Presentation on theme: "Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon"— Presentation transcript:
1 Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon SETAC Glasgow 2013Scoping workshop 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 InitiativeChairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon
2 Presentation content 1. Flagship project and workshop objectives 2. Evaluation of impact categories (a,b,c,d,e,f)3. Outcome of the plenary discussion4. Key consensus issues & preliminary workplansSelection criteriaGlobal impact categoriesHuman health emission related impact categoriesBiodiversity emission related impact categoriesResource related impacts categoriesCross-cutting, normalisation and weighting
5 Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet SETAC Glasgow 20131. Presentation of flagship project and of scoping workshop objectives Flagship project of the 3rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeRolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet
6 Phase 3: Mission, Vision, Objectives and Programmes Vision: A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamedMission: Enable the global use of credible life cycle knowledge for more sustainable societies.5. Communication & stakeholder outreachMethodologiesObjective 1: Enhance the global consensus and relevance of existing and emerging life cycle methodologies and data managementObjective 2: Expand capability worldwide to apply and to improve life cycle approaches; making them operational for organisations3. Product sustainability information4. Capability Development & implementation2. DataObjective 3: Be the global voice of the Life Cycle community to influence and partner with stakeholders through broad communication of current life cycle knowledge
7 Focus on Phase 3 Flagship Projects: Urgency & Relevance 1. Methodologies4. Capability Development & implementationIntegrating LCC, S-LCA, E-LCA and linking with CSRKey environmental LCIA indicators based on mature environmental approachesLCA in organizationsGlobal capability development2. Data5. Communication & stakeholder outreachGlobal database management network & traininga. Communication strategyb. LC Platform: clearing house and social media3. Product sustainability informationProduct sustainability information meta guidanceKnowledge miningSee Annex 3 for the complete projects listAll projects in bold are flagship ones
8 MotivationGlobal supply chains of products and multinational companies ask for consensual set of environmental indicatorsLife Cycle Initiative has long-term experience with consensus-finding processesUSETox: toxicity related indicatorsGlobal guidance on LCA database development
9 Goal of the flagship project Establish a consensual set of environmental impact category indicatorsFor use inEnvironmental product information schemesCorporate reporting of multinational companiesInternational and/or national environmental policiesCommon LCA work commissioned by governments and companies
10 General outline Task 1: Scoping phase (2012-2013) Task 2: Consensus finding, part 1 ( )Task 3: Consensus finding, part 2 ( )Task 4: Dissemination (2018)
11 Task 1: Scoping phaseEstablish short list of 3 to 4 impact category indicators and themes of first and of second priorityLCIA workshop «Towards development of a global scale LCIA method», Nov. 23, 2012, Yokohama, JapanLCIA workshop «LCIA methods», May 16-17, 2013, Glasgow
12 Scoping phase, outcome2 sets of 3 to 4 indicators suited for consensus, to be worked on in 1st and 2nd phase of consensus findingSpecific workplan for each individual indicatorList of experts to be involvedSelection criteria of indicators within each topic selected
13 Tasks 2&3: Consensus finding Two subsequent phasesConsensus finding activities covering 3 to 4 indicators/themes per phasePellston type workshop at the end of each two years period
14 Task 4: Dissemination Establish training material Organise and hold 5 workshops worldwide
15 2. Evaluation of impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20132. Evaluation of impact categoriesOlivier Jolliet, Rolf Frischknecht, Brad Ridoutt, Bruce Vigon, Jane Bare, Thomas McKone, Manuele Margni, Cecile Bulle
16 2a. Criteria for pre-selecting impact categories to start with SETAC Glasgow 20132a. Criteria for pre-selecting impact categories to start with
17 Cross-cutting Criteria to pre-select impact categories to start from Environmental relevanceImportance to overall environmental impactsScientific validity (how mature is the science; peer reviewed publications)Potential for consensusStakeholder needsApplicability
18 2b. Global impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20132b. Global impact categoriesGlobal warmingOzone depletionOcean acidification
19 Environmental relevance: Global impact categories Global warminghigh relevanceOzone depletionmedium relevance since Montreal protocol successfulN2O may also be relevant nowOcean acidificationOne of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEA. drop of pH of 0.1/decade due to CO2Rockström et al., 2009 NatureRidoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
20 Scientific validity: Impact category Publications and reliability AccuracyGlobal warmingHigh level work from IPCCEndpoint work in progress in LCIA fieldhigh at midpoint low at endpointOzone depletionIntensive researchNew factors for N2OOcean acidificationDependent on CO2 only, may have a strong correlationmedium
21 Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories Impact categoryLevel of consensusApplicabilityGlobal warmingGWP 100 widely useCarbon storage & Dynamic assessmenthigh at midpointlower at endpointOzone depletionODPHighNew factors for N2O?Ocean acidificationStill in progress highly correlatedHigh kg CO2
22 Global impact categories Start with global warming, addressing carbon storagePerhaps also Ozone depletion, less of a priorityOcean acidification highly relevant but may be in a second stage?
23 2c. Human health emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20132c. Human health emission related impact categoriesRespiratory inorganicsHuman toxicityIndoor airPhotochemical ozoneIonizing radiationNoise
24 Environmental relevance: Human health Environmental burden of disease (Lim et al., 2013,Lancet)
25 Scientific validity: Human health emission related categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracyRespiratory inorganicsHofstetter, 1998, Van Zelm et al (Atm Env), ES&T: Humbert et al., 2011, Apte et al, 2012 ES&TMultiple publications, well defined framework and intake fractions epidemiology based dose-response for CVD and lung cancer and severitiesFactor 10Human toxicityRosenbaum 2008&2011, Huijbregts et al, Henderson 2011, special edition Int J LCAPennington et al,Multiple publications, well defined framework, multiple pathways. Screening purposesFactor 100 to 1000 compared to 1012Indoor airHellweg et al, 2009, Wenger et al, 2012, Weschler and Nazaroff, 2008, Bennett et al, 20xxSeveral publications, indoor iF for homes and offices can be combined with exisitng consensus-based USEtox effect factors<factor 10 on iFPhotochemical ozoneHighly non linear, difficult to reflect in the LCA frameworkhigh relative VOC impactsOccupational health and risk of injuryinjury statistics available at industry sector level, punctual work on occupational healthTBDIonizing radiationWell defined human impacts, multiple pathwaysFactor 10 to 50NoiseSeveral methods for traffic related impacts + emerging method on general noise
26 Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories Impact categoryConsensus effortsLevel of concordan.Applic-abilityRespiratory inorganicsHumbert et al,2011Consensus on framework and intake fractions (TF4 phase I working group)HighGood invent-ory data availabilityHuman toxicityUSEtox publicationsMultiple publications, well defined framework, multiple pathways. Screening purposesabout 1500 substancesIndoor airHellweg et al, 2009SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / being integrated in USEtoxLittle inventory dataPhotochemical ozoneTwo approaches commonly used at midpointPOCPs and MIRRmost VOCsOccupational & injury risksOnly few methods based on injury statistics or concentrations at workplaceTBDIonizing radiationFrischknecht ,2000Same method use across LCIA approachesSingle method26 radionu-clides (air, water, Sea)NoiseNo consensus efforts so far in LCIAFactors differeasy to link to Vehicle-km
27 Preliminary evaluation Human health related impact categories
28 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 healthHuman toxicity, (including indoor emissions + ionizing radiation) potentially for 2nd phase building on USEtox
29 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 contextWater related impacts on human health: eventually in interaction with water footprint work
30 2d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20132d. Biodiversity emission related impact categoriesAcidificationEutrophicationEcotoxicityIonizing radiation - ecotox impactsInvasive species
31 Environmental relevance: biodiversity AcidificationOne of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEA.Terrestrial acidification relevant for temperate zoneAquatic very region specificEutrophicationMajor relevance for agriculture related processesEcotoxicityImpacts are limited in case of good practice . May be highly relevant in dev, countriesInvasive speciesOne of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEARockström et al., 2009 NatureRidoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
32 Scientific validity: Biodiversity emission related categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracyAcidification Terrestrial: Seppala et al 2006, Posch et al 2008; Aquatic: Struijs et al 2010, 2011Multiple publications, Well defined framework for terrestrial acidification with complete pathway modeled up to endpoint.Aquatic acidification in progress.Good for temperate, less for tropicalFreshwater EutrophicationSeppala et al 2006, Posch et al 2008, Van Zelm et al 2007, Roy et al 2012, Azevedo et al. 2013Multiple publications, framework is well developed for freshwater eutrophication. New effect factors still to be tested.MediumMarine EutrophicationFramed, Generic Fate factor available + at country level. Effect factor in progress Measured data on hypoxia areaTBDEcotoxicity Rosenbaum 2008, Hauschild 2008, special edition of Int J of LCA, Huijbregts et alAquatic ecotoxicity - data and methods well defined for fate and effectTerrestrial and marine much less developedFactor 100 to 1000 compared to 1012Invasive speciesStill to be explored how to make the link to a functional unit, e.g. for shipping, ballast water, etc.Not ready
33 Potential for consensus & applicability: Biodiversity emission related categories Impact categoryConsensus effortsLevel of agreem.Applic-abilityAcidificationMultiple papers Consensus effort and method comparison (TF4) especially for terrestrial acidification. "True midpoint" with increase in H+ / pHCritical load vs increase in pHGood for terrestrialMedium/low aquaticGoodFreshwater EutrophicationRelatively low number of methods available. No comparison performed recently. Freshwater fate of P relatively simple.MediumMidpoint yesMarine EutrophicationN-fate + marine eutrophication available, relatively good concordance. Effect factor in progressGood for fate not yet ready for effectyes when fully definedEcotoxicity Henderson 2011SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / integrated in USEtoxLimited inventory dataInvasive species-not yet
34 Preliminary evaluation of impact categories Biodiversity related impact categories
35 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
36 Additional pointsEcotoxicity: in a second stage for aquatic ecotox building on USEtox consensus process. Further progress needed on terrestrial and marine ecotoxInvasive species: to be framed for LCA
38 Environmental relevance Resource related impact categories Biotic depletionMarine ecosystems: overfishingWater useFreshwater biodiversity lossGlobal water crisis/food securityLand useHabitat change the major driver of terrestrial biodiversity lossLink to invasive speciesMineralsPlanetary boundaries hard to quantifyEnergy resourcesRenewal rate vastly exceededRockström et al., 2009 NatureRidoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T
39 Scientific validity: Resource related impact categories Impact categoryPublications and reliabilityAccuracyBiotic depletionEmanuelsson et al (overfishing)Impacts from biotic resource depletion generally excluded. Further research development needed.lowWater useKounina et al 2012 latest methods review.Focal point WULCAImpact 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 importanceLand useInitially 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, etcVarious approaches relating to resource competition, biodiversity impacts, individual ecosystem services, soil quality impacts. Understanding of impact pathways increasing. Land occupation and transformation and iLUC considerationsMineral resourcesThere are different approaches derived from very different concepts, such as decreased availability, future availability and effort needed, exergy/entropyVariable depending on conceptEnergy resourcesBoustead and Hancock 1978, Frischknecht et al 2007Most approaches based on energy content in one way or the otherhigh
40 Potential for consensus & applicability: Resource related categories Impact categoryConsensus effortsLevel of concordan.Applic-abilityBiotic depletionImportant environmental issue with regard to overfishing. Topic is very specific and LCIA approaches possibly too rare for harmonisation processVery lowMainly fisheriesWater useWULCASubstantial use of WULCA framework. At the midpoint, most methods utilise a water scarcity index of some sortModerate at midpointSpatial and temporal dimensions importantLand useDiversity of used frameworksLowVariesMineral resourcesConcepts differ, frameworks differ, but significant correlationsEnergy resourcesSimilar overall concepts used but major differences in some key aspects. Possible candidate for harmonisationModerateGeneral applicability
41 Preliminary evaluation of resource related impact categories
42 Resource related categories: Start with: Energy resources: simple resource indicator might be a good candidate for next phase harmonizationdiscuss 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.
43 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
44 2f. Cross-cutting issues and LCIA framework SETAC Glasgow 20132f. Cross-cutting issues and LCIA frameworkGuidance on footprintThe SETAC-UNEP LCIA framework
45 So many footprints…what do they mean? Work environmental footprintEmission footprintFood to energy footprintEconomic footprintSocial footprintecological footprintGrazing land footprintJob footprintCorruption footprintEnvironmental footprintClimate footprintwater footprintCO2 footprintOnline social footprintGHG footprintFinancial footprintcarbon footprintForest footprintGWP footprintWater pollution footprintnitrogen footprintLand use footprintWater availability footprintWaste footprintMethane footprintChemical footprintWater scarcity footprintExergy footprintBiodiversity footprintHuman rights footprintWater stress footprintBlue water footprintHuman footprintPhosphorus footprintEnergy footprintGreen water footprintFishing grounds footprintWind energy footprintNuclear energy footprintCrop land footprintGrey water footprintRenewable energy footprintSolar energy footprintBuilt-up land footprintAgricultural land footprintFossil energy footprintHealth footprintLand footprintPoverty footprintWater supply footprint
46 …guidance on defining and developing LCA-based footprints is needed If our vision is “A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed”……guidance on defining and developing LCA-based footprints is neededFootprints are the means of communicating LCA information to the mainstream: i.e. remote and non-technical audienceFootprints not grounded in LCA are problematic:Environmental relevance?Double countingHow to make sense of multiple footprintsResults may contradict LCAFootprints are not just new names for existing impact category indicatorsProposal: UNEP/SETAC LCI take a leading role in creating global guidance on LCA-based footprints:Universal footprint definitionDifferentiation from ordinary life cycle impact category indicatorsGuidance to support evolution of coherent footprint indicators in support of our visionRisks of not actingReference: Ridoutt and Pfister 2013 Towards an integrated family of footprint indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology DOI: /jiec.12026
47 Achieved: framework both at midpoint and damage Midpoint categoriesHuman toxicityAccidentsNoiseOxidant creationOzone depletionGlobal warmingAcidificationNutrificationEcotoxicityLand use&habitat lossesSpecies & organismdispersalNatural resources:-mineralsenergywatersoilsoil erosionsoil salinisation & dessic.biotic resource useDamagecategoriesHuman healthMorbidityMortalityBiotic naturalenvironmentSpecies andecosystemsNaturalresourcesMan madeabiotic& bioticBuildings & cropsAbioticnaturalLandscapeLCIResults1. LCI to midpoint characterizationHigher precisionlower relevance3. Normalization and weightingComparison to references Societal values2. Midpoint - to damageLower precision, but higher relevanceNatural science with higher uncertainty
50 IMPACT World+ – Ecosystem quality area of protection
51 3. Outcomes of the plenary discussion SETAC Glasgow 20133. Outcomes of the plenary discussion
52 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 effectsConsensus 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.
53 Resources / ecosystem services 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 categoryHuman healthBiodiversityResources / ecosystem services1Global warming****Respiratory inorganics(incl. PM indoors)Land use (Focus on land occupation impacts on biodiversity)Water use (Starting with midpoint proxy)2Human toxicity(incl. indoor)**Acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicitystarting with terrestrial acid. and freshwater eutr.Energy resources
54 Cross cutting issuesFocus 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 requirementsMitigation 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 categoriesIt 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
55 Work processThe 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
56 Main deliverableThe working groups are expected to draft a white paper which is the main input to the Pellston workshops in 2015 and 2017A midterm review will take place in 2014, probably on Thursday-Friday May 2014, in conjunction with the Basel SETAC-Europe congress.
57 Process and governance Workgroup chairs are proposed to participate to meetings of the flagship steering committeeAn 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 reviewThe steering committee of the flagship project is approved by and reports to the International Life Cycle Board of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
58 Minority statementsConsensus 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 LCAFrom a Brazilian point of view radioactive wastes are missing in the list of priority issuesUsers are more applying POCP (summer smog) indicators compared to respiratory inorganics although scientifically, the latter are more important regarding health effectsIn Japan, effects of ionizing radiation are considered very importantThe reversibility of environmental impacts should be a selection criterion as wellAbiotic resources and radioactive waste are highly important in the French context
59 SETAC Glasgow 20134. Key consensus issues and preliminary work plans Work in progress: Preliminary outcomes of breakout groups
60 4a. Evaluation criteria for selecting indicator approaches SETAC Glasgow 20134a. Evaluation criteria for selecting indicator approachesRolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet
61 Criteria for indicator selection Criteria are based on “true and fair view” principles applied in economyEnvironmental relevanceExtent to which all relevant information related to environmental impacts is covered by the indicatorFocus on the overall pictureExtent to which the indicator is capable to represent the actual situation
62 Criteria (cont.) Reliability Transparency Indicator relies on scientific knowledge or international agreements/treatiesRelevant uncertain information and error risks are communicatedVerified by reknown organisations or expertsTransparencymodels, calculations and information are re producible and verifiable
63 Criteria (cont.) Communicability Coherence and comparability Information is intelligible to all and easily understandableCoherence and comparabilityconcepts, definitions, classifications and methods used are comparable (across indicators, along time, across regions)indicator is continuous (along time) scalable and extendable
64 Criteria (cont.) Data availability and quality Timeliness Data, information and models are readily available and affordableTimelinessData and models are actual, using most recent information possibleEase of the implementationIndicator can easily be implemented in current life cycle inventory databases
65 4b. Global impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20134b. Global impact categoriesClimate change Global warming Greenhouse effect
66 Current practice in LCIA Midpoint using GWP100In 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?
67 Scientific questionsUrgency issues, critical thresholds not addressed by time-integrated GWPHow to deal with emission timingTemporary carbon storageBiogenic vs. fossil carbonNeed for complementary indicators addressing intensity and shortterm impacts?Cut-off after a given timeframeDiscounting which is normally not used in the other impact categoriesWhat is the meaning of itat midpointAt endpointAdditional 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
68 Harmonization/consensus potential Consensus nearly already exists around integrated indicator provided by IPCC at midpoint level – GWP100Latest factors should be appliedNeed to check consistence with other reporting systems for climate change (EPD, PCR, carbon footprint etc.) – important for stakeholder acceptancePotential for consensus about approaches addressing urgency needs to be examinedPotential for consensus about endpoint characterisation needs to be examined
69 Expert and working group members Manuele Margni/Annie Levasseur (CAN)Norihiro Itsubo (JPN)Abdelhadi Sahnoune (US)Michael Hauschild (DK)An de Schryver (NL)?ExpertsMiko Kirschbaum (NZ)Glen Peters (NO)Keith Shine (UK)
70 Working plan (to be detailed) Building of working groupKick-offIdentification of approachesApplication to case studies, comparisonAnalysis of methods applying criteriaPresentation of results
71 4c. Human health emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20134c. Human health emission related impact categories
72 Human Health Current use in LCIA: How far is human health framed: Often not used by practitioners,Most methods have human health incorporatedHow far is human health framed:Framework is clear and framed by Humbert et al. (2011), ES&T 45: 4808Framing workshop in ISEE Conference in Basel, 2013:Respiratory effects of criteria pollutantsInvolve 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…
73 Human Health Scientific questions & main challenges: General aspects: Intake fraction either to be addressed locally (spatial effects) or with archetypesWay how background mortality rate is used (local vs. originally used location)Particulates:High stack emissions in urban areasSeconday particlesIndoor air: emission data from combustion highly variable impact modelling okPoor dose-response data for asthma and related respiratory effectsHow to link emission inventory data to stack heightEmission data qualityHuman 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 environmentFate in groundwater
74 Human Health Existing LCIA approaches/methods/models: Particulates: Humber et al. (2011), ES&TGronlund 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 EXTERNETRACINEEDS (factors)EcoSense modelGREET emission model integration with LCIA modelsJapanese efforts (CFs at global scale to be published)Other chemicals:…
75 Human Health Previous consensus effort: Selection criteria: Life Cycle Initiative TF4 effort Humbert et al. (2011), ES&TEBODE 2011 project report (environmental burden of disease)NEEDS project outcome (based on EXTERNE)Selection criteria:Emission/stack heightPopulation density (spatial differentiation)Secondary particulates considered incl. NH3Urban area considered separately and resolution fine enough to capture significant differences in exposureSignificant 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
76 Human Health Procedure until Basel: Invite experts and reserve room at ISEE in BaselMeet with Josh Apte and ask about state of the artPrepare short description of framing workshop (objectives, background, goal, role of contributors)Framing workshop: Tuesday, 20-Aug-2013, 6-8pmCatch contributing experts: start from TF4 members regarding PM: write invitingAgree on date for teleconference: 14th, 17th, 21st June 2013, 4-5:30pm2nd framing workshop probably end of June/early July
77 4d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20134d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories
78 Potentially Relevant Indicators Started IMPACT World + frameworkFrom “Ecosystem Quality” to midpointsFreshwaterMarineTerrestrialThere 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.
79 Emission-based midpoints (vs. Resource-based) Aq + Terr EcotoxicityAq + Terr AcidificationAq + Terr EutrophicationHere 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
80 Ordered and ranked Ionizing Tox Acid Eutro Fresh Marine Terr (Aerial) All a 3M=1 via PDF;E=2Marine,,M=2E=3M=3TerrM=1(Aerial)1=mature, 2=not yet mature, 3=impact pathway identifiable and important, not yet modelM=midpoint, E=Endpoint;
81 Process For all categories labeled “1” Allocate consensus aim to consensus flagship priorityIdentify existing models and expertsComparison of models based on criteria, fast-tracked for pre-existing consensus results (e.g. USEtox)Select models or model elements to represent the consensusFormulate recommendation on use, interpretation, and limitsAlso discuss categories labeled “2” and “3”, so that practitioners do not ignore them and to stimulate research
82 Selection criteriaSelection 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
84 Biodiversity related impact categories Ionizing radiationToxicityAcidificationEutrophicationmidpointendpointfreshwater312marine1-2terrestrial1mature enough for global recommendation2immature for recommendation, but models exist and are usable in LCA (may evolve into "1" during flagship duration)3no 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
85 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 processBuilding up of the working groupList of category specific domain experts (name, affiliation, ) who could provide useful insights in the development of a consensusList of LCA/LCIA specialist who would be useful to involve in the process and working groupOpen invitationSelection 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 yearsDefinition of mode of work suggested for the working group method comparisons (regular conf calls, etc.)Kick-off of the working group
86 Workplan 2014 Establishing state of the art Establishing state of the art4-2014What 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 processIdentify the previous consensus efforts/method comparison exercise/review work that has been led and their main outcomes1st workshop (comparison, analysis of methods)5-2014Analysis5-2015What 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 recommendationDescribe 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 indicatorIdentify similarities/differences within the underlying models up to the midpoint; this covers data sources used, model parameters, temporal and geographical scopeIdentify similarities/differences within the underlying models from mid- to endpointSelect models or model elements to represent the consensus
87 4e. Resources related impact categories SETAC Glasgow 20134e. Resources related impact categories
88 General pointsLinks 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).
89 General pointsFor 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.
90 General commentsRegionality 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.
91 Water useThe 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 HHOne indicator for ecosystemOne indicator that could be used alone by stakeholders
92 Water useThe 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).
93 Water useScarcity 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.
94 Finalisation of selection criteria– Water use Based on WULCA work (already done for Human health impact pathway)
95 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;)
96 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;
97 Experts and working group members – Water use WULCA group, with the aim to include in WULCA non LCA experts :Water footprint networkHydrogeologistsPetra DollAquaduct
98 Land useIt was decided to narrow the scope on land occupation impacts on biodiversity. Key questions :Land transformationsStakeholders acceptance : who should be included ?
99 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.)
100 Land useLULCIA 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.
101 Land useComplementarity with other indicators outside LCA should be considered and how far it is possible to agregate should be consideredIdentify hotspot more than encouraging good practices ?
102 Finalisation of selection criteria – Land use to discuss further in initial meetings
103 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?
104 Experts and working group members – Land use Thomas Koellner. + provide contacts in biodiversity assessment fieldLaura de Baan. + provide contacts in biodiversity assessment fieldLlorenç Milà i CanalsAntonin Vergez (French ministry, user)Cassia UgayaBárbara CivitSébastien Humbert (initially interested, possibly as agenda member / user)Montse Núnez (between land and WULCA?)Assumpció AntonOttar MichelsenShabbir GheewalaJannick Schmidt, Miguel BrandaoJonathan 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?
105 Work Plan 2013– Land useJune-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 comparisonQ4’13: seek more views on whether focus on biodiversity is OK; quantitative comparison of indicators
106 Work Plan 2014– Land useMay 2014 (Basel): initial workshop presenting comparison of indicators. Decision on 1 indicatorH2’14: 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…)
107 4f. Normalisation and weighting Breakout group, in Cincinatti, USA SETAC Glasgow 20134f. Normalisation and weighting Breakout group, in Cincinatti, USA