FUELS GUIDE

SUSTAINABLE AVIATION

TRANSFORMING GLOBAL
4 OF 4

AVIATION COLLECTION
© ICAO 2017. All rights reserved.

This report was produced within the framework of the joint ICAO-UNDP-GEF assistance project
Transforming the Global Aviation Sector: Emissions Reductions from International Aviation. The views
expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the individual or collective opinions or
official positions of these organizations or their Member States.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on
maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.

The mention of specific companies or products does not imply endorsement in preference to others of
a similar nature that are not mentioned. All reasonable precautions have been taken to verify the
information contained in this publication.

However, the material is published without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy, completeness and currency of the information. ICAO and its partners expressly disclaim
all liability arising in connection with any interpretation or use of the material in this report.
PREFACE
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and its Member States are
working together to develop State Action Plans to reduce CO2 emissions from
international aviation. The development and completion of States’ Action Plans
on CO2 Emissions Reduction Activities from International Aviation requires the
establishment of a structured cooperation process amongst national aviation
stakeholders, which aims to provide the State authority with the information it
needs to set-up a long-term strategy for the mitigation of international aviation
CO2 emissions. The voluntary submission of an action plan to ICAO provides the
opportunity for States to showcase policies and actions, including tailor-made
measures that are selected on the basis of their respective national capacities
and circumstances.

Many Member States, particularly Developing States and Small Island

Developing States (SIDS), continue to investigate the institutional and financial
resources necessary to develop and implement their action plans, and the
actions therein. For example, many States, through their civil aviation authorities,
are beginning to integrate environmental programmes into their planning and
development, and these need to be coordinated with other government agencies.
Some States also endeavour to establish or improve the national regulatory and
policy frameworks necessary to encourage low carbon technology deployment,
which is critical to stimulating private sector market activity. Others would also
like to benefit from low carbon technologies that are being successfully
developed in other parts of the world. This means that the State Action Plan
initiative can be key to States developing coordinated activities aimed at reducing
CO2 emissions from international civil aviation.

ICAO has developed Doc 9988, Guidance on the Development of States’ Action
Plans on CO2 Emissions Reduction Activities, which aims to support Member
States as they develop and implement their Action Plans. As of January 2018,
106 States representing more than 90.8 per cent of global revenue tonne
kilometres (RTK) have voluntarily submitted their Action Plans to ICAO. Doc 9988
presents the basket of measures that Member States can consider for reducing
CO2 emissions from civil aviation. One important opportunity for ICAO Member
States to achieve their environmental and carbon emissions reduction objectives
is through the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

The purpose of this guidance is to inform ICAO Member States on how

sustainable aviation fuels can be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions from
international aviation activities, and describes fuel production pathways, usage
constraints, environmental and other benefits, and policy perspectives on the use
and development of these fuels.

Together with guidance documents on Renewable Energy for Aviation, Financing

Aviation Emissions Reductions, and Regulatory and Organizational Framework to
address Aviation Emissions, this guidance on sustainable aviation fuels will
contribute to ICAO’s comprehensive approach to support its Member States in
the implementation of their Action Plans in order to address CO2 emissions from
international civil aviation.

ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
AFTF Alternative Fuels Task Force
ASA Aeropuertos y Servicos Servicios Auxiliares
ATJ Alcohol-to-Jet
BC Biochemical Conversion
BEFS Bioenergy and Food Security
CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
CAF Conventional Aviation Fuel
CAAFCER Canada’s Civil Aviation Alternate Fuel Contrail and Emissions Research project
CAAFI Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
CARB California Air Resource Board
CBSCI Canada’s Biojet Supply Chain Initiative
CORSIA Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
dLUC Direct Land Use Change
DOE Department of Energy
DSHC Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbons
EU European Union
EU RED European Union Renewable Energy Directive
EU-ETS European Union Emission Trading Scheme
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FT Fischer-Tropsch
GBEP Global Bioenergy Partnership
GEF Global Environment Facility
GFAAF Global Framework for Aviation Alternative Fuels
Gha Giga hectare
GHG Greenhouse Gas
ha Hectare
HEFA Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids
HFS Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars
HTL Hydrothermal Liquefaction
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IEA International Energy Agency
iLUC Indirect Land Use Change
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
ISCC International Sustainability & Carbon Certification
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LUC Land Use Change
MBM Market Based Measures
ML Megalitre
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NISA Nordic Initiative for Sustainable Aviation
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RINs Renewable Identification Numbers
RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials
RTK Revenue Tonne Kilometre
SAF Sustainable Aviation Fuels
SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices
SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
SDGs UN Sustainable Development Goals
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SIP Synthetic Iso-paraffin
SPK Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene
UCO Used Cooking Oil
UNDP United National Development Programme
WWF World Wildlife Fund

iii
CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Symbols iii!

Contents iv!
Figures v!
Tables v!
Background 1!

1.0! Introduction 3!
1.1.! The work of ICAO on Environmental impacts and Climate Change 3!
1.2.! The work of ICAO on Sustainable Aviation Fuels 4!
1.3.! The work of ICAO on a Global Market-Based Measure 6!

2.0! Sustainable Aviation Fuels 8!

2.1.! The growing interest in SAF 8!
2.2.! The essential “drop-in” concept 9!
2.3.! Emissions reductions from SAF 10!
2.4.! Drivers to develop SAF 10!

3.0! Conditions for promoting SAF 12!

3.1.! Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities 12!
A. Government institutions 12!
B. Airlines 13!
C. Aviation equipment manufacturers 14!
D. Fuel producers 15!
E. Aviation fuel distributors 15!
3.2. ! National conditions to develop a SAF market 15!
A. Legal and regulatory framework 15!
B. Infrastructure 16!
C. Agriculture potential for feedstock production 17!
D. Residues and wastes as feedstock 20!

4.0! How to produce SAF 22!

4.1.! Approved conversion processes 23!
4.2.! Feedstock options 24!
4.2.1. Sugar/starch feedstocks 24!
4.2.2. Oil feedstocks 24!
4.2.3. Lignocellulosic feedstocks 26!
4.3.! Processing routes 28!
4.3.1. ! Lipids conversion 28!
4.3.2. ! Thermochemical conversion 29!
4.3.3. ! Biochemical conversion 30!
4.4. ! Sustainability of aviation fuels 30!
4.4.1. ! Environmental issues 30!
4.4.2. ! Socioeconomic issues 32!
4.5.! Schemes for sustainability certification 32!

5.0! How to promote the use of SAF 35!

5.1.! Economic considerations 35!
5.2.! Supporting measures for SAF industry 36!
5.3.! Logistics of aviation fuels 38!
5.4.! Quality certification of SAF 39!
5.5.! Developing a national SAF programme 42!

6.0! Case studies and best practices 44!

Australia 44!
Brazil 44!
Canada 45!
European Union 45!
Germany 46!
Indonesia 47!
Mexico 47!
United States 48!

Conclusions 50!
Bibliography 51!
Annex A 55!
Sustainability concepts – Life Cycle Assessment and Land Use Changes 55!

iv
FIGURES
1-1 Expected aircraft CO2 emissions from international aviation, reflecting
contributions from the ICAO Basket of Measures towards international
aviation’s global aspirational goals
3-1 Blending mandates and targets for ethanol and biodiesel in some States
3-2 Global land use for food and bioenergy (approximate numbers)
3-3 Impacts of productivity in Brazilian agriculture ((a) evolution of cultivated area
and production of cereals and oil crops; (b) evolution of pasture area and
cattle herd)
3-4 Sugarcane agro-ecological zoning in Brazil
3-5 MSW lifecycle as a SAF feedstock
4-1 SAF pathway concept
4-2 General view of SAF pathways
4-3 Several possible processing routes to produce SAF
4-4 Main results from LCA studies for aviation fuels
5-1 Feedstocks and their relative position according to costs and technical effort to
be converted to SAF
5-2 Jet fuel retail price at United States and WTI (West Texas Intermediate) oil
prices
5-3 CBSCI Project Overview
5-4 Jet fuel quality control procedures from tanker or pipeline to depot
5-5 Jet fuel quality control procedures at airport facilities
5-6 Quality control procedures at airport apron
6-1 Number of active initiatives promoting the use of SAF each year
6-2 Fuel production facilities with capability to produce SAF
A-1 Typical product life cycle diagram
A-2 Schematic representation of direct and indirect land use change

TABLES
2-1 Typical properties of fuel grade Jet A-1 according to ASTM D1655
3-1 Stakeholder’s perception of drivers and constraints for promoting SAF
4-1 Conversion processes approved as annexes to ASTM D7566
4-2 Feedstock production in 2013
4-3 Lignocellulosic biomass production
4-4 Sustainability aspects/issues addressed under the initiatives reviewed in BEFS
5-1 Some results from the techno-economic analysis of alternative fuels
5-2 Alternative fuel blending targets set by States and aviation organizations
5-3 SAF off-take agreements
6-1 Typical support schemes for renewable energies

v
BACKGROUND
The 39th Session of the ICAO Assembly, held from 27 September to
7 October 2016, adopted Resolution A39-2: Consolidated statement of continuing
ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection — Climate
change. Resolution A39-2 reflects the determination of ICAO’s Member States to
provide continuous leadership to international civil aviation in limiting or reducing
its emissions that contribute to global climate change.

The 39th Session of the ICAO Assembly reiterated the global aspirational goals
for the international aviation sector of improving fuel efficiency by 2 per cent per
annum and keeping the net carbon emissions from 2020 at the same level, as
established at the 37th Assembly in 2010, and recognized the work being
undertaken to explore a long-term global aspirational goal for international
aviation in light of the 2°C and 1.5°C temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
The 39th Assembly also recognized that the aspirational goal of 2 per cent
annual fuel efficiency improvement is unlikely to deliver the level of reduction
necessary to stabilize and then reduce aviation’s absolute emissions contribution
to climate change, and that goals of more ambition are needed to deliver a
sustainable path for aviation. To achieve international aviation’s global
aspirational goals, a comprehensive approach, consisting of a basket of
measures has been identified, namely:

• Aircraft-related technology development – purchase of new aircraft and

new equipment to retrofit existing aircraft with more fuel-efficient
technology.

• Alternative fuels – investments in the development and deployment of

sustainable aviation fuels.

• Improved air traffic management and infrastructure use – improved use

of communication, navigation and surveillance/air transport management
(CNS/ATM) to reduce fuel burn.

• Economic/market-based measures – researching and building

awareness of low cost, market-based measures to reducing emissions
such as emission trading, levies, and off-setting.

All of these measures, in addition to contributing to carbon neutral growth,

advance the social and economic development associated with the
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

A central element of Resolution A39-2 is for States to voluntarily prepare and

submit action plans to ICAO. It also lays out an ambitious work programme for
capacity building and assistance to States in the development and
implementation of their action plans to reduce emissions, which States were
initially invited to submit by the 37th Session of the ICAO Assembly in October
2010, and update every three years thereafter. ICAO State Action Plans provide
the opportunity for States to showcase policies and actions and are intended to
be individualized and reflect the specific national circumstances of each ICAO
Member State and the opportunities available to them in implementing measures
to mitigate CO2 emissions from international aviation activities. ICAO has
prepared ICAO Doc 9988, Guidance on the Development of States’ Action Plans
on CO2 Emissions Reduction Activities, to describe the process of developing or
updating an action plan. As of January 2018, 106 States representing more than
90.8 per cent of global RTK have voluntarily submitted their action plan to ICAO.

1
This guidance has been prepared to inform ICAO Member States on how
sustainable aviation fuels can be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions from
international aviation activities, and describes fuel production pathways, usage
constraints, environmental and other benefits, and policy perspectives on the use
and development of these fuels. It is part of a series of guidance documents
developed as part of the capacity-building and assistance project implemented by
ICAO, in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
with financing from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The primary focus of
this assistance project is on identifying and facilitating the implementation of
measures to reduce CO2 emissions from international civil aviation. With the
support of GEF and UNDP, ICAO is working with SIDS and developing States to
strengthen their national capacities and improve national processes and
mechanisms for the reduction of aviation emissions by:

• improving understanding the costs and environmental benefits

associated with implementation of various mitigation measures for
international aviation emissions;
• enhancing policy framework through a series of policy instruments,
including the development of guidance documents;
• sharing knowledge and resources through an integrated
environmental portal, as well as other awareness-raising initiatives;
and
• developing Pilot Projects, such as the installation of solar technology
at airports, thus equipping Developing States and SIDS with tools to
carry on similar projects and multiplying their environmental benefits.

This guidance will show that there are several initiatives in place for research and
development of sustainable aviation fuels, which illustrates the fast evolution
pace of the SAF industry. Therefore, the reader should be mindful that the current
guidance describes the status of the SAF industry as of November 2017.

2
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE WORK OF ICAO ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CLIMATE
CHANGE
Climate change presents a significant challenge to international aviation due to
anticipated growth in the aviation sector, the potential energy demand and carbon
emission associated with that growth, if unmitigated. Aviation has grown rapidly
and has become vital to modern life and the global economy. In 2010,
international aviation consumed approximately 142 million metric tonnes of fuel.
Until 2040, fuel consumption is only expected to increase by 2.8 to 3.9 times,
despite an expected increase in international air traffic by a factor of 4.2 over the
same period (ICAO, 2016).

The primary impacts of aviation on the environment are due to aircraft noise and
emissions. The environmental work programme of ICAO focuses on the
achievement of three key objectives: (a) to limit or reduce the number of people
affected by significant aircraft noise; (b) to limit or reduce the impact of aviation
emissions on local air quality; and (c) to limit or reduce the impact of aviation
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the global climate (ICAO, 2016).

ICAO and its Member States have set clear targets to face the challenges posed
by climate change. The 39th Session of the ICAO Assembly reiterated the global
aspirational goals for the international aviation sector of improving fuel efficiency
by 2 per cent per annum and keeping the net carbon emissions from 2020 at the
same level (as shown in Figure 1-1), as established at the 37th Assembly in
2010. To achieve international aviation’s global aspirational goals a basket of
measures has been identified, viz: Aircraft-related technology development,
Alternative fuels, Improved air traffic management and infrastructure use,
Economic/market-based measures. Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are highly
relevant as a means to reduce net CO2 emissions, depending on the feedstock
and production process adopted. Figure 1-1 shows the expected aircraft CO2
emissions from international aviation, reflecting contributions from the ICAO
Basket of Measures, including the possible impact of SAF on the evolution of life
1
cycle GHG emissions from international civil aviation.

FIGURE 1-1
Expected aircraft CO2
emissions from international
aviation, reflecting
contributions from the ICAO
Basket of Measures towards
international aviation’s global
aspirational goals
(Source: ICAO, 2016)
1
Life cycle GHG emission refers to greenhouse gas emissions from feedstock production (or
collection, in the case of wastes) and processing to produce SAF, to that fuel's final use.

3
1.2. THE WORK OF ICAO ON SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS
The 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly recognized the many actions that ICAO
Member States have taken and intend to take in support of the achievement of
the collective aspirational goals, including the development and deployment of
sustainable alternative fuels, and encouraged further such efforts (Resolution
A38-18, paragraph 8).

The Assembly also requested States to recognize existing approaches to assess

the sustainability of all alternative fuels in general, including those for use in
aviation which should (Resolution A38-18, paragraph 32 j)):

i. achieve net GHG emissions reduction on a life cycle basis;

ii. respect the areas of high importance for biodiversity,
conservation and benefits for people from ecosystems, in
accordance with international and national regulations; and
iii. contribute to local social and economic development, and
competition with food and water should be avoided;

In order for an aviation fuel to be considered a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), it

will need to meet sustainability requirements. ICAO is currently developing
sustainability criteria as part of the work on the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction
Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

The first generation of alternative fuels, generally referred to as “biofuels”, are

produced from biogenical sources, such as crops, which can be subject to
additional sustainability concerns beyond carbon reduction (competition with food
and water, land-use changes, among others). However, current technology
allows the production of fuels from non-biogenical sources, such as municipal
wastes, used cooking oil, and agricultural residues, which raise fewer
sustainability issues. This diversification of feedstocks facilitate the production of
SAF with less dependence on specific natural resources or land availability,
allowing the establishment of SAF industries in a variety of States (developing
and developed). It will also allow the production of SAF closer to airports, which
will reduce costs associated with fuel transportation. This flexibility is expected to
help the ramp up of SAF production.

The Assembly also requested the ICAO Council to “adopt measures to ensure
the sustainability of alternative fuels for aviation, building on existing approaches
or combination of approaches, and monitor, at a national level, the sustainability
of the production of alternative fuels for aviation” (Resolution A38-18, paragraph
32 j)).

To fulfil these Assembly requests, in 2013 the ICAO Committee on Aviation

Environmental Protection (CAEP) established an expert group, the Alternative
Fuels Task Force (AFTF), to provide technical input regarding the replacement of
conventional aviation fuels (CAF) with SAFs. During the CAEP/10 cycle (from
2013 to 2016), AFTF was tasked with providing information related to alternative
fuels for inclusion in the ICAO environmental trends projections. This involved the
definition of a methodology for assessing fuels life cycle emissions, and
projections of scenarios for alternative fuel production up to 2050, with the final
objective of assessing the possible range of emissions reductions from the use of
alternative fuels. The final results of this analysis were presented during the 39th
Session of the ICAO Assembly (ICAO, 2016).

4
In addition, the CAEP has ongoing work in regard to calculating the land use
change emissions attributable to alternative fuels developed from various
feedstocks, calculating their default life cycle emissions values, developing
guidance on potential policies, and developing a set of sustainability criteria that
aviation fuels must meet in order to be considered sustainable by ICAO. These
sustainability criteria are currently under consideration by ICAO.

In October 2017, ICAO convened its second Conference on Aviation and

Alternative Fuels (CAAF/2) in Mexico City, Mexico. Building on the first such
ICAO Conference (CAAF/1) held in 2009, the CAAF/2 agreed to a Declaration,
endorsing the 2050 ICAO Vision for Sustainable Aviation Fuels as a living
inspirational path and calling on States, industry and other stakeholders, for a
significant proportion of CAF to be substituted with SAF by 2050, for international
civil aviation to reduce carbon emissions significantly, and whilst pursuing all
opportunities in the basket of mitigation measures to reduce emissions as
necessary. The Conference further agreed that the Vision would be reviewed
periodically through a stocktaking process, and elaborated at the next
Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels, to be held no later than 2025.

5
1.3. THE WORK OF ICAO ON A GLOBAL MARKET-BASED MEASURE
At the 39th ICAO Assembly, in 2016, Member States agreed on a global market-
based measure (MBM) which, together with other mitigation measures such as
operational improvements, aircraft technology and the use of sustainable aviation
fuels, will help achieve international aviation’s aspirational goal of carbon neutral
growth from 2020. This MBM will be implemented in the form of the Carbon
2
Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). In line
with Assembly Resolution A39-3, the average level of CO2 emissions from
international aviation covered by the scheme between 2019 and 2020 represents
the basis for carbon neutral growth from 2020, against which emissions in future
years must be compared.

In any year from 2021, the sector’s offsetting requirements for that year will be
the difference between the international aviation CO2 emissions covered by the
scheme and the average baseline emissions of 2019 and 2020.

The scheme will be implemented in phases, starting with participation of States

on a voluntary basis, followed by participation of all States except those States
which are exempt from offsetting requirements, as follows:

• Pilot phase (from 2021 through 2023) and first phase (from 2024
through 2026) would apply to States that have volunteered to
participate, and
• Second phase (from 2027 through 2035) would apply to all States
that have an individual share of international aviation activities in
RTK in year 2018 above 0.5 per cent of total RTK or whose
cumulative share in the list of States from the highest to the lowest
amount of RTK reaches 90 per cent of total RTK, except least
developed countries, SIDS and landlocked developing countries
unless they volunteer to participate in this phase.

All ICAO Member States with aeroplane operators conducting international flights
are required to undertake the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of CO2
emissions from these flights from 2019. In addition, States can decide to
participate in the coverage of the CORSIA offsetting requirements from 2021.
Offsetting requirements under CORSIA apply to all international flights on the
routes between the participating States. Flights between a participating State and
a non-participating State are exempted from offsetting requirements. For the
flights between participating States, aircraft operators need to offset emissions
above the baseline emissions level.

Within CORSIA, operators may address their emissions commitments by

offsetting emissions through the reduction of emissions either in the aviation
sector or elsewhere, involving the concept of “emissions units”. There are two
main types of emissions units: “offset credits” from crediting mechanisms and
“allowances” from emissions trading schemes. Therefore, offsetting could be
through the purchase and cancellation of emission units arising from different
sources of emission reductions that are achieved through mechanisms,
programmes, or mitigation projects.

2
Further details about CORSIA can be found at www.icao.int.

6
Assembly Resolution A39-3 requests the development of a methodology “to
ensure that an aircraft operator’s offsetting requirements under the scheme
[CORSIA] in a given year can be reduced through the use of sustainable
alternative fuels, so that all elements of the basket of measures are reflected”
(Resolution A39-3, paragraph 6). To address this request, CAEP has developed
recommendations on a procedure to determine how operators with offsetting
requirements in CORSIA will be able to claim emissions reductions from the use
of SAF, in which operators can deduct their SAF CO2 benefits from their
offsetting requirements.

In order for an operator to be able to claim emissions reductions from the use of
aviation fuels, the fuel has to be categorized as a SAF, for which it will have to
meet a set of sustainability criteria to be established by ICAO. Amongst the
considerations for such a criteria is the need for a SAF to provide environmental
benefits in terms of a net CO2 reductions of at least 10 per cent compared to CAF
on a life cycle basis. In addition, the SAF will have to be produced by fuel
producers that are certified by an ICAO-approved sustainable certification
scheme. For such a scheme to be approved by ICAO, it will have to meet a set of
requirements to be determined by ICAO.

7
2.0 SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS
Since SAF were accepted as an emission mitigation measure for international
aviation, significant progress has been made in regard to the production,
certification and commercial use of SAF. This chapter describes the concept of
sustainability in regard to SAF and key factors that make these fuels an
appropriate means for reducing emissions.

2.1. THE GROWING INTEREST IN SAF

Although revolutionary aircraft technologies have been proposed to reduce fuel
consumption, such as propellers electrically powered by photovoltaic cells, fuel
cells, or ultracapacitors, large commercial aircraft have no alternatives to liquid
fuel for the near- to mid-term. After half a century of development, gas turbines
are reliable, economically competitive, have a superb power/weight ratio and
allow excellent range because of the high energy density of liquid fuels.

In this regard, drop-in SAF (as described in section 2.3) are the most promising
near-term options. These fuels use the same fuel distribution infrastructure and
aircraft engines already in use, with the advantage of reduced GHG emissions.
The production of SAF is described further in Chapter 4 of this guidance
document.

In the context of commercial airlines, the interest in SAF is often associated with
reducing their dependence on CAF (Daggett and others, 2008), as well as being
a valuable marketing tool.

By November 2017, five conversion processes to produce SAF had been certified
and over 100,000 commercial flights had been completed using these fuels.
Thus, SAF production and logistics facilities are being progressively deployed,
gradually introducing SAF into airlines’ regular operations.

8
 2.2. THE ESSENTIAL “DROP-IN” CONCEPT
The commercial aviation industry has adopted rigorous safety standards and
procedures in the operation and maintenance of its equipment, which imposes
stringent quality standards for the fuel used to power aircraft. Considering that
aircraft are often refuelled in different States, including some States that have
3
national standards for jet fuel , blending jet fuels within an aircraft fuel tank are
often from different sources. Therefore, it is required that these technical fuel
specifications are harmonized.

The standard most widely used to define the kerosene-type fuel for commercial
aircraft is ASTM D1655 standard specification for aviation turbine fuels, which
presents the specifications for Jet A-1 fuel, setting its requirements for
composition, volatility, fluidity, combustion, corrosion, thermal stability, materials
compatibility, water contamination, and additives such as “antioxidants, metal
deactivators, fuel system icing inhibitor, electrical conductivity improver, leak
detection additive, lubricity improvers, and biocides”. Values for selected
properties of Jet A-1 are summarized in Table 2-1 (ASTM International, 2015 and
ARAC, 1998).

Property Comment Value or range

3
Density @ 15°C 775.0 – 840.0 kg/m
Flash point Lowest temperature at which vapours min. 38°C
of the material will ignite, when given
an ignition source
Freezing point Temperature at which wax crystals max. -47°C
formed in the fuel as it cools
completely disappear when the fuel is
rewarmed
Aromatics content Related with smoke and soot formation max. 25%, volume
TABLE 2-1
Typical properties of fuel grade Sulphur content Produces harmful emissions max. 0.30%, mass
Jet A-1 according to ASTM D1655
(Source: ASTM, 2015 Net heat of combustion Energy liberated when completely 42.8 MJ/kg
and ARAC, 1998) burned, at constant pressure

Due to the strict quality control conditions for aviation fuels, the introduction of
fuels from different sources requires the implementation of the “drop-in” fuel
concept. Therefore, a “drop-in jet fuel blend” is a substitute for conventional jet
fuel, that is completely interchangeable and compatible with conventional jet fuel
when blended with conventional jet fuel. A drop-in fuel blend does not require
adaptation of the aircraft/engine fuel system or the fuel distribution network, and
can be used “as is” on currently flying turbine-powered aircraft.

The requirement that a fuel be “drop-in” is essential for the aviation industry
because a drop-in SAF does not need to be handled separately from CAF. Any
“non drop-in” fuel would present safety issues associated with risks of
mishandling, and would require a parallel infrastructure to be implemented in all
airports, imposing additional, higher costs.

3
For instance, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, the Russian Federation, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom have national jet fuel specifications (ExxonMobil, 2008).

9
2.3. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM SAF
The potential of SAF to reduce aviation GHG emissions has been recognized by
ICAO, Member States and the aviation industry, such that SAF are included
amongst the “basket of measures” put forward to assist States in designing their
action plans on CO2 emissions reductions. According to the ICAO 2016 trends
assessment, a 100 per cent substitution of CAF with SAF could reduce 63 per
cent of the baseline CO2 emissions from international flights in 2050. This would
be aviation’s most significant contribution towards achieving carbon neutral
growth. (Fig. 1-1)

While the combustion of SAF emits similar quantities of CO2 to the combustion of
CAF, SAF still provide an environmental benefit on a life cycle basis. A fuel life
cycle is made up of multiple steps from the feedstock to the final use in an
engine. These steps include, for example, recovery, processing, and transport of
the fuel. At each of the steps, GHG emissions are likely to be produced. The total
carbon footprint of the fuel is obtained by adding all these emissions together in a
life cycle assessment. When all those emissions are considered, SAF will result
in decreased emissions when compared with CAF. These emissions reductions
benefits will vary according to the feedstock, production practice, conversion
technology, logistics, as well as the land-use change incurred by bioenergy
expansion (see Annex A). Certain aspects of a SAF life cycle may be considered
during the sustainability certification process.

When biomass is used to develop SAF, the plants absorb CO2 for growth during
photosynthesis in relatively short time scales. The carbon that is then emitted
back into the atmosphere during combustion will return to the plants in a closed
loop. Ideally in this scenario, no additional carbon would be injected into the
biosphere as it would be the case in the use of CAF (ICAO GFAAF, 2017). When
Municipal Solid Waste or industrial waste gases are used to produce SAF, the
emissions reductions come from the multiple uses of fossil carbon.

CO2 emissions can also be generated during the production of SAF in recovery,
processing, and transport. Specific combinations of feedstock and conversion
processes used for the production of SAF, called pathways, can result in fuel life
cycle CO2 emissions that are either lower or higher than emissions from CAF.
However, only those fuels with life cycle emissions lower than CAF will be
environmentally beneficial (ICAO GFAAF, 2017). These emissions reductions
benefits will vary according to the feedstock, production practice, conversion
technology, logistics, as well as the land-use change incurred by bioenergy
expansion (see Annex 1).

2.4. DRIVERS TO DEVELOP SAF

Several SAFs are forms of bioenergy, which is a prime example of how energy
interlinks with other areas, including water, ecosystems, health, food security,
education and livelihoods, and can harness multiple benefits and sustainable
development (Nogueira and others, 2015).

However, to contribute effectively, bioenergy deployment needs to be well

planned and carefully implemented so as to avoid environmental and social risks.
If these risks are successfully mitigated, bioenergy can generate benefits and
contribute to many policy objectives, as well as to strategic demands from society
and the economy.

In the case of air transport, SAF can bolster the supply of liquid fuels, which could
be critical for airlines, considering the absence of other practical options to power
the vast majority of aircraft engines for the foreseeable future. Additionally, SAF
production facilities do not need to be situated in the same locations as
conventional oil refineries, allowing greater geographic diversification of
production (IATA, 2015).

10
The commercial-scale production of SAF also has the potential to generate jobs
and spur economic activity, especially in rural areas where feedstocks can be
cultivated. Producing bioenergy locally can harness the growth of the agricultural
sector for broader rural development, while not affecting food production. As a
labour-intensive sector, job opportunities in agriculture can be found throughout
the bioenergy value chain, which can, in turn, be the driver of economic
development and a more skilled labour force, with increasing scale and
sophistication over time.

The coproduction of bioelectricity and SAF also enables the provision of energy
services to local communities, such as irrigation, food and medicine preservation,
communication and lighting. In addition, new infrastructure built to support a
developing bioenergy sector can improve access to multiple markets, thereby
increasing overall accessibility. The growth of a domestic SAF industry could also
help net crude importers reduce exposure to foreign crude oil and refined
products.

Bioenergy can also lead to beneficial effects for biodiversity when abandoned
land, formerly used farmland, or moderately degraded land, is used and
rehabilitated via a systemic approach to produce biomass. In terms of health
effects, bioenergy production systems based on crop and urban solid residues in
particular have higher potential to improve air quality (e.g. mitigation of ozone,
particulate matter, acid-forming compounds, carcinogens) in the vicinity of areas
where these residues are dumped and burned in open-air (Dale and Ong, 2014).
The use of Municipal Solid Waste can also help to address problems and costs
associated with waste management in urban centers.

A critical analysis of all these drivers, built on over 2,000 scientific studies and
major assessments, was carried out under the aegis of the Scientific Committee
on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), and the results are presented in the
SCOPE Bioenergy & Sustainability report (Souza and others, 2015). The report’s
authors see both practical and ethical imperatives to advance bioenergy in light of
its potential to meet pressing human needs not easily addressed by other
renewable energy sources. However, the report acknowledges that although
bioenergy can be potentially beneficial, it does not mean that it necessarily will
be.

Research and development, good governance, and innovative business models

are essential to address knowledge gaps and foster innovation across the value
chain. By implementing these measures, the authors of the SCOPE report argue
that a sustainable future would be more easily achieved with bioenergy than
without it, and that not using the bioenergy option would result in significant risks
and costs for regions, States and the planet.

11
 3.0 CONDITIONS FOR PROMOTING SAF
This chapter presents the main issues that are important for the development and
deployment of SAF, focusing on the role of different stakeholders and specific
national circumstances, such as the legal framework and other issues that must
be taken into account, with examples and recommendations.

3.1. STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Civil aviation is a global business, operating under international rules and
protocols, including the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)
adopted by ICAO. In addition, airlines are bound by the national regulations of the
States in which they operate. Therefore, national authorities are important
stakeholders in promoting innovation in the biofuels industry through research
and development.

Diverse stakeholders are directly involved in developing and deploying SAF

including government institutions (e.g. civil aviation authorities, environmental,
regulatory and financial agencies, and research and development institutions),
airports, airlines, aircraft and associated equipment manufacturers, fuel
producers and aviation fuel distributors.

Table 3-1 presents the drivers and constraints to the introduction of SAF from a
stakeholder perspective. The drivers include the relevance of environmental
issues and concerns with energy security and lack of technology. Among the
constraints are agriculture (feedstock) supply, fuel quality and infrastructure, as
well as the economic and environmental aspects. It is important to recognize
these issues when defining roles and responsibilities, to properly motivate,
commit and coordinate stakeholders’ actions to foster innovation in SAF.

Drivers Constraints
Need for reducing emissions Feedstock supply readiness
TABLE 3-1 Oil price fluctuation and fuel insecurity High costs and funding
Stakeholders’ perception Carbon price Sustainability
of drivers and constraints Lack of alternative technology Policy incentives
for promoting SAF
(Source: Adapted from Gegg
New growth market for biofuels Fuel consistency and infrastructure
and others, 2015) Green public relations Funding for public relations

A. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
Public policies are very important for fostering a national SAF industry.
Governments can adopt diverse mechanisms, including legislation (with regard to
environment and fuel quality specification), taxation, and support measures,
among others. Governments should therefore define the goals and targets
needed to develop a SAF market, to evaluate the impacts, benefits and
implications, and coordinate the different public agencies and institutions needed
to achieve them. This should be done in cooperation with the private sector.

In an increasing number of States, the government has introduced regulatory

agencies to implement and monitor national policies for the energy and transport
sectors. These agencies are important players in the context of SAF
development.

12
 An example of governmental measures instituted for adopting alternative fuels is
the mandatory introduction of ethanol and biodiesel for automotive use, by
adjusting the vehicular fuel quality specifications to meet environmental and
sustainable development objectives. These biofuels have been progressively
adopted in some States through national blending mandates, as presented in
Figure 3-1. Taking into account alternative fuel demand, mandatory blending is a
powerful measure to promote its use and production however, as only the
domestic fleet consumes such fuels the supply and consumption are limited.

FIGURE 3-1
Blending mandates and
targets for ethanol and
biodiesel in some States
(Source: Souza and
others, 2015) "
The approach for SAF must be different compared with road transport since SAF
is used in a global market and needs to comply with international regulations.
Some States may consider voluntary or mandatory blending of SAF with CAF.

A second important issue for national governments is to develop and implement

measures to improve the economic feasibility of SAF projects to mitigate risks
generally associated with innovation. With this aim, a differentiated tax regime
and special financing lines can be used to reduce operational costs and
investment in projects for SAF production and use. Other actions to reduce risk
perception are information and demonstration programmes, such as developed in
Mexico by the Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (ASA), a federal agency in
charge of management and operation of Mexican airports, including aviation fuel
supply.

Research and development institutions, frequently under government control or

supported by governmental funds, should be encouraged to participate in SAF
initiatives. There is a wide scope of subjects to be studied, from basic research to
more specific and applied themes. This covers feedstock production, processing
and final use. In that sense, research and development institutions can provide
valuable assistance in studying processes and systems, and developing and
implementing evaluation methodologies.

Chapter 5 addresses some practical and operational aspects of promoting the

use of SAF, focusing on economic competitiveness and logistical issues that are
generally under government control. Chapter 6 discusses national initiatives to
foster the development of a SAF market, highlighting the role of the government
in this task.

B. AIRLINES
Many airlines have shown a clear interest in SAF and have been participating in
their development from the outset. The initial concerns about safety have been
resolved with the “drop-in” concept. In addition to the safety aspects, airlines are
concerned about fuel costs and environmental benefits.

13
Blending SAF can represent an increase in operating costs, which represents a
substantial portion of an airline’s budget. Depending on the production pathway
adopted, the price of SAF could be 1.5 to 3 times the price of CAF, which is a
clear economic burden for airlines. However, R&D efforts can help to reduce
productions costs of SAF, as has been demonstrated by the United States
Department of Energy (DOE). Through this research, the DOE found that the
projected cost of fuel produced through fast pyrolysis, one possible SAF
production pathway, at full-scale production has decreased by 75 per cent (U.S.
DOE, 2016).

Additionally, recognizing the benefits of using SAF, as well as the negative

4
externalities associated with CAF, this additional cost can be shared between
society (economic support backed by the Treasury) and the airline customers
(charged in the ticket price), by implementing a balanced tax regime.

The deployment of SAF corresponds to an environmentally responsible

perspective on the part of airlines, an action in favour of mitigating climate
change. By the end of 2017, over 25 airlines have carried out over 100,000 flights
using a blend of alternative fuels.

As an indication of airlines’ interest in SAF, associations bringing together

airlines, aircraft manufacturers, environmental non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), research institutions and academia have been created to promote this
technology and educate stakeholders and consumers. These airline and multi-
stakeholder associations are discussed in Chapter 6 and provide a good source
of information for States willing to move towards developing and deploying SAF.

C. AVIATION EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

Air transport equipment needs to meet rigorous operational and safety standards.
Aircraft, their systems and parts, such as engines and the fuel delivery system,
as well as all associated infrastructure and airport systems directly related to fuel
transport, storage and fuelling operations should be reliable and with good
performance across all expected operational conditions. Therefore, aviation fuel
quality is crucial and aviation equipment manufacturers have expressed interest
in adopting SAF. As an example, in 2012 Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer signed a
memorandum of understanding to work together on developing drop-in,
affordable SAF, aiming to “support, promote and accelerate the availability of
sustainable new jet fuel sources” (Boeing, 2013).

For manufacturers, as for airlines, the concept of drop-in SAF is a fundamental

principle, as it requires that to certify a pathway for producing SAF, the fuel
should behave similarly to CAF, not affect any equipment, and not require any
change in the equipment material and operational conditions. Although producing
SAF under these constraints means a challenge for the biofuels industry, it also
represents safety for the aviation industry and generates interest in the use of this
fuel.

Aiming to participate in the development of SAF, several aircraft manufacturers

have sponsored national studies on perspectives for the production and use of
SAF, assessing feedstock production, processes, logistics and legislation for
introducing drop-in SAF. These studies are important initial steps for any State
that aims to deploy a SAF market, and the endorsement of equipment
manufacturers increases their value. Aircraft manufacturers have also supported
and followed several experimental flights using alternative fuels on their aircraft.

4
Negative externalities are market distortions that occur when a product costs more to society than to
its consumer. For instance, a polluting product can cost more to society than its shelf price.

14
D. FUEL PRODUCERS
Although there are several companies currently producing other alternative fuels,
the regular production of SAF is still limited to a single facility at the moment. SAF
needs to meet the same high quality standards as CAF, which is a challenge for
fuel producers. On the other hand, there are several options of feedstock and
conversion process for SAF production, which can facilitate the expansion of SAF
production by different fuel producers.

To date, five alternative fuel conversion processes have been certified by ASTM,
an international technical standards organization, while other processes are in
development. This diversity of options and relative immaturity of the processes
can be assumed as a risk for fuel producers, since a new process can reach
higher performance and displace those already established.

Under these conditions, deploying a SAF production system represents an

uncertain venture, deserving support or imposing high financial return.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that after an initial learning stage and
consolidation, aviation fuel production will operate sustainably, with progressive
costs reduction, as observed in the introduction of other innovative technologies.

E. AVIATION FUEL DISTRIBUTORS

It is understandable that, for the owners and operators of the production and
distribution infrastructure for CAF, the arrival of new players can represent a
market risk. Therefore, it is important to understand that fuel distributors are
essential participants in this market. As suppliers and handlers of SAF, they must
have the knowledge to comply with the regulations and procedures required by
the aviation fuel market.

3.2. NATIONAL CONDITIONS TO DEVELOP A SAF MARKET

Should a State determine to pursue the development and deployment of SAF,
some basic conditions must be met. Assuming that the necessary financing will
be available and the international regulations and guidelines, such as the drop-in
principle and certificated processes will be respected, it will be important to
carefully evaluate the legal framework, the infrastructure needed and the
potential for feedstock production.

A. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The legal framework and associated institutional structure represents the first
condition to be considered. A clear definition is needed of the responsibilities
related to the fuel quality specifications, and their monitoring and enforcement
through the adoption of transparent and consistent procedures. Legislation with
clear rights and restrictions represents an important signal of government
commitment to foster SAFs, and thus can reduce the risk to market players.
Otherwise, the lack of legislation to regulate the aviation and fuel sectors
appropriately can be considered as a barrier to the deployment of SAF.

In addition to the legislation and regulations directly related to the fuel

specifications, production and commercialization of SAFs, the legal aspects of
environmental protection are also important to consider in order to effectively
promote SAF. For instance, laws to preserve natural resources, water sources,
biodiversity, and to protect native fauna and vegetation help to avoid the
implementation of unsustainable production processes.

Along the same lines, the appropriate zoning of urban and agro industrial
residues, enforced by legislation, can help to promote the use of these materials
as feedstock for SAF (Boeing and others, 2013).

15
Another field of legislation, more associated with crop-based fuel production is
labour rights, which refers mainly to those workers involved in the agricultural
activities associated with feedstock production. Crop-based SAF production can
be labour-intensive and it is important to ensure, as an indicator of sustainability,
that its social benefits are guaranteed.

It is also important to evaluate legislation to ensure that it does not impose

constraints on small and independent producers, mainly with respect to feedstock
5
production . It is equally important to provide effective monitoring and enforcement
resources to ensure that the legislation in place will be observed.

B. INFRASTRUCTURE
The feasibility of SAF production depends directly on the availability of
sustainably produced feedstock at competitive costs, which in turn is a direct
function of the existing supply infrastructure, such as roads and storage systems.
For instance, for biodiesel and ethanol, the feedstock cost at the conversion plant
gate corresponds to about three quarters of the final cost of the fuel, with an
important contribution of the transport cost.

The cost of SAF is also subject to a trade-off between the costs of land and
freight. In areas near processing plants or with good infrastructure, the cost of
land is generally high, while in areas distant from those plants or without
infrastructure, the cost of land is lower, but the transport of raw material has a
greater impact on the final fuel cost.

Thus, to promote competitive SAF production, it is important to expand and

reinforce the transport infrastructure, such as roads and storage systems, which
also bring better conditions for producing other agricultural goods. The same
consideration is valid for waste collection and transport, regarding the distance
between the place where it is available and the processing plant.

The infrastructure for SAF transport and storage is a minor concern compared
with feedstock availability. SAF are generally transported from the producer in
trucks and blended at the distributor’s terminals, requiring relatively simple
equipment and tanks. The amount of product to be transported, at least
considering the conditions observed in developing States, does not justify the
adoption of other possibilities, such as pipelines.

5
Ensuring that feedstock prices are fair and independently established and setting a tax regime with
some level of exemption for small-scale producers are examples of legislation oriented to protecting
small and independent feedstock producers.

16
C. AGRICULTURE POTENTIAL FOR FEEDSTOCK PRODUCTION
Agriculture is one possible source of feedstock for SAF production. However, the
agricultural potential for sustainable production of SAF feedstocks should
consider other land uses (e.g. food production), and environmental constraints,
such as biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage, and the conservation of water
resources. This subject has been intensively studied in the last decade, which
significantly improved the base of information on land availability and constraints
(Souza and others, 2015).

The planet has 13 Billion Hectares (Gha) of land area. Forests, deserts,
mountainous areas and urban areas encompass around 62 per cent of this land
(8.09 Gha), which leaves around 4.91 Gha of land available for agriculture
(FAOSTAT, 2014), from which 4.49 Gha are considered “Very Suitable” or
“Suitable” for agriculture (Fisher and others, 2011).

Currently, about 1.54 Gha of land are being used for annual and permanent
crops. Based on population growth forecasts, dietary trends, and projected
increases in crop production yields and water use, the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) estimates that, by 2050, an additional 0.07 Gha of land will
be needed to grow food crops by 2050, resulting from an increase in agriculture
of 0.13 GHa in developing countries, and a decrease of 0.06 Gha in developed
countries (FAO, 2012). This means that 1.61 Gha will be required for feeding
directly or indirectly the world population in 2050, or about 33 per cent of global
land suitable for agriculture (FAO, 2014).

These numbers show that, in theory, around 3.28 Gha would be available to
expand agriculture. However, excluding the land required for urban settlements
and infrastructure, forests, and protected areas for biodiversity in the next
decades, results around 1.41 Gha of land potentially available for increase non-
food agricultural production, including bioenergy production (FAO, 2012). A large
portion of this land available is in developing States: 0.45 Gha in sub-Saharan
Africa and 0.36 Gha in Latin America (FAO, 2015), most as pasture or rangeland,
with very low productivity, making pasture intensification an important way to
improve land use and protein production (Morishige and others, 2010).

As a consequence of this land availability, detailed studies presented by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy
Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), as well
as environmentally motivated NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and
Greenpeace, have indicated that bioenergy can provide a substantial share of
future world energy consumption. In some scenarios developed for these studies,
bioenergy is the largest primary energy source supporting humanity in 2050
(Souza and others, 2015).

These estimates of bioenergy potential vary depending on the assumptions

adopted, but based on two comprehensive aggregated studies (IPCC, 2014;
Slade et al.,2014), between 0.05 Gha and 0.2 Gha of land could be used to
produce bioenergy by 2050, which would generate additionally from 100 to 200
EJ/year. This would represent from 7 to 22 per cent of the world energy demand
in 2050, in an intermediate scenario in terms of assumptions (GEA, 2012).

A synthesis of this land availability and current land use is presented in

Figure 3-2, which also presents the estimated potential for bioenergy production.

17
 FIGURE 3-2
Global land use for food
and bioenergy
(approximate numbers)
(Source: adapted from Souza
and others, 2015)

According to these data and considering best practices in agricultural production,

given the estimated demand and the actual yields of biomass, there is sufficient
land to cover the global needs of the four “f’s” – food, feed, fibres and fuel – in the
foreseeable future.

It should also be noted that most of these studies focused on the availability of
land for either food or bioenergy production. However, current land management
practices such as rotation crops and pasture intensification can allow a relevant
increase in the production of animal protein, staple food and feed crops in the
same land, without competition between them.

There is no simple linear relationship between cultivated land and agricultural

production, as productivity gains have been promoted, with relevant results of
best agricultural practices, improvement in plant varieties and appropriate use of
fertilizers, among other measures.

Brazil offers a good example of the potential of productivity increase by adopting

modern practices. As depicted in Figure 3-3, over the last 35 years the
production of cereals and oil crops have grown at an annual rate of 3.6 per cent,
while the cultivated area expanded on average at just 0.7 per cent per year. In
cattle ranching, the pasture area was reduced by 8 per cent, but the herd
increased by 155 per cent. Farm production clearly depends on much more than
just the area cultivated (Nogueira and others, 2013).
!180!! 250"
!160!!
!140!! !!Area!(thousand!ha)! 200"

FIGURE 3-3 !120!!

!100!! !!Produc<on!(thousand!tonne)! 150"
Impacts of productivity in
!80!!
Brazilian agriculture !60!!
100"
""pasture"area"(million"ha)"
((a) evolution of cultivated area !40!! 50"
and production of cereals and !20!! ""ca9le"herd"(million"head)"

oil crops; (b) evolution of !"!! 0"

1978! 1981! 1984! 1987! 1990! 1993! 1996! 1999! 2002! 2005! 2008! 2011! 1970" 1975" 1980" 1985" 1990" 1995" 2000" 2005" 2010"
pasture area and cattle herd)
(Source: Nogueira (a) (b)
and others, 2015)
!
These values reflect the global average, and a detailed assessment should be
done at State level to identify the actual potential for promoting SAF production,
which depends on factors such as current land use, climate, infrastructure,
environmental or other kind of restrictions (degraded areas, national parks, high
declivity regions, low fertility or rocky soils, etc.).

18
 An interesting approach to dealing with these issues is agro-ecological zoning for
a bioenergy-prone culture in a given region or State. By using geographic
information system (GIS) tools, it is possible to establish different layers with
different characteristics and integrate them to plot a map with the zones best
suited or not to promote feedstock for SAF production. For example, the
Government of Brazil adopted this approach for zoning expansion of the
sugarcane and palm oil crops to improve the sustainability of crop-based fuel
production.

In the Brazilian agro-ecological zoning for sugarcane, shown in Figure 3-4,

19.3 million ha were considered to have the potential for high yield (greater than
81.4 ton/hectare), and 41.5 million ha are considered to have average potential
(73.1 tonne/hectare). Among other restrictions, the following areas are excluded:
(a) land with slopes greater than 12 per cent (a limit imposed by mechanical
harvesting); (b) areas with native vegetation; (c) Amazon and Pantanal biomes;
(d) environmental protection areas; (e) areas currently in agricultural use; and
(f) reserved lands (Nogueira and Capaz, 2013).

This zoning has been used by financial agents as a qualifying criterion to provide
credit for crop-based fuel projects. While the current sugarcane area represents
approximately 1 per cent of the total area of Brazil, such zoning indicated that
sugarcane production could expand to occupy 7.5 per cent of Brazilian land,
making it evident that “there is more than sufficient land to meet future demands
for sugar and ethanol projected for the next decades in domestic and foreign
markets” (MAPA, 2009).

In several developing States, particularly in the wet tropical zone, similar

conditions are available, making it both feasible and sustainable, at least from the
perspective of available land, to promote SAF production.

FIGURE 3-4
Sugarcane agro-ecological
zoning in Brazil
(Source: MAPA, 2009)

19
It is also important to consider the current experience in evaluating the
sustainability of bioenergy projects as a useful and consistent tool for assessing
aviation fuel projects and programmes. The Global Bioenergy Partnership
(GBEP) and the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) have
been working in this direction to strengthen methods, models, modelling,
data/analyses and guidance (ICAO, 2012). As a part of the ICAO CAEP’s work
on calculating the life cycle emissions of various fuel production pathways, the
impacts of land use change are also being considered.

Finally, there is increased interest in using rotation crops as feedstock for SAF
production. Rotation crops are grown on the same land as food crops, during the
period when the field would normally be left fallow. Ongoing research shows that
there can be environmental, social, and economic benefits of using SAF
feedstock in this way. One example of SAF feedstock that can be used as a
rotation crop are carinata seeds, which are the focus of several research
initiatives around the world (Klingenberg, 2017).

D. RESIDUES AND WASTES AS FEEDSTOCK

In some conditions, residues and by-products from agriculture, forestry, industries
processing organic raw material, such as food industries and sawmills, as well as
several types of municipal wastes can be considered as a valuable feedstock for
SAF production. Crucial aspects to be taken into account in feasibility studies
aiming at using these materials are the costs for collection and logistics and the
availability in amounts adequate to reach a minimum economic scale in
processing plants, which can be deployed using different technologies, as
presented in the next section. It is important to highlight that, in general, there is a
compromise between feedstock and conversion costs: cheap materials general
impose more expensive processes, as presented in Figure 5-1.

There is particular interest in MSW, since they represent a relevant concern in

many cities over the world, in terms of economic and environmental impacts, due
to the fact it requires collection, transport, treatment and final disposal, typically in
landfills.

To reduce the problems and costs associated with MSW management, after
screening and separation of recyclable materials, its use as source of energy and
feedstock for SAF has been increasingly considered, adding value and reducing
impacts and costs for handling and treatment. Additionally, the decomposition of
organic material in MSW deposited in landfills generate GHG emissions including
methane and CO2. Therefore, the diversion of MSW for the production of SAF
can avoid these landfill GHG emissions, which is an additional benefit of using
MSW to produce SAF. Figure 3-5 illustrates the life cycle of MSW as a feedstock
for SAF production.
!

20
 FIGURE 3-5
MSW lifecycle as a
SAF feedstock
(Source: adapted from
southwest-environmental.co.uk)

The use of MSW as a source of energy is possible due to its high content in
biomass, in natura or processed. Organic materials such as paper and
paperboard and food residues represents a major fraction of MSW, ranging from
59 per cent in high income countries to 69 per cent in low income countries
(World Bank, 2013). The MSW availability depends also on the income level; the
annual MSW generation is 0.21 ton/year/capita in Southern and Central Asia and
0.65 ton/year/capita in North America (IPCC, 2006).

When evaluating prospects of using residues and wastes as feedstock for

aviation biofuels production, it is necessary to consider also the costs of
opportunity, that sometimes occur due to alternative use of these materials in
other processes that may be more economically attractive or simpler to
implement in a reliable way. For instance, composting systems to produce
organic fertilizers, or the direct use of the organic fraction of MSW as a fuel,
known as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in boilers and furnaces, should be
considered. Anyway, the large availability of these residues and wastes and the
actual need of manage then properly make them a feedstock worth
consideration.

21
 4.0 HOW TO PRODUCE SAF
A fuel “production pathway” contains a sequence of stages, starting with
feedstock production, followed by its pre-treatment in order to achieve the
requirements of the conversion processes, and finally the conversion processes
to produce aviation fuel (Figure 4-1). The feasibility of fuel production is strongly
linked to the configuration of the production pathway, which includes the transport
of products through the stages.
!

FIGURE 4-1
SAF pathway concept
(Source: author)
!

This chapter introduces the main feedstocks and conversion processes that have
been studied and, in some cases, have already been approved to produce SAF.
As of November 2017, ASTM have certified alternative fuels from five conversion
processes under the standard ASTM D7566: Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene
(SPK) from the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT-SPK); SPK from Hydroprocessed
Esters and Fatty Acids process (HEFA-SPK) Synthetic Isoparaffins (SIP) from
Hydroprocessed Fermented Sugars (HFS-SIP); SPK from the Alcohol-to-Jet
process (ATJ-SPK), and FT-SPK with increased aromatic content, the so-called
synthesized kerosene with aromatics derived by alkylation of light aromatics from
non-petroleum sources (FT-SPK/A). Four types of feedstocks can be used on
these conversion processes: oil, sugar, starch, and lignocelluosic feedstocks
(Figure 4-2).

FIGURE 4-2
General view of
SAF pathways
(Source: author)

It is important to note that only alternative fuels that are certified for both quality
and sustainability should be considered for widespread use. This chapter
presents the production pathways already certified for use in commercial aviation,
as well as the sustainability indicators (environmental and social aspects) of the
main pathways (certified and in development), and the schemes for sustainability
certification relevant to aviation fuels. Only pathways certified for quality and
sustainability should be considered for supplying drop-in SAF.

22
 4.1. APPROVED CONVERSION PROCESSES
The operating conditions in the aviation sector, with fuel supply in different States
and high safety requirements, demand strict quality assurance of fuel, based on
globally accepted standards.

Complementary to its general standard for aviation turbine fuels (ASTM D1655),
in 2009 ASTM introduced a standard for alternative drop-in aviation fuels, ASTM
D7566, related to the specification for aviation turbine fuel containing synthetized
hydrocarbons (ASTM, 2016). Every time a new process is certified, this standard
is amended, incorporating a new annex.

As of July 2017, there were five conversion processes approved for SAF
production under the standard ASTM D7566, which also specifies blending limits
with CAF (as shown in Table 4-1). The first certified conversion process was
announced in 2009, the FT-SPK, derived from coal, natural gas or biomass. Its
current restriction blend is 50 per cent (in volume terms).

In 2011, the HEFA-SPK process was approved, with the same current restriction
blend (ASTM, 2011). The HFS-SIP process, restricted to 10 per cent by blend,
was approved in 2014 . In 2016, the ATJ-SPK process from isobutanol was
certified, being eligible to be used up to 30 per cent by blend (Gevo, 2016).

Furthermore, FT-SPK with increased aromatic content (FT-SPK/A) has been

certified. Even though the certification allows for a blending with conventional Jet
A or Jet A-1 fuel up to 50 per cent by volume, the higher aromatic content may be
a route to 100 per cent SAF.

Blending Commercia-
Conversion Possible
Annex Abbreviation ratio by lization
Process Feedstocks
Volume Proposals
Fulcrum
Bioenergy,
Fischer-Tropsch
Red Rock
hydroprocessed Coal, natural
1 FT-SPK 50% Biofuels, SG
synthesized gas, biomass
Preston, Kaidi,
paraffinic kerosene
Sasol, Shell,
Syntroleum

Synthesized AltAir Fuels,

paraffinic kerosene Honeywell
Vegetable oils
produced from UOP,
2 HEFA-SPK and fats, animal 50%
hydroprocessed Neste Oil,
fat, recycled oils
esters and fatty Dynamic
acids Fuels, EERC

Synthesized iso-
paraffins produced Biomass used
3 from HFS-SIP for sugar 10% Amyris, Total
hydroprocessed production
fermented sugars
Synthesized
kerosene with
aromatics derived by Coal, natural
4 FT-SPK/A 50% Sasol
alkylation of light gas, biomass
aromatics from non-
petroleum sources

Biomass used Gevo, Cobalt,

for starch and Honeywell
Alcohol-to-jet sugar production UOP,
TABLE 4-1 5 synthetic paraffinic ATJ-SPK and cellulosic 30% Lanzatech,
Conversion processes kerosene biomass for Swedish
approved as annexes to isobutanol Biofuels,
ASTM D7566 production Byogy
(Source: ICAO GFAAF, 2017)

23
4.2. FEEDSTOCK OPTIONS
Feedstock production is the first step in producing SAF. Feedstock can be
produced from a variety of sources including agriculture, forestry, organic
residues, or other waste materials.

4.2.1. SUGAR/STARCH FEEDSTOCKS

Sugar or starch-bearing plants provide fermentable feedstock, easily transformed
into alcohol (such as ethanol or butanol), from which SAF can be obtained. In
some processes, SAF can be directly produced from sugars.

In the case of sugar-bearing plants such as sugarcane, sugar beet, and sorghum,
the fermentable sugars are readily available on the feedstock and are obtained
by mechanical processes such as milling or diffusion. The highest production of
sugar-bearing plants results from sugarcane, a semi-perennial crop. Brazil is the
major global producer, followed by India and China (see Table 4-2). Sugarcane is
generally used to produce sugar and ethanol. The sugarcane bagasse (a
by-product after the juice extraction) is also used as fuel in boilers for electricity
generation.

In the case of starch-bearing plants such as maize, wheat and cassava, the
sugars are not readily available but can be obtained from the starch through
chemical reactions. Maize is currently the mostly produced starch-bearing plant
for fuel production. Its production is concentrated in North America, with the
United States being the main producer.

Brazil and the United States produce over 85 per cent of the world’s ethanol,
using sugars from sugarcane and maize, respectively. Global ethanol production
was 98.3 billion litres in 2015 (REN21, 2016). The use of ethanol to produce SAF
is one of the pathways discussed in this chapter.

The fuel producer Amyris is currently producing fuel from sugarcane. Once a
week, from October 2014 to October 2015, Air France used a 10 per cent blend
of this fuel for operations between Toulouse and Paris. Then in 2016, a two-year
agreement was signed stating that a 10 per cent blend of Amyris/Total sugarcane
derived fuel would be used for all deliveries of Airbus A350 aircraft to Cathay
Pacific over the next two years.

4.2.2. OIL FEEDSTOCKS

Vegetable oils or oil residues can be transformed into SAF with the HEFA
process, a well-developed, widely used process which relies on hydrogen
addition.

The main oil-bearing plants in terms of the amount of vegetable oil globally
produced are palm oil and soybean. Both are currently used largely for food and
biodiesel production. Around 30 billion litres of biodiesel were produced in 2015.
The United States and Brazil are the major producers, 4.8 and 3.9 billion litres,
respectively (REN21, 2016), using soybean as the main feedstock.

The production of palm oil is relevant in tropical Asian States such as Indonesia
and Malaysia, which accounted for 82 per cent of global production in 2013 (see
Table 4-1), with an increasing participation in the biodiesel market. Besides its
higher productivity, the palm oil crop is also perennial. The plant typically requires
five years after cultivation to start commercial production, which extends about
20 years. Due to this advantage, other palm species are being evaluated for SAF
production, such as babassu (Attalea speciosa) and macauba (Acrocomia
aculeata), but the information available about these crops is still limited
(Capdeville, 2016).

On the other hand, annual oil crops such as soybean, rapeseed and sunflower
are cultivated every year, imposing higher costs and environmental impacts.

24
 Innovative plants such as jatropha (Jatropha curcas) and camelina (Camelina
sativa) have been identified as possible alternative sources of vegetable oil for
SAF production on account of their non-edible character, potential high oil yields
(see Table 4-2) and possible cultivation in marginal lands (Cortez and others,
2014; Chuck, 2016). However, these crops still do not have the same maturity
and diffusion of traditional oil crops, and therefore require more research to
confirm their potential.

Kant and Wu (2011) reported the disappointing results of jatropha crops

cultivated in some Asian States for biodiesel production. They said that technical
limitations must be overcome before it is more widely cultivated. Camelina
originated in Northern Europe and is now being experimented with across the
United States and Canada, but also without remarkable results to date.

Many initiatives have already used jatropha and camelina as feedstock for
aviation fuel production. In 2017, Egypt’s National Research Centre used treated
wastewater to successfully cultivate jatropha plants in a desert environment. The
research team extracted the plant oils to produce fuel, however they found that
the high cost was inhibitive to commercial-scale development in Egypt. The first
commercial flight to use alternative fuel in Colombia was conducted by LAN
Colombia in 2013, using a 50 per cent blend of camelina-based fuel.

The United Arab Emirates have established an aviation fuel supply chain derived
from halophoytes, plants that can be grown on arid land using salt water. While
this supply chain has not yet reached a commercial scale, Etihad Airways
performed a demonstration flight using this fuel in 2016. The partners involved in
this project, hosted by Masdar’s Sustainable Bioenergy Research Consortium,
hope to perform a commercial flight in 2018.

An additional non-food crop that can be used for the development of SAF is
modified tobacco. South African Airways conducted Africa’s first flight on
alternative fuel in 2016. This flight was a result of the Project Solaris partnership,
which brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to establish a supply
chain for locally produced feedstock for fuel production within South Africa.

Algal crops are also a potential source of vegetable oil for SAF production. They
have the advantage of a high oil yield in relation to other oil-bearing plants, with
possible accumulation of over 60 per cent lipids by dry weight. Moreover, they do
not pose competition for land use. However, control of algae cultivation and its
costs are still obstacles to be overcome, demanding research and development
to reach commercial production (Ullah and others, 2014).

Agricultural yield Global production Share of global production

Feedstock
(ton/ha) (million tons) (percentage)
Sugar/Starch-bearing plants
Brazil (39), India (18),
Sugarcane 70.7 (sugar content: 12-16%) 1 877.1
China (7)
United States (35),
Maize 5.5 (starch content: 62%) 1 016.7
China (21), Brazil (8)
Oil-bearing plants
15.7 Indonesia (45),
Palm 282.2
Oil content: 21%–37% Malaysia (37), Thailand (5)
2.5 USA (32), Brazil (30),
Soybean 276.4
Oil content: 18%–21% Argentina (18)
(1)
Camelina Up to 2.2 (seed yield)
- -
Oil content: 30%–40%
TABLE 4-2
Feedstock production in 2013 (2) 3.5 (seed yield)
Jatropha - -
(Source: FAO, 2015) Oil content: 27%–40%
(1) Data from USDA (2016). (2) Data from Chuck (2016).

25
 Included in the group of oil feedstocks are used cooking oil (UCO) and residual
animal fats from the meat-processing industry such as tallow and yellow grease.
The interest to use them, generally, is motivated by low costs and the possibility
of reducing the environmental impacts associated with their disposal.

It is estimated that 25 million tonnes of UCO and 5 million tonnes of animal fats
are produced yearly around the world (Chuck, 2016; Yakoob and others, 2013),
which, as a whole, is equivalent to 10 per cent of current world aviation fuel
production (IEA, 2016). Nevertheless, the feasibility of using this potential for SAF
production has to be well assessed considering the quality of these wastes. The
composition of UCO is different from virgin oils due to the frying process, which
significantly affects the yields of the fuel production processes. In this case, pre-
treatment processes are required. The logistics to collect UCO can also have a
high impact on the final production cost.

In 2017, Air Canada, as a part of Canada’s Civil Aviation Alternate Fuel Contrail
and Emissions Research project (CAAFCER), conducted a series of five test
flights using fuels derived from used cooking oil. This fuel was produced by AltAir
Fuels and supplied by SkyNRG. This study measured the impact of alternative
fuel blends on contrail formation. At the time this report was published, the results
of the CAAFCER study were not yet available.

4.2.3. LIGNOCELLULOSIC FEEDSTOCKS

When the sustainability of biofuels is discussed, concerns about food security are
6
raised. In this context, abundant non-food lignocellulosic material is an
interesting alternative. From this feedstock, SAF can be obtained in two ways:
thermal processes, employing high temperature reactions; and biochemical
conversion.

Wood and wood residues are examples of lignocellulosic feedstock (see

Table 4-3). This feedstock has the potential to be used for SAF production
through advanced processes. This feedstock can be obtained directly from short
rotation forestry (for instance adopting species of eucalyptus, poplar, willow and
other) or as woody residues or by-products from wood processing industries,
such as sawdust. Additionally, other sources of lignocellulosic material have been
proposed such as perennial grasses (miscanthus or switchgrass). In general,
these biomasses are characterized by their relatively high yield, low costs, and
potential to grow on marginal lands.

Biomass yield
Crop Suitable geographic location
(ton/ha/year)
Willow 5–11 Temperate
Poplar 2–10 Temperate
TABLE 4-3
Lignocellulosic biomass Eucalyptus 10–12 Temperate, subtropical, tropical
production Miscanthus 5–43 Temperate
(Source: Adapted from
Switchgrass 5–19 Temperate
Chuck, 2016)

In turn, agricultural residues refer to the biomass of the crop such as leaves,
straw, bagasse, stalks and husks. Their properties and composition are
diversified, but are typically constituted by lignocellulose. Despite their occasional
use in agriculture, their potential to produce fuels has been considered.

To illustrate, according to IEA (2010), 10 to 25 per cent of the residues could be

used sustainably without competing with traditional uses. This amount would
provide 4 to 10 per cent of global transport fuel demand in 2030 if it was used to
produce ethanol or diesel, as assumed in this report.

6
“Lignocellulose” is a general term to define the major components of vegetal biomass. They are
complex carbohydrate molecules (cellulose and hemicellulose) bonded to lignin. The amount of the
cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin varies among the different types and species of vegetable
biomass.

26
Nordic States have been particularly active in establishing wood-waste supply
chains for developing aviation fuels. The Nordic Initiative for Sustainable Aviation
(NISA), established in 2013, has brought together stakeholders from airlines,
airports, governments, fuel producers, and other organizations in order to support
research and to engage customers in contributing to the purchase of alternative
fuel. These stakeholders hope that by strengthening cooperation throughout the
supply chain and across the region that they will be able to accelerate the
commercial-scale deployment of SAF.

Finally, as introduced in the previous chapter, municipal solid waste can also be
used to produce aviation fuels from its organic or lignocellulosic share, after
removing the recyclable materials (glass, plastics and metals). The
heterogeneous composition of these wastes can be a constraint to the feasibility
of this pathway (Cortez and others, 2014).

Anyway, projects are maturing and some of them are already commissioning
facilities. Created in 2007, Fulcrum BioEnergy started in October 2017 the
operation of its first commercial-scale plant, in Reno, Nevada, designed to
process annually 200,000 tons of MSW to make 42 million liters of aviation
biofuel. In November 2017 this company launched the project of a second plant
in Illinois, aiming to supply O’Hare Airport in Chicago and informed that is
planning to implement other eight plants in the forthcoming years (Biofuels
Digest, 2017), claiming that its costs will be less than USD 0.26 per liter (IRENA,
2017). Fulcrum has established partnerships with Cathay Pacific and United
Airlines as off-taker of its product (Fulcrum Bioenergy, 2017).
!

27
 4.3. PROCESSING ROUTES
Different processing routes can be adopted to convert feedstocks into a liquid
drop-in SAF. Several combinations of feedstocks and conversion processes have
been proposed and the product of some of them has been certified to be used as
a drop-in fuel. These several possible processing routes are detailed in
Figure 4-3. The feedstocks are shown in the black boxes on the left, the
intermediary products are presented in the grey boxes. Between the feedstocks
and the final product (SAF), it is possible to observe the processes, which are
briefly described as follows:
!!

FIGURE 4-3
Several possible processing
routes to produce SAF
(Source: Adapted from Boeing
and others, 2013)
""
*CH: Catalytic hydrothermolysis – not yet approved
HDCJ: Hydrotreated depolymerized cellulosic to jet – not yet approved
!
4.3.1. LIPIDS CONVERSION
Lipids are the main component of vegetable oils and oleaginous residues.
Hydrotreating or hydroprocessing lipids can produce hydroprocessed esters and
7
fatty acids (HEFA) that have similar characteristics to CAF.

The HEFA process is currently the best-known process for producing SAF and it
is similar to refining petroleum. It consists of reacting vegetable oils in the
8
presence of hydrogen and catalysts to produce aviation fuel, naphtha, diesel and
gasoline.

7
Other names used: hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) or hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO).
8
A catalyst is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction, but is not consumed by the reaction.

28
Hydroprocessing technologies using vegetable and waste oils represent the only
conversion pathways that are ready for large-scale deployment, according to
Chuck (2016) and other studies. However, some challenges to this conversion
process must be overcome in order for it to become a competitive option:

a) High hydrogen requirement: important questions to consider are related

to the hydrogen supply – where and how to obtain it, and how much it will
cost.
b) High heat generation from the reaction, which requires rigorous process
control.
c) Continuous feed supply for large production, which suggests a well-
developed supply chain. The HEFA process is highly dependent on the
feedstock costs, which can represent up to 70 per cent of the final cost of
the fuel (Cortez and others, 2014). Therefore, the cost of feedstock
production and logistics must be well evaluated.
d) Pre-treatment of the feedstock because of the typical impurities that must
be removed from the vegetable oil to maintain high yields in the process.
The feasibility of using UCO as feedstock must be evaluated considering
possible low quality of the oil.
!
4.3.2. THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION
In this group of conversion processes, one possibility is gasification of the solid
biomass at elevated temperatures to obtain a mixture of gases, mostly carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), which is called “synthesis gas” or “syngas”.
After purification, the syngas is synthesized into a mixture of liquids and gases
containing hydrocarbon chains with different sizes, in a catalytic reaction known
9
as the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT). Depending on the temperature of the
process, the catalysts used and the post-refining steps (e.g., when the
components of the mixture are separated), it is possible to obtain products with
similar characteristics to aviation fuel.

Other thermochemical pathways have been studied but did not get approval by
ASTM to the moment, such as HDCJ: Hydrotreated depolymerized cellulosic to
jet (also known as pyrolysis), which is a thermal decomposition of biomass in an
atmosphere without oxygen, producing a gaseous, a liquid (bio-oil) and a solid
(bio-char) share. The range of the temperatures during the process and the time
of the reactions can induce the major formation of one share. In fast pyrolysis, the
bio-oil production is maximized and can be further upgraded using hydrotreating
processes, from which SAF is obtained.

Similarly, hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of biomass can produce bio-oil, with

some different characteristics to those of the bio-oil from pyrolysis. Some studies
about HTL of algae have been reported, but challenges to its commercial
production must be overcome (Biddy and others, 2013).

9
The FT process was invented in 1925 and used in Germany during the Second World War to make
liquid fuels from coal. Today, this process is used in some companies to produce gasoline, diesel and
jet fuel from natural gas.

29
4.3.3. BIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION
Two routes are included in the biochemical conversion category. In the alcohol-
to-jet (ATJ) process, SAF is produced from alcohol molecules, such as ethanol or
isobutanol, made from sugar/starch-bearing plants, lignocellulosic materials or
10
innovative processes. ATJ is composed of processes such as dehydration
(removal of water), oligomerization (conversion of small molecules in more
complex ones) and hydrogenation (addition of hydrogen). Technical
improvements in the oligomerization steps and the developments of more
selective catalysts are aspects to be considered when aiming at a competitive
production scale.

The HFS-SIP process (Synthetic Iso-Paraffins produced from hydroprocessed

esters and fatty acids, formerly known as DSHC: Direct fermentation of sugars to
hydrocarbons) employs genetically modified microorganisms to convert sugar
into hydrocarbons or lipids. In one of these cases, these microorganisms, instead
of producing ethanol, produce substances such as farnesene (synthetic
iso-paraffin (SIP)) that can be converted into a product with as good
characteristics as aviation fuel. In this specific case, the low feasibility linked to
low conversion yields is an important constraint (Cortez and others, 2014;
Moreira and others, 2014).
!
4.4. SUSTAINABILITY OF AVIATION FUELS
This section discusses the sustainability of aviation fuels, including the main
environmental, economic and social aspects of the production pathways for SAF,
covering the routes already certified and those still in research and development.
Although preliminary, this assessment is very important to rank SAF.

4.4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (see Annex A), has been used to assess the
agricultural and conversion stages of the production pathway. As reported by
Capaz and Seabra (2016), few LCA studies on SAF have been developed to date
compared with other products. This study registered 19 scientific publications
from which 17 addressed GHG emissions, a crucial indicator associated with the
climate change mitigation impact of a given fuel. The results are summarized in
Figure 4-4, comparing the specific GHG emissions for the processes. As a
function of different methodological choices, some studies presented more than
one result for a particular pathway. In these cases, methodological considerations
also explained the range of results for each pathway.

10
An innovative path for jet fuel production has been proposed by LanzaTech (www.lanzatech.com/):
The waste gas from steel mills is fermented to ethanol by bioengineered microbes, which is destined
to the ATJ process to obtain jet fuel.

30
 FIGURE 4-4
Main results from LCA
studies for aviation fuels.
(Source: Adapted from
Capaz and Seabra, 2016) "
!
In terms of GHG emissions, almost all pathways performed better than CAF
along its life cycle (without land use change (LUC) effects), with the exception of
11
HEFA from microalgae and ATJ by isobutanol from corn grains . The accounting
of avoided emissions from by-product use can justify the negative values and the
low emissions from the SAF pathway. For instance, when producing SAF by a
biochemical conversion (BC) process using sugarcane as feedstock, the
associated use of bagasse to generate electricity in sugarcane mills displaces
conventional power generation and brings an additional mitigation effect.

HEFA from oil-bearing plants has been the most studied pathway. For this fuel,
the analyses showed that the environmental performance of the plants strongly
depends on the agricultural stage and where the crops were cultivated. SAF from
jatropha and microalgae featured a wide range of variation, in part due to
methodological differences and cultivation conditions.

The ICAO CAEP is currently developing an unified methodology to assess SAF

life cycle emissions, which should help to mitigate the effect of methodological
differences in the SAF LCA values.

On the other hand, the ranges for HEFA from soybean and camelina were
narrower, without the consideration of LUC effects. In turn, HEFA from palm oil
proved to be an attractive route too. The thermochemical conversion was
analysed for FT processes. The biochemical conversion considered the ATJ
process for corn grains and the HFS process for sugarcane in Brazil.

The results in Figure 4-4 also show that LUC effects can present strong
implications for overall LCA performance. For HEFA from palm and soybean, the
results show that LUC effects can negate all the benefits of the fuel in terms of
mitigating GHG emissions. However, for the SIP-HFS with sugarcane in Brazil,
the mitigation benefit would be verified even considering the emissions from the
indirect DSHC, according to this study (Chuck, 2016)

11
LUC or Land Use Change concepts are presented in Annex A: Sustainability concepts – Life Cycle
Assessment and Land Use Changes.

31
This evaluation of the environmental benefits in producing and using SAF is still
based on a limited number of studies and will surely be improved in the coming
years. Nevertheless, the impact of SAF on mitigating GHG emissions can be very
positive, but depends on the production pathway. In this regard, the low maturity
level of some technologies and production scale has to be considered.

4.4.2. SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES

Specific studies on the social aspects of alternative fuel production have been
carried out, such as the one developed by Gilio and Moraes (2016), using
socioeconomic indicators which may be relevant for SAF. Generally, in
bioenergetic systems, the social impacts are more relevant during the agricultural
stage, involving labour conditions, labour rights, food competition, and others.
Employment generation and salaries along the supply chain must also be
considered.

4.5. SCHEMES FOR SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATION

As bioenergy policies emerged in the mid-2000s, environmental groups
pressured governments to ensure that mandates produced environmental and
social gains over the business-as-usual baseline (Endres, 2011). Thus,
sustainability certification for bioenergy arose in part due to regulatory
requirements, such as the 2009 European Union Renewable Energy Directive
(RED) and the United States Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

Yet, even before the advent of SAF sustainability certification, sustainability

regimes had been developed for a wide range of products, addressing good
resource management and responsible entrepreneurship to gain market access,
developing a green business profile, obtaining price premiums, and improving
supply chain efficiency (Pelkmans and others, 2013). These are generally
“performance-based” schemes aiming to achieve a certain standard (versus
“practice-based”),” and include a number of principles, criteria and indicators to
verify compliance.

With regard to biomass for energy, certification systems have become available
for almost all feedstocks and products covering parts of, or the complete, supply
chain, from production and processing to trade of biomass and alternative fuels.
Some of these systems exist on a national level, and others are internationally
recognized and applicable. As these systems have been developed with different
interests and priorities (governments, NGOs, companies), the scope, approach
and complexity vary from scheme to scheme (Scarlat and Dallemand, 2011;
Souza and others, 2015; van Dam and others, 2010).

Table 4-4 presents a comparison of the objectives of the initiatives covered by

the Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) project within FAO. These initiatives
include regulatory frameworks, voluntary standards/certification schemes and
scorecards. Other comparative studies can be found in the literature, such as in
Potts and others (2014), which presented a comprehensive evaluation and
comparison of the most important voluntary schemes active in the agriculture,
forestry and biofuels sectors with global reach.

A recent trend among some of these initiatives has been to expand into broader
certification schemes (Endres and others, 2015). For example, the Roundtable
for Sustainable Biofuels , which is already actively engaging with the aviation
industry, was transformed into the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials
(RSB), and the International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) now has
an ISCC+ certification to cover all end-uses.

32
 TABLE 4-4
Sustainability aspects/issues
addressed under the initiatives
reviewed in BEFS (Bioenergy and
Food Security)
(Source: FAO, 2011)

Compared with more general agricultural certification systems, alternative fuel-

specific standards are particularly required to address GHG emissions because
of the regulatory requirements for life cycle emissions mitigation in comparison to
their petroleum counterparts. Additionally, other principles frequently shared
among the initiatives for the certification of biomass, alternative fuels, and
bioenergy, including those considered by the International Air Transport
Association (IATA, 2015) for SAF, are as follows (Pelkmans and others, 2013):

• Sustainable production: Raw materials for biofuels may not come

from land that has been converted (e.g. primary forest, protected
area, highly biodiverse grassland, areas with high stocks of carbon,
or peatlands) and must come from legal sources. Raw materials in
the European Union (EU) must be cultivated in accordance with the
Common Agricultural Policy or correspond to criteria or guidelines for
Sustainable Forest Management.
• Other environmental impacts: The production, conversion and
logistics may not lead to negative impacts on soil, water and air
quality.
• Efficient energy conversion: Bioenergy chains should strive for
maximum energy efficiency in feedstock production, conversion and
logistics.
• Protection of biodiversity: The production of biomass may not
negatively affect biodiversity.

33
 • Contribute to local prosperity and welfare: Bioenergy chains
should contribute towards social well-being for employees and local
population.

Despite the overwhelming proliferation of different standards and certification

schemes in recent years, there is still no global definition of how the sustainability
concept should be translated into practice, i.e. how to measure sustainability and
which criteria and indicators should be included.

Examples of other initiatives that try to reach consensus at a high level are the
standards EN 16214 and ISO 13065. ISO 13065:2015, for instance, specifies
principles, criteria and indicators for the bioenergy supply chain, which can be
applied to the whole supply chain as well as to parts of a single process in the
supply chain. This standard, however, does not establish thresholds or limits.

Finding a common language on “what is sustainable and how it has to be

verified/documented” remains a challenge that is being addressed by ICAO in the
framework of CORSIA.

Even though these initiatives facilitate comparability of various bioenergy

processes or products (or bioenergy and other energy options), methodological
improvements can be introduced. Furthermore, impacts on a meta- or macro
level, such as on water basins or biodiversity in a larger region, the indirect land
use change effects and landscape-level carbon balances, cannot be addressed
through certification alone but need other forms of governance or legislation
(Pelkmans and others, 2013).

Some certification programmes, notably RSB, have attempted to address the

issue of indirect effects by: (a) measures to increase yield; (b) use of by-products
and residues to increase system efficiency; and (c) reduction of land
requirements by utilizing feedstocks from degraded lands, developing biomass
(e.g. algae) that can be grown on non-arable land, and feedstocks from residues
(with sustainable removal levels) and end-of-life products (without alternative
uses).

Other proposals considered by RSB included using an indirect LUC factor in

GHG calculations based on volume of production or area of land used, requiring
certified producers to help others increase yields, and contribute to indirect
impacts funds to facilitate investment in agricultural productivity gains in
developing States (Endres and others, 2015).

On a multilateral level, the GBEP also created a framework of 24 sustainability

indicators to guide and measure the government programmes and policies in the
development of biomass and bioenergy. Although this is a positive action towards
harmonization, there is still a long way to go, especially as scientific consensus
has not yet been reached.

Finally, it is important to mention that at the 39th session of the ICAO Assembly
(2016), the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
(CORSIA) was created, with the objective of addressing any annual increase in
total CO2 emissions from international civil aviation above the 2020 levels, “taking
into account special circumstances and respective capabilities” (ICAO A39-2,
2016). CORSIA will include the possibility to reduce emissions from international
aviation through the use of SAF. In order for aviation fuels to be considered under
the CORSIA, the fuels will need to meet ICAO’s sustainability criteria. Details of
the sustainability criteria will be defined within the CORSIA SARPs, under
development by ICAO.

34
 5.0 HOW TO PROMOTE THE USE OF SAF
This chapter addresses practical and operational considerations related to the
development and deployment of SAF that are associated with governmental
action; specifically, how to improve their economic competitiveness and how to
ensure an appropriate system for transport, distribution and storage of these
fuels. Both aspects are crucial to ensure a robust market for SAF. These aspects
can be also considered by a State interested in promoting the use of imported
fuels while national production is being developed. Finally, some guidelines are
presented on setting a national programme for promoting SAF.

5.1. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

From an economic perspective, an essential aspect for sustainability, Table 5-1
presents some results from detailed techno-economic analysis conducted on
alternative fuels production. Generally, all routes have been less attractive than
CAF, but the conversion of lipids (HEFA) has been reported as the best
technology available on a commercial-scale, with lower investment costs than FT
or ATJ processes, and very independent of feedstock costs. As a comparison,
the average price of United States Gulf Coast Kerosene was USD 0.59/L
between January 2013 and April 2016, when the average oil (WTI) price was
USD 76.8/bbl (EIA, 2016).
!!
!
Conversion Cost
Feedstock Reference
process (feedstock contribution)
Camelina oil $0.80/L (Natelson and others 2015)
Palm oil $0.70–0.79/L
(Hilbers and others 2015)
(75% of OPEX)
Soybean oil $1.01–1.16/L
(Pearlson and others 2013)
HEFA (up to 70%)
Yellow grease $0.88–1.06/L (MSP)*
Tallow $1.05–1.25/L (MSP)* (Seber and others 2014)
(65%–76%)
Waste oil $1,03/L (70%) (De Jong and others 2015)
Corn-stover US$ 0.90/L
(gasification)
(Agusdinata and others 2011)
Switchgrass US$ 1.10/L
(gasification)
Lignocellulose US$ 1.96/L (MSP)*
FT (Diederichs and others 2016)
(gasification)
Wood US$ 1.14–1.22/L (MSP)*
(Zhu and others 2011)
(gasification)
Wood US$ 1.13/L
(Ekbom and others 2009)
(gasification)
Sugarcane US$ 1.56/L (MSP)*
(ethanol) US$ 1.75/L (MSP)*
Corn (ethanol) US$ 2.30/L (MSP)* (Staples and others 2014)
Switchgrass
(ethanol)
TABLE 5-1 ATJ Lignocellulose US$ 1.80/L (MSP)*
(Atsonios and others 2015)
(syngas)
Some results from the
Lignocellulose US$ 2.00/L (MSP)*
techno-economic analysis (Diederichs and others 2016)
(syngas)
of alternative fuels Sugarcane US$ 2.76/L (MSP)*
(Source: author) (Diederichs and others 2016)
(ethanol)
* MSP = Minimum Selling Price
!
Figure 5-1 represents the economic trade-off observed when selecting pathways
for SAF production. In this figure, moving towards the centre of the diagram, the
feedstocks usually become more expensive, but the conversion technology is
simpler or less costly; the reverse is true moving away from the centre.
!

35
 FIGURE 5-1
Feedstocks and their relative
position according to costs
and technical effort
to be converted to SAF
(Source: Boeing and others, 2013) "

5.2. SUPPORTING MEASURES FOR SAF INDUSTRY

As a result of the relative maturity of today’s SAF industry in relation to the CAF
market, SAF are more expensive than fossil fuels, which represents a barrier that
must be addressed to build a strong, vibrant and competitive market for them.
Governments play a significant role in developing supporting mechanisms such
as tax exemption or direct subsidy, which may be needed in the early years of
building a market.

Even recognizing the advantages of SAF, the supporting measures create an

additional cost, which is a burden to be shared between the society and the air
transport sector. This means distributing the differential cost of using SAF to the
whole population and to the passengers and transporters.

A balanced approach is possible, for example with the adoption of specific tax
regimes that charge CAF and SAF differently. Such an action can, however,
affect the national budget. A mandatory blend or consumption target for biofuels
could also be implemented. However, this may directly impact airlines’
operational costs and, as a consequence, their customers.

36
 To reduce the need for support and progressively reach full market
competitiveness, reducing feedstock cost is a priority since it represents a
significant portion of the final fuel cost (around 75 per cent). To reduce this cost,
two complementary approaches can be taken (Cortez and others, 2015):

1) Increase feedstock yield: Increasing the amount and accessibility of

feedstocks is a significant issue for most agricultural materials.
Increased productivity can be achieved for even the most mature
feedstocks, such as sugarcane, through advanced genetic breeding and
crop management programmes, with promising results. Yields of non-
agricultural feedstocks, such as industrial and municipal solid wastes
can be increased through improvements in the separation process.

2) Reduce production costs (for the same yield): Strategies to reduce

feedstock production costs include genetic improvement, breeding and
crop management programmes, reducing inputs such as nutrients and
improving harvesting, and collection logistics and transportation.
Reducing production costs is equally important for non-agricultural
feedstocks, although the means to achieve the reductions are mainly
related to logistics and collection, especially in the case of residues and
wastes.

Cost-benefit analyses of production, transport, blending and distribution of SAF

have demonstrated their potential competitiveness (IATA, 2015). In the scenarios
evaluated, the base case assumed an investment of USD 260 million, covering
the cost of land, equipment and construction of a refining plant, with the cash flow
becoming positive from the third year of operation.

Assuming a conservative discount of 9 per cent, this analysis indicated a

negative net present value and an internal rate of return on the funds employed
of 3.82 per cent, indicating an unattractive project. However, if better financing
conditions are considered in the base case, such as a grant of USD$ 100 million
in the investment, an interest-free loan for 10 years of USD 150 million, or a
10 per cent subsidy in the SAF price, the project’s estimated profitability
increases significantly (IATA, 2015).

Figure 5-2 shows that aviation fuel prices have fluctuated greatly between
0.50 to 4 USD/gallon between the years 2000 and 2016. The international oil
price depends on factors such as market dynamics, political issues and
innovation processes, which makes it difficult to forecast future prices. SAF can
bring stability to the international aviation fuel market and improve environmental
performance of the world’s airlines.

4,50 (USD/gl) (USD/bbl) 160

4,00 140
Jet Fuel retail price (left axis)
3,50
WTI Oil price (right axis) 120

3,00
100
2,50
80
2,00
60
1,50

40
1,00
FIGURE 5-2
0,50 20
Jet fuel retail price at United
States and WTI
(West Texas Intermediate) 0,00 0
oil prices (Source: EIA, 2016) 2000 2002 2005 2008 2010 2013 2016

37
 5.3. LOGISTICS OF AVIATION FUELS
Aviation fuel must meet strict quality standards. Conventional aviation fuel is
produced in petroleum refineries and distributed by transportation and logistics
companies following controlled procedures and protocols to guarantee that the
product remains within specification, without deterioration or contamination during
transport and storage.

To ensure an active and viable market for SAF, public policies and commitment
from airlines are needed to introduce and support their use. This in turn fosters
infrastructure development and reinforces the creation of commercial
relationships between producers and purchasers.

This was further proven by a recent research project conducted by Canada’s

Biojet Supply Chain Initiative (CBSCI) at the Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport. This CBSCI project was focused on the logistics of
developing a supply chain that could help the airport move beyond demonstration
flights and towards the regular distribution of SAF from the airport’s main fuelling
infrastructure, as shown in Figure 5-3 below.

FIGURE 5-3
CBSCI Project Overview
(Source: Salib, 2017)

Table 5-2 summarizes targets set in some States and regions by various
stakeholders from the aviation sector. Current off-take agreements between
airlines and SAF producers are presented in Table 5-3. These mandates or
consumption targets and supply agreements are good indicators of SAF market
development.

Target
State/region Organization Timeframe
(percentage)
World Boeing 1 2016
Indonesia Government of Indonesia 2 2016

United States Federal Aviation Administration 5 2018

European Union European Commission (Biofuels Flightpath) 3–4 2020

(2 Mt)

Nordic States Nordic Initiative for Sustainable Aviation 3–4 2020

(following EU)

Germany Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in 10 2025

Germany
Israel Fuel Choice Initiative (Programme of the 20 2025
Government of Israel)

European Union European Commission (Transport White 40 2050

TABLE 5-2
Paper)
Alternative fuel blending targets set
by States and aviation organizations Australia Australian Initiative for Sustainable Aviation 50 2050
(Source: IATA, 2015, updated) Fuels

38
 TABLE 5-3
Alternative fuel off-take
agreements
(Source: ICAO GFAAF, 2017)
SAF has been progressively introduced in the market, starting with experimental
flights, then with demonstrations, followed by a significant number of commercial
flights. Following this initial stage, the regular use of SAF at select airports will
allow rapid expansion of the market.

Air traffic is concentrated in a limited number of airports, with about half of current
global cargo and passenger transport operations taking place in fewer than 50
airports worldwide (Thrän and Ponitka, 2016). As such, fuel demand is also
concentrated, providing opportunities for wide SAF distribution with limited
investment in airport fuel infrastructure.

The first airport to successfully distribute alternative fuels to all airlines on a

regular basis was Oslo Airport, Norway starting in 2015. This was achieved
through a long-term research partnership that involved academia, fuel producers,
fuel distributers, airlines, and other stakeholders. The project partners needed to
overcome administrative and legal barriers, communication issues, and cost
distribution logistics (Mosvold Larsen, 2017).

The achievement at Oslo was quickly followed by successful deployment of

alternative fuels at Los Angeles International Airport (United States, since 2016),
Stockholm Arlanda Airport (Sweden, since 2017), and Bergen Airport (Norway,
since 2017). In addition, batches of alternative fuels have been delivered to
Stockholm Bromma Airport (Sweden), Åre Östersund Airport (Sweden), Göteborg
Landvetter Airport (Sweden), Karlstad Airport (Sweden), Halmstad Airport
(Sweden), Brisbane Airport (Australia), Chicago O’Hare International Airport
(United States).

5.4. QUALITY CERTIFICATION OF SAF

The following sections reviews how fuel quality is ensured during transport and
storage operations with aviation fuels and addresses the implications associated
to fuel blending.

Fuel quality is based on two key concepts: batches and traceability, principles
that should be accomplished by SAF. The batches principle guarantees that a
minimum volume is homogeneous; and traceability imposes a custody chain
regarding the fuel specification. These principles should be observed in all States
deploying SAF and it is typically the role of the government to define the national
authority responsible for establishing and enforcing them.

39
 At the plant where the SAF is processed, blended and made ready for delivery
and use, the producer must issue a certificate of quality to certify that the batch of
fuel complies with all of the requirements set by standards ASTM D1655 or
D7566 as appropriate, as explained in Section 4.3 of this Guide. The certificate
covers not only the quantitative limits, but all other requirements set out in those
standards as well. Representative samples of every batch are drawn, adopting
the recommended procedures such as defined in ASTM D4054 (Thrän and
Ponitka, 2016). After the initial production scale-up, it is not necessary to analyse
each batch of certified fuel for compliance with the ASTM specification once it
has been shown that the process scheme is adequately controlled to support the
expectation that these requirements are always met (ASTM D7566).

Quality documentation is provided by the supplier to the purchaser to show that

the fuel meets the requirements of those standards and confirms traceability to
the point of manufacture. Upon request, the technical authority or end user may
be provided with a certificate of quality issued by the producer/blender, identifying
that batch blend as a jet fuel satisfying ASTM D1655 or ASTM D7566
specifications (Thrän and Ponitka, 2016).

A CAF, blended or not with SAF, can come into contact with incidental materials
or water during manufacture and distribution. Appropriate control of standard
values must therefore be undertaken at manufacturing locations, and distribution
and storage facilities to maintain product integrity and detect any contamination,
as indicated in Figures 5-4 to 5-6 for CAF.

Exactly the same procedures, monitoring the same properties, must be followed
for the CAF blended with SAF. In summary, the only difference is that the SAF
must be certified according to ASTM D7566 at the point where they are blended
with CAF. Under these conditions, blends using SAF can be distributed and used
as conventional ones.

FIGURE 5-4
Jet fuel quality control
procedures from tanker or
pipeline to depot
(Source: Schumman, 2013)

40
 FIGURE 5-5
Jet fuel quality control
procedures at airport facilities
(Source: Schumman, 2013)

FIGURE 5-6
Quality control procedures at
airport apron
(Source: Schumman, 2013)
12

12
The airport apron is the area of an airport where aircraft are parked, unloaded or loaded, refueled,
or boarded.

41
5.5. DEVELOPING A NATIONAL SAF PROGRAMME
The first step in creating a national SAF production programme is to identify and
involve the many stakeholders, public and private, that will be essential for the
success of the programme. This establishes a common understanding and
identifies mutual interests and objectives regarding SAF. This first action,
contacting people and institutions, is important to engage them and create a
cooperative group.

The second step is to join the stakeholders and appropriate institutions to

promote preliminary studies and assessments, set up meetings and develop a
draft plan for a national programme.

As suggestions for actions to be taken in the framework of a national programme,

the following table can be adapted for each case. To keep the stakeholders
motivated and involved, periodic workshops reviewing intermediate results are
recommended.

1. Inventory the availability of feedstocks for SAF production

a. Quantify available feedstocks and estimate harvesting and
recovery costs of fatty and lignocellulosic residues.
b. Identify potential feedstock crops that can feasibly be cultivated
in the State.
c. Develop agro-ecological zoning to identify suitable land available
for the most promising crops, considering possible restrictions in
land use.
d. Classify the areas for promoting feedstock production in terms of
infrastructure and estimated production cost.

2. Evaluate production pathways feasible for processing these feedstocks

a. Identify feasible production pathways for SAF considering the
most competitive feedstocks, the maturity of available
technology, the level of performance and the local availability of
equipment, services, maintenance capabilities, and similar
support.
b. Assess the final production cost for each pathway in a pre-
feasibility study of an agro-industrial plant, considering the actual
and projected costs, performance, and define required
investment.
c. Establish prospective best case production scenarios, estimating
the timeline for implementing the feedstock production and
processing schemes.

3. Forecast demand for SAF

a. Study the local demand for CAF, including transportation
logistics, prices and costs, operators, etc.
b. Conduct a preliminary evaluation of potential trade of SAF in
neighbouring States and in the global market, for both current
and prospective scenarios.

4. Develop an integrated evaluation of potential SAF supply and demand

a. Define production scenarios and conduct a technical-economic
evaluation of the most promising scenarios for production and
use/trade of SAF, estimating total fuel production, feedstock
demand, production capacity to deploy, investment, production
cost, possible impact on GHG emissions, etc.
b. Study the need for supporting mechanisms to improve the
economic competitiveness of SAF production, considering
alternative scenarios of SAF and CAF costs, covering measures
for stimulating production capacity, e.g. adjustments in the tax
regime for aviation fuels.

42
 5. Consider the need for other supporting actions
a. Evaluate available human resources related to SAF production,
use, evaluation, logistics and environmental aspects.
b. Implement a programme to foster research and development
related to SAF.
c. Implement a communication programme to inform the public
about the programme, its objectives and development.

These actions will result in a clear plan, defining objectives and a timeline for
implementation, phases of development, measures and resources required and
identifying responsible parties and a goal for each phase. The concept of drop-in
fuels, along with a well-designed and widely accepted certification process for
quality and sustainability, opens opportunities for aviation to capture the benefits
of SAF use while contributing to the attainment of environmental objectives and
fostering innovation and development.

43
 6.0 CASE STUDIES AND BEST PRACTICES
The transition to a low-carbon economy depends upon overcoming current
challenges and giving the right signals to innovators and financiers within an
appropriate market structure (IEA, 2010). Government intervention is therefore
essential to create sustainable markets for low-carbon technologies, to fill in
funding gaps in research, development and demonstration, to create the enabling
infrastructure and to encourage international collaboration.

For the aviation industry, policy support can be built on road transportation
policies, but taking into account the unique aspects of aviation. Similar to
renewable energy policies in general, implementing SAF follows different overall
targets in different States and regions. These include policies on climate, energy
security, agriculture and economy; hence the lack of a global agreed-upon target
regarding the amount or share of SAF.

A wide variety of policy instruments and measures are available to achieve the
desired goal of limiting GHG emissions, and which can influence the market
introduction of SAF. Several of these measures are summarized in Table 6-1.

Instrument Principle Cost burden

General instruments for climate policy
For the emission of GHG, certificates need
European ETS Supplier/end user
to be possessed/bought
For products with higher GHG-related Supplier/end user
Taxation
emissions, higher tax rates have to be paid
Dedicated instruments for renewable energy implementation
Producer gets a guaranteed price for the
Feed-in tariffs End user
provided renewable energy
Investment support Producer gets investment support for
programmes certain parts of the conversion plant and/or Government
infrastructure
TABLE 6-1 For renewable products, lower tax rates
(1)
Typical support schemes Taxation Government
have to be paid (tax credit, tax exemption)
for renewable energies
(Source: Thrän and Quotas/blending Suppliers have to provide a certain share of Supplier/end user
Ponitka, 2016) mandates renewables in their portfolio

AUSTRALIA
In Australia, a coalition of diverse participants from business, government and
academia, Australian Initiative for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (AISAF), was
founded in 2012 and later absorbed into the United States Studies Centre’s
Alternative Transport Fuel Initiative at the University of Sydney. Its goal was to
support the development and introduction of commercial supply chains for SAF in
the State, while engaging and collaborating with partners in the United States and
other States (USSC, 2016).

Additionally, the Queensland Sustainable Aviation Fuel Initiative was created to

help enable the construction and operation of a SAF manufacturing facility in
Queensland. The project started in 2010 at the University of Queensland and
evaluated the specific business case for a SAF production plant in Mackay
(AIBN, 2016).

BRAZIL
Brazil has longstanding experience with biofuels in the transport sector, with all
gasoline having been blended with ethanol by mandate since 1931. Currently,
even though no specific federal policies exist for SAF, initiatives are in place at
the State level.

44
In 2010, the Aliança Brasileira para Biocombustíveis de Aviação (ABRABA) was
created as a forum to discuss the various aspects of developing SAF, driven by
the growing demand to meet the requirements for reducing GHG emissions in
aviation, as well as to provide support for Brazil’s energy security. This initiative
aims to make Brazil a major world player in SAFs, similar to what’s already being
done in ground transportation. The goal is to promote public and private initiatives
that streamline the development, certification, and commercial production of
sustainable biofuels for aviation (ABRABA, 2016; Hamelinck and others, 2013).

In 2011, Brazil and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to

cooperate on the development of renewable aviation fuels. In 2013, Sustainable
Aviation Biofuels for Brazil was formed as a result of a combined effort between
the industry and research stakeholders. This action plan is a national assessment
of the technological, economic and sustainability challenges and opportunities
associated with the development and commercialization of SAF in Brazil (Cortez
and others, 2014).

Also in 2013, the Brazilian Biojetfuel Platform was formally structured as an open,
collaborative platform to bring together key stakeholders to promote the
implementation of a highly integrated SAF and renewable value chain to fill the
gaps identified by the study carried out by Sustainable Aviation Biofuels for Brazil
(Curcas, 2016).

CANADA
In Canada, an aviation task force was created within the second phase of the
national research network BioFuelNet Canada (BFN), which targeted strategic
areas in research such as SAF and forestry-based fuel production. The network
looked at the barriers to advanced biofuels production, such as policy and
availability of suitable and inexpensive feedstock.

EUROPEAN UNION
The EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) sets a binding target of 20 per
cent final energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. To achieve this,
EU States have committed to reaching their own national renewables targets
ranging from 10 per cent in Malta to 49 per cent in Sweden. They are also each
required to have at least 10 per cent of their transport fuels come from renewable
sources by 2020.

Looking further ahead, EU States have already agreed on a new renewable

energy target of at least 27 per cent of final energy consumption in the EU as a
whole by 2030 as part of the EU energy and climate goals for 2030 (EC, 2016).

The EU biofuels policy is regulated by the EU RED 2009/28/EC and Fuel Quality
Directive (FQD) 2009/30/EC, which came into force in 2009. In principle,
alternative fuels count towards the RED target provided they comply with the
sustainability criteria. This means that when alternative fuels are deployed in a
Member State, that Member State is allowed to count it towards its national
target.

However, this does not automatically mean that SAF are incentivized, as EU
Member States are free to decide which fuels will be incentivized and in what
manner (Hamelinck and others, 2013). For instance, in the Netherlands the sales
of alternative fuels are included in the biofuel mandates of economic operators.
Companies that sell SAF in the Netherlands market earn bio tickets that other
operators with a biofuels obligation can use to fulfil their obligation.

To help spur the commercial development of SAF, the European Commission

and its partners have launched the European Advanced Biofuels Flightpath. The
Flightpath aims to get sustainably produced biofuels to the market faster, through
the construction of advanced biofuels production plants in Europe and to get the
aviation industry to use 2 million tonnes of biofuels by 2020 (EC, 2016).

45
 For the sake of comparison, Figure 6-2 provides the operational and planned
facilities with the capability to produce SAF. As of 2015, these facilities summed
up to a production capability of 6.2 million tonnes of SAF/year.

FIGURE 6-2
Fuel production facilities
with capability to produce SAF
(Source: adapted from Radich, 2015)

The aviation sector is also included in the European Union Emission Trading
Scheme (EU-ETS). Emissions from all flights arriving and departing from airports
in the EU were to be incorporated into the scheme, covering around a third of
global aviation emissions. In 2012, 85 per cent of the allowances were allocated
for free, based on benchmarks.

For the period 2012-2020, 15 per cent of allowances are to be auctioned and
82 per cent allocated for free, based on benchmarks. The remaining 3 per cent
constitutes a special reserve for new entrants and fast-growing airlines
(Ščeponavičiūtė, 2016; Thrän and Ponitka, 2016).

In April 2013 the EU temporarily suspended enforcement of the EU-ETS

requirements for flights operating from or to non-European States, while
continuing to apply the legislation to flights within and between States in the
European Economic Area, regardless of the carriers’ origin.

In the light of the progress on CORSIA, the EU has proposed to continue the
current approach beyond 2016 (EC, 2016). The EU proposes to bring the pace of
aviation emissions reductions in line with the efforts of other sectors covered by
the EU-ETS. This would entail that the cap on aviation emissions declines by 2.2
per cent each year from 2021 onwards. The proposal further includes a review
clause to assess the details of CORSIA implementation in Europe as of 2021.

Within this policy context, national and international SAF networks have been
established across EU Member States. For example, the Initiative Towards
sustAinable Kerosene for Aviation (ITAKA) is a collaborative project that aims to
link feedstock growers, fuel producers, distributors and end users in establishing
a large scale (4,000 t) European drop-in HEFA (camelina) SAF supply chain.
Research and development trials have been conducted in Spain and Romania for
improving the productivity of different varieties of camelina, for adaptation to the
soil and climatic conditions, as well as to study its behaviour regarding
sustainability drivers, type of land used, fertilization, and tilling (ITAKA, 2016).

GERMANY
In Germany, a biofuels initiative of the aviation industry was started in 2011,
combining the engagement and know-how of airlines, airports, research
organizations and companies in the aviation and feedstock industries. The
objective of the Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e.V.
(AIREG) is to support the production and use of SAF, with a bio jet target of 10
per cent of the jet fuel consumed domestically by 2025 (AIREG, 2016).

46
INDONESIA
In 2013, Indonesia submitted its State Action Plan to Reduce Emissions in the
Aviation Sector to ICAO, with a basket of measures including carbon emission
reductions in flight operators, air traffic management, airport operations and
application of carbon markets, as well as the use of renewable energy sources.

In August 2014, the Aviation Biofuels and Renewable Energy Task Force was
created, composed of four “sub task forces” to work on the following: formulation
of policy, regulation and capacity-building programme; research and
development; testing and certification; commercial, risk analysis and
sustainability. Since October 2014, the ICAO Technical Cooperation Bureau has
supported the Task Force through the MSA Annex 5 INS13801 project (ICAO,
2016).

The original decree of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (NEMR)
established a bio jet fuel mandate at the national level, requiring 2 per cent
blending in 2016, 3 per cent by 2020, and 5 per cent by 2025. Owing to national
circumstances, the Task Force concluded that the 2016 goal would not be
achieved.

However, Indonesia’s oil producers have shown their commitment to starting

production by late 2018, with a production capacity of 257,000 kl/year (ICAO
GFAAF, 2017). Now, the NEMR Regulation 12/2015 requires the aviation
industry to use 2 per cent alternative fuels by 2018, 3 per cent by 2020 and
5 per cent by 2025.

MEXICO
Since 2009, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (SCT), through
ASA, has been fostering the development of SAF and coordinating actions
towards the establishment of this industry at the national level (ASA, 2016).

As a first effort, during 2010-2011 ASA led, with the participation of more than
300 institutions, the study “Flight Plan Towards Sustainable Aviation Biofuel in
Mexico”, aiming at identifying and analysing the existing and missing elements in
the supply chain of SAF, with a focus on the HEFA track (ICAO GFAAF, 2017).
Similar regional exercises were later developed in 2013-2014 in the Mexican
States of Hidalgo and Morelos (ASA, 2016).

The Flight Plan study concluded that there were great opportunities for SAF in
Mexico, with a strong interest from all stakeholders in participating in the initiative.
Sustainability appeared as a key, and the main bottlenecks identified were the
insufficient production of the required quantities of feedstock and the lack of
appropriate legislation and a biorefining infrastructure.

As an outcome, it is expected that by 2020, with the right funding structure in

place, four SAF refineries will be operating, producing 800 megalitre (ML) of SAF
per year. Additionally, the Flight Plan made it possible for ASA (the single jet fuel
supplier in the State) to get involved in the whole SAF supply chain, which
allowed the first flights with alternative fuels in Mexico to be carried out (ASA,
2016).

47
 UNITED STATES
After the establishment of CAAFI in 2006, several networks have emerged
worldwide aiming at promoting the use of SAF through a process of awareness
and involvement. As can be seen in Figure 6-1, the number of active initiatives
each year sharply increased after 2009. Despite the different purposes and
operation areas, all networks are intended to connect relevant stakeholders and
facilitate the development of the SAF sector, as presented in Table 6-2.

Some of these initiatives and policies are further discussed in this chapter, while
a comprehensive list of the initiatives and projects for the development and
deployment of SAF is available through the ICAO Global Framework for Aviation
Alternative Fuels (GFAAF) database (ICAO GFAAF, 2017).

FIGURE 6-1
Number of active initiatives
promoting the use of
SAF each year
(Source: ICAO GFAAF, 2017)

CAAFI has been a pioneer initiative in this field, formed by three industry
associations in the United States representing airports, airlines and original
equipment manufacturers, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is
also supported by over 800 members and 350 organizations from around the
globe. Efforts are accomplished via the support of the sponsors and members
who engage in four work teams, as well as several public private partnership
activities, which leverage the interests of government agencies and other aviation
stakeholders (CAAFI, 2016; IATA, 2015).

CAAFI is engaged in various activities to enable and facilitate the near-term

development and commercialization of SAF. It serves the primary roles of thought
leadership, project execution, collaboration, instigation and communication. It
also serves as a coordinator/clearinghouse, facilitating the exchange of
information about private-sector and governmental initiatives supporting the
development and commercialization of drop-in aviation fuels. While its efforts are
focused on opportunities in the United States, CAAFI also recognizes the need to
foster similar efforts around the globe and, as such, works with similar
organizations and other interested parties in many States (IATA, 2015).

Furthermore, the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Defence have

coordinated their activities to support the future construction or retrofit of multiple
domestic commercial- or precommercial-scale production facilities to produce
alternative fuels, including SAF. One example is the Farm-to-Fly initiative, which
has brought together the United States aviation community, government
stakeholders, and four federal executive departments. As a result of its initial
success, in 2016 the programme was extended to Farm-to-Fly 2.0 (Thrän and
Ponitka, 2016).

Another prominent form of federal policy support in the United States is the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct), where a minimum volume of biofuels must be used in the national
transportation fuel supply each year.

48
RFS is a market-based compliance system in which refiners and importers of
fossil fuels (“obligated parties”) have to submit credits (Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs)) generated by fuel producers, to cover their obligations (EPA,
2016). Since 2013, alternative fuels can earn RINs in the United States under
three categories: advanced biofuel (D5), biomass-based diesel (D4), or cellulosic
biofuel (D7) (van Dyk and Saddler, 2016).

49
CONCLUSIONS
ICAO Member States are encouraged to develop and implement an
individualized State Action Plan for CO2 emissions reductions activities for
international aviation. Many Member States, particularly Developing States and
SIDS, continue to investigate the institutional and financial resources necessary
to develop and implement their action plans, and the actions therein. The
implementation of SAF could be one of the measures selected by States to
reduce their emissions from international civil aviation.

In addition to contributing to the ICAO global aspirational goal of carbon neutral

growth, the development and deployment of SAF can advance the social and
economic development associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). In this regard, ICAO has prepared this guidance document to help
States, particularly Developing States and SIDS, further understand the process
of developing a SAF supply chain, the challenges associated with the
implementation of these projects, and the benefits of establishing a commercial
scale SAF project.

As shown throughout this document, States, airports, airlines, and other aviation
stakeholders around the world are already involved in SAF deployment projects,
ranging from small scale research projects, to commercial scale SAF production
facilities. There is a multitude of feedstocks and conversion processes available
for SAF production, which allow flexibility for setting up SAF supply chains
tailored to each State particular characteristics. By 2017, over 100,000
commercial flights had used a blend of alternative fuels, 4 airports were deploying
alternative fuels on a regular basis, and at least 8 additional alternative fuel
purchase agreements had been announced. The success of these initiatives
proves that the SAF industry is evolving fast, making it a viable option for the
aviation industry to address its environmental sustainability.

50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABRABA. Aliança Brasileira para Biocombustíveis de Aviação. 2016. Available from:
www.abraba.com.br/en-US/Pages/Home.aspx.
Agusdinata, Datu B, Fu Zhao, Klein Ileleji, and Dan DeLaurentis. “Life Cycle Assessment of Potential
Aviation biofuel Production in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(21):
9133–43 (2011).
AIBN. Queensland Sustainable Aviation Fuel Initiative. 2016. Available from: www.aibn.uq.edu.au.
AIREG. Aviation Initiative for Renewable Energy in Germany e.V. 2016. Available from:
www.aireg.de/en/.
ARAC, 1998. Fuel Properties - Effect on Aircraft and Infrastructure. Final Report of Task Group 6/7 on
Fuel Properties, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington D.C.
ASA, 2016. BIOturbosina. Available from: http://bioturbosina.asa.gob.mx/swb/BIOturbosina/home.
ASTM Aviation Fuel Standard Now Specifies Bioderived Components. American Society for Testing
and Materials. 2011. Available in: www.astmnewsroom.org/default.aspx?pageid=2524.
Accessed in May, 2017.
ASTM D7566-16: Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2016. Available from: www.astm.org.
DOI: 10.1520/D7566-16.
ASTM International. ASTM D1655-15c. Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels. West
Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2015.
Atsonios, Konstantinos and others. Alternative thermochemical routes for aviation biofuels via
alcohols synthesis%: process modeling , techno-economic assessment and comparison. Applied
Energy 138 (2015).
Biddy, M. and others. Whole Algae Hydrothermal Liquefaction Technology Pathway. Technical Report
NREL/TP-5100-58051 PNNL-22314. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013.
Biofuels Digest, 2017. Several issues in 2017, under the topic Fulcrum Bioenergy, available at
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/
Boeing, Embraer, Fapesp, and Unicamp. 2013. Flightpath to Aviation BioFuels in Brazil: Action Plan.
Available from: www.fapesp.br/publicacoes/flightpath-to-aviation-biofuels-in-brazil-action-
plan.pdf.
CAAFI. Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Washington, 2016. Available from:
www.caafi.org/.
Capaz, R.S. and J.E.A. Seabra. Life cycle assessment of biojet fuels. In Chuck, C.J., 2016.
Capdeville, G. New Feedstock for Bioenergy: RD&I at Embrapa Agroenergy, Global Bioenergy
Partnership, 4th GBEP Bioenergy Week, Budapest, 2016.
Chuck, C.J., ed. Biofuels for Aviation. London: Academic Press, 2016.
Cortez, L.A.B. and others. Roadmap for sustainable aviation biofuels for Brazil - A Flightpath to
Aviation Biofuels in Brazil. São Paulo: Editora Edgard Blücher, 2014.
Curcas, 2016. The Brazilian Biojetfuel Platform. Available from: http://cdieselbr.com.br/.
Daggett, D.L. and others. Alternate fuels for use in commercial aircraft. 18th ISABE
Conference(2008). International Society for Air Breathing Engines, Beijing.
Dale, B.E. and R.G. Ong. Design, implementation, and evaluation of sustainable bioenergy production
systems. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 8 (2014).
De Jong, S. and others. The feasibility of short-term production strategies for renewable jet fuels – a
comprehensive techno-economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 9 (2015).
Diederichs, Gabriel Wilhelm and others. Techno-economic comparison of biojet fuel production from
lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane juice. Bioresource Technology 216 (2016).
EC, 2016. Climate Action. European Commission. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en
EIA, 2016. Kerosene jet fuel price. Energy Information Administration. Available from:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_REFOTH_A_EPJK_PWG_DPGAL_M.htm
Ekbom, T. and others. Pilot Study of Bio-Jet A-1 Fuel Production for Stockholm-Arlanda Airport.
Stockholm, 2009.
Endres, J.M. and others. Sustainability certification. In Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps.
Paris: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), 2015.
Endres, J.M. No Free Pass: Putting the “bio” in biomass. Natural Resources & Environment 26
(2011).
EPA. Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Available from:
www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program
ExxonMobil. World Jet Fuel Specifications. 2008 edition. Brussels: ExxonMobil Aviation, 2008.
FAO, IFAD and WFP. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2014. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development and World
Food Programme, 2014.

51
FAO. FAOSTAT (2015). Available from: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx.
FAO. Briefing on Environment and Energy, Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations,
Rome, 2012. Available at
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/focus_areas/sustai
nable-energy.html - accessed September 2014
FAO. A Compilation of Bioenergy Sustainability Initiatives Overview, Bioenergy and Food Security
Criteria and Indicators (BEFSCI). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 2011
Finnveden, G. and others. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental
Management 91 (2009).
Fulcrum Bioenergy, 2017. Partners, available at fulcrum-bioenergy.com/partners
Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H. and Nachtergaele, F. 2011. GAEZ v3.0 – Global Agro-ecological
Zones Model documentation, (mimeo). IIASA, Luxemburg.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/GAEZv3.0/gaez2010-Flyer_1final1.pdf - accessed
September 2014
GEA, Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future, Johansson, T. B.; Nakicenovic, N.;
Patwardhan, A.; Gomez-Echeverri, L. (editors), Cambridge University Press and the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna (2012).
Gegg, P., L. Budd and S. Ison. Stakeholder views of the factors affecting the commercialization of
aviation biofuels in Europe. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 9 (2015).
Gevo. Gevo’s alcohol to jet fuel meets approved ASTM standard (2016). Available from:
http://ir.gevo.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=238618&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2151133.
Gilio, L., and M.A.F. Moraes. Sugarcane industry's socioeconomic impact in São Paulo, Brazil: A
spatial dynamic panel approach. Energy Economics, vol. 58 (2016).
Guinée, J.B. and others. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45 (2011).
Hamelinck, C. and others. Biofuels for aviation. Netherlands: Ecofys, 2013.
Hilbers, T. J. and others. Green diesel from hydrotreated vegetable oil process design study.
Chemical Engineering & Technology, 4 (2015).
IATA, Report on Alternative Fuels. 10th edition. Montreal and Geneva: International Air Transport
Association 2015.
IATA, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap. Montreal and Geneva: International Air Transport
Association, 2015.
IATA, Sustainable Alternative Fuel – Advocacy. Montreal and Geneva: International Air Transport
Association, 2015.
ICAO Environment. Environmental Protection. Montreal: International Civil Aviation Organization,
2016. Available from: www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
ICAO Global Framework for Aviation Alternative Fuels (GFAAF). Montreal: International Civil Aviation
Organization, 2017. Available from: www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/GFAAF/Pages/default.aspx
ICAO Review: Sustainable Alternative Fuels for Aviation. Montreal: International Civil Aviation
Organization, 2012.
ICAO, Present and future aircraft noise and emissions trends, 2016, available at
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_055_en.pdf
IEA. Sustainable production of second-generation biofuels: potential and perspectives in major
economies and developing countries. Information paper. Paris: International Energy Agency,
2010.
IEA. Key Energy Statistics. International Energy Agency.Paris, 2016
IPCC, 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Waste Generation,
Composition and Management Data, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available at
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html
IRENA, 2017. Biofuels for Aviation: technology brief, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu
Dhabi.
ITAKA, Initiative Towards Sustainable Kerosene for Aviation (2016). Available from: www.itaka-
project.eu/default.aspx.
ISO. ISO 14040:2006(E). Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and
framework (2006).
ISO/TS 14067:2013. Greenhouse gases - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines
for quantification and communication. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,
2013.
JRC. ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance. Ispra, Italy:
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability,
2010.
Kant, P. and S. Wu. The extraordinary collapse of jatropha as a global biofuel. Environmental Science
and Technology 45 (2011).
IEA. Key World Energy Statistics. Paris: International Energy Agency, 2016.
IPCC. Bioenergy: Climate effects, mitigation options, potential and sustainability implications,
Appendix to Chapter 11 (AFOLU) Final Draft. IPCC WGIII AR5. Geneva (2014)

52
Khatiwada, D. and others. Accounting greenhouse gas emissions in the lifecycle of Brazilian
sugarcane bioethanol: methodological references in European and American regulations.
Energy Policy 47 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.005.
Klingenberg, J. Carinata Productions Expansion Review and Analysis. 2017 Carinata Summit, (2017).
Available from:
http://programs.ifas.ufl.edu/media/programsifasufledu/carinata/docs/pdfs/Klingenberg_LCA-
crop-review-3_30_17.pdf
FAO. Land resources domain data. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
2014. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
MAPA. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Sugarcane Agro-ecological Zoning. National
Center of Soil Research, MAPA/EMBRAPA, Brasilia 2009.
Moreira, M., A.C. Gurgel, and J. E. A. Seabra. 2014. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of sugar
cane renewable jet fuel. Environmental Science & Technology 48 (2014).
Morishige, A. E.; Foley, J. A.; Sheehan, J.; Mueller, N. D.; Gerber, J. S.; Laser, M. S.; Lynd, L. R.,
Assessing the Potential to Intensify Pastureland Use, American Geophysical Union, Fall
Meeting 2010, abstract id. B33C-0420, 2010
Mosvold Larsen, O. Aviation Biofuels at Oslo Airport. ICAO Seminar on Alternative Fuels (2017).
Available from:
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/altfuels17/Documents/Olav%20Mosvold%20Larsen%20-
%20Avinor.pdf
Natelson, R. H. and others. Technoeconomic analysis of jet fuel production from hydrolysis,
decarboxylation, and reforming of camelina oil. Biomass and Bioenergy 75 (2015).
ASTM. New ASTM International Petroleum Products Standard Covers Alternatives to Conventional
Aviation Fuel. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2009. Available in:
www.astmnewsroom.org/default.aspx?pageid=1895. Accessed in July, 2017.
Nogueira, L.A.H. and others. Sustainable development and Innovation, in: Bioenergy and
sustainability: bridging the gaps. Paris: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE),2015.
Nogueira, L.A.H. and others. The rationality of biofuels. Energy Policy 61 (2013).
Nogueira, L.A.H. and R.S. Capaz. Biofuels in Brazil: Evolution, achievements and perspectives on
food security. Global Food Security 7 (2013). DOI:10.1016/j.gfs.2013.04.001
Pearlson, M., C. Wollersheim and J. Hileman . A Techno-Economic Review of Hydroprocessed
Renewable Esters and Fatty Acids for Jet Fuel Production. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining (2013).
Pelkmans, L. and others. 2013. Recommendations for improvement of sustainability certified markets,
Strategic Inter-Task Study: Monitoring Sustainability Certification of Bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy.
Potts, J. and others. The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014: standards and the green
economy. ENTWINED, IDH, IIED, FAST, IISD
Radich, T. The flight paths for biojet fuel. Working Paper Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2015.
REN21. Renewables 2016 Global Status Report. Paris: Renewable Energy Policy Network foro the
21st Century, 2016. http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/.
Resolution A39-2: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to
environmental protection – Climate change (2016). ICAO Assembly 39th session. Available
from: www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Resolution_A39_2.pdf
Revised ASTM Aviation Fuel Standard Paves the Way for International Use of Synthesized Iso-
Paraffinic Fuel in Airliners. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2014. Available from:
www.astmnewsroom.org/default.aspx?pageid=3463. Accessed in July, 2017.
Salib, M. Canada’s Biojet Supply Chain Initiative. ICAO Seminar on Alternative Fuels (2017).
Available from: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/altfuels17/Documents/3%20-
%20Mena%20Salib.pdf
Scarlat, N. and J.-F. Dallemand, J.-F. Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability
certification: A global overview. Energy Policy 39 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.039
Ščeponavičiūtė, R. How does the EU ETS work for aviation? (2016).
Schumman, R. SINDICOM - Logistics & Support. Presentation during 6th Sustainable Aviation
Biofuels for Brazil Project Workshop, 17 and 18 October 2013, Rio de Janeiro. ANP (National
Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels).
Seber, G. and others. Environmental and economic assessment of producing hydroprocessed jet and
diesel fuel from waste oils and tallow. Biomass and Bioenergy 67 (2014).
Slade, R., Bauen, A., and Gross, R. 2014. Global bioenergy resources. Nature Climate Change. 4:99-
105. DOI: 10.1038
Souza, G.M. and others. Bioenergy & sustainability: bridging the gaps. Paris: Scientific Committee on
Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), 2015.
Staples, M.D. and others. Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint and minimum selling price of renewable
diesel and jet fuel from fermentation and advanced fermentation production technologies.
Energy & Environmental Science 7 (2014).
Thrän, D. and J. Ponitka, 2016. Government policy on delivering biofuels for the aviation sector, in:
Chuck, C., ed. Biofuels for Aviation: Feedstocks, Technology and Implementation. Cambridge
MA: Elsevier.

53
U.S. Department of Energy. Bioenergy Technologies Office, Multi-Year Program Plan (2016).
Available from: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/mypp_march2016.pdf.
Ullah, K. and others. Algal biomass as a global source of transport fuels: Overview and development
perspectives. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 24(4), 329–339 (2014).
doi:10.1016/j.pnsc.2014.06.008
UNEP/SETAC. Life cycle initiative (2016). www.lifecycleinitiative.org/.
USDA. Plant Guide – Camelina (2016). Available from:
www.plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_casa2.pdf.
USSC. Alternative Transport Fuels Initiative - United States Studies Centre (2016). Available from:
http://ussc.edu.au/research/past-initiatives/dow-sustainability-program/alternative-transport-
fuels-initiative.
van Dam, J., M. Junginger and A.P.C. Faaij. From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy
towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010).
van Dyk, S. and J. Saddler. Policies for promoting the production and consumption of biojet fuels
(2016).
FAO, 2012, World agriculture towards 2030/2050. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03, by Alexandra, N.,
Bruinsma, J, Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome.
World Bank, 2013. Waste Composition, in What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management, Urban Development Series, Washington, DC.
Yakoob, Z. and others. Overview of the production of biodiesel from waste cooking oil. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 18 (2013).
Zhu, Y. and others. Techno-economic analysis for the thermochemical conversion of biomass to liquid
fuels. Prepared for United States Department of Energy at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Washington (2011).

54
 ANNEX A
SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS – LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND LAND USE
CHANGES
The growing societal concern with sustainability requires appropriate tools to
inform decision-making. In this regard, the life cycle assessment (LCA) methods
have been increasingly used in the private and public sectors to provide a
conceptual basis for identifying and understanding the impacts associated with a
given process or product, from the extraction of raw materials, through
production, use, final disposal and recovery, as depicted in Figure A-1.

Particularly with respect to the environment, LCA addresses the environmental

aspects and their potential impacts throughout a product’s life cycle. The
comprehensive scope of LCA aims to avoid shifting problems, for example, from
one phase of the life cycle to another, from one region to another, or from one
environmental problem to another (Finnveden and others, 2009). Therefore, in
the case of aviation SAF, LCA can be applied as a basic resource to assess such
innovation, allowing the evaluation, with a broad scope, of the actual impacts and
effects of each production route. In Chapter 4 different production routes for SAF
were introduced and compared, thus making it worthwhile to advance some
concepts and information on LCA methods.

FIGURE A-1
Typical product
life cycle diagram
(UNEP/SETAC, 2016)

After two decades of conception and improvement, even though LCA is a

structured, comprehensive and internationally standardized method, there is no
single method for conducting an LCA (ISO, 2006; JRC, 2010). Nevertheless, a
standardized framework and terminology, and a platform for debate and
harmonization of LCA methods are available (Guinée and others, 2011).
Currently, ISO provides two international standards on the general principles and
requirements of LCA: ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044: 2006.

55
Even though LCA considers all attributes or aspects of the natural environment,
human health and resources, the challenges that climate change poses to our
society have brought special attention to the GHG emissions during the life cycle
of products. As a consequence, new standards and methods were developed,
13
focused on the assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions and removals (also
referred to as carbon footprint) of products.

The GHG Protocol Product Standards, PAS 2050:2011 and ISO/TS 14067:2013
are examples of these new standards, while the RSB Methodology is an example
of a specific method developed in the context of biofuels certification. These new
standards are founded on the same basic principles set in the ISO LCA
standards, except they address only one impact category: climate change. For
some methodological aspects, however, more specific guidance is provided, for
example, on how to deal with land use change associated with alternative fuel
production.

In the context of alternative fuel policies, European and American regulatory

schemes have used different approaches based on the LCA technique to
estimate the GHG emissions in biofuels production. For example, the impact
assessment developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) volumes and the California Air
Resource Board (CARB) analysis for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) vary
considerably not only with one another, but also in relation to the EU-RED
(Khatiwada and others, 2012).

For the aviation industry, assessing a fuel’s GHG emissions during its life cycle is
a particular topic for which increased harmonization among aviation stakeholders
is important in order to acquire a shared understanding of the potential benefit of
SAF (IATA, 2015).

Therefore, the ICAO CAEP AFTF was created and tasked with the development
of a methodology to assess the fuels’ life cycle emissions, which should be
applied for the quantification of the emissions associated with a projected
production of SAF by 2050, relevant parameters for implementing CORSIA, as
discussed in Chapter 6. Currently AFTF is consolidating studies to define LCA
parameters and sustainability criteria.

Particularly for States with relevant agriculture activities, GHG emissions

associated with LUC have been one of the most contentious issues regarding
LCA and deserve some remarks. Land use changes can generate CO2
emissions, decomposing organic matter and soil organic matters, or CO2
sequestration, owing to capture and the long-term storage of atmospheric CO2 as
14
organic matter, which may translate into major impacts on the environmental
profile of bioenergy. When dealing with LUC impacts, the distinction between
direct land use change (dLUC) and indirect land use change (iLUC) is frequently
used, especially for certification purposes.

ISO/TS 14067, for instance, defines dLUC as a change in the use or

management of land within the product system being assessed, as indicated in
Figure A-2, while iLUC is a change in the use or management of land which is a
consequence of direct land use change, but which occurs outside the product
system being assessed (ISO, 2013). Differently from dLUC, iLUC cannot be
directly measured or observed; instead, it is projected with economic models,
which are only able to capture both effects together.

13
Removals is the general term for GHGs subtractions from the atmosphere, through emissions
mitigation or carbon sequestration techniques. The net effect, GHG emissions minus removals, is also
referred to as “carbon footprint”.
14
For instance, land use changes such as deforestation produce CO2 emissions, while planting
perennial cultures in areas formerly occupied by grass can increment the organic carbon stock in
plants and soil, a CO2 sequestration process.

56
 FIGURE A-2
Schematic representation of direct
and indirect land use change
(prepared by authors) !

The iLUC is caused by economic linkages among different economic sectors

where commodity prices are affected by the additional demand for alternative
fuel. When there is an increase in demand for a commodity used for the
production of fuels, the increased demand can induce an increase in the price of
the commodity. This price increase causes some combination of the following
market mediated responses:

• Crop switching: when the demand for one crop increases and the
demand for others remains unchanged, crop switching will likely occur to
the crop with the increased demand and higher prices.
• Land conversion: addition of land to the cropland area by converting
pasture, grassland, shrub land, or forest to cropland.
• Yield improvement: higher commodity prices can increase profitability of
farming activities, which can lead to investments in yield improvement
either by the farmer or other actors in the agricultural supply system.
• Reduced consumption: with higher prices for the commodity in
question, less of it tends to be consumed.
• Reduced stocks: in the short term, a common response to increased
demand for agricultural goods is to draw down global stocks.
• Trade impacts: changes in international trade and production of the
commodity and its substitutes.

These responses can happen at either the local level (i.e. within the State in
which demand for alternative fuel increases) or at the global level (i.e. in other
States). Most of them are built into economic models that are able to estimate
aggregate LUC results from all responses together. While the models can
produce LUC results by global region, they do not include assumptions about
which parcels of land are directly supplying feedstock to SAF facilities. As there is
no information about how feedstock from a newly cultivated land parcel will be
used, there is no concept of dLUC within the models. Thus, some authors refer to
the LUC modelled in economic models as induced land use change.

Economic models rely on many parameters that are based on historical trends or
macroeconomic principles. It is common for some input parameters to be inferred
from others because of a lack of adequate amount of historical data to directly
estimate every parameter.

57
Further, historical trends may not always be representative of what will happen in
future, and microeconomic conclusions are not always valid, creating a large
degree of uncertainty in quantifying GHG emissions from LUC, which are also
15
affected by the large uncertainties concerning soil carbon stocks . Nonetheless,
researchers who work in estimating induced LUC have made considerable
progress to improve the models and model parameter estimates (JRC, 2010),
essential elements for LCA application in the context of civil aviation.
"

15
Mineral soils are a carbon pool that is influenced by land-use and management activities. Land use
can have a large effect on the size of this pool through activities such as conversion of native
grassland and forest land to cropland or management practices. To incorporate these effects, LCA
studies usually rely on IPCC default carbon stocks, which feature considerable uncertainties. Other
studies make use of locally measured data, which do not necessarily capture the complete transition
to the new equilibrium soil carbon content (since the process takes several years to reach this
equilibrium).

58
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ICAO’s work on environment contributes
to 14 out of the 17 United Nations SDGs

WEBSITE: www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/ICAO_UNDP.aspx
EMAIL: officeenv@icao.int

For more information on ICAO’s environmental programme, please visit: www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/default.aspx