Claudine Basset-Mens

LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage

PurposePerennial crops globally provide a lot of fruit and other food products. They may also provide feedstock for bioenergy and have been, notably to this end, the subject of several LCA-based studies mostly focusing on energy and GHG balances. The purpose of this review was to investigate the relevance of LCAs on perennial crops, especially focusing on how the perennial crop specificities were accounted for in the farm stage modelling.MethodsMore than 100 papers were reviewed covering 14 products from perennial crops: apple, banana (managed over several years), orange and other citrus fruits, cocoa, coconut, coffee, grape fruit, Jatropha oil, kiwi fruit, palm oil, olive, pear and sugarcane. These papers were classified into three categories according to the comprehensiveness of the LCA study and depending on whether they were peer-reviewed or not. An in-depth analysis of the goal and scope, data origin for farming systems, modelling approach for the perennial cropping systems and methods and data for field emissions helped reveal the more critical issues and design some key recommendations to account better for perennial cropping systems in LCA.Results and discussionIn the vast majority of the reviewed papers, very little attention was paid on integrating the perennial cropping cycle in the LCA. It is especially true for bioenergy LCA-based studies that often mostly focused on the industrial transformation without detailing the agricultural raw material production, although it might contribute to a large extent to the studied impacts. Some key parameters, such as the length of the crop cycle, the immature and unproductive phase or the biannual yield alternance, were mostly not accounted for. Moreover, the lack of conceptual modelling of the perennial cycle was not balanced by any attempt to represent the temporal variability of the system with a comprehensive inventory of crop managements and field emissions over several years.ConclusionsAccording to the reviewed papers and complementary references, we identified the gaps in current LCA of perennial cropping systems and proposed a road map for scientific researches to help fill-in the knowledge-based gaps. We also made some methodological recommendations in order to account better for the perennial cycle within LCA considering the aim of the study and data availability.

Life cycle assessment of vegetable products: a review focusing on cropping systems diversity and the estimation of field emissions

PurposeRecent life cycle assessment studies for vegetable products have identified the agricultural stage as one of the most important contributors to the environmental impacts for these products, while vegetable production systems are characterized by specific but also widely diverse production conditions. In this context, a review aiming at comparing the potential impacts of vegetable products and analyzing the relevance of the methods and data used for the inventory of the farm stage appeared necessary.MethodsTen papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or ISO-compliant reports were selected. First, a presentation of the selected papers was done to compare the goal and scope and the life cycle inventory data to the related sections in the ILCD Handbook. Second, a quantitative review of input flows and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results (global warming, eutrophication, and acidification) was based on a cropping system typology and on a classification per product group. Third, an in-depth analysis of the methods used to estimate field emissions of reactive nitrogen was proposed.Results and discussionThe heated greenhouse system types showed the greatest global warming potential. The giant bean group showed the greatest acidification and eutrophication potentials per kilogram of product, while the tomato group showed the greatest acidification and eutrophication potentials per unit of area. Main sources of variations for impacts across systems were yields and inputs variations and system expansion rules. Overall, the ability to compare the environmental impact for these diverse vegetable products from cradle-to-harvest was hampered by (1) weaknesses regarding transparency of goal and scope, (2) a lack of representativeness and completeness of data used for the field stage, and (3) heterogeneous and inadequate methods for estimating field emissions. In particular, methods to estimate reactive nitrogen emissions were applied beyond their validity domain.Conclusions and recommendationsThis first attempt at comparing the potential impacts of vegetable products pinpointed several gaps in terms of data and methods to reach representative LCIA results for the field production stage. To better account for the specificities of vegetable cropping systems and improve the overall quality of their LCA studies, our key recommendations were (1) to include systematically phosphorus, water, and pesticide fluxes and characterize associated impacts, such as eutrophication, toxicity, and water deprivation; (2) to better address space and time representativeness for field stage inventory data through better sampling procedures and reporting transparency; and (3) to use best available methods and when possible more mechanistic tools for estimating Nr emissions.

Partial modelling of the perennial crop cycle misleads LCA results in two contrasted case studies

PurposeAs highlighted in recent reviews, there is a need to harmonise the way life cycle assessment (LCA) of perennial crops is conducted. In most published LCA on perennial crops, the modelling of the agricultural production is based on data sets for just one productive year. This may be misleading since performance and impacts of the system may greatly vary year by year. The purposes of this study are to analyse how partial modelling of the perennial cycle through non-holistic data collection may affect LCA results and to make recommendations.MethodsThree modelling choices for the perennial crop cycle were tested in parallel in two contrasted LCA case studies: oil palm fruits from Indonesia, and small citrus from Morocco. Modelling choices tested were as follows: (i) a chronological modelling over the complete crop cycle of orchards, (ii) a 3-year average from the productive phase, and (iii) various single years from the productive phase. In both case studies, the system boundary was a cradle-to-farm gate with a functional unit of 1xa0kg fresh fruits. LCA midpoint impacts were calculated with ReCiPe 2008 in Simapro©V.7. We first analysed how inputs, yields and potential impacts varied over time. We then analysed process contributions in the baseline model, i.e. the chronological modelling, and finally compared LCA results for the various perennial modelling choices.Results and discussionAgricultural practices, yields and impacts varied over the years especially during the first 3–9xa0years depending on the case study. In both case studies, the modelling choices to account or not for the whole perennial cycle drastically influenced LCA results. The differences could be explained by the inclusion or not of the yearly variability and the accounting or not of the immature phase, which contributed to 7–40 or 6.5–29xa0% of all impact categories for oil palm fruit and citrus, respectively.ConclusionsThe chosen approach to model the perennial cycle influenced the final LCA results for two contrasted case studies and deserved specific attention. Although data availability may remain the limiting factor in most cases, assumptions can be made to interpolate or extrapolate some data sets or to consolidate data sets from chronosequences (i.e. modular modelling). In all cases, we suggest that the approach chosen to model the perennial cycle and the representativeness of associated collected data should be made transparent and discussed. Further research work is needed to improve the understanding and modelling of perennial crop functioning and LCA assessment.

Salinisation impacts in life cycle assessment: a review of challenges and options towards their consistent integration

PurposeSalinisation is a threat not only to arable land but also to freshwater resources. Nevertheless, salinisation impacts have been rarely and only partially included in life cycle assessment (LCA) so far. The objectives of this review paper were to give a comprehensive overview of salinisation mechanisms due to human interventions, analyse the completeness, relevance and scientific robustness of existing published methods addressing salinisation in LCA and provide recommendations towards a comprehensive integration of salinisation within the impact modelling frameworks in LCA.MethodsFirst, with the support of salinisation experts and related literature, we highlighted multiple causes of soil and water salinisation and presented induced effects on human health, ecosystems and resources. Second, existing life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods addressing salinisation were analysed against the International Reference Life Cycle Data System analysis grid of the European Commission. Third, adopting a holistic approach, the modelling options for salinisation impacts were analysed in agreement with up-to-date LCIA frameworks and models.Results and discussionWe proposed a categorisation of salinisation processes in four main types based on salinisation determinism: land use change, irrigation, brine disposal and overuse of a water body. For each salinisation type, key human management and biophysical factors involved were identified. Although the existing methods addressing salinisation in LCA are important and relevant contributions, they are often incomplete with regards to both the salinisation pathways they address and their geographical validity. Thus, there is a lack of a consistent framework for salinisation impact assessment in LCA. In analysing existing LCIA models, we discussed the inventory and impact assessment boundary options. The land use/land use change framework represents a good basis for the integration of salinisation impacts due to a land use change but should be completed to account for off-site impacts. Conversely, the land use/land use change framework is not appropriate to model salinisation due to irrigation, overuse of a water body and brine disposal. For all salinisation pathways, a bottom-up approach describing the environmental mechanisms (fate, exposure and effect) is recommended rather than an empirical or top-down approach because (i) salts and water are mobile and theirs effects are interconnected; (ii) water and soil characteristics vary greatly spatially; (iii) this approach allows the evaluation of both on- and off-site impacts and (iv) it is the best way to discriminate systems and support a reliable eco-design.ConclusionsThis paper highlights the importance of including salinisation impacts in LCA. Much research effort is still required to include salinisation impacts in a global, consistent and operational manner in LCA, and this paper provides the basis for future methodological developments.

High environmental risk and low yield of urban tomato gardens in Benin

In sub-Saharan Africa, urban farmers have recently intensified the production of vegetables to cope with the increasing food demand. As a consequence, such an intensification may lead to potential risks for the environment and human health. There is therefore a need for an integrated evaluation of urban agricultural practices. Here, we studied tomato production in Benin cities. We measured performances and the environmental risks. We have monitored 12 cropping systems during 6xa0months and we calculated the pesticide treatment frequency index (TFI), the nutrient budgets, and the field emissions. Our results show that yields were low and variable, averaging at 9,533xa0kg.ha−1 and ranging from 0 to 21,163xa0kg.ha−1. The average TFI for pesticides was 8.9. The maximum TFI of 25 was observed for an insecticide applied weekly at 2.3 times the official rate. We observed an excess of the average nutrient budget of 120xa0kg N and 84xa0kg P. ha−1. In conclusion, our study of urban tomato production revealed poor practices and high risks for health and the environment.

LCA of Food and Agriculture

This chapter deals with the application of Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental sustainability of agriculture and food processing. The life cycle of a food product is split into six stages: production and transportation of inputs to the farm, cultivation, processing, distribution, consumption and waste management. A large number of LCA studies focus on the two first stages in cradle-to-farm gate studies, as they are the stages where most impacts typically occur, due to animal husbandry and manure handling, production and use of fertilisers and the consumption of fuel to operate farm machinery. In the processing step, the raw agricultural product leaving the farm gate is converted to a food item that can be consumed by the user. Distribution includes transportation of the food product before and after processing. In the consumption stage, environmental impacts arise due to storage, preparation and waste of the food. In the waste management stage, food waste can be handled using a number of technologies, such as landfilling, incineration, composting or digestion. A number of case studies are looked at here where the life cycles of typical food products (meat, cheese, bread, tomatoes, etc.), and an entire diet are discussed. Other case studies deal with what LCA can conclude on the differences between conventional and organic farming, and the perceived advantages of local food items. Finally, methodological issues in agricultural LCA are discussed: the choice of functional unit, setting the boundary between technosphere and ecosphere, modelling flows of nutrients and pesticides, and the generally limited number of impact categories included in LCA studies.

Protected cultivation of vegetable crops in sub-Saharan Africa: limits and prospects for smallholders. A review

Vegetable production in sub-Saharan Africa faces numerous agronomic constraints that will have to be overcome to feed the increasing population and to fight malnutrition. Technology transfer and the adoption of low-tech protected cultivation techniques affordable for smallholders are believed to be able to meet this challenge. Protected cultivation techniques are a set of agricultural practices aimed at artificializing the crop environment through the use of soil covers and/or plant covers to control pests and climatic conditions. Although protected cultivation techniques may increase the yield and quality of vegetable crops and extend their production periods worldwide, the transfer of these techniques in sub-Saharan Africa raises questions about their agronomical performances, their profitability but also their environmental impacts. Are low-tech protected cultivation techniques adapted to the sustainable production of vegetables by smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa? To answer this question, we present an overview of the agronomic, economic, and environmental performances of low-tech protected cultivation techniques in sub-Saharan Africa as reported in the literature. The major conclusions that can be drawn from the review are (1) low-tech protected cultivation techniques are not suitable in all climatic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and need to be combined with other methods to ensure adequate pest control, (2) the profitability of protected cultivation techniques relies on the capacity to offset increased production costs by higher yields and higher selling prices to be obtained with off-season and/or higher quality products, (3) breaking with existing cropping systems, the lack of technical support and skills, and the limited access to investment funding are major obstacles to the adoption of protected cultivation techniques by smallholders (4) life cycle assessments conducted in northern countries suggested that more efficient use of agricultural inputs would offset the negative impacts of protected cultivation techniques if they are properly managed, but further studies are required to be sure these results can be extrapolated to sub-Saharan Africa context.

Inventory of field water flows for agri-food LCA: critical review and recommendations of modelling options

PurposeIn a context of flourishing eco-labelling programs and environment policy for food products, LCA application to agricultural systems faces the challenges of being operational, accurate and exhaustive. This is particularly challenging for the newly developing LCA and ISO-compliant water footprinting, with many LCIA methods only recently developed, but no dedicated inventory method. To support the inventory of elementary water flows, LCA practitioners have a variety of tools available, ranging from databases (e.g. World Food LCA Database) to complex agro-hydrological models. To allow all LCA practitioners to fulfil their diverse agri-food LCA objectives, a review of available inventory tools for field water flows and recommendations are needed.MethodsThe selection of the appropriate method and tool for the inventory of field water flows in agri-food LCA studies depends on the objectives of the LCA study, data and resources available (time and skills). We analysed water inventory and agri-food LCA databases by evaluating the models on which they rely and their input data. Then, we explored the use of agro-hydrological models for LCA aiming at discriminating between different cropping system practices (LCA-based eco-design).Results and discussionWater inventory and agri-food LCA databases provide estimates of theoretical water consumed by a crop and rely on data and methods that have limitations, making them suitable only for background agricultural LCAs. In addition, databases do not support the application of water availability footprint indicators (assessing quantitative water use and water quality alteration). For the LCA-based eco-design of cropping systems, the inventory of water flows should be based on a model simulating evapotranspiration, deep percolation and runoff accounting for crop specificities, pedo-climatic conditions and agricultural management. In particular, the model should account for possible water, salinity and nutrient stresses; assess evaporation and transpiration separately; and estimate runoff and drainage according to the system specificities. Yield should not be estimated with a model but with primary data. Recommended and default data sources are provided for each input parameter.ConclusionsThe FAO AquaCrop model represents a good trade-off between accuracy, simplicity and robustness for LCA-based eco-design of cropping systems. However, this model is not yet applicable for perennial crops. Beyond a single model selection, this is a modelling approach that we characterised in this work.

Life Cycle Assessment to Understand Agriculture-Climate Change Linkages

As one of the most comprehensive environmental assessment methodologies, life cycle assessment enables evaluation of the environmental impacts of anthropogenic activities along a supply chain. Its implementation raises many scientific questions. In the case of tropical cropping systems, researchers are working to understand and model environmental emissions based on the diversity of environments and systems. They are also focusing on the relationship between emissions and impacts. Cropping system life cycle assessments show that the impact on climate change varies by crop, environment and type of practice. Life cycle assessment can help guide production methods so as to reduce their environmental impacts. But the choices are not always clearcut.