Abiotic resources are assets that are nonliving. These assets fall into the bigger class of common assets, which happen normally in nature and are not made or delivered by people or human action. Human exhaustion of abiotic assets, for example, water, soil, and minerals is a wellspring of worry for people, as these assets are not effortlessly recharged and are being utilized over the rate that they can be normally supplanted. Land is one of the must worthwhile abiotic assets for people, as property costs in urban and rural advancement has quickly expanded in cost and request all through urban communities and networks over the world. Land corruption because of broad utilization of composts and synthetic concoctions just as improvement have rendered huge bits of land unusable. Alongside natural mischief, land debasement is likewise an enormous wellspring of lost income. Water is an abiotic asset that is of need to every living thing. However, access to spotless and safe water stays a test for individuals from creating countries. Indeed, even in created countries, water exhaustion and contamination stays a worry. In the United States, livestock require enormous measures of water day by day, and homesteads will in general contaminate close by water sources from composts and creature fecal matter.

At the beginning of the SUPRIM project, there was no global consensus on the assessment of impacts from the use of abiotic resources (minerals and metals), in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Unlike with other impact categories such as global warming, there is not just one single, explicitly agreed-upon problem arising from the use of abiotic resources. The topic is complex and new methods are still being developed, all with different perspectives and views on resource use. For this reason, the SUPRIM project initiated a consensus process together with members from the research and mining communities, with the aim to obtain an understanding of different stakeholders’ views and concerns regarding potential issues resulting from the use of resources. This paper reports on this consensus process and its outcomes. Insights from this process are twofold: First, the outcome of the process is a clear definition of the perspectives on abiotic resources which form the starting point to further refine or develop LCIA methods on abiotic resource use. Second, the process itself has been a challenging but valuable exercise, which can inspire the evolution of other complex issues in life cycle impact assessment, where research communities face similar issues as experienced with abiotic resources