1. 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

2. 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

3. 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).

4. 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: ms/10006.php

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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 .

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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?>>

24. Thank you!