Matthew Brander

Accounting for indirect land-use change in the life cycle assessment of biofuel supply chains

The expansion of land used for crop production causes variable direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, and other economic, social and environmental effects. We analyse the use of life cycle analysis (LCA) for estimating the carbon intensity of biofuel production from indirect land-use change (ILUC). Two approaches are critiqued: direct, attributional life cycle analysis and consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA). A proposed hybrid ‘combined model’ of the two approaches for ILUC analysis relies on first defining the system boundary of the resulting full LCA. Choices are then made as to the modelling methodology (economic equilibrium or cause–effect), data inputs, land area analysis, carbon stock accounting and uncertainty analysis to be included. We conclude that CLCA is applicable for estimating the historic emissions from ILUC, although improvements to the hybrid approach proposed, coupled with regular updating, are required, and uncertainly values must be adequately represented; however, the scope and the depth of the expansion of the system boundaries required for CLCA remain controversial. In addition, robust prediction, monitoring and accounting frameworks for the dynamic and highly uncertain nature of future crop yields and the effectiveness of policies to reduce deforestation and encourage afforestation remain elusive. Finally, establishing compatible and comparable accounting frameworks for ILUC between the USA, the European Union, South East Asia, Africa, Brazil and other major biofuel trading blocs is urgently needed if substantial distortions between these markets, which would reduce its application in policy outcomes, are to be avoided.

The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment

Substitution is used within attributional life cycle assessments (LCAs) as a means of avoiding allocation between co-products, and a number of existing standards and guidance documents permit its use in this way. This article discusses the appropriateness of substitution for attributional LCA, and suggests that the use of substitution introduces consequential elements into attributional analysis and that attributional assessments that use substitution will not be appropriate for consumption-based carbon accounting or corporate greenhouse gas reporting. This article suggests that, as a methodological principle, attributional LCA should only include actual physical burdens and should not include values for burdens that are avoided (i.e. do not physically occur). We also suggest that existing standards and guidance should be amended so that substitution is not permitted as a method within attributional LCA and that substitution should be clearly distinguished from expanding the function studied by an assessment. This article focuses on greenhouse gas LCA, but the discussion and conclusions apply to attributional LCA generally.

Response to “Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?” – Appreciation, renouncement, and further discussion

PurposeSoimakallio et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(10):1364–1375, 2015) establish the need for baselines in attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and thereby provide an important milestone in the evolving conceptualisation of both attributional and consequential LCA. The purpose of this commentary is to acknowledge Soimakallio et al.’s contribution, identify its implications for a number previously published papers, critique the use of natural regeneration baselines, and offer some further thoughts on the conceptual nature of attributional and consequential approaches.MethodsThe methods used in this study were comparative analysis with other forms of attributional inventory and an illustrative example of alternative ‘natural’ baselines for carbon sequestration.Results and discussionThe commentary concurs that attributional LCA requires baselines and that attributional studies are not inventories of absolute emissions and removals, contrary to previous statements by the present author. Nevertheless, a number of previous statements on attributional and consequential methods remain largely unchanged: attributional studies can be aggregated to approximate total (anthropogenic) environmental impacts; substitution is conceptually inappropriate for attributional LCA; and the attributional-consequential distinction can be applied to other forms of environmental assessment such as national, corporate, and community greenhouse gas inventories (attributional), and project and policy-level greenhouse gas assessments (consequential). A further finding is that natural regeneration baselines may not be appropriate for attributional studies and that some arguments in their favour may be symptomatic of a misconception of attributional LCA.ConclusionsSoimakallio et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(10):1364–1375, 2015) make an extremely useful contribution to the evolving conceptualisation of attributional and consequential approaches, which is highly important for methodological development and choosing the appropriate method for a given purpose.

Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline

PurposeThe purposes of this commentary are to further an on-going debate concerning the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and to respond to a number of arguments advanced by Soimakallio (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1364–1375, 2016). The commentary also seeks to clarify the conceptual nature of attributional LCA.MethodsThe overarching approach for resolving the question of the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional LCA is to clarify what attributional LCA is seeking to represent, i.e. methodological questions can only be resolved if it is clear what the method is seeking to do. An illustrative example is used to explore the different results produced by ‘natural regeneration’ and ‘natural’ baselines.Results and discussionIt is proposed that attributional LCA should be conceptualised as an inventory of anthropogenic impacts, conceptually akin to other forms of environmental inventory, such as national GHG inventories. The use of natural regeneration baselines is not consistent with this conceptualisation of attributional LCA, and such baselines necessitate further ad hoc or arbitrary adjustments, such as arbitrary temporal windows or the inconsistent treatment of natural emissions.ConclusionsThe use of natural regeneration baselines may be motivated by the impulse to make attributional LCA both an inventory-type method and an assessment of system-wide change. Pulling attributional LCA in two different directions at once results in a conceptually and methodologically incoherent method. The solution is to recognise attributional LCA as an inventory-type method, which therefore has distinct but complementary uses to consequential LCA, which is an assessment of system-wide change.

The attributional-consequential distinction and its applicability to corporate carbon accounting

Methods of carbon accounting have developed in a number of semi-isolated fields of practice, such as national inventory accounting, corporate carbon accounting, project level accounting, and product life cycle assessment, and there appears to be considerable potential for learning across these different fields. One methodological distinction that has emerged within the field of life cycle assessment (LCA), and which has been highly useful there, is that between attributional and consequential methods. However, this distinction has not been fully developed or explored within the field of corporate carbon accounting. Attributional methods provide static inventories of emissions allocated or attributed to a defined scope of responsibility, while consequential methods attempt to measure the total system-wide change in emissions that occurs as the result of a decision or action, such as the decision to produce one extra unit of a given product. Numerous LCA studies show that attributional inventories can ignore important indirect or market-mediated effects that occur outside the scope of the analysis, and thus decisions based on attributional information can result in unintended consequences. Given that the most widely recognised form of corporate carbon accounting (the organisation-level greenhouse gas inventory) is attributional in nature, it is probable that decisions based on such inventories may also result in unintended consequences. This paper explores the nature of the attributional-consequential distinction and its applicability to corporate carbon accounting. In addition, the concept of framing is used to help explain how the distinction developed within the field of LCA, and to highlight the conceptual work required to achieve a degree of consensus around the distinction within that community, which in turn may be helpful when considering its applicability beyond the field of life cycle assessment.

Global protocol for community scale greenhouse gas emissions: a trial application in the West Highlands of Scotland

The measurement of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and removals is essential to effective action on climate change. Assessments of GHG are now carried out at a number of different levels, including both the national and corporate level. Greater public participation may also help to reach climate change mitigation targets and one way to support this is to develop emissions accounts for local areas that are identifiable to those who live there. A new standard, the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) was issued in 2012 and provides rules to facilitate an account for a whole community. This standard has been trialled through an application of the proposed accounting rules to an area of the West Highlands of Scotland. The accounting rules were clear to follow and the main practical difficulties were not with the standard itself but with the availability of sufficiently disaggregated data. The main weakness identified with the GPC is that it is predominantly focussed on providing a production-based inventory, whereas we suggest that community level inventories will be most relevant to community level action if the scope of the inventory focusses on the emission sources that can be influenced by the community.

Evaluation of farmer participatory extension programmes

ABSTRACT Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: (i) year of publication; (ii) location of the study; (iii) programme delivery; (iv) evaluation methods; (v) outcome variables; and (vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design. Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20%, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15% of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries. Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.

The role of the land biosphere in climate change mitigation

Human interaction with the land biosphere has contributed to climate change. The land biosphere can play an important role in climate mitigation, through measures such as the management of forests and other carbon sinks, management of agricultural practices, and shifts from fossil-fuel energy to renewable forms of bioenergy. The potential for mitigation must be assessed with regard to the multiple demands for land and the services that ecosystems provide to human society. Introduction: from human perturbation to biosphere management Living organisms have co-evolved with the atmosphere, oceans and land surface, contributing to the climate that supports life on Earth today. The increasing human appropriation of the biosphere for food, energy and construction materials, which has brought enormous benefits, has also inadvertently contributed to a loss of biodiversity, widespread pollution, environmental degradation, and climate change. Human activities have altered the balance of terrestrial greenhouse-gas sources and sinks. The replacement of forests and other natural ecosystems with crops, pastures and urban settlements has caused emissions of CO 2 due to losses from the carbon stock in vegetation and soils, and increased emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O ) and methane (CH 4 ) due to diverse agricultural practices.