A recent empirical analysis has demonstrated that, for example, the use of rapeseed biodiesel represents a saving of approximately 56 % of emissions when compared to conventional diesel, measured in CO2 equivalents (Rasetti et al. 2012). According to Timilsina and Shrestha (2010), biodiesel from palm oil is generally considered to

yield the most substantial GHG savings, typically in the range of 50-80 %. Biodiesel both derived from sunflower and from soybean delivers significant GHG savings: Emission savings from biodiesel based on sunflower appear to converge around 60-80 %, while those from soybean biodiesel tend to be around 50-70 %.

However, recent studies have shown that the production of biofuels can lead to a net rise in CO2 emissions if dLUC and in particular ILUC effects are taken into account (see Table 12); this is the reason why the EU in the COM 595 wanted to limit the contribution that conventional biofuels make toward attainment of the tar­gets in the RED.

Furthermore, starting with commodity cultivation up to its final use, it must be verified that the greenhouse gas reduction accompanying the use of biofuel is cur­rently at least 35 % and from 2017 at least 50 % compared to fossil fuel.

EU Commission instructed various scientific institutes in order to verify the connection between what land extents would have to be additionally cultivated and what quantity of greenhouse gases would be emitted from these areas if the EU target value of 10 % of renewable energies in the transport sector was achieved.

A cause-effect relationship could not be verified. The reason for this is very complex connections to the international agricultural markets and the low amount of commodities for biofuel production. This is why the EU Commission had ini­tially suggested having this ‘ILUC phenomenon’ further investigated by scientists.

Table 12 shows the average GHGs emission savings (in %) in the production of biodiesel from different feedstocks (rapeseed, sunflower, palm, and soybean) com­pared to those related to the diesel life cycle in three different scenarios: the first without land-use changes and the second and the third including direct and indi­rect land-use changes, respectively. Negative values indicate increase in emissions.

It also provides the ratio between the energy generated during the use of bio­diesel in road transport and the energy used during production, processing, and transportation of the biodiesel (energy efficiency).

These data derive from an exploratory meta-analysis of 32 scientific and techni­cal reports emerging from international research (Bentivoglio et al. 2012).

Looking at the data in the Table 12, it results that, in the scenario without land-use change, all the biofuels considered provide GHG emission savings. In the second scenario, the most remarkable result is the huge loss in emission sav­ings bound to the production of biodiesel from palm oil due to the substitution of peatlands in Malaysia. Regarding the energy efficiency, biodiesel from palm oil recorded the best performance (9.1).

2 Conclusions

The sustainability of biofuels derived from agricultural biomass is widely debated nowadays. On the one hand, the production of biofuels ensures energy security for the historically non-oil producing countries; on the other hand, it turns on the food versus fuel debate and the land-use change issue, generally responsible for a net loss in GHG emissions savings related to biofuels production and consumption. However, these issues need to be addressed keeping in mind different variables: the geographical area of production of energy biomass, the type of biofuel (ethanol or biodiesel) produced, and the feedstock used (corn, sugarcane, beet, vegetable oils).

This work compares different aspects related to the production of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil (first generation) with those bound to the production of European biodiesel and of rapeseed oil that it is a principal European feedstock.

The goal was to highlight the differences between Brazil and European Union in the biofuel production and the reasons why Brazil has a competitive advantage in the ethanol production and the European Union has a competitive advantage in the biodiesel production.

The comparison between the two biofuels summarizes the results derived from the extensive scientific literature, taking into account production and energy effi­ciency, but also economic and environmental sustainability.

The sugarcane ethanol energy balance is 9.3, much higher if compared to 1.4 for ethanol from corn in the USA and to 2.5 for rapeseed biodiesel in EU. The ethanol productivity is approximately 7,000 l/ha, whereas biodiesel from rape — seed yield (the most frequently used biomass in the EU) is about 1,320 l of bio­diesel per hectare. At the same time, ethanol production costs from sugarcane are much lower than those required to produce biodiesel from rapeseed oil. According to international literature, the costs derived from empirical analysis are about 0.56-0.58 $/l for the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (Xavier and Rosa 2012) versus 1.00 $/l for the European rapeseed biodiesel (Finco and Padella 2012).

Concerning environmental sustainability, the performances in terms of GHG emissions saving, too, are in favor of sugarcane ethanol. However, in this case, the production of biodiesel, and in particular from palm oil and soybean, does not seem to deviate very much from those values. The fundamental question is that palm oil is not indigenous production and EU imports it from Asia. In addition, if it include direct and indirect land-use changes in the average GHGs emission savings (%) from different feedstocks (rapeseed, sunflower, palm and soybean), it is pos­sible to identify GHG emissions increase especially in palm oil production. In the opposite case, the sunflower which is widely produced in southern Europe (Italy, Spain) shows the best performance with regard to environmental LUC and ILUC.

It should be noted that the assessment of the effects of land-use change on the direct and indirect are very controversial and the international literature presents many methodological approaches that are not always comparable.

Regarding the Brazilian scenario, there are many studies on land use, direct and indirect (LUC, ILUC). For example, the research studies of Brazil show that the amount of new land required for sugarcane production would be relatively small (Arima et al. 2011; Macedo et al. 2012). In the same way, the LUC module based on a transition matrix developed by Ferreira Filho and Horridge (2011) and calibrated with data from the Brazilian Agricultural Censuses of 1995 and 2006 shows how land use changed across different uses (crops, pastures, forestry, and natural forests) between those years. The results obtained by general equilibrium models approach show that the ILUC effects of ethanol expansion are of the order of 0.14 ha of new land coming from previously unused land for each new hectare of sugarcane. This value is higher than values found in the Brazilian literature (Ferreira Filho and Horridge 2011).

In this context, the contribution of government policies (Brazil and EU) is essential in order to guide the biofuel sector toward a sustainable development. A first step in this direction was the introduction of certification schemes and criteria, accepted worldwide as well as the attempt to avoid direct and indirect land-use changes, preventing the exploitation of sensitive areas to the detriment of biodi­versity and carbon stocks reduction. However, according to Amezaga et al. (2010), the sustainability criteria proposed by the EU, which aim to combat the environ­mental problem, have been subject to widespread criticism and extensive discus­sion. Problems have been voiced not only about the measures that are in place, but also about significant factors which are not dealt with in the Directive.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the market-oriented policies implemented by governments should be consistent and continuous in time so as to avoid market distortions and even more failures in the sector as is being done in the European context after the abolition of the instrument of tax exemption and the imposition of product requirements is not always appropriate.

Despite the competitive advantage, in terms of economic and environmental sustainability, taken by sugarcane ethanol compared to other biofuels as enlight­ened by the previous considerations, we believe in the importance of defending even a small European biodiesel production to sustain energy security, considered by all the BRIC countries the main engine of economic development.