FCCC/IRR/2016/country code
/ United Nations / FCCC/IRR/2016/#country code Sec could complete BEFORE the review/ Distr.: General
14 February 2016
English only
Report of the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of #Party
Note by the expert review team
Contents
ParagraphsPage
I.Introduction......
II.Summary of the reporting on mandatory elements in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount
III.Technical assessment of the elements reviewed......
IV.Questions of implementation......
Annexes
Annex I. Key relevant data for the Party......
Annex I..Additional information on adjustments......
Annex III. Additional information on the review of the national system and the national registry
Annex IV.Documents and information used during the review......
Annex V.Acronyms and abbreviations......
Statement submitted by Party
[Comment by #Party][#Party chose not to provide comments on this report.]
I.Introduction
1.The review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount) of #Party,was organized by the UNFCCC secretariat, in accordance with the “Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”.[1]The review took place from date to datemonthyear in City, Country, and was coordinated by Review Officer (UNFCCC secretariat). Table 1 provides information on the composition of the expert review team (ERT).
2.A draft version of this report was communicated to the Government of #Party which [provided no comments] [provided comments that were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into this final version of the report].
Table 1
Composition of the expert review team
Area of expertise / Name / PartyGeneralist / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
Energy / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
IPPU / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
Agriculture / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
LULUCF / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
Waste / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
Lead reviewers / [Mr.][Ms.]
[Mr.][Ms.]
Abbreviations:IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.
II.Summary of the reporting on mandatory elements in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount
3.Table 2 provides a summary of the ERT’s assessment of the reporting of mandatory elements by #Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount. Key data and elections by the Party are included in Annex I, table 5.
Table 2
ERT’s assessment of the reporting of mandatory elements by #Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount
Item / Reported / CommentGeneral Party information
Date[s] of submission / Original submission: Date
Revised submission(s): Date
Is the GHG inventory for the base year or period complete for Annex A sources? / [Yes][No]
1. Energy
2.IPPU
3. Agriculture
4.Waste
Was the GHG inventory recalculated in accordance with decision 4/CMP.7 for all years from [1990][#other approved base year or period under Article 3, paragraph 5, of the Kyoto Protocol] to the most recent year available? / [Yes][No] / [For further information seeID#Xbelow]
Only applicable for Parties without a QELRC in CP1 Did the Party report the base year for HFCs, PFCs and SF6? / [Yes][No] / See table 5 below.[For further information seeID#Xbelow]
Did the Party report the base year for NF3? / [Yes][No] / See table 5 below.[For further information seeID#Xbelow]
Agreement by the Party under Article 4 to implement commitments jointly[Include this section for EU only)]
Has complete information been reported in accordance with decision 3/CMP.11, paragraph 11 regarding methodologies, and if applicable, any relevant assumptions by the Party in fullfilment of its Article 4 agreement in relation to the following:
1.Application of paragraphs 23–26 of decision 1/CMP.8 / [Yes][No] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
2. Calculation of base year emissions / [Yes][No] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
3Calculation of theassigned amount / [Yes][No] / See table 5 below.[For further information seeID#Xbelow]
4Calculation of the commitment period reserve / [Yes][No] / See table 5 below.[For further information see ID#X below]
5Application and calculation pursuant to paragraph 13 in the annex of decision 2/CMP.7 / [Yes][No] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
Information related to the assigned amount and the commitment period reserve
Is the assigned amount calculated in accordance with Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and 8bis? / Yes/No / See table 5 below.[For further information see ID#X below]
Has the Party reported the difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period, multiplied by eight? / [Yes][No] / See table 5 below.[For further information see ID#X below]
Has the Party indicated the approach used to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5 below.[For further information see ID#X below]
Did land-use change and forestry constitute a net source of GHG emissions in the [base year] [base period], and therefore did the Party include emissions from deforestation in the calculation of the assigned amount? / [Yes][No]
If the Party included deforestation in its assigned amount, was information provided on how the Party calculated emissions from deforestation? / [Yes][No][NA] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
Is the commitment period reserve calculated in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, decision 11/CMP.1 and paragraph 18 of decision 1/CMP.8? / Yes/No / See table 5 below.[For further information see ID#X below]
Information related to activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Kyoto Protocol
[For Parties without a QELRC in CP1]Has the Party reported a definition of forest in accordance with 2/CMP.8? / [Yes][No] / See table 5.[For further information see ID#X]
[For Parties without a QELRC in CP1]Has the Party reported a comparison between the values used in the forest definition and values that have been historically reported to FAO or other international bodies? / [Yes][No] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
[For Parties with a QELRC in CP1]Is the definition of forest reported for the second commitment period the same as for the first commitment period? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information see ID#Xbelow]
Has the Party identified activities elected under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, and are these elections in accordance with paragraphs 6– 8 of decision 2/CMP.7 ? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information see ID#X below]
[For Parties with a QELRC in CP1] Do the activities elected under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period include at least those activities elected for the first commitment period? / [Yes][No]
/ [For further information see ID#X below]
Is information reported on how the national system under Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol will identify land areas associated with elected activities and how the Party ensures that land that was accounted for in the first commitment period continues to be accounted for in the second commitment period? / [Yes][No] / [For further information see ID#Xbelow]
Has the Party identified for each activity under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, whether it intends to account annually or for the entire commitment period? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information ID#Xbelow]
Did the Party provide information on the forest management reference level, including, if appropriate, information on technical corrections and harvested wood products? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information see ID#X below]
Has the Party reported the quantity amounting to 3.5 per cent of the base year GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information see ID#X below]
Did the Party indicate whether itintends to apply the provisions to exclude emissions from natural disturbances for the accounting for afforestation and reforestation and forest management and provide the relevant information in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 33? / [Yes][No]
/ See table 5.[For further information see ID#X below]
Information related to the national system and national registry
Was a description of the national system provided, in accordance with the guidelines for national systems under Article 5, paragraph 1? / [Yes][No][NA] / For Parties with QELRC in CP1:This information was already reported and reviewed as part of the initial review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period and did not need to be reported
For Parties without QELRC in CP1:For the ERT’s assessment of the reporting of specific mandatory elements, see annex III
Was a description of the national registry provided, in accordance with the requirements contained in the annex to decision 13/CMP.1, the annex to decision 5/CMP.1 and the technical standards for data exchange between registry systems adopted by the COP/MOP? / [Yes][No][NA] / For Parties with QELRC in CP1:This information was already reported and reviewed as part of the initial review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period and did not need to be reported
For Parties without QELRC in CP1: For the ERT’s assessment of the reporting of specific mandatory elements, see annex III.
Abbreviations:ERT = expert review team, CMP = Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, GHG = greenhouse gas, IPPU= industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land use change and forestry, NA = not applicable.
III.Technical assessment of the elements reviewed
4.In accordance with decision 22/CMP.1, in conjunction with 4/CMP.11, the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for #Party has been undertaken in conjunction with the review of the inventory submission for the first year of the second commitment period.[2]Table 3 contains additional information, if any,to support the ERT’s assessment included in table 2 above of the Party’s capacity to account for its emissions and assigned amount, specifically related to: calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period and anyadjustments applied; information related to Article 3.7ter of the Kyoto Protocol, information related to reporting of activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, calculation of the commitment period reserve, and the national system and national registry.
Table 3
ERT’s additional findings, if any, related to the Party’s reporting of mandatory elements in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount
ID# / Finding classification / Description of the finding / Classification of problemCalculation of the assigned amount / The assigned amount submitted by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount was [was not] calculated in accordance with Article 3, paragraphs 7bis, 8 and 8bis, of the Kyoto Protocol, and the annex to decision 13/CMP.1 and annex I to decision 3/CMP.11
[The Party reported its assigned amount to be [x] kt CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was][were] [an] [overestimation[s] of emissions][underestimation[s] of removals] in the base [year][period] estimates for [category][the following categories] which [was not][were not] resolved during the review, and therefore proceeded with the application of adjustments (see ID#X below and Annex II below for further information). As a result of the adjustment procedures, the ERT recalculated the assigned amount, and determined the assigned amount to be [x] kt CO2]
[The Party reported its assigned amount as [x] kt CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was a][were] calculation error[s] that lead to an incorrect calculation of the assigned amount. {Describe the error/problem identified, and any discussions with the Party during the review} Owing to the calculation error, the ERT recalculated the assigned amount, and determined the assigned amount to be [x] kt CO2] / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
Adjustments / [The ERT has not identified the need to apply any adjustments to the estimate for the assigned amount for the second commitment period, as reported by #Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount]
[A (for Annex A sources): The ERT identified [overestimations in emissions][underestimations in recovery] estimates for Annex A sources for the base [year][period] and recommended [an][x] adjustment[s] in the [x, y, z] sector[s]]
[B (for KP-LULUCF): The ERT identified [errors] [underestimations] [overestimations] in the [removal estimates] [emission estimates] for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol and recommended [an] adjustment[s]]
[In accordance with the guidance for adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (decisions 20/CMP.1 in conjunction with4/CMP.11), the adjustment[s] to the [x, y, z] sector[s] [was][were] prepared by the ERT in consultation with #Party. In addition, in accordance with the Article 8 review guidelines, the ERT officially notified #Partyof the calculated adjustment[s]
For the full details on [the][each] adjustment applied, refer to Annex II] / Problem type
Adjustments / The Party [does]][does not] accept the adjustments, as contained in this report / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
Reporting pursuant to Article 3.7 ter / [The ERT noted that the Party did not provide information in accordance with Article 3.7ter, specifically, the Party did not report [the difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the preceding commitment period multiplied by eight][the approach used to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period]. During the review, the Party indicated XYZ.Elaborate on the discussion with the Party and what is the final determination, as reported in Annex I below] / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
Accounting of activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
Calculation of the commitment period reserve / The commitment period reserve was [was not] calculated in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, decision 11/CMP.1 and paragraph 18 of decision 1/CMP.8.
[The Party reported its commitment period reserve as [x] kt CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was][were] [an] [overestimation[s] of emissions][underestimation of recovery] [underestimation[s] of removals] in the base [year][period] estimates for [category][the following categories] which [was not][were not] resolved during the review, and therefore proceeded with the application of adjustments (see ID#X above and Annex X below for further information). As a result of the adjustment procedures, the ERT recalculated the assigned amount and the commitment period reserve, and determined it to be [x] kt CO2]].
[The Party reported its commitment period reserve as [x] kt CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was a][were] calculation error[s] that lead to an incorrect calculation of the commitment period reserve. {Describe the error/problem identified, and any discussions with the Party during the review}Owing to the calculation error, the ERT recalculated the commitment period reserve, and determined it to be [x] kt CO2]. / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
National system / During the in-country visit, #Party explained the institutional arrangements, as part of the national system, for preparation of the inventory. The XXX is the designated single national entity. Other [agencies][organizations][YYY] are also involved in the preparation of the inventory and have defined and allocated specific responsibilities for the inventory development process. Describe who does what. Identify unique arrangements or weaknesses in the system, if any. / Problem type
National system / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
National registry / Problem type
National registry / The ERT noted that a thorough review of the national registry [as stipulated by the Article 8 review guidelines, part V: Review of national registries] [has been] [will be] undertaken in the context of the initialization of the national registry of #Party.a / Problem type
National registry / The ERT took note of the results of the technical assessment of the national registry, including the results of standardized testing, as reported in the standard independent assessment report that was forwarded to the ERT by the administrator of the international transaction log, pursuant to decision 16/CP.10. / Problem type
Select finding / Problem type
Abbreviations:
a Pursuant to decision 16/CP.10, the administrator of the international transaction log, once registry systems become operational, is requested to facilitate an interactive exercise, including with experts from Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not included in Annex I to the Convention, demonstrating the functioning of the international transaction log with other registry systems. Information on this exercise will be included in its annual report to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
IV.Questions of implementation
5.Option 1:[No questions of implementation were identified by the ERT during the review.]
Option 2The ERT considers that the Party has not satisfactorily resolved during the review the potential problemsincluded in table 4 below, which pertain to language of a mandatory language and influence the fulfilment of commitments. Therefore, the ERT has identified these problems as question[s] of implementation in accordance with decision 22/CMP.11,in conjunction with decision 4/CMP.11.
Table 4.
Questions of implementation
Unresolved problem of a mandatory nature / Reference to relevant decision / Description of the problemSee ID#X above
Abbreviations: [insert as appropriate]
1
FCCC/IRR/2016/country code
Annex I
Key relevant data for the Party
1.Table 5 provides key data and parameters for, and elections by, #Party, relevant for implementation of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The information included in table 5 is as reported by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount, unless otherwise specified.