The author of the climate footprint study, Tobias Pape Thomsen from Roskilde University, provides the following assessment on the value of the panel review process and results:
The outcome of the review process has been very valuable for the scientific quality, robustness and credibility of the climate footprint study. The expert panel has been very thorough in their work and have provided comments on all levels from editorial details to the fundamental aspects of the work. The first round of written feedback was extensive and the follow-up meeting was well prepared and packed with relevant discussions. The study has undergone significant changes based on these activities.
The expert panel review has proved to be far more useful than a classic, scientific peer review for the specific type of work. The panel was handpicked for the task, covering a very broad range of relevant aspects and had both knowledge and insight related to method, system and Danish context. For a situated study like the present, this is paramount to provide relevant peer-feedback. The panel seemed to work well together and the output from their work was constructive and timely. In addition to feedback and concrete suggestions, the panel has also contributed with specific data from otherwise inaccessible sources to improve the quality of the study. This is beyond what may normally be expected from a review process and I am grateful for this help.
The review process has been challenging but highly rewarding. In addition to improving the quality of the specific study, I have learned a lot from the process. About methodological issues as well as about the modelled systems. Discussions have included both smaller details and large controversial aspects. The panel has been highly professional, the work environment positive and the criticism constructive. I sensed a genuine interest from the expert panel in the study and a will to contribute constructively and positively to the work. I would like to thank all members of the panel for their efforts and contributions.
Link to reviewed final publication: Climate Footprint Analysis of Straw Pyrolysis & Straw Biogas: Assessment of the Danish climate crisis mitigation potential of two new straw management options.
This project for Nordic Ecolabelling reviewed the current landscape of life-cycle based standards, methods and tools available for designers and producers of buildings and building materials. The primary objective was to assess the feasibility of adding additional ecolabel criteria for specific building materials or parts requiring calculations of the global warming impact for either a part or the entire life cycle of the buildings. The project resulted in a publicly available report where we identify a number of ambiguities in the standards that cause inconsistencies in their interpretation and practical implementation, resulting in a limited comparability of results from different databases and tools. We conclude that the current consistency and comparability of life-cycle based calculations for construction products are insufficient to be the basis for the Nordic Ecolabelling programme to require such calculations as part of their criteria. The report includes a number of additional recommendations to Nordic Ecolabelling.
The reviewed studies were selected by the Graphic Association of Denmark. The reviewed studies are:
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) on electricity and nitrogen fertiliser are used to illustrate how a declaration or labelling[1] based on data from the current supply chain can be misleading when the production capacity in the supply chain is constrained. Three ways of avoiding such misleading declarations are suggested.
We suggest a procedure that radically reduces the critical review costs without compromising their thoroughness and overall quality. This procedure has 3 elements: A fixed panel for all reviews, an already critically reviewed background database, and a software-supported review procedure. The presentation discusses these elements in the light of the upcoming ISO 14071 on critical review.
