Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Combining life cycle assessment and economic modelling to assess environmental impacts of agricultural policies: the case of the French ruminant sector

  • POLICIES AND SUPPORT IN RELATION TO LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Numerous policy instruments are applied to agricultural production in the European Union (EU27). Implementing them may significantly influence environmental impacts of agricultural production. A consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA) approach was used to investigate potential environmental impacts of two EU27 policy instruments: dairy quota removal and implementation of a grass premium in the EU27.

Methods

MATSIM-LUCA, a partial equilibrium model of global agricultural markets, was used to assess market effects of policy instrument changes and to identify the processes affected. Land use change and intensification of crop production were also considered. Outputs of the model were used to feed the CLCA.

Results and discussion

Quota removal led to a predicted increase in production of cow milk, dairy cull cows and beef cows in the EU27, while avoided beef cow production was located outside the EU27. Per functional unit, the additional milk production in France had lower environmental impacts than average French milk before quota removal, mostly due to avoided beef cow production in the USA. After implementation of the grass premium, cattle diets in the EU27 were predicted to contain less concentrates and more grass. Increased demand for grass led to grassland expansion at the expense of cropland, and finally to an increased area needed to produce similar quantities of ruminant products. Intensification of crop production in the EU27 occurred at the same time, however, thus reducing competition for land among different agricultural land uses but increasing environmental impacts of crop production when expressed per hectare. Environmental impacts of the additional hectares used to produce ruminant products were negative for most impact categories.

Conclusions

This study provides an initial attempt to assess environmental impacts of policy instrument changes in the ruminant sector through CLCA by combining economic modelling and LCA. Using an economic model allows the identification of the main effects of policy instrument changes in complex interconnected markets, such as agricultural ones. Nonetheless, inconsistencies between the economic and LCA frameworks were identified that need to be improved to make the method more operational.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

Abbreviations

AC:

Acidification

ALCA:

Attributional life cycle assessment

CAP:

Common Agricultural Policy

CED:

Cumulative energy demand

CGEM:

Computable general equilibrium model

CLCA:

Consequential life cycle assessment

CLCI:

Consequential life cycle inventory

E26:

European Union excluding France

EcoSys:

Ecosystems

EcoTox:

Freshwater ecotoxicity

EU:

Eutrophication

FPCM:

Fat- and protein-corrected milk

FR:

France

G:

Grass-based milk production

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

GWP:

Global warming potential

Ha:

Hectare

H:

Highland milk production

IG:

Intensive grass-based milk production

IM:

Intensive maize silage-based milk production

kg:

Kilogramme

LC:

Land competition

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCI:

Life cycle inventory

LUC:

Land use change

M:

Maize silage-based milk production

Mha:

Million hectares

MJ:

Megajoule

Mt:

Million tons

O:

Organic milk production

PEM:

Partial equilibrium model

ROW:

Rest of world

t:

Ton

VIM:

Very intensive maize silage-based milk production

References

  • AGRESTE (2012) Supply balances (Bilans d’approvisionnement). http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/enquetes/bilans-d-approvisionnement/

  • Bento AM, Klotz R (2014) Climate policy decisions require policy-based lifecycle analysis. Environ Sci Technol 48:5379–5387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouman M, Heijungs R, van der Voet E, van den Berg CJM, Huppes G (2000) Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecol Econ 32:195–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman AF, Van der Hoek KW, Eickhout B, Soenario I (2005) Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems. Agric Syst 84:121–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britz W, Witzke HP (2014) CAPRI model documentation. Institute for Food and Resource Economics. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

  • Cederberg C, Mattson B (2000) Life cycle assessment of milk production—a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Clean Prod 8:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colman D, Bouamra-Mechemache Z, Réquillart V, Banse M, Nöelle F, Harvey D, Bailey A, Oliveier E, Rapsomanikis G (2002) Phasing out milk quotas in the EU. In: The University of Manchester. Manchester, United-Kingdom

  • COMIFER (2009) Teneurs en P, K et Mg des organes végétaux récoltés. COMIFER, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • COMIFER (2011) Calcul de la fertilisation azotée—Guide méthodologique pour l’établissement des prescriptions locales. COMIFER, Paris La Défense

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant RT, Paustian K, Elliott ET (2001) Grassland management and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon. Ecol Appl 11:343–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thranc M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:240–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dandres T, Gaudreault C, Tirado-Seco P, Samson R (2011) Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: application to European energy sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:3121–3132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dandres T, Gaudreault C, Tirado-Seco P, Samson R (2012) Macroanalysis of the economic and environmental impacts of a 2005–2025 European Union bioenergy policy using the GTAP model and life cycle assessment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:1180–1192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T (2002) Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond. J Clean Prod 10:403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Ass 9:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EMEP/CORINAIR (2006) Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Technical report no. Ed European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, p 11

    Google Scholar 

  • EMEP/EEA (2009) Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. Technical report no. Sectorial guidance, Agriculture - Animal husbandry and manure management. Ed European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) The 2003 CAP reform—information sheets. European Commission Directorate-general of agriculture. Brussel

  • European Commission (2010) Guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of annex V to directive 2009/28/EC. Official journal of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Faist EM, Reinhard J, Zah R (2009) Sustainability quick check for biofuels—background report. Ed EMPA, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • FAPRI (2004) Documentation of the FAPRI modeling system—FAPRI-UMC report no. 12–04. Food and agricultural policy research institute. Columbia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M, Ledgard S (2012) The interaction between milk and beef production and emissions from land use change—critical considerations in life cycle assessment and carbon footprint studies of milk. J Clean Prod 28:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber P, Vellinga T, Opio C, Steinfeld H (2011) Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livest Sci 139:100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gocht A, Espinosa M, Leip A, Lugato E, Schroeder LA, Van Doorslaer B, Paloma SGY (2016) A grassland strategy for farming systems in Europe to mitigate GHG emissions—an integrated spatially differentiated modelling approach. Land Use Policy 58:318–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gohin A, Carpentier A, Koutchadé P, Bareille F (2015) Amélioration de la preprésentation de l’offre agricole dans les modèles macroéconomiques. ADEME, Angers

    Google Scholar 

  • Google (2015) Google Earth version 7.1.5.1557

  • Hart K (2015) Green direct payments: implementation choices of nine member states and their environmental implication. IEEP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM (2010) Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. Bioscience 60:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igos E, Rugani B, Rege S, Benetto E, Drouet L, Zachary DS (2015) Combination of equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios. Appl Energ 145:234–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol No 4. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) IGES, Kanagawa

  • IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I ti the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint-Denis

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint-Denis

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Gilbert P, Raugei M, Mander S, Leccisi E (2017) An approach to prospective consequential life cycle assessment and ne energy analysis of distributed electricity generation. Energ Policy 100:350–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JRC, IES (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance, First edn. Ed Joint Research Center, Ispra

    Google Scholar 

  • JRC, IPTS (2009) Economic impact of the abolition of the milk quota regime—regional analysis of the milk production in EU. JRC-IPTS, Seville

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempen M, Witzke P, Pérez Domínguez I, Jansson T, Sckokai P (2011) Economic and environmental impacts of milk quota reform in Europe. J Policy Model 33:29–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch P, Salou T (2015) AGRIBALYSE: methodology—version 1.2. ADEME, Angers

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C, Priess JA (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:3388–3393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leip A, Weiss F, Wassenaar T, Perez I, Fellmann T, Loudjani P, Tubiello F, Grandgirard D, Monni S, Biala K (2010) Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS)—final report. Joint Research Center, Ispra

  • Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, Jury C (2013) Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:768–781

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marvuglia A, Rege S, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, Vanni L, Stilmant D, Benetto E (2017) A return on experience from the application of agent-based simulations coupled with life cycle assessment to model agricultural processes. J Clean Prod 142:1539–1551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Azapagig A, Doka G, Jefferies D, King H, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Roches A, Sim S, Stichnothe H, Thoma G, Williams A (2011) Approaches for addressing life cycle assessment data gaps for bio-based products. J Ind Ecol 15:707–725

  • Nemecek T, Kägi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems—Data v2.0. Ecoinvent report No 15a. Ed Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. Zurich and Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Weiler K, Plassmann K, Schnetzer J (2011) Geographical extrapolation of environmental impact of crops by the MEXALCA method. Agroscope Reckenholzt-Tänikon research station, Reckenholzt-Tänikon

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010) Linkages between agricultural policies and environmental effects: using the stylised agri-environmental policy impact model. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD, FAO (2014) OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2014. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD, FAO (2015) Aglink-Cosimo model documentation—a partial equilibrium model of world agricultural markets. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins AG, Stehfest E, Overmars K, Ros J (2010) Are models suitable for determining ILUC factors? Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudêncio da Silva V, Van der Werf HMG, Spies A, Soares SR (2010) Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. J Environ Manag 91:1831–1839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puillet L, Agabriel J, Peyraud JL, Faverdin P (2014) Modelling cattle population as lifetime trajectories driven by management options: a way to better integrate beef and milk production in emissions assessment. Livest Sci 165:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal D (2014) Consequential life cycle assessment of policy vulnerability to price effects. J Ind Ecol 18:164–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S et al. (2015) The international model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT)—IFPRI discussion paper 01483. IFPRI, Washington, United-States of America

  • Roches A, Nemecek T (2009) Unilever-ART project no. CH-2008-0779 on variability of bio-based materials: final report. Agroscope Reckenholzt-Tänikon research station, Reckenholzt-Tänikon

    Google Scholar 

  • Roches A, Nemecek T, Gaillard G, Plassmann K, Sim S, King H, Milà i, Canals L (2010) MEXALCA: a modular method for the extrapolation of crop LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:842–854

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Salou T, Le Mouël C, van der Werf HMG (2017a) Environmental impacts of dairy system intensification: the functional unit matters. J Clean Prod 140:445–454

  • Salou T, van der Werf HMG, Levert F, Forslund A, Hercule J, Le Mouël C (2017b) Could EU dairy quota removal favour some dairy production systems over others? The case of French dairy production systems. Agric Syst 153:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH (2008) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:350–364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH, Weidema BP (2008) Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. Int J Life Cycle Ass 13:235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCORELCA (2013) Analyse du Cycle de Vie Conséquentielle : Identification des conditions de mise en oeuvre et des bonnes pratiques. SCORELCA, Villeurbanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Sea-Distances.org (2016) http://www.sea-distances.org/. http://www.sea-distances.org/

  • Stehfest E, Ros J, Bouwman L (2010) Indirect effects of biofuels: intensification of agricultural production. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO (ed), Rome

  • UNEP, SETAC (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases—a basis for greener processes and products

  • van den Berg M, vander Esh S, Witmer MCH, Overmars KP, Prins AG (2012) Reform of the EU common agricultural policy: environmental impacts in developing countries. In: PBL Netherlands environmental assessment agency. The Hague, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • van Meijl H, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E (2014) Applying consequential LCA to support energy policy: land use change effects of bioenergy production. Sci Total Environ 472:78–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe I, Rege S, Marvuglia A, Thénie J, Haurie A, Benetto E (2013) Application of three independent consequential LCA approaches to the agricultural sector in Luxembourg. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1593–1604

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Viscecchia R, Giannoccaro G (2014) Influence of the common agricultural policy on the livestock nuber reared. Evidence from selected European regions. Riv Econ Agr 2-3:129–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA. Technical report of CALCAS project

  • Whitefoot KS, Skerlos SJ (2016) Market effects in lifecycle assessment: a framework to aid product design and policy analysis. Procedia CIRP 48:336–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan MJ, Humphreys J, Holden NM (2013) Life cycle assessment of milk production from commercial dairy farms: the influence of management tactics. J Dairy Sci 96:4112–4124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Enrico Benetto (LIST) for the careful reading and insightful comments, ADEME and INRA for their financial support and Peter Koch for his technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ADEME, 49000, Angers, France

    Thibault Salou

  2. UMR SAS, INRA, AGROCAMPUS OUEST, 35000, Rennes, France

    Thibault Salou & Hayo M. G. van der Werf

  3. UMR SMART-LERECO, INRA, AGROCAMPUS OUEST, 35000, Rennes, France

    Thibault Salou, Chantal Le Mouël & Fabrice Levert

  4. SAE2, INRA, 35000, Rennes, France

    Agneta Forslund

Authors
  1. Thibault Salou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chantal Le Mouël
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabrice Levert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Agneta Forslund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hayo M. G. van der Werf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thibault Salou.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Serenella Sala

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 188 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salou, T., Le Mouël, C., Levert, F. et al. Combining life cycle assessment and economic modelling to assess environmental impacts of agricultural policies: the case of the French ruminant sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 566–580 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1463-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1463-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation