unfccc.intunfccc.int/.../2015_kp_arr_template_13feb.docx · Web viewThe definitions of “issue” and “problem” are closely related with the only difference being that an “issue”

United Nations FCCC/ARR/2015/[ISO code]

Distr.: General29 December 2016

English only

Report on the individual review of the annual submission of [Party] submitted in 2015*

Note by the expert review team

SummaryEach 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). Parties included in Annex I to the Convention that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are also required to report supplementary information required under Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol, with the inventory submission due under the Convention. This report presents the results of the individual inventory review of the 2015 annual submission of [Party], conducted by an expert review team in accordance with the “Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”. The review took place from [date] to [date month year] in [City], [Country].

* * In the symbol for this document, 2015 refers to the year in which the inventory was submitted, not to the year of publication.

FCCC/ARR/2015/[ISO code]

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 de-cision 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 discus-sion. 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.

Paras. 2 – 5: The secretariat will pre-fill the information in these paragraphs, as well as the data to be provided in tables 8 11. 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 sub-mits 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 in-formation (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 re-view, 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 appropri-ately 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 calcu-lated 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 con-sistency across Parties. It is important that only issues (not findings) are considered and cross-refer-enced in this section.

2


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 se-lection 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 refer-ences 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 com-plete 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 com-pleteness. All categories that may affect completeness should be listed in Annex III.

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 include a dis -cussion 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 ac-cordance with decision 24/CP.19, annex, paragraph 37(b), you must assess whether sufficient informa-tion has been reported to justify such reporting. In making this assessment, 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 spe-cific category do not exceed 500 kt/CO2 eq and collectively, the total emissions for all categories ex-cluded 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 in-formation 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”.

Supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol. The review of the supplementary information is unique to the Kyoto Protocol and in addition to the review of the elements under the Convention. Most of the elements in ARR table 2 are self-explanatory. Below is some additional guidance:

3


National System The assessment by the ERT of “national inventory arrangements” under the Convention, is replaced in the Kyoto Protocol ARR template with the review of the “national sys-tems”. Consult the functions of the national system outlined in paragraphs 10 to 17 of the annex to decision 19/CMP.1 in making your assessment. As stated in the chapeau, the ERT is assessing whether any issues have been identified, so you 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 system may not be considered one of the priorit -ies of the review, however you may still elect to review elements of the national system. If you re-view the national system in a desk review, select ‘Yes” or “No,” as appropriate. If, during a desk review, the national system is not reviewed, “No” is the appropriate response.

National registry. You should consult the functions of the national registries outlined in the an-nexes to decisions 13/CMP.1 and 5/CMP.1 and the technical standards for data exchange between registry systems. As stated in the chapeau, you are assessing whether any issues have been identi-fied, so select either ‘Yes” or “No”, “Generally” is not an appropriate response.

“NA” is only appropriate for the review of Parties without a quantified emission limitation and re-duction commitment (QELRC) in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. These Parties are ONLY required to report information on national registries if their registry is connected to the international transaction log(ITL) at any time during the relevant calendar year. If the Party subject to review does not have a QELRC in the second commitment period, and has not conneted to the ITL during the calendar year in question, select “NA”.

CPR: For Parties with QELRCs in CP2, select “Yes” or “No” as appropriate, depending on whether or not the CPR was calculated correctly. For Parties without QELRCs in CP2, select “NA”.

Adjustments: For Parties with QELRCs in CP2, select “Yes” or “No” as appropriate, depending on whether or not adjustments have been applied. In accordance with paragraph 6 of decision 4/CMP.11, adjustments are not applicable to Parties without QELRCs in CP2. For such Parties, select “NA”.

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 re-garding identified issues. Here you should assess the responsiveness of the Party in facilitating the con-duct of the review.

Recommendation for an exceptional in-country review. The scheduling of in-country reviews is covered by para. 52 of decision 22/CMP.1, referring to para. 64 of 13/CP.20. If you recommend an ex-ceptional ICR, in accordance with these paragraphs you must provide in the ARR a rationale for the ad-ditional 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. Because the review of the 2015 annual submission is being held in conjunction with the review of the 2016 annual submission, the “next” review is the review of the 2017 annual submission. If you recommend an exceptional ICR based on the current review, select “yes” and include the bracketed text, as well as a list of questions in Annex III.

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

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 suc-cessive 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 in-formation pre-filled in table 3, assess whether each recommendation has been resolved, and to provide a rationale for its assessment of the issue.

4


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 manu-ally 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 recommend-ation appeared. So, for example, if general issue #1 (i.e. G.1) in the pre-filled 2016 ARR first ap-peared 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 de-cision 13/CP.20. In the case of the Kyoto Protocol, note that you are also tracking “problems” as defined in paragraph 69 of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1. The definitions of “issue” and “problem” are closely related with the only difference being that an “issue” may result from findings other than those related to transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness, and comparability, to include find-ings related to “Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines”. The one practical implication of this difference between the definition of “issue” and “problem” is that you cannot select “Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines” for KP-LULUCF activities, be-cause there can only be “problems” associated with KP-LULUCF.

Confirm the accuracy, completeness and clarity of the recommendations made in the previous re-view report

Provide the ERT assessment and rationale: You should assess whether the issue/problem 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 and/or revisions under Articles 5,7 and 8. 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 “address-ing.” You should make an expert assessment given the nature of the issue and the actions taken by the Party.

5


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 recom -mended by an ERT, but does not adequately describe what was done in the NIR and that was not expli-citly requested by the ERT, the issue is resolved, but you may decide that there is a new transparency is-sue. 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 transpar -ency 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’.

The previous recommendation was very general or not realistic to implement. I see improve-ments, but there are still problems, what should I do? Some recommendations, particularly in earlier years, were general (e.g., improve transparency or improve QA/QC procedures). Or, they may be diffi-cult to ever fully address (e.g., recommendations to ensure that there are no inconsistencies between the NIR and CRF tables). The ERT may consider looking at the recommendation closely to see if the Party has done anything to address the general recommendation (e.g. transparency was improved, but only in two sectors, or the specific inconsistencies between the NIR/CRF tables mentioned in the previous re-view report were fixed). If the some improvements were made, and it is within the scope of the previous recommendation, the ERT could consider listing the issue as “resolved” (because improvements were made), but opening a new issue in table 5 that is more specific.

The previous review report contained the same issue twice, for example in the sector overview or general section, as well as in the sector specific chapters. Should this issue be included twice in Table 3? When the secretariat pre-fills ARR table 3, it will include all recommendations listed in the previous review report, listing twice issues that were included twice in the previous review report. In re -viewing the secretariat’s pre-filling of ARR table 3, the ERT may elect to include the issue itself in table 3 only once (for example, it could list the issue under the sectoral chapter, referencing both para. X and para. X of the previous review report).

Under issue type, multiple classifications could apply. Which should I select? Select the classifica-tion that is most appropriate for the issue identified (transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability). There are relatively limited cases where “Adherence to the UNFCCC Reporting Guidelines” would apply and it is meant to capture issues not classified under the main headings. Some examples of issues falling under this heading might be issues of transparency, consistency between the NIR and CRF tables, and reporting of the inventory with corrections.

6

What is unique for the 2015 review?

The 2015 and 2016 reviews are happening in conjunction with each other for all Annex I Parties.

For those Parties subject to an individual inventory review in 2014, ARR table 3 in both the 2015 and 2016 ARRs will be identical for columns 1 – 3, and reflect the recommendations included in the 2014 ARR for the respective Party. The ERT should assess the status of the implementation of each issue in the 2015 annual submission. It is possible, that even though table 3 will contain the same recommendation in both the 2015 and 2016 ARRs, that the ERT determines that the issue was “not resolved” in the 2015 submission, but was “resolved” for the 2016 submission.

For the four now Kyoto Protocol Parties not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014 (Belarus, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Malta) columns 1–3 will be identical in the 2015 and 2016 ARRs, but table 3 will be populated with the recommendations from the 2013 ARR.


Section IV. Guidance for completing Table 4

This section highlights any issues identified in accordance with paragraph 83 of decision 13/CP.20:

83. The ERT will identify issues, in particular those relating to accuracy and completeness for key categories as described in paragraph 73 above, missing categories as described in paragraph 75(d) above, or potential key categories as identified by the ERT and that could not be clarified with the Party during the review week. In the case where, after such an issue has been identified in three successive reviews, in accordance with paragraphs 75(f) and 76(a) above, and has not been addressed by the Party, the ERT will include a prominent paragraph in the review report noting the issue, the number of successive reviews in which the Party has been notified of the issue, and that the Party has not addressed the issue.

The identification of issues for the purposes of including them in a prominent paragraph arises from a provision in 13/CP.20. Because there is no comparable provision in decision 22/CMP.1 or decision 4/CMP.11, issues related to the provision of supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol (e.g issues related to the national system, national registry, KP-LULUCF) should not be included in ARR table 4.

Please check or complete the following:

ID#: Copy the relevant ID # from table 3. Include an asterisk after any issue ID# where the underlying issue is related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key cat -egory, as indicated in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 83;

Previous recommendation for the issue identified: Generally, you should include all recommenda-tions included in table 3 that have been included in at least the last two inventory review reports and have the status “not resolved” or “addressing” in the current review report. However, the ERT may ex-ercise some discretion in elevating issues to table 4, taking into account paras. 75(f) and 76(a) of de-cision 13/CP.20. Further, the LRs in their conclusions from the 13th annual meeting elaborated in paras. 29 and 32(b) that ERTs have some discretion as to whether to include a specific issue in Table 4 and should communicate with the Party when assessing whether sufficient progress has been made in the implementation of previous recommendations for the purposes of including the issue in a prominent paragraph.

If no issue is identified for a particular sector, insert “No such issues for the X sector were identified”

Number of successive reviews issue not addressed. In the third column insert the number of years identified in table 3 plus the current year, and include reference to the actual years (e.g. 3 (2013– 2015)).

FAQs

Are all issues labelled as “not resolved” or “addressing” to be included in Table 4? No, not neces-sarily. According to the conclusions of the 13th Meeting of Lead Reviewers, “ERTs have some discre-tion as to whether to include a specific issue in Table 4 and should communicate with the Party when assessing whether sufficient progress has been made in the implementation of previous recommenda-tions for the purposes of including the issue in a prominent paragraph.” You should discuss with the Party the national circumstances with respect to the recommendation, and based on your expert assess-ment, determine whether the issue should be included in table 4.

If, during the third successive review, an issue has been “resolved” but not addressed through an official submission, should it be in table 4? Yes. An issue may be resolved during the third review through a submission of revised CRF tables, for example. In this case, the ERT may consider the issue resolved and not include it in table 4. If the issue is one of transparency in the NIR, in order for the issue to be “resolved”, there would need to be a resubmission of the NIR. It may be that the Party provided

7


the necessary information during the review week, but decided not to resubmit the NIR. Assuming that the NIR is not officially resubmitted, this issue should be included in table 4.

The decision says “and has not been addressed by the Party”. If a Party has a plan for implement-ing the recommendation, is this recommendation “addressed” for the purposes of counting three successive reviews? It depends. This will be a judgment by the ERT. Taking into consideration the nature of the issue and the national circumstances of the Party, you should consider the plan and whether it is appropriate for addressing the recommendation in a timely manner. For example, you might consider that a recommendation to conduct a study or collect data to generate a new country-spe -cific EF would likely require more time than a recommendation to improve the transparency of the NIR. As noted above, you have some discretion to determine which issues should be included in table 4.

Section V. Guidance for completing table 5

Table 5 contains any new findings by the ERT during the current review cycle (related to both recom -mendations (i.e. issues) and encouragements (i.e. findings not related to issues). A single finding (re -commendation or encouragement) should be given its own row.

You should provide the following information for each finding:

ID#: This table should list all findings sequentially using the same ID structure from table 3, and begin-ning where the numbering in table 3 left off. In the end, all findings in the review report related to previ-ous recommendations (table 3) and new findings (table 5) will have a unique ID#;

Finding classification: Select the IPCC category from a drop down menu. You will need to manually enter the fuels (energy sector) and the gas(es) (all sectors)

Description of finding with recommendation or encouragement: include here two paragraphs. The first paragraph should include a description of the finding identified by the ERT, the communications between the ERT and the Party during the review, and the rationale for why the ERT concludes that what the Party is doing is inconsistent with the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines or what could be improved. The second paragraph should include the specific encouragement or recom-mendation. The ERT should “encourage” the Party to address findings that are not related to an issue/problem, as defined in paragraph 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 or paragraph 69 of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1. For issues/problems, the ERT should include a “recommendation”. For recom-mendations, be as specific and concise as possible regarding what the Party needs to do to resolve the issue/problem, and ensure that the recommendation can stand on its own in the report.

8

What is unique for the 2015 review?

For all but AUS, CAN, NZL and UKR, the review of the 2015 and 2016 annual/inventory submissions are not “successive” reviews, but are rather being held in conjunction with each other. Therefore, for the purpose of counting successive years in table 4, 2015/2016 are considered as one year. For AUS, CAN, NZL and UKR, there was a review during 2015 and an annual review report published, therefore 2015 and 2016 are listed separately

For those Parties subject to an individual inventory review in 2014, issues to be included in table 4 will be those that were identified, at a minimum, in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 review reports. Table 4 for these Parties will be the same in both the 2015 and 2016 inventory submissions, with the exception that the 2016 report may include the year 2015/2016 instead of just 2015.

In addition, four now Kyoto Protocol Parties were not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014. For these Parties (Belarus, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Malta), the three successive reviews, for the purposes of populating table 4 are 2012, 2013 and 2015.


Please note that in subsequent years only the recommendation, not the full description of the issue/prob-lem, will appear in the report (in table 3). In the subsequent ARR, all encouragements will remain in table 5, in their entirety, for consideration by the next ERT, in line with the conclusions of the 13 th meet-ing of LRs that findings of a non-mandatory nature are important and should be reflected in the ARR and the review transcript (para. 31).

Is finding related to an issue and/or a problem? If the finding is related to an issue, as identified in paragraph 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 or paragraph 69 of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1, please select “yes” and indicate whether this is primarily an issue of transparency, accuracy, consist -ency, comparability, completeness or adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines. If the finding is not related to an issue/problem, select “Not an isuse”.

Encouragement for use of the wetlands supplement: The standardized text included in the template should be included any time there is a recommendation or encouragement in the review report related to wetlands (assuming that the Party is not already using the Wetlands Supplement for the issue in ques-tion). This standard language has been added to fulfil para.4 of decision 24/CP.19. Findings related to the use of the wetlands supplement should not be considered an issue or a problem, so in the final column you would select “Not an issue”.

FAQs

How should I draft the recommendation? ERT’s should be mindful of the “three successive reviews” rule when drafting recommendations. Recommendations need to be concrete and concise so that it is ab-solutely clear what is expected of the Party. The ERTs may also want to consider structuring recom-mendations so that they are implementable – e.g. do X by the next submission, do Y by [year] submis -sion.

How do I distinguish between a recommendation and an encouragement? Neither decision 13/CP.20 or decision 22/CMP.1 defines “recommendation” or “encouragement”, however, they do define “issue” and “problem” (para. 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20 and para. 69 of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1 respectively). All issues/problems identified by the ERT should lead to a recommendation. Any additional finding not related to an issue/problem, lead to an encouragement. With respect to trans-parency, findings related to transparency generally become an issue if there is a basis for it in the 2006 IPCC GL.

Should an ERT include a “strong recommendation”? No. ERT’s should not use a “strong recom-mendation”. Although this has been used in the past, it has not been done consistently. There is no dis-tinction in decision 13/CP.20 regarding recommendations and strong recommendations. Further, 13/CP.20 already introduces an approach to elevate certain issues (para. 83 of the annex requires ERT’s to include an issue in a separate prominent paragraph of the report if it has not been addressed in three consecutive reviews).

Can I include a commendation to the Party in table 5? Yes, you can enter a commendation to the Party in a separate row of Table 5. The last column would indicate “Not an issue”.

9

What is unique for the 2015 review?According to para.9 of the conclusions of the 13th meeting of LRs, “The LRs recognized the uniqueness of the 2016 review cycle and agreed that the reviews could be facilitated if they would start with the 2016 submission”. Following this conclusion, the “additional” findings to be included in table 5 as an output of the 2015 review, should only be those that are still relevant in the 2016 annual submission. In other words, table 5 should exclude findings that have already been resolved by the Party in the 2016 annual submission.


Section VI. Adjustments

Option1: This language should be used for Parties with QELRCs in CP2, and for whom the ERT identified it was not necessary to apply adjustments. If option 1 is selected, the rest of this section can be deleted.Option 2: This language should be used for Parties without QELRCs in CP2.. If option 2 is selected, the rest of this section can be deleted.Option 3: This language should be used for Parties with QELRCs in CP2, and for whom the ERT identified it was necessary to apply adjustments. Option 3A should be used for adjustments to Annex A sources. Annex 3B should be used for application of adjustments to KP-LULUCF. If option 3A or 3B is selected, complete the rest of the template language, as appropriate.

Section VII. Accounting quantities

Option1: This language should be used for Parties with QELRCs in CP2 who have elected annual accounting.Option 2: This language should be used for Parties with QELRCs in CP2 who have elected commitment period accountingOption 3: This language should be used for Parties who do not have QELRCs in CP2 and whose national registry was not attached to the ITL during the year.

Section VIII. Questions of implemetation

If there are any unresolved problems of a mandatory nature at the end of the review, this unresolved problem should be listed in Table 7. The full description of the problem should be included in Table 5.

It is possible that a question of implementation could be identified and listed in both the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount and in the review of the submission for the first, and possibly the second, year of the second commitment period. If this is the case, the ERT should use the same language in all review reports.

Annexes

Annex I: Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for [Party] for submission year Year and data and information on activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol. Tables 8 – 11. The purpose of these tables is to track emissions trends, in accordance with paragraph 83(a) of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1. The years to be included in the table are the respective base year for the Party, as contained in paragraph 8 of the annex to decision 24/CP.19 through the latest reported year (this is generally the current year minus 2). For KP-LULUCF activities, the base year is 1990 or the alternative base year established under the Convention.

Table 12 is only applicable to Parties with a QELRC in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol who have elected annual accounting. For all other Parties, paragraph 2 and table 12 should be deleted. Table 13 is applicable to all Parties and should be completed, as appropriate, noting that some of the reporting provisions may not be appropriate for Parties without a QELRC in the second commitment period.

For Parties without a QELRC in CP2, the following rows in Table 13 should be labelled “NA” because these Parties do not have a requirement to provide this information: “periodicity of accounting”, “3.5 per cent of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF”and all rows under “Cancellation of AAUs, ERUs, CERs and/or issuance of RMUs in its national registry…”

10


Annex II. Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database: This annex is only applicable to Parties with a QELRC in CP2. Please ensure that the values are provided in tons, not kt. For Parties without a QELRC in CP2, this annex should be deleted.

Annex III. Additional information to support findings in table 2. Section A “Missing categories that affect completeness” should list those missing cateories that may affect the completeness of the submission. The only categories that can affect completeness, and therefore should be included in this annex, are categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In addition, if there are such categories that the Party has not reported, but the Party has sufficiently justified that the category is insignificant, in accordance with paragraph 37(b) of the annex to decision 24/CP.19, these categories should not be included in this list as possible issues of completeness.

Section B “Recommendation for an in-country review: list of issues” should only be included for those Parties for which it is recommended that the subsequent year review be conducted as an in-country review. If no such recommendation is made, then Section B should be deleted.

Annex IV. Additional information on adjustments: This annex should only be completed and included for those Parties subject to an adjustment. If the Party is not subject to an adjustment, this annex should be deleted.Table 16 provides further detail for each category subject to an adjustment. You should include a separate table for each category/activity.

Table 17 provides the detailed calculations for each category/activity – gas combination. In Table 17, please be sure to include all values with three decimal places, as adjustments should be reported to the nearest ton. When carrying out the adjustment calculation, however, you should only round at the very last step. In the column for “Reference” please include where the ERT obtained the value. Some possible options include, but are not limited to “[Year] NIR”, “CRF table X of the [Year] Submission”, “Calculation sheet provided by [Party]”, “ERT’s calculation” and “Table X of the appendix to 4/CMP.11”. Please prepare a separate table for each category/activity.

11


[Statement submitted by [Party]on the final report][Delete this section if no comment from Party]

Comment by [Party]

12


ContentsParagraphs Page

I. Introduction – 14II. Summary and general assessment of the [year] annual submission......................... 15

III. Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report............................................................................................................ 18

IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party......... 25

V. Additional findings made during the [year] technical review.................................. 26

VI. Application of adjustments....................................................................................... – 35

VII. Accounting quantities for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and, if any, activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol................................. 36

VIII. Question[s] of implementation................................................................................. 36

Annexes

I. Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for [Party] for submission year [year] and data and information on activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol.............................................................................................................. 37

II. Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database.......................................... 46

III. Additional information to support findings in table 2]...................................................................... 48

IV. Additional information on adjustments............................................................................................. 49

V. Documents and information used during the review......................................................................... 51

VI. Acronyms and abbreviations............................................................................................................. 53

13


I. Introduction

1. This report covers the review of the [year] annual submission of [Party] organized by the UNFCCC secretariat, in accordance with the “Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol” (decision 22/CMP.1, as revised by decision 4/CMP.11) (hereinafter referred to as the Article 8 review guidelines). As indicated in the Article 8 review guidelines, this review process also encompasses the review under the Convention, as described in the “Guidelines for the technical review of information reported under the Convention related to greenhouse gas inventories, biennial reports and national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention” (hereinafter referred to as the UNFCCC review guidelines) and particularly part III, “UNFCCC guidelines for the technical review of greenhouse gas inventories from Parties included in Annex I to the Convention”. The review took place from [date] to [date] [month] [year] in [City], [Country], and was coordinated by [Mr.][Ms.] [Review Officer] (UNFCCC secretariat). Table 1 provides information on the composition of the expert review team (ERT) that conducted the review of [Party].

Table 1Composition of the expert review team that conducted the review of [Party]

Area of expertise Name Party

Generalist [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]

[Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]

Energy [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



IPPU [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


Agriculture [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


LULUCF [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



Waste [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]



Lead reviewers [Mr.][Ms.] [Name] [Surname]


Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.

14


2. This report contains findings based on the assessment by the ERT of the [year] annual submission against the Article 8 review guidelines. The ERT has made recommendations to resolve those findings related to issues,1 including issues related to problems.2 Other findings, and if applicable, the ERT’s encouragements to resolve them, are also included. [In accordance with the Article 8 review guidelines, the ERT recommends [adjustments][an adjustment] to the [year] annual submission (see paras. [X]–[X] below).]

3. 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].

4. Annex I shows annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for [Party], including totals excluding and including the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, indirect CO2 emissons and emissions by gas and by sector. Annex I also contains background data related to emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, and additional activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol (KP-LULUCF), if elected, by gas, sector and activity for [Party].

5. [Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database can be found in annex II.]

6. The ERT notes that [Party’s] 2015 annual submission was delayed, consistent with decision 6/CMP.9, paragraph 4. As a result, the review of the 2015 annual submission is being held in conjunction with the review of the 2016 annual submission, in accordance with decision 10/CMP.11, paragraph 1. To the extent that identical information is presented in both annual submissions, the ERT has reviewed this information only once, and, as appropriate, has replicated the findings below in both the 2015 and the 2016 annual review report.

II. Summary and general assessment of the [year] annual submission

7. Table 2 provides the ERT assessment of the annual submission with respect to the tasks undertaken during the review. Further information on the issues identified, as well as additional findings, may be found in tables 3 and 5 below.

Table 2Summary of review results and general assessment of the inventory of [Party]

AssessmentIssue or problem ID #(s) in tables 3 and/or 5a

Date[s] of submission

Original submission: [X Month Year] (NIR), [X Month Year], [Version number] (CRF tables), [X Month Year] (SEF tables)

[Revised submission[s]: [X Month Year] (NIR), [X Month Year], [Version number] (CRF tables), [X Month Year] (SEF tables)]

The values from the latest submission are used in this report

1 Issues are defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81. 2 Problems are defined in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 68 and 69, as revised by

decision 4/CMP.11.

15



Review format [In-country][Centralized][Desk review]

Application of the requirements of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and Wetlands Supplement (if applicable)

Have any issues been identified in the following areas:

1. Identification of key categories [Yes][No]

2. Selection and use of methodologies and assumptions [Yes][No]

3. Development and selection of emission factors [Yes][No]

4. Collection and selection of activity data [Yes][No]

5. Reporting of recalculations [Yes][No]

6. Reporting of a consistent time series [Yes][No]

7. Reporting of uncertainties, including methodologies [Yes][No]

8. QA/QC QA/QC procedures were assessed in the context of the national system (see below)

9. Missing categories/completenessb [Yes][No]

10. Application of corrections to the inventory [Yes][No]

Significance threshold

For categories reported as insignificant, has the Party provided sufficient information showing that the likely level of emissions meets the criteria in paragraph 37(b) of the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines?

[The Party did not report “NE” for any insignificant categories]

[Yes]

[No]

Description of trends

Did the ERT conclude that the description in the NIR of the trends for the different gases and sectors is reasonable?

[Yes][No]

Supplementary information under the Kyoto Protocol

Have any issues been identified in the following areas:

1. National system:

(a) The overall organization of the national system, including the effectiveness and reliability of the institutional, procedural and legal arrangements

[Yes][No]

(b) Performance of the national system functions [Yes][No]

2. National registry:

(a) Overall functioning of the national registry [Yes][No][NA]

(b) Performance of the functions of the national registry and the technical standards for data exchange

[Yes][No][NA]

16



3. ERUs, CERs, AAUs and RMUs and on information on discrepancies reported in accordance with decision 15/CMP.1, annex, chapter I.E, taking into consideration any findings or recommendations contained in the SIAR

[Yes][No][NA]

4. Matters related to Article 3, paragraph 14, of the Kyoto Protocol, specifically problems related to the transparency, completeness or timeliness of reporting on the Party’s activities related to the priority actions listed in decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 24, including any changes since the previous annual submission

[Yes][No]

5. LULUCF activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Reporting in accordance with the requirements of decision 2/CMP.8, annex II, paragraphs 1–5

[Yes][No]

(b) The Party has demonstrated methodological consistency between the reference level and re-porting on forest management in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 14

[Yes][No]

(c) The Party has reported information in accord-ance with decision 6/CMP.9

[Yes][No]

(d) [for 2015 only] The Party plans to apply the provisions for natural disturbances to afforesta-tion and reforestation

[Yes][No]

(e) [for 2015 only] The Party plans to apply the provisions for natural disturbances to forest management

[Yes][No]

(d) [If yes to either ND provision,] Country-specific information has been reported to support provi-sions for natural disturbances, in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraphs 33 and 34

[Yes][No][NA]

(e) Other issues [Yes][No]

CPR Was the CPR reported in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 and decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 18?

[Yes][No][NA]

Adjustments Has the ERT applied an adjustment under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol?

[Yes][No][NA]

Response from the Party during the review

Has the Party provided the ERT with responses to the questions raised, including the data and information necessary for the assessment of conformity with the UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines and any further guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties?

[Yes][Generally][No]

17



Recommendation for an exceptional in-country review

On the basis of the issues identified, does the ERT recommend that the nextc review be conducted as an in-country review?

[Guidance: if yes, include the following language] [Please refer to annex III for a list of questions and issues to be considered during this in-country review]

[Yes][No]

Question[s] of implementation

Did the ERT list[ a ]question[s] of implementation? [Yes][No]

Abbreviations: AAU = assigned amount unit, CER = certified emission reduction unit, CPR = commitment period reserve, CRF = common reporting format, ERT = expert review team, ERU = emission reduction unit, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, [NA = not applicable,] [NE = not estimated,] NIR = national inventory report, QA/QC = quality assurance/quality control, RMU = removal unit, SEF = standard electronic format, SIAR = standard independent assessment report, UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”, Wetlands Supplement = 2013 Supplement to the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands.

a The ERT identified additional issues in the [insert sector name] sector[s] that are not specifically listed in table 2 but are included in table 3 and/or 5.

b Missing categories, for which methods are provided in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, may affect completeness and are listed in annex III to this document.

c Owing to the timing of the review of the 2015 annual submission, “next” in this context refers to the review of the 2017 annual submission.

III. Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report

8. Table 3 compiles all the recommendations made in the previous review report[.][,] [published on [X Month Year]]. [Party] was not subject to an individual inventory review of its 2014 inventory submission, therefore the recommendations reflected in table 3 are from the review of the 2013inventory submission, published on [X Month Year].] For each issue and/or problem, the ERT specified whether it believes the issue and/or problem has been resolved by the conclusion of the review of the [year] annual submission and provided the rationale for its determination, taking into consideration the publication date of the previous review report and national circumstances.

Table 3Status of implementation of issues and/or problems raised in the previous review report of [Party]

ID# Issue and/or problem classificationa,b Recommendation made in previous review report[c] ERT assessment and rationale

General

G.1 Select category – ([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-evant.] Please include ra-tionale

G.2 Select category – ([x, year]) ([x, year])

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-

18



Issue type evant.] Please include ra-tionale

Energy

E.1 Select category – [Add fuels – Add gas(es)]([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type



[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer relevant.] Please include rationale













19











IPPU

I.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type










I.6 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer rel-evant.] Please include ra-

20



Issue type tionale













Agriculture

A.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type








21















LULUCF

L.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type








L.5 Select category – Add gas(es)

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer

22



([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type

relevant.] Please include rationale













Waste

W.1 Select category – Add gas(es)([x, year]) ([x, year])Issue type








23















KP-LULUCF

KL.1 Select category – Add gas(es)Problem type








KL.5 Select category – Add gas(es)

[Resolved.][Not resolved.] [Addressing.][No longer

24



Problem type relevant.] Please include rationale





Abbreviations: [CRF = common reporting format, ]ERT = expert review team[,][ IPPU = industrial processes and product use][, KP-LULUCF = LULUCF emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol][ , LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry][, NEU = non energy use][, NIR = national inventory report][, QA/QC = quality assurance/quality control][, UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”].

a References in parentheses are to the paragraph(s) and the year(s) of the previous review report(s) where the issue was raised. Issues are further classified as defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81. In the review of the supplementary information reported in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol, the ERT has applied the classification in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 69, in conjunction with decision 4/CMP.11.

b An asterisk is included next to each issue type for all issues that are also problems, as defined in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 68 and 69, including those that lead to an adjustment or a question of implementation.

c [[Party] was not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014. Therefore, the recommendations reflected in table 3 are from the 2013annual review report. For the same reason, the year2014 is excluded from the list of years in which the issue has been identified.]

IV. Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by the Party

9. [In accordance with paragraph 83 of the UNFCCC review guidelines, the ERT noted that the issues included in table 4 have been identified in three successive reviews, including the review of the [year] annual submission of [Party], and have not been addressed by the Party.][In accordance with paragraph 83 of the UNFCCC review guidelines, and as documented in table 4 below, the ERT has assessed that there are no issues to be included in a prominent paragraph.]

Table 4Issues identified in three successive reviews and not addressed by [Party]

ID#a Previous recommendation for the issue identifiedNumber of successive reviews issue not addressed[b]

General

[No such general issues were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])

Energy

[No such issues for the energy sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])

[No. years] ([X–Y])

25


ID#a Previous recommendation for the issue identifiedNumber of successive reviews issue not addressed[b]

IPPU

[No such issues for the IPPU sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


Agriculture

[No such issues for the agriculture sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


LULUCF

[No such issues for the LULUCF sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


Waste

[No such issues for the waste sector were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])


KP-LULUCF

[No such issues for KP-LULUCF activities were identified] [No. years] ([X–Y])

Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, KP-LULUCF = LULUCF emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.

a An asterisk is included after any issue ID# where the underlying issue is related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key category, as indicated in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 83.

b [ [Party] was not subject to an individual inventory review in 2014. Therefore, 2014 is excluded from this table.]

V. Additional findings made during the [year] technical review

10. Table 5 contains findings made by the ERT during the technical review of the [year] annual submission of [Party] that are additional to those identified in table 3 above.

26

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

27

Table 5Additional findings made during the [year] technical review of the annual submission of [Party] a

ID# Finding classification Description of the finding with recommendation or encouragement

Is finding an issueb and/or a problemc? If yes, classify by type

General

G.3 Select category Issue type



G.6 National registry The ERT notes that the national registry does not fully [comply with the functions set out in [the annex to decision 13/CMP.1][ and the annex to decision 5/CMP.1]] [adhere to the technical standards for data exchange between registry systems in accordance with relevant decisions of the CMP]. Specifically, [insert problems identified with respect to the reporting requirements from the SIAR]. During the review, the Party indicated that [insert any response from the Party and describe the rationale for any outstanding issue]. The ERT recommends that the Party [insert recommendation from the SIAR]. [The ERT concluded that the Party does not meet the mandatory requirements in [insert decision] and lists a question of implementation regarding the Party’s national registry (see ID#[XX])]

Issue type

G.7 Kyoto Protocol units

[If applicable, if more than one paragraph below is relevant, please insert paragraphs into separate row, so each has a unique ID]

[Party] did not report information on [list from the SIAR with reference to requirements included in decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 12–17]. During the review, the Party indicated that [insert any response from the Party and describe the rationale for any outstanding issue]. The ERT recommends that the Party report information in accordance with decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 12–17, in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11

The SIAR identified the following as problems that will need corrective action from the Party in its national registry: [list unit type, etc.] [During the review, the Party indicated that [insert response]. The ERT [concluded that the Party’s records on its accounting of Kyoto Protocol units contained in its national registry are consistent with the corresponding records of the international transaction log.][list questions of implementation on the Party’s accounting of Kyoto Protocol units (see ID#[XX])]]

Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

28



The ERT notes that [Party] did not [undertake the corrective action, as recommended by the previous ERT, on [list unit type, etc.][.][, or][ provide in its annual submission information on actions undertaken to correct any problem that caused a discrepancy to occur, [any changes to the national registry to prevent a discrepancy from reoccurring,][and the resolution of any previously identified question[s] of implementation pertaining to transactions, as required by decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 17]]. [During the review, the Party indicated that [insert response]]. The ERT [concluded that the Party’s reporting does not meet the requirements of decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 17][, and lists [a] question[s] of implementation on the Party’s accounting of Kyoto Protocol units (see ID#[XX])]]

The Party did not provide access to information contained in its national registry, in accordance with decision 15/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 19, to substantiate or clarify [list information] reported in its annual submission. The ERT recommends that [Party] provide the experts with access to information in its national registry, upon request, to substantiate or clarify information reported in its annual submission

G.8 Kyoto Protocol units

[If applicable] [The ERT notes that based on the submission of revised emission estimates by [Party] for [gas] emissions from [category] during the review of the [year] annual submission, the CPR for [Party] changed.] [The ERT noted that, although this value was correctly calculated, taking into account the applied adjusted value for [insert parameter/category] for [year[s]] ([x] t CO2 eq), the ERT recalculated the CPR. The CPR reported in the original submission,[ and] the revised CPR as calculated by the Party [and the CPR as calculated by the ERT after application of the adjustment[s]] may be found in annex II, in the compilation and accounting database table for the latest year. The ERT agrees with the final value given in annex II]

Issue type

G.9 National system [If applicable] [The ERT notes that [the NIR did not provide an adequate description of its implementation of ][the Party is not sufficiently implementing][decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraph [X]]] [Describe the issue, any clarifications provided by the Party during the review, the ERT’s final conclusion and recommendation/encouragement, noting particular strengths or weaknesses]

Issue type

G.10 National system [If applicable] [During the review, the Party provided the ERT with the missing information. The ERT recommends that [Party] include this information in its NIR]. [The reported information is not sufficiently transparent in terms of [provide a detailed description of the issues that are considered as unclear and not sufficiently transparent].] [During the review, the Party provided the ERT with additional information clarifying these issues. The ERT recommends that [Party] improve the transparency of the information by [include specific

Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

29



proposals on how the Party should increase transparency in its next submission] in its NIR]


Energy

E.13 Select category – Add fuels – Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

IPPU

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

30



I.13 Select category – Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

Agriculture

A.11 Select category –Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

31




Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

LULUCF


[Standard text to be added for any issues identified in relation to wetlands] [The ERT encourages the Party to use the Wetlands Supplement in preparing its annual inventories for [X] in future annual submissions]

No


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

L.19 Select category – Issue type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

32



Add gas(es)


Issue type

Waste

W.11 Select category – Add gas(es)

Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type


Issue type

KP-LULUCF

KL.8 Select category –Add gas(es)

[Delete row from template if the Party has a QELRC in CP 2] [[Party] does not have a quanti-fied emission limitation and reduction commitment in the second commitment period. How-

Problem type

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

33



ever, the Party has not included information in its NIR on which voluntary activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol it will include in its reporting. During the re-view, Party indicated [XYZ]. The ERT notes that in accordance with decision 3/CMP.11, this information shall be provided at the latest in the 2016 annual submission. The ERT recom-mends that the Party report on all its voluntary activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol it is including in its reporting


Problem type


Problem type


Problem type


Problem type

Abbreviations: [CMP = Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,] [CPR = commitment period reserve,] [CRF = common reporting format,] ERT = expert review team, [IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,] [IPPU = industrial processes and product use,] [KP-LULUCF = LULUCF emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol,] [Kyoto Protocol Supplement = 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol,] [LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry,] [NIR = national inventory report,] [QA/QA = quality assurance/quality control,] SIAR = standard independent assessment report[, UNFCCC Annex I inventory reporting guidelines = “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”][, Wetlands Supplement = 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands][, 2006 IPCC Guidelines = 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories].

a The review of the 2015 GHG annual submission is being held in conjunction with the review of the 2016 annual submission, in accordance with decision 10/CMP.11, paragraph 1. The ERT has reviewed both the 2015 and the 2016 inventory submission, and in accordance with the conclusions from the 13 th meeting of greenhouse gas inventory lead reviewers (para. 9) has started with the review of the 2016 submission. This table includes all findings that are relevant for both the 2015 and the 2016 annual submission (i.e. this table excludes findings that, although they may have been relevant for the 2015 annual submission, had already been resolved in the 2016 annual submission).

b Recommendations are related to issues as defined in decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 81, or problems as identified in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 69, identified by the ERT during the review. Encouragements are made to the Party to address all findings not related to such issues.

c An asterisk is included next to each issue type that is also a problem, as defined in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 68 and 69, including those that lead to an adjustment or a question of implementation.


VI. Application of adjustments

11. [Option 1] [The ERT has not identified the need to apply any adjustments to the 2016 annual submission of [Party].]

[Option 2] [[Party] does not have a quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore the application of adjustments does not apply.]

[Option 3A. (for Annex A sources)] [The ERT identified [underestimations in emission][overestimation in recovery] estimates for Annex A sources for [year] and recommended [an][x] adjustment[s] in the [x, y, z] sector[s].]

[Option 3B. (for KP-LULUCF)] [The ERT identified [errors][overestimations][underestimations] in the [removal estimates][emission estimates] for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol and recommended [an] adjustment[s].]

12. [In accordance with the guidance for adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (decision 20/CMP.1, in conjunction with decision 4/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 [Party] of the calculated adjustment[s].]

13. A summary of the adjustment[s] is presented in table 6 below.

14. [The Party and the ERT agreed on the adjustment estimated for [category] presented in table 6 below.][The Party did not agree with the ERT on the adjustment estimated for [category] presented in table 6 below and the ERT raised a question of implementation (see chapter VIII below).]

Table 6Summary information on adjustments for [Party]

2013 Reference

As reported(kt CO2 eq)

Calculated by the ERT (kt CO2 eq)

Annex A source

[category] emissions For further discussion, see an-nex IV

KP-LULUCF

Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol [insert activ-ity]

For further discussion, see an-nex IV

Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol [insert activity]


Total Annex A sources

Technical correction to the FMRL


Abbreviations: Annex A sources = source categories included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol, ERT = expert review team, FMRL = forest management reference level, KP-LULUCF = land use,

34


land-use change and forestry emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol.

VII. Accounting quantities for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and, if any, activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol

15. [Option 1] [Annex I shows the accounting quantities for KP-LULUCF as reported by the Party and the final values after the review. The final quantity of units to be [issued][ and ][cancelled] are presented in the same annex.]

[Option 2] [[Party] has elected commitment period accounting and therefore the issuance and cancellation of units for activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol are not applicable for the [year] review.]

[Option 3] [[Party] does not have a quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and its registry was not connected to the international transaction log at any time during the calendar year, and therefore accounting quantities for KP-LULUCF have not been reported.]

VIII. Question[s] of implementation

16. [Option 1] [No questions of implementation were identified by the ERT during the review.]

[Option 2] [The ERT considers that the Party has not satisfactorily resolved during the review the potential problem[s] included in table 7 below, which pertain to language of a mandatory nature and influence the fulfilment of commitments. Therefore, the ERT has identified [this][these] problem[s] as [a] question[s] of implementation in accordance with decision 22/CMP.1, in conjunction with decision 4/CMP.11.]

Table 7Question[s] of implementation for [Party] [add rows, if necessary]

Unresolved problem of a mandatory nature Reference to relevant decision Description of the problem

35

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

36

Annex I

Overview of greenhouse gas emissions and removals for [Party] for submission year [year] and data and information on activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol

1. Tables 8–11 provide an overview of total greenhouse gas emissions and removals for [Party].

Table 8 [Note: the secretariat will complete BEFORE review. Please provide to lead reviewers for final checking before submitting to QA.]Total greenhouse gas emissions for [Party], Base yeara–[Year – 2]b

(kt CO2 eq)

Total GHG emissions excluding indirect CO2 emissions

Total GHG emissions including indirect CO2 emissionsc

Land-use change (Article 3.7bis as contained in the

Doha Amendmentd

KP-LULUCF activities

(Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol)e

KP-LULUCF activities

(Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol)

Total includingLUL

UCFTotal excluding

LULUCFTotal including

LULUCFTotal excluding

LULUCF

CM, GM, RV, WDR FM

FMRL

Base year

1990

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

Abbreviations: CM = cropland management, FM = forest management, FMRL = forest management reference level, GHG = greenhouse gas, GM = grazing land management, KP-LULUCF = LULUCF emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, [NA = not applicable,] [NO = not occurring,] RV = revegetation, WDR = wetland drainage and rewetting.

a Base year refers to the base year under the Kyoto Protocol, which is [[1990][other base year established under the Convention] for CO2, CH4 and N2O, [and] 1995 for HFCs, PFCs [and SF6][SF6 and NF3][and 2000 for NF3]]. [1990 for all gases except NF3, for which the base year is [1995][2000]]. [The base year for cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol is [1990][other base year established under the Convention] [[Party] has not elected any activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol.]]. For activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol and forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, only the inventory years of the commitment period must be reported.

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

37

b Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total GHG emissions. [Values in this table to do not reflect the adjustment[s] calculated by the expert review team for [enter gases]. For further information, please refer to annex IV.]

c The Party has [not] reported indirect CO2 emissions in common reporting format table 6.d The value reported in this column refers to 1990. e Activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol, namely afforestation and reforestation, and deforestation.

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

38 Table 9 [Note: the secretariat will complete the table and footnotes BEFORE the review. Please provide to lead reviewers for final checking before submitting to QA. Guidance: Two digits after decimal point for emissions, one for % change.]

Greenhouse gas emissions by gas for [Party], excluding land use, land-use change and forestry [average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]–[Year–2]a

(kt CO2 eq)

CO2b CH4 N2O HFCs PFCs Unspecified mix of

HFCs and PFCsSF6 NF3

[Average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988] [1989][1990]

[1990]

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

% change [Average of years 1985–1987] [1986] [1988] [1989] [1990] –[Year – 2]

[Abbreviations: NA = not applicable, NE = not estimated, NO = not occurring.] a Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total greenhouse gas emissions. [Values in this table also do not

reflect the adjustment[s] calculated by the expert review team for [enter gases]. For further information, please refer to annex IV.]b [CO2 emissions include indirect CO2 emissions reported in common reporting format table 6.][[Party] did not report indirect CO 2 emissions in

common reporting format table 6.]


Table 10 [Note: the secretariat will complete the table and footnotes BEFORE the review. Please provide to lead re-viewers for final checking before submitting to QA. Guidance: two digits after decimal point for emissions, one for % change.]Greenhouse gas emissions by sector for [Party], [average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]–[Year–2]a,b

(kt CO2 eq)

Energy IPPU Agriculture LULUCF Waste Other

[Average of years 1985–1987][1986][1988][1989][1990]

[1990]

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

% change [Aver-age of years 1985–1987][1986] [1988][1989][1990]–[Year 2]

Abbreviations: IPPU = industrial processes and product use, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry[, NA = not applicable][, NE = not estimated][, NO = not occurring].

a Emissions/removals reported in the sector other (sector 6) are not included in total greenhouse gas emissions. [Values in this table to do not reflect the adjustment[s] calculated by the expert review team for [enter gases]. For further information, please refer to annex IV.]

b [Totals include indirect CO2 emissions reported in common reporting format table 6.][[Party] did not report indirect CO2

emissions in common reporting format table 6.]

39

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

40

Table 11 [Note: the secretariat will complete the table and footnotes BEFORE the review. Please provide to lead reviewers for final checking before submitting to QA. Guidance: two digits after decimal point for emissions, one for % change.]Greenhouse emissions/removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol by activity, base yeara,b–[Year–2], for [Party](kt CO2 eq)

Article 3.7bis as

contained in the Doha

Amendmentc Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol Forest management and elected Article 3.4 activities of the Kyoto Protocol

Land-use change

Afforestation and reforestation Deforestation

Forest manage-ment Cropland management

Grazing land management Revegetation

Wetland drainage and rewetting

FMRL

Technical correction

Base year

2013

% change Base year–[Year – 2]

Abbreviations: FMRL = forest management reference level[, NA = not applicable, NE = not estimated, NO = not occurring].a Base year refers to the base year under the Kyoto Protocol, which is [[1990][other base year established under the Convention] for CO2, CH4 and N2O, [and]

1995 for HFCs, PFCs [and SF6][SF6 and NF3][and 2000 for NF3]]] [1990 for all gases except NF3, for which the base year is [1995][2000]]. The base year for [cropland management], [grazing land management], [revegetation] [and] [wetland drainage and rewetting] under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol is [1990][other base year established under the Convention] for [Party]. [[Party] has not elected any activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol.]For activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol, and forest management under Article 3, paragraph 4, only the inventory years of the commitment period must be reported.

b Values in this table include emissions on lands subject to natural disturbances, if applicable. [Values in this table to do not reflect the adjustment[s] calculated by the expert review team for [enter gases]. For further information, please refer to annex IV.]

c The value reported in this column refers to 1990.

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

41

2. [Paragraph and table to be completed only for Parties with a QELRC in CP1 and with annual accounting]Table 12 provides information on the accounting quantities for reporting under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, as reported by the Party, and the final values after the review.

Table 12 Accounting quantities for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and forest management and any elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, for [Party] Values are taken from the KP-LULUCF accounting table. Please include 3 digits after the decimal place.(t CO2 eq)

Greenhouse gas source and sink activitiesBase yeara Net emissions/removals Accounting parameters Accounting quantityc

2013 Totalb

kt CO2 eq

A.1. Afforestation/reforestation

Excluded emissions from natural disturbancesd

Excluded subsequent removals from land subject to natural disturb-ances

A.2. Deforestation

B.1. Forest management

Net emissions/removals

Excluded emissions from natural disturbancesd

Excluded subsequent removals from land subject to natural disturb-ances

Any debits from CEF-ne

FMRLe

Technical corrections to FMRL

FCC

C/A

RR

/2015/[ISO code]

42

Greenhouse gas source and sink activitiesBase yeara Net emissions/removals Accounting parameters Accounting quantityc

2013 Totalb

kt CO2 eq

Forest management cap

B.2. Cropland management (if elec-ted)

B.3. Grazing land management (if elected)

B.4. Revegetation (if elected)

B.5. Wetland drainage and rewet-ting (if elected)

Abbreviation[s]: CEFne = newly established forest, = FMRL = forest management reference level.a Net emissions and removals from cropland management, grazing land management, revegetation and/or wetland drainage and rewetting, if

elected, in the Party’s base year, as established by decision 9/CP.2.b Cumulative net emissions and removals for all years of the commitment period reported in the current submission.c The accounting quantity is the total quantity of units to be added to or subtracted from a Party's assigned amount for a particular activity in

accordance with the provisions of Article 7.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.d The Party has indicated it is excluding emissions from natural disturbances [annually][at the end of the commitment period]. e Forest management reference level as inscribed in the appendix of the annex to decision 2/CMP.7, in kt CO2 eq per year.


3. Table 13 provides an overview of relevant key data for [Party]’s reporting under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol.

Table 13Key relevant data for [Party] under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol [Guidance: Delete Article 3.4 activities not elected by the Party] The secretariat has pre-filled factual information for consideration by the LRs and the ERT. The ERT MUST review and complete the table as the report is the responsibility of the ERT).

Key parameters Values

Periodicity of accounting (a) Afforestation/reforestation: [annual accounting] [commitment period accounting]

(b) Deforestation: [annual accounting][commitment period accounting]

(c) Forest management: [annual accounting][commit-ment period accounting]

(d) Cropland management: [not elected] [annual ac-counting] [commitment period accounting]

(e) Grazing land management: [not elected][annual ac-counting][commitment period accounting]

(f) Revegetation: [not elected] [annual accounting][com-mitment period accounting]

(g) Wetland drainage and rewetting: [not elected] [an-nual accounting] [commitment period accounting]

Election of activities under Article 3, paragraph 4 [Cropland management][grazing land management][reveget-ation][wetland drainage and rewetting][None]

Election of application of provisions for natural dis-turbances

[No][Yes, for [afforestation and reforestation][ and ][forest management]]

3.5 % of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF[ and including indirect CO2 emissions]

[[X] kt CO2 eq][NA]

Cancellation of AAUs, ERUs, CERs and/or issuance of RMUs in the national registry for:

1. Afforestation and reforestation in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

2. Deforestation in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [issue [X] RMUs]

3. Forest management in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

4. Cropland management in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

5. Grazing land management in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

6. Revegetation in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

7. Wetland drainage and rewetting in 2013 [NA] [Cancel [X] units] [Issue [X] RMUs]

Abbreviations: AAU = assigned amount unit, CER = certified emission reduction unit, ERU = emission reduction unit, GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry[, NA = not applicable], RMU = removal unit.

43


44


[Annex II] [To be included only for those Parties with a QELRC in CP2. Ensure that values are provided in tons, not kt. For Parties without a QELRC in CP2, delete this annex.]

1. Table 14 includes the information to be included in the compilation and accounting database for [Party]. Data shown are from the original annual submission of the Party, including the latest revised estimates submitted, adjustments (if applicable), as well as the final data to be included in the compilation and accounting database.

Table 14 [Secretariat has pre-filled the factual information in the “original submission” column for consideration by the LRs and the ERT. The ERT MUST review and complete the table as the report is the responsibility of the ERT).Information to be included in the compilation and accounting database for 2013, including the commitment period reserve, for [Party] (t CO2 eq)

Original submission Revised estimates Adjustmenta Finalb

Commitment period reserve

Annex A emissions for 2013

CO2[c]

CH4

N2O

HFCs

PFCs

Unspecified mix of HFCs and PFCs

SF6

NF3

Total Annex A sources

Activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Kyoto Protocol for 2013

3.3 Afforestation and reforestation

3.3 Deforestation

Forest management and elected activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol for 2013

3.4 Forest management for 2013

3.4 Cropland management for 2013 [if Article 3.4 activities not elected, delete from table]

3.4 Cropland management for the base year

3.4 Grazing land management for 2013

3.4 Grazing land management for the base year

3.4 Revegetation for 2013

3.4 Revegetation in the base year

3.4 Wetland drainage and rewetting for 2013

3.4 Wetland drainage and rewetting in the base year

45


Abbreviation[s]: Annex A sources = sources included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol[, NA = not applicable][, NE = not estimated][, NO = not occurring].

a “Adjustment” is relevant only for Parties for which the expert review team has calculated one or more adjustment(s). b “Final” includes revised estimates, if any, and/or adjustments, if any.c [CO2 emissions include indirect CO2 emissions reported in common reporting format table 6.]

46


Annex III

Additional information to support findings in table 2

A. Missing categories that may affect completeness

1. [The categories for which methods are included in the 2006 IPCC for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were reported as “NE” (not estimated) or for which the expert review team otherwise determined that there may be an issue with the completeness of reporting in the Party’s inventory are the following:] [Guidance: if applicable, include a list of the missing categories in the order of IPCC categories. Do not include categories reported as “NE” if properly justified that the category(s) is insignificant.]

2. [No mandatory categories of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were identified as missing.]

B. [Recommendation for an in-country review: list of issues][Guidance: Only include for those Parties for which it is recommended that the subsequent year review be conducted as an in-country review. If no such recommendation is made, then delete this section]

3. The ERT has recommended that the next review for [Party] be conducted as an in–country review. [Insert rationale as to why an ICR is recommended (e.g. as opposed to a CR] In accordance with decision 13/CP.20, annex, paragraph 64, the ERT has provided a list of questions and issues to be addressed during this in-country review, as set out below,,that are in addition to the list of issues identified in tables 3 and 5 above.

4. Issue: e.g. National arrangements (Adherence to the UNFCCC Annex I inventory Reporting Guidelines). The ERT notes that several issues (in particular x, y, …) reflect that the functions pertaining to national arrangements are not fully functional. The in-country review should address issues related to XYZ. The ERT notes in particular issues E.x, I.y, etc {list only issues that necessitate a ICR to be addressed} note: KCA and Unc could be here, as well.

(a) Key questions related to this issue are:

(i) List key questions

5. Issue:

(a) Key questions related to this issue are:

(i) List key questions

47


[Annex IV][To be completed and included only for those Parties subject to an adjustment. If the Party is not subject to an adjustment, this annex should be deleted]

1. As required by decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 83(b), this annex provides the relevant information on the adjustment[s] applied to the [year] annual submission of [Party]. Quantitative information used in the calculation of [the][each] adjustment is presented in tables [16 and 17][16–18] below.

Table 16Background information to support adjustments for [Category/activity – gas] for [Party]

Element Description

Underlying problem and rationale for adjustment

Recommendation to the Party to address the underlying problem, as contained in the list of potential problems and further questions raised by the expert review team

Assumptions, data and methodology used to calculate the adjustment

Description of how the adjustment is conservative

Table 17

Description of the calculation of adjustments for source categories included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol for [Party]

Parameter/estimate

Value or assessment [please use 3

decimal places] Unit Reference

Category: [X]

Party’s estimate of: [indicate parameter or data in question]

kt CO2 eq

Party’s emission/removal estimate from [indicate category in question]

kt CO2 eq

Input data/parameter for calculation of adjustment

Calculated estimate for [indicate parameter or estimate in question (before applying conservativeness factor)]

kt CO2 eq

Conservativeness factor

Adjusted conservative estimate for [indicate parameter or estimate in question]

kt CO2 eq

Adjusted conservative estimate for [indicate category in question]

kt CO2 eq

Total aggregated GHG emissions (excluding kt CO2 eq

48


Parameter/estimate

Value or assessment [please use 3


LULUCF and including indirect CO2 emissions) as reported by the Party

Total aggregated GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF and including indirect CO2 emissions) after application of adjustment

kt CO2 eq

Difference between original and adjusted total aggregated GHG emissions

kt CO2 eq

%

The ERT estimates that the change resulting from the adjustment is above the threshold given in decision 24/CP.19, annex, paragraph 37(b)

[Yes][No] Adjusted value for the category is greater than

[500 kt CO2 eq][0.05 % of national emissions]

Abbreviations: ERT = expert review team, GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.Table 18Description of the calculation of adjustment[s] for activities under Article 3, paragraph 3, and, if any, activities under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol for [Party]

Parameter/estimateValue [please use 3


Activity: [X]

Party’s estimate of: [indicate parameter or data in question]

kt CO2 eq

Party’s emission/removal estimate from [indicate activity in question]

kt CO2 eq

Input data/parameter for calculation of adjustment

Calculated estimate for [indicate parameter or estimate in question (before applying conservativeness factor)]

kt CO2 eq

Conservativeness factor

Adjusted conservative estimate for [indicate parameter or estimate in question)]

kt CO2 eq

Adjusted conservative estimate for [indicate activity in question)]

kt CO2 eq

Difference between original and adjusted emissions/removals for [activity]

kt CO2 eq

%

[Abbreviation[s]: xxx = yyy.]

49


Annex V

Documents and information used during the review

[Note: the secretariat will complete BEFORE the review week.]

A. Reference documents

Aggregate information on greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention. Note by the secretariat. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/webdocs/agi/2015.pdf>.

Annual status report for [Party] for 2015. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/[2015][2016]/asr/ISO.pdf>.

[FCCC/ARR/2014/[ISO]. Report on the individual review of the annual submission of [Party] submitted in 2014. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/arr/ISO.pdf>.]

[FCCC/ARR/2013/[ISO]. Report of the individual review of the annual submission of Party submitted in 2013. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/arr/ISO.pdf>.]

[Guidance: Include all ARRs referenced in table 3.]

“Guidelines for national systems for the estimation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol”. Decision 19/CMP.1. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf#page=14>.

“Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”. Decision 22/CMP.1. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf#page=51>.

“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”. Annex to decision 24/CP.19. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a03.pdf#page=4>.

“Guidelines for the preparation of the information required under Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol”. Decision 15/CMP.1. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a02.pdf#page=54>.

“Guidelines for the technical review of information reported under the Convention related to greenhouse gas inventories, biennial reports and national communications by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention”. Annex to decision 13/CP.20. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/cop20/eng/10a03.pdf#page=6>.

“Implications of the implementation of decisions 2/CMP.7 to 4/CMP.7 and 1/CMP.8 on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol, including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, part I: implications related to accounting and reporting and other related issues”. Decision 3/CMP.11. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cmp11/eng/08a01.pdf#page=5>.

“Implications of the implementation of decisions 2/CMP.7 to 4/CMP.7 and 1/CMP.8 on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol, including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, part II: implications related to review and adjustments and other related issues”. Decision 4/CMP.11. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cmp11/eng/08a01.pdf#page=30>.

50


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html>.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Available at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/kpsg>.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Available at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/index.html>.

Standard independent assessment report, part 1, for [Party] for [year]. Available at <insert reference>.

Standard independent assessment report, part 2, for [Party] for [year]. Available at <insert reference>.

B. Additional information provided by the Party

Responses to questions during the review were received from [Ms.][Mr.] [Surname] [(organization)], including additional material on the methodology and assumptions used. [The following documents3 were also provided by [Party]:

Author. Year. Title in Italics and in Title Case (English translation if appropriate). [City: Publisher.] [Available at <web address>.]

3 Reproduced as received from the Party.

51


Annex VI

Acronyms and abbreviations

CH4 methane[CMP Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol]CO2 carbon dioxideCO2 eq carbon dioxide equivalentCRF common reporting formatERT expert review teamGHG greenhouse gasIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPPU industrial processes and product useKP-LULUCF LULUCF emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4,

of the Kyoto Protocolkt kilotonneLULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry[NA not applicable][NE not estimated]NIR national inventory report[NO not occurring]QA/QC quality assurance/quality controlSEF standard electronic formatSIAR standard independent assessment reportUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

52


Appendix I. QA/QC checklists for LRs/ERTs1. LR CHECKLIST #1: QC CHECKLIST (END OF REVIEW WEEK)

CHECK Y/NTable 2 includes an assessment by the ERT for each criterion?If the ERT has identified issues related to missing categories/ completeness, have the relevant categories been listed in annex III?If the ERT concludes that the Party should be subject to an exceptional in-country review in the subsequent inventory review cycle, has the ERT provided a list of questions and issues to be assessed in annex III?In table 3, has the ERT provided an assessment of the implementation for all previous recommendations included in that table, along with a rationale for its assessment?In table 4, has the ERT identified all issues raised in three successive reviews?In table 4, has the ERT an asterisk next to all issues related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key category, as indicated in the UNFCCC review guidelines, paragraph 83.Have all sectoral experts provided a complete review transcript, including text for the findings to be included in table 5 of the ARR and the classification of whether the finding is an “issue”?

2. LR CHECKLIST #2: QA/QC CHECKLIST (SUBMITTED WITH FOD 6 WKS AFTER THE REVIEW WEEK)

Objective: Provide the secretariat with a complete, quality controlled draft ARR that reflects the views of the ERT. Checks are additional to those completed at the end of the review week CHECKS Y/N If no,

changes needed

Ensure completeness of the reportAll issues identified by the ERT in the review transcript for inclusion in the ARR (i.e. included in the dedicated column in the review transcript) are included in table 5.All relevant references to underlying issues in the report are included in table 2Table 3 includes all “issues” from the previous review reportEnsure quality of findings and consistency across reportsIn table 2, if the ERT indicates a negative assessment or that issues have been identified, are there one or more entries in table 3 or 5 supporting this assessmentThe assessment by the ERT in table 3 is relevant and consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines and/or the UNFCCC reporting guidelines and the UNFCCC review guidelinesTable 4 includes the ID# and recommendations from table 3 for all issues that have been highlighted for three or more years (including the current review) (taking into account that the ERT has some discretion to determine whether a Party has made sufficient progress and therefore an issue does not need to be included in table 4).In table 4, any issue identified related to accuracy or completeness of a key category, a missing category or a potential key category, in accordance with para. 83 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20, is identified with an asteriskSubstantive checks: All findings in table 5 clearly outline the problem, the Party’s response during the review and the ERT’s recommendation/encouragement“Issues” or “problems”are appropriately identified and classified (e.g., transparency, accuracy, consistency…) in accordance with paragraphs 80 and 81 of the annex to decision 13/CP.20. and paragraph 69 of the annex to decision 22/CMP.1. Assessments not related to “issues” are termed “findings”.All “issues/problems” lead to a recommendation

All “findings” lead to an encouragement

53


Objective: Provide the secretariat with a complete, quality controlled draft ARR that reflects the views of the ERT. Checks are additional to those completed at the end of the review week CHECKS Y/N If no,

changes needed

CRF tables have been reviewed to ensure that all categories that may impact “completeness” are included in annex III.Only categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines are considered in the assessment of completeness.

Use of standard language

Standard language is used where available, particularly in introductory paragraphs and table 5.

NumbersReference to base year is in accordance with the UNFCCC reporting guidelines.Values in Annex I match the numbers in CRF table Summary 2 in the latest submissionAll foonotes in the annexes have been customized, as appropriate.The table in Annex I on the accounting quantities for KP-LULUCF has been completed in accordance with the instructions in the footnotes.The issuance and cancellation of units in Annex I is well calculated.AdjustmentsThe adjustments template is used in section VI and Annex IV.Adjustment values are expressed with three digits after the decimal pointCalculations for individual adjustments (tables) were verified.AD, EFs used in calculations match the values that are referenced in the table in Annex IV (e.g. AD in CRF tables; IPCC default EF)The conservativeness factors are in accordance with Table 2 of appendix III to decision 20/CMP.1, as updated by decision 4/CMP.11The names of the category - gas are in accordance with the IPCC list of categoriesThe sum of all adjustments in table 6 is well calculatedThe impact on total emissions (Annex A categories) is correct (original total emissions minus total emissions including resubmission after Saturday Paper) and the per cent increase of emissions is well calculatedThe values reported in table 6 match the sum of the individual adjustment values reported in Annex IVThe standard footnote is included for all tables in Annex I to indicate that values in the table are, as reported, and do not include the adjustments.Check that the values in the CAD tables (Annex II, column “adjustments”) match the values in table 6 and Annex IV

Checks for ensuring consistency between the 2015 and 2016 ARRsTable 3: Are columns 1-3 identical in the 2015 and 2016 ARRs?Table 3: Has the ERT confirmed the status of each recommendation, considering separately the 2015 and 2016 inventory submission?Table 4: Is this table identical between the 2015 and 2016 ARRs, with the exception that any reference to “2015” in the 2015 ARR is changed to “2015/2016” in the 2016 ARR?

54