UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative Research Articles

Ecotoxicity characterization of chemicals: Global recommendations and implementation in USEtox

Chemicals emitted to the environment affect ecosystem health from local to global scale, and reducing chemical impacts has become an important element of European and global sustainability efforts. The present work advances ecotoxicity characterization of chemicals in life cycle impact assessment by proposing recommendations resulting from international expert workshops and work conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative in the GLAM project (Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators). We include specific recommendations for broadening the assessment scope through proposing to introduce additional environmental compartments beyond freshwater and related ecotoxicity indicators, as well as for adapting the ecotoxicity effect modelling approach to better reflect environmentally relevant exposure levels and including to a larger extent chronic test data. As result, we (1) propose a consistent mathematical framework for calculating freshwater ecotoxicity characterization factors and their underlying fate, exposure and effect parameters; (2) implement the framework into the USEtox scientific consensus model; (3) calculate characterization factors for chemicals reported in an inventory of a life cycle assessment case study on rice production and consumption; and (4) investigate the influence of effect data selection criteria on resulting indicator scores. Our results highlight the need for careful interpretation of life cycle assessment impact scores in light of robustness of underlying species sensitivity distributions. Next steps are to apply the recommended characterization framework in additional case studies, and to adapt it to soil, sediment and the marine environment. Our framework is applicable for evaluating chemicals in life cycle assessment, chemical and environmental footprinting, chemical substitution, risk screening, chemical prioritization, and comparison with environmental sustainability targets.

Are the factors recommended by UNEP-SETAC for evaluating biodiversity in LCA achieving their promises: a case study of corrugated boxes produced in the US

PurposeWe tested the effectiveness of the global and ecoregion-based average characterization factors (CFs) for “Potential Species Loss” recommended by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative to identify hotspots and improvement opportunities compared to using a land competition indicator for a product for which the predominant life cycle use of land is forest management.MethodsFor a case study of average corrugated boxes produced in the US, system boundaries were defined to encompass all life cycle stages from forest management to disposal. Fiber procurement was regionalized to US ecoregions, and (Chaudhary et al. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995, 2015) ecoregion-specific CFs were applied. US-average CFs were applied to other background processes. Hotspots were identified using contribution analyses, and improvement opportunities were evaluated using scenarios. We compared the results with those from applying a land competition indicator, often used as a proxy for biodiversity in LCA.Results and discussionForest management was identified as the activity within the life cycle of corrugated boxes that uses the greatest amount of land, allowing the definition of two potential improvement opportunities: reducing fiber consumption and intensifying forest management. By applying the recommended CFs, fiber procurement was also identified as the main contributor to “Potential Species Loss.” The CFs also allowed to identify ecoregions in which species were potentially the most affected by forest management and related potential improvement opportunities. Tradeoffs between taxonomic groups were discussed. In some cases, the results contradicted those from applying a land competition indicator, and in many cases, we were unable to reconcile the results obtained with existing scientific knowledge on species diversity and forest management.Conclusions and recommendationsThe results obtained by applying the recommended CFs could not always be reconciled with existing scientific knowledge on the effect of forest management on species diversity, significantly impairing the usefulness of these factors for assessing improvement opportunities and increasing the risk of counterproductive decisions. The local effect on species of forest management is likely to be misrepresented by the average number of species in a given ecoregion. Successful consideration of biodiversity response in the context of forest management would require the integration of other approaches, such as site-specific studies. Potential improvements to the proposed method include further spatialization of the CFs, defining a range of forest management practices for which CFs would be defined, considering forest productivity, and defining CFs using a baseline that would encourage better practices even within a given existing management regime.

Land Use Intensity-Specific Global Characterization Factors to Assess Product Biodiversity Footprints.

The UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative recently recommended use of the countryside species-area relationship (SAR) model to calculate the characterization factors (CFs; potential species loss per m2) for projecting the biodiversity impact of land use associated with a products' life cycle. However, CFs based on this approach are to date available for only six broad land use types without differentiating between their management intensities and have large uncertainties that limit their practical applicability. Here we derive updated CFs for projecting potential species losses of five taxa resulting from five broad land use types (managed forests, plantations, pasture, cropland, urban) under three intensity levels (minimal, light, and intense use) in each of the 804 terrestrial ecoregions. We utilize recent global land use intensity maps and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) habitat classification scheme to parametrize the SAR model. As a case study, we compare the biodiversity impacts of 1 m3 of wood produced under four different forest management regimes in India and demonstrate that the new land use intensity-specific CFs have smaller uncertainty intervals and are able to discern the impacts of intensively managed land uses from the low intensity regimes, which has not been possible through previous CFs.

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use

Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity. The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop™ in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations. LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses. The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship.

Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo, harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward.

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results. We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality. We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richnessrelated metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators-which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss-should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results. We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

PurposeLife cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments.MethodsIn the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.Results and discussionThe recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.ConclusionsAfter 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.

LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

Increasing needs for decision support and advances in scientific knowledge within life cycle assessment (LCA) led to substantial efforts to provide global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators under the auspices of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. As part of these efforts, a dedicated task force focused on addressing several LCIA cross-cutting issues as aspects spanning several impact categories, including spatiotemporal aspects, reference states, normalization and weighting, and uncertainty assessment. Here, findings of the cross-cutting issues task force are presented along with an update of the existing UNEP-SETAC LCIA emission-to-damage framework. Specific recommendations are provided with respect to metrics for human health (Disability Adjusted Life Years, DALY) and ecosystem quality (Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species, PDF). Additionally, we stress the importance of transparent reporting of characterization models, reference states, and assumptions, in order to facilitate cross-comparison between chosen methods and indicators. We recommend developing spatially regionalized characterization models, whenever the nature of impacts shows spatial variability and related spatial data are available. Standard formats should be used for reporting spatially differentiated models, and choices regarding spatiotemporal scales should be clearly communicated. For normalization, we recommend using external normalization references. Over the next two years, the task force will continue its effort with a focus on providing guidance for LCA practitioners on how to use the UNEP-SETAC LCIA framework as well as for method developers on how to consistently extend and further improve this framework.

From ISO14046 to water footprint labeling: A case study of indicators applied to milk production in south-eastern Australia

ISO14046 sets out principles, requirements and guidelines for the quantification of a water footprint taking a life cycle perspective. The international standard is intended to support product water footprint labeling and corporate sustainability reporting. However, the document is not prescriptive in regard to the use of any one specific water footprint indicator. In this study, water scarcity footprints were calculated for milk production on 75 farms in three parts of south-eastern Australia. Three indicators, with distinctly different conceptual basis and model structure, were applied. Included was the AWARE indicator recently developed under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. The different indicator results were highly correlated (Spearman's rank correlation 0.91–0.99) and the life cycle stages and processes identified as important were the same. Therefore, all three indicators were considered suitable for informing internal strategic action. However, the different indicators produced results which differed greatly in absolute value, in some cases by a factor of >300. To enable consumers and others to make comparisons between the water scarcity footprints of different products or organisations, program (or scheme) operators will need to specify the indicator to be used. The three indicators were assessed according to scaling, interpretability and coherence with LCA results, and found to differ in terms of suitability for use in a water footprint program. The AWARE indicator was deemed to be least suitable.

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity. The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations. Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.

Challenges in developing regionalized characterization factors in land use impact assessment: impacts on ecosystem services in case studies of animal protein production in Sweden

PurposeThe UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has recently developed a guideline framework for land use impact assessment. This article evaluates the feasibility and highlights the challenges of applying a set of methods that adhere to this framework, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators used in these methods, for the purpose of supporting further methodological development.MethodsThe methods were tested in two case studies of animal protein production in Sweden: dairy milk and pork. The reference situations were defined as the potential natural vegetation. County-level characterization factors (CFs) were calculated and occupation impacts were assessed for five ecosystem services, using six ecosystem service indicators: carbon flow change, groundwater recharge, mechanical filtration capacity, physicochemical filtration capacity, soil loss, and soil organic carbon, at two geographic scales: county and biome. Strengths and weaknesses of the ecosystem service indicators were identified using an evaluation framework for selected quality characteristics: representativeness, reliability, feasibility, and transparency.Results and discussionOccupation impacts at the two geographic scales, and for the two production cases, differ both in absolute numbers, and—for mechanical and physicochemical filtration capacity—in the ranking of cases. Results at both geographic scales indicate positive effects—or lower negative impacts—in protein production from dairy milk compared to pork, due to grass production on dairy farms, and lower use of land per unit protein. However, some of the observed benefits may be exaggerated due to challenges in adequately representing the reference situations. Most indicators were assigned medium or high degrees of representativeness, feasibility, and transparency, but several were assigned low degrees of reliability, due to the weak scientific basis upon which they were selected, low degrees of accuracy, and insufficient information on how they should be assessed.ConclusionsOccupation impact results should be interpreted with caution due to challenges in applying the methods and use of indicators with identified weaknesses. The most challenging part of developing regionalized CFs was finding suitable land areas from which to derive representative data to parameterize the reference situations. More research is needed to provide adequate support to life cycle assessment practitioners who wish to calculate regionalized CFs and to address the identified weaknesses.

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for. The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected. In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.

Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Landuseandlandusechangehavesevereeffectsonbiodiver-sityandthecapacityofecosystemstodeliverservices,suchasbiomass production or water filtration. Whereas research onimpacts of land use on biodiversity is a well-established field,research on ecosystem services motivated by Daily (1997)isless developed, but steadily catching up. The MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (2005) on ecosystem changes hasbegun to address this gap and has highlighted the impor-tance of nature’s services for human well-being. Meanwhile,operational assessment methods support decision-makers inplanning and optimizing landscapes with respect to biodi-versity and multiple ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2006;Daily et al. 2009; Groot et al. 2010;Maesetal.2012).However, until now, those methodologies have mainlyfocused on regional systems with distinct spatial boundaries.However, the ecological assessment of land use in productsystems requires a global approach.The basic motivation for this special issue is to integratelanduseimpactsonbiodiversityandecosystemservices intolife cycleassessment (LCA), toallowamore comprehensiveimpact assessment of globally distributed product systems.The work builds on the key elements for land use impactassessment within LCA that was developed in the phase 1 ofthe UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (Mila i Canals et al.2007). The methodology presented here is the outcome oftheprojectLULCIAwithinthephase2oftheUNEP-SETACLife Cycle Initiative. The main contributors to the projecthave been PES, University of Bayreuth, Germany (ThomasKoellner), SEAC, Unilever, UK (Llorenc Mila i Canals),European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Italy(Miguel Brandao and Danielle Maia de Souza), NSSI, ETHZurich, Switzerland (Laura de Baan), IWOE, University ofSt. Gallen, Switzerland (Ruedi Muller-Wenk), CIRAIG,Canada (Manuele Margni and Rosie Saad), LBP-GaBi,University of Stuttgart, Germany (Ulrike Bos, Tabea Beck,Jan-Paul Lindner and Bastian Wittstock), and CLIOPE,Facultad Regional Mendoza, Universidad TecnologicaNacional, Argentina (Barbara Civit). After a long processof consensus building on framing the methodology, weachieved an operational LCIA method to assess the use ofland anywhere on the globe (Koellner et al. 2013b)anddevelopedasetofcharacterizationfactorsthatallowslinkingspatially explicit land use elementary flows of occupationand transformation (Koellner et al. 2013a) to impacts onbiodiversity (de Baan et al. 2013; Souza et al. 2013) andservices provided by terrestrial ecosystems (Muller-Wenkand Brandao 2010; Beck et al. 2010; Brandao and Mila iCanals 2013; Saad et al. 2013). These characterization fac-tors were tested in a food case study (Mila i Canals et al.2013). With this special issue, certainly not all problemsrelated to the assessment of land use impacts on biodiversityandecosystemservicesonaglobalscalecouldbesolved.Wesee the following five major outstanding questions relevantfor future research to improve the assessment of biodiversityand ecosystem services in LCA:How to combine generic impact assessment with site-specificassessments? Although uncertainties of the current modelsare large they allow for the identification of potential prob-lem areas related to land use impacts in the backgroundsystem of a product and minimize the risk of problemshifting. However, such a generic assessment on a globalscale cannot replace on-site assessment of ecosystems.Therefore, site-specific characterization factors for the

Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) developments are explained along with key publications which record discussions which comprised ISO 14042 and SETAC document development, UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative research, and research from public and private research institutions. It is recognized that the short list of impact categories has remained fairly constant, even after extensive discussions. The termination point of impact assessment modeling (e.g., inventory, midpoint, endpoint, damage, single score) has been discussed extensively, and the advantages and disadvantages of these different levels are well published. Early LCIAs were conducted independent of system location, but now site-specificity has been a research topic for many of the local and regional categories (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, and smog formation). In reality, even though many advances have been made in site-specific analysis, the life cycle assessment (LCA) case studies are often limited to their inventory data, and as a result, most LCAs are still site-generic even though the LCIA methodologies exist to allow for site-specific analysis. Pollutant-based impacts have received the most research effort and support in the past, but resource depletion categories (e.g., land use and water use) are now recognized as being highly complex, site-specific, data intensive, and important for contributing toward the sustainability of the planet. Efforts in these categories are still in the neophyte stages and are expected to have the greatest advances in the upcoming years.

Building a Model Based on Scientific Consensus for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Chemicals: The Search for Harmony and Parsimony

Author(s): Hauschild, M.Z.; Huijbregts, M.; Jolliet, O.; MacLeod, M.; Margni, M.; Meent, D. van de; Rosenbaum, R.K.; McKone, T.E. | Abstract: Achieving consensus among scientists is often a challenge?particularly in model development. In this article we describe a recent scientific consensus-building process for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models applied to chemical emissions?including the strategy, execution, and results of a process that used model comparison to achieve parsimony. This process has succeeded in establishing a transparent LCIA consensus model. We present the lessons that may be adapted by similar consensus processes in other fields. LCIA characterizes potential impacts on human health and the environment attributable to chemical emissions over the life cycle of a product. LCIA relies on substance-specific characterization factors (CFs) that combine exposure potential and toxicity to represent the relative contribution of the substance to health and environmental impacts (1). LCIA focuses on comparative assessment, using approaches adapted from risk assessment. In 2003, in response to large variations in available methods, an international model comparison/consensus process was initiated. This process was under the umbrella of the Life Cycle Initiative, a joint effort of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (2). The process encompassed an international group of model developers responsible for the most commonly-used worldwide LCIA characterization models and focused on characterization of human and ecosystem health impacts. It also involved disciplinary experts in fate and transport, exposure assessment, health risk assessment, and ecotoxicology. The comparison/consensus process fostered a common understanding among the participants of which model elements contribute most to the relative magnitude of LCIA characterization factors. It became clear that with a careful focus on the most influential model elements a consensus model could be established. Experience dictated that a more transparent model would be more likely to gain and retain acceptance and wide-spread use. The need for consistent documentation and transparency led the participants to create an entirely new model, building on contributions from the existing models. This required consensus on essential model elements, provided robust results consistent with existing models, and made parsimony a guiding principle. The tangible outcome is USEtox, named in recognition of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative under which it was developed. The model is supported by all participating model teams as a basis for future global recommendations of LCIA characterization factors.

Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA (11 pp)

Background, Aim and Scope Land use by agriculture, forestry, mining, house-building or industry leads to substantial impacts, particularly on biodiversity and on soil quality as a supplier of life support functions. Unfortunately there is no widely accepted assessment method so far for land use impacts. This paper presents an attempt, within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, to provide a framework for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of land use. Materials and Methods: This framework builds from previous documents, particularly the SETAC book on LCIA (Lindeijer et al. 2002), developing essential issues such as the reference for occupation impacts; the impact pathways to be included in the analysis; the units of measure in the impact mechanism (land use interventions to impacts); the ways to deal with impacts in the future; and bio-geographical differentiation. Results: The paper describes the selected impact pathways, linking the land use elementary flows (occupation; transformation) and parameters (intensity) registered in the inventory (LCI) to the midpoint impact indicators and to the relevant damage categories (natural environment and natural resources). An impact occurs when the land properties are modified (transformation) and also when the current man-made properties are maintained (occupation). Discussion: The size of impact is the difference between the effect on land quality from the studied case of land use and a suitable reference land use on the same area (dynamic reference situation). The impact depends not only on the type of land use (including coverage and intensity) but is also heavily influenced by the bio-geographical conditions of the area. The time lag between the land use intervention and the impact may be large; thus land use impacts should be calculated over a reasonable time period after the actual land use finishes, at least until a new steady state in land quality is reached. Conclusions: Guidance is provided on the definition of the dynamic reference situation and on methods and time frame to assess the impacts occurring after the actual land use. Including the occupation impacts acknowledges that humans are not the sole users of land. Recommendations and Perspectives: The main damages affected by land use that should be considered by any method to assess land use impacts in LCIA are: biodiversity (existence value); biotic production potential (including soil fertility and use value of biodiversity); ecological soil quality (including life support functions of soil other than biotic production potential). Bio-geographical differentiation is required for land use impacts, because the same intervention may have different consequences depending on the sensitivity and inherent land quality of the environment where it occurs. For the moment, an indication of how such task could be done and likely bio-geographical parameters to be considered are suggested. The recommendation of indicators for the suggested impact categories is a matter of future research.

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA).The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.

Editorial for int J LCA on the launch of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative

Editorial for int J LCA on the launch of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative