1

COURS D’ANALYSE DU CYCLE DE VIE

SUR LA THÉMATIQUEDE L’ALIMENTATION

15 FEVRIER 2018

Sebastien HumbertConsultant en développement durableQuantissebastien.humbert@quantis-intl.com+41 79 754 75 66

2

Programme

• Introduction• Pensée “cycle de vie”: jeu• Principes de l’analyse du cycle de vie• Exemples• Discussion

3

Introduction

• Tour de table

Sebastien Humbert

Consultant en développement durable

Quantis

sebastien.humbert@quantis-intl.com

+41 79 754 75 66

• Pourquoi ce cours?

4

Avant que vous ne décédiez!

- 50%

- 80%- 30%1 milliard

t plastiques dans les oceans

5

Pourquoi ce cours?

Le monde change : les consommateurs s’intéressent

6

L’alimentation est clé!

L’alimentation contribue a environ 30% des impacts sur l’environnement!

7

Gestion des risques au niveau entreprise

24 octobre 2006 :

« Peter Brabeck, directeur général du groupe Nestlé, l’a avoué ce dimanche 22 octobre dans les colonnes du Sonntagsblick. Brabeck mentionne une baisse des ventes de 30%, une perte de 50 millions de francs (la réalité va probablement bien au-delà) et un retour au Cailler d’avant février 2006 début 2007. »

8

Gestion des risques au niveau entreprise

9

Pourquoi ce cours?

Notre mode de vie n’est pas durable!

Ceci, tout le monde le sait. Les technologies pour réduire significativement nos impacts existent aussi. Le problème est que notre société ne peut pas se permettre de tout faire en même temps. Il nous faut donc une méthode pour identifier les priorités en termes de réduction d’impact.

L’analyse du cycle de vie.

Ce cours est l’occasion de présenter la méthode de l’analyse du cycle de vie en utilisant l’alimentation comme cas d’étude. • Apprendre comment utiliser la méthode de l’analyse du cycle de vie et

la compréhension et l’utilisation de ses résultats.• Sortir du cours en ayant appris certaines informations utiles sur

comment réduire les impacts associés à l’alimentation.

PENSEE DU CYCLEDE VIE

JOUONS!

PRINCIPES DE L’ANALYSE DU CYCLE DE VIE

12

Eviter les fausses bonnes idees

13

Comprendre les différents impacts

Zéro émissions ? Émissions « ailleurs » !

Pour éviter des déplacements

des problèmes environnementaux

• D’une étape du cycle de vie à une autre

• D’une région géographique à une autre

• D’un milieu à un autre

• D’une génération à l’autre

• A travers différents impacts

14

Analyse du cycle de vie

Inventaire des extractions et des émissions Interprétation

Analyse des impacts

Objectifs et définition du système

Documents!

15

Exécution d’une étude

16

Analyse du cycle de vie

17

Catégories d’impact évaluées

EXEMPLES DE CATEGORIESD‘IMPACT

19

Climate change

Increase in radiative forcing associated with greenhouse gases emission

IPCC 2007 GWP100

Also called “global warming” or “carbon footprint”

Global warming

20

Ozone depletion

Since the late 1970s: a steady decline of about 4% per decade in the total volume of ozone in the earth stratosphere (ozone layer)

Due to man-made refrigerants (halons, CFCs)

Increased human health risk for cancer, catarac, etc.

« the ozone layer hole »

(it’s a concept )

21

Human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer)

Covers all toxicity effects on human health

Effects from respiratory inorganics, ionizing radiation, ozone layer depletion and photochemical oxidation are considered separately

USEtox

Multimedia fate & multipathway exposure and effects model

Models risks and potential impacts per emission for several thousand chemicals

22

Particulate matter / Respiratory inorganics (effects caused by inorganics)

Effects from particulate matter < 2.5 µm, causes irritation to the respiratory system, astma, reduced lung capacity, …

23

Ionizing radiation

Ionizing radiation causes damages to living tissue, resulting in mutation, cancer and dead

24

Photochemical ozone formation

Also named respiratory effects from organics, tropospheric ozone formation, summer smog or Los Angeles smog

Causes irritation to the respiratory system, astma, reduced lung capacity, etc.

25

Acidification

Reduction of terrestrial or aquatic species because of acidification (mainlyfrom SO2 emissions)

26

Terrestrial eutrophication

Reduction of terrestrial biodiversity

Eutrophying emissions

Reduction of target plant species from

terrestrial eutrophication

27

Aquatic eutrophication (freshwater)

Reduction of aquatic species because of eutrophication of water (mainlyPO43-)

O2 reduction due to PO43- increase – leads to reduction of the mostsensitive fishes

28

Aquatic eutrophication (marine water)

Reduction of aquatic species because of eutrophication of water (mainlyNO3-)

O2 reduction due to NO3- increase – leads to reduction of the most sensitive fishes

29

Ecotoxicity (aquatic, freshwater, seawater, terrestrial)

Reduction of aquatic biodiversity

IMPACT 2002, USEtox

Emissions in compartment m

Time integrated concentration in n

Fraction transferred to n

Species

exposure - intake

Potentially affected

fraction of species

Fate

factor

Time and space

integrated

damage on

ecosystems

Effect

factor

30

Resource depletion - waterBiodiverstiy loss and impacts on humans from water consumption

Loss ofbiodiversity

Reduction in biodiversity caused by reduction of available freshwaterImpacts on human health caused by reduction of available freshwater

31

Resource depletion – Mineral

Scarcity issue

32

Resource depletion – Fossil (+ uranium)

Loss of primary non-renewable energy (MJ)

33

Land use (occupation and transformation)

Land use and land use changeChange in quality of the soil, associated biodiversity

34

Water stream use and management

Reduction in biodiversity caused by dams

Maendly and Humbert (2012)

Original river

Current banks/limits

Downstream zone

Upstream zone

= Surface considered affected

in the computation of the CF

dam

Original river

Current banks/limits

Downstream zone

Upstream zone

= Surface considered affected

in the computation of the CF

dam

35

Plastic footprint

Mass-based probability of plastic ending up into the water (streams, lake or ocean)

36

Exemple de catégories d’impact évaluées lors d’une analyse du cycle de vie: IMPACT 2002+ vQ 2.2

Human toxicityRespiratory effectsIonizing radiationOzone layer depletionPhotochemical oxidation

Mineral extractionNon-renewable energy

Human health

Ecosystem quality

Resource consumption

Climate changeClimate change

CO2

Crude oil

NOx

Iron ore

Phosphates

And hundreds more…

Irrigation water

Dams water

Damage categoriesMidpoint categories

Aquatic ecotoxicityTerrestrial ecotoxicityAquatic acidificationAquatic eutrophicationTerrestrial acid/nutrificationLand occupationWater turbined

Water withdrawal Midpoint indicator not includedin a damage category

37

Impact assessment methodology: “PEF/OEF LCIA” (“updated ILCD”)

Carbon footprint (kg CO2-eq)

Water wellArable land

Crude oilIron ore

…

Resource use – mineral & metals (kg Sb-eq)

Resource use – energy carriers (MJ)

Ozone depletion (kg CFC11-eq)

Human toxicity – cancer (CTUh = cases)

Human toxicity – non-cancer (CTUh = cases)

Ionizing radition HH (kBq U235-eq)

Respiratory inorganics (deaths)

Photochemical ozone format. (kg NMVOC-eq)

Land use (-)

Terrestrial eutrophication (mole N-eq)

Marine eutrophication (kg N-eq)

Freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq)

Freshwater ecotoxicity (CTUe = PAF.m3.day)

Acidification (mole H+-eq)

Pesticide

CO2

Outputs

Inputs

PM2.5

Cu

…

And hundredsmore…

Water scarcity (m3-eq)

Single value

Phosphate

38

PEF/OEF LCIA

Classes of performance

39

40

Farm to port1’500 km by truck

41

42

CountryProduction volume in

2014

Type of

coffee

Production volume in 2014

for Arabica

Production volume in

2014 for RobustaYield

Deforestatio

n rate

Ship

transport

Irrigation

rate

-

t

produced/y

ear

Fraction of

the total world

production

-t produced/

year

Fraction of

the total

world

production

t produced/

year

Fraction of

the total

world

production

(kg/ha-a)

m2 forest

lost/ha-a,

ENVIFOOD

protocol

approach

km harbour

to European

harbour

distance

m3/t green

coffee

Brazil 2’550’720 34%

Mixed (70%

arabica/30%

robusta)

1'785'504 40% 765’216 26% 1248 0 7’800 1104

Vietnam 900’000 12% Robusta 0 0% 900’000 30% 2197 0 16’600 1088

Colombia 696’000 9% Arabica 696'000 16% 0 0% 645 0 8’400 1420

Indonesia 411’000 6% Mixed 237'076 5% 173’924 6% 523 192 16’000 2108

Ethiopia 390’000 5% Arabica 390'000 9% 0 0% 693 218 8’400 1220

India 300’300 4%

Mixed (30%

arabica/70%

robusta:

FAOstat

2010)

90'090 2% 210’210 7% 800 0 12’000 2204

Others 2’151’664 29% Mixed 1'241'140 28% 910’524 31%

1200

(weighted

average)

100 (average

between min

& max)

12’600

(weighted

average

1300

World

average

7’329’684 -Mixed (=

total)

1200

(weighted

average)

51 (weighted

average)

12’600

(weighted

average)

1104

2’959’874 -Robusta

(40% )Assumed same as above as simplification

4’439’810 -Arabica

(60%)

43

LCA

LCA/LCIA tries to model reality Better be imprecisely accurate thanprecisely inaccurate…

Imprecise Precise

Inaccurate

Accurate

EXEMPLES

45

Sustainability metrics boost decision-making

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a cup of coffee

See the whole picture | Focus on the right part | Get the facts right | Decide and act

COFFEE CULTIVATION & DELIVERY

PACKAGING PROD. & DELIVERY

DISTRIBUTIONCUP PROD. & DISHWASHING

PACKAGING (INCL. COFFEE

DISPOSAL)

MANUFACTURING

MACHINE PROD. & USE

46

Lots of studies on coffee

47

2009Scientific article comparing the environmental impacts of an espresso with soluble and drip filter coffee.https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/m/me/mediacomfiles/www/Humbert%20et%20al%202009%20-%20LCA%20Coffee.pdf

2011LCA of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products.https://www.nestle-nespresso.com/asset-library/Documents/Quantis%20-%20Comparative%20LCA%20on%20Four%20Capsules%20Systems%202011.pdf

2015

Study for Canadian Packaging association to compare single serve coffee environmental impacts with regular brewed coffeehttp://www.pac.ca/assets/pac0680-full-lca.pdfhttp://www.pac.ca/ePromos/promos/pac0680/

2014-2017

Draft version of the Category Rules developed for coffee in the context of EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) initiative. The document has not been finalized because the pilot stopped but, even if draft, this is a good reference for LCA of coffee.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ef_pilots.htm

Scientific articleNespresso and

alternativesCoffee PEFCRPAC LCA

Examples of LCA (1/2)

48

2017Visualization of the environmental impacts of a cup of Nescafé coffee. Tips for the consumer about how to reduce the impacts.https://www.nescafe.com/the-future-of-coffee

2017Online tool to discover the environmental impacts of drinking coffees prepared by Nespresso capsule.https://second-life.nespresso.com/en/nnch#/

2017Understanding the carbon footprint of a cup of coffee prepared by drip filterhttp://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/11/16/lenvironnement-boit-la-tasse

2017Screening LCA of coop capsules containing organic coffeehttp://www.coop.ch/content/act/fr/des-paroles-aux-actes/acte-no-353.html

Nescafé Future of Coffee

NespressoSecond Life

Coop capsulesDrip filter

Examples of LCA (2/2)

49

Key messages of the studies

END-OF-LIFECAPSULE

MATERIALSIMPACTS DRIVERS

A cup of coffee made with aluminum capsule has similar or lower impacts than a cup made with plastics capsule. Plastics capsules have decreased their weight in the years (and so their impacts) but need to have additional surpackaging than aluminiumcapsules. Bio-based plastics capsule may not always be the right solution: bio-based capsules are very heavy, carbon stored in bio-based plastics is released during degradation.

End-of-life solution has a significant influence on final conclusions. Alu caps are airtight, so no surpackaging is needed, which compensates for the greater impact of aluproduction. Plastics capsules are difficult to be recycled and bio-based coffee capsules can rarely be composted. Coffee grounds significantly contribute to end-of-life impacts too.

Main impacts drivers are coffee production, packaging and use stage (coffee serving and cup washing). Packaging production is dominated by the capsule, followed by surpackaging and/or sleeves.

50

Carbon footprint of coffee from plastics capsule

COFFEE CULTIVATION & DELIVERY

MANUFACTURING

PACKAGING PRODUCTION & DELIVERY

DISTRIBUTION

END OF LIFE

CAPSULE

SURPACKAGING

SLEEVE

3RD PACKAGING

MATERIALS TRANSPORT

ZOOM

CONSUMPTION

+

Source: Coop study http://www.coop.ch/content/act/fr/des-paroles-aux-actes/acte-no-353.html

51

Results for Nespresso and alternatives study Key findings

End-of-life includes, by order of importance, capsule, coffee grounds and other packaging

Aluminum capsules are airtight, so no surpackaging is needed, which compensates for the greater impact of aluminum production

End-of-life solution has a significant influence on final conclusions

Aluminum capsule recycling allows a significant benefit

Plastic emits carbon at end-of-life but direct fuel substitution allows high energy recovery that partly compensates for these emissions

Carbon stored in bio-based plastics is released during degradation

Among all studied scenarios on French and Swiss markets, the best option in terms of carbon footprint is the espresso made with the Nespresso capsule sent to recycling. When comparing the scenarios where the capsule is put in the bin, a Nespresso capsule is the best alternative.

While only carbon footprint is presented here, other environmental indicators have been assessed and corroborate these conclusions

Available on: https://quantis-intl.com/about/our-work/case-studies/

52

Influence of the capsule type and its end-of-life

4.3 g BIO-PLASTICS CAPSULE

1.5 g PLASTICS CAPSULE

1.1 g ALUMINIUM CAPSULE

INCINERATION

COMPOSTING

RECYCLING

INCINERATION

INCINERATION

RECYCLING

END-OF-LIFE

PRODUCTION

RAW MATERIAL

NET FOOTPRINT

+

Source: Coop study http://www.coop.ch/content/act/fr/des-paroles-aux-actes/acte-no-353.html

53

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

Climatechange

Ozonedepleon

Humantoxicity,cancereffects

Humantoxicity,non-cancereffects

Parculatemaer

IonizingradiaonHH

IonizingradiaonE(interim)

Photochemicalozoneformaon

Acidificaon

Terrestrialeutrophica

on

Freshwatereutrophica

on

Marineeutrophicaon

Freshwaterecotoxicity

Landuse

Waterresourcedepleon

Mineral,fossil&renresourcedepleon

Delivery

Deforesta on

Landoccupa on

Directemissions

Pulptreatment

Processwater

Energyconsump on

Irriga on

Pes cidesinputs

Fer lizersandcorrec vesinputs

PEF results for green coffee

(green coffee cultivation and delivery to producer)

54

Capsule Coop

55

Nescafé - Outil de communication de l’ACV

Reporting – Performance environnementaled’une tasse de café selon l’AffichageEnvironnemental Françaishttp://nescafe.lca-tool.com/

56

Finalement: lequel?

57

Emballages?

Moins est souvent mieux, mais… L’impact environnemental de 1 kg de courgettes est beaucoup plus

important que celui de l’emballage… Si l’emballage permet de réduire les pertes de 5% ou plus, alors autant avoir

de l’emballage! L’ACV peut aider à communiquer ceci de manière factuelle aux

consommateurs

VS

58

Bio vs PI (production intégrée) vs Conventionnel?

Avantages et désavantages de chacune?

59

Lait pasteurisé vs UHT?

60

Emballages (p.ex. sacs)?

bioplastique

coton

plastique

papier

61

Alimentation durable?

62

0

1'000'000'000

2'000'000'000

3'000'000'000

4'000'000'000

5'000'000'000

6'000'000'000

7'000'000'000

8'000'000'000

9'000'000'000

10'000'000'000

Cu

mul

ate

d c

arb

on

foo

tpri

nt

(kg

CO

2 e

q /

yea

rly

sale

s)

Rental services

Real estate

Printing service products

Gas station products

Other goods

Other garden supplies

Flowers, plants and seeds

Batteries and power

Fuels, gases, lubricants and oils

Cleaning/hygiene products, cosmetics and toiletries

Healthcare

Other cultural and recreational goods

Sporting equipment and gadgets

Music and videos

Books, newspapers and paper/paper supplies

Office machinery and supplies

Information and communication equipment

Kitchen merchandise

Electrical household appliances

Furniture, furnishings and decor

Home hardware supplies

Personal accessories

Footwear and leather goods

Clothing and textiles

Live animals

Pet food

Tobacco

Other beverages

Alcoholic beverages

Coffee and tea

Other foods

Confectionery

Prepared/processed meals

Oils and fats

Grain products

Dairy products

Meat and meat alternatives

Fruits and vegetables 0

1'000'000'000

2'000'000'000

3'000'000'000

4'000'000'000

5'000'000'000

6'000'000'000

7'000'000'000

8'000'000'000

9'000'000'000

10'000'000'000

Plastic bags

Energy consumption

Me

at/F

ish

Ele

ctri

cal

app

lian

ces

Gas

olin

e

Plastic bagsEnergy consumption(of retailer)

Empreinte environnementale d’un distributeur

DISCUSSION

64

Labels dans le monde alimentaire