Scoping workshop - 16-17 May 2013, SETAC-

GlasgowGlobal 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

SETAC Glasgow2013

Presentation content1. Flagship project and workshop objectives2. Evaluation of impact categories (a,b,c,d,e,f)3. Outcome of the plenary discussion4. Key consensus issues & preliminary workplans

a) Selection criteriab) Global impact categoriesc) Human health emission related impact

categoriesd) Biodiversity emission related impact

categoriese) Resource related impacts categoriesf) 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 3rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet

SETAC Glasgow2013

5. Communication & stakeholder outreach

3. Product sustainability information

4. C

apab

ility

Dev

elop

men

t &

impl

emen

tatio

n

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 strategyb. 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 (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

2. Evaluation of impact categories

Olivier Jolliet, Rolf Frischknecht, Brad Ridoutt, Bruce Vigon, Jane Bare, Thomas

McKone, Manuele Margni, Cecile Bulle

SETAC Glasgow2013

2a. Criteria forpre-selecting impact

categories to start with

SETAC Glasgow2013

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 warmingOzone depletionOcean acidification

SETAC Glasgow2013

Environmental relevance:Global impact categories

Global warming• high relevanceOzone depletion• medium relevance since

Montreal protocol successful• N2O may also be relevant nowOcean 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 category Publications and reliability AccuracyGlobal warming High level work from IPCC

Endpoint work in progress in LCIA fieldhigh 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 useCarbon storage & Dynamic assessment

high at midpoint lower at endpoint

Ozone depletion ODP HighNew 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?

2c. Human health emission related impact categoriesRespiratory inorganicsHuman toxicityIndoor airPhotochemical ozoneIonizing radiationNoise

SETAC Glasgow2013

Environmental relevance: Human health Environmental burden of disease (Lim et al., 2013,Lancet)

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000

Attributable DALYs/year

Scientific validity: Human health emission related categories

Impact category Publications and reliability AccuracyRespiratory inorganicsHofstetter, 1998, Van Zelm et al. 2008 (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 toxicityRosenbaum 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 1012

Indoor airHellweg 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

<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 level, punctual work on occupational health

TBD

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

Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories

Impact category

Consensus efforts Level of concordan.

Applic-ability

Respiratory inorganicsHumbert et al,2011

Consensus on framework and intake fractions (TF4 phase I working group)

High Good invent-ory data availability

Human toxicityUSEtox publications

Multiple publications, well defined framework, multiple pathways. Screening purposes

High about 1500 substances

Indoor airHellweg et al, 2009

SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / being integrated in USEtox

High Little inventory data

Photochemical 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 TBD

Ionizing radiationFrischknecht ,2000

Same method use across LCIA approaches

Single method

26 radionu-clides (air, water, Sea)

Noise No consensus efforts so far in LCIA Factors differ

easy to link to Vehicle-km

Preliminary evaluationHuman health related impact categories

Environmental relevanceScientific validity

Potential for consensusStakeholder needs

Applicability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Environmental relevance

Scientific validity

Potential for consensus

Stakeholder needs

Applicability

Very high

high

moderate

low

very low

Human health emission relatedcategories: 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 pointsHuman 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

AcidificationEutrophicationEcotoxicityIonizing radiation - ecotox impactsInvasive species

SETAC Glasgow2013

Environmental relevance: biodiversityAcidification• 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 processesEcotoxicity• 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 category Publications and reliability AccuracyAcidificationTerrestrial: 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 EutrophicationSeppala et al 2006, Posch et al 2008, Van Zelm et al 2007, Roy et al 2012, Azevedo et al. 2013

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

EcotoxicityRosenbaum 2008, Hauschild 2008, special edition of Int J of LCA, Huijbregts et al

Aquatic ecotoxicity - data and methods well defined for fate and effectTerrestrial and marine much less developed

Factor 100 to 1000 compared to 1012

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.

Applic-ability

Acidification Multiple papers Consensus effort and method comparison (TF4) especially for terrestrial acidification. "True midpoint" with increase in H+ / pHCritical load vs increase in pH

Good for terrestrial

Medium/low aquatic

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

EcotoxicityHenderson 2011

SETAC & Life Cycle Initiative working group with framework in ES&T - compatible / integrated in USEtox

Medium Limited inventory data

Invasive species

- - not yet

Environmental…

Scientific validity

Potential for…

Stakeholder needs

Applicability

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Environmental relevance

Scientific validity

Potential for consensus

Stakeholder needs

Applicability

Very high

high

moderate

low

very low

Preliminary evaluation of impact categoriesBiodiversity 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 categoriesBiotic depletionWater useLand useMineral resourceEnergy resources(Radioactive waste)

SETAC Glasgow2013

Environmental relevanceResource related impact categories

Biotic depletion• Marine ecosystems: overfishingWater use• Freshwater biodiversity loss• Global water crisis/food securityLand use• Habitat change the major driver

of terrestrial biodiversity loss• Link to invasive speciesMinerals• Planetary boundaries hard to

quantifyEnergy resources• Renewal rate vastly exceeded

Rockström et al., 2009 Nature

Ridoutt and Pfister 2010 ES&T

Scientific validity: Resource related impact categories

Impact category Publications and reliability AccuracyBiotic depletionEmanuelsson et al. 2012 (overfishing)

Impacts from biotic resource depletion generally excluded. Further research development needed.

low

Water useKounina 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 useInitially 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

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 resourcesBoustead 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 categoriesImpact category

Consensus efforts Level 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 low Mainly fisheries

Water useWULCA

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

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 Glasgow2013

ecological footprint

So many footprints…what do they mean?

water footprint

carbon footprint

nitrogen footprint

Social footprint Economic footprint

Environmental footprint Climate footprint

GHG footprintCO2 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 footprintBuilt-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 footprintFood to energy footprint

Health footprint

Financial footprint

Exergy footprintChemical 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: 10.1111/jiec.12026

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 atmidpoint and damage

Midpoint categories

Human toxicity

Accidents

Noise

Oxidant creation

Ozone depletion

Global warming

Acidification

Nutrification

Ecotoxicity

Land use&habitat losses

Species & organism dispersal

Natural resources:- minerals- energy- water- soil

soil erosionsoil salinisation & dessic.

- biotic resource use

Damage categories

Human healthMorbidityMortality

Biotic natural environment

Species and ecosystems

Natural resources

Man made abiotic & biotic environment

Buildings & crops

Abiotic natural environment

Landscape

LCIResults

Midpoint categories

Human toxicity

Accidents

Noise

Oxidant creation

Ozone depletion

Global warming

Acidification

Nutrification

Ecotoxicity

Land use&habitat losses

Species & organism dispersal

Natural resources:- minerals- energy- water- soil

soil erosionsoil salinisation & dessic.

- biotic resource use

Damage categories

Human healthMorbidityMortality

Biotic natural environment

Species and ecosystems

Natural resources

Man made abiotic & biotic environment

Buildings & crops

Abiotic natural environment

Landscape

LCIResults

3. Normalization and weightingComparison to referencesSocietal values

1. LCI to midpoint characterizationHigher precisionlower relevance

2. Midpoint - to damageLower precision, but higher relevanceNatural science with higher uncertainty

UNEP-SETAC LCIA frameworkJolliet et al., 2003

ReCiPe – Human health area of protection

IMPACT World+ – Ecosystem quality area of protection

3. Outcomes of the plenary

discussion

SETAC Glasgow2013

• 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)

Priority

Impact category

Human health

Biodiversity

Resources / ecosystem services

1 Global warming *** *** *1 Respiratory inorganics

(incl. PM indoors) *** *1 Land use (Focus on

land occupation impacts on biodiversity)

* *** ***

1 Water use (Starting with midpoint proxy) *** *** ***

2 Human toxicity(incl. indoor) **

2 Acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity

**starting with

terrestrial acid. and freshwater

eutr.

*

2 Energy 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 15-16 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 Glasgow2013

4a. Evaluation criteria for

selecting indicator approaches

Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet

SETAC Glasgow2013

Criteria for indicator selectionCriteria 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 Glasgow2013

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 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

4c. Human health emission related impact

categories

SETAC Glasgow2013

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 email− 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 Glasgow2013

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 rankedIonizing Tox Acid Eutro

Fresh All a 3 M=1 via PDF;E=2

M=1 via PDF;

E=2M=1 via PDF;E=2

Marine ,, M=2E=3

M=3E=3

M=2E=2

Terr ,, M=2M=3

M=1M=1

M=1E=3

(Aerial)

1=mature, 2=not yet mature, 3=impact pathway identifiable and important, not yet modelM=midpoint, E=Endpoint;

Process

For all categories labeled “1”1. Allocate consensus aim to consensus flagship

priority2. Identify existing models and experts3. 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/EutrophicationDomain 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 radiation Toxicity Acidification Eutrophication

midpoint endpoint midpoint endpoint midpoint endpoint midpoint endpoint

freshwater3

1 2 1 2 1 2

marine 2 3 3 3 1-2 1-2

terrestrial 2 3 1 2 1 3

1mature enough for global recommendation

2immature 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

Workplan 2013Iterative 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

10-2013

Building up of the working groupList of category specific domain experts (name, affiliation, e-mail) 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 group

  Open invitation

12-2013

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 yearsDefinition of mode of work suggested for the working group method comparisons (regular conf calls, etc.)

Kick-off of the working group

12-2013

Workplan 2014       

Establishing state of the art

4-2014

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 processIdentify the previous consensus efforts/method comparison exercise/review work that has been led and their main outcomes

1st workshop (comparison, analysis of methods)

5-2014

       

Analysis

5-2015

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 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

4e. Resources related impact categories

SETAC Glasgow2013

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 Glasgow2013