1. Introduction
1.1 LCA
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
part. The results of analyzed data are presented in seventh part, which is divided according to three dimensions being, environmental, economic, and social.
Afterwards what follows would be conclusion. This research concludes with the summary of findings that would allow to.
1.1 LCA
Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an evolving quantitative tool consisting of compiling data about energy and material input as well as environmental output, evaluating potential impacts of identified inputs and outputs, and finally interpreting the results to provide enough information for decision makers. This holistic assessment provides an environmental profile of the product system. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines LCA as “the compilation and evaluation of the inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system during a product’s lifetime” (ISO, 2006). LCA has potential to be applied to evaluate various areas including agricultural production system and examine various areas of impact.
This method is often used to compare or critique products and to help narrow outlook on environmental concerns. The agricultural LCA’s characteristics defines alternative decision for production systems by analyzing environmental impacts of
environmental measures such as fertilizer application methods and organic
agricultural practices. Thus, LCA is contributing to improving the quality extension services, improving the profitability of farms by green marketing, and, the most importantly, supporting the regional transition to sustainable agriculture systems (Hayashi et al., 2005, p. 107). With the increase of public attention to the areas of protection, the number of application of LCA to agricultural production systems and of comparative risk assessment (CRA) to many agricultural and food products also
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
increased.
Some scholars started to split LCA into subcategories as Social Life-Cycle
Assessment (SLCA) focused on impact in terms of society, Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment (ELCA) concerning environmental characteristics, or Life-Cycle Costing (LCC) researching economic attributes. However, in this paper, the LCA is used in its holistic way to create a whole picture about the agricultural system in Taiwan.
1.1.1 Early development
In 1970s, research of measuring the input energy into agriculture in the United
Kingdom has revealed that new methods used in agriculture are less effective because of dependency on fossil fuels, agrochemicals, and electricity (Leach, 1976). The first conference in Europe on LCA on Agriculture was in Belgium, 1996 called,
“Application of LCA in Agricultural, Food and non-food Agro-Industry and Forestry.”
Using LCA method to national agriculture was introduced by Heller and Keoleian (2002, 2003) inspired by the workshop organized by the Center for Sustainable
System entitled “A Life Cycle Approach to Sustainable Agriculture Indicators” held in 1999. Measuring food production on national level expanded from US to Europe where it is used as an indication for complex comparison among countries in the European Union.
Early LCA was used mainly to serve “green” oriented goals and it resulted in harming LCA’s reputation (Finkbeiner, 2014). Later LCA became known as “the best tool currently available” (European Commission, 2014) to assess products’ environmental impacts. In recent times, there are requests for LCA community to adapt tool to new uses, for instance, creation of indicators enabling non-experts to assess products
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Freidberg, 2015, p. 2). It is now also well recognized that sustainability assessment needs to consider three interconnected main pillars: environment, economy, and society (Giddings et al., 2002).
1.1.2 Limitations
Originally, LCA was not considered as a specific tool for assessment. Nevertheless, for purposes of measuring agricultural production, some things have to be considered.
Some institutes in Europe, such as those in France, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden,
“are trying to regionalize emission and characterization factors for eutrophication and acidification caused by N (nitrogen) and P (phosphorus) fertilizers (including manure) application (Hayashi et al., 2005, p. 106)” to develop missing indicators. In general, LCA is limited because it simply may not be able to explain all
environmental impacts. An example would be the indicators for soil quality and biodiversity, which are currently investigated by Agroscope FAL Reckenholz.
Another example would be the indicators related to pesticides. Although EDIP and USES-LCA are applied and modified in applications, “there are still many problems to be resolved (Hayashi et al., 2005, p. 106).” Which means, there are still some problems in precise calculations. For this reason, this paper will in some cases not calculate assessment with numbers, as with the missing precise indicators and data, the results would be more than inaccurate. Therefore, in the case of fertilizers and pesticides assessment, the focus is kept on the overall qualitative impact.
Methodological values are “the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice (Longino, 1990).” Methodology in LCA has been mainly codified as principles in ISO 14040/44 which are constituted international standards of LCA. The uncodified part can be described as social and cultural
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
environment. Also, it can be influenced by values as in choosing the research question or data. “Decisions within a LCA are preferably based on natural science” (ISO a, 2006) but its value choices, such as those used in weighting, are “not scientifically based (ISO b, 2006).”
In general, LCA can be used as “a tool that can model ‘everything mankind does’ and assess the impacts on ‘everything we find important’ (Goedkoop, 2014).” Therefore, the scope of LCA usage can be extremely wide and can be summarized as “ISO 14040 frames LCA’s expected scope only somewhat more modestly as the entire life cycle of a product and… all attributes or aspects of natural environment, human health and resources (Freidberg, 2015, p. 2).” In case that a client is a part of industry, there is expectation on the practitioners of LCA that the study has to be scientific, independent, and credible and it should have marketable or profitable results if possible. The result of the assessment could potentially provide such expected outcome, but can never promise it. Since this research is non-profit, there is no specific pressure on the result.
1.1.3 Relation with Agriculture
With the goal of reducing risks in agriculture, a new production system was
established based on the codes of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) as application of standards and certification of procedures. The GAP approach focuses on the front side of the system boundary while LCA can be used for integrating environmental and food safety issues. Comparing systems among agricultural production with or without the codes of GAPs is useful for comparing other sets of standards, such as the organic farming rules or cross compliance criteria. GAPs defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) refers to food production and security, food safety and quality,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and the environmental sustainability of agriculture (FAO, 2013). One of the
certification standards is for example, GLOBAL G.A.P. is concerned with safe food that is produced for worker’s health, safety and welfare, environmental and animal welfare issues (GLOBALG.A.P., 2016).
In Europe, examples of definitions of GAPs are series of the Code of Good
Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water, Air, and Soil by MAFF UK. In the United Kingdom and in this part of the world in general, the majority of GAPs is related to environmental issues. In the European Union, the term regarded as an equivalent with GAPs is Good Farming Practices (GFPs) required under EU
Commission Allowance Scheme (LFACA) and Agri-environment schemes (European Commission, 2016). Both GAPs and GFPs are used in documents of OECD. On the other hand, in the U.S., GAPS are only related to food safety issues and the main focus is reduction of the microbial risks to fruits and vegetables. This approach is also applicable in Japan. In the case of Switzerland, the code also includes topics as mycotoxins, acrylamide, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
Nowadays, the discussions on GAPs are focused more on minimum ecological requirements corresponding to a kind of integrated production system confirming that it is necessary to integrate environmental issues and food safety issues. LCA method makes this integration possible. One of the most important themes in the LCA studies of agricultural production systems is the comparison between organic and
conventional farming, the most of the other researches concern energy questions (Hayashi et al., 2005, p. 100-101).
The result of LCA is useful in decision making process about alternatives in agricultural production system, including organic production systems, integrated
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
production systems, or conventional production systems. These production systems are results of long-term research under consideration of overall principles, for instance, integrated pest management refuses preventive treatments without 99%
evidence of damage; however, organic farming prohibits the use of artificial chemical inputs (Hayashi et al., 2005, p. 98-99).
In Taiwan, there is a tendency to apply LCA methodology to certain agricultural products, such as rice (潘瀅如, 2008) or mango (Nicki, 2016); however, to understand circumstances behind single products is necessary to draw the whole picture of agricultural production system by LCA which is the aim of this paper. In last decades, attention to agriculture sector was significantly decreasing in Taiwan and instead society was increasingly focusing on industrial and service sector. Today, there are not many people doing research about Taiwanese; our society is not conscious about importance of agricultural production. Therefore, there was not found any available book concerning Taiwanese sector in English language.