Insights
There are a range of issues confronting Life Cycle Thinking in the New Zealand context. Inventory plays a central role in the application of Life Cycle Management (LCM) in business, as firms undertake LCA and GHG assessments, in RS&T and in policy development by government.
Inventories require ongoing maintenance and research to retain their currency and usefulness, indicating a more interactive approach needs to be taken to creating, maintaining and using key datasets and research.
As an emergent discipline, capability is still developing in this country and needs a 'national interest' approach. This would ensure a consistent spread of practitioner-focused education, and ensure efficient practices build up and retain the confidence of industry and business communities, as well as consumers. There is also a wider case for education around what Life Cycle Thinking can deliver for New Zealand firms and industries, to help them 'manage the expectations' of their stakeholders, customers, supply chain partners, regulators and social stakeholders.
Position of LCI
LCI or 'Inventory Analysis' was developed in the context of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework. But it is now used by other distinct fields such as greenhouse gas accounting, eco-labels, product development and even governmental policy. Figure 1 presents one view of some of these key relationships.
Impact on SMEs
The creation and maintenance of data at an individual company level can be very difficult without specialised staff or guidance for existing staff in an enterprise. This is a particular hurdle for SMEs, who can be faced with a disproportionate cost relative to their business scale. The challenge becomes very real and present for SMEs as the rollout of carbon labelling gains momentum in European markets.
The development of carbon labelling schemes such as the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, developed through British Standards International (BSI), requires constant monitoring at a national level to ensure New Zealand is able to contribute cohesively to, and proactively deal with, the outcomes.
Taking a sector level approach to data collection and creation can reduce the burden on individual companies, while providing credible data to instigate emission mitigation measures.
New approaches
It is likely that new methods such as Economic Input Output Analysis (EIOA) are going to increase in importance as a viable way to achieve life cycle thinking outcomes.
EIOA differs from LCA in that it is 'top down', using general economic data instead of detailed process data. EIOA offers some exciting potential to deliver similar results to LCA but comes with some limitations through its use of data averages and research-based assumptions to define and allocate impacts.
Understanding and developing skills in such emerging methods is a valid priority to pursue alongside existing methods (such as LCA), and would ensure New Zealand develops strategic capacity and understanding in new areas.
Data
Primary sector data in New Zealand has been effectively researched and collected over an extended period of time.
This was originally collected up to the farm gate, but has progressively moved to incorporate data from processing and distribution to the end consumer as concern about climate change has tracked through supply chains.
Practitioners have noted that some research has become outdated and may need to be replaced in key sectors where New Zealand industry needs to maintain its momentum in impact mitigation to secure its world market. Research can underpin decisions made in the LCI process and is as important as data collection. Defining what key research areas need to retain their currency is considered an important aspect of the ongoing maintenance of inventories.
There are a wide range of research projects and initiatives currently underway in the private and public sector. These are often not communicated effectively to a wider group of expert stakeholders and therefore do not promote and encourage easy access to the findings or lessons learned. Making this information transparently and centrally available through an online community would provide an effective body of knowledge and discussion on key topics.
It is probable that at least some, if not all, of these projects use common data (for instance energy and vehicle emissions factors) that could be useful to others. At present, there is no unified approach to the cross-sector creation and maintenance of important datasets, which leaves the way open for inefficient behaviours such as duplication, variation and inconsistency of interpretation of the same data.
Establishing a unified register of all New Zealand specific LCI databases and maintaining up-to-date knowledge of their status is likely to foster sharing and collaboration.
A unified NZ LCI dataset register could document both private and public datasets without compromising confidentiality. This would promote the commercial exchange of information between related industries and sectors.
Critical sectors on which many other industries depend (e.g. energy) could be compelled to provide current data on an ongoing basis for the common benefit.
There is an opening for industry to contribute aggregated (sector-body level) data and find ways to fund such an initiative alongside research partners. If these datasets are made more freely available this would directly reduce the cost to undertake LCI and LCA work, thereby reducing the barriers to entry for smaller firms.
The format of common or publicly available databases should be kept open through the use of the most prevalent interchange format, XML.
This data would need common data collection information (ISO14048) to indicate which parameters are essential to reference in the creation and use of pooled datasets.
An example of this approach exists in the Australian Life Cycle Inventory (AUSLCI) initiative whose aims are to "provide a national, publicly-accessible database with easy access to authoritative, comprehensive and transparent environmental information on a wide range of Australian products and services over their entire life cycle. It will be an invaluable tool for those involved in LCA, as it will also define and develop consistent guidelines, principles and methodologies for the collection of LCI data, along with protocols for LCA processes for different sectors."
One of the key drivers for the establishment of the AUSLCI project was the need to create a common approach that would give industry and consumer confidence to the application and use of LCA data.
There is evidence that the New Zealand building sector is moving in this direction with the support of the Department of Building and Housing.
AUSLCI has provided New Zealand an invitation to join the programme, a proposal which would warrant consideration by key stakeholders. Such a decision would require consultation around the small community of practitioners in this country to avoid a risk of creating divisions among them.
A leading practitioner (Alcorn, 2008) has suggested that Statistics New Zealand could collect data on key environmental metrics. This could be a mechanism in some sectors to reduce the individual cost of data collection and might open the way for increased uptake of LCA and other analytical methods, such as carbon foot printing.
Other data collected and maintained by Statistics New Zealand, such as economic input/output tables, could also be reviewed and improved (Andrew, 2008) to deliver more advanced information to those using EIOA and hybrid processes.
To align effectively with government policy and RS&T spending, it is crucial that the environmental data needed for new high growth industries is identified. Without this step, there could be a risk that their entry into new markets is frustrated, particularly in emerging and high technology sectors.
Leadership
The formation and maintenance of a 'Life Cycle Thinking' leadership group drawn from key stakeholders including top practitioners, government and business would provide an effective platform to ensure continual improvement.
It would provide a platform for the discussion of issues and opportunities that exist in the national and international context. This group could also provide more consensus and leadership than presently exists.
Capacity & Capability
There is limited LCA capability in New Zealand.
A few practitioners have a comprehensive understanding of the whole LCA method and the wider related issues that were raised in this study.
This group tends to advise the wider peer group of practitioners about best practice and structure for various studies. This creates a bottleneck for rolling out any substantial studies that need to be undertaken concurrently. It is also a risk to New Zealand's ability to undertake and maintain complex datasets to ensure integrity of downstream assessments. In addition it shifts the cost of education onto research providers, practitioners and ultimately their industrial clients, which further exacerbates the existing resource constraint and the squeeze on sectors and firms.
The absence of any formal tertiary education on LCA or analytical environmental assessment or management (with the exception of the University of Auckland's ICSER unit) provides little incentive for students in science or engineering fields to pursue post graduate study in Life Cycle Thinking.
The 'Life Cycle Management (LCM) initiative', led by Sarah McLaren at Landcare Research, aims to address this lack of capability and capacity by taking six masters students, training them and then embedding them in six exporting companies. In effect up this up-skills the companies in Life Cycle Management. If successful this concept could be extended to incorporate a wider range of companies to accelerate uptake further.
The community of practitioners in New Zealand appears to be grouped into commercial (private) and research (public) arenas. The linkages and collaborations in the public research domain are relatively effective, but the linkages between public research and private consulting appear to be relatively weak. Creating the impetus for life cycle 'thinkers' from all sectors and practitioner groups to get together would increase knowledge exchange and assist in the formation of functional links between the sectors, likely leading to increased uptake.
This report has investigated a wide range of applications and found leading practitioners operating in interesting, innovative, and productive ways. However, their impact on New Zealand industry and on development of the discipline is hampered by a lack of unity. The suggested actions outlined in Figure 2 are some of the steps that could contribute to building up a stronger and more vital New Zealand approach to Life Cycle Thinking that is tailored to our context.
Figure 2. Suggested Actions
| National LCI register and common format |
| Assuming that a data collection policy was instituted, create a national register with consistent data descriptions and requiring data in an open XML format. This would be an effective tool to build a clearer picture of where gaps are and therefore would help to target new research accurately. |
| Data collection policy |
| Defi ning the information that needs to be specifi ed for data collection instituted with government endorsement. This might follow the ISO/TS 14048 outline which already exists. |
| Code of practice |
| A government-endorsed code of practice to develop consistency in application. This would provide businesses with confi dence that they are employing a practitioner who is using the most current, appropriate and effi cient approaches for the New Zealand context. |
| LCI Co-Funding |
| Co-funding LCI development would provide practitioners with the ability to reduce the cost burden to companies. This could also be made conditional on the practitioners submitting their aggregated data to a national register and contributing to a wider pool. |
| Tertiary & Continuing Professional Education |
| A clear imperative which requires urgent action is the implementation of teaching at a tertiary undergraduate and post-graduate level to educate and train new practitioners and build capability in this strategic area. (Such as the Landcare Research LCM programme). |
| Establishment of Advisory groups |
| On Life Cycle Thinking (Incorporating LCA and LCM and other areas), Inventory Analysis, and Impact Assessment, to ensure specifi c advice on these three critical areas. These groups should be facilitated in such a manner as to involve key practitioners without creating unnecessary work for them. |
| Establishment of a structured community |
| To support wider discussion, presentation and learning about life cycle thinking and its application within New Zealand. |
Back to Top