planning and preparation of reviews of annual...
TRANSCRIPT
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)
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
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