Development of a weighting approach for the Environmental Footprint

In Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), according to ISO 14044 (ISO 2006), normalisation and weighting are optional steps of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Those steps allow expressing LCA results aggregating the results (up to a single score), giving different weight to the different environmental impacts. The step of prioritising and aggregating the results for the 16 environmental impact categories evaluated in the life cycle based Environmental Footprint (EF) - covering e.g. climate change, acid rain, human and eco-toxicity, particulate matter but also impacts due to the use of water, land and resources – has a high relevance. Weighting supports the identification of the most relevant impact categories, life cycle stages, process and resource consumptions or emissions to ensure that the focus is put on those aspects that matter the most and for communication purposes. Any weighting scheme is not mainly natural science based but inherently involves value choices that will depend on policy, cultural and other preferences and value systems. No “consensus” on weighting seems to be achievable. This situation does not apply only to weighting in a LCA or Environmental Footprint context, but seems inevitable for many multicriteria approaches. The objective of this work therefore was to find a convention suitable for the application in the EF context and to develop a method for weighting the Environmental Footprint Impact Categories according to their relevance for the overall environmental problems. A final recommendation is provided on a weighting set to be used for the EF that includes also aspects of the robustness of the results. This report includes, from page 46 onward, several annexes and the comments from a consultation of the Environmental Footprint Technical Advisory Board in June 2017.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Research Needs and Challenges from Science to Decision Support. Lesson Learnt from the Development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Environmental implications of the whole supply-chain of products, both goods and services, their use, and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from "cradle to grave" have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Progress toward environmental sustainability requires enhancing the methodologies for environmental integrated assessment and promoting their use in different domains. In the context of Life Cycle Assessment of products, in the last years, several methodologies have been developed for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and some efforts have been made towards their harmonisation. In this context, the Joint research centre (JRC) of the European Commission led a “science to decision support” process which resulted in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. The Handbook provides guidelines to methods and assessments to assess emissions into air, water and soil, as well as the natural resources consumed in terms of their contributions to different impacts on human health, natural environment, and availability of resources. Those guidelines come from a comprehensive process of selection of methods based on a set of scientific and stakeholder acceptance criteria and involving experts, advisory groups and the public. In this “from science to decision support” process a number of research needs, critical issues and challenges for LCIA emerged and are presented here as a basis for development, both in terms of comprehensiveness of the impact coverage and of the further mainstreaming of sustainability concept.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors

Purpose. Assessing comprehensively the overall environmental impacts of a region remains a major challenge. Within life cycle assessment (LCA), this evaluation is performed calculating normalisation factors at different scales. Normalisation represents an optional step of LCA according to ISO 14040/44 which may help in understanding the relative magnitude of the impact associated to a product when compared to a reference value. In order to enhance the robustness and comprehensiveness of normalisation factors for Europe in 2010, this paper present a methodology for building an extended domestic inventory of emission and resources to be used in the context of Product Environmental Footprint Material and methods. The normalisation factors (NFs) for EU 27 in 2010 are based on extensive data collection and the application of extrapolation strategies for data gaps filling. The inventory is based on domestic emissions into air, water and soil and on resource extracted in EU, adopting a production based approach. A hierarchy hasebeen developed for data sources selection based on their robustness and data quality. Data gap filling has been based on proxy indicators, capitalizing existing statistics on pressure indicators. To calculate NFs, the inventory has been multiplied by the characterization factors at midpoint as recommended in International reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (EC-JRC, 2011). Results and discussion. The resulting NFs presents several added values compared to prior normalization exercises, namely: more complete inventory; robustness evaluation of the data sources; more comprehensive coverage of the flows within each impact category; overall evaluation of the robustness of the final figures. Few flows (NOx, SOx, NH4 etc) are driving the impacts of several impact categories, and the choice of the data sources is particularly crucial, as this may lead to differences in the NFs. The adoption of domestic NFs may results in overestimating the relative magnitude of certain impacts, especially when those impacts are associated with traded goods from or to outside the EU 27. Conclusion. Normalisation factors may help identification of the relative magnitude of the impact. Nonetheless, several limitations still exist both at the inventory and at the impact assessment level. Those limitations should be clearly reported and understood by the users of normalisation factors in order to correctly interpret the results of their study. Indeed, the efforts towards more robust normalization reference are needed both at the inventory and at the impact assessment side, including more robust impact assessment methods as well as better coverage of substances for which an inventory data is available but the characterization is missing. Strenghts and limitations of the current exercize have, then, implications also in other application context where integrated assessment of impacts is needed and were data gap filling and estimation of potential environemntal impacts is needed.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Global normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint and Life Cycle Assessment

This report quantitatively characterizes environmental impacts at global scale in relation to the 16 impact categories of the Environmental Footprint (EF) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), namely: climate change; ozone depletion; human toxicity, cancer; human toxicity, non-cancer; freshwater ecotoxicity; particulate matter; ionising radiation; photochemical ozone formation; acidification; eutrophication, terrestrial; eutrophication, marine; eutrophication, freshwater; land use; water use; resource use, fossils and resource use, minerals and metals. The results are recommended to be used as normalisation factors (NFs) in the context of the Environmental Footprint (EF) for assessing the relevance of the impacts associated to a product or system. In LCA, according to ISO 14044 (ISO 2006), normalisation (similar to weighting) is an optional steps of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). The normalisation factors represent the total impact of a reference region for a certain impact category (e.g. climate change, eutrophication, etc.) in a reference year. For the EF, due to the international nature of supply chains, the use of global normalisation factors is recommended. Normalisation has a relevant role to play in the Environmental Footprint to support the identification of the most relevant impact categories, life cycle stages, process and resource consumptions or emissions to ensure that the focus is put on those aspects that matter the most and for communication purposes. The global normalisation factors reported here are built on a vast collection of data on emissions and resources extracted at global scale in 2010. Key choices were made for compiling the inventories, which were then characterised by using the EF midpoint LCIA method. The results are reported for each impact category. Coverage, completeness and robustness of the underpinning inventories are discussed. With this, the report supports the generation of life cycle based indicators for monitoring the environmental dimension of the sustainability of supply chains, including contributions to global environmental impacts in relation to planetary boundaries. This in turn enables a life cycle based assessment of the sustainability of the intensification of primary production for a greening EU economy.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements

PURPOSE: The European Commission (EC) is currently developing a reference methodology for organisation environmental footprinting (OEF) in support of improving the sustainability of production and consumption. This methodological development is guided by four core criteria. Specifically, the methodology will provide for a (1) multi-criteria, (2) life cycle-based approach that considers all organisational and related activities across the value chain, (3) provides for reproducibility and comparability over flexibility, and (4) ensures physically realistic modelling. METHODS: Here, we review a subset of existing organisation environmental footprinting methods. We identify key areas of convergence and divergence between these methods, and the extent to which the methodological specifications they provide satisfy the four aforementioned criteria for a harmonised EC OEF methodology. On this basis, we specify where the EC OEF method must necessarily diverge from and/or go beyond the reviewed methods. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We specify recommended methodological norms for, among other things, definition of the unit of analysis (the organisation) and reference flow; organisation and analytical boundaries; cut-off criteria; impact categories and models; allocation solutions; and data quality management. We further provide a rationale for the recommended alternative requirements to be adopted for EC OEF compliant studies. CONCLUSIONS: The final EC OEF methodology is foreseen to be made public in 2013.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Suggestions for updating the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) method

The Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) based method to quantify the environmental impacts of organisations: this includes companies, public administrative entities and other bodies. The OEF method builds on existing approaches and international standards. OEF information is produced for the overarching purpose of seeking to reduce the environmental impacts of organisations taking into account supply chain activities (from extraction of raw materials, through production and use, to final waste management). This purpose is achieved through the provision of detailed requirements for modelling the environmental impacts of the flows of materials and energy, and the emissions and waste streams associated with the product portfolio of an organisation, throughout its life cycle. The OEF is complementary to other assessments and instruments, such as site-specific environmental impact assessments or chemical risk assessments. At organisational level, the importance of the environmental impacts occurring in the supply chain is increasingly recognised. Standards and methods were created, such as the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and its sectoral guidance or Global Reporting Initiative indicators. At EU level, the EMAS Sectoral Reference Documents include guidance on indirect impacts, highlighting also the use of LCA-methods for evaluation of the respective product portfolio (PP). The rules provided in the OEF method enable to conduct OEF studies that are more reproducible, comparable and verifiable, compared to existing alternative approaches. However, comparability is an option only if the results are based on the same Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules (OEFSR) and if the performance is normalized against a reference system (e.g. yearly turnover with reference to the product portfolio). The development of OEFSRs complements and further specifies the requirements for OEF studies.JRC.D.1-Bio-econom

Developing scientifically-sound Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules: development options, challenges and implications

The Environmental Footprint (EF), launched by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in cooperation with Directorate-General for the Environment, provides general guidance for comprehensive, scientifically-sound and consistent environmental assessment of products and organisations. The aim of the EF is to ensure science-based decision support for industry and policy making. To make the general-level rules of the EF more relevant and applicable to specific product categories and sectors, the EF guides provide requirements to develop the so called PEF Category Rules (PEFCRs) and OEF Sector Rules (OEFSRs). PEFCRs and OEFSRs are seen as corner stones for consistent and robust assessments instrumental to specific environmental communication forms, namely business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) intended to be used for comparisons. The focus of this paper is on the key challenges in developing PEFCRs.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

From science to support decision making: recommendations and challenges in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

In the last years, several methodologies have been developed for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and some efforts have been made towards their harmonisation. In this context, JRC led a “science to decision support” process which resulted in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. The Handbook provides guidelines to methods and assessments to assess emissions into air, water and soil, as well as the natural resources consumed in terms of their contributions to different impacts on human health, natural environment, and availability of resources. Those guidelines come from a comprehensive process of selection of methods based on a set of scientific and stakeholder acceptance criteria and involving experts, advisory groups and the public. In this “from science to decision support” process a number of research needs, critical issues and challenges for LCIA emerged and are presented here.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen

Bringing science and pragmatism together a tiered approach for modelling toxicological impacts in LCA

Goal, Scope and Background: The EU 5th framework project OMNIITOX will develop models calculating characterisation factors for assessing the potential toxic impacts of chemicals within the framework of LCA. These models will become accessible through a web-based information system. The key objective of the OMNIITOX project is to increase the coverage of substances by such models. In order to reach this objective, simpler models which need less but available data, will have to be developed while maintaining scientific quality. Methods. Experience within the OMNIITOX project has taught that data availability and quality are crucial issues for calculating characterisation factors. Data availability determines whether calculating characterisation factors is possible at all, whereas data quality determines to what extent the resulting characterisation factors are reliable. Today, there is insufficient knowledge and/or resources to have high data availability as well as high data quality and high model quality at the same time. Results: The OMNIITOX project is developing two inter-related models in order to be able to provide LCA impact assessment characterisation factors for toxic releases for as broad a range of chemicals as possible: 1) A base model representing a state-of-the-art multimedia model and 2) a simple model derived from the base model using statistical tools. Discussion. A preliminary decision tree for using the OMNIITOX information system (IS) is presented. The decision tree aims to illustrate how the OMNIITOX IS can assist an LCA practitioner in finding or deriving characterisation factors for use in life cycle impact assessment of toxic releases. Conclusions and Outlook: Data availability and quality are crucial issues when calculating characterisation factors for the toxicity impact categories. The OMNIITOX project is developing a tiered model approach for this. It is foreseen that a first version of the base model will be ready in late summer of 2004, whereas a first version of the simple base model is expected a few months late