Global Land Use Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in LCA

ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

GLOBAL LAND USE IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN LCA

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Thomas Koellner • Laura de Baan • Tabea Beck • Miguel Brandão • Barbara Civit • Manuele Margni • Llorenç Milà i Canals • Rosie Saad • Danielle Maia de Souza • Ruedi Müller-Wenk

T. Koellner () • D. M. Souza Professorship of Ecological Services, University of Bayreuth, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and Geosciences, GEO II, Room 1.17, Universitaetsstr. 30, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

L. de Baan Natural and Social Science Interface, Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Universitaetstr. 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

T. Beck Department Life Cycle Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Hauptstrasse 113, 70771 Leinfelden- Echterdingen, Germany

M. Brandão • D. M. Souza European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability Assessment Unit, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy

B. Civit Universidad Tecnologica Nacional – Facultad Regional Mendoza/CONICET - Rodriguez 273 (5500) Mendoza, Argentina

M. Margni • R. Saad CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Département de génie chimique, 6079 Montréal, Canada

L. Milà i Canals Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever R&D Colworth Park, Sharnbrook, Bedford, MK44 1LQ, UK

R. Müller-Wenk Institute for Economy and the Environment, University St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 2, 9000 St.Gallen, Switzerland

Received: 14 June 2011 / Accepted: 9 February 2012 Springer-Verlag 2012

Responsible editor: Roland Geyer

() Corresonding author: Thomas Koellner e-mail: [email protected]

1 Supporting Information A: Separating transformation into two separate flows “transformation from” and “transformation to”. This idea was implemented in Ecoinvent 2.0, to reduce the number of flows and allow better data management. The same approach was used in ReCiPe (De Schryver and Goedkoop 2008). Instead of storing information for each combination of land use change, all land use changes are calculated in relation to a baseline. The land use flow “transformation from A to B” is split into two vectors “transformation from A to baseline” and “transformation from baseline to B” (Fig. S1). That means, we would have to define a useful baseline. We suggest using the reference (“Potential natural vegetation”) as a baseline for this distinction. Because the reference land use type has per definition no impact, the baseline is 0. For the overall impact calculation of transformation, it is irrelevant which baseline is chosen, as we first add and then subtract the baseline (see ecoinvent report, Frischknecht and Jungbluth 2007).

Fig. S1 Options for calculating transformation land use flows

If we add the temporal dimension to Fig. S1 we can calculate the transformation impacts of both options (for simplicity, we assume for the spatial dimension that the area of each land use changes remains constant). This is illustrated in Fig. S2. The overall transformation impact for (a) combined impact and (b) separated impacts is the same. (a) Is calculated in the same way as in Fig. 1 the transformation from LU2 to LU3. In (b), the land is immediately transformed from A to the baseline. Without this (active) transformation, the ecosystem quality would gradually improve passively along the regeneration trajectory (diagonal of the triangle). Therefore, with this (hypothetical) immediate transformation, we create a benefit (negative value) to the ecosystem quality marked in the green triangle. In a second step the land is immediately transformed from the baseline to B, causing a damage (positive value) to ecosystem quality. The overall impact to ecosystem quality of the two transformations equals the transformation impact of the combined transformation displayed in (a).

Fig. S2 Transformation from A to B, calculated as (a) a combined impact or (b) two separated impacts

2 Fig. S3 Transformation and occupation impacts of two land use types 1 and 2. For simplicity the area A of occupation is not shown in the graph

The same calculation of transformation and occupation impact can theoretically be applied for all land use types and possible transformation. In Fig. S3 we illustrate a case of transforming land from a more intense land use activity LU1 (e.g. arable land) into less an intense land use activity LU2 (e.g. forest plantation). For illustration, we changed the order by first displaying the occupation and then the transformation impacts, but the calculation of areas remains the same as in Figs. 1-2 and Fig. S2. At time t1, the land is transformed from an unused reference situation to land use LU1 and occupied until t2. Then land is transformed to LU2 (e.g. forest plantation). At time t3 the land is abandoned and potentially regenerates after a regeneration time tLU1,reg. Occupation impacts of LU1 and LU2 are calculated as before: OI = ΔQ* Δ t* A. Transformation impact of LU1 is given by TIref→ LU1= 0.5*(Qref -

QLU1)* tLU1, reg* A. The transformation impact from LU1 to LU2 is calculated as TILU1→ LU2 = 0.5* (Qref -

QLU2)* tLU2, reg* A - TIref→ LU1 = TIref→ LU2 - TIref→ LU1. As TIref→ LU2 < TIref→ LU1 we get a negative impact, or a benefit for land use quality. In Fig. S3, this benefit is illustrated as the dotted area (4). The instant decrease and increase of ecosystem quality at t1 and t2 is a strong simplification of reality. In many cases, such changes, especially increases in ecosystem quality (land transformation from LU1 to LU2), are occurring gradually over a certain time period.

3 Supporting Information B: Land use impacts assessment methodology

Table S1 Overview of land use impact assessment methods and the case study presented in this special issue. (*) In 1b) the numbers in brackets refer to the land use codes as presented in Koellner et al. (2013)

Impact assessment methods Case study Authors, Reference de Baan et al. (this issue) Souzaet al. (this issue) Brandão and Milà i Müller-Wenk and Saad et al. (2013) Mila i Canals et al. (2013) Canals (2013) Brandão (2010) 1) Creation of spatial model 1a) - modelled impact - Biodiversity Damage - Biodiversity Damage - Biotic Production - Climate Regulation - Freshwater Regulation - Biodiversity Damage pathways and unit Potential (BDP_SD), Potential (BDP_FD), Potential (BPP) Potential (CRP) Potential (FWRP) Potential (BDP) species diversity functional diversity - Erosion Regulation - Biotic Production Potential Potential (ERP) (BPP) - Water Purification - Climate Regulation Potential Potential (WPP) (CRP) - Freshwater Regulation Potential (FWRP) - Erosion Regulation Potential (ERP) - Water Purification Potential (WPP) - unit of impact % reduced relative Relative reduction in tC-yr / (ha-yr) Fossil-combustion- - FWRP: mm/year see impact assessment assessment species richness, or species functional equivalent ton, C per - ERP: ton/(ha.yr) methods potentially disappeared diversity hectare transferred to - WPP: two indicators fraction of species (PDF) air (Ceq) (Mechanical Filtration [cm/d], Physiochemical Filtration [cmol/kgsoil] )

4 Impact assessment methods Case study Authors, Reference de Baan et al. (this issue) Souzaet al. (this issue) Brandão and Milà i Müller-Wenk and Saad et al. (2013) Mila i Canals et al. (2013) Canals (2013) Brandão (2010) b) land use/cover - Unused (1.1.1 / 4.1.1) - Long-term cultivated (5) - Unused forest (1.1.1) - Forest (1) Foreground: typology covered (*) - Secondary vegetation - Full tillage, medium C - Unused grassland - Grassland (4.1) - Agriculture, arable (5.1) (1.1.2) input cultivation (5.1.2 / (4.1.1) - Pastures (4.2) - Agriculture, permanent - Used forest (1.2) 5.1.3) - Cropland (5) - Permanent and annual crops (5.2) - Pasture/meadow (4.2) - Permanent grassland (4) - Pasture (4.2) crops (5) - Grassland, pasture / - Annual crops (5.1) - Nominally managed - Artificial land (7) - Shrubland (3) meadow (4.2) - Permanent crops (5.2) grassland (4.2) - Urban (7.1) - Forest, used (1.2) - Agroforestry (6) - Paddy rice (5.1.4) - Artificial, green urban - Artificial areas (7) - Artificial area (7) - Perennial/Tree Crop (7.1.4) - Artificial areas, industrial (7) (5.2) - Artificial areas, urban green - Set-aside (< 20 yrs) (7.1.4) (5.1.1 / 5.1.6) - Sealed Land (7.1.2 / Background (as above plus): 7.2 / 7.6.1 / 7.6.2) - Secondary vegetation - Plus additional more (1.1.2) detailed land use types

1c) bio-geographical - World average - WWF Ecoregions - World average - IPCC Climate - World average - WWF Biomes differentiation used for the - WWF Biome - IPCC Climate Region Region - WWF biomes - World average CFs - Holdridge Life Regions - Holdridge Life Zones

1d) reference land use Region specific (semi)- Region specific (semi)- (Quasi-)natural land cover Potential natural Potential natural See impact assessment situation natural ecosystems natural ecosystems vegetation vegetation methods 1e) relative or absolute Relative Relative Absolute Absolute Absolute See impact assessment quality changes methods 2) Data collection 2a) the data input - Occupation: m2*years - Occupation: m2*years - Occupation: ha*years - Occupation: - Occupation: m2*years - Occupation: m2*years of required from the land of each land use type of each land use type of each land use type m2*years of each of each land use type each land use type use inventory - Transformation - Transformation - Transformation: ha land use type - Transformation: m2 - Transformation: m2 2b) regeneration times, impacts not considered impacts not - Source: IPCC 1996 / - Transformation: - Source: Dobben et al. - No permanent impacts assumption about - No permanent impacts considered Dobben et al. 1998 m2 (1998) assumed permanent impacts assumed - No permanent - Temporal range: 20 - Temporal range: - Temporal range: 50 - impacts assumed years 62-238 220 - No permanent impacts - No permanent - No permanent impacts assumed impacts assumed assumed 2c) generic CFs for the - Generic - Generic - Generic - Generic - Generic - Only generic background system or characterization factors characterization characterization factors characterization characterization characterization factors for case specific CFs for the for background system factors for for background system factors for factors for background background system applied foreground system background system background system system 2d) allocation of land defined by LCA user / Average land transformation in the whole country rather than a specific plantation was assessed, and thus there was no need for transformation to case study allocating it to the first 20 years of land use functional units

5 Impact assessment methods Case study Authors, Reference de Baan et al. (this issue) Souzaet al. (this issue) Brandão and Milà i Müller-Wenk and Saad et al. (2013) Mila i Canals et al. (2013) Canals (2013) Brandão (2010) 3) Land use impact calculation 3a) temporal modelling Not applicable, only Not applicable, only 20 years for biotic land 62 to 238 years as A modelling time period Different (see impact period of impacts of land occupation impacts (no occupation impacts (no uses and up to 140 for per relaxation times of 500 years was set, assessment methods) transformation temporal dimension) temporal dimension) sealed land as per assuming full recovery of regeneration times land transformation within the range of relaxation times. 3b) uncertainty Median, 1st and 3rd No uncertainty indicated No uncertainty indicated No uncertainty Median, 1st and 3rd No uncertainty considered evaluation of the impact quartiles indicated quartiles assessment Average absolute deviation

6 Supporting Information C: Description of Excel Files holding characterization factors for land occupation and land transformation for all impact pathways.

A list of characterization factors (CFs) is provided in the embedded spreadsheets below (double click on icons in table S2 to open file). For consistency and easier applicability, we converted the CFs of all impact pathways into the same spatial units (WWF biomes and world average) and assigned them to the same land use classification (as presented in Koellner et al. this issue). This conversion was only done for BPP and CSP, the other impact pathways were already available in this classification system. A description of how the reclassification was done is given in the respective spreadsheets in the sheet “Remarks_of_Author”. In the original publications and their supporting information, some authors provide more detailed results. For a detailed explanation of the methods, please refer to the original publications. Please note, that a different reclassification approach was chosen for the case study on margarine (see Milà i Canals et al. 2013).

To calculate land use impacts in LCA, land occupation [in ha*year] and transformation [in ha] inventory flows need to be multiplied with the CFs for each impact pathway.

Table S2. Summary of characterization factors for land use impact assessment methods presented in this special issue Impact pathway Authors and Conversion of Characterization factors reference CFs Biodiversity depletion potential (BDP) Species diversity (SD) de Baan et al. No conversion (2013) needed Functional diversity (FD) Souza et al. (2013) No conversion needed Ecosystem Service Damage Potential (ESDP) Biotic Production Potential Brandão and Milà i -Regions (BPP) Canals (2013) converted from IPCC biomes to WWF biomes -Land use classes simplified and reclassified into the classification suggested by Koellner et al. (this issue) Carbon Sequestration Müller-Wenk and -Regions Potential (CSP) Brandão (2010) converted from IPCC biomes to WWF biomes -Land use classes simplified and reclassified into the classification suggested by Koellner et al. (this issue) Erosion Regulation Potential Saad et al. (2013) No conversion (ERP) needed Freshwater Regulation Saad et al. (2013) No conversion Potential (FWRP) needed Water Purification Potential Saad et al. (2013) No conversion

7 (WWP) needed Mechanical Filtration (MF) Saad et al. (2013) No conversion needed Physicochemical Filtration Saad et al. (2013) No conversion (PCF) needed

References Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue) de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue) De Schryver A, Goedkoop M (2008) Impact of land use. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (eds) ReCiPe. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicatorsat the midpoint and the endpoint level, Online at http://www.lcia-recipe.net/@api/deki/files/11/=ReCiPe_main_report_final_27-02-2009_web.pdf Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (eds) (2007) Ecoinvent: Overview and Methodology. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Goedkoop M, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Müller-Wenk R, Weidema B, Wittstock B (2013) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue) Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue) Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:172-182 Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue) Souza DM, Flynn D, Rosenbaum RK, DeClerck F, de Melo Lisboa H, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)