topic i: the review process from the identification of the ......topic i: the review process –...

Topic I: The review process – from the identification of the

problem during the review week to the participation in the

expert hearing of the compliance committee

Presented at the:

REFRESHING SEMINAR ON GOOD PRACTICE APPROACHES TO INVENTORY

ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS

Simon Eggleston, Jongikhaya Witi, Sandro Federici, Kiyoto Tanabe,

Introduction

• This presentation

a) A short introduction to the compliance committee

b) Three Case Studies:

i. Simple Case leading to Compliance Committee decision

ii. National System Issues with Saturday Paper leading to improvement Plan. ERT

OK with this but Compliance Committee not happy!

iii. Lack of completeness and national system issues leading to Compliance

Committee declaring Party not compliant, but subsequent ERT finds this has

been corrected and Compliance Committee agrees

c) Some final thoughts and questions

n.b. Cases i and ii were actually the same party but they illustrate very different situations

Compliance Committee

From ERT to Compliance Committee

ERT Issues “Saturday Paper”

Party has 6 weeks to respond

ERT has to judge response

If not OK: the ERT produces

Question of Implementation

and/or Adjustment

Compliance Committee – Enforcement

Branch - Considers AAR

Enforcement Branch may give

preliminary decision and hold

hearing

Evidence from ERT, Independent Experts and Party

Enforcement Branch

deliberates and issues decision

Enforcement Branch Confirms

Decision

Enforcement Branch Reviews Party’s Progress


• A public process

a) Hearing public - webcast

b) Committee’s deliberations closed, but adopted in open session

c) Present are:

• Party representatives

• Independent Experts & ERT Representatives

• Hearing:

a) Presentation from Lead Reviewer

Important to link findings to mandatory requirements

b) Questions from Committee (to both ERT and Independent Experts)

May cover ERT findings, requirements of UNFCCC and IPCC Guidelines and

other technical issues

c) Questions from Party to the ERT

d) Other Independent Experts asked to comment

e) Statement(s) by Party on issue and subsequent improvements. Questions by

Committee. ERT may be asked to comment

f) LR asked to prepare “Issues Document” covering all issues with mandatory

requirements (national system, lack of completeness, transparency etc.)

Issues Document

Issue Where in

AAR

Requirements Status as at 7th

Sep. 2011

Failed to ensure sufficient capacity for the timely performance of

the functions defined in the Guidelines for national systems

under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol (decision

19/CMP.1), including data collection for estimating anthropogenic

GHG emissions by sources and sinks.

Para 16, 184-

189

19/CMP.1 annex para

10(b)

Unresolved

Failed to prepare national annual inventories and supplementary

information in a timely manner in accordance with Article 5 and

Article 7, paragraph 1, and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP.

Para 20, 184-

189, 191,193

19/CMP.1 annex para

10(d)

Unresolved

Failed to provide information necessary to meet the reporting

requirements defined in the Guidelines for the preparation of the

information required under Article 7 of the Kyoto Protocol

(decision 15/CMP.1).

Para 20, 184-

189

19/CMP.1 annex para

10(e)

Unresolved

Failed to ensure areas of KP-LULUCF land subject to articles 3.3

and 3.4 are identifiable

Para 16, 20

187

16/CMP.1 annex para

20

Unresolved

Failed to document that there is no double counting of land

subject to KP-LULUCF has not been met (9(c) of the annex

to15/CMP.1)

Para 188 15/CMP.1 annex para

9(c)

Unresolved

Failed to prepare estimates in lines with the IPCC Guidelines and

IPCC GPG-LULUCF

Para 20,

186,187

19/CMP.1 annex para

14(b)

IPCC GPG

Unresolved

Failed to collect sufficient activity data or emission factors Para 20, 187 19/CMP.1 annex para

14(c)

Unresolved

Failed to provide information on which of the 5 carbon pools

were include or excluded

Para 190 15/CMP.1 annex para

6(e)

Unresolved

Issue 1

Overview

• ERT found no KP LULUCF Data

• With-in six weeks:

a) Party re-submitted with only land use data

• After six week period

a) Party re-submitted with data but no explanation or revised NIR

b) ERT could not review this and raised a Question of Implementation

• Compliance Committee agreed this was an issue of non-compliance

Submissions

• KP-LULUCF Initial Submission

a) The Submission of 15th April did NOT include information concerning activities under

Article 3, paragraphs 3 (afforestation, reforestation and deforestation) and 4 (forest

management)

b) The ERT recommended the Party to resubmit its KP-LULUCF inventory ensuring it

was in line with paragraphs 5-9 of the annex to decision 15/CMP.1

• KP-LULUCF resubmitted 9 Nov 2010

a) This does contain information about activities under Articles 3 paras. 3 & 4 as

required under Article 7 para 1 of the Kyoto Protocol

b) A section following the outline in the annex I to 15/CP.10 with all of the headings was

included

c) HOWEVER: information restricted to land areas only, no information on emissions

and removals as required by para 5 of the annex to 15/CMP.1

d) Resubmitted CRF tables did NOT contain any numeric data except on area and

changes in area in worksheet “NIR-2” and forest management cap in worksheet

“Accounting”

KP-LULUCF Area Data

• The Party reported under the KP-LULUCF more forest (2,158.3 kha) than reported under

the convention (2,133.95 kha)

a) There is no discussion of this in the NIR or any spatially representative information

about areas of land subject to KP-LULUCF activities,

b) The ERT concluded that the requirement to document that there is no double

counting of land subject to KP-LULUCF has not been met (9(c) of the annex

to15/CMP.1)

KP-LULUCF CRF Tables of 14/1/2011

• Late Submission on 14 Jan 2011

a) The Party also provided CRF tables for 2008 and 2009, which do contain numeric

information on activities under Articles 3 para 3 & 4 of the Kyoto Protocol

• The ERT noted that the areas reported in worksheet “NIR-2” differed from those

submitted in November 2010

• No new NIR was submitted at this time

• The ERT was unable to assess the CRF tables provided in January 2011

a) As there is no explanations and supporting information in the NIR

b) 2009 is not part of the 2010 Submission

c) Any review of the KP-LULUCF would require submission of consistent CRF, detailed

NIR and probably other documentation, followed by exchanges of questions and

answers

KP-LULUCF Conclusions

• The ERT concluded that:

a) This 2010 KP-LULUCF submission does not meet the requirements of Article 7 para

1 of the Kyoto Protocol

• No data!

b) The national system is not able to ensure areas subject to KP-LULUCF activities are

identifiable in accordance with para 20 of the annex to 16/CMP.1

• data but no identification or explanation how this differs form convention inventory

c) The national system does not fully comply with 19/CMP.1, the general functions in

para 10(b), (d) & (e) or the specific functions 14(b) & (c) of the annex to that decision

• Data and Supplementary information not, supplied, not timely, insufficient

resources …

d) The ERT concluded that the requirement to document that there is no double

counting of land subject to KP-LULUCF has not been met (9(c) of the annex

to15/CMP.1)

Requirements of 19/CMP.1

Para Item

10(b) … shall ensure sufficient capacity for the timely performance

of the functions…

10(d) …shall prepare national annual inventories and

supplementary information in a timely manner…

10(e) …shall provide information necessary to meet the reporting

requirements (15/CMP.1)…

14(b) Prepare estimates in accordance with the [IPCC Guidelines]…

14(c) Collect sufficient activity data, process information and

emission factors as are necessary

The ERT role with the CC

• To the CC the ERT provides:

a) additional clarification on ARR findings;

b) technical support on:

• Party’s hearing (including current status and planned improvements)

• Reporting requirements

• Reporting methods


• The Compliance Committee agreed with the ERT that this did not meet the mandatory

requirements as described by the ERT.

a) Formal announcement in public part of meeting

b) Documents

• Decision to seek expert advice (CC-2011-3-3/Lithuania/EB)

• Report of Meeting (CC/EB/16/2011/2) 26th Nov 2011

• Preliminary Finding (CC-2011-3-6/Lithuania/EB) 26th Nov 2011

• Final Decision (CC-2011-3-6/Lithuania/EB) 21 Dec 2011

• Note:

a) Re-submission resulted in additional problem in inventory!

b) ERT did not review re-submitted LULUCF data as no accompanying information

Issue 2

Overview

• ERT raised National System Issue during review

• After six weeks

a) Party submitted plan to improve National System

b) ERT agreed this was a good plan and did not raised question of implementation

• This was questioned by Compliance Committee during discussion of issue 1

a) During hearing, the party voluntarily produced the “Saturday paper” of the following

ERT which indicated they had not implemented all the improvement plan.

b) This, combined with Issue 1, led to a decision the party was non-compliant

Potential Problem – National System

• During the review the ERT notes that the party

a) has not been able to collect the necessary activity data, process information and

emission factors for a number of key categories

b) This issue has been raised in the review reports since 2007

c) Identified 15 sectors with missing or non-transparent estimates

• The ERT recommended improvements to the national system to

a) Ensure appropriate methods can be used

b) Resource constraints identified by the Party are resolved

c) Ensure the collection of sufficient activity data and emission factors to estimate all

missing estimates

• The ERT requested the party to provide information on how it would address these

recommendations including, issues, allocation of tasks, schedule and deadlines.

Response to the ERT (1)

• 14 Jan 2011 the party submitted its Plan for improvement for its GHG inventory

• This addressed:

a) Legal Basis & Institutional Arrangements

• Determined responsibilities for data collection

• Improving F-gas data collection by allocating clear responsibilities

• Defining the inventory compiler and other inventory compilation

responsibilities

b) Inventory preparation (including work plan, allocation of responsibilities and

deadlines)

c) Quality Assurance and Quality Control,

d) Planned Sectoral Improvements

e) Long-term financing and data collection will be included in the State Environmental

Monitoring Programme for 2011-2016

• As a result the ERT determined that, in future, the party should be in a position to fulfil its

responsibilities in regard to AD and EF


• The compliance committee questioned if the ERT correct in saying that issue 2 was

resolved when the party produced a reasonable plan?

a) Compliance Committee were not convinced

b) Subsequent ERT noted issues not fully resolved

• Party voluntarily submitted the “Saturday Paper” from the 2011 Review

• Experts were asked (based on “Saturday Paper”) if 2011 submission had resolved

National System Issues. It had not! (e.g. No archiving.)

• Compliance Committee decided the national system did not meet the mandatory

requirements (combined with Issue 1)

Issue 3

Overview

• During the 2010 review (centralized) the ERT found failures in the national system and

lack of completeness in estimates of the Party

• During Six weeks

• Resubmission by the Party failed to address all national system issues and provide

complete revised estimates in the 6 weeks time

• After the six week period

• Adjustment made by ERT to fill gaps in estimates

• Compliance Committee declares non-compliance of Party with national system

requirements

• 2011 review cycle (in country) the ERT found national system functions in line with

requirements as reported in the 2011 AAR (January 2012)

• First hearing of the Compliance Committee deferred adoption of a new decision for

seeking advice (January 2012)

• Compliance Committee declared Party compliant with national system requirements

(March 2012)

2010 review findings “Saturday paper”

• 2010 Centralized review, potential problems: lack of completeness (a principle of the

UNFCCC reporting guidelines)

• Several Annex A Sources were reported as “NE”:

a) several categories of fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas,

b) halocarbons and SF6

• Completeness – being a principle in reporting there is an obligation for Parties under the

annex to decision 19/CMP.1 paragraph 14 b and c to collect sufficient data/information for

supporting estimates to be prepared according with IPCC methods

• ERT recommendation: check whether the activity is occurring in the country and either

provide a revised estimate or use the notation key NO


• 2010 Centralized review, potential problems identified in national system:

• Land Identification – identification of land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities is a

mandatory requirement, see annex to decision 16/CMP.1 paragraph 20

• ERT recommendation: set up a system able to identify land subject to Article 3.3 and 3.4

activities (e.g. by identifying and tracking land subject to land use and land use changes).

• Collection of data/information needed for preparing estimates in a timely manner: The

ERT noted persistent non-implementation of improvement plans for collecting

data/information for reporting KP-LULUCF activities (a mandatory requirement see annex to

decision 19/CMP.1 paragraph 10 b and 14 c).

• ERT recommendation set up arrangements to collect sufficient information and data for

preparing estimates in a timely manner


• 2010 Centralized review, potential problems identified in supplementary information to be

reported for Article 3.3 and 3.4 activities (decision 15/CMP.1).

• The following mandatory requirement supplementary information was note supplied:

• demonstrate that an unaccounted carbon pool is not a source, (paragraph 6 e )

• demonstrate that activities reported under Article 3.3. and 3.4 are direct human

induced (paragraph 8 a )

• ERT recommendation provide complete supplementary information.

2010 resubmission by Party

• Party’s Resubmission within 6 weeks:

a) Party provided revised estimates for the for the energy sector. Party did not provide

supplementary information

• Provided KP-LULUCF data however it did not provide required supplementary

information

• The Party’s justification was a lack of financial resources as a national

circumstance; however the Party indicated that it has the potential of getting

financial resources from the carbon market

• Did not provide revised halocarbon and SF6 estimates

• The Party’s justification was lack of activity data; The Party informed the ERT

that research is planned to be conducted using finical resources form the

carbon market

2010 ARR

• In its 2010 ARR the ERT reported:

a) Adjustments for the omitted estimates (halocarbons and SF6)

b) Questions of implementation in respect of the national system failing to:

• ensure sufficient capacity for data collection for estimating anthropogenic GHG

emissions by sources and removals by sinks (para. 10(b) decision 19/CMP.1);

• prepare national annual inventories and supplementary information in a timely manner

(para. 10(d) decision 19/CMP.1);

• prepare estimates in accordance with the method and ensuring that appropriate

methods are used to estimate emissions from key categories (para. 14(b) decision

19/CMP.1);

• collect sufficient AD, process information and EFs as are necessary to support the

methods (para. 14(c) decision 19/CMP.1);

• provide ERT with access to all archived information used to prepare the inventory

(para. 16(b) decision 19/CMP.1);

• respond to requests for clarifying inventory information (para. 16(c) decision

19/CMP.1);


• The Compliance Committee concurred with the ERT and declared the Party did not

comply with the mandatory requirements, both completeness and national system

2011 ARR

• In its 2011 ARR the ERT reported that the national system performs its required functions

as set out in the annex to decision 19/CMP.1;

Compliance Committee on the 2011 review cycle

• In February 2012

a) The Party presented to the Enforcement Branch the “First progress report submitted

in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Decision on the review and assessment of

the plan submitted under paragraph 2 of section XV (…) adopted by the

Enforcement Branch concerning the Party and in accordance with section XV,

paragraph 3 of the Procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the

Kyoto Protocol.”

b) The Enforcement Branch considered this and the latest ERT report (2011 ARR)

which:

• Concluded that the national system performs its required functions

• Recognized that .parts of the national system relating to the LULUCF sector of

the inventory and reporting of activities under KP-LULUCF need to be further

improved.

• Identified that there is .a need to further incorporate the LULUCF sector into

the national system.

• Concluded that some areas of the Party’s inventory are not completely in line

with the IPCC GPG LULUCF guidelines

Compliance Committee (2)

• Compliance Committee again decided to seek expert advice on Party’s request of

eligibility reinstatement

• In March 2012 the compliance committee heard from 2 of the 2011 ERT who

a) clarified a number of issues in relation to the recommendations contained in the 2011

ARR.

b) provided an assessment of the relationship between measures to be implemented in

the 2012 and 2013 annual submissions as presented in the Party’s plan submitted

pursuant to the final decision of the enforcement branch and the performance by

party’s national system of the mandatory functions. (annex to decision 19/CMP.1)

Compliance Committee (3)

• The Compliance Committee meeting:

a) Questioned the correct implementation of UNFCCC decisions related to the GHG

reporting and review process

b) Heard a Party statement on the current status of the issue;

c) Raised the issue of consistency of LULUCF system with KP requirements since

recommendations on improvements to be implemented before the accounting year

(i.e. the last year of the Commitment Period) have been reported in the 2011 ARR;

d) Questioned

• Is the national system for LULUCF properly working if for the current year it is not

performing all its functions but it is expected it will properly work at the end of the

CP?

• Is the national system working properly if ARR includes recommendations for

improving it?

e) Decided to re-instate the Party’s eligibility to participate in the mechanisms

Summary

• 3 Case Studies:

a) Simple Case leading to Compliance Committee decision

b) National System Issues, leading to improvement Plan. ERT OK with this but

Compliance Committee not happy!

c) Lack of completeness and national system issues leading to Compliance Committee

declaring Party not compliant, but subsequent ERT finds this has been corrected and

Compliance Committee agrees

• ERT needs to be clear which mandatory requirements have not been met

• ERT needs to be able to explain this and defend their decision to the Compliance

Committee

• Re-submission may lead to more problems as well as solving them!

Questions

a) Should ERT accept assurances that a problem will be fixed (with a good improvement

plan)?

b) Do ERT recommendations for improvements to National System mean a Party is not

compliant?

c) If it is assured a National System Problem will be fixed before the end of the

commitment period does this mean that the party complies with the mandatory

requirements this year?

d) If an inventory is not complete, does that mean there is a national system problem?

e) How much time should ERT allow party to respond? Should it refuse to look at

material submitted after the 6 week period?