Developing LCA methodology guide for the food industry

Transcription

1 Developing LCA methodology guide for the food industry LCM Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management August 2011, Berlin Hannele Pulkkinen, Kristoffer Krogerus, et al. hannele.pulkkinen@mtt.fi MTT Agrifood Research Finland / Sustainable Bioeconomy

2 Background Some Finnish companies communicate climate impacts of their products, another communicate on carbon neutrality There is large interest on carbon footprints among Finnish stakeholders International harmonisation of food related LCAs not expected in the short term

3 Harmonising assessment of carbon and other footprints in Finland Development of national methodology guidelines Supply chain specific data requirements Allocation rules System boundary Land use change Follow closely ISO 14040/14044/14067, GHG-Protocol, PAS 2050, PAS Aim to be more specific and give practical solutions Getting closer to PCR level Developing also national emission factors Close interaction with the food industry R&D projects with six case products, seven companies Workshops for whole industry

4 System boundary and data quality Both issues dealt with one life cycle phase at a time to give specific requirements and better guidance (together ca. 30 pages) 1. System boundary Cut-offs allowed when an emission source does not contribute more than 1% to the final result AND at least 95% of all emissions are included Also valid within each life cycle phase, if done in modular way When results are used for consumer communication AND when consumer phase is anticipated to contribute at least 10% to final results AND typical preparation method is know, consumer phase has to be assessed and reported separately 2. Supply chain specific data quality requirements When results are used for consumer communication, percentage requirements are given for minimum supply chain specific data and maximum for secondary data

5 Land-use change Significance to GHGemission is great Should be assessed Several calculation methods for assessing changes in above- and belowground biomass and GHG-fluxes exist Harmonised calculation method needed

6 Some currently available methodologies to calculate land use changes IPCC 2006: methods for accounting for changes in biomass, dead organic matter and soil carbon stocks PAS2050: defaults based on IPCC 2006 Guidelines Dutch Horticulture Protocol: methods for combusted biomass, loss of carbon sink function, and loss of stored soil organic matter The GHGV value: methods for emissions from stored organic matter, annual GHG fluxes between ecosystem and the atmosphere, and emissions resulting from a possible disturbance of the ecosystem Climatic impact of land use in LCA (Müller-Wenk & Brandão, 2010)

7 Comparison of current methodologies to calculate land use changes Using data from a Finnish LCA study (Katajajuuri et al., 2006) on a marinated broiler product, the GHG emissions resulting from land use change during feed production were calculated The emissions were calculated based on the land use requirements of the different feed ingredients Tab. 1: Land use requirements of feed cultivation Crop (Country of Origin) Wheat (Finland) 2.94 Soybean (Brazil) 2.25 Oatmeal (Finland) 1.65 Rapeseed (Finland) 1.44 Land Use (m2/kg product)

8 Comparison of current methodologies to calculate land use changes Different land use change scenarios were created: Worst case, where it was assumed that all the required land had undergone land use change FAO case, where the fraction of land that had undergone land use change was approximated using agricultural statistics from FAOSTAT (methodology described in Blonk et al., 2010; Leip et al., 2010; GHG Protocol Product Standard 2nd draft) FAO allocated case, as the previous case, but it was assumed that of the land transformed in Brazil, 51% of deforested area eventually ends up as pasture, 5% as croplands, and 44% as secondary forest (Cederberg et al., 2011; Fearnside, 1997). Study case, where the annual amount of deforestation in Brazil due to soybeans was approximated to 1% of the total cropland area using data from a study by Prudêncio da Silva (2010). An attempt was made to harmonize the different variables of the methodologies to promote comparability of them.

9 Comparison of current methodologies to calculate land use changes Values for the biomass variables of different ecosystems used in the calculations were collected from various reviews, articles, forest inventories and IPCC defaults Precise input data is vital for good results, but can be difficult to obtain. Are national averages enough? Tab. 2: Biomass variables used for calculations (ton / ha) Compartment Amazonian Brazil Southern Finland Forest Pasture Cropland Forest Cropland Aboveground Biomass Root Biomass Dead Wood Biomass Litter Biomass Vulnerable SOM

10 Comparison of current methodologies to calculate land use changes GHG emissions resulting from land use change were calculated using a 20 year emission period (and in the case of the GHGV methodology using a 50 year analysis period) and the biomass variables presented on the previous slide (with the exception of IPCC 2006 (defaults), which used default biomass values from the guidelines). Tab. 3: Greenhouse gas emissions, over a 20 year emission period, resulting from land use change in Amazonian Brazil and Southern Finland (ton CO2e / ha) Methodology Brazil: Tropical Forest to Pasture Brazil: Tropical Forest to Croplands Brazil: Tropical Forest to Secondary Forest PAS IPCC IPCC 2006 (defaults) DHCF GHGV Finland: Forest to Croplands

11 Comparison of current methodologies to calculate land use changes Results vary both within and amongst the scenarios The original carbon footprint of marinated broiler was 3.6 kg CO2e / kg The worst case scenario is very improbable, but the other scenarios still give, depending on methodology, an increase of around 30% Acquisition of precise input data (e.g. biomass content) and knowledge over what land use changes have occurred are vital for good results Tab. 4: Emissions resulting from land use change for the broiler product (kg CO2e / kg product) Methodology Worst case FAO case FAO allocated case Study case PAS IPCC IPCC 2006 (defaults) DHCF GHGV

12 Conclusions Methodology guide aims to harmonise LCAs at least in a national level for food sector as far as possible Guideline shall give more specified requirements and better guidance to the industry Results from the land use change comparison varied considerably between methodologies and scenarios If emissions from LUC are to be included in a methodology guide, methodologies must be thoroughly compared and tested, such that easily usable, yet accurate, methodologies are chosen Land use change calculation methodologies rely on secondary data for input, thus data quality will affect the accuracy of the final result

13 Thank you! More information on: Hannele Pulkkinen, MTT Agrifood Research Finland Sustainable Bioeconomy