www.unescochair.esci.es
LCA Food 2012 France
A methodological comparison of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of fruit and vegetable logistics Pere Fullana i Palmer1,*, Alba Bala1, Tabea Beck2, Stefan Albrecht2, Marina Isasa1, Roser Gasol1 UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, Escola Superior de Comerç International (Universitat Pompeu Fabra); 2 Department Life Cycle Engineering, Chair of Building Physics (University of Stuttgart); * Corresponding author. E-mail: pere.fullana@esci.upf.edu 1
1. Introduction: system description Different packaging alternatives are being used to transport fruits and vegetables: wooden boxes, cardboard boxes and plastic crates. While the first two are non-returnable packaging systems and normally disposed of or partly recycled after one use, plastic crates as a rule are returnable packaging, washed and reused many times. The environmental impacts of the European wide fruit and vegetable distribution have been analysed by different institutions in different countries during the last decade. Some studies have analysed different transport packaging systems, but their understanding of the important life-cycle aspects and the sensitivity of the parameters within the lifecycles of the different packaging solutions is not homogeneous. In this review, we analyse mainly the reports of three studies performed by ADEME1 (2000), ITENE2 (2005) and SIM3 (2009). It is very interesting to note the differences from the commissioning organisation to how the study has been communicated. In between, methodological differences can be found in relation to each methodological step.
1
2
3
3. Critical review and comparative assertions For comparative assertions (specially in a sector so sensitive as packaging) critical review is essential. The main clauses of ISO 14044 are 6.1 and 6.3, which explain what has to be reviewed and who shall do it. Nothing is said about the “how”. For comparative assertions, 6.1 asks for a panel of interested parties, while the present interpretation of 6.3 by most commissioners bring to a panel of at least 3 LCA experts, whithout a suficient involvement of interested parties. It is also essential to establish the critical review framework when the study is being scoped; if possible, “the how issue” has to be dealt with the panel chair before starting the inventory. In impact assessment (4.4.5), it is not possible to use only one indicator (i.e. carbon footprint) or to weight the indicators giving an aggregated overall indicator; and sensitivity and uncertainty analysis are mandatory.
4. Comparison of 3 studies ADEME 2000 ITENE 2005 SIM 2009
Photo 1. wooden boxes (one way). Photo 2: cardboard boxes (one way). Photo 3. Plastic crates (multi-way).
Will a new study arise soon to balance the match scores? Is this a game or is it a serious matter with millions at stage? How should scientists respond to market pressure? Is LCA still being used as a throwing weapon nowadays? We are looking forward to to a “fruit”-full discussion.
2. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
LCSA = LCA + LCC + SLCA LCA = the SETAC/ISO environmental Life Cycle Assessment; LCC = LCA-type (´environmental´) Life Cycle Costing; SLCA = societal or social Life Cycle Assessment
LCSA
LCA
LCC
SLCA
x
x x x
x* x
x
Scope ADEME 2000 ITENE 2005 SIM 2009
French market (logistic system) Spanish case study (2) (simple trip) International market (logistic system)
Nº of rotations for plastic crates baseline extreme 10 150 20 5-50-100 50 100
Food packaging sector Currently, there is not a normative framework published for LCSA for etiher the packaging or the food sectors. However, the work done in the construction sector (EN 15643-3:2012. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings- Part 3: Framework for the assessment of social performance) might be used as a proxy framework.
Critical review Three parties + French LCA expert Only Spanish LCA expert 8 LCA experts (3)
Table 2.
Table 1. Methodological framework. 1) Excluding ozone layer depletion; *willigness to pay study. Table 2. Key environmental parameters. (2) Tomato transported from Almeria (Spain) to Hamburg. (3) 4 LCA experts involved in 2006 and 4 more in a review of the study in 2009.
The number of rotations and modeling the reality as a complex logistic system appeared to be the most important parameters and the assumptions were quite different. Finally, although the results of all three have been made public with the same force, the commissioners made very different efforts to chose practitioners and reviewers. 120.00
120.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
60.00
60.00
40.00
40.00 20.00
20.00
0.00
LCA is already an internationally standardized methodology. When performing an LCA, not only the standards but also some guidelines should be comprehensively looked at (i.e. ILCD Handbook) and also the work that is being developed by UNEP/SETAC LC initiative via the “Flagship” project “Knowledge mining guidance” using food packaging as pilot study. The less reported step of an LCA is the critical review. Although it is crucial, there are currently very few published references on how to perform it. In contrast, LCC and SLCA are not yet standardized by ISO. It is worth to mention the work developed by UNEP/SETAC to write a guideline on how to perform a social life cycle assessment of products (2009). Regarding LCSA, UNEP/ SETAC has launched the guideline “Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Making informed choices on products” (2011), that can be used as a reference.
Impact Assessment Method CML 2001 (1) Ecoindicator 99 CML 2001 Table 1.
EP
POFP
GWP
Wood
Cardboard
AP
ODP
Plastic
EP
Table 1. ADEME 2000
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 EP
POFP
GWP
AP
ODP
Table 2. SIM (2009)
350
-50
0.00
POFP
GWP
AP
ODP
Table 1,2,3: Different LIfe Cycle approaches are used by different studies. ISO 14044 does not make any impact category as mandatory. Taking the common impact indicators of each of the studies, normalising the results to percentages (cardboard being 100%) and using 50 rotations, the results have been calculated, thus can be compared in a unique graphic, showing that these are very different. Eutrophication Potential (EP); Photochemical Ozone Formation Potential (POFP); Global Warming Potential (GWP); Acidification Potential (AP); Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
-100 -150
Table 3. ITENE 2005
5. Conclusions • LCA and critical review have deeply evolved, although only LCA has sufficient written methodologies. • Some comparative assertions are published without following the standards they state to follow and critical reviews are sometimes not being performed yet to their full potential. • Still nowadays, the same objective for an LCA study is fulfilled with different assumptions and contradictory results. • Many new studies on food sector are being published but with different conclusions (How can we stop this?).
1. ADEME (2000) Analyse du cycle de vie des caisses en bois, carton ondulé et plastic pour pommes (LCA of wooden boxes, cardboard boxes and plastic crates for apples). Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie. 2. Albrecht S, Beck T, Barthel LP, Fischer M, Deimling S, Baitz M (2009) The Sustainability of Packaging Systems for Fruit and Vegetable Transport in Europe based on Life cycle-Analysis – Update 2009. University of Stuttgart. 3. Capuz S, Aucejo S et al. (2005) A comparative study of the environmental and economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes and reusable plastic crates in the long distance transport of fruit and vegetables, Polytechnic University of Valencia and the Packaging, Transport and Logistics Research Centre ITENE 2005.