The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA
2016 | 2014 | 2015
ROSENBAUM Ralph | ANTON Assumpció | BENGOA Xavier | BRAIN Richard | BJØRN Anders | BULLE Cécile | COSME Nuno | DIJKMAN Teunis J | FANTKE Peter | FELIX Mwema | GEOGHEGAN Trudyanne | GOTTESBÜREN Bernhard | HAMMER Carolyn | HUMBERT Sebastien | JOLLIET Olivier | JURASKE Ronnie | LEWIS Fraser | MAXIME Dominique | NEMECEK Thomas | PAYET Jerome | RÄSÄNEN Kati | ROUX Philippe | SCHAU Erwin | SOURISSEAU Sandrine | VAN ZELM Rosalie | VON STREIT Bettina | WALLMAN Magdalena
Purpose: Pesticides are applied to agricultural fields in order to optimise crop yield and their global use is substantial. Their consideration in Life cycle assessment (LCA) is currently affected by important inconsistencies between the emission inventory and impact assessment phases of LCA. A clear definition of the delineation between the product system model (life cycle inventory, technosphere) and the natural environment (life cycle impact assessment, ecosphere) is currently missing and could be established via consensus building. Methods: A workshop held on the 11 May 2013, in Glasgow, UK, back to back with the 23rd SETAC Europe meeting had the goal of establishing consensus and creating clear guidelines where the boundary between the emission inventory and the impact characterisation model should be set in all three spatial dimensions and time when considering application of substances to an open agricultural field or in greenhouses, and consequent emissions to the natural environment and their potential impacts. More than 30 specialists in agrifood LCI, LCIA, risk assessment, and ecotoxicology, representing industry, government, and academia from 15 countries and four continents met to discuss and reach consensus. The resulting guidelines target LCA practitioners, data (base) and characterisation method developers, and decision makers. Results and discussion: Although, the initial goal was to define recommendations concerning boundaries between technosphere and ecosphere, it became clear that these strongly depend on goal and scope of an LCA study. Instead, the focus was on defining a clear interface between LCI and LCIA, capable of supporting any goal and scope requirements while avoiding double counting or exclusion of important emission flows and their potential impacts. Consensus was reached accordingly on distinct sets of recommendations for LCI and LCIA respectively, recommending for example that buffer zones should be considered as part of the crop production system and the change in yield per ha be considered. While the spatial dimensions of the field were not fixed, the temporal boundary between dynamic LCI fate modelling and steady-state LCIA fate modelling needs to be defined. Conclusions and recommendations: For pesticides application, the inventory should report: pesticide identification, crop, mass applied of each active ingredient, application method or formulation type, presence of buffer zones (y/n), location/country, application time in days before harvest and crop growth stage during application, adherence with Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), and whether the field is considered part of the technosphere or the ecosphere. Additionally, emission fractions to defined environmental media on-field and off-field should be reported. For LCIA, the directly concerned impact categories were identified as well as a list of relevant fate and exposure processes. Next steps and future work were identified: 1) establishing default emission fractions to environmental media for integration into LCI databases, and 2) interaction among impact model developers to extend current methods with new elements/processes mentioned in the recommendations, including targeted technical workshops on “how to” model specific processes.
Show more [+] Less [-]JRC.H.8 - Sustainability Assessment
Show more [+] Less [-]Bibliographic information
This bibliographic record has been provided by European Union