Log on to environdec

PCR Forum

Table olives (expired 2016-06-13; being updated)

Comments of PCR TABLE OLIVES draft version

by: Alessandro Cerutti (Alessandro Cerutti) 05 February 2013, 2:51:12 PM (GMT +1)

Page 2/17
Rephrase first paragraph after the table (… are specified for specified information…)

Page 6/17 Functional unit
The use of 1 kg of olives packed is ok, but it is better to rephrase the sentence because it is not
completely clear if the package has to be considered as part of the functional unit

Page 6/17 Footnote 1
Please complete the reference with the full link (or the website)

Page 7/17 Figure of system boundaries
The processes listed in the upstream box are not coherent. Land use change is an impact
category, Olives production is a production stage, input protection is a part of the production
stage (maybe a typo from ‘input production’?)

Page 7/17 Upstream processes
The objective of considering all the production processes listed in the core processes is quite
ambitious. E.g. the accounting of the maintenance of machineries using a simple LCA could be
quite difficult because it would require the complete LCA of all the maintenance operation. I
suggest to include a paragraph that explain that whenever full data for complete standard LCA
are not available, hybrid methodologies such as life cycle costing or hybrid LCA/input-output
analysis can be applied.

Page 9/17 Waste management
You stated that waste management shall be included in the system boundaries. I agree with
that, nevertheless if should also be highlighted that whenever this situation occurs a ‘system
expansion’ should be included to add the avoided environmental impact of not producing feeds
for animals.

Page 9/17 Recycling
Please rephrase and clarify the sentence: “However, in that case … “ it is not clear what should
be included from recycling and how.

Page 9/17 Boundaries to other product life cycles
This part is not methodologically correct. In any case there is a replacement of materials (both
as inflow or outflow) it has to be accounted thorough a system expansion. More particularly
also the environmental impacts of the production/consumption of the avoided material should
be accounted and then subtracted from the total environmental load.

Page 7/17 + 10/17 System boundaries of the field stage (upstream)
The system boundaries of the upstream stage should be revised. Please consider the following
remarks:
(I)
Installation: I agree that impact from installation should be considered if the life
time is expected to be less than 25 years, but that impact should be accounted as a
ratio of the total life expectancy and not as the total of impact from installation
(II)
Productive Year: in order to have statistically significant impact results LCI data
should be taken from – at least – the last three productive years of the orchard
and then an average can be applied. This weighting procedure has to be taken
into account because of the variations in yield and agricultural input requirements
among the different years.
For further remarks about system boundaries in fruit production systems please see:

Cerutti A.K., Bruun S., Beccaro G.L., Bounous G., 2011. A review of studies applying
environmental impact assessment methods on fruit production systems. Journal of
environmental management 92 (10), 2277-2286

Cerutti A.K., Bosco S., Beccaro G.L., Peano C., Notarnicola B., Bounous G., 2012. State of the art of LCA
application in the fruit sector. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment
in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), 1-4 October 2012, Saint Malo, pp. 407-412

Page 11/17 CO2 removal and storage
I agree that olive orchard, if correctly managed, may be a sink of CO2. The problem is that
several methods or references might be used, therefore I suggest to include a reference to
a ‘suggested methodology’ for calculation of CO2 storage in orchard or a ‘suggested reference
table’ for olive orchard in literature.

0 Posts Page 1 of 0

Answer