Glasgow workshop - Towards consensus about the delimitation between life cycle inventory and
impact assessment in LCAs with pesticide and fertilizer use
Supporting Information:
The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA
Ralph K. Rosenbaum1,2, Assumpció Anton3, Xavier Bengoa4, Anders Bjørn1, Richard Brain5, Cécile Bulle6, Nuno Cosme1, Teunis J. Dijkman1, Peter Fantke1, Mwema Felix7, Trudyanne S. Geoghegan8, Bernhard Gottesbüren9, Carolyn Hammer10, Sebastien Humbert4, Olivier Jolliet11, Ronnie Juraske12,13, Fraser Lewis14, Dominique Maxime6, Thomas Nemecek15, Jérôme Payet16, Kati Räsänen17, Philippe Roux2, Erwin M. Schau18, Sandrine Sourisseau19, Rosalie van Zelm20, Bettina von Streit21, Magdalena Wallman22
1Technical University of Denmark, Department of Management Engineering, Produktionstorvet, Building 426, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
2IRSTEA, UMR ITAP, ELSA-PACT – Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
3IRTA, Ctra Cabrils km 2, 08348 Cabrils, Barcelona, Spain
4Quantis, EPFL Innovation Park, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
5Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. 410 Swing Rd. Greensboro, 27419 NC, USA
6CIRAIG, Department of Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 6079, École Polytechnique de Montréal (Qc), H3C3A7, Canada
7Tropical Pesticides Research Institute, P. O. Box 3024, Arusha, Tanzania
8University of Otago, Department of Chemistry PO Box 56 Dunedin 9016 New Zealand
9BASF SE; Agricultural Products, 67117 Limburgerhof, Germany
10Environmental Resources Management Ltd, Eaton House Wallbrook Court North Hinksey Lane, OX2 0QS Oxford, UK
11University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
12 Group for Ecological Systems Design, Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
13 Dr. Knoell Consult GmbH, 68165 Mannheim, Germany
14Syngenta, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, RG42 6EY Berkshire, UK
15Agroscope, Institute for Sustainability Sciences, CH-8046 Zurich, Switzerland
16Cycleco, 1011 Avenue Léon Blum, 01500 Ambérieu-en-Bugey, France
17MTT Agrifood Research Finland, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
18European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 21027 Ispra, Italy
19Veolia Environnement Recherche & Innovation, Centre de Recherche-Maisons-Laffitte, Chemin de la Digue B.P. 76, 78603 Maisons-Laffitte Cedex, France
20Radboud University Nijmegen, Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
21Bayer Technology Services GmbH, BTS-TD-TI-Sustainability Consulting, Leverkusen, Germany
22SIK – Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Box 5401, SE-402 29 Göteborg, Sweden
Workshop schedule
08:00 - 08:30 Arrival of participants and tea/coffee
08:30 - 09:00 Welcome and introduction to the workshop (Ralph Rosenbaum, DTU)
09:00 - 10:30 Input presentations for the discussion (ca. 20 min each incl. Q&A):
- A LCA practitioner perspective: Current issues when conducting LCA including pesticide application (Sebastien Humbert, Quantis)
- A LCI (emission inventory) modelling perspective: Pesticide emission modelling in PestLCI 2.0 (Teunis Dijkman, DTU)
- A LCIA (impact assessment) modelling perspective: Impact pathways of pesticides and their current modelling in LCIA (Peter Fantke, DTU; Ronnie Juraske, ETHZ)
- A case-study covering LCI and LCIA for pesticides (Rosalie van Zelm, Radboud University; Philippe Roux, IRSTEA/ELSA)
10:30 - 11:00 Tea/coffee break
11:00 - 12:00 Plenary discussion (moderator Ralph Rosenbaum)
12:00 - 12:30 Definition of 2-3 break-out groups and subjects
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch (all participants are invited to a buffet)
13:30 - 16:00 Discussion in break-out groups
16:00 - 16:30 Tea/coffee break
16:30 - 18:00 Presentations from the break-out groups and discussion
18:00 - 19:00 Wrap up and next steps (moderator Ralph Rosenbaum):
- Is a 2nd workshop needed or have we reached a publishable consensus?
- What’s next? Who does what?
19:00 Closure of the workshop
On-site participants
Name / Affiliation / CountryAssumpció Anton / IRTA / Spain
Anders Bjørn / Technical University of Denmark / Denmark
Richard Brain / Syngenta / Switzerland
Cécile Bulle / CIRAIG / Canada
Nuno Cosme / Technical University of Denmark / Denmark
Teunis Dijkman / Technical University of Denmark / Denmark
Peter Fantke / Technical University of Denmark / Denmark
Trudy Geoghegan / University of Otago / New Zealand
Bernhard Gottesbueren / BASF / Germany
Carolyn Hammer / Environmental Resources Management (ERM) / UK
Israel Herrera / CIEMAT / Spain
Sébastien Humbert / Quantis / Switzerland
Olivier Jolliet / University of Michigan / USA
Ronnie Juraske / ETHZ / Switzerland
Fraser Lewis / Syngenta / Switzerland
Thomas Nemecek / Agroscope / Switzerland
Jérôme Payet / CYCLECO / France
Kati Räsänen / MTT Agrifood Research Finland / Finland
Ralph Rosenbaum / Technical University of Denmark / Denmark
Philippe Roux / IRSTEA / France
Alison Sapiets / Syngenta / Switzerland
Erwin Schau / EC Joint Research Centre / EU
Sandrine Sourisseau / Veolia Environment Research & Innovation / France
Rosalie van Zelm / Radboud University / The Netherlands
Bettina von Streit / Bayer / Germany
Magdalena Wallman / Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology / Sweden
Remote participants
Name / Affiliation / CountryVlad Coroama / Universidade de Coimbra / Portugal
Mwema Felix / Tropical Pesticides Research Institute / Tanzania
Filipa Figueiredo / Universidade de Coimbra / Portugal
Fausto Freire / Universidade de Coimbra / Portugal
Clare Howard / International Nitrogen Initiative (INI) / GPNM / Global
Joe Lane / University of Queensland / Australia
João Malça / Universidade de Coimbra / Portugal
Carolina Passeira / Universidade de Coimbra / Portugal
Workshop minutes
08:40 Welcome and introduction to the workshop (by Ralph Rosenbaum)
· Programme and presentations to come;
· Objectives of the workshop and the focus on achieving a consensus;
· Target groups;
· Expected results.
Points for discussion
· Classification of the ecosystem in the agricultural field;
· Double counting from land use and ecotoxicity;
· Are the recommendations applicable to all emissions (pesticides, fertilizers and plant growth regulators)?
· The relevance of the emissions compartments;
· The relevance of the impact pathways.
09:50 Presentation: A LCA practitioner perspective: Current issues when conducting LCA including pesticide application (by Sébastien Humbert – Quantis)
Topics covered
· LCA practitioner perspective;
· Current issues when conducting an LCA, including intended application:
– Should be practical and efficient solutions (time and resource wise);
– Fertilizers – should they be allocated to soil or to water compartment?
– Pesticides – what kind of compartments should be included in an assessment?
· Quantis perspective on LCI/LCIA fractions;
Default values should be applied to generic conditions and model should be flexible to adapt values to local conditions.
Questions and comments
Participant A: Why modelling the impacts, if by following regulations no thresholds are crossed?
Participant B: That is the approach in regulatory Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), but in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) impacts are calculated even if they fall below threshold values, in order to compare different product systems for their relative impact potentials. It is not about assessing the impact from one single compound in defined conditions, but from the combined impact of a mix of compounds resulting from the activity.
Participant C: Are the impacts from fertilizer application always negative?
Participant D: It is difficult to assess positive impacts on biodiversity for example (some species may benefit while others are harmed by pesticide or nutrient applications, hence an increase in present species or individuals per species may – or may not – lead to losses of other species in the same ecosystem), but these are out of the scope of this meeting. The focus is currently on the negative impacts on emissions. Positive impacts may come to be included in the future.
Participant E: How should the differences be reflected in practice? Should inventory data be based on best practice or average practice? (open question)
09:50 Presentation: A LCI (emission inventory) modelling perspective: Pesticide emission modelling in PestLCI 2.0 (by Teunis Dijkman – DTU)
Topics covered
· LCI perspective;
· Compared three available LCI approaches: Ecoinvent, USLCI, PestLCI;
· Conclusions: Different LCI approaches and different LCI boundaries lead to non-comparable LCA studies;
· Clear LCI/LCIA boundaries should be defined consistently for all emissions and LCIA impact categories.
Question and comments
Participant B: LCI and LCIA system boundaries should be aligned. When choosing a particular LCI model one needs to look for an LCIA model with compatible boundaries – and vice versa.
Participant F: Field cannot be classified as either ecosphere or technosphere. On the one hand it is highly manipulated and on the other the government subsidizes environmental protection of fields.
Participant B: However, we have different regulations for agricultural fields compared to what we call ecosphere.
Participant G: PestLCI is a fast tool when used to compute, but gathering input data takes time!
Participant A: I have tested PestLCI and it is OK if you work with predefined scenarios, but If I am testing different pesticides I would like to have the opportunity myself to include them instead of running it via DTU.
Participant H: Unfortunately that is a disadvantage of the software program we chose. New compounds can only be added if users use Analytica software or by requesting Teunis Dijkman or Morten Birkved to be included and sent back. We can do it pretty quickly but it would be better if the users could do that by themselves.
Participant A: So the access to the software and database is the key point for dissemination, distribution and acceptance of PestLCI.
Participant I: In your example you said that 98% is taken up or degraded in the system. From my perspective if I want to calculate concentrations or intake fractions for further evaluation of human toxicity I would need to have other factors (intersections) and if I don’t use your model I would get different results. In my view there is some inconsistency there, comparing results from someone using your model with the intersections fractions that you derived, and others (the dynamiCrop plant uptake model, for instance). An important step would be the harmonisation/coupling of existing models.
10:00 Presentation: A LCIA (impact assessment) modelling perspective: Impact pathways of pesticides and their current modelling in LCIA (Peter Fantke – DTU; Ronnie Juraske – ETHZ)
Topics covered
System boundaries in LCIA:
· Focus on translating LCI outputs (emissions inventories) into impacts;
· Focus on three areas of protection: Human health, ecosystem health, resources;
· We should account for: Substances, dimension (time and space), input and outputs (mass balance) to avoid double counting.
Questions and comments
Participant J: Just a comment I forgot to mention from the practitioner’s perspective – in milk and meat production the manure (as an organic fertilizer) should be included in the inventory, considering the cow as part of the technosphere emitting manure to the field as ecosphere, and characterized from there on as nitrogen-based pollutants.
Participant A: What exposure pathways should be included in the model?
Participant B: An initial screening decides which pathways are negligible, and then addressing the most relevant ones.
Participant K: A lot of this data is already available, so methods for human exposure, particularly for pesticides, for all the different groups - for operators, for bystanders, for consumers, information is already generated and already available so why would we go to an additional model, particularly as practitioners, when this data can be got freely and published in websites.
Participant B: To my knowledge data are NOT available – what is out there is that pesticides are safe to use, but from that information and residues in the plant I cannot conclude on what chemical would be a better choice to be incorporated into an overall production system, where there are hundreds of other chemicals. I cannot draw a conclusion from that kind of conservative assumption assessment based on arbitrary thresholds like maximum residues, and that is why we remodel it, simplify it, globalize it, average it based on best estimates rather than conservative assumptions to make it comparable – this is actually the basis of a comparative assessment and therefore very different from Risk Assessment.
Participant K: How does LCA handle the modelling of impacts on different species?
Participant B + Participant L + Participant J + Participant M: Within ecotox category species are equally weighted in geometric mean function based on EC50. Between impact categories weighting and normalization is applied. In theory most important species for ecosystem functioning should receive higher weight, but this is impractical since it is very data demanding.
10:30 Presentation: A case-study covering LCI and LCIA for pesticides (by Rosalie Van Zelm - Radboud University; Philippe Roux - IRSTEA/ELSA)
Topics:
· Gap between LCI and LCIA for toxicological impacts from pesticides;
· Banana production case study;
· Limitations: inconsistencies in LCI, risk of overlapping with LCIA due to inadequate space and time modelling, non-exhaustive models and mass balances;
· Compared different LCI approaches and showed how fractions to environmental compartments varied.
Questions and comments:
Participant I: The approach that comes closer to yours is Ecoinvent approach with same order of magnitude without including uncertainty, so I wonder why so much hassle about producing a new method.
Participant E + Participant I: The banana case study is special because the applied pesticides (either by plane or backpack sprayers) will end up in the peel and not in the pulp, hence relatively low human health impact related to ingestion of fruits. Bananas are covered with bags (impregnated with pesticides) during growth. This issue was not covered at all in the case study which makes this case study problematic.
Participant D: I remind you all that we should focus today on finding not the highest achievable precision but to make it operational, based on parsimony to get a fairly good solution. Different approaches still need to be explored and their influence on results quantified.
- Tea/coffee break -
11:00: Plenary discussion
Topic launched by Ralph Rosenbaum: Ecosphere/technosphere boundary and temporal distinction - how to reflect differences in practice.
Participant J: For me, the agricultural field is part of the ecosphere, as it is something we are trying to protect and leave to the following generations. Otherwise unethical, since people enjoy ‘nature’ in fields, and we are using something from nature (crops, fruits, etc.) and only giving it a help by applying fertilizers and pesticides. With the exception of greenhouses, that should be technosphere. But let’s take this opinion as a discussion proposal.