Webinar: Screening Study In context of EF pilot phase of European Commission DG-ENV 2 April 2015

Pilot phase is work in progress

• One of the pilot’s objectives is to set up and validate the process of the development of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCRs and Organizational Environmental Footprint Sector Rules – OEFSRs, including the development of performance benchmarks

• Lessons learned will be documented and taken into account for further improvement of the PEF/OEF guide

• This webinar aims to support you in performing the screening study and writing the screening report, but is also a platform for discussing bottlenecks and lessons learned

2

Outline of webinar

• Position of screening study in pilot phase • Why a screening study? • Content of screening (highlights) • Most important items of non-compliance • What happens after the screening study is ready

3

Development process of PEFCR/OEFSR

Final PEFCR/OEFSR

Confirmation of benchmark(s) and determination of performance classes (if appropriate)

PEFCR/OEFSR supporting studies

Second draft PEFCR/OEFSR

1st virtual consultation

First draft PEFCR/OEFSR

PEF/OEF screening

Define product/organization “model” based on representative product/organization

Define PEF/OEF product category

Focus of this webinar is the screening study

4

Starting point: Scope and representative product

• Document on scope and representative product includes: – Description of the scope – Description of the representative product(s) – Description of the model for the PEF screening studies

5

Why a screening study?

• The objective of the screening study is to pre-identify the following key information: – Most relevant life cycle stages; – Most relevant processes; – Most relevant elementary flows for each impact category; – Preliminary indication about the most relevant PEF impact categories – Data quality needs and classification in primary/site-specific, semi-

specific and generic dataset; – Preliminary indication about the definition of the benchmark for the

product

6

Content of screening study

1. Introduction

2. Goal of study

4. Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis

5. Calculating PEF impact assessment results

7. Conclusions

Sources

Annex I

Annex II - Confidential

3. Scope of the screening

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0

6. Interpretation

7

Executive summary

SCREENING STUDY CONTENT

8

Content of screening study

1. Introduction

2. Goal of study

4. Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis

5. Calculating PEF impact assessment results

7. Conclusions

Sources

Annex I

Annex II - Confidential

3. Scope of the screening

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0

6. Interpretation

9

Parts can be taken from Scope and Representative Product document

Executive summary

Goal and scope of the screening study

• Goal. A link to the main limitations should be added, compared to what is reported in the Scope document.

• Scope. All assumptions and value judgments, treatment of multi-functionality, information about the data used and gaps shall be included, additionally to what reported in the Scope document.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Compiling and recording life cycle inventory analysis

• Description and documentation of all unit process data • Data collection procedures • Methodological assumptions used in the screening • Life cycle inventory results

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 11

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Primary data

• The bill of materials (BOM) data shall clearly identify the complete list of specific ingredients used to make the product.

Example (fictitious):

12

Bill of materials of hazelnut spread (400 g) Mass (g)

Cane sugar 188

Sun flower oil 93

Hazelnuts 52

Low fat cocoa powder 30

Skim milk powder 20

Soy bean oil 15

Vanilla powder 2

Not sufficient to mention vegetable oil

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Primary data

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Climate change Land use

Char

acte

rised

resu

lts (%

)

Method: ILCD 2011 Midpoint+ V1.05

Refined coconut oil, at plant/ID Economic

Refined palm kernel oil, at plant/ID Economic

Refined palm oil, at plant/NL Economic

Refined rapeseed oil, from crushing (solvent), at plant/US Economic

Refined soybean oil, from crushing (solvent), at plant/NL Economic

Different vegetable oils 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Data quality requirements for screening step

• A minimum “fair” quality data rating is required for data contributing to at least 90% of the impact estimated for each EF impact category

• Assessed via a qualitative expert judgement

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 14

For detailed guidance for assessing the data quality in the PEF screening step, please consult a former webinar held on 18 July 2014 particularly

on this topic .

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Additional aspects of data quality

• Pilots to try to achieve during the PEF screening: – Documentation compliant with ILCD format – Nomenclature compliant with ILCD nomenclature

• In later stages of the process, PEF compliance will become

mandatory.

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0

Difficulties observed in fulfilling the ILCD requirements set by the PEF guide on nomenclature, data set format, and documentation. Particularly the use

of non-compliant ILCD flows is often a source of mistakes in the LCIA results due to the mismatch between flows and characterization factors.

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Guidance for data quality in PEF screening

• For secondary data used during the screening study, please use the following order for selection: – ILCD compliant data; – data where export/import facilities are available towards ILCD; – other data.

• If you collect primary data for the screening, we strongly recommend you

to align it with ILCD documentation and nomenclature.

• Also, you are recommended to conduct sensitivity analysis of the data sources used. – Within the same database. For example, for road transport use of different 1)

emission standards (EURO 1 to 6), 2) load factors, and 3) diesel sources. – Between different databases. For example, between ELCD, ecoinvent and GaBi.

16 Source: Adapted from the FAQ in the wiki

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

End of life modelling

• For multi-functionality of products in recycling or energy recovery situations, the default end of life formula described in Annex V in the PEF guide shall be applied: – to the final product – to other waste processes occurring throughout the entire life cycle

• Also check the dataset used for modelling credits of material

recycling.

17

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Example of other waste processes occurring throughout the entire life cycle: Production phase of a cardboard box with recycling of left overs after cutting the boxboard

End of life modelling

18

cutting boxboard paper fiber

waste paper

folding

The production of R2/2 of virgin paper pulp is

avoided. The recycling activities of

R2/2 are included.

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

End of life modelling

• Quantis uploaded in the wiki a document compiling default data to model end of life.

• It includes: – Fraction of recycled packaging waste at EoL (R2), per material and per

country – Fraction of non-recycled municipal solid wastes that are incinerated

(R3 of 1-R2) or landfilled (1-R3 of 1-R2) – Other end-of life fates, e.g. Eaten food: no further "end-of-life"

considered – Incineration and direct fuel substitution default data – Default data for wastewater – EoL logistics

19

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

Calculating PEF impact assessment results

• Data and indicator results prior to normalisation • Normalised results • Weighted results

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 20

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Can be reported in a confidential annex

Deviation from default impact assessment methods

• To be reported as “Additional environmental information” • Assessments in addition to the default impact assessment

methods can include: – Alternative characterization factors – Alternative normalization factors – Alternative weighting factors – Alternative impact assessment methods – Additional environmental impact categories

21

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Biodiversity

• To be reported in “Additional environmental information” • Default impact assessment methods do not express impact on biodiversity • Proposed solution discussed in last TAB meeting:

1. It is mandatory to report the percentage of material (mass) that comes from production systems that are certified under credible certification systems. Provided that this is >5% of total flow.

2. It is mandatory to report the share of supply for which the company has no traceability up to the source of origin.

22

Tea blend

China

Corporation Y in China

Farm Z in Sri-Lanka

50%

30%

20%

Unknown source

UTZ

UTZ

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Interpretation

• Environmental hotspots • Most relevant elementary flows • Most relevant processes and life cycle stages • Most relevant impact categories

Source: PEF Guidance V4.0 23

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Environmental hotspots

24

Relevant Impact category

Relevant life cycle stage

Relevant process

Relevant elementary flow

Relevant for decision-making in data requirements

Hotspots: Relevant for internal decision-making at company level, e.g. design for environment

Relevant for external communication

Relevance

25

Item At what level does relevance need to be identified?

Threshold

Most relevant impact categories

In the final results, starting from normalized and weighted results but deviations possible if justified

No threshold. Decision left to TS but subject to stakeholder consultation and TAB opinion

Most relevant life cycle stages

For each impact category, before normalization and weighting. Not relevant for data needs identification

All life cycle stages contributing cumulatively more than 80% to any impact category

Most relevant processes

For each impact category, before normalization and weighting. Essential for data needs identification

All processes contributing cumulatively more than 80% to any impact category

Most relevant elementary flows

For each impact category, before normalization and weighting. Essential for data needs identification

Option 1: All elementary flows contributing cumulatively more than 80% to any impact category and in any case all those contributing more than 5% individually calculated at overall life cycle level Option 2: All elementary flows contributing cumulatively more than 80% to any impact category and in any case all those contributing more than 5% individually calculated at process level (and only for the most relevant processes)

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Pilot TS shall choose option 1 or 2 for development of PEFCR

Rele

vant

for d

ecisi

on-m

akin

g in

dat

a re

quire

men

ts

Rele

vant

for e

xter

nal

com

mun

icat

ion

Hotspot analysis

26

At what level does relevance need to be identified?

Threshold

Hotspots For each impact category, before normalization and weighting

Option A: life cycle stages, processes or elementary flows cumulatively contributing at least 50% to any impact category, or Option B: top two life cycle stages, processes and at least two elementary flows (minimum 6 hotspots). Additional hotspots may be identified by the TS

Pilot TS shall choose option A or B for development of PEFCR

Hotspots: Relevant for internal decision-making at company level, e.g. design for environment

Environmental hotspots – Example of tomatoes

27

Raw material acquisition and pre-processing

Production of main product

Use EoL

Cultivation of tomatoes

Fertiliser

Pesticides

Seeds

Consumption EoL

Heat (greenhouse)

Storage

Irrigation

Storage and distribution

Distribution

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Most relevant impact categories

28

Impact category Unit Contribution (%) Climate change kg CO2 eq 3.3 Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 0.0 Human toxicity, cancer effects CTUh 28.3 Human toxicity, non-cancer effects CTUh 10.1 Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq 5.7 Ionizing radiation HH Kbq U235 eq 1.1 Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq 1.8 Acidification molc H+ eq 4.0 Terrestrial eutrophication molc N eq 1.0 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 7.0 Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.5 Freshwater ecotoxicity CTUe 33.7 Land use kg deficit 0.1 Water resource depletion m3 water eq 0.1 Mineral, fossil & ren resource depletion kg Sb eq 2.3

62% Most relevant impact categories based on normalized and weighted results

Impact categories selected by TS, justification needed (e.g. characterized results + expert judgement)

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Most relevant life cycle stages – Climate change

29

Life cycle stage Contribution (%)

Raw material acquisition and pre-processing 10.2

Production of main product 84.0

Storage and distribution 3.5

Use 0

Transport 1.3

EOL 1.0

Relevant life cycle stage based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution)

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Most relevant processes – Climate change Unit process Contribution (%)

Fertiliser 8.0

Pesticides 1.0

Seeds 0.5

Irrigation 2.5

Electricity 7.0

Tomato production 0.8

Heat 78.0

Truck 1.9

Composting -0.2

Incineration 0.5

30

Relevant process based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution)

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Most relevant elementary flows – Climate change

31

Relevant elementary flows based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution per impact category and elementary flows that contribute >5% individually.)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total

Fertiliser 2.8% 0.2% 5.0% 8.0%

Heat 70% 8.0% 0% 78%

Electricity 5.8% 1.0% 0.2% 7.0%

Irrigation 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2.4%

Other 4.0% 0.2% 0.4% 4.6%

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Option 1: 80% at overall life cycle level

Most relevant elementary flows – Climate change

32

Relevant elementary flows based on characterized results (minimum 80% contribution per relevant process per impact category and elementary flows that contribute >5% individually.)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total

Fertiliser 35% 3.0% 62% 100%

Heat 90% 10% 0% 100%

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Option 2: 80% of each relevant process

Hotspots in life cycle of tomatoes – Climate change

33

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Hotspots

Life cycle stages Production of main product

Processes Heat

Elementary flows Option 1: CO2 related to process “heat” OR: Option 2: • CO2 related to process “heat” • N2O related to process “fertilizer”

Option A: Hotspots based on 50% of cumulative contribution

Hotspots in life cycle of tomatoes – Climate change

34

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Hotspots

Life cycle stages • Production of main product • Raw material acquisition and pre-processing

Processes • Heat • Fertiliser

Elementary flows Option 1: • CO2 related to process “heat” • CH4 related to process “heat” OR: Option 2: • CO2 related to process “heat” • N2O related to process “fertilizer”

Option B: Hotspots based on top two representatives

Sensitivity analysis with min-max values

• The screening report could include a sensitivity analysis applying minimum and maximum (min-max) values for key parameters of the representative product.

• Purpose of such analysis is to check whether other hotspots appear when min-max values are applied.

• Examples of min-max values: – Amount of fertilizers used to cultivate cocoa – Energy used in the production process of ready-made soup – Number of days a soft drink is stored in the refrigerator – Composition of ingredients, e.g. sugar percentage in a candy bar – Recycling rate

35

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

Most important items of non-compliance

• Missing reporting elements, e.g. executive summary, life cycle inventory results, presentation of the results per life cycle stages.

• Deviations from the recommended impact category methods and models, especially for land transformation and water depletion.

• Difficulties in fulfilling the ILCD requirements on nomenclature, data set format, and documentation. Use of non-compliant ILCD flows is a source of mistakes in LCIA results, due to mismatch between flows and characterization factors.

• Insufficient interpretation of the results, e.g. missing or unclear identification of key impact categories, processes, stages.

• Limited sensitivity analysis

36

What happens after the screening is ready?

37

1) TS sends the screening to DG ENV (screening report and model).

2) Within 4 working weeks DG ENV sends back 2 review reports, one for the screening report and another one for the model. Each review report includes a list of non-compliances. There are 4 degrees of non-compliance (Very High, High, Medium, and Low). Each one entails a different reaction from the TS with a different timing.

3) The TS sends the corrective actions to DG ENV. The corrective actions should be described by the TS in the Screening Review Report (SRR) or Model Review Report (MRR) next to the corresponding remark. In case of VH model non-compliances, then the TS shall also send a revised version of the model and other supporting evidence as appropriate.

What happens after the screening is ready?

38

4) The reviewer performs the 2nd check and documents the findings in a new version of the SRR/MRR.

5) DG ENV inform the TS on the feedback and discusses with the TS any further actions.

6) Any further interactions between the reviewer and the TS during the 2nd check shall include DG ENV in the loop. Such interactions shall be limited to the scope of the review and only for clarification purposes. The official feedback shall be always provided in the report according to 4) and 5).

39

Contact details Marisa Vieira | vieira@pre-sustainability.com Annemarie Kerkhof | a.kerkhof@ecofys.com Ellen Brilhuis-Meijer | brilhuis@pre-sustainability.com

40