Presentation on theme: "Scoping workshop - 16-17 May 2013, SETAC-Glasgow Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators Flagship project of the 3 rd."— Presentation transcript:
Scoping workshop May 2013, SETAC-Glasgow Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators Flagship project of the 3 rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon SETAC Glasgow 2013
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)Selection criteria b)Global impact categories c)Human health emission related impact categories d)Biodiversity emission related impact categories e)Resource related impacts categories f)Cross-cutting, normalisation and weighting
Schedule 16 May
Schedule 17 May
1. Presentation of flagship project and of scoping workshop objectives Flagship project of the 3 rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet SETAC Glasgow 2013
5. Communication & stakeholder outreach 3. Product sustainability information 4. Capability Development & implementation Phase 3: Mission, Vision, Objectives and Programmes Objective 1: Enhance the global consensus and relevance of existing and emerging life cycle methodologies and data management Objective 2: Expand capability worldwide to apply and to improve life cycle approaches; making them operational for organisations 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 2. Data 1.Methodologies Vision: A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed Mission: Enable the global use of credible life cycle knowledge for more sustainable societies.
a.Global capability development a. Communication strategy b.LC Platform: clearing house and social media Focus on Phase 3 Flagship Projects: Urgency & Relevance 5. Communication & stakeholder outreach 4. Capability Development & implementation a.Product sustainability information meta guidance b.Knowledge mining a.Global database management network & training 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 1. Methodologies 2. Data 3. Product sustainability information 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 ( ) Task 2: Consensus finding, part 1 ( ) Task 3: Consensus finding, part 2 ( ) 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 1 st and 2 nd 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 − − 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
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 SETAC Glasgow 2013
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
2b. Global impact categories Global warming Ozone depletion Ocean acidification SETAC Glasgow 2013
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 One of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEA. drop of pH of 0.1/decade due to CO2 Rockström et al., 2009 Nature Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
Scientific validity: Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracy Global warmingHigh level work from IPCC Endpoint work in progress in LCIA field high at midpoint low at endpoint Ozone depletionIntensive research New factors for N2O Ocean acidificationDependent on CO2 only, may have a strong correlation medium
Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories Impact categoryLevel of consensusApplicability Global warmingGWP 100 widely use Carbon storage & Dynamic assessment high at midpoint lower at endpoint Ozone depletionODP High New factors for N2O? Ocean acidificationStill 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?
2c. Human health emission related impact categories Respiratory inorganics Human toxicity Indoor air Photochemical ozone Ionizing radiation Noise SETAC Glasgow 2013
Environmental relevance: Human health Environmental burden of disease (Lim et al., 2013,Lancet)
Scientific validity: Human health emission related categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracy Respiratory inorganics Hofstetter, 1998, Van Zelm et al (Atm Env), ES&T: Humbert et al., 2011, Apte et al, 2012 ES&T Multiple publications, well defined framework and intake fractions epidemiology based dose-response for CVD and lung cancer and severities Factor 10 Human toxicity Rosenbaum 2008&2011, Huijbregts et al, Henderson 2011, special edition Int J LCAPennington et al, Multiple publications, well defined framework, multiple pathways. Screening purposes Factor 100 to 1000 compared to Indoor air Hellweg et al, 2009, Wenger et al, 2012, Weschler and Nazaroff, 2008, Bennett et al, 20xx Several publications, indoor iF for homes and offices can be combined with exisitng consensus-based USEtox effect factors
Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories Impact category Consensus effortsLevel of concordan. Applic- ability Respiratory inorganics Humbert et al,2011 Consensus on framework and intake fractions (TF4 phase I working group) HighGood invent- ory data availability Human toxicity USEtox publications Multiple publications, well defined framework, multiple pathways. Screening purposes Highabout 1500 substances Indoor air Hellweg et al, 2009 SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / being integrated in USEtox HighLittle inventory data Photochemic al ozone Two approaches commonly used at midpoint POCPs and MIRR most VOCs Occupational & injury risks Only few methods based on injury statistics or concentrations at workplace TBD Ionizing radiation Frischknecht,2000 Same method use across LCIA approaches Single method 26 radionu- clides (air, water, Sea) NoiseNo consensus efforts so far in LCIA Factors differ easy to link to Vehicle-km
Preliminary evaluation Human health related impact categories
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
2d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories Acidification Eutrophication Ecotoxicity Ionizing radiation - ecotox impacts Invasive species SETAC Glasgow 2013
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 Ecotoxicity Impacts are limited in case of good practice. May be highly relevant in dev, countries Invasive species One of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEA Rockström et al., 2009 Nature Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
Scientific validity: Biodiversity emission related categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracy Acidification Terrestrial: Seppala et al 2006, Posch et al 2008; Aquatic: Struijs et al 2010, 2011 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 Freshwater Eutrophication Seppala et al 2006, Posch et al 2008, Van Zelm et al 2007, Roy et al 2012, Azevedo et al Multiple publications, framework is well developed for freshwater eutrophication. New effect factors still to be tested. Medium Marine EutrophicationFramed, Generic Fate factor available + at country level. Effect factor in progress Measured data on hypoxia area TBD Ecotoxicity Rosenbaum 2008, Hauschild 2008, special edition of Int J of LCA, Huijbregts et al Aquatic ecotoxicity - data and methods well defined for fate and effect Terrestrial and marine much less developed Factor 100 to 1000 compared to Invasive speciesStill 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 effortsLevel of agreem. Applic- ability AcidificationMultiple 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 Medium/l ow aquatic Good Freshwater Eutrophication Relatively low number of methods available. No comparison performed recently. Freshwater fate of P relatively simple. MediumMidpoint 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 Henderson 2011 SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / integrated in USEtox MediumLimited inventory data Invasive species - -not yet
Preliminary evaluation of impact categories Biodiversity related impact categories
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
2e. Resource impact categories Biotic depletion Water use Land use Mineral resource Energy resources (Radioactive waste) SETAC Glasgow 2013
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 Minerals Planetary boundaries hard to quantify Energy resources Renewal rate vastly exceeded Rockström et al., 2009 Nature Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
Scientific validity: Resource related impact categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracy Biotic depletion Emanuelsson et al (overfishing) Impacts from biotic resource depletion generally excluded. Further research development needed. low Water use Kounina et al 2012 latest methods review. Focal point WULCA 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 Land use Initially Kollner 2007, ecological footprint, Mila i Canals 2007, Baitz 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 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 Boustead and Hancock 1978, Frischknecht et al 2007 Most approaches based on energy content in one way or the other high
Potential for consensus & applicability: Resource related categories Impact category Consensus effortsLevel of concordan. Applic- ability Biotic depletion Important environmental issue with regard to overfishing. Topic is very specific and LCIA approaches possibly too rare for harmonisation process Very lowMainly fisheries 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 useDiversity of used frameworks LowVaries Mineral resources Concepts differ, frameworks differ, but significant correlations LowVaries Energy resources Similar overall concepts used but major differences in some key aspects. Possible candidate for harmonisation ModerateGeneral applicability
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
2f. Cross-cutting issues and LCIA framework Guidance on footprint The SETAC-UNEP LCIA framework SETAC Glasgow 2013
ecological footprint So many footprints…what do they mean? water footprint carbon footprint nitrogen footprint Social footprint Economic footprint Environmental footprint Climate footprint GHG footprint CO2 footprint Methane footprint GWP footprint Blue water footprint Green water footprint Grey water footprint Water pollution footprint Water availability footprint Water scarcity footprint Water stress footprint Energy footprint Fossil energy footprint Nuclear energy footprint Solar energy footprint Wind energy footprint Renewable energy footprint Emission footprint Land footprint Forest footprint Agricultural land footprint Built-up land footprint Grazing land footprint Crop land footprint Biodiversity footprint Phosphorus footprint Fishing grounds footprint Human footprint Waste footprint Human rights footprint Corruption footprint Poverty footprint Online social footprint Job footprint Work environmental footprint Food to energy footprint Health footprint Financial footprint Exergy footprint Chemical footprint Land use footprint Water supply footprint
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: /jiec If our vision is “A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed”… …guidance on defining and developing LCA-based footprints is needed
Achieved: framework both at midpoint and damage 3. Normalization and weighting Comparison to references Societal values 1. LCI to midpoint characterization Higher precision lower relevance 2. Midpoint - to damage Lower precision, but higher relevance Natural science with higher uncertainty
UNEP-SETAC LCIA framework Jolliet et al., 2003
ReCiPe – Human health area of protection
IMPACT World+ – Ecosystem quality area of protection
3. Outcomes of the plenary discussion SETAC Glasgow 2013
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. Selection of impact categories
Tentative list of selected impact categories and their relationship/relevance to endpoints (high***,intermediate**,lower* relevance. In red:endpoints to be represented in priority) PriorityImpact category Human health BiodiversityResources / ecosystem services 1Global warming*** * 1Respiratory inorganics (incl. PM indoors)**** 1Land use (Focus on land occupation impacts on biodiversity) **** 1Water use (Starting with midpoint proxy)*** 2Human toxicity (incl. indoor)** 2Acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity ** starting with terrestrial acid. and freshwater eutr. * 2Energy resources**
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
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 Work process
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 May 2014, in conjunction with the Basel SETAC-Europe congress. Main deliverable
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
4. Key consensus issues and preliminary work plans Work in progress: Preliminary outcomes of breakout groups SETAC Glasgow 2013
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
4b. Global impact categories SETAC Glasgow 2013 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 time- integrated 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 NO x, SO x, aerosols,…? −CO 2 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) Building of working group Kick-off Identification of approaches Application to case studies, comparison −Analysis of methods applying criteria −Presentation of results
4c. Human health emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 2013
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 Fate in groundwater
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 −Agree on date for teleconference: 14th, 17th, 21st June 2013, 4- 5:30pm −2nd framing workshop probably end of June/early July
4d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 2013
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 resource- based 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 IonizingToxAcidEutro Fresh All a 3M=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 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 practitioners do not ignore them and to stimulate research
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 Max Posch, Netherlands Jean-Paul Hetterlingh, Netherlands Hayashi, Japan LCA/LCIA experts Mark Huijbregt Bengt Steen José Potting, Sweden Jiri Seppälä, Finland Rosalie van Zelm, Netherlands Liggia Pierre-Olivier Roy, Canada Francesca Verones
Biodiversity related impact categories Ionizing radiationToxicityAcidificationEutrophication midpointendpointmidpointendpointmidpointendpointmidpointendpoint freshwater marine terrestrial mature enough for global recommendation 2 immature for recommendation, but models exist and are usable in LCA (may evolve into "1" during flagship duration) 3 no models are established yet in LCA, but impact pathway is 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 Building up of the working group List of category specific domain experts (name, affiliation, ) 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.) Kick-off of the working group
Workplan 2014 Establishing state of the art 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? 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 1st workshop (comparison, analysis of methods) Analysis 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. 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
4e. Resources related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 2013
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).
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 points
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…)
4f. Normalisation and weighting Breakout group, in Cincinatti, USA SETAC Glasgow 2013