Presentation title

Report
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
Scoping workshop 16-17 May 2013, SETAC-Glasgow
Global guidance on
environmental life cycle
impact assessment indicators
Flagship project of the 3rd phase of
the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon
Presentation content
1. Flagship project and workshop objectives
2. Evaluation of impact categories (a,b,c,d,e,f)
3. Outcome of the plenary discussion
4. Key consensus issues & preliminary workplans
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Selection criteria
Global impact categories
Human health emission related impact categories
Biodiversity emission related impact categories
Resource related impacts categories
Cross-cutting, normalisation and weighting
Schedule 16 May
Schedule 17 May
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
1. Presentation of flagship project
and of scoping workshop objectives
Flagship project of the 3rd phase of
the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet
Phase 3: Mission, Vision, Objectives and
Programmes
1. Methodologies
Objective 1:
Enhance the global
consensus and
relevance of
existing and
emerging life cycle
methodologies and
data management
3. Product
sustainability
information
2. Data
4. Capability Development &
implementation
Vision:
A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed
Mission:
Enable the global use of credible life cycle knowledge for more sustainable societies.
Objective 2:
Expand capability
worldwide to apply
and to improve life
cycle approaches;
making them
operational for
organisations
5. Communication & stakeholder outreach
Objective 3:
Be the global voice of the Life Cycle community to influence
and partner with stakeholders through broad
communication of current life cycle knowledge
Focus on Phase 3 Flagship Projects: Urgency &
Relevance
1. Methodologies
a. Integrating LCC, S-LCA, E-LCA and
linking with CSR
b. Key environmental LCIA indicators
based on mature environmental
approaches
c. LCA in organizations
2. Data
a. Global database management network
& training
4. Capability Development
& implementation
a. Global capability
development
5. Communication & stakeholder
outreach
a. Communication strategy
b. LC Platform: clearing house
and social media
3. Product sustainability information
a. Product sustainability information
meta guidance
b. Knowledge mining
See Annex 3 for the complete projects list
All projects in bold are flagship ones
Motivation
• Global supply chains of products and
multinational companies ask for
consensual set of environmental indicators
• Life Cycle Initiative has long-term
experience with consensus-finding
processes
− USETox: toxicity related indicators
− Global guidance on LCA database development
Goal of the flagship project
• Establish a consensual set of
environmental impact category indicators
• For use in
− Environmental product information schemes
− Corporate reporting of multinational
companies
− International and/or national environmental
policies
− Common LCA work commissioned by
governments and companies
General outline
• Task 1: Scoping phase (2012-2013)
• Task 2: Consensus finding, part 1 (2013-2015)
• Task 3: Consensus finding, part 2 (2015-2017)
• Task 4: Dissemination (2018)
Task 1: Scoping phase
• Establish short list of 3 to 4 impact category
indicators and themes of first and of second
priority
• LCIA workshop «Towards development of a
global scale LCIA method», Nov. 23, 2012,
Yokohama, Japan
• LCIA workshop «LCIA methods», May 16-17,
2013, Glasgow
Scoping phase, outcome
• 2 sets of 3 to 4 indicators suited for consensus,
to be worked on in 1st and 2nd phase of
consensus finding
• Specific workplan for each individual indicator
• List of experts to be involved
• Selection criteria of indicators within each topic
selected
Tasks 2&3: Consensus finding
• Two subsequent phases
− 2013-2015
− 2015-2017
• Consensus finding activities covering
3 to 4 indicators/themes per phase
• Pellston type workshop at the end of each
two years period
Task 4: Dissemination
• Establish training material
• Organise and hold 5 workshops worldwide
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2. Evaluation of impact
categories
Olivier Jolliet, Rolf Frischknecht, Brad Ridoutt,
Bruce Vigon, Jane Bare, Thomas McKone,
Manuele Margni, Cecile Bulle
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2a. Criteria for
pre-selecting impact
categories to start with
Cross-cutting Criteria to pre-select
impact categories to start from
• Environmental relevance
− Importance to overall environmental impacts
• Scientific validity (how mature is the
science; peer reviewed publications)
• Potential for consensus
• Stakeholder needs
• Applicability
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2b. Global impact categories
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Ocean acidification
Environmental relevance:
Global impact categories
Global warming
• high relevance
Ozone depletion
• medium relevance since Montreal
protocol successful
• N2O may also be relevant now
Ocean acidification
Rockström et al., 2009 Nature
Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
• One of the 5 main drivers for
biodiversity loss set in MEA. drop
of pH of 0.1/decade due to CO2
Scientific validity:
Impact category
Publications and reliability
Accuracy
Global warming
High level work from IPCC
Endpoint work in progress in LCIA field
high at
midpoint low
at endpoint
Ozone depletion
Intensive research
New factors
for N2O
Ocean acidification
Dependent on CO2 only, may have a strong
correlation
medium
Potential for consensus & applicability:
Human health emission related categories
Impact category
Level of consensus
Applicability
Global warming
GWP 100 widely use
Carbon storage & Dynamic assessment
high at
midpoint
lower at
endpoint
Ozone depletion
ODP
High
New factors
for N2O?
Ocean acidification
Still in progress highly correlated
High kg CO2
Global impact categories
• Start with global warming, addressing
carbon storage
• Perhaps also Ozone depletion, less of a
priority
• Ocean acidification highly relevant but
may be in a second stage?
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2c. Human health emission
related impact categories
Respiratory inorganics
Human toxicity
Indoor air
Photochemical ozone
Ionizing radiation
Noise
Environmental relevance: Human health
Environmental burden of disease (Lim et al., 2013,Lancet)
Attributable DALYs/year
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Scientific validity:
Human health emission related categories
Impact category
Publications and reliability
Accuracy
Respiratory inorganics
Multiple publications, well defined
framework and intake fractions
epidemiology based dose-response for CVD
and lung cancer and severities
Factor 10
Multiple publications, well defined
framework, multiple pathways. Screening
purposes
Factor 100 to
1000 compared
to 1012
Several publications, indoor iF for homes
and offices can be combined with exisitng
consensus-based USEtox effect factors
<factor 10 on
iF
Photochemical ozone
Highly non linear, difficult to reflect in the
LCA framework
high relative
VOC impacts
Occupational health
and risk of injury
injury statistics available at industry sector TBD
level, punctual work on occupational health
Ionizing radiation
Well defined human impacts, multiple
pathways
Factor 10 to 50
Noise
Several methods for traffic related impacts
+ emerging method on general noise
TBD
Hofstetter, 1998, Van Zelm et al.
2008 (Atm Env), ES&T: Humbert et
al., 2011, Apte et al, 2012 ES&T
Human toxicity
Rosenbaum 2008&2011, Huijbregts
et al, Henderson 2011, special
edition Int J LCAPennington et al,
Indoor air
Hellweg et al, 2009, Wenger et al,
2012, Weschler and Nazaroff,
2008, Bennett et al, 20xx
Potential for consensus & applicability:
Human health emission related categories
Impact
category
Consensus efforts
Level of
concordan.
Applicability
Respiratory
inorganics
Consensus on framework and intake
fractions (TF4 phase I working group)
High
Good inventory data
availability
Multiple publications, well defined
framework, multiple pathways.
Screening purposes
High
about 1500
substances
High
Hellweg et al, 2009
SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working
group with framework in ES&T compatible / being integrated in USEtox
Little
inventory
data
Photochemic
al ozone
Two approaches commonly used at
midpoint
POCPs and
MIRR
most VOCs
TBD
TBD
Humbert et al,2011
Human
toxicity
USEtox publications
Indoor air
Occupational Only few methods based on injury
& injury risks statistics or concentrations at workplace
Ionizing
radiation
Same method use across LCIA approaches Single
method
26 radionuclides (air,
water, Sea)
Factors
differ
easy to link
to Vehicle-km
Frischknecht ,2000
Noise
No consensus efforts so far in LCIA
Preliminary evaluation
Human health related impact categories
Environmental relevance
Scientific validity
Very high
4.5
Potential for consensus
Stakeholder needs
4
Applicability
3.5
high
3
2.5
moderate
2
low
1.5
1
very low
0.5
0
Applicability
Stakeholder needs
Potential for consensus
Scientific validity
Environmental relevance
Human health emission related
categories: start with:
• Respiratory inorganics (including indoor
emissions) is a good candidate category for 1st
phase, both in term of relevance and
reliability/consensus and as a reference
category for damage on human health
• Human toxicity, (including indoor emissions +
ionizing radiation) potentially for 2nd phase
building on USEtox
Additional points
Human health related impact categories
• Further work is needed on noise, risk of
injuries, occupational health and effect
of diet and physical activity for the LCI
& LCIA context
• Water related impacts on human health:
eventually in interaction with water
footprint work
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2d. Biodiversity emission
related impact categories
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Ionizing radiation - ecotox impacts
Invasive species
Environmental relevance: biodiversity
Acidification
• One of the 5 main drivers for
biodiversity loss set in MEA.
• Terrestrial acidification
relevant for temperate zone
• Aquatic very region specific
Eutrophication
• One of the 5 main drivers for
biodiversity loss set in MEA.
• Major relevance for agriculture
related processes
Rockström et al., 2009 Nature
Ecotoxicity
• Impacts are limited in case of good
practice . May be highly relevant in
dev, countries
Invasive species
Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
• One of the 5 main drivers for
biodiversity loss set in MEA
Scientific validity:
Biodiversity emission related categories
Impact category
Publications and reliability
Accuracy
Acidification
Multiple publications, Well defined
framework for terrestrial acidification with
complete pathway modeled up to endpoint.
Aquatic acidification in progress.
Good for
temperate,
less for
tropical
Multiple publications, framework is well
developed for freshwater eutrophication.
New effect factors still to be tested.
Medium
Marine Eutrophication
Framed, Generic Fate factor available + at
country level. Effect factor in progress
Measured data on hypoxia area
TBD
Ecotoxicity
Aquatic ecotoxicity - data and methods well Factor 100 to
1000 compared
defined for fate and effect
12
Terrestrial and marine much less developed to 10
Terrestrial: Seppala et al 2006,
Posch et al 2008; Aquatic: Struijs
et al 2010, 2011
Freshwater
Eutrophication
Seppala et al 2006, Posch et al
2008, Van Zelm et al 2007, Roy et
al 2012, Azevedo et al. 2013
Rosenbaum 2008, Hauschild 2008,
special edition of Int J of LCA,
Huijbregts et al
Invasive species
Still to be explored how to make the link to
a functional unit, e.g. for shipping, ballast
water, etc.
Not ready
Potential for consensus & applicability:
Biodiversity emission related categories
Impact
category
Consensus efforts
Level of
agreem.
Applicability
Acidification
Multiple papers Consensus effort and
method comparison (TF4) especially for
terrestrial acidification. "True midpoint"
with increase in H+ / pH
Critical load vs increase in pH
Good for
terrestrial
Good
Freshwater
Eutrophication
Relatively low number of methods
available. No comparison performed
recently. Freshwater fate of P relatively
simple.
Medium
Midpoint
yes
Marine
Eutrophication
N-fate + marine eutrophication available,
relatively good concordance. Effect factor
in progress
Good for
fate not
yet ready
for effect
yes when
fully
defined
Ecotoxicity
SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group Medium
with framework in ES&T - compatible /
integrated in USEtox
Henderson 2011
Invasive species
-
Medium/l
ow
aquatic
-
Limited
inventory
data
not yet
Preliminary evaluation of impact categories
Biodiversity related impact categories
Environmental relevance
Scientific validity
Very high
Potential for consensus
4.5
Stakeholder needs
Applicability
4
high
3.5
3
moderate
2.5
low
2
1.5
very low
1
Applicability
0.5
Stakeholder needs
Potential for…
0
Scientific validity
Environmental…
Preliminary evaluation of biodiversity
related impact categories
• Terrestrial acidification is potentially a good
candidate category for 1st phase, especially in
term of potential for reliability/consensus.
Contribute to frame other biodiversity related
categories.
• Freshwater (mostly P-related) and Marine
(mostly N-related) are very relevant, especially
for agricultural related processes and WWTP
emissions. May benefit from ongoing research
may be more mature in two years  perhaps
more adequate in a second stage
Additional points
• Ecotoxicity: in a second stage for
aquatic ecotox building on USEtox
consensus process. Further progress
needed on terrestrial and marine ecotox
• Invasive species: to be framed for LCA
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2e. Resource impact categories
Biotic depletion
Water use
Land use
Mineral resource
Energy resources
(Radioactive waste)
Environmental relevance
Resource related impact categories
Biotic depletion
• Marine ecosystems: overfishing
Water use
• Freshwater biodiversity loss
• Global water crisis/food security
Land use
• Habitat change the major driver of
terrestrial biodiversity loss
• Link to invasive species
Rockström et al., 2009 Nature
Minerals
• Planetary boundaries hard to
quantify
Energy resources
• Renewal rate vastly exceeded
Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
Scientific validity:
Resource related impact categories
Impact category
Publications and reliability
Accuracy
Biotic depletion
Impacts from biotic resource depletion
generally excluded. Further research
development needed.
low
Impact pathways are well described in the
broad sense (in terms of concepts), but gaps
exist for some environmental mechanisms.
Potential overlaps with other categories.
Uncertainty is poorly
understood. Regional
and temporal factors
of high importance
Various approaches relating to resource
competition, biodiversity impacts, individual
ecosystem services, soil quality impacts.
Understanding of impact pathways
increasing. Land occupation and
transformation and iLUC considerations
Uncertainty is poorly
understood. Regional
and temporal factors
of high importance
Mineral resources
There are different approaches derived from
very different concepts, such as decreased
availability, future availability and effort
needed, exergy/entropy
Variable depending
on concept
Energy resources
Most approaches based on energy content in
one way or the other
high
Emanuelsson et al. 2012
(overfishing)
Water use
Kounina et al 2012 latest methods
review.
Focal point WULCA
Land use
Initially Kollner 2007, ecological
footprint, Mila i Canals 2007, Baitz
2002. Focal point today is
UNEP/SETAC LCI project group: de
Baan et al 2012; Mila i Canals et
al. 2012, Brandao and Mila I Canals
2012, Saad et al. 2012, etc
Boustead and Hancock 1978,
Frischknecht et al 2007
Potential for consensus & applicability:
Resource related categories
Impact
category
Consensus efforts
Level of
concordan.
Applicability
Biotic
depletion
Very low
Important environmental issue with
regard to overfishing. Topic is very
specific and LCIA approaches possibly too
rare for harmonisation process
Water use
WULCA
Substantial use of WULCA framework. At
the midpoint, most methods utilise a
water scarcity index of some sort
Moderate at
midpoint
Spatial and
temporal
dimensions
important
Land use
Diversity of used frameworks
Low
Varies
Mineral
resources
Concepts differ, frameworks differ, but
significant correlations
Low
Varies
Energy
resources
Similar overall concepts used but major
differences in some key aspects. Possible
candidate for harmonisation
Moderate
General
applicability
Mainly
fisheries
Preliminary evaluation of resource related
impact categories
Resource related categories:
Start with:
• Energy resources: simple resource
indicator might be a good candidate for
next phase harmonization
• discuss whether water use at the
midpoint is suitable (water
availability/stress/scarcity indicator)
might also be a candidate due to high
level of stakeholder demand
demonstrated by unique ISO standard.
Resource related categories Additional points
• Further work is needed on biotic depletion (re
overfishing).
• Lots of ongoing development in water and land
use (UNEP/SETAC project groups)
• Water and land use impacts overlap to a
degree with each other and with other impact
categories.
• Mineral resources require further framing of
the issue to proceed harmonisation
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
2f. Cross-cutting issues and
LCIA framework
• Guidance on footprint
• The SETAC-UNEP LCIA framework
So many footprints…what do they mean?
Emission footprint
ecological footprint
Corruption footprint
water footprint
Online social footprint
Work environmental footprint
Economic footprint
Social footprint
Grazing land footprint
Job footprint
Environmental footprint
Climate footprint
Food to energy footprint
GHG footprint
carbon footprint
Water pollution footprint
CO2 footprint
Financial footprint
Forest footprint
GWP footprint
nitrogen footprint
Land use footprint
Water availability footprint
Waste footprint
Methane footprint
Chemical footprint
Water scarcity footprint
Exergy
footprint
Biodiversity footprint
Water stress footprint
Human rights footprint
Blue water footprint
Human footprint
Phosphorus footprint
Energy footprint
Green water footprint
Fishing grounds footprint
Wind energy footprint
Nuclear energy footprint
Crop land footprint
Grey water footprint
Renewable energy footprint
Built-up land footprint
Solar energy footprint
Agricultural land footprint
Fossil energy footprint
Health footprint
Land footprint
Poverty footprint
Water supply footprint
If our vision is “A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed”…
…guidance on defining and developing LCA-based footprints is needed
•
Footprints are the means of communicating LCA information to the
mainstream: i.e. remote and non-technical audience
•
Footprints not grounded in LCA are problematic:
− Environmental relevance?
− Double counting
− How to make sense of multiple footprints
− Results may contradict LCA
•
Footprints are not just new names for existing impact category indicators
•
Proposal: UNEP/SETAC LCI take a leading role in creating global guidance
on LCA-based footprints:
− Universal footprint definition
− Differentiation from ordinary life cycle impact category indicators
− Guidance to support evolution of coherent footprint indicators in support of our
vision
•
Risks of not acting
•
Reference: Ridoutt and Pfister 2013 Towards an integrated family of
footprint indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12026
Achieved: framework both at
midpoint and damage
Midpoint categories
1. LCI to midpoint
characterization
Higher precision
lower relevance
Damage
categories
Human toxicity
Accidents
Noise
Oxidant creation
Human health
Morbidity
Mortality
Ozone depletion
Global warming
Acidification
LCI
Results
Nutrification
Biotic natural
environment
Species and
ecosystems
Ecotoxicity
Land use&habitat losses
Species & organism
dispersal
Natural resources:
minerals
energy
water
soil
soil erosion
soil salinisation & dessic.
- biotic resource use
-
Natural
resources
Man made
abiotic & biotic
environment
Buildings & crops
Abiotic natural
environment
2. Midpoint - to damage
Landscape
Lower precision, but higher relevance
Natural science with higher uncertainty
3. Normalization
and weighting
Comparison to
references
Societal values
UNEP-SETAC LCIA framework
Jolliet et al., 2003
ReCiPe – Human health area of protection
IMPACT World+ – Ecosystem quality area of protection
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
3. Outcomes
of the plenary discussion
Selection of impact categories
• Category of high relevance such as global warming, respiratory
inorganics, land use and water use are to be addressed in
priority, to cover several of the main environmental effects
• Consensus on these can be reached by focusing first on selected
pathways for which there is higher consensus, e.g. biodiversity
impacts due to land occupation.
• Earlier consensus work in the initiative such as USEtox should be
used as a starting point to also address human toxicity,
ecotoxicity.
• Table 1 summarizes an initial working set of impact categories to
address. The selected indicators are not meant to be exhaustive
and could be possibly complemented in the future. The effort is
complementary to a comprehensive assessment.
Tentative list of selected impact categories
and their relationship/relevance to endpoints
(high***,intermediate**,lower* relevance. In red:endpoints to be represented in priority)
Human
health
Biodiversity
Resources /
ecosystem
services
*
Priority Impact category
1
Global warming
***
***
1
Respiratory inorganics
(incl. PM indoors)
***
*
*
***
***
Water use (Starting with
midpoint proxy)
***
***
***
Human toxicity
(incl. indoor)
**
1
1
2
2
2
Land use (Focus on land
occupation impacts on
biodiversity)
Acidification,
eutrophication and
ecotoxicity
Energy resources
**
starting with
terrestrial acid. and
freshwater eutr.
*
**
Cross cutting issues
• Focus is to reach consensus in priority for midpoint indicators, positioning and
relating these indicators within a consistent midpoint-endpoint framework,
building on earlier LCIA consensus work in the Life Cycle Initiative.
• Working group in specific categories are therefore invited to also describe
how midpoint indicators qualitatively or quantitatively relate to common and
as far as possible consistent endpoints across categories as useful
complementary information (integration).
• Interface between inventory and impact assessment indicators need to be
analyzed, identifying possible short term solution and rules to link LCIA
indicators to current main LCI databases and longer term data requirements
• Mitigation of impacts in one impact category can lead to impact reduction to
several area of protection and co-benefits in other impact categories.
• It is intended to establish a guidance document on how to reach consensus,
ensuring consistency across categories
• It is supported that the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative take a leading role
in creating global guidance on LCA-based footprints.
• Footprint could also possibly be used to communicate results on indicators or
groups of indicators
Work process
• The tentative list of impact categories and the rationales behind it
will be validated with a larger stakeholder audience taking advantage
of existing events or by teleconferences.
• Work on the second priority categories can start now, but the first
Pellston workshop will be dedicated in priority to category 1.
• The WULCA group will serve as the core group to lead the work on
water use, and therefore be also accountable to the flagship project
as all working groups. The group is encouraged to produce proxy and
partial indicators.
• Work on terrestrial acidification and freshwater & marine
eutrophication can also start, even if it may be addressed in a second
Pellston workshop.
• Integration cross cutting task will be carried out after intermediary
review of year 1. A cross-cutting common case study will be set-up
and used by each workgroup to test consistency across all impact
categories
Main deliverable
• The working groups are expected to draft a white paper
which is the main input to the Pellston workshops in 2015
and 2017
• A midterm review will take place in 2014, probably on
Thursday-Friday 15-16 May 2014, in conjunction with the
Basel SETAC-Europe congress.
Process and governance
• Workgroup chairs are proposed to participate to
meetings of the flagship steering committee
• An open process will be designed to enable working
group participants to volunteer.
• All stakeholders are invited to suggest names of
experts to involve in the work on selected categories.
• Domain experts to be identified and included early in
the process and for midterm review
• The steering committee of the flagship project is
approved by and reports to the International Life
Cycle Board of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Minority statements
• Consensus work on climate change is not needed because already
established (ISO, WRI-WBCSD, IPCC). We will indeed build on
these and concentrate on application to LCA
• From a Brazilian point of view radioactive wastes are missing in
the list of priority issues
• Users are more applying POCP (summer smog) indicators
compared to respiratory inorganics although scientifically, the
latter are more important regarding health effects
• In Japan, effects of ionizing radiation are considered very
important
• The reversibility of environmental impacts should be a selection
criterion as well
• Abiotic resources and radioactive waste are highly important in
the French context
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4. Key consensus issues and
preliminary work plans
Work in progress:
Preliminary outcomes of
breakout groups
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4a. Evaluation criteria for
selecting indicator
approaches
Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet
Criteria for indicator selection
Criteria are based on “true and fair view”
principles applied in economy
• Environmental relevance
− Extent to which all relevant information
related to environmental impacts is covered
by the indicator
• Focus on the overall picture
− Extent to which the indicator is capable to
represent the actual situation
Criteria (cont.)
• Reliability
− Indicator relies on scientific knowledge or
international agreements/treaties
− Relevant uncertain information and error
risks are communicated
− Verified by reknown organisations or experts
• Transparency
− models, calculations and information are re
producible and verifiable
Criteria (cont.)
• Communicability
− Information is intelligible to all and easily
understandable
• Coherence and comparability
− concepts, definitions, classifications and
methods used are comparable (across
indicators, along time, across regions)
− indicator is continuous (along time) scalable
and extendable
Criteria (cont.)
• Data availability and quality
− Data, information and models are readily
available and affordable
• Timeliness
− Data and models are actual, using most
recent information possible
• Ease of the implementation
− Indicator can easily be implemented in
current life cycle inventory databases
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4b. Global impact categories
Climate change
Global warming
Greenhouse effect
Current practice in LCIA
• Midpoint using GWP100
• In Japan use of endpoint is widespread
(if weighting is used)
• Global Temperature Potential (GTP)?
• Midpoint-endpoint modelling: which
pathways are important to include?...
and possible to model?
Scientific questions
• Urgency issues, critical thresholds not addressed by timeintegrated GWP
• How to deal with emission timing
•
− Temporary carbon storage
− Biogenic vs. fossil carbon
Need for complementary indicators addressing intensity and shortterm
impacts?
• Cut-off after a given timeframe
− Discounting which is normally not used in the other impact
categories
− What is the meaning of it
• at midpoint
• At endpoint
• Additional inventory flows not covered by IPCC – what to do?
− Water vapour as contributor to climate change depending on altitude
of emission?
− Ozone and NOx, SOx, aerosols,…?
− CO2 formed as degradation product (Muñoz et al)?
• Coupling to ozone depletion
Harmonization/consensus potential
• Consensus nearly already exists around
integrated indicator provided by IPCC at
midpoint level – GWP100
• Latest factors should be applied
• Need to check consistence with other reporting
systems for climate change (EPD, PCR, carbon
footprint etc.) – important for stakeholder
acceptance
• Potential for consensus about approaches
addressing urgency needs to be examined
• Potential for consensus about endpoint
characterisation needs to be examined
Expert and working group members
Working group
• Manuele Margni/Annie Levasseur (CAN)
• Norihiro Itsubo (JPN)
• Abdelhadi Sahnoune (US)
• Michael Hauschild (DK)
• An de Schryver (NL)?
Experts
• Miko Kirschbaum (NZ)
• Glen Peters (NO)
• Keith Shine (UK)
Working plan (to be detailed)
• 09.2013 Building of working group
• 10.2013 Kick-off
• 11.2013 Identification of approaches
• 05. 2014 Application to case studies,
comparison
− Analysis of methods applying criteria
− Presentation of results
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4c. Human health emission
related impact categories
Human Health
• Current use in LCIA:
− Often not used by practitioners,
− Most methods have human health incorporated
• How far is human health framed:
− Framework is clear and framed by Humbert et al. (2011), ES&T 45: 4808
• Framing workshop in ISEE Conference in Basel, 2013:
− Respiratory effects of criteria pollutants
• Involve health experts:
− William Nazaroff, Julian Marschall, Charles Weschler, Marie O‘Neill, Carina
Gronlund, John Balmes, John Levy, John Evans, Douglas Dockeri, Michael
Jerrett, Deborah Bennett, Kirk Smith, Nino Kuenzli, Tomas McKone, Olivier
Jolliet, Peter Fantke, Matti Jantunen, Jouni Toumisto, Mario Tainio, Joshua
Apte, Philipp Preiss, Joseph Spadaro
• …
Human Health
• Scientific questions & main challenges:
− General aspects:
• Intake fraction either to be addressed locally (spatial effects) or
with archetypes
• Way how background mortality rate is used (local vs. originally
used location)
− Particulates:
• High stack emissions in urban areas
• Seconday particles
• Indoor air: emission data from combustion highly variable  impact
modelling ok
• Poor dose-response data for asthma and related respiratory effects
• How to link emission inventory data to stack height
• Emission data quality
− Human toxicity:
• Dose-response for morbidity effects (e.g. endocrine effects)
• Metal toxicity (example zink)  non-monotonic dose-response
curves, metal speciation, bioavailability in humans and
environment
Human Health
• Existing LCIA approaches/methods/models:
− Particulates:
• Humber et al. (2011), ES&T
• Gronlund et al., submitted (recalculation of dose-response and
severity factors)
• Levy, Grecco, Wolf, Evans, et al. (several publications)
• Apte et al.
• RECIPE (van Zelm et al.)
• LC-IMPACT work based on EXTERNE
• TRACI
• NEEDS (factors)
• EcoSense model
• GREET emission model  integration with LCIA models
• Japanese efforts (CFs at global scale  to be published)
− Other chemicals:
• …
Human Health
• Previous consensus effort:
− Life Cycle Initiative TF4 effort  Humbert et al. (2011), ES&T
− EBODE 2011 project report (environmental burden of disease)
− NEEDS project outcome (based on EXTERNE)
• Selection criteria:
−
−
−
−
Emission/stack height
Population density (spatial differentiation)
Secondary particulates considered incl. NH3
Urban area considered separately and resolution fine enough to capture
significant differences in exposure
− Significant fate processes considered (coagulation, nucleation, diffusion,
dispersion, deposition, intermittent rain)
− Size differentiation of particulates (UFP, PM2.5, PM10)
− Particle composition (affects dose-response)  cannot be addressed so far
Human Health
• Procedure until Basel:
− Invite experts and reserve room at ISEE in Basel
− Meet with Josh Apte and ask about state of the art
− Prepare short description of framing workshop (objectives,
background, goal, role of contributors)
− Framing workshop: Tuesday, 20-Aug-2013, 6-8pm
− Catch contributing experts: start from TF4 members regarding PM:
write inviting email
− Agree on date for teleconference: 14th, 17th, 21st June 2013, 45:30pm
− 2nd framing workshop probably end of June/early July
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4d. Biodiversity emission
related impact categories
Potentially Relevant Indicators
• Started IMPACT World + framework
• From “Ecosystem Quality” to midpoints
− Freshwater
− Marine
− Terrestrial
• There are extra stressors to these, but (message) is that it is not
complete (ionizing, toxicity, global warming, Water use,
Terrestrial and aquatic acidification (fresh and marine),
Eurtification (fresh, marine, coastal), Land use, 11 in total. Three
levels: 1= consensus-ready, 2=in e.g. IMPACT world (mentioned,
design is there) and 3: novel (forgotten and new) ones.Check with
e.g. expert elicitaion, e.g. marine debris…..etc.
• Dimension and unit: Potentially Disappeared Fraction, and unit is
m2 (land) or m3 (define issue) integrated over time. Time issue is
something to think about, e.g. for metals.
Emission-based midpoints
(vs. Resource-based)
• Aq + Terr Ecotoxicity
• Aq + Terr Acidification
• Aq + Terr Eutrophication
• Here we need link carbon dioxide to the issue of global warming
as well as ocean acidification. Note that methane also becomes
CO2, not yet accounted for.Inventory,fate and effect models
need be developed/linked.
• Because of resource-based impacts we need to liaise to resourcebased impacts.
• Categories too immature to reach concensus: ionizing (low
anyway),
• Eco-impacts of metals and organics are principally different
(metals remain infinte and always pop up as major) -- >
suggestion to split things up
Ordered and ranked
Ionizing
Tox
Acid
Eutro
Fresh
All a 3
M=1 via PDF;
E=2
M=1 via PDF;
E=2
M=1 via PDF;
E=2
Marine
,,
M=2
E=3
M=3
E=3
M=2
E=2
Terr
,,
M=2
M=3
M=1
M=1
M=1
E=3
(Aerial)
1=mature, 2=not yet mature, 3=impact pathway identifiable and important, not yet model
M=midpoint, E=Endpoint;
Process
For all categories labeled “1”
1. Allocate consensus aim to consensus flagship priority
2. Identify existing models and experts
3. Comparison of models based on criteria, fast-tracked
for pre-existing consensus results (e.g. USEtox)
4. Select models or model elements to represent the
consensus
5. Formulate recommendation on use, interpretation,
and limits
Also discuss categories labeled “2” and “3”, so that
Selection criteria
• Selection criteria: „reviewed“ ILCD+ criteria including
global coverage and possibility for regional-specific
assessment (e.g. tropical soils, …)
• Toxicity: For now we believe that USEtox is a good
basis, but the process is open for further suggestions
and inputs. Region-specific recommandations on
application should be developed in the flagship.
• Work group setup: identify and actively inivite
experts, plus open invitation for participation
Acidification/Eutrophication
Domain experts
LCA/LCIA experts
• Max Posch, Netherlands
• Mark Huijbregt
• Jean-Paul Hetterlingh,
Netherlands
• Bengt Steen
• Hayashi, Japan
• Jiri Seppälä, Finland
• José Potting, Sweden
• Rosalie van Zelm, Netherlands
• Liggia
• Pierre-Olivier Roy, Canada
• Francesca Verones
Biodiversity related impact
categories
Ionizing radiation
midpoint
endpoint
freshwater
marine
terrestrial
3
Toxicity
Acidification
Eutrophication
midpoint
endpoint
midpoint
endpoint
midpoint
endpoint
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
1-2
1-2
2
3
1
2
1
3
mature enough for global
1 recommendation
immature for recommendation, but models exist and are usable in LCA (may evolve into "1" during flagship
2 duration)
no models are established yet in LCA, but impact pathway is
3 identifiable
"1" does not automatically imply that a consensus will be attempted, nor does a "2" imply that no consensus building
will be attempted
Workplan 2013
Iterative points
Characterize harmonisation/consensus potential: how do the experts judge the possibility to reach a
consensus? Might such a consensus cover LCI-midpoint and/or LCI-endpoint?
Defining work process
102013
122013
Kick-off of the working 122013
group
Building up of the working group
List of category specific domain experts (name, affiliation, e-mail)
who could provide useful insights in the development of a consensus
List of LCA/LCIA specialist who would be useful to involve in the
process and working group
Open invitation
Selection criteria to be applied for indicator selection within an environmental impact (based on
the enclosed draft list of criteria). Looking at the cause-effect chain and specific need in the
prioritized impact category, what are your suggestion for additional criteria or specific criteria?
Develop milestones of a working plan towards a recommendation in maximum two years
Definition of mode of work suggested for the working group method comparisons (regular conf
calls, etc.)
Workplan 2014
Establishing state of
the art
1st workshop
(comparison, analysis
of methods)
Analysis
What is the current practice in LCIA for this category?
How far is the assessment framework and cause-effect chain already framed for this impact
category?
4-2014
Identify the different existing method/models within and outside LCIA that may be considered
in a comparison process
Identify the previous consensus efforts/method comparison exercise/review work that has been
led and their main outcomes
5-2014
What are the scientific questions and the main challenges that need to be addressed in the
consensus process for this impact category towards arriving to a recommendation
Describe the common understanding of the different approaches, their potentially different
purposes and their relation to cause-effect pathways.
5-2015 Identify agreement or disagreement on appropriate midpoint indicator
Identify similarities/differences within the underlying models up to the midpoint; this covers
data sources used, model parameters, temporal and geographical scope
Identify similarities/differences within the underlying models from mid- to endpoint
Select models or model elements to represent the consensus
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4e. Resources related impact
categories
General points
• Links with ISO outcomes : we don’t need to link up. The idea is to
give a guidance, ISO could use the result of this group.
• Clarification about the main objective of WULCA : best available or
consensual ?
• The consensus is the priority with emphasis on parcimony.
Develop a new model and published model are both to be
considered in the process.
• For both water and land-use we don’t have a lot of history but
given the relevance of these impacts we don’t want to focus only
on consensual and published work. A method may be endorsed
and recommended even if it is not published yet. (Ex : USEtox
was recommended and the recommendatin was the publication, it
was not applied before).
General points
• For abiotic resources there is a high relevance in industry but it is
questionable if it is « environmental relevance ». It should be
explained why we left this out. It is not that it is not important
and should be incorporated.
• The fact that we have already active group working on land and
water use is one of the reasons for choosing land and water use
and to hope reaching partial consensus within two years.
• If we do not reach a consensus we may be able at least to report
what we agree on and what we do not agree on.
General comments
• Regionality has to be considered in term of
applicability within inventory and archetypes
approach should be considered as well as the
integration of uncertainty and spatial
variability should be implemented.
• We should strive toward having a globaly
applicable method (with potentially
continental settings)
• Stakeholders from the different regions of the
world should also be implied.
Water use
• The points on which to agree are already
identified, there is still to reach a
consensus on those identified modeling
choices.
• Deliverable asked to Wulca :
− One indicator for HH
− One indicator for ecosystem
− One indicator that could be used alone by
stakeholders
Water use
• The question of what is most
environmentaly relevent is important
needs to be identified for both impact
pathways (HH and EQ) : most HH issues
related to water come from water
pollution (mainly microbial pollution)
and this should be stated transparently
(what is covered by LCA methods and
what is not).
Water use
• Scarcity indicators are used for HH and
for EQ even if not correlated.
• Almost nothing for resources which we
decided not to cover.
• Issue of fiding a common midpoint : it
may be very close to the endpoints,
meaning using several indicator which
may be an issue.
Finalisation of selection criteria–
Water use
• Based on WULCA work (already done for
Human health impact pathway)
Milestone– Water use
• First milestones are imminent (within one year) :
− Analyse the gaps and overlaps between the
methodologies for scarcity indexes and human health
impact pathway; (already done, comparative paper)
− Circulate the comparative assessment of models
paper within WULCA;
− Discuss the mid-point / end-point issue versus single
score indicator in water use impact assessment in
group. mainstreaming presentation on what are the
implications of both choices (relevance versus
robustness, different results at mid versus end-point
results;)
Milestones – Water use
• Next milestones (within two year) :
• Try to reach a preliminary concensus or identify the
points on which concensus has to be reached for
human health impact pathway before the Pellston
workshop;
• Analyse the gaps and overlaps between the
methodologies for ecosystem impact pathway;
Experts and working group
members – Water use
• WULCA group, with the aim to include in
WULCA non LCA experts :
− Water footprint network
− Hydrogeologists
− Petra Doll
− Aquaduct
Land use
• It was decided to narrow the scope on
land occupation impacts on biodiversity.
Key questions :
− Land transformations
− Stakeholders acceptance : who should be
included ?
Land use
Two main topics on which a consensus is
needed :
− Choice of indicator (biodiversity based on
species richness more mature but other
options to consider)
− Choice of reference state (Issue of the
reference state are the main key issue on
which to agree in a consensual work. Are we
avoiding the land of becoming a constructed
area or a pristine area : this choice is
driving the impact.)
Land use
• LULCIA workgroup is closed but the job
should continue. Maybe it would be
worth having a working group under the
aegis of the flagship project. Thomas
Koelner good candidate to lead such a
group.
Land use
• Complementarity with other indicators
outside LCA should be considered and
how far it is possible to agregate should
be considered
• Identify hotspot more than encouraging
good practices ?
Finalisation of selection criteria –
Land use
• to discuss further in initial meetings
Experts and working group
members – Land use
• Approach:
− list of interested people, filtering later on.
− How to approach the composition of the
group? Do we –today’s group- make
recommendations on who would be best
placed? One of us takes leadership? Or do
we appoint a leader already?
Experts and working group
members – Land use
•
Thomas Koellner. + provide contacts in biodiversity assessment field
•
Laura de Baan. + provide contacts in biodiversity assessment field
•
Llorenç Milà i Canals
•
Antonin Vergez (French ministry, user)
•
Cassia Ugaya
•
Bárbara Civit
•
Sébastien Humbert (initially interested, possibly as agenda member / user)
•
Montse Núnez (between land and WULCA?)
•
Assumpció Anton
•
Ottar Michelsen
•
Shabbir Gheewala
•
Jannick Schmidt, Miguel Brandao
•
Jonathan Foley. To check: familiar with LC perspective?
•
Kier (publication from Olson’s biomes, and biodiversity related to those). To check: familiar with LC
perspective?
•
Navin Ramankutty. To check: familiar with LC perspective?
•
Lian Pin Koh / Ghazoul (ETH). To check: familiar with LC perspective?
Work Plan 2013– Land use
• June-July: establish working group. Led by whom?
− Establish ways of working in group: time commitment; consensus-building…
(based on / same as Shonan guidance principles)
• Gathering feedback from stakeholders in additional events: are we
hitting the right spot with land occupation – biodiversity?
• September: kick off working group. Initial questions to be addressed:
− LCI vs. initial CF. If inventory (m2year), then we imply more land use =
always worse (not accepted by many stakeholders). If CF: then which one?
− Reference situation; other issues to decide on? (e.g. if we add LUC: accept
full recovery? Modelling period?)
− Is biodiversity the key safeguard subject we want to protect? Do we want to
bring other indicators? Is it possible?
− Listing of all indicators for the chose pathways that should be in the initial
comparison
• Q4’13: seek more views on whether focus on biodiversity is OK;
quantitative comparison of indicators
Work Plan 2014– Land use
• May 2014 (Basel): initial workshop presenting comparison of indicators.
Decision on 1 indicator
• H2’14: prepare additional decisions on reference state: implications of
different reference states with the chose indicator?
• Pellston workshop:
− Decide on whole framework: reference state, possibly other modelling
aspects (e.g. reversibility of impacts; modelling period length…)
SETAC
Glasgow
2013
4f. Normalisation and
weighting
Breakout group,
in Cincinatti, USA

similar documents