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

KEYNOTE SESSION 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
large number of the methodologies and guidelines found in the literature against the applicable characterisation
criteria from the aforementioned review for DG Environment.
In parallel to the detailed analysis of methodologies and guidelines, a data gap analysis was also carried
out because data availability and data quality were detected by WG1 as corner stones of any robust assessment.
Based on the insights from the data mapping for the French environmental footprinting initiative, data
issues were identified and a technical report (De Camillis, 2011) was released accordingly to support development
of the ENVIFOOD Protocol and possible future WG1 activities.
To facilitate the process of deriving methodological recommendations from the methodology overviews
in tabular form (Ernst&Young and Quantis, 2010; De Camillis et al., 2011), the WG1 drafting group came
up with a set of key methodological issues on which the ENVIFOOD Protocol is expected to give guidance
(Schenker et al., 2011). These methodological issues were identified by: analysing the methodology overviews
in tabular form; scanning the key findings from the critical reviews of environmental assessment case
studies in the agri-food sector; and taking into account inputs from the technical report on data gaps.
Methodologies and guidelines from the methodology overviews in tabular form (Ernst&Young and Quantis,
2010; De Camillis et al., 2011) were then scanned against the methodological issues identified by WG1
drafting group (Schenker et al., 2011). The purpose of this further analysis (De Camillis et al., 2011b) was to
identify which recommendations/rules diverge across the reference documents analysed and, thus, signal
where guidance must be harmonised in the ENVIFOOD Protocol. Particular emphasis was given to those
methodologies and guidelines that have somehow involved stakeholders in their own development process.
A lack of consensus on several methodological aspects was found across the methodologies reviewed (De
Camillis et al., 2011b). In order to analyse those aspects where consensus does not exist at present and to
identify specific methodological approaches to be incorporated in the ENVIFOOD Protocol, the JRC IES
hosted another workshop in 2011. The workshop was relatively successful because several approaches for
assessment were agreed by Round Table members (De Camillis et al., 2012a, 2012b).
Nevertheless, some issues remained and they were discussed within WG1 before coming out with a draft
ENVIFOOD Protocol.
The ENVIFOOD Protocol is not a self-supporting guide. Rather, it provides additional guidance to ISO
14044, specific to food and drink products. Moreover, there is the intention of alignment with the European
Commission’s methodologies on Environmental Footprint.
The Protocol gives recommendations and guidance on functional unit, system boundaries, data requirements
and how to deal with data gaps. In addition, it also provides guidance on how to handle multifunctional
processes and how to identify relevant environmental impact categories.
Given that the ENVIFOOD Protocol is intended to be applicable to the entire agri-food sector and hence
impact on multiple stakeholders, it is important that the input of scientific and food sector experts guide refining
the current draft version of the Protocol. Towards this end, a public consultation will be launched in
the last quarter of 2012. In parallel, the Protocol will be tested with the support of business associations or
individual companies. According to the feedback collected from both the public consultation and pilot tests,
the ENVIFOOD Protocol will be revised in 2013.
In the coming years, the Round Table members may play a central role in the development/adoption of
PCRs addressing food and drink products. As specific issues at product level cannot be directly addressed by
the Protocol, Product Category Rules (PCRs) may complement the Protocol by providing further detailed
guidance where necessary. This might include, for example, rules for solving multifunctionality problems
(allocation). Such detailed guidance should contribute to the establishment and diffusion of a single coherent
methodology for environmental assessment of specific food and drink products. Future mandates on the development/adoption
of PCRs are to be further discussed and agreed by Round Table members.
3. Conclusions
The European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table works for the harmonisation
of the assessment methodologies for the agri-food sector. This paper describes the process implemented so
far to develop the ENVIFOOD Protocol. In addition, this paper represents an evidence of the collaboration
established between the Round Table and the wider scientific community. We take in fact this opportunity to
invite the scientific community, food sector experts and other stakeholders to join the public consultation
process of the Protocol that is taking place in the last quarter of 2012.
Inputs from the wider scientific community are also welcome when supporting companies in the testing
phase due to be launched in early 2013. More information on the public consultation and testing phase of the
Protocol is available on www.food-scp.eu
39