At the #LCAFood2024, the GFLI organized a thought provoking panel discussion with experts of both theoretical and practical knowledge on LCA and its implementation. The central topic was about harmonization and tackling complexities inherent to LCA methods and data to accelerate and simplify reporting, while continuing to improve transparency and data quality.
The panel discussion, led by GFLI’s executive director Delanie Kellon, was successful for its ability to engage with the audience and get their input on the current climate of LCA and the issues everyone faces when dealing with the topic. The approximately 45 participants represented multiple sectors, including research institutes, universities, agri-tech firms, food supply chain management, LCA consulting companies, and food- and feed companies. The panelists and audience shared their thoughts on the topic and sat together in smaller groups to exchange ideas and experiences.
Major takeaways from the panelists
‘Key factors for the market are accessibility of data and insights for users to make informed decisions, as well as the credibility of shared data despite not having transparency on confidential information (feed formulation recipes, actual prices or confidential processes),’ Peter-Jan Roose, sustainability director at Brightwolves said, ‘with credible organisations for validating and certifying outputs, the market would only need to rely on but a few results to make key decisions: such as data quality rating, the scope, which methodology used, and what level of primary data was used.’
Adding to Peter-Jan’s ideas, lead researcher Joseph Poore at HESTIA, named some key criteria to consider: comparability, completeness (of the data or model used), accessibility already mentioned, the representativeness of the datasets in scope, and how to optimize the entire process to drive change, decrease costs, and have everyone speaking the same language.
Agreeing with Joseph, manager Laura Nobel at GFLI stated that completeness is key, however, practical issues surrounding all above stated decisions arise when looking into safeguarding the quality of data. This may tie back towards the question what users are exactly looking for, are users looking towards having choice in a large heap of datasets, or are they looking for a fully comparable database that went through a stringent quality assurance process?
Koen Deconinck, economist at the OECD, considered the huge scope and the potential pitfalls of implementing a narrowed approach. ‘There are multiple “building blocks” we need: clear reporting standards and guidelines, robust scientific methods, easy-to-use farm level calculation tools, reliable secondary data, but also ways to communicate data along the supply chain, ways to ensure the quality and integrity of the data, and ways to convince farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises to actually quantify their emissions. But a critical question is how we deal with changes. We urgently need all the initiatives to introduce regular processes for review and updating, similar to how ISO standards must be reviewed every five years. This way we can create more alignment over time. It would also help strike a balance between the need for stability and the need for flexibility. On the one hand, we don’t want methods and datasets to change all the time. On the other hand, we also need a way to incorporate new scientific insights and to account for new technological options.”
Pedro Cordero, Board member of GFLI and representative of FEFAC, as well as Institutional Director of international feed company Nutreco Iberica (Spain and Portugal), underpinned previous comments by point out that a global solution is crucial due to the integrated supply chain the feed sector is part of. What kind of communications will be considered transparent and rigorous by chain partners, and how can we create solutions to deal with reporting obligations. Feed producers need solutions to anticipate requests from downstream partners.
Key thoughts
After an interactive discussion with panelists and participants alike, the key takeaways are:
- Innovation versus regulatory consensus: the panelists agree that innovation should not be hampered by bureaucracy, and this question also ties into a larger discussion about what level of proactivity is desired (and acknowledged) from the industry to implement innovations.
- Third party certification may be key to deal with confidentiality and credibility, particularly when looking toward the increasing demand for primary data. Drawing knowledge from existing initiatives tackling LCA or carbon footprint reporting such as the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) to create harmonization on reviewing standards and practical implementation.
- Supply chain engagement is key for broad acceptance and application of standards and data interoperability. An example mentioned was the Partnership for Carbon Transparency (PACT) framework. A next step would be for the feed sector to be further involved to create feedback loops to design a framework usable by all stakeholders.As also heard through presentations at the conference, the level of harmonization across tools, both on-farm tools and software and data modeling tools, varies enormously. How can more granular data be included, while maintaining an acceptable degree of consistency? Some organisations are trying to map the multiple tools and databases currently available, but the task may be too tedious and not the most practical route to take. A solution would be a common data format.
- Primary data was mentioned as well, in terms of how to best allow for its inclusion while validating its quality, and having an inclusive standard that would allow any party to participate without setting the rules to impossible levels (while still seeking continuous improvement on supply chain data sharing/transparency).
Next step, collaboration!
From the key thoughts, there still remains a multitude of questions about how to actually implement such changes. However, one collective conclusion brought forward is the absolute necessity for harmonization, which is high on the agenda for many (types of) organisations. Collaboration is therefore more important than ever, and the LCAFood conference also became a great platform to discuss with the many actors in this field.
The success of the panel was made possible due to the growing interest in LCA, which was reflected by the impressive attendance (more than 400 participants) at the LCAFood2024 conference. LCAFood is fully dedicated to pioneering discussions and exchange on sustainability in food systems. It’s the world’s leading forum on this topic, uniting environmental professionals from multiple stakeholder sectors to convene on current and emerging topics in the agri-food LCA world.
The GFLI is extremely grateful to the bright panelists who agreed to share their expertise, as well as the participants that joined and chipped in with their thoughts. Together with all stakeholders, GFLI will continue to seek for collaboration working on harmonization of LCA data for feed and food products. We would gladly invite all who are interested in our work or see room for collaboration to reach out to us and work side by side on getting food sustainability measured on harmonized and credible data.