that the existing certification schemes are based on the precautionary principle, aim at disseminating best practices, seem adequate for calling attention to most important aspects regarding biodiversity, but, obvious, cannot substitute specific policies and regulations. Keywords: biodiversity, biofuels, sustainability, certification. 1 INTRODUCTION It is estimated that 20 50% of the land area in a majority of terrestrial biomes has been converted to food production for a growing global population [1]. Currently the land used for biofuels production is comparatively very small but, in theory, the global loss of habitats would be magnified as increasingly could be cleared to meet the demand for biofuels; in this case, biodiverse lands would be converted into monocultures [2]. The debate about sustainability has become even more important since biofuels production have grown and, in particular, gained momentum during and after the food crisis in Biofuels have gained popularity as they allow both a reduced dependency on oil imports and can be promoted as clean energy alternatives, thereby satisfying both energy security and environment agendas [3]. The production of liquid biofuels is rapidly increasing. Governments are setting targets to increase the proportion of biofuels in the energy matrix for the purposes of climate change mitigation, improving energy security and fostering rural development [4]. Biofuels are considered one of the best alternatives to petroleum based fuels but their use alone will not bring about the CO 2 emission reduction necessary to avert catastrophic climate change; besides, biofuels cannot replace fossil fuels entirely [2]. Most research to date has focused on the performance of biofuels in reducing carbon emissions, with questions being raised over their potential in this respect. So far, less attention has been paid to the potential impacts of biofuels on biodiversity [4]. The actual experience shows that certain feedstock production practices can in fact cause great harm to the land, soils, water and biodiversity. Although biofuels are promoted as environmentally beneficial due to their reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to fossil fuels, some authors point out that reduced GHG emissions are not the only environmental criterion that should be considered. Among others, they have concerns that large-scale use of biofuels could have a direct negative impact on biodiversity [5]. Thus, policies promoting biofuels need to include considerable guidance to encourage best practices in the whole supply chain, including feedstock production and refining practices [2]. Thus, it s essential to have continual research and development on policies concerning biofuel production, use and trade. In particular, policy instruments to enhance the traceability of biofuel feedstocks should be developed to ensure that they are produced in environmentally and socially responsible ways [3]. The introduction of sustainability standards is one option to reduce the negative impacts of biofuel production, in general, and negative impacts on biodiversity, in specific. However, the development and implementation of principles, criteria and indicators is proving difficult, largely due to the lack of accepted definitions for key terms such as high biodiversity and degraded lands. In any case, it is likely that sustainability standards will only be part of the solution, and will need to be combined with improved land use planning [4]. As mentioned, as the demand for biofuels increases in the future so will the land requirements. Therefore, it is essential to understand the implications of land use and land use change developments for biodiversity and conservation. In this sense, this paper assesses current and future biofuels certification schemes, with focus on biodiversity conservation, and analyzes the potential for sustainability criteria to improve biodiversity. The assessment is developed in the context of the current state of knowledge regarding the impacts on biodiversity of biofuel production, and considers some of the current existing certification schemes.

2 2 MAIN CONCERNS REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF BIOFUELS Global biodiversity is changing at an unprecedented rate as a complex response to several human-induced changes in the global environment [6]. According to Sala, et al. (2000), Land Use Change (LUC) will be the main driver of impacts on biodiversity for the year 2100, followed by climate change. Land use change is a key driver of changes in biodiversity value due to its effects on habitat quality and quantity [5]. The production of biofuels causes land use change, both directly and, possibly, indirectly; in addition, large-scale production of biofuel crops could potentially have a negative impact on biodiversity [2] [5]. Therefore, in future environmental assessments both direct and indirect effects of biofuel crop cultivation on biodiversity should be considered. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has emphasized the need for the adoption of adequate policy frameworks to ensure that the production of biofuels is sustainable. Parties are urged to promote sustainable production and use, taking into account the full life cycle and acting in accordance with the precautionary principle [7]. However, current targets appear to have been developed with little consideration for the environmental consequences of biofuel production [4]. Six main direct drivers of biodiversity loss have been identified in the literature and are mentioned in [8]: habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive alien species, disease, pollution, and climate change, as well as the interactions between them. According to [8] and [9] the impacts of biofuels production on biodiversity have been linked to habitat destruction, pollution, invasive alien species, and climate change [8]. In general terms, biodiversity loss occurs when high biodiversity land is converted into plantations that contain lower levels of biodiversity. The impacts on biodiversity will depend greatly on the type of crops that are planted and on the previous land use. The impacts on biodiversity are therefore a function of (a) the biodiversity present prior to land conversion, (b) the biodiversity present after the land has been converted for biofuel feedstock production, and (c) the impacts of the biofuel feedstock plantations on the surrounding areas. As habitat loss and degradation are major threats to biodiversity [4], direct conversion of natural ecosystems and indirect land use change to accommodate biofuel production is likely to be detrimental to biodiversity [10]. In this sense, environmental groups throughout the world have struggled to get policies enforced that can mitigate the environmental damage from the monocultural production systems that support far lower levels if biodiversity than natural ecosystems [4] [8]. General sense, the expansion of biofuel production in the tropics has resulted in the loss of tropical forest and wetlands, and in temperate regions biofuel production has encroached into set-aside lands. In the literature, are often mentioned the cases of enlarged palm-oil production in Malaysia and Indonesia, the possible expansion of sugarcane in the Brazilian Cerrado, and threatens due to large corn production in US. The introduction of invasive alien species is also a matter of concern not just because the potential reduction of local biodiversity, but also because of the risk of diseases. Biofuel production and use may also result in significant negative consequences for biodiversity through pollution, soil degradation, and climate impacts from their cultivation, transportation, refining, and burning [9]. Most significantly, expansion of agricultural lands for biofuels into sensitive and less-developed areas would decrease availability of habitats suitable for many species and reduce the ecosystem services offered by more complex ecological systems [2]. Ecosystem services will be particularly below. Fertilizer and pesticide inputs, as well as accelerated soil erosion, also impact water supplies and lower soil quality. In addition, increased feedstock cultivation for biofuel production shall increase water consumption and cause water pollution. In general, feedstock production relies greatly on fertilizers and on agrochemicals that can contaminate water bodies. At the same time, biofuel production practices can produce effluents with high toxicity and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) [8]. The way a feedstock plantation is managed influences the magnitude of biodiversity impacts and might causes positive impacts when appropriate crops are grown in proper areas. Conversely, well managed plantations could have positive effects on biodiversity if they are planted on marginal or degraded lands, for example [11]. Furthermore, if biofuels contribute to climate change mitigation, they have the potential to be indirectly beneficial to biodiversity as a whole [4]. Many issues should be matter of concern regarding the impacts of biofuels on ecosystem services. Firstly, biofuel production can compete with other provisioning ecosystem services such as fibre and timber. Feedstocks production can also adversely impact biodiversity affecting other ecosystems services, as polymerization. Secondly, also related with water consumption, biofuels production can affect the ecosystem service of freshwater through overexploitation and degradation, mainly through pollution. Thirdly, regulating services as climate, air quality and soil can be impacted due to land use change. And additionally, the cultural services provided by ecosystems (e.g. aesthetic, educational, recreational services, etc.) can be drastically impacted by large-scale biofuels production [8] Policies that ensure that alternative fuel targets are met without a loss in biodiversity, and moreover, that help to establish practices that improve biodiversity and ecosystem health are strongly recommended. They should give solution to some of the concerns such as how to produce biofuels without degrading natural habitats, how to manage production lands for both economic and ecological sustainability, and how biofuel cultivation might be used to restore severely degraded lands [2]. 3 SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES AND CERTIFICATION SCHEMES There are general principles that should be used in developing guidelines for certifying biodiversity-friendly biofuels. Biofuel feedstocks should be grown with environmentally safe and biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices. The sustainability of any biofuel feedstock depends on good growing practices and sound environmental practices throughout the fuel-production life cycle [1]. Standards and certification schemes have been widely used to influence environmental performance. It is expected that they could create requirements related to the access to finance, internal business processes, membership of trade bodies, certification of products and

3 services and, also, access to markets [13]. In this sense, certification should be an independent seal that shows that a product, system or service satisfies a certain standard. Certification has become an important tool for governments and companies to show their sustainability performance. Currently, there are certification schemes for almost every product and service. Table I presents a summary of the interests of different stakeholder groups regarding certification of biomass. In this section it is presented an overview of certification schemes and how biodiversity has been in them. Six certification schemes have been chosen for this assessment, being four directly or indirectly related with biofuels certification (ISCC, RSB, RSPO and Bonsucro), one targeted to forest products (FSC Forest Stewardship Council) and one to food products (GlobalGAP - Global Good Agricultural Practices). The certification schemes for forests and agricultural products are used here as reference for comparison. A leading initiative regarding sustainability of biofuels is the European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive (RED). In 2009 the EU introduced binding sustainability criteria for biofuels under the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive. These criteria apply to biofuels produced in the EU or imported to the EU. Economic operators may use recognised voluntary schemes to show compliance with some or all sustainability criteria [15]. Table I: Motivations of different stakeholders for biomass certification Stakeholder National governments and transnational organizations Intergovernmental organizations Producers, traders and users NGOs International bodies Certification bodies Source: based on [14] Motivations Instruments to promote sustainable managements and sustainable consumption pattern; Provides information for policy makers. Reference for negotiations between all kinds of stakeholders. Instruments for environmental marketing, risk management and market access; Instruments for controlling origin and quality of feedstocks; Instruments to differentiate products. Provides information on the impact of products; Instruments to promote sustainable management; Instruments to disseminate information and to educate the consumer market. Instruments to promote sustainable management; Information for policy consultation. Business opportunity. Some of the existing certification schemes have been proposed exactly aiming at fulfilling EU-RED criteria, such is the case of the ISCC scheme International Sustainability and Carbon Certification, existing since Other certification schemes have been adapted in order to be recognised by EC and for the time being there are seven with this status (ISCC; Bonsucro EU; RTRS EU RED Round Table on Responsible Soy EU RED; RSB EU RED Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels EU RED; 2BSvs Biomass Biofuels voluntary scheme; RBSA Abengoa RED Bioenergy Sustainable Assurance; and Greenergy Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol verification programme). Another scheme, Ensus Ensus bioethanol production, was recognized in April 2012 [16]. A specific case is Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) that is wider in scope and was developed in a more stringent way. In this case it seems that the focus has been on fulfilling the expectations of the consumer markets that have more stringent concerns about biofuels sustainability [17]. In fact, some analysts refer to RSB as a premium certification scheme. Some certification schemes were developed by producers and by the main consumers of agricultural commodities, as is the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil RSPO (established in 2004) and the Bonsucro Production Standard, regarding sugarcane products (former Better Sugarcane Initiative, which standard was published in 2010) [17]. Table II summarizes the main information about how these six certification schemes have biodiversity and ecosystem services. Except the Global GAP scheme, all other certifications have at least one principle exclusively addressing biodiversity; in the case of Global GAP, biodiversity and related issues are in Control Point 15 that deals with the use of natural resources. The specific criteria related to biodiversity and ecosystem services varies from two (Bonsucro) to more than ten (FSC). Ecosystem Services are directly mentioned in three certification schemes: RSB, Bonsucro and FSC. In general, indicators and/or minimum requirements are indicated in all six certification schemes. Documents, reports by the certified economic operator, management plans, etc. are accepted as proof of compliances. The risk of habitat loss is targeted by criteria/indicators that define areas in which feedstock production should be avoided or that are even unacceptable. The term no-go areas, used at EU-RED, is explicitly mentioned only by RSB and in an indirect way by ISCC. Areas of High Conservation Values (HCV) and/or with high carbon stocks are considered inadequate for feedstock production in all certification schemes. On the other hand, the inclusion of buffer zones as areas that should not be impacted by feedstock production is only clearly mentioned by RSB. In three certification schemes (RSB, Bonsucro and RSPO) degraded lands are mentioned as priority for feedstock production, as a way of avoiding land use change and consequent impacts on biodiversity. The introduction of invasive species is specifically in the certification schemes here considered, except the Global GAP. The same regarding the attention that shall be devoted to threatened endangered and legally protected species.

4 Table II: Synthesis of some certification schemes and how biodiversity has been in them RSB ISCC Bonsucro RSPO FSC Global GAP Aim that mainly targets the consumer market with focus on the EU- RED for sugarcane products for palm oil products for forest products for agricultural products Product Bioenergy Biofuels Sugarcane products Palm oil products Forest products Agricultural products How biodiversity is Number of related criteria Issues by criteria Indicators/requirements Principle 7: Biofuel operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and conservation values Principle 1: Biomass shall not be produced on land with high biodiversity value or high carbon stock Principle 4: Actively manage biodiversity and ecosystem services. Principle 5: Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity Five Six; four (specific) Two Five (general); two (specific) Conservation values; Ecosystem services; Buffer zones; Ecological corridors; Invasive species. Minimum requirements are defined Addressed certain specificities applied Observing HCV; Protecting grassland; High carbon stock; Protecting peatlands. Standard mentions profs of compliance Impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services; Mitigation measures. Specific indicators and management plan Monitoring and mitigation; Threatened and endangered species. Indicators and management plan Principle 6: Forest management shall conserve biological diversity... mantain the ecological function and the integrity of the forest. Principle 9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests Ten (for Principle 4) and four (for Principle 9) Assessing impacts; Threatened and endangered species; Ecological functions; Landscape; Protection of natural resources; Reducing use of chemicals; Exotic species; LUC to be avoided; HCV Indicators and management plan Control point 15: Responsible use of natural resources (addressing environmental issues, among others) Five; three (related) Sustainability policy; Compliance with law; Endangered species. Compliance procedures are mentioned No-go areas Indirectly Do not per Do not address Do not address Do not address se HCV Considered Considered Considered Considered Considered. Considered (forests)

5 Table II (cont.) RSB ISCC Bonsucro RSPO FSC Global GAP Buffer zones Considered Do not mentioned Do not specific Mentioned regarding Do not address Do not address mentioned riparian zones Degraded lands Use to be promoted Do not mentioned Issue mentioned Issue mentioned in Do not address Do not address another principle Invasive species To be prevented Mentioned regarding grassland Mentioned to be trough a Invasive species are referred to under pest To be prevented Do not address Threatened, endangered and legally protected species management plan management: Do not address(not specifically only within HCV concept) No net loss/net positive impact Alignment and reference to international conventions CBD CBD CBD CBD CBD Do not mention Source: based on [13], [18], [19], [20] [21] [22] Notes: CBD Convention on Biological Diversity; HCV High Conservation Values; LUC Land Use Change.

6 The concepts of no net loss or net positive impact are not specifically in none of the certification schemes assessed in this paper. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) states that no net loss is a principle suitable for inclusion in impact assessments. In this sense, one of the fundamental principles developed by Business Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) is to achieve no net loss or a net gain on biodiversity. This concept is clearly relevant to the new CBD strategic plan, defined at COP10, which seeks to halt biodiversity loss [13]. Finally, in what concern alignment to international conventions, only Global GAP do not refers the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Two comprehensive studies present comparisons of existing standards and certification schemes in regard to biodiversity. The study by the Secretariat of the CBD covers 36 standards that are applied in areas such as agriculture, forestry, biofuels, tourism, finance and others. Some standards that can be applied for biofuels, such as RSPO and Bonsucro, are classified in the report as agricultural ones. On the other hand, the study by Englund [23] covers 23 standards applicable in areas as agriculture, forestry and biofuels. Regarding the certification schemes assessed in this paper, all, except the ISCC, are analyzed in both studies. Most of the aspects considered as priority are common in both studies. Particularly, the report by CBD [13] emphasizes how the standards deal with protected areas and areas that should be prioritized for conversation. On the other hand, Englund [23] specifically address energy use and GHG emissions, besides actions towards research and education. A summary of the aspects considered is presented in Table III. The main general conclusions of both studies are presented below. Table III: Summary of comparisons of standards and certification schemes regarding biodiversity Secretariat of CBD Englund [23] [13] # standards Agriculture 12 9 Bioenergy 2 6 Forestry 4 8 Others 18 Habitats Habitat loss & restoration Protected areas Protected areas and priorities for conservations Endangered and invasive Habitat destruction, fragmentation, degradation and modification Species Endangered and invasive Exploration Over-exploration Over-exploration Others Sources: [13] [23] Energy use and GHG Research, awareness and education Habitats Regarding habitats, the study by CDB [13] concludes that all standards mention protection as a priority and most of them emphasized actions to avoid habitat loss. A significant number of standards define habitats that should not be converted or that should be converted only in specific cases. Few standards mention restoration as required actions. Comparing the standards, those that concern agricultural products do not mention explicitly prevention of habitat loss. Englund [23] assesses the schemes considering their subgroups. The author concludes that all standards that address bioenergy products perform well in what concern habitat destruction, fragmentation, degradation and modification. Regarding the standards applied to forest products, all address relevant areas for biodiversity conservation, and most of them perform well with regard to avoiding destruction and fragmentation. The results are not so good in what concern habitat degradation, but most of the standards properly address issues like the use of fertilizers and chemicals, avoiding erosion and keeping soil quality. On the other hand, some of the standards for agricultural products do not perform well regarding protecting areas; however, all standards in this sub-group comply with baseline criteria on use of chemicals, avoiding erosion, water managing and keeping soil quality. Species The study by CDB [13] concludes that most of the standards comply with measures for protecting species and managing threatened species. General sense, the agriculture standards do not address invasive species. The study by Englund [23] concludes that most of the standards consider the protection of endangered species and the same regarding the use of native species vis-à-vis exotic ones. However, the author concludes the opposite regarding the agriculture standards, with few of them addressing threatened species and none complying with invasive species. And in what concerns standards of bioenergy products, the majority considers the protection of endangered species, while the use of native species over exotic species is mentioned in just one standard. Englund [23] concludes that the ways certification schemes handle biodiversity issues vary. In general, the standards applicable to bioenergy have the strongest biodiversity considerations, while the agricultural management standards have the weakest. 4 IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION This section is based on the comparison of the main concerns regarding the potential impacts of biofuels production on biodiversity (section 2) and the basic information of some of the main existing certification schemes for biofuels (section 3). The first point to highlight, and this is not a surprise, is that the main sustainability standards applicable to biofuels address the most important issues of concerns regarding sustainability. These issues are: (a) biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction, including growing threat to some species, (b) impacts on biodiversity due to feedstock cropping and biomass conversion (e.g. caused by pollution, soil erosion, etc.), (c) introduction of evasive species and (d) negative impacts on ecosystem services. Considering that one of the aims of certification schemes is to disseminate information to the general public, this first conclusion is positive from the point of

7 view of the authors. No surprising regarding this is due to the fact that the certification schemes for biofuels have been proposed for fulfilling requirements mainly imposed by the European Commission, that is closing observing the concerns of part of the international society (e.g., the scientific community and the NGOs). A second point to notice is that the existing certification schemes are more oriented on setting constrains for the production of feedstocks (e.g. areas where the production should not be acceptable) and on the practices that should be applied (e.g. management plans, use of best technologies, etc.) rather than on evaluating the impacts on biodiversity. And this is completely understandable, first because biodiversity is a very complex subject and there is no consensus about what should be evaluated and small consensus about how to evaluate. Second, because it is easier to call the precautionary principle and opt for reducing risks. The problem is, who is going to define the areas that should be fully protected and where feedstocks production should not occur at all? In new producing areas, such criteria could be extremely restrictive. Regarding the same point, some reflection is necessary to the priority given to the production in degraded lands. These areas are considered degradable for a particular reason and, in these areas, the feasibility of biofuels production could be drastically reduced without significant investments. As all agricultural activities, biofuels production requires adequate land and the use of other natural resources; without a minimum productivity no agricultural activity is feasible. Another important issue is that criteria and indicators shall be based on scientific knowledge. In this sense it s important to recall one the conclusions of the study done by CBD [13], that the most reliable information of threatened species, for instance, should be used, and well accepted terms should be used for describing impacts and actions. In addition, it seems critical to set priorities in order to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity, on one hand, but also not imposing economic or administrative burden. In this regard, the concept of mitigation hierarchy that allows the definition of a logical sequence of actions seems to be instrumental. However, this issue is probably outside the scope of a certification scheme as it s almost impossible to set a standard for so many different cases. It is worth to remember that a certification scheme is a voluntary market instrument; it can be very useful for different purposes, but negative impacts of biofuels production on biodiversity cannot be avoided just with them. In particular, even the best certification scheme cannot to replace policies and regulations. Moreover, with certification it is not possible to evaluate sustainability in itself, but rather provide related information to different stakeholders and, hopefully, to induce changes on behaviour. As far as the limits of certifications schemes are taken into account, the way biodiversity has been in the existing schemes for biofuels could be considered satisfactory. Clearly, it s necessary to take into account the limits of what is possible to get with standardization in short-term, and that continuous improvement is an aim of all standards. Obvious that the existing certification schemes can be improved as consequence of the experience gained, Finally, it doesn t seem that the criteria and indictors regarding biodiversity in the existing certification schemes are difficult to be applied by new producers and/or by small producers. However, it seems premature to state that the main aims of a certification scheme, such (a) as provide valuable information to the different stakeholders, (b) induce the adoption of best practices, (c) differentiate products, and (d) promote trade, will be fully achieved. 5 CONCLUSIONS The concerns regarding the actual benefits of bioenergy have induced the adoption of sustainability initiatives and, as consequence, the promotion of standards and certification schemes. Adverse impacts on biodiversity are one of the main concerns of large-scale bioenergy production and use. In this paper the main concerns regarding biodiversity were presented and some important existing certification schemes were assessed from this point of view. One of the main conclusions is that the certification schemes devoted to bioenergy are stricter regarding biodiversity vis-à-vis those devoted for forest and agricultural products. This is comprehensible as the public opinion is much more critic regarding bioenergy than any other source of energy or agricultural product. In the most important certification schemes, principles, criteria and indicators do not allow the evaluation of sustainability per se. On the other hand, they seem adequate for setting constrains to the production of feedstocks (e.g. in certain areas), to guide the adoption of best practices and to call attention to crucial issues (e.g. the existence of threaten species and the importance of preserving ecosystem services). However, the existence of certification schemes to biofuels is a very new issue and a proper evaluation on the efficacy for conserving biodiversity is not possible at this moment. Biodiversity in itself is a broad concept and there is no consensus on how setting priorities and monitoring biodiversity conservation. However, less ambitious short-term targets can be accomplished with the existing certification schemes, which obviously could be improved. First, to avoid green-washing. Second, to provide useful information for different stakeholders. Third, to foster consciousness. Fourth, to promote fair trade. And, fifth, obvious to effectively induce sustainable production of bioenergy. 6 REFERENCES [1] World Resources Institute, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human wellbeing: biodiversity synthesis, (2005). [2] M. Groom, Biofuels and Biodiversity: Principles for Creating Better Policies for Biofuel Production, (2007). [3] L. Koh, Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding opportunities (2008). [4] The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity: A review of the current literature, (2009). [5] F. Hellmann, Impact assessment of the European biofuel directive on land use and, (2010).

8 [6] O. E. Sala, S. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, et al. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year Science. n. 287 (2000) [7] Convention on Biological Diversity, (2010). [8] P. M. Stromberg, A. Gasparatos, J. S.H. Lee, J. Garcia-Ulloa, L. P. Koh, K. Takeuchi, Impacts of Liquid Biofuels on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. UNU-IAS (united Nations University & Institute of Advanced Studies) Policy Report (2010). [9] D. Keeney, C. Nanninga, Biofuel and Global Biodiversity. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. April (2008). [10] Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP). A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8 +5 Countries (2008). [11] Worldwatch Institute, Biofuels for transport: global potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy for the 21st century (2006). [12] B. Eickhout, Local and global consequences of the EU renewable directive for biofuels. Testing the sustainability criteria (2008). [13] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity - CBD Technical Series N.63, Review of the biodiversity Requirements of standards and certification schemes (2011). [14] J. van Dam, Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Jurgens, I., Best, G., b,1, Fritsche, U. Overview of recent developments in sustainable biomass certification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, pp (2008). [15] NL Agency. How to select a biomass certification scheme? Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. May (2011). [16] European Commission. First EU sustainability schemes for biofuels get the go-ahead. European Commission Press Release. 19 July (2011) [17] N. Scarlat, Dallemand, J.F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview. Energy Policy, 39, (2011). [18] RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. Indicators of Compliance for the RSB Principles & Criteria. Available at (2011). [19] ISCC - International Sustainability and Carbon Certification. Sustainability Requirements for the Production of Biomass. Available at (2010). [20] Bonsucro Production Standard. Version 3.0, March. Available at [21] RSPO Roundtable on Sustaianable Palm Oil. RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production. Available at [22] Global GAP Global Good Agricultural Practices. Control Points and Compliance Criteria Compound Feed Manufacturing. Available at [23] O. Englung, Biodiversity considerations in certified biomass production - An overview of biomass certification systems, (2010).