Critical Aspects in The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bio-Based Materials 2013

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Review
Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials Reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations
P. Pawelzik a , M. Carus b , J. Hotchkiss c , R. Narayan c , S. Selke c , M. Wellisch d , M. Weiss e , B. Wicke a , M.K. Patel a,
a
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherlands Nova-Institut, Industriestrae, 50354 Hrth, Germany School of Packaging and Center for Packaging Innovation and Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA d Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Innovation and Growth Policy Division, 1341 Baseline Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C5, Canada e European Commission DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, Sustainable Transport Unit, via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 230, 21010 Ispra, Italy
b c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Concerns over non-renewable fossil fuel supply and climate change have been driving the Renaissance of bio-based materials. To substantiate environmental claims, the impacts of bio-based materials are typically quantied by applying life cycle assessment (LCA). The internationally agreed LCA standards provide generic recommendations on how to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services but do not address details that are specically relevant for the life cycles of bio-based materials. Here, we provide an overview of key issues and methodologies explicitly pertinent to the LCA of bio-based materials. We argue that the treatment of biogenic carbon storage is critical for quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions of bio-based materials in comparison with petrochemical materials. We acknowledge that biogenic carbon storage remains controversial but recommend accounting for it, depending on product-specic life cycles and the likely time duration of carbon storage. If carbon storage is considered, co-product allocation is nontrivial and should be chosen with care in order to: (i) ensure that carbon storage is assigned to the main product and the co-product(s) in the intended manner and (ii) avoid double counting of stored carbon in the main product and once more in the co-product(s). Land-use change, soil degradation, water use, and impacts on soil carbon stocks and biodiversity are important aspects that have recently received attention. We explain various approaches to account for these and conclude that substantial methodological progress is necessary, which is however hampered by the complex and often case- and site-specic nature of impacts. With the exception of soil degradation, we recommend preliminary approaches for including these impacts in the LCA of bio-based materials. The use of attributional versus consequential LCA approaches is particularly relevant in the context of bio-based materials. We conclude that it is more challenging to prepare accurate consequential LCA studies, especially because these should account for future developments and secondary impacts around bio-based materials which are often difcult to anticipate and quantify. Although hampered by complexity and limited data availability, the application of the proposed approaches to the extent possible would allow obtaining a more comprehensive insight into the environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of bio-based materials. 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 7 August 2012 Received in revised form 2 February 2013 Accepted 4 February 2013 Keywords: Life cycle assessment Bio-based materials Environmental impacts Biogenic carbon storage Indirect land use change Soil carbon
Contents 1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carbon storage in bio-based products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. ADEMEs methodology for bio-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The European Commissions Lead Market Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. GHG Protocol Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. ISO 14067 carbon footprint of products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. The ILCD Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 212 212 213 213 214 214
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 030 253 7634; fax: +31 030 253 7601. E-mail address: m.k.patel@uu.nl (M.K. Patel). 0921-3449/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.006

212 P. Pawelzik et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228
3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
2.6. PAS 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. Process/material carbon footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8. Discussion and recommendations on the accounting of biogenic carbon storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Land use change and efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Carbon stocks in soil and standing biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Early-stage impact assessment methods for bio-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Water use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Soil degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of attributional versus consequential LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment frameworks for bio-based materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Example for the case specicity of land use efciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1. Comparison with PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2. Comparison with aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
214 215 215 217 218 219 220 220 221 221 222 223 224 225 226 226 226 226 226
1. Introduction Bio-based plastics have a history of over 150 years. Key milestones include the invention of cellulose nitrate (celluloid) in the 1860s, man-made cellulose (1890s), cellulose-hydrate lms (cellophane) in 1912, casein protein (milk ber) in the 1930s and soy-based plastics in the 1930s (Monopolies, 1968; Ralston and Osswald, 2008; Shen et al., 2009). These materials lost their importance with the rise of the petrochemical industry in the 1950s. Since the 1980s there has been increasing interest in the development of biodegradable plastics such as polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and various types of thermoplastic starch made from bio-based feedstock (Shen et al., 2009). The renaissance of biobased plastics and bio-based materials in general has been fueled by progress in biotechnology, high fossil fuel prices as well as environmental concerns (Patel et al., 2005). Bio-based materials have the potential to reduce non-renewable energy use as compared to conventional materials but may come at the cost of additional land use and related environmental impacts. To quantify the environmental impacts of bio-based materials, standardized Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO, 2006a,b) has been applied to bio-based materials in numerous studies (see, e.g., Shen and Patel, 2010; Groot and Born, 2010; Weiss et al., 2012). The current ISO (2006a,b) standards for conducting an LCA provide principal methodological guidance but no detailed instructions on how to address critical issues that typically occur when conducting an LCA for bio-based materials. Issues such as the accounting for bio-based carbon storage or the impacts of land use changes associated with biomass production signicantly affect the assessment results and require standardized approaches for evaluation. The present shortcomings have led to the need for a broadly shared, comprehensive, and yet sufciently detailed methodology to assess the environmental impacts of bio-based products (e.g., OECD, 2010; Nowicki et al., 2008). To establish such a methodology, it is important to rst clarify the critical issues in the life cycle assessment of bio-based materials in a comprehensive manner and to review the various approaches that have been developed to address the issues. So far, such a review has not been published. This paper aims to close this gap, beginning with a discussion of the approaches to account for carbon storage in Section 2. Next, we describe methodologies to assess the various impacts of land use (Section 3). In Sections 4 and 5, we focus on more general methodological issues such as allocation and a comparison of attributional and consequential LCA. Section 6 provides a short discussion on assessment
frameworks. The article ends with a discussion and conclusions on how to address the key issues presented here in the life cycle assessments of bio-based materials (Section 7). 2. Carbon storage in bio-based products The carbon contained in bio-based materials is fully or partly of biogenic origin. When accounting for the biogenic carbon in biobased materials (see Fig. 1 and related explanations in Box 1) two principal approaches can be taken: biogenic carbon is considered to be CO2 neutral and excluded from the inventory analysis, biogenic carbon is accounted for as carbon storage, thus taking into account that CO2 is captured from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and retained within the bio-based material for a number of years. Whether or not to account for biogenic carbon storage, that is generally temporary, is the subject of ongoing debates (Levasseur et al., 2012). On the one hand, biogenic carbon storage could be excluded from the inventory analysis because it is in the majority of cases reversible and inevitably adds carbon emissions in the future. On the other hand, biogenic carbon storage could be accounted for because it delays radiative forcing and can offset current anthropogenic carbon emissions. The achievable benets from accounting for biogenic carbon storage depend on the time horizon over which the global warming potential of emissions is considered as well as external factors such as the future levels of anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Although the global warming potential is commonly considered over a time horizon of 100 years, the choice is intrinsically subjective (Levasseur et al., 2012). This article identies seven approaches on how to deal with biogenic carbon storage (Table 1). The next sections introduce and explain these approaches individually. 2.1. ADEMEs methodology for bio-based materials The French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) suggests that the biogenic carbon contained in bio-based materials should be considered CO2 neutral (BIS, 2009). They argue that the lifespan of bio-products does not typically exceed 1020 years, making it reasonable to assume that the delay in radiative forcing due to biogenic carbon storage is negligible. The approach

P. Pawelzik et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228 213
Box 1: Accounting for bio-based carbon storage in the system cradle-to-factory gate The carbon that is sequestered from the atmosphere through photosynthesis during plant growth typically does not all end up in the bio-based material. Through the manufacturing process of bio-based materials, a portion of the bio-based carbon is lost as waste or emissions (carbon stream C2 in Fig. 1). When calculating total carbon emissions (Cem ) for the system cradle-to-factory gate, the following components need to be quantied: (i) the carbon stored in the raw biomass (C0 ; negative sign for carbon storage), (ii) the amount of the bio-based carbon released during the production process (including the emissions from direct land-use change, C2 ) and (iii) the release of fossil carbon (C3 ) related to process energy requirements (e.g., heat and electricity). We exclude here the potential effects of indirect land-use change and assume that the carbon stocked in above and below ground organic matter is maintained during the cultivation of biomass (sustainable carbon management in agriculture/forestry). The calculation of Cem can be performed according to two approaches which lead to the same result: (i) the Biofeedstock-storage approach and (ii) the Biomaterialstorage approach. When using the Biofeedstock-storage approach (Eq. (1)) all process emissions need to be quantied and Cem is calculated as follows: Cem = C0 + C2 + C3 (1)
of carbon neutrality is commonly applied for bioenergy (products with no appreciable carbon storage). We argue here that the application to bio-based materials can be justied for short-lived products that are disposed of by incineration. For longer life products that are recycled or landlled carbon neutrality presents a conservative approach that disregards any short-term and midterm benets. It should be noted that the ADEMEs methodology requires methane emissions to be accounted for, even if they originate from biogenic carbon. 2.2. The European Commissions Lead Market Initiative The European Commissions Lead Market Initiative proposes that the biogenic carbon contained in bio-based materials shall be deducted when calculating the total carbon emissions caused by a product for the cradle-to-factory gate system (EC, 2009a). No guidance is given on whether to account for the time period of the use phase (and hence of temporary carbon storage) and if so, how to account for it. In the past few years, the method has been applied in numerous LCA studies, in particular for new bio-based polymers in primary form, i.e., for granules as opposed to nal products (e.g., Kim and Dale, 2005; Patel et al., 2006; Vink et al., 2007). The method is depicted on the right hand side of Fig. 1 and it is explained in more detail in Box 1. The box also explains two variants of applying the method (i.e., the Biofeedstock-storage approach and the Biomaterialstorage approach). 2.3. GHG Protocol Initiative The GHG Protocol Initiative of the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development have developed a standardized method for the inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (GHGP, 2011). For the system cradle-tofactory gate, GHGP (2011) gives credit for biogenic carbon storage, similar to the European Commissions Lead Market Initiative (EC, 2009a). For the system cradle-to-grave, the amount of carbon released throughout the use and disposal of the product needs to be accounted for, excluding the embedded carbon that is not released into the atmosphere (e.g., the biogenic carbon that is contained within the ashes of a disposed wood product will not be released into the atmosphere under anaerobic conditions in a landll). For intermediate bio-based materials that are used as inputs for other processes, the biogenic carbon stored in the product needs to be reported. The GHGP (2011) does not prescribe weighting factors
If the mass balance for bio-based carbon is considered, i.e., C0 = C2 + C4 (2)
with C4 being the bio-based carbon equivalents embodied in the bio-based product, one can re-write Eq. (1) to: Cem = C3 C4 (3)
We refer to Eq. (3) as the second approach for calculating Cem , i.e., the Biomaterial-storage approach. In this approach Cem is calculated as function of the bio-based carbon sequestered in the nal product and fossil CO2 emissions (which are equivalent to the fossil fuel used C1 = C3 , see Fig. 1). Based on our experience, we recommend applying Eq. (3), i.e., the Biomaterial-storage approach for calculation carbon emissions. This approach typically leads to more reliable results than the Biofeedstock-storage approach, which should only be used if there is certainty about the completeness and accuracy of the biogenic carbon emissions (C2 ). Ideally, however, both Eqs. (3) and (1) are applied, which, in combination, offer the most comprehensive understanding.
Carbon Neutral
Carbon equivalents from system = C3 = C1 C3 , Fossil CO2 from production processes
Carbon Storage
Carbon equivalents from system = C2 + C3 - C0 = C3 - C4 (safer method) C2, Biogenic CO2 from production processes C3, Fossil CO2 from production processes
CO2 in air (C0) C0, CO2 sequestered by tree C0 = C 2 + C 4 Tree Factory C1 , CO2 in fossil fuels with C1 = C3 Tree Factory C1 , CO2 in fossil fuels with C1 = C3
C4, CO2 embedded in Biobasedproduct
Oil in ground
Oil in ground
Fig. 1. Two alternative methods for accounting for bio-based carbon when assessing the contribution of a fully bio-based product to global warming for the system cradleto-factory gate (the two alternative methods are carbon neutrality on the left hand side and carbon storage on the right).

Table 1 Key characteristics of initiatives/approaches developed to account for bio-based carbon storage. Approach Key characteristics Embedded bio-based carbon ADEMEs LCA Methodology for Bioproductsa Lead Market Initiativeb GHG Protocol Initiativec ISO 14067d ILCD Handbooke PAS 2050f Process/Material Carbon Footprintg References within table: a BIO Intelligence Service (2009). b EC (2009a). c GHGP (2011). d ISO (14067). e EC (2010a). f PAS 2050 (2011). g Narayan (2011). Carbon neutral Carbon storage Carbon storage Carbon storage Carbon storage Carbon storage Carbon storage Time dependency of emissions Weighting factor for time dependency developed No No No No Yes Yes No Life cycle stage
Not accounted for Not addressed Not addressed Optional Accounted for Optional Not accounted for; but penalty for petrochemical products.
Cradle-to-grave Cradle-to-factory gate Cradle-to-factory gate & cradle-to-grave Cradle-to-factory gate & cradle-to-grave Cradle-to-factory gate & cradle-to-grave Cradle-to-factory gate & cradle-to-grave Cradle-to-factory gate & cradle-to-grave
for delayed, offset, or avoided emissions due to biogenic carbon storage (GHGP, 2011). 2.4. ISO 14067 carbon footprint of products The draft standard for the carbon footprint of products developed by ISO (2012) states that in general when calculating the carbon footprint for a products entire life cycle all the emissions and removals (biogenic and fossil) must be taken into account, without considering the time period (see Section 6.3.8 of ISO 14067). This means that biogenic carbon storage in bio-based products should be accounted for as a removal from the atmosphere without considering time. If the use stage or end-of-life treatment lead to emissions or removals within 10 years these are supposed to be treated as if they had occurred at the beginning of the assessment period. In addition to the standard calculations, for instance where the emissions and removals from the use phase and end-oflife product disposal occur more than 10 years after the inception of the product, the effect of time for these emissions may be calculated and reported separately. If the effects of the time component are calculated, the nal report must also include the GHG emissions calculated without considering the time dimension and the method chosen for these calculations1 and the reason for choosing a method. No specic approach is indicated for taking into account the time period for bio-based products. To summarize, based on ISO 14067, for the cradle-to-factory gate system, credit is given for biogenic carbon storage in materials. For the factory gate-to-grave system, the default is to assign no credit to temporal biogenic carbon storage; however, a separate calculation that does take temporary carbon storage into account can be reported. 2.5. The ILCD Handbook The method put forward by the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (EC, 2010a) accounts for time when assessing the effect of biogenic carbon on global warming. In line with the timeframe chosen by IPCC (2007), the ILCD
distinguishes between carbon that is released within a 100 year period and carbon that is released more than 100 years after the bio-based product was produced. For carbon that is released within the rst 100 years, the credit or corrective ow value calculated for carbon storage is given by multiplying the mass [kg] of embodied carbon (C4 in Fig. 1, expressed in kg CO2 equivalents) by the number of years of carbon storage, divided by 100 to represent the timeframe of 100 years; this approach is equivalent to a weighting factor of 1% per year. Carbon that is released after 100 years is not taken into account in the general LCA results, i.e., it is treated as permanently stored but should be calculated and reported separately (as a memo item). EC (2010a) thereby aims to ensure that the (undesired) release of carbon beyond the 100 year timeframe is not totally ignored.
2.6. PAS 2050 The British Standards Institution (BSI, 2011) developed the PAS 2050 (Publicly Available Specication No. 2050) which adopts the concept of biogenic carbon storage. PAS 2050 considers the dimension of time in line with IPCC (2007) and EC (2010a) by applying a timeframe of 100 years. In line with ISO (14067), all emissions and removals (fossil and biogenic) that occur within the 100 year period are quantied and treated as if they occurred at the beginning of the time period. The effects of the delay in emissions may be taken into account, however already after one year from product inception (as opposed to 10 years in ISO (14067)). To account for the delay in emissions, the same approach is applied as in the ILCD Handbook (EC, 2010a), with the exception of a special case, when all the emissions are released in a single event between the 2nd and 25th year. In calculating the GHG emissions for this special case, a multiplicative factor m is incorporated within the weighting factor equation. This factor is based on the removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere, which was derived to be 0.76 (Clift and Brando, 2008). The reason for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is its absorption in oceans and its incorporation in terrestrial and aquatic biomass. For every metric ton of CO2 only 0.76 metric tons thus need to be considered, leading to the following weighting factors which are applied to determine the global warming impact of emissions over the assessment period:
1 We refer the reader to Brando et al. (2013) for a review of methods to account for the potential climate impacts of temporary biogenic carbon storage.

If all the carbon emissions occur within the rst year, they are treated as a single emissions event at the beginning of the 100 year assessment period; in this case the weighting factor is 1. If all the carbon emissions occur as a single emissions event between 2 and 25 years after the manufacture of the product, the weighting factor is calculated by multiplying 0.76 with the number of years of full carbon storage and divided by 100 years, which represents the assessment period. In all other situations, the weighting factor is in principle the same as proposed by ILCD Handbook, i.e., the fraction of the number of years of biogenic carbon storage and the 100 years of assessment period. The presented approach leads to discontinuity in the way the weighting factor is calculated. For a single release, the multiplier m within the weighting factor formula differs (up to one year after production and before production: m = 1; between year two and 25: m = 0.76; and beyond year 25: m = 1). Contrary to single release, for gradual release, the general weighting factor equation is used (i.e., m = 1). This also holds if the gradual release occurs within the rst 25 years. This inconsistency further compounds the discontinuity just described. By including the CO2 decay rate within the weighting factor formula, PAS 2050 aimed to more accurately reect global warming potential of CO2 released at different times. However, the application of the weighting factor is an optional step that should be considered cautiously, because it entails the risk of inconsistencies. 2.7. Process/material carbon footprint Narayan (2006, 2011) distinguishes between the process carbon footprint and the material carbon footprint. The process carbon footprint represents the carbon emissions resulting from energy use and manufacturing processes of the system cradle-to-factory gate. The material carbon footprint represents the carbon emissions resulting from carbon stored in materials. The process carbon footprint is generally non-zero and process-specic. The material carbon footprint is zero for fully bio-based materials, while it represents the embodied (stored) fossil carbon for petrochemical materials. The material carbon footprint as described here implicitly assumes a cradle-to-grave system, with full oxidation (e.g., via incineration) of the materials at the end of their life. The material carbon footprint can be accurately measured by quantifying the biogenic carbon content based on the signature of radioactive isotope Carbon 14 (C-14): since the half-life of radioactive C-14 is around 5730 years, the petrochemical feedstocks formed over millions of years will have no C-14 signature. The quantity of bio-based carbon content in a test material can be readily determined by combusting it and analyzing the CO2 gas emitted to provide a measure of its C14/C-12 content ratio relative to the modern carbon-based oxalic acid radiocarbon standard reference material (SRM) 4990c, referred to as HOxII by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). This methodology to determine bio-based carbon content has an accuracy of 3% and has been codied into a standard in the USA (ASTM, 2010). LCA studies do not usually distinguish between the process carbon footprint and the material carbon footprint. The rationale for differentiating the material carbon footprint from the process carbon footprint is to clearly articulate and communicate the origin of the carbon emissions related to bio-based products. It also clearly shows the process carbon footprint implications in comparison to current processes and the possible need to reduce it. The differentiation shows where further improvement is required, while presentation of the combined value can hinder innovation, especially if the total carbon footprint of the bio-based product is larger compared to the petrochemical product. Given the early
development stage of the bio-based materials, it would be inadequate according to Narayan (2011) to focus only on the combined carbon footprint. 2.8. Discussion and recommendations on the accounting of biogenic carbon storage Each method discussed above has strengths and weaknesses; any choice regarding the accounting of biogenic carbon storage reects to a certain extent subjective value judgment. Among the approaches described, only ADEME (BIS, 2009; Section 2.1) does not consider biogenic carbon storage. This makes the approach simple but it may be criticized for neglecting the delayed radiative forcing that results from the temporary storage of carbon. The European Commissions Lead Market Initiative (EC, 2009a; Section 2.2) and the GHG Protocol Initiative (GHGP, 2011; Section 2.3) propose simple methods to account for biogenic carbon storage but do not consider the time period of carbon storage in bio-based materials. ISO 14067 (Section 2.4) provides the option of incorporating time. PAS 2050 (Section 2.6) provides a similar approach to ISO 14067. However, the optional method proposed by PAS 2050 for taking into account the time dimension of carbon storage may be criticized. In particular, there are concerns about the validity of using a weighting factor of 0.76 for emissions released between the 2nd and the 25th year after manufacture of a product while using a different weighting factor for all other time periods of carbon storage. Finally, the ILCD Handbook (EC, 2010a; Section 2.5) takes into account the lifespan of materials and gives credit to biogenic carbon storage over a 100 year time period for the cradle-to-grave system. To evaluate these approaches, the rst question is whether or not to account for bio-based carbon storage. This question is only controversial for the system cradle-to-factory gate because the nal application and the type of disposal are unknown and therefore the ultimate fate of the biogenic carbon is unclear. Ideally, the method chosen for the system cradle-to-factory gate should result in the same ranking of materials as the outcome for the system cradle-to-grave. To obtain deeper insight, we discuss the carbon emissions of three hypothetical cases, i.e., a bio-based material with carbon storage (abbreviated as S), the same bio-based material without carbon storage (abbreviated as N), and their petrochemical counterpart (abbreviated as P). We distinguish the system boundaries cradle-to-factory gate (abbreviated as 1) and cradle-to-grave with three alternative types of waste management, i.e., incineration (abbreviated as 2), landlling with degradation of the bio-based product (3a) and landlling without degradation (3b).These cases cover the full spectrum ranging from complete carbon storage to complete carbon release. The combination of the product systems with the system boundaries (including waste management options) leads to a total of twelve cases (abbreviated as 1N, 1S etc., see Fig. 2). For the comparison we choose as starting point a material that can either be produced from bio-based or from petrochemical feedstock, e.g., polyethylene. The use phase is uniformly excluded since we disregard the time period of carbon storage. Fig. 2 (top part) shows a stylized comparison for the fully bio-based material with high process energy requirements in comparison with its petrochemical counterpart. Without accounting for carbon storage, the GHG emissions of the bio-based material for the system cradle-to-factory gate are larger than those of the petrochemical product (1N > 1P); only if biogenic carbon storage in the material is deducted, the bio-based material shows lower GHG emissions than its petrochemical counterpart (1S < 1P). The chosen case is hence the most critical one because the treatment of carbon storage is decisive for the overall conclusions. Using this case, we aim to answer the question whether the cradle-to-factory gate

Fig. 2. Stylized comparison of greenhouse gas emissions for a fully bio-based material (rst and second column from left) with its fully petrochemical counterpart for the systems cradle-to-factory gate (top, No. 1) and cradle-to-grave.
results with or without carbon storage reect the results for the cradle-to-grave system more accurately. To answer this question, we discuss three systems (Fig. 2): Cradle-to-grave results with incineration (System 2, see middle part of Fig. 2) are determined by adding the carbon equivalents of the embodied fossil carbon (i.e., the difference between case 1N and 1S) to the cradle-to-factory gate results: (i) for the bio-based material with carbon storage (hence resulting in case 2S) and (ii) for the petrochemical material (hence resulting in case 2P). The bio-based materials (identical results for 2N and 2S for this case) then show lower emissions than the petrochemical material (2P). The result for case 2N (cradle-to-grave, no biogenic carbon storage) is identical with the case 1N (cradleto-factory gate, no biogenic carbon storage) because only the
fossil carbon emissions are accounted for up to the factory gate and because waste incineration does not add any (net) carbon emissions for the fully bio-based material. The conclusion for this case is that the bio-based material (2N and 2S) shows lower GHG emissions than the petrochemical material (2P) regardless of whether carbon storage is considered or not; this system is hence insensitive to the treatment of carbon storage. Cradle-to-grave results with landlling and permanent carbon storage (System 3a, see lower part of Fig. 2) can be approximated by cradle-to-factory gate data (System 1) because emissions related to transportation to the landll are typically negligible. Zero carbon oxidation implies that the carbon embodied in the material remains stored in its original state forever. This assumption must be equally applied for the embodied carbon of fossil and of biogenic origin. This means that, for this system boundary,

carbon storage is the adequate approach for the bio-based material (i.e., case 1S should be chosen), while case 1N would lead to a false conclusion. This system is hence highly sensitive to the approach, clearly calling for accounting of biogenic carbon storage. Cradle-to-grave results with landlling and complete carbon oxidation (System 3b) are comparable to cradle-to-grave results with incineration (System 2). Also compositing or digestion with full oxidation of biogenic carbon would fall under this category. As discussed above for incineration, the results for the bio-based material are identical (2N = 2S) regardless of whether carbon storage is considered or not. To summarize, the results are insensitive to the accounting of biogenic carbon storage for the Systems 2 and 3b where the biobased material is found to be favorable over the petrochemical material. For System 3a, accounting for biogenic carbon storage is a necessity because otherwise the assumption of no oxidation would be violated. The results from the three systems, which cover the full spectrum of end-of-life treatment (2, 3a and 3b), hence support the accounting of biogenic carbon storage while leading to the conclusion that the bio-based material results in lower GHG emissions than the petrochemical material. We now revert to System 1 (cradle-to-factory gate), where the inclusion or exclusion of biogenic carbon storage decides whether the bio-based material incurs higher or lower carbon emissions as compared to the petrochemical material. In order to ensure that the ranking determined for the system cradle-to-factory gate coincides with the cradle-tograve system, it is necessary to account for biogenic carbon storage in any cradle-to-factory gate assessment of bio-based materials. Wherever possible, the cradle-to-grave system should be studied and the analysis should not be limited to the system cradle-to-factory gate. However, a pragmatic solution is required for polymers and chemical intermediates because it is mostly not possible to foresee the application (or the portfolio of all applications) which may also change over time. Most of the approaches discussed above in Sections 2.12.7 coincide in deducting biogenic carbon storage. While this leads to lower carbon emission values compared to incineration (size of bars in System 1 as opposed to System 2 in Fig. 2), it is essential to realize that the difference in carbon emissions between the petrochemical and the bio-based product, expressed in kg CO2 eq. per kg, is identical in the two systems.2 As explained above, the reasoning is based on a chemically identical material, produced from bio-based as opposed to petrochemical feedstock. This choice was made for convenience, in order to avoid complicating the comparison by differences in embodied carbon. However, the argumentation is equally valid also when non-identical organic materials are compared. When comparing bio-based materials with petrochemical materials the reasoning above is valid because both materials contain embodied carbon that is released in the case of carbon oxidation (symmetry). While this type of comparison is most common, bio-based materials may also be compared to inorganic materials, e.g., glass or cement. In this case, the assumed bio-based carbon storage leads to a bias in favor of the bio-based material (asymmetry) because it is quite likely that the bio-based carbon will be released at one stage while no carbon is released due to oxidation of the inorganic materials. When comparing bio-based materials to inorganic materials the LCA should therefore be extended to a cradle-to-grave system that includes the use phase and end-of-life waste management.
With the exception of the latter case, we advocate the methodology proposed by the European Commissions Lead Market Initiative (EC, 2009a; see Section 2.2) if the carbon footprint of both intermediate and nal bio-based materials is assessed on a cradleto-factory gate basis. When performing an LCA for the system cradle-to-grave, we recommend using the method proposed by the ILCD Handbook (EC, 2010a) that assumes that biogenic carbon storage temporarily decreases the carbon content of the atmosphere. The results from the cradle-to-factory gate analysis are then combined with the assessment of the use phase thereby accounting for biogenic carbon storage and nally with end-of-life treatment. Moreover, we strongly endorse reporting separately (as a memo item) biogenic carbon storage next to the energy and process related emissions of fossil carbon. This ensures transparency and it provides guidance where further process improvements can be made, as suggested by Narayan (Section 2.7). The recommendations above reect the latest stakeholder and expert discussions. We nalize this section with an aspect which has not been addressed in the context of bio-based materials. Biogenic carbon storage in materials may only be a suitable strategy to mitigate climate change if carbon remains stored over long time periods and moreover if the stored carbon is emitted at times when anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are lower than today (see also Brando and Levasseur, 2011). However, the IPCC (2001) has projected that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will be higher in the next 50100 years. Under such a scenario, the release of previously stored biobased carbon may have a greater climate impact in the future than it would have today. In order to establish whether this is the case the contribution of bio-based materials to deceleration (in the short term) and acceleration (in the longer term) of CO2 concentrations should be known. This would require a good understanding of the future market volumes, the use-phase applications and the waste management systems. It would, moreover, be necessary to have solid insight into the impacts of the concentration gradient over time (e.g., 10 ppm in 2 versus 3 years) and at different starting levels (e.g., 10 ppm increase starting from 400 ppm versus 500 ppm). Further research would be required to establish these relationships and to combine them with strategies for favorable timing of emissions released from stored bio-based carbon. While most of the approaches discussed above advocate the storage of biogenic carbon for bio-based products, there is still no consensus for other products or systems on how to account for biogenic carbon storage despite considerable efforts to develop robust methodologies (Brando and Levasseur, 2011). In any case, the climate effects of biogenic carbon storage in materials will remain negligible in the short and mid-term due to the small quantities of bio-based materials (e.g., bio-based plastics) produced. However, aspects of carbon storage should be considered in more detail once the commercialization of bio-based materials in bulk quantities (tens of millions of tons) is foreseeable.
3. Land use Land is required for the production of terrestrial biomass for biofuels and bio-based materials as well as for the production of food and feed. Land use and changes in land use can lead to unintended environmental impacts, such as biogenic carbon emissions, carbon loss from soils, soil erosion, nutrient depletion, water consumption, and loss of biodiversity. This section provides an overview of the prominent land use impacts. We rst focus in more general terms on the accounting of direct and indirect land use change and land use efciency (Section 3.1). Afterward, we specically address carbon loss from soils and standing biomass (Section 3.2) and the
2 In contrast, the relative savings in % differ in the two systems (compare Fig. 2); this should be considered when drawing conclusions.

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the calculation method for the indicator land use efciency. Data on PLA from Bos et al. (2012); data on PET from Chen and Patel (2012).
assessment of impacts such as general soil degradation, water use, and biodiversity that is currently still in an early stage (Section 3.3). 3.1. Land use change and efciency In LCA, Direct Land Use Change (DLUC) and Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) are typically differentiated. DLUC is the intentional transition from the current use of land (e.g., forest) to the cultivation of biomass as feedstock for bio-based materials (or for food, feed or bioenergy). The environmental impacts can be calculated by applying the methodology presented below in Section 3.2. The impacts of direct land use change must be taken into account in the life cycle assessment of bio-based materials according to the PAS 2050 methodology, ISO 14067, ILCD, the European Commissions Lead Market Initiative (EC, 2009a) and the GHG Protocol Initiative (GHGP, 2011). ILUC, by contrast, is the unintentional land use change that occurs outside the bio-based materials feedstock production area, but that is induced by producing biomass feedstock. ILUC occurs when land being used for food and feed production becomes rededicated and used for biomass production for material purposes (likewise for bioenergy). This, in turn, can lead to a situation where additional land is being taken into agricultural production elsewhere for food and feed production. Other secondary effects include the intensication of existing agriculture or a reduction in actual food production (Searchinger et al., 2008; Tipper et al., 2009; Hertel et al., 2010). Several approaches have been developed to quantify LUC-induced GHG emissions;3 those based on marketequilibrium models can capture complex market feedbacks and endogenize agricultural intensication. However, the main limitation of such models is that large uncertainties exist primarily in the underlying data (e.g., yields on newly converted land, rate of agricultural intensication, and price-yield elasticity) as well as projections on the location and type of land use changes, resulting production and trade patterns of biomass, price effects and relatedprice elasticity, and the accounting for co-products (Wicke et al., 2012; IEA, 2009; van Dam et al., 2010; Plevin et al., 2010). In addition to the uncertainties of the market-equilibrium modeling approaches, the concept of ILUC is being challenged by the possibility of double counting of emissions. That is, emissions from
ILUC caused by bio-based materials represent at the same time the emissions from DLUC of the agricultural crop that has been displaced. Adding up the emissions of the bio-based materials and the displaced crop hence leads to double counting, i.e., the same emissions are counted twice and therefore do not add up to the actual total impact (IEA, 2009). Double counting commonly occurs in LCA whenever system expansion is applied (in the context of consequential analysis and allocation). Double counting also occurs when the impacts of intermediate and nal products are quantied. In such cases, the impacts are counted once in the life-cycle assessment of the intermediate product and once again in the assessment of the down-stream nal product. Double counting is thus not an argument to dismiss the inclusion of ILUC emissions in the life-cycle assessment of bio-based materials. Another approach for accounting for land use changes is to quantify land use efciency. Land use efciency for bio-based products is typically calculated by determining the ratio of (i) the difference between the environmental impacts of the production of a petrochemical material and its bio-based counterpart and (ii) the difference between land used for the production of the bio-based material and its respective petrochemical counterpart (here at the example of Non-Renewable Energy Use, NREU; see Fig. 3 for illustrated example): Land Use Efciency = (NREUPCHEM NREUBIO-BASED ) (LANDBIO-BASED LANDPCHEM ) (4)
3 Market equilibrium models cannot distinguish between direct and indirect LUC but instead present total induced LUC.
Land use efciency is a measure of the avoided environmental impact per unit of land use or vice versa as the ratio of accepted additional environmental impact per unit of avoided land use. Applying this concept, several authors (e.g., Dornburg et al., 2004; Weiss et al., 2007; Wrdinger et al., 2002; Bos et al., 2012) have looked at energy savings and GHG emission reductions for biobased polymers and bioenergy on a per hectare basis. So far, the concept of land use efciency has typically been applied to direct land use, but in theory it is also possible to include the impacts of indirect land use change (ILUC). We recommend including the GHG emissions of indirect land use change in a sensitivity analysis of the results of life cycle assessments, thereby working with the latest and the most credible ILUC factors; the impacts of direct land use change should in any case be included in any LCA of bio-based materials. The concept of land use efciency can offer valuable additional insight into resource efciency (see for example Bos et al., 2012) and is therefore also recommended for LCA studies on bio-based

P. Pawelzik et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228
Bio-based carbon returned to air 0.7 t CO2 Fossil carbon y t CO2 Main product: 1 t Dissolving pulp (with 1.1 t embodied CO2) Cradle-to-factory gate CO2 emied from acec acid producon, 0.5 t CO2
219
Biomass 2.0 t CO2 from air
Dissolving pulp plant
Co-product: 0.2 t acec acid
System expansion 0.2 t petrochemical acec acid
Petrochemical acec acid producon
Fossil raw materials
System expansion (here: modelled as credit; see text)
Fig. 4. Allocation by system expansion for the production of dissolving pulp with acetic acid as co-product (graph depicts approach 1, see text; data are ctitious and have been chosen such that they underpin the methodological discussion).
materials. The land-use efciency calculated for bio-based materials depends on the conventional material chosen as reference (see Appendix A). Depending on the reference material, also the ranking among a given set of bio-based materials regarding their land-use efciency can change. It is therefore important to note that any conclusion regarding the land-use efciency of bio-based materials is case-specic, i.e., that a suitable conventional material is chosen as reference when assessing a bio-based material. Special attention is therefore required when applying the concept of land use efciency. 3.2. Carbon stocks in soil and standing biomass Biomass and soils act as both sinks and sources of atmospheric carbon. Various approaches have been developed to calculate the changes in carbon stocks related to the use of biomass. The IPCC (2006) as well as EC (2009b, 2010b) have published guidelines for calculating the carbon stocks for agriculture, forestry, and other land use. The IPCC (2006) guidelines allow calculating changes in the stock of ve carbon pools: Above ground biomass, which contains all biomass of living vegetation. Below ground biomass, which contains all biomass of living roots above 2 mm in diameter Dead wood, which contains non-living biomass not included in litter, standing or lying on ground, or in soil. Litter, which contains non-living biomass of size less than dead wood and greater than soil organic matter. Soil, which contains living and dead ne roots and dead organic matter that is less than 2 mm in diameter; this fth pool includes the soil organic carbon (SOC). IPCC (2003) proposes different tiers for calculating changes in the carbon stock within each carbon pool. The method provides specic equations for calculating biomass loss (e.g., due to removal, fuel wood collection, disturbance, mortality, slash), biomass increase (e.g., due to growth), carbon loss from drained organic soils, and emissions from re. For tier 1, default data are given; however, in most cases additional detailed data are needed. Such data are site-specic and often unavailable when preparing an LCA study for a specic bio-based material. The guidelines proposed by EC (2009b) are based on the IPCC (2003) guidelines mentioned above. The main difference between the two methods is that EC (2009b) proposes a simplied method for estimating the combined carbon stock composed of the rst four
carbon pools (which represent the total of above and below ground biomass carbon). For calculating carbon change in the fth carbon pool (soil organic carbon) the EC (2009a) adopts the IPCC (2003) method. In spite of its simplicity, the method proposed by the EC (2009b, 2010a,b) allows calculating changes in total carbon stocks for a set of soil types, land cover (e.g., crop types or natural ecosystems), climate conditions for different land use, and management practices. Default values are used for above and below ground vegetation carbon stock for calculating the carbon stock on a per-unit area associated with reference land use (CSR ) and actual land use (CSA ). Reference land use is dened as land use in January 2008 or 20 years before the raw material was harvested, whichever is the later state. In case the carbon stock accumulates for more than one year, the value representing the actual land use is the estimated carbon stock per area after 20 years or when the crop reaches maturity, whichever is earlier. For calculating carbon stock (CS) the general equation used is CSi = (CVEG,i + SOCi ) Ai (5)
where i denotes either reference land use (i = R) or actual land use (i = A), CVEG is above and below ground vegetation carbon stock, SOC is soil organic carbon (as calculated by Eq. (6), see below), A is land area in hectares. Default values for CVEG for different vegetation types, are given in Tables 918 in EC (2010b). As mentioned above, IPCC (2003) and EC (2009b) use the same method to calculate soil organic carbon, namely: SOC = SOCNAT FLU FMG FI (6)
where SOCNAT is the carbon stock of the land in its natural state (Table 3.3.3 in IPCC, 2003)4 and the other multipliers are so-called stock change factors (Table 3.3.4 in IPCC, 2003), namely: Base Factor (FLU ): associated with the conversion of land in its natural state to agricultural land; only a limited number of different types of agricultural land are distinguished (e.g., long-term cultivated in either temperate and/or tropical regions in either dry and/or wet climate) Tillage Factor (FMG ): offering a distinction between full till, reduced till, or no-till management
4 In the IPCC methodology this parameter is referred to as SOCREF , i.e. the carbon stock of the reference. We avoid the term reference here since it has already been used in order to describe the carbon stock at the beginning of the greenhouse gas inventory period, which was dened above as reference land use (CSR ).

Input Factor (FI ): characterizes the intensity of nutrient input by distinguishing between low, medium, and high (with or without manure) inputs. This methodology allows a rough rst-order approximation of the change in soil organic carbon. If the land remains cropland but the type of crop is changed, then the values for the SOCNAT and the FLU factors remain the same, but the tillage (FMG ) and input factor (FI ) may change. If a (managed) forest is converted to cropland then the natural land is the same (natural forest) for both land types; therefore the value for SOCNAT is identical, only the stock change factors (FLU , FMG , FI ) would change (for land in its natural state of forest or native grassland, the values for the stock change factors are 1). The methods discussed are broadly accepted for preparing national greenhouse gas inventories. Both the methods, IPCC (2003) and EC (2009b), are subject to uncertainty. In the case of soil organic carbon, uncertainty is caused by the multiplicity of factors that inuence the accumulation of carbon in the soil such as temperature, precipitation, pH value, orographic conditions (Murphy et al., 2010; Bot and Benites, 2005; Parliament of Victoria, 2010) as well as human activity (Garca-Oliva and Masera, 2004). The potential role of soil organic carbon in greenhouse gas abatement strategies is controversial. Lal (2004) proposes to dramatically increase the amount of carbon sequestered in soil. Converting from tillage to no-till practices has substantially increased soil carbon in Canadas agricultural soils (Environment Canada, 2011). However, Schlesinger and Lichter (2001) argue that increasing the estimates for carbon sequestration in soils is not realistic in the case of forest soils. Schlesinger and Lichter (2001) found that in a forest exposed to high levels of atmospheric CO2 , there is little accumulation of carbon in the humic soil layer where carbon is stored permanently. Some attempts have been made to incorporate SOC data for specic crops into an LCA (Brando et al., 2011). However, these are limited in scope (they do not look at all material ows associated with calculating SOC) and they are specic to a few crops. Mil i Canals et al. (2007) propose to quantify soil organic matter (SOM) by adding up the effects of cultivation (they refer to this phase as occupation) and of a subsequent natural recovery process (which they call relaxation). The ILCD Handbook (EC, 2011) recommends this approach for application with caution (Level III recommendation). Data on soil organic carbon are required as input to the approach. Mil i Canals et al. (2007) report three possible data sources, i.e., direct measurements, model calculations or literature values. In order to exemplify their approach and demonstrate the impact of different soil management options, they apply the RothC model for soil organic carbon that was developed by Coleman and Jenkinson (1996). The lack of tabled data and the typically large data requirements for soil models limit the applicability of Mil i Canals approach for LCA practitioners. This is also the case for soil models such as DayCent (Del Grosso et al., 2009), DNDC (Smith et al., 2008) and NCGAVS (McConkey et al., 2008). These models describe soil carbon as a function of the type of cultivation and local biotic and abiotic factors (e.g., air temperature, precipitation, soil type, vegetation, crop specic data, and land use data). These models are highly complex and require detailed, hard to acquire data and calibration to provide accurate estimates (Grace et al., 2006). The inherent complexity of soil science, the high degree of site variability and the challenges of linking biomass feedstock supply to specic soils collectively explain why the effects of biomass cultivation on the soil carbon stock have largely been ignored in LCA studies of bio-based materials (Larson, 2006). It also explains why many of the proposed carbon accounting methods (BIS, PAS 2050, ILCD, and The European Commissions Lead Market
Initiative) do not include emissions and storage arising from changes in soil carbon stocks. We conclude here that changes in soil carbon stocks depend on a variety of interrelated factors that are challenging to quantify in detail, making it difcult to properly account for these in the environmental assessments of bio-based materials. In the absence of site specic information, we recommend using the methodology proposed by EC (2009b, 2010b) to quantify effects of changes in soil carbon due to management practice or land use change. 3.3. Early-stage impact assessment methods for bio-based materials After having discussed carbon stocks and the potential carbon losses from soils and standing biomass, we now proceed to challenges in the assessment of additional environmental impacts, largely related to land use. Multiple endpoint assessment methods are available (Frischknecht et al., 2007), including CML 2001 (Guine, 2001), TRACI (Bare et al., 2002) and ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009). However, these methods have not been specically developed for assessing the complete range of land-use impacts of bio-based materials and typically only cover impact categories for which the methodology is in a rather mature stage. In this section we will present and discuss approaches to assess land-use impacts of bio-based materials that are still in a rather early stage of development, namely water use, soil degradation and impacts on biodiversity. These impact categories are often excluded from the life cycle impact assessment of bio-based materials due to persisting methodological problems and limited data availability. 3.3.1. Water use Water use related to bio-based materials, specically for biomass cultivation but also to a lesser extent for process industries, is a potential concern. With increased agricultural biomass production, the amount of water use is likely to rise (Gosling, 2005; Dornburg et al., 2010; Dalla Marta et al., 2011). The additional water demand could substantially increase the overall environmental impact of bio-based materials, specically in areas that are already water stressed (Berndes, 2002). Various methods have been developed for assessing water usage at different scales. The Water Footprint (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2006) is used to calculate the total yearly freshwater consumption needed by a nations population to supply goods and services. The Water Footprint is calculated as the total of green water (rainfall), blue water (fresh water stored in lakes, rivers, and aquifers) and gray water (water needed to dilute aquatic pollutants). The method has been adopted to assess the water use of, e.g., bioenergy crops (GerbensLeenes et al., 2009). Owens (2002) accounts for the impacts of water quality and quantity by distinguishing the following indicators: in-stream water use, off-stream water withdrawal, surface water, groundwater, water release or returned, water use, water consumption or consumptive use and water depletion. Commonly applied LCA methods (e.g., CML 2001; Eco-indicator 99; IMPACT 2002+; ReCiPe 2008) limit the assessment to impacts on water quality by quantifying, e.g., ecotoxicity, eutrophication, and acidication (Koehler, 2008). The ILCD method (EC, 2010a; see Section 2.5) distinguishes the different sources of water (surface freshwater, renewable groundwater, fossil/deep groundwater, sea water), emissions (liquid water loss, vapor loss), and differentiates between internally recycled water (e.g., cooling water) and the actual net extraction of water from the environment (EC, 2010a). The methods discussed so far treat water as an abiotic resource, either quantifying the volume of water used or its contamination, without taking into account the impacts of water use and pollution on the environment and human health. Mil i Canals et al.

(2009) proposed a methodology to assess the impacts caused by the evaporative use of freshwater. The authors identied three impact pathways: (i) change in freshwater availability affecting human health and ecosystem quality, (ii) depletion of groundwater from extraction, and (iii) land use affecting the water cycle. A set of equations are provided for characterization factors to quantify impacts on freshwater depletion and ecosystems. Bayart et al. (2010) proposed a conceptual framework to assess the degradative and consumptive use of water from lakes, rivers, and aquifers. Three impact pathways are proposed, including the availability of freshwater for contemporary human activities, existing ecosystems, and future generations. These pathways are linked to endpoint indicators such as human health, biodiversity, biotic productivity, and abiotic resources. Pster et al. (2009) propose to assess the impacts from freshwater consumption by considering the cause and effect relationship between water consumption and impacts to human health, ecosystem quality, and damage of resources. Water consumption is dened similarly to Owens (2002) as freshwater withdrawals (offstream use) which includes evaporative losses (e.g., from reservoirs, and irrigation), transfers to other watersheds, and water incorporated into products. The method applies a spatially differentiated water stress index (WSI) as a weighting factor, thereby relating freshwater use to water availability. The index indirectly addresses water quality because it accounts for used water other than consumed water and for the fact that polluted water deprives others of usable freshwater. The WSI is derived by determining the weighted average (to account for variations in annual and monthly precipitation) of the ratio of total annual freshwater withdrawals to hydrological availability. The development of the impact factors (human health, ecosystem quality, and damage to resources) is primarily based on the Eco-Indicator 99 methodology. To calculate the damage to human health, two related water impact factors are determined, i.e., lack of freshwater for hygiene and ingestion, resulting in the spread of communicable diseases and water shortages for irrigation, resulting in malnutrition. Causeeffect relationships from water consumption and lack of water for hygiene and ingestion cannot generally be derived, as these problems are mainly related to infrastructure and water treatment options. Therefore, the method only considers the pathway of lack of water for agriculture, based on socioeconomic parameters for the region covered in the analysis and the WSI. To calculate ecosystem health, freshwater consumption is multiplied by ecosystem damage in land use equivalents (ratio of net primary production that is limited by water availability over the theoretical area-time equivalent that would be needed to recover the amount of consumed water by natural precipitation). To calculate damage to resources, the energy required for seawater desalination (backup technology) is multiplied by the fraction of non-renewable freshwater consumption (that contributes to depletion) and consumptive water use. Pster et al. (2009) thereby propose a fully functional framework. The choices made to model the impacts at the endpoint level can be criticized for not being sufciently comprehensive, scientifically proven and accepted. In comparison, the approach proposed by Pster et al. (2009) for midpoint assessment is clearly more robust and, compared to other approaches, it has the advantage of providing the necessary background data.5 We therefore favor the midpoint method developed by Pster et al. (2009) as a rst order approximation of the impacts of water use. This recommendation is in line with the conclusions of the ILCD Handbook (EC, 2011) for
midpoint assessments, where no methods are recommended for assessing the impacts of water consumption at endpoint level. 3.3.2. Soil degradation Soil degradation comprises any undesirable change in soil characteristics including the loss of soil productivity caused by wind and water erosion, chemical degradation (loss of nutrients, salinization, acidication, or contamination), and physical degradation (compaction, crusting, sealing, or waterlogging). Among these causes, erosion by water (affecting approx. 110 million ha) and erosion by wind (affecting approx. 550 million ha) are most important (Oldeman, 1992). We therefore discuss primarily soil erosion in this section (partly discussed also in EC, 2011) and only briey address other forms of soil degradation. All types of soil degradation decrease the productivity of land, resulting in higher requirements of, e.g., fertilizer inputs, which in turn can enhance acidication and aquatic eutrophication. The currently used LCI methodologies (e.g., CML 2001; Eco-indicator 99; IMPACT 2002+; ReCiPe 2008; Frischknecht et al., 2007) do not incorporate soil erosion. Based on water erosion only, Nnez et al. (2010) have developed a soil erosion indicator that can be applied in life cycle assessments. The indicator is composed of three intensity categories based on the universal soil loss equation.6 Saad et al. (2011) developed the Erosion Regulation Potential (ERP) to quantify the ability of ecosystems to stabilize soil and to prevent sediment accumulation downstream, which is calculated also by using the universal soil loss equation. Cowell and Clift (2000) do not address soil erosion directly but propose to assess soil quantity and quality by using the mass of soil, mass of nutrients, weeds and weed seeds, pathogens, soil pH, salts, organic matter, and soil texture and structure as indicators. Despite these attempts, a broadly accepted methodology for assessing soil erosion in the life cycle assessment of bio-based materials is still unavailable to date. The prospects of such a methodology may remain limited due to complex interactions of site-specic factors determining soil erosion potentials in the cultivation of biomass. As explained by EC (2011), a suitable method would need to be developed to quantify enhanced (or reduced) erosion relative to natural erosion as a consequence of human activity. EC (2011) briey discusses also other forms of soil degradation, namely salination and dessication. Both parameters are related to water use and land use, and could be addressed by future research. 3.3.3. Biodiversity Biodiversity can be dened as the variety of life that encompasses the diversity of ecosystems and living organisms including animals, plants, their genes and habitats (IUCN, 2012). The loss of biodiversity is widely acknowledged as a key challenge of sustainable development (Rockstrm et al., 2009). The potentially large increase in biomass cultivation for food, ber, bioenergy and biobased materials entails the risk of accelerated biodiversity loss (Koh, 2007; Koh and Ghazoul, 2008). According to MEA (2009) terrestrial and aquatic habitat change, invasive species, overexploitation of wild populations, pollution, and climate change are the most important causes for biodiversity loss. Among the more widely established life cycle impact assessment methods, biodiversity loss caused by the following stressors is taken into account: ecotoxicity, acidication, eutrophication, climate change, ionizing radiation, and land use. These so-called end-point methods7 were evaluated in the ILCD Handbook (EC,
See the footnote in Section 3.3.3 for an explanation of the principles of midpoint assessment methods and endpoint assessment methods.
The universal soil loss equation can be found in Roose (1976). The rst four of these six environmental impact categories are typically included in full-edged LCA studies, however by means of the respective midpoint assessment methods. These methods provide indicators for comparison of emissions and
7

2011) according to seven criteria, among them completeness of scope, scientic robustness & certainty and applicability. EC (2011) concluded that none of the endpoint methods describing the impact on biodiversity can be recommended because they are too immature or have not been sufciently validated. However, some proxies for assessing the loss of biodiversity are recommended as interim solutions: Ecotoxicity: Of all methods to quantify ecotoxicity at midpoint and endpoint level (7 and 3 methods, respectively), USEtox is the midpoint method preferred by the EC (2011) because it is considered scientically sound (except for metals; Rosenbaum et al., 2008). We therefore propose to apply USEtox as rst indication of the impacts on biodiversity, combined with the caveat that this method excludes marine and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The scientic rigor of the endpoint methods ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) and Impact 2000+ (Jolliet et al., 2003) is limited but they have the advantage that they can be applied relatively easily due to the availability of extensive databases (with >2000 and >400 compounds, respectively; EC, 2011). We therefore recommend that all three methods (USEtox, ReCiPe/Endpoint and Impact 2000+/Endpoint) should be applied and critically discussed, if time allows. Acidication: The impact of acidication on biodiversity depends on the types of species and the buffer capacity of the soil. It is therefore important to conduct spatially-specic analyses. Among all endpoint methods studied by EC (2011), the method developed by Van Zelm et al. (2007), as implemented in ReCiPe, is found to be most convincing. This method is based on 240 plant species and has been extensively reviewed. While not being fully endorsed, EC (2011) recommends it as interim solution. The main weaknesses of ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) are that it is based exclusively on forest ecosystems, that it is limited to Europe, and that it focuses on terrestrial acidication while aquatic acidication (both freshwater and marine) is excluded. Eutrophication: EC (2011) recommends no endpoint method for terrestrial, aquatic, and marine eutrophication. ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) can serve as interim endpoint method for aquatic eutrophication (EC, 2011). For terrestrial eutrophication, only the midpoint method proposed by Seppl et al. (2006) and Posch et al. (2008) is endorsed; however, EC (2011) considers the models and data to be difcult to be understood without expert knowledge. No midpoint method is recommended for marine eutrophication. For aquatic eutrophication, the spatial variation within Europe and the USA was found to be less than one order of magnitude (EC, 2011). This may be seen as justication for applying the method as a rst proxy also to other world regions. Climate change: For the three endpoints methods (EPS2000, Ecoindicator 99, and LIME), EC (2011) identied substantial differences in key model parameters determining the impacts of climate change on biodiversity; examples are the speed of species migration and species adaptation. As a consequence, the methods differ in the magnitude of the identied impact (see, e.g., De Schryver and Goedkoop, 2009). EC (2011) recommends the ReCiPe endpoint method as interim solution because it is the scientically most robust method. Ionizing radiation: Regarding the impact of ionizing radiation on ecosystems, EC (2011) assessed only the method developed
by Garnier-Laplace et al. (2008, 2009); it considers exclusively impacts in the freshwater environments, while the impacts in the marine and terrestrial environments are excluded. The method is evaluated as scientically sound and is therefore proposed as interim midpoint method (EC, 2011). There is so far no endpoint method. Land use: Nearly all endpoint characterization factors represent the loss of biodiversity. The ReCiPe method is recommended as interim solution (EC, 2011). The method distinguishes 12 different land-use types, and three levels of land use intensity. It is based on the most recent British data and inventory data by Kllner (2001). Curran et al. (2011) stress that existing endpoint indicators for biodiversity loss are decient in data availability and problematic with respect to their underlying concepts. Conceptual limitations include the assumption that impacts at different scales (e.g., regional versus global) can be directly compared and aggregated, the assumption of a (mostly) linear relation between area and damage, and the disregard of invasive species and the overexploitation of habitats as drivers of biodiversity loss. While these aspects need to be addressed by future research, it can be concluded that the ReCiPe method (Goedkoop et al., 2009) currently captures best the measurable impacts on biodiversity, with the following exceptions (based on ILCD): (i) For ecotoxicity, the additional use of USEtox (midpoint level; Rosenbaum et al., 2008) and of the endpoint method of Impact 2000+ (Jolliet et al., 2003) are recommended next to ReCiPe (endpoint). (ii) For eutrophication, the assessment method by Seppl et al. (2006) and Posch et al. (2008) is recommended. 4. Allocation In the LCA of bio-based materials, the allocation dilemma occurs when the production process generates multiple products, of which only one or a few are relevant for the product scenario analyzed. This is the case for biorenery congurations that are designed to maximize the value of a given feedstock by producing a number of marketable bio-based products. Here the inputs to and the environmental impacts from the production process need to be allocated across the various products. This section addresses allocation rst in general before proceeding to the specic challenges related to bio-based materials. ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) recommends avoiding allocation wherever possible through the expansion of the product system, i.e., through the inclusion of a related product systems or by dividing the unit process into two or more sub-processes. Both procedures are subject to shortcomings: system expansion may fail to quantify the environmental impacts of a specic product with sufcient accuracy (the uncertainties of the added system can be overriding), while subdivision of the unit process may only shift the problem of partitioning to smaller subsystems (which can, however, be expected to improve accuracy compared to partitioning of the larger system). For partitioning, the most common methods are allocation based on physical parameters such as mass or area, monetary value, or energy content (Mortimer et al., 2007). The choice regarding either of these parameters may depend on the specic goals of an LCA and on the characteristics of the product system studied. Partitioning of the environmental impacts based on mass can generally be considered as appropriate when the economic value of the product and co-product is similar. Partitioning based on economic value is generally preferred when there is a substantial
resource consumption at a point of the cause-effect chain, for which the scientic basis is still robust (e.g., global warming potential of individual greenhouse gasses or depletion of abiotic resources). In contrast, endpoint assessment methods are indicators for the ultimate damage (e.g., of ecosystems, human health, resource availability). Endpoint assessment methods are subject to larger uncertainty than midpoint assessment methods.

difference in the price between products and co-products.8 Energy partitioning may be done if the energy content of both product and co-products are critical for the goal of the LCA. When calculating greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels, EC (2009b) recommends, contrary to ISO (2006a), to apply allocation based on energy content of products and co-products. According to the EC (2009b), system expansion (referred to as substitution method) is appropriate only for the purposes of policy analysis, but not for the regulation of individual economic operators. The choice of partitioning based on energy content (caloric value) was made in order to reduce the risk of litigation because system expansion offers a much larger freedom of choice. Similarly, RFA (2011) has also used the energy allocation method as part of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) regulations of the United Kingdom. An overview of allocation choices made in sustainability certication schemes for bioenergy was prepared by van Dam et al. (2010). While in the case of biofuels there is a valid rationale for allocation by energy content (BIS, 2009), using this method is not necessarily reasonable for bio-based materials since these are produced for their use as material and not for their caloric value. For bio-based materials, system expansion is an option when the co-product from the bio-based process can also be produced by means of other processes, typically using petrochemical feedstock (BIS, 2009). For example, acetic acid can be produced by two alternative pathways: (i) the pulping of wood (Shen and Patel, 2010) and (ii) the carbonylation of petrochemical methanol, followed by liquid-phase oxidation of n-butane, naphtha, or acetaldehyde as alternative routes (UEIC, 2007). To account for the co-production of bio-based acetic acid, the system can be expanded by the production of equivalent amounts of petrochemical acetic acid; a variation of the system expansion approach is to provide a credit for the avoided production of petrochemical acetic acid. System expansion is also applicable if combustible co-products are used to generate steam or power, which replace steam or power from fossil sources. In addition to acetic acid, pulping also yields xylose, furfural, and thick liquor. Pulping of wood is the only commercially viable process for making xylose and there is no other production method that generates this product. In such cases, system expansion is irrelevant, and partitioning is the only feasible method of allocation. System expansion would, however, be an option if another industrially produced compound was used for the same purpose, thereby ensuring functional equivalence in spite of the difference in chemical composition. If system expansion is implemented by means of a credit, the impact of the main product is calculated by deducting the credit for the co-product from the impact of the process as a whole. In case the quantity of the main product is small (say, a few drops of oil), the quantity of co-products (e.g., stalks or straw) can be large. If the lowvalue co-product now replaces, e.g., fossil fuels, then the credit for the avoided fossil fuel use can be larger than the direct fossil fuel use of the main process, resulting in negative values for the net fossil fuel use caused by the main product. Such negative results cannot be obtained, however, by partitioning. This difference between system expansion and partitioning is particularly relevant for bio-based materials. In the case of bio-based materials, system expansion based on the fossil fuel derived counterpart requires special attention because the chosen procedure can inuence the accounting of carbon storage in bio-based materials. To exemplify the situation, we assume that system expansion is applied to biomass feedstock and that the co-product is accounted for in the form of a credit for the avoided carbon emissions related to the fossil-based counterpart
Box 2: Allocation by System Expansion: pitfall for carbon calculations performed for bio-based materials If carbon storage (see Fig. 1, right-hand side) is considered and if the production process leads to co-products, then carbon allocation is not a trivial task. In the process of making dissolving pulp for products like viscose, one co-product is acetic acid (see Fig. 4; Shen and Patel, 2010). We apply Eq. (1) from Box 1 (Biofeedstock-storage approach) because this allows us to demonstrate the pitfalls of system expansion. When calculating the carbon emissions associated with the production of dissolving pulp only, we deduct from the total carbon emissions of the multi-product process the impacts of the avoided petrochemical acetic acid production (Fig. 4). If 0.2 metric tons of bio-based acetic acid are produced when making dissolving pulp, the most obvious choice is to deduct the avoided cradleto-factory gate impacts of petrochemical acetic acid. We will call this Approach 1. The carbon emissions of petrochemical acetic acid for the system cradle-to-factory gate have been set in this example at 2.5 t CO2 -equivalents/t acetic acid, which translates into 0.2 2.5 = 0.5 t CO2 -equivalents for the co-produced acetic acid; this value represents the emissions released by the series of processes leading to acetic acid but it excludes carbon from the feedstock which would only be released if acetic acid was oxidized. It is easily overlooked that this approach assigns all the credits of carbon uptake related to photosynthesis (except for the bio-based carbon returned to air, 0.7 t CO2 -equivalents) to the dissolving pulp (this is the pitfall). This can be understood from Fig. 4, where the left horizontal arrow is accompanied with a large credit due to carbon storage, which is nearly completely assigned to dissolving pulp. Since in Approach 1 the co-produced acetic acid is credited with its avoided impact of petrochemical production, it must not be sold as a bio-based product. Following Approach 1, the dissolving pulp company must hence report the cradleto-factory gate carbon emissions of petrochemical acetic acid next to the emissions for dissolving pulp. It would not be valid to additionally claim the benets of carbon storage related to bio-based acetic acid because this would lead to double counting. If the company decides to sell both the dissolving pulp and the acetic acid as bio-based, the calculation must be adapted (Approach 2). In Approach 2, the carbon footprint of dissolving pulp must be higher in order to justify the lower carbon footprint of bio-based acetic acid. One way of doing this is to start from the result of Approach 1 and then adding the fossil carbon content of acetic acid to the original result for dissolving pulp; the related burden is thereby shifted, leading to a product basket that consists of (i) dissolving pulp with a somewhat higher carbon footprint (as compared to Approach 1) and (ii) an acetic acid grade which can be sold as bio-based (no fossil carbon content). Although the allocation of biogenic carbon uptake is a business decision, we recommend here Approach 2 as default because it is closer to (physical) reality by regarding not only viscose but also acetic acid from the dissolving pulp process as bio-based.
(Box 2). However, using the cradle-to-factory gate carbon emissions from the fossil fuel-based counterpart in determining the carbon credit of the main product represents a potential pitfall. It implies that the carbon emissions will not only account for the embodied bio-based carbon of the product itself, but also of the coproduct. This is not usually the intended outcome and should be avoided by adapting the calculation (Box 2).
5. Use of attributional versus consequential LCA

8 Combining the reasoning in the last two sentences, one can argue that economic allocation should always be used.
Over the past few years there has been a controversial discussion about where and when to use attributional LCA (ALCA) versus

consequential LCA (CLCA). The two LCA types are summarized as follows: ALCA, also referred to as cause-oriented, descriptive, or retrospective LCA, accounting LCA, and bookkeeping LCA, analyzes the environmental impacts of a product or service based on the current (or recent) average state of the technology and infrastructure (Ekvall and Tillman, 1997; Guine, 2001; Tillman, 2000; Erlandsson and Almemark, 2009). ALCA uses average data (average across technologies) to quantify environmental impacts at a given point in time (Brander et al., 2009). ALCA determines the impacts that are directly associated with the production, consumption and disposal of products. It is characterized by relatively conned system boundaries and inherently higher certainty than CLCA. CLCA analyzes the environmental impacts based on the consequences that occur as a result of production, use, and disposal of products. Consequential LCA is also referred to as effect oriented, change oriented, or prospective LCA (Ekvall and Tillman, 1997; Guine, 2001; Tillman, 2000). The differences between attributional LCA and consequential LCA may be best explained with the example of a bio-based material with waste biomass being generated in one or several conversion steps. This waste biomass could be combusted for generating power. The attributional LCA assumes that average grid power is replaced, while the consequential LCA would assume the replacement of marginal grid power, i.e., CLCA asks the question which power plants decrease their output as a consequence of the new source of power. Depending on daytime and power generation infrastructure, the source of marginal grid power may change. In the case of biogas (which is typically generated around the clock) the substitution of base-load power may be most plausible, while more storable bio-based energy carriers such as wood pellets from waste products could be used to offset peak demand. The application of CLCA typically implies system expansion to deal with co-product associated changes in production (Weidema, 2003). In general, CLCA is considered to be more suitable for policy makers than ALCA because it provides causal information based on different scenarios of the life cycle of the product (see, e.g., Brander et al., 2009). Key challenges related to the application of CLCA include: CLCA uses marginal data, which are often not available (in contrast to average data used for ALCA). CLCA requires a good understanding of the interdependencies of the background systems (e.g., base load versus peak load for power generation). Since the background systems change over time, CLCA is best combined with scenario analysis (e.g., for future power generation); however this increases the uncertainty of the results (Brander et al., 2009; see also below) especially when considering long time periods and in combination with economic forecasting, e.g., by use of Computable General Equilibrium models, Multi-Market models or Multi-Region Partial Equilibrium Models (Earles and Halog, 2011). CLCA requires the proper denition of system boundaries, i.e., a decision whether the assessment is limited to direct consequences or whether also secondary or higher-order consequences are considered (see discussion on carbon accounting and indirect land use change). For example, the transition to a bio-based economy will require higher yields, which may imply the use of more fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, introduction of genetically modied organisms, expanded irrigation, etc.; increased biodiversity loss, accelerated fertility loss of soils (e.g., due to compaction and salinization) and larger N2 O emissions are
among the possible consequences. One may argue that, for example, the production of bio-based polyethylene (PE) will trigger such a development. Important questions to be answered are which level of pressure will be reached and how much of it can be assigned to bio-based PE (e.g., as opposed to biofuels), which again requires a scenario approach. Comparable questions arise for the avoided conventional processes (e.g., the use of saved petrochemical feedstocks). Scale effects in the production of bio-based materials may lead to higher or lower net environmental impacts, but the precise effects are hardly foreseeable. Moreover, if the bio-based materials studied become cheaper than their conventional counterparts, this could lead to rebound effects (Earles and Halog, 2011). To conclude, it is challenging to prepare an accurate CLCA (Ekvall, 2002). While this can, in principle, be achieved by means of analyzing alternative LCA scenarios (in comparison to the reference), the problem lies in the fact that there are too many possible and plausible development trajectories, especially if long time periods are considered. The body of consequential LCA studies so far therefore only accounts for the (secondary) consequences that are considered most important and most obvious; for biomass use these are indirect land use change (see Section 3.1) and the consequences of the co-production of power and heat. 6. Assessment frameworks for bio-based materials When comparing bio-based materials with their petrochemical counterparts or when comparing different feedstock options for bio-based materials, tradeoffs across the various environmental impacts (at midpoint level) often occur (Weiss et al., 2012). Evaluating these trade-offs requires a robust assessment framework. Several methods have been developed to interpret the results of life cycle assessment studies and provide a way of comparing the various environmental impacts of different products or services. We distinguish here four methods for deriving weighting factors for environmental impacts; these are: (i) science-based assessments of the relative damage caused in the various impact categories (globally or in a region), subsequently translated to a point system or to monetary units, (ii) expert judgment on the relative importance of environmental/health impacts (panel methods), (iii) avoidance costs, i.e., the costs incurred to avoid a given impact, and (iv) distance-to-target methods based on existing policy targets. Option (i) would be the preferred approach due to its scientic rigor but it does not exist in pure form because our understanding of the scientic interrelations is still incomplete. Option (i) therefore often contains some elements of expert judgment. Option (ii) may be applied with a distinction by world views/perspectives (as implemented in the various ReCiPe endpoint methods, i.e., the Hierarchist, Individualist and Egalitarian world view), thereby catering for the incomplete scientic understanding and the ongoing debate. In principle, this is also valid for options (iii) and (iv) but the various perspectives are typically not applied there (e.g., EPS 2000 and ExternE methods). Across the four options, option (ii) offers largest freedom to account for the specic circumstances of a sector, a country and/or other scopes. Option (ii) was implemented in the scheme Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), which is the rst and to our knowledge so far the only comprehensive assessment framework meant for bio-based materials (Lippiatt, 2007). The development of BEES was commissioned by the U.S. government as a tool for selecting building products that are both environmentally friendly and economically feasible based on the evaluation by the decision makers. The environmental assessment within BEES encompasses life cycle inventory data and an impact

assessment tool, which makes use of a methodology called TRACI (Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Ofce of Research and Development; Lippiatt, 2007). The 2002 and 2008 Farm Bill (USDA, 2008) authorized the creation of the BioPreferred Program, which aims to increase purchasing of bio-based products by government procurement ofcers. To address the question of the environmental and economic performance, the government mandated that all bio-based products are evaluated through BEES. For the BioPreferred Program, the weighting factors for the environmental impact categories calculated with BEES have been pre-dened by USDA (USDA, 2008), allowing calculation of a single score.9 It is interesting to note, though, that ISO 14044 (2006b) considers single score analysis for LCA to have no scientic basis and therefore does not endorse it. In selecting the products that qualify to be used under the BioPreferred Program, the USDA identies bio-based products in the market and contacts manufacturers for voluntary submission of product samples for testing of bio-based content and BEES analysis. Based on the results of the analysis, the USDA makes the decision whether to include a product in the BioPreferred procurement program (USDA, 2008). No formal rule, e.g., a minimum value of the single score result and/or a maximum price, has been established for this purpose; neither has any minimum percentage been set for the bio-based content across all product categories. Instead it is acknowledged that the achievable bio-based content differs depending on the application. Thus, materials with only a few percent bio-based content (e.g., insulating foam, carpet cleaners, carpets) to as much as 90% bio-based content (e.g., diesel fuel additives, vegetable oil-based lubricants) can qualify for inclusion in the BioPreferred Program, depending on the application. Generally, products with a high bio-based content are preferred, while the impacts of partially or fully bio-based products in the various categories seem to be of subordinate importance. This demonstrates the early stage of assessment frameworks for bio-based products, calling for further research in order to account for the various environmental tradeoffs. 7. Discussion and conclusions Many countries are pursuing the concept of a bio-based economy (OECD, 2010), with key drivers being the expected environmental, economic, and social benets (Jenkins, 2008). LCA is the most widely used tool to assess the environmental impacts of bio-based materials. This paper provides an overview of key methodological issues that are critical for bio-based materials but either not typically assessed or poorly evaluated in most LCA studies. The lack of a standardized approach for accounting for the biogenic carbon storage in bio-based materials presents a key challenge to LCA practitioners. We recommend that a credit for carbon storage should initially be given to bio-based materials by: (i) accounting for bio-based carbon storage in products for the system cradle to factory gate and (ii) applying the ILCD method (EC, 2010a) for systems that include the use and disposal of bio-based materials. However, recently a clear convergence in favor
9 The weighting factors used for the evaluation of bio-based products in the BioPreferred Program are (USDA, 2008): Acidication (5%), Criteria Air Pollution (6%), Ecological Toxicity (6%), Ecological Toxicity (11%), Eutrophication (5%), Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%), Global Warming (16%), Habitat Alteration (16%), Human Health (11%), Indoor Air (11%), Ozone Depletion (5%), Smog (6%), and Water Intake (3%). These factors differ from the distance-to-target weighting factors identied for Germany by Weiss et al. (2007). The observed differences highlight the effects of regional characteristics and subjective value judgment on the establishment of weighting factors. The weighting factors proposed by the BEES Stakeholder Panel (Lippiatt, 2007) were not used in the BioPreferred Program.
of assigning a credit for bio-based carbon storage can be observed (Sections 2.12.7). This is justied as our reasoning in Section 2.8 shows: for the system cradle-to-factory gate, bio-based carbon storage needs to be taken into account in order to ensure that the ranking of the bio-based as opposed to the petrochemical material is in line with the results for the system cradle-to-grave. While the approach is justied when comparing bio-based to petrochemical material, cradle-to-factory gate analyses with bio-based carbon storage should be avoided when making comparisons to inorganic materials; in such cases proper cradle-to-grave analyses including the use phase and end-of-life waste management are required. Moreover, we acknowledge that bio-based carbon storage remains a controversial topic and that product-specic life cycles and the likely time duration of carbon storage should be considered (Brando and Levasseur, 2011). Since the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the next 50100 years is likely to be higher than today, the benet of contemporary carbon storage may be illusive: Delayed carbon emissions may disproportionately enhance global warming if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are higher in the future than they are today. When quantifying the environmental impact of land use, it is rather common to evaluate the GHG emissions associated with direct land use change (DLUC). Impacts associated with indirect land use change (ILUC) are less frequently assessed. This is primarily related to the multiplicity of drivers behind ILUC, the uncertainty related to their assessment, and the disagreement among experts about how to allocate the resulting impacts. With increased understanding of the dynamics and with growing consensus about representative assumptions, ILUC should be included in LCA studies on bio-based materials, at least as part of the sensitivity analysis. Incorporating changes in soil organic carbon into LCA studies is highly complicated and subject to substantial data uncertainties. Moreover, effects on the organic carbon stock in soils is site dependent. Despite these limitations, we recommend using the method put forward by EC (2009b), since it provides the most feasible approach to incorporate changes in soil carbon stocks associated with growth of feedstocks for bio-based materials. Allocation of emissions and resource use among products is a critical issue for life cycle assessments where several products are co-manufactured. For bio-based materials, we abstain from devising a general recommendation. The approaches reviewed in Section 4 appear to depend on the specic product mix, i.e., the types and amounts of (co-)products that are manufactured. We also point out the pitfall of false (or unintended) accounting of carbon storage when applying system expansion. Addressing the controversy around attributional and consequential LCA, we have made an attempt to assess the implications of both approaches for bio-based materials. We conclude that attributional LCA is relatively straightforward to implement, while a truly consequential assessment is likely to become complex and may be subject to substantial uncertainties and double counting of carbon emissions. Good practice guidance rules would be required for consequential LCA, which are, however, unavailable to date. As prerequisite for the preparation of such guidelines, deeper insight would be needed into consequential phenomena and their importance on a case-by-case basis. Given the early stage of research, we recommend addressing consequential modeling in the context of life cycle assessment (including indirect land use change) by means of a sensitivity analyses. Currently available impact assessment methods for water use, biodiversity, and soil degradation are not fully satisfactory. For the assessment of water use, we favor the midpoint assessment method by Pster et al. (2009) because it is fully operational and provides data for calculating characterization factors. The available methods for assessing the impacts on biodiversity are generally

immature; however, as preliminary solution, the ReCiPe method can be used (in combination with USEtox, the endpoint ecotoxicity method of Impact 2000+ and the eutrophication assessment method by Seppl et al. (2006) and Posch et al. (2008)). For soil degradation, no operational methods are identied for use in LCAs. Similar to soil organic carbon, soil losses are site-specic. Currently, BEES (Lippiatt, 2007) is the only tool that we have identied to be specically designed for the comprehensive assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of bio-based materials. The tool is a single score method that does, however, not take into account several impact categories (e.g., soil erosion, biodiversity, and water use). BEES can serve as basis for a discussion about the potential environmental impacts of bio-based materials and may therefore trigger material producers and product manufacturers to make better choices, next to facilitating effective decision making by authorities. Further work is recommended in this area. In conclusion, we nd that work is underway in many areas to develop more comprehensive and robust assessment tools to evaluate the environmental impacts of bio-based materials. As this is a highly complex area of assessment, it is expected to take several more years before such tools are complete and comprehensive assessments become mainstream. Also, further assessment experience can help making environmentally sound choices in the production, use, and disposal of bio-based materials. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Program on Environment; ENV.2008.3.3.2.1: nability Assessment of TEchnoloPROSUITE PROspective SUstaI gies, grant agreement number 227078 and by the program BPM Biobased Performance Materials, subproject FEASIBLE (Feasibility of End use Applications: SustainaBiLity and techno-Economic aspects). The views expressed here are those of the authors and may not be regarded as an ofcial position of the European Commission. The authors would like to thank Graham Sinden and Roland Clift for providing valuable information on the PAS 2050 methodology. We thank Stephan Pster for commenting on the impacts of water use. Appendix A. Example for the case specicity of land use efciency Fictive Data, NREU:
Bio-based product A: Bio-based product B: PE: Aluminum: 3 GJ, 1 GJ, 4 GJ, 10 GJ, 2 ha 4 ha 0 ha 0 ha
A.2. Comparison with aluminum (2a) Comparison of bio-based product A with aluminum: 7 GJ 14 GJ (10 3) GJ = = 2 ha 4 ha (2 0) ha (2b) Comparison of bio-based product B with aluminum: 9 GJ (10 1) GJ = 4 ha (4 0) ha
Bio-based product A is better option (ii) At rst sight, the conclusions (i) and (ii) seem contradictory. However, the example here shows that choices regarding the landuse efciency of alternative bio-based materials depend on the conventional reference product. If the conventional product has a high energy consumption (as in the case of aluminum), a biobased material with slightly higher energy requirements but low demands for land appears favorable (as it is the case for bio-based material A) in comparison with a bio-based material with low energy requirements but high demands for land (as it is the case for bio-based material B). Conversely, if the conventional product requires little energy for its production, the energy consumption of the bio-based material becomes increasingly important in the calculation of land-use efciency while lower yields per hectare can be accepted. Consequently, bio-based material B which requires less energy but more land appears to be favorable from the aspect of land-use efciency if the reference product is PE. References
ASTM International. Annual book of standards; Standard D 6866. ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA, Volume 8.03; 2010. www.astm.org Bare JC, Noris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T. TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2002;6:4978. Bayart JB, Bulle C, Deschnes L, Margni M, Pster S, Vince F, et al. A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010;15:43953. Berndes G. Bioenergy and water the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change 2002;12: 25371. BIS. Study for a simplied LCA methodology adapted to bioproducts. Final Report. Study performed for ADEME. BIS Bio Intelligence Service SAS; 2009. Available from: http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getBin?name=F8773B4C14ADA 189656483D71F0C1CD41271771221714.pdf Bos HL, Meesters KPH, Conijn SG, Corr WJ, Patel MK. Accounting for the constrained availability of land: a comparison of bio-based ethanol, polyethylene, and PLA with regard to non-renewable energy use and land use. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening 2012;6:14658. Bot A, Benites J. The Importance of soil organic matter key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production; FAO Soil Bulletin 80; Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations; Rome; 2005. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0100e/a0100e00.htm#Contents Brando M, Levasseur A. Assessing temporary carbon storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Report JRC 63225. European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy; 2011. Brando M, Mil i Canals L, Clift R. Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35:232336. Brando M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Vedel Jrgensen S, et al. Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2013;18:23040. Brander M, Tipper R, Hutchison C, Davis G. Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specic reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. Edinburgh: Ecometrica Press; 2009, Available from: http://www.ecometrica.co.uk/ecometrica-press/technical-papers/ consequential-and-attributional-approaches-to-lca-a-guide-to-policy-makerswith-specic-reference-to-greenhouse-gas-lca-of-biofuels/ BSI. PAS, 2050 Specication for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI British Standards Institution; 2011. Available from: http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/ Energy/PAS2050.pdf
A.1. Comparison with PE (1a) Comparison of bio-based product A with PE: 1 GJ (4 3) GJ = 2 ha (2 0) ha (1b) Comparison of bio-based product B with PE: (4 1) GJ 3 GJ = 4 ha (4 0) ha
Bio-based product B is better option (i).

P. Pawelzik et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228 Chen GQ, Patel MK. Plastics derived from biological sources: present and future: a technical and environmental review. Chemical Reviews 2012;112: 208299. Clift R, Brando M. Carbon storage and timing of emissions a note by Roland Clift and Miguel Brando. University of Surrey, Centre for Environmental Strategy Working Paper Number 02; 2008. Available from: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ces/ activity/publications/ Coleman K, Jenkinson DS. RothC-26.3 a model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU, editors. Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing, long-term datasets. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1996. p. 23746. Cowell SJ, Clift R. A methodology for assessing soil quantity and quality in life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8:32131. Curran M, De Baan L, De Schryver AM, Van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner T, et al. Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 2011;45:709. Dalla Marta A, Natali F, Mancini M, Ferrise R, Bindi M, Orlandini S. Energy and water use related to the cultivation of energy crops: a case study in the Tuscany region. Ecology and Society 2011;16:2. Del Grosso SJ, Ojima DS, Parton WJ, Stehfest E, Heistemann M, DeAngelo B, et al. Global scale DAYCENT model analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies for cropped soils. Global and Planetary Change 2009;67: 4450. De Schryver A, Goedkoop M. Climate change. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R, editors. ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterisation factors. 1st ed. Department of Agriculture. Part IV Department of Agriculture Ofce of Energy Policy and New Uses 7 CFR Part 2902 Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement; Proposed Rules; 2009, Federal Register 73:206; October 23 2008; 63298 [chapter 3]. Available from: http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=O5epGT/3/ 2/0&WAISaction=retrieve Dornburg V, Lewandowski I, Patel MK. Comparing the land requirements, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction of biobased polymers and bioenergy. An analysis and system extension of life-cycle assessment studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2004;7(34):93116. Dornburg V, van Vuuren D, van de Ven G, Langeveld H, Meeusen M, Banse M, et al. Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science 2010;3:25867. Earles JM, Halog A. Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2011:19. EC. Taking bio-based from promise to market measures to promote the market introduction of innovative bio-based products. A report from the Ad-hoc advisory group for bio-based products in the framework of the European Commissions Lead Market Initiative. EC European Commission; 2009a; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/biotechnology/les/docs/bio based from promise to market en.pdf EC. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. EC European Commission; 2009b. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF EC. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook General guide for Life Cycle Assessment Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. EC European Commission. Luxembourg. Publications Ofce of the European Union; 2010b, section 7.4.3.7.3 (Provisions, p.230). Available from: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-General-guide-forLCA-DETAIL-online-12March2010.pdf EC. Commission decision of 10 June 2010 on guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC. Ofcial Journal of the European Union. 2010/335/EU EC European Commission; 2010b. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= OJ:L: 2010:151:0019:0041:EN:PDF EC. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context. First Edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. EC European Commission. Luxembourg. Publications Ofce of the European Union; 2011. Available from: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD Handbook Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context.pdf Ekvall T. Limitations of consequential LCA. In: LCA/LCM 2002 E-conference; 2002, Available from: http://www.lcacenter.org/lca-lcm/index.html [accessed 07.12.11]. Ekvall T, Tillman AM. Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1997;2:15562. Environment Canada. Canadas 2008 greenhouse gas inventory. A summary of trends: 19902008, 2010 Available from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/ 0590640B-87F7-449A-AA8F-D5674A7BAC57/2010%20Annual%20Summary %20of%20Trends.pdf Erlandsson M, Almemark M. Background data and assumptions made for an LCA on creosote poles, Working report. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 16 October 2009. Available from: http://www.ivl.se/download/ 18.7df4c4e812d2da6a416800072055/B1865.pdf Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, et al. Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Ecoinvent Report No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dbendorf, Switzerland; 2007. 227
Garca-Oliva F, Masera OM. Assessment and measurement issues related to soil carbon sequestration in land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) projects under the Kyoto Protocol. Climatic Change 2004;65:34764. Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J. A screening level ecological risk assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. In: Proceedings of the international conference on radioecology and environmental protection; 2008. Garnier-Laplace JC, Beaugelin-Seiller K, Gilbin R, Della-Vedova C, Jolliet O, Payet J. A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment and ranking method for liquid radioactive and chemical mixtures released by nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions. Radioprotection 2009;44:9038. Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AJ, van der Meeb TH. The water footprint of bioenergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 2009;106:1021923. GHGP. Product life accounting and reporting standard. GHGP The Greenhouse Gas Protocol World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development; 2011. Available from: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ standards/product-standard [accessed October 2011]. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Stuijs J, Zelm RV. ReCiPe 2008 a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; rst edition report I: characterisation. Amersfoort, the Netherlands: PR Consultants B.V; 2009. Gosling I. Process simulation and modeling for industrial bioprocessing: tools and techniques. Industrial Biotechnology 2005;1(Summer (2)):1069. Grace PR, Ladd JN, Robertson GP, Gage SH. SCRATES a simple model for predicting long-term changes in soil organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 2006;38:11726. Groot WJ, Born T. Life cycle assessment of the manufacture of lactide and PLA biopolymers from sugarcane in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010;15:97084. Guine JB. LCA an operational guide to the ISO-standards, part 1, 2, 3. Leiden, the Netherlands: Institute of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden University; 2001. Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, OHare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. BioScience 2010;60:22331. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management 2006., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x. IEA. Bioenergy the impact of indirect land use change summary and conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo63 Workshop, 2009. Available from: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/DocSet.aspx?id=6214 IUCN. Website section About biodiversity. IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2012. Source: http://www.iucn.org/what/tpas/biodiversity/ about/?gclid=CJfnttLnnLECFWkTNAodZ1uJdw IPCC. Climate change 2001: Working Group I: the scientic basis. Houghton. In: Ding JT, Griggs Y, Noguer DJ, van der Linden M, Dai PJ, Maskell X, Johnson K, editors. The intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press; 2001, Available from: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc tar/ IPCC. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. In: Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F, editors. The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies for the IPCC and IPCC national greenhouse gas inventories programme. Kanagawa, Japan: Hayama; 2003, Available from: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or. jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html IPCC.Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 4: agriculture, forestry, and other land use,. Japan: IGES; 2006, Available from: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ public/2006gl/index.html IPCC.Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 996, Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment report wg1 report the physical science basis.htm ISO 14040. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and Framework; 2006a. ISO 14044. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental management Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines; 2006b. ISO 14067. International Organization for Standardization; Carbon footprint of products Requirements and guidelines for quantication and communication; Draft International Standard ICS 13.020.40; 2012. Jenkins T. Toward a biobased economy: examples from the UK. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening 2008;2:13343. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, et al. IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2003;8(6):32430. Kim S, Dale B. Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (polyhydroxyalkanoates) derived from No-Tilled Corn. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2005;10:20010. Koehler A. Water use in LCA: managing the planets freshwater resources. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2008;13:4515. Koh LP. Potential habitat and biodiversity losses from intensied biodiesel feedstock production. Conservation Biology 2007;21:13735. Koh LP, Ghazoul J. Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: understanding the conicts and nding opportunities. Biological Conservation 2008;141:245060.

228 P. Pawelzik et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73 (2013) 211228 Ralston BE, Osswald TA. The history of tomorrows materials: protein-based biopolymers (North America), Plastics Engineering, February 2008. RFA. Carbon and sustainability reporting within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. RFA Renewable Fuel Agency, 2011. Technical Guidance Part Two: Carbon reporting default values and fuel chains, Version 4.2 May 2011, Year Four of the RTFO 15 April 201114 April 2012. Published by Department for Transport. Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/carbonsustainability-technical-guidance Rockstrm J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin III FS, Lambin EF, et al. A safe operating space for Humanity. Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable environmental change. Nature 2009;461(September): 4725. Roose EJ. Use of the universal soil loss equation to predict erosion in West Africa. Soil erosion: prediction and control. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America; 1976. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, et al. USEtox the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2008;13(7):53246. Saad R, Margni M, Koellner T, Wittstock B, Deschnes T. Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2011;16:198211. Seppl J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh JP. Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidication and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category Indicator. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2006;11(6):40316. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008;319:1238, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1151861. Schlesinger WH, Lichter J. Limited carbon storage in soil and litter of experimental forest plots under increased atmospheric CO2 . Nature 2001;411:4669, 24 May. Shen L, Haufe J, Patel MK. Product overview and market projection of emerging bio-based plastics; PRO-BIP 2009, Final report; Group Science, Technology and Society (STS) Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation Utrecht University; 2009. Available from: http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/ Publicaties%202009/PROBIP2009%20Final%20June%202009.pdf Shen L, Patel MK. Life cycle assessment of man-made cellulose bres. Lenzinger Berichte 2010;88:159. Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, Rochette P, Drury CF, Li C. Evaluation of two process-based models to estimate soil N2 O emissions in Eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 2008;88:251260. Tillman AM. Signicance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2000;20:11323. Tipper R, Hutchison C, Brander M. A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions from indirect land use change associated with biofuels. Edinburgh, UK, Ecometrica; 2009. Available from: http://www.ecometrica.co.uk/ ecometrica-press/technical-papers/a-practical-approach-for-policies-toaddress-ghg-emissions-from-indirect-land-use-change-associated-withbiofuels/ [accessed 19.05.11]. UEIC. UEIC Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemicals, Seventh Edition [CDROM]; 2007. USDA. BioPreferred Project. USDA United States Department of Agriculture, 2008. About BioPreferred. Available from: http://www.biopreferred.gov/ aboutus.aspx?SMSESSION=NO [accessed 22.06.11]. van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij APC. From the global effects on certication of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14:244572. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van Jaarsveld HA, Reinds GJ, De Zwart D, Struijs J, et al. Time horizon dependent characterisation factors for acidication in life-cycle impact assessment based on the disappeared fraction of plant species in European forests. Environmental Science and Technology 2007;41(3): 9227. Vink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley RJ, OConnor RP. The eco-proles for current and near-future Nature-Works polylactide (PLA) production. Industrial Biotechnology 2007;3:5882. Weidema BP. Market information in life cycle assessment. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Environment Protection Agency; 2003. p. 1147. Weiss M, Patel M, Heilmeier H, Bringezu S. Applying distance-to-weighting methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2007;50:26081. Weiss M, Haufe J, Carus M, Brando M, Bringezu S, Hermann B, et al. A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2012;16(S1):S16981. Wicke B, Verweij P, van Meijl H, van Vuuren D, Faaij A. Indirect land use change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels 2012;3(1):87100. Wrdinger E, Roth U, Wegener A, Peche R, Rommel W, Kreibe S, et al. Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen: Vergleichende kobilanz fr Loose-llPackmittel aus Strke bzw. Polystyrol. Projektgemeinschaft BIfA/IFEU/Flo-Pak. Endbericht 2002 (DBU-Az. 04763). Institut fr Energie und Umweltforschung Heidelberg; 2002. Available from: http://www.ifeu.de [accessed 29.07.03].
Kllner T. Land use in product life cycles and its consequences for ecosystem quality. PhD thesis. No. 2519, University St. Gallen; 2001. Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004;304:16237. Larson ED. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development 2006;10:10926. Levasseur A, Brando M, Lesage P, Margni M, Pennington D, Clift R, et al. Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nature Climate 2012;2:68. Lippiatt BC. BEES 4.0 Building for environmental and economic sustainability Technical manual and user guide, Sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory; 2007. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get pdf.cfm?pub id=860108 McConkey BG, Angers DA, Smith W, de Gooijer H, VandenBygaart AJ. Soil carbon change factors for the Canadian agriculture national greenhouse gas inventory. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 2008;88(5):67180. Mil i Canals L, Roman J, Cowell SJ. Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of fertile land in life cycle assessment (LCA). Journal of Cleaner Production 2007;15:142640. Mil i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Anton A, Clift R. Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I. Inventory modeling and characterization factors for the main impact pathways. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2009;14:2842. MEA. Current state and trends 2005. MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; 2009. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx (accessed 21.07.09). Monopolies Commission. The Man-made cellulosic bers A report on the supply of man-made cellulosic bers. The House of Commons; 1968 [chapter 2]. Available from: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep pub/ reports/1960 1969/044bres.htm Mortimer ND, Elsayed MA, Evans A. Environmental assessment tool for biomaterials: environmental assessment primer. Final Version, Northern Energy, Department of Environment, Food, and Evans, Contract No. NF0614; 2007. Available from: http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/environmental-assessment-primer Murphy B, Wilson B, Rawson A. Development of a soil carbon benchmark matrix for central west NSW; 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World; 16 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published on DVD; 2010. Available from: http://www.ldd.go.th/swcst/Report/soil/ symposium/pdf/1323.pdf Narayan R. Biobased & biodegradable polymer materials: rationale, drivers, and technology Exemplars; ACS (an American Chemical Society publication) Symposium Ser. 939; 2006. p. 282 [chapter 18]. Narayan R. Carbon footprint of bioplastics using biocarbon content analysis and life-cycle assessment. MRS (Materials Research Society) 2011;36(09):71621. Nowicki P, Banse M, Bolck C, Bos H, Scott E. Biobased economy State-of-the-art assessment. The Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague. Report 6.08.01. February 2008. Project code 20956. M, Civit B, Munoz P, Pablo Arena A, Rieradevall J, Antn A. Assessing Nnez potential desertication environmental impact in life cycle assessment. Part 1: Methodological aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010;15:6778. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Towards the development of OECD best practices for assessing the sustainability of bio-based products. Document # 45598236, 2010. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/5/45/45598236.pdf Oldeman LR. Global extent of soil degradation. ISRIC Bi-Annual Report. The Netherlands; 19911992; 1936. http://library.wur.nl/isric/fulltext/ isricu i26803 001.pdf Owens JM. Water resources in life-cycle impact assessment considerations in choosing category indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2002;5(2):3754. PAS, 2050: Your questions answered, accessed on line 21 March 2012. Available from: http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/ Environment/PAS%202050%20QA.pdf Patel MK, Bastioli C, Marini L, Wrdinger GE. Life-cycle Assessment of bio-based polymers and natural ber composites. Biopolymers Online, 2005. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/3527600035.bpola014 Patel MK, Crank M, Dornburg V, Hermann B, Roes L, Hsing B, et al. Medium and long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources The BREW Project. Final report, 420 pages, September 2006. Parliament of Victoria. Environment and Natural Resources Committee inquiry into soil carbon sequestration in Victoria; September 2010; Parliamentary Paper No. 362, Session 200610. Available from: http://www.parliament.vic.gov. au/publications/committee-reports/817-nal-report-of-the-inquiry-into-soilcarbon-sequestration-in-victoria/download Pster S, Koehler A, Hellweg S. Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environmental Science and Technology 2009;43:4098104. Plevin RJ, OHare M, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science and Technology 2010;44(21):801521. Posch M, Seppl J, Hettelingh JP, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O. The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2008(13):47786.

Critical Aspects in The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bio-Based Materials 2013

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Critical Aspects in The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bio-Based Materials 2013

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.

Author's personal copy

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

If the mass balance for bio-based carbon is considered, i.e., C0 = C2 + C4 (2)

C4, CO2 embedded in Biobasedproduct

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Biomass 2.0 t CO2 from air

Dissolving pulp plant

Co-product: 0.2 t acec acid

System expansion 0.2 t petrochemical acec acid

Petrochemical acec acid producon

Fossil raw materials

System expansion (here: modelled as credit; see text)

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

5. Use of attributional versus consequential LCA

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Bio-based product B is better option (i).

Author's personal copy

Author's personal copy

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen