Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication

Purpose

The paper introduces the publication on “Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases”; it focuses on the development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication.

Methods

The document is the output of the “Shonan Guidance Principles” workshop. The publication provides guidance principles for life cycle assessment (LCA) databases; this includes how to collect raw data, how to develop datasets, and how to manage databases. The publication also addresses questions concerning data documentation and review, coordination among databases, capacity building, and future scenarios. As a next step, the publication is used to prepare training material and other implementation activities.

Results

The publication was launched at the LCM 2011 Conference. Since then outreach activities have been organized in particular in emerging economies. Further developments with regard to the guidance principles are foreseen as part of a flagship project within phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative. Training material is being developed that will include how to set up databases and develop datasets. The topic has been taken up by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its Rio?+?20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.

Conclusions

The adoption of the “Global Guidance Principles” publication as a de facto global standard is expected to facilitate the work of database teams, especially, in developing countries, and the collaboration in regional networks. These efforts are supported by the development of training material and other implementation activities.     

Life Cycle Management in Developing Countries: State of the Art and Outlook

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.020

-

UNEP DTIE, through its Life Cycle Initiative, aims to enhance the skills of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries on Life Cycle Management (LCM). This is part of its contribution to the 10-year framework of program on Sustainable Consumption and Production as a follow-up of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). Apart from the potential of improving their environmental performance, life cycle thinking and the use of LCA can be a business opportunity for SMEs. The development of environmental management expertise may help them to position themselves as reliable suppliers. The Life Cycle Initiative has promoted and facilitated the establishment of regional life cycle networks, and UNEP has started a training program on LCM targeted at National Cleaner Production Centers (NCPCs) and other national institutes that are able to pass on the information to the target groups. Some multinational companies have started to provide capacity building on life cycle management for suppliers in developing countries. More companies could use this approach to help developing countries to tackle environmental requirements in the supply chain and thus the private sector may contribute significantly to eco-efficiency, cost savings and finding new markets for sustainable products and services in developing countries. Life cycle thinking applied to basic services such as water, waste and energy could be another way to directly contribute with life cycle management to human development.

     

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA). The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.     

Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The set of stakeholders included in the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) guideline (UNEP/SETAC 2009) could create confusion as to the target...     

Implementing the guidelines for social life cycle assessment: past,present, and future

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - This paper takes a critical review of the UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of products. This paper,...     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

Facts and figures from road testing the guidance on organizational life cycle assessment

Purpose

Organizational life cycle assessment (O-LCA) is an emerging method to analyze the inputs, outputs, and environmental impacts of an organization throughout its value chain. To facilitate the method’s application, the Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment was published within the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and applied by 12 “road-testing” organizations. In this paper, different aspects of the road testers’ studies are displayed and analyzed according to the feedback of the road testers.

Methods

An anonymous survey about the method application was conducted among the road testers. The analysis assessed, among others: (i) which goals the organizations initially pursued and their achievement; (ii) how previous experience with environmental tools contributed to the study design; (iii) which methodological options were chosen (like the scope of the study, data collection approaches, impact assessment methods and tools, and data sources); and (iv) which methodological challenges were faced.

Results and discussion

The survey showed that analytical goals were of priority for most road testers and obtained a higher achievement level than managerial and societal goals for which either long-term measures or the inclusion of stakeholders are needed. Previous experience with product- or organization-related tools considering the whole life cycle proves useful due to available data and/or organizational models. The categorization of organizational activities, data collection, data quality assessment, and interpretation proved being the most challenging methodological elements. In addition, three cross-cutting issues of method application were identified: aligning the O-LCA study to previous environmental activities, designing the study, and availability of personnel and software resources.

Conclusions

The road-testing organizations verified the applicability and usefulness of the O-LCA Guidance and significantly widened the pool of case studies available. On the other hand, additional guidance for methodological challenges particular of the organizational level, the availability of software tools able to support O-LCA application, region-specific LCI databases, and a broadly recognized data quality assessment scheme would facilitate conducting O-LCA case studies.

     

Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air

Background, aim, and scope  

Human use of land areas leads to impacts on nature in several ways. Within the framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, it was stated that life cycle assessment (LCA) of land use should assess at least the impact on biodiversity, the impact on biotic production, and the impact on the regulating functions of the natural environment. This study focuses on the climatic impact of land use as determined by the CO₂ transfers between vegetation/soil and the atmosphere in the course of terrestrial release and re-storage of carbon.     

A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands

Purpose  

There is a need to assess social impacts of products along the full life cycle, not only to be able to address the “social dimension” in sustainability, but also for potentially improving the circumstances of affected stakeholders. This paper presents a case study for a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) based on the recently published “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products” developed by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) working group. General aim is to “try out” the proposed method. The case study itself compares the impacts of rose production in Ecuador with the Netherlands. Furthermore, the objective is to identify differences and similarities in environmental and social life cycle modelling and both social and environmental hot spots in each of the life cycles.     

A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20

Purpose

To contribute to the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012 by introducing a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and showing how it can play a crucial role in moving towards sustainable consumption and production. The publication, titled Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, and published by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative aims to show how three life cycle techniques—(environmental) LCA, S-LCA and LCC—can be combined as part of an over-arching LCSA.

Methods

The method was demonstrated by evaluating the characteristics of each phase for each life cycle technique. In defining the goal and scope of an LCSA, for example, different aspects should be taken into account to establish the aim of the study as well as the functional unit, system boundaries, impact category and allocation. Then, the data to be collected for the life cycle sustainability inventory can be either in a unit process or on an organisational level. They can also be quantitative or qualitative. Life cycle sustainability impact assessment should consider the relevance of the impacts as well as the perspective of stakeholders. The interpretation should not add up the results, but rather evaluate them jointly. In order to clarify the approach, a case study is presented to evaluate three types of marble according to the proposed method.

Results and discussion

The authors have identified that while LCSA is feasible, following areas need more development: data production and acquisition, methodological development, discussion about LCSA criteria (e.g. cutoff rules), definitions and formats of communication and dissemination of LCSA results and the expansion of research and applications combining (environmental) LCA, LCC and S-LCA. The authors also indicate that it is necessary to develop more examples and cases to improve user capacity to analyse the larger picture and therefore address the three dimensions or pillars of sustainability in a systematic way. Software and database providers are called for in order to facilitate user-friendly and accessible tools to promote LCSAs.

Conclusions

The application demonstrated that, although methodological improvements are still needed, important steps towards an overarching sustainability assessment have been accomplished. LCSA is possible and should be pursued; however, more efforts should be made to improve the technique and facilitate the studies in order to contribute to a greener economy.     

Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate science: Review of recent findings and recommendations for application to LCA

Since the Global Warming Potential (GWP) was first presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report, the metric has been scrutinized and alternative metrics have been suggested. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report gives a scientific assessment of the main recent findings from climate metrics research and provides the most up-to-date values for a subset of metrics and time horizons. The objectives of this paper are to perform a systematic review of available midpoint metrics (i.e. using an indicator situated in the middle of the cause-effect chain from emissions to climate change) for well-mixed greenhouse gases and near-term climate forcers based on the current literature, to provide recommendations for the development and use of characterization factors for climate change in life cycle assessment (LCA), and to identify research needs. This work is part of the ‘Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment’ project held by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and is intended to support a consensus finding workshop. In an LCA context, it can make sense to use several complementary metrics that serve different purposes, and from there get an understanding about the robustness of the LCA study to different perspectives and metrics. We propose a step-by-step approach to test the sensitivity of LCA results to different modelling choices and provide recommendations for specific issues such as the consideration of climate-carbon feedbacks and the inclusion of pollutants with cooling effects (negative metric values).     

Ecological Toxicity Methods and Metals. An examination of two case studies (8 pp + 1)

Goal, Scope and Background The Apeldoorn Workshop (April 15th, 2004, Apeldoorn, NL) brought together specialists in LCA and Risk Assessment to discuss current practices and complications of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) ecological toxicity (ecotox) methodologies for metals. The consensus was that the LCIA methods currently available do not appropriately characterize impacts of metals due to lack of fundamental metals chemistry in the models. A review of five methods available to perform ecotox impact assessment for metals has been prepared to provide Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practitioners with a better understanding of the current state of the science and potential biases related to metals. The intent is to provide awareness on issues related to ecotox impact assessment. Methods In this paper two case studies, one a copper based product (copper tube), the other a zinc-based product (gutter systems), were selected and examined by applying freshwater ecological toxicity impact models – USES-LCA, Eco-indicator 99 (EI 99), IMPACT 2002, EDIP 97, and CalTOX-ETP. Both studies are recent, comprehensive, cradle-to-gate, and peer-reviewed. The objective is to review the LCIA results in the context of the practical concerns identified by the Apeldoorn Declaration, in particular illustrating any inconsistencies such as chemical characterization coverage, species specificity, and relative contribution to impact results. Results and Discussion The results obtained from all five of the LCIA methods for the copper tube LCI pointed to the same substance as being the most important – copper. This result was obtained despite major fundamental differences between the LCIA methods applied. However, variations of results were found when examining the freshwater ecological toxicity potential of zinc gutter systems. Procedural difficulties and inconsistencies were observed. In part this was due to basic differences in model nomenclature and differences in coverage (IMPACT 2002+ and EDIP 97 contained characterization factors for aluminium that resulted in 90% and 22% contribution to burden respectively, the other three methods did not). Differences were also observed relative to the emissions source compartment. In the case of zinc, air emissions were found to be substantial for some ecotox models, whereas, water emissions results were found to be of issue for others. Conclusions This investigation illustrates the need to proceed with caution when applying LCIA ecotox methodologies to life cycle studies that include metals. Until further improvements are made, the deficiencies should be clearly communicated as part of LCIA reporting. Business or policy decisions should not without further discussion be based solely on the results of the currently available methods for assessing ecotoxicity in LCIA. Outlook The outlook to remedy deficiencies in the ecological toxicity methods is promising. Recently, the LCIA Toxic Impacts Task Force of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has formed a subgroup to address specific issues and guide the work towards establishment of sound characterization factors for metals. Although some measure of precision of estimation of potential impact has been observed, such as in the case of copper, accuracy is also a major concern and should be addressed. Further investigation through controlled experimentation is needed, particularly LCIs composed of a variety of inorganics as well as organics constituents. Support for this activity has come from the scientific community and industry as well. Broader aspects of structure and nomenclature are being collectively addressed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. These efforts will bring practical solutions to issues of naming conventions and LCI to LCIA flow assignments.     

Life-Cycle based methods for sustainable product development

Sustainability-a term originating from silviculture, which was adopted by UNEP as the main political goal for the future development of humankind-is also the ultimate aim of product development. It comprises three components: environment, economy and social aspects which have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one is to be improved. The responsibility of the researchers involved in the assessment is to provide appropriate and reliable instruments. For the environmental part there is already an internationally standardized tool: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is the logical counterpart of LCA for the economic assessment. LCC surpasses the purely economic cost calculation by taking into account hidden costs and potentially external costs over the life cycle of the product. It is a very important point that different life-cycle based methods (including Social Life Cycle Assessment) for sustainablity assessment use the same system boundaries.     

From life cycle talking to taking action

Introduction  

The biannual Life Cycle Management conference series aims to create a platform for users and developers of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and related tools to share their experiences. A key concern of the LCM community has been to move beyond the production of LCA reports toward using the developed knowledge. This paper reports and evaluates some of the main outcomes of the 4th International Life Cycle Management Conference (LCM 2009).     

The clearwater consensus: the estimation of metal hazard in fresh water

Background, aim, and scope

Task Force 3 of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been working towards developing scientifically sound methods for quantifying impacts of substances released into the environment. The Clearwater Consensus follows from the Lausanne (Jolliet et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:209–212, 2006) and Apeldoorn (Apeldoorn Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):334, 2004) statements by recommending an approach to and identifying further research for quantifying comparative toxicity potentials (CTPs) for ecotoxicological impacts to freshwater receptors from nonferrous metals. The Clearwater Consensus describes stages and considerations for calculating CTPs that address inconsistencies in assumptions and approaches for organic substances and nonferrous metals by focusing on quantifying the bioavailable fraction of a substance.

Methods

A group of specialists in Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Impact Assessment, metal chemistry, and ecotoxicology met to review advances in research on which to base a consensus on recommended methods to calculate CTPs for metals.

Conclusions and recommendations

Consensus was reached on introducing a bioavailability factor (BF) into calculating CTPs where the BF quantifies the fraction of total dissolved chemical that is truly dissolved, assuming that the latter is equivalent to the bioavailable fraction. This approach necessitates calculating the effects factor, based on a HC50_EC50, according to the bioavailable fraction of chemical. The Consensus recommended deriving the BF using a geochemical model, specifically WHAM VI. Consensus was also reached on the need to incorporate into fate calculations the speciation, size fractions, and dissolution rates of metal complexes for the fate factor calculation. Consideration was given to the characteristics of the evaluative environment defined by the multimedia model, which is necessary because of the dependence of metal bioavailability on water chemistry.     

UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative: background,aims and scope

The conclusions about the development of the content of the LC Initiative are the following:

Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA

Purpose  

In May 2009, the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (the Guidelines) were launched at the occasion of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 (Social Responsibility) meeting in Quebec City, Canada. Developed by a United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (“UNEP/SETAC”) Life Cycle Initiative project group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), the Guidelines provide a framework to assess social impacts across product life cycles. A year later, the Methodological Sheets for the Subcategories of Social LCA (“the Methodological Sheets”) are being made available to support practitioners engaging in the field. The Methodological Sheets provide practical guidance for conducting S-LCA case studies by offering consistent, yet flexible assistance.     

Life Cycle Tools within Ford of Europe's Product Sustainability Index. Case Study Ford S-MAX & Ford Galaxy (8 pp)

Background, Aim and Scope Sustainability is a well recognised goal which is difficult to manage due to its complexity. As part of a series of sustainability management tools, a Product Sustainability Index (PSI) is translating the sustainability aspects to the organization of vehicle product development of Ford of Europe, thus allocating ownership and responsibility to that function. PSI is limiting the scope to those key environmental, social and economic characteristics of passenger vehicles that are controllable by the product development organisation. Materials and Methods: The PSI considers environmental, economic and social aspects based on externally reviewed life cycle environmental and cost aspects (Life Cycle Assessment, Cost of ownership / Life Cycle Costing), externally certified aspects (allergy-tested interior) and related aspects as sustainable materials, safety, mobility capability and noise. After the kick-off of their product development in 2002, the new Ford S-MAX and Ford Galaxy are serving as a pilot for this tool. These products are launched in Europe in 2006. The tracking of PSI performance has been done by engineers of the Vehicle Integration department within the product development organization. The method has been translated in an easy spreadsheet tool. Engineers have been trained within one hour trainings. The application of PSI by vehicle integration followed the principle to reduce the need for any incremental time or additional data to a minimum. PSI is adopted to the existing decision-making process. End of 2005, an internal expert conducted a Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) study for verification purposes using commercial software. This study and the PSI have been scrutinized by an external review panel according to ISO14040 and, by taking into consideration the on-going SETAC, work in the field of LCC. Results: The results of the Life Cycle based indicators of PSI as calculated by non-experts are fully in line with those of the more detailed expert study. The difference is below 2%. The new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX shows significantly improved performance regarding the life cycle air quality, use of sustainable materials, restricted substances and safety compared to the previous model Galaxy. The affordability (Life Cycle Cost of Ownership) has also been improved when looking at the same engine types. Looking at gasoline versus diesel options, the detailed study shows under what conditions the diesel options are environmentally preferable and less costly (mileage, fuel prices, etc.). Discussion: The robustness of results has been verified in various ways. Based also on Sensitivity and Monte-Carlo Analysis, case study-specific requirements have been deduced defining criteria for a significant environmental improvement between the various vehicles. Only if the differences of LCIA results between two vehicles are larger than a certain threshold are the above-mentioned results robust. Conclusions: In general terms, an approach has been implemented and externally reviewed that allows non-experts to manage key environmental, social and economic aspects in the product development, also on a vehicle level. This allows mainstream functions to take ownership of sustainability and assigns accountability to those who can really decide on changes affecting the sustainability performance. In the case of Ford S-MAX and Galaxy, indicators from all three dimensions of sustainability (environment, social and economic) have been improved compared to the old Ford Galaxy. Recommendations and Perspectives: Based on this positive experience, it is recommended to make, in large or multinational organizations, the core business functions directly responsible and accountable for managing their own part of environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Staff functions should be limited to starting the process with methodological and training support and making sure that the contributions of the different main functions fit together.