FCCC/ARR/2016/[ISO code]

/ United Nations / FCCC/ARR/2016/[ISO code]

/ Distr.: General
28 December 2016
English only

Report on the individual review of the inventory submission of [Party] submitted in 2016[*]

Note by the expert review team

Summary
Each Party included in Annex I to the Convention must submit an annual greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory covering emissions and removals of GHG emissions for all years from the base year (or period) to two years before the inventory due date (decision 24/CP.19). This report presents the results of the individual inventory review of the 2016 inventory submission of [Party], conducted by an expert review team in accordance with the “Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual greenhouse gas inventories.” The review took place from [date] to [date month year] in [City], [Country].

Instructions for Completing the ARR

Statement submitted by Party on the final report

This space is for use by the Party and is not to be completed by the expert review team (ERT). It is provided specifically for the inclusion of a written comment by the Party in response to para. 57 to the annex of decision 13/CP.20, but may also be used to fulfil paragraphs 66 and 90(e) of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 as well. If a Party provides comment to the ERT in accordance with paragraph 73 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20, this should be reflected in table 5, along with the corresponding discussion. If the Party does not want to include a statement on the final report, this section should be deleted prior to publication.

Section I. Introduction

Para.1/ Table 1: The secretariat will pre-fill the details of the review, including dates of the review.

Paras. 2 – 5: The secretariat will pre-fill the information in these paragraphs, as well as the data to be provided in tables 6, 7 and 8. As the report is ultimately the responsibility of the ERT, please ensure that you review the data inserted in these tables for accuracy and completeness. Also note that if the Party submits revised estimates during the review process, the data tables may have to be updated.

Section II. Summary and general assessment of the inventory submission (ARR table 2)

Table 2 is to be completed by the ERT during the review week. The secretariat will pre-fill factual information (e.g. date(s) of submission and review format). Please note that as you complete table 2 you may not include all issues related to transparency, accuracy, consistency and comparability identified in tables 3 and 5. For example, many issues related exlusively to transparency or consistency between the CRF tables and the NIR may not be included in table 2, unless they are related to one of the components listed under “Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable)”.

Most rows in Table 2 are self-explanatory from the review guidelines. Additional guidance for the table is as follows:

Review format: The secretariat will pre-fill the “format of review.” If a Party is subject to a desk review, ERT’s should refer to the guidance in para. 76 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 in terms of the priorities the ERT should consider during the review (e.g. categories and issues to focus on). Note that the guidelines only reference what the ERT “shall prioritize”. Assuming that the ERT does appropriately prioritize the information as referenced in paragraph 76, this would not exclude an ERT from identifying an issue outside this scope.

Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable). This section is to be completed during the review week. For each sub-bullet, you should select “yes” or “no” from the drop down menu regarding whether any issues were identified for each area listed. Include in the last column a reference to the proper ID# below that explains the issue more fully. For example, if you include an issue in table 5 that the Party has calculated an emission factor (EF) for agricultural soils incorrectly, this should be reflected in Table 2. You would select “Yes” in table 2 next to “collection and selection of emission factors” (because an issue has been identified related to this topic) and then in the last column include the proper reference (e.g. A.17) where the issue is more fully described. No other choice is available but “yes” or “no” for consistency across Parties. It is important that only issues (not findings) are considered and cross-referenced in this section.

Use your discretion in how to characterize the issues, but below is some general guidance to promote consistency:

• Identification of key categories: includes issues related to the development and reporting of the key category analysis (KCA) (e.g., approach used or level of disaggregation of the KCA). Issues related to use of lower-tier methods for key categories may be more appropriate under “selection and use of methodologies and assumptions”.

• Selection and use of methodologies and assumptions: includes issues related to the choice of an incorrect IPCC method; or incorrect implementation of a given method or assumptions. Because the methods in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines include descriptions of where emissions should be reported, this section may also include issues related to comparability (e.g., the Party is reporting following a different allocation than is expected from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines).

• Development and selection of emission factors: includes issues related to the development and selection of EFs, including issues related to the continued applicability of older EFs.

• Collection and selection of activity data (AD): includes issues related to the collection and selection of AD . If the issue is related to the completeness of AD, it may be better placed under missing categories/completeness.

• Reporting of recalculations: includes issues related to the quantitative and qualitative reporting of information on recalculations.

• Reporting of a consistent time series: includes issues related to inconsistent time series and methods applied by the Party to ensure time series consistency.

• Reporting of uncertainties, including methodologies: includes issues related to the uncertainty analysis, including the approach, methods and assumptions, at both the inventory and the category level.

• Quality assurance/quality control: includes issues related to implementation of overall QA/QC procedures and/or development of the QA/QC plan. Generally, this section should not include references to inconsistencies identified between the CRF tables and the NIR, except to the extent the ERT determines that these issues stem from larger problems with the Party’s QA/QC system.

• Missing categories/completeness: includes issues related to lack of reporting, or lack of complete reporting, for categories for which there are methods included in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. If you find an issue regarding provision of information for a category that the Party reports as “insignificant” this should be included under “significance threshold and is generally not considered an issue of completeness. All categories that may affect completeness should be listed in Annex II.

Corrections: GHG inventories should be reported without corrections (e.g. related to climate variations or electricity trade). If the inventory is reported without corrections, select “No” (because no issues were identified). If the inventory was reported with corrections, select “Yes” and discussion of this issue in table 3 or table 5, as appropriate.

Significance threshold. If a Party reports “NE” and references that the category is insignificant in accordance with decision 24/CP.19, annex, paragraph 37(b), the ERT must assess whether sufficient information has been reported to justify such reporting. In making this assessment, the ERT must consider the requirements (i.e. “shalls”) in paragraph 37(b). Specifically, has the Party indicated in both the NIR and the CRF tables why such emissions were not estimated? Has the Party demonstrated that the emissions for a specific category do not exceed 500 kt/CO2 eq and collectively, the total emissions for all categories excluded from the inventory do not exceed 0.1 percent of national total GHG emissions (i.e., total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF and including indirect CO2 if the Party decided to report this). If this information is not provided for all categories reported as insignificant, or the information provided does not adequately support the exclusion of the categories, the ERT should assess “No”.

National inventory arrangements: Consult the functions of the national inventory arrangements outlined in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the annex to decision 24/CP.19 in making your assessment. As stated in the chapeau, the ERT is assessing whether any issues have been identified, so the ERT should select either ‘Yes” or “No”. “Generally” is not an appropriate response to such a question. During a desk review, the review of the national inventory arrangements may not be considered one of the priorities of the review, however you may still elect to review them. If you review the national inventory arrangements in a desk review review select ‘Yes” or “No,” as appropriate. If, during a desk review, the national system is not reviewed, “No” is the appropriate response.

Response from the Party during the review. At any stage in the review process, the ERTs may put questions to, or request additional or clarifying information from, the Annex I Parties under review regarding identified issues. Here the ERT should provide an assessment regarding the responsiveness of the Party in facilitating the conduct of the review.

Recommendation for an exceptional in-country review. According to para. 64 of 13/CP.20, “The ERT, based on the findings of the review, can recommend that the next review be an in-country review. The ERT shall provide in the review report a rationale for the additional in-country review as well as a list of questions and issues to be addressed during the in-country review. The in-country review shall then be scheduled for the year following the review that recommended such a visit.”. If you recommend an exceptional ICR, you must provide in the ARR a rationale for the additional in–country review as well as a list of questions and issues to be addressed during the ICR. The ICR is then scheduled for the next review. If you recommend an exceptional ICR based on the current review, select “yes” here and include the bracketed text, as well as a list of questions in Annex II.

If you do not recommend an exceptional ICR select “No” and delete the related section from Annex II.

Section III. Guidance for completing ARR table 3

The review guidelines require tracking of the implementation of previous review recommendations. The secretariat will review the previous review report and pre-fill in table 3 all recommendations from that report, completing column 3. The secretariat will also provide preliminary input to the number of successive reviews in which the same issue was raised, completing in column 2 the category name and the years/references where the issue was previously raised. It is the ERT’s role to review and confirm all information pre-filled in table 3, assess whether each recommendation has been resolved, and to provide a rationale for its assessment of the issue.

Please check or complete the following:

ID#: This table should list all findings sequentially using the structure G.1, E.1, I.1, A.1., L.1, W.1 for each sector, respectively.

Select the proper IPCC category from the drop down menu (column 2). You will also need to manually enter the fuels (energy sector) and the gas(es) (all sectors);

The numbers in parentheses represent the paragraph (or in later years the issue number) from the previous review report(s), and the year reflects the year of the ARR in which the recommendation appeared. So, for example, if general issue #1 (i.e. G.1) in the pre-filled 2016 ARR first appeared in the 2014 ARR (paragraph #11) and the 2015 ARR (ID.# G.5) it would read as (G.5, 2015)(11, 2014). This way, ERTs can track back to find the original recommendation, and easily see the number of years in which the recommendation was subsequently reiterated.

Select the “issue type”. Issue types are taken from the criteria listed in paragraph 81of the annex to decision 13/CP.20. You should select one of the following: transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness, comparability and adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. In selecting the issue type, consider the requirements and definitions in the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines.

Confirm the accuracy, completeness and clarity of the recommendations made in the previous review report

Provide the ERT assessment and rationale: You should assess whether the issue has been resolved, and provide a rationale for your assessment. Please select from the following:

·  Resolved: the Party fully implemented the recommendation;

·  Not resolved: the Party did not implement the recommendation and has not taken any action to address it;

·  Addressing: the Party has made sufficient progress in resolving the recommendation;

·  Not relevant: this recommendation is no longer relevant. This may be because of the changes due to the new UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. In some cases you may believe that the previous recommendation was incorrect. You should not indicate in this report that the recommendation made in the previous review report was wrong, rather you should focus on why this is not an issue given the new reporting guidelines.

Please be specific on the rationale for your assessment of the issue to help the Party and future ERTs understand what the current ERT expects to be done to address the issue. It may not always be clear what the most appropriate assessment is, particularly between a status of “not resolved” and “addressing.” You should make an expert assessment given the nature of the issue and the actions taken by the Party.

FAQs

When is an issue “resolved?” You should focus on the fundamental issue in a recommendation and if it has been fully implemented, then it is resolved. For example, if the Party updates the EF as recommended by an ERT, but does not adequately describe what was done in the NIR and that was not explicitly requested by the ERT, the issue is resolved, but you may decide that there is a new transparency issue. If you find yourself answering the question, “is it resolved” with a “yes, but it could have been done [better][differently]”then the issue should be marked as “resolved” and a new issue started in ARR table 5 (perhaps with a cross reference linking back to the original issue in ARR table 3). For transparency issues, the issue should not be considered “resolved “by information provided to the ERT during the review week, but only by its inclusion in the NIR. In addition, plans to solve the issue in the next or future submissions should not result in the issue being considered ‘resolved’.