feat: initial proposal on how to improve integration chapter

[raimundo-henriques]

Here is my proposal on how to improve the PACT integration chapter. The relevant changes can be seen rendered in the screenshots below.

I would like to call your attention to:

• pCfExcludingBiogenic, fossilGhgEmissions, and fossilCarbonContent (previously completely missing), which all have the same values throughout. The PACT definitions can be found here, here, and here, respectively. Is this ok? (esp. @GabrielaRubioDomingo and @vmatzoros)
• biogenicCarbonContent is mandatory (PACT definition here) and therefore my proposal is to set it to "0" for now.
• packagingEmissionsIncluded: from what I understood, this should always be false (i.e., also in the case of ShipmentFootprints).

ShipmentFootprint

TOC

HOC

[GabrielaRubioDomingo]

Raimundo, agree with your comments for the pcfExcludingBiogenic, biogenicCarbonContent & packagingEmissions.

For the two fossil variables, could you please clarify how this would be treated. I.e. are you suggesting what companies should report there? - I think we might say it is just optional & not expected to be reported until new GLEC Fw version

[raimundo-henriques]

@GabrielaRubioDomingo, thanks for the feedback!

Both fossilGhgEmissions and fossilCarbonContent are mandatory in PACT (please see the links provided for their definitions).

Currently, the iLEAP Tech Specs state the following on how to populate fossilGhgEmissions:

But currently, the iLEAP Tech Specs make no mention of fossilCarbonContent whatsoever, although it is mandatory in PACT.

Therefore, what seemed to me to be the easiest solution, would be to state the same thing for both fossilGhgEmissions and fossilCarbonContent. However, I do not have enough expertise to know if this is a good idea at all...

I believe we should provide some guidance on how to populate fossilCarbonContent, given that it is mandatory.

We can also add a disclaimer about their being updated when the new GLEC version is released, but I thought that applied to biogenic emissions only.

[GabrielaRubioDomingo]

Hi Raimundo, I think it is important to leave this as to be revised with upcoming GLEC Framework guidance. I am afraid this is linked to the biogenic content. As what is not fossil would be biogenic. Unfortunately, up until now there is no specific guidance on how to populate those data, so I would make a similar recommendation as with biogenic. (Leave to 0 and revise later) Sorry for not noticing this before. Best, From: Raimundo Henriques ***@***.***> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 4:43 PM To: sine-fdn/ileap-extension ***@***.***> Cc: Gabriela Rubio Domingo ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [sine-fdn/ileap-extension] feat: initial proposal on how to improve integration chapter (PR #99) @GabrielaRubioDomingo<https://github.com/GabrielaRubioDomingo>, thanks for the feedback! Both fossilGhgEmissions and fossilCarbonContent are mandatory in PACT (please see the links provided for their definitions). Currently, the iLEAP Tech Specs state the following on how to populate fossilGhgEmissions: Screenshot.2024-09-03.at.15.38.55.png (view on web)<https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/36ee787d-2352-4477-861a-982d0f96c0fd> But currently, the iLEAP Tech Specs make no mention of fossilCarbonContent whatsoever, although it is mandatory in PACT. Therefore, what seemed to me to be the easiest solution, would be to state the same thing for both fossilGhgEmissions and fossilCarbonContent. However, I do not have enough expertise to know if this is a good idea at all... I believe we should provide some guidance on how to populate fossilCarbonContent, given that it is mandatory. We can also add a disclaimer about their being updated when the new GLEC version is released, but I thought that applied to biogenic emissions only. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#99 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFIVUG4EHXVNKRBBDIG65JTZUXDJHAVCNFSM6AAAAABNEK7ME6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRWG4YTENJRGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[raimundo-henriques]

I see! Thanks for the answer! I'm glad we noticed it! I will update the proposal accordingly.

[raimundo-henriques]

One question:

• If what is not fossil is biogenic, then isn't pCfExcludingBiogenic indeed equal to fossilGhgEmissions in logistics?

[GabrielaRubioDomingo]

Yes! That is true. From: Raimundo Henriques ***@***.***> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 5:23 PM To: sine-fdn/ileap-extension ***@***.***> Cc: Gabriela Rubio Domingo ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [sine-fdn/ileap-extension] feat: initial proposal on how to improve integration chapter (PR #99) One question: * If what is not fossil is biogenic, then isn't pCfExcludingBiogenic indeed equal to fossilGhgEmissions? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#99 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFIVUG4ISLNCHOQHQFGUMNLZUXH7FAVCNFSM6AAAAABNEK7ME6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRWHAYDMMZRHA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[raimundo-henriques]

In that case, fossilGhgEmissions was correct.
But by that token, fossilCarbonContent should also be the same as pCfExcludingBiogenic, no?
Here's the PACT definition:

The fossil carbon content of the product (mass of carbon). The value MUST be calculated per declared unit with unit kg Carbon per declared unit (kgC / declaredUnit), expressed as a decimal equal to or greater than zero.

[GabrielaRubioDomingo]

Hi Raimundo, I think that is a correct assumption! Thanks so much for checking this in detail. From: Raimundo Henriques ***@***.***> Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 6:03 PM To: sine-fdn/ileap-extension ***@***.***> Cc: Gabriela Rubio Domingo ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [sine-fdn/ileap-extension] feat: initial proposal on how to improve integration chapter (PR #99) In that case, fossilGhgEmissions was correct. But by that token, fossilCarbonContent should also be the same as pCfExcludingBiogenic, no? Here's the PACT definition: The fossil carbon content of the product (mass of carbon). The value MUST be calculated per declared unit<https://wbcsd.github.io/data-exchange-protocol/v2/#element-attrdef-carbonfootprint-declaredunit> with unit kg Carbon per declared unit (kgC / declaredUnit), expressed as a decimal<https://wbcsd.github.io/data-exchange-protocol/v2/#decimal> equal to or greater than zero. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#99 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFIVUGYLLQZYI4AGJHSIVM3ZUXMWBAVCNFSM6AAAAABNEK7ME6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRWHA4TKNBYGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[raimundo-henriques]

Hello again, Gabriela,

Thanks for the feedback!
In that case, I think we can safely keep the prior proposal, i.e.,

• pCfExcludingBiogenic, fossilGhgEmissions, and fossilCarbonContent should all have the same value.

I think that we can keep the advisements (i.e., the orange boxes) only on the parts concerning biogenic, to avoid creating too much "noise".

[GabrielaRubioDomingo]

Sure, yes, they should have the same value. This is a correct statement. But the problem is, there is no guidance as to which values they should report. So I would keep it as 0 and with the advisement for the moment. From: Raimundo Henriques ***@***.***> Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 at 10:14 AM To: sine-fdn/ileap-extension ***@***.***> Cc: Gabriela Rubio Domingo ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [sine-fdn/ileap-extension] feat: initial proposal on how to improve integration chapter (PR #99) Hello again, Gabriela, Thanks for the feedback! In that case, I think we can safely keep the prior proposal, i.e., * pCfExcludingBiogenic, fossilGhgEmissions, and fossilCarbonContent should all have the same value. I think that we can keep the advisements (i.e., the orange boxes) only on the parts concerning biogenic, to avoid creating too much "noise". — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#99 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BFIVUG4XJR6FST6FQRBE4E3ZU26NBAVCNFSM6AAAAABNEK7ME6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGMRYGIYDMMRSHE>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[raimundo-henriques]

I think I might be missing something here.

If they are the same value as pCfExcludingBiogenic, then, we do have guidance on which values to report, namely, the guidance used to indicate how pCfExcludingBiogenic should be populated. Specifically:

ShipmentFootprint

MUST be set to the total logistics emissions of the shipment, excluding biogenic emissions, calculated by taking the sum of the co2eWTW over all TCEs (tces).

TOC

MUST be set to the logistics emissions intensity of the TOC, excluding biogenic emissions, defined in co2eIntensityWTW.

HOC

MUST be set to the logistics emissions intensity of the HOC, excluding biogenic emissions, defined in co2eIntensityWTW.
Note: The average weight of a container can be considered as 10 tonnes per TEU. For light containers, an estimate of 6 tonnes per TEU is appropriate, while heavy containers can be assumed to average 14.5 tonnes per TEU.

If these are correct for pCfExcludingBiogenic and fossilGhgEmissions and fossilCarbonContent have the same value as pCfExcludingBiogenic, then, we only need to provide guidance for pCfExcludingBiogenic and to state that the other two should be populated with the same value. (And we were already doing this for fossilGhgEmissions. fossilCarbonContent was not mentioned, although it is mandatory.)

Am I missing something?

[raimundo-henriques]

Following a discussion with @GabrielaRubioDomingo, here are the updates to pCfExcludingBiogenic, making it clear that, as of right now, the inclusion/exclusion of biogenic is not even being taken into account, but that it will once GLEC 4 is out.

ShipmentFootprint

TOC

HOC