UNFCCC secretariat, Mitigation Data and Analysis

Vitor Góis

Overview of planning and preparation of

the 2016 reviews

13th Meeting of Lead Reviewers

Bonn, Germany, 1–2 March 2016

Overview

New guidance for reporting and reviews: UNFCCC and KP

Challenges and opportunities for this year’s review cycle

Review plan for 2016

Objectives for 2016

Discussion and conclusions

Guidance framework (overview)

• Convention

Agreed review guidelines (decision 13/CP.20)

In combination with the new reporting guidelines (decision 24/CP.19), to be

used starting 2015

• Kyoto Protocol

Guidelines on reporting, accounting and review were agreed (Decisions 2-

5/CMP.1)

These, together with previous decisions on KP issues (decisions 2/CMP.6, 2-

4/CMP.7, 1-2/CMP.8, 6/CMP.9), set the complete framework for the

implementation of the second commitment period

See user-friendly manual: consolidated decisions for CP2

SBSTA 43/COP21/CMP11 guidance on technical reviews (decisions

20/CP.21 and 10/CMP.11)

Organize in conjunction the review of the 2015 GHG inventory submissions

under the Convention and KP, the review of the 2016 submissions, and

the review of the reports to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount

for the second commitment period

ERTs shall review identical information only once and shall produce a

separate, complete review report for each Party for each year, but may

replicate the same review text in both review reports for identical information

Training

Improved

tools and

materials

New

guidelines

Gained

experience

Adaptation

to new

materials

Competition

With other

reviews Expanded

scope of

reviews

Stricter

timelines

Reviews 2016 – challenges and opportunities

Challenges

• Expansion of the scope of the reviews

3 reviews in conjunction: 2015 + 2016 + initial review CP2

3 reports to prepare for most Party (KP Parties with QELRC)

Each report has a different scope:

Focus on different years for issues, problems and adjustments: 2015,

2016 and base year

Different ‘trigger’ for adjustments: under-estimate vs. overestimates

• Stricter timelines than in CP1

In accordance with decision 13/CP.20 (20 weeks after review week)

Challenges

• Reviewers need to adapt to new rules and guidelines

New CRF tables

Major differences related to LULUCF and KP-LULUCF

Use of new IPCC Guidelines

Errata/corrigenda

KP-LULUCF

New methodologies for FM; forest management reference level and

technical corrections (adjustments); natural disturbances; plantations;

HWP

2013 Supplement reports on KP and wetlands

Challenges

• Review templates

The templates follow a new structure (table): limited experience in 2015

5 review templates for different purposes

• Review tools

Revised version of the review tools, to be piloted in 2016

Some still under development and testing, but they will be used in the

2016 cycle

• Reviewers in demand

To perform other types of reviews

NC/BR; BUR;

technical assessments of REDD+ forest reference levels

Challenges

• Submission date

Date for the submission of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned

amount

Due date: 15 April 2015; delays due to delays in the CRF reporter

Questionnaire to Parties on expected dates of submission

In conjunction with 2016 submissions?

• Current perspectives for the CRF Reporter

The secretariat proposes the following:

Parties prepare and submit their GHG inventories by 15 April 2016 using the

latest version of the CRF Reporter (v5.12.2)

Due to known display issues in the reporting tables, the secretariat will

indicate the submission date on its website but will not publish the submitted

CRF tables (if so requested by Parties)

After the 3 May 2016 release, Parties may regenerate the CRF tables and

provide to the secretariat with the understanding that this not a re-submission

(provided data are not changed)

The regenerated CRF tables will be posted on the secretariat’s website

maintaining the same submission date

Opportunities

• New review guidelines

New start

Taking on board improvements due to experience

Streamlining Convention and KP reviews

Experience gained during 2015 regarding the use of template and review

procedures (refresher seminar)

Improved and more systematic treatment of previous recommendations and

recurrent recommendations not addressed by Parties

• Templates and new review transcript

More structured; using tables; designed to increase consistency in reports

Possibility to streamline RT and the template

Improvements in the definition of “findings”; “issues”; and “problems”

Improved clarity on the overview and summary

Opportunities

• Training

Convention training and examinations available and experienced reviewers are

encouraged to take them

KP training under preparation

Review handbook and KP Manual as a live ‘refresher seminar’

• Review tools

New review tools: more user-friendly and web-based

Communication tool: improvements and streamlining with other review process

(BR/BURs)

Overview of the plan for 2016

Principles and assumptions

• In-country reviews

KP Parties without QERLCs for CP1 have to be subject to an ICR (decision

4/CMP.11)

“For Parties included in Annex I with a commitment inscribed in the third column

of the table contained in Annex B to the Doha Amendment which did not have

a quantified emission limitation and reduction target in the first commitment

period, the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned

amount for the second commitment period shall be conducted as an in-

country visit. For other Parties included in Annex I the review shall be

conducted either as a centralized review or as an in-country visit, giving

priority to in-country visits for those Parties that have not been reviewed in

such a way in recent years.”

Need to catch up with the scheduling rules under decision 13/CP.20 (para. 63)

“subject to an in-country review at least once every five years”

But being aware of the heavy workload for 2016 (exceptional measures not

precedent-setting for future work)

Principles and assumptions

• Desk reviews

Not to be used for KP Parties with QELRC for CP2

Also exceptional measures relative to decision 13/CP.20

“shall be subject to a desk review at most once every three years”

• Centralized reviews

The remaining reviews, including for some Parties with QELRCs for CP2

• The final plan will consider the responses to the questionnaires

To ERTs on availability to participate in reviews

‘Competition’ with other review processes: BR, BUR and REDD+

To Parties on expected submission dates and preferences for review week and type of

review

Par

ty

Au

stra

lia

Au

stri

a

Be

laru

s

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lga

ria

Can

ad

a

Cro

ati

a

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

epu

bli

c

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU Fin

lan

d

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ice

lan

d

Ire

lan

d

Ita

ly

Jap

an

Ka

zakh

sta

n

2010 ICR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR ICR ICR CR ICR CR CR CR CR ICR

2011 CR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR

2012 CR CR CR ICR CR CR ICR CR CR ICR CR ICR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR

2013 CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR ICR ICR CR

2014 CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR

2015 ICR CR

2016

Par

ty

Latv

ia

Lie

chte

nst

ein

Li

thu

an

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Ma

lta

Mo

na

co

Net

her

lan

ds

New

Ze

alan

d

No

rwa

y

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Ru

ssia

n F

d.

Slo

vak

ia

Slo

ven

ia

Spa

in

Swe

den

Swit

zerl

and

Turk

ey

Ukr

ain

e

UK

US

2010 CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR

2011 CR CR ICR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR ICR CR ICR CR CR CR ICR CR CR

2012 CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR ICR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR ICR

2013 ICR ICR CR CR DR ICR CR CR CR ICR CR CR CR CR ICR CR ICR CR CR CR CR CR

2014 CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR ICR CR CR

2015 DR CR

2016

ICR ICR ICR

ICR

DRICR ICR ICR ICR ICR

ICR

DR

DR DR

CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR

CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR

Planning details

• Review period

Autumn (September – October)

Reason: the timing for identification of potential problems (25 weeks from the submission

due date)

• Organization of reviews

o Centralized reviews

• 10 reviews in Bonn; 3 – 4 Parties per centralized review

• 2 experts per sector (3 for energy and LULUCF, if possible)

• New experts subject to training

o Desk reviews

• 2 Desk reviews, 2 Parties per team each: Canada, Japan, Russian Federation,

Turkey

• 2 Parties per team; Only experienced reviewers

o In-country reviews

• 10 in-country reviews

• Parties without QELRC for CP1: Belarus, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Malta

• Last ICR in 2010: Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary,

Switzerland

• 3-4 Parties per ERT

• The 5 year period to be recovered in following years

Planning details – resources

Centralized Desk In-country Total

10 2 10

Generalists 2 1 1

Energy 3 1 1

IPPU 2 1 1

Agriculture 2 1 1

LULUCF 3 1 1

Waste 2 1 1

New experts 2 0 0

Total 16 6 6

LRs 2 2 2

Generalists 20 2 10

Energy 30 2 10

IPPU 20 2 10

Agriculture 20 2 10

LULUCF 30 2 10

Waste 20 2 10

New experts 20 0 0

Total 160 12 60 232

non-Annex I 116

Annex I 116

Experts nominated by Party 2-4Lead reviewers 44

Type of review

Experts per team

2016 review cycle - total number of experts

Number of reviews

CR1 CR2

CR3 CR4

CR5 CR6

CR7 CR8

CR9 CR10

29 Aug

to

3 Sep

5 Sep

to

10 Sep

12 Sep

to

17 Sep

19 Sep

to

24 Sep

26 Sep

to

1 Oct

4 Oct

to

8 Oct

10 Oct

to

15 Oct

DR1

DR2

ICR1

ICR2 ICR3

ICR4

ICR5 ICR6

ICR7

ICR8 ICR9

ICR10

Main objectives for the 2016 review cycle

Managing the several reviews in conjunction and ensuring that 3

reports for most Parties do not increase much the workload

Streamlining the findings

Efficient use of the review templates, review transcript, wrap-up

meetings, priority to certain issues and questions

o More on this in the afternoon

Maximize gained experience during 2015

Use of the templates

o Yesterday’s refresher seminar

Review procedures

o Plan for the week

o Active leadership by LRs

o More on this on the afternoon

Addressing consistency

o More on this during in the afternoon presentations

Streamlining review transcripts and reports

o More on this in the afternoon

Main objectives for the 2016 review cycle

Implement the new review tools, materials and templates under the

guidance of the lead reviewers and under the framework of the data

warehouse

o More on this after lunch

Develop stable procedures to meet the strict timing deadlines under

decision 13/CP.20, including

ZOD draft during the review week

Implement a pragmatic, efficient and effective QA system and

secretariat’s QA procedures that is not an obstacle to meeting the

deadlines

Ensuring more resources

Additional reviewers; limited number of Parties per ERT; increased

support by ROs

Improve the overall efficiency of the review process

Experts to be supported for 2016 reviews by each Annex I Party

Improving working conditions for ERTs

Conclusions

Possible elements for draft conclusions

Recognize the importance of pursuing the timeliness of review in

accordance with decision 13/CP.20, in spite of the challenges for

2016

Requesting the secretariat to continue practices that have

contributed to improvements in efficiency of review during the

2015 review cycle

To consult with Parties to agree on review dates

Prepare ERTs as early as possible

At least one LR does not have sectoral responsibilities

ERTs with limited number of Parties and a sufficient number of

experienced experts

Materials, templates and review tools available early

Encouraging enhanced leadership role by lead reviewers in

ensuring that ERTs follow the new UNFCCC review guidelines of

timeliness and ensuring streamlining whenever possible

Possible elements for draft conclusions

Any additional suggestions?

Thank you

New timing rules: comparison to old guidelines and KP

Example

Review week

1-Sep

Publication

KP – 1 Feb (14 April)

Conv. – 26 Jan