Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method Michele Galatola Product Team Leader DG Environment – Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit

What is an Environmental Footprint (EF)? “…a multi-criteria measure of the environmental performance of a product or organisation …” “…based on a life cycle approach…”

Life Cycle Concept Manufacturing& Processing Retail & Use Goods and Services Resource Extraction, Farming, Processing We often consider the full life cycle of goods and services in our assessments. This is Life Cycle Thinking. We not only account for the use, but also the resources extracted, the emissions during manufacture, as well as the benefits and trade-offs of different waste management options. In many implementing measures and assessments, we sum all of these up for a given product, or product option, to estimate its overall environmental performance. Considering the full life cycle allows use to take into account all emissions and resources consumed, irrespective of when or where they occur, that are linked to a specific product option. But, we must consider the impacts along the entire life cycle in one framework to avoid shifting of burdens. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) is implemented quantitatively through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Re-use, Recycling, Energy Recovery, Disposal

Energy Climate Change Material Scarcity Eutrophication Resources, Health, & Environment Pressures & Threats Energy Climate Change Material Scarcity Eutrophication The emissions and resources consumed that are attributed to a specific product, such as a construction material, mode-of-transport, or biofuel alternative, are then assessed in terms of contributions to climate change, cancer effects, impacts on ecosystems or biodiveristy, consumption of scarce materials. Indicators are calculated in a life cycle assessment for a given product of its environmental performance. A carbon footprint is one example for climate change. But, we must consider all impacts in one framework to avoid shifting of burdens. This information can then be used to identify what is most important in the life cycle, to compare options in an impact assessment, or to provide criteria for different policy implementing measures. Land & Water Use Toxic Pressures

Product Standards, Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI/ WBCSD) How was the PEF Guide Developed? Environmental assessment documents analysed: ISO 14044 ISO 14067 BP X 30-323 PAS 2050 Ecological footprint ILCD Product Standards, Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI/ WBCSD)

Analysis of methods 2. Majority are under ISO framework Key findings – Common approaches 2. Majority are under ISO framework 3. Often focused on 1 environmental issue (water, carbon, …) 4. Most leave much room for subjective choices 5. Cannot generally be used for direct comparison 6. Product categories/ sectorial guides are seen as crucial 1. Developed via multi-stakeholder process Analysis of methods

Environmental footprint Where does the EF fit? Environmental footprint ISO14044 …….. Carbon footprint Water footprint ISO14001, EMAS Chemical footprint ISO14025

Objectives Provide comprehensive evaluation along the entire life cycle (upstream and downstream) Provide comprehensive coverage of potential environmental impacts (no ‘single issue’ method) Ensure comparability Quality (coherence and quality assurance) Build on existing methods Be applicable without having to consult a series of other documents

Example: importance of multi-criteria

Example: importance of multi-criteria Dwelling is being refurbished to improve insulation level Existing Improved Floor on grade 6 cm PUR 12 cm PUR Outer wall 10 cm RW 20 cm RW Flat roof 10 cm resol 20 cm resol Windows: glazing double triple Net energy demand heating 70 kWh/m2 44 kWh/m2 E-value E61 E54 K-value K35 K21

Example: importance of multi-criteria

Example: importance of multi-criteria

Framework

Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model EF impact categories Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model Climate Change Bern model - Global Warming Potentials (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon. Ozone Depletion EDIP model Ecotoxicity, – aquatic, freshwater USEtox model Human Toxicity -  cancer effects Human Toxicity – non-cancer effects Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics RiskPoll model Ionising Radiation – human health effects Human Health effect model Photochemical Ozone Formation LOTOS-EUROS model Acidification Accumulated Exceedance model Eutrophication – terrestrial Eutrophication – aquatic EUTREND model Resource Depletion – water Swiss Ecoscarcity model Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil and renewable CML  2002 Land Use Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model Shall be calculated using the specified impact assessment models and characterisation factors.

Impact Assessment: “additional environmental information” If the default set does not cover the potential environmental impact of the product, all relevant environmental aspects shall be additionally included under “additional environmental information”. These shall not substitute the mandatory assessment models of the default EF impact categories. Shall be clearly referenced and documented Examples: Emissions made directly into marine water Site level biodiversity impacts Offsets (e.g. Clean Development Mechanism – CDM) Delayed emissions (e.g. temporary carbon storage)

Overview of the EF methodology

Requirements depending on intended application Intended applications Goal & Scope def. Screening step Meet DQRs Multifunctionality hierarchy Choice of EIA categories Classification & Characterisation Normalisation & Weighting Interpretation of EF results Reporting requirements Critical review (1 person) Critical review panel (3 persons) Requires PEFCR (claimin g to be in line with the PEF Guide) In- house M R O External B2B / B2C without comparisons / comparative assertions B2B / B2C with comparisons / comparative assertions / “M” = mandatory; “R” = recommended (not mandatory); “O” = optional (not mandatory); “/” = not applicable

Examples of “clear” requirements Offsets Impact categories and impact assessment methods Electricity use Biogenic carbon emissions and removals Direct and indirect land use change Renewable energy generation Temporary storage and delayed emissions Nomenclature Data quality requirements Allocation rules Reporting Reviews and reviewers’ qualifications

What are the differences between PEF and traditional LCA? Not that many!! PEF is a way of doing an LCA which enables to deliver more consistent, reliable and reproducible results. Moreover, compared to a traditional ISO 14040 compliant LCA, PEF includes features that make easier the communication of its results both in B2B and B2C. These new characteristics of PEF are possible due to: a limitation of methodological flexibility, more stringent requirements related to data quality, and the introduction of normalization and weighting

Examples of possible uses of the PEF method (This is a non exhaustive list) optimisation of processes along the life cycle of a product; support product design minimising environmental impacts along the life cycle; communication of life cycle environmental performance information on products (e.g. through labelling, documentation accompanying the product, websites and apps) but without comparisons or comparative assertions; schemes related to environmental claims, in particular ensuring sufficient robustness and completeness of claims; reputational schemes giving visibility to products that calculate their life cycle environmental performance; voluntary schemes involving the measurement and communication of life cycle environmental performance information to consumers; identification of significant environmental impacts in view of setting criteria for ecolabels.

PEF and the EU Ecolabel: A theoretical case on dishwashing detergents

System boundaries 1. Raw and packaging materials 2. Production 3. Distribution 4. Shopping tour 5. Use 6. End of life / Disposal

Current EU Ecolabel criteria for automatic dishwashing detergents Criterion 1: Total chemicals Criterion 2a: Excluded chemicals (phosphates, DTPA, perborates, reactive chlorine, compounds, EDTA, Nitromusks and polycyclic musks Criterion 2b: Limited chemicals (H/R phrases) + derogations Criterion 2d: Fragrances Criterion 2e: Biocides Criterion 3: Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Critical Dilution Volume (CDV) Criterion 4: Biodegradability of organics Criterion 5: Washing performance (fitness for use) Criterion 6: Packaging requirements (Primary packaging per functional unit, cardboard packaging, Labelling of plastic packaging, Plastic packaging) Criterion 7: Consumer information

Raw and packaging materials Life Cycle stages Raw and packaging materials Criteria 1, 2, 6 Production Distribution Shopping tour Use Criteria 5, 7 End of life / Disposal Criteria 2, 3, 4

Cradle-to-grave analysis for consumer products Methodology Scope Cradle-to-grave analysis for consumer products All relevant activities shall be considered: Indirectly attributable upstream activities Directly attributable activities Indirectly attributable downstream activities Transportation & distribution of products Use End of life of the products/services Third‐party waste treatment facilities. Any other relevant processes Extraction of raw materials Agricultural activities Land use and land use change Manufacturing, production, and processing Electricity for upstream activities Disposal/treatment of upstream waste Transportation between suppliers Any other relevant upstream processes Site‐level activities Capital equipment Business travel Client and visitor transportation Employee commuting Transportation from suppliers Waste streams (composition, volume) Other environmentally relevant activities

Product manufacturing Pressing tab core Filling flow packs Product Box Palletizing Electricity (mix) Manufacturing Somat 10 palletized Ingredients Natural gas Tap water Corrugated board Polypropylene Polyethylene Pallet Packaging materials Final product

Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model EF impact categories Environmental Footprint Impact Category Impact Assessment Model Climate Change Bern model - Global Warming Potentials (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon. Ozone Depletion EDIP model Ecotoxicity, – aquatic, freshwater USEtox model Human Toxicity -  cancer effects Human Toxicity – non-cancer effects Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics RiskPoll model Ionising Radiation – human health effects Human Health effect model Photochemical Ozone Formation LOTOS-EUROS model Acidification Accumulated Exceedance model Eutrophication – terrestrial Eutrophication – aquatic EUTREND model Resource Depletion – water Swiss Ecoscarcity model Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil and renewable CML  2002 Land Use Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model

Hot spot analysis results 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Ionizing radiation Fossil resource depletion GWP Renewable resource depletion Ecotoxicity Cancer effects Photoch. Oxidants Eutrophication Particulate matter Mineral resource depletion Acidification Non-cancer effects Land use ODP Raw materials Packaging materials Production Distribution Shopping tour Use Disposal

Normalized results (hypotetical case)

Contribution analysis Simpler but stronger criteria: Focus on what really matters More reliable background information More room for eco-innovation Possibility to introduce life-cycle performance indicators in the EU Ecolabel

Next steps

Challenges Life Cycle data, data quality & availability Need to develop consistent Product and Sector Category Rules Involvement of stakeholders (particularly SMEs) The verification system Convergence of methodologies at EU level and internationally

The role of PEFCRs Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) provide specific guidance for calculating and reporting product/sector life cycle environmental impacts. The life cycle-based standards themselves do not provide sufficient specificity to ensure that consistent assumptions and measurements are made to support comparable environmental claims across all products. Rules analogous to PEFCRs exist in standards for other types of life cycle-based product claims, such as ISO 14025 (type III environmental declarations), product carbon footprints (PCFs) or other forms of quantitative product environmental footprints. PEFCRs play an important role in increasing the reproducibility, consistency (and therefore comparability between PEF calculations within the same product category level). The existence of a PEFCR helps direct the focus to the most important parameters of the PEF study, thus also reducing time, efforts and costs.

Scenarios that might and might not necessitate the use of PEFCRs Application Use of a PEFCR Optional “May” Recommended “Should” Mandatory “Shall” In-house: product improvement  B2B or B2C green claim without comparisons or comparative assertions B2B or B2C green claim with comparisons or comparative assertions Any PEF study declared to be in compliance with the PEF Guide Procurement decisions Declaration of conformance to a voluntary label requirement (e.g. EU Ecolabel)

Testing Objectives Test the process for the development of PEFCRs and OEFSRs Test different approaches for verification systems (embedded impacts, traceability) Test different ways of communicating the information for B2B and B2C

Testing The Commission will "lead" a limited number of pilots but there will also be a "call for volunteers" addressed to Member States or industries who might like to lead the development of more PEFCRs and/or OEFSRs. The pilot can be on an intermediate or a final product. There is no obligation to run both a PEF and OEF pilot Certain Product Groups / Sectors will most probably not be looked at during the Pilot phase (e.g. ICT-related products) Food, feed and drinks products will be part of the 2nd wave of pilots that will start in 2014. These pilots should be carried out in close collaboration with the Food Round Table (FRT) initiative.

Testing WHO can propose a pilot: Single companies Cluster of companies National, European or non-European industry associations NGOs Member States or non EU governments Any mix of the organisations mentioned above European Commission support expected: Technical helpdesk Testing of verification

Governance Steering Committee Technical Advisory Board EF Technical Helpdesk Pilot 1 TS Pilot 2 TS Pilot 3 TS Pilot n TS Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder y Stakeholder 1

Representativeness of a PEFCR A PEFCR is considered to be representative of a specific product group when all the following conditions are met: The Technical Secretariat in charge of a specific product group has invited to participate to the PEFCR development process all the major competitors, or their representatives (i.e. via industry associations) covering for at least XX% of the EU market (in terms of yearly turnover). The industry stakeholders (either as single companies and/or as business associations) participating to the whole process cover at least XX% of the EU market (in terms of yearly turnover). The Technical secretariat has invited and involved in the PEFCR development process a sufficiently wide range of non-industry stakeholders, with particular reference to consumers’ and environmental associations.

Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category Definition of the product “model” based on representative product

Representative model The “representative product” may or may not be a real product that one can buy on the market. Especially when the market is made up of different technologies, the “representative product” will be a virtual (non-existing) product with the average sales-weighted characteristics of all technologies around. On the other hand, e.g. if the market and technical information is incomplete, the Technical Secretariat may decide to choose a real product that would represent ‘the representative’. The “representative "product will be the reference for the calculation of the benchmark. In particular the environmental performance calculated for the “representative” model will become the “average” environmental performance for that product group

Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category Definition of the product “model” based on representative product The screening step identifies the following information: Most relevant life cycle stages Most relevant processes Most relevant impact categories Screening

Normalization and weighting In the framework of the EU PEF Pilot the use of normalization and weighting factors will be tested. The normalization factors will be provided by the Commission. Until there is an agreed set of European weighting factors, all impact categories should receive the same weight (weighting factor = 1). Alternative weighting approaches should also be tested as “additional” compared to the equal weighting one (baseline approach). In case alternative weighting systems are also tested, a sensitivity analysis should be carried out and the results documented and discussed during the consultation stages

Development of a PEFCR Definition of product EF category Definition of the product “model” based on representative product The screening step identifies the following information: Most relevant life cycle stages Most relevant processes Most relevant impact categories Screening PEF supporting study At this stage class of performances could be identified, if appropriate Definition of benchmarks