4.7 Article

Brazil's sugarcane embitters the EU-Mercosur trade talks

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93349-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  2. Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Brazilian government's decision to open the Amazon biome for sugarcane expansion raised concerns in the EU, hindering the trade agreement. Research shows that Brazil's sugarcane expansion can meet ethanol demand and meet EU environmental standards, but also poses risks of competition with other commodities and deforestation.
The Brazilian government's decision to open the Amazon biome to sugarcane expansion reignited EU concerns regarding the sustainability of Brazil's sugar sector, hindering the ratification of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. Meanwhile, in the EU, certain conventional biofuels face stricter controls, whilst uncertainty surrounding the commercialisation of more sustainable advanced-biofuels renders bioethanol as a short- to medium-term fix. This paper examines Brazil's land-use changes and associated greenhouse gas emissions arising from an EU driven ethanol import policy and projections for other 13 biocommodities. Results suggest that Brazil's sugarcane could satisfy growing ethanol demand and comply with EU environmental criteria, since almost all sugarcane expansion is expected to occur on long-established pasturelands in the South and Midwest. However, expansion of sugarcane is also driven by competition for viable lands with other relevant commodities, mainly soy and beef. As a result, deforestation trends in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes linked to soy and beef production could jeopardize Brazil's contribution to the Paris agreement with an additional 1 +/- 0.3 billion CO(2)eq tonnes above its First NDC target by 2030. Trade talks with a narrow focus on a single commodity could thus risk unsustainable outcomes, calling for systemic sustainability benchmarks, should the deal be ratified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据