Rana Pant

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

PurposeLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).MethodsExisting LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.Results and recommendationsRecommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.Discussion, conclusions, and outlookThe level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product Environmental Risk Assessment – Insights from a Detergent Case Study within OMNIITOX

Background and ObjectiveIn the OMNIITOX project 11 partners have the common objective to improve environmental management tools for the assessment of (eco)toxicological impacts. The detergent case study aims at: i) comparing three Procter &c Gamble laundry detergent forms (Regular Powder-RP, Compact Powder-CP and Compact Liquid-CL) regarding their potential impacts on aquatic ecotoxicity, ii) providing insights into the differences between various Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods with respect to data needs and results and iii) comparing the results from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with results from an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA).Material and MethodsThe LCIA has been conducted with EDIP97 (chronic aquatic ecotoxicity) [1], USES-LCA (freshwater and marine water aquatic ecotoxicity, sometimes referred to as CML2001) [2, 3] and IMPACT 2002 (covering freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity) [4]. The comparative product ERA is based on the EU Ecolabel approach for detergents [5] and EUSES [6], which is based on the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) of the EU on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) of chemicals [7]. Apart from the Eco-label approach, all calculations are based on the same set of physico-chemical and toxicological effect data to enable a better comparison of the methodological differences. For the same reason, the system boundaries were kept the same in all cases, focusing on emissions into water at the disposal stage.Results and DiscussionSignificant differences between the LCIA methods with respect to data needs and results were identified. Most LCIA methods for freshwater ecotoxicity and the ERA see the compact and regular powders as similar, followed by compact liquid. IMPACT 2002 (for freshwater) suggests the liquid is equally as good as the compact powder, while the regular powder comes out worse by a factor of 2. USES-LCA for marine water shows a very different picture seeing the compact liquid as the clear winner over the powders, with the regular powder the least favourable option. Even the LCIA methods which result in die same product ranking, e.g. EDIP97 chronic aquatic ecotoxicity and USES-LCA freshwater ecotoxicity, significantly differ in terms of most contributing substances. Whereas, according to IMPACT 2002 and USES-LCA marine water, results are entirely dominated by inorganic substances, the other LCIA methods and the ERA assign a key role to surfactants. Deviating results are mainly due to differences in the fate and exposure modelling and, to a lesser extent, to differences in the toxicological effect calculations. Only IMPACT 2002 calculates the effects based on a mean value approach, whereas all other LCIA methods and the ERA tend to prefer a PNEC-based approach. In a comparative context like LCA the OMNIITOX project has taken the decision for a combined mean and PNEC-based approach, as it better represents the ‘average’ toxicity while still taking into account more sensitive species. However, the main reason for deviating results remains in the calculation of the residence time of emissions in the water compartments.Conclusion and OutlookThe situation that different LCIA methods result in different answers to the question concerning which detergent type is to be preferred regarding the impact category aquatic ecotoxicity is not satisfactory, unless explicit reasons for the differences are identifiable. This can hamper practical decision support, as LCA practitioners usually will not be in a position to choose the ’right’ LCIA method for their specific case. This puts a challenge to the entire OMNIITOX project to develop a method, which finds common ground regarding fate, exposure and effect modelling to overcome the current situa-tion of diverging results and to reflect most realistic conditions.

Rethinking the Area of Protection “Natural Resources” in Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in classical life cycle assessment (LCA) aims at analyzing potential impacts of products and services typically on three so-called areas of protection (AoPs): Natural Environment, Human Health, and Natural Resources. This paper proposes an elaboration of the AoP Natural Resources. It starts with analyzing different perspectives on Natural Resources as they are somehow sandwiched in between the Natural Environment (their cradle) and the human-industrial environment (their application). Reflecting different viewpoints, five perspectives are developed with the suggestion to select three in function of classical LCA. They result in three safeguard subjects: the Asset of Natural Resources, their Provisioning Capacity, and their role in Global Functions. Whereas the Provisioning Capacity is fully in function of humans, the global functions go beyond provisioning as they include nonprovisioning functions for humans and regulating and maintenance services for the globe as a whole, following the ecosystem services framework. A fourth and fifth safeguard subject has been identified: recognizing the role Natural Resources for human welfare, either specifically as building block in supply chains of products and services as such, either with or without their functions beyond provisioning. But as these are far broader as they in principle should include characterization of mechanisms within the human industrial society, they are considered as subjects for an integrated sustainability assessment (LCSA: life cycle sustainability assessment), that is, incorporating social, economic and environmental issues.

Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(2):266–271)

We would like to contribute to the discussion on the environmental footprint (EF) of products started by Professor Finkbeiner with his editorial published in this journal in February 2014 (Finkbeiner 2014). We thank Professor Finkbeiner for sharing his concerns and suggestions, as he puts forward some relevant points and opens a discussion that can help the Commission to improve the EF methods. It also allows us to clarify our communication activities and avoid possible misunderstandings related to the work carried out by the European Commission on EF. First of all, it might be useful to recall that the development of European methods for the calculation of the EF of products and organisations was mandated to the Commission by the EU Member States (through the Council of the European Union). This request stemmed from a growing concern among Member States and industries related to the rapid growth in the number of “similar-but-different” methods and approaches related to the calculation of various footprints. The request was not to harmonise the existing standards but to develop an approach that could be used in existing or new EU policies. The proliferation of methods for, and approaches to, measuring environmental performance makes it unnecessarily complicated and expensive to make environmental claims regarding the environmental performance of products or organisations across borders in the EU Single Market. The EF methods were called for by the Council of the EU in order to provide a common basis for measuring and communicating environmental performance, which would be recognised by market actors across Europe. Consumers and other stakeholders require environmental performance information and show an interest in choosing environmentally friendly (green) products. However, they are confused by the proliferation of information available which is based on different measures, and the majority do not trust the “green” claims. Accordingly, the EF methods were required to help define what can be considered a green product or organisation, which implies evaluating performance with respect to that of an average product or organisation (benchmarking). Moreover, the EF methods request the development of productand sector-specific rules, which would set unique, consistent requirements leading to comparable results. The need for reliability requires that strict attention be paid to data quality and to review. Several factors must be considered in informing consumers and helping them to identify green products. These include their desire for indicators regarding the most important environmental impacts of a product, as well as a single indicator regarding the product’s overall environmental performance— this latter indicator, where appropriate and relevant, could be based on a weighting system. An analysis of existing LCA standards revealed that none fully matched these policy needs. The flexibility inherent to

The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements

PurposeThe European Commission (EC) has developed a reference method for organisation environmental footprinting (OEF) in support of improving the sustainability of production and consumption. This methodological development was guided by four core criteria. Specifically, it was deemed necessary that the method provides for a (1) multi-criteria, (2) life cycle-based approach that considers all organisational and related activities across the supply chain, (3) provides for reproducibility and comparability over flexibility, and (4) ensures physically realistic modelling.MethodsHere, we review a subset of existing organisation environmental footprinting methods. We evaluate key areas of convergence (very limited!) and divergence between these methods, and the extent to which the methodological specifications they provide satisfy the four aforementioned criteria for the EC OEF method. On this basis, we specify where and why the EC OEF method necessarily diverges from and/or goes beyond the reviewed methods.Results and discussionWe found little consistency between the reviewed methods, and few instances where our four criteria for the EC OEF method were satisfied. We specify the methodological norms for the EC OEF method for, among other things, definition of the unit of analysis (the organisation) and reference flow; organisation and analytical boundaries; cut-off criteria; impact categories and models; allocation solutions; and data quality. We further provide a rationale for each norm, in particular why they diverge from the various options presented in the reviewed methods.ConclusionsIn order to satisfy the four core criteria, the EC OEF method diverges from/goes beyond the reviewed methods in a variety of important respects. We suggest that the end result represents a significant advance in the standardization of life cycle-based organisation environmental footprinting.

Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators.

Bradley Ridoutt,*,† Peter Fantke,‡ Stephan Pfister, Jane Bare, Anne-Marie Boulay, Francesco Cherubini, Rolf Frischknecht, Michael Hauschild,‡ Stefanie Hellweg, Andrew Henderson, Olivier Jolliet, Annie Levasseur, Manuele Margni, Thomas McKone, Ottar Michelsen, Llorenc Mila i Canals, Girija Page, Rana Pant, Marco Raugei, Serenella Sala, Erwan Saouter, Francesca Verones, and Thomas Wiedmann †Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Clayton, Victoria 3169, Australia ‡Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Department for Management Engineering, Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland United States Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Technology Division, Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States CIRAIG, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Montreal, Canada Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway treeze Ltd., Uster, Switzerland University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, Houston, Texas 77030, United States University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and School of Public Health, Berkeley, California 94720, United States Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Division for Finance and Property, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division for Technology, Industry and Economics, 15 Rue de Milan, 75009 Paris, France University of Western Sydney, School of Science and Health, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, Ispra, I-21027, Italy Oxford Brookes University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Oxford OX33 1HX, United Kingdom UNSW Australia, Sustainability Assessment Program, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors

PurposeAssessing comprehensively the overall environmental impacts of a region remains a major challenge. Within life cycle assessment (LCA), this evaluation is performed calculating normalisation factors (NFs) at different scales. Normalisation represents an optional step of LCA according to ISO 14040/44 which may help in understanding the relative magnitude of the impact associated to a product when compared to a reference value. In order to enhance the robustness and comprehensiveness of NFs, this paper presents a methodology for building an extended domestic inventory of emission and resources extraction. The domestic inventory refers to emissions and extractions due to the processes located within a geographical region, Europe (EU 27), in 2010. A robust regional inventory is a fundamental element for supporting the calculation of global factors, often resulting form extrapolation and upscaling from regional ones.MethodsThe NFs for EU 27 in 2010 are based on extensive data collection and the application of extrapolation strategies for data gaps filling. The inventory is based on domestic emissions into air, water and soil and on resource extracted in EU, adopting a production-based approach. A hierarchy is developed for selection of data sources based on their robustness and quality. Data gap filling is based on several proxy indicators, specific for each impact category, capitalising existing statistics on pressure indicators (e.g. estimating ionising radiation emissions based on data of electricity production from nuclear power plants). To calculate NFs, the inventory is characterised using the International reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (EC-JRC 2011a) midpoint indicators.Results and discussionThe resulting NFs present several added values compared to earlier normalisation exercises based on domestic inventories, namely more complete inventory, based on wide variety of sources; more comprehensive coverage of the flows within each impact category; overall evaluation of the robustness of the final figures; and robustness evaluation of the data sources. Contribution analysis shows that few flows (NOx, SOx, NH4, etc.) are driving the impacts of several impact categories, and the choice of the data sources is particularly crucial, as this may lead to differences in the NFs. A qualitative uncertainty assessment is reported for each impact category. Besides, in order to test the robustness of the NFs, a sensitivity analysis on key choices and assumptions has been advocated.Conclusion and outlookNFs may help identification of the relative magnitude of the impact. Nonetheless, several limitations still exist both at the inventory and at the impact assessment level, e.g., several inventory flows are not characterised as there is no characterisation factor available in current models. Those limitations should be clearly reported and understood by the users of normalisation factors in order to correctly interpret the results of their study as well as when regional NFs are used as basis for building global set of factor. The adoption of domestic NFs may, in fact, result in overestimating the relative magnitude of certain impacts, especially when those impacts are associated with traded goods from or outside the EU 27. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of uncertainties should be conducted from inventory to characterised results. Comprehensive testing is needed on the following: data sources, data mapping, regionalisation as well as models and system boundaries thereof. Strengths and limitations of the current study have implications also in other application contexts, as when indicators are needed to evaluate progress towards environmental policies goals. In fact, environmental impact indicators at regional scale often require data gap filling and estimation methodologies.

Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste management with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA)

BackgroundGlobally, many countries worldwide aim at increasing the environmental sustainability of waste management activities. Special attention is devoted to bio-waste, as its improper handling may have severe environmental consequences. In particular, most waste management strategies should encourage diverting bio-waste away from landfills to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and leachate.Legislative contextThe European Waste Framework Directive (WFD 2008/98/EC) defines bio-waste as “biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants”. Bio-waste should not be confused with the wider term “biodegradable waste”, which covers also other biodegradable materials such as wood, paper and cardboard. In Europe, landfilling of untreated bio-waste is being progressively reduced to meet the requirements set by the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). Other options for bio-waste management are then prioritised (e.g. biological treatment), in line with the so-called waste hierarchy, the legally binding priority order for waste management established by the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC).Method and outcomeHowever, following the waste hierarchy may not always lead to the identification of the most environmentally sound option, and new approaches are thus needed for a more differentiated and science-based support to decision-making for bio-waste management. For this purpose, the Institute for Environment and Sustainability of the Joint Research Centre has developed guidelines that provide environmentally sound support to decision-making and policy-making for bio-waste management using life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment. The methodological approach developed in these guidelines is presented and contextualised in this paper.

Area of concern : a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics

PurposeAs a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications.MethodsThe task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44.Results and discussionIn parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators.ConclusionsThe universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.

Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods

PurposeThis paper presents a structured comparison of the European Commission (EC) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method with a number of existing European environmental accounting methods and standards that were taken into account during its development. In addition to the ISO 14040 and 14044 which represent the main reference, also the ISO/TS 14067, ILCD Handbook, PAS 2050, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Ecological Footprint and BPX 30-323-0 were considered. This comparison aims at evaluating the extent to which the EC PEF method contributes to filling the identified methodological gaps and, ultimately, the extent to which it meets a number of key principles for PEF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. The EC PEF method has been developed by the Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) in close cooperation with the Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV). It aims at providing a European, common methodology for evaluating the environmental performance of products. Its use for undertaking product environmental footprint studies is supported by the 2013 Recommendation to the EC Communication “Building the single market for green products – Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.”MethodsIn this paper, the selected environmental accounting methods are compared against a set of nine identified core criteria for EF studies. These criteria include, e.g. applicability of results, boundary of the evaluation, requirements on data type and quality, requirements on uncertainty evaluation, requirements on reporting and review. Results from this comparison have been used to evaluate the extent to which the methods considered meet a number of key identified principles for EF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency.Results and discussionOverall, results of the analysis demonstrate that the EC PEF method resolves most shortcomings identified in the other methods with respect to the core comparison criteria. This, in turn, allows the EC PEF method to largely satisfy all of the key identified principles for PEF studies, and in particular the consistency principle, which is often not fulfilled by the other environmental accounting methods.ConclusionsThe EC PEF method provides for a greater degree of methodological consistency and establishes unambiguous requirements, hence facilitating increased consistency, comparability and reproducibility of results. It fills most of the shortcomings of the other methods, meeting virtually all of the key principles for PEF studies.