CaneLCA - A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA ...

Pre-publication version. Published version can be obtained from the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists (www.assct.com.au).

CaneLCA - A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA)-BASED ECO-EFFICIENCY CALCULATOR FOR AUSTRALIAN SUGARCANE GROWING By MA RENOUF1, PG ALLSOPP2, N PRICE1, BL SCHROEDER2 1

School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 2 BSES Limited, Indooroopilly [email protected]

KEYWORDS: Environmental Impact, Eco-efficiency, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Practice Change, Extension Tools, Carbon Footprint

Abstract The Australian sugar industry faces continuing expectations to demonstrate environmentally sustainable sugarcane growing. In response, BSES Limited and the University of Queensland, with funding from the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC), have developed CaneLCA, a tool that calculates the ecoefficiency of sugarcane production over its lifecycle. This tool will help cane growers make decisions about sustainable farming practices and validate environmental improvement efforts. CaneLCA is based on environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). Therefore, it considers a range of environmental aspects across the life cycle of cane production from ‘cradle to farm gate’. The outputs are eco-efficiency ratings, relative to industry ranges, for fossil energy use, carbon footprint, water use and water quality. It is designed to support extension activities by helping growers and their advisors understand sources of impacts over the cane-growing life cycle, and compare the eco-efficiency of different combinations of cane-growing practices. This can help inform decisions about practice change. The CaneLCA tool is described, including its features, how it works and the methodologies employed. An example of the outputs generated by CaneLCA is presented with discussion about its potential applications as a decision support tool in extension activities. Introduction CaneLCA is a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) tool customised for sugarcane growing in Australia that calculates the eco-efficiency of sugarcane production over its lifecycle. Its intended use is as an extension tool for informing decisions about sustainable cane-growing practices, and it has been designed for use by extension advisors. Page 1 of 8


The development of CaneLCA was an initiative of BSES Limited in conjunction with the University of Queensland with funding from the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC Project UQ045). The project brought together BSES’s interest in better understanding the environmental impacts of cane growing and promoting progressive canegrowing practices, and UQ’s capabilities in modelling the environmental impacts of canegrowing systems. The tool was developed in response to continuing expectations that the industry adopt environmentally sustainable sugarcane-growing practices. This was driven by moves to protect water quality (through the Australian Government’s Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and the Queensland Government’s Reef Protection Legislation, and more recently CANEGROWERS’ initiative to develop industry-wide best-practice guidelines), but also by opportunities to participate in greenhouse gas abatement (through the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative). The intent of the tool is to support a transition towards low-impact, low-carbon farming practices by helping the cane growers make informed decisions about appropriate practice changes that meet multiple environmental objectives. The aim of this paper is to describe the CaneLCA tool and present an example of its outputs, leading to a discussion of potential applications for decision support in extension activities. Description of the CaneLCA Eco-efficiency Calculator CaneLCA captures multiple environmental aspects across the life cycle of cane production, from ‘cradle to farm gate’, the scope of which shown in Figure 1. It assesses environmental aspects found to be important for sugarcane growing in past LCA studies of Australian sugarcane (Renouf et al., 2010) - renewable energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon footprint), water use, and water quality. It is designed to make an otherwise complex LCA process as streamlined as possible for industry use. LCA has traditionally been a time-consuming and costly exercise requiring specialist software and skills. Hence, its use has generally been limited to the research sector and occasional one-off projects commissioned by different industries. CaneLCA makes LCA more accessible to the sugar industry by making it available as an Excel-based application with user-friendly interfaces for entering data and interpreting results. This is a novel development and one of the first attempts in Australia to tailor an LCA tool for use in a particular agricultural sector. A number of carbon footprinting tools are available for agricultural activities (dairy, cotton, grain, vegetables, bananas, wine, livestock) (University of Melbourne, 2012), and one for sugarcane developed for the Bonsucro Standard (Rein, 2010). CaneLCA differs from these by assessing a range of environmental impact categories (not just carbon footprint), and giving flexibility for altering production details. Therefore, it is more suited to assessing the benefits of different cane-growing practices against multiple environmental objectives. CaneLCA links to another LCA tool developed for sugar milling by Sugar Research and Innovation at QUT under SRDC project QUT027. The outputs from CaneLCA can be exported to the milling LCA tool allowing for integration between the two tools, which is discussed further in Hobson and Renouf (2013).

Page 2 of 8


Fig.1 – Scope of activities and environmental aspects captured by CaneLCA

How CaneLCA works CaneLCA is a MS Excel spreadsheet containing ten sheets - eight data input sheets and two data output sheets (Figure 2). The user first enters data and information describing a cane-growing operation into the data input sheets. These sheets align with the ABCD classifications of cane-growing practices used by the Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring,

Page 3 of 8


Modelling and Reporting Program (van Grieken et al., 2010) – soil management, nutrient management, pesticide management, harvesting and irrigation. DATA INPUT (Sheets 1-8) Describing cane growing practices

SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND OUTPUTS (Sheet 9)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

data input by the user

calculated by the tool



(per area)

(per t cane)

(not reported) Non-renewable energy input

(as a % of industry ranges)

1. Farm details

transport effort (tkm)

crop production details - cane crop area & yields - fallow crop area & yields - headland area -farm equipment

-shipping -rail and road frieght -farm vehicle use -shipping

2. Assessment details production scenario to be assessed by the tool

3. Soil management

ENERGY USE

(MJ/t cane)

CARBON FOOTPRINT WATER USE

machinery operation (MJ/kWh)

Greenhouse gas emissions

fuel / electricity use for: -tractors, harvesters -farm vehicles -pumps

(kg CO2 eq/t cane) Carbon footprint

WATER QUALITY eutrophication WATER QUALITY ecotoxicity

Eutrophication potential

details of soil work: - row width - tractor operations - implements used

machinery production (kg)

(kg PO 4eq /t cane)

-tractors, harvesters -pumps -irrigation pipework

4. Nutrient m'ment application rates for: - fertilisers - ameleorants - minerals tractor operations for applying nutrients

5. Pest management application rates for: -herbicides -insecticides -fungicides tractor operations for applying pesticides

6. Harvesting

RESULTS (Sheet 10) Eco-efficiency indicators

Ecotoxicity potential

water use (L) -for irrigation

(kg 1,4DCBeq/t cane)

agro-chemical inputs (kg) -urea, DAP, Granam, KCl -pesticide active ingredients -lime, dolomite, gypsum

Water use (kL/t cane) Water footprint

emissions (kg) - N2 O to air (direct & indirect) - NH4 to air - N & P to water - COD (sugar) to water - pesticides to water - cane burning emissions to air

type of harvesting harvesting efficiency residue management

7. Irrigation water application rates pumping details machinery operations for irrigation

8. Other activities headland management farm vehicle use

Fig. 2 – Map of CaneLCA showing the key components of the tool

The tool then uses in-built calculations, assumptions, and environmental emission factors to calculate the environmental exchanges between the cane-growing operation and the environment (inputs and outputs) and the resulting environmental impacts per tonne of harvested sugarcane. The impact results are converted into eco-efficiency ratings by normalising the impact results against expected maximum values for Australian sugarcane growing. The eco-efficiency ratings, reported on a scale of 1 to 10 for each impact category, are presented as a graph (Figure 3). The user can then interpret from the graph the sources of the environmental impacts and the relative eco-efficiency of the operation compared with industry ranges. The user can then test alternative farming strategies and practices to see

Page 4 of 8


where they can make adjustments in their current farming practices to improve their ecoefficiency ratings. They can also see if there are trade-offs among the different ratings.

Eco-efficiency Rating (for harvested sugarcane)

Farm name:

Hypothetical

The bars in the graph shows eco-efficiency ratings (from 1-10) for the assessed operation for five environmental aspects. The ratings represent how the assessed operation compares with expected ranges for Australian sugarcane growing (1=least eco-efficient, 10=most eco-efficient).

Scenario:

Hypothetical

Date:

9/11/2012

Eco-efficiency Rating 10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Fossil fuel use

Carbon footprint

Water use

Water quality - eutrophication potential

Water quality - ecotoxicity potential 0%

Soil management Nutrient management

Pesticide management

Harvesting

10%

20%

30%

Tractor operation for soil work Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (to air)

40%

50%

Irrigation / dewatering

Carbon doxide (CO2) from lime (to air) Nutrient emissions (to water) Production of fertilisers and minerals Tractor operation for applying nutrient products Truck operations for applying nutrient products Emissions of herbicide (to water) Emissions of insecticide (to water) Emissions of fungicide (to water) Production of pesticides Tractor operation for applying pesticides Emissions (to air) from cane burning Organic emissons (to water) from sugar loss Cane harvester operation Harvester operation for fallow crops

Other farm operations

Transport

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pumping Machinery operation for irrigation Extraction of water from managed water resources Tractor operation for slashing Farm vehicle operation Production of farm assets Water heating for treating seed cane Transport of fertilisers (shipping from overseas) Transport of fertilisers and minerals (domestic freight) Transport of fertilisers and minerals (local delivery) Transport of pesticides (shipping and freight)

Fig. 3 – Example output from CaneLCA, showing eco-efficiency ratings for a hypothetical operation

While absolute environmental impact results per tonne of cane are calculated within the tool, they are not reported in the outputs. Eco-efficiency ratings are reported instead. Therefore, CaneLCA is not designed for external reporting purposes. It is designed to be used for internal monitoring and comparison of cane-growing practices. CaneLCA is available pre-filled with example data for a range of regions, based on descriptions of ABCD cane-growing practices. Users can modify the pre-filled data to represent the scenario being assessed or they can start with a blank version and enter data from scratch. Methodologies employed The assessment methods employed in CaneLCA comply with the ISO14042 standard for LCA (Standards Australia, 1998), in relation to system boundaries, functional units, allocation etc. However, it generates only a partial LCA, up to the production of harvested sugarcane at the transport siding – this is the point in the production system where the tool developed for sugar milling takes over.

Page 5 of 8


In relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, the tool complies with the PAS2050 standard (BSI, 2008), the ISO14064 standard (International Standards Organisation, 2006), and the carbon accounting guidelines for sugarcane growing developed for the Bonsucro Sustainability Standard (Bonsucro, 2012). The tool applies a set of default emission factors for estimating emissions from sugarcane production (nitrous oxide, ammonia, cane burning, sugar losses, nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides). The default GHG emission factors are those used in national GHG inventory reporting (Australian Government, 2010). Those for other non-GHG emissions have been derived from published industry estimates. The user can over-ride these with their own estimates if known to be different to the default values. The embodied impacts of producing, supplying and using inputs to cane growing (fertilisers, pesticides, fuels, electricity, capital assets, transport etc.) are derived from the Australasian Lifecycle Inventory Database (Life Cycle Strategies, 2012). The expected industry maximum values used to normalise the environmental impact results were derived from a CANEGROWERS’ farm survey of 92 Queensland growers (Milford and Pfeffer, 2002), in which data were weighted by corresponding cane yields. A Monte Carlo analysis was run with the Simapro LCA software (Pre Consulting, 2012) (500 runs) using the distribution ranges from the survey to generate results falling within the 95% confidence limits. The upper values were taken to be the expected industry maximum values. Further details about the calculations, assumptions and factors applied in CaneLCA can be found in the user manual (Price and Renouf, 2012). Applications CaneLCA has been designed to assist growers, with support from their extension advisors, to: -

understand what causes environmental impacts over the life cycle of cane production identify where environmental impacts can be reduced compare the eco-efficiency of different combinations of cane-growing practices verify the environmental benefits of new or ‘best’ cane-growing practices inform decisions about changes to current farming practices.

Different combinations of cane-growing practices can be assessed and compared to identify if a proposed practice change will result in improved eco-efficiency, or if an improvement in one aspect comes at the expense of another aspect (Renouf et al., 2013). For instance, preliminary scenario testing using CaneLCA identified that energy / carbon footprint benefits of reduced tillage may come at the expense of increased eco-toxicity from increased pesticide application. Trade-offs such as these can be explored to determine how best minimise or manage trade-offs. While the tool has been designed principally for use by extension advisors and the growers they advise, it may also find application with researchers, natural resource managers and industry associations. User evaluation A user evaluation of CaneLCA has been conducted with ethical clearance to conduct research involving humans obtained from UQ. The aim of the evaluation was to test for any technical and interpretive problems and evaluate its usefulness before being released for wider use.

Page 6 of 8


Around 24 industry personnel were invited to participate, and ten users (representing extension advisors, growers, government officers, researchers and personnel from sugar manufacturing companies) subsequently undertook the structured evaluation. Participants were asked to input data into CaneLCA for a cane growing scenario of their choice (real or hypothetical), and answer a set of questions on an evaluation feedback form. The questions related to the usefulness of the instruction in the tool and the manual, the ease of data entry, the ease of interpreting the results, and the usefulness of the results for understanding environmental impacts, and informing practice change. It is tool early to report the findings as the evaluation process is still ongoing. The feedback will inform refinements to the tool before being made widely available. Future development There are a number of opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of CaneLCA in the future. The first is to integrate it with farm profitability calculators, most notably FEAT (Stewart and Cameron, 2006), so that environmental outcomes can be assessed alongside profitability for better informing practice change decisions. The second is to enable automatic data feed from farm data management systems (if used) to avoid duplication of data collection. The third is to use it for participation in the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) (Australian Government, 2012a). This would require some modification to disaggregate on-farm GHG estimates from the whole-of-life cycle GHG estimates (as the CFI only considers on-farm GHG abatement) and seek approval of the tool as an approved methodology (Australian Government, 2012b). Conclusions CaneLCA provides a means of assessing the eco-efficiency of cane growing, so growers can strategically improve their environmental performance, and demonstrate their efforts. If proven effective, it will lead to better identification and adoption of innovative practices at a time when the industry needs to respond to external drivers for change. It will also give tangible demonstration to the community that the sugarcane industry is interested and has the tools to improve its environmental performance. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Australian Government and the Australian sugar industry through the Sugar Research and Development Corporation and BSES Limited, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. We acknowledge the following people who provided valuable input to the development of CaneLCA – industry and scientific reviewers who guided its development (Bianca Cairns - SRDC, Bernard Milford and Jonathan Pavetto CANEGROWERS, Sharon Denny - ASMC, Phil Moody - DSITIA and Phil Hobson - QUT), BSES officers and growers who tested early versions (Brad Hussey, Peter McGuire, Andrew Barfield, Ian and Di Dawes and Robert Quirk), researchers who provided technical input (Jeff Tullberg – CTF; Guangnan Chen – NCEA; Melanie Shaw – DSITIA; Cam Whiteing - BSES), BSES communications staff who developed the user interface (Eve McDonald and Vanessa Sandhu), and the industry personnel who evaluated the final version. REFERENCES

Page 7 of 8


Australian Government (2010) Australian National Greenhouse Accounts. National Inventory Report 2010. Volume 1. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra. Australian Government (2012a) The Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra. Australian Government (2012b) Overview of CFI Methodologies. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/carbon-farminginitiative/factsheets/overview.aspx (accessed 11 January 2013). Bonsucro (2012) Bonsucro Production Standard. http://www.bonsucro.com/standard/index.html (accessed 7 December 2012). BSI (2008) PAS 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI Standards, UK. Hobson PA, Renouf MA (2013) Development of a tool for rapid life cycle assessment of sugar and associated energy products. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 35 (these Proceedings). International Standards Organisation (2006) ISO 14064:2006. Greenhouse gas management and related activities. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Life Cycle Strategies (2012) Australasian Unit Process LCI Library and Methods, Version 2012.7. http://simapro.lifecycles.com.au (assessed 11 January 2013). Milford BJ, Pfeffer J (2002) Canegrower survey. Queensland Canegrowers, Brisbane (electronic format). Pre Consulting (2012) About Simapro. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-lcasoftware (accessed 7 December 2012). Price N, Renouf M (2012) User manual for CaneLCA. BSES Limited and the University of Queensland, Brisbane. Rein PW (2010) The carbon footprint of sugar. Zucker Industrie (Sugar Industry) 135, 427434. Renouf MA, Schroeder BL, Allsopp PG, Price N (2013) Assessing the environmental benefits of practice change using the CaneLCA Eco-efficiency Calculator. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 35 (these Proceedings). Renouf MA, Wegener MK, Pagan R (2010) Life cycle assessment of Australian sugarcane production with a focus on sugarcane growing. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15, 927-937. Standards Australia (1998) AS/NZS ISO 14042. Environmental management - life cycle assessment. Standards Australia. Stewart PF, Cameron T (2006) Improving sugarcane farming systems with FEAT: a decision making tool to facilitate on-farm change. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugarcane Technologists 28, 310-316. University of Melbourne (2012) Greenhouse in agriculture http://www.greenhouse.unimelb.edu.au/Tools.htm (accessed 7/12/2012). Van Grieken ME, Webster AJ, Coggan A, Thorburn P, Biggs J (2010) Agricultural management practices for water quality improvements in the great barrier reef catchments. A report to the Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.

Page 8 of 8