pefcr pilot onwine - mpit.gov.pl secretariat of the pef pilot on wine july 2016 pefcr pilot onwine...
TRANSCRIPT
Technical Secretariat of the PEF pilot on Wine July 2016
PEFCR PILOT ONWINE Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules Wine (Pilot Phase)
Draft version 04
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
2
2
Contents 1
Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 2
Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 4 3
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 5 4
1.1. Technical secretariat ....................................................................................... 5 5
1.2. Consultation and stakeholders ........................................................................ 6 6
1.3. Date of publication and expiration ................................................................... 6 7
1.4. Geographic region .......................................................................................... 7 8
1.5. Language(s) of PEFCR .................................................................................. 7 9
2. Methodological inputs and compliance ................................................... 8 10
3. PEFCR review and background information ........................................... 9 11
3.1. PEFCR review panel ...................................................................................... 9 12
3.2. Review requirements for the PEFCR document .............................................. 9 13
3.3. Reasoning for development of PEFCR ........................................................... 9 14
3.4. Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance ........................................................ 9 15
4. PEFCR scope ........................................................................................... 10 16
4.1. Functional unit .............................................................................................. 10 17
4.2. Representative product(s) ............................................................................. 10 18
4.3. Product classification (NACE/CPA) ............................................................... 11 19
4.4. System boundaries – life-cycle stages and processes .................................. 12 20
4.5. Selection of the EF impact categories indicators ........................................... 15 21
4.6. Additional environmental information ............................................................ 15 22
4.7. Assumptions/limitations ................................................................................ 16 23
5. Life Cycle Inventory ................................................................................. 17 24
5.1. Screening step .............................................................................................. 17 25
5.2. Data quality requirements ............................................................................. 17 26
5.3. Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection ......................... 18 27
5.4. Requirements regarding background generic data and data gaps ................ 20 28
5.5. Data gaps ..................................................................................................... 21 29
5.6. Use stage ..................................................................................................... 21 30
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
3
3
5.7. Logistics ....................................................................................................... 22 31
5.8. End-of-life stage ........................................................................................... 23 32
5.9. Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct processes 33
allocation ................................................................................................................. 23 34
6. Benchmark and classes of environmental performance ...................... 25 35
7. Interpretation ............................................................................................ 26 36
8. Reporting, Disclosure and Communication .......................................... 27 37
9. Verification ............................................................................................... 28 38
10. Reference literature .............................................................................. 29 39
11. Definitions ............................................................................................. 30 40
12. Supporting information for the PEFCR .............................................. 34 41
13. List of annexes ..................................................................................... 35 42
Annex I – Representative product ................................................................ 35 43
Annex II – Supporting studies ....................................................................... 47 44
Annex III – Benchmark and classes of environmental performance ......... 49 45
Annex IV – Upstream scenarios (optional) ................................................... 50 46
Annex V – Downstream scenarios (optional) ............................................... 51 47
Annex VI – Normalisation factors ................................................................. 52 48
Annex VII – Weighting factors ....................................................................... 53 49
Annex VIII – Foreground data ........................................................................ 54 50
Annex IX – Background data ......................................................................... 58 51
Annex X – EoL formulas ................................................................................ 64 52
Annex XI – Background information on methodological choices taken 53
during the development of the PEFCR ......................................................... 65 54
Annex XII – Description of the default methods for calculating emissions 55
derived from the application of fertilisers and pesticides .......................... 73 56
57
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
4
4
Abbreviations 58
BOM Bill of Materials
BiB Bag in box
CPA Classification of Products by Activity
EC European Commission
EF Environmental Footprint
ELCD European Life Cycle Database
EoL End-of-Life
ILCD International Life Cycle Data System
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LT Land Transformation
NACE Classification of Economic Activities
PCR Product Category Rules
PEF Product Environmental Footprint
PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules
RP Representative Product
SC Steering Committee
SOM Soil Organic Matter
TS Technical Secretariat
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
5
5
1. Introduction 59
The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide1 provides detailed and 60
comprehensive technical guidance on how to conduct a PEF study. PEF studies may 61
be used for a variety of purposes, including in-house management and participation in 62
voluntary or mandatory programmes. 63
This PEFCR shall be used in parallel with the PEF Guide. Where the requirements in 64
this PEFCR are in line with but at the same time more specific than those of the PEF 65
Guide, such specific requirements shall be fulfilled. 66
The use of the present PEFCR is optional for PEF guide in-house applications, it is 67
recommended for external applications without comparison/comparative assertions, 68
while it is mandatory for external applications with comparisons/comparative 69
assertions. 70
In the latter two application contexts, organisations are to fulfil the requirements of this 71
PEFCR document from section 7 to 10. 72
1.1. Technical secretariat 73
The Technical Secretariat (TS) for the pilot on wine formed by the organisations listed 74
in the following table: 75
Organisation name Sector Participant
Comité Européen des
Entreprises Vins (CEEV)
(Coordinator)
Wine producers association Aurora Abad
Ignacio Sánchez
Pernod Ricard
Winemakers Spain
Wine producers Ainhoa Peña
Comité Interprofessionnel
du Vin de Champagne
(CIVC) and three
Champagne producers
represented by CIVC
Wine producers association
and wine producers
Pierre Naviaux
Unione Italiana Vini (UIV) Wine producers association Stefano Stefanucci
Soc. Agr. Salcheto Wine producers Michele Manelli
The European Container
Glass Federation (FEVE)
Container glass
manufacturers
Adeline Farrelly
Amcor Closure producers Gerald Rebitzer
Isabelle Jenny
Nomacorc Closure producers Olav Aagaard
___________________________________________________________________ 1 European Commission (2013). "Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to the
Commission Recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/EU)."
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
6
6
C.E. Liège Closure producers Joao Ferreira
Ana Dias
IHOBE – Public agency of
environment of the
Basque Government
Public agency Jose María Fernández
Alcalá
Andalusian Institute of
Technology (IAT)
R&D Rafael Rodríguez Acuña
Víctor Luis Vázquez
Institut Français de la
Vigne et du Vin (IFV)
R&D Sophie Penavayre
Lavola R&D Cristina Gazulla
Ecole supérieure
d‟agricultures (ESA) -
Angers
R&D Christel Renaud-Gentié
1.2. Consultation and stakeholders 76
The procedure for the development of this PEFCR draft includes a number of 77
consultation steps: 78
The 1st public stakeholder consultation addressed the scope and representative 79
product and the assessment of the alignment of existing Product Category Rules 80
(PCR) and took place between November 25th, 2014 and December, 21st 2014. Up to 81
16 stakeholders from 11 different organisations participated in the face-to-face 82
consultation meeting that was held in Brussels on November 25th, 2014. From this day 83
until December 21st, 2014 the 1st public consultation was opened and 9 sets of 84
additional comments were received from 7 additional organisations. In total, more than 85
150 comments were registered and addressed before summiting the final document to 86
the Steering Committee (SC). During the SC meeting held on February 27th, 2015 the 87
scope and representative product definition was approved. 88
The 2nd public consultation of the draft PEFCR document took place from December 89
30th, 2015 to January 30th, 2016. Up to 11 stakeholders participated in this consultation 90
with a total of 103 comments received and addressed. During the SC meeting held on 91
March 2nd, 2016 the draft PECR was approved. 92
The 3rd public consultation on this draft final version will be carried out between July 93
28th and September 8th, 2016. 94
All stakeholders registered in the wine pilot were able to take part in the consultation 95
through the web page related to the PEFCR Wine development: 96
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/PEFCR+Pilot%3A+Wine 97
1.3. Date of publication and expiration 98
Version number: Draft final PEFCR version 99
Date of publication/revision: XX-XX-2016. 100
Date of expiration: 4 years after the date of publication. 101
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
7
7
1.4. Geographic region 102
The PEFCR can be used to assess the PEF of wine produced for consumption in 103
Europe regardless of the country of production. 104
1.5. Language(s) of PEFCR 105
The PEFCR has been written in English and it is not foreseen to make this document 106
available in other languages. The original in English supersedes translated versions in 107
case of conflicts. 108
109
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
8
8
2. Methodological inputs and compliance 110
This PEFCR has been developed in conformance with the following documents: 111
112
European Commission (2013). Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) 113
Guide to the Commission Recommendation on the use of common methods to 114
measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of 115
products and organisations (2013/179/EU) (also called “PEF Guide”). 116
European Commission (2014). Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance 117
document. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental 118
Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase, v. 5.2, 119
February 2016 (also called “PEF Guidance”). 120
ISO 14040, ISO 14044 and ISO 14071 on Life Cycle Assessment. 121
122
Seven different PCR and methodological guidelines were assessed by the WINE TS 123
for identifying the potential conflicts with the PEF Guide: 124
Beverage Industry Sector Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. 125
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. Version 3.0, December 2013. 126
BP X 30-323-0 «General principles for an environmental communication on 127
mass market products» developed by AFNOR. Part 15: Methodology for the 128
environmental impacts assessment of food products (2012-10-22) 129
ENVIFOOD Protocol. Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink Protocol. 130
European Food Sustainable Consumption & Production RoundTable. 131
November 2013. 132
General principles of the OIV GHG accounting protocol (GHGAP) for the vine 133
and wine sector. 134
PCR 2010:02 Wine of fresh grapes, except sparkling wine; grape must (Version 135
1.03). The International EPD System. 136
PCR 2014:14 Sparkling wine of fresh grapes (Version 1.0). The International 137
EPD System. 138
Product Category Rules for wine. HAproWINE Life Project. Approval: 139
November 2013. LIFE08 ENV/E/000143. 140
141
The analysis undertook revealed that none of the existing PCR or guidelines fully 142
comply with the PEF Guide requirements and, in some cases, major conflicts exist in 143
aspects related to cut-off, biogenic carbon removals and emissions, and multi-144
functional processes; in additional, procedural requirements of the PEF Guide are 145
stricter than those included in the assessed PCR and guidelines. Therefore, the WINE 146
TS has developed these PEFCR for wine. 147
148
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
9
9
3. PEFCR review and background information 149
3.1. PEFCR review panel 150
[Provide the name, contact information and affiliation of the chair and the other 151
members of the review panel] To be completed after review has started. 152
3.2. Review requirements for the PEFCR document 153
The review of the PEFCR document shall ensure that: 154
- Is consistent with the PEF Guide and the PEF Guidance (version 5.2). 155
- Is clearly written, avoiding potential misleading. 156
- Is applicable to all types of wine produced and/or consumed in the EU. 157
- Complements the PEF guide requirements with additional requirements specific 158
to the particularities of the life cycle of wine products. 159
- Provides adequate guidance to conduct a PEF-compliant study. 160
- Enables comparability and comparative assertions when this is considered 161
feasible, relevant and appropriate. 162
3.3. Reasoning for development of PEFCR 163
This PEFCR document aims at setting the rules for evaluating the environmental 164
footprint of wine produced or consumed in the EU through the application of a 165
harmonised method to assess the environmental impacts (compliant with the PEF 166
Guide and the PEF guidance) in order to obtain comparable results. 167
168
As previously reported an extensive methodological comparison has been carried out 169
among the existing PCR for wine (still and sparkling), which were taken into 170
consideration as a basis to set the rules of this PEFCR document. 171
3.4. Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance 172
[Summarize the conformity assessment against the „Guidance for the Implementation 173
of the EU PEF during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase‟]. To be completed 174
after the review. 175
176
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
10
10
4. PEFCR scope 177
The product category for this PEFCR is wine which according to Regulation 178
1308/20132 is the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic 179
fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must. Wine shall 180
have a minimum actual alcoholic strength (specific minimum limits are settled for 181
different wine-growing zones). 182
4.1. Functional unit 183
The functional unit is: “0.75 litres of packaged wine”, defined according to the 184
following aspects: 185
- What: Moderate consumption of alcoholic beverage. 186
- How long: Not applicable3. 187
- How well: Recommended serving temperature (normally between 8ºC to 17ºC). 188
- How much: 0.75 litres of wine. 189
The reference flow coincides with the (physical) functional unit, i.e. 0.75 l of packaged 190
wine. 191
192
The background information and the rationale for the selection of this functional unit 193
are provided in Annex I. 194
4.2. Representative product(s) 195
This PEFCR documents covers all wine subcategories: 196
- Still wine: the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic 197
fermentation of fresh grapes or of grape must. Wine shall have a minimum 198
actual alcoholic strength and specific minimum limits are settled for different 199
wine-growing zones. 200
- Sparkling wine: obtained by first or second alcoholic fermentation from fresh 201
grapes, from grape must or from wine and which, when the container is opened, 202
releases carbon dioxide derived exclusively from fermentation. It includes 203
___________________________________________________________________ 2 Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013
establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. 3 As wine has a very long shelf life being exempted by Regulation 1168/2011 from a mandatory indication
of an expiry date, and the duration of the service provided is very variable, the how long aspect is not applicable
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
11
11
quality sparkling wine, quality aromatic sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, 204
semi-sparkling wine and aerated semi-sparkling wine4. 205
The representative wines are virtual products defined according to the average data 206
on: 207
- Types of wine consumed in the EU (red, white and rosé; still and sparkling; 208
organic and non-organic). 209
- Quantity of grapes and oenological products consumed. 210
- Quantity and type of co-products produced. 211
- Origin of the still wine and sparkling wine consumed in the EU. 212
- Use of different types of packaging. 213
- General recommendations about serving temperatures. 214
215
The virtual representative products are defined as follows: 216
- Still wine: 217
o Wine-making: 63.5% red conventional, 4.4% red organic, 29.9% white 218
conventional and 2.1% white organic. 219
o Ageing in oak barrels (12 months): 15% of still red glass-bottled wine 220
and 3% of still white glass-bottled wine. 221
o Primary packaging: 79% of glass bottle (with different types of stoppers), 222
16% of Bag in Box, 4% of PET bottle and 1% of beverage carton. 223
o Types of stoppers used for glass bottles: 67% cork closure, 17% 224
synthetic stoppers (made of a mix of products) and 16% screw caps 225
(made of aluminium). 226
o Production: 75% in the EU, 25% abroad. 227
- Sparkling wine: 228
o Wine-making: 93.45% conventional and 6.55% organic. 229
o Primary packaging: glass bottle and Champagne cork stopper 230
o Production: 97% in the EU, 3% abroad. 231
232
More information is provided in Annex I. 233
4.3. Product classification (NACE5/CPA6) 234
The CPA/NACE class corresponding to wine product category is “11.02 –manufacture 235
of wine from grape”, including: 236
- Manufacture of wine; 237
- Manufacture of sparkling wine; 238
- Manufacture of wine from concentrated grape must; 239
- Blending, purification and bottling of wine; 240
- Manufacture of low or non-alcoholic wine. 241
242
___________________________________________________________________ 4 Regulation 1308/2013 defines each of these categories of grapevine products.
5 Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Union.
6 Statistical classification of products by activity in the European Union.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
12
12
CPA 11.02 excludes merely bottling and labelling of wine. However, this PEFCR 243
tackles all environmentally relevant activities in the life cycle of the product. 244
4.4. System boundaries – life-cycle stages and processes 245
The product system shall include the following life-cycle stages: grape production, wine 246
making, bottling, distribution and retail, consumption of wine and end of life of 247
packaging (see Figure 1, more detailed is provided in Annex I). Activities under the 248
control of wineries are ingredients sourcing (mainly grapes and oenological products), 249
wine making process and distribution to the customer (i.e. final consumer, retailer 250
and/or distribution centre). Packaging related process may not be under the control of 251
wineries marketing wine in bulk. 252
Figure 1: Life cycle stages and process of the product system of wine 253
254
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
13
13
Grape production 255
The life cycle of wine starts with the cultivation of grapes which entails different 256
processes related with vine plantation, plants and soil management, grape harvesting 257
and vine destruction. This includes the following processes: 258
- Vine plant nursery: production of young vine plants through grafting of existing 259
vine canes. 260
- Land preparation and vine planting: soil preparation and cultivation, planting of 261
vine stocks and use of stakes and wires. 262
- Development and nourishing: grape early production before entering the full 263
productive phase. 264
- Pests and disease management. 265
- Canopy management. 266
- Fertilizing management. 267
- Irrigation (if applied). 268
- Harvesting. 269
- Vine destruction: grubbing of old or diseased vine-stocks and waste 270
management (burning, composting, crushing and landfill, etc.). 271
272
Wine making process 273
Once harvested, grapes are transported to the winery where are weighed, classified 274
and usually crushed to liberate the juice without squashing the seeds. At this point, two 275
co-products are obtained: grape must (used to make the wine) and grape pomace that 276
is derivate to the distillation industry to produce spirits, industrial alcohol, etc. Grape 277
must may be transported to other wineries or used within the same production site 278
where grapes have been crushed. 279
Then, the vinification process starts and it will differ depending mainly on the type of 280
wine: still or sparkling; white, red or rosé: and conventional or organic (see more details 281
in Annex I). Vinification includes different steps such as fermentation, clarification or 282
stabilisation, entailing the use of permitted oenological practices (additives and 283
processing aids) regulated by the EU wine legislation7 in the form of a positive list. In 284
addition to wine, the vinification process produces lees which are also derivate to the 285
distillation industry. 286
In any case, the following processes shall be included: 287
- Transportation of grapes from vineyards to the winery. 288
- Transportation of wine must to the winery producing wine (if applicable). 289
- Energy consumption. 290
- Water consumption. 291
- Production and transportation of oenological products (enzymes, acidification, 292
clarification, fermentation, preservation, enrichment, deacidification and/or 293
others). 294
- Ageing (if applied): production, transportation and waste management of 295
barrels. If barrels are used in several production cycles, only part of these 296
___________________________________________________________________ 7 Regulation 606/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
14
14
processes will be allocated to the product assessed taking into account the ratio 297
between ageing time and the total service life of the barrel. 298
- Cleaning operations. 299
- Waste management. 300
301
Packaging 302
Once produced, wine may be marketed in bulk or in small size containers for the retail 303
market. Different volumes and packaging options may be used for still wine, whereas 304
sparkling wine shall be marketed in a specific type of glass bottles and mushroom-305
shaped sparkling wine closure8. At this stage the following processes shall be included: 306
- Production and transportation processes related to packaging materials 307
(primary, secondary and tertiary). 308
- Energy consumption of filling operations. 309
310
Distribution to retail 311
Packaged or bulk wine is distributed to retail and the following processes shall be taken 312
into account as part of the product system: 313
- Distances travelled via truck, train, barge ship, ocean ship and/or air plane as 314
well as the load factor of the transport media used. 315
- Waste management of the secondary and tertiary packaging used. 316
317
Consumption 318
If maintained in the original (adequate) packaging and stored in room temperature, 319
wine does not require chilling for its preservation. However in the case of sparkling and 320
white and rosé wines, serving temperatures are recommended by winemakers to 321
improve consumer‟s experience, whereas for red wine the room temperature is usually 322
considered good enough. In the case the producer recommends to cool the product 323
before consumption or the ambient temperature is higher than the one recommended, 324
the energy consumption associated to this process shall be accounted for following the 325
procedure defined in section 5.6. 326
End of life 327
Once the wine is consumed, the primary packaging materials are recovered (recycled 328
or energy recovery) or disposed (landfilling or incineration without energy recovery). 329
Waste transportation and management processes shall be included in the product 330
system. Waste management of product losses or left-overs shall also be included in 331
this stage. 332
___________________________________________________________________ 8 Article 69, Regulation 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the vineyard register, compulsory declarations and the gathering of information to monitor the wine market.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
15
15
4.5. Selection of the EF impact categories indicators 333
Based on the results of the screening study performed by the Wine Technical 334
Secretariat, the following ILCD impact categories are selected as most relevant and 335
shall be included in the Environmental Footprint of wine: 336
- Resource depletion – water. 337
- Eutrophication. 338
- Acidification. 339
- Climate change as the sum of fossil, biogenic and land use and transformation. 340
The background information concerning the rationale for the selection of the most 341
relevant impact categories is provided in Annex XI. 342
For the calculation of sub-indicator Climate change – biogenic, a simplified modelling9 343
shall be applied meaning: 344
- Only the emission of biogenic methane is modelled; no biogenic emissions and 345
uptakes from atmosphere are modelled. 346
- The biogenic carbon content at factory gate shall always be reported as meta-347
data. 348
- The Global Warming Potential for biogenic methane shall be the equivalent of 349
fossil methane reduced by 2 in order to compensate the benefit from the 350
missing uptake. 351
Being an upland crop, vineyards are not expected to be a major producer of methane. 352
4.6. Additional environmental information 353
The following additional environmental information shall be included in the 354
Environmental Footprint of wine: 355
- Long-term carbon storage for all processes in the life cycle of wine where it 356
occurs (e.g. in the soil of vineyards). Biogenic carbon removals and emissions 357
shall be included. 358
- Percentage of grapes coming from organic production10 as well as from other 359
certified systems for enhancing the level of biodiversity or by providing evidence 360
over the impact of grape production (or other life cycle stages) on levels of 361
___________________________________________________________________ 9 Named “Option 2” within the Guidance and requirements for biogenic carbon modeling in
PEFCRs – version 2.2 (February 2016). 10 According to Council Regulation (EC) N` 834&2007, organic production is an overall system
of farm management and food production that combines best environmental practices, a high level of biodiversity, the preservation of natural resources, the application of high animal welfare standards and a production method in line with the preference of certain consumers for products produced using natural substances and processes.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
16
16
biodiversity of the functional areas managed, as for example those run by 362
Biodiversity Friend certification11 and Viticulture Durable en Champagne12). 363
- Post-consumer recycled content of the primary packaging materials used. 364
365
For still wine produced under the rules set by Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) or 366
Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) schemes requiring the use of glass bottles, a 367
comparison against a second benchmark may be included as a sensitivity analysis. 368
This second benchmark will refer to the representative still wine packaged in glass 369
bottles (see Annex XI). 370
371
All the background information concerning the rationale for the selection the additional 372
environmental information is provided in Annex XI to the PEFCR. 373
4.7. Assumptions/limitations 374
For grape production, available datasets are not adaptable to different situations 375
regarding use of fertilizers, pesticides, tying materials, management practices, etc. 376
377
For many oenological products used in wine making no secondary data is available. 378
379
Default product losses shall be considered for wine distribution and consumption and, 380
therefore, an additional amount of packaged wine shall be produced to compensate 381
these losses and meet the functional unit. 382
383
___________________________________________________________________ 11 Biodiversity Friend is a standard certification developed in 2010 by World Biodiversity
Association to evaluate the biodiversity and promote its conservation in agriculture (www.biodiversityfriend.org). 12
Viticulture Durable en Champagne is a certification created in 2014 which includes external auditing of 123 criteria including “biodiversity-friendly” actions.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
17
17
5. Life Cycle Inventory 384
5.1. Screening step 385
A screening study has been performed by the WINE TS (see Annex I for more 386
information). According to the study, the most relevant life cycle stages for both wine 387
and sparkling wine are: grape production, packaging production and wine making. 388
The most relevant processes are: 389
For grape production: those related to the application of fertilizers and 390
pesticides and the use of metals (steel, zinc, copper) for tying the vines. 391
For packaging production: production of glass bottles as primary packaging. 392
For wine making: electricity consumption during wine making. 393
For distribution: transport from the retailer to the place of consumption, despite 394
this process is not product-related. 395
For consumption and end of life (packaging): dishwashing of wine glasses and 396
transportation of waste, respectively. 397
5.2. Data quality requirements 398
The effort of data collection shall be focused on the most relevant life cycle stages and 399
processes identified in the screening (see Annex I). Depending on the case, some of 400
these relevant processes may be of the foreground system whereas others belong to 401
the background system (see chapter 5.3). 402
403
Life cycle stage Process System Data requirements
Grape production
Vine planting Foreground / background
Primary data if company
owns the vineyard or can
access to specific data
Canopy
management Foreground / background
Fertilizing
management Foreground / background
Pest and disease
management Foreground / background
Irrigation Foreground / background
Wine making Vinification Foreground Primary data
Ageing Foreground Primary data (if applicable)
Packaging Packaging Background Primary data for the BOM
and background data for the
production process.
Distribution
Distribution to retail Foreground
Transport from retail
to consumer Background Default scenario and
background data
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
18
18
Consumption Cooling of wine Background Default scenario and
background data
End of life
Packaging waste
management Background Default scenario and
background data
Left-over waste
management Background Default scenario and
background data
404
According to the PEF Guide, the overall data quality rating (DQR) shall be calculated 405
considering the quality rating achieved for six different criteria (summing up the results 406
achieved per each criteria and then dividing the result by 6). Criteria for defining the 407
quality rating respect to time, geographical and technological representativeness are 408
specific for this product category, whereas criteria for completeness, methodological 409
appropriateness and consistency and parameter uncertainty are those indicated in the 410
PEF Guide. 411
412
413
Quality
rating
Time related
representativeness
Technological
representativeness
Geographical
representativeness
1 – Very
good
Average data of at least
3 consecutive years
and ≤ 4 years old
Specific process and
technology
Data from the area under
study
2 – Good
Average data of 1-2
years and 2-4 years
old data
Same process but
slightly different
technology
Country specific data
3 – Fair Average data of 1 year
and 5-10 years old data
Average technology for
the same product/
process
Average data from a region
where similar technologies
are applied
4 – Poor 11 – 15 years old data
Average technology for
similar product /
process
Continent specific data
5 – Very
poor > 15 years old data
Other process or
unknown Global data or unknown
414
5.3. Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection 415
In this section requirements for primary specific data collection within each life cycle 416
stage are provided. Annex VIII provides a detailed list of substances and elementary 417
flows data that shall be collected by the applicant considering 3 possible situations: 418
- Situation 1: process run by the company applying the PEFCR. 419
- Situation 2: process not run by the company applying the PEFCR but with 420
access to company-specific information. 421
- Situation 3: process not run by the company applying the PEFCR and without 422
access to company-specific information. 423
424
Whereas wine making process shall be considered as “situation 1” processes in all the 425
cases, grape production may be classified as situation 1, 2 or 3 depending on the 426
specific case of the company applying the PEFCR. Packaging production, distribution 427
and End of life usually involve “situation 3” processes. 428
429
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
19
19
430
431
a) Grape production (situation 1, 2 or 3) 432
Whenever the company applying the PEFCR can access to specific data (e.g. in case 433
they own or have a strong influence on the vineyard management), specific data shall 434
be collected as grape production is a relevant process for most of the impact 435
categories and a good data quality (DQR ≤ 2) is mandatory for this process. 436
In other cases (situation 3), the company applying the PEFCR shall justify why it is not 437
possible to access to company-specific information. 438
If specific data is used (situations 1 or 2) data from vineyards producing at least 50% of 439
the grape used in the wine making process should be collected to represent the whole 440
production. All data should refer to at least 3 consecutive years, whereas average data 441
from 5 or more consecutive years is preferable, if available. Deviations from these rules 442
shall be justified. 443
In case specific data is not available or collectable at a reasonable cost and effort 444
(aspect that shall be justified), default secondary datasets with the appropriate quality 445
level shall be used (see chapter 5.4). 446
447
Vine plant nursery, planting, nourishing and destruction 448
The plantation and destruction cycle of vine shall be taken into account estimating the 449
number of plants grubbed and planted during the last 25 years in the vineyard. This 450
information will allow calculating the average life time of each plant. 451
The type and amount of tying materials (posts, wires, etc.), irrigation equipment (if 452
applicable) and fertilizers and pesticides used per nourishing each plant will be 453
estimated. Default methods for calculating the Nitrogen and Phosphorous balances 454
and effects of pesticides applied in this stage are listed in Annex VIII. 455
The average production of grape per plant shall be calculated for the last 3 years (5 if 456
available) in order to estimate the part of the vine plant that has to be allocated to each 457
kg of grape. 458
459
Canopy management 460
Energy consumption and waste associated to canopy management should be collected 461
for at least 3 years for the whole vineyard surface and then divided by the total 462
production of grape in that period. 463
464
Fertilizing management 465
The amount and type of fertilizers applied to the vineyard in 3 different years 466
(consecutive and 5 if available) for the whole vineyard surface shall be collected and 467
then divided by the total production of grape during that period. 468
Default methods for calculating the Nitrogen and Phosphorous balances are listed in 469
Annex VIII. 470
471
Pest and disease management 472
The amount and type of treatments used for managing pests and diseases in vineyard 473
in 3 different years (consecutive and 5 if available) for the whole vineyard surface shall 474
be collected and then divided by the total production of grape during that period. 475
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
20
20
Default methods for assessing the effects of pesticides application are listed in Annex 476
VIII. 477
478
Irrigation (if used) 479
The amount of water used (classified per type of source) for irrigation of the vineyard 480
shall be collected for the last 3 years (5 if available) for the whole vineyard surface 481
shall be collected and then divided by the total production of grape during that period. 482
483
b) Wine making process 484
Wine making process shall be based on company-specific data referring to at least 1 485
year, whereas average data from 3 or more consecutive years is preferable. At least 486
Good data (DQR ≤ 2) quality is mandatory for this process. 487
Specific data to collect is included in Annex VIII. 488
489
c) Packaging 490
Primary packaging has a remarkable contribution in most of the impact categories and 491
therefore good data quality (DQR ≤ 3) is mandatory for this process. 492
For secondary and tertiary packaging, fair data quality may be used. 493
Specific data to collect and default datasets to used are included in Annex VIII. 494
495
d) Distribution to retail 496
Specific data to be collected refers to the average transportation distance and media 497
used between the winery and the distribution or retail centre, whether wine is 498
transported packaged or in bulk. 499
All data shall refer to at least 1 year, whereas average data from 3 or more consecutive 500
years is preferable, if available. 501
Specific data to collect is included in Annex VIII. 502
5.4. Requirements regarding background generic data and data gaps 503
In this section requirements for background generic data use within each life cycle 504
stage are provided. Annex IX provides a detailed list of all generic and semi-specific 505
data that shall be used by the applicant. 506
Relevant background data shall have a DQR≤ 3, according to the general data quality 507
criteria defined in the Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product 508
Environmental Footprint (PEF). For non-relevant processes, datasets with a DQR of 4 509
can be used. 510
511
a) Grape production 512
In situation 1 and 2: generic data may be used for assessing the inputs of the different 513
processes involved, i.e. production of fuel, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. 514
In situation 3, default generic datasets listed in Annex IX shall be used for assessing 515
grape production. 516
517
518
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
21
21
b) Wine making process 519
Default secondary datasets included in Annex IX shall be used for assessing the 520
production of energy sources, water, barrels, cleaning products and oenological 521
products, as well as for waste management and goods transportation. 522
523
c) Packaging 524
Default secondary datasets included in Annex IX shall be used for assessing the 525
production of the packaging materials (primary, secondary and tertiary). 526
527
d) Distribution to retail 528
Default secondary datasets included in Annex IX shall be used for assessing the 529
transportation processes and waste management of secondary and tertiary packaging 530
used. 531
532
e) Consumption 533
Default secondary datasets included in Annex IX shall be used for assessing energy 534
production. 535
536
f) End of life 537
Default secondary datasets included in Annex IX shall be used for assessing the 538
transportation and management of primary packaging waste as well as the waste 539
management of wine losses and left-overs. 540
5.5. Data gaps 541
Data gaps may occur when representative and suitable specific or generic data is not 542
available. 543
544
Existing LCI datasets do not cover the complete production cycle of grape in different 545
regions and circumstances (e.g. irrigation, organic production, etc.). When companies 546
applying the PEFCR do not run this process or have access to company-specific 547
information, available datasets may be applied (see Annex IX). 548
549
For some oenological products, secondary data may not be available and in such 550
cases if company-specific data is not collectable at a reasonable cost and effort, the 551
best available generic data should be used as a proxy (see Annex IX). 552
5.6. Use stage 553
The use stage starts at the moment the end user consumes wine and till the product 554
enters its end-of-life stage. It includes activities and products needed for a proper 555
consumption of wine: 556
- Product-independent processes (the same for all wine products even if the 557
producer changes the product‟s characteristics): use of glass for drinking wine. 558
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
22
22
Not being environmentally relevant, this process is excluded from the system 559
boundaries. 560
- Product dependent processes: recommended serving temperature. May be 561
relevant for some impact categories and therefore shall be included in the 562
system boundaries. 563
To model the use stage processes the main function approach shall be applied. As a 564
default scenario, cooling of the product before its consumption will be considered for 565
sparkling and still wines (red, white or rosé). In all cases, the default scenario proposed 566
by AFNOR-ANIA (2012) is applied, i.e. wine is stored in the refrigerator during 7 days 567
until it is completely consumed with an energy consumption of 0.0037 kWh/l/day. It is 568
assumed that 0.75 l of wine (still or sparkling) requires 2.25 l of storage volume in the 569
fridge. Therefore, the total electricity consumption will be 0.058 kWh. 570
As a default scenario 5% product-losses during the use phase shall be considered, 571
including those related to the alteration of the wine taste, among others (e.g. losses at 572
restaurants). Therefore an additional amount of packaged wine shall be produced and 573
transported to compensate these losses and meet the functional unit. Different product-574
losses rates should be considered in a sensitivity analysis if different values are 575
justified. It will be considered that lost wine and left-overs are poured down the drain 576
(and therefore treated as waste water) as part of the end-of-life stage. 577
Use stage results for final products shall be reported separately from other life cycle 578
stages and not as additional information. 579
5.7. Logistics 580
The following transport processes shall be included in the system boundaries. If 581
primary data is not available, the following default distances and transport media shall 582
be considered. 583
584
Transport Default distance
(km)
Transport media
Fertilizers and products used for pest and disease management from providers to the vineyard.
350 Truck
Grape from the vineyard to the winery 25 Truck
Other ingredients (oenological practices) and auxiliary materials (barrels, secondary packaging, etc.) from providers to winery
150 Truck
Waste from vineyard or winery to waste treatment facility 50 Truck
Primary packaging glass bottles 350 Truck
39 Train
86 Boat
cork stoppers 500 Truck
aluminium screw cap 400 Truck
plastic cork stopper 800 Truck
label 150 Truck
overcap 400 Truck
Bag in Box 800 Truck
PET container 400 Truck
Beverage carton – container 1077 Truck
Beverage carton – closure 600 Truck
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
23
23
Packaged wine from
winery to final use
EU market 1000 Truck
120 Ferry
Extra EU market 640 Truck
18300 Ship
Waste packaging materials to waste treatment facility 50 Truck
585
85% default load factor shall be applied. Other load factors may be assessed in 586
sensitivity analysis. 587
588
1% loss rate during distribution shall be considered as the overall consolidated value 589
for transportation, storage and retail. 590
591
In case reusable packaging is used (e.g. glass bottles), guidelines and requirements 592
given in the working paper of the PEF - Packaging Working Group on Reuse times for 593
reusable packaging shall be applied. 594
595
For all the processes, capital goods (including infrastructures) shall be included unless 596
they fall under a 5% cut-off rule based on material or energy flow or the level of 597
environmental significance and fair quality data is available (DQR ≤ 3). 598
5.8. End-of-life stage 599
The PEF formula shall be used to model the End of Life (EoL) of packaging materials. 600
Other formulas may be tested in a sensitivity analysis. 601
602
When available, country-specific rates for recycling, incineration with energy recovery, 603
incineration without energy recovery and landfill of packaging waste shall be used13. 604
605
It will be considered that wine lost or not consumed will be poured down the drain and 606
treated as waste water. 607
608
In all cases, a distance of 100 km shall be considered from the collection point to the 609
waste treatment facility. Default datasets included in Annex IX shall be used to model 610
waste treatment. 611
5.9. Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct 612
processes allocation 613
614
Wherever possible, allocation should be avoided by dividing the multifunctional unit 615
process to be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the input and 616
output data related to these sub-processes. 617
Allocation is necessary in wine making as by-products (i.e. grape pomace and lees) of 618
the process can be used by a variety of other systems, e.g. grape pomace can be 619
___________________________________________________________________ 13
For the supporting studies, default data for End of Life provided by the European Commission shall be applied.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
24
24
distillate for spirits production (brandy or grappa) or grape pomace and lees can be 620
used to produce industrial alcohol or non-alcoholic products (e.g. grape seed oil, 621
tartaric acid, polyphenols, fertilizers, etc.). Under the current legal framework in the EU, 622
in most of the cases wine co-products (pomace and lees) go to wine distilleries, other 623
uses being residual. 624
Mass and alcohol content values are considered to better reflect the causality between 625
wine and its by-products, whereas economic allocation may not be suitable for the wine 626
sector due to the high variability of prices of by-products in Europe (geographically, 627
temporally and dependent on the company negotiation power), the distortion 628
introduced by public subventions and the high versatility of the products resulting from 629
distillation of marc and lees (potable alcohol, carburation, fertilizers, cosmetics…). 630
Therefore, mass-based allocation shall be applied as the default option whereas 631
economic allocation and physical allocation based on alcohol content shall be applied 632
as well. Specific data shall be collected shall be collected for the calculation of the 633
allocation factors. 634
In all cases, the following will be taken into account: 635
- In the case of grape pomace, upstream processes entail grape production and 636
grape crushing processes. 637
- In the case of lees, upstream processes entail grape production and the wine 638
making processes occurring until the separation of lees. 639
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
25
25
6. Benchmark and classes of environmental 640
performance 641
Annex III gives benchmarks for still and sparkling wine for the 15 impact categories. 642
These benchmarks coincide with the results of the screening assessment of the two 643
representative products. 644
In addition, Annex XI shows benchmarks for still wine packaged in glass bottles for the 645
declaration of additional environmental information (see point 4.6). 646
647
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
26
26
7. Interpretation 648
The interpretation of the PEF results shall include the following steps: 649
Identification of hotsposts. For each impact category, the most relevant life 650
cycle stages, processes and elementary flows shall be identified. To this end, 651
those elements with a cumulative contribution reaching at least 80% to the 652
impact category results before normalisation and weighting shall be listed, from 653
the most contributing in descending order. Most relevant impact categories shall 654
be identified based on the normalised and weighted results. 655
Assessment of the robustness of the PEF model shall include an 656
assessment of the extent to which methodological choices influence results. 657
Estimation of uncertainty: at least a qualitative description of uncertainties of 658
the PEF results and data robustness shall be provided. 659
Conclusions, recommendations and limitations shall be described in 660
accordance with the defined goals and scope of the PEF study. The limitations 661
of the study shall be clearly stated and described. 662
663
664
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
27
27
8. Reporting, Disclosure and Communication 665
This section will be completed at a later stage. 666
It is envisaged to test the following communication vehicles during the communication 667
phase of the Wine Pilot: report, banner (website) and advertisement (wine catalogue, 668
poster at the point of sale). Demos of these communication vehicles will be tested in 669
focus groups (wine consumers) and individual interviews (professional purchasers). 670
671
672
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
28
28
9. Verification 673
Verification responds to the need to assess compliance of the PEFCR supporting study 674
and its results with the requirements established in the PEF Guide and this PEFCR (in 675
its latest version available). In this regard, the verification procedure shall confirm: 676
o The traceability and validity of the information/data, both primary data of the 677
organisation carrying out the study or of its suppliers, and other forms of secondary 678
data used in the supporting studies. 679
o Whether the environmental performance and other environmental information given 680
in the PEF profile is in line with the underlying data and calculations carried and 681
whether this information is valid and scientifically sound. 682
The verifier shall: 683
o Make use of sample checks for the unit processes/information modules/PEFCR 684
modules to check their conformance to original data sources. 685
o Check that the calculations are made in a correct way based on the life cycle 686
inventory and recommended characterisation, normalisation and weighting factors. 687
The organisation shall: 688
o Provide the verifier with information about the underlying data and calculations 689
carried out upon request. 690
o Implement the comments of the verifiers before starting external communication of 691
the PEFCR supporting study results. 692
693
694
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
29
29
10. Reference literature 695
European Commission (2013). Annex II: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide 696
to the Commission Recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and 697
communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations 698
(2013/179/EU) (also called “PEF Guide”). 699
European Commission (2014). Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document. 700
Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) 701
during the Environmental Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase, v. 5.1, September 2015 (also 702
called “PEF Guidance”). 703
ISO 14040, ISO 14044 and ISO 14071 on Life Cycle Assessment. 704
Beverage Industry Sector Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. 705
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. Version 3.0, December 2013. 706
BP X 30-323-0 «General principles for an environmental communication on mass 707
market products» developed by AFNOR. Part 15: Methodology for the environmental 708
impacts assessment of food products (2012-10-22) 709
ENVIFOOD Protocol. Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink Protocol. 710
European Food Sustainable Consumption & Production RoundTable. November 2013. 711
General principles of the OIV GHG accounting protocol (GHGAP) for the vine and wine 712
sector. 713
PCR 2010:02 Wine of fresh grapes, except sparkling wine; grape must (Version 1.03). 714
The International EPD System. 715
PCR 2014:14 Sparkling wine of fresh grapes (Version 1.0). The International EPD 716
System. 717
Product Category Rules for wine. HAproWINE Life Project. Approval: November 718
2013. LIFE08 ENV/E/000143. 719
720
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
30
30
11. Definitions 721
• Additional Environmental Information – EF impact categories and other 722
environmental indicators that are calculated and communicated alongside PEF 723
results. 724
• Allocation – An approach to solving multi-functionality problems. It refers to 725
“partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system between the 726
product system under study and one or more other product systems” (ISO 727
14040:2006). 728
• Average Data – Refers to a production-weighted average of specific data. 729
• Background processes – Refers to those processes in the product life cycle 730
for which no direct access to information is possible. For example, most of the 731
upstream life-cycle processes and generally all processes further downstream will 732
be considered part of the background processes. 733
• Business to Business (B2B) – Describes transactions between businesses, such 734
as between a manufacturer and a wholesaler, or between a wholesaler and a 735
retailer. 736
• Business to Consumers (B2C) – Describes transactions between business and 737
consumers, such as between retailers and consumers. According to ISO 738
14025:2006, a consumer is defined as “an individual member of the general public 739
purchasing or using goods, property or services for private purposes”. 740
• Comparative Assertion – An environmental claim regarding the 741
superiority or equivalence of products, based on the results of a PEF study 742
and supporting PEFCRs (based on ISO 14040:2006). 743
• Comparison – A comparison, not including a comparative assertion, (graphic or 744
otherwise) of two or more products regarding the results of their PEF, taking 745
into account their PEFCRs, not including a comparative assertion. 746
• Co-product – Any of two or more products resulting from the same unit 747
process or product system (ISO 14040:2006). 748
• Cradle to Gate – An assessment of a partial product supply chain, from the 749
extraction of raw materials (cradle) up to the manufacturer‟s “gate”. The 750
distribution, storage, use stage and end-of-life stages of the supply chain are 751
omitted. 752
• Cradle to Grave – An assessment of a product‟s life cycle including raw 753
material extraction, processing, distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling 754
stages. All relevant inputs and outputs are considered for all of the stages of the 755
life cycle. 756
• Critical review – Process intended to ensure consistency between a PEF study 757
and the principles and requirements of this PEF Guide and PEFCRs (if available) 758
(based on ISO 14040:2006). 759
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
31
31
• Data Quality – Characteristics of data that relate to their ability to satisfy stated 760
requirements (ISO 14040:2006). Data quality covers various aspects, such as 761
technological, geographical and time-related representativeness, as well as 762
completeness and precision of the inventory data. 763
• Environmental impact – Any change to the environment, whether adverse or 764
beneficial, that wholly or partially results from an organisation‟s activities, products 765
or services (EMAS regulation). 766
• Flow diagram – Schematic representation of the flows occurring during one or 767
more process stages within the life cycle of the product being assessed. 768
• Foreground Processes – Refer to those processes in the product life cycle 769
for which direct access to information is available. For example, the producer‟s site 770
and other processes operated by the producer or its contractors (e.g. goods 771
transport, head-office services, etc.) belong to the foreground processes. 772
• Gate to Gate – A partial assessment looking only at the processes carried out on a 773
product within a specific organisation or site. 774
• Gate to Grave – An assessment including only the distribution, storage, use, 775
and disposal or recycling stages of a product. 776
• Generic Data – Refers to data that is not directly collected, measured, or 777
estimated, but rather sourced from a third-party life-cycle-inventory database or 778
other source that complies with the data quality requirements of the PEF method. 779
• Input – Product, material or energy flow that enters a unit process. 780
Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products and co-781
products (ISO 14040:2006). 782
• Intermediate product – Output form a unit process that is input to other unit 783
processes that require further transformation within the system (ISO 784
14040:2006). 785
• Life cycle – Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw 786
material acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal (ISO 787
14040:2006). 788
• Life-Cycle Approach – Takes into consideration the spectrum of 789
resource flows and environmental interventions associated with a product from a 790
supply-chain perspective, including all stages from raw material acquisition 791
through processing, distribution, use, and end-of-life processes, and all relevant 792
related environmental impacts (instead of focusing on a single issue). 793
• Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs 794
and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its 795
life cycle (ISO 14040:2006). 796
• Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) – Phase of life cycle assessment that 797
aims at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the 798
potential environmental impacts for a system throughout the life cycle (ISO 799
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
32
32
14040:2006). The LCIA methods used provide impact characterisation factors for 800
elementary flows to aggregate the impact to a limited number of midpoint and/or 801
damage indicators. 802
• Multi-functionality – If a process or facility provides more than one 803
function, i.e. it delivers several goods and/or services ("co-products"), it is 804
“multifunctional”. In these situations, all inputs and emissions linked to the process 805
must be partitioned between the product of interest and the other co-products in a 806
principled manner. 807
• Output – Product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit process. 808
Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products, co- products 809
and releases (ISO 14040:2006). 810
• Product – Any goods or services (ISO 14040:2006). 811
• Product category – Group of products that can fulfil equivalent functions (ISO 812
14025:2006). 813
• Product Category Rules (PCR) – Set of specific rules, requirements and 814
guidelines for developing Type III environmental declarations for one or more 815
product categories (ISO 14025:2006). 816
• Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) – Are 817
product-type-specific, life-cycle-based rules that complement general 818
methodological guidance for PEF studies by providing further specification at the 819
level of a specific product category. PEFCRs can help to shift the focus of the PEF 820
study towards those aspects and parameters that matter the most, and hence 821
contribute to increased relevance, reproducibility and consistency. 822
• Product system – Collection of unit processes with elementary and product 823
flows, performing one or more defined functions, and which models the life 824
cycle of a product (ISO 14040:2006). 825
• Reference Flow – Measure of the outputs from processes in a given product 826
system required to fulfil the function expressed by the unit of analysis (based on 827
ISO 14040:2006). 828
• Sensitivity analysis – Systematic procedures for estimating the effects of the 829
choices made regarding methods and data on the results of a PEF study (based 830
on ISO 14040: 2006). 831
• Specific Data – Refers to directly measured or collected data 832
representative of activities at a specific facility or set of facilities. Synonymous with 833
“primary data.” 834
• Subdivision – Subdivision refers to disaggregating multifunctional 835
processes or facilities to isolate the input flows directly associated with each 836
process or facility output. The process is investigated to see whether it can be 837
subdivided. Where subdivision is possible, inventory data should be collected only 838
for those unit processes directly attributable to the products/services of concern. 839
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
33
33
• System Boundary – Definition of aspects included or excluded from the study. 840
For example, for a “cradle-to-grave” EF analysis, the system boundary should 841
include all activities from the extraction of raw materials through the processing, 842
distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling stages. 843
• System boundary diagram – Graphic representation of the system boundary 844
defined for the PEF study. 845
• Uncertainty analysis – Procedure to assess the uncertainty introduced into the 846
results of a PEF study due to data variability and choice-related uncertainty. 847
• Unit of Analysis – The unit of analysis defines the qualitative and 848
quantitative aspects of the function(s) and/or service(s) provided by the product 849
being evaluated; the unit of analysis definition answers the questions “what?”, 850
“how much?”, “how well?”, and “for how long?” 851
• Unit process – Smallest element considered in the Resource Use and 852
Emissions Profile for which input and output data are quantified (based on ISO 853
14040:2006). 854
• Waste – Substances or objects which the holder intends or is required to dispose 855
of (ISO 14040:2006). 856
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
34
34
12. Supporting information for the PEFCR 857
858
Open stakeholder consultations 859
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/PEFCR+Pilot%3A+Wine 860
861
PEFCR Review Report 862
This section will be completed at a later stage. 863
864
865
Additional requirements in standards not covered in PEFCR 866
867
This section will be completed at a later stage. 868
869
870
Cases of deviations from the default approach 871
This section will be completed at a later stage. 872
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
35
35
13. List of annexes 873
Annex I – Representative product 874
Wine is produced from grapes through vinification. Two virtual representative 875
products (representing 99% of EU traded wines) have been defined: 876
- Still wine: the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic 877
fermentation of fresh grapes or of grape must. Wine shall have a minimum 878
actual alcoholic strength and specific minimum limits are settled for different 879
wine-growing zones. 880
- Sparkling wine: obtained by first or second alcoholic fermentation from fresh 881
grapes, from grape must or from wine and which, when the container is opened, 882
releases carbon dioxide derived exclusively from fermentation. Quality sparkling 883
wine, quality aromatic sparkling wine, aerated sparkling wine, semi-sparkling 884
wine and aerated semi-sparkling wine are included within this category. 885
Wine and its by-products are used to produce more elaborated products through 886
additional distillation and/or enrichment products. This other wine products are not 887
covered by this PEFCR document (however this document could be used for 888
calculating part of their PEF). 889
Based on available information about existing technologies and practices, two virtual 890
products have been defined. The main assumptions adopted for defining the virtual 891
representative products are: 892
- The composition of the two representative products (i.e. still wine and sparkling 893
wine) was determined based on available data for the EU market as well as on 894
the expert knowledge from the WINE TS. 895
- For grape production, it is considered that 14.5% of vineyards are irrigated and 896
that 6.55% produce organic grapes. 897
- The representative still wine is composed by 63.5% red conventional, 4.4% red 898
organic, 29.9% white conventional and 2.1% white organic wines. 899
- Ageing of still wine occurs in oak barrels, during 12 months and for 15% of still 900
red glass-bottled wine and 3% of still white glass-bottled wine. 901
- Still wine is distributed partially in bulk: 42% in the case of intra EU market and 902
58% of extra EU market. 100% of sparkling wine is distributed packaged. 903
- Representative sparkling wine is composed by 93.45% conventional and 6.55% 904
organic wines. 905
- The differences between organic and conventional still and sparkling wine are 906
tackled in two processes: the production of grape and the use of different 907
oenological practices. It is believed that these processes capture the main 908
differences between both types of production. 909
- Primary packaging of the representative still wine is formed by 79% of glass 910
bottle (with different types of stoppers), 16% of Bag in Box, 4% of PET bottle 911
and 1% of beverage carton. Types of stoppers used for glass bottles: 67% cork 912
closure, 17% synthetic stoppers and 16% screw caps. 913
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
36
36
- Primary packaging of the representative sparkling wine is formed by glass bottle 914
and mushroom-shaped sparkling wine closure. 915
- Still wine is produced 75% in the EU and 25% abroad, whereas sparkling wine 916
is produced 97% in the EU and 3% abroad. 917
918
919
Bill of materials and ingredients needed for producing the representative products 920
Grape, oenological products and packaging materials are the 3 types of materials and 921
ingredients needed for producing still and sparkling wine. Oenological practices are the 922
treatments and substances permitted for the production of wine and strictly regulated 923
by the EU wine legislation (Regulation 606/2009) in the form of a positive list largely 924
based on the OIV Code of Oenological Practices. 925
Wine is not made on a fixed recipe as soil, weather, geology, varietals are decisive 926
variables in regard to the oenological practices to be employed each year. In addition, 927
oenological practices and limits will also depend on the applicable rules of 928
geographical indications; currently, there are around 1,560 geographical indications for 929
wine in the EU. Taking that into account, the following table shows the average 930
oenological practises applicable to the two virtual representative products. For each 931
treatment, maximum permitted limits set up by legislation and/or highest recommended 932
doses by producers, as well as the percentage of wines using it (based on estimations 933
build upon information from suppliers) have been considered to calculate the amount 934
used. It is important to remark that the bill of materials represent virtual products which 935
could not be legally produced nor found on the real market, as some oenological 936
products cannot be combined according to existing legislation. 937
938
Material
Quantity per 0.75 litres of packaged
wine (g)
Still wine Sparkling wine
1. GRAPE 1.20E03 1.20E03
2. OENOLOGICAL PRODUCTS 1.15E-00 1.16E-00
Enzymes 1.35E-02 1.35E-02
Acidification
- Lactic acid 1.53E-02 1.56E-02
- Malic acid 1.46E-02 1.46E-02
- Tartaric acid 1.54E-01 1.56E-01
Clarification
- Calcium alginate 0.00E+00 1.40E-02
- Potassium alginate 0.00E+00 1.05E-04
- Potassium caseinate 2.25E-02 2.24E-02
- Casein 2.25E-02 2.24E-02
- Isinglass 1.12E-03 1.12E-03
- Silicon dioxide 7.50E-04 7.47E-04
- Edible gelatine 1.87E-02 1.87E-02
- Plant proteins 3.37E-02 3.36E-02
- Ovalbumin 1.12E-02 1.12E-02
- Kaolin 3.75E-03 3.74E-03
- Classic filtration aids 4.50E-01 4.48E-01
- Bentonite 4.50E-01 4.48E-01
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
37
37
Material
Quantity per 0.75 litres of packaged
wine (g)
Still wine Sparkling wine
Stabilization
- Calcium tartrate 7.00E-05 6.99E-05
- Potassium bitartrate 1.40E-04 1.40E-04
- Yeast mannoproteins 1.12E-05 1.12E-05
- Arabic gum 1.50E-04 1.49E-04
- CMC (Carboxymethycellulose) 2.80E-05 2.80E-05
Fermentation
- Fresh lees 7.00E-02 6.99E-02
- Ammonium bisulphite 1.40E-01 1.40E-01
- Thiamine hydrochloride 1.12E-02 1.12E-02
- Yeast cell walls 1.50E-01 1.49E-01
- Yeast for wine production 2.80E-02 2.80E-02
- Diammonium phosphate 7.00E-02 6.99E-02
- Ammonium sulphate 1.40E-01 1.40E-01
Preservation
- Sorbic acid 1.40E-03 1.40E-03
- Potassium bisulphite 6.31E-02 1.49E-01
- Nitrogen 4.50E-02 4.48E-02
- DMDC (dimethyldicarbonate) 1.40E-03 1.40E-03
- Lysozyme 1.05E-02 1.05E-02
- Ascorbic acid 2.81E-02 2.80E-02
- Citric acid 7.50E-04 7.47E-04
Enrichment
- Concentrated grape must 7.12E+00 7.10E+00
- Rectified concentrated must 7.21E-01 7.19E-01
- Saccharose 1.04E+00 1.04E+00
Deacidification
- Lactic Bacteria 1.12E-02 1.12E-02
- Potassium carbonate 7.50E-03 7.47E-03
- Neutral potassium tartrate 1.25E-03 1.25E-03
- Potassium bicarbonate 1.25E-03 1.25E-03
- Calcium carbonate 1.25E-03 1.25E-03
Other
- PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone) 2.80E-02 2.80E-02
- Oenological charcoal 7.23E-03 0.00E+00
- Copper sulphate 7.50E-06 7.47E-06
- Oak chips 1.12E-01 1.12E-01
- Metartaric acid 3.00E-02 2.99E-02
- Tannins 4.50E-02 4.48E-02
3. PACKAGING 3.92E02 7.13E02
- Glass container, stopper, overcap and
label 3.86E02 7.13E02
- Bag in box 4.10E00
- PET bottle 2.42E00
- Beverage carton 1.05E-01
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
38
38
Functional unit 939
940
What Moderate consumption of alcoholic beverage
How long Not applicable
How well Recommended serving temperature (normally between 8ºC to 17ºC)
How much 0.75 litres of wine
941
About the “how much” 942
The reasons for using the “0.75 litres of packaged wine” as unit of analysis are 943
as follows: 944
- Packaged wine (in e.g. glass bottles, beverage carton, etc.) is a 945
recognisable unit for wineries and consumers. 946
- 750 ml is a common mandatory nominal quantity for different wine 947
products (see Directive 2007/45/EC). 948
- 84% of EU wine is put in the market bottled (in <2 litres containers), 949
according to Eurostat (2013). 950
- 90% of packaged EU wine is put in the market in 750 ml nominal 951
quantity, according to the last data available. 952
About the “how long” 953
Wine is exempted from mandatory indication of the expiry date as the product 954
has a very long shelf life. On the other hand, the duration of the service 955
provided by the product may widely vary depending not only on the 956
characteristics of the product (quantity, taste, alcoholic strength, etc.) but also 957
on the characteristics of the consumer (age, habits, likes, etc.) and even the 958
circumstance under the product is consumed (special occasion, periodicity, 959
etc.). 960
Moderate drinking guidelines are set by governments. According to the national 961
drinking guidelines reported by the International Centre of Alcohol Policies 962
(ICAP), a low risk moderate consumption is defined as: up to 2 drink units a day 963
for women, up to 3 drink units a day for men and no more than 4 drink units on 964
any one occasion. Both the consumption of wine per person and the amount of 965
ethanol of a drinking unit differ from country to country. 966
Finally, the "quality” of wine is a complex multifaceted value which involves a 967
myriad of traits: farm and production practices, origin, taste, flavour, specificity, 968
authenticity, the pattern or occasion of consumption (culture, settings, context, 969
fashion)... just to mention some of the multiple objective and subjective 970
variables in place. 971
972
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
39
39
System boundary diagram and description: 973
The system considered includes grape production, wine making, bottling, distribution, 974
retail, consumption of wine, and end of life of packaging. As representative data was 975
not available, capital goods were excluded for wine making, distribution and retail. 976
The grape production (or the agricultural phase of the wine production) includes all the 977
operations related to the cultivation of grapes, from selecting the place for cultivation to 978
harvesting the grapes. 979
Although there are some variations in wine production process mainly due to the type 980
of wine to be produced and the technologies implemented in the winery itself, most of 981
the steps are common, i.e. classification of grapes, removal of unwanted vegetal 982
material, squashing of the grapes, vinification and bottling. Vinification includes 983
different steps such as fermentation, clarification or stabilisation, entailing the use of 984
permitted oenological practices (additives and processing aids) regulated by the EU 985
wine legislation14 in the form of a positive list. 986
Wine and winery by-products can be processed into many industries, for instance they 987
can be distillate for spirits production (i.e. grape pomace15 distillation for brandy and 988
grappa production), or to produce industrial alcohol (grape pomace and lees). 989
Once produced, wine may be marketed in bulk or in small size containers for the retail 990
market. Different volumes and packaging options may be used for still wine, whereas 991
sparkling wine shall be marketed in a specific type of glass bottles and mushroom-992
shaped sparkling wine closure16. 993
The majority of the still wine and sparkling wine consumed in EU-28 is produced within 994
this territory, whereas the rest is imported mainly from Australia, Chile, South Africa 995
and USA. 996
If maintained in the original (adequate) packaging and stored in room temperature, 997
wine does not require chilling for its preservation. However in the case of sparkling and 998
white and rosé wines, serving temperatures are recommended by winemakers to 999
improve consumer‟s experience, whereas for red wine the room temperature is usually 1000
considered good enough. Once the wine is consumed (using normally wine glasses) 1001
the packaging materials are recycled or discarded. 1002
1003
___________________________________________________________________ 14 Regulation 606/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions. 15
Also known as “marc”. 16 Article 69, Regulation 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the vineyard register, compulsory declarations and the gathering of information to monitor the wine market.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
40
40
Figure 2: System boundaries for wine: main steps, inputs and outputs considered 1004
1005
GRAPE PRODUCTION
(AGRICULTURAL
PHASE)
MANUFACTURE OF
WINE FROM GRAPE
(WINEMAKING PROCESS)
DISTRIBUTIONRETAIL AND
CONSUMPTION
END OF LIFE
ENERGY
FERTILIZERS
PESTICIDES
AUXILIARIES
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTES
BIOMASS
EMISSIONS
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
ENERGY WATER
AUXILIARY MATERIALS
OENOLOGICAL
PRACTICES(Sulphites, filter plates,
diatomaceous earths,
etc.)
PACKAGING(Glass bottles, PET,
bottles, bag in box,
closures, labels,
cardboard, etc.)
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
WASTEWATER EMISSIONS
WASTES
ORGANIC/BIOMASSOTHER
(used filter plates,
used diatomaceous
earths, tartrates,
packaging wastes , etc.)
STEMS
STALKS
LEES
POMACE
BIOMASS
VALORIZATION
ENERGYFERTILIZERS
DISTILLATION
INDUSTRY
INDUSTRIAL
ALCOHOL
SPIRITS(Brandy, grappa,
etc.)
OTHER
VALORIZATION INDUSTRIES
GRAPE SEED OIL, TARTARIC
ACID, POLYPHENOLS
ENERGY
EMISSIONS
ENERGY
EMISSIONS
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
ENERGY EMISSIONS
RE-USE RECYCLING
INCINERATION LANDFILL
PACKAGING MANUFACTURE
PRODUCT SYSTEM OF WINE
GRAPE PRODUCTION
(AGRICULTURAL
PHASE)
MANUFACTURE OF
WINE FROM GRAPE
(WINEMAKING PROCESS)
DISTRIBUTIONRETAIL AND
CONSUMPTION
END OF LIFE
ENERGY
FERTILIZERS
PESTICIDES
AUXILIARIES
WATER
WASTEWATER
SOLID WASTES
BIOMASS
EMISSIONS
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
ENERGY WATER
AUXILIARY MATERIALS
OENOLOGICAL
PRACTICES(Sulphites, filter plates,
diatomaceous earths,
etc.)
PACKAGING(Glass bottles, PET,
bottles, bag in box,
closures, labels,
cardboard, etc.)
AUXILIARY MATERIALS
OENOLOGICAL
PRACTICES(Sulphites, filter plates,
diatomaceous earths,
etc.)
PACKAGING(Glass bottles, PET,
bottles, bag in box,
closures, labels,
cardboard, etc.)
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
WASTEWATER EMISSIONS
WASTES
ORGANIC/BIOMASSOTHER
(used filter plates,
used diatomaceous
earths, tartrates,
packaging wastes , etc.)
STEMS
STALKS
LEES
POMACE
BIOMASS
VALORIZATION
ENERGYFERTILIZERS
DISTILLATION
INDUSTRY
INDUSTRIAL
ALCOHOL
SPIRITS(Brandy, grappa,
etc.)
OTHER
VALORIZATION INDUSTRIES
GRAPE SEED OIL, TARTARIC
ACID, POLYPHENOLS
ENERGY
EMISSIONS
ENERGY
EMISSIONS
TR
AN
SP
OR
T
ENERGY EMISSIONS
RE-USE RECYCLING
INCINERATION LANDFILL
PACKAGING MANUFACTURE
PRODUCT SYSTEM OF WINE
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
41
41
Figure 3: General winemaking processes (main stages and vinification processes) 1006
1007
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
42
42
Results 1008
The most impacting life cycle stages for 0.75 litres of packaged still and sparkling 1009
wine are grape production, wine making and the production of the primary packaging 1010
used. 1011
For grape production, the environmental impacts are mainly related to the production 1012
and use of agrochemicals (chemical fertilizers and pesticides) as well as metals (e.g. 1013
steel, zinc and copper) used to tie vines during production. 1014
Within the wine making processes, the consumption of electricity is the process with 1015
higher environmental impacts associated. 1016
The production of glass bottles (79% of the packaging used for the representative still 1017
wine and 100% for the sparkling wine) is the most relevant contributor to the 1018
packaging stage. 1019
Regarding distribution and retail of wine, the transportation of wine from the retailer to 1020
the place of consumer is the most impacting process. 1021
In comparison with these stages, consumption and the end of life (packaging) 1022
impacts are relatively lower. In the case of use, it is the dishwashing of wine glasses 1023
the most impacting process due to the water and electricity consumption associated. 1024
Finally, the collection and transportation of packaging waste is the process with 1025
higher environmental impacts in the end-of-life. 1026
1027
1028
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
43
43
Figure a: Life cycle impacts of 0.75 litres of still wine (virtual product) 1029
1030
1031
Figure b: Life cycle impacts of 0.75 litres of sparkling wine (virtual product) 1032
1033
Conclusions 1034
Most relevant life cycle stages. For both wine and sparkling wine, most 1035
relevant life cycle stages are: 1036
o Grape production. 1037
o Packaging production. 1038
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
44
44
o Wine making. 1039
In comparison, the other life cycle stages have a lower contribution. 1040
Most relevant processes. For both wine and sparkling wine, the most 1041
relevant processes are: 1042
o For grape production: those related to the application of fertilizers and 1043
pesticides and the use of metals (steel, zinc, copper) for tying the 1044
vines. 1045
o For packaging production: production of glass bottles as primary 1046
packaging. 1047
o For wine making: electricity consumption during wine making. 1048
o For distribution: transport from the retailer to the place of consumption, 1049
despite this process is not product-related. 1050
o For consumption and end of life (packaging): dishwashing of wine 1051
glasses and transportation of waste, respectively. 1052
Most relevant elementary flows. For both wine and sparkling wine, the most 1053
relevant elementary flows are: 1054
Impact category Elementary flow
(compartment)
Process
Acidification Sulphur dioxide (air)
Nitrogen oxides (air)
Glass bottle production; Grape
production (vine tying); Diesel
combustion
Climate Change Carbon dioxide (air) Glass bottle production; electricity
consumption at winery; Grape
production (vine tying)
Eco-toxicity for aquatic fresh
water
Folpet (soil) Grape production
Eutrophication aquatic – fresh
water
Phosphate (water) Grape production
Eutrophication terrestrial Nitrate (water) Grape production
Eutrophication terrestrial Nitrogen oxides (air) Glass bottle production
Human Toxicity – cancer
effects
Chromium (air) Grape production (steel posts for
vine tying)
Human Toxicity – non-cancer
effects
Zinc (soil) Grape production
Ionising Radiation – human
health
Carbon C14 (air) Electricity consumption at winery
and during use; Glass bottle
production
Land Transformation To arable irrigated intensive
From arable, irrigated, intensive
Permanent crops
Grape production
Ozone depletion Halon (1301) (air) EoL waste collection an
transportation; transportation from
retail to consumer
Particulate Matter Dust (PM 2.5) (air) Glass bottle production
Photochemical ozone
formation
Nitrogen oxides (air) Glass bottle production; Grape
production (steel posts for vine
tying)
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
45
45
Resource depletion – water River water from technosphere Electricity consumption at winery;
Glass bottle production
Resource Depletion –
mineral, fossil
Indium Grape production (zinc coils used
in vine planting)
1055
Based on the normalised and weighted results and applying the PEF 1056
procedure17, the five most significant impact categories are: 1057
o Resource depletion – mineral, fossil. 1058
o Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water. 1059
o Human toxicity – non-cancer effects. 1060
o Human toxicity – cancer effects. 1061
o Resource depletion – water. 1062
These 5 categories represent 88% and 85% of the normalised and weighted 1063
results of still wine and sparkling wine, respectively. The rest of categories 1064
contribute less than 3 – 4 % to the overall normalised and weighted results. 1065
However, the WINE TS considers that the most relevant impact categories 1066
for communication purposes are: 1067
o Resource depletion – water. 1068
o Eutrophication - marine. 1069
o Acidification. 1070
o Climate change. 1071
This deviation proposed is based on the following reasons: 1072
a) Indium is the resource explaining most of the resource depletion and is 1073
related to the “zinc coating” of metals posts used in the plantation of vines. 1074
Despite indium is a rare mineral, results should be interpreted with care as 1075
inventory data may be overestimated and the default characterization 1076
factor used for Indium (based on reserve base estimates of 1999) may be 1077
too high in comparison to most recent estimates are considered. For all 1078
these reasons, the WINE TS considers that “resource depletion – mineral 1079
fossil” should not be considered as one of the most relevant impact 1080
categories. 1081
b) Regarding the normalised results of “Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water”, 1082
the WINE TS considers that USETOX models are not reliable enough for 1083
inorganic compounds like Copper or Zinc as the characterization factors 1084
___________________________________________________________________ 17 Screening and hotspot analysis: procedure to identify the hotspots and the most relevant
contributions (in terms of impact categories, life cycle stages, processes and flows), version 4.0. 24th
April 2015.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
46
46
are very uncertain. This combined with the before mentioned 100% soil 1085
assumption in ecoinvent v2 model, lead to unreliable characterization 1086
factor for Folpet and inorganics compounds. For all these reasons, the 1087
“ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water” should not be considered as one of 1088
the most relevant impact categories. For the same reasons, “human 1089
toxicity – non-cancer effects” and “human toxicity – cancer effects” should 1090
not be considered either. 1091
c) As resource depletion and toxicity-related categories may present 1092
overestimated results, remaining categories may be more relevant than 1093
initially estimated using the PEF method. On the other hand, some impact 1094
categories are closely related to just one type of packaging (i.e. glass 1095
bottles) and therefore will not be relevant for wine packaged in other types 1096
of packaging (i.e. bag in box, PET bottles, beverage carton, etc.). For 1097
these reasons, eutrophication-marine and acidification have been chosen 1098
by the WINE TS amongst the most relevant impact categories for both 1099
their relative contribution to the normalised results and for tackling 1100
different life cycle stages and processes. 1101
d) The WINE TS considers that Climate Change should be addressed when 1102
communicating the environmental impact of wine as all life cycle stages 1103
contribute to this impact (whereas other impact categories are mainly 1104
related to grape production) and consumers are more familiar with carbon 1105
footprint that with other impact categories. 1106
1107
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
47
47
Annex II – Supporting studies 1108
Three supporting studies have been carried out for testing the draft PEFCR for 1109
calculating the environmental footprint of 3 products: still wine produced in Spain and 1110
sold in UK, still wine produced and sold in Italy and sparkling wine produced in 1111
France and sold in different EU countries. In all cases, companies produce wine and 1112
grow grapes and therefore activity data has been collected for the whole production 1113
process. 1114
1115
As required by the draft PEFCR, three different allocation methods have been tested 1116
when co-products are produced. The range of values used for allocating the different 1117
co-products depending on the criteria applied is: 1118
1119
Relevant differences in overall results occur when mass, economic or physical 1120
allocation criteria are applied. 1121
Most relevant impact categories differ from one study to the other, but in at least two 1122
of three studies are as follows: 1123
- Freshwater ecotoxicity 1124
- Human toxicity, non-cancer effects 1125
- Mineral, fossil resource depletion 1126
- Terrestrial eutrophication 1127
- Water resource depletion 1128
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
48
48
The following aspects were suggested for improving this PEFCR: 1129
Include guidelines about how to calculate the emissions of organic waste 1130
(leafs, stems, stalks) left in soil vineyards. 1131
Review methods for calculating nitrate leaching to ground during N-fertilizers 1132
applications. 1133
Include default values for estimating the quantity of soil erode at the vineyard 1134
(parameter needed for calculating the phosphate emissions). 1135
Describe how reusable barrels shall be allocated to the functional unit. 1136
Exclude non relevant capital goods from the system boundaries. 1137
Explain how carbon storage at soil (additional information) shall be related to 1138
the functional unit. 1139
1140
1141
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
49
49
Annex III – Benchmark and classes of environmental 1142
performance 1143
The following table shows the results of the two representative products (still wine 1144
and sparkling wine) for the 15 impact categories assessed. These results were 1145
obtained in the screening study described in Annex I. 1146
1147
Impact category Unit Still wine Sparkling wine
Climate Change kg CO2 equivalent 1.40E+00 1.70E+00
Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 equivalent 3.60E-08 4.26E-08
Ecotoxicity for
aquatic fresh water
CTUe (Comparative Toxic Unit for
ecosystems) 2.34E+01 2.04E+01
Human Toxicity -
cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for
humans) 2.68E-08 2.40E-08
Human Toxicity –
non-cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for
humans) 9.45E-02 1.01E-01
Particulate
Matter/Respiratory
Inorganics
kg PM2.5 equivalent
1.23E-03 1.63E-03
Ionising Radiation –
human health effects
kBq U235
equivalent (to air) 9.45E-02 1.01E-01
Photochemical Ozone
Formation
kg NMVOC equivalent 5.35E-03 5.41E-03
Acidification mol H+ eq 1.08E-02 1.22E-02
Eutrophication –
terrestrial
mol N eq 3.02E-02 3.45E-02
Eutrophication –
aquatic freshwater
kg P equivalent 5.24E-05 4.79E-05
Eutrophication –
aquatic marine
kg N equivalent
3.39E-03 3.49E-03
Resource Depletion –
water
m3
water use related to local
scarcity of water 3.27E-02 3.52E-02
Resource Depletion –
mineral, fossil
kg antimony (Sb) equivalent 4.16E-04 3.63E-04
Land Transformation kg C (deficit) 1.69E+00 2.86E+00
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
50
50
Annex IV – Upstream scenarios (optional) 1148
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
51
51
Annex V – Downstream scenarios (optional) 1149
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
52
52
Annex VI – Normalisation factors 1150
The JRC Technical Report developed by Benini et al (2014) provides the list of 1151
normalization factors to be used in the PEFCR pilot phase. Those factors are based 1152
on An “EU-27 domestic inventory” i.e. an extensive collection of emissions into air, 1153
water and soil as well as resources extracted in EU-27 on a per year basis. 1154
1155
Impact category Unit Domestic
Normalisation factor
per person
(domestic)
Overall
robustness
Climate Change kg CO2 equivalent 4.60E+12 9.22E+03 Very high
Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11
equivalent
1.08E+07 2.16E-02 Medium
Ecotoxicity for
aquatic fresh water
CTUe (Comparative
Toxic Unit for
ecosystems)
4.36E+12 8.74E+03 Low
Human Toxicity -
cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative
Toxic Unit for
humans)
1.84E+04 3.69E-05 Low
Human Toxicity –
non-cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative
Toxic Unit for
humans)
2.66E+05 5.33E-04 Low
Particulate
Matter/Respiratory
Inorganics
kg PM2.5 equivalent 1.90E+09 3.80E+00 Very high
Ionising Radiation –
human health effects
kBq U235
equivalent
(to air)
5.64E+11 1.13E+03 Medium
Photochemical Ozone
Formation
kg NMVOC
equivalent
1.58E+10 3.17E+01 Medium
Acidification mol H+ eq 2.36E+10 4.73E+01 High
Eutrophication –
terrestrial
mol N eq 8.76E+10 1.76E+02 Medium
Eutrophication –
aquatic freshwater
kg P equivalent 7.41E+08 1.48E+00 Medium to
low
Eutrophication –
aquatic marine
kg N equivalent 8.44E+09 1.69E+01 Medium to
low
Resource Depletion –
water
m3
water use related
to local scarcity of
water
3.74E+13 7.48E+04 Medium to
low
Resource Depletion –
mineral, fossil
kg antimony (Sb)
equivalent
4.06E+10 8.14E+01 Medium
Land Transformation kg C (deficit) 3.74E+13 7.48E+04 Low
Source: Benini, L. ; Mancini, L. ; Sala, S. ; Manfredi, S. ; M.Schau, E. ; Pant, R. 1156
2014. Normalisation method and data for Environmental Footprints. Joint Research 1157
Centre Technical Reports, European Commission. Report EUR 26842 EN. 1158
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-1159
reports/normalisation-method-and-data-environmental-footprints 1160
1161
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
53
53
1162
Annex VII – Weighting factors 1163
Impact categories shall receive the weight defined in the most updated version of the 1164
Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). 1165
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
54
54
Annex VIII – Foreground data 1166
Grape production (situation 1) 1167
General data
Specific data required Units Comments
Vineyard surface ha
Number of plants plants/ha
Grape production (yield) kg/year
Year of plantation -
Vine plant nursery, planting, nourishing and destruction
Specific data required Units Comments
Average life-time of vines years/plant
Posts kg/year/plant
Specify materials,
production location and
average service life
Wires and other tying materials kg/year/plant
Specify materials,
production location and
average service life
Fertilizers kg/year/plant Specify type and
production location
Pesticides kg/year/plant Specify type and
production location
Energy consumption MJ/year/plant Specify type
Waste produced from vine
destruction kg/year/plant
Specify type and waste
treatment
Canopy management
Specific data required Units Comments
Energy consumption MJ/year/plant Specify type
Waste produced kg/year/plant Specify type and waste
treatment
Fertilizing management
Specific data required Units Comments
Fertilizers kg/year/plant Specify type and
production location
N mineral fertilizer used kg N/year/plant Specify type
Energy consumption MJ/year/plant Specify type
Pest and disease management
Specific data required Units Comments
Pesticides kg/year/plant Specify type and
production location
Energy consumption MJ/year/plant Specify type
Irrigation
Specific data required Units Comments
Materials used kg/year/plant Specify type, production
location and service life
Water consumption m3/year/plant Specify origin
Energy consumption MJ/year/plant Specify type
1168
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
55
55
Wine making process 1169
General data
Specific data required Units Comments
Winery surface m2
Annual production Number of bottles / year
Litres / year
Specify type
Vinification
Specific data required Units Comments
Grape used kg/year
Wine produced litres/year
Oenological products used kg/year Specify type and
production location
Energy consumption kWh/year
MJ/year
Specify type
Water consumption m3/year
Cleaning products kg/year Specify type
Waste produced kg/year Specify type and waste
treatment
Co-products produced (marc,
lees…) kg/year
Specify type, alcohol
content and sell price
Ageing
Specific data required Units Comments
Barrels used kg/year Specify materials and
production location
Cleaning products kg/year Specify materials and
production location
Energy consumption kWh/year
MJ/year
Specify type
Water consumption m3/year
Waste produced kg/year Specify type and waste
treatment
1170
Packaging 1171
Specific data required Units Comments
Primary packaging used kg/year Specify type and
production location
Energy consumption in fill-in and
packaging processes kWh/year
Specify type
Secondary packaging kg/year Specify type and
production location
Tertiary packaging kg/year Specify type and
production location
1172
Distribution to retail 1173
Specific data required Units Comments
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
56
56
Transport to distributor km/year
Specify type of transport
and amount of product
distributed to each point
1174
Default methods for calculating emissions derived from the application of fertilizers 1175
and pesticides (see Annex XIII for a description of the methods) 1176
Method Activity data required
Emissions to air
Ammonia (NH3) EMEP (EEA 2013)
Tier 1,2
Specify type and amount of fertiliser
(mineral and organic) applied in the
cultivated area, expressed in kg N per
ha yr of cultivated area.
Dinitrogen monoxide or
nitrous oxide (N2O)
IPCC (2006) Tier 1
Specify type and amount of fertilisers
(mineral and organic) and crop
residues applied in the cultivated area,
expressed in kg N per ha yr
of
cultivated area.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) EMEP (EEA 2009)
Tier 1
Specify type and amount of fertiliser
(mineral and organic) applied in the
cultivated area, expressed in kg N per
ha yr of cultivated area.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) after
urea application
IPCC (2006) Tier 1
Specify amount of urea applied in the
cultivated area, expressed in kg urea
per ha yr of cultivated area.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) form
land occupation and
transformation
Ecoinvent v2
(Frishknecht et al,
2007)
Specify land use change in the
cultivated area under study over the
last 20 years.
Specify land occupation expressed in
m2 y, time period starts after the
harvest of the previous crop (average
harvest date) and ends with the
harvest of the considered crop.
Emissions to surface water
Phosphate run-off to
surface water (PO43-
)
SALCA – P
Prasuhn 2006
Specify amount of P2O5 in fertilisers
(mineral, slurry or solid manure)
applied in the cultivated area,
expressed in kg P2O5 P lost through
run-off to rivers per ha yr of cultivated
area.
Phosphorus through water erosion to surface water: (P, PO4
3-)
SALCA – P
Prasuhn 2006
Specify amount of soil eroded in the
cultivated area, expressed kg of
eroded soil per ha yr of cultivated
area.
Heavy metals – Soil loss
(Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb,
Zn)
Freiermuth (2006)
(SALCA method)
Specify amount of soil eroded in the
cultivated area, expressed kg of
eroded soil per ha yr of cultivated
area.
Emissions to groundwater
Nitrate (NO3-)
SQCB (Faist et. al 2009)
Specify type and amount of fertiliser
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
57
57
(mineral and organic) applied in the
cultivated area, expressed in kg/ha (in
case of mineral fertilizer), m3/ha (in
case of slurry) or kg/ha (in case of
manure) and irrigation expressed in m3
per ha.
Phosphate leaching to
ground water (PO43-
)
SALCA – P Prasuhn 2006
Specify amount of P2O5 in fertilisers
(slurry or liquid sewage sludge)
applied in the cultivated area,
expressed in kg P2O5 leached to
ground water per ha yr of cultivated
area.
Heavy metals - leaching
(Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb,
Zn)
Freiermuth (2006) (SALCA method)
Specify amount of heavy metals
leached to ground water in the
cultivated area, expressed in kg of
heavy metals leached to ground water
per ha yr of cultivated area.
Emissions to agricultural soil
Pesticides (if any applied)
Ecoinvent v2
(Nemecek and Kägi
2007)
Specify type (CAS registry numbers
and names of active ingredients) and
mass applied (of individual pesticide or
of each active ingredient) in the
cultivated area, expressed in t a-1
.
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
58
58
Annex IX – Background data 1189
Background data shall have a DQR≤ 3, according to the general data quality criteria 1190
defined in the Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental 1191
Footprint (PEF). 1192
1193
The following sources of background data shall be used in PEF studies: 1194
1195
Grape production (situations 2 or 3) 1196
Product Dataset used [reference year]
Grafted vine production
Grafted vine plant, nursery (phase), production and varieties mix, at tree nursery AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Grafted vine plantation and destruction
Grafted vine, plantation destruction (phase), conventional, variety mix, Languedoc-Roussillon AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Grape early production - conventional
Grape, early production (phase) integrated, variety mix, Languedoc-Roussillon, at vineyard AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Grape early production - organic
Grape, early production (phase), organic, variety mix, Languedoc-Roussillon, at vineyard AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Grape full production – conventional
Grape, full production (phase), integrated, variety mix, Languedoc-Roussillon, at vineyard AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Grape full production - organic
Grape, full production (phase), organic, variety mix, Languedoc-Roussillon, at vineyard AGRIBALYSE V1.2 [2005-2009]
Herbicides Acetamide-anillide-compound produc58nspecifiedcified (market for, GLO) [2000]
Dinitroaniline-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pesticide unspecified (market for, GLO) [2000]
Glyphosate (market for, GLO) [2000]
Phenoxy-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Cyclic N-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Bipyridylium-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pyridine-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Organophosphorus-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Fungicides Folpet (market for, GLO) [2000]
Fosetyl-Al (market for, GLO) [2000]
[sulfonyl]urea-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pesticide unspecified (market for, GLO) [2000]
Sulphur (market for, GLO) [2000]
Cyclic N-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Nitrile-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Copper oxide (market for, GLO) [2000]
Mancozeb (market for, GLO) [2000]
Dinitroaniline-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pyridine-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Insecticides Pesticide unspecified (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pyrethroid-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Pyridine-compound (market for, GLO) [2000]
Tying materials EU-15 Copper wire, technology mix, consumption mix, at plant, cross section 1 mm² ELCD [2014]
GLO Special high grade zinc, primary production, production mix, at plant ELCD [2014]
Steel hot rolled coil (ILCD), blast furnace route, production mix, at plant, 1kg ELCD [2014]
RER: market for Sawnwood, hardwood, raw, dried (u=10%) Ecoinvent [2016]
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
59
59
RER: production of Polyester resin, unsaturated Ecoinvent [2016]
Fertilizers Ammonium nitrate phosphate production (RER) ecoinvent [1999]
Ammonium nitrate phosphate, as P2O5 ecoinvent [1999]
Ammonium nitrate, as N (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [1999]
Ammonium sulfate, as N (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [1998]
Chemical inorganic (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [2000]
Diammonium phosphate production (RER) ecoinvent [1999]
Diammonium phosphate, as P2O5 ecoinvent [1999]
Magnesium oxide (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [2000]
Monoammonium phosphate production (RER) ecoinvent [1999]
Monoammonium phosphate, as P2O5 ecoinvent [1999]
Potassium chloride, as K2O (market for, GLO)ecoinvent [2000]
Potassium sulfate, as K2O (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [1999]
Single superphosphate production (RER)ecoinvent [1999]
Sulfuric acid (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [2000]
Triple superphosphate production (RER) ecoinvent [1999]
Urea, as N (market for, GLO) ecoinvent [1999]
Machinery GLO: market for shed ecoinvent [1994]
GLO: market for agricultural machinery, unspecified ecoinvent [1995]
GLO: market for tractor, 4-wheel, agricultural ecoinvent [1995]
GLO: Universal Tractor PE <u-so> [2013]
EU-15 Diesel, from crude oil, consumption mix, at refinery, 200 ppm sulphur ELCD 3 [2014]
1197
Wine making process 1198
LCI datasets used for modelling oenological products 1199
Product Dataset used [reference year]*
Ammonium bisulphite GLO: Ammonium sulphate as N ecoinvent [2011] as a proxy
Ammonium sulphate GLO: Ammonium sulphate as N ecoinvent [2011] as a proxy
Ascorbic acid DE: Ascorbic acid PE [2012] US: Corn grains, at farm (12% H2O content) PE [2013]
Bentonite GLO: market for bentonite ecoinvent [1997]
Calcium alginate GLO: market for calcium chloride ecoinvent [2012] used as a proxy
Calcium carbonate GLO: Limestone, unprocessed ecoinvent [2011]
Calcium tartrate Production of fresh lees based on primary data compiled used as a proxy; mass allocation
Casein US: Milk protein concentrate powder 4424 (MPC 70) PE [2012] used as proxy
Cellulose GLO: market for cellulose fibre, inclusive blowing in ecoinvent [1995]
Citric acid GLO: market for citric acid ecoinvent [2010]
CMC Carboxymethylcellulose
GLO: market for carboxymethyl cellulose, powder ecoinvent [1993]
Concentrated grape must
Average grape production and energy consumption for pressing the grapes (provided by VITEC, 2015) used as a proxy
Copper sulfate GLO: market for copper sulfate ecoinvent [2006]
Diammonium phosphate RER: market for ammonia, liquid ecoinvent [2000] GLO: market for phosphoric acid, industrial grade, without water, in 85% solution state ecoinvent [1986]
Dimethyl dicarbonate (DMDC)
DE: Dimethyl carbonate (DMC) PE [2013] as a proxy
Edible gelatin GLO: activated silica production ecoinvent [2012] used as a proxy
Enzymes GLO: market for carboxymethyl cellulose, powder ecoinvent [1993] used as a proxy
Fresh lees Production of fresh lees based on primary data compiled used as a proxy; mass allocation.
Gum-arabic GLO: market for protein pea ecoinvent [2000] used as a proxy
Isinglass GLO: activated silica production ecoinvent [2012] used as a proxy
Kaolin GLO: market for kaolin ecoinvent [2000]
Lactic acid GLO: market for lactic acid ecoinvent [2010]
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
60
60
Lactic bacteria GLO: market for carboxymethyl cellulose, powder ecoinvent [1993] used as a proxy
Maleic acid RER: market for maleic anhydride ecoinvent [1997] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [1993]
Metartaric acid RER: market for maleic anhydride ecoinvent [1997] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [1993] GLO: market for hydrogen peroxide, without water, in 50% solution state ecoinvent [1995] RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014]
Neutral potassium bitartrate
RER: market for maleic anhydride ecoinvent [2016] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [2016] GLO: market for hydrogen peroxide, without water, in 50% solution state ecoinvent [2016] RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014] GLO: market for potassium hydroxide ecoinvent [2016]
Nitrogen RER: market for nitrogen, liquid ecoinvent [2011]
Oak chips RER: market for wood chips, dry, measured as dry mass ecoinvent [2011] used as a proxy
Oenological charcoal GLO: market for charcoal ecoinvent [1985]
Ovalbumin RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014]
Plant protein GLO: market for protein pea ecoinvent [2000] used as a proxy
Potassium alginate GLO: market for calcium chloride ecoinvent [2012] used as a proxy
Potassium caseinate US: Milk protein concentrate powder 4424 (MPC 70) PE [2012] used as a proxy
Potassium bicarbonate GLO: market for potassium carbonate ecoinvent [2000] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [1993] RoW: market for carbon dioxide, liquid ecoinvent [1979]
Potassium bisulphite RER: Sulphuric acid production ecoinvent [2001] GLO: Potassium carbonate ecoinvent [2011]
Potassium bitartrate RER: market for maleic anhydride ecoinvent [1997] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [1993] GLO: market for hydrogen peroxide, without water, in 50% solution state ecoinvent [1995] RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014] GLO: market for potassium hydroxide ecoinvent [1998]
Potassium carbonate GLO: market for potassium carbonate ecoinvent [2000]
Rectified grape must Average grape production and energy consumption for pressing the grapes (provided by VITEC, 2015) used as a proxy
Sorbic acid DE: Ascorbic acid PE [2012] and US: Corn grains, at farm (12% H2O content) PE [2013] used as a proxy
Saccharose GLO: market for sugar, from sugarcane ecoinvent [1994]
Silicon dioxide GLO: market for silica sand ecoinvent [1998]
Tannins Production of fresh lees based on primary data compiled used as a proxy
Tartaric acid RER: market for maleic anhydride ecoinvent [1997] GLO: market for water, completely softened, from decarbonised water, at user ecoinvent [1993] GLO: market for hydrogen peroxide, without water, in 50% solution state ecoinvent [1995] RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014]
Thiamine hydrochloride RER: hydrochloric acid production, from the reaction of hydrogen with chlorine ecoinvent [1997]
Yeast cell walls EU-27: Yeast production PE [2012]
Yeast for wine EU-27: Yeast production PE [2012]
Yeast mannoproteins EU-27: Yeast production PE [2012]
1200
**in all cases, market data refer to year 2011, whereas the reference year specified refers to the 1201 production of the fertilizer 1202
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
61
61
1203
LCI datasets used for modelling winemaking processes 1204
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Transport of inputs (oenological products, grapes and cleaning products)
RER: Articulated lorry (40t) incl. fuel ELCD [2005]
Electricity EU-27: Electricity mix, AC, consumption mix, at consumer, 1kV - 60kV ELCD [2014]
Water RER: Drinking water, water purification treatment, production mix, at plant, from surface water ELCD [2014] RER: Drinking water, water purification treatment, production mix, at plant, from groundwater ELCD [2014]
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) – cleaning products
RER: Sodium hydroxide, production mix for PVC production, at plant, 100% NaOH ELCD [2014]
Citric acid – cleaning products
RoW: citric acid production ecoinvent [2010]
Bleach – cleaning products
RER: Sodium hypochlorite, without water, in 15% solution state, sodium hypochlorite production, product in 15% solution ecoinvent [2016]
Wastewater treatment
EU-27 Waste water - untreated, organic contaminated ELCD [2014]
1205
LCI datasets used for modelling ageing 1206
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Oak barrel DE: Spruce wood, timber, production mix, at saw mill, 40% water content ELCD [2014] GLO: Steel hot rolled section, blast furnace and electric arc furnace route, production mix ELCD [2014]
Sulphur GLO: Sulphur ecoinvent [2011]
Transport of barrels and sulphur to wineries
RER: Articulated lorry (40t) incl. fuel ELCD [2005]
Water Europe without Switzerland: market for tap water ecoinvent [2012]
Electricity mix EU-27: Electricity mix, AC, consumption mix, at consumer, 1kV - 60kV ELCD [2014]
Wastewater treatment
EU-27 Waste water - untreated, organic contaminated ELCD [2014]
Wood landfill EU-27: Landfill of untreated wood ELCD [2014]
Wood incineration EU-27: Waste incineration of untreated wood (10.7% water content) ELCD [2014]
1207
Packaging 1208
LCI datasets used for modelling primary, secondary and tertiary packaging 1209
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Glass bottle RER: Container glass (delivered to the end user of the contained product, reuse rate: 7%); technology mix at plant. ECLD [2014]
Natural cork stopper (still wine)
Dataset created based on Demertzi et al (2016) and Dias et al (2014b) based on primary data from C.E.Liège [-]
Champagne cork stopper (sparkling wine)
Dataset created based on Rives et al (2012) and primary data from C.E.Liègie [-]
Plastic cork Primary data from Nomacorc [2014]
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
62
62
stoppers
Aluminium screw caps (glass bottles and PET bottles)
RER: Aluminium sheet, primary prod., prod. mix, aluminium semi-finished sheet product ELCD [2014]
Aluminium overcap (glass bottles)
RER: Aluminium sheet, primary prod., prod. mix, aluminium semi-finished sheet product ELCD [2014] RER: Polyethylene film (PE-LD) PlasticsEurope [2005]
Paper label (glass bottles, PET bottles)
RER: market for paper, woodfree, uncoated ecoinvent [2011]
Beverage carton (sleeve and closure)
EU-27: Beverage carton converting ELCD/ACE [2014]
PET bottle (container and closure)
RER: PET bottles PlasticsEurope [2015] RER: Aluminium sheet, primary prod., prod. mix, aluminium semi-finished sheet product ELCD [2014]
Bag in Box Primary data from Smurtfit Kappa [2009] Corrugated board boxes, technology mix, prod. mix, 16,6 % primary fibre, 83,4 % ELCD [2014] RER: Polyethylene film (PE-LD) PlasticsEurope [2005] RER: PET film PlasticsEurope [2015] RER: Aluminium sheet, primary prod., prod. mix, aluminium semi-finished sheet product ELCD [2014] RER: Polypropylene Granulate, production mix ELCD [2014] EU-27: Ethylene propylene dien elastomer (EPDM) PE [2012] GLO: market for printing ink, offset, without solvent, in 47.5% solution state ecoinvent [2011]
Cardboard box Corrugated board boxes, technology mix, prod. mix, 16,6 % primary fibre, 83,4 % ELCD [2014]
Wood Pallet GLO: EUR-flat pallet ecoinvent [2011]
LDPE foil RER: Packaging film, low density polyethylene ecoinvent [2014]
1210
Distribution to retail 1211
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Wine transportation – bulk, ship
GLO: Bulk carrier ocean, technology mix, 100.000-200.000 dwt [2014]
Wine transportation – road
RER: Articulated lorry transport, Euro 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 mix, 40 t total weight, 27 t max, ELCD [2014]
Wine transportation – car RER: transport, passenger car, EURO 4 ecoinvent [2005]
Waste transport RoW: municipal waste collection service by 21 metric ton lorry ecoinvent [1991]
1212
Use phase 1213
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Electricity consumption EU-27 Electricity mix, AC, consumption mix, at consumer, < 1kV [2014]
Wastewater treatment EU-27 Waste water - untreated, organic contaminated ELCD [2014]
1214
End-of-life (packaging) 1215
Process Dataset used [reference year]
Waste transport RoW: municipal waste collection service by 21 metric ton lorry ecoinvent [1991]
Glass landfill EU-27: Landfill of glass/inert waste ELCD [2014]
Glass incineration EU-27: Waste incineration of glass/inert material ELCD [2014]
Plastic landfill EU-27 Landfill of plastic waste ELCD [2014]
Plastic incineration EU-27: Waste incineration of plastics (PET, PMMA, PC) ELCD [2014]
Paper/cardboard landfill EU-27: Landfill of paper waste ELCD [2014]
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
63
63
Paper/cardboard incineration
EU-27: Waste incineration of paper fraction in municipal solid waste (MSW) ELCD [2014]
Aluminium landfill EU-27: Landfill of glass/inert waste ELCD [2014]
Aluminium incineration EU-27: Waste incineration of glass/inert material ELCD [2014]
Beverage carton landfill EU-27: Landfill of municipal solid waste ELCD [2014]
Beverage carton incineration
EU-27: Waste incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) ELCD [2014]
Cork/wood landfill EU-27: Landfill of untreated wood ELCD [2014]
Cork/wood incineration EU-27: Waste incineration of untreated wood (10.7% water content) ELCD [2014]
Electricity credit EU-27: Electricity mix, AC, consumption mix, at consumer, 1kV - 60kV ELCD [2014]
Thermal energy credit RER: heat, central or small-scale, natural gas ecoinvent [2014]
1216
1217
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
64
64
Annex X – EoL formulas 1218
The default EoL formula defined in the most updated version of the Guidance for the 1219
implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) shall be applied. 1220
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
65
65
Annex XI – Background information on 1221
methodological choices taken during the development 1222
of the PEFCR 1223
1224
1225
XI.I Selection of impact categories 1226
The most significant impact categories have been selected by the Wine TS taking 1227
into account their contribution to the screening normalised and weighted results, the 1228
reliability of the impact assessment methods used and their suitability for 1229
communication purposes (see Annex I for more details). Regarding the latter, the TS 1230
considers that both the familiarity of the concept amongst consumers and that 1231
different life cycle stages are affected by the selected impact categories, are key 1232
aspects to consider when selecting the most relevant impact categories for 1233
communication purposes. The following impact categories shall be selected for 1234
communication purposes: 1235
Resource depletion – water. 1236
Eutrophication – marine. 1237
Acidification. 1238
Climate Change. 1239
1240
XI.II Additional environmental information: carbon storage 1241
Organic residues (mainly leaves and stocks) deposited in the vineyard soil contribute 1242
to increase its permanent organic carbon stock. In addition, vines contribute to 1243
carbon sequestration in their permanent structure during long periods. Both effects 1244
should be taken into account and calculated as part of additional environmental 1245
information. 1246
In the same way, carbon permanently stored in the soil and tree biomass of cork oak 1247
forests should be taken into account, as tree live for more than 100 years and 1248
sequestered CO2 during their lifespan. The following methods shall be applied if a) 1249
carbon permanently stored in the soil and/or b) biogenic carbon sequestration in 1250
permanent structure are calculated as additional information: 1251
a) Carbon permanently stored at soil (vineyards and oak forests) 1252
There are two fundamentally different and equally valid approaches to 1253
estimating organic carbon stock changes in mineral soils: 1254
The process-based approach, which estimates the net balance of additions 1255
to and subtraction from a carbon stock. The carbon stock changes are based 1256
on the first-order kinetics model (Hénin and Depuis ,1945), to evaluate the 1257
effect of agricultural practices on the changes in a given pool by using the 1258
following formulae (Bosco et al., 2013): 1259
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
66
66
1260
tk
ek
OMkeSOMSOM I
tk
t 2
2
1
**
2
10
1261
Where: 1262
Parameter Definition
SOMt Soil Organic Matter at time t, expressed in Mg ha-1. SOM0 Soil Organic Matter at time t, expressed in Mg ha-1.
k2 Mineralisation coefficient (corresponding to the annual rate of SOM loss by mineralisation).
k1 Humification coefficient (refers to the annual rate of organic matter inputs incorporated in SOM).
OMI Annual organic matter inputs (i.e. fractions of organic matter originating from grapevine (leaves and pruning residues), natural grass cover (above-ground and below-ground biomass), cover crops (above-ground and below-ground biomass) and manure.
The humification coefficient (k1) values of the organic matter input (OMI) are 1263
included below (Fregoni, 1989; Boiffin et al., 1986). 1264
Input K1 values
Grapevines Leaves 0.1 Stalks 0.2
Pruning residues
0.3
Inter-row grassing
Above-ground biomass
0.2
Below-ground biomass
0.2
Manure 0.3
The mineralisation coefficient (k2) is affected by air temperature, soil texture 1265
and limestone content. k2 is calculated by using the following formulae (Boiffin 1266
et al., 1986; Bockstaller and Girardin, 2003): 1267
200200c200,12 lk 1268
Where: 1269
Parameter Definition
Temperature factor, expressed in ºC.
c Clay content, expressed in g Kg-1. l Limestone content, expressed in g Kg-1.
)5(2.0 T 1270
Parameter Definition
Temperature factor, expressed in ºC.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
67
67
T Annual air temperature, expressed in ºC. 1271
Conversion of Soil Organic Matter (SOM) to Soil Organic Carbon (SOC): 1272
Most analytical methods used routinely for measuring SOM contents actually 1273
determine the content of SOC, and not SOM. Since not single conversión factor is 1274
appropiate for all soils, it would be better to determine and reports results from such 1275
determinations in term of SOC and not SOM value. In any case, SOC can be 1276
estimated from SOM values as follows: 1277
CF
SOMSOC 1278
Where: 1279
Parameter Definition
SOC Soil Organic Carbon, expressed in grams of C per 100 grams soil. SOM Soil Organic Matter; expressed in grams of C per 100 grams soil. CF Conversión factor used ranged from 1.72 to2.0.
References: 1280
Boiffin J, Keli Zagbahi J, Sebillotte M (1986) Systèmes de culture et 1281
statut organique des sols dans le Noyonnais: application du modèle 1282
de Hénin–Dupuis. Agronomie 6:437–446. 1283
Bosco, S., Di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D.,Massai, R., Bonari, E., 1284
2013. Soil organicmatter accounting in the carbon footprint analysis of 1285
the wine chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (5), 973–989. 1286
Bockstaller C, Girardin P (2003) Mode de Calcul des Indicateurs 1287
Agrienvironmentaux de la Methode INDIGO. Version 1.61 du Logiciel. 1288
Unpublished INRA Internal Technical Report, Colmar, France 1289
Fregoni M (1989) La viticoltura biologica: basi scientifiche e 1290
prospettive. Vignevinin 12:7–12. 1291
Hénin S, Dupuis M (1945) Essai de bilan de la matière organique du 1292
sol. Ann Agron 15:17–19. 1293
The stock-based approach, which estimates the difference in carbon stocks 1294
at two points in time. The carbon stock changes in a given pool as an annual 1295
average difference between estimates at two points in time by using the 1296
stock-difference method can be estimated as follows: 1297
12
44
12
,,,,
,12
12
tt
CCC
tiSOCsptiSOCsp
ttSOCi 1298
Where: 1299
Parameter Definition
CSOCi,t2-t1 Annual carbon stock change in the pool for stratum i, expressed in tonnes CO2-e ha-1 yr-1.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
68
68
CSOCsp,i,t2 Carbon stock in the pool for sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t2; expressed in tonnes C ha-1.
CSOCsp,i,t1 Carbon stock in the pool for sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t1; expressed in tonnes C ha-1.
44/12 Ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to carbon, expressed in tonnes CO2-e tonnes C-1
1300
Pi
Sp i
tispsampletispsampletispSOCsample
tiSOCspP
DepBDCC
1
2,,,2,,,2,,,
2,, 1301
Where: 1302
Parameter Definition
CSOCsp,i,t2 Carbon stock in the pool for sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t2; expressed in tonnes of C ha-1.
CSOCsample,sp,i,t2 Soil organic carbon of the sample in sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t2, determined in the laboratory in grams C/100 grams soil (fine fraction <2 mm).
BDsample,sp,i,t2 Bulk density of fine (<2 mm) fraction of mineral soil in sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t2, determined in the laboratory in grams fine fraction per cm-3 total sample volume.
Depsample,sp,i,t2 Depth to which soil sample is collected in sample plot sp and stratum i at time t2; expressed in cm.
Sp Sample plots in stratum (Sp=1, 2, 3,…, Pi). i Strata (i=1, 2, 3,…, M)
t2 Last year of inventory time period at what soil sample is collected in sample plot sp and stratum i.
1303
Pi
Sp i
tispsampletispsampletispSOCsample
tiSOCspP
DepBDCC
1
1,,,1,,,1,,,
1,,
** 1304
Where: 1305
Parameter Definition
CSOCsp,i,t1 Carbon stock in the pool for sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t2; expressed in tonnes of C ha-1.
CSOCsample,sp,i,t1 Soil organic carbon of the sample in sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t1, determined in the laboratory in grams of C/100 grams soil (fine fraction <2 mm). BDsample,sp,i,t1 Bulk density of fine (<2 mm) fraction of mineral soil in sample plot sp, stratum i, at time t1, determined in the laboratory in grams fine fraction per cm-3 total sample volume. Depsample,sp,i,t1 Depth to which soil sample is collected in sample plot sp and stratum i at time t1; expressed in cm.
Sp Sample plots in stratum (Sp=1, 2, 3,…, Pi).
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
69
69
i Strata (i=1, 2, 3,…, M)
t1 Year at beginning of inventory time period at what soil sample is collected in sample plot sp in stratum i.
Notes: 1306
When using the stock-difference method, it is important to ensure that the 1307
area of land (sample plots) at times t1 and t2 are identical. 1308
It is good practice to use the area at the end of the inventory period (t2) to 1309
define the area of land remaining in the land-use category. Under default 1310
assumptions therefore land will be transferred from a conversion category to 1311
a remaining category after it has been in a given land use for 20 years. 1312
Bulk density: 1313
For bulk density determination, samples (cores) of known volume are collected in the 1314
field and oven dried to a constant weight at 105 oC (for a minimum of 48 hours). The 1315
total sample is then weighed, then any coarse rocky fragments (>2 mm) are sieved 1316
and weighed separately. The bulk density of the soil core is estimated as: 1317
1318
CV
RFODWBDsample
1319
Where: 1320
Parameter Definition
BDsample Bulk density of the < 2mm fraction, expressed in grams per cubic centimetre.
ODW Oven dry mass total simple; expressed in grams. RF Mass of coarse fragments (> 2 mm); expressed in grams. CV Core volume; expressed in cm3 1321
References: 1322
The Earth Partners LLC, 2012.VCS Module VMD0021 Estimation of Stocks in 1323
the Soil Carbon Pool. 1324
Lal, R, 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment 1325
International, 30, 981-990. 1326
Lal, R, 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change, 1327
Geoderma, 123, 1-22. 1328
West, T.O, Marland, G., 2002. Net carbon flux from agricultural ecosystems: 1329
methodology for full carbon cycle analyses. Environmental Pollution, 116, 1330
439-444. 1331
West, T.O, Marland, G., 2003. Net carbon flux from agriculture: Carbon 1332
emissions, carbon sequestration, crop yield, and land-use change. 1333
Biogeochemistry, 63, 73-83. 1334
1335
For the estimation of the CO2 equivalent per functional unit, the following formulae 1336
should be applied: 1337
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
70
70
1338
Y
AfPeCC
ttiSOC
s
**12,
1339
Where: 1340
Parameter Definition
CS Carbon permanently stored at soil per functional unit, expressed in tones CO2-e per functional unit.
CSOCi,t2-t1 Annual carbon stock change in the pool for stratum i, expressed in tonnes CO2-e ha-1 yr-1.
Pe Plot extension, expressed in ha
Af Allocation factor, expressed in kilogrames of grapes needed per functional unit.
Y Yield, expressed in kilogrames of grapes yr-1
1341
b) Biogenic carbon stored in permanent plants structures (carbon that 1342
vines and/or oaks remain accumulating after the 100 year assessment 1343
period) 1344
A process-based approach in which the biomass carbon loss is subtracted from the 1345
biomass carbon gain (gain-loss method) is adopted to estimate the biogenic carbon 1346
balance in vine and cork oak biomass (aboveground and belowground) as follows: 1347
1348
Where: 1349
Parameter Definition
CBi,t1-t0 Carbon balance in the pool of aboveground and belowground biomass, expressed in tonnes CO2-e ha-1
PCi,t1-t0 Production (growth) of wood type i from time t0 up to time t1, expressed in tonne dry matter ha-1.
CFi Carbon fraction of dry matter of wood type i, expressed in tonne C (tonne dry matter)-1.
PBTPj,t1-t0 Production (growth) of biomass component j from thinnings and prunings from time t0 up to time t1, expressed in tonne dry matter ha-
1.
CFj Carbon fraction of dry matter of biomass component j, expressed in tonne C (tonne dry matter)-1.
PBSj,t1 Production (growth) of biomass component j in standing trees at time t1, expressed in tonne dry matter ha-1.
LBTPj,t1-t0 Loss of biomass component j from thinnings and prunings that is oxidized (by burning or decay) from time t0 up to time t1, expressed in tonne dry matter ha-1.
t0 Year of stand establishment t1 Year 100 or behind
i Wood types (e.g. =virgin cork, secondary cork, reproduction cork, “falca”)
j Biomass components (j=stem, branches, foliage, roots)
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
71
71
44/12 Ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to carbon, expressed in tonnes CO2-e tonnes C-1
1350
Note: 1351
For simplification, PBTPj,t1-t0 can be considered equal to LBTPj,t1-t0. 1352
1353
For the estimation of the CO2 equivalent per functional unit, the following formulae 1354
should be applied: 1355
6
0,
,
10*
*92.0*
1
01
tti
tti
BPC
AfCBC
1356
Where: 1357
Parameter Definition
CB Biogenic carbon stored in permanent plants structures per functional unit, expressed in tones CO2-e per functional unit.
CBi,t1-t0 Carbon balance in the pool of aboveground and belowground biomass, expressed in tonnes CO2-e ha-1
PCi,t1-t0 Production (growth) of wood type i from time t0 up to time t1, expressed in tonne dry matter ha-1.
Af Allocation factor, expressed in grams of cork per functional unit. 1358
Note: 1359
Considering a typical moisture content of 8% in cork. 1360
1361
1362
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
72
72
XI.III Additional environmental information: additional benchmarks if the 1363
use of glass bottles is compulsory 1364
In those cases where the use of glass bottles is required, a comparison 1365
against a second benchmark may be included as a sensitivity analysis. This 1366
second optional benchmark refers to the representative still wine packaged in 1367
glass bottles. 1368
1369
Impact category Unit Still wine
Climate Change kg CO2 equivalent 1.73E+00
Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 equivalent 3.94E-08
Ecotoxicity for
aquatic fresh water
CTUe (Comparative Toxic Unit for
ecosystems) 2.32E+01
Human Toxicity -
cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for
humans) 2.73E-08
Human Toxicity –
non-cancer effects
CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for
humans) 2.23E-07
Particulate
Matter/Respiratory
Inorganics
kg PM2.5 equivalent
1.26E-03
Ionising Radiation –
human health effects
kBq U235
equivalent (to air) 9.04E-02
Photochemical Ozone
Formation
kg NMVOC equivalent 6.03E-03
Acidification mol H+ eq 1.16E-02
Eutrophication –
terrestrial
mol N eq 3.29E-02
Eutrophication –
aquatic freshwater
kg P equivalent 5.74E-05
Eutrophication –
aquatic marine
kg N equivalent
3.51E-03
Resource Depletion –
water
m3
water use related to local
scarcity of water 2.63E+00
Resource Depletion –
mineral. fossil
kg antimony (Sb) equivalent 4.15E-04
Land Transformation kg C (deficit) 1.69E+00
1370
1371
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
73
73
Annex XII – Description of the default methods for 1372
calculating emissions derived from the application of 1373
fertilisers and pesticides 1374
XII.I Emission to air - Ammonia 1375
Ammonium (NH4+) contained in fertilisers can easily be converted into ammonia 1376
(NH3) when is exposed to the atmosphere. The following factors affects for the 1377
calculation of NH3 emissions: 1378
the chemical composition of the solution (including the concentration of NH3); 1379
the temperature of the solution; 1380
the surface area exposed to the atmosphere; 1381
the resistance to NH3 transport in the atmosphere. High pH favours the 1382
volatilisation of NH3 from many N fertilisers, so where the soil is acidic (pH 1383
values less than 7), volatilisation will tend to be small. In contrast, where the 1384
soil is alkaline, the potential for volatilisation will be larger. However, the 1385
strong interaction between the fertiliser and the soil may override the effects 1386
of initial soil pH, so the volatilisation depends on both the type of soil and the 1387
type of fertiliser. 1388
The most widespread basis is the EMEP/EEA guidelines from the EEA, which are 1389
used to establish national emission inventories. 1390
A) Volatilization of the nitrogen content of mineral fertilisers. 1391
Method proposed by EEA for national inventories (tier 2): 1392
ijalkji
J
j
jifert
I
i
NHfert cpEFmE
1·1·· __
1
__
1
_ 3 1393
Where: 1394
Parameter Definition
Efert_NH3 Emission flux (kg NH3 a-1of cultivated area).
mfert_i_j Mass of fertiliser-N applied as type i in the jth region (kg a-1 of cultivated area, N)
EFi_j EF for fertiliser type i in region j [kg NH3 (kg N) -1] (Table XII.I.1) palk_j proportion of the ith region where soil pH>7.0 (Table XII.I.1) ci soil pH multiplier for fertiliser type I (Table XII.I.1) 1395
Fertilisant Low soil pH (pH =< 7.0)
High soil pH (pH >7.0)
Multiplier c
Ammonium nitrate 0.037 0.037 1
Anhydrous ammonia 0.011 0.011 4
Ammonium phosphate 0.113 0.293 10
Ammonium sulphate 0.013 0.270 10
Calcium ammonium nitrate
0.022 0.022 1
Calcium nitrate 0.009 0.009 1
Ammonium solutions 0.037 0.037 1
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
74
74
Ammonium solutions 0.125 0.125 1
Urea ammonium sulphate
0.195 0.195 1
Urea 0.243 0.243 1
Other NK and NPK 0.037 0.037 1
Table XII.I.1. Emission factors for total NH3 emissions from soils due to N fertiliser 1396
volatilisation and foliar emissions. Note: the multipliers are used when these 1397
fertilisers are applied to soils with pH > 7.0 (source: Harrison and Webb, 2001). 1398
Method proposed at plot level (vineyard): The emission of ammonia from each 1399
fertiliser type is calculated as the product of the mass of fertiliser of that type applied 1400
and the EF for that fertiliser type. 1401
i
n
i
ifertNHfert EFmE ·1
__ 3
1402
Adapted from the method proposed in the EMEP / EEA, 2013 (Tier 1 approach for 1403
the general equation and Tier 2 approach for the EF for each fertiliser type). 1404
Parameter Definition
Efert_NH3 Emission flux (kg NH3 a-1of cultivated area).
mfert_i_j Mass of fertiliser-N applied as type i in the jth region (kg a-1 of cultivated area, N)
EFi_j EF for fertiliser type i in region j [kg NH3 (kg N) -1] (Table XII.I.2) 1405
Fertilisant Low soil pH (pH =< 7.0)
High soil pH (pH >7.0)
Ammonium nitrate 0.037 0.037
Anhydrous ammonia 0.011 0.011
Ammonium phosphate 0.113 0.293
Ammonium sulphate 0.013 0.270
Calcium ammonium nitrate
0.022 0.022
Calcium nitrate 0.009 0.009
Ammonium solutions 0.037 0.037
Ammonium solutions 0.125 0.125
Urea ammonium sulphate
0.195 0.195
Urea 0.243 0.243
Other NK and NPK 0.037 0.037
Table XII.I.2. Emission factors for total NH3 emissions from soils due to N fertiliser 1406
volatilisation and foliar emissions (source: EMEP / EEA, 2013). 1407
B) Volatilization of the nitrogen content of organic fertilisers. 1408
Method proposed by EEA implies using different emission factors (EF) for calculating 1409
emissions during grazing or while spreading organic fertiliser. These factors apply to 1410
the quantity of Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen (TAN) and depends on the type of organic 1411
fertiliser used, whether it is liquid or solid, the source of emissions (grazing or not) 1412
and the form of application. 1413
Parameter Definition
Eapplic_slurry/solid Emission flux (kg NH3-N a-1 of cultivated area)
mapplic_slurry/solid_TAN mass of fertiliser applied slurry/solid (kg TAN a-1 of cultivated area) EFapplic_slurry/solid EF for fertiliser applied slurry/solid (kg NH3-N (kg TAN)-1) (Table
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
75
75
XII.I.3) 1414
Livestock Proportion of
TAN Manure storage
type EF
spreading EF
grazing/outdoor
Dairy cows 0.6 liquid 0.55 0.10
0.6 solid 0.79 0.10
Other cattle (young cattle, beef cattle
and suckling cows)
0.6 liquid 0.55 0.06
0.6 solid 0.79 0.06
Fattening pigs (8-110 kg)
0,7 liquid 0.40 0.251
0.7 solid 0.81 0.251
Sow (and piglets to 8 kg)
0.7 liquid 0.29 0.25
0.7 solid 0.81 0.25
Sheep (and goats) 0.5 solid 0.90 0.09
Horses (and mules, asses)
0.6 solid 0.90 0.35
Laying hens (laying hens and parens)
0.7 liquid 0.69 0.092
0.7 solid 0.69 0.092
Broilers (broilers and parents)
0.7 solid 0.66 0.092
Turkeys 0.7 solid 0.54 0.092
Ducks 0.7 solid 0.54 0.092
Geese 0.7 solid 0.45 0.092
Average (from
AGRIBALYSE®)
- liquid 0.51 0.09
- solid 0.71 0.09
NOTAS: 1 Same values as for sows.
2 Average values from AGRIBALYSE®
Table XII.I.3. Emission factors for total NH3 emissions from soils due to N fertiliser 1415
volatilisation and foliar emissions (source: EMEP / EEA, 2013). 1416
1417
References: 1418
AGRIBALYSE®, the French LCI Database for agricultural products. 1419
EMEP / EEA, 2013. Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Part B: 1420
sectoral guidance chapters; Chapter 3.D: Agriculture - Crop production and 1421
agricultural soils. 1422
EMEP / EEA, 2013. Agriculture – Manure management. 1423
EPD. ARABLE CROPS, 2013. International EPD Programme. Product 1424
Category Group: Arable crops 2013:05 (Valid until: 2016-06-12) 1425
Harrison, R., Webb, J. (2001). „A Review of the effect of N fertiliser form on 1426
gaseous N emissions‟, Advances in Agronomy, 73, pp. 65–108. 1427
1428
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
76
76
XII.II Emission to air – Dinitrogen monoxide or nitrous oxide. 1429
Nitrous oxide is produced naturally in soils through the processes of nitrification and 1430
denitrification. Nitrification is the aerobic microbial oxidation of ammonium to nitrate, 1431
and denitrification is the anaerobic microbial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas (N2). 1432
Nitrous oxide is a gaseous intermediate in the reaction sequence of denitrification 1433
and a by-product of nitrification that leaks from microbial cells into the soil and 1434
ultimately into the atmosphere. 1435
The following N sources are considered for estimating direct N2O emissions from 1436
managed soils: 1437
synthetic N fertilisers; 1438
organic N applied as fertiliser (e.g., animal manure, compost, sewage sludge, 1439
rendering waste); 1440
urine and dung N deposited on pasture, range and paddock by grazing 1441
animals; 1442
N in crop residues (above-ground and below-ground), including from N-fixing 1443
crops and from forages during pasture renewal; 1444
N mineralisation associated with loss of soil organic matter resulting from 1445
change of land use or management of mineral soils; and 1446
drainage/management of organic soils (i.e., Histosols). 1447
In addition to the direct emissions of N2O from managed soils that occur through a 1448
direct pathway (i.e., directly from the soils to which N is applied), emissions of N2O 1449
also take place through two indirect pathways: 1450
following volatilisation of NH3 and NOx from managed soils and from fossil 1451
fuel combustion and biomass burning, and the subsequent redeposition of 1452
these gases and their products NH4+ and NO3
- to soils and waters; and 1453
after leaching and runoff of N, mainly as NO3-, from managed soils 1454
Method proposed for the estimation of direct and indirect emissions of N2O to air: 1455
33321262
14
17
14
28
44NOEFNHEFNNEFON crtot
(1) 1456
(1) Adapted from the method proposed in the IPCC Guidelines, 2006. 1457
Where: 1458
Parameter Definition
N2O N2O emissions produced from managed soils (kg N2O ha-1) 44/28 Molecular weight ratio of N2O (where N2O = 44/28 N2O-N).
EF1 Ntot
N additions from mineral fertilisers, organic amendments and crop residues = 0.01 kg N2O - N (kg N-applied)-1. Total of nitrogen from mineral and organic fertilisers to managed soils (kg N ha-1).
Ncr Nitrogen contained in the crop residues (kg N ha-1). EF2 N volatilisation and re-deposition = 0.01 Kg N2O - N (kg NH3-
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
77
77
N+NOx-N volatilised)-1. 14/17 Molecular weight ratio of NH3-N (where NH3 - N = 14/17 NH3). NH3 Losses of nitrogen in the form of ammonia (kg NH3 ha-1). 14/62 Molecular weight ratio of NO3
--N (where NO3--N = 14/62 NO3
-).
EF3 Leaching/runoff = 0.0075 kg N2O-N (kg N-leached/in runoff water)-1.
NO3- Losses of nitrogen in the form of nitrate (kg NO3
- ha-1). 1459
Other reference for EF is EPD, 2013: 1460
Fertiliser type Emission Factors (Direct emissions)
Ammonium sulfate 0.01
Ammonium nitrate 0.008
Calcium ammonium nitrate
0.007
Ammonia, direct application
0.009
Urea 0.011
Ammonium phosphates
0.009
Nitrogen solutions 0.01
Other straight N 0.012
Other complex NP-N 0.009
Compound NK-N 0.009
Compound NPK-N 0.008
General mineral N fertilizers
0.01
Animal manure 0.008
Table XII.II.1 Total NO2 emissions from cultures due to fertilizer use. Values are kg 1461
NO2-N emitted per kg of N in fertilizers applied (Source: Bouwman, A. F., L. J. M. 1462
Boumans, and N. H. Batjes, 2002, Modelling global annual N2O and NO emissions 1463
from fertilized field). 1464
1465
Fertiliser type Emission Factors
(Indirect emissions)
per kg of NH3-N volatilized from fertilizers applied
0.01
per kg of NO3-N lost by leaching/runoff 0.0075
Table XII.II.2 Total NO2 emissions from cultures due to fertilizer volatilization. Values 1466
are kg NO2-N emitted per kg of NH3-N volatilized from fertilizers applied and per kg of 1467
NO3--N lost by leaching/runoff (Source: IPCC, 2006b. Guidelines for national 1468
greenhouse gas inventories. Vol No 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use 1469
(AFOLU). Ed Eggleston S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. et Tanabe K., Kanagawa, 1470
Japan). 1471
References: 1472
EPD, 2013. International EPD Programme. Product Category Group: Arable 1473
crops 2013:05 (Valid until: 2016-06-12). 1474
IPCC, 2006b. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol No 4: 1475
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Chapter 4. N2O Emissions 1476
from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. Ed 1477
Eggleston S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. et Tanabe K., Kanagawa, Japan. 1478
Nemecek, T., 2013. Estimating direct field and farm emissions. 1479
AgroscopeReckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland, 1480
31p. 1481
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
78
78
Nemecek, T., Schnetzer, J., 2011. Methods of assessment of direct field 1482
emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems - Data v3.0. 1483
AgroscopeReckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, August 2011, 1484
34p. 1485
Peano L, Bengoa X, Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Lansche J, Gaillard G, Nemecek 1486
T (2014) The World Food LCA Database project: towards more accurate food 1487
datasets. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th 1488
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector 1489
(LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, 1490
pp 964–966 1491
1492
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
79
79
XII.III Emission to air – Nitrogen oxides (NOx). 1493
Soils and crops are considered to be a net sink for most NOx (NO + NO2) 1494
compounds. However, NO may be released from soils during nitrification and 1495
denitrification following N application and mineralization of incorporated crop residues 1496
and soil organic matter. 1497
In agricultural soils, where pH is likely to be maintained above 5.0, nitrification is 1498
considered to be the dominant pathway of NO emission (Remde and Conrad, 1991; 1499
Skiba et al., 1997; Venterea et al., 2005). Nitrification is the process by which micro-1500
organisms oxidize NH4+-N to NO3-N. The main determinants of NO production in crop 1501
production and agricultural soils are mineral N concentration, temperature, soil 1502
carbon concentration and soil moisture. 1503
Increased nitrification is likely to occur following application of fertilisers containing 1504
NH4+, soil cultivation and incorporation of crop residues (Aneja et al., 1997). 1505
A review of a global dataset of NO measurements from 189 agricultural fields, but 1506
biased toward industrialised countries, has shown that NO emissions are well related 1507
to the amount of N applied. Broadcasting fertiliser-N results in greater NO emissions 1508
than incorporating fertiliser-N or applying it as solution. Soils with organic C contents 1509
of > 3 % have significantly greater NO emissions than soils with < 3 % organic C, and 1510
good drainage, coarse texture and neutral pH promote NO emissions. Fertiliser and 1511
crop type do not appear to significantly influence NO emissions (Bouwman et al., 1512
2002; Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006). 1513
The method proposed by EEA (2013) (tier 1) is: 1514
NOappliedfertilizerNO EFARE ·_ 1515
Where: 1516
Parameter Definition
ENO Amount of NO emitted (kg a-1 NO). AR fertiliser_applied Amount of N applied (kg a-1, N). EFNO Emission factor of NO (kg NO (kg N) -1). 1517
The importance of NOx emission from N fertiliser is relatively small compared to 1518
other sources. Therefore simple emission factor is used. The EF for the application of 1519
mineral and organic fertiliser (including animal manure) is 0.012 kg NOx-N/kg N 1520
applied (EMEP / EEA, 2013, 3.D Table 3-1, converted from NO to N: 0.026*14/30 = 1521
0.012). 1522
Other references for EF are: 1523
Stehfest and Bouwman (2006) suggested that for Europe, 1.2 % of N applied 1524
on cropland and fertilised grassland is reemitted as NO (manure application 1525
included). 1526
Freibauer and Kaltschmitt (2000) had earlier suggested 1.0 % of applied N be 1527
used as the EF. 1528
An EF of 0.66% was recently used to estimate emissions from upland soils in 1529
Asia (Yan et al., 2003). 1530
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
80
80
Bouwman et al. (2002) reported means of 0.5 % for animal manures and 1 % 1531
for fertiliser-N, albeit there was no significant difference in those means. 1532
EPD, 2013. Values are kg NO-N emitted per kg of N in fertiliser applied. 1533
1534
Fertiliser type Emission Factors
Ammonium sulfate 0.007
Ammonium nitrate 0.006
Calcium ammonium nitrate
0.006
Ammonia, direct application
0.005
Urea 0.007
Ammonium phosphates
0.007
Nitrogen solutions 0.007
Other straight N 0.010
Other compound NP-N
0.006
Compound NK-N 0.008
Compound NPK-N 0.006
General mineral N fertilizers
0.007
Animal manure 0.005
1535
1536
References: 1537
Aneja et al., 1997. Aneja, V.P., Holbrook, B., Robarge, W.P. (1997). „Nitrogen 1538
Oxide Flux from an Agricultural Soil during winter fallow in the Upper Coastal 1539
Plain of North Carolina, USA‟, Journal of the Air and Waste Management 1540
Association, 47, pp. 800–805. 1541
Bouwman et al., 2002. Bouwman, A.F., Boumans, L.J.M., Batjes, N.H. 1542
(2002a). „Modelling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilised 1543
fields‟, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16, pp. 1080. 1544
EMEP/EEA, 2013. Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Part B: 1545
sectoral guidance chapters; Chapter 3.D: Agriculture - Crop production and 1546
agricultural soils. 11p. 1547
EPD, 2013. International EPD Programme. Product Category Group: Arable 1548
crops 2013:05 (Valid until: 2016-06-12) 1549
Freibauer and Kaltschmitt, 2000. Freibauer, A., Kaltschmitt, M., eds. (2000). 1550
„Emission Rates and Emission Factors of Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Arable 1551
and Animal Agriculture‟. Project report Task 1. EU Concerted Action „Biogenic 1552
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Caused by Arable and Animal Agriculture‟ 1553
(FAIR3-CT96-1877). Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und 1554
Rationelle Energieanwendung, pp. 375. 1555
Remde and Conrad, 1991. Remde, A., Conrad, R. (1991). „Role of nitrification 1556
and denitrification for NO metabolism in soils‟, Biogeochemistry, 12, pp. 189–1557
205. 1558
Skiba et al., 1997. Skiba, U., Fowler, D., Smith, K.A. (1997). „Nitric oxide 1559
emissions from agricultural soils in temperate and tropical climates: Sources, 1560
controls and mitigation options‟, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 48, pp. 1561
75–90. 1562
Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006. Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L. (2006). „N2O and 1563
NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: 1564
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
81
81
summarizing available measurement data and modelling of global annual 1565
emissions‟, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 74, pp. 1385–1314. 1566
Venterea et al., 2005. Venterea, R.T., Rolston, D.E.E., Cardon, Z.G. (2005). 1567
„Effects of soil moisture, physical, and chemical characteristics on abiotic nitric 1568
oxide production‟, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 72, pp. 27–40. 1569
Yan et al., 2003. Yan, X., Akimoto, H., Ohara, T. (2003). „Estimation of nitrous 1570
oxide, nitric oxide and ammonia emissions from croplands in East, Southeast 1571
and South Asia‟, Global Change Biology, 9, pp. 1080–1096. 1572
1573
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
82
82
XII.IV Emission to air – Carbon dioxide (CO2) after urea application. 1574
After application of urea and lime, fossil CO2 is released to the air. 1575
1576
1577
Where: 1578
Parameter Definition
CO2 Emissions Annual C emissions from urea application, kg CO2 yr-1 M Annual amount of urea fertilisation, kg urea yr-1
EF
Emission factor, kg of CO2 (kg of urea)-1 (default value: 1.57 kg CO2/kg Urea). The molecular weight of urea (CH4N2O) is 60, the C content is 12/60, the N content is 28/60, the conversion of C into CO2 is 44/12, from which follows: 12/60*60/28*44/12=1.57.
References: 1579
IPCC, 2006b. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol No 4: 1580
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Chapter 4. N2O Emissions 1581
from Managed Soils and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. Ed 1582
Eggleston S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. et Tanabe K., Kanagawa, Japan. 1583
1584
1585
EFMEmissionsCO 2
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
83
83
XII.V Emission to air – Carbon dioxide (CO2) from land occupation and 1586
transformation. 1587
Land transformation is a change from one land use type to another as a result of a 1588
human activity. The amount of land transformed is the area required to produce 1 1589
functional unit of a product. Land use change has impacts on soil properties (e.g. 1590
carbon content, compaction, nutrients leaching, N2O emissions among others), on 1591
biodiversity, on biotic production (Brandão and Milà i Canals 2012; Koellner et al. 1592
2013; Koellner et al. 2012) and on other environmental aspects such as landscape, 1593
albedo and evapotranspiration. 1594
Direct (dLUC) and indirect (iLUC) land use changes are often distinguished. Direct 1595
land use change can be defined as a change directly related to the history of the 1596
piece of land occupied. Indirect land use change can be defined as a change that 1597
appears in a different area than the direct land use as an indirect consequence. 1598
There is no international consensus on how to consistently and systematically 1599
address LUC in life cycle inventory, despite significant research in the LCA 1600
community (Bauen et al. 2010; Fritsche et al. 2010; Nassar et al. 2011). 1601
Land use change 1602
In crop production, global land transformation impacts are mainly driven by 1603
deforestation of primary forests. However, land use change from secondary forest or 1604
grassland to arable land must also be addressed in the inventory. Land use change 1605
from perennial to annual crops is also assessed. 1606
LUC from crop production follows the methodology applied in ecoinvent V3.0 1607
(Nemecek et al. 2014), which is based on IPCC (2006) methodology. The 1608
quantification of the land use change areas is based on annualized, retrospective 1609
data of the last 20 years. All carbon pools are considered for all of the vegetation 1610
categories affected (Table 1). 1611
In cases where the crop area in the country and its corresponding total land type 1612
area have increased in the considered time period, and if the area occupied by the 1613
natural ecosystem decreased during the same time period, the direct LUC is 1614
considered to be potentially relevant (Milà i Canals et al. 2012). Otherwise, LUC from 1615
a given land type is irrelevant to the life cycle inventory. Two alternative approaches 1616
for allocating LUC are modelled. Both are country specific. 1617
Crop-specific approach (default): land use change is allocated to all crops and 1618
activities that grew in the last 20 years in a given country, and only to them, 1619
according to their respective area increase. 1620
Shared-responsibility approach: land use change during the last 20 years is 1621
evenly distributed among all crops and activities present in the country, based 1622
on current area occupied (appendix 6.2). 1623
For the default allocation, calculation of the area of land transformed per hectare of 1624
crop is computed with a Microsoft Excel tool (More info here: 1625
http://blonkconsultants.nl/en/tools/land-use-change-tool). This tool uses statistical 1626
data for crops production and natural land areas in all countries from 1989 to 2012 1627
(FAOSTAT 2012), as well as for country climates and soil types (EU-JRC 2010). It 1628
has been reviewed and approved by the World Resources Institute (WRI) for use in 1629
the GHG Protocol. To attribute LUC associated with the increase in area of each 1630
crop, a time period of 20 years is used for the calculation of the average annual 1631
increment. The same time period is applied for the amortisation of the emissions, 1632
which is aligned with PAS2050-1 (BSI 2011a, BSI 2011b), FAO guidelines for feed 1633
supply chains (LEAP 2014) and ecoinvent V3.0 (Nemecek et al. 2014). 1634
Four kinds of carbon pools: 1635
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
84
84
aboveground biomass (AGB); 1636
belowground biomass (BGB); 1637
dead organic matter (DOM) and; 1638
soil organic carbon (SOC). 1639
And five categories of vegetation are considered: 1640
primary forest; 1641
secondary forest; 1642
shrubland; 1643
grassland and; 1644
perennial cropland. 1645
1646
Carbon pool
Land transformation
From primary forest
From secondary
forest
From shrubland
From perennial crop
From grassland
AGB 8% harvested and stored
92% emitted as biogenic CO2 (20% burned, 72% by decay) 100% emitted
by decay
BGB 100% emitted as biogenic CO2
DOM 100% emitted by decay Ignored
SOC SOC changes (measured according to the calculation rules proposed)
Table XII.V.1. Carbon pool accounting in land transformation (Source: IPCC, 2006b) 1647
Land occupation 1648
Measured in [m2y], land occupation is calculated by multiplying the occupied area by 1649
time. Land occupation starts after the harvest of the previous crop (average harvest 1650
date) and ends with the harvest of the considered crop. If the date of the harvest of 1651
the previous crop is unknown, a period of 12 months is assumed, unless it is known 1652
that there is more than one cropping season per year. The previous crop is the last 1653
crop on the same field, where a physical product is harvested (previous main crop, 1654
catch crop for fodder or pasture) (Nemecek et al. 2011). Impacts associated with land 1655
occupation result from changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) content. 1656
References: 1657
Bauen A., Chudziak C., Vad K. & Watson P. (2010) A causal descriptive 1658
approach to modelling the GHG emissions associated with the indirect land 1659
use impacts of biofuels. E4tech, London, UK. 1660
Brandão M. & Milà i Canals L. (2012) Global characterisation factors to 1661
assess land use impacts on biotic production. International Journal of Life 1662
Cycle Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0381-3. 1663
British Standards Institution (BSI) (2011a) The Guide to PAS 2050:2011. How 1664
to carbon footprint your products, identify hotspots and reduce emissions in 1665
your supply chain. British Standards Institution, London. 1666
British Standards Institution (BSI)(2011b) PAS 2050:2011 specification for the 1667
assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and 1668
services. British Standards Institution, London 1669
European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment 1670
and Sustainability (EU-JRC) (2010) Thematic Data Layers for Commission 1671
Decision of 10 June 2010 on guidelines for the calculation of land carbon 1672
stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC. European Soil 1673
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
85
85
Portal – Soil Data and Information Systems. Available at: 1674
http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/RenewableEnergy. Accessed June 1675
2016. 1676
FAOSTAT (2012) Agriculture data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 1677
United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed June 2016. 1678
Fritsche U.R., Hennenberg K. & Hünecke K. (2010) The “iLUC Factor” as a 1679
Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change – 1680
Working Paper. Darmstadt, Germany. 1681
IPCC, 2006b. Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol No 4: 1682
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Ed Eggleston S., Buendia 1683
L., Miwa K., Ngara T. et Tanabe K., Kanagawa, Japan. 1684
Koellner T., de Baan L., Beck T., Brandão M., Civil B., Goedkoop M., Margni 1685
M., Milà i Canals L. Müller-Wenk R., Weidema B. & Wittstock B. (2012) 1686
Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. International 1687
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0392-0 1688
Koellner T., de Baan L., Beck T., Brandão M., Civil B., Margni M., Milà i 1689
Canals L., Saad R., Maia de Souza D. & Müller-‐ Wenk R. (2013) UNEP-1690
SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and 1691
ecosystem services in LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1692
18:1188–1202. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0579-z 1693
LEAP (2014) Environmental performance of animal feeds supply chains: 1694
Guidelines for quantification. Livestock Environmental Assessment and 1695
Performance Partnership. FAO, Rome, Italy 1696
Milà i Canals L., Rigarlsford G. & Sim S. (2012) Land use impact assessment 1697
of margarine. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment: 1-13. 1698
Nassar AM, Harfuch L, Bachion LC, Moreira MR (2011) Biofuels and land-use 1699
changes: searching for the top model. Interface Focus 1:224–32. 1700
doi:10.1098/rsfs.2010.0043 1701
Nemecek T., Schnetzer J., Reinhard J (2014) Updated and harmonised 1702
greenhouse gas emissions for crop inventories. International Journal of Life 1703
Cycle Assessment, Published online: 20 February 2014. 1704
Peano L, Bengoa X, Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Lansche J, Gaillard G, Nemecek 1705
T (2014) The World Food LCA Database project: towards more accurate food 1706
datasets. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th 1707
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector 1708
(LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, 1709
pp 964–966. 1710
1711
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
86
86
XII.VI Emission to surface water – Phosphate run-off to surface water. 1712
Phosphorus (P) is an important plant nutrient and must be supplied to the plants in 1713
sufficient quantities. A part of the phosphorus is lost to water due to leaching, run-off 1714
and soil erosion through water. We distinguish between three different kinds of 1715
phosphorus emissions to water: 1716
Leaching of soluble phosphate to ground water (inventoried as “phosphate, to 1717
ground water”). 1718
Run-off of soluble phosphate to surface water (inventoried as “phosphate, to 1719
river”); 1720
Erosion of soil particles containing phosphorus (inventoried as “phosphorus, 1721
to river”). 1722
Run-off to surface waters shall be calculated as follows: 1723
rorolro FPP 1724
Where: 1725
Parameter Definition
Pro Quantity of phosphorus lost through run-off to rivers (kg P/ha of cultivated area).
Prol Average quantity of P lost through run-off to rivers for a land use category (default value: 0,175 kg P/ha of cultivated area for grapevines).
Fro Correction factor for fertilization with phosphorus. 1726
manOPslOPOPFro 525252 *80/4,0*80/7,0min80/2,01 1727
Parameter Definition
P2O5min Quantity of P2O5 applied with mineral fertilizers (kg/ha). P2O5sl Quantity of P2O5 applied with slurry (kg/ha).
P2O5man Quantity of P2O5 applied with solid manure (kg/ha). Values for P2O5-content for slurry and manure can be found in Walther et al. (2001).
References: 1728
Faist et al. 2009. Faist Emmenegger M., Reinhard J. & Zah R. (2009) 1729
Sustainability Quick Check for Biofuels – intermediate background report. 1730
With contributions from T. Ziep, R. Weichbrodt, Prof. Dr. V. Wohlgemuth, 1731
FHTW Berlin and A. Roches, R. Freiermuth Knuchel, Dr. G. Gaillard, 1732
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon. Dübendorf, Switzerland. 1733
Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Alewell, C. (2014). Soil 1734
erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Science of 1735
the total environment 479-480, 189-200. 1736
Peano L, Bengoa X, Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Lansche J, Gaillard G, Nemecek 1737
T (2014) The World Food LCA Database project: towards more accurate food 1738
datasets. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th 1739
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector 1740
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
87
87
(LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, 1741
pp 964–966 1742
Prasuhn V. (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung 1743
SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon ART, 20p. 1744
Renard, K.G. , Freimund, J.R. (1994) Using monthly precipitation data to 1745
estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of hydrology May 1994. v. 1746
157. 1747
Walther U., Ryser J.-P. & Flisch R, 2001. Grundlagen für die Düngung im 1748
Acker- und Futterbau 2001. Agrarforschung, 8 (6): 1-80. 1749
Wilke B. & Schaub D. (1996) Phosphatanreicherung bei Bodenerosion. Mitt. 1750
Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 79, 435-438. 1751
Wischmeier W.H. & Smith D.D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses – a 1752
guide to erosion planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultura 1753
Handbook No. 537. 1754
1755
1756
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
88
88
XII.VII Emission to surface water – Phosphate emissions through water erosion 1757
to surface water. 1758
P emissions through erosion of particulate phosphorous to surface water shall be 1759
calculated as follows: 1760
erwrcserer FFPSP 1761
Where: 1762
Parameter Definition
Per Quantity of P emitted through erosion to rivers (kg P/ha of cultivated area yr).
Ser Quantity of soil eroded (kg/ha of cultivated area yr). The amount of eroded soil Ser can be calculated as is described below.
Pcs P content in the top soil (kg P/kg soil) (default value: 0.00095 kg P/kg soil can be used as an average value).
Fr Enrichment factor for P. (default value: 1.86 can be used as an average value, Prasuhn, 2006). This factor takes account of the fact that the eroded soil particles contain more P than the average soil.
Ferw Fraction of the eroded soil that reaches the river (default value: 0.2 can be used as an average value) (dimensionless).
If there is no more accurate information available, could be estimated using the 1763
default value 0.53 kg P2O5/ha, derived from an elaboration made using the SALCA-P 1764
model (considering 1,5 t ha-1 yr-1 of eroded soil) (source: International EPD 1765
Programme. Product Category Group: Arable crops). 1766
The amount of eroded soil (Ser) can be calculated using the universal soil loss 1767
equation according to Faist and Emmenegger et al. (2009), where the USLE 1768
(Universal Soil Loss Equation, Wischmeier and Smith 1978) is expressed as: 1769
PccLSkRSer 211000 1770
Where: 1771
Parameter Definition
Ser Potential long term annual soil loss (kg/ha of cultivated area yr). R Erosivity factor (MJ mm/ ha of cultivated area h yr).
k
Erodibility factor (t h/ MJ mm). Values for k factor can be calculated either from table 7-2 given by Faist Emmenegger et al. (2009) or taken from table 5 in Panagos et al. (2014) for European countries and table 4 for other countries, where the information about the soil class is not available.
LS Slope factor (dimensionless).
c1 Crop factor (dimensionless). Values for c1 factor can be found in table 7-3 in Faist and Emmenegger et al. (2009).
c2 Tillage factor (dimensionless). Values for c2 factor can be found in table 7-4 in Faist and Emmenegger et al. (2009).
P Practice factor (dimensionless). Values for P factor can be found in table 7-5 in Faist and Emmenegger et al. (2009).
The erosivity factor (R) is computed according to Renard and Freimund (1994): 1772
1773
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
89
89
61.10483.0 PR if P 850 mm 1774 2004105.0219.18.587 PPR if P 850 mm 1775
1776
Where: 1777
Parameter Definition
R Erosivity factor (MJ mm/ ha of cultivated area h yr). P Precipitation factor (mm/yr). 1778
ionprecipitatFracSnowirrigationFracSnowionprecipitatP 1.01 1779
1780
Where: 1781
Parameter Definition
FracSnow Fraction of the annual precipitation falling as snow (%/100). 1782
The Slope factor (LS factor) computation is based on the original equation described 1783
in Wischmeier and Smith (1978). The only adjustment consists in transforming the 1784
input data from the SI (International System Units) units to the American metric 1785
system. 1786
065.0
100sin*56.4
100sin*41.65*
6.72
28083.3*22.0
iiii
SSLLS if Si 1787
1% 1788
065.0
100sin*56.4
100sin*41.65*
6.72
28083.3*23.0
iiii
SSLLS if 1789
1 % Si 3.5% 1790
065.0
100sin*56.4
100sin*41.65*
6.72
28083.3*24.0
iiii
SSLLS if 1791
3.5% % Si 5% 1792
065.0
100sin*56.4
100sin*41.65*
6.72
28083.3*25.0
iiii
SSLLS if Si 1793
5% 1794
1795
Where: 1796
Parameter Definition
LSi partial slope factor for the segment i. Li Length of the segment i (m). Si Slope of the segment i (%).
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
90
90
1797
References: 1798
Faist et al. 2009. Faist Emmenegger M., Reinhard J. & Zah R. (2009) 1799
Sustainability Quick Check for Biofuels – intermediate background report. 1800
With contributions from T. Ziep, R. Weichbrodt, Prof. Dr. V. Wohlgemuth, 1801
FHTW Berlin and A. Roches, R. Freiermuth Knuchel, Dr. G. Gaillard, 1802
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon. Dübendorf, Switzerland. 1803
Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Alewell, C. (2014). Soil 1804
erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Science of 1805
the total environment 479-480, 189-200. 1806
Peano L, Bengoa X, Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Lansche J, Gaillard G, Nemecek 1807
T (2014) The World Food LCA Database project: towards more accurate food 1808
datasets. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th 1809
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector 1810
(LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, 1811
pp 964–966 1812
Prasuhn V. (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung 1813
SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon ART, 20p. 1814
Renard, K.G. , Freimund, J.R. (1994) Using monthly precipitation data to 1815
estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of hydrology May 1994. v. 1816
157. 1817
Walther U., Ryser J.-P. & Flisch R, 2001. Grundlagen für die Düngung im 1818
Acker- und Futterbau 2001. Agrarforschung, 8 (6): 1-80. 1819
Wilke B. & Schaub D. (1996) Phosphatanreicherung bei Bodenerosion. Mitt. 1820
Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 79, 435-438. 1821
Wischmeier W.H. & Smith D.D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses – a 1822
guide to erosion planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultura 1823
Handbook No. 537. 1824
1825
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
91
91
XII.VIII Emission to surface water – Trace metal emissions through erosion. 1826
Seven heavy metals were selected taking in consideration the problems that are 1827
causing in agriculture (Kühnholz, 2001). Trace metal emissions through erosion shall 1828
be calculated as follows: 1829
1830
Where: 1831
Parameter Definition
Merosion Agricultural related heavy metal i emission through erosion (kg ha-1 of cultivated area).
Ctot_i Total heavy metal content in the soil (mg/kg of soil) (data in table XII.VIII.1.).
Ser Amount of soil erosion. The amount of eroded soil (Ser) can be calculated according to Oberholzer et al., 2006. (kg ha-1 of cultivated area).
a Accumulation factor (1.86 can be used as an average value, Wilke & Schaub 1996).
Ferosion
Erosion factor considering the distance to river or lakes (0.2 can be used as an average value which considers only the fraction of the soil that reaches the water body, the rest is deposited in the field) (dimensionless).
Ai Allocation factor for the share of agricultural inputs in the total inputs for heavy (dimensionless).
1832
Cd Cu Zn Pb Ni Cr Hg
0.178 87.244 63.703 27.368 23.088 50.363 0.068
Table XII.VIII.1. Average content of trace metal in soils for grapevines in mg per kg of 1833
soil (source:RMQS, 2013). 1834
References: 1835
Oberholzer H.R., Weisskopf P., Gaillard G., Weiss F. & Freiermuth, R. (2006) 1836
Methode zur Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftung 1837
auf die Bodenqualität in Ökobilanzen – SALCA-SQ. Agroscope FAL 1838
Reckenholz. 1839
Prasuhn V. (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung 1840
SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon ART, 20p. 1841
RMQS, 2013. Base de Données d‟Analyses de Terres. 1842
http://www.gissol.fr/programme/rmqs/rmqs.php 1843
Wilke B. & Schaub D. (1996) Phosphatanreicherung bei Bodenerosion. Mitt. 1844
Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 79, 435-438. 1845
1846
ierosioneritotierosion AfaScM ····__
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
92
92
XII.IX Emission to groundwater – Phosphate leaching to ground water. 1847
Phosphorus leaching to the ground water shall be estimated as an average leaching, 1848
corrected by phosphorus fertilization: 1849
gwgwlgw FPP 1850
Where: 1851
Parameter Definition
Pgw Quantity of phosphorus leached to ground water (kg/ha of cultivated area).
Pgwl Average quantity of P leached to ground water for a land use category (default value: 0,07 kg P/ha of cultivated area for grapevines).
Fgw Correction factor for fertilization with slurry.
slOPFgw 5280/2,01 1852
Where: 1853
Parameter Definition
P2O5sl Quantity of P2O5 contained in the slurry or liquid sewage sludge (Kg/ha). Values for P2O5-content can be found in Walther et al. (2001).
References: 1854
Faist et al. 2009. Faist Emmenegger M., Reinhard J. & Zah R. (2009) 1855
Sustainability Quick Check for Biofuels – intermediate background report. 1856
With contributions from T. Ziep, R. Weichbrodt, Prof. Dr. V. Wohlgemuth, 1857
FHTW Berlin and A. Roches, R. Freiermuth Knuchel, Dr. G. Gaillard, 1858
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon. Dübendorf, Switzerland. 1859
Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., Alewell, C. (2014). Soil 1860
erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. Science of 1861
the total environment 479-480, 189-200. 1862
Peano L, Bengoa X, Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Lansche J, Gaillard G, Nemecek 1863
T (2014) The World Food LCA Database project: towards more accurate food 1864
datasets. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th 1865
International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector 1866
(LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, 1867
pp 964–966 1868
Prasuhn V. (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung 1869
SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon ART, 20p. 1870
Renard, K.G. , Freimund, J.R. (1994) Using monthly precipitation data to 1871
estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. Journal of hydrology May 1994. v. 1872
157. 1873
Walther U., Ryser J.-P. & Flisch R, 2001. Grundlagen für die Düngung im 1874
Acker- und Futterbau 2001. Agrarforschung, 8 (6): 1-80. 1875
Wilke B. & Schaub D. (1996) Phosphatanreicherung bei Bodenerosion. Mitt. 1876
Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 79, 435-438. 1877
Wischmeier W.H. & Smith D.D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses – a 1878
guide to erosion planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultura 1879
Handbook No. 537. 1880
1881
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
93
93
XII.X Emission to groundwater – Nitrate leaching to ground water. 1882
Nitrate leaching to the ground water shall be estimated according the simple 1883
regression model proposed by SQCB-NO3 model (Faist et al. (2009)): 1884
1000
11·00362.0·0000601.0·0037.0
·37.21
yUCS
Lc
PN org
1885
Where: 1886
Parameter Definition
N NO3-N leached (kg N/kg product). P Precipitation + irrigation (mm/year).
(*) In the equation described in (Roy 2003), the annual precipitation amounts are considered without mentioning irrigation. In this case, it considers that the water amount supplied through irrigation also contributes to the nitrate leaching and is thus added to the precipitation amounts.
c Clay content (%). L Root depth (m).
(*) Root depth is used instead of layer thickness in (Roy 2003)
S Nitrogen supply through fertilisers (kg N/ha). (*) It does not restrict the nitrogen fertilizer to the mineral fertilizer as in (Roy 2003), but it considers the nitrogen supplied through organic and mineral fertilizer.
Corg Organic carbon content (%) (*) Organic carbon content is used instead of the amount of nitrogen in soil organic matter in (Roy 2003)
U Nitrogen uptake by crop (kg N/ha). Y Yield (tons product/ha).
(*) This coefficient related to the yield is used in order to relate the nitrate loss to one kilogram of product. If it does not apply this coefficient, it obtains the nitrate loss per hectare instead of per kilogram of product.
1887
This regression model is based on data within those ranges: 1888
• Precipitation: 40-2000 mm 1889
• Clay content: 3-54% 1890
• Rooting depth: 0.25-2m 1891
Some parameter values are found for default values (tables) or supplied by the 1892
user (inputs): precipitation and irrigation, (P), clay content (c) and root depth (L). 1893
Some others require simple computations: nitrogen supply (S), organic carbon 1894
content (Corg) and nitrogen uptake (U). 1895
Default values: annual precipitation (P), organic carbon content (Corg), clay 1896
content (c), root depth (L) and unit uptake 1897
The tables contain the values of all the parameters needed in order to perform the 1898
assessment of nitrate loss and which are not supplied by the user. 1899
Annual precipitation (P) 1900
The values assumed here are averages of values found in the FAO ecozone 1901
classification (FAO 2001) and on the SD FAO map18 Therefore the user has to 1902
___________________________________________________________________ 18 http://www.fao.org/sd/Eidirect/climate/Eisp0002.htm
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
94
94
provide a value for the annual rainfall in these cases. For the other ecozones, the 1903
considered values are: 1904
FAO ecozones Carbon content
(t/ha in upper 30cm =t/3000 m
3)
Annual precipitation (mm)
Tropical wet 59 2500
Tropical moist 48 1500
Tropical dry 34 1000
Tropical dry 34 500
Tropical dry 34 50
Tropical montane 55 -
Warm temperate moist 55 1200
Warm temperate dry 25 700
Warm temperate dry 25 400
Warm temperate dry 25 200
Warm temperate moist or dry
40 -
Cool temperate moist 81 1500
Cool temperate moist 81 600
Cool temperate dry 38 300
Cool temperate dry 38 150
Cool temperate moist or dry
59 -
Boreal moist 22 500
Boreal dry 22 400
Boreal moist and dry 22 -
Table XII.X.1. Annual precipitation and carbon content for each ecozone flows 1905
(Source: Nemecek et. al, 2011). 1906
Organic carbon content (Corg) 1907
A rough approximation of the organic carbon content in the soil is made in previous 1908
Table, using the IPCC values (IPCC 2006) for each climate region. It would be 1909
worthwhile using more accurate organic carbon content by using more detailed data. 1910
The values in (IPCC 2006) are given in tons of organic carbon per hectare in the first 1911
30 cm of soil. This is equivalent to tons of organic carbon per 3000m3. 1912
Clay content (c) 1913
For the histosol, no data is available in (USDA 1999). These soils are comprised 1914
primarily of organic material. The mineral material content should be minor and 1915
therefore a low clay content of 2% is assumed. This very rough approximation could 1916
lead to important errors in the nitrate leaching computation for these soils. The risk is 1917
however quite low since these soils cover less than 1% of the global ice free land 1918
surface and since they are usually not used for agriculture. 1919
USDA soil order Clay content (%)
Alfisol 28
Andisol 10.4
Aridisol 17.2
Entisol 3.5
Gelisol 23.7
Histosol 2
Inceptisol 4.9
Mollisol 21.1
Oxisol 53.9
Spodosol 1.8
Ultisol 12.3
Vertisol 49.0
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
95
95
Table XII.X.2. Clay content for each USDA (Source: Faist et al., 2009). 1920
Root depth (L) 1921
The FAO database crop water management (FAO) gives values for the rooting 1922
system depth for the main common crops, such as, grape crops (FAO, 199819). 1923
Crop Maximum Root Depth
(m)
Gra
pe
s
Table o Raisin 1.0-2.0
Wine
Table XII.X.3. Root depth for grape crop (FAO, 1998) 1924
The minimum value of maximum rooting depth will be used in order to prevent 1925 overestimation (FAO, 1998b20). 1926
Unit_uptake 1927
It has to calculate the nitrogen uptake for the grape crops, since no data has been 1928
found in FAO database ecocrop (FAO), taking into account that the regression 1929
equation used for calculating nitrate emissions needs the quantity of nitrogen that is 1930
taken up by the whole plant. The yield however refers to the main product. It thus has 1931
to express the nitrogen uptake of the whole plant but expressed per ton of main 1932
product (Faist et al., 2009). 1933
N mineral fertilizer 1934
The default values for the N mineral fertilizer originate from the ecoinvent database. 1935
For each country or region, a reference dataset in the database ecoinvent has been 1936
chosen. 1937
Inputs (values supplied by users) 1938
The user has to provide some information in order to quantify the related nitrate 1939
emissions. A default value is available for some of the required inputs, but others are 1940
compulsory. 1941
The user has to be cautious regarding the units when typing in the inputs. The units 1942
are International System of Units (SI) units or derived units. All the input concerning 1943
resources are related to a surface of one hectare and to the period of cultivation. 1944
Irrigation 1945
The irrigation has to be supplied by the user in [m3/ha]. It corresponds to the water 1946
quantity supplied through irrigation to one hectare of the considered crop. 1947
For perennial crops it corresponds to the water amount supplied between two 1948
harvests, considering the water and the fertilizers supplied during the first 1949
unproductive phase too, but it does not consider the water and fertilizer amounts 1950
used in the first unproductive lifetime of the crop in SQCB. This is a simplification 1951
which will lead to a possible underestimation of the nitrate emissions. 1952
Ecozone 1953
___________________________________________________________________ 19 http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/X0490E00.htm 20 http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5749e/y5749e00.htm
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
96
96
The user finds this information by locating his production zone in the corresponding 1954
ecozone map. The ecological zones (ecozones) are defined as zones or areas with 1955
relatively homogeneous natural vegetation formations and coinciding roughly with the 1956
Köppen-Trewartha climatic types (FAO, 2001) (see table Table XII.X.1.). 1957
Annual precipitation 1958
The ecozone concept is a relatively good indicator of the mean annual precipitations 1959
in flat regions. 1960
In mountainous regions, the precipitation amount can be very different from one 1961
location to another according to the altitude, the mountainside orientation as well as 1962
other local effects. The ecozone concept is thus too rough in such regions and 1963
cannot provide information about the annual rainfall. The user has to provide the 1964
annual rainfall value for his production zone when it is located in a mountainous 1965
region (TM, SM, TeM or BM). The units are mm/year. 1966
It is usually easy to find such information by consulting the regional or national 1967
meteorological office. 1968
USDA soil order 1969
The user finds the correct soil order related to his production zone by identifying his 1970
production zone in the soil order map. A soil order is the highest level of soil 1971
classification in the USDA classification system. At this classification level, soils vary 1972
greatly within a given unit. Consequently, the utilization of these rough soil categories 1973
to derive other information (clay content for instance) can lead to inaccurate or wrong 1974
results. For a detailed assessment, a lower level of classification should be selected 1975
or field analyses should be carried out. 1976
Organic fertilizer (liquid or solid) 1977
The liquid organic fertilizer (slurry) amount has to be supplied by the user in 1978
m3slurry/ha. It is the amount of slurry applied per hectare to the considered crop during 1979
the cultivation period, expressed in months. 1980
The solid organic fertilizer (manure) amount has to be supplied by the user in 1981
kgmanure/ha. It is the amount of manure applied per hectare to the considered crop 1982
during the cultivation period, expressed in months. 1983
The cultivation period is intended to be the period between two consecutive harvests, 1984
taking into account the N mineral fertilizer amount applied during the unproductive 1985
phase, but it neglects this amount in SQCB for simplicity reasons and this will lead to 1986
an underestimation of nitrate losses. 1987
The possible types and their nitrogen contents are described in the following table. 1988
Type of slurry Nitrogen content
(kg/m3)
Beef and dairy cattle
Liquid
2.3
Pigs 3.8
Average liquid manure
3
(*) A dilution factor of 40:60 (slurry:water) is assumed if the user does not enter his dilution factor. 1989
Table XII.X.4. Types of slurry and nitrogen content (Source: Faist et al., 2009). 1990
1991
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
97
97
Type of manure Nitrogen content
(kg/t)
Beef and dairy cattle
Solid
1.3
Pigs 2.3
Hens (from deep pit)
5
Hens (from belts)
3.6
Broilers 8
Average liquid manure
1.5
Table XII.X.5. Types of manure and nitrogen content (Source: Faist et al. (2009). 1992
N mineral fertilizer 1993
The N mineral fertilizer amount has to be supplied by the user in kgN/ha. It is the 1994
quantity of N mineral fertilizer applied per hectare to the considered crop during the 1995
cultivation period21, expressed in months. 1996
The possible N mineral fertilizers which can be selected by the user are shown in the 1997
following tables. 1998
Fertilizers Country Unit Nutrient
Ammonium nitrate phosphate, as N RER kg N
Ammonium nitrate, as N RER kg N
Ammonium sulphate, as N RER kg N
Calcium ammonium nitrate, as N RER kg N
Calcium nitrate, as N RER kg N
Diammonium phosphate, as N RER kg N
Monoamonium phosphate, as N RER kg N
Potassium nitrate, as N RER kg N
Urea ammonium phosphate, as N RER kg N
Urea, as N RER kg N
Ammonium nitrate phosphate, as P2O5 RER kg P
Diammonium phosphate, as P2O5 RER kg P
Monoammonium phosphate, as P2O5 RER kg P
Thomas meal, as P2O5 RER kg P
Triple superphosphate, as P2O5 RER kg P
Single superphosphate, as P2O5 RER kg P
Potassium chloride, as K2O RER kg K
Potassium nitrate, as K2O RER kg K
Potassium sulphate, as K2O RER kg K
Table XII.X.6. Fertilizers in the SQCB tool (Source: Faist et al., 2009). 1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
___________________________________________________________________ 21 The cultivation period is intended to be the period between two consecutive harvests, taking into
account the N mineral fertilizer amount applied during the unproductive phase, but it neglects this amount in SQCB for simplicity reasons and this will lead to an underestimation of nitrate losses.
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
98
98
2004
Fertilizers N P2O5 K2O Ca
Ammonium nitrate 35%
Calcium ammonium nitrate 27%
Calcium nitrate 16%
Potassium nitrate 14%
Urea ammonium nitrate 32%
Urea 46%
Ammonium nitrate phosphate 8% 52%
Diammonium phosphate 18% 46%
Monoammonium phosphate 11% 52%
Thomas meal 17% 32%
Triple superphosphate 48%
Single superphosphate 21%
Potassium chloride 60%
Potassium nitrate 14% 44%
Potassium sulphate 50%
XII.X.7. Composition of the multi-nutrient fertilizers (Source: Faist et al., 2009). 2005
If the specific fertilizer of the user doesn‟t exist in the tool, the user is advised to 2006
choose a fertilizer with similar nutrients composition. 2007
Yield 2008
The yield of product has to be supplied by the user in [tons/ha]. This quantity 2009
represents the amount of main product harvested per hectare. It is not the amount of 2010
whole crop (main product + co-products + residues) harvested per hectare. 2011
For vineyard, it will consider the harvested amount of grapes per hectare. 2012
Computation: nitrogen supply (S), organic carbon content (Corg) and nitrogen 2013
uptake (U) 2014
Nitrogen supply (S) 2015
It considers the nitrogen supplied with the mineral fertilizers and with the liquid and 2016
solid organic fertilizers: 2017
m
N
S
N CmCsfS ·· 2018
Parameter Definition
S Nitrogen supply (kgN/ha).
f N Mineral fertilizer (kg/ha). (*)The value of the applied amount of mineral fertilizer will be supplied by the user
s Liquid organic fertilizer (slurry) (m3 slurry/ha). (*)The value of the applied amount of liquid organic fertilizer will be supplied by the user
s
NC Concentration of N in the slurry (kgN/m3 slurry). (*) The concentration of N in slurry will be extracted from previous table
m Solid organic fertilizer (manure) (kg manure/ha). (*)The value of the applied amount of solid organic fertilizer will be supplied by the user
m
NC Concentration of N in the manure (kgN/kg manure). (*) The concentration of N in manure will be extracted from previous table
2019
Organic carbon content (Corg) 2020
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
99
99
The mean values for the organic carbon content are given per 3000 m3 of soil in first 2021
table. It has to convert it to percent (mass fraction). It needs the bulk density in order 2022
to carry out this conversion. As a rough approximation, a single value is taken for all 2023
soils. For a more precise assessment, it should consider a bulk density for each soil 2024
unit. 2025
The conversion is computed in this way: 2026
1003.1
1
3000
1 EMPA
orgorg CC 2027
Parameter Definition
orgC Organic carbon content manure (%).
EMPA
orgC Organic carbon content given in Table 1 (tons Corg/3000m3).
2028
A bulk density of 1.3 tons of soil m3 is assumed (average), based on the values found 2029 in (USDA 1999) and the values given by the American bulk density calculator22. 2030
Nitrogen uptake (U) 2031
The nitrogen uptake is computed as followed: 2032
U = Unit _ uptake * y 2033
Parameter Definition
U Nitrogen uptake (kg N/ha).
Unit_uptake Unit uptake in (kg N/tons product).
y Yield (tons product/ha).
References: 2034
de Willigen 2000. de Willigen P. (2000) An analysis of the calculation of 2035
leaching and denitrification losses as practised in the NUTMON approach. 2036
Plant Research International, Report 18, Wageningen, Netherlands. 2037
Faist et al. 2009. Faist Emmenegger M., Reinhard J. & Zah R. (2009) 2038
Sustainability Quick Check for Biofuels – intermediate background report. 2039
With contributions from T. Ziep, R. Weichbrodt, Prof. Dr. V. Wohlgemuth, 2040
FHTW Berlin and A. Roches, R. Freiermuth Knuchel, Dr. G. Gaillard, 2041
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon. Dübendorf, Switzerland. 2042
FAO, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water 2043
requirements. Chapter 8. ETc under soil water stress conditions. Table 22. 2044
Ranges of maximum effective rooting depth (Zr), and soil water depletion 2045
fraction for no stress (p), for common crops Ed. Richard G., USA, Luis S., 2046
Portugal, Dirk Raes, Belgium, et Martin Smith, FAO. 2047
FAO, 1998b. Scaling soil nutrient balances Enabling mesolevel applications 2048
for African realitie. Annex 3. Rooting depth. Food and Agriculture 2049
Organization of the Unit Nations. Rome, 2004. 2050
___________________________________________________________________ 22 http://www.pedosphere.com/resources/bulkdensity/worktable_us.cfm
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
100
100
FAO, 2001. Global Ecological Zoning for the Global Forest Resources 2051
Assessment 2000. Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization 2052
of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 2053
FAO Crop Water Management, 2054
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/cropwater/cwinform.stm. 2055
FAO Ecocrop, http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/cropFindForm. 2056
Ghazavi, M. A. (2004). Potato mechanization in Iran. 4th International Crop 2057
Science Congress. 2058
IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. 2059
Volume 4: Agriculture, forestry and other land use. L. B. Simon Eggleston, 2060
Kyoko Miwa, Todd Ngara and Kiyoto Tanabe. Kanagawa. 2061
Nemecek, T., 2013. Estimating direct field and farm emissions. 2062
AgroscopeReckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland, 2063
31p. 2064
Nemecek, T., Schnetzer, J., 2011. Methods of assessment of direct field 2065
emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems - Data v3.0. 2066
AgroscopeReckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich, August 2011, 2067
34p. 2068
Oberholzer et al. 2001. Oberholzer B., Poser K., Dill A. & Herzog F. (2001) 2069
Kann die Nitratauswaschung zuverlässig simuliert werden? In: Neue 2070
Erkenntnisse zu Stickstoffflüssen im Ackerbau, FAL-Tagung 6.4.2001, 8p. 2071
Richner et al. (in prep.) Richner W., Oberholzer H.R., Freiermuth Knuchel R., 2072
Huguenin O., Ott S. & Walther U. (in prep.) Modell zur Beurteilung der 2073
Nitratauswaschung in Ökobilanzen – SLACA-NO3, Agroscope Reckenholz - 2074
Tänikon ART, 27p. To be published at: www.agroscope.ch. 2075
Roy 2003. Roy R. N., Misra R.V., Lesschen J.P. & Smaling E.M. (2003). 2076
Assessment of soil nutrient balance: approaches and methodologies. Food 2077
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. 2078
Stauffer et al. 2001. Stauffer W., Prasuhn V. & Spiess E. (2001) Einfluss 2079
unterschiedlicher Fruchtfolgen auf die Nitratauswaschung. In: Neue 2080
Erkenntnisse zu Stickstoffflüssen im Ackerbau, FAL-Tagung 6.4.2001, 8p. 2081
USDA 1999. USDA (1999). Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil 2082
Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Agriculture Handbook. 2083
Number 436, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 2084
Conservation Service. 2085
2086
2087
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
101
101
XII.XI Emission to groundwater – Trace metal emissions into ground and 2088
surface water (leaching). 2089
Seven heavy metals were selected taking in consideration the problems that are 2090
causing in agriculture (Kühnholz, 2001). Trace metal emissions into ground and 2091
surface water (leaching) shall be calculated as follows: 2092
2093
2094
Where: 2095
Parameter Definition
Mleach_I Agricultural related heavy metal i emission (mg ha-1 year-1). mleach_i Average amount of heavy metals emission (data in table 6)
Ai Allocation factor for the share of agricultural inputs in the total inputs for heavy metal i (dimensionless).
2096
Cd Cu Zn Pb Ni Cr Hg
50 3,600 33,000 600 N/A 21,200 1.3
Table XII.XI.1. Average leaching in mg per ha per year in Switzerland (source: 2097
Wolfensberger & Dinkel, 1997) 2098
References: 2099
Oberholzer H.R., Weisskopf P., Gaillard G., Weiss F. & Freiermuth, R. (2006) 2100
Methode zur Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftung 2101
auf die Bodenqualität in Ökobilanzen – SALCA-SQ. Agroscope FAL 2102
Reckenholz. 2103
Prasuhn V. (2006) Erfassung der PO4-Austräge für die Ökobilanzierung 2104
SALCA Phosphor. Agroscope Reckenholz - Tänikon ART, 20p. 2105
RMQS, 2013. Base de Données d‟Analyses de Terres. 2106
http://www.gissol.fr/programme/rmqs/rmqs.php 2107
Wilke B. & Schaub D. (1996) Phosphatanreicherung bei Bodenerosion. Mitt. 2108
Deutsche Bodenkundl. Gesellsch. 79, 435-438. 2109
2110
iileachileach AmM ·__
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
102
102
XII.XII Emission to agricultural soil – Pesticides. 2111
Pesticides (such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, plant growth regulators 2112
and defoliants) are applied to agricultural fields to optimise crop yield. 2113
In practise, their consideration in life cycle assessment (LCA) is affected by important 2114
inconsistencies between the emission inventory modelling and impact assessment, 2115
two distinct phases of an LCA study. A clear definition of the delineation between the 2116
product system model as represented in the life cycle inventory (LCI) (i.e. 2117
technosphere) and the natural environment as represented by life cycle impact 2118
assessment (LCIA) characterisation models (i.e. ecosphere) is currently missing 2119
(Dijkman et al., 2012). 2120
The typical difficulty with respect to pesticides is to quantify the proportion emitted to 2121
the environment (off-filed), while usually only the amount applied to the agricultural 2122
field (on-filed) is known. 2123
After the Basel Workshop (on May 2014), LCA practitioners and developers 2124
proposed default emission fractions to environmental media via initial pesticides 2125
distribution, on particular they discussed on how to consistently model in life cycle 2126
assessment (LCA) the fractions of applied pesticides reaching air, surface 2127
freshwater, soil, and agricultural corps as emissions for its inclusion in LCI 2128
databases. 2129
1. The widely used life cycle inventory database ECOINVENT v2 adopted the 2130
assumptions that the amount of pesticide applied is emitted 100% to 2131
agricultural soil (Nemecek and Kägi, 2007). This approach only quantifies 2132
maximum possible emissions. 2133 2. In the US LCI Database (NREL, 2012), pesticide emissions are inventoried as 2134
emissions to air and water based primarily on leaching and runoff data from 2135
US EPA (1999) and Kellogg et al. (2002). 2136 3. The pesticide emission model PestLCI 2.0 (Dijkman et al., 2012) employs a 2137
local fate model that estimates the amounts emitted to air, surface water, 2138
and ground water through the soil, respectively, based on application 2139
methods, local meteorological conditions, crop types, and other influencing 2140
factors. 2141 4. The recent US field crop LCI Database “BUSDA LCA Digital Commons” 2142
does not consider any fate and transport losses and clearly reports release of 2143
pesticides to agricultural soil, and also to air when relevant according to the 2144
application method inventoried (Cooper et al., 2013; 2145
http://www.lcacommons.gov). 2146
2147
Ecoinvent v2 US LCI PestLCI 2.0
USDA LCA Digital
Commons Emission médium (%)
Soil 100 - - 100
Air - 96 0.61 -
Surface water - 4 0.02 -
Groundwater - - 0.62 -
Degradation, crop uptake, etc
- -
98.7 -
Table XII.XII.1. Comparing four life cycle emission inventory approaches: 2148
percentages emitted to environmental media per unit of 2,4-D applied to corn 2149
(Source: Rosenbaum et al., 2015) 2150
PEFCR Pilot on Wine
103
103
The active ingredients applied are distributed among the different environmental 2151
media (emission fractions) which correspond to the initial distribution after the 2152
application. The following fractions will be distinguished: 2153
On-field: 2154
Soil surface (excluding plant deposit) agricultural soil; 2155
Paddy water (excluding plant deposit) surface water; 2156
Plant (plant deposit) 2157
Off-field: 2158
Air (via volatilization on-field and wind drift, fraction not deposited close to the 2159
field) 2160
Surface water (via spray drift deposition, excluding runoff, avoiding double 2161
counting with air (of which a fraction eventually redeposits on surface water at 2162
long distance); distinguishing fresh and marine water as far as possible and 2163
meaningful 2164
Soil (distinguishing types [natural, industrial, agricultural, etc.] if possible) 2165
The emission fractions to environmental media via initial distribution and the 2166
degraded fraction sum up to 100%of the quantity applied to the filed in order to 2167
maintain conservation of mass and to allow for assessment of all potential impacts in 2168
the LCIA. 2169
References: 2170
Audsley et al. 2003. Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard 2171
G, Hausheer J, Jolliet O, Kleijn R, Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon 2172
H, Weidema B, Van Zeijts H (2003) Harmonisation of environmental life cycle 2173
assessment for agriculture. 2174
Cooper et al. 2013. Cooper J, Kahn E, Ebel R (2013). Sampling error in US 2175
field crop unit process data for life cycle assessment. 2176
Dijkman et al. 2012. Dijkman TJ, Brikved M, Hauschild MZ (2012). PestLCI 2177
2.0: a second generation model fro estimating emissions of pesticides from 2178
arable land in LCA. 2179
EMEP/EEA (2013). 3.D.f, 3.I Agriculture other including use of pesticides. 2180
MJPG, 1995. Emissie-evaluatie 1995. Achtergronddocument Commissie van 2181
deskundigen Emissie-Evaluatie MJP-G, IKC, Ede. 2182
Kellogg et al. (2002). Kellogg R, Nehring R, Grube A, Goss D, Plotkin S 2183
(2002). Environmental indicators of pesticide leaching and runoff from farm 2184
fields. 2185
Margni et al. 2002. Margni M, Jolliet O, Crettaz P (2002). Lige cycle 2186
assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystem. 2187
Nemecek and Kägi 2007. Nemecek T, Kägi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of 2188
agricultural production systems. 2189
NREL 2012. U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. In: Natl. Renew. Energy 2190
Lab. https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search 2191
Panichelli et al. 2008. Panichelli L, Dauriat A, Gnansounou E (2008) Life cycle 2192
assessment of soybean-based biodiesel in Argentina for export. 2193
US EPA (1999). Chapter 9: food and agricultural industries. 2194
2195
2196