Search

Purpose: As a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications. Methods: The task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44. Results and discussion: In parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators. Conclusions: The universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative organized two consensus-building workshops regarding Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models and indicators for land use impacts on biodiversity. This article presents a synthesis of the main recommendations drawn from the opinions of the experts present, from the Initiative's perspective. The needs of LCA practitioners are crucial to determine what characteristics biodiversity assessment models should possess. Available models are mainly apt for impact hotspot detection in supply chains. If the goal is to assess the impacts of plot-level management practices they should be accompanied by other more detailed tools beyond LCA. Site-specific data are necessary to accurately assess biodiversity loss at regional and local scale, despite known constraints imposed by life cycle inventories. Examples of datasets are provided in this article. Species richness is a promising start for these models but it must be complemented with metrics for habitat configuration and intensity-based indicators. Finally, modelling results should be better coupled with policy decisions and existing strategic plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop 'Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)-where we are, trends, and next steps;' it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies. Methods: The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative's workshop on 'Life Cycle Impact Assessment-where we are, trends, and next steps.' The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative. Results: The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop's results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework. Conclusions: These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]