Presentation of Marcos S. Buckeridge for the “Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle” Apresentação de Alfred Szwarc realizada no “Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle” Date / Data : May 14 - 15th 2009/ 14 e 15 de maio de 2009 Place / Local: ABTLuS, Campinas, Brazil Event Website / Website do evento: http://www.bioetanol.org.br/workshop3

1. Insights on Sustainability:
Unica’s Vision
Alfred Szwarc
Workshop on the Impact of New Technologies on the Sustainability of
the Sugarcane/Bioethanol Production Cycle
Campinas – May 14th, 2009

2. ABOUT UNICA
• UNICA is the leading sugarcane industry
association, representing 127 mills in
Brazil (most in the São Paulo State)
• Responsible for over. 50% of all ethanol
and sugar production in Brazil
• Emerging as a leader in the generation
of bioelectricity
• International presence, now in Washington
& Brussels, to engage in constructive
dialogue

3. SUGARCANE PRODUCTS

4. Best Agricultural and Environmental Practices
 Low levels of soil losses due to semi-
perennial nature of sugarcane
 Increased soil conservation and retencia
as result of mechanisation, part of the
straw being left on the field as organic
matters.
 Reduced use of pesticides
 Low irrigation in Centre-South
 Almost no use of fungicides
 Decrease in water use in
 Biological control of plague
industrial processing
 Use of vignasse
 Over 140,000 ha PPAs in São
Paulo StatePaulo

5. Innovation & Productivity
• New sugarcane varieties
• Process improvements & New technologies
• Cellulosic ethanol
Sugarcane Juice +
Conventional 1 hectare 7,000 liters of ethanol
Molasses
12,500 liters of
Sugarcane Juice ethanol... or more
Conventional 1 hectare + Molasses + (7,000 L from juice +
+ Cellulose Bagasse + Straw 5,500 L from
bagasse and straw)

6. Sugar, Bioethanol and Bioelectricity Plant in Brazil
Ethanol Distillery Sugar plant
storage Cellulose
ethanol Bagasse
tanks
Sugar cane
field
Straw (tops & leaves)

7. Ethanol makes 50% of transport fuels in Brazil
Gasoline
Ethanol
Petrol and ethanol consumption in Brazil – Source ANP and UNICA

8. Environmental Merits
Selected Fuel Characteristics
Ethanol Gasoline
Sulfur content & sulfur compounds   $$
emission
CO2 , CO, VOC and fine particles  
NOx  
Volatility / 
Toxicity of fuel & combustion   $$
products
Life-cycle Greenhouse impact   $$
Renewability  
Biodegradability in soil & water   $$

9. Energy Balance
Feedstock Renewable Energy Output / Fossil
Energy Input
Wheat (EU) 1.2
Cassava (Asia) 1.2
Sugar Beet (EU) 1.9
Corn (USA) 1.3 - 1.8
Sugar Cane (Brazil) 9.3* (11.6 in 2020)
Gasoline/Diesel 0.8** - 1.15***
Source: F.O. Licht, Macedo, I et alii 2008*, Argonne National Laboratory 2002**, Personal Information from Petrobras***

10. Life Cycle Analysis (Well-to-Wheel)
Well - to - Tank Tank - to - Wheel
E Land Use
T Processing
Cultivation
H Storage
A Harvesting
N Transportation Transportation Fueling
O
L Storage Distribution Combustion
Feestock-related Fuel-related Use-related
Stages Stages Stages
G Storage Distribution
A Combustion
S Transportation Transportation Fueling
O Oil extraction
L Storage
I Area Use Refining
N
Oil Field
E
development

11. Life Cycle GHG Emissions
Farming & Harvesting Estimated values refer to 1,000 liters of
Emission: 2,961 kg ethanol and equivalent volume of
gasoline (corrected for energy content).
Sugarcane Processing
Emission: 3,604 kg
Sugarcane Growth
Uptake: 7,650 kg
Road Transport
Emission: 50 kg
Bioelectricity generation Gasoline Life-cycle
Vehicle Operation
Uptake: 225 kg Emission: 2,280 kg
Emission: 1,520 kg
Total: 8,135 kg CO2 Total: 7,875 kg CO2
Net emission: 260 kg CO2 (89% of gasoline emission)
Source: Macedo, I., 2008

12. Life Cycle GHG by Feedstock
Emissions avoided as the result of ethanol replacing gasoline
Ethanol from grains Ethanol from sugar Ethanol from sugar
(US / EU) beet (EU) cane (Brazil)
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Note: Reductions in well-to-wheel CO2-equivalent GHG emissions per km, from bioethanol comparared to gasoline,
calculated on a life-cycle basis. Source: IEA – International Energy Agency (May, 2004), based on a review of recent
articles. Prepared by Icone and Unica.

13. Life Cycle GHG by Feedstock
0.25 Source :International Council on Clean Transportation, Kodjak, D., 2006
U.S. (g/Btu)
0.2 Canada (g/Btu)
Brazil (g/Btu)
0.15
g CO2 / Btu
0.1
0.05
0
e el s s s m as or
n
or
n e
en
t n
en
t n i ty rt rt al al n
lin es nd nd nd eu G an tio tio ri c po po oc oc tio
so Di Sa Sa Sa trol al ll C ll C rc rm ica rm ica ct ex ex /L /L uc
a r il il il tu
r i i ga Fe if Fe if
El
e zil il nd nd od
G l fu O O lO Pe M
et
M
Su s as s as ra az La La Pr
te
d
Su in
e G se m Na Dr
y
W m as s
G as s
G /B Br g w sil
ul
a w ol RF ie fro m m ro om as om as nd nd
/
ist
in e s
rm Lo as rD f ro ro ro
m lf Bi Bi La -N Fo
fo -0.05 lG fu PG G lf lf no y io
m
nt io
m
g La Ex e w
l L no ha d - n Lo
Re na Su CN no oo
B la tB in ew Ca
al io ha ha Et dy lP an ist -N ne n
er nt ow Et Et lW oo no Pl Ex e Ca g ar C or
d nv
e L no W ha ol - n r
Su ol
Fe ha ol Et an ne Ca ga
Co Et an th Ca ar Su an
h E g th
Et ga
r
Su
E
Su

14. CALIFORNIA’S LOW CARBON FUELS STANDARD
(LCFS)
Grams of CO2 per megajoule
Source: California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, March 2009.

15. Grams of CO2 per megajoule
LCFS WITH “INDIRECT LAND USE” PENALTY
GTAP
using
ILUC
Source: California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, March 2009.

16. SUGARCANE “INDIRECT LAND USE” EFFECT
Source: UNICA, California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, March

17. EU Directive on Renewable Energy Sources

18. The Challenges of the EU Directive
• Lack of clarity remains with regards to :
• The definition of highly biodiverse grasslands;
• The definition of a methodology to identify degraded lands;
• Criterias on conservation practices data (re. soil, water, air) which will
be provided
• Guidance as per criteria implementation
• These definitions will be adopted up to 2010
• Despite the timeframe, various countries could initiate the
incorporation of the Directive into national legislation this year,
creating legal uncertainties over required criteria. This is
clearly unacceptable for Brazil !
• The lack of clear definitions prevents the sector to progress in
the development of a certification scheme that responds to
the European demands.

19. The “Babel’ of Ethanol Certification
National Certifications
Directive on Renewable Energy Sources
Directive on Renewable Energy Sources
European Union
European Union
Meó Consulting // ISCC
Meó Consulting ISCC
German Government
German Government
Numerous initiatives
RTFO
RTFO to verify and certify
UK Government
UK Government ethanol
RFS // LCFS
RFS LCFS
US Government
US Government
PBCB
PBCB How to deal with this
Brazilian Government
Brazilian Government
situation?
Institutional Certifications
RSB
RSB
Proliferation of diverse
Based in Switzerland
Based in Switzerland certification schemes is
counterproductive: Limits
BSI
BSI
Based in the UK
Based in the UK
investments, especially in
developing countries
Private Certifications
SEKAB, GREENERGY
SEKAB, GREENERGY
Sweden, UK
Sweden, UK
v. mar09

20. Sustainability initiatives for biofuels: A universe in constent expansion...
No same attention for other agriculture products use. Are they sustainable per se?
SUSTAINABLE
BIOFUELS
INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL
NATIONAL BODIES MULTISTAKEHOLDER
INITIATIVES INITIATIVES
EU Directives
IDB IFC OCDE IEA G8 +5 FAO UNEP ISO
NL UK DE SE USA BR
Scorecard
CRAMER RTFO SEI LCFS PBCB Equator
T ask 39 Prop.
Meó/ISCC Principles
GBEP RSB ABNT+DIN
Cramer Renewable Transport Low Carbon Brazilian Biofuels Liquid Biofuels Global Bioenergy
Commission Fuel Obligation Biofuel Quota Law‐
Biofuel Quota Law‐ Stockholm Round Table
Fuel Standard Certification Program from Biomass Partnership on Sustainable
Ordinance for sustainability Environment
requirements Institute PRIVATE Biofuels
Greenergy RFS INMETRO
BANKS
CEN VERIFIED SUSTAINABLE
Renewable
Fuel Standard
ETHANOL
European RTRS
Committee for Low CVP Fuels BSI RSPO
Standardization SEKAB
BAFF Better Sugarcane Roundtable on Roundtable on
Initiative Sustainable Palm Oil Responsible Soy
IB
Sistema de Verificação. da
Sistema de Verificaç SDG
Prepared by UNICA Atividade Agropecuária
Atividade Agropecuá
Sugarcane
WWF
v. mar09
Discussion Group

21. The Green Protocol in São Paulo State
 Signed between the São Paulo state government and UNICA in June 2007.
 Mills and sugarcane suppliers are involved
Protocol Guidelines
 Elimination of sugarcane straw burning by 2014. Approximately 50% of the
harvest is already mechanized
 Protection of river side woods and recovering of those near water streams
(APPs)
 Adoption of technical plans for soil conservation and water resources
 Measures to reduce air emissions
 New sugarcane areas must be harvested mechanically.

22. UNICA-FERAESP Protocol
 Signed in February 2006 with the objective to enhance the working
conditions of the sugarcane sector workers, and to evaluate and
recommend best practices for the following areas:
1. Gradual elimination by 2011 of the practice of outsourcing in the sugarcane
manual cutting
2. Improvement in the transport system for rural workers
3. Transparency in the systems of labor evaluation and payment in the
production of sugarcane.

23. Average Wage in Different Crops
Sources: HOFFMANN, R e OLIVEIRA, F. C. R. Evolução da remuneração das pessoas empregadas na cana-de-açúcar e em outras lavouras,
no Brasil e em São Paulo. Piracicaba: ESALQ. 2008.

24. Social Responsibility
World  Program of Social Responsibility and Sustainable
Bank Competitiveness
Institute  Sustainable Partnership Program
Social Balance Program IBASE
IBASE  Between 2003 and 2005 47 mills participated
in the program
 70 mills in 2007
GRI Report
Social GRI  10 mills in 2007
Responsibility
Ethos Indicator of Business Social Responsibility
Institute  First phase: 33 mills
 Second phase: 30 mills
Project Partneships: IDB/FUMIN / INST. ETHOS / UNICA
Tear  Usina Santaelisa Vale

25. Social-Environmental Projects Developed
by UNICA’s Members in 2007
Number of Total people benefitted by Investments
projects the projects R$ million %
Training 154 31.529 5,1 3%
Health 89 83.340 79,7 50%
Life quality 62 50.777 7,5 5%
Environment 103 10.319 40,7 26%
Sport 30 9.010 1,1 1%
Education 114 15.866 19,9 13%
Culture 66 279.418 3,9 2%
Total 618 480.259 157,9 100
Source: UNICA GRI report – preliminary results.

26. Sustainability Report
Unica launched in 2008 the first
Sustainability Report ever produced
by an Association. The Report is
based on the Global Reporting
Initiative Guidelines (GRI) and the
content was checked by GRI.
The report is a proof of commitment
to sustainability principles by a
growing number of mills and shows
governance transparency.

27. The Challenge of the Sustainability Uncertainties
Despite of present sustainability issues, Unica
believes that any fair evaluation of the Brazilian
sugarcane industry will demonstrate that
sugarcane and its energy by-products are a
viable and sustainable alternative to complement
existing energy sources.

28. Thank you !
Obrigado !
alfred@unica.com.br
www.unica.com.br