Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil

LCA FOR AGRICULTURE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

The environmental effect of globalisation has been debated intensively in the last decades. Only few well-documented analyses of global versus local product alternatives exist, whilst recommendations on buying local are vast. At the same time, the European Environmental Agency’s Third Assessment concludes that the resource use within the EU is stabilising at the expense of increased resource use for import of products to the EU. Taking its point of departure in vegetable oils, this article compares rapeseed oil and palm oil as a local and a global alternative for meeting the increasing demand for these products in the EU. By using detailed life cycle assessment (LCA), this study compares the environmental impacts and identifies alternative ways of producing rapeseed oil and palm oil to the EU market in order to reduce environmental impacts.

Materials and methods

The consequential approach for system delimitation is applied (Ekvall and Weidema 2004; Weidema 2003; Schmidt 2008a; Schmidt and Weidema 2008). This approach differs from the attributional approach in a way that the actual affected suppliers and technologies are modelled instead of averages. In addition, co-product allocation is avoided by system expansion. The method for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is EDIP97 updated (LCA-Center 2007). In addition, land use and the associated impacts on biodiversity are assessed using the LCIA method described in Schmidt (2008b).

Results

The characterised results of the LCA show that palm oil is environmentally preferable to rapeseed oil within ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog and land use, whilst the differences within global warming and biodiversity are less clear. The most significant process contributing to global warming from rapeseed oil is the cultivation of rapeseed, whilst the oil palm cultivation and the palm oil mill (effluent treatment) are equally important. Regarding land use and biodiversity for rapeseed oil, the avoided production caused by system expansion has a major role, whilst system expansion has only limited effect on the results of palm oil.

Discussion

Alternative cultivation practices and technologies are assessed. The findings for rapeseed oil are that local expansions of the cultivated area on set-aside area is preferable to displacement of crops which are compensated for by increased agricultural production abroad and that the full press technology in the oil mill is preferable to solvent extraction. Concerning palm oil, cultivation on peat increases the contribution to global warming significantly with a factor of 4–5 compared to cultivation on the current mix of soils types. The other hotspot related to global warming (effluent treatment) can be markedly reduced by installation of digester tanks and subsequent utilisation of biogas.

Conclusions

The results of the scenarios show that the approach to system delimitation matters. When the consequential approach to system delimitation is applied in the agricultural stage, uncertainties show to be significant. These uncertainties are mainly related to the determination of how increased production is achieved, increased cultivated area and/or increased intensification. Overall, palm oil tends to be environmentally preferable to rapeseed oil within all impact categories except global warming, biodiversity and ecotoxicity where the difference is less pronounced and where it is highly dependent on the assumptions regarding system delimitation in the agricultural stage.

Recommendations and perspectives

Since the environmental performance of rapeseed oil and palm oil is a result of the current applied technologies and since improvement options exist in both product systems, it may be more relevant for decision makers to focus on requirements on the applied technologies in the product systems rather than preferring the one oil over the other.

Keywords

Agriculture Consequential modelling Life cycle assessment Marginal data Palm oil Rapeseed oil System expansion 

References

  1. Aarhus United (2005a) Aarhus United—Miljørapport [Aarhus United—Environmental report]. Aarhus United, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarhus United (2005b) Aarhus United—Energirapport [Aarhus United—Energy report]. Aarhus United, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer T, Grant T, Morgan G, Lapszewicz J, Anyon P, Edwards J, Nelson P, Watson H, Williams D (2002) Comparison of transport fuels. FINAL REPORT (EV45A/2/F3C) to the Australian Greenhouse Office on the stage 2 study of life-cycle emissions analysis of alternative fuels for heavy vehicles. Australian Greenhouse Office, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Bek-Nielsen C (2007) Personal communication with Carl Bek-Nielsen, Executive Director, United Plantations Berhan, Teluk Intan, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockisch M (1998) Fats and oils—handbook. AOCS, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  6. Corley RHV, Tinker PB (2003) The oil palm, 4th edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalgaard (2007) Personal communication with Randi Dalgaard, University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and co-author of the LCAfood databaseGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalgaard R, Schmidt JH, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J LCA 13(3):240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danmarks Statistik (2006) Danmarks Statistik—statistikbanken.dk [Statistics Denmark—statbank.dk]. Copenhagen. http://www.dst.dk/. Accessed September 2006
  10. Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning (2005) Dyrkningsvejledning, Vinterraps [Cultivation guideline, Winther rapeseed]. Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  11. Defra (2005) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Silsoe Research Institute, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Ecoinvent (2004) Ecoinvent data v1.3. Final reports ecoinvent 2000 no. 1–15. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  13. EEA (2003) Europe’s environment: The third assessment, European Environmental Agency (EEA), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Ccycle Assess 9(3):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO and IFA (2001) Global estimates of gaseous emissions of NH3, NO and N2O from agricultural land. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. FAO (2006) Global forest resources assessment 2005—progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. FAOSTAT (2006) FAOSTAT agriculture data, food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/, accessed April 2007
  18. FAPRI (2006) FAPRI 2006, US and world agricultural outlook. Food and Agriculture Research Institute, IowaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gärtner SO, Helms H, Reinhardt G, Rettenmaier N (2006) An assessment of energy and greenhouse gases of NExBTL. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH (IFEU), HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  20. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99, methodology report, 3rd revised edition. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Directoraat-Generaal, Milieubeheer. http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/ei99-reports.htm, accessed February 2007
  21. Hansen AK (2006) Personal communication with Anders Kromand Hansen, engineer, AarhusKarlshamn Denmark, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  22. Henson IE (2004) Modelling carbon sequestration and emissions related to oil palm cultivation and associated land use change in Malaysia. MPOB Technology No. 27, December 2004. Kajang, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products—vol 2: scientific background. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle impact assessment - The EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental news No. 80 2005, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2000) Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard Organization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  28. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koch S (2003) LCA of biodiesel in Costa Rica, an environmental study on the manufacturing and use of palm oil methyl ester. University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), MuttenzGoogle Scholar
  31. Korning J (2006) Personal communication with Jesper Korning, Quality Manager, AarhusKarlshamn Denmark, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  32. Kronborg L (2006) Personal communication with Lars Kronborg, Quality Engineer, AarhusKarlshamn Denmark, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  33. LCA-Center (2007) Updated version of EDIP97. LCA-Center, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. http://www.lca-center.dk/cms/site.asp?p = 1378, accessed January 2007
  34. Mattson B, Cederberg C, Blix L (2000) Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J Clean Prod 8(2000):283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McManus MC, Hammond GP, Burrows CR (2004) Life-cycle assessment of mineral and rapeseed oil in mobile hydraulic systems. J Ind Ecol 7(3–4):163–178 (Massachusetts Institute)Google Scholar
  36. Mehlin M, Zauner M, Gühnemann A, Aoki R, Vance C, Reichmuth M, Nill M, Ebert M, Zander F, Wacker M, Galster M, Schick P, Kurrer M and Veeck M (2003) Renewable fuels for cross border transportation. Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/renewable_fuels_final.pdf, accessed July 2006
  37. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2005) LCA food database. www.lcafood.dk. Available in the LCA pc-software SimaPro 7.0
  38. Oil World (2005) Oil world statistics. ISTA Mielke GmbH, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  39. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006) Pollution embodied in trade—the Norwegian case. Global Environmental Change 16(2006):379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlich EH, Fleissner U (2005) The ecology of scale: assessment of regional energy turnover and comparison with global food. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt JH (2007a) Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. PhD thesis: Life cycle inventory report. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Available at http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/10388016/inventory_report
  42. Schmidt JH (2007b) Summary report. PhD thesis: Life cycle inventory report. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Available at http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/10387996/summary_report
  43. Schmidt JH (2008a) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA, outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmidt JH (2008b) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16:1929–1942. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt J, Weidema BP (2008) Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh G (2006) Personal communication with Director of Research Dr. Gurmit Singh, United Plantations Berhad, Research Department, Jendarata Estate, Teluk Intan, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  47. Stehfest E, Bouwman L (2006) N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 74:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Subramaniam V, Chow MC, Ma AN (2004) Energy database of the oil palm. Palm oil engineering bulletin, vol EB70. Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), KajangGoogle Scholar
  49. Subramaniam V, Ma AN, Choo YM (2005) Life cycle inventory of the production of CPO. Poster Presentation at PIPOC 2005, 25–29 September, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  50. Subramaniam V (2006a) Personal communication with research officer Vijaya Subramaniam, Engineering & Processing Division, Energy and Environment Unit, Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), KajangGoogle Scholar
  51. Subramaniam V (2006b) Life cycle inventory for palm kernel crushing. Unpublished data by research officer Vijaya Subramaniam, Engineering & Processing Division, Energy and Environment Unit, Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), KajangGoogle Scholar
  52. The Danish Government (2002) A shared future—balanced development, Denmark’s national strategy for sustainable development. The Danish Government, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  53. The European Commission (2006a) An EU strategy for biofuels. Communication from the Commission COM(2006) 34. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  54. The European Commission (2006b) Biofuels strategy: background memo. MEMO/06/05. Brussels, 8 February 2006Google Scholar
  55. The European Commission (2006) Reference document on best available techniques for the manufacture of large volume inorganic chemicals—ammonia, acids and fertilisers. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  56. The European Council (1991) Council directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official Journal L 375, 31/12/1991 P. 0001-0008, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  57. The European Parliament and the Council (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000 P. 0001-0073, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  58. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinée J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, van Oers J, Suh S, Geerken T, Holderbeke MV, Jansen B, Nielsen P (2006) Environmental impact of products (EIPRO) analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. Main report. IPTS/ESTO project. European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Centre, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  59. UPRD (2004) Environmental impact assessment of oil palm cultivation & processing in United Plantations Berhad. United Plantations Research Department, United Plantations Berhad, Teluk Intan, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  60. Vinther FP, Hansen S (2004) SimDen—en simpel model til kvantificering af N2O-emission og denitrifikation [SimDen—a simple model for quantification of N2O-emission and denitrification]. DJF rapport. Markbrug nr. 104. Danmarks Jordbrugsforskning, Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Økonomi, Tjele, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  61. Weidema B (1999) System expansions to handle co-products of renewable materials. Presentation summaries of the 7th LCA case studies symposium SETAC-Europe, 1999, pp 45-48Google Scholar
  62. Weidema, B (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment, environmental project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  63. Weidema B, Nielsen AM, Halberg N, Kristensen IS, Jespersen CM, Thodberg L (2005) Sammenligning af miljøpåvirkningen af konkurrerende jordbrugsprodukter [Comparison of the environmental impact from competiting agricultural products]. Environmental project no. 1028, Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  64. Weidema B, Wesnæs M (2006) Marginal production routes and co-product allocation for alcohol etoxylate from palm oil and palm kernel oil. 2.-0 LCA consultants, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  65. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products—vol 1: methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Werner C, Zheng X, Tang J, Xie B, Liu C, Kiese R, Butterbach-Bahl K (2006) N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions from seasonal tropical rainforests and a rubber plantation in Southwest China. Plant Soil 289:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wetlands International (2007) Factsheet on palmoil and tropical peatlands. Wetland International, Wageningen, http://www.wetlands.org/publication.aspx?ID=40938c7b-d689-4b17-87dc-9f65def5bfaa, accessed March 2007Google Scholar
  68. Wightman S, Eavis RM, Walker KC, Batchelor SE, Carruthers SP, Booth EJ (1999) Life-cycle assessment of chainsaw lubricants made from rapeseed oil or mineral oil. Proceedings from 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/5/173.htm, accessed July 2006
  69. Yusoff S, Hansen SB (2007) Feasibility study of performing an life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zah R, Hischier R (2003) Life cycle inventories of detergents, data v1.01 (2003). Ecoinvent Report No. 12, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark

Personalised recommendations