template_irr - unfcccunfccc.int/.../irr2016_template__13feb2017_final.docx · web...

Report on the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of [Party]

Note by the expert review team

Summary

According to decision 2/CMP.8, each Party with a quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment inscribed in the third column of Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, as contained in annex I to decision 1/CMP.8, shall submit to the secretariat a report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In accordance with decision 22/CMP.1, annex I, paragraph 11, in conjunction with decision 4/CMP.11, the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount is subject to a review. This report presents the results of the technical review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, 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].

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

Distr.: General14 January 2017

English only

FCCC/IRR/2016/[ISO code]

Instructions for completing the template

Statement from 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). If the Party does not elect to include a statement on the final report, this section should be deleted prior to publication.

Introduction The secretariat will pre-fill this section (except for para. 2, which is not completed until after the Party has an opportun-ity to comment on the draft report). Please check the spelling of your name in table 1 for accuracy.

Summary of the reporting on mandatory elements in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amountTable 2 is to be completed by the ERT during the review week. The secretariat will pre-fill the date(s) of submission and customize the table to remove the section related to Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol for non-European Union (non-EU) Parties. Most questions are self-explanatory (you may also refer to decision 2/CMP.8 annex I in addition to the se-lected guidance in this section). Essentially, table 2 provides a checklist for the ERT to assess the Party’s fulfilment of each of the required elements to be reported in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount, as de-scribed in decisions 2/CMP.8, 6/CMP.9, 3/CMP.11 and 5/CMP.11.

Generally, the assessment being sought by the ERT is self-explanatory. In most cases, the answer of “yes” or “no” in the table serves to identify whether the ERT has identified an issue with reporting of the required element. The issue it-self is not to be elaborated in table 2, but rather expanded in table 3. Table 2 should include the standard language of “For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3” in cases where table 3 elaborates on the issue. Table 5 complements table 2 by providing additional factual information regarding the Party’s submission (e.g. elections for land use, land-use change and forestry emissions and removals from activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Pro-tocol (KP-LULUCF), calculation of the assigned amount, commitment period reserve (CPR), etc.).

Some elements in table 2 are only applicable to Parties without a quantified emission limitation and reduction commit-ment (QELRC) in the first commitment period (CP 1). For Parties with a QELRC in CP 1, the rows in table 2 for without a QELRC can either be deleted (e.g. reporting of the base year for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, reporting of the forest definition and comparison with values from FAO or other international bodies), or completed with the standard language provided (e.g. information related to the national system and national registry). Additional guidance for table 2 is as follows:

Are there any missing categories or issues related to completeness for the base year or period? The question of missing categories and completeness refers only to categories for which methods are provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 IPCC Guidelines). The assess-ment of completeness also includes categories in the land use, land-use change and forestry sector, recognizing that in accordance with the Article 3, paragraph 7bis, as contained in the Doha Amendment. Parties for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 1990 may include in the base year or base period carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change.

If a category is not reported, but methods are not provided in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, a problem should not be identi-fied. Furthermore, if a Party demonstrates that a category is not significant, in accordance with decision 24/CP.19, an -nex I, paragraph 37(b), this should not be considered a question of completeness.

Agreement by the Party under Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol to implement commitments jointly. This section is only applicable to member States of the EU and the EU itself. The ERT should delete this section for other Parties. The ERT is to assess whether the Party has reported complete information, including detailed methodologies, and if applic-able, assumptions, on the application of decision 1/CMP.8, paragraphs 23–26, calculation of base year emissions, the assigned amount and the CPR, and the application and calculation pursuant to decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 13.

2


Was the assigned amount calculated in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 8 of the Kyoto Protocol and Article 3, paragraphs 7bis and 8bis, as contained in the Doha amendment? The ERT should answer this question based on the original submission. If a problem is identified with the calculation of the assigned amount, this should be further de-scribed in table 3. Table 5 will include the actual value for the assigned amount, as reported by the Party, and the final value, as agreed by the ERT.

Has the Party reported the difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period (CP 2) and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period, multiplied by eight? The ERT should indicate, “yes” or “no”, whether this information was provided. If there is a problem with the value repor -ted, this should be further described in table 3. Table 5 will include the actual value, as reported by the Party, and the fi-nal value, as agreed by the ERT.

Was the commitment period reserve calculated in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 and decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 18, in the original submission? The ERT should answer this question based on the original submission. If a problem is identified with the calculation of the CPR, this should be fur -ther described in table 3. Table 5 will include the actual value of the CPR, as reported by the Party, and the final value, as agreed by the ERT.

Has the Party reported a definition of forest in accordance with decision 2/CMP.8, annex I, paragraph 1(f)? As noted, this is only applicable to Parties without a QELRC in CP 1. Parties with a QELRC in CP 1 must continue using the same forest definition, although this does not necessarily have to be reported in the initial report. If a Party with a QELRC in CP 1 does not apply the same forest definition in CP 2, this should be addressed in the annual review report, not the initial review report.

Has the Party reported the quantity amounting to 3.5 per cent of the base year GHG emissions, excluding LU-LUCF? The ERT should indicate, “yes” or “no”, whether this information was provided. If there is a problem with the value reported, this should be further described in table 3. Table 5 will include the actual value, as reported by the Party, and the final value, as agreed by the ERT.

Information related to the national system and national registry. For Parties with a QELRC in CP 1, select “NA” and the appropriate standard text. For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1, select “yes” or “no” as appropriate. The ERT must also complete the relevant checklists in annex III.

Technical assessment of the elements reviewedThe purpose of table 3 is to provide additional information, as necessary, on the findings from the review, including any issues identified in table 2, as well as general commendations that the ERT may want to communicate to the Party. Spe-cific guidance for completing table 3 is as follows:

ID#: Findings should be numbered sequentially.

Finding classification: Please select the appropriate classification for the finding from the drop-down box.

Description of the finding. This section should fully describe the findings of the ERT, including information on what the Party reported and, as appropriate, why the ERT concludes that the information reported did not meet the require-ments of the decisions. Please use the standard language, where possible.

This section should not include recommendations, as the initial report is a one-time submission. Any problems identi-fied with inventory reporting, or further recommendations on the national system/national registry should be included in the 2015/2016 annual review report, as appropriate.

If adjustments are determined to be necessary, table 3 should include the standard language that the need for an adjust -ment has been identified. The details and quantification for the adjustment is then included in annex II.

Classification of problem. During the initial review, the ERT is to assess whether the information is complete and sub-mitted in accordance with the relevant decisions. Problems should be classified as ones of transparency, accuracy, com-pleteness, consistency and comparability, as defined in decision 22/CMP.1, annex, paragraph 69. If there is no problem, merely a finding, select “Not a problem”.

3


Questions of implementationIf there are any unresolved problems of a mandatory nature at the end of the review, these unresolved problems should be listed in table 4. The full description of the problems should be included in table 3.

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.

AnnexesAnnex I. Key relevant data for the Party. The purpose of this annex is to include all key data for the Party, including trends of emission data and other data, as reported by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount.

Table 5 includes information reported by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount, un-less otherwise specified. Parties with QELRCs in CP 1 did not have to report information in their initial report for CP 2 (e.g. base year for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, and the forest definition). This in-formation is still included in table 5 to facilitate the access of comparable information for all Parties in CP 2. An aster -isk should be included next to the “Key information or parameter” in all cases where the information was not submitted by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, because the Party had already submitted this information in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Tables 6–8 are the same as tables 8–10 in the Kyoto Protocol annual review report template, with the exception that KP-LULUCF is omitted from table 6 as the trends in KP-LULUCF are not relevant for the initial report.

Annex II. 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 9 is a summary of the adjustment(s) to be applied. You should include a separate row for each Annex A source and for each category under LULUCF. If only one adjustment is being applied, include “NA” in the row that is not ap -plicable.

Table 10 provides further detail for each category subject to an adjustment. You should include a separate table for each category.

Table 11 provides the detailed calculations for each category – gas combination. In Table 11, please be sure to include all values with three decimal places, as adjustments should be reported to the nearest ton. When carrying out the adjust -ment 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.

Annex III. Additional information on the review of the national system and the national registry. This annex should only be completed and included for those Parties that did not have a QELRC in CP 1. If the Party did have a QELRC in CP 1, this information was already reviewed as part of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount in the first commitment period and was not required to be reported again.

For further information on the assessments to be undertaken and reported on in tables 12 and 13, please refer to the rel-evant decisions. The elements referred to in table 12 are the specific functions that a national system shall exhibit, as contained in decision 19/CMP.1, annex, paragraphs 12 – 16. For the requirements of the national registry to be reported on in table 13, please refer to the annex to decision 13/CMP.1, the annex to decision 5/CMP.1 and the technical stand -ards for data exchange between registry systems adopted by the CMP.

Annex IV. Please be sure to include all references provided by the Party during the review in section B of Annex IV. Any additional references used, but not provided by the Party, are included in section A.

Annex V. Annex V is pre-populated with the standard acronyms and abbreviations. Please check prior to submission that any additional acronyms or abbreviations used by the ERT are added to the list, and any unused ones are removed.

4


5


[Statement submitted by [Party] on the final report] [Delete this section if no comment from Party] [This page moved forward, it was previously AFTER the TOC but should be before]

Comment by [Party]

6


ContentsParagraphs Page

I. Introduction – 7II. Summary of the reporting on mandatory elements in the report to facilitate the

calculation of the assigned amount.......................................................................... 8

III. Technical assessment of the elements reviewed...................................................... 11

IV. Questions of implementation................................................................................... 16

Annexes

I. Key relevant data for [Party]............................................................................................................. 17

II. Additional information on adjustments............................................................................................. 24

III. Additional information on the review of the national system and the national registry.................... 26

IV. Documents and information used during the review......................................................................... 28

V. Acronyms and abbreviations............................................................................................................. 30

7


I. Introduction1

1. The review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount) of [Party] was organized by the UNFCCC secretariat, in accordance with the “Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”.2 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].

2. A draft version of this report was communicated to the Government of [Party], which [provided no comments] [provided comments that were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into this final version of the report].

Table 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.

1 At the time of publication of this report, the Party had not yet submitted thean instrument of ratification of the Doha Amendment.

2 Decision 22/CMP.1 and its annex and any revisions contained in decision 4/CMP.11 and its annex I.

8


II. Summary of the reporting on mandatory elements in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount

1. Table 2 provides a summary of the ERT’s assessment of the reporting of mandatory elements by [Party] in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount. Key data and elections by the Party are included in table 5.

Table 2 Expert review team’s assessment of the reporting of mandatory elements by [Party] in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount (The secretariat has pre-filled factual information in table 2 based on the Party’s submission for consideration by the lead reviewers and the ERT. The ERT MUST review and complete the table as the report is the responsibility of the ERT)

Item Comment

General Party information

Date[s] of submission Original submission: [Day Month Year]

Revised submission[s]: [Day Month Year]

Are there any missing categories or issues related to com-pletenessa in the reporting of GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks for the base year or period?

[Yes][No] [For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3][and annex II][see FCCC/ARR/2016/ISO]

Was the GHG inventory recalculated in accordance with decision 4/CMP.7 for all years from [1990][other ap-proved base year or period under Article 3, paragraph 5, of the Kyoto Protocol] to the most recent year available?

[Yes][No] [For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

[Delete this row if the Party had a QELRC in CP 1]Did the Party report the base year for HFCs, PFCs and SF6?

[Yes][No] [See annex I, table 5][For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

Did the Party report the base year for NF3? [Yes][No] [See annex I, table 5][For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

Information related to agreement by the Party under Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol to implement com-mitments jointly [Include this section for EU member States and the EU itself only]

Has complete information been reported in accordance with decision 3/CMP.11, paragraph 11, by the Party in ful-filment of its agreement under Article 4 of the Kyoto Pro-tocol in relation to the following:

(a) Application of decision 1/CMP.8, paragraphs 23–26, related to carry-over and the previous period surplus reserve account


(b) Calculation of base-year emissions [Yes][No] [For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

(c) Calculation of the assigned amount [Yes][No] [See annex I, table 5][For

9


Item Comment

further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

(d) Calculation of the commitment period reserve [Yes][No] [See annex I, table 5][For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

(e) Application and calculation pursuant to decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 13


Information related to the assigned amount and the commitment period reserve

Was the assigned amount in the original submission calcu-lated in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 8, of the Kyoto Protocol, Article 3, paragraphs 7 bis and 8 bis, as contained in the Doha Amendment, and decision 13/CMP.1 in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.1?


Has the Party reported in the original submission the dif-ference between the assigned amount for the second com-mitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period, multiplied by 8?


Has the Party indicated in the original submission the ap-proachb used to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period?


Did land-use change and forestry constitute a net source of GHG emissions in the [base year] [base period], and there-fore did the Party include emissions from deforestation in the calculation of the assigned amount?


Was the commitment period reserve in the original sub-mission calculated in accordance with the annex to de-cision 18/CP.7, the annex to decision 11/CMP.1, the annex to decision 13/CMP.1, paragraph 8 quinquies, and decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 18?


Information related to activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol

[For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1]Has the Party re-ported a definition of forest in accordance with decision 2/CMP.8, annex I, paragraph 1(f)?


[For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1]Has the Party re-ported a comparison between the values used in the forest definition and values that have been historically reported to FAO or other international bodies?


If the Party identified activities elected under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol, are these elections in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraphs 6–8?

[Yes][No] [NA]

[See annex I, table 5][For further information, see ID#[X] in table 3]

[For Parties with a QELRC in CP 1]Do the activities elec- [Yes][No] [For further information,

10


Item Comment

ted under Article 3, paragraph 4, of the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period include at least those activ-ities elected for the first commitment period?

[NA] see ID#[X] in table 3]

Is information reported on how the national system under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol will identify land areas associated with all additional elected activities and how the Party ensures that land that was accounted for in the first commitment period continues to be accounted for in the second commitment period?


Has the Party identified for each activity under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol whether it in-tends to account annually or for the entire commitment period?

[Yes][No] [See annex I, table 5][For further information, ID#[X] in table 3]

Did the Party provide information on the forest management reference level, including, if appropriate, information on technical corrections and information on how emissions from harvested wood products originating from forests prior to the start of the second commitment period have been calculated in the reference level?


Has the Party reported the quantity amounting to 3.5% of the base year GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF, in the original submission?


Did the Party indicate whether it intends to apply the provisions to exclude emissions from natural disturbances for the accounting for afforestation and reforestation and/or forest management and provide the relevant information in accordance with decision 2/CMP.7, annex, paragraph 33?


Information related to the national system and national registry

Was a description of the national system provided, in ac-cordance with the guidelines for national systems under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol?

[Yes][No][NA]

[For Parties with QELRC in CP 1 (select “NA”)] This information was already reported and re-viewed as part of the initial review of the report to fa-cilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period and did not need to be reported

[For Parties without QELRC in CP 1 (select “Yes”/“No”)]For the ERT assessment of the reporting of specific mandatory ele-ments, see annex III

11


Item Comment

Was a description of the national registry provided, in ac-cordance with the requirements contained in the annex to decision 13/CMP.1, the annex to decision 5/CMP.1 and the technical standards for data exchange between registry systems adopted by the CMP?

[Yes][No][NA]

[For Parties with QELRC in CP 1]This information was already reported and reviewed as part of the ini-tial review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period and did not need to be reported

[For Parties without QELRC in CP 1]For the ERT assessment of the re-porting of specific mandat-ory elements, see annex III

Abbreviations: ERT = expert review team, CMP = Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry[, NA = not applicable].

a Issues related to missing categories and completeness are only for those categories for which methods are available in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

b Parties may elect to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period by including either the gases and sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol, or the GHGs, sectors and source categories used to calculate the assigned amount for the second commitment period.

III. Technical assessment of the elements reviewed

1. In accordance with decision 22/CMP.1, and in conjunction with decisions 4/CMP.11 and 10/CMP.11, the review of the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for [Party] has been undertaken together with the review of the inventory submission for the first year of the second commitment period[, 2015 and][, 2016]].3 Table 3 contains additional information, if any, to support the ERT’s assessment included in table 2 above of the Party’s capacity to account for its emissions and the assigned amount, specifically related to: the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period and any adjustments applied; information related to Article 3, paragraph 7 ter, as contained in the Doha Amendment; information related to reporting of activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol; calculation of the commitment period reserve; and the national system and national registry.

Table 3 Additional findings of the expert review team, if any, related to [Party’s] reporting of mandatory elements in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount

GUIDANCE FOR TABLE: Note that the order of issues has been changed. If you don’t have an issue for a certain category, please delete row

3 The annual review report on the 2016 inventory submission of [Party] is available at <[insert URL]>, while the annual review report on the 2015 inventory submission of [Party] is available at <[insert URL]>.

12


ID# Finding classification Description of the finding

Classification of problem [Give the problem type]

1. Article 4 agreement

2. Calculation of the assigned amount

The assigned amount submitted by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount was [not] calculated in accordance with Article 3, paragraphs 7 bis, 8 and 8 bis, of the Kyoto Protocol, the annex to decision 13/CMP.1 and annex I to decision 3/CMP.11

LULUCF is a net source of GHG emissions in 1990 for [Party]. Therefore, in accordance with decision 13/CMP.1 in conjunction with decision 3/CMP.11, total base year emissions for the purpose of the calculation of the assigned amount under the Kyoto Protocol include greenhouse gas emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation). In its [original] submission, [Party] reported the emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation) in the base year as X t CO2 eq. [The ERT agreed with this estimate and these emissions were included in the calculation of the assigned amount][The ERT disagreed with this estimate because [insert rationale]] [In response to the list of potential problems and further questions raised by the ERT (see ID#X, FCCC/ARR/2016/ISO), the Party submitted revised estimates on [date], which affected the base year emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation). The revised estimate of base year emissions from conversion of forests was X t CO2 eq. The ERT agreed with the revised estimate and these emissions were included in the calculation of the assigned amount]

[The Party reported its assigned amount to be [X] t CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was][were][an] [overestimation[s] of emissions][underestimation[s] of removals] in the base year [period] estimates for [category][the following categories], which [was][were] not resolved during the review, and therefore included this issue in the list of potential problems and further questions raised by the ERT.] [In response to this list, the Party indicated [provide response] and submitted revised estimates on [date] for the base-year emissions.] [The ERT [agreed][disagreed] with the Party’s revised estimates because [explain][and proceeded with the application of adjustments (see ID#[X] in table 3 and annex II below for further information)].] [As a result of the [adjustment procedures] [recalculations], the ERT recalculated the assigned amount and determined the assigned amount to be [X] t CO2 eq]]

[The Party reported its assigned amount as [X] t CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was a][were] calculation error[s] that led to incorrect calculation of the assigned amount.] [Describe the error/problem identified, and any discussions with the Party during the review][Owing to the calculation error, the ERT recalculated the assigned amount and determined the assigned amount to be [X] t CO2 eq]

[The ERT notes that the European Union, its member States and Iceland stated that they will fulfil their reduction targets under the second commitment period jointly. The joint assigned amount for the European Union, its member States and Iceland is calculated pursuant to the quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment listed in the third column of the table contained in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, while the

Problem type

13




assigned amount of each member State is determined in accordance with the terms of the joint fulfilment agreement. Specifically, the assigned amount for [Party] is fixed, based on Annex II to European Commission decision 2013/162/EU and as adjusted by Commission implementing decision 2013/634/EU]

[The ERT concludes that the assigned amount reported by [Party] is in accordance with the joint fulfilment agreement by the European Union, its member States and Iceland]

[Depending on the circumstances, the following could be a separate row entry in the table][In the original submission, [Party] reported base-year emissions to be [x] t CO2 eq.][[Party] did not report base-year emissions in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount.] [During the review, the ERT calculated the base-year emissions to be [x] t CO2 eq.] [In response to the list of potential problems and further questions raised by the ERT (see document FCCC/ARR/2016/ISO), the Party submitted revised estimates, which affected the base-year emissions.] [The revised estimates for the base-year emissions [[X] t CO2 eq] do not affect the assigned amount for [Party], referred to in table 5 below because the assigned amount is determined on the basis of the allocations in the European Union decisions referenced above, and is not calculated using the base-year emission estimates for [Party].] [The ERT invites [Party] to communicate the revised base-year emissions to the European Union with a view to being considered in the calculation of the joint assigned amount of the European Union, its member States and Iceland]

3. Calculation of the commitment period reserve

The commitment period reserve was [not] calculated in accordance with the annex to decision 18/CP.7, the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 and decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 18

[The Party reported its commitment period reserve as [X] t CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was][were] [an] [overestimation[s] of emissions] in the base [year][period] estimates for [category][the following categories], which [was][were] not resolved during the review, and therefore proceeded with the application of adjustments (see ID#[X] in table 3 and annex II below for further information). As a result of the adjustment procedures, the ERT recalculated the assigned amount and the commitment period reserve, and determined it to be [X] t CO2 eq]

[The Party reported its commitment period reserve as [X] t CO2 eq. However, during the review, the ERT identified that there [was a][were] calculation error[s] that led to incorrect calculation of the commitment period reserve.][Describe the error/problem identified, and any discussions with the Party during the review] [Owing to the calculation error[s], the ERT recalculated the commitment period reserve, and determined it to be [X] t CO2 eq]

Problem type

4. Accounting of activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and

Problem type

14




4, of the Kyoto Protocol

5. Select finding Problem type


7. Reporting pursuant to Article 3.7 ter of the Doha Amendment

[The ERT noted that the Party did not provide information in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 7 ter, of the Doha Amendment, specifically, the [[Party] did not report [the difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the preceding commitment period, multiplied by 8][the approach used to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period.]] [During the review, the Party indicated [XYZ] [Elaborate on the discussion with the Party and what is the final determination, as reported in annex I below].] [In line with the terms of the joint fulfilment of the European Union, its member States and Iceland under Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol, and as described in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount of the European Union, Article 3, paragraph 7 ter, of the Kyoto Protocol is applied to the joint assigned amount of the European Union, its member States and Iceland for the second commitment period. In its report, the European Union includes the value for the difference between the joint assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period for the member States and Iceland, multiplied by 8. The report of the European Union also clarifies that the approach used to calculate average annual emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period is including the gases and sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol]

Problem type






13. National system [For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1]During the in-country visit, [Party] explained the institutional arrangements, as part of the national system, for preparation of the inventory. The [XXX] is the designated single national entity. Other [agencies][organizations][YYY] are also involved in the preparation of the inventory and have defined and allocated specific

Problem type

15




responsibilities for the inventory development process. [Describe who does what. Identify unique arrangements or weaknesses in the system, if any]

14. National registry [For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1]The ERT noted that a thorough review of the national registry [as stipulated by the Article 8 review guidelines, Part V: review of national registries] [has been] [will be] undertaken in the context of the initialization of the national registry of [Party]a

Problem type

15. National registry [For Parties without a QELRC in CP 1]The ERT took note of the results of the technical assessment of the national registry, including the results of standardized testing, as reported in the standard independent assessment report that was forwarded to the ERT by the administrator of the international transaction log, pursuant to decision 16/CP.10

Problem type

16. National registry In the national inventory report, the Party noted that [it did not have any previous period surplus reserve account (PPSR) at the beginning of 2015][but][will establish a previous period surplus reserve account (PPSR) in its national registry [as soon as it is technically possible][other]][did not provide information on the establishment of a previous period surplus reserve account (PPSR) in its national registry]. The ERT notes that the 2016 standard independent assessment report for [Party] indicates [Copy COMMENT TEXT from SIAR Part 1, if relevant]

Problem type

17. Adjustments [The ERT has not identified the need to apply any adjustments to the estimate for the assigned amount for the second commitment period, as reported by [Party] in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount]

[For Annex A sources]The ERT identified [overestimations in emission][underestimations in recovery] estimates for Annex A sources for the base [year][period] and recommended [an][X] adjustment[s] in the [x, y, z] sector[s]

[For the LULUCF sector]The ERT identified [errors] [underestimations] [overestimations] in the [removal][emission] estimates for the LULUCF sector and recommended [an] adjustment[s]

[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]]

For full details on [the][each] adjustment applied, refer to annex II

Problem type

18. Adjustments The Party [accepts][does not accept] the adjustments, as contained in this report

19. Problem type

16


Abbreviations: Annex A sources = source categories included in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol, Article 8 review guidelines = “Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”, ERT = expert review team, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.

a Pursuant to decision 16/CP.10, the administrator of the international transaction log, once registry systems become operational, is requested to facilitate an interactive exercise, including with experts from Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not included in Annex I to the Convention, demonstrating the functioning of the international transaction log with other registry systems. Information on this exercise will be included in the annual report of the administrator of the international transaction log to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

IV. Questions of implementation

1. [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 problems included in table 4 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 4Questions of implementation for [Party]

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

See ID#[X] in table 3

[Abbreviation(s): .]

17


Annex I

Key relevant data for [Party]

1. Table 5 provides key data and parameters for, and elections by, [Party], relevant for the implementation of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The information included in table 5 is as given by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount, unless otherwise specified.

Table 5 Key relevant data for [Party]a (The secretariat has pre-filled factual information in table 5 based on the Party’s submission 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 information or parameter provided Comment

General Party information

Did the Party have a QELRC in the first commit-ment period?

[Yes][No]

[Party’s] QELRC in the second commitment period [X% of the base year][ [Party] will implement its reduction target under the second commitment period jointly with the European Union, its member States and Iceland as described in ID#2, table 3. The QELRC for the European Union, its member States and Iceland is 80% of the base-year emissions]

Has the Party reached an agreement under Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol to fulfil its commitments jointly with other Parties?

[Yes][No]

Base [year] [period] [1990][Other base year under Article 3, para-graph 5, of the Kyoto Protocol]

Base year for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 [1990][1995]

Base year for NF3 [1995][2000]

Base-year emissions, as reported by the Party [X] t CO2 eq [, including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation)]

[Base-year emissions, final, as calculated by the ERT][and agreed by the Party]

[X] t CO2 eq [, including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation)]

Information related to the calculation of the assigned amount and the commitment period reserve

Assigned amount, as reported by the Party [and agreed by the ERT]

[[X] t CO2 eq[, including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation)]][[Not re-ported in the original submission]]

[Assigned amount, final, as calculated by the ERT] [X] t CO2 eq[, including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation)]

Approach used to calculate the average annual [The gases and sources listed in Annex A to the

18



emissions for the first three years of the first commitment period

Kyoto Protocol][The GHGs, sectors and source categories as used to calculate the assigned amount for the second commitment period] [This difference is calculated on the basis of the joint assigned amount of the European Union, its member States and Iceland and is based on the gases and sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol]

Difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first com-mitment period, multiplied by 8, as reported by the Party [and agreed by the ERT]

[[X] t CO2 eq][This difference is calculated on the basis of the joint assigned amount of the European Union, its member States and Iceland and is based on the gases and sources listed in Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol] [Not reported in the original submission]

[Difference between the assigned amount for the second commitment period and average annual emissions for the first three years of the first com-mitment period, multiplied by 8, final value, as cal-culated by the ERT]

[X] t CO2 eq

Commitment period reserve, as reported by the Party [and agreed by the ERT]

[[X] t CO2 eq] [Not reported in the original sub-mission]

[Commitment period reserve, final value, as calcu-lated by the ERT]

[X] t CO2 eq

Information related to activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol

LULUCF parameters Minimum tree crown cover: [X]%

Minimum land area: [X] ha

Minimum tree height: [X] m

Elections under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Afforestation/reforestation [Annual accounting][Commitment period ac-counting]

(b) Deforestation [Annual accounting][Commitment period ac-counting]

(c) Forest management [Annual accounting][Commitment period ac-counting]

(d) Cropland management [Not elected] [Elected] [Not elected for the first commitment period, but elected for the second commitment period] [. Annual accounting][. Commitment period accounting]

(e) Grazing land management [Not elected] [Elected] [Not elected for the first commitment period, but elected for the second commitment period] [. Annual accounting][.

19



Commitment period accounting]

(f) Revegetation [Not elected] [Elected] [Not elected for the first commitment period, but elected for the second commitment period] [. Annual accounting][. Commitment period accounting]

(g) Wetland drainage and rewetting [Not elected] [Elected] [. Annual accounting] [. Commitment period accounting]

FMRL [Please use the value from 2/CMP.7 that is used in the Party’s CRF accounting table, with 3 significant figures]

[X] Mt CO2 eq/year

Technical corrections to the FMRL as reported in the original submission [and agreed by the ERT]

[[X] Mt CO2 eq/year] [Not reported in the ori-ginal submission][Technical corrections not ap-plied]

[Technical corrections to the FMRL, final value [as calculated by the ERT]]

[[X] Mt CO2 eq/year]

3.5% of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF[and including indirect CO2 emissions], as reported by the Party [and agreed by the ERT]

[X.XXX] kt CO2 eq [Not reported in the ori-ginal submission]

[3.5% of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding LULUCF and including indirect CO2 emissions], final value, [as calculated by the ERT]]

[X.XXX] kt CO2 eq

3.5% of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding [and including indirect CO2 emissions], multiplied by 8, as reported by the Party][in the ori-ginal submission][and agreed by the ERT

[X.XXX] kt CO2 eq [Not reported in the ori-ginal submission]

[3.5% of total base [year][period] GHG emissions, excluding [and including indirect CO2 emissions], multiplied by 8, final value [as calculated by the ERT]]

[X.XXX] kt CO2 eq

Will the Party exclude emissions from natural dis-turbances in accounting for:

(a) Afforestation and reforestation [Yes][No]

(b) Forest management [Yes][No]

Abbreviations: ERT = expert review team, FMRL = forest management reference level, GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry, QELRC = quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment.

a An asterisk is included next to the “Key information or parameter” in all cases where the information was not submitted by the Party in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, because the Party had already submitted this information in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol or because the information was not otherwise required.[Include asterisks in the table, where appropriate, or delete this footnote.]

20


2. Tables 6–10 provide an overview of total greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Where a Party has decided to voluntarily report indirect carbon dioxide emissions, this is noted in the relevant table.

Table 6 [Note: the secretariat to complete BEFORE review. Provide to LRs for final check before submitting to QA.]Total greenhouse gas emissions for [Party], base yeara–[year 2]b

(kt CO2 eq)

YearTotal GHG emissions excluding indirect CO2

emissionsTotal GHG emissions including indirect CO2

emissionscLand-use change

(Article 3.7 bis as contained in the Doha Amendment)d

Total including LULUCF

Total excluding LULUCF

Total including LULUCF

Total excluding LULUCF

Base year

1990

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Abbreviations: GHG = greenhouse gas, LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry[, NA = not applicable][, 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]].

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 II below.]

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.

21

FCC

C/IR

R/2016/[ISO

code]

22 Table 7 [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)

Year 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

2014

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

[Abbreviations: NA = not applicable, NE = not estimated, NO = not occurring.]

FCC

C/IR

R/2016/[ISO

code]

23

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 II below.]

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


Table 8 [Note: the secretariat will complete the table and footnotes BEFORE the review. Please provide to the lead reviewers 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)

Year Energy IPPU Agriculture LULUCF Waste Other

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

1990

1995

2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Per cent change [Average 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 II below.]

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

24


[Annex II][To be 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 base [year][period] inventory of [Party], as contained in the most recent (2016) annual submission of [Party]. Quantitative information used in the calculation of [the][each] adjustment is presented in tables 9–11 below.

Table 9 Summary information on adjustments for [Party]

[1990][Other base year under Article 3, para-graph 5, of the Kyoto Protocol]

Reference

As reported (kt CO2 eq) Calculated by the ERT (kt CO2 eq)

Annex A sources

[Category] emissions

LULUCF

[Category][emissions][re-movals]

Total emissions from Annex A sources and LULUCF

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

Table 10 Background information to support adjustments for [category – 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

25


Table 11Description of the calculation of adjustment[s] for [category – gas] 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 LULUCF and including indirect CO2 emissions)][including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation) and indirect CO2emissions] as reported by the Party]

kt CO2 eq

[Total aggregated GHG emissions [excluding LULUCF and including indirect CO2 emissions) ][including GHG emissions from conversion of forests (deforestation) and indirect CO2emissions] after application of the adjustment]

kt CO2 eq

[Total GHG emissions from the LULUCF sector, as reported by the Party]

kt CO2 eq

[Total GHG emissions after application of the adjustment]

kt CO2 eq

Difference between original and adjusted [total aggregated GHG emissions][total GHG emissions from the LULUCF sector]

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.

26


[Annex III][To be included only for those Parties that did not have a QELRC in CP 1. Delete otherwise]

Review of national systems

1. Table 12 contains the expert review team (ERT) assessment of whether or not the Party has successfully implemented the mandatory elements for the national system, and included the relevant information in its report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount.

Table 12Summary of reporting on mandatory elements of the national system of [Party]

Reporting element Provided?

Inventory planning

Designated single national entity, including contact information [Yes][No]

Defined/allocated specific responsibilities for inventory development process [Yes][No]

Established process for approving the inventory [Yes][No]

Elaborated quality assurance/quality control plan [Yes][No]

Considered ways to improve inventory quality [Yes][No]

Inventory preparation

Identified key categories [Yes][No]

Estimates prepared in line with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines [Yes][No]

Sufficient activity data and emission factors collected to support methods selected [Yes][No]

Conducted quantitative uncertainty analysis [Yes][No]

Recalculations prepared in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines [Yes][No]

Inventory compiled in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Pro-tocol

[Yes][No]

General QC (approach 1) procedures implemented [Yes][No]

Inventory management

Archived inventory information, including emission factors, activity data, docu-mentation, QA/QC procedures, external/internal reviews, key category document-ation and planned inventory improvements

[Yes][No]

Provided the ERT with access to archived information [Yes][No]

Responded to requests for clarifying inventory information during the review pro-cess

[Yes][No]

27


Abbreviations: ERT = expert review team, IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, QA = quality assurance, QC = quality control, 2006 IPCC Guidelines = 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climcate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

2. Table 13 contains the ERT assessment of whether or not the Party has successfully implemented the mandatory elements for national registries, and included the relevant information in the report to facilitate the calculation of the assigned amount.

Table 13Summary of reporting on mandatory elements of the national registry of [Party]

Reporting element Provided?

Name and contact information of registry administrator [Yes][No]

Names of other Parties with which the Party cooperates, if applicable [Yes][No][NA]

Description of the database structure [Yes][No]

Description of the capacity of the national registry [Yes][No]

Description of how the national registry conforms to the technical DES between registry systems

[Yes][No]

Description of the procedures employed in the national registry to minimize discrepancies in the transactions of Kyoto Protocol units

[Yes][No]

Description of the steps taken to terminate transactions where a Party is no-tified of a discrepancy and to correct problems in the event of a failure to terminate the transaction

[Yes][No]

An overview of security measures employed in the national registry to pre-vent unauthorized manipulations and operator error, and an overview of how these measures are kept up to date

[Yes][No]

A list of the information publicly accessible by means of the user interface to the national registry

[Yes][No]

The Internet address of the interface to the Party’s national registry [Yes][No]

A description of measures taken to safeguard, maintain and recover data in order to ensure the integrity of data storage and the recovery of registry ser-vices in the event of a disaster

[Yes][No]

The results of any test procedures that might be available or developed with the aim of testing the performance, procedures and security measures of the national registry undertaken pursuant to the provisions of decision 19/CP.7 relating to the DES between registry systems

[Yes][No]

Abbreviation[s]: DES = data exchange standard[, NA = not applicable].

28


Annex IV

Documents and information used during the review

A. Reference documents

“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”. Annex to decision 19/CMP.1. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cmp1/eng/08a03.pdf#page=14>.

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

“Guidelines for review under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol”. Annex to 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 I to decision 24/CP.19. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a03.pdf#page=4>.

“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>.

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>.

29


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 documents4 were also provided by [Party]:

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

4 Reproduced as received from the Party.

30


Annex V

Acronyms and abbreviations

CH4 methaneCMP Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the

Kyoto ProtocolCO2 carbon dioxideCO2 eq carbon dioxide equivalentDES data exchange standardERT expert review teamFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFMRL forest management reference levelGHG greenhouse gasHFC hydrofluorocarbonIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPPU industrial processes and product usekt kilotonneLULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry[NA not applicable][NE not estimated]NF3 nitrogen trifluoride[NO not occurring]N2O nitrous oxidePFC perfluorocarbonQA/QC quality assurance/quality control QELRC quantified emission limitation and reduction commitmentSF6 sulphur hexafluorideUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

31