Advertisement

Environmental and social life cycle assessment to enhance sustainability of sugarcane-based products in Thailand

  • Jittima Prasara-AEmail author
  • Shabbir H. Gheewala
  • Thapat Silalertruksa
  • Patcharaporn Pongpat
  • Wanchat Sawaengsak
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

This paper aims to identify the environmental, socioeconomic, and social hot spots and to find ways to enhance the sustainability of selected food, fuel, and fiber products from sugarcane, i.e., sugarcane, sugar, electricity from bagasse, and molasses-based ethanol. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) were used to examine the environmental, socioeconomic, and social performances of the various sugarcane-based products. All data from the field were collected during the production year 2014/2015. The environmental data were analyzed using the ReCiPe life cycle impact assessment method. Social data were analyzed using performance reference points method, using social indicators from relevant standards/guidelines. Interesting results from the study are that some problems such as cane trash burning and overuse of chemical fertilizers and agrochemicals are the main causes not only of negative environmental performance, but also of negative socioeconomic and social performances. Moreover, recommendations to help increase the sustainability of the Thai sugar industry for each stakeholder group have been provided. These include, for example, using demonstration farms in the same areas, zoning of agricultural crops, implementing large area-based agriculture policy, and making local regulation to prohibit cane trash burning.

Graphic abstract

Keywords

Life cycle assessment Social life cycle assessment Sugarcane-based products Sustainability Thailand 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Thailand National Science and Technology Development Agency is gratefully acknowledged for research funding under the project “Research Network for LCA and Policy on Food, Fuel and Climate Change” (Grant No. P-12-01003). All the anonymous sugarcane factories and ethanol refineries, sugarcane farmers, and all other stakeholders whom provide useful information for this study are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Barbosa CMG et al (2012) Burnt sugarcane harvesting—cardiovascular effects on a group of healthy workers, Brazil. PLoS ONE 7:e46142.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonsucro (2014) Bonsucro production standard version 4.01. Bonsucro, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordonal R, Carvalho J, Lal R, Figueiredo E, Oliveira B, La Scala Jr N (2018) Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 3:8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0490-x Google Scholar
  4. Cardoso TF et al (2018) Economic, environmental, and social impacts of different sugarcane production systems Biofuels. Bioprod Biorefining 12:68–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardozo NP, de Oliveira Bordonal R, La Scala N (2018) Sustainable intensification of sugarcane production under irrigation systems, considering climate interactions and agricultural efficiency. J Clean Prod 204:861–871.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavalett O et al (2012) Environmental and economic assessment of sugarcane first generation biorefineries in Brazil. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chhipi-Shrestha GK, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:579–596.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0841-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Contreras-Lisperguer R, Batuecas E, Mayo C, Díaz R, Pérez FJ, Springer C (2018) Sustainability assessment of electricity cogeneration from sugarcane bagasse in Jamaica. J Clean Prod 200:390–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Agricultural Extension (2016) Manual for large area based agricultural practice. Department of Agricultural Extension, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  10. Du C, Kulay L, Cavalett O, Dias L, Freire F (2018) Life cycle assessment addressing health effects of particulate matter of mechanical versus manual sugarcane harvesting in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:787–799.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1334-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecoinvent (2012) Ecoinvent data v.3.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar
  12. Gheewala SH et al (2016) Sustainability assessment of sugarcane complex for enhancing competitiveness of Thai sugarcane industry. The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  13. Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Pongpat P, Bonnet S (2019) Biofuels production from sugarcane in Thailand. In: Khan MTaK IA (ed) Sugarcane biofuels: status, potential, and prospects of the sweet crop to fuel the world. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Global Bioenergy Partnership (2011) The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy, 1st edn. Global Bioenergy Partnership, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Gnansounou E, Alves CM, Pachón ER, Vaskan P (2017) Comparative assessment of selected sugarcane biorefinery-centered systems in Brazil: a multi-criteria method based on sustainability indicators. Bioresource Technol 243:600–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Zelm RV (2009) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, 1st edn. Report I: characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldemberg J, Coelho ST, Guardabassi P (2008) The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36:2086–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006, 2nd edn. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Kongboon R, Sampattagul S (2012) The water footprint of sugarcane and cassava in northern Thailand. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 40:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macombe C (ed) (2013) Social LCAs: socio-economic effects in value chains. Cirad, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  21. Martínez-Guido SI, Betzabe González-Campos J, Ponce-Ortega JM, Nápoles-Rivera F, El-Halwagi MM (2016) Optimal reconfiguration of a sugar cane industry to yield an integrated biorefinery. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:553–562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1039-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mashoko L, Mbohwa C, Thomas VM (2010) LCA of the South African sugar industry. J Environ Plan Manag 53:793–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MTEC (2014) Thai national life cycle inventory database. National Metal and Materials Technology Center, National Science and Technology Development Agency. http://www.thailcidatabase.net/index.php/thai-national-life-cycle-inventory-database. Accessed 30 Aug 2014
  24. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of FAO (2013) Sustainability assessment of food and agriculture systems indicators. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Garivait S (2008) Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Appl Energy 85:722–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Office of the Cane and Sugar Board (Thailand) (2016) Sugarcane planting area report: producion year 2015/2016. Office of the Cane and Sugar Board (Thailand). http://www.ocsb.go.th/upload/OCSBActivity/fileupload/8071-2689.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017
  27. Parent J, Cucuzzella C, Revéret J-P (2010) Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes The. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:164–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0146-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasara-A J, Gheewala SH (2018) Applying social life cycle assessment in the Thai sugar industry: challenges from the field. J Clean Prod 172:335–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. PRé Consultants B.V. (2019) LCA software for fact-based sustainability. Pre’ Consultants B.V. https://simapro.com/. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  30. Sawaengsak W, Gheewala SH (2017) Analysis of social and socio-economic impacts of sugarcane production: a case study in Nakhon Ratchasima province of Thailand. J Clean Prod 142(Part 3):1169–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2011) Long-term bioethanol system and its implications on GHG emissions: a case study of Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 45:4920–4928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silalertruksa T, Pongpat P, Gheewala SH (2017) Life cycle assessment for enhancing environmental sustainability of sugarcane biorefinery in Thailand. J Clean Prod 140:906–913.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh P, Singh SN, Tiwari AK, Pathak SK, Singh AK, Srivastava S, Mohan N (2019) Integration of sugarcane production technologies for enhanced cane and sugar productivity targeting to increase farmers’ income: strategies and prospects. 3 Biotech 9:48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-019-1568-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Souza A, Watanabe MDB, Cavalett O, Ugaya CML, Bonomi A (2018) Social life cycle assessment of first and second-generation ethanol production technologies in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:617–628.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1112-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation (2016) Sustainable development goals—SDGs. Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation. http://www.tsdf.or.th/en/seminar-event/10268/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs. Accessed 3 Dec 2017
  36. Turetta APD, Kuyper T, Malheiros TF, Coutinho HLdC (2017) A framework proposal for sustainability assessment of sugarcane in Brazil. Land Use Policy 68:597–603.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UNEP, SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  38. United Nations (2015) Statement by Thailand at the Intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, 23–27 March 2015. Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/13641thailand.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2016
  39. Uriarte M, Yackulic CB, Cooper T, Flynn D, Cortes M, Crk T, Cullman G, McGinty M, Sircely J (2009) Expansion of sugarcane production in São Paulo, Brazil: implications for fire occurrence and respiratory health. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132(1):48–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0529-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Workman D (2017) Sugar exports by country. World’s Top Exports. http://www.worldstopexports.com/sugar-exports-country/. Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  42. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jittima Prasara-A
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shabbir H. Gheewala
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thapat Silalertruksa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Patcharaporn Pongpat
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wanchat Sawaengsak
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Climate Change and Adaptation Research Unit (CCARE), Faculty of Environment and Resource StudiesMahasarakham UniversityMahasarakhamThailand
  2. 2.Joint Graduate School of Energy and EnvironmentKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and EnvironmentScience and Technology Postgraduate Education and Research Development Office (PERDO)BangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations