Presentation title Consistency and the use of the new UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting and review guidelines 14th Meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In addition, the KP LULUCF tables also include: R (reported) andNR (not reported) for not elected 3.4 activities NA (not applicable) should de used Definitions.
Advertisements

Workshop on Inventories and Projections of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste under WG 1 and 2 of the Climate Change Committee Presentation of UNFCCC.
Reporting requirements and review of the LULUCF Sector By Jenny L P Wong Methods, Inventories and Science UNFCCC Secretariat Improving the Quality of Community.
Experience and problems encountered in first year of LULUCF reporting under Kyoto Protocol in Slovakia Tibor Priwitzer
Pools to be reported under KP- LULUCF: harmonized guidance and decision tree on the application of not a source principle By G. Grassi, V. Blujdea with.
NATIONAL SYSTEMS UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL EC workshop on Quality Control and Quality Assurance of Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the Establishment.
IPCC Good Practices Guidance and the electronic reporting of GHG inventory tables: useful tools for improving the quality of national GHG inventories of.
Consideration of LULUCF activities... Thelma Krug Ministry of the Environment.
1 Workshop on inventories of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and navigation May 2004, Copenhagen EU greenhouse gas emission trends and projections.
1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION CLIMATE CHANGE UNIT ICAO/UNFCCC expert meeting Montreal, April 2004 Hartmut Behrend European Commission DG ENV.C.2, Brussels.
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Revisiting the Use of Managed Land as a Proxy for Estimating National Anthropogenic Emissions and Removals.
Climate Change Committee WG1 QA/QC terminology and requirements from the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and the Guidelines for National Inventory Systems.
CGE Hands-on Training Workshop on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the Latin American and Caribbean Region Panama City, Panama, October 2004.
The New Market Mechanism Emissions Trading – Developments in China & Europe Workshop 25 th April 2012 Dr Luke Redmond
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Tier 3 Approaches, Complex Models or Direct Measurements, in Greenhouse Gas Inventories Report of the.
Presentation title Workshop on the implications of the implementation of decisions 2/CMP.7 to 4/CMP.7 and 1/CMP.8 on the previous decisions on methodological.
LESSONS LEARNT AND GOOD PRACTICE FOR REPORTING OF NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS BY NAI.
Presentation title Overview of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) for developing country Parties under the Climate Change Convention Asia Pacific.
Inventory Management Systems Developing a National System for GHG Inventories Lisa Hanle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency October 29, 2004 Panama City,
1 Workshop on Quality Control and Quality Assurance of Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the Establishment of National Inventory Systems 2-3 September 2004.
Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount under the Kyoto Protocol Clare Breidenich UNFCCC Consultant.
WMO UNEP INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES PROGRAMME WMO UNEP IPCC Good Practice Guidance Simon Eggleston Technical.
Climate Change Committee WG1 QA/QC procedures and – programme for the EC inventory process André Jol, EEA 2 September 2004.
The UNFCCC guidelines on national GHG inventories (Decision 17/CP.8) Panama City, Panama 25 – 29 October 2004 Dominique Revet (UNFCCC)
QC/QA and the establishment of the Portuguese National System Workshop on QC/QA of GHG Inventories and the establishment of National Inventory Systems.
6. Special Functionalities John Watterson & Melissa Downes.
Training Workshop on the use of the CRF Reporter for European Community Experts Introduction Copenhagen – 12 September 2005 James Grabert Inventories sub-programme.
Firstname Lastname, Job Title CGE SURVEY RESULTS ON DIFFICULTIES, CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY NON-ANNEX I PARTIES IN USING THE GUIDELINES IN.
Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Requirements and capacity-building needs of the UNFCCC Process Expert Forum for producers and users of.
Workshop on common metrics to calculate the CO 2 equivalence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks Javier Hanna, UNFCCC.
Canada’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Presentation to the Oslo Group February 2009 Frank Neitzert, P. Eng Chief, Energy Section Greenhouse Gas Division.
Quality assurance / Quality control system for the Greek GHG emissions inventory Yannis Sarafidis, Elena Georgopoulou UNFCCC Workshop on National Systems.
Basics of GHG inventory preparation and Introduction to the IPCC Guidelines and Good Practice Guidelines UNFCCC Workshop on the use of the guidelines.
National Forest Monitoring Systems: M & MRV in the context of REDD+ Activities MJ Sanz, FAO REDD MRV Workshop for developing a roadmap to establish an.
SECTION IV: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF STEPS TAKEN OR ENVISAGED BY NON-ANNEX I PARTY TO IMPLEMENT THE CONVENTION Workshop on the Use of the Guidelines for.
UNFCCC secretariat Ruta Bubniene, Programme officer, Reporting and Review unit, Mitigation and Data Analysis programme Overview of the synthesis report.
1 National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Dominique REVET Programme Officer UNFCCC secretariat Reporting.
Current situation concerning national inventory system in Ukraine 1. Previous national inventories Up to date 3 national inventories were prepared and.
Training Materials for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) CGE Training Materials National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
UNFCCC secretariat, programme Matthew Dudley, Programme Officer Second workshop on the revision of the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines Methodological.
Guidelines for non-Annex I National Communications Implications for Assessment of Impacts of, and Adaptation to Climate Change Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop.
Forest Management Reference Level (FMRL): methodological consistency and technical corrections Giacomo Grassi European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
1 NATIONAL SYSTEMS UNFCCC Workshop on National Systems under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol 11–12 April 2005 Wissenschaftszentrum, Bonn,
. Thematic Working Group 4 Possible Elements – Chapter VI: Constraints, gaps and related financial, technical and capacity needs CGE Workshop to exchange.
Informal Summary of LULUCF Technical Briefing: SBSTA 39 Overview of presentations and discussion.
UNFCCC Workshop on the Use of the Guidelines for the Preparation of National Communications from non-Annex I Parties National GHG Inventories Port Louis,
EU Workshop on Uncertainties in GHG inventories Uncertainty estimation of MS Anke Herold, ETC-ACC Suvi Monni, VTT Technical Research Centre, Finland Sanna.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Verification
11–12 April 2005 Wissenschaftszentrum, Bonn, Germany
Statistics and indicators – GHG review cycle 2016
Data warehouse & associated reports
Presentation title User-friendly document – reporting, accounting and review – second commitment period KP 14th meeting of GHG inventory Lead Reviewers.
COP and CMP negotiations relating to Annex I GHG inventories
Presentation title Second workshop on the revision of the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines Implications on revised UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines.
CAFE SG 23 November Brussels
14th meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers
Submissions & CRF Reporter
Presentation title Integrated template for the NC7 in-depth review report and the BR3 technical review report 5th Lead Reviewers Meeting Bonn, 28 February-1.
HANDBOOK FOR THE REVIEW OF NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORIES
Information on the work of the AWG-KP in accordance with decision 4/CMP.3 Claudio Forner UNFCCC secretariat 8 consultants.
Presentation title An Overview of Parties’ Submissions on the Review Guidelines for the GHG inventories, national communications and biennial reports Technical.
An Overview of the Draft Review Guidelines
Presentation title Second workshop on the revision of the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines Emission Factor Database Bonn, Germany, 3–4 November 2010.
TFEIP Workshop on Emission Projections
Javier Hanna, UNFCCC secretariat, MDA
Presentation title Second workshop on the revision of the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines Time-series consistency and recalculations Bonn, Germany,
General Discussion Conclusions:
Enhanced transparency framework and examples of flexibilities
Presentation title Bonn, Germany, September 2017
Presentation title Conclusions of 13th meeting of lead reviewers of GHG inventories –follow-up 14th meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers Bonn, Germany,
Presentation transcript:

Presentation title Consistency and the use of the new UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting and review guidelines 14th Meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers Bonn (Germany), 8 – 9 March 2017 Lisa Hanle– UNFCCC secretariat – Mitigation, Data and Analysis Programme

Discussing Consistency Outline Presentation title Discussing Consistency Outline 1. Introducing the background paper 2. Consistency issues identified during 2016 review cycle 3. Possible elements of the conclusions

Background Ensuring consistency across reviews is a primary responsibility of LRs, supported by the secretariat and the ERTs. LRs should ensure that the reviews in which they participate are performed by each ERT according to the relevant review guidelines and consistently across Parties (13/CP.20, annex, para. 42). The secretariat … shall summarize information on issues raised in the reviews to facilitate the work of LRs in fulfilling their task to ensure consistency in the reviews across Parties (13/CP.20, annex, para. 51). Particularly important for LRs, ERTs and the secretariat to identify and document possible consistency issues arising from the use of the new UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting and review guidelines, as well as in relation to the conduct of desk reviews, for consideration at future meetings of LRs (para. 26 of 12th LR meeting conclusions). Potential issues for the paper were compiled based on the issues discussed and questions raised during the review weeks (e.g. during wrap up meetings) and after the review (e.g. during the QA process).

Overview of Paper Background Paper organized into three broad sections Should an issue be included in a Saturday Paper? Is the finding to be addressed by a recommendation or an encouragement? Other consistency issues. Paper not exhaustive; this presentation highlights select issues Add any other issues from your experience Focus on those issues you as LRs find most relevant As we are discussing, consider if LR conclusions on a particular issue could help enhance consistency across reviews Paper available at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/review_process/ite ms/10006.php

Significance Threshold: An Overview of Questions Presentation title Significance Threshold: An Overview of Questions If a Party demonstrates, to the ERT’s satisfaction, that a category is insignificant during the review week, but the information was not in the NIR, should it go in the Saturday Paper? Should an ERT include an issue in the Saturday Paper, if it estimates that the magnitude of emissions in question falls below the significance threshold? Does the application of the significance threshold apply to both source and sink categories? Some (smaller) questions/issues: Some ERTs have agreed with a Party reporting part of a category as insignificant (e.g. a single plant or mine). Is there a need to confirm significance can only be applied at the category/gas level? If a Party demonstrates insignificance during the review week is the remaining issue one of completeness or transparency?

Significance Threshold: Relevant Decisions 24/CP.19, annex, para. 37(b). …Furthermore, a Party may consider that a disproportionate amount of effort would be required to collect data for a gas from a specific category7 that would be insignificant in terms of the overall level and trend in national emissions and in such cases use the notation key “NE”. The Party should in the NIR provide justifications for exclusion in terms of the likely level of emissions. An emission should only be considered insignificant if the likely level of emissions is below 0.05 per cent of the national total GHG emissions,8 and does not exceed 500 kt CO2 eq. The total national aggregate of estimated emissions for all gases and categories considered insignificant shall remain below 0.1 per cent of the national total GHG emissions.9 Parties should use approximated AD and default IPCC EFs to derive a likely level of emissions for the respective category…. 7 Category as defined in the CRF tables. 8 “National total GHG emissions” refers to the total GHG emissions without LULUCF for the latest reported inventory year. 9 As footnote 8 above.

Significance Threshold: Relevant Decisions 22/CMP.1, annex, para. 73. The expert review team shall list all problems identified, indicating which would need an adjustment, and send this list to the Party. 22/CMP.1, annex, para. 80(b), amended by 4/CMP.11… The adjustment procedure should only commence after the Party has had an opportunity to correct a problem and if the ERT finds that the Party has not adequately corrected the problem through the provision of an acceptable revised estimate, …and if the ERT assumes that the change resulting from the adjustment will be above the threshold given in paragraph 37 of the annex to decision 24/CP.19 .

Significance Threshold: Possible Approach If a Party demonstrates, to the ERT’s satisfaction, that a category is insignificant during the review week, should it go in the Saturday Paper? No, however, the ERT and the Party might have to take this into account when responding to the Saturday Paper, as the Party may want to exclude additional categories in response to the SP. The ARR could include a recommendation to demonstrate insignificance in the NIR. Should an ERT include an issue in the Saturday Paper, if it knows that the magnitude of emissions in question falls below the significance threshold? Yes, unless the Party can demonstrate insignificance as in #1 above. Para. 73 suggests all potential problems are included in the SP, it is only the adjustment phase that does not proceed. Possible Possible

Significance Threshold: Possible Approach 3. Does the application of the significance threshold apply to both source and sink categories? Footnote 7 refers to “category as defined in the CRF tables”; seems to include sinks. Would need to consider how to apply the threshold (e.g. assume absolute value of the sink). 24/CP.19 is clear that for the purposes of calculating the percentage, the denominator would continue to exclude LULUCF. Possible

SP Issues for Parties with CP Accounting Presentation title SP Issues for Parties with CP Accounting Is there a difference regarding which KP-LULUCF issues are to be included in the Saturday Paper for Parties with annual accounting versus those with commitment period accounting? Decision 2/CMP.8, annex II, refers to “Information on KP LULUCF activities in annual greenhouse gas inventories”. General information to report “shall include” (inter alia) 2 (a): Information on how methodologies have been applied… 2 (e) Information on which, if any, of the following pools – AG biomass, BG biomass, litter, DW and/or SOC– were not accounted for, together with verifiable information that demonstrates that these unaccounted pools were not a net source of anthropogenic GHG emissions

SP Issues for Parties with CP Accounting Presentation title SP Issues for Parties with CP Accounting Recognizing that 13/CP.20 already includes a process for highlighting issues prominently if not resolved in a satisfactory time frame, and Recognizing that these issues don’t have an impact on accounting until the end of the commitment period, Do not include issues related to accounting in the Saturday Paper for Parties with commitment period accounting. Possible Possible

Recommendation or an Encouragement? Highlighted in presentation 1. Comparisons with international data? 2. Split of domestic/international bunkers? 3. Sectoral allocation of emissions? 4. Use of notation keys in CRF tables? Others discussed in background paper 5. Inclusion of Inventory Improvement plan in the NIR? 6. Describing trends in the NIR? 7. Providing quantitative impacts of recalculations?

Comparisons with International Data? Presentation title Comparisons with International Data? Is a Party required to describe in the NIR differences between data submitted to the UNFCCC and data submitted to other international organizations? There are no explicit reporting requirements. However, in the review guidelines: 13/CP.20, annex, paras. 69(b): Secretariat to identify irregularities in AD compared with other authoritative sources. 13/CP.20, annex, para. 77: ERT may compare data with authoritative sources and identify whether there are significant differences which have not been explained by the Party. Recommendation to investigate further may be relevant if there is a question of accuracy or time series consistency of data reported to the UNFCCC. Recommendations should not be made to explain differences in the NIR Possible

Split between domestic and international bunkers? Presentation title Split between domestic and international bunkers? If a Party has difficulty splitting fuel consumption for domestic and international aviation/navigation, does this lead to a recommendation or an encouragement? “Annex I Parties should make every effort to both apply and report according to the method contained in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for separating domestic and international emissions”(24/CP.19, annex, para. 34). An encouragement as long as the ERT is convinced that domestic emissions are not underestimated, and if the Party has made its best effort and documented that due to national circumstances further refinements not possible. Possible

Allocation different than 2006 IPCC Guidelines Presentation title Allocation different than 2006 IPCC Guidelines If a Party reports AD or emissions as “IE” and allocates differently than expected from the 2006 IPCC GL should there be a recommendation to follow the methods and allocation in the 2006 IPCC GL? “Annex I Parties shall use the methodologies” (para. 9, 24/CP.19) …” may use different methods if necessary due to national circumstances and if properly documented (para. 11, 24/CP.19) “IE” is a viable notation key according to paragraph 37(b) of 24/CP.19 ERT’s could give an encouragement, if the reason for the allocation was properly documented in the NIR. If not properly documented, then a recommendation to properly document allocation and an encouragement to change the allocation. Possible

How to handle blank cells in the CRF tables? Presentation title How to handle blank cells in the CRF tables? To avoid blank cells, are Parties required to use notation keys to complete all cells in the CRF tables or is this just an encouragement? Parties should report emission estimates or notation keys (para. 32 of 24/CP.19) Parties should use the notation keys…to fill in the blanks in all the CRF tables (para. 37) Parties shall submit annually…the information required in the CRF tables (para. 53) Parties should use the notation keys,…in all the CRF tables to fill in the cells where no quantitative data are directly entered (para. 57) Recommendation to use notation keys to fill in blank cells; completeness of information is essential consistent with para. 53. Possible

Other Consistency Issues: How would you respond? Highlighted in presentation Unexpected changes (to SP categories or other categories) included in revised CRF tables submitted in response to Saturday Paper What to include in the ARR if next review is recommended as an ICR? Party moves to a lower tier in response to previous recommendations Others discussed in background paper 4. How to handle broad recommendations? Impossible to address 100% 5. How to classify issues in table 3?

Unexpected Recalculations in the Saturday Paper? Presentation title Unexpected Recalculations in the Saturday Paper? What should the ERT do if revised CRF tables submitted in response to the SP include other changes not directed by the ERT? “The Party…shall comment on these questions within six weeks and, where requested by the review team, may provide revised estimates” (para. 74 of 22/CMP.1) No. Any decreases in the commitment period year(s) should be in response to specific issues identified in the Saturday Paper. There may be cases where additional changes that don’t lead to decreases in emissions are included, but this should only be accepted if discussed and agreed by the ERT/Party during the review week. If unexpected changes are submitted, the ERT would ideally request resubmission of the CRF tables excluding the additional changes. Possible

Recommending an In-Country Review? Presentation title Recommending an In-Country Review? If an ERT recommends that the next review be an in-country review, what type of supporting documentation should be provided in the ARR? “The ERT shall provide in the review report a rationale for the additional in country review as well as a list of question and issues to be addressed during the in-country review” (para.64 of 13/CP.20). Information should be provided to help guide the Party and the next ERT in the areas particularly in need of a review. As decision 13/CP.20 specifically requests a list of questions and issues to be provided, this would seem to require more information than is included in tables 3 and 5 of the ARR. The current ARR provides a possible outline for consideration (next slide). Possible

Recommending an In-Country Review? Presentation title Recommending an In-Country Review? Possible

Moving to Tier 1 in Response to Previous Recommendation Presentation title Moving to Tier 1 in Response to Previous Recommendation Different cases were observed last year where Parties have reverted to a tier 1 approach to respond to ERT’s earlier recommendation (e.g. using default NCVs and to address TSC issues related to EU ETS). How should an ERT respond? An objective of 24/CP.19 is to assist Parties in improving the quality of the inventory (para. 2). Moving to a lower tier seems counter to the objective of the review process. The current ERT could discuss the circumstances of the Party during the review week and work together with the Party to identify an appropriate recommendation to resolve the issue, without using more uncertain methods. Possible

Presentation title For thought? There is a large range in the number of findings in the ARRs of Parties. Variability is expected, but could guidance be provided to improve the efficiency of the process, while continuing to meet objectives of the technical review?

Possible elements of LRs conclusions Recognizing that the promotion of consistency across reviews is a primary responsibility for lead reviewers you may consider whether guidance could be provided to ERTs on the use of the revised reporting and review guidelines for the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, based on experience during the 2016 review cycle. Based on these discussions, the Lead Reviewers concluded that the following clarifications should be made in the introductory presentations made by the secretariat and the lead reviewers at the onset of each review week in 2017: <<insert clarifications- maybe have examples on significance threshold and on the ICR in particular?>>

Thank you!