Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 1—pp.

134–141
134 ß 2012 SETAC

A Meta-Analytic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Flow

Analyses Studies of Palm Oil Biodiesel
Yosef Manik*y and Anthony Halogy
yResearch Group for Industrial Ecology, LCA and System Sustainability, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine,
Orono, Maine 04469-5755, USA

(Submitted 24 January 2012; Returned for Revision 10 April 2012; Accepted 21 August 2012)
Life Cycle & Sustainability

ABSTRACT
This work reviews and performs a meta-analysis of the recent life cycle assessment and flow analyses studies palm oil
biodiesel. The best available data and information are extracted, summarized, and discussed. Most studies found palm oil
biodiesel would produce positive energy balance with an energy ratio between 2.27 and 4.81, and with a net energy production
of 112 GJ ha
1y
1. With the exception of a few studies, most conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net emitter of greenhouse
gases (GHG). The origin of oil palm plantation (planted area) is the foremost determinant of GHG emissions and C payback time
(CPBT). Converting peatland forest results in GHG emissions up to 60 tons CO2equivalent (eq) ha
1y
1 leading to 420 years of
CPBT. In contrast, converting degraded land or grassland for plantation can positively offset the system to become a net
sequester of 5 tons CO2eq ha
1y
1. Few studies have discussed cradle-to-grave environmental impacts such as acidification,
eutrophication, toxicity, and biodiversity, which open opportunity for further studies. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2013;9:134–
141. ß 2012 SETAC

Keywords: Biodiesel Biofuels LCA Meta-analysis Palm oil

INTRODUCTION substance (e.g., C) or a coherent group of substances (e.g.,

Oil palm (Elaeis guinensis) is an energy crop that has
potential as biodiesel feedstock for the reasons of the supply
abundance and the fuel yield per hectare (Basiron 2007;
Sumathi et al. 2008). Palm oil biodiesel is derived by a process
called transesterification, where the crude palm oil feedstock
is mixed with alcohol, usually methanol, in the presence of
sodium hydroxide as a catalyst, to produce the fatty acid
methyl ester or biodiesel (Fukuda et al. 2001).
Considering the prospect of palm oil biodiesel, and driven
by the mandatory use of biofuels in more and more countries,
major producing countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia
have set up their national targets for the expansion of palm oil
biodiesel production. Along with the increasing national
targets for producing and using palm oil biodiesel as a
renewable energy sources (e.g., Malaysian Biofuel Industries
Act 2007 and Indonesian Presidential Instruction 2007),
concerns over environmental impacts triggered by the massive
production of palm oil are also rising.
Various tools and methods for assessing and benchmarking
environmental impacts of different product systems have
been developed. Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a
methodology to assess the potential environmental impacts
and resources consumption throughout a product life cycle,
from material acquisition to end use (ISO 2006; Guineé et al.
2011). Flow analysis methods such as substance flow analysis
(SFA) and energy flow analysis (EFA), on the other hand, are
life cycle approaches to analyze flows and stocks of a single
greenhouse gases [GHG]).
This study aims to review studies that apply LCA or life
cycle approach flow analyses (EFA/SFA) methodologies of
palm oil biodiesel supply chain. As a rule, only studies based
on a life cycle analysis approach to estimate the environ-
mental impacts of palm oil biodiesel supply chain are
reviewed. In addition, only articles written in English and
with good and reliable supplemental data and references were
selected. The review begins with a discussion of main life
cycle analysis features and approaches to the studies, such as
scopes, functional units, assumptions, reference systems, etc.,
followed by an analysis, comparison, and interpretation of
important data information, to identify the shortcoming of
the current knowledge and future research needs.
REVIEW PROCESS AND OUTCOMES
Of the 23 studies that were reviewed, 22 are articles
published in scientific journals and 1 is a technical report.
Detailed information for each of the reviewed studies is
provided in the Supplemental Data. Although this study
intended to cover a time period of at least 10 years, the oldest
found literature was published in 2007. This reveals the fact
that palm oil biodiesel has only become the subject of
comprehensive LCA in recent years. It is observed, however,
that there is a growing interest in such studies with the
increasing interest in using palm oil as a renewable energy
feedstock.

Geographical contexts and types of reviewed studies

All Supplemental Data may be found in the online version of this article.
* To whom correspondence may be addressed: yosef.manik@maine.edu
Published online 31 August 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.2012-024-OR.R1(1362)
Notably, almost all of the life cycle studies of palm oil
biodiesel were conducted in Southeast Asia, which is home to
the world’s largest palm oil producing countries like Indonesia
and Malaysia. A small portion of the studies reviewed here
were set in South America and Africa. This fact show how the
locally relevant renewable energy crops have become the
 MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013
subject of interest in developing countries, as a contrast to the
previous finding (Larson 2006).
Most of the studies conducted in Southeast Asia (12) were
set in Malaysia. Even though Indonesia is the world’s largest
palm oil producer, only a few studies (4) were set in this
country. In contrast, although palm oil production in Thai-
land represents only 2% of the joint product of Malaysia and
Indonesia, 6 studies were set in this country. In the Americas,
there were 3 studies set in Brazil and Colombia. In Africa,
there was 1 study conducted in Cameroon.
With respect to the type of study, a majority of the studies
(17) limited the assessment to the energy and/or GHG
balances without considering any further environmental
impact categories. This approach is usually supported by
motivations of energy efficiency and climate change mitiga-
tion of the development of renewable fuels. Only 6 studies go
beyond the energy and/or GHG balances.
Scopes of reviewed studies
The palm oil biodiesel production system assessed by the
reviewed studies can be divided in 5 major steps (Figure 1):
A) land preparation, B) oil palm plantation, C) palm oil mill,
E) conversion to biodiesel fuel, and E) use of biodiesel fuel
(BDF). Depending on which unit processes are considered in
the assessment, studies are classified into 4 categories:
1. Cradle-to-grave (Cr-to-Gr): For studies that include all the
steps from Step A to Step E, or from Step B to Step E in
the case where it is claimed that the plantation is located
on land that was cleared several decades ago (>30 y). The
term ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ refers to what is commonly used as
‘‘well-to-wheel’’ in fuels (including biofuels) studies. It is
arguable whether land preparation is the ‘‘cradle’’ of the
life cycle or just an input to the plantation. In this study,
we define it as cradle, considering the importance of its
impact to the whole life cycle of palm oil biodiesel (Wicke
et al. 2008).
2. Cradle-to-gate (Cr-to-Gt): For studies that begin from
Step A but do not end in Step E.
3. Gate-to-grave (Gt-to-Gr): For studies that end in Step E
but do not begin from Step A, except in the case where it
Figure 1. Palm oil biodiesel production system. (FFB ¼ fresh fruit bunch,
CPO ¼ crude palm oil, POME ¼ palm oil mill effluent, BDF ¼ biodiesel fuel)
135
is claimed that the plantation is located on land that was
cleared several decades ago (>30 y) and start from Step B.
4. Gate-to-gate (Gt-to-Gt): For all studies other than those
described in points 1, 2, and 3 above.
Almost 60% of the studies (13 studies) were carried out
using the gate-to-gate approach, and only 10% (3 studies)
were carried out using the cradle-to-grave approach. The
remaining 30% of the studies were carried out using the
cradle-to-gate or the gate-to-grave approach.
Land use change (LUC) is excluded in most gate-to-gate
studies, mainly due to the difficulty in quantifying the origin
of the existing palm oil plantation (Yusoff and Hansen 2007).
However, an attempt has been undertaken to account for the
LUC impact from mixed agricultural land in Thailand
(Siangjaeo et al. 2011). Different approaches were under-
taken by respective authors in relation to incorporation of
LUC in the life cycle impact assessment.
Key methodological choices
Functional units. We use 4 different approaches in defining
the functional unit. We classify these approaches into 4
groups: agricultural land area, output mass, output energy,
and output service (Table 1). In the area of ‘‘agricultural
land’’ group, results of the assessment are normalized in the
unit of hectare per year of plantation. In the ‘‘output mass’’
group, results of the assessment are normalized in the unit
of kg or ton of BDF. Although there is 1 study (Siangjaeo
et al. 2011) that uses related output volume (in liters of BDF),
we included it in this group. In the ‘‘output energy’’ group,
results of the assessment are normalized in the unit of MJ of
BDF or CPO. In the ‘‘output service’’ group, results of the
assessment are normalized in 100 km of transportation by
light duty diesel vehicle.
Reference systems. Table 2 shows which reference systems the
study is compared. Twelve of the 23 reviewed studies do not
compare the assessed system to a reference system. Rapeseed
is used in 3 studies, Jatropha biodiesel in 2 studies, and fossil
fuel in 2 studies. Other substitutes, such as sugarcane ethanol
and soybean biodiesel, are also mentioned in some studies.
Studies that apply consequential LCA compare the assessed
systems to different consequential scenarios. In Schmidt
(2010), for instance, the scenarios include increasing agricul-
tural area and increasing agricultural yield. In Stichnothe and
Schuchardt (2010), the scenarios include dumping empty
fruit bunch (EFB) and composting EFB.
Considering that palm oil biodiesel pathway delivers some
co-products (e.g., palm kernel oil, glycerin), it is found that
accounting for the impact of substituted products in the
reference systems is still not considered in many of the
existing studies with the exception of Achten et al. (2010).
Furthermore, the alternative land use change impact of the
substitute biodiesel is not widely adopted as a reference
system except in Siangjaeo et al. (2011).
Allocation. A majority of the reviewed studies use allocation
by mass, usually for the palm kernel and glycerin co-products.
In recent studies (Achten et al. 2010; Schmidt 2010), there
are attempts to avoid allocation by using system boundary
expansion and apply substitution method.
136 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013—Y Manik and A Halog

Table 1. Studies by functional unit

Agricultural area Output mass Output energy Output service

de Souza et al. 2010 Siangjaeo et al. 2011 Choo et al. 2011 Pleanjai et al. 2009

Fargione et al. 2008 Papong et al. 2010 Hassan et al. 2011

Germer and Suerborn 2008 Schmidt et al. 2010 Achten et al. 2010

Kamahara et al. 2010 Stichnothe and Schuchardt 2010 Puah et al. 2010

Lam et al. 2009 Yáñez et al., 2009

Pleanjai and Gheewala 2009 Wicke et al. 2008

Yee et al. 2009

Reijnders and Huijbregts 2008

Yusoff and Hansen 2007

Impact category and characterization. Climate change or global
warming potential associated with GHG emissions is the
impact category addressed in a majority of the reviewed
studies. Other impacts categories that are also frequently
addressed include potentials of toxicity, eutrophication,
acidification, and biodiversity loss. Various methodologies
have been used to categorize the environmental impacts as
well as to quantify the physical flow into each characterized
impact. EcoIndicator 99 was used in Zah et al. (2007), Yusoff
and Hansen (2007), and Puah et al. (2010). The Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines is used in
Siangjaeo et al. (2011), Achten et al. (2010), Germer and
Sauerborn (2008), and Wicke et al. (2008) in quantification of
the GWP. Other guidelines such as CML 2001 method, the
Danish EDIP97 method, and Swiss UPB06 have been used by
Stichnothe and Schuchardt (2010), Schmidt (2010), and Zah
et al. (2007), respectively.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Energy balance
Generally, all studies agree that palm oil biodiesel would
produce positive energy balance, indicating it as a feasible
feedstock for biodiesel. The results from the reviewed studies
show a net energy ratio (NER) between 2.27 and 4.81.
Because the reviewed studies differ in their system boundaries
and normalization is complicated, averaging the value for
NER is inappropriate.
Concerning the net energy production (NEP), which is the
difference between energy output and energy inputs, the
average value of the reviewed studies (normalized in the unit
of GJ ha
1y
1) is 112 with a standard deviation of 24. Data
are shown in Table 3.
The variety of NER and NEP results depends on several
technical factors including yields, amount of fertilizer used,
and mill efficiency. For instance, in the study of de Souza et
al. (2010) less fertilizer and fuel inputs are used in the
plantation stage when compared to that of Yee et al. (2009)
or Pleanjai and Gheewala (2009). Moreover, pesticide use
is not included in the study of Yee et al. (2009). Apart
from these technical factors, methodological issues in
calculation, such as system boundaries and allocation proce-
dure, also play roles.
Increasing of NER and NEP is still possible through
improvement in the processes. Kamahara et al. (2010) claim
that NER can be improved up to 8.0 by combining several
process improvement options (e.g., using all the biomass
residue, glycerin co-product, and biogas for energy produc-
tion, using glycerin, and increasing the FFB yield).
GHG emissions and C payback time
The reviewed studies use different methodologies in
calculating GHG emissions. We classify these approaches
into 3 groups (Figure 2):
1. Those that emphasize exclusively C-loss caused by LUC as
GHG emissions (Fargione et al. 2008; Germer and
Sauerborn 2008).
2. Those that calculate the life cycle GHG emissions but
exclude C-debt from LUC. Authors in this group used
2 approaches:

Table 2. Studies by reference system

Fossil fuel Rapeseed biodiesel Jathropa biodiesel Palm biodiesel in different scenario Other

Achten et al. 2010 Papong et al. 2010 Lam et al. 2009 Schmidt 2010 Fargione et al. 2008

Pleanjai et al. 2009 Schmidt 2010 Papong et al. 2010 Stichnothe and Schuchardt 2010 Gibbs et al. 2008

Yee et al. 2009 Siangjaeo et al. 2010 Zah et al. 2007

Wicke et al. 2008

 MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 137

Table 3. NER and NEP of selected studies

Nr Author NER NEP (original) NEP (normalized)a

1 Achten 2010 2.61

2 de Souza et al. 2010 2.33 8.40E þ 04 MJ ha
1y
1 84 GJ ha
1y
1

3 Kamahara et al. 2010 3.10 9.80E þ 04 MJ ha
1y
1 98 GJ ha
1y
1

4 Papong et al. 2010 2.48 2.40E þ 01 MJ kg
1 120 GJ ha
1y
1

5 Lam et al. 2009 2.27

6 Pleanjai and Gheewala 2009 2.42

7 Yáñez Angarita et al. 2009 4.81 2.94E þ 01 MJ kg
1 147 GJ ha
1y
1

8 Yee et al. 2009 3.53 2.23E þ 01 MJ kg
1 112 GJ ha
1y
1

Minimum 2.27 112 GJ ha
1y
1

Maximum 4.81 24 GJ ha
1y
1

a
Normalization factor: 5 ton ha
1y
1 and 38 MJ kg
1.

(a) Subtracting CO2 assimilation in plantation from the
total life cycle GHG emissions (Lam et al. 2009; Yee
et al. 2009). This way, GHG emissions are total GHG
emitted minus assimilated CO2 in palm plantation;
and
(b) Ignoring CO2 assimilation in plantation. This way,
GHG emissions are the sum of GHG emitted. (de
Souza et al. 2010; Achten et al. 2010). Although
Achten et al. (2010) also calculated GHG emission
from LUC, the purpose was only for calculating C
payback time (CPBT).
3. Those that calculate the cradle-to-grave (LUC up to BDF
production) or cradle-to-gate (LUC up to BDF use) GHG
emissions by distributing the C-loss over a certain time
span (25–100 y) (Wicke et al. 2008; Reijnders and
Huijbregts 2008).
Table 4 depicts the summary of GHG calculation of
selected reviewed studies. The methods of calculating the
GHG emissions in the reviewed studies vary widely and thus
result in completely different conclusions.
Based on the data in Table 4, we distinguish these results
into 2 groups:
1. Studies that conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net
sequester of CO2 from the atmosphere. Included in
this group are results from Lam et al. (2009), Yee et al.
(2009), Siangjaeo et al. (2011) and some results from
Germer and Sauerborn (2008) and Wicke et al. (2008). In
Germer and Sauerborn (2008), Wicke et al. (2008),
and Siangjaeo et al. (2011), this fact is attributed to
the practice of cultivating oil palms in former degraded
land, former mixed agricultural land, or former grassland.
In Lam et al. (2009) and Yee et al. (2009), this fact
is attributed to subtracting the assimilation in palm
plantation from life cycle GHG emissions. However, Yee
et al. (2009) obtained a difference of 3 orders-of-
magnitude (
8980 t CO2eq ha
1y
1) to that of Lam
et al. (2009), which calls for a revisiting of the method-
ology they used.
2. Studies that conclude that palm oil biodiesel is a net
emitter of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Figure 2. GHG emissions calculations.

138 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013—Y Manik and A Halog

Table 4. GHG emissions of selected studies

GHG
Nr Author Approach a
In original units Normalized in ha
1y
1 Remarks

1 Fargione et al. 2008 1 610 t CO2eq ha
1 50 y
1 12 t CO2eq From lowland forest

1
1
3000 t CO2eq ha 50 y 60 t CO2eq From peatland forest

2 Germer and Sauerborn 2008 1
135 t CO2eq ha
1 25 y
1
5 t CO2eq From grassland

1
1
650 t CO2eq ha 25 y 26 t CO2eq From nonpeat forest

1
1
1300 t CO2eq ha 25 y 52 t CO2eq From peatland forest

3 Lam et al. 2009 2.a
6.9 t CO2eq t
1BDF
34 t CO2eq No LUC considered

1
4 Yee et al. 2009 2.a
1796 t CO2eq t BDF
9 kt CO2eq No LUC considered

5 Achten et al. 2010 2.b 69 g CO2eq MJ
1BDF 2 t CO2eq No LUC considered

6 de Souza et al. 2010 2.b 1437 kg CO2eq ha
1 y
1 1 t CO2eq No LUC considered

7 Choo et al. 2011 2b 33 g CO2eq MJ-1BDF 1 t CO2eq No LUC considered

8 Siangjaeo et al. 2011 3
0.60 kg CO2eq l
1BDF
3 t CO2eq From abandoned land

1

0.73 kg CO2eq l BDF
3 t CO2eq From other plantation

1
9 Reijnders and Huijbregts 2008 3 11.2 t CO2eq t BDF 56 t CO2eq Median value

10 Wicke et al. 2008 3
51 g CO2eq MJ
1BDF
2 t CO2eq From degraded land

1
107 g CO2eq MJ BDF 4 t CO2eq From nonpeat forest

1
391 g CO2eq MJ BDF 14 t CO2eq From peatland forest

11 Hassan et al. 2011 3 400 g CO2eq MJ
1BDF 16 t CO2eq From primary forest

1
320 g CO2eq MJ BDF 13 t CO2eq From 2nd.forest

100 g CO2eq MJ
1BDF 4 t CO2eq From grassland

54 g CO2eq MJ
1BDF
2 t CO2eq From degraded land

a
See approaches referred to in Figure 2.

All other results of the reviewed studies indicate palm oil
biodiesel is a net GHG emitter to the atmosphere. In cases
when palm oil plantations were originally from peatland
forest, the GHG emissions range between 14 and 60
t CO2eq ha
1y
1, whereas those in which plantations were
originally from natural or lowland forest can be in the range of
4 to 26 t CO2eq ha
1y
1 (Fargione et al. 2008; Germer and
Sauerborn 2008; Wicke et al. 2008; Hassan et al. 2011). This
indicates how LUC is the most decisive factor in determining
life cycle GHG emissions of palm oil biodiesel.
In studies that exclude LUC in calculating the GHG
emission (Achten et al. 2010; de Souza et al. 2010; Choo
et al. 2011) it is found that GHG emissions are between 1 and
2 t CO2eq ha
1y
1. In such system boundaries, the significant
factors that determine GHG emissions are the amount of
fertilizer inputs in plantations, diesel fuel use in traction, and
treatment option of POME.
Carbon payback time is the time that a biofuel system
needs to repay the initial C emission caused by LUC. By
knowing C-loss in LUC, life cycle GHG emissions of the
assessed biofuel, and life cycle GHG emissions of a referred
fossil fuel system, CPBT is calculable. Similar with GHG
emissions, the CPBT value is also variable depending on the
land origin and other emission factors in its life cycle, such as
fertilizer use and treatment option in mill effluent. For
biodiesel from plantation originally from peatland forest, the
CPBT can last between 169 to 900 years, whereas those that
were originally from degraded land can only last between 0 to
10 years. Table 5 gives the CPBT results of selected studies.
From these studies, it can be concluded that the impacts of
palm oil biodiesel on GHG emissions and CPBT can be lower
when oil palm is planted on degraded land, grassland, or other
low C soils (Choo et al. 2011; Hansen et al. 2012). Figure 3
provides a graphical summary to show how GHG emission
would differ depending on the land origin. However, this
improvement is subject to the availability of degraded land,
grassland, or other low C soils that could be used for
plantation purposes. Other improvement potential is avail-
able in the POME treatment process, for instance by using
POME to produce biogas followed by co-composting the
residue with EFB (Kamahara et al. 2010).
Eutrophication and acidification impacts
Eutrophication and acidification potentials are addressed
in 5 studies. Nordic Guidelines on LCA (Lindfors et al.
1995) is used for characterization in Achten et al. (2010),
thus eutrophication and acidification impact potentials are
 MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013 139

Table 5. CPBT of selected studies
Nr Authorr
1 Achten et al. 2010
2 de Souza et al. 2010
3 Danielsen et al. 2008
4 Fargione et al. 2008
5 Gibbs et al. 2008
European normalization and weighting factors. Table 6
summarizes all eutrophication and acidification potentials
CPBT (y) Remarks from the respective studies.
47–49
Because eutrophication and acidification impacts are
reported less uniformly, we did not attempt to normalize
39 the results across these studies. Studies state that the majority
of the total eutrophication and acidification potential of the
75–93 From nonpeat forest
palm oil biodiesel is caused by agricultural and extraction
10 From degraded land phases. This is associated with NH3 emissions and N leaching.
Anther contributing factor is the combustion of biodiesel
420 From peatland forest during its end use. Improvement is possible when POME is
86 From nonpeat forest used to generate biogas and further co-composted with EFB,
then returned to the plantation.
900 From peatland forest

30–120 From nonpeat forest

7 Wicke et al. 2008 169 From peatland forest
30 From nonpeat forest
0 From degraded land
Figure 3. Life-cycle GHG emissions depending on the land origin brought in to
palm oil plantation
expressed in g O2eq and g SO2eq. CML 2001 method
(Guineé 2002) is applied in Stichnothe and Schuchardt
(2010), and thus eutrophication and acidification impact
potentials are expressed in kg PO34 eq and kg SO2eq.
Schmidt (2010) uses the updated EDIP97 and quantifies
eutrophication and acidification impact potentials in kg
NO3eq and kg SO2eq/FU. Both in Puah et al. (2010) and
Yusoff and Hansen (2007), Ecoindicator 99 (Goedkoop and
Spriensma 2001) is applied and results are normalized in
Biodiversity impact
Out of 23 reviewed studies, only 2 studies address the
potential impact on biodiversity loss (Danielsen et al. 2008;
Schmidt 2010). In Danielsen et al. (2008), diversity of fauna
and flora of oil palm plantations is compared to that of
tropical forests in Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America.
Their results indicate that total vertebrate species richness of
oil palm plantation is less than 38% that of natural forest, and
the flora of oil palm plantation is seriously impoverished
compare to that of forest. In Schmidt (2010), life cycle
impact of biodiversity was quantified using characterization
factor in the unit of wS100. This term refers to weighted
species richness on a standardized area at 100 m2 and the
weighting refers to the factor for ecosystem vulnerability as
described in Schmidt (2008). Schmidt (2010) estimate the
impact of land transformation to oil palm plantation is
385 wS100 per ha, assuming that the transformation is from
secondary forest to intensive plantation.
Despite the fewer amount of study dedicated to biodiver-
sity assessment of palm oil, it is generally understood that oil
palm plantations with uniform crops, lower canopy, and great
human interruption are structurally less complex than natural
forest. Fitzherbert et al. (2008) reviewed studies dealing with
impacts of palm oil expansion to biodiversity and conclude
that oil palm plantation strongly affect biodiversity through
fragmentation, edge effects, and pollution that can only be
averted by avoiding future deforestation.
Other impacts
Impacts on abiotic resources depletion potentials are
discussed in 5 studies: Achten et al. (2010), Puah et al.
(2010), Stichnothe and Schuchardt (2010), Yussof and
Hansen (2007), and Zah et al. (2007). Results show that
nonrenewable energy demand is relatively significant due to
the use of fossil fuels in methanol production, fertilizer

Table 6. Eutrophication and acidification potentials

Nr Author EP AP

1 Achten et al. 2010 31.9 < EP < 39.6 g O2eq/FU 1.35 < AP < 1.57 g SO2eq/FU

2 Puah et al. 2010 5 pt

3 Schmidt 2008 80.6 < EP < 337 kg NO3eq/FU 13 < AP < 23.5 kg SO2eq/FU

4 Stichnote and Schuchardt 2010
0.003 << EP << 1.4 kg PO3

4 eq/FU 1.3E-02 < AP < 1.1E-02 kg SO2eq/FU

5 Yusoff and Hansen 2007 2.7 pt

140
production, and traction. However, some authors claim there
is a reduction of 45% to 60% on nonrenewable energy use
compared to fossil reference system (Achten et al. 2010; Zah
et al. 2007).
Potential impact to toxicity is discussed in 4 studies:
Stichnothe and Schuchardt (2010), Puah et al. (2010), Yusof
and Hansen (2007), Zah et al. (2007) using respective
characterization methods described previously. Overall,
studies found that there is no significant human health impact
apart from respiratory inorganics resulting mainly from
particles emitted by the boiler. Some of the studies neglect
the impact of pesticides, assuming that the doses are relatively
small, so that the impacts generally do not spread out of the
plantation area.
Land transformation impact is discussed in Achten et al.
(2010) and Schmidt (2010). Land transformation impact
strongly depends on the land origin. Almost similar to the
GHG and biodiversity impact, an improvement of functional
and structural ecosystem quality can only be expected in cases
when the plantation is converted from degraded land or a mix
of traditional agriculture.
Source of uncertainties
From the life cycle methodological point of view, differ-
ence in system boundary used (e.g., cradle-to-grave vs gate-to-
gate) is the major source of variability and uncertainty in the
studies. Furthermore, the use of different impact assessment
methodologies (e.g., EcoIndicator vs EDIP97) is another
important source of variability of results as demonstrated in
Schmidt (2010) in its sensitivity analysis. Another aspect is
the allocation method of co-product that often plays a role in
variation of results. Data quality is also a common issue
because proxy data is used in some of the studies. With
respect to estimation of GHG emission in the land use
change, the assumption of the land origin and its C content are
the important sources of variability leading to the uncertainty of
the results (Wicke et al. 2008; Hassan et al. 2011).
Apart from the methodological variability, uncertainty
comes from the effects of different agricultural and processing
practices in the respective studies. Variability in crop yields
due to geographical location and management practice are the
key issues in cultivation stage. For instance, in the study of de
Souza et al. (2010), less fertilizer and fuel inputs are used in
the plantation stage when compared to that of Pleanjai and
Gheewala (2009). Mill efficiency is also a key issue in the
conversion stage.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE STUDY
Studies using life cycle based methodology to account for
environmental impacts of oil palm biodiesel have been
increasing over the last 5 years. However, the number of
studies is growing only in certain countries (i.e., Malaysia,
Thailand). More studies in Indonesia are needed because the
LCA studies conducted are still disproportional to the scale of
oil palm expansion in that country. South America and Africa
are also in need of further exploration in such studies.
Throughout these studies, some significant impacts such as
energy gain, potentials of global warming, eutrophication,
acidification, toxicology, and biodiversity have been disclosed.
Nevertheless, more intensive studies for improving data
quality and reducing the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
while exploring possible impacts, which have not yet been
Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013—Y Manik and A Halog
investigated, are still needed. Comparing biodiversity impacts
of land use change from mixed agricultural land or grassland
to oil palm plantation need to be explored as these 2 options
are likely preferable to rainforest for further oil palm
plantation expansion.
Further toxicological studies should be carried out to
assess the possible impact of the pesticides use in plantations.
Studies in Indonesia, in particular, should address potential
marine ecological toxicology, considering the nature of its
archipelagic landscape. It is also important to assess water
use and its impact to the groundwater resource around
the plantation and mills, as it is indicated that a considerable
amount of water is used for irrigation and steam in boiler
operations (Yáñez Angarita et al. 2009; de Souza et al.
2010).
From the relative energy gain standpoint, it is evident that
oil palm is a potential renewable feedstock for renewable fuel.
It is also evident that some environmental consequences are
associated with its supply chain. Some process improvements
have been identified both in increasing the energy gain and in
reducing the environmental impacts. However, it must be
highlighted here that there exist some trade-offs in achieving
these objectives. As an example, expanding oil palm
plantation in degraded land or grassland and avoiding the
conversion of rainforest is the most effective improvement
potential in reducing GHG emissions. However, planting oil
palm on degraded land is costly and does not provide initial
capital such as timber extraction from rainforest. As another
example, the use of POME to generate biogas or to be further
co-composted with EFB and returned to the plantation is also
effective in GHG emissions reduction. However, this option
will eliminate the opportunity of co-combusting EFB in boiler
that in turn will increase the energy input (i.e., fossil fuels)
and reduce the NER as well as profitability. To address these
trade-offs, future studies need to focus on consequential
LCAs and optimization-based models to obtain an optimal
solution.
Recognizing the contribution of natural resources and the
lack of the comprehensive accounting of the role of ecosystem
goods and services, it is important to conduct an in-depth
analysis of the contribution of natural resources in the life
cycle of palm oil biodiesel, e.g., using the ecologically based
LCA approach (Zang et al. 2010). Finally, decision support
analysis studies (e.g., multicriteria decision analysis [MCDA])
are very relevant to assess different competing options of
biodiesel feedstock, such as Jatropha, rapeseed, and algae. An
MCDA in general involves m alternatives (e.g., comparing
palm oil biodiesel with different biofuel systems or different
scenario within palm oil biodiesel processing) evaluated on n
criteria (i.e., sustainability criteria). An operational frame-
work to execute the MCDA in sustainable energy decision
making has been presented by Wang et al. (2009).
Eventually, in view of the three dimensions of sustain-
ability, efforts must be made to broaden existing LCA studies
to account for more criteria that is relevant to the 3Ps
(prosperity, people, and planet). To this end, it will be
interesting to apply the integrated system modeling frame-
work for the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework
developed in Halog and Manik (2011). This is also in line with
the call from United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) for life cycle sustainability assessment, which has
been reported in Heijungs et al. (2010) and Guineé et al.
(2011).
 MA Rev of LCA and FA Studies of POB—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9, 2013
Acknowledgment—This study was sponsored by the
Fulbright Program in cooperation with American Indonesian
Exchange Foundation (AMINEF).
REFERENCES
Achten WMJ, Van den Bempt P, Almeida J, Mathis E, Muys B. 2010. Life cycle
assessment of a palm oil system with simultaneous production of biodiesel and
cooking oil in Cameroon. Environ Sci Technol 44:4809–4815.
Basiron Y. 2007. Palm oil production through sustainable plantation. Eur J Lipid Sci
Technol 109:289–295.
Choo YM, Muhamad H, Hashim Z, Subramaniam V, Puah CW, Tan YA. 2011.
Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the oil palm supply chain
using the LCA approach. Int J LCA 16:669–681.
Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND, Parish F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Mudiyarso D,
Phalan B, Reijnders L, Struebig M., et al. 2008. Biofuel plantations on forested
lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23:348–358.
de Souza SP, Pacca S, de Avila MT, Borges JLB. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and
energy balance of palm oil biodiesel. Renew Energ 35:2552–2561.
Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. 2008. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238.
Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Phalan B.
2008. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23:538–
545.
Fukuda H, Kondo A, Noda H. 2001. Biodiesel fuel production by transesterification
of oils. J Biosci Bioeng 92:405–416.
Germer J, Sauerborn J. 2008. Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation
establishment on greenhouse gas balance. Environ Dev Sustain 10:697–716.
Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Zaks D.
2008. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics:
The effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3:34001–34011.
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R. 2001. The EcoIndicator 99—A damage oriented
method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. BB Amersfoort: PRe Consultants.
Guineé JB. editor. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to
the ISO standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 81–82.
Guineé JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T,
Rydberg T. 2011. Life cycle assessment: Past, present and future. Environ Sci
Technol 45:90–96.
Halog A, Manik Y. 2011. Advancing integrated system modeling framework for life
cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3:469–499.
Hassan MNA, Jaramillo P, Griffin WM. 2011. Life cycle GHG emissions from
Malaysian oil palm bioenergy development: The impact on transportation
sector’s energy security. Energ Policy 39:2615–2625.
Hansen SB, Olsen SI, Ujang Z. 2012. Greenhouse gas reductions through enhanced
use of residues in the life cycle of Malaysian palm oil derived biodiesel. Bioresour
Technol 104:358–366.
Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guineé JB. 2010. Life cycle assessment and sustainability
analysis of products, materials and technologies: Toward scientific framework
for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil 95:422–428.
[ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006. ISO 14040:
Environmental management—Life cycle assessment, principles and
framework. Geneva: ISO.
Kamahara H, Hasanudin U, Widiyanto A, Tachibana R, Atsuta Y, Goto N, Daimon H,
Fujie K. 2010. Improvement potential for net energy balance of biodiesel
141
derived from palm oil: A case study from Indonesian practice. Biomass
Bioenerg 30:1–7.
Lam MK, Lee KT, Mohamed AR. 2009. Life cycle assessment for the production of
biodiesel: A case study in Malaysia for palm oil versus Jatropha oil. Biofuels
Bioprod Bioref 3:601–612.
Larson ED. 2006. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for
the transportation sector. Energ Sustain Dev 10:109–126.
Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hansen OJ,
Ronning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. 1995. Nordic guidelines on LCA.
Copenhagen: Nord.
Papong S, Chom-In T, Noksa-nga S, Malakul P. 2010. Life cycle energy efficiency and
potentials of biodiesel production from palm oil in Thailand. Energ Policy
38:225–233.
Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH. 2009. Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production
from palm oil in Thailand. Appl Energ 86:S209–S214.
Pleanjai S, Gheewala SH, Garivait S. 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from the
production and use of palm methyl ester in Thailand. Int J Global Warm 1:418–
430.
Puah CW, May CY, Ngan MA. 2010. Life cycle assessment for the production and
use of palm biodiesel (Part 5). J Palm Oil Res 25:927–933.
Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ. 2008. Palm oil and the emission of carbon-based
greenhouse gases. J Clean Prod 16:477–482.
Schmidt JH. 2008. Development of LCIA characterization factors for land use
impact on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16:1929–1942.
Schmidt JH. 2010. Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil.
Int J LCA 15:183–197.
Siangjaeo S, Gheewala SH, Unnanon K, Chidthaisong A. 2011. Implications of land
use change on the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from palm biodiesel
production in Thailand. Energ Sustain Dev 15:1–7.
Stichnothe H, Schuchardt F. 2010. Comparison of different treatment
options for palm oil production waste on a life cycle basis. Int J LCA
15:907–915.
Sumathi S, Chai SP, Mohamed AR. 2008. Utilization of oil palm as a source of
renewable energy in Malaysia. Ren Sust Energy Rev 12:2404–2421.
Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H. 2009. Review on multi-criteria decision
analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energ Rev
13:2263–2278.
Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M, Faaij A. 2008. Different palm oil production
systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass
Bioenerg 28:1322–1337.
Yáñez Angarita, Silva EE, Lora EE, da Costa RE, Torres EA. 2009. The energy balance
in the palm oil-derived methyl ester (PME) life cycle for the cases in Brazil and
Colombia. Renew Energ 34:2905–2913.
Yee KF, Tan KT, Abdullah AZ, Lee KT. 2009. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel:
Revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl Energ 86:S189–S196.
Yusoff S, Hansen SB. 2007. Feasibility study of performing an LCA on crude palm oil
production in Malaysia. Int J LCA 12:50–56.
Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P. 2007. Life Cycle
Assessment of energy products: Environmental assesment of biofuels. Bern:
EMPA.
Zang Y, Baral A, Bakhsi BR. 2010. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle
assessment, Part II: Toward and ecologically-based LCA. Environ Sci Technol
44:2624–2631.