LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PLENARY SESSION 2: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES FOR ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS 8 th Int. Conference on
LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
to document and develop a comprehensive and relevant set of socioeconomic indicators. The socioeconomic
background of the SLCA team also facilitated development of this new methodology.
The involvement of the research centre was also highly beneficial to the project. The team contributed to
the methodological and theoretical development of both environmental and socioeconomic frameworks. Its
participation allowed the two consulting groups to focus on calculating the results, while also being involved
in the methodological development, especially for the SLCA assessment framework. In turn, it benefited
from the work and expertise of the two other teams.
In performing the assignment, all efforts were made to conduct the socioeconomic and environmental
parts simultaneously. Daily work was carried out separately within each team, but a number of tasks were
done with close collaboration, such as farm data collection, to ensure that the farmers who contributed would
not suffer from “survey fatigue” by receiving too many requests for data that could be gathered at once.
Since the ELCA and SLCA frameworks used in this project were mostly independent from each other (cf.
section 4), it was not possible to prevent the three teams from working in silos, especially during the framework
development phase. This situation, however, did not impair the results’ quality or relevance. Rather, it
attests to the limitations encountered during the integration of ELCA and SLCA methodologies.
4. Methodological integration
Although the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines specify that a SLCA must follow the ISO 14040 and 14044
norms developed for ELCA, it does not mean that a SLCA can be readily integrated or even articulated with
an ELCA. Several methodological issues arose during the project implementation. Faced with two domains
that have evolved separately and are based on very different disciplines, the teams found that some concepts
did not have exactly the same meaning and needed further explanation to avoid misunderstandings. This
section highlights similarities and differences in the setting of methodological assets of both tools. Many are
already identified in the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for SLCA. However, as methodological choices were
made to conduct the project, it is relevant to return to this issue in a case-study context.
4.1. Goal and scope
According to ISO norm 14044 (2006), “the goal and scope of an LCA shall be clearly defined and shall
be consistent with the intended application”. Therefore, identifying its intended application is the point of
departure of an LCA study. All other methodological choices – made in the context of the “scope” definition
– hence have to remain consistent with it. This holds true for both the environmental and social dimensions.
One main objective of the project was to identify potential areas of further focus for improving the Canadian
dairy sector’s sustainability. In the ELCA perspective, this involves identifying hotspots to target mitigation
measures and reduce the potential environmental and human health impacts of the product – in this
case milk – throughout its life cycle. The same is true in the SLCA perspective. The assessment aims at identifying
potential and real social hotspots to be able to provide recommendations for further improvement of
the system’s overall socioeconomic performance for its stakeholders. While both ELCA and SLCA are intended
to identify hotspots, the resulting actions of this identification differ between them. In ELCA, identification
of environmental hotspots of milk production is meant to guide changes in agroenvironmental practices
and input substitutions, regardless of the suppliers. In SLCA, identification of social hotspots aims to
guide improvements in farmers’ and suppliers’ behaviours, regardless of the nature of the inputs and processes
involved.
These two intended applications, while only slightly different, nonetheless had a significant impact on
how the two frameworks were developed, starting with their scope. The scope includes several methodological
parameters influencing the assessment and, consequently, the results. UNEP/SETAC Guidelines do not
mention how the scope of a SLCA should fit that of an ELCA when both are conducted together. It is however
acknowledged that given SLCA characteristics, its scope might not necessarily be the same or totally
integrated with that of ELCA.
This was notably the case with the product system, which differed between ELCA and SLCA; while the
former consisted of technical processes, the latter consisted of the businesses (and their geographic location)
responsible for carrying out those processes. This difference was consistent with the intended application of
the SLCA more focused on the behaviour of the enterprises involved in the value chain. Indeed, it is broadly
recognised in SLCA literature that businesses are the relevant unit process (Dreyer et al., 2006; Macombe et
al., 2010; Parent J. Cucuzzella C. Revéret J.P., 2010; Spillemaeckers et al., 2004).
229