SEI-PCS data flags
Michael Lathuillière
Feb 23 2026
Introduction
Following a review of the SEI-PCS flag proposal, it is now time to test these flags across the CDO supply chains (for later input from context leads).
Brazilian soy SEI-PCS, pre- and post-2017 (versions 2.5.0 and 2.6.2)
Branch flags
In this context we use the column called “BRANCH” to assign the flags.
pre-2017:
- To production, property: NO BRANCH
- To production, jurisdiction: 1.1 FARM IN STATE OF ORIGIN, 1.2 FARM NOT IN STATE OF ORIGIN
- To first facility, unique: 2.1 SILO IN STATE OF ORIGIN, 2.2 SILO NOT IN STATE OF ORIGIN, 3.1 CRUSHING/RETAIL IN MUNICIPALITY WITH FARM/SILO, 3.2 CRUSHING/RETAIL WITH SINGLE FARM/SILO IN STATE OF ORIGIN, 3.3.1 CRUSHING/RETAIL WITH SINGLE SICASQ FARM/SILO IN STATE OF ORIGIN
- To first facility, best option: 3.3.2 CRUSHING/RETAIL WITH CLOSEST SICASQ FARM/SILO IN STATE OF ORIGIN, 3.3.3 CRUSHING/RETAIL WITH CLOSEST FARM/SILO IN STATE OF ORIGIN
- To first facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, unique: 3.4 CRUSHING/RETAIL IN MUNICIPALITY WITH LARGE PRODUCTION
- To downstream facility, best option: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To port: 4.1 MUNICIPALITY WITH LARGE PRODUCTION
- Unknown, missing information: 3.6 NO ASSETS, 3.5 ASSETS BY NOT ENOUGH PRODUCTION
- Unknown, lack of data: NON-MARITIME SHIPMENTS
post-2017:
- To production, property: NO BRANCH
- To production, jurisdiction: NO BRANCH
- To first facility, unique: 1.1 - SILO IN SICARM, 1.2 - FARM/SILO IN RFB
- To first facility, best option: NO BRANCH
- To first facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, unique: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, best option: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, multiple options:
- To port: 1.3 - LARGE EXPORTER, 1.4 - LARGE PRODUCER, 2.1 - MDIC/CNPJ STATE + STICKY HUBS (CNPJ 14), 2.2 - MDIC/CNPJ STATE + STICKY HUBS (CNPJ 8), 2.3 - MDIC/CNPJ STATE + CLOSEST HUB, 3.1 - MDIC STATE + AVERAGE PORT-COMMODITY-STATE HUBS, 3.2 - MDIC STATE + AVERAGE COMMODITY-STATE HUBS, 3.3 - MDIC STATE + AVERAGE STATE HUBS
- Unknown, missing information: NO BRANCH
- Unknown, lack of data: NON-MARITIME SHIPMENTS
Note that the “Unknown” branch cannot be split at the moment. We also remove all potential links to “Unknown” in the flag designations.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
pre-2017, version 2.5.0
internal flags
## # A tibble: 12 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2016 To downstream facility, unique 2110493771. 67597525421. 3.1
## 2 2016 To first facility, best option 9214793579. 67597525421. 13.6
## 3 2016 To first facility, unique 37587316055. 67597525421. 55.6
## 4 2016 To port 106492239. 67597525421. 0.2
## 5 2016 To production, jurisdiction 11488255434. 67597525421. 17
## 6 2016 Unknown 7090174343. 67597525421. 10.5
## 7 2017 To downstream facility, unique 2671554493. 83966887863. 3.2
## 8 2017 To first facility, best option 13608749380. 83966887863. 16.2
## 9 2017 To first facility, unique 45415891155. 83966887863. 54.1
## 10 2017 To port 258859027. 83966887863. 0.3
## 11 2017 To production, jurisdiction 13660992063. 83966887863. 16.3
## 12 2017 Unknown 8350841745. 83966887863. 9.9external flags
## # A tibble: 10 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2016 To downstream facility 2110493771. 67597525421. 3.1
## 2 2016 To first facility 46802109634. 67597525421. 69.2
## 3 2016 To port 106492239. 67597525421. 0.2
## 4 2016 To production 11488255434. 67597525421. 17
## 5 2016 Unknown 7090174343. 67597525421. 10.5
## 6 2017 To downstream facility 2671554493. 83966887863. 3.2
## 7 2017 To first facility 59024640535. 83966887863. 70.3
## 8 2017 To port 258859027. 83966887863. 0.3
## 9 2017 To production 13660992063. 83966887863. 16.3
## 10 2017 Unknown 8350841745. 83966887863. 9.9post-2018, version 2.6.2
## # A tibble: 12 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2019 To first facility, unique 17659176622. 84226281555. 21
## 2 2019 To port 52493812827. 84226281555. 62.3
## 3 2019 Unknown 14073292106. 84226281555. 16.7
## 4 2020 To first facility, unique 20932314937. 97927559545. 21.4
## 5 2020 To port 59503594463. 97927559545. 60.8
## 6 2020 Unknown 17491650144. 97927559545. 17.9
## 7 2021 To first facility, unique 21887050717. 101621219832. 21.5
## 8 2021 To port 58594460469. 101621219832. 57.7
## 9 2021 Unknown 21139708647. 101621219832. 20.8
## 10 2022 To first facility, unique 15771778080. 93733864981. 16.8
## 11 2022 To port 56436335509. 93733864981. 60.2
## 12 2022 Unknown 21525751392. 93733864981. 23external flags
## # A tibble: 12 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2019 To first facility 17659176622. 84226281555. 21
## 2 2019 To port 52493812827. 84226281555. 62.3
## 3 2019 Unknown 14073292106. 84226281555. 16.7
## 4 2020 To first facility 20932314937. 97927559545. 21.4
## 5 2020 To port 59503594463. 97927559545. 60.8
## 6 2020 Unknown 17491650144. 97927559545. 17.9
## 7 2021 To first facility 21887050717. 101621219832. 21.5
## 8 2021 To port 58594460469. 101621219832. 57.7
## 9 2021 Unknown 21139708647. 101621219832. 20.8
## 10 2022 To first facility 15771778080. 93733864981. 16.8
## 11 2022 To port 56436335509. 93733864981. 60.2
## 12 2022 Unknown 21525751392. 93733864981. 23and now we plot the results for both versions in a time series
We now look at the external flags
The data flags can communicate the differences between the 2 versions
and across years. We should apply these same flags to the upcoming
version 2.7 to then see how it differs from 2.6, while also
disaggregating the “Unknown” category.
The next step is to share with Engagement is Brazil to get feedback on communication and whether these flags are more helpful than the previous proposal.
Brazilian beef SEI-PCS (version 2.2.1)
Branch flags
In this context we use the column called “BRANCH” to assign the flags.
- To production, property: NO BRANCH
- To production, jurisdiction: 0. live cattle
- To first facility, unique: “1.1 SIF
slaughterhouse”, “1.2 exporter SIF slaughterhouse in municipality”, “2.1
exporter single country SIF slaughterhouse in state of production”
- To first facility, best option: “1.2 exporter SIF slaughterhouse in municipality (multiple)”, “1.3 subsidiary SIF slaughterhouse in municipality”, “1.4 exporter non-SIF (GTA) slaughterhouse in municipality”
- To first facility, multiple options: “1.5.2
exporter SIF slaughterhouses in state within 4 hours country not in
SIF”, “1.5.1 exporter SIF slaughterhouses for country in state within 4
hours”, “1.6 subsidiary SIF slaughterhouses for country in state within
4 hours”
- To downstream facility, unique: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, best option: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To port: “1.7 unknown slaughterhouse in state”, “2.2 unknown slaughterhouse in state of production”, “3. unknown state of production”
- Unknown, missing information: all branched with
“(anonymised)”
- Unknown, lack of data:
Note that the “Unknown” branch cannot be split at the moment. We also remove all potential links to “Unknown” in the flag designations.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 79 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2010 To first facility, best option 32407554. 1767007886. 1.8
## 2 2010 To first facility, multiple options 46921686. 1767007886. 2.7
## 3 2010 To first facility, unique 1047439803. 1767007886. 59.3
## 4 2010 To port 350312035. 1767007886. 19.8
## 5 2010 Unknown 289926807. 1767007886. 16.4
## 6 2011 To first facility, best option 38010738. 1537158852. 2.5
## 7 2011 To first facility, multiple options 27279185. 1537158852. 1.8
## 8 2011 To first facility, unique 1065713943. 1537158852. 69.3
## 9 2011 To port 148454412. 1537158852. 9.7
## 10 2011 Unknown 257700574. 1537158852. 16.8
## # ℹ 69 more rowsexternal flags
## # A tibble: 12 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2019 To first facility 17659176622. 84226281555. 21
## 2 2019 To port 52493812827. 84226281555. 62.3
## 3 2019 Unknown 14073292106. 84226281555. 16.7
## 4 2020 To first facility 20932314937. 97927559545. 21.4
## 5 2020 To port 59503594463. 97927559545. 60.8
## 6 2020 Unknown 17491650144. 97927559545. 17.9
## 7 2021 To first facility 21887050717. 101621219832. 21.5
## 8 2021 To port 58594460469. 101621219832. 57.7
## 9 2021 Unknown 21139708647. 101621219832. 20.8
## 10 2022 To first facility 15771778080. 93733864981. 16.8
## 11 2022 To port 56436335509. 93733864981. 60.2
## 12 2022 Unknown 21525751392. 93733864981. 23and now we plot the results for both versions in a time series
We now look at the external flags
We need to confirm the data flags of some branches, specifically the differences between “To port” and “Unknown”, which we can further disaggregate. Some discussion is also warranted on the “first facility” assignments based on information used. The general process has been to consider all data to assign a facility and in cases where travel distance is included, means that a facility is select among “multiple” options, as opposed to the “best option” from additional information on company CNPJs.
The next step is to share with Engagement is Brazil to get feedback on communication and whether these flags are more helpful than the previous proposal.
Indonesian palm oil (version 1.2.4) in 2021 and 2022
Branch flags
In this context we use the column called “BRANCH” to assign the flags.
- To production, property: NO BRANCH
- To production, jurisdiction: NO BRANCH
- To first facility, unique: for CPO only, TRACEABILITY PRE-LP 1, TRACEABILITY LP 1
- To first facility, best option: for RPO only, TRACEABILITY PRE-LP 1, TRACEABILITY LP 1
- To first facility, multiple options: for RPO/CPO only, TRACEABILITY EXCESS PRE-LP1, TRACEABILITY EXCESS LP1
- To downstream facility, unique: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, best option: for RPO only, NO TRACEABILITY PRE-LP 2, NO TRACEABILITY LP 2
- To downstream facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To port: For CPO only, NO TRACEABILITY PRE-LP 2, NO TRACEABILITY LP 2
- Unknown, missing information: UNKNOWN LP 2, UNKNOWN PRE-LP 2
- Unknown, lack of data: Consider same as above for now
Note that the “Unknown” branch cannot be split at the moment.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 12 × 5
## year flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2021 To downstream facility, best option 2673877. 26690606. 10
## 2 2021 To first facility, best option 18863539. 26690606. 70.7
## 3 2021 To first facility, multiple options 797569. 26690606. 3
## 4 2021 To first facility, unique 1828179. 26690606. 6.8
## 5 2021 To port 103984. 26690606. 0.4
## 6 2021 Unknown 2423457. 26690606. 9.1
## 7 2022 To downstream facility, best option 2495974. 26005294. 9.6
## 8 2022 To first facility, best option 13897039. 26005294. 53.4
## 9 2022 To first facility, multiple options 50131. 26005294. 0.2
## 10 2022 To first facility, unique 851071. 26005294. 3.3
## 11 2022 To port 527384. 26005294. 2
## 12 2022 Unknown 8183694. 26005294. 31.5external flags
## # A tibble: 8 × 5
## year flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2021 To downstream facility 2673877. 26690606. 10
## 2 2021 To first facility 21489287. 26690606. 80.5
## 3 2021 To port 103984. 26690606. 0.4
## 4 2021 Unknown 2423457. 26690606. 9.1
## 5 2022 To downstream facility 2495974. 26005294. 9.6
## 6 2022 To first facility 14798241. 26005294. 56.9
## 7 2022 To port 527384. 26005294. 2
## 8 2022 Unknown 8183694. 26005294. 31.5
and external flags
We need to double the how “Unknown” are assigned because some of them are from the redistribution and should likely be given an actual flag. There needs to be a confirmation on the Branches called “LP” and “PRE-LP” which could not be derived simply from the code.
The next step is to share with Engagement is Indonesia to get feedback on communication and whether these flags are more helpful than the previous proposal.
Indonesian wood pulp (version 3.2.0) in years
In this context we use the column called “PULP_WOOD_SOURCE” to assign the flags.
Branch flags
- To production, property: “TRADER”
- To production, jurisdiction: “COMMUNITY”, “NATURAL FOREST”, “PLANTATION”
- To first facility, best option: “IMPORT”
- To first facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, unique: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, best option: NO BRANCH
- To downstream facility, multiple options: NO BRANCH
- To port: NO BRANCH
- Unknown, missing information: NO BRANCH
- Unknown, lack of data: NO BRANCH
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 25 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2015 To first facility, best option 111721187. 6786821695. 1.6
## 2 2015 To production, jurisdiction 6675100508. 6786821695. 98.4
## 3 2016 To first facility, best option 203793853 7181017018. 2.8
## 4 2016 To production, jurisdiction 6977223165. 7181017018. 97.2
## 5 2017 To first facility, best option 273766428. 8318468098. 3.3
## 6 2017 To production, jurisdiction 8011687443. 8318468098. 96.3
## 7 2017 To production, property 33014228. 8318468098. 0.4
## 8 2018 To first facility, best option 261871947. 8841092401. 3
## 9 2018 To production, jurisdiction 8514099204 8841092401. 96.3
## 10 2018 To production, property 65121251. 8841092401. 0.7
## # ℹ 15 more rowsexternal flags
## # A tibble: 19 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2015 To first facility 111721187. 6786821695. 1.6
## 2 2015 To production 6675100508. 6786821695. 98.4
## 3 2016 To first facility 203793853 7181017018. 2.8
## 4 2016 To production 6977223165. 7181017018. 97.2
## 5 2017 To first facility 273766428. 8318468098. 3.3
## 6 2017 To production 8044701670. 8318468098. 96.7
## 7 2018 To first facility 261871947. 8841092401. 3
## 8 2018 To production 8579220455. 8841092401. 97
## 9 2019 To first facility 445304174. 9098882122. 4.9
## 10 2019 To production 8653577948. 9098882122. 95.1
## 11 2020 To first facility 89545240. 9849263215. 0.9
## 12 2020 To production 9759717974. 9849263215. 99.1
## 13 2021 To production 9846355887. 9846355887. 100
## 14 2022 To first facility 35158253. 10030935042 0.4
## 15 2022 To production 9995776789. 10030935042 99.6
## 16 2023 To first facility 168481257. 11187861353. 1.5
## 17 2023 To production 11019380096 11187861353. 98.5
## 18 2024 To first facility 211246251. 11553829942. 1.8
## 19 2024 To production 11342583691 11553829942. 98.2
and external flags
We need to confirm that the branch assignments are correct.
The next step is to share with Engagement is Indonesia to get feedback on communication and whether these flags are more helpful than the previous proposal.
Cote d’Ivoire cocoa (version 1.1.0) in 2020-2024
Branch flags
The results actually do not carry any flags explicitly and so the suggestions below require further review from the context leads.
- To production, property: None
- To production, jurisdiction: None
- To first facility, unique: None
- To first facility, best option: All direct connections
- To first facility, multiple options: None
- To downstream facility, unique: None
- To downstream facility, best option: None
- To downstream facility, multiple options: Department of production is “INDIRECT SOURCING”
- To port: Department of production is UNKNOWN, but exporter is known
- Unknown, missing information: None
- Unknown, lack of data: None
Note that there does not seem to be any “Unknown” branch comparable to other SEI-PCS results.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 15 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2020 To downstream facility, multiple options 997163106. 1904047855. 52.4
## 2 2020 To first facility, best option 679090953. 1904047855. 35.7
## 3 2020 To port 227793796. 1904047855. 12
## 4 2021 To downstream facility, multiple options 876761516. 1979405137. 44.3
## 5 2021 To first facility, best option 776931040. 1979405137. 39.3
## 6 2021 To port 325712581. 1979405137. 16.5
## 7 2022 To downstream facility, multiple options 895294927. 1886301848. 47.5
## 8 2022 To first facility, best option 666354225. 1886301848. 35.3
## 9 2022 To port 324652696. 1886301848. 17.2
## 10 2023 To downstream facility, multiple options 820129148. 1765143331. 46.5
## 11 2023 To first facility, best option 598837322. 1765143331. 33.9
## 12 2023 To port 346176861. 1765143331. 19.6
## 13 2024 To downstream facility, multiple options 540243256. 1536045195. 35.2
## 14 2024 To first facility, best option 682659366. 1536045195. 44.4
## 15 2024 To port 313142573. 1536045195. 20.4external flags
## # A tibble: 15 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2020 To downstream facility 997163106. 1904047855. 52.4
## 2 2020 To first facility 679090953. 1904047855. 35.7
## 3 2020 To port 227793796. 1904047855. 12
## 4 2021 To downstream facility 876761516. 1979405137. 44.3
## 5 2021 To first facility 776931040. 1979405137. 39.3
## 6 2021 To port 325712581. 1979405137. 16.5
## 7 2022 To downstream facility 895294927. 1886301848. 47.5
## 8 2022 To first facility 666354225. 1886301848. 35.3
## 9 2022 To port 324652696. 1886301848. 17.2
## 10 2023 To downstream facility 820129148. 1765143331. 46.5
## 11 2023 To first facility 598837322. 1765143331. 33.9
## 12 2023 To port 346176861. 1765143331. 19.6
## 13 2024 To downstream facility 540243256. 1536045195. 35.2
## 14 2024 To first facility 682659366. 1536045195. 44.4
## 15 2024 To port 313142573. 1536045195. 20.4
and external flags
This context needs careful review from the context lead, only after all other contexts have been discussed.
Argentina soy (version 1.1.0) in 2015-2019
Branch flags
The results actually do not carry any flags explicitly and so the suggestions below require further review from the context leads.
- To production, property: No BRANCH
- To production, jurisdiction: No BRANCH
- To first facility, unique: No BRANCH
- To first facility, best option: No BRANCH
- To first facility, multiple options: No BRANCH
- To downstream facility, unique: No BRANCH
- To downstream facility, best option: Branch “2.1.1”
- To downstream facility, multiple options: No BRANCH
- To port: Branch “0” but PORT_OF_EXPORT is known, Branches “1.1”, “1.2”, “2.1.2”, “2.2.1”, “3”
- Unknown, missing information: Branch “0” and EXPORTER or PORT_OF_EXPORT is UNKNOWN
- Unknown, lack of data:
Note that there does not seem to be any “Unknown” branch comparable to other SEI-PCS results.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 15 × 5
## YEAR flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2015 To downstream facility, best option 3594928. 52024143. 6.9
## 2 2015 To port 48407089. 52024143. 93
## 3 2015 Unknown 22125. 52024143. 0
## 4 2016 To downstream facility, best option 4270917. 51540135. 8.3
## 5 2016 To port 47220148. 51540135. 91.6
## 6 2016 Unknown 49070. 51540135. 0.1
## 7 2017 To downstream facility, best option 3067686. 43225326. 7.1
## 8 2017 To port 37869629. 43225326. 87.6
## 9 2017 Unknown 2288011. 43225326. 5.3
## 10 2018 To downstream facility, best option 2724819. 33774823. 8.1
## 11 2018 To port 27649282. 33774823. 81.9
## 12 2018 Unknown 3400723. 33774823. 10.1
## 13 2019 To downstream facility, best option 6716928. 51061781. 13.2
## 14 2019 To port 44283370. 51061781. 86.7
## 15 2019 Unknown 61483. 51061781. 0.1external flags
## # A tibble: 15 × 5
## YEAR flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2015 To downstream facility 3594928. 52024143. 6.9
## 2 2015 To port 48407089. 52024143. 93
## 3 2015 Unknown 22125. 52024143. 0
## 4 2016 To downstream facility 4270917. 51540135. 8.3
## 5 2016 To port 47220148. 51540135. 91.6
## 6 2016 Unknown 49070. 51540135. 0.1
## 7 2017 To downstream facility 3067686. 43225326. 7.1
## 8 2017 To port 37869629. 43225326. 87.6
## 9 2017 Unknown 2288011. 43225326. 5.3
## 10 2018 To downstream facility 2724819. 33774823. 8.1
## 11 2018 To port 27649282. 33774823. 81.9
## 12 2018 Unknown 3400723. 33774823. 10.1
## 13 2019 To downstream facility 6716928. 51061781. 13.2
## 14 2019 To port 44283370. 51061781. 86.7
## 15 2019 Unknown 61483. 51061781. 0.1
and external flags
Nothing to add at this point, perhaps some improvement could be made to differentiate the fact that there is a Siogranos dataset to improve the link to production.
Paraguay soy (version 1.2.3) in 2014-2019
Branch flags
The results actually do not carry any flags explicitly and so the suggestions below require further review from the context leads.
- To production, property: None
- To production, jurisdiction: None
- To first facility, unique: None
- To first facility, best option: commodity is “bean” and trader has silos
- To first facility, multiple options:
- To downstream facility, unique:
- To downstream facility, best option: commodity is “bean”, “cake”, “oils” or “waster” and trader has facilities
- To downstream facility, multiple options:
- To port: any commodity for which a trader does not have silos, crushing facilities
- Unknown, missing information: None
- Unknown, lack of data:
Note that there does not seem to be any “Unknown” branch comparable to other SEI-PCS results.
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 18 × 5
## year flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2014 To downstream facility, best option 2258142. 7904494. 28.6
## 2 2014 To first facility, best option 3684785. 7904494. 46.6
## 3 2014 To port 1961567. 7904494. 24.8
## 4 2015 To downstream facility, best option 2302230. 7528572. 30.6
## 5 2015 To first facility, best option 2510576. 7528572. 33.3
## 6 2015 To port 2715766. 7528572. 36.1
## 7 2016 To downstream facility, best option 2522181. 8239094. 30.6
## 8 2016 To first facility, best option 2570247. 8239094. 31.2
## 9 2016 To port 3146666. 8239094. 38.2
## 10 2017 To downstream facility, best option 2176359. 8192162. 26.6
## 11 2017 To first facility, best option 2763787. 8192162. 33.7
## 12 2017 To port 3252017. 8192162. 39.7
## 13 2018 To downstream facility, best option 2107486. 8590177. 24.5
## 14 2018 To first facility, best option 2286559. 8590177. 26.6
## 15 2018 To port 4196132. 8590177. 48.8
## 16 2019 To downstream facility, best option 2044548. 7353736. 27.8
## 17 2019 To first facility, best option 1871133. 7353736. 25.4
## 18 2019 To port 3438055. 7353736. 46.8external flags
## # A tibble: 18 × 5
## year flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2014 To downstream facility 2258142. 7904494. 28.6
## 2 2014 To first facility 3684785. 7904494. 46.6
## 3 2014 To port 1961567. 7904494. 24.8
## 4 2015 To downstream facility 2302230. 7528572. 30.6
## 5 2015 To first facility 2510576. 7528572. 33.3
## 6 2015 To port 2715766. 7528572. 36.1
## 7 2016 To downstream facility 2522181. 8239094. 30.6
## 8 2016 To first facility 2570247. 8239094. 31.2
## 9 2016 To port 3146666. 8239094. 38.2
## 10 2017 To downstream facility 2176359. 8192162. 26.6
## 11 2017 To first facility 2763787. 8192162. 33.7
## 12 2017 To port 3252017. 8192162. 39.7
## 13 2018 To downstream facility 2107486. 8590177. 24.5
## 14 2018 To first facility 2286559. 8590177. 26.6
## 15 2018 To port 4196132. 8590177. 48.8
## 16 2019 To downstream facility 2044548. 7353736. 27.8
## 17 2019 To first facility 1871133. 7353736. 25.4
## 18 2019 To port 3438055. 7353736. 46.8
and external flags
Need more discussion about the role of “applying discounts” to the LP and decide whether the flag should be “best option” vs. “multiple options” in both bean and crushed bean cases,
Bolivia soy (version 1.0.0) in 2018-2021
The results actually do not carry any flags explicitly and so the suggestions below require further review from the context leads.
- To production, property: None
- To production, jurisdiction: None
- To first facility, unique: None
- To first facility, best option:
- To first facility, multiple options:
- To downstream facility, unique:
- To downstream facility, best option: commodity is “SOYBEAN CAKE”, “SOYBEAN OIL” or “SOYBEAN RESIDUE”, branch is “1”, “2a” or “2b” and status is “SOLVED TO CRUSHER”
- To downstream facility, multiple options: commodity is “SOYBEAN CAKE”, “SOYBEAN OIL” or “SOYBEAN RESIDUE” branch is “1”, 2a” or “2b” and status is “TO_LP”
- To port: commodity is “SOYBEANS” and status is “TO_LP”
- Unknown, missing information: None
- Unknown, lack of data: None
Results
Once we assign the flags, we can look at the internal flags to compare results:
## # A tibble: 10 × 5
## year flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2018 To downstream facility, best option 2075226. 2496349. 83.1
## 2 2018 To downstream facility, multiple options 421123. 2496349. 16.9
## 3 2019 To downstream facility, best option 2095954. 2643665. 79.3
## 4 2019 To downstream facility, multiple options 547711. 2643665. 20.7
## 5 2019 To port 0.237 2643665. 0
## 6 2020 To downstream facility, best option 1621426. 2102642. 77.1
## 7 2020 To downstream facility, multiple options 77729. 2102642. 3.7
## 8 2020 To port 403487. 2102642. 19.2
## 9 2021 To downstream facility, best option 1526530. 2533805. 60.2
## 10 2021 To port 1007275. 2533805. 39.8external flags
## # A tibble: 7 × 5
## year flag_ext vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2018 To downstream facility 2496349. 2496349. 100
## 2 2019 To downstream facility 2643665. 2643665. 100
## 3 2019 To port 0.237 2643665. 0
## 4 2020 To downstream facility 1699154. 2102642. 80.8
## 5 2020 To port 403487. 2102642. 19.2
## 6 2021 To downstream facility 1526530. 2533805. 60.2
## 7 2021 To port 1007275. 2533805. 39.8
and external flags
Need more discussion about how to link “SOYBEANS” as there seems to be an issue with the branch designation compared to the method document online.
South American soy assessment
We now combining the soy supply chains of Brazil, Paraguya, Bolivia and Argentina to get a sense of transparency in the supply chain of South American soy.
## # A tibble: 12 × 6
## year country flag_int vol vol_tot pct
## <chr> <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
## 1 2019 ARGENTINA To downstream facility, best option 6.72e+ 6 8.43e10 0.008
## 2 2019 ARGENTINA To port 4.43e+ 7 8.43e10 0.053
## 3 2019 ARGENTINA Unknown 6.15e+ 4 8.43e10 0
## 4 2019 BOLIVIA To downstream facility, best option 2.10e+ 6 8.43e10 0.002
## 5 2019 BOLIVIA To downstream facility, multiple opt… 5.48e+ 5 8.43e10 0.001
## 6 2019 BOLIVIA To port 2.37e- 1 8.43e10 0
## 7 2019 BRAZIL To first facility, unique 1.77e+10 8.43e10 21.0
## 8 2019 BRAZIL To port 5.25e+10 8.43e10 62.3
## 9 2019 BRAZIL Unknown 1.41e+10 8.43e10 16.7
## 10 2019 PARAGUAY To downstream facility, best option 2.04e+ 6 8.43e10 0.002
## 11 2019 PARAGUAY To first facility, best option 1.87e+ 6 8.43e10 0.002
## 12 2019 PARAGUAY To port 3.44e+ 6 8.43e10 0.004There isn’t anything interesting about looking at all of South America because the majority of the production takes place in Brazil, making other volumes very small (and overwhelmed).
The proposal is to add these flags in a research context to Brazilian soy only, perhaps taking the opporunity to make a research paper that would also add these nuances to connections made in the supply chain.