Social Life Cycle Assessment: A comparison of wastewater treatment facilities in Mexico. 3rd edition of the International Seminar on Social LCA

Transcription

1 Social Life Cycle Assessment: A comparison of wastewater treatment facilities in Mexico. 3rd edition of the International Seminar on Social LCA Alejandro Padilla*, L.P Güereca, J.M. Morgan, A. Noyola Instituto de Ingeniería Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) 1.

2 INTRODUCTION 2

3 Background Why consider social aspects? Why wastewater facili4es? 3

4 Background Challenges related with sustainability New approaches, new solu4ons for a persistent problem Innova4ve Adapted Holis4c Need to iden4fy wastewater treatment systems with lower environmental impact, economically affordable and socially aceptable. Crea4on of decent working condi4ons and other posi4ve social impacts for the wastewater sector in LAC Promote sustainable development with adop4on of these technologies 4

5 Project A three years project ( ) funded by the IDRC (Interna4onal Development Research Council) of Canada. Goal : Evaluate the environmental impacts of the most representa3ve water treatment technologies in La3n America and the Caribbean in order to iden3fy mi3ga3on strategies Specific goals (+): To develop an inventory of treatment technologies in LAC To generate representa4ve treatment scenarios of LAC To iden:fy the social and economic characteris:cs of representa:ve scenarios To assess the environmental impacts of treatment scenarios with emphasis on the quan4fica4on of GHG through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) To iden4fy research topics in order to minimize environmental impact and GHG genera4on for the iden4fied (improved) wastewater treatment technologies. 5

6 METHODS 6

7 Framework UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Ini:a:ve framework System boundaries: type of process involved Analysis of stakeholders categories Analysis of the subcategories Iden4fica4on of inventory indicators for the system under study 7

8 8

9 Goals of the study An in- depth assessment of the socio- economic impacts of two wastewater treatment facili4es Determinate differences between management and technology social impacts Assess the exis4ng situa4on of households related to social par4cipa4on and acceptance in wastewater management Know the awareness among ci4zens regarding their dual role as polluters and beneficiaries of wastewater management 9

10 Scope of the study System bounderies Wastewater life cycle Scope of socio- economic assessment 10

11 Foreground and background process Sanita4on Process Collec4on Treatmen t Recharge/reuse Agricultural use/domes4c use Society Workers Local community Value chain Consumers Also considered: Public authori4es/ state Stakeholders Life cycle stages considered Life cycle stages not considered 11

12 Case study Urban Area Municipality: Naucalpan, western of Mexico city Population: 900,000 inhabitants GDI: 13,000 USD per capita Wastewater facility: activated sludge, flow: 20 l/s Rural Area Municipality: Tepalcingo, 200 km from Mexico city Population: 30,000 inhabitants GDI: 3,000 USD per capita Wastewater facility: UASB+ trickling filters, flow : 20 l/s 12

13 Subcategories developed and integrated Stakeholder category/ Subcategory Workers/ employees Local community Society Consumers Value chain actors Public par4cipa4on Sustainable behavior Odor Social acceptance Exper4se Training Opera4ve risks Demand sa4sfac4on 13

14 Stakeholders involved The stakeholder categories considered on each life cycle stage Life Cycle Stages/ Stakeholder category Treatment Recharge/reuse Agricultural/ domes:c use Workers/employees - - Local community Society - - Consumers - - Value chain actors

15 Identify relevant subcategories for the case study Considered stakeholders and subcategories For foreground process four main stakeholder groups were considered For background process only workers, local communi4es and consumers were regarded as stakeholders 23 of 31 subcategories were part of the analysis 8 subcategories developed and integrated 15

16 Selection of indicators What do want to consider? Situa4on in country/region/sector => generic analysis Situa4on in company/site => specific analysis 16

17 Selection of indicators Case study: Considered indicators Use more than 50 indicators Indicators are mainly qualita4ve Several indicators are based on the method sheets Several indicators were newly defined, as the supposed indicators of the method sheets were partly considered as unappropiate 17

18 18

19 Data sources Data level Country/regional Sector Company site Households Data source Mexico Department of Labor (country reports) ILO The world bank (development indicators, sta4cs) WHO CEPIS Sector associa4ons Trade unions ILO OECD GOs NGOs Websites and public reports Interviews with management and employees/ workers Interviews house by house Ques4onnaires 19

20 Handling of data gaps Case study: data sources Main data sources for generic data: Governmental and non-governmental organizations Internet research and literature review Main data sources for wastewater treatment facili4es Corporate reports and websites Reports from NGOs Ques4onnaires Interviews with workers Main data sources for local community/society Interviews with neighborhood associa4on Specific ques4onnaires 20

21 Validation of data Issue: OOen different data sources are contradictory Which source/ who is more credible? Who has the largest ini4a4ve to whitewash? Triangula4on (seeing aspects from different sides, from different sources) Data storage and assessment Issue: No appropriate sooware tools for Social LCA 21

22 PRELIMINARY RESULTS 22

23 23

24 Used approach Evalua4on of qualita4ve, quan4ta4ve, and semi- quan4ta4ve data Performance assessment Performance reference points based on interna4onal, na4onal, regional and local guidelines Intui4ve ra4ng scale, based on a four levels scale for each subcategory (in rela4on to the fulfillment of a basic requirement, meets or does not meet) The Organiza4on meets the BASIC REQUIREMENT The Organiza4on does not meet the BASIC REQUIREMENT 24

25 Case study performance assessment Performance reference points Subcategory Fair salary Freedom of associa4on and collec4ve bargaining Performance reference point The wage level should ensure a decent standard of living. The payment of the minimum wage is ogen not sufficient. Further, companies should pay in 4me and do not withhold shares of the salary Does the have legisla4on for freedom of associa4on in country? Employees have the right to exercise freedom of associa4on and collec4ve bargaining? Source ILO labor standards Poli4cal cons4tu4on of Mexico Federal labor law (Mexico) Local labor standards Collec4ve bargaining agreement Poli4cal cons4tu4on of Mexico 25

26 Case study performance assessment Employees/workers Consumers/clients Exper4se Freedom of associa4on and collec4ve 4 Child labor Health and safety Opera4ve risks 2 Fair salary Demand sa4sfac4on 2 Feedback mechanisim Training 1 Working hours 1 Social benefit Forced labor Health and Safety Equal opportuni4es Facility A Facility B Social acceptance Sustainable behavior Facility A (urban) Facility B (rural) 26

27 Case study performance assessment Local community Poblic commiteme nts to sustainability issues 4 Society Safe & healthy and secure living condi4ons 4 Public par4cipa4on 3 2 Contribu4on to economic development Public par4cipa4on 3 2 Community engagement 1 1 Social acceptance Technology development Social acceptance Local employment Sustainable behavior Facility A Sustainable behavior Facility B Facility A (urban) Facility B (rural) 27

28 FINAL REMARKS 28

29 Conclusions It was clear from the mee4ngs, the ques4onnaire, discussions and the interviews with stakeholders that they have no serious objec4ons to the reuse of treated wastewater in principle. However, there are observa4ons and concerns were decision makers must akend. Considering cultural and economical concerns for such prac4ces, it is important to allow farmers as well as other civil society organiza4ons to par4cipate in the development of standards and regula4ons associated to wastewater facili4es. The study showed variability in the response of stakeholders in both facili4es toward assessing treated wastewater reuse and thus variability in their interest in the reuse. This resulted in changes and variability in the rela4ve importance of agriculture among rural areas and urban areas. It is important that poten4al customers, who are willing and capable to re use wastewater, are involved in planning from the beginning. They can be iden4fied through a market assessment. 29

30 Conclusions S- LCA methodology can be used to generate a beker understanding of wastewater management issues, its hot spots, cause and effect chains and possible measures for improvements Primary data integra4on possible; data gaps can be filled from sta4s4cal sources. A big advantage of S- LCA methodology is its use in ac4on oriented decision making; both at the level of wastewater facility as well as policy. For such an objec4ve, analysis of social impacts at the level of sub- categories is not only efficient in terms of 4me & resources, but it also leaves much less room for error and misinterpreta4ons of social situa4ons. 30

31 GRACIAS 31