Feedback on data and benchmarking of companies that have tested the SENSE tool Guðrún Ólafsdóttir, University of Iceland

Transcription

1 Feedback on data and benchmarking of companies that have tested the SENSE tool Guðrún Ólafsdóttir, University of Iceland Applied Supply Chain Systems Research Group

2 Objectives of the SENSE project To develop a simplified and harmonized system for environmental impact assessment aimed for use by SME s in food supply chains The Web based SENSE tool system consists of: Modular data gathering system Matrix of standard key environmental performance indicators KEPI) Harmonised methodology for environmental impact assessment Environmental Identification Document Includes questions on social impacts (working conditions and employees rights) 2

3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology applied in the SENSE tool Similar challenges and environmental impacts in life cycle stages of food supply chains Challenges in aquaculture not covered by LCA 1 Animal welfare Ecapes Use of medication 1 Reference: Olafsdottir et al

4 Harmonisation of Sustainability Assessment Recommendations on methods to assess life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilots SENSE tool => Choice of methodology for environmental assessment in compliance with ILCD, ENVIFOOD and EC RECOMMENDATIONS

5 Validation of the SENSE tool Ongoing 1. Functionality testing 2. Verification of the calculations (comparable with SimaPro) 3. Comparison of simplified LCA with a complete LCA 4. Testing of the tool in SMEs» Checking functionality» Checking data» Checking results» Verification» Suggested improvements 5

6 1. Validation: Functionality testing Functionality testing Functionality steps: User profile Products Social aspects Inventory Results EID PASS FAIL OBS! General comments SENSE-tool for Dummies Improved and revised Iterative development of the SENSE tool! Continuously implementing changes to improve the functionality and the usability of the tool 6

7 KEPIs aquaculture Input data SENSE tool KEPI 2 Feed use* Fish produced* Energy use Diesel Energy use Electricity (Iceland) ** Organic waste to sea Fresh water use (Iceland) ** Packaging material Wastewater*** Waste SENSE tool input Kg/year Kg/year L kwh/year High/low m 3 /year Kg/year High /low*** Kg/year * Possible to insert composition of feed (plant and marine ingredients) * Datasets for typical Icelandic and Norwegian feed have been implemented * Feed Efficiency (FCR): Relevant to assess for the whole life cycle of salmon! ** Regionlised by country *** Relevant datasets for aquaculture effluents need to be implemented 2 Reference: Landquist et al. (2013) 7

8 2. Validation - Verification Verification of SENSE tool calculations using SimaPro <10 variation for the following impact categories 3 : Climate change Human toxicity, cancer effects, Human toxicity, non-cancer effects Acidification Eutrophication, terrestrial Eutrophication, freshwater Eutrophication, marine Ecotoxicity, freshwater Land use Abiotic resource depletion Water depletion It is important to note that the SENSE tool is a simplified tool, and the assessment is not an alternative for the complete LCA studies. 3 Reference: Olafsdottir et al. (2014) 8

9 3. Validation - Comparison of complete LCA and SENSE tool s results System boundaries Process diagram from SENSE System boundary for FU 1 System boundary for FU 2 Feed production Transport Breeding / roe production Transport Smolt production Transport Salmon farming and slaughtering By-products Transport Transport Processing and packaging By-products Transport Secondary processing and packaging Transport By-products Retail Consumer

10 LCA of aquaculture salmon case study Goal and scope Functional unit 1 1 kg fresh salmon head on gutted Functional unit 2 Inventory 1 kg smoked salmon fillets Icelandic producer Smolt production Aquaculture salmon farm French producer Smokehouse Economic allocation

11 LCA of aquaculture salmon Impact assessment of 1 kg smoked salmon fillets 3 GWP EP-terrestial EP-freshwater EP-marine Acidification Human tox-non cancer Human tox -cancer Ecotoxicity Land use Abiotic resource depletion Water depletion 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Smolt production Aquaculture farm Aquaculture salmon feed Sea freight to Europe Smokehouse Packaging - smokehouse GWP: Global Warming Potential EP: Eutrophication 4 Reference: Ingólfsdóttir et al. 2013

12 LCA of aquaculture salmon - interpretation Production of aquaculture salmon feed is the main contributor in 7 of the 11 assessed impact categories Fuel use, fertilisers, pesticides Nutrient pollution main contributor to marine eutrophication Uneaten feed, faeces and dead fish Smokehouse operation contributes most to human toxicity and water depletion Benchmarking: 5.0 kg CO 2 -eq/kg smoked salmon fillet 2.7 kg CO 2 -eq/kg salmon, head on gutted Reference: Ingólfsdóttir et al. 2013

13 Results from the SENSE tool Smoked salmon Benchmarking: 5.8 kg CO 2 eq/kg smoked salmon fillet 13

14 Results SENSE tool -examples Airfreight vs Ship transport to Europe Airfreight 54,7% of total climate change impact => 6,8 kg CO 2 eq/kg product Ship 3.27% of total climate change impact => 3,2 kg CO 2 eq/kg product 14

15 4. Validation - Testing of the SENSE tool by companies Willingness to test the SENSE tool? Meat and dairy companies in Europe are reluctant to fill in data Data collection is the main difficulty, especially from suppliers Lack of personnel and time Don t see the benefit Big differences between companies in their view on transparency Aquaculture companies more willing to test the tool See benefit because of requirements for carbon footprint calculations in standards Data is already compiled for Green Book-keeping for aquaculture Transparency Data is collected per company SENSE tool requires data for each step in the chain Data collection from suppliers and processing can be problematic Lack of time 15

16 Testing of the SENSE tool -Aquaculture 7 aquaculture companies in Iceland have so far tested the tool Testing is still ongoing Data input and results / concerns need for improvements Use of seawater and fresh water resources Wastewater create relavant datasets for effluents Calculation of transport should be simplified Some aspects of data entry should be better explained 4 aquaculture companies have given feedback by answering an online survey 16

17 Content of the on-line survey Sustainability awareness in SMEs explore SMEs' current practice regarding adherence to standards on quality or environmental management, food quality and safety, sustainability and schemes imposed by e.g. retailers on their supplier networks. SENSE tool - Data input evaluate the user-friendliness and functionality of the tool when inserting data into the SENSE tool. SENSE tool Results assess the usefulness of the results for the SMEs. Sharing of data and certification aim is to explore expectations regarding certification and trust in the SENSE tool outcome (EID). Statements on the benefits of the SENSE tool evaluate the perceived benefit of using the SENSE-tool. 17

18 Uptake of standards by aquaculture companies in Iceland on-line survey.certification according to standards on food quality and safety recognized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)..certification according to standards for environmental or social requirements recognized by ISEAL or other regulatory, sector specific or voluntary initiatives? HACCP AquaGAP GAA, BAP Standards - Global Aquaculture Alliance, Whole Foods Market Standards USA We are looking into getting an ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council) certification

19 SENSE tool => GHG calculations Simplified data gathering Regionalised background data Harmonised methodologies

20 With regard to your history of communicating environmental information about your products, has your company already taken steps to give environmental information to your customers prior to using the SENSEtool? If yes, what kind of environmental information? Values for COD, BOD, TSS, P, O, temperature, ammonia, N, NO 2 -N are required by the AquaGap standard/imo We have explained to our costumers how we perform our production cycle to minimize the environmental effects and how we prevent use of drugs and chemicals or toxins Use of chemicals. Fish in /fish out details. Feed conversion rate. Measurements of different substances in our effluents (N and P). We have also done an LCA assessment on Arctic Charr and used those results as a selling point

21 ..Let s say that an EID would be available for your products. How do you foresee that you would communicate it? As a separate document EID in B2B communication / marketing To support green accounting / green bookkeeping As part of sustainability reporting For benchmarking with other companies In the annual report of the company To justify an eco-label for the product, As data represented to current clients All above apply!

22 ..Is benchmarking option in the SENSE-tool important for your company? Somewhat important / Very important I would like to have a harmonized data gathering for standards and authorities. would be useful if a synchronized data gathering would be in place i.e data for the Aquaculture Association and the data for authorities for the required green bookkeeping What we would like to see in the results are basic results compared to other producers and products. Also, it is neccessary to get simple interpretation of what aspects of the production are having the most impact on the environment so we can possibly try to minimize those factors

23 Statements on the benefits of the SENSE tool The SENSE-tool has allowed me to identify the main hotspots in the supply chain of my products I consider that verification of sustainability assessment of food production will become a requirement to maintain market position 4 responses: 3 agree, 1 undecided More testing and feedback is needed 23

24 Landscape of Sustainability Initiatives Harmonisation of Assessment and Reporting

25 References Public deliverables available: 1. Ólafsdóttir, G., Viera, G., Larsen, E., Nielsen, T., Ingólfsdóttir, G., Yngvadóttir, E., & Bogason, S. (2013) D.1.1, Key environmental challenges for food groups and regions representing the variation within the EU, Ch.3 Salmon Aquaculture Supply Chain. SENSE - Harmonised Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain, Seventh Framework Programme: Project no ASCS Research Group University of Iceland, Reykjavík. 2. Landquist B., Ingólfsdóttir G.M., Yngvadóttir E., Jungbluth N., Doublet, G., Esturo, A., Ramos, S., Olafsdóttir, G. (2013) D2.2 Set of environmental performance indicators for the food and drink chain. SENSE - Harmonised Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain, Seventh Framework Programme: Project no Funded by EC. SIK, Gothenburg. 3. Olafsdóttir, G., Doublet, G., Kjeld, A., Yngvadóttir, E., Ramos, S., Ingólfsdóttir G.M., Esturo, A., Landquist, A., Pop, B., Bogason, S., Larrinaga, L. Albinarrrate U., and Jungbluth, N. (2014) Pilot implementation of the SENSE tool: Validation and functionality testing. SENSE - Harmonised Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain, Seventh Framework Programme: Project no Funded by EC. Deliverable D.4.1, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland 4. Ingólfsdóttir G. M., Yngvadóttir E. and Olafsdóttir G. (2013) Life cycle assessment of aquaculture salmon. SENSE - Harmonised Environmental Sustainability in the European food and drink chain, Seventh Framework Programme: Project no Funded by EC. Deliverable D 2.1 EFLA Consulting Engineers, Reykjavik 25

26 THANK YOU