Développement méthodologique et application du concept de l'empreinte eau en ACV

L’Analyse du Cycle de Vie (ACV) est une méthodologie qui quantifie les impacts environnementaux potentiels à des fins comparatives dans un contexte de prise de décision. Alors que les impacts environnementaux potentiels liés aux émissions de polluants à l’eau sont déjà caractérisés en ACV, les impacts potentiels d’une utilisation et d’une subséquente baisse de disponibilité d’eau ne sont pas encore complètement quantifiés. En effet, alors qu’une utilisation d’eau peut rendre la ressource non disponible par un déplacement (incluant évaporation) ou une baisse de la qualité, cette dernière n’est pas considérée dans les modèles existants. Une baisse de disponibilité d’eau pour les usagers humains peut potentiellement affecter la santé humaine si les usagers ne peuvent pas s’adapter pour subvenir à leurs besoins. Les impacts sur la santé humaine ont lieu selon deux chaînes cause-à-effet : les maladies liées à l’eau, lorsque les usagers domestiques subissent la baisse de disponibilité, et/ou la malnutrition, lorsque la baisse affecte les usagers qui produisent de la nourriture (manque d’eau pour l’irrigation ou les pêches/aquaculture). Cette thèse remplit donc les cinq objectifs principaux suivants: 1) fournir une méthode d’inventaire et 2) d’évaluation des impacts pour quantifier ces dommages sur la santé humaine dans un cadre ACV, 3) effectuer une comparaison du modèle avec les modèles existants, 4) fournir une application sur une étude de cas et 5) évaluer le modèle et quantifier l’incertitude. Modèle d’inventaire Pour quantifier la baisse de disponibilité de l’eau due à la dégradation, la qualité de l’eau entrante et sortante doit être captée par les flux d’inventaire. Dans le cadre de ce projet, une méthode d’inventaire est établie permettant de catégoriser la qualité de l’eau afin de pouvoir quantifier un changement de celle-ci et le changement de fonctionnalité correspondant. La fonctionnalité est définie par les différents usagers humains qui peuvent l’utiliser sans risques et sans traitements supplémentaires. Des catégories d’eau qui considèrent la qualité de l’eau sont d’abord définies par la source d’eau (surface, souterraine ou eau de pluie), des paramètres qualités et les utilisateurs pour qui chaque catégorie est fonctionnelle. Les besoins des utilisateurs sont identifiés par une liste de paramètres bio et physico-chimique et les seuils maximaux possibles par contaminant pour chaque utilisateur. Ces seuils sont basés sur des normes internationales, recommandations et normes industrielles. Sur la base de la qualité et des sources d’eau, dix-sept catégories sont crées en regroupant les besoins des utilisateurs selon le niveau de contamination toxique ou microbienne que l’utilisateur peut tolérer (faible, moyen et élevé). Le processus résulte en huit catégories pour l’eau de surface, huit pour l’eau souterraine et une pour l’eau de pluie. Chaque catégorie est définie par jusqu’à 136 paramètres de qualité et permet d’établir les utilisateurs pour lesquels l’eau est fonctionnelle. Ces catégories d’eau permettent de qualifier les flux d’eau à l’étape d’inventaire, afin d’être utilisés avec un modèle d’évaluation des impacts potentiels associés à une baisse de fonctionnalité pour les utilisateurs humains, modèle qui fait l’objet de la prochaine étape du projet. Modèle d’évaluation des impacts Le modèle proposé prend en compte l’eau prélevée et rejetée, sa qualité et sa rareté afin d’évaluer la perte de fonctionnalité pour les autres usagers. Cette perte de fonctionnalité est ensuite multipliée avec deux paramètres : 1) une capacité d’adaptation, qui détermine dans quelle mesure l’eau non-disponible pourra être compensée par le biais de moyens financiers (ex : désalinisation), et 2) un facteur d’effet qui quantifie les impacts sur la santé humaine causés par la perte de fonctionnalité qui ne peut être compensée (i.e.: malnutrition ou maladies associées à un manque d’accès à l’eau). Les impacts sur la santé humaine d’une utilisation d’eau, menant à une baisse de disponibilité d’eau pour les usages humains (domestiques, agricoles, ou pêches/aquaculture) sont présentés à l’échelle mondiale en résultats régionalisés et exprimés en années de vie perdue équivalentes. Un cadre pour l’évaluation des impacts causés par les moyens compensatoires dans les régions pouvant s’adapter est présenté en addendum. Comparaison des modèles L’évaluation du modèle développé dans ce projet a été effectuée à travers une comparaison systématique avec des modèles publiés dans la littérature et qui couvrent les mêmes chaînes cause-à-effet, notamment la rareté d’eau et les impacts d’un manque d’eau sur la santé humaine. Le but était de 1) identifier les choix de modélisation clés qui expliquent les différences principales entre les modèles, 2) quantifier l’importance des différences entre les modèles, incluant l’évaluation de l’incertitude associée et 3) discuter les choix méthodologiques principaux et fournir des recommandations pour orienter les développements méthodologiques futurs et les efforts d’harmonisation. Les résultats ont permis d’identifier les choix de modélisation qui influencent significativement les indicateurs et qui doivent être analysés davantage et harmonisés, tels que l’échelle géographique à laquelle l’indicateur de rareté est calculé, la source de données d’entrées du modèle et la fonction qui décrit la rareté d’eau en fonction de la fraction d’eau disponible prélevée (WTA) ou consommée (CTA). L’inclusion ou l’exclusion des impacts liés à la privation d’eau pour les usagers domestiques et l’inclusion ou l’exclusion du “trade effect” influencent les résultats d’impacts sur la santé humaine. De plus, tant au niveau problèmes que dommages, la comparaison a démontré que de considérer une réduction de disponibilité due à une dégradation de l’eau affecte significativement les résultats. D’autres choix ont été analysés et sont moins significatifs pour la majorité des régions du monde. Des cartes sont fournies pour identifier les régions où ces choix sont pertinents. Application sur une étude de cas Le modèle développé est ensuite appliqué à une étude de cas sur l’empreinte eau d’un détergent à lessive, illustrant comment le modèle s’insère dans le concept de l’empreinte eau en complémentant les méthodes existantes adressant les différentes chaines cause-à-effet. En effet, l’intégration des différentes méthodes d’évaluation des impacts à l’intérieur d’une empreinte eau est toujours en cours et seulement quelques études de cas ont été publiées à ce jour illustrant le concept de façon exhaustive. Alors que les industries sont de plus en plus intéressées à évaluer leur empreinte eau au-delà d’un simple inventaire de volumes d’eau consommée, ils sont à la recherche de directives quand à l’application et l’interprétation des différentes méthodes disponibles. Le modèle développé est également évalué et comparé à d’autres modèles adressant les mêmes chaines cause-à-effet. Une discussion sur l’applicabilité des différentes méthodes dans un contexte d’empreinte eau aborde les sujets tels que la définition des flux d’inventaire, la disponibilité des données, la régionalisation et l’inclusion des systèmes de traitements d’eau usée. Le concept de l’empreinte eau tel que décrit dans la norme DIS ISO 14046 est illustré par l’étude de cas en incluant les catégories d’impacts liées à la disponibilité et à la dégradation. Au niveau problèmes, celles-ci incluent la rareté, le stress et les indicateurs de pollution tels que l’eutrophication, l’acidification et la toxicité. Au niveau dommages, les impacts sur la santé humaine et les écosystèmes sont évalué pour un manque et une dégradation de l’eau. Des analyses de sensibilité sont réalisées sur les choix de modélisation les plus sensibles, identifiés dans la comparaison mentionnée ci-haut. Validation du modèle et incertitudes Bien que les résultats du modèle ne puissent être validés directement avec des données réelles, une validation partielle de l’ordre de grandeur peut être effectuée en comparant les résultats que le modèle fournit si les impacts associés à toute l’eau consommée d’un pays sont évalués et comparées avec les données de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé décrivant les dommages sur la santé humaine liés à la malnutrition et au manque d’accès à l’eau. Ces données fournissent un seuil maximal, puisque ces impacts peuvent être causés par une utilisation d’eau ou d’autres causent, permettant d’identifier si les résultats du modèle se retrouvent dans un ordre de grandeur raisonnable. La comparaison montre que pour 75% et 71% des pays respectivement, les impacts évalués dus à la malnutrition et aux maladies liées à l’eau, sont en-dessous des données de l’OMS, tel que prédit. L’évaluation par le modèle à l’échelle mondiale donne une valeur du même ordre de grandeur que l’OMS pour les maladies liées à l’eau et un ordre de grandeur supérieur pour la malnutrition. Les incertitudes sont évaluées avec les données disponibles sur les paramètres d’entrée du modèle ou par des jugements d’experts, et elles sont comparées avec la variabilité spatiale du modèle à travers l’index UII (Uncertainty Increase Indicator), qui montre que l’incertitude intrinsèque du modèle est en général comparable ou supérieure à l’incertitude associée à variabilité spatiale à l’échelle du pays. Conclusion Cette thèse présente une méthode novatrice pour l’évaluation de l’inventaire et des impacts liés à une baisse de disponibilité causée par la consommation ou la dégradation de l’eau pour les usages humains en ACV. La méthode, qui représente une plus grande pertinence d’un point de vue logique en intégrant un plus grand nombre de paramètres et en offrant une plus grande complexité, a également démontré une différence dans les résultats obtenus. Le travail approfondi ensuite la compréhension du modèle et des autres modèles de rareté, stress et d’impacts sur la santé humaine en identifiant les choix de modélisations pertinents et les différences, permettant ainsi de quantifier l’incertitude du modèle et l’importance de ces choix dans un contexte régional spécifique, par l’utilisation de cartes mettant en évidence les régions où certaines analyses de sensibilité seraient pertinentes. Décomposer les modèles existants et identifier les différences et similitudes, a permis d’identifier les principales composantes et ainsi supporter le développement éventuel d’une méthode consensuelle. Finalement, l’application à l’étude de cas a démontré que la méthode développée peut déjà être appliqué à un produit de détergent à lessive dans un contexte d’empreinte eau telle que présentée dans la norme ISO. La science et la disponibilité des données évoluent rapidement, mais les résultats obtenus permettent déjà aux entreprises d’identifier où dans le cycle de vie et dans le monde les impacts potentiels auront lieu. En conclusion, malgré des incertitudes parfois élevées, un potentiel de surestimation des impacts dans certains pays, le besoin de données plus robustes et d’une meilleure opérationnalisation, ce travail contribue significativement à élargir les possibilités et l’exhaustivité de l’évaluation des impacts liés à l’utilisation de l’eau, et à la connaissance scientifique nécessaire pour appliquer, comprendre et développer davantage les modèles d’impacts. ---------- Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology that quantifies potential environmental impacts for comparative purposes in a decision-making context. While potential environmental impacts from pollutant emissions into water are characterized in LCA, impacts from water unavailability are not yet fully quantified. While water use can make the resource unavailable to other users by displacement (including evaporation) or quality degradation, this latter is not yet considered in existing models. A reduction in water availability to human users can potentially affect human health if users cannot adapt to meet their needs. Health impacts may occur via two main impact pathways: water-related diseases, when domestic users are deprived of water, and malnutrition, when food-producing users are deprived of water (agriculture and aquaculture/fisheries). This thesis therefore meets these five main objectives: 1) an inventory and 2) impact model to quantify these potential damages to human health within an LCA framework, 3) a comparison of the model with other existing models, 4) an application on a case study and 5) an evaluation of the model and assessment of its uncertainty. Inventory model In order to assess a change in water quality and availability, the quality of the input and output inventory flows must be quantified. In the context of this project, an inventory method is established in order to categorize water quality and thus quantify a change, and the corresponding change in functionality. Functionality is defined by the different users by which the water can be used with no risks or additional treatments. Water categories that consider water quality are therefore defined by the source (surface, ground or rain), quality parameters and users for which the water is functional. A list of parameters was defined, and thresholds for these parameters were determined for each user. The thresholds were based on international standards, country regulations, recommendations and industry standards. Based on the quality and water sources, categories were created by grouping user requirements according to the level of microbial and toxic contamination that the user can tolerate (high, medium or low). Seventeen water categories were created: eight for surface water, eight for groundwater and one for rainwater. Each category was defined according to 136 quality parameters and the users for which it can be of use. These categories allow qualifying the water flows at the inventory level in order to be used with a model assessing potential water use impacts caused by a loss of functionality for human users, which was the following step of this project. Impact assessment model The proposed model considers water that is withdrawn and released, its quality and scarcity in order to evaluate the loss of functionality for other users. This decrease in functionality is then multiplied by two parameters: 1) an adaptation capacity which determines how much of this decrease in water availability can be compensated through financial adaptation (ex: desalination), and 2) an effect factor to quantify the specific health impacts caused by the resulting loss that cannot be compensated for (i.e.: water-related diseases and/or malnutrition). World-wide regionalized results are presented for impacts on human health expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALY). A framework for impact assessment caused by the use of backup technologies in regions able to adapt is presented in addendum. Model comparison The model comparison that followed was performed on methods that describe similar impact pathways, namely water scarcity and human health impacts from water deprivation. The aim was to (i) identify the key relevant modeling choices that explain the main differences between characterization models leading to the same impact indicators; (ii) quantify the significance of the differences between methods, including the assessment of model uncertainty and (iii) discuss the main methodological choices and provide recommendations to guide method development and harmonization efforts. The results determined the modeling choices that significantly influence the indicators and should be further analyzed and harmonized, such as the regional scale at which the scarcity indicator is calculated, the sources of underlying input data and the function adopted to describe the relationship between scarcity and the withdrawal-to-availability (WTA) or consumption-to-availability (CTA) ratios. The inclusion or exclusion of impacts from domestic user deprivation and the inclusion or exclusion of trade effects boteh influence human health impacts. At both midpoint and endpoint, the comparison showed that considering reduced water availability due to degradation in water quality, in addition to a reduction in water quantity, greatly influences results. Other choices are less significant in most regions of the world. Maps are provided to identify the regions in which such choices are relevant. Case study application The model developed is then applied to a case study on the water footprint of a laundry detergent, illustrating how the model can be integrated in the water footprint concept while complementing existing methods addressing different impact pathways. Indeed, the integration of different water impact assessment methods within a water footprint concept is still ongoing and a limited number of case studies have been published presenting a comprehensive study of all water-related impacts. Although industries are increasingly interested in assessing their water footprint beyond a simple inventory assessment, they often lack guidance regarding the applicability and interpretation of the different methods available. The model is also evaluated and compared to other models addressing impact pathways. A discussion on their applicability covers issues such as inventory flow definition, data availability, regionalization and inclusion of waste water treatment systems. Method-specific discussion covers the use of interim ecotoxicity factors, the interaction of scarcity and stress assessments and the limits of such methods and the geographic coverage and availability of impact assessment methods. Lastly, possible double counting, databases, software, data quality and integration of a water footprint within an LCA are discussed. The concept of water footprinting as defined by the forthcoming ISO Draft Standard, is illustrated through the case study of a load of laundry using water availability and water degradation impact categories. At the midpoint it covers scarcity, stress and pollution indicators such as eutrophication, acidification, human and eco-toxicity. At the endpoint, impacts on human health and ecosystems are covered for water deprivation and degradation. Sensitivity analyses are performed on the most sensitive modeling choices identified in the aforementioned model comparison. Model validation and uncertainty assessment Although the model results cannot be directly validated with actual data, a partial validation of the order of magnitude can be performed by comparing the results obtained by characterizing the entire consumed water volume of a country with the model with the World Health Organization (WHO) data for water-related diseases and malnutrition. This data provide an upper threshold for the model results, since these health damages can be caused by water consumption or other factors, and hence allow a validation of the order of magnitude of the model results. The comparison showed that for 75% and 71% of the countries respectively, impacts obtained from the model for malnutrition and water-related diseases are below the WHO data threshold, as predicted. The world-wide assessment results in values in the same order of magnitude as WHO data for water-related diseases, and one order of magnitude higher than WHO for malnutrition. Uncertainties are assessed based on available data for the input parameters of the model or based on expert judgments, and they are compared with spatial variability within the UII (Uncertainty Increase Indicator), which shows that the model uncertainty is generally comparable or higher than the uncertainty associated with spatial variability at the country scale. Conclusion This work presents a novel inventory and impact assessment approach for evaluating impacts from water consumption and water degradation on human health in LCA. The model, which integrates several new relevant parameters and presents a higher complexity level, also showed a difference in the results obtained. It then deepens the understanding of the model and other existing models on scarcity, stress and human health impact by identifying the key relevant modeling choices and differences, making it possible to quantify model uncertainty and the significance of these choices in a specific regional context. Maps of regions where these specific choices are of importance were generated to guide practitioners in identifying locations relevant for specific sensitivity analyses in water footprint studies. Deconstructing the existing models and highlighting the differences and similarities has helped to determine building blocks to support the development of an eventual consensual method. Finally, the case study application shows that the model developed can already be applied to a laundry detergent product within a water footprint, as proposed in the ISO draft standard. The science and the data availability are rapidly evolving, but the results obtained with present methods already enable companies to map where in the life cycle and in the world impacts might occur. In conclusion, despite sometimes high uncertainties, a potential overestimation of impacts in certain countries, the need for more robust data and better operationalisation, this work contributed significantly to the comprehensiveness and possibilities of water use impact assessment, and to the scientific knowledge necessary to apply, understand and further develop impact models

IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method

International audiencePurpose This paper addresses the need for a globally regionalized method for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), integrating multiple state-of-the-art developments as well as damages on water and carbon areas of concern within a consistent LCIA framework. This method, named IMPACT World+, is the update of the IMPACT 2002+, LUCAS, and EDIP methods. This paper first presents the IMPACT World+ novelties and results and then analyzes the spatial variability for each regionalized impact category. Methods With IMPACT World+, we propose a midpoint-damage framework with four distinct complementary viewpoints to present an LCIA profile: (1) midpoint impacts, (2) damage impacts, (3) damages on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources & ecosystem service areas of protection, and (4) damages on water and carbon areas of concerns. Most of the regional impact categories have been spatially resolved and all the long-term impact categories have been subdivided between shorter-term damages (over the 100 years after the emission) and long-term damages. The IMPACT World+ method integrates developments in the following categories, all structured according to fate (or competition/scarcity), exposure, exposure response, and severity: (a) Complementary to the global warming potential (GWP100), the IPCC Global Temperature Potentials (GTP100) are used as a proxy for climate change long-term impacts at midpoint. At damage level, shorter-term damages (over the first 100 years after emission) are also differentiated from long-term damages. (b) Marine acidification impact is based on the same fate model as climate change, combined with the H + concentration affecting 50% of the exposed species. (c) For mineral resources depletion Responsible editor: Serenella Sala Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi. impact, the material competition scarcity index is applied as a midpoint indicator. (d) Terrestrial and freshwater acidification impact assessment combines, at a resolution of 2°× 2.5°(latitude × longitude), global atmospheric source-deposition relationships with soil and water ecosystems' sensitivity. (e) Freshwater eutrophication impact is spatially assessed at a resolution grid of 0.5°× 0.5°, based on a global hydrological dataset. (f) Ecotoxicity and human toxicity impact are based on the parameterized version of USEtox for continents. We consider indoor emissions and differentiate the impacts of metals and persistent organic pollutants for the first 100 years from longer-term impacts. (g) Impacts on human health related to particulate matter formation are modeled using the USEtox regional archetypes to calculate intake fractions and epidemiologically derived exposure response factors. (h) Water consumption impacts are modeled using the consensus-based scarcity indicator AWARE as a proxy midpoint, whereas damages account for competition and adaptation capacity. (i) Impacts on ecosystem quality from land transformation and occupation are empirically characterized at the biome level. Results and discussion We analyze the magnitude of global potential damages for each impact indicator, based on an estimation of the total annual anthropogenic emissions and extractions at the global scale (i.e., Bdoing the LCA of the world^). Similarly with ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+, IMPACT World+ finds that (a) climate change and impacts of particulate matter formation have a dominant contribution to global human health impacts whereas ionizing radiation, ozone layer depletion, and photochemical oxidant formation have a low contribution and (b) climate change and land use have a dominant contribution to global ecosystem quality impact. (c) New impact indicators introduced in IMPACT World+ and not considered in ReCiPe or IMPACT 2002+, in particular water consumption impacts on human health and the long-term impacts of marine acidification on ecosystem quality, are significant contributors to the overall global potential damage. According to the areas of concern version of IMPACT World+ applied to the total annual world emissions and extractions, damages on the water area of concern, carbon area of concern, and the remaining damages (not considered in those two areas of concern) are of the same order of magnitude, highlighting the need to consider all the impact categories. The spatial variability of human health impacts related to exposure to toxic substances and particulate matter is well reflected by using outdoor rural, outdoor urban, and indoor environment archetypes. For Bhuman toxicity cancer^impact of substances emitted to continental air, the variability between continents is of two orders of magnitude, which is substantially lower than the 13 orders of magnitude total variability across substances. For impacts of water consumption on human health, the spatial variability across extraction locations is substantially higher than the variations between different water qualities. For regionalized impact categories affecting ecosystem quality (acidification, eutrophication, and land use), the characterization factors of half of the regions (25th to 75th percentiles) are within one to two orders of magnitude and the 95th percentile within three to four orders of magnitude, which is higher than the variability between substances, highlighting the relevance of regionalizing. Conclusions IMPACT World+ provides characterization factors within a consistent impact assessment framework for all region-alized impacts at four complementary resolutions: global default, continental, country, and native (i.e., original and non-aggre-gated) resolutions. IMPACT World+ enables the practitioner to parsimoniously account for spatial variability and to identify the elementary flows to be regionalized in priority to increase the discriminating power of LCA

Consistent characterisation factors at midpoint and endpoint relevant to agricultural water scarcity arising from freshwater consumption

ABSTRACT: Purpose The shortage of agricultural water from freshwater sources is a growing concern because of the relatively large amounts needed to sustain food production for an increasing population. In this context, an impact assessment methodology is indispensable for the identification and assessment of the potential consequences of freshwater consumption in relation to agricultural water scarcity. This paper reports on the consistent development of midpoint and endpoint characterisation factors (CFs) for assessing these impacts. Methods Midpoint characterisation factors focus specifically on shortages in food production resulting from agricultural water scarcity. These were calculated by incorporating country-specific compensation factors for physical availability of water resources and socio-economic capacity in relation to the irrigation water demand for agriculture. At the endpoint, to reflect the more complex impact pathways from food production losses to malnutrition damage from agricultural water scarcity, international food trade relationships and economic adaptation capacity were integrated in the modelling with measures of nutritional vulnerability for each country. Results and discussion The inter-country variances of CFs at the midpoint revealed by this study were larger than those derived using previously developed methods, which did not integrate compensation processes by food stocks. At the endpoint level, both national and trade-induced damage through international trade were quantified and visualised. Distribution of malnutrition damage was also determined by production and trade balances for commodity groups in water-consuming countries, as well as dependency on import ratios for importer countries and economic adaptation capacity in each country. By incorporating the complex relationships between these factors, estimated malnutrition damage due to freshwater consumption at the country scale showed good correlation with total reported nutritional deficiency damage. Conclusions The model allows the establishment of consistent CFs at the midpoint and endpoint for agricultural water scarcity resulting from freshwater consumption. The complex relationships between food production supply and nutrition damage can be described by considering the physical and socio-economic parameters used in this study. Developed CFs contribute to a better assessment of the potential impacts associated with freshwater consumption in global supply chains and to life cycle assessment and water footprint assessments

Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

Purpose: In recent years, several methods have been developed which propose different freshwater use inventory schemes and impact assessment characterization models considering various cause-effect chain relationships. This work reviewed a multitude of methods and indicators for freshwater use potentially applicable in life cycle assessment (LCA). This review is used as a basis to identify the key elements to build a scientific consensus for operational characterization methods for LCA. Methods: This evaluation builds on the criteria and procedure developed within the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook and has been adapted for the purpose of this project. It therefore includes (1) description of relevant cause-effect chains, (2) definition of criteria to evaluate the existing methods, (3) development of sub-criteria specific to freshwater use, and (4) description and review of existing methods addressing freshwater in LCA. Results and discussion: No single method is available which comprehensively describes all potential impacts derived from freshwater use. However, this review highlights several key findings to design a characterization method encompassing all the impact pathways of the assessment of freshwater use and consumption in life cycle assessment framework as the following: (1) in most of databases and methods, consistent freshwater balances are not reported either because output is not considered or because polluted freshwater is recalculated based on a critical dilution approach; (2) at the midpoint level, most methods are related to water scarcity index and correspond to the methodological choice of an indicator simplified in terms of the number of parameters (scarcity) and freshwater uses (freshwater consumption or freshwater withdrawal) considered. More comprehensive scarcity indices distinguish different freshwater types and functionalities. (3) At the endpoint level, several methods already exist which report results in units compatible with traditional human health and ecosystem quality damage and cover various cause-effect chains, e.g., the decrease of terrestrial biodiversity due to freshwater consumption. (4) Midpoint and endpoint indicators have various levels of spatial differentiation, i.e., generic factors with no differentiation at all, or country, watershed, and grid cell differentiation. Conclusions: Existing databases should be (1) completed with input and output freshwater flow differentiated according to water types based on its origin (surface water, groundwater, and precipitation water stored as soil moisture), (2) regionalized, and (3) if possible, characterized with a set of quality parameters. The assessment of impacts related to freshwater use is possible by assembling methods in a comprehensive methodology to characterize each use adequatel

SPOT: A strategic life-cycle-assessment-based methodology and tool for cosmetic product eco-design

ABSTRACT: The cosmetics industry is facing growing pressure to offer more sustainable products, which can be tackled by applying eco-design. This article aims to present the Sustainable Product Optimization Tool (SPOT) methodology developed by L’Oréal to eco-design its cosmetic products and the strategies adopted for its implementation while presenting the challenges encountered along the way. The SPOT methodology is based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of a finished product and its subsystems (formula, packaging, manufacturing and distribution). Several environmental indicators are assessed, normalized and weighted based on the planetary boundaries concept, and then aggregated into a single footprint. A product sustainability index (a single rating, easy to interpret) is then obtained by merging the environmental product rating derived from the single environmental footprint with the social rating (not covered here). The use of the SPOT method is shown by two case studies. The implementation of SPOT, based on specific strategic and managerial measures (corporate and brand targets, Key Performance Indicators, and financial incentives) is discussed. These measures have enabled L’Oréal to have 97% of their products stated as eco-designed in 2022. SPOT shows how eco-design can be implemented on a large scale without compromising scientific robustness. Eco-design tools must strike the right balance between the complexity of the LCA and the ease of interpretation of the results, and have a robust implementation plan to ensure a successful eco-design strategy

Globalization, Financial Depth, and Inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa

ISSN:0948-3349ISSN:1614-750

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use

Purpose Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity. Methods The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop™ in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations. Results and discussion LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses. Conclusions The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship

Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP Partnership

The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership organised a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to develop reference guidelines on water footprinting for livestock production systems and supply chains. The mandate of the TAG was to i) provide recommendations to monitor the environmental performance of feed and livestock supply chains over time so that progress towards improvement targets can be measured, ii) be applicable for feed and water demand of small ruminants, poultry, large ruminants and pig supply chains, iii) build on, and go beyond, the existing FAO LEAP guidelines and iv) pursue alignment with relevant international standards, specifically ISO 14040 (2006)/ISO 14044 (2006), and ISO 14046 (2014). The recommended guidelines on livestock water use address both impact assessment (water scarcity footprint as defined by ISO 14046, 2014) and water productivity (water use efficiency). While most aspects of livestock water use assessment have been proposed or discussed independently elsewhere, the TAG reviewed and connected these concepts and information in relation with each other and made recommendations towards comprehensive assessment of water use in livestock production systems and supply chains. The approaches to assess the quantity of water used for livestock systems are addressed and the specific assessment methods for water productivity and water scarcity are recommended. Water productivity assessment is further advanced by its quantification and reporting with fractions of green and blue water consumed. This allows the assessment of the environmental performance related to water use of a livestock-related system by assessing potential environmental impacts of anthropogenic water consumption (only “blue water”); as well as the assessment of overall water productivity of the system (including “green” and “blue water” consumption). A consistent combination of water productivity and water scarcity footprint metrics provides a complete picture both in terms of potential productivity improvements of the water consumption as well as minimizing potential environmental impacts related to water scarcity. This process resulted for the first time in an international consensus on water use assessment, including both the life-cycle assessment community with the water scarcity footprint and the water management community with water productivity metrics. Despite the main focus on feed and livestock production systems, the outcomes of this LEAP TAG are also applicable to many other agriculture sector

IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method

Purpose This paper addresses the need for a globally regionalized method for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), integrating multiple state-of-the-art developments as well as damages on water and carbon areas of concern within a consistent LCIA framework. This method, named IMPACT World+, is the update of the IMPACT 2002+, LUCAS, and EDIP methods. This paper first presents the IMPACT World+ novelties and results and then analyzes the spatial variability for each regionalized impact category. Methods With IMPACT World+, we propose a midpoint-damage framework with four distinct complementary viewpoints to present an LCIA profile: (1) midpoint impacts, (2) damage impacts, (3) damages on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources & ecosystem service areas of protection, and (4) damages on water and carbon areas of concerns. Most of the regional impact categories have been spatially resolved and all the long-term impact categories have been subdivided between shorterterm damages (over the 100 years after the emission) and long-term damages. The IMPACT World+ method integrates developments in the following categories, all structured according to fate (or competition/scarcity), exposure, exposure response, and severity: (a) Complementary to the global warming potential (GWP100), the IPCC Global Temperature Potentials (GTP100) are used as a proxy for climate change long-term impacts at midpoint. At damage level, shorter-term damages (over the first 100 years after emission) are also differentiated from long-term damages. (b) Marine acidification impact is based on the same fate model as climate change, combined with the H+ concentration affecting 50% of the exposed species. (c) For mineral resources depletion impact, the material competition scarcity index is applied as a midpoint indicator. (d) Terrestrial and freshwater acidification impact assessment combines, at a resolution of 2° × 2.5° (latitude × longitude), global atmospheric source-deposition relationships with soil and water ecosystems’sensitivity. (e) Freshwater eutrophication impact is spatially assessed at a resolution grid of 0.5° × 0.5°, based on a global hydrological dataset. (f) Ecotoxicity and human toxicity impact are based on the parameterized version of USEtox for continents. We consider indoor emissions and differentiate the impacts of metals and persistent organic pollutants for the first 100 years from longer-term impacts. (g) Impacts on human health related to particulate matter formation are modeled using the USEtox regional archetypes to calculate intake fractions and epidemiologically derived exposure response factors. (h) Water consumption impacts are modeled using the consensus-based scarcity indicator AWARE as a proxy midpoint, whereas damages account for competition and adaptation capacity. (i) Impacts on ecosystem quality from land transformation and occupation are empirically characterized at the biome level. Results and discussion We analyze the magnitude of global potential damages for each impact indicator, based on an estimation of the total annual anthropogenic emissions and extractions at the global scale (i.e., Bdoing the LCA of the world^). Similarly with ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+, IMPACT World+ finds that (a) climate change and impacts of particulate matter formation have a dominant contribution to global human health impacts whereas ionizing radiation, ozone layer depletion, and photochemical oxidant formation have a low contribution and (b) climate change and land use have a dominant contribution to global ecosystem quality impact. (c) New impact indicators introduced in IMPACT World+ and not considered in ReCiPe or IMPACT 2002+, in particular water consumption impacts on human health and the long-term impacts of marine acidification on ecosystem quality, are significant contributors to the overall global potential damage. According to the areas of concern version of IMPACT World+ applied to the total annual world emissions and extractions, damages on the water area of concern, carbon area of concern, and the remaining damages (not considered in those two areas of concern) are of the same order of magnitude, highlighting the need to consider all the impact categories. The spatial variability of human health impacts related to exposure to toxic substances and particulate matter is well reflected by using outdoor rural, outdoor urban, and indoor environment archetypes. For Bhuman toxicity cancer^ impact of substances emitted to continental air, the variability between continents is of two orders of magnitude, which is substantially lower than the 13 orders of magnitude total variability across substances. For impacts of water consumption on human health, the spatial variability across extraction locations is substantially higher than the variations between different water qualities. For regionalized impact categories affecting ecosystem quality (acidification, eutrophication, and land use), the characterization factors of half of the regions (25th to 75th percentiles) are within one to two orders of magnitude and the 95th percentile within three to four orders of magnitude, which is higher than the variability between substances, highlighting the relevance of regionalizing. Conclusions IMPACT World+ provides characterization factors within a consistent impact assessment framework for all regionalized impacts at four complementary resolutions: global default, continental, country, and native (i.e., original and non-aggregated) resolutions. IMPACT World+ enables the practitioner to parsimoniously account for spatial variability and to identify the elementary flows to be regionalized in priority to increase the discriminating power of LCA

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: Progress and case study

International audiencePurpose: The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) guidance flagship project of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative aims at providing global guidance and building scientific consensus on environmental LCIA indicators. This paper presents the progress made since 2013, preliminary results obtained for each impact category and the description of a rice life cycle assessment (LCA) case study designed to test and compare LCIA indicators. Methods: The effort has been focused in a first stage on impacts of global warming, fine particulate matter emissions, water use and land use, plus cross-cutting issues and LCA-based footprints. The paper reports the process and progress and specific results obtained in the different task forces (TFs). Additionally, a rice LCA case study common to all TF has been developed. Three distinctly different scenarios of producing and cooking rice have been defined and underlined with life cycle inventory data. These LCAs help testing impact category indicators which are being developed and/or selected in the harmonisation process. The rice LCA case study further helps to ensure the practicality of the finally recommended impact category indicators. Results and discussion: The global warming TF concludes that analysts should explore the sensitivity of LCA results to metrics other than GWP. The particulate matter TF attained initial guidance of how to include health effects from PM2.5 exposures consistently into LCIA. The biodiversity impacts of land use TF suggests to consider complementary metrics besides species richness for assessing biodiversity loss. The water use TF is evaluating two stress-based metrics, AWaRe and an alternative indicator by a stakeholder consultation. The cross-cutting issues TF agreed upon maintaining disability-adjusted life years (DALY) as endpoint unit for the safeguard subject 'human health'. The footprint TF defined main attributes that should characterise all footprint indicators. 'Rice cultivation' and 'cooking' stages of the rice LCA case study contribute most to the environmental impacts assessed. Conclusions: The results of the TF will be documented in white papers and some published in scientific journals. These white papers represent the input for the Pellston workshop', taking place in Valencia, Spain, from 24 to 29 January 2016, where best practice, harmonised LCIA indicators and an update on the general LCIA framework will be discussed and agreed on. With the diversity in results and the multi-tier supply chains, the rice LCA case study is well suited to test candidate recommended indicators and to ensure their applicability in common LCA case studies