governance committee for the ademes database technical committee database management and quality - 6...

Governance committee for the ADEME’s database

Technical CommitteeDatabase management and

quality-

6th of June 2011Service Eco-Conception & Consommation Durable (SECCD)

ADEME

Avec RDC Environment

Goal of the meeting

General goal : write a specification document to any provider of LCA datasets in order to supply the database

Goal of the meeting : Define / validate the proposals of guidelines for the ADEME’s database management and quality

These requirements will have to be fulfilled by any provider of LCA data

These requirements will be in annex to all technical specification document in every future calls to tender.

2

General approach

Analysis of the ADEME’s database needs : Recognition at national and international level Tool to help environmental labeling Compliance to the guidelines of the BPX 30-323 referential and the

general principles of LCA

How do the existing databases answer to these needs ? (ILCD, EcoInvent, GaBi, DEAM, CODDE-BV-TEX)

Analysis of the data quality guidelines that the databases have developed

Proposal of quality and management guidelines for the ADEME’s database

3

JRC-IES

There is no ILCD database, but the ELCD database and the (upcoming) ILCD Data Network, that are based on the same rules, i.e. if any third-party data developer would adjust and properly document/review their data, they can

JRC-IES

you may want to add ISO 14040&44; we consider this essential. For us we have three levels of increased quality/robustness/credibility of data, with stepwise stricter requirements: ISO14040/44 as minimum basis, ILCD Data Network entry-level, with better quality-assurance and using a common set of elementary flows and proper data documentaion, and finally ILCD-compliance as highest level (with however again three sub-levels of data quality for data with different completeness, precision, accuracy)).

Agenda

4

Background and goal The ADEME’s database Content of the ADEME’s database Goal for management and quality guidelines

Database building guidelines Format Homogeneity Quality

Database utilization guidelines Update Integration of data Need for « default datasets » Confidentiality

Background and goal

Support environmental labeling for consumers goods Help to make a LCA assessment (based on several impact

categories and on a life cycle approach) by providing : A methodology

Common methodology : BPX 30-323 Sector-specific methodology : one per product category referential

Some generic LCA data

The ADEME’s database will be the recognized generic LCA database in France and at international level :

Quality of the database Co-construction : governance

5

JRC-IES

It might be good to specify whether you aim at providing a) ALL background data needed,b) a common core of data that is widely and frequently used (similar to the idea of the ELCD core database), orc) as many data as available ad hoc from the named database providers plus from future contractsNote that option a) means that you basically would have to model the entire economy, as e.g. also complex products are again input to other products, e.g. a tractor as input to agricultural production etc.

6

Sectorial technical

committees

ADEME –AFNORplatform

Links between the ADEME’s work and the ADEME-AFNOR platform’s work

ADEME-AFNOR methodological referentials

Calculation tools

ADEME’s database

avis

Common ref. BPX 30-323 + Sector-specific ref.

Governance Committee (advisory)

7

Database governance

Sector-specific working groups of ADEME-AFNOR platform Definition of needs from : a preliminary study and some specification in

the specific product category referentials

Technical Committees Needs refinement Confrontation to available data Till the specification document redaction that will explain the data that

are needed (precise type of process) and the management and quality requirements

Governance Committee Administration NGO Enterprises

8

Content of the ADEME’s database

Some processes One reference flow (unit of the process) An elementary flows list An impact categories list Some metadata

Some characterization factors

9

Content of the ADEME’s databaseProcesses

MetadataSources, contacts, external documents

UnitReference

flow, Unitgroups

Characterization factors*

LCIA Method

Result by impact category

X*Common data to any data

provider (to come from JRC)

LCI (inventories)Flows*, flow

property*,Unitgroups

JRC-IES

The ILCD System also provides Unit group data sets

JRC-IES

Formally, we suggest to write "ILCD reference data sets, made available via the JRC", which includes all those listed. If you write only "JRC", we would still point to use the ILCD, but correctly this is the list of the ILCD System.

10

Data sources : 3 channels of supply

Existing or adapted data from databases Coming from existing databases developers : PE, Ecoinvent, PWC, BV,

federations (ex WorldSteel, PlasticsEurope) Modality : framework agreement and subsequent contracts (call to tender

to select candidates and then estimation of costs per sectorial technical committee)

Co-produced data To fill the pointed out lacks for some specific sectors The studies will be launched by ADEME (e.g. AgriBalyse for agricultural

productions)

Industrial date (from third part) Help to integrate some data that are still not available in the existing

databases Incentive to develop LCA

11

Planning

Questions that have structured the work

Content of the database (substance) : Which data ?

Content of the database (form) : Which format ? Which building rules ?

IT development Which integration rules ? Which management rule over the time ?

12

Content of the « ADEME’s database management and quality guidelines » document Structure of the database : which criteria?

Format Homogeneity Quality of data

Methodological conformity Inventorities clarity Recognition Transparency

Utilization practice Update Integration of data Need for « default » datasets Confidentiality

13

Administrator

We saw now in a later slide that you indeed do, what we miss in this slide here: to closer link data quality with the criteria of ISO and as implemented in the ILCD System: representativeness (technology, geography, time), completeness, precision/uncertainty, documentation, nomenclature. Transparency is a very important principle that however needs to be balanced in practice with confidentiality and propiety issues.

Agenda

14




Format – Definition of needs

15

Format must help to : Structure information Exchange data (import/ export) Be internationally recognized Provide impact categories results Provide transparency on methodology and more especially on BPX

30-323 referential

Administrator

We would add/start from "effectiveness/clarity" and "efficiency": "Effectiveness/clarity, i.e. that the user has to effectively be informed what a data set is representing (and what the represented material or product is intended to be used for, e.g. to ensure that the right steel data set is used for a can oppsed to a railway iron). "Efficiency", that the most relevant information is documented directly and in condensed form in the data set.

Format – How do the databases answer to the needs ?

16

2 major formats :

XML – ILCD : complete architecture that will be the future European exchange format

Problem : the today format does not provide a mandatory flows list and does not contain many mandatory fields for metadata

GaBi, CODDE-BV-TEX et DEAM are also developing processes in the ILCD format.

XML – Ecospold (EcoInvent) : format with a different structure from ILCD

Problem : the format is not the European exchange format. However some conversion systems to ILCD format exist.

Administrator

Two important corrections:1) Also currently there is a fixed/mandatory list of elementary flows (about 19000) for the ILCD System. This is currently expanded to about 40000 (and involves some bugfixes) . 2) Regarding the manadatory fields, there seems to be a misunderstanding as well: the ca 60 fields identified in the file "Documentation of LCA data sets" are exactly those that are mandatory for data sets in the upcoming ILCD Data Network and the ELCD. However, on a pure IT-level, there are only 2 fields marked as "mandatory": the UUID and the data set version number. For the content however, the longer list of fields as referred to above is the one to use!

Administrator

We assume you are aware that there are two substantially different versions of the EcpSpold format, with the newer one just have been published this year.We recommend to consider that the conversion system should be verified: we got the information a few months ago, that especially the mapping of ecoinvent elementary flows to the ILCD elementary flows has not been quality-assured; in initial versions there have been errors.

Format – Proposal for ADEME DB

17

The selected format is ILCD format because : It is developed by European commission It ensures international recognition It is easy to export in XML or Excel files The metadata are well and finely structured It provides a tool for industrial (third part) providers : ILCD Editor

A new « Extension » file is added to check compliance with BP X 30-323 referential (Cf. homogeneity)

Requirements for the providers LCI delivery according to the elementary flows list defined by the ADEME Some fields of metadata are mandatory because they need to be visible at

first glance Rules in matter of reference (UUID, URI, links to other files…) Uniqueness of reference flows in the processes Uniqueness of the value for an elementary flow

Can these rules be easily fulfilled ?

JRC-IES

maybe good to add the technical term "namespace", so the IT poeple know what that implies, including that the data sets will still be fully compatible.

JRC-IES

We recommend to use both, while the URI is the more powerful mechanism compared to the combinatio of UUID plus version number. AND: the URI should contain the UUID (while not necessarily the version num ber).

JRC-IES

To ensure proper documentaion should not be a technical problem and good documentation is indipensible in our view in any case and in any format.

JRC-IES

In our experience with receiving data sets for the ELCD from different sources, generally this worked fine, provided a proper mapping of the elementary flows is done. In any case, is it essential to use a common list of elementary flows, to ensure that the LCIA results can be correctly calculated and no emssions are "forgotten".

Administrator

There is also an editor provided by ecoinvent, while the ILCD Editor seems to be technologically and functionally more advanced (data can be read and written via the internet; direct access to ILCD data storage via the API, documentation conformity check, ...). Importnat: With the next release, it is intended to make again the source code available for all users and uses, i.e. you can adjust and expand on it as you need it.

Agenda

18

Background and goal The ADEME’s database Content of the ADEM’s database Goal for management and quality guidelines



Homogeneity – definition of needs

How are the data linked together ? The data sources can be different and therefore the choices of

building the data either. The level of aggregation can be different.

The data must respect the same quality rules and methodology.19

Transverse data (upstream data)

Sector-specific data

TransportEnergy Shoes

TextileEEEEnd of life

?

Homogeneity – How do the databases answer to the needs ? Processes data can be divided into elementary processes (e.g. :

EcoInvent) e.g.: electrical mix, infrastructures ….

-> All the data are linked together and the modification of one elementary process generates a modification chain all over the database

20

Elem. process 1

Elem. process. i

« Aggregated » process

(to integrate into ADEME DB)

…

The data convergence is provided.

JRC-IES

Such a database has one disadvantage: wth every single additonal or changd unit nprocess data set, all directly and indirectly linked data sets also cahnged; that means that industry would be working with a constantly changing database. It is not fully clear what you mean here with unit processes. However, some extent of modularity should be good.

Homogeneity – Proposal for ADEME DB Constrain for ADEME DB :

No complete dynamic structure that will link all the data.

Proposal : Homogeneity could at least be ensured by industrial sector

Selection of a unique provider by sector (ex : Energy, Textile, Chemistry, Plastics …)

Limit desaggregation of the data to upstream data such as : Electrical mix : all (or only a part of) processes could be delivered as

desaggregated processes to which electrical mix from the database would be added

Infrastructures Fulfillment of common quality guidelines (including methodology)

21

JRC-IES

That is also the general idea of the ELCD database: to provide common core data upon which then more specific products are modelled by the respective industry and other data providers. A difference is that the completio of the data here is planned by ADEME as we understand, or?If you have stricter method requirements, this may not even be necessary, as better reproducibility means that the data can be combined and the final data sets be modelled by any developer.

Homogeneity – Questions

Sectorial homogeneityCan only one provider per industrial sector ensure homogeneity?

Limited desaggregationMust these desaggregation rules be fulfilled for all the processes or only for a part ?

Is it possible to make such a desaggregation ?

Must ADEME ask to provider for all processes (1 per country) or only one, that any user of the database could adapt with the correct electrical mix ?

Common quality requirements (cf. quality)

22

Isabelle

je ne parviens pas très bien à formuler cette question. ce que je me demande, c'est si on doit demander : 20 mix si on souyhaiter 20 pays ou seulement 1 mix et le reste désagréageables et recomposable soi -même via la donnée en kWh ?

Administrator

An idea could be to involve reviewers that under confidentiality can look into the models of the different providers from industry associations and consultants (including in future contracts) and that check that the providers correctly model the data sets, to ensure homogeneity. This would also mean less work at ADEME to manage the big central database.

Agenda

23

Background and goal The ADEME’s database Content of the ADEM’s database Goal for management and quality guidelines



Quality criteria proposed by ADEME

Inherent quality

Methodology conformity

Inventories clarity

Recognition

Transparency

24

Data quality – definition of needs

Temporal representativeness : typical data for the considered period

Geographical representativeness : representation of the considered zone

Technological representativeness : typical data for the considered technology (market representativeness)

Completeness of environmental impacts covered by the inventory

Precision / reproductibility variability and error on data

Uncertainty

Consistency

(norme ISO 14044)

Data quality – How do the databases answer to the needs ?

26The common criteria : geographical, technological and temporal representativeness.

ISOJRC - « ILCD Compliance »

JRC - « ILCD

data entry

level »

EcoInvent

Gabi DEAMCodde - EIME et

EIME-Tex

Plastics Europe

Worldsteel EAA

CONSIDERED QUALITY CRITERIA

Geographical representativeness

X X X

X

+ compleness

(market representati

veness)

X X X X X X

Technological representativeness

X X X X X X X X X X

Temporal representativeness

X X X X X X X X X X

Elementary flows completeness

XX

(calculated)? X ? ? X X ?

Precision - reproductibility

XX

(calculated)X X ? ?

X

(calculé)X ?

Consistency X X ? ? ? ? ? X ? ?

JRC-IES

Better to remove "JRC" in both cases; for the other databases you also only give the name, not in addition the coordinator name.

JRC-IES

This should be "ILCD Data Network - entry-level". (The point is, that this entry-level ONLY relates to the Data Network, it is not defined in the ILCD Handbook or related to data in general.)

JRC-IES

The calculation is optional for both cases, but the level can also be assigned by expert judgement, this will even be the normal case, we assume. the qualtitaive values are only given as common quantitative basis for this approximative judgement.

JRC-IES

Here exactly the same applies as for ISO, since the ILCD D. N. entry-level refers back to use the ISO criteria! I.e. all entries should be "X".

JRC-IES

To which of the versions of the quality manuals of the other systems does this information relate?


27


JRC - « ILCD

data entry

level »

EcoInvent


EIME-Tex

Plastics Europe

Worldsteel EAA

EVALUATION OF QUALITY

Qualitative approach XX

(doc)X X X X X X X

Semi-quantitative approach

X

(quantitative on

completeness and

uncertainty)

X

(quantitative on

completeness and

uncertainty)

Rating X

X

(qualitative eval.)

X

2 major evaluation systems : On documentation (qualitative)On ratings

JRC-IES

see previous slide: the explcit quantification/calculation is optional; can also be qualitative.


28


JRC - « ILCD

data entry

level »

EcoInvent


EIME-Tex

Plastics Europe

Worldsteel EAA

PROOF MODE OR CHECKMandatory external peer review

X X X X X X

Mandatory internal peer review

X X

Review by the database provider

X X X X

LEVEL OF DEPTH FOR THE REVIEWSmall ? ?

Medium X X ? ? X X

High X X ? ? X

According to the organisations, either the database provider checks by himself or asks for an external peer review (no mandatory accreditation for reviews)

JRC-IES

For data sets, ISO does not require an external review. However, if the data is intended to be used for comparative assertions, ultimately, such a review will be required (i.e. good to do this for the data set once and not many times for each single study where the data set is used).

Data quality – Proposal forADEME DB

29

Minimum criteria to take into account : Temporal, geographical, technological representativeness

Must there be other requirements (uncertainty/precision, completeness) ? How can these criteria be proposed and checked?

Quality evaluation Short term : qualitative approach

What is the proof mode?

In long term, must we develop also the quantitative approach ? Who will establish the threshold values : the data provider ? By what kind of review process ?

JRC-IES

"Completeness" of the inventory for the impact categories that are foreseen for the French system should be very important. Otherwise you have data sets that may look perfect, but have no data AT ALL e.g. on eutrophication or human toxicity (if these would be impacts under the French system). To exclude completeness has very high risk of having heavily distorted/misleading data sets. The alternative qualitative/quantiative approach of the ILCD aims at providing a compromise to address this difficult issue in a pragmatic way via an independent (reviewer) expert judgement."Uncertainty" is generally difficult to assess and the calculations that are sometimes done, do not really capture this. If you really have to exclude any criteria, this could rater be the one (or you find a simplified solution).

JRC-IES

As said before, a qualitative aproach seems fine (ILCD can also run qualitatively), while particularly for uncertainty and completenss it is good to provide numbers: This will help reviewers to know what is meant with "very low uncertainty" (i.e. is this less than 1% or less than 5% StdDev. or maby less than 10%?). This is indipensible to increase reproducibility of the qualitative approach.

JRC-IES

If ADEME would adopt the values set for the ILCD, this wuld ensure data quality criteria compatibility. The contriol could be part of the review process and unless the values can be properly(!) calculated, they can be estimated/cornfirmed via expert judgement by the independent reviewers.

Quality of data – Proposal for ADEME DB

30

Proof mode for quality, for each channel of data supply :

Data coming from databases : the providers’ review is enough

Can we valid that the ADEME’s database can be satisfied with the providers’review?

Co-produced data : require that a peer review is available

Data coming from industries (third part) : need to get an external peer review to be sure of quality

Can we require a peer review to industries without the risk that this will limit this channel for data supply ?

Must we require « accreditation » reviewers from ADEME?

Administrator

It is in our view advisable to set up the requirments in a way that avoid that database providers can claim its own data is "good" without having gone through an external review as an additional but we think essential step.


Inherent quality


Inventories clarity

Recognition

Transparency

31

Methodology conformity – Definition of needs

32

The data must fulfill:

The ISO 14040-44 norm Choice for impact categories Choice for methodologies (allocation rules, cut-off criteria…)

The Annex A of BPX 30-323 referential

The requirements of the ADEME AFNOR platform Methodology and Product Category Working groups and of the Technical Committees for the ADEME’s database.

Can these requirements be fulfilled ?

Can the database accept to integrate some data that do not fulfill all the criteria ? For which criteria ?

Methodology conformity – Réf. BPX 30-323

33

Le référentiel BP X 30-323 s données doivent respecter :

Topic Extract of the referentialMandatory or

optionnal?RDC/ADEME Proposal

GHGTake into account all the GHG mentionned in the BP X 30 323 referential

Mandatory

GHGTake into account the timescale for GHG (some emissions are postponed)

When relevant

Relevance evaluation from product category working groupsConsequence on tools linked to the DB as it will be necessary to use a correction factor on LCINo consequence on data in database

Land use changeTake into account impact due to land use chage

When significantWho does assess if the criterion is significant ?

InfrastructuresTake into account impacts of infrastructures for transport and energy

MandatoryFulfill requirement proposed in conclusions of Energy and Transport Committees

ExclusionsMust be excluded : carbon compensation, home-work transports, advertising, customers transports

Mandatory

Cut off criteriaCut-off criteria on mass, environment and energy

Mandatory for mass cut off criteria : 5% (95% of the mass formula has to be known precisely)Experiment environmental cut off criteriaDelete energy cut off criteria

ElectricityTake into account production electrical mixes

Mandatory Production mix

End of lifeTake into account the correct values for energy recovery at incineration, degradation rate at landfill

To be defined by the End of Life Committee

Administrator

The production mix could distort results for importers from small countries with a high electricity trade, such as Belgium etc.

Administrator

Mass as the only cut-off criterion can be of limited value as even well known critical ingredients can be overlooked.

Methodology conformity – Other requirements

34

Common methodological rules for any product (included in the methodological referential)

Impacts allocation rules between co-products (e.g. : allocation leather / meat / milk)

Sectorial rules (included in the product category referential) If they have a big influence on the environmental balance (e.g : allocation

between leather and split leather)

Technical Committees recommendations for upstream data Energy End of life Transport

Must we require that the rules defined in a product category referential should be validated by the ADEME AFNOR Methodological Working Group in order to get more homogeneity?

JRC-IES

Allocation or substitution? For e.g. recycled metals, we assume that a credit for avoided burdens of primary metal prodction is given, same as for recovery energy/electrcity from waste incineration?

JRC-IES

It is importnat that the rules in the sectiroal documents are coordinated. The idea seems therefore good.

Methodology conformity – How do the databases answer to the needs ?

35

Follow the ISO 14040-44 norm

The norm principles are followed by any database.

Fulfill the rules of BP X 30-323 referential

Do these requirements need to be adapted in so far as the data are not always able to pass the criteria ?

Methodology conformity – Proposal for AEME DB

36

Follow the ISO 14040-44 norm Choice of impact categories : from the product group and based on impact

categories from JRC (LCIA)

Fulfill the rules of BP X 30-323 referential Proposal to make visible all information linked to the BPX fulfillment :

possibility to have a complete vision of the Extension file

Can we accept non-conform data ?

Follow the common and sector- specific methodological choices

In general, requirements will be defined in specificaions and call to tender

Fictive example of BP X 30-323 fulfillment

37


Inherent quality


Inventories clarity

Recognition

Transparency

38

Inventories clarity – Definition of needs

Criteria for inventories quality : Completeness of flows : have all the major contributing flows been taken

into account ?

Reliability of data (order of magnitude)

Background precision : explanation of process specificity in terms of representativeness, yields, sources

39

JRC-IES

See earlier comment on the importnace of estimated and documenting/revieweing the achieved completeness of the inventory.

Inventories clarity – How do the databases answer to the needs?

Completeness of flows: qualitative check (cf. quality)

Reliability of data in terms of order of magnitude : qualitative check (cf. quality)

Background details : metadata well structured with fine level of detail

Metadata fields structuration : ILCD, EcoInvent, GaBi Provided documentation : all databases

40

Inventories clarity – Proposal for ADEME DB

Access to the elementary flow list that can be classified

41

Inventories clarity– Proposal for ADEME DB

Automatic checks in order to check orders of magnitude : if the checks are not fullfilles , then alerts are created

Check links between CO2 emissions and use of fossile fuels burning Check links between combustion processes and NOX and SOX emissions Check links between electricity processes and resource depletion Check links between transport, oil consumption and CO2 emissions Check links between water emissions and water consumption Check values for« Exotic flows » (usually very weak)

42

Administrator

Very good. Such rules could/should be differentiated/extended (especially fr uncommon flows) for the specific sectorial documents.! At the same time we all should ne careful to trust these checks too much; they can not ensure quality but only avoid Big errors.

Inventories clarity – Proposal for ADEME DB

ILCD format used for metadata with some « at first glance » criteria (fields must be filled and visible)

seem easy to reahc ?43

Source

Géo & techno representativeness

Unit

Does the first vision of the Extension file fields seem easy to reach?

44

Temporal representativeness

Unit

Geographical representativeness

Technological representativeness

2nd visibility access

Are the mandatory fields relevant ?( )

45

Sources& Representativeness

Méthodo

Completeness for flows


Are the mandatory fields relevant ( )?

46

Type of revision

Les champs obligatoires ( ) sont-ils pertinents?


JRC-IES

The review type should be shown

JRC-IES

We think it might be good to document inside the data set the achieved quality levels using the quality critria/indicators as defined i the ILCD format and ILCD Handbook


Inherent quality


Inventories clarity

Recognition

Transparency

47

Recognition – Definition of needs

The ADEME’s database will be public National recognition

ADEME would like to join the ILCD Network International recognition

What steps to check recognition ? Data supply Data quality requirement Calendar

48

Administrator

You are very welocme. As meeting the "ILCD Data Network - entry-level" requirements are the minimum requirements for this, only the data that meet these requirements can be included. Generally, this looks good, while there are potential issues especially regarding the review required for data from consultants (see our comment some slides earlier). I.e. minimum should be EITHER independent external review OR independent internal review plus separate review report(!).

Recognition –How do the dabases answer to the needs ?

Quality and peer acceptance

Documentation Provide a documentation Structure data into the ILCD fields (ILCD, EcoInvent)

49

Recognition – Proposal for ADEME DB

Recognition is insured because of:

Governance (data supply)

Data quality validation

Use of ILCD format

50

JRC-IES

More important then the ILCD format are the minimum quality-requirements of the "ILCD Data Network - entry level" requirements.


Inherent quality


Inventories clarity

Recognition

Transparency

51

Data transparency– Definition of needs

Need to have a documentation and an access for the following topics:

Data quality

Data sources

Methodogical assumptions

52

Data transparency – How do the databases answer to the needs ?

Documentation Provide a documentation

Structure data in some fields (ILCD, EcoInvent)

53

Data transparency – Proposal for ADEME DB

Some fields of ILCD format will be mandatory Geographical, temporal and technological repesentativeness Short description of the data set Sources Date for the delivered version

Availability of the documentation data in the supply channels Database providers: internet link to the source Co-production : available report

Must this accessibility be systematic or on demand ? Industrial data (third part): availability before integration in the database

According to the level of confidentiality, is it possible to remain data available ?

54

JRC-IES

Please check the minimum documentation requirements given in the document "Documentation of LCA databases"; it gives an exact list of the required fields, including for the ILCD Data Network!There are more, importnat fields in the ILCD format that were found to be indispensible for user information.

JRC-IES

... via dedicated source data sets, as foreseen in the ILCD format, we assume?

JRC-IES

Should be accessible easily, we suggest, i.e. via internet

Agenda

55




Update – definition of needs

56

The database will evolve according to the principles of continuous improvement

The needs for update are different : Deep update : modification of structure (in link with ILCD) Mid update : general modification due to a methodological

modification Light update : ponctual update due to :

Better knowledge Improvement in data quality and reliability

Update – How do the databases answer to the needs ?

57

Frequence for update depends on refinement of methodologies

What is the frequency of the update for ILCD database ?

What is the frequency of the update for other databases ?

Administrator

The update of data in a databae, depends on speed of changes in the inventories in the main contributing processes. As an informal expert judgement, we think that for established commodities with relatively slow technological changes in both forground and background system (e.g. steel production) time periods of ~5 years appear sufficient. For ICT products and similarly fast changing areas, this migt require an update every 2 years or even more often.Note again that there is no "ILCD database", only the ELCD and the "ILCD Data Network".

Update – proposal for ADEME DB

58

Structure update mainly linked to evolutions of ILCD format

Frequent revision according to some changes on upstream data (e.g. : electrical mix or new common data) : every 3 to 5 years

Very frequent update for processes modfications

Version nomenclature : XX.YY.ZZ. Z: minor modif, Y= common modif., X : structure modif

Are the frequency proposed appropriate ?

JRC-IES

If you would adopt the ILCD dformat, the version numbering must be XX.YY.ZZZ /i.e. if you want to have only two "Z", you need to always append a "0" at the end for technical reasons of compatibility. e.g. 01.02.160 instead of 01.02.16

Agenda

59




Integration of data – Proposal for ADEME DB

60

Archive file saved Miscellaneous checks

Creation of the dataset in the database and storage of the XML file in a dedicated place

Type of check If no fulfillment : rejection If no fulfillment : alert

Format check

XML structure X

Are mandatory data present ? X

Reference checks

Does it exist some references in the import

X

LCA checks X

Agenda

61




Default dataset – definition of needs

62

The default datasets will more especially help to model for environmental labeling

When the provider of data does not very precisely know the formulation of his product, he can ask for a default dataset that will help him :

To check the mass cut off criteria To calculate the environmental balance

JRC-IES

We would add importantly "to identify the need to collect more detailed data for that specific ingredient, if it it turns out to dominate the overall results when using the default data set".

Default dataset – proposal for ADEME DB

2 possibilities for 2 needs :

1 : Definition of the build of materials :« I know what is in my product but I can not find the exact data set in the database »

Model with a « default dataset » to choose

Search for the user : « nearest dataset »: the user will choose the nearest dataset

according to its knowledge And ADEME creates and proposes an average or maximum

default dataset : average of maximum of impacts for the same kind of processes= « precise default dataset »

What choice for non precise default dataset ? average , max or percentile ?

JRC-IES

This should be the average; however, you may want to add a "penaltty" inventory (e.g. 20%) if such default data is used, to avoid misuse of this approach and motovate to obtain the true data.

Default dataset – Proposal for ADEME DB

Once the mass cut off criteria has been passed :

2 : Check environmental cut off criteria « How can we assess the environmental impact for the X% not modelled (X<5%) ? »

ADEME creates and proposes a default dataset (maximum a priori). Each default dataset is defined on the basis of a large family of

products (e.g. vegetables, …)= Non precise default dataset

What choice for non precise default dataset ? average , max or percentile ?

Must we leave this default datasets non visible in the database as they are very imprecise ?

JRC-IES

We propose t not leave very rough estimates in, but to report the gap; this % gap is then to be considered when e.g. calculating the overall value.

JRC-IES

This should be the average; however, you may want to add a "penaltty" inventory (e.g. 20%) if such default data is used, to avoid misuse of this approach and motovate to obtain the true data.

Default dataset – Proposal for ADEME DB

Need : the database must contain a conversion factor that will help to use default datasets in the mass balance.

Proposal : Create a field « Reference flow weight in kg » in the « Extension »

file Mandatory field for any component that could introduced in the

mass balance : materials, components, ingredients, semi-finished goods.

Fictive example of the vision of the Extension file

66

Agenda

67




Confidentiality – definition of needs

68

The 3 data supply channels imply that it will be possible to integrate in the database some private data which could have problems of confidentiality.

The ADEME wants to make some incentive in order that the database is step by step developed.

Do we accept to integrate in the database some « private » data or must we require that the data will be public and therefore that there is a need to make the dataset anonymous ?

JRC-IES

More important than the access to potentially confidential or propriatary data values is in our view a credible review of the data set. In that case (i.e. an independent external review is provided with the reviewer explcily checking the relevant single data values etc.) it is not that important any more that the single values are made poublic. An independent quality review is required for any kind of data sets, whether unit process or aggregated.

Confidentiality – proposal for ADEME DB

69

Proposal for 3 levels of diffusion : Public :

No restrictions at publication Anonymous, public :

Restriction on Source information Private

Not available by another company

AND threshold date : after this day, the status of the process is « public »

OR wait for several LCI and calculation of an average that could become public.

What would be the best proposal ?

governance committee for the ademes database technical committee database management and quality - 6...

Documents

data quality guidelines

ademes database management

ilcd database

background data

ademes database needs

sublevels of data quality

elcd database

common core of data