UNFCCC secretariat, programme Matthew Dudley, Programme Officer Second workshop on the revision of the UNFCCC Annex I reporting guidelines Methodological issues related to reporting when using the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Part I: AFOLU – reporting implications Part II: Other reporting implications Bonn, Germany, 3–4 November 2010

Part I: AFOLU reporting implications Part I: Party submissions on AFOLU in the context of this work programme Key (accounting) points raised by Parties relate to the managed land proxy (MLP), inter- annual variability and factoring out of emissions a)Some submissions referred to outcomes contained in the IPCC expert meeting report on MLP, especially techniques identified therein to separate non-/anthropogenic emissions. b)Others suggested that consideration of these matters should be deferred until accounting rules for AFOLU/LULUCF under AWG are agreed. However a)2006 IPCC Guidelines include provisions for using MLP as a proxy to estimate emissions/removals for the AFOLU sector. b)AWG is a separate body and process, and the linkages with it are clearly acknowledged in the work programme agreed at SBSTA 32 (i.e. the work programme is not rigid and provides flexibility).

Part I: AFOLU reporting implications Part I: Party submissions on AFOLU in the context of this work programme Key reporting points raised relate to a)AFOLU reporting in the context of the MLP, inter-annual variability and factoring out of emissions (impacts both the NIR and the CRF) b)AFOLU in relation to the common reporting format (CRF) tables. c)Need to provide guidance to Parties on mapping of agriculture and LULUCF to AFOLU and how this mapping relates to the NIR and the CRF reporting. However, a)Item a) above is tricky in the context of the moving forward in the work programme as these issues are under consideration in other Bodies under the Convention. b)The impact of AFOLU on the CRF is not a significant hurdle to overcome, but Parties will need to be clear on the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ it is to be incorporated.

Part I: AFOLU reporting implications Part I: What are the Party-identified implications of AFOLU on reporting when compared to the current UNFCCC RGLs? NIR a)Straight-forward if considering AFOLU as a construct comprising agriculture and LULUCF that are both already in the NIR of the current RGLs. b)Transparency is key. c)„Accounting“ considerations should be incorporated in the future once these are agreed by AWGs. CRF a)Change management in incorporating AFOLU construct in CRF tables Sectoral tables, sectoral background data tables Trend tables Total net emissions (accounting issue)

Part I: AFOLU reporting implications Part I: What are the Party-identified implications of AFOLU on reporting when compared to the current UNFCCC RGLs (continued)? Discussion points in relation to the NIR There are nuances introduced by the AFOLU construct when compared to agriculture and LULUCF of the current UNFCCC RGLs a)New structure and categorization – should there be mapping from agriculture and LULUCF to AFOLU provided in the revised UNFCC Annex I RGLs? b)Mandatory versus non-mandatory – a Party submission flagged potential under the new structure where a non-mandatory category in the current UNFCCC RGLs may fall under a mandatory category under the AFOLU construct. Is this an issue for reporting and if so, how can this be managed? c)„Accounting“, methodological and reporting considerations – with respect to MLP, interannual variation, factoring out of emissions, effects of using higher tier methods on emissions, harvested wood products, wetlands etc – what additional supplementary information could be included in a revised UNFCCC Annex I RGLs to guide Parties in reporting on these? Anything else?

Part I: AFOLU reporting implications Part I: What are the Party-identified implications of AFOLU on reporting when compared to the current UNFCCC RGLs (continued)? Discussion points in relation to the CRF Can the current approach in reporting be continued with a separation of agriculture and LULUCF? a)If so, can an overarching sectoral report table (SRT) and/or sectoral background data table (SBDT) for „AFOLU“ be created? b)Are SBDTs under the revised RGLs to prescribe a single unit of activity data for comparability purposes? c)With respect to the cross-cutting and trend CRF tables, would the separation of „AFOLU“ into its components also be mainatined in these tables? Anything else?

Part II: Other reporting implications Part II: Party submissions on other reporting implications in the context of this work programme Focus on reporting of indirect CO 2 and indirect N 2 O emissions Interpret language from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines that a)Reporting of these emisisons is voluntary, or b)Report on these emissions and to include these in total GHG emissions (for completeness reasons and ensuring no potential underestimations of emissions). However, a)2006 IPCC guidelines do not provide methodologies to estimate emissions from the precursors (methane is the exception); b)(Holistic implications) Related issues concerning what is good practice in estimating pre-cursor emissions, and requirements to expert review these precursor emissions. With respect to indirect CO 2 emissions, clarifications required on the conditions under which Parties may report these emissions (what tier, which sectors to report, temporal).

Part II: Other reporting implications Part II: Party submissions on other reporting implications in the context of this work programme (continued) Issues on the previous slide are essentially „accounting“ issues. However: What are the specific methodological concerns of Parties in relation to estimating indirect CO 2 and N 2 O emissions? What does not the 2006 IPCC Guidelines provide in relation to the specific sector allocation of indirect emissions? What is the nature of the temporal issue raised? To resolve the above, what additional guidance can be provided in the revised UNFCCC Annex I RGLs to assist Parties in reporting these emissions? Regardless of whether mandatory/voluntary, ‚where‘ and ‚how‘ are these emissions to be reported (e.g. separate CRF table? Or...?)