LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) and Biodiversity footprint : it is possible !
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely used method for evaluating the environmental footprint of products and services. It is effective in assessing certain impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and resource depletion. However, it is said to face difficulties in accurately and comprehensively assessing impacts on biodiversity. But we have seen considerable progress in recent years, making it possible to overcome many of the limitations that previously existed. Curious? Here is our analysis.
Why is (was) it difficult to assess biodiversity in LCA?
The complexity of biodiversity
Biodiversity encompasses different dimensions: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. Each of these dimensions reacts differently to environmental stress factors. LCA models have difficulty grasping these complexities.
Spatial variability
The impacts on biodiversity are specific to location. The same activity can have different impacts depending on the ecological sensitivity of the region. For example, the impact of intensive agriculture on biodiversity varies spatially: in regions close to aquatic ecosystems, fertilizer runoff can create dead zones, while in areas with dense riparian vegetation, these effects are mitigated. LCA models often lack the spatial resolution necessary to capture this variability.
Temporal variability
The same activity can have different impacts depending on the time of year. For example, an activity carried out during a species’ breeding season can have much more serious consequences than if it were carried out at another time. LCA models do not take this fine-grained variability into account.
Cumulative effects
Effects may vary over the long term, with cumulative impacts or delayed effects that only become apparent several years later. For example, fragmentation of forest habitats, caused by human activities such as deforestation, leads to long-term cumulative effects, such as the genetic isolation of populations, disruption of ecological cycles and loss of biodiversity, thus reducing the resilience of ecosystems.
Data limitations
The assessment of biodiversity in LCA is often hampered by the limited data available. For example, there is a lack of knowledge about certain taxa, such as invertebrates or fungi, which makes it impossible to fully assess the impact of a project on biological diversity. Furthermore, LCA requires consistent and comparable data to enable a coherent assessment of environmental impacts, which is often difficult to obtain due to the variability of collection methods and the quality of available data.
How is LCA adapting to address impacts on biodiversity?
For the past decade or so, LCA has been assessing the impact of human activities on biodiversity by taking into account land use and land use change, one of the main drivers responsible for biodiversity loss, particularly through deforestation and the degradation of wetlands.
The most advanced LCA methods directly link human activities to habitat degradation and the loss of ecological services.
New approaches improve this assessment, in particular by integrating local data (regionalized LCA), indicators of ecosystem quality (species richness, ecological integrity) and more precise models on land use and transformation according to the intensity of human intervention.
They also integrate other impacts of human activities, in particular pollution of all kinds. For a long time, this was under-considered, but even if it affects all species, pollution is key to understanding the disappearance of “small” organisms: insects, pollinators, fungi, invertebrates, plankton and bacteria. When these organisms disappear, the entire food chain is disrupted, cascading down to birds and mammals, for example.
Advantages and limitations of biodiversity assessment in LCA
Advantages
LCA provides a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of human activities on the environment, including biodiversity. Thanks to this method, it is possible to take into account the entire value chain, from production to consumption, as well as the multiple pressures exerted on ecosystems, such as land use and chemical pollution.
By integrating these different factors, LCA offers a more complete view of the effects of human activities on nature and makes it possible to identify levers for action to limit these impacts.
LCA also allows for a detailed analysis of the consequences of chemical pollution, particularly those related to pesticides, plastics, heavy metals and PFAS. Although these pollutants have profound effects on biodiversity, they often remain underestimated due to their discreet and cumulative nature. For a long time, it was believed that this pollution did not have much effect on ecosystems. We now understand that they can have a significant impact.
Methodological limitations
Although LCA is a powerful tool for assessing environmental impacts, it has several limitations when it comes to accurately measuring the effects on biodiversity. One of the main weaknesses is the lack of comprehensive indicators capable of reflecting the complexity of biological interactions. The LCA focuses mainly on the loss of species, leaving aside other essential levels of biodiversity, such as genetic diversity or ecosystem dynamics.
Furthermore, the indicators used favor certain groups of visible species such as mammals, plants or birds, while other crucial organisms, such as insects, fungi or soil microorganisms, are largely ignored. These organisms, although essential for the proper functioning of ecosystems, are also vulnerable to pollution and human disturbance.
Another major limitation of the LCA lies in the simplification of ecological dynamics and the lack of a direct link to field data. The models used are generally static, whereas changes in biodiversity are dynamic and highly dependent on the local context. The LCA does not take into account the variability of ecosystems at a very local level, or the cumulative effects observed in the field.
Until recently, the LCA did not take into account the introduction of invasive species, which nevertheless constitutes a major pressure on ecosystems. These species, introduced voluntarily or accidentally into new environments, can disrupt ecological balances by competing with local species, modifying habitats or spreading disease. Despite their substantial role in the loss of biodiversity, LCA models rarely integrate these complex dynamics.
Finally, aquatic biodiversity, whether in marine environments or fresh water, is often under-represented in LCA methods, despite its ecological importance and vulnerability to human pressures.
Perimeter limits
The LCA focuses on assessing the impacts (and benefits) of human activities on biodiversity but does not take into account the dependencies of economic systems on biodiversity.
Many sectors, such as agriculture, fishing and pharmacology, are directly dependent on ecosystem services such as pollination, water purification and soil fertility. However, the LCA does not measure these dependencies, or the risks associated with the degradation of these services. This lack of assessment of dependencies requires the use of complementary tools such as ENCORE: they assess the vulnerabilities of human activities in the face of biodiversity loss and enable the economic and social consequences of ecological decline to be anticipated.
So where does Sayari fit in?
To improve the assessment of impacts on biodiversity in LCA, we have developed several more precise and comprehensive approaches.
Methodological improvements
First of all, we adopt a spatialized approach, taking into account geographical specificities: the same activities do not have the same impact in different regions. For example, deforestation in biodiversity-rich Indonesia will have much more serious consequences for biodiversity than in Europe, and we are able to take this aspect into account via our PBF tool.
To refine our analyses, we also integrate local data that better reflect ecological realities on the ground. For example, we work with agronomists and ecologists who measure local biodiversity on site to improve the values derived from the models.
In addition, we evaluate the benefits in the value chain, in particular by taking into account practices such as regenerative agriculture, which improves soil health, favors pollinators and reduces the overall ecological footprint.
While the treatment of pollution is a major focus of our mission, we go beyond LCA. Due to the complexity and diversity of pollutants (pesticides, heavy metals, PFAS, etc.) and their interactions, LCA has limitations in this area. We use a methodology based on risk to assess the impacts on fauna and flora, particularly in aquatic and marine environments.
Finally, we have developed and implemented qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the impact of invasive species, which allows us to assess the consequences of trade and transportation, the main vectors of their propagation.
A holistic approach: land 🌿 and marine 🐟 issues
Particular attention is paid to aquatic and marine biodiversity, which is often undervalued in conventional LCA methods. We analyze the impact of various chemical pollutants (pesticides, heavy metals, plastics) that contaminate aquatic environments, causing disease, malformations and mortality in organisms. We also take into account specific phenomena such as eutrophication, caused by excess nutrients from agriculture, which creates dead zones deprived of oxygen, asphyxiating aquatic life.
Our analyses also cover the effects of overfishing, which exceeds the renewal capacities of species and threatens the survival of certain populations such as cod.
We also consider ocean acidification, linked to CO₂ absorption, which weakens shelled organisms (corals, molluscs) and disrupts marine ecosystems.
We assess the impacts on the seabed, particularly due to:
– bottom trawling,
– extraction of materials (sand, etc.),
– port extensions.
We also advise on the choice of offshore wind farm sites.
Finally, we take into account the consequences of the introduction of invasive alien species via human activities (maritime transport, aquaculture), such as the algae Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean, which competes with local species and upsets the balance of ecosystems.
These elements enable us to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of the effects of human activities on biodiversity.
Conclusion
We support large businesses as well as smaller entities whose corporate purpose includes the preservation of biodiversity from the outset. For each assignment, we select the methods best suited to the major challenges facing the company, while remaining restrained on issues with a limited impact. Our expertise allows us to cover a wide range of actions, from the assessment of biodiversity footprints to the implementation of global strategies and innovative methodological tools.
Our missions are varied:
- Assessment of the biodiversity footprint of a product or service: We carried out this work for an agri-food group, integrating agroecological practices. This approach enabled them to highlight the concrete benefits of biodiversity, emphasizing the positive impact of certain sustainable practices.
- Implementation of an ecodesign approach integrating biodiversity: We support our clients in the systematic integration of biodiversity issues into their product design processes. For example, we helped a large group structure its approach and present it at a scientific conference, while ensuring its progressive implementation within the company.
- Ensuring consistency of environmental claims: We help companies harmonize their communication on biodiversity, whether to consumers (via products) or investors (as part of the CSR report). These two levels use different metrics, and we support our clients in aligning their biodiversity indicators, structuring their messages and ensuring transparent and coherent communication.
- Development of biodiversity strategies integrating marine pressures: We have developed a biodiversity strategy for a major food processing group that takes into account pressures on the marine environment, including seafood products, aquaculture and fishing, in order to address the specific challenges associated with these sectors (see here).
- Development of innovative, science-based methodologies: We are working to fill the methodological gaps in terms of biodiversity footprint. For example, our recent work on the impact of metals makes it possible to assess pressures that have so far been little taken into account, thus improving the accuracy and robustness of the analyses (see for example our work on metals here, or our work on marine biodiversity, including the seabed here).
Thanks to these customized approaches, we help our clients to better understand, measure and reduce their impact on biodiversity while strengthening the credibility and consistency of their environmental commitments.
Member of the European PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) Technical Advisory Board
Member of the French ADEME environmental labelling working group
