IWA 16:2015

INTERNATIONAL IWA
WORKSHOP 16
AGREEMENT
First edition
2015-02-01
International harmonized method(s)
for a coherent quantification of CO e
emissions of freight transport
Méthode(s) internationale(s) harmonisée(s) pour une quantification
cohérente des émissions de CO e par le transport de fret
Reference number
©
ISO 2015
© ISO 2015
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail copyright@iso.org
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Terms and definitions . 1
3 Initiatives and documents included into the gap analysis . 2
4 Boundaries of analysis . 2
4.1 General . 2
4.2 Processes included . 3
4.2.1 On operation level . 3
4.2.2 On network level . 3
4.2.3 On cargo level . 3
4.2.4 Definition and use of transport chain elements . 3
4.3 Processes included on all calculation levels . 4
4.3.1 Energy operational processes . 4
4.3.2 Fugitive emissions . 4
4.4 Processes not included . 4
4.5 Processes and issues that should be assessed as to their inclusion . 4
5 Gap analysis . 5
5.1 General aspects . 5
5.2 Mode specific gap analysis . 6
5.3 Level specific gaps .23
6 Closing the current gaps .24
6.1 General aspects .24
6.2 Recommended next steps and format for next standardization developments .24
7 Conclusion .25
Annex A (informative) Workshop contributors .26
Bibliography .29
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2. www.iso.org/directives
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of any
patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or on
the ISO list of patent declarations received. www.iso.org/patents
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity
assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the WTO principles in the Technical Barriers
to Trade (TBT), see the following URL: Foreword - Supplementary information
The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TMBG, Technical Management Board Groups.
iv © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Introduction
Transport and logistics are based by 95 % on fossil fuels and currently contribute to an estimated 20
to 25 % of overall global CO emissions (ITF International Transport Forum (2012): Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Country Data 2010. http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/10GHGcountry.
pdf, Rodrigue J-P., Comtois C, Slack B (2009): The Geography of Transport Systems. New York: Routledge).
Therefore, governments and industry are interested in improved efficiency of transportation and
transport chains. Transport chains as considered within this IWA encompass the handling processes
and transportation of goods from the producing entity to the next level(s). These transport chains
connect industry and commercial processes. In order to identify best practice and to improve the
efficiency of transport chains, an accepted and standardised method for calculating emissions values is
needed together with a specification of data requirements. This IWA develops a framework and maps
out requirements toward a global CO e emission calculation standard, based on existing standards.
As thorough analysis of existing standards and calculation methods has shown, there are several gaps
within the currently existing methods, which leave space for interpretation in regards to calculation.
A comparability of calculated results is therefore not necessarily given (see COFRET EU-project
deliverables D 2.4 Methodologies for emission calculations[12], D 3.1 Assessment of typology of existing
CO calculation tools and methodologies[13], D 3.2 Methodology for integration of CO emission
2 2
calculation-tools[14] and D 3.3 Suggestions and recommendations towards global harmonization of
carbon footprint calculation principles and comparable reporting[15]). Identifying these gaps and
addressing them in a next standardization process step is important though, in order to ensure that
ambiguities are eliminated and to achieve a compatible level of accuracy across all modes of transport
as well as across all elements of the transport chain.
As analysis has shown, optimization of emissions for shipments and for networks of individual
transport providers requires different approaches. All other things being equal, for isolated cargo direct
routings are usually those with the lowest emissions. For transport service providers avoiding empty
transportation space will often lead to optimization. Furthermore the characteristics of the various
transportation modes need to be taken into consideration as well as those of handling processes,
logistics hubs and transhipment centres. The calculation approach suggested in this document therefore
distinguishes three levels of calculation: operation specific level, transport company network level and
cargo level, reflecting the differing perspectives of carriers, logistics service providers and shippers.
Transport chains are almost always very complex, often encompassing various modes of transport and
handling processes or storage etc. In order to enable the calculation of emissions, this IWA suggests the
approach of calculation of emissions of separate transport chain elements. Another emphasis within
this IWA is given to the aspect of data quality. As tracked fuel consumption is not always available, the
question of default data needs to be addressed.
Terms like logistics chain and supply chain are often used within the transport sector. For a better
orientation Figure 1, originated from the COFRET project (see [11]), provides a generic example showing
logistics operations as elements of the transport chain and transport chain within a supply chain. Each
logistics operation forms a transport chain element (TCE), the sum of all TCEs builds the transport
chain.
Figure 1 — Logistics operations as elements of the transport chain
International Workshop Agreement IWA 16 was launched at a workshop held in Berlin, Germany, in
July 2014, and approved at workshops held in Berlin, Germany, in September 2014 and in November 2014.
All workshops were hosted by DIN, the German Institute for Standardization.
This IWA was developed in the following format:
1st and kick-off meeting on 2014-07-08: Adoption of the scope and objectives of the IWA, agreement on
a two-tiered approach: (1) identification of recommended existing standards suitable as basis and gaps,
(2) identification of suitable approaches for closure of identified gaps;
2nd meeting from 2014-09-01 to 2014-09-02: Discussion of gaps per mode and in general, summarizing
and agreement on gaps;
3rd meeting from 2014-11-13 to 2014-11-14: Discussion of suggested approaches for closing gaps and
summarizing recommendations on way forward.
Between the 2nd and 3rd meeting further consultation in the format of telephone conferences took
place between the workshop participants in order to complete the mode specific gap analysis.
During meetings, findings were discussed and the content of the following document was agreed.
vi © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

International Workshop Agreement IWA 16:2015(E)
International harmonized method(s) for a coherent
quantification of CO e emissions of freight transport
1 Scope
This International Workshop Agreement (IWA) defines the framework for methods for coherent
quantification of CO e emissions of freight transport (total and intensity) on the following three levels:
1) Level of operation of transport chain element (TCE).
2) Level of network including company level.
3) Level of cargo.
It provides a gap analysis identifying starting points and recommending further specification and
possible alignment on mode specific and intermodal levels, including transhipment centres and
warehouses. Consideration needs to be given to the practicality of the methods and the intended use of
the outputs to the potential user groups, particularly providers of freight transport and logistic services
as well as their customers.
2 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
2.1
vehicle operation system
VOS
set of vehicle operations
[SOURCE: EN 16258:2012, 2.2.22]
2.2
vehicle operation
deployment of a vehicle to fully or partially provide a transport service for one or more transport service
users
[SOURCE: EN 16258:2012, 2.2.21]
2.3
vehicle
any means of transport
Note 1 to entry: Within this standard, this definition includes vessels (watercraft and aircraft like ships, boats and
planes), for reasons of simplification only.
[SOURCE: EN 16258:2012, 2.1.19]
2.4
transport network
system of connections covered by transport organizers including connections covered by subsidiaries
and subcontractors
2.5
cargo
collection/quantity of goods (carried on a means of transport) transported from one place to another
Note 1 to entry: Cargo can consist of either liquid or solid materials or substances, without any packaging (e.g.
bulk cargo), or of loss items of unpacked goods, packages, unitised goods (on pallets or in containers) or goods
loaded on transport units and carried on active means of transport.
[SOURCE: EN 14943:2005, 3.151]
2.6
intermodal container
inter-modal transport unit (ITU)
inter-modal loading unit (ILU)
transport unit which may be a container, swap body, semi-trailer or road-trailer suitable for inter-modal
transport
[SOURCE: EN 14943:2005, 3.512]
2.7
transport chain
sequence of transport activities and logistics operations
Note 1 to entry: See Figure 1 which shows logistics operations as elements of the transport chain.
2.8
logistics
planning, execution and control of the movement and placement of people and/or goods and of the
supporting activities related to such movement and placement, within a system organized to achieve
specific objectives
[SOURCE: EN 14943:2005, 3.575]
2.9
carbon dioxide equivalent
CO e
unit for comparing the radiative forcing of a GHG to carbon dioxide
Note 1 to entry: The carbon dioxide equivalent is calculated using the mass of a given GHG multiplied by its global
warming potential.
[SOURCE: ISO 14064-1:2006, 2.19]
3 Initiatives and documents included into the gap analysis
Different tools are taken into consideration in the gap analysis and in the way forward in addressing
these gaps. These tools are listed in the gap-analysis tables and in Bibliography.
4 Boundaries of analysis
4.1 General
It is important that for all three levels of calculation it is defined which processes and elements are
included and which not.
2 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

4.2 Processes included
4.2.1 On operation level
Calculations on vehicle operational level shall include operation of all on-board vehicle systems including
propulsion and ancillary services.
4.2.2 On network level
Calculation on network level includes all segments within the commercial boundaries of one operator
or logistics service provider. It covers all transport modes, all services and activities of the operator’s
network.
Calculation on network level also includes processes consisting of short-term assistance to the vehicle
for security or movement reasons, with other devices like tugboats for towing vessels in harbours,
aircraft tractors for planes in airports, etc.
4.2.3 On cargo level
Calculation on cargo level includes all transport elements and services from the commercial boundaries
of the shipper to the commercial boundaries of the next receiving unit which is performing substantial
changes to the cargo and its elements.
4.2.4 Definition and use of transport chain elements
Given the complexity of transport chains the notion of transport chain element (TCE) as a modular
and independent operation that brings the goods close to their final destination is introduced (see
also COFRET D.3.1[13], there referenced as supply chain element). Figure 2 presents an example of a
transport chain composed of TCEs. Not only transport operations are considered as TCEs, but terminal
and warehousing operations are also treated as standalone TCEs. The resulting CO e emissions at the
product level are the sum of the emissions resulting from the TCEs that constitute the transport chain.

Figure 2 — Example of a transport chain split into transport chain elements
The division of any transport chain into a number of sequential TCEs greatly simplifies the effort
necessary to compute cargo-level emissions. Any transport chain can be decomposed on a limited number
of TCEs, such that TCEs can be used and reused in any arbitrary situation, functioning as building blocks.
The Logistics Node Elements (LNE), such as terminals and warehouses include processes of external
handling or transhipment devices for the movement or transhipment of freight. Furthermore, handling
operations that take place inside platforms, and which consist of loading and unloading of parcels or
pallets of express delivery services and other transport services organized in networks, belong to this
category of processes.
4.3 Processes included on all calculation levels
4.3.1 Energy operational processes
The assessment of energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of TCE shall include both
vehicle operational processes and energy operational processes that occur during the operational phase
of the lifecycle.
The vehicle operational processes shall include operation of all on-board vehicle systems including
propulsion and ancillary services.
The energy operational processes shall include:
— for fuels (except electricity): extraction or cultivation of primary energy, refining, transformation,
transport and distribution of energy at all steps of the production of the fuel used;
— for electricity: extraction and transport of primary energy, transformation, power generation,
losses in electricity grids.
4.3.2 Fugitive emissions
Direct emissions of GHG resulting from leakage during operational processes (e.g. of refrigerant gas or
natural gas) should be included.
4.4 Processes not included
Processes not to be included in the analysis are:
— processes for the construction, maintenance and scrapping of vehicles and logistic nodes;
— processes of construction, service, maintenance and dismantling of transport infrastructures used
by vehicles;
— non-operational energy processes, like the production or construction of extraction equipment of
transport and distribution systems, of refinery systems, of enrichment systems, of power production
plants, etc. so as their reuse, recycle and scrap;
— additional impacts of combustion of aviation fuel in high atmosphere, like contrails, cirrus, etc.
4.5 Processes and issues that should be assessed as to their inclusion
Processes at the administrative (overhead) level of the organisations involved in the transport and
logistics services might be relevant for the overall emission result. It is to be assessed in detail to which
extent and how they are to be included on the three calculation levels.
Consideration of the extension of the approach to local air pollutant emissions in context of calculation
of CO e/GHG emissions should be given.
4 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

5 Gap analysis
5.1 General aspects
The following aspects apply to gaps on all three levels of the defined framework (operation, network,
cargo) and need to be unambiguously defined and included in the next standardization efforts on a
global level.
a) Appropriateness in emission allocation:
1) Consistent set of CO , GHG and CO e emissions factors to be used in calculations in order to
2 2
provide a truly comparable set of outputs for well-to-tank, tank-to-wheel and well-to-wheel
fuel life cycle phases for the main commercial transport fuels. This is needed at the global level
to take into account regional or national differences in fuel specification/composition and/or
production processes as well as to ensure consistency across modes/between operators (GLEC
has recently initiated a study on this topic).
2) Consistent approach to electricity emissions – this is crucial in the railway sector and is being
addressed by ECO TransIT, EN 16258, French info CO transport law, GHG Protocol and UIC
among others. These all quote or are developing electricity emission factors by country, based
on national generation, consumption or other (e.g. railway-specific purchase) mixes, but a
consistent approach across the transport chain within and between countries and modes still
needs to be developed.
3) Consistent approach to definition of empty runs across all modes and mechanisms to establish
industry recognized default data sources to be used are needed where they are not present.
GLEC has recently initiated an initial scoping study on this.
4) Consistent approach to definition of default load factors across all modes is required (in the
circumstances where actual/averaged data are not available and an aggregated approach is to
be applied).
5) Aligned allocation rules for vehicles carrying e.g. freight and passengers at the same time or
consolidated freight, and also at nodes and terminals when handling freight.
b) Quality of data:
1) Consistent approach to:
i) requirements for operational data collection (frequency, granularity) and data quality,
especially towards data quality measurement and quality indicators. Guidelines for the
monitoring and verification of real input data as well as rules for the use of real input
data on the basis of sampling, e.g. definition of application fields, frequency, sampling size.
Definition of time frame of data, e.g. on yearly base to avoid influence of temporal, seasonal
and economic effects;
ii) use of default data in absence of tracked information;
iii) define data quality levels (mix between use of measured data and default data) and provide
guidance on how to apply and to declare them.
2) Definition of TCEs scope and their boundaries, including definition of standard VOS examples as
well as auxiliary processes, to be included in the calculation.
3) Consistency of reporting (metric vs. imperial).
4) Standardization of reporting.
5) A quality verification process.
c) Consistent approach to definitions of an operator’s network and its organizational boundaries (e.g.
overhead) needs to be developed.
d) Transport auxiliary processes (e.g. tugboat, cold ironing, shunting, yard logistics, air-conditioning
of goods) including (indirect) emissions caused by auxiliary material consumption (e.g. lubricants,
additives, packaging).
e) Consistent approach to consideration and avoidance of double counting.
5.2 Mode specific gap analysis
In addition to the general aspects and gaps listed already, the following tables reflect mode specific gaps.
For this analysis the most appropriate and best aligned starting points (per mode and for logistics
hubs) have been used as the basis and reference for future standardization, as indicated in the following
tables. Based on these suggested starting points the most pressing gaps that still need to be addressed
were identified.
The gap analysis for the transport mode road is given in Table 1.
Table 1 — Gap analysis road
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
comments
EN 16258 Smartway
TTW/WTW TTW/WTW TTW Consistency of approach
(Tank-To-Wheel/ Reliable information about
Well-To-Wheel) upstream processes
CO /CO e CO e CO Consistency of approach
2 2 2 2
Allocation units Preferred unit is tkm (tonne CO /ton mile Unified allocation units per
in general kilometre), but other units type of cargo and/or trans-
Also CO /vehicle mile and
can be used if they are port service
CO per cubic foot mile
justified
Marginal accounting is not
allowed
Specific allocation Preferred allocation unit for — use of this allocation unit in
units collection and distribution: practice
tkm based on GCD (Great
(recommendation: uniform
Circle Distance)
calculation unit for every
service type: dense network
transport, loose network
transport, point-to-point-
transport)
Energy consumption Only on-board processes Not specified Treatment of temperature
of auxiliary pro- are included, they are not control/reefer to be consist-
cesses specified in detail though ent across all modes
Processes included Loaded and unloaded Own fleet Auxiliary processes (e.g.
(empty) trips, subcontrac- non-onboard handling),
Empty running included
tor’s transports, on-board secondary energy used for
handling if measured temperature controlled
processes, maintenance,
preparation and aftercare of
vehicle and transportation
units (e.g. cleaning of tank
containers)
Allocation notes — — —
6 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Table 1 (continued)
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
comments
EN 16258 Smartway
Vehicle operation Concept of VOS and fleet is This is taken into account Standard categories of/
systems (VOS) introduced by the benchmarking by descriptions for VOS would
descriptions service type in which the help comparability
information is presented
General internationally
applicable clustering of vehi-
cles into categories needs to
be specified, granularity of
data
Procedure for The standard categorises Fuel and CO based on Guidelines for measurement
measured energy data into the groups of measured data and use of measured data
consumption data specific measured values, are needed
Other pollutants modelled
transport operator specific
using national emissions Guidelines on uncertainties
values and transport oper-
factors and protocols
ator fleet values. It is not
specified though, how these
values are generated
Procedure for Procedures and sources for Not applicable Guidelines for use and
absence of measured default data referenced in selection of data in case of
energy consumption annex, use not specified absence of measured data
data are needed
Fuel-based versus Fuel-based preferred but Fuel-based fuel (including electricity)
activity based other approaches accepted based preferred as aspi-
ration, other approaches
need to be accepted in the
meantime
Data sources — — Guidelines for use and
(default data) selection of data in case of
absence of measured data
are needed
Specific factors Given in EN 16258, Annex A National emission factors Need of a standard proce-
from Argonne National dure for the approach to
Laboratory emission factors across all
modes
Gaps in existing cov- — — —
erage/comments
Allocation unit and — — Mass/volume relation and
intensity distances need to be unified
Calculation of Actual distance travelled Actual distance driven Harmonized approach to
distances consideration of distance is
For allocation: Great Circle
required
Distance or shortest feasi-
ble distance
Reporting Energy use and CO e on Benchmarked reporting Definition of reporting fac-
both TTW and WTW basis based on 5 groups ranked tors for the specific purpose
according to CO per required (for all modes)
ton mile within each of sev-
eral operational business
sectors
Accuracy labels — — Accuracy labels for report-
ing to be developed
Table 1 (continued)
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
comments
EN 16258 Smartway
Harmonization note It is recommended that Wide range of perfectly Standard(s) need(s) to
national or regional regula- logical/reasonable ways of specify clearly which of the
tions take into account the doing things is confusing. following three levels for
Transnational dimensions coherent quantification of
Harmonization must serve a
of transport CO e emissions of freight
purpose for people to adopt
transport (total and inten-
or change what they are
sity) they refer to:
doing
(1) Level of operation of TCE;
(2) Level of network includ-
ing company level;
(3) Level of cargo
General comments Use of TCE’s to allow disaggregation of supply chain into manageable, consistent, dis-
and thoughts crete elements is widely acknowledged across all Action Group areas, although the way
that this is done and described varies a lot.
The gap analysis for the transport mode rail is given in Table 2.
Table 2 — Gap analysis rail
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
Smartway
comments
EN 16258 EcotransIT
(rail module)
TTW/WTW TTW/WTW TTW/WTW TTW Consistency of
approach
Reliable information
about upstream
processes
CO /CO e CO e CO e CO Consistency of
2 2 2 2 2
approach
Allocation units in Preferred unit is Net-tonne kilo- g CO /ton mile Only using several
general tkm, but other units metres related to average values for
Also g CO /vehicle
can be used if they vehicle (wagon) (as gross weight and
mile
are justified a product of specific payload
emission factor of
Marginal accounting
vehicle and capacity
is not allowed
utilization of vehicle)
Specific allocation — EcoTransIT appli- — Special Case: Alloca-
units cation of EN 16258 tion rules in case of
includes factors for combined passenger
different industry and freight trains
sectors according to
cargo density
Energy consumption Only on-board pro- Upstream emissions Not specified Treatment of tem-
of auxiliary cesses are included, for energy perature control/
processes they are not speci- reefer to be consist-
fied in detail though ent across all modes
8 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Table 2 (continued)
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
Smartway
comments
EN 16258 EcotransIT
(rail module)
Processes included Loaded and Loaded and Own fleet Auxiliary processes
unloaded (empty) unloaded (empty) (e.g. non-onboard
Empty running
trips, subcontrac- trips handling), secondary
included
tor’s transports, energy used for tem-
on-board handling if Fuel used by main perature controlled
measured power source processes, mainte-
nance, preparation
and aftercare of
vehicle and trans-
portation units (e.g.
cleaning of tank
containers)
Allocation notes — — — Emissions of shunt-
ing processes need
to be considered
Vehicle operation Concept of VOS and VOS for block trains, Reporting accord- Standard categories
systems (VOS) fleet is introduced intermodal trains ing to overall fleet of/descriptions for
descriptions and trains with operations and also VOS would help com-
single waggons are disaggregated by parability
given. bulk and other oper-
VOS for rail trans-
ations
Empty return trips port have to be spec-
are included. An ified and included
explanation on how in a calculation
it is done will be methodology
published in Decem-
ber 2014
Procedure for The standard cate- No procedure for Fuel and CO based Guideline is needed
measured energy gorises data into the measured data on measured data for railway opera-
consumption data groups of specific available tors for calculation
Other pollutants
measured values, of trip or round
modelled using
transport operator trip (e.g. for block
national emissions
specific values and trains or shuttle
factors and proto-
transport operator trains in intermodal
cols
fleet values. It is not transport) related
specified though, emissions
how these values are
generated
Procedure for Procedures and Only using default Not applicable Default database
absence of measured sources for default data but only partly should be completely
energy consumption data referenced in based on public publicly available/
data annex, use not spec- available data, there accessible to ensure
ified is not a description transparency and
how the data were trust
aggregated for the
calculation
Fuel-based versus Fuel-based preferred Fuel and electricity Fuel-based Fuel (including elec-
activity based but other approaches based tricity) based pre-
accepted ferred as aspiration,
other approaches
needs to be accepted
in the meantime
Table 2 (continued)
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
Smartway
comments
EN 16258 EcotransIT
(rail module)
Data sources — UIC statistics and — A regularly update
(default data) national survey data process of data or
as well as Ex-Tremis data sources needs
database (not vali- to be considered.
dated by a neutral (Many data are not
body) published and are
not be validated by
neutral bodies.)
Specific factors Given in EN 16258, Given in EcoTransIT National emis- Need a standard
Annex A Tables 25 and 26 sion factors from procedure for the
Argonne National approach to emis-
Laboratory sion factors across
all modes
Gaps in existing cov- — Calculation only rely — Database should
erage/comments on not open access become more trans-
data sources mixed parent and extended
with some average to different train
data assumptions types (block, trains,
intermodal trans-
Ex-ante and Ex-post
port trains, single
calculations have
waggon load trains)
same results
Further empty runs
should be measured
and allocated more
transparent
Allocation unit and — Calculation starts — Mass/volume rela-
intensity from train energy tion and distances
consumption per need to be unified
gross-tonne kilo-
For intermodal
metre and deviated
trains emissions per
data for net-tonne
load unit (e.g. TEU)
kilometre
should be added
10 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Table 2 (continued)
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
Smartway
comments
EN 16258 EcotransIT
(rail module)
Calculation of Actual distance Routing with resist- Actual distance Not clear how resist-
distances travelled ant factors based on travelled ance factors were
railway line attrib- calculated;
For allocation: Great
utes
Circle Distance or Empty return trips
shortest feasible need to be transpar-
distance ently calculated;
Number of addi-
tional stops are only
considered in aver-
age in default data
sources but the real
energy consumption
is strongly depend-
ing on the number of
stops, e.g. due to in
siding tracks to get
over by faster trains
This is harmonized
for rail transport, for
further standardi-
zation developments
harmonization
across modes is
needed
Reporting Energy use and CO e Emissions by net- Reporting according Definition of report-
on both TTW and tonne kilometre of a to CO per tonne ing factors for the
WTW basis shipment mile specific purpose
required (for all
modes)
Accuracy labels — Partly based on — Accuracy labels
average assump- for reporting to be
tions and not special developed
ex-post calculation
Harmonization note It is recommended — Wide range of Standard(s) need(s)
that national or perfectly logical/ to specify clearly
regional regulations reasonable ways which of the follow-
take into account of doing things is ing three levels for
the Transnational confusing. coherent quanti-
dimensions of trans- fication of CO e
Harmonization must
port emissions of freight
serve a purpose for
transport (total and
people to adopt or
intensity):
change what they
are doing (1) Level of opera-
tion of TCE;
(2) Level of network
including company
level;
(3) Level of cargo
General comments Use of TCE’s to allow disaggregation of supply chain into manageable, consistent, dis-
and thoughts crete elements is widely acknowledged across all Action Group areas, although the way
that this is done and described varies a lot.
The gap analysis for the transport mode inland waterways is given in Table 3.
Table 3 — Gap analysis inland waterways
Starting points
Investigated Identified gaps
IMO STREAM
aspect and comments
EN 16258 Smartway
MEPC.1/circ.684 International
TTW/WTW TTW/WTW TTW TTW TTW/WTW Consistency of
approach
Reliable infor-
mation about
upstream pro-
cesses
CO /CO e CO e CO CO CO e Consistency of
2 2 2 2 2 2
approach
Allocation units Preferred unit g CO /ton mile g CO /unit for g CO e/tkm Consistency of
2 2 2
in general is tkm, but other transport work reporting
g CO /vehicle
units can be done (usually
mile
used if they are tonne kilometre,
justified but others are
g CO /cubic foot
possible)
mile
Marginal
accounting is not
allowed
Specific — Allocation rules
allocation units for inland water-
ways need to be
clarified regard-
ing specifics of
loaded/unloaded
upstream (up the
river) and down-
stream (down the
river) transports
Energy Only on-board Not specified Not specified Not specified Treatment of
consumption processes are temperature con-
of auxiliary pro- included, they trol/reefer to be
cesses are not specified consistent across
in detail though all modes
Processes Loaded and Own fleet Own fleet Empty running Auxiliary
included unloaded included by use processes (e.g.
Empty running All fuel used
(empty) trips, of utilization non-onboard han-
included by main power
subcontractor’s factor dling), secondary
source in oper-
transports, Fuel used by energy used for
ation, so empty
on-board han- main power temperature con-
running included
dling if meas- source trolled processes,
by default
ured maintenance,
preparation and
aftercare of vehi-
cle and transpor-
tation units (e.g.
cleaning of tank
containers)
Allocation notes — — — — —
12 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Table 3 (continued)
Starting points
Investigated Identified gaps
IMO STREAM
aspect and comments
EN 16258 Smartway
MEPC.1/circ.684 International
Vehicle Concept of VOS Reporting Reporting Reporting Standard
operation and fleet is according to according to dif- according to dif- categories of/
systems (VOS) introduced overall fleet ferent types of ferent types of descriptions for
descriptions operations and cargo operation cargo operation VOS would help
also disaggre- comparability
gated by bulk
and other oper-
ations
Procedure The standard Fuel and CO — — Default database
for measured categorises based on meas- should be com-
energy data into the ured data pletely publicly
consumption groups of spe- available/acces-
Other pollutants
data cific measured sible to ensure
modelled using
values, trans- transparency and
national emis-
port operator trust
sions factors and
specific values
protocols
and transport
operator fleet
values. It is not
specified though,
how these values
are generated
Procedure for Procedures Not applicable Guidelines for
absence of meas- and sources for use and selection
ured energy con- default data of data in case of
sumption data referenced in absence of meas-
annex, use not ured data are
specified needed
Fuel-based Fuel-based pre- Fuel-based Fuel-based Activity-based Fuel (including
versus activity ferred but other electricity) based
Energy use and
based approaches preferred as
pollutant emis-
accepted aspiration, other
sions modelled
approaches needs
on different
to be accepted in
types of vessel
the meantime
Data sources — — — ECOTransIT A regularly
(default data) update process
HBEFA
of data or data
Dutch national sources needs to
stats be considered.
(Many data are
EU Averages
not published
and are not be val-
idated by neutral
bodies.)
Specific factors Given in National emis- Uses interna- Uses Defra fac- Need a standard
EN 16258, sion factors tional factors tors procedure for
Annex A from Argonne sourced by IMO the approach to
National Labora- emission factors
tory across all modes
Gaps in existing — — — — —
coverage/
comments
Table 3 (continued)
Starting points
Investigated Identified gaps
IMO STREAM
aspect and comments
EN 16258 Smartway
MEPC.1/circ.684 International
Allocation unit — — — — Mass/volume
und intensity relation and dis-
tances need to be
unified
Calculation of Actual distance Actual distance Actual distance Actual distance —
distances travelled travelled travelled travelled
For allocation:
Great Circle Dis-
tance or shortest
feasible distance
Reporting Energy use and Reporting — — Definition of
CO e on both according to CO reporting factors
2 2
TTW and WTW per tonne mile for the specific
basis purpose required
(for all modes)
Accuracy labels — — — — Accuracy labels
for reporting to be
developed
Harmonization It is recom- Wide range of Standard(s)
note mended that perfectly logical/ need(s) to specify
national or reasonable ways clearly which
regional reg- of doing things is of the follow-
ulations take confusing. ing three levels
into account the for coherent
Harmonization
Transnational quantification of
must serve a
dimensions of CO e emissions of
purpose for
transport freight transport
people to adopt
(total and inten-
or change what
sity):
they are doing
(1) Level of opera-
tion of TCE;
(2) Level of net-
work including
company level;
(3) Level of cargo
General Use of TCE’s to allow disaggregation of supply chain into manageable, consistent, discrete
comments and elements is widely acknowledged across all Action Group areas, although the way that this
thoughts is done and described varies a lot.
Use of emissions/TEU as a measure is useful in Europe where maritime containers can be
shipped by barge/short sea ferry.
Need to develop other maritime sectors than containerized transport.
The gap analysis for the maritime transport is given in Table 4.
14 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Table 4 — Gap analysis maritime transport
Starting points
Identified gaps and
Investigated aspect
Clean Cargo Working IMO
comments
EN 1625
...