| |
Thought Leadership
| The Development of Sustainability Standards in the Sugar Industry |
Paper presented to the European Society of Sugar Technologists, May 2009 |
Dr Peter Rein |
Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University |
Consultant to Better Sugarcane Initiative |
Abstract
The production of bioethanol and biodiesel and the prospect of its importation into the EU have lead to various initiatives to ensure that only biofuels which are produced in a sustainable way are acceptable. Standards which are set to define the important sustainability issues are in various stages of development. The processes involved are of interest to the sugar industry, as both sugarcane and sugar beet have enormous potential as feedstocks for bioethanol. The Better Sugarcane Initiative is underway to define standards for the sustainable production of both sugar and bioethanol from sugarcane. This paper attempts to discuss the major issues surrounding sustainable production of sugar and ethanol, outlining the processes involved in setting and maintaining sustainability standards. This is discussed in particular with respect to the development of the Better Sugarcane Initiative and looks forward to the implications for all stakeholders. |
1. Introduction
There is increasingly wide acceptance of the fact that all agricultural and industrial enterprises need to operate in a manner in which not just the economic but also the social and environmental factors are promoted. At the same time energy use, production efficiency, elimination of wastage, a range of social and labor issues and the effect on global climate change are all being more carefully monitored.
There is a growing corporate move to addressing sustainable development. Companies are beginning to appreciate that there are sound business reasons to adopt more sustainable production and processing practices. Further evidence of the importance of sustainability is contained in sustainability reports being prepared by more and more companies, including 8 out of the 10 chemical companies in the Fortune Global 500 list (Cobb et al. 2007). Managing social and environmental risks is important for growers, processors, traders and food companies due to regulatory pressures as well as shareholder and consumer expectations. Increasingly environmental and social performance is affecting access to markets and to capital as well.
The pressure for a system to certify that sustainable practices are being adhered to has come largely from the market place. A number of large industrial consumers of sugar want to be able to certify that sugar and other ingredients in their products are produced by means of sustainable practices. This initiative has been given additional momentum with biofuels, where for instance the import of biofuels into Europe requires that these fuels are produced following sustainable practices. The discussion on sugarcane ethanol has largely centered on conditions in Brazil (Macedo et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008). Several initiatives are being developed in Europe and the United States relating to certification for sustainable production of biofuels. A multi-stakeholder initiative, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels is well advanced in finalizing guidelines for sustainable biofuel production.
However it is not only the consumers that are the driver for measuring sustainability. Society at large realizes the responsibility it has to the greater welfare of the planet. Many people and organizations see sustainable development and the urgent need to move to a low carbon economy as the most significant issue facing society today. The emphasis on sustainability is growing rapidly, and the sugar industry needs to be involved.
The sugar industries have made significant progress over the last decade, particularly in improving their efficiency of production and their environmental performance. There is now a need for the sugar industry to be able to show that it undertakes its activities in a sustainable way; this requires a system which can be applied to sugar production to measure its alignment with sustainable practices.
|
2. Sustainability
There are various ways in which sustainability can be defined. A generally accepted definition would be along the lines of sustainable development providing for human needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers defines sustainability as “the path of continuous improvement, wherein the products and services required by society are delivered with progressively less impacts upon the earth” (Cobb et al. 2007). They have devised a Sustainability Index for organizations, composed of seven critical elements:
- strategic commitment to sustainability
- safety performance
- environmental performance
- social responsibility
- product stewardship
- value-chain management
- innovation
The impact of industry on sustainability can be summarized in the “triple bottom line”, covering the three components of environmental responsibility, economic return (wealth creation), and social development. Many companies now recognize and monitor these three parallel strands, using their assessment to guide their product, process and personnel development and to secure their position in the rapidly changing climate of environmental legislation and stakeholder concerns. |
3. Development of Sustainability Standards
The first step is the establishment of Principles, which are universal statements about sustainability and define the objectives. From the Principles, flow the Criteria and Indicators. Criteria are the conditions to be met in order to adhere to a Principle. Indicators are measurable states that indicate whether or not associated criteria are being met. This is shown schematically in Figure 1. |
|
Figure 1. Nomenclature used in standards.
|
Environmental and social concerns have been the main reason for the calls for the inclusion of sustainability criteria in the international trade of biofuels. The most important issues seem to be the GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions savings, sustainable agricultural practices, protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services, and labor practices. The economic sustainability is sometimes overlooked, but is equally important. Improving business and technical efficiencies inevitably also benefits the people and the environment, and needs to be an integral part of any sustainability exercise.
All countries have their own sets of regulations and laws governing environmental and social issues. Internationally recognized standards may be seen as a prescription by one country or customs union of the standards that a supplying country must meet as a condition for access to their markets. In some respects it levels the playing fields amongst producers, e.g. developed nations presently consider that they have to meet harsher environmental and labor standards than some of the developing world’s standards. Others may question whether linking such standards to trade is motivated by altruism or protectionism.
It is for this reason that any certification system must be developed in an entirely transparent way, involving a multi-stakeholder process. Only then can it be claimed that the system of certification is not open to abuse.
It is also necessary at the outset to decide on how the standards are to be implemented. Options include a benchmark for self-assessment, trade guidelines, rules for procurement, a reporting obligation (as for instance in implementation of the UK Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation), or a certification scheme with third party certification, which may be either a business-to-business standard or a consumer label.
|
4. The processes involved
The process of developing standards and indicators must be entirely transparent and inclusive. This is vital if the standards developed are to have international credibility. In this respect it is necessary to engage widely with the stakeholders in all spheres of operation and to encourage participation through comments, suggestions and input of any kind.
The International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) Alliance has developed a Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards to evaluate and strengthen voluntary standards, and to demonstrate their credibility on the basis of how they are developed (www.isealalliance.org ). Adhering to procedures that constitute good practices for setting standards ensures that the application of the standard results in measurable progress towards social and environmental objectives, without creating unnecessary hurdles to international trade.
The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI) has decided to follow the procedures recommended by ISEAL to ensure that the standards developed have the widest possible acceptance.
Following the ISEAL code, the following steps inter alia are envisaged:
- Documented procedures for the process under which the standard is developed shall form the basis of the activities of BSI. These procedures are developed with the involvement of a balance of interested parties.
- Allowance will be made for a complaints resolution mechanism for the impartial handling of any procedural complaints. All interested parties must have access to this complaints resolution mechanism.
- A public review phase in the development of the standard is necessary, and shall include at least two rounds of comment submissions by interested parties. The first round shall include a period of at least 60 days for the submission of comments, and the second period at least 30 days.
- All comments must be recorded and a synopsis of how they have been dealt with must be available to the public.
- Final international standards will be placed in the public domain. ISEAL dictate that, with the exception of reasonable administrative costs, they must be made freely available in electronic format.
- Standards will be reviewed on a periodic basis for continued relevance and effectiveness in meeting their objectives and periodically revised as necessary. A review process must occur at least every five years.
The process of establishing standards and indicators is iterative, as shown schematically in Figure 2.
|
|
Figure 2. Process of establishing standard indicators.
|
ISEAL suggest that in order for standards to be mutually consistent and free from contradiction for the largest number of user communities, standard-setting organizations should pursue harmonization of standards and/or technical equivalence agreement between standards. Generation of multiple standards can lead to confusion and a reason or excuse to postpone commitment to better standards. In the case of sugar enterprises, this requires that the standards should as far as possible be consistent with the schemes proposed for biofuels.
It is also important to ensure that participation reflects a balance of interests in the subject matter and in the geographic scope. Thus an international standard requires input from stakeholders in all significant sugar producing areas. This is necessary in spite of the fact that the efficiency and speed at which decisions can be made may be negatively affected by the diversity of stakeholder engagement in the decision making.
|
5. Stakeholders and their roles
Stakeholders are individuals or groups with an interest in the initiative succeeding in its objectives, as well as those external to the organization e.g. communities. They include producers, traders, retailers, consumers, trade unions, social NGOs, environmental NGOs, indigenous groups, government, researchers and academics and certification bodies. All stakeholders need to be encouraged to participate, and they need to see that their contribution is able to influence the final outcomes. It is already evident that conflicting views exist among different stakeholders, and the standard setting organization has to be able to explain how it balanced these in reaching the final standards.
In the early stages, some producers seem to be unwilling to commit the time and resources when they are uncertain of the eventual outcome.
Governments have thus far been little involved in these voluntary standard setting initiatives, with the exception of the initiatives on sustainable biofuels. However the existence of viable standards could assist governments in making better choices on policy options.
In general the NGOs are most supportive of standard setting and have an important role to play. They bring different insights to the process, often helping to raise the bar when standards are being established. However a minority of NGOs seem to want to undermine standard setting procedures. This is unfortunate, since NGOs can substantially assist business and consumers in providing guidance in the furthering of sustainable practices.
The WWF were particularly responsible for initiating, promoting and sponsoring of the establishment of sustainability standards for sugarcane. |
|
6. Better Sugarcane Initiative
The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI) is a collaboration of sugar retailers, investors, traders, producers and NGOs who are committed to sustainable sugar production by establishing principles and criteria that can be applied in the sugarcane growing regions of the world. With the initial guidance and support of the WWF, the BSI has embarked on an exercise to promote measureable standards in the key environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production and primary processing while recognizing the need for economic viability. The BSI is funded by members, among whom are consumer companies (e.g. Coca Cola, Cadbury Schweppes), commodity traders (e.g. ED & F Man, Cargill), NGOs (e.g. WWF, Solidaridad), national and local producers (e.g. UNICA, EID Parry) and oil companies (e.g. Shell, BP). The BSI web site explains its activities in more detail (www.bettersugarcane.org).
The BSI aims to reduce the impact of cane sugar production on the environment in measurable ways, while also contributing to social and economic benefits for sugar farmers and all others concerned with the sugar supply chain. The goal of the BSI is to reduce farm and other sugar processing impacts, while increasing sugar’s competitiveness in markets that are becoming increasingly competitive.
The Principles and Criteria for BSI have been drawn up, modified a few times and accepted by the BSI members. The Principles accepted are:
- Obey the Law
- Respect human rights and labor standards
- Manage input, production and processing efficiencies to enhance sustainability
- Actively manage biodiversity and ecosystem services
- Commit to continuous improvement in key areas of the business
The sugar industry is well-placed as an agro-industrial business. Sugarcane is a particularly efficient crop in terms of its photosynthetic capacity to produce biomass, it contains a fibrous structure which provides a renewable fuel resource, and processing of the cane does not involve the use of any toxic or hazardous products or waste streams. Sugarcane produces more biomass dry matter per hectare than any other crop species. It can, therefore, have a strong positive influence on the environment and so has a great future in providing food and/or energy in a sustainable way.
The ISEAL Alliance comments as follows on standards: “A good standard is equally applicable anywhere within its geographic scope and focuses on achieving outcomes rather than prescribing methods for reaching these outcomes”. It is for this reason that the BSI has attempted to set indicators which measure outcomes, the impacts of their activities, rather than recording the existence of good practices. It is hoped that the values of the indicators will be universally applicable, with a minimum of regional variation required by local circumstances.
BSI has therefore chosen to use in its standards measurable indicators. Great importance is attached to devising metrics, numbers that can be put to each of the indicators. It is assumed that credibility comes with metrics; without metrics, certification programs can become subjective rather than science-based. However choosing the appropriate metrics is not simple. The metrics employed may vary radically in the degree to which they capture the full character of an individual effect. Some effects are intrinsically more readily quantifiable than others (e.g. particulate emissions vs. aesthetic landscape effects). This is most difficult in the area of social issues.
BSI established expert groups with relevant expertise to identify standards that can be measured. Three Technical Working Groups (TWGs) cover the three areas of (1) social and labor issues, (2) processing/mill issues and (3) agronomic practices. The membership of the TWGs covers most of the important sugarcane producing areas and the task of putting together the first version of standards and indicators required has been completed.
This analysis represents a B2B (business-to-business) analysis, considering all the operations of a sugar cane production and sugarcane processing facility, producing raw sugar, power for export and/or ethanol at the factory gate. Stand-alone refineries are not considered to be within the boundary. It accounts for the provision of products to a third party that is not the end user (this is a cradle-to-gate analysis, not cradle-to-grave).
BSI has been incorporated as a not-for-profit company in the UK, and has drawn up procedures for good governance. In addition, Articles of Association have been established, which allow for open membership, subject to approval by a Supervisory Board. The membership of the Supervisory Board consists of at least 2 members of each group as follows:
- Growers:
- Large Scale Producers:
- Agro-Industrial
- Milling & Refining
- Processor / Intermediary:
- Users – End Users
- Users – Intermediary
- Civil Society:
- NGOs – Social & Environmental
- Such other members as the Supervisory Board may from time to time think fit to appoint.
The day to day management of BSI is in the hands of an elected Management Committee of between 6 and 10 members. |
7. Major sustainability issues
One of the key challenges of sustainable development is that it demands new and innovative choices and ways of thinking. The boundary of the sugar producing organization should encompass both growing and processing activities, but must also make allowances for the production of energy and biofuels, and in the longer term, effective use of sugarcane biomass.
The major issues which standards and certification systems do not address are the indirect land use effects, namely the displacement of agriculture into other areas and macro-effects such as rising food prices. Indirect land use change continues to be an area of concern, and will be for some time because of the difficulty in measuring its effects. The major product from sugarcane is still a food product, sugar. Expansion in Brazil to produce increased quantities of ethanol from sugarcane has at the same time resulted in increased quantities of sugar. Thus the food security issue is somewhat different in the case of sugarcane. Klenk and Kunz (2008) have shown that in the case of ethanol production from sugar beet and wheat, the co-products replace other feedstuffs which would have required additional land, and so actually free up land for other crop production.
Biodiversity and High Conservation Value areas are also among the main concerns of many stakeholders. Some disagreement on what constitutes such areas and how they should be measured still exists. These are natural habitats where conservation or biodiversity values are considered to be of outstanding significance or critical importance. In addition, some standards require that crops must not be obtained from land with a high carbon stock, including wetlands, continuous forest, highly diverse grasslands and peat lands. This generally excludes what has historically been in use as croplands, and applies to land changed to cropland after a cut-off date.
The aspect of sustainability standards which perhaps attracts the most attention is the GHG emission. This is derived together with estimates of energy used. In this respect both direct effects and indirect effects need to be taken into account. The latter include the energy required for the production of chemicals, fertilizers and other materials used, emissions from land use change, and the additional energy necessary for the manufacture and construction of farm, transport and industrial equipment and buildings. Direct land use change has to be taken into account, but indirect land change is generally excluded, largely because the effects of these are difficult to estimate and subject to too much uncertainty.
The results of GHG emission calculations are subject to some uncertainty, depending on how co-products are handled, how emissions from fertilizers are handled and on which items are included in indirect effect accounting. In the case of sugarcane, burning of the cane before harvesting has a significant effect on emissions and also has to be accounted for. The results of these calculations show clearly that the best way to reduce the overall emissions is to cogenerate and export power. The use of bagasse in sugarcane mills, or other biomass fuel in the case of sugar beet and cane sugar refining, also has a substantial beneficial effect on the emissions.
A concern expressed by producers is that a need to meet standards will impose reporting and measurement demands which soak up manpower, time and money. For there to be buy-in by sugar producers, there must be some benefits in adopting standards. These are likely to include:
- A means of self-assessment and performance improvement demonstration.
- A means of benchmarking against others.
- Some credits as a premium for producing sugar sustainably.
- Alternatively a way of by-passing trade barriers.
- For industries already meeting the conditions, a leveling of the playing fields in terms of meeting environmental and labor related issues.
- Management of risk and liability
- Enhancement of brand image and reputation
In the long run it is expected that conforming to such standards will save money, as inputs such as energy and raw material are used more efficiently, losses and wastage are minimized and manpower is used more productively. It is certainly one of the objectives of BSI to achieve a system of standards which result in benefits to producers which outweigh any costs.
|
8. BSI indicators
Some guidance in the metric indicators to be used was obtained from the Institution of Chemical Engineers sustainability metrics (Anon. 2002) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI 2008). Some indicators have numerical values, often in the form of ratios. Ratio indicators can be chosen to provide a measure of impact independent of the scale of operation, or to weigh cost against benefit, and in general facilitate comparison between different operations. Others are just yes/no responses e.g. compliance with ILO labor requirements, compliance with local and international laws, clear title to land.
The requirements for selecting sustainability metrics are:
- Clear definition of what is to be assessed, and why.
- Available data – quantifiable empirical data, not qualitative judgments.
- Coverage – inclusion of key aspects.
- Avoidance of duplication and needless complexity.
- Materiality – impacts requiring active management.
- Use of composite metrics where appropriate
- Ability to be audited by a third party
The goal is to achieve inclusion with a minimum number of criteria and indicators. The current BSI standards include 21 criteria and a relatively small but focused number of 48 indicators.
An advantage of the use of metrics is that they can be used as a means of assessing ongoing improvement, by monitoring how the values of the metrics change over time. It also facilitates comparisons and benchmarking with other producers. Setting baseline values represents a challenge still to be faced. It is not intended to be an “elitist” initiative intended to discriminate against certain industries. The standards should not be “best achievable” but true reflections of what experts define as a minimum acceptable level that can realistically be achieved by responsible operators. Baseline values will be set following pilot studies on the sugarcane industry in a number of different regions of the world.
It is important to differentiate between the Standards and Better Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are a means to an end and not an end in itself. BMPs have been drawn up in many parts of the sugarcane world, which are valuable and useful, but they do not identify the impact of the activity considered. They will also be different in different cane growing areas. The BSI standards are also different to ISO 14001 standards, which focus on organizational processes and not products or impacts.
The BSI standards have been posted on a specially designed web site to elicit comments (www.bettersugarcane.com), as part of the first stage of public consultation. Behind the standards is a document which is necessary to explain the terms, and specific methods used to gather, analyze and present the data. The standard is intended to be an auditable document according to ISO 65 and not only a reporting framework
The Sustainability Reporting Guidelines proposed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI 2008) suggest the adoption in the first instance of Core Indicators, which are the most important and material for most organizations. Additional Indicators are proposed for later inclusion and adoption. An approach based on “major” and “minor” indicators was considered by BSI, but not adopted in the first instance. It is possible however that additional indicators will appear in time, as global conditions and expectations change.
|
9. Implementation of standards
Once the standards are approved for use, the issue of conformity assessment needs to be addressed. At the lowest level, a company can undertake its own assessment against the standards, in order to assess compliance and if necessary to identify areas for change. In most cases it is assumed that third party certification will be necessary, particularly if a certification scheme is instituted which bestows additional value on the certified product. This requires verification by an assessor or inspector, certification as a result of the assessment, and accreditation based on the demonstrated competence of the certification body. It is anticipated that the course of independent third party audit adopted by most other roundtables will be followed by BSI as well.
Several initiatives are being developed in Europe and the United States related to certification, traceability and definition of standards for sustainable production of biofuels. For example, the European Commission has launched its Biofuels Directive establishing a legal basis for blending biofuels and fossil fuels. The BSI standards are a feedstock specific set of standards, which it is hoped will find acceptance as a recognized sustainability standard where ethanol from sugarcane is traded.
Branding or labeling can be used to generate income, which it is hoped could cover the cost of accreditation, the on-going costs of the standard setting body, and still return money to producers, to provide incentives for them to cover the cost of improved performance. This route also requires the setting up of a system of traceability or chain of custody standards and registering and protecting the certification mark. A further requirement would be procedures in place that guarantee audit and certification quality.
Initial funding of BSI has been from membership fees and foundation grants. These will continue to be the major sources of funding, but in addition it is hoped that the generation of tradable certificates will reward BSI and the producers as well. |
10. Progress in the sugar industry
In the sugarcane industry, Brazil has been the most active in embracing and reporting sustainability performance. This is largely due to the need to meet sustainable standards in producing biofuels for export to first world countries. In the absence of agreed standards for sugarcane, a number of mills are reporting their results based on the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines proposed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI 2008).
There has been some activity in assessing the GHG emissions (or carbon footprint) associated with sugar. Tate + Lyle report a figure for cane sugar of 0.5 g CO2eq / g sugar, taking into account refining, packing and transport, and recycling and disposing of packaging waste (Houghton-Dodd 2008). The growing and milling activities only are responsible for 0.2 g CO2eq / g sugar. The figure estimated by Tate + Lyle for beet sugar in the same study is almost 1 g CO2eq / g sugar.
British Sugar used the procedure of PAS 2050 to arrive at a figure of 0.6 g CO2eq / g sugar (Anon. 2008). However this is the B2B figure, as provided to the industrial user. Use of cogeneration in the manufacture of ethanol from wheat or sugar beet particularly in combination with a gas-fired turbine can significantly improve energy and emission improvements relative to gasoline (Concawe 2007). This is put to good use in British Sugar’s operations. Tate + Lyle report that the carbon footprint of sugar produced at Thames refinery will reduce by 25 % when new biomass boilers are commissioned.
More work has been done on emissions from the production of ethanol. For instance the EU RED (Renewable Energy Directive) default values for field to wheel ethanol from sugarcane are 22 g CO2eq/MJ and 54 g CO2eq/MJ for ethanol from sugar beet. The difference reflects to a large extent the use of sugarcane bagasse as fuel for the boilers.
|
11. Conclusions
A means of demonstrating sustainable production of sugar is being driven by a number of factors, including legislative requirements, investor expectations, consumer / market advantage and reputation and brand image.
The sugar industry has an obligation to run its activities in a sustainable way. This is an obligation to society as well as to its consumers and clients. The BSI aims to involve the sugarcane industry in setting reasonable standards for sustainable operation, leading to realistic, practical and achievable standards. This should assist in the management of the triple bottom line components of environmental responsibility, economic return and social development.
It is intended that sustainability standards such as those being developed by BSI will find international acceptance. It is anticipated that most significant sugar producers already produce sugar in a way that will meet most of the standards. Metric standards provide a useful means of assessing progress and improvements. It is already evident that awareness of sustainability issues is influencing business decisions, to the benefit of the environment and sustainable production into the future. |
Bibliography
|
Anon. (2002). The Sustainability Metrics. Sustainable development progress metrics recommended for use in the process industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers, London.
|
| Anon. (2008). British Sugar to certify carbon footprint using new PAS 2050 method. Zuckerind. 133, 11, 688. |
| Cobb C.; Schuster D.; Beloff B.; Tanzil D. (2007). Benchmarking sustainability. Chem. Eng. Progress 104, 6, 38-42. |
| Concawe /EUCAR / EU JRC (2007). Well-to-wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context. WTW Report Version 2c. |
| GRI (2008). Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.0. |
| Houghton-Dodd S. (2008). Carbon footprint. Presentation to Brit. Soc. Sugar Technol. |
| Klenk I.; Kunz M. (2008). Europaiches Bioethanol aus Getreide und Zuckerruben - eine okologische und okonomische Analyse. Zuckerind. 133, 10, 625-635. |
| Macedo I.C.; Seabra J.E.A.; Silva J.E.A.R. (2008). Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy 32, 4. |
| Wang M.; Wu M.; Huo H.; Liu J. (2008). Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emission implications of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol simulated with the GREET model. Int. Sugar J. 110, 1317, 527-545. |
|
14 May 2009
ESST Sustainability 2009
|
|
| |
| Sustainability in the Sugarcane Industry – the Better Sugarcane Initiative |
Paper published in Sugar Journal, 71, 6, 6-10 (2008) |
Dr Peter Rein |
Consultant to Better Sugarcane Initiative |
Introduction
There is an increasingly wide acceptance of the fact that all agricultural and industrial enterprises need
to operate in a manner in which not just the economic but also the social and environmental factors are
promoted. At the same time energy use, production efficiency, elimination of wastage and the effect on
global climate change all need to be considered.
The sugar industry is well-placed as an agro-industrial business. Sugarcane is a particularly efficient crop
in terms of its photosynthetic capacity to produce biomass, it contains a fibrous structure which
provides a renewable fuel resource, and processing of the cane does not involve the use of any toxic or
hazardous products or waste streams. Sugarcane produces more biomass dry matter per hectare than
any other crop species. It can, therefore, have a strong positive influence on the environment and so has
a great future in providing food and/or energy in a sustainable way.
The obligation to society at large is being recognized. The sugar industries have made significant
progress over the last decade, particularly in improving their efficiency of production and their
environmental performance. There is now a need for the sugar industry to be able to show that it
undertakes its activities in a sustainable way; a system needs to be established which can be applied to
sugar production to measure its alignment with sustainable practices.
Rationale
An increasing number of company CEOs are voicing their commitment to sustainable development and
the specific actions they are taking. They appreciate that there are sound business reasons to identify
and adopt more sustainable production and processing practices. Further evidence of the importance of
sustainability is contained in sustainability reports being prepared by more and more companies,
including 8 out of the 10 chemical companies in the Fortune Global 500 list (Cobb et al. 2007). Managing
social and environmental risks is important for sugarcane growers, processors, traders and food
companies due to regulatory pressures as well as shareholder and consumer expectations for
sustainably-produced goods.
The pressure for a system to certify that sustainable practices are being adhered to has come largely
from the market place. A number of large industrial consumers of sugar want to be able to certify that
sugar and other ingredients in their products are produced by means of sustainable practices. This
initiative is most pronounced in the area of biofuels, where for instance the import of biofuels into
Europe requires that these fuels are produced following sustainable practices. The Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels is well advanced in finalizing their guidelines for sustainable biofuel production, and
will require these to be met by prospective producers.
However it is not only the consumers that are the driver for measuring sustainability. Society at large
realizes the responsibility it has to the greater welfare of the planet. Many people and organizations see
sustainable development as the most significant issue facing society today. For instance, the
representatives of twenty world-wide chemical engineering institutes, including those in the major sugar
producing nations, issued the Melbourne Communiqué in 2001, which contains, inter alia, the following
statements:
“Entering the Twenty-First Century, we in the chemical engineering profession renew our
commitment to using our skills to strive to improve the quality of life, foster employment,
advance economic and social development and protect the environment through sustainable
development”.
“In meeting society’s needs we are committed to designing processes and products that are
innovative, energy-efficient and cost-effective, and that make the best use of scarce resources.
We are committed to the highest standards of personal and product safety. We seek to
eliminate waste and adverse environmental effects in the development, manufacture, use and
eventual disposal of the products of society”. |
The emphasis on sustainability is growing rapidly, and the sugarcane industry needs to be involved. It
has much to gain in doing so, because the natural advantages mentioned above will surely position the
industry more favorably as an agro-industrial industry contributing positively to the well being of all.
Sustainability
There are various ways in which sustainability can be defined, and it is necessary to understand what it
means. A generally accepted definition would be along the lines of sustainable development providing
for human needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The
American Institute of Chemical Engineers defines sustainability as “the path of continuous improvement,
wherein the products and services required by society are delivered with progressively less impacts
upon the earth” (Cobb et al. 2007). They have devised a Sustainability Index for organizations, composed
of seven critical elements:
| • strategic commitment to sustainability |
| • safety performance |
| • environmental performance |
| • social responsibility |
| • product stewardship |
| • value-chain management |
| • innovation |
The impact of industry on sustainability can be summarized in the “triple bottom line”, covering the
three components of environmental responsibility, economic return (wealth creation), and social
development. Many companies now recognize and monitor these three parallel strands, using their
assessment to guide their product, process and personnel development and to secure their position in
the rapidly changing climate of environmental legislation and stakeholder concerns.
The efficient use of renewable raw materials is at the heart of sustainability. There is a need to look
critically at the way sugarcane is produced, harvested, transported and processed.
Better Sugarcane Initiative
The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI) is a collaboration of sugar retailers, investors, traders, producers
and NGOs who are committed to sustainable sugar production by establishing principles and criteria
that are applied in the sugarcane growing regions of the world. The BSI is embarking on an exercise, the
main aim of which is to promote measureable standards in key environmental and social impacts of
sugarcane production and primary processing while recognizing the need for economic viability. The BSI
is funded by members, among whom are consumer companies (e.g. Coca Cola, Cadbury Schweppes),
commodity traders (e.g. ED & F Man, Cargill), NGOs (e.g. WWF, Solidaridad/Fairtrade), national and local
producers (e.g. UNICA, Tate + Lyle) and oil companies (e.g. Shell, BP). They constitute a Steering
Committee, which directs its activities, and it is managed by a Project Manager, David Willers. The BSI
web site explains its activities ( www.bettersugarcane.org).
The BSI aims to reduce the impact of cane sugar production on the environment in measurable ways,
while also contributing to social and economic benefits for sugar farmers and all others concerned with
the sugar supply chain. The goal of the BSI is to reduce farm and other sugar processing impacts, while
increasing sugar’s competitiveness in markets that are becoming increasingly competitive.
The process that has been embarked upon requires the principles to be stated and the associated
criteria, which are the conditions that need to be met to adhere to the principles, to be established. The
Principles and Criteria for BSI have been drawn up, modified a few times and accepted by the Steering
Committee. The Principles accepted are:
| • Obey the Law |
| • Respect human rights and labor standards |
| • Manage input, production and processing efficiencies to enhance sustainability |
| • Commit to continuous improvement in key areas of the business |
| • Actively manage biodiversity and ecosystem services |
Then expert groups need to identify standards or indicators that can be measured, which allow an
assessment to be made of whether or not associated criteria are being met. BSI have established three
Technical Working Groups (TWGs) covering the three areas of (1) social and labour issues, (2)
processing/mill issues and (3) agronomic practices. The membership of the TWGs covers most of the
important sugarcane producing areas and these expert groups are presently in the process of putting
together the standards and indicators required.
A concern expressed by producers is that a need to meet standards will impose reporting and
measurement demands which soak up manpower, time and money. For there to be buy-in by sugar
producers, there must be some benefits in joining BSI and being prepared to adopt the BSI Principles,
Criteria and Standards. These are likely to include:
| • A means of self-assessment and performance improvement measurement. |
| • A means of benchmarking against others. |
| • Some credits (monetary) as a premium for producing sugar sustainably. |
| • Alternatively a way of by-passing trade barriers. |
| • For industries already meeting the conditions, a leveling of the playing fields in terms of meeting
environmental and labor related issues. |
| • Management of risk and liability |
| • Enhancement of brand image and reputation |
In the long run it is expected that conforming to such standards will save money, as inputs such as
energy and raw material are used more efficiently, losses and wastage are minimized and manpower is
used more productively.
Problems/Issues and the Process Involved
It is important that measurable indicators are identified. Great importance is attached to devising
metrics, numbers that can be put to each of the standards or indicators. It is assumed that credibility
comes with metrics; without metrics, certification programs become subjective rather than sciencebased.
However choosing the right metrics may not be simple. The different metrics employed may vary
radically in the degree to which they capture the full character of an individual effect. Some effects are
intrinsically more readily quantifiable than others (e.g. particulate emissions vs. aesthetic landscape
effects). This is likely to be most difficult in the area of social issues.
The requirements for selecting sustainability metrics are:
| 1. Clear definition of what is to be assessed, and why. |
| 2. Available data – quantifiable empirical data, not qualitative judgments. |
| 3. Coverage – inclusion of key aspects. |
| 4. Avoidance of duplication and needless complexity. |
| 5. Use of composite metrics where appropriate |
| 6. Ability to be audited by a third party |
Some standards will have numerical values, often in the form of ratios. Ratio indicators can be chosen to
provide a measure of impact independent of the scale of operation, or to weigh cost against benefit, and
in general facilitate comparison between different operations. Others may just be yes/no responses e.g.
compliance with ILO labor requirements.
It is important to differentiate between the Standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs
are a means to an end and not an end in itself. BMPs have been drawn up in many parts of the
sugarcane world, which are valuable and useful, but they do not identify the impact on the environment
of the activity considered. In addition, today’s BMPs are likely to be superseded by tomorrow’s better
ones. It has been suggested that the term BMP should therefore refer to Better Management Practices
(Clay 2008).
It is also very important that the process of developing standards and indicators is entirely transparent
and inclusive. This is vital if the standards developed are to have international credibility. In this respect
it is necessary to engage widely with the stakeholders in all spheres of operation and to encourage
participation through comments, suggestions and input of any kind. Attempts will be made where
possible to adhere to international guidelines for the setting up of our standards, as typified by the ISEAL
Alliance, a body set up as a collaboration of international standard-setting and conformity assessment
organizations focused on social and environmental issues. Compliance with the ISEAL Code of Good
Practice should ensure that organizations create:
| • standards that are developed in transparent, multi-stakeholder processes, |
| • certification schemes that consumers can trust, and |
| • relevant, high level performance criteria that create genuine social and environmental change. |
One of the key challenges of sustainable development is that it demands new and innovative choices
and ways of thinking. The boundary of the sugar producing organization should encompass both
growing and processing activities, but must also make allowances for the production of energy and
biofuels, and in the longer term, effective use of sugarcane biomass. The indicators chosen will have to
be re-visited on a periodic basis to assess their suitability and allow for changes in the environment in
which they operate.
An advantage of the use of metrics is that they can be used as a means of assessing ongoing
improvement, by monitoring how the values of the metrics change over time. It also facilitates
comparisons and benchmarking with other producers.
Conclusion
A means of demonstrating sustainable production of sugar is being driven by a number of factors,
including legislative requirements, investor expectations, consumer / market advantage and reputation
and brand image.
The sugarcane industry has an obligation to run its activities in a sustainable way. This is an obligation to
society as well as to its consumers and clients. The BSI aims to involve the industry in setting reasonable
standards for sustainable operation to which it should conform, leading to realistic, practical and
achievable standards. This should assist in the management of the triple bottom line components of
environmental responsibility, economic return and social development.
Measurable standards and indicators are to be developed with the involvement of the sugarcane
industry. These should be a valuable aid in helping to assess the sustainability of the activities involved.
As with all benchmarking exercises, an organization will receive most benefit from the data generated if
they are collected for a number of operating units, over a number of years, on a consistent basis. This
will give an indication of trends, and the effect of implementing policies and practices.
References
Clay J.W. (2008). The role of better management practices in environmental management. In
Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture, Eds. C.S.Tucker and J.A.Hargreaves, 55-72,
Blackwell, Ames, Iowa.
Cobb C.; Schuster D.; Beloff B.; Tanzil D. (2007). Benchmarking sustainability. Chem. Eng. Progress 104, 6,
38-42.
| The Carbon Footprint of Sugar |
Dr Peter Rein |
Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University
Consultant to Better Sugarcane Initiative
United Kingdom
|
|
Abstract
Climate change is rapidly becoming a serious issue and one which will increasingly demand the attention of sugar producers. Estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions in the production of sugar, otherwise known as the carbon footprint, is an essential part of any sustainability study. A method of estimating net energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions has been developed, based initially on work done on biofuels. The calculation routine was developed for use in the Better Sugarcane Initiative standards, which focus on the sustainability of the sugarcane industry. This estimation procedure estimates primary energy requirements including both direct effects, mainly energy usage, and indirect effects, which include energy used in the production of fuels, fertilisers and chemicals. Allowance is also made for the inclusion of direct land use change effects. The estimation procedure allows for the production of molasses and/or ethanol, and for the export of power. Attention is given to the potential errors and problems in arriving at these estimates. The main problems are uncertainties in emissions from fertiliser use and the way in which emissions are allocated to co-products. The results show that the carbon footprint is most affected by sugarcane yield, sugar recovery, fertiliser usage, irrigation, cane burning and power export. A factory set up efficiently for maximum power generation can show a negative carbon footprint and, in this respect, maximum export of electric power can deliver a lower carbon footprint than maximum ethanol production. The calculation routine estimates the greenhouse gas emissions from field to factory gate and can be used for an existing operation or in the design of a new project to assist in making good sustainability choices.
Introduction
The issue of climate change has promoted an interest in the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, otherwise referred to as the carbon footprint, associated with a variety of products. The main focus has been on the production of biofuels, which has spurred the development of systems to estimate GHG emissions. Pressure is coming from the market place, through consumer expectations, and from responsible producers, to measure, control and minimise the carbon footprint of their products.
The carbon footprint of cane sugar is favourably impacted by the use of the natural fibre in sugarcane, which provides the fuel source for its production. The development of a system of calculating emissions that has wide acceptance is an important step in being able to measure and then control emissions. It is impossible to control emissions until they are first measured. This becomes a powerful tool in the hands of producers, enabling them to assess how changes in the way they produce sugar can influence GHG emissions and one that serves as a basis for sound decision-making by business, consumers and other stakeholders.
Emissions are an important aspect of the broader subject of sustainable production. This paper focuses on the method used to estimate emissions in the production of raw sugar, and was developed as part of the sustainability standards of the Better Sugarcane Initiative.
Status of Efforts to Calculate Carbon Emissions
The major impetus for the calculation of carbon emissions has been the production of biofuels and the conditions which the EU and other importers wish to attach to imported biofuels, largely in an attempt to ensure that they are produced in a sustainable way. Sugarcane is the source of a great deal of ethanol produced, mainly in Brazil, and increasingly to a larger extent in other cane producing countries.
Thus, a number of studies have been done to estimate the net energy ratios and carbon emissions associated with bioethanol production. Different estimates of GHG emission savings relative to fossil fuels are obtained if different assumptions are made in the calculation procedure. Wang et al. (2008) estimate a reduction of 78% for ethanol transported to the US from Brazil; they estimate this will increase by up to 9 percentage points if cane burning is phased out. Data produced in Brazil indicates that bioethanol produced and used in Brazil shows GHG emissions savings of 89% compared with petrol (BNDES, 2008).
The EU has compiled a Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which sets out how the emissions should be calculated for the production of a biofuel from any particular feedstock. In addition, some GHG emission saving default values, assuming no land use change, are given to be used in the absence of primary data required for its calculation. Ethanol produced from sugarcane has the best default value of 71% emission saving relative to fossil fuels; emission savings using corn, wheat or sugar beet are significantly lower, varying between 16 and 52% depending on the feedstock and the process used.
The carbon footprint of sugar has received less attention. PAS 2050:2008 is a Publicly Available Specification, developed in the UK in conjunction with the Carbon Trust (BSI, 2008). Recently, both British Sugar Corporation and Tate & Lyle have used this carbon footprint and labelling initiative to evaluate the carbon footprint of sugar, using a life cycle analysis approach. Renouf and Wegener (2007) have calculated the carbon footprint for raw sugar production under three different Queensland scenarios.
In the US, there has been controversy surrounding the net energy ratio and the GHG emissions for ethanol for use as automobile fuel produced from corn, relative to gasoline. The results of a number of studies have illustrated clearly how the input assumptions can radically affect the estimated quantities. Various studies on the net energy value of ethanol from corn have been compared by Farrell and co-workers at UC Berkeley (Farrell et al., 2006). Their EBAMM (ERG Biofuels Analysis Meta-Model) spreadsheets are available on the internet and are used as the basis for the computations here.
A number of other carbon calculators are available on the internet, mostly designed for the production of biofuels, which also take into account the distribution and use of the biofuels. The Renewable Fuels Agency in the UK provides an on-line calculator, as does the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transport) model produced by the Argonne National Laboratory in the US (Wang et al., 2008). This list is not exhaustive and various other calculators are available from specialist consultants.
System Boundary
In conducting life cycle analyses, it is important to define the boundary of the system under investigation. The scope of the system being investigated has a substantial effect on the computations. In the case of sugarcane, the best approach considers the system to contain each individual mill and its growers as a unit, rather than a company owning and operating more than one mill. In the case of IPPs (Independent Power Producers) providing steam and power to a mill from bagasse that has been provided by the mill, the IPP should be considered together with the mill concerned. All the activities of a plant on one site should be considered, to reflect the sustainability of the total system producing food, fuel, energy and chemicals.
The system boundary includes growing and processing of sugarcane, but also includes embedded energy inputs. It starts with the manufacture of fertiliser and chemicals. Farming operations include chemicals application, irrigation, tillage and harvesting. The cane is processed to sugar and molasses or ethanol, and may include export of electric power or bagasse. No allowance for transport of products from the factory is allowed for. The system is illustrated in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. System boundary assumed for GHG emissions calculation.
There are two commonly used descriptions for life cycle analyses, Business-to-Business (B2B) and Business-to-Consumer (B2C). The former accounts for the provision of inputs, including products, to a third party that is not the end user (cradle-to-gate); the latter accounts for the provision of inputs, including products, to the end user (cradle-to-grave), thus including the packaging and transport of products to the retailer/consumer, as well as the recycling and disposal of packaging waste.
This analysis represents a B2B analysis, considering the operation of a cane sugar processing facility, producing raw sugar and/or ethanol at the factory gate.
more on this article
|
|
|
