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

PARALLEL SESSION 6B: FISHIERIES, SOIL, AND EMERGY METHODS 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
5.3. Recommendations for LCIA
The full use of the inventory data items included in Figure 1 permits a comprehensive assessment of all
major impact categories used to date in the available bibliography. Nevertheless, it must be noted that in
recent years two different perspectives have developed in fisheries LCA: those publications that focus entirely
on the reporting of the CF value of seafood and those that adopt an integrated perspective, combining
the commonly used LCA impact categories in fisheries LCA with newly developed fishery-specific impact
categories. In fact, certain recommendations suggested by prior fishery LCA reviews (Pelletier et al., 2007)
have been accomplished, but others remain largely unanswered. For instance, the use of BRU, as recommended
in this publication, has had a limited implementation, and the introduction of new indicators linked
to the biological implications of fisheries has been discrete. Moreover, to date no studies in the field of seafood
LCA have contributed to the expansion of LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), and
only a small set of studies has considered the introduction of operational and economic dimension in combination
with other methodologies (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2010a).
Regarding the selection of impact categories, these can be included or removed from studies based on the
initial objectives of the study, without the need of performing any assumptions. Hence, Figure 1, in an attempt
to integrate the different patterns observed in impact category selection, includes a series of recommended
impact categories and indicators that should be included in fishery LCA studies, with the aim of
guaranteeing quality and transparency in future studies, as well as creating some minimum foundations for
future development in this specific field.
6. Conclusions
The race to include fishery-specific impacts on the ecosystem in LCA has involved a sharp increase in
seafood LCA publications. However, the level of pioneering in this sector in terms of LCA still remains
high, impeding a clear analysis in terms of current trends. However, based on the inventoried publications,
the main highlights and developments in this field have been specified and discussed. Finally, the implementation
of the best practices suggested in this paper should help the definition of more concrete developments
in the field of fisheries LCA in the near future.
7. References
Ayer, N., Tyedmers, P., et al., 2007. Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: Review of problems
and strategies. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 12, 480-487.
Driscoll, J., Tyedmers, P., 2010. Fuel use and greenhouse gas emission implications of fisheries management: the case of the New
England Atlantic herring fishery. Mar. Policy 34, 353-359.
Espinoza-Orias, N., Azapagic, A., 2010. Carbon footprint of school meals. VII International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in
the agri-food sector. Bari, Italy, September 22 nd -24 th 2010.
Eyjolfsdottir, H.R., Jonsdottir, H., et al., 2003. Environmental effects of fish on the consumers dish. Life cycle assessment of Icelandic
frozen cod products. Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories. Report 06-03.
Fikseaunet, T.K., 2007. Alternative fish finger production chains – life cycle analysis. Marine Systems M. Sc. Thesis, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Frichknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., et al., 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0 ecoinvent report
No. 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Fulton, S., 2010. Fish and fuel: life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with Icelandic cod., Alaskan pollock and Alaskan pink
salmon fillets delivered to the UK. M. Sc. Thesis Dalhousie University.
Hospido, A., Tyedmers, P., 2005. Life cycle environmental impacts of tuna fisheries. Fish. Res. 76, 174-186.
Hospido, A., Vázquez, M.E., et al., 2006. Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 47, 56-72.
Iribarren, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., et al., 2010. Estimation of the carbon footprint of the Galician fishing activity (NW Spain). Sci.
Total Environ. 408, 5265-5272.
Iribarren, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., et al., 2011. Updating the carbon footprint of the Galician fishing activity (NW Spain). Sci Total
Environ. 409, 1609-1611.
ISO, 2006. ISO 14040. Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organization
for Standardization.
Muñoz, I., Milá i Canals, Ll., et al., 2010. Life cycle assessment of the average Spanish diet including human excretion. Int. J. Life
Cycle Ass. 15, 794-805.
Nilsson, K., Sonesson, U., 2010. Changing diets – What is the influence on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different consumption
patterns? VII International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the agri-food sector. Bari, Italy, September 22 nd -24 th
2010.
Parker, R., 2011. Measuring and characterizing the ecological footprint and life cycle environmental costa of Antartic krill (Euphasia
superba) products. M. Sc thesis, Dalhousie Univeristy.
Pelletier, N., Ayer, N., et al., 2007. Impact categories for Life Cycle Assessment research of seafood production systems: review and
prospectus. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 12, 414-421.
509