European Biomass Conference and Exhibition 2017 ...

25th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 12-15 June 2017, Stockholm, Sweden

BRAZILIAN SUGARCANE EXPANSION AND DEFORESTATION M. R. L. V. Leal – CTBE/CNPEM, [email protected] CTBE – Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory/CNPEM – Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials, P.O. Box 6170, CEP 13083-970, CampinasSP, Brazil. D. G. Duft – CTBE/ CNPEM, [email protected] CTBE – Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory/ CNPEM – Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials, P.O. Box 6170, CEP 13083-970, CampinasSP, Brazil. T. A. D. Hernandes – CTBE/ CNPEM, [email protected] CTBE – Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory/ CNPEM – Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials, P.O. Box 6170, CEP 13083-970, Campinas-SP, Brazil. R. O. Bordonal – CTBE/CNPEM, [email protected] CTBE – Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory/ CNPEM – Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials, P.O. Box 6170, CEP 13083-970, CampinasSP, Brazil.

ABSTRACT: In Brazil, the sugarcane ethanol is the most important biofuel and its production increased significantly in the last years. The sugarcane area expanded fast going from 4.3 to 10.1 million hectares (ha) in the 1990-2015 period, with more intense growth in the 2000s. This sugarcane expansion has generated land use changes in Brazilian territory and deforestation needs to be addressed in bioethanol sustainability evaluation. The Forest Code is the main legislation that protects the native vegetation and regulates the use of land, but it is the sugarcane Agroecological Zoning that directs the crop expansion, since 2009, to less sensitive areas. This study aims to quantify, using satellite data and analysis, the deforestation in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado, considering a period of intense sugarcane expansion, from 2002 to 2008. The results showed a minor sugarcane expansion over natural vegetation, achieving 80 hectares of deforestation in Atlantic Forest out of the total 274,200 ha. Analysis also allowed to conclude that most of the deforestation in Cerrado and Atlantic Forest occurred before this expansion. Case studies considering mesoscale watersheds with intense sugarcane expansion will be made to better address the expansion dynamics and its direct effect on deforestation, soil carbon budget and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Keywords: Sugarcane Ethanol, Forest Code, Agricultural Intensification, Land Use Change, Soil Carbon, GHG Emissions.

1

INTRODUCTION

Paraguay River Basin (a buffer area for the Pantanal), areas with natural vegetation, indian reservations and environmental protected area totaling 694 Mha, or 82% of the country’s area (851 Mha), leaving 157 Mha for evaluation of the climate and soil adequacy for rain-fed sugarcane cultivation. The result of the analysis indicated 64 Mha, that is much more than will be needed for long term expansion of this crop and represents only 7.5% of the country’s total area. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) is responsible for evaluating continuously the impact of sugarcane expansion on food production and security. Although it is not illegal to plant cane outside the AEZ the farmers will not have access to rural credit for financing the operational and investment costs and other government support to agriculture in general. Recent studies have shown that the increase in sugarcane area in the 2005-2016 period occurred primarily in the Centre-South region (90%) [6, 7], with a significant advance towards the Cerrado biome [7, 8]. Moreover, there were evidences, based on remote sensing studies, that sugarcane expanded mostly over previous pasture and annual crop areas, with minor advance over natural vegetation [6, 9, 10]. The sugarcane expansion from 2009 to 2016 and AEZ were matched and resulted that exists sugarcane planted outside AEZ, but this corresponds to 75,000 ha (4%) out of the 1,912,000 ha of cane planted between 2009 and 2016. The Forest Code establishes specific protection for some sensitive areas such as riparian vegetation, top of hills, steep slopes (Permanent Preservation Area – PPA) and also requires that a portion of the native vegetation in the property must be preserved (Legal Reserve – LR) in addition to PPA. The area of the former depends on the

The use of bioenergy to replace energy from fossil sources has grown in recent years, raising the discussions about bioenergy sustainability and the real benefits from its use. In Brazil, sugarcane ethanol is the most important biofuel and, following a world tendency, its production increased in the last years, going from 3.7 to 30.2 billion liters (GL) in the 1990-2015 period [1]. In this same period the total sugarcane harvested area went from 4.3 to 10.1 Mha and between 2005-2016 ethanol participation in the cane use varied in the 48% to 59% range [2,3]. The more intense growth occurred in the 2000s [3]. This sugarcane expansion has generated important land use changes in the Brazilian territory. Among the effects of land use changes, deforestation is one of the most important topics in sustainability of bioenergy, together with food security and greenhouse gas emissions. The main legislation that protects the native vegetation and regulates the use of land is the Forest Code [4] issued in 1965 and updated in 2012. This revision raised some controversial questions about its effectiveness in preventing deforestation, especially related to an amnesty clause for deforestation that occurred before the year of 2008. To regulate the sugarcane expansion, the Brazilian government created the Sugarcane Agroecological Zoning (AEZ) vis a federal law approved by the congress on September 17, 2009, that indicated the new areas where sugarcane could be cultivated, starting in the 2009/2010 harvesting season [5]. This agricultural zoning innovated in the sense that it included not only economic risk aspects of the culture, but also the social and environmental impacts. From start, it excluded the Amazon and Pantanal Biomes as well as the Upper

1476


size and type of surface water body and local conditions and the size of the latter is a fraction of the total farm area that varies depending on the region (20% in most of the country, 30% in the woody Cerrado South of the Amazon (Cerradão Woodland) and 80% in the Amazon Biome. In addition, the Forest Code introduced the rural environmental registry (CAR) requiring farmers to declare officially their protected areas inside their rural properties. This study aims to quantify the direct deforestation caused by sugarcane expansion in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes, considering the period of intense expansion from 2002 to 2008 (53% of the sugarcane expansion from 1990 to 2015). The expansion of sugarcane in the Amazon biome was not included in the study due to the low significance of the sugarcane cultivated area in the region (52,000 ha, [1]). Deforestation associated to sugarcane expansion presented different dynamics according to specific regional characteristics. To get a better insight of these specific aspects sugarcane expansion and associated land use changes were evaluated and quantified in two Brazilian watersheds, both in regions with intense expansion over the last years in order to better address the sugarcane expansion dynamics and its direct effect on deforestation, soil carbon stocks and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

2

2.2 Deforestation maps 2.2.1 Cerrado Deforestation The Environment Ministry (MMA) [12] used 114 scenes of Landsat images to evaluate the Cerrado deforestation, all in 2002, most obtained in August, September and October, corresponding to the dry season. Due to cloud cover problems, 33% of the images demanded the combination of two scenes from the same area, obtained in different months. To minimize any mapping errors, a multi-temporal image of Terra/MODIS and fieldwork were used. For 2008, the same work was performed in nondeforested areas and the amount of vegetation lost was checked between 2002 and 2008. 2.2.2 Atlantic Forest Deforestation MMA cited that for mapping the vegetation of the Atlantic Forest [13], it was required the processing of 96 scenes, 72% of which were obtained in the 2001-2003 period. Despite this flexibility, it was impossible to get coverage without the influence of clouds for the whole area of the biome, especially in the Northeast region. In 2008 and 2009, the same work was performed in nondeforested areas and checked the amount of natural vegetation lost between 2002 and 2008. 2.3 Geographic Information System (GIS) as a tool GIS is an organized activity by which people measure and represent geographic phenomena then transform these representations into other forms while interacting with social structures [14]. In practice, GIS is a tool that allows you to make operations with spatial character like intersect areas of different polygons. This tool was used in the calculations.

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Sugarcane Maps The sugarcane cultivation in Brazil was mapped between 2003 and 2013 through the CANASAT project [7]. The areas were identified using images from the TM/Landsat-5 sensor. When cloud cover occurred, images from the CCD (Charge Couple Device) sensor on board of the CBERS-2 and CBERS-2B satellites were used [11]. The methodology for the maps begun with the first maps generated by the CANASAT project, which were produced by digital and visual classification of the satellite images. After that, annual updates were made through visual interpretation of a temporal sequence of images for each crop season. To develop the new season map, the last season map was used as a basis. To distinguish sugarcane from other crops, images from specific periods of the development were used, i.e., images from sugarcane vegetation peak (January to March) that guarantee all areas were mapped.

3. BASIN ANALYSIS 3.1 Land use change (LUC) Two basins were evaluated, both located within the Paraná hydrographic region, considered the most critical one in terms of water use. The two basins are in new sugarcane areas towards the Cerrado (1) biome in the states of São Paulo (Ajice basin - AJ) and Goiás (Fazenda Monte Alegre basin - FMA) (Fig. 1). AJ and FMA basins are located in Tropical climate with dry winter and rainy and hot summer season (Table I). Fazenda Monte Alegre basin in southwestern Goiás has no urban areas, being totally covered by Cerrado [15], pasture, sugarcane and annual croplands. Ajice basin in western São Paulo features the urban area of Rancharia, with strong presence of pasture lands. In this basin, there are also areas with sugarcane, annual crops and Cerrado.

1477


(b)

(a)

Figure 1: Ajice (a) and Fazenda Monte Alegre (b) Basins. rather than the IPCC default 20-year inventory. To assign the IF regarding other LU systems (e.g., forest, pasture and annual crops), some general assumptions were made considering the most common practices of the assessed LU systems. Moreover, if depletion of soil C stock occurs, N2O emissions from mineralization of soil organic matter (SOM) were also assumed to occur [19]. The estimations were jointly presented with CO2 emissions from soil C losses following the global warming potential of 298 for N2O [20], which is similar to the methodological approach applied by [21,22]. The resulting C stock changes were converted into GgCO2eq for comparison, with a positive value representing an increase in soil C, that is, the soil acts as a C sink. Above ground C stocks changes and corresponding GHG emissions were not considered.

Table I: Basins Characterization Basin Ajice Fazenda Monte Alegre

Drainage Area (km2)

Climate (Köppen)

Annual Mean Rainfall Temperature (mm) (˚C)

684

Aw

1300

24

805

Aw

1550

23

Land use classification was made using ArcGIS 10.1 supervised classification on Landsat5 –TM and Landsat 8 - OLI images (30 meters of spatial resolution), with near infrared, shortwave infrared and red bands (RGB channels) band composition. The Mahalanobis distance classification method was applied to classify the features [16]. Land use changes (LUC) were quantified for two periods, from 2003 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2016 in AJ basin and from 2004 to 2010 and 2010 to 2016 for FMA basin. Comparing the maps generated the LUC areas.

3.3 Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) Maps In 2012 the Brazilian parliament passed the revised Forest Code (FC) [2], which became the major legal framework for conservation of natural vegetation (NV) on private land [23]. CAR (Cadastro Ambiental Rural – Rural Environmental Registry) is a tool that Brazilian government created to make sure that farmers were complying with the Forest Code. In CAR, farmers are obliged to declare their farm area and natural vegetation area and present it on a webGIS platform. The maps are consolidated by municipalities and available for download in CAR website [24]. The criteria to open access is based on selfregulation, it means the farmers will respect the law because every citizen is able to check the properties declaration.

3.2 Changes in soil carbon stocks induced by LUC Country-specific factors are generally limited regarding changes in soil C stocks from conversions among diverse LU systems. Most of the LU systems in the Ajice and Fazenda Monte Alegre basins are located in a moist tropical climate, and in soils classified as low activity clay (LAC), primarily Oxisols and Ultisols. The IPCC Tier 2 method was applied whenever possible by incorporating the specific LU emission/removal factors for edaphoclimatic conditions in Brazil. For conversions to sugarcane and vice versa, it was considered the specific emission/removal factors reported by [17]. The default IPCC impact factor (IF) was assumed when country-specific factor was not available [18]. The IPCC defaults factors as well as those obtained by [17] were designed to estimate changes over a 20-year period. To estimate the change in C stocks for the assessed periods, we scaled the amount of change proportionally for each LU system by converting to an annual average basis

4

RESULTS

4.1 National Approach In general, results have shown a minor sugarcane expansion over the natural vegetation. Deforestation from 2002 to 2008 caused directly by sugarcane expansion was

1478


quantified as 80 hectares in Atlantic Forest and 69,000 hectares in Cerrado.

images for different mechanized crops in Brazil, especially in the period when it was allowed by the Forest Code. Results also showed that most of the deforestation in the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest occurred before the period of intense sugarcane expansion (Fig. 3). Moreover, these areas were already deforested [9,10], following some Brazilian government campaigns to expand the agriculture frontiers, especially regarding annual crops as soybean and corn. Besides the minor deforestation directly linked to sugarcane expansion, other studies considering mesoscale watersheds with intense sugarcane expansion in the considered period is being made as part of the Sugarcane Renewable Electricity (SUCRE) Project. SUCRE is a project developed by the Brazilian Science and Technology Laboratory (CTBE) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), that has the objective to mitigate the GHG emissions by promoting the use of sugarcane straw in electricity production in the Brazilian mills. As part of the goals, the deforestation directly linked to sugarcane expansion must be addressed for Brazil as a whole and also for specific expansion areas, in order to evaluate its dynamics.

Figure 2: Sugarcane cultivated area in 2008 and Cerrado and Atlantic Forest deforestation.

4.2 Basin approach Land use changes in AJ basin derived from the evaluated periods (2003-2009 and 2009-2016) are in Figs. 4 and 5. Land use changes in FMA basin were quantified from 2004 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2016 (Figs. 6 and 7).

It can also be seen that, in this period, deforestation occurred exclusively over Atlantic Forest areas in São Paulo state (the largest producer). Even though some studies indicated a significant sugarcane expansion towards the Cerrado areas, Fig. 2 shows evidences that Cerrado deforestation had probably occurred before sugarcane expansion, motivated by other uses and causes beyond sugarcane intensification. In Brazil, the sugarcane expansion over Cerrado areas responds for 2% of the total expansion between 2002 and 2008.

Figure 4: Land use changes in AJ basin from 2003 to 2009.

Figure 3: Biomes deforestation before 2002. The deforestation of the Atlantic Forest could be explained by the elimination of small and disconnected fragments inside the plots, done by the owners to optimize machinery field operations as tillage and harvest. This practice is frequently observed in satellite

Figure 5: Land use changes in AJ basin from 2009 to 2016. In general, sugarcane expansion in AJ basin followed the expected pattern from Centre-South previous land use

1479


change studies, with major expansion over pasture land and marginal figures concerning the displacement of forest areas. From 2003 to 2009 sugarcane expanded around 9,000 hectares, displacing mainly pasture land (91% of the expansion). Marginal expansion has also occurred over agriculture (3%) and forest (6%) areas. Forest areas also showed a significant expansion of more than 7,500 hectares, especially over pasture land and less significantly over sugarcane areas. At the second period (2009 to 2016) only sugarcane presented a significant expansion (almost 3,500 hectares), displacing essentially pasture (79%) and agriculture (19%) areas. Such land use change dynamics is probably linked to an adjustment period where sugarcane possibly expanded over non-suitable areas, which were abandoned and became pasture and agriculture areas again. Forest expansion at the same period of the intensification of sugarcane areas was certainly related to the adapting of rural settlements to the Forest Code to qualify to access to rural credit. In AJ basin, there are 475 farms already registered in the CAR. This means 89% of total basin area. From these, 380 declared native vegetation and all the farms that planted sugarcane are in compliance with the Forest Code, that means they already have recovered or native vegetation.

Through the balance between the displaced and the recovered forest areas, it was possible to conclude that more than 7,000 hectares of forest were lost in land use changes occurred from 2004 to 2016, representing almost 10% of the total FMA basin drainage area. In this case, it is important to highlight the high level of occupation of FMA basin by annual crops (48% in 2003 and 65% in 2016), which is probably linked to the different sugarcane expansion dynamics and the higher pressure of land use changes over native areas. FMA basin has 253 farms declared in CAR, corresponding to 83% of the basin area. There are 248 farms with native vegetation (33% of total area declared in CAR) and all properties with sugarcane are in compliance with the Forest Code, that means at least 20% of native vegetation inside them. Regarding land use change dynamics for FMA and AJ basins, it was possible to verify a higher pressure over native vegetation when basins were highly occupied by annual crops. On the other hand, when basins have a significant participation of pasture land within the drainage areas, sugarcane expanded rather over the latter areas. Differences in land use change dynamics are certainly related to regional aspects as socioeconomic issues, e.g., the appealing profit from annual crop areas and the size of the rural settlements, also linked to the land price. Goiás State has larger farms than São Paulo (average 370ha for FMA basin and 166ha for AJ basin), therefore, the land use changes occurred in the FMA drainage area were less representative of the overall regional dynamics than the changes in AJ basin. In other words, as rural settlements were bigger, the Forest Code allows preservation areas outside the boundaries of FMA basin. 4.2.1. Changes in soil C stocks from changes among LU systems In AJ basin, total emission or sinks (GgCO2eq) from changes in soil C stocks associated with changes in all assessed LU systems showed a positive C budget of 5.7 GgCO2eq during 2003-2009 (Fig. 8a), which has been largely driven by reforestation (44.7 GgCO2eq) in pastures and sugarcane areas with 32.8 and 9.2 GgCO2eq stored in soils, respectively. Expanded pastures (12.9 GgCO2eq) from areas under annual crops and sugarcane also contributed for positive soil C budget in this period, indicating accumulations of 9.7 and 3.2 GgCO2eq, respectively. Our estimations highlight the high potential for soil C accumulation induced by a clear trend of reforestation over the assessed period within this basin. On the other hand, the data also showed that the expansions of annual crops (-14.6 GgCO2eq) and sugarcane (-37.3 GgCO2eq) partially offset the C stored in soils resulting from increases in areas under forest and pastures. Such C debts are associated with expansion of annual crops and sugarcane mostly on pastures areas during the same period (Fig. 8a). However, the long-term impacts of converting pasture into sugarcane on soil C stocks remain uncertain for sugarcane areas established under green harvest (GH) system without burning. We must be cautious in stating that the expansion of sugarcane on pasture is decreasing the soil C stocks once almost all sugarcane fields in Brazil are nowadays being harvested under GH system [25], which could completely change the soil C budget reported herein. Our estimations were based on country-specific data obtained by [17], where most of sugarcane areas were still harvested with burning (i.e., without straw maintenance on the soil

Figure 6: Land use changes in FMA basin from 2004 to 2010.

Figure 7: Land use changes in FMA basin from 2010 to 2016. In FMA basin, on the other hand, forest areas were significantly displaced by other land uses. In the first evaluated period, areas dedicated to agriculture expanded almost 13,000 hectares over forest areas, which in turn expanded more than 5,000 hectares over pasture and agriculture. Sugarcane area expanded almost 3,000 hectares at the expense of agriculture (55%) and forest (35%) areas. Land use changes in the second period were minor.

1480


surface) before the sampling time, and therefore, converting pasture into sugarcane has led to soil C depletion. Conversely, long-term simulations showed that the conversion of pastures into sugarcane under GH is associated with soil C gains at a rate of 0.16 Mg C ha-1 year-1 [25]. Therefore, additional long-term simulation is a high research priority topic to further elucidate the impacts of this conversion to the current scenario under green cane management.

pastures (6.6 GgCO2eq). Expanded pastures (e.g., mainly on annual crops) also attenuated the total C budget loss through accumulation of 16.6 GgCO2eq in soils. Sugarcane plantation had little impact on the overall C budget, especially because of low rate of sugarcane expansion within FMA basin during 2004-2010. In this case, sugarcane expansion on areas with annual crops (10.3 Gg CO2eq) partially counterbalanced the emissions induced by the low cane expansion on forest (-14.4 GgCO2eq). Even with minor emissions and sinks over the next period (2010-2016), a positive C budget (1.8 GgCO2eq) was observed within FMA basin. Reforestation on areas under annual crops led to a soil C accumulation of 2.4 GgCO2eq, while expansion of annual crops on forest, pastures and sugarcane emitted -1.4 GgCO2eq from soils (Fig. 9b).

Figure 8: Changes in soil C stocks (GgCO2eq) within AJ basin regarding changes among the assessed LU systems (e.g., forest, pasture, sugarcane and agriculture) during the periods of 2003-2009 (a) and 2009-2016 (b). Considering the second period (2009-2016) assessed within AJ basin, there was a lesser change among the LU systems in comparison with the first period (2003-2009). The direct LUC among agricultural systems resulted in negative C budget (-11.0 GgCO2eq), which was driven by the minor expansion of sugarcane (-7.8 GgCO2eq) and annual crops (-6.0 GgCO2eq) mostly on pastures (Fig. 8b). In general, our results support the conclusion that the reforestation had an important role in soil C accumulation within AJ basin, especially in the period of intense changes among LU systems (2003-2009). The dynamics of changes among LU systems presented different behaviour within FMA basin compared to AJ basin, with much higher negative C budget (-231.0 GgCO2eq) during 2004-2010 (Fig. 9a). These emissions from soils were sharply driven by the high expansion of annual crops mostly on forest (-212.6 GgCO2eq) and pasture (-93.2 GgCO2eq) areas. On the other hand, reforestation partially offset these emissions with 63.7 GgCO2eq stored in soils, mainly in areas previously occupied by annual crops (56.4 GgCO2eq) and

Figure 9: Changes in soil C stocks (GgCO2eq) regarding changes among the assessed LU systems (e.g., forest, pasture, sugarcane and agriculture) within FMA basin during the periods of 2004-2010 (a) and 2010-2016 (b).

5

CONCLUSION

GHG emissions due to Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry is a major component in the Brazilian Inventory and deforestation is the major component. Because of that, the government is taking action to reduce deforestation by introducing monitoring, using and improving the existing regulations to organize the use of land in the country. This study has shown that sugarcane expansion since 2009 is controlled by the Agroecological Zoning of the culture and Forest Code with only minor impacts on native vegetation. The main biomes where sugarcane

1481


expansion occurred, the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest, were already highly deforested prior to sugarcane expansion and only 75,000 ha (4%) were planted with sugarcane outside AEZ, meaning that the sensitive areas have been preserved. At a local level, two important river basins have been evaluated with respect to LUC dynamics and the results have shown the soil C stocks and native vegetation were not negatively impacted by sugarcane at a significant level. GHG emissions were estimated, without considering the above ground C balance, and the impacts were small. A significant amount of reforestation has been observed, probably forced for compliance with the Forest Code and AEZ. Further studies are being conducted to understand the dynamics of LUC caused by sugarcane expansion specially on native vegetation, on soil C, soil GHG emissions and water balance.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10] 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •

7

This study was supported by Sugarcane Renewable Electricity project - SUCRE/UNDP (grant number BRA/10/G31), that requires the assessment of sugarcane expansion impacts on deforestation and GHG emissions. This project is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and managed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

[11]

[12]

NOTES

[13]

(1) Cerrado is the second largest Biome in South America, occupying about 22% of the Brazilian territory. Due to its biodiversity, Cerrado is recognized as the richest savannah in the world presenting innumerous species of plants and animals.

8

[14]

REFERENCES [15]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

CONAB, 2017. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, Séries Históricas. Available at: http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1252 (Accessed on 12 March 2017). CONAB, 2017. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, Levantamentos de Safra. Available at: http://www.conab.gov.br/conteudos.php?a=1253 (Accessed on 16 May 2017). MAPA, 2015. Statistical Yearbook of Agrienergy 2014. Brasilia/DF: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, 2015. 206p. Planalto, 2017. Complete Forest Code (no. 12,651/2012). Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato20112014/2012/lei/l12651.htm (Accessed on 13 January 2017). EMBRAPA, 2009. Sugarcane Agroecological Zoning (Zoneamento Agroecológico da Cana-deAçúcar), Documento 110. Rio de Janeiro/RJ: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, 2009. 58p. Adami M, Rudorff BFT, Freitas RM, Aguiar DA, Sugawara LM, Mello MP. Remote sensing time series to evaluate direct land use change of recent

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

1482

expanded sugarcane crop in Brazil. Sustainability 2012;4:574-585. Rudorff BFT, Aguiar DA, Silva WF, Sugawara LM, Adami M, Moreira MA. Studies on the Rapid Expansion of Sugarcane for Ethanol Production in São Paulo State (Brazil) Using Landsat Data. Remote Sensing 2010;2:1057-1076. Scarpare F, Hernandes T, Ruiz-Corrêa S, Picoli M, Scanlon B, Chagas M, Duft D, Cardoso T. Sugarcane land use and water resources assessment in the expansion area in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016;133:1318-1327. Egeskog A, Freitas F, Berndes G, Sparovek G, Wirsenius S. Greenhouse gas balances and land use changes associated with the planned expansion (to 2020) of the sugarcane ethanol industry in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Biomass and Bioenergy 2014;63:280-290. Nagavaparu S. Brazilian ethanol: a gift or a threat to the environment and regional development? Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper no. 07-39, Stanford University: Stanford, 2008. Epiphânio JCN, Soares JV, Ferreira HS, Câmara G.: The Chinese-Brazilian Earth Resources Satellite (CBERS) programme. In: The Full Picture, Group on Earth Observations (GEO). Geneva/Switzerland: Tudor Rose, 2007. pp.116-117. MMA, 2016. Mapas de Cobertura Vegetal: Cerrado. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/biomas/cerrado/mapa-decobertura-vegetal (Accessed on 19 March 2017). MMA, 2017. Mapas de Cobertura Vegetal: Mata Atlântica. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/biomas/mataatlantica/mapa-de-cobertura-vegetal (Accessed on 19 March 2017). Maliene V, Grigonis V, Palevicius V, Griffiths S. Geographic information system: Old principles with new capabilities. Urban Design International 2011;16:1-6. ANA, 2015. National Water Agency. Sistema Nacional de Informações Sobre Recursos Hídricos. Paranaíba – Plano de Recursos Hídricos (PRH) e do Enquadramento do Rio Paranaíba. Available at: http://www2.snirh.gov.br/home (Accessed in February 2015). Richards JA. Remote sensing digital image analysis: an introduction. Berlin: Springer-Verlarg, 1986. 281p. Mello FFC, Cerri CEP, Davies CA, Holbrook NM, Paustian K, Maia SMF, Galdos MV, Bernoux M, Cerri CC. Payback time for soil carbon and sugarcane ethanol. Nature Climate Change 2014;4:605609. IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2006. 664p. IPCC, 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPG-LULUCF). In: Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, et al., editors. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2003. 632p.


[20] IPCC, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al., editors. Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 996p. [21] Bordonal RO, Lal R, Aguiar DA, de Figueiredo EB, Perillo LI, Adami M, Rudorff BFT, La Scala N. Greenhouse gas balance from cultivation and direct land use change of recently established sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) plantation in south-central Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015;52:547-556. [22] Flynn HC, Canals LMI, Keller E, King H, Sim S. Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Global Change Biology 2012;18:1622-1635. [23] Sparovek G, Barretto AG, Matsumoto M, Berndes G. Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil. Environmental Science & Technology 2015;49:10285-10293. [24] MMA, 2017. Cadastro Ambiental Rural. Available at: http://www.car.gov.br (Accessed on 05 June 2017). [25] Oliveira DMS, Williams S, Cerri CEP, Paustian K. Predicting soil C changes over sugarcane expansion in Brazil using the DayCent model. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 2017; DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12427 (Article in Press).

9

LOGO SPACE

1483