1 / 107

Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon

SETAC Glasgow 2013. Scoping workshop - 16-17 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.

jena
Télécharger la présentation

Chairs: Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SETAC Glasgow2013 Scoping workshop - 16-17 May 2013, SETAC-GlasgowGlobal guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicatorsFlagship project of the 3rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Chairs: RolfFrischknecht, Olivier Jolliet, Bruce Vigon

  2. Presentation content 1. Flagship project andworkshop objectives 2. Evaluation of impact categories (a,b,c,d,e,f) 3. Outcome of the plenary discussion 4. Key consensus issues & preliminary workplans • Selection criteria • Global impact categories • Human health emission related impact categories • Biodiversity emission related impact categories • Resource related impacts categories • Cross-cutting, normalisation and weighting

  3. Schedule 16 May

  4. Schedule 17 May

  5. SETAC Glasgow2013 1. Presentation of flagship projectand of scoping workshop objectivesFlagship project of the 3rd phase of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Rolf Frischknecht, Olivier Jolliet

  6. Mission: Enable the global use of credible life cycle knowledge for more sustainable societies. Vision:A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed Phase 3: Mission, Vision, Objectives and Programmes 5. Communication & stakeholderoutreach • Methodologies Objective 2: Expand capability worldwide to apply and to improve life cycle approaches; making them operational for organisations Objective 1: Enhance the global consensus and relevance of existing and emerging life cycle methodologies and data management 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 4. CapabilityDevelopment & implementation 3. Product sustainability information 2. Data

  7. Focus on Phase 3 Flagship Projects: Urgency & Relevance 1. Methodologies 4. CapabilityDevelopment & implementation Integrating LCC, S-LCA, E-LCA and linking with CSR Key environmental LCIA indicators based on mature environmental approaches LCA in organizations Global capability development 5. Communication & stakeholderoutreach 2. Data Global database management network & training a. Communication strategy b. LC Platform: clearing house and social media 3. Product sustainability information Product sustainability information meta guidance Knowledge mining SeeAnnex 3 for the completeprojectslist All projects in bold are flagship ones

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Task 4: Dissemination • Establish training material • Organise and hold 5 workshops worldwide

  15. SETAC Glasgow2013 2. Evaluation of impact categories Olivier Jolliet, Rolf Frischknecht, Brad Ridoutt, Bruce Vigon, Jane Bare, Thomas McKone, Manuele Margni, Cecile Bulle

  16. SETAC Glasgow2013 2a. Criteria forpre-selecting impact categories to start with

  17. 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

  18. SETAC Glasgow2013 2b. Global impact categories Global warming Ozone depletion Ocean acidification

  19. 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

  20. Scientific validity:

  21. Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories

  22. 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?

  23. SETAC Glasgow2013 2c. Human health emission related impact categories Respiratory inorganics Human toxicity Indoor air Photochemical ozone Ionizing radiation Noise

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

  25. Scientific validity: Human health emission related categories

  26. Potential for consensus & applicability: Human health emission related categories

  27. Preliminary evaluationHuman health related impact categories

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. SETAC Glasgow2013 2d. Biodiversity emission related impact categories Acidification Eutrophication Ecotoxicity Ionizing radiation - ecotox impacts Invasive species

  31. Environmental relevance: biodiversity Acidification • One of the 5 main drivers for biodiversity loss set in MEA. • Terrestrial acidificationrelevant 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

  32. Scientific validity: Biodiversity emission related categories

  33. Potential for consensus & applicability: Biodiversity emission related categories

  34. Preliminary evaluation of impact categoriesBiodiversity 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 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

  37. SETAC Glasgow2013 2e. Resource impact categories Biotic depletion Water use Land use Mineral resource Energy resources (Radioactive waste)

  38. Environmental relevanceResource 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

  39. Scientific validity: Resource related impact categories

  40. Potential for consensus & applicability: Resource related categories

  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 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.

  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. SETAC Glasgow2013 2f. Cross-cutting issues and LCIA framework Guidance on footprint The SETAC-UNEP LCIA framework

  45. So many footprints…what do they mean? Work environmental footprint Food to energy footprint Emission footprint Economic footprint Social footprint Grazing land footprint Job footprint Corruption footprint Environmental footprint ecological footprint Climate footprint • water footprint CO2 footprint Online social footprint GHG footprint Financial footprint carbon footprint Forest footprint GWP footprint Water pollution footprint nitrogen footprint Land use footprint Water availability footprint Waste footprint Methane footprint Chemical footprint Water scarcity footprint Exergy footprint Biodiversity footprint Water stress footprint Human rights footprint Blue water footprint Human footprint Phosphorus footprint Energy footprint Green water footprint Fishing grounds footprint Wind energy footprint Nuclear energy footprint Crop land footprint Grey water footprint Renewable energy footprint Built-up land footprint Solar energy footprint Agricultural land footprint Fossil energy footprint Health footprint Land footprint Poverty footprint Water supply footprint

  46. If our vision is “A world where life cycle approaches are mainstreamed”… …guidance on defining and developing LCA-based footprints is needed • Footprints are the means of communicating LCA information to the mainstream: i.e. remote and non-technical audience • Footprints not grounded in LCA are problematic: • Environmental relevance? • Double counting • How to make sense of multiple footprints • Results may contradict LCA • Footprints are not just new names for existing impact category indicators • Proposal: UNEP/SETAC LCI take a leading role in creating global guidance on LCA-based footprints: • Universal footprint definition • Differentiation from ordinary life cycle impact category indicators • Guidance to support evolution of coherent footprint indicators in support of our vision • Risks of not acting • Reference: Ridoutt and Pfister 2013 Towards an integrated family of footprint indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12026

  47. Midpoint categories Midpoint categories Damage Damage categories categories Human toxicity Human toxicity Accidents Accidents Human health Human health Noise Noise Morbidity Morbidity Mortality Mortality Oxidant creation Oxidant creation Ozone depletion Ozone depletion Global warming Global warming Biotic natural Biotic natural Acidification Acidification environment environment LCI LCI Species and Species and Nutrification Nutrification Results Results ecosystems ecosystems Ecotoxicity Ecotoxicity Land use&habitat losses Land use&habitat losses Species & organism Species & organism Natural Natural dispersal dispersal resources resources Natural resources: Natural resources: - - minerals minerals - - energy energy Man made Man made - - water water abiotic abiotic & biotic & biotic - - soil soil environment environment soil erosion soil erosion Buildings & crops Buildings & crops soil salinisation & dessic. soil salinisation & dessic. - - biotic resource use biotic resource use Abiotic Abiotic natural natural environment environment Landscape Landscape Achieved: frameworkbothatmidpoint and damage 1. LCI to midpoint characterization Higher precision lower relevance 3. Normalization and weighting Comparison to referencesSocietal values 2. Midpoint - to damage Lower precision, but higher relevance Natural science with higher uncertainty

  48. UNEP-SETAC LCIA frameworkJolliet et al., 2003

  49. ReCiPe – Humanhealth area of protection

  50. IMPACT World+ – Ecosystemquality area of protection

More Related